I will not waste my time with you any further.

Re your post, nothing in a short stay for a few put-the-family’s-mind-to-rest tests would in any real way interfere with the huband’s sincere wish for what is best for Ms Terri.

One of the things that you can be sure Ms Terri wants–wanted–is that her parents, sis and bro not be left hollowed out for their remaining lives.

There is one case in which the preceding paragraph could be wrong: if Ms Terri DID/DOES want her family to suffer.

Considering the bad blood between the family and the husband, the husband would have to be a saint not to have made mention of such.

If the husband is a saint, then God love him, he’ll understand and appreciate our fighting his unfortunate doppelganger for the rights of his beloved.

Thanks for the links from last nights discussion. You mention mom, well she died last year, but as to your point, she was always in complete agreement re: my dnr request, and wished the same for herself should the need arise. Some people are just that way.

And, yes, I did look at the old man’s face. I feel the utmost empathy/sympathy for him and for the mother. I am neither callous nor cold. Not that you suggested such.

But I am wondering if I have read you correctly, “if–besides issues of principle–there is any other possible explanation?”? In my non-articulate way, that is the question I was asking last night, “Could it possibly be that he is truly trying to fulfill Terri’s wishes?”

I guess I just wonder if the demonization of Michael (not without reason perhaps, i.e. your links from last night) is a sub-conscious attempt by many to cover over the fact that he may truly feel he is carrying out Terri’s wishes. And, more importantly, that they were her wishes.

The patron was just interviewed (I watched it on Fox’s Linda Vestor show), and said that the time limit on the offer is the point at which Ms Terri is irreversibly dehydrated, so, “hurry”.

The offer had been conveyed to Mr and his reps some time ago, weeks or months, so there is no doubt as to his awareness of it.

Question: Since his reputation is gone in any case, why wouldn’t he take the offer–which would free his two kids from all financial risk? Is he principled beyond price? Would it disprove his contention that the extraordinariness of his behavior throughout is due to the extraordinary zeal of Ms Terri’s wish that she not be let die in any other way–a zeal that inexplicably did not include her grabbing a pencil and piece of paper and a minute’s time to insure?

Since I’ve fallen, and am now a fully-fulminating tabloidist, am I wrong to wallow in it and wonder, wrt the husband and his circle and the turn-down of the million-dollar trade for a presumably pointless custody, if–besides issues of principle–there is any other possible explanation?