Terry Shiavo Poll

[WMS]

I have repeatedly made it clear that I am under no onus to rpovide evidence that Schaivo wanted to live.  No credible evidence has been produced that she wants to die, and no, the magically appearing hearsay does not qualify.

From Thwe Weekly Standard
[emphasis is mine - WMS]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Commentary or not, those are despicable acts by Michael Shiavo. Although some Reps may be grandstanding on this, do any of you Dems or lefties really want to tie yourselves to supporting this kind of individual?

[WMS]

Commentary or not, those are despicable acts by Michael Shiavo. Although some Reps may be grandstanding on this, do any of you Dems or lefties really want to tie yourselves to supporting this kind of individual?

Also untrue.

Here is the official report on the award, from the Wolfson Report:

Michael Schiavo, on Theresa's and his own behalf, initiated a medical malpractice lawsuit against the obstetrician who had been overseeing Theresa's fertility therapy. In 1993, the malpractice action concluded in Theresa and Michael's favor, resulting in a two element award: More than $750,000 in economic damages for Theresa, and a loss of consortium award (non economic damages) of $300,000 to Michael. The court established a trust fund for Theresa's financial award, with SouthTrust Bank as the Guardian and an independent trustee. This fund was meticulously managed and accounted for and Michael Schiavo had no control over its use. There is no evidence in the record of the trust administration documents of any mismanagement of Theresa's estate, and the records on this matter are excellently maintained.

http://jb-williams.com/ts-report-12-03.htm

Jay Wolfson was the Guardian appointed under "Terri's Law."  According to same report when he filed to remove the tube in 1998, "...Michael Schiavo had earlier, formally offered to divest himself entirely of his financial interest in the guardianship estate."

I've posted a long series of posts on this on the other thead.  Wolfson was appointed by the court and is not employed by Mr. Schiavo.

One of the most disturbing things in the report is this:

It took Michael a long time to consider the prospect of getting on with his life – something he was actively encouraged to do by the Schindlers, long before enmity tore them apart. He was even encouraged by the Schindlers to date, and introduced his in-law family to women he was dating. But this was just prior to the malpractice case ending.

http://jb-williams.com/ts-report-12-03.htm

I have not tried to question anybodies motives, but this is strange.

Okay, let's get back to the point I was emphasizing. Especially note what I bolded, please::
From Thwe Weekly Standard
[emphasis is mine - WMS]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

He killed her cats and melted down their rings so he could have one for himself? And didn't have her teeth cleaned, thus causing the extraction of five teeth? What you posted didn't respond to those issues...

*edit*
Something Interesting From Slate

[WMS]

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

[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.

[WMS]

Quite frankly, this has been argued beyond any resolution, but courtesy impells me to reply again.

[dealt with below]

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?! [snip - dealt with below] 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.

I don't think I mentioned that part...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes, I read the plan at the end, in the appendix, which would've been a good idea. Wolfson still displays some bias here, even to the point of huffing about how, if the Florida Legislature had changed the law so that the hearsay testimony wasn't enough to cease support for Terry, it would somehow be a bad thing. Uh, the Florida Legislature could do that if they pleased - that's how law is supposed to be made, right?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Actually, Michael Schiavo's story could equally be fishy - on the subject of why Wolfson's compromise wasn't agreed to, accounts conflict. However, given that the compromise would have kept Terry alive while conclusive tests were done on her...I would say that the party who wants her dead, dead, dead is more suspicious.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Demeanor: the dating was explained, even in Wolfson's report, as not being a problem before 1993. I wonder what happened that year in regards to Terry that caused the split - the record is not clear, although Wolfson takes Michael's side by intimating about the insurance money. As for the rest of it - they're desperate parents trying to keep their daughter alive - certainly understandable in the circumstances.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Considering how, first with Judge Greer and then with Judge Baird, judges clearly hostile to the Schindlers were nonetheless allowed to remain in charge of the situation, I don't think the Schindlers were abusing the legal system. If the case against them is so ironclad, then why couldn't they get new judges involved in the rulings? It would've removed one of the causes for complaint if independent, neutral judges ruled the same way as Greer (good luck getting back into your church now, pal) and Baird (who could hardly be said to be neutral after Jeb tried to remove him back on November 19, 2003, yet was allowed to remain on the case!). But hell, Greer was continually kept on this case - something which probably hasn't helped either side (one side gets continually ruled against, and the other side suffers from perceived bias).

I wonder if this will affect Florida state politics...especially the Florida Senate, which voted down (21 to 18 against) an attempt by the State House (78 to 37 for) to change the laws on this. Maybe States will know that one.

I stand by my last two paragraphs, even if they don't reflect the law in this case. I see Michael wanted to cremate Terry and bury her somewhere other than where Terry's parents desired. I guess the little prick is enjoying his power trip...

[WMS]

Considering that there are many people that do discuss end of life issues with family, but don't write anything down, yes, it would be an exceptionally bad idea to say hearsay isn't permitted.  Further, while there are rules really limiting the overall use of hearsay, I would question if the legislature could prohibit it in specific types of cases.  Here you are talking about a 14th Amendment issue.

Actually, Wolfson's report said there were states which limited hearsay in that fashion, so it's clearly up to the states in setting these rules, right?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So instead of compromising, the Shiavo side would rather go for the total kill, eh? And yes, the compromise may have ended the dispute earlier - which is pretty much what I said already.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Can't answer for them. I still think the Shiavo side has not acted well, and on worse grounds, than the Schindlers. Yes, the legal side of matters favors the Shiavos. However, I'd need more than the autopsy - initially rejected by the Shiavos, if I recall correctly - to apologize. I need to know what happened to Terry's cats, for one thing. It's still pretty unlikely I'd apologize to Michael - he's acted like a prick, even if he was in the legal right.

And DAMN I'm sick of talking about this depressing case in which everyone goes in circles without convincing each other. I almost didn't respond to this in hopes of finally sinking the topic, but since you responded to me, I figured the argument wasn't - quite - over. It'll be moot soon enough, sadly...

[WMS]

she's died. :blank:

Yep. Which renders the argument moot. But I'll probably reply to BlueJ* tonight anyway.


*couldn't resist the chance to give him one of those bold nicknames first.

[WMS]

she's died. :blank:

Yep. Which renders the argument moot. But I'll probably reply to BlueJ* tonight anyway.


*couldn't resist the chance to give him one of those bold nicknames first.

You are correct. 

I have several outrages with this case, but it isn't moot.  One claim has been that Mrs. Schiavo wasn't in a PVS.  We should the ultimate evidence to her cognative state after the autopsy.

I expect comment after that.

For me, the question was what Terry's wishes really were. We won't know now, of course.

And instead of quoting the previous poll, let's summarize instead:
We agree that what Michael did was legal.
We disagree that what Michael did was moral.
And I doubt we are going to convince each other otherwise.

I think Michael is a prick.
You disagree.
And I doubt we are going to convince each other otherwise.

Oh, and lay off the personal attacks - I haven't attacked you personally and would appreciate the same courtesy.