Since when does an innocent person have to prove they want to live and deserve to live. It was never proven that Terri wanted to be starved and dehydrated to death, nor that she deserved such a fate. There was a preponderance of evidence to the contrary. You lying about it, Judge Greer lying about it, and any other liar lying about it, doesn't change the facts.
The court ruled there was clear and convincing evidence that it was NOT her wish to be kept alive under those circumstances. Since you apparently disagree, then it is incumbent upon you to provide substantive evidence that this is wrong.
It was never proven that Terri wanted to be starved and dehydrated to death, nor that she deserved such a fate.
The courts obviously disagreed.
There was a preponderance of evidence to the contrary.
What 'evidence'?
The court found clear and convincing evidence that she did not want to live under those circumstances. You claim a 'preponderance of evidence' that she DID want to live. What is your evidence?