It is ambigious.
When did Michael first state that those were her wishes? Does anyone know? I am curious if it was before, during, or after the civil trial for damages.
It is speculated often that he made the claim after the civil case, does anyone know if that is factually supported. I think that would have been a key fact.
(I have to say, as one who would support anothers right to die, I am turned off from Teri's case my the many who throw false and over the top accusations at anyone who might think otherwise. The notion that Teri did actually express her wishes to her husband and that she would have not wanted this type of care - and he is fighting for what she actually wanted does not even seem to be a consideration or a possibility. I think there are many here who would not agree even if those were her wishes and are using this case to promote their own causes.)
But it doesn't interest me. I've seen the woman with my own two eyes on numerous occasions. She is not a vegetable, there is a person in there.
The husband is a scumbag for a very simple reason. He denied his own wife the tools to recover.
He has a new woman and children, he should simply take them, move on and let her blood relatives take on the resposibility of caring for her. There would be no skin off his neck, none at all.
Having said all of that, anybody that advocates the state ordering the starvation and dehydration of a human being when ambiguity abounds holds views that are simply not reconciliable with mine.
It is speculated often that he made the claim after the civil case, does anyone know if that is factually supported. I think that would have been a key fact.
Use what's left of your head, Mr. Deadhead. If it was before or during the civil case, he wouldn't have won the civil case.
Duh.