Perhaps no one expected it to get to this point. After all she was living
with a feeding tube without problem for years. And news of possible
physical abuse by her husband Michael, thus causing her condition, was only
recently discovered.

One does have to ask why her husband wants it now removed, especially since
he never brought up what her *wish* was until 10 years after the
hospitalization and after he received his part of the financial settlement
from the original court case.

One has to wonder why her husband will not allow an autopsy. What harm is
there in that.

Broken bones and an uncaring, money grabbing husband.....the smoking gun
being Terri. How best to get rid of the evidence than to let her die and
deny an autopsy.

It is too late to save her. I only hope she is without pain.

Michael won. I hope he can live with his *victory*.


"Clams Canino" wrote in message
ink.net...
No rush at all. This case is already YEARS too long. No matter what day
it
finally gets over - I'tll be spun as a "rush".

-W

"JimH" wrote in message news:ds6dnZAp1JkOk97fRVn-

Why? What is the rush?

"JimH" wrote in message news:a5KdnYy7Icthod7fRVn-

One does have to ask why her husband wants it now removed, especially
since
he never brought up what her *wish* was until 10 years after the
hospitalization and after he received his part of the financial settlement
from the original court case.

Perhaps he long ago accepted that she was a breathing corpse and
deliberately waited till after the settlement to start the termination
procedings. In and of itself that's not real scummy, that's the legal
business (scummy enough).

At least he didn't try to find a way to get her a job in the occupation she
is best suited for - a paid organ doner. THAT would have been scummy.

The autopsy / deliberate injury crap is a smoke screen thrown out there by
desperate people. She's dead Jim.

-W

"Clams Canino" wrote in message
ink.net...

"JimH" wrote in message news:a5KdnYy7Icthod7fRVn-

One does have to ask why her husband wants it now removed, especially
since
he never brought up what her *wish* was until 10 years after the
hospitalization and after he received his part of the financial
settlement
from the original court case.

Perhaps he long ago accepted that she was a breathing corpse and
deliberately waited till after the settlement to start the termination
procedings. In and of itself that's not real scummy, that's the legal
business (scummy enough).

And perhaps not. So why not err in the favor of life? What harm was there
keeping her alive, especially since her parents accepted all responsibility
for her welfare, including costs. Why not let these latest allegations be
investigated?



At least he didn't try to find a way to get her a job in the occupation
she
is best suited for - a paid organ doner. THAT would have been scummy.

The autopsy / deliberate injury crap is a smoke screen thrown out there by
desperate people. She's dead Jim.

-W


I agree. She is now dead. But she wasn't on March 18th, 2005.

So how about an autopsy? Why is Michael refusing one?

On Thu, 24 Mar 2005 18:56:55 -0500, "JimH" wrote:


"Clams Canino" wrote in message
link.net...

"JimH" wrote in message news:a5KdnYy7Icthod7fRVn-

One does have to ask why her husband wants it now removed, especially
since
he never brought up what her *wish* was until 10 years after the
hospitalization and after he received his part of the financial
settlement
from the original court case.

Perhaps he long ago accepted that she was a breathing corpse and
deliberately waited till after the settlement to start the termination
procedings. In and of itself that's not real scummy, that's the legal
business (scummy enough).

And perhaps not. So why not err in the favor of life? What harm was there
keeping her alive, especially since her parents accepted all responsibility
for her welfare, including costs. Why not let these latest allegations be
investigated?



At least he didn't try to find a way to get her a job in the occupation
she
is best suited for - a paid organ doner. THAT would have been scummy.

The autopsy / deliberate injury crap is a smoke screen thrown out there by
desperate people. She's dead Jim.

-W


I agree. She is now dead. But she wasn't on March 18th, 2005.

So how about an autopsy? Why is Michael refusing one?


If foul play was suspected by the authorities, couldn't they just *order* one?
Who is requesting an autopsy? If I were the husband I'd say leave the body alone
whether I'd done anything or not.

What harm was there? Suppose she had had a living will. Would that same question
still apply?

In Florida the living will can be written or verbal (from what I've seen). She
made a verbal living will. This is apparently what many judges have believed.
--
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

"John H" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 24 Mar 2005 18:56:55 -0500, "JimH" wrote:


"Clams Canino" wrote in message
hlink.net...

"JimH" wrote in message news:a5KdnYy7Icthod7fRVn-

One does have to ask why her husband wants it now removed, especially
since
he never brought up what her *wish* was until 10 years after the
hospitalization and after he received his part of the financial
settlement
from the original court case.

Perhaps he long ago accepted that she was a breathing corpse and
deliberately waited till after the settlement to start the termination
procedings. In and of itself that's not real scummy, that's the legal
business (scummy enough).

And perhaps not. So why not err in the favor of life? What harm was
there
keeping her alive, especially since her parents accepted all
responsibility
for her welfare, including costs. Why not let these latest allegations
be
investigated?



At least he didn't try to find a way to get her a job in the occupation
she
is best suited for - a paid organ doner. THAT would have been scummy.

The autopsy / deliberate injury crap is a smoke screen thrown out there
by
desperate people. She's dead Jim.

-W


I agree. She is now dead. But she wasn't on March 18th, 2005.

So how about an autopsy? Why is Michael refusing one?


If foul play was suspected by the authorities, couldn't they just *order*
one?
Who is requesting an autopsy? If I were the husband I'd say leave the body
alone
whether I'd done anything or not.

Nope. Michael says no. Circuit Judge George Greer says no.

I wonder why? What is the harm?



What harm was there? Suppose she had had a living will. Would that same
question
still apply?

Nope, especially if not signs of physical abuse were observed on her body.

JimH wrote:
"John H" wrote in message
...

On Thu, 24 Mar 2005 18:56:55 -0500, "JimH" wrote:


"Clams Canino" wrote in message
thlink.net...

"JimH" wrote in message news:a5KdnYy7Icthod7fRVn-


One does have to ask why her husband wants it now removed, especially

since

he never brought up what her *wish* was until 10 years after the
hospitalization and after he received his part of the financial
settlement
from the original court case.

Perhaps he long ago accepted that she was a breathing corpse and
deliberately waited till after the settlement to start the termination
procedings. In and of itself that's not real scummy, that's the legal
business (scummy enough).

And perhaps not. So why not err in the favor of life? What harm was
there
keeping her alive, especially since her parents accepted all
responsibility
for her welfare, including costs. Why not let these latest allegations
be
investigated?



At least he didn't try to find a way to get her a job in the occupation
she
is best suited for - a paid organ doner. THAT would have been scummy.

The autopsy / deliberate injury crap is a smoke screen thrown out there
by
desperate people. She's dead Jim.

-W


I agree. She is now dead. But she wasn't on March 18th, 2005.

So how about an autopsy? Why is Michael refusing one?


If foul play was suspected by the authorities, couldn't they just *order*
one?
Who is requesting an autopsy? If I were the husband I'd say leave the body
alone
whether I'd done anything or not.


Nope. Michael says no. Circuit Judge George Greer says no.

I wonder why? What is the harm?



What harm was there? Suppose she had had a living will. Would that same
question
still apply?


Nope, especially if not signs of physical abuse were observed on her body.



There were x rays in 91, and bruises and minimal bone damage was
attributed to the fall and the efforts of the EMTs

Been there -- done that.

On Thu, 24 Mar 2005 19:47:33 -0500, "JimH" wrote:


"John H" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 24 Mar 2005 18:56:55 -0500, "JimH" wrote:


"Clams Canino" wrote in message
thlink.net...

"JimH" wrote in message news:a5KdnYy7Icthod7fRVn-

One does have to ask why her husband wants it now removed, especially
since
he never brought up what her *wish* was until 10 years after the
hospitalization and after he received his part of the financial
settlement
from the original court case.

Perhaps he long ago accepted that she was a breathing corpse and
deliberately waited till after the settlement to start the termination
procedings. In and of itself that's not real scummy, that's the legal
business (scummy enough).

And perhaps not. So why not err in the favor of life? What harm was
there
keeping her alive, especially since her parents accepted all
responsibility
for her welfare, including costs. Why not let these latest allegations
be
investigated?



At least he didn't try to find a way to get her a job in the occupation
she
is best suited for - a paid organ doner. THAT would have been scummy.

The autopsy / deliberate injury crap is a smoke screen thrown out there
by
desperate people. She's dead Jim.

-W


I agree. She is now dead. But she wasn't on March 18th, 2005.

So how about an autopsy? Why is Michael refusing one?


If foul play was suspected by the authorities, couldn't they just *order*
one?
Who is requesting an autopsy? If I were the husband I'd say leave the body
alone
whether I'd done anything or not.

Nope. Michael says no. Circuit Judge George Greer says no.

I wonder why? What is the harm?



What harm was there? Suppose she had had a living will. Would that same
question
still apply?

Nope, especially if not signs of physical abuse were observed on her body.



If there are no grounds to suspect foul play, then there are no grounds for an
autopsy. If it were my wife, I'd say no also.

Then all of the fuss is because some don't believe she made a verbal living
will. Apparently a bunch of judges believed she did. Not having the facts at my
disposal, I'm inclined to that also.
--
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

"John H" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 24 Mar 2005 19:47:33 -0500, "JimH" wrote:


"John H" wrote in message
. ..
On Thu, 24 Mar 2005 18:56:55 -0500, "JimH" wrote:


"Clams Canino" wrote in message
rthlink.net...

"JimH" wrote in message news:a5KdnYy7Icthod7fRVn-

One does have to ask why her husband wants it now removed, especially
since
he never brought up what her *wish* was until 10 years after the
hospitalization and after he received his part of the financial
settlement
from the original court case.

Perhaps he long ago accepted that she was a breathing corpse and
deliberately waited till after the settlement to start the termination
procedings. In and of itself that's not real scummy, that's the legal
business (scummy enough).

And perhaps not. So why not err in the favor of life? What harm was
there
keeping her alive, especially since her parents accepted all
responsibility
for her welfare, including costs. Why not let these latest allegations
be
investigated?



At least he didn't try to find a way to get her a job in the
occupation
she
is best suited for - a paid organ doner. THAT would have been scummy.

The autopsy / deliberate injury crap is a smoke screen thrown out
there
by
desperate people. She's dead Jim.

-W


I agree. She is now dead. But she wasn't on March 18th, 2005.

So how about an autopsy? Why is Michael refusing one?


If foul play was suspected by the authorities, couldn't they just
*order*
one?
Who is requesting an autopsy? If I were the husband I'd say leave the
body
alone
whether I'd done anything or not.

Nope. Michael says no. Circuit Judge George Greer says no.

I wonder why? What is the harm?



What harm was there? Suppose she had had a living will. Would that same
question
still apply?

Nope, especially if not signs of physical abuse were observed on her body.



If there are no grounds to suspect foul play, then there are no grounds
for an
autopsy. If it were my wife, I'd say no also.

But there is suspiscion of foul play. A doctor confirmed that yesterday. So
why no autopsy?



Then all of the fuss is because some don't believe she made a verbal
living
will. Apparently a bunch of judges believed she did. Not having the facts
at my
disposal, I'm inclined to that also
--
John H


The *verbal* living will was brought to the courts attention a full 10 years
after she was hospitalized and after Michael received his share of the court
settlement. How convenient.

And we don't know the *facts*. We cannot rule out foul play. What is the
rush? Why no autopsy if she is allowd to die?

Disturbing to say the least.

At this point let the poor woman die without any more suffering.

Score one for Michael. Score one against the US citizens.