I've heard her on the issue before. She's definitely an intelligent lady. When she starts pondering what defines the end of a human life, and why she considers a person on life support whose brain is completely dead but whose body is still alive from the neck down is not a "living person" but is in fact a "dead body", and what that implies about the beginning of a person's life, she is going to be in for quite a shock! At that point I have faith that she'll accept that she has just refuted herself. (at least partially.)"Refute me ..."
And no one can.
And I have faith her objectivity will become more consistent and she will apply the strictest of scientific proofs and refuse to base her thoughts on the artificial realities which have come about by virtue of predators' and profiteers' playing on the desperation of the dying and the hopes of their loved ones where the artificial and inhuman prolonging of life and preventing of natural death are concerned.
(Which "humanitarian" life-saving attempts are going to become extremely rare extremely soon -- save for the very rich -- now that we've milked the situation for all it's worth and stand at the threshhold of creating and cloning human life strictly for parts and other "destructive" research purposes.)
Personally, I see no point in ARTIFICIALLY prolonging life just so one can point at the ARTIFICIALLY sustained body and use it to found one's arguments about brain death ... which arguments will pave the way for using the dying as human mulch every bit as callously as we use the unborn.
I find it just as duplicitous and morally offensive as the use of ARTIFICIAL conception and the use of the inevitable "Excess" ARTIFICIALLY conceived lives as foundation for the argument that we must make "best use" of these "Excess" human lives that are fit only for the garbage otherwise.