Posted on 07/06/2005 10:50:06 AM PDT by 8mmMauser
Several bloggers have drawn attention to a strange lead in a Washington Post story about the Terri Schiavo autopsy results. The June 16 Post story by David Brown said that "Terri Schiavo died of the effects of a profound and prolonged lack of oxygen to her brain on a day in 1990, but what caused that event isn't known and may never be, the physician who performed her autopsy said…"
(Excerpt) Read more at aim.org ...
You and your friends are so hell bent on disrupting this thead, that you agree that we, AS AMERICANS, have no property rights? That the goobermint can decide that my lot would bring in more tax revenue if 24hr Fitness was parked there, instead of my home? Wait until the bulldozers show up at your house. Then you'll know what "The Supreme Soviet" is.
Take another snort of Wild Turkey. After all, it's 3:00 somewhere....
Maybe there are some suicidal patients. I guess we better kill them all, so we don't risk missing any of them.
I spent some time early this morning writing an email in response to a common question, and rather than keep answering it, I'm going to post my response here, and in the future I'll just refer folks to this post.
The question was essentially this: Michael only mentioned Terri's supposed wish not to be kept alive this way only after the medical malpractice trial was over, so doesn't that show he just made it all up after he got the money? My original answer was rather short. I mentioned the "realities of litigation" and how it didn't surprise me that the issue never came up in the earlier trial. The reader then asked me to explain what realities I was talking about. Here's my response:
Hmmm. "Realities of litigation." It means a lot of things. We have an adversarial system of justice. The way it works is that we pit two sides (or more) against each other, each charged with presenting its best case on the law and the facts to the court and, sometimes, the jury. Decisions are then made based on what's presented, and the decisions bind everyone involved. Ethical lawyers don't lie and don't permit anyone to be defrauded, but they also aren't neutral. They have clients who require advocacy. So if I am Michael's attorney in the malpractice case, there is no way I am going to ask him at a deposition or at trial about whether Terri expressed any desire not to remain in a state like she's in. I would ask privately, but not when the answers are being transcribed. That's something for the other side to talk about, if they choose to do that.
But would the other side ever choose to talk about it? If the doctors' attorneys had asked him about it in deposition, then you and I would not be having this conversation. But they apparently didn't ask, and that's not illogical, because the answer either way was probably never going to come up at trial. Think about it. Imagine you're on a jury in a medical malpractice case. The plaintiff is a woman who's in horrible shape, the defendants are blamed for having caused her injuries by failing to diagnose and treat her properly, and the husband is seeking money to care for her for the rest of her life. How will you react to a defense by the doctors that says we didn't do anything wrong here, sure we treated her but there was no way for us to know she was bulimic, we were treating her for pregnancy problems not eating disorders... You may disagree with the defense and find the doctors liable but you probably won't be mad at them. Now, how will you react if the doctors also defend by saying and by the way this woman's really, really hurt, so hurt that she's never going to recover, and she told him she wouldn't want to live this way, so at some point he's going to let her die and jury you shouldn't give him money for her lifelong care even if we were negligent because there's never going to be any lifelong care... How would you react to that defense? You and your fellow jurors would probably be furious with the doctors for saying such things, and the verdict might reflect that furor with a ridiculous sum of money.
So I can't believe any lawyer representing the doctors would bring the matter up, either. The result: this issue is not coming up at the malpractice trial. I'd be surprised if any lawyer disagreed.
In the end, Michael's testimony that he wanted to care for Terri for her and his whole lives can be viewed in multiple ways. On one hand, it's consistent with someone who believed he wanted to care for his wife to bring her back, but who later lost hope when doctors convinced him they'd done all they could do. Keep in mind, the malpractice lawsuit was filed very early on, as you would expect to happen. Trial didn't happen for years, and Terri received tremendous care, attention, and therapy through 1994 -- read the GAL's report and the court decisions for that chronology. The view she would never recover developed slowly, over time, and the degeneration of her cerebral cortex apparently wasn't seen for years. Perhaps Michael's view of that outlook changed slowly, too. Then again, perhaps he lied then or is lying now. Perhaps he knew she wasn't coming back, or either way he didn't want her to come back -- he just wanted to get through the malpractice trial, collect as much money as possible, and let her go. Perhaps. I don't know. I think people just see here what they want to see.
Let me be clear: I'm not saying I have any idea what was really going on in Michael Schiavo's head. I'm not defending him. I'm reacting to numerous statements being made that "he never mentioned her wishes during that trial so he must have just made it all up after the lawsuit." In my view, people saying that don't understand how litigation works. Whether Terri's wishes came up in that trial has nothing to do with whether Michael's been honest in this case about Terri's wishes.
...posted by Matt Conigliaro Û
"Suicidal" is a red herring, sir. Not the same thing at all.
It is the job of a spouse to determine the care for his or her spouse when he/she can't. However, I would not want a "husband" who was living with another woman and fathering her children to determine my fate.
Not relevant. He was still acting according to her wishes, regardless of the fact that he had moved on.
That in no way challenges his actions as her guardian.
You are something else.
The court made a ruling.
It is nothing more than your opinion that this ruling was "contrary to the evidence".
On the other hand, the court's ruling was upheld by every level of the judiciary, with the Florida 2nd Circuit explicitly agreeing with Greer's findings.
That doesn't change the fact that the evidence indicated she wanted to live.
The evidence indicated nothing of the sort.
Better check the AF handbook, and get back to me.
I am greatly amused when a relative newbie such as yourself calls me a 'troll' or an 'AFer'.
It matters, because Michael Schiavo has stated that he squandered Terri's rehab money trying to have her put down. He states that there is only 25,000 left of the money. Money that was awarded to care for her, not to pay Felos, etc. It would be interesting to see if MS and his family's lifestyle becomes more affluent, yes?
Correct. MS hasn't been charged with anything...yet.
No, better we follow the wishes of each individual patient.
It's not a red herring when responding to someone claiming that maybe some patients are suicidal. Try to keep up.
I didn't call you anything. However, I've seen your AF posts.
Totally agree and i wish these trolls would leave already. There are doing nothing but making fools out of themself for posting here!
No sunshine, I am just pointing out until 1897, 30 years after the passage of the 14th Amendment, the 5th Amendment did not apply to the states.
This was changed by the vote of an 'activist' court. You should really read the opinion sometime. I believe it to be disingenuous to have a site (the Judge Greer one) with a lead quote from Jefferson (which doesn't apply in this situation in any sense of the word) and goes on to claim the 5th and 6th as some sort of protection, when in fact the Framers would have disagreed with you.
Every issue that does not deal with specific enumerated powers, such as defense, was intended to be handled by the separate and sovereign states. For us to accept your argument of Constitutional protection, we would have to take the stance of liberals. Sort of like what you've been doing.
Take another snort of Wild Turkey. After all, it's 3:00 somewhere....
I have no idea what you're talking about. And the song says it's 5:00 somewhere...
You got that right. If my DH was living with some women and having kids with her and I was lying in a bed with brain damage so help me God he better turn me over to my family to take care of me.
When Terri was diagnosed PVS, minimally conscious was not included on the scale. It's a new diagnosis. After it's inclusion, Terri was never allowed to be rediagnosed.
Even more so, I know that as her guardian it was his choice to make.
Even though he was her estranged husband? Even if he profited?
Terri Schiavo died on March 31, 2005, at 9:05 A.M. A bit over four hours later—no doubt after intense grieving on his part—Michael Schiavo filed a petition with Judge Greer for administration of her estate as sole beneficiary. Before her death, Michael had protested his innocence on Larry King Live and elsewhere, claiming that the settlement money had been all but used up, leaving him only about $25,000. As it turns out, given the behind-the-scenes financial shenanigans with Felos, there was about $1 million in the account, perhaps $2 million depending upon how well the investments did since 1993. Felos received a little over a half-million for his efforts. Not bad wages for a spiritual killer.
http://www.crisismagazine.com/feature2.htm
Terri Schiavo's Estranged Husband Granted Estate on Day She Dies
No it would almost amount to stalking.
. MS hasn't been charged with anything...yet.
Well I see you're in California by your flag. If you're so concerned with it, haul yourself down to Florida and swear out a warrant against him and whoever else you think is involved in this 'conspiracy'. I bet the FSU mascot's in on it somehow too so have your list ready. But as I warned another poster, don't be upset if they laugh you out of the office, because that's exactly what they'll do.
It's blunt and straightforward. There is nothing to show he did not play a role in her collapse.
Food and water is a basic human need. To not provide them constitutes murder.
An answer to the question at hand lies in my earlier reply. MS fought long and hard to get a large settlement. He stood there in court stating that he wanted to care for Terri until they passed away. He gets the money, and all of a sudden, "he remembers that Terri wouldn't want to live like that". He forbade even the most routine care.
You really should read up on this case. Hearsay isn't an issue, because he lied. He didn't lie? Okay, let's play "spot the lie". When he spoke to the jury, assuring them that he would care for his wife, or when he got the money...which enabled his memory to recall "her wishes".
Which statement is true? I vote neither. You obviously have never had a sociopath in your life. I have, and reply from a different perspective than others.
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.