Actually, sentiment has several connotations, only 1 of which is the "emotional" sentiment that you are tying to being "cold monster". Sentiment, at its core, is temporary. Principle is enduring and principle should always be a permanent and controlling. Sentiment is not virtuous, whereas being principled is. Everyone feels the sentiment, as evidence by the general passion on both sides of this issue.
But, the judge had (and has had for a long time) clear evidence that this wasn't a normal situation. Not only are there many questions still lingering about how Terri actually was originally injured, but there are documented cases of abuse of Terri.
The judge in this case has acted on his sentiments, not principles of goodness and justice. Letting an innocent woman starve to death at the hearsay of a spouse and a spouses' brother, with contrary hearsay statements from other loved ones and not allowing a review by an impartial party doesn't seem to be principled or just.
When an impartial party --Richard Pearse-- was introduced to evaluate Terri and he found that there was reason to treat Terri, that there was indeed hope for recovery (though, not a full recovery), and that pulling the plug shouldn't be done, he was "fired" by Michael. The judge upheld that.
The judge also sits on the board of this Hospice. That seems to be a conflict of interest, or at least the appearance of a conflict of interest, which as far as a judge is concerned is enough to remove themselves from the case.
Judge Greer has let all kinds of factors (i.e., sentiments) influence his decisions, none of which were principled.
And, that's my opinion (which may only last for so long, that is until a judge somewhere decides that being who I am (or what I am) is no longer a reason for me to live and decides to off me).
You may think that's a slippery-slope, but judges have been and continue to accumulate power over the citizenry. Law enforcement can and will execute a judge's order without question. And, if you can't defend yourself, you're screwed. If the government decides to take your stuff, you will put yourself in the poor house (4 times over), just trying to clear your name. Your life (or what's left of it) will be harmed.
Allowing judges to have that much power seems to be a problem to me. And, the common thread that runs through all of these judicial excesses? Sentiments; not principles.
The judge in this case has acted on the law of the State of Florida. If Floridians think it should be changed, then perhaps they should repeal the PVS statute, which instructs Greer to rule as he did.
Not only are there many questions still lingering about how Terri actually was originally injured, but there are documented cases of abuse of Terri.
You appear to believe that "documented cases" means "rumors floating around on the Internet".
Letting an innocent woman starve to death at the hearsay of a spouse and a spouses' brother, with contrary hearsay statements from other loved ones and not allowing a review by an impartial party doesn't seem to be principled or just.
Florida's PVS law calls for just such hearsay to be taken into account, in the absence of a written living will.
When an impartial party --Richard Pearse-- was introduced to evaluate Terri and he found that there was reason to treat Terri, that there was indeed hope for recovery (though, not a full recovery), and that pulling the plug shouldn't be done, he was "fired" by Michael. The judge upheld that.
Have you read any of the appellate opinions in the case? The appeals court reviewed the procedure Judge Greer adopted, whereby both sides picked two neurologists apiece, and a fifth one was chosen to be neutral. All five examined her, and Judge Greer based his decision that she was in a PVS on their reports.
The judge also sits on the board of this Hospice. That seems to be a conflict of interest, or at least the appearance of a conflict of interest, which as far as a judge is concerned is enough to remove themselves from the case.
Why? The hospice wasn't a party in the action.
Judge Greer has let all kinds of factors (i.e., sentiments) influence his decisions, none of which were principled.
Well, based on the available record, his decision was influenced by independent medical examinations, the testimony of family members, and the laws of the State of Florida. Which unprincipled factors are you referring to?