Terri Schiavo never told Michael she wanted to be unplugged!

[IndianaGreen]

The defenders of Michael Schiavo are posting an article in The Guardian as "proof" that Robert Schindler, Terri's dad, had his own mother disconnected from a ventilator.

I submit the same article as evidence that Terri Schiavo never told Michael that she wanted to be unplugged, instead it was Michael's own experience with the death of his own mother that led him to claim that Terri wanted to be "unplugged."

This issue has impacted both families in the past. Here is the Schiavo side:

By 1997, when Michael was set to remove the feeding tube for the first time, the stage was set for an epic confrontation. It is unclear what led to the change of heart, but Scott Schiavo, Michael's elder brother, says he arrived at the decision soon after the painful death of his own mother. "It sort of woke him up when he was watching my mother die," he says. "One day he just stood up and said: 'I can't do this any more. I can't do this to Terri.'"

http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1077219,00.html

And here is the Schindler side:

But, given the vehemence with which he has been fighting to prolong Terri's life, it is a little surprising to learn that Robert decided to turn off the life-support system for his mother. She was 79 at the time, and had been ill with pneumonia for a week, when her kidneys gave out. "I can remember like yesterday the doctors said she had a good life. I asked, 'If you put her on a ventilator does she have a chance of surviving, of coming out of this thing?'" Robert says. "I was very angry with God because I didn't want to make those decisions."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1077219,00.html

There are those that see everything through partisan lenses. One side will blame Clinton for everything, while the other blames Karl Rove. The truth is that there are millions of people that do not judge an issue based on partisanship but on their moral/ethical/religious core values. That's the disagreement we have in here!

This is a tragic situation in which there are no winners. However, I can guarantee you that the underlying issues in the Schiavo case are going to be with us for many years to come.

I will call to your attention the following passage in The Guardian's story:

It is unclear what led to the change of heart, but Scott Schiavo, Michael's elder brother, says he arrived at the decision soon after the painful death of his own mother.

There is no mention in here that Terri Schiavo ever told Michael that she wanted to be unplugged. Michael just made it up!

[BlueEyedSon]

1. Mr Schaivo was not the only person who testified as to what Mrs Sciavo's

wished might be.

[LisaL]

69. It was Michael, his brother and sister in law.

[BlueEyedSon]

78. See?

[LisaL]

80. See what? Those people are all related to Michael Schiavo.

[Zuni]

2. I feel that sadly, you may be right

Michael did not mention Terri's wish to die for 7 years.

[HockeyMom]

7. Sorry, people

Months ago I watched an interview with one of Teri's friends (she testified in court) who said they were discussing the Karen Quinlin case and Teri told her that she would not want to live as a vegetable for the rest of her life like Karen Quinlin. It was on CNN. I saw it. I wonder WHY they aren't replaying that interview? Maybe because they don't want to?

If she said as much to a friend, why wouldn't she say the same to her husband?

[LisaL]

76. You have got it completely wrong. The friend testified

Terri did not approve the removal of life support from Karen Ann Quinlan.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

8. Why would he? He was busy exhausting all hope

that the condition would be reversible? That's the problem with this statement.

If he were to attempt to claim she wanted to die during the time when he was attempting to rehabilitate her, I would be FAR more suspect.

[NYC]

3. I've been posting the Guardian link.

I feel that people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. Both DeLay and Schindler live in glass houses.

[IndianaGreen]

5. But you didn't read it! You just wanted to score a political point.

Set the partisan lenses aside for a moment and read what Scott Schiavo says about the death of their own mother. It was then that Michael said he couldn't let Terri go through the same thing. Terri never told Michael that she wanted to be unplugged. Terri's wishes were never made known!

[bettyellen]

11. it doesn't say terri never told michael, or that the other witnesses lied.

one person projecting what another person's thought process was.
oh please.

[IndianaGreen]

13. It does state the time line in which Michael decided to unplug his wife

and it was based on Michael's experience during his mother's death.

There is nothing in Scott Schiavo's statement that says that Terri wanted to be unplugged. In an unguarded moment, in an interview with a friendly British liberal newspaper, Scott Schiavo may have told us a lot!

[bettyellen]

16. and michael is the dingo that ate that baby!! LOL! so much incredible

slander. and you give it creedence. whatever.
the end seems to justify the lies and slander to her parents and lawyers.

[IndianaGreen]

17. I merely pointed out what Scott Schiavo said

and what he failed to say.

What did Terri really say, if anything?

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

20. Is Scott Schiavo a party to the case?

[IndianaGreen]

22. He was one of the witnesses on Michael Schiavo's side

as was his wife.

BTW, cute asking if he was a party to the case since he was not a litigant.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

24. Yeah and cute spamming all the forums with innuendo

That Michael's mother had a profound effect on him has no relevance to whether Terri Schiavo wanted to persist in a PVS indefinitely with no hope of recovery.

[IndianaGreen]

27. It sure is a material fact in the case

If the death of Michael Schiavo's mother was the event that made Michael decide to spare Terri the same fate, it sure is a material fact in this case.

Or are we moving away from "whatever Terri wants" to "whatever Michael wants"?

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

29. You are moving it that way, not me

Read the judge's decision and the facts he considered in arriving at it. Half of what you are claiming is not even relevant to HOW he arrived ar his decision and what LITMUS tests were used in determining it.

[IndianaGreen]

32. The law says that the spouse is the surrogate decision maker for the

severely impaired spouse. Judge Greer ruled on the law, and he was upheld on the law. You and I both know that!

The issue that has been burning the DU boards is whether the starving and dehydration of Terri Schiavo conforms to her wishes. I suggest it does not! I also suggest, based on Scott Schiavo's interview in The Guardian, that perjury may have been committed during this process.

The law needs to be changed!

[bettyellen]

36. Again, ignoring the other four witnesses.........

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

38. The law makes no distinction as to artificial life support

that is the only issue where the feeding tube is concerned.

The surrogate is NOT the surrogate decision maker, but the surrogate PARTY bringing the incapacitated's interests before the court since the incapacited is unable to do so in this matter. That is not the same thing.

[IndianaGreen]

49. But some people's religious faith do make a distinction!

The law makes no distinction as to artificial life support
that is the only issue where the feeding tube is concerned.

Correct as far as the 1990 Cruzan decision by SCOTUS, but as I pointed out before, Judge Greer ruled based on the law.

The problem is that according to the religious faith of many, denying food and water from someone is euthanasia. I am not speaking of the likes of Randall Terry in here, I am speaking of people such as Rabbi Marc Gellman and others.

I will also point out that many of us have doubts as to Terri Schiavo's desires on this matter, particularly in view of Scott Schiavo's statement in The Guardian.

As to witnesses, that's some witness list: Michael, Scott, and Scott's wife.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

52. Her family testified as well. They lied.

Are you saying no Catholics have ever declined a feeding tube? Was she following her religion when she purged every time she ate? Did she follow all aspects of her religion? Is there evidence she wanted her relgion to decide her right to refuse?

[IndianaGreen]

54. You are going off on a tangent, counselor

The fact is that we don't know with certainty what Terri wanted, but we do know that current laws make someone like Michael the surrogate decision maker.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

58. Sorry.. the only person leading us all into the briar patch is you with

innuendo

[IndianaGreen]

59. You calling Scott Schiavo's statement innuendo?

I call it probable cause that Michael Schiavo has been less than candid regarding his dying wife's wishes.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

65. No. I regard your interpretations of Scott Schiavo's statements to be

innuendo.

[LisaL]

77. Yes. He was one to testify about Terri's wishes.

He claims Terri told him during grandma's funeral that she wouldn't want to "live that way".

[IndianaGreen]

79. NSMA is playing a lawyer's word game

A party to a case are the following: plaintiff, defendant, third parties. Scott Schiavo was a witness, not a party. His name does not appear in the courts' documents.

Michael (the "Petitioner") asked the court to order that Terri be unplugged. The case was tried without a jury. Bob and Mary Schindler were the "Respondants." All three of them are the parties in this case. Everyone else is a witness.

[LisaL]

81. Thanks.

Not being a lawyer, I assumed party just meant someone who was involved in the case and testified in court about the case.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

84. A party to the case is a plaintiff or a defendant

not a witness

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

83. And you're playing a use impeached testimony game

Her parents were less than forthciming in their depos

[bettyellen]

21. keep ignoring the four witnesses.............

and grab on to shreds of hearsay like this. someone guessing how he made the decision.
becasue that means more than four witnesses.
you're wasting your time with this.

[LisaL]

70. No, there was the three of them-Michael, his brother Scott and

the brother's wife.

[bettyellen]

23. sorry, you just added to the heap of slander against michael.......

but i'm sure you feel your desired end justifies ignoring the court testimony of four friends. and creating more slander against the poor man.

[IndianaGreen]

25. Slander?

You better read the legal definition of slander!

[bettyellen]

34. that's where your innuendo belongs. in the pile of made up theories.....

of which most are nothing less than slanderous allegations and innuendo.
you want to ignore the testimony of four witnesses, for the sake of your theory , go right ahead.

[LisaL]

71. Again, wasn't four. And I already listed who they were.

[NYC]

33. I read what he said. I don't care if they keep her alive 100 years.

I got interested in this case when the U.S. Congress decided to subvert the system of checks and balances, and they succeeded. That was wrong.

That the federal court did not overturn the ruling of the state court does not change the fact that the U.S. Congress did what they did.

The state court has ruled repeatedly that she should be unplugged. Therefore, I agree with unplugging.

As far as Terri Schiavo is concerned, it doesn't matter to me if she is unplugged or kept alive for all eternity. No cerebrum = no torment.

My political point is that Tom DeLay led the charge. He hypocritically said that unplugging someone would be "barbaric". DeLay's father shouldn't be a vegetable; Schindler's mother shouldn't be a vegetable; but a woman without a cerebrum may miraculously regrow a cerebrum?

[bettyellen]

43. agreed, mr delay and mr schindler are murderers-- but only according to

how they themselves have defined it.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

4. Here's Judge Greer's decision in determining what Terri's wishes were

http://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/trialctorder02-00.pdf

I submit the same article as evidence that Terri Schiavo never told Michael that she wanted to be unplugged, instead it was Michael's own experience with the death of his own mother that led him to claim that Terri wanted to be "unplugged."

For being worried that this is all hearsay, you are submitting an article ABOUT Michael as evidence.

It was following a funeral, that Terri made that statement but she made it in several other contexts as well.

[IndianaGreen]

10. The Judge followed the law, counselor

and the law says that the spouse is the guardian of the disabled spouse. I suggest to you that Michael, Scott, and Scott's wife, perjured themselves when they told the court that Terri had made her wishes explicit.

[bettyellen]

14. and the lawyer who claims she and terri were joking last week?

and the parents who waited 7 years to attack michael and say he might have been abusive?
all so credible, and so caring about what terri wanted. not.

[bettyellen]

39. wow, you really like to ignore the facts when they don't suit you......

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

15. I get fatigued repeating myself

BTW..if Mrs Schindler had not have impeached herself she'd have done herself a favor. Here's my post.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=3362484&mesg_id=3365506

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

18. By the way, there's a shitload of holes in that article

such as the fact that she had developed an infection, a common complication from feeding tubes and inability to swallow as the feeding tube creates infections and salive aspirating into the lungs causes bouts of aspiration pneumonia.

When Michael didn't want to keep putting her body through futile treatments that did NOT omprove her quality of life, the parents balked...not that THEY HAD been providing care. They were not even visitng her regularly at the time of the first hearing

[mikehiggins]

30. Now THAT'S a charge I'd love to hear someone make out in the open

instead of tiptoeing around it.

Why, oh why, couldn't DeLay or Frist fly to Pinellas Park and make that statement to the press and public?

I would consider something like that Christmas in Eastertime.

So you think Michael Shiavo purjured himself in court under oath. You are accusing him of committing a felony in court.

And the basis for this charge is?

[bettyellen]

6. yeah, but terri's wishes were confirmed in court by other witnesses..

just keep ignoring that michael spent years on a losing battle to rehab his wife, before accepting the fact it was hopeless.....
terri expressed her wishes to others, the court found this to be true. her parents do not care what terri's wishes were, that is their testimony.
end of story.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

9. Her parents weren't even visitng her regularly when this became

an issue.

[illflem]

12. He didn't mention Teri's wishes for seven years because he was

under the false hope that she could get better.
Four of Terri's close friends testified in court that Terri related to them she didn't want to live in this condition, and 22 courts agreed.
I don't understand why people have such a problem getting this though their thick skulls.

[LisaL]

75. No, you are absolutely wrong. It was Michael, his brother Scott,

and brother's wife. Terri's mother and best friend testified to the opposite, that Terri didn't approve the removal of life support from Karen Anne Quinlan.

[DemBones DemBones]

85. You're correct but they keep ignoring your posts. Wonder why?

Michael, his brother Scott, and Scott's wife testified that Terri would want to die. That certainly keeps it all in Michael's family.

(I think it's interesting that none of Terri's siblings is claiming to know what Terri wants. Interesting because they're all siding with their parents but none of them are perjuring themselves, which would seem fairly easy and safe to do. Who could prove that Terri didn't tell them anything they claim? It must have been a strong temptation to them. Imagine being in their position. I can't imagine that any of us in a similar position would NOT consider lying to save a sibling's life. Some would no doubt decide to do it, too.)

Anyway, Terri's mother and Terri's best friend testified on her behalf. They said she had opposed the removal of Karen Ann Quinlan from life support, that she thought that was wrong.

Maybe Terri said different things at different times? Maybe she wasn't clear about wanting to die?

What Mrs. Schindler and Terri's best friend testified says a lot because Quinlan was on a ventilator, yet Terri believed she should have been kept on the ventilator. If we think about it, that suggests that Terri would REALLY disapprove of someone being put to death by starvation and dehydration. They're having to give her morphine now for the pain caused by her organ systems starting to shut down.

The painless starvation deaths you hear about are like my mother-in-law who refused a feeding tube but was able to continue taking some nourishment and water orally up until her death. When you completely cut off someone's access to food and water, it's inhumane. It raises the question of why not a lethal injection? If we're going to sentence a person to die for the "crime" of being disabled and inconvenient, can't we be as nice to them as to a murderer? A murderer on Florida's death row can choose lethal injection or electrocution. But Terri Schiavo must starve and thirst to death for her "crime."

[LisaL]

87. Exactly. Based on the evidence presented to judge Greer, I

could never conclude it was "clear and convincing". Here is Michael Schiavo and his relatives, some 7 years after the fact, testifying about sick grandma on a ventilator and such. At the time, Mr. Schiavo had already moved in with his girlfriend. Is it her wishes, or is it his wishes to get rid of the burden?
Her friends don't believe she said anything of the sort, at least the ones I saw interviewed on TV. At least 2 people said Michael Schiavo told them soon after her collapse he and Terri never discussed anything of the sort, so he doesn't know what her wishes are. Yet, she is about to die based on his testimony. It doesn't seem right to me at all.
None of us know what she feels or what she wants right now. Yet she is being dehydrated to death over something she presumably said years and years ago.

[mikehiggins]

19. Since this article never touched on it, the statements were never made?

Interesting concept. So, if articles regarding ENRON never mention Ken Lay's involvement, we can assume he had nothing to do with what happened?

Fortunately, the court prevails over emotions, and yes, even articles in newspapers. The court examined the record and determined that this was indeed what Terry Shiavo would desire were she able to speak for herself (an obvious impossibility since she has effectively been dead for over a decade).

If we decide that court decisions can simply be set aside to allow our positions to go forward, all well and good. In such a case, of course, I suggest everyone take advantage of the Second Amendment and start stocking up on weaponry.

Without the law we have anarchy.

[spooked911]

26. I was under the impression that Michael Chiavo testified under oath

about whether Terri wanted to live on life-support.

Are you saying because this article never mentions that testimony, that MS committed perjury? Or does the article say he committed perjury?

It seems like you are getting awfully excited about the absence of something that is known to be in the record.

[IndianaGreen]

28. I think that Scott Schiavo's statement raises the issue that Michael lied

about Terri's actual intentions.

[mikehiggins]

31. Well, what is it? Did he lie or did he not? eom

[IndianaGreen]

35. I don't know

but I think that Scott Schiavo's interview demands that we pursue this matter further.

[bettyellen]

37. four witnesses not enough for you? and how many, 19? court rulings......

oh please, this is done.
what do you think, you discovered startling new evidence? LOL.
get a grip.

[IndianaGreen]

40. Appellate courts never consider new evidence

they only review the record of the trial court to see if there are grounds for reversal, and it takes an egregious mistake on the part of the court to bring a reversal.

[bettyellen]

41. what you consider to be evidence is a friggin joke........

someone guessing about another's decision making process? i don't think so.
you are grasping at straws, and, one more time: accusing him of PERJURY, when there are
4 WITNESSES to suuport his testimony, that you still pretend don't exist.

[Tinoire]

51. And many witnesses discredited it. Why are you not looking at that?

One of the four you're touting was Michael Schiavo's brother btw.

The same judge who immediately gave Michael Schiavo rights of ownership over his disabled wife is a hard-core, Christian Evangelical, who denied an injuction to a woman named Helene Ball McGee when she came to him pleading for protection from an abusive husband who had raped her, set her clothes on fire, told her she was possessed by the devil and that he was going to kill her.

Michael Schiavo's Florida judge said she hadn't "convinced" him that her life was in danger, despite the testimony of her co-workers, and refused to sign the injunction.

Two weeks later Robert Lane McGhee stabbed his wife and threw her body in a ditch with a black mask over her face.

http://www.sptimes.com/News/121000/news_pf/State/Vulnerable_system.shtml

http://www.sptimes.com/2005/03/06/Tampabay/Quiet_judge_persists_.shtml

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22Helene+Ball+McGee%22

This same judge has been implicated in insurance fraud (some woman plotted with her son to have him kill her 6th husband for insurance money (all caught on tape), forged important documents to get the money solely awarded to her) but Greer allowed her to keep the money because despite all the evidence, he wasn't convinced.

http://www.sptimes.com/2003/09/19/Tampabay/Officials_drop_charge.shtml

Really sick stuff.

But who are we as Democrats to question the judiciousness of a hard-core evangelical judge from the same glorious Florida courts that, in their infinite wisdom, gave us Bush over Gore :shrug:

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

57. My god the legnths you will go to with propaganda!

Where is the judge implicated in this article?

Officials drop charges in alleged murder plot
By STEPHEN NOHLGREN, Times Staff Writer
Published September 19, 2003

In 1990, Janet Smith's seventh husband, a Largo plumber, drowned in the Suwannee River. She collected $230,000 in insurance and although his children were suspicious, no charges were filed.

Last year, Smith's son secretly taped conversations in which he and his mother talked about killing an ex-husband in Arkansas for more insurance money. Police arrested her and charged her with solicitation for murder.

This week, authorities in Arkansas dropped the charges that had been filed against Smith, 61. She was scheduled to stand trial Monday in the Ozark town of Mountain Home. Prosecutors said they were unable to subpoena the alleged victim, Cecil Griffin, to make sure he testified.

But Smith's attorney said prosecutors also could not authenticate the tape recordings in which Smith allegedly discussed Griffin's demise. Her son said he made the tapes because he didn't want to commit murder.

"I said all along (the tapes) were fake, because that wasn't my conversation," Smith said Thursday.
http://www.sptimes.com/2003/09/19/Tampabay/Officials_drop_charge.shtml


In March 1998, Judge George Greer was criticized for denying an injunction to Helene Ball McGee, who was stabbed to death in her Dunedin home. Her husband, the man she tried but failed to get an injunction against, was charged with her murder.

At the time, Greer said he denied the petition because she did not complain about physical violence, which the law requires for a judge to issue an injunction.

http://www.sptimes.com/News/121000/news_pf/State/Vulnerable_system.shtml


I am not a big fan of convservative Republican judges, but the issue was with the LAW not the judge. The article DOES NOT state whet YOU say it states

[Name removed]

61. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

64. I read your links and quoted them. And you did the same thing

with Democratic candidates. Claimed they said something they didn't and used questionable sources on numerous occasions to impugn them just as you are doing here.

If you don't like me, that's fine. Somehow I will find the will to go on.

But please keep your insults to yourself.

I read your links and I demonstrated that they don't say what YOU claim they do.

It's right here posted on the board for all who can read to see.

[Tinoire]

89. Lol. I'll take it you didn't like my response

It is now an "insult" to ask you to do a little research? Or was the insult in pointing out that you would have no more problems nuancing this issue than you nuanced the war and nuanced for the war supporting candidates?

"And you did the same thing with Democratic candidates. Claimed they said something they didn't and used questionable sources on numerous occasions to impugn them just as you are doing here."

Lol. LMAO. "I voted for the war but I was really against it".

Like you? I don't even KNOW you. What on earth could there be to "like" or not like? I do not like your OPINIONS on certain matters but what the hell, sue me.

[Tinoire]

42. Michael's fist girlfriend, Cindy Shook, from 1991- one year after Terri

had her accident, that he was a controlling obsessive who stalked her after she broke up with whim and whose exact words to her later on were:

"How the hell should I know we never spoke about this, my God I was only 25 years old. How the hell should I know? We were young. We never spoke of this."

I can't think of any 25 year olds I know who, before the Schiavo case, ever even thought of this issue.

In 1991 this man had already moved on despite his money-grubbing tears on the witness stand.


IN THE CIRCUIT COURT IN AND FOR PINELLAS COUNTY, FLORIDA
CASE NO. 92-939-15
EXCERPT OF JURY TRIAL - TESTIMONY OF MICHAEL RICHARD SCHIAVO
(November 5, 1992)

page 26
Q. Why did you want to learn to be a nurse?
page 27
A. Because I enjoy it and I want to learn more how to take
care of Terry.

Q. You're a young man. Your life is ahead of you. Your
future is beyond you. Up the road, when you look up
the road, what do you see for yourself?

A. I see myself hopefully finishing school and taking care
of my wife.

Q. Where do you want to take care of your wife?
A. I want to bring my wife home.

Q. If you had the resources available to you, if you had
the equipment and the people, would you do that?
A. Yes, I would, in a heartbeat.

Q. How do you feel about being married to Terry now?
A. I feel wonderful. She's my life and I wouldn't trade
her for the world. I believe in my -- I believe in my
wedding vows.

Q. What do you mean? You want to take a minute?
A. Yeah.

MR. WOODWORTH: If the Court would let us take a minute.
Q. (BY MR. WOODWORTH:) You okay?
A. Yeah. I'm sorry.

Q. Have -- you said you believe in your wedding vows, what
do you mean by that?
A. I believe in the vows that I took with my wife,
through sickness, in health, for richer or poorer. I
married my wife because I love her and I want to spend
the rest of my life with her.
I'm going to do that.

===

$2.25 million dollars, received for the rehabilitative care he wept he wanted to give Terri while he spent the rest of HIS life with her, the tune became remarkably different.

The man directed the staff to cease rehabilitative treatement, slapped a DNR (do not ressuscitate) on her chart, had the staff stop the spoon-feeding treatments and switch to tubes, forbade the staff from giving her any antibiotics when she cut pneumonia, cut her family off from her, forbade the hospital staff to talk to the family, got court orders to stop her family from filming her and waited for her to die.

How can people not smell a rat? And all of this covered up by the same Florida courts that gave us Bush :shrug:

[Old and In the Way]

53. Sorry, the law doesn't work that way.

You can second guess for the Schindler's...other's can do the same for the Schiavo's. The bottom line, the courts ruled for the husband. Every time. I really don't want to create the Department of Rat Smelling to replace the foundation of our legal system. I really don't think you or I, or anyone else not connected to this case directly, can begin to "know" who is right or wrong on this case, can we?

But, let's say, for argument's sake, you are right....if you believe in God, then Michael will have to answer to the Ultimate Judge. Until then, I see no great purpose in undermining a legal system that serves to keep us from falling into a Religious Totalitarian Society where people like Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson get to decide who is right or wrong.

[Tinoire]

62. Your post merits more of an answer than I can whip out in the 2 minutes

I have left at DU today (very late for a lunch). I agree with your basic premise but don't believe justice was served, beyond the shadow enough of a doubt, to end a life that didn't receive the care that people who loved her wanted her to get.

In the end yes Schiavo will answer to the ultimate judge as will those who supported and pushed for this war but that didn't and shouldn't stop us from speaking out.


Later

[LisaL]

74. There is another lady, who says basically the same thing.

That Michael would even ask her what to do with Terri, because he didn't know what Terri would have wanted, that they never talked about it.

[catastrophicsuccess]

44. It doesn't matter anyway

Its his decision because he is the legal guardian. understand?

[BrklynLiberal]

46. Actually it was the court's decision. That is why they have keep going

back to court to try to change it.

[catastrophicsuccess]

47. No its not

The court simply interprets the law. The law is that in the absence of a living will, the legal guardian makes the decision.

[bettyellen]

56. nope, the court determined what terri's wishes were, not michael.

[LisaL]

72. Based on his testimony.

[Old and In the Way]

45. Absolutely pathetic.

I guess husbands and wives need to start taping all their private conversations so people like you won't be spreading unknowable conjecture about what might or might not have been said in the course of their private lives.

[bettyellen]

48. oh, but the conjecture is STARTLING NEW EVIDENCE!!! and he needs some

becasue he's ignored the other four witnesses...ROTFL.

[IndianaGreen]

50. And who are those "witnesses"?

Michael, Scott, Scott's wife...

Yet the statement by Scott to The Guardian indicates that it was the death of Schiavo's mother that moved Michael to spare Terri the same fate, and NOT any statement that Terri had made.

[bettyellen]

55. much more credible than her lawyer--who was joking w/ terri last week...

or the schindlers, who have inspired you to join in the slander fest and disregard for terri's wishes.

[katsy]

60. I didn't get that from the article.

You're GUESS may be as good as mine... but what if Michael was disregarding Terri's wishes for all those years. Maybe it took his mom's death to finally start respecting Terri's wishes.

Not that it should matter. Because by any standard, it's a personal, gut-wrenching, tragic, family matter. People have their own conscious and god to answer to.

Justice may be blind, but arriving at justice via newspaper interviews is stupid.

[LisaL]

73. There are also several people who made similar claims-that

right after the collapse, Michael Schiavo confided to them he had no idea what Terri would have wanted because they never discussed it.

[LisaL]

82. Yes, Scott was the one claiming Terri was discussing

sick grandma who was on a ventilator, and told him she didn't want to "live that way".

[bettyellen]

63. this is a moral issue for you, so mr de lay and mr schindler are murderers

who you are now giving credibility to while all three of you slander michael.
interesting situation you find yourself in, huh?

[Old and In the Way]

66. Here's what I find strange.

Can anyone of these people, who are soooo morally outraged by Mr. Schiavo's actions, actually believe that his wife would want to live like she has for 15 years? Would anyone who was lucid enough to have a say, want to live on a feeding tube in such a way for another 15, 20, 30, or 50 years?

My mom died from ALS. Before she lost her ability to speak, she made sure her kids knew that she did not want to be resuscitated under any circumstances. Why would we assume that Terri Schiavo would feel any differently? She is dead, has been for 15 years. But, even if she were aware, why are we so sure she wouldn't be in total agreement with her husband and why would some be so quick to condemn her to living this non-life for years to come?

I'd expect my wife to do exactly as Michael Schiavo is doing and she has said the same to me. Honestly, I know few sane people that would want their life extended under these circumstances.

[bettyellen]

67. guilt because they couldn't pull the plug even if their loved one wanted

it, fear of what their family/ church/ neighbors might say-- that they didn't do everything possible "to save" their loved one, that's a big one....
fear of it happening to them, fear of gods wrath, who knows how many extremely personal reasons. what bothers me, is other's decisions don't matter as much as their own personal reasons.
no one seems to be able to understand that michael went from hope to acceptance over the course of a few years. they don't seem to understand the natural progression of things, and so read a lot into the situation that's not there. a lot of these people are loathe to admit it, but they'd outlaw all living wills. no harm done, if the patient doesn't know it, they say. i say fuck them, they have no business deciding for the 70% of us who disagree.

[Old and In the Way]

68. Exactly, this is about projecting their views of life on someone

else's travails. And to think we can look forward to thousands more Terri Schiavo stories with which to destroy the fabric of our social civil society...

[DemBones DemBones]

86. Every case is different. I can understand why

Bob Schindler didn't give consent for conrinuing a ventilator, starting dialysis, etc., for his mother and why the Delay family didn't keep Tom's dad plugged in. For one thing, in the case of Tom Delay's father, Tom's mother was the one who got to decide. But comparing people deciding not to keep a relative whose kidneys are failing on a ventilator to the Terri Schiavo case is really comparing two very different things. There often comes a point when a person is terminally ill and a choice has to be made whether to continue extraordinary means to keep the person alive.


But Terri Schiavo is not terminally ill, has not been on a ventilator, her kidneys were not failing. All that was wrong with Terri was a profound disability, something that certainly has changed the nature of her life but has not been painful. She was NOT dying. NOW, after ten days without food or water, she may indeed be dying, but her death is being caused by the inhumane decision of the courts to allow her husband to kill her by starvation and dehydration.

This is euthanasia, folks. Isn't it great to have Nazi laws enforced in the USA?

[LisaL]

88. I wish we actually did have euthanasia. If we going to starve/

dehydrate people to death (which we are doing), at least we should do it humanly and give them the lethal injection. Instead of making them dehydrate/starve to death over prolonged period of time. Now, again, if they say she doesn't suffer, why are they giving her morphine? Something ain't kosher, and it's pretty clear to me that she can feel pain, otherwise, why pain medication? She has been given pain medication throughout 15 years as well. If she is in PVS, she isn't supposed to feel pain, so, why pain medication?

[Name removed]

90. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

91. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.