""The courts have found that there was no abuse of Terri, no evidence of abuse, and that's what the medical examiner found," Felos said."
IMO, this isn't even the question. The question is a) letting a man w/virtually no evidence of his own continue on as guardian and even worse b) allow him on this flimsy evidence to euthanize her.
Even worse, "euthanize" via dehydration, et al. Basic needs which took a few weeks to take her, not a short hour or so.
We agree.
And not to mention that the recommendation of the original Guardian ad litem Pearce, was completely ignored. He stated that Michael should be removed as Terri's guardian because there was a conflict and that Michael stood to gain financially from Terri's death.
you would have prefered euthanasia by something quicker? controlled morphine OD? Lethal injection? taken out back and shot?
Actually causing someones death by direct action rather than by withholding life support (including artificial feeding) is considered as a different class of actions legaly and ethically.