Michael Schiavo's side of the story [sicko' barf-ola ALERT]

MSNBC ^ | 3/27/06 | Matt Lauer

[XR7]

CLEARWATER, FLA. - Michael Schiavo...has decided to tell his side of the story...

Schiavo invited us to his home in Clearwater, Florida to talk...It’s all in his new book “Terri the Truth.”

Matt Lauer: I guess you could’ve written a book to honor Terri. After reading it, it’s not really the book you wrote. This is a book that in some ways settles some scores, doesn’t it?

Michael Schiavo: Oh yes, it does.

Lauer: You did think about writing that honoring Terri book?

Michael Schiavo: Oh yes, many times. This book does honor Terri in a way. It sets her free. It tells the truth...

Lauer: You were her first date.

Schiavo: Uh-huh.

Lauer: You were her first kiss.

Schiavo: Uh-huh.....

But the medical examiner was skeptical...and could not conclusively determine just what caused her collapse 16 years ago.

Lauer (at Terri Schiavo’s grave site): How often do you come to her grave?

Schiavo: I try to get out here at least two or three times a month. I drive by a lot though.

On this day, approaching the one year anniversary of Terri's death, someone had left a crucifix by her grave, a grave marked with three dates: her birth date, the date of her collapse, and her death, with a final note from Michael: "I kept my promise."

Lauer: Why was it so important to put that in there?

Schiavo: It was from me to her — it had nothing to do with anybody else. It was very important for me.

Lauer: Do you ever come here Michael and wonder how she feels about this promise, so many years afterwards? Do you think it was it as important to her as it was to you?

Schiavo: Definitely, definitely. She's up there praising me right now… and saying thank you.

[dennisw]

Sorry but your wife's tragedy is not the same as Terri's. Terri deserved to live with her family that loved her

[dennisw]

I don't want that life.

Same as I responded just above, it ain't about YOU! Terri's family begged to take care of her and Terri could easily have lived another 30-40 years. She did not have a terminal illness. Michael Schiavo will go to the same hell the Muslim head choppers go to.

[Amelia]

Not to sound cold hearted, but I believe that the autopsy proved he was right that she was in a vegatative state with no hope of recovery. I know I would not want to be in her condition and would trust my wife to not let me sufer.

I agree, and I don't think she'd have wanted those pictures of her in that shape publicized either.

[freedumb2003]

Title XLIII Chapter 744 section 474, among others.

"A guardian may be removed for any of the following reasons, and the removal shall be in addition to any other penalties prescribed by law: (11) Development of a conflict of interest between the ward and the guardian".

Do you deny that a married man who has betrothed himself to another woman would have an interest in seeking his wife's death, regardless of what his wife would want?

So there is NO law that says an additional relationship is illegal. His wife had already made her desires known. Your interpretation of his motives is just that. I asked for the relevant information, you failed prima facie.

It's also worth noting that 744.446(1) states "The fiduciary relationship which exists between the guardian and the ward may not be used for the private gain of the guardian other than the remuneration for fees and expenses provided by law." Where did Michael get the money for his house and car? And when he was first trying to kill Terri--before her trust fund was drained, and thus when he would have stood to inherit hundreds of thousands of dollars--would not such funds have constituted "private gain"?

Standard fiduciary clause. Again, you look for things that do not exist. Mike had the legal right to deal with the fund and the legal responsibility to have her wishes carried out.

Thanks for finally putting an end to the legal fiction you folks hang on to. The Schiavo debacle makes it clear everyone should have their final wishes in writing (I now do). Yes, well, proper notice is such a silly legal nicety. I think I will sue you, ask the newspaper to mention it, then not get around to actually serving you. When you don't show, I'll ask the judge to hold you in contempt for not being there when I wanted you to be.

Do you think Greer's failure to provide written notice was accidental?

Irrelevant. You either have notice or not. Why would Greer err on purpose?

Thank you for helping me clarify the legal matters. And for removing once and for all the myth of Mike's so-called "illegal" dalliance (done at the urging of Terri's parents as you very well know).

[napscoordinator]

Terri could easily have lived another 30-40 years.

Poor Terri is obviously hated on this thread. Nobody who REALLY loved her could put her through 30 more years of circus mantality. I mean how rediculous is it that people got excited about seeing a balloon. I felt so sorry for that girl to be in sure obvious misery that this was her life. She is with God now and MUST be happier.

[dennisw]

Can't you just feel the buckets of love Michael Schiavo had for her! His killing her is a true testimony to the power of love! /sarcasm

[napscoordinator]

Don't worry I can't stand him either. But this whole story is just ridiculous. I mean with people dying this way everyday why did her story become so important. I don't think she gave anything towards the world anyway.

[napscoordinator]

On anther matter, I like IKE too!!! I was stationed on the Eisenhower. It was great!!

[8mmMauser]

Pinged from Terri March Dailies

8mm

[hodaka]

I remember the show "SouthPark" did a show based on this mater. As usual it was a funny show and took shots at both sides of the issue. I think that at the end of show they found a letter from Teri stating that her last wishes were not to paraded around by the media. And leave it to Bill Handle to compare Teri to the WB dancing frog.

[busstopsindetroit]

While I understand and sympathize with your loss, it's difficult for some of us to lump nutrition and hydration in with artificial life support. Babies are unable to feed themselves and we assist them-is that "artificial life support"? Terri was brain damaged, not terminally ill.

[avile]

But in the abscence of a living will are we to euthanize patients like that?
If so there are thousands if not millions of end stage ALS, parkinson's etc patients out there.
If she had a living will there would be no question. I have often joked with my wife that if I become like that give me the KCL.
But there was no living will and we had to rely on sudden remembrances of a man who :
1. successfully won a frivolous malpractce law suit, and pocketed much of the cash,
2.shacked up with another woman

MS was no Dana Reeve.

[busstopsindetroit]

"But niceties like legal guardianship (or the law in general) mean nothing to many here."

Legal guardianship is not automatic and can be revoked if the guardian is unfit or found to have conflicting interests or not to have the person's best interests at heart. It happens in family courts every day. I'm not saying Schiavo was necessarily deserving of having his guardianship revoked, I'm only saying there are legal grounds for revoking it, and when someone's life is at stake it is certainly the proper role of the courts to hear arguments to that effect.

[Edward Watson]

Sorry for using the word "duped", another synonym would've been better.

I too saw those same videos, thus know what you're referring to since I initially thought they were proof she was rational. They were indeed powerful, and gave the impression of cognitive ability. In fact, they were so compelling, that even politicians were driven to enact legislation and declarations, including medical diagnosis, that she was rational.

Despite my fervent hope Terri was cognitive, I later learned of the circumstances behind those videos - they were only a few minutes of dozens of hours. I was especially shaken when learning Terri was always like that, moving, laughing, opening her eyes, moaning. I then saw medical reports where the court-appointed guardians and doctors claimed she never, not once, responded in any cognitive way, regardless of how much or how long the stimuli was.

How could this be? I saw the videos of her "looking" at the balloon and smiling when "seeing" her mother. I then found out those video clips were highly edited out of hours of visitations where Terri showed no awareness at all.

I then re-examined those same video clips and was disturbed by what I saw. It was obvious they were STAGED. Terri wasn't looking at the balloon, she was moving her eyes and head the way she normally does and they moved the balloon to follow her eyes. Her mother had to hold her head in both hands and put her face right in front of Terri's to make Terri "recognize" her. If she didn't do it, Terri would've just kept on shaking her head the way she normally did. The voices of her family on those clips, when listened to carefully, were "leading" statements - they provided their own interpretation of what Terri was doing. If the sound is turned off and only a visual observation is made; one's conclusions are very different.

I then saw other clips where, despite their best efforts, Terri showed no recognition of them or what they were doing. Her father was so exasperated at her unresponsiveness that her started poking her on her forehead and nearly yelling in her face.

After re-examining the entire issue, I then became very ANGRY at Terri's parents. I was angry at being duped - I believed them and their claims. I thought Terri was rational and only couldn't communicate verbally. But the facts were clearly on Michael's side, which is why he kept on winning the lawsuits against him. They made their own daughter a spectacle, and for what? To make themselves famous or to save the life of their daughter?

The problem with us humans is we all want to go to heaven but we're not willing to die. Sure Terri could be kept alive for many years to come by having a feeding tube inserted directly into her stomach. But is this *artificial* life support or "forced feeding" moral? Is it desirous even in cases where it is impossible for the person to regain consciousness?

Why is it moral to "pull the plug" on hopeless cases in the emergency room but it is immoral when done in a hospice to Terri? Make no mistake, both are the cessation of "artificial" life support. Having a feeding tube surgically inserted into a person's stomach is every bit as "artificial" as a heart-lung machine.

The duration of survival after the cessation of artificial life support is besides the point. In other words, it doesn't matter if a person dies one minute after artificial life support is withdrawn or if he or she lingers for one or two weeks. One cannot be deemed moral and the other immoral because any temporal marker delineating the border of the two is purely subjective (i.e., it is illogical to claim if a person survives for less than 24 hours after life support is withdrawn, the death is moral, but if it takes more than 1 day it suddenly becomes immoral). Likewise the cause of the final death. It makes no difference if the person finally dies from lack of oxygen or lack of nutrients. Death is the great equalizer for us all.

Lastly and to reiterate, Terri died from a withdrawal of an *artificial* life support and, as the brain autopsy proved beyond doubt, was absolutely and utterly incapable of regaining consciousness. We are now at the point medically where we have the capability to indefinitely postpone final death for those in PVS by artificial means. Sure, some may say Terri would've died eventually, perhaps in 20 years or 40 years. But 20 and 40 years from now medical science will be much more advanced, and will be able to extend life even further.

The question now becomes, "Should we and do we have the right to resist God's will?" Like it or not, people like Terri could've only lives that long in the West during our modern age. Anywhere and anytime else would've had her dying shortly after her collapse. God made our bodies mortal with death being inevitable. Do we have the right to indefinitely keep people from returning to him?

[Edward Watson]

Well, think about it. Isn't having a feeding tube surgically implanted into a person's stomach, "artificial"? Has this ever been done anywhere in human history prior to the late 20th century in the West?

Obviously, it's artificial.

Lastly, should the US military in Guantanamo Bay immobilize the hunger strikers and insert a feeding tube in them to keep them alive? After all, it's only "natural" life support.

[retMD]

I agree. The argument that people use equating the feeding tube to feeding an infant isn't equivalent.

If you put formula or food in a baby's mouth, the baby will swallow. Terri Schiavo had swallowing tests done showing she could not swallow, so the food had to be conveyed artifically. An analogy would be while air isn't artifical life support, a ventilator to convey that air to the lungs is. Ditto an IV to convey water to the veins.

[Edward Watson]

Thank you. Great comparisons.

[Edward Watson]

Well, you *can* say it until the moderators yank your comment and suspend or delete your account (as I know too well).

[Edward Watson]

No, "food and water" are not artificial but directly injecting them into a tube that is surgically implanted into a person's stomach is.

BTW, neither is "air" artificial but using a machine to directly ventilate it into a person's lungs is.

Get the difference?

[Edward Watson]

Thank you for your kind words. I wish you the best in your own life.