Christians call on Bush Bros. to Save Shaivo

[SkinsNut73]

Originally posted by DarkLadyRaven

The Parents encouraged him to date-

What the hells the problem of him having another woman now- if thats what Terris parents wanted for him

- seems to be a damn simple issue -

In short- the other woman does NOT matter

EDIT: This is backed up by Bob Schindler , Terris Father, in his 1993 sworn affadavid

MAYBE they wanted him to move on...but THEY were still willing to care for her. It's not hard for me to see that point of view. Something along the lines of "Hey Mike, you are a young man...30 yrs old...we'll completely understand if you want to move on with your life".

Seems to be a damn simple issue to me to...

[portisizzle]

Originally posted by SkinsNut73

MAYBE they wanted him to move on...but THEY were still willing to care for her. It's not hard for me to see that point of view. Something along the lines of "Hey Mike, you are a young man...30 yrs old...we'll completely understand if you want to move on with your life".

Seems to be a damn simple issue to me to...

Exactly, although this position seems to be in the vast minority right now.

[DarkLadyRaven]

Originally posted by SkinsNut73

MAYBE they wanted him to move on...but THEY were still willing to care for her. It's not hard for me to see that point of view. Something along the lines of "Hey Mike, you are a young man...30 yrs old...we'll completely understand if you want to move on with your life".

Seems to be a damn simple issue to me to...

But them to slam him as an adulteur later when it suits your purposes for you --- That just turns moe off to their point of view

[SkinsNut73]

Originally posted by DarkLadyRaven

But them to slam him as an adulteur later when it suits your purposes for you --- That just turns moe off to their point of view

Correct me if I'm wrong...but from what I've been reading he was having the affair even BEFORE the parents told him to move on...that makes him an adulterer.

Simple really.

...but even that is not my concern with this case.

[Guest Gichin13]

Originally posted by portisizzle

What is the doctor's call?

Her treating physician agrees she is in a persistent vegetative state with no hope of recovery.

As far as the affidavit is concerned, that nurse is a total crock. The GAL report indicates she said "no" one time very early on and never spoke again. If she was talking and saying all this stuff, why is it not on her chart? If she was able to eat, why is she on a feeding tube?

It is unbelievable that woman would create so many lies ...

[Guest Gichin13]

Originally posted by SkinsNut73

But my understanding is the 20+ judges who have ruled on the case HAVE NOT reviewed the evidence over again. They are "simply" ruling that the first judge to rule on the case was correct. There is nothing to overturn is more the ruling.

Appellate courts look at the entire record presented when faced with an appeal. Part of that record includes the pleadings. Also included are all the exhibits. Finally, the entire transcript of the proceeding and testimony is included.

Appellate judges take this seriously -- I can tell you in the last state supreme court appeal argument I had, one of the justices was quoting the record with citations back at one of the lawyers. That judge, courtesy of multiple courts, actually had a better and more detailed grasp of the entire record than the lawyer who tried the case!!

Suffice it to say, if you read all the opinions, it is very clear that this case has been highly scrutinized at every step of the process in the court system. In ruling that the record supported the judge's decision, they are not retrying the case. There is always some deference given to the judge who actually saw the witnesses, their demeanor, their reaction to cross-examination and the like. There is still, however, support for the factual findings of the trial judge at every step in the process in this case.

[Predicto]

And I work as an attorney for the California Supreme Court. We try our very best.

[portisizzle]

Originally posted by Predicto

And I work as an attorney for the California Supreme Court. We try our very best.

Oh, God!!!

You got five minutes????

or five hours???

I have some questions for you about 2000....

:laugh:

or more like :puke:

I kid!!:notworthy

[Larry]

Originally posted by Predicto

And I work as an attorney for the California Supreme Court. We try our very best.

Isn't that the Activist California Supreme Court?

Or does it simply not need to be said?

[DarkLadyRaven]

Originally posted by SkinsNut73

Correct me if I'm wrong...but from what I've been reading he was having the affair even BEFORE the parents told him to move on...that makes him an adulterer.

Simple really.

...but even that is not my concern with this case.

Where are you getting your facts that not what Ive heard

state them or your view does not stand

[Ignatius J.]

aren't several of the judges on the activist supreme court republicans?

The guy who just made the ruling on gay marriage was a republican, but I don't remember if he's on the supreme court here or not.

[jbooma]

What is very sad is what you see here happens all the time, where are all these people fighting for her life when people die like this all the time. Why is this such a big deal.

I work in an environment where we deal with people that are close to dying it is sad, but nothing new.

What I find amazed by is what they should be talking more about is HOW this happened, the woman had an eating disorder and because of it suffered something terribly. Maybe we need to focus on living wills and eating disorders.

For the person who said we should be on the parents side, sorry but when you get married your wife is supposed to be the person you are the closest too, if this happened to me I would be devasted to see my family not believe her, devasted, even if we were not married.

[jbooma]

Originally posted by SkinsNut73

MAYBE they wanted him to move on...but THEY were still willing to care for her. It's not hard for me to see that point of view. Something along the lines of "Hey Mike, you are a young man...30 yrs old...we'll completely understand if you want to move on with your life".

Seems to be a damn simple issue to me to...

But why?? She isn't going to change, they are not going to be paying for all of this, and on top of it that bed could be used by someone who really needs it.

The parents are in denial, they feel she is going to recover, she isn't, it is sad but true, when you lose oxygen to your brain for that long, the damage can't be fixed.

This is not a legal issue at all, it is a medical issue. The Supreme Court was correct in not even listening, congress should be ashamed of themselves.

The problem is some cultures and religions are not able to do something like this, that is why this is hard.

[SkinsNut73]

Originally posted by DarkLadyRaven

Where are you getting your facts that not what Ive heard

state them or your view does not stand

Personally, I don't care if it was one year or 15 years later. The fact that he is having an affair REALLY bothers me. I'm funny that way...you know, when you say you will take care of your wife for the rest of her life...then decide to have an affair a year later doesn't give me the "warm fuzzies". Mmmmm...it's kinda like OJ - Remember? I'm going to search for the real killers if it's the last thing I do. But since you asked...here they are:

Michael's behavior toward Terri has been utterly despicable for the last decade. After she collapsed in 1990, he sued for medical malpractice on her behalf. During the trial, he presented himself to the jury as a dedicated and loving husband--even though he had been romancing other women since shortly after the time of Terri's collapse and brain injury. He told the jury he would care for Terri for the rest of her life, which an expert testified would be a normal life span, and that as part of this loving devotion, he would provide

her with regular medical tests and appropriate rehabilitation with the money the jury awarded.

Source

In late 1991, 1½ years after Terri’s collapse, Michael Schiavo became involved in an intimate relationship with Cindy Shook. The romance continued for approximately one year. It can be documented that the two spent a weekend at the Don Caesar hotel in St. Petersburg Beach and they also contacted a Century 21 Realtor on the premise of purchasing a home.

Source

Now this sounds like a real gem of a husband. I think you ladies would be lucky to find such a man...and look on the bright side...within the next week or two he should be "single" again (were it not for that pesky fact that he is engaged)

* Michael has provided Terri with no therapy or rehabilitative treatment since 1991 and no tests since 1993.

* Terri's teeth have not been cleaned since 1995 and she had 5 teeth extracted in 2004 as a result.

* Terri has been prohibited by Michael from going outdoors since 2000. She is not allowed to have music or flowers and cards and holiday decorations are taken down soon after the Schindler family puts them up.

* Michael has routinely denied Terri's parents medical information, violating a court order and they were taken off approved visitor lists for a total of 8 months from 2001 through 2004.

* Michael has frequently prohibited a Catholic priest from visiting Terri and offering her a blessing or communion.

* Michael melted down Terri's wedding ring to have one made for himself and had her cats euthanized even though the Schindlers offered to care for them.

http://66.195.16.55/bio729.html

[DarkLadyRaven]

I was thinking along the lines of an unslanted source- You try and use these sources in a paper in college yopu would fail the course.

I think he gave up hope after so long

EDIT: If people were smear campaign agianst me trying to fulfill my husbands wishes--- I would have done far worse to them then just deny visitiation

[jbooma]

Originally posted by SkinsNut73

In late 1991, 1½ years after Terri’s collapse, Michael Schiavo became involved in an intimate relationship with Cindy Shook. The romance continued for approximately one year. It can be documented that the two spent a weekend at the Don Caesar hotel in St. Petersburg Beach and they also contacted a Century 21 Realtor on the premise of purchasing a home.

Source

Now this sounds like a real gem of a husband. I think you ladies would be lucky to find such a man...and look on the bright side...within the next week or two he should be "single" again (were it not for that pesky fact that he is engaged)

So if you were married and your wife was brain dead she would expect you to stay faithful the rest of your life, yep 1 1/2 years is just the same as a week later :doh:

[SkinsNut73]

Originally posted by jbooma

But why?? She isn't going to change, they are not going to be paying for all of this, and on top of it that bed could be used by someone who really needs it.

The parents are in denial, they feel she is going to recover, she isn't, it is sad but true, when you lose oxygen to your brain for that long, the damage can't be fixed.

This is not a legal issue at all, it is a medical issue. The Supreme Court was correct in not even listening, congress should be ashamed of themselves.

The problem is some cultures and religions are not able to do something like this, that is why this is hard.

Hey...you are on to something here...when the doctors say someone has 3 months to live because they are terminally ill...we should tell them they are wasting space. We're going to send you home to die. It'll open up the much needed bed space and we'll save on insurance because we will not have to care for this person. It might actually result in rreduced insurance rates.

Yea, the parents might be in denial and maybe Congress should be ashamed of themselves...that's not my big concern with this. It's that we are starving her.

You can't say we're not. She's going to die because of a lack of nutrition (or organ failure brough on by the lack thereof). Why are they barring people from bringing her water? I mean if we're going to remove the tubes then at least give her something to drink...no?

[jbooma]

Originally posted by SkinsNut73

Hey...you are on to something here...when the doctors say someone has 3 months to live because they are terminally ill...we should tell them they are wasting space. We're going to send you home to die. It'll open up the much needed bed space and we'll save on insurance because we will not have to care for this person. It might actually result in rreduced insurance rates.

Yea, the parents might be in denial and maybe Congress should be ashamed of themselves...that's not my big concern with this. It's that we are starving her.

You can't say we're not. She's going to die because of a lack of nutrition (or organ failure brough on by the lack thereof). Why are they barring people from bringing her water? I mean if we're going to remove the tubes then at least give her something to drink...no?

Kind of funny you bring that up since I work in this type of environment.

If you feel she is feeling anything then you don't understand hospitals. Do you think when we take away feeding tubes or other devices we just let them just suffer :doh:

These patients are giving something to make sure they don't feel anything even IF they could to begin with.

She is going to die because she can't live without the help of a machine, this happens a lot.

[flashback]

Originally posted by SkinsNut73

Hey...you are on to something here...when the doctors say someone has 3 months to live because they are terminally ill...we should tell them they are wasting space. We're going to send you home to die. It'll open up the much needed bed space and we'll save on insurance because we will not have to care for this person. It might actually result in rreduced insurance rates.

Yea, the parents might be in denial and maybe Congress should be ashamed of themselves...that's not my big concern with this. It's that we are starving her.

You can't say we're not. She's going to die because of a lack of nutrition (or organ failure brough on by the lack thereof). Why are they barring people from bringing her water? I mean if we're going to remove the tubes then at least give her something to drink...no?

If the doctors told you you were terminally ill, and you had 3 months to live, and you decided you didn't want to live that way, so you stopped eating and drinking, would you want Jeb Bush to knock down your door, take you into protective custody and keep you alive against your will for that 3 months?

[DarkLadyRaven]

Originally posted by SkinsNut73

Now this sounds like a real gem of a husband. I think you ladies would be lucky to find such a man...and look on the bright side...within the next week or two he should be "single" again (were it not for that pesky fact that he is engaged)

[/url]

I would love for my husband to fight for MY wishes instead of deferring to my parents- who may not know my wishes ( Not every one is close to thier parents- but typically are close to thier choosen mates)

If my husband were to tell me he would defer to my mother and not respect OUR promises made to each other. I would divorce him and take half of his assets for wasting my time. It takes a real man to stand up against smear campaigns.

This dosent paint him as a saint but its realistic

AND Yep it started out with Money as in the parents wanting some and an agreement broken

Husband, in-laws once were united in caring for Terri

Before the fighting, Michael Schiavo and his in-laws cared for Terri Schiavo together. The Schindlers urged him to date, and later agreed on the extent of her damage.

BY CARA BUCKLEY

cbuckley@herald.com

PINELLAS PARK - For years, even after suspicion drove them apart and pitted them in a fierce legal fight, Michael Schiavo and his in-laws seemed to agree on one thing: that Terri, his wife and their daughter, was in a persistent vegetative state.

During a January 2000 court battle in which Bob and Mary Schindler sought to wrest Terri's guardianship from Michael Schiavo, the Schindlers repeatedly conceded that their daughter's brain damage was extreme.

''We do not doubt that she's in a persistent vegetative state,'' Pam Campbell, then the Schindlers' lawyer, told the court. Later, Michael Schiavo's lawyer, George Felos, asked Mary Schindler, ''Is Terri in a vegetative condition now?'' to which she replied, ``Yes. That is what they call it.''

Whether or not Terri Schiavo is in a persistent vegetative state has become a hotly contested flash point in the raging debate surrounding the severely brain-damaged Florida woman, whose feeding tube was removed last week.

Many of the Schindlers' supporters insist Terri is very much alert. Michael Schiavo has also been cast by detractors as an adulterous, heartless husband who wanted to remove Terri's feeding tube in order to access her trust fund.

But testimony from court files documenting the 12-year struggle over Terri Schiavo's fate tells a far more complex story.

Beyond accepting that their daughter was in a vegetative state, the Schindlers had, years earlier, encouraged Michael to date. When the Schindlers later accused Michael of greed, he offered to donate Terri's entire trust fund to charity.

Up until a bitter falling out in 1993, Michael Schiavo and the Schindlers were united in efforts to rehabilitate Terri.

They moved in together after Terri's collapse in February 1990, and Michael called the Schindlers ''Mom and Dad.'' A year later, the Schindlers encouraged their son-in-law to get on with his life and date. They even met some of the women he saw.

''I looked at that as maybe he was starting to take a step in the right direction and get his life back together,'' Bob Schindler said in a 1993 deposition. ``He's still a young man. He still has a life ahead of him.''

WORKED TOGETHER

The Schindlers later said that they urged Michael to see other women because they ultimately hoped to gain guardianship of their daughter. But they still worked feverishly with Michael to ensure Terri had the best possible care.

To raise funds for medical costs, they sold hot dogs and pretzels on the beach, threw a Valentine's Day dance and made appeals on local news stations. In 1991, the city of St. Petersburg Beach declared Feb. 17 ``Terri Schiavo Day.''

Terri was frequently moved between hospitals, hospices and nursing homes. Each rehabilitation facility treated her with aggressive physical, recreational, speech and language therapy, moving her arms and legs, trying to rouse her with scents.

But according to court filings, Terri was not responsive to neurological or swallowing tests. Mary Schindler testified that a neurologist told her, ``This might be where she's going to be for the rest of her life.''

Michael Schiavo and the Schindlers brought Terri home briefly in the fall of 1990, but were overwhelmed. Then they sent her to California to have experimental platinum electrodes implanted to stimulate her brain. Michael slept by her bedside for five weeks. Terri sat up and her eyes burned brightly when the implants were turned up high, Michael testified, but the doctor told him the reactions were mere motor responses.

Meanwhile, Michael filed a malpractice suit against two of Terri's doctors, unwittingly setting into motion events that tore him and the Schindlers apart.

Michael initially expected a multimillion-dollar award, and the Schindlers said he promised them a share, which would enable them to care for Terri at home.

By then, the Schindlers were almost broke. After selling his share of a successful industrial equipment company, Bob Schindler lost his savings in a Florida business venture that went sour. The couple declared bankruptcy in 1989, Bob Schindler testified. He told a court that Michael Schiavo promised to help.

But Michael said he never committed to sharing any award money with the Schindlers, especially when the award ended up being far smaller than hoped. Roughly $700,000 was earmarked for a trust fund for Terri, and $300,000 for Michael.

The Schindlers still expected part of Michael's share to help care for Terri. On Valentine's Day 1993, they confronted Michael in Terri's hospital room. The discussion quickly turned ugly. Michael said the Schindlers demanded the money, so he lied and said he did not have it. Disgusted, the Schindlers left, their trust in Michael irrevocably breached.

''The fact that he was going back on his word upset me,'' Bob Schindler testified in 1993. ``I was devastated.''

Michael soon began believing doctors who told him that Terri had effectively died in 1990. In a 1993 deposition, he testified that Terri had said she would never want to live by artificial means. He imposed a ''do not resuscitate'' order. Hospice staff challenged the order's legality, so he reversed it.

Horrified, the Schindlers launched the first of many exhaustive battles to become Terri's legal guardians. They accused Schiavo of being abusive, citing his admitted belligerence to hospice staff. They also said he wanted to kill Terri for her money.

But in 1998, when one of Terri's court-appointed guardians noted this conflict of interest, Michael offered to donate Terri's estate to charity, as long as the Schindlers stopped fighting his decision to remove Terri's feeding tube. The Schindlers rejected this proposal. All but $50,000 of the award has since gone to Terri's care and court costs.

NUMEROUS PROBLEMS

By the mid-1990s, Terri's physical therapy had been stopped, enraging her parents.

Court guardians concluded that Terri was cared for extremely well, but her condition still led to numerous complications and hospitalizations. She suffered from bile stones and kidney stones, according to court papers, and had to have her gallbladder removed. She has ''drop foot,'' where her foot twists downward, and the ensuing pressure resulted in the amputation of her left little toe. She frequently developed urinary tract infections, diarrhea and vaginitis. Several cysts were removed from her neck. Several times, her feeding tube got infected.

In 2000, despite conceding their daughter's persistent vegetative state, the Schindlers said they still believed she knew when they were there. When Felos, Michael Schiavo's lawyer, asked Bob Schindler if he thought Terri would be tormented by her current state, he replied ''Yes,'' but added, ``she's not that cognizant to be aware of it.''

Several years ago, a few doctors said Terri was, in fact, responsive, evidently causing her parents to believe that the Terri they knew could at least partially be brought back. But judges repeatedly sided with the medical opinion that their daughter's chances for improvement were nil.

The Schindlers never stopped believing. Mary decorated Terri's room during holidays and saw light in Terri's eyes when she softly sang, ``Terri, it's Mommy.''

''I think she understands. I think she knows I'm there,'' Mary Schindler told the court in 2000. ``She just . . . I just want her to live.''

http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/11215317.htm

[jbooma]

Originally posted by DarkLadyRaven

I would love for my husband to fight for MY wishes instead of deferring to my parents- who may not know my wishes ( Not every one is close to thier parents- but typically are close to thier choosen mates)

If my husband were to tell me he would defer to my mother and not respect OUR promises made to each other. I would divorce him and take half of his assets for wasting my time. It takes a real man to stand up against smear campaigns.

What is sad a lot of young kids don't understand since all they have had their entire life so far is the parents, as you get older you become closer to your spouse not your parents, if you don't then you may not be married much longer.

[SkinsNut73]

Originally posted by jbooma

So if you were married and your wife was brain dead she would expect you to stay faithful the rest of your life, yep 1 1/2 years is just the same as a week later :doh:

He had the affair 1 1/2 years after the incident.

The week I was referring too was when his wife dies soon he'll be available for all the single ladies. Try to stay with me...

If my wife is brain dead how does she expect me to stay faithful? How does that work?

Look...I understand at some point this man has to move on with his life. I have no problem with that. However, his behavior is enough to raise suspicion in me that he's not the most loving hubby in the world. Obviously, he has a strong enough case (legally) or we would not be where we are today. He might have the legal "right" to be her guardian...but I look at it as he is an unfit guardian. My opinion.

As for me...well jbooma...I can tell you that I absolutely meant every word of my wedding vows. You know...in sickenss and in health...til death do us part. I hope to God I never have to make that decision...but I would stay with my wife til the end. As a result of this case we'll probably take care of our wishes legally...she has asked not to be kept alive by machines to help her breathe...but also said don't stop feeding me. I'll abide by those wishes if the event ever occurred.

[jbooma]

Originally posted by SkinsNut73

Look...I understand at some point this man has to move on with his life. I have no problem with that. However, his behavior is enough to raise suspicion in me that he's not the most loving hubby in the world. Obviously, he has a strong enough case (legally) or we would not be where we are today. He might have the legal "right" to be her guardian...but I look at it as he is an unfit guardian. My opinion.

No one is perfect, but he is the only want that has heard her wishes right?? That is what this is all about. Witch is why you need to tell more then just your spouse your wishes.

[SkinsNut73]

Originally posted by DarkLadyRaven

I would love for my husband to fight for MY wishes instead of deferring to my parents- who may not know my wishes ( Not every one is close to thier parents- but typically are close to thier choosen mates)

...and I understand that DLR...I really do. I guarantee you my wife knows more of my wishes/desires/dreams than anyone else on the face of the planet. But we can never know what went on between the two involved. She may very well have said she doesn't want to live in a situation like this...but apparently she said it after watching a movie on TV.

How many times have you said something without understanding the full consequences of what you are saying? Did she really mean it when she did say it? Even tonight, as my wife and I talked about our "death" wishes for the first time...we really haven't thought through everything they way we should (and we are in the process of doing it). If you had that legal document it's a slam dunk case. But we don't...we have speculation...

[SkinsNut73]

Originally posted by flashback

If the doctors told you you were terminally ill, and you had 3 months to live, and you decided you didn't want to live that way, so you stopped eating and drinking, would you want Jeb Bush to knock down your door, take you into protective custody and keep you alive against your will for that 3 months?

Only Janet Reno knocks down doors (see Elian Gonzalez, Rubi Ridge and Waco Texas)...