The history of the case is that her husband and parents where in agreement for the first long years after her braindamage.
When the husband finally gave up - and acknowledged the fact that the she no longer existed as a person, he approached the courts and asked them to rule if she should be kept alive.
In the following trial the husband represented the case against keeping her alive, and the parents the case against. The court ruled that she should not be kept alive.
It is this court ruling that ultimately caused her feeding to be removed.
So her husband has no say in this anymore. If he divorced her and the guardianship was transfered on her parents the ruling would still stand.
Furthermore. In PVS you can still track objects with your eyes, and display emotional responsen such as Terry does. But you only do it sometimes and generally display such responses at random.
In one of the court cases the court viewed all 4 1/2 hours of recordings of Terry and decided that what looked responsive in the 40 seconds snippets displayed on her parents website was not the norm, but seemed to be random occurences.
This is the same diagnosis that most of the physicians who have actually examined her came to. Furthermore her CAT scan show most of highe brain to be missing.
The 14 affadavits supplied in the latest motion is from people who have never seen her, or only seen the small snippets displayed on her parents website.
So to sum it up.
The courts has allready, on several occasions decided the case on its merits. The courts have found that the medical evidence is not in question.
Her husbands interest in this is to see what he sees as her last will carried through, an oppinion he shares with the impartial court.
/Soren
™ Version 4.2