The judge says no tube, and the clock starts to tick. But the more I read up on the case (like you should have done before you opened your big mouth, bonehead) the more I realize that yes, indeed, she is in a “persistent vegitative state”, brief aged home video clips (and forwarded emails) notwithstanding, and has been for years. Which makes me pull back quite a bit from where I thought I stood and say…Wow. That’s a tough one. So there’s evidence and more than ample supposition that her husband’s a jerk, but that doesn’t change her state. And barring divine or appellate intervention, she’ll be gone, completely and undeniably, in a week or two. Should we mourn her passing? Or regard her as essentially already gone, and just grieve with her parents for the loss of their hope and focus? I don’t know.
Even so, I still think there should be a better way to resolve this that would allow her husband to get on with his life and allow her parents to pursue whatever therapy they deem worthwhile. I don’t know if there would be any hope were they given a wide open door. I don’t know if she’s still in there somewhere or not. And I don’t know whether or not she had indicated a desire to be “allowed to die” were she ever in such a state. But in this regard I do agree with Bush, that if there is any question, any uncertainty, it should be in our duty as human beings to err on the side of preserving life.