Posted on 09/27/2005 12:47:03 PM PDT by Crackingham
Terri Schiavo's parents and siblings are writing a book about their struggle in the epic end-of-life case that divided the country and captured the attention of everyone from the Pope John Paul II to President Bush, their publisher said Tuesday. The yet untitled memoir by parents Bob and Mary Schindler, brother Bobby Schindler and sister Suzanne Vitadamo will be published in March to coincide with the first anniversary of the death of the brain-damaged woman, whose feeding tube was removed after her husband won a court order to do so.
"This book is the moving story of an ordinary family caught up in extraordinary circumstances, and it will set the record straight for the first time," said Jamie Raab, senior vice president and publisher at Warner Books in New York.
The Schindlers' book is likely to compete for space on the shelves with a memoir by Terri Schiavo's husband, Michael, who fought his in-laws in court for eight years to end her life, arguing she would not have wanted to be kept alive in what doctors called a persistent vegetative state. Michael Schiavo said he is collaborating on the book with author Michael Hirsh. The 280-page book is titled "Terri: the Truth," and is planned for release in March by Dutton Publishing.
The Schindlers will donate profits from the book to a foundation they established when they were fighting to save Terri's life, Warner Books said. The foundation now is dedicated to protecting severely disabled people.
The press release announcing the book said Terri Schiavo's parents and siblings "fought simply as a caring family and never the ideological zealots depicted by the mainstream media.
"For the first time ever, they will share their love and sorrow, joy and pain, and some shocking revelations as they honor Terri's life, mourn her death, and finally tell the whole story, the true story, of an innocent woman who met a needlessly premature death."
What link? Unless I overlooked something, nobody was video taping our conversation to post it on the Internet. If you come across it, let me know.
I can only give you the information I was given. I don't have medical records, police reports, etc.
Sometimes cases of mercy killing are prosecuted, and in those cases, it is widely reported. Often it's not even investigated, as I predict will be the case with my neighbor's friend. Unless the person responsible does it 26 more times, getting more careless each time. You probably won't be reading about it in your local paper. At most, there was probably an obituary in our local paper, with no mention of how she died. Real life and death doesn't come with a complete story line being spelled out in one book for the curious.
The fact remains, people are quietly murdered every day, under the guise of mercy. And their murderers get away with it, scott free. Why? Because of the attitude that disabled people, dying people, expensive people, aren't worth worrying about it. Move on.
I don't mean to argue with you, but I think you are very mistaken about how common euthanasia has become. I think it is common knowledge among hospital and other health care workers how prevalent this attitude is, but it's rarely discussed openly because of the legal issues. I have had many conversations with friends in the health care industry where they have seen the very type of thing that BB is describing going on, and it doesn't make the national news, and most times not even the local news. It's only discussed off the record and behind closed doors. This is, of course, only my opinion.
Yes it was. To write a document that gave specific enumerated powers to the federal government. Dealing with medical issues was not one of them
Our Constitution does not grant any branch or any level of government the right to kill citizens for the crime of being disabled.
Here we go on our civics lesson for today. Contrary to the evangelical Republican distorted view of this nation's history, our Constitution was not written to put a limitation on the governments of the respective and sovereign states. Until the 1930s, the Constitution did not fully apply to the separate and sovereign states. It applied only to the national government. I suggest you look up 'incorporation theory' to further test that issue. The Framers had no idea some idiot would one day apply the limitations of the federal government upon the states. And I seriously doubt the Framers thought the citizens of a respective state would have allowed their knowledge of civics to have degraded so low that the citizens would actually want it or believe that was the original intent.
Now you're backing out of that, and saying the state governments have that right. You're still wrong.
I have no problem as I'm not backing out of anything. At no point in any post I have ever made did I state, insinuate, or assume the national government had a right to 'kill the disabled'. What I stated is that it was none of their business.
Look, you have a problem with the separate and sovereign states having the final rule over 'the lives, liberties, and properties of the people'? I suggest you take it up with the papers of James Madison. Reread Federalist #45 which he wrote. His specific beliefs of Constitutional limitations on the federal government were clear. Then go take it up with your state legislature and quit trying to destroy federalism on your unholy quest to enforce your view nationwide.
You're obviously confused. The Constitution does not grant the States the right to revoke the Constitutional rights of the citizens. I don't know where you got that idea, but you're very wrong.
The fact is Terri was not brain-dead when they removed her feeding tube from her, and for a long time it was commonly perceived (because of the media's misinformation) that Terri was hooked up to all sorts of machines, instead of a gadget. Truly brain-dead people cannot function without life support for basic functions of breathing and pumping of the heart. The interpretations of where the EEGs came from makes no difference in this case. Brain-dead is brain-dead and not brain-damaged. By going down the path of 'thinking' vs. 'reflexive' part of brain activity, we may find that we are indeed at the bottom of the 'slippery slope'. Surprising that we aren't in the mud after having fallen off the slope.
Listen very carefully. We'll go through this a step at a time. I would like you to read each specific statement before replying. Think the two statements through logicially.
1) Under the original intent of the Constitution, the 'Constitutional rights of the citizens' only applied to the citizens interaction with the federal government and the federal government alone. At no point in the Framers' minds did they believe the 'Constitutional rights of the citizens' applied also at the state level. You will not be able to find anything from the late 18th century supporting your view. What I posted was a quote from Federalist #45 in which Madison was clear about this issue. Take a moment to read it.
2) The 14th Amendment, specifically Article I of said Amendment, was followed correctly. You may disagree with the outcome and that's your right but no court was able to find an injustice. If the issue which you feel should have been forwarded was not, that is not the issue of the courts, but rather the representation of the Schindlers.
As to the first point, please provide documentation instead of one sentence, you're wrong statements refuting the argument under the original intent of the Framers. Also understand I do not care about the specifics of the case, what you think of Michael Schiavo, who did want or what was said. All I care about is the rule of law according to the Constitution, upon which you have absolutely no ground to stand on.
As for the second issue, you can't expect the courts to write the case for the defense can you? If the wrong issue was argued that is not the fault of the court systems nor of Michael Schiavo. I understand we have some here that claim to have written court 'briefs' (although they may have just written their own name on their own underwear, who knows) to SCOTUS, surely one of those scholars could have assisted in presenting the case you feel would have been correct. Even though that one would have failed as well.
Wrong. The people are granted certain rights. The States were never granted the right to revoke the people's rights. It's really not that difficult. I don't understand why you're having such hard time grasping it.
As stated, provide documentation stating the Framers intention in the Constitution that backs this up. If you cannot do this simple task, do not bother responding.
The Constitution's original intent was two fold and two fold only. To list the enumerated powers of the national government, and to describe the relationship between the respective citizens, the states, and the national government.
There is no right as it pertains to a citizen's relationship to their respective state listed in the US Constitution
Ding..Ding...Ding...we have another winner. You were right, one bee showed up and couldn't resist making a 3rd grade comment. I wonder if her CP buddies put her up to it? So predictable....
Thank you. But I play piano, not organ. Nice organ though.
Yes, I was counting those instances. My definition of euthanasia includes offing someone with morphine (or other pain medication) before their natural time has come, even if they are terminal.
Federal judges are not required to rule in favor of unlimited powers for States and no rights for the People. That is absurd! The Constitution clearly spells out rights for the People. It does not grant veto powers to the States.
She was so impressed with herself, she had to say it twice. I was so bored, I forgot to yawn. I suppose she had to do it, to give them something else to talk about at CP besides their usual fart jokes.
Ah, so I see you could find no documentation to back up your belief and still you responded. And it took you all this time to come up with another one liner based on nothing?
I now would guide you to Federalist 78 and 81 written by Hamilton. Original intent, the federal court system had no business in the internal affairs of the states (i.e. Terri Schiavo case). Don't believe me? Look it up. Please read these documents before responding.
The Constitution clearly spells out rights for the People.
I really hate to say it but your johnny one note is getting quite tiresome. The Constitution has nothing to do with the rights of the people, other than their relationship with the federal system. As pointed out in Federalist 78 and 81, there is no Constitutional reason this case should have entered the federal court system. The Constitution was written for the two reasons I pointed out above and for no other reason.
I don't sit at the computer 24/7, waiting for you to drop turds. When I read your nonsense, I responded to it. I'll try one more time, but I don't expect you to suddenly see the light.
I see you still can't explain why you think the Constitution grants States the right to kill citizens, and denies any and all rights to the People. You make these wild claims, and then demand that I provide the Document in question. I'm amazed that you would ask me to provide you a copy of the Constitution. Can't you find it on your own? If you ever find it, and you find that part that grants States the right to kill citizens for the crime of being disabled, and denies the People the God given right to life, please share it with the rest of us. Until then, please stop announcing to the world that the Constitution says these things. It doesn't.
My reply to the other two used your #76 and I flagged you as a courtesy. Sorry it must have been too obscure.
I didn't guess that you would think I was assaulting your facuality.
It doesn't. But it doesn't prevent them from doing so either. All I've asked is that you provide one piece of documentation from the Framers that supports your point of view. I see now that you can't. The Constitution does not apply to the states. It never did. And it never will.
Good to see when I quote the Framers and their writings it's nonsense in your eyes. Statists as yourself can't face what this nation would be like if the national government stayed within the restraints of the Constitution
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.