Thomas wrote:
Quote:That's not the case I have read about. In the case I have read about, it was a "he said, she said" tie between her husband's version and the parents' version. The husband's version prevailed because under Florida law, he was the next of kin, and it's the next of kin who decides.
Hardly a case of "he said, she said". I think Nimh has posted extensively from the court rulings. You are free to disagree with the courts decision but don't turn it into something it wasn't. The court looked at a lot of evidence in this case. I suggest you go look at it rather than the media's flagrant disregard for that evidence. The media has an invested interest in selling itself when it comes to this case.
Several people testified as to Terri's wishes on both sides. The court looked at that testimony and made a decision based on what it felt was true and what wasn't. The court included its reasoning in its decision. The husband prevailed when it came to Terri's wishes not because he was next of kin but because the preponderance of evidence was on his side. When it came to Terri's medical condition, the husband prevailed because all credible medical evidence pointed to Terri being in PVS. Again, the court wrote extensively about why it ruled the way it did.
The ethical question of pulling a feeding tube is one thing. The legal question of evidence is something quite different. The case was decided based on the evidence. The case was appealed based on the evidence. Debra goes on and on about "lack of evidence" but she fails to provide anything to support her theory that there wasn't enough evidence.
The court used the "clear and convincing" standard that Debra demanded they had to but then she raises the bar above that because she is emotional about the case. Judge Greer wrote that the evidence was "clear and convincing". The appeals court has said there is not any evidence that the "clear and convincing" standard wasn't met.
