The Terri Shiavo Controversy - DPChallenge Forums

03/28/2005 12:24:53 PM · #401

Originally posted by bdobe:

For whatever reason many people working against Mrs. Shiavo's wishes have blamed the husband for her condition, a charge has been repeated often in this thread. Note that we've also read how Mr. Shiavo has REFUSED $10 million that's been offered to him if he would only sign over guardianship and refuse to press for Mrs. Shiavo's wishes to be carried out.

okay with that reasoning then let's just forget about the $1.5million he's already gotten *POOF* there it goes. AND the fact that "her wishes" weren't brought up by him until well after the malpractice trial and well after she'd been hospitalized and denied the right to rehabilitation (by him) *POOF* there that goes, too.

Sigma 18-125mm f/3.5-5.6 DC for Canon

03/28/2005 12:27:11 PM · #402

Originally posted by GoldBerry:

Originally posted by RayEthier:

I don't know if you have ever experienced an issue of this magnitude Ms. Goldberry, but I know I have....

I'm not a pornstar or dominatrix so please keep the "Miss" to a minimum mmkay? And yea, I got the implication but I'm choosing to ignore your tone.

Nsbca7, no one is blaming Michael for her own eating disorder, but the fact that he denied her any rehabilitation which has been well documented can only logically lead someone to think "what might have been?"....it's been proven before that in some cases rehabilitation leads to full recovery.

It probably would be better if we all read the same text. I was under the distint impression that her husband demanded rehabilitaion in the beginning taking her thousands of miles in search of a cure.

Message edited by author 2005-03-28 12:28:21.

Kavey

Canon EOS-400D Rebel XTi

03/28/2005 12:29:05 PM · #403

I spent a couple of hours reading the whole thread before I went to sleep last night. I don't wish to take a sides on this issue or express my opinions, though, of course, I have some. It's not my place to do so given that I know I do not have all the facts.

I do want to say a couple of things in response to what I have read here.

Firstly I want to thank Karma for posting her personal experiences. That can't have been an easy thing to do and I just want to say how brave I think you are to share your story in order to give people a different perspective. Thank you.

Secondly, without going into what I think of Mr Schiavo's motives or actions I do want to respond to an idea I have read here a number of times that he surely can't feel any love for Terri because he has a new partner and has had children with her.

Since when has it been the case that a heart only has room enough in it to love one person?

Given Terri's condition for the past 15 years the relationship/ future he can possibly have with her is very limited. That he has found someone else to share a side of life that he can no longer share with Terri, however much he may or may not like to, doesn't necessarily mean, in my opinion, that he cannot also have genuine feelings for Terri and care about what happens to her.

Whether or not he does is not something for me to judge, and I can certainly see how, given the limited knowledge that the public have, people might doubt that. I'm not saying I believe one way or another that this man is acting out of love for Terri or not.

All I am saying is that I do not think the mere fact that he has a relationship and a family with another woman (after all this time) should be taken as evidence on that issue.

I know that if I were in her situation, I would not expect nor want my husband to deprive himself of companionship, love, family and as normal a home life as possible. If he were able to find those things I would not automatically assume that he did not love me or that he would not continue to do whatever was required for me.

I have long made sure that my husband, family and friends all know my wishes about this kind of issue and about what I would like done with my body so I'd hope that there would be no tragic conflict about that.

Just a few thoughts. I have millions but these were just the things I wanted to say.

Panasonic Lumix G 14mm F2.5 ASPH

03/28/2005 12:47:57 PM · #404

Originally posted by nsbca7:

It probably would be better if we all read the same text. I was under the distint impression that her husband demanded rehabilitaion in the beginning taking her thousands of miles in search of a cure.

Oh really? LOL the documentary I saw on the news said the nurses signed a sworn affadavid stating he physically kept them from performing any sort of rehabilitation at any time. I wonder what the truth is....

Olyuzi

Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX7

03/28/2005 12:58:03 PM · #405

I'm not sure what documentary you saw on the news, but the courts have already found the nurse and her affadavit to be incredible and not to be believed. In addition, you can be certain that any family member, in any given case, that attempts to physically deny care or intimidate members of the given facility's staff to deny care, would be thrown out and not allowed back in as being a danger to the patient and the staff. It would not be tolerated.

Originally posted by GoldBerry:

Originally posted by nsbca7:
It probably would be better if we all read the same text. I was under the distint impression that her husband demanded rehabilitaion in the beginning taking her thousands of miles in search of a cure.

Oh really? LOL the documentary I saw on the news said the nurses signed a sworn affadavid stating he physically kept them from performing any sort of rehabilitation at any time. I wonder what the truth is....

03/28/2005 01:01:04 PM · #406

Originally posted by GoldBerry:

You should.

It seems to me ludicrous the way people, based solely on a three paragraph article in USA Today or a two minute snippet on FOX News, will second guess a battalion of judges whose benches range all the way to the US Supreme Court and who have had every detail and nuance of a case before them for review.

Message edited by author 2005-03-28 13:05:42.

03/28/2005 01:26:27 PM · #407

The show I watched this weekend about it on the news was live (so very recent). Just goes to show how many sides there are to every story. And I think it's good to question the information. On both sides.

MadMordegon

03/28/2005 01:33:12 PM · #408

Originally posted by GoldBerry:

Im curious the name of the show on what channel it came on.

03/28/2005 01:37:45 PM · #409

Originally posted by GoldBerry:

I have no problem with questioning the information. It just seemed to me based on what you have posted that you had made up your mind on this case already. I have not. I don't know what is the right and the wrong in this situation. I simply try to put myself in Terri's position and think what outcome I would hope for. Most people are trying to put themselves in her husbands shoes. I find that a much too complicated and painful place to be.

Nikon AF-S DX NIKKOR 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR II

03/28/2005 01:44:23 PM · #410

Originally posted by nsbca7:

It just seemed to me based on what you have posted that you had made up your mind on this case already.

Based on information I've seen/read yea, I'd made up mind. I had decided that her parents deserve the right to make the decisions. I stand by that..whatever motives or actions transpired in the beginning, bah, it's the here and now that matters the most. Taking out her feeding tubes, to me, is still quite inhumane. My stance on that won't change.

As for the show, it was on CBC news over the weekend...I can't remember which show. They have a dozen different shows like SUnday Report, News World, National Report, etc.

Message edited by author 2005-03-28 13:45:17.

Judith Polakoff

Nikon D7000

03/28/2005 01:46:28 PM · #411

Originally posted by GoldBerry:

Originally posted by bdobe:

For whatever reason many people working against Mrs. Shiavo's wishes have blamed the husband for her condition, a charge has been repeated often in this thread. Note that we've also read how Mr. Shiavo has REFUSED $10 million that's been offered to him if he would only sign over guardianship and refuse to press for Mrs. Shiavo's wishes to be carried out.

okay with that reasoning then let's just forget about the $1.5million he's already gotten *POOF* there it goes. AND the fact that "her wishes" weren't brought up by him until well after the malpractice trial and well after she'd been hospitalized and denied the right to rehabilitation (by him) *POOF* there that goes, too.

Goldberry, a link to the Guardian ad Litem's report has been posted in this thread before. If you haven't read that report, I really think you ought to because it addresses the issues you're raising about Michael's motives and behavior. The Guardian states in the report that Michael Schiavo formally offered to divest himself of the entire guardianship estate, the $1.5 million you referred to above. Secondly, only $300,000 of that award was paid directly to Michael Schiavo. The remaining amount resided in an account and funds spent from it (for Terri Schiavo's medical bills and legal costs) were overseen directly by a judge. These facts just aren't consistent with a profit motive.

As for the charge that Michael Schiavo denied his wife therapy and rehabilitation, the above-referenced report also outlines in detail the aggressive efforts made by Michael Schiavo to provide therapy and rehabilitation for his wife.

All of these facts are just that, well-documented facts that at this point I think cannot be disputed. Here's the link again to the Guardian ad Litem's Report

Canon EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM

03/28/2005 01:56:59 PM · #412

Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:

All of these facts are just that, well-documented facts that at this point I think cannot be disputed. Here's the link again to the Guardian ad Litem's Report

Thanks, I'll check that out! I wasn't really eluding that Michael is financially corrupt, just confused over the information I guess.

Message edited by author 2005-03-28 13:57:28.

dsmboostaholic

Canon EOS-40D

03/28/2005 02:26:47 PM · #413

Originally posted by RayEthier:

Some things in life cannot be answered by a simple YES or NO response.

Ray

OR some people do not have the ability to answer in a yes or no fashion. It has become quit clear that several visitors to this thread have all the opinion in the world yet can not make a choice for the life of them. The best you can do is dodge the question, highlight others downfalls and spew sarcasm. Only one person could answer with a yes or no. Its funny how the rest had to engage in a belittling and condescending manor. It appears that you hide behind opinion so that you can not be accountable.
Your answer was yes correct? Yet for some reason you had to justify it by making childish insults and school yard displays of what you perceive to be the DPC hierarchy of the Rant-

03/28/2005 02:51:24 PM · #414

Originally posted by dsmboostaholic:

Originally posted by RayEthier:
Some things in life cannot be answered by a simple YES or NO response.

Ray

OR some people do not have the ability to answer in a yes or no fashion. It has become quit clear that several visitors to this thread have all the opinion in the world yet can not make a choice for the life of them. The best you can do is dodge the question, highlight others downfalls and spew sarcasm. Only one person could answer with a yes or no. Its funny how the rest had to engage in a belittling and condescending manor. It appears that you hide behind opinion so that you can not be accountable.
Your answer was yes correct? Yet for some reason you had to justify it by making childish insults and school yard displays of what you perceive to be the DPC hierarchy of the Rant-

I'm sorry, but I would have to agree that the question posed in the form your presented it is about equivelent to being asked if you still beat your wife. The way your question was framed gave no leeway for circumstance.

RonB

Canon EOS-300D Rebel

03/28/2005 02:54:31 PM · #415

In the conclusion of the Guardian ad Litum's report are these observations, which I feel sum up the issue quite well:

"Until and unless there is objective, fresh, mutually agreed upon closure regarding measurable and well accepted scientific bases for deducing Theresa's clinical state, Theresa will not be done justice. There must be at least a degree of trust with respect to a process that the factions competing for Theresa's best interest can agree. To benefit Theresa, and in the overall interests of justice, good science, and public policy, there needs to be a fresh, clean-hands start.

The Schindlers and the Schiavos are normal, decent people who have found themselves within the construct of an exceptional circumstance which none of them, indeed, few reasonable and normal people could have imagined. As a consequence of this circumstance, extensive urban mythology has created toxic clouds, causing the parties and others to behave in ways that may not, in the order of things, serve the best interests of the ward."

03/28/2005 02:57:16 PM · #416

Originally posted by dsmboostaholic:

In the same manner let me pose a simple yes or no question and see if you can answer it.

Would you needlessly let your wife suffer for an indeterminate number of years if you knew there was something you could do to end that suffering? Yes or no?

RayEthier

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 USM

03/28/2005 03:00:18 PM · #417

Originally posted by GoldBerry:

Please forgive for thinking you actually knew that the term ms. was something initated by women who did not care to be addressed as Miss or Mrs.... trust me it has nothing to do with being a porn star or dominatrix...

As for the tone commment... I have no idea what you are alluding to , unless of course it is that portion of my comment which indicated that this question was not so simple as to elicit a simple YES or NO answer.

Again, my apologies.

Ray

RayEthier

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 USM

03/28/2005 03:03:32 PM · #418

DMS... I had the courage to answer the question you asked and still eagerly await your answer to the question asked of you. Please enlighten us.

Ray

milo655321

Nikon D70

Tokina AF 12-24mm f/4.0 AT-X Pro DX

03/28/2005 03:19:40 PM · #419

Goldberry,

The term "Ms.", pronounced miz, was adopted by the business community starting in the 1950s as women began to increasingly make a larger percentage of the business workforce. It was meant as a marriage-neutral address for women, as opposed to "Miss" or "Mrs.", for business communications, much the same way that the term "Mr." is marriag-neutral towards men.

RonB

Canon EOS-300D Rebel

03/28/2005 03:24:51 PM · #420

Originally posted by nsbca7:

Originally posted by dsmboostaholic:

Originally posted by RayEthier:
Some things in life cannot be answered by a simple YES or NO response.

Ray

OR some people do not have the ability to answer in a yes or no fashion. It has become quit clear that several visitors to this thread have all the opinion in the world yet can not make a choice for the life of them. The best you can do is dodge the question, highlight others downfalls and spew sarcasm. Only one person could answer with a yes or no. Its funny how the rest had to engage in a belittling and condescending manor. It appears that you hide behind opinion so that you can not be accountable.
Your answer was yes correct? Yet for some reason you had to justify it by making childish insults and school yard displays of what you perceive to be the DPC hierarchy of the Rant-

I'm sorry, but I would have to agree that the question posed in the form your presented it is about equivelent to being asked if you still beat your wife. The way your question was framed gave no leeway for circumstance.

First, What is it in

"If you were in Mr.Shiavo's shoes, WOULD YOU LET YOUR SPOUSE STARVE TO DEATH?"

gives no leeway for circumstance? Why would you want "leeway" for circumstances when the question is already predicated upon a given set of cirumstances in the first place? The circumstance is "If you were in Mr.Schiavo's shoes". What kind of "leeway" for circumstances would you suggest?

Second, as to your false parallel, the question "Do you still beat your wife", contains within it the non-evidentiary supposition that you WERE beating your wife at some time in the past ( as implied by the use of the adverb STILL ). There is NO SUCH non-evidenciary supposition in the Schiavo question. The only iffy part of the question is that before answering it, you have to make a determination in your own mind as to what being "in Mr. Schiavo's shoes" means. That requires you to "assume" a position relative to his emotions, motives, etc.

BUT...the question is logically flawed, in the first place. The only possible "correct" answer to the question is 'YES'. Since only Mr. Schiavo could possibly answer the question with the full knowledge of what being "in Mr. Schiavo's shoes" is, and since he has already made his answer known, and that answer is 'YES', then it logically follows that 'YES' is the only logically correct answer.

Tokina AF 12-24mm f/4.0 AT-X Pro DX

03/28/2005 03:38:01 PM · #421

Originally posted by RonB:

Originally posted by nsbca7:

Originally posted by dsmboostaholic:

Originally posted by RayEthier:
Some things in life cannot be answered by a simple YES or NO response.

Ray

OR some people do not have the ability to answer in a yes or no fashion. It has become quit clear that several visitors to this thread have all the opinion in the world yet can not make a choice for the life of them. The best you can do is dodge the question, highlight others downfalls and spew sarcasm. Only one person could answer with a yes or no. Its funny how the rest had to engage in a belittling and condescending manor. It appears that you hide behind opinion so that you can not be accountable.
Your answer was yes correct? Yet for some reason you had to justify it by making childish insults and school yard displays of what you perceive to be the DPC hierarchy of the Rant-

I'm sorry, but I would have to agree that the question posed in the form your presented it is about equivelent to being asked if you still beat your wife. The way your question was framed gave no leeway for circumstance.

First, What is it in

"If you were in Mr.Shiavo's shoes, WOULD YOU LET YOUR SPOUSE STARVE TO DEATH?"

gives no leeway for circumstance? Why would you want "leeway" for circumstances when the question is already predicated upon a given set of cirumstances in the first place? The circumstance is "If you were in Mr.Schiavo's shoes". What kind of "leeway" for circumstances would you suggest?

Second, as to your false parallel, the question "Do you still beat your wife", contains within it the non-evidentiary supposition that you WERE beating your wife at some time in the past ( as implied by the use of the adverb STILL ). There is NO SUCH non-evidenciary supposition in the Schiavo question. The only iffy part of the question is that before answering it, you have to make a determination in your own mind as to what being "in Mr. Schiavo's shoes" means. That requires you to "assume" a position relative to his emotions, motives, etc.

BUT...the question is logically flawed, in the first place. The only possible "correct" answer to the question is 'YES'. Since only Mr. Schiavo could possibly answer the question with the full knowledge of what being "in Mr. Schiavo's shoes" is, and since he has already made his answer known, and that answer is 'YES', then it logically follows that 'YES' is the only logically correct answer.

It seems to me that I would have no way of knowing what is in Mr. Schiavo's head or his heart and would have no way of making a decision from his shoes until I was actually in his shoes. So as a strictly yes or no question I feel it is unanswerable by anyone but Michael Schiavo.

RonB

Canon EOS-300D Rebel

03/28/2005 03:47:38 PM · #422

Originally posted by nsbca7:

Originally posted by RonB:

Originally posted by nsbca7:

Originally posted by dsmboostaholic:

Originally posted by RayEthier:
Some things in life cannot be answered by a simple YES or NO response.

Ray

OR some people do not have the ability to answer in a yes or no fashion. It has become quit clear that several visitors to this thread have all the opinion in the world yet can not make a choice for the life of them. The best you can do is dodge the question, highlight others downfalls and spew sarcasm. Only one person could answer with a yes or no. Its funny how the rest had to engage in a belittling and condescending manor. It appears that you hide behind opinion so that you can not be accountable.
Your answer was yes correct? Yet for some reason you had to justify it by making childish insults and school yard displays of what you perceive to be the DPC hierarchy of the Rant-

I'm sorry, but I would have to agree that the question posed in the form your presented it is about equivelent to being asked if you still beat your wife. The way your question was framed gave no leeway for circumstance.

First, What is it in

"If you were in Mr.Shiavo's shoes, WOULD YOU LET YOUR SPOUSE STARVE TO DEATH?"

gives no leeway for circumstance? Why would you want "leeway" for circumstances when the question is already predicated upon a given set of cirumstances in the first place? The circumstance is "If you were in Mr.Schiavo's shoes". What kind of "leeway" for circumstances would you suggest?

Second, as to your false parallel, the question "Do you still beat your wife", contains within it the non-evidentiary supposition that you WERE beating your wife at some time in the past ( as implied by the use of the adverb STILL ). There is NO SUCH non-evidenciary supposition in the Schiavo question. The only iffy part of the question is that before answering it, you have to make a determination in your own mind as to what being "in Mr. Schiavo's shoes" means. That requires you to "assume" a position relative to his emotions, motives, etc.

BUT...the question is logically flawed, in the first place. The only possible "correct" answer to the question is 'YES'. Since only Mr. Schiavo could possibly answer the question with the full knowledge of what being "in Mr. Schiavo's shoes" is, and since he has already made his answer known, and that answer is 'YES', then it logically follows that 'YES' is the only logically correct answer.

It seems to me that I would have no way of knowing what is in Mr. Schiavo's head or his heart and would have no way of making a decision from his shoes until I was actually in his shoes. So as a strictly yes or no question I feel it is unanswerable by anyone but Michael Schiavo.

You haven't read my post in it's entirety. Pay particular attention to the last paragraph in which I say essentially the same thing. But the question IS answerable by ANYONE, but the answer is, logically, always 'YES'. Namely, If you were in Mr. Schiavo's shoes you WOULD do what Mr. Schiavo does. And since HIS answer was 'YES' that's the only answer you or I could give with certainty.

milo655321

Nikon D70

03/28/2005 04:06:38 PM · #423

Ladies and Gentlemen,

there are ways of addressing specific comments without quoting an entire string of threads. For the sake of an easier-to-follow thread, can unnecessary quoted material, in so much as it does not apply the matter being addressed, be removed before posting, if possible? My kind thanks for your cooperation.