Posted on 03/23/2005 5:52:58 AM PST by RedBloodedAmerican
"NOBODY disputes that for the first four years she got the best care available. Please, please stop repeating lies."
Where did I say she didn't?? I even pointed out she was doing well the first few years, you bonehead.
Stop trolling and being an idiot. Go find someone else to bark at.
If you read that article I linked, it sounds like money.
Nearly all my links are court documents or GAL reports; I think that's the only article I've relied on.
And the reason is because the Schindlers testified under oath they were angry they didn't get any money. They also admitted under oath they knew she was PVS. That's why I don't get the constant mantra from freepers that we don't know she is PVS.
Her docs in 93' and '94 said she was and recommended he pull the tube. It's been testified to under oath.
And MS didn't have to ask the court to make a determination on whether to pull the tube. He offered to let them make that decision, which they did. That's noted in court documents as well by the court judges themselves.
I'm late for the gym. Talk with you later. I appreciate your tone in discussing this with me. I understand this is a highly charged issue and I hope the only good that can come of this is for people to put their wishes in writing and make sure their families are well aware of their wishes.
Am I reading this wrong?
Have fun at the gym.
I used to chat on tbinet boards in the mid-late 90s after Prodigy closed their Classic boards. There were a few folks on there who had come out of a state of being unable to function (I am not sure if they were coma or PVS) and actually were doing well, even able to post on those boards. I never had TBI that I know of, although some of them think I did ;) but I went there to continue chatting with a friend from the Prodigy boards who suffered TBI.
Well, maybe I wrote it wrong, then. My intention was to say that she was not bad off her first few years and if she had recieved continuing proper care after those first few years, she might not have gotten worse than she was after the early part of her situation; progressed, not digressed. Sorry for getting upset at you; tight emotions these days. I agree she was well cared for - it's obvious in the articles and comments by even her family members.
But where and why did Michael change his opinion? Didn't he get hooked up with another woman before it came out that Terri didnt want to live on life support?
This whole thing can cause problems for people without living wills.
All your questions are valid, but they are explained in documents readily available. This is the problem. It's a complicated case and people are making judgements based on emotions rather thant he facts. Read Wolfson's report to Governor Bush. It tells the history of this case in a straightforward, easy to understand manner with citings and all. If you read Peach's post to you above, she answers the questions you just put to me.
Thanks I will check it out. I havent read it all. I'll read it in abit. Thanks for the reply. Best ~
Hey
Read the link on cash.
From that point though, isn't it on record that he used that money for things other than what it was intended (her care)? He didn't pay for rehab or treatment to help her. He did pay several lawyers though in an attempt to have her terminated. At least I think I recall an article pointing out what he did - or didn't do - with the money.
The whole thing is a mess.
Yes, it is. And you are correct in your last statement. He used the money for lawyers. He believed there was no hope.
Ok, read it here http://jb-williams.com/ts-report-12-03.htm
Havent digested it all. But in looking at info on Wolfson, what's your thoughts on how he is as a guardian?
I also want to add that the report found that there was no financial motivation, as he stated he would fully divest himself of the any and all money left in the Trust. I read somewhere that he said it would go a charity, to be decided upon by parents, et al. I'm not exactly sure about that one. I know I read it somewhere, but until I find the exact place, we'll leave it alone.
I think he's been a very fair, impartial and sensitive party.
You know he also wrote an article recently about this case. It's been posted here. I'll try to find it for you.
Personal attack? Where?
Commenting on Peach "taking on GOD", I think is how it was termed. Peach is sharp and good people, Mr. Sausageseller, and if you don't behave I will stop buying from you. :)
If you want the link to the WOlfson report, let me know and I'll send it to you.
Well, the Schindlers liked Wolfson very very much.
I admit I am not 100% up on all the ins and outs, timeline and facts of all this. Heck, I doubt even some of the attorneys and judges are! But if I recall, didn't Michaels care for her - the rehab part and efforts to help her out in that area - end about the time he got a settlement? It's just all curious.
It just seems the last few years that Michael, to the outsiders like me, have taken on a new reason for all this. Having Felos on his side (Mr. Hemlock Society!) doesn't help, IMO.
That was a quick trip to the gym. Did you cheat? ;)
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.