I was reminded of the Terry Schiavo case from a few years back when I read about a recent study from the University of Western Ontario. But more on her later.

Patients in what doctors call a “persistent vegetative state” may be much more aware of their surroundings than previously believed. The researchers provided strong evidence for intact conscious experiences in a brain-injured patient who had remained behaviourally nonresponsive for 16 years.

So, good news, right? Findings such as these help form a more powerful argument against euthanasia. But be careful. By engaging in a science-says argument, we can also fall into a trap. We may start to see the value of a life as contingent on X number of neurons firing at Y location. It in fact opens the door further for neurologists and bioethicists to set benchmarks for the value of human life. If not enough brain mass shows up red in a scan, is that the end?

So, to Ms Schiavo. Since her brain injury from anoxia in 1990, her husband fought to “allow” his wife to die; her parents fought to keep her alive. Mr Schiavo argued on the basis of his wife’s “living will” – which he claimed she verbally conveyed to him. Eventually, in March 2005, doctors removed Ms Schiavo’s feeding tube and she was slowly starved and dehydrated to death.

I certainly recall some pretty disgusting comments about Ms Schiavo’s quality-of-life. Just like the saying “abortions are chosen by people who have been born,” the quality-of-life of someone like Ms Schiavo is liberally discussed by those who have no experience of what it is to be Ms Schiavo. Moreover, the rush to perform the irreversible act of “allowing” the Ms Schiavos of this world die is strangely contradictory to arguments against capital punishment: it’s irreversible.

And there are no more helpless individuals than those utterly dependent upon others for care. Moreover, they are at the mercy of the naiveté of the healthy. I would rather allow 8-year-olds to vote in the next general election than take seriously the opinions of a 25-year-old about infirmity and convalescence. Get back to me when you’re 80, Sunshine.

Then, the argument that nature didn’t intend us to live as Ms Schiavo; or Granny who needs constant care. Really? So, should we strip kidney patients of their dialysis machines? Diabetics of insulin injections? Cancer patients of chemotherapy? AIDS patients of antiretrovirals? How about haemophiliacs of blood coagulants?

“Nature didn’t intend”?  Nature is often a pretty horrible thing. By historical comparison, we live luxurious, long, safe lives because we keep beating Nature. We protect our weak and infirm – like Ms Schiavo – from nature, not pull the plug when we feel like it.