Posted on 03/19/2005 9:18:52 AM PST by EveningStar
Wolfson's report is based on court files, depositions, medical records and interviews with everyone involved.
That said, I begin with the most explosive allegation:
Did Michael try to kill Terri?
Wolfson laughs. "No!"
-----
Wolfson's report states that in the four years after her collapse, Michael "had insistently held to the premise that Theresa could recover and the evidence is incontrovertible that he gave his heart and soul to her treatment and care . . . In late autumn of 1990, following months of therapy and testing and formal diagnoses of persistent vegetative state with no evidence of improvement, Michael took Theresa to California, where she received an experimental thalamic stimulator implant in her brain. Michael remained in California caring for Theresa during a period of several months."
Says Wolfson now: "Michael was adoring of her. One nursing home complained he was hostile and abusive of the staff in championing her care. She was immaculately kept. In 13 years, she never had one bedsore."
(Excerpt) Read more at orlandosentinel.com ...
I saw that too.
I base my thinking on the fact that these guys/gals (Congress etc) jumped in on this at the last min.
I am not certain how much current information on TS' PRESENT STATUS OF HEALTH as of this date is out there available for interested parties to view/review.
If I'm wrong, so be it.
A SPOUSE is always the legal authority, & next of kin.
Correct.
The words after "and" imply that maybe nobody does without a living will is a legal argument to be made - albeit given the state of the law, very probably a losing one.
There must have been some doubt of the doctor's negligence, because such a low settlement is more like what insurance companies call "nuisance value." A strong case would have brought in around $10 million.
The problem for those trying to save Terri is not so much who makes the decision, but rather than finding that she wanted to die. That finding is a big roadblock. How does one upset the finding? One must do it de novo, or find that the finding was an abuse of discretion, the latter being a very high standard indeed to meet, and rarely met. Appellate courts put abuse of discretion cases in the dumpster as a matter of routine.
There was a contributary negligence issue, because Terri had an eating disorder.
She only has a feeding tube not life support. Many people live at home with feeding tubes once family members have been taught how to care for the person.
Found out this morning,on one of the news networks, one also needs to have a legal document, stating doctors & hospitals will not be sued if they revive a patient that has a Living Will stating "Do not resuscitate."
Apparently, even a Living Will does not guarantee doctors won't resuscitate.
The parents want her, there is ambiguity about her wishes, and death by dehydration is certainly unpleasant.
And it wouldn't hurt to have another court review this matter and, considering the controversy, take it out of Michael's hands. If he's telling the truth, he's done his best for his wife and there would be no shame (or damage caused) by his failure to fulfill her wish.
Further, it would a lesson to all that those who fear they might find themselves in such a state to have it well recorded they would not object to death by dehydration.
Lawyers have taken the bulk of
the $1.5 million or so. About
$700,000 left, went to Terri's
care and that went in a hurry.
That is one reason why legal documents get so complicated. For each judicial decision, another clause needs to be written, and so it goes. Have you even looked at a boilerplate bank guaranty document? It goes on for pages. Why? Because courts kept handing down decisons nullifying them based on this or that. For each arcane clause, there is a court history hehind it.
Points all well taken,
I worry that giving her to her parents, who is going to take care of her when her parents again find taking care of her too overwhelming like the did in the past?
ANother court looking at it is ok if there was some LEGAL error found in the previous rulings.
Just because one doesn't like or agree with the outcome of a legal case, doesn't give justification to move it to another court for review.
Imagine how long cases would be litigated if that is the route we are to take from now on.
Hubby will succumb to Diabetes. He knows it & so do I.
He does have a lot of years left.
Then Terri returns to where we are now with nobody objecting to her fate and Michael & Greer rehabilitated in the eyes of much of the country.
Ah yes. Yet another ruse that gets thrown, even though it's been shown to the "throwers" that it is purposely misleading. I've been dealing with them on another thread, too.
There were 2 defendants in the malpractice suit.
One of them was minor - he settled out of court for $250K, and yes, later the medical board said he hadn't been negligent, because he didn't see Terri like the other doctors did.
The major, main lawsuit was against her infertility doctor, and he wasn't "cleared of all charges." (sheesh - see how the misinfo gets spread? lol)
He was found negligent for not noticing her obvious signs of bulimia as shown at trial. The jury would have awarded millions, but they subtracted 70% from the award because they found that % to be Terri's culpability.
They gave Michael $300k for his loss of consortium.
For the sister to lie on t.v., with Atty. Gibbs at her side, is extremely unwise.
Thank you for the facts, something so many on this forum want to dismiss.
THen why did they testify at the malpractice trial that she did? That's what the whole malpractice was about. And they won. So someone's lying. I wonder who.
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.