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

[kyburg]

The Teri Schiavo autopsy results are in.

And her husband did his duty by her.

And the so-called "pro-life" activists? *waves red flag of personal opinion*

They have a long way to go before they can convince me that their "activism" isn't smoke from another fire - it appears to have little to do with "life" or dealing with the hard realities of end-of-life issues. There are worse things than being alive, if you truly believe in any kind of afterlife.

This was one of them. Thank God it's over.

Comments

[kyburg.livejournal.com]

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.

[browren.livejournal.com]

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.

[kyburg.livejournal.com]

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

[browren.livejournal.com]

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.

[browren.livejournal.com]

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.

[kyburg.livejournal.com]

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.