Oh well. That's what the whole case has been about from the get-go. Check into the background of Felos. Look at what's happening in Holland right now. Look at German history. Explain to me, if you can, the justification for allowing other people whose conditions are similar to Terri's, but who were born that way, to live while Terri does not have that right. This whole case has been about defining Terri in such a way that she is less than human, in order to justify killing her.
That's an easy one. First, the fundamental legal premise is that the patient's wishes are to be honored. Not the spouse, not the parent, but the patient himself has the right of self-determination. Pretty nifty, pretty simple, and a downright agreeable premise.
Now, people born without cognitive ability are presumed to want to live, and the law gives them the benefot of the doubt. But adults, well, we're different. We can express a wish to be starved to death. And that is what the court found that Terri wished.
I personally think the courts that defend the Schiavo "starve her to death" outcome are full of crap. No person in their right mind would ever request or permit themselves to be starved to death. Sure, take me off the machine, nevermind the kidney dialysis, but at least feed and water me! Heck, if I had to choose a method of death, between the giving up of a basic necessity, I'd pick being left to the elements, specifically cold. It's quicker and less painful. Proabably illegal though.
Anyway, I feel better now that that's off my chest.