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.
Thanks for your answer...very good points. At most, Terri may have made an offhand comment, and it's likely Michael is making it up. The law that supports this nonsense needs to be repealed. Food and hydration should only be removed with an advanced directive...that is specific as to starvation/hydration. It is very disheartening that death row convicts have more appeals and rights and sympathy than people like Terri. I hope I have not been rude, I don't mean to be.
There is a big difference between being taken off a ventilator and allowed to start breathing on one's one or not, and having food and water withheld. Perhaps if Michael were to allow oral feeding, the situations might be somewhat analagous, but he refused to even have someone put a damp sponge to Terri's lips. Even Christ was allowed that.
Had Terri said in 1991 "...and if the legislature ever decides to allow starvation, do that too.", and if the evidence that she said it was incontrovertible, then making the law retroactive would be reasonable. But changing the law so as to reinterpret her intent is not.
I agree with you! How many of us thought about dying at that age?
Dog Gone - WHAT evidence has her spouse given? He has only SAID that she "wouldn't want to live like that" as far as I know.