Terri Schiavo died yesterday.

What seems like the most unusual thing about this whole issue is Michael Shiavo's insistance that Terri die. He begins by saying that he intends to keep his vow and help her as long as she lives, but ends up insisting that she would never want to live that way. If he thinks that she wouldn't want to live that way, why isn't he allowing people to try to help her? The only way that I could possibly imagine anyone making that kind of u-turn (other than lying in the first place) is if he didn't fully comprehend how handicapped she was when he made that statement and that he got consecutively shocked, depressed, and then bitter. But I just can't quite buy it. It doesn't explain why he was so resistant to letting her family try to help. I mean, not letting anyone clean her teeth for the last 10 years? Not letting the windows be open or seeing if she might respond to animals? Where's the love? Two years after she was hospitalized he won $1.3 million in a malpractice suit and tried to win another $20 million to take care of her until her expected death at age 50. No comments of her desire to die there. In November of '92 he said "I feel wonderful. She's my life and I wouldn't trade her for the world. I believe in my wedding vows. ... I believe in the vows I took with my wife, through sickness, in health, for richer or poor. I married my wife because I love her and I want to spend the rest of my life with her. I'm going to do that." I find that especially interesting since he was seriously dating another woman at the time. No, when I actually read the history of her case, I cannot believe that Michael Schiavo was really interested in what was best for Terri.

You can argue whether refusing treatment is contradicting God's will, but its still highly debateable whether Terri wanted to die. And when you have 33 medical experts who believe that she wasn't in a persistent vegetative state and could improve with rehab or treatment. Maybe Renea will tell us some of the fascinating discussions she had in her medical ethics course, but she's probably too busy. Sorry, I'm keep switching between indignation and pessimism. What was the rush, why not take one more day to give her another swallowing test? If she can swallow like her nurse claimed, then you can take her off the feeding tube and you have just saved a woman's life. If not, then you've ruled out one of the witnesses. And seriously, after 15 years, what's one more day?

Here is the most thorough news article I could find. Admittedly WND is highly opinionated and likes to toot their own horn, but as far as facts go, this will tell you a lot more than you'll find on the major networks.

By the way, if something like this ever happens to me, bug my hospital room. Where there's life, there's hope.