Perhaps you misunderstand my argument. Weather or not he is a jerk or not is irrelevant. He is the husband. She married him. If she married a jerk, that's her fault. She gave herself to him, and did it willingly. Unless the courts can find reason to remove his legal rights, he is in charge. And what motivates him, money, lust or just plain evil, is irrelevant. SHE WILLINGLY GAVE HIM THAT RIGHT WHEN SHE MARRIED HIM.
Oh come on. How many people have been in relationships with someone who started out as wonderful, but then turned out to be psychotic or something? It happens. She didn't give him the right to just do whatever the hell he wanted with her, just because they got married.
I didn't know that in America getting married means selling yourself as chattel. Maybe it's time for me to move to Saudi Arabia.
And what if she wanted to divorce the creep but mysteriously collapsed before she could?
Blaming Terri because her "husband" wants her dead is one of the most vile things I've seen.
Pure BS.
My contention is NOT that he is a jerk or whatever. I am highly suspect of his sudden recall, after seven years of dwelling on how to keep her alive and finally assuring insurance money to do so, that she said she would have wanted to die... convieniently after having gained over a million dollars from insurance to keep her alive.
His failure to recall her wishes earlier is sufficient to disallow anything further he has to say.
His obligation is to have TERRI's wishes followed, not his own. That is, he is not "in charge" in the sense that he is free to assert his wishes in place of hers. Greer found that Michael's testimony met the standard of clear and convincing evidence that Terri, when competnet, made a decision to never accept a feed tube to extend her life.