VABills Posted March 22, 2005 Share Posted March 22, 2005 Here is another link. http://www.apfn.org/apfn/terri_fund.htm And sorry it was 1992, not 1993. November 10, 1992 – Jury Document, Item 5. What is the amount of Theresa Schiavo's future damages for medical expenses and lost earning ability to be sustained in future years? A.) Total damages over future years: $9,400,000.00 B.) The number of years over which those future damages are intended to provide compensation: 17 years C.) What is the present value of those future damages: $4,300,000.00 Note: The jury award amount was reduced to $1,290,000.00 to reflect Terri’s attributable negligence. Separate from these monies was Michael Schiavo’s personal award of $600,000.00. Prior to this trial and in a completely independent medical malpractice lawsuit, Terri was awarded $250,000.00 in an out-of-court settlement. Also, prior to the two medical malpractice lawsuits, an estimated $50,000.00 was contributed to Terri’s medical fund via community fundraisers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bishop Hedd Posted March 22, 2005 Share Posted March 22, 2005 Excuse me, but......it's exactly the time and place for that. No one knows the mind of God. Perhaps it's time for Terri to go home. God's will be done. 282969[/snapback] No, but we do know the mind of Judge Whittemore and he ruled as every other judge has ruled before so it's finally over, barring of course another bizarre spectacle by Frist, DeLay and company. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Campy Posted March 22, 2005 Share Posted March 22, 2005 And I am telling you Michael is lying and the media seems to be getting varying reports. But go back to court docs in 93 and you will see they settled with the malpractice for 250K immediately for Terri's damages. Then they settled latter that year for 1.4 (there are reports that this was 1.25) for HER pain and suffering. Then his portion was settled about 2 months later where he was awarded 600K for his pain and suffering. These are in settlement/court docs and I don't have time to go look them up. But these are facts. The only issue and variance that I have seen was her pain and suffering award, whether it was 1.25 or 1.4. In addition part of those settlements was the malpractice paid for all lawyers cost over and beyond those awards. So that was free and clear money. Where has Michael ever been offered money to walk away? As far as what he offered to walk away from was only his 600K and it was to be given to his friend who run a "charitable org". I am sure he would never see it again. Sorry, my morals and obligations cannot look beyond the motives to kill his wife. 282958[/snapback] Nightline had her former Guardian at Law (assigned by Fla legislative ruling to protect her interests) on Monday for the full half hour. He's a PhD and a JD (read: a doc and a lawyer), and his sole job was to ensure that her rights were protected. In no uncertain terms he was quite clear that the 600K has been spent on legal fees and the balance of the malpractice award was placed in a trust to be used to cover medical expenses exclusively, and that money has been exhausted. He also explained how her cerebral cortex had disentegrated, and while she does have very limited reflexive response, she has no cognitive response. That part of her brain is shot. I'm not sure why some are so hung up on this nonexistent windfall. The reality is that she will never get better, and according to Theresa's Guardian at Law, Michael is merely fulfilling a promise he made to her. Frankly, it's nobody else's business. Not yours, and not mine. The courts have spoken - despite legislative intervention from the state and federal level - and right now it's time to let this story go. As they say, there's nothing here to see, move along. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bishop Hedd Posted March 22, 2005 Share Posted March 22, 2005 Here is another link. http://www.apfn.org/apfn/terri_fund.htm And sorry it was 1992, not 1993. November 10, 1992 – Jury Document, Item 5. What is the amount of Theresa Schiavo's future damages for medical expenses and lost earning ability to be sustained in future years? A.) Total damages over future years: $9,400,000.00 B.) The number of years over which those future damages are intended to provide compensation: 17 years C.) What is the present value of those future damages: $4,300,000.00 282972[/snapback] "Ruby Ridge"? "Remember Waco"? OK now I know where you're coming from. Thanks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VABills Posted March 22, 2005 Share Posted March 22, 2005 Nightline had her former Guardian at Law (assigned by Fla legislative ruling to protect her interests) on Monday for the full half hour. He's a PhD and a JD (read: a doc and a lawyer), and his sole job was to ensure that her rights were protected. In no uncertain terms he was quite clear that the 600K has been spent on legal fees and the balance of the malpractice award was placed in a trust to be used to cover medical expenses exclusively, and that money has been exhausted. He also explained how her cerebral cortex had disentegrated, and while she does have very limited reflexive response, she has no cognitive response. That part of her brain is shot. I'm not sure why some are so hung up on this nonexistent windfall. The reality is that she will never get better, and according to Theresa's Guardian at Law, Michael is merely fulfilling a promise he made to her. Frankly, it's nobody else's business. Not yours, and not mine. The courts have spoken - despite legislative intervention from the state and federal level - and right now it's time to let this story go. As they say, there's nothing here to see, move along. 282982[/snapback] Again, ignore the money, she is alive and is basically being fed to stay alive. How is this different then a child who cannot fend for themselves. So what you are saying, a baby should be allowed to be killed by not feeding it, since that is humane. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VABills Posted March 22, 2005 Share Posted March 22, 2005 "Ruby Ridge"? "Remember Waco"? OK now I know where you're coming from. Thanks 282984[/snapback] What? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Campy Posted March 22, 2005 Share Posted March 22, 2005 Again, ignore the money, she is alive and is basically being fed to stay alive. How is this different then a child who cannot fend for themselves. So what you are saying, a baby should be allowed to be killed by not feeding it, since that is humane. 282992[/snapback] Before I can answer that I'll need to know if that hypothetical baby is in a PVS (persistent vegatative state)? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted March 22, 2005 Share Posted March 22, 2005 Personally, I think its 100% unfair to judge the guy unless you've been in his situation. What's he supposed to do, put his life on hold for 15+ years when there is no hope that she's gonna snap out of it? 282038[/snapback] I'd do that if it was MY wife. Why? Because I actually LOVE her. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erynthered Posted March 22, 2005 Share Posted March 22, 2005 Where has Michael ever been offered money to walk away? 282958[/snapback] http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1360459/posts http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4339033.stm http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=man+o...hiavo+1+million Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted March 22, 2005 Share Posted March 22, 2005 Let's say this again: "Removal of the feeding tube [for people in a PVS] results in a very peaceful death." -- Dr. Tim Johnson. This is not like starvation for you or me. It will not physically hurt. 282607[/snapback] And Dr. tim Johnson knows this HOW? Through experience? Again i say, if you allow this to happen, then you are allowing the starvation of anyone that can't feed themselves, i.e. cripples, retards and babies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted March 22, 2005 Share Posted March 22, 2005 Actually, his attorney said the same in a live interview on the Today show last week. He will not make one cent from his wife's passing - it's all been used to cover medical and legal expenses. 282860[/snapback] Right, because lawyers always tell the truth to the media? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Campy Posted March 22, 2005 Share Posted March 22, 2005 Again i say, if you allow this to happen, then you are allowing the starvation of anyone that can't feed themselves, i.e. cripples, retards and babies. 283009[/snapback] That's a straw man argument as this only pertains to people in a PVS. Also, keep in mind that the reason the only way to satisfy Theresa's wishes is to remove the feeding tube is because people who know what's better for us than we do have decided that other means (like assisted suicide) are illegal and immoral. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Campy Posted March 22, 2005 Share Posted March 22, 2005 Right, because lawyers always tell the truth to the media? 283011[/snapback] When the attorney's comments coincide with what Theresa's Guardian at Law (appointed by Fla legislation to ensure her rights are protected), then yeah, I tend to believe him. Why don't you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted March 22, 2005 Share Posted March 22, 2005 That's a straw man argument as this only pertains to people in a PVS. Also, keep in mind that the reason the only way to satisfy Theresa's wishes is to remove the feeding tube is because people who know what's better for us than we do have decided that other means (like assisted suicide) are illegal and immoral. 283014[/snapback] Could you not say that someone with a severe case of mental retardation is a vegetable? And how do YOU know what Terri Schiavo's wishes were? You have to take the word of her "husband" who stands to make a fortune at her death. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted March 22, 2005 Share Posted March 22, 2005 When the attorney's comments coincide with what Theresa's Guardian at Law (appointed by Fla legislation to ensure her rights are protected), then I tend to believe him. Why don't you? 283015[/snapback] Again, it's in the attorney's INTERESTS to parrot this view. Because he's going to get paid more when she dies. I can not for the life of me understand why people don't see this issue for what it is: a MONEY issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Campy Posted March 22, 2005 Share Posted March 22, 2005 Could you not say that someone with a severe case of mental retardation is a vegetable?The situation is a person in a PVS, not retardation. PVS is signified by a disentegrated cerebal cortex and no cognitive reflex, which is a world away from severe retardation.And how do YOU know twhat Terri Schiavo's wishes were? You have to take the word of her "husband" who stands to make a fortune at her death. 283018[/snapback] In part because the man assigned by Fla legislation to protect her rights and ensure she received due process believes those were her wishes too. Either way, it's a personal and private matter and frankly, is none of your (or mine) damn business. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KRC Posted March 22, 2005 Share Posted March 22, 2005 And how do YOU know what Terri Schiavo's wishes were? 283018[/snapback] According to Michael Schaivo: "But this is not about [the parents], it's about Terri. And I've also said that in court. We didn't know what Terri wanted, but this is what we want..." - CNN, Larry King Show, 3/18/05 (Emphasis added by poster) So, the husband has said two different things. Which do we believe? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Campy Posted March 22, 2005 Share Posted March 22, 2005 Again, it's in the attorney's INTERESTS to parrot this view. Because he's going to get paid more when she dies. What exactly is this statement based on?I can not for the life of me understand why people don't see this issue for what it is: a MONEY issue. 283020[/snapback] Exactly how is this a "money-issue?" HER Guardian at Law has said that there is NO money, it's been exhausted trying in court and the trust set up to pay for her medical expenses has been exhausted. There is no money, but don't let fact get in the way of your opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VABills Posted March 22, 2005 Share Posted March 22, 2005 Before I can answer that I'll need to know if that hypothetical baby is in a PVS (persistent vegatative state)? 282994[/snapback] Chris, I believe in the value of life. You probably will never sway me from that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted March 22, 2005 Share Posted March 22, 2005 The situation is a person in a PVS, not retardation. PSV is signified by a disentegrated cerebal cortex and no cognitive reflex, which is a world away from severe retardation. In part because the man assigned by Fla legislation to protect her rights and ensure she received due process believes those were her wishes too. Either way, it's a personal and private matter and frankly, is none of your (or mine) damn business. 283027[/snapback] Really? A severely retarded person cannot feed or bathe themself. They cannot dress themself. They cannot do just about ANYTHING with themselves other than drool. Sounds like the definition of a vegetable to me. Really? So iof my next door neighbor kills his wife, that has nothing to do with you or me? It's a PRIVATE matter? Gotcha. This is the problem with moral relativism. Once you say it's OK to kill one kind of person, it makes it all the easdier to kill others (ie Unborn Children, retarded people, etc...) And before you come talk to me about the death penalty or war, there are several KEY differences. First, in the case of the death penalty, the executed has committed some crime to warrant their death. They're not an innocen like Schiavo. In war, it is a function of statehood and an act of defense. So tell me again how STARVING a defenseless woman to death is the right thing to do? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts