The problem with that is that his and his attorney's spin has been that she's essentially been brain-dead for 15 years, not 8. Why not try to pull the feeding tube 15 years ago? After all, since Schiavo claims that's what Terri would have wanted, why the wait?
As for your "reading minds" comment, isn't that essentially what the judge in this case did? Read Terri's mind via her what her husband alleged she commented, and assume that an alleged remark about ventilators meant that she would prefer to be starved to death? And as disability activists have pointed out repeatedly, even those who claim they "wouldn't want to live that way" when it comes to being disabled often change their minds if they actually do become disabled.
Why assume that he realized that from the beginning? His actions would seem consistent with a later realization that she wasn't getting better.
As for your "reading minds" comment, isn't that essentially what the judge in this case did?
In a sense, I suppose, although he had a bit more to go on that I do - we may not find the husband's testimony believable, but it does exist. Evaluating the veracity and worth of such things is pretty much why we have judges. Obviously, a lot of folks disagree with his decision, but it appears to me that the laws were followed in substantial part, and the law is how we're supposed to go about getting justice. If there was no justice in this case, then the thing to do is change the law so this outcome doesn't happen again.