Is this some sort of cruel test to see how long she can survive?

Posted by: Travis at March 21, 2005 6:48 PM

Since ones in the judiciary have been acting questionably (to put it mildly) to this point, it seems after a reasonable period, that it is not too much to insist that Theresa Marie Schindler needs ones who have the authority to get her into life giving care now.

Flood the President and Governor of Florida for an executive order to resume feeding Theresa Marie NOW. Call, fax, flood:

Whitehouse Comment Line: 202-456-1111

Jeb Bush, Governor
850 / 488-4441
850 / 487-0801 (fax)
Executive Office of the Governor
400 S. Monroe Street
The Capitol
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0001

Posted by: Resume Feeding at March 21, 2005 6:51 PM

Eli, amazingly these same pollsters said Bush would lose.

I'm not sure polls really say how Americans are feeling, but thanks for playing the troll game!

Posted by: Ruth at March 21, 2005 6:51 PM

EliCash (aka IhateRepubl...)

ABC's coverage on Nightline was hardly even journalistic. They revealed heavy bias for what they did not say. Why would anyone beleieve a poll also from them?

Most realize it depends heavily on poller bias and form of questioning.

In fairness to this person's plight who is without her own legal representation and fit guardianship, the media, including the network above, has not adequately provided information on the story--not even close--for the public to make an informed choice on such a poll.

Posted by: Resume Feeding at March 21, 2005 6:58 PM

Yeah Eli, we never considered the point of view that you might be an annoying pest spewing the Deathocrat talking points. Thanks for opening our minds to that. Internet polls are so much more important than votes in Congress, right?

And now you say that the pollsters claimed Bush would win? OK, so you're not just annoying, you're also a liar.

Posted by: JWL at March 21, 2005 7:00 PM

I think we have some NAZI comments going on here...since when was the right thing to do the popular thing to do? Hitler did a good job of changing that, didn't he? I guess the popular vote of the American people want to try the same thing on for size themselves.

Posted by: Catherine at March 21, 2005 7:00 PM

What's more, EliCash, if you'd looked at some earlier threads, you would have seen both sides and many different arguments being given a full airing.

Remember that the majority is not always right. Didn't your mother ever ask you, "If everybody jumped off a cliff, would you jump, too?"

Posted by: Mary in LA at March 21, 2005 7:02 PM

"Is this some sort of cruel test to see how long she can survive?"

It's really not the district court judge's fault. The law that gave him jurisdiction said that Ms. Schiavo couldn't have the tube reinserted until *after* the judge had resolved all the really, really, complicated constitutional issues.

Here's the relevant text of the law: "After a determination of the merits of a suit brought under this Act, the District Court shall issue such declaratory and injunctive relief..."

Posted by: jpe at March 21, 2005 7:04 PM

Oh for Pete's sake.. keep the polling crap out of it. This is about Terri's life... not stupid polls.

Posted by: Sirena at March 21, 2005 7:06 PM

Terri is functioning without life support, all of her other bodily functions are operating normally. She requires the assistance of a fluid and feeding tube for sustinence. Other than that she is "alive" not what has been determined a "persistent vegitative state".

She has no advance directive.

She is being starved to death.

No matter what we think she might have wanted, there is no proof as to what that is. In the absence of the directive, we have a legal and moral obligation to keep the feeding tube attached.

What if she knows she is being starved, what if she is aware of the conversations around her, what if she is suffering.

I am a supporter of an individual's right to choose their fate and have completed an advanced directive, but I am not in support of the situation with Terri.

God bless you Terri, your family and your husband...especially if he is responsible for your murder.

Posted by: Elaine at March 21, 2005 7:06 PM

BTW:

The voice box of the Governor of Florida is full, for anyone who is without these e-mail contacts, I doubt many are on this blog, here they are:

jeb.bush@myflorida.com
president@whitehouse.gov

IhateRepubl: When was the last time you ate or drank?

Posted by: Resume Feeding at March 21, 2005 7:06 PM

And the fact that Terri is ON a feeding tube is her caring husbands fault. I'm a Speech-Language pathologist, and there is a chance she could regain the abilities to swallow real food again if given therapy. It's quite common for people to lose the ability to swallow following strokes/heart-attacks. It's also common for them to learn to swallow again. For goodness sake, she won all that money in the lawsuit. *fuming*

<"3 )~

Posted by: taranicole at March 21, 2005 7:11 PM

Actually, there are more of us than you think. And if all people knew the truth about what is happening to Terri, more people would be supporting her. I've shown the facts to dozens of people who've changed their minds... if people remain to be ignorant to the facts, then that's their choice.

Posted by: Sirena at March 21, 2005 7:12 PM

I think, my time at least, time would be better spent seeking to support the family and legasl professionals working on her behalf than engage Ihaterepubl(EliXXXX).

Go off and do some real digging about whether Terri wanted this or not. See what M.S. in his own words said on CNN the other night, i.e., "what we want."

Posted by: RESUME FEEDING at March 21, 2005 7:12 PM

Eli, it is NOT shown what Terri wanted. You're basing it on what a poll says. It has been ruled in Terri's husband's favor unjustly, especially since he has admitted he DOESN'T know what Terri wanted, but knows it's what HE wants. It is just plain WRONG to let Terri starve to death when the past is so shady regarding her situation. It needs to be examined with ALL evidence brought to light. This is the point-- to stand up for the disabled who might be being misrepresented, lied to, deceived, etc.

Posted by: Amy at March 21, 2005 7:12 PM

Terri's case has only been reviewed by FL judges. Even the federal judge is located in FL. This case needs to be reviewed without interference from ANYONE in Florida.

Why? Guardianship fraud in FL has been under scrutiny, and for good reason. Take a look here...

http://justiceforfloridaseniors.org/goodguardians.php

Michael Schiavo has used most, if not all, of the same tactics used by other unscrupulous guardians in FL. The FL courts have been winking at this behavior for years. Its all unraveling now. Unfortunately, probably not fast enough to save Terri's life.

Posted by: Teri J at March 21, 2005 7:13 PM

I found this article on another site. It is by one of the Church's most respected theologians. It defined what the Church teaches on this issue.

EUTHANASIA by Msgr. William B. Smith, S.T.D.

Euthanasia is not a coming problem, it is a present problem. Now that New York State has legalized a Health Care Proxy--broad enough to embrace both morally acceptable and unacceptable decisions--together with the talk and confusion of the Supreme Court's decision of the Cruzan case (25 June 1990), there is more than enough confusion about to advance the cause of euthanasia even unwittingly.

First, what is euthanasia and how do we define it? Euthanasia is "an action or an omission which of itself or by intention causes death, in order that all suffering may in this way be eliminated" (CDF, Declaration on Euthanasia, 1980). Thus, the terms of reference can be found in the intention of the will and in the methods used or omitted.

In Catholic theology...we distinguish between ORDINARY and EXTRAORDINARY medical treatments (procedures, operations, treatments).

By ORDINARY treatments we mean those that (1) offer reasonable hope of benefit; (2) without serious danger of death; and (3) without excessive pain, hardship, burden, etc.

EXTRAORDINARY treatments, on the other hand, do not offer reasonable hope of benefit, or do involve serious danger of death, or involve grave, excessive burden out of proportion to any real benefit.

The moral rule is simply stated but must be worked through on a case-by-case basis: all ORDINARY treatments are morally obligatory; whereas, EXTRAORDINARY treatments are morally optional--one is free to use or to forego truly EXTRAORDINARY TREATMENTS.

Thus far, very few in our society advocate active or positive euthanasia. Some groups (e.g., the Hemlock Society) do favor this, if it be said to be voluntary.

However, most of the present confusion concerns passive or negative euthanasia, i.e., negative omissions that cause death (kill). It is here in the term passive euthanasia that we find the most confusion. While the passive omission of EXTRAORDINARY means (morally optional) is not euthanasia and should not be so called; the passive omission of ORDINARY means (morally obligatory) IS euthanasia and should be so called.

Perhaps some recent social history will highlight the problem. Almost everyone read or heard something about the Quinlan case in New Jersey (1975). The nub of that case was whether or not to remove a respirator from Karen Ann Quinlan. The question was a legitimate one--to continue or discontinue a respirator. In ten short years (1985), in the same State of New Jersey, we have the case of Clare Conroy, an 82-year-old woman with organic brain syndrome (senility) who was uncommunicative but medically not a dying patient. The only question in the Conroy case was to remove a nasogastric feeding tube.

So, in just ten years, what was never a question in Quinlan was the only question in Conroy--whether or not to stop feeding a non-dying patient.

Most people presume that the much publicized court cases concern DYING patients; but most of the recent court cases in fact concerned NON-DYING patients; C. Conroy (NJ); P. Brophy (MA); Nancy Cruzan (MO).

Now, the passive omission of nourishment from non-dying patients will, of course, cause their death and that is PASSIVE EUTHANASIA. That nourishment (called Nutrition and Hydration) is artificially conveyed (through a tube) is not nearly so morally important as whether or not the patient is a dying patient. After all, heat is artificially conveyed to a room in the Winter and air-conditioning in the Summer. Turn those off and a helpless person will quickly die of pneumonia--pneumonia which is caused by the omission.

As above, no one is bound to use or continue what is EXTRAORDINARY; no one is morally bound to use what is medically futile and useless; but food, water, bed rest, room temperature and personal hygiene hardly deserve the name "treatment" and should be called "care" whether given at home, in a nursing home or in a hospital.

Institutions in our locality [New York] such as Calvary Hospital in the Bronx and Rosary Hill in Hawthorne, set the right direction and the right standard--even when there is no cure they do provide basic human care! They always relieve pain; always keep a patient clean; always take care of hunger and thirst; this is an obligatory human care, not optional treatment!

Presently, the non-dying but uncommunicative patient is at risk in our society. Already the "push" for assisting a suicide is on. Some proclaim suicide as assisting some kind of "right." Presently, this is supposed to be a "voluntary right," executed through vague documents called Living Wills, Mercy Wills, Durable Powers of Attorney or so-called Advanced Directives.

We are told that people who signed these vague documents are "tired of living"; but, of course, it is the living who are tired of them.

No one can possibly write out today a specific document that will detail what will help them or be futile five years from today, for the single reason that no one knows their health condition five years from now.

Also, the Living Will connotes that LIFE is like a piece of property that you deed or direct by legal paper. Do we really own our lives in the same way you own your Timex or your car and can deed it away or deed it to someone else?

No Western religion requires that all people use all means all the time under all circumstances--that is an impossible standard! But we are morally required to use all ORDINARY means to take care of life, health and bodily integrity (failure to do so is suicide), while we are morally free to use or not use EXTRA-ordinary MEANS that offer no reasonable benefit.

Incurable should not mean UN-carable. As before, the answer is and remains: where there is no cure, we must offer at least human care!

First, it was the UNborn. Then it was the NEWborn (who did not breathe well). Now, it is the LONGborn who are not medically dying but uncommunicative. The lethal logic is the same--if you can have an UN-wanted baby, you can have an UN-wanted grandmother, because being UN-WANTED is not a disease, it's a harsh value judgment some people make in and upon other people. And whoever makes that judgment is morally NOT on the receiving end.

Euthanasia in concept and practice--by positive act or lethal omission--must be opposed by all who reverence innocent LIFE as the great gift of our good and generous God.

Msgr. William B. Smith is a distinguished expert in moral theology and has appeared on numerous television shows, including the Today Show, debating and explaining moral issues. He is a professor of moral theology and is academic dean of St. Joseph's Seminary in Yonkers, New York.

"Euthanasia is an attack on life that no human authority can justify, because the life of an innocent person is an indispensable good" (Pope John Paul II, Address of October 31, 1998 to those attending an international conference on the elderly sponsored by the Pontifical Council of Pastoral Assistance to Health-Care Workers; Link: Holy Father's address on Euthanasia.

Posted by: John kirkpatrick at March 21, 2005 7:13 PM

I found this...
http://www.theconservativevoice.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=4039
Hmmmmmm......

Posted by: MoFiZiX Gr4FiX at March 21, 2005 7:13 PM

plain and simple, with a DNR, advanced directive, etc. NO ONE should have the right to take her off life support. Sorry, but the second we start deciding to make life altering decisions based on "he said/she said" we are playing with fire. We can't make decisions about people's lives! What's going to keep people from saying, "Grandma is living a great life on a feeding tube, but she doesn't want this.. lets pull it". It's going down a road we DON'T want to go down.

Posted by: taranicole at March 21, 2005 7:16 PM

For those of you who pray, keep praying. No matter what happens, (and you all know what we hope the outcome is), let's hope that things get changed in the judicial system. It's dreadful.

Posted by: Sirena at March 21, 2005 7:17 PM

sorry! I meant "without" a DNR, advanced directive, etc.

Posted by: taranicole at March 21, 2005 7:18 PM

Eli,
Pray tell, who were the other two?

Posted by: Snowy Owl at March 21, 2005 7:19 PM

And more than 5 people stated UNDER OATH or in affidavits that Terri would have NEVER wanted to be dehydrated to death.

Posted by: Sirena at March 21, 2005 7:19 PM

And who were the other two?

Posted by: Mary in LA at March 21, 2005 7:20 PM

Looks like the judge is just going to wait until Terri dies and not have to rule.

And Eli, what about her husband saying later he DIDN'T KNOW what Terri wanted? And the old girlfriend who swore that he'd told her he had no idea what Terri would want? Hmm? Hmmmmm??

Posted by: Amy at March 21, 2005 7:21 PM

Terri's brother revealed, on-air over the weekend I suppose, that the claim of M.S. about Terri's wishes was made seven (7) years into the court proceedings, I believe, or he meant 7 years after it had happened. Either way, it was therefore highly questionable, and I beleive after he decided to give up supporting her inalienable right to life.

Posted by: resume feeding at March 21, 2005 7:24 PM

EliCash, we live in a democracy. That gives any citizen of this country, the right to do what he or she can to change the law. Civil law is not immutable. It should be changed when it no longer works. Slavery was once the law -- now it's not. Male-only voting was once the law -- now it's not. It's been said that "hard cases make bad law." Terri's case, a hard one, has made very bad case law in the Florida courts. It's time to fix the bad case law with (hopefully) a better statute law.

Posted by: Mary in LA at March 21, 2005 7:24 PM

If Terri wanted to die so badly she probably would have by now...

She's shown extraordinary resilience to the multiple attempts on her life.

Posted by: Donna at March 21, 2005 7:26 PM

EliCash: I followed your link and found that the main premise of the ABC poll is (I'm shocked!) false. The poll was premised on the following statement:

"Schiavo suffered brain damage and has been on life support for 15 years. Doctors say she has no consciousness and her condition is irreversible. Her
husband and her parents disagree about whether she would have wanted to be kept alive. Florida courts have sided with the husband and her feeding tube was
removed on Friday."

Note the bias and false statements in the premise that respondents answered: 1) Terri Schiavo has not been on what most people consider "life support"; she breathes on her own, i.e. no machines are keeping her alive. 2) Only a few doctors say she has no consciousness and that her condition is irreversible and at least as many doctors will say the opposite.

What say you now that the poll has been shown to be irrelevant to this issue?

Posted by: Old Coot at March 21, 2005 7:27 PM

Yes, it wasn't until AFTER Michael received the money for rehabilitation, that he DREAMED UP the idea about "her wishes".

Not a credible person, that's for certain. Along with the neglectful and cruel treatment of Terri (not allowing her to have personal things in her bedroom, or allow her teeth to be cleaned, or allow anti-biotics for infections, or to have the blinds open so she can look outside... yeah, I believe he has nothing but the best intentions for her.

NOT!

Posted by: Sirena at March 21, 2005 7:27 PM

The polls are meaningless; the media has refused to dig under the surface of this matter, instead they just repeat the same frustrating falsehoods time and again. Most people out there-if they know anything at all about the case- got their info from the papers (NY Times, etc) and TV- CNN, Fox, etc. Yes, even Fox has been awful. The result is that the public to a great degree have a warped, mixed up understanding of the matter.
Secondly, polls say nothing about right and wrong; they just give someone's (uninformed) opinion.

Posted by: CS Bolay at March 21, 2005 7:28 PM

It is a sad, sad state of affairs... a Clinton appointee seems to be on the Pro-Death side along with all but a few courageous Democrats.

I hate to say this, but when Terri dies, here is what we need to do... Contact the Chief Medical Examiner and demand he act...

Only known contact emails are
mailto:wpellan@co.pinellas.fl.us
mailto:jthogmartin@co.pinellas.fl.us

**********************************************
Example text follows:

Jon R. Thogmartin, M.D., District Chief Medical Examiner
10900 Ulmerton Rd., Largo FL 33778

Dear Dr. Thogmartin:
When Terri Schiavo dies, the potential exists that a crime will be covered up by her planned cremation without autopsy. That potential crime is NOT the issue at the center of the present controversy, but the yet unsubstantiated allegation that an assault led to her condition in the first place.

It has been reported in the press that Michael Schiavo intends to cremate Terri Schiavo immediately upon her death.
According to your department’s policy posted at: http://www.co.pinellas.fl.us/forensics/policy/policystatement.htm#CA , you must approve or deny all such requests.

It appears you are in the position of declining the case and deferring to the certifying physician (one with a history of 5 NPDB reported malpractice cases) or choosing to disallow the cremation until your office can perform an appropriate investigation and/or postmortem examination to determine both the immediate cause of death AND the proximate cause of death.

I am sure I need not remind you that it is your ethical, legal, and moral responsibility to certify that a crime did not occur. Despite the currently accepted rationale for her initial “event”, evidence on postmortem examination may reveal that Terri Schiavo was the victim of a crime many years ago.
Even Forensic Pathologist Michael Baden publicly stated that he believes that her original injuries could have been consistent with strangulation. You are urged to consult him in the performance of your post mortem examination.

Judge Greer has not allowed an MRI or PET Scan. We both know that PET scans are of no value post mortem, but MRI may have some limited benefit, in addition to the physical autopsy, particularly for small, old injuries to ligaments and muscles that would be consistent with a trauma that occurred due to a crime.

Particularly due to the wide coverage in the press, You are encouraged to be public now about your plans in this regard. If there are perpetrators of a crime covering something up, they will not want you to perform such an examination. Please do not fall victim as well.

I am sorry for the additional pressure this entire affair has brought to you and your staff, but it appears now that you will be the one who will decide whether the Sunshine state really shines sun on the truth (one way or the other).

Thank you,

Posted by: Robert W. Smith MD at March 21, 2005 7:28 PM

Nice Dr. Smith! Amazing point! Thank you.

<"3 )~

Posted by: taranicole at March 21, 2005 7:30 PM

You know, that if you post under a false name, you IP will be banned.... Period.

Posted by: Sirena at March 21, 2005 7:33 PM

Tom-- you're a partisan idiot.
Trolls-- how about you make your own blogs to spew asanine commentary.
Those sincerely trying to debate-- thank you.

Posted by: Amy at March 21, 2005 7:35 PM

This may get me into trouble but I am over here in Oregon where we voted through the assisted suicide law, and yes I did voted in favor of it. Just because of my many years working in a nursing home, but now let me add that I do not agree with them trying to kill Terri. Her cival rights have been violated, she has been abused by the system and the courts. This is not a case where we know for sure this woman said what Michael claims she did. I find it odd he never mentioned that fact until he won his money. I am for Terri and her family and there are quite a few people over here who believe the same, this is a human being who needs us to fight for her.

Posted by: adrienne at March 21, 2005 7:37 PM

I just heard on WABC radio that Judge Whittemore said [paraphrasing] it was unlikely that the parents' suit would succeed:(

Can someone confirm this?

Posted by: MoFiZiX Gr4FiX at March 21, 2005 7:37 PM

We all knew this is a hard fight... we just must press on until the end... whatever that is...

Keep the faith!

Posted by: Sirena at March 21, 2005 7:39 PM

To the trolls on this board:

We are in this to save Terri's life and we don't really care who benefits, who does not benefit, who tries to gain political support, or who gets the job done as long as this innocent woman is allowed to live and be rehabilitated!

Secondly, her parents love her very much and have not exploited her. They are trying to save her life from a currupt so called husband that has clearly expressed his interest in wanting her to die as quickly as possible. Her parents are ordinary people that live off a modest income. Michael is the one that was awarded a couple million dollars none of which has been used to rehabilitate her (like he claimed in court he needed the money for).

She did NOT die years and years ago and is very much alive today!

She can swallow, can vocalize, and response to light, sound, voices, and music. She dislikes pain but smiles and laughs with her parents. Terri is no vegetable and deserve to live and eat just as much as you do!

You know the facts just as well as we do, but simply are trying to find a way to stir things up and distract us from saving Terri's life. I would not be surprised if Michael himself hired a few individuals to use multiple identities to try and hinder this organization (blogsforterri) from helping her by starting massive arguments!

From now on, I refuse to argue with all of you. All of us know she is not PVS, deserves to live, deserves to eat, and she should not be starved to death.

Lets just ignore those that are trying to distract us and focus on SAVING TERRI which is much more important than trying to argue with people who already KNOW we are correct, but are trying to ruck things up around here!

We must not let goons distract us from our goal of saving Terri's life!

Posted by: TotallyTED at March 21, 2005 7:40 PM

Totally Ted,

Well put.

Posted by: Sirena at March 21, 2005 7:45 PM

Just read another article about how Terri is in a PSV and how her reactions to various stimuli are just reflexive... I hate the biased media sooooo much. They print what sells, not what's truth.

Posted by: Amy at March 21, 2005 7:45 PM

Does this thread have a moderator?

Please note that the following previous posts:

Posted by: Tom DeLay
Posted by: EliCash
Posted by: Jesus Christ

Do not have a valid e-mail address.

Only those with valid e-mail addresses should be allowed to post.

Posted by: Richard Dean at March 21, 2005 7:46 PM

WELL PUT TED....

Posted by: adrienne at March 21, 2005 7:47 PM

"Why? Guardianship fraud in FL has been under scrutiny, and for good reason. Take a look here..."

Not to be too cynical, but this group was founded because of the Schiavo imbroglio; the site was registered in November of 2004; they spam Amazon reviews; and, as far as I can tell, they don't list any names associated with the group.

Like I said, this may come off as cynical, but it looks like a shell organization to me.

Posted by: jpe at March 21, 2005 7:52 PM

Eli:

I posted this earlier in a different discussion, but it applies to your "polls in favor of death by starvation" assertion....

Several years ago, a co-worker told me she was called by the Washington Post concerning a "poll". When they questioned her and found that she was conservative, they chose not to include her in their demographics.

Polls are not a good source of information. I've seen dozens of polls on Terri's condition. Those on NBC, ABC and other MSM outlets are in line with the results you posted. Those on the Empire Journal, World Net Daily and other pro-Terri sites are overwhelmingly in her favor. The poll results are dictated by the audience.

Also, how many times can a person participate in an internet poll from the same computer? I can take the same poll multiple times and consequently impact the poll results. Even for the polls that can record an IP address, thus "prohibiting" multiple responses from single individuals; many people can defeat these "safety measures". Consequently, the Internet Polls are IMHO very suspect.

People know what they hear from the media--my parents would never condone starvation and dehydration, yet they were under the impression that Terri is already dead. They might have responded to a poll in a manner inconsistent with their beliefs because of their mis-information.

BTW...The other witnesses who claimed that Terri wanted to be starved to death included michael shitavos brother. He's not biased, is he?

Yet, Terri's best friend testified that Terri was horribly upset during the Karen Ann Quinlan trial and indicated that she would never support the removal of food and water (which Karen was given until her death-even though the "life support" was removed).

Yet, Terri--a practicing Catholic--would have followed the teachings of the church concerning Euthanasia; she would not have supported the removal of food and water. Maybe a computerized lung and heart, but not food and water.

The facts are that michael shiavo and george feel-less contributed to BTK greer's reelection campaign (and he was not elected legally to begin with). This is a masterful conflict of interest.

The former sherriff, refused to investigate the allegations of abuse; Oh yeah, he's a friend of BTK greer.

The Florida Attorney General, crist, refused to investigate the abuse; Oh yeah, he's a friend of BTK greer.

Terri might be able to eat REAL food, but BTK greer forbade it.

Michael testified that he intended to support Terri and rehabilitate her, but he took the money awarded for her rehabilitation and put her in a "prison" cell with a DNR order. But, he supported BTK greer, so he was allowed to do it.

If you can't see the ethical violatins and conflict of interest in this case, then Scott Peterson should be vacated for Lacy's murder (afterall, what "evidence" did they present that he actually murdered her?). Once Scott is released to murder again, the courts should release Dr Kovorkian; he only helped people who want to die attain their wishes.

I could go on and on...but it won't matter. For those of you who believe, no reason is necessary. For those of you who do not, no reason is possible.

Nothing I say, or anyone else says will change your mind.

These blogs are for people who believe in Terri to stand together and show our support. For the pro-death and pro-starvation supporters, please either comment rationally (we don't mind your opinions), or go start your own "bloggers for michael" site.

This is a support network; kinda like AA supports alcoholics--bloggers for Terri supports Terri.

Posted by: Tress at March 21, 2005 7:52 PM

Actually, they do... if you use the "Contact" button on the top left hand side, you can inform them of trolls. I was able to get rid of one that way...

Posted by: Sirena at March 21, 2005 7:53 PM

"I will not tell you when, how or how long it will take," Whittemore said.

This could mean he is just going to wait for her to die so he doesn't "have to" issue a ruling.

Posted by: Different River at March 21, 2005 7:53 PM

Can you think of the outrage towards the judges if they allow her to die? Sheesh...

Posted by: Sirena at March 21, 2005 7:54 PM

A 1996 car crash left Louisville, KY news anchorman Hugh Finn on a feeding tube in a Manassas, VA nursing home. His wife won the right to remove the feeding tube.

John Finn said it took his brother nine days to die of dehydration.

What made it even more difficult is that two days after his tube was removed, Hugh Finn sat up and asked, "Where's my radio?"

The family was told that his saying "Where's my radio?" was just a reflexive action, and not evidence that he had brain activity.

At least he had a radio.

From http://www.nbc4.com/news/4304769/detail.html

Friends, we are just at the beginning. "Soylent Green" took place in 2020 A.D. - now 15 years in the future.

Posted by: Ann Brown at March 21, 2005 7:55 PM

Tress,

Again, you hit the nail on the head. Thank you for your informative postings...

Posted by: Sirena at March 21, 2005 7:56 PM

Sirena:

I feel like I hit my head with a nail...

Posted by: Tress at March 21, 2005 7:58 PM

"Terri's case, a hard one, has made very bad case law in the Florida courts."

Nah, the case law is fine; it's just that her case is a hard one. Changing the law to fit her particular case (a hard one!) will make for bad law.

That's the meaning of the maxim 'hard cases make bad law.'

Posted by: jpe at March 21, 2005 7:58 PM

Yeah, right... a person who talks still has brain activity. Amazing how a family can watch a family member dehydrate to death. It's disgusting. Do you know what they look like? I've seen pictures. They look similar to mummies, because their organs dried up. It's horrible.

Posted by: Sirena at March 21, 2005 7:59 PM

Anyone want to guess on whether EliCash accepts without question the polls regarding partial-birth abortion, gay marriage, or the death penalty. No, he is a troll and should be sent back to DU or Kos as soon as possible....they miss him.

Posted by: Old Coot at March 21, 2005 8:00 PM

How come the media makes no mention of Sarah Scantlin in relation to Terri's situation?

Posted by: sujata at March 21, 2005 8:00 PM

How come the media makes no mention of Sarah Scantlin in relation to Terri's situation?

I cant imagine the helplessness Terri must feel lying there helplessly while Michael visits her. Makes me feel sick. He was talking about Terri's shrivelled hands and open mouth somewhere, look at Sarah Scantlin - she is the same. There's so much love for Terri in this world, but the monster is not allowing the love to reach her in fullness. Makes me feel really awful.

Posted by: sujata at March 21, 2005 8:03 PM

JPE, I disagree with you completely on the meaning of "hard cases make bad law." It's the *case* law that's bad. That's why I made the quotation.

Posted by: Mary in LA at March 21, 2005 8:04 PM

Ann, I just read your link. I'm stunned. The guy puts a coherent, sensible sentence together, and they call it "reflex"?

Posted by: Mary in LA at March 21, 2005 8:07 PM

Sujata,

The reason they haven't mentioned Sarah... because the media for the most part is evil. Pure and simple. They don't want the truth to be told. It's all about what they think the masses want to hear. It's sick.

Posted by: Sirena at March 21, 2005 8:09 PM

Eli, go look at this poll:

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/polls/

Now, if ABC's readers are judge and jury, why not WorldNetDaily's?

This affair is NOT complicated, despite what the all the blithering lawyers say. It is extremely simple: You. Don't. Starve. Human. Beings. To. Death.

That is Alexander's sword right through the Gordian knot and all the legalisms in the universe will not alter it.

Posted by: Baillie at March 21, 2005 8:10 PM

Dr. Hammesfahr revealed that Terri has at least 75% functional brain tissue and that the stories circulating in the media about a head full of fluid "only" are totally false. He has had patients with less brain function doing much more than Terri is doing, and Dr. Hammesfahr believes that Terri is being kept to a lower level of function by her being denied opportunities to do anything, have any rehabilitation, and that she her improvement is being sabotaged by her being kept in isolation, with very few visitors or other input. Dr. Hammesfahr revealed that Larry King had suggested to Michael Schiavo that he let Mr. King's news crew go in to film Terri, to settle once and for all what Terri's condition is, and that Michael REFUSED!

Posted by: sujata at March 21, 2005 8:13 PM

Richard Dean:

I'm on it.

Posted by: Beth at March 21, 2005 8:13 PM

"JPE, I disagree with you completely on the meaning of "hard cases make bad law." It's the *case* law that's bad. That's why I made the quotation."

I was just being nitpicky, for no good reason. The phrase means that when the law is rejiggered for difficult cases, a bad law is the result.

I'm a nitpicky person. Apologies.

Posted by: jpe at March 21, 2005 8:14 PM

The problem with emotional cases is that people stop paying attention to the law. Or citicize the judges in some ill-informed attack on their credibility or integrity.

The appellate judges that heard Terri and Michael's case in the 2nd DCA are some of the brighest and well-qualified judges in the State judiciary. And anyone who thinks they lost sight for a moment that a human life was at issue is simply mistaken.

Whether you agree or not, the law and facts have supported the progression of this case till its current legal posture.

If the U.S. Congress desired a more immediate ruling to reinstate the delivery of nutrition to Terri Schiavo, Congress has only itself to blame: Section 5 of the bill that passed the U.S. Senate on Thursday of last week stated:

SEC. 5. STAY.
Upon the filing of a suit or claim under this Act, the District Court may issue a stay of any State court order authorizing or directing the withholding or withdrawal of food, fluids, or medical treatment necessary to sustain the life of Theresa Marie Schiavo pending the determination of the suit.

That stay authorization provision was eliminated from the legislation that the House and Senate passed this weekend and President Bush signed into law early this morning.

The provision of the new law that governs the granting of relief provides, in full:

SEC. 3. RELIEF.
After a determination of the merits of a suit brought under this Act, the District Court shall issue such declaratory and injunctive relief as may be necessary to protect the rights of Theresa Marie Schiavo under the Constitution and laws of the United States relating to the withholding or withdrawal of food, fluids, or medical treatment necessary to sustain her life.

This may explain why the federal district judge, instead of granting an immediate injunction, has taken the case under advisement to determine the merits of the suit. Or, perhaps the trial judge has decided to rule against the parents, in which case the judge might view an immediate ruling as less important than a well-reasoned one.

Posted by: Brad at March 21, 2005 8:15 PM

03.01.05

JUDGE GREER OBSTRUCTING JUSTICE IN SCHIAVO CASE


The parents of Terri Schiavo were informed, Monday through their Attorney David Gibbs III that Judge George Greer of Pinellas-Pasco’s Sixth Judicial Circuit has denied, without access to hearing, motions filed by Terri Schiavo’s immediate family for

Updated neurological evaluations based on new MRI testing protocols;
A motion to compel the deposition of Michael Schiavo;
A petition for extraordinary authority to provide Terri Schiavo with updated rehabilitative protocols;
A petition for divorce, citing open adultery on the part of Terri Schiavo’s husband and guardian;
An objection to the guardian’s annual guardianship plan ;
A motion to remove Michael Schiavo as guardian, citing his failure to comply with Florida Law mandated guardianship requirements. This motion dates back to November of 2002, but the court has never ruled on it.

Judge Greer has stated that he will only consider motions from Terri’s family as they relate to the death process, which include but are not limited to a motion to allow Terri Schiavo to die at home instead of a Hospice facility, a motion for a Florida burial, and a motion allowing her immediate family uninterrupted access to her throughout the death process.

Pamela Hennessey, spokesperson for the Terri Schindler-Schiavo Foundation says the foundation finds the actions of Judge Greer reprehensible and a clear denial of the due process rights afforded to Terri Schiavo under Federal and Florida law.

With new medical diagnosis protocols and new levels of rehabilitation protocols, Terri Schiavo’s adjudicated condition of ‘persistent vegetative state’ is no longer equitable and any responsible jurist would eagerly recognize and accommodate more thorough means of determining the disabled woman’s true condition – a condition that remains in great dispute.

Additionally, Hennessy said the Foundation finds the behavior of Judge Greer an absolute obstruction of due process for Terri Schiavo by his refusal to hold the guardian accountable for violation of Florida’s guardian laws. The guardian has spent Terri Schiavo’s medical fund on representing his own legal interests, has denied her necessary medical services, lives in open adultery with his girlfriend and their two children, has petitioned the courts to cremate Terri immediately upon her death and has repeatedly and flagrantly failed to comply with Florida Statutes that mandate the terms of guardianship. Judge Greer couldn’t be bothered with those details so long as Terri Schiavo’s death is a guaranteed outcome.

"Never in my life have I seen a judge so afraid of the truth", Hennessy said. "Why is it that admitted criminals are protected to every reasonable measure of law, but our disabled and vulnerable citizens are discarded by the courts as unworthy lives?"

SEE:

Motion for Divorce (denied by Judge Greer)
http://www.terrisfight.org/documents/022805EmMotionDivorce.pdf
Motion to allow natural feeding
http://www.terrisfight.org/documents/022805EmMotionNaturalFeeding.pdf
Motion for family access while Terri is dying (Michael has repeatedly banned the family from visiting Terri at hospice)
http://www.terrisfight.org/documents/022805EmMotionFamilyAccess.pdf
Motion to allow Terri to die at home
http://www.terrisfight.org/documents/022805EmMotionDieAtHome.pdf
Motion for burial (Michael has an order to cremate Terri's body without a Christian funeral or burial)
http://www.terrisfight.org/documents/022805EmMotionBurial.pdf
Motion to leave feeding tube port intact
http://www.terrisfight.org/documents/022805EmMotionNotRemovePort.pdf

Posted by: Mike Egan at March 21, 2005 8:17 PM

Once we start the precedent that the courts have the right to order Euthanasia and decide which "laws" apply for the disabled, where will it end?

Will we begin to murder handicapped children at birth as they do in the Netherlands?

Will we begin to murder handicapped adults because they are a drain on society?

Will we begin to set the standards for the perfect race? Who will the courts define as "perfect"? Will the US become an arian nation? Where does this end?

Oh, and once we throw away any moral law and fall further into a moral-less society, who will cry when our children continue to bring guns into schools and blow away their fellow students? Who will cry when depraved people kidnap young children and torture them before they take their life?

If a society removes the value and dignity of life, then life and Human Dignity become value less. When no one values life, murder will increase--and no one will care. "It's not my problem.....It doesn't matter to me....Leave me alone...."

So, please, anti-Terri bloggers (especially eli, the "Ihaterepublicans@yahoo.com" troll) Tell me, when and where will it end?

Posted by: Tress at March 21, 2005 8:18 PM

"Or, perhaps the trial judge has decided to rule against the parents, in which case the judge might view an immediate ruling as less important than a well-reasoned one."

Given the statute as written, a well-reasoned opinion is more important than a fast one regardless of the judge's position on the merits.

If Congress wanted to insert a low threshold similar to the criteria for a temp. injunction, they know how to.

The more I think about it, people that think Ms. Schiavo is the victim of injustice in this should be nothing short of outraged by the statute, which all but ensures that she'll starve for longer than necessary. Congress *knows* how to craft a statute allowing for temporary injunction; instead of doing so, they forced the judge to consider the merits, a far more onerous task.

I don't think they give a hoot about Ms. Schiavo; they're interested in placating their base and making sure that the judge takes the heat.

Posted by: jpe at March 21, 2005 8:21 PM

Richard Dean, Sirena, sujata:

Eli "ihaterepublicans@hotmail.com" is GONE.

We don't HAVE TO host comments from everyone, and because I'm sick of the nastiness and I happen to be a Republican, that just pissed me off.

Warning to anyone else who feels like coming here to shit on the rug: I'll delete and ban with abandon. I'm tired and cranky and not putting up with this crap any more.

LIKE TRESS SAID, THIS IS A SUPPORT NETWORK. A PLACE FOR US TO CONCENTRATE ON HELPING. NOT A DEBATE FORUM.

YOU NO LIKEY? TAKE A HIKEY.

I'm speaking for myself as a moderator; go right on ahead and call me all your stupid, tired "fascist neocon Joooo Nazi Christian Rethuglican wingnut" names that you want. You'll be quite entertaining.

And for your information, "I hate Republicans" types: there ARE a lot of liberals here who feel just as passionately about saving Terri as ANYONE else. Stick that in your Party Pipe and smoke it.

Posted by: Beth at March 21, 2005 8:23 PM

Beth, thank you.

Bless you dear.

I'm a joo too ;)

Posted by: Ruth at March 21, 2005 8:28 PM

IP bans are meaningless in this age of anonymous proxies and dynamic IPs. And you can't stay up late enough to censor everyone. Have fun trying :)

Posted by: Beth at March 21, 2005 8:29 PM

Terri still remains a human being, no less human than Christopher Reeve, who was kept alive on a respirator until he died late last year of natural causes. No one begrudged his heroic struggle to live, and we were all edified by his courage and that of his family who stood by him.

Terri, however, is not being kept alive by any machine as was Reeve for most of his last decade of life. She only needs assistance to be fed. Does the fact that he could speak and she cannot make it right to deprive her of the ordinary means of human sustenance? If so, how can any of our seriously ill brethren ever again trust themselves to sleep while under a doctor's care?

It is interesting to note that George Greer not only prohibited food and water by tube, but also by mouth. Even though it may seem impossible to believe, this fact is clearly stated in the public records of the court.

Is George Greer afraid that Terri might not have actually not need her feeding tube last Friday? Why were at least two people who wanted to give her water on Friday arrested?

This whole episode strikes me as a woman is the property of her husband, even if her husband has another wife and set of kids.

I feel like I could be next. Maybe it's all a bad dream.

Posted by: Gem at March 21, 2005 8:30 PM

Can someone please 'splain to this dumb old Owl what "de novo" means? I'm certainly no lawyer, and don't play one on TV (or C-SPAN), but doesn't that mean "from the beginning"? As in, prior court rulings become irrelevant? As in, the Florida judicial echo chamber doesn't matter? As in, previous tests and testimony are inadmissable?

If I am correct, why is all of that still an issue?

Posted by: Snowy Owl at March 21, 2005 8:44 PM

"Is George Greer afraid that Terri might not have actually not need her feeding tube last Friday?"

He's afraid she'll choke and die. Ironic? Yep. But if she chokes, there's a potential wrongful death action against the state or the hospital. No one with familiarity with the law would disagree that the law can be a giant hodgepodge of internally inconsistent rules.

Law is weird like that.

Posted by: jpe at March 21, 2005 8:46 PM

"Can someone please 'splain to this dumb old Owl what "de novo" means?"

You got it; prior rulings are irrelevant. Prior testimony is admissible, if I remember my Federal Rules of Evidence correctly.

Posted by: jpe at March 21, 2005 8:48 PM

Dear Snowy Owl:

"De novo" in this context means "in new," a fresh start, a new look.

Posted by: Richard Dean at March 21, 2005 8:51 PM

My identity and email are legitimate. I am not posting under an assumed name. I have responded to appropriate supportive emails. I am a Board Certified Family Physician with grave concerns about this case. Contacting the Medical Examiner is a legitimate action, and my opinion is certainly protected by the Constitution.

Feel free to attempt to cancel my IP if you wish to limit the debate to only those who do not wish justice for Terri.

I hate to have had to post about postmortem examination, but I fear it will be required, given the interminable delays.

Robert W. Smith MD

Posted by: Robert W. Smith MD at March 21, 2005 8:53 PM

"As in, prior court rulings become irrelevant? As in, the Florida judicial echo chamber doesn't matter?"

I'm not an expert on statutory construction by any means, but here's my take on the law: it says that the court can decide whether any of Ms. Schiavo's laws *under the Federal Constitution* have been violated.

In other words, they won't rehear the whole case; they'll just hear whether or not any of her *federal* rights have been violated. Given that procedure was followed by the FL courts, and there don't seem to be any substantive federal rights are at issue, I'm hard-pressed to see how the bill is anything other than a time-buying measure.

Anyone else?

Posted by: jpe at March 21, 2005 8:54 PM

Dr. Smith, I think you are in no danger of being mistaken for a troll! Your postings have always been reasonable, never inflammatory. Personally, I hope you stay around.

Posted by: Mary in LA at March 21, 2005 9:01 PM

They're playing Sara McLachlan's 'Angel' on the radio.

It seems to fit Terri so well. Escaping this hellhole we call home...

I can't do anymore. I've emailed like crazy for days.

Nobody who can save her wants the truth. Nobody.

I feel that only the Lord can save her now....

Posted by: Rosalind at March 21, 2005 9:05 PM

Everyone,

The Judge should have ruled by now. It is 9:23PM according to my time.

I am hoping and praying for the best, but expecting the worst.

By delaying his ruling for hours or days he might be hoping she will die and therefore he can avoid making a ruling that will tick off a bunch of people despite how he rules.

A Judge with character would make decisions in a timely matter based on both the law and hopefully his true and honest opinion.

If he is delaying in the hope that she will die before he rules then I am very, very disapointed in the quality of office holders in our Judicial system.

Seriously, I do have a few questions... can anyone answer them?

1) Any update about Terri's health condition? Obviously, by all scientific standards it must be getting worse, but with God's help she could defy all known rules of medicine and even be getting stronger! God can do great things! We must just keep on doing our part and of course have faith that God will do his! We cannot waiver in our faith even though the forces of evil and wickedness may depress us into a sense of hopelessness. Again, any updates?

2) I just can't understand why so many womans groups are sitting silently by while a man openly and blatantly committing adultury on an incapacitated (but NOT PVS) wife has the power to make life and deaf decisions for her. The strong indications of physical abuse aside just the fact he is openly living with another woman yet can order her starved to death BOGGLES MY MIND!

SERIOUSLY!

How can he still be LEGALLY married to Terri while at the same time a COMMON LAW HUSBAND to another woman? How can he be legally married to Terri and have CHILDREN with another woman?

I mean... isn't there SOMETHING in the law to prevent an incapacitated person's spouse from openly committing adultury against them while remaining technically married and also a guardian?

Do you have any answers?

The only thought I can come up with is many (not all of course) of the ultra-liberal or progressives may simply not like the idea of marriage at all, that one person as a partner for an entire life is the only moral life choice, and by arguing about him cheating on her they may be supporting strong marriages when really they don't support marriage at all.

But seriously, can anything be done to disolve this ABOMINATION UNTO GOD AND ALL MORALITY so called "marriage"?

If women really wanted to support the idea that men should be loyal to their wives they should be ALL OVER THIS CASE supporting Terri's right to a quick divorce and transfer of all rights to her parents!

Posted by: TotallyTED at March 21, 2005 9:27 PM

Hate to be one to be disagreeable here - but her husband seems to have nothing to gain, he could have passed Terri off to social services or back to her parents a long time ago and moved on with his life. Any monies that are collected after her passing will be used to pay for her care. (as anyone who has been through this knows)

I know that when my grandmother was in much the very same state we all had hope for a very long time but as the years went by (7)we could no longer believe that this is the kind of life she would have ever wanted.
My Grandfather asked the doctors to remove her feeding tube and allowed only pain medicine to be given, she died 6 days later in her sleep going back to God, who had called her home 7 years earlier...
I truly feel for both sides in this case and hope that Terri will find peace one day soon.

Posted by: Bob A at March 21, 2005 9:31 PM

"A Judge with character would make decisions in a timely matter based on both the law and hopefully his true and honest opinion."

That's silly. You're probably in an agitated state, but the court was effectively ordered by Congress to issue an enormously complex ruling within hours or days. Typically, it'd take a judge and all of his/her clerks several weeks or months to craft an opinion of this kind of significance.

As has been pointed out, lay the blame at the feet of Congress for forcing this poor judge to pull an all-nighter to issue a decision that get's gonna get him national notoriety regardless of who "wins."

Posted by: jpe at March 21, 2005 9:36 PM

Not silly at all...

Can anyone (other than trolls) attempt to answer my questions?

Posted by: TotallyTED at March 21, 2005 9:43 PM

jpe: What you say is at least possible. I would rather believe that than believe that this case was delivered from an evil man straight to another evil man.

Posted by: OvertOther at March 21, 2005 9:48 PM

"jpe: What you say is at least possible."

It's not just possible, it's true. The judge isn't being asked to give an answer to 2+2; he's being asked to adjudicate a whole lot of important questions. Some cut to the quick of what our system of government is (federalism; separation of powers); some are mind-numbingly boring but complicated (whether conflicts of interest rise to the level of substantive due process protection).

Either way, it's not the judge's fault; congress told him he had to do this. If I hold a gun to a person X's head, and then tell a third person, Mr. Y, that, unless Mr. Y can dig a whole 30 feet deep in the next hour, ya can't blame Mr. Y for not digging fast enough. Ya blame me for setting an insane condition. That's what's going on here.

I'm sure the judge is working as quickly as he can, but a person can only read and write so quickly.

Posted by: jpe at March 21, 2005 10:01 PM

Sorry, that already-stupid and needlessly weird hypo was: I tell Mr. Y that I'll shoot Mr. X unless Mr. Y can dig a 30-foot hole in an hour.

Blah.

Posted by: jpe at March 21, 2005 10:02 PM

One last consideration: the judge's decision will be binding law in future cases. He can't just say 'this just applies here, and only here.'

What he says will impact real people in the future, for better or worse. That's a tremendous responsibility, and one not entered into lightly.

Posted by: jpe at March 21, 2005 10:04 PM

I find it really strange that no one has mentioned the obvious fact. Terri is NOT terminally ill. She has not been on death's door for 15 years. She is not kept alive by a respirator. So where's the problem?

Posted by: leximeg at March 21, 2005 10:05 PM

TotallyTED: 1) States that recognize common-law marriage (see http://www.unmarried.org/common.html for a list) don't include Florida. Legally, Michael Schiavo is married to Terri, and not to the woman he is living with. 2) Florida is a no fault divorce state, so I'm not sure whether Michael Schiavo's live-in girl friend has any legal effect on his marriage. 3) Besides, for adultery to be grounds for divorce, Terri has to file for divorce, which she can't very well do, can she? I understand that the Schindlers have been trying to file for divorce on Terri Schiavo's behalf - and, after all, I'd expect them to try every legal avenue they can, however slim the chances. But I don't think there's any legal precedent for getting a divorce on someone else's behalf. So I doubt, of all the possible legal avenues the Schindlers might try, that this is the one most likely of success. Especially since: 4) Judge Greer's last order says that the tube should be removed independent of Michael Schiavo's wishes.

Please, no flames about being a pro-euthanasia troll; I'm just trying to say what I think Florida marriage and divorce law actually is (and will be willing to stand corrected if someone has better information than I do).

Posted by: Lynn Gazis-Sax at March 21, 2005 10:29 PM

Mulling over why the Judge would choose to 'decline to rule', many thoughts came to mind. I thought of the polls favoring the 'right-to-die', the comments made by some who are afraid that their right-to-die would somehow be abridged by letting Terri live, the fascist judgments of Greer, the tension between the Legislative and Judicial branches, and the obdurate hearts that refuse the grace of life.

'Why?' was the question that kept surfacing. How can a people be led so far astray as to want a right that would deprive them of all rights and life? How could this come about, and why is euthanasia so prominent in the minds of press and the Judiciary?

I recall a very disturbing movie I saw when I was a young man: 'Soylent Green' and the choice offered to the populace. The populace were offered a pleasant, painless death with beautiful music playing in the background. Those who chose this death were 'doing-the-right-thing.' Those who opposed it, were criminals and were to be apprehended.

Think now to what a horrible, tortuous death that has been imposed by the State upon an innocent victim. This is the model for those who, in the future, do not volunteer to 'do-the-right-thing'. As in Nazi Germany, the Communist block, and dictorships, fear has always been the greatest motivator to accept whatever the State has decided was best.

It seems to me that the movement behind this horrific charade of justice lies in a not so subtle message: Either willingly accept and embrace euthanasia, or have imposed upon you, as a 'bad' citizen' total forfeiture of all rights: exactly what is happening to Terri.

I used to think: 'Thank God I don't live in the States', but unfortunately, this eugenics pogrom has insinuated itself worldwide. What can we do? Pray. Resist. Suffer. In the end, as we approach the Passion of Christ on Good Friday, we can say with Jesus: 'Father, forgive them for they know not what they do'. Only love -- Jesus Christ -- will overcome this evil. We must trust, pray and trust -- and act: as good American souls have done and will do. God bless America.

I write this with hope, since Jesus is Lord. I write this as a husband who has cared for his wife who had been declared 'brain-dead' after a month-long coma and a three month hospitalization from viral enchepahitis that destroyed her left temporal lobe. I was told she would never walk, talk, eat, or toilet herself again. I write this as a husband who saw her come out of that coma after laying hands over her, and watched daily seizures attack her. She has been home for fourteen years, and feels that Terri is her true sister. She offers her sufferings and prayers for Terri. And oh yes, three days after praying over her, she walked, talked, ate, and toileted herself. God is Great!

Posted by: Andre at March 21, 2005 10:32 PM

Mr Bob A:

You're right--michael has "nothing" to gain...He's already been awarded $1.7M in a mal-practice lawsuit; now he just needs the court's permission to murder his wife so he can keep what's left of the money.

This is a man now living with his "fiance" (who must really be an empty headed female if she trusts michael when he's trying so hard to kill his first wife).

This is a man who as a trained "nurse" didn't try to revive his wife.

This is a man who forbade his wife any attempts at rehabilitation and swallowing. Who locked her in a Hospice while he paid george feel-less to petition the courts to murder her.

This is a man who wanted to know, "when is that B**ch gonna die."

This is a man who could barely keep a job but has managed to purchase for himself and his mistress beautiful Mercedes.

This is a man who had $700K for Terri's medical expenses, yet put her on medicaid.

This is a man who contributed to BTK greer's election campaign and then asked greer to sanction the murder of his disabled wife.

You're right-he really must care for her....he has nothing (left) to gain by her death. However, he has EVERYTHING TO LOSE if she lives....

Posted by: Tress at March 21, 2005 10:49 PM

Mulling over why the Judge would choose to 'decline to rule', many thoughts came to mind.

The obvious answer, and the correct one, is that it takes time to formulate and write a wise opinion.

Posted by: jpe at March 21, 2005 11:16 PM

The judge should have ordered her feeding tube to be put back in immediately while he reviews the request. Take a week to review the request. Do due diligence. But put the tube back in while you decide.

Posted by: Bryan at March 21, 2005 11:36 PM

Tress: Is what you posted about Michael true? Are you sure? That Terri was on medicaid? That he bought his girlfriend a Mercedes? That he contributed to Greer's campaign?
Why aren't these things being reported?

Posted by: trend at March 21, 2005 11:56 PM

Seems to me that Rome is burning while Nero fiddles.

Posted by: Kathryn at March 22, 2005 12:09 AM

From what I understand (correct me if I'm wrong!), a temporary restraining order can be issued ONLY if the aggrieiving party is likely to prevail in the final judgement. Which is the reason why I think the judge made it a point to warn Gibbs that nothing convinced the judge that the parents were likely to prevail, in his opinion at that time. Another requirement is that the TRO doesn't harm either party, though -- so clearly that should counter the first requirement.

Posted by: OvertOther at March 22, 2005 1:05 AM

Could anyone please tell me how to get the vote roster? I'm trying to find out how Congressman Castle of Delaware voted. I've tried the local paper & googled. Thanks if you can help.

Posted by: Inkling at March 22, 2005 1:10 AM

Inkling:

http://clerk.house.gov/cgi-bin/vote.asp?year=2005&rollnumber=90

Castle voted Nay

Posted by: OvertOther at March 22, 2005 1:28 AM

I can understand the comments that the judge needs this length of time to make a decision. However, all I can think of is Terri dehyrating and starving to death. If the judge is hesistant to reinsert the feeding tube for reasons stated above, he COULD order at least IV fluids for hydration. That is a simple procedure compared to reinserting the feeding tube.

I just don't get this and am continuing to pray hard. I can easily put myself in Terri's parents and siblings shoes. It has to be with God's grace they are able to make it through this gut wrenching time of waiting for a decision, while watching their beloved daughter slowly starve and dehyrate. Keep the prayers strong!

Posted by: Sandy at March 22, 2005 2:26 AM

Overt: Thanks.

Posted by: inkling at March 22, 2005 12:35 PM