If you ever discover that Michael Schiavo was untruthful in his statements regarding Terri's wishes, and if it is proven that, based upon his lies, he acted out of malice and killed his wife for financial gain, would you still feel the way you do about the law that made it legal for him to do so?
Michael did not kill his wife, did he?
The Court ordered the life tube removed, they did so according to Terri's wish.
Rulings are decided on the facts presented, not those which emerge later. The legality of the ruling is not affected. Folks are fusing and muddling flawed laws, flawed rulings, and the scope of review, and the interplay of the courts, the standard of review, interlocutory rulings and final rulings, and the interplay of the courts and the legislature, and the constitutionality of how they attempt to interact. It's a mess. So it's understandable. But that doesn't change the fact of what I think is observable.