Thanks for the spelling correction.  I am guessing you find the point regarding guardians ad litem valid.

Guess again. 

And it was not a spelling correction.  It was a grammar and useage correction. But I am guessing that a person of your reasoning and comprehension skills actually knew that.

Ooops. Now I see it. I should have said “guardians ad litem” and proofread this. My bad.

“I heard the amount is in the millions of dollars”

I have “heard” a lot of things.

“Had there BEEN a living will in ..“

Had there BEEN a living will we would not be having this discussion.  What about you…What if she had a living will and opted for life at any cost?  Could you handle that?

You don’t have to answer becasue it is not relevant.

I’ll answer, and in one of those rare instances, I think I speak for the majority of the members on this site.  It didn’t matter whether Terri wanted to remain on life support or wanted to receive life support.  Such a decision is profoundly personal.  We would have respected her decision either way. 

You’re perceptions are way off base if you believe that the majority of people here favor removing life support in every case regardless of the interests expressed by the individual. 

There was no living will in this case.  When there is no living will, the Florida solution is to hash the matter out in court.  That is what was done. If you don’t like it, stop wasting your energy here and work to change the laws.

Kristen:
As I mentioned in the above post, the monetary award of a million plus has already been depleted. Plus the attempted bribes of $1million and $10million to give up his legal interest have removed the perception of conflict of interest, even if the fund is not depleted.  The only conflict of interest is with her parents who state that even if their daughter expressly state that she wants to die they would not have allowed it. So again I ask, where is the conflict of interest?

Again you have not answered my question on the right to die through active euthanasia. You merely state that the law prevents it. That does not answer the question at all especially since you mention the means in which she dies is unacceptable. You keep complaining about the means she died but yet willing accept the law that prevents active euthanasia. Your protest should be directed at the law that prevents active euthanasia, if your true concern is the means in which she dies, which I suspect is not.

So again I put it to you that both my questions have not been answered.

“It didn’t matter whether Terri wanted to remain on life support or wanted to receive life support.“  I’m sure she appreciates how little she matters to you.  Go back to your video games.

“wasting your energy here and work to change the laws. “
I invested heavily on a personal level seeking to change the course for this one person.  I also continue to invest time and effort in raising the issues surrounding her death to the American consciousness.

Individuals do matter.  Disabled or not.

$1million and $10million - Only the $1 million offer was actually documented.  MS will make much more than that in book and movie deals.

“Your protest should be directed at the law that prevents active euthanasia”  There are already consitutional provisions by state regarding euthenasia.

“So again I ask, where is the conflict of interest?“  I answered that - with documentation in the above post.  I cannot help that your attention span doesn’t allow you process that much information.  Skip all meals and don’t drink anything for a week.  You’ll feel better.

Had there BEEN a living will we would not be having this discussion.  What about you…What if she had a living will and opted for life at any cost?  Could you handle that?

Yes, I believe we could have handled that.  “The truth??  You can’t handled the truth!!.“

Meowy, don’t expect answers to your questions from Kristen.  When I called her on the “me too law school” issue, she lumbered around it and showed her startling ignorance in each post thereafter.  THAT was my answer.

If starvation were a peaceful euphoric way to go more people would participate.  Perhaps now that the Time article is out there will be more suicides by starvation and dehydration

Hmmm you mean “more” than the already many 1000s per year that do? As exactly this happens every single day. While there is no tally for such an action it is well known that patients are taken off of life support everyday, 365 days a year.

My issue is the fact that she was disabled, denied treatment and therapy available to thousands more in worse condition than she, housed in a hospice inappropriately, never received the benefit of the funds that were awarded her for treatment and therapy, never given adequate representation in court, sentenced to a horrible awful ugly death.

Then your issue is BULLSHIT as none of the above is accurate, she is way past merely “disabled”, she had every known therapy performed on her to no avail even including experimental brain surgery, not ALL Hospices are the same, many admit many types of patients & Hospices are generally by far the best place for such patients as far gone as Terri Schiavo, she was given outstanding representation in court, and she was NOT “sentenced” to anything, the court merely “allowed” her wishes to take place over the objections of her Delusional, hateful, macabre parents.

So are you now saying that the Bank and the courts are lying to cover something up?

$700,000 was placed into a Trust Fund FOR Terri with the Bank as Trustee, you claim that is a lie?
Perpetuated by whom and to what end?

ALL records have been meticulously kept by the Bank you say they are lying?

I say BULLSHIT, you swallow the religious Reich propaganda hook line and proverb just like a good little brainless Fundy.

There is nothing anyone here can say no matter how irrefutable that is EVER going to sink into that impenetrable wall of Cognitive Dissonance you have erected around that deluded mind of yours.

You are wrong, the records can not be any plainer, something like 34 Judges have reviewed this case and each and everyone have sided with Michael Schiavo because he is telling the truth with factual & credible evidence to back it up.

The Schindlers have lied continuously, have changed their story several times when ever it suited them.

As for the Schindlers Lawyers, they have been paid all along by the Religious Reich superfund, NOT just the past 3 months that’s pure bullshit.

They have filed something like 25 appeals each costing $20,000 JUST to file, that’s like 1/2 a Million just in court filings alone not a single penny of which the Schindlers had to come up with.
They did this in hopes of winning by attrition, didn’t work because MS lawyer decided to work Pro Bono because he could not stand watching Mr. Schiavo being hung out to dry by zealots with an agenda.
The Schindlers offered MS $700,000 to walk away, money of which was provided to them by Religious Reich lunatics

http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Mar05/Berkowitz0328.htm

Have you ever wondered who is bankrolling the seemingly endless courtroom effort to keep Terri Schiavo’s feeding tube attached?

During the Watergate scandal, investigative reporters Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein were famously advised to “follow the money.“ In the Schiavo case, the money leads to a consortium of conservative foundations, with $2 billion in total assets, that are funding a legal and public relations war of attrition intended to prolong Terri’s life indefinitely in order to further their own faith-based cultural agendas.

http://blog.bioethics.net/2005/03/have-conservatives-bought-bioethics.html

http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Mar05/Hess0328.htm

Like the good little Atheist that I am I use only verifiable data, factual evidence as a basis for opinion therefore I, like everyone else here will OWN you everytime you open your lip, because I can back up everything I say, you however rely on Religious Reich propaganda which mostly consist of bald faced lies and can be proven as such.

Consi is right, if there had been a living will that expressed Terri’s desire to be kept alive at all costs I’d have absolutely no problems with it. If that’s what she wants then that’s what she should get.

In absence of that living will the fact that the courts have agreed, repeatedly, that Michael Schiavo has given enough evidence to support his claim that Terri wouldn’t want to be kept alive in such a state is good enough for me to accept that as true. It’s been tried and retried and the courts have sided with Michael at every turn.

I’ve read the reports from the guardians ad litem including the most recent report filed by Jay Wolfson in December 2003. In it he repudiates the two prevailing perceptions that have come to light:

Of the Schindlers, there has evolved the unfortunate and inaccurate perception that they will “keep Theresa alive at any and all costs� even if that were to result in her limbs being amputated and additional, complex surgical and medical interventions being performed, and even if Theresa had expressly indicated her intention not to be so maintained. During the course of the GAL’s investigation, the Schindlers allow that this is not accurate, and that they never intended to imply a gruesome maintenance of Theresa at all costs.

Of Michael Schiavo, there is the incorrect perception that he has refused to relinquish his guardianship because of financial interests, and more recently, because of allegations that he actually abused Theresa and seeks to hide this. There is no evidence in the record to substantiate any of these perceptions or allegations.

Jay Wolfson didn’t see any conflict of interest on Michael Schiavo’s side in his review of the case and he believed Michael to be acting with sincerity on Terri’s behalf. In the end whatever recommendations made by the guardians ad litem happened to be were rendered moot when the Supreme Court declared the Florida law giving Gov. Bush the right to intervene to be unconstitutional.

Which brings up another point: Is Kristen claiming that the Supreme Court is populated by people who felt Terri Schiavo should die?

The time mag article linked by Kristen, if you click on it sends you to a report on Finance and Investment by Warren Buffet.

Kristen:
Book and movie deals? Have there been any book and movie deals? You seem to be just throwing in imagined conflict of interest. If you claim the imagined book and movie deals is a conflict of interest then similarly one can also claim that the parents could have book and movie deals thus their position is in conflict. So again the question on conflict of interest is not resolved, especially since you now are resorting to your wild imaginations in imputing conflict of interests. And the $1million is more than what is left in the current trust fund.

You listed out documentation of the damages and for sometime I did think there is a possible conflict of interest of the the million dollar bribe. So taking that into account your documentation only shows an alleged conflict of interest at one time in the past but ever since the bribe there is no conflict of interest. So again I ask you where is the conflict of interest.

Again your mention of the constitutional provision does not answer the question. If your position is that because the law states that active euthanasia is not allowed and that is the end of the inquiry, then similarly your position should be because the courts have ruled in favour of removing the tubes, that should be the end of the question.

Cindi I think you are right Kristen is just not answering the question. Remember to deal with such person simply keep asking the question until you get an answer.

Note how when Kristen is unable to answer questions that are directed at her without let up she simple goes to name calling?

Look Kristen, have some integrity and accept that the things you mentioned simply do not support your position. Just say that because your position is that of the “right to life” you are taking a stand that she should not be allowed to kill herself. Rather than trying to feed misinformation to seemingly bolster your position. Come on have some integrity and accept there is no conflict of interest and that you are not really concerned with the means she died and that she was properly represented but you are rejecting the outcome on the principled stand that one should not have the right to take one’s own life. At least such a position is honest even if others may not agree with the position.

Kristen says…

According to an AP story: Who’s paying for her care? Schiavo resides at a nonprofit hospice that has assumed part of the cost of her care. Medicaid pays for the rest.

That would mean Schiavo had her declared indigent at some point.  He no longer bears financial responsibility for her - nor does her jury award for that matter.

Funny, but I just don’t see your reasoning here. Because Michael Schiavo was no longer paying for Terri’s care, he somehow stood to gain something from her death? That makes no sense, and indeed, I’ve usually heard the reverse argument from those of your ideological ilk- that he wanted her dead because he could no longer afford to pay for her. If all he wanted was the money, why wouldn’t he have dropped the issue as soon as she was no longer his financial responsibility?

Some of you sniveling nitwits just don’t understand—-THIS IS NONE OF OUR BUSINESS.  MAKE SURE YOUR LIVING WILL IS WRITTEN DOWN NOW.  That is the only point of the Terri Schiavo fiasco.

Then your issue is BULLSHIT as none of the above is accurate, she is way past merely “disabledâ€?, she had every known therapy performed on her to no avail even including experimental brain surgery, not ALL Hospices are the same, many admit many types of patients & Hospices are generally by far the best place for such patients as far gone as Terri Schiavo, she was given outstanding representation in court, and she was NOT “sentencedâ€? to anything, the court merely “allowedâ€? her wishes to take place over the objections of her Delusional, hateful, macabre parents.“

“Like the good little Atheist that I am I use only verifiable data, factual evidence as a basis for opinion .“

Sure you do.

Sorry about the Time magazine - thought I had it right.  Google it. It’s not hard and the quotation is correct.

Sorry about guardians at litem as you put it.

I never claimed to be queen of the minutiae.

“I’ve read the reports from the guardians ad litem”
I’m glad you spelled it right.  It wreaks havoc on understanding the issue if you don’t

The bottom line finding of both of these people who were the closest thing to legal representation Terri Schiavo had was for further testing of treatments and therapies and investigation into her wishes.

“Funny, but I just don’t see your reasoning here.“

Can’t help you.  A disabled individual is awarded over a million dollars in damages for treatment and therapy.  The guardian of that individual has her declared indigent and uses over $350,000 (documented - court record)of that award litigating her death by starvation and dehydration.  There is no documentation of her receiving normal treatment and therapies after 1993 - the year funds were awarded.

“At least such a position is honest”

You don’t like my opinion/position because it doesn’t fit your definition of the issue as it was fed to you by the media. 

I have not been dishonest. I have been most honest.

“THIS IS NONE OF OUR BUSINESS.“

Then go home.  The “none of our business” routine has been applied to many social issues of our time and then it finally becomes your business.  If you don’t accept it at such then roll with the tide and hush.

“Which brings up another point: Is Kristen claiming that the Supreme Court is populated by people who felt Terri Schiavo should die?“

How on earth did you get to that?  What complete and utter logical misdirection.  You might as well ask, “Does this mean Kristen supposes the disabled are to receive daily lattes?“

Stay on a logical course.

“Religious Reich”

Ok - you don’t provide documentation but OK - It was the Schindlers and the Religious Reich vs. M Schiavo and the ACLU (documented on the ACLU website).  Big deal.  Two well funded campaigns (though my opinion is that the Schindler campaign was blundering).  Terri Schiavo lost anyway.

It’s striking to me that at one time a jury found that Terri Schiavo would benefit from and desired treatment and therapy and so awarded her 1.4 million dollars.

Then what, four years later she changes her mind?

Can’t help you.  A disabled individual is awarded over a million dollars in damages for treatment and therapy.  The guardian of that individual has her declared indigent and uses over $350,000 (documented - court record)of that award litigating her death by starvation and dehydration.  There is no documentation of her receiving normal treatment and therapies after 1993 - the year funds were awarded

As usual bald faced LIES.

Any money awarded the lawyers was simply the lawyers legal fees for winning the case dumbass, and you graduated from what law school? Liberty University? LOL

Michael Schiavo received approx. $300,000 after fees and before taxes.
Terri received approx. $750,000 after fees and in her case no taxes levied.
EVERY penny of that $750,000 was placed into a trust fund for Terri with the bank as Trustee approx. $30-$40,000 remain today after 12 years time.

More than $750,000 in economic damages for Theresa, and a loss of consortium award (non economic damages) of $300,000 to Michael. The court established a trust fund for Theresa’s financial award, with SouthTrust Bank as the Guardian and an independent trustee. This fund was meticulously managed and accounted for and Michael Schiavo had no control over its use. There is no evidence in the record of the trust administration documents of any mismanagement of Theresa’s estate, and the records on this matter are excellently maintained.

This is what the court records show, not the lie you are spewing from the Religious Reich.

She received excellent therapy and treatment all the way up until at least 1998 which is when the doctors finally convinced Mr. Schiavo there was really no hope, or that is finally when he gave up actually, the doctors had been telling him this all along, he refused to give up on her, this is when he petitioned to have the feeding tube removed.
There isn’t any doubt about any of this except by those like yourself that are incapable of facing the facts

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

The ACLU only came in to help once Jeb Bush overstepped his authority and dreamed up some unconstitutional bill to interfere. The ACLU’s actions were against the State of Florida and the US Congress which also overstepped their authority. They filed against Jeb Bush on behalf of Michael Schiavo of whom his lawyers have been working Pro Bono for like 3 years.
Get a grip.

Wow Kristen, that was an amazing nonuple dip.

Can’t help you.  A disabled individual is awarded over a million dollars in damages for treatment and therapy.  The guardian of that individual has her declared indigent and uses over $350,000 (documented - court record)of that award litigating her death by starvation and dehydration.  There is no documentation of her receiving normal treatment and therapies after 1993 - the year funds were awarded.

The reason I can’t understand your logic isn’t due to any diminished capacity on my part; it’s because, as this quote shows, your “logic” is completely circular. You are claiming that Michael Schiavo must have had a conflict of interest in deciding his wife’s fate, based on the fact that he made a decision with which you disagree. The evidence you provided only looks suspicious if you assume that Schiavo wasn’t genuinely trying to enforce his wife’s wishes. Moreover, as has been repeatedly shown here, you’re as wrong on the facts themselves as you are in your interpretation of them. 350K of the settlement award was to Michael Schiavo, not Terri, so it was his to use however he wished; it is misleading for you to claim that this money was meant for Terri’s rehabilitation. Moreover, the money was not awarded based on any assumption of Terri’s wishes or of her chance for rehabilitation (although some of it was earmarked, and subsequently used, for this purpose). The settlement was awarded for damages due to Terri’s obstetricians’ failure to diagnose her eating disorder. In the months before Terri collapsed, she had been seeing a fertility doctor, as she and Michael wanted to have children. The doctor failed to take a complete medical history, and as such did not notice Terri’s eating disorder. This is the sole reason that the money was awarded. This little tidbit also would seem to belie the persistant claim that Terri desperately wanted out of the marriage.

“As usual bald faced LIES.“
The record of expenditures is pretty well documented among most of media and accepted as truth.

Sixth Judicial Circuit Judge George W. Greer of Pinellas and Pasco Counties, the probate court judge who has sat on the case since the outset, gave his approval for Schiavo to use the trust fund to pay legal fees.  At the guardian’s request, Greer ordered that all financial billings be sealed.  However, payments from the fund are public record.

“She received excellent therapy and treatment all the way up until at least 1998” 
What source do you document this with?

Are Jesse Jackson, Ted Kennedy, The Village Voice and Ralph Nader part of the Religious Reich?  A conspiracy perhaps?  They, too, question the fate of Terri Schiavo.

I could give a flying fuck what bozos question Mrs. Schiavo’s fate to further their political agenda’s.
Completely moot, only opinions that matter are what Terri’s wishes were prior to her accident, what her Husbands wishes are pertaining to his wife, The End.

The court upheld the law.

and for a Republican Christian Judge I must say I’m very impressed with Judge Greers fortitude against raving lunatics.