Why in the world does the medical establishment let an adulterous spouse make the decision whether the other spouse lives or dies? Talk about a conflict of interest...particularly when there is a life insurance payment in the offing.
According to the law -- at least before the medical establishment started slip-sliding all over the place -- the ONLY window to "pull the plug" was the patient's informed choice to refuse treatment. Euthanasia is still illegal. Assisted suicide is still illegal. The patient must make the decision. If the patient is incapacitated, it goes to court and the guardian or relatives may be consulted as to the patient's wishes. (That's the stage where the heirs tell the judge that grandma couldn't wait to die and leave them her money.)
In Terri's case, the Greer Court helped Michael's lawyers fake Terri's wishes. The only testimony allowed -- and it was pathetically weak -- was from Michael, his brother, and his sister-in-law. Nothing from Terri's own family.
It is interesting that, after all the years of claiming that Terri wanted to die, Michael finally got his chance to report (under oath) what she had said about it. Which turned out to be -- nothing at all. All he could come up with was two vague sentences of a sort specifically banned as evidence in other courts.