/* ------------------- begin IP Block script ------------------- Block IP address script Points to php script on blog.racetotheright.com IP addresses are within the script ---------- */ /* -------------------- end IP Block script ------------------- */

Wednesday, May 25, 2005

Terri's husband cashes in same day she dies

--posted by Tony Garcia on 5/25/2005

(H/T: Conservative Princess)

I remember when Michael Schiavo went on Larry "Softball" King and said, "There's no money, there's no insurance, there's about $50,000 left in her estate. I will not receive a penny from this."

Many of the pull-the-tubers (or Nazis -in-training as I have justifiably called them) used the fact that he was not getting any money as proof that Michael had no motive except genuine care for his beloved wife's clearly stated, undisputed wishes.

Well, that rationale no longer holds water.

It seems to be the case that Michael "I love my wife while fathering 2 bastards with another woman" Schiavo cashed out her estate on the same day of her death.
Terri died just after 9:00 a.m. on the morning of the 31st and court papers filed with Circuit Court Judge George Greer show Michael's attorneys filed the estate request just hours later.

By 1:35 p.m., Greer had ruled in Michael's favor to receive Terri's estate.

Now, I have been hard on Judge Greer. (here and here). But he has been given laurels for his professionalism. But it seems that getting the name of the deceased right is not part of professionalism.
the Empire Journal newspaper reports that Greer's estate order had one major flaw. It erroneously declared Michael Schiavo, not Terri, died that day.

"Not only have the bar associations of West Pasco, Clearwater and St. Petersburg lauded Greer for his alleged professionalism in the case, but Greer claims to be a stickler for the law," the Empire Journal wrote regarding the matter.

"However, in the Schiavo case not only couldn't Greer get the name of the decedent right, but he had the wrong date of death too," the newspaper wrote. "So much for professionalism."

So how reliable is his bench? I mean, if he could so easily botch the name of the dead person on such a high profile case how out of the realm of reasonability is it that he misread data? Ignored data?

The above quoted article also mentions that Terri's wishes were actually uncertain. Remember that Michael claimed to have recalled a conversation after watching a movie where she mentioned as an aside that she would not "want to live like that".

But her friend recalled something absolutely different.
a good friend of Terri's vividly remembers watching a television program with Terri about a woman who was in a coma for years. Terri was upset when she told a joke about the woman and said there was no way doctors or lawyers could know the woman's wishes.

"Where there is life, there is hope," Terri told her friend.

The whole issue was that with so many questions surrounding her case (why she collapsed, where did the broken bones come from, what were here actual wishes, etc) she should have been given the benefit of the doubt until all questions were answered. And as Thor said, "[The doctors in his case] were wrong every time. So, don't make that decision [to end life] from what they say."


Anonymous Anonymous said...

Here is a question surrounding her case. If after over a decade, she can't speak or write, or even stand up, don't you think it was about time to ler her go? she had not recovered, and according to doctors, would never recover.

May 26, 2005  
Blogger ThePete said...

I agree, but, go ahead Anthony.

It would certianly help if the results of the Autopsy were out.

May 26, 2005  
Blogger Tony said...

1) while she was receiving treatment for the first 2 years she was improving. after the $$$ was paid out then her husband cut her treatment off her improvements ceased. Yes, she should have been kept alive anyway if her wishes were not clearly known from her own hand.

2) even if she never improved the fact that she was alive and not in pain means that she should have been kept alive unless her wishes to the contrary were clearly known from her own hand.

3) why not give us your name so that if you are ever in a position where you cannot write or speak we will have a record of your wishes and we can have you starved to death.

4) I did not know that the ability to talk or write were requirements to be allowed to live. So, do you think we should kill Steven Hawking right now?

May 26, 2005  

Post a Comment

<< Home