Posted on 03/08/2007 3:11:27 AM PST by markomalley
Bobby Schindler, brother of late Terri Schiavo, spoke to members of the Cornell community last night to promote awareness of issues facing disabled individuals.
After collapsing in her home on Feb. 25, 1990, Terri Schiavo suffered several minutes without oxygen to her brain, resulting in severe brain damage. Although she needed immediate care afterwards, a few weeks later, she only required a feeding tube to regulate her nutrition.
During 1991 and 1992, Schiavo showed signs of improvement due to rehabilitation programs and therapy, according to Schindler.
In 1993, Terri was awarded a medical trust fund of $1.5 million for life-long rehabilitation, of which her husband Michael was made guardian.
According to Schindler, after Michael deposited this money, Terri stopped receiving therapy.
Tensions arose in 1993 between Michael and Terri’s father Robert Schindler.
In 1998, Michael wrote the Schindler family a letter, explaining that he was petitioning the courts to remove his wife’s feeding tube.
Terri’s family opposed removal of the feeding tube. Michael, backed by his brother and sister-in-law, said Terri had made statements before she suffered brain damage that she would not want to live in such a condition.
“Our family was very naïve at what we were up against,” Schindler said. “The attitudes of our country [toward this issue] have been changed because of the influence of the media, judges, doctors and bioethics.”
Schindler said he was frustrated that the media portrayed his sister as bedridden and unable to be moved. In fact, Schindler said, had Terri been alive today, he could have brought her with him; she would have merely needed a wheelchair to be transported. Schindler emphasized that Schiavo was not connected to breathing stabilizers of any sort.
“My sister was not dying. She was physically as healthy as you and me,” Schindler said.
Although she could not respond rapidly, she did show signs of coherence, according to Schindler. He recounted a moment when he told his sister that he had the chance to shake hands with Bruce Springstein. Terri had purchased her brother his first C.D. by the artist. When he told her, she smiled.
Such responses were ignored by the court systems, according to Schindler. He said he believed then that videos demonstrating her ability to react to speech would convince the courts that she was not in a persistent vegetative state — one in which a person cannot respond to any external stimuli — but a judge said this did not prove his case.
On March 31, 2005, 14 days after the removal of her feeding tube, Terri died from dehydration.
“The courts have taken [on] a power of God,” Schindler said. Schindler said doctors took on a similar role and are still quick to overlook the benefits of long-term rehabilitation.
“If society knows the truth, then we can properly address the issue and give [the disabled] the right to live, a basic human right,” said Elisabeth Wilbert ’07, vice president of Cornell Coalition for Life.
CCFL invited Schindler to speak to demonstrate that the club supports pro-life organizations.
“It was a good opportunity for Cornell to get a personal view of something with such a national interest,” said Tristen Cramer ’09, president of CCFL. Schindler said his family would have preferred not to generate national interest; family members received a large number of e-mails that condemned the family for keeping Terri alive.
“I learned a lot more true information compared to what the media portrayed,” said Kourtney Reynolds ’09.
Schindler said he hopes to devalue false information given to the public by the media.
He also said that euthanasia occurred before his family’s struggle and continues to occur today.
“Are we going to care for [the disabled] or find ways to justify killing them?” Schindler asked.
You're being very gracious; thank you.
The autopsy report disagrees with you on every point. You have been reading to much MSM, or you have a fancy to fib.
It is difficult to communicate with anyone from the political extremes. The paragraph you repeated was not from the autopsy. It was from the early diagnosis after she was found and resuscitated by EMTs. None of that was from the autopsy. I linked you to an MSM article on the autopsy, because you said the MSM made no mention of what they found. The MSM article mentioned that no evidence of either a heart attack or of bulimia was found, nor was their any evidence of abuse. I pointed it out to you to once again say that the MSM in this case has given all sides.
The earlier diagnosis I showed you, which is in the records, indicated that there was heart stoppage for several minutes that cut off oxygen to the brain, and that at the time it was diagnosed as resulting from an imbalance of electrolytes. Nothing in the autopsy report that I saw contradicted that.
So once again, you won't accept the fact that there was no evidence of abuse. Is it possible that you and the entire RR are wrong? I won't ask you to admit it, but I do notice that after the autopsy, things sure did quiet down a lot.
Now, once again, what did the MSM fail to report?
After the autopsy report, there is only one suspect for that and that is Michael Schiavo. MANNER OF DEATH UNKNOWN. Case is still OPEN.
How so? Perhaps I missed the part about them finding homicide? Without that, suspects are not considered. They ruled out a heart attack, but did not rule out the imbalance I mentioned.
Earlier, I asked you 2 questions that you ignored. First was, if you were the prosecutor, what would you do? And second, what did the MSM fail to report?
It's odd that you've apparently spent some energy being worried about the 'religious right'. I'll pray that God give you some peace.
Indict him for trying trying to kill his wife in 1993, as he admitted to under oath.
And second, what did the MSM fail to report?
At this time, it is difficult to prove one way or the other. It is sort of like the coverage given to Nixon as compared to Clinton. It is slanted with intent to destroy or to preserve. It is what you find on the headlines that counts, not on page 6. The ability to influence thought is what the game is.
Look, ME, I've told you what the facts are. No one here has disclaimed them, and they are well documented, both in media reports and here on the several hundred threads on the Schiavo affair. If you cannot handle the truth, fine. Believe what you want, if it gives you some sense of closure.
It's odd that you've apparently spent some energy being worried about the 'religious right'. I'll pray that God give you some peace.
I don't worry about the RR; I simply want them out of the political environment. And when they use their money and organization to impact the elections, I will step in. I feel they have impacted my Party in ways that have led to it being viewed as extremist. My Party is a party of conservative philosophy, and that philosophy is being overshadowed by the social issues of the RR. Your issues are not those of America, and to the extent you are able to substantially influence our candidates and our platform, you harm us as a political force for freedom.
As for peace, I have led what I believe is a good life, have a wonderful family, and served my Country as best I could. And all of that gives me great peace of mind. I doubt God is going to be too concerned with my shortcomings.
Well, I missed the confession, but if you have access to it, by all means file a criminal complaint against him, and I'm sure with all that evidence, it'll be an open and shut case. Never mind what the autopsy said.
At this time, it is difficult to prove one way or the other. It is sort of like the coverage given to Nixon as compared to Clinton. It is slanted with intent to destroy or to preserve. It is what you find on the headlines that counts, not on page 6. The ability to influence thought is what the game is.
Well, I tried. The fact is, that there were clearly two sides to this whole issue, including the events leading to her coma, the years of PVS, and the legal fight ultimately ending in her death. I honestly can't think of anything the MSM did or wrote that was slanted in any way. I believe there is little to nothing that I missed from the coverage, and in fact, for years, nothing came out on Michael Shiavo's side of things at all. I think it came down to two positions, the side favoring any action to save Terri, and the side that supported the rule of law.
I don't recall it being emphasized other than in talk radio that Terri's "husband" was living with another woman at the time he wanted her to be killed. I think you need to recheck your recollection.
You mean this law?
Florida Constitution
Article One, Section Two
"Basic rights.--All natural persons, female and male alike, are equal before the law and have inalienable rights, among which are the right to enjoy and defend life and liberty, to pursue happiness, to be rewarded for industry, and to acquire, possess and protect property; except that the ownership, inheritance, disposition and possession of real property by aliens ineligible for citizenship may be regulated or prohibited by law. No person shall be deprived of any right because of race, religion, national origin, or physical disability.
Nice little nazi, aren't you?
When it comes to a fascist mentality, Hillary Clinton's got nothing on you.
I heard almost nothing of Michael S until the circus started. Then that was all I was hearing. Of course, I heard both sides of that issue, that it was Mr. Schinder who suggested that Michael move on and take on a new relationship, and then later of course, when his girlfriend and two children received the death threats. Michael apparently tried to keep her out of it, but failed. The MSM didn't cover much of anything, until Foxnews kept bringing it up, and then when the circus started, they all came in. After that, to the best of my knowledge, all aspects of it were pretty well covered.
Florida Constitution Article One, Section Two
The rule of law. The judge and some 11 reviews represented a pretty fair hearing on the issue. People who can't accept how our justice system works do not accept the rule of law.
I guess one of the greatest aspects of our Constitution is that at one time or another, everyone, no matter how ignorant, crude or valueless can find a platform. This is yours. When people start resorting to the "Nazi" charge, it says a lot more about them than it does their target.
Let's see now. "Fascist", "Nazi" in only two posts. Apparently that is how you explain my errors concerning an issue. But keep it up. You are doing more to show up the tactics of the RR than I ever could. For those who earlier here questioned my assertions about the circus outside the hospice, I think you made my point quite well, thanks.
Wrong. It's the people who fail to understand the simplest words in our constitutions who "do not accept the rule of law." You and Greer and all your buddies are the enemies of life and liberty and our constitutional form of republican government.
Quit making fascist comments and I'll quit describing your attitude toward my freedom as an American.
It appears to be the constitutional form of republican government you seem to be at war with, since you cannot accept a republican form of government whereby a state makes decisions consistent with the 10th Amendment, nor can you accept the judicial branch, an integral part of our constitutional form of government. Those who only accept the rule of law if they agree with the results are champions of neither life nor of liberty, at least not in this Nation.
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.