Posted on 02/22/2005 11:29:33 AM PST by ConservativeMan55
Hmmmmm--hadn't thought of it that way. Maybe because of all the attention this is getting, Terri will have a chance, yet!
Sorry for the delay in reply - been a busy day here. : )
I agree - the "he caused her collapse" idea just takes too much of a stretch and has too many holes. Doesn't matter anyway, but it does detract from the critical points that should be focused on.
LOL The gold chains had the same effect on me. He really ...not too swooft.
The lawsuit you're referring to was quite minor - against one of her OB-GYNs - just 200k or something.
The big multi million dollar lawsuit against the others was won at trial. Note that all the medical records were available to both parties, and witnesses were called, including the Schindlers who testified for Michael against the doctors, and her coworkers, who testified about her strange visits to the restroom after lunches.
Felos had nothing to do with it. He didn't meet Michael for another 5-6 years.
Busy here too.
Thank you for your replies, and your corrections.
So, there were two lawsuits.
Felos was involved later in the big lawsuit. The one where Michael testified he would take care of her ...
Then, after getting the money, he had a sudden change of mind.
He felt alone, helpless, he wanted to be able to move on.
He did move on, but stayed married. Kept control of the money. Denied rehabilitation efforts and focused the money on having an end to his suffering.
The lawsuit money was partly specificied to cover his loss of a sexual partner. Seems he wasn't missing a sexual partner at all. Is that not betrayal of concern, in the matter of being selected as a proper guardian, when the very matter had been before the courts?
If Terri's own choices led to her accident, that makes no difference in deciding whether she should live or die. Neither do Michael's choices. They are only supportive of whether he is suited to be a guardian for her concern.
I do not believe he is a proper guardian. He has too many obvious biases.
At this point, even with her original injuries, she appears to be 'conscious', and 'feels', so I cannot accept starving her to death and acting like she will feel no pain, she will have no mental torment. I cannot accept that she wants to die without a serious attempt to discern her will. I have not seen that happen.
Again, thanks for correcting the details of my former statements.
Would you mind explaining something to me?
You link to an article, which I read, and after all the information given personally by the doctor, you are qouting a third party source of information which conflicts with the Doctor's very own words in print in the article you linked to.
Is that right?
No. What did I say wrong?
Terri's parents were with Michael during the lawsuit, for TERRI's LAWSUIT, if I am not mistaken, for her REHABILITATION, and Michael's loss of consort.
What would you expect?
Them to fight against the LAWSUIT to provide coverage for the hospital bills for their daughter? To Fight against her having proper care?
I just don't see your point in them being on his side during the lawsuit. Of course they were. Any family would.
Michael did not decide to do anything to get rid of Terri for five years. But he did find another consort, did he not?
Now that it is a burden, he wants to off her. It is pretty simple, isn't it? He has been spending TERRI'S REHAB money on a lawyer trying to (legally terminate her life) for seven years now, is that not a fact?
I have seen children born with brain deficiencies. Do they deserve to die, slowly and painfully, and in mental torture (assuming it is Terri's wish not to die, that she hopes to recover) ?
I'm sorry...having a hard time understanding your question...
You said you wanted a link to show she had flat EEGs.
The page I linked to is extremely pro-Terri. I find it to be full of misinformation, but because it's biased toward Terri, and it shows him attempting to explain *why* her EEG showed no activity, I thought you would believe him, at least.
I though of all people, you'd believe Hammesfher, who sure wouldn't underestimate Terri's results...
If you insist, I will go back & cite you specific pages out of PDF files. But I really think it would be very helpful to you to read the Wolfson report to Bush. He was the appointed guardian ad litem for Terri by Bush's order.
http://www.miami.edu/ethics2/schiavo/wolfson%27s%20report.pdf
Goodnite all.
May God bless us all, we need it.
May we bless those who test our will, our patience, our abilities the most, as they make better persons of us.
May we consider all that was discussed and sleep on it.
May we all wake up healthy and strong.
May God be allowed to take Terri at his descretion, and not by the hand of man. She does not deserve to suffer the death being proscribed for her, no matter what the reason.
Amen.
He explained why an EEG done improperly showed no activity. He did not state he conducted one and it showed her to be a flatliner. He stated a doctor "NOT QUALIFIED IN THE FIELD" conducted and analysed that EEG.
I urge any Freeper to click on the link for themselves, read what the Doctor stated, and , again, what you are pointing to, Trinity, which is a third party quote.
I find it hard to believe that someone who can get out the words, "I am hungry", can be tested and found to have a flat EEG.
Now, if you do it while they are asleep, or sedated, then , yes.
An EEG is difficult to perform or evaluate if the patient cannot follow proper instructions. If certain aspects of their phsyical control of their body are unstable, inoperable, then the responses cannot be relied upon for evaluation.
An EEG is used on comatose patients to see if they are 'flatliners'. Terri is not comatose. If you are not 'comatose', tell me how you can be a 'flatliner'. You cannot breathe and pump your heart without the brain signaling them to do so, or the aid of a heart-lung machine. Is this not true?
I wonder, if he divorces Terri, does he lose insurance money? I heard that he may even have to pay back the money.
Really, got to go to sleep. I think we are agreeing, even where we differ, there is room for variance of opinion.
And again, I have no problem with being corrected. I don't think it has substantially changed to overall situation, do you?
Although Michael's own words, and actions make him appear sinister, that constitutes no proof. Let's say he had good intentions for a while. Let's say he wants to be free of the burden.
OK, give her up to her parents. When we know WHY he won't we may know what this is all about for sure. Do we have to have Terri die, to then find out there was a hidden motive?
Let her die. It's costing us. (some say, not you). We spend more getting a puppy dog out of a sewer pipe.
P.S. We spend money getting a CAT out of a tree. Ever found a DEAD CAT that got STUCK IN A TREE?
I wonder if anyone has thought of doing a "rescue?"
Very funny Heisenberg!
Either you need new glasses -
Or - you must have read my post wrong.
I did say Dr. Hammesfahr!
I typed in Dr. Hammesfahr's name so much when I researched him - I could almost type his name without looking!
Dr. Hammeroff - on other hand - is really out there with his Quantum Consciousness concept!
And HE's definitely no Dr. Hammesfahr!
Well, he might be required to repay her rehab money [which is now in lawyers pockets] and surely alimony.
I certainly did, and in my braindead manner, forgot to THANK YOU for doing so! So, Thank you, very much. I found the information very valuable.
PING. Thought you would like this. May have seen it, but just in case.
http://theempirejournal.com/0225051_florida_dcf_seeks_60.htm
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.