Reply #36: Care to define "proven"? [View All]

The courts certainly thought it was.

"So it's an open question whether using her name indeed reflects a philosophy that she in fact held."

Only for those who reject the court's findings.

"I have no doubts about his dedication to her in the earlier years after the event and what he went through to ensure her care. SO I have no belief in any evil intentions on his part."

"But, as the years progressed and the hopelessness became obvious attitudes and his emotions likely changed."

I see no confusion here. Initially there was uncertainty about whether Terri would recover, and to what extent. Once it became obvious she was never going to recover, her wishes about end-of-life treatment came into effect. As her husband and legal guardian, it was his responsibility to carry out those wishes, which he did despite all efforts to stop him, persuade him, bribe him.

"The Schindlers were desperate. It is sad that what they wanted was not reality. I blame the exploiters of their desperation, not them. If the situation was reversed he might have felt and acted similarly."

And that was what the courts were for: to resolve this in the best interests of Terri.

"He won, however an empty victory that was. I have doubts - without any knowledge - that Terri would have wanted him to exploit her name at the emotional expense of her parents and siblings. In any case, I don't think it's the right thing to do."

And you think Terri would want her parents to exploit her name as they've done repeatedly, in front of TV cameras and on the net, making money from speaking engagements disparaging Michael and the courts who released her from her prison?

I think their emotional state is their problem, not Michael's and not Terri's. Michael has every right to start a pac in her name to help ensure what happened to her never happens to anyone else. That's exactly the argument the Schindlers have used in naming their advocacy group which is dedicated towards interfering in every end-of-life case just as the RW interfered in the decision about Terri.

"Your characterization is false. The state has a proper role in such matters - to ensure that the rights of the ill and incapacitated are protected against those that might have bad intentions. That is what the courts did in a deliberate and thorough fashion. The problem in this case was the politicization and grandstanding and the interference of third parties."

Come now, I'm not talking about the Florida court proceedings. I'm talking about Jeb Bush and the unconstitutional 'Terri's Law'. I'm talking about DeLay, Frist and Bush ramming through unconstitutional law through Washington.

"There are other names fot the PAC - with clearer meaning - he could have chosen to persue the goals - which I don't disapprove of. Using Terri's name is exploitive and inappropriate."

Then I am sure you are just as upset that the Schindlers have been doing it for years, using Terri's name to champion a cause that kept her locked up in a vegetative state for years. I'm sure you're upset they are using her name to interfere in the end-of-life cases of others, creating problems for other families as they did with Michael.

I support Michael's effort to get Terri's name associated with a cause that holds the politicians who interfered in her case to account.

The Schindlers are not the victims here. Michael and Terri are, and always were the victims.