Judge Ruled Against SS In Terry Schaivo Case

[krisy]

http://start.earthlink.net/article/nat?guid=20050311/423125d0_3ca6_1552620050311-1450504630

This just slays me. It seems like government is always sticking their nose into something until it's important and really needed. Babies are being aborted,- who cares,not our business,its their "right". Someone like Terry lies in a bed ,eyes open,smiling,even saying a few words-who cares about the fact she had an abusive husband,let him starve her to death. Pathetic!!!

 

[Merlin1047]

http://start.earthlink.net/article/nat?guid=20050311/423125d0_3ca6_1552620050311-1450504630

This just slays me. It seems like government is always sticking their nose into something until it's important and really needed. Babies are being aborted,- who cares,not our business,its their "right". Someone like Terry lies in a bed ,eyes open,smiling,even saying a few words-who cares about the fact she had an abusive husband,let him starve her to death. Pathetic!!!

This entire sorry episode is a total mess from all perspectives.

But I'm interested to see if Michael Schiavo accepts or rejects the million dollar offer. If he rejects it, then I have to believe that he is acting on his wife's wishes.

Krisy, it's easy to get caught up in the details of this case and lose sight of the basic issue. That basic issue is not whether the feeding tube should or should not be removed, but rather did Terri Schiavo express her wishes in this regard. THAT is the central issue - the right of the individual to control his or her own fate. If Terri Schiavo stated that she did not want to live in this condition, then neither her parents nor government agencies have the right to contravene those wishes. If she did not express such a desire, then her husband's motives are extremely suspect and only then do we have a case for the courts or for social agencies.

 

[krisy]

This entire sorry episode is a total mess from all perspectives.

But I'm interested to see if Michael Schiavo accepts or rejects the million dollar offer. If he rejects it, then I have to believe that he is acting on his wife's wishes.

Krisy, it's easy to get caught up in the details of this case and lose sight of the basic issue. That basic issue is not whether the feeding tube should or should not be removed, but rather did Terri Schiavo express her wishes in this regard. THAT is the central issue - the right of the individual to control his or her own fate. If Terri Schiavo stated that she did not want to live in this condition, then neither her parents nor government agencies have the right to contravene those wishes. If she did not express such a desire, then her husband's motives are extremely suspect and only then do we have a case for the courts or for social agencies.

But we do not her wishes,and he cannot prove them,therefore that puts that issue to bed for me. IMO,she should live,under her parents watch ,and who knows,maybe she could improve.I just believe we should go with the side of life on this one. Also,IMO you cannot starve someone to death-it's cruel. It is an issue.

 

[SmarterThanYou]

The offer was rejected.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20050311/D88OTRNO0.html

TAMPA, Fla. (AP) - A man fighting to have a feeding tube removed from his brain-damaged wife on Friday rejected a California businessman's offer to pay him $1 million to give up his right to decide her medical treatment.

Thursday's offer, which the husband's attorney labeled "offensive," came hours after a judge refused to let the state's social services agency intervene - a move that would have delayed next week's scheduled removal of the tube.

Other such offers, including one for $10 million, had already been made and rejected by Michael Schiavo, said his attorney, George Felos.

 

[tim_duncan2000]

Krisy, it's easy to get caught up in the details of this case and lose sight of the basic issue. That basic issue is not whether the feeding tube should or should not be removed, but rather did Terri Schiavo express her wishes in this regard.

Oh, I do realize what the basic issue is and, as I understand it, she did not express her wishes in that regard. Because of that, I don't see how they can justify letting her starve.

 

[SmarterThanYou]

Oh, I do realize what the basic issue is and, as I understand it, she did not express her wishes in that regard. Because of that, I don't see how they can justify letting her starve.

she didn't express her wishes in that regard? how so?

 

[theim]

she didn't express her wishes in that regard? how so?

She didn't have her wishes written down.

 

[SmarterThanYou]

She didn't have her wishes written down.

that, in no way, shape, or form, means that those were not her wishes.

 

[no1tovote4]

that, in no way, shape, or form, means that those were not her wishes.

But it means that there is no way that we can accurately ascertain her wishes. That is what the whole court battle has really been about. Should we as a society let her starve to death on the word of her husband against the rest of her family? In this case we either would have to be psychic or just arrogant to assume that we know what her wishes are.

 

[Shattered]

So if he turned down 1mil, what's her life insurance policy worth when she dies?

 

[no1tovote4]

So if he turned down 1mil, what's her life insurance policy worth when she dies?

According to the story he has turned down over 11 million so far. This is only one of several offers, one was as high as 10 million.

 

[Gem]

Oh please you guys, give me a break!

If the man is devious and evil enough to "forget to mention" that his wife wanted to be killed if she was ever in a situation like this until AFTER he sued for the millions of dollars worth of money that he was going to use for "rehab" until he decided to spend it on court fees to have her killed....surely you don't think he's stupid enough to accept money to giver her over to her parents...even if its 10 million, hell, even if its 100 million, it would do nothing but prove his immorality and guilt.

He could be Satan himself, he could be guilty of the very worst some people want to accuse him of...he isn't going to take that money.

The fact that he refuses to "sell his wife" says absolutely NOTHING about whether or not he has her best interests in mind. He could be absolutely right or absolutely wrong in this case...he wouldn't take a bribe in either instance.

 

[SmarterThanYou]

But it means that there is no way that we can accurately ascertain her wishes. That is what the whole court battle has really been about. Should we as a society let her starve to death on the word of her husband against the rest of her family? In this case we either would have to be psychic or just arrogant to assume that we know what her wishes are.

on the word of her husband? how much of the marriage sacrament would you like to remove?

 

[krisy]

on the word of her husband? how much of the marriage sacrament would you like to remove?

That's exactly it,the WORD of her husband whom is fairly suspect. There is no legal documentation in this case,therefore,for me,that should be the end of it. Then you throw in the starving her to death-my gosh,what is the world coming to?

 

[SmarterThanYou]

That's exactly it,the WORD of her husband whom is fairly suspect. There is no legal documentation in this case,therefore,for me,that should be the end of it. Then you throw in the starving her to death-my gosh,what is the world coming to?

the word of her husband is all you should need WHEN theres no evidence to support a criminal investigation. What would you do if you were in his shoes and your husband told you he didn't want to be kept alive that way but his parents and half the nation felt you were trying to murder him?

 

[Gem]

SmarterThanYou,

There is no vow being broken, none of the sanctity of marriage being violated in the slightest...what people who object to Terri Shiavo are saying is that given that Terry is NOT in a Persistive Vegetative State, NOT in a coma, NOT braindead, NOT on any machine that is doing the work for keeping her alive, NOT meeting ANY of the criteria for what our country has usually deemed acceptable for allowing a person to die....that we should be a bit more careful about making a decision to allow her to be starved to death.

A society SHOULD be cautious about taking a human life...I mean, jesuschrist we'll give umpteen appeals to a woman who drowns all five of her children in a bathtub...we'll allow cop killers, rapists, child molestors, and serial killers the ability to appeal their death sentences and their court decided punishments....I think we could at least consider the possibility that this woman did not mean "I want to die even if rehabilitation could give me some of my quality of life back, I want to die even if it means a slow death via dehydration," but rather meant that she didn't want to live if she met any of the usually understood criteria I mentioned above...PVS, coma, brain death, etc.

Note carefully, I am not saying that Michael Shiavo is evil, nor am I saying he isn't doing the right thing if he is truly fighting for his wife's wishes. I'm just saying that as a non-partial member of our society...I want to make DAMN sure that we aren't going to starve someone to death just because someone else said so and that someone else had ulterior motives in mind.

There is legislation being past by a Senator and Congressmen (I think) in Florida that would appoint Terri her own counsel, one not bought for by Terri's parents or her husband, who all have their own agendas....the basis for this legislation is taken from the 14th Amendment to the Constitution. I feel that this legislation would be perfect for this case. Allow a "non-partisan" lawyer to look at all of the information of the case and argue for or against with only Terri's PoV in mind.

I think that considering there is no legal documentation stating that Terri would want to die in these circumstances, as a society we need to be a bit more hesitant to starve her to death than, "Well, gee...her husband, who didn't even mention that these were her wishes until 7 years later after a very profitable malpractice suit was settled, says that she wants to die...so lets just starve the girl."

 

[Bonnie]

that, in no way, shape, or form, means that those were not her wishes.

But it means there is no real documented proof.

Gem

A society SHOULD be cautious about taking a human life...I mean, jesuschrist we'll give umpteen appeals to a woman who drowns all five of her children in a bathtub...we'll allow cop killers, rapists, child molestors, and serial killers the ability to appeal their death sentences and their court decided punishments....I think we could at least consider the possibility that this woman did not mean "I want to die even if rehabilitation could give me some of my quality of life back, I want to die even if it means a slow death via dehydration," but rather meant that she didn't want to live if she met any of the usually understood criteria I mentioned above...PVS, coma, brain death, etc.

Perfectly stated!!

 

[SmarterThanYou]

SmarterThanYou,

There is no vow being broken, none of the sanctity of marriage being violated in the slightest...what people who object to Terri Shiavo are saying is that given that Terry is NOT in a Persistive Vegetative State, NOT in a coma, NOT braindead, NOT on any machine that is doing the work for keeping her alive, NOT meeting ANY of the criteria for what our country has usually deemed acceptable for allowing a person to die....that we should be a bit more careful about making a decision to allow her to be starved to death.

There have been conflicting reports stating that both sides are correct. You want to side on the err of life, which is admirable however, what you are doing is violating the sanctity of marriage by interposing yourself and your wishes/ideas between something that should exist between a husband and wife alone. The current ideology of 'life' has removed the possibility for a humane end to an otherwise horrendous quality of life because our society has deemed it logical to make assisted suicide a crime. Self preservation, or lack of, is being forced in this case because an overriding mentality has superceded common sense.

A society SHOULD be cautious about taking a human life

Absolutely. I do not disagree with this, but how cautious do we want to be? Shall we be 10 years cautious? 20 or 30? How long is long enough before we decide that we'll let the individuals wishes be fulfilled?

...I mean, jesuschrist we'll give umpteen appeals to a woman who drowns all five of her children in a bathtub...we'll allow cop killers, rapists, child molestors, and serial killers the ability to appeal their death sentences and their court decided punishments....I think we could at least consider the possibility that this woman did not mean "I want to die even if rehabilitation could give me some of my quality of life back, I want to die even if it means a slow death via dehydration," but rather meant that she didn't want to live if she met any of the usually understood criteria I mentioned above...PVS, coma, brain death, etc.

As has been stated before by others, what you are really saying is you want to remove the decision about quality of life OR whether to live or die from the hands of anyone you feel less capable and turn it over to a legal system and the government.

Note carefully, I am not saying that Michael Shiavo is evil, nor am I saying he isn't doing the right thing if he is truly fighting for his wife's wishes. I'm just saying that as a non-partial member of our society...I want to make DAMN sure that we aren't going to starve someone to death just because someone else said so and that someone else had ulterior motives in mind.

and in almost all circumstances I could agree with you, however, the relationship between a husband and wife has, and always should, supercede anybody elses opinions or ideology without clear and convincing evidence that there is criminality involved.

There is legislation being past by a Senator and Congressmen (I think) in Florida that would appoint Terri her own counsel, one not bought for by Terri's parents or her husband, who all have their own agendas....the basis for this legislation is taken from the 14th Amendment to the Constitution. I feel that this legislation would be perfect for this case. Allow a "non-partisan" lawyer to look at all of the information of the case and argue for or against with only Terri's PoV in mind.

Again, all you are doing is approving government interference into the marriage sacrament because of your ideology of 'life first'. In all other issues, you could be correct, but not when it involves the marital union.

I think that considering there is no legal documentation stating that Terri would want to die in these circumstances, as a society we need to be a bit more hesitant to starve her to death than, "Well, gee...her husband, who didn't even mention that these were her wishes until 7 years later after a very profitable malpractice suit was settled, says that she wants to die...so lets just starve the girl."

The mention of not living by artificial means or quality of life has been mentioned by a couple of others who apparently have no vested interest in the case and are family members of a sort.

You're making this all about the money, using that one area to contest an issue that for all intent and purposes is irrelevant in this case. Your wish for terri to get better and live is indicative of most everyone elses, but its still not our decision, nor should it be anyone elses but her spouse.

 

[Bonnie]

Smarter Than You

Again, all you are doing is approving government interference into the marriage sacrament because of your ideology of 'life first'. In all other issues, you could be correct, but not when it involves the marital union.

Are you saying that the marital union supercedes life itself?

Hypothetical situation...a husband kills his wife with poison because she is terminally ill and one night over dinner she asks him to do it. Are you saying the legal system has no right to prosecute the husband becasue that would violate
the sancitity of the marriage????

 

[SmarterThanYou]

Smarter Than You



Are you saying that the marital union supercedes life itself?

Hypothetical situation...a husband kills his wife with poison because she is terminally ill and one night over dinner she asks him to do it. Are you saying the legal system has no right to prosecute the husband becasue that would violate
the sancitity of the marriage????

no, what you are doing is intellectually dishonest.

the marital union supercedes as long as illegalities do not play a part and the quality of life of the individual is taken into account.

Obviously, in your hypothetical situation, the wife still has a full quality of life. The husband would be guilty of murder.