If this were truly a right-to-die case, I could understand why liberals would take the position that they have. If Terri had a living will stating that she would not want a feeding tube, then I would say that her parents are wrong for trying to prevent it from being removed. But all we have as proof of Terri's wishes is the word of a man who has been living with another woman for years and has been unfaithful to his wife almost from the beginning. I just can't understand why so many people are willing to accept that Michael Schiavo is telling the truth under these circumstances.
Isn't it possible over the past 15 years that there has been much testimony and evidence brought to bear on both sides in each of the trials on this issue? And isn't it possible that we, on the outside, do not know what all this testimony and evidence is? And isn't it possible that the appellate court has reviewed the testimony and evidence as well? Simply because the courts arrived at a decision we do not like does not mean they did not do their jobs.