Even its advocates know it isn't a peaceful death, even as they assure us it is.
Father Johansen has posted the "Exit Protocol" devised for Terri Schiavo back in 2001, when her feeding was scheduled to cease in April. It was discovered during a review of her medical records at the Hospice (and the fact that Terri has lived so long at the Hospice should itself be a clue: she's not terminally ill, she's disabled.)
The protocol is a care plan designed to minimize Terri's suffering she underwent as she starved to death (wait a minute -- weren't we being told she can't feel anything anyway and would be undergoing a quick, easy death?)
The Hospice expected that Terri would probably experience pain, skin breakdown (everything from chapped lips to skin ulcers was addressed in the plan), dry mouth, and an inability to manage the thickening secretions in her nose and mouth. The Hospice planned to administer morphine by nebulizer when her breathing started to grow labored.
And, when she began to experience uncontrollable muscle twitching and spasms (ever had a Charley horse?) the plan was to give her diazepam (Valium). They had even anticipated the possibility that Terri would suffer grand mal seizures.
"An easy way to go." "This is what Terri would have wanted."
Pain, skin breakdown, choking on one's own mucus, gasping for breath, and seizures. "Painless." Uh-huh.
At the very least aren't they admitting doubt as to what she experiences? How can they use the argument that she doesn't experience anything, if they are willing to do it with what they obviously consider a reasonable possibility that she can?
Perhaps they should parade a few survivors of Dachau and Treblinka in front of the judge, ask them if their fellows felt any pain or suffereing when they were starved to death during WWII, because it is the exact same bloody thing.
Between this and that whole mess in Russia, I aint a very happy camper this weekend.