on march 31, 2005? >> that's the day that terry schiavo died. >> how? >> her feeding tube had been removed about 13 days earlier. so she died basically of dehydration, because she could not not -- she was in a permanent vegetative state. she could not take nutrition or hydration orally. so she had a feeding tube. that was removed. >> from what we know, was it a painful death? >> no. from everything -- >> it was not a painful death? >> it's because of the condition that she was in. she was permanently unconscious. that's what a permanent vegetative state means. so that she could not see or hear or feel anything. and hasn't been able to for 15

years. >> how did this case evolve the way it did. how did terri schiavo become such a national story? >> well, it's kind of complex. but one the reasons that it became so big was that we know about it. the first reason that we know about it was because there was a dispute between her husband and her parents. the feeding tubes are removed from individuals every day in the united states. and there are tens of thousands of people in a permanent individual traitor state in our country. so this is not that unusual of a condition. and that is not that unusual of an event. but there was a dispute, usually there's not a dispute. that's why it first entered the public consciousness and then it became a political opportunity. and not just a political opportunity for certain

conservatives legislators in florida. but also became a -- an easy case in a way for right-to-life groups to latch on to. this was during a time -- that's actually continuing today with abortion politics were very alive and very -- had a lot of people, a lot of politics working up public interest in abortion issues and passing laws to make abortions more restrictive. how this relates to abortion is that it seems to be about vulnerable life. or that's how the connection was made. so those people who are obvious the right-to-life side on things on the abortion debate often but not always are on the right-to-life side in these kinds of situations too. particularly became so during this case.

we saw that alignment. >> you said that tens of thousands of people in the states are in the condition terri schiavo was in? >> right. >> feeding tubes are removed every day. is thatis that -- is that youth? >> no. it's not only a issue of hastening, and this is a different situation. instead of hastening life through an act like legal medication. >> would that not have been more humane in terri schiavo's case?

>> well, you have to ask that question. since it was -- i think sometimes we like to make these compartments to feel safer about morally these decision that is we're making. but you have to especially in her case when drawing the feeding tube would mean in two weeks she would be dead and why not just give her lethal medication. wouldn't that be more humane? i think that's a good question. the reason that we don't do that now is because the law has separated those two things, refusal of treatment and hastening death through active needs. there are clear split in the law on that. it wasn't considered. it would not have been considered. >> what are the legal implications of the terri schiavo case in 2005? >> you know, at the time, and one the reasons that i wrote the

book is because at the time, the legal men they tours were saying there's nothing new about this case. we've been there, done that, and the other cases where a young woman got into a permanent vegetative state and had life forces removed. they created new law. the schiavo case didn't create new law. but it revealed certain things about the law, i think, that are flawed, or things that we simply haven't answered yet. and so that's where i think the case is due for a good examination and re-examination. you know, one the things about the case, a lot of people, even florida legislatures seemed to be surprised. you can do that in the state. you know, it's like why they didn't know that, you know, i don't know. and the public was also -- a lot of people in the public were surprised that you could remove a feeding tube.

on the one hand, it seems like some of the people in lawyers and doctors kind of felt like it was settled. that was the impression. i'm not saying we need to change the law the way it was. i think the law in terri's case, ultimately, it came out right. but there's still a lot of questions to be answered. and i think as the laws were created, maybe not enough public involvement took place. we shouldn't -- you know, the public shouldn't be surprised about what the law is and dished by that. >> are the laws different in each state? do any state restrict the removing of feeding tube? >> the law is different in every state. although, of course, we have federal constitutional law. the federal constitution in the

cruzane case. >> there was a supreme court case? >> the supreme court case, the supreme court didn't come right out and say there's a right to refuse life sustaining treatment. said it could be assumed from prior decisions. so it's been taken though and told us what the prior decisions were. it's been taken and understood even though it didn't come out and say it. it didn't have to to decide the case before it. there was a right -- constitutional right to refuse medical treatment. a lot of state courts assumed that's what the supreme court meant. you have that right under the state contribution. that's the over lay. if have a federal over lay or even a state constitutional over lay. you have a right to refuse medical treatment, even life sustaining treatment. you don't lose that when you lose capacity. then artificial hydration, there are many, many bases that established that is medical

treatment, like a ventilator that can be removed. where the variation comes in is in state statues that establish what the burden of proof need to be with respect to what the patient wanted, or, you know, who the surrogate would be, whether you need court approval, those kinds of things. that's where it's going to differ. >> so, oregon's so-called suicide line. how does that play in? >> well, before i said that we -- the law has pretty much compartmentalized and said that youth -- we have referendum that allow laws to get a prescription from a doctor for a lethal medication if they are terminally ill. so i believe in oregon, it's

less than six months to live. terri schiavo wouldn't have qualified. with respect to how oregon's statute related. even if florida had a statute like that because she wasn't terminally ill. she wasn't dying. >> if her feeding tubes hadn't been removed, chances are she would still be in the nursing home. >> absolutely. absolutely. people in that state can live with good nursing home care with live for decades. she did. she lived for 15. but you could live for 30. >> do you address in your book if that ever happens to me, making life-and-death decisions after terri schiavo, the issue of quality of life and slippery slope? in a sense that i think we have

-- we like to say that we can't make quality of life decisions for others. and i think there's value in trying to hold to that. but what that leaves us with in situation like terri schiavo is just what she would have wanted. and we don't really know what she would have wanted. the evidence is really very, very thin with respect to what she should have wanted. we have to go to something. what are we going to go to? well, i think we have to be careful about making quality of life decisions, i think you can when you have that bright line of consciousness and no consciousness. and not just no consciousness, but no possibility of ever having consciousness again. i mean terri schiavo had a brain -- c.t. scan in 1996 that showed that most of her brain tissue had been replaced with spinal fluid. so the miracle wasn't going to happen. and there has been no evidence

of consciousness for 15 years, by people who really wanted to see it. and so i do think you can draw a line there. that's what disability rights advocates are concerned about. if we are going to make these quality of life decisions for others. and i can understand that concern. >> legitimate in your view, professor. >> i think those are legitimate. i think with respect to terri schiavo, i think they were misguided. you know, they wanted to lump her in with other disabled people. but other disabled people have a chance for some meaningful interpretation -- interaction with others. lumping her doesn't do a service to them, instead of kind of distinguishing. because a lot of people would say if i were in the condition of terri schiavo, i wouldn't want to live. i think we can understand that. that's different from saying that people with disabilities shouldn't live. you know, and i think we can keep that distinction clear. >> lois shepherd, where there

financial consideration in the terri schiavo case? >> not really. i don't talk -- i kind of avoid the financial decision some. because i think there's enough -- i think we need to sort through the ethics in the law. terri -- care for individuals in this condition is not that expense iive. it's really simple nursing home care. >> she had a feeding tube. she could breathe on her own. >> she could breathe on her own. right. it was not very expensive nursing home care. in her case, money did come in in one area. which is that michael schiavo on his behalf and on terri's behalf had sued her prior doctors for failing to diagnosis her as bulimic, which is what they believed caused her cardiac arrest and led to this condition.

and they ended up getting an award. and terri's award was for her benefit and was separate. that was the trustee, you know, who took care of it. if she died, michael schiavo would inherit that money. it's all relative. but it was 700,000. over time, of course, that money, you know, when we are at 2005. there's no money. you know, so that was a -- you know, one the many faults, and accusations that were going in all directions. one the things that was dishing about the case is that a lot of times the facts were so distorted because people felt so strongly about the moral position that they could distort the facts in a way to make their case stronger. and that's same to any clarity. >> as a law professor at the university of virginia and the

lawyer yourself, do you teach morality in the law? is there room for morality at the law? >> i think -- of course, there is. the law in a way is manifestations, i'm not talking so much about tax law, but a lot of our law, especially when you deal with medical ethics and those by a medical issues. those -- the laws that are created around there definitely express our morality. so the classes that i teach are all law andeth i i i and ethics. i teach disability law and ethic s. >> professor, the advancements in technology and medical care that are made annually, daily,

et cetera, will the law change? is there a chance that terri schiavo in 20 years could have been revived? that two month fetuses could survivor outside the womb. >> yes, definitely. i don't mean definitely terri schiavo could, but someone -- one the things that's interesting that was going on while this case was going on was the discovery by neurologist that there was a lot of actually misdiagnosis. i try to make that clear and walk through why. but -- but there's been little research accept in the last few years. little research on these patients. and so what would happen is someone would have a traumatic incident and end up in a coma and then a merge into maybe a vegetative state.

not permanent yet. it hadn't been long enough for it to be permanent. but they were moved to a nursing home. you know, insurance said no need for another neurological exam. you know, they were -- you know, not given the kind of intent of observation or treatment attempts. and so they were, you know, the misdiagnosis rate from a few years ago, hopefully it's getting better. this is from 2005 was excited to be like 30 or 40%. which is very high. what were they misdiagnosed? what was the new diagnosis? probably a minimally conscious. which means they had some consciousness. before we were talking about the bright line to stop the slope. minimal consciousness. where does that go? does that go with permanent vegetative state or more like someone who has a profound disability. that's where i think a lot of the tough questions are going to

have to be asked in the future. as you discover more about -- some people do have some consciousness. certainly they shouldn't be ignored; right? we should try to help them. but what does that mean with respect to what people's wishes are with respect to treatment. if they had said, for example, in advance directive, that you don't want to continue living -- i want life had prolonging procedures withdrawn if i'm a permanent vegetative state. they are not technically in that state. they don't have much more. i don't know if you remember the videos of terri schiavo. they were showing videos all the time on tv. she appeared with her eyes to follow a balloon across the room. there was another video that she appeared to respond to her mother. we know from an autopsy that she was blind. yes. these were moments -- these were homes taken from four hours of

video tape. but what if she had -- what if she had been able to follow the balloon across the room with her eyes? she would not have been permanently unconscious or in a permanent vegetative state. she would have been in a minimally conscious state, and the law has no idea how to handle that. it doesn't touch it. we don't know. there are going to be a lot of questions as technology or science or knowledge increases. we are going to have to figure out how to do that. do we go with someone wishes? someone that can be clear they don't want to live in that condition, does that mean we don't feed them by hand? what does that mean? what if they say if i'm ever in a minimally conscious state, don't feed me by hand. they don't need technology. do we have to honor that or not?

those are the questions that aren't as easy to answer. >> you are also at virginia's medical school. >> right. >> when you teach the course in law school or medical school, when you teach the terri schiavo's case, what's the discussion like? do you teach it differently at each school? >> that's a good question. i think the discussion just varies so much. that i don't know if i can make -- draw a big distinctions between what goes on at the law school and medical school. i think law school, law students are very much autonomy, autonomy, you know? >> is it more cut and dry? >> i don't think more cut and dry. but very interested in people's rights, you know? and that's the go to. i mean lawyers and law students

will go to people's rights. she has a right not to have this. and the medical students will be more, i think, see it not just in terms of rights or not as quickly in terms of rights. medical students have a tendency to want you to tell them what the answer is though. on the legal side. doctors i think generally too they would prefer the law would tell them what to do. because these are tough questions. i mean it's not clear that there is a right answer where you can feel very comfortable that you've come up with the right answer. and so sometimes i think the medical students, you know, just want the law to, you know, be clear and tell them what to do. often it can't. and then the last, i'd say tend to be about rights. and you have to kind of push them with respect to some of the nuance, you know? for example, the minimally conscious patient.

does it really mean you are not going to try to feed that person? what if they, you know, seem like they are looking around for food? right? are you going to still insist they have a right? because ten years ago they signed some piece of paper that says if i'm ever in this condition, i don't want you to do that. you know? >> have we changed generally as a nation our philosophy about extending life? or do we have a philosophy? >> i don't know if we have a philosophy. i know, you know, from the '70s where it was hard to get approval for treatment. you know, we are past that stage. what i hear doctors say now, it's not ann that they are the ones who are pushing for let's keep trying. you know, and the family says no, she wouldn't want this.

it's often kind of flipped. so now what doctors see more are families saying they want more -- they want you to keep doing this. and i think that's because we have taken -- we have handled the other cases. it's not that families want more and more and more. it's that they are much more understanding and more agreement is reached between doctors and families when to stop. there's not as much agreement when there's still some possibility of some benefit; right? so i don't know -- i know in recent with the health care reform, you know, there's concern about whether we would restrict some treatment. >> end of life, especially. >> that's right. to me that's concerning. you know, and the health care h- let me make clear, there's no depth panels and never did.

there was no bill ever on the table with death panel. but when you have limited health care resources, and we do now. you know, and we will in the future. you know, you have to figure out everyone is not going to get everything. and today people don't get everything. but it's the uninsured that don't get. you know, if everybody becomed insured, then what won't -- i mean still everybody can't get everything. someone is not going to get something. i think looking at the end of life as a place to try to cut huge expenses is a misstep. there are often expenses there. but often it's in retrospect that we know it was the end of life. if you look at the tallies of expenses the last, you know, three months of life or, you know, that's -- now we know that. but at the time, there might have been an opportunity to save these individuals.

and so i think we have to be really careful about that. >> what do you interview for if that ever happens to me? >> you know, i didn't interview anybody. at the time i -- the schindlers had written a book, michael schiavo had written a book. i did meet judge guerrier once. he didn't want to talk about the case. instead i took the public sources. because so much had been written and the schindler provided so many interviews and michael schiavo had provided interviews, there was vast amounts of material. in a way i felt like enough of their privacy had been violated. you know, i felt very much that terri schiavo's violated, the video tapes on her on tv constantly. i also felt like michael schiavo

and the schindlers had been taken advantage of in a way by people that wanted to prove a point. more the schindler's than michael schiavo. because political forces, you know, were able to find doctors that gave them false hope. and there are -- at some point there must have been extreme pressure. there was no longer private. it was kind of out of their hands. even though they were trying to use the sources of all of these right-to-life groups and politicians who were in their favor, at some time time -- at e point you feel like they were on their own course. you know, that they were swept away. so i ended up having sympathy really for everybody in the case. >> is it fair to say it is a personal book because you say

"if that ever happens to me." >> i wouldn't say so. there are at times i do express personal opinions about the case or about what i would want. but that's more in a way of just sharing and being open and transparent. instead, the title really comes from that's how people talk. you know, if that ever happens to me i want this or this or that. and one the things also though that i talk about near the end of the book especially is that we like to say if that happens to me, i want this and that. but, you know, it's not all about me. that's one the things that i think that the law in it's push towards regular in addition of autonomy and people who want to say this was all about terri's choice. when i said, there was very little evidence about what terri would choose. it wasn't just about terri. it was about a lot of people. you know, in these cases, there

are -- there's more than one person involved, and in some cases, i think we do need to take into account what the family or the surrogate, what their interest are in addition to what the person is. so, for example, i was telling you what about a minimally conscious person. and there's this case. the case of michael martin who suffered a traumatic accident and ended up in a minimally conscious state. actually, he was kind of minimally conscious. he could do some -- more than minimally conscious if you can -- i hope i get this right, a scientist could know better. if you can use two objects, if you can consistently answer questions or use two objects appropriately, like if you can bring a cup to your mouth. doesn't matter that you could actually, you know, or a comb to your hair. i mean if you can show that kind of action. okay? then you are said to have a

merge. michael martin may have been more than minnally conscious. his wife said he would never want to live and be in the feeding tube. and in the testimony, she says he and i had a lot of considerations -- conversations if that ever happened to him, what he could want. and it was pretty intolerant of people with disabilities or would were dependent. which, you know, is a little concerning if we are going to respect his wishes and his wishes are all based on intolerance and people with disability. it's a double thing going on there. but he said if i'm ever in a state like that, so can't take care of myself, you know, depending on others for intimate, you know, care, that kind of thing, then you better not let me live like that, or believe me i will haunt you every day for the rest of your

life. this is not trial court testimony. it ended up that the court decided that there wasn't good enough evidence that this was what he would want. you have to wonder what kind of evidence would be good enough, if it's not that. what resonates, is it fair for him to say that to his wife? is it fair for someone to say to put the burden don't even, you know, like i said, let's push it forward to people saying don't bring me a tray of food. there's got to be a limit somewhere. you know? it's not artificial nutrition and hydration. we have lumped that in. but somewhere there are a limit. permanent vegetative state, we have that pretty clearly figured out. minnally conscious, hand feed, those are questions where we have to say this is the only thing that matters that the personal was really clear and wrote it down.

how do we deal with the person that we have now what doesn't seem to be very connected? you know, i don't want to say they are a different person. i don't believe that. how do we care for that person and respect that person now? it seems to me it's rather than just saying i have that piece of paper from years ago that says you wouldn't want this. >> what was the resolution of the martin case? >> the court said the feeding tube couldn't be removed because his wishes were not clear enough. which is surprises. i'm troubled by the case for a number of reasons, but with respect to the courts reasoning, i'm troubled because the evidence was quite clear. and so instead, it's something else. because if they were doing a pure autonomy, you know, basis, the evidence is pretty good he wouldn't want this. so something else is stopping the cord.

and what is it? is it a concern about his -- the current person's best interest. taking care of living people who are here in front of you that are very disabled. you know? but the court didn't have a way to articulate that and figure out what to do with it? the law is autonomy. but your proof wasn't good enough. that's what i said the big challenges for the future. >> so, lois shepherd, your conclusion in "if that ever happens to me" is to raise more questions? >> in a way. i mean i do -- i argue for us to kind of leave behind some of the total rights based approach where it's about autonomy, or right-to-life, preservation of life, and to move instead towards respect and care. and because we think of respect and it can be about more than respecting autonomy, we can respect someone's privacy.

i think also a big part of respect is that you don't use people as objects. you don't use them as a means to other ends. and that's what, i think, the terri schiavo case really stands out as. an exemployeation -- exploitation of her. she was used by other people for political and fund raising ends. and so what i i -- one concrete solution that i argue for in the book, this might be controversial, is that i think the default rule for permanent vegetative state, no possibility of a return to consciousness, the default rule should be after a few years that we remove the feeding tube. unless we have evidence that the person would have wanted it. now the default rule is different. you have to come up in florida, it's different in different states, in florida you have to come up with clear and convincing evidence this is what she would have wanted.

even in her case, i don't know the judge determined there was clear and convincing evidence. but it wasn't really very strong. so again what's really going on here, we don't have a tool for handling the situation when we don't have clear evidence. but, you know, we've got, you know, 90% of people says they wouldn't want to live in that condition. well, 90% of people is not good enough. that's not what terri wanted; right? but we haven't, you know, again, thinking about autonomy basis for decision making isn't enough. so that's one the concrete solutions that i offer is we look at changing the default rule. >> lois shepherd is a professor at the university of virginia medical school and the university of virginia law school, and the author of this book "if that ever happens to me: making life and death decisions after terri schiavo."

she joined us here at 2011 virginia festival of the book in charlottesville, virginia. >> book tv has covered over 9,000 nonfiction authors and book since 1998 when it began with "book notes." you can watch them online at booktv.org. >> well, federal judge you denny chin rejection of the 2008 settlement, the complete online library is in question. joining us now is sarah weinman, she's the publish of marketplace. ms. weinman, can you give us a brief overview of what the google book settlement was and who are the parties involved? >> guest: sure, the google book settlement arose from an original lawsuit that was filed by the association of american publishers and the authors guild. they objected to the fact if

their view, google was scanning primarily out of print and or fan -- orphan works, those copyright statuses weren't known. they felt the wholesale scanning was infringement. they didn't like that. they sued. as it made it's way through the court, the parties decided to create what is known as the google book settlement. what that would entail is coming up with some means of giving copyright holders some monetary value for their work. and what they elected to do was to create what's known as a opt-out process. where if authors did not want their works to be scanned by google, they would write in and opt out and those who did have their work scanned by google would get about $60 per work. as it made its way through the courts, judge chin last heard about this approximately 14 months ago. and then he was confirmed to the

second court of appeals after which nobody knew exactly what was going on with the settlement. and then when the laws came in last week he rejected it, it created a wave of surprise among many party, especially in the publishing community. >> host: what was judge chin's rational? >> guest: he believed the settlement was not fair, adequate, or reasonable. he felt the numerous objections that were lodged by about 6,800, as well as 500 other parties were substantialive enough to rule that the way the settlement was created contravened current copyright law and that there was perhaps a better way to do it. in his view, he thought the majority of the objections would be mull if id instead of an opt-out process, using an opt-in process where copyright holders could say, no, i want to be part of the settlement, instead of assuming that unless you opt out

that you are automatically in. he didn't like that, and he felt that this was not a good way of doing it. the other portion that i've addressed earlier related to orphan works. and he felt that the google book settlement could not adequately address this. instead, this was a matter that could be taken up by congress. >> sarah weinman, during this entire legal process, google has been scans books into it's system. what happens to those books? >> guest: that's a very good question. in fact, because the settlement has been rejected, no one really knows what the next move will be. there is supposed to be a status meeting in court on april 25th at 4:30 at which time, i guess, the parties are going to state their claims as to why they should come up with a revised settlement. that's what the aap, and ag are both on record as saying, and google will have to figure out exactly what they want.

there are multiple ways of looking at it. some commentators say that this actually hurts google because, you know, this puts their scanning ability in doubt. other commentators say that, no, this is, in fact, is fine. because in another separate program, which is the creation of google ebooks, google is already scanning books in the copyright with various permissions. you can go to google ebook site and download for a price any ebook that's available for sale. go to various retailers that are affiliated with the bookstore and do it that way. they do it through a partner program where publishers and authors as well have opted in order to make the books available for sale. there's some rational by implementing the program, this is perhaps a model for what the google books settlement should

be. the other thing it puts into limbo, the settlement was supposed to create what's known as the google ebook rights. google publishers spent 12 and $15 million already in getting it up and running. now that's in limbo. how can you have a rights registry for a settlement that doesn't entirely exist. so it remaining to be scene. will the aap and the ag relaunch their lawsuit? will other parties litigate? will google want to continue the suit? i have a feeling we'll know more when the status meeting happens on april 25th. >> host: what was google's reaction and american association of publishing reaction to judge chin's suggestion that they use an opt-in system? >> guest: both the aap and ag were understandably disappointed that the settlement was not approved. both parties seem to express some optimism that they could find a way into the settlement. like, for example, mcmillan

ceo, john sergeant who wanted a statement on behalf of the aap initially said they are prepared that a publish plaintiff to enter into a narrow settlement, and they hope other parties will do as well. scott who's the president of the ag, he said along the lines of, you know, regardless of what the outcome of discussions are, readers want access to unavailable works, authors need every market that they can get. there has to be a way to make some kind of settlement happen to make these works available. and so they hope that they can, in fact, arrive at a settlement. with respect to google, they were as i said kind of disappointed. but they essentially said they hope to be able to continue their scanning work and make as many books available. so essential will be we think it's disappointed, but cautious optimism seems to be raining the

day. >> what about google's competitors, amazon, microsoft, what was their reaction? >> to the best of my knowledge, i think the reactions were mostly lodged with in court documents. it from what i understand though, they were certainly pleased that the settlement was not approved because each of those parties were certainly the majority of the party did lodge objections with the court. amazon, for example, had essentially said if you give google the unfair advantage, how is it good for copyright? that was another big issue of judge chin. which is it's a good idea to have a digital library to have the works scanned. should google be the decision maker and the entity that decides how it's scanned, what is scanned, which books are essentially made available? and i think in judge chin's opinion, he felt very

uncomfortable that one entity, one corporation could have that much power and unfair advantage over any other corporate entity or public entity. >> sarah weinman, recently in the "new york times," robert darton wrote that the decision is a victory for the public good but insisted quote we should not abandon google's dream in making all of the books in the world available to everyone. we should build a digital public library that would provide free of charge to readers. is there any viability to that? has anyone -- >> sounds like a wonderful idea. the only entity that has stepped up is google. especially with the current economic state of play, the priority for a digital public library that wasn't already in progress i suspect is not the highest of priorities. already look at the money that's

been spent on the right the alone. or in a best case scenario taken up. who will it be taken up by? as a result, google with the tremendous market cap that they have were really one the other corporations, or only entity, public or private that had the clout and muscle to be able to make this happen. ultimately, that was why a settlement was a good idea. they recognize there is value in the work that google did. they wanted to at least get something off of the ground and that could be built on and built on. will the library system will able to come together for a nonprofit entity when they are facing such massive cutbacks at a state and federal level? i'm not entirely certain. so even though there's disappointment and cautious optimism about reviving the settlement, there's also

understandable skepticism that this can happen. so some people are looking at it from a win/win. i'm looking at it as more of a neutral, potentially bright los, i suppose if something doesn't move forward. >> does judge, or will judge chin continue to have a role in this issue? >> from what i understand, he will not. especially now that highway -- he has moved op to the second court of appeals. this was one the last outstanding cases on his docket. the 14 months that it took in the publish circle seems long. in light of the issue that is were raised, it makes sense in hindsight. then the issue becomes who will take this up. will it have to be litigated from scratch, will it be heard again? are there other court case that is may factor into how and what kind of potential outcome is reached at a later date? will it drag on for years? we