Terry Shiavo Poll

[J. J.]

If it were me, I would not want to be kept alive in that state.  I do have a living will and I think the phrase, "Terminate with extreme prejudice," is in it.

But this isn't me and I can't determine how accurate the husband's words are.  It's going to be a judgment call.

I yield to the judiciary on this one.  I do feel that this isn't the proper role of Congress.

[J. J.]

This is really a tough call.  I hope we can all agree that if she were conscious that we would follow whatever decision she wanted (whether it was to live or die).

But since she isn't and probably will never be, then who is guardian of a disabled adult?  Who gets the say?  While I believe we should do whatever possible to save a person's life I also believe that a spouse's authority on such matters supercedes the authority of a parent.

Unfortunately we're never going to know what Ms Schiavo wanted.  If her parents have some new evidence then I'm in favor of keeping her alive until such time as said evidence can be reviewed before a court to determine its validity.  But if not then I believe we should let Ms Schiavo go unto the kingdom of God.

I am forced to reluctantly agree with Wakie; the spouse's rights (rightly or wrongly) supersede the parent's rights.  It might be reasonable because she chose the spouse and didn't choose her parents.

[J. J.]

In our society, we get to play God occasionally.  It's generally called "medical advancements."

[J. J.]

I have been reading all of your posts and want to make several observations.

1.  Mrs. Shiavo chose to be married to Mr. Shiavo.  She made a choice to associate herself with him.  As far as I can determine, she was in this relationship, and it was an unimpared one, at the time of her disability.  It was a voluntary one.

2.  Her relationship with her parents is based on genetics, not on mutual views.  She did not choose to associate with them.  This relationship was an involuntary one.

3.  The medical evidence is that she has no self awareness, due to her medical condition.  This determination was made by qualified doctors who examined her and reported their results to the court, under oath.

4.  At no point have Mrs Shiavo parents, the Schindlers claimed, so far as I can tell, that they ever discussed this with her.  This the claim has been that because they believe it.  Their belief is solely based on their own desires and on their involuntary genetic relationship.

Speaking from experience, I am far more likely to discuss something like this with a voluntary partner, as opposed to someone with which I have an involuntary relationship.  I do, and did not, share have the same views, on matters as fundamental as religion and politics, with my nearing living relative, my father.  I could not state that my father represents my views on this matter.  I cannot state that the Schindlers have special and superior knowledge based on this involuntary genetic relationship.

5.  While Mr. Shiavo's evidence* is far from the strongest possible, it is evidence of Mrs. Shiavo's wishes.  It must be balanced against the lack of evidence for Mrs. Shiavo wishes to the contrary.

The evidence of Mr. Shiavo wanting to lie about this is virtually non existent.  He has turned down substantial amounts of money to waive his right.  Any "girl friend" relationship could be continued and divorce would be an option (which would have substantially easier than his current tactics in this matter).

Based on those points, I see no reason to disbelieve Mr. Shiavo.  

I must conclude that the tubes should be removed.

I must conclude that Congress exceeded its constitutional authority by meddling in an affair not a federal issue.

*There is a possibility that other friends of Mrs. Shiavo also heard her say this.  This would support Mr. Shaivo's claim.

[J. J.]

The case for remocing Micahel as guardian is not dependent upon whether or not he did or did not hear a statement from Terri declaring her wishes.  It is based on his either not having her best interest at heart and/or being incapable of carrying out his role as guardian.  Since he has at various ponts denied Terri basic medical care (At one point she contrcted a urinary tract infection, for example, and he overrode doctor's wishes to use antibiotics.  It was only by court order that she was finally allowed basic antibiotics) has a financial conflict of interest (A $1 million life insurance policy) and an extramarital lover.  The parents have never demonstrated gross incompetence, nor do they seem to have conflicts of interest.

I want to address the financial issue first.  If Mr. Shiavo would pursue a divorce, he could maintain have been in better financial shape than attempting to fight the issue out in court.  There would have been minimal court costs and much of the resources could have reverted to him.  He could have stayed as beneficiary on the life insurance policy, or, it might have been possible to "sell" the policy to someone who would collect on Mrs. Shiavo's demise.  Such has been done by people suffering from AIDS.  It is very possible that Mr. Shiavo could have received more money sooner, had he walked away years ago.

Further, as had been pointed out, Mr. Shiavo has refused offers to relinquish his rights as guardian for a substantial consideration, which would equal his receipts from Mrs. Shiavo's death.

The divorce, aside from netting him substancial wealth, would have freed him to marry again.  I have to conclude that by not attempting these things in the easier and quicker manner, Mr. Shiavo prime motivation is neither money nor marriage.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Responding to stimuli is not a demonstration of awareness.  The spine can trigger reflex actions independent of the brain:  http://www.tiscali.co.uk/reference/encyclopaedia/hutchinson/m0033685.html

From what I saw of the videotape, Mrs. Shaivo's eyes were not even focusing in the same direction when she was "responding."

I'm forced to agree with Harry; there would be fairly easy ways to determine if the these were true "responses."  Those tests have been in the negative.

[J. J.]

She has responded to commands, not just stimulus.

A visitor told her that if she turned to face the opposite direction from the one she was turned she could see squirrels out the window.  She turned.  A lawyer told her that if she could only say "I want to live" it would all be over, she moaned "I waaaaa".

The anti-life people keep dismissing these kind of events as people just believing what they want to believe, but they keep happenning and the anti-life people just cover their eyes and ears and pretend it isn't happenning.

I see nothing in you link to even suggest that following the ballon is not a response to stimulus, but perhaps I missed it.  Whether reflex arcs exist is not in question here, what's in question is whether vision is connected to reflex in the manner you suggest.  Its also worth noting that some of her doctors have claimed she's blind, which rules our even the reflex explaination.  One has to wonder about their competence as medical professionals, as well as the competence of a jdge who flouts Congressional directives and a husband who has repeatedly denied her medical treatment.

So far, you have something that is nothing more than random sounds and eye movement; these are not even acting simultaniously.

This should fairly easy to test.  Have two strangers walk into her room and stand appart.  Tell her to look at the one who says her name.  Have both speak, one saying "Terri" and the other saying "Rover." Repeat the test 40-50 times.  If she doesn't to "Terri" most of the time, that should show it is nothing but random action.

If she has the level of sentience you claim, this should be easily determined.

[J. J.]

You know those science movies where some scientist is trying to warn everyone that the world is about to suffer a new ice age/volcanic eruption/asteroid hit/aggressive martian invaders?  And some General comes up with a series of flat excuses why everything is fine, and some political advisor tells some barely believable President that the world is safe and he should make more TV appearances?  Just a series of preposterous excuses why the scientist is wrong.

That's sort of how this is.  Except they are preposterous excuses why a woman must be starved to death.

This more like the "scientist" saying, "Gravity is failing and will be one half of it what it was in 10 seconds."  The "President" drops a pen and then drops it 20 seconds later and it still falls at the same rate.

Some of this you can verify fairly easily, though simple experiments.  The parents haven't done it. 

[J. J.]

If the parents conducted your "experiment", it would not be admissible in court under the standards the judges have set up.

Here's an experiment that would be admissible in court that Schiavo has refused to allow take place:  A PETS scan.  A PETS scan is a scan of the brain that will allow us to determine accurately what Terri Schiavo's brain function is.  Instead of doctors who haven't actually examined her brain and concluded on little or no actual evidence that she has no mental capacity, we'd actually have scientific data!  Of course, not one person on the kill Terri side, including you (Who linked to a site explaining knee reflexes when he couldn't find something on eye reflexes that supported his position) has suggested any medical examination, you just expect us to take your word for it, and any time we present evidence that contradicts you, you cover your eyes and ears and mutter somethng about 19 Judges and 600 Doctors and 300,000 state certified fortune tellers have said she won't make it.

The doctors can and would be looking for certain things.  Now, I was addressing the fact that reflex actions are not controlled by brian function.  Here are some sites that address eye reflex in coma cases, specifically:





Centres for eye movement control are adjacent to the brain stem areas responsible for arousal; thus, evaluation is a valuable guide to the presence and level of brain stem disease causing coma. Ocular pathways run from the mid brain to the pons, thus normal reflex eye movements imply that the pontomedullary junction to the level of the ocular motor nucleus in the mid brain is intact. In addition the oculomotor nerve is susceptible to compression in tentorial herniation.

http://jnnp.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/71/suppl_1/i13


Signs of vegetative state
Some of the characteristics of a vegetative state include:

The person looks like they're asleep
They can't wake up, talk or respond to commands
The eyes may open in response to stimuli
The person is able to move their body
Heart rate, blood pressure and respiration continue
The person can randomly laugh, cry or pull faces.
The brain stem is undamaged
A person in a persistent vegetative state has damage to the cerebral hemispheres - the areas of the brain that govern sophisticated functions like consciousness, self-awareness and personality. However, the brain stem is intact, so the person retains motor reflexes, sleep-wake cycles and the activity of their autonomic nervous system. This includes the regulation of many functions essential to life such as heart rate, respiration and blood pressure.


http://www.betterhealth.vic.gov.au/bhcv2/bhcarticles.nsf/pages/Coma_vegetative_state?open

In persistent vegetative state the individual loses the higher cerebral powers of the brain, but the functions of the brainstem, such as respiration (breathing) and circulation, remain relatively intact. Spontaneous movements may occur and the eyes may open in response to external stimuli, but the patient does not speak or obey commands. Patients in a vegetative state may appear somewhat normal. They may occasionally grimace, cry, or laugh.

http://www.neuroskills.com/index.shtml?main=/tbi/coma.shtml

http://healthlink.mcw.edu/article/921394859.html

See also
http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/319/7213/841

These things occure in PVS cases.  So far there is no evidence that has been presented that she has any cognative function.

I don't feel that Mrs. Shiavo should die.  I feel that whatever she ever was died nearly fifteen years ago.  Keeping her alive is only a little bit more than abuse of a corpse.  It is a ghoulish exercise that only makes a mockery of who she really was.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

As for this, I do not see how my party affiliation has any bearing on the matter, though I point out Federal intervention is a violation of states rights.  I would suspect that jFRAUD, Popeepo, BRTD, and FreeDUMBburnout might disagree with your assessment.

[J. J.]

Ironically feeding tubes were NOT considered life support 5-10 years ago in FL.

What changed that?  I honestly don't know much Florida law.

It was another right-to-die case that determined that particular issue about 10 years ago.  Before them, it was an undefined issue.  A similar ruling is effect in the UK but I don't know which side of the pond decided the issue first.

The determination was decided by the House of Lords in 1993, but the feeding tubes were not ordered removed until 1998.

[J. J.]

Stop pretending the medicine is open and shut.  She has not even received a full examination, as I said before, and it’s the husband’s camp that is preventing it.  Medical experts disagree with each other over her condition.

Neuropsychologist Dr. Alexander Gimon argued that her responses "are completely inconsistent with a diagnosis of vegetative state."

Neurologist Dr. William Hammesfahr, Terri "is alert and responsive to her environment. She responds to specific people best."  Dr. William Hammesfahr, who has aided people with chronic brain injuries, said: "There are many approaches that would help Terri Schiavo. I know, because I had the opportunity to personally examine her, her medical records, and her X-rays."

An affidavit from 17 other doctors shows that Terri is not in PVS.

http://www.terrisfight.org/press/030405medaff.html

Its not a violation of states rights if rights defined in the Federal Constitution are violated.  The right to life is itself a due process right, a substantive due process right, and a complaint that it has been threatened is alone enough for the Federal Courts to hear the case.

This last part is the stuff I’m talking about when I say you’re every Democrat’s favorite Republican.  You say you don’t think Schiavo should die, but then you leap to the defense of some hack judge who can’t even avoid committing contempt of Congress.

I'm far from pretending that is "open and shut," but I do note that "evidence" presented so far that Mrs. Shaivo is cognative does not prove that.  Everything presented is consistant with a PVS.  The conclusion that it is is not merely supported by her current doctors, who are being paid by Mr. Shaivo, but by those independent doctors appointed by the court.  No, not "open and shut," but the preponderance of expert evidence is in that it is a PVS.

This is a single judge, but a series of judges.  The case was appealed, ultimately to the FL Supreme Court, and upheld.  Now, we are at a point where a Federal Judge has said that this does not violate due process and a panel of the Appeals Court saying the same thing.

You've made several interesting arguments:

1.  Mr. Shaivo is doing this solely for money for so that he can marry someone else.  False, as he could get more money, or end the relationship more quickly though other means.

2.  Mrs. Shaivo reactions are evidence that she isn't in a PVS.  False, as these are common in PVS cases.

3.  Mrs. Shaivo was deprived of due process.  False, as she went through an appeals process through the appeal process to the FL Supreme Court and now in Federal Courts.  The unanimity of the courts, to date, has been suprising.

You need evidence to support these cllaims, but it's not there.

[J. J.]

I haven't said he's doing it solely for the money, if you read the earlier part of the thread I argued against Wildcard on this very point.  The more the case has gone on, the more I do wonder about the money issue, but I have never argued he's doing it just for the money.  I do think the courts have repeatedly ruled that beneficiaries of insurance claims should not be legal guardians, and that Schiavo should be removed as legal guardian because of the insurance claim.

Totally false, because I am both sole heir and beneficiary of someone I have guardianship over.

Here the reference you made, yesterday regarding Mr. Shaivo's financial situation:

It is based on his either not having her best interest at heart and/or being incapable of carrying out his role as guardian.  Since he has at various ponts denied Terri basic medical care (At one point she contrcted a urinary tract infection, for example, and he overrode doctor's wishes to use antibiotics.  It was only by court order that she was finally allowed basic antibiotics) has a financial conflict of interest (A $1 million life insurance policy) and an extramarital lover.  The parents have never demonstrated gross incompetence, nor do they seem to have conflicts of interest.

Now, if he wished the money, there are quicker and cheaper methods of getting it.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

False again from the descriptions on the sites cited.  The possibility also exists that Mrs. Shiavo may not wish to live in a state of profound mental disability, so even though there is no real evidence against a PVS, it might not be necessary to show the disability is that great to trigger removal.  My own living will actually uses the term "irreversible brain damage or brain disease with no realistic hope of significant recovery," which would include this situation.  Assuming, as the courts have, that Mrs. Shiavo did not want to exist in this type of condition, whether or not it is PVS or a lesser condition, really makes no difference.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The courts, the Florida trial court, Appeals Court, and Supreme Court, and now the Federal District and Appeals Courts, have looked at the due process arguments and determined that she did; under our system of government, it is their call.  They are the ones that get to make the 14th Amendment call, and they have, repeatedly.

You so far have ignored the descriptions of the medical conditions and the role of the courts in making your arguments.  You have also ignored your own previous posts.

[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.

[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?

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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

[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?

[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?

[J. J.]

Everything that you've cited, which was written by one author, is a commentary piece, not a news report.

I'll ask the questions again, though I doubt that you can answer them factually at this point:


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?

[J. J.]

Everything that you've cited, which was written by one author, is a commentary piece, not a news report.

What is the point of me providing evidence to you when any evidence that contradicts what you already believe to be true is dismissed without addressing the merits of thee argument?  This is why I don't want to dig through Lexis Nexis hits on your behalf, its not my fault your ill-informed, and its not my job to fix it.

If you don't understand the difference between evidence and opinion, you have my condolences.  I will be availible to testify at your compentency hearing.

I'll ask again:

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?

Why don't you answer them?  Are you afraid you've told some lies and have been caught in it?  Would that be sinful?