Thanks to both of you. I thought the original post was saying a new law forbidding dehydration/starvation couldn't apply to Terri because it would be ipso facto, and therefore unconstitutional. It is (IMO) unethical for Terri to be killed under a law passed after her injury (a law, IIRC, that Felos was actively involved in passing). Also, if Terri did ever mention machines/tubes-feeding tubes were not considered life support or heroic measures at that time. Do you see my problem here?
I know my comment will be mis-interpreted, but I'm hoping you will understand that I'm only addressing the timing issue with that response.
I think your second concern is simply getting too specific about a conversation which never occurred. It's incredibly unlikely that Terri ever said anything like "Don't keep me on a ventilator for 15 years, but feed me with a tube if I'm breathing on my own." Most people don't ever consider the difference.
Either she made some general assertion about being kept alive after being rendered completely disabled or she didn't. We only have the evidence from her spouse which isn't very credible after all that has transpired.
However, her parents haven't come up with any evidence that I'm aware of that disputes it, other than the assertion that Terri, as a Catholic, wouldn't have felt that way.
That's an incredibly weak argument in the courts, because we all know that Catholics don't have unanimous opinions on anything and deciding that an implication of what she should have believed as a Catholic is better evidence than what her husband testified that she said just isn't going to cut it.
I doubt whether Terri every indicated to anyone what her wishes would be in such a situation, and Michael is probably making it up. Perhaps not, but those kinds of tough issues are something a person in their mid-20s don't often consider or talk about.