Terri Schiavo

[Blackadar]

Originally Posted by Raiders Army

Maybe we should send this poll to the Supreme Court.

Justice Rehnquist: "We have received an official poll from the Front Office Football Central. The ayes have it. Let's let her die in peace."


DISCLAIMER: This is just a joke.

Didn't you know that 9 of us are Supreme Court Justices?

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by SFL Cat

You're quick to castigate those who you say unfairly villify Michael Schiavo, yet you make no effort to understand, the anger frustration, grief and perhaps desperation of a man about to lose one of his children.

Thats the thing, we do understand it. But its not about them, its about her wishes. Thats the problem your side has, you think its about the parents, you think its about god, you think its about murder BUT the other side thinks its about Teri's wishes. And that is it. One side is religiously emotional about it and the other side says, "hey take the emotion out of it, buddy, It is ALL about what Terri wanted and that is it." The courts agreed with the latter and because of that the religious side has gone nuts thiniking its a crusade against god...

can you understand the disconnect there?

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by SFL Cat

You're quick to castigate those who you say unfairly villify Michael Schiavo, yet you make no effort to understand, the anger frustration, grief and perhaps desperation of a man about to lose one of his children.

The man thinks there is a vast conspiracy to kill his daughter. He would not appear to be in touch with reality at this point.

[HomerJSimpson]

Originally Posted by SFL Cat

You're quick to castigate those who you say unfairly villify Michael Schiavo, yet you make no effort to understand, the anger frustration, grief and perhaps desperation of a man about to lose one of his children.

I do completely understand that. I also recognize why he'd be willing to do anything to keep her alive for personal and religious reasons. I also recognize that these things would cloud his judgement and not make him the most objective of witnesses. I don't blame the family for a single thing they have done (save their part in the character assassination of the husband). I have been through enough to know that people facing highly emotional situations do not make the most rational decisions.

I do have a problem with the number of people that are choosing to ignore the wishes and rights of an indiviual to make a decision about medical treatments (or the removal of such) once they are in a persistant vegetative state. My biggest fear on all of this is a over-reaction in the legislature that will take away a spouses rights to such decisions in cases without a living will. I think that would be a horrible erosion of spousal rights.

Further, as I've said elsewhere, this "movement" is not just trying to save Terri, they are trying to remove the right for anyone to choose to remove treatment if they so choose. They are using this as a platform to further remove invidiual freedoms, and take medical care out of the hands of the indiviual and their family but put it in the hands of the government by giving us no choices.

[Easy Mac]

Wouldn't the religious thing be letting her go to god instead of making her suffer on earth? There's nothing more natural in the world than death.

[HomerJSimpson]

Originally Posted by Easy Mac

Wouldn't the religious thing be letting her go to god instead of making her suffer on earth? There's nothing more natural in the world than death.

Depends on the religion. To a Catholic (which her family are), it is considered a mortal sin.

[Mac Howard]

Years ago I was visiting my father in hospital. Each time I went there was a middle-aged couple in the waiting room. They were visiting their daughter who was in a coma. She'd been in a bus accident at the age of three and had been in a coma ever since. She was now 21!

Of course I never suggested that they should perhaps consider having the life support removed but in expressing surprise that they had come every single day for 18 years their response suggested that this visit had become an integral part of their every day lives. Despite getting no response whatsoever in the hour or so they spent every day with her, they clearly looked forward every day to seeing her. They were no longer horrified by her condition - they had accepted that this was their daughter and watching her for an hour was their loving interaction with her.

I think maybe you have the same thing here. They can't let go. Poor as the relationship is, it is a relationship and one that will die with her. I can't bring myself to criticise their efforts though I believe it is right to allow Terri to die.

Michael has moved on. He apparently spent 7 years doing everything for her in the hope she would recover but has now accepted the inevitable and has changed his life. I doubt that Terri would not approve. I can't help but feel the parents need to move on also and not let the accident that destroyed their daughter's life destroy two more.

[Bubba Wheels]

You cannot make a legal verbal contract to sell real estate in this country. Has to be in writing. But many here, in a matter concerning life or death, seem more than willing to take the word of a 'husband' who has abandoned his wife to live in a sexual situation with another woman. The reason I put it like that is because those are the two requirements Jesus Himself gave as grounds for divorcing someone. Abandonment or Adultery.

Add to that the fact that Michael did not even claim Terri said that to him until 7 YEARS after she first became disabled. He suddenly 'remembered' it after Terri was awarded a million bucks for her medical care. And add to that the fact that Terri is NOT in a coma, NOT in a vegatative state, and would NOT die (unlike unhooking Christopher Reeves from his ventilator would have done) outside of having to starve her to death.

This is not letting someone die in peace. This is clearly killing someone.

[Masked]

Originally Posted by Bubba Wheels

And add to that the fact that Terri is NOT in a coma, NOT in a vegatative state, and would NOT die (unlike unhooking Christopher Reeves from his ventilator would have done) outside of having to starve her to death.

I will only respond to this one point - Terri is in a persistant vegitative state. She shows no evidence of higher brain functions. In fact most of her cortex is gone. There is no way for it to come back. Every action she makes is indicative of a functioning brain stem and that is it.

[SunDancer]

Originally Posted by Easy Mac

Wouldn't the religious thing be letting her go to god instead of making her suffer on earth? There's nothing more natural in the world than death.

This is what I hate about this whole situation, and part of why I am starting to hate the extreme Christians. They seem to think they know what is right for everyone else, and are willing to break the laws, the United States Constitution (and these same people (or most) are backing the war in Iraq for freedom and democracry), and abuse politicial power against the court system for own personal beliefs. I respect all religions, but these people are starting to really get under my skin. How religious was Terri, was she a "devoted" Catholic, or was she like most Christian Americans, who believe in God, and all that, yet do not live by the Bible, ect? I just find it odd that these protestors "know" what Terri was, and just because her parents are decidated Catholics, doesn't mean she was. I just find it odd that they want to cut services, health care, lower taxes, yet when it comes time, they want life (yet complain about paying higher taxes).

Not to threadjack, but I always though that Jesus would of been an extreme liberal (not from the Bible, but from historical facts).

[cartman]

I find it interesting, especially at this time of year, the pleas that God wouldn't want Terri to die. If God allowed Jesus, his very own son, to die, why would it be any different for anyone else? I would think that Easter, more than any other time of year, would be a religious reminder that death isn't the end, but rather a door to another beginning.

[larrymcg421]

I particularly like the argument that this is a violation of her religious rights because she is Catholic. Well the Catholic church is also against the Death Penalty and the War in Iraq. So then we have to commute death sentences for Catholics and send all Catholic soldiers home.

[clintl]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Well there are different standards in criminal and civil court. You are talking 'beyond a reasonable doubt' compared with 'a preponderance of evidence'. In criminal cases you gotta be 100% sure. In civil cases, you just have to be 51% sure (basically).

Actually, it depends. In this case, the standard of evidence required was "clear and convincing evidence," which is not as high as beyond a reasonable doubt, but much higher than a preponderance of the evidence.

[CHEMICAL SOLDIER]

Originally Posted by Kodos

I think a lot of us feel that he lost his daughter 15 years ago. Obviously the parents are in a horrific situation, but I have to wonder if they are doing all this for her, or for themselves.

We will be seeing them as ''voices'' for the next 4 years, specially towards the road to the house, senate and presidency.

[SunDancer]

Originally Posted by CHEMICAL SOLDIER

We will be seeing them as ''voices'' for the next 4 years, specially towards the road to the house, senate and presidency.

And if you get a decent democratic presidential candidate, it could be a bad move, considering that many of Americans are not too fond of the Republicans' political intervention into the case.

[Mr. Wednesday]

Originally Posted by Bubba Wheels

But many here, in a matter concerning life or death, seem more than willing to take the word of a 'husband' who has abandoned his wife to live in a sexual situation with another woman.

I would recommend researching the case a bit more before spouting off about it. The courts did not take his word for it -- in fact, they specifically expressed concern about his bias. Judge Greer based his decision on the testimony of Michael's brother and sister-in-law, which he found to be credible. (He also found Terri's relatives' testimony to be not credible, with problems involving changes from their depositions and timeline issues.)

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by Bubba Wheels

You cannot make a legal verbal contract to sell real estate in this country. Has to be in writing. But many here, in a matter concerning life or death, seem more than willing to take the word of a 'husband' who has abandoned his wife to live in a sexual situation with another woman. The reason I put it like that is because those are the two requirements Jesus Himself gave as grounds for divorcing someone. Abandonment or Adultery.

I don't think that adultery is treated like that anymore. I bet there are adulterers at every church service in this nation. Some of them might even be having their affair with another person attending the service. It's ok with me to enforce this Jesus take on adultery because it won't rope me in, but I bet you this won't fly. Jesus Law is not necessarily the U.S. or Florida law.

Add to that the fact that Michael did not even claim Terri said that to him until 7 YEARS after she first became disabled. He suddenly 'remembered' it after Terri was awarded a million bucks for her medical care. And add to that the fact that Terri is NOT in a coma, NOT in a vegatative state, and would NOT die (unlike unhooking Christopher Reeves from his ventilator would have done) outside of having to starve her to death.

How do you know he suddenly remembered? Please tell me how it went, since you seem more enlightened than anyone else about the matter. I am truly curious how it went down and Michael is not posting here, so I can't ask him. I'll take your secondhand knowledge and judge it. She is not in a PVS? How much time have you spent with her to arrive at this medical opinion? How much training do you have in the field? Are you aware that other medical professionals disagree, including one that was appointed by the courts to make the determination? What makes you more qualified than them to make this conclusion? At least when you scanned the brain of Christopher Reeves it was intact.

This is not letting someone die in peace. This is clearly killing someone.

Oh yes, "clearly" it is killing them and "clearly" it is not peaceful, and "clearly" she is feeling intense pain (although no medical evidence exists to suggest so, just a few outrageous claims).

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by cartman

I find it interesting, especially at this time of year, the pleas that God wouldn't want Terri to die. If God allowed Jesus, his very own son, to die, why would it be any different for anyone else? I would think that Easter, more than any other time of year, would be a religious reminder that death isn't the end, but rather a door to another beginning.

God wouldn't want Terri to die, but God let the hijackers fly those planes into the WTC and kill a lot of people who may have done nothing wrong to anyone. I'm of the conclusion that God would rebuild Terri's brain if he wanted her to live. She would then be able to feed herself and get back to business. Instead, God has seen fit to do otherwise. If God has turned His back on Terri's life, maybe everyone else should move on as well.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by Tekneek

God wouldn't want Terri to die, but God let the hijackers fly those planes into the WTC and kill a lot of people who may have done nothing wrong to anyone. I'm of the conclusion that God would rebuild Terri's brain if he wanted her to live. She would then be able to feed herself and get back to business. Instead, God has seen fit to do otherwise. If God has turned His back on Terri's life, maybe everyone else should move on as well.

Well Im not sure it goes this far the other way either. A religious person would argue, "its all God's plan". And maybe they're right.

[Suicane75]

In situations such as these I often ask myself, what would Ultimate Warrior do?

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

Well Im not sure it goes this far the other way either. A religious person would argue, "its all God's plan". And maybe they're right.

I was being a bit absurd, I know, but it's just as absurd as some of the other religious arguments put forward.

[HomerJSimpson]

Originally Posted by Bubba Wheels

You cannot make a legal verbal contract to sell real estate in this country. Has to be in writing. But many here, in a matter concerning life or death, seem more than willing to take the word of a 'husband' who has abandoned his wife to live in a sexual situation with another woman. The reason I put it like that is because those are the two requirements Jesus Himself gave as grounds for divorcing someone. Abandonment or Adultery.

The husband should be the one making this decision. It is a regular point of law that a spouse speaks for a spouse that is incapacitated. The only way to lose that right is in extreme circumstances. BTW, you do know one of the foundations of that, right? The Bible.

"Therefore a man shall leave his mother and father and be joined to wife..."

It is a rule as old as time that a spouse speaks for the one who can't. In this case, Terri had made her decision while she was alive. She expressed it to the one who legally should make this decision (the husband) in front of witnesses. She also told him to get on with his life, which he did after it became apparent that Terri was already gone. The only thing I can see he wants here is to make sure her wishes where granted and her physical body is not forced to linger here.

Is Micheal perfect? No. I wouldn't have made many of the same decisions he did in this. Do I think he is doing this for the right reasons? Yes I do. He is no more dishonest than the family. Let the side on this issue that is without sin cast the first stone.

Again, this same thing is happening every day all across the country. Husbands/wives/parents/family are following after wishes either spoken or implied to remove feeding tubes from indiviuals in comas/vegitative states/other terminal conditions. Where are the protesters? The news media? The courts?

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by HomerJSimpson

Again, this same thing is happening every day all across the country. Husbands/wives/parents/family are following after wishes either spoken or implied to remove feeding tubes from indiviuals in comas/vegitative states/other terminal conditions. Where are the protesters? The news media? The courts?

Maybe Dutch will dig up the political parties, political action groups, churches, etc, that are organizing this Schiavo protest (while ignoring all other incidents of this nature). We might be shocked to find how many groups pushing this are trying to serve their own agendas, much like those anti-war protests.

[Bubba Wheels]

Originally Posted by HomerJSimpson

The husband should be the one making this decision. It is a regular point of law that a spouse speaks for a spouse that is incapacitated. The only way to lose that right is in extreme circumstances. BTW, you do know one of the foundations of that, right? The Bible.

"Therefore a man shall leave his mother and father and be joined to wife..."

It is a rule as old as time that a spouse speaks for the one who can't. In this case, Terri had made her decision while she was alive. She expressed it to the one who legally should make this decision (the husband) in front of witnesses. She also told him to get on with his life, which he did after it became apparent that Terri was already gone. The only thing I can see he wants here is to make sure her wishes where granted and her physical body is not forced to linger here.

Is Micheal perfect? No. I wouldn't have made many of the same decisions he did in this. Do I think he is doing this for the right reasons? Yes I do. He is no more dishonest than the family. Let the side on this issue that is without sin cast the first stone.

Again, this same thing is happening every day all across the country. Husbands/wives/parents/family are following after wishes either spoken or implied to remove feeding tubes from indiviuals in comas/vegitative states/other terminal conditions. Where are the protesters? The news media? The courts?

This is why I made the statements about the abandonment and adultery on the part of the husband. Those who would never think of cracking open a Bible are suddenly popping up everywheres quoting the scripture regarding 'becoming one flesh." What I attempted to point out was that as sacred as marriage is to God, He Himself makes only two real cases for ending a marriage or divorcing. Both of which are flaunted by Michael Shiavo knowing full well that his wife is in absolutely no position physically to tell him otherwise. If Terri could talk and knew what Michael was doing think she would approve? The fact that there is such a clear conflict of interest on the part of Michael and clear benefit in her dying to him should bother everyone.

That's not even thumping the Bible, that's just using plain, common sense.

[Bubba Wheels]

Originally Posted by Tekneek

I don't think that adultery is treated like that anymore. I bet there are adulterers at every church service in this nation. Some of them might even be having their affair with another person attending the service. It's ok with me to enforce this Jesus take on adultery because it won't rope me in, but I bet you this won't fly. Jesus Law is not necessarily the U.S. or Florida law.



How do you know he suddenly remembered? Please tell me how it went, since you seem more enlightened than anyone else about the matter. I am truly curious how it went down and Michael is not posting here, so I can't ask him. I'll take your secondhand knowledge and judge it. She is not in a PVS? How much time have you spent with her to arrive at this medical opinion? How much training do you have in the field? Are you aware that other medical professionals disagree, including one that was appointed by the courts to make the determination? What makes you more qualified than them to make this conclusion? At least when you scanned the brain of Christopher Reeves it was intact.



Oh yes, "clearly" it is killing them and "clearly" it is not peaceful, and "clearly" she is feeling intense pain (although no medical evidence exists to suggest so, just a few outrageous claims).

The information I have gotten is that 1. No MRI has been taken of Terri's brain per Michael's wishes. If you know otherwise please enlighten me.

In fact, the biggest flaw in this whole case appears to be that the original judge, Greer I believe, has basically denied all facts contradicting his personal findings to be admitted in any way. This includes the two registered nurses that filed affidavits stating they not only fed soft foods to Terri without the tube before Michael halted it, but that Terrri regularly spoke in discernable tones and words and reacted to sight and sound.

And it shouldn't be surprising that the sources I hear this on are both Fox News and Christian radio/TV since they seem to be the ones promoting life for Terri in the face of others promoting her death sentence. The facts about the judge should be easily checked out if untrue.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by Bubba Wheels

This is why I made the statements about the abandonment and adultery on the part of the husband. Those who would never think of cracking open a Bible are suddenly popping up everywheres quoting the scripture regarding 'becoming one flesh." What I attempted to point out was that as sacred as marriage is to God, He Himself makes only two real cases for ending a marriage or divorcing. Both of which are flaunted by Michael Shiavo knowing full well that his wife is in absolutely no position physically to tell him otherwise. If Terri could talk and knew what Michael was doing think she would approve? The fact that there is such a clear conflict of interest on the part of Michael and clear benefit in her dying to him should bother everyone.

It might bother me if he was the only witness to her saying this. He isn't. It might bother me if they spent a few months determining her wishes and that was it. No, the original petition to have the tube removed was in 1998. After 7 years of appeals, several injunctions restoring the tube, more appeals, state legislature and congress intervening, I think enough time and care has been spent to make sure that Terri's rights are properly being represented.

By the way, If I've been in a Persistent Vegetative State for several years, then yes I would approve of my spouse moving on. I don't see why people assume Terri automatically wouldn't.

[Bubba Wheels]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

It might bother me if he was the only witness to her saying this. He isn't. It might bother me if they spent a few months determining her wishes and that was it. No, the original petition to have the tube removed was in 1998. After 7 years of appeals, several injunctions restoring the tube, more appeals, state legislature and congress intervening, I think enough time and care has been spent to make sure that Terri's rights are properly being represented.

By the way, If I've been in a Persistent Vegetative State for several years, then yes I would approve of my spouse moving on. I don't see why people assume Terri automatically wouldn't.

That seems to be the crux of the matter. I keep hearing, in contrast to the judge's personal fact finding, that she has NEVER been in a Persistent Vegetative State at all!

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by Bubba Wheels

That seems to be the crux of the matter. I keep hearing, in contrast to the judge's personal fact finding, that she has NEVER been in a Persistent Vegetative State at all!

That argument has come up several times during the many appeals. Both sides have had their own doctors testify one thing or another, but independent doctors appointed by the court have ruled that she is in PVS. Again, we have a court system to determine all of this. You talk like it's been just one judge looking at medical records. That's not the case.

[rexallllsc]

Originally Posted by Bubba Wheels

You cannot make a legal verbal contract to sell real estate in this country. Has to be in writing. But many here, in a matter concerning life or death, seem more than willing to take the word of a 'husband' who has abandoned his wife to live in a sexual situation with another woman. The reason I put it like that is because those are the two requirements Jesus Himself gave as grounds for divorcing someone. Abandonment or Adultery.

Add to that the fact that Michael did not even claim Terri said that to him until 7 YEARS after she first became disabled. He suddenly 'remembered' it after Terri was awarded a million bucks for her medical care. And add to that the fact that Terri is NOT in a coma, NOT in a vegatative state, and would NOT die (unlike unhooking Christopher Reeves from his ventilator would have done) outside of having to starve her to death.

This is not letting someone die in peace. This is clearly killing someone.

I think you should read this: http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...neyasprinciple

Read about all of the time the husband put in, as well as both parties agreeing she's in a persistent vegetative state.

[Bubba Wheels]

Originally Posted by rexallllsc

I think you should read this: http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...neyasprinciple

Read about all of the time the husband put in, as well as both parties agreeing she's in a persistent vegetative state.

Really? Because the last story I heard was that Michael Shiavo was a very controlling individual, going so far as to check Terri's odometer after she returned home from a trip. That Terri herself was overweight and shy as a teenager and that Michael possibly found her 'easy to control." And that Terri's 'accident' actually occurred right around the time that she had told a coworker that she might 'be leaving Michael." Might be all propaganda from the one side, but certainly contradicts some aspects from the report you linked with. Bottom line for me is, without written proof that Terri would not want to live in her present condition, and given Michael's clear 'conflict-of-interest,' are we as society really the one's to decide that Terri should be starved to death?

[rexallllsc]

Originally Posted by Bubba Wheels

That seems to be the crux of the matter. I keep hearing, in contrast to the judge's personal fact finding, that she has NEVER been in a Persistent Vegetative State at all!

From USA Today (the link above):

Despite the row over money, Schiavo and the Schindlers agreed on one major point in the 2000 testimony: the extent of Terri's brain damage, according to additional court documents cited by The Miami Herald. In the documents, Pamela Campbell, then the Schindlers' lawyer, told the court that "we do not doubt that she's in a persistent vegetative state." Campbell could not be reached to confirm the statement.

[Chubby]

Originally Posted by Bubba Wheels

Really? Because the last story I heard was that Michael Shiavo was a very controlling individual, going so far as to check Terri's odometer after she returned home from a trip. That Terri herself was overweight and shy as a teenager and that Michael possibly found her 'easy to control." And that Terri's 'accident' actually occurred right around the time that she had told a coworker that she might 'be leaving Michael." Might be all propaganda from the one side, but certainly contradicts some aspects from the report you linked with. Bottom line for me is, without written proof that Terri would not want to live in her present condition, and given Michael's clear 'conflict-of-interest,' are we as society really the one's to decide that Terri should be starved to death?

The problem is where you are getting your news from. Just because you or one souce deems it "clear" there's a conflict of interest with the husband does not make it so. Escpecially when every court has said there is none.

Bottom line for me is, without written proof that Terri would not want to live in her present condition are we as society really the one's to decide that Terri should be kept as a vegetable for the next 40 years? - The answer to your AND my version is the same. No, it's her husband's decision.

[Bubba Wheels]

Originally Posted by rexallllsc

From USA Today (the link above):

Despite the row over money, Schiavo and the Schindlers agreed on one major point in the 2000 testimony: the extent of Terri's brain damage, according to additional court documents cited by The Miami Herald. In the documents, Pamela Campbell, then the Schindlers' lawyer, told the court that "we do not doubt that she's in a persistent vegetative state." Campbell could not be reached to confirm the statement.

Even given that to be true, without Terri's own express consent to end her own life...is her husband with a clear conflict of interest or us as a society represented by the judicial system entitled to declare her 'quality of life unacceptable' and to starve her to death?

[Chubby]

Originally Posted by Bubba Wheels

Even given that to be true, without Terri's own express consent to end her own life...is her husband with a clear conflict of interest or us as a society represented by the judicial system entitled to declare her 'quality of life unacceptable' and to starve her to death?

There is no clear conflict of interest, feel free to read any of the facts about the judges' decisions over this in the last 8 years.

[rexallllsc]

Originally Posted by Bubba Wheels

Really? Because the last story I heard was that Michael Shiavo was a very controlling individual, going so far as to check Terri's odometer after she returned home from a trip. That Terri herself was overweight and shy as a teenager and that Michael possibly found her 'easy to control." And that Terri's 'accident' actually occurred right around the time that she had told a coworker that she might 'be leaving Michael." Might be all propaganda from the one side, but certainly contradicts some aspects from the report you linked with.

He was a controlling husband, therefore, he must not care about her, right? C'mon dude. We all have our faults. Whether it's having controlling tendencies, partying a bit too hard, poor w/ money, whatever...no one is perfect.

As far as the info above, it's all heresay (he was controlling, he found her easy to control, she might be leaving so he killed her), whereas what I posted is fact (he took her to CA for experimental procedures, sold hotdogs on the beach w/ the in-laws to raise money)...Read the article, and see how much time and effort he put in. Doesn't sounds like too much of a jerk to me. Sounds like someone who did as much as he could, and now would like to move on with his life.

Bottom line for me is, without written proof that Terri would not want to live in her present condition, and given Michael's clear 'conflict-of-interest,' are we as society really the one's to decide that Terri should be starved to death?

It's not about society at all. It's about Terri's guardian. Michael Schiavo. Yes, a living will would be ideal, but seeing as it's not around...all we can go on now is what the courts have decided.

[rexallllsc]

Originally Posted by Bubba Wheels

Even given that to be true, without Terri's own express consent to end her own life...is her husband with a clear conflict of interest or us as a society represented by the judicial system entitled to declare her 'quality of life unacceptable' and to starve her to death?

I'm not sure what you mean...the judicial system is siding with Schiavo. If I'm mininterpreting your post, please let me know.

[Bubba Wheels]

Originally Posted by Chubby

The problem is where you are getting your news from. Just because you or one souce deems it "clear" there's a conflict of interest with the husband does not make it so. Escpecially when every court has said there is none.

Bottom line for me is, without written proof that Terri would not want to live in her present condition are we as society really the one's to decide that Terri should be kept as a vegetable for the next 40 years? - The answer to your AND my version is the same. No, it's her husband's decision.

Sorry, but abandoning Terri to live with another woman, having kids and a life with her in addition to some portion of a million dollars leftover from medical care is a pretty self-evident 'conflict of interest' to me when he alone decides that she should die based on 'hearsay." The judge is ruling for him, not making that decision himself so the 'he alone' part stands.

[Bubba Wheels]

Originally Posted by rexallllsc

He was a controlling husband, therefore, he must not care about her, right? C'mon dude. We all have our faults. Whether it's having controlling tendencies, partying a bit too hard, poor w/ money, whatever...no one is perfect.

As far as the info above, it's all heresay (he was controlling, he found her easy to control, she might be leaving so he killed her), whereas what I posted is fact (he took her to CA for experimental procedures, sold hotdogs on the beach w/ the in-laws to raise money)...Read the article, and see how much time and effort he put in. Doesn't sounds like too much of a jerk to me. Sounds like someone who did as much as he could, and now would like to move on with his life.



It's not about society at all. It's about Terri's guardian. Michael Schiavo. Yes, a living will would be ideal, but seeing as it's not around...all we can go on now is what the courts have decided.

Was that before or after the million dollar medical care award?

[Bubba Wheels]

Originally Posted by rexallllsc

I'm not sure what you mean...the judicial system is siding with Schiavo. If I'm mininterpreting your post, please let me know.

Kind of convoluted I know, but we as a society enpower the judge to decide if Michael Shiavo's argument is persuasive and Terri should be starved to death. All I meant. Michael gets his authority in the matter from the judge, who in turn gets his from us (as a whole.)

[Chubby]

Originally Posted by Bubba Wheels

Sorry, but abandoning Terri to live with another woman, having kids and a life with her in addition to some portion of a million dollars leftover from medical care is a pretty self-evident 'conflict of interest' to me when he alone decides that she should die based on 'hearsay." The judge is ruling for him, not making that decision himself so the 'he alone' part stands.

Yet you seem perfectly willing to accept whatever hearsay allegations are thrown out there against the husband. As far as my understanding of the finances is, there is no insurance policy and most of the settlement money is gone (if not all).

What was the guy supposed to do? Not move on? That's not healthy, which brings us to her parents... She didn't want to be in this state, she is essentially dead already (to him at least) and he moved on. Just like thousands of widowed people do every year.

Of course, we're supposed to keep her alive because of hearsay tho right because the parents must have some recording of Terri saying she'd never want to be let off of life support. Silly parents, they've been hiding it from everyone but you Bubba for the last 15 years...

[cartman]

Originally Posted by Bubba Wheels

Sorry, but abandoning Terri to live with another woman, having kids and a life with her in addition to some portion of a million dollars leftover from medical care is a pretty self-evident 'conflict of interest' to me when he alone decides that she should die based on 'hearsay." The judge is ruling for him, not making that decision himself so the 'he alone' part stands.

It is in the transcripts from one of the hearings that her parents actually encouraged him to start dating again while he was still living with them. Once I read that, it kind of put that situation in a different light.

[Bubba Wheels]

Originally Posted by Chubby

Yet you seem perfectly willing to accept whatever hearsay allegations are thrown out there against the husband. As far as my understanding of the finances is, there is no insurance policy and most of the settlement money is gone (if not all).

What was the guy supposed to do? Not move on? That's not healthy, which brings us to her parents... She didn't want to be in this state, she is essentially dead already (to him at least) and he moved on. Just like thousands of widowed people do every year.

Of course, we're supposed to keep her alive because of hearsay tho right because the parents must have some recording of Terri saying she'd never want to be let off of life support. Silly parents, they've been hiding it from everyone but you Bubba for the last 15 years...

Chubby, that's the odd thing going on here. If Shiavo has moved on, and Terri's parents are willing and able to care for her, and Terri's condition does not include pain (being in a vegetative state and all) then why the big push to kill her via starvation? Again, removing life support would be one thing, but actively killing her via starvation when her parents are willing to accept the burden of her care doesn't make logical sense. Not saying that hearsay on my side of the argument is any different than Michael's, but believing her parents side keeps her alive, believing Michaels gets her dead. That's the difference.

[Chubby]

Originally Posted by Bubba Wheels

Chubby, that's the odd thing going on here. If Shiavo has moved on, and Terri's parents are willing and able to care for her, and Terri's condition does not include pain (being in a vegetative state and all) then why the big push to kill her via starvation? Again, removing life support would be one thing, but actively killing her via starvation when her parents are willing to accept the burden of her care doesn't make logical sense. Not saying that hearsay on my side of the argument is any different than Michael's, but believing her parents side keeps her alive, believing Michaels gets her dead. That's the difference.

It's not their decision, it's his. It's not your's, or Jeb's, or mine it's the HUSBAND'S decision. He is abiding by what her wishes are. Why is this so diffciult to understand?

So now you back to saying she's in a vegatative state since you think it will further your argument? Pick one, she either is or isn't.

[Bubba Wheels]

Originally Posted by cartman

It is in the transcripts from one of the hearings that her parents actually encouraged him to start dating again while he was still living with them. Once I read that, it kind of put that situation in a different light.

First I heard that. But the timing of the million dollars sticks with me. Money does funny things to people. A lawyer joke goes like this "When is it appropriate to read the will after a funeral?" Ans: "As soon as you can get to the lawyer's office without running." Human nature is unpredictable.

As far as the money being 'all gone,' anyone ever going thru a divorce can tell you there is a million and one ways to hide assets in particular money.

[Easy Mac]

it is life support under florida and 99% of states laws, is that really tough to understand? Its not more killing that removing a venitlator, but it take too much time. But go ahead, try and feed her and give her water, I'm sure she'll have no trouble getting it down since she's so aware of her surroundings.

Her parents don't want to let go, its natural, but if I told my girlfriend, even off hand, that I wouldn't want to live that way, I'd expect her to do the same thing as Shaivo's doing, my parents be damned.

[cartman]

Originally Posted by Bubba Wheels

First I heard that.

Not too surprising, since that doesn't really fit into the message your stated news sources are trying to convey.

[Airhog]

Originally Posted by Bubba Wheels

As far as the money being 'all gone,' anyone ever going thru a divorce can tell you there is a million and one ways to hide assets in particular money.

There is no way that after the 10? years of this he has any money left. Or if he does, it is a very small amount.

[Bubba Wheels]

Originally Posted by Chubby

It's not their decision, it's his. It's not your's, or Jeb's, or mine it's the HUSBAND'S decision. He is abiding by what her wishes are. Why is this so diffciult to understand?

So now you back to saying she's in a vegatative state since you think it will further your argument? Pick one, she either is or isn't.

If you read what I've said, she may indeed be in a vegetative state (althought that is being actively denied by including registered nurses that have cared for her) but even if she is doesn't mean Michael still has a right to kill her or we as a society have the right to enpower a judge to enpower Michael to kill her. Think I've pretty well beat this horse now.

[Bubba Wheels]

Originally Posted by Easy Mac

it is life support under florida and 99% of states laws, is that really tough to understand? Its not more killing that removing a venitlator, but it take too much time. But go ahead, try and feed her and give her water, I'm sure she'll have no trouble getting it down since she's so aware of her surroundings.

Her parents don't want to let go, its natural, but if I told my girlfriend, even off hand, that I wouldn't want to live that way, I'd expect her to do the same thing as Shaivo's doing, my parents be damned.

If feeding someone is 'life support' then we all fall into that category. Well, you can argue we being healthy can actually put it into our own mouths and Terri can't, but that's just splitting hairs and I'll just leave it there.

[Easy Mac]

so lets not remove anyone from life support, lets keep them there forever... of course, the president ordered a war where people died, so I guess we should take away his power to send people to death.