Not really. We're not talking about someone in a wheelchair or even someone like Christopher Reeves. We're talking about someone who is, for all intents and purposes, brain dead (though she retains some very low-level autonomic brain function). If her injuries had been so bad as to require a respirator, we wouldn't even be having this discussion as everyone in her family would have long ago agreed to take her off life support.
The problem is, her parents have latched on, in their grief, to brief instances where the autonomic functions of her brain make it appear like she is responding to their voices. They disregard the other 99.99% of the time where no such coincidences occur. It is understandable that grief-stricken parents want to hold onto the false hope of these coincidental responses. However, objective observers, including a doctor who sat with TS for over 20 days, agree that any "responses" are nothing more than coincidental.
Care to show us the MIR and the EEG that prove your point?
Exactly. Slippery slope theories dictate that the courts power has just increased from removing respirators to removing food and water, quite the difference. My take on the whole affair...without a living will, the courts have NO idea what this women wanted. Insurance paid for 41 years of life support, and that's what she should get. Period.