Home / Culture and Society / Spirituality / Terri Schiavo: What’s a Parent to Do?

Terri Schiavo: What’s a Parent to Do?

Please Share...Print this pageTweet about this on TwitterShare on Facebook0Share on Google+0Pin on Pinterest0Share on Tumblr0Share on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

I wrote my thoughts about the Terri Schiavo case back in May, 2004. I still feel essentially the same way: Terri’s husband should have the final say in her case. He is the one she chose to spend her life with, making him the one person she chose to represent her if she became incapacitated. And she did.

I don’t think our Congress should step in on a case-by-case basis when it doesn’t like a state court ruling, just to send that particular case to federal court. And I don’t think our president should rearrange his travel plans to sign the custom-made bill into law, which is what President Bush has done. That seems like the ultimate misuse of government power to me. It doesn’t help that partisanship is coming into play or that the president’s brother has been vocal about his personal position on this case and has himself been shot down trying to circumvent legal due process.

That said, I’m also sticking with my previous story that Michael Schiavo gives me the creeps. When Karen Ann Quinlan’s parents famously sought to remove her from artificial life support, they turned off a ventilator, which was doing most of her breathing for her. They didn’t remove her feeding tube. They left the feeding tube in after Karen showed she could breathe on her own. They didn’t want to kill her; they just didn’t want her to be artificially alive with no hope of recovery. Terri Schiavo isn’t artificially alive, though she seems to have no hope of recovery.

I don’t know too many parents who would choose to let their child starve to death. I do know that if you kept all nutrition from me for a few weeks, I’d die, too. So I guess I don’t see food as a medical intervention, no matter how it’s delivered into the body. At a minimum, we probably ought to provide nutrition to someone who can breathe on her own, no matter what her brain scans say, if she didn’t explicitly say that she also meant “feeding tubes” in the general verbal statement of “I don’t want to live like that, hooked up to all those tubes and machines.” [That’s not an exact quote, but that was the gist of it and about the level of detail, I believe.]

Again, I think Congress is wrong for stepping in. I think that Michael Schiavo has the right to determine his wife’s fate, only because according to Florida law, he does. A verbal statement of one’s wishes is all that’s required, and the Florida courts have found time and again that Terri said what her husband says she said. I have no idea why — with all the legal wrangling that has gone on in Florida over the past decade — the Florida legislature has not simply changed the law to stipulate that a written statement is required before someone can remove a feeding tube from a patient. That change would resolve this case once and for all, wouldn’t it? Or maybe they have and I’m just missing something.

If you have nothing better to do, you can read the 2003 Florida ruling that gave Michael Schiavo full control over his wife’s destiny. Essentially, two other people corroborated Michael’s story about what Terri said. Of course, they both have “Schiavo” for a last name.

Two people also contradicted Michael’s story. Their testimony was deemed not reliable by the judge. Terri’s mother’s testimony was not considered in the ruling because the judge decided Terri made the statements when she was about 12 years old. Her friend’s testimony was deemed unreliable because the judge thought the friend used the wrong verb tense. [Seriously. See page 5 of the court ruling.]

Who can blame Terri Schiavo’s parents for using every avenue available to them, including our Congress? I’d be doing the same thing. I don’t know that I could ever remove a feeding tube from one of my children, no matter how bad their condition was. And I sure would want my feelings in the matter to count, even if I had no legal rights. Removing the tube just goes against the basic job description: parents give life to their children and nurture them. We don’t withhold food [except for dessert, when they haven’t eaten their peas]. We don’t send them into a two- or three-week, slow dehydrating death, even if there’s no hope for any type of recovery. At least I don’t think I could.

Michael Schiavo is now the father of two young children. Why doesn’t he understand where Terri’s parents are coming from? He still has not one kind or understanding word to say about them. For the life of me, I can’t comprehend how, now that he’s a parent, he can still remove someone else’s child’s feeding tube against their wishes. I’d like to believe he really is being true to Terri and is carrying out her instructions. But he’s just so sure that she meant it was okay to starve her body when she said she wouldn’t want to live hooked up to machines. Has he ever had a moment of doubt? To hear him, it appears not — he seems to have no qualms about this decision at all. Like I said before, the guy gives me the creeps.


Also posted at Bitch Has *Word*.

Powered by

About bhw

  • I just have a hard time understanding the Republicans. They don’t seem to have nay particular set of values, just whatever issue comes up at the moment.

    Do Republicans think Marriage is sacred? Not if Republicans disagree with the husband.

    Do Republicans think Marriage is even a good thing? Republicans want to pass a constitutional amendment which will reduce the number of marriages in America. Doesn’t sound like supporting marriage to me?

    Do Republicans value life?
    They don’t have much concern that the President let more than a hundred people die in Texas when he could have prevented it by merely putting his signature on a piece of paper?

    Do Republicans value life while they make America one of the most likely places to die of gunshots just to appease the NRA?

    I don’t know what the Republicans even stand for these days… There don’t seem to be any consistent values.

  • SO BTP, you bring up gun control, the death penalty and definition of marriage in a thread about Terri Schiavo why?

  • bhw

    Well, technically, the biggest “values” under attack right now are states rights and separation of powers.

    The Congress has stepped in and written a law that applies, literally, to Terri Schiavo only. It takes the deciding power away from the state of FL, even though the Supreme Court [I believe] has seen and rejected the case, sending back to FL for the final word.

    So the law totally unravels our legal process and creates a new one just for this one person.

    Hopefully, the law will be found unconstitutional before the situation goes too much further.

  • Shark

    Horrible case. Too bad these morons don’t understand that there’s a difference between “killing” and “MERCY”.

    Letting the poor woman die would be merciful.

    PS: Wouldn’t it be ironic if it were really God’s Will to have her die, and that keeping her alive by extreme artificial means is a violation of the Big Guy’s Cosmic Plan?


    Boy, I hope that’s the case — and consequently, all the motherfuckers who are intervening for political purpose spend an eternity in Hell for fuckin’ with God’s intentions.

    These opportunistic hypocrites are Evil Incarnate, plain and simple — and I can prove it with a pencil and paper.

  • Shark

    Oh, and I can’t wait to see the Republican Blowhards line up in Huntsville Texas to protest the ‘murder’ of a convicted criminal by lethal injection.

  • SFC Ski

    Are you equating the life of Terry Shiavo with the life of a convicted murderer?

  • Shark

    I’d also like to see the husband offer the “protestors” an opportunity to take over her full-time care — pro bono.

    The Christoids With a Conscience over someone else’s loved one can show their support by wiping up her shit a couple of times a day.

  • Shark

    PFCSki: “Are you equating the life of Terry Shiavo with the life of a convicted murderer?”


    I’m pointing out that people who support the death penalty, while at the same time — want God in schools and the Ten Commandments in public spaces — are FUCKING OPPORTUNISTIC HYPOCRITES.

    “Thous shalt not kill.”

    I don’t see any amendments to that one, do you?

    It would be nice if the Christoids actually practiced what they preached on occasion.

  • SFC Ski

    I don’t see where keeoing an innocent person alive while killing a convicted criminal is hypocrisy, not all lives are equal when you look at how they are lived out, IMO. Secondly, a convicted criminal gets an injection, falls asleep, and ceases to live, Terry Schiavo will slowly die of hunger and thirst over a perid that could last as long as 20 days.

  • Dawn

    Who is paying for her care, the husband or the parents? My main objective in not being kept alive long past when my quality of life is gone is that I don’t want to be an emotional or financial burden to my family.

    But I am practical person and I would rather my children and loved ones be able to communicate with me anytime from the beyond, rather than as a shriveled, disturbing corpse like figure.

    I understand the parents need to want to keep their child alive, but something about using their child in this tug of war seems really grotesque and ghoulish.

  • bhw

    Who is paying for her care, the husband or the parents?

    The husband won a million dollar lawsuit on her behalf. $300K went to him for the loss of his wife. THe other $700K went into a trust fund for Terri’s care, which her husband controls. He has apparently spent almost all of that on pursuing her death, rather than on her care: most of it went to his lawyers.

    Here’s an article in the Philadelphia Inquirer that talks about the money and how it’s been spent.

    It’s unclear who is paying for her care now. I think some of it is being covered by private funds raised by people who support her parents.

    I’m not sure what else her parents can do other than give up. I don’t see them as using her. I see them as fighting for her and using every means possible. They’re desperate. I can’t really blame them.

    I would feel a lot better about this case if I didn’t doubt Michael Schiavo’s altruism and honesty. If his wife had signed a living will, all of this would be moot, and then I’d be fully on the side of telling the parents to let it go.

    I still think the husband has the legal right to make the decision, which is what I’d want my husband to be able to do. I just find his story a little fishy — he fought for the million bucks to rehabilitate her and then once he had it, he started fighting to have her taken off the tube. I can’t get past that.

  • bhw

    Shark, I don’t see a feeding tube as extreme artificial means. To me, that would be a ventilator or something similar. They’re just sticking food in her stomach and her body is doing the rest.

    But that’s just me. The state of FL makes no distinction between types of life support. It doesn’t matter if it’s a ventilator, a heart pump, or a feeding tube: they’re all considered artificial life support and patients have a legal right to refuse all of them. So in my post, I’m mixing some legal arguments with some personal opinions about the case.

  • According to this piece in Slate, the costs (approx. 80K per year) are being picked up by the hospice and Medicaid. The hospice has been footing part of the bill for a while now, which is unusual. So it would appear that the parents and the husband, at this point in time, are not contributing financially to her support.

  • bhw

    Thanks, Lisa. Here’s a story linked from the Slate story:

    Just $40,000 to $50,000 remains of the money won in the malpractice case after Terri Schiavo’s heart stopped in 1990 and left her in what court-appointed doctors say is a persistent vegetative state. Deborah Bushnell, one of Michael Schiavo’s attorneys, said the money is being saved for litigation expenses.

    The money is held in a trust fund, and a judge approves all expenditures, from attorneys’ fees to the woman’s haircuts.

    Terri Schiavo lives at the Woodside Hospice — part of a not-for-profit hospice network in Florida — among terminally ill patients. She is permitted to stay there for free because she is considered indigent, Bushnell said. Patients who can afford it pay roughly $80,000 a year to stay at the hospice.

    Citing privacy laws, hospice spokeswoman Louise Cleary would not answer questions about the Schiavo case but said, “We never turn anyone away. If they need our care, we take care of them.”

    The article also says the attorneys on both sides are basically working for free at this point.

  • I don’t see how the husband benefits financially from this? Not to mention a few million people hate him now.

    Maybe if he had stopped pursuing his case once the money left went below $100,000 you would have a point. But he’s still fighting for what’s right from his POV – as are the parents.

  • “not all lives are equal when you look at how they are lived out”
    I was under the impression, (by all means correct me if I’m wrong here, I’m hardly a christian scholar) that it’s not our place to judge the value of a person’s life, that job is reserved for God.
    Unless he’s contracting out these days…

  • RedTard

    I certainly agree with the Democrats on this one. Just like those pesky unwanted babies, the disabled are too much of a burden on people’s social lives and should be killed.

    Instead of wasting our time trying to keep some crippled burden on society like Terri Schiavo alive we should continue trying to overturn the death penalty before they try to use it on the guy who raped and murdered Jessica Lunsford. If anyone needs protection it’s murdering child rapists, not people who can’t feed themselves.

  • gerri

    my niece bacame a young brain damaged woman,in 1982,froam a car accident…her parents decided on the 11th day,to remove her from life support(a ventilator)well she continue to breathe on her own(so now what?)she went on tube feedings for 71/2 years,then god decided when it was her time to die(no husband or judge)this should be god’s timing in terri”s case..her husband broke his wedding vows 10 years ago(when he resumed his”life”with another woman.therefore he should have lost “his so called guardenship” of her at that time.i wonder, just what his chrildren,will think of him,when they are grown and understand ,what he did to another human being(the one he vowed to god ,in sickness and health)to take care of..someone needs to wire his mouth shut(and let him starve slowly..may god be with her family,i could not do this ,to someone i love.this is nothing short of a slow deliberated murder..i wonder what the rest of the world will think of our”compassionate counry”after this”.my older sister, just passed away in january(in a nursing home in crestview fl.at least a third of the patients,there,that i saw,were in this vegetative state(no quality of life)should someone just on in there and “gas them”?it would take a burden off the government,and put them out of their misery,so why not??it appears this is where our great nation is heading…god help us.convicted murderers have more rights(than a innocent young woman)whose only crime was marrying this jerk of a man…

  • Eric Olsen

    Thanks bhw, Man, this is tough stuff – I just don’t see how you can willfully starve someone to death. I agree with bhw’s distinction between breathing and feeding. I also understand the political aspects and am certain there is grandstanding involved – BUT, if that grandstanding (as in Congress taking up steroids in baseball) also encompasses legitimate public concerns and issues, then concentrating on the grandstanding seems to me besides the point. There will ALWAYS be political grandstanding, but the parents’ concerns here seem completely legit to me.

    Where there is life there is hope and if she is alive and not in great pain, requiring only a feeding tube to remain alive, then why artificially cut off that hope by starving her to death?

  • bhw

    Thanks, Eric. I’m totally torn on this case. On the one hand, I think the husban does have the right to make the determination for Terri, based on her wishes. Michael Schiavo has maintained since he intitally sought to remover her feeding tube 7 years ago that Terri stated to him and his brother and another family member that she would not want to be kept alive by machines. In Florida, you don’t need a written statement, only a verbal one. That is the law, and that’s what he has.

    And life support in FL legally means any kind of artificial life assistance, including feeding tubes. The court said that it believes Michael Schiavo is telling the truth, and a zillion subsequent appeals have been denied based on a lack of full evidence. Others have been seen through and failed.

    The guy has won every legal battle there is, and it is not right for our government to make new laws that override judicial jurisdiction for one person’s case. I hope this law will be found to be unconstitutional, because otherwise, all of our private medical decisions could be at jeapordy of governmental intrusion. Some right-to-life organization could start contesting living wills and getting Congress to start challenging family decisions, even when there’s no dischord.

    But I still have a hard time with the removal of a feeding tube. According to the case file I read, nobody said she specifically mentioned removal of a feeding tube. I’m uncomfortable with how certain Michael Schiavo is that this is what she meant.

    And I’ll always be uncomfortable with the fact that he didn’t mention ending her life until after he’d won the money for her care, $300K of which went directly into his pocket — and not Terri’s trust fund.

    I don’t think Terri’s parents should have the final say in what happens to her, but I understand why they think they should. Terri chose to spend her life with and make life’s decisions with her husband, and he should be the one to carry out her wishes.

    But he still gives me the creeps.

  • Having thought it through a little more, I can concede that whilst my own will if I were to go into such a state would be to leave me to die, in the absence of a will, the decision should fall to the legal guardian/s. In this case, would that be her parents? i haven’t followed the story in its entirety
    And whilst my parents are aware of my wishes should such a tragedy befall me, and I would trust them to make the decision, I feel they should not have to, I wouldn’t want to put them through that. Which is why now more than ever I intend to get at least some form of last will and testament down on paper…and I urge anyone who wants to be sure their loved ones would be spared some of the worst decisions, to do the same.

  • bhw

    In this case, would that be her parents?

    No, actually, it’s the spouse. And it should be.

  • gerri

    i was just listening to fox’s (MY WORD)
    and john said in these words(michael has a common law wife now)so he believes like myself(it’s not legal to have two wives at the same time(then terri has to be an ex wife ,and he shouldn’t have no legal rights with her case…

  • What’s almost as creepy is a post 500 words long and one paragraph.

    There should be more collaboration with posters here because there are points being made in other related threads which would answer most of the questions being brought up in other threads. I know that would be useful and such so it’s a non-starter. 🙂

  • Eric Olsen

    there is something wrong with the formatting – we are working on it now

  • Eric Olsen

    we have a master post with all the Schiavo stories

  • The master posts ARE useful. Still, there’s a lot of crossed-purposes, that one handy overall post would handle. Ooooh, wait a second … (Balderick – Ah, I have a cunning plan)

    Yeah, sorry on the paragraphs mention. I noticed that as I started going to other posts I’d been to before. I think it is fixed now.

  • Eric Olsen

    so far I’ve been rebuilding each one with problems by hand, but Phillip is looking at the overall issue now.

  • It’s fixed. Sorry. 🙂

  • Eric Olsen

    rebuild again?

  • SFC Ski

    Well, Eric, besides everyone talking past themeselves as usual, too many posts is redundant. Kill ’em off and start one master.

  • Eric Olsen

    though perhaps redundant at times, independently attacking an issue from a variety of angles cna yield interesting insight, I think.

    The real issue is that writers choose what they wish to write on, when and how, so I’m not sure what we can do about a given popula topic other than collect all related stories in a master post and let the chips fall where they may.

  • SFC Ski

    From where I am sitting, some authors just plunge in to their own thread without reading what was posted and commented on beforehand. New insights have something to add to this subject, throw it in a comment. I only say that because seeing 3 to 6 posts on the smae subject, I am not likely to hit them all, but I usually read one comment chain all the way through.

  • Eric Olsen

    Phillip, did you see that this one just went back to no formatting? I rebuilt it again

  • Eric Olsen

    I understand and agree – ideally everyone would read everything and not reinvent he wheel – think about all teh Huster S. Thompson posts!

  • bhw

    From where I am sitting, some authors just plunge in to their own thread without reading what was posted and commented on beforehand.

    That’s kind of by design. Please keep in my that many of us write for our own blogs first and then cross-post here secondarily. That’s what I do — I think I’ve written only one or two posts just for Blogcritics.

    Blogcritics is a conglomeration of posts made on hundreds of individual blogs. I think the efforts to bring order to that chaos have gone amazingly well. But I doubt Blogcritics would continue to work so well if we add a requirement that says we have to read all other BC posts on a particular hot topic before posting our own here.

    I wrote this post to reflect my feelings on the case, and I didn’t feel the need to consult what other BCs might have already said. And I gather that’s what the others who have written about this case have done.

  • SFC Ski

    I am not saying there should be a requirement, I am merely commenting that the effect of multiple posts on the same topic wil cause me at least to pick one and ignore the others, or I will read the main postand skip the comments.

  • Geo

    “I certainly agree with the Democrats on this one. Just like those pesky unwanted babies, the disabled are too much of a burden on people’s social lives and should be killed.

    Instead of wasting our time trying to keep some crippled burden on society like Terri Schiavo alive we should continue trying to overturn the death penalty before they try to use it on the guy who raped and murdered Jessica Lunsford. If anyone needs protection it’s murdering child rapists, not people who can’t feed themselves.”

    Right on! What’s the ethic here? Ethical code applies differently to different cultures. I’m sure Genghis Kahn thought what he was doing was ethical. Perhaps the Death-o-crats believe in what they are doing is ethical too, in may be inherent to their “corporate culture” to insist that we eliminate burdens to society.

    Well, benign burdens.

  • dg

    If we start offing all the people who are un-able to feed themselves, a whole lotta newborns are gonna get it. Compare Terry to a newborn; her eyes will follow a balloon thats passed in front of her, she can breath on her own, she sleeps, wakes, soils hereself, etc. Essentially, the only difference is potential. A newborn has alot of potential, Terry has none. If it just comes down to potential, my brother-in-law’s in a lotta trouble.

    Terry’s husband (kind of weird to call him that, unless bigamy has been made legal) doesn’t give a rat’s ass about her. He reminds me of Scott Peterson, while the people who really cared were looking out for his wife, he’s out nailing the new fling. In my opinion, the only difference here is Mr. Schiavo has the courts on his side. Dude creeps me out too…maybe some kind of karma will apply here.


  • dg – as you say, newborns have a lot of potential and … Terri, sadly, does not. Comparison dies so why bring it up?

  • bhw

    Terry’s husband (kind of weird to call him that, unless bigamy has been made legal) doesn’t give a rat’s ass about her. He reminds me of Scott Peterson, while the people who really cared were looking out for his wife, he’s out nailing the new fling.

    I don’t begrudge him his new life. And I don’t see him in Scott Peterson territory, either. At the very least, he’s convinced himself he’s doing what his wife wanted him to do.

    The courts have consistently found, btw, that he has taken more than adequate care of her. The Schindlers’ have not been able to prove their many accusations of mistreatment and/or neglect, and they have had ample opportunity.

    It boils down to two things for me:

    1. Terri’s statements were not in writing, occurred before she had her heart attack [she had no ability to reflect on her new condition], and were made as general “I wouldn’t want to live hooked up to machines” statements — how can her husband be sure she would have included a feeding tube in that when all other systems are working?
    2. I personally have a hard time seeing starvation as a humane way of letting someone — who can’t change her mind — die.

  • Eric Olsen

    so why not divorce and move on? Why hasn’t he done that?

  • bhw

    Well, he either truly believes he’s fighting the good fight, the one his wife wants him to. Or he has gotten himself in so deep and in such a contentious battle with his in-laws, that he can’t stop fighting until he wins.

    I’d have to say that the same two possibilities exist for the Schindlers, as well.

    Both sides might have stopped seeing the forest for the trees at this point.

  • Eric Olsen

    is there any life insurance angle?

  • bhw


  • Richard Porter


    I have pushing hard on this insurance angle and if someone had the power or ability to look into it, I wish they would do it ASAP.

    Unfortunately, we may have to look backwards in the future to see the financial outcome (if any) has been gained by the husband through her death.

  • bhw

    A quick Google shows only speculation in blog comments or right-to-life sites. No news stories showed up in the first couple of pages.

    She was only 26 and had no children when she fell into a coma. She might have had life insurance through work, if she was employed. But most young, childless people don’t have much, if they have any at all.

    Either way, the MSM hasn’t really picked up on that angle.

  • Eric Olsen

    thanks – odd that it hasn’t been researched by the MSM

  • bhw

    It might have been and turned up nothing.

    It would be unlikely that she had much at her age, probably much less than Schiavo was awarded in his lawsuits.

    The default life insurance policy offered by employers is usually one year’s salary up to a max of $50k, which is the tax cut-off.

    But this is all pure speculation.

  • bhw

    It occurs to me now, too, that the Schindlers and their lawyers must have looked into this extensively already. If they found anything, we’d have heard about it.

  • Richard Porter

    bhw and Eric

    There may be something to the fact, if he relinquishes guardianship to her parents and allows her to live, he will then be made accountable for the financial award given to him in 1992 solely for her medical care. Please note that since she has had very little care or poor care, if that, he must have squandered away the award money.

    Perhaps he is afraid and has something to hide?

  • bhw

    He spent some of the award money on her care and some of it on the legal fees. I’ve read that there is about $50K left and that a judge approves all expenditures.

    Terri has been receiving good care, as the courts have found repeatedly. She is not being poorly cared for.

    But she is in a nursing home and is not receiving the type of rehabiltation that her parents want her to have.

    So it’s not the quality of care under dispute — it’s the type of care.

  • Richard Porter


    I hate to be repetitive, but here is a pasted comment listed on my post, WHO GETS TO PLAY GOD WITH TERRI SCHIAVO’S LIFE?:

    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

    1st Union/South Trust Bank–$55,459.85

    Michael Schiavo ————$10,929.95

    Total ———————-$545,852.34

  • bhw

    Okay, how does that contradict anything that I said? A news story that I read [can’t remember which one off the top of my head] said that a few hundred thousand was spent on medical care and a few hundred thousand on legal fees.

    I’m not inclined to take the word of Terrisfight.org at face value, so the fact that they don’t list any medical expenses doesn’t mean much to me.

  • Richard Porter


    Not really contradicting you, more so, I am pointing out that the legal fees were incurred a year after the award was given and was used to immediately work towards the removal of her tube. This is not long (again one year) after her husband said at the awards deposition, that he would stay with her, “no matter what” and “in sickness and in health”.

    So what gives exactly?

  • bhw

    Nothin’. 😎

    Here’s a timeline of the case, updated daily.

    I agree that the husband’s sudden decision that her life wasn’t worth living was, at best, poorly timed. At worst ….

    That’s one thing that makes me uncomfortable about him. But the courts and two guardians ad litem [court appointed] have found that he is taking good care of her and shouldn’t be removed as her guardian.

    The case just goes ’round and ’round in my head.

  • Richard Porter


    Best summed up (for me at least), I don’t believe that anyone has the right to take a life, but if someone has to make a decision, it should be her parents.

    You have your opinion (which also makes sense) and there are several thousand other ones. The bottom line is that it appears to be almost over for her and her parents and you have to wonder if it was too soon.

  • Temple Stark, I enjoy reading your comments, but unfortunately it’s people like Shark that make me visit this site MUCH less frequently than I used to.

    There’s a difference between posting cogent, well reasoned arguments and hateful “everything is black and white or dems good/reps evil” diatribes. The hate really just jumps off the page with some of these people’s comments and I don’t need that in my day.


  • bhw

    Richard, the only thing that’s firm in my head is that once someone is married, the spouse needs to be the legal guardian.

    We all grow up and our parents have to let us go do that. The family we choose trumps the family we were born into. We all have the right to determine our lives that way.

    In a perfect world, families would all agree about what to do in these cases. But that’s not how it goes….

  • vic, you wouldn’t believe how much you and I agree on your point there. Of course, I have been sucked in at times, but not in a full post, but in comments – responding to those who sees only black and white – or pretend to, anyway.

  • gerri

    the only sure thing,here,is when it’s all over for terri,if michael has any after doubts(it’s too late to change the outcome.but since i believe he’s has no conscience(he has proven that with his chosen form of death)he won’t have any regrets..he belongs in the same class of “evil”.that ..(o.j )scott peterson)robert blake)the most well known wife killers(the only difference ,they did it quickly.and only one was convicted..