Terri Schiavo's Next to Last Day: A Look Back, "I Want to Live"

Life News ^ | 3/30/07 | Steven Ertelt

[wagglebee]

St. Petersburg, FL (LifeNews.com) -- Terri Schiavo's family will never forget the next to last day of her life two years ago. It started with a Supreme Court ruling and a judgment by a federal appeals court, and ended with the knowledge that their daughter wanted to live.

The U.S. Supreme Court, on that Wednesday, issued a decision allowing Terri Schiavo's painful starvation death. It wound up being the last legal decision in the long battle between Bob and Mary Schindler and Terri's former husband Michael.

The once-sentence ruling was issued just hours after the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals again voted 10-2 not to get involved in the case and reviewing a decision by a local judge to have Michael kill Terri.
The Supreme Court offered no explanation for turning back the latest request and provided no vote tally of members to determine if any wanted to take the case.

"We're watching a black mark in American history," David Gibbs, the lead attorney for the Schindlers, said afterwards.

The Schindlers also faced another setback that day when the 2nd District Court of Appeal in Florida upheld Judge George Greer's ruling preventing the Florida Department of Children and Families from taking Terri in to protective custody.

The state agency hoped to do that while it investigated allegations of abuse and neglect against Michael.

CBS News also angered its viewers and Terri Schiavo supporters that day.

It came under fire for prewriting and posting to its news web site a story claiming Terri Schiavo had died.

The article, penned by Christine Lagorio, claimed Michael was with her when she died and was posted on the CBS News web page three days before her actual death, according to radio talk show host Glenn Beck, who discovered it.

CBS News spokeswoman Sandy Genelius told LifeNews.com that the story was "a draft that was stored on the web site" but not intended to be accessible to the public.

The day before, euthanasia advocate George Felos, Michael's attorney, said Michael had changed his mind and would allow an autopsy to be conducted on Terri. The altruistic statement declared Michael wanted to exonerate himself on accusations he abused Terri and to show Terri is very severely brain damaged.

Yet, the decision to conduct an autopsy had already been made when Felos spoke with the media -- and not by Michael or Felos.

Jon Thogmartin, medical examiner for Pinellas and Pasco counties, told the St. Petersburg Times newspaper he made the decision to conduct an autopsy if necessary and said it had nothing to do with Michael's change of heart.

Terri's parents ended the day before Terri's death with the knowledge that their daughter wanted to live.

Just before representatives of Michael's removed her feeding tube Terri Schiavo reportedly told an attorney for her parents that she wanted to live.

"Terri, if you would just say, 'I want to live,' all of this will be over," Barbara Weller, one of the attorneys for Terri's parents Bob and Mary Schindler, said.

Weller said Terri desperately tried to repeat her words.

"'I waaaaannt ...,' Schiavo allegedly said. Weller described it as a prolonged yell that was loud enough that police stationed nearby entered the hospice room.

"She just started yelling, 'I waaaannt, I waaaannt,'" Weller explained.

Terri's parents filed a legal motion to try to get her planned euthanasia death reversed, but to no avail.

Related web sites:
Terri Schindler Schiavo Foundation - http://www.terrisfight.org

[T'wit]

>> "We don't have to outsource our thinking."

Hahahahaha! You didn't get it. Oh, this is too much fun.

[T'wit]

>> That explains a lot about your arguments and statements.

And what does it explain, other than that I don't need other web sites to think for me?

[Sioux-san]

It used to be against the law in Florida to perform "euthanasia," but that was exactly what was done to Terri. The "Right to Die" law was changed in Florida in 1998 to include nutrition and hydration as a medical treatment rather than basic necessities of life for everyone. This was done for the express purpose of having Terri Schiavo as the test case for legally euthanisizing a helpless person. People in Florida nursing homes can now be starved and dehydrated to death if they need help to bring a fork to their mouth (no feeding tube has to be involved) -- this has been deemded a "medical treatment" that can be withdrawn from people who can't defend themselves -- a couple of weeks later, you have a completed "dying process." This is all thanks to the Hemlock Society, George Felos, the ACLU, and George Soros, the major benefactor of the International Death Culture (not to mention their pawns in the MSM). It won't be long and these same people will come forward to offer a more humane and quicker "dying process."

[T'wit]

>> ...Look at mhg, I have tried to explain to him(her?)...

Free Republic protocol calls for you to include the person you are attacking (MGHinTN) among recipients for your post. Otherwise it is a kind of backstabbing, and is considered to be rude, cowardly or worse.

[erton1]

I understand. I am tired of playing with the Taliban wing of FR. Good bye.

[T'wit]

>> I am tired of playing with the Taliban wing of FR. Good bye.

Even as the mouse tires of playing with the cat :-) 'Bye.

[dbehsman]

I am tired of playing with the Taliban wing of FR. Good bye.

What an absolute coward. Good bye and good riddance.

[RadioAstronomer]

Dehydration doesn't work that way. In dehydration death is usually caused by hypovolemic shock, which doesn't affect brain tissue. And even if dehydration had affected her brain, a pathologist can tell the difference between damage caused over the course of two weeks and damage caused over 11 years ago.

I'm sorry, but she simply didn't have the equipment to do many of the things that her family reported her doing. Much of what they saw or heard can be put down to hope and love overwhelming rational observation.

Well said!

[RadioAstronomer]

Ah, so the tapes of her responding are doctored to show response she could not have made. Yeah, and you think yourself to be rational, eh?

A 3-sigma anomaly. When eyes wander all over the place, they can at times appear to track, yet they are not. The autopsy showed she was blind. That is hard physical evidence to the hyperbole being shouted out here on FR.

The other thing I notice is the sainthood being summarily placed (not by you - but by some folk here) on Terri. How do they know she was not an atheist? To many here on FR, that would mean Terri right this minute is writhing in eternal damnation forever.

For all intents and purposes she was brain dead. She had no more cognitive thought (actually less IMHO) than my robot dog.

Terri was already dead. What ever made up the Terri of long ago was long gone and there was ZERO chance of ever getting even a tiny part of it back.

And for the folks who think Michael was nothing but a money grubbing leach, why did he turn down millions? Kinda puts that to rest as well.

[dbehsman]

Nope. She was brain dead. didn't happen.

I'm a little surprised that a founding member of "Darwin Central" could be so ignorant about biology. Terri was not brain dead, she was severely brain damaged. There is a tremendous amount of difference.

[RadioAstronomer]

So brain damaged that she was effectively brain dead. I guess I should qualify that.

No cognitive thought is in my book brain dead. At that point, you are just a lump of flesh that still continues to breath. Anything that used to be “Terri” was long since gone.

[dbehsman]

A 3-sigma anomaly. When eyes wander all over the place, they can at times appear to track, yet they are not. The autopsy showed she was blind. That is hard physical evidence to the hyperbole being shouted out here on FR.

So people who are brain damaged AND blind should be put to death. Is that it?

The other thing I notice is the sainthood being summarily placed (not by you - but by some folk here) on Terri.

Hey pal, I could give you a couple of examples of people on the net and at least one on FreeRepublic who have been very nasty about Terri.

How do they know she was not an atheist?

I thought there were a lot of witnesses to Terri's faith. Friends and fellow church goers.

To many here on FR, that would mean Terri right this minute is writhing in eternal damnation forever.

If you have some evidence that Terri was an atheist, please provide it. Otherwise please put a sock in it.

For all intents and purposes she was brain dead. She had no more cognitive thought (actually less IMHO) than my robot dog.

She was not brain dead, she was brain damaged. Speaking of dogs, here's a question for you. If I where to execute a stinking dog in the same manner as Terri was executed, it would be considered a felony. Why does Terri rank lower than an animal?

And for the folks who think Michael was nothing but a money grubbing leach, why did he turn down millions? Kinda puts that to rest as well.

I personally have never made any such claim. I haven't looked into that aspect alone enough to decide for myself what exactly Michaels motives were. But to respond to your thoughts on that aspect of the whole mess, as far as I know John Gacy wasn't interested in money. Neither was Jeffery Dammer or Ted Bundy. With the way that Michael handled the remains, it was spiteful to say the least.

[RadioAstronomer]

Hyperbole my friend.

I never said Terri should be put to death. However, I respect the wishes of people who do not want to live in that state. I am one of them. I have a living will that not only says do not use life support, but no heroic resuscitation as well.

And the atheist comment was an example. Heck, you have been here long enough. Freepers damn each other to hell just for differences of opinion. LOL!

Jeffrey Dahmer? - More hyperbole.

[dbehsman]

So brain damaged that she was effectively brain dead. I guess I should qualify that.

Well, at least you're admitting that you misspoke.

No cognitive thought is in my book brain dead.

Sorry, but your book doesn't cut it. It is disingenuous to claim that a person is brain dead, and then after that person is fully dead, to then turn around and say that well, the person was effectively brain dead. Brain dead and brain damaged have separate and effective definitions. A person cannot be "kind of" brain dead.

At that point, you are just a lump of flesh that still continues to breath. Anything that used to be “Terri” was long since gone.

Let's just say for the sake of argument that you're right, and I'm wrong. Let's just say that Terri was indeed a vegetable. Then what we're arguing about is keeping alive nothing more than a piece of meat. That's all. Just a piece of meat. A piece of meat that doesn't feel pain or humiliation or joy or has memories. Well, if Terri was nothing more than a piece of meat, then what harm is there in keeping her alive? Especially if her parents were willing to take on the cost of her care? You could argue that her wishes, according to Michael, were that she would have elected to have been starved to death. But you know, there are people who claim that she would have been opposed to such treatment. That whole line of argument breaks down into some peoples word against other peoples words. So why err to the side of death?

Let's just say that I'm right and you're wrong. What then? Well, if I'm right and you're wrong, then that would mean that we put to death a person in one of the slowest cruelest ways possible.

I don't think I will ever understand how a person can claim that another person is a vegetable (when they are not on a ventilator or heart machine) and then claim that it is "humane" to let that person starve to death, but it is "inhumane" to let them live.

[RadioAstronomer]

At this point the argument is moot. We will have to agree to disagree.

I side with the courts because they took the time to weigh the evidence and reach a conclusion. You do not side with them for your own moral and ethical reasons.

Peace.

[dbehsman]

Hyperbole my friend.
....
Jeffrey Dahmer? - More hyperbole.
....
And the atheist comment was an example. Heck, you have been here long enough. Freepers damn each other to hell just for differences of opinion. LOL!

Methinks thou dost accuse opponents of hyperbole too much!
(With apologies to William Shakespeare)

By my bringing up murderers, I was just trying to illustrate to you that sometimes people kill for reasons other than money. That's all.

Kind of like how you were trying to illustrate that some Freepers might not have postulated that Terri should be canonized if she were proven to be an atheist.

I never said Terri should be put to death.

Fair enough. For the sake of clarification, which side do you stand on?

However, I respect the wishes of people who do not want to live in that state. I am one of them. I have a living will that not only says do not use life support, but no heroic resuscitation as well.

Well, I guess it's an issue of semantics. I don't respect those wishes, but I will follow them. Orders are orders, and all that.

[dbehsman]

I side with the courts because they took the time to weigh the evidence and reach a conclusion. You do not side with them for your own moral and ethical reasons.

Fine. Walk away and side with the courts and not your conscience.

What are we going to do when the next Terri comes along? That's why this whole conversation is taking place.

[erton1]

Re; “what are we going to do when the next Terri comes along?”

If this same situation comes along where the court finds the person to be PVS, and that she has expressed her wishes not to live in such a condition, by clear and convincing evidence, then the result will be the same. This is not because anyone wishes death on a person but rather that reasonable people will abide by the wishes of the person.

If you are so opposed to what happened in this case, why don’t you do anything about it instead of complaining and taking your vitriol out on others. You seem to have a major problem with the way the law reads on this issue. Yet I don’t see you or anyone trying to change it. Ie: require the wishes be in writing or change the definition of artificial life support.Would either of those changes in the law satisfy you? The people who supported the parents will have much more credibility when they stop moaning and feeling sorry for themselves and try to do something about what they are complaining about. Frankly, at this point, you have zero credibility with myself and the vast vast majority of the American public.

[MHGinTN]

Your williness to take the autopsy report (if you've read it) to assert beyond doubt that Terri died totally black-screen blind (no credible autopsy physician would make such a broad assertion since there are many degrees of 'legally blind') and project your desire to believe she was blind for years and years, even when not only her eyes but her head seeks to follow objects brought across her very limited field of vision, well that is tell enough for me to realize you want to believe things about Terri that support some notion you wish to cling to whether accurate or not.

I'm so shocked at your condescending responses that I wonder if someone is being allowed to use your posting name, someone no longer welcomed at FreeRepublic.

The brain does shrink with severe dehydration, and many neurological manifestations occur, like hallucinations and even blindness. That there are many listed levels of legal blindness in which the patient can in fact sense shadows, etc. seems moot to your assertion regarding Terri's blindness diagnosis AFTER she was dead and being autopsied.

Brain dead is a fairly well defined state and Teri's condition did not fit that designation. That you choose to use such an inflammatory assertion is yet another disappointing point. Going out of your way to insult the memory of Terri Schaivo by comparing her negatively to a robot dog is yet another example of verbiage I would never have thought you capable of. I shall not bother you with further posts or responses. Take care, Michael. [And readers should not assume that is Michael Schiavo ... RA is not that hateful demon in Florida.]

[T'wit]

>> I'm sorry, but she simply didn't have the equipment to do many of the things that her family reported her doing. Much of what they saw or heard can be put down to hope and love overwhelming rational observation.

> Well said!

But false.