Do you have something against a long affidavit by someone who has nothing to gain by telling the truth? Terri is been in solitary confinement for some 13 years now. Surly the lenght of that post pales in comparison. My apolgies if you think otherwise.
Again, you miss the point. The point is that your long affidavit (and probably many short ones as well) have been considered and the civil authorities did not believe them sufficient to dislodge the presumption that the husband was acting in the best interests of his wife.
Many here (perhaps not you, I don't know) really quarrel with the result. They simply want their judgments substituted for those of the husband on some a priori basis. That's what drew me into this discussion. The argument was that the Scriptures (which are, in my view, the dispositive Word of God) would provide another outcome. I do not believe that so. That argument appears to have been abandoned in favor of a kind of PETA-like obligation to be kind to all living things. That is pure nonsense.
Apart from that, I believe the general rule of the husband acting for the wife when she cannot, is a good one absent sufficient evidence to overturn it. Moreover, I think it is very good that we have had precisely that careful review of the sufficiency of that evidence. It has now been reviewed and found insufficient to overturn the husband's presumptive role. Now is the time to accept that determination.
So, the state of the case is that (i) the Scriptures do not compel extraordinary efforts to force feed her and (ii) the courts have carefully examined the evidence against the husband's decisions and proposed decisions and declined to displace him as decision-maker on Terry's behalf. The courts have done what they are best at and I trust that determination. The fact that RCC dogma might have compelled a different result is irrelevant.