|
|
Post by Pontotocmom on Mar 21, 2005 9:03:55 GMT -6
Well it is back to the courts.... A judge should rule today whether to feed her or not. Terry may have said she didn't want to be kept alive on machines... I've said that myself. But feeding me wouldn't be what I meant.
|
|
mercyme
TF Full Timer II
Blue Light Specialty[/B]
Posts: 150
|
Post by mercyme on Mar 21, 2005 11:28:04 GMT -6
Yes, mom, I agree. mercyme!
|
|
|
|
Post by granny2young on Mar 21, 2005 16:16:42 GMT -6
I agree. I couldn't understand why the husband did not take the million dollars the lady offered to give all rights to her parents and move along, but I read this morning that he will get $10 million once she is dead. No wander he is so determined to have her die.
|
|
mercyme
TF Full Timer II
Blue Light Specialty[/B]
Posts: 150
|
Post by mercyme on Mar 21, 2005 18:01:37 GMT -6
The judge has heard all the evidence and is reviewing the case to give his decision. So her life depends on him. What shocks me is the federal judge having more control than the Congress and President of the United States. The President can not stop what he personally considers to be murder.
BTW, What about Dr. Kevorkian, he's in prison, isn't he?
Oh, mercy mercy me
Oh, things ain't what they used to be
No, no
|
|
|
|
Post by jaykay on Mar 24, 2005 15:19:25 GMT -6
I was hoping Jeb Bush would take control and have the welfare dpt. take over her custody. but that was denied as well.The only thing that will satisfy Micheal Schiavo is Terri's death. We have to ask ourselves who stands to benefit from her death. I bet if they made sure he didn't get a plug nickel from any lawsuit,book deal or anything that came from all this he wouldn't care one way or another.There is a tremondous diffrence in brain-damaged and brain dead. The state of Fla. is starving Terri Schiave to death. Her brother likened it to the concentration camps as to how his sister looked.This is a travesty for our judicial system. and more a tragedy for the family of Terri who love her and want her to live.
|
|
|
|
Post by granny2young on Mar 24, 2005 17:57:28 GMT -6
it is so sad. I wander if her husband will pay for her funeral out of his $10 million cut. He will be among the richest now, but little does he know he can't take all that money with him and he will have to answer for his deeds one day.
|
|
|
|
Post by countrygirl on Mar 24, 2005 19:21:58 GMT -6
|
|
mercyme
TF Full Timer II
Blue Light Specialty[/B]
Posts: 150
|
Post by mercyme on Mar 24, 2005 19:24:36 GMT -6
It is pitiful Granny. What you bet he doesn't pay for the funeral? I'm kinda glad I'm not married anymore. The law now supports husbands ordering their wives to starve to death and whatever he wants to tell at the time is the truth. Judges Wittlemore and Greer better hope the same thing doesn't happen to their own daughter. What goes around, comes around, their day is coming.  mercyme! |
|
|
|
Post by TF Admin on Mar 24, 2005 22:38:53 GMT -6
It turns out old Hitler may have gotten a bad rap by society..... And for those not paying attention...this would be called sarcasm. Sorry BB, some may not "get it". TFADMIN |
|
|
|
Post by beastmanjack on Mar 25, 2005 5:18:11 GMT -6
I agree with all of you, But it is veryinappropriate for the federal government to get involved in a civil case. That is why it is very important that aperson make out a living will telling just what to do if you become incompasacated(sp).with no hope.
Now as the person who offered a million dollars to her husband and that he would take care of terri for the rest of her natural life is to be comended. Michael should have taken the money and been done with the whole thing.But I see now he is just being cruel and wants her to die.
I'm trully sorry for the parents of Terri and she is always in my prayers, but the government needs to get out of peoples private lives. I know I'm going to get slammed for taking this stance but that is my opinion.
that is what I love about this forum we can agree to disagree.
|
|
|
|
Post by Pontotocmom on Mar 25, 2005 6:49:30 GMT -6
I have no problem with the government comment except that is the only option left for Terri's parents. Michael can hollar to doomsday for all I care that he doesn't think Terri wants to live that way. He doesn't know they were young. And from all I've read and seen Michael said all he wanted to do was to take care of Terri for the rest of her life. That was the reason the money was given to him to begin with. Then as soon as he recieved the money he wants her to quit suffering. If she dies now I hope he doesn't have a minutes rest in his mind. Hardly anyone wants to live on machines and people say that everyday. But I sure as heck don't want to starve and dehydrate just to get someone else rich. In my opinion when he quit allowing any kind of therapy was when he should of been removed as guardian. He is denying her the right to live. Yes she is severely disabled but that doesn't mean she can not live. There are millions of disabled people in this world and I can flat out tell you they still want to eat everyday.
|
|
BillyBob
TF Full Timer
The Legendary BB![/B]
Posts: 89
|
Post by BillyBob on Mar 25, 2005 7:27:43 GMT -6
And for those not paying attention...this would be called sarcasm. Sorry BB, some may not "get it". TFADMIN Oh, yes, major sarcasm. A real failing of mine, I'm afraid!  |
|
BillyBob
TF Full Timer
The Legendary BB![/B]
Posts: 89
|
Post by BillyBob on Mar 25, 2005 8:17:21 GMT -6
.But I see now he is just being cruel and wants her to die. I'm trully sorry for the parents of Terri and she is always in my prayers, but the government needs to get out of peoples private lives. I know I'm going to get slammed for taking this stance but that is my opinion. that is what I love about this forum we can agree to disagree. Well, I hope your not going to get slammed just for saying that, but I do have somewhat of a different opinion. Someone just said on TV that the husband didn't come forward with this revelation about Terri's wish to die for 7 years after her injury, and of course, AFTER the malpractice lawsuit money was won. Now IF this man, who has been living with another lady for 10 years having two children with her is NOT TELLING THE TRUTH about her wishes, then what? Does every husband in the world automatically have his wife's best interests in mind, and not his own? Or does every wife only have selfless concern for her husband, and not herself? Is it reasonably possible that this guy has an ulterior (sp?) motive for wanting Terry to die? There seem to have been a lot of witnesses ( nurses, etc. ) who have cast a lot of doubt on his motives. Unless it is clear (by some means other than the testimony of a "husband" who has been common law married to another woman and making children for 10 years) that Terry wants to die, shouldn't we err on the side of life before we refuse this poor soul FOOD AND WATER, for goodness sake?  And if the state refuses to protect Terry's civil right to life, are we going to say that the Fed's shouldn't step in? The same Fed's that we allow to tell us where and when a teacher employed by the state will BE ALLOWED TO pray? Old what's his name ( Killen? appropriate if he is guilty ) murdered the black and two Jews in MS in what, 64?, and I believe the Fed's have been known to get involved in those types of cases on a denial of civil rights basis. It seems to me that IF this guy is lying about Terry's wish to die, that would be murder, would it not? And the judge would be participating in this murder. This is as good a time as any other for the Feds to intervene because the State of Fla. refuses to protect Terry's civil right to life as spelled out in the constitution and Declaration of Independence. Life, liberty and pursuit of happiness, right? Now maybe we can argue ( I do all of the time ) that the Feds should stay out of the state's business and limit themselves to what the Constitution allowed them. But the starvation of this innocent woman hardly seems a good case to start with to me, considering the Feds already dominate every aspect of our lives, and we are in fact very close to the slaves of Federal judges, IMO. When a state with the vast majority of professing Christians ( ALA) who knowingly ELECTED a Chief Justice of state court who was very up front about his Christianity, could he place a monument to the laws in the Ten Commandments in the STATE court house? NO! And who told him he couldn't? A FEDERAL JUDGE! I suppose, however, had he simply been ordering the death penalty by starvation for someone not even convicted of a crime, we would claim that the FEDs should butt out? So please don't consider that a slam, I have full respect for your opinion and am glad to be able to read it. But mine is somewhat different.  And on a separate subject, is the "husband" here not guilty of Polygamy, which is illegal in all states? If he has been with a woman for 10 years and had 2 kids with her, does that not make this other woman his common law wife? So he has two wives? Should that not throw some doubt on his legal right to speak for the first wife? Is there no one to step forward for Terry and file for divorce or anulment on the grounds that Terry once told them 15 years ago, one night at a ball game, that she would never want to be married to a man who was living with and having children with another woman? |
|
|
|
Post by granny2young on Mar 25, 2005 8:25:02 GMT -6
If this were "life support" I would probably feel differently, but this is basic food and water to sustain life, not a machine. Family members are being arrested and removed from her dying bedside for trying to give her ice chips. That is insane and legal murder. I couldn't understand the whole $1 million thing being turned down, until I found out that good ole boy Micheal stands to gain $10 million upon her death. You would think the private insurance with the $10 million would have their own dogs in this fight.
There have been over 33 medical professionals giving opinion to the family that this lady could be rehabilitated with certain therapies. I don't know about you, but if it were my loved one I would want to at least try everything available. Michael would not even allow the nurses to do therapy on her hands to keep them from curling. Legal murder for money. Her husband might as well be a hit man for hire. This is about money.
As far as the courts being involved, yesterday I was screaming YES, by all means her parents were correct in going all the way to the top, even to the president to keep their daughter alive. I don't think anyone deserves to be starved. None of us hopefully will ever know what dying of thirst and hunger would feel like, but this morning as my husband and I laid in bed upon awakening and watching the news coverage we started talking about our wishes, and he proposed a scenerio that may have changed my mind on the court's involvement. He used the example of my own beloved child. What if congress passed this law to save Terri and took the decision from her husband. I said that would be great and should be done, not only for Terri, but everyone who deserved to live and needed food and water, and he said that if it were my daughter who had been injured, and she had little or no insurance coverage and someone from DHS making a mere $20K a year salary came to her bedside and said the government is not going to keep her alive and pulled her plug without my consent because of Terri's law. If the court's do get involved, this would be reality, so now I am in limbo on the court's involvement. Do we really want to lose our freedom and allow the government to make the life and death decisions of our loved ones?
Now, having had that scenerio put to me, I really don't think I like the idea of the government being allowed to make the decision, but I do feel passionate that something should be done to feed Terri Shaivo. At this point, I think the attorney for her parents are barking up the wrong tree, so to speak. They have attacked and tried to change the law, which the law will probably stand, and rightfully so, based on the example above. No one wants to lose that power and have it placed in the hands of a government official. Her parents should attack the husband himself in court. There have been accusations of abuse and accusations of him injecting her with insulin to kill her. She had a skull fracture when she first collapsed, among other allegations of abuse. He has already gained $1 million off a medical malpractice lawsuit and a lot more money to be gained, but only if he can successfully kill her. Her parents should have been fighting for custody (guardianship) of their daughter and not to change the law. They could succesfully do this by proving abuse, neglect of rehab, therapy, and medical treatment, money-seeking behavior, abandonment (having a common-law wife and kids), and possible attempted murder (injecting her with lethal insulin) and get the husband completely out of the picture, but I fear that is all too late now. My prayers are certainly with these parents having to watch their daughter starve.
|
|
BillyBob
TF Full Timer
The Legendary BB![/B]
Posts: 89
|
Post by BillyBob on Mar 25, 2005 8:39:38 GMT -6
Granny, I would feel different also if machines were involved with a brain dead person who can not even respond to pain. That is hardly the case here. In fact, to the other murderous extreme, how does this judge or M. Shivo get away with ordering no one be allowed to give her food or water by mouth!!!!!!! That is what they are calling life support!!! Maybe the husband heard Terry say "Please, if I'm ever in a bad way, don't allow anyone to keep me alive artificially by putting any food or water in my mouth? ?? And watch out, Granny! How can we now refuse to let anyone to say of any relative who has been in a nursing home for years and is unable to speak for themselves, " You know, I just remembered, old Granny told me one night 10 years ago that if she ever got in a bad way, please take away the food and water". So not only pull the feeding tube, but don't even try to give her water by mouth. She wouldn't have wanted that water! So hasta la vista, Granny! |
|
