So what law is it that denies a person water in this country? That was a NEW law enacted by Judge Greer.
If I'm not mistaken, the legal guardian has the right to cease all treatment to a person in this condition if the person is not capable of speaking for themselves.
Now, you may feel that the court was wrong. However, the decision was supported by competent evidence. The countervailing evidence was admitted, and it was addressed. Those who claim Terri wants to live received more "due process" than most get from the Courts, and the Courts responded to their various requests, appeals, etc. with dispatch. She had three different guardians appointed, all of whom found that Michael had provided Terri with quality care.
The disappointment / anger with the courts on this matter is rooted in the fact that the courts refused to make rulings based upon supposition, innuendo, and unfounded allegations.
For example, the whole wacky bone scan thing. Let's make a leap here - assume that the scan shows the alleged "unexplained trauma" (of course, no one here has made much of an effort to determine whether there are "explanations" - i.e. can you tell me that Terri was never in a car accident?) - tell me ONE SHRED of EVIDENCE that said trauma was inflicted by Michael. Spare me the "it must have been him" - the law doesn't countenance such. What EVIDENCE do you think could be presented to the Court on this issues?
No. The judge ordered her feeding tube removed, pursuant to an application by her husband, after two trials wherein evidence was submitted, and if legally admissible, considered, and issues of credibility were determined. You may not agree with the result, but the judge did what judges are supposed to do.