Posted on 03/20/2005 12:29:52 PM PST by kcvl
Per Fox News...
Also Steven Becker, another killed in hiding while courts were in the process of deciding on his life.
Read the report finding linked above in this thread.
I believe you were defending Deejay, and I was wondering if you read her very first post.
"She was spoon fed by nursing home employees until Michael FORBADE it. "
Simply untrue, she had a feeding tube inserted shortly after being taken in in 1990.
I believe Howln was defending those who are siding with the rule of law.
I wasn't defending anybody. I was posting with Diva.
I read on one of the threads that the paramedics injected her with something to help her breathe and it could have contibuted to her potasium imbalance.
For multiple reasons.
#1. According to court testimony, Michael formally offered to divest himself entirely of his financial interests in the guardianship estate. That tells me he isn't in it for the $$.
#2. He's been offered money twice to keep her alive. Once $10M and once $1M. That he has turned down money tells me he is more committed to carrying out his wife's wishes.
#3. He was not insistent on this point until the Schindlers testified to this in court. After which time he was quoted as saying something like "That's enough." (I know my husband would NEVER let this happen to me and would try to work with my mother but this would be the final straw for him too):
Court testimony provided by members of the Schindler family included very personal statements about their desire and intention to ensure that Theresa remain alive . . . at any and all costs. Nearly gruesome examples were given, eliciting agreement by family members that in the event Theresa should contract diabetes and subsequent gangrene in each of her limbs, they would agree to amputate each limb and would then, were she to be diagnosed with heart disease, perform open-heart surgery. Within the testimony, as part of the hypothetical presented, Schindler family members stated that even if Theresa had told them of her intention to have artificial nutrition withdrawn, they would not do it.
#4. Michael in-laws admitted in court on the stand under oath that they had told him it was time for him to get on with his life. The families used to live together and get along very well. It was not until Mr. Schindler got angry that Michael got the malpractice $$ that the relationship deteriorated.
I'm married and if something happens to me, my husband may sue and get the money. My dad (stepdad) isn't going to be entitled nor would he ask for one dime.
#5. Terri's sister was on CNN Friday night and said that Terri is a healthy, vibrant woman. Hello?
#6. Terri's parents brought Terri home in 1990. They were overwhelmed (their word) and they sent her back to rehab. What confidence do we have that 15 years later and 15 years older they will be able to care for her.
#7. Court records compliment Michael on his care for Terri which by all accounts has been exemplary. He even became a respiratory therapist in order to better care for her. I know someone who flunked out of that course; I don't think it's rocket science but don't think it's an easy thing to do either.
#8. I would always want my spouse to have the final say in my care. I also think it's too difficult a thing for parents to be expected to let a child go. It's the most gut wrenching thing in the world. I've seen my stepdad do it and it nearly killed him.
#9. There are other reasons but I can't think of them right now :-)
What do you want? Total anarchy?
No.
Which has also been the case in several other killings of "useless eaters" like this one, now taking place. Christine Busalacchi, Nancy Cruzan.
They've got it down. Put in the feeding tube, then have it removed to kill.
Well I read the report linked above in this thread... and in the report by her legal state representation it stated that her bulimea is what may have caused her to have a potassium deficiency which led to her heart attack.
Obviously. But that isn't really the point. The point is what sort of evidence is sufficient. I can give credible evidence of an offer to buy, but if it's more than $500 and not in writing, I'll have a devil of a time enforcing it by order of a court. Wills are likewise encumbered by an evidentiary burden, above the "credible verbal testimony" of witnesses.
As far as I know, Terri did not reduce her wish to not be fed to writing. Mixed blessing though. If she is truly out of it, then she doesn't case that she is being kept alive. The bias of the law should be toward life.
The family is accusing him now of causing her injuries, they are defaming his character left and right.
Assume things are true as he sees it. He tried for four years, including radical treatments, and doctor after doctor told him no go. He made peace with it and moved on. Now her family is accusing him of putting her in her condition. I would tell them to piss off most likely. Michael Schiavo is supposed to watch Terri's sister on Fox accuse him of battering her, then welcome her into the room? Would you?
True that she had the tube inserted after her collapse
But it is also true that she was spoon fed and Michael put a stop to that
Which part of family members making decisions in situations like this, every day in America, don't you understand?
This happens every single day in AMerica in some hospital. And not all those people have living wills.
It's happened in my family twice and neither of them had living wills.
Yes,they did- or no, they did not.
BTW- there is one job for our representatives and that is to protect our rights as citizens. That is their only job.
The GOP and President Bush and Governor Bush and everyone who is fighting for Terri says she has not had her rights under law and held for her by the Constitution of the United States.
My mistake.
Sworn credible testimony is considered evidence in any court of law.
Where the heck is that?
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.