**********************************************************************
In a 1992 malpractice lawsuit, Michael claimed a noble love for his wife:（1992年）
Q. How do you feel about being married to Terri now?（你對和terri婚姻感覺如何？）
SCHIAVO: I feel wonderful. She's my life and I wouldn't trade her for the world. I believe in my - I believe in my wedding vows.（我感覺好極了。她（terri）是我的生命。你就是用整個世界來和我換她，我都不幹。我深信我結婚時的誓言）
Q. What do you mean? You want to take a minute? （怎麽拉，你想休息一會兒？）
SCHIAVO: Yeah.（是的）
Q. If the court would let us take a minute.
Q. You okay?
SCHIAVO: Yeah, I’m sorry.
Q. Have - you said you believe in your wedding vows. What do you mean by that?（你說你深信你結婚時的誓言，是什麽意思？）
SCHIAVO: I believe in the vows that I took with my wife. Through sickness, in health, for richer or poorer. I married my wife because I love her and I want to spend the rest of my life with her. I'm going to do that.（我的誓言是不管疾病或健康，富裕或貧窮，我都將和我妻子共度此生。我因為愛我的妻子才和她結婚並願意和她一起度過餘生。我肯定會這樣做）
Yet, the very next year he gave this testimony during a Nov. 19, 1993 deposition: （一年後，1993）
Q. Are you presently – you’re married to Terri Schiavo, correct?（你現在還和terri結婚嗎？）
SCHIAVO: Yes I am.（是的）
Q. Are you presently involved in a romantic relationship with anyone?
（你現在又和另外一個女人有婚外情嗎？）
SCHIAVO: Yes I am.（是的）
Q. Are you involved in an intimate relationship with this person.
（你和這個女人有親密關係嗎？）
SCHIAVO: Yes I am.（是的）
Q. Is this the first relationship that you’ve been involved in since your wife has been in a coma?（這是你妻子昏迷後的第一次婚外情嗎？）
SCHIAVO: No.（當然不是！）
So much for nobility and spending the rest of his life with his wife. In fact, within months of the malpracitce lawsuit he had already decided to end Terri’s life by "letting nature take its course."（事實上在terri昏迷幾個月後，michael就決定讓terri自然死亡了） Medical records indicate that after receiving the proceeds of the 1992 Medical Malpractice Trial totaling close to one million dollars not a single day of proper rehabilitation or therapy has been given to Terri. （1992年Michael得到100萬之後，就基本沒有在給Terri好好治療過一天。有個護士證明，那時Michael說希望那個“母狗”早點死掉，那樣他就富有了。michael的情婦證明，michael曾，我才25歲，我怎能這樣過一輩子？）。
And in the spring of 1993, just a few months after this Medical Malpractice was awarded to Terri, Michael Schiavo, Terri’s legal guardian, instructed caregivers not to treat Terri who had acquired a common but life threatening infection. This happened again in 1995. Note: Michael is the inheritor of this Medical Trust. （1992年得到100萬後，1993年michael通過法庭，獲得terri法律上的完全永久監護權：野心昭昭。然後他就再沒有給terri治療過。 michael是terri醫療權益繼承人）
Does Michael know what his wife would have wanted? Does he really care? Is he a suitable guardian for a person in Terri Schiavo's condition? Has he acted according to Terri's best interest? Has he shown a track record of faithfulness that can be trusted?
1. Terri's parents had no legal basis to start this fight at all since
they are not the legal guardians.
2. If your wife is in permanent vegetative state for 15 years, let's
see what you will do.
3. How did you know that Mike's whole purpose was that 1M? Many
people also said Terri's parents started this fight because they
didn't get any from that 1M.
No wonder you are a 白字秀才 since you are biased, and have no clue
about things.
狐狸葫蘆 發表評論於
送交者: 白字秀才 2005年4月01日06:49:03
Terri Schiavo終於在連續13天“饑餓和饑渴”狀況下，慢慢死去。
從本人的角度來看，死亡對Terri Schiavo本人未嚐不是一件“幸”事，當然對她的丈夫來說“更是一件幸事”。
但是，如此的“死亡”，肯定不是她自己當初的願望，如果真存在她的丈夫“聲稱”的她曾經希望不要人工維持她自己的生命係統的話。
所以，在這點上，如果說她丈夫真的完成了“her will of die"，可以肯定地說她丈夫肯定沒有實現”her will of how to die"。
不過，許多人會認為她丈夫的“her will of die"的說法是個”謊話“。
那麽，即使她的丈夫說法是真的，作為夫妻的一方，他到底能”支配terri schiavo的生死到什麽程度？
作為監護人，他可以說要她死就得讓她死嗎？
作為監護人，他可以在terri schiavo死的那刻，不讓Terri Schiavo的娘家人在她旁邊嗎？
作為監護人，他可以絕對Terri schiavo死後的事情，而她娘家人毫無辦法嗎？她父母要把她埋在佛州，他卻要火化，並把骨灰弄到個人不知鬼不覺的地方嗎？
The trial court heard testimony from five experts: two selected by Michael, two selected by the Schindlers, and one independent expert selected by the trial court. The two experts selected by Michael and the independent expert agreed that Terri was in a persistent vegetative state and that her actions were limited to mere reflexes. The two experts chosen by the Schindlers disagreed, but the trial court found their positions not credible. For instance, the trial court explained:
At first blush, the video of Terry Schiavo appearing to smile and look lovingly at her mother seemed to represent cognition. This was also true for how she followed the Mickey Mouse balloon held by her father. The court has carefully viewed the videotapes as requested by counsel and does find that these actions were neither consistent nor reproducible. For instance, Terry Schiavo appeared to have the same look on her face when Dr. Cranford rubbed her neck. Dr. Greer testified she had a smile during his (non-videoed) examination. Also, Mr. Schindler tried several more times to have her eyes follow the Mickey Mouse balloon but without success. Also, she clearly does not consistently respond to her mother. The court finds that based on the credible evidence, cognitive function would manifest itself in a constant response to stimuli.
The experts also disagreed about whether any treatment could improve Terri's condition. The two experts selected by the Schindlers each proposed a potential therapy method, but the trial court rejected both of them based on "the total absence of supporting case studies or medical literature."
Affirming those decisions, the Second District explained that it, too, reviewed the videotapes of Terri in their entirety as well as Terri's brain scans. The appellate court explained that it not only affirmed the decision but that, were it to review the evidence and make its own decision, the court would reach the same result reached by the trial court.
狐狸葫蘆 發表評論於
送交者: poohtiger 2005年3月31日11:50:43
my opinions are:
1.行政不應該幹涉司法
2。如果通常的程序是health proxy能夠代表病人做決定是否停止治療（在醫生確認無法治愈的情況下），這件事無論如何結局都是合法的，丈夫和醫生都不是殺人犯。
但是，there's still something that bothers me.
1。法庭所做的判決，是丈夫和父母誰是合法的health proxy，還是是否延續TERRI的生命？如果是前者，為什麽他丈夫後來沒有權利改變決定？如果是後者，為什麽法庭有權利，或者有必要決定一個人的生死？
如果有任何理由，比如TERRI的存在妨害了別人，比如私人沒有足夠的錢而需要成為州裏或國家的負擔，我可以理解這樣的決定。但是這似乎不是事實。何況，五個醫生中的兩個認為TERRI的情形不是不可逆轉的（i just got to know this, is it true? how come i didn't hear it before?).
2.尊重她的遺願？Terri的遺願在法律上是不能成為證據的。排除了這一條，在她的存在不妨害任何人的情況下，在生和死之間，default當然應該是選擇生的。
3.尊嚴？我不認為一般人在病中比她好看多少，比她更有尊嚴。
很多TERMINAL的病人都有LIVING WILL 的。在他們無法決定自己的治療後 (通常是
根據醫生的判斷，病人MENTALLY NOT CAPABLE了)，他的POWER OF ATTORNEY 要根據
病人的LIVING WILL 來與醫生協商如何繼續治療。一切的前提是，病人是TERMINAL。
TERRY 的案子的爭議有二，她是不是無望複元，她是不是在無望複元的情況下，原
因放棄治療。這兩件是搞清楚，裁決就出來了。
我是一個工程師，我覺得，NOTHING IS COMPLETELY IMPOSSIBLE，PERIOD。
我不願意從惡的地方猜測TERRI的丈夫。。但是，我覺得，他有他主觀的成份在裏麵。
狐狸葫蘆 發表評論於
送交者: 蒙臉麗莎 2005年3月29日14:19:49
You and him are judging the entire incident by a standard. Let me ask you who can really justify a standard? Is your standard right or is a pro-lifer’s standard right? No one can tell, because no one is the God.
When we are in such a situation, that is people are fighting for their own benefits, we can only seek political correctness. The way I see it is that such fight isn’t a bad thing, because the outcome will always be positive. Old or common morals are questioned and clarified. A better standard will thrive as a result of it.
Some may argue what about that poor Terry? Well, Terry is not suffering no matter what. She can’t feel. Her brain is dead. It is ironic to see a person who doesn't have sense is trying to make sense out of poeple.
Let’s watch. I am pretty sure something good will happen after all the dust settle down. Maybe there is a new law, maybe there is new way of thinking. Whatever it is , it is only better.
Read more about Michael please. He shared the malpractice money. And he had expressed his desire for her to die many years ago. He could not accept the money offer becasue it was already in the court's hand, not his decision to make. Basically the money offer came too late.
ho, ho, ho, learn more...
腦死亡是指以腦幹或腦幹以上中樞神經係統永久性地喪失功能為參照係而宣布死亡的標準。腦死亡有別於“植物人”，“植物人”腦幹功能是正常的，昏迷隻是由於大腦皮層受到嚴重損害或處於突然抑製狀態，病人可以有自主呼吸、心跳和腦幹反應，而腦死亡則無自主呼吸，是永久、不可逆性的。
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
那植物人會感覺到疼痛和饑餓嗎? - there 3/29/05 (1)
* Nope, they have no 知覺， 隻有條件反射 /無內容 - Giants 3/29/05 (0)
狐狸葫蘆 發表評論於
文章來源: -2-women- 於 2005-03-29 13:30:10
Terri的丈夫是偽善
Terri had tons of chances to wake up long time ago.
MONEY is the evil in the case at the beginning.
Save Face is the evil in the case at the end.
What make Michael not to divorce Terri while he already
have another woman and two kids? Because he does
not want to lose the custody over Terri with one million
dollors.
He didn't reallize that somebody else would pay him ten
million dollors if he would divorce Terri. Why cannot
Michael take the ten million dollors and give Terri better
treatment?
Poor Terri had tons of chances to wake up long time ago.
