Fair enough - though my opinion is that people ought to be able to work this out for themselves, save any PROOF of wrongdoing - and thusly don't need the government to "do for us"
And by proof, I mean incontrovertable, valid proof - not conjecture based on opinion.
Main point here - before the regular flame crew shows up to jerk their knees - the Shindlers didn't like what was going on, and got the courts involved to solve a family dispute. I'm not comfortable with that.
To me, it's very similar to 2000 - the Democrats didn't like the way things were going - so they got the courts involved. Were any of us comfortable with that? You can talk about it being "more important", but legally it's no different.
IIRC, Mike is the one that petitioned the court in the very first place. He had to, because the doctors won't ordinarily (short of a mistake) cause natural death by starvation unless the paperwork is in order. It is true, however, that the Schindlers opposed Mike at the hearing.
Not a great analogy, but some building or use regulations require that neighbors be given notice of intent, and an opportunity to object. THe person with the proposed building or use initiates the process.
I'm not comfortable with that.
I think it's okay that there is some form of legal check on terminating basic care. What is the alternative, dueling?