Replies

The stories about the husband somehow causing this are not what did it for me. He probably didn't IMHO...but there's a chance I suppose.

What did it for me is this...he's moved on, got a new woman and kids. He clearly does not have the commitment and care for Terri.

Her parents do.

It will not harm him in the least to let her live and allow the parents to care for her. She is obviously not comatose or a vegetable.

Common decency would indicate that such a person be put in the hands of those who will love her and care for her.

If he will not, it hurts not a whit to let her be loved and cared for by her parents.

That he will not do this speaks to alterior motives IMHO in the issue surrounding her care and her condition. I have come to believe that he is purely involved because of legal and financial benefit to him if she dies. That's what ended up doing it for me...plus the fact that it is so obvious from the reports and videos that this woman should live. She is not a canmdidate for turning off "life supprt" in the normal sense of the word.

Just my own opinion.

Thanks for trying to keep things rational. We need a lot more of that.

What did it for me was reading how Judge Greer let the lawyers drain Terri's medical trust fund of $500,000. I see this as possible bias on Judge Greer's part. Did he do this because he had already made up his mind that he would never allow Terri to have proper care and therapy? Did he let the lawyers have it because he saw the money as useless to Terri?

There is something abominably evil about lawyers who say, 'This is for Terri, Terri wants to die', and who work to deny her all care and therapy. While at the same time they are dipping their hands into her 'cookie jar' of a medical trust fund, helping themselves to hundreds of thousands of dollars. And now that the 'cookie jar' is empty, well, now they say, she's got to go.

And apparently no one can do anything to stop this.

How is this allowed to happen?

It will not harm him in the least to let her live and allow the parents to care for her.

A very valid point Jeff, and one that I cannot pretend to explain.

I wonder if the hatred expressed has some thing to do with his desire to proceed with this. I do not know if he is standing on principle, wants to win the case regardless or is truly doing what he believes is the right thing to do.

if view of the total lack of defense for his motives I have no idea.

I would definitely like to know, as it would make a difference to me.

I cannot just go with appearances. I have seen to much character assassination in recent years and have experienced it myself.

Perhaps that is why I try to keep an open mind.

"It will not harm him in the least to let her live

That is only true if several other things are true. There's a potential chain of dependencies here to choke a horse.

* If he had any part in her "accident", he will be harmed if she lives.

* If he had any part in the "conversion" of funds intended for her rehabilitation, he will be harmed if she lives.

* If he stands to gain financially via insurance money, book or movie revenue, or otherwise, he will be harmed if she lives.

These factors -- any of them, if true -- would IMO create a motive for him to be quite motivated to assist her in not living.