Courts are NEVER wrong?
Off-the-cuff-comments are NOT CLEAR and CONVINCING evidence.
That Terri was in PVS is a fact in dispute. Some doctors said she was, others said she wasn't. The last doctor to diagnose her on the fifth day of starvation/dehydration, was from the DCF, the least biased of all the doctors who saw Terri, and he diagnosed her as semi-concsious.
People on your side of the debate, have always argued your position as if Terri, after considerable thought and careful consideration, placed her wishes in writing; there were no questions as to how she came to be in her condition, (as if it happened in a car accident);all doctors were in agreement about her physical state; and her faithful husband who was not residing with another woman with whom he had two children, and having not won a malpractice law suit for over a million dollars, realized after a couple of years, that she was in the very situation she wouldn't want to live in, and lovingly and valiantly fought to obtain her wishes.
If the above were the situation, your position would have merit. However, the above was not the case. Your position, which ignored the red flags, inconsistencies and disputed facts in the matter, is completely and utterly dishonest and totally lacking in merit and judgement. Your concern about the issue is wholly and completely about your own desrie not to live in a PVS state. It was never for a tiny moment about Terri.
Furthermore, it took 7 years before anyone was concerned about the fact that Terri had a feeding tube. AND as I have repeated so often in this forum, at the time, Terri supposedly made her statements, feeding tubes were NOT an issue. Thus, it is highly unlikely she had an opinion about them let alone voiced one.
TAdams, I hope the whole WORLD sees your post. Twice.
The courts disagreed about the nature of what she said.
That Terri was in PVS is a fact in dispute.
Again, the courts disagreed with you.
and he diagnosed her as semi-concsious.
I read his 'diagnosis'. He didn't actually have any objective evidence for this, but he 'sensed' she was 'semi-conscious'. Not altogether convincing.
If the above were the situation, your position would have merit.
Actually, as you can see on this very thread, there are those who would argue just as vehemently against it, even if the situation you describe were the case.
Your position, which ignored the red flags, inconsistencies and disputed facts in the matter
I don't 'ignore' them, I just do not give them a great deal of credence.
is completely and utterly dishonest and totally lacking in merit and judgement.
Ironic, then, that I am the one accepting the rulings of the courts as legitimate.
Your concern about the issue is wholly and completely about your own desrie not to live in a PVS state. It was never for a tiny moment about Terri.
Nope. I genuinely believe that the rulings represented her wishes.
Furthermore, it took 7 years before anyone was concerned about the fact that Terri had a feeding tube.
That was, it seems, the length of time it took for MS to be convinced that her condition was unrecoverable.