Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

A TERRY SCHIAVO case QUESTION????

Posted on 07/15/2005 11:56:01 PM PDT by ElPatriota

I am a conservative. My brother in Law is a liberal. I am visiting them here in Florida and as usual we are having the samE old arguments. The SCHIAVO case poses a new disagreement.

I uas under the impression that Terry's parents **ASKED** for the custody of her daughter, as well as all finanacial responsabilities. (In other words, the government would NOT PAY FOR ANYTHING RELATED TO HER CARE)

My brother in law contends that he never heard the parents in any of the interviews he saw on the news - and they were many - ASK for FULL CUSTODY OF HER, AS WELL AS ALL FINANCIAL RESPONSABILITIES.

So help us, who is right? Me? Him? if neither, what are the facts? (please provide links or references to articles that support the correct position>


TOPICS:
KEYWORDS: disruptionalert; suckersrespond; terrischiavo
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 161-171 next last
I will thank everyone in advance
1 posted on 07/15/2005 11:56:01 PM PDT by ElPatriota
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: ElPatriota
The parent's had been fight for FULL CUSTODY OF HER, AS WELL AS ALL FINANCIAL RESPONSABILITIES...

However to be fair Terri had the insurance settlement, so whoever was her guardian would control that for her care

2 posted on 07/16/2005 12:20:02 AM PDT by tophat9000 (When the State ASSUMES death...It makes an ASH out of you and me..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ElPatriota

Terri’s hospice care was paid for by Medicaid because
1. Her husband spent her huge malpractice award himself and
2. Almost all disabled people receive some Medicaid care.

Her parents did want custody but the Schindlers were not wealthy people and it is very doubtful that they could have paid out of pocket for hospice or nursing home care. I do not believe they ever made such a claim. Of course, no company would issue private health insurance to Terri in her condition.

Don’t fall into the trap of arguing with someone who asserts that disabled people should be murdered in order to save the government money.

Respond to that person by saying: “How dare you even suggest such a thing?”


3 posted on 07/16/2005 12:22:26 AM PDT by iowamark
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ElPatriota

They asked for Micheal to be dismissed as legal guardian a few times which also meant custody over funds in the bank, and controled by a trustie from the award Micheal won for her care. After Micheal refused to share half of what he was awarded personaly from the malpractice suit (separate from the money used for Terri's care) is when the relationship soured between him and his inlaws, specificly Mr. Shindler. He had hoped he would get a new house, whic he planned to take care of Terri in, and Micheal would also live in, happily ever after. Mr. Shindler wanted control of that money, but he had to get custody of Terri first.

The cost of defending against Mr. Shindlers attempts of gaining custody, and other alegations came out of that fund set aside for Terri's care, except for the court appeals they filed trying to reverse the order of having her feeding tube removed.
The costs of the personal attacks against Micheal came out of her care fund however, and towards the end there was very little left. thanks to the frivolous suit attempts by mr. Shindler against Micheal. I guess he didn't want Micheal to get any of it either. In that regard he succeeded.

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

This is the site where you can Dl all the court docs filed by Mr. shindler, as well as other things about the case are discussed.





4 posted on 07/16/2005 12:30:40 AM PDT by Nathan Zachary
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: iowamark
"Terri’s hospice care was paid for by Medicaid because 1. Her husband spent her huge malpractice award himself"

Please don't LIE. He spent NONE of her award on himself. That is easlily proven. Her father however, WASTED plenty of it with his silly court challenges. But don't take MY word for it, go to the site i linked in the post above and read for yourself what her father did through the courts.

5 posted on 07/16/2005 12:34:42 AM PDT by Nathan Zachary
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Nathan Zachary
Her father however, WASTED plenty of it with his silly court challenges.

Exactly how the worst human slime would feel about someone trying to keep his daughter from being forcibly dehydrated to death.

6 posted on 07/16/2005 12:44:03 AM PDT by k2blader (Was it wrong to kill Terri Shiavo? YES - 83.8%. FR Opinion Poll.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: iowamark

Further, nobody was MURDERED.

It seems you have trouble reading the FACTS of the situation, and use emotional outbursts instead of facts to get your feelings across.
LIES do not serve any purpose, neither for her memory, nor respect for her husband or parents.

You can debate what her condition was, and even then qualified professional people do NOT agree with your possition.
She died Feb 25 1990. Perhaps you feel that, despite
the clear evidence that her mind, therefore her being, (the mind is your being, your humanity, your conciousness, awareness of self, your SOUL) that she may somehow have been alive, had awareness of self.
that is your opinion, and no amount of discussion, science, medical knowlage and FACT will change it.
Therefore it's pointless to discuss it any further.



7 posted on 07/16/2005 12:46:53 AM PDT by Nathan Zachary
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Nathan Zachary
"spent her huge malpractice award himself"

Please don't LIE. He spent NONE of her award on himself."

Nathan, read it again. I did not say "on himself."

I said he spent it himself, as opposed to spending it on her medical expenses. You are correct that most of it actually went to lawyers. Be aware that there are two sides to every issue and the writings of the "right-to-die" lawyers are only one argument.

8 posted on 07/16/2005 12:57:38 AM PDT by iowamark
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: k2blader
Exactly how the worst human slime would feel about someone trying to keep his daughter from being forcibly dehydrated to death. Insults are a sign of weakness. people use them because they do not have any FACTS to support their argument. It's a common tactic found on the LEFT.

If you read the ME report, that was not the cause of her death. She died of natural causes, she was unable to feed, swallow, drink think talk, walk see hear remember, be aware, etc.

But, some people seem to think that although most of the brain is MISSING, and the folia , neurons, Basil ganglia, basically all the lobes of the brain missing, and what little left damaged severely with no possibly way to interact with each lobe of the brain necessary for function, memory, thought, consciousness, vision, hearing speech etc. can still, somehow, miraculously work

That is your right I guess. I choose knowlage.

Image Hosted by ImageShack.us

It was even worse than that at the end. here's a severly damaged brain

Image Hosted by ImageShack.us

from a hydrocephalus patient who was vegetive and died. Note there is much more brain there.

http://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/autopsyreport.pdf

read carefully

9 posted on 07/16/2005 1:05:43 AM PDT by Nathan Zachary
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: iowamark
" said he spent it himself, as opposed to spending it on her medical expenses

And that, would be a lie. the money was in the care of a trustie. Micheal did NOT have control of it. It was ALL spent on her care. And, sometimes on the costs her FATHER incurred dragging her case into court. Whether you like it or not, everytime he did that, it cost HER money.

What you probably don't know, but would if you took the time to read the court documents, is that judge Greer started to bill court costs to the state, because her father was bankrupting her.

Another thing you probably don't know, but would if you read the court docs, is that Greer gave him every possible opportunity to come up with something, ANYTHING, to give good reason to stay his order.

If you took the time to read the court docs, you'd see why he failed. I can suggest to you where to read so you can understand what went on, rather than wild rumors, but i can't make you read.

there is much to read.

10 posted on 07/16/2005 1:16:30 AM PDT by Nathan Zachary
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Nathan Zachary
She died of natural causes, she was unable to feed, swallow, drink think talk, walk see hear remember, be aware, etc.

She was able to "feed" and drink before a state judge ordered she shouldn't be.

By your own "logic", all the "useless" people who require feeding tubes, are unable to get out of a bed, are unable to speak, etc. should be dead.

11 posted on 07/16/2005 1:20:57 AM PDT by k2blader (Was it wrong to kill Terri Shiavo? YES - 83.8%. FR Opinion Poll.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Nathan Zachary

As you will soon discover (if you haven't figured it out yet), logic and facts don't matter on Terri threads.


12 posted on 07/16/2005 1:23:47 AM PDT by Spyder
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: 8mmMauser

Thought maybe you and/or someone on your ping list could help here.

It is my understanding Terri's parents *had* asked to care for her and pay for her care themselves.


13 posted on 07/16/2005 1:33:05 AM PDT by k2blader (Was it wrong to kill Terri Shiavo? YES - 83.8%. FR Opinion Poll.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Spyder
As you will soon discover (if you haven't figured it out yet), logic and facts don't matter on Terri threads.

Which is why folks like you, and obviously 'Nathan', can't understand what 'inalienable' means?

14 posted on 07/16/2005 1:38:15 AM PDT by EternalVigilance ("If the foundations be destroyed, what can the righteous do?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance

I guess it's only "logical" and "factual" to them that useless eaters should be taken off their "feed".


15 posted on 07/16/2005 1:47:36 AM PDT by k2blader (Was it wrong to kill Terri Shiavo? YES - 83.8%. FR Opinion Poll.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: k2blader
I guess you can't read either. She could NOT swallow, eat etc. Think, walk, talk, see, smell, hear, feel. She that empty space in her head that is shown on the xray? That's why. As far as you saying Greer 'wouldn't let her eat" that's not true either. She COULDN'T eat. In fact, this "Nurse" (nurses aid) who said she could eat, is a liar on many levels, and probably is the one who shoved food into her lungs that the ME noted. She had many many tests, despite the rumor that she didn't. You'd have to READ the court docs, which I kindly supplied a link to, to find that out however. Again, I can't make you read, but I suggest you do BEFORE you make accusations which aren't true.

Now, because I CAN read, I'll show you something:

Image Hosted by ImageShack.us

Oops! But! but! but! Mean ol' Micheal wouldn't let her have tests!

If you read the court docs, you'd find out just how many she had, and how much care she had. Micheal made sure she got the best of care.

What really makes me sick about this case, is how people have demonized him, without knowing the facts. That's just plain shamefull.

My wife has worked in a death home for 25 years. Compared to how those people are treated, the level of care they get, Micheal treated her like a queen.

Read all the court docs, there are about 50-60 or more, enough to keep you all busy, and learn the truth, not rumors.

You may disagree with his decision, which is why he gave it to the court to make, but that's all you can do. Everything else is unfounded, unjustified, and uncalled for.

16 posted on 07/16/2005 1:54:40 AM PDT by Nathan Zachary
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Nathan Zachary
Everything else is unfounded, unjustified, and uncalled for.

Except the most glaring facts that you and your ilk continuously ignore, such as the fact that the founding documents, the very foundation of our law, explicitly forbids killing the innocent for ANY reason: because the right to life is God-given and therefore inalienable.

Your copy must include the words "unless some guy who goes by the handle of 'Nathan' on the internet decides someone's life isn't worth living". Eh?

Like all liberals, you think you're God.

You could probably muster all the Democrats to support you for the Supreme Court...your reading comprehension is right about where they like their judges' to be...

17 posted on 07/16/2005 2:02:05 AM PDT by EternalVigilance ("If the foundations be destroyed, what can the righteous do?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: k2blader
I guess it's only "logical" and "factual" to them that useless eaters should be taken off their "feed".

Like all liberals, their 'logic' is inverted.

18 posted on 07/16/2005 2:02:52 AM PDT by EternalVigilance ("If the foundations be destroyed, what can the righteous do?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Nathan Zachary
What really makes me sick about this case, is how people have demonized him, without knowing the facts.

He killed his wife. Dehydrated her to death. What more do you need to know about a man?

19 posted on 07/16/2005 2:04:13 AM PDT by EternalVigilance ("If the foundations be destroyed, what can the righteous do?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Nathan Zachary
Micheal made sure she got the best of care.

My impulse upon reading that was to laugh...at your sheer chutzpah.

But upon a few minutes reflection, you remind me of a lying Nazi apologist.

Is that why she died like a concentration camp victim?

In your delusional world, like George Felos', those who died in Auschwitz died a beautiful, peaceful, lovely death...

Your heroic providers of 'the best of care' showed more concern for the flowers on her night table than they did for Terri or her family.

After all, every thing had to 'look good'.

20 posted on 07/16/2005 2:11:31 AM PDT by EternalVigilance ("If the foundations be destroyed, what can the righteous do?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 161-171 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson