Sorry for using the word "duped", another synonym would've been better.
I too saw those same videos, thus know what you're referring to since I initially thought they were proof she was rational. They were indeed powerful, and gave the impression of cognitive ability. In fact, they were so compelling, that even politicians were driven to enact legislation and declarations, including medical diagnosis, that she was rational.
Despite my fervent hope Terri was cognitive, I later learned of the circumstances behind those videos - they were only a few minutes of dozens of hours. I was especially shaken when learning Terri was always like that, moving, laughing, opening her eyes, moaning. I then saw medical reports where the court-appointed guardians and doctors claimed she never, not once, responded in any cognitive way, regardless of how much or how long the stimuli was.
How could this be? I saw the videos of her "looking" at the balloon and smiling when "seeing" her mother. I then found out those video clips were highly edited out of hours of visitations where Terri showed no awareness at all.
I then re-examined those same video clips and was disturbed by what I saw. It was obvious they were STAGED. Terri wasn't looking at the balloon, she was moving her eyes and head the way she normally does and they moved the balloon to follow her eyes. Her mother had to hold her head in both hands and put her face right in front of Terri's to make Terri "recognize" her. If she didn't do it, Terri would've just kept on shaking her head the way she normally did. The voices of her family on those clips, when listened to carefully, were "leading" statements - they provided their own interpretation of what Terri was doing. If the sound is turned off and only a visual observation is made; one's conclusions are very different.
I then saw other clips where, despite their best efforts, Terri showed no recognition of them or what they were doing. Her father was so exasperated at her unresponsiveness that her started poking her on her forehead and nearly yelling in her face.
After re-examining the entire issue, I then became very ANGRY at Terri's parents. I was angry at being duped - I believed them and their claims. I thought Terri was rational and only couldn't communicate verbally. But the facts were clearly on Michael's side, which is why he kept on winning the lawsuits against him. They made their own daughter a spectacle, and for what? To make themselves famous or to save the life of their daughter?
The problem with us humans is we all want to go to heaven but we're not willing to die. Sure Terri could be kept alive for many years to come by having a feeding tube inserted directly into her stomach. But is this *artificial* life support or "forced feeding" moral? Is it desirous even in cases where it is impossible for the person to regain consciousness?
Why is it moral to "pull the plug" on hopeless cases in the emergency room but it is immoral when done in a hospice to Terri? Make no mistake, both are the cessation of "artificial" life support. Having a feeding tube surgically inserted into a person's stomach is every bit as "artificial" as a heart-lung machine.
The duration of survival after the cessation of artificial life support is besides the point. In other words, it doesn't matter if a person dies one minute after artificial life support is withdrawn or if he or she lingers for one or two weeks. One cannot be deemed moral and the other immoral because any temporal marker delineating the border of the two is purely subjective (i.e., it is illogical to claim if a person survives for less than 24 hours after life support is withdrawn, the death is moral, but if it takes more than 1 day it suddenly becomes immoral). Likewise the cause of the final death. It makes no difference if the person finally dies from lack of oxygen or lack of nutrients. Death is the great equalizer for us all.
Lastly and to reiterate, Terri died from a withdrawal of an *artificial* life support and, as the brain autopsy proved beyond doubt, was absolutely and utterly incapable of regaining consciousness. We are now at the point medically where we have the capability to indefinitely postpone final death for those in PVS by artificial means. Sure, some may say Terri would've died eventually, perhaps in 20 years or 40 years. But 20 and 40 years from now medical science will be much more advanced, and will be able to extend life even further.
The question now becomes, "Should we and do we have the right to resist God's will?" Like it or not, people like Terri could've only lives that long in the West during our modern age. Anywhere and anytime else would've had her dying shortly after her collapse. God made our bodies mortal with death being inevitable. Do we have the right to indefinitely keep people from returning to him?
Edward you state the facts so much better than I can. What really upset me was when the Operation Rescue founder Randal Terry came into the picture. Here was a guy sending children with symbolic glasses of water for Teri only to be sent back or arrested by the police. First If she got one these glasses of water she would have drowned since she was not capable to swallow. The real low point came when Randal was making outrageous claims that she was trying to say: "I want to live" and when he played the so called recording of this statement it was just Terri moaning.