Terry Shiavo Poll

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Temporary links don't work. Here's the full text of the bill. What a joke. It applies only to Theresa Marie Schiavo.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[The Duke]

Sigh.  I said I'd stay out, and again I'm back in.

You linked (again) to a partial text (again) that (again) distorts the information contained in the document.  The bill says the courts amy act (they did) and if they did, it would be a de novo hearing (it was not).

No, this for issuing the stay.  Here is the text again:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The law gave the Schindler's the right to raise the issue in Federal Court.  They went to the District Court, filed suit, and applied for the stay.  They were denied that stay.  They then appealed, the judge's decision not to grant the stay to the 11 Ciruit, and up to the Supreme Court.  All courts, after looking at the case, said that the judge was correct in not issuing the stay.  The case is still out there and could possibly be heard, and appealed.  The trial will have be considered de novo; this proceding was not the trial.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I believe that the states do have rights under our system, but I also believe that the Federal government, under that 14th Amendment that you seem to be so interested in, can create laws protecting groups (and possibly an individual, as in this case).  

They did, and the courts followed the law.  They made a correct determination that, under the rules under which they function, a stay was not required.  The courts have not ruled the statute unconstitutional, at this point, only said that the stay, or court order requiring the feeding tube to be re-inserted, should not be issued prior to the trial.  

You're dodging the issue.  You're the only one who's arguing about whether a stay should be given, I'm saying a de novo hearing should be given.  There is neither textual or non-textual basis for believing that a de novo hearing was not the intended result.  It is logical that a stay would be issued until the de novo hearing is complete, but that's not a central point.  The central point, which you did not address, is that Congress asked for a de novo hearing and one was not held.

I am interested in the 14th Amendment because it is the basis for nearly all Federal intervention in state affairs today.

[J. J.]

I will ask it again:

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

Let me ask this one:

Why are you avoiding answering the question?  Is it because you know that there isn't any evidence?  Is it because it would indicate that your ideology isn't what governs.

And finally, this one.

Is a lie by omission a sin?

I alrerady have answered the question.  Many times, actually.  my answer is that I do not intend to provide any evidence that Terri Schiavo said she wanted to live because I am under no obligation to given the law.  The assumption is that she wanted to live going into the case under our laws, and the Supreme Court has ruled that the state's protection of the life interest outweighs the liberty interest of the right to die (Cruzan).  The burden is not on me to prove anything, so I didn't.

Here is the text from Crusan:

In our view, Missouri has permissibly sought to advance these interests through the adoption of a "clear and convincing" standard of proof to govern such proceedings. "The function of a standard of proof, as that concept is embodied in the Due Process Clause and in the realm of factfinding, is to 'instruct the factfinder concerning the degree of confidence our society thinks he should have in the correctness of factual conclusions for a particular type of adjudication.'"

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/cruzan.html


You'll note that the SCOTUS states that the states, MO in that instance, can establish a standard.  The Florida Legislature did and then, as per their constitution, gave the courts the responsibility of applying the standard.  If they don't like how those standards are applied by the courts, guess what, they can change them.  They had the chance to do so last week, and they said "No!"  They are permitted to keep the same standard too.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Here is the "hearsay exception rule' with some bolding:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That's the rule and there are exceptions.  The statements admitted in trial were probative and, if you assume that it is against Mrs. Schiavo to be "disconnected,"it is against interest.  Hearsay evidence about a comment from Mrs. Schiavo that, "I don't agree with euthanasia," or "I believe that sick people shouldn't be unplugged," could be admitted under this rule.  The problem is, nobody has ever stated that she made such statements.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It has been posted and people reading it are free to make up their own minds.  It's not my interpretation.

You've raised points about what happend that night.  I would ask this:
If Mr. Schiavo wanted his wife to die that night, why call 911, quickly.  Why not just wait an hour or so and claim that he was asleep and didn't hear her fall?  Her weight at the time was 110 pounds; there wouldn't have been a loud thud.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Even if you claim it was speech, and not a randon vocalization, this could be "I waaa to die."  Of course, you might actually be right that it was a coincidence.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I did not ask (or express) any Christian idea, but merely if you considered something to be a sin.  I will note that you don't believe in sin.  It gives me a prospective to your posts.  

[J. J.]

You're dodging the issue.  You're the only one who's arguing about whether a stay should be given, I'm saying a de novo hearing should be given.  There is neither textual or non-textual basis for believing that a de novo hearing was not the intended result.  It is logical that a stay would be issued until the de novo hearing is complete, but that's not a central point.  The central point, which you did not address, is that Congress asked for a de novo hearing and one was not held.

I am interested in the 14th Amendment because it is the basis for nearly all Federal intervention in state affairs today.

If the statute is constitutional, a de novo hearing should be give on the suit filed.  That has nothing to do with if the stay, a temporary restraining order (TRO), requires a de novo hearing. 

The result of the hearing (after appeals) would be the final determination under the statute.  That requires a de novo hearing.  The issuence of a TRO, does not.

The issuence of a TRO is based on the judgment of the trier as it if there is a likihood of the case being successful.  Congress did not, in the statute, say to the court, in effect, "If there is a suit under this statute, you must issue a TRO until the case is finally resolved."  Congress gave the courts permission to issue a TRO, but did not require the courts to grant a TRO.

[Beet]

I'm uncomfortable with this case as a whole, but the bombardment is inevitable, and it seems completely wrong to let her die at this point. I would side with the protestors here. I do not believe it can be said with reasonable certainty that she is not experiencing anything. In this case, the GOP Congress is actually doing the right thing, though it may be political. Given that, the behavior of the courts is up to Ford and JJ to try and explain. But even more inexplicable is public opinion here. I don't see how the public can be "conservative" enough on so many other issues but not this one. It seems that the politics of convenience has permeated too much of our society.

[J. J.]

I'm uncomfortable with this case as a whole, but the bombardment is inevitable, and it seems completely wrong to let her die at this point. I would side with the protestors here. I do not believe it can be said with reasonable certainty that she is not experiencing anything. In this case, the GOP Congress is actually doing the right thing, though it may be political. Given that, the behavior of the courts is up to Ford and JJ to try and explain. But even more inexplicable is public opinion here. I don't see how the public can be "conservative" enough on so many other issues but not this one. It seems that the politics of convenience has permeated too much of our society.

The question is not and should not be is Mrs. Schiavo experiencing anything.  That's a complete red herring.

I thing most sides argree that Mrs. Schiavo is not, at this point, a compentent adult; this is why both sides want a guardian appointed; both sides agree that she is brain damaged and cannot make the decision herself.  The question is, in this condition, did Mrs. Schiavo, when she was competent, wish to kept on a feeding tube, in this condition?  That is the sole question.

Many people say that, even though they might be aware, they would not want treatment in certain circumstances.  Awareness has nothing to do with it.

[Beet]

I'm uncomfortable with this case as a whole, but the bombardment is inevitable, and it seems completely wrong to let her die at this point. I would side with the protestors here. I do not believe it can be said with reasonable certainty that she is not experiencing anything. In this case, the GOP Congress is actually doing the right thing, though it may be political. Given that, the behavior of the courts is up to Ford and JJ to try and explain. But even more inexplicable is public opinion here. I don't see how the public can be "conservative" enough on so many other issues but not this one. It seems that the politics of convenience has permeated too much of our society.

The question is not and should not be is Mrs. Schiavo experiencing anything.  That's a complete red herring.

I thing most sides argree that Mrs. Schiavo is not, at this point, a compentent adult; this is why both sides want a guardian appointed; both sides agree that she is brain damaged and cannot make the decision herself.  The question is, in this condition, did Mrs. Schiavo, when she was competent, wish to kept on a feeding tube, in this condition?  That is the sole question.

Many people say that, even though they might be aware, they would not want treatment in certain circumstances.  Awareness has nothing to do with it.

We have no way of knowing what she wants though. She could not really have known 15+ years ago what it would be like now (given that it is like something), so its hard to hold someone to what they said then. If the person is currently aware and denying treatment, then that is akin to euthanasia in my view, which is something else altogteher. But this is not even that...

[The Duke]

I didn't say the congress demanded a stay.  I said a stay would logically be issued in order for a de novo hearing to be conducted under circumstances where we could avoid irreperable harm to Mrs. Schiavo (her dying, for example).

I didn't think i said that Michael Schiavo wanted to have Terri die that night, and I'm not sure where you got that.  I think its beyond dispute he wants to kill her now though.  My question about that night was very simple.  It is my view that while a heart arrythmia could have caused Terri Schiavo's injuries, it is not my view that its very likely that her specific type of heart arrythmia was the cause of her brain injury (since the arrythmia was not all that serious, and never recurred).  I think, therefore, that when Wesley J. Smith says the cause of her injury is undetermined that he retains credibility, something Ernest had questioned.

[Brandon H]

Here is the whole story, all 15 years of it.
http://wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=43463

There is evidence to suggest that Michael may have physical assaulted Terri, but this was never followed up on. And the tube should be re-inserted while an investigation takes place as once she dies, it can not be undone.

I think Terri will be dead by Tuesday. Someone put a bounty on Michael's life. I'm surprised someone hasn't tried something earlier. Judge Greer has been run out of his church. Not sure what will happen once Terri is dead. I think this will also help Jeb Bush in future elections.

Unlike Scott Peterson, with the exception of taking 15 years, Michael Schiavo may have committed the perfect crime, and actually had the courts help him out.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I think this will also help Jeb Bush in future elections.

Quite the reverse, I think the fact that Jeb has refused to engage in extra-legal shenanigans in this case will cause him to lose support among the extreme right-to-lifers despite his legal shenanigans.

[J. J.]

I didn't say the congress demanded a stay.  I said a stay would logically be issued in order for a de novo hearing to be conducted under circumstances where we could avoid irreperable harm to Mrs. Schiavo (her dying, for example).

No, it wouldn't.  The criteria for issuing the stay has to meet a four point criteria.  The first one is if it has, "(1) a substantial likelihood of success on the merits." 

http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:ZjJFSutNHj8J:www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200511556.pdf+%22likelihood+of+success%22+appeal&hl=en



This has been the stumbling block.  In the first hearing before the 11th Ciruit panel, two of the three judges said that it wouldn't meat that test.  Congress didn't require, as you've noted that the stay was required.  The rules relating to granting the stay, or temporary restraining order, were the same.  Even in other "life or death" cases, the court has established that the rule applies.

When the Schindlers appealed again, the remaining judge on the panel (the same three) reversed and and agreed with the other two that the appeal would unlikely to suceed on the merits.

On the possibility that their was some sort of an assault, the injuries were all "compression fractures" which are usually not caused as the result of an assault.  They can be caused by a fall, or, in the case of osteoporosis, occur natually. 

Further these occured in lumbar region of the spine (the lower region), the lower ribs, thigh, and knees.  Where there was no damage was the cervical region, the neck.  It is exceptionally hard to cut the oxygen supply below the neck. 

Futher, it would be very unlikely that, assuming these are not caused in a fall (such as a collapse during her heart attack) or naturally occuring, that injuries basically below the chest could be caused by personal assault, like a fight or beating.  About the only way would be if he were sitting or laying on her what she was prone; even that would not cause a disruption of oxygen to the brain.

So we have injuries that are not normally the result of an assault and in the wrong places for an assault.

Interestingly, the charges have been raised by the Schindlers; by their statements yesterday, Mrs. Shiavo had only "hours to live" as of the afternoon on Friday.  Their claim was false, as it has been more than hours.  We should consider the overall accuracy of the Schindlers' claims to date in judging this one.

[J. J.]

Here is the whole story, all 15 years of it.
http://wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=43463

There is evidence to suggest that Michael may have physical assaulted Terri, but this was never followed up on. And the tube should be re-inserted while an investigation takes place as once she dies, it can not be undone.

Here are some extracts from the report of the doctor cited in the article:

In May 2002, access to the patient was allowed for two physicians appointed by the family.  At that time, my observation of Terri Schiavo in person occurred, having previously viewed videotape that was first shown at her first trial.

The doctor who claimed a problem with the neck, William M. Hammesfahr, examined Mrs. Schiavo after she had been bedridden for 12 years.  This may be the cause of the problem.



The neck exam was abnormal. She had severe limitation of range of motion in the flexion, and to a lesser degree in extension.  Indeed, I was able to pick up her entire torso and head and neck area with pressure on the back of her neck in the suboccipital region.  These findings of cervical spasm and limitation of range of motion are consistent with a neck injury.  No bruits were identified.

Lung exam showed scattered wheezes in the right lung fields.  No rhonchi or rales were identified.  Cardiac exam was normal to my exam.  Interestingly, the significant arrhythmias identified by the electronic cuff, as well as my palpation of her wrist exam was not identified during this cardiac portion of the exam, suggesting the arrhythmia is intermittent.

http://libertytothecaptives.net/hammesfahr_dr._report.html

Ironically, Dr. Hammesfahr noted in his report that the arrhythmia is still present, refuting those claims that there is no continued evidence or a heart problem.  It should be added that he is the doctor hired by the Schindlers.  In short, while her neck is currently in bad condition (according to him) there is evidence of a heart problem (again, according to him).

He also said, suprisingly:



ENT:  The patient can clearly swallow, and is able to swallow approximately 2 liters of water per day (the daily amount of saliva generated). Water is one of the most difficult things for people to swallow.  It is unlikely that she currently needs the feeding tube. She should be evaluated by an Ear Nose and Throat specialist, and have a new swallowing exam.

Emphasis not added.  http://libertytothecaptives.net/hammesfahr_dr._report.html

Based on what he claims in this, which isn't particularly consistent with the other physicians and even those of the Schindlers, expecially that Mrs. Schiavo doesn't need the need the feeding tube,  perhaps his conclusions should be treated as questionable.

[Brandon H]

I think this will also help Jeb Bush in future elections.

Quite the reverse, I think the fact that Jeb has refused to engage in extra-legal shenanigans in this case will cause him to lose support among the extreme right-to-lifers despite his legal shenanigans.

Did I type help? Doh. I meant hurt. And yes, the right-to-lifers are the key reason I was referring to.

[J. J.]

We have no way of knowing what she wants though. She could not really have known 15+ years ago what it would be like now (given that it is like something), so its hard to hold someone to what they said then. If the person is currently aware and denying treatment, then that is akin to euthanasia in my view, which is something else altogteher. But this is not even that...

Well, that there is some question of what she wanted is the reason for the trial.

We recognize, in the country, that competent adults can refused medical treatment, though they might be public health excepts (which are not applicable here).  In some states, like FL and my state of PA, we recognize that people can designate their wishes on this subject in advance.  I personally have done so.

Now, and this is important, a competent adult has a right to refuse treatment, including the insertion or maintaining of a feeding tube.  An adult, with no legal bar to them making a decision, such as incompetence, that requires a feeding tube to exist, can turn to the doctor and say, "Remove the tube."  That is their right.  I have refused suggested medical treatment several times, and my mother refused it in at least one case.

States also recognize that people can become incompetent and provide for guardianship of these incompetents; further they note that the wishes of the incompetent person, given while competent, can be followed and normally should be followed.  This comes down to several questions.

1.  Is Terri Schiavo competent?  Both sides, by declaring that they wish to be declared guardian, have conceded that she is not.  If either side declares that Mrs. Schiavo expresses current wishes, one way or the other, they are in effect saying that she is competent.

2.  What, if any, wishes has Terri Schiavo expressed in this matter, while a competent adult.  This is basically the issue.

We do have some evidence, which is hearsay but also is admissible in this case.  We have statements from her husband, brother-in-law and sister-in-law that if she did not wish to be attached to a tube.  Now is that evidence credible?   Is there any reason for these people to lie under oath?

Two that have been suggested are:

1.  Mr. Shiavo stands to inherit.  Well there is very little money left in the estate for him to inherit.  He does not have control of her assets at this point, though the do, legimately, pay his legal expenses.  He further has declined offers to "buy out" his right to maintain his guardianship.  Money cannot legitimately be said to be the issue.

2.  Mr. Shiavo wishes to marry someone else.  Well, he can, under FL law, both cheaply and quickly, divorce Mrs. Schiavo on the ground of her current state of incompetence.  This action may have had the advantage of leaving Mr. Schiavo in a better financial condition, and he could have concluded the marriage by this time.  Marriage cannot legitimately be said to be the issue.

Now, we are left with three witnesses to Mrs. Schiavo's statements on this matter.  There is no motivation for them to give false statements.

Is their any evidence that Mrs. Schiavo has expressed other wishes, as a competent adult?  This evidence, while not proving Mrs. Schiavo's wishes, would serve as a counterweight to the previous statements, and call those into question.  As of this point, no counter evidence has been presented.

[The Duke]

You're overlooking the fact that in 1997, when Michael Schiavo began his mission to get the feeding tube removed, the money in the malpractice trust fund was not exhausted.  he can't well stop now, it would seem a bit odd if he suddenly quit when the money was gone.

The fact that Congress mandated a de novo hearing demonstrates that there is sufficient chance of success to issue a stay.  Remember, in a de novo hearing the judge has to start over on all fact finding.  How can he say there isn't chance of success if he is starting over on fact finding?  There's no legal basis for doing so.

[J. J.]

You're overlooking the fact that in 1997, when Michael Schiavo began his mission to get the feeding tube removed, the money in the malpractice trust fund was not exhausted.  he can't well stop now, it would seem a bit odd if he suddenly quit when the money was gone.

The fact that Congress mandated a de novo hearing demonstrates that there is sufficient chance of success to issue a stay.  Remember, in a de novo hearing the judge has to start over on all fact finding.  How can he say there isn't chance of success if he is starting over on fact finding?  There's no legal basis for doing so.

Wrong on both counts.  Why couldn't he stop the procedure.  He could have very said that it was too costly to pursue, because of the Schindler's suits.  You will note that he voluntarily withdrew his request for the DNR order, 7 years before.

Congress, in the legislation, changed two factor; it  it gave the Schindler's the right to sue, in Federal Courts and said that, if they do, the hearing will be de novo.  It did not change any legal standard for the case, and might not be to constitutionally able to do that.

[WMS]

I'll get back to you, J.J., when I've read the report...

Please do, and read a few of the press interviews with Dr. Wolfson.

Just a note, while he does have an extensive background in rehabilitation, he is a Ph D, not an MD.

Interesting, the report is. Neutral, I would say not - there is a bias against the parents which crops up from time to time. And yes, Michael started trying to have Terry killed after the malpractice lawsuit - the timing is just too much for coincidence, personally.

That said, from my reading...it may be legal for Michael to do what he's doing - in Florida - but damn, that is a week reed to kill someone over. Unsupported hearsay testimony is, sadly, enough to starve someone to death over in Florida, due to the way Florida law is written. But I find that rather shockingly immoral. As bullmoose said, way back in this thread, there's something not...quite...right about this case.

If the parents are willing to take upon themselves all the costs and responsibilities of care for Terry, then why the hell can't the State of Florida DO that?! Because her soon-to-be-remarrying husband - and may I note that the parents acceptance of Michael's dating again came before Michael started trying to kill their daughter - says so? Bloody hell, StatesRights has a point - how many wife-beaters will get away with murder due to the precedent being set here?

Legal, perhaps. Moral, never.

[Beet]

We have no way of knowing what she wants though. She could not really have known 15+ years ago what it would be like now (given that it is like something), so its hard to hold someone to what they said then. If the person is currently aware and denying treatment, then that is akin to euthanasia in my view, which is something else altogteher. But this is not even that...

Well, that there is some question of what she wanted is the reason for the trial.

We recognize, in the country, that competent adults can refused medical treatment, though they might be public health excepts (which are not applicable here).  In some states, like FL and my state of PA, we recognize that people can designate their wishes on this subject in advance.  I personally have done so.

Now, and this is important, a competent adult has a right to refuse treatment, including the insertion or maintaining of a feeding tube.  An adult, with no legal bar to them making a decision, such as incompetence, that requires a feeding tube to exist, can turn to the doctor and say, "Remove the tube."  That is their right.  I have refused suggested medical treatment several times, and my mother refused it in at least one case.

States also recognize that people can become incompetent and provide for guardianship of these incompetents; further they note that the wishes of the incompetent person, given while competent, can be followed and normally should be followed.  This comes down to several questions.

1.  Is Terri Schiavo competent?  Both sides, by declaring that they wish to be declared guardian, have conceded that she is not.  If either side declares that Mrs. Schiavo expresses current wishes, one way or the other, they are in effect saying that she is competent.

2.  What, if any, wishes has Terri Schiavo expressed in this matter, while a competent adult.  This is basically the issue.

We do have some evidence, which is hearsay but also is admissible in this case.  We have statements from her husband, brother-in-law and sister-in-law that if she did not wish to be attached to a tube.  Now is that evidence credible?   Is there any reason for these people to lie under oath?

Two that have been suggested are:

1.  Mr. Shiavo stands to inherit.  Well there is very little money left in the estate for him to inherit.  He does not have control of her assets at this point, though the do, legimately, pay his legal expenses.  He further has declined offers to "buy out" his right to maintain his guardianship.  Money cannot legitimately be said to be the issue.

2.  Mr. Shiavo wishes to marry someone else.  Well, he can, under FL law, both cheaply and quickly, divorce Mrs. Schiavo on the ground of her current state of incompetence.  This action may have had the advantage of leaving Mr. Schiavo in a better financial condition, and he could have concluded the marriage by this time.  Marriage cannot legitimately be said to be the issue.

Now, we are left with three witnesses to Mrs. Schiavo's statements on this matter.  There is no motivation for them to give false statements.

Is their any evidence that Mrs. Schiavo has expressed other wishes, as a competent adult?  This evidence, while not proving Mrs. Schiavo's wishes, would serve as a counterweight to the previous statements, and call those into question.  As of this point, no counter evidence has been presented.

Ok, I see what your saying. In that case I wont delve into this further because it would require too complicated analysis which really does not matter to the public, and should not be political at all, it matters only to the family who knows more than we ever will.

[J. J.]

I'll get back to you, J.J., when I've read the report...

Please do, and read a few of the press interviews with Dr. Wolfson.

Just a note, while he does have an extensive background in rehabilitation, he is a Ph D, not an MD.

Interesting, the report is. Neutral, I would say not - there is a bias against the parents which crops up from time to time. And yes, Michael started trying to have Terry killed after the malpractice lawsuit - the timing is just too much for coincidence, personally.

That said, from my reading...it may be legal for Michael to do what he's doing - in Florida - but damn, that is a week reed to kill someone over. Unsupported hearsay testimony is, sadly, enough to starve someone to death over in Florida, due to the way Florida law is written. But I find that rather shockingly immoral. As bullmoose said, way back in this thread, there's something not...quite...right about this case.

If the parents are willing to take upon themselves all the costs and responsibilities of care for Terry, then why the hell can't the State of Florida DO that?! Because her soon-to-be-remarrying husband - and may I note that the parents acceptance of Michael's dating again came before Michael started trying to kill their daughter - says so? Bloody hell, StatesRights has a point - how many wife-beaters will get away with murder due to the precedent being set here?

Legal, perhaps. Moral, never.

Except Mr. Schiavo wasn't a wife-beater and Mrs. Schiavo obviously had some problems prior to the heart attack.

You have to rember that Wolfson was appointed as a neutral and was appointed, ultimately with the consent of the Schindlers.  His plan was agreed to by the Schindlers.  Any bias might have been brought on by the Schindlers behavior during this.  With that said, I saw no real bias against the Schindlers in the report.

One thing that was the "break" between the two families, which occured on 2/14/03.  There have been two stories.  The Schiavo camp claims it's because Mr. Schindler wanted a share of the malpractice settlement.  The Schindler camp says that it was, not because of Mr. Schiavo was trying to "kill" his daughter, but because they wished continued therapy for her; this was a year before Schaivo suggested the DNR order.

Now, you have to ask if the Schindler story sounds fishy.  There was extensive attempts at therapy and even experimental treatment that Mr. Schiavo tried, but after 4 years they made no difference.  Even if this started as a fight over treatment, it was a pretty weak case and, at the time they made it, Mrs. Schiavo was still receiving therapy (and would until 2004).

Then you have to look at the whole demeanor of the Schindlers thoughout this.  When the suit was still out there, the Schindlers encouraged Mr. Schiavo to date; afterward, they cited this as a problem.  After the settlement, they filed to become guardians, claiming "abuse." This was 9 months before to the DNR order attempt that Mr. Schiavo made (and voluntarily withdrew).

Now we can also look at their demeanor in the recent time period.

1.  The Schindlers released snipits of the video of the daughter, not only in violation of a court order, but in violation of their daughter's privacy rights; when competent, Mrs. Schiavo shunned the limelight, by all accounts.  
2. The have filed numerous suits, all defeated, of dubious legal merit.  We also have, in this, the now famous "AAHHHH WAAAAA" filing.  In this they ultimately claim that someone who they say in incompetent is capable of make a decision.  This one is completely ludicrous.

3.  Then we have Mr. Schindler's maudlin claim that it would be "a matter of hours" two days ago.  His statement obviously was untrue and has been so demonstrated.

Looking at these actions, the Schindlers have abused the legal system.  They have also abused Terri Schiavo, at least in spirit if not quite bodily.  They have sullied her memory and have demonstrated, expecially through the release of the video, a disregard of her right to privacy.

I sincerely hope that they will be punished, civilly, for their abuses.

[J. J.]

Ok, I see what your saying. In that case I wont delve into this further because it would require too complicated analysis which really does not matter to the public, and should not be political at all, it matters only to the family who knows more than we ever will.

I didn't quite say that.  Nearly any poster might be facing this situation involving a parent, spouse, child, or sibling.  You might even be on a jury that is asked to determine this, or be an attorney or judge involved in this case.  Welcome to the real world, folks.

The first question that we should ask is, what are the wishes of the patient in this?  Now, that answer is going to be different in each case, and how it will be determined will be different.

Don't get me wrong, if there was evidence to the contrary, my answer would change.

[The Duke]

Terri did not have a heart attack, she had a heart arrythmia.

JJ has contradicted himself.  He claims that Michael Schiavo only wants what his wife wanted, yet he has repeatedly defended Michael by saying two contradictory things.

The first is that Michael is a good husband because he tried to get Terri al the treatment he could.  The second is that Terri's wishes were to no be treated, and Michael is good for carrying out those wishes.

Both cannot be true.

Either he is a bad person for treating his wife and a good one for killing her, or he is good for treating her and bad for killing her.  You can't have it both ways.

[The Duke]

The New York Times has published the abuse allegations.

[J. J.]

Terri did not have a heart attack, she had a heart arrythmia.

JJ has contradicted himself.  He claims that Michael Schiavo only wants what his wife wanted, yet he has repeatedly defended Michael by saying two contradictory things.

The first is that Michael is a good husband because he tried to get Terri al the treatment he could.  The second is that Terri's wishes were to no be treated, and Michael is good for carrying out those wishes.

Both cannot be true.

Either he is a bad person for treating his wife and a good one for killing her, or he is good for treating her and bad for killing her.  You can't have it both ways.

I'm using heart attack, which isn't a true medical term, generically.  Technically, she suffered from hypoxia, which has caused mental impairment.

Yes, both could.  After four years of continious attempts at therapy and even experimental treatment, it became clear that there was no chance of improvement.  Any hope that Mr. Shiavo had of seeing his wife improved vanished. 

BTW, that's the reason the Schindler's claim for their problems with Mr. Schiavo.  Well, at least initially, as they've changed their story soooooo many times, it's hard to know what there story is now. 

Mr. Schiavo claims that it's because the Schindlers wanted money.  Of course, Mrs. Schiavo was still getting therapy when the Schindlers filed their suit, which was 4 months later.  Kinda makes you wonder about the Schindler's motivation in all of this, dosen't it?

What is their allegation of abuse?  Is this another example of the "abuse" that Mr. Schiavo didn't want her to spend money to change her hair color again?

[The Duke]

I'm using heart attack, which isn't a true medical term, generically. Technically, she suffered from hypoxia, which has caused mental impairment.

I'll forgive you.  After all, only a complete jackass would make a big deal over someone using a term that was technically inaccurate but whose intended meaning was still obvious to all.  Right?

Yes, both could. After four years of continious attempts at therapy and even experimental treatment, it became clear that there was no chance of improvement. Any hope that Mr. Shiavo had of seeing his wife improved vanished.

BTW, that's the reason the Schindler's claim for their problems with Mr. Schiavo. Well, at least initially, as they've changed their story soooooo many times, it's hard to know what there story is now.

Mr. Schiavo claims that it's because the Schindlers wanted money. Of course, Mrs. Schiavo was still getting therapy when the Schindlers filed their suit, which was 4 months later. Kinda makes you wonder about the Schindler's motivation in all of this, dosen't it?

No no no, you're not getting away with that.

You've spent 17 pages insisting that she is in PVS and has always been universally diagnosed as such, and anyone who suggests otherwise is a quack, and that PVS (Permanent!) is irreversible.

If she was always in an irreversible state, and he always knew what her wishes were if she was ever in such a state, he'd have asked the feeding tube be withdrawn sooner.

What is their allegation of abuse? Is this another example of the "abuse" that Mr. Schiavo didn't want her to spend money to change her hair color again?

You'll have to read the Times article.  I read the print version, so I don't know where the weblink is.  Earlier you asked if there were any credible sources for this or that, well, now there is.

This doesn't mena I endorse the accusation, but its important to bring up that the JJ approved type sources are now reporting the things that your opponents have been saying all along.

[J. J.]

I'm using heart attack, which isn't a true medical term, generically. Technically, she suffered from hypoxia, which has caused mental impairment.

I'll forgive you.  After all, only a complete jackass would make a big deal over someone using a term that was technically inaccurate but whose intended meaning was still obvious to all.  Right?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No a person using a generic term can be forgive.  If I were to use, improperly, the term "aneurysm" to describe what happened.  It would be like using "inheritance" to describe money from an estate and proceeds from life insurance, but not like calling money in the bank as "life insurance," or vice versa.

No no no, you're not getting away with that.

You've spent 17 pages insisting that she is in PVS and has always been universally diagnosed as such, and anyone who suggests otherwise is a quack, and that PVS (Permanent!) is irreversible.

If she was always in an irreversible state, and he always knew what her wishes were if she was ever in such a state, he'd have asked the feeding tube be withdrawn sooner.

Or very simply that he loved her and didn't want to let her go.  It became clear that he couldn't, even after trying experimental treatment.
The idea that he would try something like experimental treatment, for which he had to transport her to California, is a pretty good indication of that.

I will also note that I have never used the word "quack."  The doctor in question actually said something different in his report than even what the Schindlers have claimed, that the feeding tube can be removed.  They are saying that it can't (and so are all of the other doctors).

You'll have to read the Times article.  I read the print version, so I don't know where the weblink is.  Earlier you asked if there were any credible sources for this or that, well, now there is.

This doesn't mena I endorse the accusation, but its important to bring up that the JJ approved type sources are now reporting the things that your opponents have been saying all along.

Okay, who made the allegation.  I will look.