Terri Schiavo

Remove all ads!

@Big B,

I think you have become lost in all of the hoopla and emotion. This case isn't about money. Nobody is complaining about the cost of keeping her alive. The issue is that a competant court determined that she wouldn't want to be kept alive under these circumstances. This isn't just the husband against the parents. There were numerous (once again I suggest you go to the site Laches posted) witnesses that expressed to the court that Terri would not want to be kept alive like this.

Money has nothing to do with it. Wouldn't it be the height of cruelty for people with money to keep someone alive against their wishes?

The courts are doing everything they can to honor Terri's wishes. Her wishes should be the only ones that matter in this case.

 

She has received the Last Rite and Holy Communion. The priest says she realised his presence and tried to say something.

That would be it about Michael's promises made before the court in order to be appointed her only guardian. Out of the million, 300 thousand was supposed to go to him and 700 to her treatment. He promised to stay with her until death and care for her as best he could. When he got the guardianship, surprise. New house, new car, lots of girls and ultimately getting a child with another woman and ordering his wife put to death.

Humans and promises...

 

Where did you see that about the priest saying she tried to speak Chev? I've looked in the Chicago Tribue, the Tampa Florida paper (where she was from and is quite extensive), WaPo, NYT, and I couldn't find that. I even looked at the Christian Broadcasting Network and couldn't find that. All of those news sources report that Rev. Thaddeus Malanowski gave last rites, put a drop of wine in her mouth, but her mouth was too dry for the bread. None of them say anything about the priest saying she tried to speak. Do you have a link please?

Also, do you have a link showing how much of the money was spent on medical care and how much was spent on other things? What amount of that money was spent taking her to California for rehabilitation for example? How much of that money was spent on the "new house, new car" would be interesting to see. If you have that information, that would be very interesting as well.

I did see the that the family filed a motion to re-open the case because Terri Schiavo said, "Ahhhhhhh Waaaaaaaa." (I'm not trying some type of joke, that's actually what the motion says she said) That's the only thing I've been able to find about her trying to speak recently. And, of course, that didn't have anything to do with the priest. So, I'm most interested in seeing what the priest had to say since other than what I mentioned above I haven't been able to see anything about it.

 

I'm with Laches here. Everything I've been reading about Micheal has been he's a decent guy caught up in a nightmare -- I certainly wouldn't want to go through what he's been through. IIRC he's been going to see her nearly every day, bathing her, making sure she has no bedsores, for 15 years now. That sounds pretty committed to me -- that he needed some companionship should not be a surprise. I won't fault him for being human and needing affection from someone.

A new car, a new house -- come on it's been 15 years. I know of people who get a new car every two years and 'move up' every five years. Also, $300,000 will get you those things in many areas of America. Is he working? That could have something to do with getting a new car or house.

What Terri is going through is tragic. But what Michael has been going through for 15 years -- and especially the past two years -- is equally tragic.

 

@Laches: Someone, probably a reporter, asked the priest on the spot and he said that. A new house and car Mike bought after he got the money, so it's pretty much self-explanatory.

 

What reporter? What news source? Where did you see it? I'm just interested since I haven't seen it. Can you provide a source and a link?

Also, are you saying that you don't really know what amount of the 700,000 was spent on personal belongings for Michael Schiavo - such as the house and car? The mere fact that he has a house and car alone doesn't mean he has siphoned off funds from the 700k. I assumed you had support for this assertion.

 

Well, now at least we know what happened and why he wanted to kill Terri. The guy received $1,000,000 in compensation, $300,000 for his own expenses, and $700,000 to keep Terri alive. This didn't require much—put the money in a bank, and the interest alone would have been enough to pay any and all expenses.
We don't know, and we will never know, what the guy did with the $700,000. What we do know is that he severed ties to Terri's family, built himself a house, bought a luxury car, and has a daughter with an unnamed friend.

As is often said: "When you don't know what's it about, it's likely about money."
The guy bled the funds dry, Terri is useless to him now, so he wants to get rid of her. Maybe settle down too, and if he divorced her (with her not present, it's possible), he'd have to pay the $1,000,000 back. I doubt he had that money, so it's best to kill her.

What's worst, the case would have never been a problem had the money simply been given to an appointed curator and only interest was used to keep the woman alive.

And to say that she doesn't react, repeating newspaper reports, is just seeing and believing one side of the story. I've seen the home videos of Terri, I've seen the video news reports of her. She indeed reacts to what happens around her.

To say that she is brain dead is a blatant lie. To cut her off from the feeding tube is to sentence her to death from starvation. To a torture that should be unimaginable in the 21st century. And yet..?

 

By this same logic one could argue that her parents wanted to keep her alive just so her husband would not recieve the money. Talking about his motives is pointless since only he can fully understand them. Besides I'm quite sure I would have done the same. In a situation like this I'd think it's time to move on with my life and not clinge to the past. The money would not be such a big deal but being able to mourn in peace is a big issue.

To say that she is aware and knowing of her existance and her thoughts is even more of a lie. Personally I find it more like torture to keep her alive in that unnatural and inhuman state.

 

Toughluck: That's pure conjecture on your part. I've actually heard the opposite -- Mike was offered a large sum of money to divorce his wife and hand custody over to her parents. It hasn't been about the money or the special interests groups would have already bought him out. He really believes his wife would not wish to be in a persistent vegatative state.

Persistant vegatative state does not mean a person has NO responses, only that the responses are random -- she does indeed react to various stimuli, but the reaction is not consistent. The eyes open and sometimes follow movement. An occasional sound emits during breathing -- but it's just a reflex (much like a frog will hop across a room after pithing, or a chicken literally running away without a head).

It took Mike years to accept that his wife was gone. Only the chaff remained. Her parents still cling to the hope that the random responses she gives are actually indications she is semi-alert.

This is a truly tragic event -- especially for the families involved.

Edit:

I agree -- it seems cruel keep the chaff alive and not allow the spirit free.

[ March 29, 2005, 00:37: Message edited by: T2Bruno ]

 

dmc—how do you expect either of us provide proof? Go to the US and photograph the new house, car, his girlfriend and their child? Maybe also go along and steal the bank billings to show his tinkering with the accounts?
And if we'd just do that, would you believe us??? Or would you just say that "he's a misguided soul and needs to start over—best with someone else, so it's better that Terri should be out of the picture?"

WHAT would be the proof you require? WHAT would make you think over and actually admit: "Yep, the guy's a bastard?"

You have news reports, we have news reports. All of them can be, and all of them probably are, biased. We have video feeds, showing Terri's responses. However you interpret them, there are two possibilities:
—the responses are not random, and she actually expresses herself, but she is not suffering;
—the responses are random, and she is, in fact, brain dead, so she cannot feel the suffering.

Either way, the 'suffering' argument is off.

And, based on the guy's word, you believe this story? Regardless of anything, you buy the story that only he repeats? If that was actually true, why didn't he mention it right after the accident? He would have more credibility now, when hopes are low, and burden has grown.

Can you prove that? Why are we (me and chev) expected to provide proof, and you are not? In other words: why is it that it is we who are assumed to be wrong until proven correct, and you are assumed to be automatically right until proven wrong?

What is so inhuman? As I have pointed out above, she is not suffering—either she is already dead so she cannot feel pain, or she is alive, and expresses herself, and her expressions do not show pain. Or perhaps, her expressions are completely random and uncontrolled, but if this is the case, wouldn't it be right to assume that any pain she feels (and she shouldn't feel pain, I think, there's nothing that would cause her pain) also bypasses the brain?
Either of these three scenarioes are valid enough, and I would be hard pressed to find any other dychotomical one, maybe you will provide?


And one thing more: let's assume this happened to you. You are lying in the bed and are talked to, you can watch television, you can see your family, you have a lot of time to think your life over. You are being rehabilitated, so you have the hope—that's probably the driving force that is left for you. You try your best to express your feelings and emotions, but being paralysed, this is almost impossible. However, you are happy that there are people who take care of you, and that you are being kept alive—perhaps one day, you will be able to talk to them about what you have thought about, about your feelings—there is that hope.
But one day, you find that a very close person decides that you are dead, that you are to be cut off, sentenced to starvation, and that this is going to happen sooner rather than later. What do you think about it? Betrayed? Murdered? You know you cannot express what you feel. You know you cannot prevent it, and yet you still have your feelings, and your thoughts. But there isn't even a faint glimmer of hope—you are going to die by some arbitrary decision.
What do you think about that? Perhaps that is what is happening. Think of it as a possible scenario. What would you feel if you were in that position? I'm sure you'd feel very happy…

 

I don't think that's anything close to what DMC is suggesting. It's THAT kind of inflammatory language that is getting you in trouble at this point, Toughluck, and not your overall take on the issue.

 

@dmc: This worries me quite a lot: It's accepted without any proof that Terri really had this wish to be starved rather than fed in this circumstance, just because Michael said so. Even though he will be keeping the money and getting his freedom back from Terri dying, so he clearly benefits from it, credit is given to his version without proof.

Somehow, it's wrong to blame Michael for anything, but it's perfectly right to accuse Terri's parents of being idiots or nuisance or whatever kind of bigots strikes one's fancy. No contradiction here?

Next, movies showing that Terri does react to her surroundings and people coming to visit her are rejected in a "just because manner" with nothing close to a serious reason attached. Michael said she's dead, so she's dead. This is what the liberal media believe and especially what the courts belief. No matter that why do they need to put her on morphine if she really is dead and feels no pain, for example? No matter that the majority of the doctors polled believes that she isn't totally brain-dead? This is getting more and more obnoxious.

And no one needs any proof for that.

No one needs proof to claim that Terri is not a human being, that she is a "vegetable" or "plant" or "furniture" or "thing" or "it", let alone simply say she's dead where proof points to the contrary, but for some reason rock-hard proof is required to cast doubt on Michael's motivation? I don't see why.

So why would I need specific proof for every penny he received or spent? And how would I get it, anyway? I have heard about the case - about the circumstances of Terri's accident, about the trial where Michael was made her only guardian (along with the promises he made in it) and the following developments - and I have formed my opinion. It isn't as unbased as some people would like to see it and it's not just I thinking this.

If it were so clear that Michael were spotless, those journalists who share my views would be restrained from or punished for sharing them or at least face a trial or civil litigation or disciplinary proceeding. Somehow, they don't. And what about all those people interviewed in front of the hospital? Somehow, they don't have a court's breath on their neck for slander. I'm not Michael's lawyer and I'm under no obligation to present facts in such a way as to make him look good or at least not look bad and, in my opinion, facts make him look bad.

As for divorce, his culture is Catholic. No church-sanctioned remarriage after divorce. This means no marriage blessed by a priest for someone whose previous validly married spouse still lives. It indeed takes death to part spouses, so for one of the spouses validly to marry again, the other needs to be dead.

I perfectly realise that someone may have ethical reasons for mercykilling. This discussion has been on since mediaeval times if not earlier and is never going to cease. However, judging by the circumstances of this case, ethical reasons are not the case or at least their role is not exclusive. The fact that Michael acts dishonestly, like breaking promises and pressing his version without regard for proof otherwise, also puts his motives in question. Plus, he gets offers of great sums of money for public appearances, books, a movie about his life... You know, the economic aspect is strong in this case.

And to survive long in litigation, you would be supposed need some strong conviction that you are right, but unwillingness to concede does the job pretty well. In this country, we have had litigations go on for decades or even centuries just because neither of the parties (and heirs) would give up. I don't think we can generalise like Mike lasts so long, so his reasons must be ethical. This is awarding the point to Mike without proof or anything that holds. As Hacken Slash said, facts speak clearly against Mike, so I would need good reasons and some solid backing for any assertion that Mike acts on noble motives.

Somehow, it doesn't even count now that he and Terri were on the outs before her accident.

Besides, why not let her live? If she really doesn't feel suffering, it isn't urgent to put her pain to an end, so why insist on terminating her life? Why not give the custody over to her parents and divorce?

[ March 29, 2005, 06:27: Message edited by: chevalier ]

 

Pardon me for wading in again, but didn't Michael Schiavo start on a new career path to be better able to care for his crippled wife? Didn't he spend a substantial amount of time utterly devoted to her care until he was informed that there was no chance she'd come back?

@ DHB:
Truer words were never said; it's unfortunate that our technology and ability to sustain life has outstripped our capacity to live good lives, and that's a whole-of-society issue.

@ Chev:

Where does life end and death begin? Is it when the heart stops, the breathing stops and the brain dies, or one or more of them? Is it when there is no hope of recovery? Is it when a person cannot communicate, cannot respond consistently? I'm not trying to be pedantic here, I'm just saying that he has cared for her as best he could, and that there is nothing more that can be done. If releasing Terri into the care of people who are willing to care for her is not an option, then preserving a body without a mind is not going to change things.

The man has lost his wife, and 15 years on has a new life with a new woman. Should we be surprised? He knows - and has known for nearly a decade - that his wife is gone. I don't blame the guy for moving on; I think I'd be more worried if he hadn't, because that would either make him fanatically devoted to a lost cause or a shell of a man. I don't think Michael would look at Terri's brain-death as "a fortunate event", but he has rebuilt his life as best he can after the fact. After all, what about his quality of life? Why are you (and toughluck) so quick to damn him?

@ T2:

Absolutely. I can understand parents not wanting to let go of their daughter, especially if they see what look like signs of alertness. It would have been much easier, and much better, in the long run, had Terri not been resuscitated the first time. At least then, she would have been dead, instead of nearly as good as dead for 15 years, and her husband and family would not be at each other's throats. Almost nothing good has come out of this, for anybody, in the end.

@ toughluck:

Let's see: my math isn't as good as it used to be, but it's been 15 years since the event, and the court struggles have been going on for 7 years. That means, assuming it takes a year for a matter to reach court (maybe a slightly low estimate), then he spent as long caring for her as he has trying to "knock her off for the money", as so many people have lovingly put it. Yes, he has less credibility for having waited to say it, but I'd say that hoping your wife will recover for seven years is a damn good reason for waiting.

No side has a monopoly on ethics or morality, because there is none to be had in a subjective area. Your constant attacks on Michael as a scumbag, a money-grubbing bastard and a murdering, callous swine (hey, I'm interpreting, you didn't say those exact words, but it's the gist of it) do nothing to validate your argument. Prove me wrong about it (you or Chev) and I'll concede the ground. If he wanted out immediately, and wanted the money, then why did he reject the offers made to him? Your argument explains why he retained guardianship, but doesn't hold up under scrutiny.

At the risk of offending everybody: isn't a "divine plan" as arbitrary as it gets? There sure isn't any right of appeal I'm aware of.

I agree that no-one should have to die so hard. If it were up to me, I'd give her a lethal dose of morphine and end it quickly and painlessly. This saga has gone on long enough, and somewhere along the way we've forgotten that this was originally about a family tragedy; now it seems everyone just wants to point the finger rather than deal with the underlying issue of whether there is a right to die and if there are circumstances where it is justifiable to end a life without quality if the patient cannot communicate.

 

There's an old question that asks: "If a tree falls in the forest and no one is there to hear it, does it actually make a sound?" Along those lines, I would pose this question: "If you're starving to death and unable to scream or cry, are you actually in pain?"


Shouldn't Judge Greer be brought up on Contempt of Congress charges? He refused to keep alive a witness subpoenaed by Congress. If he's not in contempt, what good is a Congressional subpoena?


If Terri cannot swallow liquids, how is it she did not choke on her own saliva?


If Terri can swallow, why was she denied water after her feeding tube was removed?


What is the difference between abandoning Terri in her bed without food and water being put into her system and abandoning a newborn baby in a coat closet without food and water being put into his system?


Republicans are being accused of hypocrisy to the nth degree for "trampling all over" the principle of "federalism" -- as the Democrats like to define it -- with the passage of the Terri Schiavo Bill last weekend. Apparently, the Left considers forced starvation/dehydration to be a states' rights issue. (Democrats haven't claimed to be this supportive of states' rights since the Federal Marriage Amendment.) What the Democrats refuse to acknowledge is that the GOP is acting completely within the bounds of the Constitution: Article III, Section 2 allows Congress to determine the jurisdiction of the courts; the Fifth Amendment says no one may "be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law"; and the Fourteenth Amendment says no state may "deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law."


If we're going to discuss who follows the Constitution, how many of the Left's pet issues are actually backed up by the Constitution? Gun control? Separation of church and state? Abortion? Homosexual sodomy? Campaign finance reform? Right to privacy?


Why should we believe that Terri did in fact express a desire to be killed in a situation like the one in which she found herself? Has Michael Schiavo shown himself to be a man of unimpeachable character? Has anyone asked his live-in girlfriend and two illegitimate children what they think of him as a role-model?


If Terri did want to die, where, exactly, is that "right to die" enumerated in the Constitution? I don't believe that a right to life presupposes a right to death.


There is obviously some doubt about who's telling the truth in this case. Either Terri said she wants to die or she didn't. Either Michael is a liar or he isn't. Since when, in a "He-Said-She-Said" case, has the Left been on the side of the man?


Where do we go from here?

 

She breathes on her own, could be taught to swallow and there are movies showing she reacts to her environment. Also, the majority of doctors doesn't believe she's brain-dead. Even people who believe she should be put down don't believe she's dead already.

How consistently and what degree of communication makes it? Does it make a non-human of a human if he or she can't talk coherently?

There's no such thing as total lack of hope for at least partial recovery. Next, why not let her live then? Why not give her up to her parents and other people who still care? Why starve her?

Besides, what sort of husband would starve his wife to death, especially if there's controversy as to whether she would feel it or not and there's no certainty that she wouldn't?

But why is it not an option?

I disagree on that one. Any sort of a norm can be construed as subjective by anyone who disagrees with it, if merely on the basis that he himself doesn't accept that norm.

I say what I say and I'm not responsible for the name-calling that my audience could substitute for what I said. If I spoke of Clinton's affairs, for example, to let go of Bush for a while, would it be the same as calling him a sexually unsatiated perverted cheating pig? Even if someone could judge that such names apply to the state of things described? It can't be attributed to me, sorry.

What's next? Is the nature arbitrary - accidents, diseases and whatever? What is meant here is that humans don't have any right to decide who's to live and who's to die. We aren't the lords of the lives of our fellow humans.

No human life is without quality. I have already said there's no "right to die" and no "right to put your wife to death if you say she would like you to".

 

If he divorced her, he would need to give the money back and I've hear sources saying he doesn't have such sums at hand. I've also elaborated on the freedom aspect. This is hardly "not rationally based on anything" and it does serve to advance the debate by trying to set the record straight about the motives. We can't just assume that whatever Michael claims is true because Michael is a hero and outright reject whatever casts shadow on that light. What about the abuse claims? What about the fact he and Terri were on the outs before her accident? It all hardly works in favour of Michael's supposedly noble intentions. It does cast shadow on his character and his credibility. It's not just a struggle of two ethical positions, so far as Michael's position is concerned in this case. In this light, the "blessed with a loving husband" line is quite a stretch and looks political more than legal. While it's true that Michael can't undo the court's decision, he was the one who requested it and he was the one who wanted the tube removed - so are we blaming the court for this now?

Plus, DHB's points haven't been answered. Aren't courts supposed to follow the Constitution anymore?

As for consistency, it can hardly be required from a brain-damaged (but not brain-dead, still) person. As for "the total absence of supporting case studies or medical literature", it sounds like a convenient excuse, especially if the majority of the doctors believes she isn't brain-dead.

Why not starve children when there's no hope for proper mental development, anyway?

 

It is my understanding, from the news reports that I have seen, that three witnesses have testified that Terri said as much; one was her sister. Thus, it is not just "Michael's word," or the "word of a man."

BTW, 100 Democrats returned to congress to vote with the Rpeublicans, and many I've seen in the GOP have said that the move in congress was bi-partisan. In fact, most on the left have been sitting this one out, because they feel that there will be a back-lash as a result from this issue. Something like 64 percent of Americans believe that this is a political issue for the "right". The problem is that the legislation passed last weekend deals ONLY with this particular case, and does not cover all the others in the country who are suffering the same fate as Terri. Go figure.

As much as you would like to blame "the left" for all this, I suggest you might be better served to consider Tom Delay's words: "God's given us a great issue here." Consider DHB, that Tom Delay pulled the life support on his own father here in Texas when it served his interest - how's that for irony?