The Politics of Terri

[mAlice]

But I'm sure they didn't want their private lives to be open to public scrutiny.

Of course they did. When have you ever seen them shy away from a camera? They wanted the media there in the hope that they could further their argument. They had every intention of humiliating their daughter for their cause. It's sick.

 

[Chasey_Lane]

I’m going to psychology in a few hours I will ask my psyche teacher how conscious you must be to follow a balloon and what like some claimed Terry could.

Terri's parents moved the balloon to follow her eyes.

 

[Larry Gude]

That smacked us in the face last night...

Of course they did. When have you ever seen them shy away from a camera? They wanted the media there in the hope that they could further their argument. They had every intention of humiliating their daughter for their cause. It's sick.

...watching yet another montage of "Terri playing hold the ball".

And this is one of the many reasons people don't want to be kept in a condition like Terri's. Some people look at her and think 'poor thing, maybe there is some hope?' all the while making a mental note..."I don't EVER want that to be me."

 

[Tonio]

Of course they did. When have you ever seen them shy away from a camera? They wanted the media there in the hope that they could further their argument. They had every intention of humiliating their daughter for their cause. It's sick.

Since I don't watch TV news at all, I didn't know the Schindlers were doing that.

BTW, who or what is Hannity?

 

[aps45819]

why don't we have a governor willing to step in an save a life? The most he is risking is sanctions...and legal games--yet his reputation would be assured in the History books that he truly was: Pro Life.

Wouldn't that be the federal crime of KIDNAPPING? I'd be on the on the phone with the FBI filing a complaint if Jeb were to remove her if I were her husband.
The courts are refusing to change the rulings they came up with in the Karen Ann Quinlin case years ago. Why should they? They determined an order of preference for dealing with the removal of life support and it starts with the spouse. NOTHING about this case has been presented to cause them to re-consider their decision.
I don't believe there is a life to save, just the continued functioning of a useless shell.

 

[Hessian]

Confucious say...

just for levity....
Larry: your last post looks like a translation of great philosophers & Machiavelli!
(and I am not denying the truth of them either)...

 

[Hessian]

Let me splain...

"If police were called to a domestic disturbance and learned of some of the conditions that Michael has imposed on Terri...I believe they would have reasonable cause to take her out of the house--and have a judge issue a restraining order to stay away."

This situation is purly hypothetical...I know that her initial condition had nothing to do with his behavior...but her "recovery" may have been hampered by his behavior over the past 3-5 years. His dictates regarding her treatment sound draconian.

 

[Tonio]

Post your theories here! What do you suppose is making the Republicans turn this woman into their own personal political football? Do you think it's because of the abortion issue? Or pandering to the "religious right" (whatever that means)? Or trying to take attention away from other matters?

I'll listen to all comers because I can't for the life of me figure it out.

Here is an answer from the author of "Tuesdays With Morrie":

http://www.freep.com/sports/albom/mitch27e_20050327.htm

The truth is, the Schiavo case became interesting to politicians only after Terri's immediate family aligned itself with anti-abortion and Christian conservative groups, who used the issue to galvanize their members as well as raise money.

Members and money mean clout and votes. And suddenly -- what a shock -- politicians care. Suddenly, they're calling judges "murderers." Suddenly, they're crafting memos. Suddenly, Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, despite doing nothing for years, finds a last-second doctor and wants the State of Florida to commandeer Schiavo's care, as if he's God's hand, staying Abraham from killing Isaac...

I think this sums it up:

In the end, this was a family dispute, an issue facing up to 35,000 families right now who have members in similar states as Terri Schiavo. It should have stayed that way. It didn't. The real shame is that two parties who claim to love Terri Schiavo can't get past their hate for one another.

Last week, I heard a preacher say, "If it were truly God's will that Terri live, she wouldn't need a feeding tube." It makes you realize, if this were 100 years ago, we wouldn't have a debate, because death would have already come. It also reminds you that these issues are big, bigger than you or me, bigger than all of us, and certainly beyond the reach of politicians who can't be bothered to get a dying woman's name right.

 

[2ndAmendment]

They misjudged the public opinion. Their basic idea is fine but DeLay and Frist pushed it beyond common sense. It is more political than compassion because this whole scenario should have been fixed in 1998 after the death of Hugh Finn and Governor Gilmore's self serving antics. It was an identical situation.

Not a bad post. Keep up the good work.

 

[vraiblonde]

Terri's parents moved the balloon to follow her eyes.

The clip we keep seeing on TV used to be a much longer video. Drama Mama would hold the ball and Terri would "follow" it for a second then start "looking" all over the place. In the last month or so they shortened that clip to just the part where Terri is "following" the ball.

THAT I have seen for myself - how that video clip has been edited to take out the parts they don't want you to see.

Now they've got some medical report that says Terri had a fractured pelvis, arms, legs and just about every bone in her body, insinuating that Michael Schiavo beat her. That's complete nonsense. If she had broken bones, the parents would have known about it. They say they were a close family and saw her regularly. They'd have certainly noticed that she was in a body cast with a broken pelvis.

That, really, is what turned me against the parents - the lies and outright slander they've heaped on the husband. I felt sorry for them at first, but now I believe they've got an agenda that has nothing to do with their daughter.

And I don't think we should waste the court's time with the goofy allegations the parents pull out of their ass. There's been no evidence of malfeasance on the part of the husband - just accusations from the parents. Typically you don't have a court investigation when someone makes an accusation out of the blue with nothing to back it up.

 

[SamSpade]

All things being equal - what is the urgent need to end her life now? Is she in pain? Suffering? I've put down pets, to end their suffering - not because they were deadweight.

David Limbaugh's latest article asks this question. As does Bill O'Reilly (who, in typical Bill fashion, could give a crap one way or the other - but who doesn't see why there's any "need" to put her down).

If Michael knew she wouldn't want to live like this, why did he wait so damned long to bring it up? I mean, just how long have you told your spouse you want to be in this state before he ends it? A week? A month? A year? Michael waited several years, after he'd won several settlements. Seems too convenient to me to 'suddenly' remember her wishes.

As Larry postulated earlier, he must have discussed this with her family. So why did it take until after the settlements before this nugget was 'discovered'?

 

[Ken King]

And Ken, Mr. Process, a guy I'd want as my lawyer, advocating tossing out every ruling and appeal in the whole case because Michael moved on with his life. I think Ken sees a disloyalty here on the part of Schiavo he will not tolerate.

Larry,

Yes I advocate tossing out the rulings made and here is my reasoning.

The husband, Michael, has accepted his position as her guardian within the structure of the law. By nature and Florida law, the guardian is supposed to act in her best interest to maintain or improve her life, not end it. By acting in a way that can result in injury or death he is violating his role as the guardian and his actions meet the definition for neglect within the code, which should result in his removal from that role.

The right to refuse medical treatment is predicated upon an advance directive necessary to clearly communicate the patients desire to not have life-extending measures taken to keep them hanging on artificially. In this case there was none and those rulings have made a presumption to know what Terri wanted and have no basis in fact.

Michael claims that his wife indicated to him that she would not want to be kept in the position she finds herself in yet he allowed for that exact condition to be maintained for over 7 years before seeking to start her termination. As such he either had a memory lapse and finally recalled this tidbit of information or she was able at some point to communicate this to him. His changes of actions indicate that the presumption delivered in the rulings of the court is not consistent with those actions over the years.

In my mind Michael’s options are that he maintain her as she was, help her get better, or relinquish his guardianship to some other accepting entity. At the three-year point he had the ability to dissolve his marriage and move on. He chose a different route and now as he moves on creating a new family and life for himself he wants to end Terri’s life. I won’t speculate as to his motives but based on his previous actions it isn’t to see that her wishes are carried out if in fact she indicated to him what those wishes were.

Sadly, Florida has no “right to die” like the majority of the states in our union. As such, and without the advance directive concerning medical treatment, Terri should be maintained and cared for in a manner to achieve whatever is possible for her. I find it awkward that we don’t care enough about the pain and suffering many go through to allow for a quick and merciful ending for them. But since we don’t lawfully provide for this shouldn’t we adhere to the laws already in place versus allowing for a judicial decision to what certainly is a legislative problem that needs dealing with?

 

[Charles]

Ken,
You object to Michael Schiavo, I think he is a lying sleazbag as probably most do but the bottom line has not changed. Judge after judge has found no reason to doubt him. If the law is not changed to allow a willing person to take over and have precedence over a spouse, this will happen again. This would only be the case if there were no living will directing DNR.

 

[alex]

All things being equal - what is the urgent need to end her life now? Is she in pain? Suffering? I've put down pets, to end their suffering - not because they were deadweight.

David Limbaugh's latest article asks this question. As does Bill O'Reilly (who, in typical Bill fashion, could give a crap one way or the other - but who doesn't see why there's any "need" to put her down).

If Michael knew she wouldn't want to live like this, why did he wait so damned long to bring it up? I mean, just how long have you told your spouse you want to be in this state before he ends it? A week? A month? A year? Michael waited several years, after he'd won several settlements. Seems too convenient to me to 'suddenly' remember her wishes.

As Larry postulated earlier, he must have discussed this with her family. So why did it take until after the settlements before this nugget was 'discovered'?

Actually the husband has been trying to refuse treatment for many years. After exhausting medical options and being told by doctors that there was no hope. The reason it has been so drawn out is that the parents have fought him on this issue.

 

[vraiblonde]

All things being equal - what is the urgent need to end her life now? Is she in pain? Suffering?

She's not in pain or suffering because the part of her brain that recognizes those things is gone. And all this "urgency" has been going on for years. It was, like, 1998 when Schiavo first wanted to remove her feeding tube and let her go. This case has been tied up in courts for 7 years now. It's very similar to that "rush to war" the Democrats were keening about.

If Michael knew she wouldn't want to live like this, why did he wait so damned long to bring it up?

A realistic scenario is that he still had some hope. Plus he was probably under pressure from the parents so he figured he'd hang on for awhile and see what happened. There were a couple of experimental treatments that were performed in that time - maybe he thought they'd work.

Are you saying that if he didn't have her tube pulled the day she collapsed, that he should never do it? How long should he have waited? A week? A year? He waited 8 years before deciding to call it a day.

 

[Ken King]

Ken,
You object to Michael Schiavo, I think he is a lying sleazbag as probably most do but the bottom line has not changed. Judge after judge has found no reason to doubt him. If the law is not changed to allow a willing person to take over and have precedence over a spouse, this will happen again. This would only be the case if there were no living will directing DNR.

I don't object to Michael for being the scum that he is, I object to anyone acting as a guardian that would neglect the needs of the person they have agreed to protect. Take some time and research the Adult Protective Services Act of Florida. It states clearly that denying food and water as being neglect. Then check out the laws on Guardians for the state and you will find that those neglecting their ward are to be removed as guardian. It is their law.

As to what the judges have found is that they "believe" that what Terri would want is to die. They have no evidence to it being a fact. Florida also has laws that do not allow for the "right to die" and the "right to refuse medical treatment" must be established in writing and witnessed by at least two persons before it is recognized. None of that exists in this case.

You said, "If the law is not changed to allow a willing person to take over and have precedence over a spouse, this will happen again." which indicates to me that you are aware that there is no law to cover what Michael is doing (causing Terri's physical death), and this is okay with you even though existing laws are counter to that?

 

[Charles]

Ken said:
You said, "If the law is not changed to allow a willing person to take over and have precedence over a spouse, this will happen again." which indicates to me that you are aware that there is no law to cover what Michael is doing (causing Terri's physical death), and this is okay with you even though existing laws are counter to that?
__________________
I'm not happy until you're not.

I'm aware that the currant law does cover what Michael is doing and it should be modified. You and I do agree he is causing her physical death but the judges do not read Florida law like you.

 

[somdcrab]

the republicans the party * of less government* ahem scuse me

my grandma used to always tell me " now Crab always watch what you promise people and what you say, you will be judged by what you DO not what you SAY remember my little crawdad actions speak louder than words and don't ever let your alligator mouth get your paper azzhole in trouble"

 

[SamSpade]

She's not in pain or suffering because the part of her brain that recognizes those things is gone. And all this "urgency" has been going on for years. It was, like, 1998 when Schiavo first wanted to remove her feeding tube and let her go. This case has been tied up in courts for 7 years now. It's very similar to that "rush to war" the Democrats were keening about.

Well, I'm aware of that. If we roll back the clock 7 years, we still have the same situation - why now? Why not 8 years ago? Or was there some reason to still hold out hope in 1998, that there isn't now?

I've just been reading a timeline over at Miami University. It's probably the same one everyone's read, because it's damned long. In one of the court documents it suggests that Michael gave up after the Schindlers and he fought over the settlement money in '93. After that, he was reasonably consistent with wanting her life ended. But not *before* the settlement was made. So apparently, it was Terri Schiavo's wish that her life be terminated, but not until after making a lot of money on it.

One of the timelines has references to Michael lying about his previous testimony regarding Terri's wishes - another, a deposition where he states he knew that refusing anti-biotics for her back in '93 would likely end in her death. So once he got the money, he was ready to end it all. (He tries to do this again two years later).

A realistic scenario is that he still had some hope.

Well, apparently not. He wanted her life ended almost immediately after the last settlement was reached.

Are you saying that if he didn't have her tube pulled the day she collapsed, that he should never do it? How long should he have waited? A week? A year? He waited 8 years before deciding to call it a day .

Apparently he waited about two months after the last bit of money came through, and a matter of weeks after he fought with the family over it. This is in '93.

You want to know what I'm saying? I'm saying his memory is too convenient. His desire to carry out her wishes is too convenient.

 

[somdcrab]

so *less gov party* sticks their nose into a private issue instead of doing congressional work, not the judicial work...........................................
short version watch the polls and then watch the next congressional elections the GOP will pay dearly for *the party of less government* and doing the exact opposite sounds like "alligator mouths got their paper buttholes in trouble they thought it was the POPULAR and a DISTRACTING issue that we the people are stupid and forget the core issues they were elected to do