Nice PARTIAL recitation of history: after the court gave Terri’s adulterous husband rights to decide her treatment, the Florida legislature passed a law forbidding the kind of cruel starvation that Terri ended up enduring. And then the activist Florida Supreme Court narrowly—and quite wrongly—tossed the law out. Only then did it go to the Fed’s (courts and Congress), the part that is more famous in the history books.
People should not be starved!
Enlighten me: on what grounds did the Florida Supreme Court strike down the new law and did that court set new or existing legal precedent when it made its ruling? And, let’s suppose that you believe that Terri would have wanted to end her life given her condition, which is probably not the kind of thing that you would like to suppose but I want you to in order to answer the next question. How should Terri’s wishes have been carried out if not by withholding of food/water?