Parents & Non-Parents divide

If my son married some woman and a couple years into their marriage some accident occurred that left him completely mentally disabled and the woman he married soon after moved on, had a couple kids with another man, we'd be outraged if the courts put the life and death decision in her hands. As parents, we would feel that the decision should rest with us. If our son were in Terry's condition, I think we'd be in a better position to know what he would want.

from what little i know of you based on your writing, i doubt you and your wife would alienate your son's wife over a couple thousand dollars. nor do i imagine you'd insist your daughter-in-law to permit you to treat your son as if he was chattel and give him back to you knowing you intended to prevent his wishes from being followed.

most married people (in my experience) know much more about their partners as adult people than do their spouse's parents.





copied from the pdf record of the abstract of decision rendered by probate court in which this case was heard. link



the money that was in dispute isnt the roughly $700,000 awarded to terri which was put into a trust over which michael schiavo had no control whatsoever; instead it's the roughly $300,000 he received for lost of consortium. as such it belonged to him and the schindler's were completely outta line to have made that an issue.


the appeals court describes what happened as a result.


In this case, however, Michael Schiavo has not been allowed to make a decision to
disconnect life-support. The Schindlers have not been allowed to make a decision to maintain life-support. Each party in this case, absent their disagreement, might have been a suitable surrogate decision-maker for Theresa.

Because Michael Schiavo and the Schindlers could not agree on the proper decision and the inheritance issue created the appearance of conflict, Michael Schiavo, as the guardian of Theresa, invoked the trial court's jurisdiction to allow the trial court to serve as the surrogate decision-maker.

(taken verbatim from the January 2001… Second District Court of Appeal ruling affirming the trial court's decision regarding Terri's wishes link


and that's the way it's been ever since. michael schiavo could have decamped to sri lanka and the court would still be acting in what it believes to be terri's best interest as her surrogate.

Brad- I think there is some truth to that.  Parents never want to or should have to see their children die before they do.    It is hard to watch a life fade that you watch develop. 

Sorry kingbee the court is still going on hearsay. Don't care what page you put up. Unless you can provide evidence that she stated that she wished to die. They (the court) are running on Michael's say so! $700,000 was put in trust for Terri. Okay. So what happens to it when she's gone? I can tell you. It'll revert to the scumbag. That being said...he's "still" in it for the money!

Sorry kingbee the court is still going on hearsay

hearsay isnt admissible in most courts (as you'd know if you took the time to check into the rules of evidence in florida or in federal courts) . 

(c) Hearsay.

"Hearsay" is a statement, other than one made by the declarant while testifying at the trial or hearing, offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted.

(d) Statements which are not hearsay.

(B) a statement of which the party has manifested an adoption or belief in its truth, or

(C) a statement by a person authorized by the party to make a statement concerning the subject,

 

They (the court) are running on Michael's say so!

duh...she cant testify for herself.  if she could, there wouldnt be an issue to resolve.

$700,000 was put in trust for Terri. Okay. So what happens to it when she's gone? I can tell you. It'll revert to the scumbag

it's already been spent on her care.  her bills are being paid primarily by social security, medicare and medicaid.   considering how little you know about the case, it's extremely irresponsible of you to be calling anyone names or impugning reputations.   you could very easily be wrong.

kingbee gets an insightful for doing his research.

drmiler "Don't care what page you put up." Kind of close-minded, don't you think? Not to be adverserial here, but if Terri could express her wishes, this case wouldn't exist. She can't, so all that we have to go on is hearsay.

At the malpractice trial, the Schindlers testified that Michael was a "wonderful son-in-law." Then a dispute broke out and for more than ten-years the family has argued. Was it over the money? Was it over religious principles? We don't "know" in the sense that Terri can't speak for herself. All that we can do is what the courts have already done: Look at all available evidence and make up our own minds.

It seems these changes will be too late to help Terri. Something I find really disturbing though, is Mr Shiavo's refusal to budge an inch, refusing her the burial the rest of her family wants, and insisting on cremating her and burying her ashes on HIS family plot.

What nobody is picking up on yet is the "fact" that cremation is aginst the roman catholic religon. I guess "scumbag" just don't care. Although I think LW has picked up on it.

We do need to change the laws, and I'd really like to see money removed from the equation altogether by appointing court supervised guardians when any party to the case has the potential for financial motivation influencing their decision

i guess i should have emphasized this in bold the first time (once again this is verbatim from the appeal court recounting what happened at trial--see the link in comment# 2):

Because Michael Schiavo and the Schindlers could not agree on the proper decision and the inheritance issue created the appearance of conflict, Michael Schiavo, as the guardian of Theresa, invoked the trial court's jurisdiction to allow the trial court to serve as the surrogate decision-maker.

rather than make the decision himself, schiavo availed himself of florida law and petitioned the court to hear the evidence and act on terri's behalf. since 2000 (the court actions began in 1998), he's had no more say in what happens than the schindlers.

Talk about twisting the knife. This is just sheer spite, and a good indication of the intense animosity that exists between him and the Schindlers

it aint like they havent done everything possible to make his life a living hell. check the links i provided above and read the decision originally rendered. greer, trying to be as gentle with both sides as possible, restrains himself from making too big a deal of testimony from the schindler witnesses that was accidentally contrived at best if not a blatant attempt to mislead the court.

i cant find it right now because the schindlers have filed so many actions but one of them asked to be allowed to try to feed terri by mouth. i hope i dont need to explain to anyone how foolish and dangerous that would have been.

the "fact" that cremation is aginst the roman catholic religon.

cremation is most certainly not forbidden to catholics. until a few years ago, catholics who wished to have the full memorial (what used to be called a requiem mass, etc.) inside the church building had to be cremated afterwards because the church was opposed bringing a persons ashes into the building. for at least the past couple of years, that's been relaxed; each bishop can decide whether to permit ashes inside the churches of his diocese.

cremation is most certainly not forbidden to catholics. until a few years ago, catholics who wished to have the full memorial (what used to be called a requiem mass, etc.) inside the church building had to be cremated afterwards because the church was opposed bringing a persons ashes into the building. for at least the past couple of years, that's been relaxed; each bishop can decide whether to permit ashes inside the churches of his diocese.

YOu are almost correct.  Until a few years ago, cremation was not allowed for Catholics, Period.  That changed in the 80s.  Still, they do have restrictions on how and who gets cremated, and Michael Schiavo is not following those dictates either.

Brad, it seems your thread is getting Hijacked.  But I agree with you and C & H Wood seems to have hit the reason on the head.  As I stated in another Blog, I think the polls showing 60+% of the population rooting for her death are due to loaded questions.  I will concede it is closer to 50/50 and as Jesse Jackson has shown, it is not a Democrat/Republican issue.

That leaves your explanation as Occams Razor.

Until a few years ago, cremation was not allowed for Catholics,

you must be even older than i am if you think 1963 was 'a few years ago'. since 3/1/1997, the vatican has permitted ashes to be brought into the building for liturgical services with the bishop's approval.

you must be even older than i am if you think 1963 was 'a few years ago'. since 3/1/1997, the vatican has permitted ashes to be brought into the building for liturgical services with the bishop's approval.

I told you it was the 80s. Before then I was not allowed period. After that, there were a lot of restrictions placed on it, and as far as the ashes in the building, no, just the chapel. That was easy to get around by simple moving the ceremony to the commons area.

You got one thing right. I am older than you.

I told you it was the 80s

yeah and youre wrong.

In 1963, an Instruction from the Holy Office (now the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith) lifted the ban on cremation
Link

You got one thing right. I am older than you

even if i was 105 right now that would be true.

Post Removed: I was providing the same information that kingbee did above--he's just faster than me!

told you it was the 80s yeah and youre wrong. In 1963, an Instruction from the Holy Office (now the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith) lifted the ban on cremation Link

Only partially wrong. From your page:

In 1963, an Instruction from the Holy Office (now the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith) lifted the ban on cremation by allowing it in certain circumstances provided that the reasons for choosing cremation were not contrary to Christian belief. However, burial of the body was clearly to be preferred. No allowance was made for any prayer or ritual to be used with the cremated remains. In other words, all services were to be in the presence of the body of the deceased, with cremation allowed only afterwards.

The corollary to the "Right good, left bad" and "Straight good, homo bad" mottos on JU -- "Breeders good, childless bad."

Why do conservatives want to shove everybody in the same box?

The corollary to the "Right good, left bad" and "Straight good, homo bad" mottos on JU -- "Breeders good, childless bad." Why do conservatives want to shove everybody in the same box?

And just what the he** does this have to do with what we were talking about?

I am going to fall back to the original point Brad was making.

If the scenario played out a Brad described (as has the Scheivo's has), as parents, you should know beforehand what your child's wishes are. You should also know beforehand what your child's spouse's wishes are. That means talking to the pair either before or shortly after the wedding, as well as helping them set up the living wills and power of attorney papers.

My wife and I had talked about living wills and were well aware of each others wishes and desires. We did not set up the living wills until we bought our first home. We are again going to look at the wills and power of attorney paperwork to make sure they are still tight legally (our wishes have not changed). What we have not done is have formal discussions with out parents about our wished, but we have had casual conversations about it, so they are all well aware of our wishes. We are also going to make sure that our children know, that conversation waits until they are a bit older though…

she's dead. game over

I know.....SUCKS don't it? And not the game over part either.

I find it very sad that anyone die under such circumstances.

BTW, Myr, you are a bit transparent when you use the term "breeders".

Back on subject, when I first heard of this case I instantly thought of what I would want to have done if I were in her situation.  I thought I would want to be put to sleep (no, that doesn't mean starved to death!).  But then I took a look at the situation as a parent.  I heard all of the miraculous stories of people snapping out of decade or more comas or of some new treatment coming along.  I thought of how desparately I would cling to any shred of hope if it were my own child.  I also thought, if there is any doubt of what her wishes would be (which there are plenty) why not let the people who want to care for her do so?  When in doubt, chose life.  It works that way for murderers, why not for some completely innocent brain damaged young woman?

No allowance was made for any prayer or ritual to be used with the cremated remains. In other words, all services were to be in the presence of the body of the deceased, with cremation allowed only afterwards.

He is too young to understand.  What is is, and is not always what the documents say that is allowed.  Check out "The Church in America" to see how the Vatican has allowed wide latitude to the American Church for many years, up until recently when Pope John Paul II tried to bring it back into compliance.

Oh, you dont know how to read that?

He is too young to understand. What is is, and is not always what the documents say that is allowed. Check out "The Church in America" to see how the Vatican has allowed wide latitude to the American Church for many years, up until recently when Pope John Paul II tried to bring it back into compliance. Oh, you dont know how to read that?

Dr. Guy--Now, I'm confused. The Catholic Church has allowed cremation since 1963 under the condition that it did not interfer with belief in the resurrection. However, they would not perform a mass over the cremated remains, so the cremation could not take place until after the funeral mass. Later they eased up on this last part.

I think everyone is saying the same thing, but arguing that the other is wrong.

The point is, it is not against the catholic religion to be cremated.

Back to the article.

I think the basic idea behind the article is simply that people without children could not possibily have relationships with other human beings that are close enough to cause them extreme anguish should something happen to that other human being--or in a less wordy way, parents are more compassionate than nonparents.

I disagree--obviously, because I am childless and don't like to have my opinion devalued, but also because I think that the majority of adults are closer to their spouses than they are to their parents. Remember, we are talking about adults, not kids. Chances are that spouses are going to have had these discussions, where as parents and their adult children have not.

Moral of the whole story--get it in writing, certified by a lawyer and make your wishes very vocally known to a lot of people. Don't let the courts determine your fate.

He is too young to understand. What is is, and is not always what the documents say that is allowed. Check out "The Church in America" to see how the Vatican has allowed wide latitude to the American Church for many years, up until recently when Pope John Paul II tried to bring it back into compliance. Oh, you dont know how to read that? Dr. Guy--Now, I'm confused. The Catholic Church has allowed cremation since 1963 under the condition that it did not interfer with belief in the resurrection. However, they would not perform a mass over the cremated remains, so the cremation could not take place until after the funeral mass. Later they eased up on this last part. I think everyone is saying the same thing, but arguing that the other is wrong. The point is, it is not against the catholic religion to be cremated.

It's "still" not completely kosher with the church.

In the United States up until 1997, the Order of Christian Funerals clearly indicated that if cremation had been chosen, cremated remains were not to be brought into church for the funeral Mass. Even now this is permitted only in cases where special circumstances warrant it and the bishop approves. The reasoning is that the funeral rites are intended to honor the body of the deceased.

Even now someone who is cremated can have problems with the church.

The new cremation regulation, dated March 21, 1997, was granted by the Holy See as an addition, or indult, to the Order of Christian Funerals. It permits U.S. Latin-rite bishops to decide whether to allow a person's cremated remains at Catholic funeral Masses in their dioceses. The permission is to be granted on a case-by-case basis. It is also clear in the indult that when cremation is chosen, "it is greatly to be preferred that the funeral liturgy take place in the presence of the body of the deceased prior to its cremation." But when cremation has already occurred a bishop can grant permission for a properly sequenced ritual: vigil, then funeral Mass, then committal rite.

If you are looking for the rule of law from the courts, good luck. A judge can break from the black letter law at a whim. I think it is a good thing to have the Pres. and others take a look at the courts. You do not want a closed door in a matter like this.