"The courts found that Terri's husband spoke for her when it came to her desire NOT to be kept alive in a vegatative state. PERIOD."
=====
The "courts" was Judge Greer, who took the word of a biased witness, who had a conflict of interest with keeping Terri alive. Surely you couldn't have ignored all the information: MS said under oath that he didn't know what Terri wanted, and that he will spend his life tending to her, and he received a huge medical malpractice award, based on that.
THEN, seven years AFTER Terri fell into her condition, he suddenly remembered, that Terri said that she wouldn't want to live hooked up to tubes, when they were watching a movie on TV of someone who was hooked up to the respirator and other machines.
And based on this -- with NO written instructions -- you KILL an innocent person?
Murderers couldn't be convicted on this kind of evidence, but you think it's OK to do that to an innocent person?
A person who had loving parents and a family who wanted to surround her with love and take care of her?
And you should also note, that the judge didn't even order the tube removed, and let Terri live, if she could drink and swallow -- he forbade any food or water be given to Terri by any means.
Does this strike you as the right thing to do?
"Conflict of interest"???
Terri's husband sought EVERY avenue of help for Terri for 3 years, even went to school to become a nurse to care for her.
I was ONLY after he became convinced her situation was hopeless that he gave up.
Who do you people think you are judging this man?