I guarantee you I am as familiar with what she said to her husband as you are. I have the sense not to claim to know what she wants or said. I do know that he is her guardian and speaks for her. I am comfortable with that.You sidestepped the question.
Of course you and I are just as familiar (unless you happen to be Michael Schiavo) with what she allegedly said to her husband - he is the only one who knows whether or not she said anything, which is the whole point.
What I asked was if you were familiar with the DETAILS OF THE CASE, ie the extenuating circumstances surrounding the issue of his insistence that she would want to die.
I'd still like an answer to that original question - how much do you know about all this?
You asked about why I used the word probably. It was in reference to her wishes and what might motivate her husband. You questioned whether I knew the facts of the case due to my use of the word probably. I explained quite clearly why I would use that word. I am not in a competition about who knows more about the case. As for the central fact, we both know the same, nothing about what she may or may not have communicated to her husband. You think it is right to presume something contrary to what her husband indicates was her wishes. I chose not to make that presumption, I think it is dangerous. I see no end to where the state or third parties could question private medical decisions.