The Terri Schiavo Information page

Abstract Appeal ^ | February 25, 2005

[Gondring]

The old people should be more worried that someone might decide they don't want to live as they are, even when they themselves have made no such decision.

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<

[Saundra Duffy]

Some believe that removing Terri's feeding tube would cause her pain and is inhumane (I'm no doctor, but the medical information I've seen on this subject uniformly says the opposite.)

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?

[Ohioan from Florida]

There's another $700,000 in property that Michael will inherit from a different portion of the trust fund. That property is still intact.

[supercat]

Agreed...or that someone might decide they want to live as they are (despite their wishes),

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:

1. They are made up from whole cloth.
2. Terri made some vague remark, but didn't intend it to be construed as a statement of desire (e.g. if someone says "I'd rather be dead than be seen wearing thar garment", that is not an invitation for someone to shoot them if they wear the garment in public).
3. Terri made a remark, intending that it apply to the technologies that were considered "life support" at the time the remark was made.
4. Terri said "Oh, and by the way, if the legislature ever allows incapacitated people to be fatally starved and dehydrated, I want you to do that even if I'm perfectly capable of breathing on my own and don't need any of the equipment that would nowadays be called 'life support'."

Obviously, you believe #4 is the correct interpretation. Frankly, I do not. If Terri had what in 1991 would have been considered such an unusual wish, she should have written it down. The notion that she had such a wish in 1991 should be considered extraordinary, and as James Randi would say, extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.

...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?

[verity]

Excellent work!

I fear, however, that many agenda-driven folks will fail to appreciate your effort.

[Sun]

"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).

[daylate-dollarshort]

Perhaps you can verify that with a cite.

[Ohioan from Florida]

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.

[daylate-dollarshort]

Oh......right........

[Ohioan from Florida]

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.

[pc93]

WHERE THERE IS LIFE, THERE IS HOPE.

[Gondring]

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.

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?

[T'wit]

>> Your screen name suits you.

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.

[supercat]

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.

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.

[T'wit]

I responded to the unsubstantiated claim that Michael was sweet and loving until he realized that Terri was lost. But that does not account for many facts such as the half-dozen I offered. Another obvious one is, he could not have known in advance that she was hopeless because he never let her have the therapy she needed. If the therapy had been tried and had failed, then maybe he could made such a claim. But since she got no treatment, nobody can say she wouldn't have gotten better with good medical care.

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!

[bjs1779]

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

Medicare and Many Insurances Are Now Accepted

[Sun]

Hi daylate,

Do you think that Terri should live or die, and why?

[gopheraj]

Michael denied her therapy because he knew she WOULD get better, and he certainly didn't want that.

I agree!

[Halls]

PING myself

[danamco]

Starving someone to death is murder. Plain and simple.


Absolutely! And let's go back to the 1930-1940s when I remember a little "Painter" with black mustache and Brul-Creamed dark hair who constantly would raise his right arm in a certain angle, to which our famous countryman Victor Borge (Borge Rosenbaum) performing in Danish theaters would mimic and say: "That's the height my dog jumped up yesterday." When he did this gesture all the German soldiers with their Danish girlfriend would come out of the seats like sliced bread out of a toaster and scream the Painter's greetings. At that same time the rest of the Danish audience would break out in hauling laughter!

However, this little "Painter" instituted that anyone in his country who had physical deformities did not have any right to live. Additional he also sent millions of INNOCENT Jews to the gas chambers!!

I have a colleague, Lars Peter, who 20 years ago winded up totally paralyzed and incapacitated in the hospital. For several months he was hooked up to all the hospital gears, respirator, etc. just to keep him on life support, but, BUT, with NO hope of long term survival from the medical profession at all.

One day a nurse noticed a certain slight unusual movements in his left eye lid, and told Lars’ wife about it, who later came to think that maybe he was trying to get attention by using the eye lid as a Morse Key being a Radio Officer. Fortunately they were able to establish a team from the Coast Guard who were specializing in Morse Codes and hold and below, Lars was actually sending Morse signals with his eye lid. By being able to do some kind of communication with the outside world, the doctors were able to stabilize him, and after a few month of rehabilitation he was able to go home. He quit his seagoing life and opened a successful carpenter business together with his American wife in Red Bluff, California. I'm happy that Lars' wife love him enough to keep him alive!!!
What would his chances of being alive be today?

Euthanasia and Holocaust are close cousins!!!!