I try to always be fair and listen and frankly in the end we may disagree but we do so based on an intellectual and respectful discussion. Which is what makes Free Republic great.
For those that support the husband's postion in some form -- have you ever hiked in the desert in the summer? A couple of hours without water in 115 degree heat will give you an indication of what if feels like to begin the road to dehydration. Then, please keep going without fluids and the extreme temperature, experience what it feels like to deprive the body of fluids.
I don't care about legal positions, government positions, husband's positions, we're Americans and I thought we were to care for each other. You would not put an animal to death this way, you would not put a murderer to death this way, you would not put a terrorist to death this way. So let's get to the bottom line and all agree -- YOU CANNOT PUT TERRI TO DEATH THIS WAY!!!
What a sack of crap.
In my younger days, had I found myself to be a nurse or technician or doctor, I might have gone along with societal prevailing winds. I tended to be that way. Follow the crowd.
Now I would not need to see one court paper, hear what the parents say, hear what the husband says, hear what freepers say, hear what those who think it is more merciful to starve her say.
If I were required to contribute in any way up to and including the act of personally removing her feeding tube leading knowing that it was intended to her death by starvation, I would feel morally bound to disobey orders.
If I were ordered to remove her feeding tube so that it could be cleaned and replaced by the next shift, I think I would refuse to do even that. It would have to be immediately replaced before my eyes.
That's my bottom line and I no longer have trust in any system after what I've seen.
Death.
From February to May of 1990 while in the hospital, known to Michael Schiavo, known to Joan, a friend of Terri's, and known to Terri's brother-in-law, and confirmed by other witnesses to such conversations between Terri and these other three, all such knowledge as per Michael's attorney, George Felos ...
Michael Schiavo knew that Terri wanted to die.
At no time, during that period of her stay at the Humana Hospital, did he indicate this information to any person on the staff, as they worked to "artificially" (as they say) keep her alive.
In May of 1990, when Terri Schiavo left the hospital and was transferred to a nursing home, Michael Schiavo, had by then, in that third month, repeatedly, day by day, denied her wishes to die.
Every day, he tortured her by keeping her alive against her wishes.
The months stretched on into the first year, and then into the next year, as he kept her alive, defying her wish to die.
Then, at long last, after twenty-four months of denying her wish to die, and repeatedly submitting her to a tortuous life, held in suspended animation against her will ... finally, he convinced a court, not that she should be permitted to breathe her last and go to meet her maker ... no, that was not his argument ... instead, that she should live! That he would dedicate his life to her, that he would take up the study of medicine for exactly that purpose ... and so the jury rewarded him with nearly $1,600,000.
As she lay in suspended animation, imprisoned for more than two years, in complete and utter denial of her wish to die --- entrapped there, by her "loving husband," he worked "the system" to get the money.
Yet, even after he recieved all that money, $750,000 for her care, $680,000 for his "loss of consortium," and some few hundred thousands for other expenses, instead of using her money to blissfully put her out of her misery, he embarked on a mission to keep her alive, again, against her wishes.
Yet he turned up the level of torture, by denying her the very care about which he had claimed in court, was hers for all that the money could buy; he denied her therapy for infection and therapy for physical suffering.
Indeed, he and his fellow conspirators --- all attested and entered into in a court of law, per George Felos, attorney for Michael Schiavo --- REMAINED SILENT even longer, through 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, and into 1998.
For all thosse years, Michael Schiavo knowingly denied the wishes of Terri Schiavo, that she "not live like that."
That "permanent state" that she was in, was not medical by her wishes; no, instead, it was by her husband's determination that she vegitate within the walls affected by the cold, robotic manipulations of the most marginal "health care," lawyers, and courtooms.
Because, the word was not yet out, that she wanted to die.
Yet, money talks, as they say, and by now Felos squeezed all the matter through the system, and he has his money, and Michael has had his money, and there is not much money left.
There's not much value in her existence, now.
Because some would not want to "live like that" --- they who are petrified that government might keep them alive, that President Bush might keep them alive, and that others are "blind" to seeing the pain that such intrusions may cause.
While they also do not themselves see their spouses keeping them alive, as has Michael Schiavo: tortuously suspended inanimately against their will.
Year in, year out.
While we worry about protecting ourselves from government intrusion, or from intrusion by our family, why is it not, that we should not be worried about the intrusion by Michael Schiavo?
For all that time, the matter was not life or death nor individual v. the power of government ... instead, it was Michael Schiavo continuing her mind-numbing suspension as he wrestled to keep his hands on the money directed by the state for her care, but then, of course, directed by judges and lawyers, for the care and feeding of the, his, lawyer(s).
I would be, and I am, as concerned about that, as I am concerned about the state's intrusions.
Being informed can be good but the truth is better. For instance from this article Scott & Michael Schiavo's grandmother had a ventilator stuck down her throat all though she had signed a "do not resuscitate" order.
Scott claims this is why Terri told Michael 'If I'm ever like that, oh, don't let me. Pull that tube out of me.' " Scott Schiavo said he testified about the incident in 2000.
BUT --- From the Larry King/Schiavo interview which aired on October 27, 2003: Michael Schiavo said Terri's comments came "from watching certain programs":
http://www.sweetliberty.org/bulletins/terri/lkl1.htm
KING: A 25-year-old said to you, if I die, if I'm in this kind of state, most 25-year-olds wouldn't think of something like that?
SCHIAVO: It was a comment from watching certain programs. She said, we were watching some programs, and she says, I don't want anything artificial like that. I don't want any tubes. Don't let me live like that. I don't want to be a burden to anybody. She's also made comments to other people about different stories.
He rented a house large enough for him and Terri's parents, who had moved to the area.
He made sure she was dressed every day. He applied her makeup and dabbed on perfume, Rowley said.
He went to school to become a nurse, "because he wanted to take care of Terri," Scott said. "He swore that he could get Terri better... . One doctor said: 'Mike, you know what? There's nothing else we can do. The next time Terri gets sick, why don't you just let nature take its course?' And Mike wouldn't do it."
This guy truly sounds like a saint.
Certainly not how he has been portrayed here at FreeRepublic.
Having no reason not to believe what his brother says about him I have to say my opinion of him has gone from questionable becasue I couln't understand his motives to that of a favorable opinion.
It seems he is just trying to honor his wifes wishes.
I wonder if this article will change anyones minds about him?
If I may, though, I would like to speculate on one of the statements by his brother. It seems that each phrase from Greer, Felos, Michael, and his family has the same Clintonesque trait to it.
For instance...
"Because he's sticking by what he promised," Scott Schiavo, Michael's brother, said in a recent interview. "He wants to honor the last thing he can give to her."
Now, some may say, that is a complete lie.
I tell you you are wrong. He is not lying. It is what he didn't say that matters.
What did he promise Terri?
When was this promise made?
Maybe it was after he got the settlement money. Maybe something like.... "I told you when I got the money I would finish you off. And I mean what I say."
Michael may be the angel of mercy he so proudly profers to the court and the media.
Actions speak louder than words.
Yet this article, which is FAR from evenhanded (just as many of the other articles on the other view have been far from evenhanded) brings up several thoughts:
Interesting, isn't it, how the family's Catholicism is brought up. Being a Catholic is useful to journalists when they want to prevent someone from becoming a judge, or to use as a wedge, as in this piece. Catholics are portrayed as these alien creatures whose strange voodoo-like rights are objects of ridicule such as here, where her parents are portrayed as wackos who are against "normal" mercy killing.
The issue of a legal document deliniating these "strong" beliefs--if they are that strong, then put them in writing, don't just tell one person about them. Let's be honest, this doesn't seem, from all available evidence, like something Terri felt so strongly about that she told lots of people about it. Don't YOUR friends know your strongest-held beliefs about life and death?
The people who think not having it in writing is somehow a silly little issue--I guess you must feel that way about entering the country illegally, too, right? I mean, it's just about having a piece of paper? Same with getting permission from an underage girl's parents for an abortion--just a piece of paper. Or voting for President--I MEANT to vote on election day, but you can count my vote now, right? It's JUST a piece of paper. And which is more important, a vote on election day or having me starved to death?
The compromise on this issue is already available: Get it in writing. She didn't. So her life should be preserved.
That's how things work in a nation of laws--methods are agreed upon, and when followed, the expected result should be enforced by law. If not, then sorry, but we don't rule by "Well, it's YOU, so we'll do it YOUR way because, well, you feel like it."
No. Sorry. The law says you CAN be allowed to starve to death, but there is ONE tiny, not very complicated thing you must do first: Get it in writing so there is no way someone can mess with your wishes.
She didn't fulfill the accepted procedure for having herself starved to death. So in order to err on the side of NOT KILLING SOMEONE, we should keep her alive.
It's really that simple: If you can't put these incredibly intense wishes of yours in writing, then how incredibly intensely could you have felt about them?
I have no doubt someone will find something wrong with this site but I am still going to toss it out there for those who would like to learn more.
Terri Schiavo Case: Legal Issues Involving Healthcare Directives, Death, and Dying
In a word, this is BS. When my father had a stroke and went into a coma (he's fine today), we discussed these matters within DAYS.
No other way to label it, this is crap. It NEVER came up for years?
"Gradually, her respect grew. "He could have stepped off and divorced Terri five years ago, when this really hit the court. And got married and started his family that way," Rowley said."
So instead he just had another family? Obviously this is a massive rationalization of crappy behavior. I mean, come ON--if your spouse had a relationship and kids while YOU were ill, even as ill as Terri, what would YOU feel? And don't give some Mr. Spock-like rationalization, how would you feel in your guts?
"The couple has two toddlers - a daughter and a son. Michael Schiavo works in the medical unit of the Pinellas County Jail. Both Centonze and Michael Schiavo had to face "their own moral dilemmas as far as having children out of wedlock," Rowley said. "But the two of them weren't getting any younger... So does that make him a bad person because he did that? Did he fluff his responsibility to Terri at any point? No."
This doesn't pass the laugh meter.
I'm open to his side of the story, but this is a sick joke--the loving family man, having a family while his wife is sick. I would think more of him if he divorced Terri because he couldn't handle her care or whatever--again, I've never been in his shoes--but having her as his project while he's having another family is a mockery of a relationship.
That would be about 5 years into Terri's illness, which would explain his remembering AFTER 7 years that Terri would have wanted to die instead! /sarcasm
This Wasserman-Schultz from Florida is very unimpressive. I wouldn't trust her to run a bake sale, let alone decide someone's life.
Michael Schiavo is a dirtbag.
I don't say much in these threads.
I'm the kind of person who wants to see the good in everyone. Always innocent until proven guilty. I want to understand why people do what they do even if what they've done is wrong or strange.
I read this article and tried to put myself in his place. And in her family's place.
But something's not right. Something doesn't make sense.
He says he is getting death threats. People are picketing outside of his home. He's afraid for the safety of his children and the woman he loves.
Why would a rational, caring man put his family in such unnecessary danger and through stress? This entire situation has been at the forefront of their lives for years. Why risk the peace and security of his family?
If he believed the Schindlers would hurt Terri in some way, I'd understand his vigilance. But that's ludicrous. Apparently he's convinced that she's a vegetable. They can't possibly hurt her, just care for her. That's all they want, that is clear to everyone!
He is torturing them. He knows the one thing they want most in the world is to save her and keep her with them. Why is he trying so hard to take her away from them? Either he hates them or he has an ulterior motive. Why else would he put his lover through this, his siblings, his friends, his children?
If he just divorced her and walked away, no one at all would be hurt. It would eventually be forgotten, shoot, to some he'd be a hero. His children won't grow up in the shadow of it, he'd be free to marry the woman he loves, life would finally go on.
If he persists, Terri will die and her family is devastatingly hurt. His name will be scorned and hated for a long time. What is gained?
If all of this turmoil is for Terri's sake, he is doing wrong by his family and by his children. If it were all about Terri, he wouldn't be with another woman. Any man that devoted isn't out having kids and a life with someone else.
It just doesn't make sense.
I wondered if this piece would mention the obvious....Terri's life insurance, but it didn't. Also, who is paying Terri's medical bills? This might impact the thinking of some one way or another. But in the long run, when some sick or handicapped person becomes either an emotional or financial burden families can't or won't cope with, the taxpayer ends up paying. Since these are the most vulnerable Americans, they shouldn't be tossed out like so much garbage, especially when we're paying billions for illegal aliens' medical/educational/welfare. If Terri Schiavo dies because of this, the door is open to do the same to countless others.
Thanks for this perspective. Have tended to mistrust him wholesale.
It does seem to highlight, at least for me, how important it is to have a fresh, independent review--hopefully with an MRI scan or some such.
The DemocRATs are full of surprises!
They have finally picked out the hill, the defense of which they are prepared to die: Hill No. 2008 or Mt. Schaivo.
Unfortunately some RepublicRATs are scambling to join their leftist allies, but there's no surprises here. These RepublicRATs are the ones usually allied with America's enemies and are the reason I NEVER contribute funds to the RNC.