[newzjunkey]

She had due process of law. Terri the individual was effectively dead. Those videos were staged by parents who were out for revenge because the husband wouldn't split the settlement money with them. Check the time line, it wasn't until then that they turned on him. The husband did all that could be done with medical science to try to improve Terri's state. Read the autopsy. There was no Terri left, just an empty shell with no hope.

She was allowed to expire and now truly at peace.

Since she was not in need of anything except artificial means of nutrition, I think there was arguably a moral fault with removing those means. It wouldn't matter if removing such nutrition been her written wish or not, the moral dilemma would still exist. The courts (and there were multiple involved) determined her wishes under the law despite interference, protestations, propaganda, etc. If anything, she got more due process than nearly any one in similar circumstance.

The husband did not murder. He may have killed, but it wasn't murder. The moral of the story is get yourself a living will if you want to avoid the potential becoming another case like Mrs. Schiavo.

[supercat]

Terri the individual was effectively dead.

Michael claims that. The coroner noted that while severe brain damage was observed, only tests on a living patient could have determined her true condition. Note that technologies such as PET scans had advanced quite considerably since 1993, but Michael forbade their use. Why?

Check the time line, it wasn't until then that they turned on him.

First of all, Terri's parents paid the costs of Terri's rehab prior to the malpractice award. If they had sought repayment from it, I would not think it unreasonable.

More notably, Terri's parents turned on Michael because Michael started obstructing all therapy for Terri. Check the timing on that. Why do you suppose Michael would suddenly declare there's no hope for recovery, as soon as Terri's trust fund had money to see the doctors which had been earlier recommended but which Michael couldn't previously afford?

The courts (and there were multiple involved) determined her wishes under the law despite interference, protestations, propaganda, etc.

Michael went to court with his own testimony and that of his brother and other brother's sister. They were not subject to cross-examination. Because they were not effectively cross-examined at that time, it was forevermore impossible to legally challenge the findings of that court with regard to Terri's supposed wishes.

Had Michael et al. been subjected to effective cross-examination, it would have become quite apparent that the "wishes" in question were those of Michael Schiavo and George Felos, rather than those of Terri.

[bjs1779]

Those videos were staged by parents who were out for revenge because the husband wouldn't split the settlement money with them.

Sure, I see now.

[bjs1779]

Since she was not in need of anything except artificial means of nutrition, I think there was arguably a moral fault with removing those means.

The court order was 'shall remove nutrition and hydration.' That also meant 'orally' if anyone got any ideas. Did you follow the case close enough to understand that part of it?