I don't know that anybody has tried...... Yet.
But, you can read the law for yourself. What is the clear and convincing evidence that the proxy(Michael) has that Terri would want the feeding tube removed? Remember, by default hearsay is inadmissible. And if that can not be established, how is starving Terri to death in her best interest? She can live indefinitely if fed and hydrated and is in no apparent pain. In other words, she is not painfully dying. By allowing Michael to remove the tube without meeting the law, the Judge is breaking the law.
If that is true then wouldn't it seem obvious that her parents would have long ago brought charges. Or if not her parents then the state. After all you don't need a family member to bring charges against someone who murders someone the state will do that automatically. Or can we assume that once she it dead then thius will atuomatically happens seeing as how we are talking about something that has not occured yet.
If that is true then wouldn't it seem obvious that her parents would have long ago brought charges. Or if not her parents then the state. After all you don't need a family member to bring charges against someone who murders someone the state will do that automatically. Or can we assume that once she it dead then thius will atuomatically happens seeing as how we are talking about something that has not occured yet.
Although at this point we can safely say that attempted murder has happened 3 times which should be sufficient to have someone arrested and tried and easily convicted.
I would say that in fact the judge has not broken the law because he is still a judge and has not been arrested tried and convicted.