Rubes Posted March 24, 2005 Posted March 24, 2005 Oh, it's perfectly reasonable. If I stood to collect a $1 million life insurance policy, too, I suppose I'd pull the tube. How about you? 286219[/snapback] But what about this? Which is it? 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? I'd do that if it was MY wife. Why? Because I actually LOVE her.
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted March 24, 2005 Posted March 24, 2005 Oh, it's perfectly reasonable. If I stood to collect a $1 million life insurance policy, too, I suppose I'd pull the tube. How about you? I'd do that if it was MY wife. Why? Because I actually LOVE her. 286335[/snapback] The first was sarcasm, the second--the truth. Pardon my lack of use of the Darin smiley.
Rubes Posted March 24, 2005 Posted March 24, 2005 The first was sarcasm, the second--the truth. Pardon my lack of use of the Darin smiley. 286349[/snapback] No problem. It's often tough to tell with you...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted March 24, 2005 Posted March 24, 2005 I get the point that no matter who "wins" everyone comes out of this losing. But to present the both sides of "It's murder" and "It's time to let go b/c Teri isn't in there anymore and didn't want this" as if they're not mutually exclusive in this case.... Saying that everyone's wrong is quite a cop-out to real life, especially when you try to talk in a hypothetical as if time can be suspended and you don't have to bother offering a real solution b/w the two, not that there is one. This is one or the other; there's no gray area, unless you're rooting for Teri to die of an infection or a gas main explosion or something, which kind of defeats the purpose of assigning a right and wrong. 285937[/snapback] Which all belies the fact that you're all arguing about a piece of meat, at best an animated one, but still a piece of meat. You can keep it alive as a sick tribute to the person it was, or you can kill it as a living organism. But a debate based on the idea that espousing either position gives one some claim to sanctimonius righteousness is equivalent to two groups of monkeys sitting in trees throwing crap at each other. Doesn't matter which group you're in...you still end up covered in sh--.
manateefan Posted March 25, 2005 Posted March 25, 2005 To Crap Throwing Monkey, I find you extremely crude and disrespectful calling Terri Shiavo "a piece of meat". I think that is demeaning to the person she once was and to those who loved her. To those who claim that the husband will be rich when this is over, where's the proof? Has any of you seen this so-called policy that will make him a rich man? He sure didn't become rich from the malpractice suit. While, again, I am not choosing sides, let's at least not be rumor-mongors like the media. Have some sympathy for the family that is going through this, both the husband and the parents. Have some sympathy for Terri and let her have peace whether she lives or dies.
VABills Posted March 25, 2005 Posted March 25, 2005 To Crap Throwing Monkey, I find you extremely crude and disrespectful calling Terri Shiavo "a piece of meat". I think that is demeaning to the person she once was and to those who loved her. To those who claim that the husband will be rich when this is over, where's the proof? Has any of you seen this so-called policy that will make him a rich man? He sure didn't become rich from the malpractice suit. While, again, I am not choosing sides, let's at least not be rumor-mongors like the media. Have some sympathy for the family that is going through this, both the husband and the parents. Have some sympathy for Terri and let her have peace whether she lives or dies. 286532[/snapback] Is he going to be rich no. He will be well off. First off he has always claimed there was 1 million, but I have posted 2 different links that show it was between 2.25 and 2.5 million. So he still has some left. Also, he has admitted numerous times that he will get 1 million from a life insurance policy. Now is the total a huge amount, NO. But it sure makes life a lot easier to live. The fact that he lies about it makes you wonder. And don't you honestly believe he is going to sell her and his life story for millions once this is all said and done?
manateefan Posted March 25, 2005 Posted March 25, 2005 VABills, you have not proven that the husband received more money than the $1 million ($700,000 into trust for Terri's care). The links you have posted lead back to a website that is biased towards the parents. No newspaper article I have read here in Florida or any news stations have ever mentioned more than the $1 million received from the malpractice. Of course some are left wing: ABC, CNN, CBS and FOX is right wing; they all lie. I guess that leaves NBC. Again they have not mentioned any more money than I have previously mentioned. Yes, he might sell his story. But remember, the parents probably will also!!!! So who's right, who's wrong? It's not for us to say. But this case has gone through seven years of litigation. This was not done in a "rush" as some are claiming. To erynthered, I agree, let Terri have peace.
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted March 25, 2005 Posted March 25, 2005 To Crap Throwing Monkey, I find you extremely crude and disrespectful calling Terri Shiavo "a piece of meat". I think that is demeaning to the person she once was and to those who loved her. To those who claim that the husband will be rich when this is over, where's the proof? Has any of you seen this so-called policy that will make him a rich man? He sure didn't become rich from the malpractice suit. While, again, I am not choosing sides, let's at least not be rumor-mongors like the media. Have some sympathy for the family that is going through this, both the husband and the parents. Have some sympathy for Terri and let her have peace whether she lives or dies. 286532[/snapback] Thus my point. Fundamentally, what keeps us all from being merely pieces of meat is what makes us persons. The person that is Terry Schiavo is gone. What's left, in a very real sense, is a slab of soulless organic material. Is it crude and disrespectful to point that out? Hell, yes...and no more so than keeping the empty shell of what was once a person in a state that physically meets a biological definition of "alive" after the person who inhabited it is GONE. Like I've been saying: the only choices in this situation are wrong. You can either keep alive indefinitely a functionally dead person, or kill a functionally living organism. Or, you can fight over it like a pack of vultures (*SPLAT*), as everyone involved is doing now...and yet, I'm the one that's crude and disrespectful.
blzrul Posted March 25, 2005 Posted March 25, 2005 Even if the husband was going to collect $1m in life insurance - for which rumor I have not been able to find validation - does anyone think her healthcare for 15 years has been free? For crying out loud, they were a young married couple trying to have a baby - not Bill and Melinda Gates. The malpractice suit netted $750,000. According to what I've seen and heard the husband spent some 5 years shuttling his wife from doctor to doctor, looking for some cure or even hope. When it became apparent that the only way his wife's condition was going to "improve" was through death, he threw in the towel. This is political pandering aided by a media circus and brought about by people - the parents - who are no doubt well-intentioned but very, very selfish. With a feeding tube chances are their daughter could very well outlive them - then what? And wouldn't we be hearing the screams from the taxpayers at having to fork over the bucks to keep this poor soul - or what's left of her - "alive". I'm not so sure her health care isn't subsidized, but I pretty much can guarantee that the 750k won't go anywhere NEAR paying her bills forever. It would be the easiest thing in the world for the husband to throw up his hands and say "fine, screw you, you take care of her." He could file for divorce and walk away. You have to wonder why he doesn't do that.
manateefan Posted March 25, 2005 Posted March 25, 2005 Thus my point. Fundamentally, what keeps us all from being merely pieces of meat is what makes us persons. The person that is Terry Schiavo is gone. What's left, in a very real sense, is a slab of soulless organic material. Is it crude and disrespectful to point that out? Hell, yes...and no more so than keeping the empty shell of what was once a person in a state that physically meets a biological definition of "alive" after the person who inhabited it is GONE. Like I've been saying: the only choices in this situation are wrong. You can either keep alive indefinitely a functionally dead person, or kill a functionally living organism. Or, you can fight over it like a pack of vultures (*SPLAT*), as everyone involved is doing now...and yet, I'm the one that's crude and disrespectful. 286610[/snapback] At least most of us did not call her a "piece of meat."
erynthered Posted March 25, 2005 Posted March 25, 2005 VABills, you have not proven that the husband received more money than the $1 million ($700,000 into trust for Terri's care). The links you have posted lead back to a website that is biased towards the parents. No newspaper article I have read here in Florida or any news stations have ever mentioned more than the $1 million received from the malpractice. Of course some are left wing: ABC, CNN, CBS and FOX is right wing; they all lie. I guess that leaves NBC. Again they have not mentioned any more money than I have previously mentioned. Yes, he might sell his story. But remember, the parents probably will also!!!! So who's right, who's wrong? It's not for us to say. But this case has gone through seven years of litigation. This was not done in a "rush" as some are claiming. To erynthered, I agree, let Terri have peace. 286594[/snapback] Nice post, Judge Greer and our family have been friends for a long time. This man has done everything that is within the law here in Florida. Those who think they know are REALLY mistaken. But yet are blinded by their faith or ignorance. Here is a snippet from an article today: The funeral was over, and the Schiavo family had gathered at the Buck Hotel in Langhorne, Pa., for lunch. Everyone sat around the table, lamenting how their grandmother had spent her last days. Doctors had kept her alive on a machine, against her wishes. On Scott Schiavo's left was his sister-in-law, Terri. Years later, he testified what the young, vibrant woman said to him that day in 1988: "If I ever go like that, just let me go," he recalled Terri saying. "Don't leave me there. I don't want to be kept alive on a machine." Those words - more than anything else - explain how Pinellas-Pasco Circuit Judge George Greer five years ago came to rule on the simple but perplexing question at the heart of the Terri Schiavo case: What would she have wanted? In end-of-life cases, Florida law says a judge must follow the person's last wishes, if they can be established. If a judge finds "clear and convincing" evidence that a person would not want to be kept alive, the judge can order treatment stopped. The best evidence of a person's wishes is a will or a written document. But when no document exists, as in the Schiavo case, judges must look for other clues, like the recollections of friends and relatives. When Greer came to grapple with this question in the Schiavo case in 2000, he heard from five people who said they knew what Terri wanted. Two supported Terri's parents, Robert and Mary Schindler. On the other side were Terri's brother-in-law Scott, her sister-in-law and friend Joan Schiavo, and her husband. Amid the tumult of this week, what was said in the quiet of Greer's courtroom five years ago has been drowned out. So much for facts...........
Terry Tate Posted March 25, 2005 Posted March 25, 2005 I don't think euthanasia will lead to the death of a baby for it's brown eyes - it'll be advances in genetics combined with abortion that will eventually produce that. However, accepting euthanasia as a remedy for suffering will inevitably lead to expansion. When killing is redefined from moral wrong to a beneficient and legal act, it necessitates defining which specific case meets the criteria. Care to guess how many different answers you would get on that? Witness the Dutch for a lesson. Peter Singer, the Princeton University professor that forwards some of the strongest arguments in favor of euthanasia, has clarified at least one aspect of his opinion - his mother, suffering from Alzheimer's, is not subject to euthanasia. But if she were, it would be morally acceptable. At least to him. But she is not.
VABills Posted March 25, 2005 Posted March 25, 2005 VABills, you have not proven that the husband received more money than the $1 million ($700,000 into trust for Terri's care). The links you have posted lead back to a website that is biased towards the parents. No newspaper article I have read here in Florida or any news stations have ever mentioned more than the $1 million received from the malpractice. Of course some are left wing: ABC, CNN, CBS and FOX is right wing; they all lie. I guess that leaves NBC. Again they have not mentioned any more money than I have previously mentioned. Yes, he might sell his story. But remember, the parents probably will also!!!! So who's right, who's wrong? It's not for us to say. But this case has gone through seven years of litigation. This was not done in a "rush" as some are claiming. To erynthered, I agree, let Terri have peace. 286594[/snapback] Is this better? http://www.inclusiondaily.com/news/advocac...avotimeline.htm 1992 Aug: Terri is awarded $250,000 in malpractice settlement. 1993 Jan: A Pinellas jury awards about $1.4 to Terri and $600,000 to Michael in malpractice suit filed because her gynecologist failed to ask about her medical history while treating her. That shows 2.25 total awarded. This one shows only 1 million for her, and 600K for him, they don't tell about the eariler 250k from another doctor that was seperate. http://www.theempirejournal.com/03080514_n...ens_group_p.htm This one says the award for Terri was 1.6 million from the hospital, plus Michael got 600K. In January 1993, Michael Schiavo won a malpractice award of $1.6 million from the hospital that treated Terri. He was also personally awarded $600,000 for loss of consortium. http://www.crisismagazine.com/january2004/johansen.htm Just about everywhere you look there is about 2.25 million awarded. The main stream seems only intent on the 1.2 million the hospital paid, but chooses to ignore the seperate 250K paid by the doctors malpractice and the 600K to Michael for his loss. What is my point, he lied in court to get the money, saying it would be used for her care and rehab, and soon after he got it, he was ready to have her put down. He also doesn't admit to the rest of those awards and when questioned he refuses to answer.
VABills Posted March 25, 2005 Posted March 25, 2005 Okay how about CNN. Although they say Michaels award was only 300K He won $1.2 million in a malpractice case against his wife's gynecologist and another $250,000 in a settlement with her general practitioner. Most of that money was to go toward her treatment. In addition, he received $300,000 for pain and suffering and loss of consortium. Again folks he has been lying all along and the media has gone along with him and his over paid lawyers. Even by CNN's count that is 1.75 million, much more then the 1 million he keeps saying. Yet you folks believe that he isn't lying and he is a angel? http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/10/22/coma.woman/
erynthered Posted March 25, 2005 Posted March 25, 2005 I don’t know about you, but I didn’t make decisions about my father dying based on money. So much for previous testimony. Which is the law in Florida. Not going to change the way you feel Bill, but you’re wrong on this one, though its just my opinion….. I think the Divorce rate in this country is about 50%. So the death do us part argument is moot. You really need to take you focus point off the money. If you want to get into semantics I will, or even the church. S’up to you? But you need to let this go. Let her die in peace, and wish her well in Heaven.
VABills Posted March 25, 2005 Posted March 25, 2005 I don’t know about you, but I didn’t make decisions about my father dying based on money. So much for previous testimony. Which is the law in Florida. Not going to change the way you feel Bill, but you’re wrong on this one, though its just my opinion….. I think the Divorce rate in this country is about 50%. So the death do us part argument is moot. You really need to take you focus point off the money. If you want to get into semantics I will, or even the church. S’up to you? But you need to let this go. Let her die in peace, and wish her well in Heaven. 286637[/snapback] I understand that she is going to die and unfortunately too soon, IMHO. I just want people to see that her "husband" has been lying and the media has been going along with it. But the CNN article I posted should at least sway some that there is more money awarded that he never admitted to, which IMHO makes everything he does questionable. I hope that they are allowed to do an autopsy when all is done. To ensure other don't suffer like she did and maybe they can find something about the cause.
erynthered Posted March 25, 2005 Posted March 25, 2005 I understand that she is going to die and unfortunately too soon, IMHO. I just want people to see that her "husband" has been lying and the media has been going along with it. But the CNN article I posted should at least sway some that there is more money awarded that he never admitted to, which IMHO makes everything he does questionable. I hope that they are allowed to do an autopsy when all is done. To ensure other don't suffer like she did and maybe they can find something about the cause. 286640[/snapback] I'll Agree that there should be an autopsy. And I really don’t doubt that there will be one due to the media exposure of this tragedy. As far as the money goes I believe that it also should be considered as motivational factor in decisions that have been made. However, in the first 6 years of my marriage, my wife and I did talk of such possibilities that if one of us were put in that type of situation one of us would have the decision on pulling the plug. To say that those kids didn’t have that type of conversation is, I think ludicrous. And I know you didn’t say that, but others have. The letter of the law has been followed here Bill. For the Church saying they wont give last rights to her is abominable, and I’ve posted that before.
manateefan Posted March 25, 2005 Posted March 25, 2005 I don’t know about you, but I didn’t make decisions about my father dying based on money. So much for previous testimony. Which is the law in Florida. Not going to change the way you feel Bill, but you’re wrong on this one, though its just my opinion….. I think the Divorce rate in this country is about 50%. So the death do us part argument is moot. You really need to take you focus point off the money. If you want to get into semantics I will, or even the church. S’up to you? But you need to let this go. Let her die in peace, and wish her well in Heaven. 286637[/snapback] Amen
Arkady Renko Posted March 25, 2005 Posted March 25, 2005 She will die either Friday or Sunday. The opinion columns will then write themselves.
Recommended Posts