That is not true. There are court decisions that reflect the evidence that Greer admitted into testimony, before the court ruled on what Terri's wishes are. You are corrrect that Terri herself made no writing regarding her wishes, and that is why testimonial evidence had to be taken, with the object of determining her wishes. That factual inquiry (which we can never know for sure) was, IMO, predetermined by the court. That is, as long as a ew people submitted credible evidence that could be spun as Terri wanting to die, that would do.
As an aside, just to show how urgently the deck is pushed against Terri's life, one piece of the evidence was a conversation that Terri had with a friend, where they discussed a mutual friend that had decided to terminate life support for a newborn. Terri noted that in the same circumstance, she would have made the same choice. Now, to me ... that inquiry has zero relevance to the question of what Terri would do for herself. Plus, as you read the testimony, you note a dearth of details about the exact circumstances of the deths that Terri witnessed. Ther is no doubt, none of the deaths she withnessed involved PVS, and all were "life support" related, in the way that normal people take the term "life support."
The legal error in this case is Greer's "finding," a legal term that means conclusion of fact, that Terri wished to die.
So if it was clear that Terri wanted to be starved to death under these circumstances, then that would be more in line with the intent of the legislature adding "food and water" to the definition of life sustaining measures?