THE RESULTS OF TERRI SCHIAVO'S autopsy report, released today, change nothing. The blog commentary makes it clear that nobody's position has changed. Those of us who supported Michael Schiavo's fight to let Terri die are obviously gratified that the results of the report showed massive, irreversible brain damage because it clearly demonstrates that Terri had no hope of recovery. The kindest and only thing anyone who loved her could do was to let her body die so her soul could be free; and her husband succeeded in doing that.

But Terri's parents, and their supporters who wanted Terri's feeding tube kept in, have not budged one millimeter from their point of view. Schindler family members are still darkly hinting that Terri's husband must have been guilty of something, despite the report's failure to find any signs of abuse. Even those who grudgingly acknowledge that the report clears Michael Schiavo of having abused his wife still insist there was plenty of evidence that he did abuse her.

Clearly, those who believed when Terri was still alive that ceasing to exist is the worst thing that can happen to a human being still believe that now. Such people are not going to be swayed by an autopsy report proving beyond reasonable doubt that Terri was "severely and irreversibly brain-damaged and blind as well," that her brain had shrunk to half the size normal for a woman of her age, and that "no amount of therapy or treatment would have regenerated the massive loss of neurons."

In fact, at least one blogger, Judith Weiss, is still clinging to the notion that Terri Schiavo might have been "minimally conscious," an assertion that was thoroughly debunked by the autopsy report -- although if you didn't know that you might think the report endorsed that possibility, thanks to Judith's conflating two separate paragraphs into one.

First straw man: "See? She was in a persistant vegetative state! She was never going to recover!" Her parents may have wistfully hoped she might regain some function, but they were very clear that they loved her the way she was and wanted to take care of her. However, the diagnosis reflects the limits of our knowledge of the brain:

The brain examination was "consistent with a persistent vegetative state," said Stephen J. Nelson, a neuropathologist who was a consultant to the medical examiner's office. Some people argued that Schiavo was "minimally conscious" -- a recently formulated condition defined as a notch above "persistent vegetative state." Both states, however, are diagnosed purely on the basis examination of the living patient. They can't be confirmed with certainty on the basis of autopsy findings.

Okay, so the most she could hope for was minimal consciousness. But she was not dying, in fact she was surprisingly healthy.

In the Washington Post article from which Judith quotes, that passage is two paragraphs, not one.

The condition of her brain was "consistent with a persistent vegetative state," said Stephen J. Nelson, a neuropathologist in Winter Haven, Fla., who was consulted by the medical examiner's office.

Some people argued that Schiavo was in a "minimally conscious state," a recently formulated condition defined as a notch above "persistent vegetative state." Both states, however, are diagnosed by examining a living patient. Neither can be confirmed with certainty on the basis of autopsy findings.

A subtle distinction, admittedly, but the paragraphing creates a sense of separateness between Nelson's comments, and the "Some people," making it much clearer that the autopsy report expressed no support for the views of "Some people" that Terri Schiavo might have been minimally conscious. Not to mention that it's the way the Post reporter wrote it.

What I find most repellent in Judith Weiss's analysis, though, is her assertion that "Her parents may have wistfully hoped she might regain some function, but they were very clear that they loved her the way she was and wanted to take care of her."

What this statement says to me is that Terri's parents were the only people with rights that needed to be considered. In essence, what Judith is implying is that, despite the fact that Terri Schiavo's brain had suffered such extraordinary trauma that it was "discolored and scarred, shriveled to half its normal size, and damaged in nearly all its regions, including the one responsible for vision," despite the fact that "no amount of treatment or rehabilitation would have reversed" this damage, despite the fact that she could not and would never have been able to take food or water by mouth, and despite the fact that she could have lived for decades in this condition -- her parents had every right to keep her autonomic body functions working to gratify their emotional inability to let her go; and Terri had NO right to go. Her dignity, her spirit, everything that made her an individual, and what her feelings and wishes might have been about having her body kept alive when everything that made her who she was had gone -- none of that needed to be considered at all. Her parents' grief and love were all that mattered. In a way, in this view, Terri did not even exist anymore as a person. She had become some kind of symbol, or metaphorical figure, through which her parents and millions of strangers could act out their psychic needs.

Thank God that did not happen, in the end. Thank God that Terri's spirit got to leave the body that was damaged beyond repair. And thank God that, after all that Michael Schiavo went through to do this last kindness for his wife, he was shown to be 100 percent right in everything he said about Terri's condition.