kyburg | And because this is the "real" news on the matter -

It was six months for his first girlfriend, but in the malpractice trial - which was six months AFTER that - he said he wanted to spend the rest of his life with his wife.

He moved on less than a year after it happened and lied about doing so to collect a big fat malpractice suit. I'd say he's a prick.

but if i recall correctly all that malpractice suit money was spent on terri... so prick or not, he didn't get any of the money. that was another thing... everyone was like, blah blah blah, he just wants her money... there was nothing left after all the medical bills! he was trying to keep her from being a burden to the taxpayers as well.

He got a personal settlement of $300,000, all of which went directly into his pocket. Of the $750,000 settlement awarded to Terri, the greater portion of the winnings of his court case went to pay for his lawyer - who by the way also was chairman at the hospice they sent her to.

An unbiased collection of information is at this page. There is also a clearly biased but more detailed list at this site.

It doesn't really matter though, it's not like anyone's position on it is going to change regardless of the data presented, so there's no reason to try to debate any of it.

i'm willing to look at all the evidence. i never said he wasn't a prick. i'm inclined to believe he more was than wasn't. i don't know if he beat her or not. i think only he and Terri can ever know that. but i think her parents are bigger assholes than he is. *shrug*

I'm still trying to figure out why it matters what his personality was like. Sounds like obfuscation by people who don't want to discuss the autopsy results to me.

well, i think people who feel he was right in wanting to let Terri die still want to know what his intentions were - whether he was really looking out for her best interests or looking out for him. i think it's just human nature. but like i said, we'll never really know.

His personality and motivation matters because Terri's actual position on the life support issue was never proven conclusively. If she'd had a living will, none of this would have been in any debate whatsoever, but she didn't, so it's his word against her parents' word. In a case like that, credibility and honesty are most important.

i know, i keep going on about this, and i'm sorry, Donna, for doing this in your journal, but there's something about this i don't like, and i blame it on the source being very obviously right wing:

"In March, 2000, Michael Schiavo and his attorney, George Felos, secretively relocated Terri Schindler-Schiavo from the Palm Gardens Nursing Home to the hospice without court order and without notifying her parents."

Why did he need a court order or have to nofity her parents? HE was her legal guardian! the whole guardian ad-litem was to make the decision on whether or not to pull the feeding tube. never was guardianship taken away from Michael. so he didn't HAVE to have a court order to move her, nor did he have to notify her parents. if he did, don't you think legal action would have been taken against him by the state of Florida? but it wasn't. because there were no grounds. again, not saying he wasn't a prick, but what he did wasn't illegal by not notifying the parents. as for the medicare stuff, that's a whole 'nother ball game, and that sounds like the lawyer and the doctor to me. i know, that wasn't the point you were making, but that part of the article hit a nerve with me.

*nods* This is one of the things marriage does, which I never felt her parents had really gotten their heads around.

You marry someone? Your spouse immediately becomes your next of kin. Your parents? Siblings?

After that. Matter of fact, nobody has to tell them a thing - unless you spouse gives express permission. You and your spouse are your own unit; your parents become family-of-origin, but nothing more than that, unless you wish it to be more.

Period.

so he didn't HAVE to have a court order to move her, nor did he have to notify her parents.

Of course he didn't, nor would it make sense to tell them, given their opposition to the treatment he was giving her. Moving her from the home to a hospice was him basically saying "it's time for you to die." They would have opposed it obviously. It wasn't illegal, but I think the implication is that it was very rude and intentionally so.

My point is getting lost in the side issues here. He lied in court, he'd already betrayed his marriage when he did so, and his false dedication makes him a prick in my book. I couldn't care less how much money he made or lost in the process, or what Terri's actual chances of recovery were. When someone says in court to a judge, or at a wedding to someone's family, that they intend to stay with their spouse for the rest of their life, that's a vow, and not something to be casually discarded when keeping those words becomes inconvenient.

When someone says in court to a judge, or at a wedding to someone's family, that they intend to stay with their spouse for the rest of their life, that's a vow, and not something to be casually discarded when keeping those words becomes inconvenient.

The logical consequence of your position is the claim that divorce should be completely illegal, no matter what. You took that vow, now you're stuck with it no matter if your spouse beats the shit out of you, disappears for 20 years, runs around on you with everything else in town, or lies in a vegetative state with no hope of recovery and every chance of living for another 50 years.

Sorry, Charlie. We spent half a century fighting to get people OUT of that mindset, and I'm not going back in on YOUR say-so. There's nothing more poisonous than a marriage which is dead in all but name.

You keep throwing around the word "casually", when from all the evidence there was nothing casual about any of Michael Schiavo's decisions. Why does everyone have to make him either an angel or a demon? He was a human being, trying to steer his way thru a difficult course as best he could. He probably made mistakes. Who among us has not? Who's entitled to throw that first stone?

I totally agree.
In my personal experience, the people who make the biggest deal about divorce being OMG THE WORST THING EVER are either a) desperate to find something to be morally patronizing about or b) deeply unhappy in their own relationship, or-- a combination of a and b. Not that that's this person's deal, just what I've seen in my (happily brief and limited) experience with such belief systems.

I take it you don't know any children of divorced parents, then. They tend to have rather strong feelings about how wonderful of an experience it is, particularly if the divorce involved one of their parents cheating.

I'm not trying to be morally patronizing, nor am I unhappy with any of my own relationships, all I am saying is that this guy is not the squeaky-clean saint he's being put forward as, and that his motives are questionable. Do I know for a fact that he did this for himself rather than for her? No. But I do know that he's said things that don't match his actions, and those things make him a prick in my book.

"Smoke from another fire."

Yup.

I take it you don't know any children of divorced parents, then.

You can take whatever you want, but you'd be wrong. I also know plenty of people who grew up with parents who hated one another but refused to go their separate ways. That's an even more wonderful experience.
But eh, no one's discussing kids here, so that's irrelevant. Teri was hardly having children while she was in that state.

I'm not trying to be morally patronizing, nor am I unhappy with any of my own relationships

Like I said, that's just my own anecdotal evidence speaking, I've no idea what your deal is. Judging from your icon as well as your comments on this thread, it seems to me you just really really like celebrity gossip. Which is fine, but that's a subject that's of absolutely no interest to me whatsoever, so it always surprises me when other people are interested.

all I am saying is that this guy is not the squeaky-clean saint he's being put forward as, and that his motives are questionable.

Again, that's fine, if that's how you feel. But it's entirely irrelevant, as he did absolutely nothing wrong from a legal standpoint, or in my own opinion, from an ethical standpoint-- sure, you can question his motives all you like, but since you can't read his mind, and you don't know any of the people in question, it's essentially a huge waste of time. The reason you're having trouble convincing anyone here otherwise is because the rest of us realize that it's absolutely none of our business, and we can never know what goes on in the heart of a total stranger.

The logical consequence of your position is the claim that divorce should be completely illegal, no matter what.

That's hardly true. I said it was not something to be casually discarded, not completely unbreakable. Of course there are times when it is necessary, but that isn't the point.

If he wanted to move on with his life, as his actions in 1991 indicated he did, then divorcing her would have been the right thing to do. His claiming to be dedicated to his wife while sleeping with another woman was dishonest.

I don't think he's a devil - a liar, maybe - but I do think he's been repeatedly portrayed as the white knight here, and I'm just pointing out that his armor's dirty underneath. He's no paladin.

Looking at your "unbiased" source?

Is Michael really just looking for money?

I have no way to know. I know what the Schindlers say to reporters, but then I know that the Second District's first decision in the case used these words to describe Michael's care for Terri:

Theresa has been blessed with loving parents and a loving husband. Many patients in this condition would have been abandoned by friends and family within the first year. Michael has continued to care for her and to visit her all these years. He has never divorced her. He has become a professional respiratory therapist and works in a nearby hospital. As a guardian, he has always attempted to provide optimum treatment for his wife. He has been a diligent watch guard of Theresa's care, never hesitating to annoy the nursing staff in order to assure that she receives the proper treatment.

Recently, Michael received an offer of $1 million, and perhaps a second offer of $10 million, to walk away from this case and permit Terri's parents to care for her. These offers, assuming there were two, were based on a misunderstanding of the situation here. Michael lacks the power to undo the court order determining Terri's wishes and requiring the removal of her feeding tube. He did not make the decision and cannot unmake it. The court made the decision on Terri's behalf. Nonetheless, Michael apparently rejected each offer.

Money grubbing, my foot. That's a matter of court record.

The statement was made that he received no money from the settlement, and I was correcting that statement because it was untrue. I never said he was a prick because of how much money he received. I said he was a prick because he cheated on his wife then lied in court about it afterwards.

Okay - this guy seems to have a handle on what was said - lied about what in court?

First off, it's important to know that there were two malpractice trials, one against each doctor. One was settled out of court and the other was settled while waiting on appeal.

The transcript of this case - Pinellas County case 92-939-15, can be read in its entirety at this site.

It was during the November 1992 trial - the one that ended up initially awarding 1.4 million dollars - where the testimony Michael gave was:

Q. How do you feel about being married to Terri now.
MS. I feel wonderful. She's my life and I wouldn't trade her for the world. I believe in my marriage vows.

Q. You believe in your wedding vows, what do you mean by that?
MS. I believe in the vows I took with my wife, through sickness, in health, for richer or poor. I married my wife because I love her and I want to spend the rest of my life with her. I'm going to do that.

Of course, the fact that Michael had already taken a new girlfriend in 1991, Cyndi Shook, was not part of the record in 1992 because it came out in 2001 when she was issued a subpoena during the litigation with Terri's parents. According to her, Michael started seeing her at the end of 1991, so his testimony above doesn't jive with his actions. If he wanted to "move on", he should have said so in the trial, but of course that would have substantially reduced his winnings.

That's my interpretation of it.

That link is incorrectly described - I was working too quickly. It links to the removal petition, which contains the relevant excerpt of the record from 92-939-15.

Okay.

Here's first-hand speaking now.

I was widowed in 1998 - I was 37, he was 36.

Before he died - he kept pushing me to "get on with my life" and take up with somebody new. (He even suggested

silverkun, which is a source of amusement to this day.)

Taking up a secondary relationship does not mean you've discarded the original one - to a lot of minds, that's a difficult thing to get their heads around, but it does happen. I would have to say that's the case here.

Now, I had a number of very supportive "relationships" during the two years before he died - but none of them were of a romantic nature. Both sexes - so the fact he (M. Schiavo) had a relationship before the hearing you mention doesn't surprise me. Is it damming evidence? Please. I've been there. Not likely. When did it get as serious (and fecund) as it has? No idea. Not my bizness, either.

One of the other things that site clearly spelled out, in the clearest language I've read to date - the courts interviewed many people involved in Terri's case, not just her parents and her spouse - and they came up with the decision that her spouse's view was the "accurate" one.

So what are we left with?

Sorry toots - it's only your opinion. And while you are entitled to it, between yours, mine and the guy over in the corner - opinions are like assholes. We all have one, and sooner or later, they all stink.

And because this is the "real" news on the matter -

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject