How do you know this? What evidence do you have that she made any statement with the intention and expectation that the act of making such statement would cause her to be fatally dehydrated?
Many people over the years have made remarks similar to what Terri is alleged to have made, under circumstances similar to those in which she is alleged to have made hers; during the 1980's, very few such people who made such statements in such circumstances did so with the intention that such statements in and of themselves could have been used to cause them to be fatally dehydrated over a period of almost two weeks. Since there was no way any type of verbal statements could be so used prior to September of 1990 (months after Terri's collapse) the notion that Terri could have intended her statements to be so used when 99% of those who made similar statements in similar circumstances did not, absent explicit evidence of Terri's intention, is preposterous.
that is not a traveler that is a rabid dog
The statements were fatally vague, even if she made the remarks. They had no resemblance to a legal contract. If Terri did indeed say, "I don't want to live this way," it is good femalese for "Michael, you are a bum. Get a steady job and treat me right." No sensible person would take it to mean, "Kill me."
What struck me about Terri's alleged comments -- and I hope any interested lawyers will check this out -- is that they were tailored to fit the exact status of Florida right-to-privacy law as it stood many years later when this was argued in court.
The window for legally withdrawing hydration and nutrition from a patient is very small and tricky. The patient may not simply ask to die -- assisted suicide is illegal. The guardian may not make medical decisions for the ward, nor may he make any decisions medically harmful to the ward. The only way to do it is for the patient to give informed consent to refusing further medical treatment, which falls under an alleged right to privacy. (Food and water were not medical treatment when it was possible for Terri to make her comments.) And this must be "clear and convincing."
I invite any lawyers to review the testimony of Scott and Joan Schiavo about what Terri supposedly said in casual conversations from ten or fifteen years earlier. See if it does not seem tailored the teensy death window of the law as it stood so many years later. Note the careful allusion to "tubes" -- as if a simple feeding tube could conjure the spectre of a patient at death's door hooked up to giant machines with IVs running every which way. Terri was not hooked up to any machines.
One other detail. Scott and Joan didn't remember these bits of conversation with Terri until they had had a personal meeting with Michael's attorney, George Felos.
Read it here: http://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/trialctorder02-00.pdf
very few such people who made such statements in such circumstances did so with the intention that such statements in and of themselves could have been used...
Then I guess such people would be intelligent enough to have a living will written out so there would be no chance of anyone misinterpreting what they said, don't you agree?
... to cause them to be fatally dehydrated over a period of almost two weeks.
Does unplugging a heart-lung machine seem quicker to you? Would that make it easier for you?
-Traveler