|
|
|
Comment |
Sorted by
Date Written |
ITA (Reply to this comment)
by AinsleyJo
It definitely stinks! :-(
|
Feb 08 '06
7:04 pm PST
|
|
I can't tell you how many of those same questions crossed my mind. (Reply to this comment)
by mustangrosie
I feel that the judge and Michael should both be investigated. Something is rotten in Denmark. Certainly, it is rotten in the judge and Micheal.
|
Apr 12 '05
11:28 am PDT
|
|
Those questions could have come out of my own mouth! (Reply to this comment)
by mustangrosie
I can't tell you how many of those questions have crossed my mind during all of that shameful, murderous debacle. Something was definitely off kilter there and I think that it bears looking into the "good" judge's affairs as well as Michael's. I don't understand how either of them can sleep at night and I don't think they should be able to sleep at night. They deserve to be plagued and terrorized by their dreams when they do sleep.
|
Apr 12 '05
11:22 am PDT
|
|
Randomkill... (Reply to this comment)
by AinsleyJo
...Sorry to continue to dispute you, but damage-control from the Michael camp simply doesn't wash with me.
Since Terri left no sort of written request that this would happen to her, any truly good judge would have erred on the side of life.
The judge--who seems to hold not only a monopoly over Terri's case but, also, over the entire state of Florida--had a conflict-of-interests when it came to the outcome of this case, because he's connected (at the very least, somewhat indirectly) with those who strongly favor euthanasia.
Terri is trapped in a small room and is being held prisoner of the state of Florida by a combination of one judge, one lawyer, and one adulterous husband.
Possibly, I'm seeing this picture all wrong, but I tend to think about this picture in the same way Dan Rather thought about that duck.
Enuf sed..
AJ :o)
|
Mar 28 '05
7:50 am PST
|
|
False allegations of abuse and lack of extensive review ... (Reply to this comment)
by randomkill
"why are you so quick to believe the "experts" who have her in a PVS while discounting those views that say she can, even now, be helped with therapy--and, especially, the view of the one doctor (at LEAST one) who believe that broken bones and other trauma to the body are signs of abuse?"
http://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/infopage.html
"Terri's Law" required the chief judge of the local circuit court to appoint a guardian ad litem (GAL) to examine Terri's case and advise the Governor. The chief judge appointed Dr. Jay Wolfson from the University of South Florida. Dr. Wolfson's December 2003 report to Governor Bush included this bit of factual history:
The cause of the cardiac arrest was adduced to a dramatically reduced potassium level in Theresa's body. Sodium and potassium maintain a vital, chemical balance in the human body that helps define the electrolyte levels. The cause of the imbalance was not clearly identified, but may be linked, in theory, to her drinking 10-15 glasses of iced tea each day. While no formal proof emerged, the medical records note that the combination of [Theresa's] aggressive weight loss, diet control and excessive hydration raised questions about Theresa from Bulimia, an eating disorder, more common among women than men, in which purging through vomiting, laxatives and other methods of diet control become obsessive.
Also relevant to questions about the cause of Terri's collapse is the lawsuit that Michael brought on Terri's behalf against Terri's doctors. The premise of that early 1990s lawsuit was that the doctors committed malpractice by failing to diagnose Terri's bulimia and that her bulimia led to her cardiac arrest. The case was tried to a jury, which ruled in Michael's favor, finding that Terri had bulimia, that her bulimia caused her cardiac arrest, and that the doctors were negligent in failing to diagnose the situation. The verdict was appealed, and before the appellate court could rule, the parties settled, with Michael recovering approximately $750,000 for Terri and $300,000 for himself.
After this case gained national attention in 2003, Gary Fox, the lawyer who represented Terri and Michael in that suit, wrote a stirring column concerning Terri's bulimia and how the tragic effects of that disease have been lost in the hoopla surrounding this case. The St. Pete Times still has that column online, and you can read it here.
The significance of the medical malpractice lawsuit can be seen in a few ways. A jury agreed that bulimia caused Terri's collapse. The defendants were her doctors -- one might think that they, of all people, would have been able to show that Terri had been beaten or strangled if that was what had occurred. Also, to believe that Michael caused Terri's collapse by beating her is to believe that Michael initiated a lawsuit against someone else for causing her collapse, opening the whole matter to serious inquiry and greatly increasing the risk that someone would discover his role.
[b]In other words the fact that Terri's husband won the malpractice case shows that the events surrounding Terri's collapse were investigated and at no time was there a question raised about abuse.[/b]
Since 1990, Theresa has lived in nursing homes with constant care. She is fed and hydrated by tubes. The staff changes her diapers regularly. She has had numerous health problems, but none have been life threatening.
Over the span of this last decade, Theresa's brain has deteriorated because of the lack of oxygen it suffered at the time of the heart attack. By mid 1996, the CAT scans of her brain showed a severely abnormal structure. At this point, much of her cerebral cortex is simply gone and has been replaced by cerebral spinal fluid. Medicine cannot cure this condition. Unless an act of God, a true miracle, were to recreate her brain, Theresa will always remain in an unconscious, reflexive state, totally dependent upon others to feed her and care for her most private needs.
In a later opinion in the same case, the Second District further explained:
Although the physicians are not in complete agreement concerning the extent of Mrs. Schiavo's brain damage, they all agree that the brain scans show extensive permanent damage to her brain. The only debate between the doctors is whether she has a small amount of isolated living tissue in her cerebral cortex or whether she has no living tissue in her cerebral cortex.
[b]In other words she's toast and they are arguing over just how bad it really is.[/b]
|
Mar 26 '05
10:08 am PST
|
|
Do you ever wonder why it is that Michael has banned even Terri's own family from taking pictures of her? (Reply to this comment)
by randomkill
That's wrong...
http://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/infopage.html
"When the Second District first reviewed the trial court's decision that Terri would choose not to live under her present circumstances, the appellate court expressed no reservations when it explained that Terri was and "will always remain in an unconscious, reflexive state, totally dependent upon others…" In October, 2002, as a result of Terri's parents' claims that treatment options offered promise to restore some of Terri's cognitive functioning, the Second District ordered the trial court to hold a trial on that issue. The trial court did so, and in the course of that trial the parties litigated whether Terri is in a persistent vegetative state.
The trial court heard testimony from five experts: two selected by Michael, two selected by the Schindlers, and one independent expert selected by the trial court. The two experts selected by Michael and the independent expert agreed that Terri was in a persistent vegetative state and that her actions were limited to mere reflexes. The two experts chosen by the Schindlers disagreed, but the trial court found their positions not credible. For instance, the trial court explained:
At first blush, the video of Terry Schiavo appearing to smile and look lovingly at her mother seemed to represent cognition. This was also true for how she followed the Mickey Mouse balloon held by her father. The court has carefully viewed the videotapes as requested by counsel and does find that these actions were neither consistent nor reproducible. For instance, Terry Schiavo appeared to have the same look on her face when Dr. Cranford rubbed her neck. Dr. Greer testified she had a smile during his (non-videoed) examination. Also, Mr. Schindler tried several more times to have her eyes follow the Mickey Mouse balloon but without success. Also, she clearly does not consistently respond to her mother. The court finds that based on the credible evidence, cognitive function would manifest itself in a constant response to stimuli.
The experts also disagreed about whether any treatment could improve Terri's condition. The two experts selected by the Schindlers each proposed a potential therapy method, but the trial court rejected both of them based on "the total absence of supporting case studies or medical literature."
Affirming those decisions, the Second District explained that it, too, reviewed the videotapes of Terri in their entirety as well as Terri's brain scans. The appellate court explained that it not only affirmed the decision but that, were it to review the evidence and make its own decision, the court would reach the same result reached by the trial court."
In other words they found that the videos or pictures you say the parents are denied to take were used in a trial and found to be STAGED.
|
Mar 26 '05
9:55 am PST
|
|
Re: Re: Re: As I stated in my EMAIL to many - MICHAEL IS SCUM!!!!!!!! (Reply to this comment)
by AinsleyJo
Applebee's just a few minutes ago while wearing a hostess dress for a change. Didn't drop a thing on it...
|
Mar 02 '05
12:16 pm PST
|
|
Re: Re: As I stated in my EMAIL to many - MICHAEL IS SCUM!!!!!!!! (Reply to this comment)
by drdevience
I think that this is pure evil!!!
Not nearly as evil as the visual of you eating Subway debris off your own naked tits....
Doc
|
Mar 02 '05
11:35 am PST
|
|
Re: As I stated in my EMAIL to many - MICHAEL IS SCUM!!!!!!!! (Reply to this comment)
by AinsleyJo
Although I would personally be hesitant to remove a feeding tube from a loved one, I know that this is done, at times, with the purest and most loving of motives.
Although I keep my stance that there is no right time to remove a feeding tube (at least, when it's the kind used by Terri, which is nothing more than just another entrance to her stomach), I'm not out to judge those who have made this difficult decision even though I am more inclined to believe that there could have been a different path to travel down.
However, when it comes to what Michael is doing with Terri, I think that this is pure evil!!!
You keep on standing up for Terri and those like her!
Write On!
AJ :o)
|
Mar 01 '05
9:12 pm PST
|
|
As I stated in my EMAIL to many - MICHAEL IS SCUM!!!!!!!! (Reply to this comment)
by JAGUARDOG
You said - "As far as I'm concerned, there IS no other side to this story! Those who are on the side of saving Terri's life are RIGHT and those who would call for her murder are WRONG!!!
In some cases, there ARE absolutes--and this is one such case!
I COULD NOT AGREE WITH THAT STATEMENT MORE!
Not only is Michael SCUM but he is also the 3RD BIGGEST JERK in the last 30 years!
I also DO NOT trust that Judge as it seems he has ulterior motives!
At least now with a new stay we can see what shakes out, maybe?
Oh and One More Thing! - I'm sure I will catch a lot of heat and flack for my statement above but guess what I DON'T GIVE A RAT'S BEHIND what anyone thinks about it. If anyone does not like my comments "Read my lips" I DON'T CARE TO HEAR ABOUT IT AND THEY CAN EAT MY DIRTY SHORTS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
|
Mar 01 '05
3:33 pm PST
|
|
Re: Personal situations (Reply to this comment)
by AinsleyJo
I think that the big problem in the case of Terri is that it was all Michael, and God and parents were both left out of the picture.
And we just have to draw the line somewhere when it comes to when it might be justifiable to remove a feeding tube (or not have one inserted in the first place)--and, in Terri's case, doing this to her would be murder because there's no doubt that she's still alive and functioning.
We had something similar to happen in our family.
Read back into my earlier pieces here, and you'll find a recipe for peanut butter cookies the way my shirt-tail cousin, Lois, made them.
Lois suffered a stroke, and she ended up living at home and being fed through a far more elaborate feeding tube than Terri.
It was a machine of sorts with a constant feed going into her.
Although Lois sometimes showed signs that she was still "at home," (e.g. responding to music), she would be defined as being in a persistent vegetative state.
I would guess that she was much more alive than Emily.
One day, we received a letter from her immediate family (husband, two daughters, and a son) to ask us to join them in prayer, because they had a decision to make.
The doctor had told them that it would be better to discontinue the feedings--though, at the same time, continuing to provide fluids through an IV (something that wouldn't be done in Terri's case)--and allow her to pass on.
They were considering it.
In the end, they decided against doing that.
Less than a month later, Lois' feeding tube fell out on its own.
She was in such a weakened state that she would have died on the operating table for even the simple surgery needed to re-insert the tube (or so her family had been told).
They had tried to put the tube back in her on their own--only to have it to keep getting rejected by Lois' body--and they realized then that it was time to start saying Goodbye.
So, she lasted about a month or less longer while being hydrated with nourishment-filled water and, then, passed on peacefully.
That, I believe, might have been what the doctor should have advised you to do in Emily's case.
Anyway, I'm glad that we're on the same page about Michael--other than your believing that it should be nobody's business when someone who is merely brain-damaged is in danger of being starved to death instead of being a legal matter.
Conditionwise, Emily and Terri are as different as night and day and withholding food and water from someone that alive (as Terri is) can be called absolutely nothing else BUT murder--which is supposed to be against the law!
Love & Prayers--
AJ :o)
|
Mar 01 '05
8:01 am PST
|
|
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: o-kay... (Reply to this comment)
by AinsleyJo
You definitely ARE a loving mother and NOT a murderer.
You made a very difficult decision when it came to your daughter based on what you were told--as well as being based on 1997 knowledge of the human body (that is, over seven years before the discovery that there might be activity in a supposedly-dead brain that nobody realized was there).
One case that really made me angry was that of Baby Theresa.
This was the case of a baby who was born nearly headless with only a small amount of brain activity--enough to make her look alive.
The parents had known for months that they were expecting a headless baby (nose, mouth, chin, and brainstem--but nothing else above the neck), and the only reason they hadn't terminated the pregnancy was that they wanted to bring her into the world to become an organ-donor.
But some radical right-to-life busybodies jumped on the bandwagon and acted as if they were baby killers--even though it was confirmed that Baby Theresa had days to live at the most.
Even when her tiny body began to shut down on its own, and it was crucial to harvest her organs or have them to go to waste, these fanatics didn't back down.
I have no idea how Baby Theresa was fed during her short life, whether through a feeding tube or an IV, but I'm sure that she was receiving some kind of nourishment, even though she definitely wasn't aware of it.
I find that I remain uncomfortable with removing a feeding tube, even if I would come to the decision to unhook all other means of life-support from a loved one who wasn't really benefitting from it.
No matter what, I find your story to be as different as night and day from either what Michael Schiavo is trying to pull or else those cases where babies with Down Syndrome are given different treatment than your average baby when it comes to treatment.
Did you know, for instance, that (unless the rules have changed), there are certain operations (such as to repair a heart-defect or a colon that is too blocked to produce a bowel movement) that are done on newborns without even getting the consent of the parents--that is, unless the baby in question has Down Syndrome?
In that case, the parents can choose not to have the surgery done.
Down Syndrome doesn't mean brain-dead, and those people with that extra chromosome remind me of angels.
Most of them end up growing up to be relatively self-sufficient, and they lead full and happy lives.
Some of them even end up going to college.
The actress who played the lady Corky would marry on Life Goes On was not only a great actress, but she also drove a car and was studying psychology in college!
Another lady with Down Syndrome actually ran for Governor of one of the western states and got a lot of votes, though not enough to win. This move wasn't unrealistic for her, as she already had proven her capabilities in a local office.
Yet, they're still seen by some as lacking in "quality-of-life."
Anyway, no matter what, you're definitely not a murderer by any stretch of the imagination, and you took wonderful care of Emily for the all-too-short time that she was with you!
Blessings!
AJ :o)
|
Mar 01 '05
7:33 am PST
|
|
Personal situations (Reply to this comment)
by bob_tomato
Ainsley -
Now that you've read our personal story, I'll go ahead and give you my personal opinion on the Schiavo case.
I personally believe that what Michael Schiavo is doing to Terri and her family is horrible. From the evidence that I have seen and read, Terri seems to have functions that convince me that she is not in a completely vegetative state. My own feeling is that euthanasia should never have been offered as an option in this case, and should not be allowed now.
But my feelings don't count for anything in this instance - if Michael Schiavo were to personally ask me what he should do, I would not hesitate to tell him that Terri should remain alive. There were those in my church at the time who gave me that very same response when I asked them what they would do in my personal situation, and it hurt some of them very much when the decision was made to take our daughter off the feeding tube.
There is no possible way I can defend the morality of my choice to you until you have personally experienced a situation like ours - and I do not want to change your mind. You must remain true to the faith inside you, and I have no right to take that away from you. I would ask, however, that you allow for the possibility that my faith informs me that the actions I took were not murder, but mercy.
Life is not pretty. There are ugly situations like Terri's that arise that put our faith to the test. Ultimately, I believe the choices made in her situation are between Michael, her parents and God - no one else
|
Mar 01 '05
4:04 am PST
|
|
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: o-kay... (Reply to this comment)
by pearannoyed
Ainsley -
I felt compelled to expand upon my thoughts on this subject. You can find those thoughts here:
http://www.epinions.com/content_4274626692
I'd also like to comment that I find it odd that you offer 'Hugs' after reading my previous essay about Emily having called me a murderer in your previous post. Does knowing my name and my personal story make a difference? Either I'm the cold-blooded killer of my daughter, or a loving parent who made the best decision available in a horrible situation. I can't be both.
Amy
|
Mar 01 '05
1:39 am PST
|
|
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: o-kay... (Reply to this comment)
by AinsleyJo
I've just returned from reading about Emily, and I know that must have been a difficult decision to make.
Your little angel was much closer to being dead than Terri. Terri is merely very brain-damaged.
And any decisions you made about Emily were definitely done out of love, so yours is an entirely different story.
Read enough about how Michael has related to Terri, and you won't feel the kind of love I felt in both of your accounts of what was precious to you about Emily in her 2 1/2 years with you.
I can't lie to you and say that, after reading about Emily, I've suddenly had a change-of-heart about the removal of feeding tubes. All I can say is that any decisions you made were made lovingly with Emily in mind.
And you both wrote beautiful tributes to one very special angel!
Hugs!
AJ :o)
|
Mar 01 '05
12:17 am PST
|
|
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: o-kay... (Reply to this comment)
by pearannoyed
http://www.epinions.com/content_3910705284
Do not presume to judge what you can't possibly understand.
Amy
|
Feb 28 '05
10:38 pm PST
|
|
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: o-kay... (Reply to this comment)
by AinsleyJo
I'm not trying to put words in anyone's mouth.
I'm just saying that what Michael wants to do with Terri is murder! And the last time I checked, murder is still illegal here in the USA.
And, yes, it would be murder to remove a tube putting water and nourishment into this hypothetical two year old child, even though it wouldn't be murder to remove the same child from artificial life-support, once you're absolutely sure that the child is truly dead.
Many years ago (over 45 years ago), there was this little girl of around eleven or twelve years of age who was riding her bike down the inclined driveway of the family home, even though her parents had given her strict orders not to.
There was a good reason for this:
At the bottom of the driveway was a busy highway.
Susan wasn't able to stop herself in time to avoid running into the path of a car.
For six weeks, she was on life-support and comatose.
In her case, it wasn't even just the matter of a feeding tube.
One machine helped her to breathe, and another one kept her heart beating.
Finally, the head-doctor there consulted with her parents saying that their daughter was the same as dead but only being kept alive by artificial means.
It was time, in his opinion, to say their final goodbyes and then disconnect the machines.
However, there happened to be a doctor visiting from the East Coast (this took place in California), and he said that, before the machines were shut off, he wanted to try some therapy with Susan.
Susan's family was told to yell things at her--nice things, but spoken very loudly--and even to give her a smack here and there from time to time.
"SUSAN!!!" her mother shouted. "WAKE UP, AND I'LL BUY ONE OF THOSE LIFE-SIZED DOLLS FOR YOU!!!"
She shouted about that doll very, very often--and, in time, Susan came to.
For awhile, she was in a wheelchair, and her mother was pushing her around this garden when Susan suddenly asked, "When am I going to get that doll you've been promising me?"
Until then, her mother thought that this was merely a shouting exercise--making enough noise to, hopefully, awaken Susan from her coma--so she was surprised that Susan remembered all that shouting.
In fact, she remembered just about everything but just was unable to express that she was aware.
Susan was an honor student before her accident, and I wish I could tell you that she went back to being an honor student.
But school became much more difficult for her after that, and a lot of her classes were special education classes.
But she still wrote songs and poetry as well as being in the prison ministry.
Susan is a witty, perceptive, and fun person with a lot of love and compassion.
Sadly, we've temporarily lost track of each other, but the last time we talked, she was married to a wonderful man, and they were raising a large number of cats--and had even taught some of those cats to say a few words!!!
When I think of Susan, it makes me realize that, even with the machines, we should be absolutely sure before removing them.
But, when it comes to nourishment and water, removal of that should never be an option!
While I would be more sympathetic towards a couple of loving parents who sincerely believed themselves to be doing the right thing for their toddler than I am towards Michael who certainly gives the appearance of having a hidden agenda re: the disposal of his wife, starving another human being to death is still murder.
Enuf sed...
|
Feb 28 '05
10:17 pm PST
|
|
Re: Re: Re: Re: o-kay... (Reply to this comment)
by bob_tomato
Ainsley -
Now you're putting words into my mouth - I think if you go back and look over my comments, you'll see that I was careful not to make any judgments about the morality of Michael's decision. All I have said is that - legally - the decision is still his to make at this point. I also pointed out that Terri's parents have every right to challenge Michael's authority. If you would care to show me where my words specifically state that Michael should retain the right to commit murder, I will retract this entire comment.
You are making rather ridiculous comparisons in order to make your point, and these specious arguments are patently unfair. To be perfectly blunt, the woman being served with a divorce after a mastectomy, or the extent of Christopher Reeves' injuries cannot be fairly compared with Terri's condition. There is no slippery slope here and you know it. Terri has unfortunately fallen into a very grey medical area where her condition can be interpreted as either having some quality of life, or as having none.
I do not begrudge you the strength of your moral convictions; in fact, I was careful to say that I am in favor of persons making a public statement of support just as you have done. You have declared that life and death are absolute, and that there is no room for choice in these situations. I will not question this statement of your belief - I feel that beliefs such as these are personal and sacrosanct.
And that is the crux of my response to you - you are projecting your beliefs onto someone else's situation. Despite your morals and your beliefs, there is still a legal system here that has to be allowed to work, and unfortunately, morals and law don't always work together perfectly. There is no perfect answer, absolutes don't work in this world - there must be room for compromise, and sometimes hard decisions have to be made. (and I did NOT just endorse Michael's choice in that statement)
Now, I have a question for you -
Imagine a young couple whose two year old suffers a near fatal accident and is declared brain dead after being resuscitated at the hospital. Imagine that the child's body functions perfectly but on an automatic basis only - there is no conscious control whatsoever - no movement, no response, nothing - the child has zero brain activity. The brain is able to make the body breathe on its own and the child will survive indefinitely if maintained on the feeding tube. The couple is presented with the choice to maintain life support, or to remove the feeding tube and allow the child to die.
Would the couple be committing murder if they decided to remove the feeding tube? Is there any way that the couple can make the choice so that it would be considered a merciful act to let the child go?
Most importantly - to whom should this decision fall? the couple? society at large? God?
Andrew
|
Feb 28 '05
9:39 pm PST
|
|
In the same state where Paul "PeeWee" Reubens... (Reply to this comment)
by AinsleyJo
...got arrested for spanking his monkey in an adult movie theater that was designed for such activity, Michael Schiavo is coming close to being allowed to murder his estranged wife in a slow and painful way.
If Michael were caught masturbating in an adult theater, he would be getting his sorry butt hauled off to jail!
And, frankly, I really don't think that it's anyone's concern re: the actions of Paul "PeeWee" Reubens and, if that were Michael, I would say "Ditto!"
I'm not out to get Michael!
I didn't see this guy out on the street somewhere and decide that he just didn't look like the kind of person I would like, so I, therefore, was going to set out to make his life miserable!
This battle isn't about making "poor" Michael the "victim."
I--along with countless others--are just trying to intervene so that a heinous crime won't be allowed to take place (and, on top of that, be legally-sanctioned).
Within the past few days, we've heard about this warped individual who has proudly called himself The BTK Killer for three decades.
B=Bind
T=Torture
K=Kill
Confined to a single, small room in a hospice center and never allowed to venture out of there would be a form of being Bound.
Death by starvation and dehydration is certainly a Torturous way to be Killed!
This evening, I received the following in my e-mail.
Read it over carefully and thoughtfully, and you will see that the guy in Kansas isn't the only one who might fit the label of The BTK Killer...
************............************
Mr. Reagan has covered Terri's situation a number of times on his radio program and has first-hand experience in caring for a loved-one who can no longer care for himself.
Legalized Murder Looms in Florida
by Michael Reagan
http://www.sitnews.us/Reagan/022805_reagan.html
Unless Florida courts or the U.S. Supreme Court reverse themselves, Michael Schiavo will be allowed to kill his wife, Terri, and do it in the most horrific way.
A judge in Pinellas County Fla. has extended what amounts to a stay of execution until Friday, February 25. If that stay is not extended further Michael Schiavo's attorney says his client will immediately have the feeding tube now keeping Terri alive removed, allowing her to be starved to death.
Although badly brain damaged, Terri is conscious (not comatose), shows many signs of being aware of her surroundings, and is not on any life support systems. Like all of us, however, she is dependent on nourishment. If her husband succeeds in removing her feeding tube, she will die an incredibly painful death by starvation and dehydration.
How painful? According to Newsmax.com, Dr. William Burke, a neurologist in St. Louis, was quoted by medical ethicist Wesley Smith as describing the agonizing process:
"A conscious person would feel it (dehydration) just as you and I would. They will go into seizures. Their skin cracks, their tongue cracks, their lips crack. They may have nosebleeds because of the drying of the mucous membranes, and heaving and vomiting might ensue because of the drying out of the stomach lining. They feel the pangs of hunger and thirst. Imagine going one day without a glass of water. Death by dehydration takes ten to fourteen days. It is an extremely agonizing death."
Not long ago, I had the unpleasant task of putting my dog to sleep. I used a hypodermic needle and he simply went to sleep and died. Had I done to him what Michael Schiavo wants to do to his wife starve the animal to death - I would have been arrested. And in Florida which prohibits the inhumane treatment of animals, where the starvation of one's pet is a criminal act, the courts have ruled that it legal to kill Terri by starving her to death.
There is a video taken by Terri's parents that shows her fully alert, smiling, reacting to their presence and following her mother's movements with her eyes. Shockingly, when he learned of the video, Michael Schiavo banned any other efforts to film her.
In the light of this, I find it disgraceful that the judge who over the years has consistently sided with Michael Schiavo, and has accepted the false idea that Terri is nothing more than a vegetable whose life is meaningless, has never once bothered to visit Terri to learn for himself that she is a living, conscious, human being.
Thanks to the secularist mainstream media the general public is under the mistaken impression that Terri is on life support, which is true only if being fed and given liquids is considered life support. If that is true, all the rest of us are on life support too.
Terri suffered a serious brain injury in 1990 and there is evidence that suggests she suffered physical abuse that led to her condition. In a trial in 2000, Terri's husband asked for permission to have the feeding tube removed. As Concerned Women for America pointed out, "this was after he had long since abandoned his marriage by living with another woman (siring two children by the other woman) and collecting hundreds of thousands of dollars from disability insurance, pocketing the money and letting Terri live without the medical attention he had promised to provide."
Sixth Judicial Circuit Judge George Greer has continued to allow the husband to act as Terri's guardian without, as Florida law requires, a guardianship plan. Judge Greer says he is now considering whether Michael Schiavo is a fit guardian for his wife. He also says he needs more time to determine whether Terri Schiavo needs more medical tests. His stay expires Friday.
In a new development, Florida's Department of Children and Families has intervened in the case and is asking for a delay to investigate abuse allegations. And on Wednesday Gov. Jeb Bush told reporters that "I can assure you I will do whatever I can within the means, within the laws, of our state to protect this woman's life."
If all of these moves fail, however, the courts of state of Florida will order Terri Schiavo to be starved to death - a case of judicially sanctioned murder.
Mike Reagan, the eldest son of the late President Ronald Reagan, is heard on more than 200 talk radio stations nationally as part of the Radio America Network. Look for Mike's new book "Twice Adopted".
|
Feb 28 '05
9:31 pm PST
|
|
Re: Re: Re: o-kay... (Reply to this comment)
by AinsleyJo
There happens to be tons of information on this case in a lot of different places. In the article I wrote before writing this one, I provided several URLs.
But what you're basically saying is that I'm stripping Michael of the right to MURDER his wife!
This isn't a case of where someone has been connected to a bunch of machines that animate her like a robot but she's really nothing but a corpse.
This is a case of a brain-damaged woman who has all of her organs working and is, at least to some degree (and I tend to think to a CONSIDERABLE degree), aware of her surroundings and enjoying her life.
But she needs help when it comes to being fed--in her case, she needs (at this time, at least) to be fed directly into her stomach via a feeding tube.
Her feeding occurs three or so times a day, and, during this time, the feeding tube is employed.
If we were to say that Terri is being kept alive by artificial means based on this mere feeding tube, we would also have to say that The Pope is being kept alive by artificial means because his bowels have emptied for years into a colostomy bag.
We would have to say that, for the decade following his accident, Christopher Reeve was being kept alive by artificial means, because he had a lot of machines helping him out.
So, what's the difference between those people and Terri?
The only difference I can see is that Terri seems to have a degree of mental retardation related to her brain-damage--and we don't even know if this means that she'll always be the way she is now. And she might actually know a whole lot more than she's being given credit for knowing--something that research is being done on these days in regards to people who are actually in a persistent vegetative state (which Terri, contrary to rumors, isn't).
If it's okay to put her to death because she has a degree of mental retardation, that's going to put a lot of people on that slippery slope who have varying degrees of mental retardation!
Who will be next?
The elderly? The poor? Anyone who is "inconvenient" in one way or another?
I heard the story of a woman who came to from a double-mastectomy, only to find her husband(?) waiting there with divorce papers for her to sign!
Perhaps, these days, it might become easy for a man to avoid the hassle of divorce by simply having his "defective" wife "put down."
It hasn't gotten to that place yet (so far as I know), but what Michael is being allowed to do is blazing the trail for something like this to happen!
If Michael wants to divorce his wife and move on, it's none of my business.
If Michael smokes marijuana, it really shouldn't be our business, either--ditto to whether or not he might visit a house of prostitution or pick up hookers along the street.
But, when Michael is hell-bent on murdering his wife, that's when it becomes our business, because murder is illegal!!!
And, no matter how you package it, starving someone to death is murder--just as is injecting poison into her veins to make her die!
To me, capital punishment is murder, too--but, at least, those getting put down by authorities have (except in those cases where they've convicted the wrong people) murdered other people!
What has Terri done other than going from a healthy twentysomething bride to a special needs person of early-middle-age? When did it become a capital crime here in America to be handicapped!?!
As far as I'm concerned, there IS no other side to this story! Those who are on the side of saving Terri's life are RIGHT and those who would call for her murder are WRONG!!!
In some cases, there ARE absolutes--and this is one such case!
Thoughtfully,
AJ :o)
|
Feb 28 '05
8:45 pm PST
|
|
Re: Re: o-kay... (Reply to this comment)
by bob_tomato
Ainsley -
the problem I have with your argument is that you encourage Michalel to excercise his rights as Citizen John Doe IF he will but act to save Terri's life, but you seek to deny his right to end her life based on the fact that that decision goes against a moral standard that you are imposing on the situation.
No matter how reprehensible his actions may appear, the fact remains that the right to the decision still belongs to Michael Schiavo, and no one else at this point. As a Citizen myself, I must act to uphold Michael's right to his decision as well as to uphold Terri's parent's right to challenge him, to allow your right to speak out against Michael, and protect my own right to discuss the case with you and others in a free public forum.
You are absolutely within your rights to come to Terri's defense - you are convinced that she is in danger from her husband, and so you are taking action to help the helpless woman. That is a good thing for you to do. I am concerned though, that you so easily strip Michael of the rights to his choice when that choice goes against your morals. He is legally within his rights to make the decision he has made, no matter how his actions in his personal life may color our perception of his character. He is not doing anything wrong by making the choice. His character has nothing to do with the legality of the choice, unless the courts rule that he has demonstrated he is no longer fit to make the decision. Until that occurs, you and I are bound to support his rights if we wish to maintain the integrity of our system.
We don't have to like this, and I don't expect you to - that's OK. I do respect your opinion, and I absolutely commend your efforts to get out the word in support of Terri - but I still have to disagree with you on the legal value of your arguments.
verbatima noted several points in your piece that would require more factual support in order to be accepted as a legal argument, and I believe that since your letter is to the judge presiding over the Schiavo case, verbatima's advice is quite instructive. I know that you're not trying to win a court case here, but as verbatima pointed out, there are some logical problems with your piece. I would advise that if one wishes to educate the public in order to gain support for a cause, it would be best to strengthen that position with as much factual information as possible, rather than with very emotional and biased statements such as those you've made in this piece.
I understand the emotion behind your words, and I don't wish to make light of it, or of those personally involved in this tragic case - that is not my intent. I wish there were more persons who would take a stand for these difficult positions just as you have done - but please be very careful with the words you use, and how you use them.
Andrew
|
Feb 28 '05
4:27 pm PST
|
|
Re: o-kay... (Reply to this comment)
by AinsleyJo
Very simple...
He has now shown by his actions that he has moved on with his life and that Terri is his wife in name only.
So, he's, basically, an outsider--and one who wants to have his cake and eat it, too. And the worst part about it is that he's being allowed, so far, to get away with it!
As an outsider, however, he has the right to keep Terri from having her tube pulled, resulting in a slow death by starvation.
And how is this?
As an outsider, he's Citizen John Doe.
Any Citizen John Doe or Citizen Jane Doe has a responsibility to stop someone from being harmed and/or killed if at all possible.
If I were to come across someone being raped, for instance, the right thing for me to do would be to get to the nearest phone and call the police to report the attack and its location.
By the same token, if I knew that someone was abusing someone else (even if it were being done behind closed doors)--and, especially so, when that person is someone who is unable to defend himself/herself--it would be my duty to report that this was going on.
Furthermore, if I were someone (such as a person with training in martial arts, for example) who could stop the abuse from happening by apprehending the person and making a citizen's arrest, that would be what I should be doing.
In short, it's our responsibility to defend the life and well-being of even a perfect stranger--but even a spouse has no right to bring about the death of his/her spouse, and this is especially so when the spouse is only a spouse on paper and has ulterior motives for ending the life of his/her spouse.
Laters--
AJ :o)
|
Feb 28 '05
3:25 pm PST
|
|
o-kay... (Reply to this comment)
by bob_tomato
Ainsley wrote in her response to verbatima:
Either way it goes, he's an outsider now, and he has no more business than anyone else when it comes to deciding whether Terri's feeding tube should be removed--though, by the same token, he should have EVERY right to decide with anyone else that she shouldn't be starved to death, because starving someone to death is no less murder than anything that the BTK killer has ever done!
This argument doesn't fly - first, you say that Michael is an outsider, implying he is no longer involved in the decision, stating that he has no business making the decision to remove the feeding tube. But if we assume he is an outsider, how can you then say that he should have every right to participate in a decision to keep her alive?
The relative morality of the decision itself has nothing to do with determining his participation. As her husband, Michael is the one to make the decision unless the court orders otherwise - it's as simple as that.
Andrew
|
Feb 28 '05
2:13 pm PST
|
|
Re: I wasn't sure how to rate your essay (Reply to this comment)
by AinsleyJo
V--
Very thoughtful questions!
I'll try to answer them to the best of my ability...
Most importantly, your questions are rhetorical and argumentative. That in and of itself does not mean you are wrong, but I believe they require an explanation of your conclusions to be persuasive. Presumably, the judge listened to both sides' experts and witnesses; I am sure that he issued a non-short-form decision (i.e. a formal opinion explaining his reasoning). Your letter would have been better if it contained citations to that decision and specific arguments of where you think the judge went wrong made rather than conclusory (albeit impassioned) protestations that he misjudged the case.
This letter isn't meant to be written as something being shared with the public for the first time (though I shared here what I wrote to the judge) but, instead is simply asking questions to the judge that don't have to be documented, because he can either provide the answers (that is, explain why he was led to make certain decisions or else say that what I'm accusing him of in my questions is mere rumor and, then, back up that option with his version of what really took place).
All medical records and diagnostic materials are confidential to begin with. If the media wants to see them, it bears the burden of "somehow" unsealing them.
I can see why those records would be confidential to the media--unless the family wanted the media to see them--but not so confidential that nobody but Terri's husband could decide who sees them in the light that Terri had other close family members who would be concerned.
We're not talking about regular confidential medical records but, rather, records of what shape her body was in when she was brought in.
Broken bones, signs of attempted strangulation, etc. are far different than disclosing what Terri might be telling a psychiatrist or that Terri was having trouble performing sexually, for example.
What did her speech therapist testify? (This is not a rhetorical questions, I am just curious because I really don't know.) And if he didn't testify, isn't it odd that the family didn't call him?
For some odd reason, the testimony of anyone who held out hope for Terri (I'm talking about in the way of professionals rather than merely her family) was discounted by this judge as being irrelevant and/or not admissible.
Something else very odd is how this one particular judge seems to have a monopoly on all things Terri so that there has been no possibility in the past of having this case heard by any other judge.
Money is not "tucked safely away in the bank", unless it's certain offshore accounts we are talking about. If money is misappropriated, courts have the power to freeze accounts. No fraud in his right mind would put stolen money in a local bank and believe that it is safely tucked away.
I don't know how this was done. I just know that it was--which makes me smell a rat even more strongly!
In most jurisdiction (I believe in all, in fact) in the United States, it is against the law for the judge to undertake an independent investigation. This is the attorneys' role, and when usurped by the trier of fact, it deprives both sides of the opportunity to scrutinize whether whatever is being considered by the judge is in compliance with the rules of evidence. (Jurors can't do this either, by the way.)
Not an independent investigation--but seeing Terri if possible should have been part of the courtroom evidence.
This could have been done by having Terri, herself, brought to court (which should be no problem in her case); extensive videos of her (not just small snippets) played in the courtroom in the event of Terri's being unable to show up personally; or whatever other means might represent a real and authentic presence of Terri in court.
As was shown recently at Scott Peterson's trial, jurors are allowed to go on field-trips of sorts to get a better feel of the evidence.
Of course, in Terri's case, there wasn't a jury trial, so it seems as if the judge (acting also as jury) should be able to do whatever it took to examine prime evidence.
Hearsay is defined as testimony given by a witness without personal knowledge, but based on an out-of-court statement of another. Hearsay is inadmissible for its truth (as opposed to impeach), unless one of a few very limited exceptions applies. If I testify to the circumstances of an auto accident I did not witness and say "John Smith told me the light was red", my statement would be inadmissible. Instead, John Smith would have to be called to the stand, so that the trier of fact can assess his credibility, and the adversary can cross-examine him. It does not matter who is benefitted by what statement -- hearsay is hearsay, and it's inadmissible, except to impeach. If you believe that the judge misapplied the hearsay rule, you have to analyze every instance in which it was invoked separately -- because it is perfectly plausible to me that Terry's mother may want to say something that is a textbook example of hearsay; and Michael can say something that isn't.
By the way -- lawyers give arguments, not testimony; the hearsay rule is inapplicable to them.
Although I recall the hearsay rule being applied in some of these cases, I could have been wrong (though I don't think so).
But what was, as I mentioned earlier, thrown out (deemed not to apply for this reason or that) was any sort of testimony (including first-person testimony) that favored sparing Terri's life.
In every case, one side invariably brings at least one expert who swears up and down that A is B, and the other brings another expert who swears exactly the opposite. As a lawyer, I've come across experts with stellar resumes, who coolly testified under oath that a car hitting a 110-lb woman at 70 miles per hour would never put her into a coma, or that it was possible for a patient in terminal stages of cancer to grow a new liver. Ultimately, the trier of fact will accept the testimony of one team of experts and reject the other; and the losing side will b*tch and moan about the morons in the courthouse, who dare disregard the testimony of experts. The test of sufficiency of expert testimony is very complex -- and the mere fact that someone's testimony was not taken into account is not in and of itself improper (it could be, but not necessarily is).
It's definitely improper when the judge seems to totally go along with one side of the coin while ignoring/disallowing the other side of the coin.
Doesn't Florida have a law whereby long-term incapacity is grounds for divorce? Would Michael really need to dispatch Terry in order to remarry?
EXACTLY!!! So, I want to know why he hasn't taken advantage of this law. Since bigamy is illegal in the state of Florida--and you also can't go calling one woman your fiancee while being married to another one (not officially, anyway), Michael needs to be forced to make up his mind.
He is either Terri's husband and next-of-kin or else he isn't.
If he isn't, he can be removed as her guardian without any problem--and should be!
If he is still her husband, he has been openly and blatantly committing adultery for a number of years--which should show him as no longer being an appropriate guardian for Terri, as there would definitely be a conflict of interest.
Either way it goes, he's an outsider now, and he has no more business than anyone else when it comes to deciding whether Terri's feeding tube should be removed--though, by the same token, he should have EVERY right to decide with anyone else that she shouldn't be starved to death, because starving someone to death is no less murder than anything that the BTK killer has ever done!
If the general public has the right to decide that it's okay to starve Terri or anyone else to death, the BTK killer should be released from jail and allowed to go home to his family, because he hasn't committed any crimes.
He has merely decided that murder is acceptable in certain cases and has, thus, made the decision to carry it out.
Just something to think about. Of course, I'd give a more detailed answer if I could refer to Judge Greer's decision. I haven't been able to find a link to it on the Internet, and my Westlaw subscription does not cover the Sixth Circuit. Any idea where I can read it?
Go to (among other places):
http://www.terrisfight.org
because you'll be able to not only find links to PDFs of court documents there but, also, lots of other very helpful information
Hope this is helpful to you.
Peace!
AJ :o)
|
Feb 27 '05
11:20 pm PST
|
|
I wasn't sure how to rate your essay (Reply to this comment)
by verbatima
I finally decided to give it a VH anyway, but I have a few (negative) observations:
Most importantly, your questions are rhetorical and argumentative. That in and of itself does not mean you are wrong, but I believe they require an explanation of your conclusions to be persuasive. Presumably, the judge listened to both sides' experts and witnesses; I am sure that he issued a non-short-form decision (i.e. a formal opinion explaining his reasoning). Your letter would have been better if it contained citations to that decision and specific arguments of where you think the judge went wrong made rather than conclusory (albeit impassioned) protestations that he misjudged the case.
A few other pointers:
"from the time that he somehow had some x-rays of her sealed as confidential"
All medical records and diagnostic materials are confidential to begin with. If the media wants to see them, it bears the burden of "somehow" unsealing them.
------------------
"And, in between, ordering her speech-therapy stopped when all signs showed that she was trying to speak--could it have been that he might have reason to be afraid of what she might say about the night of February 25, 1990!?!"
What did her speech therapist testify? (This is not a rhetorical questions, I am just curious because I really don't know.) And if he didn't testify, isn't it odd that the family didn't call him?
-------------------
"the money that was, supposedly, to go for her therapy and care had been won and tucked safely away in the bank"
Money is not "tucked safely away in the bank", unless it's certain offshore accounts we are talking about. If money is misappropriated, courts have the power to freeze accounts. No fraud in his right mind would put stolen money in a local bank and believe that it is safely tucked away.
-------------------
"Why have you never gone to see Terri for yourself and/or had her brought into your courtroom or private chambers before making such a drastic decision?"
In most jurisdiction (I believe in all, in fact) in the United States, it is against the law for the judge to undertake an independent investigation. This is the attorneys' role, and when usurped by the trier of fact, it deprives both sides of the opportunity to scrutinize whether whatever is being considered by the judge is in compliance with the rules of evidence. (Jurors can't do this either, by the way.)
--------------------
"Why do you choose to believe Michael while deciding that anything coming from Terri's family, friends, former caretakers, lawyers, etc. surely must be hearsay?"
Hearsay is defined as testimony given by a witness without personal knowledge, but based on an out-of-court statement of another. Hearsay is inadmissible for its truth (as opposed to impeach), unless one of a few very limited exceptions applies. If I testify to the circumstances of an auto accident I did not witness and say "John Smith told me the light was red", my statement would be inadmissible. Instead, John Smith would have to be called to the stand, so that the trier of fact can assess his credibility, and the adversary can cross-examine him. It does not matter who is benefitted by what statement -- hearsay is hearsay, and it's inadmissible, except to impeach. If you believe that the judge misapplied the hearsay rule, you have to analyze every instance in which it was invoked separately -- because it is perfectly plausible to me that Terry's mother may want to say something that is a textbook example of hearsay; and Michael can say something that isn't.
By the way -- lawyers give arguments, not testimony; the hearsay rule is inapplicable to them.
----------------
"And why are you so quick to believe the "experts" who have her in a PVS while discounting those views that say she can, even now, be helped with therapy--and, especially, the view of the one doctor (at LEAST one) who believe that broken bones and other trauma to the body are signs of abuse?"
In every case, one side invariably brings at least one expert who swears up and down that A is B, and the other brings another expert who swears exactly the opposite. As a lawyer, I've come across experts with stellar resumes, who coolly testified under oath that a car hitting a 110-lb woman at 70 miles per hour would never put her into a coma, or that it was possible for a patient in terminal stages of cancer to grow a new liver. Ultimately, the trier of fact will accept the testimony of one team of experts and reject the other; and the losing side will b*tch and moan about the morons in the courthouse, who dare disregard the testimony of experts. The test of sufficiency of expert testimony is very complex -- and the mere fact that someone's testimony was not taken into account is not in and of itself improper (it could be, but not necessarily is).
-------------------
"Let's just say that Terri DOES die and Michael is free to marry the new woman in his life?"
Doesn't Florida have a law whereby long-term incapacity is grounds for divorce? Would Michael really need to dispatch Terry in order to remarry?
Just something to think about. Of course, I'd give a more detailed answer if I could refer to Judge Greer's decision. I haven't been able to find a link to it on the Internet, and my Westlaw subscription does not cover the Sixth Circuit. Any idea where I can read it?
Regards,
V.
|
Feb 27 '05
1:44 pm PST
|
|
|
|
