Well, the results are in. (http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=8804058) There was no evidence of abuse. There was no evidence of any brain function. And on top of that, she was blind, so the video of her following a balloon as it floated around the room was more wishful thinking than anything.

I don't imagine anyone will apologize to her husband, though.

Originally posted by LionelHutz
Well, the results are in. (http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=8804058) There was no evidence of abuse. There was no evidence of any brain function. And on top of that, she was blind, so the video of her following a balloon as it floated around the room was more wishful thinking than anything.

I don't imagine anyone will apologize to her husband, though.

And my guess is her parents and all the nutwings who fought to keep her alive will never believe it either.

At least her husband can have peace of mind now. No matter how much he believed he was doing the right thing, there had to be doubts there for him too and many a dark night of the soul. Now he can know with certainty that he was right and acted in her best interest.

This isn't going to change anyone's mind about the issue; it's only going to change the points that are debated.

Wish there was some way to find all this out ahead of time, (while a person is still alive), without having to wait for autopsy results. Kind of like closing the gate after the cows are gone.

Wish there was some way to find all this out ahead of time, (while a person is still alive), without having to wait for autopsy results. Kind of like closing the gate after the cows are gone.
All brain scans showed zilch brain activity. We had pretty much all of that information minus the fact that she was blind. Nobody wanted to believe the neurologists, however, they just wanted to listen to that nutjob who wasn't specialized in neurology and knew nothing about it.

Originally posted by Dan Fussell
Wish there was some way to find all this out ahead of time, (while a person is still alive), without having to wait for autopsy results. Kind of like closing the gate after the cows are gone.

It was determined ahead of time. That's why they pulled the tube and would have pulled it years earlier if the whole thing hadn't become a legal battle. The autopsy confirms the solid diagnosis that was already well known. The diagnosis was not a wild ass guess - it was based on medical evaluation & use of state of the art technology. They already knew half her brain was gone.

The problem was the nutters decided that she could better & it became a political issue - with morons like Frist making medical determinations from his Senate office without even seeing the patient.

The parents even went so far as to say she communicated that she didn't want the tube pulled. Jesus - get a grip..

You have to feel sorry for the husband who was demonized through all this - when all he wanted was to have Terri's wishes carried out.

Now Florida's govenor wants to know why hubby waited between 40-70 minutes before calling 911 after discovering her. Hubby maintains he called right away. Egads, won't they just let this go away??

I guess they have to keep digging until they find something to justify their behavior.

the only behavior that needs justification is the one who forces parents to watch their child starve to death agaisnt their will

Originally posted by Travh20
the only behavior that needs justification is the one who forces parents to watch their child starve to death agaisnt their will

The autopsy said she didn't die of starvation.

Originally posted by LionelHutz
The autopsy said she didn't die of starvation.

And nobody forced them to watch.

Originally posted by Travh20
the only behavior that needs justification is the one who forces parents to watch their child starve to death agaisnt their will

Technically, Terry didn't have a will. Her body was alive and blood was flowing through her veins, but that was it. There was no brain activity, no thought function -- nothing. Her brain was half the size it should have been; never would she be capable of being even a little coherent.

Couldn't you also turn your argument around and say that the only behavior that needs justification is the one [which] forces a husband to watch his wife's body stay alive by means of a feeding tube, against her will?

Yeah, I think you can. But since she had no will and no brain function, there's no way to determine what was done in Terry's best interest. Now, people should just move on and remember her as the woman she was before she had her accident -- not as the vegetable and political battleground she became after.

I would have no problem with the case at all if the "husband" wasnt living with another woman who he has had kids with and if the parents also wanted to pull the plug. the whole thing stinks and any one who can turn a blind eye to the "husband" as if he was still devoted and at her side 24/7 cant be take totally seriously. The people who had her best intentions at heart were her parents, not the two timing husband. thats all.

The parents weren't especially innocent either. The original break between her parents and her husband was over what was going to be done with the money she got from the lawsuit. But yeah, the whole thing does stink.

Originally posted by Travh20
I would have no problem with the case at all if the "husband" wasnt living with another woman who he has had kids with

Except even her parents had the compassion to realize he had put his own life on hold for long enough. They condoned his realtionship. They know the woman he is with and they know his kids.

and if the parents also wanted to pull the plug.
He was rational enough to accept the reports from years back that said she was brain dead and had zero chance of recovery. He knew his wife was no longer there, merely a corpse that kept breathing. The purpose of being at her bedside after one realizes this would be what? Her parents were irrational? Why does this mark him as bad?

the whole thing stinks and any one who can turn a blind eye to the "husband" as if he was still devoted and at her side 24/7 cant be take totally seriously.

For how long would you sit beside a dead woman? He did for years, and years, and years...longer than most before his brain kicked in. Would you in all seriousness want your wife to sit beside your bed for years when you were already blind, and brain dead? Would you want your kids to see you as a drooling corpse? Why?

The people who had her best intentions at heart were her parents, not the two timing husband. thats all.

Please explain this because I truly do not get it; how can you say that keeping a body alive where the brain has shrunk to half it's size and there is no possible chance of recovery could possibly be labeled as having that person's best interest at heart? I truly want to know how you could believe this?

It mystifies and amazes me that people could really think that keeping a rotting body alive, and sitting vigil with that body every day could be considered as anything but dysfunctional, disillusional and cruel beyond measure?????????????????????

Originally posted by Travh20
I would have no problem with the case at all if the "husband" wasnt living with another woman who he has had kids with and if the parents also wanted to pull the plug. the whole thing stinks and any one who can turn a blind eye to the "husband" as if he was still devoted and at her side 24/7 cant be take totally seriously. The people who had her best intentions at heart were her parents, not the two timing husband. thats all.

Two timing is when a person sees two people at the same time. Your attempt to turn the husband into an asshole because he's moved on with his life after 10 years has failed in my eyes. Seeing as Terri was not able to speak with him, hold him, or care for him in several years because everything but her body is essentially dead makes it kind of tough for a husband to continue to have a loving relationship with his wife. In fact, I think moving on yet still trying to care for your lost loved one is pretty amazing. But because he's human -- and not staying at her bedside for several years, crying every day and living in her room -- people fault him.

As for the parents knowing best ... when two people marry, you usually expect that person to be your partner and your care-taker. You take care of each other, do what is best for the other. In marriage, you essentially trust that other person with your life. That's why the husband had the right to make the decisions for Terri when she couldn't. If she didn't trust her husband to do what was in her best interest, she shouldn't have married him. But she did marry him, which means she gave over that trust. Who are we to argue what's best for her and what isn't? Shit, everyone can assume they know what is best for her but no one can really know but Terri -- and she's dead. So instead, trust that she made the right decision in the first place.

Embyr - I agree with you 100%

It's a bit silly Trav to think that the guy wouldn't move on with his life but still want to ensure that Terri's wishes were carried out. Why are the 2 mutually exclusive? He was married to her, but she turned into a brain dead shell. The guy is supposed to go without sex for 10 years?

Bravo to the husband - he never once stooped down to the gutter like his oponents did & he can hold his head up high. The family plus all the radical hanger-oners just should be ashamed of how they made Terri S life into a travesty. Nothing but a disgrace. Shame on them.

I guess it all comes back to the definition of marriage. if you are married to someone it is not allowed to go out and start another family. If he wanted to get a divorce he could have just done that.

and as many times as I hear people sa she was brain dead and had no chance of anything and didnt have a clue as to what was going on I dont see why they care if she "Suffered" by being kept alive. seriously, unless you believe in some greater force or spirit or soul being trapped why did it matter? I think it was all projection. YOu yourselves wouldnt wenat to live like that so you assume she wouldnt either.

You can only go on the facts as known

- She was brain dead
- Her husband was gardian
- He said her wishes were not to live like that
- He carried out her wishes

CASE CLOSED

That's all there is to it. Whether or not he got a divorce is a sideshow - it's not relevant.

Originally posted by Travh20
I guess it all comes back to the definition of marriage. if you are married to someone it is not allowed to go out and start another family. If he wanted to get a divorce he could have just done that.

Okay, fair enough then. I feel his behaviour was the more honourable way to go. You feel it was not.

and as many times as I hear people sa she was brain dead and had no chance of anything and didnt have a clue as to what was going on I dont see why they care if she "Suffered" by being kept alive. seriously, unless you believe in some greater force or spirit or soul being trapped why did it matter? I think it was all projection. YOu yourselves wouldnt wenat to live like that so you assume she wouldnt either.

By the result of the autopsy she did not suffer by being kept alive as her brain likely did not have pain awareness. Although I do believe in soul I think it is most likely hers had moved on since essentially Terri was a dead body still breathing. And you are correct I would not want to live like that and there is the assumption that she would not either. That is one of the magnificient abilities that separate humans from others in the animal kingdom... we have the ability to empathize.

so if she was totally unaware and dead whats the big deal in keeping her alive? this is where the argument comes in I guess. the husband is the only one who everheard her say she wouldnt want to live liek that. There is no documentation. clearly the husband has moved on in his life so his motives have to be suspect.

Originally posted by ~Sal~
one of the magnificient abilities that separate humans from others in the animal kingdom... we have the ability to empathize.

Well, some of us do anyway. Others could give a damn.

Those wretched MEs should be removed, and they damn well had better watch their backs! How dare they reach a conclusion that doesn't fit Tom Delay's agenda??? Infidels! Heathens!
Let the smear campaign begin!

Originally posted by Echo2
Well, some of us do anyway. Others could give a damn.

:D

Originally posted by Travh20
clearly the husband has moved on in his life so his motives have to be suspect.

I agree that clearly the husband has moved on in his life and that he did so long ago in many ways...that is exactly why I do not think his motives are suspect.

Her family however were intent upon on revolving their lives around a breathing corpse and that is why I highly suspect their motives and ability to see reality.

The fact that the husband moved on with his life does not make his motivations suspect. They make them more valid. If he didn't give a crap then he would have left Terri to the dogs.

That family - you have to sympathize with their loss - but beyond that they make themselfs look like a pack of scumbags. The prevailing public opinion is very much with the husband - he held his head up high & he never responds to the family who have sunk to the depths.

Losing their daughter doesn't give them immunity from being assholes.

Originally posted by Travh20
so if she was totally unaware and dead whats the big deal in keeping her alive? this is where the argument comes in I guess. the husband is the only one who everheard her say she wouldnt want to live liek that. There is no documentation. clearly the husband has moved on in his life so his motives have to be suspect.
Honestly, Trav, sometimes you really fail to think things through.

Michael Schiavo has spent thousands in legal fees, out of his own pocket, to try to let Mrs. Schiavo die peacefully. That will pretty much kill any financial arguments.

Now, if he didn't give a damn and wanted Mrs. Schiavo dead in order to marry someone else, why didn't he just divorce her? Why go through the whole ordeal to let her die? Is he some sort of psychopath? That much I doubt.

In any case, suspect motives should not matter anyway. He was married to Mrs. Schiavo -- meaning that she trusted her life to Mr. Schiavo. I mean, Trav, put yourself in Mrs. Schiavo's former position. You can't make decisions on your own. Who do you think should make decisions such as to continue medical treatment, or to change doctors, or anything, really? Your wife, or your parents?

The people who had her best intentions at heart were her parents,

If her intentions were to not live in that situation, then they did not have her best intentions at heart...they had their own intentions at heart.

clearly the husband has moved on in his life so his motives have to be suspect.

Actually, his actions make him non-suspect. He went to nursing school and spent years caring for her and trying to help her recover. After years, when it became apparent that she was not going to recover, he made the attempt to carry out her wishes. That took many years because the parents and courts got involved, but he moved on as many people would have. He could have just divorced her then but it makes sense that, if he knew she did not wish to continue living like that, he would have to remain married through the entire process to legally carry out her wishes.