SPARC Forums

Main Forums => General Issues => Topic started by: StPaulieGirl on Nov 21, 2003, 11:48:14 PM

Title: More on Terri Schiavo
Post by: StPaulieGirl on Nov 21, 2003, 11:48:14 PM
Sorry's all freerepublic all the time...

CLEARWATER, Fla. (AP) - Gov. Jeb Bush asked an appeals court Friday to disqualify a judge in the constitutional battle over a law that allowed doctors to reinsert a brain-damaged woman's feeding tube.
The appeal came a day after Pinellas-Pasco Circuit Judge W. Douglas Baird refused to step aside as requested by Bush.

The governor wants Baird off the case after he said at a hearing last week that the hastily passed law intruded on Terri Schiavo's privacy rights and was "presumptively unconstitutional." Schiavo's husband Michael has offered those arguments and is suing Bush to challenge the law.

Baird "cannot continue to preside over this matter without being swayed by his own personal biases and prejudices in this case," Bush said in an affidavit filed with the appeal.

State courts have repeatedly affirmed Michael Schiavo's right as his wife's legal guardian to have the tube removed. Terri Schiavo went without water and nutrition for six days before the Legislature and Bush stepped in Oct. 21 to have the tube reinserted.

Baird said he didn't contest the facts in Bush's motion to disqualify him, but it didn't reach the legal threshold required to recuse himself.

Meanwhile, another judge also refused Friday to disqualify himself in a separate battle over Terri Schiavo's guardianship.

Circuit Judge George Greer denied the request by Terri Schiavo's parents, Bob and Mary Schindler, who are trying to get Michael Schiavo removed as their daughter's guardian.

Greer has presided over the case the longest, and the Schindlers have tried three previous times to get him off the case. They charge he favors their son-in-law.

Michael Schiavo has been battling his in-laws in court for years to remove his wife's feeding tube, saying she would not to be kept alive artificially. She suffered severe brain damage after collapsing in 1990.

Doctors and Greer have ruled she has been in a persistent vegetative state since then, but her parents believe she is aware of her surroundings and could be rehabilitated.

AP-ES-11-21-03 1348EST

Title: RE: This Judge is just as sick as the husband.......
Post by: Indigo Mom on Nov 22, 2003, 09:44:39 AM
I feel for her parents.  My goodness...can you imagine?????????????

Common sense says that when a person is brought to the hospital completely screwed up, TESTS MUST BE DONE.

When a spouse is dead set on having their partner KILLED, continues to attempt to get her death going, SOMETHING IS WRONG.

I talked to my hub about this.  I described this situation without giving details that it's a "real" case.  I asked him if he'd put me to death.  He said that if everything medically possible was done, and I was in a state where I was a vegetable, then yes, he'd want to help me die.

Note....." if everything medically possible was done"

This "man" has done NOTHING but try to kill this woman...I he pissed that she didn't die from the horrible beating she so clearly received???????

Common sense also says that this guy will NOT remove himself as guardian because to do so would leave the door wide open for him to become "bubbas bitch" in prison forever.
Title: RE: This Judge is just as sick as the husband.......
Post by: lah101 on Nov 22, 2003, 01:55:19 PM
And just why does he want to let her die?  Hmmm?  Maybe  it is the fact there is money involved?  So why whould he  give up guardianship?  This man is sick.  From what i have seen, she is interacting with her parents and is not braindead---so how can they justify just killing her?

Do unto other as you would have them do unto you-----but do it to them FIRST!
Title: RE: More on Terri Schiavo
Post by: KAT on Nov 22, 2003, 03:03:53 PM
My thoughts are that he just doesn't want to divorce her. She'd be appointed an attorney to look out for her interests in the martial assets including  ALIMONY!!!!

Heck, he's already gone on with his life. Why doesn't he just let her keep going on with hers? Her parents are willing to care for her, they gave her life he shouldn't have a choice in her death.

Title: Sorry, have to disagree
Post by: nosonew on Nov 22, 2003, 09:00:04 PM
As a registered nurse, I have seen many patients lie in suffering waiting for the end.  Many have made their wishes clear on paper, DO NOTHING to prolong my life, however, if the wife/husband doesn't agree with what the patient wrote, they may over-ride the decision.  Thus, the patient ends up on a ventilator, tube feedings, gets bed-sores, muscles waste away, the pain is excrutiating, all so the person "left" feels better.  

In this particular case, the woman was so severely brain damaged in a car accident that she is in a vegetative state and has been for over ten years.  Is it likely she and her husband discussed what they would like done if this happened?  We likely will never know.  However, if my spouse was in a vegetative state, kept alive thru tube feedings, unable to communicate for over 10 years, I would let him die peacefully.  Remove the tubes!  

I realize the parents are under the misconception that if a person opens their eyes or muscles twitch that they can "eventually" come back.  However, eyes opening and muscle twitching are common events with vegetative states, some even smile, grunt, etc.  Thus, giving those living real lives a sense of hope.

So, what this really means is: Quality of life or Quantity of life.  I prefer quality over quantity myself, and everyone important to me knows it.
Title: RE: With all due respect................
Post by: Indigo Mom on Nov 23, 2003, 07:51:53 AM
You must read all the doctors reports, the bone scan report, read it all and you'll see that this bastard deserves nothing more than life wihtout parole.

Had he NOT played this "protect me" game 13 years ago, she would have a better quality of life.  He chose to force her into a slow death.

I'm not sure about this car accident thing.  What I read on the website, hub suddenly woke up at 6am and his wife was a zombie.  I heard nothing about a car accident.  If it was simple as that, then yes.

But the facts surrounding the case show this man is evil.  

He's NOT trying to spare her pain, he's killing her.  Can you give me one good reason why he refuses to divorce her though he's got a girlfriend, a child by her, and apparently another one on the way?

money money money...and protection for his actions.

Title: The Village Voice has an opinion .....(swiped from freerepublic)
Post by: StPaulieGirl on Nov 24, 2003, 12:47:24 AM
It's Not Only About Terri Schiavo
The Village Voice ^ | November 21, 2003 | Nat Hentoff

Posted on 11/22/2003 11:44 AM PST by sweetliberty

People already have the right to refuse unwanted treatment, and suicide is not illegal. What we oppose is a public policy that singles out individuals for legalized killing based on their health status. This violates the Americans With Disabilities Act, and denies us equal protection of the laws.

Disability opposition to this ultimate form of discrimination has been ignored by most media and courts, but countless people with disabilities have already died before their time. —Not Dead Yet: The Resistance, a disability rights organization, Forest Park, Illinois, October 28, 2003


In 1920, a prominent German lawyer, Karl Binding, and a distinguished German forensic psychiatrist, Alfred Hoche, wrote a brief but deadly book, The Permission To Destroy Life Unworthy of Life. In his new book, The Coming of the Third Reich (Penguin), Richard Evans notes that Binding and Hoche emphasized that "the incurably ill and the mentally retarded were costing millions of marks and taking up thousands of much-needed hospital beds. So doctors should be allowed to put them to death."

Then came Adolf Hitler, who thought this was a splendid, indeed capital, idea. The October 1, 2003, New York Daily News ran this Associated Press report from Berlin:

"A new study reveals Nazi Germany killed at least 200,000 people because of their disabilities—people deemed physically inferior, said a report compiled by Germany's Federal Archive. Researchers found evidence that doctors and hospital staff used gas, drugs and starvation to kill disabled men, women and children at medical facilities in Germany, Austria, Poland and the Czech Republic. . . .

"The Nazis launched the drive to root out what they called 'worthless lives' [and 'useless eaters'] in the summer of 1939, pre-dating their full-scale organization of the Holocaust, in which they killed 6 million Jews." (Emphasis added).

The more than 200,000 "worthless lives" terminated by the Nazis before the Holocaust included few Jews. Most of those killed were other Germans considered unfit to be included in "the master race."

Among the defendants at the Nuremberg trials of Nazi leaders and their primary accomplices in the mass murder were German doctors who had gone along with the official policy of euthanasia. An American doctor, Leo Alexander, who spoke German, had interviewed the German physician-defendants before the trials, and then served as an expert on the American staff at Nuremberg.

In an article in the July 14, 1949, New England Journal of Medicine, Dr. Alexander warned that the Nazis' crimes against humanity had "started from small beginnings . . . merely a subtle shift in emphasis in the basic attitude of the physicians. It started with the acceptance, basic in the euthanasia movement, that there is such a thing as life not worthy to be lived." That shift in emphasis among physicians, said Dr. Alexander, could happen here, in America.

Actually, the devaluing of apparent "imperfect life" had begun years before, in the United States. Various academics, in and out of the medical profession, had successfully advocated and instituted a eugenics movement—the perfecting of future generations of Americans by deciding who, depending on their hereditary genes, would be allowed to have children. The unfit would no longer be permitted to reproduce.

These American eugenicists provided German proponents of a "master race" with inspiration. As Robert Jay Lifton wrote in his invaluable book The Nazi Doctors (Basic Books), "A rising interest in eugenics [in America had] led, by 1920, to the enactment of laws in twenty-five states providing for compulsory sterilization of the criminally insane and other people considered genetically inferior." (Emphasis added).

Paying attention in Germany, Heinrich Himmler, one of Hitler's executioners, said the Nazis were "like the plant-breeding specialist who, when he wants to breed a pure new strain . . . goes over the field to cull the unwanted plants." Under the Nazis, there were eugenics courts to decide who could have children. In the United States Supreme Court (Buck v. Bell, 1927), Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, ruling that 18-year-old Carrie Buck should be involuntarily sterilized, famously wrote:

"If instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime, or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing of their kind. . . . Three generations of imbeciles are enough." Only Justice Pierce Butler dissented.

In this country, the eugenics movement lost its cachet for a time because the Nazis had gone from sterilization of the disabled to herding the religiously, racially, and politically unfit into gas chambers.

But there has been an American revival of eugenics in certain elite circles. A few years ago, an archconservative who had talked with some of the present-day, would-be purifiers of the American stock told me they were delighted at the deaths from AIDS of homosexuals.

But to protect the disabled from "mercy" killings, as well as eugenicists, another movement was forming here. Not long before he died, Dr. Alexander read an article in the April 12, 1984, New England Journal of Medicine by 10 physicians—part of the growing "death with dignity" brigade. They were from such prestigious medical schools as Harvard, Johns Hopkins, and the University of Virginia. These distinguished healers wrote that when a patient was in a "persistent vegetative state," it was "morally justifiable" to "withhold antibiotics and artificial nutrition (feeding tubes) and hydration, as well as other forms of life-sustaining treatment, allowing the patient to die." They ignored the finding that not all persistent vegetative states are permanent.

After reading the article, Dr. Alexander said to a friend: "It is much like Germany in the '20s and '30s. The barriers against killing are coming down."

Next week: The growing conviction among American doctors, bioethicists, and hospital ethics committees that it is "futile" to try to treat certain patients, and therefore, medical professionals should have the power to decide—even against the wishes of the family—when to allow these valueless lives to end.

If the courts finally permit the husband of brain-damaged Terri Schiavo to continue to press for her death by starvation—by again removing her feeding tube—more of the barriers to killing may come down in other states. So this isn't only about Terri Schiavo. It could be about you.

Title: I agree with you
Post by: VeronicaGia on Nov 24, 2003, 12:18:44 PM
IMHO, once a person is married, their spouse becomes their family, parents come second.  Her parents lost their rights once Terry got married.  Now, if he wanted to do this immediately after she went into a coma, I could understand.  But the fact is her parents refuse to let go.

And the courts?  Forget them.  We've all seen how well they do in other family issues....NOT!

Title: One one hand you make a good point
Post by: StPaulieGirl on Nov 24, 2003, 01:29:55 PM
When a man and woman marry, the parents do come second(well, in a perfect world).  That's the way it should be.  

Now, if we see our adult son or daughter being mistreated, wouldn't we try and intervene?  Terri's folks trusted her husband to do the right thing  for several years.  After Terri's husband received the settlement, all of a sudden he remembered that she didn't want to be on life support.  He ordered that no therapy of any kind be given to her.  That settlement was a trust fund for Terri's medical needs.  Terri ISN'T on life support; she breathes and functions on her own.  She can probably swallow food and liquid, but medical personnel have been forbidden to try.  Let's give her a chance.  Let's put her in a wheel chair so she can get some sunshine, fresh air, and stimuli....

At least Terri has parents who care.  
Title: The 'American Partisan' has something to say
Post by: StPaulieGirl on Nov 24, 2003, 09:06:49 PM

Suspicious Circumstances -
The Strange Case of Terri Schiavo
by Jennifer King, Managing Editor

November 19, 2003

As the case of Terri Schiavo (right) slips away from the front pages, it is worth revisiting the odd twists and tangles of this bizarre case. There are mysterious connections and odd characters which, so far, have failed to elicit the curiosity of the mainstream media. To recap the case, Terri Schiavo collapsed at home in 1990 under suspicious circumstances. Her lapse into a vigorously debated “vegetative” state is usually blamed on a potassium deficiency, but hospital admittance records also show evidence of trauma to her neck.

Further questions arise from testimony of one of her friends, who allege that Terri was unhappy and contemplating a divorce from her husband Michael. Michael is alleged to have been possessive and jealous, at one point falling into a rage when Terri spent $80 on a haircut.

After the accident, Michael became Terri’s guardian, and he used that position to seek a hefty malpractice award. A sympathetic jury took the seemingly distraught Michael at his word, awarding him $1.2 million, earmarked for Terri’s rehabilitation, with an additional $300,000 going directly to him for “loss of consortium”. After receiving the award, however, Michael seemingly lost all interest in Terri’s rehabilitation. Several nurses who worked with Terri in the early 1990's filed affidavits which detail some very troubling events. Nurse Carolyn Johnson alleges that Michael Schiavo was adamant about not providing any rehabilitation at all for Terri - including common therapies such as placing a towel in her hands to keep them from seizing up. Nurse Heidi Law testified that she would feed Terri with a wet washcloth. Terri was able to swallow these without trouble. Nurse Law also testified that Michael refused to allow any therapy whatsoever, including the usual range of motion exercises. Nurse Carla Saver Iyer had the most damning testimony. Iyer alleged that Michael would enter Terri’s room, saying, “Has the bitch died yet?” Iyer says that Michael was “elated” each time Terri’s condition worsened, telling her that when Terri died he was “going to be rich” and that he planned on buying a car, a boat, and traveling to Europe. Law and Iyer both allege that they heard Terri speak, saying, “help me” and “momma”.

Michael Schiavo clearly has some explaining to do. A supposedly “loving” husband only carrying out his disabled wife’s orders, surely wouldn’t behave this way. The Schindlers, Terri’s parents, further allege that Michael withheld antibiotics when Terri developed an infection, refused to clean her teeth for seven years and has kept her family and friends from visiting her. Most outrageously, when the feeding tube was disconnected and Terri lay dying, Michael also denied her last Communion - on the basis that the Host could be considered food.

Another oddity enters the case in the personage of Schiavo’s lawyer, George Felos. Felos is a noted “right to die” lawyer, who has written a book on how he “communicates” with the souls of disabled people. Felos asserts that he can “hear their screams” and that they “want to be released.” Felos was infuriated when Terri’s feeding tube was replaced. He angrily fenounced the move, saying bizarrely that Terri’s “deathbed experience was unlawfully stopped.” Felos, a past member of the Hemlock Society, clearly hopes to advance along the Crusade of Death, with maybe a book and/or movie deal thrown in for good measure. Felos was Chairman of the Board of the Hospice of the Florida Suncoast, when Terri was secretly whisked out of the hospital and taken there to die.

What does Michael Schiavo gain from killing his wife? Both he and Felos have said that there is only about $60,000 left from the malpractice award monies, but they refuse to make bank account information available to either the Schindlers or the public. Michael’s professed reasons for ending Terri’s life ring particularly hollow in light of the fact that he has been living with his girlfriend since 1995. They have one child, and another is on the way. The Schindlers allegedly offered to let him keep the malpractice money if he would just divorce Terri and move on. So why won’t he?

Several possible incentives exist. One is the insurance money. None was used as mandated on Terri’s rehabilitation, and it could have been invested. By now the sum could be substantially higher, even with his legal fees. Fr. Robert Johansen has also theorized that, by divorcing Terri in a community property state, Michael stands to lose half of his possessions and other monies. Better just to kill her off and keep what’s left of the insurance money and all of his worldly goods.

Terri’s family believes that Michael is intent upon killing her for the same reason he denied her rehabilitation - he’s got something to hide and he doesn’t want Terri waking up and talking about it. Several medical documents in their possession lend credence to this theory.

Michael must be made to answer some very serious questions. If he isn’t trying to end Terri’s life for nefarious reasons there must be another answer. At the very least, he should be called to account on why he spent money earmarked for Terri’s recovery instead on lawyers who are trying mightily to have her killed. ***

© 2003 Jennifer King

This is the first time I've ever seen this publication.  I'm going to browse through the rest of the site.

Title: How could you even compare the two????
Post by: nosonew on Nov 24, 2003, 10:04:01 PM
Hello!!! I don't believe I have read anywhere that the Nazi's executed only Jewish vegetables??!!  They executed thousands of men, women and children who were healthy and full of life and promise.  I feel very sorry for Terri and her family.  And I also think if the parents (whom the father probably walked her down the aisle and "GAVE HER AWAY" to this man) should be given the option of taking responsibility for her care and all medical costs if that is what is troubling the husband.  

As a parent, I too would do anything within my power to care for and help rehabilitate my child.  However, with a medical background, I also know when it is futile and feel quality of life is much prefered over quantity.  See the difference?  Quality vs. Quantity.  She was loved in life, and even more so, in death.  Let her go in peace so she may walk, sing, and be free of pain, and perhaps dance with the angels.
Title: Might want to reread the article
Post by: StPaulieGirl on Nov 24, 2003, 11:19:40 PM

"A new study reveals Nazi Germany killed at least 200,000 people because of their disabilities—people deemed physically inferior, said a report compiled by Germany's Federal Archive. Researchers found evidence that doctors and hospital staff used gas, drugs and starvation to kill disabled men, women and children at medical facilities in Germany, Austria, Poland and the Czech Republic. . . .

"The Nazis launched the drive to root out what they called 'worthless lives' in the summer of 1939, pre-dating their full-scale organization of the Holocaust, in which they killed 6 million Jews." (Emphasis added).

The more than 200,000 "worthless lives" terminated by the Nazis before the Holocaust included few Jews. Most of those killed were other Germans considered unfit to be included in "the master race."

Terri is alive.  She is not on life support.  As a  person with a medical backround, you should know the difference.
Title: The parents are telling their side only
Post by: VeronicaGia on Nov 25, 2003, 02:56:47 PM
I read somewhere (don't know where, possibly Fox News) that yes, he got a settlement, and spent it all keeping Terri in the hospital and taking care of her.  He didn't spend it on himself......

Read both sides of the story, you are only presenting one side.
Title: Ah, here's where I read some of it, as I am a regular "Reason" reader
Post by: VeronicaGia on Nov 25, 2003, 03:00:39 PM

October 23, 2003

Is Terri Schiavo Dead?

Eat, drink, and vegetate

Ronald Bailey

Terri Schiavo has been in a persistent vegetative state since 1990. Her husband wants to withdraw the nutrition and hydration her body has been receiving and allow her body to die. Her mother, father, and sister—and now Florida Governor Jeb Bush—want to continue supplying her body with food and water until... what? She wakes up? Dies of pneumonia?

What is a persistent vegetative state? According to the National Institute for Neurological Disorders and Stroke people in PVS "have lost their thinking abilities and awareness of their surroundings, but retain non-cognitive function and normal sleep patterns. Even though those in a persistent vegetative state lose their higher brain functions, other key functions such as breathing and circulation remain relatively intact. Spontaneous movements may occur, and the eyes may open in response to external stimuli. They may even occasionally grimace, cry, or laugh. Although individuals in a persistent vegetative state may appear somewhat normal, they do not speak and they are unable to respond to commands." People suffering from PVS can generally be distinguished from afflicted but cognitively intact patients who suffer from "locked-in syndrome" by the fact that "locked in" patients can track visual stimuli and use eye blinks for communication.

According to most neurological experts, Terri Schiavo is definitely PVS—her eyes do not really track visual stimuli and she cannot communicate using eye blinks. However, Terri Schiavo's parents have posted several short ambiguous video clips online which are meant to show that Ms. Schiavo responds to stimuli. But what they show seems to fit an AMA's report of how PVS patients can respond to environmental cues without being aware. Specifically, the report notes, "Despite an 'alert demeanor', observation and examination repeatedly fail to demonstrate coherent speech, comprehension of the words of examiners or attendants, or any capacity to initiate or make consistently purposeful movements. Movements are largely confined to reflex withdrawals or posturing in response to noxious or other external stimuli. Since neither visual nor auditory signals require cortical integrity to stimulate brief orienting reflexes, some vegetative patients may turn the head or dart the eyes toward a noise or moving objects. However, PVS patients neither fixate upon nor consistently follow moving objects with the eyes, nor do they show other than startle responses to loud stimuli. They blink when air movements stimulate the cornea but not in the presence of visual threats per se."

Ms. Schiavo has been in this state for 13 years. What are her chances of recovering at least some awareness? Minnesota neurologist Ronald Cranford told the Washington Post, "There has never been a documented case of someone recovering after having been in a persistent vegetative state for more than 3 months. However, the journal Brain Injury reported the case, of a 26-year-old woman who, after being diagnosed as suffering from a persistent vegetative state for six months, recovered consciousness and, though severely disabled, is largely cognitively intact. However, it is generally agreed that if a patient doesn't become responsive before six months, his or her prognosis is extremely poor. A report on PVS by the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council finds that "patients in a state of post-coma unresponsiveness may emerge from it to become responsive," that "the probability of emergence becomes progressively less over time," and that "there is general agreement that emergence is less likely in older people, and in the victims of hypoxic brain damage." Terri Schiavo is the way she is because oxygen was cut off to her brain for 14 minutes; in other words, she suffered severe hypoxic brain damage.

So is Terri Schiavo still alive? The odds are way against it. It's time that her long-suffering parents and the grandstanding politicians let her go in peace.

Ronald Bailey is Reason's science correspondent.
Title: RE: Ah, here's where I read some of it, as I am a regular- I'll answer both post...
Post by: StPaulieGirl on Nov 25, 2003, 04:04:00 PM
First of all, Michael Schiavo is a court appointed guardian.  Not just Terri's husband.  You must submit annual accounting of funds used to the court.  You are not allowed to spend the money for your personal needs, such as attorney fees, when the money was earmarked for rehabilitative therapy.  I was a court appointed guardian for my mom for 3 years.  You will account for every single nickel.  I had to post bond every year for the privelege of writing checks.  The money is for the sole benefit of the conservatee.  Of course you can charge a fee for your services, but all I asked for was the bond payments back.  Back to topic, Michael Schiavo needs to account for every dime he has spent out of Terri's medical trust fund.  

As for the Reason article, it's very well written.  Mr. Bailey has a right to his opinion; however I wonder if he bothered to speak to all the doctors and neurologists that say Terri has a chance of improvement?  Notice I said improvement.  She'll never be normal again.  There is a story that someone posted regarding a woman who either had PVS, or was in a coma.  I should have bookmarked the article, but I think I can find it.  It turns out that this woman was mentally aware the whole time, but was "locked in".  She went through the tortures of hell when her food and water was cut off.  Like I said, I need to find the article, but I think she managed to move her eyes or fingers, the "procedure" was halted, and now she does lectures.

Why would anyone take a chance that Terri is completely aware about what's happening to her?  Serial killers get put to death more humanely.

Why won't Michael Schiavo just divorce his wife, marry his gf, and move on?  He has a child, and one on the way.  Just let Terri's parents take care of her.  That's all they're asking for.  

Speaking of just letting go, why won't Michael Schiavo let go?  Why?

Grandstanding politicians?  Jeb in 2008!  I want that guy in my corner :)
Title: If he's out of line with expenses
Post by: VeronicaGia on Nov 25, 2003, 07:04:15 PM
Don't you think someone would have brought that up?  I've seen nothing about this, but he got the money 10 years ago.  So why isn't someone trying to have him removed with proof that he spent the money on himself?  

I know how it works.  My best friend is legal guardian to her mother, and has to do all this.  Though state laws vary, I know she has to account for everything.  So why hasn't he been removed as her guardian?  If he's not accounting for the money on a yearly basis in a proper manner, the court WILL do something about it.

As for his actions, I cannot know what he's been through in the last 10+ years.  I don't know how my DH or I would react to such a thing because I've never been there.
Title: RE: If he's out of line with expenses
Post by: StPaulieGirl on Nov 25, 2003, 07:49:29 PM
No one has brought up financial improprieties, because they're too busy trying to gain custody of Terri.  

I don't think Michael's attorney, George Felos, is doing this Pro Bono.  Then again you never know.  Felos is an active "right to die" proponent. It is documented that Judge Greer also has hospice ties.  This is a very frustrating situation on all levels, from the dignity of a human being, to social engineering, to corruption.   Unless a new judge is appointed, it's safe to say that no investigation of the trust fund money will be launched.  I hope that Governor Bush wins the legal battle to clean this mess up.  Greer needs to be recalled and disbarred, and so does Felos.  

Who knows what anyone would do when faced with a situation like this?  I know that you wouldn't hurt someone on purpose just to shut them up.
Title: RE: The 'American Partisan' has something to say
Post by: kiddosmom on Nov 26, 2003, 09:39:38 AM
No matter what the 'Husbands' or 'Parents' motives are and although there is legalitise involved, I know that I personally would not wish to live as a vegtible, or even mentally retarded. I would prefer to pass away. Who would want to live not being able to move anything other then mebe your eyes? and maybe grunt? That is not life, it is just existing.
Title: RE: The 'American Partisan' has something to say
Post by: StPaulieGirl on Nov 26, 2003, 10:28:05 AM
Of course no one wants to live like that, but consider the method to dispose of such human beings.  We don't know how much Terri can understand and feel.  

Maybe we should just go with euthanasia.  Give all our handicapped relatives lethal injections.  I'm thinking about the implications of this, beyond Terri herself.  If the courts allow her to be starved to death, what will stop them from carrying this further?  Remember, it started out as a choice, now we're arguing about pulling out full term babies by their feet, and sucking their brains out.  It took 30 years for abortion to come to that.
Title: RE: The 'American Partisan' has something to say
Post by: kiddosmom on Nov 26, 2003, 10:52:50 AM
leathal injection? prisoners get that,, who is to say a prisoner who could live out a healthy life should get that but someone who cannot move and is trapped in a shell never to speak has to lay there in pain cannot?

its a matter of personal choice.

I frankly believe in the death penalty, so long as the person is guilty.
And i do not believe anyone would want to go through what this woman has had to endure.
Title: See that's the problem
Post by: StPaulieGirl on Nov 26, 2003, 11:22:29 AM
Terri's feeding tube was removed for 6 days.  After it was reinserted, she bounced back.  This means that if a court orders her to be starved to death, it could take upwards of 14 days!  She's a fighter, therefore imo, she wants to stay alive.  If she didn't, she would have died years ago.

My point about lethal injection is that hardcore criminals have it easier than Terri (or anyone else subjected to this).  If this is to be the standard for healthcare in the future, they should just shoot them up with a lethal dose of morphine and be done with it.  

What about parents who have babies with Cerebral Palsy, Spina Bifida, Down's Syndrome, etc?  They have the hardest job in the world, yet they love their children, and accept the burden for the most part.  Should those babies be euthanized?  I mean come on, these kids are a burden on everybody!

Christopher Reeves almost died, but because he's rich and famous, he got the intensive therapy he needed.....and now he won't shut the hell up. (opposing political views lol) But see?  If he was Joe Schmoe, who knows what his condition would be?  What if he had a wife who had caused his injuries and wanted to shut him up?  She's messing around with all kinds of men, and wants him to just go away, so she can spend the settlement money on herself?  Is that right?  No way, Joe Schmoe has a right to whatever medical therapy is available to help him.

I believe in the death penalty too.  I also believe that prisons shouldn't have weight rooms or tv sets.  Put them out on road construction gangs, and work their worthless asses off.
Title: RE: See that's the problem
Post by: kiddosmom on Nov 26, 2003, 12:15:38 PM
I agree with you 100% on the prisoner opinion!

I have worked in nursing homes where the patients are in better condition then this woman, and listened to them scream throughout the night to help them die, because they are paralized and cannot move. They have their minds, yet not a body and they do not wish to live. Yet they are made to because they have no choice. They live with feeding tubes because they refuse to eat through their mouths because they want to die,, the only thing keeping them alive is that feeding tube. NO I do not think a person in any shape or form should be starved to death, and if this man refused to let her get rehabilitaion should pay for that. The medical opinion now, 13 yrs or however many yrs  later is that this woman is past any kind of recovery, this is NOW her suffering,, I am not talking 13 yrs ago when it could have helped.
If he did do something, she is now beyond telling, unfortunatly.
Parents with children that have disabilities have to endure hell itself for their children and are the strongest people in the world and deserve every respect.
No parent wants to let go of their child, but I would not want my child to suffer, just to keep their body alive.
Title: RE: See that's the problem
Post by: StPaulieGirl on Nov 26, 2003, 01:56:38 PM
If you worked in a nursing home,  then you know the difference.  I would suggest Risperdal for the screamers.  Being that agitated does no one any good.  If a patient refuses to  eat by mouth, then ethically (remember ethics?), the facility needs to provide nourishment via entubation.  Lots of people with mental disorders refuse food, do we put up with their antics?

Do any of these patients have regular visitors?

Until I knew my mom was safe, I made daily visits.  Some of these places are down right disgusting.

Terri breathes on her own.  What's the big deal about a feeding tube?  Get her out in a wheel chair.  Take her to the park.  Embrace her and let her know that people care.  I believe that having support from family makes all the difference in recovery.

Title: RE: OMG!
Post by: Indigo Mom on Nov 26, 2003, 03:58:39 PM
-----I know that I personally would not wish to live as a vegtible, or even mentally retarded. I would prefer to pass away. Who would want to live not being able to move anything other then mebe your eyes? and maybe grunt? That is not life, it is just existing.-----

Existing is living.  With every ounce of respect you do deserve, I must say...DAMN....that's barbaric thinking.

Thousands upon thousands of less than desirable people have been exterminated because of thinking just like this.  Many moons ago, a person was tossed into an insane asylum and ultimately beaten to death by a system who was afraid of those "different" than themselves.

My little brother is mentally handicapped.  He's retarded, he'll never progress past the age of 6, he has autistic "qualities", he has add, he'll NEVER be able to take care of himself.  He IS a burden.  He's only a few steps above Terri on the "veggie" scale.  Does he not have the right to life?

Who decides who lives?  Who dies?  I can answer that....none of us.

Thinking that people who aren't perfect don't deserve life is a tad bit awful.  Terri is NOT a vegetable.  She wasn't born a vegetable, she wasn't raised a vegetable.  Someone made her that way...and I do disagree with her being called a vegetable, veggies get better treatment than she has so far.

Now, I must bring this in "legal" terms.  Doesn't Terri, by law, have the right to protection from the person who harms her most?  Doesn't Terri, by law, have the right to medical attention?  Both of those basic rights have been violated for 13 years.  

Her husband is CLEARLY a criminal.  He shouldn't be allowed another girlfriend, any more children.  He should be sitting in prison right now because what he did to her was heinous.  He took her life.  He created this "vegetable" like you guys are calling it...yet he's walking free.  He's able to use the courts to further his abuse on this woman.  Hasn't he had enough?  Nah...he won't be happy until her body is cremated leaving all traces of FACT to dust.  

Her parents SHOULD have a say in this womans life.  After all, it is they who are truly concerned about their daughter.  If NOTHING else....they would be allowed to let her die with DIGNITY and GRACE!  Not starving to death over a 2 week period.  

Jumping off my high horse now.

Title: RE: See that's the problem
Post by: kiddosmom on Nov 26, 2003, 04:02:07 PM
Actually, alot of the screamers were in their right mind. They can carry on a conversation with you, know what day it is - so long as they are kept up with it-  recognise whoever is in the room ect.. they could not get meds unless they were ordered by the physisian. These were older people who DO have family members coming,, at least every few days, and by refusing oral feedings is the only way they know how to try and die like they want,, and when someone takes that choice, they suffer, they cannot get up and leave to protest, so they scream.
Imagine yourself in the position of Terry,, would you want to be there?
After so many years, this stimuli is not going to produce any desired affects, embrace her? she does not recognise what an embrace is anymore. As for getting her out in a wheel chair, and taking her to the park,,,, Once you are a tube feeder, you are pretty much in that bed till the day you die. They have to put the tube into the body and the only time it comes out is to have it changed. And as infection is a major factor....
Many people are taken to the Hospitals from accidents and are as brain dead as Terry, if you insert feeding tubes the body will still live,, if you do not, they use the organs as donations to people who are dying.
I honestly feel for this woman and what her family must have been through. I would not make my child suffer so, or myself!
Title: RE: OMG!
Post by: kiddosmom on Nov 26, 2003, 04:16:35 PM
-----I know that I personally would not wish to live as a vegtible, or even mentally retarded. I would prefer to pass away----

I said my personal preferance.
I never once said anything about children who are born with disabilities other then their parents are the strongest people and deserve the highest respect.
To me existing is not living, living is being able to breathe and eat and move and smile and laugh, and know what is going on around me.
You are right in what you say this man who withheld medical care to his wife deserves.

---Who decides who lives? Who dies? I can answer that....none of us.---
i disagree, if it were not for medical care Terry would die. But it is someones choice to keep her alive.

The only thing i ask,, Put yourself in TERRY's place,, not the parents, not the POS that calls himself a husband.

I have 2 children and it would kill me if this happened to them.
Title: RE: well....whatever!
Post by: Indigo Mom on Nov 26, 2003, 04:20:42 PM I jumped again.  So I responded quickly and without thought.  Sue me.......lololololol

-----The only thing i ask,, Put yourself in TERRY's place,, not the parents, not the POS that calls himself a husband.-----

Ok, will do.  As I'm laying at the bottom of the stairs after being brutally assaulted by a man called husband, I'd be thinking...damn man...I hope the doctors can prove he did this to me that way he can never do it to another human being again.  Course, I'm thinking about all this before I black out......................
Title: RE: well....whatever!
Post by: kiddosmom on Nov 26, 2003, 04:24:07 PM
my thoughts exactly,,,only add the fact that he denied all medical therapy,, and it is now 13 yrs later and you will never wake up.......

And Terry's position would be?
Title: RE: well....whatever!
Post by: Indigo Mom on Nov 26, 2003, 04:28:04 PM
-----And Terry's position would be?-----

Hopefully dying with dignity and grace, like I believe she should...and that's IF she's absolutely INCAPABLE of recovering.  Oh, and NO cremation until a thorough autopsy is done.

Then Indys position would be to smash the balls of the monster who did this.  In fact, if you look at all the details, I believe he's up for the death penalty.
Title: RE: OMG!
Post by: Peanutsdad on Nov 26, 2003, 04:32:35 PM
Actually,, beyond the "right to be emergently stabilized" you have no medical "rights" to treatment beyond those you can pay for.

Medical care is not a "right" in this country. It is a service,, either paid for by you, your insurance company or the tax payers ie medicare/medicaid.

Whether or not Terris husband is heinous or criminal, remains for the courts to decide. But, speaking medically, after 13 years in a vegetative state, you have a better chance of being struck by a meteor than she has of making a recovery.

In our family, ie, my mom, dad, brothers, sister, myself, SO, we all know our wishes in this type of situation. Pull the plug, turn off the machines, stop tube feedings, allow us to pass with some semblence of dignity.
Title: RE: well....whatever!
Post by: kiddosmom on Nov 26, 2003, 04:33:40 PM
Exactly what I am trying to get at.... They have had 13 yrs of medical evaluations, there is no miracle cure. This woman needs to not suffer anymore. And be greived.
AND then they need to go after the FUSOB that did it to her.
Title: RE: OMG!
Post by: MKx2 on Nov 26, 2003, 04:51:18 PM
[em]"Pull the plug, turn off the machines, stop tube feedings, allow us to pass with some semblence of dignity."[/em]

Amen to that PD ... couldn't agree with you more.

My Grandmother passed away according to her wishes - in her own bed, in her own room, in my sister's home, with my sister and I with her for her last 10 days.  It was the way she wanted to do it.  She had a wonderful gerontologist who had been unable to fulfill the same wishes for his own mother, and understood the needs of our family.  We had Hospice come in several times a day ... her passing was filled with dignity, peace and the love of her two granddaughters.

But taking the emotional side out of it ... PD you're right.  At this point nothing short of a divine intervention would be able to bring this poor woman back to any semblance of "quality of life."

Title: Agree with Kiddos mom, Peanutsdad & MK2
Post by: nosonew on Nov 26, 2003, 06:22:11 PM
Regardless of the facts of the case (which I am not aware of, thought I read somewhere that she had been in a car accident), however, regardless of CAUSE of injuries, (and why isn't he in jail if he did do this???)

Point is, I have been a nurse for 11 years, have seen horrid things, and this could also turn into a Jack Kivorkian (sp?) discussion, but I think patients, who have irreversible sustained horrific pain, are terminal due to illness which will make family destitute due to the dying process (which can take a long time), and those who are in a chronic vegetative state with no real sense of improvement to which they will lead a productive life of ANY KIND (if paralyzed, many are still productive if their BRAINS still function), should be allowed to choose death.

I think if the husband got out of this situation, turned it over to Terri's parents, after a year or two they may choose to let her rest in peace for her well-being.  They may be so caught up in the "Get him back for what he did" and "He's not getting any money out of her death", that they are not looking at the bigger picture.

St. Paulies girl, I appreciate your stance, however, have you ever been in the position to make this decision, see it wanting to be made? Yet, because of "ethics" the person is MADE TO SUFFER?  I hope you never do.  

Title: The point one has to suffer
Post by: StPaulieGirl on Nov 26, 2003, 07:43:20 PM
Why isn't he in jail?  Well just check out all the stories about judicial misconduct on this site, and you'll get a clue.  Judges suck major ass.

Terri's guardian has orchestrated all treatment, which I presume includes pain relief.  She's screwed, glued, and and tattooed.

I am not one of those nutty pro lifers; however I believe that we as a society have to take care of those who are like Terri, lest we lose what is left of our humanity.  Terri doesn't have  to suffer.  When God calls her home, she'll go to Him.  In the meantime, we as a society, need to make sure that people's basic rights are not violated.
Title: RE: The thing is.............
Post by: Indigo Mom on Nov 26, 2003, 09:04:30 PM
She's a human who's been horribly abused to get her to this place, and still being horribly abused by her maniac.  

She responds positively to her mother, negatively to her maniac.  Nurses have written statements as to her "state" after the maniac is in her room.  Doors closed, mind you, and no one is "allowed" in there while he's "visiting".  Sweating profusely, hands clenched, definitely frightened.  

This whole debate is about what "we" would want for ourselves.  Who's to say she's miserable?  Who's to say she is in such a state that would warrant her to be killed?  We can't say that.  We will NEVER know what it's like to be in HER mind.  She could be perfectly happy, though to me and you, that would be surprising.  We're basing it on our feelings.  I can't imagine wanting to live like she is...but then again, I've never been there.  

I believe her maniac should be removed from being her Guardian, her parents need to be labeled with it.  They need to do EVERY imaginable test to determine the how's and the why's.  Would you be happy not knowing "how" your daughter turned into this?  Then, after all is said and done, they need to bring her home.  They need to do whatever it takes to make her comfortable, then, when it's time, she can go.

She's already been taken off life support and she lived.  What does that tell you?  It's NOT her time to go!  If she was a vegetable, unable to live off support, she surely wouldn't have survived being removed, would she?  I tell ya, dad, we go when we're supposed to, and not before.  

Look at the big picture....why is she still here?  What is she teaching us?  Ponder that for a while....and then....

Imagine peanut in this situation.  Can you honestly say you'd rather her die, a slow, miserable, dehydrating, starving death than to live less than "perfect".  Shooting your own child in the stomach with a tech 9, allowing her to bleed to death would be more humane than doing what her maniac wants to do.

Terri, being in the state she is...whatever it teaching this world a very valuable lesson.  We just hafta open our eyes and see it.  

And remember, dad...some people with terminal illnesses have been known to "hold on" for YEARS after they were told they would die.  Don't you ever wonder why?  I know hubs dad held on for the longest time...he should have died MONTHS before he did.  I think he stayed alive waiting for his son to come home.....when he realized he wasn't coming, he passed on.  Do you believe in that?  Terri may be waiting for justice.

Oh, and since I wrote this offline, I have to comment on one part of your post....

-----In our family, ie, my mom, dad, brothers, sister, myself, SO, we all know our wishes in this type of situation. Pull the plug, turn off the machines, stop tube feedings, allow us to pass with some semblence of dignity.-----

If there was foul play, do you think the plug would be pulled immediately?
Title: RE: oh honey hush!
Post by: Indigo Mom on Nov 26, 2003, 09:08:24 PM
You've GOT to go to the website and read it through.

Go to "court documents", and on the right side of the screen, you should read all the "important items".  

skim through the website and you'll understand right quick like why there's a big "fuss".
Title: RE: The thing is.............
Post by: nosonew on Nov 26, 2003, 10:01:05 PM
Okay, question.  What do you consider life support?  I consider anything that sustains life as life support, ie: ventilator, IV feedings, IV fluids, IV meds, tube feedings, dialysis, etc..

If it were not for our advances in medicine, we wouldn't have tube feedings, thus she would have died many years ago.  So, is she or is she not on life support?

Are dialysis patients on life support?  If they do not get dialysis, they will die within approx. 4 weeks.  If you are not fed you died within 2-3 weeks.  What is the difference?  

Title: RE: The thing is.............
Post by: kiddosmom on Nov 27, 2003, 11:53:28 AM
I Agree with Terry getting the justice she deserves!
I agree her husband should not be the Gaurdian.
I also believe that without the feeding tube she would be able to go home to God.
NO I do NOT believe she should have to starve to death.
Title: RE: The thing is.............
Post by: Peanutsdad on Nov 27, 2003, 03:03:28 PM
While I can appreciate the thoughts and atitudes about the humane or inhumane ways we either keep people alive OR let them die, I still stand by my thoughts.

In the medical community the last few years have seen our ability to prevent death go forward in leaps and bounds. It far outstripes our compassion, ethics and societal mores. It has been recognized AND there have been many conferences nationwide on these very issues, ie the ability to prevent death and recognizing there are times we shouldnt.

You see, so long as the brain stem is functional, perhaps 75% of the time, we CAN prevent death so long as no other life threatening injuries are concurrant.

Now,, just a little bit of medical fact , an intact brain stem, a body will twitch, exhibit SOME motor reflex, exhibit SOME fight or flight REFLEX action, YET, contain absolutely no higher brain function.  In otherwords, there IS twitching, mouth movement, relaxation of muscles with soothing touches, and tension with fear response.  The heart will beat, the lungs will breath.

YET, a sea cucumber has more self awareness. It at least, can motor along and obtain its own food. The brain stem patient,, cannot. That patient will never eat, will never speak, will never do anything that approximates any activity that goes along with daily life.

EEG studies have shown time and time again, with loss of higher brain function, there is no PERSON, simply,, a body. It is perhaps the worst death of all, because it doesnt quite let that patient die, nor does it allow them to live.

These patients are significantly different from "shut ins". Shut ins are patients that have suffered an injury to the brain that prevents them from moving, or communicating, yet EEG shows that higher brain functions of the personality are intact. Yes I've seen life support withdrawn on shut ins. Family members begged that their loved one be allowed to pass and it was done.

I've also seen the patients that families cannot let go of.  Of the shut ins, I honestly believe, some of them I've seen die, was simply the patient willed themselves to die. After a couple of years in that state, imagine your mental state? Its a proven fact, isolate a human, and they will go insane. Withdraw stimulation, the mind loses its anchor in reality. Can any of you honestly say you prefer that for someone you love?? We see a well documented phenomena called "ICU psychosis" occur in patients kept in an ICU in as little as a week. Try if you can, to imagine being in a blank shut in condition for YEARS, not a week, not a month, but years.

Now, THAT is with shut ins. Terri is not a shut in, she is a brain stem. EEG tests have confirmed that over and over.

So, while our scientific ability has raced forward, our diginity and humanty have lagged behind, THAT is what has failed Terri,,our ability to show mercy and compassion and wisdom in knowing when to let go.
Our laws do not really address this condition, for either the criminal that put them there nor the ability of medical staff to ease the passing. Here is the "catch22",, IF Terri's husband is responsible for her condition, AND we allow her to die now, THEN he cannot be prosecuted for manslaughter nor murder. Under the law, if WE allow her to die, then HE didnt kill her. Yes, I've seen this type of case before.

Yes , my family has discussed pretty much any situation regarding life support. to quote from our own directives; " In any condition be it accidental or criminal which results in brain injury which will reasonably prevent the patient from regaining consciousness or self awareness, you are hereby directed to cease all rescusistative efforts or withdraw lifesupport. "

I think that pretty much says it. Of course, there is a lot more on it, but I dont think I will rewrite it here LOL.
Title: RE: The thing is.............
Post by: MKx2 on Nov 27, 2003, 04:03:35 PM
PD ... thank you so much for an excellent post on this subject.

I have experienced sudden death by myocaridal infarction with my father, death of my step-father and step-mother with pancreatic and brain cancers respectively and of course my grandmother who died peacefully and with dignity of old age.  In my grandmother's case, her physician said that with a feeding tube and other means she would probably live another 2 to 3 months, but ONLY that long by artificial means.

My druthers on this one?  Like my dad or grandmother ... if not that way then pull the plugs on any life sustaining means, or leave me alone with enough drugs to inject myself should it be terminal illness.

[getting ready for the flames with the next comment ....] We show more compassion to our dogs and cats when they reach a point in their lives where there is no quality but only pain, by taking them to our vet and euthanizing them.  I'm not saying we should euthanize people ... but our final days and hours should be filled with dignity and love.

JMO and I'm stickin' by it.
Title: Michael Schiavo Again Seeks to Block New Information About Terri
Post by: StPaulieGirl on Nov 28, 2003, 01:49:44 PM

Michael Schiavo Again Seeks to Block New Information About Terri

by Steven Ertelt Editor
November 28, 2003

Pinellas Park, FL ( -- On Tuesday, attorneys for Terri Schiavo's estranged husband Michael, filed a legal motion seeking to deny attorneys for Governor Jeb Bush the opportunity to depose witnesses. Bush's attorneys hope to obtain new and expanded information that can be used in a trial opposing Michael's lawsuit to overturn Terri's Law.

George Felos, the assisted suicide advocate who is Michael's lead attorney, and attorneys for the ACLU asked Circuit Court Judge Douglas Baird to disallow Bush's attorneys from taking depositions from seven people.

Michael Schiavo and Jodi Centonze, the woman with whom he lives and has one child and another one the way, are two of the people Bush attorneys want to question.

Felos claims the testimony would be irrelevant and that Judge Baird should only decide whether Terri's Law is constitutional and not reexamine the facts of the case.

Bush's attorneys hope to gain better insight into whether Michael's claims that Terri would not want to be kept alive are true.

Terri left no advanced directive indicating her preference for medical treatment. Michael claimed years after Terri's collapse that he vaguely remembered Terri saying she didn't want to be kept alive artificially.

However, a longtime friend of Terri vividly remembers a conversation they had concerning a woman who had been in a coma for six years. Terri's friend told a crude joke. It upset Terri and she responded by asking whether the doctors and lawyers could possible know what the woman wanted and said, "Where there's life, there's hope."

Judge Baird has been accused of being biased in the case by already saying Terri's Law is possibly unconstitutional, despite Bush not having yet made his case for it. He has refused to step down from the case.

Michael's attorneys have asked Baird to deny hearings and an ultimate trial and instead issue an summary judgment opinion. A December hearing date on the request has been set for mid-December.

This is the second time Michael has attempted to block depositions.

A judge previously rejected an attempt to block the discovery of new information that could be used to replace Michael as Terri's guardian. Terri's parents, Bob and Mary Schindler, hope new information can be gathered to prove whether or not Terri was a victim of physical abuse that led to her collapse.

They want Terri's brother Bob Schindler, Jr., replace Michael as her guardian.

The Schindlers are hoping to uncover new information pointing to the need to change guardianship -- including questioning the radiologist who conducted a bone scan on Terri in March 1991 that showed she was possibly a victim of physical abuse.

Felos claims Bush is attempting to intervene in the guardianship lawsuit by deposing witnesses in the lawsuit regarding Terri's Law.

Related web sites:
Terri's family -
_________________________________________________ ___________

I don't get it.  If there's nothing to hide, what's the problem?  As some of you already know, the court system is a bad joke.
Title: RE: Michael Schiavo Again Seeks to Block New Information About Terri
Post by: kiddosmom on Nov 28, 2003, 07:31:49 PM
Agreed, I do commend Bush on not letting this case be pushed under the rug as many do in this system.
If they can prove this man hurt this woman, he needs to rot in jail with all the new friends he would have. He would have the opertunity to learn what it is like to be someones B*TCH!
Title: RE: Michael Schiavo Again Seeks to Block New Information About Terri
Post by: StPaulieGirl on Nov 29, 2003, 05:17:29 PM
This kind of thing goes on more than we all know.  Usually it's about money.  Kids have been known to hasten the death of their parent for money.  It's so hard to have a limited government when there are people like that running around.  I don't think Michael Schiavo will be held accountable for the money he squandered.  Terri's parents don't care about the money.  What worries me is that he could have been responsible for Terri's condition, and the judges are so involved with their own special interests that they can't be bothered to be fair and impartial.  They don't care about upholding the law.  This is where it gets scary for the rest of us...
Title: RE: Sorry, have to disagree
Post by: Kkisum on Dec 14, 2003, 03:51:55 PM
Its my understanding(I live a county away from where Terri resides) that Terri suffered from a heart attack at a young age.

I dont think that he doesnt care for her as some say. I think that IF he did divorce her and move on would show his lack of love or support for her. Marriage vows state love,  honor, and obey....through sickness and health...until death do you part. He has keep up his end of the bargain. He hasnt left her and moved on.