[Robert A Cook PE]

Look at HOW they certify, and HOW they check and verify that the dying person is receiving (has received before) the proper care.

Here, ONLY ONE MAN has declared the death sentence be carried out. One man has declared himself to be guardian, judge, jury, doctor, therapist, and appeals court .... and the sole witness to the relevent testimony.

And, in fact, there is credible evidence that same man is the prepetrator of the assault that placed Terri in this condition.

Without his unsupported word (8 years later) that she said she did not want an artificial breathing tube (irrelevent, since this is a feeding tube - she'd breathing normally on her own!) he has no case at all for killing her.

By the way, the Catholic church usually prefers to let its dying members get Holy Communion.

[Deep_6]

Re:
"Here, ONLY ONE MAN has declared the death sentence be carried out.
One man has declared himself to be guardian, judge, jury, doctor, therapist, 
and appeals court .... and the sole witness to the relevent testimony."

One what?

I strongly suggest you stop reading the rhetoric of the bleeding
hearts and read instead the history of the case according to the
documentation accepted by the court.

The issue of Terri's future is not easy, nor careless. If you're
a parent or married, you would place yourself in either the
position of her husband or parents. It is between them, that
the conflict is, not between groups of medical professionals.

The evidence shows that Terri's cerebral cortex is deteriorated
to the point that it can no longer support it's purpose. It leaves
Terri with nothing more than involuntary movements. That
was the conclusion of every physician that has examined her
and provided that testimony to the court. Three times the
request was made to remove Terri from that life support
system, and three times her family managed to convince the
court that more time was needed. 13 years! Is it long enough?

I suggest you read how the clergy feels regarding lengthy
and non-productive life support systems.

But I would more strongly suggest you read all the court's
findings; all the admissible evidence, rather than base your
opinion on the rhetoric of the believers of hearsay.

Thanks.