Please cite your sources on that. The only person I've found who ever said that was her husband. No one, not her parents, not her friends, no one else that I could find heard her say that.
Rather than make the decision himself, Michael followed a procedure permitted by Florida courts by which a surrogate such as Michael can petition a court, asking the court to act as the ward's surrogate and determine what the ward would decide to do. Michael did this, and based on statements Terri made to him
and others, he took the position that Terri would not wish to continue life-prolonging measures. The Schindlers took the position that Terri would continue life-prolonging measures. Under this procedure, the trial court becomes the surrogate decision-maker, and that is what happened in this case.
The trial court in this case held a trial on the dispute. Both sides were given opportunities to present their views and the evidence supporting those views. Afterwards, the trial court determined that, even applying the "clear and convincing evidence" standard -- the highest burden of proof used in civil cases -- the evidence showed that Terri would not wish to continue life-prolonging measures.
Link
I've posted that website, I've quoted from that website so many times here. But I've learned on Free Republic that
"there are none so blind as those who will not see." Most people here refuse to acknowledge the facts of this case. And that just marginalizes their side.