Posted on 03/23/2005 12:33:00 PM PST by teenyelliott
In the "real world," people are taken off life support all the time. Most of the time, the doctor consults with close family members to determine the patient's wishes where there's no living will. If the Schindlers hadn't taken Michael to court, Terri would have been gone years ago, in accordance with her desire not to live hooked up to machines.
The thing that puts the ring of truth into the Schiavo statements is that Michael's sister-in-law also testified that Terri said she wouldn't want to live that way. I can see maybe a scheming husband and a conniving brother conspiring to get all of Terri's money, but not another woman. Also, the judge seems to be a good judge (so to speak) of human character, and he didn't see anything wrong with the three Schiavo family member testimonies. The people who see something wrong also see black helicopters everywhere and an extra gunman on the grassy knoll.
There is nothing in writing. In the absence of a written directive, it falls to the physician and family to determine the right thing to do for each individual patient.
Again, protected custody to save her life if there's doubt and possible suspicious motives involved, which is the case here.
First, I am adamantly not a black helicopter person. Period. I usually roll my eyes at conspiracy folk. Believe that or not.
Now, was the sister in law the wife of the brother who also testified that Terri said that? If so, I'm sorry, I discount it equally with the brother (both may be true, but equally both could be false).
Last, I have followed this story for about 5 years, so I didn't just jump in and say, oh, bad husband must want his wife dead.
Oops, I can't count, THIS is last...
It may be Florida law, but I don't consider pulling a feeding tube and allowing someone to starve/dehydrate to death the same as taking them off life support any more than I would say stopping spoon feeding of an alzheimer's patient is taking them off life support. And, now that I live in FL, I intend to see what can be done to change the law.
susie
So who do you guys believe if you don't believe the Schiavos? All the Schindlers had was a couple of people who remembered Terri saying something vague about the matter when she was 11-12 years old. There were inconsistencies in their testimony, too. Do you believe them over the Schiavos? If so, why?
I am not trying to be cavalier. I just don't feel, personally, if I had committed no crime that I would have to prove anything to anyone. And he has not been charged with any crime. Some think that he should based on various reports, but apparently the police and DA do not agree.
The parents wanted the money to actually get their daughter treated in a manner that they saw fit, instead of going to the lawyers trying to kill her. My, what a nefarious and greedy purpose.
Regardless, of who said what to who...it is nothing but heresay and shouldn't have been admissable in court to begin with. Gee, what great world we live in now, that we have to watch our commentary on tv shows from 10 years ago, b/c people will testify from hearsay and you're liikely to be starved to death. nevermind the fact that even if you may have said something contradictory to what you originally said 5 years afer the event...but that doesn't count...right?
It isn't a matter of who I believe, I don't know any of the people. I submit that when we don't know (and we don't) we err on the side of life. Period.
susie
Without a living will, all they had was hearsay. Terri couldn't talk and hadn't written anything down. How else was the judge supposed to know her wishes? It seems to me, by reading the Wikipedia pages, that this affair must have been tried in the civil law system where hearsay is acceptable. I've heard other people talking about hearsay, saying it shouldn't have been used, but it seems obvious to me that it was reasonable to use it. I wish one or more of our lawyer friends in this thread would clear up the matter. Any takers?
What really gets to me about this whole case is that I would have done exactly the same things as Michael Schiavo did. After the accident, I would make sure my wife got the best care and therapy that money could buy. I would stay with her as much as I could, and do anything I could do to make her life better. And when the time finally came that I knew deep in my heart that there was nothing more I could do, and no way she would ever get better no matter what, I would do her the last kindness I could do, and honor her stated wishes. Since we have living wills, that won't be a problem, but in case they get lost in a house fire or something, enough family members are familiar with her wishes that there won't be a problem. But if a problem came up, and I had to go to court, I would be just as aggressive in carrying out her final wishes as Michael was. I would probably also shut down the therapy sessions too, since they would serve no purpose. I probably wouldn't shack up with another woman while she was still alive, because I would consider that immoral, but I can't fault him for it. I'm sure he got lonely after a few years. And I would never say "When will the b!tch die" or whatever he was supposed to have said (although I consider that more of a rumor than an actual fact).
So why do some people dislike Michael Schiavo?
You seem to attack anything that is not in consonance with your mindset. Some might construe that as a character flaw.
There was nothing but conflicting heresay from various parties so is that a good reason to up and off her?. Just b/c Tweri might have said one thing one day in her life doesn't mean she didn't say something else completely different in her life later on. The decision to kill Teri is irreversible and what is the harm if she is allowed to live? In the end there will always be the mystery, but not some irreversible circumstance. Secondly, you may think Teri doesn't want to live, b/c of the condition she is in. Is this b/c you don't want to be in this condition either, so you are putting you're current mindset into terris? In fact, if godforbid you are in teri's situation you may very well still have that will to live that you have right now. How do you know Teri does not still have that will to live? If you ask me what if she only has a will to die, then my answer to you is...she would have given up a long time ago then. Many people think they know what they want to do with their lives when it comes to crucial life and death decisions and when faced with them , they usually choose life.
Hello?! What, so I should agree to what I don't believe so as to fix a 'character flaw'? Are you smoking something?
You're living in a fantasy world that didn't exist! First of all, all of Terri's friends say the scumbag abused and controlled her, so much so that she told them she was getting a divorce. Scumbag must have been told that and flipped out, coming within minutes of completely choking the life out of her. The only reason he got her all of that great care initially is for the lawsuit! THE MINUTE THE MONEY WAS AWARDED, ALL CARE CEASED!!! DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT?!
paltz - Yes, there were two conflicting testimonies about Terri's wishes. But the testimonies weren't equal. There was a single statement from Terri when she was a juvenile that may not have indicated her end-of-life wishes. There were several statements from and adult Terri to three different people that definitely indicated her end-of-life wishes with no ambiguity. You can read them all in my previous link and decide for yourself. I would hope you'd take the time to read what she actually said and make up your mind that way, rather than count all statements as equal.
What is the harm if she is allowed to live? I've heard many people saying this and I don't understand how someone could ask the question. Terri definitely stated that she wouldn't want to live while hooked up to a machine, being a burden. Now she is in exactly that situation. It is Michael's last duty to Terri to make sure her last wish is enforced, and from what I've seen, he's carrying out that duty with the same dogged determination that I would maintain if it fell to me. Why in the world would he ever want to turn Terri over to some alternate caregiver, like her parents, knowing in his heart that (if she could) she would rebel and fight against continuing one more day as a vegetable hooked up to a machine? That was the thing that she said she never wanted to do, and it's the one situation that Michael should never let her continue in. She would want to be removed from the tubes and wires as soon as possible, not continue in life as some kind of bizarre half-alive zombified corpse. Yet that is exactly the horrible fate to which some people want to condemn her.
To Terri, when she was alive, that was quite literally a fate worse than death.
YOu got me. I don't think feeding/hydration should be with held without a living will requesting it. At what point did we start deciding that it was ok to starve/dehydrate people to death? If the law allows it, the law is wrong. I don't care how many judges or doctors say it's the thing to do.
susie
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.