If things break today, I’ll probably just update this list:
Oliver Willis and his fellow liberal bloggers are calling for a blogswarm to kill Terri Schiavo. Oliver at his disgusting worst.
In other Schiavo news… (I don’t blog on the story for all the months its been in the news, then when I break my silence, I shatter it) Michael Schiavo made an interesting admission on Larry King.
KING: Michael, what do you expect to happen? Congress is in recess now, they have to come back into special session. The Supreme Court could put a stay on it. What do you think is going to happen?
M. SCHIAVO: I don’t think the Supreme Court is going to put a stay on it. And I hope and implore that everybody call their legislators. They have to stay out of people’s personal lives. There’s no place for government. Call them and tell them.
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…
Well that puts the great lie to the whole thing.
Drudge has a link to audio of Terri Schiavo right after they removed the tube…. To the untrained ear, it sounds like she is unhappy about it… but I don’t know the context… Is she always this vocal? About a minute into it, the father asks if she can say hello… She says something that could be taken as a “Hi.” It could also be taken as a random noise. But about 1:30 it happens again.
Absent more audio to put this in context, I don’t know what to make of it… But it does sound like she is trying to reply to her father to me. Since the Drudge link is getting nailed, as a service to our readers, we’ll mirror it here at Wizbang.
]]>< 
And Brian: thanks for sharing what it is you would want on your own behalf and for sharing who it is that you regard as being most responsive to what it is you would want, or may want, or do want, depending.
But, the issue isn’t about your life nor about Michael Schiavo’s life nor about Oliver Willis’ life nor about what it is you all as individuals reason your own decisions would be under whatever circumstances.
The issue is about what Terry Schiavo wanted and wants now. Which is yet more evidence that we as a society are obligated to find that out as best we can. So far, the social evidence exists far more abundantly that what she wanted in the past and may still want now is that she remain alive. There are people who love her and want to assume her care and would like to help her maintain her life, so let them. I can’t see concluding that someone be put to death simply because a former spouse insists upon it.
Or you do, or does Oliver Willis. You all have the right to ensure that society put you to death if and when you experience whatever, but you don’t have the right to insist on taking someone else’s life simply because that’s what you’d want for yourself.
And, DavidB: a key point here is that Michael Schiavo HAS displayed behavior that indicates to my view (and I think to many reasonable persons’ also) that he is not providing acceptable care as a representative to Terry Schiavo. And, unfortunately, the judicial process he’s claiming has avoided booting him from his “husband” and therefore spousal responsibilities as representative for Terry Schiavo, that judicial process has involved individuals who are, even tonight/this morning, exhibiting real need to prove their own perspective as to issues and not as to what is best for this person (Terry)…meaning, there’s reason to assume that there is no clear representation of what is best for the individual but what certain persons are using in relationship to Terry Schiavo to prove some point of their own.
Even the judge tonight indicates that he has some upset about enforcing “what a person wants for themselves” and seems to assume that becauase Michael Schiavo says so, it must be what he says Terry wanted.
I do believe that there are a handful of individuals who are persistent on Terry Schiavo being put to death simply because that would ensure their perpsective, and are abandoning, if not long ago abandoned, any desire to do what it is is best for Terry Schiavo. Since her parents and siblings and now even friends say the polar opposite to what Michael and attorney and commercially related judge have had to say about this situation, I’m thinking that there’s reason to believe that we can at least, as a society, allow the woman to die a less painful death, if not to simply live out her years as she is now under someone else’s care.
That Michael Schiavo prevented any rehabilitative, or even basic health care, for Terry for so many years, along with disallowing her the interactions with anyone, much less those who loved her (and particularly after he was awarded funds for that purpose on Terry’s behalf), I’m of the opinion that the guy has done what is best for himself and abandoned any empathy for his (former) wife. I write former because he’s obviously moved on with his life — perhaps he should let his former wife do likewise and allow her to receive the care and affections that others would so love to devote to her. Notice that Michael Schiavo refuses that last part and yet justifies his own life experiences as being unremarkable to include intimacy with another woman resulting in children with her. Not like he’s willing to allow Terry Schiavo to have anything other than death.
DavidB: that “aggressive rehabilitative care” is curiously never explained in any details that would substantiate just what that involved.
Another thing: there’s conflicting evaluative information been provided about Terry’s capacity even by a few physicians offering opinions about her. However, I’m willing to assume that Terry Schiavo is not capable of sufficient mental function to ever maintain life independent of requiring intensive medical care by others. Even if she never displays the ability to swallow food (something yet to be established), it is not a reason to put this person to death, to conclude her life.
Otherwise, there are many others with grave mental and/or physical impairments and conditions who’d “deserve” to die also. Which they shouldn’t, just saying here that despite Terry’s current situation, what her condition is does not justify by definition that she be put to death.
Particularly since there are persons willing and able to care for her, to maintain her current life. The situation is whether or not Terry Schiavo should be maintained as currently alive and that equals, whether or not she should be put to death by denial of care. I don’t think it’s much of an argument.
S,
Your level of mis-information is astounding and disturbing.
I never quoted Felos, go back and read the decision by the judge. Get it, the judge!
If you are having a hard time finding this stuff, here you go . . .
http://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/trialctorder02-00.pdf
That is the initial document that I quoted from.
You are clearly the one having a hard time looking at the evidence, let me say that again for you, EVIDENCE, and understanding what it means.
You clearly have not read much on this other then what the biased view point is. If you had bothered to go back and read a little more about it, you would have found material that clearly contradicts the statements you have made. Material from the court, the numerous doctors involved, the numerous appeal decisions. It is all available, you just don’t want to deal in fact.
Get the facts.
Time and again the parents have lost on the points of law and the evidence presented.
Try this link, I know it will be hard for you because it flies in the face of everything you want to believe, but the decisions contain the explanations as to why they were made.
http://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/infopage.html
Thought this was agood one from Fox’s John Gibson.
The Schiavo’s Marriage Is Clearly a Sham
Monday, March 21, 2005
By John Gibson
Here’s my take on the Terri Schiavo (search) deal:
A huge argument has broken out about whether or not Congress and the president should have stuck their nose into the Terri Schiavo case. Some people say thank God they did. Some say it’s the end of the Republic — that Madison is rolling in his grave and that the separation of powers have been trampled by Congress butting into the business of the state courts.
I say we never would be in this position if it weren’t for the Florida courts recognizing what is clearly a sham marriage.
At this point, Michael Schiavo (search) asserted his right as husband and guardian to insist his wife Terri’s feeding tube be removed. At this point Michael Schiavo is married to Terri Schiavo only for the purpose of ending her life.
The reason I say that is that he has another “wife,” has two kids by her and is leading another life.
If Terri Schiavo were in good enough shape to say whether she wanted to live or die, she might first say she wants a divorce, considering the fact her husband has another wife and two kids.
And if she were to do that, would Michael Schiavo still have the standing to claim guardianship to be able to pull her feeding tube? No.
If he didn’t have that guardianship, who would? Her parents. Would they pull the feeding tube? No. Would it then be necessary for Congress and the president to get involved? No.
So this whole thing turns on whether Michael and Terri Schiavo are really married and the fact that the Florida courts continue to recognize a marriage that exists only for the purpose of killing her. Surely the Florida courts cannot be that dumb. And, if they are, then surely somebody else ought to get involved — perhaps even Congress and the president.
I don’t think this is so hard. If you recognize reality you will see that as of Friday, when Michael Schiavo ordered the feeding tube removed, they weren’t really married. They haven’t been since he took the other “wife” and had two kids.
Are the Florida courts saying an ex-husband gets to decide when an ex-wife dies? If so, there is going to be a very long line at the court’s front door.
That’s My Word.
Only a few quick points . . .
-S-: Excellent posts. You more exhaustively addressed many of the comments that have been flying here than I am capable of doing, with my current time constraints.
DavidB: I have read extensively the information you quote (prior to your posts, btw), and yes, we get it–the judge. In your line of thinking, obviously, the great, omniscient, omnipotent judge. Any fool can read the letter of the law, but we are supposed to have courts to apply the spirit of the law to a given case. Such has been done in numerous court decisions–but not this one. In no way could the law have been directly intended to apply to a spouse who has so removed himself from his incapacitated wife socially, physically, and emotionally as to take up residence and family with another woman.
And to Brian: There is still a lingering question, that you avoided by taking issue with the word “estranged.” Would you be comfortable–no, I’ll go farther–would you knowingly allow a spouse who has set up a second household after your incapacitation make the types of decisions for you as Michael has made for Terri? Nobody requests Michael put his life on “pause”, we just wonder why he insists on pushing the “stop” button on Terri’s when he seems to be living a pretty full life without her.
And a personal note to DavidB and Brian: I truly like a spirited debate. I have enjoyed (believe it or not) sparring with you two, and you, for the most part, have proven yourselves to be artful in this department. I disagree with your conclusions, but you’ve generally maintained an air of respect towards me and towards others. There’s an air of antagonism that necessarily comes from debate, but it needn’t be uncivilized. I thank you for attempting to maintain that level of civility, and look forward to more of the same, whether on this case or on the next hot issue.
DavidB: ahh, stupid grasshopper, but I never stated that you “quoted Felos.”
You misunderstood what I wrote, so I’d say that that astounding misinformation, misperception problem (that last part is something I just added in case you misperceive these comments) is one of yours, not mine.
You can accuse people all you want about much of any personal failing but to my read, your comments are sorta crumbly, certainly inaccurate.
And, I’ve been able to quite successfully find almost everything I’ve been curious about. That I was “having trouble finding (whatever)” is another one of those crumbly, unsubstantiated wanderings of yours. That’s me being nice about you making inaccurate statements.
DavidB: many times, failed arguments “succeed” (for a time, at least but certainly in effect with enough duration to ensure human suffering) in “a court of law.”
It does not mean that there’s an actual success, just that some one thing or many are advanced or allowed to be sustained simply because they are (advanced, sustained). It does not, by a long shot, make them moral, ethical, acceptable, just that they’ve been “allowed to stand.”
Most liberals liberally apply that line of retort to their own issues, those that are DISallowed in “court(s) of law,” but in this case, there’s an argument of ethics that involves the quite possible and it’s looking like impending loss of life of a human being. Something worth fighting for.
No one’s argued which what has not been ‘won’ in “a court of law,” passed what judge or hasn’t, but about the credibility, the moral acceptability, of those.
And, I don’t read anywhere, on Wizbang and a few other blogs, that people are not facing facts or are unsuccessful in finding anything. In fact, I was just reading an article written by a physician and comments by other physicians about the problematic (that is, inaccurate) interpretation by “the court” about Terri Schiavo’s CT scan. Link which I found in Wizbang…so it seems readers/commentors here, many of us, are, in fact, quite handy at finding a lot of things.
My error…I read that I wrote “you’ve quoted Felos…” but that’s an error. I intended (the point I was making) that you’ve referred to information that Felos has provided….
Meaning, you are and have referred to Felos and information he’s, umm, provided, while also referring to Felos as source of fact.
Not that you cut and pasted comments by Felos, failed to accredit, etc., but that, my point earlier, that you’re relying on arguable sources as “fact(s)” and seem to be routinely avoiding a certain perspective of curiosity about Terri Schiavo and related persons that seems unreliable in and of itself.
Meaning, you display obvious prejudice. Facts are only as factual as is the source credible.
Bo,
Thanks . . .
S,
You clearly need someone to lead you by the hand. Here is what you posted earlier,
DavidB: you’ve quoted Felos as posing statements HE accredits as being those of Terry Schiavo (as has his client, Michael Schiavo) and yet the family and OTHER friends all say that they never heard Terry ever express such a statement nor anything similar.
Take a look back, that’s a direct quote from your earlier rant. So you did indeed say that I quoted Felos. If you can’t even get that right . . . .
So who is the stupid grasshopper? Have a mirror handy Skippy?
Oh, and I’m not a liberal, just a person capable of reviewing the facts, evidence and the moral implications and arriving at a conclusion for myself.
S,
Every quote that I have made has been from court documents, scanned and made into PDF’s. Are you saying the court is not a credible source of information?
I trust the court as a more reliable source of information then any blog, obviously prejudicial, or biased web site.
Please, please, please, provide one link, to a credible source, that refutes what I have quoted from court documents!
You can’t!
So which quote that I made from a court document was inaccurate? You see, you make accusations that are without merit, have no basis in fact and lack the evidence to support them. Your statements about the accuracy of mine are certainly backward.
Now slow down a little and read carefully . . .
Remember what you say and how you say it . . .
S,
Nice try at a back pedal, by the way . . .
If Michaels girlfriend is his common law wife does that make him guilty of Polygamy?
DavidB: have you ever made a point, you concluded, and then moved on from there, and then later read or heard from some stranger who you have no reference or familiarity on or about, that they allege some misperception, they continue, based upon something they swear you said, wrote, expressed but that wasn’t an aspect of the point you’d originally made in your own memory?
Well, that is what took place earlier. I wrote something occluded and intended a point that you perceived quite literally and quite entirely incorrectly, alleging some interpretation (that I now can see how you would since you read my comments in a critical perspective and appear to my view to need some sort of warfare or sticking point about anything I’d written, and you pounced on the vulerable, or sloppy, expression that I used). I interpreted your later critique, such as it was, as you misperceiving my point earlier because it was your misperception.
However, I wasn’t clear on the point as I expressed it, so now you’re continuing with the onslaught.
How’s this: bad work by you perpetuating misperceptions based upon what appears to be an egotistical need to be on top?
Does that work for you? No? Hey, you ‘said’ that, you did, in what and how you expressed yourself. Perceptions are in the read of the beholder.
No backpeddling, because the point I made earlier is still sticking. You referred nearly in carbon copy to the content of the Michael Schiavo attorney’s communication, and although not directly “quoting” the guy, you did, in fact, quote him by indirect reference in what you wrote, which misrepresents as surely as the attorney did, the information that should otherwise be reported clearly.
It’s not a word game, just a rush of a keyboard, a complex framing of ideas. Surely you can comprehend that, if nothing more. If “backpeddling” works for you in that sense, then, yes, you are.
But, I do conclude and did earlier that it is you who is gravely misperceiving much here, out of some need you have that you aren’t being lucid about, to perpetuate points that there is ample evidence to many of us to disprove or at least hold as invalid.
Much the same as has Michael Schiavo: because you will it to be, it just has to be…and despite the intellectual contributions of others, every other option is discounted because…you…must…be…right…by…whatever…ploy…possible.
That mentality bespeaks of the recent Kerry loss. And Dean loss. And others. Winning is about measurement of and about truth among your peers, not insistence.
S,
{insert laugh track here}
Just because you don’t understand the point, or choose to ignore it does not make it invalid. All of my “points,” or views, are supported by documented sources. You have yet to provide one to support yours. There was no “perpetuating of misperceptions.”
Your conclusion that I referred to someone’s communication is clearly wrong and without basis. As I said, and provided the links for, my quotes came from the court documents, you can read, right?
You are clearly, again, delusional and unable to see the forest for the trees.
I will leave you with this little thought. You base your “points” on emotion without regard to the evidence to the contrary.
I base my “points” on the evidence and sum it up with emotion. You see, I have lived a portion of this story and speak from a level of experience.
I have a friend that I have known since high school, years ago. The summer after graduation he broke his neck in a surfing accident. For a while he was “dead,” but brought back by a caring individual who pulled him from the water and administered CPR. He now lives in a wheel chair as a quad and tells me every time I see him how he wishes he was dead. His mother has views to the contrary. If it was within his power he would do it.
This is a thinking man, brain intact, who has expressed his wishes as to what he desires. He will never have his wish as long as his mother survives him.
His quality of life is a measure above Terri’s, but only in that he has his brain intact and can think.
You have no idea of which you speak.
But, the issue isn’t about your life nor about Michael Schiavo’s life nor about Oliver Willis’ life nor about what it is you all as individuals reason your own decisions would be under whatever circumstances. The issue is about what Terry Schiavo wanted and wants now.
So I guess you think that every person should have their own unique law specifically tailored to them.
I have been reading the comments with interest. I have to say that Bo, S and College Pundit have made some very good points. Their arguments (probably because they coincide with my own thoughts) are excellent.
DavidB: I have a problem with the way in which you have superimposed the selfish thoughts and wishes of your quadrapelic friend onto Terri. There are plenty of other individuals who have been in the same situation and who have done the best that they can to remain optimistic and give back something to the community. Christopher Reeve, despite his limitations gave to the community before he died. I can think of two other exceptional individuals, one being Stephen Hawking, and the other a man by the name of Quentin who have shown how they can do their best in adversity. Quentin has Spina Bifida and he has maintained a sense of humour above all else. I have often seen others who have a severe case of cerebral palsy. It is not always a pretty sight to see them like that but my thoughts do not give me the right to dictate that they should die because of their disability.
I think that S in particular has done a great job with the points that he has raised regarding Terri. It is very relevant to this issue that the husband is the one who is shacking up with another woman and he so obviously wants his wife dead.
As for Matt’s site: Abstract Appeal, I have also looked at the comments that he has made on that site. I cannot fault his commentary about the facts that he has presented, however, I can fault his lack of investigation on the issues that surround this case. There are other issues that are very relevant to this case, especially the power that is given to guardians in relation to their wards, and the ability to make life and death decisions that go against what the ward wanted in the first place.
I do not believe that the evidence of Michael’s brother and sister in law should in fact be seen as totally credible. There remains the possibility that they were coached about what they should say. In fact I would not call Joan a life time friend of Terri, therefore when George Felos claimed that a life time friend gave that evidence he was not being truthful.
As I have been reading up on all of the issues I have discovered that Michael Schiavo has been very inconsistent with his evidence about when Terri had allegedly made those wishes known to him. The time and place keep changing. First of all it was on attending a dying grandmother, then it was in relation to a dying uncle, and finally it was supposed to have been whilst watching something on Karen Ann Quinlan. This last one is in direct conflict with the evidence of Terri’s real friend. The likelihood that she ever expressed those wishes, I believe to be entirely remote and the evidence from such a biased source should not have been accepted in the first place.
I noticed that some silly woman came into the argument claiming that Terri is on machines and that she is brain dead. To this I have to say that if Terri was brain dead then her parents would have relinquished her without this fight. However, she is not brain dead and I have seen sufficient video footage to prove that she is not brain dead. I mean, here in Australia the ABC actually ran footage that showed Michael taking Terri for a walk in her wheel chair. You cannot do that with a brain dead or comatose patient.
There are many questions to be asked in this case, including getting clarification on the reason that Terri was injured in the first place. How did she end up with a very stiff neck? Asphyxiation through an attempt to strangle her perhaps?
As for the question about the medical experts who have attended Terri, I have this comment for you. Dr. Cranford spent 45 minutes with Terri. He did not conduct any MRI or other tests. His brief seems to have been “I want a diagnosis that she is PVS”. He in fact went against his own advice in how he handled his medical opinion about Terri. The CT scan cannot be considered as sufficient evidence as to the state of Terri’s brain, especially when there had not been a follow up since the scan was taken in the emergency room. Therefore Cranford’s opinions remain tainted by his association with the Hemlock society. There is also the issue of the bone scan and the analysis of that scan that indicates that Terri had injuries consistent with receiving physical trauma, including evidence that there was an attempt to strangle her.
BoDiddly wrote:
There is still a lingering question, that you avoided by taking issue with the word “estranged.” Would you be comfortable–no, I’ll go farther–would you knowingly allow a spouse who has set up a second household after your incapacitation make the types of decisions for you as Michael has made for Terri? Nobody requests Michael put his life on “pause”, we just wonder why he insists on pushing the “stop” button on Terri’s when he seems to be living a pretty full life without her.
Honestly, yes, I would. And I would also be very happy if my wife moved on with her life and found someone else to make her happy and help her raise a family. She knows more about me than anyone, and that wouldn’t change with time. Even if you say that her love would fade over time, her knowledge of my wishes would not. And I would not care one whit how it looked to outside observers, even those who claimed to know more than she what my best interests are, and especially to governors, senators, and presidents. And my parents would need to accept that when I said “I do”, I was no longer momma’s little boy, and I pledged my life–literally–to someone else.
I thank you for attempting to maintain that level of civility
And to you. I’ve been known to change my mind on issues (uh oh, I’m a flip-flopper!), but that comes only after considering intelligent arguments. But whether I wind up changing my mind, I still value expanding my understanding of others.