No, it's not credible, because all he recounts is a casual comment she made while hearing some news, or watching TV or something - -. While others report casual comments that go the other way. So, not only are there conflicting reports about what her opinions were, ALL the reports concern casual comments, not the kind of considered, formal statement that should form the basis of a deliberative "end of life" intent. Moreover, the husband only brought Terri's comments to light after he'd received a whopping malpractice judgement - - raising questsions about motives and accuracy. As a Florida International University law professor wrote in the Miami Herald last week, the "evidence" on which the judge based his decision was "shockingly" short of the "clear and convincing" standard that he should have employed. The prof noted that, where there isn't clear and convincing evidence -- for instance, where there is testimony about comments that go in both directions, as is the case with Terri -- then Florida law does not allow withholding of food and water. In short, the judge blew it. The lesson, as the law prof wrote, is that the legislature has to go back and make the law even more explicit by telling judges that they can't let feeding be withheld in the absense of clear specific instructions by the individual
What evidence is there that Teri wanted her parants to make this decision for her and not her husband?