ExiledInIllinois Posted March 22, 2005 Posted March 22, 2005 Is there anywhere in this thread or elsewhere a statement of what it's cost to keep this poor soul "alive"? I know that there was a malpractice settlement but after 15 years I'd suspect it's almost depleted. Or did the settlement include keeping her alive ad infinitem? 282663[/snapback] I asked that question too! You know what they will say? "You are being cold." Too bad! If they can pull the plug on you for no payment... Why is this case different. Hypocrites on the right I suspect.
MelissaInPhilly Posted March 22, 2005 Posted March 22, 2005 I believe in the Right to Life. I also believe in miracles. Before you criticize me, let me tell you a little story. My father had his 1st major heart attack at the age of 42. He had 2 quadruple by-pass surgeries that both failed. The doctors didn't give him much hope. Very small capillaries started growing in his heart, branching out and carrying his blood flow. The doctors had never seen such an occurance and said it had to be a miracle. These little capillaries sustained my Dad for 40 more years. 281652[/snapback] Beautiful post, my fellow cat lover! Although I am pro-life too, I have mixed feelings about the Schiavo case. Nut I think it is a crime to starve this woman to death. As a mother, if it was my child who showed ANY signs of life or awareness, I would be fighting tooth and nail to keep that tube attached. None of us really know Terry's condition, so it's hard to say how aware she is, but I do think it's cruel to call her a "vegetable," "broccoli," etc. As for the husband, he dishonored his wedding vows by cohabitating with and fathering children by another woman. If he wanted to do that, why didn't he just divorce Terri and let her parents take care of her? The judge in this case (I forget his name) is a Clinton appointee so I doubt very much if he will rule in the parents' favor.
MelissaInPhilly Posted March 22, 2005 Posted March 22, 2005 I believe in the Right to Life. I also believe in miracles. Before you criticize me, let me tell you a little story. My father had his 1st major heart attack at the age of 42. He had 2 quadruple by-pass surgeries that both failed. The doctors didn't give him much hope. Very small capillaries started growing in his heart, branching out and carrying his blood flow. The doctors had never seen such an occurance and said it had to be a miracle. These little capillaries sustained my Dad for 40 more years. 281652[/snapback] Beautiful post, my fellow cat lover! Although I am pro-life too, I have mixed feelings about the Schiavo case. However, I do think it is a crime to starve this woman to death. As a mother, if it was my child who showed ANY signs of life or awareness, I would be fighting tooth and nail to keep that tube attached. None of us really know Terry's condition, so it's hard to say how aware she is, but I do think it's cruel to call her a "vegetable," "broccoli," etc. As for the husband, he dishonored his wedding vows by cohabitating with and fathering children by another woman. If he wanted to do that, why didn't he just divorce Terri and let her parents take care of her? The judge in this case (I forget his name) is a Clinton appointee so I doubt very much if he will rule in the parents' favor.
Bishop Hedd Posted March 22, 2005 Posted March 22, 2005 I asked that question too! You know what they will say? "You are being cold." Too bad! If they can pull the plug on you for no payment... Why is this case different. Hypocrites on the right I suspect. 282669[/snapback] I heard the money's all gone, which sort of kills the claim of her husband tying to get rich. I'm sure how much more far right these people can pull away from mainstream society but they continuously push the envelope. Take this quote from the Exterminator: “The sanctity of life overshadows the sanctity of marriage. I don’t know what transpired between Terri and her husband. All I know is Terri is alive…. Unless she has specifically written instructions in her hand, with her signature, I don’t care what her husband says.”
Hull, Kent67 Posted March 22, 2005 Posted March 22, 2005 Yeah, it's messed up. Personally, I would not want to be kept alive in those circumstances. 279550[/snapback] Kill me
VABills Posted March 22, 2005 Posted March 22, 2005 I heard the money's all gone, which sort of kills the claim of her husband tying to get rich. I'm sure how much more far right these people can pull away from mainstream society but they continuously push the envelope. Take this quote from the Exterminator: “The sanctity of life overshadows the sanctity of marriage. I don’t know what transpired between Terri and her husband. All I know is Terri is alive…. Unless she has specifically written instructions in her hand, with her signature, I don’t care what her husband says.” 282679[/snapback] Not true. There is another 1.25 million or so. Plus her life insurance for a million that he could take loans against if he truely cared. The award was three seperate 250K for an initial settlement, 1.4 million from the courts both of these for Terri. Then the husband was awarded 600K for his pain and suffering. What he has done so far to look better is to offer to forego his 600k to a "charity" run by his best friend. Yeah I am sure he would get none back there. The other thing he did was get a court order to use the 1.4 million to pay for his court costs to kill her. The only money gone is the original 250k, which was for the medical damages. The 1.4 was "pain and suffering" for her and was also to be used for her care. He didn't use it for that and refused to pay for anything after the 250K was wrong. Since he now has her as basically a ward of the state, then he should have no say in her care, and should also have no right to the moneys left not the 1 million life insurance. He should just give her the divorce and walk away. This is the problem, he wants the money. Period.
Bishop Hedd Posted March 22, 2005 Posted March 22, 2005 Not true. There is another 1.25 million or so. Plus her life insurance for a million that he could take loans against if he truely cared. The award was three seperate 250K for an initial settlement, 1.4 million from the courts both of these for Terri. Then the husband was awarded 600K for his pain and suffering. What he has done so far to look better is to offer to forego his 600k to a "charity" run by his best friend. Yeah I am sure he would get none back there. The other thing he did was get a court order to use the 1.4 million to pay for his court costs to kill her. The only money gone is the original 250k, which was for the medical damages. The 1.4 was "pain and suffering" for her and was also to be used for her care. He didn't use it for that and refused to pay for anything after the 250K was wrong. Since he now has her as basically a ward of the state, then he should have no say in her care, and should also have no right to the moneys left not the 1 million life insurance. He should just give her the divorce and walk away. This is the problem, he wants the money. Period. 282729[/snapback] I heard one of the talking heads on CNN say that the money was all used up for her maintenance. Not that I'm doubting your scenario or figures but could you tell me where you got 'em from?
Alaska Darin Posted March 22, 2005 Posted March 22, 2005 I heard one of the talking heads on CNN say that the money was all used up for her maintenance. Not that I'm doubting your scenario or figures but could you tell me where you got 'em from? 282733[/snapback] Apparently not CNN. So much for choosing from the vast array of information and solid sources instead of "coke (Fox) or pepsi (CNN)", huh.
erynthered Posted March 22, 2005 Posted March 22, 2005 Not true. There is another 1.25 million or so. Plus her life insurance for a million that he could take loans against if he truely cared. The award was three seperate 250K for an initial settlement, 1.4 million from the courts both of these for Terri. Then the husband was awarded 600K for his pain and suffering. What he has done so far to look better is to offer to forego his 600k to a "charity" run by his best friend. Yeah I am sure he would get none back there. The other thing he did was get a court order to use the 1.4 million to pay for his court costs to kill her. The only money gone is the original 250k, which was for the medical damages. The 1.4 was "pain and suffering" for her and was also to be used for her care. He didn't use it for that and refused to pay for anything after the 250K was wrong. Since he now has her as basically a ward of the state, then he should have no say in her care, and should also have no right to the moneys left not the 1 million life insurance. He should just give her the divorce and walk away. This is the problem, he wants the money. Period. 282729[/snapback] Devil's Advocate, What if it was truly a promise he made to his wife? regardless what ever money might have happened? I've made several promises to people that I've kept regardlesss of money. Again, Devils advocate. Are you capable of seeing anything other than greed on his side? Please remember, this is happening 5 miles from my house for the last 15 years.
VABills Posted March 22, 2005 Posted March 22, 2005 I heard one of the talking heads on CNN say that the money was all used up for her maintenance. Not that I'm doubting your scenario or figures but could you tell me where you got 'em from? 282733[/snapback] Multiple sources. The only thing that is questionable is the pain and suffering award for Terri. I have seen 2 numbers one was 1.25 and one was 1.4. Obviously I went with the higher number based on my views, but either way, the real numbers are 250K has been used on her care and 700k, his words, has been used for lawyers costs. There are publically available court documents showing where he got approval to use "her" money in court costs to pay for the lawyers fees to put her to death. Nice, not only does she die, but her own money is being use to do it, even though it was awarded to pay to rehab and keep her alive. Isn't America great?
VABills Posted March 22, 2005 Posted March 22, 2005 Devil's Advocate, What if it was truly a promise he made to his wife? regardless what ever money might have happened? I've made several promises to people that I've kept regardlesss of money. Again, Devils advocate. Are you capable of seeing anything other than greed on his side? Please remember, this is happening 5 miles from my house for the last 15 years. 282736[/snapback] If this was a promise, and he knew her condition, he should have gotten it in writing. Of course in the state of Florida, it is illegal for assisted suicide and euthenasia so that would be an illegal and irrelevant clause. And to be honest, I believe it di become greed very early on, especially when the awards occurred. He never wanted her dead before the awards and if you check the documents, which I have, he promised to use it to maintain her life and do rehab. He changed his tune very soon after that, and it coincided with the meeting of his new female friend.
ExiledInIllinois Posted March 22, 2005 Posted March 22, 2005 If this was a promise, and he knew her condition, he should have gotten it in writing. Of course in the state of Florida, it is illegal for assisted suicide and euthenasia so that would be an illegal and irrelevant clause. And to be honest, I believe it di become greed very early on, especially when the awards occurred. He never wanted her dead before the awards and if you check the documents, which I have, he promised to use it to maintain her life and do rehab. He changed his tune very soon after that, and it coincided with the meeting of his new female friend. 282740[/snapback] Where does it say that he has to divorce and walk away with nothing. She is his wive and lost her a very, VERY long time ago. His life goes on and will change. Why should he come away with nothing after losing her? That is what you are saying he should do? This is America right? Get real, nothing is noble.
erynthered Posted March 22, 2005 Posted March 22, 2005 If this was a promise, and he knew her condition, he should have gotten it in writing. Of course in the state of Florida, it is illegal for assisted suicide and euthenasia so that would be an illegal and irrelevant clause. And to be honest, I believe it di become greed very early on, especially when the awards occurred. He never wanted her dead before the awards and if you check the documents, which I have, he promised to use it to maintain her life and do rehab. He changed his tune very soon after that, and it coincided with the meeting of his new female friend. 282740[/snapback] Do you think you are completly right on this? No inbetween? He's wrong? He suck's? He wants to kill her? For money? I think there is an inbetween. For the Fedral Gov. to step in now after 15 !@#$ing years ludicrus. wrong move. You have to ask yourself why? If you put it in terms of only money, I think you're missing some points. When I make a promise, weather its written or not, it gets done. Sorry, to late for me to get into this, maybe tomorrow. I have to sign my living will tonight.
VABills Posted March 22, 2005 Posted March 22, 2005 Where does it say that he has to divorce and walk away with nothing. She is his wive and lost her a very, VERY long time ago. His life goes on and will change. Why should he come away with nothing after losing her? That is what you are saying he should do? This is America right? Get real, nothing is noble. 282746[/snapback] He walks with the 600K for his pain and suffering, he was already awarded that by the settlement. Go do the research. The rest of the money was for her and her care. He just didn't use it for that. If he doesn't care about the money, then he should file for divorce and let the state get the life insurance when he dies. Of course reality is he would never do that.
ExiledInIllinois Posted March 22, 2005 Posted March 22, 2005 Multiple sources. The only thing that is questionable is the pain and suffering award for Terri. I have seen 2 numbers one was 1.25 and one was 1.4. Obviously I went with the higher number based on my views, but either way, the real numbers are 250K has been used on her care and 700k, his words, has been used for lawyers costs. There are publically available court documents showing where he got approval to use "her" money in court costs to pay for the lawyers fees to put her to death. Nice, not only does she die, but her own money is being use to do it, even though it was awarded to pay to rehab and keep her alive. Isn't America great? 282737[/snapback] But, the irony is that she was misdiagnosed and had an eating disorder. Didn't she really begin the process of killing herself? Removing the feeding tube is a strange ending to this story? Not that I believe that. Just trying to look at it from different angles.
VABills Posted March 22, 2005 Posted March 22, 2005 Do you think you are completly right on this? No inbetween? He's wrong?He suck's? He wants to kill her? For money? I think there is an inbetween. For the Fedral Gov. to step in now after 15 !@#$ing years ludicrus. wrong move. You have to ask yourself why? If you put it in terms of only money, I think you're missing some points. When I make a promise, weather its written or not, it gets done. Sorry, to late for me to get into this, maybe tomorrow. I have to sign my living will tonight. 282749[/snapback] I agree the federal government should not be involved. However I think the state judges are not following the state constitution and therefore the federal government or really should be the federal judges should step in. Since they are, as Scallia said last week in a speach, "If you don't like what the judges are doing, make your congressman change it".
ExiledInIllinois Posted March 22, 2005 Posted March 22, 2005 He walks with the 600K for his pain and suffering, he was already awarded that by the settlement. Go do the research. The rest of the money was for her and her care. He just didn't use it for that. If he doesn't care about the money, then he should file for divorce and let the state get the life insurance when he dies. Of course reality is he would never do that. 282751[/snapback] But, he cares about the money... Of course he does, who wouldn't? I'd expect him to be a big man, that just doesn't happen. UNLESS, he truly wants to honor her wish in the end and her parents are blocking that?
ExiledInIllinois Posted March 22, 2005 Posted March 22, 2005 Do you think you are completly right on this? No inbetween? He's wrong?He suck's? He wants to kill her? For money? I think there is an inbetween. For the Fedral Gov. to step in now after 15 !@#$ing years ludicrus. wrong move. You have to ask yourself why? If you put it in terms of only money, I think you're missing some points. When I make a promise, weather its written or not, it gets done. Sorry, to late for me to get into this, maybe tomorrow. I have to sign my living will tonight. 282749[/snapback] Eryn, I totally agree with you!
erynthered Posted March 22, 2005 Posted March 22, 2005 Eryn, I totally agree with you! 282757[/snapback] !@#$ off JK
ExiledInIllinois Posted March 22, 2005 Posted March 22, 2005 !@#$ off JK 282761[/snapback] What? What? Did I say?
Recommended Posts