It's an argument by paradigm, not syllogism: the incidences are examples that, taken together, establish a pattern of neglect, which pattern supports the proposition that Michael's primary motives are something other than Terri's best interests. Consistent with a paradigm argument, the more examples, the stronger the case - and others have documented these meticulously.
Here's another rock on the pile: Terri could conceivably make a court appearance herself. However, her wheelchair is broken. Michael has not had it fixed. I'm not sure, but he may have even explicitly ordered it not be fixed.
Where would this stop? Suppose all she needed to survive (beyond the feeding tube] was a 'little' heart/lung machine? Suppose the machine cost $1 million? Suppose $1.95
Where does it stop, indeed? That argument - a reductio ad absurdum - can slice the other way. Where do we draw the line of personhood, with the rights and privileges enjoyed under the law? It has always been my contention that replacing a logical criteria - life is a dynamic continuum that begins at conception and ends with a natural death - with a scalar one, such as a) development, b) brain activity, c) intelligence, or d) volume of liquid one can swallow, has proven dangerous in a broader historical context. Before you respond to that, ask yourself what makes you you? Is it the cells and nerves that comprise the man known as WC on FreeRepublic? Our cells completely turn over every 10 years. There is a dynamic principle, even a divine spark, elusive, that defines us as human beings and defies all scientific inquiry. We are, and each of us is special, not measurable in our entirety by any scale but transcendent, characters in the magnificent theater of Creation.
Regarding your hypotheticals and, specifically, terminal patients: I agreed with your earlier argument about terminal cancer victims. Oat-cell lung cancer, which killed my father-in-law at age 57, kills 94% of its victims overall, and almost 100% with extensive-stage disease. Only two clinical stages exist for this devastating carcinoma. He elected to forgo chemo. That was his choice and I don't hold it against him. I may have even made the same choice, given the prognosis for this particular disease and the drastic side effects of powerful drugs like etoposide, vincristine, and cisplatin. You know even better than I the pain and tears brought by cancer, watching the one you love deeply slowly succumb, weakening day by day, week by week, vicariously dying with them each day.
Terri's case is quite different: no chemo, no ventilator. All she needs is a feeding tube. With the proper therapy, there's no reason to assume she could never be rehabilitated. The testimony of doctors favorable to her cause seems to have gotten short-shrifted - improperly weighted. Judge Greer gave a doctor with over a decade visiting Terri triannually less weight than one who visited her for 30 minutes. This is consistent with Judge Greer's pattern throughout this case (see the transcription at 607 of a Nov. 2002 ruling against evidence that could have proven harmful to Michael). What is unclear to me, though perhaps irrelevant, is whether the seed of this pattern lies in favor toward Michael or favor toward euthanasia for the disabled and the precedent it will establish; it's irrelevant because they are synonymous, but I suspect the latter.
Others are seeing this.
BTW as an interesting fact: did you know that Judge Greer is legally blind? There is a picture posted somewhere on FR of him "examining" several documents pertaining to this case. He is not wearing any glasses (presence of contacts unknown).
It's an argument by paradigm, not syllogism: the incidences are examples that, taken together, establish a pattern of neglect, which pattern supports the proposition that Michael's primary motives are something other than Terri's best interests.
That's certainly a proper form of argument, but that's not what you earlier contended. You said,
I fail to see how he can fail to see a connection between Terri's past treatment and her present condition.
There is a difference between alleging a causal connection between the instances you cite (a very difficult case to make in Terry's case) and alleging that the instances establish "...that Michael's primary motives are something other than Terri's best interests."
As previously argued, I think it impossible to contend that the trier of fact did not consider whether or not "...Michael's primary motives are something other than Terri's best interests..." Do you contend that Terry's lawyers wrongfully failed to present this evidence? That it was improperly excluded from consideration by the judge? Or merely that he failed to reach the conclusion from that evidence which you would have?
Where do we draw the line of personhood, with the rights and privileges enjoyed under the law? ... We are, and each of us is special, not measurable in our entirety by any scale but transcendent, characters in the magnificent theater of Creation.
As a Christian, I certainly agree with your latter statement, but your first question has a very statist presumtpion in there somewhere. The implication of this question is that Terry's case has something to do with a third-party actor taking some action to protect her "... rights and privileges enjoyed under the law."
That is a truly dangerous proposition. Terry's case has always been a private lawsuit between two parties, her husband and her parents, as to who was entitled to exercise decision-making power for her (since her debilitation prevents her doing it herself). The law traditionally says the husband has the right to do so unless he is disqualified for some reason. [This is based on the Biblical concept that the marital relationship displaces the primacy of the parental relationship: "... a man leaves his father and mother and unites with his wife, and they become a new family." Gen 2:24b]
My understanding is that, from the very first day of the litigation, the parents have made precisely the arguments you are now making. The husband denied those argments and the issue was joined. Unlike unstructured musings on 'public policy' and 'evolving notions of decency', our courts are particularly good at resolving conflicting claims of credibility and motivation.
Unfortunately for the (apparent) majority of those assembled here, the end result was in favor of the husband and not the parents. Now you (collectively) complain, "It wasn't fair. The wrong result was reached." But I am sure you understand that many losing parties make such arguments.
In order to prevail now, you have to establish that (i) the court improperly excluded some evidence that it should have heard which would have compelled a different result, or (ii) there was some corruption (shown by facts not innuendo) in the judge's weighing of the evidence that prevented a fiar wieghing of the evidence. The former is the typical basis for an appeal (and was tried here). The latter is very rare and difficult to establish (because it seldom exists.
Faced with the loss of all appeals and the difficult of proving some actual corruption on the part of the judge, it is tempting to formulate some new a priori principle based on "evolving notions of [concepts of the uniqueness of life]" that would require some legislature or judge to step in and, not decide between two private parties, but basically take it out of their hands.
Basically, goes the argument, the typical dispute resolution rules are fine to 'normal' disputes between private parties, but this is 'too important' (for this reason or another) and must be taken over by the state. That, of course, is precisely what is being argued in Terry's case.
But the proponents here are uncomfortable with such a straightforwardly statist argument (as they well should be) and give it some fig leaf arguments of evidenciary exclusion (typical appellate issues) and judicial corruption (hinted but never proved), but the real argument is that 'life' -- any life, all life -- is so important that the government can trump any private decision, no matter how properly arrived it, and require (well, at this point, only) a feeding tube. No, ventilators would be too much. Heart/lung machines would be way too much. Chemotherapy is out of the question (for now), but a 'mere' permanent feeding tube, that's the state's responsibility.
So this begins the endless round robin of argments that I have now rebutted on this thread for several hours last night and this morning. No, there is no Biblical basis for a a priori fear of volitional physical death which does not involve the murder of someone else. (The Biblical arguments based dried up and blew away.] No, there was no improper exclusion of relevant evidence by the trial court which would have compelled a different result. [The appellate courts were right.] No, there was no factual evidence of judicial corruption in the weighing of evidence in the dispute between the parties. (Yes, I know the judge had the same last name as one of the expert doctors.)
So we are left with the tradition liberal refuge; raw political power. Go to some legislature (Florida's did not work, so let's go to that great body of wisdom, the U.S. Congress) and get them to simply say, "new rule: every U.S. citizen (make that everyone, including illegals) henceforth has a [Congress-given] right to a permanent feeding tube." No more (for now, of course) but that will 'solve' Terry's case the way the folks here want it to come out. [I heard this morning on National Propaganda Radio that "the House of Representatives has voted for Terry Schiavo to live," for heaven's sake.]
Let's just be forthright about the arguments.
We have a private dispute about which of two parties should properly make life-care decisions for a poor woman who cannot make them for herself. The main argument is that the husband is a bad guy with ulterior motives and ought to be displaced. The courts examine the arguments minutely and at great length and conclude that there is no basis to displace him. Now, good, well-intentioned folks who don't like the result want to get some legislature to change the rules and grant some state-based right to a permanent feeding tube to every man, woman and child in America no matter what their properly designated representative might decide. A dangerous idea.