First, this case has boiled down to Michael Schiavo’s testimony that it was Terri Schiavo’s wish not to be put on life-prolonging technologies, including feeding tubes.
He and his attorney said Terri made it clear years ago that she would not want to live in such a condition — even though she never made a living will. They said she once made the comment to her best friend after seeing a movie in which a character was in such a state. “She said, ‘No tubes for me,’ ” Michael Schiavo said.
Wouldn’t that mean he was actually acting counter to her wishes for over 8 years?
In fact, it wasn’t until the settlement money from the original lawsuit was paid, that Michael Schiavo had a DNR placed in Terri’s medical chart. But if is contention is that this was her pre-injury wishes… why did he not object to the initial insertion of the tubes shortly after the injury?
Third, despite the fact that courts have ordered the feeding tubes removed pursuant to the questionable wishes as relayed by Michael, why does that include surrounding the Hospice with armed guards and prevention of the parents from taking in their own food and water to supply to their daughter?
Even if the court is acting in a manner so as to follow her alleged wishes not to have life-prolonging technology, how on earth does this include preventing regular food and water from being given to her?