I can not believe that there is not a two step test here. For the sake of argument, say Terri said she would not want to live like this. Ok, agreed. 2nd test: Has the patient ever made it known that she not only would not want to live like this but that she also made it known that she would want to STARVE to death. I have heard many people say they would "not want to live like that" followed by "put a bullet in my head" or "put a pillow over my head" etc. - the point being "quick & painless (at least
compared to starving to death over a period of several weeks). How does anyone make the case that "she would not want to live like this" therefore "I want to starve to death". Are they not mutually exclusive arguments/statements ????????
I'm not an attorney but I have done labor arbitrations etc., and I know this is what I would ask of anyone bringing this case to me
regardless of the other issues. Stipulate the "don't want to live" but where is the evidence that "I want to die like this". If you agree
that there is a point here please get it out there - this woman does not have adequate representation. And NO, I'm not saying the inverse here - just trying to find a legal point to stop this murder. Keep the faith,
I do not want to be kept on real artificial support after a reasonable time has been allowed to give me a chance to come out of it - but, by damn, I'm gonna write in my papers - DO NOT STARVE TO DEATH, YOU BAST*RDS