So did you read it now? If you did - which I doubt - you would see the judge discusses testimony by her brother- and sister-in-law that she said (on separate occasions) that she would not have wanted these kinds of measures used to extend her life.
You also would have noticed the judge comments the Schindlers had a falling out with Michael after he wouldn’t give them half of his loss of consortium lawsuit award. Funny how you’ve never mentioned that.
Text required by software
What money? He didn’t get any money. He actually turned down offers of millions of dollars to trn over her care to the parents. All the money he got from her malpractice settlement went into a trust fund to take care of her care. The only money he ever spent on himself was what he used for nursing school so he could take better care of her. He never personally benefited by a dime from anything that happened, nor did he ever try to (unlike the parents).
Opposition opinions are certainly allowed. You have been allowed to continue posting, for example. So once again you are wrong.
That being said there is a difference between having a different opinion and having a fanatical point of view completely at odds with all the available evidence (which we have plenty of, despite your continuing misstatements.) That is what you have. Even that wouldn’t be so bad except that part of that involves slander a good man (Michael Shiavo) in support of some psychotic, money-grubbing attention seekers (that would be Terri’s birth family.
Yes, I can see your post is without bias and totally factual. 
We know Terri wanted Michael to make medical decisions when she was incapacitated, because she willingly entered into a legal marriage with him. What you, or her parents feel ‘should’ happen is contrary to Terri’s wishes. That is a fact, not hearsay. No one has the right to simply set aside the legal relationship conferred by marriage between two consenting adults just because they decide to live life differently than you.
I’ve heard this several times from people I know who ordinarily have good judgment and it just makes no sense. I don’t see the motivation you are ascribing to him–he already had a new partner, had a committed relationship with her and had a couple of kids. He wasn’t going to inherit tons of money if Terri died, as it was tied up in a trust for her care. If he simply wanted to move on, she wasn’t stopping him. There was no money, there was no impediment to settling down with another woman as he already had done so. She and her extended family understood and approved of their relationship.
That leaves just his commitment to Terri and his desire to keep the faith with her wishes.
Another lovely non-answer from someone who is happy to slander people.
If your opinion isn’t an “opposition opinion,” relentless stated over and over regardless of facts, then what is it?
Opinions go over better when they are of the informed variety.
This week in our local newspaper the Catholic church announced no one would ever be starved to death in one of their hospitals. The Catholics run two hospitals in my city and they are the largest hospitals we have. It went on to say if the disease or injury didn’t cause death they would continue life support.
This is basically a moral issue. In Europe there were headlines saying America was a bunch of barbarians for starving Terri. I think the act of starving someone to dead would be classified a cruel and unusual punishment.
Now before posters tell me she couldn’t feel anything, let me point out that not being in her body they wouldn’t have a clue about this. Neither would the doctors that pronounced her a vegetable, and well as those doctors who said she wasn’t.
So now let he that wants to play God step forward.
Avoiding starving someone to dead (sic) is exactly the reason why doctors should be allowed to hasten death via drugs.
So, I ask again - why aren’t we inserting feeding tubes into corpses? After all, doctors can’t know that they’re actually dead.
I just asked my parents visiting from the UK, and they said that the overwhelming feeling there was that she should have been allowed to die. I find it hard to believe that in countries like Holland with legalized euthanasia there would be a different viewpoint. It is, of course, possible that Catholic newspapers might have printed such condemnations, but I highly doubt you would find large numbers of people anywhere in Western Europe thinking the US was barbaric for allowing her to die. Unless it is for not hastening the death with drugs, that is.
Me! Do I need a d20 or 3d6?
Cite, please(other than from your rather vivid imagination). Please provide a link to European newspapers that had these headlines.
Maybe Terri wanted to play God on her own body. I never get why people who are avid believers in religion suddenly think death is a bad thing, anyway. Death happens. Shouldn’t they be happy to go on to heaven? Hell, even I, an avowed atheist, am kind of curious about what happens after death. I mean, most likely it is just blackness, but what if it is, in the immortal words of Tolkien,
“White shores, and beyond. A far green country, under a swift sunrise.”
The Catholic Church doesn’t have any legal ability to make this call. They can kick somebdoy out of their hospice if they want, but they can’t forcibly keep them there and keep thm artficially alive. If such a statement was made, it was just posturing.
If a person has no eyeballs, do you think it’s reasonable to conclude that they can’t see unless you’re “in their body?”
You still seem to be utterly insensible to the fact that this was about the right of Terri herself to refuse treatment, by the way.
Do you believe a person has the right to refuse a feeding tube, even if it means they will die? Yes or no?
And if you don’t like the fact that these people are choosing to starve themselves to death, then maybe you should advocate for giving them some more palatable (so to speak) legal options for ending their lives.
I think some of the European Press saw the starvation as “barbaric” in that it denied the patient anything more direct and immediate. They were decrying the method, not the result.
Well, SOMEBODY has to do it!
I thought Terri died in hospice care in a nursing home? Not a Catholic hospital. So not really pertinent, is it?
In the original threads about this as it was happening, I remember one of the posters talking about her father’s experience of terminal illness & refusing the feeding tube. I’ve read that terminally ill patients are often not hungry or thirsty as the body prepares to die, so it’s not quite the same as what a healthy person would experience. She described his experience as peaceful and painless. And he was conscious, not in a PVS or suffering from a traumatic brain injury so no confusion about what he experienced. Even if you reject all the evidence that Terri had no brain left to experience any feelings of any kind–which is **quite **a stretch–it still doesn’t mean that a terminally ill patient removed from a feeding tube must experience the same hunger pangs and thirst that a healthy person would feel.