"Life sustaining care" being water and food, you mean?
What you seem to be trying to say is: Because the judge believed MS and ruled in his favor, it must be true that Terri absolutely wanted water and food taken away from her for the purpose of being slowly tortured to death.
Putting aside for the moment the fact that this flies in the face of common sense, we are left with a yes/no question: "Is what the judge decided right?"
You would immediately say, "Yes, what he decided is right." (Such faith, in one judge!)
What I think most pro-Life conservatives are saying is, "Well, we don't know. There's a 50% chance the answer is 'yes' and a 50% chance the answer is 'no.' Certainly there's been a lot of testimony, etc. from both sides as to what she wanted, but how does any of that prove 'truth' beyond a doubt since Terri isn't able to tell us herself? Would it be 'humane' to forcibly dehydrate and starve to death a woman whose true wishes we probably will never know? No. Are there good reasons to doubt MS's 'guardianship'? Yes. Are her parents and siblings willing and able to care for her instead of MS? Yes. Seems like erring on the side of Life is more than reasonable here. So the answer is, 'No, what the judge decided is not right. Her basic essentials of life, water and food, should not be taken away.'"
Make sense?
Sure does, especially considering that if just 1 juror has doubts in a death penalty case, the person LIVES!
That is the 'extreme' measure that's taken to insure a possible injustice does not occur. THIS IS SO VERY SIMPLE! WHEN IN DOUBT, ERR ON THE SIDE OF LIFE!
What I mean is that there is alot of sound and fury about a lot of issues that mean absolutely nothing in the case IF what she wanted was cessation of life-sustaining care.
I don't know if that's what she wanted or not. What I DO know is that those who made the decision - including the hated Judge Greer and those who reviewed him, some exhaustively [editorial comment: those who claim that the appeals court simply "rubberstamped" Greer have either not read their decisions or cannot comprehend them]- had far MORE information than anyone on FreeRepublic has about her wishes, and far MORE ACCURATE information than anyone here has on the topic. And that those who sit around saying ad nauseum "the court got it wrong" as if it were some undeniable fact were not there, did not hear a single witness testify, and don't know whether they were credible or not. Hell, the majority of folks here still believe Dr. Hammesfahr is a "Nobel Prize nominee." Even Hannity believes it - or he is a scary, scary liar.
And on the issue of "err on the side of life." Where there is a real, legitimate question, I see the point. Where a bunch of hacks and charlatans want to use the media to try and create a legitimate question, I don't. If it is what she wanted, "erring on the side of life" is terribly unfair and cruel to both her and her family.
Even a living will does not establish this...
Most of the time we work with what we have.