Skip to comments.Terri's husband isn't the enemy, guardian says
Posted on 03/19/2005 9:18:52 AM PST by EveningStar
click here to read article
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.
Well, if you read the article there's an explanation. Everyone makes it sound like Michael and Judge Greer sit around drinking beer thinking up ways to torture Terri. It's just preposterous.
Question if I may..probably needs a legal answer.. He was appointed her guardian. He was also, at the time, her husband. Does Florida law require a guardian in the case where it is a spouse, to file the annual fincancila reporting forms with the court?. It would seem that any court reviewer would have at leatst questioned the huge $$ expenses made supposedly on her behalf to lawyers, as opposed to her care. So who was the legal reviewer, and which judge apppointed him, and thus has given him considerable fees over the years?
Yes I believe it does, but from what we've read, Michael is habitually delinquent in his filings, which Greer has chosen to ignore.
It would seem that any court reviewer would have at least questioned the huge $$ expenses made supposedly on her behalf to lawyers, as opposed to her care. So who was the legal reviewer, and which judge apppointed him, and thus has given him considerable fees over the years?
I don't know that there was any independent court reviewer - no doubt others would be able to answer that and your other questions more accurately.
I do know, however, that Greer ruled to authorize the use of Terri's medical fund to pay legal fees, which was done to the tune of approximately 62%, near as can be estimated. By Felos' own admission, he and one of his colleagues got close to half a million dollars over several years (he was retained in 98 and claims to have not been paid for the past 2 years), and Felos was only retained to represent Michael in his efforts to have Terri's feeding tube pulled, so his representation has had nothing to do with oversight of the medical fund. At any rate, there's only 50k left, according to a recent article about the expenditures.
I'm not sure it's a good idea to use WorldNetDaily and Newsmax as legitimate news sources. :)
Not all the people on the "save Terri" side are frothing lunatics.
I agree but I just want to know if it's true or not. Someone had posted a legitimate non-tabloid news source to me once and I can't find it. If it's true, why would he deny her communion?
And the "absolute lies" are the BEST parts of many posts which are dripping with hatred for those who believe this lady left us a long time ago. Hatred not even less than that exhibited towards Saddam or Clinton.
I know that, but it seems the ones who post to me are!!! :) ONLY KIDDING!!
I have not seen one single post that expresses hatred toward Terri.
Of course not I was referring to the hatred of those who want to keep the tube in indefinitely against those who believe she is gone.
That is her CAT scan. She has electrodes IN HER HEAD it is impossible to have an MRI unless the electrodes WERE REMOVED.
Michael ISN'T an adulterer? Really? Could you prove that? I just wondered since you seem to think those that call him that are lying.
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.
Then tell me why Michael testified he wanted to take care of Terri for the "rest of her life". Guess that was only for eight years, ummm?
My guess is that he thought she would get better. She didn't.
That's not what I said.
I said the Terri supporters cannot stick to the facts of the case and sooner or later slip into demonizing Michael. As though his behavior is relevant to the case.
How in the world is his behavior not "relevant to the case"??
This is a surreal nightmare................
I meant in a sane, logical, and legal sense.
Certainly in an emotionally driven, gossipy sense, his deplorable and adulterous actions make him undeserving of living, much less being Terri's guardian.
But, that's not the way things work in this country. And thank God for that.
Depends on what side of the starvation you're on
Joan Schiavo, and she is Michael's brother, Scott's wife.
I read in records that she's Williams wife. Who cares, she's a Schiavo.
Yes, my mistake.
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.