Apparently Mr. S won a large settlement for medical malpractice, spent some of it on a trip to Europe and a nice car for himself. He has not helped his cause over the past several years. Perhaps he thought Terri would die on her own a lot sooner than this. He does not sound like a very nice fellow, but that does not obviate his legal standing as her husband.
I only know that if I had produced a daughter, had loved and reared her.....that to be kept from caring for her by an *estranged* husband.....to be prevented from giving her sustenance and care ...no matter WHAT her mental state would drive me insane.
The fact that this a-hole is allowed to keep her parents and her syblings from her bedside as she slowly starves to death is just sickening.
I am ashamed to live in a coutry where it is against the law to protect and nurture your daughter or sybling....
Yeah, it's pretty pathetic to starve someone to death, like that. We don't even treat animals that cruelly.
Next question: At this moment, doesn't Terri's husband have a legal wife and a commonlaw wife? Does anyone know how long one has to live with someone in FL before they are considered a commonlaw spouse? (I know, it's technically probably not possible, but let's just hash it about a bit, why not?)
Scenario: If the other woman up and left him, could she suit him for palimony? If yes, would it have to be before or after poor Terri dies or does it matter?
Yup he has children with this other woman too....Apparently poor Terry didn`t have the good grace to die in a timely manner.
It blows my mind that he is able to sentence her to death when she has a whole family that has fought valiantly for years simply for the privelege to love and care for her.
They have doctors and nursing staff that have sworn affidavits stating that she absolutly IS conscious.
I suppose old mike is getting tired of waiting for his money.
The parents are the ones that are coming off as hiding something to me. Terri Schiavo spoke at least three times about not wanting to live in a vegetative state, to her husband and other witnesses, to which the courts agreed.
Granted nobody wants to see a loved one die, but why can't they honor her and let her have her wish?
What are they holding on to and why can't they accept what she wants? Are they trying to right an earlier wrong, or relieve some of their own guilt about something?...
Terri Schiavo had an eating disorder that brought her to this condition. There was a lot more happening in her family, some serious dysfunction, that is not being uncovered by the media. Are the parents trying to relieve their own guilt by 'taking care of her' now?
Who knows?
The husband has nothing to gain, and has turned down large sums to give up his guardianship, he *seems* to be advocating for her wishes, or why wouldn't he just move on and give guardianship to the Schindlers? (which he has been offered millions of dollars for)
In the end its not about what I want, or the president, or the legislature, or even the Schindlers or Michael Schiavo, but its about what Terri Schiavo wants. She made it known and it has played out over and over in the courts for years.
My hope is that if something like this should happen to me, someone would carry out my wishes and not let their own ego needs become more important.
and I also hope is that this political, media, and family circus can end and she can finally rest in peace
I was checking some sites and apparently this same Judge, George Greer is the only judge who has routinely heard the pleas set before him for years. There is a petition on a weblog for his impeachment. He has refused to hear opposing arguments regarding Terri's supposed chronic vegetative state, he will not hear arguments from her parents' experts, and he never has investigated Mr. Schiavo's finances, seen if there are any life insurance policies involved, if he is living up to his responsibilties as a guardian (duh!) or anything.
Not to accuse Hizzhonor of anything or Mr. S, who may be a loving concerned husband who has a hard time expressing his emotions, (probably not), but I think if I were an investigator, I'd follow the money.
Granted nobody wants to see a loved one die, but why can't they honor her and let her have her wish?
What are they holding on to and why can't they accept what she wants? Are they trying to right an earlier wrong, or relieve some of their own guilt about something?...
mstar1, I'm with you. I get the feeling the parents are the selfish ones. Come on let's get serious, we see the images on the screen and that woman doesn't have any kind of a life at all... it's all about fulfilling the wants of the selfish parents.
Watered Garden, if it was all about money, ol Mike would have accepted the $1 million donation from that man who offered it in favor of keeping Terry alive. It's not about money, otherwise he'd be a millionaire right now.
mstar, I tend to agree with you on some points, but the truth is, the man has two wives, and two lives and and and they are starving the woman to death. If she is conscious, she knows what's going on. What a nightmare!
WG, I hear you. Doesn't seem right that the same judge gets to keep hearing it over and over, does it? Where's the perspective?
Her husband claims that Terri had verbalized that she didn't want to live like this (though nothing is in writing) and the courts have upheld that "Terri" has the right to withhold treatment.
From what I understand from the neurologists the part of her brain that feels pain is destroyed, and she will not suffer. That is what THEY are saying. I have no other knowledge other than that.
However I do know that this goes on privately in America all the time. Feeding tubes are removed per living wills, or a loved ones intervention that they do not want to see their loved one remian in a vegatative state.
I read that Terri lives at a not-for-profit Woodside Hospice. She is permitted to stay for free because she is considered indigent. Patients who can afford it pay roughly $80,000 a year.
Her medical costs, have been paid for the past couple of years by the state's Medicaid program for needy people.
I found a recent story that is from the Houston Chronical that caught my eye. It started out lke this.
"Jannette Nikolouzos is angry with the Texas law that allows St. Luke's Hospital to unhook her husband from life support tomorrow.
"I'm so ashamed of my state that it executes civilians without criminal history," she told reporter Todd Ackerman.
She may be surprised to learn that National Right to Life, the organization that is helping to lead the fight to keep a Florida hospital from removing life support for Terri Schiavo, helped write the Texas law."
According the the newspapers,
"In 1999, then-Gov. Bush signed the Advance Directives Act, which lets a patient's surrogate make life-ending decisions on his or her behalf. The measure also allows Texas hospitals to disconnect patients from life-sustaining systems if a physician, in consultation with a hospital bioethics committee, concludes that the patient's condition is hopeless. "
Just last week another baby born with dwarf lungs was discontinued from a breathing machine. (not being able to breath sounds pretty awful to me, btw) Despite the mothers objections. Mama did NOT want baby off life support.
Now here is what I don't understand. When confronted by an apparant hypocrosy, the Bush camp said the law in Texas is different because it does not deal with families that are on different sides??
I just don't understand how that could possibly matter. If mama doesn't want baby OFF of life support and the state pulls the plug, then why should it matter if a family member was on a different side?
Did anyone else read this? Am I getting this right?
mstar, the ONLY person that has said that this is what Terri *wanted* ....is the very one who wants her dead.....makes ya go hmmmm.
Ya got parents syblings friends personal nursing caregivers and doctors... congress a governor a presedent a nation full of people who would love to see her permitted to live...but nooooo one selfish pos has the *power* to institute her death...it sure isn`t right.....
His *retoric* that it is what *Terri wanted* is nothing more than a nice catch phrase to make him not look like the money grubbing sleaze he really is.
According to caregivers and family, Terri has been consistantly denied the rehabilitation that would have helped by her estranged husband.
Oldies, it is not selfish for a parent to love and care for an ailing child.
We don`t *dispose* of them when it becomes personally inconvenient. We love them and fight for them with the very last breath of our bodies and ounce of our strength....
The husband on the otherhand has a common law wife and children and cannot be bothered with this baggage.....
I don't know. I hear a lot of stuff coming out of their camp which I personally wouldn't buy right off as 100 percent credible. There are a lot of emotions running high there.
I heard an interview with Terri's brother which said that the condition that she was in was caused by her husband's abuse. That too me sounded like a HUGE denial of the eating disorder that doctors have speculated contributed to her state.
Yesterday when I was at the animal hospital (picking up Nico from surgery) I was watching Karen Ann Quinlans Mom on the tube. She was giving an interview on CNN I believe. That lady is incredible.
Anyone remember her? That was back in the mid 70s. That was a huge watershed on the right to die issue.
Of course, Karen's Mom said that they were not asking for death. They were simply refusing treatment and letting nature run it's course. She was quite an interesting, and incredible lady. I forgot all about that story till this story resurfaced.
but nooooo one selfish pos has the *power* to institute her death...it sure isn`t right.....
.......
The courts have upheld and investigated over and over that Terri Schiavo made these statements and these are her desires. castigating Michael Schiavo saying 'He wants her dead' or calling him a sleaze is misdirection. He is actually one of the only people that has stood up for her through all these years.
Bush, the politicians, and 'every one in the nation' who never knew her or even knew of her until a few weeks ago, the bandwagoners who want to impose there views (which they know nearly nothing of)on someones very personal private decision should be ashamed of themselves.
I heard on the news that for the first couple of years after this happened, Mike was seeing to it that she was getting the best prospects for rehabilitation, and it went nowhere. Somewhere along the line, he was convinced that medically, the situation became hopeless. That, and what he said about Terry not wanting to live like a vegetable, probably led him to what he believes today.
He had to prove in court that she is a vegetable. Proven by legitimate doctors that she's a vegetable. Has no working brain, has no human life of any significance or hope, outside of a miracle. I'm not saying that, unbiased doctors who examined her say that.
Agreed, and btw I'm just repeating what the courts have found I think we have to take a huge step back and remember that this is not something that has just happened within the last couple of weeks, the Florida courts have been going over this for years. And they have to go by what the law and constitution says, even though it emotionally charged.
And one thing I'd like to ask the marchers and the people with the signs, and the tape over their mouths (god that looks so weird) is would THEY be willing to pay for this poor ladies expenses for the rest of her life?
To me, life support is not starving someone to death. Its just so inhumane. As someone posted earlier and I told someone today at work, we wouldn't even starve a dog!!!!!
I am upset about this. I have worked with brain injured. In the videos I've seen with her she is laughing smiling and looking at her mother with love. If I was her parent I would be so desparate and frustrated that this nation would allow anyone to be starved like this!!!!! In fact, I am ashamed.
I do agree about life support. But I don't agree with feeding tubes being part of life support.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
17
12
21
13
Popular Days
Mar 24
63
Mar 25
45
Mar 29
19
Mar 30
19
Top Posters In This Topic
RottieGrrrl 17 posts
mj412 12 posts
LG 21 posts
waterbuffalo 13 posts
Popular Days
Mar 24 2005
63 posts
Mar 25 2005
45 posts
Mar 29 2005
19 posts
Mar 30 2005
19 posts
Watered Garden
Apparently Mr. S won a large settlement for medical malpractice, spent some of it on a trip to Europe and a nice car for himself. He has not helped his cause over the past several years. Perhaps he thought Terri would die on her own a lot sooner than this. He does not sound like a very nice fellow, but that does not obviate his legal standing as her husband.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waterbuffalo
Well, their marriage seems a bit crowded, you know? (Sorry, couldn't resist that one from Diana)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rascal
I only know that if I had produced a daughter, had loved and reared her.....that to be kept from caring for her by an *estranged* husband.....to be prevented from giving her sustenance and care ...no matter WHAT her mental state would drive me insane.
The fact that this a-hole is allowed to keep her parents and her syblings from her bedside as she slowly starves to death is just sickening.
I am ashamed to live in a coutry where it is against the law to protect and nurture your daughter or sybling....
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waterbuffalo
Yeah, it's pretty pathetic to starve someone to death, like that. We don't even treat animals that cruelly.
Next question: At this moment, doesn't Terri's husband have a legal wife and a commonlaw wife? Does anyone know how long one has to live with someone in FL before they are considered a commonlaw spouse? (I know, it's technically probably not possible, but let's just hash it about a bit, why not?)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waterbuffalo
Scenario: If the other woman up and left him, could she suit him for palimony? If yes, would it have to be before or after poor Terri dies or does it matter?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rascal
Yup he has children with this other woman too....Apparently poor Terry didn`t have the good grace to die in a timely manner.
It blows my mind that he is able to sentence her to death when she has a whole family that has fought valiantly for years simply for the privelege to love and care for her.
They have doctors and nursing staff that have sworn affidavits stating that she absolutly IS conscious.
I suppose old mike is getting tired of waiting for his money.
What is wrong with those Fla courts?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
mstar1
The parents are the ones that are coming off as hiding something to me. Terri Schiavo spoke at least three times about not wanting to live in a vegetative state, to her husband and other witnesses, to which the courts agreed.
Granted nobody wants to see a loved one die, but why can't they honor her and let her have her wish?
What are they holding on to and why can't they accept what she wants? Are they trying to right an earlier wrong, or relieve some of their own guilt about something?...
Terri Schiavo had an eating disorder that brought her to this condition. There was a lot more happening in her family, some serious dysfunction, that is not being uncovered by the media. Are the parents trying to relieve their own guilt by 'taking care of her' now?
Who knows?
The husband has nothing to gain, and has turned down large sums to give up his guardianship, he *seems* to be advocating for her wishes, or why wouldn't he just move on and give guardianship to the Schindlers? (which he has been offered millions of dollars for)
In the end its not about what I want, or the president, or the legislature, or even the Schindlers or Michael Schiavo, but its about what Terri Schiavo wants. She made it known and it has played out over and over in the courts for years.
My hope is that if something like this should happen to me, someone would carry out my wishes and not let their own ego needs become more important.
and I also hope is that this political, media, and family circus can end and she can finally rest in peace
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Watered Garden
I was checking some sites and apparently this same Judge, George Greer is the only judge who has routinely heard the pleas set before him for years. There is a petition on a weblog for his impeachment. He has refused to hear opposing arguments regarding Terri's supposed chronic vegetative state, he will not hear arguments from her parents' experts, and he never has investigated Mr. Schiavo's finances, seen if there are any life insurance policies involved, if he is living up to his responsibilties as a guardian (duh!) or anything.
Not to accuse Hizzhonor of anything or Mr. S, who may be a loving concerned husband who has a hard time expressing his emotions, (probably not), but I think if I were an investigator, I'd follow the money.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
mstar1, I'm with you. I get the feeling the parents are the selfish ones. Come on let's get serious, we see the images on the screen and that woman doesn't have any kind of a life at all... it's all about fulfilling the wants of the selfish parents.
Watered Garden, if it was all about money, ol Mike would have accepted the $1 million donation from that man who offered it in favor of keeping Terry alive. It's not about money, otherwise he'd be a millionaire right now.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waterbuffalo
mstar, I tend to agree with you on some points, but the truth is, the man has two wives, and two lives and and and they are starving the woman to death. If she is conscious, she knows what's going on. What a nightmare!
WG, I hear you. Doesn't seem right that the same judge gets to keep hearing it over and over, does it? Where's the perspective?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
RottieGrrrl
Her husband claims that Terri had verbalized that she didn't want to live like this (though nothing is in writing) and the courts have upheld that "Terri" has the right to withhold treatment.
From what I understand from the neurologists the part of her brain that feels pain is destroyed, and she will not suffer. That is what THEY are saying. I have no other knowledge other than that.
However I do know that this goes on privately in America all the time. Feeding tubes are removed per living wills, or a loved ones intervention that they do not want to see their loved one remian in a vegatative state.
I read that Terri lives at a not-for-profit Woodside Hospice. She is permitted to stay for free because she is considered indigent. Patients who can afford it pay roughly $80,000 a year.
Her medical costs, have been paid for the past couple of years by the state's Medicaid program for needy people.
I found a recent story that is from the Houston Chronical that caught my eye. It started out lke this.
"Jannette Nikolouzos is angry with the Texas law that allows St. Luke's Hospital to unhook her husband from life support tomorrow.
"I'm so ashamed of my state that it executes civilians without criminal history," she told reporter Todd Ackerman.
She may be surprised to learn that National Right to Life, the organization that is helping to lead the fight to keep a Florida hospital from removing life support for Terri Schiavo, helped write the Texas law."
According the the newspapers,
"In 1999, then-Gov. Bush signed the Advance Directives Act, which lets a patient's surrogate make life-ending decisions on his or her behalf. The measure also allows Texas hospitals to disconnect patients from life-sustaining systems if a physician, in consultation with a hospital bioethics committee, concludes that the patient's condition is hopeless. "
Just last week another baby born with dwarf lungs was discontinued from a breathing machine. (not being able to breath sounds pretty awful to me, btw) Despite the mothers objections. Mama did NOT want baby off life support.
Now here is what I don't understand. When confronted by an apparant hypocrosy, the Bush camp said the law in Texas is different because it does not deal with families that are on different sides??
I just don't understand how that could possibly matter. If mama doesn't want baby OFF of life support and the state pulls the plug, then why should it matter if a family member was on a different side?
Did anyone else read this? Am I getting this right?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waterbuffalo
So then, Rottiegirl, did you see the article by Patricia Heaton? She claims Terri's husband got a $800,000 settlement for her care. Is that not true?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rascal
mstar, the ONLY person that has said that this is what Terri *wanted* ....is the very one who wants her dead.....makes ya go hmmmm.
Ya got parents syblings friends personal nursing caregivers and doctors... congress a governor a presedent a nation full of people who would love to see her permitted to live...but nooooo one selfish pos has the *power* to institute her death...it sure isn`t right.....
His *retoric* that it is what *Terri wanted* is nothing more than a nice catch phrase to make him not look like the money grubbing sleaze he really is.
According to caregivers and family, Terri has been consistantly denied the rehabilitation that would have helped by her estranged husband.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rascal
Oldies, it is not selfish for a parent to love and care for an ailing child.
We don`t *dispose* of them when it becomes personally inconvenient. We love them and fight for them with the very last breath of our bodies and ounce of our strength....
The husband on the otherhand has a common law wife and children and cannot be bothered with this baggage.....
Link to comment
Share on other sites
RottieGrrrl
I don't know. I hear a lot of stuff coming out of their camp which I personally wouldn't buy right off as 100 percent credible. There are a lot of emotions running high there.
I heard an interview with Terri's brother which said that the condition that she was in was caused by her husband's abuse. That too me sounded like a HUGE denial of the eating disorder that doctors have speculated contributed to her state.
Yesterday when I was at the animal hospital (picking up Nico from surgery) I was watching Karen Ann Quinlans Mom on the tube. She was giving an interview on CNN I believe. That lady is incredible.
Anyone remember her? That was back in the mid 70s. That was a huge watershed on the right to die issue.
Of course, Karen's Mom said that they were not asking for death. They were simply refusing treatment and letting nature run it's course. She was quite an interesting, and incredible lady. I forgot all about that story till this story resurfaced.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rascal
Wonder if his *significant other* is dogging him to get Terri outta the way....
Link to comment
Share on other sites
RottieGrrrl
PS. Patricia Heaton? Everybody loves Raymond Patricia Heaton?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
mstar1
.......
The courts have upheld and investigated over and over that Terri Schiavo made these statements and these are her desires. castigating Michael Schiavo saying 'He wants her dead' or calling him a sleaze is misdirection. He is actually one of the only people that has stood up for her through all these years.
Bush, the politicians, and 'every one in the nation' who never knew her or even knew of her until a few weeks ago, the bandwagoners who want to impose there views (which they know nearly nothing of)on someones very personal private decision should be ashamed of themselves.
Let her rest in peace
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
I heard on the news that for the first couple of years after this happened, Mike was seeing to it that she was getting the best prospects for rehabilitation, and it went nowhere. Somewhere along the line, he was convinced that medically, the situation became hopeless. That, and what he said about Terry not wanting to live like a vegetable, probably led him to what he believes today.
He had to prove in court that she is a vegetable. Proven by legitimate doctors that she's a vegetable. Has no working brain, has no human life of any significance or hope, outside of a miracle. I'm not saying that, unbiased doctors who examined her say that.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
RottieGrrrl
Agreed, and btw I'm just repeating what the courts have found I think we have to take a huge step back and remember that this is not something that has just happened within the last couple of weeks, the Florida courts have been going over this for years. And they have to go by what the law and constitution says, even though it emotionally charged.
And one thing I'd like to ask the marchers and the people with the signs, and the tape over their mouths (god that looks so weird) is would THEY be willing to pay for this poor ladies expenses for the rest of her life?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rascal
Bull dang is right mstar ... you guys that want her dead...are you guys parents?
You are simply repeating the retoric that makes her murder seem socially acceptable.
He is a sleazeball and a murderer....whether he be supported by the courts or not.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
RottieGrrrl
I've seen countless parents on the news that HAVE pulled the plug on their kids. I don't think anyone wants that lady dead, good lord,
Edited by VampirellaLink to comment
Share on other sites
rascal
Ummm I guess that would be a no?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
vickles
To me, life support is not starving someone to death. Its just so inhumane. As someone posted earlier and I told someone today at work, we wouldn't even starve a dog!!!!!
I am upset about this. I have worked with brain injured. In the videos I've seen with her she is laughing smiling and looking at her mother with love. If I was her parent I would be so desparate and frustrated that this nation would allow anyone to be starved like this!!!!! In fact, I am ashamed.
I do agree about life support. But I don't agree with feeding tubes being part of life support.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.