Skip to comments.Reborn (Schiavo supporters may have been right.)
Posted on 09/16/2006 8:44:44 AM PDT by Jawn33
Perhaps the last word should go to Pat Flores, the mother of George Melendez, the 31-year-old coma patient who reassured his parents that he wasn't in pain after taking Ambien, as zolpidem is known in the US. He was starved of oxygen when his car overturned and he landed face down in a garden pond near his home in Houston, Texas, in 1998. "The doctors said he was clinically dead - one said he was a vegetable," says Pat. "After three weeks he suffered multi-organ failure and they said his body would ultimately succumb. They said he would never regain consciousness."
He survived and four years later, while visiting a clinic, Pat gave him a sleeping pill because his constant moaning was keeping her and her husband, Del, awake in their shared hotel room. "After 10 to 15 minutes I noticed there was no sound and I looked over," she recalls. "Instead of finding him asleep, there he was, wide awake, looking at his surroundings. I said, 'George', and he said, 'What?' We sat up for two hours asking him questions and he answered all of them. His improvements have continued and we talk every day. He has a terrific sense of humour and he carries on running jokes from the day before.
(Excerpt) Read more at guardian.co.uk ...
Ahhh, you thought.....wrongly.
Please, I know this is a hot topic for a lot of people. Read the court ruling on this. You'll be amazed at what Terri said according to most of her family.
Do those prejudiced court rulings talk about the statements from Terri's family that told about her responding to them? Her attempts at communication? Probably not, Terri wasn't brain dead and wasn't comatose. She was murdered by her husband and the state.
Yeah, some of us have read IT ALL and we are convinced that Terri should have been turned over to the people who loved her and wanted to care for her for the rest of her life. He obviously did not love her, having taken up with another woman and having had two children with her.
What about all of our military who are suffering brain injuries due to terrorist attacks in Iraq? Some of them have a life folks like you wouldn't consider worth living. Should the VA just start starving them to death???
I agree. I think we should keep every "body" alive, no matter what condition, until there's some kind of miracle drug that may help them. I'm with you, Buddy.
Death is inevitable, at times simply postponing it is cruel. There's a difference between allowing nature to run its course and actively causing death, such as by starvation.
And therein lies the rub....who makes that decision? In our Country we have laws, and in the Terri Schiavo case, all the laws were met and upheld at every level.
My Uncle Bill and my Aunt Liz were both on life support. Machines were beating their hearts and causing them to breathe.
As painful as it was, the choice was clear that they would be better off being removed from the machines. We ended life support for them.
My Aunt Wanda was in a vegetative state for 40 years. She was given food and water daily, but no machines kept her alive. To deny her food and water would have been to actively kill her.
Terri Shiavo was in the same situation as my Aunt Wanda, not in the same situation as Bill or Liz. She was not on life support. She was actively killed, not "allowed to die".
There is a huge difference and I have been up close and personal with both types of cases. One is allowing nature to take it's course, the other is killing someone by our actions.
How old was your Aunt Wanda when she fell into the VS? Do you think she would have wanted to live 40 years like that? WOULD YOU?
I'm sorry, I have to correct you on that. He tried to kill her by denying her medicine for a urinary tract infection in 1993: three years after her unexplained injury, not six. He did this right after she was awarded $700,000 for her care and therapy -- he would have inherited the money, had she died, -- and he did it knowing that refusing to give her the antibiotics would kill her. All of this he admitted in sworn testimony.
P.S. Michael was taking the law into his own hands. It was decidedly illegal for him to deny medicine to Terri. The doctor and the medical facility refused to go along with it.
Yes, I do. She loved life. And yes I would, I love life. You know that those who come out of comas and VPS have stated that they could hear everything that went on while they were in those conditions?
She heard her families love every day she was alive. I'm sure she was comforted by that every day.
She was 27 when she went into the PVS, 66 when she died.
Still trolling after all these years!
News flash. The statute redefining feeding tubes as life support was passed years after Terri's injury. She was therefore absolutely incapable of giving informed consent to removal of the tube.
Besides, few of us here think that cheesy, lawyer-prompted hearsay from three people named Schiavo was worth a plugged nickel. Their interest was so obvious and their tales so ratty, it makes one wince.
It is a beautiful story of love and devotion you have shared here today. Thank you.
How about this one? Michael's lawsuits and Judge Greer's orders were in direct violation of all four provisions of the local animal cruelty laws. There are no exceptions in the law, which protects ANY animal in ANY place. In fact it specifically orders that sick or infirm animals are to be protected. Imagine, every animal is protected from cruelty except a helpless woman named Terri Schiavo.
Pinellas County Animal Control Ordinance
Sec. 14-32. Cruelty to animals.
(a) Whoever impounds or confines any animal in any place and fails to supply the animal during such confinement with a sufficient quantity of good and wholesome food and water shall be in violation of this article.
(b) Whoever keeps any animal in any enclosure without wholesome exercise and change of air shall be in violation of this article.
(c) Whoever abandons to die any animal that is maimed, sick, infirm, or diseased shall be in violation of this article.
(d) A person who unnecessarily overloads, overdrives, tortures, torments, deprives of necessary sustenance or shelter, or unnecessarily or cruelly beats, mutilates, or kills any animal, or causes the same to be done, or carries in or upon any vehicle, or otherwise, any animal in a cruel or inhumane manner, shall be in violation of this article.
She was not dying, anymore than you or I am dying. Starving her to death was murder, just as it would be murder for my sister to starve her day old child to death.
She needed food and water just as we all do. But judges love to create second class citzens in this country, and treat them less than human.
Hearsay? How so? Third party testimony is hearsay, second party isn't.
I have read the court documents, just as I have read the court documents for Dred Scott, Roe v. Wade, and Kelo.
These cases have nothing to do with this, try reading John F Memorial vs Bludworth (Fla 1984) and Guardianship of Estelle M. Browning (Fla 1990) for a clearer picture.
There were as many hearsay statements that contradicted what Michael was saying, and they had maintained that from the beginning, Michael changed his story when money became available.
This statement tells me that you did NOT read the court documents.
If she had, we wouldn't be having this discussion.
The "evidence" of "her wishes" was hearsay.
Again, second party statements are not hearsay. For example, if I tell you something and you repeat it in court it is not hearsay. If I tell you something and you tell someone else, their statement in court would be hearsay.
Terri was older when her injury occurred
Terri made statements to Mike Sister-in-law, which means she was much older.
Wow, and I thought only liberal got unhinged.
What about the fact that there was some testimony contradicting what Terry had supposedly said?
Oh, and you have this "testimony" and took it directly to your local law enforcement so they could reopen this case, right?? I'm not hearing anything.....
As it is intended by Satan, you mean
As a matter of fact they do: "Hours of observed video tape recordings of Theresa offer little objective insight about her awareness and interactive behaviors. There are instances where she appears to respond specifically to her mother. But these are not repetitive or consistent". (http://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/WolfsonReport.pdf)
Terri wasn't brain dead and wasn't comatose
And your medical information comes from where??
I call bull on you.
Geez, where'd you read this crap, the Onion?? Here's what really came up in court: "In early 1994 Theresa contracted a urinary tract infection and Michael, in consultation with Theresas treating physician, elected not to treat the infection and simultaneously imposed a do not resuscitate order should Theresa experience cardiac arrest. When the nursing facility initiated an intervention to challenge this decision, Michael cancelled the orders. Following the incident involving the infection, Theresa was transferred to another skilled nursing facility. Michaels decision not to treat was based upon discussions and consultation with Theresas doctor, and was predicated on his reasoned belief that there was no longer any hope for Theresas recovery. It had taken Michael more than three years to accommodate this reality and he was beginning to accept the idea of allowing Theresa to die naturally rather than remain in the non-cognitive, vegetative state. (http://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/WolfsonReport.pdf)
So now Terri's an animal?? Come on, that's a weak strawman and you know it.
Ahh, so the cheesy, lawyer-promted hearsay from people named Schindler are worth more than a plugged nickel?
Both families had their time before the court, and the court felt that there was clear and convincing evidence that this was what Terri wanted.
No, she was treated worse than an animal. An animal can't be deprived of hydration and nutrition: Terri was.
Just because something was legal, doesn't mean it's moral. Or do you approve of the ovens at Auschwitz? I mean, Hitler had courts that said they were legal...
Feel free, but it won't change the court documents, testimony, and court rulings.
No, and nothing will bring Terri back. But you are defending a purposeful killing and you know it.
Michael had already "moved on". He was sleeping with another woman out of wedlock and had children with her. He could have simply turned over care of his wife to her parents and walked away.
He decided that he wouldn't rest until his wife was dead.
He wanted her dead.
Her parents wanted to care for her.
That's the truth.
Your right and I agree. Abortion is legal and I don't agree with it either. So tell me, is it moral to follow someone's "final wishes" (assuming they have a stated/written one), or just to follow your own judgment and to heck with what they want?
The whole purpose of the hearsay rule is to prevent the misreporting of statements made by those who cannot be present in court to testify and be subject to examination by the parties' attorneys and the court.
The rule looks not to the speaker, but to the person whose statement is being reported. It doesn't matter that Michael Schiavo was a party to the litigation; his out of court statement was not in dispute. I suppose you could argue that Terri Schiavo was a nominal party, but she was not present or available to testify. Therefore her statement could not be explored or challenged through her examination by the lawyers and the judge.
So the "admission of a party" exception to the hearsay rule doesn't apply here.
Am I? Or am I forcing you to look at the fact that Terri wanted this and her parents were going to disregard her wishes?
Yes, this is a sore subject for a lot of people. I for one am glad that Florida law makes it very clear who can, and cannot, make these decisions. With all of the appeals through all of the state and federal courts, this had to be the most reviewed case on record. Amazingly enough I only found one time where a decision was overturned on appeal. Seems to me that the legalities where all covered very carefully. So statements that "there was other evidence" is pure bunk.
Michael had already "moved on". He was sleeping with another woman out of wedlock and had children with her.
Oh, you mean the woman that the Schindler's introduced to Michael, encouraged him to date, regardless of the fact that Michael was still married to their daughter? -Traveler
How do you know Terri wanted this?
is that all your worth? 78 bucks?? :)
kinda too late to say "Schiavo supporters may have been right" at this point. There are no winner in this situation. That actually is a ridiculous thing to say.
It was good testimony. It did not have the stench of interest that tainted the Schiavos' testimony. It was not limited to Terri's family, but included her friends and her priests. And, it made sense. After all, Terri was a practicing Catholic who believed that taking her own life was a sin. She did not have a suicide wish.
It was Scott and Joan Schiavo's testimony that is open to the suspicion of lawyer tampering. Scott admitted under oath that the didn't recall the long-ago and long forgotten memories of Terri until he had had a personal meeting with George Felos. Joan Schiavo also met with Felos before having miraculous memory recovery.
Starving and dehydrating an otherwise healthy patient who has close relatives willing and able to care for them is despicable and evil.
You say Terri wanted to be starved to death, but the only one who said so was Michael.
This is the man who was heard by a nurse to say "When is this bitch going to die?"
Now if I believe Michael that Terri said she wanted to be starved to death years after the statement, why shouldn't I believe the nurse days after Michael's statement?
Hearsay works both ways, and that's why it isn't good evidence.
Since Michael's statements are not good evidence, the court should have decided that erring on the side of life was the prudent course.
He parents would have responsibility for her and Michael could be off living his own life.
No, Michael's own testimony. Heaven knows, we've published it often enough.
Wolfson is a biased source, and proved it lavishly by his appearance at a death cult meeting at the University of Pennsylvania. He shared the dais with Michael Schiavo, Dr. Ronald "Humane Death" Cranford and Judge Greer -- all the heavy hitters (except Felos) on the kill-Terri team.
bjs1779, do you remember where you posted MS's testimony? It's the segment where he also admitted stealing his wife's wedding rings and killing her cats.
It's not a strawman at all. It cannot be argued that Terri was some other life form than animal. The law allows no exceptions.
The lesson is larger, however. Terri Schiavo was treated in a way that violated the letter and spirit of animal CRUELTY laws. Do you suppose she could not feel the pain? Her medical records for fifteen years are full of notations about her experiencing and being treated for pain. Her doctors and nurses knew she could feel pain. She wasn't merely put to death. She was tortured to death.
With a dose of Ambien, Terri might have been able to say what happened to her on February 25, 1990. None of her detractors will give us any answer on that. What did happen? How did a healthy young woman, mostly likely asleep, suddenly end up on the floor, face down, nearly dead, soon after her husband got home late one Saturday night?
Healthy young women do not keel over that way. No natural cause was found. Bulimia was ruled out. For the most obvious possible cause of Terri's injuries -- domestic violence -- there is only one suspect and he has no alibi.
The irony, in all such cases, is that atonement (whether religious or psychological) can only come through contrition. If someone does something wrong, trying to pretend it's right will not make it okay; it will just magnify the wrongdoing by aiding and abbetting those who do likewise. For a person to recognize that they did something wrong is not a black mark--actually, it's a good mark because it suggests the person may be wiser next time.
He confessed to having tried to kill her in a 1993 deposition. That's less than four years.
aw rats! shift-five not shift-four
True, but my point was that hearsay in any case is considered very weak evidence.
"And your medical information comes from where??"
From reading less biased sources than your Wolfson report.