About Terri Schiavo's parents lawsuit and allegations towards

[CatWoman]

their son-in-law.

Is it "bad taste"/improper for a man to have relations/a relationship with another woman after his wife has been declared dead or "brain dead"?

Is he not entitled to live his life even though his wife is still technically alive?

[bearfan454]

1. Not after several years

I would think.

[mattclearing]

2. Not as bad of taste as it is to sue them for it.

Edit to note: But what do I know? I'm tasteblind.

[CatWoman]

5. On which side of the lawsuit are you referring?

The parent suing him, right?

[mattclearing]

7. Correct.

I'm saying it may be bad form to cheat on your mostly dead spouse, but it must be much worse form to sue someone for cheating on their mostly dead spouse.

[sniffa]

3. entitLed, schmentitLed

is aduLtery even prosecuted any more? much Less for the 15 year husband of a vegetabLe?

[CatWoman]

8. I heard you were growing a beard

gonna shape it into a giant "L"???

:hi:

[sniffa]

12. aLready did, kinda

i Lower case L right over my chin cLeft.

so i basicaLLy have 2 reaLLy, Long sideburns. :P

[AllegroRondo]

4. Ask Newt Gingrich

oh, wait, his wife wasn't brain dead, just in the hospital with cancer.

[CatWoman]

6. well, she DID marry him in the first place

:evilgrin:

[Spinzonner]

9. I think it's a personal choice

That said, I think it reflects that, in a sense, he has given up on his relationship with his wife. I'm not faulting him or criticizing him for it, given the realities of the medical situation.

But I think it should be taken to mean that responsibility for his wife's welfare and decisions about it should revert to her parents, especially in the absence of any document or testimony that reliably reflects her actual wishes and intentions.

[elehhhhna]

14. Well said, I agree.

[CatWoman]

18. very good post

thanks.

:thumbsup:

[MARALE]

26. In a way, I disagree

I think that he does still care for Terri, or else he would have given up years ago. I think his girlfriend is in a tough situation and must be a strong person to stand by him when he is sticking up for his wife. It would be easier to give up Terri to her parents, but he is trying to let her rest in peace.

[Spinzonner]

34. I don't necessarily disagree with you

but I think the situation relects that he now has competing and possibly conflicted interests and is not solely and unequivocably dedicated to his wife's best, long-term interests. That's not evil, it's natural.

I can't read his mind so I don't know what he is thinking. But it could reflect a desire for closure on what appears to be - by all accounts - a hopeless medical situation which also preserves his conscience with respect to 'abandonment'. I suspect he is uncomfortable with the idea of divorcing her even though mnay - if not most - would understand and not condemn him for it.

[Padraig18]

10. Why not just divorce her, then? n/t

[CatWoman]

11. that's a tough question

I've got to think on that one.

[notadmblnd]

20. insurance policy?

maybe if he divorces her, he won't be the beneficiary?

[Dookus]

17. because he doesn't want to

he wants to continue the obligation he took on when he married her. That's honorable.

[Tamarin]

19. Because there may be money involved.

He may stand to inherit the proceeds from her insurance trustfund. Her lawyer says the money has not been properly accounted for. If he divorces her, who gets the money?

[Padraig18]

23. We have a winner!

Correct answer is 'He does'.

[Dookus]

25. What money?

tell me, how much money is left?

She's a ward of the state. Any settlement money has been spent on her care, and on fighting the lawsuits filed by her parents.

So tell me, how much money does he stand to gain? The accusation that after all this time, and all he's done, he's interested in killing his wife for financial gain is a very serious one - you should have some evidence to back it up.

[Padraig18]

28. The money may have been improperly spent.

That's what money, Dookus. The money in the trust should never have been spent on HIS legal bills, per terms of the trust. If he's allowed to pull the plug, guess what happens to any possibility of a suit for malfeasance?

[Dookus]

29. dodge

How much money is there?

And what evidence is there that it was "improperly" spent?

How much money are you accusing him of taking for killing his wife?

[Tamarin]

30. Ask her lawyer

He was the one who said (on television last night) that the money has not been properly accounted for.

[Padraig18]

31. Not a doge at all.

It's been raised by her parent's lawyers, and he has consistently refused t make an accounting of all funds in the trus account. I'd say that, if true, that's a powerful motive for just leting her die.

[Dookus]

35. I don't

considering what deceptive liars the parents are. I'd need better evidence than their "claim".

[Padraig18]

37. If he has nothing to hide, then why not make it available.

Call me a suspicious bastard, but my first question is 'What's he hiding?'.

[Dookus]

40. You realize

that's a nice way to smear somebody without any evidence? They did it to John Kerry (he won't sign a form a 180 - what's he hiding?) they did it to his wife (she won't release all her tax returns - what's she hiding?).

It's a sleazy way to attack somebody when you have no real evidence against them.

[Padraig18]

41. No, in this case, it's an entirely fair question, Dookus.

The money was NOT *his* to spend as he wished.

[Dookus]

43. All this talk

and still you haven't provided a single piece of evidence to back up your assertion.

None. Zip. Nada.

How much money is there? Tell me.

[Padraig18]

44. You want evidence?

Go read: http://www.terrisfight.org/myths.html

Gee, silly me thinks not having to repay a huge amount of money is the same as 'money'.

:eyes:

[Dookus]

46. Paddy

surely you know that that website is NOT impartial.

The claims made by people in cases like this should not be taken at face value. Her parents have already proven they're deceptive, and will lie to further their interests. The high-edited videos alone show they're willing to deceive to get their way.

I see no reason to accept their claims on this issue simply because they make them. Some evidence would be nice.

[Padraig18]

48. "...claims made by people in cases like this should not be taken ...."

You wrote, "...claims made by people in cases like this should not be taken at face value....". Pardon me,but isn't that just exactly what YOU'RE doing here, vis a vis the husband's "Terry didn't want to be kept alive" statements?

[Dookus]

54. Apples and oranges

that is not an accusation made against another person against whom he's been battling in court for many years. It doesn't in any way strain credulity.

The idea of someone saying "I don't want to live that way" in no way strains credulity. In fact, in my 43 years, I've never heard ANYONE say they would prefer endless life-support over death in such a situation. Never. Not once.

So Michael's claim about his wife is a perfectly reasonable one, and is not an unfounded accusation. The claims made by her parents are, at this point, unfounded accusations.

Did you also notice on the site you linked that the money spent on lawyers was approved by the Judge in the case? I think it's an uphill battle to think the family could lodge a successful lawsuit against him, given that the courts approved the spending.

And WHY did he spend that money on lawyers? Because her parents kept suing him, funded by the religious-right. If they had stopped their incessant court-shopping (during which they've LOST every step of the way), the money wouldn't have to have been spent on lawyers.

[Padraig18]

56. Nice dodge.

To use your words.

[Dookus]

59. Perhaps you don't know what "dodge" means

I addressed your issue directly.

[Padraig18]

61. No, sorry.

you're entitled to hold that opinion,of course. we'll just have to agree to disagree.

Have a nice day, Dookus.

:hi:

[Dookus]

64. now you're being silly

You made a claim equating Michael's statements about his wife's wishes with her parents' claim that he is a lying, thieving murderer. I explained the difference between the two claims and why one is more suspect than the other.

Now, back to the topic at hand: the money.

I read that website, and the money appears to have been spent with court approval. Now how does that translate into malfeasance? And why not address the issue of WHY he was forced to spend the money on lawyers?

On edit; I'd also like to point out that in another thread on Wellstone, you've made multiple claims demanding evidence for an accusation that the plane was brought down. Why do evidentiary rules differ in this case?

[DearAbby]

58. Who has the right to make medical decisions when one spouse is

is incapacitated? What right does anyone have in not allowing the surviving SPOUSE the right to make sound medical choices when the other is unable too? Would you want your wife/husband in that situation, regardless of weither this topic had been discussed?

Why do you assume that Michael is lying about this, many people across the country have expressed, myself included, not the be kept alive in this manner. Why do you assume Terri had not?

[Warpy]

21. Why the hell should he?

He's stood by her through 15 years, hoping the doctors were wrong and that she would improve. He's seen her joints become contracted and her muscles atrophy from disuse. He's doing the loving thing at this point, withdrawing life support and letting her go.

Before the howls of "starve to death" start, I'd better remind you that she will be receiving hospice care and will be heavily sedated. She will die of dehydration, not starvation, and it's likely to take a week or even less.

No parents want to outlive a child, which is why I suspect the Schindlers are so adamant about this. Somebody needs to tell them that they already have.

[LisaL]

76. No, she will not be heavily sedated. She will not have any

pain medication. She was given none last time her tube was removed for 6 days, and she still didn't die.

[ProfessorGAC]

32. Let's Try This Again, OK Paddy?

Let's take a fair assumption: (Although i do know you have a bias apropos the integrity of the husband.)

Let's assume Terri really did tell Michael that she did not want to be artificially sustained in a vegetative state. OK?

Now, he CANNOT divorce her if her parents would do the opposite of what he knows to be Terri's wishes? He just can't. He's not abrogating his responsibility to her by moving on with his life. But he would be if he relinquished the responsibility he took on when she told him her wishes.

You seem to think that his wishing her to die can ONLY be because he doesn't care about her. I think the opposite position is equally true and equally likely. He won't divorce her because he did and does care about her. He knows there is no relationship anymore so can't depend upon her ever being his partner again, but he will not absolve himself of the responsibility to her by divorcing. Doing so puts her in the legal care of her parents, and they won't do what he knows she wanted.

I realize this all requires the original assumption to be true. But, just what if, it were true. Then whose interest is served, if he divorces her?
The Professor

[Padraig18]

39. There's the rub.

I don't assume that the original assumption is true.

[ProfessorGAC]

42. Why Not?

I didn't say i did either, but you're making it completely black & white. You have to assume the parents are telling the complete truth to take that position. Why would that assumption be valid and the other not?

Besides, the question isn't whether you believe. The ethical dilemma is what IF it's the truth. That's the rub, not whether you believe it or not. You don't believe it? Fine. What if your'e wrong?
The Professor

[Padraig18]

45. When in doubt, I give the living person the benefit of that doubt.

That's why, Professor.

[Dookus]

47. Michael Schiavo

is alive.

[Padraig18]

49. Yes, and he'll remain alive, if her feeding tube ISN'T removed.

The opposite cannot be said.

[ProfessorGAC]

52. We Know That

You said you err on the side of the person who's alive. They're both alive. You are now avoiding the issue. I understand your mind is made up and i'm not going to convince you of anything. I'm really not even trying. But, you could at least admit that you're not interested in discussing the ethical dilemma posed by you being wrong about this.

The Professor

[ProfessorGAC]

50. Huh?

He's alive too! That's not an answer, it's a dodge. Everybody involved is alive. The assumption needs to be either the parents are telling the facts, or he is. All three of those people are alive and legally competent. You and i need to decide which one is telling the truth. You've decided, for some reason, that it's essentially impossible that it's him.

So, the question is still extant: What if you're wrong? That's why i think the certainty that some have about this case is troubling. If you're wrong, then her wishes to not be kept in a vegetative state are not fulfilled. He's saddled with the guilt that he let his wife down. Her parents still don't get their daughter back. It's lose lose lose. That's why i'm not willing to assume that the courts have gotten it wrong and the parents are in the right. There's no winners at all. If she DID tell Michael that, and they let her die, at least SHE and her memory win!
The Professor

[Padraig18]

51. But he won't die if her feeding tube is removed-- she will. n/t

[ProfessorGAC]

53. NonSequitur

And you are clearly avoiding the issue.

Since you are ducking and dodging, there's really no point in continuing.
The Professor

[Padraig18]

60. No, I am *focusing* on 'the issue'

I don't care how the deck chairs are arranged on the Titanic, Professor-- I care that the ship is sinking.

[ProfessorGAC]

62. River In Egypt, Paddy

You are focusing on avoiding the questions others have asked, as well as mine. That's not the issue. Just because you say it is doesn't make it so.

The issue is the ethics involved in keeping this woman alive IF, indeed, she did not wish it. You have already decided that she didn't wish it. How you know that is a mystery that you have yet to share.

And, how anybody gains if that assumption is wrong is another mystery you refuse to confront.

I'm posing ethical questions and trying to expose the gray area, and you accuse me of rearraging the deck chairs. First you duck and doge. Next you attack. Like i said, i think we've exhausted any fruitful opportunity.

Have a good remainder to your day.
The Professor

[Cuban_Liberal]

63. Actually, if you read what he wrote...

His contention has been that no one KNOWS whather she said, or not. He's not in denial at all; no one's bothering to take what he's said at face value.

[Dookus]

67. if no one KNOWS

then the law and history says we have to go by what her husband states.

Her parents simply don't get a role in this, and the courts have said that time and time again.

Also, considering that I've never known ANYONE to express a desire to stay alive on life-support at all costs interminably, it's just not difficult at all to believe that Terri's wishes coincide with the vast majority of people.

[GreenArrow]

70. she's already dead

Her existence is a sick mockery of anything remotely resembling living.

[Cuban_Liberal]

72. In your opinion, of course.

Others may not share that opinion, as is their right.

[ClintonTyree]

13. NOT according to the bible..............

I'm sure the fundie wingnuts can twist scripture around enough to come up with something that says he has to live the rest of his life celibate and kneeling beside his brain dead wife 24/7 praying for her recovery. There HAS to be something in the bible about that, there HAS to be. :crazy:

God would not have overlooked this situation.

[GreenArrow]

73. presumably, if Christians believe in an afterlife

which they do, they would be joyous about entering Heaven and joining Christ when their time on this world has ended.

[olacan]

15. I think

it is wrong what the husband did. Every marriage ceremony I have attended includes a phrase that addresses for better or worse. Is what happened to this family on the worse of the scale, of course it is. But I just look back at the for better or worse and think he should have stayed true to his vows.

[Spinzonner]

24. Should 'worse' include situations where

the spouse is effectively - in any meaningful mental sense - no longer 'there'.

Those vows don't robustly reflect the realities of modern medicine in terms of its ability to stably support apparently cognition-free life.

Question: looking forward to the possibility you might end up being such a mentally incapacitated person, would you want to deprive your partner of anything resmebling an emotionally satisfying or secure life when you would neither suffer from the 'disloyalty' or substantially gain anything from the loyalty ?

[DearAbby]

36. TILL DEATH DO US PART...WHAT GOD HATH JOINED TOGETHER

Every marriage ceremony I have attended includes a phrase that addresses for better or worse. TILL DEATH DO US PART...WHAT GOD HATH JOINED TOGETHER Let no man put assunder...that includes, Parents, Terry Randal, Jeb Bush and you.

Terry is being kept "alive" actually she died years ago, Terri is no longer there.

Michael could have walked away, could have accepted the monies that was offered to him to walk away. He refused, and have to this day received nothing but pain and heartache for it. He is bound by a promise he made to his wife. Strength of Character that he would, even after all he has been through, be determined to see it through.

It is a disgusting situation, brought on by radical right to life. Trashing a man, that was Terri's choice as spouse. Terri when saying "I DO" gave Michael the right to make choices for her in the event she is unable too. The rights of a marriage should remain intact.

[LisaL]

77. LOL. During the malpractice trial, he said he

will take care of Terri for the rest of his life. He doesn't want to spend the rest of his life taking care of her anymore, does it?
He is hardly a saint some here portray him out to be.

[Dookus]

82. at the time he believed

there was hope for some sort of meaningful recovery.

That hope no longer exists. It is now known that her cerebral cortex has been destroyed.

Do you know what the cerebral cortex is?





It's the part of the brain that makes us who we are. It is what we think with. It is what gives us awareness and consciousness. It is gone in Terri.

[classof56]

68. I know a man who divorced his wife after she had a stroke,

and had some permanent mobility problems as a result. He then married the woman with whom he was having an affair--I never was sure if that started before or after first wife's stroke. He and wife #2 are still together, as far as I know, but I'm hoping she takes really good care of herself and stays healthy. Also knew of a man who divorced his wife after she had a mastectomy, saying he didn't marry "half a woman". The better-or-worse-til-death-do-us-part thing is great during the wedding ceremony, but I've known these and many other cases where, when the rubber meets the road, the words mean nothing. I tend to judge such people harshly, based on my belief about marriage vows, but then I've never been in their shoes and I can't imagine being in Michael Schiavo's, either. My spouse and I have signed powers of attorney for health care and advanced directives clarifying our end of life wishes. I can only trust these will be honored, but at least the proper legal documents have been filed. Critical, in my opinion.

Tired Old Cynic

[greatauntoftriplets]

16. A number of years ago, I worked with a remarkable woman...

who for years was SO to an extremely nice man whose wife happened to be confined to a mental hospital for life -- a case in which no amount of medication would ever enable this woman to lead a normal life. It was not an option.

Harry and Jane were inseparable, although they did not live together. Harrys's son -- a teenager at the time -- thoroughly approved of the relationship and was very close to Jane, who acted more like a mother to him than the real one could because of her illness.

After the wife died, Jane and Harry married. They were extremely happy and I am certain that his death a few years ago was an enormous blow to Jane.

So, my answer is that it is neither in bad taste nor improper.

[Warpy]

22. Thank you for that

I think only the very young and romantic have the luxury of being rigid about these things.

[DearAbby]

27. Since when do Catholics believe in Divorce...and why after all these years

Do they suddenly remember..."Oh yeah, Terri really wanted to Divorce Michael?" Seems strange to you? First they tried to use the "Abusive" Card. allegations were proven false. Now they are using after all these years and countless hours in Court..."Oh by the way, Terri wanted a Divorce." Their timing sucks, appears like a desparate ploy. Trash the man that their daughter had chosen as her husband.

As for Michael moving on...His wife has been "dead" for 15 yrs, would have been peacefully and with dignity buried by now if it wasn't for her parents fight to keep the shell of Terri alive. Parade her out like a right to life float. This is a disgusting situation.

[truebrit71]

33. Yes. The person that was Terri is long gone...

..and if her parents hadn't interfered both he and Terri would be better off...

[CatWoman]

38. Hey, Ben!!!!!!!!

still got that sexy voice?? :hi:

[GreenArrow]

55. If Terri's "saved"

i.e. washed in the blood of the lamb, then what's the problem? What Christian wouldn't want to meet Jesus? I don't understand this death fear exhibited by so many Christians.

Now, if she hasn't been saved, maybe the parents want to keep her "alive" so that she can somehow, miraculously be redeemed.

[Cuban_Liberal]

65. It's not a fear of death.

Using the logic (sic) in your post, we should all stop trying to abolish the death penalty, and just concentrate on 'saving' the condemned. The fear, my friend, is that the ethics have lagged behind the technology, and all that that implies, good and bad.

[GreenArrow]

71. If it's not a fear of death

then what compels the family to keep this woman "alive?"

Ten out of ten people die. Ours is world of birth and death. It's inescapable. It's going to happen to all of us, through our own volition or otherwise. No, the fear of death is not logical at all. Niether is it logical to pretend it is not a fact of existence which acts as a powerful motivator.

[Cuban_Liberal]

74. Brain function and sentience are not nearly as well understood as...

.. some would like to believe. The problem is, frankly, that no one actually knows what she is or is not aware of, which is why there is a huge court fight. The medical opinion about her level of awareness is not unanimous, by any means. Bearing that in mind, is it so terribly difficult to understand the desire of a mother and father to keep her alive? Try seeing it from their POV, too, just for novelty's sake, if nothing else.

:hi:

[Dookus]

78. Of course I understand the parents' desire

but can't you, as a law student, understand that they have no legal standing to enforce their will?

Is there any law that provides for parents to overrule a spouse in a case like this?

Is there any law that allows third-parties to dissolve a marriage?


No matter how strong the parents' feelings are on this issue, there's no mechanism by which their feelings gain the power of law.

[Cuban_Liberal]

83. That's a vast over-simplification of the law, Dookus.

In point of fact, it is not unheard of at all for someone other than the next-of-kin to be given the power to make health-care (and other) decisions for a legally-incompetent person. Furthermore, 'standing' is not always clear-cut, either, especially in cases like this.

The bottom line is this, Dookus: this is a rotten case for anyone on either side of this debate to plan on hanging their legal hats upon in future legal actions.

[Dookus]

84. Well

considering her parents have lost in the courts every step of the way, I'll have to maintain my position that there is no legal mechanism by which they can overrule her husband in these decisions.

[Cuban_Liberal]

86. I'm not arguing that they're correct, Dookus.

My argument is that this is a bad case, and any case law that comes out of it will likely prove the old legal maxim that 'bad cases make bad law'. The only good I can foresee coming out of this case is that maybe--- just maybe--- it will force us to confront the fact that technology has outpaced our ability (or willingness) to put in place laws to deal with its consequences.

[Dookus]

87. It is a bad case

for the parents. That's why they keep losing.

I'm not sure what legal changes need to be made as a result of this case. Do you believe we ought to make it easier for spouses to lose their ability to make medical decisions for their loved ones? Do you believe we need a mechanism to force a divorce on someone who doesn't desire one?

The only legal change I think this case cries out for is one allowing the administration of a painless overdose to hasten death, rather than require a more drawn-out process.

Terri will not suffer when the feeding tube is removed, but those who love her will. We should have a sane, non-superstitious approach to dealing with death in cases like this. If it's good enough for our dogs, it should be good enough for humans.

[MXMLLN]

75. Maybe they don't want her to be starved/dehydrated to death n/t

[Dookus]

79. and I want a lot of things, too

but I don't have the legal standing to compel them.

The parents in this case do not have the legal right to make medical decisions for Terri.

[GreenArrow]

80. so, to save their own feelings, they would keep her hooked up

for some indefinite time period -- five years, ten years, 50 years, 100 years, forever -- to a machine that does the work of living for her. She cannot feed herself. She cannot bathe herself. She cannot control her bowel functions. She cannot communicate. And she should do this indefintely, until medical science comes up with some way to restore the part of her brain that is missing.

I don't know what her parents want, but it doesn't seem to be based on anything rational. Nor does it seem to stem from any sort of real hope, either, but fear, or some sort of misplaced duty.

[DemBones DemBones]

57. If he wanted to move on, he should have sought a divorce

and moved on. That he didn't do so shows he wants to control his disabled wife, not that he loves her. Michael Schiavo allowed them to start a feeding tube for Terri, apparently forgetting that "she wouldn't want to be kept alive that way." Now he wants to control her to death and he hired a lawyer who's known to support "right to die" for the disabled, which is a viewpoint bordering on eugenics and the Nazi view "Crips are useless eaters."

Between this case and the fact that kill-the-crip movies won both Best Picture and Best Foreign Film Oscars this week, a lot of us disabled folks see this country on a slippery slope when it comes to disabled rights.

[Dookus]

66. this has nothing to do with disability

Terri is not disabled. She is in a persistent vegetative state, and her cerebral cortex is gone. Literally gone.

But you knew that - it's been explained a hundred times.

Under what other circumstances will you allow third-parties to dissolve marriages?

[bettyellen]

69. slippery slope giving this decision to people who have testified they

don't care what terry would have decided.
that's just wrong, and it's why they lost.
this divorce thing? another dangerous scary precedent they are trying to set.

[dsc]

81. Not if he divorces the woman

Sorry but I don't find an adulterous spouse to be the best person to make decisions on the other spouse's behalf.

[Dookus]

85. so you think

somebody else ought to be able to compel him to divorce her?

Certainly you must recognize that using the word "adulterous" here is something of a deviation from the way the word is normally used.

She was brain dead for many years before he started sharing the company of another woman.

[dsc]

88. I think anyone who does what he is doing

is unworthy of the title husband. I think this woman should have a neutral advocate appointed for her and that advocate should be able to determine if a divorce is needed. Sadly, there is no option of that here but for future cases it should be an option.

[Dookus]

89. so you DO

think that there should be a way to impose divorce on someone who doesn't want one? Scary.