Originally posted by sasquatch672Forget adultry. Adultry is as common as dirt. Go back to my example of two busness partners. Michael Schiavo is the business partner who gains from the death of his partner, and the courts have placed him in control of that death. Terri is already resting in peace according to the medical experts. What's going on now is a getting even battle between her parents and her husband. Let the parents bury their child. Why take her body back to PA and cremate it? It's just spite. He's won and now he rubs salt in their wounds. I don't understand the reasoning. Perhaps she also told him to hurt her parents if she died. I suppose that's possible.
Oof. Neutral arbiter. Didn't they do that? Twenty times?
You've brought up the fact that you believe Michael Schiavo has not been much of a husband to Terry. So I've got to think that on some level that buggers you very much. And that's your opinion, that's fine. Terry didn't really break the contract, as you said, in my view. She left t ...[text shortened]... g there is an empty shell, and I don't understand why her parents won't let her rest in peace.
Originally posted by DelmerDelmer, you are completely wrong that the courts have placed Michael Schiavo in control of Terri's death. Please go to http://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/infopage.html; it clearly shows that what the court did was have a proceeding to determine what Terri wanted, not what Michael or Terri's parents wanted. 6 courts have agreed that she expressed a wish that she not be allowed to exist in a state like this and the courts are honoring her wishes, not Michael's. Michael was a witness to some of her statements expressing that wish, but there were several others as well.
Forget adultry. Adultry is as common as dirt. Go back to my example of two busness partners. Michael Schiavo is the business partner who gains from the death of his partner, and the courts have placed him in control of that death. Terri is already resting in peace according to the medical experts. What's going on now is a getting even battle between her pare ...[text shortened]... easoning. Perhaps she also told him to hurt her parents if she died. I suppose that's possible.
Originally posted by DelmerFirst of all, when Michael sued for the 300k, he was under the belief that he would
Michael got $300,000 for "loss of companionship" in a lawsuit that also involved $700,000 going into a Terri trust fund for her care. (I have just seen all this presented on the CBS evening news.)
be getting Terri back in some form or another. He was in the process of training to
become a nurse to learn how better to care for her and, he hoped, rehabilitate her.
That money (300k) is for what they call 'loss of consortium,' which is defined as,
'Deprivation in some degree of the companionship, affection, sexual relations, or
cooperation of a spouse due to an accident or injury.' You cannot deny that this
has happened. He has had to rebuild his life because of what the courts determined
was a failure of diagnosis of her bulhemia.
Just because he lost consoritum, doesn't mean that the contract is nullified or broken.
Indeed, for four years afterwards, he was still trying to help her become rehabilitated.
And, when he realized that wasn't possible, he began to try to see to her last wishes,
to not remain in her state. That is his last obligation given that the remainder of the
terms were not going to come to pass.
That he began moving on with his life is, like the money, none of anyone's business.
He has attended to Terri's every interest, including her final ones. That is living up
to one's contract, not violating it.
Nemesio