I don't have to. The court ruled she is in that state - based on expert clinical testimony. Why should your opinion or mine or anyone's outside of the experts in that court room matter?
Actually, you do, because of this statement you made in post #116: You disagree with what I defined as a vegetative state.
What you defined is what is at issue, because you pretended that the determination of what constitutes a vegitative state was something you were somehow qualified to do yourself. Clearly you weren't and aren't. It's really not any more difficult to understand than that. The paid clinical "experts" to which you refer were opinions bought by legal sharks. Or don't you know how that game is played?
I suppose you wouldn't have objected to the 3/5 compromise or Dred Scott court decisions on the basis of your notions of "conservatism"? Gotta wonder what the "legal experts" were saying then, hmm?
May you hope that your personal fate someday is not placed at the mercy of a corrupt court system such as this situation manifests.