It's a red herring, a total straw man, to talk about his relationship with this other woman because if that relationship is needed to justify the do-gooders taking away Mrs. Schiavo's choice, then blocking the choice was unjustified in the first place.
What rights have the do gooders prevented Terri from enjoying? The right to be starved? The point is that no Living Will exists. Years after the evnt occured Michael stated that she expressed a wish that she not have heroic preventative measures.
First of all, Micahels assertions are suspect. Second providing sustenance is not heroic measures. If that was true than I am hero for giving my family food to eat.
Michaels subsequent actions appear to 1) use the award $ for other than purpose is was provided. IE: to provide proper medical and rehabilitive care to Terri. Second he has chosen to retain guardianship when he has another woman and children. He has persistantly tried to get Terris life terminated. He has prevented visitors and good medical care. Does not appear that he has her goood wishes at heart.
Why should he wish her to be starved? Maybe he did the original dmage. I do not know. I know that many people would prefer an inconvient spouse to just die. He could divorce her and her parents have stated they will take up the guardianship.
It seems to be the situation that a state guardian should have been appointed to safeguard Terri's interests. That has been prevented by Michael and Judge Greeer.
This case stinks to high heaven.
That relationship was not NEEDED to justify anything, but it only adds fuel to the fire that for years Michael has NOT been interested in trying to do ANYTHING in Terri's best interest. If he had been interested in what was best for Terri, he would have lovingly provided for the best of care, including treating UTI's when she got them, including routine dental care, and many other things. People deserve fresh air, man!