My feelings about the Schiavo issue (sorry for another thread)

[Tony_FLADEM]

The people trying to keep her alive (except for her family) are all a bunch of assholes. Republicans always pick "moral" issues that are easy and require little effort. This is another example of that.

However, I think she should live. There are some people born into this world who have severe brain damage. In the future it might be possible we will let these people pass on.

I really hate these self-righteous assholes who are trying to keep her alive, but this poor woman never did anything to hurt anyone, and I don't think she should be denied nutrition.

It's just not right.


Thank you

Tony

[Dookus]

1. I agree that

her family are assholes.

But if, as every court has ruled, it was truly Terri's desire not to be kept alive artificially, do you still maintain she should be kept alive against her wishes?

[Tony_FLADEM]

2. I'm not sure feeding through the tube

qualifies as keeping her alive artificially.

[Bouncy Ball]

6. Well, she cannot eat or swallow on her own.

So why wouldn't you qualify a feeding tube as keeping her alive artificially? She cannot keep herself alive naturally, so of course the feeding tube is artificial.

Is it NATURAL for humans to have a tube surgically inserted directly into their stomach and have a chemical cocktail for nutrition piped directly into their gut every day?

[cynatnite]

11. It does

It's not natural. A lot of people consider life support to be a ventilator and the tube feeding is considered a form of artificial life support as well.

[Dookus]

19. The answer to your question is simple...

is it "natural" to have a tube inserted into your stomach? Would she die without it? If the answers are No and Yes, it's artificial life support.

[Az]

3. So many seem unclear on just how much brain damage we are talking about

The part of her brain that creates identity is gone. Its liquified. There is no person there. If our medical technology advanced one day to the point that we could reconstitute this part of the brain it still wouldn't do her any good. It would just be blank brain. All the experience and memories that constitute her identity have been obliterated. She as a person is dead and gone.

I am just relaying this as it seems you do not understand just how much damage is involved here. I won't presume to argure the point beyond that.

On Edit: Think computers. Her CPU has been destroyed. But there is enough wiring to run the fans and keep the harddrives spun up. But there is no processing going on inside.

[Cleita]

8. I agree with you. A new brain, even if possible, would

have to go through infancy, childhood and would have to learn everything all over again. It would never have the memories of the old brain. It would be a whole new life all over again, not the same one everyone seems to be trying to preserve.

[Lindacooks]

39. Plus the damage done to her body can't be reversed.

Just thinking about that is grotesque. With a 'new' brain, her current body would be a prison for the 'new Terri'.

[BurtWorm]

4. It's beside the point if she never did anything to hurt anyone.

The point is, would she want to be kept alive knowing what state she's in now (and I don't mean Florida)? Her husband says she wouldn't.

If you were in her position, and 90% of your cerebral cortex had turned to mush, rendering you in a persistent vegetative state, would you want to be kept alive? Do you know of anyone who would?

[deadparrot]

5. I know what you feel.

A few days ago, I wasn't sure where I stood.

However, the last few days have been very educational for me.

First of all, it's not about what you or I or her husband or her family wants. It's what SHE would have wanted. True, she didn't have a living will, but court after court after court has decided, after looking at all the evidence, that she would not have wanted this for herself.

Secondly, I was very concerned about the "starving to death" thing, too. After listening to doctors, nurses, hospice workers, and DU personal testimonies, I've learned that this is an extremely gentle, humane way to die. She feels no pain--she doesn't feel anything. The body is an amazing thing.

:)

[Bouncy Ball]

7. Something like 23 judges have now ruled in

favor of removing the feeding tube.

Not a single one of them have ever ruled against her husband.

Are you saying screw the courts? ALL those courts?

[Tony_FLADEM]

9. I don't think that's accurate

One judge ruled it should be removed. The other judges upheld the decision based on the law.

[BurtWorm]

10. Notice that none of them ordered it to be put back in.

Interesting, isn't it?

[barb162]

12. I think that is incorrect, refer to the blogger who keeps the

timeline on this case

[BurtWorm]

13. Did one or more order the tube to be reinstated?

I thought the Schindlers had lost every appeal they tried.

PS: Findlaw seems to corroborate that the courts consistently either ruled in favor of Michael or against political attempts to legislate in favor of the Schindlers.

http://news.findlaw.com/legalnews/lit/schiavo/index.html
Court Order denying the request of Terri Schiavo’s parents to reinsert a feeding tube into their daughter (March 22, 2005)

Michael Schiavo’s Opposition (March 21, 2005)

Government’s Statement of Interest in support of Schiavo’s parents (March 21, 2005)

Motion by Schiavo’s parents for a temporary restraining order (“TRO”), declaratory and injuncitve relief (March 21, 2005)

Congressional Bill Signed into Law concerning Terri Schaivo signed into law by Pres. Bush after being passed by the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives (introduced March 19, 2005; signed into law March 21, 2005)

Order U.S. Supreme Court Order rejecting a request to consider arguments on the case (March 17, 2005)

Emergency Motion by Schiavo’s parents to the U.S. Supreme Court (March 16, 2005)

Order setting March 18, 2005 as the day to withdraw Schiavo's feeding tube (Feb. 25, 2005)

Order by Fla. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals denying motion for a stay (March 16, 2005)

Opinion Florida’s Supreme Court rules that the law enacted by Gov. Jeb Bush to reinsert a feeding tube into Schavo “violate the fundamental constitutional tenet of separation of powers” between Florida’s executive branch, the judiciary, and the state’s legislature. (Sept. 23, 2004)

Gov. Jeb Bush's Executive Order that feeding tube be reinserted for Schiavo; Subsequently ruled unconstitutional (Oct. 21, 2003)

Text of Fla. Bill SB35e a/k/a “Terri's Law”; Subsequently ruled unconstitutional (Oct. 21, 2003)

Order by Judge Greer setting Oct. 15, 2003 as the date when removal of the feeding tube can begin (Sept. 17, 2003)

[traco]

33. The tube has been pulled (or capped off)

3 times now. It has been ordered re inserted the other 2 times.

[RoyGBiv]

16. Read this ...

http://jb-williams.com/ts-report-12-03.htm

[barb162]

20. see last line for an example; I don't know how many times

the tubes were ordered reinserted as I am just not going to sit here and count.

"April 26, 2001

The Schindlers file an emergency motion with Judge Greer for relief from judgment based upon new evidence, which includes a claim that a former girlfriend of Michael Schiavo will testify that he lied about Terri Schiavo’s wishes; Judge Greer dismisses the motion as untimely. Also on this date, the Schindlers file a new civil suit that claims that Michael Schiavo perjured himself when he testified that Terri Schiavo had stated an aversion to remaining on life support. Pending this new civil trial, Circuit Court Judge Frank Quesada orders Terri Schiavo’s PEG tube to be reinserted."

[BurtWorm]

22. See my response below. This is a status quo move, not a decision.

The order is to keep things as they are until the appeal is complete. It's not a decision in favor of the Schindlers. Is it?

[Bouncy Ball]

14. How many judges have ordered her feeding tube to

stay IN?

Answer me that. EVERY judge who has heard this case has been convinced by the evidence presented by BOTH SIDES that Michael Schiavo is correct when he says his wife would not have wished to be kept this way.

Now, can you answer my questions? Why do you want to throw out all the courts' rulings?

[barb162]

17. here's from U. of Miami I was scanning. I don't want to go

through the whole darn thing though on the feeding tubes.

"April 26, 2001

The Schindlers file an emergency motion with Judge Greer for relief from judgment based upon new evidence, which includes a claim that a former girlfriend of Michael Schiavo will testify that he lied about Terri Schiavo’s wishes; Judge Greer dismisses the motion as untimely. Also on this date, the Schindlers file a new civil suit that claims that Michael Schiavo perjured himself when he testified that Terri Schiavo had stated an aversion to remaining on life support. Pending this new civil trial, Circuit Court Judge Frank Quesada orders Terri Schiavo’s PEG tube to be reinserted."

[BurtWorm]

21. Fair enough. That was more of a status quo move than a decision, though.

Did any judge decide against the principle Michael Schiavo was in court for? That answer is no. Right?

[barb162]

26. I don't know and I am too tired to look at the time line again.

However I read some interesting stuff on the first guardian appointed for a few months and I think the husband is not the person who should have been her guardian all those years. After he got his share of the settlement money, he was denying even minimum physical therapy and she got worse physically. Maybe it was coincidental, maybe not. But the first guardian was apppointed when Micheal admitted in court he had a conflict of interest in her care.

[BurtWorm]

30. You mean there was someone other than Wolfson?

Because Wolfson is very complimentary of Michael's care for Terri.

[LisaL]

35. Yes, there is another Guardian, before Wolfson.

[BurtWorm]

37. I'd like to see evidence that Michael was a bad guardian.

Everything I've read indicates he did as much as he possibly could, given the material he had to work with. I get an image of a man watching professional therapists trying to teach a life-sized ragdoll that used to be his wife to walk and talk.

[barb162]

38. I would agree with that up until he got the insurance settlement

here's from the Wolfson report;

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 loss of consortium award (non economic damages) of $300,000 to Michael. The court established a trust fund for Theresa's financial award, with SouthTrust Bank as the Guardian and an independent trustee. ....After the malpractice case judgment, evidence of disaffection between the Schindlers and Michael Schiavo openly emerged for the first time. The Schindlers petitioned the court to remove Michael as Guardian. They made allegations that he was not caring for Theresa, and that his behavior was disruptive to Theresa's treatment and condition.

Proceedings concluded that there was no basis for the removal of Michael as Guardian Further, it was determined that he had been very aggressive and attentive in his care of Theresa. His demanding concern for her well being and meticulous care by the nursing home earned him the characterization by the administrator as "a nursing home administrator's nightmare". It is notable that through more than thirteen years after Theresa's collapse, she has never had a bedsore.

By 1994, Michael's attitude and perspective about Theresa's condition changed. During the previous four years, he had insistently held to the premise that Theresa could recover and the evidence is incontrovertible that he gave his heart and soul to her treatment and care. This was in the face of consistent medical reports indicating that there was little or no likelihood for her improvement.

In early 1994 Theresa contracted a urinary tract infection and Michael, in consultation with Theresa's treating physician, elected not to treat the infection and simultaneously imposed a "do not resuscitate" order should Theresa experience cardiac arrest. When the nursing facility initiated an intervention to challenge this decision, Michael cancelled the orders. .... It had taken Michael more than three years to accommodate this reality and he was beginning to accept the idea of allowing Theresa to die naturally rather than remain in the non-cognitive, vegetative state. It took Michael a long time to consider the prospect of getting on with his life – something he was actively encouraged to do by the Schindlers, long before enmity tore them apart. He was even encouraged by the Schindlers to date, and introduced his in-law family to women he was dating. But this was just prior to the malpractice case ending. As part of the first challenge to Michael's Guardianship, the court appointed John H. Pecarek as Guardian Ad Litem to determine if there had been any abuse by Michael Schiavo.
.................
(PS:I just am thinking it is not coincidental that he was a real tiger for her care until the insurance settled out and then after that, his attitude changed. I know I can be completely wrong on his motivations and if I am then I am terribly sorry. I think there is a large conflict of interest on his part being married to Ms. Schiavo and dating and having children with others. I am still trying to find out what happened to the 700,000 portion of the settlement and if it is all used up or not. I know I wouldn't want the husband representing me if I were totally incapacitated if the husband were having children with another person and a substantial amount of money were involved. I think a public guardian probably should have been appointed for the whole term of this case but then that can't be changed now. I don't want to read polarized stuff on this case...I am still trying to get at some facts. Well that's my two cents.)

[BurtWorm]

41. "It is notable that through more than thirteen years

after Theresa's collapse, she has never had a bedsore."

Isn't Wolfson saying here that Michael has continued to be an aggressive guardian, even 13 years after the collapse, to the point that she never had a bed sore. And that is more than "notable," considering that this woman has been in bed all that time without being able to shift her own weight. That's close to a miracle.


PS: Would you want to be in Terri Schiavo's place for the last 15 years? And continuing on indefinitely to the future? Would you choose to be in a state in which you had to be fed through tubes into your stomach because you didn't have the brain power to be able to chew and swallow?

[barb162]

44. your PS; of course not.

[BurtWorm]

45. I have yet to hear of anyone who is certain they would want to be kept

alive in such a circumstance. Most people are certain they would want to be able to die. Yet thirty percent of Americans are somehow certain that Terri Schiavo is in the teeniest tiniest minority of people who would choose to be kept alive, even if it might mean tens of years of lying in a persistent vegetative state until something besides having her tubes removed kills her.

[barb162]

46. A few months ago I sat on a jury where there was a 7 yr.old kid who was

massively disabled and had to be hand fed only food that didn't have to be chewed, because he couldn't chew, let alone put a spoon or fork to his mouth. He could swallow though. And I wondered why the doctors and hospital and parents didn't let the child die as he suffered this massive brain injury at birth. Well we gave the guardian of the child 6 million as that was what it was going to cost to keep the child in 24 hour care for his natural life.

[BurtWorm]

47. Is the child in a vegetative state? Or is he conscious?

There's a difference, and it's key.

[barb162]

49. He wasn't in PVS but could barely talk, was in a diaper, etc. It was

fucking heart-wrenching. He could never learn to read as he couldn't control ANY of his muscles. He could never play, never walk, never go to the bathroom by himself, never dress himself, etc. When he "ate" he sometimes said "goo,goooooooooooo, goo, go" etc., trying to say "good" Oh he was conscious all right but was trapped in a body that was so totally useless because he suffered oxygen deprivation at the birth. When I have the picture of him in my mind as I write this, I wonder if it wouldn't have been better for him to be in pvs let alone that they just didn't let him die at the hospital where he was born.

[BurtWorm]

50. But barb, that child's situation was not the same as Terri Schiavo's.

The differences are too many to enumerate. The essential difference is the degree of consciousness in each person, before and after the "accident," if you will (conception for the child, the heart attack for TS), that resulted in their present state. The child has never known any other state--but he knows, in some sense, the state he's in--i.e, he's conscious, even to the point of having rudimentary language.

Some ethicists, like Peter Singer, are trying to fathom whether the child's alleged right to life takes precedence over the parent or guardian's alleged ability to discern if that life is of insufficient quality to go on. In my mind, we are way too far from having the wisdom as a species to make the kinds of choices Singer seems to think we do have the capacity to make about another human's life or death, when the other human has not (because CAN not) give any indication of his or her choice in the matter.

But Terri Schiavo was conscious and able to communicate her intentions for some 30 years before her accident. We ought to have the wisdom as a species to discern what she would have wanted, or whether her husband is a trustworthy reporter and guardian of her wishes. The Florida courts (and now two federal courts) have ruled that he was trutworthy. I think they're the best tools we have in difficult cases like this. I don't think Congress or the Florida legistlature--and certainly not the Bush scions--are better judges than the judges.

[barb162]

51. Oh I agree!!!! With everything you are saying EXCEPT

this has gotten so out of hand (such a total circus) that I would like to see it fixed. "Fixed" to me would be this: I would like to see a permanent IMPARTIAL guardian ad litem appointed to Ms. Schiavo and get her husband and parents out of the picture.

[BurtWorm]

52. Why would that fix the situation?

That would make the precendent that a spouse is not competent to serve as a proxy for his or her spouse if his or her in-laws disagree with his or her actions on behalf of the spouse, even when a state court says so.

[barb162]

53. this spouse is possibly compromised , ie., hasn't been a wife/

husband situation for years, his "friend" and their two children (unfaithful) etc. The parents are compromised by the right wing? There should be at least one individual who is on Ms. Schiavo's side, who works for her best interest. A public guardian

[BurtWorm]

55. Schiavo wasn't "unfaithful" until he was convinced by doctors

that he would never again have the wife he married. Faithfulness is a peculiar concept in such a circumstance.

I am troubled by the idea that because the Schindlers had the will to make of their daughter's circumstance the spectacle it has become, Schiavo has been deprived equal protection any other spouse would be afforded, as the Florida courts have affirmed again and again. It troubles me that the Schindlers are asking for and people in political power are seeking for them special treatment that no other parent of a married child would receive in like circumstances. The only difference between the Schindlers and any other parents in their circumstances is that they have the deep pockets of a special political interest behind them.

[RoyGBiv]

15. Her family ...

Her family, the ones trying to keep the feeding tube flowing, are the biggest assholes. They are not thinking of anyone but themselves and their own selfish desires. And, they invited those other assholes to come along for the ride, not caring one iota that they are using their daughter/sister as a token in their political power game. I wish I could make it a part of my own living will that any of my family members who allow me to be used in such a fashion be taken out and shot. I'd have compassion for them if they had shown even one moment of compassion for Ms Shiavo since embarking on their unprecedented campaign to keep her body alive. But, they have not, and my compassion is therefore exhausted.

This woman's mother, in particular, has some severe psychological issues, the kind that allows people to believe inanimate objects speak to them. Denial is one thing and is natural. Her level of denial has crossed into the realm of willful ignorance.

Sorry to be so blunt and harsh, but I'm tired of this distraction.

I have a personal line I draw on things like assisted suicide, euthanasia, etc. because I have some complex moral, legal, and political opinions about those matters I will not discuss in depth at this time. They are irrelevant. This case does not even get past the starting line of an approach to that line. This woman is dead. She died a long time ago. The biological organism that once carried what was her has remained because our society has developed technology that allows that to happen, but the essence of what made her an individual is completely, irrevocably gone. Nothing can bring it back. The science required to bring her back to what she was is analogous to the kind of science it would take to reassemble a particular and specific set of electrons occupying specific bit of space at a specific moment in time that no one cataloged. In fact, it would be harder.

Yes, she deserves to live, just as my grandmother deserved to live. They both died, as do we all. The woman is gone. Let her shell go as well.

[barb162]

18. "The woman is gone. " There's the rub

but she is not technically brain dead, even if she has lost most of the brain.

[Bouncy Ball]

23. No one is saying she's brain dead.

In fact, she's not. Brain dead means ALL brain function is lost. Meaning they have to have a machine breath for them, they need a feeding tube, the WHOLE nine yards. With brain death, machines are doing EVERYTHING.

Terri is not brain dead. What she is is extensively and permanently brain damaged to the point that she has very little brain LEFT. If it weren't for her "lower" brain still reflexively and involuntarily telling her heart to beat and her lungs to expand and contract, etc, she would be brain dead. That's how close to it she is.

"Brain dead" never had anything to do with this. People throw around the terms "brain dead" and "brain damaged" like they are one and the same and they aren't.

[barb162]

27. I agree. But in our society, you aint dead till you're brain dead

I think many people are treating her as if she is already brain dead, don't you? I was referring to the technical medical definition of "dead" in our society. I would say there are many people in nursing homes in this country today who are just as "damaged" as she is and who are on feeding tubes, but their cases have not become national political left wing/ring wing football/ circuses. Her brain stem still functions, her heart still functions... but she is "dead" in the minds of many people.

[Bouncy Ball]

28. She has no

personality, no memories, no emotions, no judgement, no awareness, no consciousness, no ability to speak, to hear, to feel touch, to smell, to taste, or to move voluntarily, among other things.

Everything that was "Terri" is gone. Her body is left. Her heart beats, she breathes.

That's it. That may be "alive" in the technical sense of the word, but she sure ain't living. Hasn't been and won't, either.

[moobu2]

31. At one time, not that long ago , you werent considered "dead"

until your heart stopped beating. Advances in medical technology allowed doctors to keep people's bodies functioning even after the brain was completely dead and there was a great controversy amongst doctors, ethicists and religious leaders so, a presidential commission in 1981 set the term "total brain death" to define what death meant. Many people today, me included, think death should include the death of the cerebral cortex because the cortex is where everything that makes us who we are resides (consciousness/awareness, personality, thought, emotions, memory etc...I think the definition of brain death will change ro include the death of the cerebral cortex once more people fully understand magnitude of cerebral death.

[LisaL]

34. feeding tube is hardly a new technology. It's been around since

19 century.

[barb162]

48. I think the definition of technical death will evolve as it has been

through the years and that the Schiavo case will further the discussion along

[barb162]

24. I think your feelings are justified. I have huge isues

with this case, one being her husband kept denying even minimum rehab and even medical treatment for infections AFTER he got the $$$$ settlements in the 1990s. (Before that he was "model" husband, getting on the nursing homes' case when they didn't perform properly).) That's when the fighting starting between him and the Schindlers. SHe is not brain dead; perhaps with some minimum physical therapy MS. Schiavo could swallow food on her own. I simply don't know. I also don't know if the small portion of her cerebral cortex remaining can take over and provide her that swallowing ability so she doesn't need a tube. The husband has a huge conflict of interest in that he would have gotten the wife's portion of the settlement (700,000+) once she died and he was already shacking up with women at that time. He should not have been the guardian for her when he had a financial interest in seeing her dead, getting that dough and having girlfriends on the side.

[pen dragon]

25. hear hear

[Bouncy Ball]

29. Just from this:

"...perhaps with some minimum physical therapy MS. Schiavo could swallow food on her own. I simply don't know. I also don't know if the small portion of her cerebral cortex remaining can take over and provide her that swallowing ability so she doesn't need a tube. The husband has a huge conflict of interest in that he would have gotten the wife's portion of the settlement (700,000+) once she died and he was already shacking up with women at that time. He should not have been the guardian for her when he had a financial interest in seeing her dead, getting that dough and having girlfriends on the side."

I can tell you don't know enough about PVS or this case.

No, she cannot and will not ever swallow on her own. The portion of her brain that controlled that is gone. And no, you cannot have such a tiny portion of your higher brain "take over" and provide swallowing capability. Each part of the cerebral cortex is responsible for different things--there's a tiny little center responsible for speech, there's another part responsible for processing auditory information, the frontal lobes control personality, memory, inhibitions.

Once the parts are gone, they are gone. The brain is a HIGHLY specialized organ and, while things can be "re-routed" if you still HAVE all that brain tissue (and things are still not ever the same even in that case), other brain tissue cannot just "take over." It just doesn't work that way.

The rest of the stuff you wrote about this case is pure misinformation. Have you read the information on abstractappeal.com? Many DUers have found it very helpful.

[barb162]

42. Yes I am reading abstractappeal.com and I also find it extremely

helpful. I think Schiavo, of course, has zero chance of ever living any meaningful life.

The husband does in fact have a huge conflict of interest in the case which is why the first guardian was appointed in the 90s. He admitted in court he had a conflict...that is straight fact out of the court documents. It is not misinformation.

I also find the U. of Miami and other sites helpful.

[moobu2]

32. You swallowed all the rightwing fundie lies

And what's worse id you're repeating them here..

All I can say is you should read all the court rulings and reports because you have an extreme warped view of this case.

this is a summery of the court appointed guardian report just to give you an idea.

Of Michael Schiavo, there is the incorrect perception that he has refused to relinquish his guardianship because of financial interests, and more recently, because of allegations that he actually abused Theresa and seeks to hide this. There is no evidence in the record to substantiate any of these perceptions or allegations.

Jay Wolfsons report to Jeb Bush

Why do you think Michael Schiavo has won before almost 30 judges? The federal judge said yesterday that the Schindlers didn't even have a slight chance to prevail in their appeals. They're using the same crap you posted as evidence and the fact that none of it's true might be the reason it doesn't fly in court, you think?

[barb162]

40. Actually I have been trying to have a very open mind on this case and

I have switched my position about the feeding tube about 3 times in the last week. I am not gullible at all and I have read the Wolfson report and the first guardian's reports, watched Wolfson twice on TV now in some extensive interviews and have been reading some other court documents. I must say I resent your opinion that I have a warped view when I am keeping an extremely open mind and have been reading the court documents. This case has become a polarized circus. I am simply at this point not coming up with your conclusions. That doesn't mean I am standing at the nursing home with a glass of water in one hand and a bible in the other, does it? And please don't characterize what I post as crap...you're out of line.

[barb162]

54. just reread your post; try doing some of your own research next

time you post and before you start making reckless and silly comments

[RoyGBiv]

36. The money ...

Please read through the facts more carefully. There are links people have posted leading to documents put together outside the context of all the political nonsense. You're presenting it exactly as the woman's parents present it, and court after court after court, along with numerous independent examinations of the facts, have found their version "unconvincing" at best.

In summary, doctors tried to convince Mr. Shiavo long before he made any decisions that the matter was hopeless. Yes, he was a "model" husband, going to extensive lenths, grasping at any hope. And then, like healthy people do, he eventually began to come to terms with his grief, began moving forward with his life, and started trying to make some decisions. Through consultations with the doctors, he eventually made the decision to remove life support.

And then came the money. Yes, you're right that the rather modest settlement (considering what happened to this woman) seems to be the line of demarcation. This is, in fact, when the woman's parents started trying to remove Mr. Shiavo as guardian. They made all sorts of allegations, none of which any judge anywhere has given even the slightest bit of credence after exhaustive, time consuming investigations.

One individual involved suggested Mr. Shiavo wanted to take control of the money should life support be removed. It was then shown that this individual had conveniently forgotten to mention that Mr. Shiavo had indicated his desire to relinquish control of the money in its entirety.

The woman's parents had just as much of a potential financial incentive by removing Mr. Shiavo as guardian as he had by remaining guardian. No one mentions that.

Also shown in court, through 6 unprecedented, separate appeals, is that Ms. Shiavo did *not* want to be kept alive under these conditions. Do her desires matter? According to precedent and my own moral senses, they do.

[barb162]

43. You can be completely right. All I am trying to do is look at the facts

not the hearsay, and draw conclusions from the facts. Where there is hearsay, I prefer not to use it. From events and facts I can draw certain conclusions, they just may be different conclusions than yours. I am still learning though as I am reading the history of the case and watching the case as it progresses.