What's the legal rationale behind that, is it because of the number of people who testified to hearing her say it? Also, did she say it in situations that would be deemed not just saying something without fully thinking it through?
Last questions here, how do you see this precedent of euthanizing her evolving, and will this precedent set in stone that people like her are now no longer beings but property?
I can imagine saying to someone about Terry, that I don't ever want to go through what she is going through. It doesn't mean I want to be starved, it would mean I want to be kept alive.
Hopefully America will come to its senses and not allow people to starve to death. A statement with independent legal significance usually is applied to defamation or oral contract cases, where the out of court statement creates a cause of action. In this case the Court was looking to determine Terri's "wishes" and it looked for the best evidence and decided to accept the testimony of Michale Schiavo and his brother and sister in law. It also took the testimony of others who provided opposite statements of Terri's wishes. Judge Greer is determined to see Terri die and chose accordingly.