Posted on 06/20/2005 8:40:58 PM PDT by FairOpinion
Terri Schiavo's husband buried her cremated remains in a Clearwater cemetery Monday, inscribing on her bronze grave marker that ``I kept my promise.''
David Gibbs, an attorney for the woman's parents, Bob and Mary Schindler, said inscribing the marker that way was a nasty political statement by Michael Schiavo, who held the service and burial Monday before telling her family.
``Obviously, that's a real shot and another unkind act toward a grieving mom and dad,'' Gibbs said.
After earlier announcing plans to bury his wife's ashes in their native Pennsylvania, Michael Schiavo instead interred them at Sylvan Abbey Memorial Park in Clearwater, near Tampa, his attorney, George Felos, said in a short news release Monday.
(Excerpt) Read more at sun-sentinel.com ...
My first statement to back up my claim/suspicion of the autopsy was right there in the paragraph I posted, but since that wasn't good enough, here's this, straight from my fingertips : the autopsy of the body AFTER two weeks of starvation and dehydration does NOT constitute a valid autopsy of Terri's health before they pulled her tube. Of course the brain matter is severely deteriorated! It is largely water, if not neurons and other cells, and will be severely affected by decreased water in the body. Why do you think headaches happen?
I have not once made any claim to be a medical expert, but the above fact alone hold the autopsy in HIGH suspicion for me, especially when coupled with the knowledge that Michael did not allow for any extensive scans immediately upon her entry into the hospital.
Now Peach, I have this to say before I log off and return to REAL Life : YOU DO NOT STARVE SOMEONE TO DEATH.
I'm curious about how the idea of a "restraining order" came to mind.
Did the judge accept their testimony under oath that they were half kidding?
Did they explain the circumstances under which Michael was "so demanding"?
Did any of the staff say they were actually afraid of him, then, or at any other time?
Was Michael pleased by the idea of their joking about a restraining order against him?
Ask 100 people if they'd want to live in that condition and the vast majority will say no. You aren't alone.
Thanks for your explanation. Your posts were nasty in tone and so when I got nasty in return, you'll have to forgive me.
If you would like to read more about this matter, the Wolfson Report to Jeb Bush is widely regarded as the best report to read.
http://home.comcast.net/~trinity_tx/wolfson.htm
Most or all of us wouldn't want to asphyxiate someone to death, either.
But, if that someone would prefer to not be kept alive in a PVS on a ventilator (or a feeding tube), so be it.
No one said they were afraid of him. He was such a demanding husband that he made their jobs more difficult.
You really haven't read any of the court testimony have you?
It might be a good idea.
READ THE AUTOPSY REPORT! if you can.
SHE WAS NOT STARVED TO DEATH!
What part of that, don't you comprehend?
Perhaps he had a hard time getting the money together?
I do, however, quibble that the conclusion that there had been nothing that could have been successful in treating her is very wrong, to wit: the ability to swallow. Stroke victims suffer from this malady because part of their brain tissue has been affected in such a way that they cannot swallow on their own. Does that mean we should all simply pull the tube on them, declare them vegetative states, and hope for the best? I know quite well that there is very good therapy that has a very high success rate in retraining the brain to learn how to swallow again. If Michael had been concerned in his efforts to do this, the question of "letting her go" may never have come into being. Too many people know this about medicine to see this PVS/quality of life debate as fallacious in its logic for the "right to die" crowd.
That is where I stand with it.
Be careful. Someone's likely to chime in and slap you down with something like, "This isn't about you. STFU."
Plenty of us have been on the receiving end of that kind of 'love'.
The more you post, the more I realize you don't know much beyond which the media has spoonfed you.
as far as I am concerned removing a feeding tube and only JUST allowing a few drops of water on the lips to alleviate chapping does NOT constitute a "dignified" death. SHE STARVED TO DEATH, AT THE BEQUEST OF HER LEGAL GUARDIAN, THE HINO MICHAEL SCHIAVO.
Terri had the best care available for three years. Everyone involved in the case acknowledges that.
After the doctors said there was no hope, most therapy stopped.
What do you think "witness" means?
If I had used that logic on my preemie baby, I would never allowed them to put it in her right after her birth. As it was, it was taken off three days after her birth because she started breathing on her own. But during that time, do you think I sould have seriously considered removing the one source of nourishment she was getting outside my body????
Now why would they want to read court transcripts
or any legal documents?
B/c said documents would prove them wrong!
Was that the three years AFTER Michael attempted to starve her to death the first time?????
Especially when you have Newsmax, WND and Empire Journal to tell you what to think.
I think that is a wonderful idea.
In addition -- Perhaps a Florida animal sanctuary could be named after her, since tender-hearted Terri cared so much about animals.
Exactly. Far better to remain ignorant and not actually do any READING of official documents. You post the truth to people and get called a Nazi. We've both seen in happen.
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.