Terri Schiavo Hospitalized With Apparent Puncture Wounds In Arm! Apparent Foul Play!

WFTV-ABC in Orlando | UNK

[MindBender26]

In 7:25 break, anchor reported "Terri Schiavo was rushed to a Pinellas County emergency room last night after nursing home staff noticed puncture wounds on her arm. The wounds appeared to be caused by a hypodermic needle! Toxicology tests were conducted but the results are not available yet!"

This could open a huge new round in this case. What did tests reveal? Who was last person in room? When was husband there? Was staffer trying the Angle of Death routine?

This will be developing hard all day!

[Wampus SC]

Wow! I thought they'd stopped using the "for the children" ploy. The press these days - not even trying to disguise their bias now.

"There are times, I am told, when the signs speak of killing and murder."

I say, since killing and murder is what's being attempted, that's what should be spoken of.

"On Monday afternoon, as school ended, the escorts included Stone and the school's PTA president, Marti Bouknecht. She pointed to a sign that read, "Terrorizing people with disabilities," and then noted that disabled children attend Cross Bayou. What were those children and their parents to think, she asked."

They should think what the future of these disabled children will be should the death dealing euthanasia crowd get the precedent they want.

"Children are besieged by talk of death and dying, killing and murder. They see it on the street. They see it on the news. They talk about it in the school halls and get scared. They wonder if their moms and dads are going to be hurt."

Of course, neither the principal, these parents, nor the reporter would tell their own kids why they shouldn't play ball on the interstate. They could get killed. Wouldn't do to have them hear about that.... better let them find out for themselves.

Do they wonder how much their parents being eventually euthanized hurts? Do they wonder how much moms and dads will hurt from death by dehydration? When they're old, need lots of medical care, and some pencil-pusher decides they're too expensive -- and orders another administrative killing? Hurts.

Is it better to have them grow up not knowing about this, and not finding about it until it's the norm? Perhaps that's the motivation behind this article.

Or, is it better for them to know what the euthanizers plan for their future, and know it doesn't have to be that way, while there's still time to stop it?

(sarc-rant mode off)

[supercat]

Actually, the Schindlers haven't managed to get the matter heard in court since Michael moved in with Jodi and fathered children by her. They've filed for a hearing in September of 2002, but Judge Greer has continuously postponed it.

And have they used the various legal avenues available to get said hearing expedited? (My guess: no.)

What means would you suggest?

Interesting. Someone who has an obvious and overt personal interest in seeing another person dead can be presumed to be acting in that person's interests when seeking to have the person killed?

That's the problem: you have not demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that said condition actually exists.

That what condition actually exists? Michael has openly and publically stated his intention to marry Jodi, and has openly admitted to being the father of her offspring. As yet no court has entertained this issue, so these facts have not yet been entered into evidence. Nonetheless it would seem difficult to deny them.

As for the fact that he's trying to have Terri killed, I don't think anyone could plausibly deny that.

So we have a guardian who has much to gain personally from his ward's death, and would thus have much to lose if his ward's condition were somehow to improve. If that isn't conflict of interest, please explain to me what is because I must be grossly misunderstanding the term.

One also has to demonstrate that granting guardianship to the Schindlers is likely to generate significant benefit to Terri Schiavo. This is where the Schindlers' continuing associations with quackery clobber them, every time.

From a legal standpoint, isn't the question of whether Michael Schiavo is eligible to remain Terri's guardian largely separate from the question of whether any of the Schindlers would be suitable to take over the role? The statutes which provide for disqualifying a guardian in certain cases do not limit such disqualifications to cases where a suitable person wishes to become guardian.

But, as the guardian and the husband, he has a much better position to actually make his claim than Terri's parents do the contrary.

What puts him in a position to make such a claim is that he was in the room with Terri when she supposedly made her statements. His guardianship now is irrelevant to his proximity to her then.

Judge Greer has declared that the testimony of Michael and his relatives that Terri made some statement not wanting to be hooked up to machines like Karen Ann Quinlan constitutes "clear and compelling" evidence that she would want to be starved and dehydrated.

Bottom line: Michael Schiavo suddenly looks more credible in the eyes of the court than the Schindlers do. If he says "Terri said..." and the parents say, "She couldn't have said..." the judge is going to listen to Michael, because the parents have destroyed their credibility. When a witness impeaches himself, he has one hell of a time reversing the process.

Terri's parents have made some significant mistakes, granted. Largely, I suspect, because they weren't expecting Michael to be such a louse. I don't think the parents so much impeached themselves (at least not in a legal sense) as made themselves and their attourney look somewhat inept, but I will grant that past mistakes can hamper future actions.

At the time she would have had to have made such statements, they could not have been used to justify her starvation or dehydration.

True. However, they can now be used to justify it.

Apparently Judge Greer certainly seems to think so. To me, though, it sure looks like using retroactive legislation to put someone to death. And that sure smells of ex post facto law.

I see no evidence whatsoever that what she meant was "In the event that the legislature decides to allow people to be starved and dehydrated, I'd like that to happen to me."

You may not see it. But Michael Schiavo--the man with more credibility in the court, because he hasn't been caught misleading the court--claims to see it, and the judge is going to pay more attention to it.

So what is the evidence that Terri meant "In the event that..."? Michael never claimed that she actually said such a thing--merely that he believed that when she said that she didn't want to be connected to apparatus such as the life-support (breathing) apparatus Karen Ann Quinlan was connected to, she also intended that should apply to feeding and hydration.

Now a judge may declare that such a belief constitutes "clear and compelling" evidence, but that doesn't in any way shape or form mean that it's actually true.

Generally, when an agreement or declaration is made which includes terms that specifically include some objects and specifically exclude others, changes to the meanings of the terms which would include items formerly excluded or exclude items formerly included may only be made with the explicit consent of both parties or the person making the declaration [changes which include items which were neither included nor excluded before may often be handled implicitly].

In the event that Terri were being kept alive via some technology which did not exist when she made her declaration, it would be plausible to assume that a desire not to receive "life-support" would include a desire not to be kept alive via the new technology. At the time she made her declaration, however, a request not to receive life-support was explicitly not a request not to receive feed and water. Any desire to have the term's meaning extended should have been very explicitly stated, and there is no evidence whatsoever of any such thing.

Michael doesn't claim she said any such thing, and I see no evidence whatsoever--much less "clear and compelling" evidence that she meant such a thing.

Your perception of the evidence is irrelevant. The judge's perception is the relevant perception. And the Schindlers blew their chance in front of the judge.

The Schindlers let themselves get blindsided by a man they thought was going to act in good faith to get their daughter the therapy for which SHE'd won a $700,000 judgement.

Look--I know that if a judge declares that two plus two make five then, legally, two plus two make five. That would not, however, change the fact that in reality two plus two make four.

I do not deny that "Judge Greer facts" are against Terri. What I do deny is that the real facts surrounding Terri and Michael--as opposed to the "Judge Greer facts"--support Michael's claims. Now you may argue that the real facts are legally irrelevant--it's the "Judge Greer facts" that matter. And you may be right in that regard. In that case, though, the question would be how to have some of the useful real facts that favor Terri get the legal weight they deserve.

[yesnettv]

I agree
We need better lawyers and professional pr.
Let's get it now!
Fay

[yesnettv]

I wish yoou would drive over and set up an efficient campaign. I am here in CA willing and ready to help you. Let's do it!

[yesnettv]

How do we reverse this trend?

[MindBender26]

"How do we reverse this trend?"

I don't know if we can. The incredibly foolish actions of some "demonstrators' have so alienated the population of Pinellas and Hillsboro Counties that it may be all over from a public opinion point of view,

For example, early on, a very influential writer wrote a pro-Terri article in the St. Pete Times:

START OF ARTICLE ONE

"Terri Schiavo's story is terrible to contemplate.

Her heart stopped in February 1990, perhaps as a result of a chemical imbalance caused by her throwing up repeatedly to stay thin. She was deprived of oxygen for five minutes and she has not awakened since.

Her husband wants her feeding tube removed so she can die. Her parents want it to remain. They disagree on what Terri Schiavo would have wanted. Her husband, Michael Schiavo, says she wouldn't want to live like this, in what three doctors said in Pinellas circuit court last week is a permanent vegetative state.

Her parents, Bob and Mary Schindler, cling to the hope represented in her occasional cries, laughs and moans. They know that once in a very great while the impossible occurs:

This past Christmas, a New Mexico woman who had been in a coma for 16 years woke up. Last April, a pregnant woman in Los Angeles came out of a month long coma and gave birth to twins. But these rarities are not why Pinellas Circuit Judge George Greer has no business pulling that feeding tube. The law says Terri Schiavo's own wishes have to be known by "clear and convincing evidence." The evidence so far is neither.

But there are more elemental reasons for keeping Terri Schiavo alive - 700,000 of them. Terri Schiavo left no will. If she dies, her husband Michael stands to inherit $700,000 from a malpractice settlement she won several years ago. He has said he would give the money to charity. Although he is engaged to another woman, he also says he doesn't want to divorce Terri. If he did, he might have to pay her alimony. And he would probably lose the $700,000 to her, for her care, according to lawyer Richard L. Pearse Jr. of Clearwater, who was temporarily Terri's guardian.

Terri's parents also have a financial stake here, although it's more remote. If Terri and Michael were divorced, and Terri later died, her parents would inherit the $700,000. "Nobody is free of some sort of financial conflict, actual or potential," said Pearse, who testified in court last week and wrote a report to the judge recommending that Mrs. Schiavo's feeding tube remain.

We turn to judges in cases like this when families can't make their own choices. They often consult with medical ethicists too. So I did - with Peggy DesAutels, who teaches philosophy at USF. For some years, she sat on the ethics committee at Bayfront Medical Center in St. Petersburg, helping family members decide whether or not to prolong the lives of the dying. When relatives disagree, DesAutels said, "the decision has to fall with keeping the patient on life support." "If you're going to err, you want to err on the side of keeping someone alive. It can be very sad to watch, because often it appears the patient is suffering."

This is where the going gets rough. Nobody would want Terri Schiavo's life to be any worse. But what choice is there, when her wishes are uncertain, and money could motivate her husband? I've come to a conclusion that is the utter opposite of where I began, on the side of Michael Schiavo. As his wife's closest kin, he should have the right to decide for her, I thought. I was thinking of what I want, what most of us want - no extraordinary measures to keep us alive at the end.

I started out where we all would, in matters like this, relying on my heart. But this case has too much ambiguity.
Discomforting as it is, I've come to believe that this life that isn't much of a life at all should be prolonged, for now."

END OF ARTICLE

Later, after seeing all the idiocy some of the "friends" have committed," the writer's opinion changed drastically

START OF ARTICLE TWO

"Michael Schiavo could make everything so easy.

All he has to do is divorce his wife and then walk away from the fight.

But he won't, says his lawyer. For if Michael Schiavo quits now, his wife's parents will have control of her. They will take every measure they can to keep their daughter Terri alive.

And that, according to Michael Schiavo, is the opposite of what Terri wanted.

So the fight continues over whether she lives or dies. She has been in a vegetative state since 1990. Meantime her husband continues this all but hand-to-hand combat with his wife's parents while in his private life, he has clearly moved on. He has a girlfriend. They have a baby.
Last week, Pinellas Circuit Court Judge George Greer sided with three doctors who said Terri Schiavo would never recover. The judge ordered her feeding tube removed on Jan. 3.

This is the second such order by Greer, and this one, like the last one, will produce an almost automatic appeal. The tube will not be pulled. The interminable legal fight will continue.

It has taken on the peculiar overtones of a death penalty appeals case.

The lawyers hop from court to court. The motions are endless, picayune and sometimes off the wall. The process goes on for what seems like perpetuity.

And the original cause of action is buried in the paperwork. What started out as a dispute over Terri Schiavo's wishes long ago became a personal feud between her parents, Robert and Mary Schindler, and Schiavo, whom the Schindlers have all but demonized.

Nobody knows why Terri Schiavo, a young married woman, suffered a heart attack in 1990. One theory is that she had a potassium deficiency brought on by an eating disorder. The heart attack cut off oxygen to her brain. She has been in a vegetative state since.

It was said for a long time that Michael Schiavo was in the fight because of the money, about $700,000 from a malpractice settlement. But those who despise him can say that no longer. The money has been chewed up by his legal bills.

I suggest he walk away not because I think he's wrong. He's right. He has the right as his wife's legal guardian to speak for her. He was in the best position to know her wishes.

But it doesn't matter if Michael Schiavo is right. The Schindlers will never back down. They now have the support of the hysterical right-to-life movement. A California group, the Life Legal Defense Foundation, is paying some of their legal expenses.

This fight could go on another decade. But in every fight, there comes a point when you have to ask what it's all worth. The Schindlers will never do this kind of weighing and measuring. It's up to her husband, paradoxical though that may seem.

What's more, if Terri Schiavo is allowed to live, even if she never comes out of her vegetative state (as she likely won't), no harm would be done to him. Michael Schiavo would not so much lose his fight as surrender. But he'd have his own life back, without this obsession at the core. Surely that would be a relief.

It would be a brutally hard decision. Michael Schiavo would have to decide to stop fighting even as he is - at least in Judge Greer's courtroom - winning.

But this isn't so much a court case. It's a grudge match. Somebody has to yell stop. The judges can't or won't, as long as the Schindlers have one last breath, one last appeal.

The buck stops with Michael Schiavo. It would be the toughest call of his life, but it would offer a most valuable lesson: Sometimes victory comes only through surrender.

END OF ARTUCLE TWO

The current agenda-driven "advisers" are so entrenched, I doubt there is much I can do, but I'm willing to go down there when I can to help, as previously stated.

.

[cyn]

Hi, CindyDawg -- thanks for the ping. I saw these suggestions earlier. I appreciated MB26's ideas, and responded in post #526.

I'm with you and others here in desiring a wise, productive gearing up in Terri's defense. We 'amateurs' have brainstormed in the past w/ideas of billboards, newspaper ads, chair for Terri, fundraisers, etc . . . I'm not sure if those things are being considered by Terri's family and those already on board.

I met her family -- they are wonderful people. As I said in my above post, people on the streets here and in St. Pete DO 'get it' when Terri's story is presented to them in a way they can understand.

MB, I like your ideas, though I do share concerns already stated (eg #558). But I'm not offended by opposing views on these threads; indeed, we should be considering this from all angles, all possibilities to do the best for Terri's fight.

As you say, Cindy & pegita, I'll see what little positive things I can do on Terri's behalf. I'm praying for all in Terri's fight as we do whatever circumstance, skills, and abilities enable us to do for GOOD (real good) for Terri and her family.

This is not 'business as usual'; Terri's life has NEVER been out of jeopardy.

I pray that God will meet all our needs for wisdom, knowledge, strength, ability, discernment, resources -- everything! -- and will be able to work through us against the evil at our doorstep.

[Ohioan from Florida]

Interesting article. Could you provide a link to it? There's no date on this, so I can't tell when it was published, nor any info about who the author might be. It appears to be written sometime around Dec. 2002, but I'm just guessing. Any relevant info you could provide would be helpful. Thank you.

[cyn]

h'mm, I'm looking for that 11/91 photo of Michael and Terri from the period of time when there was a positive community sentiment toward Terri, "Terri Schiavo Day", community fundraisers.

Terri was responsive, vocalizing and moving, acc. therapist and doctors 3 - 6/91 reports, and she was receiving the care due to someone in her condition (see depo snippet in #505 from pc93's #491).

There are still, out in the community, people who saw her from this period of time, who worked with her, fixed her hair, and know that she is not comatose or PVS (ie, nonresponsive to her environment). Michael used to take Terri out to mall, museums, outside (acc depo) -- CNN & Foxnews had a video loop of Michael showing Terri the ducks on the pond. I'm sure such visuals strengthened his court cases and community support.

Terri's life is no less important or worth preserving now than it was then. She has value regardless of her level of ability or degree of brain injury -- and whether or not she does 'get better' at this point. Her family reports that she does recognize, interact, and is not ordinarily in pain; 'quality of life' is in the eye of the beholder.

These are the things I want people to know about Terri.

---

What's this about an amputation?? (see depo snippet #505)

[tutstar]

Is this it?

[MindBender26]

Unknown dates. Was sent to me via email. St. Pete Times web site can probably provide

[a5478]

In light of some of the ire you raise for some posters, I have gone back and read all of your postings regarding TS. The theme is recurrent and you have been most faithful in explaining your stance repeatedly. It is appreciated. I realize patience could wear thin when you've tried over and over to explain something that, from your vantage, should be crystal clear to all in the room.

Everyone here is doing their best with the resources at hand. Please be careful not to belittle that. We all have the same end in mind. However, I am beginning to hear the message.

[TOUGH STOUGH]

Michael lives with his girlfriend and their two children. In most states that would be grounds for divorce. I understand the ramifications of Michael being the guardian, but isn't there some way someone could file for divorce on Terri's behalf? It's ridiculous!

[a5478]

I am not Catholic. Is there any grounds on which the church could dissolve their marriage without her petioning for such? Could they simply point to his adultery and dissolve the marriage in the eyes of the church? That might be a stepping stone.

[MindBender26]

Good idea, but who would ask for the divorce for her, her guardian, Michael?

Not being demeaning. but this is flea s**t.

Need to move at much high issue levals.

More later

[Darksheare]

I'm in.
;-)
Been wandering about as I usually do.

[TOUGH STOUGH]

I don't know whether or not the church can do that. It is an excellent thought.

MB's reply to me might be correct, but it seems Terri is being denied the right to apply for a divorce that would be available to others. And of course, if she could divorce Michael, then his legal grounds for guardianship might cease to exist. You would think there would be some loophole in the law, that would allow an attorney to file for divorce for Terri, even though Michael is her guardian.

Anyway, I have never gotten a satisfactory answer for that question.

[Dante3]

Michael should not be allowed to be her guardian. There is a conflict of interest, suspicions of attempted murder, indications of abuse.

In the Sunny van Bulow case, the husband was replaced as guardian by her children. He too like Michael wanted her to die and the children did not. BTW Sunny is in much worse state than Terri.

Where are the adult proective services?

[TOUGH STOUGH]

Reply #577 is for you. My apologies.

[TOUGH STOUGH]

I know what you mean about the adult protective services, though I am inclined not to trust them as they are a part of the government. The court does seem to be biased against Terri and who knows how long the arm of the court stretches.