Terri Schiavo... Died

[03CLS 0]

Quote

Quote

No it doesn't without a living will the parents she have final say......

See Bill? He's consistent. Doesn't composed sentences very clearly, but consistent.

I completely and utterly disagree with his position and think his supporting arguments are completely specious (you could just as easily say the spouse should choose because the parents can always make another one), but at least he's consistent.

I can respect a consistency in position even while disagreeing with that position.

So my grammer sucks. Or you could say that the parents spent 18 years raising her and are willing to take care of her and that he can even easier find another spouse.

[Zenister 0]

Quote

So my grammer sucks. Or you could say that the parents spent 18 years raising her and are willing to take care of her and that he can even easier find another spouse.

including amputation and open heart surgery on her living corpse, if necessary all to keep their 'baby' with them...

her parents have passed so far beyond reason they should have never been allowed ANY say in her welfare

____________________________________
Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.

[ltdiver 3]

Quote

Did you also see that Mr Wonderful denied her family access during her last hour alive? The anger I feel right now toward him/it is over whelming.


J

Terri's family arrived this morning and Michael left the room so they could be with her. They were there for 1 hour and 45 minutes before the hospice staff asked that they leave so they could tend to her.

Terri's family put up a VERY big fuss and refused, making quite a scene. Michael heard of this and asked that Terri not be subjected to this disturbance. It was then that the family was removed.

Nobody knew the exact time Terri was going to die. It just happened that it did when the family was not there. If they hadn't been disruptive when the hospice nurses had to do their routine duty they just may have been there when she died.

ltdiver

Don't tell me the sky's the limit when there are footprints on the moon

[flyangel2 2]

Yup, the drama they caused came back and gave them a big bite in the ass.

May your trails be crooked, winding, lonesome, dangerous, leading to the most amazing view. May your mountains rise into and above the clouds. - Edward Abbey

[EBSB52 0]

Quote

Quote

Did you also see that Mr Wonderful denied her family access during her last hour alive?

I don't blame him. I don't agree with it, but I can't blame him.

They made his life hell, called him every name in the book, claimed he beat her, abused her, blamed him for her condition....ect.

I think it would have been nice of him to let them see her, but I don't blame him for not letting them one bit.

I agree - and maybe now we can sort out who has supremacy in regard to a spouse.

[EBSB52 0]

Quote

>Then divorce her - she was still alive!

I admire people who do not take that easy way out. It's easy to discard someone like that, a lot harder to stay with them and fight for what they wanted.

Right, if he had divorced her then there would be other selct words for him. This was a no-winner for the hubby.

[billvon 2,427]

>Or you could say that the parents spent 18 years raising her . . .

And here I thought this was about what her wishes were, not who owned her.

[EBSB52 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

>Again without a living will the parents should be the deciding factor . . .

Her husband is her closest living relative, and is charged with making such decisions. That's part of all those vows that people who get married make. If you don't want such responsibility, it's easier to not get married - then the parents do indeed remain her closest living relatives.

People get married and people get divorce, but your parents are always you parents! Again without a living will the parents should trump spouses period.

Says who????

You?

That is fine then.... WHen you get married, have a will that states your parents can make all the decisions for you incase of an accident.


When someone gets married they make a binding contract with the eachother and the state. At that point, your closest relative becomes your spouse. Like it or not that is the LAW.
If you don't like it, don't marry :-)

It is true of all things... I just got married 2 weeks ago, and had to change my beneficiaries form for my pension, 401K and Life insurance... and do you know what all forms say on them?

In the event that no primary beneficiary is selected, your spouse will become your primary beneficiary. (Not your parents or kids).

The only way to change that is with a notarized letter of consent from your spouse stating they forfiet the right to your benefits.... otherwise it is assumed by law.

That is fine then.... WHen you get married, have a will that states your parents can make all the decisions for you incase of an accident.


That might not be absolutley binding. To desribe what you want done is one thing, to transfer power is another, especially if it involves any costs since all of her money is now his money. These issues are far too complicated for us to define, even for the lawyers on the board.

Hey I know, don't get matrried and write a trust giving your parents full control!

The only way to change that is with a notarized letter of consent from your spouse stating they forfiet the right to your benefits.... otherwise it is assumed by law.


That'll happen.

The ex\ception is for a will that is drafted b4 the marriage pertaining to premarital assets only.

[happythoughts 0]

Quote

Right, if he had divorced her then there would be other selct words for him. This was a no-winner for the hubby.

That is what I was thinking.

If he stays married, he is supposed to lock himself in the garage for the next 15 years of his life.

If he gets divorced, he is known as "the guy who left his poor wife while she was in the hospital".

No winning choices there.

Instead of all this pain for all these years, why not send the body where the brain went 15 years ago. A nice cocktail of sedatives and the body drifts off to sleep. No drama.

[flyangel2 2]

Quote

That is what I was thinking.

If he stays married, he is supposed to lock himself in the garage for the next 15 years of his life.

If he gets divorced, he is known as "the guy who left his poor wife while she was in the hospital".

No winning choices there.

Damn, I wish I had said that.

Quote

BTW, if Michael had divorced Terri then he would have been the bad guy because he didn't stick it out with her. He was in a no win situation.

May your trails be crooked, winding, lonesome, dangerous, leading to the most amazing view. May your mountains rise into and above the clouds. - Edward Abbey

[happythoughts 0]

Quote

Damn, I wish I had said that.

I'm not a student of history. That was so "this afternoon".


I've been avoiding posting becuase I hate this thread so bad.

[03CLS 0]

Quote

>Or you could say that the parents spent 18 years raising her . . .

And here I thought this was about what her wishes were, not who owned her.

It's not I was replying or just reversing the comment "rehmwa" made

[Ron 7]

Quote

I think the guy is a scum bag, that is my personal opinion and I have a great deal of sympathy for the parents and sibling of Terri.

I think her parents are scum and Mike did the noble thing.

Her parents wanted to keep her body around so THEY could feel better. Her parents are making money off of this.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[03CLS 0]

Quote

Quote

>Then divorce her - she was still alive!

I admire people who do not take that easy way out. It's easy to discard someone like that, a lot harder to stay with them and fight for what they wanted.

Right, if he had divorced her then there would be other selct words for him. This was a no-winner for the hubby.

There is NO winner, but what nobody has really said or maybe I missed it as I so often do is that if indeed she didn't want to live in this state then why did he let for 7 or 8 years and then only after meeting his
common law he says she didn't want to live like this.

[ltdiver 3]

Quote

There is NO winner, but what nobody has really said or maybe I missed it as I so often do is that if indeed she didn't want to live in this state then why did he let for 7 or 8 years and then only after meeting his
common law he says she didn't want to live like this.

How long would you go in trying everything under the sun to cure your loved one....your spouse? Michael tried so many things, researched so many avenues, and according to Terri's doctors was -still- in denial when they told him that she was beyond resurrection.

He stayed in denial, as many of us would, for that many years. He had to hear it over and over and over from her doctors that she was brain irretrievable. It -finally- sunk in.

I don't understand what 'common law' has to do with this at all. They were lawfully married when this all happened.

ltdiver

Don't tell me the sky's the limit when there are footprints on the moon

[gjhdiver 0]

Quote

Quote

This just in, a statement from Tom DeLay:

----------------
Mrs. Schiavo’s death is a moral poverty and a legal tragedy. This loss happened because our legal system did not protect the people who need protection most, and that will change. The time will come for the men responsible for this to answer for their behavior, but not today. Today we grieve, we pray, and we hope to God this fate never befalls another. Our thoughts and prayers are with the Schindlers and with Terri Schiavo’s friends in this time of deep sorrow.

OK so Tom is acting like an ass here.

You know, as far as Delay goes, I'd hate this guy if he was a Democrat, which says something for my level of distaste for him.

It looks like he's not above trying to use more blatantly unconstitutional federalism to drag the principals back over the coals again.

I also like the way he described Judge Greer, a republican appointed, pro-life baptist, as an "activist judge", which is conservative speech for one of two things.

1. A liberal.

2. Someone who dares to disagree with me and insist on the constitutional separation of powers.

I suspect he means the latter.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

I never understand why people respect consistency.

I understand and agree with your note. But the point here was to determine if this guy really believed the parents should own that decision, or whether he was just putting that out there as a hidden part of a "life at any cost" position. By eventually answering the question he shows he's not being deceptive, but really believes his parents will know his own wishes better than his spouse would in this type of case.

By dodging Bill's first question, it appeared he was the 2nd case, at first. But he's not really. So at least he's sticking to his guns.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[GTAVercetti 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

This just in, a statement from Tom DeLay:

----------------
Mrs. Schiavo’s death is a moral poverty and a legal tragedy. This loss happened because our legal system did not protect the people who need protection most, and that will change. The time will come for the men responsible for this to answer for their behavior, but not today. Today we grieve, we pray, and we hope to God this fate never befalls another. Our thoughts and prayers are with the Schindlers and with Terri Schiavo’s friends in this time of deep sorrow.

OK so Tom is acting like an ass here.

You know, as far as Delay goes, I'd hate this guy if he was a Democrat, which says something for my level of distaste for him.

It looks like he's not above trying to use more blatantly unconstitutional federalism to drag the principals back over the coals again.

I also like the way he described Judge Greer, a republican appointed, pro-life baptist, as an "activist judge", which is conservative speech for one of two things.

1. A liberal.

2. Someone who dares to disagree with me and insist on the constitutional separation of powers.

I suspect he means the latter.

I like the way it was put by The Daily Show:

"Sure, republicans were once all for state rights, but that was before they controlled the Federal government."



The more I look at it, both parties want more and more control of everything. They just want to control it in different ways.

Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.

[billvon 2,427]

>if indeed she didn't want to live in this state then why did he let for 7 or 8 years . . . .

Because he was trying everything known to medicine to bring her back, including cerebral implants. After 7 years he knew it wasn't going to work.

[billvon 2,427]

>2. Someone who dares to disagree with me and insist on the
>constitutional separation of powers.

He's really self-destructing on this one. From the Washington Times:

----------------
Conservative leaders say defending House Majority Leader Tom DeLay is a litmus test for any Republican lawmaker seeking their support, even as a liberal advocacy group announced yesterday it will run commercials questioning Mr. DeLay's ethics in some House Republicans' districts.
. . .
Morton Blackwell, Republican National Committee member from Virginia and a member of ACU's board, said Republicans are being told support for Mr. DeLay is mandatory if they want future support from conservatives.
"Conservative leaders across the country are working now to make sure that any politician who hopes to have conservative support in the future had better be in the forefront as we attack those who attack Tom DeLay," he said.
-----------------

He's starting to circle the wagons, to make it clear to other republicans that he will use the power of the GOP to destroy them if they criticize him. Which will end up hurting his party in the long run.

Also, interesting letter from Sen. Lautenberg:

------------------------------------------
I was stunned to read the threatening comments you made yesterday against Federal judges and our nation’s courts of law in general. In reference to certain Federal judges, you stated: “The time will come for the men responsible for this to answer for their behavior.”

As you are surely aware, the family of Federal Judge Joan H. Lefkow of Illinois was recently murdered in their home. And at the state level, Judge Rowland W. Barnes and others in his courtroom were gunned down in Georgia.

Our nation’s judges must be concerned for their safety and security when they are asked to make difficult decisions every day. That’s why comments like those you made are not only irresponsible, but downright dangerous. To make matters worse, is it appropriate to make threats directed at specific Federal and state judges?

You should be aware that your comments yesterday may violate a Federal criminal statute, 18 U.S.C. §115 (a)(1)(B). That law states:

“Whoever threatens to assault…. or murder, a United States judge… with intent to retaliate against such… judge…. on account of the performance of official duties, shall be punished [by up to six years in prison]”
-------------------------------------------

He's got a point there. Imagine what our response would be if a pro-life activist who had been arrested at the hospice said "those judges will be made to answer for their behavior." We'd probably throw him in jail for threatening a judge.

[jlmiracle 7]

Quote

>if indeed she didn't want to live in this state then why did he let for 7 or 8 years . . . .

Because he was trying everything known to medicine to bring her back, including cerebral implants. After 7 years he knew it wasn't going to work.

But he said it was her wish not to live like that so why take 7 years to follow her wishes?

Be kinder than necessary because everyone you meet is fighting some kind of battle.

[billvon 2,427]

>But he said it was her wish not to live like that so why take 7
>years to follow her wishes?

If your husband said "pull the plug if there's no hope" wouldn't you want to make sure that - you know - there's no hope? Maybe try a few things first?

Admit it - if he had pulled the plug on day 1 after her accident, you'd want him arrested for murder. "After all - maybe she would have recovered in a few years!"

[GTAVercetti 0]

Quote

>But he said it was her wish not to live like that so why take 7
>years to follow her wishes?

If your husband said "pull the plug if there's no hope" wouldn't you want to make sure that - you know - there's no hope? Maybe try a few things first?

Admit it - if he had pulled the plug on day 1 after her accident, you'd want him arrested for murder. "After all - maybe she would have recovered in a few years!"

Bill, there is no point. You cannot win no matter how logical you might sound.

Pull it after trying things and the response is that he did not really fulfill her wishes by waiting so long.

Pull it early on and then he is heartless for giving up so easily.

There is no way to succeed here so lets just go have a beer.

Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.

[jlmiracle 7]

Quote

Admit it - if he had pulled the plug on day 1 after her accident, you'd want him arrested for murder. "After all - maybe she would have recovered in a few years!"

Actually no, I think to keep her alive for 7+ years was a cruel as he could be, it should have been taken care of a long time ago. By HIM prolonging it he gave her family false hope. I don't know of any case (but if there is one, I'm sure you do), where a person goes in brain dead and comes out not brain dead.

I'm mad he didn't let her family in. I believe he strung them along too long.

J

Be kinder than necessary because everyone you meet is fighting some kind of battle.

[FLYBERT71 0]

So if he had ended this at one year or less after her accident would you still be just as mad at him?

As I asked before, what would you do if you were in his place and why? Or if it makes it easier what would you do if it was your husband/boyfriend that was in the hospital.

"If you have time to panic, you have time to do something more productive."
Josh Whipple 7/15/70-2/10/05