Skip to comments.MICHAEL SCHIAVO'S LEGAL FLIP-FLOP
Posted on 02/22/2005 4:56:11 AM PST by Robert Drobot
......he was going spend the rest of his life comforting and caring for his beloved......
This is what the jury heard, when Michael Schiavo sought an award of lifetime compensation in the care for his disabled wife, Terri.
Very noble. Schiavo was clear. HE was going to do for Terri what HE KNEW, without equivocation, he wanted to provide to Terri.
There was no issue from the then loving and devoted husband about his wife wanting to die; at least when the goal was winning a jury award.
Did he intentionally lie to a jury, in order to collect money - all the while knowing Terri wanted no care of any kind?
Could he actually have forgotten this life changing detail during the malpractice trial?
The lawyers defending against his lawsuit could and would have had the suit dismissed, had they known Terri's alleged wishes.
The prize was a million plus. So what harm can come from a little fudging.
Michael took the check to the bank.
Now Cometh Part II - Cutting Losses
Comes now the 'flash from the past'; 'total recall'; a 'back to the future' moment'.
As though holding hands around a table, Michael AND some of HIS biologicals have a revelation. They see Terri telling them she does not want care of any kind.
Compelled by this ethereal message, they search out a lawyer who will gleefully do their bidding. He is turn finds a judge unworthy of the name, and Terri's fate is officially decreed.
Government Administered Death by starvation. A death reserved for innocents, lacking the ability to speak in their own behalf, and that's the best part - the victim can't communicate - or so says the court - having NEVER observed the victim.
Michael stroked that malpractice jury with tales about how he was devoting his life to the care and comfort of his wife. It was enough to make one and all shed a tear. Oscar stuff, some might have said.
.......but that was before he deposited what now has the appearance of ill gotten gain.
BEHOLD THE SMOKING GUN?
Is this not the smoking gun? The legal 2x4 attorneys could/can/should be using to smack MS up-side the head, but in all these years they haven't (Have they?) used!?!?!?!?
This is the stuff of a Shakespearian play; a Hitchcock thriller. A classic tale of diabolical deceit, and a morally corrupt court facilitating the perfect murder of an innocent woman unheard and unseen.
It is Michael who managed a well timed epiphany.
It is Michael who does a legal flip-flop, which will rid himself of unwanted responsibility; unwanted commitment; unwanted celibacy/sexual contact.
He finds he must act with all of the ways and means at his disposal to meet, he says, now, the will of his beloved, his one and only love ( Yes, it's true about his fathering two kids, while his beloved lies crippled, but hey he says he's got Terri's interests at heart.)
He now knows his purpose. Have the state do to Terri what he didn't tell that jury he was going to do.
In the film Kill Bill, the gal is no longer bed ridden, and proceeds to do her own form of justice on those who sought her end.
I would be a good end to this horrific story for Terri to fully recover from whatever/whomever put her in the hospital, and watch justice have its turn at bat.
Ping Alert! Please ping your lists.
That's a good question!
This ought to get a few people to perspiring once they know about it....
Affidavits have been signed which point to previous collusion in Greer's courtroom as well as refusing to accept evidence.
Go to terrisfight.org do a little searching around there.
No disrespect, but it's hard to believe a FReeper supporting Terri, isn't aware of the 'part I', as you put it.
I still say that anyone wanting to pull her feeding tube be forced to go 3 days without liquid intake to get an idea of how it feels...
These photos were, I believe, used in court -- or at least in the court of public opinion in the St. Pete area. The St. Pete Times photographer is, I believe, still with the paper -- as I posted with these pictures last year, I'm sure it did not take him long to get these photos. Terri is very obviously "THERE". Not in a coma. Not PVS.
Terri after the accident, yet before Mikie remembered her wish not to have a feeding tube, (and before he got the settlement):
THANKS tuckrdout for posting these photos on the other thread. They are timeless.
the invisible hand, FL engineer's home page has some great Terri links that might also be of help -- he has a GREAT Terri post that he might slap up here, esp. since they support RD's thread so well.
RD, we should get that "transcript" of the MedPlex reports on this thread, too, and the court transcripts that Michael wanted to be a nurse so that he could care for her "forever".
Sorry, I have got to go.
Can you add me to your ping list? Thanks!
Mr. Schiavo's financial shenanigans were of no interest to me until now; the responsibility of a just government to protect innocent life has always been.
I went to your site but it doesn't answer why did he win a malpractice suit? What did the hospital do wrong?
ANOTHER crucial concept someone made is that Terri's g tube does not have to be "pulled" -- which is unnecessary surgery (w/possibility of infection, discomfort, mental anguish, etc). >> All they have to do is simply not pour her nutrition into the tube! <<
"Pulling the tube" is superfluous, NOT something being done "in Terri's best interest".
Clearly this is all about hype, public opinion, public perception. The public is actively encouraged to confuse her feeding tube with a ventilator.
gotta go, so sorry.
I'm rarely 'flabbergasted; especially on the internet, where truth is as foreign as illegal aliens.
Michael Schiavo: Loving Husband or Monster? -- http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1347403/posts?page=94 /blockquote>
Here is the link to that post from supercat -- http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1333205/posts?page=2373#2373:
Latest entry in my blog
Why remove a feeding tube anyway
If a patient is on a ventilator and it is desired to discontinue artificial ventilation, there are reasons to physically remove the ventilator. It's bulky, useless (once its function is discontinued), and its continued presence could interfere with natural breathing.
A gastrostomic tube, however, is not a piece of external equipment to which a patient is connected. Nor does it interfere with "normal" eating. Instead, a g-tube is just a small tube that connects the stomach to the abdominal wall. A second mouth, basically. A funnel or food bag can be connected to it at feeding time, but otherwise it just sits there. Unlike a big bulky ventilator, or even an IV, a gastrosomic tube does not interfere with patient mobility nor with anything else a patient might want to do.
Even if a patient is in end-stage cancer and doesn't want to be fed, a gastrostomic tube cannot not by itself force unwanted food into the patient. If it's necessary to stop feeding a patient, a caregiver can simply decline to put any more food through the tube.
To be sure, there are sometimes good reasons to remove a g-tube:
Discontinuing food and water for a terminal hydration for a terminal patient, however, is not a good reason for removing a g-tube. The tube's continued presence doesn't hurt the patient, and removing the feeding tube represents an unnecessary surgery with no therapeutic benefit.
- The tube becomes clogged or infected; in this case, normal protocol would be to remove the old one and install a new one.
- The patient regains sufficient ability to take food by mouth that there is no anticipated future need for the feeding tube and its continued presence would do naught but create a risk of future infection.
Why, then, are feeding tubes removed from terminal or supposedly-terminal patients?
Because, to the uninitiated, "removing a feeding tube" sounds much more like letting nature take its course than does "stopping feeding the patient".
Other posts to that part of the thread also helpful.
the above line of thought shows that Michael is by no means seeking what is best for Terri by subjecting her to unnecessary surgery.
If you're gonna starve her, just stop feeding her. And yeah, it IS just that cruel.
Why doesn't the court ask these questions?
cyn, looks like a good read. thank you.
I have a niece who a year ago ended up similar to Terrie. She was in a coma for a month but when she came out of it she eventually was able to talk. She is not able to move on her own, or go to the bathroom or feed herself. She has seizures and they have to keep her heavily medicated in order to keep her body from thrashing around.
When her brother went to see her she told him she didn't want to die.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.