You just made my point. No, I am not for sure of Terri's wishes, therefore, we should err on the side of life.
If you think that is a dumb question to ask, maybe FR is not the place for you. Life is worthy of asking that question.
Your dumb question suggested only what method she would have preferred to end her life, but NOT if she would have chosen to live in a PVS.
It in no way validates your point of erring on the side of life.
I'm staying....you go..sw
Well, not really - the test is not whether yellowdoghunter is sure. The test is whether the evidence, as presented to the Court (as distinguished from what you may hear in a Father Pavone presser) is "clear and convincing." The trial judge found that it was. The 2nd District Court of Appeals agreed.
It is interesting that so many people believe that the judgment they make from information in the reviled media allows them to have a clearer view of the facts than those who follow rules of evidence which have been tested and refined for hundreds of years and who actually hear how some of these stories will stand up when put to the test.
It is also interesting that those who are willing to believe an alleged doctor posting on a blog - unconditionally - will take a nothing fact like an election contribution by a lawyer to a judge [if you think this isn't a staple of every judicial election, you need to have some more coffee] and try to create some huge conflict of interest over it.
It is a question of going where the facts lead, or making up your mind and finding "facts" to support that position.