Playing God

James Wilson writes a good column. In it he argues that it was entirely unnecessary to kill Terri (a revelation, it would seem, to many out there). Basically he repeats the simple points that she was not in state as many others where she would die quickly without life support (and the idea food and water is life support is ridiculous - how did that ever become legal argument?!), and that she could (even if in a PVS, which she probably is not) have recovered.

In another column, John Fund interestingly compares the case of Terri with the case of Elian Gonzalez. Janet Reno and the Democrats went in and by force got the boy, while there is no such action in the case of Terri. Is it simply the case that here it's not politically expedient to do so? Surely Terri isn't going to die because of simple political expediency (though I guess history teaches us people do all the time - I don't see why it should be different today).