What Will Michael Schiavo Do? - Page 6

cristina1 · #**201** 03-25-2005, 11:08 AM

Wow, Pippa - I never knew that either.

**drmomentum**[$] · #**202** 03-25-2005, 11:14 AM

I didn't mean to imply you trusted the Schindlers -- but using you as an example did imply I was responding directly to you and I apologize.

What I meant to convey by bringing your example up was that it is completely understandable that these people are driven by their strong emotions, as you said you would be. While understandable, it renders them untrustworthy.

As a parent, I can put myself in the place of the Schindlers and see that they're acting (though IMHO wrongly) out of love. I can't say if I would act wrongly if similarly afllicted. It boggles my mind, what they have gone through. Unfortunately, I think their love is manifesting itself unhealthily, in the same way some parents can be an unhealthy factor in the lives of their grown children. Some parents never let their relationship mature.

The Schindlers seem to want Terri to be their childlike doll. I say this because they don't acknowledge, respect or honor the bonds and decisions she made as an adult. To me that is unhealthy in any parent, even if it is out of the emotion of love. We are emotional beings, but we are not merely emotional. Emotions need to be tempered.

What do we say of the parent who "loves their child to much" to provide boundaries, guidance and discipline? It's an immature love.

You're right, of course, that things need to be stated accurately. And your knowledge regarding this is always invaluable.

-JP

Quote:

jgibson2 said

If you've been actually reading my responses, you know I don't give them much credence. I haven't said much at all about Michael Schiavo except that I disagree with his decision. It's the editorial policy of publications which don't take the time to fact-check or to state things in a clear and cogent fashion which I am questioning. See changes I made to my previous post in which I referred to the NEJM editorials which actually use the correct terminology. I don't agree with them entirely either, but at least they take the time to state things accurately.

**pippadaisy**[$] · #**203** 03-25-2005, 11:37 AM

That was the issue.

Any state legal decision can be appealed to the Federal Supreme Court to question constitutionality. But what galled me was the Congressional belief that this should be sent back down to the District Court for review. Whatever happened to the mantra of states' rights?

*emeleel* · #**204** 03-25-2005, 01:10 PM

Here's one little thing that bothers me about the "but if they're married, the spouse knows more about the parents" argument, at least in Terri's case:

Terri and Michael were married 5 years when this happened, IIRC. She was only 26. I would not expect 20-somethings to have thoroughly discussed this with their spouses, in most cases. Shoot, when we got married I was 23 and I *did* tell hubby that I wanted to have our cemetery plots picked out before our first anniversary (haven't been able to do that yet, 10 years later...) but that was ONLY because I was working at a cemetery before we got married and I saw for myself just how awful it is on the family to have to come in after death to make these decisions. We've been married 10 years now, and until this Schiavo case came along we had never had anything but the most basic, throw-away comment type of discussion of what our wishes would be in the case of severe trauma. We're just in our 30's, hasn't really crossed our minds too awfully much.

I'm not saying that Terri and Michael did not have the conversations that have been presented as evidence. I'm just saying that in a fairly young marriage, between fairly young people, it is entirely possible that the parents *would* actually know at least at much about the adult child's wishes, and it's entirely possible that they might know more.

Remember the case several years ago of the couple that had a bad car accident on their honeymoon and the brain trauma completely erased the wife's memory of her husband? Didn't know him from Adam's housecat, as we say down in these parts. What if the injury had been worse? Would the husband have known for sure what her wishes would have been?

I *know* that someone has got to have the final say, my head knows this. But I just feel so awful about the whole thing, maybe I'm looking for an "out" where there shouldn't be one. Sue me.

**mjfrombuffalo**[$] · #**205** 03-25-2005, 01:17 PM

What I said to my parents at 17 is likely to be different to some degree to what I discussed with my boyfriend at 20 and my fiance at 25. And these discussions can come up pretty casually, like when watching ER or hearing about a relative or the like. I think there's more discussion of end-of-life issues now than before, not even taking this particular case into account.

**pippadaisy**[$] · #**206** 03-25-2005, 02:10 PM

If memory serves, she had an uncle who was somehow severely disabled (after a stroke?) and it was one of those "please don't do THAT to me" conversations, not an in-depth conversation.

Also, another thing to keep in mind is that they had been going through fertility treatments for something like a year. Usually when people start having/thinking about children is when they start thinking of things like that.

But I know that G and I had our "death" conversation right around the time we were married, and he was 25. We both wanted to make sure from the start that if, god forbid, anything were to happen, we knew what the other's wishes were. Of course, his parents are a bit, er, touched, which might have sped that along.

realtraveller · #**207** 03-25-2005, 06:30 PM

Here's Professor Alan Dershowitz saying what I've been saying on this thread...that hearsay testimony of what a person said she wanted (and I'd add a long time ago) should not be enough to overcome a presumption in favor of life.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7284763

A lot of people say "I'd never want to live that way". I've probably said that when talking about Christopher Reeve, for example. Of course, I meant I'd much rather live with no paralysis, fully functional, able to move all my limbs. But did I mean "if I were paralyzed from the neck down I'd rather not have that portable respirator that keeps me breathing", I'd rather be dead than paralyzed". I don't think so.

Hearsay testimony is just too iffy, too subject to subjective interpretations, too easy to fake.

**AuntieEmma**[$] · #**208** 03-25-2005, 06:36 PM

Quote:

Hearsay testimony is just too iffy, too subject to subjective interpretations, too easy to fake.

So change the law, going here on forward. Changing it retroactively FOR ONE SINGLE CASE is crazy. And it goes against the whole notion of being a nation of law, rather than a nation of whim and mob rule.

**pippadaisy**[$] · #**209** 03-25-2005, 06:37 PM

But that's from a personal ethical viewpoint, not the law. Florida State Law states that, so long as the courts agree, the spouse has the decision making ability.

And it wasn't an "I don't want to live that way" but a "Don't do that to me" which is much more specific. And there is a huge difference between Christopher Reeve, who was fully cognizant and could have made his own decisions, and someone with virtually no brain function other than a few reflexes like breathing.

**pippadaisy**[$] · #**210** 03-25-2005, 06:39 PM

Emma, ITA. And the funny thing is, as much as Jeb Bush is pushing to change things for ONE CASE I don't see any push for reforming Florida laws in general.

erik_kosberg · #**211** 03-25-2005, 07:03 PM

Who woulda thunk it? I’ve lived long enough to see George W. Bush, Ralph Nader and Alan Dershowitz agree on something.

realtraveller · #**212** 03-26-2005, 12:48 AM

Quote:

AuntieEmma said

So change the law, going here on forward. Changing it retroactively FOR ONE SINGLE CASE is crazy. And it goes against the whole notion of being a nation of law, rather than a nation of whim and mob rule.

If Florida rewrote its law to write in a presumption for life that could only be countermanded with a written statement, then Michael Schiavo's case would have to be retried and he would have no case. Why the Florida legislature hasn't done this is anyone's guess. My guess is that where families are in agreement they want to make it possible to stop any life saving measures even though no written directive exists.

**AuntieEmma**[$] · #**213** 03-26-2005, 01:05 AM

Quote:

If Florida rewrote its law to write in a presumption for life that could only be countermanded with a written statement, then Michael Schiavo's case would have to be retried

Only if the law were to be applied retroactively, which laws very seldom are.

BTW, if you read what Dershowitz actually said in the interview that you linked to, he agrees with me.

**hadassahchana**[$] · #**214** 03-26-2005, 11:50 AM

I am just furiuos this morning. Whatever I may think of what is happening to Terri SChiavo, the judges involved in the case have all done their jobs properly, and then I read this in CNN:

Quote:

Judge Greer has been under 24-hour protection by two U.S. marshals because of increased threats against his life by those unhappy with his handling of the Schiavo case.

This kind of nonsense is why I have never been able to associate myself with Right To Life despite my feelings about abortion. Whatever happened to being civilized and debating with our mouths and not our guns? Disgusting, and I feel terribly sorry for the judge's family.

Cindy

**theworm**[$] · #**215** 03-26-2005, 11:57 AM

And Brian read that this morning the State Police were decending on Pinellas Park to take Terry into protective custody and have the tube put back in. The local police stopped them and told them that they would inforce the court's ruling.

Governor Bush forced to abandon Schiavo rescue

Quote:

Law agencies controlled by Florida Governor Jeb Bush, the brother of US President George Bush, were on their way to seize Terri Schiavo and have her feeding tube reinserted.

But they backed off when local police said they would enforce a judge's ruling allowing the brain-damaged women to die

**pippadaisy**[$] · #**216** 03-26-2005, 12:09 PM

Quote:

hadassahchana said

This kind of nonsense is why I have never been able to associate myself with Right To Life despite my feelings about abortion. Whatever happened to being civilized and debating with our mouths and not our guns? Disgusting, and I feel terribly sorry for the judge's family.

Cindy

That's what I don't ever understand about the Right to Lifers. The only people who have the Right to Life are the people they judge to have that right? I guess I never understood how they can reconcile that in their minds.

**hadassahchana**[$] · #**217** 03-26-2005, 12:11 PM

You know, that sounds like grandstanding by Bush and not a real attemtp to 'rescue' Terri. CAlling first just to let the police know that there was going to be a rescue attemtp? Give me a break- but now Bush, manhood restored, can stand back and claim to have done everything he could. Mind you, I'm not at all in favour of Bush getting involved, I am complaining about him trying to score polticical points with those opposed to removing the tube. I hate politics.

I honestly don't see this as "the flashpoint in the debate surrounding euthanasia", btw. If Terri had left written instructions, then it wouldn
't matter to me if she'd demanded to be allowed to die and then wanted to be composted - her vote. The part of this which bothers me is the possibility that she really is minimally conscious and might be happy just as she is, and we don't exactly know since she hadn't left instructions. That is what I see as the big problem - and if a person hasn't left specific instructions, I do believe we should err on the side of keeping them alive if they aren't in horrible pain. However, this whole mess by Bush seeems like a pretend cowboys-n-Indians shoot em up kind of nonsense, and it makes me even more sick about the case than I was befpore- if such a thing is poosible.

cindy

poseidon · #**218** 03-26-2005, 12:55 PM

I don't understand why violence has to come into the issue, either. Whenever someone resorts to violence (left or right), it makes the entire cause look bad.

erik_kosberg · #**219** 03-26-2005, 02:23 PM

“18 Things We Learned From This Case”

Quote:

12) Marriage is the most sacred of all unions, except when it isn't.

**mjfrombuffalo**[$] · #**220** 03-26-2005, 02:30 PM

My favorite was

Quote:

22 successive court battles that all ended in exactly the same way means there is something wrong with the courts, not the Schindler's case.

**pippadaisy**[$] · #**221** 03-26-2005, 02:33 PM

My favorite was Antonin Scalia being a bleeding-heart liberal. That one had me peeing my pants.