It seems to me that by sedating her they are tacitly acknowledging that she may well suffer, right? If this is supposed to be peaceful, painless and without suffering, why is there a need for sedation?
Am I missing something? If she's "vegetative" and "unable to respond to stimuli", then why do they need to sedate her? Wouldn't sedation only make sense if she was aware and able to respond to the stimulus of starvation, i.e., severe cramping, stomach pain, muscle contractions and so on?
You are quite right! However, the judge and everyone else thinks the rest of us are brain-dead and don't understand their double-speak. Terri is aware, and they ALL know it!