I can't think of even one. That part was outside the law, which permits the removal of a medical device but not denial of mouth feeding. That was simply an arbitrary act of evil by George Greer. He had no authority to do it.
It was an act of malevolence.
If Michael's claim that oral feeding and hydration would have 0.00000000% chance of success were true, then the refusal to allow it would have denied Terri nothing. Further, if Michael were doing everything possible to improve Terri's condition (and if the treatments Michael was refusing would have offered no benefit, he would have been), there would be no basis for allowing the parents to inflict ineffective treatments upon Terri.
I think we would both agree that the treatments Michael was refusing would have had some significant probability of success. If, however, one were to view the testimony of Michael's "experts" in the most favorable light, and those of the Shindlers' in the least favorable light, it would be possible for a reasonable person to conclude that the proposed treatments would offer no benefit to Terri.
I don't think that a reasonable person who was familiar with all of Michael's words and deeds, or those of some of his "experts", would regard them as credible. But if one accepts them as truth, then Michael's actions may be justifiable.