No matter what, I had to think about all the talks we had about her dying. I was lucky, because no one protested her wishes.
Not surprising that they discussed Charmaine's wishes due to her illness. The fact that no one protested suggests that there was no serious dispute as to the extent of her wishes. Given the time, she may well have put them in writing or otherwise memorialized them in some way. In Terri's case, the only evidence of her wishes was the testimony of her husband. To suggest there is some question as to his credibility or the weight that should be given to his assertions would be an understatement.
Consider: 1. Terri was a practicing Catholic, whose faith abhors this outcome; 2. Michael testified in the malpractice suit that he would always care for Terri, and requested funds based on a life expectancy of forty to fifty years; 3. Michael made no mention of these wishes on Terri's parts until several years had elapsed; 4. there was at least one other witness (a friend of Terri's) who testified that Terri's wishes would be to live (testimony that was erroneously excluded by Judge Greer); 5. Michael had a clear conflict of interest-- even if you don't consider the allegations of trouble in the marriage, he had a new "wife" in all but name and two children-- no lawyer would be permitted to represent someone with a conflict of interest like that.
Michael Schiavo tried for several years to rehabilitate his wife, even taking her to California for an experimental brain treatment, but nothing worked.
It is my understanding that all treatment terminated upon receipt of the malpractice award. At the time he sought the award, it would be in Michael's interest to pursue aggressive therapy, thereby supporting his argument that he needed a lot of money to care for Terri. It supports his damage claim. In the malpractice suit, he certainly doesn't want to be asked, "How much do you need for her care?" and have to answer, "Well, not much, she isn't getting any therapy and she wants to die anyway." So you have to weigh the aggressive therapy with that in mind, particularly given its abrupt termination.
CNN reported that Terri Schiavo’s husband Michael was with her when she died.
And yet he excluded her birth family. Why? Michael, after all, has built his entire claim on Terri's supposed unconscious state. Her parents believed she was aware of their presence; Michael vehemently disagreed. Would it not have been more consistent, and kinder, to let her spend her last moments with those who believed it would make a difference?
This article is drastically different from Terri's situtation. The author had a wife who was terminally ill, had plenty of opportunity to fully express and even memorialize her wishes, and he had no conflict of interest of the magnitude Michael Schiavo had.
Finally, you noted “… along with the privilege of free speech comes the responsibility to respect the rights of others. Please remember to use courtesy when posting, refrain from personal attacks and do not use profane or obscene language.”
Given that reminder, I was surprised by your comments accompanying this article. You opened by directing your post in the hope that there is "one human being out there with something resembling a mind," and closing by saying, "With people like you to represent the soi-dissant "conservative viewpoint", it is no wonder that most Americans are sick to death of politics...." Not sure I'd call that courteous, but I guess opinions differ.
Excellent post. I totally agree, but there are people who refuse to see the difference, and refuse to consider that Michael Schiavo had good reason to want his wife dead.
For example, if someone is dying from terminal cancer, and they don't want to be put on a ventilator, they shouldn't. Food, water, and medication will not prolong this person's life, but will keep him/her comfortable until natural death occurs.