The Terri Schiavo case
- Thread starter Zrow
- 110 comments
- 3,465 views
- 3,052
ledhed
Why does tha bother him? He's already moved on -- with another woman and kids.
Are you saying he doesn't care about the money? Why would he disappear and then reappear all of a sudden?
That's understandable.
- 3,425
When did he ever disappear ? He was married to her and is trying to honor her wishes not to leave her laying around as a veggy . Why is that so hard to except ? is it because it would be easier to just say " hey you deal with it " ?
If this is in any way an accurate depiction of her head than I would have to say the hope that the parents have is a false one .
No cerebellum ..it died ..its been replaced with spinal fluid..it will not grow back.
Once this has been determined no more test are needed. Its game over . facing reality can be difficult . This case proves it.
If this is in any way an accurate depiction of her head than I would have to say the hope that the parents have is a false one .
No cerebellum ..it died ..its been replaced with spinal fluid..it will not grow back.
Once this has been determined no more test are needed. Its game over . facing reality can be difficult . This case proves it.
- 26,628
- OREGON
- a6m5zero
I agree. It almost hurts to hear some say rude things about Terri Schiavos' parents.MrktMkr1986
I have an co-worker, whose son is in maybe worse state than Terri. He and his wife is caring for their son, and if somebody who doesn't even know them say that they are pathetic and should just let their son go, I don't know what I(or any of my co-workers) do.
- 3,052
ledhed
Honestly, I don't know much about the story prior to all of this media attention. All I know is, he's practically moved on. I wasn't aware that he was "always" by her side.
...is married to her...
It's not hard to accept, but I refuse to ignore the fact that he stands to gain from her death. Why the urgency all of a sudden? Why the sudden media attention?
By "you" I assume you meant the parents? No, that was not what I was trying to say. I don't remember seeing anything about this last year, or the year before, or the year before that. I guess it wasn't as newsworthy then as it is now...
- 3,052
ledhed
Thank you.
That's just sad, though, that they keep dragging this on and on instead of coming to some sort of mutual agreement.
a6m5
Almost?
That's sad. I don't know what I would do in the same situation either. I think the way it goes is, first it's the patient's wishes, and then whatever's in their best interest?
a6m5
Even if this has been brought up before, I'm not sure if it was done with this kind of media attention. Literally, every day, there is something in the news about the case. If 15 years is correct, that's 15 years too long.
Danoff
Premium
- 34,109
- Mile High City
Florida Statute 765.401 The Proxy
(1) If an incapacitated or developmentally disabled patient has not executed and advanced directive, or designated a surrogate to execute an advance directive, or the designated or alternate surrogate is no longer available to make health care decisions, the health care decisions may be made for the patient by any of the following individuals, in the following order of priority, if no individual in a prior class is reasonable available, willing, or competent to act:
a. The judicially appointed guardian of the patient or the guardian advocate of the person having a developmental disability as defined in s. 393.063, who has been authorized to consent to medical treatment, if such guardian has previously been appointed however, this paragraph shall not be construed to require such appointment before a treatment decision can be made under this subsection;
b. The patients spouse;
c. An adult child of the patient, or if the patient has more than one adult child, a majority of the adult children who are reasonably available for consultation;
d. A parent of the patient;
e. The adult sibling of the patient or, if the patient has more than one sibling, a majority of the adult siblings who are reasonably available for consultation;
f. An adult relative of the patient who has exhibited special care and concern for the patient and who has maintained regular contact with the patient and who is familiar with the patients activities, health, and religious or moral beliefs; or
g. A close friend of the patient;
h. A clinical social worker
(2) Any health care decision made under this part must be based on the proxys informed consent and on the decision the proxy reasonably believes the patient would have made under the circumstances. If there is no indication of what the patient would have chosen, the proxy may consider the patients best interest in deciding that proposed treatments are to be withheld or that treatments currently in effect are to be withdrawn.
(3) Before exercising the incapacitated patients rights to select or decline health care, the proxy must comply with the provisions of ss. 765.205 and 765.305, except that a proxys decision to withhold or withdraw life-prolonging procedures must be supported by clear and convincing evidence that the decision would have been the one the patient would have chosen had the patient been competent or, if there is no indication of what the patient would have chosen, that the decision is in the patients best interest.
Doesnt sound like the law requires the family to agree to me. Does it sound like that to you? Sounds to me like the guardian is the person who determines what decision the patient would have made under the circumstances or in absence of proof of what the patient would have done that the decision is in the patients best interest. Where is parent of the patient on that list? d. After children of the patient, way after a and b which are both Michael Schaivo. The only thing the parents can do is claim that he doesnt have clear and convincing evidence that the decision would have been the one the patient would have chosen and that it isnt in the patients best interest.
Pretty weak case if you ask me. I just want to go on record as saying that this is pretty much what Ive been saying the whole time. Though, I did not realize that the language of the law so strongly stated that it should be what the patient would have decided. I expected to read more things like in the patients best interest.
Are you saying the parent's don't? If he divorced her then THEY would get the money. Kinda makes you think huh?
(1) If an incapacitated or developmentally disabled patient has not executed and advanced directive, or designated a surrogate to execute an advance directive, or the designated or alternate surrogate is no longer available to make health care decisions, the health care decisions may be made for the patient by any of the following individuals, in the following order of priority, if no individual in a prior class is reasonable available, willing, or competent to act:
a. The judicially appointed guardian of the patient or the guardian advocate of the person having a developmental disability as defined in s. 393.063, who has been authorized to consent to medical treatment, if such guardian has previously been appointed however, this paragraph shall not be construed to require such appointment before a treatment decision can be made under this subsection;
b. The patients spouse;
c. An adult child of the patient, or if the patient has more than one adult child, a majority of the adult children who are reasonably available for consultation;
d. A parent of the patient;
e. The adult sibling of the patient or, if the patient has more than one sibling, a majority of the adult siblings who are reasonably available for consultation;
f. An adult relative of the patient who has exhibited special care and concern for the patient and who has maintained regular contact with the patient and who is familiar with the patients activities, health, and religious or moral beliefs; or
g. A close friend of the patient;
h. A clinical social worker
(2) Any health care decision made under this part must be based on the proxys informed consent and on the decision the proxy reasonably believes the patient would have made under the circumstances. If there is no indication of what the patient would have chosen, the proxy may consider the patients best interest in deciding that proposed treatments are to be withheld or that treatments currently in effect are to be withdrawn.
(3) Before exercising the incapacitated patients rights to select or decline health care, the proxy must comply with the provisions of ss. 765.205 and 765.305, except that a proxys decision to withhold or withdraw life-prolonging procedures must be supported by clear and convincing evidence that the decision would have been the one the patient would have chosen had the patient been competent or, if there is no indication of what the patient would have chosen, that the decision is in the patients best interest.
Doesnt sound like the law requires the family to agree to me. Does it sound like that to you? Sounds to me like the guardian is the person who determines what decision the patient would have made under the circumstances or in absence of proof of what the patient would have done that the decision is in the patients best interest. Where is parent of the patient on that list? d. After children of the patient, way after a and b which are both Michael Schaivo. The only thing the parents can do is claim that he doesnt have clear and convincing evidence that the decision would have been the one the patient would have chosen and that it isnt in the patients best interest.
Pretty weak case if you ask me. I just want to go on record as saying that this is pretty much what Ive been saying the whole time. Though, I did not realize that the language of the law so strongly stated that it should be what the patient would have decided. I expected to read more things like in the patients best interest.
Are you saying the parent's don't? If he divorced her then THEY would get the money. Kinda makes you think huh?
- 3,052
danoff
I didn't look at it that way. I just assumed that the parents wanted to keep her alive, money was last thing that was on their minds. Clearly the parents have not moved on, but Michael Schiavo has.
Danoff
Premium
- 34,109
- Mile High City
My point with that wasn't to claim that the parents are after the money - I don't think they are. My point was to show that there is an equal claim on both sides of ulterior motive. The claims of greed in this case balance out. The law clearly states (in some other statute) that if the guardian stands to gain something from the death of the patient, that does not justify removal of the guardian. And the law should state that, because otherwise everyone who has a life insurance policy would not be allowed to have the beneficiary as a guardian.
So the whole thing comes down to the merits of their claims. Is it what terri would have wanted or is it not? Is michael just wanting to move on with his new family? Are her parents just wanting her to still be alive?
It's all somewhat moot because medically she's really not there anymore - so they're really arguing about a mindless body.
- 2,760
That's Bush for ya!
- 1,766
Welcomed, tell that to the people in the ghetto, a large part of the American population, way larger than it should be. Instead of putting his focus on a comatose woman with a death wish (if I would be in that state I'd beg anyone to pull the plug), he should worry about the people that are still alive. Poverty is a huge problem in the USA, yet Bush does his best to command to the wishes of the rich and Christian scum like himself. All the poor people are shipped off to Iraq or Afghanistan... hey, that's one way to solve the poverty problem, right? You don't see Bush letting his daughters join the military to fight for what he stands for.
- 2,760
I agree with you, but if we start talking about Bush here, we're going to get in trouble. Move it to the America thread.
- 1,766
Got carried away, back to:
Removed by Moderator: -This is not appropriate.
Removed by Moderator: -This is not appropriate.
- 19,311
- Inland Empire SoCal
- SOLID_LIFTERS
They hate to admit they were wrong all this time. I can believe it. They seem like those kind of people. I bet that poor bastard (Terri's husband) never got a word in edge wise when they came over for Thanksgiving dinner.Duke
- 24,053
- It/It
- GTP_TheCracker
Living in the UK i've missed this case on the news. From reading this thread it would seem to me that her parents are very selfish people, caring more for themselves and their petty beliefs, than their daughters dignity and her husbands feelings. Not only could they not move on, but neither could their son-in-law. Contesting the autopsy is like adding insult to injury. Although their surname might mean otherwise - are they Christian right-wingers by any chance?
Similar threads
- Locked
