Judge Ruled Against SS In Terry Schaivo Case

[Bonnie]

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.

I agree with you that marriage is a sacred union and should always be put first, Im right there with you on that point.

In this case it seems like you are very willing to overlook a substantial amount of evidence that the parents have on their side of this, which includes evidence that this guy was physically abusive to Terri before this even happened. That is a giant red flag that needs to be considered as well as his motivations, before this woman is starved to death. I can't speak for other cases like this, but in this case there is reason to think maybe the parents and their doctors, and, lawyers have enough to give pause. That's all Im saying.
So yes here is a case that the governement in some capacity is getting involved with in order to get to the truth, which we would expect in any other life or death case.

 

[krisy]

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?

That's the thing STY- I wouldn't be in that situation because I would have wanted rehabilitation to start immediately. There would have been no thinking about it. When she first got sick,she was better off than now, and here is where the husband looses me. WHY,WHY, would you not even try every option on earth to save the life of your spouse? He never wanted that rehabilitation. And even if it came down to them saying he would get no better than what Terry is right now,that would be fine,and I wouldn't think twice about starving him to death.

 

[SmarterThanYou]

I agree with you that marriage is a sacred union and should always be put first, Im right there with you on that point.

In this case it seems like you are very willing to overlook a substantial amount of evidence that the parents have on their side of this, which includes evidence that this guy was physically abusive to Terri before this even happened. That is a giant red flag that needs to be considered as well as his motivations, before this woman is starved to death. I can't speak for other cases like this, but in this case there is reason to think maybe the parents and their doctors, and, lawyers have enough to give pause. That's all Im saying.
So yes here is a case that the governement in some capacity is getting involved with in order to get to the truth, which we would expect in any other life or death case.

why did it take 15 years for the abuse allegations to EVER surface? most likely because its one of the few avenues left to her parents and that is all. No substance at all though. As I've said before, if there were EVER any concrete, even somewhat substantiary, proof, we wouldn't be having this issue. It would have been handled years ago. But so far there is nothing to merit a serious intervention. Just suspicion by a large group of people being ruled by the emotion of the parents.

 

[SmarterThanYou]

That's the thing STY- I wouldn't be in that situation because I would have wanted rehabilitation to start immediately. There would have been no thinking about it. When she first got sick,she was better off than now, and here is where the husband looses me. WHY,WHY, would you not even try every option on earth to save the life of your spouse? He never wanted that rehabilitation. And even if it came down to them saying he would get no better than what Terry is right now,that would be fine,and I wouldn't think twice about starving him to death.

the bold part is where i'm confused. are you saying that you would or wouldn't?

 

[krisy]

the bold part is where i'm confused. are you saying that you would or wouldn't?

What I am saying is,I would have tried from the beginning for rehabilitation. If he were in the same state that she is now,I would keep trying the rehabilitation. Starving him to death would never be an option.

 

[SmarterThanYou]

What I am saying is,I would have tried from the beginning for rehabilitation. If he were in the same state that she is now,I would keep trying the rehabilitation. Starving him to death would never be an option.

in my judgement, not being an MD, the doctors diagnosis from both sides are skewed, however, If after 13 years I could be filled with hopelessness if it were me. If I saw no hope I'd want it to be over. I would not want my wife to have to take care of me in that way. I would not want to be that burden on her, no matter what.

 

[Gem]

SmarterThanYou,

Our legal system can not rest comfortably on the "word" of a husband or wife in every situation like this. What if a wife doesn't want to be burdened with an invalid husband, so she informs the doctors that her husband, who would most certainly want every opportunity for rehab, wouldn't want to live like that, and to kill him? What if a husband saw the unfortunate car accident that left his wife, a devout Catholic who would NEVER opt for assisted suicide, in a (possibly temporary) coma as a fortunate way to get out of an unhappy marriage? What if? What if? What if?

Obviously, these cases are going to be the exception, not the rule...but our entire legal system is based upon the exception...most people follow the law...but SOME are the exception, they break the law, and must be punished. Most spouses are going to be heartbroken, devestated, and only interested in what is best for their spouse, respecting their spouses wishes. Some, however, are going to be interested in other things, money...getting rid of a spouse who has become an enormous burden, etc...laws must be enacted to protect people who fall under this exception.

I am not saying that the legal system has to err on the side of life because I think that Terri Shiavo should live. I can see both sides of this argument and have been shifting back and forth in how I feel about this case since I first learned about it. Personally, I have told every member of my family and signed a living will that attests that I have NO DESIRE WHATSOEVER, to live in a condition like that. HOWEVER, I am a private citizen, am I am speaking to our legal system as a whole.

We have NO WAY of acertaining if she actually wanted to die, other than her husband's statement to that fact that has been contested by several other people. Now, while I agree with you that the sanctity of marriage is important...I stress that you be intellectually honest as you claim you want others to be...people violate the sanctity of marriage all the time...the legal system must look beyond the sanctity of marriage...to the truth, the facts, of this case...of any case...and make its decision based upon that.

Having read a lot about this case I can tell you that I, again personally, am suspicious as hell about Michael Shiavo's motives. He never whispered a word about Terri wanting to be killled until 7 years after her accident, conviniently after the malpractice lawsuit was settled and he recieved a large payment. Terri was improving through rehab, but Michael stopped the rehab after recieving money to continue the rehab...stating that Terri would want to die instead. Etc. However, I am also accutely aware of the fact that numerous courts have ruled in his favor...and I do feel that there needs to come a time when we say, "Enough's enough. The court has decided and that is the end of it."

The best solution I have heard of to date is, as I said before, appointing Terri Shiavo her own legal representation and allowing that to be the final say on the matter.

If I could state one reason why I think this case is so important, it would be that I do not think we, as a society, give at all enough time to considering the implications of our choices. I would caution you, Smarter, to give some real time to considering all of the possible implications starving Terri Shiavo to death might have on the future of this country...of euthanasia laws...of how our legal system works...

If we starve Terri Shiavo to death, we are, in essence, saying that if your spouse says that you would want to die, not because you are in a PVS, not because you are in a coma, not because you are being kept alive via machine, not because you are braindead...but rather because your body and mind are not working optimally and you wouldn't want to have rehabilitation to improve your condition at all...that that is all a doctor would need to deprive you of food and water and let you starve and/or dehydrate to death.

Now...you may feel that this is a person's most basic right: the right to choose how they live and how they die. That is fine, I would agree with you in many respects...but, I'll say again...consider what such a statement could mean in the long run...think about how far such a statement could be taken...imagine how a person could use this situation to justify other things....let your imagination take you as far as it can...imagine the most outrageous abuse of legal precedent this case will set.

We have to consider what such a decision might mean, and whether we are readyto, or even interested in, travelling down that path.

 

[tim_duncan2000]

If we starve Terri Shiavo to death, we are, in essence, saying that if your spouse says that you would want to die, not because you are in a PVS, not because you are in a coma, not because you are being kept alive via machine, not because you are braindead...but rather because your body and mind are not working optimally and you wouldn't want to have rehabilitation to improve your condition at all...that that is all a doctor would need to deprive you of food and water and let you starve and/or dehydrate to death.

Exactly. We need to have more than just the word of the spouse.

 

[SmarterThanYou]

spousal priviledge has existed for centuries. you want to change it all because you're SUSPICIOUS of one case. you're all acting out of pure emotion at this point. You're all wrong.

 

[Bullypulpit]

What many here fail to understand is that, in such cases, the power to make healthcare decisions falls first to the spouse and then to the nearest living blood relative. It Mr. Schiavo stated that his wife told him that she had no desire ot live in her current state, he has the authority to withdraw food and hydration in accordance with her stated wishes. If she had had a living will, her family could have contested that in the same way that they have challenged Mrs. Schiavo's husband, causing needless grief for everyone involved.

 

[Bonnie]

What many here fail to understand is that, in such cases, the power to make healthcare decisions falls first to the spouse and then to the nearest living blood relative. It Mr. Schiavo stated that his wife told him that she had no desire ot live in her current state, he has the authority to withdraw food and hydration in accordance with her stated wishes. If she had had a living will, her family could have contested that in the same way that they have challenged Mrs. Schiavo's husband, causing needless grief for everyone involved.

Then what you are asserting here is.....If a husband and wife are unhappily married and the wife has an accident rendering her somewhat braindead, the husband sees this as a way out of the marriage and possibly a way to collect some money he can simply say, starve her to death and, whether she has a living will or not there is no reason or law protecting the wife? Because that's how you just laid this all out!

 

[SmarterThanYou]

Then what you are asserting here is.....If a husband and wife are unhappily married and the wife has an accident rendering her somewhat braindead, the husband sees this as a way out of the marriage and possibly a way to collect some money he can simply say, starve her to death and, whether she has a living will or not there is no reason or law protecting the wife? Because that's how you just laid this all out!

any medical procedure would require his assent as well. Thats been a marriage responsibility for a very long time. Only in very clear cut cases could the state intervene, and should in those cases.

 

[Bonnie]

any medical procedure would require his assent as well. Thats been a marriage responsibility for a very long time. Only in very clear cut cases could the state intervene, and should in those cases.

Just wondering what your interest is in seeing this woman starved to death, meaning what is the real issue here that is fueling your opinions in this case enough to be calling us all wrong?
Smarter Than You

You're all wrong.

 

[no1tovote4]

any medical procedure would require his assent as well. Thats been a marriage responsibility for a very long time. Only in very clear cut cases could the state intervene, and should in those cases.

In this particular case there is evidence that she had no wish to die in that manner, the husband is attempting to push an agenda that evidence says was not her wish.

I agree that had she made such an assertion then she should be allowed to make the choice, but in this case there is no clear cut assertion and evidence that points to the contrary.

 

[Bonnie]

LIFE AND DEATH TUG OF WAR
Philly columnist changes mind on Terri Schiavo
'Uncomfortable details' lead him to side with her parents.

A Philadelphia Inquirer columnist who believes in the "right to die" has changed his mind about the Terri Schiavo case, pointing to "uncomfortable details" about her estranged husband that now lead him to side with the parents of the brain-damaged Florida woman, who are fighting to keep her alive.

John Grogan said in a column published today, "I no longer so blithely believe Schiavo's feeding tubes should be pulled and her life allowed to end. I'm no longer so sure her parents do not deserve a say in their daughter's future. I no longer am totally comfortable assuming her husband, Michael, who now has two children by another woman, is acting unselfishly."


Michael Schiavo has been living with his fiance Jodi Centonze since 1995 and has said he will marry her upon the death of his wife.

Grogan said he hasn't changed his opinion that everyone has a right to "die with dignity," but he believes that in the Schiavo case, the "devil is in the details, uncomfortable details that raise sticky moral dilemmas."

Terri Schiavo suffered severe brain damage in 1990 after collapsing. Michael Schiavo attributes it to a chemical imbalance caused by an eating disorder, but parents Robert and Mary Schindler believe he may have tried to strangle her.

Michael Schiavo contends his wife told him she never would want to be kept alive artificially.

But Grogan points out Terri Schiavo's heart and lungs function on their own, and she requires only a feeding tube that might not be necessary if she were given physical therapy.

The columnist notes Michael Schiavo, as her legal guardian, has forbidden any therapy.

"If [Terri] Schiavo merely required spoon feeding instead of tube feeding, would anyone seriously be arguing to withhold food and water?" Grogan asked. "Does not every human, no matter how incapacitated, deserve sustenance?"

Grogan also is concerned about abuse allegations against Michael Schiavo and believes they should be investigated.

The allegations "may be nothing but scurrilous rumor spread to damage his credibility," he wrote. "But what if there is even a tiny chance he is guilty of abuse? Should such a person be in a position to decide this life-and-death issue?"

When it comes to who is best to decide, Grogan wrote, it's clear that Terri Schiavo's parents "have proved themselves nothing if not fiercely loyal, utterly committed parents. They might be misguided. They might be in denial. But no one can argue their devotion. They have not given up. They have not stopped caring. They have not stopped loving. Who are we, as a society, to tell them they must?

Grogan concluded:


Clearly, Schiavo's husband has moved on to a new life, and who can blame him? It's been 15 long years. But parents cannot move on. Parents cannot give up. Their child will always be the precious gift they brought into the world.
If the Schindlers want to dedicate the rest of their lives and resources to caring for their brain-damaged daughter, if they want to shower her with attention and affection she likely will never recognize, who among us will tell them they cannot

It won't be me.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=43039

 

[Bonnie]

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







Monsignor Thaddeus Malanowski expresses dismay after he is ordered not to give Communion to Terri.

Florida Laws

FS 744.102: To "meet essential requirements for health or safety" means to take those actions necessary to provide the health care, food, shelter, clothing, personal hygiene, or other care without which serious and imminent physical injury or illness is more likely than not to occur.

http://www.terrisfight.org/

 

[SmarterThanYou]

Just wondering what your interest is in seeing this woman starved to death, meaning what is the real issue here that is fueling your opinions in this case enough to be calling us all wrong?
Smarter Than You

i'm calling you wrong because you want to change centuries of traditional and legal precedent based on this one case that for various reasons you see as suspect. I realize that there are claims of evidence that support your premise of her not wanting to die in this manner but there is also evidence to claim the opposite. I have no personal stake in this issue other than making sure that a bunch of knee jerk reactionaries don't legislate away my responsibilities to my spouse.

 

[Bonnie]

i'm calling you wrong because you want to change centuries of traditional and legal precedent based on this one case that for various reasons you see as suspect. I realize that there are claims of evidence that support your premise of her not wanting to die in this manner but there is also evidence to claim the opposite. I have no personal stake in this issue other than making sure that a bunch of knee jerk reactionaries don't legislate away my responsibilities to my spouse.

I can't speak for everyone that's posted on this, but I don't think anyone wants to change centuries of tradition and legal precedent. This woman's life is in the balance and I wouldn't call concern over that, and all the other legal ramifications this case sets forward as a knee jerk reaction.

But whatever! We'll have to agree to disagree.

 

[SmarterThanYou]

I can't speak for everyone that's posted on this, but I don't think anyone wants to change centuries of tradition and legal precedent. This woman's life is in the balance and I wouldn't call concern over that, and all the other legal ramifications this case sets forward as a knee jerk reaction.

But whatever! We'll have to agree to disagree.

agreed.

 

[Bonnie]

agreed.