I bitch-slap Michael Shiavo

[shereads]

I'm on his side, mind you, but I want to slap him.

A critical legal point has been won. Congress and the governor of Florida have been prevented from hijacking the law for political gain. And I continue to agree 100% that Terri Shiavo's husband has the legal right to withdraw life support, as thousands of families do in less publicised cases - and as Texas hospitals are now able to do against the wishes of families, under a law signed by then-governor George W. Bush.

Doctors have repeatedly testified that Terri Shiavo's cerebellum is too damaged to process pain or pleasure, so I'm not concerned that she's suffering.

But her parents are. They believe their daughter wants to live, is being murdered, and is suffering. It's a deluded belief, encouraged to an inexcusable degree by people with no better morals than a troupe of carnies, but it's what they believe. And that's my point.

Having won the legal point, Michael Shiavo is the one person who could end this nightmare with a measure of dignity. He should concede custody to her parents. Because he chooses to do so, and not because Trent Lott is in a snit. He should do it as a gesture of goodwill toward the family his wife once loved.

If Terri Shiavo had expressed her wishes in a Living Will, there would be no excuse to keep her alive artificially. But she didn't, and her husband is under no legal obligation to withdraw life support. It might be argued that he has a moral obligation to protect Terri from living in a degraded state of existence. But Terri isn't aware that she's alive. He should weigh the consequences to Terri against the chance to save her family from anguish.

Now that the fanatics have been defeated, there's nothing to be gained by letting her die. And there's a lot to lose. She'll be a martyr to the right-to-life movement. Public sentiment will swing back that way when the funeral is aired, which will inspire politicians who are intent on making euthanasia illegal in Oregan and preventing the spread of Oregon's death-with-dignity law to other states. Terri's parents will suffer through the final loss of their daughter, for no better reason than that they made their son-in-law hate them.

A happy ending for Terri Shiavo was never possible. But a peaceful resolution could be achieved if Michael Shiavo chose it. Unfortunately, he appears to be an ass. And too dumb to understand that he could get rich on the book and movie rights if he gave this story a hero - himself.

Irony Alert: Bush & Co. are seeking to limit medical malpractice lawsuits like the one that has kept Terri alive for fifteen years. The Texas law that allows hospitals to end life support for terminally ill patients also gives families time to find a hospital williing to take such patients indefinitely. These are called private hospitals. They cost a lot. Proving, once again, that the "sanctity of life" is luxury that not everyone can afford.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

I think I can understand why he wants to help her die--and if it's for the possible reasons I'm thinking of, I'm feel I'd probably want it too. Poor guy.

 

[shereads]

I think I can understand why he wants to help her die--and if it's for the possible reasons I'm thinking of, I'm feel I'd probably want it too. Poor guy.

Download your Living Will if you don't have one and urge everyone you love to do the same. And hope that when the dust settles from this episode, the law won't have been changed to assure that your wishes no longer matter.

 

[carsonshepherd]

that's the thing that scares me. Like it or not - you will have to live. I often wonder why death is such a taboo in this country. It's a part of life. But then again, we're losing our rights to live life the way we want to, so our right to sie the way we want to wouldn't be far behind anyway.

 

[BohemianEcstasy]

Yeah, I don't like Michael Schiavo, either. I'm glad that he has won the legal battle, but he is a bit of an asshole. He has limited the family's visitation, despite the fact that they obviously love her and should have just as much right to visit her as he does. And I don't know why he stuck with it for the last five years of fighting, or whatever. I mean, he's in a common law marriage with another woman, now--why didn't he divorce Terri, or at least just give custody to the parents? I wish I could hear his opinions on all of this, but lawyers won't let him talk, of course. He also said he wouldn't let the family spoon feed her. That would probably help them realize that she really can't respond, not even to take nourishment. It would probably be some closure for them, and it's not as if she'd be kept alive or anything. *sigh*

And Carson, I totally second your comments. Death HAPPENS. It's natural. Life has to end, and hers is way over. What is life, anyway? Was she living, after she entered her PVS? *shrugs* And yeah, I find it VERY, very ironic that the Republicans, who started out as less government and used the horrors of Big Brother against the Democrats, are the ones who are controlling not only how we live when we're not hurting anyone, but also how we die. I'm excited to never have to make a decision, again.

 

[Just-Legal]

Gods. Yeah. I'll just be over here, banging my head off my desk...

 

[BlackShanglan]

Yes, death happens, and it is natural. No debate there. My chief qualm in this case, however, was not that I felt it wrong for Ms. Schiavo to die, but that I was never adequately convinced that she wanted to. There's a world of difference between ignoring someone's express wishes - and yes, please do all go make living wills - and questioning whether the husband's claim that she did not wish to live was accurate. I don't support the government forcing people to live when they clearly wish not to, but there was very little clear in this case.

Shanglan

 

[shereads]

Worst-case scenario - Republicans get their way on all of these key issues: a cap on medical malpractice awards, a ban on assisted suicide, a new law protecting the "right to life" of persons in a persistent vegetative state, all rendered worse than meaningless by reduced social spending and the failure to adequately fund Medicaid.

Slightly more than half of families currently choose to end life support for a loved one who is in a persistent vegetative state. Denied that right and without the financial means to provide quality care when that number doubles, what do those families do?

We'll end up creating hospital wards dedicated to storing such people at the cheapest possible cost.

 

[carsonshepherd]

True. Schiavo does seem to be an ass who wants to move on with his life. I see both sides as a personal issue - just hate how these poor people's tragedy has become the political issue of the moment.

 

[BlackShanglan]

Haven't heard any Repub moves to *force* people to live in PVS if they state otherwise. I think the main issue in the Schiavo case was that there was someone else - not the state, but her parents - who wanted to keep her alive. Otherwise, these sorts of decisions are made every day, and as the law in Texas seems to illustrate, with no objections and at times active support of Repub legislation.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

I'm on his side, mind you, but I want to slap him.

A critical legal point has been won. Congress and the governor of Florida have been prevented from hijacking the law for political gain. And I continue to agree 100% that Terri Shiavo's husband has the legal right to withdraw life support, as thousands of families do in less publicised cases - and as Texas hospitals are now able to do against the wishes of families, under a law signed by then-governor George W. Bush.

Doctors have repeatedly testified that Terri Shiavo's cerebellum is too damaged to process pain or pleasure, so I'm not concerned that she's suffering.

But her parents are. They believe their daughter wants to live, is being murdered, and is suffering. It's a deluded belief, encouraged to an inexcusable degree by people with no better morals than a troupe of carnies, but it's what they believe. And that's my point.

Having won the legal point, Michael Shiavo is the one person who could end this nightmare with a measure of dignity. He should concede custody to her parents. Because he chooses to do so, and not because Trent Lott is in a snit. He should do it as a gesture of goodwill toward the family his wife once loved.

If Terri Shiavo had expressed her wishes in a Living Will, there would be no excuse to keep her alive artificially. But she didn't, and her husband is under no legal obligation to withdraw life support. It might be argued that he has a moral obligation to protect Terri from living in a degraded state of existence. But Terri isn't aware that she's alive. He should weigh the consequences to Terri against the chance to save her family from anguish.

Now that the fanatics have been defeated, there's nothing to be gained by letting her die. And there's a lot to lose. She'll be a martyr to the right-to-life movement. Public sentiment will swing back that way when the funeral is aired, which will inspire politicians who are intent on making euthanasia illegal in Oregan and preventing the spread of Oregon's death-with-dignity law to other states. Terri's parents will suffer through the final loss of their daughter, for no better reason than that they made their son-in-law hate them.

A happy ending for Terri Shiavo was never possible. But a peaceful resolution could be achieved if Michael Shiavo chose it. Unfortunately, he appears to be an ass. And too dumb to understand that he could get rich on the book and movie rights if he gave this story a hero - himself.

Irony Alert: Bush & Co. are seeking to limit medical malpractice lawsuits like the one that has kept Terri alive for fifteen years. The Texas law that allows hospitals to end life support for terminally ill patients also gives families time to find a hospital williing to take such patients indefinitely. These are called private hospitals. They cost a lot. Proving, once again, that the "sanctity of life" is luxury that not everyone can afford.

I think Sher, you underestimate the amount of just plain old fashioned hate between the Schindlers & Schiavo.

This battle has not been conducted with class or decorum. They have consistantly villified him, made unsupportable accusations against him, and one of their "spokesmen" has been glibly handing out his home address to anyone who asks. For his part he has banned them from visiting before and accused them of giving Teri injections of some kind.

This battle has been as much a personal family feud between Schiavo & Bob Schindler as it has a fight over Teri. The Schindlers have embrased a smear campaign. It shouldn't surprise you to note that terrisfight.com is their site.

Given the bad blood there, expecting Mr. Schivao to extend the olive branch at this late juncture is rather unrealistic.

For my part, he showed himself to be a rather vindcitive shit by refusing to let her take holy communion on easter Sunday. But then I haven't been accused of any of the vile things he has by her parents. I cannot say, with 100% certaintly, I couldn't rationalize being a hurtful bitch towards them if I were in his position. I would like to think I am a bigger person than that, but then again, no one has passed out my address to the soldiers of the Christian right either. No email has circulated with a 250K bounty on my head. No one has been standing with signs showing my picture and the word murderer scrawled beneath it. To my knowledge, no one has opened a web site to smear me with accusations.

Considering my penchant for biting back in these forums, I have to be honest with myself. Were I he, I can't say I would be any more likely to be nice, given the circumstances.

 

[mcfbridge]

Not sure why everyone assumes that Schaivo is an ass. He's doing what he believes his wife wants. To me that's the best he can do. As to his relationship with her family. If my or my wife's family had been butting into my business for this many years, my relationship with them wouldn't exactly be warm and fuzzy either.

I personally think the parents are a bit of a pain. They won't believe their daughter's condition, and they won't accept her husband's right to do the appropriate thing. And of course, all this desire for custody on their part only started when there was $1,000,000 settlement that went with custody of Terry.

Personally, I don't know what the motivations are on either side. Only they know that. What I do know, is that in that woman's position, I would not want to live. So to me the best thing that can happen is that she be allowed mercifully to move on.

As to the point that Michael should back off, now that's he's won. That's the one thing he can't do. He has argued that he is doing this to fulfill his wife's wishes. If that's the case, he must see them through to the end.

 

[shereads]

Haven't heard any Repub moves to *force* people to live in PVS if they state otherwise. I think the main issue in the Schiavo case was that there was someone else - not the state, but her parents - who wanted to keep her alive. Otherwise, these sorts of decisions are made every day, and as the law in Texas seems to illustrate, with no objections and at times active support of Repub legislation.

Their argument has been that she is being murdered. They can't mean to argue that it's okay to murder someone in PVS as long the family doesn't object. What about orphans?

This case was used in an attempt by the right-to-life movement to furthur broaden the definition of a person with rights.

Laci Petersen's murder was also used to advance the right-to-life cause. While public sympathy for her made it politically risky to oppose the law, Congress passed the Laci Petersen Act which states that a person charged with the murder of a pregnant woman can also be charged with the murder of the fetus she was carrying. (Which raises the bizarre possibility that someone might be acquitted of the woman's murder by one jury, and found guilty of her fetus' murder by another jury.) It's bad law. Ostensibly, the point was to protect pregnant women. But honestly, if you're willing to murder one person, are you going to change your mind because it might now be considered a double murder?

Congress knows that a majority of Americans won't support a constitutional amendment stating that life begins at conception; they won't need to pass the amendment, if they can widen the boundaries of Equal Protection to include every living human body, regardless of the presence of a functioning human mind. They're doing exactly that, a small step at a time. That's what the Laci Petersen Act was about. If it had been called the Fetal Rights Act, it would have been too controversial.

 

[BohemianEcstasy]

My chief qualm in this case, however, was not that I felt it wrong for Ms. Schiavo to die, but that I was never adequately convinced that she wanted to. There's a world of difference between ignoring someone's express wishes - and yes, please do all go make living wills - and questioning whether the husband's claim that she did not wish to live was accurate.

Shanglan, the tense in this case (simple past as opposed to pluperfect) makes it a bit ambiguous as to when you're referring to Terri's "wanting" to live or die. Are you implying before the onset of her condition, or when the peg tube was taken out? I'm just seeking to clarify, because in the PVC, she can't "want" anything. She isn't aware of anything or conscious...there's not some sentinent being hiding inside her immobile body saying, "Please, please, don't kill me!" That aware, alert part of Terri has been dead for fifteen years.

 

[shereads]

Not sure why everyone assumes that Schaivo is an ass. He's doing what he believes his wife wants. To me that's the best he can do. As to his relationship with her family. If my or my wife's family had been butting into my business for this many years, my relationship with them wouldn't exactly be warm and fuzzy either.

I personally think the parents are a bit of a pain. They won't believe their daughter's condition, and they won't accept her husband's right to do the appropriate thing. And of course, all this desire for custody on their part only started when there was $1,000,000 settlement that went with custody of Terry.

Personally, I don't know what the motivations are on either side. Only they know that. What I do know, is that in that woman's position, I would not want to live. So to me the best thing that can happen is that she be allowed mercifully to move on.

As to the point that Michael should back off, now that's he's won. That's the one thing he can't do. He has argued that he is doing this to fulfill his wife's wishes. If that's the case, he must see them through to the end.

I don't agree with the parents. I do feel sorry for them. Having successfully defended the right of next-of-kin to make this choice for someone who failed to put her wishes in writing, her husband could prove himself to be the better man by sparing her parents this wrenching loss. It would demonstrate once and for all that this was always about respecting Terri.

He might not be an ass. He might not be motivated by spite when he prohibits the family priest from administering last rites. He isn't motivated by the one million dollars, not anymore, because that's been mostly spent on her care. Unfortunately, he comes across as an unfeeling jerk and that's what will enable the right-to-life movement to get maximum mileage out of Terri's death.

 

[BlackShanglan]

Laci Petersen's murder was also used to advance the right-to-life cause. While public sympathy for her made it politically risky to oppose the law, Congress passed the Laci Petersen Act which states that a person charged with the murder of a pregnant woman can also be charged with the murder of the fetus she was carrying. (Which raises the bizarre possibility that someone might be acquitted of the woman's murder by one jury, and found guilty of her fetus' murder by another jury.) It's bad law. Ostensibly, the point was to protect pregnant women. But honestly, if you're willing to murder one person, are you going to change your mind because it might now be considered a double murder?

If I were a six months pregnant woman beaten to the point of miscarriage, I would damned sure want my assailant booked for more than assault.

 

[BlackShanglan]

Shanglan, the tense in this case (simple past as opposed to pluperfect) makes it a bit ambiguous as to when you're referring to Terri's "wanting" to live or die. Are you implying before the onset of her condition, or when the peg tube was taken out? I'm just seeking to clarify, because in the PVC, she can't "want" anything. She isn't aware of anything or conscious...there's not some sentinent being hiding inside her immobile body saying, "Please, please, don't kill me!" That aware, alert part of Terri has been dead for fifteen years.

This is, of course, a theory - one with which I generally concur if it is assumed that the diagnosis is correct (I don't know enough to know that), but a theory nonetheless.

That said, I referred to her statements before her brain injury. Unfortunately, she did not make a written record of them; would that she had.

Shanglan

 

[impressive]

I bitch slap Michael Schiavo for:

• promising to use a med.mal. award for Terri's rehabilitative therapies -- and then refusing to do so
• not "remembering" Terri's death wish until AFTER receiving a med.mal. award for her rehabilitation
• not "remembering" Terri's death wish until AFTER beginning a life with another woman
• not "remembering" Terri's death wish until AFTER the conflict began with Terri's parents (over the expenditure of that med.mal. award)

Based on his actions over that past 15 years, I don't believe for one second that this man is motivated by his wife's wishes.

His "hearsay" is just worth more than anyone else's because he is her legal guardian. The amount of "evidence" he has presented regarding her wishes would not be enough to even charge someone with a crime, much less convict them and sentence them to death by starvation.

Regardless of one's feelings about her condition and the quality of her life (a completely separate debate), this really hammers home the ramifications of legal guardianship and the need for advance directives.

 

[SeaCat]

I find this entire case disturbing. Living i Florida as I do I have had no choice but to hear about it, every day. I have heard about it on the news. I hear about it in work from the doctors and nurses I work with. I even hear about it from many of my patients. (This is the hardest because many of them are facing a lingering death from Cancer.) Because I am a professional I keep my beliefs to myself, unlike many of my co-workers. I do not counsel them, the most I ever tell a person is to follow their heart.

In my private life I have a living will, (I have had this since I reached my majority.) as does my wife, my parents as well as hher parents. Surprisingly they all read basicly the same. (My siblings who have found a renewed interest in religeon and have become fanatics do not play into this.) None of us wish to remain on life support if there is no reasonable chance of revival without gross impairment. My parents, my wife and I also agree whole heartedly to enforce this decision in any honorable way if the courts or hospitals decide to not go by our wishes as stated in our living wills. Among us this is not just an agreement, it is a matter of honor. (Yes we are old fashioned enough to believe in Honor and personal responsibility.) This is a choice everyone has to make. It is a personal choice, and you may have to live and/or die with it's consequences. think long and hard about it before you sign any papers dealing with this. (It may be the hardest decision you have to make.)

Cat

 

[Guest]

I grieve for all concerned.

I do not believe that we (the general public) have been allowed to see the actual evidence for either side. As we attempt to weave our way through the hate-filled rhetoric we witness a great deal of spin, lots of lawyer-ese, the unsympathetic husband claiming his rights have been abused, the close-up shots of weeping parents claiming murder and of course Fox News even presenting a psychic from "Beyond the Grave".

Who would wish to be kept alive in a situation such as this? Diapers, sponge baths, teeth brushed with those little foam brushes they use for Hospice patients, body constantly rolled to prevent bedsores, receiving nourishment similar to the fashion of watering a plant, staring at the same space on the wall for the rest of your life . . .

We are updating our wills this week.

 

[Lucifer_Carroll]

Um, too many people seem to be viewing the issue as a what would I do if I was in Terri's situation and are ignoring the fact that if you were in Terri's situation, you wouldn't care, you wouldn't feel, you wouldn't notice what was being done to your metabolically active corpse. You'd be off. And your soul if attached to cognition as many believe would go instantly in terms of awareness from the onset of coma activity to the afterlife no matter how long the corpse lay there. And that's even if the soul is still trapped in there even with no cognition.

The real traumas are the people left behind as the case illustrates. The corpse is kept metabolically active because of the memories of the past of who the corpse was just as a grave or urn marks the departed and their impact on the lives of others. This fight is the same as a funeral, a condolence to those who still live. And it has centered around two camps, those who can't let go and wish to keep playing mad scientist (trying to bring back the corpse of a lost love to make up for the pain of losing them) and those who have already made their peace and move on.

Emotionally, Mr. Shiavo's outlook is probably healthier and certainly less expensive and certainly takes up less valuable recovery equipment and space, but again the issue revolves around those left behind and the parents have yet to make their peace and show no inclination to ever make their peace or accept reality (no, she can live. Live, I say, shouts the mad scientist as his contemporaries try and stop him).

Overall an issue that never should have become as national as it has and isn't anything like the debate most people are having over it. It's merely the battle between one who has let go and is trying to make the parents let go and the parents who haven't let go yet and still have vain hope for a miracle.

What would I have done if I was Mike? I probably would have given both custody and the bill for treatment to the parents and concentrated on the battle of what to do with her eventual remains. The ghost of my appearance-fixated wife (she was bulemic) might hate me for it, but if she was a good person would appreciate having her family's mind settled and I'd promise to do right by the funeral for her. But that is me personally and everyone has their different honor codes and what they wouldn't want to inflict on their family emotionally and fiscally. On that note, living wills is the smart thing to do so that no Congress or Mad Scientist-like relatives tries to pretend like the living corpse you now are is sentient or ever will be sentient again.

But remember that it won't be about you at that point, but rather the people you leave behind.

 

[R. Richard]

But honestly, if you're willing to murder one person, are you going to change your mind because it might now be considered a double murder?

shereads:
In answer to your question, quite possibly. What if someone tries to murder a pregnant woman and she survives, but the fetus dies? The person could then be charged with only attempted murder against the pregnant woman, but murder against the fetus.

A lot would depend upon exactly how the law were written, but it could significantly expand the protection given to pregnant women.

JMHO.

 

[elsol]

He tried very hard in the first years after it happenedl flying her to California, going to nursing school, etc. Then he made sure 'someone' (the doctors) paid.

But afterwards, there you are with the all doctors telling you 'there's no hope', you've tried for years, and now you have the 'consolation prize' a check from the insurance company. I bet seeing all those zeros were a comfort to him... yeah, right!

He walked the road and at the end he was no better than he was at the beginning... and the ONLY thing he had left was to do the 'right' thing by his wife.

Then the parents would not let it go, and worse than not let it go, they kept going into the closet for bigger and bigger guns.

Let's be honest here, there are people out there that WANT Jeb Bush to violate every principle of the rule of law and take possession of this body. They can't even connect the dots that if he does and is allowed to, then there really isn't stopping the government from doing anything, even burning down the very churches they worship in.

The louder it got, the angrier and angrier he got; until, there really was only one thing left, NOT TO LET IT GO JUST BECAUSE.

You wanna know why he won't do what YOU think is the right thing, because a lot of people pushed and pushed and pushed and are STILL pushing.

I'll do many things just because they're right, but for SPITE... for spite I'll do anything.

Of course, there is the alternate theory...

'He killed her and is just trying to hide the evidence.'

Then I'd have to believe those first years when the parents and him were wedded in trying to help her was 'just acting', right?

So I'm left with....

a) He killed her.

or

b) This is a dog who is not letting the bone go because he won't let you win... just like he took the doctors down, he'll take you down. He couldn't beat death, but he can beat the rest of us.

I sit here and I say "I couldn't do what he has done, lived through what he has lived..."

But then I imagine that first letter, and turning on the television to watch people who do NOT understand spout bullshit, and then I see 'holier than thou' politicians spout even worse bullshit...

Yeah, with everyone shouting at me and hating me, I can imagine saying "Fuck you... FUCK EACH AND EVERY SINGLE ONE OF YOU!"

This is his bitch-slap to you.

Sincerely,
ElSol

 

[shereads]

If I were a six months pregnant woman beaten to the point of miscarriage, I would damned sure want my assailant booked for more than assault.

If I were beaten, it would seriously piss me off that you think my not having been pregnant made assaulting me a lesser crime than if I had been.

I maintain that the right-to-life movement and Republican leaders who are beholden to them are ever on the alert for tragedies that can be used to establish legal precedents that limit personal choice. And that the Shiavo case and the Laci Petersen Act are two examples.

You've skirted the issue nicely, counselor, on several counts. And I'm calling you on it - just like those wily judges that Republicans accuse of judicial activism even when the judges happen to be conservative Republican Southern Baptists, like the one in Tampa who was asked to resign from his church.

If the Laci Petersen Law had been intended to address the issue you refer to above, it wouldn't have been called the Laci Petersen Law.

The law defines a fetus as a person whose death constitutes murder. If you buy the reasoning behind the Petersen Act, you can't fail to conclude that abortion is murder. If you don't buy the reasoning behind the Petersen Act, it's too late. It was made law while everyone sat around picking lint out of their bellybuttons and slobbering over the sensational circumstances of the trial.

You maintained that Republicans who rallied to stop the death of Terri Shiavo didn't have a broader agenda than supporting the right of Terri's parents to have a say in the decision. I ask why, if they didnt' intend to use this case as a precedent in other PVS cases, the Speaker of the House and others referred to the removal of life support as murder.

Mr. Lott went so far as to call Terri "a healthy young woman." In his view, you don't need a cerebellum to be healthy, you just need a pulse.

Pardon my skepticism, but I can't help wondering, if Trent Lott and George W. Bush didn't apply their belief in the sanctity of human life to include fetuses and healthy young women in Iraq. They're anti-choice when the choice is made by individuals, but in a war of choice the tens of thousands of civilian dead are so inconsequential that we can't even get an official body count.

They can't have it both ways. If God directs us to "err in favor of life," as the president said of the Shiavo case, then he has more errors to his credit than Michael Shiavo. Or Scott Petersen, for that matter. Pious f**king hypocrite.

Edited to add: Suppose Terri Shiavo had been pregnant and the only way to save the fetus was to end Terri's life? I'll bet there are people standing vigil outside that hospice tonight who would have helped kill her "for the sake of the unborn child."

 

[BlackShanglan]

If I were beaten, it would seriously piss me off that you think my not having been pregnant made assaulting me a lesser crime than if I had been.

I'm sorry, but with all due deference, it is. There is a world of difference between being assaulted and being assaulted while also having a hoped-for child brutally destroyed.

Shanglan