She had more than three years of therapy and showed absolutely zero improvment according to her Guardian Ad Litem. Why do you people feel it is essential to lie to convince anyone of the "rightness" of your case. Do you lack confidence in your beliefs that much or are you just ignorant?
You know Dave here in NY there are loads of homes and institutions for the mentally retarded and some of them have far less mental capacity than Terri had. In your opinion if the parents decided that their life is meaningless should they through sanction of the courts be allowed to simply stop feeding them until they die?
Could you direct me to a link for that report? I've heard much to the contrary.
But regardless, I'm with Cherry, who said very succinctly in a previous post that it shouldn't matter if she is PVS or not. She was not terminally ill, she was severely brain-damaged, and we should not be in the business of killing people who don't fit our standard of quality living.
You mentioned lobbying the legislature instead of going through the court system - good point. The laws that were changed in 1999, IMO, were revised specifically to address this case and others like it that will come up in the future. The fact that Felos himself personally lobbied aggressively for those changes around the same time he took on the Schiavo case should be a red flag for everyone.
Although I must say, with Senate President Jim King being the author of those revisions to "end of life" laws, I bet efforts in the legislature would be uphill all the way. King was successful in limiting Terri's Law to one person, and it was found unconstitutional for that reason. He later said he regretted agreeing to that much, and vehemently opposed the idea of saving her life through legislation this time around.
The deck was stacked against the Schindlers from the beginning. It's no wonder things ended the way they did.
Speaking of ignorance...
Wolfson badly misused elementary logic when he wrote in his report (page 33)
Descartes addressed this in his proposition that it is our awareness, our consciousness that defines our being: "Cogito, ergo sum." This logic would imply that unless we are aware and conscious, we cease to be.
"I think, therefore, I am" in no way implies "I don't think, therefore, I am not."
The second statement is the inverse of the first, and inverse stements cannot be proven true from the truth of the original statement.
Statement: If p, then qInverse: If not p, then not q
Question. If Wolfson is not poor at logic, then whom is he attempting to deceive?