Food and water are not ordinarily considered extraordinary meeans, like respirators, heart lung machines, kidney dialysis, etc.
Hearsay is an out of court statement offered in court for the truth of the matter asserted. Every hearsay statement is heard by a witness. The fact that a person witnesses someone else's alleged statement does not transform it into non-hearsay.
The alleged statement that "I don't want to live", if offered by someone other than the declarant, to prove the person did not want to live is classic hearsay.
The verbal act doctrine I believe applies if a person has to say something to accomplish an act. I don't see that applying in the context off an alleged off hand remark.
I am not convinced this is not hearsay, without being to research it further.
"The hearsay rule excludes out-of-court assertions used to prove the truth of the facts asserted in them. Verbal acts, however, are not hearsay because they are not assertions and not adduced to prove the truth of the matter." Mueller v. Abdnor, 972 F.2d 931, 937 (8th Cir. 1992).
It appears to me that the alleged statement is hearsay because it is being used to prove that she did not want to live.
Ah, but Michael and his lawyer are MUCH TRICKIER than that, and you don't think they figured that out?
Here's what Michael testified: he and Terri were watching a movie, and she said that she wouldn't want to go through what the character in the movie went through.
So it was not a direct assertion of her wishes -- it was an indirect reflection of her state-of-mind based on her experience of watching the movie.
Providing just enough indirection to avoid the heresay objection -- and just enough proof to provide idiot Judge Greer to reach the conclusion he did.
An artful dodge, if I must say so, but not so diffucult for a psychopathological husband.