Replies

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.

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 guess the main point is that none of us know Terri's intent, if any. We do have her husband's testimony, which is suspicious, but it's the only evidence we have.

But it doesn't matter whether Michael is lying, unless Terri had specifically stated that she wanted to be kept alive in such a situation.

Michael is the guardian, and he gets to make decisions for her and we know which decision he's made. The ONLY way to defeat his wishes is to remove him as guardian. And that's the weakest part of his case and why he's fought that the hardest.

Michael is the presumptive guardian. He is her husband and that trumps parental rights in every state. In order to remove him as guardian, it's probably going to take a showing that he's incompetent, something that seems impossible under the current facts.

The folks who believe that he broke a lot of her bones before this incident could remove that guardianship if they could prove it, but that's an impossible task.

In my opinion, Michael holds the winning cards in the legal battle. Hopefully something new will transpire to change those legal odds.