Good post. I agree with everything you said...except for the last sentence. The evidence from the first trial showed that Terri would rather die than live the way she's living now. If there's other evidence from later trials that says something different, I haven't seen it.
The living will is the most important thing to learn about from this case. Everyone should have one. If a person has no living will, and can't communicate their end of life choices, then it falls to the next of kin to do that communicating for them. That is the same as it has always been.
I appreciate your reading me post thoughtfully. You are courteous to do so. Please reconsider your objection to my last sentence in light of this, which I did not write in my post: part of the reason living wills are a good idea is that drafting them forces a person to confront the possible consequences of putting one's wishes in writing. Even if Terri made all the remarks Michael Schaivo attributes to her -- and there's reason to be skeptical of Michael Schiavo -- she never made those remarks with any awareness of what they could bring about. Specifically, no one asked Terri if she would want to be cut off from food and water even though her parents would have to watch at least the physical effects of starvation and dehydration. These types of questions are wrestled with when people actually draw up living wills. That is why Terri's comments of years ago should not be controlling.
So if a person signs a living will, says he/she does not want tubes, oxygen, etc. The tube is removed, oxygen is removed, the woman sits up in the hospital bed and says "I'm hungry"
Should food be brought to her?