Posted on 01/29/2005 8:32:27 AM PST by xzins
Save Terri Schiavo
by Terence P. Jeffrey
Posted Jan 26, 2005
Gov. Jeb Bush and the Florida legislature may not know it, but they acted in the spirit of Sir Philip Sidney when they tried to save the life of Terri Schiavo.
When Sidney, a young warrior and poet in the court of Queen Elizabeth I, was mortally wounded in battle, legend has it that he passed up a drink of water in deference to a common soldier who lay nearby in the throes of death.
"Thy need is greater than mine," Sidney told the dying man.
After his own death, Sidney's body was brought back to England where he was given a state funeral and held up by his countrymen as a model of virtue to be emulated by all.
Today, Terri's husband, Michael Schiavo, is trying to take an action that would reverse Sidney's. Rather than provide water to a stranger about to die, he wants to deny water to his own wife who persists in living. Since 1998, contrary to the wishes of Terri's parents, Robert and Mary Schindler, Michael Schiavo has been seeking to remove the nutrition-and-hydration tube that sustains Terri, who became mentally incapacitated 15 years ago when her heart temporarily stopped beating.
On Sept. 17, 2003, a Florida court authorized Schiavo to remove his wife's tube. On Oct. 15, 2003, the tube was removed and Terri began a slow death by dehydration. Six days after that, Gov. Bush signed a law enacted by the Florida legislature allowing him to issue a one-time stay of the court order that authorized the removal of Terri's nutrition-and-hydration tube.
Bush ordered the tube restored, and Terri is alive today.
This week, however, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to accept Bush's appeal of a Florida Supreme Court decision that overturned what became known as Terri's Law. Other litigation in the case will continue, but so far the courts have consistently sided in favor of starving and dehydrating Terri Schiavo.
The courts, however, are wrong, and the Florida legislature should not stop fighting them.
The disputants in Terri Schiavo's case disagree on her condition and prognosis. As noted in the petition Gov. Bush made to the Supreme Court, some say, "Terri Schiavo is not actually in a persistent vegetative state because she is able to interact with her visitors and caregivers."
But the key point is not disputed: Terri is unlikely to die soon unless deprived of food and water.
Indeed, the purpose of depriving her of food and water is to kill her.
This is not a case about withholding desperate and disproportionate medical treatment from a patient who is destined to die of a terminal illness. Ironically, if Terri were certain to die of disease tomorrow the purpose of denying her water today would go away.
At its core, this case is about whether one person can make a judgment that another person's "quality" of life justifies taking that person's life. What is at stake for society here was explained in a brief presented to the Supreme Court by the Catholic Medical Association (Terri Schiavo is a Catholic), which cited a letter published last March by Pope John Paul II in which the Pope said it is wrong to withhold food and water even from someone believed to be in a persistent vegetative state. "However, it is not enough to reaffirm the general principle according to which the value of a man's life cannot be made subordinate to any judgment of its quality expressed by other men," the Pope said. "it is necessary to promote the taking of positive actions as a stand against pressures to withdraw hydration and nutrition as a way to put an end to the lives of these patients."
The principle the Pope defends is not new. It is the same principle President Bush defended when he addressed the March for Life via phone last Monday. "We know that in a culture that does not protect the most dependent," Bush said, "the handicapped, the elderly, the unloved, or simply inconvenient become increasingly vulnerable."
And it is the same principle that Sir Philip Sidney acted on when he sent his drink of water to a dying soldier. All human life is sacred because God made it so, and no man can change that.
Florida's legislature should not surrender this principle to the courts. Inspired by Terri Schiavo, it should enact a new law. This time it should simply say: You may not kill a person through starvation or dehydration. Terence Jeffrey is Editor of HUMAN EVENTS.
If you would like to send a comment to Mr. Jeffrey you can reach him by email at terencejeffrey@eaglepub.com
audioedit.com wouldn't accept the file. But, I'll figure something out.
Michael Schiavo Rebuffs Offer From Wife's Family
By DAVID SOMMER dsommer@tampatrib.com
Published: Jan 29, 2005
CLEARWATER - Michael Schiavo will not leave his wife to live on against what he maintains is Terri Schiavo's stated wish not to be kept alive with the help of a feeding tube inserted into her stomach, his attorney reiterated Friday. "Terri is not a piece of property that one person can give over to another,'' attorney George Felos said when asked why his client has rejected the latest offer made by his wife's parents, Bob and Mary Schindler.
Comment from Cheryl : The Schindlers did not ask for Michael Schiavo to pass their daughter over to them like a piece of property. They asked Michael Schiavo to relinquish his rights as a guardian, and not dispose of their daughter like she is nothing more than a piece of property. The Schindlers wish to take their daughter home to love and care for her as any loving and responsible parents would do!
``He made a promise to his wife [not to keep her alive by artificial means], and that's what this case is about for him,'' Felos said.
Comment from Cheryl: Michael Schiavo also made a promise to love Terri in "sickness and in health" until death do they part. What happened to that promise? Michael has been sharing a residence with his fiance for the last nine years. They have two children. Their last child was born in October 2003 when Michael Schiavo was starving Terri (his wife) to death via dehydration and starvation.
Speaking on the courthouse steps after a hearing on the Schindlers' latest legal maneuver to keep their daughter alive, Bob Schindler said his son-in-law's position as a loyal husband upholding a promise to his brain-damaged wife is ``poppycock.''
Michael Schiavo has a common law marriage with another woman who has borne him at least two children, Schindler said. ``He's breaking his wedding vows by living with another woman.''
Schindler attorney David Gibbs III said he hoped that by going public with the settlement offer, Michael Schiavo might be persuaded to reconsider.
In an Oct. 26 letter to Schiavo's attorneys, Gibbs said the Schindlers wrote that they are prepared to sign over any rights to Terri Schiavo's marital assets or to any money or assets that might be left over from malpractice awards granted the couple after Terri Schiavo suffered heart failure and subsequent brain damage in 1990 at age 26.
Gibbs said Friday that would include any rights to book, television and movie deals stemming from the nationally publicized case.
Also in the October letter, the Schindlers offered to give Michael Schiavo any money or assets in their daughter's estate if he ends his struggle to have her feeding tube removed and she is allowed to die a natural death. They said he could dictate visitation rights, regardless of whether he divorced their daughter.
``The Schindlers would permit Michael's attorneys to draft any agreement regarding this matter that Michael would desire ... excluding payment of Michael's previous legal fees and costs,'' the letter states.
Twice, Michael Schiavo has won court permission to disconnect his wife's feeding tube so she would die from lack of nutrition and hydration. Both times, the feeding tube was reinserted, most recently in October 2003 on orders of Gov. Jeb Bush.
Earlier this week, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear Bush's appeal of a Florida Supreme Court finding that the special legislative measure known as ``Terri's Law,'' which allowed Bush to intervene, was enacted in violation of the state constitution.
Comment from Cheryl : If the state constitution does not support the Governor and his prudent actions for his intervening in time to save the cruel and unusual murder of an innocent disabled woman, then it is time for Florida residents to URGENTLY revisit the state constitution. There is obviously a major flaw in what it says!
Michael Schiavo contends that his wife is in a persistent vegetative state, unaware of her surroundings. The Schindlers say their daughter reacts to them and could improve with therapy.
I'm using Firefox, which seems to believe in downloading the whole file before launching it. But I downloaded it while I ran some errands.
It works real good in Windows Media Player, even on dialup. I am listening to it again right now.
Don't give up! It's important
Thanks!
I'm not. As I said, I downloaded it during some errands. So far, Dr. Hammesfahr is failing to distinguish personal knowledge from hearsay. Makes it harder to determine what would be admissible in court.
I noticed the same thing at first, he was dragged into what might of happened to her, rather reluncticaly I thought.
Thanks. I read about the visit with Terri.
I still would not want to be maintained in her situation. I believe there is a hereafter, strongly. I am willing to accept my consequences if I am wrong.
I am sorry if I have offended anyone, especially Terri. I wish her a wonderful life, no matter how it turns out.
Yes. Isn't it amazing how the hospice, the lawyers, the judges, city council, the sheriff's office are all tied in to this case? I wonder how much of the good 'ole buddy network is hanging on to this.
No offense taken at all. We all have different ideas about things and that's fine. I just think Terri's situation has been grossly misrepresented and that probably leads people into conclusions they may not otherwise go to.
You're more than entitled to your opinions. I think when people get to know the truth about Terri, they start to see the value of trying to look out for her. That's all.
BTTT....
Don't know if I can get back on here tonight, but I think the most immediate concern I have learned from this is those wires that were stuck in her brain years ago. They need to be taken care of or removed so infection doesn't set in to her brain. Of course, Michael refuses to do this. An investigation is long overdue.
I wonder what would happen if some officials could make some noises that if Terri dies an autopsy should be done to determine whether the electrodes that should have been removed but weren't had any effect on her. Of course, the autopsy might show other things as well...
You have to remember this is all an "officially" predetermined condition of hers. That means she is not necessary subject to an autopsy. Michael wants her cremated without an autopsy reportedly. I have no reason to think he would wants to help her after death if he did not help her when she was alive. Do you?
Obviously Michael doesn't want an autopsy. My point was that if there were any way that officials could be convinced, while Terri was alive, that an autopsy would be appropriate, and if Michael knew of this, he might decide that he'd rather be charged with non-capital crimes than with capital murder.
If the officials aren't convinced something is wrong now, how do expect they will do the right thing latter? There are all kinds of laws that have been ignored for years.
Besides, it sounds like it would take a COURT order to not violate Michaels rights on that matter. I still approach this issue on keeping her alive.
IIRC, the coroner has the right to order an autopsy in any death he regards as suspicious; a husband would not have a right to refuse.
From what I've learned I'm not sure you would be able to find a single "professional" anything that is not connected to this little conspiracy. It would be great if a Coroner ordered an autopsy. But it won't happen from what I see. Without doubt, this is one of the most dispicable, yet rediculous things I have ever witnessed. In Florida, the Governor MAY NOT govern the State unless the likes of George Greer, a rogue and illegal Judge, permit him to. It's beyond bizarre.
If you didn't like your sister having to die a slow painful death, you must understand why Terri's family doesn't want that for her? If your sister had been healthy, I doubt you would want to kill her slowly and painfully. Yet that's exactly what Terri's estranged husband wants to do to her. He doesn't want to kill her because she's dying. He wants to kill her because she isn't dying.
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.