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

[Terriergal]

Darwinian ethics? - You are clueless as usual.

Yeah, I've never read any of your posts before... I have NO idea what you believe. Nope, none. you are SOOO right I am so clueless. Yep yep yep...

I looked at the primary evidence personally.

Wow... you must be OLD! So how was it that matter came into existence? Do tell!

[Hildy]

LOL! Just keep it up...

[bjs1779]

I looked at the primary evidence personally. Sorry, it does not fit Genesis. Don't like it? Too bad.

How many worlds have you tuned in on that starve their own people, other than the one you support here?

[RadioAstronomer]

And how does that fit into my post about cosmology and origins?

[bjs1779]

LOL! Just keep it up...

Somehow, I don't see you laughing. You will see it my way someday : )

[bjs1779]

And how does that fit into my post about cosmology and origins?

I don't know. Do you think the universe had a drop of water for Terri?

[RadioAstronomer]

Not my call and I am off this thread. Irrationality reigns supreme here.

[erton1]

Your post is so full of mistruths and factual inaccuracies that it boggles the mind.

You claim the court is playing doctor. You obviously have not been to many courthouse’s in your life. Courts make hundreds of rulings everyday based on expert medical testimony in cases that range guardianship, such as this case, to personal injury cases. I have never heard of anyone criticizing it and that is not going to change, because of your delusions as the functions of a court.

You then state that the evidence was ‘ambiguous.’ Another falsehood. The standard of proof in this case was “proof by clear and convincing evidence.” Do you even know what this means? It is high standard to be met by Michael Schiavo. Case law opinions equate it to the standard a reasonable person would use in a making an important decision in his business or personal affairs. Every court that heard or reviewed the case agreed that this standard was met in this case. No reasonable person thinks the evidence was ambiguous. Her wishes were well known and the testimony was convincing, to every court.

I am very familiar with the eighth amendment. It has NO application to the Schiavo case. I challenge you to show me a single guardianship or end of life case that even cites the eighth amendment. Not even the parent’s attorneys brought up the eighth amendment in their dozens of pleadings or motions. I’m sure they didn’t want to get laughed out of court. I’m still ROTFLOL regarding this comment.

Over three quarters of the American public agrees with the law, as applied in the Schiavo case. There was no ground swell for change, and there will not be a ground swell, if your rhetoric is anything like what is on this thread. The outright falsehoods and outrageous hyperbole by the parent’s supporters can easily be discounted by reasonable people. Don’t expect many converts with your tact. Do you realize that you cannot even convert a majority of freepers with the mindless rhetoric?

[Diamond]

....some religious conservatives over this issue and their willingness to call in Big Brother as an ally in their denigration of an entire family...

THEIR denigration of an entire family? What in the world the does the word "family" mean to you? Did it ever occur to you to think that it might be somewhere in the realm of possiblity that an adulterous husband is the one who bears the guilt of the denigration of a family?

[Diamond]

... Courts make hundreds of rulings everyday based on expert medical testimony in cases that range guardianship, such as this case, to personal injury cases. I have never heard of anyone criticizing it and that is not going to change, because of your delusions as the functions of a court.

You've never heard of anyone criticizing a court decision? By that logic Dred Scott was decided rightly solely by virtue of it being a court decision, so that anyone criticizing it is by definition unreasonable.

Her wishes were well known...

Can you show me any shred of evidence from any of the court proceedings that her wish was to be to subjected to death by starvation and dehydration, which is in fact what was done to her? A person with an ounce of human decency wouldn't countenance that being done even to a dog.

Cordially,

[dbehsman]

And may He protect me from the sick freaks who'd have no qualms about forcing medical attention on me against my will while patting themselves on the back and pretending to know His will.

That is so completely disingenuous, it borders on a lie. You're implying that somehow we were trying to FORCE food and water on Terri when she didn't want it. Nobody knows with certainty what Terri's wishes were. Her husband said one thing (after he had already changed his mind), and her friends and family said something else.

One of the most fascinating things that I have noticed about the deathbots is how they claim that Terri was a vegetable. She was brain dead according to the deathbots. When a person is brain dead, they cannot feel pain, joy, anger, dignity, or anything. And then on the other hand, the deathbots claim that it is humiliating to Terri to keep her alive. If Terri was indeed brain dead, then how could she possibly feel humiliation?

Every human being is given a choice in life. They can either commit good or evil. YOU and your fellow deathbots deliberately chose to starve to death an innocent woman. You and your fellow deathbots chose to commit and/or support evil. You were given a very clear choice, and you made the decision. You decided to err on the side of death. That is simply a fact.

[dbehsman]

Listen up...I am not pro death..I am pro dignity. That’s a HUGE HUGE HUGE difference.

Do you honestly believe that death by starvation is dignified? Is that really your idea of dignity?

The deathbots claim that Terri was a vegetable (brain dead). When a person is brain dead, they cannot feel pain, joy, anger, dignity, or anything. But then on the other hand, the deathbots claim that it is humiliating to Terri to keep her alive. If Terri was indeed brain dead, then how could she possibly feel humiliation?

So go take your name calling elsewhere. So childish.

If I recall correctly, you deathbots were the ones who started calling us Terribots.

Let me tell you one more thing...there are lots of us here at FR who don’t think like you do. Unless you’re willing to come up with $200,000 to keep this website going, I suggest you stop pissing people off.

Oh wow, how terrifying. We might loose the popularity contest.

[dbehsman]

No, no, those were rigged polls. They'd say she was brain dead and on life support, then ask: would you "pull the plug?" And most people would innocently say yes, thinking this was another Karen Ann Quinlan case*. Once the poll question was phrased accurately for her condition, and opinion was OVERWHELMINGLY against killing her. Around 85%. I don't have the poll at hand, but we could surely find it.

Yeah, I know. I guess that I should have rephrased that. The problem is that the American public made the decision to treat the establishment media reports as Gospel. Seventy percent of the American people chose to accept the word of the establishment media without question. The public did not want to hear the other side of the issue, they only wanted to listen to the media in a matter of life or death. They should have known better, but they didn't or didn't want to know better.

[dbehsman]

How does that disagree with what I said?

I must have misinterpreted your first post. I thought you were suggesting that we should press for legislative change now.

That's like trying to convince them that the sun rises in the morning. How do you do that?

Through patient and persistent explanation. Remember, the abolitionists had to keep explaining to the slave holders that blacks were full human beings for years before it sunk in. This is not going to happen overnight. People do not want to admit that they were wrong. They especially do not want to admit that they supported evil. We're just going to have to keep on hammering away. That's the best way I can figure it.

[dbehsman]

Not my call and I am off this thread. Irrationality reigns supreme here.

That's the second time now that you left the thread. Make it permanent.

[T'wit]

You say you've never heard anyone criticize the Greer "clear and convincing" finding? Really? You haven't read the trial transcripts, I gather? The decision was absolutely awful.

Notre Dame Law Professor O. Carter Snead wrote a lengthy and scathing treatise titled "The (Surprising) Truth about Schiavo: a Defeat for the Cause of Autonomy." Here are a few excerpts. (There will be more.) The language is extraordinary and the rebuke to the Greer court is even more extraordinary.

"To the extent that the courts did take steps to discern Ms. Schiavo’s wishes, they did so in an unrigorous and unreliable manner, ignoring crucial procedural safeguards prescribed by the Florida guardianship laws. As a result, it is impossible to have any confidence that the conclusions reached by the courts accorded with Ms. Schiavo’s actual wishes."

"If the court’s order to terminate artificial nutrition and hydration was indeed a fulfillment of Ms. Schiavo’s subjective desires, this is a happy accident. It was manifestly not the result of a judicial process calculated to advance autonomy and self-determination."

"Mr. Schiavo’s legal efforts to discontinue artificial nutrition and hydration for his wife lasted seven years. However, throughout this entire period, there was only one evidentiary hearing (in 2000) devoted to the question of Ms. Schiavo’s wishes regarding life-sustaining measures. By any measure, the evidence presented at this hearing was scant, vague, and contradictory. Nevertheless, the court inexplicably concluded that Ms. Schiavo’s desire to discontinue artificial nutrition and hydration had been proven by “clear and convincing” evidence. By abrogating its responsibility to scrupulously and rigorously apply this evidentiary standard, the court untethered itself from the essential mechanism provided by the Florida law for ensuring a reliable determination of Ms. Schiavo’s wishes.

"What, then, persuaded the reviewing courts that Ms. Schiavo’s desire was to decline life-sustaining measures under the circumstances? What quantum of proof was marshaled to demonstrate this proposition to the satisfaction of the most exacting evidentiary standard available in civil cases? A careful review of the record reveals a jarring truth: the evidence deemed 'clear and convincing' in the Schiavo case was a veritable parade of every species of presumptively unreliable statement long rejected by courts across the nation called upon to adjudicate end of life disputes."

[T'wit]

>> Seventy percent of the American people chose to accept the word of the establishment media without question.

One could put it that people usually respond to polls the way that pollsters want them to in the first place. It's like palm reading. It's like the daily horoscope. The pollees are almost always manifestly unqualified to answer, and the issues should often if not always be decided as matters of principle, not aimless popular opinion. But there are always hucksters out there faking stories and selling people a bill of goods.

The best advice is never to believe poll results. The second best advice is never to cite poll results to say, "See, people agree with me." If you need poll numbers to support your point of view, your view isn't worth a wet potato chip.

[T'wit]

>> Irrationality reigns supreme here.

I can't account for this. We're all rational when you're not around.

>> I am off this thread.

Cheers to ya.

[T'wit]

Eek, the last (#299) was for you, RA, not for you, dbehsman. Sorry for the confusion. It's that blue ink.