She was already dead in 1990. Her husband gave it eight years before he started actively fighting for her to be allowed to die - before that he took the doctors to court for money to keep his wife alive.
To say that he only wanted Terri to die because he had found a new love is ignorant in the extreme. It is certainly possible - but that's not your implication. Your implication is "this is what he did, period."
*shrug*
If he had simply wanted to dissolve his legal relationship, he could easily have gotten a divorce. He may even have been able to get an anullment of the marriage (depending on Florida law).
Instead he fought quite passionately for what he says she wanted. Whether she wanted to die or not, who knows? But it doesn't seem money-oriented to me, as he had already won a quite-substantial $300 000 for himself in the afforementioned case (as well as $700 000 for her care). I doubt much money was left from that 700k, given this is some 13 years later.
I hardly think his intention was to "knock off" his old wife. It seems to me he stayed married to her to retain legal guardianship and thus the fight to let her die... he retained that marriage 15 years, that speaks of a certain passion for the "right to die" cause...
The sad thing is, I cheered when I heard that a man had been arrested in North Carolina for putting a, what was it?, 350,000$ bounty on the head of Micheal Schiavo. Not because he had been arrested, but because he had put the bounty on his head. :(
One way or another, it's good that the issue has been resolved - uh, more or less.
Any reasoning for action or nonaction required some "moral input," barring that based on evidence of her wishes or guardianship. Fortunately guardianship did decide it, and in the fairest way possible next to compromise.
The law is the most decisive ethical standard we have going. Eh, though nine times out of ten, that's not saying much.
