Terri Shaivo thread

[JUGGERNAUT]

=============================================

http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1090180451119

 

Final thoughts for today:

What I find disturbing the most in this case is that the court gave greater credence initially to Schiavo's family over the Schindler's.

 

In 1992, Michael received 300K for his pain & suffering & 700K for Terri's future medical expenses. Shortly thereafter he had a falling out with Terri's parents on the basis that they believed he didn't want to provide Terri necessary medical treatment so she would die and he could keep all the money.

 

From 1993 to 1998, the Schinder's attempted to obtain both Terri's medical records & guardianship. Michael refused to share her medical records with her parents.

 

In 1996 Michael became engaged to another woman.

 

In 1998 Michael filed a petition to kill Terri by having the tubes removed.

 

In 2000 Greer presided over a week long trial in which Schiavo, his brother Scott, & Terri's sister Joan testified that Terri would have exercised her right to die. Terri's parents, her brothers, close friends, & parishoners sought to testify that Terri would have exercised her right to live.

 

From there on it's clear that Greer is the central figure in the case & that he placed much greater importance on Terri's prognosis than whether Michael should retain guardianship. He essentially linked the two together & as long as he felt there was

no reason to believe Terri would improve upon a persistent vegetative state he was not open to hearing challenges to Michael's guardianship.

 

I think there lies where we draw the line in the sand. I feel that was the wrong thing to do. Law is not intended to be decided based on special circumstances. The judge should have looked upon the guardianship independantly of Terri's condition. As a judge he is suppose to rule on the matter of guardianship from a more general pespective. If Terri was simply comatose with a better prognosis should Michael retain guardianship in lieu of his adultery & engagement to another woman?

 

Now it is possible the affair was not known when Greer first ruled on this in 2000.

But this case has come back to Greer several times since & that was public knowledge the last time he had to make a ruling.

 

Florida is a no-fault divorce state which means the burden for finding grounds for divorce is simply that there is no means of reconciliation. Engagement to another woman & fathering that woman's children would certainly seem to meet that burden.

 

In my opinion what the American people should be asking themselves is does Michael's conduct meet reasonable expectations of a spousal guardian? If you answer no then he should not remain her guardian regardless of her state of mind.

 

It's also important to not that Joan has retracted her testimony in 2000 stating she did not fully understand the nature of the question being asked her. Today she sides with the parents in supporting Terri's right-to-live. Which leaves only Michael & his brother Scott as the only major sources testifying to Terri's right-to-die.

 

With that I'm out of here. Having addresses all questions & challenges posed to me on a multitude of subjects my work is done here.

Edited March 22, 2005 by JUGGERNAUT

[Steff]

http://www.deltabravo.net/custody/faultstates.htm

This is a better link & simple logic proves my point.

If a state is no-fault that means any reason including adultery may be admitted for grounds in seeking a divorce.

 

If a state requires a fault grounds for divorce include cruel and abusive treatment, adultery, abandonment, and other types of misconduct.

 

Hence all 50 states recognize adultery as a grounds for divorce :rolly

 

Whatever word you want to use, asserting, recognizing or whatever the

point is that adultery is more than sufficient grounds to sue for divorce

in all 50 states.  Which is exactly the point to my earlier post.

 

 

 

Sorry but I'm not a mind reader and I can only comment on the bs you post that I can see with my eyes and not assume that you mean something else other than what you actually posted. Adultry as a grounds for divorce is NOT on the books in 22 states.

[Rex Kickass]

If this was about a marriage ending, why would he fight for her right to die for seven years? He could have just walked away. Period.

[Steff]

If this was about a marriage ending, why would he fight for her right to die for seven years? He could have just walked away. Period.

 

 

 

B-I-N-G-O.... and Bingo was his name-o....

[Wong & Owens]

If this was about a marriage ending, why would he fight for her right to die for seven years? He could have just walked away. Period.

 

 

Would there be any pending financial claim that Michael would have to forfeit if he divorced her?

[Steff]

Would there be any pending financial claim that Michael would have to forfeit if he divorced her?

 

 

Supposedly there are no more pending suits.. and they did not have LI at the time of the incident. They also did not own a home. The guy was offered $10 million to sign her over to her folks.. that's a lot of scratch... and, IMO, something someone who was only out for $$ would find very hard to resist. Maybe, just maybe, this is what she really wanted and he wants to be sure she gets her final wish..

[Wong & Owens]

Supposedly there are no more pending suits.. and they did not have LI at the time of the incident. They also did not own a home. The guy was offered $10 million to sign her over to her folks.. that's a lot of scratch... and, IMO, something someone who was only out for $$ would find very hard to resist. Maybe, just maybe, this is what she really wanted and he wants to be sure she gets her final wish..

 

 

OK, cool. Obviously the financial angle is one that had to be looked into. Thx for the info!

[Steff]

Holy crap...

 

http://www.theledger.com/apps/pbcs.dll/art.../503220347/1134

 

 

Governor Tries Different Angle on Schiavo

Jeb Bush would have her husband ousted as guardian; experts say that may do little.

 

By Joe Follick

Ledger Tallahassee Bureau

 

TALLAHASSEE -- Gov. Jeb Bush is pushing state lawmakers toward a new scheme to intervene in the Terri Schiavo dilemma, touting a plan to oust her husband from the role as her guardian.

 

Bush's new effort echoes a long-aired lament from fervent advocates for Schiavo to be kept alive. The argument: Michael Schiavo's new life with a girlfriend and two small children leaves him unqualified to oversee what he and numerous courts have ruled was her wish to not be kept alive in her current state.

 

"If someone is living with their loved one and has two children and their spouse is in this situation they have a serious conflict of interest," Bush told reporters Monday morning. "I think our state ought to change our laws to say that in those circumstances, that the guardian needs to be changed."

 

But state lawmakers, both for and against intervening again in the controversy, said it appeared there was not a will to do so right now.

 

Bush said the change would relate to the Schiavo situation. But many legal experts and lawmakers have said that because Michael Schiavo allowed the court to make the final decision to remove his wife's feeding tube, changing the guardian might have little or no impact on the current situation.

 

Despite the extraordinary intervention of Congress and President Bush this weekend that led to a law requiring a federal court review of the Schiavo case, Gov. Jeb Bush insisted the state must still address the matter after abandoning the effort last week.

 

"I'm deeply disappointed in the actions taken by the Senate last week," Gov. Bush said. "That doesn't mean that there's a finality to this."

 

It would be the third time lawmakers have made a run at intervening. In 2003, the state rushed "Terri's Law" through, allowing Bush to order the restart of her feeding. The state's Supreme Court tossed the law as unconstitutional last year.

 

Last week, House lawmakers approved a bill that would have required feeding of people in vegetative states unless there had been explicit directions left to the contrary.

 

But the Senate rejected a narrower measure 16-21 that would have required a court to decide whether a person had expressed a clear refusal of "sustenance and hydration" if they entered a vegetative state.

 

Sen. Dan Webster, R-Winter Garden, was the sponsor of the Senate bill. He said Monday that he doubts the Senate would support any Schiavo-related legislation.

 

"I would suspect it would be the same," he said when asked how a vote on interceding on the behalf of Schiavo's parents would fare in the Senate.

 

Webster also said that while Michael Schiavo should abandon his role as his wife's guardian, he wasn't sure it would have any effect on the maintenance of her feeding since the courts have found she would not want it.

 

Bush spoke Monday with Webster and the sponsor of the House measure, Rep. Dennis Baxley, R-Ocala. Baxley said the House was at the mercy of the Senate in moving forward.

 

Opposition to the plan last week in the Senate centered on a group of nine Republicans who voted against Webster's plan. The leader was former Senate President Jim King, R-Jacksonville, who said he'd not heard of any new effort.

 

"If there's a plan, I haven't talked to anyone who has one," said King, who added that he thinks the Senate is finished with the topic.

 

"I think Terri is better off in heaven than in that bed," King said. "It's going to be the will of God."

 

The fallout from last week's vote kept coming this weekend and on Monday, with protesters filling the Capitol, pleading with senators to intervene. Capitol security evicted several protesters who posed as speakers on unrelated bills in various committees before veering into a speech about maintaining Schiavo's feeding.

 

Ugly messages were left with lawmakers. Sen. Nancy Argenziano, R-Dunnellon, said one letter came from a self-identified Christian who "prayed" for Argenziano to die a painful death with stomach cancer.

 

Sen. Rod Smith, D-Alachua, said one caller to his office said, "I'm a Christian, and I hope you will die in your own vomit."

 

Smith, a former state lawyer who has sentenced men to death, said he's been called a killer before from death row opponents, adding that the threats and rallies haven't affected him or his fellow senators.

 

"I don't want to revisit it, the people around me don't want to revisit it," Smith said, calling last week's vote "a plain statement that the Florida Senate does not belong" in the issue.

 

Sen. Ron Klein (D-Boca Raton) grimaced when he was told that Christian groups compared the nine GOP senators who opposed last week's bill to Pontius Pilate.

 

"That is extremely offensive," he said. "This has become a political issue as opposed to a spiritual issue. The radical wing of the Republican Party has taken control of the issue, and those are the people who are whipping up the masses. It's tragic. It turns your stomach."

 

King said the Schiavo matter shouldn't be a GOP litmus test.

 

"We're being painted as some sort of counter-productive (group)," he said of the nine Republicans who voted against the bill last week. "All we're doing is what we think is our right, our duty, not necessarily as Republicans but as human beings."

 

 

Those Bush's have balls...

[JUGGERNAUT]

Ah, I see avoid the questions you don't want to answer.

 

No sarcasm wasn't obvious.  You insult people and the way they live all of the time.  When it becomes a habitual pattern, you don't assume sarcasm, you assume insult. 

 

Heck not to long ago you were preaching to us that if the majority of the country felt a certian way about a certian issue, that is the way it should be, because majority rules.  You even sited recent polling that said 60% of the country supported Terri Shaivo's right to die.  Now that position isn't convient for you, so it hasn't been mentioned.

 

Like I said, before, when it doesn't work, you change the arguement.  Like I said, I am used to it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

My response will be scripted out of your ethics as they are defined in your posts in this thread. That being it's ok to use to defame what a person says in any manner as you see fit just so long as you do not call that person a name directly.

 

So you can say what a person write's is bulls***, & you can say that everything a person write's is bulls*** but you can NOT call that person a bulls***ter.

 

Just want to be clear on that. I'll remember it from now on & follow it to the letter Sir!

 

Following that protocol what you hav written above is complete & utter bulls***.

In a subsequent post in reference to the swinger question I clearly use a derivative of the word sarcastic. Feel free to look it up. If that isn't blatantly obvious nothing is.

 

Posing a swinger question to a person is insulting but referring to everything they write or something in particular is not? Um, ok. :rolly

 

I feel I dealt with the sarcasm question already, so let's see what else ..

 

You make reference to my mentioning 60% (a little less actually) but then you make reference to it not being mentioned :rolly

 

Putting all that aside you make a valid point. Majority rules on this issue.

There are two areas to consider: state level & national level

 

The best measure of majority rules in our courts system today is trial by a jury of your peers. The peers are suppose to represent the majority of the citizens of the state of FL on this matter. In that respect Gov Bush was right in seeking a jury trial in the state of FL to decide this matter at the state level. Likewise he had a chance to submit legislation to change the laws pertaining to guardianship in the state. Again if such legislation had been pursued & passed that would have been a decision reflecting the majority of voters.

 

I believe regardless of Terri's outcome Bush will pursue such legislation in the near future.

 

Next is the national level. The appeals process allows for the Gov to pursue his cause to seek a trial by jury to the appelate courts, the federal appeals courts, & the USSC. All of that is on behalf of the state of FL.

 

The decision by the legislature to move such cases from state courts to federal courts

is one that was supported by unanimous votes in the Senate & had about 200 votes in the House. They are more likely to understand the complexities in the case & they are the ones who have to answer to the majority of voters who elected them.

 

QUOTE: Steff

Sorry but I'm not a mind reader and I can only comment on the bs you post that I can see with my eyes and not assume that you mean something else other than what you actually posted. Adultry as a grounds for divorce is NOT on the books in 22 states.

 

As I can only comment on the non-sensical & utterly inconsequential bs & drivel that you post. I stil fail to see where you have proven any where at all where adultery is not sufficient grounds to sue for divorce in all 50 states. That's all I said in my original post & you don't have to be a mind reader to understand that. But you do have to possess a fairly reasonable understanding of the english language & logic in the use of words :rolly

Edited March 22, 2005 by JUGGERNAUT

[Rex Kickass]

"One thing that God has brought to us is Terri Schiavo, to help elevate the visibility of what is going on in America. This is exactly the issue that is going on in America, of attacks against the conservative movement, against me and against many others."

 

Tom Delay, Friday March 18, 2005

[Steff]

QUOTE: Steff

Sorry but I'm not a mind reader and I can only comment on the bs you post that I can see with my eyes and not assume that you mean something else other than what you actually posted. Adultry as a grounds for divorce is NOT on the books in 22 states.

 

As I can only comment on the non-sensical & utterly inconsequential bs & drivel that you post.  I stil fail to see where you have proven any where at all where adultery is not sufficient grounds to sue for divorce in all 50 states.   That's all I said in my original post & you don't have to be a  mind reader to understand that.  But you do have to possess a fairly reasonable understanding of the english language & logic in the use of words :rolly

 

 

Sorry Jugger.. I can't help you comprehend the words of the laws any more than posting them for you. It's your choice to read them and interprete them for what they are... you obviously choose not to do that. You said it was a law.. I said it was not.. I posted factual evidence to show you that "adultry" is NOT grounds for divorce in 22 states. You either accept it.. or argue about it.. You do the same thing with every issue, with every person, who questions you and your posts. It's a shame because sometimes you actually have good points.. but those get lost when you choose to act like a 2 year old.

[Gene Honda Civic]

Who's paid for Shiavo's care for the last 15 years?

 

If they didn't have the money, wouldn't they have pulled the plug years ago?

 

Who's funding all of these legal proceedings?

[Steff]

Who's paid for Shiavo's care for the last 15 years?

 

If they didn't have the money, wouldn't they have pulled the plug years ago?

 

Who's funding all of these legal proceedings?

 

 

 

FWIU she is covered by Medicade. Expenses not covered by that have been paid for out of the $700K she got from a lawsuit in the early 90's. IIRC.. there's about $300K remaining of that $$.

[Texsox]

Her brain is liquified. There is no activity.

 

She moves her eyes and body and can make noise. My understanding from listening to Doctors is that requires brain activity. Low level, but brain activity.

 

Here's a question, do you think she would rather have her ex-husband making a life or death decision, or her parents? Can anyone really claim he is married to her in anyway but in a legal sense?

Edited March 22, 2005 by Texsox

[Steff]

She moves her eyes and body and can make noise. My understanding from listening to Doctors is that requires brain activity. Low level, but brain activity.

 

 

 

And I read that they are just involuntary reflexes.. everyone has an opinion I guess.

[Texsox]

And I read that they are just involuntary reflexes.. everyone has an opinion I guess.

 

Either way, I agree it isn't much, and isn't how I would like to live. I also wouldn't want my ex-wife making that decision. The mainstream media has been parading people who were considered to be in a persistent vegetative state with no hope of recovery, who now feed themselves, talk, and communicate. What was meaningful to me was they all report being able to hear what was going on around them. I really do not believe that is her future, it seems too far gone. I just can not believe we would allow a man who has divorced her in almost every sense to make this decision.

 

And from what I've read, most of the court rulings have been upholding his right to decide her care over her parents. THat is different then ruling on whether she is better off dead or alive.

[Steff]

Here's a question, do you think she would rather have her ex-husband making a life or death decision, or her parents? Can anyone really claim he is married to her in anyway but in a legal sense?

 

 

All I can say is that at the time that was who she wanted making her decisions.. for 7 years he did everything he could for her until he was told that she would never get better.. with that in mind (that she was never going to get better) he continued to fight for what (he claims) she wanted (not to be on LS). At any time, it's my opinion, he could have walked away from this and went on to live life with his girlfriend (btw... his lawyer claims they are not engaged) and children. He hasn't done that choosing to continue to deal with this.. For me, that speaks volumes. But maybe I'm just stupid to think that there are people out there who love unconditionally and will do things out of the goodness of their heart no matter how much pain it causes them in their own lives. Keeping promises is important to me.. guess I expect that is so for others as well.

[JUGGERNAUT]

Sorry Jugger.. I can't help you comprehend the words of the laws any more than posting them for you. It's your choice to read them and interprete them for what they are... you obviously choose not to do that. You said it was a law.. I said it was not..

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I do not recall the original post but I will concede this point:

If my original post implied that there was specific legislation pertaining to adultery in all 50 states that was not my intention. I apologize for the confusion. In context with the Schiavo discussion I meant solely that adultery was sufficient grounds for filing for divorce in all 50 states. It's one of the few grounds that meet both the no-fault & fault states' criteria.

 

===============================================

As you probably can tell as this discussion as gone on I more concerned about the general case study then the specifics of the case. As I see it the case is done. Schiavo is going to die & there is not much anything who supports a culture of life can do about it. There is simply no time.

 

The general ramifications of this case are more important. I hope that FL is the first to change the guardianship laws pertaining to incapacitated spouses. The % of Americans who have living wills is low to the point it's insignficant. That might change some but most people don't want to have to deal with the decision until it's too late.

That means for nearly all Americans right to die & right to live rights will lie in the hands of the state, their family, closest friends, or spouses. As much as we'd like to believe all of them have good & honorable intentions belief is not something our laws should trust in alone. There need to be standards in place to govern the conduct of those holding the guardianship in such cases.

 

Adultery would certainly be conduct un-befitting guardianship for spouses. In the case of adultery the state should either award the rights to someone more befitting or assume them on behalf of the state.

 

Let's assume the hypothetical that Michael had remained faitful to his wife. In this regards the purpose of the standards is to insure that the guardian is taking all steps possible to the proper care & management of the incapacitated spouse. That determination would be at the discretion of the state & would be provided by a review board.

 

Based on what I've read If such standards had been adopted in the state of FL I do not believe the review board would have ruled that Michael's management of her care was satisfactory enough to retain guardianship rights.

 

The bottom line is that with the adoption of such standards & practices of guardianship rights the executive branch would have the power to insure the care of such incapacitated individuals was up to par with the state's culture of life.

 

I just want to say that had Michael remained faitful Terri & basically given the parents as much lee-way as possible in determining what was best for Terri I would have supported Michael's assertion that Terri sought a right-to-die in this circumstance.

In my opinion if he had acted in such a way that exhibited a man's undying love for his wife there would be no reason to question is guardianship or is belief in her right-to-die.

[Steff]

I do not recall the original post but I will concede this point: 

 

 

 

 

I think I just won a prize...

[JUGGERNAUT]

For those voting Kill. Again, there is no reason to do so. She is being fed morphine through an IV. That addresses the suffering.

[Wong & Owens]

I think I just won a prize... 

 

 

You did! A free lunch at the Westchester IHOP!!!!

[Steff]

You did!  A free lunch at the Westchester IHOP!!!!

 

 

 

Hmmm... how about a beer at Broadview Bowl on Monday night instead... ??

[JUGGERNAUT]

I think I just won a prize... 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No prize for you I realized I could easily search on 50

 

QUOTE: Jugger

It's the law Steff. Spouses in all 50 states have the right to sue for divorce on the grounds of adultery.

 

No where is there a mention of books or even legislation. Just the right to sue

 

Reminder: stop voting kill. The morphine is addressing the suffering.

 

http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1090180451119 - Schiavo case in detail.

[Steff]

Good grief.. I'm done. Enough child's play for one day.

[Texsox]

All I can say is that at the time that was who she wanted making her decisions.. for 7 years he did everything he could for her until he was told that she would never get better.. with that in mind (that she was never going to get better) he continued to fight for what (he claims) she wanted (not to be on LS). At any time, it's my opinion, he could have walked away from this and went on to live life with his girlfriend (btw... his lawyer claims they are not engaged) and children. He hasn't done that choosing to continue to deal with this.. For me, that speaks volumes. But maybe I'm just stupid to think that there are people out there who love unconditionally and will do things out of the goodness of their heart no matter how much pain it causes them in their own lives. Keeping promises is important to me.. guess I expect that is so for others as well.

 

Does them not being engaged add to or take away from your opinion of him? I'm a little old fashioned (obviously) and fathering two babies and not having plans to marry the mom, seems worse to me.

 

Aren't the parents also loving unconditionally? They are wanting to care for someone who we all agree, isn't all there. They are wanting to sacrifice their lives to care for her. That speaks volumes to me. I've always respected your opinion, and am trying to understand wanting her dead and out of the way as being more altruistic than caring for her.

 

I believe parents make a lifelong promise as well. There is also an attachment that is beyond words.

 

Does anyone believe the nurses that report the husband has walked into her room, in the past and asked when is that b**** going to die? I believe there are so many exaggerations and out and out lies on both sides, this is getting unreal.

 

I really believe that having kids changes opinions on this. Steff, Wino, ChiSoxy, and Queen are all kidless. Trust me things change when you have kids. Emotions and attachments are different. I know I would have argued to let the husband make the decision 18 years ago.

Edited March 22, 2005 by Texsox