You're conveniently leaving out a very important fact: this woman does not have the ability to even think anymore. Her cerebral cortext does not exist anymore - it deteriorated long ago and the body has filled the empty space in her head with spinal fluid. What is left is the "animal brain" - the parts of the brain that are needed for the most basic life processes such as breathing and a heartbeat, etc. She has no capacity to even consider the horrible predicament she is in right now. Terry Schiavo, as I mentioned in a previous comment on this subject, is dead and has been dead for a long time. The body, however, is still, sadly, alive.

I don't blame her husband for moving on. I would hope my wife would do the same if I were in a state like Terry is. It's just not fair to expect someone to sit by and wait for the 100% unlikely possibility that nature will figure out how to reconstruct a brain and every memory a person had, or that God will suddenly zap her brain back to the shape it was in prior to her accident. It's not going to happen. Let this body die and let everyone move on with their lives.

You also continue the MYTH that someone in Terry's condition will feel pain during the period of her slow drop into the relief of death. Doctors interviewed about this clearly indicate that when the system shuts down there is no hunger, no pain, just a slow shutdown. I know this to be true! My buddy passed away in my living room from the big C, and hunger is not an issue when you're dying.

Try to stick to reality in your arguments.

I do not doubt but cannot completely agree with what either one of you are saying with regard to her pain threshold and the notion that she would not be able to feel what is going on around her. Since none of us has been in this situation and no one who has gone through it have ever come back from the grave, how are we to tell what she is feeling inside (if anything)?

With regard to the husband wanting to move on, if you checked my post, he wanted and attempted to move on no more than twelve to eighteen months after everything occured, after he declared under oath his desire to stay with her through sickness andin health and of course after he hooked up with a new girlfriend.

The credibility of his character is what I question and why I think that if this decision needs to be made where we play God and decide life or death, than let her parents make this decision. As proven, he can always get new girlfriends (must be a shortage of men in his area) but her parents cannot replace a daughter.

why doesn't he just get a divorce - certainly under the circumstances few would hold it against him, then he could "move on" without starving her to death

Eric

My question as well. He could have divorced a long time ago, taken a little heat but instead went through many court proceedings, girlfriends and children. Makes you wonder if there is a very large life insurance policy in the case of her death.

Richard , two questions I'm sure have been answered

>>how are we to tell what she is feeling inside (if anything

>>Makes you wonder if there is a very large life insurance policy in the case of her death.

The answer to one is that we aren't, but doctors are.

And 2, you'd think if that was true that would have come out already wouldn't you.

Temple Stark

Typically things like this would come out, but again, the media is painting this blanket story of the evil Government entwining itself in the battle between the conservative, religious right and the liberal, pro-euthanasia left. This only generalizes the story and time will tell what happens to the husband after, well after his wife has passed on.

Temple Stark,

To make it more personal, what if you had a daughter (and hopefully you never will) in a similiar circumstance.

Would you allow her husband with a very shady background (with regard to her treatment under his advisement) to decide if she should be starved to death and taken away from you and your wife?

And please, do not answer so quickly...because you would always have in the back of your mind the need to not want to let go.

Good morning Richard, I assume you mean I hopefully will never have a daughter in the same circumstance.

I won't answer quickly on your particular question because I don't know what I would do.

I've never made the parents out to be the enemy (Not that I've talked about it extensively or anything either). Far from it, they care for their daughter. I fault them only for being in denial. Fifteen years? 23 court decisions?

The Schiavo's have had the governor's lawyers with them looking for holes, anything. The husband has passed the judgment of many judges, some of whom could have included his character into their decision. (I believe based on other legal issues I've followed, though I could easily be wrong here)

Luckily I am not in that situation and can look at what has happened in recent days in DC as a bastardization of justice.

Also, it is not the media painting any picture, it is the people on Capitol Hill who injected themselves into a situation where they do not belong. And I will bet $100 that it is ruled unconstitutional (if there is a ruling) See my post on the subject this morning.

Temple

That is what I meant, "hopefully you will never have a daughter" (sorry).

I can't say I agree with you but I will check out your post.

I don't think the parents should be her guardians. It's the spouse's role legally and logically.

Also, the questions that you raise about Michael Schiavo have been raised in court. The Schindlers have questioned his treatment of Terri and his intent, and each time, in case after case, appeal after appeal, their accusations have been found to be groundless.

I don't trust the guy completely, either, but there does not appear to be any legal reason to remove him as Terri's guardian. At the Schindler's request, the courts have had an independent guardian ad litem review the case in detail, and nothing was found that could remove Schiavo as permanent guardian.

The reality is that in FL, you don't need a written directive, a spoken one is all you need. And judge after judge has agreed that Michael Schiavo was telling the truth.

There's no legal basis for making the parents the guardians. It's got to be the spouse, even if we don't like the spouse's decisions.

Please make it clear again Richard. You again made it sound like you would prefer that I not have a daughter. I'm only pursuing your statement:

1) Because it's about me and 2) Because I don't want you to be hung on the point if you are not saying that.

Respectfully. Temple.

PS You don't have to agree, it's more than alright to come to a point where we agree to disagree without trying to prove our 100% correctness

Temple

We are only speaking hypothetically since I know nothing about you and do not take anything the wrong way, please.
If in an alternate universe, you had a daughter who unfortunately is in the same circumstance....

Again, my apologies.

I should mention something about your post, which was excellent.

Adultury is not illegal, though. Also the testimony from Michael Schiavo all comes from 1993 or earlier, perhaps before he realized or knew that she would never recover.

Temple

Thanks for the compliment.

Just a fact about adultery in Florida (according to Florida state law):

798.01. Living in open adultery
Whoever lives in an open state of adultery shall be guilty of a misdemeanor of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083. Where either of the parties living in an open state of adultery is married, both parties so living shall be deemed to be guilty of the offense provided for in this section.


I understand that since it was in 1993 that this testimony occured one could say that he spoke too soon. The fact remains that soon after the award (within one year) was given to him for rehabilitative care and other medical expenses, he cut off her physical therapy, medical and dental costs. In addition, he refused the use of antibiotics to treat an infection knowingly, so she could pass on.

Maybe Michael Schiavo is more afraid that if he relinquishes guardianship to her parents and allows her to live, he has to be made accountable for the money he was awarded too pay for her medical expenses. He apparantly had squandered it away.

Usually, adultery laws are old laws that aren't enforced today.

But again, I'm sure the Schindlers have investigated this legal route.

It looks like the money has been spent on medical care and legal fees [and some might think that the legal fees amount to squandering]. Since a judge has been signing off on expenditures for some time now, I doubt Michael Schiavo can be held liable for paying the money back to the trust fund.

bhw

If adultery is still listed as a law, however old or antiquated it may be, it is still law and he can be held liable.

With regard to the legal fees which were used to retain lawyers to have her tube removed (within one year after the award), not to solely pay for previous legal matters involving the award settlement.

Here is the accounting of moneys given/transferred and yes, approved and signed off by a judge

From terrisfight.org

MYTH: Terri's Medical Trust fund has been used to care for her.

FACT: The following expenditures have been paid directly from Terri's Medical Trust fund, with the approval of Judge George Greer:

Summary of expenses paid from Terri's 1.2 Million Dollar medical trust fund (jury awarded 1992)

NOTE: In his November 1993 Petition Schiavo alleges the 1993 guardianship asset balance as $761,507.50

Atty Gwyneth Stanley ---$10,668.05
Atty Deborah Bushnell --$65,607.00
Atty Steve Nilson ------$7,404.95
Atty Pacarek -----------$1,500.00
Atty Richard Pearse (GAL)--$4,511.95
Atty George Felos-------$397,249.99

Other
1st Union/South Trust Bank--$55,459.85

Michael Schiavo ------------$10,929.95

Total ----------------------$545,852.34

If adultery is still listed as a law, however old or antiquated it may be, it is still law and he can be held liable.

I agree, in principle. But don't you think the Schindlers have considered that?

If a judge is approving the trust fund expenditures, I'm not sure how Michael Schiavo could have squandered the money away.

You nor I can get inside the judge's mind, but don't you think it's odd that he immediately sought to legally have her tube removed soon after a hug financial award was given to take care of her medical expenses?

It looks like he didn't make his first court petition to remove the tube until 1998.

In 1993, his in-laws sued to have him removed as Terri's guardian. That was when the court battles between them started.

Sorry, link to the timeline here.

bhw

Great timeline contribution!

I saw similiar ones but not from a reputable source so I was not sure if it was factual.

Does anyone have God's email address?

JusticeScalia@USSupremeCourt.gov

lol....

Thanks for the "funny" to help break up the seriousness of this post...I think.

One thing that I haven't heard mentioned is Terri and her family are Roman Catholic and within Catholicism, there is no "quality of life" argument. Catholics are taught that all human life is a sacred gift, suffering is redemptive and euthansia and suicide are mortal sins. This is difficult for many Americans to accept, but that is what the Schindler's believe.

Another thing, on Larry King Friday night (check the transcript on CNN.com) Michael Schiavo is quoted as saying "we don't know what Terri wants but this is what we want." So, was that a Freudian slip? Or was he lying under oath during all these court preceedings? Which is it, Michael? You do know or you don't know?
Me thinks he doth protest too much!

I say let's cook her & eat her!

A nice slow roast over an open BBQ spit on the beach~~

We used to do that with boars out in the old days here in Florida.........

or dig a big pit on the beach at night---make a big charcoal fire in it and let it get hot & glowing coals---
then wrap the carcass in a bunch of aluminum foil and leave it in the pit all night---slowly baking and marinating...........Mmmmmmmmmm....
mouthwatering: the meat falls right
off the bone...

How much does terri weigh? she looks kinda plump 7 juicy...eh???

Kristin

I agree totally with you on the CHARACTER of Michael Schiavo.

If you can post the transcript to the show you are speaking about, it would be helpful.

Here is the Larry King transcript link. It occurs in the second part of the show, after the Jessica Lunsford coverage.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0503/18/lkl.01.html

We could use a nice terriaki marinade to soften her up ..............

Thanks Kristin! I found it as well. Here is a small portion of the transcript from transcripts.cnn.com:

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...

You know Tristan, you are the biggest moron I have ever heard from. Eric should just cut out all of your comments.

I expected I'd get a "rise" out of richard porter ~~ seems it worked impeccably~!

Right, aren't you the little annoying guy who doesn't contribute anything except ignorant comments? I thought so.

Richard: how amusing!
I was just thinking you need to look in the mirror---
I've NEVER ONCE seen anything positive written anywhere in here by you---
all I see is bashing from you.....!

Is it POSSIBLE you just can't think of anything yourself---so all you can do is respond and bash to take out all that latent anger and rage in your psyche???

And i'm not being mean or facetious richard---you seriously need some psychiatric assistance...therapy can help you see where all that internal rage is originating from and maybe you can find a more positive fashion to vent it instead of just sitting at your keyboard looking for ways to attack people...

I had to laugh when you suggested Eric just delete MY comments--as that's what many people have suggested about your vitriolic and combative outbursts!!!

If Schiavo isn't trying to carry out Terri's wishes, what is he ultimately going to get out of this? There's no payoff whatsoever - no insurance money, not even the money he got years ago. When you know that someone you love wanted something specifically done with regards to their condition in such a situation, most people will go to great lengths to carry that wish out. That is all I see Schiavo attempting to do here. Nothing sinister or evil. He has no concerns of Terri getting healthy and spilling some story about abuse (this story is getting old, people - there is absolutely no evidence that supports this.) The doctors confirm there's nothing that we know of as the human "mind" left in what little is left of Terri's brain.

Why is it so hard to understand that Schiavo is simply attempting to fulfil what Terri would have wanted? The Larry King quotes above don't implicate him whatsoever - they simply say that he knew this is what she would have wanted, but they don't have specific evidence to support it. You know your loved one, don't you? Wouldn't you know whether your husband or wife wanted to be kept alive by machines?

I disagree, Tom, about Michael's motives. The abuse issue should have been investigated. Last night on one of the talks shows (Hannity & Colmes), Terri's family began to talk about the police being called by the paramedics when T's had the heart attack. Apparently, this rarely happens (the police being called). Just then, Mr. Colmes jumped in with a diverting question. Also, many friends of Terri's have talked about Michael's controlling ways, and his ex-girlfriend talked about it also. Neurologists have examined her xrays of her neck and concluded that the damage could only have been caused by strangulation. At the very least, Judge Greer could have erred on the side of caution, allowed a full investigation, instead of furthering his own agenda, whatever it is.

Terri's family began to talk about the police being called by the paramedics when T's had the heart attack. Apparently, this rarely happens (the police being called).

Absolutely untrue. The police are almost always called to support an ambulance -- 911 was probably called and both a police car and ambulance sent out.

The police often get there first and begin administering first aid.

Tom

As quoted above and speicifically below from the CNN transcript:

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...

Sorry Tom, but the husband admits that he does not know what she wants so how can he be allowed to make this determination? Trust me, when the dust settles on this, you will see something come out about a financial gain by the husband or that he does not have to make specific accounting for the award money that he spent.

Do you realize that he is starving her to death? She is and never was on life support? Could you let your child starve?

Richard, Schiavo has nothing financial to gain from this. Find some proof of what he will gain - I have found absolutely nothing. And Terri and Michael's friends have stated that Terri said on two occasions that she did not want to be left on life-supporting equipment of any kind. In the quote from the Larry King show, Schiavo speaks of the present situation - that he, nor anyone else, can know exactly what she would want right now, as she is unable to voice, or indeed have (due to not actually having a cerebrum anymore,) an opinion, but he knows from knowing her and having heard her wishes after the two previously noted occasions where she spoke about being in a situation like this.

Could you let your child starve?

Were my child laying in a hospital bed with no cerebrum and no chance of ever recovering, as Terri is right now, yes, yes I could and would remove whatever means supported the body that once held my child's being. That body is no longer the person it used to be. Once the thinking portions of the brain are gone, the person has died, even if the body has not. It would be cruel to keep that body alive. Doing so would never let you face the fact that your child has died, and that's exactly the problem here - Terri's parents cannot face the fact that there is no intelligent life inside of the body that once was Terri's body.

Or that Larry King quote was just a mangled phrase of what Michael intended to say. People do garble their words sometimes.

Temple

It is possible that he stopped short before completing his thoughts but it is factual of what was said over the air.

Is there some reason my comments on this thread are deleted?

One comment was lost due to a server glitch. I'm sorry, I know it was a long one. :-(

Phillip

Any way to get it back?

It should have been sent to you Richard in e-mail. I think everyone is notified when someone comments at the posts they've written.

I get 'em


Richard - wasn't desputing that he said it, just what he meant in light of the thousands of words he's said which contradict that.

Steve S

As much as your comments pained me and was "dropped" due to a server glitch, I will show you good faith and paste your commentary below (since I receive a copy of it via e-mail).

And Steve, I am not a Nazi and this post like so many others are a matter of opinion.

You and I may agree on some, none or all of the posts and other commentary, but please, Nazi? Have I assisted in the mass murder or capture of millions of innocent people by simply stating my thoughts? Care to elaborate on my political background or my new found telekinesis? I didn't think we were that close.

Steve's quote:

If there is anybody on this planet trying to play God with
Terri Schiavo's life, it is Richard and people like him.

You are posting here, Michael's expense account, you are analyzing his
life, your comrades-in-belief, DeLay and Frist help you to paint this
man as an unsympathetic spouse murderer. But he is charged with NO
crime. You and people like you will stop at nothing in your attempt to
destroy his character, trample over the judicial system and attempt to write
legislation to circumvent Liberty, and are playing God with Terri's
life in order to pursue your agenda.

You nor I can get inside the judge's mind, but don't you think it's
odd that he immediately sought to legally have her tube removed soon
after a hug financial award was given to take care of her medical
expenses?

Not necessarily. Richard, Michael Schiavo is NOT charged with a crime.
Not even attempted murder. Judges and law enforcement have gone over
this ad nauseum. They can't come up with the doomsday scenario that you
guys all project because perhaps it just isn't there.

This goes back to a theme I strongly believe in, wherein the
conservatives believe in the natural depravity of man, and how it will rule the
day unless some sort of authoratitive figure like a God holds man in
check.

To go back to your question about why he would want to pull the plug
just after an award, there could be many reasons, you rush to judgement
and you rush to play judge and jury AND God. Perhaps he was preparing
for a lifetime of being by her side, and when the money came in was when
it hit him. It's going to involve more than a lifetime of sitting by
her side, it's going to involve a lifetime of paperwork, of lawyers, of
dealing with banks, of shuffling through the medical system, etc...

Who knows what he thought, Richard? Certainly over 40 judges and law
enforcement have been over this case repeatedly with a fine tooth comb
and still nothing.

But it's natural for you to assume the worst in man, isn't it?

Also, when a court rules an award for a specific purpose like caring
for someone, and that purpose ceases to exist, you don't just get to
keep the money and party.

Such a lack of understanding on how the judicial system works, along
with the inclination to assume the worst in man, is causing people like
you to completely destroy the principles of America.

You all are using the State to attempt to define what constitutes
relationships, saying that the relationship between a man and his wife is revered and the most important relationships in society, THEN you all are using the State to attempt to intrude on those relationships.

Nazis go home.

It doesn't matter overall. The comment showed as posted, so it didn't get lost in transit but after everything was done. Most likely my opinion of this whole thread didn't make it past censors. Probably should have worded it differently, but I'm not going to rewrite it.

Steve S

I am not sure what you are speaking of since this is the only comments from you today on this post (aside from the one where you are asking where your first one disappeared).

This sentence:

You nor I can get inside the judge's mind, but don't you think it's
odd that he immediately sought to legally have her tube removed soon
after a hug financial award was given to take care of her medical
expenses?

I had in italics, because I was quoting you and then gave my response. I didn't make that statement there, just want to clarify. It's from one of your comments rather than the post.

As for Nazi, that applies to the paragraph above, it's for all those who are misusing the powers of the State right now. As for you Richard, so far you are just sticking with playing God.

Steve S

I guess you missed the whole point. Nobody should be allowed to play God.

However, if someone should have to make that decision, it should be her parents, they cannot replace their daughter but obviously Michael has replaced his wife (several times).

Steve, rather than inventing conspiracy theories about censors, you should probably realize that your comment (and two others) were lost just exactly as I described: because of a server glitch. Furthermore, your comment has been reposted above by Richard Porter, so there is no need to rewrite anything.

A technical explanation of the server glitch might help allay fears of censorship despite obvious evidence to the contrary. Okay, here goes:

Last night, the entire Blogcritics.org site was copied from the old server (a single-proc machine) to the new server (a dual-proc machine). The new server assumed the identity of the old one, including hostname and IP address, so nobody really noticed unless they happened to try to access the system during the very brief time it was down.

Then, this morning, the router at the ISP reset itself and somehow thought that the old server was the true and correct holder of the blogcritics.org identity. It took nearly 10 minutes for me to disable comments on that old server (since I knew any comments made would be made on the wrong server), and another 20 minutes to identify the problem and get the ISP's router to pay attention to the new server instead of the old one.

Your comment was one of three comments made to that old server, which had this post as it existed last night. It still exists, but that machine is physically switched off right now. In roughly 19 hours, it will be formatted and used for something else. Since Richard Porter still has a copy of your comment which he has posted above, all is well now, right?

Phillip

Thanks for the explanation!

Holy Mackeral! Steve, are you ready for this??? I believe we've found a topic we agree on! I think the gov't should stay the fuck out of the Schiavo's lives!

I only pray (figuratively, not literally, I'm not big on the prayer thing) that if I'm ever in the same situation I'm allowed to die in peace.

yes, Phillip, it was always alright. Thanks for the confirmation though, I know you all are hard at work making a lot of great improvements on the site.

I didn't wonder if it was censored because of the content but because perhaps of the presentation. A rule all sites live by, I didn't feel slighted.

Richard you still don't get it.

Nobody should be allowed to play God

and in the same comment:

However, if someone should have to make that decision, it should be her parents

Who are you to decide that a parent/child relationship supercedes a husband/wife relationship? Who are you to keep playing God?

You want the parents to have the choice because of the choice the parents would make. I highly doubt society would be receptive to the idea of a married couple not being able to make decisions together without getting parental approval. No, you want them to make the choice because of the choice they would make. So you want to give them power rather than the husband. That is the same as Congress attempting to do what they are doing. It is an abuse of power, although in this case you don't have the power, you would clearly abuse it if you did, taking a spouse's right away for ideological reasons.

You are playing God and you are destroying the sanctity of human relationships.

I don't think there is really a question of WHO has the right to decide: the patient is the one with that right. But in this case, since nothing is written down, we have two opposite interpretations of "what the patient wants" from the husband and the parents

Steve S

I do get it.

Personally, I feel no one should ever decide on taking a life.

However, the husband is demanding to make this decision and since it appears that he will follow through, I happen to think or rather believe in the parent's side. She should be able to continue to stay alive and not starve to death slowly.

thus the "PROBLEM" --
both sides claim they are "right" and "KNOW" Terri's wish on the subject~~

so it goes to the Courts and suddenly the Executive Branch tries to jump in and supercede the Judicial Branch by having it's self-controlled Legislative Branch decide the issue----

which would have our Founding Fathers puking in their rotting remains right now!

How DARE George Bush undermine the entire 200 years of our Democratic Government just to pay back his right-wing religious fundamentalists money donors!!!!!

But as Steve pointed out, Richard, your belief that parents should make the choice applies only to this case specifically, since these parents agree with you on the topic. If they were the ones who believed her suffering needed to end, you would be saying that spouses should have the right to decide.

In this case, they're talking about Terri Schiavo's wishes. But in other cases, people decided all the time whether or not to continue life support in the absence of any statement by the patient. Karen Ann Quinlan's parents fought for that right and won.

Ah, I gotcha now, Steve. No problem on the long comment. As long as it's original and relatively on-topic, you can post long comments here all day long. Cheers!

And, uh, I agree with um, those guys. Or those, whichever.

bhw

You are correct as I do have mixed emotions on this subject and to be clear, since I do not believe in playing God, if someone had to make this choice in the most extreme cases, it should be her parents.

Eric, but even in that case the end result should still be clear. Who do you give more 'rights/power' to, in order to determine what the patient really wanted? The spouse or the parent?

You cannot rule against the spouse having the say, but then allow the spouse to remain guardian.

It goes to the spouse, it should go to the spouse. An investigation would take place to ensure there is no sinister intent. That has been done repeatedly. How many times does it have to be done? THis is like the Clinton/Starr thing, where they just keep going and going, looking for anything they can find to accomplish their agenda. How many times can a person be tried in the court of public opinion? Where is the justice here?

Any attempt to pass the power of decision making (in this case represented by the individual saying 'what Terri wishes is..') to the parents will forever change what the legal recognition of relationships are.

The proponents on the parents behalf are the same people who want to rewrite the Constitution to discriminate, for the most part. These people are completely trying to get the State into relationships at whatever the cost, in order to further their ideological agenda. Nothing could come closer to fascism in America, to me than what I see happening in this country right now.

That's how I feel and that's what I'm gonna say. How far do we have to go down this disasterous road before middle America wakes up and says wait a minute?

Here's an idea for those that are pondering the position of how to feed Terri---

(that thing about the jello led me to it!!)--------

someone can walk in her hospital room and "PIE HER" ....
then she can lick the pie off her face...???

just a thought!!!

I think it's kind of silly to say that a marriage is a sacred institution sanctioned by god, until someone is in a persistive vegetative state. Then marriage isn't really that important -- spouses are replaceable, after all -- so parents should have guardianship instead of the spouse.

I just want to ask the conservatives out there: which is it? Is marriage a sacred union that must be protected and given special status by our laws, or is it a transient relationship that isn't important enough to support life and death decision-making?

Good point on that contradiction, BHW. Perhaps if the Schiavos had had a Covenant Marriage conservatives would take the husband's guardainship (ownership?) rights more seriously.

Dave

I am a Liberal and proud of it..I was all for letting Terri live even though I would not let my own daughter live that way..I made that decision because of the parents..I felt that even though they are in denile.... if that would ease their pain then so be it..I have a hard time with Michael not wanting the parents to have her but I do believe that is his right under the law..I think the law should be changed as to whose right it is.... the parents or the spouse..having said that I think the arguments of those who want to keep her alive are stupid ..such as
1...Michael is no good and cheated on her ya da ya da
2...the courts are full of Democrats
3...Terri will get better...she is only mentally handicapped grrrrr
4...she will spend time in purgatory aggggggg
5...if they let her die it is murder(sigh)
6...there are plenty more but whats the use...
this whole thing has become a political fiasco with the republicans playing up to the religious right but for once the American ppl have gotten it right saying it was none of congress buisiness...especially after they just voted to cut billions to ppl in nurseing homes...they are such hypocrits that if they are for saving Terri I may change my mind ..The Rs are for states rights until it goes against them ...hypocrits...
DeLay, whose own legislative career may soon be on life support pending the continued investigation of his alleged ethical transgressions, unbelievably managed to insinuate his political plight into the suffering of Ms. Schiavo. "This is exactly the issue that is going on in America, of attacks against the conservative movement, against me and against many others," he said.

Do DeLay's delusions of political persecution really go that far? A conservative on the cross? Maybe someone should mention to Mr. DeLay this isn't about him.
but in the end I just can't stand to see the parents lose Terri even though I don't agree with them

But as Steve pointed out, Richard, your belief that parents should make the choice applies only to this case specifically, since these parents agree with you on the topic. If they were the ones who believed her suffering needed to end, you would be saying that spouses should have the right to decide

Exactly. If two people can make a decision, and you give the power to one of those people, disregarding rights and solely based on the fact that you want one of the decisions to come to pass....what better definition of playing God is there?

You gave the power to no one. You made the decision and you made it come to pass.

Georgio, I don't really think this is a partisan issue. There seem to be plenty of people in both parties on each side of the issue, though perhaps for different reasons. These judges who upheld the husband's position in this case are part of the same Florida judiciary which supported Bush's marginal win in the election in Florida in 2000. There's no major indication that they're all that partisan. There's no historical pattern of politically biased decisions in the state.

Dave

Dave...I have to agree with you based on how things are developing however I think it started out that way ....just listen to Tom Delays comments..however I do think the FL legislators and judges did a good job as opposed to Jeb Bush who brought in a doctor from the Christian right to pretend he knows what condition Terri is in...This is all very sad and my heart goes out to the parents and I'm sure you feel the same way Dave..

he visited every day for 7 years. that's not enough... he should have been there every day for 16 years. he hates his wife and i hate him for it.

Jeremy, why exactly should he have been at this hospice every day, year after year? To prove himself to you? It's not like Terri Schiavo's getting anything out of it. She's been dead since 1990. Elvis has LONG since left the building.

one bit...about the husbands alleged motivation..

within the last week, there was a very public off of 1 million in cash for him to walk away, no harm..no foul..

he declined...just as publicly..

that tends to rule out greed

the Rule of Law is in place to help we Citizens otu in tough places like this one...

i personally feel awful for BOTH sides

but all due process has been served in the legal matters...it would be quite hypocritical for the US Supreme Court to take it up , after they have already refused to hear it once

let's hope it is all over soon, so those personally involved can move on and begin healing...

Excelsior!

>>This is all very sad and my heart goes out to the parents and I'm sure you feel the same way Dave..<<

Actually, no. If you read my earlier comment on one of the thousand threads on this topic, I'm just about ready to have the parents and the husband and everyone else involved euthanized for the good of humanity.

Dave

In case anyone has not read it at this ite or anywhere else, Terri Schiavo has died this morning and I do feel extremely sad.
As someone who posted a very significant article on this dramatic story, it does feel very personal and my heart goes out to the parents of Terri Schiavo.

I cannot say I feel the same way towards the husband though now he can at least live his life. Oh, that's right, his life hasn't skipped a beat since for the past decade or more he has had girlfriends and children born out of adultery.

Richard, it's not really accurate or fair to say that the husband's life hasn't skipped a beat. He did, in fact, lose his young wife many years ago, and he did try to help and rehabilitate her in the early years after she became ill.

bhw

You are right! I am sure he is sad and fortunately his child was not taken from him so he can go home and give them a hug...a luxury the parent of Terri can no longer do.

I would definitely not want to be in the Schindlers shoes, for sure.

I guess the next big controversy on this is what Michael plans to do with Terri's body. I understand he wants cremation and her parents do not. Is he capable of extending even the smallest olive branch to her parents?

He's going to have her autopsied and then cremated. Then he's going to bury her in his family's plot, rather than hers.

He's not giving an inch.

Sounds like a real swell guy.
Let's hope all of the Michael Schiavo supporters never have their daughters run into anyone like him.

He might have given a little on the burial if her parents hadn't accused him of physically abusing her and causing her life-altering condition. So he's having an autopsy performed so he can clear himself of their charges of abuse.