February 17, 2005

Terri Schiavo

Read this and tell me that you don't experience a "RCOB" moment.

Here we have a judge presuming to make a medical determination against the sworn affidavits of qualified medical personnel, not even allowing a brain scan that would prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that Terri was "in there". This to provide relief to a sick puss-bag of a husband that took money awarded into his trust for rehabilitative care for his wife, and never provided that care.

In my own humble opinion, he should suffer the fate he would visit upon his wife, he should be strapped down to a bed and allowed to starve/dehydrate to death.

Bloodthirsty? Maybe....I prefer to call it poetic justice.

Posted by Delftsman3 at February 17, 2005 05:28 PM

I'm not sure what to think of the husband in this case. The way I look at it is if he wants to move on with his life let the court order him divorced or whatever and let the people who love her take care of her. Her husband said that this is only hurting Terri. However, on the other hand he said she was not aware of her surroundings. If that's the case then she realy don't care. She is only assisted with the feeding tube. How do we know when she had this so called disscussion with her husband about what she wanted in the case something like this happened that she was talking about something keeping her heart and lungs going. Not a feeding tube. As I understand her heart and lungs are working on their own.

on 8/12/2003 I had a nephew born with a deadly disorder called trisomy 13. He to had to have a feeding tube. His brain was not fully developed so in a since he was like Mrs. Schiavo. We were told he could live days or years no one could say. No one ever would ever think of taking his feeding tube away. It would have been seen as cruel and inhumain. So I ask who has the say to value one LIFE but not the other. The news, goverment,courts,and people of the world would have judged my family badly but their are so many that seems to think this is ok. It's NOT. She smiles and looks around she is alive. My nephew passed away at the age of 2 months. I can tell you one thing for sure his mother and father took every day they had with him as a blessing as well as the rest of the family. We have memories that we never would have had if we would have let him starve to death.

Thank You.

Posted by: Melissa Giles at February 23, 2005 05:26 AM

I have read the doctor's reports and am appalled that the courts keep ruling with the husband. His complete disregard for his wife's life, however less than perfect, is an indicator of his culpability. I think that the injuries she sustained that left her in her present state were supposed to have killed her. I think that the husband's repeated efforts to legally kill her are only more evidence that he wants the money and he wants her dead so he doesn't have to share it with her. Otherwise, why didn't he just divorce her years ago and let her be taken care of by her parents?

I have worked with autistic children and patients who had severe brain injuries. Her condition is by no means "vegetative." If she received the rehabilitation that the money was supposed to provide, perhaps she would recover to the point that she could communicate to her caregivers just WHAT happened the day she was found so badly injured.

Perhaps this is precisely why her husband is fighting so much for her to die?

Posted by: Lorraine at February 24, 2005 03:28 AM

I think you have hit the nail on the head Lorraine. I was a LEO for almost ten years, and in every investigation, there was a 85% chance that in a situation such as this, a family member was responsible for the injuries done.

That the court has sided with the husband in almost every instance points out one of the flaws in our legal system, ie, that the closest family member is held to have the highest standing in decisions regarding an incapacitated person. It makes some sense, but every individual case should be examined on it's own merits. In this case, I believe it's obvious that Mr. Schiavo has not acted in the best interests of his wife, to the point of being not merely negligent, but criminally culpable.

Posted by: delftsman3 at February 24, 2005 04:04 AM

I tend to agree with the postings that I find in this discussion thread. But if Terri Schiavo is to be terminated, it should be done by instantaneous means, since removing a feeding tube is not as easy as switchting off a machine. Starvation is a cruel way to die, bringing forth more of the euthanasia or "assisted suicide" controversy. It might mean killing her as a veterinarian would a terminally ill pet or an overcrowded animal shelter would "put to sleep" its excess clientele, and also the lethal injection used as execution in the case of prisoners held for capital offenses! I can think of other ways for a quick "humane" death but they might sound morbid.

Next-of-kin should be established by "blood" or DNA kinship, which the Schindlers are and Mr. Schiavo is not. Terri's intentions were never established by a Living Will, so the husband's claim is hearsay, inadmissible in a court of law. She is thus more a part of the ones who sincerely love her, and definitely not the man's property.

This case reminds me of the famous "Solomonic" trial in 1 Kings 3:16-28.

Posted by: Juan Rivera at March 24, 2005 06:34 AM
Post a comment

Remember personal info?