1. If Terry is in a persistant vegetative state with no awareness, then she isn't suffering. Killing her only is a convenience for those left behind. If she made that statement (doubtful) thinking of Michael, transferring care to her parents saves him from any responsibility. So, why not do it?
2. If she is NOT in a PVS, then why should she be killed?
It's very simple. If she is in a PVS, give care to her parents. If she is NOT in a PVS, require the husband to start tests and therapy, OR transfer guardianship to someone who will.
Precisely!
I've stated that if she's not PVS, then I am no longer conflicted and absolutely do not want this done to her (removing the feeding tube).
So far, I've seen nothing to indicate that she isn't PVS.
Several courts have found that it is not doubtful that Terri made that statement to Michael.
And I believe the reason he will not transfer custody to her parents is to spare her the gruesome lengths to which they are willing to go to keep her alive. I would expect my husband to fight my parents if I were in her situation.
When Michael formally offered to divest himself entirely of his financial interests in the guardianship estate, why didn't her parents take him up on it. And if he's in it for the money, why hasn't he accepted the offers of $10M and $1M that have been made to him by two millionnaires? I can tell you that my husband wouldn't accept that kind of $$ either, if it meant not obeying my wishes.
We will have to agree to disagree about his possible motives, and if someone has evidence that she's not PVS, the courts, judges, lawyers, and doctors involved in her care for 15 years haven't seen it.