>There is no evidence that is what Terri expressed.
Courts have repeatedly found that she did express exactly that. This is from a WSJ opinion piece by Daniel Henninger arguing that while the court decisions are legally correct, Michael Schaivo is morally culpable for not turning Terri over to her parents.
>The U.S. Supreme Court declined yesterday to intervene in the
>Schiavo case. The original court decision, the basis and cause for
>all that we have witnessed the past several weeks, was rendered in
>February 2000 in Pinellas County Circuit Court by Judge George W.
>Greer.
>
>It is true that Judge Greer has ruled against Terri Schiavo's
>parents, the Schindlers, many times. But by my count, in the five
>years from the original circuit court decision, the rulings against
>them include the following:
>
>Florida's appeals court: eight times; the Florida Supreme Court:
>five times; U.S. federal courts: five times; the U.S. Supreme Court:
>three times.
>
>This is a lot of judges. Some of the opinions are long discourses
>combing back through the details of the case. It is difficult for me
>to believe that these are all "liberal" judges intent on "killing"
>Terri Schiavo.
>
>* * *
>
>For the record, let us examine the basis for Judge Greer's original
>decision to withhold artificial life support.
>
>Judge Greer decided to pursue what Terri's wishes were and said he
>was guided by a Florida Supreme Court case called Guardianship of
>Estelle M. Browning. It set three tests, one of which is that "the
>evidence of the patient's oral declaration is reliable."
>
>"This is the issue before the court, "Judge Greer wrote. "All of the
>other collateral issues [such as the beliefs of family concerning
>end-of-life decisions] truly are not relevant to the issue which the
>court must decide."
>
>Judge Greer then cited testimony taken from Michael Schiavo's
>brother and sister-in-law, who said Terri had said, "I don't want to
>be kept alive on a machine" and several similar statements. Judge
>Greer said this "rises to the level of clear and convincing evidence
>to this court."
>
>These are the trial court's findings of fact, and in our system all
>subsequent appeals courts give great deference to these original
>findings. Several lengthy appeals court rulings also cited Terri's
>"oral" declarations. This is the reason we are hearing so much now
>about living wills and the like.
>
>This doesn't make it any easier to accept the trial court's
>decision. Depriving the Schindlers of the chance to minister to
>their child on the notion that she blurted this "oral will" to her
>in-laws is absurd and repellant (surely many Democrats railing
>against the Republican Congress's anti-federal intervention would at
>least agree that Terri belongs with her willing parents). But
>"wrong" decisions occur constantly. Judges go home every night
>disagreeing with the decisions of juries, which the judge may
>believe has found the guilty innocent or wrongly sent the innocent
>to prison. The standard for setting aside these wrong decisions is
>very, very high.
>
>As to Michael Schiavo's status as guardian, it was not unassailable,
>but nor was it obviously insupportable. Michael Schiavo is entitled
>to the sweeping claims for his wife's desires he has been making
>from every TV screen, but the most morally reprehensible act in this
>whole drama has been his refusal to simply turn Terri over to her
>poor mother, whose connection to her child-like daughter is more
>authentic and earned than anything that existed between Terri and
>Michael Schiavo.