Posted on 03/23/2005 2:38:04 AM PST by JohnHuang2
In May 1995, Christopher Reeve was taking part in a cross-country equestrian event when a fall caused his skull to literally become separated from his spinal cord. He was totally paralyzed. Of that moment he later said, "It dawned on me I was going to be a huge burden to everybody, that I had ruined my life and everybody else's. Not fair to anybody. The best thing to do would be to slip away." When his wife, Dana, came into his room he looked at her and mouthed the words, "Maybe we should let me go."
His wife started crying and said, "I will support whatever you want to do, because this is your life and your decision. But I want you to know that I'll be with you for the long haul, no matter what. You are still you. And I love you." Reeve said that Dana's response to him "made living seem possible, because I felt the depth of her love and commitment. ... My job would be to learn how to cope with this and not be a burden. I would have to find new ways to be productive again."
Reeve went on to inspire the world with the depth of his commitment to his own life and that of others. Before his untimely passing in October of last year, he had taught all humanity of the value of life and the indomitable power of the human spirit.
Good thing for all of us that Christopher Reeve was not married to someone like Michael Schiavo.
When his own wife, Terri, made a throwaway comment to him – or so he claims – that should she ever be reduced to a severely disabled state that she would wish to die, Schiavo ran to fulfill her request. Unlike the Reeves who were put in a similar situation, in this particular exchange between wife and husband there was never an attempt to encourage Terri to embrace life.
Michael Schiavo could easily have said to his wife: "Honey, however you are, I will always love you. So get such silly ideas out of your head." No, Michael Schiavo, knight in shining armor that he is, merely promised his wife that, should she become mentally incapacitated, he would move heaven and earth to have her die. And they say that there are no good husband left in America.
America has never quite witnessed a husband like Michael Schiavo, a man who is prepared to take on the entire might of the United States government to ensure that his wife ends up six feet under. And who could fault him? After all, to great men like Michael Schiavo, a promise is a promise, unless of course, it's a promise of sexual fidelity in marriage.
Many people in America wish they were dead, none more so, it seems, than teenagers. According to the National Youth Violence Prevention Resource Center, almost 1 in 5 teens have seriously considered attempting suicide. More than 1 in 6 have made plans to attempt suicide. And more than 1 in 12 have made a suicide attempt in the past year.
Like many rabbis, priests and pastors, I have personally sat with a number of people who wanted to kill themselves. I sat with a 19-year-old girl who tried to slit her wrists because she thought she had already ruined her life. I have sat with women whose husbands, like Michael Schiavo, have abandoned them for another woman. They, too, have told me that the pain of rejection and the feeling like they are dried-up, used goods, has made them wish they were dead. And I have sat with men whom financial failure had left in such despair that they thought of serious violence against themselves.
In each of these circumstances, like any decent human being, I tried my utmost to inspire these individuals to choose life. I told them that this feeling of hopelessness would pass, that after feeling that they had hit rock bottom there was nowhere to go but up, that people loved them, that their lives were meaningful, that they dared not succumb to despair.
I remember how my own grandmother told me, on the steps of her apartment in Jerusalem, that now that one of her sons had died – my uncle David – she no longer wished to live. She told me that she was praying to God for death. Her words shocked me.
"Savta," I said, "do you know how much your family loves you. You're the leader of this family. We're all nothing without you. How could you say such a ridiculous thing. What about all of your children and grandchildren that are left?"
I also remember how I once sat with a man who had suffered severe financial reversals. His wife had divorced him after they had taken away his house. He told me that he had planned on killing himself and the only thing that stopped him was a rabbi who came to see him and told him: "Today, you look at the world through dark sunglasses, and everything appears dark. But take off the sunglasses and you'll see the light. There are still so many blessings in your life. And things will get better. I promise." Thank God this man did not first speak to someone like Michael Schiavo.
Whenever we have a choice between life and death, the Bible commands us to stalwartly "choose life," the only exception being the right to take the life of a murderer who has forfeited his own life by taking that of another.
With regards to an utterly innocent woman like Terri Schiavo, the choice is clear. The time has come for Michael Schiavo, who has proved himself an inadequate husband in every respect, to just go away and let this poor woman's parents take care of her. Let him find some other cause worth fighting for. Putting your wife to death just doesn't seem worthy enough.
There have been numerous press reports that Scott Peterson has been receiving marriage proposals in prison, and I suppose that given the desperate loneliness of so many people in America this is not completely surprising. But I would find it hard to believe that even the loneliest woman would ever want to be married to someone like Michael Schiavo, who will make it a personal crusade to see his wife dead.
As for the rest of us, let's remember this is the richest country in the world. We can afford to provide food for a woman who can't feed herself. For who among us will really be able to say "I'm proud to be an American" if we let this child of God die a most brutal and barbaric death?
OK, I am crying again. A tear jerker to start your day. Excellent article.
Excellent argument.
Peterson: I could've used the Michael Schiavo method...
Let's hope for her sake his next wife gets a very specific Living Will. And maybe one for Mikey, as a wedding present.
Boteach's passion is always intense. Half the time, I can't stand his stuff. This time, I adore it.
Preach it, Rabbi!
Extraordinary. Thanks for posting.
I really appreciate all of those who would rather to save a life than to kill.
I love this man.
Thank you John for posting this. So many of us feel so helpless, so frustrated and angry, and so confused about how the heck this could happen.
Of course we join legions in prayers, call & leave messages in DC & Fla & send Emails to the same. But still we feel empty and helpless over this.
It would be very easy to make comparisons between this woman's husband and the convicted killer, Scott Peterson. Why don't they just give her husband a gun and let him shoot her in the head? A lame horse is given better treatment. But she is not a horse and there are people who are willing to care for her. Why is this man so determined to kill his wife? That is why I begin to compare him with Scott Peterson.
I am saddened that there is even consideration that the strong get to exterminate the weak. Had there been a living will, there would at least be substance to the idea that she did not want to live if she were not perfect. With her death comes the question as to whether the government will begin ordering the deaths of other brain damaged persons, those with lower IQs, those who need assistance to get around?
Do I need to spell out whose policies are being embraced by those who want the weak to die to please the strong?
Sometimes good intentions matter. However, the barbarism of killing the infirm without documented evidence of support by the victim overwhelms whatever good intentions are being spoken.
The crowd that is worried about being trapped in suspended animation, and so they are arguing in his favor of now ending her life, wishes to ignore the timeline during which he failed to honor her request.
The crowd that is worried about being trapped in suspended animation, and so they argue that they do not want outside interference against their wishes (I agree), still cannot face the fact that Michael did not comply as they now wish to imagine that their spouse or guardian would.
The crowd that is worried about being trapped in suspended animation, envisions that they will be only held in suspended animation for some few days or perhaps a couple weeks, but the Michael Schiavo standard for honoring your wishes to "not live like that," is to NOT honor your wishes until AFTER a 2,800 day time period.
Regarding Terri Schiavo: Facts Should Trump Emotions and Activism
by Frank Salvato
Mar 22, 2005
So it has come to this, a true test to see if the American political system, judicial system and the American public as a whole have the ability to set aside emotion and activism in deference to the facts. So far the jury is out on this question. Just as it is out on the question of whether or not Terri Schiavo will live or die. Personally, I think we can do better, much better.
I find it reprehensible that in an age when gathering facts has never been easier or more convenient, most among us prove delinquent in doing so, even in matters of life and death and especially in those that will set precedent for future actions. It is grave evidence that our society is in a “persistent vegetative state” where the overbearing voice of the activist agenda trumps not only the good of the people but common sense. Our failure to ascertain facts or even be tempted by unanswered questions renders us neutered by political correctness. This is the death knell of civic responsibility and thus moves us closer to being considered cowards in the eyes of our Founders.
It has become apparent that there is a need to consider the facts before we can be moved to consider the questions that they raise. To this end the mainstream media has been abhorrently delinquent, opting instead to report sensational half-facts ala The Enquirer circa 1975. This proves one of two things or perhaps both; that the mainstream media has lost its ability to report the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, and that it has turned into an activist propaganda machine hell-bent on the destruction of the American right to be informed.
Many questions have been raised over the course of the Terri Schiavo case. The astounding thing is that few have been answered. Instead we see reluctance by the court to explore all avenues of knowledge available while it consistently rules in favor of a petitioner whose motives are questionable at best. Make no mistake, a court that refuses to examine all facets of an issue and excludes expert testimony presenting an alternative opinion can only be classified as an activist court.
Terri Schiavo did not have a Living Will. Therefore, the issue of her wishes is open to question. While it is normal for our society to depend on the spouse to convey the wishes of the critically disabled or injured, in circumstances when immediate family members hold adamant opposition to a matter concerning decisions of life and death we must insist that all voices be heard.
In this instance the Schindlers (Terri Schiavo’s parents), practicing Catholics who have always considered their family close, claim that Terri would never have considered ending her life given these circumstances. While the tenets of Terri’s religion reinforce this claim, her spouse, with no other proof than his word, claims otherwise. Thus we have a “He-Said-She-Said” dilemma. That is until we hear a statement made by an ex-girlfriend of Michael Schiavo’s referred to only as “Cyndi” due to the fact that she fears the man. Obviously this is why she is an “ex-girlfriend.”
On April 25th of 2001 Cyndi stated that Michael Schiavo admitted to lying about Terri expressing anything about her wishes regarding life sustaining treatment in the event of severe disability. While Cyndi later refused to testify citing her fear of Michael Schiavo, the issue became moot when just a day later on April 26th Judge George Greer refused to hear any testimony at all regarding Michael Schiavo’s statement. No investigation. No consideration. Nothing.
To say the least, Terri Schiavo’s wishes remain in question. For the courts to rule on behalf of Michael Schiavo based solely on the legal point that he is the next of kin, especially in light of her parents’ declarations and the silenced testimony of a woman who feared for her well being, is irresponsible and grounds for Judge Greer’s removal from the case, if not the bench.
Florida Statute 765.101 defines a persistent vegetative state (PVS) as being a permanent and irreversible condition of unconsciousness in which there is: a) The absence of voluntary action or cognitive behavior of any kind, and b) An inability to communicate or interact purposefully with the environment. The opinion that Terri Schiavo’s behavior meets the medical and/or statutory definition of PVS doesn’t take into account that she responds to stimuli, tries to communicate verbally, follows limited commands, laughs and cries in interaction with loved ones, physically distances herself from irritating or painful stimulation and watches loved ones as they move around her. These observations were made by medical professionals and are on record. Further no MRI or PET scans have ever been performed on Terri Schiavo on orders issued by her “husband.”
The question here is, who determined that Terri Schiavo met the criteria for being in PVS? While 14 independent doctors — including six neurologists — adamantly refute the diagnosis of PVS, stating that therapy would be beneficial to Ms. Schiavo, Judge Greer has consistently excluded their testimony in favor of opinions from four doctors that adhere to the PVS diagnosis.
Of the 4 doctors selected to be the court’s medical authorities, three were hand-picked by Michael Schiavo and one was selected by Judge Greer.
Dr. Peter Bambakidis, appointed by Greer, has questionable affiliations with Michael Schiavo’s lawyer George Felos.
Dr. Melvin Greer insists that a doctor need not examine a patient to know the appropriate medical treatment.
Dr. Victor Gambone has stated that he has been startled by Terri Schiavo’s awareness.
Dr. Ronald Cranford, is on the board of the Euthanasia Society of America, has ties to the Hemlock Society and even advocates denial of spoon-feeding for the disabled.
To say the very least, the word impartial cannot be used when discussing the medical testimony provided in this case, neither can the word thorough. In fact, the “deck was stacked” in Michael Schiavo’s favor, something easily done when one is the “dealer.” To say that there are no unanswered questions and no bias regarding the medical opinions issued in the Terri Schiavo case is to be ignorant of the facts and ignorant of the truth.
Add to just these two issues the following facts, and I beg you, challenge yourself to be curious as to why:
Terri Schiavo has always been able to swallow but her “husband” denied her the therapy that would allow her to re-learn how to eat even though the therapy is considered mandatory by Florida Statute 744.3215, even to those diagnosed with PVS.
Although Michael Schiavo was awarded $600,000 of his own in a malpractice award regarding this case he has squandered the million dollars plus settlement that was to pay for Terri Schiavo’s medical care. A ruling by Judge Greer has allowed that money to be spent on Michael’s attorney’s fees.
Although Michael Schiavo has remained married to Terri he has fathered two children with his girlfriend whose mother has a connection with the county sheriff (this would prove convenient when trying to allude investigation into anything that might be construed as criminal).
Michael Schiavo filed a petition to prohibit the media from seeing Terri’s neurological examination videotapes or airing the videos to the public after they had been presented to the court as evidence.
Michael Schiavo has petitioned to have Terri cremated immediately after her death.
The list of questionable issues surrounding this case goes on and on and on.
To say that this case is a tragedy would be the understatement of the millennium. To say that this is a case about advocating the agenda of the Right to Life crowd is ludicrous. This is more than a tragedy and it is slowly becoming a judicial travesty. This case is about whether the life of another human being, a damaged human being but a human being nevertheless, should be snuffed out by the stroke of a pen and the disconnection of a feeding tube, all on the unsubstantiated word of a man who couldn’t even honor the vow of “’Til death do we part.” This case is about a murder of convenience.
Florida courts have long been known for leaning towards the liberal and activist agendas. In most instances of their activism the remedy of judicial prudence was found in appeals to the federal court. This time they have come dangerously close to setting a precedent that would allow for the legitimization of an ideology that would advocate the termination of the infirmed. It is chilling.
Image that when you arrive at old age you become afflicted with a debilitating disease, your mouth doesn’t want to do what you want it to and your speech isn’t what it used to be. Your arms and legs aren’t as quick to react as they once were. You are incontinent and as your body begins to wear out you require the aid of a feeding tube for nutrition and therapy to help you maintain any semblance of mobility. Your memory is fading but you are aware and appreciative of your surroundings, your family and your friends.
Now imagine Michael Schiavo is your guardian.
Sleep well, we all get older.
Frank Salvato is a political media consultant and managing editor for The Rant.us
No kidding! This is most inspiring.
Oh dear. Crying my eyes out.
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.