KRC Posted March 21, 2005 Share Posted March 21, 2005 As far as the autopsy goes and the "dispute" I think that's being pushed without evidnece. If there was any eveidnece he would've been charged with a crime. 281687[/snapback] That is the point of doing the autopsy. To see if he had anything to do with it, which is the rumor. It is part of a complete investigation, which the husband wants to purposely avoid. What is he hiding? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Losman-McGahee-Evans Posted March 21, 2005 Share Posted March 21, 2005 By God if yu're a Republican, then I'm a socialist. 281681[/snapback] So you're French? I know you don't remember what an actual Republican believes in anymore but I do. No true Republican would allow state's rights to be to trampled upon by such strong-arm unconstitutional act by the federal government. This is exaclty what a REAL Republican would never, EVER allow. Only now that my party is being led radical Christian zealots is this possible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Losman-McGahee-Evans Posted March 21, 2005 Share Posted March 21, 2005 That is the point of doing the autopsy. To see if he had anything to do with it, which is the rumor. It is part of a complete investigation, which the husband wants to purposely avoid. What is he hiding? 281693[/snapback] I think you're making an assumption that he is hiding anything. Simply because you or I do not understand his actions does not allow us to assume guilt. Do you have a link where he says he has refused an autopsy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bishop Hedd Posted March 21, 2005 Share Posted March 21, 2005 Answer my question. 281689[/snapback] It's so ludicrous I don't know where to start. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VABills Posted March 21, 2005 Share Posted March 21, 2005 It is 100% accurate AND true. The 2.5 million dollar judgement would NEVER be awared if Bush gets his way and establishes malpractice caps therefore the costs to keep her alive would be the family's responsibility. They would also not be allowed to declare bankruptcy once those bills got out of control. 281685[/snapback] Way to change your argument midstream. This was not an arguement on malpractice, but on "Medicap" reduction. That had no bearing on this case, but go ahead and change arguements. How do you know what the limits will be? They are not limited damages, but again, let's ignore facts. They are only going to reduce the amount of pain and suffering. Again those limits have no bearing as from what I can tell the only award for for Terrys future care. As far as here husband he has been denying and trying to prevent medical care from the beginning. In addition, there was some questions raised about whether he choked her or even the evidence of the bone bruises around the skull when she first fell into the condition. Then he wants the body cremated as soon as she dies. Finally, he only one time ever offered to give up the award and that was if it went to a specific fund that his best friend runs. He gave the parents 10 days back in 98 to agree or the offer would be recinded. They of course said no. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Losman-McGahee-Evans Posted March 21, 2005 Share Posted March 21, 2005 So, as soon as he received a boatload of money, he suddenly changed his mind and went against everything he fought so hard for? How about allowing an autopsy, since there is still some dispute over how she got into this condition? 281682[/snapback] You're above comment is entirely untrue : ==== As case draws out, cash dries up for Terri Schiavo's care As the battle over Terri Schiavo's life rages in the courtrooms and halls of government, the 41-year-old brain-damaged woman lies in a hospice bed, dependent on Florida taxpayers and charity for her care. The $1 million received by her and her husband, Michael, in a medical malpractice case in 1993 is nearly gone, attorneys say, spent on her care and the husband's legal quest during the past seven years to stop her artificial feedings so she can die. ... Terri Schiavo lives at the Woodside Hospice, part of a not-for-profit hospice network in Florida, among terminally ill patients. She is permitted to stay there for free because she is considered indigent, Bushnell said. Patients who can afford it pay about $80,000 a year to stay at the hospice. Citing privacy laws, hospice spokeswoman Louise Cleary would not answer questions about the Schiavo case but said, "We never turn anyone away. If they need our care, we take care of them." Terri Schiavo's medical costs, which Bushnell says are relatively small, have been paid for the past couple of years by the state's Medicaid program for needy people. http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/local/flo...la-news-florida The money has run out per this article. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VABills Posted March 21, 2005 Share Posted March 21, 2005 Also let's ignore that Florida has numerous laws against Euthenasia. Here is one but there are plenty more. The judges there are playing loose with the laws and constitution. They are making laws from the bench. http://flsenate.gov/Statutes/index.cfm?App...t;Section%20309 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted March 21, 2005 Share Posted March 21, 2005 So you're French? I know you don't remember what an actual Republican believes in anymore but I do. No true Republican would allow state's rights to be to trampled upon by such strong-arm unconstitutional act by the federal government. This is exaclty what a REAL Republican would never, EVER allow. Only now that my party is being led radical Christian zealots is this possible. 281694[/snapback] I'm a Libertarian, pal, but I believe that NO government has the right to step in and say that someone MUST remove a feeding tube from a vegetable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VABills Posted March 21, 2005 Share Posted March 21, 2005 You're above comment is entirely untrue : ==== As case draws out, cash dries up for Terri Schiavo's care As the battle over Terri Schiavo's life rages in the courtrooms and halls of government, the 41-year-old brain-damaged woman lies in a hospice bed, dependent on Florida taxpayers and charity for her care. The $1 million received by her and her husband, Michael, in a medical malpractice case in 1993 is nearly gone, attorneys say, spent on her care and the husband's legal quest during the past seven years to stop her artificial feedings so she can die. ... Terri Schiavo lives at the Woodside Hospice, part of a not-for-profit hospice network in Florida, among terminally ill patients. She is permitted to stay there for free because she is considered indigent, Bushnell said. Patients who can afford it pay about $80,000 a year to stay at the hospice. Citing privacy laws, hospice spokeswoman Louise Cleary would not answer questions about the Schiavo case but said, "We never turn anyone away. If they need our care, we take care of them." Terri Schiavo's medical costs, which Bushnell says are relatively small, have been paid for the past couple of years by the state's Medicaid program for needy people. http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/local/flo...la-news-florida The money has run out per this article. 281702[/snapback] The money was for her care, not for him to pay lawyers. Secondly, while they say the awrd was 1 million it was really 2.5. There is still a lot of money left and he wants it for himself, and his new squeeze, until he is tired of her. Then who knows, maybe she'll be in the same situation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted March 21, 2005 Share Posted March 21, 2005 You're above comment is entirely untrue : ==== As case draws out, cash dries up for Terri Schiavo's care As the battle over Terri Schiavo's life rages in the courtrooms and halls of government, the 41-year-old brain-damaged woman lies in a hospice bed, dependent on Florida taxpayers and charity for her care. The $1 million received by her and her husband, Michael, in a medical malpractice case in 1993 is nearly gone, attorneys say, spent on her care and the husband's legal quest during the past seven years to stop her artificial feedings so she can die. ... Terri Schiavo lives at the Woodside Hospice, part of a not-for-profit hospice network in Florida, among terminally ill patients. She is permitted to stay there for free because she is considered indigent, Bushnell said. Patients who can afford it pay about $80,000 a year to stay at the hospice. Citing privacy laws, hospice spokeswoman Louise Cleary would not answer questions about the Schiavo case but said, "We never turn anyone away. If they need our care, we take care of them." Terri Schiavo's medical costs, which Bushnell says are relatively small, have been paid for the past couple of years by the state's Medicaid program for needy people. http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/local/flo...la-news-florida The money has run out per this article. 281702[/snapback] Yes, but when she DIES, he stands to collect another million. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted March 21, 2005 Share Posted March 21, 2005 It's so ludicrous I don't know where to start. 281698[/snapback] Really? I think it's a pretty easy question. The crux of your argument is that this woman is unable to feed herself, therefore she should be allowed to starve to death. Well, retarded peopel can't feed themselves. So should families that have retarded individuals in the family tree be allowed to starve their retarded realatives to death? Answer the question. Impart your wisdom upon us, the ignorami. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Losman-McGahee-Evans Posted March 21, 2005 Share Posted March 21, 2005 Yes, but when she DIES, he stands to collect another million. 281710[/snapback] He's recentlly offered to forgoe that. Next? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Losman-McGahee-Evans Posted March 21, 2005 Share Posted March 21, 2005 The money was for her care, not for him to pay lawyers. Secondly, while they say the awrd was 1 million it was really 2.5. There is still a lot of money left and he wants it for himself, and his new squeeze, until he is tired of her. Then who knows, maybe she'll be in the same situation. 281708[/snapback] Link? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted March 21, 2005 Share Posted March 21, 2005 He's recentlly offered to forgoe that. Next? 281714[/snapback] See KRC's response to that little tidbit. The money would have gone to a fund run by the guy's best friend. Think it would have stayed there forever? Doubt it. Next? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Campy Posted March 21, 2005 Share Posted March 21, 2005 This has obviously dragged on longer than it should have and it is disgusting how the politicians are grandstanding over this. 281669[/snapback] Agreed. Another issue that is particularly disturbing to me is that Congress is now in the business of intervening on familial issues. IMO, it should be argued and settled in the courts. Congress' involvement is an abuse of their powers and unconstitutional. My political affilliation (or truth be told, lack thereof) notwithstanding, I find this entire thing vile and disgusting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KRC Posted March 21, 2005 Share Posted March 21, 2005 I think you're making an assumption that he is hiding anything. Simply because you or I do not understand his actions does not allow us to assume guilt. Do you have a link where he says he has refused an autopsy? 281697[/snapback] He has stated over and over that he wants the body immediately cremated when she passes. There is an allegation of abuse, and it is only prudent to investigate the matter fully. There was never an investigation into the alleged abuse the night she collapsed. Don't you think there should be an investigation? Hell, the guy wasn't even there when they removed the tube. He was too "busy" with other things. You would think that he would want to be there when they removed it. Hospitals go out of their way to schedule these things so that the family can be present. I guess it was too much of a bother. As far as Terri's "wish" to die, her husband seems to be changing his tune of late. In an interview on CNN (Larry King Show on Friday), he stated the following, "But this is not about [the parents], it's about Terri. And I've also said that in court. We didn't know what Terri wanted, but this is what we want..." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VABills Posted March 21, 2005 Share Posted March 21, 2005 Link? 281715[/snapback] http://www.terrisfight.org/timeline.html 1992 Aug - Terri awarded $250,000 in malpractice settlement. Nov - Terri awarded $1.4 million in malpractice trial. Nov - Michael Schiavo awarded $600,000 in malpractice trial. Sorry it was 2.25 million total, not 2.5. Also, there is the million dollar life insurance policy that he will collect upon her death. In addtion the only money he offered to forgo was his 600K from the pain and suffering portion. And yes he has spent nearly 300K on Terri's earlier treatment, but about 700K has been spent trying to kill her in the courts. He still has 1.25 or so, plus the other million coming. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted March 21, 2005 Share Posted March 21, 2005 Agreed. Another issue that is particularly disturbing to me is that Congress is now in the business of intervening on familial issues. IMO, it should be argued and settled in the courts. Congress' involvement is an abuse of their powers and unconstitutional. My political affilliation (or truth be told, lack thereof) notwithstanding, I find this entire thing vile and disgusting. 281720[/snapback] You find it vile and disgusting that someone would want to protect an innocent life? I'd be willing to bet that if there was someone on death row that you thought was "innocent" that you'd be howling for congress to intervene. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VABills Posted March 21, 2005 Share Posted March 21, 2005 He's recentlly offered to forgoe that. Next? 281714[/snapback] In my earlier reponse. It wasn't recent it was in 1998 and it wasonly his 600K from the pain and suffering not the rest of the 2.25 million. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Losman-McGahee-Evans Posted March 21, 2005 Share Posted March 21, 2005 Agreed. Another issue that is particularly disturbing to me is that Congress is now in the business of intervening on familial issues. IMO, it should be argued and settled in the courts. Congress' involvement is an abuse of their powers and unconstitutional. My political affilliation (or truth be told, lack thereof) notwithstanding, I find this entire thing vile and disgusting. 281720[/snapback] How about the Republican memo that was distributed to Republican senators by party leaders that called the case a "great political issue" and a "tough issue for Democrats," per the WaPost. It said the case would excite the party's anti-abortion base and put pressure on Sen. Bill Nelson, a Florida Democrat who faces re-election next year." This is just more political grandstanding on the Republicans' part and it sickens me. We used to be much better than this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts