Thank you! I was starting to wonder if I was going insane. I'll repeat it just to be safe:

"If you read the ample documentation we have supplied to you, he believed too in the first couple of years that therapy might improve her condition. When it became clear that that was not the case and he realized what it would mean to have her living in a PVS forever, and ever, and ever, he petitioned the courts to have the feeding tube removed."

Incidentally, here is some information that might be relevant (from http://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/infopage.html):

Why did Terri’s husband get to make the decision about whether she should live or die?

Michael Schiavo did not make the decision to discontinue life-prolonging measures for Terri.

As Terri's husband, Michael has been her guardian and her surrogate decision-maker. By 1998, though -- eight years after the trauma that produced Terri's situation -- Michael and Terri's parents disagreed over the proper course for her.

Rather than make the decision himself, Michael followed a procedure permitted by Florida courts by which a surrogate such as Michael can petition a court, asking the court to act as the ward's surrogate and determine what the ward would decide to do. Michael did this, and based on statements Terri made to him and others, he took the position that Terri would not wish to continue life-prolonging measures. The Schindlers took the position that Terri would continue life-prolonging measures. Under this procedure, the trial court becomes the surrogate decision-maker, and that is what happened in this case.

The trial court in this case held a trial on the dispute. Both sides were given opportunities to present their views and the evidence supporting those views. Afterwards, the trial court determined that, even applying the "clear and convincing evidence" standard -- the highest burden of proof used in civil cases -- the evidence showed that Terri would not wish to continue life-prolonging measures.

He waited 8 years. Is there any amount of time he could have waited that would satisfy his critics? If he'd said immediately "let's pull the plug" people would have criticized him for being too quick. Maybe after 8 years of watching her just persist with no hope of ever getting better it struck him that this is never going to end, and that she wouldn't want to linger forever in this state.

OK, I under stand the postiion you're taking, but this should bother you more than anything:


I know I'm a simpleton and all, but I don't like having a trial court or a single judge deciding matters like these. I don't care where you stand on this issue, but is this a good predcedent?

when it became the husband vs. the family he chose a court to decide. How much more fairer and honestly judicial can you get?

So he essentially is taking the side of the court over her own flesh and blood.

What a hero

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

why are you being obtuse? you know the sides of the issue, the court agreed that the husband was correct that terri would not want to live like this.

let me ask you, what part of the sacrament of marriage and the holy union do you not understand?

well, if her own flesh and blood are wrong about her wishes and only selfishly prolonging her shell's life, then yes, he is a hero.

it's a lot harder to make the tough decision (even when it's what she wanted) then to turn a blind eye to the reality of the situtation and keep her alive (against her wishes) in 'hopes' of a meaningful recovery.

i'd say it takes much more strength of character to let go of her then to keep holding on because you're unwilling to let go. i think i'd call it noble even, to put her wishes ahead of his own.

NONONONONONO!!!

Dude, you're not making any sense at all.

He's not "taking the side of the court", for god's sake!!! He had one opinion about what Terri would want, and her parents had another opinion. He elected AS HER LEGAL GUARDIAN to turn over the decision to an OBJECTIVE body. And in every single instance since he did that 7 YEARS AGO the courts have essentially decided that 1. Terri's in a PVS and has no hope for any recovery, and 2. based on her stated wishes, according to multiple witnesses, she would not wish to remain alive given the circumstances. Every single court case in those 7 years has been as a result of her parent's appeals of the court's decision, and every single trial has come to the conclusion that allowing her to die would be consistent with her wishes.

Y'all can enshrine this guy in bronze all you want, but the fact remains that during this whole time, he has not let her recieve any therapy or rehab that might ease her suffering. He still could have went to the court and seek an "objective" opinion on what to do AND allow her to recieve therapy. He has not even allowed her parents to allow her to go outside for over 3 years.

If this is your defintion of a noble man or a hero, that's y'alls business. However, I personally think the man is a scumbag.

Let's put it this way. If it were your sister or daughter laying there and you needed to go to court to get a ruling to have the tuibe pulled, would you at least want her to recieve some sort of therapy? Hell, or at least allow her go outside?!!?

first of all, she has had plenty of therapy. four years worth, and (according to the timeline found here: http://www.miami.edu/ethics2/schiavo/timeline.htm she was even taken to cali for an experimental brain stimulation treatment).

if i were convinced that my brothers lights were on but no one was home then i wouldn't waste the time, energy or money on more therapy. it would be a waste. what difference would it make to someone who's not aware fo their surroundings whether they're inside or outside? none.

i had a friend from middle school get into a bad car accident and had major head trauma. originally, i heard that she wasn't likely to make it through the week. when she did, i heard that odds were taht if she was going to wake up and have any meaningful recovery, it would have to happen within the first year following the accident. after that, the odds of recovery dropped drastically. luckly, she woke up from her coma after about a month.

michael schavo gave her four years of therapy and it did no good. that's much more than he needed to. and once he realized that there was no chance, he had the balls to follow through with her wish on not being kept alive in that condition. if that were me, i'd hope my loved ones would have the balls too.

**I was posting at the same time HH was.....so its kind of the same but I will let my post stay**


its stated in several places but I will use the last site quoted

http://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/infopage.html

seems to me I see lots of rehab and therapy attempted for her

where do you get that during the whole time he never let her receive therapy or rehab? Are you actually reading anything people are providing because you're comments certainly dont reflect that you are

Let me clarify. He discontinued therapy and rehab after he won the malpractice money that was intended to go towards her care and therapy.

I am. I just don't accept their "facts" as absolutes truths. Heck, I could post my facts as well and see who could out vague each other

so public record court documents arent fact?

I could post court briefs and affdavits as well. Just go to Terri Schiavo's parents website. There are a lot of 'em. However, for every doc that I can post, someone can post another and vice versa. The point is, this is not a clear cut case. If it were, there wouldn't be all this fuss.

hmmm, recieved all malpractice awards by november 1992, therapy continured until sometime in '94. more than a full year after the malpractice awards. sounds like a real quick turnaround to me!

then do so. others have quoted them in his favor, why aren't you quoting the ones in the parents favor?

a discussion where on person says 'the sky's blue, i have this picture of it that proves it' and then produces the picture while the other person says it's polka-dotted and that he too has a picture but won't produce it, well, i know who i'm siding with.

But we agree that he stopped therapy after the settlement, right? And we agree that he stopped the therapy even while the court process was in motion?

the bottom line IS, and always will be, that the spouse has final authority. When the parents objected, he allowed the courts to decide what terri WANTED listening to all reports, testimony, and witnesses. They decided that terri would NOT want to live this way. Now, congress wants to declare the state courts decisions invalid simply because the didn't decide the way they wanted. They DID decide according to laws, signed by jeb bush.

nope. we agree that therapy was stopped eventually, sometime between 13 and 25 months after the court process had ended (assuming the court process you're referring to is the malpractice suits).

The court docs and other docs are here .

If y'all are truly intrested into reading about the rebuttals to her hubby's doctors, then please read. If you're more concerned about seeing her killed because you yourself wouldn't want to live that way, then please don't bother.

ohter than the new 17 affadavits saying there should be new testing (of which none of the links work), there isn't anything in here that leads me to think your agrument has any merit. all of these court documents have already gone through the court system, and it has consistently sided with the husband. all alegations of abuse and neglect have been shown to be meritless and nothing more than stall tactics.

i guess as long as you can cover your ears and yell "i can't hear you" whenever the information is from a non-biased source, you'll just keep listening to only one side of the story. afterall...

you don't seem interested in hearing an opinion other than your own. but at least you win. posting a link to her parents website definatly out-vagues your opposition who directly quote judges rulings, court documents, etc.

forgive me if Im just not seeing them, but with the exception of one doc there is nothing from 96 to 2002...and there seem to be no references on the timeline about the doctors that disagreed with them, but plenty about the ones that did (once again if i missed it please be sure to show me where I overlooked them.

Actually now that I've found a way to search it, Id rather read ALL of the court docs on the florida courts websites.....at least that way I get them all....not the ones that have been picked and chosen.

terrisfight.org. got an unbiased source by chance?

I say unplug her. And yes, most of that is because I don't want to live in a shell for almost a decade; I think it's a form of torture. If her brain is even working at this point...And if not, then they're just keeping her body alive for no reason.

Let me sum up NCB's argument and mentality in this case as it relates to politics, aside from the right to life/ right to death debate:

-Family is more important and has say over court systems.
-In cases where a husband and parents disagree, the parents have the rights.
-It is against common sense to allow the courts to settle matters between family
-The Schindler family should not have to cover the actual medical expenses should they get custody, that should be left to the tax payers and insurance company.
-The court/legal system has overstepped it authority by interfering in such a family dispute, and it is up to the Federal Gov to stop this "activism"

What NCB still hasn't clarified for us:
- If you argued in "gay marriage" threads about the sanctity of marriage, then why are you arguing for interfering in that sanctity now? Becuase you don't like the husband, and suspect his actions, doesn't actually give any government authority to jave a say according to your previous marriage arguments.
Please clarrify..

You really are talking out your ass at this point. Would you care to deny any of the above bias's? Would you care to define who will cover the costs associated with her care? How about how long she should be kept alive? Indefinitly?

Also it;s worth knowing should you choose to answer, what religion and subset are you Son, I mean NCB?

The bloodlust in here is unbearable.

Perhaps it's time we stop and remember that this is an actual human being we're talking about, not an abstract, faceless person.

How great, avoid the other arguments when you can't seem to ignore it.

Oh and try pulling that one in a thread about a war and other people... and we get laughed?

Not working here man.

we do remember that. and we remember that the evidence is 'clear and convincing' that she would not want to be kept alive in the state she's in.

now will you please remember that this an actual human being we're talking about, one who left instructions with her husband and friends, not an abstract, faceless person?

Whats interesting to me, is that on the site NCB posted there is a statement that says
but yet.......she did that with her husband and friends and they want to discount it

she told her husband, who is the most important family member AND she told friends.....albeit it should have been written down....but I feel even if it had been her parents would still be fighting it.

If you can please show me the link as to where I can find these words written by her to her hubby and friends ( :rolleyes: ), that would be much appreciated. Thanks.

Oh wait, that's right. She verbalized it to them and they came out years later and said that is what she wanted. I forgot.

and thats the rub. some people wish to ignore the sanctimony between husband and wife.

More than a dozen courts have all sided with the husband. His intentions may be suspect to some, but I think he is showing fidelity to his wife, and I think he really never thought he would see his (former) marriage under the scrutiny it is under. Neither he nor Terri's estate pays for her care. Who wants Congress or federal courts deciding end-of-life cases? Think of your own parents and siblings and spouses. Ask them what they want, and get a living will.

No rub, I just want to see the compelling evidence of Terri's true wishes.

It ain;t there, and this case comes down to this: Is it best to err on the side of life or err on the side of death? Y'all made your positons pretty clear, and I've made mine. I believe in the message of life, which is the message of the Torah and of Catholicism as well.

So HH, is the Torah wrong on this?

can we assume that if the roles were reversed and the parents were the ones wanting to take the tube out and the husband didnt, that you would be so obscurly blind in the face of the evidence(regarding court testamonies that were found to be compelling evidence)?

1. that there was compelling evidence of her verbal wishes was deemed by the court. unless you wish to discount our entire legal system, i'm going to stand by the judges ruling.

2. i believe that it is best to err on the side of life when there is life to err in favor of. this does not happen to be the case.

3. while i may be a jew by birth, don't mistake my handle and avatar (which if anything poke fun at religion) as a belief in the religion of my ancestors.

but...

from what i do know of my religion from hebrew school, nowhere in the torah does it say anything about 'erring on the side of life.' nor do i think you will actually find any part of it to really be able to be interpreted that way when taken metaphorically. yes, the torah, and judiasm, hold life in high regard, but i think that given the particulars of this case, they would agree she should be allowed to have her body join her spirit.

Look, before we bring up these bengin legal terms, how about reading the "compelling evidence" that her family has brought up but was muted by the courts.

Despite y'alls fierce arguements, there are nor winners here. Thus, how about treating this as a human issue instead of a legal issue? Otherwise, your apparent bloodlust comes off as pretty sickening

what bloodlust is it that you keep mentioning? no one wants to see her mauled. we want to see her wishes carried out.

dispite your lack of arguments, there will be a winner and a loser, unfortuantly if congress and the pres get their way, it's gonna be the wrong side.

if there is 'compelling' evidence that her family brought up but was muted in court, please, bring it to our attention. don't like to her parents website and say 'lookee here!' find the links to the specific stuff and show us. until then, i think most anything you say from this point on will be pretty meaningless.

I have no desire to continue a discussion with someone that cant answer a simple question directed specifically to them and would rather argue that any comments made in court that didnt go this poor lady's way are not factual and hold different meanings than it would if they had gone they other way.

Im out

I believe we are treating this as a human issue. Humans have a right to dignity, including death with dignity. Keeping her alive in the condition that she's in is not a dignified life, and not one that she would have chose for herself.

What does keeping her alive do for anyone? (I'm heartless right?) Does anyone think that she's going to wake up and jog around the block? Let the woman go.


She had no idea of what her future held, which is why she never put it down in writing what her wishes would be, but somehow, I don't think her parents would have cared much.

It is there, in numerous court rulings after hearing all testimony. why do you choose to ignore it?