[PleaseNoMore]

No she did not err on the side of death. She did not have conflicting medical opinions before her as MS has before him. There was ONE opinion. Dr. Daniel Hucks Follis ( sp? ) of Pinehurst, NC, at the time one of the most popular and trusted neurologists here, told her, in no uncertain terms, that Chuck was "gone". Had she had conflicting medical opinions she would have chosen to keep him on life support, indefinately. Her decision was based upon lack of knowledge. MS's do not seem to be based upon lack of knowledge. They seem to be based upon lack of compassion.

[Pan_Yans Wife]

Where has it been stated that doctors gave him conflicting opinions? I have never seen a statement to that effect, like Dr. X told him that Dr. Z was wrong, and Terri could recover?

Because if your only source for that is the courtroom testimony, that the conflict resides between the expert witnesses that are HIRED to work for the both sides, then this doesn't really apply. Because both sides should be disregarded (per your narrow example) as having an agenda... ie, to prove the counsels' case.