Schiavo rumblings

[mr.Curmudgeon]

Your "Liberal Media" at work:

In presenting the results of a CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll, CNN.com used a visually distorted graph that falsely conveys the impression that Democrats far outnumber Republicans and Independents in thinking the Florida state court was right to order Terri Schiavo's feeding tube removed.



Laid out in this manner, the graph suggests that the gap between the two groups is overwhelming, rather than only 8 percentage points, within the poll's margin of error of +/- 7 percentage points. Also, this presentation obscures the poll's finding that majorities of all the groups sampled approved of the removal of Schiavo's feeding tube. A more accurate presentation of the poll's findings would have looked like this:



(via: Media Matters for America)


mrC

[GGKoul]

Just thinking about this...

She can breathe on her own but needs assistance to eat.
--Can you feed her by other means or does she require a feeding tube 100%?

She can't move out of bed
--Does she should signs of any body movement?

She going to require 24 hrs assistance
--Which costs money.

If the family is willing to pay for the continue care, then I say keep her alive... Because you never know. 

But here is the issue, is the husband looking to end life in order to stop the pain or is he just looking to cash in on the remaining trust fund?  Or are the parents looking to keep the her alive in order to make the husband spend all of the trust fund money, which happend to be the money they weren't given access too?

Then what happens when the trust money runs out?  Do the parents end up paying the bills since they want to keep her alive?

Messy, but making a person starve isn't the best thing medical science can do.   

[Zero_Hour]

An interesting Read:

http://www.miami.edu/ethics/schiavo/wolfson's%20report.pdf

 Dr. Jay Wolfson is a professor of public health and law at the University of South Florida; in 2003, a Florida court appointed him to be Terry Schiavo's guardian ad litem for a month, seeking data on mental abilities disputed by Schiavo's husband and parents.

As part of that charge, he reviewed all court and medical records, he also spent quite a bit of time visiting with Terri, her husband, family, and various medical professionals connected to her care.

Dr. Wolfson recommended that both parties in the case abide by the results of tests -- including a swallowing test -- which would gauge Schiavo's cognitive ability. In the end, he couldn't get them to agree. So here we are.

[Dartful Dodger]

There are two conflicting sides to this case what he says she wanted and what her family say she wanted. If this were a criminal case she would get the benefit of the doubt and she would not be put to death. She did not have a living will; we do not know what she wanted.

The government has a responsibility to protect the weak, those who can't defend themselves.

[saint]

Her husband says that she told him essentially just this. You don't believe him, fine that's your perogative. But it is *exactly* the spouse of a person who is the one person whom should be believed in this type of situation. That's part of what marriage is for pete's sake. Unless you have reasonable cause to believe that the husband is not trustworthy in the matter then he is the one who should be making this call.

Now, if you think the husband's motive are questionable that's one thing and certainly a reason for society to step in, but you didn't say that here. A blanket statement that a person in this situation should always be kept alive no matter what the spouse says the patient themselves wanted is just loony. More than loony, it gets into the realm of scary. Here's a blanket statement for the world -- in this situation, if it's me that's the patient, believe what my wife says -- she's the most qualified person in the world to make that judgement. Not my parents, not my kids, not the courts, not the president -- my wife.

Now starving to death is horrible, yes. But when a person says they don't want to be kept alive in such a situation, it's exactly this kind of thing that person is saying they are willing to have happen to them.  If it is true that she told her husband she wouldn't want to be kept alive in this situation, then until society is as concerned with the right to die as it is with the right to live, this is the only way.  It's sad, it's horrible, it's a situation I wouldn't wish on my worse enemy, but it is the way it is.

So if the issue is whether or not the husband is telling the truth, that's one thing. I don't know where the answer to that lies in this case, but I do know it's been through numerous courts trying to work it out. However, the position that the spouse shouldn't be the person to have the right to make that decision is quite another matter, and frankly just plain wrong.

"A woman

[shmokes]

I agree with Dartful that we should give her the benefit of the doubt.

[GGKoul]

Ok, answer me this.

The husband got money buy suing the doctors and put it in a trust fund to help pay for the medical bills.  If she is kept alive, what happens when the trust fund money runs out in a few years?  Who is going to pay the bills, the parents?  Taxpayers?


Also, I STILL can't believe they are starving the girl to death.  I mean, we can't do this to death row criminals or POWs as the activates would be all over this forcing victims rights.  But this is ok... man, there has to be another way.

[Dartful Dodger]

Her husband says that she told him essentially just this. You don't believe him, fine that's your perogative. But it is *exactly* the spouse of a person who is the one person whom should be believed in this type of situation.
...
Yes, her spouse. The person she chose to live the rest of her life with, to trust and love, for better or worse. The person most likely to be the one to know her thoughts, fears, and beliefs. I can't think of anyone more qualified.

The people that gave her life, raised her with their values and beliefs would be just as qualified.

When a person is murdered the first suspect is always the husband/spouse.

I am not saying Schiavo husband is a killer, but her family is just as trustworthy as he is.

I do not know either, maybe her parents are grieving and want to keep her alive because they don't want to give up on her.

[mr.Curmudgeon]

The life-supporters want him to prove that she really would want to die. 

That's what the initial Florida court decided. Her husband provided testimony and witnesses. There just wasn't any "written" contract. Either way, from my understanding he *has* already proven she really would want to die.

This current spectacle is because initially Jeb Bush forced an appeal at the federal level. It's been a circus ever since. Bless those Bushes!

Timeline here: http://www.miami.edu/ethics2/schiavo/timeline.htm

Most interesting points:

June 18, 1990
Court appoints Michael Schiavo as guardian; Terri Schiavo

[mr.Curmudgeon]

If her husband really loved her and death is what she really wanted, why didn't he cover her face with a pillow?

It's all so easy, isn't it?


mrC

[DrewKaree]

Far as I know, he doesn't have to wait for her to die to marry his girlfriend. Her current state would be grounds for a divorce in any court I'm sure, no?

If he divorced her due to her current state, her parents would become her guardians, responsible for her care. 

I'm almost positive you are correct on that, yes. 

That's another reason I'm suspicious about the man - what does it cost him to turn her over to her parents?

He's having to remove her feeding tube, effectively killing her, so I won't buy that it's because leaving her in her parents care would always make him sorry for deciding something like that.

I doubt everything will ever be known, and I question the legal decisions that allowed what is essentially hearsay from her husband be the deciding factor in ending her life.

If he was so money hungry, they way did he start a trust fund to help pay for medical bills?

The trust fund was ordered to be set up by the courts.  This is common in such cases

[shmokes]

If her husband really loved her and death is what she really wanted, why didn't he cover her face with a pillow?

Maybe he doesn't want to go to prison.  Just a thought.

[shmokes]

That's another reason I'm suspicious about the man - what does it cost him to turn her over to her parents?

If it were my wife, and her parents wanted to keep her alive in this state, it would cost me a great deal of guilt.  You don't get out of responsibility for something just because you allow others to do it, rather than doing it yourself.  Allowing her parents to become Terri's guardian is effectively the same as maintaining guardian status and choosing to keep her alive.

He wants her to die.  That's what he would lose by turning her over to her parents.  It would be a little Pontius Pilate of him to believe that she would want to die in her situation, but turn her over to her parents because it wouldn't "cost him anything".

[Crazy Cooter]

Pulling a feeding tube isn't as barbaric as people think.

[saint]

Presumably, what it would cost him is denying his wife her wish in the matter. If he loves her, and truly believes that she would want to die, then turning the matter over to her parents would be the last thing to do because he knows they will not honor that wish.  The fact that he hasn't is no more reason to mistrust his motives than if he had just abandonded her to her parents. If he believes he is fulfilling her wishes, then he has a moral obligation to see them carried out as her trusted spouse. Not a pleasant task, but not one a man of integrity would shirk either. The wrong thing to do in that situation would be to walk away just to make it easier on yourself and society.

I absolutely don't get why people think someone isn't qualified to speak for their spouse when their spouse can't. Isn't that a part of marriage? It certainly is of mine. If my wife tells you that I said "so and so" believe it.

I may be mistaken and this may be a rumor, but wasn't he offered a million dollars to walk away, and declined the offer?

--- saint

That's another reason I'm suspicious about the man - what does it cost him to turn her over to her parents?

He's having to remove her feeding tube, effectively killing her, so I won't buy that it's because leaving her in her parents care would always make him sorry for deciding something like that.

I doubt everything will ever be known, and I question the legal decisions that allowed what is essentially hearsay from her husband be the deciding factor in ending her life.

If he was so money hungry, they way did he start a trust fund to help pay for medical bills?

The trust fund was ordered to be set up by the courts.  This is common in such cases

[saint]

I couldn't disagree more. They may be the *next* qualified, but the most qualified is the person she *chose* to live her life with. Parents are the most qualified until you leave the nest, but when you start a new family your spouse is that person, or should be certainly. That doesn't mean you aren't close to your parents, but late at night it's my wife I talk about life, death, religion, raising my children, living wills, and issues such as these.

And I repeat, I don't believe his wife has to be dead for him to remarry. I don't believe any court would deny him a divorce under these circumstances.

Do you really mean to tell me that he should have to resort to killing her himself to honor her wishes to let nature take its course? If it is me in her situation, I don't want my wife to have to carry that weight around. Hard enough I'm asking her to let me die.

--- saint

The people that gave her life, raised her with their values and beliefs would be just as qualified.

When a person is murdered the first suspect is always the husband/spouse.

I am not saying Schiavo husband is a killer, but her family is just as trustworthy as he is.

I do not know either, maybe her parents are grieving and want to keep her alive because they don't want to give up on her.  Maybe her husband wants her dead so he can marry his girlfriend.

What I do know is, if she starves to death, that's it.

If she's not going to feel pain when they starve her to death, she won

[Dartful Dodger]

He wants her to die.

[saint]

What if she's not totally brain dead and in a living hell? aYes, her wishes matter.

The fact is not that her family couldn't come to a decision. Her spouse did come to a decision. I'm not entirely clear on the specifics of the law, but doesn't the  spouse get to make life or death decisions in medical care? IANAL, but I watch ER Seriously though, I'm curious what the law *does* say about such decisions.

By the way, apparently "Beck" has offered him $5 million to walk away (unless that's another urban legend), so perhaps we'll see what his motivations are now.  Apparently there have been other offers as well that were declined...

1 million

ten million? Same article mentions that allegations of abuse by the husband had been investigated and found to be groundless, said the (one of the?) current judge in the matter.

--- saint

He told us her wishes, keeping her alive may be going against her wishes, but it isn't hurting her, and if she's brain dead she doesn't care.

The fact is, she didn't have a living will, the family couldn't come to a decision, and so the state had to.

[saint]

What if she's not totally brain dead and in a living hell?  Yes, her wishes matter.

The fact is not that her family couldn't come to a decision. Her spouse did come to a decision. I'm not entirely clear on the specifics of the law, but doesn't the  spouse get to make life or death decisions in medical care? IANAL, but I watch ER Seriously though, I'm curious what the law *does* say about such decisions.

By the way, apparently "Beck" has offered him $5 million to walk away (unless that's another urban legend), so perhaps we'll see what his motivations are now.  Apparently there have been other offers as well that were declined...

1 million

ten million? Same article mentions that allegations of abuse by the husband had been investigated and found to be groundless, said the (one of the?) current judge in the matter.

Edit:The guy may be a snake, in which case yes all the legal interventions are warranted. However, so far I haven't seen any evidence that he's anything but what he says he is, and apparently according to the above last link, the courts have ruled out foul play. All I've seen so far, other than people on both sides putting their own positions forward on what they think is the right thing to do, is a tragedy become a national news story.

--- saint

He told us her wishes, keeping her alive may be going against her wishes, but it isn't hurting her, and if she's brain dead she doesn't care.

The fact is, she didn't have a living will, the family couldn't come to a decision, and so the state had to.

[GGKoul]

"There is no amount of money anyone can offer him to induce him to betray his promise to Terri," Felos said. "He's simply not going to betray her for money."

 In 1998, Michael Schiavo offered to donate to charity the $700,000 then remaining in a trust account set up for his wife's care if her parents agreed to let her feeding tube be removed. They refused.

The money had been won in a medical malpractice case. Schiavo stood to inherit it upon his wife's death. Today, only about $50,000 remains.

"He has said from the beginning that this case isn't about money," Felos said

[Dartful Dodger]

Do you really mean to tell me that he should have to resort to killing her himself to honor her wishes to let nature take its course?

If you don't give a baby food nature takes it's course and the baby dies.

Her husband says one thing her family says another.

Her family hired lawyers to save her, her husband hired lawyers to kill her.

She didn't have a living will, her family couldn't agree, so the state had to decide.

Since letting her live wasn't hurting anyone, I don't understand why people are trying so hard to convince everyone that killing her is the best option.

What if she's not totally brain dead and in a living hell?

What if she's 7 days away from waking up and making a complete recovery, but instead she starves to death in 6?

[DrewKaree]

Mr Schiavo didn't recollect Terri's wishes to not live her life in this state until several years later, and specifically, didn't recall them until after the malpractice settlement.

He hadn't received offers of money to walk away from her until just recently.  He'd look like a lowlife crook if he took it now, and he would have to relinquish guardianship of her, opening up the possibility of tests to try to determine if she got to this state through what he claimed, or if foul play were involved.  This isn't just a case of family and friends who believe this might be the case, there have been doctors who have examined her and do not believe her symptoms and injuries to be consistent with the story Schiavo tells.

Since he has guardianship of her, he has also chosen to cremate the body, so any possibility of finding these things out go right in the ashcan as well.

The stipulation of any money ever offered to him was that he relinquish guardianship and/or divorce her, thereby allowing her parents to assume care for her.

It's fine to say my spouse speaks for me and I trust her to make those decisions for me should the need arise, but the possibility that someone may have that decision made for them by someone who doesn't share you and your spouse's views towards each other not only exists, but is a real enough possibility that the law should be clear in cases such as those.

I don't trust her husband.  Enough exists for me to doubt his motives.  At the very least, the judge should have reserved judgement long enough to mandate tests as to whether the man has ulterior motives, since his wife can't speak for herself now.  Enough has been brought up in this case for me to question his more-than-peculiar "timing" of things throughout this case, and his actions while still married to his wife.

I simply don't trust the guy. 

[GGKoul]

If you don't give a baby food nature takes it's course and the baby dies.

Yes, but if you did that, your child would be moved to someone else to take care of you until then are legally old enough to take care of yourself.

Her husband says one thing her family says another.

Her family hired lawyers to save her, her husband hired lawyers to kill her.

She didn't have a living will, her family couldn't agree, so the state had to decide.

The state has setup that when you marry, your spouse becomes your guardian should this happen.   The Husband is doing something to honour her wishes

Since letting her live wasn't hurting anyone, I don't understand why people are trying so hard to convince everyone that killing her is the best option.

What happens when the trust money runs out?  Who is going to pay the medical bills?

What if she's 7 days away from waking up and making a complete recovery, but instead she starves to death in 6?

It's been 15 years and numerous doctors later.  I hope to god a mircale happens in this case.  And I agree, there needs to be a better way.

[GGKoul]

Hate to think what would happen if her bills were being paid via an Health Insurance Company...

[DrewKaree]

Glenn Beck has taken pledges from listeners and people who wish to do so.  The money will be collected and given to Schiavo if and when he divorces his wife, turning guardianship of Terri over to her parents.

I don't know of another person who's been speaking of this case for as long as he has.  He's been doing so for ~6-7 years

The "I Saved Bobo" campaign is his effort to make his point in this case.  I believe it to be in his "free" audio section, for anyone to hear.



Another point:  If marriage today wasn't looked at as a 50/50 proposition, there might be more willingness to believe that the best interests of a person will always be an overriding factor life/death decisions.  Enough people decide to skip worrying about a feeding tube and end their spouse's life through lethal means to bring into question the possibilty as well.

[saint]

Her husband says one thing her family says another.

Then trust the husband. That's marriage.

She didn't have a living will, her family couldn't agree, so the state had to decide.

The state decided that the wishes of the parent outweighed the sanctity of marriage. That makes me really uneasy.

And yes, before anyone pipes in on his girlfriend -- the fact that after time has passed with no recovery he decided to go on with his life doesn't mean he didn't and doesn't love his wife or isn't qualified to speak for her wishes. After a reasonable mourning period I would want my spouse to go on with her life as well, and would not feel betrayed by such.

Since letting her live wasn't hurting anyone, I don't understand why people are trying so hard to convince everyone that killing her is the best option.

Because it was her wish? Perhaps she felt that such an existance would be harmful to her family - 15 years this has occupied her family's life.  Because the thought of such an existance horrified her? Because she didn't want something like this to drain her family of their lives and resources? I dunno what her reasoning may have been, but if it was her wish it should be honored.

What if she's not totally brain dead and in a living hell?

What if she's 7 days away from waking up and making a complete recovery, but instead she starves to death in 6?

Then it's sad, but it's still her wish. And specifically, in this case, looking at the cat scan it appears a good chunk of her brain is just gone. There's no complete recovery happening here. We're not talking coma here with an intact brain, we're talking severe brain damage. According to this article, there's severe damage to her cerebral cortex - the part of the brain that makes you "you." -- Her lower brain stem is intact, which is keeping her body going, but she's not likely to be there anymore. Cases of people who have recovered from brain damage are different from this situation, among other reasons because hers was due to lack of oxygen as compared to being from trauma (again from this article). In oxygen damage, brain cells just die and don't regrow. In trauma, some brain cells die, but also networks between brain cells die and those can be regrown sometimes. ''After 15 years, if neurological recovery has not occurred, it is not going to occur,'' said Dr. Michael A. Williams, a Johns Hopkins neurologist. ``If she hasn't recovered by now she's not going to recover.''

--- saint

[saint]

Mr Schiavo didn't recollect Terri's wishes to not live her life in this state until several years later, and specifically, didn't recall them until after the malpractice settlement.

Now that's the first thing someone's said that would give me pause. Do you have a reference? I have not seen that.

got to this state through what he claimed, or if foul play were involved.  This isn't just a case of family and friends who believe this might be the case, there have been doctors who have examined her and do not believe her symptoms and injuries to be consistent with the story Schiavo tells.

I hadn't seen any info about doctors believing this either, and would be interested in seeing them. I did read this page which brought up the questions, but I'd sure like to see something more "newsworthy" on it such as police reports, court reports, or doctor reports.

Since he has guardianship of her, he has also chosen to cremate the body, so any possibility of finding these things out go right in the ashcan as well.

Meh - here's one point where I do think the wishes of the family or court are reasonable even if contrary to the husband's wishes. The body can certainly be cremated after an autopsy.

It's fine to say my spouse speaks for me and I trust her to make those decisions for me should the need arise, but the possibility that someone may have that decision made for them by someone who doesn't share you and your spouse's views towards each other not only exists, but is a real enough possibility that the law should be clear in cases such as those.

See, here's where my layman non-lawyer bias shows, but I thought that pretty much *was* the law --- that the spouse had the legal right to make those decisions. IANAL .... no hyphen either!

I don't trust her husband.  Enough exists for me to doubt his motives.  At the very least, the judge should have reserved judgement long enough to mandate tests as to whether the man has ulterior motives, since his wife can't speak for herself now.  Enough has been brought up in this case for me to question his more-than-peculiar "timing" of things throughout this case, and his actions while still married to his wife.

One thing to bear in mind however is that this isn't a new case - this is a 15 year old situation, and at least a 7(?) year old case as far as the courts are concerned. Wasn't one of the judge's perspectives that there wasn't anything being brought up that hadn't already been investigated and determined before?

I guess I need to see more of what the allegations about her husband are to come to negative conclusion about him -- I'm looking, but so far what I've seen hasn't really told me much about him to draw a conclusion one way or another. If he was abusing her, and that's verified and not hearsay, then all bets are off on his speaking for his wife.  If she was bruised, and talking about divorce, as this page says, then no, I don't think his word should be trusted or taken. However, I would like to see it from something more official than that page before I believe it. Even the page itself brings up the strong emotions in the case that must be considered when weighing what you hear. The page mentions several fractures found later in her body, but no sign of trauma when she was admitted to the hospital. Either they were old and healed, or inflicted during therapy. There are apparently no police reports of abuse in the marriage(?)... The page goes on, and what it claims is pretty damning for the husband, but the page gives no references to where they came up with their details.

If he is indeed a snake, then let her parents care for her and make those decisions - in that case, they would indeed then be the most qualified. However, my position on spousal rights to speak for a spouse don't change, even if we conclude they don't apply in this case.

--- saint

[Chris]

And specifically, in this case, looking at the cat scan it appears a good chunk of her brain is just gone. There's no complete recovery happening here. We're not talking coma here with an intact brain, we're talking severe brain damage.

Was that her scan?  I thought it was a composite of the brains of all the politicians involved.

[Crazy Cooter]

Cooter, did anyone in your family hire a lawyer to stop the tube being pulled?

No, luckily he made his wishes known after the first (mild) stroke.

This isn

[Zero_Hour]

He hadn't received offers of money to walk away from her until just recently.  He'd look like a lowlife crook if he took it now, and he would have to relinquish guardianship of her, opening up the possibility of tests to try to determine if she got to this state through what he claimed, or if foul play were involved.  This isn't just a case of family and friends who believe this might be the case, there have been doctors who have examined her and do not believe her symptoms and injuries to be consistent with the story Schiavo tells.

Drew, can you link to those Doctors exams?

The link I pointed to was written by a Doctor / Professor of law who had access to all Medical & Legal records, and there was no mention of this in them. Also if I recall correctly, the abuse angle was already played out in court and amounted to nothing.

In reading the whole report (yes I actually did) there seemed to be more than a few occasions where both sides altered their path - given the length of time involved, none of it seemed especially strange or underhanded to me.

And saint, I'm with you my marriage is among other things, a legal contract - My wife supercedes everyone else as far as I'm concerned.

Brain tissue does not regenerate. Her cerebral cortex has been replaced by spinal fluid. Everything I've read on the subject indicates that is well beyond the point of no return.

This case has gone through every avenue available, and then had a few avenues built especially for it. The end result comes out the same. I believe that our Congress has inserted itself where it doesn't belong in this case, and ultimately, I suspect the courts will agree.

[shmokes]

So let me get this straigtht.  He deliberately injured his wife in the hopes that Doctors would screw up, in hopes that he would win a million dollar malpractice suit.  Oh yeah....I almost forgot to mention that he was hoping to meet a new girlfriend a few years down the road.  I gotta admit, there's some pretty hardcore motive going on there.  Then, when offered $5 million to walk away from it, he turns down the money because he doesn't want people to think he's slimy?  C'mon Drew....step back and look at what you're saying.  You think he's capable of murdering his wife, but too worried about what the neighbors might think to accept 5 or 10 million dollars?  You think he's willing to go through a 7 year court battle and the microscopic scrutiy of the public eye to pull the plug on a lady he doesn't care about all so the scumbag can gain access to the measly amount of money left in the trust fund, when he could just walk away with millions? 

The state will order an autopsy if there is any evidence of foul play (unfortunately Drew's distrust will probably not be enough to force the autopsy). 

And the cremation thing casting a shadow of foul-play is absurd.  I'm going to be cremated.  It's EXTREMELY common.  What's he supposed to do?  Should he say, "Well....we were going to be cremated, but there are all those people like Drew at BYOAC who are worried about that precluding the possibility of her body being exumed some time in the future for an autopsy.  Maybe I should accomodate their wishes too..."?

[shmokes]

What if she's 7 days away from waking up and making a complete recovery, but instead she starves to death in 6?

What if the winning McDonalds Monopoly Sweepstakes gamepiece is at my local McDonalds?  Perhaps I should start spending my entire sallary at McDonalds every time that sweepstakes comes around.

Or perhaps you should take a little trip back to the land of reality.  She's never waking up.  Her brain is mush.  The only person capable of fixing Teri is god, and she's made it pretty clear that she's standing this one out.

[DrewKaree]

Mr Schiavo didn't recollect Terri's wishes to not live her life in this state until several years later, and specifically, didn't recall them until after the malpractice settlement.

Now that's the first thing someone's said that would give me pause. Do you have a reference? I have not seen that.

From 2003, when it was first brought up

From 2004, down under Questionable Circumstances

More recent, but further from the case

"But since 1998 Schiavo has insisted that his wife, whom he refuses to divorce, told him before her collapse that she would never want to live "by artificial means."  This has been going on for almost 15 years.  That would put the start of her condition at '90-'91-ish.  Her malpractice suit was settled around '92, and in '93-ish is when the trouble started.

The 2nd article refers to the physicians and caregivers speaking of the possibilities for improvement with her through therapy, including the swallowing therapy.  The swallowing reflex is lost by more people than you'd think, and therapy exists to retrain the body in a short enough time (less than a dozen treatments) that this could easily have been done, but was disallowed.

got to this state through what he claimed, or if foul play were involved.  This isn't just a case of family and friends who believe this might be the case, there have been doctors who have examined her and do not believe her symptoms and injuries to be consistent with the story Schiavo tells.

I hadn't seen any info about doctors believing this either, and would be interested in seeing them. I did read this page which brought up the questions, but I'd sure like to see something more "newsworthy" on it such as police reports, court reports, or doctor reports.

Dr Hammasfahr, who was also allowed access to her medical records, speaking on the case.

One of a series of reports they've done

Another regarding the hearings on this

Interestingly, in the above link, it speaks of another thing to consider:

Fidelity is a key component of the respect and dignity that our society expects one spouse to afford the other; yet, this guardian believes that Terri

[DrewKaree]

Evidently Dr. Hammesfahr was asked by the Second District Court Of Appeals to give her a basic examination in reporting on her condition.

Take this for what it's worth.  It's from the site promoting the fight to keep her alive, however, it's not in dispute that he was able to see all of her medical records.  I'm simply saying I don't know if all that's there is verifiable.

[DrewKaree]

So let me get this straigtht.  He deliberately injured his wife in the hopes that Doctors would screw up, in hopes that he would win a million dollar malpractice suit.  Oh yeah....I almost forgot to mention that he was hoping to meet a new girlfriend a few years down the road.  I gotta admit, there's some pretty hardcore motive going on there.

You'll have to point to where I stated this, as I believe you to be walking on your hands again.

Then, when offered $5 million to walk away from it, he turns down the money because he doesn't want people to think he's slimy?

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. 

You think he's capable of murdering his wife

If you're intimating some other situation you percieved me to have said, again, you'll have to point it out.

If you are referring to his removal of her feeding tube as murder, I view it as potentially murder by proxy. 

You think he's willing to go through a 7 year court battle and the microscopic scrutiy of the public eye to pull the plug on a lady he doesn't care about all so the scumbag can gain access to the measly amount of money left in the trust fund, when he could just walk away with millions? 

Answered.  See above.

The state will order an autopsy if there is any evidence of foul play (unfortunately Drew's distrust will probably not be enough to force the autopsy). 

There are medical records which bring up the question.  If they don't perform an autopsy, fine.  Enough other questions arise in this case to call into question his motives and bring legislative action due to these.  Is there some undue discomfort that will befall her by doing one?

And the cremation thing casting a shadow of foul-play is absurd.  I'm going to be cremated.  It's EXTREMELY common. 

The only reason it's been brought up is to put to rest questions unanswered.  Nowhere have I said it's NOT common, I bring it up to point out that any of these charges of potential abuse will be null and void after cremation.  It's yet another thing the families disagree about, as well. 

Your charges of absurdity are based on your opinions of this case.  You've brought up the "ghoulishness" of your view, disregarding anyone else's opinion that might differ due to their wishes.  Are you dropping a #3 next? 

This is a personal issue for many, and you seem content to pass judgement on the absurdity of this based on your own personal opinion.  Are you wishing to cram your views down everyone else's throat, or have you decided to take some of fredster's tactics and co-opt them for yourself?

[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:

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. 

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

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.

[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.