Posted on 03/23/2005 9:54:43 AM PST by OESY
When is a husband not a husband? That's the question that keeps scratching at the back door of the hospice where Terri Schiavo lay slowly dying of starvation through the weekend.
Whatever happens to her now, following an emergency bill early Monday that allowed Schiavo's parents to ask a federal judge to reinsert their daughter's feeding tube, the saga of Terri Schiavo has forced the nation to ask some tough questions.
We can argue endlessly about whether Schiavo's existence passes our own personal muster for "quality of life," and argue we should. What bitter decision is this, to let a woman die? What question more deserving of our sweat and tears?
But the fact that Schiavo's fate has rested in the hands of a man who is her husband in title only is both mystifying and maddening. If we resolve nothing else, some of our energy will be well spent examining the criteria used to determine who is best qualified to protect a disabled person's interests.
Michael Schiavo, who was Terri Schiavo's husband when she suffered a heart attack and severe brain damage 15 years ago, today lives with another woman with whom he has had two children. Except that he has never sought a divorce from Terri - and therefore by law has final say over her life - he is by no normal definition her "husband."
Put another way, we can safely bet that if Terri Schiavo were aware that her husband was parking his shoes under another woman's dust ruffle, she likely would declare her marriage kaput. That Michael Schiavo still has authority to end her life, or "let her die" as we prefer to call it, adds injury to the insult that has become her existence.
Giving the devil his due, Michael Schiavo began fighting this nightmarish battle long ago, insisting that his wife would prefer to die than live in the vegetative state that is her life. He claims she told him as much, though in the absence of witnesses or any written document, who knows? One needn't be a cynic to observe that husbands and wives do not always act in the best interests of their spouses.
The question - why won't Schiavo divorce his wife and let her parents care for her as they have requested? - has no satisfactory answer. Schiavo claims he persists in seeking Terri's demise out of respect for her wishes and to end her suffering. He insists that he stands to gain nothing from her death, noting that there is no life insurance policy.
Instead, he has alleged that Terri's parents, Bob and Mary Schindler, are motivated by interest in money from a medical malpractice suit that awarded the Schiavos $1.2 million more than 10 years ago, most of which, Schiavo claims, has been spent on rehabilitation for his wife.
The enmity between Michael Schiavo and the Schindlers is no secret. There are enough disagreements between the two families to keep therapists in Volvos for decades. Terri Schiavo might remove the feeding tube herself were she aware of the many peripheral dramas attendant to her fate.
Even granting Michael Schiavo the benefit of the doubt, however, his insistence that Terri be starved to death when her parents want to care for her borders on the bizarre. Speaking as a parent, imagining some future spouse trying to arrange my child's death puts me in mind of a mama grizzly, whose company would be far preferable to mine should the little outlaw prevail. (Note to self: Clip column for rehearsal dinner toast).
Terri Schiavo's life surely is not what any of us would choose, but it is life - of a sort. She breathes on her own, opens her eyes, responds to stimulation, seems to smile at her mother, makes noises in response to others' voices. Is this a life worth living? I don't know, but it is living, whereas withholding sustenance surely guarantees the opposite.
The fact that the nation has become unhinged over these proceedings is a source of some solace. We should find "letting die" troublesome.
There may be no miracles this week for Terri Schiavo, not least of which would be her husband's overdue granting of a divorce. But the rest of us could do worse when in doubt to err on the side of life. It is short enough - and miserable at times like these - without our help.
Presuming that the husband IS doing everything that his wife wanted, presuming that he IS acting in her best interest - geez, he's being the best possible kind of husband that we women could ever hope to find/have.
I would think so also.
The problem here, is that this husband seems to be the only person who "knew" what his wife wanted.
A fair concern, but legally it doesn't matter.
If your beautiful wife had some kind of chance to rehab, despite being brain-damaged, would you fight so hard to have her die?
I can only answer that by using Terry as the yard stick in answering. My wife would want me to do exactly as Michael has done. There is no question. I would move hell and high water before I let others State, Feds, "Right to Lifers" whatever, from standing between my wifes wishes and I.
seeking to put her to a "painless" death by starvation?
I'll admit that I have a problem with the death by starvation. Its chickensh&t. If it were my wife I would find the means to do it quickly and at my own hands if need be. Consequences be dammed.
the slightest chance that I could be a viable person again, I want the chance. ALL the chances.
I think the standard then is "viable person" I don't mean medically either. A viable person that my wife would want to live as. Different for everyone.
Terri has been denied all chances here by her husband. He refused to allow her any chance to be more than the state she's in. This is why we're all on edge about it. It could be you. Or me. Our daughters, our sons.
Again, maybe thats what she wanted. I don't know. Her husband is definitely someone that should know. A&&hole or not.
I know how you feel. It is maddening. What is happening to Terri right now is wrong on just SO MANY moral and legal levels. This is an extremely low point in our nation, where someone (even a parent) can be barred from giving a helpless person water (!!!), and be arrested for trying. I've talked to my husband about this. If he were in such a situation, I would NEVER consider letting him starve to death. If he were on life support and I felt it was hopeless, but his parents wanted to keep him on life support and pay for the expenses, there is just NO QUESTION that the right thing to do would be to leave the decision to his parents. It would just be insult on top of injury to make such a decision to let him go against his parent's wishes. And I can't even image what it would be like if something like this happened to my son and I wasn't allowed to care for him when he was at his most helpless.
Could go either way, in my opinion...and we will never know for sure. Absolutes only work for fanatics in this case.
So he should have remained celibate for the 14(?) years that his wifes cerebral cortex has been destroyed?
Would you have felt better if he had stopped by every couple days and just ....(I'll just stop there)
Yes - you're right. I can't argue with you on that point. This is all so emotionally charged.
No, he should have divorced her and gone on with his life - I would have no problem with that.
But to stayed married simply to control her while not abiding by his marital vows makes a mockery of the marriage. He wants all the rights that come with being a spouse, but he doesn't feel enough respect and love for her to abide by the marital vows. And I am not just talking about adultery, as he has not allowed Terri to have the rehabilitation that might could help her.
I wish he would divorce her and go on with his life and let Terri remain in the care of those who really have loved and cared for her from the beginning.
No he didn't. In the trial court there was a dispute about guardianship and M.S. petitioned the court to allow the judge to act as the surrogate decision-maker, and the Judge appointed himself as the proxy. The judge made the decision to remove all nutrition and hydration, not M.S. Look at the court record.
Cordially,
What I don't understand if they were Catholic, why did they not marry in the church or was one of them divorced and they did not want to follow the teachings of their church? In that case, why would they want their children to?
Would you still say:
"I apologize to you for putting you in this predicament but you know me better than anyone else and you know what I want.
Go find happiness my love. Find another that loves you as much as I have."
After Michael Schiavo sat down and calmly declared on national TV that Terri wasn't being starved to death when that is precisely what is happening to her, he lost all credibility. IMHO, when he received the settlement, $700,000 of which was for her care, he decided he wanted the $700,000 and concocted the story about her saying she preferred to be killed rather than live as a disabled person.
Michale's childred are bastards under Florida law because he's married to Terri, not his current paramour.
First of all there is a big difference between being a paraplegic and not having a cerebral cortex. At least try for an analogy that makes sense.
As to your question, again hell yes. I want her there because she wants to be. Pity sex might be your thing but not mine.
If I'm paralyzed from the chest down though I can assure you she won't be going anywhere... If ya know what I mean. BWHAHA.
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.