http://www.edthibodeau.com/nonplusse...i_schiavo.html
A reply to the "Nobel prize nominated" doctor who claims Schiavo could improve:
"The "experts" put forth by the parents also lacked the evidence for their claims. They lacked so much as a single study showing their efforts would work. Perhaps their chief "expert", William Hammesfahr, is a man known for claiming that his procedure works on every vaguely neurological based illness out there, but even he doesn't claim it cures people, and he's provided no substantial evidence for any of his claims other than one tiny study showing that his work may have helped people with whiplash (who were also being treated by other doctors at the time). Not that it matters much for his demands: he has a history of insisting his patients provide their money in cash up front. The Schindlers love to describe him as having receiving a Nobel-prize nomination in 1999, but the truth is Nobel-prize nomination lists aren't released to the public for fifty years after the original awards. Like the other "experts" provided by the parents, Hammesfahr hasn't published any studies in journals about patients in the same condition as Terri. That's not to say many people haven't heard of him, but that's thanks to work he's had published in the most prestigious medical journal available: The National Enquirer. The husband provided actual experts; the court brought in an independent actual expert; the parents provided people such as Hammesfahr, who at least is a neurologist, which is more than can be said for most of the experts the parents have used."
I can understand why people have such strong feelings about this case, and it seems that people tend to gravitate to one set of "facts" as presented by the media, but if you look around every "fact" presented by the parents is refutable.
For instance, that Terri smiles, laughs, responds, etc:
"At first blush, the video of Terry Schiavo appearing to smile and look lovingly at her mother seemed to represent cognition. This was also true for how she followed the Mickey Mouse balloon held by her father. The court has carefully viewed the videotapes as requested by counsel and does find that these actions were neither consistent nor reproducible. For instance, Terry Schiavo appeared to have the same look on her face when Dr. Cranford rubbed her neck. Dr. Greer testified she had a smile during his (non-videoed) examination. Also, Mr. Schindler tried several more times to have her eyes follow the Mickey Mouse balloon but without success. Also, she clearly does not consistently respond to her mother. The court finds that based on the credible evidence, cognitive function would manifest itself in a constant response to stimuli."
From
http://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/infopage.html
Or that Michael Schiavo abused Terry, and actually caused her heart attack (no such evidence has been found, and it's widely believed that her bulimia caused a chemical imbalace that triggered the heart attack), or that he is only doing this for the money (he's been offered more money than he'd get from any life insurance) or that he just wants to get rid of her so he can get on with his new wife (he could just hand over guardianship and be done with it in a heartbeat) or that it's just Michael Schiavo's word against the parents' that she would have wanted to die (I know the court interviewed several friends and family members - I've been able to find actual mention of Michael Schiavo, his brother and his wife, with whom Terry was very close friends, and a childhood friend , testifying for the parents, who said she made some statements when she was about 15).
That "Abstract Appeal" web site has a lot of very good, objective information on the case, particularly the legal aspects.
The bottom line is that there is SO much evidence that she would want to die and that she's never getting better that it is really puzzling to most of us why so many people are insisting that she be kept alive. It seems to me that her parents are understandably in denial, and that lots of activists and religious conservatives are jumping on a bandwagon for their "choose life" cause, which is really so disrespectful to this woman and her entire family, even though it may be aiding the parents' publicity efforts.
People talk about "God's will" like they know what that is. Near as I can tell, most people are using that term to mean "God supports what we believe." How do you know what "God's will" is, even assuming that there is such a thing? Why is it automatically assumed that God would want this woman to live? What if he was trying to kill her with the heart attack and we're keeping her from heaven? What if he was trying to use this as a lesson to people that death is not always worse than life? Or what if god isn't some micromanaging anthropomorphic deity in the sky pulling strings and making everything happen? At some point you have to quit propping up incoherent and inconsistent arguments with theology and say "what should we as human beings do to honor this woman's life"? And letting her finally die seems like a fitting answer.