Not to mention that Michael's hearsay is probably perjury since it took him until five years after the fact to recall it.
***Not to mention that Michael's hearsay is probably perjury since it took him until five years after the fact to recall it.***
Here's something I thought of today, that I'd like the folks who think we're too hard on Michael to address:
In 1992, Michael's lawyer stated in his opening staement in a medical malpractice trial that Terri's life expectancy was 51 more years and she wouldn't be able to work.
At that same trial, Michael gave this testimony:
Q. Why did you want to learn to be a nurse?
MS. Because I enjoy it and I want to learn more how to take care of Terri.
Q. You're a young man. Your life is ahead of you. When you look up the road, what do you see for yourself?
MS. I see myself hopefully finishing school and taking care of my wife.
Q. Where do you want to take care of your wife?
MS. I want to bring her home.
Q. If you had the resources available to you, if you had the equipment and the people, would you do that?
MS. Yes, I would, in a heartbeat.
Q. How do you feel about being married to Terri now.
MS. I feel wonderful. She's my life and I wouldn't trade her for the world. I believe in my marriage vows.
Q. You believe in your wedding vows, what do you mean by that?
MS. I believe in the vows I took with my wife, through sickness, in health, for richer or poor. I married my wife because I love her and I want to spend the rest of my life with her. I'm going to do that.
Then, in 1993, Michael put a DNR in Terri's file. Later that same year, he testified about denying his wife treatment for a uniary tract infection until the nursing home forced him to allow it because it was mandated by law. At the same trial he testified that he had had her engagement and wedding rings melted down and her cats euthanized.
In 1998, Michael Schiavo testified, convincingly in the written opinion of Judge Greer, that Terri had told him she "wouldn't want to live like that," with "that" in this particular case meaning "on a machine." Greer presumes this means she would not want to live if significantly disabled, even if no machine were involved.
So here's my question: If she was so strongly and vocally opposed to extreme measures and so worried about being a burden that she would rather starve than be fed through a tube, why did he decide to be burdened with her care for a half-century?
Why does "I married my wife because I love her and I want to spend the rest of my life with her" change to "no antibiotics, no wedding ring and euthanize those dang cats" in less than a year?
Why does "I'll take care of her for fifty years" change to "take her feeding tube out" not on the occasion of some prognosis change, or after therapy has failed, but several years after successful therapy had stopped?
Why do people think we're demonizing this guy when we find this paradox suspicious?