No, I believe you are incorrect. Judge Greer did not substitute his judgment for that of the husband. Rather, he decided that the husband could properly make that decision. If tonight, the husband had (what I suspect you would think was) a "Damascus Road experience" and decided to continue food and water, Judge Greer's order would not interfere.
Your real objection here is to the decision-maker not the decision. You (and others here) don't think the husband should be the one to make the decision (because you don't like him, suspect him of ulterior motives, etc). Those, however, are precisely the matters Judge Greer has ruled upon. He has now ruled that the hospitals, etc must follow the instructions of the husband which he (Judge Greer) and the appellate judges have approved.
My argument is simply that the husband's instructions, once the evidence against him has been reviewed and found wanting, should be respected.
Good grief, you're not well!!!!
It begs many other questions!!!!
Actually, that is not true either. I object to anyone- a judge, a spouse, or anyone else decreeing that another human being is to be starved to death. Even our death penalty cases involve quick and painless death. I am going to go find the source of the statement I made before that Judge Greer has forbidden Terri to be fed by mouth or by feeding tube. We do not permit this to be done to animals in our society! My biggest problem with the entire case is that Terri has been sentenced to starve to death because she has become inconvenient. That is not only grossly wrong, it has huge implications for our society and it's values.
In a ruling on March 7, 2005, Judge Greer denied the Schindlers appeal to be able to feed Terri by mouth in the event that the tube was removed. Judge Greer ruled that feeding her by mouth would be "experimental" and denied the request. I would post the court ruling here but it is a PDF and is a scanned version that is not able to be copied.