What Ludicrous Means

In the words of George Felos, the attorney for Michael Schiavo and his right to kill lawsuit, the reinsertion of Terri's feeding tube would be "a horrific intrusion upon Mrs. Schiavo's personal liberty," which may cause one to surmise that this George Felos means the removal of the feeding tube was and is somehow the upholding of Terri's Schindler-Schiavo's personal liberties.

What is wrong with thinking like this? Did Terri ask for this painful death to be inflicted on her? Can anyone be sure that she actually did say to Michael over a cup of coffee casually that she would not want to be kept alive if...? And what exactly did she mean when she said that, did she mean respirator? Did she mean paralyze? Did she mean brain-damaged? How can this judge be sure beyond a reasonable doubt that the conversation even occurred? Shouldn't and wouldn't Terri's personal liberties have been honored by giving her the benefit of the doubt since she cannot speak for herself? Especially in light of the timetable by which Michael Schiavo brought this lawsuit about? How in the world can a judge honor Michael Schiavo as a person caring about Terri's personal liberties with the evidence before him of this case documenting Michael's attitude as well as his shabby treatment of Terri? Where the heck are the judges who have eyes to see and ears to hear? How does something like this happen in my country? It is absolutely cruel and unusual punishment for Terri, for no reason; or worse, via faulty reasoning.