Schiavo case is back!

[ProxyUser]

Florida, June 30, 2006 (LifeSiteNews.com) – A North Country Gazette exclusive reveals that Florida’s Department of Health has demanded the nursing license and nearly $1700 dollars in fines and administrative costs from a nurse who gave public testimony in the case of Terri Schiavo. This comes at the same time that the Department of Health has dropped action against Michael Schiavo, also a registered nurse, for falsifying his guardianship papers.

License revoked (http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2006/jun/06063013.html)

An interview with the prevaricating nurse is also on Crooks and Liars (http://movies.crooksandliars.com/H-C-Nurselosingjob.wmv)

Now that some time has passed since the circus left town, the zealots are starting to be exposed for what they really are. Good riddance. I wouldn't want this "nurse" caring for anyone that I care about.

Maybe Hannity will be next.

[jantheman]

Originally posted by ProxyUser
Florida, June 30, 2006 (LifeSiteNews.com) – A North Country Gazette exclusive reveals that Florida’s Department of Health has demanded the nursing license and nearly $1700 dollars in fines and administrative costs from a nurse who gave public testimony in the case of Terri Schiavo. This comes at the same time that the Department of Health has dropped action against Michael Schiavo, also a registered nurse, for falsifying his guardianship papers.

License revoked (http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2006/jun/06063013.html)

An interview with the prevaricating nurse is also on Crooks and Liars (http://movies.crooksandliars.com/H-C-Nurselosingjob.wmv)

Now that some time has passed since the circus left town, the zealots are starting to be exposed for what they really are. Good riddance. I wouldn't want this "nurse" caring for anyone that I care about.

Maybe Hannity will be next. she was just on..last night. chek transcript!

[Ring-o-Saturn]

Originally posted by Jessie Hylton
Any more news about the hospice that starved her to death being investigated for Medicare fraud??


http://www.blogsforterri.com/archives/2005/03/schiavo_attorne.php


Actually, I don't think there is, just more rhetoric from the Conservative Right. Those folks that are so interested in making sure you don't make any personal decisions they don't approve.

Your own link (direct from the site, I chose not to correct their spelling), mission statement:

http://www.blogsforterri.com/mission.php

We Belive that:

Value of life unrelated to quality of life.


It matters not what you want for yourself, they "value" your life therefore you must submit to whatever they deem appropriate, year after year after year.

[hockeymomof5]

Originally posted by Ring-o-Saturn



Actually, I don't think there is, just more rhetoric from the Conservative Right. Those folks that are so interested in making sure you don't make any personal decisions they don't approve.

Your own link (direct from the site, I chose not to correct their spelling), mission statement:

http://www.blogsforterri.com/mission.php

It matters not what you want for yourself, they "value" your life therefore you must submit to whatever they deem appropriate, year after year after year.

My mother while suffering with ALS didn't have much "quality" in her life but her life sure as heck had "value"....as a daughter, a wife, a mother, a grandmother and a human being. This isn't "rhetoric", this is FACT!

[Beebee]

Originally posted by Jessie Hylton


I pity those who criticized Terri's parents. They have no clue as to what love really means. Sad.

Really?

Well I hope nobody ever "loves" me like Terri's parents loved her. Forcing someone to live in a PVS is not love, imo-- it is pure selfishness.

[hockeymomof5]

Originally posted by Beebee


Really?

Well I hope nobody ever "loves" me like Terri's parents loved her. Forcing someone to live in a PVS is not love, imo-- it is pure selfishness.

My mother often worried about being a "burden" on the family yet I would have taken her any way I could have her - she was my mom.

The way I see it, if I were in a PVS and it was comforting to my family to keep me alive until the time they could come to terms with my dying, then so be it. What harm would it be doing to ME?

[LisaM22]

Originally posted by ProxyUser
Florida, June 30, 2006 (LifeSiteNews.com) – A North Country Gazette exclusive reveals that Florida’s Department of Health has demanded the nursing license and nearly $1700 dollars in fines and administrative costs from a nurse who gave public testimony in the case of Terri Schiavo. This comes at the same time that the Department of Health has dropped action against Michael Schiavo, also a registered nurse, for falsifying his guardianship papers.

License revoked (http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2006/jun/06063013.html)

An interview with the prevaricating nurse is also on Crooks and Liars (http://movies.crooksandliars.com/H-C-Nurselosingjob.wmv)

Now that some time has passed since the circus left town, the zealots are starting to be exposed for what they really are. Good riddance. I wouldn't want this "nurse" caring for anyone that I care about.

Maybe Hannity will be next.

:beer:

[LisaM22]

Originally posted by Jessie Hylton


Hospices are funded by our government for patients who are dying...(6 months left to live). I don't think that includes death by not feeding their patients..otherwise we would all qualify..:shrug:

Terri could of died anytime, no one had anyway of knowing, the only thing keeping her body alive was lawsuits, her mind was already gone - jmho

[LisaM22]

Originally posted by blueberri
I wonder what qualifies a person to be in a position to judge someone elses' "quality" of life? I wonder what qualifications a person needs to decide who lives and who dies? :shrug:

well, you mean like mr schindler made the choice for his mother? and terri's husband made the choice for his wife?

and if your out of cash it seems some states decide?

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,151448,00.html

[hockeymomof5]

Originally posted by LisaM22


Terri could of died anytime, no one had anyway of knowing, the only thing keeping her body alive was lawsuits, her mind was already gone - jmho

My MIL is in a nursing home with Alzheimer's. Her mind has been gone for some time now. At what point do you think she should stop being fed?

[LisaM22]

Originally posted by hockeymomof5


My MIL is in a nursing home with Alzheimer's. Her mind has been gone for some time now. At what point do you think she should stop being fed?

if she is a vegetable and on life support, that is up to her next of kin if she has not already made that choice for herself - jmho

[thunderchild]

Originally posted by Jessie Hylton
Any more news about the hospice that starved her to death being investigated for Medicare fraud??


http://www.blogsforterri.com/archives/2005/03/schiavo_attorne.php THANK YOU JESSIE. I am thinking I must be missing something .They dropped other investigations to go after this one? Talk about having credibility issues.

[hockeymomof5]

Originally posted by Justicegy


Why would anyone stop feeding a conscious person? I don't understand why you would even ask this.

There's a heck of a difference between a person with Alzh Disease and being in a vegetative state.

Why did you ask this?:shrug:

Because of LisaM's comment "the only thing keeping her body alive was lawsuits, her mind was already gone"

[thunderchild]

Originally posted by blueberri
Terri's admission forms to the hospice weren't signed as required, but I guess, seeing as how the good Judge Greer and "Death is Beautiful" Fellows were on the hospice board of directors, these little things could be over looked. Just like how MS actually got his "nursing" degree is overlooked and how he got his job at the jail is overlooked, how Michael and the good Judge were messed up in the insurance business in Forida is overlooked. Michael's theme song is "I've Got Friends In Low Places". JMO THANK YOU BLUBERRI, this case is a disgrace. I hope this story never dies...there are too many perps waiting for a trial.

[LisaM22]

Originally posted by hockeymomof5


Because of LisaM's comment "the only thing keeping her body alive was lawsuits, her mind was already gone"

with Alzheimer's the mind IS there, the memories are just not accessible - jmho

[hockeymomof5]

Originally posted by LisaM22


with Alzheimer's the mind IS there, the memories are just not accessible - jmho

Alzheimer's is NOT just about memory. There is an eventual loss of brain cells that control the other organs in the body causing the loss of essential functions.

[PatC]

Originally posted by Beebee


Really?

Well I hope nobody ever "loves" me like Terri's parents loved her. Forcing someone to live in a PVS is not love, imo-- it is pure selfishness.

ITA with G

[MercedesV]

Originally posted by ProxyUser
Florida, June 30, 2006 (LifeSiteNews.com) – A North Country Gazette exclusive reveals that Florida’s Department of Health has demanded the nursing license and nearly $1700 dollars in fines and administrative costs from a nurse who gave public testimony in the case of Terri Schiavo. This comes at the same time that the Department of Health has dropped action against Michael Schiavo, also a registered nurse, for falsifying his guardianship papers.

License revoked (http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2006/jun/06063013.html)

An interview with the prevaricating nurse is also on Crooks and Liars (http://movies.crooksandliars.com/H-C-Nurselosingjob.wmv)

Now that some time has passed since the circus left town, the zealots are starting to be exposed for what they really are. Good riddance. I wouldn't want this "nurse" caring for anyone that I care about.

Maybe Hannity will be next.

I couldn't agree more. Perhaps now that the disgraceful circus has gone on to other places the truth may see the light of day. Instead of the steady stream of lies that were fed out daily.

Iyers is one very scary lady and I can't imagine anyone having her for a nurse. The nursing field will be better off with her gone.

It has never failed to amaze me how some trotted Iyers out as a hero, and yet would never explain why the Schindlers never acted on her info until well after the trial was over. If you believe Iyers, you have to believe the Schindlers knew in 95 and 96 that Michael was mistreating Terri. And they did absolutely nothing about it. Didn't call her as a witness in trial. Or else you accept that Iyers was a nut case. But some want it both ways. They want to believe what Iyers said against Michael and completely ignore the part where she says she told the Schindlers about it. About par for the course in this case. jmo

[LisaM22]

Originally posted by hockeymomof5


Alzheimer's is NOT just about memory. There is an eventual loss of brain cells that control the other organs in the body causing the loss of essential functions.

regardless, Terri nor her grandmother had Alzheimer's - if your on life support with no hope of recovery and have not or can not make the choice yourself, your next of kin should make the decision - if you don't trust your next of kin, do a living will, heck, I would do one anyways to save them the pain of having to make that choice for me- jmho

[LisaM22]

Originally posted by Jessie Hylton
:confused:

You could die anytime as well. Do you live in a hospice??
if you can not see the difference, I can't help you - jmho

[LisaM22]

Originally posted by Jessie Hylton


I don't see any difference between Michael Schiavo and Scott Peterson. :shrug:

terri's dad had to make the same choice for his mom, how do you feel about that? and I do not remember Laci being PVS - heck, I do not even know how Laci died - jmho

[doobob]

Originally posted by LisaM22


regardless, Terri nor her grandmother had Alzheimer's - if your on life support with no hope of recovery and have not or can not make the choice yourself, your next of kin should make the decision - if you don't trust your next of kin, do a living will, heck, I would do one anyways to save them the pain of having to make that choice for me- jmho TOO bad Terri had all that insurance.
I question his capacity to love any human being. No decent honorable man would make a mockery of both women and his children like he did unless it was for money. moo

[LisaM22]

Originally posted by Jessie Hylton


Apples and oranges. Terri was not on life support..all she needed was food and water to live..er..just like you.

<snip>

terri was on life support, all his mom needed was air to live..er..just like you. - jmho

[MercedesV]

Originally posted by Jessie Hylton


I don't see any difference between Michael Schiavo and Scott Peterson. :shrug:

I am very sorry you are completely incapable of seeing the facts. There is zero evidence to support what you say above.

Scott Peterson is on death row because he was convicted of killing his wife and unborn son. That is what the evidence showed.

The evidence showed that Terri was not abused, strangled or harmed. The evidence showed she was PVS, that she was terminal. And a trial and countless motions supported the ruling of removing life support. The evidence showed the Schindlers didn't care and wouldn't honor Terri's wishes if they knew what they were. The evidence showed the Schindlers had no case. The evidence showed the Schindlers have lied repeatedly and engaged in an ongoing smear campaign against Michael. The evidence shows that they hired Terry and gave him carte blanch to do just that. The evidence shows Michael was Terri's next of kin and was legally her guardian and was the proper person to decide her care.

But, if you see no difference there isn't much anyone can do for you. jmo

[LisaM22]

Originally posted by Jessie Hylton


that's a lie..Terri was not on life support..she was breathing on her own..:no:

that's a lie..Terri was on life support, did she not die after life support was removed :no: - jmho

http://www.tfd.com/life-support

"life-sup·port (lfs-pôrt, -prt)
adj.
Of or relating to the methods, equipment, or conditions needed to sustain life."

[MercedesV]

Originally posted by Jessie Hylton


that's a lie..Terri was not on life support..she was breathing on her own..:no:

I guess there aren't many facts in this case you are familiar with. Terri was on life support, her feeding tube. You may not like it, but that is life support. Terri could not eat. She hadn't had food in years. jmo

[LisaM22]

Originally posted by blueberri
A feeding tube alone was not defined as life support until the state of Florida changed the law to accomodate Michael Schiavo's quest to terminate his wife.

it was always life support, they just had to define it so people would not be confused about it - jmho

[ProxyUser]

Originally posted by Jessie Hylton
Any more news about the hospice that starved her to death being investigated for Medicare fraud??


http://www.blogsforterri.com/archives/2005/03/schiavo_attorne.php

Not that I'm aware of. At least not that I saw in the story about the nurse losing her license and having to pay a fine.

What you're talking about is unsubstantiated rumor.

This post was about a fact, and was confirmed by the nurse's own comments on Hannity's show. Big difference.

[Jan Powell]

Originally posted by thunderchild
THANK YOU BLUBERRI, this case is a disgrace. I hope this story never dies...there are too many perps waiting for a trial.

This "case" should have died with Terri. It was her life, her story. Anyone interested in writing/telling one, do your own, help a friend, it's not easy to do. Shed tears with your own family, make sure you own your own private thoughts and that no one can trespass. IT IS OVER!

[thunderchild]

Originally posted by blueberri
A feeding tube alone was not defined as life support until the state of Florida changed the law to accomodate Michael Schiavo's quest to terminate his wife. EXACTLY BLUE! How convenient.

[thunderchild]

Originally posted by Jan Powell


This "case" should have died with Terri. It was her life, her story. Anyone interested in writing/telling one, do your own, help a friend, it's not easy to do. Shed tears with your own family, make sure you own your own private thoughts and that no one can trespass. IT IS OVER! HER case died with her. THEIR case and THE case did not nor should it as we are all at risk of being victims of our family members. This issue is greater than TS and she was the conduit to show us that.

[ProxyUser]

Originally posted by Jessie Hylton


Hospices are funded by our government for patients who are dying...(6 months left to live). I don't think that includes death by not feeding their patients..otherwise we would all qualify..:shrug:

What do you mean they're funded by the government? The same way that most doctors and hospitals are funded by the government. By accepting Medicare? They're also funded by private insurance, and by billing their patients for anything not covered by insurance or Medicare.

All I know for sure about this case is that I don't want the circus clowns who disrupted the peaceful setting of the hospice in Florida with their small-minded protests, making any decisions for me.

[JB on the loose]

Originally posted by Jessie Hylton


Hospices are funded by our government for patients who are dying...(6 months left to live). I don't think that includes death by not feeding their patients..otherwise we would all qualify..:shrug: Actually, death by dehydration is a common everyday hospice practice.

[ProxyUser]

Originally posted by Jessie Hylton


I pity those who criticized Terri's parents. They have no clue as to what love really means. Sad.

I know what you mean.

Love means selling video tapes of your daughter like she's a performing seal or something. If that's your idea of love, be nice to your local Children's Services investigators when your neighbors turn you in.

[LisaM22]

Originally posted by thunderchild
HER case died with her. THEIR case and THE case did not nor should it as we are all at risk of being victims of our family members. This issue is greater than TS and she was the conduit to show us that.

I did a living will to protect my family from those RTLifers that may want to harass them for honoring my wishes :rose: for Terri and her loving husband - this is one of the biggest lessons to learn from all this - jmho

[thunderchild]

Originally posted by LisaM22


I did a living will to protect my family from those RTLifers that may want to harass them for honoring my wishes :rose: for Terri and her loving husband - this is one of the biggest lessons to learn from all this - jmho Lisa if that is what we all learned then Terri didnot die in vain and did a great service to the quality and protection of our own lives.rose:

As for her husband and his role: even Jesus had Judas to make the world a better place.

[ProxyUser]

Originally posted by blueberri
Terri's admission forms to the hospice weren't signed as required, but I guess, seeing as how the good Judge Greer and "Death is Beautiful" Fellows were on the hospice board of directors, these little things could be over looked. Just like how MS actually got his "nursing" degree is overlooked and how he got his job at the jail is overlooked, how Michael and the good Judge were messed up in the insurance business in Forida is overlooked. Michael's theme song is "I've Got Friends In Low Places". JMO

Wow! You sure seem pretty knowlegable about this! Maybe you should see if you can get someone to investigate this case! If I were you, I'd write to Senator Bill Frist. Not only is he a senator, you know, but he's also a doctor who I'm sure could get to the bottom of this!

Right now, I know he's really busy, with passing himself a pay raise, the flag burning amendment, and the boys-kissing-boys amendment, and all, but I'm sure that when he has the time, he'd be glad to attach his reputation to this important, timely issue.

[BJames]

I do have a living will, and if I hadn't? After following this case I sure the heck would have been on it right away.
When I become vegetative or if I physically 'die' there will be no question for my loved ones, everything is on paper. Right down to visitation, music played and where my ashes are meant to be placed.
I am going to help a tree grow after they take everything they can from my body, in the name of saving lives or science.
Honestly? I/we went through burying my FIL 9 years ago, he had heart issues for 10 years prior but he never even made out a will...I watched both of his children work out the issues while both were broken hearted...that is not the time to do it.
It is fortunate that both his son and daughter agreed on everything, I have seen families ripped apart by the aftermath of serious injury/death.
In the end it is such a personal thing, and I sure don't want to create anymore grief than I would have to...even when/if I was (close to) physical death.
I want them to remember me with a smile in their hearts, and to celebrate my life and what I have brought to their lives.

Just my opinion of course.

[LisaM22]

Originally posted by BJames
I do have a living will, and if I hadn't? After following this case I sure the heck would have been on it right away.
When I become vegetative or if I physically 'die' there will be no question for my loved ones, everything is on paper. Right down to visitation, music played and where my ashes are meant to be placed.
I am going to help a tree grow after they take everything they can from my body, in the name of saving lives or science.
Honestly? I/we went through burying my FIL 9 years ago, he had heart issues for 10 years prior but he never even made out a will...I watched both of his children work out the issues while both were broken hearted...that is not the time to do it.
It is fortunate that both his son and daughter agreed on everything, I have seen families ripped apart by the aftermath of serious injury/death.
In the end it is such a personal thing, and I sure don't want to create anymore grief than I would have to...even when/if I was (close to) physical death.
I want them to remember me with a smile in their hearts, and to celebrate my life and what I have brought to their lives.

Just my opinion of course.

:rose: Amen

[Ring-o-Saturn]

Originally posted by MercedesV


I am very sorry you are completely incapable of seeing the facts. There is zero evidence to support what you say above.

Scott Peterson is on death row because he was convicted of killing his wife and unborn son. That is what the evidence showed.

The evidence showed that Terri was not abused, strangled or harmed. The evidence showed she was PVS, that she was terminal. And a trial and countless motions supported the ruling of removing life support. The evidence showed the Schindlers didn't care and wouldn't honor Terri's wishes if they knew what they were. The evidence showed the Schindlers had no case. The evidence showed the Schindlers have lied repeatedly and engaged in an ongoing smear campaign against Michael. The evidence shows that they hired Terry and gave him carte blanch to do just that. The evidence shows Michael was Terri's next of kin and was legally her guardian and was the proper person to decide her care.

But, if you see no difference there isn't much anyone can do for you. jmo


:beer: TY for putting it better than I could.

[ProxyUser]

Originally posted by blueberri
I wonder what qualifies a person to be in a position to judge someone elses' "quality" of life? I wonder what qualifications a person needs to decide who lives and who dies? :shrug:

I know what determines my quality of life. If I've had no conscious awareness of myself or my surroundings for many years, if I am blind, if I can't eat or drink, if I can't communicate in any way, if I can't control my bowels or bladder, if half of my brain has deteriorated into scar tissues and liquid, and if I have to be fed through a tube, then I judge the quality of my life to be totally absent.

As far as your second question, ask Schindler's mother what qualifications her son had when he decided for her whether she should live or die.

[ProxyUser]

Originally posted by Jessie Hylton


I don't see any difference between Michael Schiavo and Scott Peterson. :shrug:

How about 15 years of loving care and bedside visits?

[ProxyUser]

Originally posted by Jessie Hylton


that's a lie..Terri was not on life support..she was breathing on her own..:no:

Being fed and hydrated through a tube is, by definition, life support.

[LisaM22]

Originally posted by Jessie Hylton


Whose definition?? Your definition...a newborn baby and very young children are dependent on others to feed them. Parents don't have the right to starve them to death just because they can't feed on their own.:shrug:

you don't have the right to keep air from people that are well either, just because they can't breath on their own, so what is your point? :rolleyes: - jmho

[ProxyUser]

Originally posted by Jessie Hylton


Yeah, they could use their time doing more valuable things like taking young prestty campaign workers on long fatal drives in the middle of the night.

Golly - you don't need to bother a senator if you're looking for that... All you need is Laura Bush!

[ProxyUser]

Originally posted by blueberri
Too bad you are so blinded by politics that you can't see that Terri was a human being. But then again, it's all about "you" and "your" rights isn't it, the he77 with anyone else. FYI, I see this as a "right" or "wrong" issue, not a "right" or "left" one.

I'm not at all "blinded by politics." It was the repubs who saw this as a great opportunity to pander to the RTL crowd, not me.

And I don't know where you get the idea that it's all about me. It was all about Terri, whose life was tragically cut short by a traumatic brain injury - cause unknown - despite what you may believe.

We will never agree on this, so your weak insults are a waste of my pixels. Terri got what she wanted; thank God that her husband stood by her for 15 years, when it would been easier (and more profitable) to "cut and run."

If you care about life so much, do something to stop the killing in Iraq, or work to save peoples' lives by providing them with universal health insurance, or by ensuring that anyone can go to college, thus breaking a pattern of poverty, crime, and death.

There's more to life than just the beginning and the end.

[ProxyUser]

Originally posted by Jessie Hylton


I'll bet you are in favor of killing helpless babies before they are born..:no: I can tell because you repeat liberal talking points word for word.:rolleyes:

Open your eyes and think for yourself.

You just hit the conservative daily double - uninformed AND wrong.

I am against abortion. Now am I a good enough person for you?

[IMA Patriot]

Originally posted by hockeymomof5


My MIL is in a nursing home with Alzheimer's. Her mind has been gone for some time now. At what point do you think she should stop being fed?

The real question, IMO, is do you want her legal guardian making decisions for her that she is not capable of making for herself or do you want the government to make decisions for her?

[JB on the loose]

Originally posted by Jessie Hylton


I'll bet you are in favor of killing helpless babies before they are born..:no: I can tell because you repeat liberal talking points word for word.:rolleyes:

Open your eyes and think for yourself. I bet you're infavor of sending the president of the United States a dead fetus in a shoe box. Thats what the Schindler spokesman did, Randall Terry. If you think they didn't have political motivations, I have a cactus field in Oregon for sale.

[thunderchild]

Originally posted by Jessie Hylton


Whose definition?? Your definition...a newborn baby and very young children are dependent on others to feed them. Parents don't have the right to starve them to death just because they can't feed on their own.:shrug: Great analogy JH!

[ProxyUser]

Originally posted by Jessie Hylton
'

But for killing the disabled? :confused:

Once you're in a hole, the first thing you should do is stop digging.

I am not only disabled, I am terminally ill. Don't bother to apologize - I won't accept. I'm really getting tired of small-minded people making assumptions about me and my beliefs. They're always rude, and usually wrong.

Go peddle it somewhere else, Jessie.

[Ring-o-Saturn]

Originally posted by Jessie Hylton


Whose definition?? Your definition...a newborn baby and very young children are dependent on others to feed them. Parents don't have the right to starve them to death just because they can't feed on their own.:shrug:

By law & definition:

http://www.answers.com/main/ntquery;jsessionid=5ck6lt4ttnoa6?tname=artificial-life-support&curtab=2040_1&sbid=lc06a

artificial life support, systems that use medical technology to aid, support, or replace a vital function of the body that has been seriously damaged.

[ProxyUser]

Originally posted by Jessie Hylton


I'll bet you are in favor of killing helpless babies before they are born..:no: I can tell because you repeat liberal talking points word for word.:rolleyes:

Open your eyes and think for yourself.

So you're in favor of the killing in Iraq, against health insurance, and against education.

Love your "values!"

[IMA Patriot]

Originally posted by Jessie Hylton


I don't see any difference between Michael Schiavo and Scott Peterson. :shrug:

Neither do I. Neither one of them killed his wife, IMO.

:biggrin:

[LisaM22]

Originally posted by Jessie Hylton


I'll bet you are in favor of killing helpless babies before they are born..:no: I can tell because you repeat liberal talking points word for word.:rolleyes:

Open your eyes and think for yourself.
do you support mr schindler denying life support for mom?

do you support the killing of people on death row?

that is funny, you are against choice, yet tell people to think for themselves - lol

[LisaM22]

Originally posted by Sunami


You cannot compare Terri Schiavo to someone who is disabled.

She was Not disabled, that would be to compare her to someone who had some quality of life, and some minor amount of independant function.

She had NONE.

exactly

[ProxyUser]

Originally posted by IMA Patriot


Neither do I. Neither one of them killed his wife, IMO.

:biggrin:

You never let me down!

[ProxyUser]

Originally posted by Jessie Hylton


I am in favor of self preservation..and not killing a disabled woman because her husband who is shacking up with another woman says she wanted to die.....:shrug:

It sounds like your trailer needs leveling....

[thunderchild]

Originally posted by Sunami


You cannot compare Terri Schiavo to someone who is disabled.

She was Not disabled, that would be to compare her to someone who had some quality of life, and some minor amount of independant function.

She had NONE. Are you serious? Many disabled persons do not have quality of life.

[thunderchild]

Originally posted by ProxyUser


It sounds like your trailer needs leveling.... Your post is uncalled for.

[LisaM22]

http://www.sptimes.com/2005/06/16/Tampabay/She_never_would_have_.shtml

" Schiavo's brain was profoundly damaged, so much so it weighed less than half that of normal, said Dr. Jon Thogmartin, the Pinellas-Pasco medical examiner who spent nearly 11 weeks preparing her autopsy report.

The damage was irreversible, he said, and no amount of therapy would have helped her improve from what most doctors called a persistent vegetative state."


she never woudl have recovered, her husband did the right thing - jmho

[JB on the loose]

Originally posted by ProxyUser


It sounds like your trailer needs leveling.... Give me a spew warning next time, would ya? :biggrin:

[LisaM22]

Originally posted by thunderchild
Are you serious? Many disabled persons do not have quality of life.

Terri the person was already gone, only her body remained - jmho :rose:

[msgatorslayer]

This story just won't die.

RIP Terri:rose:

[ProxyUser]

Originally posted by thunderchild
Your post is uncalled for.

Like I'm hanging on your every word?

[thunderchild]

Originally posted by Sunami


The question is sentient and not specifically quality of life. Certainly there are many people who have what we would consider to be no quality of life.

The question is "Do they realize that they are alive?"

the part of Terri's brain that was damaged would preclude her from even being aware that she was alive. She had no thoughts, no feelings, no emotions, that all those elements of humanity reside in the cerebral cortex, which was devastatingly damaged. She could not see, nor hear, and was unable to respond to her environment in any meaningful way.
And there was NO hope of recovery...Ever.

IMO this does not describe someone who is disabled. I disagree but you did say it is your opinion and not fact.She is still medically disabled.

By your measure it is too individualistic and subjective to have a 'right' answer be it yours or mine.:shrug:

I do know people with disabilities, varying kinds who rather be dead as they do not think they are living.This is about quality of life not sentiment. I am for euthansia and the right to die with dignity.

In this case,I am not for MS having that power for reasons that have been exhausted throughout.

[ProxyUser]

Originally posted by Jessie Hylton


Personal insults don't work as an argument..says more about you than I..:shrug:

You've already defined yourself quite clearly in your previous posts.

Here's what it says about me. It says that I don't like you assuming that I'm in favor of abortion, simply because you don't agree with what I've had to say about this case. Or that I'm in favor of "killing the disabled" without knowing that I am, myself, disabled.

I'm not arguing with you. An "arguement" implies that the truth is elusive. This case passed the "arguement" stage long ago. You and your ilk are simply in denial - the only question is whether that denial is the result of misinformation or an inherent inability to process information.

[MercedesV]

It is interesting that the opening post was about "Nurse" Iyers and her losing her license. And while there is plenty of the usual Michael bashing I don't recall seeing anyone who supported the Schindlers addressing that issue. I find it very interesting that some love to use part of Iylers words to support their case. But want to completely forget the part where she said she was in contact with the Schindlers. I find it interesting that the Schindlers did nothing with Iyers until the very end. And then they starting using her affadavit, minus the info about her calling them, in their smear/money raising campaign. So, what does that say about the Schindlers? They actually presented this affadavit to the judge in one of their motions. And he ruled against it and was amazed because that would mean for years the Schindlers were part of a coverup. What kind of people are they?

And to those who mention money, they never seem to get around to mentioning that Mr. Schindler, under oath was the one saying he expected to get part of Michael's money.

They have lied for years, but hey they are great people. jmo

[Ring-o-Saturn]

Originally posted by thunderchild
I disagree but you did say it is your opinion and not fact.She is still medically disabled.

By your measure it is too individualistic and subjective to have a 'right' answer be it yours or mine.:shrug:

I do know people with disabilities, varying kinds who rather be dead as they do not think they are living.This is about quality of life not sentiment. I am for euthansia and the right to die with dignity.

In this case,I am not for MS having that power for reasons that have been exhausted throughout.


I married my husband 32 years ago, I took him as my next of kin. That was my choice. Barring a valid reason to remove my husband as my next of kin, I by marriage made the choice that he would speak for me if/when I'm unable.

The Schindler's showed no reason in the courtroom to have Michael removed from that position. Whether you are in favor of it or not, Michael had the legal right and responsibility to make that decision.

This was a private decision, you don't get a vote. When you face a similar decision in your life, I'll not have a vote. When I faced a similar decision in my life, you did not have a vote. When Mr. Schindler made that decision for his mother, Michael did not get a vote.

This never should have been a media circus, it never should have been a political issue. This is a private family matter. The civil courts are the appropriate forum to decide the legalities of who makes the decision in the event of conflict. The courts did their job.

You don't have to agree with it, you don't have to like it. The courts make decisions I don't like every day. JMHO

[ProxyUser]

Originally posted by Jessie Hylton


Me and my ilk?? :lol:

I will continue to believe that all life is sacred.. that Terri Schiavo was a victim of her husband and his "ilk"... Process that..I'm moving on..you bore me. :seeya:

All life is sacred? Except for our soldiers and innocent Iraqi citizens?

[LisaM22]

Originally posted by Jessie Hylton


She wasn't suffering..where there is life there is hope. Miracles do happen.

your right, she wasn't feeling a thing, she wasn't in there - that is what I have been trying to say - jmho

and as for Miracles, if god wanted her alive today, do you not think he could not raise her from the grave? so that has no bearing on the situation, we are dealing with the reality of the situation, she had plenty of time for that miracles to happen you speak of, more then her grandmother did anyways when he denied her life suport - jmho

[ProxyUser]

Originally posted by blueberri
I don't think anyone likes war. What do you think that you can do about these people that are hell bent on destroying our countries? (I'm Canadian). Set up a conference call with them and ask them to please stop aiming planes at our tall buildings and plotting to blow up the Parliment buildings, behead the Prime Minister, etc??? As for health care and college/university, my husband and I have to work to provide those things for our children. our parents had to do the same. It would be great if I could get someone else to pay my bills then I could spent my time doing whatever I choose instead of going into work five or six day a week. Do you have a job? If not, could you give me a leaf out of your book on how I can quit mine and still provide a roof over my head, feed, educate and pay health ins. for my family? Do you think I should have agreed with the doctors who wanted to remove my husband's life support and collected his life insurance, thus putting me in a financial position where I would not have to continue working? You're right, there is a lot more to life than the beginning and the end!

As I recall, the planes were aimed at our tall buildings, and they certainly weren't flown by Iraqis. This was a war of choice that distracted us from the real war on terror, which is one that definitely needs to be fought.

I thought Canada had socialized medicine. Are you saying that you still have to pay something for it? I have no problem with that. Those who can pay, should pay.

No - I don't work. I am disabled. I do not collect one cent from the government. I have private disability insurance which I paid for for years before I needed to start collecting on a claim. See, I believe in self-sufficiency, too. I put myself through school, and my kids are doing the same. My oldest son just got his MBA. However, education is completely beyond the reach of many Americans. We Americans can choose whether investing in education for those who cannot afford it is a good thing or not. I guess you Canadians can do the same. To me, it makes more sense than giving oil companies both subsidies and tax breaks.

No one is forcing you to go to work, are they? Couldn't you choose to stay home and watch Jerry Springer? Of course, that might affect your standard of living. So you made your choice. Are you just complaining about it?

The leaf out of my book is buy both disability and life insurance. It sure was a great investment for my family, even though the premiums were pretty high for my income...

As far as your husband goes, if he wanted to be taken off of life support, that's what he should have gotten. If his wishes were not on paper, you should have spoken for him (if that's what your laws say...).

[LisaM22]

Originally posted by Ring-o-Saturn



I married my husband 32 years ago, I took him as my next of kin. That was my choice. Barring a valid reason to remove my husband as my next of kin, I by marriage made the choice that he would speak for me if/when I'm unable.

The Schindler's showed no reason in the courtroom to have Michael removed from that position. Whether you are in favor of it or not, Michael had the legal right and responsibility to make that decision.

This was a private decision, you don't get a vote. When you face a similar decision in your life, I'll not have a vote. When I faced a similar decision in my life, you did not have a vote. When Mr. Schindler made that decision for his mother, Michael did not get a vote.

This never should have been a media circus, it never should have been a political issue. This is a private family matter. The civil courts are the appropriate forum to decide the legalities of who makes the decision in the event of conflict. The courts did their job.

You don't have to agree with it, you don't have to like it. The courts make decisions I don't like every day. JMHO

exactly!

[ProxyUser]

Originally posted by blueberri
Do you feel the same way about all wars? I can't think of any war where there has been no loss of life. How do you feel about the draft dodgers (Viet Nam) that are here in Canada?

Nope - WW2 was a good one to fight. So was Afghanistan. I'm less sure about Granada and Panama. Vietnam was a mistake. I have no feelings about our draft dodgers that you allowed into your country. I hope they are contributing something.

[LisaM22]

Originally posted by Jessie Hylton


http://www.lifeissues.net/writers/val/val_06_awakenings.html



The boy lived, and soon he could even move at the nurses' request -- but he would never respond when the neurosurgeon was present.

Eventually he was released, and Valko never expected to see him again. But one day a handsome young man walked into the ward and said, "Do you remember me?"

The 17-year-old had come back to thank them for saving his life. When Valko mentioned the neurosurgeon, she recalled, "He got very serious." The boy said, "I remember him calling me a vegetable. I wouldn't move for him."

that is exactly why Terri's husband did not pull the plug right away and gave her every possible chance, the autopsy confirms his decision - jmho

[peak oil]

I was angry with Hannity for, among other things, his repeated use of the term "Nobel Prize nomimee" during the Schiavo fiasco. Now I am really angry with Nifong and am unhappy with Colmes.

[Daxxie]

Originally posted by IMA Patriot


The real question, IMO, is do you want her legal guardian making decisions for her that she is not capable of making for herself or do you want the government to make decisions for her?


That is the real question and one that always gets ignored. My mother died in January, fortunately she had made her wishes known before hand..........but it blows my mind that there are people out there that would take away her right to die as she wished, and to take away the rights of myself and my sister and brother to carry out her wishes.

Under both Biblical and civil law, it was MS's right to make the neccesary medical decisions for Terri..........once you are of age and married, your parents don't get a vote anymore. This is something that we all know and understand.........once you marry, your spouse is your next of kin, NOT your parents. The governments getting involved in this was nothing short of ludicrious. How many of you would really like it if your parents got a vote in every decision of your life until the day they died? I would hazard that there wouldn't be a whole lot of folks just thrilled to death over the idea. And let's not forget that the Schinders stated under oath that they wouldn't have honored Terri's wishes, if they were not the same as their own.


The moral of this story is make your wishes known.........write them down and tell EVERYONE just what they are. Why put the people that you love through the pain of having to make those decsions themselves, at one of the hardest times in their lives?


As for "Nurse" Iyers, she's a proven liar and deserves to have her license pulled. JMO

[Rainbow]

Originally posted by Jessie Hylton


If Terri had left her wishes in writing..there would be no argument from me. I really don't think cheating husbands should be able to speak for mates while they are shacking up with another woman. Call me old-fashioned.:shrug:

Exactly!

[GrrlPwer]

Originally posted by ProxyUser


It sounds like your trailer needs leveling.... are you jealous because you live in a tent? :lol:

[Ring-o-Saturn]

Originally posted by chuckles
http://www.all.org/article.php?id=10261


non-comprehensive compendium of cases of patients who have awakened and/or improved following a diagnosis of persistent vegetative state, irreversible coma or death


& you are so entitled to make the decision to not discontinue artificial life support for your next of kin.

What you don't get to do is make the decision for my next of kin. That would be my decision.

[Ring-o-Saturn]

Originally posted by chuckles


Like was said before..I tend to question the "next of kin" motives when it was based on hearsey BS presented by a husband who is shacking up with another woman and their two kids..and planned to get married as soon as Terri's life was snuffed..
Call me a cynic..:shrug:


Like I said, the courts make decisions I don't like daily. The burden of proof was up to the Schidler's in civil court to make that case. They fell short mostly due to their own self serving actions.

You're not required to like the court ruling, only respect it. You don't have the authority to reverse it.

Call me crazy, but the little fact the Schindler's encouraged and approved of Michael's dating prior to him doing so may have had an impact on how unimpressed the court was on the point.

[Daxxie]

Originally posted by Ring-o-Saturn



Like I said, the courts make decisions I don't like daily. The burden of proof was up to the Schidler's in civil court to make that case. They fell short mostly due to their own self serving actions.

You're not required to like the court ruling, only respect it. You don't have the authority to reverse it.

Call me crazy, but the little fact the Schindler's encouraged and approved of Michael's dating prior to him doing so may have had an impact on how unimpressed the court was on the point.


It struck me how the Schindlers seemed to change their positions on things rather abruptly..........Michael's dating was just fine......he even brought them home to meet "Mom" and "Dad", but they suddenly became moraly outraged by it. And of course, Mr. Schindler seemed to think that removing life support from his mother was the right thing to do, until of course, he decided that removing life support was the wrong thing to do. And then of course there was the money, that Mr. Schindler insisted was for Terri's re-hab.........but when he wrote a letter to Michael about it, he was more concerned with Michael paying off his IRS debt and buying he and Mary a house. The Schindelrs own words and actions show that they are not the paragons of virtue that they like to portray themselves as. JMO

[LisaM22]

Originally posted by Jessie Hylton


If Terri had left her wishes in writing..there would be no argument from me. I really don't think cheating husbands should be able to speak for mates while they are shacking up with another woman. Call me old-fashioned.:shrug:

did Terri say she disapproved of life support being denied grandma, I don't recall ever hearing that she was upset with her father for making that decision, I think terri would of wanted to be let go, and I think the next of kin should be allowed to make those choices - Call me old-fashioned.:shrug: - jmho

[Not Telling]

Originally posted by thunderchild
Your post is uncalled for.


You have a problem with that post, but not this one?????

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Jessie Hylton


I'll bet you are in favor of killing helpless babies before they are born..

[Not Telling]

Originally posted by Jessie Hylton


Personal insults don't work as an argument..says more about you than I..:shrug:


You mean...... like this sweet nothing?


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Jessie Hylton


I'll bet you are in favor of killing helpless babies before they are born..

[Not Telling]

Originally posted by Jessie Hylton


http://www.lifeissues.net/writers/val/val_06_awakenings.html



The boy lived, and soon he could even move at the nurses' request -- but he would never respond when the neurosurgeon was present.

Eventually he was released, and Valko never expected to see him again. But one day a handsome young man walked into the ward and said, "Do you remember me?"

The 17-year-old had come back to thank them for saving his life. When Valko mentioned the neurosurgeon, she recalled, "He got very serious." The boy said, "I remember him calling me a vegetable. I wouldn't move for him."

Great story! I'm so glad this young man recovered from his coma... :rose:

But, what does this have to with Terri?? She wasn't in a coma, her condition and a coma are completely different...

[PatC]

Originally posted by Ring-o-Saturn



I married my husband 32 years ago, I took him as my next of kin. That was my choice. Barring a valid reason to remove my husband as my next of kin, I by marriage made the choice that he would speak for me if/when I'm unable.

<snip for space>



For the record, I totally agree with everything you wrote in this post. I feel the same way of my husband of 25 years, however, I also believe that, loving him as I do, it's incumbent on me to make it as easy for him to make those difficult decisions as possible. The best way I know to do that is by have a Living Will in which I not only state my wishes, DNR, organ donation, etc., but identify specifically who will be making those decisions and, in such circumstances that he might not be available, e.g., we're both involved in a car crash and he is killed and I'm left in a PVS, who my alternate decision maker will be.

I'm a firm believer in Living Wills. It takes away all the guess work at times when loved ones will be under considerable stress and perhaps reacting emotionally rather than rationally.

I urge anyone reading this to consider checking into Living Wills. There are even places to have a Living Will prepared via the internet for a nominal price.

[LisaM22]

Originally posted by PatC


For the record, I totally agree with everything you wrote in this post. I feel the same way of my husband of 25 years, however, I also believe that, loving him as I do, it's incumbent on me to make it as easy for him to make those difficult decisions as possible. The best way I know to do that is by have a Living Will in which I not only state my wishes, DNR, organ donation, etc., but identify specifically who will be making those decisions and, in such circumstances that he might not be available, e.g., we're both involved in a car crash and he is killed and I'm left in a PVS, who my alternate decision maker will be.

I'm a firm believer in Living Wills. It takes away all the guess work at times when loved ones will be under considerable stress and perhaps reacting emotionally rather than rationally.

I urge anyone reading this to consider checking into Living Wills. There are even places to have a Living Will prepared via the internet for a nominal price.
I have contemplated having my last wishes also on video, saying that my last wish is I do not want my wishes known if I am pvs until my family has made a killing financially from the turmoil the rtlifers will try to bring against them for following my wishes - hey, everyone is entitled to a last wish right ;) nothing I would like better then to see my family supported by a fight like this one and knowing that when it was all over they could play the video and be vindicated - lol

[Ring-o-Saturn]

Originally posted by PatC


For the record, I totally agree with everything you wrote in this post. I feel the same way of my husband of 25 years, however, I also believe that, loving him as I do, it's incumbent on me to make it as easy for him to make those difficult decisions as possible. The best way I know to do that is by have a Living Will in which I not only state my wishes, DNR, organ donation, etc., but identify specifically who will be making those decisions and, in such circumstances that he might not be available, e.g., we're both involved in a car crash and he is killed and I'm left in a PVS, who my alternate decision maker will be.

I'm a firm believer in Living Wills. It takes away all the guess work at times when loved ones will be under considerable stress and perhaps reacting emotionally rather than rationally.

I urge anyone reading this to consider checking into Living Wills. There are even places to have a Living Will prepared via the internet for a nominal price.


If Terri's life and death does nothing more than raise awareness for exactly what you've said, her life and death had great meaning. Living wills were not common when Terri was stricken. The young generally don't think of such things.

But please be aware, a living will is not a guarantee your wishes will be carried out.

My dad had one & a DNR. The DNR was pulled from the wall, paramedics were called, he was taken to the nearest (Catholic) hospital.

His next of kin did not approve of his wishes. Someone other than his next of kin was his POA and healthcare proxy. He knew that would happen, he tried to prevent it. The courts move very slowly, he suffered horribly, and there was no need. He put it all in writing, it didn't matter.

Don't just put it in writing, tell everyone who will listen. Make sure it's well known.

[Ring-o-Saturn]

Originally posted by chuckles
Don't pull my plug..I want to live...don't listen to any of my girlfriends especially if my death works out to be convenient for them...

This might seem silly but it is more documentation than Terri left..:shrug:


& in the absence of such her next of kin, her husband has the legal right and responsibility to make that decision.

Now, if this weren't a message board your attempt at notification might have meaning. Since it is a message board, may I encourage you to follow the link & follow through:

http://www.legaldocs.com/htmdocs/livin_st.htm

[PatC]

Originally posted by Ring-o-Saturn



<snipped for space>

Don't just put it in writing, tell everyone who will listen. Make sure it's well known.

You're absolutely right. I guess since I've always been very voca!l about my wishes I didn't think to add that part. <grin>

[Daxxie]

Originally posted by chuckles
Don't pull my plug..I want to live...don't listen to any of my girlfriends especially if my death works out to be convenient for them...

This might seem silly but it is more documentation than Terri left..:shrug:


But that is the point that everyone keeps missing......if you DO NOT make your wishes known, if something happens to you and you can't make medical decisions yourself, then someone has to make those decisions........and by law, that someone, unless you are a minor, or unmarried, is your spouse. (Any hypothetical girlfriends wouldn't get a say, unless you had designated them as the one to make decisions if you can't.) They can talk to as many people as they please and get their opinions.........but in the end, it comes down to one person making a decision.

And BTW, there was just as much, or little, documentation that Terri wanted to be kept on life support. But the clincher for me is when her parents stated that they didn't know what her wishes were, and they didn't care........not if her wishes were to have life support removed.

[PatC]

Originally posted by LisaM22

I have contemplated having my last wishes also on video, saying that my last wish is I do not want my wishes known if I am pvs until my family has made a killing financially from the turmoil the rtlifers will try to bring against them for following my wishes - hey, everyone is entitled to a last wish right ;) nothing I would like better then to see my family supported by a fight like this one and knowing that when it was all over they could play the video and be vindicated - lol

<grin> I like how your mind works. Good luck with it.

[watcher2005]

Originally posted by chuckles
http://www.all.org/article.php?id=10261


non-comprehensive compendium of cases of patients who have awakened and/or improved following a diagnosis of persistent vegetative state, irreversible coma or death


Is that after being denied food and water for weeks?

[c_biscuit]

Originally posted by chuckles


Like was said before..I tend to question the "next of kin" motives when it was based on hearsey BS presented by a husband who is shacking up with another woman and their two kids..and planned to get married as soon as Terri's life was snuffed..
Call me a cynic..:shrug:

I would imagine in most cases, the next of kin does not have to "prove" anything. The proof is that Terri married him, and in making that decision trusted him with her life if it came to decision-making time, according to the doctors.

When a parent is on life support and it's time to make the decision, do they grill the children and make them prove their parent wanted to stop living in such a situation. I wouldn't think so...

[Ring-o-Saturn]

Originally posted by chuckles


More notification than Terri left ...and I will add..totally ignore anything any mates say, regardless of what our marital status is..especially if she is shacking up with another guy..and they have kids together.. I used to think that common sense would be applied..:eek:

:chicken:

Yes, common sense did rule.

The court was underwhelmed with the matter when it was brought out the Schindlers encouraged & approved of Michael dating prior to him doing so.

In fact, they had no problem with it at all until they realized Michael wasn't buying them a house or paying off their IRS bill.

[c_biscuit]

Originally posted by chuckles


Laci Peterson trusted her husband as well. :shrug:
Husbands kill wives...it happens... .so why would it be far-fetched that words were put in Terri's mouth by a man who had obviously moved on..:shrug:

Did you not notice that I added... "if the decision-making time came, according to the doctors"?

Laci Peterson was not in a persistent vegetative state where the doctors asked Scott to make the decision.

What Michael Schiavo did was legal, like it or not. Murdering one's wife is not legal, obviously Peterson is on death row. Use all the semantics you want, but in the legal world it is apples and oranges.

[PatC]

Well, I still trust my DH to do what I want. Did I mention he's to make sure I get down to a size 8 before pulling the plug?

LMAO

[Ring-o-Saturn]

Originally posted by chuckles


He lived in a common law marriage with another woman. They had two kids. If you want to talk "legalese". I believe he is a bigamist who should not have had those rights..:shrug:

If you want to talk legalese:

The first marriage to Terri is binding.

The second common law marriage is not.

The courts ruled on the matter, they didn't side with your opinion.

[Daxxie]

Originally posted by chuckles


He lived in a common law marriage with another woman. They had two kids. If you want to talk "legalese". I believe he is a bigamist who should not have had those rights..:shrug:


Right...........turn her over to someone that didn't care what HER wishes in the matter might be......who would cut off her arms and legs, and subject her to open heart surgery..........because keeping her body alive made them happy.

Terri's wishes were what were supposed to be important.......would you walk away from someone you loved, and give them over to someone that stated that they didn't care what your loved one wanted..........they were going to do what THEY wanted. I know that I couldn't, parents or not.

[MercedesV]

Originally posted by Ring-o-Saturn


If you want to talk legalese:

The first marriage to Terri is binding.

The second common law marriage is not.

The courts ruled on the matter, they didn't side with your opinion.

Actually, there was no common law marriage. Neither Michael or Jodi ever represented themselves as married. This whole issue was gone thru on the board, and the bottom line is there was no common law marriage.

It is important to remember that Michael testified to Terri's wishes in 1993, under oath, and well before he met Jodi. Before they lived together. Before they had children. Much as it bothers people, Michael's relationship with Jodi never caused him to stop caring for Terri and being her guardian.

As you say, the courts ruled on the matter. And the facts are Michael insured Terri had excellent care. The GAL reports all support that, and the court supported that. There was never any substantiated fact that Michael did not make sure Terri was cared for. Now, if you take "Nurse" Iyers seriously you have problems but there were of course vicious rumors started.

The very sad fact is what should have been a private matter became a very public spectacle because the Schindlers didn't get the money they wanted. That is why they filed suit in 93. That is why neither side spoke to each other. And the war still goes on. jmo

[Ring-o-Saturn]

Originally posted by Jessie Hylton


Courts also once ruled in favor of slavery so they can be wrong.:shrug:

This case was litigated through every court in the state.

Appeal after appeal, year after year.

That's the system set up to deal with courtroom error.

At the end of the day, when all avenues were exhausted, the courts ruled in Michael's favor.

Once again, the little fact the Schindler's encouraged and approved of Michael's dating, going so far as meeting with his potential dates would likely be the reason the courts were underwhelmed by the argument brought only after Michael was unable/unwilling to buy them a house and pay off their IRS bill.

[Ring-o-Saturn]

Originally posted by MercedesV


Actually, there was no common law marriage. Neither Michael or Jodi ever represented themselves as married. This whole issue was gone thru on the board, and the bottom line is there was no common law marriage.

It is important to remember that Michael testified to Terri's wishes in 1993, under oath, and well before he met Jodi. Before they lived together. Before they had children. Much as it bothers people, Michael's relationship with Jodi never caused him to stop caring for Terri and being her guardian.

As you say, the courts ruled on the matter. And the facts are Michael insured Terri had excellent care. The GAL reports all support that, and the court supported that. There was never any substantiated fact that Michael did not make sure Terri was cared for. Now, if you take "Nurse" Iyers seriously you have problems but there were of course vicious rumors started.

The very sad fact is what should have been a private matter became a very public spectacle because the Schindlers didn't get the money they wanted. That is why they filed suit in 93. That is why neither side spoke to each other. And the war still goes on. jmo


TY MercedesV, and of course you are absolutely correct.

Your facts are correct, just more than I think they'll bother to read.

[MercedesV]

Originally posted by blueberri
That is a good point, JH. Courts also let OJ walk.:shrug:

Comparing a criminal case with civil litigation is really mixing apples and oranges. A guilty verdict cannot be appealed and reviewed. Let's not forget he lost the civil case.

A civil case can be appealed. Terri's case was appealed and reviewed and had more motions and judicial review than just about any other case I can think of. And they reviewed the evidence, the facts. They didn't rubber stamp Greer.

You don't like the ruling, you don't like the law. But it doesn't change the fact that the law was followed and upheld. And many legal reviews supported that. The Schindlers had no case. Their own words and actions harmed their case, from the little we could get of their testimony.

All their public spectacle, and smear campaign wasn't going to win the court case. How would you have felt if someone came in and demanded you do what they wanted to your husband instead of you rightfully being able to make that decision? No one had the right to do that to you, and thankfully your husband is doing better. But no one had the right to do it to Michael and Terri either. Especially when they had their own interests, not Terri's at heart. jmo

[Ring-o-Saturn]

Originally posted by blueberri
If I had a parisite for a son-in-law, I would sure encourage him to date!


Call me crazy, but the parents that didn't have any problem with the care of their daughter or Michael's behavior until it was clear he wasn't buying them a house and paying off their debts would be the "parasites" in my opinion.

The courts found nothing substandard in Terri's care, no reason to remove Michael as guardian.

How would you feel blueberri, if people with no concern for your spouse decided to get into your personal decision?

You have one heck of a nerve accusing murder when:

1) No evidence of abuse before or after Terri was stricken exists.

2) The courts, not Michael signed the order to remove life support.

3) The autopsy supports everything that was done.

4) Every court in the State of FL as well as the Supremes upheld Michael as guardian.

[MercedesV]

Originally posted by blueberri
If I had a parisite for a son-in-law, I would sure encourage him to date!

You mean like the Schindlers did? And then, when it suited their purposes they wanted to claim it was wrong. And people wonder why the courts didn't buy into their hypocrisy.

Do you consider Terri a parasite? She and Michael were married and she as well as Michael didn't always pay rent etc. Do you think the Schindlers thought Terri was a parasite? jmo

[MercedesV]

Originally posted by blueberri
I would consider his parents' concerns, his siblings' concerns, his childrens' concerns, I don't "own" my husband, he has others who love him and care about him. If I was living with another man and had children with him, common sense would tell me that my marrriage to husband, legal or not, was over and I was no longer his NOK.

What if everyone you talked with, parents, children siblings etc had wanted to remove your husband from life support. But you didn't want to. Would you have said majority rules and I will go along with everyone. Or would you, as next of kin, made the decision you felt was right?

Because something worked in your family, which was best for your family doesn't mean it can or should be imposed on all other families. The Schindlers and Michael weren't speaking. So they weren't going to be able to confer. Decisions by committee most often end up in arguements or worse. Someone has to make the decisions. And that is the next of kin. jmo

[MercedesV]

Originally posted by blueberri
And I said if I was living with and having children with someone else, common sense would tell me that I should not remain NOK, whether I was legally in that position or not.

Well that would be your decision then. You can't demand everyone do as you see fit. Michael attempted to honor Terri's wishes well before he was living with anyone and having children. He was blocked then but continued. His point, and I believe a very valid point, was he could not turn the care of Terri over to people who weren't putting her wishes and interests first. He didn't want to give Terri's care to the Schindlers, and he didn't want to desert Terri. That was his decision, and what he felt was the right thing to do. His relationship with Jodi never compromised his care of Terri. jmo

[MercedesV]

Originally posted by blueberri
Terri was their daughter, I believe it was sort of a "love me, love my dog" situation. It wasn't Terri who was out of work, IIRC, she transfered with Predentual Ins. when they moved to Florida. Guess there were no jobs available at McDonald's for Michael, even with his degree from Hamburger U, or maybe he didn't graduate? JMO

And the testimony in court was clear, Michael was working too. It is the Schindler spin that Michael didn't work. And in fact he worked up until after Terri's collapse. He was not umemployed as much as they tried to spin that number. Another example of what they put out to the public and what in fact was fact and testimony. jmo

[MercedesV]

Originally posted by blueberri
LOL, Mercedes, I cannot believe you are posting this garbage! Michael testified that he had not worked for six years, SIX YEARS, and prior to that he only worked here and there for short periods at a time, go back and :read:. :seeya:

I've read it, and I remember it. As I said, he worked consistently to right after Terri's collapse. It is well known he didn't work for years, as he cared for her and went to school. I suggest you read the transcripts, because what you are saying simply is the truth. jmo

[Ring-o-Saturn]

Originally posted by blueberri
I would consider his parents' concerns, his siblings' concerns, his childrens' concerns, I don't "own" my husband, he has others who love him and care about him. If I was living with another man and had children with him, common sense would tell me that my marrriage to husband, legal or not, was over and I was no longer his NOK.


The parents who's concern you're so worried about said in court they wouldn't abide by Terri's wishes if they conflicted with theirs.

You wanna give that much power to someone that doesn't give a twit about your husbands wishes, I'll have to rethink your concern for your husband and his well being.

Fortunately, the courts seem to have a lot more sense than you.

[Not Telling]

Originally posted by chuckles


More notification than Terri left ...and I will add..totally ignore anything any mates say, regardless of what our marital status is..especially if she is shacking up with another guy..and they have kids together.. I used to think that common sense would be applied..:eek:

:chicken:


If Michael wanted to be rid of Terri so badly and marry Jodi...why didn't he just divorce her or hold a pillow over her face? He was even offered one million dollars to divorce her...and yet he didn't...

[Not Telling]

Originally posted by chuckles


He lived in a common law marriage with another woman. They had two kids. If you want to talk "legalese". I believe he is a bigamist who should not have had those rights..:shrug:


Nope! Try again!
There is no such thing as common law marriage in Florida...therefore, Michael couldn't be a bigamist....

Is this the best "legalese" you've got?

[Not Telling]

Originally posted by blueberri
Concerns for my husband's well being? You have no idea what you are talking about. My husband was on life support for months and I had doctors, not just one but several specialists, telling me he would not survive, he would never leave the intensive care unit, he was totally unresponsive, could not breath on his own, kidneys completely shut down, had a feeding tube. I refused to have the life support removed and kept pushing for them to at least try different tests and treatments. snip

So, how would you have felt if your husband's family didn't agree with you, and they took you to court to have you removed as his guardian, because they wanted to have his life support disconnected...??

[Not Telling]

Originally posted by blueberri
How do you know he didn't hold a pillow over her face? Were you there?

Well...seeing as how she was already in a PVS and completely unable to fight back, chances are she would have died if Michael held a pillow over her face....

jmo

I apologize if I'm making too much sense for you...

[LisaM22]

Originally posted by PatC
Well, I still trust my DH to do what I want. Did I mention he's to make sure I get down to a size 8 before pulling the plug?

LMAO

a diet to die for ;)

[Nightowl]

Originally posted by chuckles
http://www.all.org/article.php?id=10261


non-comprehensive compendium of cases of patients who have awakened and/or improved following a diagnosis of persistent vegetative state, irreversible coma or death

Patients who have awakened and/or improved following a diagnosis of death? Huh? A diagnosis can be incorrect. But once someone has been pronounced dead, I don't think the first thing you do is expect they may improve because on very rare occasions, people have been misdiagnosed in the past.

Terri had 15 years, durring which she had a lot of therapy and experimental proceedures to try to help her. Nothing did. She was in a persistent vegetative state. The atrophy of her brain reflected this at autopsy. She had no chance of coming back to being aware of her surroundings. As heart-breaking as it is for someone to die, she had already lived well beyond the event that would have killed her if modern medicine hadn't stepped in.

[jantheman]

i don't think anyone is going to change their stance at this point. the part that GETS me is how everyone was exploited by media on both sides..and the totally erroneous claims that were made ..i remember the woman (was it a lawyer) that ran out and said that terri had said "help me" or "it hurts" ..and this was in the last couple of days. THAT kind of thing..didn't help anything. sorry my recollection isn't better.

[Nightowl]

Originally posted by jantheman
i don't think anyone is going to change their stance at this point. the part that GETS me is how everyone was exploited by media on both sides..and the totally erroneous claims that were made ..i remember the woman (was it a lawyer) that ran out and said that terri had said "help me" or "it hurts" ..and this was in the last couple of days. THAT kind of thing..didn't help anything. sorry my recollection isn't better.

I remember that, spokesperson for the parents, or maybe a lawyer. Tried to get her to say "I want to live" and claims she got to "I want...." before the evil hospital attendents shoo'd him away or something.

I want to know how he knew she wasn't trying to say "I want to die." Not that it would have made any difference to them.

[watcher2005]

Society is moving too far into the acceptance of death as the preference.

Soon there will be suicide rooms like in Soylent Green. Some places in Europe sound an awful bit close to that already to me.

[Not Telling]

Originally posted by blueberri
Now this is a new twist on what Terri said regarding life support, first I have heard about the baby............."If Joan Schiavo told the story to George Greer that Michael Schiavo relates in his book, there must have been an wholly unlawful ex parte communication between Judge Greer and Joan Schiavo as the court record does not contain the statements which Schiavo attributes to his sister-in-law.

He quotes Joan Schiavo as having told Greer "We were just sitting and talking about the baby. If she had stayed alive-because of the cord being wrapped around her neck---she probably would have been brain dead, and my husband and I would have to make that decision, if we were faced with it, if we wanted to keep her alive like that or not. And as we were talking, I said that as hard as it would be, it would be a decision where we'd probably pull the plug, because I couldn't stand to see her like that. 'Cause it wasn't a life for her, she's only a little baby. And Terri agreed with me".

According to the official court transcript, those words were never spoken under oath in court before Judge Greer by Joan Schiavo. It appears to be a total fabrication of "evidence" by Michael Schiavo, and perhaps not the only instance of fabricated evidence. JOAN SCHIAVO TESTIMONY" http://www.northcountrygazette.org/articles/052106JoanSchiavo.html


The North Country Gazette, Publisher: June Maxam
The news according to June, delivered free - no one will pay for it...

This article written by: June Maxam

Throughout this article, June Maxam, repeatedly bashes supporters of Michael for lying and accuses them of having credibility problems and filing false police reports....

That's a heck of a lot of audacity coming from someone who was convicted of two felony counts of filing false harassment charges against her neighbors and sentenced to nine months in jail. Maxam also was charged with harassing the same people she falsely accused of harassing her! And let's not forget the charges of hindering police efforts to serve her court papers and resisting arrest!!

Another fine upstanding member of Team Schindler! :patriot:


Here is an example of one of the big lies June thinks she is exposing...


"Campbell (Schindler attorney): Did she (Terri) ever discuss with you problems that she and Mike were having?

Joan Schiavo: No. I mean, no marriage is perfect. Mine is not. It was nothing out of the ordinary.

June Maxam writes: "First Joan says no, there were no problems in the Michael-Terri marriage but then quickly tries to qualify that. She infers that Mike and Terri were in fact having problems."

Huh??????????????
When did Joan say, "there were no problems in the Michael-Terri marriage".....?????


AND....



Here is my absolute favorite part of her article...

June Maxam wrote:
"Jack Kevorkian has served nearly seven years in prison for assisted suicide. According to Michael Schiavo both Mulroy and Harrison were advocating that Schiavo commit assisted suicide. So far, neither Harrison, Mulroy, Schiavo or George Greer have been charged with assisted suicide."

DUH!!!! How does someone commit assisted suicide when they aren't even aware of their own existence???? :lol:

This article was so full of inaccuracies and lies, I finally gave up counting them....

jmo

[Not Telling]

Originally posted by blueberri
There would be no court. If I was living with another man and having children with him, I would give up my position as next of kin, I may not agree with them, but he's their father, son and bother, I know they love him and will do what they think is right. I would expect my husband to do the same if the situation were reversed. Would you treat your husband's family the way Michael treated Terri's?

I didn't ask about how you would feel if you were living with another man and having his children... I was asking about your specific circumstances at the time your husband became ill and was dependent on life support...


No... I don't have nearly the patience Michael does...



BTW....I guess you forgot that Michael wasn't living with Jodi and having children with her when the Schindlers initially took him to court to have him removed as her guardian??...

[Ring-o-Saturn]

Originally posted by blueberri
My circumstances were not the same as Michael's. I didn't sponge off my in-laws for years, lie to them, cheat on my ill husband, the list goes on.................

Translation: Blueberri can't bring herself to admit, had her opinion differed from the rest of the family, no she would not step aside from her position as spouse to make the decision.

Once again, Jodi was not in Michael's life when these court proceedings began. The Schindler's failed to show cause to have Michael removed & so have you.

I knew exactly what the situation is/was with your spouse blueberri and I stand by my statement. Had you been willing to step aside and leave others to make the decision for your spouse because it didn't agee with yours, I'd need to reconsider your concern for him & his well being.

Apparently, you're unwilling to say that. So, if there had been conflict with others, even though you don't "own" your husband, you'd stick to your decision and a court case very well would have ensued. How would you feel about that blueberry?

[Ring-o-Saturn]

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/localnews/stories/DN-lifesupport_10met.ART0.North.Edition1.3e2db89.html


As mom fights for care for baby, group weighs futile-care changes


12:00 AM CDT on Saturday, June 10, 2006
By MICHAEL GRABELL / The Dallas Morning News


Daniel Cullen II will probably never know the impact he might have on the Texas law governing when doctors can remove life support and end a patient's life.

But the 10-month-old – whose mother is fighting to prevent a Dallas hospital from disconnecting his ventilator – could become a test case as doctors, right-to-life activists and legislators hash out a proposal to revise the futile-care law for the 2007 legislative session.

The Dallas Morning News reported late last month that the ethics board at Children's Medical Center Dallas decided, against the wishes of Daniel's mother, that it would be futile and inappropriate to continue to treat him.

Born three months premature, Daniel had difficulty breathing on his own. He was eventually able to leave the hospital with a tube in his trachea that helped him breathe. But in April, he pulled it out, severely damaging his brain, and has been on life support since.

Under Texas law, doctors are no longer obligated to treat a patient if an alternative hospital isn't found within 10 days after the ethics board's decision. No hospital has been found, and on Friday, a Dallas judge will decide Daniel's fate.


Follow-up today, alternate placement is possible for Daniel, though not certain:

http://cbs11tv.com/topstories/local_story_183233027.html

[Ring-o-Saturn]

Originally posted by blueberri
I already said I would have consider my husband's blood family, if they had thought there was no hope. I think they would have listened to the doctor who did agree to try other options than just removing his life support, unless they, for some reason wanted him out of their lives. ASAP. Why wouldn't you want to try to save the life of a loved one, pray that the doctors who said there was no hope, were all wrong? And Michael was seeing other women when he decided to terminate Terri's life.

Your credibility is shot blueberri, you would not surrender your authority if it differed with your other family members.

Read the article about Daniel, Blueberri. The potential that life and death decision for your family member could be taken from you is real, and you're the one giving the government the foothold.

In your zealot effort to control someone else's personal family decision you corrode your own right to make your family decisions.


Love the artful dodge the question buzz words. You'd "consider" your husbands "blood relatives" opinion. Still not able to say you'd abide by them had everyone disagreed with you.

[ProxyUser]

Originally posted by blueberri
That is a good point, JH. Courts also let OJ walk.:shrug:

Although you both would be supportive of the court if only it had ruled for the Schindlers....

[Ring-o-Saturn]

Originally posted by chuckles


she isn't shacking up with another man..that might make her relatives question her motives..don'tchatinh??

Did you notice how Sharon Rocha supported Scott Peterson until she found out about Amber Frey??

Once again chuck, it's the fact the Schindlers encouraged and approved of Michael dating prior to him doing so, and the little part about them going as far as meeting with his dates that underwhelmed the court on that point. The fact they didn't object until it was clear Michael wasn't going to buy them a house and wasn't going to pay off their debts didn't help their case much either.

Jodi was not in Michael's life when this case became a matter for the courts.

You can beat that drum from now til doomsday, it still isn't gonna fly.

[Ring-o-Saturn]

Originally posted by blueberri
I always thought that everyone had the right to life. People have lived and died since the beginning of time without appointing someone to decide when they "check out". I did read the article about Daniel, and replied. Do you think baby Daniel's life should be terminated? It seems to me you're the one dragging the government into this, not me.


Apparently you missed that whole thing about the Pres signing an emergency bill aimed at having impact on only one citizen of the nation. One citizen who's case had been through every court of her state and the Supremes. Did you miss that part Blueberri?

That would be the very same Pres who was Governor for the state that wants to put little Daniel to death against his mothers wishes. You see, they get to pick and choose who lives and who dies, there doesn't need to be any consistency about it.

No, it's not me bringing the government into this blue, they've invited themselves. Be afraid blue, be very afraid.

[Ring-o-Saturn]

Originally posted by blueberri
But it was acceptable, (Scott and Amber, Michael and whoever she was at the time) because, don't ya know, it's OK to sleep around if your wife is pregnant or in a PVS? :shrug:


Laci Peterson was not incapacitated in any way.

She wasn't terminally ill, she wasn't hospitalized, she was a vibrant, full of life mother to be looking forward to the birth of her first child.

How many times are you going to compare apples & oranges before you figure out there's no correlation?

Consider the generations of partners who have stood by their spouse through decades of institutionalization due to TB & mental illness. Now you're comparing similar situations.

Those that remained dedicated and married to spouses with no hope of recovery for decades on end, but found companionship in their lives as well. Society didn't/doesn't look down upon them for it. This is no different, you're argument holds no water. I know that, you know that, and the courts obviously recognized that.

[peak oil]

I highly recommend Terri The Truth by Michael Schiavo and a professional writer. For reviews see http://www.amazon.com



http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0525949461/qid=1151934003/sr=2-1/ref=pd_bbs_b_2_1/102-8493437-6760921?s=books&v=glance&n=283155

[Jan Powell]

Originally posted by blueberri
Terri was their daughter, I believe it was sort of a "love me, love my dog" situation. It wasn't Terri who was out of work, IIRC, she transfered with Predentual Ins. when they moved to Florida. Guess there were no jobs available at McDonald's for Michael, even with his degree from Hamburger U, or maybe he didn't graduate? JMO

I don't think the facts of Ms Schiavo's life and death (and the medical facts supposedly is ALL this was about) cross the mind of people that just want to make comments that are tacky about either family. Surely there is a higher cause involved here somewhere? Can't the tackiness and the carnival that was exhibitied day in and day out just die of lack of interest?

This is a really difficult topic to speak or write personally about, if you're interested in speaking to the specifics of life and death issues, that you personally own. Until you sign YOUR papers, have it witnessed, notirized and/or proclaim it, it is only an opinion.

Isn't the real stuff enough?

[Jan Powell]

Originally posted by Ring-o-Saturn



Apparently you missed that whole thing about the Pres signing an emergency bill aimed at having impact on only one citizen of the nation. One citizen who's case had been through every court of her state and the Supremes. Did you miss that part Blueberri?

That would be the very same Pres who was Governor for the state that wants to put little Daniel to death against his mothers wishes. You see, they get to pick and choose who lives and who dies, there doesn't need to be any consistency about it.

No, it's not me bringing the government into this blue, they've invited themselves. Be afraid blue, be very afraid.

The reality I've seen of the application of some of the law is even worse. I just fought my own battle with this argument, I have insurance, I was told they would probably hook me up because that is just what they do in the first 24 hours, they can reverse a lot of the original conditions of a stroke. It would be up to my proxy to begin the battle to get me disconnected if I was incapacitated. The point was, if I could pretend or appear to breathe, I was ALIVE - let my family suffer dealing with the ethics!

[Daxxie]

Originally posted by blueberri
I always thought that everyone had the right to life. People have lived and died since the beginning of time without appointing someone to decide when they "check out". I did read the article about Daniel, and replied. Do you think baby Daniel's life should be terminated? It seems to me you're the one dragging the government into this, not me.


This isn't the begining of time..........it's not even 40 years ago when Terri wouldn't have even survived the initial SCA that resulted in her vegative state. It's NOW, and with all of the advances in medical science, these questions need to be adressed, not dodged..........and one of those questions is when is enough, enough. By your standards, I and my family must be horrid, awful people who wanted our mother "out of our lives" as you put it in another post, because we followed her wishes and took her home to die. And we were prepared to fight anyone that got in the way of those wishes.........doctors,lawyers.... even her brothers and sisters. That is what you do for someone that you truely love, if they are terminally ill..........you fight for them, regardless of what YOU might want. Do you really think for an instant that any of us want our loved ones to die, that we wouldn't move heaven and earth to keep them alive? But sometimes, their suffering outweighs our needs and wants. And it should be about what THEY want...........not what their parents, brothers, sisters or children want.


And you do keep dodging the question........I for one don't think for a second that you would have simply walked away from your husband and let his family do what they wished, if you knew that it wasn't what he wanted. We may fight over this subject, but I don't think that you are that cold hearted of a person. JMO

[LisaM22]

Originally posted by blueberri
I always thought that everyone had the right to life. People have lived and died since the beginning of time without appointing someone to decide when they "check out". I did read the article about Daniel, and replied. Do you think baby Daniel's life should be terminated? It seems to me you're the one dragging the government into this, not me.

you mean like mr schindlers mom? wasn't she denied life support, wonder who made that choice?

JMHO

[MercedesV]

Originally posted by blueberri
I always thought that everyone had the right to life. People have lived and died since the beginning of time without appointing someone to decide when they "check out". I did read the article about Daniel, and replied. Do you think baby Daniel's life should be terminated? It seems to me you're the one dragging the government into this, not me.

Actually, what has been the case, and what this case was all about is a person has the right to discontinue or refuse medical treatment period. An adult has the right to make that decision for themselves. If they are unable medically to do so, their next of kin has that responsibility. Just as a parent/next of kin has that responsibility to do so for a minor or dependent child. There is nothing new in that at all. And for more years than we can count people have been making these decisions on whether to have treatment or not. For many many years people have been making life and death decisions. There is absolutely nothing new there.

With the advances in medicine decisions are not so clear cut anymore. Not that long ago Terri would never have survived the night of her collapse. There would have been no life or death decisions, no court case to rule on life support. And that is why each and every person should decide for themselves what they want for themselves. And their decision is what counts. Not what their family thinks or wants or any strangers who think they should stick their collective noses into a private matter. Which is why a living will is the best thing that a responsible person can do.

I know someone who has a terminal illness. It isn't something he will die from in the short term but it is killing him. He has been thru the tests, doctors and all of that. He has all the facts, all the details. He has spoken with his family. He is adamant that he wants no more surgery, no more treatment. No more, period. And when he can no longer speak for himself he wants that to continue. His immediate family understands. His extended family disagrees. Makes demands that his family should make him do this or that. It isn't happening. He has that right, he has made it clear. But there are some that are trying to take that away from him. And that is in my opinion completely wrong.

What is new in this case, is family members with no standing, decided to make a public spectacle out of a private matter. They hired the likes of Terry and thought nothing of lying and using their daughter to get what they wanted. They conducted a media campaign to beat the band. There they said what they wanted, lied and spun things how they wanted. But when it came down to facts, they had none. And a young woman was used and abused in the worst way. jmo

[Ring-o-Saturn]

Originally posted by chuckles


What's new in this case is a "husband" making a decision about whether the woman who used to be his wife would live or die based on what she supposedly said to him. . Men who are really married don't live with another woman and the children they have together . This is not Ozzie deciding whether Harriet should live or die...:rolleyes:

This song from you, which is apparently all you have, is not only tired, it doesn't hold water.

Interesting you choose not to address the simple fact that Jodi was not in Michael's life when this case went to the courts.

Interesting you choose not to address the Schindler's encouragement & approval to Michael that he date.

Interesting you choose not to address they had no issues with it until it became clear Michael wasn't going to buy them a house or pay off their debts.

You have difficulty absorbing information, don't you?

[Ring-o-Saturn]

Originally posted by chuckles


Once he shacked up with Jodi , he should lose all rights to make any decision about the woman who he replaced. Talk about a "conflict of interest" sheesh..wanna buy a bridge?? :rolleyes:



You could make the case for conflict of interest had the case not already gone to the courts, had depositions not already been submitted.

Since they already had been you're so wrong as to make me question your power of reasoning.

[MercedesV]

Originally posted by chuckles


What's new in this case is a "husband" making a decision about whether the woman who used to be his wife would live or die based on what she supposedly said to him. . Men who are really married don't live with another woman and the children they have together . This is not Ozzie deciding whether Harriet should live or die...:rolleyes:

No, this sure wasn't Ozzie and Harriet. And there is nothing new about what happened in this case. Do you know how many people who have spouses with debilitating illnesses that have companions and still take excellent care of their spouse? It happens more frequently than you obviously think.

Which of course doesn't change the fact that Michael swore under oath about Terri's wishes before Jodi entered the picture. You keep forgetting that fact, and trying to make an arguement out of something that holds no water. jmo

[MercedesV]

Originally posted by chuckles


Yeah, right he swore under oath ..so maybe we should let all the rapists, child molestors and murderers out of prison if they swear under oath to their version of the truth as well..:rolleyes:

Why not try logic and facts. Here are a few. Your point is Michael was living with Jodi and had children when he made the decision about Terri, when he talked about her wishes, and in your opinion that was wrong.

Fact is, before he met or lived with or had children with Jodi he spoke under oath of Terri's wishes. Fact, in 1993, after speaking and consulting with Terri's doctors, and upon their medical recommendation, he placed an order to not treat an infection Terri had. And he put a DNR in place. The nursing home lied, and said he couldn't not treat the infection. This was in 1993. And to remind you that was before Jodi. So, the point you keep trying to make is not valid in the least. His relationship with Jodi was not the reason he did what he did. And while your sensibilities may be upset by it, nothing about his relationship with Jodi took away from his care of Terri.

And that was discussed in court and by the GAL'S. No one could show cause why he shouldn't remain as guardian.

As to your foolish statement above, any of those people would be subject to cross examination and if lying exposed. And Michael was cross examined as well. The courts ruled in his favor. jmo

[MercedesV]

Originally posted by chuckles


If Terri was able to testify one word as to what were her real wishes were... there would be no controversy.:shrug:

You know what, if Terri had been able to testify, I believe she would have been at peace many years before she was. I think she'd have said let me go, now.It is not at all unbelievable to me that she made the statements it was testified she made. A living will certainly would have helped as well. I just don't think anyone would choose to remain as she was, in a kind of limbo, with zero chance of recovery.

However, I think the Schindlers would have fought tooth and nail irregardless. They clearly indicated they weren't going to honor Terri's wishes if they knew what they were. Sadly, they thought it was about what they wanted. And it never was. jmo

[LisaM22]

Originally posted by chuckles


So..since you are so obviously clairvoyant..help me out here..got any lottery picks..:tongue:

the odds of her wanting to live that way are slim and none - would you want to live that way?

[Daxxie]

Originally posted by chuckles


So..since you are so obviously clairvoyant..help me out here..got any lottery picks..:tongue:


How about actually discussing what Mercedes said, instead of making smartazz comments.

How many people do you know that would want to live the rest of their lives totally bedridden, dependent upon others for their every need, unable to move, unable to see, unable to even think. Why do you think that it's so unbeleivable that Terri would have made statements to her husband that she did not make to her parents. Most people I know don't tell their parents everything, even when they have great relationships with them, for various reasons. And given the Schindlers attitude toward removing life support, I can see why Terri may NOT have said anything to them.(but it is odd that removing life support from Mr. Schindlers mother was the thing to do, but we do a sudden 180 when there's a chance of a substantial chunk of change in the offing.)

And as has been pointed out here again and again, MS petitioned to have life support removed long before he met Jodi, and as for his dating, that was with the support and encouragment of HER parents. In fact, during the med mal trial, they couldn't say enough nice things about him, AIIRC, he was dating at that time, so their sudden outrage holds no water with me, and I don't imagine it did with the courts either. (It reminds me of that episode on COPS where the woman tried to have someone arrested because she thought that she had bought fake crack.) And they stated under oath, in one of the early guardianship hearings that they would not honor Terri's wishes, if they were contrary to their own, and that they would go so far as to cut off her arms and legs, if need be, to keep her alive.........not because it was what Terri wanted, but because it was what they wanted.

I have no doubt that they loved Terri, but IMO, their needs became paramount, above what Terri might have wanted. People call MS controlling, and maybe he was........but Mr.Schindler was just as controlling, if not more so. It became about what he felt he was owed by Michael........not about what Terri did or did not want.


It can't be stated often enough.........make your wishes known, write them down, tell everyone...........don't just sit back and trust that everything will somehow work out, because you and your family could easily end up just like Terri's did. JMO

[Christian Troy]

Originally posted by chuckles


If Terri was able to testify one word as to what were her real wishes were... there would be no controversy.:shrug:

WOW ! How do YOU know that ? And please pm my winning numbers ... I thought she was able to respond, laugh, swallow and all the other things , I remember bill frist WATCHING a video of Terri and reaching that conclusion...Then, after the truth came out, he denied it.... SO why is there controversy ??

[Nightowl]

Originally posted by chuckles


Once he shacked up with Jodi , he should lose all rights to make any decision about the woman who he replaced. Talk about a "conflict of interest" sheesh..wanna buy a bridge?? :rolleyes:

What "conflict of interest"? He remained married and responsible for Terri, and he also had Jodi and a family with her. It wasn't as if the marriage with Terri was preventing anything other than a legal marriage to Jodi.

And don't even start with inheritance. After 15 years of nursing care, there was none. And lest you forget all that money that was flashed at him by the way off track religious right if he would just divorce Terri.

So where is the conflict of interest again?

[Ring-o-Saturn]

Originally posted by blueberri
Do you think Baby Daniel should die?

I think the decision should left to his next of kin, regardless of what type of insurance coverage they have.

It seems clear baby Daniel's mother isn't ready to let him go.

It's not my decision to make. I don't force my opinion on others or interject myself into other peoples private family decisions.

[Daxxie]

Originally posted by blueberri
I just started a reply to you Daxxie, but decided to delete it. What's the use, you know it all. :rolleyes:


Now that's funny, coming from you.

[Not Telling]

Originally posted by blueberri
The very first post on this thread is a quote from the North Country Gazette, you apparently pick and choose what you WANT to believe from the source. If the conversation that Michael had with Joan about the baby isn't in Michael's book, just prove that, never mind going off on something else to try to "shoot the messenger". Is it in Michael's book or not? A simple "no" will suffice, I will take no reply form you as a "yes".


Wrong again... I didn't pick and choose anything to believe from North County Gazette...

My source was from the second link Crooks and Liars (http://movies.crooksandliars.com/H-C-Nurselosingjob.wmv) in the very first post.

Why am I not surprised that you would jump to the conclusion that you did, even though a second link was staring you right in the face?

Prove what? Prove something that I never even mentioned or commented on? And how would I prove something wasn't in the book...hold it up to my computer screen so you could read it? I don't believe you would simply take my word as proof... If you want to demand proof of whether something was or wasn't in Michael's book, I guess you'll have to go out and buy it...and prove it to yourself... I can't help you with this one...

It's beyond hysterical that you are accusing me of shooting the messenger when that was the majority of the content in the article that you quoted... AND isn't that what you have done and are still doing to Michael????

jmo

[Not Telling]

Originally posted by blueberri
My circumstances were not the same as Michael's. I didn't sponge off my in-laws for years, lie to them, cheat on my ill husband, the list goes on.................

It seems to me that this little list of justifications (in you mind) confirms that you wouldn't walk away from your husband and let his "blood" relatives make the decision for him, if they didn't agree with you...

jmo

[Christian Troy]

Originally posted by rhiannon~1


What have you got against death with dignity?

I don't get you, you defend rapist, murderers who execute in cold blood a child and her family, including another small child - and yet condemn someone who enables those who find life unbearable to die a peaceful death. Must be hard trying to keep all those situational 'values' straight in your head .... :shrug:

Sounds like s/hes one of those deciders...

[Not Telling]

Originally posted by Ring-o-Saturn


Translation: Blueberri can't bring herself to admit, had her opinion differed from the rest of the family, no she would not step aside from her position as spouse to make the decision.

Once again, Jodi was not in Michael's life when these court proceedings began. The Schindler's failed to show cause to have Michael removed & so have you.

I knew exactly what the situation is/was with your spouse blueberri and I stand by my statement. Had you been willing to step aside and leave others to make the decision for your spouse because it didn't agee with yours, I'd need to reconsider your concern for him & his well being.

Apparently, you're unwilling to say that. So, if there had been conflict with others, even though you don't "own" your husband, you'd stick to your decision and a court case very well would have ensued. How would you feel about that blueberry?


Exactly... Thanks for saying it so much better than I did...

[jenmito]

Originally posted by rhiannon~1


What have you got against death with dignity?

I don't get you, you defend rapist, murderers who execute in cold blood a child and her family, including another small child - and yet condemn someone who enables those who find life unbearable to die a peaceful death. Must be hard trying to keep all those situational 'values' straight in your head .... :shrug: I agree 100%. :seeya:

[Not Telling]

Originally posted by blueberri
I didn't ask you to force your opinions on anyone, I just asked if you thought Baby Daniel should have his life support removed and be allowed to die. A simple question.

Why do you describe removing Daniel's life support as allowing him to die, yet you describe removing Terri's life support as murdering or killing her?

[Not Telling]

Originally posted by blueberri
It is a sad story, for sure, chuckles. Another example of how little value is placed on human life. I don't know how these people who feel they have the right to decide who lives and who dies, can sleep at night. For Baby and his Mom: :rose: :rose:



That's funny, blueberri...
You don't seem to have a problem sleeping at night, even though YOU made the choice to keep your husband alive and on life support...

jmo

[JB on the loose]

Originally posted by rhiannon~1


What have you got against death with dignity?

I don't get you, you defend rapist, murderers who execute in cold blood a child and her family, including another small child - and yet condemn someone who enables those who find life unbearable to die a peaceful death. Must be hard trying to keep all those situational 'values' straight in your head .... :shrug: :shrug: It doesn't make sense to me either. Healthy vibrant Iraqi children...ah no biggy, "casualties of war." Carry on. Terri Schiavo, a woman in a vegetative state who can not see, eat or understand what is happening around her...She must live, and a national stink must be made about it. :shrug:

[JB on the loose]

Originally posted by blueberri
The "Death is Beautiful Group" are sure making it easy to get rid of your spouse. I guess if you can just get your wife or hubby to the point they can't speak that will be enough, get them to the hospital, and swear they wouldn't want to live that way. Just the fact that you are married is enough not to question any motives. Saves a messy divorce, support payments, custody battles, not to mention a murder trial. And we can all thank Michael Schaivo for leading the way. What a guy!:rolleyes: What?? You think Michael Shiavo took the easy way out? He had to fight in court, appeals courts, heck he even had to fight Jeb and Chimpy to make sure his wife's rights and wishes were completed. A divorce would have been much easier. This went on for years, this battle... He proved in court repeatedly that Terri wanted to die if she were ever in such a state. The courts, our justice system believed him. Not even Chimpy could deny that. Michael Schiavo didn't pave the way for anything, he just excercised our current laws.

[jenmito]

Originally posted by blueberri
The "Death is Beautiful Group" are sure making it easy to get rid of your spouse. I guess if you can just get your wife or hubby to the point they can't speak that will be enough, get them to the hospital, and swear they wouldn't want to live that way. Just the fact that you are married is enough not to question any motives. Saves a messy divorce, support payments, custody battles, not to mention a murder trial. And we can all thank Michael Schaivo for leading the way. What a guy!:rolleyes: You seriously are comparing someone who can't speak with someone who has no cognitive function anymore because their brain is liquified???

[MercedesV]

Originally posted by blueberri
The "Death is Beautiful Group" are sure making it easy to get rid of your spouse. I guess if you can just get your wife or hubby to the point they can't speak that will be enough, get them to the hospital, and swear they wouldn't want to live that way. Just the fact that you are married is enough not to question any motives. Saves a messy divorce, support payments, custody battles, not to mention a murder trial. And we can all thank Michael Schaivo for leading the way. What a guy!:rolleyes:

Terri collapsed in early 1990. She was finally laid to rest in early 2005. Years of court battles, government intervention, and countless investigations and it has been shown every time Michael did not harm Terri. Yet you persist in alleging he did. Or others should just get their spouse to not be able to speak. So, Michael started a trend did he? Tell me who else has done this? Name some names. How many people have followed Michael's lead.

Now I can think of quite a few spouses who have murdered their spouse in that time frame and been tried for their crimes. Why, if it is so easy hasn't anyone joined this huge parade you suggest is happening. Where is the media coverage. Where is your outrage at all these people doing this. Who are they? Where are they?

Or is your post just a complete load of bull? jmo

[MercedesV]

Originally posted by blueberri
Did you notice the :rolleyes: at the end of my post, mercedes? Have you read Michael's book?

No, I haven't read Michaels book. Nor have I read the Schindlers or MF's books either. I have seen excerpts from each in various places but have not read the books. I would be interested in reading a well written book done by someone not directly involved in the case. I may at some point read Michael's book, but it isn't something I have even purchased at this point. jmo

[Ring-o-Saturn]

Originally posted by blueberri
I didn't ask you to force your opinions on anyone, I just asked if you thought Baby Daniel should have his life support removed and be allowed to die. A simple question.

Given your willingness to force your opinion on others I felt the need to tell you. I truly wasn't aware you were the only person allowed to speak your mind in this forum. hmmmmmm

[JB on the loose]

Originally posted by blueberri
You call Michael's brother and his sister in law repeated proof that Terri wanted to die? Did you happen to read Michael's book? I call repeated court judgements proof! Not even the president of the USA could over rule what the courts repeatedly said. Are you against LE and our justice system?

[JB on the loose]

Originally posted by chuckles


Yeah..so let's not feed any of the mentally ill..why waste all that money institutionalizing them?? Wait..didn't someone else think of that first. I believe he was German. :rolleyes: Oh, stop being do dramatic, Chucky. Terri's brain was liquified, you can't compare her to mentally ill.

[Ring-o-Saturn]

Originally posted by MercedesV


Terri collapsed in early 1990. She was finally laid to rest in early 2005. Years of court battles, government intervention, and countless investigations and it has been shown every time Michael did not harm Terri. Yet you persist in alleging he did. Or others should just get their spouse to not be able to speak. So, Michael started a trend did he? Tell me who else has done this? Name some names. How many people have followed Michael's lead.

Now I can think of quite a few spouses who have murdered their spouse in that time frame and been tried for their crimes. Why, if it is so easy hasn't anyone joined this huge parade you suggest is happening. Where is the media coverage. Where is your outrage at all these people doing this. Who are they? Where are they?

Or is your post just a complete load of bull? jmo


My money is on the bold option!

I rarely lose when I bet money, it's usually a sure thing as it is now.

[jenmito]

Originally posted by chuckles


Yeah..so let's not feed any of the mentally ill..why waste all that money institutionalizing them?? Wait..didn't someone else think of that first. I believe he was German. :rolleyes: You're comparing someone who's mentally ill with someone whose brain is liquified and therefore is in a PVS??? :rolleyes:

[Ring-o-Saturn]

Originally posted by blueberri
Pardon me, I just asked you a question about Baby Daniel, after you asked me if I read the link, but you refuse to answer. I'll ask an easy one, did you read Michael's book?

Why would you care blue?

You do seem to have a passion for being in other peoples business.

What part of this answer did you not understand?

Originally posted by Ring-o-Saturn


I think the decision should left to his next of kin, regardless of what type of insurance coverage they have.

It seems clear baby Daniel's mother isn't ready to let him go.

It's not my decision to make. I don't force my opinion on others or interject myself into other peoples private family decisions.

[JB on the loose]

Originally posted by blueberri
Nope! Can you answer my question, did you read Michael Schiavo's book? No. This situation was and always had been a private matter that should have never recieved the attention of the Feds. Let her rest in Peace. Have you read it?

[VICTORIA.1]

Originally posted by hockeymomof5


My mother while suffering with ALS didn't have much "quality" in her life but her life sure as heck had "value"....as a daughter, a wife, a mother, a grandmother and a human being. This isn't "rhetoric", this is FACT!

I agree.. We don't know that much of real brain action as the medical prof. would like us to think.. My grandma was in the same situation and her life was valuable... I am for the living..Put to death the murderer's and sex offender's.. leave our sick and wounded loved ones alone to their loving family's...MOO

[Ring-o-Saturn]

Originally posted by VICTORIA.1


I agree.. We don't know that much of real brain action as the medical prof. would like us to think.. My grandma was in the same situation and her life was valuable... I am for the living..Put to death the murderer's and sex offender's.. leave our sick and wounded loved ones alone to their loving family's...MOO

Key phrase, leave it to the families. Victoria, you better read about baby Daniel. You see the government has decided that child should die. His mother doesn't want that, but because the doctors say there's no hope Baby Daniel's life support is to be cut by the state if another hospital isn't willing to take him.

This was a private family matter in 1990, and it's still a private family matter today. Unless of course you want to leave it to the government to arbitrarily decide for you regardless of your wishes.

[Jan Powell]

There may now actually be a pediatric nursing facility in Gladewater TX that is going to take the little Cullen baby after the 4th.

Should they for that long term a commitment in his fragile condition? I don't know and am so glad his mother and CPS (who have custody) have to make the decision. But I wouldn't have an adverse opinion of the ethics board of the hospital if it went the another way either.

I wouldn't want to but I COULD sit on a jury panel if the government ever got so carried away they shirked their obligations. I think these decisions are intensely personal and medically scientific (and should remain that way) but to me they could also be to important to walk away from. All, JMO.

[ProxyUser]

Originally posted by chuckles


Yeah..so let's not feed any of the mentally ill..why waste all that money institutionalizing them?? Wait..didn't someone else think of that first. I believe he was German. :rolleyes:

Actually, the guy you're speaking of was Austian, but hey, don't let the facts get in the way of a good story! (Not that I believe you ever would...)

[ProxyUser]

Originally posted by chuckles


Is it un-American to disagree with the courts? They once ruled that a black man was 3/5 of a person..:confused:

Wrong again, Mr. History. It wasn't the courts, but the US Constitution, Article 1, Section 2 that counted non-free persons as "three-fifths."

"Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several states which may be included within this union, according to their respective numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole number of free persons, including those bound to service for a term of years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons."

This was largely the result of white northerners who feared that the large number of slaves in the south would give the southern states too many representatives in the new Congress. Rather than counting each black, or non-free, person as three-fifths of a person, it counted their entire population as three-fifths of its total. Same result, but a nuanced difference.

So your post is wrong on the history. If you hate the courts and want to illustrate bad court decisions, that's great, but at least don't waste our time with historical fiction.

[ProxyUser]

Originally posted by blueberri
The "Death is Beautiful Group" are sure making it easy to get rid of your spouse. I guess if you can just get your wife or hubby to the point they can't speak that will be enough, get them to the hospital, and swear they wouldn't want to live that way. Just the fact that you are married is enough not to question any motives. Saves a messy divorce, support payments, custody battles, not to mention a murder trial. And we can all thank Michael Schaivo for leading the way. What a guy!:rolleyes:

You are right on the money! Instead of a divorce, all Michael had to do was:

1. Injure Terri so badly that she'd never be able to communicate ever again, but not actually kill her

2. Make sure that all attempts to improve her condition met with abject failure

3. Visit her thousands of times over the course of 15 years

4. Convince her family that he's a great guy anyway

5. Win a medical malpractice case

6. Turn Robert Schindler against him by not givng him any money

7. Get sued by Schindler and win

8. Win every appeal, up to and including the US Supreme Court

8. Turn down a million or two dollars to divorce her

9. Face down the state of Florida, the US Congress, and President Bush

10. Fool (or pay off!) the medical examiner and autopsy consultants

11. Accomplish all of this in spite of being so stupid that he couldn't even hold a job, and manage to hide his dastardly deeds from multiple investigations

I might be missing something, but even if I am, all this was so much easier than a divorce - probably cheaper, too.

Since they had no children, and Terri was working, a divorce might have cost him a couple of hundred bucks a month, at least until she remarried! Think of what he saved! Maybe enough to buy a really nice watch!

[ProxyUser]

Originally posted by Not Telling


Why do you describe removing Daniel's life support as allowing him to die, yet you describe removing Terri's life support as murdering or killing her?

What a great observation, NT!

[ladyfair]

It's all killing them, I don't care who it is, unless a person is brain dead and in pain and beyond hope, they should be let go.
Teri Schindler Schiavo was not in pain, was not ready to die, was healthy, except for her mind, had family who wanted to care for her until her natural death.
Teri was murdered. IMO

[Pixie_Face]

I've had a Living Will and Medical Power of Attorney since 1990. My Husband and my brother are the persons I have picked to make decisions if I am unable to. I have discussed my feelings, wishes, desires with both of them.

IF.... GOD Forbid.... I were ever in a PVS, I would not want some Judge, lawyer, or busybodies like I have seen posting on this thread...stepping in and trying to go against my husband or brother. THEY know me and love me, THEY know my wishes...... I do not want some stranger deciding my fate. And I certainly would not want to be used as a political tool to get some jerk elected.


But that is just my opinion..... and Thank GOD and our MILITARY.... I'm still allowed to have one, and express it!

[Not Telling]

Originally posted by blueberri
The "Death is Beautiful Group" are sure making it easy to get rid of your spouse. I guess if you can just get your wife or hubby to the point they can't speak that will be enough, get them to the hospital, and swear they wouldn't want to live that way. Just the fact that you are married is enough not to question any motives. Saves a messy divorce, support payments, custody battles, not to mention a murder trial. And we can all thank Michael Schaivo for leading the way. What a guy!:rolleyes:



Thirteen years of legal battles, having your character attacked and reputation ruined, repeated death threats to yourself and family (including innocent children), fifteen years of bedside visits, incomprehensible media coverage, total violation of your privacy, having your home picketed, and numerous investigations from multiple agencies, now that's what I call "the easy way to get rid of your spouse!!"....

BTW....If your version of Michael's work history is accurate, that could have qualified him to receive alimony not pay it...

jmo

[2logical4u]

Originally posted by Not Telling




Thirteen years of legal battles, having your character attacked and reputation ruined, repeated death threats to yourself and family (including innocent children), fifteen years of bedside visits, incomprehensible media coverage, total violation of your privacy, having your home picketed, and numerous investigations from multiple agencies, now that's what I call "the easy way to get rid of your spouse!!"....

BTW....If your version of Michael's work history is accurate, that could have qualified him to receive alimony not pay it...

jmo

ITA. You would have to be stupid to take the above approach instead of divorce, I've been divorced and let me tell ya, it did not take 15 years nor any of the above drama to get it done.
I can only pray that my husband would be so strong to make sure my wishes were upheld, whatever or however unpopular they were. Most men would have just divorced her and moved on long ago, IMO.

[2logical4u]

Originally posted by blueberri
The "Death is Beautiful Group" are sure making it easy to get rid of your spouse. I guess if you can just get your wife or hubby to the point they can't speak that will be enough, get them to the hospital, and swear they wouldn't want to live that way. Just the fact that you are married is enough not to question any motives. Saves a messy divorce, support payments, custody battles, not to mention a murder trial. And we can all thank Michael Schaivo for leading the way. What a guy!


ITA, with the "What a guy!" statement anyway.

[Not Telling]

Originally posted by blueberri
Did you read Michael's book?

Not yet...

[Not Telling]

Originally posted by ladyfair
It's all killing them, I don't care who it is, unless a person is brain dead and in pain and beyond hope, they should be let go.
Teri Schindler Schiavo was not in pain, was not ready to die, was healthy, except for her mind, had family who wanted to care for her until her natural death.
Teri was murdered. IMO


WOW!!!

You call having:

Extremity muscle atrophy and contractures
Bilateral bronchopneumonia
Osteoporosis
Degenerative joint disease
Kidney stones
Chronic bladder inflammation
Heterotopic ossification
Glossal, pharyngeal, and neck muscle atrophy
Uterine leiomyoma
Pericardial adhesions
Accentuated thoracic kyphosis and lumbar lordosis
Vertebral fracture
Blindness
Brain less than 1/2 it's expected size and weight
Can't drink, eat, chew, swallow spontaneously, blow nose
Dependent on a feeding tube
Can't communicate
Catherized due to urinary incontinence
Unable to control bowels

HEALTHY???????????


What don't you understand about Terri was allow to die naturally?? She was being kept alive artificially... Take away the artificial and you get natural...

jmo

[Not Telling]

Originally posted by chuckles


Many compassionate people share your opinion.


The majority don't...

[Not Telling]

Originally posted by chuckles


You remind me of the "Scott Peterson is the real victim" crowd.:tongue:

What is the oxygen content of the air you are breathing?

[Not Telling]

Originally posted by chuckles


So if you jmo..that gives you the right to make stuff up?? :confused:

Any credible link or do you hear voices??:tongue:

It's listed in her autopsy report...

http://www.sptimes.com/2005/06/15/schiavoreport.pdf

[Not Telling]

Originally posted by 2logical4u


ITA. You would have to be stupid to take the above approach instead of divorce, I've been divorced and let me tell ya, it did not take 15 years nor any of the above drama to get it done.
I can only pray that my husband would be so strong to make sure my wishes were upheld, whatever or however unpopular they were. Most men would have just divorced her and moved on long ago, IMO.

Ten years ago, I had a family member who died from cancer...
I took care of him for two years and I wanted him to live more than anything... I was in no way ready to let him go... But he decided enough was enough... No more surgery, no more chemo, and no more radiation... I was heartbroken, but I understood and respected his wishes... Even though I didn't agree with it and it wasn't what I wanted, I stood up for him and was the voice he no longer had... It was the hardest thing I've ever done, but I know I did the right thing by honoring his wishes, not mine...

[Not Telling]

Originally posted by rosyredrobin


What was finally done for Terri - IMO - was the humane thing to do.


I agree....
Honoring your loved one's wishes is one of the last loving and humane things you can do for them...

jmo

[Ring-o-Saturn]

Originally posted by blueberri
LOL, I understand enough to see how selfish and hypocritical you are. JMO


Really blue, I'm afraid you'll have to explain how it's hypocritical to leave the decision to the family regardless of which decision it may be.

Hypocritical would be me deciding that every family must make the same decision as me based on my assumption I'm the only one capable of making the "right" (aka virtuous) decision.

Kinda like you sweetie.

Enjoy your 4th! :seeya:

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/hypocritical

Main Entry: hyp·o·crit·i·cal
Pronunciation: "hi-p&-'kri-ti-k&l
Function: adjective
: characterized by hypocrisy; also : being a hypocrite
- hyp·o·crit·i·cal·ly /-k(&-)lE/ adverb

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/hypocrite

hypocrite
One entry found for hypocrite.


Main Entry: hyp·o·crite
Pronunciation: 'hi-p&-"krit
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English ypocrite, from Old French, from Late Latin hypocrita, from Greek hypokritEs actor, hypocrite, from hypokrinesthai
: a person who puts on a false appearance of virtue or religion
- hypocrite adjective


http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/hypocrisy

hypocrisy
One entry found for hypocrisy.


Main Entry: hy·poc·ri·sy
Pronunciation: hi-'pä-kr&-sE also hI-
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -sies
Etymology: Middle English ypocrisie, from Old French, from Late Latin hypocrisis, from Greek hypokrisis act of playing a part on the stage, hypocrisy, from hypokrinesthai to answer, act on the stage, from hypo- + krinein to decide -- more at CERTAIN
1 : a feigning to be what one is not or to believe what one does not; especially : the false assumption of an appearance of virtue or religion
2 : an act or instance of hypocrisy

[Not Telling]

Originally posted by Jessie Hylton


The majority once belived in slavery. I prefer those who think for themselves.:shrug:


Where did you get that the majority believed in slavery??

In 1860 the total U.S. population was 31,183,744
In 1860 the U.S. population excluding slaves was 27,167,529
In 1860 the number of slave owners was 393,975
The actual number of slaveholders may be slightly lower because some large holders held slaves in more than one County and would have been counted in each County.

That works out to be about 1 in 70 being a slaveholder.

I think a few of you need to brush up on your history and legalese...



That's funny...I guessed you to be a republican...

[Col.Smudge]

Originally posted by Not Telling



Where did you get that the majority believed in slavery??

In 1860 the total U.S. population was 31,183,744
In 1860 the U.S. population excluding slaves was 27,167,529
In 1860 the number of slave owners was 393,975
The actual number of slaveholders may be slightly lower because some large holders held slaves in more than one County and would have been counted in each County.

That works out to be about 1 in 70 being a slaveholder.

I think a few of you need to brush up on your history and legalese...



That's funny...I guessed you to be a republican...


The quote you posted mentions those who believed in slavery, not just those who owned slaves.

[Ring-o-Saturn]

Originally posted by Col.Smudge



The quote you posted mentions those who believed in slavery, not just those who owned slaves.


Since slavery was the reality, "believing" in it would be believing reality.

Ownership of slaves would be support & endorsement of it.


I believe there is rampant illegal drug use in the USA, that doesn't mean I'm a drug addict.

[Not Telling]

Originally posted by Col.Smudge



The quote you posted mentions those who believed in slavery, not just those who owned slaves.

So you think well over 13 million believed in slavery, but less than 400,000 actually owned slaves?

[Not Telling]

Originally posted by blueberri
Don't put words in my mouth, sweetie, I have never said I made the decision concerning my husband by myself, I said I discussed it with his family. Yes, you are hypocritical, if you believe that Terri's life should have been terminated and the baby's life spared. You never did give a direct answer concerning the baby, maybe you do think his life support should be removed, who would know from your ramblings?


How many of us, how many times, and in how many ways do we need to explain to you that we believe the decision is a personal one and should be decided by the NOK, not the hospital, not the insurance co., not the Congress, not the Gov., not the Pres., and not a bunch of nosey, busybodies who have nothing better to do than stage a protest outside a hospice... before you get it???

Each case should be decided on it's individual circumstances by the patient or their NOK... This is NOT hypocritical! There shouldn't be one decision made for everyone... Everyone should have the right to make their own choice or their NOK should have the right to make the choice...

Please explain exactly how believing people should have the right to choose is hypocritical?


What is hypocritical, is forcing decisions on people against their will and with no regard for their personal circumstances or feelings, and then claim to be caring and compassionate...!!

[Daxxie]

Originally posted by Not Telling


Ten years ago, I had a family member who died from cancer...
I took care of him for two years and I wanted him to live more than anything... I was in no way ready to let him go... But he decided enough was enough... No more surgery, no more chemo, and no more radiation... I was heartbroken, but I understood and respected his wishes... Even though I didn't agree with it and it wasn't what I wanted, I stood up for him and was the voice he no longer had... It was the hardest thing I've ever done, but I know I did the right thing by honoring his wishes, not mine...


We did the same for my mother............we took her home from the hospital and let her die in the manner that she wished.......not hooked up to machines and surrounded by strangers. But according to certain people, I guess that we should have ignored what she wanted, and forced tubes and procedures that she didn't want, because after all, where there's life there's hope. So, I guess I'm part of Blues, "death is beautiful" group. One thing I will always remember.............when I finally got to the hospital (I live some distance from where she was) practically the first thing she said to the nurse was "My girls are taking me home." I'll never forget the relief that was in her voice.


I don't understand why the right to life crowd insists that their way is the only way. They want their right to choose, but insist on taking it from anyone that doesn't agree with their choice. JMO

[speedygonzales6]

Originally posted by Pixie_Face
I've had a Living Will and Medical Power of Attorney since 1990. My Husband and my brother are the persons I have picked to make decisions if I am unable to. I have discussed my feelings, wishes, desires with both of them.

IF.... GOD Forbid.... I were ever in a PVS, I would not want some Judge, lawyer, or busybodies like I have seen posting on this thread...stepping in and trying to go against my husband or brother. THEY know me and love me, THEY know my wishes...... I do not want some stranger deciding my fate. And I certainly would not want to be used as a political tool to get some jerk elected.


But that is just my opinion..... and Thank GOD and our MILITARY.... I'm still allowed to have one, and express it!

Very well said...I totally agree with you....:patriot:

[Daxxie]

Originally posted by Not Telling



How many of us, how many times, and in how many ways do we need to explain to you that we believe the decision is a personal one and should be decided by the NOK, not the hospital, not the insurance co., not the Congress, not the Gov., not the Pres., and not a bunch of nosey, busybodies who have nothing better to do than stage a protest outside a hospice... before you get it???

Each case should be decided on it's individual circumstances by the patient or their NOK... This is NOT hypocritical! There shouldn't be one decision made for everyone... Everyone should have the right to make their own choice or their NOK should have the right to make the choice...

Please explain exactly how believing people should have the right to choose is hypocritical?


What is hypocritical, is forcing decisions on people against their will and with no regard for their personal circumstances or feelings, and then claim to be caring and compassionate...!!



:beer: :beer: :beer: and a snap!!

[2logical4u]

Originally posted by Not Telling


Ten years ago, I had a family member who died from cancer...
I took care of him for two years and I wanted him to live more than anything... I was in no way ready to let him go... But he decided enough was enough... No more surgery, no more chemo, and no more radiation... I was heartbroken, but I understood and respected his wishes... Even though I didn't agree with it and it wasn't what I wanted, I stood up for him and was the voice he no longer had... It was the hardest thing I've ever done, but I know I did the right thing by honoring his wishes, not mine...

Hats off to you for doing what he wanted you to do even though it was hard for you.
For your loved one you lost :rose:

[2logical4u]

Originally posted by Jessie Hylton


So you believe a husband has the right to kill his wife because it is his personal choice?? :confused:

When was it his personal choice?? If I'm not mistaken he insisted that SHE had made that choice many years earlier. JMO

[jenmito]

Originally posted by ladyfair
It's all killing them, I don't care who it is, unless a person is brain dead and in pain and beyond hope, they should be let go.
Teri Schindler Schiavo was not in pain, was not ready to die, was healthy, except for her mind, had family who wanted to care for her until her natural death.
Teri was murdered. IMO Terri's brain was LIQUIFIED. You know why she wasn't in pain? She couldn't RECOGNIZE pain! Just like she couldn't recognize hunger, thirst, her mother, her father, that balloon they kept putting in front of her face, NOTHING!

You talk as if she was healthy except for a brain INJURY. Wrong. Her brain was GONE-the part that was capable of cognitive thought was no longer there. Comparing her to someone who was "only" sick/disabled is crazy. She was merely being kept alive thanks to a feeding tube.

[jenmito]

Originally posted by chuckles


Many compassionate people share your opinion. Many compassionate people DON'T share your opinion.

[2logical4u]

Originally posted by Jessie Hylton


So you believe a husband has the right to kill his wife because it is his personal choice?? :confused:

He did not kill her, he had life support removed and let her die. Her condition, her PVS killed her.

JMO

[jenmito]

Originally posted by chuckles


You remind me of the "Scott Peterson is the real victim" crowd.:tongue: HE was a murderer.

[Not Telling]

Originally posted by Daxxie



We did the same for my mother............we took her home from the hospital and let her die in the manner that she wished.......not hooked up to machines and surrounded by strangers. But according to certain people, I guess that we should have ignored what she wanted, and forced tubes and procedures that she didn't want, because after all, where there's life there's hope. So, I guess I'm part of Blues, "death is beautiful" group. One thing I will always remember.............when I finally got to the hospital (I live some distance from where she was) practically the first thing she said to the nurse was "My girls are taking me home." I'll never forget the relief that was in her voice.


I don't understand why the right to life crowd insists that their way is the only way. They want their right to choose, but insist on taking it from anyone that doesn't agree with their choice. JMO

Daxxie...
I'd be honored to be included in the same group with you...
Your mother was blessed to have you... I'm sure the relief she expressed when you arrived was a little gift of love from her heart to yours... You'll always have that memory for comfort...

:rose:

[PeggyMaxwell]

Here is a link with a wealth of information from someone who didn't have a dog in the fight.

http://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/infopage.html

I started on the side of the Schindler's. After thorough research, I dropped that opinion. Terri Schiavo's initial hospital discharge report clearly indicated that she had suffered severe and likely permanent damage to her brain due to extended oygen deprivation.

The bottom line is that it was determined that removing the feeding tube was consistent with Terri Schiavo's stated wishes prior to her collapse. That judgement was litigated and affirmed over and over again.

[Not Telling]

Originally posted by Daxxie




:beer: :beer: and a snap!!


Right back at cha! :D

[jenmito]

Originally posted by blueberri
Comparing the last few days of a terminally ill patient to a brain damaged individual is ridicilous anyway. It is also ridicilous to believe that your legal next of kin is always acting in your best interest, you just have to read the other boards on here to figure that out. Those that are in a relationship for the long haul don't need it in writing or have to go to court to remove the life support. JMO Comparing a brain damaged individual to an individual in a PVS with a liquified brain is ridiculous.

[Not Telling]

Originally posted by 2logical4u


Hats off to you for doing what he wanted you to do even though it was hard for you.
For your loved one you lost :rose:

Thank you... It's never easy to lose a loved one....no matter what the circumstances are....

Some people can't or won't understand that just because we believe in honoring our loved ones wishes, it doesn't mean we want them to die...

[sumner]

Originally posted by Not Telling


Ten years ago, I had a family member who died from cancer...
I took care of him for two years and I wanted him to live more than anything... I was in no way ready to let him go... But he decided enough was enough... No more surgery, no more chemo, and no more radiation... I was heartbroken, but I understood and respected his wishes... Even though I didn't agree with it and it wasn't what I wanted, I stood up for him and was the voice he no longer had... It was the hardest thing I've ever done, but I know I did the right thing by honoring his wishes, not mine...

You know you did the right thing.

I agree it is a personal decision. There is no greater gift you can give to someone than to put your feelings aside and act in their interests. It is also important to let the person know that it is okay to let go.

[Daxxie]

Originally posted by Not Telling


Daxxie...
I'd be honored to be included in the same group with you...
Your mother was blessed to have you... I'm sure the relief she expressed when you arrived was a little gift of love from her heart to yours... You'll always have that memory for comfort...

:rose:


Thanks NT. Your family member was luckyto have you also.

:rose:

It was the last thing that we could do for her, and I'm proud that we were able to do so.


Tell your DH I said hi, and hope he's doing good.

[jenmito]

Originally posted by Jessie Hylton


In THEIR interests...I agree. Whose interest SHOULD it be in-the Supreme Court's?

[Daxxie]

Originally posted by blueberri
Comparing the last few days of a terminally ill patient to a brain damaged individual is ridicilous anyway. It is also ridicilous to believe that your legal next of kin is always acting in your best interest, you just have to read the other boards on here to figure that out. Those that are in a relationship for the long haul don't need it in writing or have to go to court to remove the life support. JMO



Since you have no evidence that Michael and Terri weren't in it for the long haul, then by your own logic, there was no need for anything written down. And if Terri's father wasnt' mad about not getting any money, nothing would have ever gone to court, it would have been Michael's decision, just as it was yours to continue your hubands treatment, no matter how many opinions you got from family members.

[speedygonzales6]

Originally posted by jenmito
Whose interest SHOULD it be in-the Supreme Court's?

Well hell yes....all those right wing radical pro-lifers think the Supreme Court should be the deciding factor on all decisions...as long as it goes in their favor...of course


MOO

[Not Telling]

Originally posted by blueberri
Put my money on the voices!;)

I sure hope you did! :lol:

[jenmito]

Originally posted by speedygonzales6


Well hell yes....all those right wing radical pro-lifers think the Supreme Court should be the deciding factor on all decisions...as long as it goes in their favor...of course


MOO Exactly. If it doesn't go their way, it's an "activist court" with "unelected judges" who "got it wrong."

[MercedesV]

Originally posted by blueberri
Comparing the last few days of a terminally ill patient to a brain damaged individual is ridicilous anyway. It is also ridicilous to believe that your legal next of kin is always acting in your best interest, you just have to read the other boards on here to figure that out. Those that are in a relationship for the long haul don't need it in writing or have to go to court to remove the life support. JMO

I find your statement that things don't have to be in writing staggering given your position on this case. So, a couple who have been married five years when tragedy strikes aren't in it for the long haul? If Terri's wishes had been in writing you wouldn't have had a problem. But since they weren't you do. So, what harm is there in having it in writing. And who decides who is in it for the long haul and when? Not everyone is blessed to be together for 25 years before a tragedy strikes them. It doesn't mean the spouse has less knowledge or rights in caring for their spouse. What you say just makes no sense to me. And if a couple is in it for the long haul, nothing in writing, but each is positive they know the others wishes, how would that stop extended family from doing exactly what the Schindlers did?

No, spouses don't always have each others best interests at heart. But GAL's and courts examined this specific case and found Michael did. You seem to think there were glaring problems so why didn't the Schindlers have an easy time in court proving he was unfit? Just what is it you believe showed Michael didn't have Terri's best interests at heart? Where is the substantial proof that Michael didn't act in Terri's best interests and if it is so obvious why didn't the Schindlers present it in court when they had every opportunity to do so. Instead of all over the web and the media. Every wonder why they had so much to say there and not in court? Maybe because it was a smear campaign and lies that couldn't hold up in court.

Do you believe Iyers? They sure quoted her outside of court. Why didn't they call her to the stand in 2000? Then there is the girlfriend who spoke all the details on the radio but wouldn't sign an affadavit. Wonder why that is? The Schindlers felt free to lie to the public any way they could. But had nothing, nothing at all to support their position in court.

Ever wonder why after claiming he was so wonderful, they felt the absolute need to smear Michael and make him seem a monster? They are very short on facts and truth and very long on smearing and lying. jmo

[Not Telling]

Originally posted by sumner


You know you did the right thing.

I agree it is a personal decision. There is no greater gift you can give to someone than to put your feelings aside and act in their interests. It is also important to let the person know that it is okay to let go.

You bring up a good point... and I agree with you...
It is important to let the person know that it is ok to let go...

[sumner]

Originally posted by Not Telling


You bring up a good point... and I agree with you...
It is important to let the person know that it is ok to let go...

I have seen people suffer needlessly by trying to hang on. For me, there is nothing noble in suffering. I have made it very clear to my family how I think about this and my family members have also voiced their thoughts.

[Not Telling]

Originally posted by Daxxie



Thanks NT. Your family member was luckyto have you also.

:rose:

It was the last thing that we could do for her, and I'm proud that we were able to do so.


Tell your DH I said hi, and hope he's doing good.


Thanks Daxxie for your kind words and for reminding me to get hubby his meds that were due 20 min. ago!

[jenmito]

Originally posted by blueberri
<snip>When she woke from the coma, she would not know who she was or who Tom was. She would be unable to talk, walk or feed herself.

Theirs was a love facing the greatest of challenges. This is a book about redemption conferred by accepting the hardest things in life with an open heart." SHE WOKE UP FROM HER COMA! Terri's brain was LIQUIFIED! Don't you see the difference? Brain damaged vs. brain destroyed!

[speedygonzales6]

Originally posted by jenmito
SHE WOKE UP FROM HER COMA! Terri's brain was LIQUIFIED! Don't you see the difference? Brain damaged vs. brain destroyed!

Jenmito...it appears your wasting your time here. Some people just don't get it...Terri died a long time ago. Finally her body was able to go...with a dignity that was a long time coming.

I'm out of here...have a great day...:patriot:

:seeya:

[jenmito]

Originally posted by speedygonzales6


Jenmito...it appears your wasting your time here. Some people just don't get it...Terri died a long time ago. Finally her body was able to go...with a dignity that was a long time coming.

I'm out of here...have a great day...:patriot:

:seeya: I agree. They just can't comprehend!

See ya, speedy! :seeya:

[jenmito]

Originally posted by chuckles



It's a good thing you or Terri's husband were not involved in this case..
http://www.al.com/news/birminghamnews/wire.ssf?/base/news/1152004791181550.xml&coll=2 "For his family, each word is a miracle. For 19 years - until June 11, 2003 - Wallis lay mute and virtually unresponsive in a state of minimal consciousness, the result of a head injury suffered in a traffic accident."

ibid

You DO know the difference between minimal consciousness and NO consciousness, don't you???

[Not Telling]

Originally posted by chuckles



It's a good thing you or Terri's husband were not involved in this case..
http://www.al.com/news/birminghamnews/wire.ssf?/base/news/1152004791181550.xml&coll=2


I love it!! Thanks! I bet hubby early this morning that you or blueberri were going to post this story today... WOO HOO! You just won me $10.00! You can't compare this story with Terri S!
She didn't have undamaged areas or cells capable of forming new axons! Only her brainstem was undamaged and those cells aren't capable of reestablishing cognitive functions!



USING BOTH POSITRON EMISSION TOMOGRAPHY SCANS AND AN ADVANCED IMAGING TECHNIQUE CALLED DIFFUSION TENSOR IMAGING, THE RESEARCHERS EXAMINED WALLIS'S BRAIN AFTER HE REGAINED FULL CONSCIOUSNESS, AND FOUND THAT CELLS IN THE RELATIVELY UNDAMAGED AREAS HAD FORMED NEW AXONS, THE LONG NERVE FIBERS THAT TRANSMIT MESSAGES BETWEEN NEURONS.

IN ESSENCE, TERRY'S BRAIN MAY HAVE BEEN SEEKING OUT NEW PATHWAYS TO REESTABLISH FUNCTIONAL CONNECTIONS TO AREAS INVOLVED IN SPEECH AND MOTOR CONTROL -- TO COMPENSATE FOR THOSE LOST DUE TO DAMAGE," SAID THE STUDY'S SENIOR AUTHOR, DR. NICHOLAS SCHIFF, A NEUROLOGIST AT THE WEILL CORNELL MEDICAL COLLEGE IN NEW YORK.

SCHIFF CAUTIONED THAT WALLIS WAS A ``1 IN 300 MILLION" CASE.

[mystery101]

Originally posted by Not Telling



I love it!! Thanks! I bet hubby early this morning that you or blueberri were going to post this story today... WOO HOO! You just won me $10.00! You can't compare this story with Terri S!
She didn't have undamaged areas or cells capable of forming new axons! Only her brainstem was undamaged and those cells aren't capable of reestablishing cognitive functions!



USING BOTH POSITRON EMISSION TOMOGRAPHY SCANS AND AN ADVANCED IMAGING TECHNIQUE CALLED DIFFUSION TENSOR IMAGING, THE RESEARCHERS EXAMINED WALLIS'S BRAIN AFTER HE REGAINED FULL CONSCIOUSNESS, AND FOUND THAT CELLS IN THE RELATIVELY UNDAMAGED AREAS HAD FORMED NEW AXONS, THE LONG NERVE FIBERS THAT TRANSMIT MESSAGES BETWEEN NEURONS.

IN ESSENCE, TERRY'S BRAIN MAY HAVE BEEN SEEKING OUT NEW PATHWAYS TO REESTABLISH FUNCTIONAL CONNECTIONS TO AREAS INVOLVED IN SPEECH AND MOTOR CONTROL -- TO COMPENSATE FOR THOSE LOST DUE TO DAMAGE," SAID THE STUDY'S SENIOR AUTHOR, DR. NICHOLAS SCHIFF, A NEUROLOGIST AT THE WEILL CORNELL MEDICAL COLLEGE IN NEW YORK.

SCHIFF CAUTIONED THAT WALLIS WAS A ``1 IN 300 MILLION" CASE.
For 20 years, that guy couldn't talk.
He is still quadraplegic-he can not walk, and never will be able to walk (IMO).
You probably be the first person to scream you wouldn't want to live that way.
Terri Wallis says how lucky he is to be alive.
Good thing his wife just divorced him and didn't claim he didn't want to "live that way" during the 20 years he couldnt' talk.
JMO.

[Sui Generis]

Originally posted by mystery101

For 20 years, that guy couldn't talk.
He is still quadraplegic-he can not walk, and never will be able to walk (IMO).
You probably be the first person to scream you wouldn't want to live that way.
Terri Wallis says how lucky he is to be alive.
Good thing his wife just divorced him and didn't claim he didn't want to "live that way" during the 20 years he couldnt' talk.
JMO.

I guess you believe that TS's brain was capable of returning to that level of functionality.

[mystery101]

Originally posted by Sui Generis


I guess you believe that TS's brain was capable of returning to that level of functionality.
What would Terri Wallis's Drs. say about his brain returning to that level of functionality 10 years ago?
Gee, do you think they would tell his family he would return to this level?
I think not.
Again, good for him that his wife just divorced him and didn't claim he wouldn't want to "live that way".
JMO.

[Molly11]

Poor Terri Schiavo. She was as helpless as a baby, and totally dependent on the good will of those around her for her needs.

Unfortunately, those around her chose to starve and dehydrate her to death, in the most brutal manner of deaths.

If they had put her alone on a raft in the middle of the ocean and waved goodbye, it would have been no different.

How we treat the helpless in our midst reflects on us, not them.

IMO

[jenmito]

Originally posted by mystery101

For 20 years, that guy couldn't talk.
He is still quadraplegic-he can not walk, and never will be able to walk (IMO).
You probably be the first person to scream you wouldn't want to live that way.
Terri Wallis says how lucky he is to be alive.
Good thing his wife just divorced him and didn't claim he didn't want to "live that way" during the 20 years he couldnt' talk.
JMO. :rolleyes: So you'rw another one who doesn't seem to know the difference between minimal consciousness and NO consciousness...between brain DAMAGE and brain LIQUIFICATION.

[Sui Generis]

Originally posted by mystery101

What would Terri Wallis's Drs. say about his brain returning to that level of functionality 10 years ago?
Gee, do you think they would tell his family he would return to this level?
I think not.
Again, good for him that his wife just divorced him and didn't claim he wouldn't want to "live that way".
JMO.

I doubt that either of us knows what his doctors said 10 years ago. TS had 15 years and had never improved. moo

[Ring-o-Saturn]

Originally posted by blueberri
Don't put words in my mouth, sweetie, I have never said I made the decision concerning my husband by myself, I said I discussed it with his family. Yes, you are hypocritical, if you believe that Terri's life should have been terminated and the baby's life spared. You never did give a direct answer concerning the baby, maybe you do think his life support should be removed, who would know from your ramblings?


Boy, I wouldn't find it comforting to discuss anything of importance with you. You don't absorb information well.

Baby Daniel's mother isn't ready to remove life support.

I support Baby Daniel's mother in whatever decision she makes.

Should she decide tomorrow it's time to remove Baby Daniel's life support I'd support her in that decision as well.

That's a very clear answer only you seem incapable of understanding.

I wonder how many other discussions you've had that you only heard what you wanted to hear?

Once again, a hypocrite would be someone who thinks they have the only "virtuous" answer, and therefore should decide for everyone, just like you.

Perhaps if you'd open that narrow mind of yours just a tad, you'd be better capable of taking in information.

[Daxxie]

Originally posted by mystery101

What would Terri Wallis's Drs. say about his brain returning to that level of functionality 10 years ago?
Gee, do you think they would tell his family he would return to this level?
I think not.
Again, good for him that his wife just divorced him and didn't claim he wouldn't want to "live that way".
JMO.


According to the article, he was 19 with no mention of a wife, so I assume that there wasn't any wife in the picture. Obviously, his family made a choice, as next of kin........AS WAS THEIR RIGHT. Why is that so hard to understand?


It's great that this guy had enough undamaged brain tissue to re-establish function. Terri's scans, however, showed massive injury to both lobes of her brain.........there wasn't any healthy, undamged tissue to establish connections to. And just because YOU might choose to live in that condition, it doesn't follow that everyone else will..........that is their choice, or the choice of their next of kin.

[Ring-o-Saturn]

Originally posted by Not Telling



How many of us, how many times, and in how many ways do we need to explain to you that we believe the decision is a personal one and should be decided by the NOK, not the hospital, not the insurance co., not the Congress, not the Gov., not the Pres., and not a bunch of nosey, busybodies who have nothing better to do than stage a protest outside a hospice... before you get it???

Each case should be decided on it's individual circumstances by the patient or their NOK... This is NOT hypocritical! There shouldn't be one decision made for everyone... Everyone should have the right to make their own choice or their NOK should have the right to make the choice...

Please explain exactly how believing people should have the right to choose is hypocritical?


What is hypocritical, is forcing decisions on people against their will and with no regard for their personal circumstances or feelings, and then claim to be caring and compassionate...!!


ty :patriot: :seeya:

[mystery101]

Originally posted by Daxxie



According to the article, he was 19 with no mention of a wife, so I assume that there wasn't any wife in the picture. Obviously, his family made a choice, as next of kin........AS WAS THEIR RIGHT. Why is that so hard to understand?


It's great that this guy had enough undamaged brain tissue to re-establish function. Terri's scans, however, showed massive injury to both lobes of her brain.........there wasn't any healthy, undamged tissue to establish connections to. And just because YOU might choose to live in that condition, it doesn't follow that everyone else will..........that is their choice, or the choice of their next of kin.
Actually, he had an wife and a daughter.
I saw a TV program about him.
His daughter came back after he showed signs of recovery.
JMO.

[mystery101]

Originally posted by Sui Generis


I doubt that either of us knows what his doctors said 10 years ago. TS had 15 years and had never improved. moo
Actually, what his Drs. said is that he was in PVS and would not recover.
"Terry Wallis showed no improvement in the first year, and doctors soon pronounced him to be in a persistent vegetative state, and gave him virtually no chance of recovery, his parents said".
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/04/health/psychology/04coma.html?hp&ex=1151985600&en=d74f65c316577c77&ei=5094&partner=homepage

[Ring-o-Saturn]

Originally posted by chuckles



It's a good thing you or Terri's husband were not involved in this case..
http://www.al.com/news/birminghamnews/wire.ssf?/base/news/1152004791181550.xml&coll=2

Why is that?

http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2005-06-21-brain-injuries_x.htm

The cases of Wallis and Schiavo are different biologically. Both slipped into comas when their brains were first injured, but then they diverged. Schiavo remained vegetative while Wallis moved into a state of limbo.

Did you intentionally not post the article that compared exactly why the two cases are completely different?

[mystery101]

Originally posted by Ring-o-Saturn


Why is that?

http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2005-06-21-brain-injuries_x.htm



Did you intentionally not post the article that compared exactly why the two cases are completely different?
Completely different? LOL.
There are similiarites, only you obviously chose to ignore them.
Terri Wallis's parents were told he was in PVS and had basically no chance of recovery. He is not able to walk. His parents sometimes believed he would be better off dead.
Now they know he is not, because he can say he is happy to be alive.
So, to say that there are no similarites is ridiculous.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/04/health/psychology/04coma.html?hp&ex=1151985600&en=d74f65c316577c77&ei=5094&partner=homepage
JMO.

[Ring-o-Saturn]

Originally posted by mystery101

Actually, what his Drs. said is that he was in PVS and would not recover.
"Terry Wallis showed no improvement in the first year, and doctors soon pronounced him to be in a persistent vegetative state, and gave him virtually no chance of recovery, his parents said".
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/04/health/psychology/04coma.html?hp&ex=1151985600&en=d74f65c316577c77&ei=5094&partner=homepage


Actually, twenty years ago when Terry first had his accident there was no clear distinction made for varying states of consciousness.

Complicating each story is the distinction between various states of consciousness. What Wallis experienced, "minimal consciousness," wasn't in medical literature until recently. Brain injuries can be misdiagnosed because the definitions are so new.

"They're not widely known and not widely used and there's a lot of confusion among doctors who label it one thing without knowing the definitions," said Dr. David Ripley, a brain injury rehabilitation physician at Craig Hospital in Englewood, Colo. "And therein lies the rub."

The federal Traumatic Brain Injury acts of 1996 and 2000 directed the National Institutes of Health to conduct more research, but Fins complains they remain underfunded. There are 1.4 million traumatic brain injuries a year in the United States., according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. All but 350,000 are less severe, such as concussions.

[Not Telling]

Originally posted by mystery101

What would Terri Wallis's Drs. say about his brain returning to that level of functionality 10 years ago?
Gee, do you think they would tell his family he would return to this level?
I think not.
Again, good for him that his wife just divorced him and didn't claim he wouldn't want to "live that way".
JMO.

Don't you get it??? Terri S. didn't have undamaged areas of her brain capable of forming new axons... Her brain had turned to liquid!! She didn't even have the neurons to try and form new axons...You can't turn liquid back into brain cells...No neurons, no axons, and no messages to transmit!


Terri W's brain didn't turn to liquid, his brain still had undamaged neurons that were capable of forming new axons and transmitting and receiving messages...

[Ring-o-Saturn]

Originally posted by mystery101

Completely different? LOL.
There are similiarites, only you obviously chose to ignore them.
Terri Wallis's parents were told he was in PVS and had basically no chance of recovery. He is not able to walk. His parents sometimes believed he would be better off dead.
Now they know he is not, because he can say he is happy to be alive.
So, to say that there are no similarites is ridiculous.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/04/health/psychology/04coma.html?hp&ex=1151985600&en=d74f65c316577c77&ei=5094&partner=homepage
JMO.


Better take that up with the National Institutes of Health. I only offer factual information.


Wallis' limbo was a "platform for additional recovery" and begs for further study, Fins said.

[mystery101]

Originally posted by Ring-o-Saturn



Actually, twenty years ago when Terry first had his accident there was no clear distinction made for varying states of consciousness.


And so what?
The Drs. said he had virtually no chance of recovery. Obviously, they were wrong.
Clearly, so much is not known about human brain, and how someone with virtually no chance of recovery can recover. And what really gets me is that Terri Wallis is happy to be alive. The guy can not move and is totally dependant on others for his care. How many here would say they wouldn't want to live that way? Well, he does-he says he is proud to be alive. Who are we to decide if someone else is willing to "live that way" if we are not in that person's shoes?
JMO.

[Daxxie]

Originally posted by mystery101

Completely different? LOL.
There are similiarites, only you obviously chose to ignore them.
Terri Wallis's parents were told he was in PVS and had basically no chance of recovery. He is not able to walk. His parents sometimes believed he would be better off dead.
Now they know he is not, because he can say he is happy to be alive.
So, to say that there are no similarites is ridiculous.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/04/health/psychology/04coma.html?hp&ex=1151985600&en=d74f65c316577c77&ei=5094&partner=homepage
JMO.


Sure there were similarities, but the differences were profound........Wallis had reproducable signs of awarness, Terri never did, not in fifeteen years. And of course the biggest difference was in the level of brain injury......he had undamged areas of his brain, Terri did not.


But,IMO, it still comes down to choice. His parents made a choice for him, and that was their right. MS made a choice for Terri, based on her opinions, and that was his right. Not her parents, not the govenor, not the Congress, or the President. Maybe you want people that have never met you, and know nothing about you, making decisions for you when you can't, based on their opinions and beliefs. I don't. JMO

[jenmito]

Originally posted by Molly11
Poor Terri Schiavo. She was as helpless as a baby, and totally dependent on the good will of those around her for her needs.

Unfortunately, those around her chose to starve and dehydrate her to death, in the most brutal manner of deaths.

If they had put her alone on a raft in the middle of the ocean and waved goodbye, it would have been no different.

How we treat the helpless in our midst reflects on us, not them.

IMO Stop with the false descriptions. Terri didn't have the capability to even FEEL starvation or dehydration. She wasn't disabled. That would mean she had SOME ability-which she didn't. She had no ability at ALL-no awareness of being starved, being kept alive, nothing.

[Ring-o-Saturn]

Originally posted by mystery101

And so what?
The Drs. said he had virtually no chance of recovery. Obviously, they were wrong.
Clearly, so much is not known about human brain, and how someone with virtually no chance of recovery can recover. And what really gets me is that Terri Wallis is happy to be alive. The guy can not move and is totally dependant on others for his care. How many here would say they wouldn't want to live that way? Well, he does-he says he is proud to be alive. Who are we to decide if someone else is willing to "live that way" if we are not in that person's shoes?
JMO.


So what?

Clearly, someone with nothing but liquid in the place of a brain is not going to recover.

Terri S had been tested repeatedly and this was known to be her state.

The autopsy confirmed this fact.

Where there is no brain, there will be no brain recovery.

Michael had the right and responsibility to make the decision in the absence of Terri's ability to do so. I applaud his dedication to her.

You go right ahead and make any decision you want for your family.

I applaud Terry Wallis's family for making their own decision, did you know their now fighting a major battle to get him proper care? You see he doesn't meet the parameters to be eligible for therapy that may help him advance.

What you and those like you choose not to understand is the big picture. The government and the insurance companies and busybodies that have no business in my family matters are making these decisions that impact individual families.

Baby Daniel doesn't get 12 years on life support, his mother doesn't have the "right" insurance.

A law was already passed to make sure the state decides when his plug gets pulled.

Terry Wallis doesn't get therapy, he doesn't have the "right" insurance.

They're considering entering a bill that may make it possible for Terry to actually get care.

How big does the sledge hammer over your head need to be before you see it.

Private family decisions are private family decisions.

The government shouldn't have the right to decide when to pull the plug.

I don't have to submit to medical care I don't want.

God damn it, if the medical care exists and I do want it, it shouldn't matter what insurance coverage I have or don't have. I should be entitled to it.

[Not Telling]

Originally posted by Molly11
Poor Terri Schiavo. She was as helpless as a baby, and totally dependent on the good will of those around her for her needs.

Unfortunately, those around her chose to starve and dehydrate her to death, in the most brutal manner of deaths.

If they had put her alone on a raft in the middle of the ocean and waved goodbye, it would have been no different.

How we treat the helpless in our midst reflects on us, not them.

IMO

As a medical professional I am insulted and outraged that you would have the audacity to say that medical professionals would stand by and let thousands of patients who die this way, each and every year, suffer a most brutal death!!

If they suffer a most brutal death....how come out of thousands of patients, none of their family members, except for the Schindlers, have come forward and shouted from the rooftops warning everyone how horrible and brutal it was??

Why haven't the thousands of patients who choose to die this way, and are conscious until the end, complained about the brutality, themselves, and changed their mind?

Why haven't any of the thousands of medical professionals, who have witnessed thousands of patients die this way, come forward and spoken out about it???

Is it a vast conspiracy involving thousands and thousands of witnesses and victims to keep their mouths shut or could it be that it isn't brutal like you want to believe it is?


Most ignorance is vincible ignorance. We don't know because we don't want to know.
Aldous Huxley

[mystery101]

Originally posted by Daxxie



Sure there were similarities, but the differences were profound........Wallis had reproducable signs of awarness, Terri never did, not in fifeteen years. And of course the biggest difference was in the level of brain injury......he had undamged areas of his brain, Terri did not.


But,IMO, it still comes down to choice. His parents made a choice for him, and that was their right. MS made a choice for Terri, based on her opinions, and that was his right. Not her parents, not the govenor, not the Congress, or the President. Maybe you want people that have never met you, and know nothing about you, making decisions for you when you can't, based on their opinions and beliefs. I don't. JMO
Yea, it's about choice.
As to why I am pointing out that Terri Wallis was lucky that his wife decided to leave him instead of claiming he didn't want to live that way.
He is a lucky guy-as strange as it is to say regarding someone in his condition. He beat the odds in more ways than one.
His wife just left, and his parents were loving and never stopped caring about him, which, I am sure, played a huge role in his recovery.
JMO.

[Ring-o-Saturn]

Originally posted by mystery101

Yea, it's about choice.
As to why I am pointing out that Terri Wallis was lucky that his wife decided to leave him instead of claiming he didn't want to live that way.
He is a lucky guy-as strange as it is to say regarding someone in his condition. He beat the odds in more ways than one.
His wife just left, and his parents were loving and never stopped caring about him, which, I am sure, played a huge role in his recovery.
JMO.


What played a role in his recovery was the fact there actually was a brain remaining to improve!

[mystery101]

Originally posted by Ring-o-Saturn



What played a role in his recovery was the fact there actually was a brain remaining to improve!
Would that make any difference if his wife decided he did not want to "live that way"?

[Ring-o-Saturn]

Originally posted by mystery101

Would that make any difference if his wife decided he did not want to "live that way"?


Get it straight Mystery, it wouldn't make a difference to me if his wife said "he wouldn't want to live like that" or "I don't believe he would want to live like that".

If 20 years ago his wife made the decision after consulting the physicians that she should end life support, she would have had my support.

That's not what happened, so apparently she wasn't so sure.

What the doctors said was "virtually" no hope of improvement.

What the doctors said about Terri S after years of testing was "no hope of recovery".

It doesn't matter to me what the family decides, if it's the families choice it should be honored. If written instructions are left, they should be honored. It sure as heck shouldn't be anyone elses choice.

Now what are you going to do about Terry W and the fact that he's not eligible for the therapy he needs to continue his improvement?

[mystery101]

Originally posted by Ring-o-Saturn



Get it straight Mystery, it wouldn't make a difference to me if his wife said "he wouldn't want to live like that" or "I don't believe he would want to live like that".

If 20 years ago his wife made the decision after consulting the physicians that she should end life support, she would have had my support.

That's not what happened, so apparently she wasn't so sure.

What the doctors said was "virtually" no hope of improvement.

What the doctors said about Terri S after years of testing was "no hope of recovery".

It doesn't matter to me what the family decides, if it's the families choice it should be honored. If written instructions are left, they should be honored. It sure as heck shouldn't be anyone elses choice.

Now what are you going to do about Terry W and the fact that he's not eligible for the therapy he needs to continue his improvement?
What am I doing about it? I presume the very same thing you are going to do about it...
Are you doing anything about it?
Do you think I am in charge of health care in this country somehow?
:rolleyes:

[Daxxie]

Originally posted by mystery101

Yea, it's about choice.
As to why I am pointing out that Terri Wallis was lucky that his wife decided to leave him instead of claiming he didn't want to live that way.
He is a lucky guy-as strange as it is to say regarding someone in his condition. He beat the odds in more ways than one.
His wife just left, and his parents were loving and never stopped caring about him, which, I am sure, played a huge role in his recovery.
JMO.


Since you don't have any proof that she would have decided anything differently than his parents did, I don't see how it even enters into it. She chose to leave, (and I wouldn't expect a 19 year old to put their life on hold indefinetly).........MS chose to stay and carry out what his wifes wishes were. Of the two, I'd say that the person that remained, and fought for 15 years, despite being vilified, accused of abuse and murder, suffering death threats to his SO, himself and his children, is by far the braver of the two. Just throwing up his hands and walking away would have been the easy way out.


I support Wallis' parents RIGHT to make the choice they did........and I also support Michael Schiavo's RIGHT to make the choice he did for his wife. I think everyone should have that right, whatever it is. What I see a lot of people arguing is that,since they don't like his choice, or they don't like him, based purely on their moratlity, that he shouldn't have the right. But my personal opions, or morality, shouldn't have any bearing on someone else's choice. It's theirs to make............not mine.

JMO

[Ring-o-Saturn]

Originally posted by mystery101

What am I doing about it? I presume the very same thing you are going to do about it...
Are you doing anything about it?
Do you think I am in charge of health care in this country somehow?
:rolleyes:

Typical RTlife answer! Force the opinion on people, then abandon them and leave them to deal with the mess. Don't even bother hanging around as support.

Yes mystery, I'll continue working toward equal health care for all citizens. I'll continue working within the political system to insure the government doesn't make law that allows for the privileged to have access to care while the poor live without until they die.

& I'll continue to keep a watchful eye on those that presume to take my liberties from me. At the same time, I'll continue to protect your liberties as well. Apparently you haven't enough sense to know they're in danger.

You go right along with your posting, please don't strain yourself.

[peak oil]

Does anyone recall CodeBlueBlog. It is now inactive but. there is still extensive archived discussion.The doctor also posted at Courttv.

[mystery101]

Originally posted by Ring-o-Saturn


Typical RTlife answer! Force the opinion on people, then abandon them and leave them to deal with the mess. Don't even bother hanging around as support.

Yes mystery, I'll continue working toward equal health care for all citizens. I'll continue working within the political system to insure the government doesn't make law that allows for the privileged to have access to care while the poor live without until they die.

& I'll continue to keep a watchful eye on those that presume to take my liberties from me. At the same time, I'll continue to protect your liberties as well. Apparently you haven't enough sense to know they're in danger.

You go right along with your posting, please don't strain yourself.
Well, I feel that it's nothing but words.
How are you doing what you claim you are doing, exactly?
The proof is in the pudding.
Just to say that you will continue to do this and that means nothing to me.
How exactly you are working with the political system, do tell?
And what is it do you think I am not doing that you are doing?
JMO.