<p>Tookie,
My guess is that yes, the taxpayers ARE picking up the cost. Even if awarded “millions,” which is closer to $1 million, it’s gone now. Such care costs between $100k and $200k/year. Most likely, a lawyer took 40% of the verdict as his fee, and the rest has been used at a rate of over $100k/year.</p>
<p>I can’t respond anymore…its too hard with everyone throwing around allegations that the courts have found to not be true…doctors making claims with out even looking a medical records…don’t read the whole story…read what is the most flashy and exciting and ignore the rest…</p>
<p>I have been volunteering with a group called Handicapables (disabled people) and at our local resting home for over three years…I walk the walk by the way…</p>
<p><a href=“http://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/infopage.html[/url]”>http://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/infopage.html</a>
This gives a very fair, unbiased history of the case</p>
<p>tenisghs, Terri Schiavo is NOT “Brain dead” Brain dead is a legal and medical term referring to showing absolutely no brain wave activity and not being able to breathe on your own. Neither applies to Schiavo. Yes, she is severely brain-damaged but there is a huge difference between brain damaged and brain dead in legal terms.</p>
<p>And, regarding Michael Schaivo, I did think it was odd that such a “loving and grieving husband” was not at his wife’s side when the feeding tube was removed. Will he be there by her side, holding her hand when she dies? When exactly was the last time he visited her?</p>
<p>My opinions aren’t formed by the media, which only reports a fraction of the story in the first place, and even then, not with total accuracy. I left the hospice location just last night. I’ve met most of those involved from the legislative perspective, including the local lawmakers, and have followed this matter very closely for years. I do know the whole story - as intimately as any “outsider” possibly can, including every court ruling, every legal move, etc. </p>
<p>When Terri’s parents were finally granted a few minutes to be with her yesterday, police escorted them and stood guard - to ensure that they didn’t try to sneak any ice chips to her. I cannot make myself grasp that no matter how hard I try. Imagine - enforcing at gunpoint the thirst and hunger of another living being. </p>
<p>Friends from the northeast have been calling me all weekend, desperate to understand why a posse of hundreds doesn’t group together to storm the hospice and overwhelm local law enforcement to get food to Terri. Obviously, not one of us would ever do such a thing, however, that’s an indication of how strongly those of us who really do think we “know” feel about this matter.</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.augustafreepress.com/stories/storyReader$32606”>http://www.augustafreepress.com/stories/storyReader$32606</a></p>
<p>What would Terri want for herself?</p>
<p>Guest View</p>
<p>Georgene Sklar</p>
<p>Special to The Augusta Free Press</p>
<p>*</p>
<p>*</p>
<p>I read Darlene Hughes’ op-ed (What about Terri Schiavo’s rights? Monday AFP), and I would like to pose a few questions. </p>
<p>First, you stated that it would be inhumane to starve Terri to death as we would consider it illegal to do that to an animal. Did you consider that if we had the ability to give lethal injections to humans as we so humanely do to our beloved pets, the judge would order that instead? All the judge has the ability to do is to remove artificial means of life support as Terri had told her husband she did not want. </p>
<p>How is Terri a victim? If she did not want to be kept alive by these measures, then her wishes are being acted upon by her husband. This would put her firmly in control of her destiny, not playing the part of helpless victim. As for turning care of her over to her parents, that does not follow in line with her desire to not be kept alive by artificial means. I can completely understand that letting go is excruciatingly difficult, but if that is what the person wanted, then those wishes should be put before the selfish needs of others who simply cannot accept reality.</p>
<p>For the first eight years of Terri’s condition, her husband tried all kinds of therapy to help her recover. Only when all was exhausted did he finally request that her wishes be honored and the feeding tube be removed. Since then, the court has appointed independent doctors to review Terri’s condition, as well as several independent researchers. All have come back saying that her condition is irreversible. Yes - medical advances are being made all of the time, but that does not mean that everyone must wait for some medical miracle to occur if it goes against their expressed desires.</p>
<p>As for Michael’s treatment of Terri, I find it interesting that her parents and friends had no problem with him whatsoever for the first eight years of her condition. Could this be because he was doing what they wanted? It seems as though the moment he wanted to carry out Terri’s wishes, he became Satan incarnate. In response to these allegations, the court made thorough investigations and came up with nothing. They also investigated his ability to be a proper guardian to her. Again, they came up empty. It all seems to be a smear campaign against him because he dared to defy her parents.</p>
<p>As for committing adultery, Michael met his fianc</p>
<p>Say, Citygirlsmom, why don’t you play fair? If you’re going to post Sklar’s rebuttal op ed, why don’t you post Hughes as well? Or, are you just interested in posting one side of the “story”?</p>
<p>I am showing the other side, since many people here are throwing around accusations, this is a rebuttal. I see one side of the story all over this thread, calling the husband all sorts of names, calling him an abuser, so I found this very well done editorial. And, when the name callers actually have some facts to back up what they are saying, from the courts, the law, the judges, etc, then I will be willing to see that side of the story. </p>
<p>So sorry if I have my side. You do as well, and it appears we will never agree. You made accusations with regards to money, treatment, etc. Just wanted to share another perspective. Not the religious presses version. If that was wrong, oh well…</p>
<p>Latetoschool, you don’t even know Michael Schiavo. Stop labelling him with negative names like you personally know the family. The bottom line is that the Florida courts TIME AND TIME AGAIN found nothing wrong with Michael Schiavo as legal guardian. They have also found evidence that Terri Schiavo does not want to live in a persistent vegetative state all her life. He just wants to implement Terri’s wishes.</p>
<p>Why is that so hard to digest, LatetoSchool? Stop being biased and read the accurate reports.</p>
<p>Some interesting links.</p>
<p>American Medical Definition of “brain death”
From the American Medical Association’s Definition:
Brain death*- irreversible cessation of cerebral and brain stem function; characterized by absence of: electrical activity in the brain, blood flow to the brain, and brain function as determined by clinical assessment of responses. A brain dead person is dead, although his or her cardiopulmonary functioning may be artificially maintained for some time.</p>
<p>Definition of “brain death” according to the Uniform Determination of Death Act:
Death: 1. The end of life. The cessation of life. (These common definitions of death ultimately depend upon the definition of life, upon which there is no consensus.) 2. The permanent cessation of all vital bodily functions. (This definition depends upon the definition of “vital bodily functions.”) See: Vital bodily functions. 3. The common law standard for determining death is the cessation of all vital functions, traditionally demonstrated by “an absence of spontaneous respiratory and cardiac functions.” 4. The uniform determination of death. The National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws in 1980 formulated the Uniform Determination of Death Act. It states that: “An individual who has sustained either (1) irreversible cessation of circulatory and respiratory functions, or (2) irreversible cessation of all functions of the entire brain, including the brain stem is dead. A determination of death must be made in accordance with accepted medical standards.” This definition was approved by the American Medical Association in 1980 and by the American Bar Association in 1981.
Brain Death Brain death is a clinical diagnosis. Absent brainstem reflexes, failure to initiate respiration when off the respirator, and absent cortical function are accepted criteria of brain death. A flat electroencephalogram for longer than 12 hours (in the absence of hypothermia or sedative drugs) and absence of vascular filling of the cerebral vessels on cerebral angiography corroborate the diagnosis of brain death. </p>
<p>An interesting discussion of the steps doctors go through to detemine brain death has occured"
<a href=“http://scalpel.stanford.edu/articles/Brain%20Death.pdf[/url]”>http://scalpel.stanford.edu/articles/Brain%20Death.pdf</a></p>
<p>Tenisghs, how, exactly, do you know who I know - and who I don’t? Isn’t that an assumption you’ve made, with no evidence to support either way? </p>
<p>Just because the Florida courts have found “nothing wrong” with Michael as legal guardian doesn’t mean that he’s the ideal guardian. These same esteemed Florida courts have also returned abused children to their abusive parents, followed by the subsequent continued abusive of those same children, and, in some sad cases, the death of those children. They’ve also gifted the state with release of sex offenders and drug users, and allowed any number of unfortunate ills to be inflicted on the population of the state. Shiavo just happens to be one of their more intensely publicized misadventures. </p>
<p>But since we’re on the subject, it would appear that the governor of Florida, the state legislature, President Bush, the U.S. Senate, a majority of the House of Representatives, and a significant portion of the U.S. voting population have some problem with the Shiavo issue too. Now, why do you think that might be? Are they, too, biased?</p>
<p>As to calling the husband names, my vocabulary isn’t nearly large enough to call him all the bad names he deserves to be called, but he’s a truly disgusting weird little creep and poor excuse of a man.</p>
<p>LatetoSchool, the media has misrepresented the Schiavo case to the American public. That is a fact. The Republicans/GOP and Christian Right are using political grandstanding to get involved in a case that is not their business. How is this a “right-to-life” issue when the woman has no chance of recovery? It’s been 15 years! The doctors have stated again and again that the damange done to her brain is permanent. Why keep her living when she can’t feel pain or feed herself? The U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear the case. The Florida courts and judges who have proceeded over this case are just as legitimate. This should be a private family matter, and as for Michael Schiavo, he wants to do what Terri told her husband and friends all along - she does not want to live like an artificial, bedridden body.</p>
<p>Tenisghs, you’re absolutely correct in that the media has misrepresented this case - they haven’t drilled nearly deeply enough into the facts, on both sides. I’d like to see some expert investigative reporting on what happened to Terri on that fateful night 15 years ago, as well as some law enforcement investigation. </p>
<p>You cannot though claim political grandstanding when even the most liberal dems are lined up, and, when you go down the road to “it’s been 15 years!” - what does this mean? That if you become sick or disabled, there’s a time limit - if you don’t get better, you’re out? What is the line in the sand? Is it five years, nine years, or ten, or 12? Or does it depend entirely on who you’re married to and what that person decides? What about the fact that Terri has had no therapy, no care, nothing but warehousing for the majority of those 15 years, because the slimy creep she’s married to spent her money on everything but her care? </p>
<p>And how do we know she cannot feed herself, really? She swallowed her communion on her own; several times her parents have petitioned the courts to be allowed to try to feed her orally; each time, Michael would not permit it. I guess he’s terrified she might actually eventually be able to eat on her own, which of course would tend to derail his plot to kill her. </p>
<p>Michael Schiavo wants to do what’s convenient, expedient and profitable for Michael Schiavo. He’s living with another woman, he has children by this other woman. He no longer has any motivating reason to continue to invest in Terri’s “life”, and, therefore, his statements, assertions, desires and even statements under oath are highly suspect, and should be completely discounted, and ultimately investigated for perjury and fraud. </p>
<p>Last, there is zero evidence that Terri ever made any statements that this was her wish. The only testimony offered has been by Michael, or by persons close to Michael. Oh, and I’m sure you recognize that the U.S. Supreme Court refuses to hear a majority of the cases offered; its refusal to hear this case is no indication of the legitimacy of the petitioner’s position.</p>
<p>Is it the government’s business? Absolutely it is, when one person is obsessively trying to kill another.</p>
<p>
Quite simply, yes–they are biased; they advocate setting aside the separation of church and state in favor of a faith-based agenda. While I have the greatest respect for people of faith, that is not the principle upon which our Constitution is based.</p>
<p>
“Word on the street” says Michael tried to kill his wife 15 years ago??? I’d be careful about spreading such rumors; this sounds like a test case for the applicability of libel laws to anonymous internet posters.</p>
<p><a href=“http://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/infopage.html#qanda[/url]”>http://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/infopage.html#qanda</a>
Please read the questions and answers section on this blog. It addresses many of the issues being bantered about here, such as (for example) the fact that the Fla. courts acted as the ward’s (Terri’s) surrogate in determining what Terri would want. Michael Schiavo, Terri’s family and other personal friends testified and “the trial court determined that, even applying the “clear and convincing evidence” standard – the highest burden of proof used in civil cases – the evidence showed that Terri would not wish to continue life-prolonging measures.”</p>
<p>If you have the time and the patience, read the legal documents linked on this website. At the very least, they provide a foundation upon which decisions were based. Whether you agree or disagree with the courts decisions, at least take the time to read the data upon which the decisions were based.</p>
<p>I am not sure how the issues of brain damage and brain death became intertwined on this thread. Terri Schiavo does not, to my knowledge, have a completely flat eeg. She is not, by definition “brain dead”, and no one would be harvesting her organs for transplant. However, on the other hand, just because some electrical activity is picked up doesn’t mean the rudimentary brain is functioning beyond that very basic capacity to run the autonomic nervous system (ie, the systems underlying respiration and heart function.)</p>
<p>I do not believe we should “kill” anyone. However, I also believe that in situations where records indicate that the courts have been convinced that this is what a person said they wanted, that one should let nature take its course.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>:eek: yikes. I just hope if I’m ever in this position, I don’t have someone with that attitude in charge of my care.</p>
<p>I agree with Tookie and latetoschool; why in the world doesn’t he relinquish her care to her parents???</p>
<p>ONe last thing,and then I am done. If Terri Schiavo did not have an eating disorder, she would not have been awarded a $6.8 million med malpractice verdict for failure to diagnose and treat the disorder (the amount was reduced because of the fact that Terri was partly liable for her own condition-- see the newspaper article <a href=“http://www.sptimes.com/2003/10/26/Floridian/The_lost_lesson_of_Te.shtml[/url]”>http://www.sptimes.com/2003/10/26/Floridian/The_lost_lesson_of_Te.shtml</a> ) . You really have to have clear and convincing evidence to win that kind of case and get that kind of verdict. So please, don’t make broad sweeping claims that there is no evidence Terri had an eating disorder. </p>
<p>It is clear that there are widly disparate opinions on this topic. But please- back up opinions with data. The rest is just fodder for the tabloids.</p>
<p>Here’s some data: The majority of the U.S. House of Representatives flew back to Washington - on Palm Sunday no less - to take up this measure and they are in debate right now; the Senate passed their version yesterday with not even a peep of an objection from the dems; President Bush returned from Texas early in anticipating of signing the bill; demonstrators by the hundreds in favor of keeping Terri alive are outside the hospice and outside of her husband’s home, but there are zero protestors or representatives in favor of Michael’s position; - I sorta wonder why, don’t you?</p>
<p>As to the court data, since Terri could not speak for herself, the majority of “evidence” was guided, produced, choreographed, any/or in some manner or another controlled by Michael. Example: he presents “evidence” and testifies that Terri supposedly said that this is what she would have wanted; he recruits sympathists to support his statements. How, exactly, do Terri’s supporters rebut that? How do they prove or rebut a negative? How to truthfully testify “Terri did not say this”? It’s impossible, and legal strategist knows this. No wonder he won most of the court battles. </p>
<p>In addition, you don’t have to have “clear and convincing evidence” to win a civil malpractice verdict; you just have to have a better group of lawyers than the other side, and of course it helps to have a sympathetic jury. Tort reform related to medical malpractice has long been a contentious issue in Florida, in fact, some law firms actually “venue shop” this state as it is known for its jury pools sympathetic to patients claiming medical malpractice. Give me a very large personal break, I could probably get a Clearwater jury to hand me hundreds of thousands of dollars for an ingrown toenail, and it wouldn’t even have to be my big toe, and I’m not even a lawyer. (And let’s not even go down the road of Florida courts and statute of repose, government rules defense, product liability, etc.) </p>
<p>As to the other “data”, we can all drill endlessly through the internet, and post links to op ed pieces and medical minutia and anything else we want. Actually, I could probably drill the internet right now and serve up “data” that “verifies” that the earth is flat, the pope has a green melon for a head, and that Area 54 is full of living, breathing aliens too, but, none of that would qualify as hard, cold fact. </p>
<p>Here are the hard, cold facts, and you don’t need links to one-sided op-ed pieces and flawed blogs full of grammatical errors and misstated facts to suss 'em out: Terri collapsed at her home 15 years ago; Michael was the only person there, he now lives with another woman and has children by this other woman, yet he is still married to Terri, and as such is in control of her life or death. This strikes me as fundamentally, grieviously wrong, especially when viewed through the lens that her family so strongly disagrees with what he claims she said. The intentional murder of Terri by starvation needs to be stopped. </p>
<p>I trust the House of Representatives is going to finish forging the tools necessary to stop this within the next 30 minutes.</p>