"I believe their continuing to contest what has been established as Terri's wishes after years and years of court proceedings indicates that irrespective of how Terri's wishes were conveyed, orally or written, they would have contested them if indeed they were contrary to their own wishes"

I don't. What you are saying is that Terry's family MUST agree wih the findings as if they were the wishes of Terry, regardless of how well they may think they knew(know?) Terry themselves, and, unless they come to the acceptance of the court's decision as being the same as having been clearly written by a Terry, healthy and of sound mind, any legal contesting they do is underhanded and sinister.

Surely, whether they chose to contest it or not you can see that they might not accept the court's opinion of what Terry might have wanted with the same credence with which they might accept a living will in Terry's own hand (from her own lawyer, drafted in healthier times)?

The court's determination of what Terry might or might not have wanted is not necessarily the same thing as what Terry wanted. They did not have the advantage of talking to Terry -- that's what a living will would have done. They took their decision based on hearsay testimony. Yes, maybe enough to take the legal decision, but surely not imperically clear-cut. It may have been and it may not have been, but to disagree with their decision does not imply sinister intent.