Who do you support now that Shaivo is gone?

[Spoiled]

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/kgtv/20050329/lo_wkmg/2648050


after reading that I fully support the husband's decision....

 

[SamSpade]

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/kgtv/20050329/lo_wkmg/2648050

after reading that I fully support the husband's decision....

Just because someone's an azz doesn't make their position more or less tenable. I'm still in about the middle over it, leaning only slightly to the parents.

Is the autopsy all that likely to establish ANYTHING? I listened to someone on Hannity yesterday - I think it was one of the lawyers that argued for the parents - who went on at length about how little is known about what brought on her condition - that the entire bulimia story isn't true at all. They know SOME things - it wasn't a heart attack, it wasn't from brutality, she DID show a drop in potassium - but they really have no idea what caused it all. Will they find out?

 

[Ken King]

I don't see what this linked story has to do with anything, but just so we are clear, you support the husband's decision to allow his loving wife to be artificially sustained for 8 years before acting upon her express wishes against this sort of thing.

 

[Larry Gude]

Nice twist there Ken...

you support the husband's decision to allow his loving wife to be artificially sustained for 8 years before acting upon her express wishes against this sort of thing.

So now there's something wrong with having hung in there for too long?

 

[Ken King]

So now there's something wrong with having hung in there for too long?

Well if her wishes actually were "Don't do this" and then he went ahead and did it for 8 years then yeah it's a problem. Not a big one, grant you, as he was the one exercising his right. But if your sweat little wife told you in no uncertain terms to not do this would you hang around for 8 years denying her wishes.

 

[vraiblonde]

But if your sweet little wife told you in no uncertain terms to not do this would you hang around for 8 years denying her wishes.

Maybe. Especially if you had her nutball parents hanging all over you saying she was just perfectly fine and would be up and around in no time.

I think you guys should be ashamed of the way you're disparaging this guy. From all accounts, he was a loving, caring husband who was there with her all the time and held her while she died, trying to make it as peaceful for her as possible AFTER 15 YEARS.

There is absolutely no proof, credible or otherwise, that he beat her or strangled her. There is no evidence that he neglected her in any way, unless you consider people who have absolutely nothing to do with anything, like Beaky, to be "witnesses".

The Schindlers lived with them for two years after Terri collapsed - if Michael Schiavo were such a horrible person, don't you think they might have noticed then instead of after he tried to take her off life support? Why would he let them live there and help care for her if he were guilty of nefarious activity? He didn't start shooing them away until they started suing him and calling him a murderer.

The weasely brother actually started a fight in the room where his sister lay dying - that's what a kind, compassionate person he is. Then, when the caregivers asked him to leave, he started fighting with them. THIS is what Fox News, who has been on the Schindlers side of this from day one, has reported so there's no reason not to believe it.

I'm surprised at some of the people on here that I always considered rational that are going off the deep end on this issue.

 

[somdcrab]

Maybe. Especially if you had her nutball parents hanging all over you saying she was just perfectly fine and would be up and around in no time.

I think you guys should be ashamed of the way you're disparaging this guy. From all accounts, he was a loving, caring husband who was there with her all the time and held her while she died, trying to make it as peaceful for her as possible AFTER 15 YEARS.

There is absolutely no proof, credible or otherwise, that he beat her or strangled her. There is no evidence that he neglected her in any way, unless you consider people who have absolutely nothing to do with anything, like Beaky, to be "witnesses".

The Schindlers lived with them for two years after Terri collapsed - if Michael Schiavo were such a horrible person, don't you think they might have noticed then instead of after he tried to take her off life support? Why would he let them live there and help care for her if he were guilty of nefarious activity? He didn't start shooing them away until they started suing him and calling him a murderer.

The weasely brother actually started a fight in the room where his sister lay dying - that's what a kind, compassionate person he is. Then, when the caregivers asked him to leave, he started fighting with them. THIS is what Fox News, who has been on the Schindlers side of this from day one, has reported so there's no reason not to believe it.

I'm surprised at some of the people on here that I always considered rational that are going off the deep end on this issue.

 

[Ken King]

Maybe it took him 7+ years to finally grow the balls to tell her folks that enough is enough. I don't know, none of us do. All I am saying is that if Terri's wishes were that she not suffer an endless ordeal in the hospital then he should have pushed for that as soon as the diagnosis was that there was no hope. By all accounts that is what Michael has said she had requested of him, yet he didn't honor those wishes for a considerable amount of time.

In all honesty I think everyone involved with Terri dishonored her. Michael for not immediately adhering to her wishes and her family for the circus they created.

Bringing to light the fact that her parents are selling petition signers contact data is just another effort to slam a family that has had a hard time dealing with their daughter's condition and is trying to be used to bolster some people's opinions that her family members are lunatics. Why? What is the need to continue to feed off of these people?

 

[2ndAmendment]

Maybe it took him 7+ years to finally grow the balls to tell her folks that enough is enough. I don't know, none of us do. All I am saying is that if Terri's wishes were that she not suffer an endless ordeal in the hospital then he should have pushed for that as soon as the diagnosis was that there was no hope. By all accounts that is what Michael has said she had requested of him, yet he didn't honor those wishes for a considerable amount of time.

Wasn't there some litigation going on at this time over malpractice? Maybe it was on the lawyers recommendation that Michael sustained Terri until things were settled. Then he wished to carry out her wishes, but the parents objected. This is all conjecture. We may never know. I don't think it was anyone's but the families business in the first place.

 

[alex]

Wasn't there some litigation going on at this time over malpractice? Maybe it was on the lawyers recommendation that Michael sustained Terri until things were settled. Then he wished to carry out her wishes, but the parents objected. This is all conjecture. We may never know. I don't think it was anyone's but the families business in the first place.

 

[aps45819]

I mail off a support check for my son every two weeks. That's who I support.

I don't care what some petty, miserable, back stabbing family does in another state. It's none of my business no matter how much the media wants it to be. It's a matter that should be private between the members of the family. The focusing of the world media to prove "I'm right, you're wrong" just shows how little they respect themselves, and the now "officially" dead woman.

 

[Ken King]

Wasn't there some litigation going on at this time over malpractice? Maybe it was on the lawyers recommendation that Michael sustained Terri until things were settled. Then he wished to carry out her wishes, but the parents objected. This is all conjecture. We may never know. I don't think it was anyone's but the families business in the first place.

From the timelines I have seen the litigation was complete in 1993, the same year that he could have requested a dissolution of marriage. Even with the litigation at that time could they have not still made the same malpractice allegations that they won even if she had already expired by carrying out her express wishes?

 

[somdcrab]

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/kgtv/20050329/lo_wkmg/2648050


after reading that I fully support the husband's decision....

Da REberend Al Sharpton dats who ise supoatin

 

[Larry Gude]

Cop Out!

[/QUOTE]In all honesty I think everyone involved with Terri dishonored her

I don't suppose it possible, just maybe, that the conversatrion Terri and Michael had went along the lines of thus:

T: "I don't ever wanna be a trapped vegetable"
M: "Me neither. I'd want them to give it a try and then tell them to let me go.
T: "Yeah, that makes sense, as long as there seems to be a pretty good chance of recovering to at least be able to talk, maybe move around some.
M: "Yeah, it would suck to just be trapped there, unable to do any damn thing"
T: "Yeah, but for Gods sake, don't leave me to my parents. They'll have me sit there forever. They feel bad about how they raised me and will never quit trying to make it up, no matter how bad off I am."

Now, you Ken and all the pro Schindler crowd have MADE up allegations and/or made presumptions that Michael is lying or at least suspected him in all manner of nefarious ways, not telling the truth, anything but representing Terri's wishes so, there.

My version of events.

We'll all just ignore that that, right there is PROBABLY want happened and PROBABLY why the courts ruled time and time and time and time again with Michael. And Terri.

 

[Ken King]

I don't suppose it possible, just maybe, that the conversatrion Terri and Michael had went along the lines of thus:

T: "I don't ever wanna be a trapped vegetable"
M: "Me neither. I'd want them to give it a try and then tell them to let me go.
T: "Yeah, that makes sense, as long as there seems to be a pretty good chance of recovering to at least be able to talk, maybe move around some.
M: "Yeah, it would suck to just be trapped there, unable to do any damn thing"
T: "Yeah, but for Gods sake, don't leave me to my parents. They'll have me sit there forever. They feel bad about how they raised me and will never quit trying to make it up, no matter how bad off I am."

Now, you Ken and all the pro Schindler crowd have MADE up allegations and/or made presumptions that Michael is lying or at least suspected him in all manner of nefarious ways, not telling the truth, anything but representing Terri's wishes so, there.

My version of events.

We'll all just ignore that that, right there is PROBABLY want happened and PROBABLY why the courts ruled time and time and time and time again with Michael. And Terri.

I repeated things I had read and heard, I'll admit that. But how in the hell do you know what Terri wanted? Were you privy to the personal conversations that took place years before you ever heard of these people? I don't think you were and that would be the only way you would know 100% positive as to what her wishes were.

I said it before and I'll say it again now, there is more to this then any of us will ever know.

Also I maintain that he was not acting to what he claimed her wishes were because of the lengthy delay before seeking to carry out those wishes. There may be other factors involved I know nothing about that could explain the delay, but has anyone heard what they are for sure? I think not. Is it likely that he could explain away this belief of mine? Certainly, but as of yet I haven't heard it, have you?

Your version is BS just like anyone else that claims to know what Terri did or didn't say. And the courts ruled as they did in accordance with portions of the laws that I later found when I advised of my change of stance because I found what I believed made the removal of the feeding tube legal as well as keeping Michael as her proxy.

Now I ask you, are you doing anything different in regards to her family then what you accuse others of doing to Michael?

 

[Lenny]

Wasn't there some litigation going on at this time over malpractice? Maybe it was on the lawyers recommendation that Michael sustained Terri until things were settled. Then he wished to carry out her wishes, but the parents objected. This is all conjecture. We may never know. I don't think it was anyone's but the families business in the first place.

If you look at the timeline Michael and Terri won the malpractice case and her family sued to have him removed as the guardian within six or seven months. Once they lost that, he waited another five years before he began petitioning to have her feeding tube removed. It is obvious her family saw the big payoff and did not want Michael making any decisions on how that money was spent.

$500,000 of the $700,000 settlement to Terri went to the lawyers on her side. The lawyers continued to suck the blood from both families for the next 12 years!

 

[Bruzilla]

I prefer to focus on the actions of people rather than the words. Based on statements that Michael has made over there years, there was no express and certain desire on Terri's part to be allowed to die. What he was basing his opinion on was one time when they were watching a show about someone being artificially kept alive Terri said that she wouldn't want to be kept alive like that. There was no direct statement of "If I'm ever in a coma or vegetative state I want you to let me die" or anything direct request like that.

My belief is that Michael did what most husbands would do... he hoped that his wife would get better despite what the doctors told him at first. He held that hope for a lot longer than I think I would have. Once he realized that the doctors were right, that Terri was gone, he decided that withering away on a hospital bed is not what Terri would have wanted. Michael has also said that big reason that he would not allow the parents to have custody is that in the near future, Terri would likely have to undergo some amputations of her limbs due to atrophy of the tissue, and her father had said that he was willing to have her cut up to keep her body alive. Michael said no way in Hell to that.

If Michael were guided by money, he would have taken the millions of dollars offered to him over the past few months and been gone. If he had done something to her, he would have wanted her kept alive so that an autopsy couldn't be performed. The only motivation that is supported by the actions taken is that he's a loving husband who wanted what he thought his wife would have wanted.

 

[Larry Gude]

And I've stated as such from the get go...

But how in the hell do you know what Terri wanted?

...and I still don't 'know'.

But I do know the courts have ruled on it. I do know it makes what I view to be common sense. I do know it has been appealed countless times. I do know motions to dismiss him as guardian have been dismissed as well, repeatedly. A whole bunch of people, whom, as you stated, don't know for 100% sure, support his position over a lot of years and it's there job to decided. They've seen all the evidence.

I do know that Mike moved the in laws in for two years to help care for Terri. I do know he and dad took her to California for a radical (desperate) treatment that did not work. It was desperate because it hadn't worked for ANYONE but it represented hope.

Michael Schiavo has been hung, drawn and quartered in the court of public opinion in many areas and I think a good many people take accusations as fact when it fits their agenda. That is not nor ever has been your MO.

That is what surprises me. I'd have bet a dollar you would have been concerned with the accusations on the one hand and the dismisals on the other and then the newest, latest, greatest accusation to get Michael disqualified. Given that it is so common for people to say "I don't want to be like that' I expected your hackles to be raised.

Now I ask you, are you doing anything different in regards to her family then what you accuse others of doing to Michael?

No, except for one tiny difference. I am arguing and have argued as to the probable 'why' as to the courts repeated decisions. Based on my experiencses the reasons I've cooked up fit the facts as we know them and fit human nature as I know it. The parents apall me.

On the other hand, the bitter enders have be using the shotgun and shampoo method; keep throwing things out their until something sticks. Lather, rinse, repeat.

If the parents are correct, an horrific injustice has been done. An entire state court system and federal appeals and reviews have failed to find cause for the Schindlers position. They've been granted numerous stays. They've had their day in court time and time and time again.

I've yet to hear one single piece of evidence supporting them. I am constantly reading new information that supports Michael ever more.

In any event, the whole affair is sad and difficult for the parents and, again, they had their opportunty but, as they failed, I stand firmly in support of the husband and wife.

 

[Ken King]

The probable "why" as to the courts decision is relatively easy once you read the law in its entirety (something that took me a time to do). That being that Terri had reached the end-stage. As such, Michael was within his right to request that she be allowed to die by refusing any further medical intervention.

All of the accusations, innuendo and speculation that he has faced are tied to the emotions of the situation. We have people that believe that all life is precious, even if it is just the shell of a being that has no cognizant functioning. We see it in the ongoing debate about abortion well after the fact that the courts have ruled it within the right of the person being pregnant to terminate that pregnancy. I suspect that these type debates will continue as that is the nature of the groups that are divided as to how we as a civilization should respect life.

For me in regard to Mike, I saw some things that didn’t add up and I let my emotional reasoning get the better of me. I knew nothing of any communications between him and Terri’s parents that they all felt Mike should go ahead and start seeking life beyond Terri, which he did. If that is in deed factual then her parents have lost any integrity as to their actions and had lost the battle of reason over emotion.

As to whom I support, I support neither. My support lies with the laws our states and nation create to help in the management of personal affairs and in this case the laws again won, as they should.

 

[Larry Gude]

Touchdown!!!

As to whom I support, I support neither. My support lies with the laws our states and nation create to help in the management of personal affairs and in this case the laws again won, as they should.

The world is back on it's axis again! Whew. You have always been I person I recognize as having the character to effortlessly change your position if new found facts or condition changes warrant. That's not as common as it should be.

And, again, it's not like Terri fell down the stairs last week and her husband immediately started refusing treatment. This thing, BECAUSE of it's nature, because of the emotions, has gone through an enormous amount of review.

I don't fault anyone for being concerned about Terri's rights and well being. My concern is that it seems pretty clear that her rights and care were looked after, very thoroughly, and it still came down to th husband, rightly and justly, speaking for her.

I wish no one the agony the Schindlers have gone through but that doesn't excuse them going, as I see it, to far.

And I also do not wish anyone the scorn heaped, in my opinion, unjustly, on Michael.

I do condemn the media because they have trickled out the readily know facts and timeline of this matter in order to spark excitement and interest. They could have, from day one, simply reported the whole story and work from there, not thios piecemeal horsehit.

They've done us all a diservice.