Here's my problem with this: Michael Schiavo is "sure" Terri is in persistent vegetative state, no awareness, doesn't respond, etc. If he is so sure, what possible difference could it make if he is with her when she dies? She won't know anyway, according to him. Yet her family, who would derive comfort from holding her as she passes from this world, are barred. Typical Michael Schiavo: it's all about him. I'd like to see a poll: who should have been with Terri when she died? The husband who is adamant that she knows nothing, feels nothing, sees nothing, is aware of nothing... or the family who believes she responds to them, who believe they can comfort her, and who believe she hears them? If Michael Schiavo is so sure Terri wasn't aware of anything, why is it so important to be there, at the cost of excluding her parents and siblings?
It is all about him.
That is why regardless of how Catherine Crier spins it, I am unimpressed with his overbearing attention in the early years after her accident.
My judgements about what Terri could and could not do were based on my experience as a nurse and reading what the other nurses said.
The same with MS's obsessive attention. It never failed, the most overbearing, demanding, particular family members always, and I mean always had a control issue. The health of the patient was always secondary to how they thought things should be done.
The ones who were overbearing as a result of helplessness could always be reasoned with. The control freaks could not.