I am not aware that it was stated just that way, and only that way. My impression is that what was stated was Mr. Schiavo's interpretation of what Mrs. Schiavo would have wanted, based on the fact that he was her husband. As a country built on Judeo-Christian beliefs, we recognize spouses as people's closest relationships, as they leave their parents and cleave to the spouse.
He has persistantly tried to get Terris life terminated. He has prevented visitors and good medical care. Does not appear that he has her goood wishes at heart.
Only because you put do-goodism and your own wishes above the wishes of Mrs. Schiavo herself. If she would have wished to be out of this situation, Mr. Schiavo is acting perfectly consistent with the view of a decent man--respecting his wife's wishes.
He could divorce her and her parents have stated they will take up the guardianship.
Again, an indication that you don't understand that this is acceptable only if Mr. Schiavo is NOT a decent person. Perhaps the fact that he's NOT letting do-gooders stomp his wife's wishes is an indication that he is an honest man. Why are we assuming guilt of him? Are unfounded accusations all it takes to interfere in a marriage and overturn a spouse being able to act? What makes you think you or anyone else on this planet knew Mrs. Schiavo better than the man who shared her life?
It seems to be the situation that a state guardian should have been appointed to safeguard Terri's interests.
Who appointed the GAL?
This case stinks to high heaven.
Finally we agree on something. This case should be dropped immediately and allow Mrs. Schiavo to get some peace. Maybe Florida and the Schindlers could even get a bit civilized and allow Mrs. Schiavo to receive sufficient morphine to make the whole process less traumatic.
Again, you are not informed about the details of this case. Remember, liberals say "the devil is in the details." Secondly, you are a well human being advocating death for a helpless person. Hubert H. Humphrey, no conservative, said that a society is judged by how it treats the "least" of our citizens. Under your recommendation, we would flunk the Humphrey test for sure.
You are not fooling anyone with your constant "Mrs. Shiavo, Mrs. Schiavo, Mrs. Schiavo" routine you pull on every thread.
We spotted your drivel (aimed at portraying this independent child of God as a piece of property belonging to Michael Schiavo, ergo, he has the absolute, unquestioned right to starve and dehydrate her to death) before you got out of bed the first morning you started this. Suffice it to say, we spotted it from so far off, we almost knew you before you were born.
I will, as will millions, be so thankful to the all that is good and holy and heavenly, when she is freed from the hellhole Michael, Felos and Greer put her in, and she is in a good, sweet place surrounded by love and care, and she can breathe the good, sweet air of freedom and civilization
once again.
What a day of rejoicing that will be...
You seem to be highly unaware that Michael refused to allow Terri to be treated for a UTI back in 1992, in the hopes that she would die, even though that was (and is) illegal. A DNR does not mean 'do not treat', but that is how Michael has consistently treated her. It sounds like you are not aware that he admitted this in a deposition in 1993. Are you suggesting that it is quite okay for Michael to go plead before a jury to get $$ to care for Terri, and then upon being awarded the $$, he refuses to have her be treated for an ordinary UTI? What kind of man are you?
Yes, Michael is one loving husband...so devoted to his wife! (barf)
The Schindlers will never allow Terri's peaceful death, no matter what Terri's wishes are.
The parents stated that even if Terri had told them explicitly to remove her feeding tube, they would never respect Terri's wishes. The Schindlers said they would keep Terri hooked up with a feeding tube against her own wishes.
Furthermore, the Schindlers would not remove Terri’s feeding tube even Terri had her limbs amputated or a terribly crippling disease. The Schindlers would still not respect Terri's desire to have her tubes removed if she had gangrene and all her arms and legs were cut off.
According to the Wolfson Report, (page 16) provided to Governor Jeb Bush by Court-Appointed Guardian Jay Wolfson, the Schindlers have no desire to respect Terri’s wishes not to be kept alive in a vegetative state.
Testimony provided by members of the Schindler family included very personal statements about their desire to ensure that Theresa remain alive. Throughout the course of the litigation, deposition and trial testimony by members of the Schindler family voiced the disturbing belief that they would keep Theresa alive at any and all costs. Nearly gruesome examples were given, eliciting agreement by family members that in the event Theresa should contract diabetes and subsequent gangrene in each of her limbs, they would agree to amputate each limb, and would then, were she to be diagnosed with heart disease, perform open heart surgery.Since the Schindlers and some of their supporters are so irrational, arguing with them is the same as banging your head against a brickwall.There was additional difficult testimony that appeared to established that despite the sad and undesirable condition of Theresa, the parents still derived joy from having her alive, even if Theresa might not be at all aware of her environment given the persistent vegetative state.
Within the testimony, as part of the hypotheticals presented, Schindler family members stated that even if Theresa had told them of her intention to have artificial nutrition withdrawn, they would not do it. Throughout this painful and difficult trial, the family acknowledged that Theresa was in a diagnosed persistent vegetative state.
..........."Mrs. Shiavo's", as you call her,husband, has been in a adulterous affair, and fathered two children and is STILL living with said " other woman". Doubt if Terri could talk and express herself, she would want the " Mrs. " left on the name. !!!!!!!!
Why do you believe that it was or is her wish to die?. A husband who murders his wife could say that it was her wish to die. Death by starvation is not peaceful. We do not allow people to starve animals. They can be put to death, but not starved.
Just because Michael is her husband does not mean that he is telling the truth about her wishes. NO LIVING WILL was made. Anyone who is so determined to terminate a persons life should be looked at carefully.
Also a decent man would have allowed her priest to visit, better medical care, her parents to visit her. Also a decent man would not have a illicit relationship with another woman and have bastards by her. A decent man would make sure his children are legitimate. He could have gotten a divorce or annulment under the circumstances. He chose to have children that are bastards and have the courts terminate his wife.
Michaels actions does not show he is a decent man. His credibility has been questioned and correctly too. Also how can a Catholic in good faith ask for termination. If she was on a respirator and in a irreversible coma, I could understand taking off the respirator. But Terri is awake and somewhat aware, breathes on her own. She just can't swallow.
Many paralyzed people are in similar situations where ther need help to eat and breath. I dont't think brain damaged people should be terminated. There are a lot of retarded people that could be considered not worth keeping alive.
Husbands perogatives are not absolute and certainly his wish to have her dead can be questioned.
GONDRING ADDED: "Finally we agree on something. This case should be dropped immediately and allow Mrs. Schiavo to get some peace."
First off, BIGAMIST-father-of-two-BASTARD-children-possible-BOTCHED-ATTEMPTED-MURDERER-not-legally-qualified-guardian-husband Michael is wanting HIS wishes, NOT TERRI'S wishes, to be carried out!!!
Terri CHOSE NOT to file a fully-informed, Written Directive to LIMIT her access to medical or other supportive care!!!
Secondly, Terri would be better off and at "peace" if she could get Michael OUT of her life so her parents could get her the THERAPY Michael DEFRAUDED the malpractice court and jury into awarding for Terri's THERAPY and then he IMMEDIATELY POCKETED THE MONEY!!!
If Terri had actually had a "death" wish and didn't ever "want to live that way," then Michael KNEW IT BEFORE THE MALPRACTICE TRIAL EVEN STARTED!!! And he therefore, DEFRAUDED THE COURT!!!!!