[full rant mode on]
You know I’m as partisan as the next guy… no strike that… I’m for more partisan than most. But why the HELL is Terri Schiavo a partisan issue???
It is simple. Some people want to take away her food and let her die and the other side does not. Why on EARTH do the Democrats do this dumb shit???
Schiavo Kin Wants Feeding Tube Reinserted
PINELLAS PARK, Fla. (AP) – Hanging their hopes on a last-minute compromise in Congress, Terri Schiavo’s parents notified her hospice to prepare to have her feeding tube reinserted on Sunday, her third day without food or water.
Yet it now appears that move could not happen before Monday, at the earliest.
A bill aimed at prolonging the severely brain-damaged woman’s life was delayed in Washington when House Democrats blocked a voice vote, forcing Republicans to scramble on Palm Sunday for a quorum of 218 members. A roll call vote could be held as early as 12:01 a.m. Monday, House leaders said.
So if you are a Democrat your value system works like this….
Unborn Child? Kill It.
Sick Woman? Kill it.
Convicted Murder on death row? Do every thing you can do to save it!
And yet the Democrats WONDER why the American people don’t vote for them. It’s because they are screwed in the head.. that’s why!
Why don’t for once in their lives the Democrats just sit down and shut the hell up!?!?!?!
[full rant mode suspended… not off]
Update Let me add what annoys me most… It is not like the Republicans don’t have the votes, they do… The Dems know that so they are now playing procedural games to try to kill this woman. Why is having this woman die so important to the Democrats that they will go to extraordinary lengths to see it happen?
I’ll tell you why… to the Democrats, Terry Schiavo is being sacrificed on the alter of abortion.
It’s disgusting.
Outside of Congress, this is not a partisan issue. 65% of Americans think Michael should be making the decisions for Terri. Only 2-4% think the government should be. 87% of Americans would not want to be kept alive if they were in Terri’s condition. 59% think Terri’s feeding tube should be removed. 74% would want their own guardian to remove the tube.
You think the way to settle things is for Democrats to sit down and shut up. But you fail to see that things would be more properly settled if the Republicans would, instead, sit down and shut the hell up.
You’re upset the Democrats blocked a vote, forcing Republicans to scramble? Well let’s have the Republicans stop scrambling, and then the Democrats won’t have to block a vote.
You’re way out of the mainstream on this one.
Then who is in the majority asshole?
What is scary is the Dems are becoming the party of euthansia and eugenics. It’s only recently I’ve been looking at the facts NOT covered by the MSM in Terri’s case. One of the scariest is the (dare I say) Mengele-like Dr. Cranford … the pro-euthanisa doctor who after seeing Terri for 45 minutes pronounced her PVS. His views are startling on all “brain damaged” people:
In published articles, including a 1997 op-ed in the Minneapolis–St. Paul Star Tribune, he has advocated the starvation of Alzheimer’s patients. He has described PVS patients as indistinguishable from other forms of animal life. He has said that PVS patients and others with brain impairment lack personhood and should have no constitutional rights.
In the cases of Paul Brophy, Nancy Jobes, Nancy Cruzan, and Christine Busalucci, Cranford was the doctor behind the efforts to end their lives. Each of these people was brain-damaged but not dying; nonetheless, he advocated death for all, by dehydration and starvation. Nancy Cruzan did not even require a feeding tube: She could be spoon-fed. But Cranford advocated denying even that, saying that even spoon-feeding constituted “medical treatment” that could be licitly withdrawn.
This man is downright scary. What the hell???!!!
The Dems know that so they are now playing procedural games to try to kill this woman
The Dems are playing procedural games?! I’m laughing out loud at that one! The reason the bill is currently on hold is because the Republicans failed to ram it through at midnight, using a bit of chicanery in which they hoped no Democrat would be available to object. They were wrong, so they withdrew to plan their next “game”.
This bill has been described with the terms “emergency powers”, “special Palm Sunday session”, “unprecedented congressional action”, and “arcane legislative maneuvers”. The Republicans are the ones playing games. The Democrats are simply voting “no”.
Brian
I dare say the majority of Americans are unaware that Terri never had the minimal medical standard of determining PVS and the Greer has refused to even read the objections from neurologists that contradict pro-eugenics Dr. Cranford.
I know I was ambivalent about this case until I read she never received MRI and PET scans. We are going to starve to death someone based on the obviously conflict-of-interest word of Michael, Felos and Cranford?
Jaysus on a Pony, a typical murderer on death row gets a far clearer and less prejudiced review of their case than Terri ever had!
Keep going Brian… Let’s make sure the Dems are known as the party who want to kill innocents… That will get you lots of votes.
You’ll be back in the majority in no time!
NOT!
Brian
If Terri is killed in part due to Dem obstructionism, I say a good case can be made that among all their other obvious failings, they are pro-eugenics.
Steven Hawking should be very afraid…he falls under Cranfords definition of an “animal”.
Paul wrote:
Then who is in the majority asshole?
What’s the matter, you can’t read poll numbers? The majority is the 98% who say the government should not be making this decsion. The majority is the 87% who say they would not want to be kept alive in Terri’s condition. The majority is the 65% who say that Michael should be making decisions for Terri. The majority is the 74% who say that Terri’s feeding tube should be removed.
Hope that answers your question sufficiently.
Darleen, another term for “obstructionism” is “voting no”. There is a reason things must be voted on, and not just rammed through by the majority party. Our Congress was created so that oppostition parties could… oppose. I’m sorry that the Republicans can’t appreciate the way America was designed to work.
Maybe the best thing to come outta this goddamn mess is that we end up agreeing the only logical course of action.
Kill Democrats!
What a bunch or Commie A-holes.
I don’t care what happens to her. Not MY BUSINESS, and really, NOT MY PRESIDENT’S either, but he’s a moral man and trying to make a point. It’s the families to sort out really. Le tthem do it. I just hope it’s not my tax dollars that have been paying to keep that vegetable alive.
If Terry had expressed that she wanted to die if she got worse, which Michael claims, then why didn’t she put that in writing before she got worse?
If her own family wants her to live, why should her husband have more of a say than them? He is not of her blood, her family is. They are her family, he is not, especially since he has a new wife and kids now.
The issue should be up to Terri’s own family and not Michael.
“If her own family wants her to live, why should her husband have more of a say than them? He is not of her blood, her family is. They are her family, he is not, especially since he has a new wife and kids now.
The issue should be up to Terri’s own family and not Michael.”
BS.
Terry CHOSE to marry her husband. Her family was an accident of fortune. I wouldn’t want my family making decisions for me, I want my wife to do that.
I would expect anyone who has truly shared their lives with someone to understand that.
Maybe the best thing to come outta this goddamn mess is that we end up agreeing the only logical course of action.
Kill Democrats!
Way to stand up for life, Rob.
>>87% of Americans would not want to be kept alive if they were in Terri’s condition.
So, are you saying that if you’re in the 13% that would want to live, you had better damn well specify it otherwise the majority has the right to kill you off?
Brian, just like the democrats who kept complaining about “reforming the electoral college” after both the 2000 and the 2004 elections?
Brian: Polls, especially the one you continue to refer to, are the refuge of cowards.
Of course if you ask folks about who should make life and death decisions about them and offer the choice of A) Their family or, B) The government, few will choose B. However If those who responded to the poll you cling to had even basic knowledge of the facts of this case, the results would not please you (or Judge Greer or Michael Shiavo).
The only silver lining I see in this tragedy is that the Democrats will pay a huge price for this in 2006, even if the court-sanctioned murder is prevented in time.
Geez, Jim
I get to process police reports everyday where one spouse beats the beejaysus out of the other.
I suppose we should just drop those cases because the beatee CHOSE to marry the beater and must, therefore, have wanted it.
Hell, think of all the prison space we can free up by letting spouse beaters and murderers go! Hey, you married the guy/gal, you asked for it!
Brian
Way to go…not one word of response about the pro-eugenics Cranford and the fact that Terri never received even the minimal medical standard for determination of PVS.
I’m so very impressed with your obviously superior intellectual acumen.
Now, if the Law facilitates an action based on offing a eugenically inferior being with no review and people ostensibly cite “we are only following ord…er…the Law”… what historical society does that make for a moment of deja vu?
That 87% would not want to be kept alive in they were truly in PVS, not in Terri’s condtition. The poll didn’t state “Terri’s condition”clearly, it said she was suffering from PVS. She’s clearly not in PVS, but anyone that would cite the poll and believe that she should suffer dehydration and starvation until she dies from the effects is a soulless ghoul and beyond brain dead. I would nealry advocate that type of treatment for that type of animal. Inhumane treatment is nearly justifiable for the inhumane.
RE: Paul’s “Why is Terri Schiavo a Partisan Issue????”
Why is having this woman die so important to the Democrats that they will go to extraordinary lengths to see it happen?
I don’t think it really is partisan except to the politically dogmatic.
I am an unregistered Independent who voted 100% Republican in every election at every level for the past 6 years. [I’m not going to disclose (globally) my previous record because it is irrelevant to the current administration and I’d rather not get pigeonholed for future debate based on past elections.] The point is that I have been profoundly opposed to the Democratic party for some while and have excoriated them publicly as well. I think a few Liberals here and elsewhere may attest to that.
On this issue and the way the Republicans have handled it… I disagree vehemently. The polls, for what they’re worth and I admit they aren’t worth that much, indicate that most of the country would prefer that the spouse be primary guardian for issues of health and the catastrophic loss of it by a loved one. Further, an overwhelming majority believe that were they in T. Schiavo’s condition, they would prefer to move on to the afterlife, whatever its manifestation. I have a difficult time reconciling these contemporaneous views with gross partisanship. Obviously these opinions cross party lines since the U.S. is almost a 50:50 nation (considering the population as whole) come election time.
I could flip your question around to ask “Why is denying this woman’s most personal and intimate wishes so important to the Republicans that they will go to extraordinary lengths to see it happen?”. See, spin works both ways.
Why not have an extensive and legitimate, dare I say honorable, debate as to what we as a nation believe to be the most reasonable solution to an uncomfortable, and currently untenable, position?
What a fascinating individual Brian is. My understanding is that Mr. Schiavo was given in trust a rather large sum of money for his wife’s rehabilitation. This intense effort at rehabilitation was never initiated. Where has the money gone? On that note alone and with all emotion aside, Mr. Schiavo is hardly an unbiased representative of his wife’s undocumented views regarding her wishes about life. And in reality, again all emotion aside, Terry Schiave was not dying until the feeding tube was removed. She is being fed as a baby needs to be. Sure, Brian, at Terry’s age maybe she SHOULD be able to walk down cafetria style line at the local Ponderosa Steak House just like you could and take care of herself. She cannot, but that should not become the reason for her to be condemned to starve and dehydrate her to death. People like you, Brian, show more compassion to convicted pedophiles. As a veterinarian myself, we don’t recognize the removal of food and water as a means of humane euthanasia of any animal under our care. Why is this permissible with Ms. Schiavo?
Brian, you can go on all you want about what society wants, but I would be real careful about equating the majority of people feel the government should not get involved in this sort of thing with it’s OK to starve someong to death. I think the majority of Americans are OK about pro-choice when it comes to abortions. But it is also likely, the majority are really turned off by the concept of a partial birth abortion. I know many pro-choice individuals who would vote against candidates that support partial birth abortions because they (maybe not you but they) see that as an extreme position. Brian, you are just plain (and I am sorry to say this) dumb!
Anonymous
I myself was pretty ambivalent about Terri’s case until I found out facts that are just not covered in most MSM summaries.
1) Terri had no living will and “her wishes” are based solely on Michael’s “recollection” a couple of YEARS after her indicident.
2) She never had an MRI and PET
3) Standard treatment and therapy for a braindamaged patient have been consistently resisted by Michael almost immediately after receiving the malpractice judgement.
4) Terri had only briefly her own attorney, which Greet dismissed and refused to allow her another one
Like most people, I once accepted that Terri had received all standard medical tests and court protections and it was ONLY her parents that refused to face her PVS. How wrong I was to assume the MSM was leaving out disturbing things like Dr. Cranford’s “brain damaged people should be stripped of Constitutional rights’ background and advocacy.
Questions about Michael Schiavo
1) Is he a bigamist? If he was not legally married to Terri he would be the common-law husband of his live-in who he has two children with. Do the laws that give spousal control over life and death matters, apply to this situation. Clearly his loyalty is divided.
2) Why does he call his live-in his fiancée. Doesn’t that designation undermine his husbandly claims to Terri.
3) Why won’t he just divorce Terri? Are Michael and his live-in Catholics? In that case he cannot marry his live-in in the Church until Terri is dead.
I realize that some of this is harsh, but not as harsh as he has treated Terri.
The poll referred to has incorrect questions. Life support – machines breathing for you etc. is not even a factor is this situation.
The fact is this woman has not been adequately evaluated. Period. Why is it that anyone would have a problem with evaluating her? We would evaulate a convicted criminal. Why not this woman? How irresponsible of Judge Greer.
Why after 7 years, did her husband bring up her wishes? Why didn’t he bring them up the week after her heart attack? Anyone who believes this man has her best interest at heart is a fool. His testimony is heresay and I daresay fabricated.
Become informed, people. Get all the facts. For one thing, listen to the interview with the woman who dated Michael Schiavo after his wife’s heart attack. She said the two of them would fight and he would tell the girlfriend that he would rather be with his wife the way she was than with the girlfriend. The woman said he was emotionally abusive to her and from what he said about his relationship with his wife (whom he called “fatty” and who was bulemic), he was emotionally abusive to her as well. The interview is chilling.
Strange that a woman would have a heart attack in her 20’s. Strange that this “husband” wants her dead and cremated ASAP. Half the money that was awarded to Terry for rehabilitation has been spent on legal fees to end her life. This woman has not had rehab yet.
God bless her.
Brian, you ignorant tool,
The only reason why the polls are as they are is because most people are as ignorant of the facts about Terri as you are.
And YES, the Left IS playing partisan bullshit with this. Paul is right–to them, it’s a Religious Right issue. Nevermind those pesky disability activists (not exactly right-wingers for the most part) who feel even more strongly about the case.
You’re blinded by your simple-minded ideology. Fortunately, I have found TWO (huge numbers, huh) liberals who support Terri because they aren’t afraid to stand up for what’s right even if it’s not the Party Line™. One of them is even a professed “ardent liberal” lesbian. She’s no puppet of the Religious Right!
This ignorance is going to make my head explode.
And to Anonymous Drivel–can you explain why it took over three years for Michael Schiavo to start saying Terri wouldn’t want to live like this, and only after the malpractice money was awarded? Are you SO sure she REALLY said she didn’t want to live?
Darleen, good points. Here’s more on what you said about her diagnosis (which I’m sure you’ve seen yourself, but for others who haven’t) via BlogsForTerri:
Medical facts about Terri
I read that the husband wasn’t even aware that his wife was bulemic. If true, how much did he know, or even care to know, about her? Bulemia is not something so easily hidden.
I’ve been silent for awhile as I watch these events unfold. Most troubling to me is the patent disregard towards the facts that has been exhibited by those who wish to “allow” (in quotes because forced dehydration is an active measure to bring about death) Terri to die. I’ve heard people say that she is brain dead, or that she can’t breathe on her own. These statements are either absolute lies, or the products of ignorance.
Further, the “loving husband” in this case has moved on and has made a family with his fiance–taken up residence, had children, etc–yet he insists upon being considered the person “closest” to Terri, and therefore the person who should be able to make this type of decision towards her care. I’m waiting for some open and honest speculation as to why, if not for the monetary benefits, he’s unwilling to step aside, move on with his life, and let Terri’s family take up care–something they have indicated they are more than willing to do.
I find in personally talking to people about this case that many are initially quite solid in their thoughts that she be “allowed” to die, or at most torn between the two sides, seem to change their stance dramatically when they learn some of the pertinent facts–most notably the fact that Michael has a family by his fiance.
All that would be required to put all this to rest is for a voice of reason in the judiciary to make the ruling that the law concerning spousal rights as they apply to this case don’t apply when the spouse is estranged, and that the patient’s next-of-kin would assume that position in that case.
Why would that be so terrible? I think that would fit quite appropriately into the scope of interpretation (which is, by the way, the realm of the judiciary), and would also close a “loophole” in the current law. I sincerely doubt that many people would want their fate in the hands of an estranged spouse.
Now, I’m not particularly pleased that this matter has come down to a power-play featuring the executive and legislative branches of government going head-to-head with the judicial branch, but when the court system seems to totally shun such a common-sensical approach to a matter, something must be done, even if it stretches the constitutional limits of power of the other branches.
I’ll close by saying that all this stands in remarkably stark contrast to Florida authorities putting the man who confessed to abducting, violating and killing a third-grader under suicide watch and protective isolated confinement.
Hi Darleen,
I appreciate the content and consideration of your post. I really do. I had been avoiding much of this case and only recently started paying attention since the issues therein only recently started touching my consciousness, and family, directly.
I have found that the best material for review to formulate opinion is legal documentation and that is to what I refer as supportable evidence. The MSM may color red and blue and I find it only valid if it provides times, dates, and references to source documentation; otherwise, it is likely tainted based on the publisher’s/editor’s point of view. That applies to columnists as well. While I value their opinion, it remains opinion. I’ll not postulate based on such weak foundation no matter how sincere the author.
I have a perhaps naive faith that the Judiciary processed this case within the boundaries of law and that the conclusions derived are as equitable as can be ascertained. This case has been revisited for 15 years and adjudicated repeatedly. Is our system so corrupt and incapable that even after this much review, not enough has been done?
Now, Congress wants to say that despite State law and Federal appeals that a Federal court should step in again and revisit the case anew? Is some of this not unprecedented? And terribly rushed? Has this case not been settled? And terribly protracted? The legal record describes in great detail the conclusions drawn and why. To heck with what the MSM and alternate media speculate and pontificate – it’s entertaining fodder and political dynamite. We have a legal framework and it has come to a conclusion. One party will not be satisfied with the outcome… that’s the way this adversarial system works. Based on what I’ve read, the conclusions seem as fair as is possible.
Again, I appreciate your response.
Regardless of the outcome, I think there should be a criminal investigation into the matter, as there are plenty of signs of a cover-up here. And Judge Greer should be removed from the bench pending the investigation.
Anon
One of the things to keep in mind vis a vis “15 years of legal review” in all that time there has been only ONE “trier of fact”…that’s Greer. Appellate courts cannot overrule his finding of fact (just as if a jury trial had found such fact). They can only rule on error in procedures … ie suppression of evidence, judicial bias, improper discovery etc.
I really don’t have a clue why Terri’s lack of standard medical testing was ignored. It’s as if judge ruled exculpatory DNA evidence out of a death penality case having already been convinced of a defendant’s guilt via eyewitness testimony alone. Couple that with Greer’s refusal to allow Terri her own legal advocate and I wonder what the hell is going on.
I actually feel kinda cheated by the MSM because some of this stuff was unknown to me prior to a relatively short time ago.
Has this case ever been heard by a Federal Court? We are hearing so much about states’ rights in this case, but as I recall, up until the 1940’s all church state issues were the domain of the individual states and their courts. Then it was decided that if it was believed someone’s “due process” rights under the 14th amendment were being violated or disregarded that person could appeal to federal court. Although not religious in nature would not this case fall under that category? Or so Congress is saying?
Via Newsmax…
A certified nursing assistant who cared for Terri Schiavo in 1997 filed a sworn affidavit in the case stating that she was able to feed Schiavo normally on multiple occasions – but that husband Michael Schiavo would allow only a feeding tube.
This is absolutely true. In fact Judge (death) Greer stipulated that absent of a feeding tube, you could even give her an ice cube. Visit the Terri Schivo website and watch the videos. I know what PVS is, that that is not a PVS. She smiles, she laughs and even mouths attempts at speech.
Mr. “dirt bag” husband, who has lived with a woman (not his wife – that’s called adultry), has been trying to get the tube pulled ever since he got his hands on the money.
He has also been spending it (trips to the Caymens, etc), while hardly – if ever visiting Terri (personal knowledge).
He wants the tube pulled so that the cost of care doesn’t squander his “fortune”. That’s why there needs to be review.
This is why it is important for this to go through. And go through it will.
Like it or not.
Hey Bri-Bri,
Would you care to have your life dependant on a poll of the people posting to this blog right now?
RE: Darleen’s post (March 20, 2005 05:26 PM)
One of the things to keep in mind vis a vis “15 years of legal review” in all that time there has been only ONE “trier of fact”…that’s Greer…
Yes, this is true. However, the bigger bugaboo (and with no intent to discount Schiavo’s dire condition) is the precedent. Are we to accept that a Federal level of “trier of fact” be instituted? Isn’t every case in our judicial system restricted to one trier of fact unless a mistrial is declared, in which case a possibly new trier is involved? That’s the way the system works. This new imposition has the potential to turn that on its ear.
I’m afraid that in our haste something more unsettling and infinitely more impactful may arise. When was the last time any branch of government made a temporary lurch for power only to promptly rescind after “crisis”.
PS – Put on your helmet. I sense a “Chicken Little” alert.
I should clarify “Federal level of ‘trier of fact’ be instituted”.
As I type, the Congressional resolutions on the floors of Congress declare that a Federal court intervene as new trier of fact and supercede that which has already gone through the courts. This is different from Federal jurisdictions where there is also trying of fact.
I welcome correction if my intepretation is wrong.
All legitimate points, Anon, but I personally can’t stomach the idea of starving this woman (or anyone else) to death without there being a valid diagnosis of her condition.
As far as I’m concerned, I’m willing to compromise on the “no government intervention” idea in a case like this with such extreme implications for the disabled. Some might call me a hypocrite, but I don’t care. I’m also a realist and one who can’t just sit back and watch a ridiculous series of judicial rulings put a human being to death. Even the most heinous criminals on death row get fairer proceedings than she has, and more chances to defend their lives to the courts.
Also, this acceptance of the death side of the debate between the Schindlers and Michael Schiavo…I just don’t get why “we” would err on the side of death when there is such vehement disagreement on what her wishes were and are. Eugenics came about after this kind of acceptance of killing those who were deemed “worthless”–the Nazis were doing this before they even began with the Jews, and it started with the general acceptance of death in this manner.
I’m really shocked that there are so few liberals who care about this, but even more shocked that there are so many on the right that put ideological legal arguments above the basic right to life (as in life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness…). That’s where I see our side failing–putting strict anti-interventionist ideology above life.
On another note, like Darleen, I feel cheated by the MSM because I only learned the whole story a month or two ago. Even yesterday, I heard blatantly incorrect information repeated on The Beltway Boys (i.e. Terri’s in a coma, from Ceci Connolly). It’s maddening and it gives me yet another reason to not trust what the MSM says.
Why after 7 years, did her husband bring up her wishes? Why didn’t he bring them up the week after her heart attack? Anyone who believes this man has her best interest at heart is a fool.
I don’t understand condemning the man for trying for seven years at rehabilitation and therapy for Terri that never had any effect. Maybe after seven years he came to the realization that she will never get better.
Anon
If Greer arrived at his finding of fact through prejudice … ie my example of tossing out DNA just to maintain the original verdict … should other review be precluded??
Greer found Terri to be “PVS” when such a finding is NOT SUSTAINABLE by the exculpatory evidence presented by affidavit that Terri did not receive standard medical testing.
This is not so much a “refinding” of fact, but finding of grievous procedural error on the part of Greer.
Mantis
Terri never received any rehab. Michael even refused her standard anti-biotics for a UTI and has refused her routine dental care.
Can we stick with facts please?
You know, it occurs to me why the Dems have started lining up to make sure Terri dies …
Might have something to do with Howie Dean’s declaration that all Republicans are “brain dead”
ahem
I am not an extremist, but anyone would call me an ardent liberal, that is certain. Perhaps I am an anomaly, but I am devastated over what is about to happen here. To even be debating this is perverse. It is murder, nothing shy of that very accurate description. Murder. By all estimates it will take her 7 – 10 days to actually die of starvation and dehydration. Terri is being executed by calculated, cruel and inhumane measure. We do not even execute condemned criminals with such unthinkable methods. And this woman’s crime? Needing more love and care than the average human being. I am sick over this. Desperate almost.
My liberal friends, my conservative friends…this is not about any other person, it is not about politics, it is not about ideology. It is about Terri and her right to NOT be executed. This liberal will hold fast to a desperate hope that tomorrow morning brings a stay of execution for Terri.
This post has been shared among many conservative sights. It has been an amazing blending of left and right. I realize that I do not have much company on my side. As a matter of fact, I have taken quite a beating from them over the past several days. But there are some incredible things happening in the “liberal meets conservative” dialogue at my blog. If you care to, please feel free to visit.
Beth at My VRWC has been a wonderful new conservative friend and pointed me in the direction of your blog.
Megan
Gee, Paul, you are on a rant. And that’s okay. It’s a terrible situation, and none of us is Solomonesque. To support Terri or not to support her is a most painful, difficult question. But, there is an issue parallelling the debate that concerns me. That is, how much to we want to let the federal government get into our lives? I, for one, am a deep believer in limited government. But, if the Congress is permitted to intervene in a private family affair that should be attended within the State of Florida judicial system, then where does the intervention stop? Paul, it’s a most slippery slope. And I’m most worried that the Congress will continue to legislate our lives in the future. Not a thing, in my mind, that’s a good thing. Take good care of yourself, and keep writing.
Terri never received any rehab. Michael even refused her standard anti-biotics for a UTI and has refused her routine dental care.
She didn’t receive any rehab?
First, in May 1990, she was moved from the hospital to the College Park skilled care and rehabilitation facility, then to Bayfront Hospital for further rehab, then Michael Schiavo and the Schindlers try to care for Terri at home for 3 weeks, but are overwhelmed by her needs, and return her to College Park. In November 1990 Michael Schiavo took Terri to California for experimental “brain stimulator” treatment, an experimental “thalamic stimulator implant” in her brain. In January 1991, they return to Florida and Terri is put in the Mediplex Rehabilitation Center. She is then transferred in July 1991 to the Sable Palms skilled care facility where she received neurological testing and regular and aggressive speech/occupational therapy through 1994.
This is the most extensive timeline that I can find.
Can we stick with facts please?
Please, let’s.
Mantis:
“I don’t understand condemning the man for trying for seven years at rehabilitation and therapy for Terri that never had any effect. Maybe after seven years he came to the realization that she will never get better.”
Please provide some proof (a link to a reputable source will do) that Mr. Schaivo provided any rehabilitation/therapy.
Mantis: I was typing when your post hit. I’m looking at the link now.
Mantis
And Michael won his million dollar judgement when?
:::cough::: 1992 :::cough:::
naw, no conflict there. move along. nothing to see. let the man kill his wife…
Let’s see… the polls didn’t go your way, and therefore they are flawed. And then you compare me to Nazis and pedophiles.
But yeah, we should take you seriously.
Mantis:
First, in May 1990, she was moved from the hospital to the College Park skilled care and rehabilitation facility, then to Bayfront Hospital for further rehab, then Michael Schiavo and the Schindlers try to care for Terri at home for 3 weeks, but are overwhelmed by her needs, and return her to College Park. In November 1990 Michael Schiavo took Terri to California for experimental “brain stimulator” treatment, an experimental “thalamic stimulator implant” in her brain. In January 1991, they return to Florida and Terri is put in the Mediplex Rehabilitation Center. She is then transferred in July 1991 to the Sable Palms skilled care facility where she received neurological testing and regular and aggressive speech/occupational therapy through 1994.
You’ll note that the majority of that is before these:
August 1992: Terri Schiavo is awarded $250,000 in an out-of-court medical malpractice settlement with one of her physicians.
November 1992: The jury in the medical malpractice trial against another of Terri’s physicians awards more than one million dollars. In the end, after attorneys’ fees and other expenses, Michael Schiavo received about $300,000 and about $750,000 was put in a trust fund specifically for Terri Schiavo’s medical care.
I hope you’ll start using those facts you’re crowing so much about.
re: Brian’s biased poll
The wording of the poll question:
Terri Schiavo suffered brain damage and has been on life support for 15 years.
Uh, yeah. Her “life support” amounts to a feeding tube. Had she received therapy to rehabilitate her swallowing, perhaps she wouldn’t have even needed that.
Doctors say she has no consciousness and her condition is irreversible.
The doctors/”right-to-death” advocates that Michael Schiavo has personally hand-picked have said that, yes. Other doctors disagree.
Darleen,
I’m not saying there’s no potential conflict, I was just responding to someone who asked why he didn’t have her feeding tube removed right away, and suggesting that maybe it was because he thought the therapy would work (the therapy, remember, that you say she never had). If you want to play the conflict game, then we can consider that the Schindlers and Michael Shiavo were living together until May 1992, just before the malpractice suits were settled/finished. In Feb. 1993, not long after the suits, they have some sort of falling out and Michael claims the Schindlers wanted him to share the malpractice money with them. 5 months later the Schindlers attempt to remove Michael as guardian and therefore get control of the bulk of the settlement. Michael says they are in it for the money, they say he is in it for the money. I of course don’t know who is telling the truth, but it seems both sides had at least the potential for monetary gain.