While I don't for a minute believe in the different diagnosis of "minimally concious state," even if it were true, it wouldn't change my opinion. Imagine being trapped in that condition--unable to move, speak, or swallow on your own, with occasional fading in and out of conciousness just enough to know that months or years were passing in the blink of an eye: or perhaps worse yet to be stuck in an eternal present--. I can think of little worse. I would not wish it on my worst enemy, let alone someone I loved.
I think that underlying all the Shindler's motives is a despicable selfishness. THEY cannot bear to let their daughter go, and so wish to keep her for uncountable years longer as a sort of minimally animate Terry doll.
Even worse are the twisted ideas driving all the political figures and activists who have jumped on this bandwagon. What do they really want? I understand the slippery slope arguement against possible involuntary euthanasia--an unralistic fear in my opinion--but has anyone considered what the contrary position means? What these people are really saying is that every person and their friends and family MUST suffer through every possible second of life, no matter how hideous, that medical science can wring out of a body. Is this not horror? Is this not torture?
The truly ironic part of course, is that, more than a few decades ago, someone like Terry Schaivo would have died very shortly due to being unable to swallow. Naso-gastric tubes or intravenous feeding would have delayed the process only months or a few years at best, with death from eventual infection or other complications. It is only medical intervention that has kept Schaivo alive at all. If we are speaking of her "alloted span", St. Peter has been waiting to welcome her these fifteen years.