Posted on 02/26/2005 5:18:05 AM PST by ViLaLuz
A Philadelphia Inquirer columnist who believes in the "right to die" has changed his mind about the Terri Schiavo case, pointing to "uncomfortable details" about her estranged husband that now lead him to side with the parents of the brain-damaged Florida woman, who are fighting to keep her alive.
John Grogan said in a column published today, "I no longer so blithely believe Schiavo's feeding tubes should be pulled and her life allowed to end. I'm no longer so sure her parents do not deserve a say in their daughter's future. I no longer am totally comfortable assuming her husband, Michael, who now has two children by another woman, is acting unselfishly."
Michael Schiavo has been living with his fiance Jodi Centonze since 1995 and has said he will marry her upon the death of his wife.
Grogan said he hasn't changed his opinion that everyone has a right to "die with dignity," but he believes that in the Schiavo case, the "devil is in the details, uncomfortable details that raise sticky moral dilemmas."
Terri Schiavo suffered severe brain damage in 1990 after collapsing. Michael Schiavo attributes it to a chemical imbalance caused by an eating disorder, but parents Robert and Mary Schindler believe he may have tried to strangle her.
Michael Schiavo contends his wife told him she never would want to be kept alive artificially.
But Grogan points out Terri Schiavo's heart and lungs function on their own, and she requires only a feeding tube that might not be necessary if she were given physical therapy.
The columnist notes Michael Schiavo, as her legal guardian, has forbidden any therapy.
"If [Terri] Schiavo merely required spoon feeding instead of tube feeding, would anyone seriously be arguing to withhold food and water?" Grogan asked. "Does not every human, no matter how incapacitated, deserve sustenance?"
Grogan also is concerned about abuse allegations against Michael Schiavo and believes they should be investigated.
The allegations "may be nothing but scurrilous rumor spread to damage his credibility," he wrote. "But what if there is even a tiny chance he is guilty of abuse? Should such a person be in a position to decide this life-and-death issue?"
When it comes to who is best to decide, Grogan wrote, it's clear that Terri Schiavo's parents "have proved themselves nothing if not fiercely loyal, utterly committed parents. They might be misguided. They might be in denial. But no one can argue their devotion. They have not given up. They have not stopped caring. They have not stopped loving. Who are we, as a society, to tell them they must?
Grogan concluded:
"Clearly, Schiavo's husband has moved on to a new life, and who can blame him? It's been 15 long years. But parents cannot move on. Parents cannot give up. Their child will always be the precious gift they brought into the world.
If the Schindlers want to dedicate the rest of their lives and resources to caring for their brain-damaged daughter, if they want to shower her with attention and affection she likely will never recognize, who among us will tell them they cannot.
It won't be me."
Case in point: as a child, I was brought to specialist after specialist for something wrong with my leg. My parents were told many things, one being that I had a flat foot, another that I was suffering from after-effects from the 4-day coma the year before (after over-dosing on a whole bottle of adult aspirins at about age 2). Initially, my parents just thought I wanted attention because of my newborn brother (I cradled my leg like it was a baby--this was because of the pain, however, which I still remember).
One day, our family g.p. physician, an old Italian doctor, saw my father and I walking across the street, in front of his home/office; he inquired of my father, "what are you doing for her polio?" My father denied that was my ailment listed off the numerous other specialists' opinions. The doctor then asked, "well, what kind of physical therapy is she receiving?" My father replied, "none." The doctor, then excitedly exclaimed, "she must begin therapy, right away, exercising that leg, or she'll lose the use of it. She has polio." It was a long and painful rehabilitative process, but thank God, this wonderful old Italian doctor saw me walking down the street that day. He saved my leg and kept me from being handicapped. Although he wasn't a specialist, he had seen and treated polio often enough to "know" it when he saw it. He was familiar with it. Those who were the supposed specialists, did nothing for me and had my father listened to them, instead, I would have ended up in a brace or wheelchair.
It's best to have a doctor treat you in their speciality area, but even then, we always prefer the surgeons who are the top surgeons, not just any surgeon; and anesthesologists who are the best, not mediocre.
Agreed; and an investigation into that is long overdue and equally suspicious that that has not been done.
God Bless you!
Hope this helps. Let us know if they come to their senses!
My grandpa was in what was called a "vegetative state" by his doctor in the last few months of his life so I know what is called a vegetative state in medical terms is not the same as what people assume it is. He was still conscious, could still form a few words, react to stimuli, eat a few bites of food although chewing was beyond him and even get to the bathroom with help.
There are levels of awareness. But most people assume that saying someone is a vegetable means that they are aware of nothing. That is not the case.
That is almost unbelieveable!
I would think she was too young for osteoporosis at the age she suffered the attack.
Let her go to her parents!
Me, too.
ping
John Grogan a man who can admit he followed the wrong road.
Welcome.
They claim that she had that problem because of her alleged bulemia...they make all kinds of claims, actually; and the claims change or are added as the need arises, it seems.
They could claim she is a muslim homosexual criminal chicken. That would save her life.
if this case weren't so tragic, that would, indeed, be hilarious. Unfortunately, what you said is also true. What does that say about our current culture?
Thank you for your considered opinion.
Thank God you are not in charge of deciding whose life is worth living and who should be starved to death.
Mikie lived with the Schindlers after Terri's accident. Mr. Schindler supported Mike and paid Terri's bills, while Mikie made a good show of being the supportive husband. Of course he did have a girlfriend...but, anyway. He took Terri to treatment, bothered the hospital staff to put on her makeup and looked like a very caring husband---while he was trying to win a financial settlement in court. He said he needed enough money to care for Terri for 50 years. I guess he had forgotten her "wishes" for those first 4 years?But, Mr. Schindler paid Terri's bills. Mike saying he would reimburse when he got the settlement.
The settlement came....Mike quit taking care of Terri, instituted a DNR, and told the rest home not to give her antibiotics. Mr. Schindler asked Mike to reimburse him for the costs of Terri's care for 4 years, with the settlement money, which is what they got the money for---and that is when Mike got angry and decided to "get back" at the Schindersl. Just a couple weeks after the settlement was reached, Mike "remembered" that Terri would not want to be kept alive on "Tubes"!--- The perfect way for Mike to repay those who had supported him!
The clinic mike sued was owned by a company which went bankrupt. His girlfriend, Jodi, had an uncle who was a part owner of that company. Interesting, isn't it? And Jodi's mom worked for the Sheriff's office, until her death...more interesting....
yes, when the details fall out, much is learned.
While your response is well worded, and seems well thought out, it lacks humanity, mercy and dignity.
One would not "let" Terri "go", Terri will have to be killed, because she is not being "kept" alive. So, there is no "Letting go" there is only the option of murder. To murder a vulnerable humanbeing who may not have value in YOUR eyes--but tremendous value to her parents and sibliings, and ME.
It sounds all warm and fuzzy to say that it would be "more humane" to kill Terri than to let her live as a "potted house plant"...but, if Terri is in such a detached, mindless state, what will it hurt her? According to you, she is unaware of her state or her surroundings--and so her pride isn't hurt in the least. So, there goes your argument! If she is unaware, then the only "inhumane" thing would be to put her parents through the torture of her impending, inhumane, painful death.
Listen, Mr. Felos, the only one who would be in pain, if Terri lives, is Mikie Schiavo--and you.
As I said, thank God you are not in charge.
Ranking financial gain at the bottom demonstrates to me that you are quite foolish no matter how sophisticated you attempt to portray yourself.
Money is one of the leading causes of marital disputes and deaths. When Terri passes, Michael gets the cash that's left. He can't get it as long as she is alive.
Sex -- as in a new love interest is also high on the list of motivations in marriages and lives ending. He has moved on with his life and has twice impregnated this woman and he openly lives with her.
Do you honestly not see the conflicts or do you just not care? Is it all a clinical analysis for you even without meeting Terri? Are you omnipotent or just onmicient?
Or just a ghoul that you suggest others are?
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.