Man's brain rewired itself in 19 years after crash

"Only after the judge ordered her feeding tube removed -- since removing the feeding tube would allow her to die, a hospice is the appropriate place for her to be." Oh come on! She was moved into the hospice in 2000 and her feeding tube wasn't removed (although it had been ordered earlier) for the first time until 2001 -- and even then it was only for a few days. I suppose it is just a coincidence that she was placed in the hospice, despite not meeting the criteria for hospice care, and it had not a thing to do with the fact that Felos was on the board of that hospice.

"Baloney. If the Schindlers were taking care of Terri in their home, I can think of a hundred "expenses" ostensibly for Terri's care that would equally benefit them." You would -- because that is how your mind works. Caring for a woman in her condition is expensive and her life-expectancy certainly supassed what was awarded. It defies logic to assert that assuming care for Terri would be a financial boon. If she had been awarded several million, as Michael sought, I could see your point. But 750K over the next 30 years is barely enough to cover the life of a healthy person, let alone one who needs medical care. Incidentally, in his lawsuit Michael testified that he wanted to care for Terri at home, wanted money to train for that, etc. He did, indeed, become a nurse but he didn't care for her at home once the judgement was awarded.

"Since Michael offered to give the money to charity, how would her death be a boon to him?" Because, initially, he made no such offer. His first attempt at "helping" her to die came in 1993. The offer wasn't made until late in the game -- after most of the money had been drained anyway -- and, as I said before, it was a stunt. He knew the Schindlers would never agree to have their daughter dehydrated to death.

"Read his report for yourself. Nowhere does he say that. So stop with the gossip, once and for all." Thanks for the link! This report actually makes Pearson appear far more even-handed than you claim. As for the guardian's assertion, read the bottom of page 12. He notes there is no corroborative evidence of Schiavo's claim and that he was the only witness to make such a claim. Just because he doesn't explicitly state, "I asked Michael and he said blah, blah.." in his report doesn't mean he didn't say it. He couldn't just declare there was no one to corroborate, he asked! What I do find interesting is that, contrary to your claim, he DOES note that the Schindlers would have a financial interest if Terri were placed in their custody. He also concludes by noting that, should there be clear and convincing evidence of Terri's wish, she should have her tube removed. He doesn't appear nearly as biased as you claim. Not, that I would accuse you of gossip or anything!

"If she died, the money was his. He offered to donate it to charity. WHAT DON'T YOU UNDERSTAND?" What part of the "the money was ordered for he CARE" do you not understand???? He is using her money, money awarded to help her live as a means of bartering AWAY her life! I'm not talking about the legality of where the money goes. I'm talking about the immorality of using money intended for one's care as a means for buying her death -- done not only by his phony offer (contingent only upon her parents' agreement that she be dehydrated to death) but about the perverse, pro-euthanasia lawyer using her money to bring about her death.

Three dingbats, you mean, one of whom claimed that Michael was injecting Terri with insulin -- though she had no proof. Another who claimed Terri could eat Jell-O and swallow liquids, though no one else was with her to witness it. None of these "nurses" testified at Judge Greer's 2000 hearing to determine Terri's fate. NONE. Where were they? Why didn't they testify when it would have done some good? Why did they wait and just give depositions a year or two later? Why? Because under cross examination they would have been ripped to shreds -- especially the liar Iyer. Typical response from you! The nurses are all liars. The nurses are all dingbats! (Of course, the sister-in-law Joan is a genius! That same brilliant, reliable witness couldn't even remember what she had done with her own car and reported it stolen! But she can remember a Terri's alleged wishes --- two days before the trial!) Are you telling me they wouldn't have cross examination if Greer allowed the new evidence to be heard? Funny how the nurses all need witnesses for their accounts, but Monster Schiavo's word is good enough for you! Greer wouldn't even allow video documentation of the jello feeding.

My initial post on this topic is where we still stand. There is plenty of doubt as to what Terri's wishes were. If you can't even be intellectually honest enough to admit that, there is no reason to continue this conversation. Had this issue been put to a jury, rather than to a judge with an obvious bias in favor of Michael Schiavo, you couldn't even find a jury in Oregon that would have agreed to put this woman to death. Michael, at the very least, is a person to doubt. I predict he will eventually be exposed as a liar. And when Joan or Jodi come out with the truth, you can dismiss them as scorned dingbats, too. I'm done!

"And then you undermine her medical credentials"

And what are those "medical credentials"? I couldn't find any. According to the links I read, she's not registered as an LPN or RN with the State of Florida. Her "affidavit" does not state her credentials. She never did testify in court, under oath, subject to perjury, and subject to cross examination -- as did Michael, his brother, and his brother's wife.

She's referred to as a "nurse" -- which means nothing. Whackjob Heidi Law (Ms. Jell-O) was referred to as a "nurse".

"when you haven't a clue what went on between them."

They were dating. They broke up. That makes her an ex-girlfriend. That makes her personally, not professionally, involved. Given her relationship with Michael (the monster -- how could she?), her "credentials" (whatever they are) are therefore immaterial.

"OK --not exactly the actions of someone who had "hope" his wife would recover, is it?"

One does not imply the other.

Terri was receiving rehab for almost five years. From the Wolfson Report, "On 19 July 1991 Theresa was transferred to the Sable Palms skilled care facility. Periodic neurological exams, regular and aggressive physical, occupational and speech therapy continued through 1994."

The rehab was having no effect. The rehab wasn't being provided for free. How long would you have continued it? How many tens of thousands of dollars would you have wasted?

"so stop pretending they got involved because they wanted money."

They DID want money! They wanted half of Michael's Loss of Consortium award for starters. When they didn't get it in February of 1993, four months later they (unsuccessfully) tried to have him removed as Terri's guardian.

You say it's becaused Michael discontinued her rehab -- the Wolfson report says it continued for another 18 months after the Schindlers filed their petition.

Gee, who to believe?

"She was moved into the hospice in 2000 and her feeding tube wasn't removed (although it had been ordered earlier) for the first time until 2001"

Nice throwaway line -- "although it had been ordered earlier". Yes, the removal of the feeding tube had been so ordered by the court. That's WHY she was transferred to the hospice. That's was made her terminal and "likely to die within six months". That's what made her eligible.

Judge Greer ordered the feeding tube removed in February, 2000. Terri was transferred to the hospice in April, 2000 to have the feeding tube removed to be allowed to die. What can't you understand about that?

That fact that Terri remained in the hospice for years was due to the Schindlers filing petition after petition and appeal after appeal.

"But 750K over the next 30 years is barely enough to cover the life of a healthy person, let alone one who needs medical care."

Well, golly gee. Maybe The Terri Schindler-Schiavo Foundation could help them out a little. Maybe the Schindlers would take the book deals Michael refused. Maybe there's a In the Matter of ~~Karen Ann Quinlan~~ Terri Schiavo made-for-TV movie possibility.

The proceeds for Terri's care, of course.

How MY mind works? Bob Schindler tried to grab half of Michael's Loss of Consortium award. Bob Schindler was the one who filed for bankruptcy just a few years before that because of some shaky investments. Bob Schindler was the one who sold Terri's donor list.

There was lots and lots of money to be had by someone as unscrupulous as Bob Swindler.

"The offer wasn't made until late in the game"

You are a piece of work. When do you think he should have made the offer -- in 1992? 1994?

Terri's wish was not Michael's call (certainly not according to Pearse). The judge legally determined that he had "clear and convincing evidence" as to Terri's wish in 2000. The Schindlers fought it. In 2001, Michael offered to give the all the money to charity if the Schindlers would get out of the way of the court order.

What are you talking about -- "late in the game"? When should Michael, no, when could Michael have made this offer any sooner than he did? I would like your answer on this.

"Just because he doesn't explicitly state, "I asked Michael and he said blah, blah.."

You said, twice I believe, "he claimed no one else knew of her so-called wish when he spoke to the Guardian in 1998." That's not what the report says. The report says only Michael made the claim. That's not "Michael claimed no one else knew this". You were wrong.

"He doesn't appear nearly as biased as you claim."

Appear? Who cares? He admitted his bias to Judge Greer: "Mr. Pearse readily agreed that he has feelings and viewpoints regarding the withdrawal of feeding and hydration tubes and that he did not so advise the court prior to his appointment".

"If you can't trust me for the truth, look it up yourself!"

No, if I can't trust you for the truth, I'll ask where you got your information.

You wouldn't give me a link to Pearse's report, and I found out why. You weren't telling me the truth. So, no, you can't be trusted.

Now, you claim Michael said, "It's what I think Terri would want.....In my own feelings, if Terri were to wake up and see herself the way she is now, she wouldn't even want to live like that." Where did you get that?

I'll make it a little easier on you. The first part of your claim, "It's what I think Terri would want." is ~~a lie~~ incorrect. The testimony was actually:

Q. So when you made the decision not to treat Terri's bladder infection you, in effect, were making a decision to allow her to pass on?
MS. I was making a decision on what Terri would want.

Gee. That's not really the same, is it?

Now, all you have to do is provide me with a link, as I provided to you, that contains your claim, "In my own feelings, if Terri were to wake up and see herself the way she is now, she wouldn't even want to live like 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.