What if Michael Schiavo was right—that Terri unambiguously told him she would want to have her feeding tube removed in this situation?

Should the courts have considered Michael Schiavo the closest relative of Terri since he is living with another woman and has had children with her—living as if he were no longer Terri's husband?

Why did the courts consistently refuse to allow new evidence to be introduced in this case, when they often seem eager to allow new evidence to be introduced in death penalty cases?

Why have many devout believers—who believe in the Resurrection—spoken about all this as if death is the worst thing that could happen to a person?

Why do others, many of whom are devout Christians, seem to think that suffering is the worst thing that could happen to a person?

What is the worst thing that could happen to a person? To a believer?

Why is it that so many who believe one should "love your neighbor as yourself," say they would want the feeding tube pulled on themselves but would not have done it for Terri?

Did Terri really try to say, "I want to live"?

If Terri really was in a persistent vegetative state, that means she was unconscious. So why is it that people who believe this want to put her "out of her suffering," when she couldn't possibly be suffering according this definition?

Why did commentators say so many absurd things, like Paul Krugman's characterizing those who fought for Terri's life as dangerous extremists—like Christian parents who want their schools to acknowledge creation science or the Dutch Muslim who shot Theo Van Gogh?

Why did so many people who wanted Terri to live seem unwilling to talk about the fact that she may have been enduring extraordinary suffering?

Many doctors ...

Subscriber access only You have reached the end of this Article Preview

To continue reading, subscribe now. Subscribers have full digital access.