DCF: Terri Schiavo Not Abused, Exploited

ABC/AP ^ | 4.16.05

[ambrose]

DCF: Terri Schiavo Not Abused, Exploited

State Agency: Terri Schiavo Was Not Abused or Exploited by Either Side of Her Family

By VICKIE CHACHERE

The Associated Press

Apr. 16, 2005 - State investigators found no evidence that Terri Schiavo had been abused or exploited by either side of her family, according to documents released by Florida's Department of Children and Families.

The agency investigated 89 complaints dating back to 2001, when Schiavo's feeding tube was removed for the first time and the legal battle surrounding her right-to-die case intensified.

The calls alleged that the brain-damaged woman was being mistreated by her husband and her parents for financial gain. One complaint alleged that Schiavo's parents were selling videos of her through a Web site; another said Schiavo's husband wasn't spending money intended for her rehabilitation.

But investigators said they found no evidence that either her husband or parents were exploiting her, and often noted in their records that they found Schiavo well cared for on their visits to her Pinellas Park hospice.

The agency released the records Friday under court order.

Schiavo, 41, died last month after her feeding tube was removed for the third time, ending a bitter court battle between her husband, Michael Schiavo, and parents, Robert and Mary Schindler, over whether she would have wanted to live in a vegetative state.

The repeated allegations of abuse were based partly on bone scans showing Terri Schiavo suffered fractures and statements she made to family and friends that she was unhappy in her marriage.

Schiavo's husband has denied harming his wife. His lawyer said the fractures resulted from osteoporosis caused by the woman's years of immobility and complications of her medication.

Robert Schindler declined to comment there on the release of the DCF documents. An attorney for Michael Schiavo did not immediately return calls.

Copyright 2005 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

Copyright © 2005 ABC News Internet Ventures

[Pan_Yans Wife]

Hello, fellow Huguenot. You're the only one, outside of family, that I have bumped into.

[68 grunt]

... But, you guys can just enjoy yourselves laughing.

The laughing is the laugh of despair. I laugh at you to distance myself from you and your element. If even the main body of the republican middle reject the wackiness, then perhaps our liberal enemies will find their weapon neutralized, and their ridicule and contempt for the whack element will be ineffective. Hopefully we can stop the damage the whackjobs are perpetrating with their emotional whack.

[68 grunt]

Google is your friend.

[68 grunt]

... already resurrected and in full flight

Alright! The Resurrection Myth starts!

[68 grunt]

... Now, we don't know who our compatriots will be. That is what will neutralize us.

Well, listen, don't let your fear stop you from moving to a mountaintop somewhere. We could be compatriots in putting the screws to the judiciary, via the legislature, but I'm not your compatriot in Christ. Particularly your version.

[sirthomasthemore]

"Alright! The Resurrection Myth starts!"

68, this Board is for Christian conservative views. However, for myself, I had absolutely no objection to people posting who don't share that belief- as long as their arguments are well reasoned and intentioned.

But, relative to your gratuitous comment, it is not well reasoned. I believe, as a matter of Faith, in Resurrection. It is not a matter that can be proved or disproved...it's an article of Faith.

I respect your right to be a nihilist, agnostic, atheist or a practitioner of any other "belief system" you may have, if any.

In this regard, I will respectfully reply to any issue of governance from your perspective consistent with your belief system.

However, it serves no purpose to denigrate my belief in Resurrection, as it would not advance any debate for me to denigrate your lack thereof.

If you have a reasoned argument, by all means, make it.
Ridiculing someone's Faith, however, is not a reasoned argument.

[Earthdweller]

We are a rare breed are we not?

Nice to meet you.

There are others here.

Would you like to be on the Huguenot ping list?

[txrangerette]

ClancyJ wrote:

{Randy Neugebauer 19th District, Texas

I agree totally with his comments. Guess that makes me a radical wacko pro-life embarrassment.
So be it - this is something well worth being an embarrassment for.}

Clancy, even more to the point, his comments apparently qualify my Congressman, Randy Neugebauer, as "a radical wacko pro-life embarrassment".

Absurd though that is...

[Terriergal]

Noting the noise created outside of the hospice is not a damning observation.

No, but the hypocrisy of your priorities is.

[Terriergal]

Um, did I bring it up first?

No, PanYan'sWife did, and you jumped right in both feet.

"gosh the people outside were so rude! How dare they be rude! I mean, they're only starving and dehydrating someone inside....No cause to be rude!"

[Terriergal]

I guess you were piling on with the carnard that I'm not pro-life.

Yes, maybe you're pro-life, but you're distracted by gnats.

It's like having someone on your squad who can't maintain ROE and focus on the real battle because they have a hangnail.

[cyncooper]

Your priority seems to be to attack a poster. My priorities are not known by a comment. Unless I was going days on end about the issue, it is clearly not a priority of mine.

Now, why don't you move your focus off of another freeper and her comments and back to the subject at hand.

[cyncooper]

"gosh the people outside were so rude! How dare they be rude! I mean, they're only starving and dehydrating someone inside....No cause to be rude!"

Putting quote marks around a made-up statement and falsely attributing it to me.

What an interesting ploy.

Obsess much...when you're not busy making things up out of whole cloth and then trying to claim you are on the high ground?

Breathtaking, this hateful display.

[Terriergal]

Your priority seems to be to attack a poster.

Only those who are making a priority of attacking other posters who I respect.

[Terriergal]

"gosh the people outside were so rude! How dare they be rude! I mean, they're only starving and dehydrating someone inside....No cause to be rude!" Putting quote marks around a made-up statement and falsely attributing it to me.

Ok here's the original:

*************************************************
To: KDD

So dignified...

And one night on one of the cables the host and guest were
in front of the hospice and had to YELL over the
drumbeat and noise. Appalling lack of courtesy for
others in the hospice.

I'm not one bit surprised that things we all witnessed with
our own eyes are being denied by certain elements.

253 posted on 04/16/2005 11:52:09 PM CDT by cyncooper
******************************************************
I must say, my paraphrase was right on, don't you think, EternalVigilance?

[Terriergal]

Now, why don't you move your focus off of another freeper and her comments and back to the subject at hand.

by Subject at hand do you mean how rude the protestors at the hospice were?

[onyx]

You're being tirelessly baited.
Ignore "it."

[Sidebar Moderator]

Knock off the attacks
Thank you

[EternalVigilance]

They espouse leftwing positions, and then protest when people consider them leftwingers.

They claim to be conservatives and pro-lifers and then do everything in their power to undermine conservatism and the pro-life movement.

They mouth this stuff and then act surprised when people take their words at face value.

[cyncooper]

Your paraphrase isn't close and it's too bad you can't distinguish criticism of event from criticism of a poster.

Unless you can distinguish and are deliberately misrepresenting...which seems likely.