The facts about the Schiavo case:

[brainshrub]

This is the post I accidentaly put in the sticky pointing to this subforum. (Doh! Sorry about that Warlady.)


After reading much on this issue, I found a site that gives the straight facts on the Shiavo case. I was confused about the whole situation: Does Terri answer questions? Does she know what is going on? Have the courts examined extenuating circumstances? Does Mr. Shiavo profit from her death? Did Terri ever get good treatment? (Ect, ect, ect.)

I used the FC search feature to see if this link has been posted before and I didn't find it, but I apologize if this is a dupe.

It was extremely difficult to choose one or two paragraphs to post here, the entire site is so chock-full of information. There is a complete time line with links and the most exhaustive (and honest) FAQ on this case I've seen so far.

....
From http://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/infopage.html :

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.

What about the video clips that show Terri reacting to her mother?

The court opinions indicate that similar videos were viewed in their entirety by the trial court, which found that Terri's actions were no more than reflexive and could not be reproduced with any consistency. The Second District affirmed that decision.

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.

...entire FAQ here (http://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/infopage.html)...

###

To answer the comment that Warlady made in my accidental post:

Warlady:
The question is do we starve to death all of our disabled citizens?

A quick reading of the judges decisions on this case would show that is precisely NOT what is at stake here. The courts are trying to decide if Terri would reasonably want to continue treatment. This is not a legal precedent for euthanasia or part of some nefarious Liberal plot to have disabled people killed.

Frankly, our privatized system of health care does a wonderful job denying care to millions of Americans in dire need of physical and mental attention. Corporations do not wait for a person to lack a cerebral cortex to deny life-saving assistance, they simply wait till you run out of money.

Now that conservatives have shown how much they value access to life-saving technology, regardless of mental state or ability to pay, I'm sure they will re-evaluate how health care is currently distributed in this country.

[ThomasIsUnderrated]

Loving "husband" my rear end. "Straight facts" my rear end. And frankly, knowing who is supporting the pro-death side, and the kinds of doctors who testified, I have no reason to believe it is anything but an attempt to turn the "right-to-die" into a right-to-kill

[RuffhouseFarm]

I've read every one of these claims before, and it's all a load prepared and disseminated by Felos.

The easiest to spot and most glaring signpost of the origin of this work is the declarative statement that Terri had a heart attack. She was tested and examined for that during her original stay in the hospital following whatever event put her there. It is absolutely definitively stated that she did not have a heart attack.

[brainshrub]

Loving "husband" my rear end. "Straight facts" my rear end. And frankly, knowing who is supporting the pro-death side, and the kinds of doctors who testified, I have no reason to believe it is anything but an attempt to turn the "right-to-die" into a right-to-kill

Even if the only people who testified were satanic Nazi pirates who see Teri as nothing more than a slab of meat, the court is pretty clear about what this is, and isn't, about.

This is not a precedent for euthanasia. If it was, we would not be having this conversation because euthanasia is illegal in this country. (Ask Kevorkian.)

This is a guardianship case where the courts were asked to decide if Teri would want to continue like this, or allow nature to take it's course. They did not give permission for Teri to commit suicide or give anyone permission to execute her.

I suggest you re-read the article I posted and review the court papers.

[ThomasIsUnderrated]

I suggest you re-read the article I posted and review the court papers.

I suggest you go jump off a bridge. At least then you'll be making the choice.

I've read the article, and I've read court papers. I also know what judges and people of the court were behind those decisions, and I'm well aware of the groups involved in this case, and what their goals are, and the slippery slope they want to lead us all down.

[Rink]

Then why is i those who were on board a group that was tfor Euthanasia so wholly backing this entire effort to kill Terry schiavo then if this isnt an effort to usher in Euthanasia?

man yer willfully blind my friend.

This is a Precedent-setting case thats why these people are working so hard for so long to push this through, because if they get their way they will have pushed into America Euthanasia into America under the radar.

At a time when the people of the state of Oregon voted on a legislation to give people the right of choce on the 'right-to-die' issue, and THAT legislation being voted on and approved was Struck down as being 'Unconstitutiona;' hence these advocates for the 'right-to-die' must push their agenda in another way. once in the door in one state they will import it to other states.

[RuffhouseFarm]

Even if the only people who testified were satanic Nazi pirates who see Teri as nothing more than a slab of meat, the court is pretty clear about what this is, and isn't, about.

This is not a precedent for euthanasia. If it was, we would not be having this conversation because euthanasia is illegal in this country. (Ask Kevorkian.)

This is a guardianship case where the courts were asked to decide if Teri would want to continue like this, or allow nature to take it's course. They did not give permission for Teri to commit suicide or give anyone permission to executed her.

I suggest you re-read the article I posted and review the court papers.

The site is run by an attorny named Matt Conigliaro. Web searches indicate that he is a principal in a law firm that does contract work for Charlies Crist's office. Charlie Crist is the FL attorney general and has refused to investigate Schiavo for abuse or investigate Suncoast. Conigliaro's firm has also done eminent domain work for Crist when the state is sued for taking private property without proper compensation to the real property owner or for cause.

[brainshrub]

I've read every one of these claims before, and it's all a load prepared and disseminated by Felos.

The easiest to spot and most glaring signpost of the origin of this work is the declarative statement that Terri had a heart attack. She was tested and examined for that during her original stay in the hospital following whatever event put her there. It is absolutely definitively stated that she did not have a heart attack.


That directly contradicts these discharge papers from her first hospital stay (http://www.terrisfight.org/documents/Humana%20Discharge%20Summary%20050990.pdf).

Before you accuse me of getting my information from a vast left-wing pro-euthenaia conspiracy: The link that I just posted comes from terrisfight.org. Hardly an organization dedicated to seeing Terri die as quickly as possible.

All information on the abstractappeal.com website about the Shiavo case is about as straight-forward as it comes. Read beyond the first few paragraphs and actually look at the source material.

[brainshrub]

Then why is i those who were on board a group that was tfor Euthanasia so wholly backing this entire effort to kill Terry schiavo then if this isnt an effort to usher in Euthanasia?

man yer willfully blind my friend.

This is a Precedent-setting case thats why these people are working so hard for so long to push this through, because if they get their way they will have pushed into America Euthanasia into America under the radar.

At a time when the people of the state of Oregon voted on a legislation to give people the right of choce on the 'right-to-die' issue, and THAT legislation being voted on and approved was Struck down as being 'Unconstitutiona;' hence these advocates for the 'right-to-die' must push their agenda in another way. once in the door in one state they will import it to other states.

Just because you agree with a court ruling doesn't mean it sets a precedent. I'm sure white supremest message boards support court decisions to curtail illegal immigration, it doesn't mean that our jusdicial system is setting up a precedent to export all immigrants.

Read the actual documents. This is not a euthinasia case, it's a custody battle. Huge difference.

Terri's parents wish it were a euthinasia case because the moment it becomes one they win. This is why the Schindler's have framed the debate the way you have heard it.

[Rink]

Bull and you know it, if it didnt set precedence then why have they been working so hard to push this through for?

[MichaelS]

Bull and you know it, if it didnt set precedence then why have they been working so hard to push this through for?

So, you're absolutely OK with the precedent just set by the U.S. Congress, that the state courts hold no authority and that any single case can now petition Congress for redress?

Heck, they may even bypass the state judiciary altogether since Congress can, and has shown will, throw out any state decision anyway.

[Rink]

Congress put this case in the federal court

Congress isnt ruling over this case, all they did was move it into the federal couts since the Fl State courts see fit to not review Terry schiavo's rights properly, someone else will.

[Rink]

O and one more thing, you liberals are so hot to trot the civil rights being an era that was good for black rights but then again it wouldnt have happened had the federal courts not ruled over the issue now.

Sing the song right dear once more, as today you would be against the black civil rights movement due to your very same arguments here over NOT allowing one woman's constitutional rights to be reviewed in a federal court.

and make no mistake this is a Constitutional rights issue.

[RuffhouseFarm]

That directly contradicts these discharge papers from her first hospital stay (http://www.terrisfight.org/documents/Humana%20Discharge%20Summary%20050990.pdf).

Before you accuse me of getting my information from a vast left-wing pro-euthenaia conspiracy: The link that I just posted comes from terrisfight.org. Hardly an organization dedicated to seeing Terri die as quickly as possible.

All information on the abstractappeal.com website about the Shiavo case is about as straight-forward as it comes. Read beyond the first few paragraphs and actually look at the source material.

I've already seen it. What you left out was the immediate re-appraisal of the hospital test results. Oops.

[MichaelS]

So, any party in a ruling at the state level can legitimately petition Congress to move their case to federal court if they are unhappy with the ruling at the state level, and Congress has now demonstrated a willingness to not only do that but to throw out the case at the state level in its entirety.

Can see it now...Congress is holding an emergency session for the John Doe Traffic Ticket Expungement Act to move his case to the federal court system.

[RuffhouseFarm]

So, any party in a ruling at the state level can legitimately petition Congress to move their case to federal court if they are unhappy with the ruling at the state level, and Congress has now demonstrated a willingness to not only do that but to throw out the case at the state level in its entirety.

Can see it now...Congress is holding an emergency session for the John Doe Traffic Ticket Expungement Act to move his case to the federal court system.

Traffic? Nah, I don't think so. Go read the Fourteenth Amendment.

[brainshrub]

The site is run by an attorny named Matt Conigliaro. Web searches indicate that he is a principal in a law firm that does contract work for Charlies Crist's office. Charlie Crist is the FL attorney general and has refused to investigate Schiavo for abuse or investigate Suncoast. Conigliaro's firm has also done eminent domain work for Crist when the state is sued for taking private property without proper compensation to the real property owner or for cause.

How would Matt Conigilaro would be influenced on the Shiavo case if his firm did contract work for a public attorney's office whose Attorney General has refused to investigate certain aspects on Shiavo's case. (Gah! That was a mouthful; Talk about your 6-degrees of Kevin Bacon!)

Do have any idea how many lawyers in Florida do contract work for the state in some way? From what I've observed here in NC, practically every attorney I've meet has worked for the state in SOME way at one point or another.

Perhaps you could point to a factual comment made about the Shiavo case by Conigilaro on abstractappeal.com that is not based on objective evidence? Perhaps you could post an example on how Conigilaro's posting of objective evidence helps Charlie Crist's career?

[brainshrub]

I've already seen it. What you left out was the immediate re-appraisal of the hospital test results. Oops.

I notice that you don't have them either. (Oops) Probably because every scrap of reliable evidence shows that she did, in fact, have a heart attack.

But we digress.

Could you please read the freaking site already?

[RuffhouseFarm]

How would Matt Conigilaro would be influenced on the Shiavo case if his firm did contract work for a public attorney's office whose Attorney General has refused to investigate certain aspects on Shiavo's case. (Gah! That was a mouthful; Talk about your 6-degrees of Kevin Bacon!)

Do have any idea how many lawyers in Florida do contract work for the state in some way? From what I've observed here in NC, practically every attorney I've meet has worked for the state in SOME way at one point or another.

Perhaps you could point to a factual comment made about the Shiavo case by Conigilaro on abstractappeal.com that is not based on objective evidence? Perhaps you could post an example on how Conigilaro's posting of objective evidence helps Charlie Crist's career?

I imagine there're a lot of lawyers doing contract work for Charlie Crist, and I doubt if any of them want to lose the business. I'm sure it pays off like a slot machine. So what? Just because Abstract doesn't dine alone at the trough doesn't mean he wants to upset his own gravy train. How stupid would that be?

I don't think any of Conigliaro's information is objective, no matter how much he claims it's objective. I think he claims it a little too much, but that's beside the point. His line is the Felos line, same old tune. He spouts refuted findings made by Greer who has a vested interest in the outcome of this case and should have recused himself but didn't as though Greer's findings of fact are irrefutable truths. It's a circular argument, but it boils down to Felos saying it's true because Greer says it's true while dodging the fact that Greer is central to the ethical problems in the case. Abstract just repeats the same line, same bullshit, and uses some of the same phrases Felos has used. He's in the tank.

I've posted information all over the Terri Schiavo forum. Go read it. I'm not going to dig back through it all to show a shrub how Crist's failures have damaged Terri. If you want to know, find it yourself. It's there.

You're not going to change anybody's mind here about this case stinking and that Terri should be given a chance instead of left to starve in a way that we prosecute people for treating a helpless animal and are prohibited under the Eighth Amendment from doing to a convicted murder.

[brainshrub]

Bull and you know it, if it didnt set precedence then why have they been working so hard to push this through for?

No one is "pushing" this through. Mr. Shiavo, after eight years of caring for his wife, asked the courts to come to a reasonable decision as to what Terri herself would want. The judges, based on the evidence, decided that Terri would not want to continue to be kept alive via artificial means and gave a green light to discontinue treatment.

This story is about preventing what Terri would reasonably want, not pushing through something Terri would reasonably not want.

Faced with a sad set of choices, the courts made the best call they could. There is no conspiracy, no hidden agenda and certainly no winners.

Any reasonable person who reads the actual court documents and medical papers would understand there is no skudruggery or precedent here.

[RuffhouseFarm]

BFD. I don't believe for a minute Terri ever said that, but even if she did, so what? A feeding tube wasn't considered "articificial" means at the time she supposedly made the statement, which would had to have been before she suffered her injury in 1990. In 1997 Schiavo's lawyer instigated the law that came to define a gastro tube as "medical equipment" which is the term FL uses for artifical means of sustaining life, such as ventilators. That was passed in late 1999.