Euthanasia...UPDATE: Dr. K set for June Parole

[Exquisite5]

Originally posted by Gyrl7
Hmmmmmmmmm, I wonder if he would be entitled to any of her money since it's clear that he has a new love at this point he's comitting adultery because he's still married to Terri.

To the Legal experts of GC how does something like that work....I guess my questions are

1. Since Terri is still alive and he has someone else isn't he comitting adultery??

2. Is he entitled to any of her insurance money or any other belongings since she is in a vegetative state and do they already considered him a widower???

As I am a second year law student I definitely would not call myself a "legal expert", but as I am currently taking family law I think I can tackle these questions.

1) Yes, Michael is an adulterer. But that pretty much matters NADA. He doesn't lose his rights as her next of kin because he has "relations" with another woman. If that were so, Bill could never sign anything for Hillary (you get my drift). The adultery would only be relevant if Michael wanted a divorce (which he does not). But even in the event of divorce that would only matter if Florida were a "fault" jurisdiction, which I don't know if Florida is or not, but I highly doubt. But again, the fault no-fault distinction pertains to divorce, alimony and property distribution so it’s not really at issue here anyway.

2) If Michael is the beneficiary on Terri's life insurance then yes, unless FL has some law saying the person requesting life support removal can't collect, then he is entitled to her life insurance. However, as far as I know that has nothing to do with him being her husband or not- just who she named as beneficiary. Also, I highly doubt Michael is motivated by money. The family and some right to life organization offered him $1 million dollars to relinquish all rights and sign over power of attorney and he rejected. He maintains that Terri asked him to let her die if she was ever brain dead/severely brain injured and that the only way he can protect her desire is to remain her husband (and therefore keep power of attorney). It could be an act, but I highly doubt that if he turned down $1 million dollars he is after her life insurance which is probably more like $250,000.

ETA: He is not a widower until she dies. Also, I did a little research and have discovered that Terri Schiavo does not have a life insurance policy. There is no financial reward for Michael in his current position regarding Terri's life/death. Years ago he won a malpractice award based on the poor care that Terri received after the auto accident which arguably caused her vegetative state, but the award to him was not large at all. He got $300,000 for loss of consortium (no longer being able to have sexual relations with his wife) and approx. $700,000 was awarded to a trust for Terri's medical care. Michael could not access this money, the mony was governed by a third party and was to only be used for Terri's medical care. That money has LONG since run out.

[nikki1920]

I thought Terri's condition was caused by a heart problem that was exacerbated by an eating disorder? I'm confused.

[AKA2D '91]

I thought it was a heart problem. I didn't know about the eating disorder. Reports have said that she just passed out one day.

[Gyrl7]

Originally posted by Exquisite5
As I am a second year law student I definitely would not call myself a "legal expert", but as I am currently taking family law I think I can tackle these questions.

1) Yes, Michael is an adulterer. But that pretty much matters NADA. He doesn't lose his rights as her next of kin because he has "relations" with another woman. If that were so, Bill could never sign anything for Hillary (you get my drift). The adultery would only be relevant if Michael wanted a divorce (which he does not). But even in the event of divorce that would only matter if Florida were a "fault" jurisdiction, which I don't know if Florida is or not, but I highly doubt. But again, the fault no-fault distinction pertains to divorce, alimony and property distribution so it’s not really at issue here anyway.

2) If Michael is the beneficiary on Terri's life insurance then yes, unless FL has some law saying the person requesting life support removal can't collect, then he is entitled to her life insurance. However, as far as I know that has nothing to do with him being her husband or not- just who she named as beneficiary. Also, I highly doubt Michael is motivated by money. The family and some right to life organization offered him $1 million dollars to relinquish all rights and sign over power of attorney and he rejected. He maintains that Terri asked him to let her die if she was ever brain dead/severely brain injured and that the only way he can protect her desire is to remain her husband (and therefore keep power of attorney). It could be an act, but I highly doubt that if he turned down $1 million dollars he is after her life insurance which is probably more like $250,000.

ETA: He is not a widower until she dies. Also, I did a little research and have discovered that Terri Schiavo does not have a life insurance policy. There is no financial reward for Michael in his current position regarding Terri's life/death. Years ago he won a malpractice award based on the poor care that Terri received after the auto accident which arguably caused her vegetative state, but the award to him was not large at all. He got $300,000 for loss of consortium (no longer being able to have sexual relations with his wife) and approx. $700,000 was awarded to a trust for Terri's medical care. Michael could not access this money, the mony was governed by a third party and was to only be used for Terri's medical care. That money has LONG since run out.

Thank you Exquisite5 for the great explanation.

I was more curious than caring about the adultery because I wanted to understand why he was so passionate in having the tube removed. I was wondering if it was a monetary issue because of course it can be and has been sort of construed that way.

Hmmm, I wonder if LifeTime has picked this up yet for a made for television movie???

Thank you again Exquisite5, so do you take check, money order or credit cards???

P.S. to AKA 2D'91, if I remember correctly, I could have sworn I read somewhere where the heart condition was brought on by the eating disorder. I think.....

[ladygreek]

Eating disorder? That would explain the sudden heart attack at that age.

Oh then the irony of being kept alive on a feeding tube.

[LXA SE285]

Eating disorder? That would explain the sudden heart attack at that age.

Apparently, she had bulimia and the binging and purging depleted her potassium, causing her heart to stop.

Hmmm, I wonder if LifeTime has picked this up yet for a made for television movie???



Wouldn't be surprising—there's certainly enough drama for one. Don't know if it's been discussed here, but her parents are also insinuating that Michael Schiavo physically abused her before she collapsed:

http://www.villagevoice.com/news/034...f,48738,6.html

[sweete81]

Parents Appeal Judge's Ruling on Feeding Tube

Updated: 11:00 AM EST




Reuters


Terri Schiavo, shown here in 2001 with her mother, is in a persistent vegetative state, according to some doctors.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jump Below:
· Schiavo Timeline

Talk About It: Post | Chat


TAMPA, Fla. (March 22) - A federal judge on Tuesday refused to order the reinsertion of Terri Schiavo's feeding tube, denying an emergency request from the brain-damaged woman's parents. The parents' lawyer quickly filed a notice of appeal.

The ruling by U.S. District Judge James Whittemore came after feverish action by President Bush and Congress on legislation allowing the contentious case to be reviewed by federal courts. The judge said the 41-year-old woman's parents had not established a ''substantial likelihood of success'' at trial on the merits of their arguments.

The notice of appeal was filed electronically hours later with the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta by David Gibbs III, an attorney for Terri Schiavo's parents. The notice tells the court that the full appeal will follow. That court was already considering an appeal on whether Terri Schiavo's right to due process had been violated.

Whittemore wrote that Schiavo's ''life and liberty interests'' had been protected by Florida courts. Despite ''these difficult and time-strained circumstances,'' he wrote, ''this court is constrained to apply the law to the issues before it.''

The Bush administration ''would have preferred a different ruling,'' White House press secretary Scott McClellan told reporters in Albuquerque, N.M., where the president was visiting a senior center.

''We hope that they would be able to have relief through the appeals process,'' McClellan said.

While Rex Sparklin, another attorney for the parents, said the appeal was needed to ''save Terri's life,'' Howard Simon, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Florida, praised the ruling.


The Schiavo Case



AP


Monday, 1:11AM: President Bush signs legislation that allows a federal court to hear the case.

Tuesday: Federal judge refuses to order reinsertion of Schiavo's feeding tube.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

TIMELINE

1990: Oxygen fails to reach Schiavo's brain, causing permanent damage. Husband Michael is named legal guardian.

1998: Husband petitions for the removal of wife's feeding tube.

Her Story: See Schiavo Timeline

Sources: AP, cnn.com



''What this judge did is protect the freedom of people to make their own end-of-life decisions without the intrusion of politicians,'' Simon said.

Bobby Schindler, Terri Schiavo's brother, said his family was crushed. ''To have to see my parents go through this is absolutely barbaric,'' he told ABC's ''Good Morning America'' on Tuesday. ''I'd love for these judges to sit in a room and see this happening as well.''

Attempts to reach the woman's father, Bob Schindler, were unsuccessful early Tuesday. George Felos, the attorney for husband Michael Schiavo, hung up twice when reached by reporters from The Associated Press.

But Scott Schiavo, Michael Schiavo's brother, called the judge's decision ''a good thing,'' and said he did not believe Congress should have intervened.

''There's not a law that's made for this,'' Scott Schiavo said in a telephone interview. ''This is something that goes on 100 times a day in our country, that people, their wish to die with dignity is not a federal issue.''

The tube was disconnected Friday on the orders of a state judge, prompting an extraordinary weekend effort by congressional Republicans to push through unprecedented emergency legislation Monday aimed at keeping her alive.

Gov. Jeb Bush was described by a spokeswoman as ''extremely disappointed and saddened'' by the federal judge's decision not to order the tube reconnected. ''Gov. Bush will continue to do what he legally can within his powers to protect Terri Schiavo, a vulnerable person,'' said spokeswoman Alia Faraj.

Terri Schiavo did not have a living will. Her husband has fought in courts for years to have the tube removed because, he said, she would not want to be kept alive artificially and she has no hope for recovery. Her parents contend she responds to them and that her condition could improve.

Court-appointed doctors say she is in a persistent vegetative state with no hope of recovery. Doctors have said she could survive one to two weeks without the feeding tube.

Gibbs argued at a Monday hearing in front of Whittemore that letting Terri Schiavo starve would be ''a mortal sin'' under her Roman Catholic beliefs and urged quick action: ''Terri may die as I speak.''

But Felos argued that keeping the woman alive also violated her rights and noted that the case has been aired thoroughly in state courts.

''Yes, life is sacred,'' Felos said. ''So is liberty, particularly in this country.''

Michael Schiavo said he was outraged that lawmakers and the president intervened in a private matter. ''When Terri's wishes are carried out, it will be her wish. She will be at peace. She will be with the Lord,'' he said on CNN's ''Larry King Live'' late Monday.

Terri Schiavo suffered brain damage in 1990 when her heart stopped briefly. Her collapse was later linked to a potassium imbalance believed to have been brought on by an eating disorder. A successful malpractice lawsuit argued that doctors had failed to diagnose the eating disorder. She can breathe on her own, but has relied on the feeding tube to keep her alive.

According to a CNN-USA Today-Gallup poll of 909 adults taken over the weekend, nearly six in 10 people said they think the feeding tube should be removed and felt they would want to remove it for a child or spouse in the same condition.


03-22-05 1049EST

Copyright 2005 The Associated Press. The information contained in the AP news report may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or otherwise distributed without the prior written authority of The Associated Press. All active hyperlinks have been inserted by AOL.

[nikki1920]

What "life" is there to save? Her parents have SELFISHLY fought to have her kept alive via a feeding tube. Can she swallow on her own? Can she chew? She is merely existing, not living. Let her go...

This is my opinion..

[sweete81]

I had an uncle who was placed on life support two years ago and I must say that it is one of the hardest decisions a family will ever have to face! There was a great deal of arguing at the time because his children wanted to keep him alive, but the brothers and sisters felt that it was selfish to let him live in a comatose state. Ultimately, it was decided to take him off of life support and he died later that night! There is a part of you that wishes to keep the person alive by any means, but if that person will never regain full consciousness or capabilities without artificial means, then it is selfish to keep them in that state of suffering, lingering between life and death. The Schiavo case, as unfortunate as it is, has served as a wake up call to the majority of Americans and the need to specify their final wishes! Unfortunately, this occurs every day and not just with living wills but with organ donation as well (another show, another topic)! Please sit down and discuss the issue with your family and let them know of your intentions, for you and your family may not agree on the issue of artificial support! Yes it may seem morbid, but had Terri sat down for a few minutes and written a living will, this whole ordeal could have been prevented.

One thing I find particularly disturbing, how the Republicans are superceding the Supreme Court's decision on this issue! Despite one's political affiliation, every American should feel alarmed at the federal government's attempt to regulate one's last wishes! I am sorry, but this is one place where the federal government does not belong!

Sweete81

P.S. If Terri's money ran out, then how are the family paying for her care, because I was under the impression, especially when my uncle died, when your insurance money or means of payment ran out, then the hospital had the right to remove you from life support or any artifical means of life?

[Gyrl7]

Originally posted by nikki1920
What "life" is there to save? Her parents have SELFISHLY fought to have her kept alive via a feeding tube. Can she swallow on her own? Can she chew? She is merely existing, not living. Let her go...

This is my opinion..

RIGHT ON!

The poor thing doesn't know anything going on around her and what kind of way is that to live??? Let her suffering end....

[futurestar1]

Originally posted by Gyrl7
RIGHT ON!

The poor thing doesn't know anything going on around her and what kind of way is that to live??? Let her suffering end....

I concur, since this case I have made it a point to make sure EVERYONE around me knows how I feel on this issue. If it is me in this situation, I don't want to live like that.

[Exquisite5]

I could be wrong about the accident part. But somehow there was a lawsuit for malpractice. In that, Michael got $300,000 and $700,000 was put into a trust for Terri's medical care.

[Confucius]

Originally posted by nikki1920
What "life" is there to save? Her parents have SELFISHLY fought to have her kept alive via a feeding tube. Can she swallow on her own? Can she chew? She is merely existing, not living. Let her go...

This is my opinion..

You know, I agree with you. I wonder if the parents are punishing her hubby b/c he went on with his life and left their daughter there. Plus, the parents probably want to make him suffer.

I dunno..just my 8 cents......

[KSigkid]

Originally posted by ladygreek
Eating disorder? That would explain the sudden heart attack at that age.

Oh then the irony of being kept alive on a feeding tube.

Does anyone know how long she had the disorder for? I would think it was a significant amount of time to cause that much damage.

It seems that was the basis for the malpractice claim as well; her doctors did not diagnose the disorder correctly, and her family won a malpractice claim. I'm guessing that money has been used to keep her alive all this time (unless the hospital is paying for it as part of the suit).

[WCUgirl]

Originally posted by KSigkid
Does anyone know how long she had the disorder for? I would think it was a significant amount of time to cause that much damage.

It seems that was the basis for the malpractice claim as well; her doctors did not diagnose the disorder correctly, and her family won a malpractice claim. I'm guessing that money has been used to keep her alive all this time (unless the hospital is paying for it as part of the suit).

This article mentions her starting to diet her senior year in high school. She was 26 when she collapsed, so assuming her disorder developed when she first started dieting, that's about 8 years.

ETA: That article was written in 2000, and at that time most of the $700,000 remained. Of course, that was five years ago.

ETFA: Here is an article published last week that discusses the money and that there is only about $40,000 remaining.

edited again b/c i had the wrong age.