All of these answers can be found in my post above which you said you read (Post #339?).
Your question regarding motivation for MS:
1. In 1993, Terri's doctors recommended to Michael that he remove the tube. This is done all the time in this nation.
He didn't want to do that because he thought it was cruel. He then saw his parents go through it so by 1998(?) and they had a painless time so he said ok.
But still he didn't want to be the final arbiter of this and went to the court and asked THEM to make the determination. The Courts noted in their decision he didn't have to do this and effectively weakened his own position by doing so. (I have the exact words in the link to the court decision).
#6. The Schindlers tried in the early 90's to care for their daughter and returned her to rehab shortly after because they were overwhelmed (their word). There is no reason to believe that 13 years older they are better capable of caring for Terri this time.
#7. The Schindlers testified under oath that they would be willing to see Terri undergo multiple amputations should she get diabetes from loss of circulation. They also said that no matter what she wants, they want to keep her alive.
#8. No honorable man who knows his wife is PVS is going to stand by and watch her get carved up. In my opinion.
And I will add, regardless of whether YOU believe Michael, the courts did after he testified under oath and was subject to cross examination. Standing with Terri watching a relative die who was hooked up to machines and watching a movie, she said "Don't let that happen to me." Most of us who have stood by such a bedside can relate to that. He is trying to carry out her wishes.
Regarding believing MS who courts have found credible and testified under oath and was subject to cross examination vs the internet experts:
#10. Now we have nurses and others coming out of the woodwork saying that they know Terri isn't PVS because (insert blabbering). It's amazing that they never told thsi to the Schindlers! They have written affadavits (if these people are even nurses...most of this is over the internet).
So some freepers think we should believe unsourced material over the internet but not court documents and witnesses that were subject to cross examination under oath.
Re why it's okay for me to accept internet sources:
Perhaps you have not understood my previous posts on this matter or seen them. With the exception of one newspaper article which merely re-stated what the Schindlers testified to under oath, I have relied on court transcripts and four Guardian al litem reports.
So I have not accepted unverified internet sources who are not testifying under oath, we don't even know if those people are nurses or doctors and they were not subject to cross examination.
By the way, how many court cases have you sat in on? I've seen more insanity "from the bench" than I ever dreamed possible over the last twenty years. "Renegade Judges" is an understatement!