Terri Schiavo (Page 4)

lynda - 2005-03-28 5:28 PM
Folks, I'd actually gain more by keeping my husband around in a vegetative state for 15 years since he will be due a fairly substantial military retirement once he retires. My rough math seems to show that he'd get over $1 million in 15 years vs his current life insurance.

With respect to communion, Terri is, in fact, alive. That is what the debate is all about.

I'm glad her husband allowed her to receive communion; I'm not particularly religious but I'm sure God wouldn't bust her for receiving it in these circumstances.

As I said earlier, I don't debate the legality or the morality of removing the feeding tube; I remain uncomfortable with relying on hearsay from a witness whose subsequent life has raised doubts about his impartiality in this case.

lynda - 2005-03-28 8:36 PM

Chucky, you may have misinterpreted my remarks. You're probably quite young. If not, I apologize. You sound like it. I think I was criticised earlier in this thread so I did some back of the envelope rough math. I was merely demonstrating that I wouldn't financially gain from removing my husband's feeding tube. It really wasn't hard. $6K a month X 12 X15.
I'm not exactly sure how that equates to me being a cold-hearted bitch.

If you haven't planned for your estate, I suggest you do so at the earliest opportunity. If you have no idea how life insurance/pension/SSA fits into your future, I suggest you figure it out.

Rather than attacking me personally, please attack my point. I'm uncomfortable with Terri's husband's seemingly conflict of interest in this case. I'd feel much more comfortable if Terri were seperately represented at her first trial. She wasn't. End of story.

So without further adieu, I'll head back over to the tri talk thread.

P.S. Just reread Chucky's post. How dare you, sir. I could write a lot more, but I'll leave it at that. Truck-driver, much?

OldAg92 - 2005-03-28 8:03 PM

Geez.  It was not a half-truth when it was posted.  At the time it was posted that he refused to allow communion, that was a 100% true fact.  Two days later he changed his mind, for whatever reason.  That does not make the facts on Friday "half-truths" when they were posted on Friday.

sharonnagy5 - 2005-03-29 7:09 AM

He most likely changed his mind because he would REALLY look bad in the eyes of his family, the public, etc...if he denied her communion AGAIN. Although, narcissists typically don't care what others think. And he falls into that narcissist category if you ask me. I hesitate to judge someone just by viewing news coverage, because we don't know all the specifics...

but..... when it looks like a snake...and crawls like a snake....

you see where I'm going here. :=)

sharonnagy5 - 2005-03-29 8:32 AM

Three things that I concluded by following this story:

1) Have a living will, and make doubly sure that the person you leave in charge of things, is the RIGHT person.

2) When in doubt, err on the side of life. (I'm pro life, but this re-enforced my opinion on this.)

3) BE CAREFUL WHO YOU MARRY. (this is probably thee most imporant one of them all!!)

sharonnagy5 - 2005-03-29 10:09 AM  I hesitate to judge someone just by viewing news coverage, because we don't know all the specifics... but..... when it looks like a snake...and crawls like a snake.... you see where I'm going here. :=)

ASA22 - 2005-03-29 10:43 AM

Sharonnagy5: "...narcissists typically don't care what others think/ And he falls into that narcissist category if you ask me..."

Where does that come from? Why are you so absolutely sure that he is wrong. Why are you so absolutely sure that he has done something wrong? Why are you so absolutely sure that he is trying to do something other than carrying out his wifes wishes? How is that the pro-life movement is so absolutely sure that Michael Shciavo is wrong and the Shindlers are right? Has it ever occurred to you that maybe, just maybe the Schindlers are wrong. That their fighting against what their daughter would want? Of course not, because the pro-life movement has determined that this is a pro-life issue, as opposed to an end-of-life issue, and because of that the only testimony that matters is whatever testimony supports that possition, regardless of its source or its veracity. And any person or testimony that is contrary to that possition is wrong (Or narcissistic)

Narcissistic...the Shcindlers have been the ones that have been parading themselves infront of the cameras at every possible opportunity, not Michael. It's the Schindlers that have argued for the rule of law to be over turned in this case without regards to the legal principles that have been followed in end-of-life issues for over 30 years. It's the Shindlers that have insisted that their daughter does not suffer from a persistent vegetative state in spite of the sworn testimony of 7 neurologists to the contrary. 5 of those neurologists being neutral court appointed neurologists. It's the Shindlers that are claiming that their daughter is not in a perminent vegetative state based on the testimony of a doctor that they hired. That's right folks the only doctor in any court proceeding that ever testified that Terri was not in a persistent vegitative state was the doctor hand picked by the Schindlers! It's the Schindlers that are ignoring the CAT scan evidence that shows that Terri's cerebral cortex is liquified to the point that there is no cognitive abilities possible. It's the friends and family of the Shcindlers that say that Michael didnt' care for his wife while she was in a nursing home. While neutral third parties, like the court appointed Gaurdain Ad litem, and the reporter for the St. Pete Times that has been covering this story for years, both indicated that Michael was very attentative to Terri's needs to the point that he was unreasonably demanding on the nursing staff regarding what he wanted done for Terri. It's the Schindlers that are now claiming that after being in a persistent vegetative state for over 15 years, and despite the fact that Terri's higher cognitive brain areas are totally destroyed(remember brain tissue does not regenerate, unlike other tissues in the body, once it's gone it's gone), despite all of this they claim, that Terri spoke, and not only did she speak she said..."I want to" when they asked her if she wanted to live. Oddly the only people around when this occurred where the Shcindlers and their hand picked religious mouth piece. No neutral party has ever heard Terri speak. And a court appointed neurologist has indicated in sworn testimony that it would be imposible for Terri to speak given the severity of her brain trauma.

But none of the neutral testimony matters to the pro-life movement. To the pro-life movement the only thing that matters, and the only thing that could possibly be the truth is what the Schindlers say. To the pro-life movement Michael is evil or a narcissist. Judge Greer is an idiot. Judge Whitemore has ignored Congress. And the U.S. Supreme Court are cowards.

I feel for these people. Having a child die before you is not natural, its not the way things are supposed to happen. But to call Michael a narcassist is ridiculous.