Go to terrisfight.org for starters (website run by her immediate family)
She is not and has never been on life support
[b]The clinical records within the massive case file indicate that Theresa was not responsive to neurological and swallowing tests [u]SHE RECEIVED REGULAR AND INTENSE PHYSICAL, OCCUMPATIONAL AND SPEECH THERAPIES[/b][/u]
[b]There is no question that complete trust, [u]MUTUAL[/u] caring, explicit love and a common goal of caring for and rehabilitating Theresa, were the [u]SHARED INTENTIONS OF MICHAEL SHIAVO AND THE SCHINDLERS.[/u][/b]
In Autumn of 1990, following months of therapy and testing, formal diagnoses of persistent vegitative state with no evidence of improvement, Michael took Theresa to California, where she received an experimental thalmic stimulator implant in her brain. Michael remained in Californa [u]CARING FOR THERESA[/u] during a period of several months...
[b]In 1993, the malpractice action concluded in Theresa and Michael's favor, resulting in a two element award: More than $750,000 in economic damages for Theresa and a lost of consortim award (non economic damages) of $300,000 to Michael. The court established a trust found for Theresa's financial award, with SouthTrust Bank as the Guardian and independent trustee. [u]This fund was meticulously managed and accounted for AND MICHAEL SCHIAVO HAD NO CONTROL OVER ITS USE.[/u][/b]
Angyl,If Terri was on "life support" then please explain why she is STILL ALIVE AFTER 11 DAYS of coming off "life support". Here's an article addressing the errors of the Wolfson report from a Christian based organization. I suppose you will discredit them because they are biased towards life?[url=http://www.bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?ID=17324]link[/url]It's interesting that you discredit terri'sfight.org because it is run by her immediate family. They believe she is not in a vegetative state as do MANY doctors, lawyers, politicians and citizens. Have you seen the videos of her? Do you truly believe she is a "vegetable" and should be "put out of her misery"? It's unfortunate that you are siding with Michael Schiavo over her immediate family who have known her all her life. To discredit something solely because it comes from her family who does have doctors on their side is erroneous at best. Have you seen the latest news about the convicted murderer/rapist who was sentenced to death but later was resentenced to life because the jurors consulted the bible in deciding his fate?[url=http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=32747]Judge changes sentence because Jurors read Bible[/url]. Are you aware of the insanity of discrediting a whole group of people for "bias" solely because of their religious faith? Does being a Christian mean you can't make objective judgements about moral and immoral topics? You do realize this is the tragedy of our day don't you? If you are a Christian and you take a stance on something you are automatically discredited because of your "bias". More importantly, do you agree in the way they are letting her die (by starving her to death)?? Would you have rather seen her put to death another way? See my heart is quite open Angyl. This woman is being starved to death. Do you consider that this is a Christian thing to do? What do you honestly believe God thinks about her being starved to death? Don't you think if we were going to let her die we should just give her lethal injection? WHY STARVE HER TO DEATH ANGYL?? What is your excuse for excusing those actions?? My heart is quite open to the suffering of this woman and her family (well her family minus her adulterous husband Michael Schiavo who decided to wait 7 years before revealing Terri's death wish). I am lifting her and them up in prayer. Here's another excellent article on the Schiavo Story[url=http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=43463]Terri Schiavo story[/url]It mentions the Wolfson report. Please take your own advice and read it with an "open heart". In response to Wolfson's comments about the settlement money:
In 1993, the malpractice action concluded in Theresa and Michael's favor, resulting in a two element award: More than $750,000 in economic damages for Theresa and a lost of consortim award (non economic damages) of $300,000 to Michael. The court established a trust found for Theresa's financial award, with SouthTrust Bank as the Guardian and independent trustee. This fund was meticulously managed and accounted for AND MICHAEL SCHIAVO HAD NO CONTROL OVER ITS USE.
Another Newsmax/Druge spin/lie/theory bites the dust!
_________________Matt M.
So much for the theory that Michal pushed her down the stairs and did nothing to try to help her.
If Terri was on "life support" then please explain why she is STILL ALIVE AFTER 11 DAYS of coming off "life support".
They believe she is not in a vegetative state as do MANY doctors, lawyers, politicians and citizens.
It's unfortunate that you are siding with Michael Schiavo over her immediate family who have known her all her life.
Are you aware of the insanity of discrediting a whole group of people for "bias" solely because of their religious faith?
More importantly, do you agree in the way they are letting her die (by starving her to death)?? Would you have rather seen her put to death another way?
Do you consider that this is a Christian thing to do?
WHY STARVE HER TO DEATH ANGYL??
You will never convince me he has her best interest at heart.
How many people died and went to Hell because of the Christians camped outside a woman's hospice when they could have been out soulwinning?
_________________Karsten Nordmo
I am amazed at how many Christians draw fine distinctions between life and death. We "allow" someone to die, which seems so passive by withholding the means of life, which is so active. We could call it a sin of omission.I have an audio essay on this subject on my website (http://adamchristiansen.org/essays/index.html) where I describe my own move from supporting "living wills" to rejection of the assumptions that we make concerning life and death issues.In Christ,[email protected]www.adamchristiansen.org
_________________Adam Christiansen
There's nothing unfortunate about it. Scripture tells us that she is bonded to her husband in a way she never was to her own family. The two of them ARE ONE! It is unfortunate that YOU want to disregard scripture and place her parents wishes above that of her husband which God says they are joined together...one mind, one body. You attempt to set an EXTRAORDINARLY DANGEROUS PRECIDENT in this country by wanting to allow courts to tell loving spouses that their parents' wishes will override theirs whenever it comes down to it.
And there are just as many (more in fact) doctors, lawyers, politicians and citizens (70% of US citizens according to every poll if you want to use that ridiculous group as some sort of qualifier) who think she IS in a vegetative state. Your point?
I didn't say she's STILL on life support. I said the assertation that she "has never been on life support" is flat out wrong. She has. Immediately after her accident it was necessary to save her life.
Because it's "LETTING HER DIE" (that's a statement of fact) as opposed to killing her.
For all legal intents and purposes Terri was found to have said she would not want to live like this. MOST AMERICANS...PROBABLY YOURSELF INCLUDED FEEL THE SAME WAY... Yet in hypocrisy at its finest, I've seen Christian after Christian admit that they would not want to be kept alive in this condition...
Well then there's absolutely no point in continuing the discussion, is there, Matt?
As I've told my wife, I'll be glad when Terri's dead.
For all intents and purposes, if Terri were walking, talking and perfectly "Normal" and decided to "starve" herself to death this would be a non-issue. Well legally speaking Terri has expressed her wishes to be LEFT TO DIE in this condition. That means starvation. It was her choice and I'm more for leaving her to it than leaving her "alive" like this.
For those of you who keep stating things like "the Law says this" and "legally they're still married" and "the courts have determined she's in PVT and needs to die"....it is awfully easy to compare that attitude with the attitude of the Pharisees and Sadducees don't you think?Was not their main flaw that they were incessantly adherent to the Law but their hearts were always far from God's will?? Was that not always the Pharisees main complaint with Jesus? Everytime we see a Pharisee or Sadducee enter the picture they were lashing out at Jesus because he didn't follow the Law. Forgive me, but I can't help but see a striking parallel here.