My deepest condolences, as I too had to make the same decision about my father six years ago. His brain was destroyed by a stroke and he was in the same condition as Terri.
He should have NEVER been allowed to make the decisions for a woman that he divorced by his actions
NEWS FLASH!!! Terri made the decision.
Oh, the news didn't report that??? Gosh, the media must have slipped that day. Try reading it here: http://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/trialctorder02-00.pdf
All Mike did was ask the courts to respect Terri's wishes AS SHE STATED THEM.
But, as I said before, few if any people here actually read all the court document involved in this case because it doesn't fit their perceived notion of how they "feel" it should have ended. Judge Greer did a superb job of keeping his emotions out of his rulings and used the letter of the law AS IT IS INTENDED!
-Traveler
I thought they were Terri's wishes as MICHAEL STATED THEM.
Typically in a court of law hearsay statements are not admissable. Only three people aknowledged hearing this statement from Terri, Michael, who stood to profit from her death, his brother and sister-in-law.
There were as many hearsay statements that contradicted what Michael was saying, and they had maintained that from the beginning, Michael changed his story when money became available.
I have read the court documents, just as I have read the court documents for Dred Scott, Roe v. Wade, and Kelo. I see yet another judge classifing a group of citizens as second class, based upon the flimisiest of evidence. It is important to take into consideration the representation each side could afford. Michael spent money intended for his wife's rehabilitation on legal counsel. Her parents weren't so dishonest and had significantly inferior representation.
News flash. The statute redefining feeding tubes as life support was passed years after Terri's injury. She was therefore absolutely incapable of giving informed consent to removal of the tube.
Besides, few of us here think that cheesy, lawyer-prompted hearsay from three people named Schiavo was worth a plugged nickel. Their interest was so obvious and their tales so ratty, it makes one wince.
As it is intended by Satan, you mean
How do you know this? What evidence do you have that she made any statement with the intention and expectation that the act of making such statement would cause her to be fatally dehydrated?
Many people over the years have made remarks similar to what Terri is alleged to have made, under circumstances similar to those in which she is alleged to have made hers; during the 1980's, very few such people who made such statements in such circumstances did so with the intention that such statements in and of themselves could have been used to cause them to be fatally dehydrated over a period of almost two weeks. Since there was no way any type of verbal statements could be so used prior to September of 1990 (months after Terri's collapse) the notion that Terri could have intended her statements to be so used when 99% of those who made similar statements in similar circumstances did not, absent explicit evidence of Terri's intention, is preposterous.
Okay, I'll bite -- You sound pretty set about this, as most of us are one way or the other. I am trying to understand your point of view, which is shared by many people thanks to the pro-Death POV the Media took in covering this situation.
Terri was 26 years old when she collapsed. Don't know how old you are, but would you want to be held accountable for an offhand comment made 20 years ago about an old dying Grandmother? Terri also told one of her friends that it was wrong when Karen Ann Quinlan's parents won court approval to take her off the respirator. That example is far more compelling for the Court because Karen Ann was a young woman like Terri. The Judge threw that testimony out because he didn't think that Quinlan's case occurred in the proper time frame for Terri to even know about her. (Certainly grounds for an appeal there, right?) I am sure whatever Terri said back then, as a staunch Catholic, she wouldn't have wanted to die the way she did when the only "medical intervention" she was receiving was a feeding tube. A similar case is going on over in Jacksonville-- A woman wants to send her badly injured husband to hospice to die - she found a couple of doctors who agreed to sign off on the transfer from the rehab hospital. Meanwhile, all evidence leads to the wife causing her husband's brain damage due to blunt object trauma to the side of his head consistent with a wide flat frying pan. However, the man's busy-body mother is trying to help keep her severely impaired son alive. Go figure! Thanks to Mom's interference, he has recovered enough to demand that the wife be kept away from him.
Could Terri have ever gotten back to "normal"? No, not even close. Does that mean we should start dehydrating all the disabled people in a similar condition who can't feed themselves? Same for old people who can't get the fork to their mouths any more? Happy Hunting Grounds for them all, right? That is what Terri's execution has led us to today under Florida law.
Are you aware that Michael stated very pointedly on the Larry King show - "NO one knows what Terri would have wanted, but this is what we want." He was never called to account for that statement and many of the other conflicting things he said for all the world to hear. He has never submitted to a deposition or any sworn testimony about the circumstances around Terri's collapse and his actions to withhold even the most basic rehabilitative care. Michael ignored all subpoenas for depositions, and the Court (Greer) never did a thing about it.
Bottom line is that Michael was and always will be looking out for Michael, pure and simple. He had the steadfast support of the Hemlock lawyers and the ACLU that were bent on making case law allowing euthanasia for someone who is not brain dead, not terminally ill, and has no objective documentation of that person's desire to live or die in such medical circumstances. Terri never had any lawyers working for her. Judge Greer said she didn't need any - he was looking out for her best interests (this girl is going to die!) Her parents' lawyers had good intentions, but they were no match for the ACLU and Felos. The only comfort in any of this is Michael's inability to hurt Terri any more.