See the 2 definitions above. I think I can summarize.
In English, "hearsay" basically means any recounting of some verbalization, by some party, made by a 2nd party or worse. Schiavo and the other Schiavos, in English, made hearsay.
In Lawese, "hearsay" means any recounting of a verbalization, by some party, made by a *3rd* party or worse (e.g., "he said she said"). Schiavo and the other Schiavos, in Lawese, did NOT make hearsay. Cuz they said they heard it from Terri herself, so that makes them 2nd parties, so they're OK, get it?
The same reasoning applies to the the Schindler's witnesses to the contrary.
What this really boils down to is one side's she-said versus another side's she-said -- a few sentences in the span of a 26-year healthy existence, inspired by a sad movie and the death of a loved one.
Which of us can say that we've never made statements that we later reconsidered, never thinking, of course, that verbalizing a passing emotion in our youth would be our eventual sentence to death by starvation in our middle age?
I'm no lawyer, but if the burden of proof for such a weighty decision as life or death rests on some fleeting remarks made in emotional turmoil (rather than repeated, unemotional opinions repeated over the course of years), prudence should dictate that these do not constitute proof of a person's wishes, either way -- except of course, as apparently in this case -- the matter had been decided in Greer's mind and any statement allegedly made to confirm that opinion would do, while any alleged statements to the contrary would not.
I'm reminded of at least one death-row inmate who insisted he wanted to be executed, only to have his life prolonged through appeals by ACLU types determined to prove he didn't really mean what he said.