As I said above, the ONLY real legal issue in this case is whether she asked not to have life-sustaining care under these circumstances. If she DID, the Michael really was fighting the good fight, no matter how unlikeable the guy may be.
As far as the question of whether she asked, or not - neither you nor I will ever know enough to make any intelligent judgment on that question - and neither you nor I, AFAIK, saw those who testified on the subject under cross-examination. We don't know and we'll never know.
Cross-examination is a funny thing - a crucible for truth. For example, Dr. Hammesfahr can go on TV and let Sean puff him up 70 or 80 times about being a Nobel Prize nominee, and it sounds kinda good. But, when the guy actually gets cross-examined about whether he is a Nobel nominee, he comes off like an idiot. Read it yourself if you don't believe me.
The Court, of course, saw all these folks testify on cross.
"Life sustaining care" being water and food, you mean?
What you seem to be trying to say is: Because the judge believed MS and ruled in his favor, it must be true that Terri absolutely wanted water and food taken away from her for the purpose of being slowly tortured to death.
Putting aside for the moment the fact that this flies in the face of common sense, we are left with a yes/no question: "Is what the judge decided right?"
You would immediately say, "Yes, what he decided is right." (Such faith, in one judge!)
What I think most pro-Life conservatives are saying is, "Well, we don't know. There's a 50% chance the answer is 'yes' and a 50% chance the answer is 'no.' Certainly there's been a lot of testimony, etc. from both sides as to what she wanted, but how does any of that prove 'truth' beyond a doubt since Terri isn't able to tell us herself? Would it be 'humane' to forcibly dehydrate and starve to death a woman whose true wishes we probably will never know? No. Are there good reasons to doubt MS's 'guardianship'? Yes. Are her parents and siblings willing and able to care for her instead of MS? Yes. Seems like erring on the side of Life is more than reasonable here. So the answer is, 'No, what the judge decided is not right. Her basic essentials of life, water and food, should not be taken away.'"
Make sense?