[goldstategop]

There's no evidence she wanted to die. No evidence was put forward by any one to the effect Terri wanted to be killed if she was "brain-damaged." All we have is her husband's word for it that it was her wish. Terri never expressed any view on the matter. It was wrong to take her life and I disagree strongly with the notion the value of a human life should be dependent on financial considerations.

(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)

[robertpaulsen]

"All we have is her husband's word for it that it was her wish"

Not true. Look it up.

[Spiff]

There's no evidence she wanted to die. No evidence was put forward by any one to the effect Terri wanted to be killed if she was "brain-damaged." All we have is her husband's word for it that it was her wish. Terri never expressed any view on the matter. It was wrong to take her life and I disagree strongly with the notion the value of a human life should be dependent on financial considerations.

What if she had verbally expressed that she would like to change her Will to say that all of her life insurance money and other assets be left to the family's hamster? Do you think that Mike the Murder Co-Conspirator would have brought that up in court to ensure that Terri's wishes were met? Do you think it would have even held up in court? If it's not in the Will, it's not in the Will no matter what someone claims you said.

And even if Terri had put in writing that she wanted to be killed (and she was "killed", not removed from life support and left to die of her injuries or ailment) would it have been legal, ethical, moral for someone to have killed her with a handgun? Thrown from an airplane?Dropped a grenade on the bed? I mean, her wish was to be killed, wasn't it? There's far more creative and even more humane ways than dehydrating/starving her to death, don't you think?