I don't know if it's a majority, because I haven't tried any sort analysis like that. I have seen, and so have you, many comments that talk about the lack of therapy sessions for her, and even that her husband is trying to kill her so that she can't ever reveal how he tried to murder her.
I'm strangely neutral as to how this is resolved, perhaps because I know I'd prefer to die if I'm ever in Terry's condition. Why be a financial burden on society if I'm never going to enjoy even the simple things in life, and especially if I don't even know I'm there at all?
That's why I've had a living will for years.
On the other hand, if Terri's parents want to pick up the financial tab for keeping their daughter alive, how can anyone argue against that?
People will learn something from this case which is very important. If you don't want to be kept alive in such a situation, you should have a living will (or whatever it may be called in your jurisdiction). But, if you DO want to be kept alive, you should take the affirmative action to write that down and deliver it to more than one person.
None of this would be happening, if we only knew for sure what Terri wanted.
Here's my living will. Do not pull out the plug, do not pull out the feeding tube. I'll decide when it's time to go.