An Autopsy for Terri?

It seems, from Blogs For Terri, that Michael Schaivo wants her to have an autopsy. Why? To prove the extent of her brain injury. The comment from the writer of the blog bears repeating:

Regarding the rationale reported above, doesn't it seem more appropriate to determine the extent of Terri's brim damage before she is starved to death?

It is extraordinary that they would want to prove it was right to kill Terri after the event, rather than have the required MRI and PET scans before withdrawing sustenance. And further on this point, listening to Hugh Hewitt the other night, I find that Terri is being given morphine. Why? To relieve the pain. But haven't we heard that Terri is in no pain, because she has no brain function to be able to feel it?

And further on starvation, comments in the Daily Texan from a philosophy student (HT: World Mag Blog):

Last week, The New York Times published an article citing expert claims that starvation results in a "gentle" death. According to the article, the process of starvation "is relatively straightforward, and can cause little discomfort."

At least now I don't have to feel guilty about little kids with bloated bellies in Somalia. Don't worry, kids. The doctor says it doesn't hurt

The language surrounding Terri's death from so-called experts, and the protestations that this is a dignified way to die, are stomach-turning.

If there is an autopsy (and I'm not holding my breath), I just hope it is by an unbiased third party.