Terri Shiavo case - take a look at these Affidavits...

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

KarenMarie

Elite Member
Sep 20, 2003
14,372
6
81
Originally posted by: totalcommand
Originally posted by: Riprorin
Schiavo sued to provide care for Terri and the money was never used for that purpose.

I'm curious how you explain that.


Incorrect. 750,000 dollars of the money was prescribed by Michael for Terri's care.

And an additional $300,000. was awarded to him. For loss of her wages and loss of consortium. And since the judge ruled to allow him to use any of this money on lawyers and has repeatedly denied any request for him to open the books where the money was/is being spent... he has spent more money on legal fees than on her treatment.

:)

edit: and as far as him shacking with another woman... he should have divorced her if he wanted to be with someone else. There is no reason for him to have a foot in both camps. It is not fair to Terri, her famil, or the other woman. His poor kids are bastards. If one is to believe in the sanctity of marriage, then he needed to either stick by her or divorce her.... jmho.
 

totalcommand

Platinum Member
Apr 21, 2004
2,487
0
0
Originally posted by: Riprorin
Originally posted by: totalcommand
Originally posted by: Riprorin
Schiavo sued to provide care for Terri and the money was never used for that purpose.

I'm curious how you explain that.


Incorrect. 750,000 dollars of the money was prescribed by Michael for Terri's care.

Here's the accounting:

Link

In Summary, Terri has received an aggregate sum of $1,590,000.00. Nonetheless, in June of 1993, the asset balance in Terri?s account was reduced to $761, 507.50, as reported by Michael Schiavo. Schiavo's attorney, however, has sealed the accounting, which would disclose how Terri's account was depleted by approximately $828,492.50, (52%) in only 1 year and 6 months.

Who knows what happened to the money.


This is pretty interesting:

Medical Malpractice Trial ? Testimony of Michael Schiavo

November 1992 ? In a highly emotional trial, Michael Schiavo implored the jury to award money for his wife?s future medical and neurological care. Actual excerpts from the malpractice trial transcript reveal Michael Schiavo?s sworn testimony as he responded to his attorney's question. (It is important to note that Terri?s alleged wishes stating, "she wouldn?t want to live this way," are never mentioned by her husband at the 1992 malpractice trial).

Q: Why did you want to learn to be a nurse?
Michael Schiavo: Because I enjoy it and I want to learn more how to take care of Terri.

Q: You're a young man. Your life is ahead of you. When you look up the road, what do you see for yourself?
Michael Schiavo: See myself hopefully finishing school and taking care of my wife.

Q: Where do you want to take care of your wife?
Michael Schiavo: I want to bring her home.

Q: If you had the resources available to you, if you had the equipment and the people, would you do that?
Michael Schiavo: Yes, I would, in a heartbeat.

Q: How do you feel about being married to Terri now?
Michael Schiavo: I feel wonderful. She's my life and I wouldn't trade her for the world. I believe in my wedding vows.

Q: You believe in your wedding vows, what do you mean by that?
Michael Schiavo: I believe in the vows I took with my wife, through sickness, in health, for richer or poor. I married my wife because I love her and I want to spend the rest of my life with her. I'm going to do that.


Summer 1993 ? Michael Schiavo dramatically demonstrates his interpretation of what his trial testimony "taking care of," really means. Less than a year after the medical malpractice jury award, Schiavo makes his first of two attempts to end his wife?s life. Bear in mind, Michael Schiavo is the inheritor of Terri's medical fund.

Michael Schiavo, under oath, in a November 1993 deposition, admits that he knew Terri would die when he instructed Terri?s caretakers not to medicate Terri with antibiotics for a potentially fatal infection. He also instructs Terri?s caretakers "not to resuscitate" should Terri require any life saving action.

In the spirit of Riprorin, I post the following:

Is Michael really just looking for money?

I have no way to know. I know what the Schindlers say to reporters, but then I know that the Second District's first decision in the case used these words to describe Michael's care for Terri:

Theresa has been blessed with loving parents and a loving husband. Many patients in this condition would have been abandoned by friends and family within the first year. Michael has continued to care for her and to visit her all these years. He has never divorced her. He has become a professional respiratory therapist and works in a nearby hospital. As a guardian, he has always attempted to provide optimum treatment for his wife. He has been a diligent watch guard of Theresa's care, never hesitating to annoy the nursing staff in order to assure that she receives the proper treatment.

Recently, Michael received an offer of $1 million, and perhaps a second offer of $10 million, to walk away from this case and permit Terri's parents to care for her. These offers, assuming there were two, were based on a misunderstanding of the situation here. Michael lacks the power to undo the court order determining Terri's wishes and requiring the removal of her feeding tube. He did not make the decision and cannot unmake it. The court made the decision on Terri's behalf. Nonetheless, Michael apparently rejected each offer.

http://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/infopage.html
 

Drift3r

Guest
Jun 3, 2003
3,572
0
0
Originally posted by: joshw10
Nice source Rip, lol.

By the way, in case anyone is wondering, care consisting of a bed in a nursing home, a feeding tube, and diaper changes, likely costs about $10,000 a month and I have no idea if Terri requires or undergoes any other care.

I doubt insurance covers this.

The money will soon run out if it hasn't already. In a normal situation that doesn't have national attention, the tube would be pulled when the money runs out. In this case though I'm sure there's an endless line of donors.


In this case if they can beat one more pound of political brownie points out of her they will. The fact is in states like Texas if you can't pay for the care then they pull the plug/tube and you do not have a right to sue to keep your loved one alive. Then again Texas is a solid "Red State" where as Floridia is a "Swing State".
 

DaveSimmons

Elite Member
Aug 12, 2001
40,730
670
126
Originally posted by: Riprorin
Who knows what happened to the money.
So if you're right, why didn't he take the $10 million or $1 million to walk away?

Aside from your citing of some neurologists who'd like to examine the evidence for themselves (which is a natural impulse, even though it questions the competence of the court-appointed independent physician) what have you offered to support your position?

Snide innuendo against the husband, ignoring the evidence to the contrary and assuming that a number of judges have all been blind to possible ill motives.
 

Riprorin

Banned
Apr 25, 2000
9,634
0
0
There's no innuendo. Just look at what he said in the malpractice trial.

Why didn't he take the $1M?

It would make him look like more of a cad than he's already demonstrated himself to be, wouldn't it?

Maybe he's looking for a bigger pay - book, movie rights, etc.

Who knows.
 

Drift3r

Guest
Jun 3, 2003
3,572
0
0
Originally posted by: Riprorin
There's no innuendo. Just look at what he said in the malpractice trial.

Why didn't he take the $1M?

It would make him look like more of a cad than he's already demonstrated himself to be, wouldn't it?

Maybe he's looking for a bigger pay - book, movie rights, etc.

Who knows.


and maybe the GOP members of the Senate are looking toward some political grand standing. Where is your outrage against Texas's "If you can't pay then we pull the plug/tube." law ?? Why didn't the GOP Senate get to work in this case below and pass a bill when this case happened in Texas when Dubya was govener of that state ?


http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/metropolitan/3073295

http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/front/3087387
 

DaveSimmons

Elite Member
Aug 12, 2001
40,730
670
126
Originally posted by: KarenMarie
edit: and as far as him shacking with another woman... he should have divorced her if he wanted to be with someone else. There is no reason for him to have a foot in both camps. It is not fair to Terri, her famil, or the other woman. His poor kids are bastards. If one is to believe in the sanctity of marriage, then he needed to either stick by her or divorce her.... jmho.
I understand your opinion but I could only agree if doing so would not lose him any rights he had to determine her care.

I really have no way to know whether the husband is "in it for the money" despite turning down at least $1 million and possibly $10 million. Whether he is doing this to carry out her wishes (as I would in his place) or trying to spite her parents.

The evidence does seem to show the parents are at least partly delusional about her body's condition and hope for recovery, though amongst all the ad hominem innuendo Rip did manage to find at least one doctor in the country that thinks her condition is worth a tenth look.
 

Drift3r

Guest
Jun 3, 2003
3,572
0
0
Originally posted by: DaveSimmons
Originally posted by: KarenMarie
edit: and as far as him shacking with another woman... he should have divorced her if he wanted to be with someone else. There is no reason for him to have a foot in both camps. It is not fair to Terri, her famil, or the other woman. His poor kids are bastards. If one is to believe in the sanctity of marriage, then he needed to either stick by her or divorce her.... jmho.
I understand your opinion but I could only agree if doing so would not lose him any rights he had to determine her care.

I really have no way to know whether the husband is "in it for the money" despite turning down at least $1 million and possibly $10 million. Whether he is doing this to carry out her wishes (as I would in his place) or trying to spite her parents.

The evidence does seem to show the parents are at least partly delusional about her body's condition and hope for recovery, though amongst all the ad hominem innuendo Rip did manage to find at least one doctor in the country that thinks her condition is worth a tenth look.


and I can find a lawyer who knows a doctor that can say that you have whiplash after you bumbed into me after posting below you.
 

her209

No Lifer
Oct 11, 2000
56,336
11
0
Looks like Terri's parents wanted a piece of the $300,000 that was awarded in the malpractice suit.

http://www.sptimes.com/2003/11/23/Tampabay/Schiavo_clash_is_root.shtml
Schiavo clash is rooted in cash
By WILLIAM R. LEVESQUE, Times Staff Writer
Published November 23, 2003

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Valentine's Day, 1993.

Michael Schiavo sat by his brain-damaged wife, Terri, at a Largo nursing home as he studied for college classes. Schiavo had brought two dozen roses not long after a jury in a medical malpractice case awarded the couple about $1-million.

Terri Schiavo's parents, Bob and Mary Schindler, walked in. An argument started. With an exchange of heated words, some involving that money, Schiavo's close relationship with the Schindlers ended.

Today, Schiavo and the Schindlers are combatants in the best known right-to-die case in the nation. They are divided by their hopes of Schiavo's recovery and their beliefs of whether she should live or die. But court records show that the origins of that decade-old dispute involved something far less critical than Schiavo's life.

It involved money.

Testimony in the guardianship case from 1993 and 2000 shows that the original family split came, in part, because the Schindlers thought their son-in-law owed them more than $10,000 in living expenses and had reneged on a promise to share his malpractice cash.

"I think one might conclude looking at the facts that a possible motivation on the part of the Schindlers is revenge," said Michael Schiavo's attorney, George Felos, referring to the Schindlers' opposition to Schiavo's decision to pull his wife's feeding tube. "I certainly hope that's not true."

Bob Schindler said Saturday that the initial argument was more about how Schiavo reneged on promises to pay for continued therapy for their daughter, not about payment to the Schindlers.

"Felos wants to make it look like a money issue," Schindler said. "Our motivation was to make sure Terri would get the proper care."

He points to a July 1993 letter he wrote to Schiavo, in which he pleads with to honor a commitment to pay for Schiavo's continued care.

"Even if I'm as bad as (Felos) paints me, that's no excuse for not treating Terri," Schindler said.

Schiavo has said his wife would not want to be kept alive by artificial means. Her feeding tube was pulled for six days before unprecedented intervention by lawmakers forced doctors to reinsert it Oct. 21.

Schiavo, often accused by the Schindlers of wanting his wife dead for her share of malpractice money, refuses to comment.

Today, his wife's money is all but exhausted by the long legal fight.

Once, the Schindlers and Schiavo were close. So close, in fact, that they lived together after Schiavo collapsed in 1990 from a potassium imbalance that stopped her heart, depriving her brain of oxygen.

Together, the Schindlers and Schiavo shared in financial difficulties and in the unending work of caring for her.

In some ways, Schiavo was treated as a son. He once brought a girlfriend home to meet the Schindlers, seeking their approval, and said they had encouraged him to date.

"I think I said he deserved to start a new life," Bob Schindler said in testimony in 1993.

He said he hoped his son-in-law eventually would divorce his wife and start a new life.

At the medical malpractice trial against doctors who treated Schiavo in 1992, Mary Schindler spoke with admiration about Schiavo's attentiveness to her disabled daughter.

"He's there every day," she said. "He is loving, caring. I don't know of any young boy that would be as attentive. ... He's just been unbelieveable. And I know without him there is no way I could have survived all this."

In a jury verdict in that suit, Schiavo received more than $700,000, which was set aside for her continued care. Her husband received $300,000 for loss of consortium.

The Schindlers told lawyers they thought their son-in-law would share his $300,000 with them. Through the years, they said, they helped him financially. The Schindlers said they were owed more than $10,000.

Bob Schindler later testified that he vividly recalled Schiavo promising to give half of anything he won in court.

"I said to him we have to get something because of my tax situation," Schindler testified.

Mary Schindler also testified: "Michael would always talk to me about that. We were all in this together. We all had financial problems. Michael, Bob - we all did. It was a very stressful time. It was a very financially difficult time. He used to say, "Don't worry, mom. If I ever get any money from the lawsuit, I'll help you and dad."'

Schiavo denied making such promises.

The Valentine's Day argument erupted three months after the jury verdict. The Schindlers and Schiavo disagree on much of what was said.

Schiavo told lawyers that Bob Schindler entered the room and immediately asked about his share of the money.

Schiavo said he lied and told Schindler no one was getting any money because he had decided to funnel all of it into his wife's trust fund, where he couldn't get it.

According to Schiavo, Bob Schindler responded by pointing his finger at his daughter and saying, "How much money is she going to give me?"

In testimony, Schindler's account is different. He told the court that a few weeks before Valentine's Day, he had asked Schiavo if he remembered their "agreement" to share his part of the jury award. Schindler said Schiavo told him he'd get back to him on the matter, but never did.

Until Valentine's Day.

Schindler testified that he asked Schiavo: "Have you reconciled how we're going to settle this thing?"

When Schiavo told him that he planned to give all the money to the trust fund, Schindler said he responded: "Michael, you made an agreement with my wife and myself that you were going to share that money with us."

Schindler testified he also felt dissatisfied because he and his wife thought Schiavo was reneging on paying for continued therapy for their daughter.

The Schindlers said they thought Schiavo would buy a house where the Schindlers could stay with their daughter to care for her. They said he refused.

Within months, the Schindlers filed a challenge to replace Schiavo as their daughter's guardian, engaging a decade-long legal battle.

In 1998, Schiavo moved to have his wife's feeding tube pulled, saying she could not recover. Her parents disagreed, saying she might improve with therapy.

Pinellas-Pasco Judge George Greer concluded in a 2000 ruling ordering Mrs. Schiavo's feeding tube removed that the argument was about money.

"It is clear to this court that (the argument) was predicated upon money and the fact that Mr. Schiavo was unwilling to equally divide his ... award with Mr. and Mrs. Schindler," Greer wrote. "Regretably, money overshadows this entire case and creates potential of conflict of interest for both sides."
 

Riprorin

Banned
Apr 25, 2000
9,634
0
0
"Schiavo has said his wife would not want to be kept alive by artificial means."

Why didn't he say that in the malpractice trial rather than saying this:

"I believe in the vows I took with my wife, through sickness, in health, for richer or poor. I married my wife because I love her and I want to spend the rest of my life with her. I'm going to do that."
 

KarenMarie

Elite Member
Sep 20, 2003
14,372
6
81
Originally posted by: DaveSimmons
Originally posted by: KarenMarie
edit: and as far as him shacking with another woman... he should have divorced her if he wanted to be with someone else. There is no reason for him to have a foot in both camps. It is not fair to Terri, her famil, or the other woman. His poor kids are bastards. If one is to believe in the sanctity of marriage, then he needed to either stick by her or divorce her.... jmho.
I understand your opinion but I could only agree if doing so would not lose him any rights he had to determine her care.

I really have no way to know whether the husband is "in it for the money" despite turning down at least $1 million and possibly $10 million. Whether he is doing this to carry out her wishes (as I would in his place) or trying to spite her parents.

The evidence does seem to show the parents are at least partly delusional about her body's condition and hope for recovery, though amongst all the ad hominem innuendo Rip did manage to find at least one doctor in the country that thinks her condition is worth a tenth look.

Ya know, Dave... When I first started hearing of this story, I thought what they were trying to do to her was disgusting. It affected me really badly, cause it was the same day that the animal admitted killing that gorgeous little 9yr old, Jessica Lumsford. It just seemed to be such a black day in America. I sat down and cried to almost 30 minutes.

I have learned a LOT about this case in these short days. A LOT! I have swung from teh extreme to...I am really very caught in the 'in-between' on this whole thing. But there are a few things that I believe and I believe them as a constant, no matter what other of my opinions change.

1) It is a total shame that the Feds are getting involved. I hate that. It is wrong.

2) The 'husband' is ... hmm.. azzhole sprang to mind, but I dont want to be that harsh. He is wrong. I dont trust him. I dont believe a word he says. I think he does have an ulterior motive. Whether it is the deal with his girlfriend/the hospice..if he has something else going on... i dont know. But I think it is wrong for him to be so hypocritical. He took vows... sickness/health... to death. And for him to raising children with another woman, forgetting his vows.. that is wrong. And, I agree that five years is a LONG time. I have never been without a b/f for more than 5 weeks, never mind trying to hold out for five years... but ya know what.. if he wanted another woman, he needed to divorce his wife. He needed to close that door. If he did not want to be her husband anymore, and wanted to be with someone else, then he should have relinquished his authority to another. I do not for one minute buy this holier than thou story he is handing out... that he is staying married just so he can ensure Terri's wishes. Dont buy it.

3) This 'belief is totally irrational... it is a girlie thing. I believe there is something really weird about this whole thing. Something just seems really off about the whole thing. And I think that if it is a case where someones life hangs in the balance, my personal thoughts are to fall on the side of life, not death. That is my personal feelings, not trying to push a political agenda at all. Someone posted above... (just scrolled back and it was you...hahaha) that if we were to have ONE MORE GO at this... could it then finally be put to rest... my answer would be YES. Provided that new experts were involved. Judge Greer was no where in site, and the family were allowed to put forth all of their evidence... then YES.

4) I believe that it is disgusting that it is legal to force this woman to starve to death, but euthanizing her is murder.

Now, I appreciate a good debate, and have had many things in this case change my mind in many areas,... but there are somethings that ... hmm... i am just a weirdo perhaps, but I think this needs to be looked at ONE more time. I mean, what is the harm?

Thanks for reading.
:)
 

totalcommand

Platinum Member
Apr 21, 2004
2,487
0
0
Originally posted by: Riprorin
"Schiavo has said his wife would not want to be kept alive by artificial means."

Why didn't he say that in the malpractice trial rather than saying this:

"I believe in the vows I took with my wife, through sickness, in health, for richer or poor. I married my wife because I love her and I want to spend the rest of my life with her. I'm going to do that."

Why did you write this:

"Schiavo has said his wife would not want to be kept alive by artificial means."

Why didn't he say that in the malpractice trial rather than saying this:

"I believe in the vows I took with my wife, through sickness, in health, for richer or poor. I married my wife because I love her and I want to spend the rest of my life with her. I'm going to do that."

And not this:

I am a tool, tool, a big, big tool.

???

It's pointless to ask such questions!
 

totalcommand

Platinum Member
Apr 21, 2004
2,487
0
0
Originally posted by: Riprorin
"Schiavo has said his wife would not want to be kept alive by artificial means."

Why didn't he say that in the malpractice trial rather than saying this:

"I believe in the vows I took with my wife, through sickness, in health, for richer or poor. I married my wife because I love her and I want to spend the rest of my life with her. I'm going to do that."

Why did you write this:

"Schiavo has said his wife would not want to be kept alive by artificial means."

Why didn't he say that in the malpractice trial rather than saying this:

"I believe in the vows I took with my wife, through sickness, in health, for richer or poor. I married my wife because I love her and I want to spend the rest of my life with her. I'm going to do that."

And not this:

I am a tool, tool, a big, big tool.

???

It's pointless to ask such questions!

 

KarenMarie

Elite Member
Sep 20, 2003
14,372
6
81
Riprorin... I am a FIRM believer in the 10th Amendment. I am a FIRM believer in states rights. I think that ANY precedent to give the feds more power chips away at our constitution and the basis of our Republic.

dmcowen674... To be honest, I dont know. Much of what I feel is just that... feelings. I have tried, in all my posts on this subject to make that point clear... I am not an expert... I am not trying to push a political agenda. I am the parent of a daughter who is only 3yrs younger than Terri was at the time of collapse. If her husband had behaved this way... well, it is probably not legal to put in writing what would happen to him. These are my opinions/feelings....It is an emotional thing that is based on all the information I am reading on both sides. I am 99.99999% sure that she will NEVER be 100% right again. Never. However... I do have to wonder if her parents do have any validity (sp?). Again, there seems to be just too much conflicting claims. And there seems to be some of the parents evidence that was not heard. Greer said it was a time waster. And as a parent... and from a purely emotional opinion... I will say that when in doubt, I will fall on the side of life over death. If all of her parents' evidence is heard by a purely independant judge and it is found that with today's technology, she will never be more than she is now... then I think it would be time for the parents to let go. But I would pray that they would allow her to go by some other means than by starvation.

:)
 

umbrella39

Lifer
Jun 11, 2004
13,816
1,126
126
Originally posted by: Riprorin
Originally posted by: DaveSimmons
And if she hadn't been denied physical therapy by her "husband" it's quite possible that she could be feeding herself.
Originally posted by: Riprorin
Originally posted by: DaveSimmons
"Although the physicians are not in complete agreement concerning the extent of Mrs. Schiavo's brain damage, they all agree that the brain scans show extensive permanent damage to her brain. The only debate between the doctors is whether she has a small amount of isolated living tissue in her cerebral cortex or whether she has no living tissue in her cerebral cortex."

If God is ever going to heal her, since no one else can, why has He waited 15 years?

CAT scans don't have the kind of resolution to make that pronouncement. Why has her "husband" blocked MRI and PET scans from being done?
More from the site you really ought to visit, abstractappeal.com

----------------
"What about the Schindlers' claims that Terri is conscious and responds to stimulation?

When the Second District first reviewed the trial court's decision that Terri would chose not to live under her present circumstances, the appellate court expressed no reservations when it explained that Terri was and "will always remain in an unconscious, reflexive state, totally dependent upon others?" In October, 2002, as a result of Terri's parents' claims that treatment options offered promise to restore some of Terri's cognitive functioning, the Second District ordered the trial court to hold a trial on that issue. The trial court did so, and in the course of that trial the parties litigated whether Terri is in a persistent vegetative state.

The trial court heard testimony from five experts: two selected by Michael, two selected by the Schindlers, and one independent expert selected by the trial court. The two experts selected by Michael and the independent expert agreed that Terri was in a persistent vegetative state and that her actions were limited to mere reflexes. The two experts chosen by the Schindlers disagreed, but the trial court found their positions not credible. For instance, the trial court explained:

At first blush, the video of Terry Schiavo appearing to smile and look lovingly at her mother seemed to represent cognition. This was also true for how she followed the Mickey Mouse balloon held by her father. The court has carefully viewed the videotapes as requested by counsel and does find that these actions were neither consistent nor reproducible. For instance, Terry Schiavo appeared to have the same look on her face when Dr. Cranford rubbed her neck. Dr. Greer testified she had a smile during his (non-videoed) examination. Also, Mr. Schindler tried several more times to have her eyes follow the Mickey Mouse balloon but without success. Also, she clearly does not consistently respond to her mother. The court finds that based on the credible evidence, cognitive function would manifest itself in a constant response to stimuli.
The experts also disagreed about whether any treatment could improve Terri's condition. The two experts selected by the Schindlers each proposed a potential therapy method, but the trial court rejected both of them based on "the total absence of supporting case studies or medical literature."

Affirming those decisions, the Second District explained that it, too, reviewed the videotapes of Terri in their entirety as well as Terri's brain scans. The appellate court explained that it not only affirmed the decision but that, were it to review the evidence and make its own decision, the court would reach the same result reached by the trial court."
-------------

In other words, the only doctors Terri's "parents" could round up to support their claims were apparently so far from normal practitioners that they would propose experimental treatments that had no prior support in medical science. The "parents" would rather turn her over to quacks who would use her as a guinea pig than listen to mainstream doctors and let their daughter's body rest in peace.

Almost 50 neurologists all say the same thing: Terri should be reevaluated, Terri should be reexamined, and there are grave doubts as to the accuracy of Terri?s diagnosis of PVS. All of these neurologists are board-certified; a number of them are fellows of the prestigious American Academy of Neurology; several are professors of neurology at major medical schools.

Too bad RIP. All 50 of them have never actually examined her. Thanks for playing.

 

umbrella39

Lifer
Jun 11, 2004
13,816
1,126
126
Originally posted by: Riprorin
Originally posted by: totalcommand
Originally posted by: Riprorin
Originally posted by: totalcommand
Originally posted by: Chadder007
http://www.hospicepatients.org/terri-schindler-schiavo-docs-links-page.html

Please read some of these statements made by the doctors and hospice care takers of Terri...
Terri is neither Brain dead, nor in a permanent vegitative state....she is just severely brain damaged and cannot feed herself.

Nice try, you post half the affidavits. Let's see what the neutral court doctors said.

Just wondering, why are you so passionate about killing this woman?

I'm so passionate about letting her go in peace because you, the GOP, and her parents are so passionate about torturing her for as long as she can possibly "live".

Sorry, refusing her food and water isn't "letting her go in peace".

So this is your form of retribution to the GOP and two loving parents?

Blame yourself for the means RIP. You are a Right To Lifer and looking in the mirror will expose the person responsible for the means of her ultimate demise. Pat yourself on the back you big old hypocrite. How about you lobby AGAIN to have the laws YOU put in place be revoked so she any EVERYONE else can afford the dignity of a lethal injection if they so choose.

 

dmcowen674

No Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
54,889
47
91
www.alienbabeltech.com
Originally posted by: KarenMarie
Riprorin... I am a FIRM believer in the 10th Amendment. I am a FIRM believer in states rights. I think that ANY precedent to give the feds more power chips away at our constitution and the basis of our Republic.

dmcowen674... To be honest, I dont know. Much of what I feel is just that... feelings. I have tried, in all my posts on this subject to make that point clear... I am not an expert... I am not trying to push a political agenda. I am the parent of a daughter who is only 3yrs younger than Terri was at the time of collapse. If her husband had behaved this way... well, it is probably not legal to put in writing what would happen to him. These are my opinions/feelings....It is an emotional thing that is based on all the information I am reading on both sides. I am 99.99999% sure that she will NEVER be 100% right again. Never. However... I do have to wonder if her parents do have any validity (sp?). Again, there seems to be just too much conflicting claims. And there seems to be some of the parents evidence that was not heard. Greer said it was a time waster. And as a parent... and from a purely emotional opinion... I will say that when in doubt, I will fall on the side of life over death. If all of her parents' evidence is heard by a purely independant judge and it is found that with today's technology, she will never be more than she is now... then I think it would be time for the parents to let go. But I would pray that they would allow her to go by some other means than by starvation.

:)

I agree the starvation method sucks but better than being nothing more than a dead head on a body.


 

umbrella39

Lifer
Jun 11, 2004
13,816
1,126
126
Originally posted by: Riprorin
Why hasn't Schaivo lost guardianship?

He's shacked up with another woman and he has two kids.

Isn't there a conflict of interest here?

I'd like to know what's really driving this guy.

Perhaps this will shut you up, not likely since think God talks to you:

Pay special attention to the dates involved. Michael continued providing aggressive therapy a year beyond the date of the settlement.

http://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/trialctorder02-00.pdf

From Page 4

It is also interesting to note that Mr. Schiavo continues to be the most regular visitor to his wife even though he is criticized for wanting to remove her life support. Dr. Gambone even noted that close attention to detail has resulted in her excellent physical condition and that Petitioner is very involved.

*** This is in the year 2000, ten years after Terri's accident, and five years after Michael moved in with the woman he still resides with. He remained her *most frequent" visitor, not her parents, not her siblings, Michael.

Page 5 (last line)

The court has reviewed the testimony of Scott Schiavo and Joan Schiavo and finds nothing contained therein to be unreliable. The court notes that neither of these witnesses appeared to have shaded his or her testimoney or even attempt to exclude unfavorable comments or points regarding those discussions. There were not impeached on cross-examination. Argument is made as to why they waited so long to step forward but their explanations are worthy of belief. The testimony of Ms. Beverly Tyler, Executive Director of Georgia Health Discoveries, clearly establishes that the expressions made by Terri Schiavo to these witnesses are those type of expressions made in those types of situations as would be expected by people in this country in that age group at that time. They (statements) reflect underlying values of independence, quality of life, not to be a burden and so forth. "Hooked to a machine" means they do not want life artificially extended when there is not hope of improvement.

Top of Page 9

There are some comments or statement made by Terri Schiavo which the court does not feel are germane to this decision. The court does not feel that statements made by her at the age of 11 or 12 years truly reflect upon her intention regarding the situation at hand. Additionally, the court does not feel that her statments directed towards others and situations involving others would have the same weight as comments or statements regarding herself if personally placed in those same situations. Into the former category the court places statments regarding Karen Ann Quinlin and the infant child of the friend of Joan Schiavo. The court finds that those statements are more reflective of what Terri Schiavo would do in a similar situation for someone else.

Statements which Terri Schiavo made which do support the relief sought by her surrogate )Petitioner/Guardian) include statements to him prompted by her grandmother being in intensive care that if she was ever a burden she would not want to live like that. additionally, statements made to Michael Schiavo which were prompted by something on television regarding people on life support that she would not want to live like that also reflect her intention in this particular situation. Also, the statements she made in the presence of Scott Schiavo at the funeral luncheon for his grandmother that "if I ever go like that just let me go. Don't leave me there. I don't want to be kept alive on a machine." and to Joan Schiavo following a television movie in which a man following an accident was in a coma to the effect that she wanted it stated in her will that she would want the tubes and everything taken out if that ever happened to her are likewise reflective of this intent. The court specifically finds that these statements are Terri Schiavo's oral declarations concerning her intention as to what she would want done under the present circumstances and the testimoney regarding such oral declarations is reliable, is creditable, and rises to the level of clear and convincing evidence to this court.

Those statements above noted contain no limitations or conditions. However, as Ms. Tyler noted when she testified as to quality of life being the primary criteria in artificial life support matters, Americans want to "try it for awhile" but they do not wish it live on it with no hope of improvement. That implicit condition has long since been satisfied in this case.

Credits to CourtTV.

 

dmcowen674

No Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
54,889
47
91
www.alienbabeltech.com
Originally posted by: umbrella39
Originally posted by: Riprorin
Why hasn't Schaivo lost guardianship?

He's shacked up with another woman and he has two kids.

Isn't there a conflict of interest here?

I'd like to know what's really driving this guy.

Perhaps this will shut you up, not likely since think God talks to you:

Pay special attention to the dates involved. Michael continued providing aggressive therapy a year beyond the date of the settlement.

Forget it. The Fundies will twist to their desired outcome until they die which ironically would be before Terri.
 

umbrella39

Lifer
Jun 11, 2004
13,816
1,126
126
Originally posted by: Chadder007
Originally posted by: totalcommand
Originally posted by: Riprorin
Why hasn't Schaivo lost guardianship?

He's shacked up with another woman and he has two kids.

Isn't there a conflict of interest here?

I'd like to know what's really driving this guy.

If he had an ulterior motive he would have divorced her. Mel Gibson offered Michael 10 million or something to drop the case. He refused.

The real conflict of interest is with the GOP and this case. The GOP is playing politics with the case, while it really should be a familial matter. No need to know what's driving the GOP; it's plain petty politics.

Whats driving the GOP is the 14th amendment being broken by the courts of Florida.

Nice try but not by any stretch of the imagination. Its stated purpose is to violate the Separation of Powers clause (i.e. the legislative branch cannot pass a law for the sole purpose of overturning a particular court decision.) Therefore it is invalid on its face.

My guess is that this law will be shot down faster than it was passed. There is nothing Judges hate more then someone trying to tread their ground.

It is high time these politicians be held accountable
 

umbrella39

Lifer
Jun 11, 2004
13,816
1,126
126
Originally posted by: Riprorin
Schiavo sued to provide care for Terri and the money was never used for that purpose.

I'm curious how you explain that.

The money spent by Michael was the money he was awarded personally in his action for loss of consortium. It was his to do with as he pleased. The portion of the award that went for Terri's care was overseen by two separate entities in trust for Terri's care that Michael had no authority or control over, period. It went to her care.

Try and get your "facts" from a credible news source.