You know what? I don't know the answers to your questions. Frankly, I don't know who to believe on both sides. From what I've heard, they were all in collusion together when they were trying to get a malpractice settlement for money to take care of Terri. I sort of gather that all of them were guilty of making untrue remarks because in their minds, it was for Terri.
Later, after the money was awarded, things seemed to deteriorate between the two sides. My point is that none of that matters. You say she died back years ago, that her brain did. I must disagree with you. I've seen & heard enough from Terri herself to personally disagree with that statement. She responds to people, maybe on the same level my cat or dog responds to me, I don't know, only God knows what went on during the conversations in Terri's mind all this time.
You seem to have standards for life that I don't. Are you saying if a person can't feed or take care of themselves, they are not alive? That doesn't make sense to me.
There were two "awards". One was for $400,000 directly to Michael for loss of consortium. That was his to do with as he pleased. At that point he could have walked away, turned Terri over to her parents, and been $400,000 richer.
The second was for $800,000, and that money went into a trust fund for Terri's care. This trust was maintained by a third party, and withdrawals had to be approved by the judge.
Things deteriorated between Michael and her parents when they insisted on half of his $400,000.
"She responds to people, maybe on the same level my cat or dog responds to me,"
You base this on a few seconds of video, excerpted from over four hours of taping. No neurologist, even Dr. Cranford, was able to duplicate these movements.
"Are you saying if a person can't feed or take care of themselves, they are not alive? That doesn't make sense to me."
Nor to me. That's not even close to what I'm saying.