Posted on 02/25/2005 10:28:40 AM PST by Hildy
Agreed...or that someone might decide they want to live as they are (despite their wishes), or that their marriage isn't good enough for the spouse to make decisions, or any of the other things the "anti-Terri" clowns are bringing to the circus they've created.
It's about time the focus turned to a respect of rights, rather than "'life' at all costs"... >sigh<
I thought he wasn't going to interject his own opinions. This is where he lost me. If Terri feels no pain, why did the killers pump her up with morphine last time they tried to starve her to death. HuH?
There's another $700,000 in property that Michael will inherit from a different portion of the trust fund. That property is still intact.
If Terri had issued a written declaration saying she did not want to be given food and water via g-tube, we would not be having this discussion. Anyone who would wish those things but declines to make a written (or tape-recorded, or otherwise tangible) statement to that effect cannot be presumed to have an overly strong wish.
It seems to me there are four possible interpretation of the testimony of Michael and his relatives regarding Terri's wishes:
...or that their marriage isn't good enough for the spouse to make decisions, or any of the other things the "anti-Terri" clowns are bringing to the circus they've created.
If there were no particular conflicts between Michael's interests and Terri's, he would have a reasonable right to make these sorts of decisions. But when a man seeks to kill his wife after openly pledging to marry another woman, only a fool would believe that he's motivated by his wife's interests rather than his own.
Also, I'd like to know any legitimate reason Michael might have for refusing to let Terri's parents attempt to have her fed orally. If Terri happens to asphyxiate during such efforts, Michael would be rid of Terri that much faster but his hands would be clean of her death. And Terri would suffer that much less than if she were fatally dehydrated. So Michael shouldn't mind in that case. And if the efforts are unsuccessful but don't hasten Terri's death, things wouldn't be any worse for Terri or Michael than they would be otherwise, but Michael would look a lot better in many people's eyes. So that too should be a win for Michael.
So why won't let Michael let the parents try to feed Terri, since it would seem like--if he's telling the truth--there would be no downside to either him or Terri? Can you think of any reason?
I fear, however, that many agenda-driven folks will fail to appreciate your effort.
"There's another $700,000 in property that Michael will inherit from a different portion of the trust fund. That property is still intact."
Do you happen to have a link that shows this? (for doubters and I'm not one of them).
Perhaps you can verify that with a cite.
I can't cite it. It was something that was just discovered by some investigators locally. I'm not at liberty to say more than this, but evidence has now been located. When I can provide a link to that information, I will be happy to do so.
Oh......right........
You don't have to believe me. I know you don't. That's okay. I can't cite my sources right now, other than to say that they are very reliable. Not everyone has done like you have. Some people have actually offered their services and expertise to the Schindlers, and the Schindlers have taken them up on it.
WHERE THERE IS LIFE, THERE IS HOPE.
Perhaps not, but that doesn't mean there wouldn't be others fighting her wishes. The Schindlers even said they intended to disregard her wishes, even to the point of having her limbs amputated. Perhaps you're a reasonable person, but please recognize that many others are not.
So why won't let Michael let the parents try to feed Terri, since it would seem like--if he's telling the truth--there would be no downside to either him or Terri? Can you think of any reason?
I don't know Mrs. Schiavo well enough to know for sure...but from the information available, I personally believe that Mrs. Schiavo didn't think things through the possibilities that might arise--both for the variety of conditions and the medical procedures.
I believe that Mr. Schiavo--her spouse--would be the best to interpret what she would have wanted, based on knowledge of her. Perhaps he stands to benefit from her wishes being fulfilled, but when has that been a problem in marriage? That approach absurd in the absence of evidence of him being a criminal. How absurd? Well, a husband is the benefactor, too, when a wife wishes to make love with him, but we don't automatically question her right to decide that!
I want my body donated to science--University of Tennssee, Knoxville, Dept of Anthropology, to be exact. That would cost for cadaver transport, but likely save my family quite a bit in the end. Would you deny them fulfilling my wishes just because they benefit monetarily from it?
Yes, it does. "Wit" is the key to why I selected it. From Chambers (a superb dictionary), wit as a verb is defined: "to know; to be aware; to recognise; to discern; to know how...; as a noun: "the mind; the understanding; imagination or invention; ingenuity; intelligence; a mental faculty; the power of combining ideas with a pointed verbal effect," etc.
Suppose the Schindlers had agreed that if one of Terri's limbs became amputated she should be brutally dehydrated. What should happen if Michael were to 'accidentally' scratch her arm and the wound, left untreated, became gangrenous and required amputation. Should Michael be allowed to brutally starve Terri in such a case because her parents would have admitted that's what she'd want?
So why won't let Michael let the parents try to feed Terri, since it would seem like--if he's telling the truth--there would be no downside to either him or Terri? Can you think of any reason?
I don't know Mrs. Schiavo well enough to know for sure...but from the information available, I personally believe that Mrs. Schiavo didn't think things through the possibilities that might arise--both for the variety of conditions and the medical procedures.
What do you mean by that? Bear in mind that denial of oral food and hydration to someone who is able to receive it, when such denial will cause starvation or dehydration, is always illegal even in the presence of a written directive. So Mr. Schiavo's refusal to permit oral food and hydration must be predicated upon the belief that she will not be able to receive it.
I believe that Mr. Schiavo--her spouse--would be the best to interpret what she would have wanted, based on knowledge of her. Perhaps he stands to benefit from her wishes being fulfilled, but when has that been a problem in marriage?
Do you believe Mr. Schiavo is bound by marriage vows?
That approach absurd in the absence of evidence of him being a criminal. How absurd? Well, a husband is the benefactor, too, when a wife wishes to make love with him, but we don't automatically question her right to decide that!
The issue here isn't whether Terri is allowed to decide things. The issue here is whether Michael's statements are an accurate reflection of Terri's decision.
I want my body donated to science--University of Tennssee, Knoxville, Dept of Anthropology, to be exact. That would cost for cadaver transport, but likely save my family quite a bit in the end. Would you deny them fulfilling my wishes just because they benefit monetarily from it?
If you have articulated your wishes in some tangible medium, I see no reason there should be a problem. And in the example you give, I don't really see any conflict of interest even in the absense of a tangible declaration. Donating your body to UTK isn't going to be any cheaper than simply telling the coroner to dump it in a public interment site because they don't want it.
The facts as they are suggest the opposite conclusion. Michael denied her therapy because he knew she WOULD get better, and he certainly didn't want that. She might even get well enough to finger him for assault.
Of course he also denied her therapy so that the lawyers and he could legally embezzle her therapy and care funds -- and a lot of money it was!
I don't think he intentionally did that. He just figured he could get her dead before all of the lawyers got that money. He was wrong and he is mad about it.
Here is Michael running away back in 2001 Here
Hi daylate,
Do you think that Terri should live or die, and why?
PING myself
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.