Schiavo's Parents Ask Judge to Intervene

Fox News ^ | 4/27/04 | AP

[MVV]

TAMPA, Fla. — The parents of a severely brain-damaged woman at the center of a right-to-die case say her husband has barred them from visiting her. They are asking a judge to intervene.

The lawsuit is the latest salvo in the long legal battle between Bob and Mary Schindler and Terri Schiavo's (search) husband, Michael -- his wife's legal guardian who is fighting to remove the feeding tube that keeps her alive.

[stanz]

You must be brain dead if you don't realize that this woman responds to stimuli and is conscious of her surroundings- - or did you ever stop to visit her website?

[nickcarraway]

Who died and made you G-d?

[syriacus]

Without their consciousness, ....without this ability you are lifeless. That doesn't mean one still cannot love that person, I still love many who are today dead and in the ground.

You are right...people can be loved even after they die.

But you stray from reality when you say people like Terri are lifeless.

Simple and realistic scientific observation disproves what you are saying.

It's obvious Terri isn't lifeless...If she were lifeless her body would be decaying like the bodies of those people you loved.

There's an easily discernible difference between a person who has life and a person who is lifeless.

That's why morgues have refrigerators.

[Ohioan from Florida]

I've read what you had to say in this post and in your #19, and I have to say that you are missing the boat on some issues. Terri had a right to die back in 1990, and the fact that she didn't is only partly due to medical technology.

Her husband agreed to let her be hooked up to those machines that did keep her alive at first. He agreed to have a feeding tube installed. Now, if Terri didn't want to live like that, why did he agree to have a feeding tube portal surgically inserted in to her abdomen in the first place? He would have been going against her wishes back then and should have known it, IF she in fact told him that she wouldn't want to live like that (unless he is a moron, in which case his memory can't be trusted).

I think you are ignoring certain facts about Terri's case, and trying to impose your view of what constitutes life and what doesn't in this issue.

IMO, this case is about more than the "right-to-die". That's the label that is being used, but it is more than that. It's nothing more than a clever distraction of what is really going on, similar to the way the libs like to call it "pro-choice" when they really mean "pro-abortion" or "pro-death for pre-born infant humans".

Here is a clear case of a man who wants to remove his wife's feeding tube after she no longer serves his purpose. It has nothing to do with love or respect. It has to do with his self-serving attitude. Michael was always going through the motions (much like politicians do) about what was best for himself, not for Terri.

At one point, keeping Terri alive was what was best for Michael. Maybe she would recover and he could have the love of his life back. Maybe her being alive kept him out of jail. Since her collapse wasn't seriously investigated, I'm not sure we'll ever know the truth about what happened to cause Terri's collapse.

Soon enough though, Michael realized that rehab was expensive and he couldn't afford it. What to do? Sue for malpractice and hope for the best. Say that you want to take care of your wife for the rest of your lives. That will win some sympathy points, and maybe the big bucks, too. At the time, this to Terri's parents seems reasonable as to what Terri might want. She would want therapy. She would want to live.

If it weren't about the money for Michael, why would he issue a "DO NOT RESUSCITATE" order on Terri within months of receiving the money from the malpractice trial? The fact that he did so is documented under oath. Terri never received any more therapy from that point on (mid-1993).

After a while, Terri still wouldn't die, no matter how much he let her languish without rehabilitation or therapy. He only allowed the very basics of care. Why didn't he use the money to allow Terri to get the chance to rehab that he promised under oath in the malpractice trial? The answer, I believe, is because that trial was just a charade for Michael. Like I said...this has never been about what was best for Terri, only Michael. And it wasn't until 1993 that Terri's parents realized what was going on.

Michael continued to do what's best for HIM in the ensuing years. Getting hooked up in another relationship. Not spending money for Terri's rehab. Fighting Terri's parents for guardianship of their daughter. Spending the malpractice money on lawyer's fees. Sending her to a hospice instead of a nursing home. Only giving Terri more than basic care when her parents went to court to get that for her (teeth cleaned, gynecology exams, etc). He did the minimum unless he got called on the carpet for it.

After a while, those darn Schindlers just weren't giving up. What was best for Michael, again? Well, now he wanted to get married, and his fiancee wanted to get married in the Catholic Church. If he divorced Terri, again the $$ comes in to play. He can't have it. Annulled? Still can't have it. Hmmm. How about if she dies? Wait, might be on to something there!

This whole thing has started out as nothing more than Michaels' wanting to have things his way. It's about power and control.

It has nothing to do with Terri's right-to-die, but don't let the mainstream media do anything to change your point of view. It's so refreshing to see FReepers who believe everything they're told, without trying to analyze it from a different perspective. < /sarcasm >

I won't call you a troll yet. Maybe you are sadly misinformed. If so, please learn and research about Terri. Don't buy into everything you're told. Investigate. If you're not a troll, we'll know soon enough.

[Mr. Silverback]

ProLife Ping!

If anyone wants on or off my ProLife Ping List, please notify me here or by freepmail.

[Mr. Silverback]

Having read post three and your other posts in this thread, I would sincerely like to hear any evidence you have that indicates that Terri is in a persistent vegatative state.

[Mr. Silverback]

Oh, and one other thing: Please tell me why this woman should, if she is vegatative, be starved to death. Why should you be able to starve a human to death, but not a dog or a cat?

[little jeremiah]

Have you read up on Terri Schiavo at all?

In order for Terri to die, she has to be killed - starved to death, or otherwise murdered. She is not being kept alive "artificially" unless you call being fed artificial.

You like a world where people can be murdered because they are helpless?

[little jeremiah]

You said:

"It's time now to let her really go to a better place."

You mean it's time to murder her? "Let her go" meaning starve her to death? Or would you prefer lethal injection? Or are gas ovens your preference? If people starved you to death you'd be "let go" as well.

[Chocolate Rose]

Ever hear of Rus Cooper-Dowda?

Read "When I Woke Up..."

http://www.ragged-edge-mag.com/extra/wokeup.html

[little jeremiah]

A beautiful post. I have written before on Terri threads about a dear friend of mine who has a severely disabled daughter (now in mid-20s) who also cannot speak, feed or care for herself. This daughter is also dearly loved, and loves in return. For people to equate intellect or skill level with human worth is akin to the philosophy of eugneics. Only humans with certain abilities, skill, intelligence, or proper race are valuable; others should be killed.

This shallow, cruel view of human worth is based on the materialistic idea that people are just the body; merely an accidental group of chemicals and electrical connections.

The spiritual view is that the real identity of the human being is an eternal soul, which is inhabiting the body, and is of infinite worth, no matter what the condition of the body.

[little jeremiah]

You have no idea what is going on in the mind and heart of Terri Schiavo or any other disabled person. Just because she can't express herself (although that might change with therapy and a home or home-like environment) doesn't mean she isn't conscious. She's not a vegetable. You should read up all the Terri threads if you want to discuss her situation. You are very ill-informed about her.

[Mr. Silverback]

Well said. As you are rather new here, you will be branded a troll. But a lot of Freepers and conservatives believe that Terri died many, many years ago. It's time now to let her really go to a better place.

Well then, back it up. I would sincerely like to hear...

1. Any proof you have that this woman is in a persistent vegetative state.

2. Any reason that she should be treated as such without solid proof.

3. Any reasons you can give that she, if she is vegetative, should be starved to death. For extra points, explain why it is felony animal cruelty to starve a dog or cat to death, but it's merciful and dignified to starve young woman to death.

[The Bandit]

Have you read up on Terri Schiavo at all?

In order for Terri to die, she has to be killed - starved to death, or otherwise murdered. She is not being kept alive "artificially" unless you call being fed artificial.

You like a world where people can be murdered because they are helpless?

I think starving Terri's body to death is inhumane. I mean, a convicted killer gets more humane treatment then that when the state puts them to death. This is cruel to a family who have to watch a love one slowly die via starvation.

Catching up on some other points made by other posters, please keep in mind I am making a distinction between a person and their personality, or soul if you will and not vital organs. A person is much more then just tissue and fluids.

50 years ago, or certaintly 100-20,000 years ago we wouldn't be having this debate today. Terri's physical body would have soon followed "Terri the person" at the moment she stoped being Terri Schiavo.

[Theodore R.]

Again, you are advocating "natural" death for an unfortunate one other than yourself. That's so easy to do!

[TheSpottedOwl]

These stories need to get out to the lamestream media. Will they publish them though?

d i v o r c e y o u. You go girl!

[little jeremiah]

As far as what would have happened 100 or thousands of years ago, that is a useless argument.

Your other arguments are from YOU looking at Terri from the outside, and apparently still ill-informed, unless you have read for quite a few hours about her situation.

How can you possibly think that you know what she is thinking or feeling? Do you really assume that because she cannot care for herself that she has no consciousness, and because she cannot do what she used to do, express herself as she used to, care for herself as she used to, that she should be killed? Do you really think that? Because if you do think that, then you must also think that a huge number of disabled and elderly should also be killed. Do you think that too?

Where do you think the line should be drawn to separate who should be killed and who should be allowed to live? Should there be some kind of test to decide who's eligible to be fed and who is not?

Think about this - how is this philosophy different from Hitler's?

[Dante3]

BUMP

[Chocolate Rose]

little jeremiah said:
"Think about this - how is this philosophy different from Hitler's?"

Review the history of Germany, prior to, and following the election of Hitler in 1933:


Hitler's Unwanted Children
by Sally M. Rogow:
http://www.holocaust-trc.org/unwanted.pdf

Euthenasia in the Third Reich
by J A Emerson Vermaat: http://www.ethicsandmedicine.com/18/1/18-1-vermaat.htm

[fiesti]

If Terri were given the therapy that she needs, who knows how she'd be doing right now. There's always a chance for her. I believe in that.

And I will say a big AMEN to that statement........Just a note of interest for those of you who saw the Passion if you noted Jesus began many statements with Amen....My hubby looked up in dictionary and it means..."This is the truth"