There is no mention of this in the article, and I woudl certialy think it would be since it would fit perfectly in the tone.
Did you read this?
A couple of years ago, Michael Schiavo contacted Terri's parents and offered to give the balance of Terri's money over to charity. He and his attorneys used this a talking point for the media - claiming that Michael had no financial interest in Terri's death. What they neglected to mention was that that particular offer was predicated upon the Schindler's agreeing to Terri's dehydration and starvation death.
Notice the last sentence. It seems to say to a less than careful reader that, "Aha! This is the fine print that was HIDDEN!", when actually it is the main agreement.
Did everyone to that point think that Mr. Shiavo would donate the money being used to care for, and was designated to be used to care for, Mrs. Shiavo to charity and then continue her life, now at his expense? Is this what is necessary to convince some people that one is telling the truth; that they be hurt financially?
Ironically, if Mr. Shiavo does that AND IF the law pushed through by Mr. Bush named, or indicated so narrowly that it could reasonably be said to have named, this couple specifically, then that law is unconstitutional as a Bill of Attainder. This is the way I read the information on a Bill of Attainder and Bill of Pains and Penalties.
What that paragraph is saying in a seemingly carefully roundabout way, is that Michael Shiavo has said, "Ok, let her die and I'll prove my disinterest in the money by giving it all to charity."
Now, such an agreement would be very easy to enforce on Mr. Shiavo; it could be put in a written contract.
If this were actually the event that occured, why are there people here still saying that Mr. Shiavo is doing it for the money? Consider this, if the law enacted is found unconstitutional, the Schindlers lose and Terri is killed, Mr. Shiavo keeps the money, and Terri is still dead. 