I am so happy for you that you have made your wishes well known to your family. I don't know how old you are, but just know that you also have the right to change your mind at any time about that. Lots of people do when the chips are down. That we might be ignored because of something we said 20 years ago is horrific, but as Michael noted, humanitarian that he is, it happens every day.
About Terri - the bottom line is that a non-terminally ill severely disabled woman was killed by court order. Terri was not comatose and could feel pain (she got morphine suppositories while she was being dehydrated to death). Michael's conflict of interest as her guardian is obvious to all except the ill-informed and those who just don't give a damn about disabled and old people being euthanized.
Bottom line for Michael -- he has never been put under oath about what happened to Terri in the first place. He was repeatedly on Larry King show telling different stories every time he was on. He even declared that he had no idea what Terri would have wanted, but that "this is what we want." That is, he and his girlfriend wanted to be married by a priest in the Catholic church (ahh, the irony). Michael had to be a widower and not divorced for that to happen.
Were Terri's best interests served in any of this? All I can say is that Michael can't hurt her any more. For that I guess I am grateful.
Your bias when discussing the two main characters in this situation is so subtle...
This is the last time that I state this. I do not care 'about' the character of Michael Schiavo nor do I care 'about' the position or situation of Terri Schiavo. I simply do not care. I don't want to hear about conspiracies, doctor's opinions, police reports, interviews, 'supposed' (and ridiculous I might add) 14th Amendment concerns, or anything else. Why is that so hard to understand? The issue of the morality of this case, at least according to the Constitution, should be discussed in one place alone, the legislatures of the separate and sovereign states
The only concern I have in this is the constitutionality of addressing a completely internal state affair within the federal realm. By the intent of the Framers and by everything I have read from them discussing the separation of the general government from the state governments, in no way should this have been addressed by the federal system nor should Congress have been involved. And considering how fast even the most ardent 'conservatives' in Congress dropped this issue, even those buffoons can see they overstepped their bounds.