Reply #3: There's a big difference

[liberalhistorian]

between the two. His mother was dying and had absolutely NO chance of survival, so he did the right thing and let her die peacefully.

But, in the case of his daughter, it's a different story. Her husband won a million-dollar settlement so that he could ostensibly use the money to care for Terry. He then suddenly "remembered", after winning the money, that she had said she wouldn't want to live that way. The doctors at the time said she might benefit from therapy and other treatment, but he refused to allow her to have anything at all, insisting that she would just want to die. Of course, he would have had to have spent some of the settlement money for any therapy and/or treatment, and it's obvious he didn't want to do that.

He became involved with someone else and had a child with her in 1998 (she's now pregnant again), which is when he really began to fight to starve Terry to death. A growing family needs a lot of cash, you know, and maybe the girlfriend wanted to get her hands on some of it as well. He would not even allow Terry's family to visit her without his permission, and since he was the spouse, he held all the cards. If he wanted Terry to starve to death so that he could then have all the money, well, then, there's nothing much her family could do about it. Her family suggested that, since he didn't want to care for her anymore, he could divorce Terry, go on with his life the way he was already, and let them take over her care. But if he divorced her, he wouldn't get hardly any of the settlement money, so that was out of the question to him. I cannot imagine my child's spouse wanting her starved to death because he wanted her money, and me, as the person's own parent for God's sake, not being able to do anything about it. That is just plain WRONG.

So, you see, there's quite a bit of difference between the two situations.