Terris collapse unlikey to be seriously investigated

Terri Schiavo’s Estranged Husband May Not Be Charged in 911 Delay [right]http://www.lifenews.com/envelope2.jpg Email this article
http://www.lifenews.com/print2.gif Printer friendly page[/right]

by Steven Ertelt
LifeNews.com Editor
June 27, 2005

**Clearwater, FL (LifeNews.com) – **Terri Schiavo’s estranged husband likely won’t be charged with any crime relating to his failure to promptly call 911 after he allegedly discovered Terri’s body crumpled on the floor following a collapse. Florida Governor Jeb Bush has asked a state prosecutor to look into the matter. http://www.lifenews.com/terri29.jpgEarlier this month, Bush asked State Attorney Bernie McCabe, the prosecutor for Pinellas and Pasco counties, to look into the 911 discrepancy.

Though McCabe has previously been reluctant to investigate numerous troubling angles of the case, including whether Michael physically abused Terri and caused her collapse, he told the Miami Herald newspaper “if the governor asks me to do something, I’m going to try to do it.”

Still, McCabe said he’s looking at Bush’s request as an “inquiry” rather than a normal investigation of a crime.

If McCabe finds wrongdoing, Michael Schiavo could escape any criminal charges, because the statute of limitations for any crime other than murder or manslaughter has expired. Also, failing to call 911 is not a crime in Florida and Michael could only be charged with a crime if he was found to have caused Terri’s collapse.

What is known is that Michael called paramedics at 5:40 a.m. and reported Terri collapsed.

A first version of what happened came during a 1992 medical malpractice suit which awarded Michael $1.5 million, part of which was designated for, but not spent, on Terri’s medical care and rehabilitation. Then, Michael claimed his wife collapsed at 5 a.m.

Later, in a 2003 interview on CNN’s “Larry King Live,” Michael says he found Terri at 4:30 a.m.

“Between 40 and 70 minutes elapsed before the call was made, and I am aware of no explanation for the delay,” Bush wrote in the letter to McCabe earlier this month. “In light of this new information, I urge you to take a fresh look at this case without any preconceptions as to the outcome.”

There were no witnesses in the home and Michael claims there was no delay.

“I have consistently said over the years that I didn’t wait but ‘ran’ to call 911 after Terri collapsed,” Michael said in a statement made public last week.

Bobby Schindler, Terri’s brother, told LifeNews.com he doubts that and wonders why investigators didn’t look into the discrepancy back in 1990.

“Because she didn’t die, it wasn’t worth looking into,” Schindler told LifeNews.com. “There were no thorough investigations at all at that time. Everyone assumed there was no foul play.”

“I’d like to see Michael answer some questions about her collapse, but he never will unless there is an investigation,” he said.

McCabe told the Herald he would be fast and thorough in his inquiry.

"It’s going to be pretty quick, I would guess, unless I come across something,’’ he said.:mad:

Been anything new on Mark Fuhrman?

[quote=David_Paul]Been anything new on Mark Fuhrman?

Momofone just got the book,I am waiting to hear how much it is:hmmm: She said she heard Hannity ask Mark if anyone had anything good to say about Michael and he said NOBODY did.:eek: :nope:

Actually, Sean asked Mark what he learned and Mark said, “Nobody had anything good to say about Michael Shavio.”

Mark said that he did try to talk to Michael. He contacted Mr. Felos, and there were no return calls. So whether Michael said “No” or was not informed, I don’t know.

I hope this doesn’t mean Mark has dropped the idea. We have swamps down here in Florida which need to be drained.

[quote=David_Paul]I hope this doesn’t mean Mark has dropped the idea. We have swamps down here in Florida which need to be drained.

No he hasn’t momofone is reading it and I am going to ask her to post what He said in that book:D



MR. FELOS: Call Father Murphy.

THE BAILIFF: Stand here, raise your right hand to take the oath.



• State your full name, please.
A Gerard Murphy.

Father Murphy, are you an ordained priest in any particular faith?
A Yes. Roman Catholic.

• How many families would you say you counseled and worked with in that area when you were chaplain at Bayfront?
A At Bayfront for that year, a hundred probably.

• And before at Most Holy Name parish, how many?
A Hundreds.

• Father Murphy, is it possible for you to tell us on how many occasions you have rendered pastoral clinical care regarding the subject of life care?
A Over the course of my priesthood?

A I would say hundreds.

• Father Murphy, have you done any research or writing regarding the opinions of the Catholic church as it concerns end of life care and treatment issues? The religious and moral implications of that?
A Yes. I do quite a bit of writing and publishing. I have written a series of pamphlets… I have published articles in clerical journals. Mostly because of my desire to educate. I find that most people have no idea what the Catholic church teaches. Even Catholics. And I think that is gives rise to grave misunderstandings and I have real fears about that.

So I have taken to writing and public speaking about it. We give talks around the dioceses. I take that very seriously and I do quite a bit of that.

You mentioned you had written a number of pamphlets on this subject. Are they used and distributed to any particular audiences or groups?
A Sure. Everywhere I can. I sent one, two of them, to a priest in one of the magazines I publish in frequently. He put a thing in his column. So I was deluged all over the country. But mostly in the State of Florida. We distribute them to parishes wherever we can. Hospitals.

• Is the distribution of those pamphlets authorized by the church authorities?
A Yes.

MR. FELOS: Your Honor, at this time we offer Father Murphy as an expert in the area of the Catholic church’s position on end of life care and treatment issues and clinical counseling on end of life care and treatment issues.

… Attorney Campbell Voir Dire…
Are you considered a moral theologian?
A It depends in whose eyes. I’m the one they call in the diocese of St. Petersburg when they have questions.

Q _ Do you function’ in any official capacity to the diocese?
A Yes. The diocese chaplain for the Catholic Medical Association. The statewide chaplain for the Catholic Medical Association. I am a member of Dioceses and Task Force in assisted suicide. Formerly certified as a national chaplain. I let my membership lapse.

MS. CAMPBELL: I have no objection. Thank you.
THE COURT: Thank you. Proceed, Mr. Felos.
Q (By Mr. Felos) Father, in the Catholic church, do papal teachings or pronouncements hold primacy as compared to the teachings and pronouncements of bishops or cardinals?
A Yes. The pope sets the tone.

Q Are there any papal pronouncements or teachings in the area on use or removal of artificial life support?
A In 1953 Pope Pius the IV met with a group of physicians who considered those questions in conference. Pius was almost prophetic in foreseeing what would happen fifty – forty years later. The teaching that he taught was that Catholics are mortally bound to respect life and to care for life, but not at all costs.

He introduced the concept of extordinary versus ordinary means. A Catholic is mortally bound to take advantage of ordinary, proportionate or disproportionate.

Q Has the phraseology proportionate or disproportionate as opposed to ordinary been explored more prevalent in the Catholic church as of late?
A Yes. Sure. Because of the problem. It is not as easy to die as it used to be. Nature would have taken care of a great many situations 30 or 40 years ago. My belief in the health care system is that technology is a two-edged sword. The wonderful technology meant to heal and save people and get them back on the road can also interfere with nature.

Q What factors does the Catholic church take into consideration in determining whether a treatment is an ordinary action as opposed to extraordinary or proportionate as opposed to disproportionate?
A It’s not the procedure. It’s the perception of the patient. Is the procedure, is it too-emotionally draining? Is it too psychologically repugnant? It is too expensive? Does it offer no hope of treatment – of recovery or little or no hope? Based upon all those factors, then you make your moral decision based upon those issues.

Q So as I understand it, the standard by which those moral criteria are examined is the subjective standard of the patient?
A Yes.

In some of the literature I’ve read, I come across the terms burdensome and useless. That is a Catholic is not required to have a medical treatment if it is burdensome or useless. How do those concepts fit in with the ones with what you just mentioned?

A Maybe if I gave an example it might be easier. You look like kind of a healthy guy. Say you caught pneumonia this flu season. You go to your doctor. He would prescribe a course of antibiotics for you. You would be better soon and back on the road.

But as a case I actually handled in Bayfront, St. Petersburg, many years ago, a woman in her late seventies was filled with cancer in the bronchial tree. She was dying. She came down with that pneumonia and the daughter insisted that the mother be treated for that pneumonia. I said why are you doing this? What do you hope to accomplish?

What you always nave to do is weigh the proportion. What do you hope to accomplish against what it is going to take to get there. In that case, all she was doing was keeping the mother alive for an extra three or four weeks in order to die. So that was clearly a case of prolonging the inevitable as opposed to someone like you who comes down with that pneumonia.

Does the church then permit the consideration of whether or not the patient has any hope of recovery in whether the treatment may help the patient recover in considering whether it is ordinary or extraordinary?
A Yes.

• Let’s take a case that medical treatment, or artificial life support may be medically beneficial. If artificial life support may be medically beneficial, if the patient deemed it too psychologically or emotionally burdensome for himself or herself, could such a patient refuse artificial life support and still be in compliance with the church’s teachings?
A Yes

• Father Murphy, what materials did you review in preparation for your testimony in this case?
A The depostions of the family. The depositions of the – the deposition of the husband. I’m not sure about that. I’m not sure. I know I reviewed the family and the report of the physicians.

Q I want you to assume, Father Murphy, for purposes of this question that Theresa Schiavo told her husband that if she were dependent on the care of others she would not want to live like that. And also Theresa Schiavo mentioned to her husband and to her brother and sister-in-law that she would not want to be kept alive artificially.

Assuming that information to be correct, father, would the removal of Theresa Schiavo’s feeding tube be consistent or inconsistent with the position of the Catholic church?
A After all that has transpired, I believe, yes, it would be consistent with the teaching of the Catholic church.

Q_ How would you define, Father Murphy, a practicing Catholic?
A Off, that’s a tough one.

Q Let me rephrase it. Does the church have any particular definition of what a practicing Catholic is?
A Certainly. We have what we call Easter duty, which means sometime from Lent to Trinity Sunday, in that three or four month window, a Catholic is required to receive holy communion. If necessary, confession. Catholics are mortally bound to assist at mass. Attend mass every Sunday. Every holy day of obligation. Certainly those are all criteria for a practicing Catholic.

Q If Theresa Schiavo had not taken communion over a two year period before her medical incident and not participated in confession, would she be considered by the church to be a practicing Catholic?
A Not according to the criteria. No. Practicing, no.

Q Now Father Murphy, if a patient is in a permanent vegetative condition, maintained by artificial life support, and the patient’s intent is not known, can a loved one who has the best interests of the patient 'at heart authorize removal of artificial life support consistent with church teachings?
A I think in a case like this where so much time and effort has elapsed, I think, yes, it would be consistent. You have to remember, the
church will always uphold the ideal. One of the things they will do is hit the brakes, as it were, to make sure nobody is rushing into judgment. Trying to push the patient out of the picture.

In view of the length and effort here, I would say yes. What you would hope for is somebody who cared about the best interest of the patient to make the decision for them.

• And such a decision by that – a decision to remove the feeding tube by such a person would be consistent with the church teachings?
A I believe so from my understanding of the church teachings.

• You mentioned you reviewed the depositions of Theresa’s parents and siblings? A Yes.

• I want to ask you some questions about those.
A Yes. ’

• There are statements by Mr. and Mrs. Schindler and their siblings that if they were in a permanent vegetative or unconscious state, with no hope of recovery, that they would want all medical treatments and procedures to keep them alive. Do you recall those statements in the depositions you read?
A Yes.

• Is that the position of the Catholic church?
A Well, they would certainly be able -certainly be permitted to do that.
Um-hmm. The church would not tell them what they should do, only what they may do. If that is their wish, then that would certainly be permissible.

• But does the Catholic church require, require someone to have all medical treatments and procedures to keep them alive?
A No. In fact, Pope Pius said that in 1953. It was a direct quote. He said that kind of suffering may be admirable, but certainly not required.

Q In fact, even if a patient is not vegetative, does the Catholic church require all medical treatments to keep the patient alive?
A No.

There were also statements in the deposition also to the effect – and these are statements by the mother and the brother and sister – that if they were in that permanent unconscious statement with no hope of recovery and had gangrene and their limbs had to be amputated that they would choose that rather than to die. Do you recall reading that?
A Yes.

Does the Catholic church require any such action -

A No.

• Have you, from your pastoral clinical experience, have you come across any dynamic which would explain such a viewpoint?
A I think grief is a large part of it. And I think there is a healthy versus unhealthy grieving process. I think everybody goes through it in a different way and at a different time speed. There is no set time frame, I think, for
grief .

Q In the Catholic’ faith, is death something that a practicing Catholic need fear?
A No. No. In fact, that is a fundamental part of the Catholic faith. We call ourselves a pilgrim people. Life here on earth is really seen as a temporary stay. Catholics believe that our destiny is Heaven. Therefore, you can’t do everything to prevent yourself from getting there.

What is so hard to deal with in educating Catholics in these issues is that death is a part of life. It is a part of life. It’s part of the process. No, Catholics should not fear death.

• So hypothetically, if a patient had a choice whether to receive a treatment or not, and the treatment let’s say, let’s say that offered no hope of recovery and the patient decided not to have it because they didn’t want to place a financial burden on their family, would such a decision by the patient be consistent with Catholic teachings?
A Absolutely.

• Now in the deposition of Theresa’s siblings, do you recall there was discussion of God’s will?
A Um-hmm.

Q I believe there were a number of statements. Well, Terri, ought to remain alive because – she should be treated – she should have all type of medical treatment to keep her alive because it’s God’s will. If it was God’s will that she die, she would be dead with medical treatment in place. Is such a position consistent with Catholic teaching?
A No. I don’t think so. I’ll tell you why. When I mentioned the two-edged sword, God’s will could have been easily done fifty years ago. I think this is a case where the wonderful technology, rather than being an act of health and recovery, has become the obstacle for nature taking its course. I think it’s a good example.

Q Father Murphy, I’d like to read you a portion from Mary Schindler’s deposition of August 12, 1999. This is Page 39, Line 16.
“Question. Well, in your mind, does there come a point in time when the experience of discomfort or pain on the part of the patient become a factor in deciding whether to remove life support?
Answer. No.”

Under Catholic, under the teachings of the Catholic church, is the pain or discomfort of the patient, that the patient might feel, is that a valid factor to be considered -
A Yes.

Q – in determining whether care is ordinary or extraordinary?
A Yes.

Q How does that become a factor?
A As you know, Catholics have an understanding of suffering as being redemptive. You know, Mother Theresa of Calcutta always said that. Certainly suffering had a higher redemptive value, but certainly you are not bound to take all the suffering that comes your way. That is -that was my father’s case. My father basically arrived at the notion that enough is enough. All we are doing is prolonging the inevitable.

Q Father Murphy, there was a section in the depositions of Mr. and Mrs. Schindler read in court already. You may remember them. Mr. and Mrs. Schindler were basically asked, just hypothetically, assume these were Terri’s wishes. That she did not want to be kept alive artificially and that she did not want to be kept alive if she were a burden to others. Would that change your position in this case? They both answered no.

My question is, is disregarding the intent of the patient consistent at all with Catholic teachings?
A No. It is the perception of the patient that determines the morality of the action. Not the family, not the doctor, but the perception of the patient.

Q In Terri’s sister’s deposition, she made the statement that taking away life support is murder. Is that the position of the Catholic church?
A Absolutely not. My father’s case again. There are still people telling me that my father killed himself. Absolutely not true. Absolutely inconsistent with church teaching. All they do is allow nature to take its course.

Q I believe the sister also made the statement in her deposition that a patient may have medical treatment, even if it’s against his or her will if it can keep the patient alive.
A Absolutely not.

Q Do you recall in the deposition of Theresa’s brother his testimony that he believes his parents or his parents believe, Mr. and Mrs. Schindler, that Terri is aware of their presence, and he testified that Terri’s continued life is a joy to him? A joy to him and his family to keep Terri alive in this condition?

He was even asked – he was even asked if Terri needed – do you recall if Terri needed a respirator to keep her alive, would it still give you joy to have her alive on a respirator? And he said yes.

He was asked if her limb had to be amputated, would it give you joy to have her alive in this condition? And he said yes.

My question is, father, what are the teachings of the Catholic church regarding keeping a loved one alive for your own personal pleasure or benefit?Did anyone know about this?:nope: A I think that is contrary to the gospel. We all take pleasure in relationships with people, family. People who get married. I think, you know, keeping someone around strictly for your own pleasure strikes me as very anti-gospal. Sounds more like using someone than loving someone.

Crossexamination by Attorney Campbell
• Do you support, personally, physician assisted suicide?
A Absolutely not.

• Do you think that the church’s teachings would be in support of physician assisted suicide?
A Absolutely not.

• What would be the church’s position on euthanasia?
A Absolutely not.

A Absolutely not, except that what the church would recognize is that a person who commits suicide is very likely in a diminished capacity, so in terms of judging the morality of their action, they would not be held morally accountable. In order to sin, you have to clearly want to_ do it and have the competence to be able to sin.

• And the church, they have a position against abortion?
A Definitely.

You stated earlier that many Catholics are confused as to what the church’s position would be?
A Yes.

• Would it be your understanding that probably, in general, practicing Catholics would believe that it would be the church’s position to support artificial feeding, hydration, nutrition? That the church’s position would be to support that?
A Probably, just like my family, father asked me if stopping chemo would be a sin.

• Your father was Catholic?
A Irish.

• Are you familiar with the ethical and religious directives of Catholic Health Care Services published by the National Conference of Catholic Biships?
A- Yes, ma’am.

• What would be your general thoughts concerning that publication?
A I think it’s the teaching of the church. What the bishops teach.

Are you familiar with the specific detectives under issues for care and issues and care for the dying?
A Yes, ma’am.

• Would you specifically be familiar with number 58?
A No.

• If I read that to you, would you tell me – I would like to read that for you and tell me if that is within your same mind set. The directive 58 says there should be a presumption -
• (By Ms. Campbell) Number 58 says there should be a presumption in favor of providing nutrition and hydration to all patients, including patients who require medically assisted nutrition and hydration, as long as this is of sufficient benefit that outweighs the burdens involved to the patient. Does that sound familiar?
A Yes.

Q How would you square that directive with your earlier testimony concerning Theresa Schiavo?
A As I think I said earlier, the church will always take the high road. They will always uphold the ideal. They will always resist immediate action. I think they always want to slow down, take advantage of every possible opportunity, to make sure that the outcome is not promising.

So even Cardinal Bernadine, who taught us so much about how to die well, that was one of his most forceful arguments is that artificial hydration and nutrition is not mandatory in every single case. You have to go back and evaluate the proportion. Where are you going? What do you hope to achieve against what is it going to take to get there? What is the outcome that you are looking for?

Q- Have you ever worked with one of the patients in many of the hundreds of families that you worked with that have received, or believed they have received, a miracle from God?
A Sure. My father.

Would they, would that involve continuation of life?
A Um-hmm. Yes.

• Do you think that would do anything with any teaching of perhaps God’s will and for a miracle?
A I don’t mean this as flip as it sounds.

If God is going to work a miracle, he does not need machinery or technology. I think he will just do it. So I have never been persuaded by the argument that we have to keep all the machinery going so God can work his miracle. I don’t believe God needs that.

• Do you think there is a timetable that God expects you to consider one way or the other?
A No. I mean in terms of I don’t think it’s six months or a year or whatever. But I think that when it becomes a long, long time, I think a good pastor would have to sit down with the principals involved and say maybe, maybe it’s time to let go.

• In the portion of the ethical and religious directives which was read to you by opposing counsel, father, it does state that providing nutrition and hydration is conditioned by the phrase “as long as this is of sufficient benefit to outweigh the burdens to the patient.” That gets back to the factors we talked about on direct examination; doesn’t it?
A Yes.

• Those factors are looked at in the mind of the patient?
A Yes.

• Let’s assume again that Theresa Schiavo expressed an intent not to be kept alive artificially. Does the fact that her mother derives joy from being with Theresa, does that negate’ Theresa’s intent? ,
A No.

• Let’s even assume for purposes of this question that Theresa does smile and laugh and her mother derives joy from that. Does that negate
Theresa’s intent?
A No.

• As to Theresa and whether this continued life maintained artificially is burdensome, that was for Theresa to decide, not her mother; isn’t that correct?
A Yes.

• There was some talk about assisted suicide and I just want to clear this up. How do you feel about physician assisted suicide?
A Absolutely against it. It is morally wrong to do anything to take your life.

Correct me if I’m wrong. Was the gist of your testimony that you believe that people might be given to physician assisted suicide because they will receive medical treatment against their will?
A Absolutely.

• That is why you are teaching people to let them know that under the Catholic faith you don’t have been to be treated at all costs?
A Absolutely.

• And the consequence of people believing that may force them, lead them, to take their own life?
A Absolutely.

• That is the dark horizen in the medical system that you are afraid of today?
A In my view, yes.

MR. FELOS: I have no other questions.

I, BETH ANN ERICKSON, court reporter, certify that I was authorized to and did stenographically report the foregoing proceedings and that the transcript is a true and complete record of my stenographic notes.I got this sprung on me in a debate on Hannity forum:mad:

wow…thanks for posting this, lisa!!!

[quote=antiaphrodite]wow…thanks for posting this, lisa!!!

Your welcome Felos is the most misleading snakelike character:mad:


Hey! No snake bashing!!!

On the other hand, Felos DOES make my skin crawl… :bigyikes:

The problem with the interrogation of Fr is that Felos manipulated the questions to elicit a ‘correct’ answer through using what if scenarios. What IF Terri were on life support. SHE WASNT but that was not mentioned. What IF Terri had said she wouldn’t want to live like that **EVDIENCE SHE NEVER SAID THAT. **This sort of what if scenario went through the entire interview thus sounding as if Terri were on life support after saying she didn’t live like that and further the Church doesn’t require nutrition and hydration. HUH?

Unfortunately the judge didn’t seem to realize the manipulation going on. Or maybe he did and wanted an excuse to rule against Terri.

Lisa N

*Michael Schiavo’s Lawyer: An Oddball

In a stunning profile of George Felos – the attorney who helped Michael Schiavo put his wife Terri to death – an author and famed theologian shows the weird side of the crusading right-to-die lawyer.

This is certainly a story the mainstream media ignored.

Writing in Crisis magazine, Benjamin Wiker, co-author of “Architects of the Culture of Death” and a senior fellow at the St. Paul Center for Biblical Theology, uses Felos’ own words to expose his oddball views.

Wiker is no friend of Felos’ views. He writes of Terri’s Shiavo’s death: "Cold blooded murder, sanctioned by the state of Florida, watched by millions. Horrible, but again quite transparent. Michael wanted the money. His wife Terri, had to die for him to get it. And so he hired a ‘right-to-die’ expert, lawyer George Felos.

“Felos exudes a different moral odor than his client, and I wasn’t the only one who noticed. He wasn’t just morally wrong; he was creepy. One has the nagging feeling that he represents a more hidden and poisonous evil.”

Drawing on Felos’ 2002 autobiography “Litigation as Spiritual Practice,” Wiker quotes Felos extensively, showing his motivation for fighting to help the sick engage in euthanasia.

Writes Wiker: “I bought the book … [In] reading it, I am convinced that he represents an entirely new and even more dangerous aspect of the euthanasia movement - the spiritual killer.”

In the book he writes about “speaking through his stomach to Mrs. Browning, a seemingly unresponsive woman in a nursing home. This noiseless communication - quite noisy on a ‘spiritual’ level, as Felos reports her screaming at the top of her spiritual lungs - convinced him that Mrs. Browning wanted to escape from her body. He happily took on the case, thereby launching his right-to-die career.”

Felos is a devotee of yoga. Wiker explains that Felos believes that if a person clings to the earthly realm instead of entering a higher state of blissful consciousness his soul is condemned to re-enter another body after death. Wiker writes: "In many of his visions he “saw our souls -[his and his wife’s] prior to this incarnation discussing what each needed to learn in this birth and in compassion and love for each other agree to take this journey.”

In this “journey” however, their marriage is a disaster. At one point he writes about being angry at his wife: “I was on fire, fueled by thoughts of bludgeoning and tearing her apart. If she were there at that moment I thought I would kill her - happily destroy her.”

In that failing marriage, however, he and his wife were thinking about having a child.

Says Felos: He “heard the soul of my yet-to-be conceived child emphatically shout ‘I’m ready to be born … will you stop fooling around?’”

During a plane ride he wondered “what it would be like to die right now.” This aroused his Kharmic, cosmic powers and this actually caused the plane’s automatic pilot to go haywire and turn the plane into a nosedive. He stops wondering just in time. “‘Be careful what you think,’” an inner voice then warns him. ‘You are more powerful than you realize.’"

Finally, Wiker reveals this amazing fact: Four hours after Terri died Michael filed a petition for administration of her estate. On Larry King’s show he said the money from his lawsuit on behalf of Terri had dried up, leaving only about $25,000.

“As it turns out, that given the behind the scenes financial shenanigans with Felos, there was about $1 million in the account, perhaps $2 million depending on how well investments did since 1993. Felos received a little over $500,000 for his efforts.”

The taxpayers paid for Terri’s hospice bill through Medicaid, thereby saving Michael’s jury-award money.*
Insider Report from NewsMax.com

The entirety of Terri’s case is an affront to all that is good. The outcome of this case is a dark chapter in our history that marks yet another step toward full blown euthanasia in this county. Someday, the advocates of euthanasia will probably erect a monument to Dr. Jack Kavorkian. We live in an upside down world that is in desparate need of prayer.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.