Or doesn't want to die. Nobody knows. So it has to be 50/50. Even up. So anyone one on either side of the question has an equal chance of being wrong and wronging Terri.
If not, then she should not be put to death. Why is that so hard for you to understand? Do you believe a person's right to die is more important than their right to live?
I say a person has the natural and constitutional right to life. If he can survive on his own. If it's with the help of volunteers, it is a volunteer privilege.
Tell you what. You seem to know so much about statistics you should be a good gambling man. The numbers drawn in Sunday's afternoon drawing of the Illinois Lottery Pick-4 will either be 4-2-5-2 or they won't. So perhaps we should make a little wager: if the number is 4-2-5-2, I give you $150. If not, you give me $100. Since the odds are 50/50, the payout should work in your favor, right?
With the implication that if nobody volunteers to feed someone, that person should be allowed to starve. Not great, but not an unreasonable philosophy if one accepts that one person's need does not obligate anyone to fill it.
Not sure what it has to do with Terri's case, however, where there are a number of people who would volunteer their efforts on Terri's behalf if Michael would let them.
One could make a reasoned argument that Michael should not have to pay for Terri's care (at least not beyond the money awarded in court for that purpose). One could make a reasonaed argument that the government should not have to pay for Terri's care. I don't see how either of these arguments could be extended to suggest that those who want to provide for Terri's care should be forbidden from doing so.