Knowing death imminent, Husband refuses to allow parents to be present

[Broken Glass Can]

So she died without her parents present.

BTW, Terri Schiavo just died.

[The once and future king]

Who?

[tek]

With all the crap they gave him all these years, I don't blame him.

[Broken Glass Can]

The latest update is less clear as to whether they were present or not - we will find out later.

In any case, at a minimum, they had to plead with the guy just to be with their daughter. Would you treat your in-laws this way?


Terri Schiavo Dies (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,152015,00.html)

Terri Schiavo (search) died Thursday morning around 10 a.m. EST after her parents had plead with her husband Michael Schiavo to allow them to be at their brain-damaged daughter's bedside in her final hours, a spokesman for the family said.



<font color="green">The Earlier Report: </font>

Per Foxnews Alert.

The Parents of Terri Schiavo have been told that they will not be allowed to see Terri again. Michael intends on spending the remaining time with Terri.

The Family even offered to be in the same room with Michael if that is the only way they could be with their daughter when she died, but Michael has rejected the request.

The Family has been told that they will not be allowed to see her again. ______________________________


Breaking: News announcing that Terri Schiavo has passed away. Prayers up.


Further update: The family requested to be with her as her condition worsened. They were told they could not, that Michael Schiavo would be the only one in with Terri during an assessment of her condition by her physician.

Her parents left and then were called back almost immediately. Immediate family members were allowed in with her after she passed away.

[vulturesrow]

[ QUOTE ]
With all the crap they gave him all these years, I don't blame him.

[/ QUOTE ]

Give me a break. That is their child. And what sort of crap did they give him exactly, other than wanting to get custody of her?

[MMMMMM]

IMO this guy is scum.

[nicky g]

From the BBC:
"Her parents and their two other children were with her up to 15 minutes before she died.

A few minutes before she died, they were told to leave the room by Michael Schiavo, their spokesman said.

They were allowed back into the room after she died. "

I agree with you for once (assuming what they said is true), not cool at all.

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
The Parents of Terri Schiavo have been told that they will not be allowed to see Terri again.

[/ QUOTE ]

Unless Terri's parent's were abusive child molesters, I don't understand why this is legal. This is the kind of [censored] that can get someone killed.

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
Unless Terri's parent's were abusive child molesters, I don't understand why this is legal. This is the kind of [censored] that can get someone killed.

[/ QUOTE ]

I read he kicked the priest or cardinal out too at that time.

It kind of makes it obvious what a control freak and an *sshole he is, and has been, all along.

[dr_venkman]

I sincerely, honestly and dearly hope I am never on trial with you as a juror.

[Broken Glass Can]

Now that the left got what it wanted (she's dead), I expect a lot of backpeddling from them.

No longer will they prop up Michael, and thehy will act sad that poor Terri died (forgeting how actively they pushed for this to happen).

As the days go on, the true hypocrites in this ordeal shall show themselves by their contradictory words.

[elwoodblues]

I wouldn't have done it, but I can understand why he wouldn't want them there.

Assume what Michael says about Terri's beliefs are true:
They have all but called him a murderer, claiming that he is a liar trying to kill his wife for money. They have made his life and whatever life Terri had left in her a living hell. Him wanting a few minutes of quiet time with her prior to her passing is completely understandable. I'm sure the parents view Michael as a monster. I also would suspect the feeling is mutual.

[ QUOTE ]
unless Terri's parent's were abusive child molesters

[/ QUOTE ]

Assuming what he has been saying is true, their actions over the past few years have been abusive.

[wacki]

touche

[Dead]

They constantly accused the husband of wanting to murder Terri and having ulterior motives, and not wanting what was best for Terri.

Who can blame Michael for denying them access? That said, if I were in Michael's position, I probably would have let them see her before she passed.

[MtSmalls]

This is where the evangelical propaganda machine gets this issue completely wrong.

If Mrs. Schiavo had left a living will, it would have been her right to list herself as DNR. Florida, along with most of the states in this country recognize a person's right to die with dignity. Not be HELPED to die (a la Kevorkian) but to die with no extraneous measures taken.

SO, the question in this case is not assisted suicide, but the right of a husband (and the evangelicals are SO sanctimonious about marriage rights) to be the legal guardian of, and make medical decisions for his wife, which is the law. As was upheld by more than 15 judicial verdicts, from judges appointed by Bush Sr as well Clinton.

This case was about LAW, not the right to die.

My thoughts are with ALL of the family (parents, siblings and spouse) today. Hopefully this ends a 15 year ordeal for all of them and they can heal and move on.

[xadrez]

[ QUOTE ]
As the days go on, the true hypocrites in this ordeal shall show themselves by their contradictory words.

[/ QUOTE ]

You mean Bush, Frist, DeLay and all the other republican politicians??? I agree...

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
They have all but called him a murderer, claiming that he is a liar trying to kill his wife for money. They have made his life and whatever life Terri had left in her a living hell.

[/ QUOTE ]

C'mon that's spiteful which makes it weak.

[ QUOTE ]
Him wanting a few minutes of quiet time with her prior to her passing is completely understandable.

[/ QUOTE ]

What woukld Terri have wanted do you think?

[ QUOTE ]
I'm sure the parents view Michael as a monster. I also would suspect the feeling is mutual.

[/ QUOTE ]

I would think that is true.

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
C'mon that's spiteful which makes it weak.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree. I wouldn't do it, but I can totally understand why someone else would. Imagine the mental/emotional state of everyone involved. Either side not making the best and most bridge-mending decisions is completely understandable.

[ QUOTE ]
What woukld Terri have wanted do you think?


[/ QUOTE ]

I've personally known people who have wanted both when they are on their death bed - be alone for a few minutes with their spouse and have their whole family in.

On a side note --- if the parents had the choice of who could be there, I wouldn't be surprised either way if they disallowed Michael and could understand either decision.

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
I sincerely, honestly and dearly hope I am never on trial with you as a juror.

[/ QUOTE ]

No doubt you'd prefer to have one judge who could deny your life, than a trial by jury.

You still apparently don't get it. It is not Michael Schiavo who was on trial here (though perhaps he sould have been in 1991). It is perfectly acceptable to question Michael Schiavo's motives, examine his background as relates to this case, and to opine that what he did at last was utterly insensitive and uncalled for. It is fine to call him scum. He was not on trial. It was Terri's life that was on trial, and she lost.

That you side more emotionally with Michael Schiavo than with Terri and her parents just shows how warped and inadequate your thinking is on this.

Michael Schiavo got a nice settlement personally, as well as money to care for Terri for the rest of her life. AFTER receiving the settlement, he conveniently "remembered" that she would have wanted to die, so he tried to have her killed.

Michael Schiavo's heart and life long ago were given to a new woman and her kids. He should therefore have relinquished his status as guardian long ago, and turned it over to her true next-of-kin, since he was de facto married to another woman, just not legally. But no: he stayed on, denied Terri decent care such as having her teeth cleaned and so forth, and took many opportunities to exercise his authority and control over her parents who obviously loved her more than he did.

His last act before Terri died speaks volumes. The guy had to "own" the situation in the most absolute way possible, totally irrespective of the feelings of others who loved her dearly.

This guy managed to murder Terri, albeit legally, but he still did it. And then he rubbed salt in her parents' emotional wounds at the last minute.

S-C-U-M, pure and simple.

But again, Michael Schiavo is not on trial here. The person whose life was on trial just lost, and all you can do is emmpathize with the guy who for all intents and purposes played the role of her executioner, long after he had no propriety in even remaining her guardian.

It takes all kinds to make a world--so I guess that includes the Michael Schiavos of the world, as well as those that empathize more with him than with Terri and her parents.


By the way, since you made this statement: [ QUOTE ]
I sincerely, honestly and dearly hope I am never on trial with you as a juror.

[/ QUOTE ]

I will just note that if I were on a jury and Michael Schiavo were accused of murder, I would not be able to vote for his conviction without a MUCH greater amount of evidence, and there would have to be no reasonable doubt. But that I wouldn't convict him, wouldn't stop me from thinking he is scum, based on how he handled everything, nor from likely harboring suspicios about him.

So, I wouldn't convict him. But Terri was convicted of not wanting to live based almost entirely on his testimony, and then sentenced to death.

Do you have any sense of justice in the real world?

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
On a side note --- if the parents had the choice of who could be there, I wouldn't be surprised either way if they disallowed Michael and could understand either decision.

[/ QUOTE ]

Point well taken. Sad state of affairs really regarding the battle the parents and Michael have had. My guess is that Terri would have abhored the acrimony between the two sides in this case.

[dr_venkman]

[ QUOTE ]
Do you have any sense of justice in the real world?

[/ QUOTE ]

You have NO idea.

Which is exactly why I cringe at the thought of you as one of my peers judging me.

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
I've personally known people who have wanted both when they are on their death bed - be alone for a few minutes with their spouse and have their whole family in.

[/ QUOTE ]

Amazing how everyone refers to Michael Schiavo as "her spouse" as if they were still in a monogamous relationship. He is "her spouse" on paper only. Terri is obviously not where his heart lies, and Michael has long since had a new spouse for all intents and purposes. So yes the legal classification remains, but does it remain emotionally? Pretty obviously not.

Do you think Terri would have considered him (if she could) really to be "her spouse", given all that has transpired? Hard to imagine.

If Terri had to choose between spending her last few moments with Michael or with her parents, whom do you think she would have chosen? I'd bet at least 90% her parents. Yet this arrogant prick refused that request and made himself King.

What an absolute and disgusting arrogant and insensitive jerk.

[dr_venkman]

[ QUOTE ]
...arrogant prick...king

[/ QUOTE ]

Let me the first to say that you have some seriously deep seated issues with men.

And I cringe yet further.

[MMMMMM]

dr venkman,

My point, as far as concerning you, is that you tend to cringe at the wrong things.

[MMMMMM]

Michael Schiavo all along professed to have Terri's best interests at heart, and claimed he was doing what she would have wanted.

So: he didn't think she would have wanted her parents to be with her at the most critical moment? What's up with that? His actions seem to belie his claim of doing what she would have wanted. Hard to imagine that she wouldn't have wanted her parents at her side at the final moment instead of having them sent out of the room.

[elwoodblues]

I've known people to want to only be with their spouse during their last moments.

[tipperdog]

And you know this...how?

[tolbiny]

"Terri is obviously not where his heart lies"

For actually never having met the guy, the woman, or her parents you are awefully sure of yourself. Is it not possible that Micheal has honestly spent the better part of 11 years trying to have what he fuly well believes to be Terri's actual wishes carried out?
I have never met the guy either, so i don't know which assesment is right, but i will try to refrain from bashing this guy while not knowing all of the facts, especial when this has very likely been an extremely stressfull point in his life- i hope the courts made the decision that Terri would actually have wanted.

[Dead]

MMMMMM, I think that some day you are going to regret slandering a good man. You have no proof that Michael Schiavo was acting immorally or dishonestly. And who can blame Michael for having a girlfriend? His in-laws encouraged him to find a new lady. I'm sure that Terri would have wanted him to move on too.

If I was married, and I was in a condition like Terri was in, I would want my wife to move on. I would want her to find another man.

[Broken Glass Can]

[ QUOTE ]
And you know this...how?

[/ QUOTE ]

Read the whole thread. Nicky g's post for example. (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=&amp;Number=2045774&amp;page=&amp;view=&amp;s b=5&amp;o=&amp;vc=1)

[Broken Glass Can]

[ QUOTE ]
I've known people to want to only be with their spouse during their last moments.

[/ QUOTE ]

You mean Terri told Michael that she wanted to be with him alone! /images/graemlins/shocked.gif

[Broken Glass Can]

[ QUOTE ]
Michael Schiavo all along professed to have Terri's best interests at heart, and claimed he was doing what she would have wanted.

So: he didn't think she would have wanted her parents to be with her at the most critical moment? What's up with that? His actions seem to belie his claim of doing what she would have wanted. Hard to imagine that she wouldn't have wanted her parents at her side at the final moment instead of having them sent out of the room.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is an excellent point. How can anyone say that he only wanted to do what she would have wanted?

[ QUOTE ]
Now that the left got what it wanted (she's dead)

[/ QUOTE ]

You're nuts.

[tipperdog]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
And you know this...how?

[/ QUOTE ]

Read the whole thread. Nicky g's post for example. (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=&amp;Number=2045774&amp;page=&amp;view=&amp;s b=5&amp;o=&amp;vc=1)

[/ QUOTE ]

I cannot imagine why her parents shouldn't have been allowed in the room. That said, these kinds of reports are very sketchy and are often proven to be false, or incomplete (just note the changes in the Fox report you cited). In the 24-hour news cycle era, it's almost always a bad idea to get all riled up about the first report you hear.

(All that said, I can't imagine any reasonable circumstance in which immediate family should be "barred"...regardless of past actions and animosity).

[MMMMMM]

Well, Dead, maybe you are right and Michael Schiavo is a good man who acted only in Terri's best interests in accordance with her wishes. I can't entirely rule out that possibility. But it does seem to me unlikely and I have a lot of trouble with some of his actions. In particular this final act of his, in this whole thing, seems highly insensitive and arrogant, and inconsiderate not only of her parents, but also of what Terri would probably have wished for.

[ QUOTE ]
And who can blame Michael for having a girlfriend? His in-laws encouraged him to find a new lady. I'm sure that Terri would have wanted him to move on too.

If I was married, and I was in a condition like Terri was in, I would want my wife to move on. I would want her to find another man.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure, but it would seem more proper to then relinquish his role as legal guardian and turn that over to her parents. He basically started a new life with new obligations, cares and concerns and I don't think that even if his intent was purely good, that he should have expectdd hinmself to be able to discharge his duties as guardian while carrying such conflicts of interest. He might just as well have been divoirced from Terri and mnarried to the other woman. In other words I think the appropriate thing for him to do then would have been to step down as her guardian.

[TransientR]

Who is to say that this is true about Michael Schiavo kicking them out? That is an early story from the Schindler camp.

Besides, if this is true, considering I have seen Terri's brother and sister making unsubstantiated and slanderous claims on cable TV that Michael beat Terri and caused her attack, and that the reason he wants her to die is so she won't "wake up" and implicate him, I could understand his hard feelings.

That and the Schindlers have been taking the blood money of the likes of Randall Terry.....

Frank

[RogerZBT]

[ QUOTE ]
Sure, but it would seem more proper to then relinquish his role as legal guardian and turn that over to her parents. He basically started a new life with new obligations, cares and concerns and I don't think that even if his intent was purely good, that he should have expectdd hinmself to be able to discharge his duties as guardian while carrying such conflicts of interest. He might just as well have been divoirced from Terri and mnarried to the other woman. In other words I think the appropriate thing for him to do then would have been to step down as her guardian.

[/ QUOTE ]
IF (and I understand that's an unknown) he was telling the truth, then there's no conflict.

His wife expressed a desire and IF he's an loving husband, he was obligated to try his best to follow her wishes. Under that scenario, he can't turn her over to her parents because they've stated they will never do what Terri said she wanted.

So what would you do under that scenario? Your wife says "no machines" to you, but never discusses it with her parents. She is incapacitated in such a way, you feel invokes her request. Her parents say that if they were her guardians, they would never take her off life support. Are there any circumstances under which you'd turn over guardianship?

[Trainwreck]

Exactly my thought and god only knows what else they'd have done.

&gt;TW&lt;

[kurto]

"It is perfectly acceptable to question Michael Schiavo's motives, examine his background as relates to this case, and to opine that what he did at last was utterly insensitive and uncalled for." Or to conclude that Michael was making the difficult but right choice.

"It is fine to call him scum." Or a saint. You're not really showing anything other then your emotional bias.

"That you side more emotionally with Michael Schiavo than with Terri and her parents just shows how warped and inadequate your thinking is on this." Well, it sure sounds like you're being open-minded about this. If someone doesn't agree with you, they must be warped and inadequate. You've clearly made your point.

"This guy managed to murder Terri, albeit legally, but he still did it." Clearly you're emotional because you're misusing your vocabulary.

MURDER: the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought

Sounds like your thinking is inadequate if you're misusing such basic words.

"The person whose life was on trial just lost" Why do you assume she lost? She lost being in a vegetative state being fed from a tube in a hospital bed for a few more years? She's not 'Terri' anymore.

[kurto]

"Terri is obviously not where his heart lies, and Michael has long since had a new spouse for all intents and purposes." That's your bitter emotional reaction. Michael can have a new spouse and still care greatly about what happens to his exwife.

"but does it remain emotionally? Pretty obviously not." I find this puzzling. If anything, it makes me question your emotional maturity.

"Do you think Terri would have considered him (if she could) really to be "her spouse", given all that has transpired? Hard to imagine." Its amazing that you think you could imagine how anyone would feel. Many people who truly love someone would encourage their significant other to move on... because they care about their spouse's happiness. You act as if Michael moving on from his wife (who for all intents and purposes... is already gone) excludes him from caring about Terri. Honestly, I don't think you think very clearly.

"whom do you think she would have chosen? I'd bet at least 90% her parents." First off... she's not SPENDING time with anyone. Her mind is gone. Second, you have absolutely no insight into Terri's perspective... yet you act as if you can speak for her. Your thinking is warped and inadequate.

"What an absolute and disgusting arrogant and insensitive jerk." Me thinks you sound ironic.

[Broken Glass Can]

[ QUOTE ]
"This guy managed to murder Terri, albeit legally, but he still did it." Clearly you're emotional because you're misusing your vocabulary.

MURDER: the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought

Sounds like your thinking is inadequate if you're misusing such basic words.


[/ QUOTE ]

I guess if the Nazis at Nuremberg used your point about "unlawfully killing", they could have gotten off scot-free.

Maybe we could coin a term for it, lets say "The Nuremberg defense." /images/graemlins/smirk.gif

[masse75]

kurto, don't waste your breath....MMMMMM is going to rant about this for at least another week.

[kurto]

You're being ridiculous. There is no terri. Her brain is liquified. You might as well say... if you could keep a heart beating electronically after a person dies... is it immoral to NOT do it?

Typically propagandistic reaction to liken a debate about allowing a person who's brain dead to pass on to Hitler exterminating a race of people.

Honestly, one can't have an intelligent discussions when people insist on using illogical, emotive and immature comparisons like that.

[kurto]

Furthermore... vocabulary is very important.

two men shoot two different dogs. In case A, the dog has been in a terrible accident and will die in miserable pain. Case B, the person does it because he hates dogs.

Did they both murder dogs?

His choice of the word murder was completely wrong. And to defend that by bringing in Hitler shows a lack of logical thought.

Can I ask... do you learn to Debate from Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh? They're fond of pushing emotional buttons that make no sense when scrutinized logically.

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
Typically propagandistic reaction to liken a debate about allowing a person who's brain dead to pass on to Hitler exterminating a race of people.

[/ QUOTE ]
1) Terri was not brain dead
2) She was not being "allowed to pass", she was being actively put to death. She would not have died if she had been allowed to eat and drink just as you or I probably wouldn't die anytime soon unless we stopped eating and drinking.
3) I think BGC was referring to Hitler's extermination of mentally handicapped people, not to jewish people.

[kurto]

The funny thing is I've pretty much avoided this whole debate. I hate that this has become a political issue. And it degenerates into the usual... people insulting anyone who doesn't agree with them personally.

The fact of the matter is its a complex issue with powerful emotional issues for people on all sides. But when I see someone calling people "warped and inadequate" because they don't agree with their side... then I jump in.

At that point, MMMMM pretty much discredited himself from being taken seriously.

[radek2166]

[ QUOTE ]
It is not Michael Schiavo who was on trial here (though perhaps he sould have been in 1991).

[/ QUOTE ]

For what?

[kurto]

"1) Terri was not brain dead" sigh... She was a vegetable. Her brain function was little more then enough to sustain her organs. There was no "Terri." I think you just like to be argumentative.
2) She was not being "allowed to pass", she was being actively put to death. -- That's your take. She was ACTIVELY being kept alive. Her body could not survive without being force fed nutrients. To not feed someone is not ACTIVELY putting someone to death.
3) 3) I think BGC was referring to Hitler's extermination of mentally handicapped people, not to jewish people. -- Somehow, I doubt it. BTW... even if he was, there's a world of difference between handicapped and someone who's brain is half liquid and who's intellectual functions have ceased to exist for years.

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
2) She was not being "allowed to pass", she was being actively put to death. -- That's your take. She was ACTIVELY being kept alive. Her body could not survive without being force fed nutrients. To not feed someone is not ACTIVELY putting someone to death.
3) 3) I think BGC was referring to Hitler's extermination of mentally handicapped people, not to jewish people. -- Somehow, I doubt it. BTW... even if he was, there's a world of difference between handicapped and someone who's brain is half liquid and who's intellectual functions have ceased to exist for years.

[/ QUOTE ]

If the judge that determined she wanted to die rather than live in a PVS had determined that she didn't want to die then the feeding tube would not have been pulled. The main issue is what Terri wanted and that she has a right to die in Florida if she wanted to. M's point is that it's not "clear and convincing" (the Florida legal standard) that she wanted to die and if this case is an example of what it takes to be "clear and convincing" then the standard should be higher. I don't understand why that point is so hard to get across to so many. The other side of the argument is that the judge that examined all of the evidence at a trial is assumed to be competant and fair thus most likely made the correct decision regarding what Terri wanted based on the evidence and Florida law.

Whether or not her brain was "liquid" is a secondary issue. It only rises to being the main issue if Terri wanted to die if in a PVS but she wasn't.

[kurto]

"Whether or not her brain was "liquid" is a secondary issue."

Well... it depends if you're arguing the case 'legally' or 'philosophically.'

My opinion is that if the liquification of the majority of her brain means her organs function but not her intellectual faculties... there is no 'Terri.' If one can consider that notion, then it effects the judgements people make on this case.

Some act as if Terri was in the hospital with a broken leg and someone killed her. I find that disturbing.

[adios]

Fine, in Florida you could have the feeding tube removed basically with no problem as long as this was well known.

Again if Terri wanted to live in a PVS the feeding tube would be in place today. Your philosiphical view has basically no relevance to the Schiavo case. I guess you just wanted to get on your soapbox.

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
sigh... She was a vegetable.

[/ QUOTE ]
Many physicians disagree.

[ QUOTE ]
She was ACTIVELY being kept alive. Her body could not survive without being force fed nutrients. To not feed someone is not ACTIVELY putting someone to death.

[/ QUOTE ]
Newborn babies must be forcefed. If they are not, they will die. Not feeding a baby would be actively killing it.

[ QUOTE ]
BTW... even if he was, there's a world of difference between handicapped and someone who's brain is half liquid and who's intellectual functions have ceased to exist for years.

[/ QUOTE ]
It is a dangerous step towards it, not away from it.

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
IF (and I understand that's an unknown) he was telling the truth, then there's no conflict.

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe. There would still be plenty of incentives (not necessarily all of them financial incentives) for him to want her dead and out of the way.

Also, just how peculiar is it that before he got the large sum of money awarded to him to care for her for the rest of her life, he didn't remember her saying anything about not wanting to live in such a way; but after he got the money, he remembered? Isn't that just extremely hard to give credence to?

It sure looks like he knew all along that either:

1) she did say it, in which case he was getting the money to care for her for the rest of her life under somewhat false pretenses, or

2) he knew she didn't say it, in which case he made it up or embellished it after the fact in hopes that he could "get her out of the way" (terminated) and he could keep some of the money and enjoy his new life with the other woman.

I really can't reconcile this pattern with any kind of genuine honest motivation. He received the money to care for her for the rest of her life (as well as 300K for himself for his loss of companionship). I find it very hard to buy the "suddenly remembered years later after getting the money" story.

As for those who say there wasn't much money left at this point, well, he probably never anticipated it would all drag on this many more years and thereby dwindle his fortune to such an extent.

Why, in the eyes of many, this guy gets more benefit of the doubt than Terri does, is really beyond me.

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]

It is not Michael Schiavo who was on trial here (though perhaps he sould have been in 1991).



For what?

[/ QUOTE ]

For possible attempted murder; please read the other threads and articles for reports, medical descriptions of her injuries, and details; I really can't post everything anew for everyone who jumps into the threads at this late date. Sorry about that.

Michael Schiavo may have tried to strangle Terri, thus precipitating her heart attack which caused the brain damage.

[kurto]

"Again if Terri wanted to live in a PVS the feeding tube would be in place today." Probably true. Is this not an issue worthy of discussion? When does a person cease to be that person? Seems to me that there are a lot of issues here philosophical, ethically, medically.. etc.

"Your philosiphical view has basically no relevance to the Schiavo case." Really? It seems the entire US is discussing the philosophy of this case. How we make our laws and judge the rightness of this case comes from a philosophical dialogue, does it not?

"I guess you just wanted to get on your soapbox." Weird. I came to a forum and shared my opinion on a current event in our country. What was I thinking?

[kurto]

I really think you're into semantics and such, but really evade any substantive replies.

Very good. If you think a Brain which functions little more then keeping the heart pumping is 'Terri' then go with it.

By the way... by your definition, eating a cow would be murder. A cow has more brain function then Terri did.

"It is a dangerous step towards it, not away from it." Sure it is. As before... by your reasoning.. If I had a heart on a table, made it beat with electical shocks, it would be murder to not keep the heart pumping.

[masse75]

Can we just end this [censored] post and admit we're not going to agree nor convince anyone of our point of view...

This is the biggest waste of space I've ever seen.

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
"Your philosiphical view has basically no relevance to the Schiavo case." Really? It seems the entire US is discussing the philosophy of this case.

[/ QUOTE ]

What do you mean by philosophy? What I think most of the discussions revolve around is whether or not Terri would have chosen to die in the way that she did.

[ QUOTE ]
How we make our laws and judge the rightness of this case comes from a philosophical dialogue, does it not?/quote]

Which I addressed in previous but apparently you don't want to acknowledge anyone's point and are only interested in making a proclimation.

[ QUOTE ]
"I guess you just wanted to get on your soapbox." Weird. I came to a forum and shared my opinion on a current event in our country. What was I thinking?

[/ QUOTE ]

How is your response opposed to what I wrote? Making irrelevant points and adding non sequiters are consistent with sharing your opinion. They just aren't pertinent.

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
The fact of the matter is its a complex issue with powerful emotional issues for people on all sides. But when I see someone calling people "warped and inadequate" because they don't agree with their side... then I jump in.

At that point, MMMMM pretty much discredited himself from being taken seriously.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well kurto maybe you should have been involved in these threads earlier; you come in out of the blue, pick up on one thing that hits you the wrong way and spout off about who you think is less credible.

By the way, I DID NOT say dr venkman's thinking was warped and inadeequate because I disagreed with him (either on points of fact or opinion). Can you read? I said it was because he sided more emotionally with Michael Schiavo than with Terri and her parents. In other words, his primary empathy in this case seems to be a bit misdirected.

Also, If you had been reading dr venkman's posts and my posts in ALL the recent threads, you might have a different view as to who is more credible.

But hey: I don't remember seeing you in the Politics Forum before. You sure picked a fine time to jump in and offer your views on the credibility of posters who have been here for many years. Great contribution anyway and welcome to the Politics Forum.

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
Typically propagandistic reaction to liken a debate about allowing a person who's brain dead to pass on to Hitler exterminating a race of people.

[/ QUOTE ]

Just shows you don't have a clue as to what what you are talking about. Not one doctor ever stated she was brain-dead. The fact is, she definitely was not brain-dead nor was she comatose and not one doctor will dispute that.

Her diagnosis as being in PVS might have been true, and a judge ruled that it was, but doctors were certainly far from unanimous on this point. Indeed there was a very real chance that she was not in PVS but was rather in a minimally aware state of consciousness.

Why don't you do some more reading/research before jumping late in a thread like you know everything.

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
By the way... by your definition, eating a cow would be murder. A cow has more brain function then Terri did.

[/ QUOTE ]
I just had to point this out. The poster who earlier accused someone of using "murder" incorrectly is now misusing the word. Didn't you say that murder was the unlawful killing of someone (in this case a cow)? Beef is not usually unlawfully killed, so I wouldn't have really murdered the cow would I? (I'm also a hunter, so just drop it)
Nonetheless, how much brain function you have should not determine how much of a person you are. That would most certainly be taking a step towards Nazi Germany.

[ QUOTE ]
As before... by your reasoning.. If I had a heart on a table, made it beat with electical shocks, it would be murder to not keep the heart pumping.

[/ QUOTE ]
1) This is a misinterpretation of my reasoning (whether out of stupidity or intentionally).
2) Terri is not being kept alive by any heroic measures such as a heart pump/respirator. All she needs is food and water. Just like you or I.

[RogerZBT]

Why do you reply to one line and ignore the rest?

[radek2166]

No worries, thought I missed something.

[kurto]

"What I think most of the discussions revolve around is whether or not Terri would have chosen to die in the way that she did." It seems to me many believe this is wrong regardless of what Terri would have chosen. Many do not believe in the 'right to die.' Furthermore, there i a question as to whether or not this is humane. One's opinion on that changes greatly on whether on how they interpret 'life' and the status of Terri.

I think this case raises many issues for people beyond the legal arguments presented.

"How is your response opposed to what I wrote?" I wasn't trying to oppose your point. I think we were discussing different ideas raised by the case. Frankly, I'm not sure what you and I are disagreeing about.

"Making irrelevant points and adding non sequiters are consistent with sharing your opinion. They just aren't pertinent." Here's what I find odd about your response. Around my office/peers/the boob tube... these are issues that are raised. I don't see why you write these as irrelevent. It seems to me these are relevent matters being discussed; raised by this case.

[kurto]

"Why don't you do some more reading/research before jumping late in a thread like you know everything. " This is from the person who has acted as if he/she knows (1) what Terri wanted (2) what motivates her spouse (3) what his motivations are (4) what the relationship between he and Terri and between Terri and his parents are (5) called anyone warped who didn't agree with you.

"Just shows you don't have a clue as to what what you are talking about." You're totally right... Allowing someone who theorectically asked to die, the right to die... is completely comparable to Concentration camps in WWII. You are in no way ridiculous. I stand corrected.

[masse75]

http://cache.eonline.com/On/Revealed/Shows/Myers/Images/myers.01.jpg

This post has become tiresome...

[BCPVP]

and yet you keep posting here...

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
"Why don't you do some more reading/research before jumping late in a thread like you know everything. "

This is from the person who has acted as if he/she knows (1) what Terri wanted (2) what motivates her spouse (3) what his motivations are (4) what the relationship between he and Terri and between Terri and his parents are (5) called anyone warped who didn't agree with you.

[/ QUOTE ]

So: don't bother acknowledging the correction or addressing the point, just jump right into ad hominem attacks; are we to presume that's your style?

First off, you DIDN'T have your facts straight when you said Terri was brain-dead. I corrected you on that.

Second, EVERY SINGLE ONE OF YOUR FIVE POINTS ABOVE IS FALSE.

Let's take them one at a time:

[ QUOTE ]
This is from the person who has acted as if he/she knows (1) what Terri wanted

[/ QUOTE ]

I never acted like I knew what Terri wanted, generally speaking, although it would be reasonable to assume that she would have wanted her parents with her in the final moments. Not unreasonable to assume that's likely, which is all I did. If you're talking about whether she would have wanted to live, I never assumed that either way. My point was that nobody should assume that (or necessarily trust Michael Schiavo).

[ QUOTE ]
(2) what motivates her spouse

[/ QUOTE ]

No, I did not act as if I KNEW what motivated her spouse. I pointed out some inconsistencies, and things which should raise doubts about his actions and intent.

[ QUOTE ]
(3) what his motivations are

[/ QUOTE ]

Same as (2), don't you think? Heh.

[ QUOTE ]
4) what the relationship between he and Terri and between Terri and his parents are

[/ QUOTE ]

Eh? I never acted like I KNEW, I just stated some plain facts that might well give Michael conflict of interest, among other things.

[ QUOTE ]
(5) called anyone warped who didn't agree with you.

[/ QUOTE ]

Another lie from our fine new contributor. I said ONE person's views/empathies were warped because he empathized more with Michael Schiavo than with Terri and her parents--NOT because he didn't agree with me. Also, ONE does not equal ALL.

So: you managed to misrepresent me on every single point.

[ QUOTE ]
"Just shows you don't have a clue as to what what you are talking about." You're totally right... Allowing someone who theorectically asked to die, the right to die... is completely comparable to Concentration camps in WWII. You are in no way ridiculous. I stand corrected.

[/ QUOTE ]

Clearly, I was saying you don't have a clue about Terri's condition, since you erroneously called her "brain-dead". Go back and reread it and you will see that you are completely misinterpreting my meaning here. Hopefully you are not doing it deliberately.

[MMMMMM]

The "Maybe" was a response to much more than one line.

[RogerZBT]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
IF (and I understand that's an unknown) he was telling the truth, then there's no conflict.

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe. There would still be plenty of incentives (not necessarily all of them financial incentives) for him to want her dead and out of the way.

[/ QUOTE ]
So even in a hypothetical where her wishes are a given, you're still questioning his motives?

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
possible attempted murder

[/ QUOTE ]

the crime of the century

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
Quote:
IF (and I understand that's an unknown) he was telling the truth, then there's no conflict.

-----------------------------------------------------

Maybe. There would still be plenty of incentives (not necessarily all of them financial incentives) for him to want her dead and out of the way.
----------------------------------------------------------

So even in a hypothetical where her wishes are a given, you're still questioning his motives?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm saying he could have good intentions yet still be affected by conflicts of interest, which are unavoidable given the situation. These conflicts may also be more pronounced than in some other guardianships.

Isn't potential conflict of interest the reason that many recuse themselves from certain duties or positions? Judges, people in the corporate world, etc. often realize that accepting a certain role may subject them to serious conflicts of interest.

Acknowledgement of conflict of interest does not imply bad motives; it just means that the person may be unavoidably pressured by those interests, perhaps even subconsciously, and that this pressure may affect their ability to discharge their duties.

Besides the financial aspects of the case, Michael Schiavo could easily have been affected by a desire to get on with his new life unencumbered by all the duties involving Terri. As long as he remained legally married to her acting as her guardian, the only way he could be free of those responsibility and chores would have been for Terri to die. He couldn't even marry the woman he is living with and has kids by as long as the status quo with Terri remained. And he couldn't divorce Terri and be assured of remaining her guardian. Hence the whole situation is a conflict of interest. Terri's death would solve everything for him.

There are also some questions that. if investigated enough, might either make him look bad or look better than he looks now. If the answers to some of those questions are bad, then Terri's death helps him reduce the number of things that could happen that might make him look bad. Just one more way in which he benefits from Terri's death.

[elwoodblues]

What you fail to realize is that legislature around the country have decided that DESPITE the inherent conflict of interest that EVERY spouse has in seeing their husband/wife die (because they will gain an inheritence), they are still the best choice as guardians because of the unlikelihood of the conflict affecting their decision.

[ QUOTE ]
Isn't potential conflict of interest the reason that many recuse themselves from certain duties or positions

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, but in those cases you want/need a disinterested party. Here you want the most interested party because they are the most likely to know the true wishes of the ward. This isn't a case where you want a neutral to say what Terri's wishes are...you want the person who is most likely to actually know. The legislature has, rightly, said that in a marriage a spouse is most likely to know the intentions of their ward/spouse.

[ QUOTE ]
As long as he remained legally married to her acting as her guardian, the only way he could be free of those responsibility and chores would have been for Terri to die

[/ QUOTE ]

No. He could have divorced her. It then comes back to the financial motivation which (from most reports) is either or nearly non-existent due to the draining of the resources over 15 years of hospital care and legal wrangling.

[ QUOTE ]
And he couldn't divorce Terri and be assured of remaining her guardian

[/ QUOTE ]

If he wanted to move on, why would Michael want to remain her guardian?

------------

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
What you fail to realize is that legislature around the country have decided that DESPITE the inherent conflict of interest that EVERY spouse has in seeing their husband/wife die (because they will gain an inheritence), they are still the best choice as guardians because of the unlikelihood of the conflict affecting their decision.


[/ QUOTE ]

Come on, in EVERY case the spouse is the best choice as guardian? Bad law; what if there were restraining orders against the husband for physical abuse? What if the woman was on record as fearing for her life? Or, what if they had already filed for divorce? Would the law STILL say he should be guardian? If so, then clearly this one-size-fits-all law (as you are describing it without qualification) is flawed.

Also, I do NOT fail to realize that all spouse/guardians may have a conflict of interest. I am saying that in this case, Mr. Schiavo's conflicts of interest are probably greater than the conflicts of interest present in many other instances.

[ QUOTE ]
Yes, but in those cases you want/need a disinterested party. Here you want the most interested party because they are the most likely to know the true wishes of the ward. This isn't a case where you want a neutral to say what Terri's wishes are...you want the person who is most likely to actually know. The legislature has, rightly, said that in a marriage a spouse is most likely to know the intentions of their ward/spouse.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, but again, in this particular case, it is appropriate to have greater doubts than usual about Michael Schiavo.

[ QUOTE ]
Quote:
As long as he remained legally married to her acting as her guardian, the only way he could be free of those responsibility and chores would have been for Terri to die

----------------------------------------------------------

No. He could have divorced her. It then comes back to the financial motivation which (from most reports) is either or nearly non-existent due to the draining of the resources over 15 years of hospital care and legal wrangling.

[/ QUOTE ]

Isn't that what I said, "as long as her remains married to her acting as her guardian"?

Of course, now the financial resources he was awarded are largely drained. But earlier they weren't, and he stood to gain a lot if she died. Do you think he anticipated it would all drag on this long? But now he has to save face and stick with his story (which is in itself somewhat dubious given that he only "remembered" what Terri said after he had gotten the financial award for her lifetime care).

[ QUOTE ]
If he wanted to move on, why would Michael want to remain her guardian?

[/ QUOTE ]

So he could have control, and get the money which, if she had died earlier, would have been very substantial.

If he didn't want to move on, why did he move in with another woman and have kids by her? That seems to be an indication of moving on, doesn't it?

Again, I think you are giving him too much benefit of the doubt overall, and Terri too little benefit of the doubt.

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
Come on, in EVERY case the spouse is the best choice as guardian? Bad law; what if there were restraining orders against the husband for physical abuse? What if the woman was on record as fearing for her life? Or, what if they had already filed for divorce? Would the law STILL say he should be guardian? If so, then clearly this one-size-fits-all law (as you are describing it without qualification) is flawed.

[/ QUOTE ]

We're clearly not going to see eye to eye on this. My belief is that with laws such as this (or intestate distribution laws) the legislature should write the law to fit the VAST MAJORITY of cases. People who don't fit within that mold can opt out by drafting a document (a living will, or a will in the case of intestate distribution.) The more the legislature throws in exception after exception the more each and every case will be litigated. This case demonstrates that outcome isn't what anybody wants.

Marriage confers rights and privileges. It is a very important relationship and one which is honored by society. While it is a public relationship (in that it confers special status), it is also a very private one. I personally don't want the government evaluating the private aspects of the most intimate of relationships in an effort to determine if we should grant the public benefits/responsibilities. Your whole line of argument here suggests to me that you disagree with this.

[Boris]

Given the situation I wouldn't let them be present either.

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
Given the situation I wouldn't let them be present either.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why not?