My friend, this is the crux of the problem in this case. Michael has PRESUMED to know what TERRI WANTS, and FELOS says he is a mind reader and got it that way, and the JUDGE, who is blind, well, no one knows where he is getting his opinion.
Michael's first co-adulterer(that we know of) was subpoenaed and deposed and gave a statement (even though hearsay) that Michael told her (only a couple of years after the accident) that "He didn't know what to do. He and Terri never talked about it. They were young and never expected anything like this so it hadn't come up." (I am paraphrasing because it is late and I am not taking the time to go find the transcript).
It would appear Michael truly has no more of an inkling about what Terri really wants than you do with your hypothetical sister.
So, in that case, WHY should I THE JUDGE be allowed to have food and water kept from her until she slowly starves to death?
Right, and you've presumed what I want for my "hypothetical sister". Boy, your hypocrisy is astounding.