Those advocating prolonging Terri’s twilight existence seem to be operating using a set of facts that are not verifiable in nonbiased documents.

I have been unable to find any court instances referencing Michael’s alleged mistreatment of Terri. The charge that he is seeking to kill her before evidence of his abuse is commonly repeated (wanting a cremation = coverup!), the charge that he asked nurses if “the bitch is dead yet” is often raised. But all the court rulings say that both Michael and the Schindlers have exhibited nothing but care for Terri. I would like to see hard evidence to support those claims.

I have also been guilty of attributing malignant designs to Michael. I confess that I accepted many of the undocumented accusations as having some reality. But non-partisan sites never make any such claims. Terri’s family, which maintains the Terri’s fight website, does not make any of those claims in a forum in which they might be charged with libel. The harshest thing they officially say is that “Michael has moved on with his life.” Since any evidence of Michael’s nefariousness would buttress their case, the conspicuous absence of such evidence is telling, ne c’est pas?

The “Keep Terri Alive” crowd often claims that she has never had a guardian. She, in fact has. Her is the report of the court-appointed guardian, posted at National Review. Interestingly, while the guardian finds (as has everyone else) that Terri is in a persistent vegetative state with no awareness and that the folks who say otherwise have no scientific basis for their spurious claim (note: even the Schindlers did not challenge this diagnosis until recently), he does not say she should necessarily be disconnected.

And this is what the real argument boils down to: does cognitive functioning matter? Does it define a human being? The Schindlers, when discussing the case with the guardian, have said that there are NO circumstances in which they would every stop prolonging any quality of life.

We should stop pretending this case is about Terri’s cognitive ability. The case is really about whether any glimmer of physical existence, no matter how blind and unconscious, should be preserved indefinitely.

Descartes, as Terri’s guardian notes, would not have understood this American controversy. He would have applied the inverse of his famous phrase: I think, therefore I am.