This supports what I just said, that there was no evidence that Terri herself wanted to die.
No, it completely contradicts what you said.
To say that it was Terri's wish because it was Michael's wish is to say that she was no more than a piece of property.
Nope, that wasn't the court's ruling. I'll quote this again:
The trial court determined, based upon clear and convincing evidence, that Theresa Schiavo was in a persistent vegetative state and that she herself would elect to forego further use of a feeding tube. This court affirmed that judgment. (Florida 2nd District Court of Appeals, March 16, 2005)
And I'm not impressed that a judge who would agree with Michael adjudicated this case. There are corrupt judges everywhere.
You don't like the outcome, so all the judges must be corrupt. I'm sure that makes sense to you.
Prior to the lawsuit, Michael was the devoted spouse who was going to school to become a nurse so that he could care for his wife in her condition. The point in bringing the suit was to provide sufficient funds to care for Terri for the rest of her life.
It was only after the lawsuit did Michael and other members of HIS FAMILY recall that Terri would not have wanted to live this way. Oddly enough, she had been "living this way" for several years before they had this collective recollection.
Now, if Michael had made the statement a few months, or even a year after Terri came into her incapacitated state and testing and therapy had made no impact, I think more people would have found it credible. Based on his own notes, Michael indicated that Terri was making progress; this was submitted as part of the journal used in the lawsuit.
If he made those wishes known before the lawsuit and had worked out something with the family to care for Terri, events would not have unfolded as they did. Granted, Michael may have received a portion of the settlement either way (he was granted a sum of $300K, if I recall correctly), but the bulk of the settlement would have gone where it was intended, to Terri's care - not to the legal battle to remove her tube.
Some folks would look at the sequence of events and call that peculiar. Some folks would find it implausible that the collective memory of Terri's supposed "expressed wishes" would only surface after the lawsuit was finalized, not during the long months of struggling preceeding the lawsuit, and this belief would only be shared by Michael and members of his immediate family.
That, I propose, is the cornerstone of distrust that many have for Michael. Others who have followed this case more closely than myself may have other reasons for distrust that are built on this cornerstone, but IMHO, this is the basis for it.
If Terri's family also believed she would not have wanted to live that way, then her tube would have been quietly removed and her name would not be part of the American dialogue, no matter her condition.
I personally have no disagreement with anyone refusing medical care, or refusing life-sustaining treatment if it means a life of such diminished capacity that the person considers ultimately unacceptable; that is the individual's right. I do, however, have a disagreement with this case, as I have trouble finding Michael's statements credible on this particular, but essentially critical, point.
This is not about whether anyone on FR would want to live like this; it is about whether Terri would have wanted to live like this. No one had a right to make that determination for her; the court was charged with gleaning what HER determination would be, if SHE could voice it.
Perhaps I am being cynical, but my opinion is this: Michael had a financial motivation to keep Terri alive through the lawsuit, as financial judgments tend to be higher if the victim in the case is living. Upon receiving the award by the court, Michael now the financial motivation to hasten her death, as her spouse, he would receive the remainder of the trust fund upon her demise; hence, the "recollection."
I also find it disconcerting that funds set aside to be used for Terri's therapeutic care were diverted to pay for attorneys to hasten her death.
Just my 2 Cents.
You said: You don't like the outcome, so all the judges must be corrupt. I'm sure that makes sense to you.
I did not say that all judges are corrupt. I said that there are corrupt judges everywhere, which is not the same. This case was just one of many where someone's rights were trampled (in this case, lethally) by a corrupt judge. Hardly a week goes by where I don't hear about some other judge(s) giving an outrageous judgement and/or imposing some new restriction on our autonomy and liberty. The recent Supreme Court decision that private property may now be confiscated by anyone who wants to develop it in the name of "the public good" is an example. May I suggest reading Mark Levin's Men in Black for a good accounting of how out-of-control the judiciary has become.
BTW, if you think that hearsay testimony was good enough evidence on which to condemn Terri Schindler to death, may you never be arrested for robbing a convenience store when the only evidence against you is the testimony of the gang members who were loitering outside the store.