How did the reporter determine that statement of fact, that it didn't apply to Terri? For he has one secondary fact already glaringly wrong in that one sentence.
Terri wasn't taken off life support -- she was denied water and food. She was dehydrated to death.
I wondered the same thing.
In Terri’s case, too, there was no objective way for anyone, including expert doctors, to know what level of function her brain was achieving. There was no scientific or ethnical basis for starving her to death.
They still make it sound as if machines kept Terri alive.
The part of Terri’s brain that was required for conscious thought had simply died, disintegrated and been replaced with fluid. Though it’s unlikely that this had already happened way back when creepy Michael first insisted that any attempts at therapy be stopped, it was clear before her feeding tube was removed, and confirmed beyond any doubt by the autopsy.
I was personally opposed to the removal of her feeding tube for reasons that were pretty unique to her case (parents/siblings willing and able to care for her at their own expense; only concrete evidence of her wishes being her practice of the Roman Catholic faith; Michael’s claims re her oral statements to the contrary being mere hearsay from a legal standpoint and lacking credibility due to his personal life), not because I imagined that she might actually have any consciousness.