Meanwhile, Michael Schiavo and his other "wife" have big glasses of bottled water (with ice) while enjoying some filet mignon

You can buy a lot of bottled water and filet mignon with $1.6 million.

Ahhh, but who can blame Mikey Schiavo? One day he will "die" and cease to exist, and then what difference will any of this make?

Well God Bless the Catholic worker.
Unfortunately, the same people who insist on murdering Terri, who demand we have compassion and understanding for the likes of Al Quaida, Osama, Saddam et al., are the ones who will see to it that the Catholic Worker gets the maximum penalty allowed by law.
Ironical ain`t it?

54 percent of conservatives want the feeding tube removed, versus 40 who don't. And even 44 to 40 of evangelicals. Not saying it's right, but "these same people" aren't just fanatical unwashed liberals, but a serious majority of the country, and, presumably, your own party.

I seriously doubt your statistics Alex.
Especially if you got them from the MSM.

I never trust polls anyway. They`re too easy to "fix".

We all recall that "highly accurate" poll released during the afternoon of election day 2004. After that, I take them with a huge grain of salt.

"Ma'am, you think Terri Schiavo should be allowed to die right?"

"yes"

"And you love god and jesus?"

"Yes"

Check box in the "yes" column for evangelical.

Apparently, it's a spousal right to kill your spouse in a way not even fit (by liberal standards) for animals.

Sad. The country's morals are in the sewer.

http://lamusings.blogspot.com/

Since they`re so concerned about appearing to be "Humane" why don`t they just put a bullet in her brain?
As far as I`m concerned that`s much more humane than starving someone to death.

To answer my own question: They don`t put a bullet in her brain because then the "Spirit" of the law then becomes the "Letter" of the law.

This is what the Libs meant when they said "the Constitution is a living, breathing document, always open for interpretation and changes to meet the times."

There is a Spirit of the Law implied in the Constitution through the Declaration of Independance.
Each of those documents upholds and supports the other, yet it is only the Constitution which is used as the foundation for our laws.

Any country that upholds the Letter of the law but not the Spirit of it will become enslaved by those Laws.

Nazi Germany
U.S.S.R.
Cuba
Iran
Former Iraq
N.Korea

Those are just some recent examples but the statement hold true throughout history.

I seem to recall something from one of our founding documents.
Something about, "Life, Liberty and the Persuit of Happiness."

Notice that "Life" is first, "Liberty" is second and "The Persuit of Happiness" is third.

By that criterion I can only conclude that Terri`s "Life" is more important than Micheal`s "Liberty" to stop feeding her, and FAR more important than the "Persuit of Happiness" that he hopes to engage in when she`s dead.

Alex

A poll is only as revealing as the original questions, and if you're refering to the ABC poll, Capn Ed easily shreds their biased question that sets up the person being polled as first accepting that Terri is unconscious, has been on life support for 15 years and Florida courts have sided with the husband.

Then starts the emotional identification by those who really have only a passing acquaintence of Terri's case and accept the ABC premise:

~~I wouldn't want to live like that
~~NO ONE would want to live like that
Therefore
~~Terri wouldn't want to live like that

Terri is not brain dead, so what the argument boils down to is one of eugenics. Where does the law, in the absense of any documentary evidence from Terri about her wishes, draw the "personhood" line? If Terri, who is not brain dead nor terminally ill nor on life support nor is in any imminent danger of dying (well, that last was BEFORE the proactive decision to starve her to death) can be ordered euthanized on eugenics grounds, what other life in similar situation to hers do we rid ourselves of? Severe Autism sufferers? Low functioning Down's Syndrome? Cerebral palsey?

What kind of eugenics board are you comfortable with, Alex?

she has no cerebral cortex, it's nothing but water. and if her hubby was in this for the money, why didn't he run with te million dollar offer somebody just offered up? admit it, the government is sticking it's nose where it doesn't belong. and the majority of folks in america realize this.

Neue Seite 1

it's all about the money.

her husband wants his, or else he would have divorced her and gone on with his life. in reality he's done that anyway with his new family. so why wouldn't he just hand the responsibility back over to her Terri's parents? it's so simple. when you are a baby, your parents take care of you. so many parents shirk that responsibility, yet here is someone willing to pick up the burden again. you can be certain their motivation isn't the money. they've been at her side while mikey was out knocking-up a new squeeze. (man, i'd be looking over my shoulder if i were her!) yet her parents have been on her side.

granted - she should have had an Advance Medical Directive (this is not a "Living Will", there's a big difference). big hint to the rest of us. (that is, if you think there might be some money to fight over. but still...) SO if you don't want the someone stepping in and keeping you artificially alive or offing you, you have to put it in writing. (it takes like 5 minutes...)

more on that later... back to the subject.

i've spent too much time in hospitals on the wrong end of the scalpel. so I know a little something about being in a vegetative state. if Terri can turn her head and respond to her family members, then that is NOT a vegetative state. no one has the right to pull the plug!! especially not a conniving husband, or her insurance company looking to better their expense ratio. too many "miracle" cures have occurred for any doctor to rule out the chance of a recovery. i know. i've been there. despite some of my doctors.

why in the hell does everyone want to pull the plug on this poor woman? it is just criminal. thank god Congress and Dubya did their job despite all the obstructionism by the democrats. damn them. they let their bile over losing elections spill over into murder. they should all go home, look at their children and hang their heads in shame. now the judiciary better get off their asses and do their jobs as well. Terri's brother said it so well "To have to see my parents go through this is absolutely barbaric, I'd love for these judges to sit in a room and see this happening as well." and that is exactly what this entire process is - barbaric, criminal, an atrocity.

Advance Medical Directives can be obtained easily and cheaply. be certain to fill out the power-of-attorney to someone you trust!  DO IT!!!

yup too bad terri didn't fill out an AMD because this whole mess would never have happened. she did not want to live like this!!! and made it known verbally!!! like many people in this country that would not want to live like that, but still have not taken the time to put it in writing.

where's the money her husband is after?? he already put the initial sum towards medical expenses. then why not take the million he was offered and get out of it all? you think her husband is having a great time through all of this, you're sadly mistaken.

Define "majority". Do you mean your friends? Your friends friends?
That`s not a majority.

"she has no cerebral cortex, it's nothing but water."

Not true.
A. No cerebral cortex = death.
B. The loving "husband" will not allow a test to prove definitively whether her pre-frontal cortex is liquified or not.

"why didn't he run with te million dollar offer somebody just offered up?"

He has much more to gain by her death.
For one thing, he can`t cash in her life insurance policy until she`s actually declared dead.
The reason he want`s her dead is because every day she spends in the hospital will be deducted from his settlement.

Do the math.

Dead Terri = More money.
Live Terri = Less money.

Plus, since you seem to be so well informed about this subject and I`ve only been following it for the last few years keep in mind that it has been implied by police and medical officials at the time, that loving hubby Mikey, hereafter reffered to as Exhibit A is suspected of causing her medical condition by slipping her judicial doses of perscription drugs and chemicals.
Exhibit A was, and to some extent, still is, suspected of giving her a deadly cocktail that was supposed to kill her.

so where's all the info and evidence in regards to him trying to poison her? or is this just something you heard from a friend?

i thought it was actually a condition brought on by an eating disorder and a heart attack. or is it all just a cover up?

I don't know about before her illness, but there is a burse who testified that he tried to poison her AFTER her illness...

IYER: Yes. Michael was in Terri's room for about 20 minutes with the door shut. After Michael left, Terri was sweating profusely, lethargic, crying hysterically. I did check her sugar on the glucometer, and it was not reading any number, it was reading low.

HILL: And did you find something in the trash can?

IYER: Yes. I saw a vial of regular insulin, concealed, in the trash bin.

HILL: And did you notice any injection marks on her, and if so, did you confront Michael or tell your supervisors?

IYER: Yes. There was needle marks underneath her breast, underneath her arms, and her groin. I did talk to the director of nursing and the administrator, and I did go to the police.

He also asked of that "bitch was dead yet"

Lovely man. If I marry someone like that, please just shoot me in the head. But please don't starve me to death.

Just as every judge who has heard the Schiavo case so far has ruled in Michael's favor, so has every poll taken shown that the majority of the public supports the husband's position. In survey after survey dating from 2003 to the present, asked who should have the final right-to-die decision, the majority of Americans have answered: the spouse. From national polls (e.g., ABC News/Washington Post, 65-25; and Fox News, 50-31) to statewide polls (e.g., KING-TV in Washington, 67-19; and St. Petersburg Times in Florida, 75-13) to unscientific, interactive polls (e.g., CNN, 65-26; and MSNBC, 63-37), the response has always been the same. A 2003 poll by CNN/USA Today had a similar result: Eighty percent agreed that a spouse should be allowed to decide whether to end the life of a person in a persistent vegetative state. -salon.com


what else do you have to go by??? are YOU surveying your friends on this one? cuz i go by what i read in as many different places as possible and i have yet to read a single poll that show's otherwise. but i do see someone like DeLay USING this braindead woman as cover for his corruption and misdeeds.


show me. make me see what you see. i'm not looking at this with a closed mind. it just seems to me like the gov't is being too big brother on this issue. and they are using her for political means. and that's what is sick.

yeah mox, you expect me to believe something from rush limbaugh's site? mr. hillbilly heroin himself.

but even if that WAS true why wasn't her husband arrested or questioned by the authorities?

slip through the cracks?

i mean those are some pretty serious allegations. you would think that mr. schiavo would be found guilty of such things if they really did occur, no? or at least they would have been looked into and not just implied...

I've already fired off on my opinion about Terri Schiavo's situation...several times now, yet it never ceases to amaze me that one nimrod after another can continue to pop up and challenge the literate and the thoughtful to speak out, once again.

After reading, on several different sites, the summary argument that if her husband was only interested in money, "why didn't he take it and run?", I once again find myself clenching my jaw.

First, many of us do suspect, and have suggested, that Michael Schiavo has more than his legal wife's best interests at heart.

We have not accused him of being stupid.

Truth be told, there's not much left in Terri's fund for him to inherit, having spent most of it on legal and administrative fees, however; there remains plenty to be had in book and movie deals.

Yet, anyone who believes that money is the only motivator to wrong-doing is, by any definition, a nimrod.

Money, as well as power, vengeance, and spite are very powerful motivators. And, in this case, Michael Schiavo's venomous attacks upon the decency and grieving of her parents appears to be his greatest motivator. He seems driven by spite and determined to cause as much pain as possible.

To imply that this man's refusal to accept an offer, one which would obviously have been illegal trade in human suffering, proves his motives are pure, is plain and simple ignorance.

You can read Carla Ayers affidavit here.
You libshits. All the same.

First HeWhoAin`tNotGotNoName, my information came from a readily available source. TV and print news. This happened about 15 years ago and I could read even then but I had no idea I`d have to cache or archive newspaper articles on the then, almost non existant internet.
I suggest you go to a library, get some news micro-fiches and backtrack until you find them, but the articles are there.
I just won`t do your research for you.

And why do you keep harping about her being "brain dead"?
It`s obvious that you know only so much about this case as has been recently reported on.

Go Here.
It has all the information you need to decide if she`s brain dead or not including a thumbnail image (click to enlarge) of Terri Schiavo's brain in 1996.
It also has a very good rebuttal to those (like you) who keep insisting she`s brain dead, but beware, the author actually knows what he`s talking about.

I don't really know what's right to do in this case, although starving doesn't seem very humane.

I also agree with the commentor who stated that Michael is doing it out of spite.

He strikes me as immoral and ruthless - to deny her parents their child and to deny Terri the best of care when it doesn't cost him a dime is beyond the pale.

Let's pull his feeding tube.

this guy and scott petersen must have compared notes.

Assuming what the husband is saying is true, his case is not as vicious as you seem to make it out. If my wife of several years had told me that she did not want to be recussitated if she fell into a vegetative state, that she wanted to let God's will take its course, and then when I attempted to fulfill what were basically her last wishes, her family began accusing me of poisoning her prior to her heart-attack, during her treatment, or trying to kill her to get her money, I would surely fight the case with everything I had left. The fact is, if the situation was reversed and it was the family saying that she wanted to die, and he wanted to keep her alive, this would be an open and shut case and I'm sure anyone here likening the husband to Scott Petersen would be doing the same to her father. In fact, just about all of your character assumptions (doing it for the book/movie deal, for example) can just as easily be attributed to either side. Clearly this is a complicated case, and my general belief is that when both sides are muddled, you might as well err on the side of life. On the other hand, I do not consider the husband to be some sort of monster for trying to fulfil his wife's wishes and end her suffering.

This whole Schiavo episode is not about whether her husband wants her dead or not as much as it is about the fact that this is a valuable precedent to the state. This is a case where the state will get to decide whether a disabled human being lives or dies. This is a glorious moment for the state, since it finally gives them an excuse to expand their ability to make life-or-death decisions for the disabled. We've already got a state-approved way for getting rid of children, it's called abortion. We'll now have a way to get rid of the disabled. Next on the list will be the elderly. You know, those elderly who have to be bathed and fed because they can't do it for themselves. There's lots of them. Then the rest of the elderly. They do nothing productive and are the reason why Social Security will collapse right?? And when the children, the disabled, and the elderly are controlled, who do you think they'll be coming after next?

By the way, if the above seems in some way familiar, read up on the history of Nazi Germany. Y'all think Hitler was bad?? Just wait.

Michael Shiavo, quite clearly, is a complete piece of shit. That's all there is to it. If Terri Shiavo dies, the parents ought to sue him for some of his millions for wrongful death. Hell, why not, they got a judgement against O.J., and we ALL know he's innocent, right? (Intended sarcasm here...)

I would ask all of you fine folks (even the non-believers) to offer a prayer to G-d for Terri. If she is to die, and it seems as if there is nothing we can do to stop it, then let her go feeling peace, with no pain.

I hope we can be forgiven for this.

hewhocannotbenamed: she has no cerebral cortex, it's nothing but water.

And you know this how?

She’s still breathing on her own, isn’t she?

hewhocannotbenamed: and if her hubby was in this for the money, why didn't he run with the million dollar offer somebody just offered up?

Michael Schiavo was originally awarded 1.6 million dollars on the premise that the money was required to cover the cost of Terri’s extended care.

Are you denying this?

And since you seem to be implying that you comprehend the workings of Mr. Schiavo’s subconscious mind perhaps you could explain why he has shacked up with another woman and had two children by her without first divorcing Terri?

hewhocannotbenamed: admit it, the government is sticking it's nose where it doesn't belong.

Yes, God forbid that Society (i.e. “the Government”) should get involved with citizens killing each other.

hewhocannotbenamed: … and the majority of folks in America realize this.

Keep spreading your insane meme. Perhaps if you are persistent long enough eventually someone other than yourself will believe it too?

Surely y'all realize this is just a gambit in the high stakes game of "Florida Hold'em" -- Terri is suffering this horrible, lingering death by starvation because the religious right won't let them do what they really want: jam a pair of sharp scissors into that non-existent cerebral cortex and put her out of her misery quick like a bunny.

Just wait because that idea will be forthcoming.

Up next on the list for state-sponsored extermination:

The Severely Mentally Retarded
Alzheimer's Patients
Quadriplegics
Victims of Severe Stroke
Spina Bifida Patients
The Clinically Obese
People Who Drive Slow in the Fast Lane

I would submit to anyone who thinks Schiavo has the best interest of his dying wife in mind, consider doctor's discovery of a healed broken right femur bone, and healed bone fractures in Terri Schindler Schiavo’s ribs, pelvis, spine and ankle.

I would also ask those folks to consider why Schiavo did not want X rays with said fractures displayed, shared with Schindler Schiavo's parents.

Just curious.

And FYI: flaming liberal here.

get off your high horse serpent. you're the type that cannot be told otherwise. i've watched you comment on this blog for quite some time and it never fails. you always have an answer, you've got it all figured out.

i can admit that i'm no medical expert. i can admit that i do not know mr. schiavo personally.
so my judgements on these matters are just like the rest of you, based soley on what i've read and i'm no slouch as far as trying to gather as much info on something as i can from any perspective i can. i listen to what the other side has to say with an open mind.
but unless mr. schiavo has been convicted of these attempts at taking her life or being such an evil man, HE is her gaurdian. HE has every right to do his best to carry out what his wife wanted. NOT her parents. and from what i've read, SHE did not want to live like she is now living.

For the third time, a federal court has ruled against Terri Schiavo's parents.

read that last sentence again.

and if you think i'm the only person that feels the government is overstepping their boundaries in what they are doing here or are trying to do, you need to take another look around.

let me repeat it.

For the third time, a federal court has ruled against Terri Schiavo's parents.

the right is using terri as a pawn in their politics.

let me ask you this serpent: do you believe in an individual's right to end their life how they see fit, barring any injury to others? because i do and this case is about that right. and if you don't believe an individual has the right to leave this earth on their own terms, then we can agree to disagree.

i don't think the federal courts should have even been invovled, but i'm glad to see they are holding true to an individual's rights and the rights of a married couple.

Okay, I might actually support state-sponsored extermination for those who drive slow in the fast lane.

HWCBN

Believe it or not, your last statement came as close as possible to the conumdrum we conservatives face on this issue.

}"and if you think i'm the only person that feels the government is overstepping their boundaries in what they are doing here or are trying to do, you need to take another look around."

That is the difficult, slippery slope we hoped we would never have to face.
Federal Government intrusion in a State Rights issue.
On the one hand you have those conservatives and libertarians that believe the federal government has no authority over any State issue.
On the other hand you have guys (and gals) like me.
I see this as a State (Florida in this case) attempting to test the federal government to see exactly how far they can go before federal intervention.
The courts said, in effect "you shall remove the feeding tube until she (Terri Schiavo) is dead"

That is a death sentence.
No matter how you spin it, no matter how you fluff it, no matter if you add soothing words such as "dying with dignity" or whatever the current slogan is.
It`s a death sentence.

Equivalant to saying "He shall be taken out and hanged by the neck until he is dead."

The method is established and the result of the method (Terri`s death) is established and it`s an order by a STATE judge.
That my fine feathered friend is a DEATH SENTENCE and as such is a FEDERAL issue.
Period.
No ifs, ands or buts.

States are always testing their laws against federal laws to find loopholes or just to see how far they can go on certain things.

On Constitutional issues Federal law always trumps States rights.

Here`s an example of a state abusing it`s authority while ignoring federal law.

Alabama 1957
There were some black kids who wanted to go to a white school.
Alabama said "NO", the federal government said "YES".
Guess who won.

Go on...guess.

Here`s another example.

Once upon a time some southern states said " Hey Uncle Sam, we think you`re a punk. You take all the good toys, all the money and all the cool stuff up north where you live, so we`re just going to take our toys and play in our own yard and you ain't invited."

And thus began the American Civil War.
It was a states rights versus federal law issue.
Guess who won.

Go ahead...guess.

I don`t know anyone more conservative than me and I firmly believe in the seperation of state and federal powers.

So in a sense you are right. The federal government has no buisness in a state issue.
That`s a true statement if ever I heard one.

But....

It doesn`t apply in this instance.
Just as Alabamas "state rights" didn`t apply in '57 and the Confederate States "rights" didn`t apply in 1861 because the right to life is a FEDERAL issue and as such, it trumps any state law.

This case is a case of a state abusing its authority, mis-interpreting it`s own, and federal law in an effort to find a loophole in the Constitution.
I have no problem with my Rich Uncle Sam stepping in and slapping Florida down in this instance.
States have rights, yes they do.
They have the right to make laws and conduct buisness without federal intervention.
But only to a point.
A state does not have the right to dictate Constitutional policies or laws.

Ask Alabama how far they got in their attempt.
Ask the Confederate States of America...oh wait...you can`t ask them.

In a nutshell, a death sentence is a Federal issue, not a State "right".

Deal with it.
Love it.
Embrace it.
Or even better, as the liberals would say...
TOLERATE it.
It`s all about "tolorence" with you guys anyway isn`t it?

So TOLERATE IT!!!

oh believe me baby, i'm tolerating.
doesn't mean i can't have halfway civil discussion with people of a differing point of view does it?

'For example, as governor of Texas, George W. Bush refused to review cases involving mentally retarded death row inmates. Nor can I remember any time Congress rushed back from a vacation to deal with real-time incidents of genocide in the Balkans, Rwanda or Sudan. This is selective compassion of the most pandering sort.

In the end, it is not about who is right in the depressingly ugly battle between Schiavo's parents on one side and her husband on the other. Those of us who have dealt with the slow death of a beloved relative in the hospital are all too familiar with the pain in facing the myriad decisions that can tear us apart.' -robert scheer

what this case is really about is keeping politics and state-endorsed religion out of our private lives.

and no, i'm not going to tolerate some religious fundy trying to tell me how to live or die.

riddle me this joatmoaf...

For your information, while he was governor of Texas, George W. Bush signed the Advanced Directives Act in 1999, which gives hospitals the right to remove life support in cases where there is no possibility of revival, when the family cannot pay, no matter what the family's wishes are in the matter. In Texas, you can only live in a persistent vegetative state if you are accepted in one of the few institutions that provide such care or if your family is both willing and able to take care of you. And if Bush is so concerned about the right to life, why didn't he give death-row inmate Carla Faye Tucker more than 10 minutes consideration and some cheap mockery?

Even though it`s off topic I`ll riddle you that.

"For your information, while he was governor of Texas, George W. Bush signed the Advanced Directives Act in 1999, which gives hospitals the right to remove life support in cases where there is no possibility of revival, when the family cannot pay, no matter what the family's wishes are in the matter."

Could it be...could it possibly be, that the bill was originally introduced by a democrat in a predominately Democrat State Legislature?
Bush signed the bill, but did he introduce it in the first place?

You see, although I`m not a politician I am familiar with how politics works.
Believe it or not, politics in almost all forms most closely resembles a "tit for tat" relationship.
"You scratch my back, I`ll scratch yours".
That is how politics works, and it`s the essential ingredient required for getting your own programs through.

The key words are "no possibility of revival", and in the case of Terri Schiavo, that is the point of contention.

Exhibit A's people say "no possibility of revival", yet Exhibit A, as legal guardian, will not allow her parents to bring their own doctors in to either verify, or dispute that prognosis.

Now you can riddle me this: Why not?
Why, in over 15 years, wouldn`t Exhibit A allow her parents to either prove or disprove that diagnosis?

Are you even aware that this whole thing hinges on his word alone?
Did you know that Terri never signed any document that said she would rather die in such an instance?

No "Living Will".
Nothing.

This whole case is based on his assurance, to the court, that Terri told him verbally that she'd rather die.

That is it.

Is that all the "proof" you would need?
If someone told you, "go ahead and kill my wife, she said it was OK", would you take them at their word, without a second thought, or would there be a doubt?

I happen to doubt his honesty.
People lie, go figure.
I happen to think Exhibit A is lying.
If his word alone is good enough for you, that`s you decision, but it`s not good enough for me.

I happen to think he tried to kill her in the first place.
If you don`t want to believe that, or just don`t have enough information to make a decision, then, again, that`s you, not me.

There`s way, way, WAY too many suspicious inconsistancies in this particular case for my taste.
It should have been criminally investigated from the beginning, but now it`s too late.

Yesterday you said this:

"show me. make me see what you see. i'm not looking at this with a closed mind. it just seems to me like the gov't is being too big brother on this issue. and they are using her for political means. and that's what is sick."

Here Is A Link to a site that has a thumbnail image of Terri Schiavo`s March 7, 1991 bonescan report.

You can click the image to enlarge and you can read the bloggers (a doctor) analysis of the bonescan.

Here`s an interesting comment from him,

"First, the DATE on this bone scan is March 1991. Terri's cardiopulmonary arrest -- as far as I can tell -- was in February 1990; therefore, the abnormalities that are described occured AFTER Terri's February 1990 arrest, probably in the weeks or month(s) just prior to the bone scan, unless she had a second arrest at some point -- and I do not have that history. Certainly there was trauma. As I understand it, the issue is how the trauma occurred."

That`s just the first paragraph.
If, as you claim, you really do have an open mind, then why not check out the link?
You see, there is a LOT of stuff about this case that isn`t common knowledge.
It goes back to 1990 and it`s only recently been played big in the media.
There is MUCH more to it than meets the eye.

As the Second District explained:
We note that the guardianship court's original order expressly relied upon and found credible the testimony of witnesses other than Mr. Schiavo or the Schindlers. We recognize that Mrs. Schiavo's earlier oral statements were important evidence when deciding whether she would choose in February 2000 to withdraw life-prolonging procedures. See § 765.401(3), Fla. Stat. (2000); In re Guardianship of Browning, 568 So. 2d 4, 16. Nevertheless, the trial judge, acting as her proxy, also properly considered evidence of Mrs. Schiavo's values, personality, and her own decision-making process.

Were the Schindlers' doctors given an opportunity to examine Terri?

Yes. As the Second District explained:

Through the assistance of Mrs. Schiavo's treating physician, Dr. Victor Gambone, the physicians obtained current medical information about Theresa Schiavo including high-quality brain scans. Each physician reviewed her medical records and personally conducted a neurological examination of Mrs. Schiavo. Lengthy videotapes of some of the medical examinations were created and introduced into evidence. Thus, the quality of the evidence presented to the guardianship court was very high, and each side had ample opportunity to present detailed medical evidence, all of which was subjected to thorough cross-examination. It is likely that no guardianship court has ever received as much high-quality medical evidence in such a proceeding.

i guess his words and those of the doctors were good enough for the courts...

seems to me that mr. schiavo's word was definitely not all there was. do you for a second think the courts just asked him what his opinion was and said ok pull the tube?

that's outright ridiculous. this case has been scrutinized by florida's best attorneys looking for anything at all that would allow them to keep terri alive and they cannot find anyhting.

why did her husband go become a nurse skilled in respiratory problems? do you realize that most people in these situations would have left after the first year or so of a PVS? i mean you're kidding yourself if you believe her husband is having a good time with all of this.

i feel for terri, her husband and her parents because they are all just being used and dragged thru the mud for the benefit of some votes.

"Terri's Law" required the chief judge of the local circuit court to appoint a guardian ad litem (GAL) to examine Terri's case and advise the Governor. The chief judge appointed Dr. Jay Wolfson from the University of South Florida. Dr. Wolfson's December 2003 report to Governor Bush included this bit of factual history:

The cause of the cardiac arrest was adduced to a dramatically reduced potassium level in Theresa's body. Sodium and potassium maintain a vital, chemical balance in the human body that helps define the electrolyte levels. The cause of the imbalance was not clearly identified, but may be linked, in theory, to her drinking 10-15 glasses of iced tea each day. While no formal proof emerged, the medical records note that the combination of [Theresa's] aggressive weight loss, diet control and excessive hydration raised questions about Theresa from Bulimia, an eating disorder, more common among women than men, in which purging through vomiting, laxatives and other methods of diet control become obsessive.
Also relevant to questions about the cause of Terri's collapse is the lawsuit that Michael brought on Terri's behalf against Terri's doctors. The premise of that early 1990s lawsuit was that the doctors committed malpractice by failing to diagnose Terri's bulimia and that her bulimia led to her cardiac arrest. The case was tried to a jury, which ruled in Michael's favor, finding that Terri had bulimia, that her bulimia caused her cardiac arrest, and that the doctors were negligent in failing to diagnose the situation. The verdict was appealed, and before the appellate court could rule, the parties settled, with Michael recovering approximately $750,000 for Terri and $300,000 for himself.

After this case gained national attention in 2003, Gary Fox, the lawyer who represented Terri and Michael in that suit, wrote a stirring column concerning Terri's bulimia and how the tragic effects of that disease have been lost in the hoopla surrounding this case. The St. Pete Times still has that column online, and you can read it here.

The significance of the medical malpractice lawsuit can be seen in a few ways. A jury agreed that bulimia caused Terri's collapse. The defendants were her doctors -- one might think that they, of all people, would have been able to show that Terri had been beaten or strangled if that was what had occurred. Also, to believe that Michael caused Terri's collapse by beating her is to believe that Michael initiated a lawsuit against someone else for causing her collapse, opening the whole matter to serious inquiry and greatly increasing the risk that someone would discover his role.

Finally, I am not aware that anyone -- not the paramedics, doctors, nurses, family members, friends, or anyone else -- who saw Terri in the hours, weeks, and months after her collapse ever suggested at the time that Terri had been beaten or strangled.

i am not commenting on whether any abuse actually occurred. i don't know.
but you could gather an idea from some of the statements above.

i've read that stuff joatmoaf... you act as if i'm forming my opinions from FOX News or some other crap media source. and you also act like this is a new story to me. i have been aware of it since it was first brought to light years ago...
i agree, there is a shit-ton more to this than meets the eye. it's just that everything i read seems to exonerate her husband and any doubts about his ability as a gaurdian have yet to be proven through 8-plus years of court hearings and investigations. i've read it, the information is out there.

Well you`re certainly convinced in your own moral superiority aren`t you?
Nothing anyone posts will ever be good enough for you because you`ve made your mind up befpre comming to the debate.
So much for that "open mind".

Oh well, since you`re now throwing around legalities, would it be OK if I threw a few out myself?

Chapter 415

Here`s some pertainent points:

"(2) EMERGENCY PROTECTIVE SERVICES INTERVENTION.--If the department has reasonable cause to believe that a vulnerable adult is suffering from abuse or neglect that presents a risk of death or serious physical injury to the vulnerable adult and that the vulnerable adult lacks the capacity to consent to emergency protective services, the department may take action under this subsection. If the vulnerable adult has the capacity to consent and refuses consent to emergency protective services, emergency protective services may not be provided."

"(a) Emergency entry of premises.--If, upon arrival at the scene of the incident, consent is not obtained for access to the alleged victim for purposes of conducting a protective investigation under this subsection and the department has reason to believe that the situation presents a risk of death or serious physical injury, a representative of the department and a law enforcement officer may forcibly enter the premises. If, after obtaining access to the alleged victim, it is determined through a personal assessment of the situation that no emergency exists and there is no basis for emergency protective services intervention under this subsection, the department shall terminate the emergency entry."

This is the one with legal teeth:

"(b) Emergency removal from premises.--If it appears that the vulnerable adult lacks the capacity to consent to emergency protective services and that the vulnerable adult, from the personal observations of the representative of the department and specified medical personnel or law enforcement officers, is likely to incur a risk of death or serious physical injury if such person is not immediately removed from the premises, then the representative of the department shall transport or arrange for the transportation of the vulnerable adult to an appropriate medical or protective services facility in order to provide emergency protective services. Law enforcement personnel have a duty to transport when medical transportation is not available or needed and the vulnerable adult presents a threat of injury to self or others. If the vulnerable adult's caregiver or guardian is present, the protective investigator must seek the caregiver's or guardian's consent pursuant to subsection (4) before the vulnerable adult may be removed from the premises, unless the protective investigator suspects that the vulnerable adult's caregiver or guardian has caused the abuse, neglect, or exploitation. The department shall, within 24 hours after providing or arranging for emergency removal of the vulnerable adult, excluding Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays, petition the court for an order authorizing emergency protective services."

Think it can`t happen?

Doesn`t it just SUCK when all the "legalities" you`ve been championing might suddenly be steamrollered by another "legality"?

If it does happen, just remember, you are the one who`s been beating his chest over nit-picking legal details.
So Exhibit A had a loophole in the law?
Now it looks like the law has a loophole in Exhibit A.

Ironical ain't it?

Here`s me if they play that trump card, "Gloat, gloat, gloat, gloat, etc.", just like I did when Bush won again.

Oh, did I mention, Gloat?

Muuhahahahh!!!

moral superiority? not even close. and i'm not throwing around legalities. i gave you documentation on the fact that her parents did have the opportunity to and did bring these allegations of abuse and/or neglect to light in court and they were not proven to be substantial.

you said 'Are you even aware that this whole thing hinges on his word alone?'

i pointed to the fact that this wasn't based on his word alone, but on testimony in court from doctors selected by her parents.

if you want, i'll sit and gloat too. because my perspective on this was backed up again today when:

For the third time, a federal court has ruled against Terri Schiavo's parents.

because like i said before. it's been established that her husband is her gaurdian in multiple courts of law. and this argument, again, is about the federal government's right to get involved.
and they don't have that right.

you seem to be arguing that her husband is some violent abusive person, yet that's been argued in court already and proven to be a false accusation.

and what nitpicking legal details was i 'beating my chest over'?

i was merely refuting your claims that he was abusive with some court backed evidence from the case itself.

i am open minded on this, but i haven't seen a shred of credible evidence to show that mr. schiavo is incapable or has the wrong intentions for caring for his wife and her wishes. and i have seen credible evidence that shows her husband has been a good caregiver. but i have seen plenty of evidence that this case is being used by the repubs as a rally cry for their voters.

"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."

oh and Muuhahahahh!!!
right back atcha meatloaf.

Only years later after the husband had sued everyone he could think of did he "remember" that Terri did not want to be on life support. This after suing for the costs of her long term care. Sorry but I'm not buying it. If he had came forward right away and said she did not want to be kept alive by such means I would have believed him but not when it's years later and he has exhausted his ability to make money off of his sick wife, I'm not buying it.

Travis

Repubs?
Some yes and some no. Probably the same with Democrats.
You have been flaunting legalities.
Quoting court decisions to back your statements is exactly the same thing.
I also know the legalities, I just don`t happen to like the way they`ve been implememted.
Legal or not, the courts decisions are wrong.
Moraly and possibly, ethicly also.
Now, since Chapter 415 has been discovered, it is legally possible to take this out of the hands of the courts.
I didn`t say it would happen, but it very well could.
If Chapter 415 is invoked, and the DCF investigator suspects that Exhibit A has abused, neglected, or caused Terri`s injury, they can declare him unfit as the gaurdian.
The judge in the case has nothing to do with it, and can`t do anything about it.
If Exhibit A is declared unfit, DCF can then have another court to order her feeding be re-instituted.
Personally I think they can do it on the "neglect" part.

Now consider this...
If that were to become a reality, those who stood on legal grounds to support the "die with dignity" side of the issue, and those who stood on morals grounds to support the "life" aspect of it, will suddenly find themselves with new reasons to back their causes.
We`ll be doing 180s. My side would suddenly be championing the "legalities" that had eluded us for so long, and the opposition will be reduced to having meerly their "moral" perspective.
There`s a huge difference between the two and I can`t imagine that the "die with dignity" people would take that very well, despite the fact that they have been so adamant about "law".

It`s fine to have Law be the foundation of your ideology until the Law goes against you, then it`s no so fun.

P.S.
The size of my meatloaf is none of your buisness, thank you very much.

There are several things in this case that don't sit well with me. Most seem to be with the timeline on the initial lawsuit and when Michael Shiavo stated that Terri did not want to live like this.

In 1991, the original malpractice suit was filed against Humana Hospital in St. Petersburg, Florida, for $20 million. Michael argues that according to doctors, Terri could live for 40 years and he needs the money to care for her. He states he wants to care for her for the rest of her life and even adds that he's attending nursing school to assist in her care. Long story short, Terri (yes, Terri and not Michael) is awarded $1.4 million dollars in November of '92. Michael is also awarded $600,000 in damages, not included in the $1.4 million. These damages are appealed by the hospital.

After nearly 5 years going back and forth, the original settlements stand and are finally paid out in 1997. After those checks clear, Michael conveniently 'remembers' a passing conversation where Terri stated that she wouldn't want to live on life support. He then petitions the court to murder...I mean, remove Terri's feeding tube.

Michael initiated a DNR order for Terri, denied any medical treatments for her for anything, and ordered that any medical information was not to be shared with Terri's parents. He further denied any new treatments or testing be made on Terri to assess her true medical state.

Terri was moved into a hospice unit. Michael petitions the court, and is approved, to put Terri on Medicaid for her care, thus removing him from the costs of the hospice unit. The hospice center originally denied Terri's application stating that in Florida, a hospice center accepting a patient on Medicaid should be a terminal patient and is not meant for long-term patient care. Shortly after that decision, the hospice center accepted Terri as a patient. Did I mention that Felos, Michael's attorney, sits on the board of that hospice center?

There are many other issues but I don't want to post a full-page comment to Moxie's page here.

The end result is this - I don't know Terri's true condition. No one posting here does. What I do know is that definitive testing needs to be done to truly assess Terri's medical state before starving this woman to death. If she is not PVS, Florida needs to move in another direction in her care.

This timing doesn't

$2,000,000.00 in the bank and he put Terri on medicare? Not on your tintype. Ask for change from 2 million after 7 years medical and see how much they laugh at you. Not easy to maintain life insurance on someone for that long.

quiz:

does anyone remember Frances Farmer?
does anyone remember Randle (hint: Jack Nickolson)?

we look at what was done to them and are aghast that humans could ever be so stupid as to do this to other humans.

so where is the difference between the above-mentioned situations and Terri Schiavo?

i don't get why everyone is saying 'we don't know her condition'. yes we do. she's been looked at by many doctors, the only doctors that have said she might have some semblance of cognition are the ones hired by her parents. at one point the court had her husband get 2 doctors and her parents get two doctors and then they appointed an impartial doctor to look at her. the outcome, both her husband's appointed doctors and the impartial doctor came to the conclusion that she was in a PVS and her parents doctors came to the conclusion that she might have a chance at something resembling a life.

even the videos of her responding to people has been shown to be nothing more than reflexive responses and they are fleeting at that. her dad tried to get her to look and follow the mickey balloon more than once and she would not.
it's been 15 years that she has been in this condition people. not a couple of months.

i back that her parents may want to keep her alive now. but they also left her and her husband after two years of living together. and it was a year after they had left that mr. schiavo recovered a settlement for malpractice.

and explain to me why our government wants to cut medicaid when it's one of the sole providers for people in terri schiavo's condition?

President Bush has cut his vacation short to return to Washington so he can sign into law legislation that would restore Terri Schiavo’s feeding tubes. Last month, President Bush proposed a budget to Congress that would cut the Food Stamp program by $500 million over the next five years, leaving more than 300,000 low-income people without food assistance every month.

The proposed budget includes large cuts in federal programs providing food, housing, education, and medical assistance to low-income families. It includes cuts in funding to those with HIV/AIDS by $550 million over the next five years. It ends Housing and Urban Development’s 30-year pledge to produce accessible supportive housing for people with disabilities. It will leave 670,000 fewer individuals on the Woman, Infant, Child food program by 2010.

The proposed budget would reduce the budget for Medicaid by $45 billion dollars over the next 10 years, leaving an estimated 1.2 million fewer children without health care each year between 2006 and 2010. This will mean that in Terri Schiavo’s home state of Florida, 67,400 fewer children will have access to Medicaid each year.

how lovely.

The Schiavo case has sparked debate over what it means to die with dignity and moral questions about who decides when a person lives or dies. It should spark debate over what it means to live with dignity.

Why is it that a woman who cannot speak and cannot move should not be denied her constitutional right to food and water, when every day, men, women, and children go hungry without a right to food? Why is Terri Schiavo’s case more important than theirs?

But Congress wants you to know that they value life—Terri Schiavo’s life. This does not mean, however, that they value the millions of other Americans denied their constitutional right to food and health care.

here's another one for ya joatmoaf...

a doctor and a lawyer who was appointed as a guardian for Schiavo in October 2003 by none other than Florida Governor Jeb Bush. If you care about the case and the issues it raises--and if you care about Terri Schiavo... NPR has the whole PDF on it's site...

* [The Guardian concludes] that all of the appropriate and proper elements of the law have been followed and met. The law has done its job well. The courts [which supported the decision to suspend feeding] have carefully and diligently adhered to the prescribed civil processes and evidentiary guidelines, and have painfully and diligently applied the required tests in a reasonable, conscientious and professional manner.

* Highly competent, scientifically based physicians using recognized measures and standards have deduced, within a high degree of medical certainty, that Theresa is in a persistent vegetative state. This evidence is compelling.

* Theresa's neurological tests and CT scans indicate objective measures of the persistent vegetative state.

* Individuals have come forward indicating that there are therapies and treatments and interventions that can literally re-grow Theresa's functional, cerebral cortex brain tissue [which has shrunken], restoring part of all of her functions. There is no scientifically valid, medically recognized evidence that this has been done or is possible, even in rats, according to the president of the American Society for Neuro-Transplantation.

* [The Guardian] concludes from the medical records and consultations with medical experts that the scope and weight of the medical information within the file concerning Theresa Schiavo consists of competent well-document information that she is in a persistent vegetative state with no likelihood of improvement.

Richard Crainum AKA HWCBN

You`re an idiot.
Also a dumbass.
So you`ve got an open mind?
Where is it ya moron?
Don`t lie and say you came here to "debate" because you know very well that`s BS.
You know everything and no one can teach you anything so what`s the point in my trying to "debate" a pinhead like you?
Our "debate" is over until you can learn the rules.
I have no tolorence for dumbass morons.

Buh bye.

a doctor and a lawyer who was appointed as a guardian for Schiavo in October 2003 by none other than Florida Governor Jeb Bush.

Actually, that is incorrect.

Jeb Bush petitioned the court for this but Greer picked the doctors and guardian ad litum. Not surprising that they agreed with Michael Shiavo.

I'm with Joatmoaf. I'm done arguing with someone who hasn't done the research and is talking out of their ass.

I'll quote Jack Nicholson from "As Good As It Gets" here for you, my friend: "Go sell crazy somewhere else. We're all stocked up here."

Call me a libzilla if you so wish, but if thats the only way for Terri to rest in peace, so be it. And I'm sure Michael Schiavo is not having a ball over this...though it would be easier to say so, for politics sake. Its a very difficult situation, since it was accursedly brought in federal court. The arrest of the Catholic woman was a bit much, I believe. But would you want to be tied up to an artificial machine for the rest of your life?

Cecile - By definition, every machine is artificial. No need to be redundant there.

Second, TERRI IS NOT ON LIFE SUPPORT!!! She has a feeding tube. This is a very common occurrence in medicine. Many people have this device after surgery for certain conditions both temporarily and permanently.

Hell, let's just outlaw the use of this device if it's such a horrible way to live.

"But would you want to be tied up to an artificial machine for the rest of your life?"

Wrong question. She only needs to be fed and have water to live. She can breathe and her heart beats all on its own. Much like a newborn baby.

She is being artificially fed. If she were to "take food by herself" only...she wouldn't be able to survive. The husband did not do anything wrong. The media can easily persuade us that he is some selfish guy who is 'cheating' on his wife. 1. Terri has been like this for fifteen yeras and will never wake up. 2. Her parents have some issues that go beyond Terri with their "son in law". 3. They can force jello down her throat for the next million years...it won't change anything other than post-poning her resting in peace...which is what all of us deep-down want. Face it...she's dead. She can't function on her own.

Cecile,

Not a very convincing argument. And I know you are smart enough to know better.

There are lots of people who need to be fed. Quick examples: Babies, those who are mentally retarded, anorexics, old folks, accident victims, war heros, parapalegics.

Should we starve them to death as well? Of course not.

Read up on the issues regarding her so-called husband. You couldn't be more wrong. The man likely abused her, has refused giving her therapy, not to mention been comitting adultery since before Terri got ill.

Who would you want making life or death decisions for YOU? Your Mom who loves you unconditionally or a man who is now loving someone else?

To the logical, it is beyond argument that the husband did something sinister to put Terri in this condition. Is he having a ball? Of course not-he'd have been much happier if he had suceeded and she'd died at the scene. As has been posited above, the profit of his crime is probably significantly depleted after all these years. My, how annoying that must have been..stuck not with a body to bury but a severely disabled, but alive spouse. All those years, all that money not spent on cars, homes and vacations. Yes, I'm sure he's having a terrible time.