Terry Shiavo Poll

[J. J.]

I think this whole debate is horrendous. It should be up to her mother and father, who conceived her, not her husband and certainly not the United States Government on what should be done pertaining to the situation she's in rights now. I can't believe the government is deciding who should live and die now. What's next?

I believe that the spouse takes precedent in all states, followed by adult children, then parents. 

One very good reason is that, we choose our spouses and we, at some level, choose to have children, at least we choose to commit an act that produces them.  I had absolutely no choice in who my parents were; except in adoption, in some cases, no one ever chose their parents.

[The Duke]

JJ, you're so dishonest its not even funny.  You said I claimed that Micahel's only reasn for denying Terri her life was his financial interest.  This is not what I say in that quote!  I said there were reasons he should not be guardian anymore, one of them being a fnancial conflict of interest.  If you want to deny that the life insurance policy exists, go ahead (Nothing you do would surprise me at this pont), but don't pretend I said it was the sole problem, and don't pretend I said it was in and of itself a reason to suspect that money is his motivation.  The quote speaks for itself, when i actually list three specific reasons he should not be guardian, not one.

There are people who are sole heir and gurdian, but the courts retain the power to remove you as guardian at any time, and case law supports this.  If you want to suggest otherwise, it will only be because you are ignorant of the law.

If you want to hide ebhind judges decisions, you can.  But expect that I can find court ruling with which you disagreed in history.  If we ever debate one, I'll keep in mind that all I need is a court ruling, and I should expect you to submit before me, eh?  I think the stupidity of your argument to authority is exposed.  In fact, your whole line of argument is contradictory.  You keep using the argument to authority, yet when authorities who contradict your view are produced, you dismiss them without addressing their claims.

It makes a huge difference whther or not she's in PVS because you have based your entire argument on the idea that she is in PVS, and anyone who disagrees is wrong prima facie.  If it can be demonstrated that she is not in PVS, and you have just been forced to back off of the position that he must be, a position that before your last post you refused to compromise on, then your argument collapses.

[Wakie]

I think this whole debate is horrendous. It should be up to her mother and father, who conceived her, not her husband and certainly not the United States Government on what should be done pertaining to the situation she's in rights now. I can't believe the government is deciding who should live and die now. What's next?

I agree with you that the government should not be making the decision.  But I disagree that the parents' authority supercedes the spouse's.  Just because you conceived a child doesn't mean you own it.

[J. J.]

JJ, you're so dishonest its not even funny.  You said I claimed that Micahel's only reasn for denying Terri her life was his financial interest.  This is not what I say in that quote!  I said there were reasons he should not be guardian anymore, one of them being a fnancial conflict of interest.  If you want to deny that the life insurance policy exists, go ahead (Nothing you do would surprise me at this pont), but don't pretend I said it was the sole problem, and don't pretend I said it was in and of itself a reason to suspect that money is his motivation.  The quote speaks for itself, when i actually list three specific reasons he should not be guardian, not one.

There are people who are sole heir and gurdian, but the courts retain the power to remove you as guardian at any time, and case law supports this.  If you want to suggest otherwise, it will only be because you are ignorant of the law.

If you want to hide ebhind judges decisions, you can.  But expect that I can find court ruling with which you disagreed in history.  If we ever debate one, I'll keep in mind that all I need is a court ruling, and I should expect you to submit before me, eh?  I think the stupidity of your argument to authority is exposed.  In fact, your whole line of argument is contradictory.  You keep using the argument to authority, yet when authorities who contradict your view are produced, you dismiss them without addressing their claims.

It makes a huge difference whther or not she's in PVS because you have based your entire argument on the idea that she is in PVS, and anyone who disagrees is wrong prima facie.  If it can be demonstrated that she is not in PVS, and you have just been forced to back off of the position that he must be, a position that before your last post you refused to compromise on, then your argument collapses.

Well, John FALSE, there you go again.  

You've made the argument that there is a "conflict of interest," and that the courts don't permit this.  Wrong, and I'm aware of this because I've been through this process.  The people with the greatest stand to sue a gruardian are the heirs, claiming that the money was mispent.  Unless Mrs. Shiavo has a will naming another heir(s), Mr. Shiavo is the heir and would have standing to sue anyone else appointed guardian (basically for failing conserve estate assets).

You've claimed that the is some sort "conflict," involving an insurance policy.  Assuming it exists, Mr. Shiavo is in a position where he could sue for divorce and claim at least part of the policy in the settlement.  He could also sell the rights to policy, even without divorce, and get part of the policy.  He would not need court action and could probably get $300-400 K very quickly.  Instead, he's spent something in that range and delayed any payment for ten years.  

Unless Mr. Shiavo can't do math, he'd have to know that this is a more expensive and time consuming way.  He could just just walk away with the money, but he hasn't.  The reason is most probably is that he wants to carry out his wife's wishes.

I don't hide behind the courts, but the courts are constitutional branch of government that determines any violations of due process, not John D. FALSE.  The Article III of the Constitution does not grant judicial power to John D. FALSE.  It gives this authority to the judiciary; why don't you support the US Consititution, upon which each judge, member of the Florida Legislature, Member of Congress and the President take an oath to preserve potect and defend?

I have demostrated that the "evidence" you claim shows that she is not in a PVS, is consistent with someone in a PVS.  That does not prove that she is in a PVS, but it isn't evidence, as you've claimed John D. FALSE, that she isn't in a PVS.  We also do not have a claim, so far as I know, that she ever said, "Only stop my body function if I'm in an  irreversible coma or a PVS."  It tends to be more general than that, like "I don't want to live with severe brain damage."  That would be inclusive, but not limited to, a PVS.  The key is to determine if this condition is within the zone of conditions in which she wanted her body to stop functioning.

Why do feel a need to advocate violating the only wishes that there is any evidence that  Mrs. Shiavo expressed?  He parents are not stepping up and testifying that they had conversations with her where she favored these extreme means.  Other people, who were closer to her, are testifying that she didn't.

[J. J.]

According MSNBC:

76% of Conservatives, 72% of Republicans, and 68% of Evangelical Christians oppose the Congressional intervention.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6873319/

I wonder how many Democrats and others are; we see a rallying point?

[The Duke]

This is like arguing with a four year old.  Any time some one disagrees with you, you invent a clever name for them.  How persuasive!

You may nto have been removed as guardian, you amy not need to be removed as guardian, but others have and the courts retain the power to do so.

The fact that you won't even explicitly admit that the insurance policy exists is proof enough that you have no case on this next point.

He may be trying to carry out his wife's wishes, but isn't it interesting that these weren't her wishes, according to Micahel Schiavo, until 1997, seven years after the incident.

The Constitution gave the courts the power to interpret law, and guess what, asshole!  It gave me the right to disagree with them, and to support my opinion with both legal and medical facts!  You should try it some time.  Under your interpretation, segregation actually was Consitutional.  how dare MLK claim otherwise, the courts have ruled!  You're an idiiot if you didn't see that one coming.

My evidence, including expert testimony and observable behaviors by Terri, does prove she is not in PVS.  Whether she is or is not in PVS matters a great deal because 1) It shows you are unable to judge her medical condition 2) The florida courts retain the legal right to stop the behaviors of Michael if she's not in PVS.

Since you have repeatedly claimed that I have no eividence for my claims ( A hard thing to do, since there's now 11 pages of it), I'd like you to substantiate with one piece of evidence that Terri Schiavo ever claimed that if in this state, she'd want to die.  No one else, in this thread or elsewhere, has ever before disputed the fact that we have only Michael's word that she'd want to die.  I'm waiting.

[J. J.]

This is like arguing with a four year old.  Any time some one disagrees with you, you invent a clever name for them.  How persuasive!

You started it with this quote:

JJ, you're so dishonest its not even funny. 

Now, I've accused you of being incorrect, false, but not that you had been dishonest, John D. FALSE.  If you start it, I will finish it John D. FALSE.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You have said that this is a ground for being removed, not that the courts have the power to do so.  In the few cases where I have seen legal guardianship, they guardian is usually either an heir or a financial institution controlling the assets of the incompetent person.  My durable power of attorney is held by my principle heir (guardianship would not be needed).  There is  nothing uncommon about it nor is it a conflict of interest; it is customary.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Your claim does not costitute evidence.  I have seen blogs suggesting it, but nothing in court records or disclosed as of this point.  The blogs state a "few hundred thousand" in insurance, not the "million" that you claim.  I've seen references to his attorney denying it and I heard the court appointed guardian (appointed under the unconstitutional statute) who said that there wasn't any.  Abran's was the show, I believe.

If it exists, post the amount and the company with some evidence.  It may exist and it may not; I would like to see evidence that it does.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Or he was trying all options until he reached the final decision.  Mr. Shiavo agressively pushed for therapy for  years, and even took nursing courses to help her recovery (according to the guardian again); that isn't exactly the actions of someone trying to kill his wife.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And you are an idiot you can't type "idiiot." (couldn't resist)  In case you don't remember, the Court did rule segreation in 1896. 

You are entitled to you opion and you are free to say, "The courts errored."  You are not free to claim as fact, something that isn't fact, at least with me around.  The Courts determine this, not you.  You can no more claim that due process was being violated than you can claim that you can declare war.  To claim that you can do either would lead to serious questions about your sanity.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No, you've proved that her automatic neurologic system is working.  The information has been posted, by myself and others.  That is relevent to a PVS, because, people in a PVS react like that.  It a bit like saying, "Her heart is beating, so she's not in a PVS."

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The claim of Mr. Shiavo is the one piece of evidence of any intent on Mrs Shiavo's part; there is no evidence, however, to contradict that piece of evidence.  There may be more, and I'll look.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[??????????]

Why do some resort to idiotic bolded names once they have lost a debate?

[J. J.]

Since you have repeatedly claimed that I have no eividence for my claims ( A hard thing to do, since there's now 11 pages of it), I'd like you to substantiate with one piece of evidence that Terri Schiavo ever claimed that if in this state, she'd want to die.  No one else, in this thread or elsewhere, has ever before disputed the fact that we have only Michael's word that she'd want to die.  I'm waiting.

Here it is:

As a result, Greer ruled that the statement that she "would not want to be kept alive artificially" -- which Terri allegedly made in the presence of her husband, brother-in-law and brother-in-law's wife -- was Terri's only adult comment on the matter.

http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:qFsz7jSYDUgJ:www.cnsnews.com/Nation/archive/200503/NAT20050321a.html+%22Schiavo%22+%22brother-in-law%22+testified&hl=en

Felos also said Terri Schiavo told her best friend, brother-in-law and uncle that she would never want to be kept alive in this type of scenario.

Outside court, Felos told reporters that Terri Schiavo long ago made clear her wishes: "She said, 'I don't want to be kept alive artificially -- no tubes for me. I want to go when my time comes. Take the tubes and everything out.'"

http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/03/21/schiavo/

There is some additional evidence that she made these statements.  Now, when she was 12, she made a different statement, but these are her's as an adult.

Now, there is some evidence that these were her wish; there is no evidence to the contrary.

[Beet]

Who cares? IMHO, this is a private matter for the family and preferably the least amount of government/public intervention as possible.

[J. J.]

Why do some resort to idiotic bolded names once they have lost a debate?

Because when people deliberately make false statements and accuse other people of dishonesty, they should be called on it.

You will note that I'm bipartisan when I do it.

[The Duke]

So you found some typos, too bad you can't find your ass with both hands.  Once again, you refuse to answer the questions presented, responding to other issues that no one has questioned!

I never said it wasn't custoary for guardians and heir to be one in the same.  I never said it was sufficient grounds on its own for guardians to be removed because they are heirs.  I have said this repeatedly, and you have repeatedly lied about my position.  This is why I called you a liar: You are one.  My position is that there is a confluence of factors, which together mean that Micahel Schiavo should be removed, one of those factors being financial conflict.  Other factors, which I have repeatedly mentioned and you have repeatedly ignored, are his incompetence in discharging his duties (and I have provided several examples of this), his lifestyle irregularites (by now well known), and his refusal to agree to enough medical examination to make a full diagnosis (and I have provided several examples of this).  To present my position as being as simple as guardians should not be heirs is wrong.  This is not and has not been my position.  You lied about what my position was because you thought it would be easier to argue against a straw man than me.

There is a dollar life insurance policy on Terri Schaivo worth an estimated $1 million (Some estimates go to $1.2 million).  This has been mentioned repeatedly on the internet, radio, television, and it is accepted fact on these boards.  Also in question is a malpractice award worth $1 million a sum Michael Schaivo stands to inherit.  I'm not going to produce a link, because all I get are blog hits, since the blogs ar eproducing most of the Terri Schaivo material.  I don't think blogs are reputable, and I don't intend to sift through 50 pages of gogle hits to find an AP wore story.  I would normally, but since you're an asshole to everyone who doesn't bow down before you, you can pretty much screw off on this point.

It is simply not credible to say that Michael Schiavo kept Terri's true wishes a secret even though he knew them, not even mentioning the conversation to the family and to doctors, for seven years.  It just doesn't happen, it doesn't pass the smell test.  In fact, Michael Schiavo can't really substantiate most of the things he says.  No wonder you like him so much.

I know the courts ruled segregatin was constitutional in 1896, I'm the one who brought it up.  In 1955, they overturned that ruling (Proving that the composition of the Court is more important tan the text of the Consitution).  Much of your position is based on the idea of an impartial and infallible court system, but the fact that the court ruled wrongly on segregation proves that this is not the case.  There are many bad rulings in the history of jurisprudence and to hide behind courts without a willingness to address the facts of each case is moral and intellectual cowardice on your part.  The declaring war analogy is false.  I cannot declare war because I do nto have the power to make it so, I can however say that Terri Schiavo's substantive due process rights have been violated, because it is a descriptive statement of what has happenned, not a decree of what must happen.  Therefore the analogy is false, and you have still not respnded to the legal logic behind Terri Schiavo's claim that substantive due process rights have been violated, and by your repeated attempts to nullify this claim you show no evidence that you even know what a substantive due process right is.  This would not surprise me, as you seem not to haev a firm grasp of legal tradition, and you keep presenting Michael Schiavo's tstimony as evidence, when in fact it is hearsay, and therefore not admissible in court.

Again, the testimony of the experts I provided does not siply show that her automatic neurological system works, it shows she is not in PVS.  The neurologists directly address this question, and directly say she is not in PVS based on their observations of Terri.  To say that somehow the testimony of 20 experts should be dismissed out of hand without even an attempt on your part to refute one single claim they've made is a joke.

Do you even realize the hit you've taken this week?

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

What I oppose the most about the Congressional intervention is the giant waste of time on a woman who is a compete vegtable, rather than focusing on skyrocketing deficits, health care costs, war for the wrong reasons in Iraq, genocide in the Sudan, the environment, or any number of other important issues. Instead they are wasting time on this crap to distract people from the real issues, and to keep the right-wing "pro-life" (does not apply to the death penalty, Iraqis, or those with no health care coverage) base happy.

[Akno21]

This is not the current argument, but can she feel the pain that a healthy human being would if they were being starved to death? Or is not painful for her.

[J. J.]

I never said it wasn't custoary for guardians and heir to be one in the same.  I never said it was sufficient grounds on its own for guardians to be removed because they are heirs.  I have said this repeatedly, and you have repeatedly lied about my position.  This is why I called you a liar: You are one.  My position is that there is a confluence of factors, which together mean that Micahel Schiavo should be removed, one of those factors being financial conflict.  Other factors, which I have repeatedly mentioned and you have repeatedly ignored, are his incompetence in discharging his duties (and I have provided several examples of this), his lifestyle irregularites (by now well known), and his refusal to agree to enough medical examination to make a full diagnosis (and I have provided several examples of this).  To present my position as being as simple as guardians should not be heirs is wrong.  This is not and has not been my position.  You lied about what my position was because you thought it would be easier to argue against a straw man than me.

First, you have claim here that he should be removed because of, among other things, "financial conflict."  As you have just admited, that is not grounds, on it own, for removal.  I have pointed out, and you seem to agree, that it is customary to be heirs to the person that they are guardians of. 

Further, you have assumed that there would be great financial gain for Mr Shiavo, whem Mrs. Shiavo dies.  It doesn't appear so.  Certainly, the legal costs of doing this for him would less than those than in divorcing Mrs. Shiavo.  Further, people have offered him money to walk away, which he has rejected.  These are not the actions of someone who wants money.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That some blogger accepts it as fact does not make it as fact.  Certainly that you claim it, does not make it fact (and might even make more dubious). Even the blogger sources that I've seen list it as as "hundreds of thousands," not a million or $1.2 million.

What credible evidence do you have that this policy exists?  Is there a legitimate news source that reported it, not a blogger or someone who "thinks" it "may" exist.

I did look and I couldn't find it.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

As just posted, there is evidence of it.  I will ask again, where is the evidence that she didn't wish this.  If she was close to her parents, why didn't she ever discuss this with them.  There is evidence that she

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You didn't, in your post claim it was you opinion that the courts errored.  You claimed that she wasn't.  The group that makes that decision, constutionally, is the judiciary.  The judiciary, now including SCOTUS, has determined that there was little chance to find in favor of a due process argument.  No Justice of that Court filed a dissent.

Now, who should I believe as to if due process has been been denied.  John D. FALSE or the the Federal District Court, 11th Circuit Court, and the Supreme Court.  The former had given me reasons to question his credibility in this matter.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It is in certain cases, at least according to Black's Law Dictionary (6th edition, p. 722).  The judge found it admissible and his decision was upheld in the state courts.

Now, I would like to see counter evidence.  Where are the witnesses to Mrs. Shiavo statements, as an adult, that she wanted to be kept alive by these measures?  Cite it please, if it exists.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The testimony of the twelve doctors that were independently appointed by the court do not agree with this.  They examined her; these others didn't.  I must admit to being  suspicious of experts hired by either side; people do go "expert" shopping, and may tend to hire someone that would share their views*.  In the case of the court appointed doctors, these were not "bought" by either side.  I also have the opinion of the court appointed guardian under "Terri's Law," who said that he observed nothing that wasn't reflex.  He was with her for 30 days.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm not very much concerned with any "hit" taken here.  I am ultimately more concerned with holding truth and justice above party ideology.  I'm saddened by those posters that choose not to do the same thing (and I'm saddened by those people in the other party who attempt to do this as well). 

I will again ask, though I don't expect an answer:

1.  Where is there a credible source than Mr. Shiavo has a life insurance policy worth "a few hundred thousand," "a million," or "$1.2 million," on Mrs. Shiavo?

2.  Where is there any credible evidence that Mrs. Shiavo, as an adult, stated that she would want to be alive in this circumstance?

I'm looking for evidence, not speculation.  I will look at the evidence, when presented.

*Just as a note, I do not believe that experts are "bought."  I do believe that any side will tend to hire those expects that support that side's opinion.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Also in question is a malpractice award worth $1 million a sum Michael Schaivo stands to inherit.

On the NBC Nighty News either last night or the night before they mentioned that reward in their coverage.  $300,000 went directly to him for the mental anguish of being deprived of his wife’s companionship (or some similar psychobabble) and the other $700,000 was for Terri's medical care.  NBC indicated that is believed that of that $700,000, roughly $40,000 is left, so even if that money went to him, that’s hardly a significant sum of money compared to $1,000,000 I’ve heard he was offered if he would step aside and left her parents keep the body.  Between $40,000 or $1,000,000, if he were motivated by money which one should he have picked?

[J. J.]

Also in question is a malpractice award worth $1 million a sum Michael Schaivo stands to inherit.

On the NBC Nighty News either last night or the night before they mentioned that reward in their coverage.  $300,000 went directly to him for the mental anguish of being deprived of his wife’s companionship (or some similar psychobabble) and the other $700,000 was for Terri's medical care.  NBC indicated that is believed that of that $700,000, roughly $40,000 is left, so even if that money went to him, that’s hardly a significant sum of money compared to $1,000,000 I’ve heard he was offered if he would step aside and left her parents keep the body.  Between $40,000 or $1,000,000, if he were motivated by money which one should he have picked?

That's a lot of the motivation problem.  I heard blogger claims that there is an insurance policy on Mrs. Shiavo, range from between "a few hundred thousand" to "$1.2 million."  I have not been able to find proof.

The problem is, there were ways for Mr. Shiavo to "sell" the rights to any policy, get the cash, and divorce her.  He could have walked away more quickly and without spending the money that he has on lawsuits.

It's very hard to legitimately claim the motive is financial.

[© tweed]

Who is currently paying for her feeding tube?

[J. J.]

Who is currently paying for her feeding tube?

She is, in a manner of speaking.  It's commining out of the settlement funds.  Now, Mr. Shiavo is the person administrating that money.

Quite possibly, he is sole heir to that money, so ultimately, he is spending his inheritance.  Ah, if someone else would be the heir, they could possibly sue to remove the tube, claiming it was a waste of assets.

[The Duke]

Again, you persist in the argument to authority.  You keep hiding behind judges, afraid to defend your views on the merits.  I say Michael Schiavo's testimony is hearsay, and should not be admitted.  You say the judge disagrees, end of story.  This is an example of the argument to authority, a logical fallacy.

Again, you persist in demanding proof of a negative.  I say Chiavo's testimony that his wife did want the feeding tube removed is hearsay, you say I must produce evidence for a negative thesis (technically impossible, as you know, which is why you made the demand in the first place).

Again, you persist in the straw man.  I repeatedly say that there are many reasons that, when taken together, mean that Michael Schiavo should not be the guardian.  You are only willing to acknowledge or address the financial one.

Again you persist in outright lies about ym position.  I say that bloggers are not credible sources, you imply I said the opposite.

We go around in circles, you presenting the same fallacies, refusing to address key questions as if they had not been asked, demanding proof of unprovable negative claims, pretending that hearsay is evidence, and hiding behind blanket claims of judges without a willingness to defend the details of their rulings.

[J. J.]

Again, you persist in the argument to authority.  You keep hiding behind judges, afraid to defend your views on the merits.  I say Michael Schiavo's testimony is hearsay, and should not be admitted.  You say the judge disagrees, end of story.  This is an example of the argument to authority, a logical fallacy.

What I've said is that Hearsay is admissible in some cases, as a matter of law; you have a quote from Black's Law as well.  Appearently, this is one of those cases.  I do consider the judge, and those other judges reviewing the case, to be substantially able to make that determination; they are certainly more capable of either one of us.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No, I ask you to prodce some evidence that Mrs. Shiavo wanted to be kept alive in this situation.  I am not asking you to  prove that didn't mean what she said, or that she didn't say this.  I am asking for some evidence or statement, as an adult, that would serve as a counterweight to this testimony.  I have not seen any evidence to that effect.  Would you produce some?  Did you speak with her prior to her illness; are you "channeling" her?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I requested that you produce evidence of the "life insurance policy."  The only thing that I could find were comments from bloggers, but no actual press reports nor court filings.  Here is what you've said:

There is a dollar life insurance policy on Terri Schaivo worth an estimated $1 million (Some estimates go to $1.2 million).  This has been mentioned repeatedly on the internet, radio, television, and it is accepted fact on these boards.  Also in question is a malpractice award worth $1 million a sum Michael Schaivo stands to inherit. 

Here are two things that I have found. the first is from CNN:

Google cache

"It's not about the money," said Schiavo, who said he will not receive any life insurance money upon Terri's death. "This is about Terry. It's not about the Schindlers, it's not about the legislators, it's not about me, it's about what Terry Schiavo wanted."

Schiavo, now a father in another relationship, said he would not give guardianship to the Schindlers because of her father's earlier testimony.

"Mr. Schindler testified in court ... to keep Terri alive he would cut her arms and legs off and put her on a ventilator just to keep her alive. So why would I give her to a man that would do that to you?" Schiavo said.


This is from a Court TV interview with an appelate attorney in FL, with no connection to the case, and someone not taking sides, but who has followed the case, named Matt Conigliaro:

http://www.courttv.com/talk/chat_transcripts/2005/0321schiavo-conigliaro.html

Question from daleeff: Does Terri's husband have a large life insurance policy on Terri?

Matt Conigliaro: It appears there is no money to be inherited. The money from the malpractice suit was down to about $50,000 as of 2003. It's believed now that there's nothing left. I've never heard anyone involved in the case suggest that there is a life insurance policy.


This is far different from your claim that, "There is a dollar life insurance policy on Terri Schaivo worth an estimated $1 million (Some estimates go to $1.2 million)."  While I have seen bloggers mention it, including yourself, I could not find any news story that supports this claim.  Were is the evidence, other than in the mind of bloggers?  I have been unable to find it; could you produce it? 

That you believe it isn't evidence of the existence of the policy, only perhaps evidence of your ideology, gullibility, and/or honesty. 

Now, I'll ask the questions again:

1.  Do you have any evidence that Mrs. Shiavo ever expressed, as an adult to be kept alive in a diminished mental state that would require feeding?
(Note that I am asking for evidence that she did something, not for evidence that she not do something)

2.  Do you have any evidence that Mr. Shiavo has a life insurance policy on Mrs. Shiavo, from some credible source, like a news story or a court filing, not from bloggers' comments?  If so, how much?  (Note that I am asking you to produce evidence of that policy, not prove that this policy does not exist).

There can be no question; these are both questions of sources and it possible to prove in the affirmative.  Please provide the evidence.

Fixed the link to avoid a horizontal scroll bar. -Alcon

[The Duke]

here's the problem.  You keep demanding evidence that Terri Schiavo wanted to be kept alive, yet you have no evidence that she wanted to be killed except statements from Micahel Schiavo and his attorney, Geroge Felos.  Even these calims were not made until 1997, 7 years after her accident.  This is, for all intents and purposes, not evidence.

You keep demanding evidence to support my claims about her medical condition.  When I produce it, you dismiss it saying "The court said otherwise.".  This is not an argument, it is intelelctual weakness to be unable to defend your position without saying, "But the judge said this."  Its the old saying from mom, "If the judge told you to jump off a cliff...".  This is like debating Josh22.  I make a point, Josh goes, "But the Bible says..." feeling no need to make a coherent statement.  Go ahead, hide behind court rulings.  The rest of us will be thankful that you weren't around to defend Plessy because you think judges are infallible.

[J. J.]

here's the problem.  You keep demanding evidence that Terri Schiavo wanted to be kept alive, yet you have no evidence that she wanted to be killed except statements from Micahel Schiavo and his attorney, Geroge Felos.  Even these calims were not made until 1997, 7 years after her accident.  This is, for all intents and purposes, not evidence.

Well, as pointed out, we also have evidence from two other people; her brother-in-law and sister-in-law also testifed.  On the side arguing against it, from Terri Shaivo's adult life, we have:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

We are looking at evidence as to her wishes, and all of that, as an adult, is in favor of removing the feeding and hydration tubes.  That's it.  All the eviidence points to it.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Here the rule for hearsay evidence: 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Now, whatever her medical state, no one is claiming that she can testify.  He parents' argument is one of "We don't think she would want this."  That isn't hearsay; that's the parents expressing their opinion.  It is just as valid as me saying, "I'm from the same generation Terri and she would want the tubes pulled."

The law is clear and the courts have, 21 times, not interpreted differently; they have the constitutional authority to interpret it.  Now, if there was some evidence, as an adult, that Mrs. Shiavo said something differently, I might give a different answer.  There is not a shread of evidence to that effect, so far as I can tell.  We don't even have a word, much less sworn testimony, that casts any the statements made by Mr. Shaivo, et al.

I will ask you the same questions as before:

1.  Where is there a credible source than Mr. Shiavo has a life insurance policy worth "a few hundred thousand," "a million," or "$1.2 million," on Mrs. Shiavo?

2.  Where is there any credible evidence that Mrs. Shiavo, as an adult, stated that she would want to be alive in this circumstance?

[The Duke]

Aha!  We have found the explaination for Michael Schiavo's sudden change of heart!

Schiavo never mentioned Terri's supposed desire to die until 1997, and now we know why no such claim was made.  He filed a lawsuit, malpractice, against her gynecologist in 1995.  He demanded $20 million, claiming that this is what would be needed to care for Terri based on estimates that assumed that a woman in he condition had a life expectancy of living until 51.  Of course, Michael has made sure she doesn't reach that age.  He did not recieve $20 million, but somewhere between $1 and $2 million.

Later that year, Michael became engaged to his new girlfriend.

Shortly after basing his demand for relief on Terri's natural life expectancy, he got a new lawyer, George Felos, who has made his name litigating right to die cases.  Michael suddenly began telling the story of how his wife wanted to die if in a situation like this.

Cash in, get out, marry the new broad.

[J. J.]

Aha!  We have found the explaination for Michael Schiavo's sudden change of heart!

Schiavo never mentioned Terri's supposed desire to die until 1997, and now we know why no such claim was made.  He filed a lawsuit, malpractice, against her gynecologist in 1995.  He demanded $20 million, claiming that this is what would be needed to care for Terri based on estimates that assumed that a woman in he condition had a life expectancy of living until 51.  Of course, Michael has made sure she doesn't reach that age.  He did not recieve $20 million, but somewhere between $1 and $2 million.

Later that year, Michael became engaged to his new girlfriend.

Shortly after basing his demand for relief on Terri's natural life expectancy, he got a new lawyer, George Felos, who has made his name litigating right to die cases.  Michael suddenly began telling the story of how his wife wanted to die if in a situation like this.

Cash in, get out, marry the new broad.

Well, considering it that a divorce would be cheaper and quicker, why not hire a divorce lawyer?  Where is your source, or are just making it up like the rest of the stuff?

Interestingly, a marriage can be terminated for mental incompetency in FL:

http://www.divorcenet.com/states/florida/florida_grounds_for_divorce

And while you are looking for the answers, why don't you try answering these:

1.  Where is there a credible source than Mr. Shiavo has a life insurance policy worth "a few hundred thousand," "a million," or "$1.2 million," on Mrs. Shiavo?

2.  Where is there any credible evidence that Mrs. Shiavo, as an adult, stated that she would want to be alive in this circumstance?