In the absence of firm evidence of what she wanted, the immediate family (not parents) or guardian would get to make the decision, so it really doesn't legally help Terri at all. Michael's statements about her wishes add to the PR factor, but they don't really help the judge make his decision.
The fact that removal for Terri's feeding tube was filed in 1998- when food and water were NOT considered life support is VITAL to remember..
they held up the case until they could get the legislation passed in 1999....
Yes, but he sued for malpractice and asked that the monetary award be based on all the years that she would live...I forget but it may have been 44 to 50 years and he repeated his marriage vows under oath and he said that Terri was his life and I think at one point he said he wanted to be a nurse to care for Terri...but he won money and Terri won a large sum to be used for her care and rehabilitation....but when the money came, he stopped all rehabilitation and he put a DNR on her chart. He never told the jury that Terri would want to die...he said she would live for years and he wanted to care for her. I think this speaks volumes!
My mother had a DNR on her chart and she went into a coma and I told the doctor that I did not want her to die and he told me that DNR doesn't mean that they stop trying to heal her, it only means that if she died, they would not resusitate. We all need food and water.