Since this is related to the case but a tangent, I’ll post it separately since it could likely engender a whole different discussion.
What occurs to me is that if the person in a coma were one half of a gay married couple, if the spouse were advocating that all extreme measures SHOULD be taken to keep the comatose mate going, and it was the parents who were saying the patient should be starved to death…
Congress wouldn’t touch it with a ten meter cattle prod.
PAD
• 
Oh boy did you hit the nail on the head! Can I send this post to Bill Frist or Tom DeLay? I’d love to see their reaction.
Col
“Oh boy did you hit the nail on the head! Can I send this post to Bill Frist or Tom DeLay? I’d love to see their reaction.”
Their reaction will be an autoresponse thanking you for sharing your opinion, but go right ahead.
PAD
Huh? Congress recognizes gay marraige? Maybe this is some kind of ploy…you know, take away the guardian aspect of marraige when one spouse becomes incapacitated. Kind of like Jeff Goldblum’s character in Independance Day…if congress trashes marraige enough, maybe gays won’t want it?
There’s this comedy record that used to get played on the Dr. Demento show a lot…it was a live performance where the singer kept alternating bad news with good news, interspersed with yells from the audience:
“We’re gonna tear down the bar!”
(Boooooo!)
“And we’re gonna build another bar!”
(Yaaayyyyy!)
“Five feet long!”
(Boooooooo!)
“And four hundred feet wide!”
(Yaaayyyyyy!)
Your post made me think of this same song, with Congress as the audience:
“A woman wants emergency Congressional support to keep her vegetative spouse alive!”
(“Yaaayyyyyyy! Let’s make a campaign issue out of this!”)
“And her spouse is also a woman!”
(“Boooo…that’ll cost us Red State votes!”)
“Her brother’s a Marine serving in Iraq!”
(“Yayyyyy!”)
“And he’s suing to prevent the Corps from extending his enlistment two more years against his will!”
(“Booooo!”)
“But the soldier’s father served three tours in Vietnam, and is willing to publicly condemn the boy for turning against his fellow Marines!”
(“Yaaaayyyyy!”)
“And he’s also one of the men whose lives were saved by John Kerry.”
(“Boooooo!!!!”)
“Did I also mention that he’s 62, and he’s really concerned about his Social Security benefits?”
(“Hey…don’t we get another “Yayyyyyy” first?”)
“And he’s also one of the men whose lives were saved by John Kerry.”
(“Boooooo!!!!”)
Your rant made sense(in a liberal slant way) until this. Who ever booed someone because their life was saved by John Kerry? They booed people who supported his lies but not because he saved their lives.
You’re right, PAD, and that reinforces the need for a recognition of gay marriage. It’s no stretch or exaggeration to say that a family member, no matter how estranged or distant, would be given more rights than person’s partner, no longer how close or how long that partner had been with the person.
That said, it’s an unnecessary distraction from the current issue. There’s plenty to consider in the current case before bringing in the whole gay marriage/gay rights issue.
Au contraire, Barney Frank would be on Day Nr 5475 of his filibuster! 🙂
Who ever booed someone because their life was saved by John Kerry?
Ask Jim Rassmann.
They booed people who supported his lies but not because he saved their lives.
And yet those same people praise Dubya for his lies.
Their reaction will be an autoresponse thanking you for sharing your opinion, but go right ahead.
You’re probably right, PAD. Most likey, there are probably 10 layers of screeners between any senator and any publically posted email address.
More to the point, if any of them were pressed on the issue in public, they’d probably hem and haw about families making these decisions and look frantically around the crowd for any sign of Jeff Gannon.
Au contraire, Barney Frank would be on Day Nr 5475 of his filibuster! 🙂
Point of order: Barney Frank is a US Representative, not a Senator. Filibusters are only permitted in the Senate. The House rules on debate are different. At least they are until the GOPers push through their “nuclear solution.”
One of my friends on Livejournal has done an essay on how the Schiavo case utterly undermines the sanctity of marriage. Not in the “her hubby is porkin’ around” sense, but because at the time of her marriage, Terri entrusted her future to her husband instead of her family, but now said family is interfering with a husband making decisions for a sick wife. And the people who are so anxious to protect white het marriage (which this is) from Teh Gayz aren’t so anxious to protect it from governmental meddling.
Ask Jim Rassmann.
Again he was booed for the lies he told, not for his life being saved.
And what lies were those and what proof do you have to support that?
And the Swift Boat Vets ads aren’t “proof”, especially since they were produced by the same crowded that tried to portray the AARP as being pro-gay marriage and anti-American soldier.
Den
Peter David:
“What occurs to me is that if the person in a coma were one half of a gay married couple, if the spouse were advocating that all extreme measures SHOULD be taken to keep the comatose mate going, and it was the parents who were saying the patient should be starved to death…
Congress wouldn’t touch it with a ten meter cattle prod.”
Hi Peter,
My money says that the “sanctity of life” angle would never be mentioned.
I wonder if “sanctity of life” only applies to certain world/religious views?
And the people who are so anxious to protect white het marriage (which this is) from Teh Gayz aren’t so anxious to protect it from governmental meddling.
If one considers Schiavo’s husband to be advocating his wife’s death for selfish or immoral reasons, there is no contradiction here. Everyone has a apoint they don’t want to see crossed. Being in favor of letting parents raise their kids without government interference does NOT mean one has to allow abuse, even if the parents sincerely believe that what I call abuse is actually perfectly ok.
That said, the more I see of Ms Schiavo’s condition, the more I suspect she would want to die. However I think it’s highly self indulgent to assume that those on either side of this issue are acting strictly for the cameras. I know it’s become normal political discourse to assume the worst in one’s aopponents, to refuse to consider the possibility that they may be doing what they do for perfectly ethical reasons. Doesn’t make it right.
Back to Peter’s What If–I think he’s probably correct that congress would be less interested in the issue. I also think that some feminists who have been silent on the case might suddenly find it outrageous if a woman’s husband was trying to get her killed while her lesbian lover was trying to keep her alive. But who knows?
That said, the more I see of Ms Schiavo’s condition, the more I suspect she would want to die. However I think it’s highly self indulgent to assume that those on either side of this issue are acting strictly for the cameras. I know it’s become normal political discourse to assume the worst in one’s aopponents, to refuse to consider the possibility that they may be doing what they do for perfectly ethical reasons. Doesn’t make it right.
I have no trouble believing the worst about a guy like Tom DeLay. Hëll I’d believe he ate babies and pushed old ladies into oncomign traffic.
What occurs to me is that if the person in a coma were one half of a gay married couple, if the spouse were advocating that all extreme measures SHOULD be taken to keep the comatose mate going, and it was the parents who were saying the patient should be starved to death…
Congress wouldn’t touch it with a ten meter cattle prod.
While I can’t say for sure about Congress, I can say with certainty that the Christian conservatives, such as James Dobson or myself, would be just as loudly and strongly protesting ANYONE being starved to death in a similar circumstance. There is a fundamental right to life that is true, regardless of the “lifestyle” of the person involved.
Iowa Jim
And the people who are so anxious to protect white het marriage (which this is) from Teh Gayz aren’t so anxious to protect it from governmental meddling.
Your point is groundless. There is one right that goes deeper and is more fundamental than marriage: It is the sanctity of human life. That right trumps all others. No spouse (be it in a hetero or gay marriage) is ever allowed to kill a spouse. I am convinced that this is what is being done to Terri. She is not being “allowed” to die, she is being forced to die by being denied food. And because it is her life at stake, it IS the role of the goverment to get involved. The right to life for an individual comes before the rights of marriage. That is not hypocritical, that is treating people in a humane manner.
Iowa Jim
There’s the conundrum, Jim. Is Terri “alive,” as we would define it? If it’s true that her cerebral cortext, that part of the brain that dicates personality, memories, motivation, creativity, pretty much everything that we define as “human,” is she even still alive? If my body’s being kept alive by that part of my brain that runs autonomous functions, like my heartbeat, breathing, and digestion, but there’s nothing left of my upper brain, do I even exist any more?
I honestly don’t know. And the only way to find out is to attain that state. Which I’m not really ready to do.
Jim, would you expect the government to intervene if Terri were 90 years old, had lived a full life full of kids and grandkids and great, and maybe even great great grandkids, then suffered a stroke, lapsed into a coma, and the family now faces the decision of whether or not to allow risky brain surgery? Failing to do so would result in Old Hypothetical Terri’s death.
Jim, would you expect the government to intervene if Terri were 90 years old, had lived a full life full of kids and grandkids and great, and maybe even great great grandkids, then suffered a stroke, lapsed into a coma, and the family now faces the decision of whether or not to allow risky brain surgery? Failing to do so would result in Old Hypothetical Terri’s death.
The issue you present is radically different. You are calling for an intervention that at 90 would not be certain of suceeding. But her age and fullness of life is irrelevant. There is a significant difference between surgery and giving nutrition through a feeding tube.
I do not believe the government should intervene in most cases unless it is a case like this where refraining from a simple action (giving food) causes a patient’s death. So whether it was a mother of 25 with 2 young children, or the grandmother you describe, I don’t think the government should order the surgery.
Bottom line, the basic essentials of food, water, and oxygen should not be denied. Being put on a ventilator or life support, or having surgery done to prolong life, are very different matter.
Iowa Jim
‘EVIL CONSERVATIVES’. Jesus, (or almighty, or allah, or non-denominational higher being, or whatever you loonies want to call it), you people make me sick. Eject the politics from the situation for a moment and you’ll see that this is not a black and white situation. This is not clear cut–clearly attempts at rehabilitation have been stopped by the husband whose sudden memory of Terri not wanting to live like this is suspect. There is no easy answer. And to PAD, you cynical prìçk, were a gay couple to have endured this for FIFTEEN years, yeah, I think the same intervention measures on behalf of media and politicians alike would STILL be occuring. You and your ilk don’t want life protected for anyone suffering, do you? Ðámņ those people in Iraq. Ðámņ the little people getting shafted by high power attorneys. Do some research and tell me–beyond a reason of doubt–that this woman is TOTALLY brain dead.
IF for nothing else, hopefully congressional intervention will see an end to death by starvation. A barbaric means to dispose of those no longer wanted.
Of course (and I don’t mean for this to be an “ah HA, gotchya!” moment, but it kind of is…sorry for that) Terri can’t feed herself. Everything I’ve seen indicates that she lacks the motor skills to feed herself, and lacks the conscious ability to recognize when food or water is in her mouth to swallow. She can swallow on reflex, but not deliberately. So feeding her with a nurse’s assistance becomes a dangerous option where she can choke or develop an infection of the lung due to aspiration.
A feeding tube is the best, safest way to provide her nutrients. That’s exactly like putting her on a ventilator. It’s an outside action that doesn’t just assist her in doing something for herself, it does the work for her.
And I’m not just talking from hypotheticals here. My grandmother was 84 when she suffered her second stroke. My family made the decision to deny the insertion of a feeding tube, and she passed without regaining any consciousness a few days later.
Terri isn’t being denied anything. She’s not asking for food and not getting it.
This is not clear cut–clearly attempts at rehabilitation have been stopped by the husband whose sudden memory of Terri not wanting to live like this is suspect. There is no easy answer.
And where did you get this insider info? Present a link that confirms your statements or be dismissed as a rude jërkøff who’s talking out of his ášš about things he has no more knowledge about than the rest of us.
A feeding tube is the best, safest way to provide her nutrients. That’s exactly like putting her on a ventilator. It’s an outside action that doesn’t just assist her in doing something for herself, it does the work for her.
Twothoughts:
1.) Until actual therapy is allowed to show that she cannot develop the ability to swallow safely, you cannot say that she cannot do so. There are a lot of reasons why a person may be put temporarily on a feeding tube, not just brain damage.
2.) You may have a point about the original insertion of a feeding tube, but I am not sure. You see, while similar in that they are essential for life, there are diffences. A person can exist for weeks without a feeding tube, but not without a ventilator.
I see a better analogy between giving oxygen versus a feeding tube. The body still is able to process the oxygen, the lungs still function normally. They are not artificially inflated.
A feeding tube bypasses the throat, but otherwise the body still processes the food (nutrients) naturally. There is not artificial digestion going on.
Terri isn’t being denied anything. She’s not asking for food and not getting it.
I understand what you mean, but your words still chill me. I don’t think it should matter whether the person asks for it or not. If they refuse it and your force it on them, then there is an issue. But we must be very careful about our decisions being based on simply whether someone can ask for it or not.
Iowa Jim
1.) Until actual therapy is allowed to show that she cannot develop the ability to swallow safely, you cannot say that she cannot do so.
Once again, I renew my request for specific details as to what this mysterious “therapy” is and how she was denied it. I want credible weblinks, not angry blog rantings.
1.) Until actual therapy is allowed to show that she cannot develop the ability to swallow safely, you cannot say that she cannot do so. There are a lot of reasons why a person may be put temporarily on a feeding tube, not just brain damage.
She’s not on a temp feeding tube, the tube is the only way she can eat without choking to death. And she can’t be given therapy to learn to swallow because that would require her being retaught the method of swallowiong and teaching a person with no higher brain functions is darn near impossible.
Jim, I understand. I think your view goes against literally years and years of legal precedent. Which is not to say that we should continue doing things in the same way. In my grandmother’s case, she and my mother had spoken about her wishes before hand, and they were pretty clear. I wasn’t there, but I trusted my mother.
Based on what you’ve said, I think the issue isn’t so much that she’s dieing. It’s that she dieing on the word of her husband, not her own word. I think that’s a different issue altoghether, on whether or not a spouse or other family member should be given total control over medical decisions. Your discussion of the parents denying their child treatment on religous grounds is a good example. The state, in some cases, intervenes in that case. And many decry that intervention using the same words used here in Terri’s case. The anology is the same: some denial of treatment results in a harm to the patient. It’s a fine line between killing someone and allowing them do die.
We don’t punish people for not helping in a situation where they can help. We just prevent direct action that harms. Terri could wake up tonight and ask for some water. That would change everything.
That chill you feel is probably the same one I get when I see those anti-drug adds that show the kid with a broken leg in the road, while his friend just watches as a truck approaches. It’s the dilemma of inaction leading to death, does that make the non-actor responsible?
Once again, I renew my request for specific details as to what this mysterious “therapy” is and how she was denied it. I want credible weblinks, not angry blog rantings.
I know this was quickly dismissed before on the other thread, but it bears being reposted. Here is a noted doctor who says he has examined the case and that treatment is possible:
http://www.lifenews.com/bio748.html
To me, there is a solution to this issue. Give this (or a similar doctor) the opportunity to do this work. If we are talking about rehab, not extraordinary means, what would it hurt? He is an expert who is actually doing this with other patients, not just a person (medical or otherwise) who is expressing an opinion. Is he right? The only way to know is to allow him the chance. So give me a good reason why the husband has not allowed him the chance?
Iowa Jim
It’s the dilemma of inaction leading to death, does that make the non-actor responsible?
Are you seriously asking that question? In most cases when you can directly intervene, the answer is yes. Perhaps not legally in all cases, but definitely morally. If I allow a friend to drive home drunk *when I could have stopped him*, then I do bear some responsibility if he kills someone else or even himself.
Iowa Jim
That is interesting, Jim. Of course, your source is hardly unbiased.
Here’s another view on this same doctor’s “therapy”:
http://www.sptimes.com/2002/10/22/TampaBay/Schiavo_case_doctor_t.shtml
It seems that the Florida Department of Health has some issues with his claims.
Yes, seriously asking the question, but not because I don’t know the answer. The part I left out was that the non-actor would have to live the rest of their life with the guilt of knowing that they could have done something to prevent an injury or death, and didn’t.
The point being, the state doesn’t enforce penalties on top of that. It’s not a crime to allow someone to die. That doesn’t make it right. And I don’t think it should be a crime. Which is not to say that there aren’t consequences, just not legally enforceable ones.
Which is why it’s a dilemma.
Just how much is it going to cost to keep this poor woman in a vegatative state for years?
Of course, this should not be a part of the decision for her, but really, how many people are going to die because they can not get health care, or even life saving medications, and how many of those folks could be saved by spending this amount ( not to mention the ludicrous amount being spent on the legal battle) for health care for those who can’t afford it?
How about we have Bush get back in his helicopter
and fly badly needed medications to AIDS patient in Africa?
That is interesting, Jim. Of course, your source is hardly unbiased.
Here’s another view on this same doctor’s “therapy”
Interesting. The problem is, he may be a quack. Or it may just be an attack to shut him up.
The deeper question I have is not whether his therapy would be effective, but if his description of her state is accurate. And I don’t think some of the husband’s experts are exactly unbiased either. Quite frankly, I have seen a lot of poor diagnoses by doctors (as well as some good ones). My other grandfather died because of the questionable actions of two doctors.
At this point, it is hard to get a medical report that both sides believe is unbiased. There is a huge difference in what I read from various sources concerning how aware she is, whether she can swallow, etc. But I will read any credible source you want to post.
Iowa Jim
While I can’t say for sure about Congress, I can say with certainty that the Christian conservatives, such as James Dobson or myself, would be just as loudly and strongly protesting ANYONE being starved to death in a similar circumstance.
I’ll take your word for your position, but consider that an awful lot of Christian conservatives are quite hostile towards Medicaid and other government-funded medical care for the poor. Would they be so eager to save her if their taxes were paying the bill?
(For the record, her health costs were paid from the malpractice settlement, but that is now largely depleted, so her hospice is footing most of the bill.)
It’s also worth noting that when Bush was Governor of Texas, he signed a bill allowing hospitals to cut off life-support on terminal patients–against family wishes–if the hospital decided it wasn’t cost-effective to continue treatment.
Den,
Have you watched the videos posted on her website?
http://www.terrisfight.net/
They are very compelling evidence that she is NOT brain dead nor in a persistent vegitative state. If that is what she is currently like, then clearly she WILL feel great pain at being starved to death.
Iowa Jim
At this point, it is hard to get a medical report that both sides believe is unbiased. There is a huge difference in what I read from various sources concerning how aware she is, whether she can swallow, etc. But I will read any credible source you want to post.
Doesn’t matter about what you consider “biased” or “unbiased”. The courts have repeatedly heard testimony from both sides and have consistently ruled for the husband.
JSM
I’ll take your word for your position, but consider that an awful lot of Christian conservatives are quite hostile towards Medicaid and other government-funded medical care for the poor. Would they be so eager to save her if their taxes were paying the bill?
The fact that some do NOT think the government does a very good job of handling such care or the money for such care does not mean that they want to deny them such care. Oppposition to Medicaid does not mean there is a desire to harm someone.
I personally am pragmatic and understand that in a country this large, it is difficult to avoid having the government play a role in such issues. I have no problem with the existence of Medicaid, but I also know that as with any government institutuion, you end up paying managers who are more interested in keeping their job than in providing services to those in need. And yes, you also have problems of people who become dependent on the government. So the call for reform is not without cause.
Iowa Jim
Doesn’t matter about what you consider “biased” or “unbiased”. The courts have repeatedly heard testimony from both sides and have consistently ruled for the husband.
That is like saying the Republicans have consistently voted Republican!
The GOP has thrown this into the Federal court system, so that will be interesting to see played out.
As I said, the videos are by far the most compelling evidence. They do not show someone in what I would understand to be a persistent vegitative state. I am not an expert, but I have spent some time in nursing homes. Terri is a lot more alert in these videos than some of the people I have visited.
Iowa Jim
Someone should post online the 4 hour continuous video of a totally unresponsive Schiavo that one of the judges from the earlier trials used to make his decision in the husbands favor.
The videos on terrisfight.org are carefully edited, only 7 minutes taken out of a four and a half hour videotape. The trial judge at the evidentiary hearing and his independent medical team have seen the whole tape and say that there is no credible evidence that Terri is responding to anything. See the Abstract Appeal info page here: http://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/infopage.html
You cannot orally feed an unconscious person indefinitely, whether or not they have a swallowing reflex: the patient will eventually choke or develop aspiration pneumonia. See discussion in the comments threads on Alas: http://www.amptoons.com/blog/archives/2005/03/18/terri-schiavo-news/ and Respectful of Otters: http://respectfulofotters.blogspot.com/2005_03_01_respectfulofotters_archive.html#111120735448873570
In the same article, Rivka reviews the 17 medical affidavits proffered by the Schindlers and finds
that none of them have examined the medical evidence developed at trial, let alone Terri herself; most have only seen the 7 minute videotape on the Schindlers’ website. This, I think most would agree, makes them less than credible.
That is like saying the Republicans have consistently voted Republican!
How so? Both sides present evidence, bring their respective experts in to testify, and the judge makes a decision based on the testimony and evidence.
And this hasn’t been a one-time thing. This has taken place several times. Unless you are positing that the judges involved in these hearings (and I honestly don’t know if the same judge has presided each time, or if different ones have heard the case) are deliberately biased against the parents’ side, your comment makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.
Nor, if you are positing that the judges have been consistently biased, does indicate that you have much faith in the Florida judicial process.
Which is it?
JSM
The GOP has thrown this into the Federal court system
Where it doesn’t belong.
I wonder what will happen if a federal judge rules in favor of the husband.
What kind of hissy fit will Congress & Bush throw then?
Another soepena?
And in the category of “Wish I’d thought of that” zingers for the GOP over the Terri Schaivo case, AmericaBlog notes that while George W. Bush was gung-ho to interrupt his vacation and fly back to DC on her behalf, he didn’t bother with that much zest nor zeal for the 100,000+ victims of the December tsunami, nor the victims of the 9/11 attack, nor…
Actions speak louder than words, don’t they?
–R.J.
According to several reports on the subject I’ve read, this has been through 6 courts and something like 15 judges, all made the right decision, but apparently Fuhrer Bush and Congress don’t believe in states rights or that Republicans are supposed to be the party in support of LESS GOVERMENT INTERFERENCE in our lives…
The Supreme Court has refused to hear this case so far, and even court decision has ruled on he side of the husband, does šhìŧ-hëád Bush and his cronies really want a federal judge to rule with the family and see how fast the Supreme Court picks up that appeal?
And what about the sanctity of marriage? They threw that out the window when it suits their political purpose…
The trial judge at the evidentiary hearing and his independent medical team have seen the whole tape and say that there is no credible evidence that Terri is responding to anything.
I find that very curious. The fact that it is 7 minutes out of 4 hours is hardly relevant IF she is responding to stimulus and actually following the baloon, etc.
I would be curious to see how things were set up on both sides. I would want to see if she doesn’t truly respond and it just appeared that way. But I also want to hear how things were set up for the court hearing. It is not hard for an “expert” to explain things away, even when you see it with your own eyes.
Iowa Jim
And what about the sanctity of marriage? They threw that out the window when it suits their political purpose…
That is such an empty argument. Protecting an innocent life always has come before the “sanctity of marriage.” This does not in any way violate the marriage other than to protect the life of one of the partners in the marriage. You may disagree if they should, but it is not otherwise violating the sanctity of the marriage.
Iowa Jim
I would be curious to see how things were set up on both sides. I would want to see if she doesn’t truly respond and it just appeared that way. But I also want to hear how things were set up for the court hearing. It is not hard for an “expert” to explain things away, even when you see it with your own eyes.
Iowa Jim
Actually all of your questions were posed and answered in the umpteen trials that have already taken place and they all ended with the same result…the court sided with the husband.
BÙLLSHÍT Iowa Jim!
The government has no business sticking it’s nose into the Schiavo marriage.
The Texas Futile Care Law, signed into law by the Retard who holds the presidency presently. Under this law, a baby was removed from life support against his mother’s wishes in Texas just this week.
That proves it, George Bush isn’t in this for the sancity of life, this is nothing more than a political brownie point drive with the religious fruitcakes who have no problem killing muslim children (warning not for the faint of heart: http://www.robert-fisk.com/iraqwarvictims_mar2003.htm) or the children of poor American women, but god forbid you try to remove a brain dead woman from life support and let nature take it’s natural course. Where are George Bush’s cries for the lives of those he sentenced to death BECAUSE THEY COULD NOT PAY in Texas?!!!!
Well Iowa Jim, your president and all his sycophants are strangely silent! Sancity of life… Hogwash, talking points is more like it!
I find that very curious. The fact that it is 7 minutes out of 4 hours is hardly relevant IF she is responding to stimulus and actually following the baloon, etc.
It is relevant. I if spend for hours waving a ballon in front of her face, odds are good you’ll get at least one shot that appears to show her following ballon. Editing the tape down to seven minutes that only show the parts that appear to prove your case is fraud.
That would be like a scientist running a hundred trials, 99 of which do not give the outcome he wants, but he tries to publish the one trial that did come out his way as proof of his theory.
I would be curious to see how things were set up on both sides. I would want to see if she doesn’t truly respond and it just appeared that way. But I also want to hear how things were set up for the court hearing. It is not hard for an “expert” to explain things away, even when you see it with your own eyes.
I doubt that the parents would accept it. Anyone unbiased from their wishful thinking would likely not give the results they’d want.
They are very compelling evidence that she is NOT brain dead nor in a persistent vegitative state. If that is what she is currently like, then clearly she WILL feel great pain at being starved to death.
No they’re not. They’re carefully edited to show what the parents want to see. The judge who viewed the entire 4 hours has noted that for one time we her appeared to follow the balloon, there are dozens more where the father has tried, but failed to create the appearance of a reaction for her.
Her mind is gone. Has been for 15 years.