Posted on 03/19/2005 9:18:52 AM PST by EveningStar
Wolfson's report is based on court files, depositions, medical records and interviews with everyone involved.
That said, I begin with the most explosive allegation:
Did Michael try to kill Terri?
Wolfson laughs. "No!"
-----
Wolfson's report states that in the four years after her collapse, Michael "had insistently held to the premise that Theresa could recover and the evidence is incontrovertible that he gave his heart and soul to her treatment and care . . . In late autumn of 1990, following months of therapy and testing and formal diagnoses of persistent vegetative state with no evidence of improvement, Michael took Theresa to California, where she received an experimental thalamic stimulator implant in her brain. Michael remained in California caring for Theresa during a period of several months."
Says Wolfson now: "Michael was adoring of her. One nursing home complained he was hostile and abusive of the staff in championing her care. She was immaculately kept. In 13 years, she never had one bedsore."
(Excerpt) Read more at orlandosentinel.com ...
Which explains why she collapsed--her potassium was around 2 (way below normal). If she had been TREATED for bulimia, this would not have happened.
The DemocRATs are full of surprises! Michael was easier to figure.
They have finally picked out Hill No. 2008 or Mt. Schaivo to die on.
Unfortunately some RepublicRATs are scrambled to join their leftist allies, while many DemocRATs, one being Pelousi, decided they'd better abstain.
Contractures must not count.
I thought Terri was examined by five doctors in 2003. Do you think something has changed in the last two years, something that hasn't changed in the previous 13?
"Hate Michael" is the driving force behind almost all of the Terri supporters.
Just examine the posts on the Terri threads here at Free Republic. Sooner or later, the poster will let slip that, "and yeah, Michael is a monster/jerk/adulterer or that he's greedy/unfeeling/evil."
Totally lost in all the rhetoric are Terri's wishes, expressed to Michael, Michael's brother, and to her best friend, Joan that she not live this way.
If her supporters lose that argument, then they switch to Plan B, "She's not really in a PVS", as documented by attention-seeking "doctors" who haven't even examined her.
Plan C, of course, is "How can we allow her to starve to death?", although they'd admit (if pressed) that if she had placed her wishes in writing, they'd allow just that.
Hypocrisy and hatred reign on these threads.
At the time the lawsuit was FILED, yes. He didn't know if and when she would recover, and what her condition would be IF she recovered. Patients have recovered from PVS, you know. It's just that, as time goes on, the chances are lessened.
Sure, I believe it was his intent to care for her. But after 8 years, all hope was gone (no one has recovered from PVS after 3 years).
WE have the benefit of hindsight. Michael didn't, and couldn't, have known at that time how things were going to transpire.
I read on an earlier thread that the paramedics gave Terri meds to bring her back after her collapse. The meds they gave her sometimes causes a potasium imbalance.
It wasn't 8 years. He discontinued rehabilitative treatment and placed a DNR on her chart a mere 3 months after the settlement award, only three years after her collapse.
(no one has recovered from PVS after 3 years).
Simply not true. Numerous examples have been cited on numerous threads.
I've thankfully mostly stayed out of the Schiavo case, but just a couple of observations:
1) It seems both sides of the family have entrenched themselves in their positions. I don't buy that the husband is some sort of murderous monster, but I wonder why he is so deadset on having her feeding tube removed. At this point, it just seems like both sides are too emotionally invested in this whole thing to act rationally.
2) The anti-tube removal side has taken a lot of actions that are normally used by liberal groups during a conflict. Appealing to Congress and the Federal courts to intervene in what is clearly a State law matter makes me uncomfortable.
Just my $0.02. I'll probably get flamed by both sides for this :-)
Yes, but he was still paying for her care. And he continued to pay for her care for another 5 years. Geez, if he was so intent on getting rid of her, why did he wait five years? C'mon.
"Simply not true. Numerous examples have been cited on numerous threads."
It is true. Those other examples were patients in a coma, not in a persistent vegetative state. Totally different.
It was Terri's wish that she not live like that. She expressed that wish to Michael, to his brother (Scott), and to her best friend, Joan (Scott's wife).
All three testified under oath to that effect. The judge accepted the statements.
It was the judge, not Michael, who made the decision based on the the testimony and ordered the feeding tube removed (in 2000).
That's a lie.
All three testified under oath to that effect. The judge accepted the statements.
I wasn't aware of that. Does Michael have any conflict of interest here? I've heard claims that he stands to inherit money if she dies.
Back in 1993, Michael received a check for $300K for loss of consortium. (A side note: Terri's parents wanted a piece of that. Michael refused. That was the start of the falling out process between them. True story.)
In addition, I believe Michael was awarded $1.4M (placed in a trust) for Terri's long term care. There may be more, I'm not really sure -- I just got into this.
Anyways, I think there's very little left. I heard he turned down some major money to divorce her and let her live. Rumor? I don't know.
Some of the posts here are definitely hilariously over the top, however, the guy does seem like a first class jerk.
A case can be made for that.
My only point is that his personality is irrelevant. But there are those who want the whole decision to ride on whether Michael is a good husband or not.
Demonize Michael, they figure, she lives.
First of all, it was her money. Second, by denying her therapy, he denied her care. And the care she did receive was minimal at best. For the past twelve years he has done as little as possible. This is extensively documented. Not only that, he has spent over 60% of her medical fund on lawyers fees trying to kill her.
Geez, if he was so intent on getting rid of her, why did he wait five years? C'mon.
He didn't. As I said, he placed a DNR order on her chart just 3 months after the settlement award. Six months after THAT, he denied her treatment for a life-threatening infection.
He could have gone to court to get an order to have her feeding tube pulled in 1993 and he didn't. Stop equivocating with this crap about a DNR and an infection.
Are you sure? It might not even have been legal then. When Terri collapsed, feeding tubes were not considered life support. Sometime later, the law's definition was changed. Quite possibly Michael's hands were tied.
Stop equivocating with this crap about a DNR and an infection.
Stop ignoring all information that doesn't suit your personal opinion. The first legal ruling that approved the removal of the feeding tube was in May of 97. Obviously he petitioned the court sometime before then.
And factually speaking, Michael Schiavo passively abandoned his wife from 93-97. He denied her therapy, basic hygene and common decency. He placed a DNR on her chart and refused treatment for life-threatening infections on more than one occasion.
You simply can't dismiss his behavior as equivocation when those actions established a documented pattern which led up to his proactive pursuit of her death.
Oh and by the way, it's proven fact that Michael was quite the philanderer. (Don't argue that he has a right to get on with his life, because that's not my point.) 18 months after Terri's collapse, Michael was involved in a serious relationship with another woman that lasted a year. The summer BEFORE the malpractice suit was to commence, he and this woman were planning to move in together.
My point is this - Michael's behavior in 1992, DURING the malpractice suit, directly contradicted his court testimony where he claimed to love his wife, honor his vows forever, and planned to take her home to care for her for the rest of her life. Another example - two months after the first judge ruled in favor of his removing her feeding tube, in July of 97, he announced his engagement to his current fiance and mother of his two children. And yet this is a man whose motives should be accepted without question?
Talk about suspension of disbelief.
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.