Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


1 posted on 03/21/2005 8:16:10 AM PST by Destro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


To: Destro

I would say that Terri's won, for now.


2 posted on 03/21/2005 8:17:50 AM PST by ClintonBeGone (In politics, sometimes it's OK for even a Wolverine to root for a Buckeye win.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Destro

"Michael Schiavo, her husband, won a $US1.3million malpractice judgment that included money for her medical care, which he subsequently refused to fund."

"Michael conveniently didn't note her alleged sentiments when requesting money for her rehabilitative care."

Says it all.


3 posted on 03/21/2005 8:18:32 AM PST by sitetest (If Roe is not overturned, no unborn child will ever be protected in law.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Destro
To devote so much public resources to someone who is a vegetable is wrong.

Her life is over and she wouldnt be living today if it wasnt for the wonders of modern medicine. 15 years in a nursing home. What has she cost the taxpayers.

If her husband had something to do with her situation, he will have to answer for it one day.

6 posted on 03/21/2005 8:31:19 AM PST by oilfieldtrash
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Destro

No winners? How very Hitlerjugend of you? I think Terri won yesterday. She gets to live for one more day.


24 posted on 03/21/2005 8:48:53 AM PST by KC_Conspirator (This space outsourced to India)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Destro
The right to die. Virtually no one disputes Terri's right to decide whether to live or die.

*************

The Left believes in the right to die, and the Right believes the the right to life.

30 posted on 03/21/2005 8:55:44 AM PST by trisham (choose life!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Destro

Why wasn't Michael Schiavo punished by the courts for refusing to pay for her care after he received the malpractice lawsuit settlement? The article states that Florida law allows a patient to be allowed to die if there is no means of payment. But there was money for her care, so why didn't the hospital take him to court for nonpayment?

It seems that there are a lot of unanswered questions in this story. If the husband was suspected for physical abuse and caused her initial brain damage, why did the court give him guardianship over her? Now Congress is stepping in to check out if her 14th Amendment rights were violated, and if due process of the law was followed. It seems that they followed the Florida guidelines, but the judge in her county made a really bad decision putting her husband in charge.

And why was the husband making decisions that a doctor should have been making? (Whether or not she should have a feeding tube) It just seems that along the way, everyone (including her family) made some really bad judgements.

People are always raggin' on CA, but I think the state of Florida is whacked! They can't seem to get anything right until it's too late.


35 posted on 03/21/2005 9:03:51 AM PST by senorita (A real American native)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Destro; Howlin; Long Cut; Poohbah; veronica; Hildy; Peach; Neets

Common sense in this article.


40 posted on 03/21/2005 9:08:17 AM PST by hchutch ("But, Rally, they're SMOKE GRENADES.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


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