Thanks for providing the image, FairOpinion
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 ...
Thanks for providing the image, FairOpinion
DEEJAY - WAS SHE DYING before they removed the tube?
Promise?
Do you want the entire country in the room when you - or your spouse or parent or child - is dying? What makes you think you have the right to interject yourself in this or any other family's tragedy? Do you have no regard for personal privacy?
Both sides have villified each other.
I just wanted to clear up some slander against the mother by providing a link to the judge's ruling in 2000.
She was killed by forced removal of water and food. Dehydration beat out starvation apparently. I'll let others debate the term murder. If some think that a court's approval makes killing justfiable that is their problem not mine.
Did you miss the part where I said her body was rescussitated?
Florida does not require a written advance directive to reject or terminate medical treatment. The court ruled, and was upheld at every level of the state and federal judiciary, that Terri did not wish to be artificially kept alive under those circumstances. It required a court order because the Schindlers were determined to impose their wishes, and to keep Terri's body alive for as long as medically possible, even if that involved such things as amputation of limbs.
Why the refusal to let the family be with her in her final moments?
After five years of being dragged through the legal process, and being the subject of accusations and insinuations that he was an abuser and attempted murderer, my guess is that MS wasn't feeling much inclined to be cooperative.
Why the necessity of shielding her from all assistance?
What are you talking about?
You are just too lame
to discuss this matter
with.
Have a good one. Don't sweat it. You don't have to live in their skins. What a torture that would be!
Oooops, but then at that point, it wouldnt BE about MY choices anymore, would it? It would all be about my hubby's.
Which brings us right back to the whole beginning of this thread : this burial was all about Michael and not Terri and what she wanted. She never had a voice because Michael controlled EVERY aspect...as would MY husband who wouldnt want the public to see what two weeks of STARVATION can do to a body and brain.
thanks for proving my point!
Well, you have proved one thing.
I say she WAS NOT dying, therefore her death was unnecessary...except for Michael Schiavo, who has gained a victory for right to die crowd. Hope you're proud of him.
This is the judge's ruling from 2000.
http://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/trialctorder02-00.pdf
The mother was saying that Terri had commented that Karen's parents should just leave her alone and not remove her ventilator and let her die.
'Right to die' is a euphemism. It is really a right-to-kill.
gotta go...
I'm not a doctor, either, but I don't think the condition of her brain at the autopsy, and certainly the size of it, had much at all to do with the dehydration she had experienced. In fact, the brain was consistent with prior CT scans which showed major portions of her brain entirely gone and replaced with cerebral fluid.
The body fights hardest to keep the brain and heart going up until the bitter end. It lets other organs fail first.
Me too. Later! Remember to be thankful you are who you are. : )
You're missing my point. Mrs. Schindler was testifying in court in order to justify her stance that Terri would want to remain alive, right? She was trusting Terri's words.
Then.
However, she later testified that even if Terri wanted to die, she would keep her alive.
Sounds "situational" to me, i.e., whatever the Schindlers needed to say to get what they wanted at any given time.
And what parent wouldn't fight to save their child's life?
Do you think living wills should be illegal? Do you think people do not have the right to refuse medical treatment?
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.