Replies

No flame, just my thoughts. I too have kept my mouth shut for the most part on the subject. I've looked at it and looked at it and it is just so complex I've been unable to place myself completely in one camp or another.

On one side, I find myself asking what the ramifications would be if the government said you couldn't pull the plug on someone. I don't see how the law can differentiate between a terminally ill person and someone who is not. I can't fault the President or Florida's Governor for not rushing in with the cavalry and rescuing her. It's Florida's National Guard not the Governor's personal army to use without legal grounds. I don't know enough about the specifics of the legal proceedings to make any judgment on the decisions of Greer.

On the other side, I see that starving/dehydrating someone to death is cruel and unusual and it wouldn't be tolerated in any other part of our society. A prisoner is force fed if he goes on a hunger strike. TVS or not, what I've seen of Terri Schiavo leads me to believe that she is aware that she's thirsty.

Florida law defines a feeding tube as a means of life support. Perhaps that's where this whole tragedy went awry.

One question that I have that is probably too morbid to ask before her death is: if her husband was awarded a malpractice judgment based on the expected lifespan of Terri, and he chose to terminate that life before that lifespan was complete, is he liable to return a portion of that award?

I had the same question and I think it deserves an answer from MS. Below is what I posted:

Actually, I've had a little different take. In the malpractice suit MS and his hired experts testified in support of their request for damages that Terri had an expected life span of 51 years, their intention was to provide for her care for this time period and, therefore, funds to maintain Terri was required for this time period.

However, immediately after the malpractice suit was completed and the funds for her long term care were received, MS proceeded to attempt to end her life and actively reduce the actual time period of care.

It would seem to me that this inconsistency - MS's avowed intention to provide care as compared to his subsequent attempt to eliminate the need for such care - would be grounds for a demand of the unexpended portion of funds awarded for the care that was not required.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies

This case isn't at all complex. Do you or do you not believe Michael Schiavo's lies that Terri didn't want to live this way? If true how come she's till alive on day 13 without water and food? No heavy thinking is needed to figure this one out