As far as I can tell, this is an end-of-life care bill. Why would it apply to Terri as she's not even ill?
I believe that there are parts to that bill
Good point. Terri is NOT at the end of her life, just disabled.
The end of life statutes are the ones being used to take Terri's life. Sen King included a feeding tube as long prolonging procedure. He had experience with his parents cancer.
The statute is faulty because it conflicts with other statutes. A person ought to be assessed to meet other criteria than just pvs because pvs is subjective depending which doctor is talking about it.
It affects anyone who is deemed terminal. I'm not sure when PVS got added to the 'terminal' definition, but the key was to get Terri labelled as PVS, therefore terminal, thus declaring this an end-of-life issue. WE all know it's not, but Felos and gang are going to argue it all the way to the grave. Hopefully they won't get a stop at the bank on the way there.