Main > Everything Else
Schiavo rumblings
DrewKaree:
I spoke of this earlier.
Flashback: The Bobo Saga
fredster:
I dunno.
MrC, that information has been out there in the media since this hit the Florida Supreme Court.
I agree that the Husband should be the one. Parents if there is no spouse.
We don't know the exact funding options. I have a little experience with this, unfortunately. If she doesn't have medication then she is paying about $150 a day for nursing home care (or there abouts). When the trust fund is depleted, she'd have to go to Medicade.
The parents are adamant that she be kept alive, and that's where all this started.
Drew, I don't agree with this:
--- Quote ---No, I believe he won't accept the money because the condition in each offer to him has been that he give the parents control of her treatment (guardianship) and/or divorce her, thereby returning control to the parents. I believe he's got to go through with making it appear that he's in this for her best interests, and is willing to settle for what's left, or willing to settle for having this end for him with her death, since this more than likely will fade away after that. To accept the money would demonstrate that he WAS in this for the money, and I think he's realized he's in it too far to back out in that fashion now, and would open him up to legal action that not only could cost him dearly, but could land him in jail.
--- End quote ---
I think that if it were for the Money, he would have walked. He could have walked 15 years ago and really have forgotten all about it by now.
If he were greedy enough to be doing what you say, he would have taken the money and ran. No, I think he's doing what he believes is right and that's why he's fought to the point. He's commmitted.
But the Parents have used every PR move they can to save their baby. It's touched hearts all over and attracted the right media attention, and the right political factions.
My guess is that the judges will not touch this and keep passing it around until Terri is dead. Then there will be no story. I believe the rest of the money will be donated to some kind of charity or fund for people like Terri. The parents will be heartbroken and the husband will move on. IMHO.
Dexter:
More from the God Squad...
http://www.earnedmedia.org/cfts0323.htm ::)
Zero_Hour:
From: http://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/trialctorder11-02.txt
--- Quote ---Dr. Hammesfahr feels his vasodilatation therapy will have a positive affect on
Terry Schiavo. Drs. Greer, Bambakidis and Cranford do not feel it will have such an
affect. It is clear that this therapy is not recognized in the medical community.
Dr. Hammesfahr operates his clinic on a cash basis in advance which made the
discussion regarding Medicare eligibility quite irrelevant. A lot of the time also
was spent regarding his nominations for a Nobel Prize. While he certainly is a
self-promoter and should have had for the court's review a copy of the letter from
the Nobel committee in Stockholm, Sweden, the truth of the matter is that he is
probably the only person involved in these proceedings who had a United States
Congressman recommend him for such an award. Whether the committee "accepted" the
nomination, "received" the nomination or whatever, it is not that significant. What
is significant, however, and what undemises his creditability is that he did not
present to this court any evidence other than his generalized statements as to the
efficacy of his therapy on brain damaged individuals like Terry Schiavo. He
testified that he has treated about 50 patients in the same or worse condition than
Terry Schiavo since 1994 but he offered no names, no case studies, no videos and no
tests results to support his claim that he had success in all but one of them. If
his therapy is as effective as he would lead this court to believe, it is
inconceivable that he would not produce clinical results of these patients he has
treated. And surely the medical literature would be replete with this new, now
patented, procedure. Yet, he has only published one article and that was in 1995
involving some 63 patients, 60% of whom were suffering from whiplash. None of these
patients were in a persistent vegetative state and all were conversant. Even he
acknowledges that he is aware of no article or study that shows vasodilatation
therapy to be an effective treatment for persistent vegetative state patients. The
court can only assume that such substantiations are not available, not just
catalogued in such a way that they can not be readily identified as he testified.
Neither Dr. Hammesfahr nor Dr. Maxfield was able to credibly testify that the
treatment options that they offered would significantly improve Terry Schiavo's
quality of life. While Dr. Hammesfahr blithely stated he should be able to get her
to talk, he admitted he was not sure in what way he can improve her condition
although he feels certain her can. He also told the court that "only rarely" do his
patients have no improvement. Again, he is extremely short of specifics. Dr.
Maxfield spoke of a "chance" of recovery although he stated there was a significant
probability that hyperbaric therapy would improve her condition. It is clear from
the evidence that these therapies are experimental insofar as the medical community
is concerned with regard to patients like Terry Schiavo which is borne out by the
total absence of supporting case studies or medical literature. The Mandate requires
something more than a belief, hope or "some" improvement. It requires this court to
find, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the treatment offers such sufficient
promise of increased cognitive function in Mrs. Schiavo's cerebral cortex so as to
significantly improve her quality of life. There is no such testimony, much less a
preponderance of the evidence to that effect. The other doctors, by contrast, all
testified that there was no treatment available to improve her quality of life. They
were also able to credibly testify that neither hyperbaric therapy nor
vasodilatation therapy was an effective treatment for this sort of injury. That
being the case, the court concludes that the Respondents have not met the burden of
proof cast upon them by the Mandate and their Motion. Accordingly, it isORDERED AND AJDUDGED that the Motion for Relief from Judgment filed herein by
Robert and Mary Schindler, Respondents, be and the same is hereby denied.
--- End quote ---
Dartful Dodger:
Your daughter tells you that she and her husband had a talk about living wills. You raised her not to be a quitter, and she thinks that pulling the plug is a cowards way out. You don't agree with her, but she thinks it's like suicide without having to tie a noose, but her husband told her:
"Keeping me alive in that state is horrific."
"Being kept alive in a situation like that seems so horrible that it should be obvious, a normal person would not want it done to them."
"Pulling a feeding tube isn't as barbaric as people think."
"Pull the plug and let nature take its course."
Then you daughter tells you she agreed with him, because he was making her feel stupid.
Now she's in a comma and her husband wants to pull the plug.
...
Peterson felt his wife had to drown.
Spousal rights to speak for a spouse are not absolute.
All of you rooting for her death, can rejoice.
The courts investigated this case and decided she would want to die.