Blogcritics: Comments on Terri Schiavo: What's a Parent to Do?

Comment by gerri

Tue, 22 Mar 2005 22:34:41 EST

the only sure thing,here,is when it's all over for terri,if michael has any after doubts(it's too late to change the outcome.but since i believe he's has no conscience(he has proven that with his chosen form of death)he won't have any regrets..he belongs in the same class of "evil".that ..(o.j )scott peterson)robert blake)the most well known wife killers(the only difference ,they did it quickly.and only one was convicted..

Comment by Temple Stark

Tue, 22 Mar 2005 13:26:26 EST

vic, you wouldn't believe how much you and I agree on your point there. Of course, I have been sucked in at times, but not in a full post, but in comments - responding to those who sees only black and white - or pretend to, anyway.

Comment by bhw

Tue, 22 Mar 2005 12:48:27 EST

Richard, the only thing that's firm in my head is that once someone is married, the spouse needs to be the legal guardian. We all grow up and our parents have to let us go do that. The family we choose trumps the family we were born into. We all have the right to determine our lives that way. In a perfect world, families would all agree about what to do in these cases. But that's not how it goes....

Comment by Screen Rant

Tue, 22 Mar 2005 12:40:41 EST

Temple Stark, I enjoy reading your comments, but unfortunately it's people like Shark that make me visit this site MUCH less frequently than I used to. There's a difference between posting cogent, well reasoned arguments and hateful "everything is black and white or dems good/reps evil" diatribes. The hate really just jumps off the page with some of these people's comments and I don't need that in my day. Vic

Comment by Richard Porter

Tue, 22 Mar 2005 12:33:51 EST

bhw Best summed up (for me at least), I don't believe that anyone has the right to take a life, but if someone has to make a decision, it should be her parents. You have your opinion (which also makes sense) and there are several thousand other ones. The bottom line is that it appears to be almost over for her and her parents and you have to wonder if it was too soon.

Comment by bhw

Tue, 22 Mar 2005 12:27:14 EST

Nothin'. 8-) Here's a timeline of the case, updated daily. I agree that the husband's sudden decision that her life wasn't worth living was, at best, poorly timed. At worst .... That's one thing that makes me uncomfortable about him. But the courts and two guardians ad litem [court appointed] have found that he is taking good care of her and shouldn't be removed as her guardian. The case just goes 'round and 'round in my head.

Comment by Richard Porter

Tue, 22 Mar 2005 12:15:48 EST

bhw Not really contradicting you, more so, I am pointing out that the legal fees were incurred a year after the award was given and was used to immediately work towards the removal of her tube. This is not long (again one year) after her husband said at the awards deposition, that he would stay with her, "no matter what" and "in sickness and in health". So what gives exactly?

Comment by bhw

Tue, 22 Mar 2005 12:13:19 EST

Okay, how does that contradict anything that I said? A news story that I read [can't remember which one off the top of my head] said that a few hundred thousand was spent on medical care and a few hundred thousand on legal fees. I'm not inclined to take the word of Terrisfight.org at face value, so the fact that they don't list any medical expenses doesn't mean much to me.

Comment by Richard Porter

Tue, 22 Mar 2005 12:06:50 EST

bhw I hate to be repetitive, but here is a pasted comment listed on my post, WHO GETS TO PLAY GOD WITH TERRI SCHIAVO'S LIFE?: With regard to the legal fees which were used to retain lawyers to have her tube removed (within one year after the award), not to solely pay for previous legal matters involving the award settlement. Here is the accounting of moneys given/transferred and yes, approved and signed off by a judge From terrisfight.org MYTH: Terri's Medical Trust fund has been used to care for her. FACT: The following expenditures have been paid directly from Terri's Medical Trust fund, with the approval of Judge George Greer: Summary of expenses paid from Terri's 1.2 Million Dollar medical trust fund (jury awarded 1992) NOTE: In his November 1993 Petition Schiavo alleges the 1993 guardianship asset balance as $761,507.50 Atty Gwyneth Stanley ---$10,668.05 Atty Deborah Bushnell --$65,607.00 Atty Steve Nilson ------$7,404.95 Atty Pacarek -----------$1,500.00 Atty Richard Pearse (GAL)--$4,511.95 Atty George Felos-------$397,249.99 Other 1st Union/South Trust Bank--$55,459.85 Michael Schiavo ------------$10,929.95 Total ----------------------$545,852.34

Comment by bhw

Tue, 22 Mar 2005 11:44:15 EST

He spent some of the award money on her care and some of it on the legal fees. I've read that there is about $50K left and that a judge approves all expenditures. Terri has been receiving good care, as the courts have found repeatedly. She is not being poorly cared for. But she is in a nursing home and is not receiving the type of rehabiltation that her parents want her to have. So it's not the quality of care under dispute -- it's the type of care.

Comment by Richard Porter

Tue, 22 Mar 2005 11:37:22 EST

bhw and Eric There may be something to the fact, if he relinquishes guardianship to her parents and allows her to live, he will then be made accountable for the financial award given to him in 1992 solely for her medical care. Please note that since she has had very little care or poor care, if that, he must have squandered away the award money. Perhaps he is afraid and has something to hide?

Comment by bhw

Tue, 22 Mar 2005 10:17:26 EST

It occurs to me now, too, that the Schindlers and their lawyers must have looked into this extensively already. If they found anything, we'd have heard about it.

Comment by bhw

Tue, 22 Mar 2005 10:11:09 EST

It might have been and turned up nothing. It would be unlikely that she had much at her age, probably much less than Schiavo was awarded in his lawsuits. The default life insurance policy offered by employers is usually one year's salary up to a max of $50k, which is the tax cut-off. But this is all pure speculation.

Comment by Eric Olsen

Tue, 22 Mar 2005 10:08:11 EST

thanks - odd that it hasn't been researched by the MSM

Comment by bhw

Tue, 22 Mar 2005 10:06:49 EST

A quick Google shows only speculation in blog comments or right-to-life sites. No news stories showed up in the first couple of pages. She was only 26 and had no children when she fell into a coma. She might have had life insurance through work, if she was employed. But most young, childless people don't have much, if they have any at all. Either way, the MSM hasn't really picked up on that angle.

Comment by Richard Porter

Tue, 22 Mar 2005 10:05:40 EST

Eric I have pushing hard on this insurance angle and if someone had the power or ability to look into it, I wish they would do it ASAP. Unfortunately, we may have to look backwards in the future to see the financial outcome (if any) has been gained by the husband through her death.

Comment by bhw

Tue, 22 Mar 2005 10:01:04 EST

Hmmmmm...dunno.

Comment by Eric Olsen

Tue, 22 Mar 2005 09:58:53 EST

is there any life insurance angle?

Comment by bhw

Tue, 22 Mar 2005 09:49:22 EST

Well, he either truly believes he's fighting the good fight, the one his wife wants him to. Or he has gotten himself in so deep and in such a contentious battle with his in-laws, that he can't stop fighting until he wins. I'd have to say that the same two possibilities exist for the Schindlers, as well. Both sides might have stopped seeing the forest for the trees at this point.

Comment by Eric Olsen

Tue, 22 Mar 2005 09:07:41 EST

so why not divorce and move on? Why hasn't he done that?

Comment by bhw

Tue, 22 Mar 2005 09:03:14 EST

Terry's husband (kind of weird to call him that, unless bigamy has been made legal) doesn't give a rat's ass about her. He reminds me of Scott Peterson, while the people who really cared were looking out for his wife, he's out nailing the new fling. I don't begrudge him his new life. And I don't see him in Scott Peterson territory, either. At the very least, he's convinced himself he's doing what his wife wanted him to do. The courts have consistently found, btw, that he has taken more than adequate care of her. The Schindlers' have not been able to prove their many accusations of mistreatment and/or neglect, and they have had ample opportunity. It boils down to two things for me: 1. Terri's statements were not in writing, occurred before she had her heart attack [she had no ability to reflect on her new condition], and were made as general "I wouldn't want to live hooked up to machines" statements -- how can her husband be sure she would have included a feeding tube in that when all other systems are working? 2. I personally have a hard time seeing starvation as a humane way of letting someone -- who can't change her mind -- die.

Comment by Temple Stark

Tue, 22 Mar 2005 03:31:34 EST

dg - as you say, newborns have a lot of potential and ... Terri, sadly, does not. Comparison dies so why bring it up?

Comment by dg

Tue, 22 Mar 2005 00:56:04 EST

If we start offing all the people who are un-able to feed themselves, a whole lotta newborns are gonna get it. Compare Terry to a newborn; her eyes will follow a balloon thats passed in front of her, she can breath on her own, she sleeps, wakes, soils hereself, etc. Essentially, the only difference is potential. A newborn has alot of potential, Terry has none. If it just comes down to potential, my brother-in-law's in a lotta trouble. Terry's husband (kind of weird to call him that, unless bigamy has been made legal) doesn't give a rat's ass about her. He reminds me of Scott Peterson, while the people who really cared were looking out for his wife, he's out nailing the new fling. In my opinion, the only difference here is Mr. Schiavo has the courts on his side. Dude creeps me out too...maybe some kind of karma will apply here. Hopefully

Comment by Geo

Mon, 21 Mar 2005 22:41:30 EST

"I certainly agree with the Democrats on this one. Just like those pesky unwanted babies, the disabled are too much of a burden on people's social lives and should be killed. Instead of wasting our time trying to keep some crippled burden on society like Terri Schiavo alive we should continue trying to overturn the death penalty before they try to use it on the guy who raped and murdered Jessica Lunsford. If anyone needs protection it's murdering child rapists, not people who can't feed themselves." Right on! What's the ethic here? Ethical code applies differently to different cultures. I'm sure Genghis Kahn thought what he was doing was ethical. Perhaps the Death-o-crats believe in what they are doing is ethical too, in may be inherent to their "corporate culture" to insist that we eliminate burdens to society. Well, benign burdens.

Comment by SFC Ski

Mon, 21 Mar 2005 20:36:18 EST

I am not saying there should be a requirement, I am merely commenting that the effect of multiple posts on the same topic wil cause me at least to pick one and ignore the others, or I will read the main postand skip the comments.