Posted on 03/03/2005 4:52:32 PM PST by churchillbuff
A week after a Florida judge ruled that Terri Schiavo's feeding tube could be removed, her brother said that allowing her to die would put the United States on the path to Holocaust-style cruelties.
"What is the difference between what happened 60 years ago and what's happening today?" Bobby Schindler asked Wednesday before a crowd in McCosh 10. "What can possibly be crueler than allowing someone to endure a long and painful death because society doesn't want to pay for them or thinks they have no quality of life? As soon as we establish a criteria for starving people to death, we are establishing a second class of people."
Schindler called the conflict "a cultural battle between life and death" that affects the rights of the elderly and the disabled.
Schiavo, a 41-year-old Florida woman, is at the center of a raging debate over euthanasia. After suffering severe brain damage when her heart stopped in 1990, she now breathes normally but can only receive food and drink through a feeding tube in her stomach.
Her husband Michael and some doctors say that Schiavo is in what is called a permanent vegetative state (PVS) — a legal justification for ending life in the state of Florida — but her family disagrees.
Schindler said Wednesday that some doctors are "adamant that Terri is nowhere close to PVS" and called the criteria "so subjective you can almost describe anyone who is unable to communicate as in PVS."
Even if Schiavo were in PVS, Schindler added, "Why does it matter?" saying that all his family wants is to bring her to their home and take care of her.
A judge ruled last week that Schiavo is in PVS and that Michael, as her legal guardian, can remove the tube on March 18. Schindler called on Florida Governor Jeb Bush to intervene in the case for the second time to save Schiavo's life.
The situation is complicated by facts in dispute. Schiavo's husband has said she had told him she would not want to be kept alive.
Schindler said his sister, a lifelong Catholic, would not wish to die. They also claim that Michael has other motives.
"Michael suddenly remembered [in 1998] that Terri — in her early 20s — that she allegedly made a living will," Schindler said.
He also noted that Michael has been cohabitating with another woman for the past 10 years and has two children with her.
Michael also stands to inherit Schiavo's trust fund. Schiavo was awarded more than a million dollars in a 1992 medical malpractice suit.
Schindler said Michael testified at that trial that he wanted to spend the rest of his life caring for his wife.
Instead, Schindler said, Michael has neglected her, denying her sunlight, dental care and speech therapy, which she hasn't had since 1992.
"A lot of doctors are amazed at how well she is doing considering she hasn't had rehabilitation in 13 years," Schindler said.
Schindler also blamed bad judges, the media and changing cultural values for Schiavo's situation.
Claiming that groups such as the insurance industry have promoted euthanasia behind the scenes, Schindler also singled out University bioethics professor Peter Singer.
Singer, who supports voluntary euthanasia, said in an email prior to the talk that "the problem with this case is that the facts are contested, and I have no expertise about that."
Schindler opened his talk with a video of Terri's childhood and their court battle set to music by John Denver and the Beatles — some of Terri's favorites.
He ended by quoting the biblical story of the Good Samaritan.
Before Schindler spoke, Chris Tollefson, a visiting fellow at the James Madison Program, said, "Abortion and euthanasia are linked in principle, and both are deeply wrong."
The event was sponsored by Princeton Pro-Life.
Interesting. They don't want to pay out on that long-term care insurance that they're marketing to us?
Singer, who supports voluntary euthenasia, seems to understand the difference between legalized murder committed by sanction of the State and an individual's right to choose to die. He's smart to stay out of it.
How can it be said that Terri's has "chosen" to die based on -- apparently -- some seemingly offhand comment made while watching a TV movie two decades ago? One's casual mutterings while watching TV are hardly deliberative statements.
I've asked on a couple of threads but gotten no answer. What happened to the divorce proceedings? This would end the husbands control, strip him of the trust fund and give the care back to the family. He is guilty of adultery and that point could not be contested.
Terri made no such choice. Terri did not ever indicate that she wished to die. Singer supports VOLUNTARY euthenasia.
He obviously understands there is nothing VOLUNTARY in this situation. He is staying out of it because to support what is literally a death sentence would only hurt his cause.
SCHINDLER'S REQUEST NEW TRIAL BASED ON JUDGES ERROR:http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1355474/posts
Evidential information patently incorrect.
The courts ruled against a divorce several years ago. No one wants to put all the eggs in the Judge Greer basket so several different legal steps have been taken in an effort to save Terri's life.
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.