So rather than show some evidence and then impugn my character for questioning it, you think it better to impugn my character as justification for not having to show anything?
FYI, although one definition for "plausible" is "likely", in common usage the term's meaning falls somewhere between "conceivable" and "likely". More notably, although a hypothesis could not be considered "likely" without supporting evidence, all that is necessary for a hypothesis may be considered "plausible" is that it be consistent with known evidence; specific evidence in support is not necessary.
Returning to the original issue, though, is there any evidence whatsoever that this woman is PVS? Even if you think the standards of evidence I would have employed in the Terri case were unreasonable, I hope you don't think it unreasonable to require at least something.
Apparently the judge has ordered that three doctors examine her. She could be in a coma. She could be in a PVS. She has a feeding tube. She's not conscious.