Terri Schiavo, Rest in Peace

Now that she is gone, can we agree on that?

Comments

[Jim Horning]

Yes, let her rest in peace.

But don't you think it was reprehensible for the media to cooperate in the feeding frenzy over her, while practically ignoring matters of greater moment, like the decision not to prosecute seventeen US servicemen for homicide of prisoners?

Why should that one half-life have drawn so much more attention than, for example, the hundreds who died in the Sumatran earthquake? Or perhaps a thousand preventable deaths on America's highways?

Jim H.

[Gerard Van der Leun]

You might read up on symbol, myth, emblem, and a host of other similar concepts to understand how one life can come, willingly or not, rightly or wrongly, to represent other larger issues and concerns and beliefs. You might also want to reflect on the concept of media as mirror.

[Alex]

It's totally nuts, now we get to do a death watch for the pope. Grant it, it's not the same thing. But TV News has been to morbid these past few weeks. I'm amazed how precicly, the news was dropped today, right after Terries death that the administration was wrong about WMD.

[Al]

Now the left can focus on keeping Scott Petersen alive.

Also, the Toronto Free Press ran this...
http://www.torontofreepress.com/2005/cover033105.htm

And you wonder why this was such a big deal! Why didn't the American press point this out? This Dr. Ronald Cranford has been all over the news and it's ridiculous that his background wasn't included.

She should be alive. It will be pulling teeth to get a death sentence for Scott Petersen yet it's very simple for an innocent life to be squashed by the government. This country regressed many years by letting this happen.

[jojo]

Starve Scott Petersen!

[craig]

Al,
You've fallen victim to bad reporting. The government did not decide the fate of Terri Schiavo. Her husband did. All the courts did was re-affirm that it was his decision to make. Had he decided to keep her alive, the courts would have upheld that. The courts believe in the sanctity of marriage. That's all.

If you believe that ending her life was the wrong decision, you have to pin the blame on the man who married her and believed that he was doing the best thing for her. And because this has been litigated into the ground, I can honestly say that there is no substantial evidence that he did not have her best interests at heart.

[Al]

Hi Craig, I beg to differ. Her husband admitted that he did not know her wishes and it was his wish for her to die. Yes, it was litigated, but out of the umpteen court rulings, medical evidence was only presented a few times. Most of the rulings were more procedural. This was a medical issue and the medical side of it was short circuited by her husband. She hadn't had the proper evaluations in years. I didn't see the harm in re-evaluating her. Furthermore, her parents offered to take care of her; her husband could have washed his hands of this years ago. It's almost like his battle with her parents became more important than Terri. Again, this would have been a non-issue if he just backed off.
This Judge Greer did an aweful job of determining her wishes. With her family so strongly against it, how could the judge go along with her husband's thoughts.
And the Republicans were accused of politicizing it! All the Dems had to do is go along with it (i.e. push to let her live) and there wouldn't have been such a frenzy. Why the left is the Party of Death (except for criminals) is beyond comprehension.

My advice for everyone is a) to get the living will and other papers lined up and to pick someone who does not have any interested in your death as the decision maker, and b) choose doctors with a conservative bent (i.e. ones that won't give up so easily and care about the your life.)

[craig]

Al,
I don't understand. You previously made the statement that the government is to blame for allowing Terri Schiavo to die, but you go on to state that her husband did wrong by allowing her to die. (An opinion I respect by the way.)

I also don't wish to argue whether the courts did a good job in determining that Michael Schiavo had her best wishes at heart. (I respect your opinion and interpretation of the facts on this matter as well.)

My only point is that the government only adjudicated the conflict. It did not cause it. Whether it did a good job of adjudicating is another issue. Michael Schiavo decided that his wife should die and the government agreed that the decision was his to make.

Clearly, you don't like the outcome and you reject the concept of a husband choosing a right-to-die outcome for his wife when he's opposed by his wife's family, but the big picture is that the government is setting a precedent that allows the husband to choose for his wife.

If I had to choose someone to make the call for me, it would be my wife, not my family. I chose her. I didn't choose relatives.

Hopefully, this will prevent future clashes from become horribly public.

And Al, a whole lot of people feel differently about death than you do and it crosses all political boundaries. I have respect for your belief in fighting for life to the last gasp, please have respect for my belief in death with dignity.

[Al]

Craig, I don't have a problem with with you or I deciding each or our fates (individually) in such a situation ahead of time. But I do have a problem when someone's wishes aren't known, the family members are fighting and it goes to the courts without sufficient medical review. And this "death with dignity" seems like a euphemism for euthanasia. I reject this.

The people on the side of death (your side) make a big mistake in assuming that the medical side of this is hopeless. For some reason, they think this "persistent vegitative state" is the end of the show. Like a lot of things, there is more to it and this is why conservatives call the the people who did not want to help to be on the side of death. By ignoring basic facts and just assuming that her husband is right, these people earn the distinction of being odd. If she was a grounded whale, she would have received huge support from most of the very same people.
Take a look at:
http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/johansen200503160848.asp

You said "If I had to choose someone to make the call for me, it would be my wife, not my family. I chose her. I didn't choose relatives." I whole heartedly agree. But you and I trust our wives now. Your wishes and my wishes may be well known and even written down, but Terri's weren't. That's why it went to court. We read every day about spouses who kill the other or do mean things. Her husband admitted that killing her is her wish and that her wishes were unknown. There is a shadow of doubt about what her husband did. With such flimsy evidence and such limited medical involvement, why not let her family take over for her care?????? Why did her husband deny her medical care? So your "death with dignity" ignores basic facts and, in this case, it's euthanasia.

I'll just repeat my advice: My advice for everyone is a) to get the living will and other papers lined up and to pick someone who does not have any interest in your death as the decision maker, and b) choose doctors with a conservative bent (i.e. ones that won't give up so easily and care about the your life.) Sad, but true.

[Howard]

Sadly enough, your question was soon answered, Dan:

Terri Schiavo Cremated Amid Family Feud

By VICKIE CHACHERE, Associated Press Writer

TAMPA, Fla. - Terri Schiavo's body was cremated Saturday as disagreements continued between her husband and her parents, who were unable to have their own independent expert observe her autopsy.

The cremation was carried out according to a court order issued Tuesday establishing that Michael Schiavo had the right to make such decisions, said his lawyer, George Felos. He said plans for burying her ashes in Pennsylvania, where she grew up, had not yet been completed.

Terri Schiavo's parents, Bob and Mary Schindler, had wanted to bury their daughter in Pinellas County so they could visit her grave ...

[Ran Talbott]

"Why didn't the American press point this out?"

Because it's crap, Al: a mixture of innuendo, irrelevancies, and outright lies that wouldn't make it through the editorial screening process of the average high school newspaper.

[Ran Talbott]

"Her husband admitted that he did not know her wishes and it was his wish for her to die."

And your evidence for this woud be?

"She hadn't had the proper evaluations in years."

There hasn't been a new autopsy of JFK in years, either. For essentially the same reason.

"With her family so strongly against it, how could the judge go along with her husband's thoughts."

First, Terry Schiavo was an adult, so the wishes of her parents were legally and morally irrelevant.

Second, according to _you_, the judge _didn't_ "go along with her husband's thoughts."

You've made two mutually-exclusive claims here, Al. So, which is BS? The one about Michael Schiavo's beliefs and statements? The one about what the judge did? Or is it, as usual, both?

[Al]

A few points: First, a correctly worded poll is out and most people are on the life side of the issue.
http://www.zogby.com/Soundbites/ReadClips.dbm?ID=11131

Second, Ran, I know it's tough to go back and read posts on other major threads, so I'll repeat it. On Larry King a few weeks ago....
Michael said he doesn't know her wishes and that is what he wishes.
"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..."
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0503/18/lkl.01.html

As for "mutually-exclusive claims", just reread what I wrote. This is the second thing you've missed. I was pointing out that with Terri's wishes being unknown, all of contradictory wishes between her husband and her family, the lack of medical tests, etc., how could the judge go along with her husband? So I was consistent.

The reality is it is unclear what type of guardian Michael was. His Lawyer of Death, probably a cousin to "Jack The Dripper" Kervorkian, was Chairman of the hospice. The fact is this case is laced with shadows of doubt that make her death close to a killing.

I'll just repeat my advice: My advice for everyone is a) to get the living will and other papers lined up and to pick someone who does not have any interest in your death as the decision maker, and b) choose doctors with a conservative bent (i.e. ones that won't give up so easily and care about the your life.) Sad, but true.

[Ran Talbott]

"First, a correctly worded poll is out and most people are on the life side of the issue."

Of course, it's a "correctly worded poll" about a different set of circumstances. But I guess that, when the facts don't support your position, you have to make do with whatever substitutes you can find, eh?

"On Larry King a few weeks ago....
Michael said he doesn't know her wishes and that is what he wishes"

Perhaps he did, Al. But the transcript says otherwise.

"just reread what I wrote."

You wrote that Michael Schiavo said he didn't know what his wife's wishes were, bu we know that the "evidence" you presented doesn't support that claim.

You then wrote that the judge's ruling "[went] along with her husband's thoughts". But we already knew that it didn't go along with what _you_ claimed to be his thoughts.

"So I was consistent."

Oddly enough, in a way, you were: when Michael Schiavo's expressed attitudes didn't match what you needed for you argument, you took something that he said and distorted it into what you wanted. When the facts of Terri's medical condition didn't fit what you needed, you made up ones that did. When the actual legal issues and rulings got in the way of making your case, you simply substituted fabricated ones that supported it.

So, yes, you've been "consistent": consistently wrong. While I try to avoid ascribing to malevolence that which can be adequately explained by incompetence, your "consistent" attempts to change the subject when cornered also make it very likely that you've been consistently dishonest.

[Ayla]

He most certainly DID say that.
It is in the transcript...
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0503/18/lkl.01.html

I had some difficulty finding it, so here's some of the text before, and after, the comment (hope that it makes it easier to find, should you decide to recheck the transcript)...

M. SCHIAVO: I won't give it up. Terri is my life. I'm going to carry out her wishes to the very end. This is what she wanted. It's not about the Schindlers, it's not about me, not about Congress, it's about Terri.

Now, I want you all to think about going through a judicial process to have your wishes granted and then the Congress and the government walking in on that because of their personal views. That's absurd!

Governor Bush, he's only doing this for votes. And I urge everybody out there, call your Congress, call your House legislators, call your House representatives in Washington and tell them to stay out of our personal business. They're going to be running everybody's life.

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...

KING: You're not -- it didn't cost you anything. This is not something where you're looking to save money?

M. SCHIAVO: No. There's no money involved. We need to move on from that question. That question has been asked me 50 million times. There is no money!

KING: George, what do you think is going to happen? FELOS: Larry, this case has been so unpredictable, it's impossible to say. But we have found a real ground swell of support, especially with that atrocious intervention by the Congress. We've gotten calls, letters, people e-mailed and a lot of people very upset about this.

I mean, it's scary to think that the government, just because they may be ideologically opposed to your medical treatment choice, has a right to overturn what you want. And people are up in arms about this and they're letting their Senators and Representatives know.

[Ran Talbott]

"He most certainly DID say that."

So, it's your contention that a conscience-stricken Schiavo decided to avail himself of the opportunity to reveal his own previously-hidden true feelings by suddenly (and uncharacteristically) referring to himself in the first-person plural when asked if he understood how Terri's parents felt?

So much for Bush' assertion that Americans don't engage in torture...