I am not arguing that Greer broke any laws. But please stop pretending that Greer had no choice but to come this conclusion.
He could have come to a different conclusion, if he wished to, he didn't wish to.
First of all, the proxy must be "available, willing, or competent to act". He could have found the conflict of interest making him "incompetent".
Further more, "a proxy's decision to withhold or withdraw life-prolonging procedures must be supported by clear and convincing evidence that the decision would have been the one the patient would have chosen had the patient been competent or, if there is no indication of what the patient would have chosen, that the decision is in the patient's best interest."
Greer decided that it was in her best interest to be withheld nourishment.
Further more, "a proxy's decision to withhold or withdraw life-prolonging procedures must be supported by clear and convincing evidence that the decision would have been the one the patient would have chosen had the patient been competent or, if there is no indication of what the patient would have chosen, that the decision is in the patient's best interest."
Yes, the judge ruled on the basis of I think 5 witnesses 3 of them from the husband, and Terri's sister and brother in law. I don't know who the others were. Should the judge have considered not accepting this? Sure, it is the judge's job to consider! But the other side did not have any witnesses either way and the people who testified were under oath and he found them credible. In fact as a civil proceding the minimum burden of proof evidence was met so the judge ruled as he did. Not so hard to accept from the outside looking in if one is reasonable.