Schiavo's Brother Faults Media

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.

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.

Not sure what you think 'my side' is, but it appears now you are admitting that both sides used the media. That's different from what you were claiming before.

I disagree. I said before on several posts that Michael Schiavo and his crowd gave their side of the story to the media. What I said was the the Terri Schiavo supporters who are now decrying the media coverage were the very ones who brought them into the fray. It wasn't Michael.

Public sentiment. "Aw, the poor guy. He has been taking care of his wife all these years and now he just wants to honor her wishes." Seems he garnered a lot of that, so he had plenty to gain.

Doesn't make any sense. Yes, after the Terri crowd brought in the media and created a circus atmosphere and making Michael out to be Hitler personified, of course he wanted media coverage to tell his side of it. But before that, he had absolutely nothing to be gained by the media. The Terri crowd had everything to gain.

Again with my 'side'. LOL So I point out that the liberal media did their usual thing, and you are talking about my 'side'. So I take it your 'side' thinks the liberal media is wonderful and you believe every word they say.

I refer to "your side" as the Terri supporter side, since you have argued with me about every single thing I have said here. I told you that the Terri supporters got more coverage than did the Michael S supporters. I said that the coverage seemed accurate at it reflected what the Terri supporters were actually doing. You ignore all that and simply say the liberal media did their usual thing. Perhaps you could explain what that means. Do you have some specifics? As for "my side", I was on the side of the rule of law, not the rule of mobs. Does that make my a patsy for the liberal media? If so, color most conservatives patsies.

I disagree.

Okay, but in your post, you seemed to be indicating that I was part of some 'side' other than the 'pro-Terry' side, and I knew you were not implying that I was on Michael's side.

Doesn't make any sense.

Of course it does. Arousing public sentiment was exactly what he tried to do, and as we all know, he succeeded with a great number of folks.

But before that, he had absolutely nothing to be gained by the media.

That's true. He was wanted to quietly have his wife starved to death. I never claimed he actively went after the media. I only claimed that he used the media to his benefit.

The Terri crowd had everything to gain.

The only thing they were trying to 'gain' was saving Terry's life. But of course, the media wanted to present them as a bunch of kooks, and you fell for it hook, line and sinker.

I refer to "your side" as the Terri supporter side

In the post where you brought up sides, you implied that mine was a different 'side' from the Terry supporters (see your post #69). Seems as though you make a misstatement in that post and have now clarified what you were trying to say.

I told you that the Terri supporters got more coverage than did the Michael S supporters.

Your original claim was that they used the media, they brought the media in. My counter claim was that that no one had to 'bring them in.' The media chose to make that their 'issue of the week' (and they showed they had a political agenda to promote, but that's no surprise).

I said that the coverage seemed accurate at it reflected what the Terri supporters were actually doing.

And I said that you seem to place your faith in the media to tell the whole story to you, and that you buy what they say hook, line and sinker.

You ignore all that

LOL I didn't ignore anything. You just didn't like my responses.

Perhaps you could explain what that means.

You don't know what 'the liberal media did their usual thing' means? Good heavens, everyone on FR knows that the liberal media promotes their own political agenda in every way possible. How could you be a member of FR and not know that? Well, let me help you. The media promotes their own political agenda by hiding some facts while revealing others and, at times, simply making things up. Some members of the media have been fired when they got caught by conservatives doing such things. Maybe you forgot about that.

I was on the side of the rule of law, not the rule of mobs.

Given the evidence presented, there was no clear cut proof that Terry wanted to be killed. So the claim that you were on the side of the 'rule of law' is shaky at best. Sure, the judge agreed with your view, but as everyone on FR knows, judges often use their positions to promote their political agendas as well. (And if you'd read previous Terry threads, you know this particular judge was involved in so called 'right to die' organizations. From a legal ethics position, he should have recused himself from the case.)

That's true. He was wanted to quietly have his wife starved to death. I never claimed he actively went after the media. I only claimed that he used the media to his benefit.

Why be so coy? This settles the issue of whose side you were on. And it also settles the issue of who wanted and brought in the media.

The only thing they were trying to 'gain' was saving Terry's life. But of course, the media wanted to present them as a bunch of kooks, and you fell for it hook, line and sinker.

Oh, please. As with all activist groups, they use a situation to propel a crusade. At least admit that. This was their "john Brown" moment and they weren't about to let it go by. As for kooks, I saw it on television. I saw them. Are you saying they did not do the things I said they did? Perhaps it was a bunch of media hired nutcases out there, who were filmed acting like the same kinds of looney tunes I see on the left at the WTO meetings. At least they admit to it.

Yeah I fell for it when I saw all of the desecrated flags and crucifixes, the child abuse, the threats, the press conferences of Randall Terry. So that wasn't you guys after all, huh?

This is what I said in that post:

Had the protesters simply kept a vigil, the media wouldn't have stayed at all. They saw a circus and enjoyed every second of the coverage. To be fair, so did your side of the debate. Your side used every opportunity to spin, just as Michael S. did. Both of you used the media to your best advantage, and now complain about it.

So no, I made it clear which side I though you were on. I was as you can see referring to the media circus, and said that your side loved it and did its spinning. I then referred to Michael's side. Seems like you were the one who erred.

So you don't think activist groups "bring in" the media by their actions? What the heck brought them in....a few candles? And as for the media and their political agenda, I have asked many times here what exactly did they do, and no one can seem to answer, except to say they got it wrong. I will ask again, do you have examples?

And I said that you seem to place your faith in the media to tell the whole story to you, and that you buy what they say hook, line and sinker.

Crow all you want, but please let me know what I missed. So who do you place your faith in to give the truth....WND and Life-Site News? Exactly what piece of relevant information did I miss by watching FoxNews, FR, and other relevant internet sites?

You don't know what 'the liberal media did their usual thing' means? Good heavens, everyone on FR knows that the liberal media promotes their own political agenda in every way possible

Of course, I don't trust the MSM any more than anyone else. But outside of a general tirade against the media, what have I reported on this thread that is untrue, or made up by the media? Again, the issue is the media coverage of the Terri Schiavo affair, not anything else. So again, what relevant information did they miss?

You seem to shy away from the media coverage to take on the judge. Fine. We are talking about a judge, everyone considered very conservative, more so than most, a Christian, and a regular attendee at Church. So exactly what political agenda is that? And yes, the rule of law is critical. The judge found sufficient evidence for his ruling, and the 11 subsequent reviews at every level of jurisprudence agreed with him. But since you say they were all wrong, what was the correct answer? Should we get rid of the judicial branch? Or should the citizens of Florida begin a petition drive to change the law in the state?

(And if you'd read previous Terry threads, you know this particular judge was involved in so called 'right to die' organizations. From a legal ethics position, he should have recused himself from the case.)

Irrelevant, because every issue brought up by "your side" was seen by the reviews.

This thread is not about anything other that the media, and so far, you have not shown me anything the media has done in this case that in any way impacted the results, or failed to show both sides.

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.