Thank you.
I appreciate your post. It is good to know that there are some who can disagree reasonably.
I have used my right to refuse medical treatment to force my early release from the hospital to see my premature daughter (who was moved to a different facility). My brother and sister-in-law refused additional medical treatment in the hospital so that they could bring their severely impaired infant son home to give him a life, not just to sustain his life. I fully understand the importance of a person having control over whether they want or elect to receive medical care.
As an interesting note, both my preemie daughter and my now deceased nephew were tube fed, so I can also see the other side, as well.
I have never had an issue over whether Terri had a right to choose to refuse medical treatment. She did; that is unequivocable. I do, however, have a serious problem with the veracity of Michael's claims of Terri's expressed wishes, as they did not come to light until after the lawsuit was settled and a large financial sum was at stake. They were contrary to the purpose of the lawsuit, which was to secure funds for Terri's care for the rest of her life.
I also have a serious problem with this recollection being shared only by members of Michael's family (his sister and brother-in-law, I believe). It remained unspoken during the years of care prior to the lawsuit, when there was ample time to express them if Terri's progress was, as had been suggested by others, inconsequential.
Even if we disagree on what was the best course for Terri, I hope that you will agree that a reasonable person can look at the circumstances above and find them suspect. I would like to think that Michael's inlaws were being truthful in this regard, but we again return to the issue of timing. Why the long wait? I find it odd, and peculiar. Further, if we look impartially at the familial connection, they typically would not be considered disinterested persons. Conversely, the testimony of an impartial third party, such as a mutual friend or friends, would carry significant weight.
Almost everything that came afterwards, including debates about her cognitive abilities (or lack thereof), her care (or lack thereof), the processes of the court, etc., Michael's fitness as a spouse, were so much legal warfare.
As their testimony and Michael's utlimately speaks to the CORE issue of this case (Terri's expressed wishes), and directly contradicts Michael's previous actions regarding her expressed wishes, I would not have found in favor of removing Terri's tube (irregardless of her condition).
I hope this explains (without name calling, hyperbole, or hysterics) why some people who vehemently support a patient's rights were nonetheless fighting so diligently to stop the removal of Terri's tube.