They only looked at the evidence in the eyes of one judge, who happened to be legally blind.
Thanks for the many many great posts.
Those who don't want to talk about Terri on a thread in response to an article about the Terri situation are the same ones that are anti-Terri. They got what they wanted. They would rather discuss themselves - it was always about 'them' (pre killing and, now, post killing) and never about Terri.
IMO, a 'right to die' term is used to confuse. It's a 'right to live' issue. Did Terri have a right to live?
What jury sentenced her to death? Who violated her rights? Her right for therapy with her own money, her right for sunshine, her right for stimulation, her right for a divorce from a adulterous husband, her right for a drink of water? Who violated her 'right to live' when she lived by the motto, "where there is life, there is hope? Who held her captive like some slave and then killed her when she is no longer useful in their eyes?