Nice try ... the ‘closest family member’ was living with and raising a child with another female yet the Florida greerghoul refused to remove the adulterous husband from control over Terri’s life. You strike me as the type who thinks that’s just peachy. Says a lot about you and nothing about the case you fail to comprehend.
Whether he did was living with this other person in the beginning or not does not matter. He did and still maintained control over Terri which is probably a conflict of interest. He should have relinquished control. I do have a question though, how can you expect an immoral person to make a moral decision?
I comprehend that this was a difficult and controversial case, influenced by particular religious beliefs and legal opinions - both of which being not always the best way to solve a problem.
Our medical technology is developing to the point of keeping a great many brain injured, etc. patients alive for extended periods of time. The consideration here is that the cost of doing this will prevent medical care from being available to those who could use it more practically. How do you decide who rates the excessive cost of staying alive with no normal life activity and who gets healed and returns to a normal productive life. At some point that decision will have to be made. The more the government gets involved in this, the more socialized medicine will result. If this is what you want, Hillary is your candidate. Try comprehending that.