Has the Schiavo case Become a Political Football?

As to the last item, the court acknowledged the "emotional significance" of food, but noted that feeding by implanted tubes is a "medical procedur[e] with inherent risks and possible side effects, instituted by skilled healthcare providers to compensate for impaired physical functioning" which analytically was equivalent to artificial breathing using a respirator. Id., at 373, 486 A.2d at 1236. 4

Cyclo is trying but for some reason can not or will not debate the issue of the husbands abandenment that you have tried to debate.

2. He knowingly entered into what is legally and adulterous affair, (which is grounds for a divorce), without terminating his prior relationship.

Could the parents argue this point of abandonment to the court ?

So would it be safe to argue that if you are "legally married" to a women, leave that women 10 years ago, begin a relationship with another women, raise children, purchase porperty and portray yourself as a married couple with the new women, that you have either:
1. 2 wives under common law
2. Seperated or terminated the marriage contract with the first woman

If a court were to apply that logic to this case, they may find for the parents as next of kin and not the "husband".

Well, you are wrong in denying this woman the right to die, Brandon. Wrong.

Your party is also trying to turn this to their political gain like the scumbags they are. That's wrong as well.

Cycloptichorn

1. There is no evidence whatever that she wants to die.
2. She is not being allowed to die, she is being made to die by being denied food and water.

the court acknowledged the "emotional significance" of food, but noted that feeding by implanted tubes is a "medical procedur[e] with inherent risks and possible side effects, instituted by skilled healthcare providers to compensate for impaired physical functioning" which analytically was equivalent to artificial breathing using a respirator. Id., at 373, 486 A.2d at 1236. 4

1. There is no evidence whatever that she wants to die.

2. She is not being allowed to die, she is being made to die by being denied food and water.

Since so many people here are motivated by empathy and ethics, the idea that all of the conservative officeholders are motivated only by calculations of personal gain is silly.

all without ever addressing the points made in any meaningful way.

Yes, Woiyo, clearly he is more interested in repeating previously answered questions than reading/learning the answers. Rolling Eyes Next he'll attempt to escalate/deteriorate the conversation into a mindless Ad Hominem swap, with cheers from his hyper partisan peers who view every topic as team sport with the gang-mentality of a turf war... all without ever addressing the points made in any meaningful way. At best you'll get minor concessions that really amount to starting blocks for an illogical series of complex questions, false dilemmas and naked non sequiturs. I've seen it too many times. Options are to rephrase your point endlessly in hopes he doesn't succeed in obscuring it or to just avoid the mindless aggravation altogether. Good day.

1. That is flat out untruth. The court has RULED on the evidence. It has ruled more than once. All the legal requirements of existence for that evidence have been met. The evidence LEGALLY EXISTS. You can lie and argue all you want. The LEGAL standard for evidence IS MET. According to the court the evidence exists that she wants to die.

It doesn't take that much smarts to learn the truth about Michael. 1) He was the last one to let go on Terri. 2) The money has been depleted many years ago on Terri's medical care. 3) How many would not establish another life for themselves if after all these years, they finally "get it" that their spouse is a vegetable, and 4) the doctors and judges who have considered this case all came to the same conclusion; Terri's health is irreversible; her brain is filled with liquid.

woiyo wrote:

Quote:

2. He knowingly entered into what is legally and adulterous affair, (which is grounds for a divorce), without terminating his prior relationship.

Care to tell us what law makes it illegal to have an affair. Or the law that even defines affair?

Then tell us how having an affair means you have no rights. This argument is silly at best woiyo. Completely bogus.

798.01 Living in open adultery.--Whoever lives in an open state of adultery shall be guilty of a misdemeanor of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083. Where either of the parties living in an open state of adultery is married, both parties so living shall be deemed to be guilty of the offense provided for in this section.

As soon as Michael received the money for Terri's care and rehabilitation, Michael refused to authorize any expenditures from her trust account for rehabilitation. (Did he misrepresent the facts to the jury when he said the money was necessary for her rehabilitation?) The income from the trust was sufficient to pay for Terri's room and board at the hospice and no rehabilitation efforts took place. This caused a permanent rift between Michael and Terri's parents.

Theresa spent two and a half months as an inpatient at Humana Northside Hospital, eventually emerging from her coma state, but not recovering consciousness. On 12 May 1990, following extensive testing, therapy and observation, she was discharged to the College Park skilled care and rehabilitation facility. Forty-nine days later, she wastransferred again to Bayfront Hospital for additional, aggressive rehabilitation efforts. In September of 1990, she was brought home, but following only three weeks, she wasreturned to the College Park facility because the "family was overwhelmed by Terry'scare needs."…

The clinical records within the massive case file indicate that Theresa was not responsiveto neurological and swallowing tests. She received regular and intense physical,occupational and speech therapies…

In late Autumn of 1990, following months of therapy and testing, formal diagnoses of persistent vegetative state with no evidence of improvement, Michael took Theresa to California, where she received an experimental thalamic stimulator implant in her brain. Michael remained in California caring for Theresa during a period of several months and returned to Florida with her in January of 1991. Theresa was transferred to the Mediplex Rehabilitation Center in Brandon, where she received 24 hour skilled care, physical, occupational, speech and recreational therapies.

Despite aggressive therapies, physician and other clinical assessments consistently revealed no functional abilities, only reflexive, rather than cognitive movements, random eye opening, no communication system and little change cognitively or functionally. On 19 July 1991 Theresa was transferred to the Sable Palms skilled care facility. Periodic neurological exams, regular and aggressive physical, occupational and speech therapy continued through 1994.

cicerone imposter wrote:

It doesn't take that much smarts to learn the truth about Michael. 1) He was the last one to let go on Terri. 2) The money has been depleted many years ago on Terri's medical care. 3) How many would not establish another life for themselves if after all these years, they finally "get it" that their spouse is a vegetable, and 4) the doctors and judges who have considered this case all came to the same conclusion; Terri's health is irreversible; her brain is filled with liquid.

Not true. Michael was not the "last one" to let go on Terri.

She collapsed in February 1990. He filed a malpractice lawsuit. He presented evidence to the jury concerning Terri's expected life span . . . a normal lifespan . . . and the costs associated with her care during her normal lifespan. He was awarded $300,000 (for himself) for his loss of consortium claim. Terri was awarded $700,000 to pay for her long-term care and rehabilitation.

If Terri didn't want to live with the assistance of a feeding tube and removal of the feeding tube would cause her death in one to two weeks . . . why didn't Michael mention Terri's wishes when he was seeking money to allegedly pay for her long-term care?

Michael received the money from the lawsuit in February 1993.

As soon as Michael received the money for Terri's care and rehabilitation, Michael refused to authorize any expenditures from her trust account for rehabilitation. (Did he misrepresent the facts to the jury when he said the money was necessary for her rehabilitation?) The income from the trust was sufficient to pay for Terri's room and board at the hospice and no rehabilitation efforts took place. This caused a permanent rift between Michael and Terri's parents.

In 1994, Terri was ravaged with an infection. Michael refused to authorize antibiotics to treat the infection. Terri's parents petitioned the court to have Michael removed as Terri's guardian based on allegations of neglect. A guardian ad litem was appointed. To settle the dispute, Michael agreed to authorize antibiotics to treat Terri's infection and Terri's parents dismissed their neglect petition.

In 1995, Michael Schiavo announced his ENGAGEMENT to another woman. He could have divorced Terri and married his fiancee, but he didn't. If he had done so, he would have lost his inheritance rights as Terri's husband.

But, Terri just kept living, and living, and living. She wasn't going to die soon enough to accommodate Michael's desire to move on with his own life with his new family and still inherit Terri's money. So . . . he took it upon himself to accelerate the end of Terri's life.

In 1997, when Michael filed the petition to remove the feeding tube, there was STILL $700,000 in Terri's trust account to pay for her long-term care and rehabilitation.

Michael obtained court authorization to use Terri's trust money to pay his legal fees and costs. Over the next several years, Michael's legal fees and costs ate up most of the trust account. The principal was no longer subtantial enough to generate sufficient income to cover Terri's hospice costs.

In 2003, about the time Terri's Bill was passed and Governor Bush ordered the reinsertion of the feeding tube, there was only $50,000 left in the trust account.

When you allege that the money was depleted years ago on Terri's medical care, you are wrong. The principal amount in her trust account was depleted to pay for Michael's mission to cause her death. If his petition had been immediately successful, he would have inherited the $700,000 that was in Terri's trust account.

As OCCOM BILL has pointed out in his posts, the only reason that Michael has remained married to Terri all these years has been for the sole purpose of having her killed.