 |
| |
|
| |
|
|
MichaeltheGreat
|
|
Apolyton Grand Executioner
|
 |
mooning the house that Ruth built.
Oct 1999
time: 21:18
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Elok
Fair enough. Do we know who does stand to inherit if not the husband, or if there is something to inherit (having read MtG's post)? That's the only thing about it, based on what little I've heard, that really bugs me, that the husband of all people is getting to decide for some reason, despite having clearly moved on. If he has the potential for personal gain he should not have the deciding say in the matter all to himself no matter what state she's in. |
There was about 700 grand from a medical malpractice settlement, plus who knows what if anything else from life insurance policies (not necessarily cancellable if someone keeps paying the premiums on time).
According to the hubbies' side, that's been pissed away in legal fees and some medical costs, according to the parents, he's held back on medical for years and there's money there. I have no idea which is true, and what if any of it has been admissible in all the law and motion stuff that's gone on.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Guynemer
|
|
Yes. To both of your questions.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Capt Dizle
|
|
How long after she became like this before the hubby moved on. I think I read she has been like this for more than 10 years? It is a lot to expect a man or woman to remain alone for a decade or more. My mother had a stroke and my Dad cared for her for 15 years. She wasn't quite herself, but she was. In this case, if she has been in vegetative state, I don't know how I could criticize her husband for moving on. I was proud of my Dad for standing with my mother, but it came at great price. I'd have to avoid judging the guy on this one.
If I were to befall should a thing, I wouldn't want to be maintained in her state; nor would I want a loved one to have make such a sacrifice. I would want them to move on and find happiness.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Bill3000
|
 |
of Soloralism
Jul 1999
time: 00:18
|
|
Does this have to be linked again? 
http://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/infopage.html
quote:
Is Michael really just looking for money?
I have no way to know. I know what the Schindlers say to reporters, but then I know that the Second District's first decision in the case used these words to describe Michael's care for Terri:
Theresa has been blessed with loving parents and a loving husband. Many patients in this condition would have been abandoned by friends and family within the first year. Michael has continued to care for her and to visit her all these years. He has never divorced her. He has become a professional respiratory therapist and works in a nearby hospital. As a guardian, he has always attempted to provide optimum treatment for his wife. He has been a diligent watch guard of Theresa's care, never hesitating to annoy the nursing staff in order to assure that she receives the proper treatment.
Recently, Michael received an offer of $1 million, and perhaps a second offer of $10 million, to walk away from this case and permit Terri's parents to care for her. These offers, assuming there were two, were based on a misunderstanding of the situation here. Michael lacks the power to undo the court order determining Terri's wishes and requiring the removal of her feeding tube. He did not make the decision and cannot unmake it. The court made the decision on Terri's behalf. Nonetheless, Michael apparently rejected each offer. |
quote:
Why did Terri’s husband get to make the decision about whether she should live or die?
Michael Schiavo did not make the decision to discontinue life-prolonging measures for Terri.
As Terri's husband, Michael has been her guardian and her surrogate decision-maker. By 1998, though -- eight years after the trauma that produced Terri's situation -- Michael and Terri's parents disagreed over the proper course for her.
Rather than make the decision himself, Michael followed a procedure permitted by Florida courts by which a surrogate such as Michael can petition a court, asking the court to act as the ward's surrogate and determine what the ward would decide to do. Michael did this, and based on statements Terri made to him and others, he took the position that Terri would not wish to continue life-prolonging measures. The Schindlers took the position that Terri would continue life-prolonging measures. Under this procedure, the trial court becomes the surrogate decision-maker, and that is what happened in this case.
The trial court in this case held a trial on the dispute. Both sides were given opportunities to present their views and the evidence supporting those views. Afterwards, the trial court determined that, even applying the "clear and convincing evidence" standard -- the highest burden of proof used in civil cases -- the evidence showed that Terri would not wish to continue life-prolonging measures. |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
MichaeltheGreat
|
|
Apolyton Grand Executioner
|
|
mooning the house that Ruth built.
Oct 1999
time: 21:18
|
|
Elok - I don't think it's a big deal myself, but obviously her parents and family do. If she's not demonstrably in pain, then I don't see the problem with the hubby giving her back to the parents, getting a divorce and moving on with his life - if I was in his situation, and knew she wasn't conscious and trapped in that body, or in serious pain, I would have done that.
The taxpayers shouldn't be forced to subsidize it, but if the parents want to keep her going, why the hell not?
After my brother's experience with Agent Orange related cancers 11 years ago, I did a living will straight away, so there won't be any doubt as to what to do with me. It's a weird thing to think about at that age (I was 34), but things can happen any time, so I just dealt with it and settled that stuff straight away.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Drake Tungsten
|
 |
Knee deep in alien womyn...
Oct 2001
time: 14:18
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
My take:
Dunno if the stuff about the malpractice settlement having money left that the nominal hubby would inherit is true, but if it is, he has a conflict of interest.
Her intent was never clearly specified, and if it was, sorry she's a bit ****ed up or subject to psych abuse or both, or she wouldn't have bulimia-barfed herself into a near fatal potassium deficiency.
If she's a veg, she ain't suffering, so there's no misery to put her out of.
Hubby's moved on with shack-up g/f and kids. If she wasn't a veg, she'd divorce his ass in a heartbeat and he wouldn't have any say anyhow, so **** him, he can shove off.
If her parents want a pet rock, and they have the means or get donations and the taxpayers don't have to foot the bill, then who cares, let 'em have her and take care of her.
The Bushies and Congress should sod off - it ain't a Federal matter. We're running a 1.2 billion a day deficit and tying up Congress, the President and judicial resouces over this kind of horseshit? Good thing we have Canucks and transplanted Frogs to our north instead of Visigoths, else we'd be truly scrod. |
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:18.
Apolyton Time is 00:18. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
24-03-2005 09:15
|