Some disturbing facts about the Schiavo case:
- After Terri collapsed from unknown causes in 1990, she became profoundly cognitively disabled.
- Michael filed a medical-malpractice lawsuit, during which he said he would care for her for the rest of her life, which, assuming proper care, would be a normal lifespan. He also presented at trial a medical-rehabilitation expert who had developed a plan to provide support for Terri to maximize her ability to respond to her environment.
- A jury awarded $1.3 million in the malpractice case, of which $750,000 was put in trust to pay for the kind of care that Michael promised to provide Terri.
- Michael never kept his promise.
- Within months of the money being deposited in the bank, Michael ordered a do-not-resuscitate order placed on Terri's chart. He has also repeatedly denied her other forms of medical care, such as treatment for infections.
- Once the money was in the bank, according to affidavits filed by nurses under penalty of perjury, Michael ordered that Terri be denied stimulation.
- In the mid 1990s, according to another nurse's affidavit filed under penalty of perjury, Michael was overheard saying things such as, 'When is she going to die,' 'Has she died yet?' and 'When is that bitch going to die?' (This affidavit was only recently filed. Michael has not yet filed a response.)
- Michael dated after the malpractice trial; he is now engaged to be married. He lives with his fiance, with whom he has one child and another on the way. He reportedly plans to marry his fiance as soon as his wife's death is induced.
- Money that was intended to pay for Terri's treatment and rehabilitation has instead gone to lawyers Michael retained to obtain a court order to bring about her death.
- If Terri dies, Michael will inherit what is left of the $750,000 (if any remains) and all other property they owned."
3 comments:
All of these "allegation" and "affadavits" are eaither false or were disproved in court. Do you not see the immorality of bringing them up here as some sort of "proof" of something?
Finding things online and posting them as "evidence" is shameful. Shame on you. This case went to court--repeatedly. I could post "affadavits" claiming OJ's wife killed herself if you want.
The reason that "money has gone to lawyers" is that the Schindlers have waged a relentless and discredited legal war.
The suggestion that Michael Schiavo's "motives" are the issue here because of a settlement is fatuous. People get settlements all the time--it means nothing.
The courts have repeatedly found that he in fact represents his wife's best interest. They've repeatedly found that his representation of her medical condition is accurate. In short, the courts have repeatedly found that he is completely credible.
The Schindlers, on the other hand, have made--and continue to make--outrageous claims regarding their daughter's condition. These claims have been categorically disproved in court, yet they still make them. The Schindlers forced a lengthy legal battle using "expert medical witnesses" who the court found were at best unqualified and at worst lying quacks.
And all throughout this legal farce the Schindlers have waged a relentless smear campaign against their daughter's husband, leading--as they knew it would--to the the widespread conspiracy theories now clogging the nation's airwaves and Internet.
If anyone's credibility should be questioned it's the Schindlers.
Where did I refer to this as "evidence" or "proof" of anything?
Let me remind you that my original post was about my own sense of ambivalence about this case. I was lamenting my own lack of clarity on this issue in contrast to people like you who have their minds absolutely made up. I wonder both at the right-to-diers and the right-to-lifers on this issue. And I have a genuine concern about congressional intervention (point 1 of my original posting.)
In searching for more information I ran across this article linked to by Mickey Kaus of kausfiles. Note that I provide the link to the article so that anyone reading my blog can judge it for themselves.
I do believe that the husband's motives are relevant. The question, again, is who speaks for Terri? You certainly did not hold back in smearing the reputation of the parents without links to any sources, primary or secondary.
Mickey Kaus. I see.
The courts have found--repeatedly--that Michael Schiavo speaks for Terri. Not only is it the law in Florida, but the courts have continually found credible his claim that she wouldn't want to live in her current condition. And frankly I have a hard time seeing how anyone could disagree; who would want to be remembered as a drooling, moaning vegetable with nothing functioning above the brain stem?
As for "smearing the reputation of the parents without links to any sources, primary or secondary"--what I said about them was not my opinion--you simply have to read the decision. They have been repeatedly found NOT credible. Not by me--by the courts. The wording of the decisions are polite because it's a tough issue and their her parents, but the meaning is clear. They had a video tape edited to make it appear to prove that their daughter can track a balloon while the entire video clearly shows she cannot.
I have no idea what Mickey Kaus thinks of them. Has he mentioned that they hired a whiplash doctor who apparently is willing to lie under oath to buttress their claims?
http://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/trialctorder11-02.txt
Post a Comment