Posted on 04/01/2005 7:47:01 AM PST by marshmallow
FATHER FRANK PAVONE, PRIESTS FOR LIFE, NATIONAL DIRECTOR: Last night, I spent about two hours with her until past midnight, together with Bobby Schindler and Suzanne, and then again this morning for about an hour and a half, and then right up until about ten minutes before she died. We were praying, most of that time was spent simply in prayer, in quiet, just caressing her, and assuring her, also, of the prayers and concern of so many people around the world.
Q: Was their any sign of response from Terri Schiavo?
PAVONE: Yes. And let me tell you, I’ll preface that by saying I visited with her several times before the feeding tube was removed. She was very responsive--closing her eyes when I said, “Let’s pray together, Terri,” opening them up after the prayer. Smiling, returning the kiss of her father. Turning her eyes to me when I spoke to her. In many other ways, as well, responsive.
Even today, although, of course, with the effects of the dehydration, her response was much less. Nevertheless, her eyes were open, her eyes were moving, and as I prayed with her, her eyes were shifting over toward my direction--even until the last moments that I was with her.
Q: Now, of course, we are going over old territory, but it’s important to note here, you’ve heard the doctors who suggest that that is all reflexive, that none of it was a conscious movement on her part--either eye movement or anything else. What do you say to that?
PAVONE: Certainly amazingly-time “reflexes.” I’ll give the doctors the benefit of their own expertise. But this raises, of course, the deeper moral issue. Give them what they are saying. What does that mean? That someone at a lower level of functioning can just be starved to death?
That, of course, is the bigger question here. This is not just a death. This is a killing.
And we have to ask ourselves, has our nation now begun to go down the road of killing those who are disabled, simply because somebody says that they want to be killed?
Terri didn’t die today from anything except the fact that her food and water were withheld for the last two weeks. She had no other underlying illness whatsoever. This is a case of throwing away a disabled person.
Q: Father, do we know what happened to the Schindlers, Terri’s parents, during these final moments?
PAVONE: Yes. We were in communication with them this morning by phone, and they were then on their way over here, actually, when we heard the news of Terri’s passing, and then all of us were together inside the hospice just moments after that announcement. They went in to Terri, of course, to embrace her body. I stood at the door and offered the prayers of the church, for those who are just deceased, and of course we sat and just consoled on another, and now they are grieving privately at home. They are going to have a statement a little later.
Q: Were you able to give Terri her last rites?
PAVONE: I was able to give Terri absolution last night. She had already been given the fuller last rites of the Church by other priests in recent days.
Q: It sounds as though, thankfully, there was not a direct conflict between the Schindlers and the Schiavos during these last moments.
PAVONE: Yes. Thanks be to God. Had she lived another hour or so, I’m afraid there might have been, because Bobby was saying, “I will be glad to be in her room, even with Michael there. I want to be there.” And Michael was saying, “No. I don’t want that.” But then she died before that conflict when any further.
Q: There was no reconciliation, then, between the two parties in this fight?
PAVONE: Not as of this moment. I have appealed publicly to Michael to reconsider his whole position here. And even now that Terri has died, I make that appeal to him again, because, again, this affects people way beyond Terri. This affects many, many people who are and are going to be in similar situations.
We all have to, as we grieve, examine our consciences, and say, “What are we going to do with the disabled? How are we going to treat them?”
Q: Some people say this is such a unique situation, because she didn’t have a living will, because there was some dispute about whether Michael had her intentions in mind, that this makes a bad case to base any kind of precedent on. What would you say to that?
PAVONE: Well, first of all, as far as how people should handle these situations, a healthcare proxy--namely, a person who can speak for you, if you are in a situation where you can’t speak for yourself--is much better than having a piece of paper. A piece of paper cannot interpret itself. People can begin arguing over what a piece of paper says, just as they can argue over what people said to them verbally. The best thing is to have a living person who knows you, whom you trust, whom you’ve discussed these issues with, and who then, when you are in medical circumstances in which you cannot speak for yourself, that person can get, from the doctors, the exact details of what can be done for you, and then in consultation with the clergy of their choice, make the proper decision at those moments.
So, in that sense, yes. There were elements here that led to the conflict. However, the solution is broader than that. We do have, here, a classic case of the question of throwing away disabled people. This woman was killed. She didn’t die of a terminal illness. She was killed, and it is a matter, therefore, of conscience, right now, for us all to ask: “Is this what we are going to continue to do with brain-injured people?” Because, whether they have expressed their wishes or not, obviously it can result in their death, as has happened today.
Q: Father Pavone, is the nation better off for having examined the issues that came to the fore with Terri Schiavo’s death?
PAVONE: We are much better off for having examined them. We at Priests for Life work with the clergy throughout the country. We will ensure that we continue to examine them in the teaching and preaching of the Church, and in the discussion among the people. We would be glad to be part of that whole debate as it ensues.
Thank you syriacus. I get touchy when Fr. Pavone is abused.
I don't know if it was live or not - Pavone was on at the same time, though - it must've been Scarborough, because I remember him having Pavone on - and he agreed with the version and, when challenged, backed far away from claiming that 'Michael ordered the family out at the moment of death."
I know a good deal about Russell actually.
I like the quote. I also like Russell's quote that "the time you enjoy wasting is not wasted time." I guess that makes me an atheist, too - even though Russell wasn't.
Sloppy. Russell would be disappointed. I never said you were an atheist. I said you appeared to be an admirer of Russell. I still believe that.
Russell was an atheist. And a most enthusiastic opponent of organised religion.
Ok...thanks...
I'm looking for it
"I stated that I chose to disregard Felos' version in favor of Bobby's..."
No, you stated, in post #49, that "...the reason he protested leaving was not because Terri was going to die in the next few minutes, but because the last time it was "Michael's turn" to be in the room had lasted for several hours and Bobby did not want to be excluded again for that length of time...
It didn't take much for that to get turned into "Michael made the family leave at the moment of death," however."
Thus, you exonerated Michael by your exclusion of any other explanation.
This being your conclusory statement, you left no such indication that there were opposing views (and the opposing views in this case came from the Schiavo camp itself, no less).
The FACTS are that there are ALREADY numerous versions of what happened in those last few minutes (most being given by Mr. Felos himself). Your version of the Bobby Schindler comments that you have produced in post #49 have been challenged, and you seem to be somewhat alone in your remembrance of the Scarborough show, or whatever.
MS did himself no favor by not inviting the family in during the last moments, no matter whether he ordered them out, or whether he simply took advantage of the "my turn" rule (if there ever was such a rule). This action has spite written all over it.
I am so impressed, that you are capable of hanging a label on the man that he himself didn't think was a proper description of his beliefs. I guess you know more about his thoughts than he did himself.
Sorry, but I respectfully see that as spin. Understandable from any side I guess tho, as it goes back to what I said about who you believe.
Yeah, I caught that too.
There's a wee problem with that Felos logic: Father Pavone didn't utter that "venom" until AFTER the Schindlers were already kicked out of the room, and after Terri was already dead.
"MS did himself no favor by not inviting the family in during the last moments, no matter whether he ordered them out, or whether he simply took advantage of the "my turn" rule (if there ever was such a rule). This action has spite written all over it."
This about sums up the way I see it too.
"Father Pavone didn't utter that "venom" until AFTER the Schindlers were already kicked out of the room, and after Terri was already dead."
Yes! Thank you! I was trying to focus on what disturbed me about Felos' statement and now I get it- that's IT.
So, it it your understanding of the "facts" that everyone, including Michael and Bobby, knew that she was about to die and Michael therefore ordered the family out?
My daughter's pet iguana was more sympathetic to humans than Felos.
On "Fox and Friends" this morning I could see his throat moving quite a bit, right before he first spoke. Like he was uncomfortable. Not exactly "Gulp. Gulp. Gulp," but something similar. I didn't notice any other guests' throats moving like that.
Maybe Felos is now under pressure to neatly tie up the loose ends. His efforts could still be found wanting, according to the thinking of those he has so faithfully served.
Meaningless.
Michael Schiavo doesn't consider himself to be a murderer. John Gotti considered himself to be a "business man". So what? We all must accept their image of how they see themselves?
Russell's estimation of his own pigeon hole was as fallacious as most of his other beliefs.
Got a problem with me? Then you have a problem with the atheists, too. He is considered, in atheistic circles, to be among the Patron Saints of Atheism
In any event, whether atheist or agnostic, it is indisputable that he was hostile to organized religion.
He's a brave soul, speaking the truth. A prophet, in a way. God bless him.
In response to a question (I think from Alan Colmes) regarding Felo's pretty-pretty description of the death scene, Father Pavone got pretty agitated.
He said Terri's last minutes were "anything but" peaceful and serene. He said Terri appeared to be gasping desperately for breath, and that the expression on her face was one of "fear." Terri's brother and sister were stroking her arm and her hair and trying to comfort her.
Father Pavone used the word "sugar-coating" to describe Felos's portrayal of Terri's death.
I read that as just a very wordy way of you saying that you DO know more about his beliefs, and where they fit into the spectrum of belief systems, than he did himself. Good for you.
Hmmm... I thought I heard Pavone say that he wasn't there. Oh, well.
What he did was evil.
Forget about me for a moment.
In atheistic circles, Russell is revered. Widely.
What does that tell you?
Father Pavone was with Terri until ten minutes before her death. But you knew that.
Oh, but wait -- I get it now! -- you think that Terri's condition in her last night minutes changed from desperate and fearful to "peaceful, calm, and serene." Right after the Schindlers were kicked out!
Aw, how sweet. And oh so pretty, with that cute little cuddly toy under her arm. And I've got a pretty bridge in Brooklyn I could sell you too.
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.