If my son married some woman and a couple years into their marriage some accident occurred that left him completely mentally disabled and the woman he married soon after moved on, had a couple kids with another man, we'd be outraged if the courts put the life and death decision in her hands. As parents, we would feel that the decision should rest with us. If our son were in Terry's condition, I think we'd be in a better position to know what he would want.

from what little i know of you based on your writing, i doubt you and your wife would alienate your son's wife over a couple thousand dollars. nor do i imagine you'd insist your daughter-in-law to permit you to treat your son as if he was chattel and give him back to you knowing you intended to prevent his wishes from being followed.

most married people (in my experience) know much more about their partners as adult people than do their spouse's parents.





copied from the pdf record of the abstract of decision rendered by probate court in which this case was heard. link



the money that was in dispute isnt the roughly $700,000 awarded to terri which was put into a trust over which michael schiavo had no control whatsoever; instead it's the roughly $300,000 he received for lost of consortium. as such it belonged to him and the schindler's were completely outta line to have made that an issue.


the appeals court describes what happened as a result.


In this case, however, Michael Schiavo has not been allowed to make a decision to
disconnect life-support. The Schindlers have not been allowed to make a decision to maintain life-support. Each party in this case, absent their disagreement, might have been a suitable surrogate decision-maker for Theresa.

Because Michael Schiavo and the Schindlers could not agree on the proper decision and the inheritance issue created the appearance of conflict, Michael Schiavo, as the guardian of Theresa, invoked the trial court's jurisdiction to allow the trial court to serve as the surrogate decision-maker.

(taken verbatim from the January 2001… Second District Court of Appeal ruling affirming the trial court's decision regarding Terri's wishes link


and that's the way it's been ever since. michael schiavo could have decamped to sri lanka and the court would still be acting in what it believes to be terri's best interest as her surrogate.

Brad- I think there is some truth to that.  Parents never want to or should have to see their children die before they do.    It is hard to watch a life fade that you watch develop. 

Sorry kingbee the court is still going on hearsay. Don't care what page you put up. Unless you can provide evidence that she stated that she wished to die. They (the court) are running on Michael's say so! $700,000 was put in trust for Terri. Okay. So what happens to it when she's gone? I can tell you. It'll revert to the scumbag. That being said...he's "still" in it for the money!

Sorry kingbee the court is still going on hearsay

hearsay isnt admissible in most courts (as you'd know if you took the time to check into the rules of evidence in florida or in federal courts) . 

(c) Hearsay.

"Hearsay" is a statement, other than one made by the declarant while testifying at the trial or hearing, offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted.

(d) Statements which are not hearsay.

( a statement of which the party has manifested an adoption or belief in its truth, or

(C) a statement by a person authorized by the party to make a statement concerning the subject,

 

They (the court) are running on Michael's say so!

duh...she cant testify for herself.  if she could, there wouldnt be an issue to resolve.

$700,000 was put in trust for Terri. Okay. So what happens to it when she's gone? I can tell you. It'll revert to the scumbag

it's already been spent on her care.  her bills are being paid primarily by social security, medicare and medicaid.   considering how little you know about the case, it's extremely irresponsible of you to be calling anyone names or impugning reputations.   you could very easily be wrong.

kingbee gets an insightful for doing his research.

drmiler "Don't care what page you put up." Kind of close-minded, don't you think? Not to be adverserial here, but if Terri could express her wishes, this case wouldn't exist. She can't, so all that we have to go on is hearsay.

At the malpractice trial, the Schindlers testified that Michael was a "wonderful son-in-law." Then a dispute broke out and for more than ten-years the family has argued. Was it over the money? Was it over religious principles? We don't "know" in the sense that Terri can't speak for herself. All that we can do is what the courts have already done: Look at all available evidence and make up our own minds.

It seems these changes will be too late to help Terri. Something I find really disturbing though, is Mr Shiavo's refusal to budge an inch, refusing her the burial the rest of her family wants, and insisting on cremating her and burying her ashes on HIS family plot.

What nobody is picking up on yet is the "fact" that cremation is aginst the roman catholic religon. I guess "scumbag" just don't care. Although I think LW has picked up on it.

We do need to change the laws, and I'd really like to see money removed from the equation altogether by appointing court supervised guardians when any party to the case has the potential for financial motivation influencing their decision

i guess i should have emphasized this in bold the first time (once again this is verbatim from the appeal court recounting what happened at trial--see the link in comment# 2):

Because Michael Schiavo and the Schindlers could not agree on the proper decision and the inheritance issue created the appearance of conflict, Michael Schiavo, as the guardian of Theresa, invoked the trial court's jurisdiction to allow the trial court to serve as the surrogate decision-maker.

rather than make the decision himself, schiavo availed himself of florida law and petitioned the court to hear the evidence and act on terri's behalf. since 2000 (the court actions began in 1998), he's had no more say in what happens than the schindlers.

Talk about twisting the knife. This is just sheer spite, and a good indication of the intense animosity that exists between him and the Schindlers

it aint like they havent done everything possible to make his life a living hell. check the links i provided above and read the decision originally rendered. greer, trying to be as gentle with both sides as possible, restrains himself from making too big a deal of testimony from the schindler witnesses that was accidentally contrived at best if not a blatant attempt to mislead the court.

i cant find it right now because the schindlers have filed so many actions but one of them asked to be allowed to try to feed terri by mouth. i hope i dont need to explain to anyone how foolish and dangerous that would have been.

the "fact" that cremation is aginst the roman catholic religon.

cremation is most certainly not forbidden to catholics. until a few years ago, catholics who wished to have the full memorial (what used to be called a requiem mass, etc.) inside the church building had to be cremated afterwards because the church was opposed bringing a persons ashes into the building. for at least the past couple of years, that's been relaxed; each bishop can decide whether to permit ashes inside the churches of his diocese.

cremation is most certainly not forbidden to catholics. until a few years ago, catholics who wished to have the full memorial (what used to be called a requiem mass, etc.) inside the church building had to be cremated afterwards because the church was opposed bringing a persons ashes into the building. for at least the past couple of years, that's been relaxed; each bishop can decide whether to permit ashes inside the churches of his diocese.

YOu are almost correct.  Until a few years ago, cremation was not allowed for Catholics, Period.  That changed in the 80s.  Still, they do have restrictions on how and who gets cremated, and Michael Schiavo is not following those dictates either.

Brad, it seems your thread is getting Hijacked.  But I agree with you and C & H Wood seems to have hit the reason on the head.  As I stated in another Blog, I think the polls showing 60+% of the population rooting for her death are due to loaded questions.  I will concede it is closer to 50/50 and as Jesse Jackson has shown, it is not a Democrat/Republican issue.

That leaves your explanation as Occams Razor.

Until a few years ago, cremation was not allowed for Catholics,

you must be even older than i am if you think 1963 was 'a few years ago'. since 3/1/1997, the vatican has permitted ashes to be brought into the building for liturgical services with the bishop's approval.

you must be even older than i am if you think 1963 was 'a few years ago'. since 3/1/1997, the vatican has permitted ashes to be brought into the building for liturgical services with the bishop's approval.

I told you it was the 80s. Before then I was not allowed period. After that, there were a lot of restrictions placed on it, and as far as the ashes in the building, no, just the chapel. That was easy to get around by simple moving the ceremony to the commons area.

You got one thing right. I am older than you.

I told you it was the 80s

yeah and youre wrong.

In 1963, an Instruction from the Holy Office (now the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith) lifted the ban on cremation
Link

You got one thing right. I am older than you

even if i was 105 right now that would be true.

Post Removed: I was providing the same information that kingbee did above--he's just faster than me!