The next question which was raised to importance was when there was no such statement and there existed conflicting interest between the guardians of the patient then whose say would hold importance, that of the spouse or the parents?
Along with these two questions, when the media got active a third conflict arose, regarding the rights of the disabled, whether their condition could be misconstrued to be an accent against pro life treatment? The hype was addressed by the then President of the US by passing a bipartisan Bill via which he had invalidated the ruling of the state judge by passing the matter to the federal courts. The reason why this was done was because it was felt by the Senate and the House of Representatives who had passed the Bill that the matter involved Terri’s Constitutional rights.1
The biggest conflict which came into being was also regarding the case being a right to die case or the disability rights case! But life cannot be charted into black and white words, and that’s what public opinion forced the courts to consider-ethical questions. Every person has the right to choose against medical treatment, against any sort of bodily intrusion. Then there is the right to life and personal liberty in contrast to the state’s right of preserving health and its duty to not allow people to commit suicide. This is called the duty of the state to maintain the sanctity of life.
To add to this debate, many argued that the basic provision of food and water should not be removed as it is not covered within the ambit of medical treatment and as such law regarding the medical perspective could not guide removal of pipes which ensured regular basic nutrition. The third issue that was raised was whether a doctor is capable to decide on the issue about a miraculous breakthrough in a patient’s condition, especially when the same is steady if not improving. On removal of medicines which reduce