Fighting for Dear Life by David Gibbs Page B

to hammer out an agreement between them. After all, this lawsuit involved a son-in-law who at one time was very close to Terri’s parents— he and Terri lived with the Schindlers for a number of years.
    In the context of this family tragedy, Michael could have said, ‘‘Look, I want a divorce. I want to get on with my life. I changed my mind about caring for her. She’s a vegetable and nothing will ever change that. It’s too bad what happened to her. . . . I just don’t think she has any life and we should just let her go.’’
    For their part, Bob and Mary could have said, ‘‘You know, we disagree, she is very much alive to us. She kisses us, she cries, she listens to the radio, she still loves music. We love our daughter and we will gladly take good care of her.’’ At that point, I can’t understand why Michael wouldn’t have just said, ‘‘Look, if it means that much to you, I’m going on with my life. Here, take your daughter. Dealing with her is your problem.’’
    That’s the way disputes and issues should be handled privately within a family. That’s the way disputes and issues are often handled even after they are taken before a court and become a public matter. The two parties in a dispute often reach a settlement. Even in a criminal case, most criminals don’t want to face the wrath of a jury or serve jail time. They certainly don’t want to be sentenced to the fullest extent of the law, which is why they usually cut a deal with the prosecutor. They negotiate and then enter into a plea bargain.
    Likewise, the vast majority of civil cases settle out of court. For example, when a business is sued, the officers of the company will evaluate several factors before going to court. They’ll examine their odds of winning, and they’ll calculate the cost to litigate against the cost of just paying an out-of-court settlement. They’ll also factor in the reputation issue—in other words, would a trial negatively impact their reputation in the community?
    Our system of justice places a premium on settlements. For a host of reasons, including the reality of a lengthy appeals process that could drag on for years, both sides in a dispute are encouraged to come to some mutually satisfactory agreement.
    It’s the classic give-and-take.
    Why, then, couldn’t Terri’s family have settled her fate between themselves? Why couldn’t there have been a private family agreement long ago? As I studied the family dynamic, I concluded the reason they had reached an impasse and had to take the case to a public court was that the Schindlers were willing to give up everything except the life of their daughter. For Michael’s part, the only option he was willing to consider was some plan by which Bob and Mary would at least potentially agree to Terri’s death.
    Of course, that was the deal breaker.
    But even though it was late in the game, and even though we appeared to be dealing publicly now with irreconcilable differences, I felt an agreement might still be reached privately within the family. And if there were even the slightest possibility, we had to try. Which is why, behind the scenes, we had taken steps toward mending fences, hoping to arrive at what we believed might be a win-win solution.
    HERE'S THE DEAL
    On October 26, 2004, I drafted a letter of compromise and gave it to Michael’s attorneys on behalf of the Schindlers. Contrary to the media’s portrayal of Bob and Mary, this was not a grudge match on their part. They would have agreed to anything that would have somehow allowed Terri to continue living so they could take care of her and get her the therapy and rehabilitation they believed would help her.
    I invite you to read the actual letter we sent, which is reprinted at the end of this chapter. Briefly summarized, the Schindlers were very nondemanding. Michael could keep all the money