| |
|
|||||||
 |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
|
|
#1
03-21-2005, 07:35 AM
|
||||
|
||||
i found this, this morning & thought it was interesting~ terry's husband has moved on w/ his life it says in here, that he has started a family w/ some1 else~ so y not just get a divorce? it says that her husband is her "gaurdian" & has 2 speak & decided 4 her, so y doesn't he "decided" she divorce him?, he obiviously has other motives~ anyways i thought this was interesting & sheds a little more lite on the subject~
read the timeline also if u get a chance, it is very interesting, where the husband ordered medical staff 2 NOT treat his wife 4 a potentialy fatal infection, more than once, he even admitted 2 doing so in a affadavit~ also further down it says an ex-girlfriends admitted that terri's husband lied about her death wishes~ wow this is all so shady~ i am at a loss almost   ~http://www.terrisfight.net/ Myths versus Facts . Terri's situation can be confusing. Because of misreporting and inaccuracies, it is easy to lose sight of the real issues surrounding her case. We've compiled what we believe to be important items that are not always clear to the general public, but that deserve understanding. Most Common Questions and Answers If Terri hasn't recovered after all these years of therapy, why not let go? Terri hasn't had meaningful therapy since 1991, but many credible physicians say she can benefit from it. Why can't Terri just divorce? Terri's husband/guardian speaks for her. She cannot divorce without his permission Does Terri have an advanced directive or any wishes about her healthcare? Terri never signed any directive or living will and there is no evidence that she foresaw her present situation. Why do Terri's family fight to keep her alive? Shouldn't they let her husband decide? Terri's husband has started another family and probably has gone on with his life. Terri's family want to provide her therapy and a safe home. Is Terri receiving life support? Not in the traditional sense. Terri only receives food and fluids via a simple tube. Isn't removing her tube a natural and dignified way to die? No. Dehydration and starvation cause horrific effects and are anything but peaceful. Read more here. Most common misconceptions about Terri's situation MYTH: Terri is PVS (Persistent vegetative state) FACT: The definition of PVS in Florida Statue 765.101: Persistent vegetative state means a permanent and irreversible condition of unconsciousness in which there is: (a) The absence of voluntary action or cognitive behavior of ANY kind. (b) An inability to communicate or interact purposefully with the environment. Terri's behavior does not meet the medical or statutory definition of persistent vegetative state. Terri responds to stimuli, tries to communicate verbally, follows limited commands, laughs or cries in interaction with loved ones, physically distances herself from irritating or painful stimulation and watches loved ones as they move around her. None of these behaviors are simple reflexes and are, instead, voluntary and cognitive. Though Terri has limitations, she does interact purposefully with her environment. MYTH: Terri does not need rehabilitation FACT: Florida Statute 744.3215 Rights of persons determined incapacitated: (1) A person who has been determined to be incapacitated retains the right (i) To receive necessary services and rehabilitation. This is a retained right that a guardian cannot take away. Additionally, it does not make exception for PVS patients. Terri has illegally been denied rehabilitation - as many nurses have sworn in affidavits. MYTH: Removal of food was both legal and court-ordered. FACT: The courts had only allowed removal of Terri's feeding tube, not regular food and water. Terri's husband illegally ordered this. The law only allows the removal of "life-prolonging procedures," not regular food and water: Florida Statute 765.309 Mercy killing or euthanasia not authorized; suicide distinguished. Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to condone, authorize, or approve mercy killing or euthanasia, or to permit any affirmative or deliberate act or omission to end life other than to permit the natural process of dying. MYTH: Many doctors have said that there is no hope for her. FACT: Dr. Victor Gambone testified that he visits Terri 3 times a year. His visits last for approximately 10 minutes. He also testified, after viewing the court videotapes at Terri’s recent trial, that he was surprised to see Terri’s level of awareness. This doctor is part of a team hand-picked by her husband, Michael Schiavo, shortly before he filed to have Terri’s feeding removed. Contrary to Schiavo’s team, 14 independent medical professionals (6 of them neurologists) have given either statements or testimony that Terri is NOT in a Persistent Vegetative State. Additionally, there has never been any medical dispute of Terri’s ability to swallow. Even with this compelling evidence, Terri’s husband, Michael Schiavo, has denied any form of therapy for her for over 10 years. Dr. Melvin Greer, appointed by Schiavo, testified that a doctor need not examine a patient to know the appropriate medical treatment. He spent approximately 45 minutes with Terri. Dr. Peter Bambakidis, appointed by Judge Greer, spent approximately 30 minutes with Terri. Dr. Ronald Cranford, also appointed by Schiavo and who has publicly labeled himself “Dr. Death”, spent less than 45 minutes examining and interacting with Terri. MYTH: This is just a family battle over money. FACT: In 1992, Terri was awarded nearly one million dollars by a malpractice jury and an out-of-court malpractice settlement which was designated for future medical expenses. Of these funds, less than $50,000 remains today. The financial records revealing how Terri’s medical fund money is managed are SEALED from inspection. Court records, however, show that Judge Greer has approved the spending down of Terri’s medical fund on Schiavo’s attorney’s fees - though it was expressly awarded to Terri for her medical care. Schiavo’s primary attorney, George Felos, has received upwards of $400,000 dollars since Schiavo hired him. This same attorney, at the expense of Terri’s medical fund, publicly likened Terri to a “houseplant” and has used Terri’s case on national television to promote his newly published book. MYTH: Michael Schiavo volunteered to donate the balance of the inheritance to charity. FACT: In October, 1998, Schiavo’s attorney proposed that, if Terri’s parents would agree to her death by starvation, Schiavo would donate his inheritance to charity. The proposal came after a court-appointed Guardian Ad Litem cited Schiavo’s conflict of interest since he stood to inherit the balance of Terri’s medical fund upon her death. This one and only offer stated “if the proposal is not fully accepted within 10 days, it shall automatically be withdrawn”. Naturally, Terri’s parents immediately rejected the offer. MYTH: Terri's Medical Trust fund has been used to care for her. FACT: The following expenditures have been paid directly from Terri's Medical Trust fund, with the approval of Judge George Greer: Summary of expenses paid from Terri’s 1.2 Million Dollar medical trust fund (jury awarded 1992) NOTE: In his November 1993 Petition Schiavo alleges the 1993 guardianship asset balance as $761,507.50 Atty Gwyneth Stanley Atty Deborah Bushnell Atty Steve Nilson Atty Pacarek Atty Richard Pearse (GAL) Atty George Felos $10,668.05 $65,607.00 $7,404.95 $1,500.00 $4,511.95 $397,249.99 Other 1st Union/South Trust Bank $55,459.85 Michael Schiavo $10,929.95 Total $545,852.34
__________________
Last edited by GODDESS6; 03-21-2005 at 07:45 AM.. 
|
| . |
|
#2
03-21-2005, 07:57 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Okay, the stuff you just posted is sadly biased beyond the point of being beneficial.
First: Terry received treatment until 1994. Second: over 16 judges and 8 court certified doctors have agreed that she is in a vegetative state from which recovery is not possible. Only one doctor has said there is hope of recovery and that is the doctor employed by the parents. Third: the settlement the Schiavo's received due to malpractice was spent on her treatment and each time any money from this is used it is monitored by the courts. Fourth: He won't divorce her because he seems to firmly believe that his wife would prefer to die and if he divorces her his wife will continue to suffer (in his opinion). I honestly can't believe that people buy into the idea that the husband has shady motives. He has been fighting to allow her suffering to end since 1998 (4 years after the first doctors told him it was hopeless). Over the course of the various legal battles (all of which would require an unprecedented amount of time and energy on his behalf) he has never wavered. He has been offered over 10 million dollars from various private donors to divorce Terry and he has never done so. Fifth: I am not saying either side is correct here, but the criticisms of Mr. Schiavo were invented by the parents to discredit him, something he has never done to them. The best objective source for information on this case has already been posted in this thread, but here it is again: http://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/infopage.html Here is a great timeline for all the court cases, treatments, settlements, court-appointed gardianships, everything you need to make an INFORMED opinion: http://www.miami.edu/ethics2/schiavo/timeline.htm Michael
__________________
"Time cast a spell on you..." "My songs don't get recorded unless I know they're really going to be good and I'm really going to like them ...so....but they are, you know, ultimately, slightly looney." -Stevie Nicks Last edited by thepoetinmyhear; 03-21-2005 at 08:18 AM..
|
|
#3
03-21-2005, 08:00 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
moving on
Terri had her heart attack over fifteen years ago. I have no problem with her husband getting on with his life. My Mom died of breast cancer ten years ago and my stepdad has remarried and had a kid with his new wife. Does that mean he didn't love my Mom? No...he has a right to move on as does Michael.
Terri's husband is not the only one who testified about her wishes. The nineteen judges and six courts who heard this case and evaluated all the evidence found there was sufficient and compelling evidence that Terri had expressed her desire NOT to be artificially sustained. There were four people who testified that she told them that. My husband and best friend know more about my wishes than my parents at this point in my life...so the fact that her parents did not know how she felt about this issue make total sense to me. BTW....I have read alot about this case and I question her father's motives more than I do Michael's but that is another debate. I agree that removing someones tube sounds barbaric and inhumane but the point is, the courts have decided, upon reviewing the evidence, that this is what Terry WANTED. Whether you or I think her quality of life is good or bad is not the point. Whether she is happy to see her mom wal;k in the room is not the point. Whether she tries to raise her arm to wave is not the point. She did want want to live this way! The courts have adjudicated on the matter and decided there is sufficient evidence to support her husband's claims regarding her wishes. If the government is going to get involved in this case, it needs to involve itself in every case and how many of us want that?? What about parents who don't believe in giving their children medication? Or surgery. Or blood products. It is against their religion so they let their children die from normal childhood illnesses or minor problems that could be easily corrected through surgical intervention. Should the government step in and take away these people's constitutional rights? I think not. (although I would rather see the Congress step in on a case like this because the children's rights need to be protected) Sad sad case and I pray for a swift, painless outcome.
__________________
~Kelly "She has an exquisite femininity"......Lindsey
|
|
#4
03-21-2005, 08:09 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
I have already written my House representative to let him know exactly what I think of his working knowledge of the constitution and questioning what on earth led him to believe he could vote in favor of this bill. The courts have decided; congress, George and Jeb have no business interfering and certainly no constitutional authority to do so. Michael
__________________
"Time cast a spell on you..." "My songs don't get recorded unless I know they're really going to be good and I'm really going to like them ...so....but they are, you know, ultimately, slightly looney." -Stevie Nicks
|
|
#5
03-21-2005, 08:40 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
__________________
|
|
#6
03-21-2005, 09:17 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
The more I think about this, the more I can't see a reason why Michael wouldn't have her best interests in mind. It's not like she would be a burden to him and he wants to kill her off--her parents have already elected to take care of her. It wouldn't effect him. I can't see why he would have evil intentions. He must really think that she would've wanted to die. I guess this is irrelevant, but if you were the equivalent of a baby who would never grow up and could not feel or speak and had nearly the lowest quality of life possible, wouldn't you want to die as well? I think most people in that situation would want to just leave this world.
And the fact that he moved on doesn't say anything, IMO, as Kelly said. She may not literally be dead but she is for all practical purposes. I can't even see how it would do anything to go see her in the hospital, as she has no idea what's going on and probably wouldn't know who her husband is, from what I understand. My brother thought I was being a bitch yesterday, but I said that I think the parents are being "self-serving" to want to keep her "alive." I say this because I think they are only serving themselves in doing so. They're not ready to let go of her so they want to keep her alive. Living is not benefitting her. I understand not wanting to let go of someone. I'm not saying that I have no sympathy but I do think it's self-serving. At the same time, I don't know if I'd have the strength to let someone go myself. I never want to let go of people I love. Also, is this not what happens when you don't write up a living will and you're married? Legally, the husband makes the decision about whether or not to "pull the plug" for lack of a more eloquent phrase. I'm not saying the law is always right by any means, but is that not the law? In a sense, that makes me wonder why it's such a controversy, especially sense I'm sure there are many similar cases out there that just aren't all over the media like this one is.
|
|
#7
03-21-2005, 09:23 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Their claim is that their daughter would never have said that she wanted to die and he is not acting on her interests. Every single court that has reviewed the case (only one has heard the case) disagrees with this idea and supports Michael's claim to the extent of declaring that clear evidence beyond any doubt exists (the highest decision the court can award) that Terri would have preferred not to be kept alive through artificial means.
__________________
"Time cast a spell on you..." "My songs don't get recorded unless I know they're really going to be good and I'm really going to like them ...so....but they are, you know, ultimately, slightly looney." -Stevie Nicks
|
|
#8
03-21-2005, 11:15 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Good point.  I guess it would be easier for me to accept if she wrote something down. I personally wouldn't want to live like that either, but I don't know if I'd want to starve to death to end my suffereing. I'll have to think about it & write it down!
|
|
#9
03-21-2005, 11:18 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...21.html?sub=AR
For Bush, High Drama and Mixed Reviews By Dan Froomkin Special to washingtonpost.com Monday, March 21, 2005; 12:50 PM It's unanimous here in Washington: We've just witnessed some great political theater. It doesn't get much better than the president rushing home from his beloved ranch to sign emergency, life-or-death legislation passed by Congress in the middle of the night. But there is no such unanimity when it comes to speculation over what President Bush's primary motivation was for making such a dramatic move. And the long-term impact of his decision on voters -- and the country -- is still anyone's guess. David Gregory reported on the NBC Nightly News that Bush's surprise return to the White House is "being seen as either an attempt to defend innocent life or a crass act of political theater. . . . "To be sure, the Schiavo case has become a core right-to-life issue for political conservatives, Bush's political base," Gregory said, but "aides deny a political motive on the president's part, saying as long as there is a dispute about Terry Schiavo's intent -- whether she wants to live or die -- every effort must be made to protect her." And while the issue has indeed inflamed the social conservative leadership, there are early signs that Bush's endorsement of federal intervention in the case could prove deeply unpopular with the general public -- and might even backfire. Gary Langer reports for ABC News on a new ABC News poll which shows: "Americans broadly and strongly disapprove of federal intervention in the Terri Schiavo case, with sizable majorities saying Congress is overstepping its bounds for political gain. . . . "That legislative action is distinctly unpopular: Not only do 60 percent oppose it, more -- 70 percent -- call it inappropriate for Congress to get involved in this way. And by a lopsided 67 percent-19 percent, most think the elected officials trying to keep Schiavo alive are doing so more for political advantage than out of concern for her or for the principles involved. "This ABC News poll also finds that the Schiavo case has prompted an enormous level of personal discussion: Half of Americans say that as a direct result of hearing about this case, they've spoken with friends or family members about what they'd want done if they were in a similar condition. Nearly eight in 10 would not want to be kept alive." [ . . . ] Bush's Past on Life and Death So how will Bush's past actions hold up as the press inevitably looks back to see how he's reacted in previous life-or-death matters? Bush has been a fervent supporter of the death penalty. And as Alan Berlow wrote in the Atlantic in 2003, an examination of clemency memos written by then-Gov. Bush's then-legal counsel Alberto Gonzales "suggests that Governor Bush frequently approved executions based on only the most cursory briefings on the issues in dispute." McClellan was asked about the death penalty parallel during yesterday's gaggle on Air Force One. "Q Can you talk to me -- again, this comes up. Can you explain the difference between this case and the President's support of the death penalty? I mean, I know this comes up in other culture of life issues, but can you explain the difference here? "MR. McCLELLAN: Well, I can tell you why the President supports the death penalty, he's made that clear before. That the President believes it's a deterrent that helps save lives, and that's why he supports the death penalty. "Q But isn't that inconsistent with what he's doing today? "MR. McCLELLAN: The reason he supports the death penalty is because it helps -- he believes that it helps save lives, and he's stated that view clearly and consistently over a number of years." Bush's Texas Life-Support Law And in what many liberal bloggers are calling an example of outright hypocrisy, Bush signed a Texas law in 1999 that created a legal mechanism to allow attending physicians and hospital ethics boards to pull the plug on patients -- even if that specifically contradicts patient or family wishes. As it happens, a major test case for that law was resolved just last week -- with a baby's death. Leigh Hopper writes in the Houston Chronicle: "The baby wore a cute blue outfit with a teddy bear covering his bottom. The 17-pound, 6-month-old boy wiggled with eyes open and smacked his lips, according to his mother. "Then at 2 p.m. today, a medical staffer at Texas Children's Hospital gently removed the breathing tube that had kept Sun Hudson alive since his Sept. 25 birth. Cradled by his mother, he took a few breaths, and died. "Sun's death marks the first time a hospital has been allowed by a U.S. judge to discontinue an infant's life-sustaining care against a parent's wishes, according to bioethical experts. A similar case involving a 68-year-old man in a chronic vegetative state at another Houston hospital is before a court now. . . . "Texas law allows hospitals [to] discontinue life sustaining care, even if patient family members disagree." "Where, I would ask, is the outrage?" blogger Mark A.R. Kleiman wrote in a post that went careening around the blogosphere yesterday. Later, blogger Digby wrote: "By now most people who read liberal blogs are aware that George W. Bush signed a law in Texas that expressly gave hospitals the right to remove life support if the patient could not pay and there was no hope of revival, regardless of the patient's family's wishes. . . . "Those of us who read liberal blogs are also aware that Republicans have voted en masse to pull the plug (no pun intended) on Medicaid funding that pays for the kind of care that someone like Terry Schiavo and many others who are not so severely brain damaged need all across this country. . . . "Those who don't read liberal blogs, on the other hand, are seeing a spectacle on television in which the news anchors repeatedly say that the congress is 'stepping in to save Terry Schiavo' mimicking the unctuous words of Tom Delay as they grovel and leer at the family and nod sympathetically at the sanctimonious phonies who are using this issue for their political gain." ----------
__________________
-Mikki 3317
|
|
#10
03-22-2005, 12:03 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Right Wing Wack Job Is Schiavo Parents Spokesman
http://www.suntimes.com/output/stein...s-stein21.html
He's baaaack . . . If you don't see the connection between the pro-life movement and the Schiavo case, the anti-abortion pros certainly do. The spokesman for Schiavo's parents, Bob and Mary Schindler, is no other than notorious anti-abortion nut job Randall Terry. http://www.livingston.net/wilkyjr/link24.htm The Anti-Abortion Movement One of the tendons that helps bind the religious element with the far right is the abortion issue. White supremacists often fear that abortion among Aryans is a cause for the dwindling majority of whites seen in the nation. Amidst the violent part of the anti-abortion crowd are often found cross sections of the most extreme right in the nation. Author Frederick Clarkson reported that as recently as February 2001, at the presidential inauguration, a White Rose Banquet was held at the capitol. At the banquet, aid was raised for the 14 anti-abortionists currently serving a total of 200 years in prisons for vandalism, arson and murder. Rev. Michael Bray was a host for the event and has written a book that justifies the murder of abortion doctors, a position not foreign to many spokesmen in these elements. Paul Hill’s letter was read to the crowd two years ago at the same meeting. Hill is the man who shot and killed an abortion doctor and is awaiting his execution in prison. The Department of Justice records that these kinds have performed more than a dozen murders, 15 attempted murders, 209 bombings, 72 arsons and 750 death and bomb threats. Clarkson claims that there are even Catholic Priests advocating such violence as justifiable.2 Anti-abortion activist, Randall Terry, has advanced violent proposals as solutions to the issue. The National Abortion Federation reports a steady ten year increase in violence at abortion clinics. Rev. Matt Trewhella, of the U. S. Taxpayers Party, is quoted in the NAF mail out as saying, "We should be forming militias. This Christmas, I want you to do the most loving thing...buy each of your children a SKS rifle and 500 rounds of ammunition."3 Seldom do Religious Right preachers advocate any form of violence. Their rhetoric might be mixed with extreme statements, but such violence is rare. Others, like Randall Terry, have advocated such positions. Terry does enjoy a following among the more respectable elements of the Religious Right. Terry believes it is a sin for every Christian couple to not have as many children as possible.4 Terry has publicly praised Colorado pastor Pete Peters, who is among the most violent advocates of the movement. Peters prescribes the killing of homosexuals as a splendid Biblical model for today. Both Terry and Peters adhere to Reconstructionism principles. Gary North, who is one of the leading writers of the Reconstructionst movement in the country said of abortion, "How long do we expect God to withhold His wrath, if by crushing the humanists who promote mass abortion...He might spare the lives of literally millions of innocents?"5 
|
|
#11
03-22-2005, 10:35 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
#12
03-23-2005, 09:28 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
my two cents
(my apologies is some of this has already been said, I only got to page 2 before I decided to just jump to the end and post)
first of all, here is an article that is pretty down to earth in Q & A format: Myth vs. Reality, which diagnosis is right? for me, this issue is two pronged: first of all I stand on the side of "death with DIGNITY" and believe that Terri should be allowed to slip away *quietly* although that unfortunately is not going to happen. As a parent, I definitely sympathize with Mr. and Mrs. Schindler, I cant even begin to imagine their pain. But their argument that Terri would improve with treatment is just groundless. Terri has had therapy back in 1990 and it didnt help. Michael even tried a relatively new procedure to try and help her and it didnt help. her Brain Stem is liquid. She is reduced to only reflex actions. There is NO quality of life, there is merely a shell that hasnt stopped breathing yet. While I grieve for the Schindlers, I also deplore their abject failure to acknowledge the utter finality of Terri's condition. She will not get better. She has NOT gotten better in 15 years. If, as they claim, the only thing she needs is therapy, then why didnt it work before? The chances of therapy even being effective diminish as time goes on. This case should not be confused with a coma patient whose brain may still be alive and who may still wake up relatively untouched by the coma experience. Secondly, I think some members of Congress and Dumbya and Jeb are definitely using this to garner political brownie points with a certain cross section of the electorate, and this is an egregious abuse of power. From what Ive read from Legal analysts, this issue is relatively clearcut from a legal standpoint, these sorts of cases are the domain of STATE courts and the fact that all this legal maneuvering has occurred to try and manipulate an outcome to impress a select few voters makes me SEETHE  I hope this bites congress in the butt come election time. I also resent the effort to tie this poor woman's situation into the whole anti-abortion agenda. finally, I heard that Michael turned down a cool million to relinquish custody of Terri, so I dont see how anyone can say he is motivated by $$$. I dont know if he is guilty of anything or is covering anything up or has any hidden agenda. I know he is cohabiting with someone else and has two kids by her but that in and of itself doesnt make him an unfit guardian. Yes, it would be simpler on the one hand for him to release custody to Terri's parents, but, maybe he really IS trying to honor her wishes as he says and that is his sole motivation. If so, then I applaud his courage to hang tough. Last edited by irishgrl; 03-23-2005 at 10:14 PM..
|
|
#13
03-23-2005, 10:23 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Which leads to this.... Quote:
|
|
#14
03-23-2005, 10:44 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Wonders never cease...
__________________
|
|
|
|
Greatest Hits by Fleetwood Mac (Record, 2014)
$16.14
Vintage 70s Stevie Nicks Fleetwood Mac Live Concert Original T-Shirt In Men’s XL
$105.00
Fleetwood Mac Poster Rogers Arena Vancouver 2018 Hand-Signed Giclee Bob Masse
$39.99
Fleetwood Mac Poster Tacoma Dome Original Lithograph Hand-Signed Bob Masse
$39.99
![Fleetwood Mac - Rumours [New Vinyl LP] picture](/vintage/img/g/Ol8AAOSwnQFjywux/s-l225/Fleetwood-Mac-Rumours-New-Vinyl-LP-.jpg)
Fleetwood Mac - Rumours [New Vinyl LP]
$24.37
Hybrid Mode
