It’s rare that I find myself in agreement with anything on The Corner; this, however, seems spot-on to me.
Michael Schiavo, as best I can judge, is Everyman. He has not behaved with high nobility; but then, very few of us do, certainly not for 15 years at a stretch. He seems to have done his best for a decent while, then given up in despair and turned back to his life, to the degree the situation and his conscience would let him. It’s possible I’ve missed something, but I haven’t seen any point in Michael Schiavo’s trajectory this 15 years past where I couldn’t all too easily see myself doing pretty much what he did. For all I can see, this is Ordinary Joe doing his imperfect and occasionally erroneous best with an appalling situation.
I think I have now read all the slanders against him, including the really lurid ones. All I can say about that is: If all the people who hate Michael Schiavo have, after all these years, not been able to persuade the authorities to charge him with anything, then the presumption of innocence seems to me a pretty good position to take.
Oh for crying out loud, this you’re going to love:
TERRI SCHIAVO’S HUSBAND FITS PROFILE OF WIFE ABUSER, PER PSYCHIATRIST
UCLA should fire her, the AMA and CA medical board should look into penalizing her and Michael Schiavo should sue her for all she’s worth. Even in forensics you do not rely solely on the information provided by biased sources to make a diagnosis, let alone make that diagnosis public with this sort of accusation. If this is how she teaches psych residents to evaluate and diagnose patients, UCLA should also lose the accreditation for their psych program. I don’t care if the guy is the biggest putz in the world, this case has shown exactly how not to practice medicine.
Well, and let’s not forget that the Schindler family thought he was just perfect until he realized his wife wasn’t ever going to come out of her PVS.
No one called him an abuser until after that.
Yeah, he fits the profile of a wife abuser…he is a man isn’t he???
Almost every wife abuser turns out to be a man.
I would bet that if that ‘doctor’ talked w/ Michael she could also come to tne conclusion that the parents were abusive to Terri as well. The literature on bulimia makes that clear……
But let me say this, before any misinterpret me, I find what the UCLA shrink did to be horrendous and I would not want her opining on the family either.
If the Schindlers insist that Michael did this to Terri, then they need to give back the $700,000 that was won from the medical group for negligence.
The Schindlers blamed the doctors for negligence until 1993, when Michael refused to buy them a new house with the settlement money. When it was clear that he was not going to “share” the funds, they began an ugly campaign to blame him.
If they were so convinced that Michael “did it” then why didn’t they charge him immediately, when there might have been some evidence available? The doctors didn’t sic the cops on Michael at the time, so why do the parents think there is more evidence available now, some 15 years later?
They CAN NOT blame both the doctors and Michael . . . . . but they are.
It is amazing to watch the “whispering” campaign of this family and how it has captured the imagination of so many people who should “know better.”
Sean Hannity seems completely besotted by the Schlinders (who have romanced him for years) and has nothing but contempt for Michael Schiavo. [I suspect much of Sean’s “empathy” with Robert Schindler is the Catholic/macho/head of household role that he sees as a kindred spirit.] Also, Mr. Schindler is “camera savvy” due to his years of training and Michael isn’t exactly Mr. Personality (and hasn’t romanced Sean at all).
The fact that Sean does not seem to understand the properties of pvs, the causes of bulemia, or the dangers of chemical imbalance, while being willing to take the biased word of bizarre medical practitioners, is hardly “fair and balanced.” He is giving credence to lies and misinformation, and is perfectly willing to ignore the Constitution.
The Schindler son also spoke openly in an interview on the Larry King show last week that they were “probabably/possibly” going to begin an investigation into Michael at some point in the future.
The self-control exhibited by Schiav is impressive. I can’t imagine how he has been going through this for 15 years, and hasn’t thrown in the towel.
Brad, not only is he male, he also has a wife! Did you know 100% of wifebeaters have wives!! The incriminating evidence just keeps coming.
This just shows, no matter what real experts say, opponents can always find “experts” to say the opposite. The fact that experts and “experts” are treated on equal footing is just more evidence of the sad state of this country.
Now that Terri has died her family wants to make nice with Michael.Terri’s brother had
no right to go on TV and tell everyone that
Michael was living with a woman and had children with her.If I were Michael I would refuse to allow her parents to attend any
service I had planned.
I can’t help but feel sorry for this guy. I know somewhat what he is going through. I also had to deal with my husband’s death. He died from a condition he was born with and even life support would not have kept him alive per the doctors. And there were many. His family still blames me and hates me and loves to create a lynching mob within the family to launch attacks against me and my family. The Schindlers are not dealing with grief in a positive way and need to see a therapist. Like Michael I was also threatened that they were going to utterly destroy me and financially take everything including my kids. They have no proof, no nothing, just made up garbage in their own overeative imaginations. They are trying to rationalize to the public that they are good people, but I don’t believe them. In my case the doctors realized my husband’s family were personality disorderd and so I believe is this man’s case. There is no reasoning with people like this. They only know how to create mass hysteria. I have to agree also with a prior blog in this site about bullimea and eating disorders. They tend to start at an early age such as puberty. There were eating disorders in my husband’s family as well. I suspect emotional and psychological child abuse in the Schindlers. It should prove interesting what the doctors come back with in regards to the autopsy.
I have thought all along that Michael Shiavo is a remarkably brave and ethical man. As for the Schindlers, whatever slack anyone wants to cut them for having lost their daughter, bear in mind that they might have had some class and at least acknowledged publicly that Michael may have decent motives, that he may just believe he was doing the right thing. Instead they sought to ruin his reputation in an appalling way. Remember that Shiavo was almost always private, and rarely berated his wife’s family publicly, even though his life must have been hellish because of them.
I just want it out there that I admire the man.
It’s gotten to the point where if someone trots out any of these outlandish accusations against Schiavo I just write them off. In just about every case, there’s the same mindset: Well, I believe that…..You can throw facts at them, but they just don’t want to think. They really want to believe he’s an evil abusive wife-beater. I don’t get that at all. There’s no proof whatsoever, and quite a bit of evidence to the contrary.
So, Michael should sue the Schindlers, and that UCLA psychiatrist? On what grounds? If he sues the psychiatrist, the psychiatrist can prove that she was only stating facts based on research. If Michael tries to sue the Schindlers, it’ll just get thrown out of court. Maybe Michael should just have his funeral and give Terri’s remains back to her parents. Then he should just get on with his life. At least he won’t have to waste any more money on lawsuits. Why continue to drag it on? I mean, he won this whole case, so what does he have to complain about? Jeeze.
It’s not about winning or losing MrCoffee, it’s about doing right by Terri. Sadly though, the Schindlers seem to share your view about it being a contest. What does Michael have to complain about? Well, how about more than a decade of vicious slander and defamation?
He’d be a better man than myself if he can let it go.
From all that I have read and heard, I believe it is very possible that Michael was beating his wife when she had the heart attack, and that he was trying to strangle her to death right after the heart attack. She was planning to divorce him – they had had a big fight the day before the heart attack. Her brother arrived before the paramedics, and Terri grabbed her neck and obviously was trying to tell him that Michael had been strangling her. Why ALL of this was not investigated at the time, I cannot imagine. Even the police involved thought this incident was a possible attempt at homicide. Why didn’t they investigate?
I believe Michael is definitely trying to hide something. The only reason he could want to cremate her is to destroy the evidence of abuse. Two women on the Larry King show SAID that Michael was a LIAR and that there is documented evidence that Terri had BROKEN BONES BEFORE the heart attack. I believe them. When I look at Michael’s eyes, they look full of hate. He is certainly full of hate toward her parents. He REFUSED to get a divorce and let her parents take care of her. Why? He could have divorced her and gone on his way, but he refused. He never said ANYTHING about a DNR until AFTER he got the million dollars. He committed adultery while married to Terri. He refused to get her the physical therapy she needed (pictures of her drawn-up arms and hands testify to this fact). I think he spent much of that money on HIMSELF. I don’t believe ANYTHING he says. I think he “held her in his arms” while she was dying, simply for SHOW. I don’t believe he is an honest person. This is a “cold case,” if there ever was one. SOMEONE in Florida ought to start investigating the evidence of ABUSE in Terri, BEFORE she is cremated. Once she is cremated, all the evidence will be gone. Michael will have gotten away with the “perfect crime.” However, the only comfort I have is that IF Michael is the cause of Terri’s tragic condition for 15 years, and he is never investigated, GOD will see that he is punished, because Jeremiah said, “Vengeance is MINE, saith the Lord, *I* will repay.” I have no doubt of this. If Michael really did try to kill Terri, I hope he burns in hell for eternity. One thing for sure, IF he abused Terri, he will abuse his girlfriend (or next wife), and he will abuse his children, most likely. Wife abusers don’t just stop with one wife – they CONTINUE to abuse women and children, until someone STOPS them (by putting them in jail or by killing them). Abusers don’t ever change. He will show his true colors, eventually. Actually, he already has. Saying that he’s not even going to TELL Terri’s parents WHERE she is buried is cruel, hateful treatment of them. He has already shown his cruelty many times.
There’s a saying that when you point your finger at someone, you have three pointing back at you.
You might take that into consideration as you ponder your screed, Kathy. There’s nothing at all in the judicial record to support your libel of Michael Schiavo. And if what you allege had occurred, I have no doubt that the brother and the parents would have brought it up to the Judge during the weeks long trial in 2000. There was certainly enough animus by that time to have prompted them.
It’s truly unfortunate.
Kathy:
Two women said there was evidence, two women who did not have any substantiation for that so-called evidence. If there had been any evidence of a beating (i.e. bruises, broken bones, marks of strangulation &/or evidence of physical blows to the head) the hospital would have investigated as: they are required to report evidence of a crime (Terri wouldn’t have been able to make up a story to cover for him), the actual cause of injuries would have affected treatment and they’d have been open to a malpractice suit.
Additionally, if it had been about the malpractice settlement he would have made her a DNR right away instead of trying experimental treatments and feigning belief she could improve (I guess you think he was faking it) as he would have had not only a malpractice suit but also a wrongful death one as well. He probably could have collected on whatever life insurance policy he had on her at the time as well (after the injury her life insurance premiums would have been too exhorbinant to continue). As her husband, and sole heir, he would have stood to gain much more financially had he made her a DNR while she was still in the hospital and less stable than after she stabilized to what she became.
MrCoffee:
So, Michael should sue the Schindlers, and that UCLA psychiatrist? On what grounds? If he sues the psychiatrist, the psychiatrist can prove that she was only stating facts based on research.
She was not stating facts based on research; research required to make those kind of comments and that diagnosis requires much more that conducting an interview with a family that had already filed suit and started a public smear campaign against the subject (all of which make them less than credible), not can she prove she was stating any facts. Research is supposed to be objective, she did not conduct actual investigation or interviews with anyone else on the subject (let alone with the subject himself).
In spite of all this, I just can’t see where the Schindlers did anything wrong. They were only looking out for their own daughter’s best interest. About the only information that I had gleaned from all of this studying and reading, was that of Michael’s self-centeredness and willful agenda of supporting the pro-euthanasia movement. All he had to do, was let his wife go back to her parents, and all of this would have blown over. It looks to me like him, Judge Greer, and George Felos could be in for a huge backlash. The trio needs to get out of the media’s site and stop pushing their ideals on an increasingly hostile and divided public.
MrCoffee
I find Kathy Johnson’s screed a perfect example of the reasoning going on on the other side in that it shows the dangers of belief overfact.
Mr. Coffee, you can excuse anything by saying it was in someone’s best interests. Once the Schindlers hired on Randall Terry they lost any claim to sympathy or morals.
Judge Greer was reelected to his job (not all judges are lifetime appointees as the right wing tries to make us believe) two years ago by wide margins even though his opponent used the Schiavo case as the sole basis for running against him.
Sorry Mr. Coffee, facts are inconvenient little things, aren’t they?
MrCoffee, you just don’t get it. The central issue is what Terri’s wishes were, not what one party believes to be in her best interests. Michael petitioned the court and a determination was made, not once but twice, as to what Terri’s wishes were. The Schindlers did not like or accept that because it conflicted with what they wanted for Terri.
When an adult marries, the family that raised him or her cedes any decision making abilities they possessed to the new spouse and the new family that is formed. This is the law in all 50 states. The very nature of marriage requires this severing of old ties and creating new ones that supercede any other. In the eyes of the law, the two married individuals are now a single unit with new legal rights and responsibilities, one of which is that each spouse is the de facto proxy for the other should the need arise.
The spouse, when the need arises, either takes that responsibility seriously or he/she doesn’t. I see nothing more heinous on Michael’s part than a husband who loved his wife determined to see that Terri’s wishes were respected in the face of great opposition from a family bound and determined that their wishes, and their wishes alone, be respected.
bout the only information that I had gleaned from all of this studying and reading, was that of Michael’s self-centeredness and willful agenda of supporting the pro-euthanasia movement.
MrCoffee:
Aside from turning their family’s personal pain into a media circus and pushing appeals that may now jeapordize the rights of all of us (who may now be subjected to additional legislation impacting our medical treatment)? You obviously only read limited info that supports what you want to believe or have only been exposed to propaganda. Read the depositions of various members of the Schnidler family, you’ll find that many of the statements of their beliefs (unless you share those same beliefs) to be quite extreme and indicative of people who show absolutely no regard for the wishes of Terri (and no regard for any potential pain/suffering). They make it clear that it was basically a duty to keep her alive for their comfort (and that, were they the ones in a hopsital bed, they’d expect every extreme intervention to keep them alive in a case of known futility even if it would put the rest of their familiy at risk); if you don’t consider that pathological, I don’t know what you would.
I just fail to understand how following through on a casual conversation he had with his wife that she would not want to be kept alive with artificial means was sacred enough to him to make sure it happened but his vows in front of his God weren’t. I, personally, don’t blame him for wanting to go on with his life – but that is what he should have done – divorced his wife so he didn’t taint the marriage he DID have with her by being adulterous.
Moe99 – I would ask you to back up your assertion that the literature shows that a person with bulimia has been abused by ANYONE. You are simply wrong. I would suggest that before you spout off about eating disorders you educate yourself about them. It’s obvious that you are not aware of the studies showing brain chemical imbalances in people with eating disorders. Compulsions and obsessions which are a part of eating disorders are very much driven by these brain chemical imbalances. So to suggest that bulimia is brought on because of abuse is a gross simplification of a very complex problem. Here is a link to some information that might help you to understand.
http://www.sfn.org/content/Publications/BrainBriefings/eating_disorders.html
and another one:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/low/health/192727.stm
And from the National Institute of Mental Health:
”
Research Findings and Directions
Research is contributing to advances in the understanding and treatment of eating disorders.
* NIMH-funded scientists and others continue to investigate the effectiveness of psychosocial interventions, medications, and the combination of these treatments with the goal of improving outcomes for people with eating disorders.8,9
* Research on interrupting the binge-eating cycle has shown that once a structured pattern of eating is established, the person experiences less hunger, less deprivation, and a reduction in negative feelings about food and eating. The two factors that increase the likelihood of bingeing’hunger and negative feelings’are reduced, which decreases the frequency of binges.10
* Several family and twin studies are suggestive of a high heritability of anorexia and bulimia,11,12 and researchers are searching for genes that confer susceptibility to these disorders.13 Scientists suspect that multiple genes may interact with environmental and other factors to increase the risk of developing these illnesses. Identification of susceptibility genes will permit the development of improved treatments for eating disorders.
* Other studies are investigating the neurobiology of emotional and social behavior relevant to eating disorders and the neuroscience of feeding behavior.
* Scientists have learned that both appetite and energy expenditure are regulated by a highly complex network of nerve cells and molecular messengers called neuropeptides.14,15 These and future discoveries will provide potential targets for the development of new pharmacologic treatments for eating disorders.
* Further insight is likely to come from studying the role of gonadal steroids.16,17 Their relevance to eating disorders is suggested by the clear gender effect in the risk for these disorders, their emergence at puberty or soon after, and the increased risk for eating disorders among girls with early onset of menstruation.
Research is contributing to advances in the understanding and treatment of eating disorders.
* NIMH-funded scientists and others continue to investigate the effectiveness of psychosocial interventions, medications, and the combination of these treatments with the goal of improving outcomes for people with eating disorders.8,9
* Research on interrupting the binge-eating cycle has shown that once a structured pattern of eating is established, the person experiences less hunger, less deprivation, and a reduction in negative feelings about food and eating. The two factors that increase the likelihood of bingeing’hunger and negative feelings’are reduced, which decreases the frequency of binges.10
* Several family and twin studies are suggestive of a high heritability of anorexia and bulimia,11,12 and researchers are searching for genes that confer susceptibility to these disorders.13 Scientists suspect that multiple genes may interact with environmental and other factors to increase the risk of developing these illnesses. Identification of susceptibility genes will permit the development of improved treatments for eating disorders.
* Other studies are investigating the neurobiology of emotional and social behavior relevant to eating disorders and the neuroscience of feeding behavior.
* Scientists have learned that both appetite and energy expenditure are regulated by a highly complex network of nerve cells and molecular messengers called neuropeptides.14,15 These and future discoveries will provide potential targets for the development of new pharmacologic treatments for eating disorders.
* Further insight is likely to come from studying the role of gonadal steroids.16,17 Their relevance to eating disorders is suggested by the clear gender effect in the risk for these disorders, their emergence at puberty or soon after, and the increased risk for eating disorders among girls with early onset of menstruation.”
Taken from: http://www.nimh.nih.gov/publicat/eatingdisorders.cfm#ed2
“All material in this publication is in the public domain and may be copied or reproduced without permission of the Institute. Citation of the source is appreciated.
NIH Publication No. 01-4901”
Printed 2001
Hey, you know, all I am doing is stating what I know from reading the facts. Go ahead, let Micheal sue the Schindlers. But I’ll laugh my socks off the moment the case gets thrown out of court. Who knows, this time he might end up losing all of his credibility, for what it’s worth.
MrCoffee
Actually her NUMEROUS, prior fractures are public, court-recorded documents. THESE are the facts. The point here is that you show mercy to others. Michael showed NO mercy to ANYONE. Even after Terri’s death. How cruel can someone possibly be to deny her parents a funeral with their daughter’s body. What could he have possibly cared? She’s dead for pete’s sake? Also, if he “loved” Terri so much, and was only carrying out her wishes, why didn’t he divorce her? Do we really think she would have wished “Gee, I hope Michael shacks up with someone, has 2 kids with her, and stays married to me…that’s what I really wish, oh, and by the way, I sure hope I get to starve and dehydrate to death for 13 days, with Michael by my side, and of course, WITHOUT my family near….I’d be much happier here at hospice as well…I certainly would NOT want my parents and brother and sister NEAR me OR taking care of me…only Michael” IS EVERYONE JUST CRAZY???? Duhh…he’s clearly done SOMETHING to her to be so consistently CRUEL.
I agree with Kristina, Kathy and Mr. Coffee.
If you will go to terrisfight.org you will get the REAL truth about Michael Schievo.
Terri did have bruses and was going to divorce him. I too believe he beat her. Also after her so called “heart attack” she got an infection and Schievo wouldn’t let them treat her. I believe that is when she started to go down hill.
Michael Schievo is as low as they come. Surely he don’t think anyone takes him seriously. The adulter. I can tell you one thing. If Terri had been my daughter Mr. Michael would have regreted the day he was born and probably wished his mother had had an abortion. I don’t believe in abortion, but I sure wish Michael Schievo’s mother had had one, maybe Terri would still be alive. Maybe his parents will not be allowed to be with him when his day comes to die and it will come, we all must go sometime. Maybe his illegitimate kids want be allowed to be with him either. I hope the girl that had his two kids will get a living will and a prenuptial if she decides to marry him now that he is FREE.
Michael is about money!!!!!! The money that was suppose to be used for her medical bills ONLY did not. It went for several other things like Michael’s attorney.
Like I said go to terrisfight.org and if you don’t get t’d off reading all the underhanded stuff Michael has done then I just don’t know what this country is coming to. The devil has FULL rule over some people as far as I can see.
God Bless Terri’s mother, father, sister and brother.
Uh, Kristina, could you provide some sources for your ‘FACTS’? Capitalizing excessively is not a substitute for FACTS.
What does it say in the bible about not being like the hypocrites who pray in public? About bearing false witness, Kristina? Be very careful about what you repeat, and about whom you believe. Here’s a good rule of thumb: a federal judge is a very credible source. Neutral, court appointed medcial experts are as well.
For the record, I don’t blame Mr. Schiavo for not letting the Schindlers anywhere near her grave, at least while they are running with that pack of hysterical fringe radicals.
Veronique. I’m only going to give you one site. You can google the rest for yourself.
bulimia
As many times as this case has been up before judges, etc., I can only believe that the Schindlers are grasping at straws with no proof of anything. When one has proof, rarely do you need to raise a mob action to the level these people have done. Due to this lynching mob mentality, I can’t blame Michael for having a funeral without them. I allowed my in-laws to come to the funeral of my husband and they made a 3-ring circus out of it and were extremely rude to me on a day that I needed sympathy and reassurance that things would be fine and life goes on and your spouse is with God and no more pain from the condition he had. My family and children were astounded at the in-laws horrible behavior. They had the manners of pigs and trampled on anyone they felt were in their way of what they wanted. When you marry someone whether your marriage was perfect or not, when that person passes away you still grieve the loss. You try to focus on the good times and it helps you get through it. You take one day at a time and never dwell on the bad. It only destroys those who are left in spirit and in health. They Bible says to do this. Murder has not been proved upon Michael’s part. Are we not judging them???
Elena, first of all, if you are that naive to believe that judges are credible, then that would explain volumes on your opinions. Second of all, I haven’t found that Michael’s and Felos’s choosing of doctors etc., proves that these are neutral parties. Third, of course, I can provide proof to the bone scan. It’s pretty much common knowledge to anyone who knows anything about the case. I’ve attached the link. Other than that, I am entitled to my opinion as are you and everyone else.
http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=86055
Sorry, this should work!
Aug Chase,
Thanks! You know, you are so right about the money….Money CAN ACCOMPLISH ANYTHING. Don’t worry, it will all come out. I don’t know when, or how, but I can promise you it will. If it doesn’ t while we’re alive, God will surely confront him! Michael won’t get around that one. It’s like anyone who does anything illegal…drug dealers, etc., they might get away with it for YEARS, but they ALWAYS get caught. Thanks for having sense!
Zen Knight,
How do we REALLY know what Terri’s wishes were???? Just because Michael said so??? OH, I forgot, Michael is (even after she’s dead) her guardian. Geese, that’s all it takes??? No one really knows. NO one. Oh well, I’m just glad I’m not the one who chose, no, INSISTED, to dehydrate and starve the poor girl. What a pompous world we’ve become….choosing who will live and who will die. Can you spell N-A-Z-I?
I don’t think we do really know what Terri’s wishes were, but the courts tried to figure them out based on the testimony of both her husband (and let’s face it, you’re more likely to discuss that kind of thing with your spouse than with anyone else) and other people. And since last I checked the Nazis weren’t particularly interested in people’s wishes and killed disabled people to protect society, not to respect their rights, it’s an offensive and stupid comparison.
Honestly, as the resident skeptic on this issue, I find people like you really counterproductive and embarassing. It’s impossible to make a rational point when you have to constantly explain why you’re not some fundie nut-job who thinks they can see the evil in Michael Schiavo’s eyes.
Elena, let’s not forget “Thou shalt not commit adultery,” either. I understand that he was in a difficult situation ,however, the RIGHT thing to do would have been to divorce Terri, not have 2 children and remain married to her. How sick is that? Why would anyone do that? Yeah, he REALLY cared about Terri. Actions speak louder than words. That’s why he continued on with HIS life, but remained in charge of hers. Who could do such a thing? That’s just sick. Not to mention narcisisstic.
Unfortunately the tenor and level of discourse that is evident on other threads w/in Alas, seems to be trending downward rapidly. I do hope our esteemed moderator informs those who do not have current vaccinations what the rules on posting are, or was that confined to the Schiavo update thread only?
Sally,
You wrote:
“And since last I checked the Nazis weren’t particularly interested in people’s wishes and killed disabled people to protect society,”
Keyword here KILLED. Killing is killing the last time I checked.
You wrote:
“not to respect their rights”
Starvation and dehydration is a right???? Hello!
You wrote:
“it’s an offensive and stupid comparison”
We are all entitled to our opinions. Maybe you shouldn’t be particpating if you are offended.
People have a right to refuse treatment. The courts attempted to determine whether Terri Schiavo would have wanted to end her treatment. That’s a very different thing from deciding that society would be better off with her dead.
There have been people here who have suggested that Terri Schiavo should have been killed for the good of society because, for instance, her treatment was too expensive and the money could have been spent on more worthy patients. This argument terrifies me, as does the fact that nobody but me seemed to be bothered by it. But that’s not what the courts ruled. The courts tried to determine what she would have wanted, based on her statements to several people, including but not limited to her husband.
Yes, you are right, but “her statements” are not documented by her and therefore, cannot be proven. Who knows. That’s what upsets me the most. I just think if it can’t be proven, we should be FOR life not against it, no matter what.
Sally, regarding your comment about people thinking she should have been killed to better help others terrifies me as well. You’re not the only one. I’ve learned that scientologists have this exact belief. I’ve also learned that Clearwater, Florida has a pretty good presence of the scientology group, cult, whatever you wanna call them. I’m not suggesting anything, but it is interesting.
Yeah, and her reported statements were about different kinds of life support: I don’t think she anticipated a long, drawn-out dying process that would take two weeks. (And I know that doctors insist that starving to death is no biggie and is in fact a fun and pleasant way to go, but I’m not willing to take their word for it. As I said on my own blog, my brother had surgery without anesthesia because doctors swore, wrongly, that he was too young to feel pain. Ooops!) But that seems to me like a different, and slightly more restrained, point than claiming that Michael Schiavo is evil and the courts are Nazis and all that.
Sally,
OK, OK…I’ll try to be nicer. But I do think killing is evil…sorry. And I certainly don’t trust the courts. Maybe at one time our system was trustworthy, but I just don’t feel that it is in this day. That is only my opinion.
I think that killing people is evil, too. But I also think it’s evil to force people to have unwanted medical treatment that will prolong their suffering. So this is a matter of conflicting imperatives, rather than a clear-cut case, I think.
I can’t think of a time when our system was any more trustworthy than it is now. I’m not sure that I would say that I don’t trust the courts, either. I would say that courts are fallible, but so is every other social instititution. And in general, I think that the most effective way to get rid of bias in the courts is to work on the bias in the larger society.
Sally:
I think that’s a good point.
Moe99:
The “no one is allowed to criticize Michael or the Schindlers rule,” such as it was, only ever applied to the one thread. It certainly can’t be applied to this thread, since the initial post itself is very much about how to judge Michael.
I’ve been very unsure how to deal with some of the recent anti-Michael posts. My feeling is that most people who post IN CAPITAL LETTERS and in an angry, scornful tone – or who say things like “IS EVERYONE JUST CRAZY” – are unlikely to be open to reasoned, mutually respectful disagreement. For that reason, my impulse when I see those posts is to just delete them.
On the other hand, that puts me in the position of deleting posts that I disagree with. Clearly, like Michael, it could be argued that I have a conflict of interest. For that reason, my tendency is to allow all but the most extreme and obnoxious posts to be posted. (Yrust me, the ones I delete are REALLY extreme). I also delete the ones that show absolutely no awareness of punctuation.
Finally, I have to consider not only what the first post someone makes is like, but what their future posts are likely to be like. (The way the software works is, the first post you make on “Alas” has to be approved by hand, but after that posts are usually auto-approved. Which is why post #33, “Can you spell N-A-Z-I?,” was approved; had that been Kristina’s first post, I wouldn’t have approved it).
But on the other, other hand, maybe people can surprise you. Kristina seems to be indicating that she’s willing to turn over a new leaf, in her most recent post, for example.
So what do you folks think? I’m particularly interested in the opinion of people who have been posting on “Alas” for more than just the last day or two: Should I be letting “culture of life” posts like #13, 23 and 24 through (I considered deleting all three of those) in the name of open debate? Or should I be deleting them, in the name of reasonable, mutually-respectful debate? Which would make you, personally, enjoy the site more and be more likely to post more often?
(Sally, as our resident contrary-on-Schiavo poster, I’d be particularly interested in your opinion.)
Ampersand,
With all due respect, how can there be a debate without opposing opinions???
By “prior,” I assume you mean “prior to the bone scan being taken.” It’s not possible to prove that the injuries occurred prior to Terri’s heart attack, as far as I know.
Regarding the 1991 bone scan, as I understand it the scan itself is long lost; all we have is one doctor’s summary of the scan. And two other doctors – including the doctor who ordered the scan made – disagree with that doctor’s conclusions.
Normally, I disapprove of super-long quotations, but as the site owner I get to make an exception for myself. :-) From Abstract Appeal’s question and answer page:
I know some people have suggested that there’s no evidence that Terri actually suffered from bulimia; however, I find it incredible to believe that a million-dollar-plus lawsuit can be won with no evidence. And it’s a well-known fact that eating disorders cause osteoporosis (brittle bones).
One right-wing doctor blog, codeblue, has argued repeatedly that the only reasonable explanation of the bone scan report is abuse. However, as Cathy Young at Reason points out, Codeblue blog seems less than reliable.
Majikthise also has a good post debunking the “Michael Schiavo is an abuser” argument.
My belief is that it’s impossible to say for sure that Michael – or any husband, for that matter – has not beaten his wife. Nonetheless, there certainly isn’t enough evidence to say for certain that he did. Lacking evidence, I think we ought to give Michael the benefit of the doubt. I’m also bewildered as to why Michael, if he really had caused Terri’s injuries, would have initiated a law suit which would lead to the cause of Terri’s injuries being closely examined by opposition doctors; and I’m also bewildered as to why those doctors didn’t bring up any allegations of abuse in their own defense, if there was medical evidence to support such allegations.
Of course, it may be that the autopsy report, when released, will change how things look.
Kristina:
I’m not suggesting that all opposing opinions be moderated out. If you read through this blog’s archives, I think it’s clear that I don’t make a practice of banning posters merely because I disagree with them.
However, I’m not interested just in “debate.” I’m interested in intelligent, respectful debate. So if someone comes in YELLING THINGS IN ALL CAPS and making wild statements and seeming just generally unwilling to listen, it might make sense to delete them so that angry, non-respectful comments don’t come to dominate the discussion, drowning out more intelligent debate.
On the other hand, if you’re willing to respect the other posters here and discuss issues calmly – even when you disagree with them – then there is virtually no chance that I will ever ban you from my website. On the contrary, if you’re willing to do that, then I hope you’ll keep on posting here.
UPDATE: Well, I guess if a polite poster refuses to really address the issues, and is preventing discussion from moving on to more interesting areas, then I might eventually ask them to move along. But not before they’ve had dozens and dozens of posts in which to state their case.
I don’t have a problem with banning on the basis of posting style or ability to sustain a rational argument, amp. On the other hand, I would totally understand if you thought it was too much hassle to figure out where to draw that line and decided not to ban the all-caps brigade.
Ampersand,
OK, I understand. I do apologize…..I let my emotions get the best of me sometimes…..I wasn’t aware that this was a “real-legitimate” debate. And that’s probably because I read something that was exactly what you were trying to avoid posting on here! Thanks for having this site!
Read the transcripts from a Larry King interview of Michael Schiavo where he states that “But this is not about them, it’s about Terri. And I’ve also said that in court. We didn’t know what Terri wanted, but this is what we want…
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0503/18/lkl.01.html
Veronique,
read the transcript and it was clear from the context the ‘we’ M. Schiavo was referring to were her parents.
Moe99 – I don’t have to google to get information on eating disorders. I am a public speaker who speaks about them. Although early research of eating disorders showed there may be a corelation between sexual abuse and eating disorders the current research is showing a clearer corelation between biological factors.
Your website does not hold a lot of credibility. I prefer to get my information from nationally recognized institutes or researchers. The sites I pointed you to are those but here are some as well.
From the Surgeon General’s Report on Mental Health: “The causes of eating disorders are not known with precision but are thought to be a combination of genetic, neurochemical, psychodevelopmental, and sociocultural factors”
taken from http://mentalhealth.about.com/library/sg/chapter3/blsec6.htm
From Author: Gabriel I Uwaifo, MBBS, Clinical and Research Attending, Assistant Professor of Medicine and Endocrinology, MedStar Clinical Research Center, The MedStar Research Institute and the Washington Hospital Center
Coauthor(s): Robert C Daly, MBChB, MPH, Senior Fellow, Department of Behavioral Endocrinology, National Institute of Mental Health, National Institutes of Health
“The role of sexual abuse in the development of eating disorders is controversial. Some reports suggest a strong association, while others detect no association.”
link: http://www.emedicine.com/med/topic255.htm
This question is going to sound snarky, but I think I can make the case that it’s anything but.
Veronique,
Did you read the transcript before you posted the link to make sure it said what you think it says?
It’s essentially a remark out of context whose meaning changes completely once it is placed back in it’s correct context:
Clearly he’s speaking to the Schindlers’ views. Otherwise he would have 1) contradicted what his lawyer answered just a few questions back, 2) contradicted himself in the very same sentence, and 3) Larry completely missed it. No “hey, wait a sec, didn’t you just say…which is it, homes??”
Oops, a little to happy with the “Submit” button.
Earlier you wrote that all we have is Michael’s word, and only Michael’s word, this too is contradicated in the transcript:
Moe99 – Really? How did you come to that conclusion? I went back and re-read it and don’t see it that way at all. I also was watching Larry King that night and didn’t get that from his statement then, either. Seriously, how did you come to that conclusion?
From the transcript:
KING: Have you had any contact with the family today? This is a sad day all the way around, Michael. We know of your dispute.
M. SCHIAVO: I’ve had no contact with them.
KING: No contact at all?
M. SCHIAVO: No.
KING: Do you understand how they feel?
M. SCHIAVO: Yes, I do. But this is not about them, it’s about Terri. And I’ve also said that in court. We didn’t know what Terri wanted, but this is what we want…
It is amazing how folks can read the same words and come away with completely different ideas of what was said. Now when I heard this while watching the show, and later upon reading the text, I thought both times that M. Schiavo was referring to not having any contact with Terri Schiavo’s parents. That the “We didn’t know what Terri wanted, but this is what we want… “ was about not knowing if Terri would have wanted her husband to be avoiding contact with her parents. I did not think he was talking about Terri’s wishes regarding life support when he said it.
ZenKnight – I read the entire transcript not once but 3 times and I still do not see the same thing in it as you do .
Zennight- if your second post (earlier you wrote that all we have is Michael’s word) is directed at me, I didn’t say all we had was Michael’s word. Sorry if it was meant for someone else but since it seemed you were continuing your earlier post where your question was directed at me I am assuming that is who you are adressing in your second post as well.
Bless your heart, Veronique.
Across the pond in another Schiavo thread on this site has given us another interview of M. Schiavo. Be sure to read it:
Schiavo interview on ABC
You’re right Veronique, sorry, the 2nd post should have been addressed to Kristina.
This is absolutely not a simple case of: terminally ill person made comments about not wanting artificial life-support, loving though flawed husband does his best, parents and siblings of terminally ill person can’t accept the fact they are losing someone they love.
In every event in life, the first reports, the first people who tell you what they saw, what they heard…are the ones you should pay most attention to. I can only explain the unfortunate fact that charges have never been laid in terms of injuries actually seen on Terri by saying that there have been hundreds of similar unfortunate occasions involving children where obvious abuse has been overlooked, undiagnosed, etc….
Also, I love the statement I’ve heard that this Pinellas County in Florida is ‘Arkansas with palm trees’…meaning there are many, many weird connections between people down there: lawyers belonging to the Hemlock Society, ‘friends’ helping friends get jobs in law enforcement, judges receiving money from Hospice board members. This is all documented.
I believe there are simply too many questions, brought forth from the very moment Terri ‘collapsed’ and an investigation must happen.
Terri was not a terminally ill woman being kept alive by artificial means. In terms of what she supposedly said to ‘three’ people, I have heard at least two other people, close friends, who documented that Terri thought it was absolutely wrong for Karen-Ann Quinlan’s parents to remove her from life-support in the 70’s. Karen lived ten years after that removal, receiving nourishment…she died naturally when finally her organs failed….if Terri was going to die, she would have died naturally, eventually, the same way.
There is no way around the fact here, people, this woman was actively killed…murdered…and that is a dangerous, frightening thing. This is nothing less than people deciding that someone needs to be out of the picture to make their lives less complicated.
Yes, Karen, that’s all very well and good—and little else. Do you hvae proof of any of this?
I don’t know whether Kristina is married or not, but I am, and I would like to say that if I were in Terri’s condition, and capable under the circumstances, I would give my husband permission to find companionship. To divorce Terri, Michael must have realized, would have been to leave her to the whims of her parents. I hope my husband would never do this to me. I would prefer that he commit “adultery” under the circumstances. Walking away would have been the easy thing to do. It flummoxes the anti-MS crowd that he had such strength of character. Hence all these unfactually based accusations of abuse and cover up and what not.
(Sorry if this shows up twice — I got an error message when I posted it first)
Barbara,
I can appreciate that you are comfortable with adultery, when it suits the situation, however, not all would agree. Further, in my opinion, I believe that divorcing would have been the respectful thing to do…not the easy thing to do. In addition, I love my family and would be thankful to be “turned over” to them under such circumstances. It is unfortunate that some may not feel the same toward their own flesh and blood, but I do realize this happens.
A very interesting thing about the Schiavo case is how everyone sees it differently, and can understand things totally differently. I don’t see Michael as evil at all because he found love with another woman and became a father, while not divorcing his brain dead wife. What an impossible position he was in! Even without the right to die controversy, to divorce Terry’s body might have, in his mind, been abandoning his responsibility. Yet he was young, and found another life companion and had children. It seems very far-fetched that all these decisions he made because he’s an abusive, adulterous murderer. Maybe he was wrong to let her go the way she did- I don’t think so, but I am himble enough to say that. Why can’t you (Kristina) be humble enough to admit that he may have done all of this with noble motives? Why not give him that benefit of the doubt, even if you think he made the wrong moral choice?
First of all, she was not brain-dead, she was brain-injured. Two totally different diagnosis. It is your choice to give him the benefit of the doubt, as it is my choice not to. Personally, and again, personally, I couldn’t stay married to my husband if he were in such a condition, and go on to marry someone else and have children with them. I believe his “responsibility” ceased after these events. You either move on or you don’t.
ginmar: I did read a 21 page complete-timeline entire-story documentation of the entire Schiavo case…published on WorldNet Daily…it is very fair to all sides because it is unbiased. I do not say that Michael Schiavo has done anything wrong, I am only saying that there are too many questions…which are indeed documented…and need to be cleared up, as questions in any case anywhere should be investigated and cleared up. And, yes…remember everyone…Terri was not brain-dead, she was brain-injured. She was not dying, she was made to die. We can be very kind to Michael, understanding his position of being young and needing to move on and all that…did he have to, really need to…melt down Terri’s engagement and wedding rings to make himself a new ring? I mean, granted…this does not make him a criminal..but behaviour of each of us does go to demonstrate what we really are like as a human being, don’t you think?
Kristina, your comfort level (or my comfort level) is irrelevant here. I posted to try to make you understand that your point of view is not inevitable. I would never want my birth family to make this sort of decision, and the fact that the Schiavos were so upfront about the fact that they didn’t really care what Terri wanted, should have made it very difficult for Michael Schiavo to abandon his wife. So much of what can be “explained” by his being “evil” can be explained equally well by the fact that he loved her and really wanted her wishest to be carried out. It was a tug of war, it was very unfortunate and very nasty, but it’s not fair to assign so much blame to Michael Schiavo.
Let’s postulate a different scenario: Terri’s parents sincerely believed that she wanted to die and MS sincerely believed that she didn’t. What if he had nonetheless found another companion and soldiered on (as in, kept her alive)? What if he had divorced her under those circumstances and left her to the parents? Would that have been the respectful thing to do?
So many of the negative opinions on Michael Schiavo are simply tracking backwards from disagreement with his views of what his wife wanted. There must be something wrong with a person who would do X! They cannot rationally be tied to anything he did or didn’t do in his personal life.
Barbara…your hypothetical situation is not relevant, because I would still be one…as would others…under the same circumstances…that is, if all the same circumstances existed – and we just cannot forget that there are unanswered questions concerning the legal, the personal…there just are and that is a fact that cannot be overlooked – I would say that her parents would have no right either to kill her….this woman was not ‘allowed to die’…she was actively killed. In terms of MS with this other woman. Personally, I find his behaviour distasteful and if it were to occur in my family I would find that family member distasteful and would question their ethics and their solidness of character. If it were me and/or my husband…one or the other of us in Terri’s position….I think I pretty much know myself that I wouldn’t be thinking at all about meeting, having a relationship and having children with someone else. Again, we can’t ‘know’ everything, because some magnificent, unbelievable person might come along and sweep me off my feet like no one in the entire living universe ever has…but that’s exactly the kind of person it would have to be for me to abandon marriage vows, remain married to a living person – not brain-dead, only brain injured – and begin anew with someone else. That is, you see, how I see my life. And it’s not based on anything religious and I do not see myself as Angel Karen….I just feel I am that person. And, I am suspicious of someone who claims to love someone, and behaves in an entirely different manner…as MS did.
Karen, telling me airily that you read ‘something’ ‘somewhere’ is just not good enough. I need a link, an author, and some bona fides. Until then all you are is another gossip.
I’m sorry, but you will never read anything in WND that is unbiased, whether it’s on Terri Shiavo or George Bush or chihuahuas for sale. This is one of the most right-wing “news” sites around. They make Fox”News” seem almost liberal, which is a huge stretch. To see the words “World Net Daily” and “unbiased” in the same sentence is baffling…
Please don’t think I have a problem with you believing differently than I do regarding the Terri Shiavo case, but please don’t parade a right-wing paranoia tabloid “news” site as an unbiased source. I think it does shed some light on where you’re getting your facts, at the very least.
This ‘source’ may indeed be your right-wing fear come true…but there are affadavits quoted, and that is not my only source. We have some wonderful writers up here in Canada who, for the most part, would be considered ‘left’ and they write for the Globe and Mail and Toronto Star…they, too…Christie Blatchford, Leah Hanson, others…have postulated the same info I have stated. And, beyond that…there are sworn legal affadavits…I think if nothing else they should be looked at, unless of course they were all written up by paranoid right-wing people. They are sworn testimonies of friends, nurses, hospice workers. I’ve seen ’em…so I dunno, guess they just don’t matter. Just to state, and I am sure this is true of most of you, I really do…I don’t look to one ‘side’ or another only for my points of view….read everything you can get your hands on, of every stripe…that’s my point of view.
Karen, I find your punctuation rather challenging. However, if there were “sworn affidavits” of various and sundry people and they are posted all over the Internet I happen to think that they were not, in fact, overlooked so much as they were looked at and determined, on balance, to be unpersuasive. To keep raising the same thing over and over as if you or WND are the first sources to take it seriously is not a credible argument.
I see no contradiction between Michael loving another person once it became clear to him that the Terri he loved and cherished had died. It was just a lot more challenging than it should have been to honor her last request. And the woman he no doubt would have married wasn’t getting any younger, and wanting to have children he went ahead and had them.
I bring up the hypotheticals because it’s relatively clear to me that those talking about the primacy of the parental relationship would switch gears immediately and talk about the sanctity of marriage should the roles reverse themselves. So Michael’s adultery would be excused and understood if he had been the one in favor of keeping Terri on ANH. And if the siblings had been the instigators of keeping Terri on ANH forever, no doubt we’d be hearing about how close and unique sibling relationships are.
Much is made about “sworn legal affidavits,” but what are they really? They are statements taken under an affirmative oath to be truthful, witnessed by a notary public. It should be noted that the oath is not what makes an affidavit true, rather it is whether or not the affiant is being truthful. The only thing validated regarding the affidavit is the affiant’s identity. Affidavits are not vetted in a legal sense when they are taken, not in the way testimony would be in an actual trial.
And apparently it is only unknown to Schindler family supporters that these various affiants were heard in court and found to be unreliable, and there were even some that the Schindler family themselves evidently did not find reliable given they were not asked to appear in court by the family despite the family’s awareness of them.
I wrote about the inadmissibility of affidavits at trial in a previous post in the first Terri Schiavo thread. You are right, zen, affidavits, because they are not subject to cross examination, are generally not admissible at trial.
My punctuation is not at issue here, but thank you for mentioning it. I was probably just carried away with trying to make my point. No excuse for bad puncuation, I’m usually much better than that.
There has been actual testimony given which had resulted in a judge doing the right thing in this case. The first time they tried to starve Terri to death, the testimony of a former girlfriend of MS was accepted to be true in court and resulted in the feeding tube being reinserted. This judge, fortunately, was not the very compromised and strange Judge Greer.
The testimony was to the effect that MS said he had no knowledge of what Terri would say for sure about what should happen should she ‘be in a state ‘ such as she ended up in. “We were young, what the hell would we be talking about something like that for”…is a paraphrase, but the actual words exist in print. There is no ‘final request’ from Terri here…nothing at all affirmative. Again, too many questions and they have to be addressed.
Kristina wrote:
I think that ethically, it’s important to make distinctions between different levels of brain injury. No one here is arguing that someone who has been blinded due to brain injury is as good as dead, for instance.
Terri’s level of brain injury could accurately be described as “mind death.” Her brain was alive, in the sense that her brain stem continued to regulate breathing, heart beats, saliva swallowing and some other involuntary things; but her mind was dead. So let’s not describe her as “brain-dead”; in the name of accuracy, we should call her “mind-dead.”
Mind-dead. Well, last I read the human mind and the human brain have not been entirely mapped. I don’t dispute that a person in Terri’s state is not able to use her mind as you or I. But, we have no way of knowing for certain what the brain ‘does’ and to what degrees it ‘does’ anything given a specific crisis. Perhaps there are other levels of realization that people like Terri enter into that, to us in our higher state of consciousness, are entirely beyond our current ability to understand. I think this is entirely possible. Not everything is scientifically known to us. There are still lots of scientists and researchers trying to figure out lots of different mysteries concerning the human brain. And your term does not make it any more correct to have actively killed a living, not dying, person. It is a truly subjective term which, if adopted as a term by which to decide who might live or die, is terrifying beyond words.
Karen, I am sorry but you are citing things with no relevant context — like Michael’s girlfriend’s testimony. When? In front of what other judge and during what proceeding? Do you mean the factfinding conducted by the first GAL? Do you mean Terri’s childhood friend’s testimony about Karen Ann Quinlan? I’ve read the entire Wolfson Report, both of Judge Greer’s decisions and the appellate decisions and there is no mention of Michael’s girlfriend or of any judge other than Judge Greer.
Re punctuation — I wasn’t making it an issue, but wanted to let you know that it made it hard to read your previous posts.
I would like to say for the record that I have no fundamental problem with, when faced with the irreversible terminal state of a loved one and that loved one is being kept alive by artificial means, ‘pulling the plug’. For myself, too, I have no problem with that. Basic nutrition and hydration, however, is not artificial. Everyone dies without it. If you take my food and water away, I will die. That is killing, not just letting someone go who is on the way anyway.
Barbara. Yes I understand re: puncuation. As I said, I get carried away and my mind gets ahead of my typing. I should know better as I teach writing. Sorry about that.
Anyway, Court Testimony of Diane Meyer, 1992 – the friend of Terri’s who said that Terri thought it was wrong of Karen Ann Quinlan’s parents to remove her from life-support. “How do they know what she feels or what she thinks?” Meyer said Terri said.
Judge Greer heard that testimony and found it believable, though HE made a mistake regarding dates and erroneously said that Terri and Diane would have only been 11 or 12 at the time of the Quinlan case and the words of a minor cannot be taken as solid word on an issue. However, the girls were actually 20 or 21 as Quinlan died in 1985.
During the malpractice suit in 1992, MS made no reference to Terri’s wish to die. His revelation of that came about 8 months later, after the money was in the bank.
Cindy Shook in 2001 in testimony in front of Civil Court Judge Frank Quesada made the statements regarding MS saying that he and Terri were young, why the hell would they talk about something like wishing to die. It was not something they talked about. The judge believed this and ordered the feeding tube put back in.
Barbara,
You wrote:
“I posted to try to make you understand that your point of view is not inevitable”
Neither is yours.
Yes, Kristina, however, I am not the one trying to impose my opinion on a matter decided by people who are in possession of a lot more facts than I am.
Karen, re Terri’s friend, the judge discredited her testimony largely because it was inconsistent with her deposition testimony. She had a case, it seems, of “recovered memory syndrome” in the weeks between the deposition and the trial. Basically, the Karen Ann Quinlan movie was made for tv in 1976, and the friend was closest to Terri during that period, when their families vacationed together. The judge did make a mistake, but I believe his findings on her credibility have more to do with the discrepancy in her testimony than anything else. Judges see witnesses who fit this pattern all the time and they definitely discount the value of such testimony absent really good explanation for the difference.
As for Michael’s girlfriend, I’m still not understanding how her testimony led to the tube being put back in. It’s not normally the type of testimony that would do that (it was opinion testimony) but I’m a busy person and don’t have time to look right now.
Karen, here is what I believe you are talking about, from the decision of the court of appeals:
Although I can’t find the decision of Judge Greer, I did find the subsequent decision of the appeals court stating that after reviewing the depositions and affidavits of this and other newly identified parties, it was satisfied that they did not constitute persuasive testimony on Terri Schiavo’s wishes.
Barbara, I think Karen’s statement about the girlfriend is the result of a conflation of events or a misatribution of cause.
Karen, on April 26, 2001 two motions were filed by the Schindlers: the first filed with Judge Greer’s court which included the gf’s claim you referenced that was subsequently dismissed, and another with the 2nd DCA which resulted in an emergency order that the feeding tube be reinserted so arguments could be heard. After which the case was remanded back to Judge Greer who subsequently found Terri’s tube should be removed once again.
My source is this.
Barbara,
You wrote:
Yes, Kristina, however, I am not the one trying to impose my opinion on a matter decided by people who are in possession of a lot more facts than I am.
I beg to differ. Everyone participating in this blog is, in a sense, imposing their opinions (including yourself) Often you’ll find that in a debate. Classic case of the “pot calling the kettle black.” The definition of “impose” is “to force (oneself) on others. I am not “forcing” anything on anyone and I am sorry you feel that way. Just because I don’t agree with you doesn’t mean I’m insisting that I am right. Try to comprehend that .
Kristina, I don’t mean this personally, but your comments suggested to me throughout that you disagreed with the judge’s decision because you can’t conceive that anyone in this situation would have (a) permitted their husband to be a guardian once he committed adultery or (b) not preferred under the circumstances that their biological family be the default guardian and thus in control of the outcome of their fate, and further, that everything that the judge has done since he refused to change guardianship should be deemed not credible, even suspicious. I gave you an alternative: I am such a person, and the judge might have understood that there can be alternative views. I do too. I think that, realistically, the judge could have viewed that MS had not presented clear and convincing evidence of Terri’s wishes and ruled accordingly. I would not be here today vilifying the parents for having tried to press the point in court if the court had ruled in their favor, and in fact, I have never done that, though I happen to disagree with their premise (which is, basically, “it doesn’t matter what Terri wanted”). I’m not going through your comments again to find examples, but let’s just say that the constant harping about MS’s personal life is sufficient for me to believe that you (as well as others) hold this view even if you deny it.
But let’s just square the point: Do you think that there are any circumstances under which it would have been appropriate for Michael Schiavo to pursue the petition? Or that the judge would have been justified in granting it? If not, there’s your answer: you simply disagree with the result and, not incidentally, the underlying law that the judge was required to impose. If so, fine, but I still don’t understand how Michael’s infidelity would have anything to do with it.
Barbara, simply, this is my opinion. I’m not sure why you continue to question me, since I have been clear on my thoughts, and I don’t intend to answer the same questions repeatedly. I don’t know how else to explain it to you. If you don’t get it, then you don’t get it. However, I don’t really feel I’ve “harped” on anything about Michael since I started posting on her. It seems to me that you are continuing to harp on it. I don’t need to express my same opinion over and over and over, as you are suggesting; and I haven’t. I have beliefs regarding infidelity; you have beliefs regarding infidelity. Obviously, there will be no agreement between us on this subject. I say we move on.
Kristina, even allowing for your strong opinions, let me quote back to you some of your actual language:
I don’t think it mischaracterizes your comments to suggest that you think everyone is crazy for disagreeing with you and that in some immutable way, you are right. I really am not trying to pick a fight, you are clearly entitled to your opinions, but you manage to deliver your opinions in a way that more than subtly maligns whether others hold their own opinions in good faith. I won’t be posting again on the point.
Barbara,
You wrote:
I won’t be posting again on the point.
Thank you!
As someone whose spouse committed adultery numerous times in the 18 years we were married, and who is still hugely resentful of its ultimate effects, I can speak from personal experience to say that not every circumstance warrants condemnation. I am generally pretty harsh on adulterers, including former Pres. Clinton. But I don’t condemn Michael Schiavo for what he did here. Had I been in the same situation, still married but in PVS, I would want my spouse to get on w/ his life. There is nothing left of the marital relationship at that point. Give it a rest.
rhc,
Exactly. Hence, there’s this little thing called Divorce that would have been most appropriate in substantiating the “diminished” marital relationship.
Kristina,
If we assume that Michael Schiavo is just an ordinary person – decent, but not a saint or a villain – then I don’t think his choices are as clear-cut as you say.
Let’s assume Michael sincerely believes the following:
If Michael sincerely believes all of the above four propositions, then his choices were the following:
It seems pretty obvious that, although no perfect choice existed, number 3 is the best of these choices, and quite possibly the choice Terri herself would have preferred.
You keep on applying a simplistic “he’s an evil adulterer!” analysis to this case. Real life isn’t as simplistic as your black-and-white morality implies.
The truth is, Michael could have made his life much, much easier – and profitable – if he had divorced Terri’s mindless body and washed his hands of the whole affair. That he didn’t take the easy route suggests to me that he was acting out of considerable loyalty to what he thinks Terri’s wishes were – even if he wasn’t so saintlike that he was willing to give up on love entirely and become a monk.
I’ve never once suggested he become a monk. That’s ridiculous. I am not convinced, as it appears many are, that he was only trying to fulfill Terri’s wishes. Sorry, I’m just not. We differ on how we see things. I think I’ll move on elsewhere…maybe I’ll find a blog with particpants that have some regrard for basic morals. I’m glad a lot of people are convinced of the activities of the case. It must be good to know all the facts.
If we assume that there’s a least a possibility that Michael is sincere, then the only choices you seem to admit exist for him are living like a monk, divorcing Terri (and betraying what he thinks Terri’s wishes were), or going against what you call “basic morals.”
The thing is, this isn’t a case where there’s society-wide consensus on what “basic morals” are. People can legitimately disagree and still be sincere, decent people. But you don’t seem to allow that possibility when it comes to Michael Schiavo.
I don’t claim to know for certain; but I do think it’s better to give him (and also Terri’s parents) the benefit of the doubt, whenever possible. You seem willing only to assume the worse.
Your choice. You’re welcome to keep on posting here; but posting here may force you to admit that there’s more than one version of what “basic morals” means in our country.
Kristina,
I think you misunderstood me. Michael Schiavo took what I consider to be the most humane course. He stayed married to his wife so he could see her through to the end she sought, even though it was incredibly difficult to do so. And he didn’t constantly lash out at her family in public for their disagreeing with him. But he did meet someone else and was able to establish a life together with her. Given the circumstances and the irrevocable nature of his wife’s PVS, it seems to me that he tried to do his best in a very bad situation. I do not condemn him.
Kristina,
My mother is an 82-year-old lifelong Catholic. She was a virgin when she married and was faithful to my father all his life, as he was to her. She is highly in favor of chastity and marital fidelity. She is also familiar with having to make decisions regarding whether or not to continue life support, having faced that decision with my younger brother.
My mother assesses the Schiavo situation very much as Ampersand did in post 94. She thinks that Michael Schiavo must be an honorable man, who chose the best of the bad options he had, and stuck by the last remaining commitment he had to Terri, to carry out her wishes. She believes that his actions were not only moral, but were actually what God would want him to do.
I recognize that my mother’s thoughts don’t really matter, but I post this only to point out that some religious Catholics, who have a high regard for basic morals, see things differently than you.
You know, Ampersand, when I first posted on here, I realized that I was not following the “rules” that are assumed on this blog. You confronted me and I apologized…twice. Since then, my “error” has been continually brought up. I am not the only person who posted on here that has my beliefs.
I would like to note that if one were to back-track through the postings, that the trend here is “sympathy” for Michael. Well, again, I have none, and I don’t have to. And it certainly seems this is not the place to be if you don’t. Seriously, anytime another participant held my same beliefs on here, the responses leaned toward enforcement of the contrary as well as unnecessary ridicule.
So, apparently, that is OK, but opposition clearly poses a problem here. You may want to re-name this page “For” Michael Schiavo, and add another page entitled “Against” Michael Schiavo, to ensure that all have an avenue to meaningfully discuss their opinions without being interrogated. That might prove to be more successful.
Kristina, I’m sorry if you feel we’ve been bringing up your initial error (which I see as posting in all-caps and a generally rude manner) over and over. That’s not my intent at all; on the contrary, I really admire how you turned that around, and have been a wonderfully polite poster in a difficult situation. (I realize that it IS difficult being the “minority view” on this blog). I think you’ve done a wonderful job here, and I’m sorry if you feel that hasn’t been appreciated.
You’re certainly allowed to politely post anti-Michael views here, but given the make-up of the posters here, your views will be challenged. As long as the challenges are reasonably polite, I won’t do anything to stop that. However, if there’s a particular post or comment that you feel was a too-personal slam on you, you can call the poster on it here or email me (gicing me the post number or quoting the post in question) asking me to moderate. (Including comments made by me!).
Keep in mind, though, that I’m on vacation this weekend, so my response time may be slowish.
If, on the other hand, you decide not to hang around here anymore, then that’s cool too. My sincere good wishes go with you.