I doubt that. Everyone is personalizing this story by fitting it into their own experiences. They think of the hard decisions they had to make and feel like the reaction to this case is a condemnation of them. But this story is completely different. There were too many over-the-top factors to consider here.
There was a story in Philly about the same time as the Schiavo story. A woman went to court to keep her husband's feeding tube in place, and the children went to court against her. The feeding tube was removed because the man had expressed his wishes in writing. In that case, we knew what the man's wishes were.
Yes, most people don't put it in writing and trust their spouses to make the right decision. But, when the spouse moves on right away, collects money under the guise of caring for his wife who is expected to live a long time, but then suddenly, years later, remembers she didn't want to live that way and wants to pull the plug when he's engaged to another, it's the job of the courts to question the spouse's motives.
In this case, neither the husband or the father got to make the final devising, it was the court that found that it would have been Terri's wishes not to live in this sad circumstance.
I've read everything I possibly could about this case, and the circumstances surrounding that court raises suspicion. The first appointed guardian-ad-litem actually found against the husband, but Felos had him removed for "bias" and then had a guy who had already declared in favor of the husband appointed as GAL. (The first GAL report is online, but I deleted my Schiavo list).
The problem is, state law considers a legal spouse's testimony in these cases as solid evidence. As he was still her husband "legally", his testimony was accepted. Later, after the first GAL report, he brought in a couple people from his family to testify that they heard her make a comment, too. So, in the end, everything came down to testimony from the cheating husband and his family, together with a very clever attorney and his connections.
as I recall that Michael did not move on for years
He began dating not long afterward. He didn't settle down and have children with the first women he dated, but he did date. One of his girlfriends was even in court with him when he was suing the doctor for damages.
This would never have been a Right-To-Life issue had it not been for a rift between the father and the husband; coinciding with the time the father did not get a share of the lawsuit proceeds.
That's where the wife's family made their mistake: Obviously, they needed money to care for their daughter. They say that he told them he would use the money to buy a house where they could all live and care for Terri. That's probably how he got them to keep quiet during that trial while he was telling the court he took his marriage vows seriously and would care for her for the rest of her life.
There's a lesson there for everyone.
Great post and thanks for the insight. It seems that some here would do themselves a favor by reading that.
It's simply not about them, and it's really not about Schiavo when it comes from the NYT.
Rather, it's just another excuse for a petty political attack against Republicans, FreeRepublic, Conservatives, and the Bush family.