Posted on 07/08/2005 2:59:50 PM PDT by summer
I always twitch when I come to that very strange phrase. Whatever can he be saying, that he doesn't know -- or won't admit -- why he woke up? Fortunately, whatever it was that got him up, it was just in time to hear the "THUD" from Terri's "collapse."
This does suggest a theory. We have all heard of sleep walkers. I wonder if Michael Schiavo is the first documented case of a sleep strangler? "Gosh, I woke up and heard this THUD and found I'd throttled my wife..."
We need to get back to respect for individual rights and marriage. "Want to die" is a poor way to characterize the preferences of many people who have a range of views on the complex and subtle things that can arise in end of life care. For example, many people want a certain amount of "heroic measures" just to be sure, but then have them abandoned after a period of time of trying. This is similar to what reportedly happened with Mrs. Schiavo...Mr. Schiavo made rather extraordinary attempts for her to recover (experimental therapy, etc.) but the physicians eventually convinced him there was no hope of recovery. This path is exactly what several of my friends and colleagues have expressed as their preferences when I make a point to discuss the topic with them.
Personally...and here it is in writing...I would want palliative care/pain management (which includes emotional...such as if I'm in a locked-in condition) as the primary concern. (I would rather be made unconcious or dead than to exist locked-in or in pain.) I don't want to be kept going just for the sake of prolonging life. And because I'm more concerned about the fanaticism of the anti-rights pro-lifers, I must state that I want them to err on the side of letting me go...
Too bad all the Terribots lacked an education of our Founding Principles.
First, as a result of his association with Hannity, Fuhrman is frequently pigeonholed as a conservative, and/or linked to conservative causes. This is certainly not the case with Fuhrman's view of capital punishment, which he developed during research for his book, "Death and Justice." Moreover, IMHO, Fuhrman, when displaying his skills as an investigator / investigative author, has an uncanny knack for objectivity.
In the foreword of his book, he admits having paid very little attention to the Terri Schiavo matter other than marveling at the constitutional issues raised by the congressional activity conducted on her behalf. According to Fuhrman, he initially balked at Hannity's request, until Hannity insisted he (Hannity) only wanted him to, for better or worse, find out what happened and let the chips fall where they may.
In his work on this book, Fuhrman picks it up as though he were assigned a death investigation (i.e., determine the manner of death, and if determined to be homicide, identify means, motive and opportunity.)
Fuhrman pursues it as such, and although coming up with a significant amount of testimonial and circumstantial evidence pointing to Michael, he makes no conclusion, other than that in an actual homicide investigation, M.Schiavo would need to provide some credible answers to some very relevant and obvious questions which were never asked of him.
Fuhrman contacted Felos's office in an attempt to secure an interview with M.Schiavo for this book and give him the opportunity to clear the record and provide any counterpoint to the suspicions raised by the accounts of others. M.Schiavo/Felos would not allow an interview.
======================================================= While reading this book, I was constantly thinking about Vince Bugliosi's 'mini-treatise' on circumstantial evidence in his book, "Outrage." VB states that the conventional and widespread view of circumstantial evidence is analogous to a chain, where one broken link renders the whole useless. VB describes this as a very poor analogy, likening it more to a rope, wherein individual threads may break; however, the utility of the rope remains viable.
Fuhrman, operating without the power of subpoena, warrant, or color of authority, nonetheless manages to weave a pretty thick rope...
...rearing...
Was Mrs. Schiavo still in need of child rearing (sic), or was she an adult?!? "Parental rights" exist, but in minors and not where they infringe upon spousal rights.
BTW, in my own disucssions about Terri, I did not resort to name calling.
Both your opinion about Terri's case and your tactics are shared with those on the left. It's time for some self-reflection.
You are in the minority. Studies show that most people would want all measures taken possible if they were not terminal (in the Webster's definition).
Play with words all you like.."be keep going".."dead" want to die, whatever. It's your right to die.
My family and I want to live. Why don't you care about my rights too I wonder?... or is this just all about you?
A very well done post, Joe. Thank you!
I'm tempted to point out the inadequate intellect you must possess to be unable to see possibilities beyond the false dilemma you have constructed, but I won't.
Instead, I'll say that I find it repulsive that you would call for a military coup to thwart the government of one of the states of our republic--that had made due-process judicial proceedings on legislation passed by a legitimately elected assembly of representatives of the people.
Might I suggest an alternative? If you don't like the fact that marriage is respected and believe parents should be able to meddle in their adult children's affairs, push for legislation to support it. If you don't like the method of guardian appointment for the incapacitated, push for legally changing it. If you don't like our Constitution and its protections, then push for changing it within the means that are provided.
But please don't continue to advocate an assault on the bodies of our republic.
And if your husband abandoned you with another woman and family?
I have to call you on that one...citations, please. I'd like to know how many would choose to live a locked-in life in excruciating agony.
But does it matter if I'm in the minority? The Republic was founded to protect the rights of the minority against mob rule. I won't impose my preferences on you; please don't impose yours on me.
My family and I want to live. Why don't you care about my rights too I wonder?... or is this just all about you?
I care about your rights, of course! Have I ever posted advocacy of restricting the right to life? My point is that personal preferences should be the center of this, along with respect for marriages and the rule of law. Because we didn't know Mrs. Schiavo's preferences in writing, it should have been up to Mr. Schiavo, but the courts shot him down. They insisted on ruling on it themselves. Yet they came to the same conclusion of what Mrs. Schiavo's preference would have been, based on review of the evidence beyond Mr. Schiavo.
In fact, you might find it amusing to ponder that I would fight and give up my life for a republic that would respect your right to life. Perhaps you should re-examine your assumptions about me. :-)
post hoc
Post hoc? What does that mean?
George Felos!
Imagine you posting on FR as 'GONDRING'!
Will wonders ever cease.
Well said, Gondring.
The quality of life issue is (was) in this, as in all cases a canard. Gondring, I agree that living wills should enjoy the full force of legitimacy (less assisted suicide). Incapacitation or, unassisted viability, is in and of itself, not sufficient. What 1, 2, or 3-year-old child can survive without having his or her food prepared, served and fed to him, much less provide clothing and shelter. There is a level of dependence on others. Likewise, the aged and infirm are often reliant in part or whole or on others for the basic requirements of their survival. In the terms of the child, this responsibility is generally articulated in laws against child abuse, neglect or abandonment. The aged and infirm don’t necessarily enjoy such protections of law, but the moral responsibility is no less, present. The whole argument, in regards to Terri Schiavo are irrelevant inasmuch as her parent’s had repeatedly volunteered to assume such burden and even offered Michael $1M to Michael for him to release custody.
Michael (and his family) made allegations that Terri had verbally communicated her desire to not be sustained under such conditions as she was in. The problem with this is that these recollections did not come to the Schiavo's until years after her collapse. Prior to that time (and there are affidavits to this effect) Michael had discussed with others the dilemma he found himself in because he had no idea what Terri would want. Additionally, the Schindler's, in the absence of any written guidance from Terri, attempted to enter the argument that Terri would want to abide by the mandates of her Roman Catholic Faith (indeed, Terri had been a practicing Catholic and had attended Mass the Saturday night prior to her Sunday morning collapse.) Greer disregarded that argument and any others proffered by the Schindlers in favor of those proffered by the Schiavos.
I have many moral, legal and ethical problems with the outcome of this case. The fundamental question at the basis of her starvation was one of determining and complying with Terri's wishes. Tasked with determining the the best fit truth of Terri's desires, guardianship was assigned by Greer based on hearsay communicated by, and on behalf of M. Schiavo who had a direct financial interest in Terri's expiration, and who, in reality had known her only for a few years, and by several (sworn to) accounts had been in a relationship of increasing hostility. The opinions of persons with little if any possibility of financial gain (indeed the likelihood of increased hardship) and persons who had known her for her entire life, were dismissed out of hand.
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.