What Will Michael Schiavo Do?

[jgibson2[$]]

Bob,
There are states where this might have turned out differently, because feeding tubes aren't considered "life support" in all states. According to a local radio program (host agreed with Michael Schiavo's decision, BTW) several years ago, a Maryland woman lost in court when she tried to have her severely brain-injured husband transported to Florida so she could have his feeding tube removed. The courts here found it significant that she was cohabiting with another man by the time she made the request. The law here may or may not have changed since then, I haven't had time to research that and he didn't say.

You posit only 2 possible options - and even in this case, there were certainly more possibilities. It's a shame that the family wasn't able to work this out among themselves. I cannot choose between the two sides, because neither was entirely right. Michael Schiavo chose to do something I find morally reprehensible. Just because the courts supported his right to do that doesn't mean that I have to find it acceptable.

The Schindlers allowed themselves to be used by people I find morally reprehensible. Many years after the fact, they suggested that Michael abused his wife - but said nothing during the malpractice case or the initial guardianship case. That smacks of opportunism and slander.

I don't know if Terri's parents would have been permitted to be at her bedside if they'd tried, but I find it appalling that they did not give the appearance of trying to make peace at the end so that they could be. It looks like they got so used to speaking through their attorneys and posing for the press that they forgot that their daughter might actually die while they were performing.

[hadassahchana[$]]

rmthunter said

So which do you prefer: the rule of law, or the rule of the mob? Schiavo or Schindler?

Giving full credit to those whose sincere belief is that withdrawing life support in this situation was wrong, let me pose one question: do you set yourself above the law, as the likes of Terry and Bush do? Do your personal beliefs trump everyone else's in a nation that is founded on the rule of law? Why?

Careful, there are lots of people who believe that some laws are wrong. Therea re also peoople in this situation who feel that the law wasn't applied fairly. Without rehashing the details of this case once again, let's apply your statement to another situation:



"Giving full credit to those whose sincere belief is that blocking gay marriage is wrong, do you set your self above the law? Why?"

That was a devil';s advocate statement, that's another example of a lw which I consdier to be wrong. But, fair is fair if you're going to imply that those of us with differeing opinions as to the Schiavo case should just shut up because, after all, the law is the law.


Cindy

[poseidon]

I'm going to agree with Cindy here, Bob. If the law is the law, and this is a nation of laws, why would someone put themselves above the law regarding gay marriage? Why did people put themselves above the law regarding segregation?

Yes, this is a nation of laws. There are a lot of bad laws on the books. Sometimes, the fight to change the laws you don't like can get nasty.

But, the way that you've posted the question, well, it comes across as rather snarky.

I'm not trying to attack you, Bob, and I hope you don't take the previous statement as such. I'm simply pointing out that while you obviously disagree with those of us who thought starving Terri to death was wrong, you've posed the question to state that if we don't agree with the rule of law, then, well, we're just of the lynch-mob mentality. That doesn't sit well with me (I won't speak for anyone else), I don't advocate violence against those who make (in my opinion) bad decisions, I don't advocate making bomb threats, etc.

I simply disagree that starving Terri to death was the right decision. That doesn't make me part of a lynch-mob. It only means that I disagree.

I hate abortion, Bob. I don't parade in front of clinics. I support laws to change the current situation. I support a program that provides financial and moral support and counseling to pregnant women who consider abortion yet choose not to abort. The program helps these women out after they've had their child as well. I support this program both financially and through my own hard work. But, I hate abortion. I don't wish to reduce it (like many politicians say). I want to end it legally. But, we're a nation of laws, and I work within the guidelines of the law. I don't torture those who support abortion rights by screaming at them, by forcing jarred fetuses in their faces, I don't picket clinics and I don't picket providers' homes. But, because I don't like the law and would work to change it, does that make me part of the mob mentality?

We have Blue Laws on the books in Colorado. I disagree with them, too. This year, some tried to pass a law to rescind the Blue Laws (I frankly don't like to have to plan to buy wine around a Sunday, and it would be nice if I could buy a car on Sunday as well). I support those that want to change the law. Does that simply enforce the idea that I've nothing more than a mob mentality when it comes to not respecting that this is a nation of laws?

[theworm[$]]

Thank you, Bob.

One of Terry's legal gaurdians was interviewed on TV last night. He said that he met all the members of the family, and that they all deeply loved Terry and were acting on that love and on their beliefs. He said that Terry was very sweet, very quiet and very shy, and that she would have been horrified to know that her picture in various states of dress/undress were plastered all over the nation. She was a private person, and the publicity of this would have horrified her.

[theworm[$]]

I thanked Bob before reading the several posts that followed. I still thank Bob though I respect everything that the people who disagree have posted here.

If laws need to be changed, they should be, but we are not a country of vigilantes. Michael Schiavo did what he thinks is right within the confines of the law. People who disagree with what he did have that right, and they can lobby hard to change the laws, but they can not break those laws.

I don't think Bob was snarky - I think he was direct. I really do understand that many people feel that removing the feeding tube was wrong, and I respect their feelings. Legally is was not wrong - Michael acted with the full approval of the courts. Many people believe that it was ethically wrong and that therefore the laws should be changed. Attack the law - do not attack Michael Schiavo - he is also a victim in this.

[wivabef]

Though I most obviously side with Michael Schiavo, I don't fault the parents for wanting to keep their daughter alive. I believe, however, they lost sight of their daughter's wishes in a wellspring of activism that ignored human dignity. I shrugged my shoulders as the battle continued over the last 8 years, I heard a smattering of it here and there. I respect the beliefs of those who wanted to keep her alive as much as I respect the beliefs of those who wanted to see Terri rest in peace.

It wasn't until the Palm Sunday vote that I lost it. My greatest anger over this issue is that the federal government became involved. It is against the intention of our Founders. It is against all upon which this country was founded. It spit on the face of a state that has already been spit on several times by national interests (from Elian Gonzales to chads). And had it not been for the saving grace of the Judge in Atlanta who said, "No, no, no and shame on Congress and the White House", my firm belief, that our government's protection of state's and individuals rights will always prevail via checks and balances, would have been lost.

As emotional and electrifying the life and death, dignity or murder issues are, the greatest threat to us remains that elected officials felt the need to correct careful consideration by court after court after court in a costly (not in a monetary sense, but in a democratic sense) emergency session.

It's ironic, too, considering how carefully many of these elected officials were about defining the sanctity of marriage. Yet here we have a man who has proven in court several times he only has the best interests and wishes of his wife in mind being told, in effect, by the highest levels of our government, that his opinion doesn't matter.

[jgibson2[$]]

Wormie,
I thought Bob's post sounded snarky too, but I don't think he intended it to.

[theworm[$]]

That one of the dangers of the web, we "hear" a tone to match our beliefs. I didn't hear snark at all, but I understand how some might. I read some other things here that I thought was snark, but we all make our points the way we have to (and I for one kind of enjoy snark).
In any case, I think that we all hold our beliefs strongly, and at least in regard to this specific issue, I think that everyone here really respects each other even though some of us disagree strongly.

[poseidon]

theworm said

I don't think Bob was snarky - I think he was direct. I really do understand that many people feel that removing the feeding tube was wrong, and I respect their feelings. Legally is was not wrong - Michael acted with the full approval of the courts. Many people believe that it was ethically wrong and that therefore the laws should be changed. Attack the law - do not attack Michael Schiavo - he is also a victim in this.

I don't think Bob was trying to be snarky, because what I know of him, he's a decent man. I simply found the comment to be snarky and bordering on offensive. The examples posed were simply, "Here's something to think about" material.

Here's the problem as I see it, Wormie (and others). You have some hopefully well-meaning people out there who needed their 15 minutes of the limelight, and, as what typically happens of those who seek attention, they come across as nutfudges and do a tremendous disservice to those that hold similar opinions and ideals.

I wouldn't have picketed the hospice, or held vigil outside of it (choose your words). If I were a federal official, I wouldn't have tailored my reaction to just Terri Schiavo. In my mind, tailoring laws to one individual is simply dangerous. If I were a Florida official, perhaps I'd be interested in changing Florida law. While I'm not a fan of state protecting individuals from themselves, I am a fan of government doing its most basic duty -- that is of protecting the innocent and the helpless.

I don't know if Terri said that she wanted to die if she was in a PVS or not. I do believe that Terri said that she would never want to be like that, and I find a tremendous difference between the two statements. No rational, sane, healthy (for lack of a better word) person would want to be physically or mentally disabled. It is an entirely different question as to whether or not a physically or mentally disabled person would want to die.

I am very uncomfortable with the idea of killing someone (I differentiate between killing and murder, just for the record) because of some physical or mental handicap they might have. My biggest problem with this case is that Terri didn't write down her wishes. My second biggest problem with this case is that Michael had moved on, and wasn't acting in the capacity of a spouse, but instead was acting with at least two conflicts of interest. I do not embrace the idea that Michael was evil -- but I'm curious as to why it was important to keep Terri alive while the malpractice lawsuit was going on, yet when it ended, Terri had always told him that she wanted to die if she would have been in her state.

[theworm[$]]

Jeff, while we have different opinions about this case, we are pretty much on the same page. The only place where I dissagree with your post above is that you believe that Michael had moved on and was not acting as a spouse, and I think that while Micheal did not allow his life to come to a halting stop when his wife entered a PVS, he continued to act out of love as a spouse.

[thinkerlady[$]]

theworm said

Jeff, while we have different opinions about this case, we are pretty much on the same page. The only place where I dissagree with your post above is that you believe that Michael had moved on and was not acting as a spouse, and I think that while Micheal did not allow his life to come to a halting stop when his wife entered a PVS, he continued to act out of love as a spouse.

And I agree with you here Wormie. I don't like the idea that the tube was removed, but then again her recovery was going nowhere. I don't like how the burial is being handled, but I don't fault him for wanting privacy either. It is just a completely tragic situation. I can't help but believe that there is information that has not been given to the media about her condition, and rightfully so. I have been on the fence with this one for a long time, but I do not think that the public display her parents and siblings endorsed was right. I am a very private person too, and I think that whole circus atmosphere is wrong. Those people camped outside the Hospice have their own agenda, and the privacy of the families involved is not on their agenda.

[pippadaisy[$]]

Carson and Reagan are two different cases. Carson's family agreed with his wishes to remain out of the public eye for years after he retired. Half of his family wasn't out in front of cameras all the time.

As for Reagan, former Presidents have the option of whether or not to have the big state funeral. Reagan opted for it. Others don't. And again, his family was IN AGREEMENT about how the funeral would be handled, as per his wishes.

As for the whole malpractice suit, etc. it wasn't as if he gave up hope immediately. He hired a private aide to take her out on trips to see if she had any signs of reaction. He had experimental electrodes placed in her brain to see if they could stimulate activity. The hospice had actually considered getting a restraining order against him because he was so pushy about her therapy and treatment that they felt other patients were suffering.

At some point, however, he realized that NONE of this was changing ANYTHING. Why does that not make sense to so many people? After years of no change, he realized it wasn't ever GOING to change.

[wivabef]

pippadaisy said

At some point, however, he realized that NONE of this was changing ANYTHING. Why does that not make sense to so many people? After years of no change, he realized it wasn't ever GOING to change.

Exactly. AND, that his wife would not have wanted to be in that state.

[hadassahchana[$]]

I didn't intend to sound at all snarky (I used this week's snark minutes already!) and I just wanted to try and point out that thinking that the feeding tube should not have been removed does not oplace me above the law. Feeling that a law is wrong does not place any one of us above the law. Using congress was wrong wrong wrong, standing in front of Terri's hospice and making a nuisance was way wrong, but- consider that in order to get laws changed, sometiems the most effective (in fact, the only) tool is to protest. I would never have chosen to protest in front of a hospice, but I have chosen to do so in front of a U.S. Federal Court building, over a completely different matter. Those of us who were doing so were also told that we had no right to protest there, that we were not above the law, that all of us should go home and stop making trouble. The protest was being held, years and years ago when #1 was a newborn and was protesting along with me from his Snuggli, regarding the Georgia law prohibiting sodomy, upheld by the U.S. Supreme court.

We write letters and share opinions, and at times even protest as a group and loudly, whenever we feel strongly that a law does not serve the best interests of our nation - that is just another process which makes our system work.


Cindy

[theworm[$]]

hadassahchana said

I didn't intend to sound at all snarky (I used this week's snark minutes already!) and I just wanted to try and point out that thinking that the feeding tube should not have been removed does not oplace me above the law. Feeling that a law is wrong does not place any one of us above the law. Using congress was wrong wrong wrong, standing in front of Terri's hospice and making a nuisance was way wrong, but- consider that in order to get laws changed, sometiems the most effective (in fact, the only) tool is to protest. I would never have chosen to protest in front of a hospice, but I have chosen to do so in front of a U.S. Federal Court building, over a completely different matter. Those of us who were doing so were also told that we had no right to protest there, that we were not above the law, that all of us should go home and stop making trouble. The protest was being held, years and years ago when #1 was a newborn and was protesting along with me from his Snuggli, regarding the Georgia law prohibiting sodomy, upheld by the U.S. Supreme court.

We write letters and share opinions, and at times even protest as a group and loudly, whenever we feel strongly that a law does not serve the best interests of our nation - that is just another process which makes our system work.


Cindy

Yep!
Am I the only one who has noticed that (when we set aside the issue of whether or not the tube should have been removed) everyone on the board seems to be in agreement?

( And, Cindy - I wasn't accusing you of snark. I apologize if you thought I was. )

We may differ on what we want done in these circumstances, but we really all seem to agree about how the SYSTEM should work in resolving these issues.

[drmomentum[$]]

For the record, I think that Bob posting the question of preferring to organize our society based on laws rather than mob rule is not only not offensive but a perfectly valid question that leads to interesting discussions like "when is it right to oppose the law" and such.

And, frankly, I'm baffled by the idea that it might be offensive, considering that Jeff is saying the same thing when he says "I don't like abortion, but I work to get the laws change" or however he wants to put it. I htink we all probably have a line we draw, and we would break the law if certain things were to happen. No?

It's not as though he is questioning the motives of anyone here (see "full credit to those whose sincere belief")

It seems to me to have nothing to do with snark, but is all part of the discussion.

-JP

[wivabef]

For what it's worth, I didn't see Bob's post as snarky, because I was assuming he was actually talking about the mob and not people who share the viewpoint of the mob but do not behave as does the mob.

I consider "the mob" to be akin to PETA. Do many people wish to protect animals? Yes. Would all of those people go to some of the near criminal extents of PETA to do so? No.

However, I agree with others that Bob's message could have been construed as a "you're either with us or agin' us" kind of thing.

If we all review much of what Bob has posted over time, I doubt that anyone here could say Bob opposes protest.

Trying to be Switzerland, here (actually, if I were Switzerland, I would just take your money indiscriminately and look the other way...but THAT'S another thread!).


And Cindy, no worries. Your snark minute allotment increased when Cingular took over AT&T.

[theworm[$]]

Do Snark minutes roll over now? Cool!!!

Let's all leave Bob alone. Bob and snark just don't work for me in the same sentence. Bob isn't snarky. Me - I'm snarky. Not Bob.

[hadassahchana[$]]

I was not at all offended by Bob's post- let me apologize at once if you all thought I was taking after Bob with a fork, or anything like that. In fact, I thought his post was interesting, and atually a really good starting point for a new thread. Yes, that's a hint...


And not to worry about my snark minutes. I got assessment results back earlier this week, and if I tried to type what I said at the time my laptop would melt. Furthermore, I am waiting right now for yet another 'Cindy, there isn't anything at all wrong with you' man to show up and "assess" me.

And can I just say, veeering way way off topic, that if there is an ass in 'assume', then guess what there is in 'assess'?
:shake"

Cindy, rambling