Ed Brayton has a post up on Dispatches from the Culture Wars that links to something that should be required reading for anyone who wants to discuss the Schiavo case — the report written by the Guardian Ad Litem appointed by Jeb Bush in 2003 to assess the Terri Schiavo debacle. It can be argued pretty successfully that this is an unbiased opinion, appointed by and written for a man who is clearly trying to keep Terri alive. As Ed states:

Amid the flurry of vicious charges that have been leveled against Michael Schiavo, this report points out a great many things worth knowing. It notes, for example, that for the first several years that Terri was in a vegetative state, Michael held out hope that she would recover, despite all evidence to the contrary, and that he was so attentive to her care that he was described as “a nursing home administrator’s nightmare”. It points out that in the infamous situation where he denied care when she got a urinary tract infection, this was done in consultation with her doctors, who had finally convinced him that there was no hope of recovery and that it was more humane to allow her to die naturally. It also notes that Terri's parents were also convinced for many years that she was in a persistent vegitative state and would never recover, but they refused to allow her to die naturally despite that, and it's only recently that they have begun denying that she was in PVS or even denying that there is such a thing.

The report is 38 pages, and it tells us a lot more than this. So before you repeat any of the rumors and media hype that have been flooding the internet (as well as all other media known to humankind), read this document. And remind others that there's no excuse for ignorance when good information can be freely accessed.

As an aside, Ed also states in the comments to this post:

Frankly, I would much rather they not just pull out the feeding tube and let her starve, even if she can't feel anything. I'd rather they just administered a lethal injection so she would die quickly. But the same people who are screaming about how cruel starvation is also go apeshit over allowing active euthenasia.

We completely agree, Ed, as we stated earlier. To us, the foregone conclusion of removing the feeding tube is the death of Terri Schiavo, so what's the difference between that and active euthanasia? Of course, we can hear the argument now — perhaps "God" will spare Terri's life and not allow her to starve. Then again, "God" could probably render the active euthanasia ineffective as well. You know, he has that whole omnipotence thing going and all...

[For more information, read our other posts on Terri Schiavo.]