A Letter From A Terri Schiavo Supporter
Dean
I just got an interesting email:
Dean,
I would like to take a moment by asking you to please look into more details regarding the Terri Schiavo case. There are numerous court documents available to you on several websites. If you would be interested, I would be pleased to send you this information, I am almost certain it is available electronically. Terri's case is not what it seems. Please look into it. Michael Schiavo is not a nice man working in his wife's best interest... he's working towards his own best interest and this is a travesty.
I am a liberal Democrat. My father is a blogger and conducts the Hyscience blog. He is as right wing as they come... but not in this case. I have met the brother of Terri Schaivo and he has every right to question Michael Schiavo's motives. Unfortunately, their conservative leaning is only hurting them more but this is NOT Terri's fault! Please read everything that is available regarding her case before you judge further.
Your help could make a huge difference to Terri. I am personally trying to introduce her cause to as many in the left hemisphere as possible. I'm convinced this is her only hope.
If I can in any way help you find more info, please contact me.
I have a note book filled with court transcripts which tell a completely different story from what has been available to the media.
Patricia
All Related Posts (on one page) | Some Related Posts:
- The Schiavo Case
- New Development in Schiavo Case...And I'm Puzzled
- The Courage of their Convictions...
- Overwhelming Media Presence
- A Letter From A Terri Schiavo Supporter
- Terri Schiavo Re-Revisited
- Terry Schiavo
Terri is not in a coma. She is not in a "persistant vegitative state" as defined by the law, because she can respond to stimuli and perform voluntary actions, such as laughing, or tracking an object with her eyes.
I've read this and that about the case - and I can't say for certain what is what about it; in keeping with my pro-life views, I cannot agree that food and water should ever be denied a human being regardless of their condition, and this is what impells me to oppose Mr. Schiavo in his quest to end his wife's life.
Taking a generous view of the matter, I've decided not to ascribe any evil motives to any party to the case - but our standing as a civilized people depends upon our willingness to succor the most helpless in our society...allowing one of our own to starve to death because this is "better" than living does not commend itself to me.
I do believe that. It's Michael Schiavo's decision to make. Period. That's the end of it. Now, if her family wants to take her off the feeding tube, take her home and feed her themselves, have at it. Don't think that's what they want, though. They want the best of both worlds. They want her taken care of, paid for by someone other than them, so they can visit and shoot videos of her "responding" to them. Either you take responsibility for her 100% or you take none. Not only do they want things their way, but they want it on their terms, too. Sorry, doesn't work that way.
I'm commenting, though, because I'm really bothered by Patricia's email to Dean. Perhaps I misunderstood, but I'm really offended that she thinks keeping Terri alive is a "Liberal" issue. That her "Right-wing" father is somehow not being right-wing in defending Terry's right to life. That being conservative is hurting their advocacy to let Terri live.
From what I've seen, it's Liberals who harbor euthenasia in their worldview as a significant right. It's Liberals who look at 'quality of life' as an issue when deciding whether to abort or pull feeding tubes, not Conservatives.
Of course, if I am misunderstanding her email, then I apologize for and retract my vehement response.
Sorry, but this case isn't that cut and dried - and I'll pass off your characterization of the Schindlers as being parasites of the system to the limitations of this medium.
I have followed this case for awhile and her parents are indeed willing to take over responsibility for her care - but Michael Schiavo refuses to grant them custody.
This isn't about money; it's about two sides claiming to know what Terri would want. I'm suspicious of Michael's motives, and I believe that parents have natural rights that cannot be ignored.
Given a choice between life and death, I believe that we must choose the path that isn't irrevocable: life.
I prefer "Let Terri Live". That's a good phrase, it's not ambiguous, and it actually has more emotional impact than "Terri Schiavo supporter" anyway.
Am I the only one a little disconcerted about a guy with questionable motives with-holding treatment/therapy from his wife for years? Even before this, he refused any treatment that might improve her condition. If he were so concerned about letting her linger in this condition, why wait ten years!?! The image of him as a loving husband with her best interests at heart is ridiculous.
The whole thing is a mess.
Perhaps this is a wake-up call that husbands and wives SHOULDN'T have automatic rights. Perhaps there should be medical-power-of-attorny documents involved (which can be terminated at a moments notice in the event of separation or distrust).
The "if I'm sick, let me die" argument assumes that she would have been peachy keen with living a bed ridden, feeding tube existance for what could very well turn out to be decades. As I've said in previous comments, my wife and I have had this discussion, and she is well aware of the condition Terry is in, and her assertion is NO, she does NOT want to live like that, and she also would never believe she needed to, or would ever consider discussing that fact with anyone other than her CLOSEST family member, ME.
It's funny. I go to Scott's "The Razor" site, and find this:
Why has everyone ignored the feelings - if not the natural rights - of Terry's parents? As a parent, I believe that no one has the right to decide the life and death of my children.
Little tip for you, she isn't a "child" anymore. She ceased to be so when she turned 18, and what's more, she entered into a social contract with her husband when they were married. This idea that they have "natural rights" is without precedent. The law is clear and the legal rights begin and end with her husband. Always have. Always will.
From the Terri Schiavo Foundation page:
"GOAL: To cause a change in the guardian laws that bring about a situation like Terri's. Current guardian laws can allow a spouse to have complete control over a loved-one's life and death and can clear the path for euthanasia of that loved-one, against the immediate family's objections."
Terry's immediate family is her husband. End of story. Her parents and siblings are family by birth. Michael is her family by CHOICE.
"MYTH: This is just a family battle over money.
FACT: In 1992, Terri was awarded nearly one million dollars by a malpractice jury and an out-of-court malpractice settlement which was designated for future medical expenses. Of these funds, less than $50,000 remains today. "
So Michael is out to win the million dollars, eh ? Money is gone. Don't bother with where it was spent, it's gone. There is no "inheritance". I guess Michael Schiavo's nefarious motives just took a hit.
The discussion is muddled because the case itself is muddled. Don't think that you're the only party to truth, and those of us who are weighing in on the Schindler's side are stupid or have some kind of agenda.
My argument based on natural rights has no legal basis, but matters of life and death aren't simply legal matters. Morality plays a part, and the simple logical conclusion that when a dispute between life or death arises, we should choose life.
If Terry Schindler-Schiavo were on death row, she would be granted better legal protection than she is now. Her condition is not "beyond a reasonable doubt"; good people disagree on her condition.
One more thing: You are cherry-picking from Terri's website.
You make this comment above:
This is from "Myths about Terri" from Terri's Website:
So I guess you agree with her supporters after all.
Welcome to the insurgency.
There are worse things than death.
If she's brain damaged to the point that she reacts on instinct and has little cognition of her own "self," better for her. Let her parents continue to care for her.
If, on the other hand, she's still half-way intelligent behind the wreck her body has become, that's a horror almost too awful to contemplate. Is she in pain? Can she communicate that to her caregivers with any clarity? Imagine not being able to even scratch a simple itch somewhere...
I've spent the last few years being primary caregiver to family members who were dying. First, my grandfather with Alzheimer's, then my father with cancer, and now my mother-in-law with congestive heart failure. And if I've learned anything over the years of caregiving, it's that there's no way in hell I'd ever want to make anyone care for me the same way.
If I'm in that position, I say let me go, and I say it vehemently. I value life too much to live it like that. Life in that state is not life.
Having said that, I'll qualify my statement: That's how I feel for ME. If Terri has family that want to continue caring for her and it's not obvious that she's in a lot of pain, then by all means, have at it. I'm not advocating genocide by euthanasia. I'm just saying I would NOT want to live the way Terri is, that's all.
So is Mr. Schiavo the monster some portray? I don't know, but I can see myself being placed in his shoes, so I must have some sympanthy. If indeed we are talking about mere food and water, and no "artificial" means, then I don't think he or anyone has a right to deny that anymore than parents may starve their children. However, his view of her state of awareness is different than those I have seen from her supporters. I'm not convinced that she's as much "there" as they claim. The man has a right to go on with his life. If that means that she lives and her family cares for her, thst seems a good result. Somebody needs to make that happen. But he should not be held hostage and be forced to continue the role of husband. He's done that long enough.
Steve
Then get a freakin' divorce and be done with it. Everyone would understand that - including the Schindlers.
However, Schiavo doesn't want to do that. He wants Terri to die.
Look, I'm not against the right to die although I am pro-life. We can try to place ourselves in Michael's or Terri's places and come to different conclusions as to what we would do and wouldn't do. Truth be told, we don't know all the facts except for this one:
Michael wants his wife to die and her parents don't.
There is no way to compromise here, no Schrodinger's Cat-type outcome where everyone can be satisfied. When faced with such a decision, I believe that the default should be life - not death.
Ah, see. There's the crux of the argument.
My response: bullshit.
However: I simply disagree with you fundamentally here. Her parents and siblings DO matter, and DO have a standing.
Oddly enough, as it happens, I have made it very clear to my wife that if I'm a vegetable I don't want to live. I've also made that clear to lots of other people.
Michael says his wife expressed this. Her relatives all say this is bunk. I do not think the state should hold the husband-wife bond so sacred that other immediate relatives have no say at all. Sorry, I just do not.
I otherwise revert to what Scott said. He said it most eloquently. If there is doubt, err on the side of life. And I do support the right to die. I just think there is sufficient doubt here--and I also think that SMA is right above: dying of thirst (which is what would happen here, the lack of water would do her in before the lack of nourishment) is simply horribly cruel.
the hospice nurses gave us literature that explained this mechanism of dying, and it actually was a pretty humane way for Dad to go, because as he slipped into a coma, he wasn't feeling the horrendous pain anymore.
If it were me, I'd say pull the tube and let me go.
But Terri isn't you. Terri is alive and is on the same "life support" as you or me: air, food and drink. She breathes on her own. She moves. Is she the way she was? No, but she is a human being - a living, breathing, human being.
Supporters of her family such as me are accused of being "selfish" for not wanting to execute her. However, people who call for her execution (sorry, that's what it is - let's call a spade a spade) keep on seeing her through their eyes, their fears, their morality or lack thereof. Now who is the one being selfish?
Terri's situation is unique and her own. All we are asking for is for her to be granted a single human right: the right to life.
---
Dean,
I tried to post in response to Nathan's comments to my email but it didn't work, several times. Could you post this for me?
Nathan,
You did misunderstand me, or rather, I didn't mean to insinuate what you perceived. The Right has gone the extra mile to help Terry... with the governor's help even. But my concern is that this is an issue that should be embraced by both sides because it is a human rights issue, not just right to life. Attention to Terri's cause has been loud on the Right but where is the Left? I think it's possibly so loud on the right that the left is possibly being turned off by it. Terri's life depends on everyone coming forth and noticing this injustice no matter what their political affiliation. Unfortunately the public has been told very little of the truth about Terri and that can be helped by simply educating the public on this case, including unmasking her estranged husband and displaying him for what he is.
As far as whether or not Michael Schiavo is removing Terri's feeding tube at Terri's wishes: This is what he had to say to his ex girlfriend, Cindy Shook, which she would only admit under oath after being subpoenaed and deposed on May 8, 2001:
"How the hell should I know. We never spoke about this. My God, I was 25 years old. How the hell should I know? We were young. We never spoke of this."
No, I'm not Terri. But let it be noted here that I'm stating, unequivocally and officially, that in similar circumstances, I would want the feeding tube pulled.
I've said it before and I'll say it again: A life like that is no life at all, and it is one I would not want to live. Would you? Honestly, putting yourself in Terri's situation, what would you want for yourself?
Of course, Terri's family (and the courts, apparently) are the ones to decide for her, in light of the fact that she is in this position without a legal document defining her wishes in such an event.
And no, her relatives ought never to have such a right to call the shots on her life and death. The right to life of an embryo or fetus is something I will never defend. The right to life of an adult -- even an impaired one -- is something I will fight to protect.
As SMA points out, we don't breed nazis in this country, and I'd be one of the first people to advocate shooting them dead if we did breed them for some perverted purpose, so let's stop talking about euthenasia and other nonsense.
Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI