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.
If it's too unsettling, don't climb in the ring with gloves on.
"It didn't take much for that to get turned into "Michael made the family leave at the moment of death,"
Oh no you don't-- If we're to believe Felos, who said that Michael was informed by staff that he'd "better get in there" because the end was moments away, your spin is most inaccurate. You can read what Felos said, that's his spin, so the truth must be worse.
So, you didn't read post #25, eh?
Oh, yes - I forgot. It would here.
No, this is the same priest who said they were denined....
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.
The truth can only be suppressed for so long.
There was only one post here about hating Michael. Do a search for yourself, troll.
I read it, but I don't care what Felos said. What I posted is what Bobby said. It is really hilarious that you would accuse someone of "sifting" for a version when you want to accept Felos' version over Bobby's.
"Oh, yes - I forgot. It would here."
Ad hominem on all FReepers. If the FACTS are too hot for you, get out of the kitchen.
It's all in who we choose to believe - a number of priests or a lying attorney.
"I read it, but I don't care what Felos said."
Apparently, in your convenient little universe, you don't care about what anyone says, unless it fits your preconceptions.
What about the FACTS, "Wild Turkey"?
He's a diamond formed in the intense pressures of the pro-life movement. He's the director of Priests for Life.
Bobby (who was in the room with Suzanne from 7 am til 8:50 or so) was escorted out by a policeman 10-15 min before Terri died when he insisted that he wanted, he needed to stay with Terri as he knew she was near death. They say he was 'creating a scene' . . . He's her BROTHER, her protector for all the years of their lives, of course he insisted on staying there, esp. as the ghouls were gathering to watch her draw her last precious breaths.
Who all was with Terri?
her loving husband, of course, and a few of his (and Terri's?) bestest buddies: felos, debra bushnell, hospice administrator, and hospice workers. But no police -- that would not have been appropriate for Terri's dignity, even though they had been right there in and at her room for all the time leading up to this. And certainly, no brother or sister.
btw, michael was provided with a room + bathroom in the hospice . . . and he (and in the last day, felos, debra bushnell) had the luxury of being right down the hall from Terri. So the OM can screw the crap about how he avoided the media cameras, as if he did some noble thing. besides, felos was there to hiss into the microphones any time it seemed to be to their advantage.
The Schindlers were afforded no such kindness, no room there at the hospice for their convenience and comfort -- even as they would be turned out of Terri's room at michael's desire, and have to leave and check back ("every half hour", Bobby was told in last day) to see when they might be permitted back in.
I thank God for the kind person who allowed them to stay at the shop across the street -- though they still had to walk through the rain, which was tremendous these past few weeks, the police, the dogs. . . the snipers on the roofs.
I take it from your post that you now equate the statements of George Felos with "the FACTS." An amazing progression.
I hate to be the schoolmarm here, but what he said was amazingly timed reflexes
It was a brilliant and caustic statement which exposed the ludicrous idea that Terri Schindler was some sort of "vegetative life" unworthy of being considered a human being.
She was conscious throughout her ordeal, and screaming inside for her parents - anyone - to help her.
But a thug state run by madmen could only laugh at her helplessness, as they enjoyed the cruelty of their verdict.
A bump for Fr. Pavone.
I had a thought on this statement regarding prisoners serving a life sentence without chance of parole. Since society has agreed that their lives are unproductive, can we now refuse to feed them? How 'bout if we follow Bill O'Reilly's recommendation and send such prisoners to the work in the ANWR, only now we could refuse to provide food, or any weapons for hunting.
Here we go again.
Last night there was a thread making a goofy demand that proof be offered that Pavone was not lying (a logical impossibility.)
Not all. But many. In fact, many have posted the same exact statement to which I was responding, logical fallacy and all.
Your assumptions are as far-fetched and as wrong as your preconceptions.
You might try asking me, rather than opening your opinions and inserting your foot.
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.