another take on the Terri Shiavo issue...

I'll be the first to tell you that I do not know all of the specifics of the case. I am sure most of you guys and gals don't either. But let me throw out one take on the situation that I haven't heard.

Now, the husband is stating that Terri's wishes were not to be left on artificial life support if incappacitated. Most of the people here says he is a liar and that may be so, but he may also be completely honest and true to his late wife. If so, it seems totally justified that he is fighting what her family wants. If she wanted to be let go, I think he may want to fight for her wishes to become realized. That does explain why he is still married and fighting for her while he has moved on with his personal life. If I was in his position and I knew for a fact that my wife did not want to be on life support, I would damn well fight for her decision no matter what anyone said. There seems to be no way to come out of this condition if it is true that her cerebral cortex is missing or whatever it is (like I said I don't know all the facts). I just wanted to throw that viewpoint out there and see what people think. I am off jogging. Go FISH!!!!

I am not sure if he is the guardian, but he does get money if she does. However, my impression is that he is not really doing it for the money.

It makes perfect sense for him to have done what he's done, including getting on with his life.

implemented prior to the PVS diagnosis. In 1993 Michael Schiavo and the Schindlers had a falling out about the medical compensation the same year they sought to remove him as legal guardian, the case was dismissed.
She will never recover and she will never improve her so called responses are reflexive, common in PVS patients.

a few nights ago, i read a huge debate condemning the husband on all fronts... go FISH!!!!

After all, he has a child with another woman and another child on the way. He wants to marry this woman and would be married to her if it weren't for his living wife. As far as I am concerned from an ethical/spiritual standpoint, he is no longer married to Terri. He is married to the other woman. For this reason, the parents wishes should be respected. If he were sincere, he should have made her wishes known to the doctors soon after her injury if not immediately. He should have divorced her if he was no longer committed to her.

He was asked why he was doing this now and he said
the parent's appeals had been exhausted. I don't
think its about money at all.

a man to stay faithful to a wife that he believes is no longer living in this world. It has been 13 years since her accident. I would expect him to be committed to whats left of his wife as much as I would expect a woman stay with a man that has been in jail for 13 years with no hope of getting out or the wife of a husband who has been MIA for that long. Unless the family can prove the husband has ill reasons for his positions, that he is lying, or that she is not brain dead and can be rehabilitated, then the court shouldrespect the wishes of Terri Shiavo's spouse. Otherwise, what is the point of spousal privilege???

in 1998. In Oct 2001 her parents petitioned the court and received permission to have physicians evaluate Terri's condition, 2 for the parents, 2 for the husband and 1 for the court. Oct 2002 3 of the physicians, 2 from the husband and the 1 from the court, testified that Terri Schiavo was in irreversible PVS. Nov 2002, the Schindlers, Terri's parents, alleged her injuries may have been due to spousal abuse, the case was dismissed.
Terri Schiavo suffered a heart attack due to a potassium imbalance which resulted in a lack of O2 to the brain causing brain damage.

This is what really bothers me in this case. Can you think of any rational reason why she would express the wish not to be on life support to him but to no other relative? I find it extremely coincidental that the sole relative with a financial motive is the person to whom she told this information.

It is my understanding he has very little to gain from ending her suffering. There have been famous cases where parents have had to fight the RTL ppl, Nancy Cruzan, Christine Busalacchi. I have an exercise for you go google Terri Schiavo's name,, you'll find an overwhelming amount of RTL web links.

which is by any measure a tidy sum. That low six figures estimate was a quote from his own lawyer it should be noted.

For instance, my wife knows my wishes on a fair number of jams that I might find myself in (e.g., if I stroke out, mash my head, get all demented, and the like). No other person knows what I want done. My mother knows only the basics of what I'd want for myself, largely from experience with watching me reach a decision about whether or not to take my daughter off a ventilator, and from advice I've given when my father was dying.

these people are saying she would never want to be removed. This isn't a detail question here. I literally can't imagine going through that twice and can't express how sorry I am for you on that score. But having gone through it once and facing the fear of AIDS my parents know quite well what I want in that regard and I have written out a living will. Again this isn't some niggling detail the husband and the parents are literally 180 degrees apart here.

Had that not happened to me, she may not know.

and I know what he wants. I have told his daughter and his mother but they have never asked him. We each have a living will because his 3 sisters are very willful, and all three are nurses. Also because his sisters are in the nursing profession any medical evaluation can not be made with anyone connected to the family. He could never be on life support, he would come back to haunt me.

You may have only told your spouse but you also have living wills which she didn't.

It was the Cruzan decision of 1990 that was a major driving force in living wills. Cruzan vs. Missouri (when Ashcroft was governor) was the USSC case that said a state may demand evidence of a preference to not have aggressive life-sustaining measures.

in this world in a PVS state. We will abide by each other wishes. Why is it strange to think that most coupples would not have similar conversations? Who better to look out for each other's best interests?

My heart goes out to families that are faced with this awful situation....I can't imagine, as a parent, pulling the plug on either of my kids. But after 13 years and the medical prognosis completely rules out recovery from essentially a "living dead" state, aren't the parents/family being somewhat selfish in keeping this body alive? Who is benefiting from this? The parents who get to see the living remains of their daughter and/or avoid making a difficult decision? Is Ms. Sciavo benefiting from being confined to a bed with no apparent interaction in this world?

I see no winners in this so called "right-to-life" victory.....isn't life more than the mechanical preservation of a body?

If you really believed in the hereafter, I'd think these people would be wondering why this poor women is being kept from the eternal love of the Creator.

what I find suspicious is the family's lack of knowledge coupled with his knowledge. These people were not married all that long. She was a full adult before she was married. I find it exceptionally hard to believe this just came up with him but not with any other family member. Do you know your children's wishes in this regard?

correctly, they were living in Florida and her parents lived in Pennsylvania. It's perfectly logical that she might mention something like that to her husband. I know I have.

and his wife. I heard friends testified too, but I haven't looked for it yet. The more I read on this, the more I think the husband is doing the right thing. This family sounds like right wing Catholics who are misinterpreting Catholic doctrine.

"And also Theresa Schiavo mentioned to her husband and to her brother and sister-in-law that she would not want to be kept alive artificially."

http://www.terrisfight.org/Headlines/MurphysTestamony.htm

very involved in this. My red flags went up. Anyone else have anything to share?

Some minister's are very concerned about their members especially when they are experiencing something this dramatic. If Terri's parents are involved in their church and have been members for a while, I think that it would be natural for him to be involved. Life and death are spiritual matters for those that are believers.

I wonder why he just doesn't divorce her and let her parents deal with it. They had her for much longer than he did. Any parent would feel abused by this situation. I don't believe that a spouse's wishes should prevail over a family's. We all know that there are spouses and then, there are spouses.

Why does he care if her family takes her and loves her until they are ready for her to die? After all, he has stopped loving her, but they haven't.

It was also my understanding that there was a considerable amount of money involved, and that money was supposed to go for all sorts of therapy for her, which, to my knowledge, she has not received, or so her family claims. At one point, he sued for the money to care for her. This was predicated on many, many years of therapy and care. This fight has been going on for over five years. I would like to know why he just doesn't let her go. After all, if she is in a vegetative state and considered brain dead, she has no feelings, but her family does. They, the family, need to exhaust all remedies in order to let her go. Some of those remedies could work. I know personally that brain damage can repair itself, of course, to different degrees. After all, it's not hurting her if she is indeed braindead. What's the problem?

No death. Jeb did something right for once, by ordering the tube to be reinserted. I do not support the MURDER - and that's what it is, murder - of an adult woman.

If Terri's wishes were documented, and those wishes were to be removed from life support, would you still consider the act murder?
If the answer is yes, do you also support the imprisonment of people who attempt suicide? Or should we target their family members instead for not preventing their loved ones from committing "self-murder"?

HER WISHES WERE NOT DOCUMENTED. IF SHE HAD A LIVING WILL I WOULD HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH HER FEEDING TUBE BEING REMOVED. SHE DIDN'T LEAVE ONE. THE POINT IS MOOT. GREENIE :puke:

There is a woman who is now alive and well, completely recovered, whose life was only saved by a nurse. That's not unimportant. There have been 2 other women killed, one of which acts (I can't recall the victim's name--it was one of 2 another poster cited in the other thread) definitely sounded like outright judicially-permitted murder at the instigation of, in that case, her father.