Terri Schiavo

[GAC]

If her ex-husband is really that concerned about her then let him forgo ANY monetary gain he may make (or is offered). That in itself would show the sincerity in his heart. Right now I doubt it.

I'm one who has always believed that it may be just as morally wrong, when you have anyone who is in the condition like this woman is in (brain dead) and needs a machine in order to keep certain bodily functions/responses active, and could not do so without that machine. That is not life. At least not as God intended IMO.

[RedFanAlways1966]

If her ex-husband is really that concerned about her then let him forgo ANY monetary gain he may make (or is offered). That in itself would show the sincerity in his heart. Right now I doubt it.

I'm one who has always believed that it may be just as morally wrong, when you have anyone who is in the condition like this woman is in (brain dead) and needs a machine in order to keep certain bodily functions/responses active, and could not do so without that machine. That is not life. At least not as God intended IMO.

Great post, GAC!

Perhaps, relative to your 1st paragraph, he should donate the money to charity. Didn't Ms. Schiavo have anorexia, which caused this? That might be a worthy cause, some sort of anorexia clinic, for that money. Makes sense to me.

[TC81190]

Great post, GAC!

Perhaps, relative to your 1st paragraph, he should donate the money to charity. Didn't Ms. Schiavo have anorexia, which caused this? That might be a worthy cause, some sort of anorexia clinic, for that money. Makes sense to me.

I thought it was a car accident?

[919191]

Great post, GAC!

Perhaps, relative to your 1st paragraph, he should donate the money to charity. Didn't Ms. Schiavo have anorexia, which caused this? That might be a worthy cause, some sort of anorexia clinic, for that money. Makes sense to me.

I suppose that would work, but I don't think this guy has to explain himself to the public, no matter what his motivation. I wouldn't feel the need to justify it in your eyes, whether $ was what I wanted, or if I really thought it was the right thing.

[Red Heeler]

Great post, GAC!

Perhaps, relative to your 1st paragraph, he should donate the money to charity. Didn't Ms. Schiavo have anorexia, which caused this? That might be a worthy cause, some sort of anorexia clinic, for that money. Makes sense to me.

If your wife would die in an untimely manner, would you donate the money to charity? Maybe you would, but Mrs. Heeler and I pay for life insurance to financially provide for the surviving spouse in the event of our death.

Once again, his wife died a long time ago. What is lying in that hospital bed is nothing more than her shell.

[WVRed]

Once again, his wife died a long time ago. What is lying in that hospital bed is nothing more than her shell.

That is what is ultimately being questioned is whether she is dead or not. People just dont see eye to eye on issues like this. Its like abortion, where does life begin, at conception or once it exits the womb? This is more or less the same thing, except we are dealing with death.

And as a typical political/religious debate on Redszone goes, the name calling and insults will usually follow.

[GAC]

If your wife would die in an untimely manner, would you donate the money to charity? Maybe you would, but Mrs. Heeler and I pay for life insurance to financially provide for the surviving spouse in the event of our death.

But is the money he is trying to get from a life insurance policy? No. It's the remainder of the settlement from a malpractice suit which was awarded and designated for the continuation of her care and rehabilitation. So it is not the same as a life insurance policy.

http://civilliberty.about.com/cs/hum.../a/bgTerry.htm

Terry Schiavo suffered severe brain damage in 1990 following a heart attack. The brain damage left her unable to care for herself so for the last 13 years she’s had a feeding tube in her for nutrients and fluids.

Terry was awarded a substantial malpractice settlement for the improperly diagnosed potassium deficiency that led to the heart attack and collapse which damaged her brain. The settlement was for continuation of her care and rehabilitation, among other things.

Terry is now in a hospice. Several doctors, including those appointed by the courts, have pronounced her to be in a "persistent vegetative state". However Terry parents have hired doctors that claim that Terry has a consciousness.

Terry is unable to eat or swallow, and is being kept alive by means of a feeding tube. Her husband, Michael Schiavo has sought for years to remove the feeding tube and allow Terry “die naturally”. In other words to starve to death.

The issue has made it’s way through the Florida courts, and in June of 2003, the Second District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's ruling that would allow Michael to have the feeding tube removed from Terry.

On October 20, 2003 the Florida Legislature passed bill 35E, which empowered Governor Jeb Bush to issue executive order 03-201, which he did the following day. His executive order required that doctors replace the feeding tube and continue to provide medical attention as needed.

The Issues and Controversy:

First, the question is does Terry have a right to die? If her brain was in fact dead, and she were unable to breath without artificial respiration, then there would be little question. Indeed the cessation of brain functions has long been held as justification for removal of life support.

But in the case of Terry, her brain is still functioning, though at a very low level - she cannot swallow food, or communicate with those in the room. Most doctors say she is in what they call PVS or “persistent vegetative state"

Despite this, she apparently is still able to make eye contact and respond, though in primitive ways, to those in the room. - or is she? There is great controversy over this. Terry's parents (who are fighting to prevent Terry's feeding tube from being removed) illegally made a video tape of Terry that appears to show Terry responding to outside stimulus.

she appears to be conscious and possibly even making eye contact. This is a bit unlike a person on a respirator in a permanent coma. Doctors hired by Terry's parents believe that she could be rehabilitated to swallow food on her own.

But experts point out that these "reactions" are nothing more than random motor reflexes, and not indicative of real consciousness. Indeed, of nearly 4 and a half hours of video taken by Terry parents, they are only showing a few seconds that "appear" to be conscious moments.

The malpractice award is also part of the controversy. If Terry dies, her husband Michael will then receive the balance of the remaining money, though there is little left. Nevertheless, if Michael stands a significant financial gain, does he really have Terry’s true interests at heart? Is his role as guardian suspect because he stands to profit from her death? Terry's parents say so, but Michael points out that he's willing to donate Terry's money to charity.

At the same time, are Terry’s family really just kidding themselves regarding Terry’s true condition? Are her responses really just motor or automatic reflexes?

Terry did not have a “living will” - a document that gives permission to remove life supporting treatment under certain circumstances, such as when there is no hope for recovery.

Again, the courts have looked at this over the years, and found that Michael as guardian has the right to remove life sustaining treatment from Terry. However Governor Bush’s order overrides the court’s decision; the issue here is if the governor and legislature have the constitutional power to supersede the court’s ruling.

Certainly some of the difficulty here is whether her state is truly a “persistent vegetative state”. Doctors appointed by the court, and by Michael say yes. Doctors retained by Terry’s family say no.

Some of the most dangerous aspects of euthanasia were seen under the regime of Nazi Germany where people with retardation and other serious disabilities were “euthanized”, though today we can easily call that murder. But where is the line drawn from “euthanization” to “murder” in today’s society? This is one reason we must always proceed with caution in is area.

In the absence of a living will, or an absolutely clear declaration by the individual, should the line be drawn at the “absolutely brain dead” - that is, those who cannot survive without an external respirator and are in a permanent coma? Even the definition of brain death has its controversy, as this article points out.

But while we can say that Terry has a right to die, without a clear indication from her, how can we say for sure that she has to die?

Michael states that it would have been her wish, and 19 judges in 6 courts have studied the case at length and concurred that Michael is indeed acting on Terry's best interest.

Once again, his wife died a long time ago. What is lying in that hospital bed is nothing more than her shell.

But I hear differing accounts from several different quarters which make me want to doubt Michael's true intentions, and also those of several right to die groups.

I'm not really siding with anyone on this; but I have a lot of sympathy for those parents who have expended alot of time with their daughter in her care (when he has not). So why doesn't he just cut ties with his wife, say his goodbyes, and allow the parents to assume control and care for her? If that is what they want, then why fight it?

Has it ever been proven that Terry is suffering?

So again.... if they want to take on the responsibility/care for their daughter, then why not allow them to do so?

This is why I have some doubts to his motivations. But maybe I'm wrong.

[b]End The Charade, Michael Schiavo
Posted: January 8, 2005
1:00 a.m. Eastern

By David N. Bass
© 2005 WorldNetDaily.com

Throughout his decade-long crusade to condemn Terri Schiavo to a gruesome starvation death, Michael Schiavo has habitually hinged his case on three words: "persistent vegetative state." He has pawned the lie that since his brain-disabled wife requires a feeding tube for sustenance, she is no more human than a vegetable; that since she needs more care and attention than the average human being, her life is no longer worth living.

That lie has done its job. Every time we turn on the television and hear the name Terri Schiavo, we are condescendingly reminded of her "persistent vegetative state." Bob and Mary Schindler are blasted in newspaper opinion columns across the country for believing their daughter is still a human being capable of recovery and worthy of protection under the U.S. Constitution. All efforts to save her are in vain, the pundits tell us. She is beyond rehabilitation, beyond treatment and beyond hope.

All fine and good … provided you ignore reality.

The two lawyers serving as head legal counsel for the Schindlers recently had a chance to witness firsthand just how outlandish Michael Schiavo's claims really are. For the first time since agreeing to represent the Schindlers in September, attorneys David Gibbs and Barbara Weller were allowed to pay a Christmas Eve visit to Terri at her hospice in Pinellas Park, Fla.

Did they find a shriveled woman staring up blankly from her bed, struggling to breathe, life-support tubes attached to every portion of her body? Did they see a woman tortured by pain, a woman who had given up all hope for living, a woman who simply wanted to "die with dignity"?

Far from it.

According to an account given by Barbara Weller, the real Terri Schiavo is entirely different from the image propagated by her estranged husband, the mainstream media and the "right-to-die" crowd. Weller recollects that Terri "was very purposeful and interactive" and appeared "very curious about the presence of obvious strangers" when she and Gibbs, accompanied by members from the Schindler family, first entered her room at the hospice.

"When her mother was close to her, Terri's whole face lit up," Weller continued. "She smiled. She looked directly at her mother and she made all sorts of happy sounds. When her mother talked to her, Terri was quiet and obviously listening. When she stopped, Terri started vocalizing. The vocalizations seemed to be a pattern, not merely random or reflexive at all."

Does that strike you as a "persistent vegetative state"? Of course not. Florida law defines the condition as an "absence of voluntary action or cognitive behavior of any kind" and "an inability to communicate or interact purposefully with the environment." How can a reasonable mind conclude that Terri's condition falls anywhere near either of these criteria?

Weller continued: "Terri was not in bed, but was in her chair. … She was dressed and washed, her hair combed, and she was covered with a holiday blanket. There were no tubes of any kind attached to her body. She was completely free of any restraints that would have indicated any type of artificial life support. Not even her feeding tube was attached and functioning when we entered."

Instead of noticing her so-called vegetative condition, Weller was instead struck by her beauty: "I would have expected to see someone with a sallow and gray complexion and a sick-looking countenance. Instead, I saw a very pretty woman with a peaches-and-cream complexion and a lovely smile. … I was amazed that someone who had not been outside for so many years and who received such minimal health care could look so beautiful. She appeared to have an inner light radiating from her face."

That's where euthanasia advocates loose their feel for true humanity. Human beings are not solely designed to think, but to feel as well. We are not designed with minds alone, but with the capacity to care, to hope and to love others. Terri may not have the same mental capacity you and I possess, but she is still able to experience happiness, express love, and let joy shine on her face. The ability to love and be loved by others is the essence of true humanity.

"As I watched her," Weller concluded, "my foremost thought was that on the next day, Christmas, Terri should not have been confined to her small room in a hospice center … but that she should have been gathered around the Christmas dinner table enjoying the holiday with her family."

I couldn't have said it better myself. A woman who receives no life support or respiration, interacts with her family, endeavors to communicate, feels emotion and is capable of spending Christmas with her loving family is not a vegetable. It's time we dropped the charade and acknowledged Terri Schiavo for what she is – a human being.

[RBA]

Well, he turned down the 1 million dollars. If money was all he was after, how come he didn't take it?

[GAC]

Well, he turned down the 1 million dollars. If money was all he was after, how come he didn't take it?

Maybe because he knows that that would REALLY make him look bad in the court (and public's) eye, and shed light on his true motives while they are still fighting this in the court system? You sure don't want to give any more "ammo" to the opposition's contentions/allegations (her parents). If he had taken the money then everything that is being said about him would seem true.

No one said the guy was stupid.

[KronoRed]

He looks bad to half the public now, if he were after that cash IMO he would have taken it

[RBA]

It's funny or maybe a little disturbing is when I use Google search for more information on this subject, I get 99.5 percent Right Wing Blogs. Looks like another character assassanation once again by them.

[GAC]

He looks bad to half the public now, if he were after that cash IMO he would have taken it

I also never said he didn't have a conscience either.

Like I said earlier... I haven't really paid much attention to this case; but what I have read makes me want to have some doubts as to his motives?

Again... does he feel she is suffering, and he just wants to end it? Or is it simply indeed compassion.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't it reported that he had an affair while his wife was in the hospital, and his new wife/GF had his child?

[GAC]

It's funny or maybe a little disturbing is when I use Google search for more information on this subject, I get 99.5 percent Right Wing Blogs. Looks like another character assassanation once again by them.

That's funny. When I did a Google search I found quite a few objective sources (medical, etc) on this situation. If I know that it was far right or left wing, then I stay away from it.

[RBA]

That's funny. When I did a Google search I found quite a few objective sources (medical, etc) on this situation. If I know that it was far right or left wing, then I stay away from it.

I consider WorldNetDaily a right wing news source. IMO, they are not objective. I know you have your opinion. Not saying your wrong. But that's my opinion.

[RedFanAlways1966]

Hmmmm... I tried the Google thing (put in "Terri Schiavo") and of the top 4 listed there was: #1 - Terrisfight.org (her parents org. to keep her alive) ; #4 - NY Times. At the bottom of the 1st page of Google-hits was the Saving Terri Schiavo Petition. To be honest I saw very few right-wing blogs. I only looked at page one, but this is usually all I need when Googling. Howver, these topics tend to get the blogs up-front. But I really did not see it as a 99.5% thing... unless someone studied 100 pages of it on Google.

Not like Google searches before the U.S. presidential elections where the bloggers took over Google. Not that we saw any of those articles/blogs copy-and-pasted here during that time. But I am sure some here are experts at the extremist blog sites. Some member names may even get associated with extreme blog-isms. Some might have even used extremist blog statements in their sig. lines here. No names immediately come to mind for me, but it might for others. Some may even be considered blog-site experts!