"Your link has about 4,000 links. As I don't have the time to read them all, DO YOU HAVE A POINT?"
Hmmm...the first point I can think of in reading your response is there is much more to this case than people quipping back and forth without doing a great deal of research.
I saw you asking for facts from people and I gave a link that gives many facts.
You can read the links - or not - it's up to you.
There are many issues that converge here....what is the vegative state? Is it an exact science? Is it easy to misdiagnose?
This site is not very reassuring that the world's top experts can agree on terms (notice the section dealing with the "minimally conscious" state)
http://www.comarecovery.org/artman/publish/ReportOnTheVegetativeState.shtml
Another issue? The first trial concerning Michael's charge of malpractice.
Do you realize that in order to win that trial he had to make the exact OPPOSITE arguments concerning Terri's condition than he made later when he fought for her death?
The link I gave you should allow you to compare the arguments made at both trials.
Another issue....federal hospice law. Clearly violated in this case. As Michael argued in the malpractice trial - Terri was not terminal - that's why he said he needed money for her care and for her therapy (enough for a normal life span)
http://www.hospicepatients.org/law.html
And these are just a few troubling issues - among many- about this case.
But if you don't care to look through the info - then don't.
Yes. And if we were arguing constitutional issues, my response linking to the Federalist Papers would be helpful to you?
"There are many issues that converge here ..."
But of course. I asked you to pick one. You didn't.
"what is the vegative state? Is it an exact science?"
Are you still arguing that Terri wasn't in a PVS, even after the autopsy? Or are you simply musing?
"Do you realize that in order to win that trial he had to make the exact OPPOSITE arguments concerning Terri's condition than he made later when he fought for her death?"
Michael's arguments changed because Terri's condition changed. The lawsuit was settled in 1993. Five years later, Michael requested the court to make a determination as to what Terri would want.
"Another issue....federal hospice law. Clearly violated in this case."
Clearly violated? I think not.
No, Terri was not terminal. Yes, under those conditions she would not qualify. BUT, as soon as Judge Greer ordered the feeding tube removed, she qualified as a terminal patient (with, what, three weeks to live?).
It was only at that point that she was transferred to the hospice.
This is how we debate at FR. You state your fanatical right-to-life propaganda, I correct you with the facts.