For me, the problem with putting it that simple way is that it doesn't answer the critical aspect of the patient's right to have their wishes to refuse treatment honored.
I have said all along that the question of her wishes is a critical thing to discuss - was the standard high enough? I don't think so, but I'm not sure - I wasn't at trial...
But would a written directive be enough? Many here have said No. That scares me.
What if it were only 1 or 2 out of 10 family members who fought the decision? The law says any "interested parties" can intervene - does that include Randal Terri, speaking for "the interest of society to protect life"?
If her brother and sister were on Michaels side, would it still be "the state murdering an innocent girl"?
Those are important things we need to work out. Just calling it murder feels good maybe, but it keeps us from getting to the point, IMO.
(gotta run again - bbiab)
There is your doubt. That alone would have saved someone from the death penalty. Why can't you apply the same charity to Terri that you would a criminal?