Terri Schiavo: Please explain something to me...

[sara1998]

Why can't they let her live, and let her folks take care of her, and let the husband out from under his marriage to her? Everyone could have their way on this one... why such the long, drawn out drama?? Is there something there I don't understand? :shrug:

[sara1998]

Isn't letting (making) her live a bit on the inhumane side? This is not a case of interest over here in Australia so I know no more than I've seen mentioned, but isn't her husband claiming that she requested her death anyway? Even if she didn't, I would still consider it inhumane.

I agree, it is inhumane... but why can't a divorce be granted, and guardianship be given to the parents? Why does she have to die, if the parents are willing to take care of her? If she didn't want to live like this, where was her living will??

[ontheEdgeof17]

I agree, it is inhumane... but why can't a divorce be granted, and guardianship be given to the parents? Why does she have to die, if the parents are willing to take care of her? If she didn't want to live like this, where was her living will??


Who will continue her care when the parents are gone?

[Mad4stevie]

Why can't they let her live, and let her folks take care of her, and let the husband out from under his marriage to her? Everyone could have their way on this one... why such the long, drawn out drama?? Is there something there I don't understand? :shrug:

Her husband has involved the court system, which has determined that she would have never wanted to live in this "persistent vegatative state" based upon testimony from the husband, brother in law and sister in law. That determination is what has brought us to this point because no matter what, a court has decided that it would have been Terri's wish that she would die instead of living in this type of condition. Essentially, everyone else's position, her parents (etc.) is irrelevant because the court has already determined that she would not have wanted to live this kind of existence.

At this point, most people take issue with this determination of Terri's will by the court system and whether the appropriate evidence was considered in this determination.

My issue is with the fact that they are starving this woman to death. How inhumane is that?

[GODDESS6]

My issue is with the fact that they are starving this woman to death. How inhumane is that?

exactly what i have been thinking no matter what side of the fence any1 is on, on this, the thought of them letting her starve & dehydrate 2 death is more inhumane 2 me than anything~ i was watching this allday on the news & i can't imagine what it must b like w/ the courts changing their minds every 1/2 an hour 2 remove, then not remove, then remove her feeding tube, what an emotional rollercoaster 2 b on~ there was a radio show on this morning & a lady called in stating that she was in a coma 4 6months & the dr's were telling her family there was no hope~ she said she could hear everything said & feel their touches but just couldn't respond @ the time, but was so relieved that when she did come around that her family didn't listen 2 the dr's evaluation of her & waited the situation out~ i realize terry has been like this 4 15 yrs but her folks say she does recognize them, their touch & responds back lovingly~ she may never get "better" but this whole thing breaks my heart immensly :distress: :distress: :distress: !!!~

[GODDESS6]

also does any1 know if it is a money thing w/ her husband?~ like does he have insurance 2 claim or anything i have always wondered this of him, becuz y not just get a divorce & let her parents take care of her that is what they truly want~ everytime i have seen the husband interviewed he does not come off very sympathetic 4 his wife, more of like her living on is a burden 2 him~ :shrug: i don't know just an observation~

[heyjupiter678]

If she didn't want to live like this, where was her living will?? She was 26 when she had a heart attack. How many people at that age actually have a living will? :shrug:

[heyjupiter678]

i realize terry has been like this 4 15 yrs but her folks say she does recognize them, their touch & responds back lovingly They are her parents, they're seeing what they want to see. Terri isn't recognizing anything. Her cerebral cortex is gone, and has been replaced by spinal fluid.

[GateandGarden]

My issue is with the fact that they are starving this woman to death. How inhumane is that?I've been thinking about that, too. And the issue appears to be that no one wants to outright kill her. But this seems worse to me. :shrug:

[WelshWitchPMD]

Actually, I am listening to Michael Savage's show. He is discussing this subject right now.

[GODDESS6]

They are her parents, they're seeing what they want to see. Terri isn't recognizing anything. Her cerebral cortex is gone, and has been replaced by spinal fluid.

that mayb, but they have shown her on video responding 2 loved 1's, i have never seen her w/ her husband on tape & how she responds 2 him, but i have seen video of her w/ family members other than her folks, & no i am not saying she outright says hi when they come in2 the room but there is a definite reaction coming from her when they r near & talking & touching her~ i just hate c any1 in this position as most do, but the starving/dehydrating thing i just can't get pass, i pray 4 a quick end 4 her then w/ minimal 2 no suffering, if they don't reinstate the stay & reinsert the tube again, remember a little while back they removed her feeding tube?, can't remember exactly 4 how long a period of time, but then the courts ordered it put back in~ whatever the outcome is i hope terry will b @ peace~

[Mad4stevie]

also does any1 know if it is a money thing w/ her husband?~ like does he have insurance 2 claim or anything i have always wondered this of him, becuz y not just get a divorce & let her parents take care of her that is what they truly want~ everytime i have seen the husband interviewed he does not come off very sympathetic 4 his wife, more of like her living on is a burden 2 him~ :shrug: i don't know just an observation~

There is a question of how he spent some money as her guardian. He allegedly did not spend some of the money for her treatment that he was entrusted with as her guardian.

Also, there has been some evidence that he had been physically abusive to her during their marriage.

All of that makes me question some of his motivations.

[Dreammms]

My issue is with the fact that they are starving this woman to death. How inhumane is that?

That is what I think is the most disturbing.

[GypsySorcerer]

It is all just very sad. What this poor woman has gone through. :distress:

[Janet]

Its horrible and I can't think of what the right thing is to do....I mean I can see both sides honestly.

I pray to God she can't hear anything that's being said!!!

[sara1998]

My issue is with the fact that they are starving this woman to death. How inhumane is that?

I can't get past this either...

[sara1998]

She was 26 when she had a heart attack. How many people at that age actually have a living will? :shrug:

I do.... I had it drawn up when I was 25. If you're that age and married, what better time to do it when you're young and mentally sound? You're right, though. Most people that age don't think of those things.

[Kelly]

I can see both sides...all I know is I wouldn't want to live that way. The ONE video they show of Terri was made by her parents. Several doctors have come forward to say the parents were there dozens of times with the balloons trying to get a reaction.......they testified it was purely coincidental that she smiled when the balloons were held up to her...she was NOT reacting to them.
I do agree, starving someone is inhumane but it is done every day in this country and they do say that Terri cannot feel pain like we do and will not feel the starving process. Whether that is true, I do not know but that is what the experts say. The whole case is heartbreaking with no winning answer. Letting her live and allowing her parents to care for her sounds ok in theory but what if that is not what Terri would have wanted? Maybe she would not want to be a burden on her parents or more importantly be artifically sustained when she has no quality of life?

[GODDESS6]

The whole case is heartbreaking with no winning answer. Letting her live and allowing her parents to care for her sounds ok in theory but what if that is not what Terri would have wanted? Maybe she would not want to be a burden on her parents or more importantly be artifically sustained when she has no quality of life?

this is all true, but the way the want 2 let her die is awful, & how do they know she cannot feel pain, has any1 comeback from the dead who was in a similiar situation & said it was a painless way 2 live & or die?~ i just pray 4 her~

[SuzeQuze]

I really hope that she is not aware and so will not suffer. In this sort of situation I think the medical community should consider an injection because I agree that to starve/thirst someone to death is inhumane. I understand the need to remove the feeding tube though, I would not want to live that way for sure. I hope she is at peace as well. :angel:

[heyjupiter678]

I do.... I had it drawn up when I was 25. If you're that age and married, what better time to do it when you're young and mentally sound? You're right, though. Most people that age don't think of those things.That's really the one good thing that can come from all of this -- People realizing the importance of making their wishes known and drawing up a living will, no matter their age.

[Sugar]

I really hope that she is not aware and so will not suffer. In this sort of situation I think the medical community should consider an injection because I agree that to starve/thirst someone to death is inhumane. I understand the need to remove the feeding tube though, I would not want to live that way for sure. I hope she is at peace as well. :angel:

I'm pretty sure that they're going to pump her up with some massive doses of morphine to try to ensure that she's in as little pain as possible.

It does sound pretty awful to let her starve to death, but the only legal way is to remove artifical means of supporting her life, and that means removing the feeding tube.

And Curtis' point is a good one; who would take care of her after her parents die?

The whole thing is just so sad... :distress:

[heyjupiter678]

The ONE video they show of Terri was made by her parents. Several doctors have come forward to say the parents were there dozens of times with the balloons trying to get a reaction.......they testified it was purely coincidental that she smiled when the balloons were held up to her...she was NOT reacting to them. Exactly. And the snippets of video they released were edited down from over <i>four hours</i> of footage.

[Mad4stevie]

I really hope that she is not aware and so will not suffer. In this sort of situation I think the medical community should consider an injection because I agree that to starve/thirst someone to death is inhumane. I understand the need to remove the feeding tube though, I would not want to live that way for sure. I hope she is at peace as well. :angel:

Yes - how sick is it that we use lethal injection for capital punishment in most cases, and the best we can do for this helpless woman is to let her starve to death?

Its not like Terri is on a ventilator or anything like that. The only reason she will die is because she can't swallow. :distress:

[wondergirl9847]

May she die in peace because it's already been too painful for her. :(

I don't know if my parents have a will or not and they are both in their 50's. My dad will be 60 next year, I'll be 30 and I don't have a will either. Of course, I don't own anything of value. LOL I'm not sure what I would want done to me if I had something of this nature happen. God knows our hearts and I don't think He wants his children to suffer. :distress:

[estranged4life]

on picking up a living will through her employer on Monday...We both have the same opinion that if one of us was to be severely injured and left in a permanent vegatative state that it would be best to let our family members know we decided to not be placed on life-support.

[Sapphire Girl]

Isn't letting (making) her live a bit on the inhumane side? This is not a case of interest over here in Australia so I know no more than I've seen mentioned, but isn't her husband claiming that she requested her death anyway? Even if she didn't, I would still consider it inhumane.
Michael Schiavo was awarded a jury settlement years ago. He said that he would use the money to take care of his wife Terri for the rest of her life. Then, not too long after he was awarded the money, he said that he suddenly remembered watching a movie about the Karen Ann Quindlan case (she was on a ventilator) and his wife commenting that she would not want to live like that. Nice timing, MF.

[Mad4stevie]

It appears that Congress has opened the door to another avenue for the reinsertion of Terri's feeding tube:

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=512&e=6&u=/ap/brain_damaged_woman_congress

[heyjupiter678]

Here's a pretty unbiased overview of this whole situation, if anyone is interested.

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

[jwd]

I would think that her life would have to be sustained at any cost, since she doesn't have a living will. No one else should be able to make the decision if she should live or die, except for Terri. To think that they are "killing" her by taking away her food and water is very disturbing to me. It would be more humane to give her a lethal injection if she is left to starve to death. God bless the Schiavo family.

[skcin]

I am having a very hard time figuring out how I feel about this case. I support euthanasia. I support dying with dignity. I support "do not rescucitate" orders. I support not using "extraordinary measures" to make someone breath, their heart beat, etc.

I do not think I can support starving someone to death. :distress:

What makes it harder for me is that I worked with people with profound developmental disabilities for 5 years. Some were born that way, others had illnesses or accidents that caused brain damage. Most can't walk, talk, communicate in any way. Some can eat, others need a feeding tube. Most lived way, way beyond the life expectancy that was told to their parents when they were born. "Put you kid in a home, they can't have a life, they'll be gone by the time they're 12." The "kids" were older than me when I worked there - some as old as 40.

But I am telling you, most of them knew when someone they loved was in the room. Maybe they smiled, maybe they made eye contact, maybe they moved an arm. Whatever. They knew & they showed it in any way they could. I can't believe that they wouldn't feel pain like anyone else would. I could never agree to remove one of "my kids" feeding tubes because someone else (family, government, whoever) decided they didn't have quality of life.

On the other hand, we did have patients that did not really respond to us in any way, but they were alert & awake and could move around and eat normally. They just had no way of showing if they knew we were there & who we were. Should we have stopped feeding them because their life wasn't up to our standards? F*ck that.

I hope this woman can die in peace, whatever happens. The bottom line is that it's none of my business, and it's damn sure none of the federal government's business.

[ontheEdgeof17]

I hope this woman can die in peace, whatever happens. The bottom line is that it's none of my business, and it's damn sure none of the federal government's business.


Who is paying for all her medical supplies? Do you think her parents can afford it all? Surely they can't with just one source of income. I dunno how old they are or anything. I don't believe that they are paying for this by themselves. Insurance maybe?

[skcin]

Who is paying for all her medical supplies? Do you think her parents can afford it all? Surely they can't with just one source of income. I dunno how old they are or anything. I don't believe that they are paying for this by themselves. Insurance maybe?


I'm sure it's Medicaid. That's how our place was funded.

And that's a whole other debate, dahlink. :cool:

[The Tower]

This whole thing is a big, big mess. It's all sad for everyone. Some points....

A feeding tube for someone who can't swallow is just as much life support as a ventilator is for someone who can't breathe on their own power. Ventilators are shut down on people all the time- why is the feeding tube any different? All this publicity would never occur if the situation were mirrored with the person being on a ventilator for life support. It wouldn't even make the local paper.

Tom piece-of-**** DeLay stated that Terry had "missed two meals already". What is that ****ing about??? She doesn't have "meals". She can't "eat".

No matter what the husband has done in the past with regard to his character (I'm not aware of all the stuff that may or may not have gone on)- he has to live with the fact that his wife- someone that I'm sure he loved- is sitting there in this half-life world.

People make too much of death these days. Remember, all six billion people on this earth will all be dead and gone in about 120 years. I think that quality of life is a much more important factor than just life itself.

And the parents?? I think it's sad that they will have to bury their own daughter before they die, but I believe that their daughter died fifteen years ago.

[heyjupiter678]

Tom piece-of-**** DeLay stated that Terry had "missed two meals already". What is that ****ing about??? She doesn't have "meals". She can't "eat". He also said that she talks, laughs, and knows about the fight over her in Congress -- none of which is possible with a liquified cerebral cortex. He's scum.

[GODDESS6]

i found this, this morning & thought it was interesting~ terry's husband has moved on w/ his life it says in here, that he has started a family w/ some1 else~ so y not just get a divorce? it says that her husband is her "gaurdian" & has 2 speak & decided 4 her, so y doesn't he "decided" she divorce him?, he obiviously has other motives~ anyways i thought this was interesting & sheds a little more lite on the subject~
read the timeline also if u get a chance, it is very interesting, where the husband ordered medical staff 2 NOT treat his wife 4 a potentialy fatal infection, more than once, he even admitted 2 doing so in a affadavit~ also further down it says an ex-girlfriends admitted that terri's husband lied about her death wishes~ wow this is all so shady~ i am at a loss almost :shrug: :distress: :shrug: ~


http://www.terrisfight.net/

Myths versus Facts
.
Terri's situation can be confusing. Because of misreporting and inaccuracies, it is easy to lose sight of the real issues surrounding her case.
We've compiled what we believe to be important items that are not always clear to the general public, but that deserve understanding.

Most Common Questions and Answers

If Terri hasn't recovered after all these years of therapy, why not let go?

Terri hasn't had meaningful therapy since 1991, but many credible physicians say she can benefit from it.

Why can't Terri just divorce?

Terri's husband/guardian speaks for her. She cannot divorce without his permission

Does Terri have an advanced directive or any wishes about her healthcare?

Terri never signed any directive or living will and there is no evidence that she foresaw her present situation.

Why do Terri's family fight to keep her alive? Shouldn't they let her husband decide?

Terri's husband has started another family and probably has gone on with his life. Terri's family want to provide her therapy and a safe home.

Is Terri receiving life support?

Not in the traditional sense. Terri only receives food and fluids via a simple tube.

Isn't removing her tube a natural and dignified way to die?

No. Dehydration and starvation cause horrific effects and are anything but peaceful. Read more here.



Most common misconceptions about Terri's situation

MYTH: Terri is PVS (Persistent vegetative state)
FACT: The definition of PVS in Florida Statue 765.101:
Persistent vegetative state means a permanent and irreversible condition of unconsciousness in which there is:

(a) The absence of voluntary action or cognitive behavior of ANY kind.
(b) An inability to communicate or interact purposefully with the environment.

Terri's behavior does not meet the medical or statutory definition of persistent vegetative state. Terri responds to stimuli, tries to communicate verbally, follows limited commands, laughs or cries in interaction with loved ones, physically distances herself from irritating or painful stimulation and watches loved ones as they move around her. None of these behaviors are simple reflexes and are, instead, voluntary and cognitive. Though Terri has limitations, she does interact purposefully with her environment.

MYTH: Terri does not need rehabilitation
FACT: Florida Statute 744.3215 Rights of persons determined incapacitated:

(1) A person who has been determined to be incapacitated retains the right
(i) To receive necessary services and rehabilitation.

This is a retained right that a guardian cannot take away. Additionally, it does not make exception for PVS patients. Terri has illegally been denied rehabilitation - as many nurses have sworn in affidavits.

MYTH: Removal of food was both legal and court-ordered.
FACT: The courts had only allowed removal of Terri's feeding tube, not regular food and water. Terri's husband illegally ordered this. The law only allows the removal of "life-prolonging procedures," not regular food and water:

Florida Statute 765.309 Mercy killing or euthanasia not authorized; suicide distinguished. Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to condone, authorize, or approve mercy killing or euthanasia, or to permit any affirmative or deliberate act or omission to end life other than to permit the natural process of dying.

MYTH: Many doctors have said that there is no hope for her.
FACT: Dr. Victor Gambone testified that he visits Terri 3 times a year. His visits last for approximately 10 minutes. He also testified, after viewing the court videotapes at Terri’s recent trial, that he was surprised to see Terri’s level of awareness. This doctor is part of a team hand-picked by her husband, Michael Schiavo, shortly before he filed to have Terri’s feeding removed. Contrary to Schiavo’s team, 14 independent medical professionals (6 of them neurologists) have given either statements or testimony that Terri is NOT in a Persistent Vegetative State. Additionally, there has never been any medical dispute of Terri’s ability to swallow. Even with this compelling evidence, Terri’s husband, Michael Schiavo, has denied any form of therapy for her for over 10 years.

Dr. Melvin Greer, appointed by Schiavo, testified that a doctor need not examine a patient to know the appropriate medical treatment. He spent approximately 45 minutes with Terri. Dr. Peter Bambakidis, appointed by Judge Greer, spent approximately 30 minutes with Terri. Dr. Ronald Cranford, also appointed by Schiavo and who has publicly labeled himself “Dr. Death”, spent less than 45 minutes examining and interacting with Terri.

MYTH: This is just a family battle over money.
FACT: In 1992, Terri was awarded nearly one million dollars by a malpractice jury and an out-of-court malpractice settlement which was designated for future medical expenses. Of these funds, less than $50,000 remains today. The financial records revealing how Terri’s medical fund money is managed are SEALED from inspection. Court records, however, show that Judge Greer has approved the spending down of Terri’s medical fund on Schiavo’s attorney’s fees - though it was expressly awarded to Terri for her medical care. Schiavo’s primary attorney, George Felos, has received upwards of $400,000 dollars since Schiavo hired him. This same attorney, at the expense of Terri’s medical fund, publicly likened Terri to a “houseplant” and has used Terri’s case on national television to promote his newly published book.

MYTH: Michael Schiavo volunteered to donate the balance of the inheritance to charity.
FACT: In October, 1998, Schiavo’s attorney proposed that, if Terri’s parents would agree to her death by starvation, Schiavo would donate his inheritance to charity. The proposal came after a court-appointed Guardian Ad Litem cited Schiavo’s conflict of interest since he stood to inherit the balance of Terri’s medical fund upon her death. This one and only offer stated “if the proposal is not fully accepted within 10 days, it shall automatically be withdrawn”. Naturally, Terri’s parents immediately rejected the offer.

MYTH: Terri's Medical Trust fund has been used to care for her.
FACT: The following expenditures have been paid directly from Terri's Medical Trust fund, with the approval of Judge George Greer:
Summary of expenses paid from Terri’s 1.2 Million Dollar medical trust fund (jury awarded 1992)
NOTE: In his November 1993 Petition Schiavo alleges the 1993 guardianship asset balance as $761,507.50

Atty Gwyneth Stanley
Atty Deborah Bushnell
Atty Steve Nilson
Atty Pacarek
Atty Richard Pearse (GAL)
Atty George Felos
$10,668.05
$65,607.00
$7,404.95
$1,500.00
$4,511.95
$397,249.99

Other

1st Union/South Trust Bank
$55,459.85

Michael Schiavo
$10,929.95

Total $545,852.34

[thepoetinmyhear]

Okay, the stuff you just posted is sadly biased beyond the point of being beneficial.

First: Terry received treatment until 1994.

Second: over 16 judges and 8 court certified doctors have agreed that she is in a vegetative state from which recovery is not possible. Only one doctor has said there is hope of recovery and that is the doctor employed by the parents.

Third: the settlement the Schiavo's received due to malpractice was spent on her treatment and each time any money from this is used it is monitored by the courts.

Fourth: He won't divorce her because he seems to firmly believe that his wife would prefer to die and if he divorces her his wife will continue to suffer (in his opinion). I honestly can't believe that people buy into the idea that the husband has shady motives. He has been fighting to allow her suffering to end since 1998 (4 years after the first doctors told him it was hopeless). Over the course of the various legal battles (all of which would require an unprecedented amount of time and energy on his behalf) he has never wavered. He has been offered over 10 million dollars from various private donors to divorce Terry and he has never done so.

Fifth: I am not saying either side is correct here, but the criticisms of Mr. Schiavo were invented by the parents to discredit him, something he has never done to them. The best objective source for information on this case has already been posted in this thread, but here it is again:

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

Here is a great timeline for all the court cases, treatments, settlements, court-appointed gardianships, everything you need to make an INFORMED opinion:

http://www.miami.edu/ethics2/schiavo/timeline.htm

Michael

[Kelly]

Terri had her heart attack over fifteen years ago. I have no problem with her husband getting on with his life. My Mom died of breast cancer ten years ago and my stepdad has remarried and had a kid with his new wife. Does that mean he didn't love my Mom? No...he has a right to move on as does Michael.
Terri's husband is not the only one who testified about her wishes. The nineteen judges and six courts who heard this case and evaluated all the evidence found there was sufficient and compelling evidence that Terri had expressed her desire NOT to be artificially sustained. There were four people who testified that she told them that. My husband and best friend know more about my wishes than my parents at this point in my life...so the fact that her parents did not know how she felt about this issue make total sense to me.
BTW....I have read alot about this case and I question her father's motives more than I do Michael's but that is another debate.
I agree that removing someones tube sounds barbaric and inhumane but the point is, the courts have decided, upon reviewing the evidence, that this is what Terry WANTED. Whether you or I think her quality of life is good or bad is not the point. Whether she is happy to see her mom wal;k in the room is not the point. Whether she tries to raise her arm to wave is not the point. She did want want to live this way! The courts have adjudicated on the matter and decided there is sufficient evidence to support her husband's claims regarding her wishes.
If the government is going to get involved in this case, it needs to involve itself in every case and how many of us want that?? What about parents who don't believe in giving their children medication? Or surgery. Or blood products. It is against their religion so they let their children die from normal childhood illnesses or minor problems that could be easily corrected through surgical intervention. Should the government step in and take away these people's constitutional rights? I think not. (although I would rather see the Congress step in on a case like this because the children's rights need to be protected)
Sad sad case and I pray for a swift, painless outcome.

[thepoetinmyhear]

Should the government step in and take away these people's constitutional rights? I think not.

Sadly the bill passed yesterday. I am unaware of a time when the constitutional powers of congress have been so completely trampled on as when they passed this bill. The entire system of checks and balances has been destroyed. It should be no problem for Michael to get this bill declared unconstitutional but that just means more time and more money wasted for everyone involved in this case.

I have already written my House representative to let him know exactly what I think of his working knowledge of the constitution and questioning what on earth led him to believe he could vote in favor of this bill. The courts have decided; congress, George and Jeb have no business interfering and certainly no constitutional authority to do so.

Michael

[GODDESS6]

Terri had her heart attack over fifteen years ago. I have no problem with her husband getting on with his life. My Mom died of breast cancer ten years ago and my stepdad has remarried and had a kid with his new wife. Does that mean he didn't love my Mom? No...he has a right to move on as does Michael.
Terri's husband is not the only one who testified about her wishes. The nineteen judges and six courts who heard this case and evaluated all the evidence found there was sufficient and compelling evidence that Terri had expressed her desire NOT to be artificially sustained. There were four people who testified that she told them that. My husband and best friend know more about my wishes than my parents at this point in my life...so the fact that her parents did not know how she felt about this issue make total sense to me.
BTW....I have read alot about this case and I question her father's motives more than I do Michael's but that is another debate.
I agree that removing someones tube sounds barbaric and inhumane but the point is, the courts have decided, upon reviewing the evidence, that this is what Terry WANTED. Whether you or I think her quality of life is good or bad is not the point. Whether she is happy to see her mom wal;k in the room is not the point. Whether she tries to raise her arm to wave is not the point. She did want want to live this way! The courts have adjudicated on the matter and decided there is sufficient evidence to support her husband's claims regarding her wishes.
If the government is going to get involved in this case, it needs to involve itself in every case and how many of us want that?? What about parents who don't believe in giving their children medication? Or surgery. Or blood products. It is against their religion so they let their children die from normal childhood illnesses or minor problems that could be easily corrected through surgical intervention. Should the government step in and take away these people's constitutional rights? I think not. (although I would rather see the Congress step in on a case like this because the children's rights need to be protected)
Sad sad case and I pray for a swift, painless outcome.
i understand what u r saying , but the diff is she terri is still living & he has moved on~ my farther died when he was 37, & yes my ma went on w/ her life also afterwards~ i am very sorry 4 your loss by the way~ i just think since no other type of apparatus is being used 2 keep her alive besides the feeding tube, they say she breaths on her own & such, they said this wekend when not just her parents were there that they asked her if she wanted 2 die & her eyes popped open & she started weeping, i am far from a dr, but it seems significant~ & yes i to pray 4 a painless end also no mater what the outcome~

[GateandGarden]

The more I think about this, the more I can't see a reason why Michael wouldn't have her best interests in mind. It's not like she would be a burden to him and he wants to kill her off--her parents have already elected to take care of her. It wouldn't effect him. I can't see why he would have evil intentions. He must really think that she would've wanted to die. I guess this is irrelevant, but if you were the equivalent of a baby who would never grow up and could not feel or speak and had nearly the lowest quality of life possible, wouldn't you want to die as well? I think most people in that situation would want to just leave this world.

And the fact that he moved on doesn't say anything, IMO, as Kelly said. She may not literally be dead but she is for all practical purposes. I can't even see how it would do anything to go see her in the hospital, as she has no idea what's going on and probably wouldn't know who her husband is, from what I understand.

My brother thought I was being a bitch yesterday, but I said that I think the parents are being "self-serving" to want to keep her "alive." I say this because I think they are only serving themselves in doing so. They're not ready to let go of her so they want to keep her alive. Living is not benefitting her. I understand not wanting to let go of someone. I'm not saying that I have no sympathy but I do think it's self-serving. At the same time, I don't know if I'd have the strength to let someone go myself. I never want to let go of people I love.

Also, is this not what happens when you don't write up a living will and you're married? Legally, the husband makes the decision about whether or not to "pull the plug" for lack of a more eloquent phrase. I'm not saying the law is always right by any means, but is that not the law? In a sense, that makes me wonder why it's such a controversy, especially sense I'm sure there are many similar cases out there that just aren't all over the media like this one is.

[thepoetinmyhear]

Also, is this not what happens when you don't write up a living will and you're married?

Yes, legally Michael is the one who is meant to make the decisions. The parents didn't even object when he was appointed gaurdian in 1990. They didn't object to his treatment of their daughter until he made a motion to remove the tube in 1998. That is when they filed their first objection to his qualifications. The reason this has been such an issue is that the parents were able to raise sufficient doubt to open an arbitration in the beginning. This is likely due to the money involved at the time (money that is now spent).

Their claim is that their daughter would never have said that she wanted to die and he is not acting on her interests. Every single court that has reviewed the case (only one has heard the case) disagrees with this idea and supports Michael's claim to the extent of declaring that clear evidence beyond any doubt exists (the highest decision the court can award) that Terri would have preferred not to be kept alive through artificial means.

[GateandGarden]

Here's a pretty unbiased overview of this whole situation, if anyone is interested.

http://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/infopage.htmlThanks for this, Mikki. I'm reading through it right now.

[GateandGarden]

Yes, legally Michael is the one who is meant to make the decisions. The parents didn't even object when he was appointed gaurdian in 1990. They didn't object to his treatment of their daughter until he made a motion to remove the tube in 1998. That is when they filed their first objection to his qualifications. The reason this has been such an issue is that the parents were able to raise sufficient doubt to open an arbitration in the beginning. This is likely due to the money involved at the time (money that is now spent).

Their claim is that their daughter would never have said that she wanted to die and he is not acting on her interests. Every single court that has reviewed the case (only one has heard the case) disagrees with this idea and supports Michael's claim to the extent of declaring that clear evidence beyond any doubt exists (the highest decision the court can award) that Terri would have preferred not to be kept alive through artificial means.I don't mean to be insensitive, but, in the eyes of the law, does it matter if the parents disagree with his decision in the least?

[thepoetinmyhear]

I don't mean to be insensitive, but, in the eyes of the law, does it matter if the parents disagree with his decision in the least?

Only because they originally raised a legitimate question as to his motives. If it were shown that he was unfit to be her gaurdian then the power to decide as it were would have moved to the parents. Incidentally you'll find most of this info on the page you're reading and in the timeline which links each courts decisions/findings, the motions to appeal, and in some cases the actual testimony.

[GateandGarden]

Only because they originally raised a legitimate question as to his motives. If it were shown that he was unfit to be her gaurdian then the power to decide as it were would have moved to the parents.Okay, I see. I guess I didn't consider that the court could decide that he was unfit to be her guardian, and then his words would no longer matter. I don't know why that didn't occur to me.

[thepoetinmyhear]

Okay, I see. I guess I didn't consider that the court could decide that he was unfit to be her guardian, and then his words would no longer matter. I don't know why that didn't occur to me.

Actually this is the typical venue when parents and spouses disagree and there is no living will. Insurance policies with big payoffs are usually cited as the reason either the parent or spouse is in favor of pulling the plug (not to imply that these cases are common, they aren't and certainly none have appeals and moved up and down the courts as much as this one has). Many people, however, wouldn't think of this because they either have living wills or have discussed the issues with both parents and spouse or the parents and spouse know the person well enough to agree on what the person would want.

[GateandGarden]

Doesn't this say something about his intentions?

From the site Mikki posted:

"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."

Granted, he didn't have the power anyway, but if he were just thinking of himself, wouldn't he have taken the money? Just a thought.

[thepoetinmyhear]

From the site Mikki posted:

Doesn't this say something about his intentions?

"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."

Granted, he didn't have the power anyway, but if he were just thinking of himself, wouldn't have take the money? Just a thought.

Absolutely. This is far more money being thrown around than originally was awarded to the Schiavos in the malpractice suit. The second offer, incidentally was confirmed by Florida radio station so take that with as much salt as you feel is necessary.

[skcin]

Whether you or I think her quality of life is good or bad is not the point. Whether she is happy to see her mom wal;k in the room is not the point. Whether she tries to raise her arm to wave is not the point. She did want want to live this way!


Good point. :shocked: I guess it would be easier for me to accept if she wrote something down. I personally wouldn't want to live like that either, but I don't know if I'd want to starve to death to end my suffereing. I'll have to think about it & write it down!

[heyjupiter678]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A54002-2005Mar21.html?sub=AR

For Bush, High Drama and Mixed Reviews

By Dan Froomkin
Special to washingtonpost.com
Monday, March 21, 2005; 12:50 PM


It's unanimous here in Washington: We've just witnessed some great political theater. It doesn't get much better than the president rushing home from his beloved ranch to sign emergency, life-or-death legislation passed by Congress in the middle of the night.

But there is no such unanimity when it comes to speculation over what President Bush's primary motivation was for making such a dramatic move. And the long-term impact of his decision on voters -- and the country -- is still anyone's guess.

David Gregory (http://video.msn.com/video/p.htm?t=1&i=2c948095-2d50-4754-a51b-c08bd30c2d4e) reported on the NBC Nightly News that Bush's surprise return to the White House is "being seen as either an attempt to defend innocent life or a crass act of political theater. . . .

"To be sure, the Schiavo case has become a core right-to-life issue for political conservatives, Bush's political base," Gregory said, but "aides deny a political motive on the president's part, saying as long as there is a dispute about Terry Schiavo's intent -- whether she wants to live or die -- every effort must be made to protect her."

And while the issue has indeed inflamed the social conservative leadership, there are early signs that Bush's endorsement of federal intervention in the case could prove deeply unpopular with the general public -- and might even backfire.

Gary Langer (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/PollVault/story?id=599622&page=1) reports for ABC News on a new ABC News poll which shows: "Americans broadly and strongly disapprove of federal intervention in the Terri Schiavo case, with sizable majorities saying Congress is overstepping its bounds for political gain. . . .

"That legislative action is distinctly unpopular: Not only do 60 percent oppose it, more -- 70 percent -- call it inappropriate for Congress to get involved in this way. And by a lopsided 67 percent-19 percent, most think the elected officials trying to keep Schiavo alive are doing so more for political advantage than out of concern for her or for the principles involved.

"This ABC News poll also finds that the Schiavo case has prompted an enormous level of personal discussion: Half of Americans say that as a direct result of hearing about this case, they've spoken with friends or family members about what they'd want done if they were in a similar condition. Nearly eight in 10 would not want to be kept alive."

[ . . . ]

Bush's Past on Life and Death

So how will Bush's past actions hold up as the press inevitably looks back to see how he's reacted in previous life-or-death matters?

Bush has been a fervent supporter of the death penalty. And as Alan Berlow (http://niemanwatchdog.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=showcase.view&showcaseid=008) wrote in the Atlantic in 2003, an examination of clemency memos written by then-Gov. Bush's then-legal counsel Alberto Gonzales "suggests that Governor Bush frequently approved executions based on only the most cursory briefings on the issues in dispute."

McClellan was asked about the death penalty parallel during yesterday's gaggle (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/03/20050320.html) on Air Force One.

"Q Can you talk to me -- again, this comes up. Can you explain the difference between this case and the President's support of the death penalty? I mean, I know this comes up in other culture of life issues, but can you explain the difference here?

"MR. McCLELLAN: Well, I can tell you why the President supports the death penalty, he's made that clear before. That the President believes it's a deterrent that helps save lives, and that's why he supports the death penalty.

"Q But isn't that inconsistent with what he's doing today?

"MR. McCLELLAN: The reason he supports the death penalty is because it helps -- he believes that it helps save lives, and he's stated that view clearly and consistently over a number of years."


Bush's Texas Life-Support Law

And in what many liberal bloggers are calling an example of outright hypocrisy, Bush signed a Texas law in 1999 that created a legal mechanism to allow attending physicians and hospital ethics boards to pull the plug on patients -- even if that specifically contradicts patient or family wishes.

As it happens, a major test case for that law was resolved just last week -- with a baby's death.

Leigh Hopper (http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/metropolitan/3084934) writes in the Houston Chronicle: "The baby wore a cute blue outfit with a teddy bear covering his bottom. The 17-pound, 6-month-old boy wiggled with eyes open and smacked his lips, according to his mother.

"Then at 2 p.m. today, a medical staffer at Texas Children's Hospital gently removed the breathing tube that had kept Sun Hudson alive since his Sept. 25 birth. Cradled by his mother, he took a few breaths, and died.

"Sun's death marks the first time a hospital has been allowed by a U.S. judge to discontinue an infant's life-sustaining care against a parent's wishes, according to bioethical experts. A similar case involving a 68-year-old man in a chronic vegetative state at another Houston hospital is before a court now. . . .

"Texas law allows hospitals [to] discontinue life sustaining care, even if patient family members disagree."

"Where, I would ask, is the outrage?" blogger Mark A.R. Kleiman (http://www.markarkleiman.com/archives/_/2005/03/schiavo_hudson_and_nikolouzos.php) wrote in a post that went careening around the blogosphere yesterday.

Later, blogger Digby (http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2005_03_20_digbysblog_archive.html#111134934659869241) wrote: "By now most people who read liberal blogs are aware that George W. Bush signed a law in Texas that expressly gave hospitals the right to remove life support if the patient could not pay and there was no hope of revival, regardless of the patient's family's wishes. . . .

"Those of us who read liberal blogs are also aware that Republicans have voted en masse to pull the plug (no pun intended) on Medicaid funding that pays for the kind of care that someone like Terry Schiavo and many others who are not so severely brain damaged need all across this country. . . .

"Those who don't read liberal blogs, on the other hand, are seeing a spectacle on television in which the news anchors repeatedly say that the congress is 'stepping in to save Terry Schiavo' mimicking the unctuous words of Tom Delay as they grovel and leer at the family and nod sympathetically at the sanctimonious phonies who are using this issue for their political gain."

----------

[gldstwmn]

http://www.suntimes.com/output/steinberg/cst-nws-stein21.html
He's baaaack . . .

If you don't see the connection between the pro-life movement and the Schiavo case, the anti-abortion pros certainly do. The spokesman for Schiavo's parents, Bob and Mary Schindler, is no other than notorious anti-abortion nut job Randall Terry.

http://www.livingston.net/wilkyjr/link24.htm

The Anti-Abortion Movement

One of the tendons that helps bind the religious element with the far right is the abortion issue. White supremacists often fear that abortion among Aryans is a cause for the dwindling majority of whites seen in the nation. Amidst the violent part of the anti-abortion crowd are often found cross sections of the most extreme right in the nation.

Author Frederick Clarkson reported that as recently as February 2001, at the presidential inauguration, a White Rose Banquet was held at the capitol. At the banquet, aid was raised for the 14 anti-abortionists currently serving a total of 200 years in prisons for vandalism, arson and murder. Rev. Michael Bray was a host for the event and has written a book that justifies the murder of abortion doctors, a position not foreign to many spokesmen in these elements. Paul Hill’s letter was read to the crowd two years ago at the same meeting. Hill is the man who shot and killed an abortion doctor and is awaiting his execution in prison. The Department of Justice records that these kinds have performed more than a dozen murders, 15 attempted murders, 209 bombings, 72 arsons and 750 death and bomb threats. Clarkson claims that there are even Catholic Priests advocating such violence as justifiable.2 Anti-abortion activist, Randall Terry, has advanced violent proposals as solutions to the issue.

The National Abortion Federation reports a steady ten year increase in violence at abortion clinics. Rev. Matt Trewhella, of the U. S. Taxpayers Party, is quoted in the NAF mail out as saying, "We should be forming militias. This Christmas, I want you to do the most loving thing...buy each of your children a SKS rifle and 500 rounds of ammunition."3

Seldom do Religious Right preachers advocate any form of violence. Their rhetoric might be mixed with extreme statements, but such violence is rare. Others, like Randall Terry, have advocated such positions. Terry does enjoy a following among the more respectable elements of the Religious Right. Terry believes it is a sin for every Christian couple to not have as many children as possible.4 Terry has publicly praised Colorado pastor Pete Peters, who is among the most violent advocates of the movement. Peters prescribes the killing of homosexuals as a splendid Biblical model for today.

Both Terry and Peters adhere to Reconstructionism principles. Gary North, who is one of the leading writers of the Reconstructionst movement in the country said of abortion, "How long do we expect God to withhold His wrath, if by crushing the humanists who promote mass abortion...He might spare the lives of literally millions of innocents?"5


http://instagiber.net/smiliesdotcom/otn/other/pukeface.gif

[ShangriLaTroubl]

Michael was on Larry King last night, with his attorney..some pretty tense callers..one asking "How much money does Michael get when Terri dies?"

And the attorney said "Michael gets nothing.."

This is def. a tough case, and it's hard to decide...if she is in this vegetative state, which I believe she is..as do many experts, and the only movements she has are nerves and reflexes...then "starving" her would not bother her, her brain would not be able to communicate that to her, and she would never know it...thus would not be inhumane....according to Michael she is not STARVING in fact.

You have many people who say "Terri Schiavo, however, is not a dying woman.Terri is a healthy woman with a disability." I think that's stretching things a lot..

It's really a tough case to handle, but in actuality it's simple : Michael is her legal guardian, the courts have determined that Terri did not wish to live with a feeding tube sustaining her life, Michael asked the doctors to take it..It's as simple as that legally.

The right wing politicians are eating this up, claiming "Democrats in the House just caused Terri to lose two more meal.." They are making a political issue, for political gain--something they can bring with them to their next election, and claim they tried to save that poor woman's life..it's all about LIFE, although they vote NO to a bill that would spend money on limiting abortions, provide better options and healthcare to pregnant teens and potential ones..

There is no denying Terri is in a PVS, and patients in a PVS have no higher cognitive function and no chance of recovering. Terri's parents lie when they say there are possible new treatments that could help Terri, when Terri's higher brain centers have been replaced by fluid...you cant repair what's not there.

[ShangriLaTroubl]

Terri's father also claims that yesterday when he told Terri a judge was going to hear her case, that she smiled...I think these people are living in a fantasy world and need help

Chris

[GateandGarden]

"MR. McCLELLAN: The reason he supports the death penalty is because it helps -- he believes that it helps save lives, and he's stated that view clearly and consistently over a number of years." :distress::distress::distress:

[SuzeQuze]

This is the part of the hypocracy that outrages me the most. :mad:

"As it happens, a major test case for that law was resolved just last week -- with a baby's death.

Leigh Hopper writes in the Houston Chronicle: "The baby wore a cute blue outfit with a teddy bear covering his bottom. The 17-pound, 6-month-old boy wiggled with eyes open and smacked his lips, according to his mother.

"Then at 2 p.m. today, a medical staffer at Texas Children's Hospital gently removed the breathing tube that had kept Sun Hudson alive since his Sept. 25 birth. Cradled by his mother, he took a few breaths, and died.

"Sun's death marks the first time a hospital has been allowed by a U.S. judge to discontinue an infant's life-sustaining care against a parent's wishes, according to bioethical experts. "

This is disgusting and people in other countries must be shaking their heads in disbelief over this. I mean with an infant you just never know, he could have developed, they still weren't sure. This was because the family couldn't pay, how awful. :distress:

[GateandGarden]

This is the part of the hypocracy that outrages me the most. :mad:

"As it happens, a major test case for that law was resolved just last week -- with a baby's death.

Leigh Hopper writes in the Houston Chronicle: "The baby wore a cute blue outfit with a teddy bear covering his bottom. The 17-pound, 6-month-old boy wiggled with eyes open and smacked his lips, according to his mother.

"Then at 2 p.m. today, a medical staffer at Texas Children's Hospital gently removed the breathing tube that had kept Sun Hudson alive since his Sept. 25 birth. Cradled by his mother, he took a few breaths, and died.

"Sun's death marks the first time a hospital has been allowed by a U.S. judge to discontinue an infant's life-sustaining care against a parent's wishes, according to bioethical experts. "

This is disgusting and people in other countries must be shaking their heads in disbelief over this. I mean with an infant you just never know, he could have developed, they still weren't sure. This was because the family couldn't pay, how awful. :distress:Yes, I think that's a perfect example of Bush's hypocrisy. :distress:

[SuzeQuze]

Yes, I think that's a perfect example of Bush's hypocrisy. :distress:

I hate that man so much. God forgive me.

[GypsySorcerer]

Terri's father also claims that yesterday when he told Terri a judge was going to hear her case, that she smiled...I think these people are living in a fantasy world and need help

Chris

I think they're living in a fantasy world because of severe grief. It's a parents' worst nightmare to bury their child. But Terri is not going to recover and her mind is already dead. Hopefully, they'll realize when she passes, that she is at peace.

[Mad4stevie]

A feeding tube for someone who can't swallow is just as much life support as a ventilator is for someone who can't breathe on their own power. Ventilators are shut down on people all the time- why is the feeding tube any different? All this publicity would never occur if the situation were mirrored with the person being on a ventilator for life support. It wouldn't even make the local paper.

I think a ventilator is different than a feeding tube. Ventilators are much more invasive of a procedure than a feeding tube.

[dissention]

I think a ventilator is different than a feeding tube. Ventilators are much more invasive of a procedure than a feeding tube.

But they're both forms of life support. The feeding tube keeps her alive like a ventilator would keep someone else alive. They have no problems turning off ventilators, what's the difference when it comes to a feeding tube?

[Mad4stevie]

You have many people who say "Terri Schiavo, however, is not a dying woman.Terri is a healthy woman with a disability." I think that's stretching things a lot..

The issue here is that Terri may be in a vegatative state, but she is not terminally ill. In my opinion, that is the difference between hospice care and the witholding of food to a terminally ill person, and this case, where Terri very well may live for another 30 years.

My main concern is that this will set a kind of standard for what we (society) determine to be quality of life. And where does that stop, exactly? If there is a determination that this type of existence is unacceptable, will there be a point where society determines that those with extreme physical and/or mental disabilities are no longer "worth" it?

[Mad4stevie]

But they're both forms of life support. The feeding tube keeps her alive like a ventilator would keep someone else alive. They have no problems turning off ventilators, what's the difference when it comes to a feeding tube?

Well, one main difference is that if a ventilator is removed, the person either begins to breathe on their own or they die within minutes. Removal of a feeding tube is much more of a drawn out process.

Also, I think it is important to note that most people associate "life support" with a ventilator, instead of a feeding tube. I know that I do. Is there specific evidence that Terri mentioned or even thought about a feeding tube vs. a ventilator when making any kind of statements about not wanting to live on life support?

[amber]

Well, one main difference is that if a ventilator is removed, the person either begins to breathe on their own or they die within minutes. Removal of a feeding tube is much more of a drawn out process.

Also, I think it is important to note that most people associate "life support" with a ventilator, instead of a feeding tube. I know that I do. Is there specific evidence that Terri mentioned or even thought about a feeding tube vs. a ventilator when making any kind of statements about not wanting to live on life support?
I dunno, but I'm pretty damn sure she wouldn't say..."yeah, starving to death is fine" *shudder* I can't imagine a worse fate than starving to death. :mad:

[Sugar]

I dunno, but I'm pretty damn sure she wouldn't say..."yeah, starving to death is fine" *shudder* I can't imagine a worse fate than starving to death. :mad:

Oh...I can... :sorry:

I keep coming back to the irony that it was Terri's eating disorder that started all this in the first place...stranger than fiction, I tell ya...

[Sugar]

But they're both forms of life support. The feeding tube keeps her alive like a ventilator would keep someone else alive. They have no problems turning off ventilators, what's the difference when it comes to a feeding tube?

From a purely logical point of view, I think I'm with Diss on this one.

We all imagine the horror of it taking her up to three weeks to die. And I can't imagine what it will be like for her parents to visit her in those final three week, But if she requires mechanical assistance to sustain her life, it's life support, yes?

[amber]

From a purely logical point of view, I think I'm with Diss on this one.

We all imagine the horror of it taking her up to three weeks to die. And I can't imagine what it will be like for her parents to visit her in those final three week, But if she requires mechanical assistance to sustain her life, it's life support, yes?
So, you don't see any difference if it takes her a few minutes to expire or waste away over weeks? Am i getting your meaning right?

[Sugar]

So, you don't see any difference if it takes her a few minutes to expire or waste away over weeks? Am i getting your meaning right?

Well sure there's a difference; one takes a few minutes and one takes a couple weeks...But frankly I'm not sure what the question is...is this about Terri not wanting to be kept alive by artificial means? It seems like both a ventilator and a feeding tube fit that definition.

[Mad4stevie]

From a purely logical point of view, I think I'm with Diss on this one.

We all imagine the horror of it taking her up to three weeks to die. And I can't imagine what it will be like for her parents to visit her in those final three week, But if she requires mechanical assistance to sustain her life, it's life support, yes?

But alot of bioethicists make a distinction between a ventilator and a feeding tube.

What troubles me is whether or not when Terri allegedly made these statements about not wanting life support, did she really mean that to include a feeding tube? I submit that most people, other than those in the medical community, usually equate life support with a ventilator. How many people would say, "Well, if I can't swallow food, I don't want to live"? Not me.

And remember, this woman isn't brain dead, just brain damaged.

[Mad4stevie]

Well sure there's a difference; one takes a few minutes and one takes a couple weeks...But frankly I'm not sure what the question is...is this about Terri not wanting to be kept alive by artificial means? It seems like both a ventilator and a feeding tube fit that definition.

In my opinion, we cannot apply our definition of life support to this case. We should apply what Terri meant by life support, if something more than a general definition can be established.

[amber]

Well sure there's a difference; one takes a few minutes and one takes a couple weeks...But frankly I'm not sure what the question is...is this about Terri not wanting to be kept alive by artificial means? It seems like both a ventilator and a feeding tube fit that definition.
oh, ok. they are both artificial means, but I think it's stretching to compare them. I mean, C'mon.... :)

[ShangriLaTroubl]

If Terri is in a PVS, which she is..then she wouldn't feel or know the "starvation" The starvation thing is something some politicans and her family have used to prove a point, when in fact they know that she wont be lying there knowing she's starving, have any pain or anything...she is brain dead...she does not know what is going on nor will she feel anything

Chris

[heyjupiter678]

In my opinion, we cannot apply our definition of life support to this case. We should apply what Terri meant by life support, if something more than a general definition can be established. I don't see people quibbling over definitions when discussing this type of situation. It's whether or not Terri would want to be kept alive in the condition that she is in, with no hope of improvement. The courts and her husband say she wouldn't. :shrug:

[Mad4stevie]

Did anyone see the interview with the nurse who treated Terri back in the late 1990's? She said that Terri would respond to visitors and that Michael Schiavo would routinely ask "Is the bitch dead yet?" Where the hell was this woman during the initial litigation process?

[Mad4stevie]

If Terri is in a PVS, which she is..then she wouldn't feel or know the "starvation" The starvation thing is something some politicans and her family have used to prove a point, when in fact they know that she wont be lying there knowing she's starving, have any pain or anything...she is brain dead...she does not know what is going on nor will she feel anything

Chris

She is not brain dead. She is brain damaged. There is a big difference.

[dissention]

She is not brain dead. She is brain damaged. There is a big difference.

She still won't feel the starvation, so that "point" that the politicians and those who believe she should live parade around is moot.

[dissention]

Did anyone see the interview with the nurse who treated Terri back in the late 1990's? She said that Terri would respond to visitors and that Michael Schiavo would routinely ask "Is the bitch dead yet?" Where the hell was this woman during the initial litigation process?

Apparently not getting kickbacks at the time when her testimony would have been required during the initial litigation process. Now that the religious right is so heavily involved in this, she's getting quite the little booty to deposit into her bank account. Her "info" has been bought.

[Mad4stevie]

She still won't feel the starvation, so that "point" that the politicians and those who believe she should live parade around is moot.

I think it is interesting when people comment on whether she feels pain, etc. as if the non-recognition of the reality of the starving somehow justifies it.

How is it then that we cannot execute mentally ill murderers because it is considered "cruel and unusual" to execute a person who does not know that they are being executed?

[amber]

She still won't feel the starvation, so that "point" that the politicians and those who believe she should live parade around is moot.
You think she won't feel the starvation?! I don't agree. I don't mind taking her off the ventilator, but I can't condone starving her in the meantime. :distress: *shudder*

[Sugar]

She is not brain dead. She is brain damaged. There is a big difference.

That was actually the point I was sticking on, and from a quick Google search I would have to say that this does seem to be the consensus. But what sort of brain activity is there?

No one knows what Terri meant by "life support" or whatever she allegedly said. Perhaps she wouldn't have said "I don't want to live if I can't swallow," but I bet if you showed her that tape you see on the news every night, that was the sort of thing she was talking about.

[Mad4stevie]

Apparently not getting kickbacks at the time when her testimony would have been required during the initial litigation process. Now that the religious right is so heavily involved in this, she's getting quite the little booty to deposit into her bank account. Her "info" has been bought.

Speaking of getting paid, I find it interesting that Mr. Schiavo has spent over $500,000.00 of Terri's malpractice settlement on his lawyers. :rolleyes:

[Mad4stevie]

You think she won't feel the starvation?! I don't agree. I don't mind taking her off the ventilator, but I can't condone starving her in the meantime. :distress: *shudder*

She isn't on a ventilator. The only life support she is receiving is her feeding tube.

[Sugar]

You think she won't feel the starvation?! I don't agree. I don't mind taking her off the ventilator, but I can't condone starving her in the meantime. :distress: *shudder*

Whether she could feel it or not, I'm pretty sure they're going to have her so pumped up on morphine it wouldn't matter.

[amber]

That was actually the point I was sticking on, and from a quick Google search I would have to say that this does seem to be the consensus. But what sort of brain activity is there?

No one knows what Terri meant by "life support" or whatever she allegedly said. Perhaps she wouldn't have said "I don't want to live if I can't swallow," but I bet if you showed her that tape you see on the news every night, that was the sort of thing she was talking about.
Well, so then why not just disconnect her ventilator? I mean, seriously, starvation? Sorry, I will never get over that. Starvation...

[dissention]

I think it is interesting when people comment on whether she feels pain, etc. as if the non-recognition of the reality of the starving somehow justifies it.

I think it's rather interesting that the politicians and the fundies comment on her starving to death, wasting away, and dying a painful death when she won't feel any pain. It's not about trying to justify anything, it's about respecting her wishes, which the courts have said were not to be kept alive.

How is it then that we cannot execute mentally ill murderers because it is considered "cruel and unusual" to execute a person who does not know that they are being executed?

Because Mrs. Schiavo wasn't mentally ill when she made it clear that she didn't want to continue living under such circumstances.

[Sugar]

Well, so then why not just disconnect her ventilator? I mean, seriously, starvation? Sorry, I will never get over that. Starvation...


See post #83... :wavey:

[amber]

She isn't on a ventilator. The only life support she is receiving is her feeding tube.
Oh.......oops....gaw, then they should inject her with some faster thing...

[dissention]

You think she won't feel the starvation?! I don't agree. I don't mind taking her off the ventilator, but I can't condone starving her in the meantime. :distress: *shudder*

You don't agree with the medical community on the fact that she won't feel any pain? She wouldn't feel anything.

She isn't on a ventilator, just a feeding tube.

[amber]

You don't agree with the medical community on the fact that she won't feel any pain? She wouldn't feel anything.

She isn't on a ventilator, just a feeding tube.
see post #88.

[dissention]

Oh.......oops....gaw, then they should inject her with some faster thing...

On that I agree. :woohoo:

[Mad4stevie]

That was actually the point I was sticking on, and from a quick Google search I would have to say that this does seem to be the consensus. But what sort of brain activity is there?

This is my biggest concern. If we say there isn't "enough" brain activity with Terri, how do we stop this from being applied to other physically or mentally disabled people?

[Hawkeye]

I don't understand why they don't just ask Terri what she wants. She seems consious enough at least in the footage I've seen. Just ask her to shake her head yes or no.

[dissention]

I don't understand why they don't just ask Terri what she wants. She seems consious enough at least in the footage I've seen. Just ask her to shake her head yes or no.

:shocked: :confused:

[Sugar]

This is my biggest concern. If we say there isn't "enough" brain activity with Terri, how do we stop this from being applied to other physically or mentally disabled people?

I very deliberately said "sort of activity" not "enough activity". What areas are affected; which ones could regain function...or not.

[heyjupiter678]

Has everyone seen the brain scan comparison of Terri's brain and a healthy brain?

http://www.amptoons.com/blog/images/schiavo_ct_scan.jpg

The dark blue in her scan is spinal fluid. She's not feeling a thing. :(

[Mad4stevie]

But they're both forms of life support. The feeding tube keeps her alive like a ventilator would keep someone else alive. They have no problems turning off ventilators, what's the difference when it comes to a feeding tube?

Well, I guess that you could say that people on dialysis are on life support, because without it, they would die.

Another difference is that breathing is an involuntary act - if the body is able to breathe, it will. Feeding is a voluntary act - you can feed yourself or someone else can feed you.

[heyjupiter678]

I don't understand why they don't just ask Terri what she wants. She seems consious enough at least in the footage I've seen. Just ask her to shake her head yes or no. <i>This</i> is why this story is all over the news. Misinformation. :distress:

[amber]

Well, I guess that you could say that people on dialysis are on life support, because without it, they would die.
Hmmm, good point...My only thing is that, if she is going to die, I don't want her to starve to death, slowly, over time, I'd rather they gave her a quick and painless thing... :shrug:

[Mad4stevie]

Take a look at this book written by Michael Schiavo's attorney . . .

Be sure to read the interesting reviews at the bottom of the page!

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1577331044/qid%3D1111528437/sr%3D2-1/ref%3Dpd%5Fbbs%5Fb%5F2%5F1/104-7269698-6935946

[Mad4stevie]

Has everyone seen the brain scan comparison of Terri's brain and a healthy brain?

http://www.amptoons.com/blog/images/schiavo_ct_scan.jpg

The dark blue in her scan is spinal fluid. She's not feeling a thing. :(

Here is a direct medical analysis of her brain scan which I found to be very interesting:

http://codeblueblog.blogs.com/codeblueblog/2005/03/csi_medblogs_co.html

And another link of a review of her bone scan revealing possible physical abuse:

http://codeblueblog.blogs.com/codeblueblog/2005/03/csi_medblogs_co_1.html

[GateandGarden]

I don't understand why they don't just ask Terri what she wants. She seems consious enough at least in the footage I've seen. Just ask her to shake her head yes or no.Surely you jest.

[gldstwmn]

The issue here is that Terri may be in a vegatative state, but she is not terminally ill. In my opinion, that is the difference between hospice care and the witholding of food to a terminally ill person, and this case, where Terri very well may live for another 30 years.

My main concern is that this will set a kind of standard for what we (society) determine to be quality of life. And where does that stop, exactly? If there is a determination that this type of existence is unacceptable, will there be a point where society determines that those with extreme physical and/or mental disabilities are no longer "worth" it?

That is exactly why the government has no place in it.
Kudos to the 11th Circuit on this morning's decision.

[SuzeQuze]

That is exactly why the government has no place in it.
Kudos to the 11th Circuit on this morning's decision.

Right. Terry told more than one family member that she would never want to live like she is living right now. It should be up to her what happens. Not the government. Her family is delusional and grasping for false hope in thinking that she will wake up. With that much of her brain gone, she is essentially gone. :distress:

[skcin]

Hmmm, good point...My only thing is that, if she is going to die, I don't want her to starve to death, slowly, over time, I'd rather they gave her a quick and painless thing... :shrug:


I'm with you, Amber. And I have to say, nobody will ever know for sure what she feels, if anything. If she can't tell us herself, then I can't be sure 100%. Sorry.

[markolas]

Hmmm, good point...My only thing is that, if she is going to die, I don't want her to starve to death, slowly, over time, I'd rather they gave her a quick and painless thing... :shrug:

The woman's brain has turned to mush. She has no sense of being, much less the ability to feel pain. Terri is no more alive than a chicken flopping around after you cut its head off.

I'm sorry to sound so cold, but people need to face reality here. She is dead, and has been for a long time.

[Mad4stevie]

The woman's brain has turned to mush. She has no sense of being, much less the ability to feel pain. Terri is no more alive than a chicken flopping around after you cut its head off.

I'm sorry to sound so cold, but people need to face reality here. She is dead, and has been for a long time.

This woman is NOT brain dead! She is brain damaged. To use your logic, anyone will a severe physical and/or mental impairment should be considered "dead". That is scary logic to me.

[markolas]

This woman is NOT brain dead!

She's beyond brain dead.

[SuzeQuze]

She's beyond brain dead.

Technically she isn't because her breathing and heart beat are not regulated by a machine. But all of the sentient parts of her brain are gone and she is left with just the rudimentary brain stem, which regulates breathing and heartbeat. Her "mind" is dead but her brain isn't.

[skcin]

This woman is NOT brain dead! She is brain damaged. To use your logic, anyone will a severe physical and/or mental impairment should be considered "dead". That is scary logic to me.


Exactly. See my earlier post, post # - forget it, I don't know where the hell it is. If someone is born impaired, should we not feed them? :sorry:


I do think she has the right to die, but starving to death is not humane. I'm so confused... :distress:

[Mad4stevie]

Exactly. See my earlier post, post # - forget it, I don't know where the hell it is. If someone is born impaired, should we not feed them? :sorry:


I do think she has the right to die, but starving to death is not humane. I'm so confused... :distress:

I agree with you, Paula. And you have a bit more education and experience in health care than alot of us do.

[Mad4stevie]

Technically she isn't because her breathing and heart beat are not regulated by a machine. But all of the sentient parts of her brain are gone and she is left with just the rudimentary brain stem, which regulates breathing and heartbeat. Her "mind" is dead but her brain isn't.

Does that mean that brain death = involuntary functions that need to be performed by machine? If so, does that mean that those on dialysis are brain dead because they need a machine to substitute for their ailing kidneys?

[SuzeQuze]

Exactly. See my earlier post, post # - forget it, I don't know where the hell it is. If someone is born impaired, should we not feed them? :sorry:


I do think she has the right to die, but starving to death is not humane. I'm so confused... :distress:

Well, it would be inhumane if she suffered but she won't suffer because she has no awareness of what's happening.

[Mad4stevie]

Well, it would be inhumane if she suffered but she won't suffer because she has no awareness of what's happening.

This is an interesting point, because the Supreme Court has found that it is cruel and unusual punishment to execute a mentally ill person because they have no awareness that they are being executed.

[The Tower]

This is an interesting point, because the Supreme Court has found that it is cruel and unusual punishment to execute a mentally ill person because they have no awareness that they are being executed.
The Supreme Court did not base that ruling on that whether or not they were aware that they are being executed. They based that ruling on the fact the the mentally retarded are not culpable when it comes to committing crimes- i.e., they are not wise enough to be able to tell right from wrong.

Don't confuse the issues.

[skcin]

Well, it would be inhumane if she suffered but she won't suffer because she has no awareness of what's happening.

I can't believe that 100%. I just can't. Sorry. Just because she can't communicate does not mean she does not know what's going on. Or feel pain. Nobody can be absolutely sure, the brain is an amazing organ & we know so little about it.

[SuzeQuze]

This is an interesting point, because the Supreme Court has found that it is cruel and unusual punishment to execute a mentally ill person because they have no awareness that they are being executed.

But they can feed themselves. Is it natural to shove a tube in someone's throat to feed them? I wouldn't want to "live" that way. :distress: This is not an execution.

[Mad4stevie]

The Supreme Court did not base that ruling on that whether or not they were aware that they are being executed. They based that ruling on the fact the the mentally retarded are not culpable when it comes to committing crimes- i.e., they are not wise enough to be able to tell right from wrong.

Don't confuse the issues.

I'm not confusing that case. I am not speaking of the mentally retarded. I am speaking of the mentally ill. They are two different cases with two very different issues.

[SuzeQuze]

I can't believe that 100%. I just can't. Sorry. Just because she can't communicate does not mean she does not know what's going on. Or feel pain. Nobody can be absolutely sure, the brain is an amazing organ & we know so little about it.

Well, if she is aware then it would be even worse keeping her alive and trapped like that when she said she would never want to live that way. But I don't believe that she's aware and I have a background in biology. Scientists and doctors would agree that she isn't aware but you're right, they're only 99.9% sure.

[Mad4stevie]

But they can feed themselves. Is it natural to shove a tube in someone's throat to feed them? I wouldn't want to "live" that way. :distress: This is not an execution.

First of all, Terri did not have a tube in her throat. She had one inserted into her stomach. I believe this was how Christopher Reeve was fed as well.

My point in bringing up the execution issue is this: if the court has already determined that it is cruel and unusual to put to death someone who is not aware that they are dying because they are mentally ill, how is it that we can say it is fine to starve this woman because she is brain damaged and is therefore unaware of what is being done to her?

[Mad4stevie]

Well, if she is aware then it would be even worse keeping her alive and trapped like that when she said she would never want to live that way. But I don't believe that she's aware and I have a background in biology. Scientists and doctors would agree that she isn't aware but you're right, they're only 99.9% sure.

If you have a background in biology, maybe you could help us by looking at this and explaning it to us:

Terri's Brain Scan (http://codeblueblog.blogs.com/codeblueblog/2005/03/csi_medblogs_co.html)

[skcin]

Well, if she is aware then it would be even worse keeping her alive and trapped like that when she said she would never want to live that way. But I don't believe that she's aware and I have a background in biology. Scientists and doctors would agree that she isn't aware but you're right, they're only 99.9% sure.

I understand your point, Suze. But I have a medical background & let's be honest, the human body is not an exact science. :shrug: It is quite possible she can feel pain. What about the horror stories of people who were under anesthesia but could feel everything & couldn't move/react/scream/whatever. I know, not the same thing. But it shows that what should happen does not always happen. There's that small chance she will be in agony.

Again, I totally support euthanasia and/or the right to die by requesting no rescucitation, ventilators, etc. I'd be 100% fine with it if Terri had "no feeding tubes" written down. But she didn't. That's all.

[The Tower]

I'm not confusing that case. I am not speaking of the mentally retarded. I am speaking of the mentally ill. They are two different cases with two very different issues.
To my knowledge, the Supreme Court addressed the issue of whether or not those who mental capacities were below a certain IQ should be exempt from capital punishment. I don't know what your alluding to when you say "mentally ill". Those who have been deemed "mentally ill" (they have a diagnosed mental disorder, such as schitzophrenia) have never been sentenced to the death penalty. They have been convicted of a crime based on insanity.

I believe you are referring to the recent Supreme Court decision that stated that those whose mental capacities are below a certain IQ level should not be subject to the death penalty.

Again, this is confusing the issue as it is unrelated to the situation at hand.

Doctors have determined that after 15 years in a vegatative state and the conditon of her cerabral cortex, that Terri does not have conscious thought and is unaware of her surroundings. Florida courts (and the Supreme Court) have reviewed this case over the last seven-plus years and have ruled for Terri's guardian in every instance.

Standard bio-ethics parameters say that anyone in a persistent vegatative state for more than 18 months is beyond the scope of treatment or improvement.

[The Tower]

Again, I totally support euthanasia and/or the right to die by requesting no rescucitation, ventilators, etc. I'd be 100% fine with it if Terri had "no feeding tubes" written down. But she didn't. That's all.
What if everything in this case were exactly the same, but the only thing keeping her alive was a ventilator? Would you think it cruel to have her suffocate to death?

[skcin]

What if everything in this case were exactly the same, but the only thing keeping her alive was a ventilator? Would you think it cruel to have her suffocate to death?


Hhhmmm, so still nothing in writing? Tricky situation. I know several people have said that Terris said "no tubes." Most lay people think of tubes down the throat, in your veins, etc. So I would have to think she meant a vent.

But no, I don't think it's cruel. Doesn't take long to pass out without O2. She'd be unconcious within seconds & die quickly. It's taking her days to die from starvation. :shrug:

[Mad4stevie]

To my knowledge, the Supreme Court addressed the issue of whether or not those who mental capacities were below a certain IQ should be exempt from capital punishment. I don't know what your alluding to when you say "mentally ill". Those who have been deemed "mentally ill" (they have a diagnosed mental disorder, such as schitzophrenia) have never been sentenced to the death penalty. They have been convicted of a crime based on insanity.

Yes, they did address the issue of whether it was cruel or unusual punishment to execute people classified as "mentally retarded". Again, that is not what I am referring to.

The situation that I am referring to is when someone has been sentenced to death and THEN becomes mentally ill. The Supreme Court has indicated that it is cruel and unusual to execute them because they are not in a state of awareness regarding the execution.

[The Tower]

The situation that I am referring to is when someone has been sentenced to death and THEN becomes mentally ill. The Supreme Court has indicated that it is cruel and unusual to execute them because they are not in a state of awareness regarding the execution.

Interesting. When did this happen?

[dissention]

Oy, Patricia Heaton, you are a ****ing nut.

She just said that she's fasting on Good Friday to "show some solidarity" for Terri and her parents.

And now Mel Gibson is releasing press statements regarding this case. :rolleyes:

[Mad4stevie]

Hhhmmm, so still nothing in writing? Tricky situation. I know several people have said that Terris said "no tubes." Most lay people think of tubes down the throat, in your veins, etc. So I would have to think she meant a vent.

But no, I don't think it's cruel. Doesn't take long to pass out without O2. She'd be unconcious within seconds & die quickly. It's taking her days to die from starvation. :shrug:

Exactly. If the issue is what Terri meant, how do we know that she meant no feeding tubes? I think most people who are not medically trained think of this as a ventilator. I know that I did before becoming more educated about living wills, etc.

[Mad4stevie]

Interesting. When did this happen?

I had an entire semester long seminar in capital punishment my last year in law school. I am gonna have to dig out my old notes!

[Kelly]

I think her best friend, one of the four who testified in the NUMEROUS and EXTENSIVE court proceedings, stated that Terri explicity stated "no feeding tubes". I do not know the circumstances because I cannot remember but they were either discussing a case or watching something together on tv and Terri commented that she would not want a feeding tube. Realistically, how many people sit down with their significant others and spell out..."I do not want a ventilator, I do not want hydration..I do not want a feeding tube". People speak in generalities about their feelings on subjects like this and the courts have found there is compelling evidence that Terri expressed to at least four people that she did not want to live like this.
My Mom died of cancer. She did not eat for the last three weeks of her life. That is part of the dying process. Did she starve to death? Probably but it was part of the dying process. Was it inhumane? She looked peaceful and pain free to me. My Mother also had no brain damage. I understand both sides but if this was the womans wish..who are we to say she has to stay alive in this situation? Especially the friggin politicians? They need to stay out of that stuff. I also think that if there was any chance at all that Terri could feel any pain, they would medicate her? There are also plenty of tests they can do to see if she reacts to pain.

[SuzeQuze]

Oy, Patricia Heaton, you are a ****ing nut.

She just said that she's fasting on Good Friday to "show some solidarity" for Terri and her parents.

And now Mel Gibson is releasing press statements regarding this case. :rolleyes:

That's interesting given I don't think that behavior is different from any other day for her. She has said that she starved herself to get thin. :shrug: I wonder if she pumps her fist when someone is put to death? And how does she feel about the baby in Texas who had the plug pulled on him because he was poor, due to a bill signed by then governor Bush?

[Mad4stevie]

Interesting. When did this happen?

Ford v. Wainwright (1986) = execution of the mentally ill (insane) violates the 8th amendment barring cruel and unusual punishment.

The Court has not yet accepted a case to determine whether a person who is mentally ill can be medicated to make them sane enough to be executed. A case had been appealed dealing with this issue, but the court refused to take the case.

[Mad4stevie]

I think her best friend, one of the four who testified in the NUMEROUS and EXTENSIVE court proceedings, stated that Terri explicity stated "no feeding tubes". I do not know the circumstances because I cannot remember but they were either discussing a case or watching something together on tv and Terri commented that she would not want a feeding tube. Realistically, how many people sit down with their significant others and spell out..."I do not want a ventilator, I do not want hydration..I do not want a feeding tube". People speak in generalities about their feelings on subjects like this and the courts have found there is compelling evidence that Terri expressed to at least four people that she did not want to live like this.

Actually, the court record shows that there were three people who testified about Terri's wish to not be on life support - Michael, Michael's brother and Michael's brother's wife. The guardian ad litem appointed for Terri by the court filed a report that recommended that the court NOT accept Michael's testimony as "clear and convincing" evidence because of his conflict of interest.

Interestingly, there was a friend of Terri's who testified that she and Terri discussed the case of Karen Ann Quinlan and Terri stated that there was no way that anyone could know what Karen wanted after the fact. However, the judge did not consider this to be applicable to what Terri would want for herself. :shrug: :shrug: :shrug:

[dissention]

That's interesting given I don't think that behavior is different from any other day for her. She has said that she starved herself to get thin. :shrug: I wonder if she pumps her fist when someone is put to death? And how does she feel about the baby in Texas who had the plug pulled on him because he was poor, due to a bill signed by then governor Bush?

I used to really like her, but she's too loony nowadays. She's truly grating. I remember reading that Doris Roberts can't stand her and I don't blame her. I'm so sick of her "Hollywood Republican" schtick and her naive, uneducated beliefs regarding abortion and euthanasia.

[skcin]

I think her best friend, one of the four who testified in the NUMEROUS and EXTENSIVE court proceedings, stated that Terri explicity stated "no feeding tubes". I do not know the circumstances because I cannot remember but they were either discussing a case or watching something together on tv and Terri commented that she would not want a feeding tube. Realistically, how many people sit down with their significant others and spell out..."I do not want a ventilator, I do not want hydration..I do not want a feeding tube". People speak in generalities about their feelings on subjects like this and the courts have found there is compelling evidence that Terri expressed to at least four people that she did not want to live like this.
My Mom died of cancer. She did not eat for the last three weeks of her life. That is part of the dying process. Did she starve to death? Probably but it was part of the dying process. Was it inhumane? She looked peaceful and pain free to me. My Mother also had no brain damage. I understand both sides but if this was the womans wish..who are we to say she has to stay alive in this situation? Especially the friggin politicians? They need to stay out of that stuff. I also think that if there was any chance at all that Terri could feel any pain, they would medicate her? There are also plenty of tests they can do to see if she reacts to pain.

Sorry to hear about your mom. I hope that since she was terminally ill she was medicated & felt no pain. I hope they will medicate Terri also, despite the assumption that she can't feel.

And you're right - "how many people write exactly what they want..." Exactly the point. We should all learn a lesson from this terrible situation & write down exactly what we do & don't want in these circumstances.

[The Tower]

Ford v. Wainwright (1986) = execution of the mentally ill (insane) violates the 8th amendment barring cruel and unusual punishment.

The Court has not yet accepted a case to determine whether a person who is mentally ill can be medicated to make them sane enough to be executed. A case had been appealed dealing with this issue, but the court refused to take the case.
Hmmm, I don't think this decision has any relevance to the Schiavo case. Terri Schiavo isn't mentally insane. She is in a persistant vegetative state. If this Supreme Court ruling had any relevance to this case all of the courts that were involved in it would have used that decision as precedent to find in favor of Shiavo's parents. But, that is not the case.

Again, this is unrelated to the situation at hand.

[Mad4stevie]

Hmmm, I don't think this decision has any relevance to the Schiavo case. Terri Schiavo isn't mentally insane. She is in a persistant vegetative state. If this Supreme Court ruling had any relevance to this case all of the courts that were involved in it would have used that decision as precedent to find in favor of Shiavo's parents. But, that is not the case.

Again, this is unrelated to the situation at hand.

I am not saying that this case is directly relevant. Obviously, the topics are unrelated.

I am only offering this on the point of "awareness" and the viewpoint that starving her should be ok because she doesn't know/feel what is happening to her.

[The Tower]

I am not saying that this case is directly relevant. Obviously, the topics are unrelated.

I am only offering this on the point of "awareness" and the viewpoint that starving her should be ok because she doesn't know/feel what is happening to her.
People on life support have the plug pulled on them all the time. If she's unable to eat or drink and she has no consciousness, how is that life? Doctors and courts have determined that she is unresponsive to and incoherent of outside stimuli... for 15 years. It's sad, but it happens.

[skcin]

If she's unable to eat or drink and she has no consciousness, how is that life?

Well, most of my former patients were born that way. They never got better, obviously. Should we have not given them feeding tubes so they could starve to death a few weeks after birth & make it "easier" on everyone? Survival of the fittest & all that?

[The Tower]

Well, most of my former patients were born that way. They never got better, obviously. Should we have not given them feeding tubes so they could starve to death a few weeks after birth & make it "easier" on everyone? Survival of the fittest & all that?
From what I've read lately regarding this issue- adults in a persistant vegetative state can survive for a much longer period that children (and even more so, newborns/infants).

If a baby was born in such a state and the parents opted to have the child taken off of life support (even though the infant had obviously not voiced its opinion), then I would have to respect their decision. In this case, Terri's guardian stated that she didn't want to be on life support, so I also respect his decision.

If it were "survival of the fittest", then we wouldn't even bother with life support to begin with- those who couldn't eat, drink, breathe or sustain their life on their own would be allowed to die without any medical assistance whatsoever. We all know that this is not the case in today's society/medical reality, so why it was brought up as a point escapes me.

[skcin]

From what I've read lately regarding this issue- adults in a persistant vegetative state can survive for a much longer period that children (and even more so, newborns/infants).

If a baby was born in such a state and the parents opted to have the child taken off of life support (even though the infant had obviously not voiced its opinion), then I would have to respect their decision. In this case, Terri's guardian stated that she didn't want to be on life support, so I also respect his decision.

If it were "survival of the fittest", then we wouldn't even bother with life support to begin with- those who couldn't eat, drink, breathe or sustain their life on their own would be allowed to die without any medical assistance whatsoever. We all know that this is not the case in today's society/medical reality, so why it was brought up as a point escapes me.

So someone may say: "Well, my kid's a retard so I don't think he'll have a good life. Let's not feed him." And if he can't feed himself, and the parents decide not to, that's OK? Would that not be neglect/abuse?

You know what? Never mind. I'm sorry I brought it up. I don't disagree with letting people make decisions about their own life/death. They should be able to do that. I want to be able to do that. But I'm going to have it in writing, even at the age of 29. You never know what could happen, obviously.

[The Tower]

So someone may say: "Well, my kid's a retard so I don't think he'll have a good life. Let's not feed him." And if he can't feed himself, and the parents decide not to, that's OK? Would that not be neglect/abuse?

You know what? Never mind. I'm sorry I brought it up.
I know you've said never mind, so I'm just posting this as a general thing not as a pointed thing.

Part of this whole Schiavo problem is the confusion. Terri Schiavo isn't mentally retarded. At no point has anyone said that those with mental retardation should be denied food and water. If there is a child that is born with severe physiological problems (akin to something like being in a persistant vegetative state), the doctor is going to relay this info to the parents and they can approach the issue on their terms.

The sooner people understand that "Terri Schiavo" died 15 years ago, the sooner people will understand why her husband wants to allow her physical shell to pass on as well.

[Mad4stevie]

People on life support have the plug pulled on them all the time. If she's unable to eat or drink and she has no consciousness, how is that life? Doctors and courts have determined that she is unresponsive to and incoherent of outside stimuli... for 15 years. It's sad, but it happens.

What information are you relying on for this opinion? Did you read any of the court transcripts or doctor affidavits or even investigate it further than the general assertions being thrown around in the media? I just want to understand where your information comes from.

[markolas]

I can't believe that 100%. I just can't. Sorry. Just because she can't communicate does not mean she does not know what's going on. Or feel pain. Nobody can be absolutely sure, the brain is an amazing organ & we know so little about it.

She doesn't have a brain!

[The Tower]

What information are you relying on for this opinion? Did you read any of the court transcripts or doctor affidavits or even investigate it further than the general assertions being thrown around in the media? I just want to understand where your information comes from.
I'm basing this on the indepth articles that I've read that have stated these things whose sources have been the court transcripts, as well as reputable discussions such as NPR's "To The Point" with Warren Olney- none of which have been "general assertions" of the media.

[Mad4stevie]

She doesn't have a brain!

Even Schiavo doesn't go this far in his assertion of her condition. How exactly can you make this determination? Are you a neurologist that can read brain scans and other diagnostic tools?

[Mad4stevie]

I'm basing this on the indepth articles that I've read that have stated these things whose sources have been the court transcripts, as well as reputable discussions such as NPR's "To The Point" with Warren Olney- none of which have been "general assertions" of the media.

I would suggest you might want to read the actual information for yourself instead of letting someone else "spin" it for you. All media outlets condense and package the information in a certain way and the only way you can really see the information is to look at it directly. Most of it is online.

I learned alot by reading it directly.

[The Tower]

I would suggest you might want to read the actual information for yourself instead of letting someone else "spin" it for you.
Oh, please.... I'm not absorbing "spin" at all.

[Mad4stevie]

Oh, please.... I'm not absorbing "spin" at all.

Every media outlet "spins" the information in one way or another. Please tell me you don't believe everything you hear/read from these media yahoos. Why not read the actual information so you can draw your own conclusions?

I am not trying to be offensive. I am just interested in why people have the beliefs and opinions that they do.

[gldstwmn]

Her family is delusional and grasping for false hope.

I'm begining to think that it's more than that.

[The Tower]

Every media outlet "spins" the information in one way or another. Please tell me you don't believe everything you hear/read from these media yahoos. Why not read the actual information so you can draw your own conclusions?

I am not trying to be offensive. I am just interested in why people have the beliefs and opinions that they do.
For one thing, I don't listen to or read things from "media yahoos". There are media outlets out there (the aforementioned "To The Point" as an example) that actually present multiple viewpoints from credible sources without spin. I'm don't need to slog through every transcript, etc. to create an informed opinion.

[dissention]

I'm begining to think that it's more than that.

They're using their daughter to push and promote religious and political ideology. Nothing more, nothing less.

[irishgrl]

(my apologies is some of this has already been said, I only got to page 2 before I decided to just jump to the end and post)

first of all, here is an article that is pretty down to earth in Q & A format:
Myth vs. Reality, which diagnosis is right? (http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/local/state/orl-asecschiavoquest23032305mar23,1,1720211.story?coll=orl-home-specialbreaking&ctrack=1&cset=true)

for me, this issue is two pronged: first of all I stand on the side of "death with DIGNITY" and believe that Terri should be allowed to slip away *quietly* although that unfortunately is not going to happen. As a parent, I definitely sympathize with Mr. and Mrs. Schindler, I cant even begin to imagine their pain. But their argument that Terri would improve with treatment is just groundless. Terri has had therapy back in 1990 and it didnt help. Michael even tried a relatively new procedure to try and help her and it didnt help. her Brain Stem is liquid. She is reduced to only reflex actions. There is NO quality of life, there is merely a shell that hasnt stopped breathing yet. While I grieve for the Schindlers, I also deplore their abject failure to acknowledge the utter finality of Terri's condition. She will not get better. She has NOT gotten better in 15 years. If, as they claim, the only thing she needs is therapy, then why didnt it work before? The chances of therapy even being effective diminish as time goes on. This case should not be confused with a coma patient whose brain may still be alive and who may still wake up relatively untouched by the coma experience.

Secondly, I think some members of Congress and Dumbya and Jeb are definitely using this to garner political brownie points with a certain cross section of the electorate, and this is an egregious abuse of power. From what Ive read from Legal analysts, this issue is relatively clearcut from a legal standpoint, these sorts of cases are the domain of STATE courts and the fact that all this legal maneuvering has occurred to try and manipulate an outcome to impress a select few voters makes me SEETHE :mad: I hope this bites congress in the butt come election time. I also resent the effort to tie this poor woman's situation into the whole anti-abortion agenda.

finally, I heard that Michael turned down a cool million to relinquish custody of Terri, so I dont see how anyone can say he is motivated by $$$. I dont know if he is guilty of anything or is covering anything up or has any hidden agenda. I know he is cohabiting with someone else and has two kids by her but that in and of itself doesnt make him an unfit guardian. Yes, it would be simpler on the one hand for him to release custody to Terri's parents, but, maybe he really IS trying to honor her wishes as he says and that is his sole motivation. If so, then I applaud his courage to hang tough.

[irishgrl]

She is not brain dead. She is brain damaged. There is a big difference.
as far as I am concerned, with a brain this badly damaged, its as good as dead.
:shrug:

6 years ago there was a similar case with similar machinations by congress and courts, and the outcome was the same, the patient died. Nothing has changed. Congress' Palm Sunday Compromise is nothing more than shameless grandstanding. Hugh Finn (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A58237-2005Mar22.html) (having trouble with the page, if anyone can find a better link, please let me know) thanks!

[irishgrl]

Does that mean that brain death = involuntary functions that need to be performed by machine? If so, does that mean that those on dialysis are brain dead because they need a machine to substitute for their ailing kidneys?

failing kidneys could possibly be replaced if a donor is found. dialysis is a temporary stopgap measure meant to buy a patient time until a donor is found. you cant get a BRAIN transplant so the comparison doesnt hold up.

also, failing kidneys are usually the result of disease, which medical science has always tried to cure or at least alleviate.

Terri has been kept alive in this way for 15 years. No one can say she hasnt been given every opportunity for recovery. In fact, as time went on, her chances of any type of recovery got slimmer and slimmer. her condition can NOT improve. There is no higher good being served her by keeping her connected to a feeding tube. If her wish was to be allowed to die, I for one dont feel anyone else has any right to interfere. Again, we only have autonomy over our OWN bodies.

[Mad4stevie]

failing kidneys could possibly be replaced if a donor is found. dialysis is a temporary stopgap measure meant to buy a patient time until a donor is found. you cant get a BRAIN transplant so the comparison doesnt hold up.

also, failing kidneys are usually the result of disease, which medical science has always tried to cure or at least alleviate.

Terri has been kept alive in this way for 15 years. No one can say she hasnt been given every opportunity for recovery. In fact, as time went on, her chances of any type of recovery got slimmer and slimmer. her condition can NOT improve. There is no higher good being served her by keeping her connected to a feeding tube. If her wish was to be allowed to die, I for one dont feel anyone else has any right to interfere. Again, we only have autonomy over our OWN bodies.

I understand. I was being extreme in responding to a previous post.

I do find it troubling that she has not had specific testing performed recentely because the husband, as her guardian, has refused to allow the testing, such as a swallow test. I am going to find the specific details and post them.

[irishgrl]

Yes, they did address the issue of whether it was cruel or unusual punishment to execute people classified as "mentally retarded". Again, that is not what I am referring to.

The situation that I am referring to is when someone has been sentenced to death and THEN becomes mentally ill. The Supreme Court has indicated that it is cruel and unusual to execute them because they are not in a state of awareness regarding the execution.

myself, I would have serious doubts about the onset of this "mental illness". kinda like those jailhouse christians you hear about all the time....
which case are you referring to?

[Mad4stevie]

as far as I am concerned, with a brain this badly damaged, its as good as dead.
:shrug:

6 years ago there was a similar case with similar machinations by congress and courts, and the outcome was the same, the patient died. Nothing has changed. Congress' Palm Sunday Compromise is nothing more than shamless grandstanding.

Maybe that is your opinion, but there is a medical difference.

For the record, even though I am very troubled by what is happening to Terri, I do not agree that Congress should have gotten involved. It is not appropriate for them to legislate in an area of state's rights.

[Mad4stevie]

myself, I would have serious doubts about the onset of this "mental illness". kinda like those jailhouse christians you hear about all the time....
which case are you referring to?


Keep reading. The citation is in there.

[irishgrl]

Ford v. Wainright (1986).....Ill look it up but I think you may have misstated something there. I think it may be key WHEN the mental illness occurs; I cant imagine any court anywhere giving credence to a mental illness that appears after a death sentence has been handed down, and thus staying an execution.

just doesnt hold water...if that were true, death row would be FULL of certifiables...(well, it is but not for that reason!) anyway, off I go to read it.
stay tuned kiddies!

*****
ok, as I read it, the Supreme Court "conclud[ed] that the Eighth Amendment prohibits the State from inflicting the death penalty upon a prisoner who is insane." but the issue was not so much the fact of the prisoner's insanity but whether or not he received due process consideration:

"The first defect in Florida's procedures is the failure to include the prisoner in the truth-seeking process. Any procedure that precludes the prisoner or his counsel from presenting material relevant to his sanity or bars consideration of that material by the factfinder is necessarily inadequate."

so, it looks as though the Supreme Court had more of an issue with Florida's fact finding process which is why it sent the matter back to the trial court.

I would be most interested to know what happened once it was remanded, if Ford's attempt to avoid the death penalty was successful....has anyone shepardized this case?

[The Tower]

While I grieve for the Schindlers, I also deplore their abject failure to acknowledge the utter finality of Terri's condition.
This is the absolute crux of the entire issue. It's the whole ball of wax. If the parents would just sit back and come to grips with reality, then none of this publicity bull**** would have ever happened.

Which leads to this....
They're using their daughter to push and promote religious and political ideology. Nothing more, nothing less.
I would say what I really think, but most people don't look upon my opinion without injecting ridiculous sentiment into it. So, I'll just leave Dissy's comment as a more dignified statement.

[Mad4stevie]

Ford v. Wainright (1986).....Ill look it up but I think you may have misstated something there. I think it may be key WHEN the mental illness occurs; I cant imagine any court anywhere giving credence to a mental illness that appears after a death sentence has been handed down, and thus staying an execution.

just doesnt hold water...if that were true, death row would be FULL of certifiables...(well, it is but not for that reason!) anyway, off I go to read it.
stay tuned kiddies!

I actually confirmed this information with the ACLU's own website. I did have a full semester in law school on this very topic of capital punishment, which I found fascinating.

There is an issue of whether a state can force medication in order to make an inmate sane enough to execute. The Supremes did not agree to take the case and left it to the state to determine.

[Mad4stevie]

They're using their daughter to push and promote religious and political ideology. Nothing more, nothing less.

Wow - now it appears that the Schindler's even have an "evil" purpose. :rolleyes:

[irishgrl]

Wow - now it appears that the Schindler's even have an "evil" purpose. :rolleyes:

I dont think the Schindlers are motivated by anything other than love and grief over their daughter's condition and the fact that they arent ready to face reality. I think the true evil purpose was exhibited by the gorillas in suits on capitol hill.

[dissention]

So, I'll just leave Dissy's comment as a more dignified statement.

:shocked:

Wonders never cease...

[irishgrl]

I actually confirmed this information with the ACLU's own website. I did have a full semester in law school on this very topic of capital punishment, which I found fascinating.

There is an issue of whether a state can force medication in order to make an inmate sane enough to execute. The Supremes did not agree to take the case and left it to the state to determine.

I did read it and the issue was slightly different than what you implied. While the Supreme Court did say that the 8th Amendment prohibits execution of mentally insane persons, they had more of an issue at how the Florida Executive branch arrived at its decision to go ahead and execute. Apparently they found fault with the PROCESS, not so much the prisoner's mental health state. I think it would be most interesting to find out what happend to Crazy old Ford....whether he avoided the death penalty in the end or not :shrug:

also, in CA I believe we do use medication to make a prisoner sane. and then execute. having said that, however, we seem to have the OLDEST prisoners on death row of any state! by that I mean, the average wait time seems to hover around 15 to 20 years! many of these folks DIE first :shrug:

[dissention]

Wow - now it appears that the Schindler's even have an "evil" purpose. :rolleyes:

Don't put words in my mouth, dear, I never said "evil". It couldn't be any more obvious that the Schindler's are in this to promote their ideology, as evidenced by the right-wing fundies that they're carousing about with.

[Mad4stevie]

She has not had a swallow test since 1992.

She has not had any rehab since 1994.

She has be denied the benefit of any new technology to help in evaluation her condition since 2002.

I find it terrible that even if the tube has removed, the judge has denied the ability of anyone to even feed Terri ice chips. Fine, removed the "life support" but why deny the woman the ability to even have ice chips? :(

Also, if this was truly Terri's wish, why did her husband wait 8 years to disclose that to anyone??

[Mad4stevie]

Don't put words in my mouth, dear, I never said "evil". It couldn't be any more obvious that the Schindler's are in this to promote their ideology, as evidenced by the right-wing fundies that they're carousing about with.

"Evil" is my word interpreting your intent. ;)

How can you say that is "obvious" (and that is your word :xoxo: ) that this is their intention? They are dealing with their daughter in a terrible, horrible situation. I don't think anyone can even pretend to understand their motivations unless they have been in the exact same situation.

[Mad4stevie]

I dont think the Schindlers are motivated by anything other than love and grief over their daughter's condition and the fact that they arent ready to face reality. I think the true evil purpose was exhibited by the gorillas in suits on capitol hill.

I think we agree on this point! :wavey:

[Mad4stevie]

also, in CA I believe we do use medication to make a prisoner sane. and then execute. having said that, however, we seem to have the OLDEST prisoners on death row of any state! by that I mean, the average wait time seems to hover around 15 to 20 years! many of these folks DIE first :shrug:

Yeah - Scott Peterson will never be executed based on those stats!

There must be some tie in regarding the ability to forcibly medicate those on death row for execution - if they could execute someone who was insane without running afoul of the 8th amendment, this would not be an issue for the Court to decide.

[irishgrl]

the onset of her condition is 1990 right? and from a previous post, I learned that the window of effectiveness for therapy closes at approximately 18months.
From your post, it looks as though she had therapy for two years longer than the window was open. She had swallow tests for two years after onset. 12 years of benefit of new technology, including an experimental treatment he flew her to California to perform (see my first post on page 11)
How many YEARS of failure does one need?

If your intent was to paint Michael as an uncaring husband, unwilling to allow therapy or perform tests, I am sorry, I just cant see that you've made your point.

[Mad4stevie]

the onset of her condition is 1990 right? and from a previous post, I learned that the window of effectiveness for therapy closes at approximately 18months.
From your post, it looks as though she had therapy for two years longer than the window was open. She had swallow tests for two years after onset. 12 years of benefit of new technology, including an experimental treatment he flew her to California to perform (see my first post on page 11)
How many YEARS of failure does one need?

If your intent was to paint Michael as an uncaring husband, unwilling to allow therapy or perform tests, I am sorry, I just cant see that you've made your point.

I am just questioning why he waited for 8 years to disclose her condition. I don't get it. Seems if it were so important he would have done something between the time he ended therapy and 1998. Just my opinion.

My other point was that maybe she should have been allowed more recent testing, if technology would give us a better idea of exactly what is happening with her.

I never understand why, where an irreversible situation is about to occur, people refuse to use technology to get additional information. It makes me think of those judges who deny death row immates the right to DNA testing before they are put to death. All terrible things.

[irishgrl]

I am just questioning why he waited for 8 years to disclose her condition. I don't get it. Seems if it were so important he would have done something between the time he ended therapy and 1998. Just my opinion.

My other point was that maybe she should have been allowed more recent testing, if technology would give us a better idea of exactly what is happening with her.

I never understand why, where an irreversible situation is about to occur, people refuse to use technology to get additional information. It makes me think of those judges who deny death row immates the right to DNA testing before they are put to death. All terrible things.


I dont know why Michael did what he did, or when or whatever. Whatever his motivation, he will have to answer for his actions when he meets his maker. Im not going to agonize over his motivations. As for affording Terri the benefit of newer technology, I personally cant see any reason why not, but I am not her guardian. As I said before, Michael seems to be ROCK SOLID in his position that he is only doing what Terri wished. He has fought her parents, the State of Florida (the Legislature and Governor) public opinion, the President of the US and the US Congress. He must have something soul deep he is holding onto in order to be so staunch in the face of such opposition.

His road isnt any easier than the Schindlers ya know.....he once loved this woman.....

[Mad4stevie]

As I said before, Michael seems to be ROCK SOLID in his position that he is only doing what Terri wished. He has fought her parents, the State of Florida (the Legislature and Governor) public opinion, the President of the US and the US Congress. He must have something soul deep he is holding onto in order to be so staunch in the face of such opposition.

His road isnt any easier than the Schindlers ya know.....he once loved this woman.....

The evidence was only weighed by the original trial judge (Greer). Everyone else has deferred to him.

Except, that the federal court was to conduct a de novo hearing, and given the amount of time that the hearing took (2 hours), there was no way that could have occurred.

[gldstwmn]

<img src ="http://rawstory.com/images/other/talkingpointsrawstory.jpg">

[gldstwmn]

<img src ="http://rawstory.com/images/other/lautenbergletter.gif">

[gldstwmn]

<img src ="http://cagle.slate.msn.com/news/TerriSchiavo/images/sack.jpg">

[gldstwmn]

Did anyone see the interview with the nurse who treated Terri back in the late 1990's? She said that Terri would respond to visitors and that Michael Schiavo would routinely ask "Is the bitch dead yet?" Where the hell was this woman during the initial litigation process?


http://mediamatters.org/items/200503230001

CNN, Fox featured ex-Schiavo nurse whose affidavit was dismissed as "incredible" by judge

On March 22, both CNN's Live From... and Fox News' Fox and Friends aired interviews with Carla Sauer Iyer -- a former nurse for Terri Schiavo who in 2003 submitted an affidavit with inflammatory accusations against Terri's husband, Michael Schiavo -- but failed to report questions about Iyer's credibility. Judge George W. Greer, the Florida circuit judge who has presided over several aspects of the Schiavo case, dismissed Iyer's allegations as "incredible" and noted in a September 17, 2003, order that not even Terri Schiavo's parents sought her testimony in the case.

In both appearances, Iyer was presented as a former nurse for Terri Schiavo. Fox introduced her as a "registered nurse in Florida" who "cared for Terri for more than a year between '95 and 1996." In addition, on-screen text described Iyer as "Carla Sauer Iyer; Cared for Terri Schiavo." On CNN, Iyer was introduced as a "nurse who says that she cared for Terri Schiavo [for] more than a year in the mid-1990s." As with Fox, CNN's on-screen text described Iyer as "Terri Schiavo's former nurse." Another on-screen text line presented on CNN stated that Iyer "testified about Terri Schiavo's physical state." However, according to Greer's September 2003 order, Schiavo's parents had not subpoenaed Iyer to testify.

In both a 2003 court affidavit (posted on the website operated by Terri's parents, Robert and Mary Schindler) and her March 22 cable appearances, Iyer maintained that Terri Schiavo was constantly "alert and oriented" while under her care, "saying such things as 'mommy,' and 'help me.' " She claimed that "Throughout my time at Palm Gardens, Michael Schiavo was focused on Terri's death. Michael would say 'When is she going to die?' 'Has she died yet?' and 'When is that bitch gonna die?' " The affidavit also included her claims that Michael Schiavo expressed the desire to "accelerate" Terri's death, that when Terri was sick and looked as if she might die, "He [Michael] would blurt out 'I'm going to be rich,' " and the assertion that "[i]t is my belief that Michael injected Terri with Regular insulin" to intentionally make her sick. She claimed in her affidavit that "I ultimately called the police relative to this situation, and was terminated the next day."

Greer dismissed Iyer's charges, noting that they -- along with a similar affidavit given by Heidi Law, another nurse who formerly took care of Terri Schiavo -- were "incredible to say the least" and that "[n]either in the testimony nor in the medical records is there support for these affidavits as they purport to detail activities and responses of Terri Schiavo." From Greer's decision:

The remaining affidavits deal exclusively with events which allegedly occurred in the 1995-1997 time frame. The court feels constrained to discuss them. They are incredible to say the least. Ms. Iyer details what amounts to a 15-month cover-up which would include the staff of Palm Garden of Lago Convalescent Center, the Guardian of the Person, the Guardian ad Litem, the medical professionals, the police and, believe it or not, Mr. and Mrs. Schindler. Her affidavit clearly states that she would "call them (Mr. and Mrs. Schindler) anyway because I thought they should know about their daughter." The affidavit of Ms. Law speaks of Terri responding on a constant basis. Neither in the testimony nor in the medical records is there support for these affidavits as they purport to detail activities and responses of Terri Schiavo. It is impossible to believe that Mr. and Mrs. Schindler would not have subpoenaed Ms. Iyer for the January 2000 evidentiary hearing had she contacted them as her affidavit alleges.

[gldstwmn]

Judge Greer's order:http://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/trialctorder0903.pdf

Heidi Law's affidavit:http://www.terrisfight.org/documents/hlawaffidavit.htm

[irishgrl]

badum PUM! :D

thanx for posting the anonymous memo and subsequent letter......geez, the juggernaut will stop at nothing :shrug:

[gldstwmn]

badum PUM! :D

thanx for posting the anonymous memo and subsequent letter......geez, the juggernaut will stop at nothing :shrug:

They are evil. :nod:

[Mad4stevie]

http://mediamatters.org/items/200503230001

CNN, Fox featured ex-Schiavo nurse whose affidavit was dismissed as "incredible" by judge

On March 22, both CNN's Live From... and Fox News' Fox and Friends aired interviews with Carla Sauer Iyer -- a former nurse for Terri Schiavo who in 2003 submitted an affidavit with inflammatory accusations against Terri's husband, Michael Schiavo -- but failed to report questions about Iyer's credibility. Judge George W. Greer, the Florida circuit judge who has presided over several aspects of the Schiavo case, dismissed Iyer's allegations as "incredible" and noted in a September 17, 2003, order that not even Terri Schiavo's parents sought her testimony in the case.

In both appearances, Iyer was presented as a former nurse for Terri Schiavo. Fox introduced her as a "registered nurse in Florida" who "cared for Terri for more than a year between '95 and 1996." In addition, on-screen text described Iyer as "Carla Sauer Iyer; Cared for Terri Schiavo." On CNN, Iyer was introduced as a "nurse who says that she cared for Terri Schiavo [for] more than a year in the mid-1990s." As with Fox, CNN's on-screen text described Iyer as "Terri Schiavo's former nurse." Another on-screen text line presented on CNN stated that Iyer "testified about Terri Schiavo's physical state." However, according to Greer's September 2003 order, Schiavo's parents had not subpoenaed Iyer to testify.

In both a 2003 court affidavit (posted on the website operated by Terri's parents, Robert and Mary Schindler) and her March 22 cable appearances, Iyer maintained that Terri Schiavo was constantly "alert and oriented" while under her care, "saying such things as 'mommy,' and 'help me.' " She claimed that "Throughout my time at Palm Gardens, Michael Schiavo was focused on Terri's death. Michael would say 'When is she going to die?' 'Has she died yet?' and 'When is that bitch gonna die?' " The affidavit also included her claims that Michael Schiavo expressed the desire to "accelerate" Terri's death, that when Terri was sick and looked as if she might die, "He [Michael] would blurt out 'I'm going to be rich,' " and the assertion that "[i]t is my belief that Michael injected Terri with Regular insulin" to intentionally make her sick. She claimed in her affidavit that "I ultimately called the police relative to this situation, and was terminated the next day."

Greer dismissed Iyer's charges, noting that they -- along with a similar affidavit given by Heidi Law, another nurse who formerly took care of Terri Schiavo -- were "incredible to say the least" and that "[n]either in the testimony nor in the medical records is there support for these affidavits as they purport to detail activities and responses of Terri Schiavo." From Greer's decision:

The remaining affidavits deal exclusively with events which allegedly occurred in the 1995-1997 time frame. The court feels constrained to discuss them. They are incredible to say the least. Ms. Iyer details what amounts to a 15-month cover-up which would include the staff of Palm Garden of Lago Convalescent Center, the Guardian of the Person, the Guardian ad Litem, the medical professionals, the police and, believe it or not, Mr. and Mrs. Schindler. Her affidavit clearly states that she would "call them (Mr. and Mrs. Schindler) anyway because I thought they should know about their daughter." The affidavit of Ms. Law speaks of Terri responding on a constant basis. Neither in the testimony nor in the medical records is there support for these affidavits as they purport to detail activities and responses of Terri Schiavo. It is impossible to believe that Mr. and Mrs. Schindler would not have subpoenaed Ms. Iyer for the January 2000 evidentiary hearing had she contacted them as her affidavit alleges.

I read about her credibility problem after I posted the comment that you mentioned. Clearly if the woman was credible, the Schindlers would have had her in the 2000 hearing.

[gldstwmn]

I read about her credibility problem after I posted the comment that you mentioned.

And yet, you never said anything. Why?

[Mad4stevie]

And yet, you never said anything. Why?

Because that comment was an afterthought after seeing information on CNN. I did not consider this woman an integral part of the issue and only mentioned her in that one post.

[dissention]

Because that comment was an afterthought after seeing information on CNN. I did not consider this woman an integral part of the issue.

Neither did Judge Greer by the looks of it.

[gldstwmn]

Because that comment was an afterthought after seeing information on CNN. I did not consider this woman an integral part of the issue.

Yet it was easy enough to impugn Michael Schiavo's intentions on her word.
Weren't you cautioning The Tower earlier in the thread about getting too caught up in the media?
This isn't the first time I've read your impugnity of Michael Schiavo's intentions either.

[irishgrl]

Because that comment was an afterthought after seeing information on CNN. I did not consider this woman an integral part of the issue and only mentioned her in that one post.
thats not the impression you gave when you posted that bit?

it seemed to be part of your argument against Michael? Im just saying...

[Mad4stevie]

Did you see the interview with Terri's acutal court appointed guardian, Jay Wolfson?

I found it compelling that all parties were about ready to agree to do specific testing for Terri, and Schiavo's lawyer pulled out at the last minute, not because it was the best thing for Terri, but because he wanted to make the argument that the guardian was unconstitutional. That tells me something about his motivations. :(

[dissention]

Did you see the interview with Terri's acutal court appointed guardian, Jay Wolfson?

I found it compelling that all parties were about ready to agree to do specific testing for Terri, and Schiavo's lawyer pulled out at the last minute, not because it was the best thing for Terri, but because he wanted to make the argument that the guardian was unconstitutional. That tells me something about his motivations. :(

Well, there's no doubt in my mind that Michael is just as much of a puppet as the Schindler's are for various ideologies and groups. This whole situation is very Citizen Ruth-ish, if you ask me.

[irishgrl]

Did you see the interview with Terri's acutal court appointed guardian, Jay Wolfson?

I found it compelling that all parties were about ready to agree to do specific testing for Terri, and Schiavo's lawyer pulled out at the last minute, not because it was the best thing for Terri, but because he wanted to make the argument that the guardian was unconstitutional. That tells me something about his motivations. :(

you make me wish I had cable, but then on the other hand, maybe Im better off not getting my news from tv...anyway, which parties were ready to agree? just curious...

[Mad4stevie]

Yet it was easy enough to impugn Michael Schiavo's intentions on her word.
Weren't you cautioning The Tower earlier in the thread about getting too caught up in the media?
This isn't the first time I've read your impugnity of Michael Schiavo's intentions either.

Well, I have issues with his intentions because of all the other reasons that I have already stated. Her testimony is collateral to the issue and if it was primary in my concern, I would certainly have stated it more over the many pages that this thread has run.

I did not make mention of this woman other than that post, so based on all the other reasons that I have listed, I dont' see how you can say this information was what I was basing my opinion on.

[Mad4stevie]

thats not the impression you gave when you posted that bit?

it seemed to be part of your argument against Michael? Im just saying...


No - I just wondered where the woman came from. People do come out of the woodwork all the time for the attention. I get that. I did not base my opinion of Michael on this woman. I based it on all the other things that I have already stated about the timing of the case, etc.

[Mad4stevie]

you make me wish I had cable, but then on the other hand, maybe Im better off not getting my news from tv...anyway, which parties were ready to agree? just curious...

The parties - Terri's parents and Michael. Until Felos steps in. Goddamn lawyers. :distress:

Did you look at the link about Felos regarding the book that he had written? Interesting commentary about the book at the bottom of the page. So if we want to look at people's intentions in pushing this case forward, why not look at Felos and the fact that he has received over $400,000 in fees from Terri's malpractice settlement among other possible motivations.

[dissention]

The parties - Terri's parents and Michael. Until Felos steps in. Goddamn lawyers. :distress:

Did you look at the link about Felos regarding the book that he had written? Interesting commentary about the book at the bottom of the page. So if we want to look at people's intentions in pushing this case forward, why not look at Felos and the fact that he has received over $400,000 in fees from Terri's malpractice settlement among other possible motivations.

Felos is a nut. That book scared me, to be honest. But I'll have to read it before passing total judgement on it. That bit about him wanting to chop his wife into pieces made me gag a bit, though. Nice lawyer you've got there, bub.

[gldstwmn]

Did you see the interview with Terri's acutal court appointed guardian, Jay Wolfson?

I found it compelling that all parties were about ready to agree to do specific testing for Terri, and Schiavo's lawyer pulled out at the last minute, not because it was the best thing for Terri, but because he wanted to make the argument that the guardian was unconstitutional. That tells me something about his motivations. :(

Do you have a link for that?

Jay Wolfson seems to think very highly of Michael Schiavo:
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/columnists/orl-locmiket25022505feb25,1,1729313.column?ctrack=2&cset=true

Terri's husband isn't the enemy, guardian says
Published February 25, 2005

I received an avalanche of e-mail about Terri Schiavo. The bad information going out on this case is amazing.

What is real and what is not?

For answers, I turned to University of South Florida professor Jay Wolfson. He was appointed as a guardian ad litem for Terri in 2003 and prepared a report on her for Jeb Bush.

After a judge dismissed him in December of that year, Bush and Terri's parents -- Bob and Mary Schindler -- requested he stay on as Terri's guardian. Terri's husband, Michael Schiavo, opposed the request.

Wolfson's report is based on court files, depositions, medical records and interviews with everyone involved.

That said, I begin with the most explosive allegation:

Did Michael try to kill Terri?

Wolfson laughs. "No!"

In 1990, Terri went into cardiac arrest, which shut off oxygen to her brain. A potassium imbalance, perhaps caused by an eating disorder, triggered the attack.

Has Michael withheld treatment?

Wolfson's report states that in the four years after her collapse, Michael "had insistently held to the premise that Theresa could recover and the evidence is incontrovertible that he gave his heart and soul to her treatment and care . . . In late autumn of 1990, following months of therapy and testing and formal diagnoses of persistent vegetative state with no evidence of improvement, Michael took Theresa to California, where she received an experimental thalamic stimulator implant in her brain. Michael remained in California caring for Theresa during a period of several months."

Says Wolfson now: "Michael was adoring of her. One nursing home complained he was hostile and abusive of the staff in championing her care. She was immaculately kept. In 13 years, she never had one bedsore."

Is Michael after her insurance settlement?

Wolfson's report says that early on, Michael "formally offered to divest himself entirely of his financial interests in the guardianship estate."

Why doesn't Michael simply turn Terri over to her family?

From the report: "Testimony provided by members of the Schindler family included very personal statements about their desire and intention to ensure that Theresa remain alive . . . at any and all costs. Nearly gruesome examples were given, eliciting agreement by family members that in the event Theresa should contract diabetes and subsequent gangrene in each of her limbs, they would agree to amputate each limb and would then, were she to be diagnosed with heart disease, perform open-heart surgery. Within the testimony, as part of the hypothetical presented, Schindler family members stated that even if Theresa had told them of her intention to have artificial nutrition withdrawn, they would not do it."

Wolfson told me that when Michael heard this, he said: "That's it. I'm never going to let that happen to her."

Wolfson says the Schindlers later recanted their testimony.

Can Terri recover?

"Theresa's neurological tests and CT scans indicate objective measures of the persistent vegetative state," the report says. "These data indicate that Theresa's cerebral cortex is principally liquid, having shrunken due to the severe anoxic trauma experienced 13 years ago."

[gldstwmn]

Well, there's no doubt in my mind that Michael is just as much of a puppet as the Schindler's are for various ideologies and groups.

For who? :confused:

[Mad4stevie]

Do you have a link for that?

Jay Wolfson seems to think very highly of Michael Schiavo:
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/columnists/orl-locmiket25022505feb25,1,1729313.column?ctrack=2&cset=true

Terri's husband isn't the enemy, guardian says
Published February 25, 2005

I received an avalanche of e-mail about Terri Schiavo. The bad information going out on this case is amazing.

What is real and what is not?

For answers, I turned to University of South Florida professor Jay Wolfson. He was appointed as a guardian ad litem for Terri in 2003 and prepared a report on her for Jeb Bush.

After a judge dismissed him in December of that year, Bush and Terri's parents -- Bob and Mary Schindler -- requested he stay on as Terri's guardian. Terri's husband, Michael Schiavo, opposed the request.

Wolfson's report is based on court files, depositions, medical records and interviews with everyone involved.

That said, I begin with the most explosive allegation:

Did Michael try to kill Terri?

Wolfson laughs. "No!"

In 1990, Terri went into cardiac arrest, which shut off oxygen to her brain. A potassium imbalance, perhaps caused by an eating disorder, triggered the attack.

Has Michael withheld treatment?

Wolfson's report states that in the four years after her collapse, Michael "had insistently held to the premise that Theresa could recover and the evidence is incontrovertible that he gave his heart and soul to her treatment and care . . . In late autumn of 1990, following months of therapy and testing and formal diagnoses of persistent vegetative state with no evidence of improvement, Michael took Theresa to California, where she received an experimental thalamic stimulator implant in her brain. Michael remained in California caring for Theresa during a period of several months."

Says Wolfson now: "Michael was adoring of her. One nursing home complained he was hostile and abusive of the staff in championing her care. She was immaculately kept. In 13 years, she never had one bedsore."

Is Michael after her insurance settlement?

Wolfson's report says that early on, Michael "formally offered to divest himself entirely of his financial interests in the guardianship estate."

Why doesn't Michael simply turn Terri over to her family?

From the report: "Testimony provided by members of the Schindler family included very personal statements about their desire and intention to ensure that Theresa remain alive . . . at any and all costs. Nearly gruesome examples were given, eliciting agreement by family members that in the event Theresa should contract diabetes and subsequent gangrene in each of her limbs, they would agree to amputate each limb and would then, were she to be diagnosed with heart disease, perform open-heart surgery. Within the testimony, as part of the hypothetical presented, Schindler family members stated that even if Theresa had told them of her intention to have artificial nutrition withdrawn, they would not do it."

Wolfson told me that when Michael heard this, he said: "That's it. I'm never going to let that happen to her."

Wolfson says the Schindlers later recanted their testimony.

Can Terri recover?

"Theresa's neurological tests and CT scans indicate objective measures of the persistent vegetative state," the report says. "These data indicate that Theresa's cerebral cortex is principally liquid, having shrunken due to the severe anoxic trauma experienced 13 years ago."

He was interviewed on MSNBC. He was complimentary to Terri's parents and when questioned about Schiavo, he referred to the court determination that there was no inappropriate conduct on the part of Michael (withholding treatment, etc.) that he saw.

The issue is that all of his 30 days spent with Terri and any information that he compiled was not used because Felos felt it was more important to make his objection to the appointment of Jay as guardian. This information puts a bit of new perspective on the motivations of Felos, IMO.

[dissention]

For who? :confused:

Felos and his cronies, for one. Do a Google on him, you'll unearth some scary ****.

As much as I agree with the decision to let her die, you can't possibly say with a straight face that things are on the up and up on Michael's side of this whole fiasco. Both he and the Schindler's are puppets. He for Felos and his incredibly twisted ideals, and they for the right-wing fundies. The thing that disgusts me most about it all, though, is that I get the impression that both sides are aware that they're being used and they could care less.

[Mad4stevie]

Felos and his cronies, for one. Do a Google on him, you'll unearth some scary ****.

As much as I agree with the decision to let her die, you can't possibly say with a straight face that things are on the up and up on Michael's side of this whole fiasco. Both he and the Schindler's are puppets. He for Felos and his incredibly twisted ideals, and they for the right-wing fundies. The thing that disgusts me most about it all, though, is that I get the impression that both sides are aware that they're being used and they could care less.

I can agree with you about the fact that there are forces at work here on both sides of the fence that have nothing to do with what is right for Terri.

Felos is a nut. :nod: Scary guy with scary ideas.

Even if I assume for the sake of argument that Michael does have Terri's best interest at heart, he could very well be bamboozled by this idot lawyer into doing things that advance Felos' crazy ideals instead of Terri's rights.

Ten minutes before the deadline was to expire for the parties to reach an agreement on further testing for Terri, Felos backs out because of his constitutional argument. It appears that he made the decision that it was more important to object to a guardian (that ultimately would have went his way anyway) being appointed, than to just do the testing for Terri. That's bullsh*t.

[gldstwmn]

Felos and his cronies, for one. Do a Google on him, you'll unearth some scary ****.


Well, Free Republic comes up high on the Google list for Felos...as do a bunch of other winger sites. If you've got something credible, I'd love to read it if you can post a link.
My understanding is that he hasn't been paid for at least three years, if at all. I think that was pointed out on Larry King the other night.
I'll see if I can find a transcript.

[Mad4stevie]

Well, Free Republic comes up high on the Google list for Felos...as do a bunch of other winger sites. If you've got something credible, I'd love to read it if you can post a link.
My understanding is that he hasn't been paid for at least three years, if at all. I think that was pointed out on Larry King the other night.
I'll see if I can find a transcript.

The court documents say that he has been paid over $400,000.00

I will try to find a link to that.

[gldstwmn]

The court documents say that he has been paid over $400,000.00

I will try to find a link to that.

Yes but the money ran out three years ago:

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0503/21/lkl.01.html

KING: Shreveport, Louisiana, hello.

CALLER: Yes, I have two questions. I'd like to know why it took him so long to decide that he wanted her to die, and also what happened to the money that was given to her to take care of her for her therapy?

KING: The first question was answered, that for a long time he felt that she might pull through. George, what about the financial end?

FELOS: Well, as on the financial end, Terri's money for years went to her medical care and to her nursing home care, and her guardianship money has also gone to the legal costs and fees. But there hasn't been any money there for, oh, about three years.

[Mad4stevie]

Yes but the money ran out three years ago:

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0503/21/lkl.01.html

KING: Shreveport, Louisiana, hello.

CALLER: Yes, I have two questions. I'd like to know why it took him so long to decide that he wanted her to die, and also what happened to the money that was given to her to take care of her for her therapy?

KING: The first question was answered, that for a long time he felt that she might pull through. George, what about the financial end?

FELOS: Well, as on the financial end, Terri's money for years went to her medical care and to her nursing home care, and her guardianship money has also gone to the legal costs and fees. But there hasn't been any money there for, oh, about three years.

Yes. I recall this. But as you can see, he got the cash from the money that was earmarked for Terri's treatment. It certainly doesn't mean that he isn't getting paid from some other source now.

Did you see the issue about Medicare fraud and Felos?

[Mad4stevie]

Well, Free Republic comes up high on the Google list for Felos...as do a bunch of other winger sites. If you've got something credible, I'd love to read it if you can post a link.
My understanding is that he hasn't been paid for at least three years, if at all. I think that was pointed out on Larry King the other night.
I'll see if I can find a transcript.

Many of those links do list specific quotes from his book. Regardless of the commentary, just look at the quotes from his book. Crazy MF.

[skcin]

She doesn't have a brain!

Yes, she does. Severely damaged & atrophied, but she does have a brain.

And no, irishgirl, she is not diagnosed as brain dead.

I know, most say "well she's as good as dead, her brain is mush, etc" but please don't make opinion sound like fact. It will only confuse people.

I woke up this morning hoping I'd hear on the news that she had died last night. :distress:

The problem with this case is that everyone is confusing the issues & bringing up other issues that are only semi-relevant, or not relevant at all (myself included.) The bottom line is not whether removing a feeding tube is cruel. It's not whether Terri can get better or not. It's not even whether her husband or parents should make the decision.

I believe (and correct me if I'm wrong) it's whether or not to take her husband's & friends' words as truth that Terri told them at some point she did not want to live with any assistance. Since she did not put anything in writing, or on video, this is the only evidence we have of her wishes - people swearing that she told them she would not want this. Right? :shrug:

Just wanted to get back to the actual issue here, as several other cans of worms have been opened - by the religious right, our government, the media, all of us. If Terri really did not want this, then I believe that she should be allowed to die as she wished.

Oh, just an opinion about the swallow study. If a person has not eaten anything by mouth in years, a swallow study is extremely dangerous. Actually, it's dangerous any time you suspect that someone may not be swallowing properly. But Terri will not all of a sudden be able to swallow after all this time, her epiglotis has not been used in years & years. The fluid they use for the study will almost definitely flow right into her lungs, which will either cause her to choke to death or will settle into her lungs & eventually cause pneumonia. Either way, it will be painful & she will suffer.

Ice chips, same thing - the water will go into the lungs, not the stomach.

[ShangriLaTroubl]

The problem I have with this case is it doesn't make sense to me WHY someone cannot prove or disprove that Terri is in a PVS. There's so much rhetoric going around from both sides..and I just don't understand WHY it cannot be proven one way or the other. Both sides seem to have doctors who say what they want--is it that hard to diagnose someone being in a PVS?

Chris

[BTFLCHLD]

CNN Breaking News

-- U.S. Supreme Court refuses to intervene in Terri Schiavo case. Lower court decision to remove feeding tube stands.

Watch CNN or log on to http://CNN.com for the latest news.

[GypsySorcerer]

CNN Breaking News

-- U.S. Supreme Court refuses to intervene in Terri Schiavo case. Lower court decision to remove feeding tube stands.

Watch CNN or log on to http://CNN.com for the latest news.

I knew the Supreme Court would refuse to hear the case. They always avoid making decisions that will piss off one side or the other if they can. However, I do think they were correct in this instance.

[Mad4stevie]

I believe (and correct me if I'm wrong) it's whether or not to take her husband's & friends' words as truth that Terri told them at some point she did not want to live with any assistance. Since she did not put anything in writing, or on video, this is the only evidence we have of her wishes - people swearing that she told them she would not want this. Right? :shrug:

Oh, just an opinion about the swallow study. If a person has not eaten anything by mouth in years, a swallow study is extremely dangerous. Actually, it's dangerous any time you suspect that someone may not be swallowing properly. But Terri will not all of a sudden be able to swallow after all this time, her epiglotis has not been used in years & years. The fluid they use for the study will almost definitely flow right into her lungs, which will either cause her to choke to death or will settle into her lungs & eventually cause pneumonia. Either way, it will be painful & she will suffer.


Thanks for the information on the swallow test. It helps to have the medical point of view on this. :wavey:

[gldstwmn]

Yes. I recall this. But as you can see, he got the cash from the money that was earmarked for Terri's treatment. It certainly doesn't mean that he isn't getting paid from some other source now.

Did you see the issue about Medicare fraud and Felos?

I haven't read enough about Felos to say yes or no to that.

[gldstwmn]

Many of those links do list specific quotes from his book. Regardless of the commentary, just look at the quotes from his book. Crazy MF.

I don't trust them to transcribe anything properly, so I'm not even going there. Like I said to D, if there are credible links out there, I'd love to read them.
I don't go to sites like that because I would need to shower afterward. :)

[gldstwmn]

I woke up this morning hoping I'd hear on the news that she had died last night. :distress:


So did I. Why are people who are so hellbent on making us believe in the kingdom of heaven so reluctant to let her go there? This world has got to be hell for her.

[gldstwmn]

CNN Breaking News

-- U.S. Supreme Court refuses to intervene in Terri Schiavo case. Lower court decision to remove feeding tube stands.



The decision was unanimous. :nod:

[gldstwmn]

I knew the Supreme Court would refuse to hear the case. They always avoid making decisions that will piss off one side or the other if they can.

Too bad they didn't feel the need to do that on December 12, 2000.

[irishgrl]

Jeb Bush request rebuffed (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/washpost/20050324/ts_washpost/a58819_2005mar23&e=2) Good. the Bush brothers are now out of this.

[dissention]

I don't trust them to transcribe anything properly, so I'm not even going there. Like I said to D, if there are credible links out there, I'd love to read them.
I don't go to sites like that because I would need to shower afterward. :)

Here's one about Felos that I found particularly disturbing:

http://www.sptimes.com/News/052501/Floridian/The_spirit_and_the_la.shtml

The fact that he takes these cases to find spiritual enlightenment is rather disturbing to me. He's just as much of religious nutjob as the people on the Schindler's side. He actually claims that the spirits of those he represents speak to him. Talk about nucking futs.

While he certainly may not be getting any money form Michael Schiavo at the moment (after already getting almost $400,000 of her $700,000), he's certainly making money off of his notoriety from being so heavily involved in the case. Must be going towards the purchase of new Yoga mats.

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0EIN/is_2003_March_28/ai_99462420

[Mad4stevie]

The decision was unanimous. :nod:

I was not aware that they had determined the vote count on this. Obviously, it was denied because they has less than 4 votes to take the case, but I didn't hear that it was unanimous.

[Mad4stevie]

Here's one about Felos that I found particularly disturbing:

http://www.sptimes.com/News/052501/Floridian/The_spirit_and_the_la.shtml

The fact that he takes these cases to find spiritual enlightenment is rather disturbing to me. He's just as much of religious nutjob as the people on the Schindler's side. He actually claims that the spirits of those he represents speak to him. Talk about nucking futs.

While he certainly may not be getting any money form Michael Schiavo at the moment (after already getting almost $400,000 of her $700,000), he's certainly making money off of his notoriety from being so heavily involved in the case. Must be going towards the purchase of new Yoga mats.

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0EIN/is_2003_March_28/ai_99462420

:laugh: This guy is as crazy as they come!

[dissention]

:laugh: This guy is as crazy as they come!

He's insane. Just because I agree that the woman should die, it doesn't mean that I find this guy honorable, sane, or worthy of any praise or kind words for fighting this case. He's doing it for all the wrong reasons and I find him to be rather disgusting. Just think, my great state of Massachusetts gave him to the world. *shudder*

Oh, and look at this:

http://www.eaglestalent.com/speaker-bureau,1904,presenter,law-healthcare-health-George-Felos,speaker.asp

I wonder how much money he's racked up from that little side business of going across the country presenting "The Terri Schiavo Sago – From Family Fight to Constitutional Crisis" to audiences for $15,000.

[gldstwmn]

Jeb Bush request rebuffed (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/washpost/20050324/ts_washpost/a58819_2005mar23&e=2) Good. the Bush brothers are now out of this.
Somehow I doubt it.

[irishgrl]

Somehow I doubt it.

if the trend holds, tonight is the last gasp for political maneuvering I believe.

[gldstwmn]

I was not aware that they had determined the vote count on this. Obviously, it was denied because they has less than 4 votes to take the case, but I didn't hear that it was unanimous.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/03/24/schiavo/index.html

Kennedy referred the appeal to the other eight justices, who declined to get involved.

[Hawkeye]

Too bad they didn't feel the need to do that on December 12, 2000.

OK what happened that day.

[dissention]

OK what happened that day.

Oh, man.

GEORGE W. BUSH WAS SELECTED AS PRESIDENT.

[Hawkeye]

Oh, man.

GEORGE W. BUSH WAS SELECTED AS PRESIDENT.

oh, sorry.

[dissention]

There's a special on A&E tonight about Schiavo, in case anyone is interested. :wavey:

[bikerchic]

There's a special on A&E tonight about Schiavo, in case anyone is interested. :wavey:
Yes I am, thank you.

[dissention]

Yes I am, thank you.

It's on 8PM, I believe. I just watched City Confidential about the murder of an Ethiopian student in Portland, Oregon by neo-Nazi's in '88 and I pretty much lost my dinner. It's hard to believe that such hatred exists, to be honest. You see it on TV, but if you've never experienced or seen it in real life, it's quite something. Anyway, sorry, but I just found it incredibly depressing and shocking. :laugh:

[The Tower]

Oh, man.

GEORGE W. BUSH WAS SELECTED AS PRESIDENT.
:lol: :laugh: :lol: :laugh: :lol: :laugh: :lol:

[heyjupiter678]

I just watched City Confidential about the murder of an Ethiopian student in Portland, Oregon by neo-Nazi's in '88 and I pretty much lost my dinner. It's hard to believe that such hatred exists, to be honest. You see it on TV, but if you've never experienced or seen it in real life, it's quite something. Anyway, sorry, but I just found it incredibly depressing and shocking. :laugh: I saw the same episode earlier today. I agree, it was very sad and shocking. Did you see the footage of the rally with the little boy in the crowd screaming "KKK!"? :distress:

[gldstwmn]

OK what happened that day.

That was the day they decided W could be president.

[dissention]

I saw the same episode earlier today. I agree, it was very sad and shocking. Did you see the footage of the rally with the little boy in the crowd screaming "KKK!"? :distress:

Ugh, I was crying. And that "Sideshow Bob" dude that they interviewed on the street infuriated me. "These people are getting the word out, I think it's a good thing." How sick and depraved. It's when I see stuff like that show that it makes me wonder what is so great about the human race.

[Nixxxed]

Interesting:

Michael Schiavo's brother just said on Countdown that the Schindlers not only approved of Michael seeing other women after Terri became ill, they persuaded him to do so.

At one point, Mr. Schindler noticed that Michael was really upset about Terri and her condition, and mentioned to his brother that "Michael really needs to go get laid." And, Keith Olbermann referenced at 93 (or so) deposition where Mr. Schindler is on record saying he approved of Michael's relationship with his new girlfriend (and now common-law wife that all the fundies say negates him from being Terri's legal spouse and decision-making guardian).

[SuzeQuze]

Americans United Blasts Congressional Leaders' Promise To Push Religious Right Agenda
Wednesday, March 23, 2005

In Closed-Door Briefings, Frist, DeLay Cement Ties With Religious Right On Schiavo Case, Judges, Abortion, Marriage, Church Politicking, Ethics Complaints

Top congressional leaders have promised to push the Religious Right agenda on judicial nominations, church politicking, abortion, marriage and the Terri Schiavo case, according to Americans United for Separation of Church and State.

Americans United today released audiotapes of closed-door addresses by Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist and House Majority Leader Tom DeLay to a Family Research Council (FRC) gathering March 17-18 at Washington, D.C.'s Willard Hotel. The pair talked about a range of political issues, using the Schiavo case as a springboard.

"Religious Right leaders are determined to run all of our lives, from the moment of conception through the end of life," said the Rev. Barry W. Lynn, Americans United executive director. "And top congressional leaders are conspiring behind closed doors in Washington to help them do it. It's appalling.

"Frist and DeLay have wrapped sanctimonious language around political posturing," said Lynn. "They are using Mrs. Schiavo's personal tragedy in Florida to burnish their credentials with an increasingly powerful component of the Republican Party. It's a sad, cynical political ploy."

Mrs. Schiavo, a Florida woman, has been in a persistent vegetative state for 15 years. Her husband, Michael Schiavo, has fought a long legal battle to remove her feeding tube. Religious Right forces and their allies in Congress and Florida government have repeatedly tried to intervene in the situation, despite medical advice and court decisions that support Mr. Schiavo.

During the FRC meeting, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) and House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Texas) assured attendees that they would do what it takes to keep Schiavo connected to a feeding tube and also would exert great power to push a whole host of issues central to the Religious Right's agenda.

DeLay urged the gathering to contact lawmakers in both chambers to support legislation that would allow churches to become much more involved in partisan politicking. The Texas Republican blasted current federal tax law, which bars both secular and religious nonprofit groups from endorsing political candidates.

"It forces Christians back into the church and that's what is going on," DeLay claimed. "That's not what Christ asked us to do. We have to fight back."
Beyond swearing allegiance to the Religious Right's agenda, DeLay, who has faced increased attention for alleged ethics violations, also bemoaned "personal attacks" against him and other conservative leaders and said the Schiavo case would highlight those attacks.

"One thing that God has brought to us is Terri Schiavo, to help elevate the visibility of what is going on in America," DeLay told the crowd.

"This is exactly the issue that is going on in America, of attacks against the conservative movement, against me and against many others," DeLay said. He
complained that "the other side" was leading the attack, with a goal "to defeat the conservative movement."

According to DeLay, a "whole syndicate" of "do-gooder" forces are arrayed against him in "a huge nationwide concerted effort to destroy everything we believe in."

FRC President Tony Perkins assured DeLay of the group's support and asked audience members to contact Republican lawmakers and demand that they back the House majority leader.

Americans United's Lynn said, "It is dishonorable for Rep. DeLay to use the Schiavo case and cloak himself in Christian piety in order to evade accountability on ethics complaints."

Frist also told the FRC attendees that he was dedicated to issues dear to their hearts.

"You stand up for our families, our children, you never back down," Frist told the gathering via speakerphone. "That's why we are winning these larger battles today. Together we are leading our nation forward. We have a president, a House of Representatives, a Senate that shares our values and the American people are on our side.

"In this Congress we are going to continue to work on the issues that are important to you, to me and above all, America's future," Frist continued.

Those issues include, Frist maintained, the confirmation of "good judges," protecting the "sanctity of marriage" and protecting "the unborn." He said, "I'm also committed to ending the [Senate Democratic] minority's filibuster [on judges] and restoring this 220 years or more of Senate tradition and history."

Frist was particularly adamant about fighting for a Federal Marriage Amendment, saying that, "We will take action to preserve and protect and defend the sanctity of marriage between a man and a woman."

Americans United's Lynn said the comments by DeLay and Frist prove that Congress is beholden to the Religious Right's narrow vision for America.

"I find it appalling that top leaders of Congress are using the Schiavo tragedy to nurture their Religious Right base," Lynn said. "I am confident that the American people do not want their personal lives subjected to interference from Congress and their Religious Right allies."

http://www.au.org/site/News2?JServSessionIdr001=xcvca6khq2.app5b&abbr=pr&page=NewsArticle&id=7277&security=1002&news_iv_ctrl=1241

[wondergirl9847]

"It forces Christians back into the church and that's what is going on," DeLay claimed. "That's not what Christ asked us to do. We have to fight back."

I'm so glad we have people to speak on behalf of Christ on governmental issues. :rolleyes:

You don't FORCE a Christian back in church.

Will people just stay out of this?! This is between her husband and parents. Sheebus. I don't see how her parents are even involved in any decision making as she is over 18 AND married. Good gravy.

[heyjupiter678]

I'm so glad we have people to speak on behalf of Christ on governmental issues. :rolleyes:

You don't FORCE a Christian back in church.

Will people just stay out of this?! This is between her husband and parents. Sheebus. I don't see how her parents are even involved in any decision making as she is over 18 AND married. Good gravy. :nod: :xoxo:

[SuzeQuze]

I'm so glad we have people to speak on behalf of Christ on governmental issues. :rolleyes:

You don't FORCE a Christian back in church.

Will people just stay out of this?! This is between her husband and parents. Sheebus. I don't see how her parents are even involved in any decision making as she is over 18 AND married. Good gravy.

It's re-goddam-diculous. If he wants Christians in politics passing laws according to church doctrine then these "ministers" would need to pay taxes! But that's another issue. Delay is just blabbering on about this to distract people from what's really going on. There is no conspiracy against conservatives, there is a movement to keep the separation of church and state that we thought we already had. Delay is under fire for illegal election activities so he'll say anything to try to get the spotlight off of him. Especially things that will line his pockets with more contributions in the future.

[irishgrl]

Blog countdown (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6210240/)

interesting excerpt:
Glenn McGee is the director of the New York Institute For Bioethics, and editor-in-chief of The American Journal Of Bioethics.

{Transcript}
OLBERMANN: Do you know where this money is coming from? The Schindlers can't possibly have afforded this on their own, can they?

MCGEE: Well, Keith, my research group at Albany Medical College has been looking for the past couple of days into the question you just raised. Namely, if there were 30,000 persistent vegetative state patients around the country, how is it that this one case attracted so much attention and so much litigation?

And what we found is that on both sides of the aisle on this set of legal actions, there's been an enormous amount of money. Some of it's actually been money to support lawyers but most of it has been gifts from large law firms and lobbyists to enable multitasking firms, the kind of
thing we saw in the O.J. trial, on behalf, mostly, of the Schindlers.

OLBERMANN: Do you know where that money came from? Do you know how much it amounted to?

MCGEE: Well, we don't know exactly how much it amounted to. Because as I said most of is it what you would call in kind contribution by lawyers who, in essence, agree with the cause.

So for example, among the representatives of Michael Schiavo's side, the American Civil Liberties Union most recently, and a number of different lawyers who work for firms that specialize in this sort of thing.

But more interesting, the Schindlers have enlisted legal assistance that's amounted to millions of dollars at this point, mostly from national right to life associated groups.

OLBERMANN: Millions of dollars.

MCGEE: At least $20,000 for each filing. And on top of that, there's procedural funding and funding for each and every action that moves up through the system.

You have to remember, Keith, when a case gets to the 11th District Court, it's moved through at least 25 different judges. And appellate lawyers have examined constitutionality questions in teams of 20 and 30. Many of these lawyers billing as much as $500 or $600 an hour.


file that under "Things that make you go Hmmmmmmmm..........."

[SuzeQuze]

Blog countdown (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6210240/)

interesting excerpt:
Glenn McGee is the director of the New York Institute For Bioethics, and editor-in-chief of The American Journal Of Bioethics.

{Transcript}
OLBERMANN: Do you know where this money is coming from? The Schindlers can't possibly have afforded this on their own, can they?

MCGEE: Well, Keith, my research group at Albany Medical College has been looking for the past couple of days into the question you just raised. Namely, if there were 30,000 persistent vegetative state patients around the country, how is it that this one case attracted so much attention and so much litigation?

And what we found is that on both sides of the aisle on this set of legal actions, there's been an enormous amount of money. Some of it's actually been money to support lawyers but most of it has been gifts from large law firms and lobbyists to enable multitasking firms, the kind of
thing we saw in the O.J. trial, on behalf, mostly, of the Schindlers.

OLBERMANN: Do you know where that money came from? Do you know how much it amounted to?

MCGEE: Well, we don't know exactly how much it amounted to. Because as I said most of is it what you would call in kind contribution by lawyers who, in essence, agree with the cause.

So for example, among the representatives of Michael Schiavo's side, the American Civil Liberties Union most recently, and a number of different lawyers who work for firms that specialize in this sort of thing.

But more interesting, the Schindlers have enlisted legal assistance that's amounted to millions of dollars at this point, mostly from national right to life associated groups.

OLBERMANN: Millions of dollars.

MCGEE: At least $20,000 for each filing. And on top of that, there's procedural funding and funding for each and every action that moves up through the system.

You have to remember, Keith, when a case gets to the 11th District Court, it's moved through at least 25 different judges. And appellate lawyers have examined constitutionality questions in teams of 20 and 30. Many of these lawyers billing as much as $500 or $600 an hour.


file that under "Things that make you go Hmmmmmmmm..........."

I'm glad someone asked this question because I have been wondering this myself! Thanks for posting. I <3 Keith Olbermann. :xoxo:

[irishgrl]

for some interesting insight into the timeline of the relationships of all parties concerned, as well as the seeds of the motivations involved see:
Fight over $$ as much as principle (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/usatoday/20050325/ts_usatoday/feudmaybeasmuchovermoneyasprinciple&e=3)

for an article on the early years see:
An unstudied life: (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A64459-2005Mar24.html)

and for an article on how the fundies are exploiting this issue:
Deathbed Dollars (http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/032505Y.shtml) NOTE: Be VERY AFRAID: the fundies are SO CLOSE to taking over this country and imposing their narrow minded view of society on ALL of us.
can feudalism be far behind?

by the way, Ive seen people vilify Felos' actions/motivations but when Jay Wolfson explains it, Felos doesnt seem so far off the beam:
OLBERMANN: Ultimately, when you were involved in this case, what were your recommendations to Governor Bush and would you give the same recommendations under these circumstances today?

WOLFSON: My recommendations were that additional swallowing tests and neurological tests should be performed for the purpose of resolving the dispute between the parties. Because the legal process and the medical process, I felt, had been competent and had met the standards of proof. But only if the parties agreed in advance as to how the results of those tests could be used.

If you'll look at my final report, we had a draft agreement. And we almost got there. At 11:50 p.m. on the 30th of November, Sunday night, before my report was due on the first, all of us were pretty much agreeing to walk into that room and talk about how we would do that.

Mr. Felos called me at 11:50, Michael's attorney. And he said, "Jay, I can't do it. I can't do it, because I'm challenging the law that appointed you, the constitutionality of it. And if I accept anything that you're proposing, then I am diluting my legal and constitutional challenge. I can't."

He was right in doing that legally. And as you know, the law was deemed unconstitutional and then everything I did was technically moot.
based on that commentary, I cant agree that Felos acted irrationally on this issue. And, as it happened, he was vindicated by the courts. So.

[strandinthewind]

Interstingly, I have been in China since 3/20 and this story has made the front page of the news everyday - go figure.

I think this case is a horrible fact pattern. I see where the parents are coming from and would probably do the same for my kid if I thought the surviving spouse was a cad. I just think that the "sanctity" of marriage that the VAST majority of America believes in dictates that the husband chooses, which he did here and was able to substantiate that choice with Terri's desire by showing other people heard her say she never wanted to live like this.

Here is an interesting site debunking many of the myths in this case.

http://atheism.about.com/b/a/2005_03_19.htm

Most telling from that site is the following quote:ABC News has obtained talking points circulated among Republican senators explaining why they should vote to intervene in the Schiavo case. Among them: "This is an important moral issue and the pro-life base will be excited..." and "This is a great political issue... this is a tough issue for Democrats."

Thus, I conclude, the far right knows damn good and well that the Florida Court's correctly determined this case and, instead of repecting this woman's right to choose not to live this way, they are using her as a political pawn. That is just sick.

[heyjupiter678]

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050326/ap_on_re_us/schiavo_hospice_chaos

Protests Outside Schiavo Hospice Chaotic

Sat Mar 26, 7:57 AM ET

By JILL BARTON, Associated Press Writer

PINELLAS PARK, Fla. - Jennifer Johnson, barefoot and in her pajamas, ran to her grandfather's bedside once a hospice worker said his death was moments away. She got there — one minute too late. Johnson said the chaos outside the hospice where Terri Schiavo is dying kept her from saying goodbye.

When Johnson arrived, a police officer demanded identification; she had none. And after a hospice employee cleared her, another officer halted her for a search with a metal detector.

The delays lasted three to four minutes — the last of her grandfather's life.

"It's a terrible, extra obstacle to put in front of a family. ... Everything is about Schiavo," Johnson said. "It's all about her and in my family's case, it cost us dearly."

Woodside Hospice has 70 patients besides Schiavo, whose parents are desperately trying to have her feeding tube reconnected. Dozens of protesters have arrived from across the nation since the tube was removed March 18, and at least 15 have been arrested, prompting a police barricade around the facility and unprecedented security.

Family members visiting patients must pass through a police checkpoint to park, then show identification outside the door before another security screening inside. They also must walk by scores of signs decrying Schiavo's "crucifixion," "torture," and "starvation," plus navigate around hordes of media who have been camped outside.

"To have to maneuver through all of this and have a hostile environment outside when all they want is peace and quiet and to enjoy those few days they have left with a loved one is a horror," said Dr. Morton Getz, executive director of Douglas Gardens Hospice in Miami.

Getz said many people with a family member in a hospice have to make the same excruciating decision that courts have made for Schiavo.

"It's causing a lot of grief and questions in their own mind on whether they did the right thing," he said. "It's unconscionable to have a family member to be near the end stages of life and to get there, you have to walk through signs that say, 'Murderer.'"

Most protesters direct their signs and their chants against the courts and Michael Schiavo, Terri's husband, who insists she would not want to be kept alive artificially.

But walking through a hostile environment can only add stress to what's already an emotionally draining situation.

"It probably has the same psychological effect on the residents' families as it does on someone who is walking into an abortion clinic and facing signs and aggressive behavior," said Elizabeth Foley, a Florida International University law professor who specializes in bioethics.

Over the past few days, as Schiavo's parents' attempts to have their daughter's feeding tube reinserted repeatedly failed, signs outside the hospice have grown more desperate. Doctors have said Schiavo would probably die within a week or two of the feeding tube being removed.

Messages compare Michael Schiavo to Scott Peterson, convicted of killing his wife and unborn child in California, and John Evander Couey, who allegedly murdered a 9-year-old girl in Homosassa.

One woman in a wheelchair regularly moves up and down sidewalks in front of the hospice yelling in a megaphone, "We're disabled, not disposable!" and "Terri is a person, not a vegetable!"

Relatives of hospice residents say the clamor — intended to rattle Michael Schiavo — rattles their patience.

"It's a real pain in the neck," said Bill Douglass, whose mother-in-law is a resident. He said the only consolation is that she is "oblivious" to the outside scene.

Police and hospice officials say they are trying to minimize the intrusion on hospice residents and their families, and that the security measures are meant to protect the privacy and safety of all residents, not just Schiavo.

But Johnson, 24, said her 73-year-old grandfather, Thomas Bone, was restricted from moving freely around the hospice grounds during his final days. He died just hours after Terri Schiavo's feeding tube was removed and protests intensified.

"They've taken away hospice's greatest quality, that it is peaceful and serene and quiet and calming — and it's not fair," Johnson said.

---------

This has turned into such a circus. :(

[Dreammms]

Will people just stay out of this?! This is between her husband and parents. Sheebus. I don't see how her parents are even involved in any decision making as she is over 18 AND married. Good gravy.

I think the whole point though is that there is NO proof at all that this is Terri's wish.

[wondergirl9847]

I understand the us versus them mentality of her husband and parents, but what I'm talking about are the celebrities and dumba$$es clogging up the hospital (just read that article heyjupiter posted. :mad: ) and everybody needs to mind their damn business. It's between the husband and parents...but IMO, it's the husband's final decision because she's over 18 and married. Case closed if you ask me, but nobody did, so whatevah.

[WelshWitchPMD]

I think the whole point though is that there is NO proof at all that this is Terri's wish.

Exactly. If it is not in writing or on tape then anybody can say anything that they want. :shrug:
I just hope that she finds peace in the after life. Her husband and family will have to face their karma in the end also.

[irishgrl]

I think the whole point though is that there is NO proof at all that this is Terri's wish.

according to testimony, Terri said after Michael's grandmother's funeral that she didnt wish to be artificially kept alive, that when it was her turn to go, to just let her go. She said this several times to various people including Michael's family members and friends. The fact that it wasnt written down is unfortunate, but the Court found that there was more evidence than not. Michael had the burden of proving that Terri DID say she didnt want artificial help. He did. You may not agree, but thats neither here nor there. As for his Karma, I agree that he has to answer for his actions in this life when he meets his maker or reviews his life, but having said that, everything I have seen speaks to me of a man who is truly trying to honor his wife's wishes. He's remained staunch in the face of overwhelming odds and as I said before, he must be drawing upon some MAJOR inner strength. He has acted consistently. His early care of Terri has been without blemish (He was even more obsessed with her care than the care homes were!) His road is not an easy one, and I wouldnt be in his shoes for anything. Similarly, I sympathize with Terri's parents, I cant even begin to imagine the heartache. They gave it their best shot and they acted according to their beliefs as well.

in the end, a very sad saga all around.

[strandinthewind]

I think the whole point though is that there is NO proof at all that this is Terri's wish.

That is a factually incorrect statement. The trial court judge based his decision on proof and that decision has been upheld many times by many courts. Interestingly, though I have not reqd the trial transcript, I do not think her parents presented any proof that she wanted to live other than those videos which, though heartbreaking to watch because although there but for the Grace of God go I, all qualified medical experts conclude the expressions she makes do not indicate anything other than q persistent veg. state; i.e. she is unaware of anything and the tiny fraction of her brain that is left is her is operating her basic life support systems which reaquire no conscious effort.

In the end, no malfeasance on the part of the husband has been demonstrated other than in false innuendo. Thus, Florida law dictates that he has the final say. Regardless, it still makes great fodder for the R party to use to feed the anti-liberal movement seen of late. Thus, therein is the political interest.

Finally, I read where her husaqnd was offered a million dollars by a private party and the ability to keep any remaining money currently used to care for her if he relinquished his rights to the parents. He declined. That to me suggests his interests are not pecuniary as suggested :shrug:

[ShangriLaTroubl]

No there IS NO PROOF that her wish to was to die..yes the courts have determined that this was her wish, based on testimony..but I think it's pretty well known that there is no proof, IE: video, living will, whatever of her saying that she wouldn't want to live this way..

Just because the courts believe Michael Schiavo, does not mean there is PROOF she said anything of the sort..it's just taking his word for it

Chris

[ShangriLaTroubl]

make a living will everyone!!

chris