That's why he took the case to Judge Greer in 1997 and said, effectively, "Here. You figure it out."
The judge examined the evidence, took sworn testimony, and found "clear and convincing" evidence as to Terri's wishes. Now, what part of that legal and constitutional process do you have a problem with?
Are you upset because you weren't consulted? Are you upset because the decision wasn't made by a USA Today poll?
"... Schiavo, "remembered" years after her initial collapse that that Terri ..."
Remembered? So, you're saying that he forgot what Terri told him, then suddenly remembered?
Alright, where's your proof of that? What leads you to believe that he ever forgot? You have some statement, some writing of his which supports your hypothesis (since that's all it is)? No, you don't. It's just a bunch of hypothetical bull$hit on your part. Fling it around, see what sticks.
That's what passes for debate from your side.
"There was also at least one friend of Terri who had a conversation in which Terri indicated (in regards to the Karen Ann Quinlan case) that she would WANT to be kept alive because "where there is life there is hope"
Yep. When Terri was 11 years old. Should that comment be considered valid?
The FACT is that he never mentioned it during the previous litigation where he said the exact opposite - that he needed the money to take care of Terri "IN THE STATE SHE WAS IN" for a lifetime. He needed enough money to do that. The statement that she never wanted to live like that would have been extremely damaging to his prospects of getting a lot of money during that trial. However it would have been extremely relevant in that case - yet he failed to mention it. So he either "forgot" it or did not think it would help his case for getting the money. Either way he can not during one case say she would need enough money to be taken care of for a lifetime and then turn around the next year after receiving the money and say that she would not want to be kept alive like this. Can you not see the dishonesty involved?