Did you know that not long ago the Florida Department of Children and Families sought the court's permission to intervene in Terri's case for the purpose of requesting a delay to give it time to investigate abuse allegations?
From what I've read, while Terri is severely disabled, she's not in a so-called vegetative state, she's not in a coma, and she's not medically terminal -- except by court decree of starvation. What if, as Terri's parents believe, Terri truly does want to go on living but just can't verbally express it? Would it be ethical in that event to starve her just because she can't feed herself?
If not, then on what basis has the system decided to terminate her life? Surely we can agree that it's entirely possible that Terri does want to live even in her current condition and even if she expressed a general desire 15 years ago that she would not want "heroic measures" performed to save her in certain circumstances.
Given Terri's reported responsiveness, her ability to breathe on her own, and the doubt and suspicious circumstances surrounding this case, shouldn't the question be resolved in favor of life, especially given what we've seen recently, for example, with the comatose patient regaining consciousness after 19 years?
I find it haunting that we live in a culture of death where the presumption seems to be against finding that a human being would want to go on living and the burden of proof is on those promoting life.
Terri Schiavo and her parents need and deserve our prayers.