Burden of Proof: The Killing of Terri Schiavo

Washington Dispatch ^ | October 24, 2003 | Judie Brown

[LADYAK]

The Catholics always seem to be virtually silent - why do you think that they keep re-electing Ted Kennedy? You would think that they would vote for President Bush with his stand against abortion but no they will vote for the person giving them the breaks on their prescription drugs or giving them more SSN benefits. I come from a strong Catholic background myself but I certainly would like to hear from them more often...we should be thinking about our pocketbook less and more about the folks that can't speak for themselves.

We have a gal in our non-denominational(sp) church here that adopted two infant boys that are in the same condition as Terri but at least the parents that birthed them didn't kill them but let someone else raise them that could love them as they knew their limitations. She never married but wanted kids and so she adopted two boys. They are now approaching 15 and 17 but you can tell the one young man can hear your speaking to him...his eyes move and he moves his head but other than that they have to be lifted and fed. Now this is a true hero....she takes them on vacations etc.

Now the right thing for Terri's husband to do is divorce her and turn over her care to those that love her. Maybe she said that at one time she wouldn't want to live but how do we know that she continued to feel that way? This is a sick thing.

[isthisnickcool]

Excellent!

[dasboot]

Putting aside the evidence that Terri may have been the vistim of foul play at her hubby' hands, she was the aggrieved party who won $1,6 million-dollars to mollify her pain and suffering.

The hubby paid half the award to a scumbag lawyer who saw to it that hubby wouldn't have to blow the wad on his wife...just put her in the Hospice where she could receive minimal care and fade away. He hid the remaining money and presented himself as indigent to the state to receive government medical payments, with the lawyer's (and probably some insiders at the state offices..or their hands were tied) help. Complaints by the family were addressed by a judge who has a conflict of interest. Hubby stands to collect a large sum of insurance money upon Terri's death. She won't cooperate. He can't divorce her, and he can't relieve himself of custody--give her over to her parents--without losing his shot at megabucks.

The issue here is not right-to-die claptrap: it's an issue of criminal conduct under the rubric of "compassion".

Clearly, there is substantial evidence for this scenario. It must be investigated. Apparently, this scheme is is a regular feature sold by the hospice provider and this attorney, Falos, to "suffering families".

If the above is all BS, there is time to put it away; but the actions of the parties who stand to be indicted are telling me that there's fire under the smoke.

Terri has the right to live, her parents have the right, to care for her: some folks pay to freeze themselves hoping for a day where they can be re-animated. The allegorize, Terri is a "wanted child". There's also a price on her head.

If the husband were truly compassionate, he'd divest himself of interest, divorce Terri, and get on with his life. If, as it is stated, she is PVA, she's not suffering, and will not suffer. That's a load of crap.

If, as is countered by medical docs and testimony of folks who have worked with Terri, she is aware...this is an injustice most vile.

[TigersEye]

Good work!

[sweetliberty]

"I am weird I guess but I would find Michael just going in and put a pillow over Terri's face it far less troubling then I find his going to court and trying to get societal approval for his actions."

No, you're not weird. You're absolutely correct. Difference is, that if he did that, he would still be charged with murder, now wouldn't he? But if he can get "society" to go along with the termination of Terri's life, the precedent is set and murder becomes legitimate under certain circumstances, to be determined by, who else, judges. People, we have a problem!

[aristeides]

The SCOTUS had no objection to the Connecticut legislature's exercising a judicial function and ordering a new trial in a will contest, setting aside a judicial decree, in CALDER v. BULL, 3 U.S. 386 (1798) .

[Ferret Fawcet]

What I don't understand is why we aren't hearing an outcry from disability/advocacy groups regarding Terri's situation.

[TigersEye]

Well my oh my! Isn't that something!!!

[dasboot]

If a tree falls in the forest, and the reporter hears it, but doesn't report it, does it make a sound?

There are many disabled who are outraged...I hear the whispers.

[thulldud]

All this reminds me of the case of Pamela Williams, the wife of evangelist Tom Williams. She is survivor of severe bacterial meningitis, given up as "brain-dead" and refused rehabilitation by medical personnel--in the Seventies! Her husband took her home and performed her therapy himself, seeing it as his duty as a husband "for better or worse."

I met them some years later. Yes, she was disabled, but she could get around, even accompanying him to speaking engagements. There are a book and a movie about their story, both with the title "Twice Given". Check it out.

[Sabatier]

I agree, but having lost a lot of their moral authority on the pedophile priest issue they are reluctant to step forward on other moral issues. This is how the Church has been badly crippled by the pedophile priests. Whatever moral issues the Bishops try to address now they can count on the media screeching " You care about this but where were you when children were being molested?" Good question. But this may explain why the Bishops tend to stay on the Left's Reservation these days, the only place they feel safe.

[Republic]

As I have heard...

Man wants wife dead because live in mistress is also a Catholic who, other than anullment from the Vatican, must have boyfriends slate clear, ie death of wife, in order to marry with the church's blessing said boyfriend.

[Normally a Lurker]

None of your responses to my comment have convinced me that Terri Schiavo is not in misery, and has she apparently been so for many, many years. And, none of you have convinced me that you do not delight in trying to sustain her misery.

Further, as is typical of many who comment here on this matter, you have mostly decided to attribute statements and thoughts to me which I have not made nor had. To say nothing of your propensity to label and name call without basis.

I see you all as the opposite of the 'kind souls' that you apparently think that you are.

[Aliska]

Excellent analysis.

The pope is disabled.

[MHGinTN]

Think before you shove both of your feet down your maw. You assert that she is in misery. Consciousness is required for misery to occur. Terri has been systematically denied the rehabilitation therapy for which the $750,000 was placed in her Trust Fund to pay. If she is in misery, it is because she has been denied the help that could bring her quality of life to a higher level, thus if she is in misery (pay attention ... here it coems), it is the corrupt judges and her husband and defrauding guardian who have inflicted this misery upon her. Your solution to this injustice is to kill her. Astonishingly cruel of you.

[isthisnickcool]

I'd suggest some thicker skin.

[Bluebird Singing]

Ah so! You believe the "kind souls" are the ones who would starve and dehydrate to death a non-terminally ill person, correct? A person who otherwise, would go on living and breathing without such intervention. I see!

[Ferret Fawcet]

Good point. How could they not be outraged. I would like to see more people in the media actively seek them out re: Terri's situation. Their perspective should be given priority coverage.

[TigersEye]

Well isn't that special? You have stated again that you know she is in misery. I ask you again 'how do you know'? As for name calling show me where I called you a name. Here's something more for you to think about; I don't have any need to convince you of what my motives are. They are clear from my posts as are yours.

[trustandobey]

Okay, how many pet owners do you know that when the vet says there is nothing he can do, says let me take it home and starve it?