Posted on 05/07/2005 7:03:09 AM PDT by veronica
MIAMI - The family of a severely brain-damaged woman who died after her feeding tube was removed in March said Friday they still have not been told where her remains will be laid to rest.
Terri Schiavo's parents and siblings, who waged a lengthy court battle over her end-of-life wishes, said on Fox's "Hannity & Colmes" show that her husband is keeping her remains from them.
"They were supposed to tell us, and we still have not heard from ... Michael Schiavo where Terri's been laid," said Terri Schiavo's brother, Bobby Schindler. "Our family expected this. Michael has disobeyed court orders throughout the ordeal and continues to do so today."
Michael Schiavo is under court order to notify the Schindlers of his plans for a memorial service. He has had his wife cremated and has said her ashes would be buried at a family plot in Pennsylvania.
George Felos, Michael Schiavo's attorney, did not immediately return a call Friday night seeking comment.
Terri Schiavo, 41, died March 31 in a Pinellas Park hospice, 13 days after her feeding tube was removed by court order. She suffered brain damage in 1990 after a chemical imbalance caused her heart to stop.
She left no written instructions in the event she became disabled, and her husband said she never would have wanted to be kept alive in what court-appointed doctors called a persistent vegetative state with no hope of recovery.
The Schindlers, however, doubted she had any such end-of-life wishes. They maintained she would benefit from rehabilitation, despite most doctors saying her condition was irreversible
That hyperbole needs more cowbell.
You have a point there. I never thought of the idea that he would simply keep control of the ashes in his home--one more way to control her, and, her family.
Demons do walk the earth. The piece-or-$#!T proved it.
Everytime this subject comes up we start talking about mentally disabled people and handicapped people and that has NOTHING to do with the subject at hand. And then there's no rational debate that can occur.
We do not determine who lives or dies based on what they cost.
How very easy you progress to murder when you judge someone too expensive.
All other generations have managed to work though these situations. Why should the most advanced generation be the first to kill our weak?
I would suggest that we promote the medical industry to improve the lives of those given extended lives. Surely they will be able to bring about better "quality" if the emphasis is placed on that.
Thank you for explaining that to me because I certainly missed the rationale in your previous posts.
I haven't seen a copy of the order, but its existence is reported by multiple sources.
A court order issued Tuesday gave Michael Schiavo the power to make these decisions, and also required him to notify her parents of memorial services and where the ashes will be interred.A fair inference of intent would be that her blood relatives be apprised sometime BEFORE the burial (where the ashes WILL BE interred), but even if the order reads as admitting apprisal after the burial, one would think the court expects timely communication.
I will answer your question about who will pay.
The family and then Medicaid - just like they do on all other cases.
Answer me this. Who pays for prisoners? Who pays lifetime salaries for senators? Who pays for the perks of power in government? Who pays for the medical services and benefits given to illegals? Who pays for welfare? Who pays unemployment? Who pays for foreign aid? Who pays for charity?
I would suggest that you start economizing in these areas before you condone murder because of expense.
"Could any one who is praising Mark Fuhrman tell me why, if he had all this information, he didn't come forward with it while Terri was alive?"
Well if the Congress, Senate, President, Pope, Governor Jeb, Florida Senate, Judiciary, Pinellas Co. Police etc..had no effect in stopping this 'legalized murder' just what exactly could Mark Fuhrman do to stop it?
If he had evidence, that wouldn't have done anything? And why would it make any difference now? Why bother to publish a book if what he has to say wouldn't change anything? Unless it is to simply make money. No surprise there.
No, it was a horrible mess because it revealed that not everybody has a respect for the sanctity of life even though they are conservative.
It was an eye opener.
I never thought I would see the day when people justified killing the weak. It scared me. So, from that point of view, it was worth it. We now know what is out there and we are far closer to euthanasia as a society than I would have dreamed.
Learning how easily even "conservatives" can discount an American and deny them the right to life based on their health makes me realize we have to fight this battle now because we are already on that slippery slope caused by abortion.
Did you ever expect to live in a society that allows men to judge whether some in society should be killed off because of their health condition? And, that it would be the government doing it?
Who in their right mind would give this power to the government no matter the reason?
Gotta love it. Everyone's motives are impure. But yours, of course...
My read, which is indirect because it is only news reports, is that he can obey the court order and avoid communicating with the Schindlers by having no plan. He is required to report his plans (and I assume also that the court order expects his actions in the burial and services will comport with his plans). As long as he plans nothing, and just leaves her remains "wherever," he has not violated the court order.
His lawsuit was attached to her lawsuit and it was valid and typical.
If the drunk was in a PVS state with no hope of recovery, yes. Your assumption that people just want to get rid of other people is breathtaking in it's pessimism about the human condition.
What could we have done? Nothing. It was investigated thoroughly before they moved in that direction.
But, we do as all grassroots people do, we voice our opinion.
I don't have any power to go to war, to make laws, to write news. The only power I have is my opinion same as millions of others.
Again, what could we have done to save Terri?
Very few. Option A is preferred because it permits withholding food from people with irreversible conditions that render them unable to decide for themselves, such as dementia (Altzheimers). I believe that food and water are life-support treatments, under your advance directive.
Some states have model forms where a person can direct being watered and fed, but not medicated or otherwise treated. Your form doesn't give that option.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.