Now 30 cases of allegations seems an aweful lot to be done against a man that acts like he's being a saint and would never harm his wife or anything... how could so many cases be false? It seems rather unlikely.
Statements made through an anonymous hotline following years of rumours and conspiracy theories spread on the Internet.
I'm amazed there have only been that many judging by the amount of jumped-up misinformation that has been spouted over the years!
The guy is no saint but come on use your head and check up on the kind of "sources" these abuse rumours started from.
Personally, I prefer more neutral sources such as this one: http://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/infopage.html
Why after 2 months of trying to help her and seeing no real improvement did he give up as soon as he had some money in his account and then suddenly he started stating this was her 'decision' and not claim it from the start? 2 months is very little time for therapy and recovering in the long term when other cases of people coming out of comas take years before real improvement happens... what if there is something that is being hidden by him or something that nobody might have noticed that caused everything in the first place? I know we'll never know but could he be trying to cover things up just in case. I know it's speculation and such but this whole case is disturbing and facts don't all seem to be put together logically in some ways.
Sorry but have you any idea how hard it is to care for someone in this type of condition? If her parents and her husband could not cope with this and provide her the care she needed who are you to condemn them?
I know she is concious because she is not asleep or in a coma. I don't think that there is any dispute that she is concious.
So are you saying that a person can be conscious even when the part of her brain responsible for consciousness and awareness is effectively fried to a pulp? (And we are not talking some slight differences in neurological wiring here, we're talking the worst kind of brain damage from which NOBODY has recovered full functioning after more than a few months in that state and only one person is known to have regained some functioning again after only SIX MONTHS with no further deterioration.
What do you think THIRTEEN YEARS of progressive deterioration following prolonged starvation of the brain of oxygen and seizure activity are going to do?
So Noetic, are you a part of the Neo Nazi revolution? One of their members just shot up 10 kids in Northern Minnesota. With some of the ideas expressed in your posts, it sounds like you would be a good match for their cause. If you're in the United States, why don't you just get out of the country?
MrCoffee
I object to your hateful and nonsensical comment - incidentally, you sound *JUST LIKE* the people you are so brainlessly accusing me of sympathising with by telling me to "get out of the country" simply because you do not like what I have to say :-(
I object to the culture of avoiding responsibility "cos you can always find someone to blame for not taking responsibility, and hey why not sue their ar**s off while we're at it" (as Terry's hubby did and as sadly is becoming ever more trendy here in the UK), simply because it is based on blamign others for things they had no reasonable way of knowing or acting upon. Sorry if that makes me a "Nazi" but I can't stand it when people abuse society in order to get something they have done NOTHING to earn. (As is the case with societies where burglars can sue house owners for defending their property, kids gets awarded money for hurting themselves while trepassing or breaking into property, and people can sue doctors for not spotting something the patient was trying desperately to hide from everyone)
And I object to this gross media circus that builds on cashing in on people's heartstrings rather than their brains. As much as both sides (Terry's parents and her husband) may have their genuine reasons for acting as they did/do, I do not think either of them are acting in Terry's interest alone.
I am sorry if you do not like people who use their own brains rather than blindly following the latest hype without having a clue about the facts or the background situation, but I guess it is pointless trying to appeal to your reason because reason does not seem to come into the equation for you in this case.
If you had any idea about what horrors Neo Nazism stands for you sure as heck would not go around randomly shooting your gob off at people you know NOTHING about! :mad:
No I don't, I'm very grateful I haven't but I did watch my grandmother deteriorate till her death. I was just stating in the realm of science and such, 2 months therapy and such is minor for some patients to make improvements. It takes years for some to even make the smallest improvement.
That is true - however, it was only STAYING at her parents' home that lasted such a short time - therapy was done for much longer!
Her husband first initiated investigations into the permanence of her brain damage and chances of recovery EIGHT YEARS after she first collapsed.
I just do not think it is all that unreasonable to cease therapy and review the situation after no changes after so many years.
Also see this timeline: http://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/infopa...l#timeline
February 1990… Terri suffers cardiac arrest and a severe loss of oxygen to her brain
May 1990… Terri leaves hospital and is brought to a rehabiliation center for aggressive therapy July 1990… Terri is brought to the home where her husband and parents live; after a few weeks, she is brought back to the rehabilitation center
November 1990… Terri is taken to California for experimental therapies
January 1991… Terri is returned to Florida and placed at a rehabilitation center in Brandon
July 1991… Terri is transfered to a skilled nursing facility where she receives aggressive physical therapy and speech therapy
May 1992… Michael and the Schindlers stop living together
January 1993… Michael recovers $1 million settlement for medical malpractice claim involving Terri's care; jury had ruled in Michael's favor on allegations Terri's doctors failed to diagnose her bulimia, which led to her heart failure; case settled while on appeal
March 1994… Terri is transferred to a Largo nursing home
May 1998… Michael files petition for court to determine whether Terri's feeding tube should be removed; Michael takes position that Terri would chose to remove the tube; Terri's parents take position that Terri would chose not to remove the tube
You seem to be seriously misunderstanding the system for getting compensation. There are very strict laws concerning negligence, responsibility, and accidents, people can not simply get a hand out for avoiding responsibility. The only reason that we hear more about it is that the law was changed regarding TV advertising for companies that offer such a service.
If you ever had a car accident and not been at fault and still had months and months of pain and hassle, before being offered a minor payout you would know that the reality is very different from the myth.
That may be so - however, the public acceptance of such things is rising, and that is what I object to.
I will NEVER accept that a person should be getting fifty times more money for an accident that happened because they broke into derelict property than the families of murder victims get in compensation. Ever. And more cases like this are cropping up.
Don't tell me this has always been that way? :-(
This is the culture of "blaming someone else because I can't be arsed to take responsibility for my life, and let's get some money outta them while we're at it" I was referring to. I am sorry does this make me a Nazi? :o
No it doesn't. And your not the only one who can see that the law is set up to benefit the lawyers and the criminals and not the victim
Yay I just read a snippet in the paper this morning about drives to cut down on those ambulance chaser types of law firms 
However I am not sure how this affects the increasing tendency (and this is what I meant, rather than personal claims against individuals or corporations for genuine accidents - although I do think stupidity - the kind that leads to page long warnings on appliances - should never be rewarded with compensation money!) for sueing government agencies or in particular the NHS (who need a revamp but the last thing they need to improve service is to be forced to make huge payouts!).
Don't get me wrong some local councils etc. are appalling but I just think it is very selfish when individuals sue councils for stupendous amounts for things they (the person sueing them) had a fault in themselves (or brought on themselves entirely) or the other party could simply now have known about. What you get is one person with a fat wad of cash and the rest of the people living in the area cheated out of council services because the council has to fork out for stupid claims.
There is one person responsible for Terri's condition, actually three of them. Michael Schiavo, George Felos, and Judge Greer.
How so? How did these people cause her to make herself sick to the point where her heart gave out and caused permanent brain damage from lack of oxygen? :-(
Do you have any actual facts and evidence to back this up? The only people publically slinging mud are Terry's parents and the religious extremists (because of course, he did not divorce Terry when, after five years with no improvements, he met someone else - obviously that automatically stamps him off as an "evildoer" who is out to kill her, right? :roll: ).
You don't see any of this filth being flung from her husband's camp and regardless of his personality and any speculated motivation, that alone is something I respect.
I may disagree with his views on compensation money and I cannot comprehend why he doesn't put his money where his mouth is (by signing over Terry's money to charity in the event of her death!) but to me, his silence and avoidance of a press circus, compared to the opposition's filth-slinging, speaks volumes.
Of course, I do feel that as her husband, Michael should have had some idea that she was not happy (you don't do something like this to yourself if you are a happy, well-balanced human being!), so in a way he does have responsibility to some degree.
But the only person who really knew what she was doing to her body was Terry. It's tragic but that is one of the reasons why bulimia can actually be more dangerous than anorexia, even though it does not lead to the same dramatic visual effect.
As for the Nazis. They had a profound belief that anybody with a disability should at least be taken out and shot. But they were much worse, they used chemical weapons on them (lethal injections and gas) and starved them to death.
How do these policies relate to my statement that I do not think someone who has in the past asked not to be left dependent on machines should be forced to be kept alive following dramatic complications in her eating disorder?
I have stated that I do not believe she must die - however I can understand to some degree why her husband does not want her parents to just take her home and carry on keeping her alive after so many years, with utterly irreversible brain damage that leaves her bereft of conscious awareness and sensations.
I do not think I would want this to happen to a loved one, and I KNOW I would not want this to happen to me.
I think it nearly all boils down to making the rich richer and the poor poorer, I know thats a bit of a cliche but when we've got so many lawyers in government making new laws to suit themselves all the time I think things will get worse when it comes compensation.
Good point as of course you need good lawyers to get compensation, which you can only get if you already have money.
The case of the boy who broke into the premises was not like that though, does not sound like his family were particularly rich and I am stunned this claim got through because seeing as though he was engaging in antisocial behaviour which caused his accident, and his parents are in jail for dealing heroin, I find it baffling how anyone could believe his behaviour problems and antisocial behaviour were caused by the accident! :roll:
There's one point I'd like to make that is relevant to this case. I heard a bit of a radio report about the case, and some "expert" was quoted as saying something to the effect that the woman's cortex is not functioning so therfore she has no consciousness.
I have just finished reading a book by V. P. Ramachandran (eminent neurologist) in which he argued that the temporal lobes are the seat of consciousness, not the cerebral cortex as is stated in the over-simplified but untested explanations in textbooks. A while ago I also read a book by Richard Cytowic (world authority on synaesthasia and a neurologist) in which he argued against the recieved wisdom that the cerebral cortex is the seat of conscousness and the part of the brain that makes us human. Cytowic also nominated the limbic system and the temporal lobes (which were thought to be archaic, primitive structures) as playing a central role in cognition, consciousness and memory.
I am not entirely sure but aren't the frontal lobes PART of the cerebral cortex?
Cerebral Cortex
(One thing I do not understand is why no further scans are done - the CAT scan does show physical damage more than neurological damage so yes, the damage has to be very extensive to even show up on there - however a more in-depth MRI or similar has apaprently been objected to by the husband - and some sources say also by the parents? - which is something I do not understand at all.)
They'd likely be better off doing an fMRI, it's a newer form of MRI not available back when the last lot of scans and such were done on Terri.
Do you know whether an MRI was ever done? They only ever mention CAT scans. Understandibly if there is such extensive damage that the CAT shows a lack of brain tissue then it's bad news but I do not understand why nothing more specific was done (I could imagine her reflexive movements might make it hard to do this scan but I am sure it isn't impossible and the same problems would apply to the CAT as well!).
Well at one point a Nobel Prize winning neurologist examined her I think in 1999 at request of the parents so I imagine an MRI must have been part of it.
Yes I ahve found something (although earlier, in 1991) mentioning an MRI but still I just find it odd that only such old evidence is used to prove that her cerebral cortex IS fried (if her husband wanted to prove this once and for all he could at least authorise further scans, although of course not all types of damage that cause such permanent states are even visible on scans), and that most of the testimonies from "experts" (many of whom have nothing to do with neurology or similar professions) on "her" site are all by people who did not examine her but who just based their verdict on the 4 minute film (which was cut down from over 4 1/2 hours of footage & heavily edited).
I also find it a bit cruel to bring the matter up now - conscious or not, she does not seem to be in any sort of permanent pain, so it would not be a matter of relieving her from suffering.
If she has a shred of conscience left then, even if she HAD once upon a time wished to die if in such a state, my guess would be that she has got used to her situation and is leading a content (if severely limited) existence that could be enhanced with some stimulation, perhaps best in the care of her parents (who after all said they would finance her upkeep).
Neither starving her to death nor risking suffocation from ridiculous attempts to prove that she is conscious (because deliberately swallowing, rather than basic swalloing reflexes, is a minimal sign of awareness ) appear to be particularly humane things to do.
This is where it starts disturbing me. Terri is in PVS, so was a woman called Kate Adamson, Kate was in a more severe PVS than Terri, she had double brainstem stroke.
A brainstem stroke affects exactly those areas of the brain that still remain functioning in Terri Schiavo, i.e. the brainstem (this is responsible for basic reflexes and breathing etc.).
It is considered "more severe" only with regards to the amount of intervention needed to keep the person alive (in this case, respirators etc. since without a brainstem you can't breathe on your own), not with regards to prognosis.
Terri Schiavo's brain damage is the opposite of this - the brain stem functions (hence she breathes on her own etc.) but the cerebral cortex (the rest of the brain, which is responsible for all congitive functions we would count as "awareness") has been extensively damaged if not destroyed.
You can't compare the two, plain and simple - Kate was impaired in everything that Terri still has perfect functioning over, yet her cognition was still fully functional (locked in syndrome).
Kate never lost her ability to communicate and her cognitive functioning, and was able to interact with her family and doctors and communicate consistently by blinking within less than a few WEEKS of her stroke - all these functions were never recovered for Terri even after years of therapy.
It's like comparing someone who has nerve damage in one leg (which can recover over time with training, depending on the severity of the damage) with someone whose leg was amputated - someone with nerve damage resulting in paralyis may well recover full use of their leg but you can't train an amputee to use their lost leg to walk, no matter how hard you push them!
This is a sad day indeed for all that could be considered inconvenient to the general populace.
The only people who make this about ridding the population of "inconvenient" individuals are those who refuse to accept the rulings of several courts that have consistently determined that it was Terri's wish not to be kept alive by artificial means.
Whether or not you believe she should be allowed to die (and I am unsure about this - If she used to hold the belief that she did not want to be kept alive, then I do not think she would still be holding this belief after 15 years - if she is conscious at all, she does not appear to be in pain, like a cancer patient would, so I see no reason to end her life as and of itself, unless her condition changed to cause her pain or grief, although it does verge into the territory of re-animating bodies that should by all means have been left to rest), don't make the mistake of reducing your credibility by subscribing to rumour mills and lies about supposed conspiracies and hidden motivations.
"don't make the mistake of reducing your credibility by subscribing to rumour mills and lies about supposed conspiracies and hidden motivations."
I don't understand what that means, how would someone reduce their credibility? What credibility, where?
I meant the credibility (or weight) of someone's voice/argument when discussing an issue. E.g. "attacking" the case by attacking how unfair it is if people who are "a burden" etc. can just be eliminated. The only people who are making this about killing someone because they are disabled are those who keep bringing it up to attack Terri's husband.
Everyone is allowed to make up their own mind but reducing this tragedy to claims that it is all just about "getting rid of someone who is just an inconvenience" (an argument initially brought up by religious groups and conspiracy theorists) doesn't do anyone justice, least of all Terri.
If you want to attack the decision to allow her to die (and I have done so myself, I have just not jumped on the bandwagon for or against either side), then do so based on the actual facts and arguments, not from the PoV that it was all a big naughty conspiracy anyway and was all just about killing unwanted people with disabilities.
Turning this tragic but PRIVATE case into a hotbed for conspiracy nutcases and paranoid worriers does not contribute to a sensible discussion and is not about human rights and dignity, it's about a small minority who latch onto anything they can get their hands on to propagate "their cause" (such as religious movements or private people with paranoid ideation gone haywire).