Well, at least you got this one right.
The rest of your post is regurgitated propaganda which you obviously took at face value rather than taking the time to look up the truth. For example:
"other family members said that she favored continued rehabilitative efforts for even for severley brain-damaged people."
The only family member who testified that Terri would want to live under her current condition was her mother. Not "other family members". Her mother. Period.
Furthermore, under cross examination, her mother admitted that Terri must have been preteen when she made her comment. The judge, correctly, did not accept the comments of an 11-year-old as reflective of her desire.
The judge was charged by the State of Florida with finding "clear and convincing" evidence as to Terri's wishes. If Terri would want the "tubes and everything" pulled if she were in a coma, then certainly she would want them pulled if she were in a PVS. Don't give me this "but Terri wasn't in a coma crap".
Two issues were involved. 1) was she PVS and 2) was there clear and compelling evidence that she wanted her life ended. With regard to the second, we have to ask about the sufficiency of the statute and whether the judge properly applied it. With regard to the first, we have to ask about the definition of PVS and whether doctors properly diagnosed her. IMHO, the statute gives the trial judge too much discretion. He jumped through all the right judicial hoops and therefore the judge-club could do nothing but circle the wagons to guard THEIR rights. So far as PVS is concerned, it is at best a term of art and the facts are as open to multiple interpretation as the number of doctors who can be brought in, on a par with a psychiatric diagnosis.
Wasn't convincing to Michael before the money came in, though, was it? Go ahead. Give me the time line.