« A darker side of the internet | Main | 2 Answers and 2 questions »

Terri Schiavo Updates (With Terri Schiavo Audio)

If things break today, I'll probably just update this list:



Oliver Willis and his fellow liberal bloggers are calling for a blogswarm to kill Terri Schiavo. Oliver at his disgusting worst.


In other Schiavo news... (I don't blog on the story for all the months its been in the news, then when I break my silence, I shatter it) Michael Schiavo made an interesting admission on Larry King.

KING: Michael, what do you expect to happen? Congress is in recess now, they have to come back into special session. The Supreme Court could put a stay on it. What do you think is going to happen?

M. SCHIAVO: I don't think the Supreme Court is going to put a stay on it. And I hope and implore that everybody call their legislators. They have to stay out of people's personal lives. There's no place for government. Call them and tell them.

KING: Have you had any contact with the family today? This is a sad day all the way around, Michael. We know of your dispute.

M. SCHIAVO: I've had no contact with them.

KING: No contact at all?

M. SCHIAVO: No.

KING: Do you understand how they feel?

M. SCHIAVO: Yes, I do. But this is not about them, it's about Terri. And I've also said that in court. We didn't know what Terri wanted, but this is what we want...

Well that puts the great lie to the whole thing.


Drudge has a link to audio of Terri Schiavo right after they removed the tube.... To the untrained ear, it sounds like she is unhappy about it... but I don't know the context... Is she always this vocal? About a minute into it, the father asks if she can say hello... She says something that could be taken as a "Hi." It could also be taken as a random noise. But about 1:30 it happens again.

Absent more audio to put this in context, I don't know what to make of it... But it does sound like she is trying to reply to her father to me. Since the Drudge link is getting nailed, as a service to our readers, we'll mirror it here at Wizbang.


One of our readers send this along, it all all the Republicans who voted against the bill. Because it its length it will stay on the bottom.

Ginny Brown-Waite
Florida-5th, Republican
414 Cannon HOB
Washington, DC 20515-0905
Phone: (202) 225-1002

Michael N. Castle
Delaware-At Large, Republican
1233 Longworth HOB
Washington, DC 20515-0801
Phone: (202) 225-4165

Charles W. Dent
Pennsylvania-15th, Republican
502 Cannon HOB
Washington, DC 20515-3815
Phone: (202) 225-6411

David G. Reichert
Washington-8th, Republican
1223 Longworth HOB
Washington, DC 20515-4708
Phone: (202) 225-7761

Christopher Shays
Connecticut-4th, Republican
1126 Longworth HOB
Washington, DC 20515-0704
Phone: (202) 225-5541


TrackBack

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Terri Schiavo Updates (With Terri Schiavo Audio):

» CollegePundit linked with The Mob Mentality and Terri Schiavo

» The View From The Nest linked with Imagine Terri Shiavo Campaigning

» Carpe Bonum linked with Terri Schiavo: Congress' business?

» Illuminaria's Voice linked with Judge James Whittemore

» Truth. Quante-fied linked with Terry Schiavo in Federal Court

» Another Rovian Conspiracy - St Wendeler linked with WE DEMAND DEATH FOR TERRI (Oh, and Twinkies)

» Another Rovian Conspiracy - St Wendeler linked with WE DEMAND DEATH FOR TERRI (Oh, and Twinkies)

» Six Meat Buffet linked with The Left's Death Culture

Comments (70)

Doesn't Oliver Willis under... (Below threshold)

Doesn't Oliver Willis understand we are talking about ending an innocent human life here?

He may not approve of the gov't intervening but it's hardly a call for one up or a blogswarm - this isn't a game.

I was wondering if this spo... (Below threshold)
Trish:

I was wondering if this spoken admission to Michael's wish not Terri's has been brought to the attention of Terri's parents or their lawyers?

Oliver doesn't care about h... (Below threshold)
bullwinkle:

Oliver doesn't care about human life, he only cares that this is something the republicans are for, if they are for it he's against it.

Ugh, that is truly horrib... (Below threshold)

Ugh, that is truly horrible. I can't stand what is being done to that poor woman, and I can't stand the fact that radicals are so eager to pull out this feeding tube when they know so little about the case.

In a (partial) defense of the 5 Republicans that voted against the bill - consider the fact that they're from fairly left-leaning places (Delaware, Washington State, Pennsylvania), they're probably more interested in keeping the votes from their home state. Doesn't mean I like their voting against the bill, just that they have their own constituents influencing their decision.

No one is killing Terri Shi... (Below threshold)
firstbrokenangel:

No one is killing Terri Shiavo; congress should not have gotten involved and President Bush should not have signed the approval. Even if you have a living will and a dnr, don't move to Florida. The woman is clinically and brain dead, having no brain function. Keeping her alive by machines for 20 years is more than cruel and unusual punishment. Now and only now should we demand that Congress goes to hell and that we do what has to be done to get Pres Bush to step down from his presidency.

Cindy

Cindy she is NOT brain dead... (Below threshold)
Paul:

Cindy she is NOT brain dead even according to the people who want to kill her.

And yes Cindy, starving someone to death is killing them.

If I lock you in a room and don't feed you until you die, did I kill you?

You can (I guess) argue that we should kill her. But you can't argue that they this won't be killing her.

When Michael barred Terri's... (Below threshold)

When Michael barred Terri's family Saturday from her room, he cited catching Terri's father attempting to make an audiotape of her trying to speak. Does anyone know if this was that tape?

As a sidebar: one wonders whether this ban was lifted so promptly as a result of a "what the hell are you doing" call to Michael from George Felos. Any attorney worth his salt would try to make his client as appealing to the public as possible. Seems Michael is hell-bent on looking just as cold-hearted as possible in this case.

And Cindy--please define "clinically and brain-dead" for us medically-trained people who see neither in Terri. Just for reference, "clinically dead" is generally accepted as devoid of spontaneous cardiopulmonary function (no breathing, no heartbeat). "Brain dead" is usually taken to mean no neural function within the brain. Also, would you enlighten us as to which machines she is attached that are keeping her alive? I don't mean to sound antagonistic, but you are either misinformed, ignorant, or purposefully making inaccurate statements, and I think we could benefit from some clarification.

Cindy - where are you get... (Below threshold)

Cindy - where are you getting the idea that Terri Schiavo is braindead? I somehow doubt that medical reports stating otherwise, and the testimony of a dozen doctors saying she is neither comatose NOR braindead, would still mean she's a vegetable.

I said this in my own blog that she is not braindead, not a vegetable, and deserves a chance at treatment. I mean, it is patently obvious to anyone reading your comment that you are a liberal. Are you so blinded by hatred for a political party that you would condemn an otherwise healthy woman to death? I could have SWORN that liberals were all over this whole "equal rights for everybody" thing, defending the rights of EVERYONE to life a full and happy life. Unless it inconveniences you, of course.

Terri Schiavo stands a chance to get better and still live a productive life, should she finally get the treatment that has been denied to her for years by her husband. It doesn't strike you as weird AT ALL that he has his "she wouldn't want to be kept this way" epiphany AFTER his settlement and then successfully shoots himself in the foot on Larry King Live?

This isn't a case where a flip of the switch and Terri is gone - it is a cruel, nasty death by starvation. It is not that simple when you have an alive, alert person on the receiving end of that feeding tube. Before you launch into a spiel about how it'll be painless, I challenge you to prove it. Hell, I've spent days fasting, and its torture. I somehow doubt it'll be any different for this woman.

Terri Schiavo deserves a chance, deserves treatment, and deserves to be separated from her husband with clear conflicts of interest. I don't think that is entirely too much to ask, here. Other Democrats and bloggers recognize that as well, and they're burying the hatchet to join a cause and stand up to an injustice perpetuated by Terri Schiavo's husband and a pig-headed judge. I suggest you start considering doing the same.

Why can't there be a blogsw... (Below threshold)
bullwinkle:

Why can't there be a blogswarm calling for starving Olliver until he loses that extra 75 pounds he's packing? Besides the direct health benefits to him, the resulting price drops in food due to lowered demand might only be temporary, but we could feed several hungry kids for a month with one week of his food intake. Maintaining that double chin alone must take about 500 calories a day.

Pardon me, but did a single... (Below threshold)

Pardon me, but did a single black Congresswoman vote for the bill?

Read this for a similar cas... (Below threshold)

Read this for a similar case (worse, actually) that turned out well: http://dory.typepad.com/wittenberg_gate/2005/03/a_voice_to_spea.html

Oh, and see the NewsMax article with her nurses's statements at http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/3/20/102601.shtml

Brain dead? NOT!

I started out reading about... (Below threshold)
Salt Lick:

I started out reading about this Schiavo thing as a bit of an agnostic. My wife and I have living wills saying we'd prefer not to live under Terri's circumstances. I've slowly come around to the "keep the tube in postion mainly for two reasons. 1) We have no reliable evidence that Terri would want to be starved, 2) Terri has a loving family -- father, mother, brother, sister -- who consider it a joy, not a burden to take care of her.

Another thing the controversy has made me consider is the idea that Terri's life is not worth living. Maybe that's how some of us honestly feel for ourselves, but what do our preferences for ourselves have to do with Terri? I get the impression that some folks want Terri dead because it challenges their notion that there is no important side of life that resides in the soul.

The Oliver Willis "blogswarm" advocacy is sickening. These people have lost their moral compasses. My mind keeps turning to that passage in "Sophie's Choice" where the concentration camp commander asks, "My God, Sophie, do you think I'm a monster?" He too, was one of us, and he'd lost his way.

Typical Leftist slave moral... (Below threshold)
Ted:

Typical Leftist slave morality. Oliver wants her dead, but being a coward he won't accountablity for murdering her. His actions will kill her, but like other totalitarians he will hide the cause of her death in red tape. It is the same "murder by bureaucrat" mentality as those who ran the gulags and concentration camps. The sick part is how eager he is to mass-produce the wholesale murder of undesierables.

QUESTION FOR OLIVER: If you want her dead so bad, why won't YOU pull the trigger? I bet I hear nothing back on this question. Keep your powder dry, we might need it if thugs like Oliver ever get power.

Cindy:How can it b... (Below threshold)
Julie:

Cindy:

How can it be cruel and unusual punishment if she is, as you say, brain dead? She's not feeling a thing according to you. And how is she being kept a live by machines? Is a feeding tube a machine?

Now and only now should we demand that Congress goes to hell and that we do what has to be done to get Pres Bush to step down from his presidency.

At least you didn't write the above in all caps or include one of your obnoxious proclamations that only you are qualified to render an opinion on this case, but do you have any idea how crazy the above makes you sound?

But it does sound like s... (Below threshold)
Brian:

But it does sound like she is trying to reply to her father to me.

Regardless of which tests you think she should have that you say she hasn't have... You are now saying that all of the doctors and nurses who have examined and cared for her for 15 years are so incompetent that, despite their diagnoses, they have never once noticed that Terri can talk or communicate. But you are basing your analysis, instead, on poor-quality audio of what you admit "could also be taken as random noise".

This just sounds like a desperate attempt to manufacture evidence that supports what you want to believe, despite the fact that it contradicts all of the more obvious evidence. See: Occam's Razor.

" You are now saying that a... (Below threshold)
Ted:

" You are now saying that all of the doctors and nurses who have examined and cared for her for 15 years are so incompetent...blah blah blah"

More examples of the Slave Morality. Brian's says the annointed EXPERTS say she should die, we should be good sheeple and submit to their mastery.

Sorry Brian, but not all of us are good slaves. Just because a dude's title says "Dr." does not make him the Annointed Master of Life and Death. See Mengele, Dr. Josef.

Brian--allow me to pose a q... (Below threshold)

Brian--allow me to pose a question to you:

Who should be allowed to make life-and-death decisions for Terri?

A. Her husband, even though he's living with and has had children by another woman

--or--

B. Her mother, father, and siblings, who have stood time and time again willing to assume Terri's care?

What I'm asking is for you to stop arguing about her mental capacity, stop arguing about the constitutionality of the Congressional action, and answer and explain your answer to that single question. Legally, I know that the law provides Michael with that capacity. I'm asking whether you believe he should have that position.

Brian also is using the fal... (Below threshold)
Ted:

Brian also is using the fallacy called "Appeal to Authority" - but who needs to reason when you are pimping the Annointed Glory of the Infailable Experts.

Brian, read the medical r... (Below threshold)

Brian, read the medical reports from when Terri was first admitted to the hospital. Among other things, she is documented as giving verbal cues and a few words to her parents and her husband. She tracks objects with her eyes, and responds to verbal prompts if she has the ability to do so. This isn't a matter of what we want to believe, its a matter of what it actually is. The court is drawing a completely contradictory conclusion from what medical experts are testifying to be fact. Over a dozen doctors said that she is not comatose nor braindead after examining Terri. Medical documentation declares that she is capable of feeling pain, responding to prompts, and limited interaction. I say "limited interaction" because of the restrictions Michael has placed on those who can see Terri.

What everyone is not noticing here is both Michael Schiavo's attorney George Felos and Judge Greer both have vested interests in the hospice Terri currently reside in - yet neither has recused themself from the case because of this conflict of interest. Any lawyer will tell you that there is no real way that can be considered acceptable when it becomes a life and death matter like this. Judge Greer in particular is not giving Terri a fair chance because his own interests may lie contrary to her own, and therefore contaminates his ability to objectively weigh the facts of this case. Add to the fact that Judge Greer, it can be argued, is being complicit with Felos by denying any new testimony or introduction of evidence, with a blanket statement of calling anything new "irrelevant" - evidence and testimony that could show that keeping Terri alive will generate good results with proper treatment and therapy.

I bring up the "complicit" angle because it is essentially his job to hear anything that could change the outcome of the trial - being pigheaded doesn't make for good judgements, or a fair trial. Especially when you appear to be rubber-stamping whatever motions Schiavo's attorney brings up. When you have dozens of doctors and neurologists CHOMPING AT THE BIT to testify pretty uniformly that Terri deserves a re-evaluation, you sit up and take notice. At the very least, she deserves a re-evaluation by a different team of doctors, a different set of judicial eyes, and a much more humane way of ending her life (if it proves ABSOLUTELY necessary - not "kind of, but we're not sure" necessary). Starving a woman to death because a judge isn't doing his job isn't right and nobody deserves to be treated that way.

You might have a point if I... (Below threshold)
Brian:

You might have a point if I was talking about blind commitment to a single doctor. But I said "all of the doctors and nurses who have examined and cared for her for 15 years". I haven't done the research, but feel free to do so. How many could that be? 30? 50? 100? And not a single one has come forward to say she can talk. I don't believe that even the Schindlers' medical experts are making that claim. Heck, the Schindlers themselves only recently started to claim this.

So to disregard the conclusion of so many who have directly observed her is delusional. And labeling me as a crutch to help you avoid the issue doesn't help you.

Brian's says the annointed EXPERTS say she should die, we should be good sheeple and submit to their mastery.

Wow, you outdid yourself in falsely attributing something to me that is not even close to what I said. Fortunately, my actual words are just a few comments above, so your blatent lies are quite obvious.

Brian--allow me to pose ... (Below threshold)
Brian:

Brian--allow me to pose a question to you:
Who should be allowed to make life-and-death decisions for Terri?
A. Her husband...
--or--
B. Her mother, father, and siblings...

Easy. The answer is A.

Which is the answer given by the vast majority of Americans. Only 25% want that decision reserved for their parents.

While I value this blog for... (Below threshold)
DavidB:

While I value this blog for its view point, this one is way off the mark, and your use of selective cropping to make your point is disingenuous.

He wasn't allowed to complete the thought/sentence you post as proof. So it is proof of nothing really since you can not determine what the rest of the statement may have been.

Let's look at some other text from the transcript that you left out, and that many seem to want to gloss over, or simply ignore.

KING: Hold it Michael -- on hearsay, George, thought, the only word that she said that is Michael's, right, George?

FELOS: No. That's not correct. Because she made those statements to her best friend, Joan and also to her brother-in-law. There were three witnesses and numerous statements to those witnesses over different periods of time. I don't want to be kept alive artificially. No tubes for me. I want to go when my time comes. If I ever had to be dependent upon anyone, I wouldn't want to live that way.

I mean, Terri made her wishes clear. And that's what the court found.

This has been decided by a court of law, that this was the desire of this woman.

If the only thing he was out for was the money, why has he not taken the offers that have been made for money to release Terri to her parents!

It's really very simple. She did not want this, it is not Michael's word against the parents.

Time and again this guy has suffered the indignation of having false accusation made against him, proven to be false, and yet he keeps it up. Why do you think? Possibly because he made a promise to the woman he loves that he would not let her continue to exist in this manner, as she wished it. It would have been so much easier for him to drop the whole thing and turn her over to her parents. He would not have suffered the crap he is going through now.

I admire him for sticking to his principles.

Man, I can hardly wait for the flames from this . . .

Oliver is still an asshat n... (Below threshold)
DavidB:

Oliver is still an asshat no matter what though . . .

Brian, it's truly fascinati... (Below threshold)

Brian, it's truly fascinating how you omitted the crux of the issue with a trite little "..."

I felt like that was the mentality of your argument, but thanks for proving me right.

You are lying to first yourself, then the world, if you can honestly say you would want an estranged spouse to wield that type of power over you.

Um, DavidB--are you sure yo... (Below threshold)

Um, DavidB--are you sure you want to talk about how wonderfully Michael has stuck to his principles? How about his wedding vows?

Just asking . . .

I mean, if his love for Terri is so deep and all . . .

Oh, nevermind. Somebody did say something in another thread about teaching a pig to sing.

Isn't that audio from 2004.... (Below threshold)

Isn't that audio from 2004. Nice try.

Nice try Bo, but you still ... (Below threshold)
DavidB:

Nice try Bo, but you still didn't reply to the main point, that this is her wish, as told to others. . .

But I guess that pig statement would fit, wouldn't it?

Most of the questions I had... (Below threshold)

Most of the questions I had about this case were answered here: http://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/infopage.html

The husband was not the only person relied upon for Terri's wish to not be kept on life support. There is far too much disniformation floating around about this case. I don't trust the family and I don't trust the husband either to give an accurate account at this point. But the link above seems unbiased in my view to give an accounting of fact, and not emotoin.

Conservatives have consisntantly railed against the "emotional" aspect of politics, yet here they are exploiting it for their own gain. Pathetic really.

"Which is the answer given ... (Below threshold)
Ted:

"Which is the answer given by the vast majority of Americans. Only 25% want that decision reserved for their parents."

Brian offers another fine example of the Slave Morality. Never mind right/wrong on a individual basis, let's make the decision to kill another human being based on the faceless Herd. Let's kill Terri based on some survey. Sick.

"Regardless of which tests ... (Below threshold)
Just Me:

"Regardless of which tests you think she should have that you say she hasn't have... You are now saying that all of the doctors and nurses who have examined and cared for her for 15 years are so incompetent that, despite their diagnoses, they have never once noticed that Terri can talk or communicate."

Actually not all the doctors are in agreement, and there were several affidavits from nurses who believed she was aware and concious. Not sure how many reported that she was speaking, but there are a lot of disabled people out there who don't have speech, surely you aren't advocating we starve all of them to death too.

Okay, DavidB . . . I'll Bit... (Below threshold)

Okay, DavidB . . . I'll Bite.

Actually five people made the statement that Terri had indicated that she wouldn't want to live:

1. Her own mother: Said Terri was so moved by hearing of the case of Karen Ann Quinlan that she made a statement to the effect of "they should just leave her alone." That was taken to mean that Ms. Quinlan should be allowed to die. Terri made this statement when she was 11 or 12 years old.

2. An unnamed witness also said Terri made the same sort of statement regarding the Quinlin case, but because of the conflict between the verbage of the comment and the time at which the exchange took place, the testimony was ruled to be potentially inaccurate. Complicating the testimony of this witness was the fact that she had exceptional recall about the exchange during the trial, but limited memory at her earlier deposition.

3. Michael Shiavo said he and his wife had several conversations regarding her wishes. This testimony, alone, wasn't considered enough to stand alone on such a weighty matter.

4&5. Scott Schiavo and Joan Schiavo: Michael's brother and sister-in-law submitted testimony indicating that Terri had made similar statements to them as Michael had claimed were made to him. The court found no reason on the surface to doubt their testimony, although there were questions raised regarding why they waited so long to step forward.

Also, there was "expert testimony" by Beverly Tyler, Executive director of Georgia Health Discoveries, who testified that the views allegedly taken by Terri about not wanting to be "hooked to a machine" were typical for her age group and demographic.

OK--there you have it. She said something when she was a preteen, in response to a right-to-die case televised at that time in her life; another witness was essentially discredited; her husband made his claims, which were backed up by his brother and sister-in-law (his brother's wife); and "expert testimony" that established these views as "typical."

One unrelated account before she reached her majority, Three related witnesses stating the same thing. One witness who didn't know Terri.

This set of witnesses and testimony would be laughed out of a criminal court--why would you accept it as undeniable proof in this case?

There is simply no way of knowing beyond reasonable doubt what Terri would have wanted. Accept that fact and start looking at who would be more likely to have her best interests at heart--the estranged husband or the parents.

Now as to the "nice try" bit . . . exactly what did I try to do and not succeed? You didn't answer my point regarding why you insist Michael is above reproach. To hear people harping upon his position as her husband while ignoring the FACT that HE IS RAISING A FAMILY WITH ANOTHER WOMAN conjures the mental picture of a three year old, hands firmly clasped over his ears, screaming "LALALALALALALA"

Don't ask me why.

Just before the part of the... (Below threshold)
JC:

Just before the part of the transcript you qoute:

M. SCHIAVO: Because this is what Terri wanted. This is her wish.

Not that that justifies killing her. I'm on your side, I just don't like for things to be taken out of context.

To your credit, you did link to the entire transcript so people could see for themselves.

JC

Anybody else notice that Br... (Below threshold)
done that:

Anybody else notice that Bri-bri's numbers changed. 1st there were 40% favoring the parents, now he says 20%.

Tell the voices in your head to get their act together bub.

BoDiddly wrote:Br... (Below threshold)
Brian:

BoDiddly wrote:
Brian, it's truly fascinating how you omitted the crux of the issue with a trite little "...". I felt like that was the mentality of your argument, but thanks for proving me right.

I assume that you think I was spinning my response by omitting:
A. Her husband, even though he's living with and has had children by another woman
--or--
B. Her mother, father, and siblings, who have stood time and time again willing to assume Terri's care?

But in fact, that's exactly what my answer addressed. The statistic I quoted was in specific regard to Terry's case, in which her husband and family are exactly as described in your original question (even if we disregard the obvious bias you included in the phrasing of your question).

I edited for space and clarity. The original question posed was just a few posts above mine, so nothing was being obscured. Though I'm pleased that that's the only issue you have with my response.

You are lying to first yourself, then the world, if you can honestly say you would want an estranged spouse to wield that type of power over you.

I'm sorry that your marriage, or your view of marriage, is so shallow as to think that a spouse's love for their partner ends as soon as one goes into a coma, or even 15 years later. Nobody knows me as well as my wife does, and that includes my parents. She is the only one I'd want making decisions for me.

And you are grossly misusing the word "estranged".

been there/done that wrote:... (Below threshold)
Brian:

been there/done that wrote:
Anybody else notice that Bri-bri's numbers changed. 1st there were 40% favoring the parents, now he says 20%. Tell the voices in your head to get their act together bub.

Maybe the voices in my head can teach you to read.

In a Fox poll, 38% said that parents should make the decision in a generic scenario when a person is in a vegatative state. In another poll, 25% said that Terry's parents should make the decision in her specific case (and 65% said that Michael should).

And please, when you use your childish name-calling powers, capitalize the second "B" in "Bri-Bri".

First, I don't think "a spo... (Below threshold)

First, I don't think "a spouse's love for their partner ends as soon as one goes into a coma, or even 15 years later." I do think that a spouse's love for their partner isn't best expressed by taking up residence with another person and raising a family there.

Further, the poll you linked to made no indication whatsoever to the status of the spouse, neither in the question nor in the lead-in statements. If the respondents didn't already know the circumstances, the question offered nothing.

Which part of having a common-law wife and children by said common-law wife doesn't fit with the term "estranged?"

For your reference:
es·trange - 1. To make hostile, unsympathetic, or indifferent; alienate. 2. To remove from an accustomed place or set of associations.
(dictionary.com)

4&5. Scott Schiav... (Below threshold)
DavidB:


4&5. Scott Schiavo and Joan Schiavo: Michael's brother and sister-in-law submitted testimony indicating that Terri had made similar statements to them as Michael had claimed were made to him. The court found no reason on the surface to doubt their testimony, although there were questions raised regarding why they waited so long to step forward.

Questions that were addressed in the decision rendered by the judge in the case. He noted their candor in making their statements in that they made comments that could not have been beneficial to Michael's case. It did not reduce or negate their statements in his view.


This set of witnesses and testimony would be laughed out of a criminal court--why would you accept it as undeniable proof in this case?

What criminal court have you practiced in lately Bo? Many have been convicted on less then the word of three witnesses. Oh by the way, it is a civil court we are dealing with here and the burden is a little bit different. So, reasonable doubt is not the standard and the only standard is who is the legal guardian? Has there been a compeling reason to remove this person as the legal guardian? No, not in the court's view.


There is simply no way of knowing beyond reasonable doubt what Terri would have wanted. Accept that fact and start looking at who would be more likely to have her best interests at heart--the estranged husband or the parents.

Addressed part of that already, the rest is easy too . . . he is only estranged if he removed himself from the support and care of his wife. Since he is still married and caring for her, he is not estranged. Check the definition on that one Skippy. His way of showing his love for her may have changed, and it has, but that does not mean he has stopped loving this woman. Your narrow view to the contrary does not make it so.


Now as to the "nice try" bit . . . exactly what did I try to do and not succeed? You didn't answer my point regarding why you insist Michael is above reproach.

Nice try at redirecting away from the questions asked. You didn't address them and still haven't hit them all. But, again, that is the current tack being used here. Find a single point to harp on and fail to address the total issue. But don't put words in my mouth, I never said he was above reproach, go back and check it. Neither party has been above reproach, and if you think her parents have been, you are clearly delusional.


To hear people harping upon his position as her husband while ignoring the FACT that HE IS RAISING A FAMILY WITH ANOTHER WOMAN conjures the mental picture of a three year old, hands firmly clasped over his ears, screaming "LALALALALALALA"

I never ignored the fact that he is raising another family as well. Never mentioned it because it is not an issue in the case before the court. The simple fact is that legally, he is still the husband and legal guardian for her.


Don't ask me why.

Would think of it, your response would be LALALALALALALALALALALA . . . . .

I do think that a spouse... (Below threshold)
Brian:

I do think that a spouse's love for their partner isn't best expressed by taking up residence with another person and raising a family there.

And so he can only speak for her if he puts his life on hold for 15 years? If I were in Terri's position, I would want my wife to carry on, and I would know that did not diminish the love she had for me.

the poll you linked to made no indication whatsoever to the status of the spouse

Oh, please. The poll referred specifically to the Schiavo case. This case has been the top news story for a week now, with the prurient details of Michael's love life above the fold. Surely even someone as cynical as you wouldn't suggest that most people are so stupid as to have missed the basic details.

Which part of having a common-law wife and children by said common-law wife doesn't fit with the term "estranged?"

The part where you define "estranged". Michael is neither hostile, unsympathetic, nor indifferent towards Terri.

DavidB:There certa... (Below threshold)

DavidB:

There certainly have been criminal cases based upon less testimony than three witnesses--but when the verbal testimony is all that exists--no hard evidence whatsoever, it's a quite flimsy case.

You're exactly right on one glaring point: Has there been a compeling reason to remove this person as the legal guardian? No, not in the court's view. I think that what I (and many others) have a huge problem with the fact that the courts are willing to make no concession towards the fact that he has had precious little to do with Terri, rather he has been building a life with someone else. As to Terri's family being "above reproach," I won't claim that there is arguably as much financial gain for them as for Michael, and therefore a potential conflict of interest. One pointed difference, though--they want her alive, he wants her to die.

David, the argument I am making isn't whether Michael IS the person in charge, but rather whether he SHOULD BE. I believe it is pretty much indiscernable whether Terri really wanted to have feeding stopped, but again, in my estimation, an error is greater if it costs a life.

I do think that this situation can be seen as what is right morally versus what is right legally.

Now, Brian, you had this observation: And so he can only speak for her if he puts his life on hold for 15 years? If I were in Terri's position, I would want my wife to carry on, and I would know that did not diminish the love she had for me.

I concede that I would wish for my spouse to move on, if I were in the same situation. But I would want her to MOVE ON--that means divorce me, leave me alone, and let someone make decisions on my behalf who did have a life-long committment that they took seriously. Were his love for Terri so deep I think he'd have a tiny little problem staying married to her and carrying on with someone else.

As to the "estranged" definition, feel free to pick and choose the words you wish. I would personally consider hostile and unsympathetic his willful use of monies intended to pay for her rehabilitation for his own legal battles to end her life. And to include the parts of the definition that are less convenient for you, he is certainly alienated, and removed from an accustomed place or set of associations. He is her estranged spouse, by any measure--except that of one who would seek to defend him.

I thought I had seen it all... (Below threshold)
Jim:

I thought I had seen it all until I went over to the WillisTard's site and read his commentary.

Its sad really, Willis and the WillisTard brigades have found a new low.

"And so he can only speak f... (Below threshold)
Just Me:

"And so he can only speak for her if he puts his life on hold for 15 years? If I were in Terri's position, I would want my wife to carry on, and I would know that did not diminish the love she had for me."

Nice to know that, but frankly, once my husband starts living with, having sex with, and making babies with another woman, he has a conflict of interest and I don't want him making those kinds of decisions for me. It has nothing to do with how much I love and trust my husband, but with the fact that if he has moved on, he has moved on and needs to let somebody who has my interests in mind make the decisions.


"Oh, please. The poll referred specifically to the Schiavo case. This case has been the top news story for a week now, with the prurient details of Michael's love life above the fold. Surely even someone as cynical as you wouldn't suggest that most people are so stupid as to have missed the basic details."

LOL even on blogs where people are discussing this case all over the place I find people who are still refering to Terri as brain dead, and even some references to respirators, and most people on blogs are much more informed than the general public.

Also, I know a lot of people who don't pick up a newspaper or even watch the nightly news. I just don't think you can assume that people answering these polls are fully informed on the facts of the case (either direction for that matter-since there are some misrepresentations on the pro Terri side as well). Maybe these polls should include a "how closely have you followed the Schiavo case in the news" question.

"Michael is neither hostile, unsympathetic, nor indifferent towards Terri."

And I think I absolutely disagree. There are several affidavits from nurses who report a fairly hostile Michael. And frankly, taking up with another woman and making babies doesn't equal the loving and devoted husband.

I don't know for certain that Terri wanted to die, but I don't trust the evidence provided either, and her guardian ad litem didn't either, which is why he recomended against pulling the tube.

Maybe these polls should... (Below threshold)
Brian:

Maybe these polls should include a "how closely have you followed the Schiavo case in the news" question.

They did.

even on blogs where peop... (Below threshold)
Brian:

even on blogs where people are discussing this case all over the place I find people who are still refering to Terri as brain dead, and even some references to respirators, and most people on blogs are much more informed than the general public.

That's nice. But the point in question was whether people are aware that Michael has a relationship with another woman. That is certainly a widely reported fact.

Thank you:The link... (Below threshold)
Just Me:

Thank you:

The link says that 44% of respondents didn't follow the case closely.

That is a pretty big skew for you to be claiming that they were aware of Michael's new girlfriend and subsequent children.

I bet they also weren't aware that the life support was in fact a feeding tube and not a machine either.

Makes you also wonder if the knew about the money.

Ollie & Co are absolutely i... (Below threshold)

Ollie & Co are absolutely insane... and they've made the Democrats the Deathocrats (h/t Michael Savage caller Rick)

Also... seriously, Paul - would appreciate a H/T if you follow information that I'm providing to you via trackbacks... see this post and my trackback:

St Wendeler
Another Rovian Conspiracy


Bo,It's hard to re... (Below threshold)
DavidB:

Bo,

It's hard to reconcile your view with the history . . .

You say . . .

I think that what I (and many others) have a huge problem with the fact that the courts are willing to make no concession towards the fact that he has had precious little to do with Terri . . .

The history after her accident

February 1990… Terri suffers cardiac arrest and a severe loss of oxygen to her brain


May 1990… Terri leaves hospital and is brought to a rehabiliation center for aggressive therapy


July 1990… Terri is brought to the home where her husband and parents live; after a few weeks, she is brought back to the rehabilitation center


November 1990… Terri is taken to California for experimental therapies


January 1991… Terri is returned to Florida and placed at a rehabilitation center in Brandon


July 1991… Terri is transfered to a skilled nursing facility where she receives aggressive physical therapy and speech therapy

What is even more telling is what is contained within the judges order of February 2000 . . .

On February 14 1993, this amicable relationship between parties was severed. While testimony differs on what may or may not have been promised to whom and by whom, it is clear to this court that such severence was predicated upon money and the fact that Mr.Schiavo was unwilling to equally divide his loss of consortium award with Mr. and Mrs. Schindler.

The Schindlers sound like fine upstanding folks to me, right? Why should he share an award to himself for loss of consortium? They are sounding like money grubbers to me as much as Mr. Schiavo has been accussed of.

A few more tidbits from the decision . . .

There is this item . . .

Therefore, neither side is exempt from finger pointing as to possible conflicts of interest in this case.

How about this one . . .

By all accounts, Mr. Schiavo has been very motivated in pursuing the best medical care for his wife, even taking her to California for a month or so for experimental treatment. It is undisputed that he was very agressive with nursing home personnel to make certain tht she received the finest care.

Or this one . . .

It is interesting to note that Mr. Schiavo continues to be the most regular visitor to his wife even though he is criticized for wanting to remove her life support. Dr. Gambone even noted that close attention to detail has resulted in her excellent physical condition and that Petitioner is very involved.

Hardly sounds like the monster many have made him out to be.

What is most telling, and leads me to believe that the parents are delusional at best are these passages from the decision . . .


...the court finds beyond all doubt that Theresa Marie Schiavo is in a persistent vegetative state...


The medical evidence before this court conclusively establishes that she has no hope of ever regaining consciousness and therefore capacity, and that without the feeding tube she will die in seven to fourteen days.


...the overwhelming credible evidence is that Terri Schiavo has been totally unresponsive since lapsing into the coma almost ten years ago, that her movements are reflexive and predicated on brain stem activity alone, that she suffers from severe structural brain damage and to a large extent her brain has been replaced by spinal fluid, that with the exception of one witness whom the court finds to be so biased as to lack credibility, her movements are occasional and totally consistent with the testimony of the expert medical witnesses. The testimony of Dr. Barnhill establishes that Terri Schiavo's reflex actions such as breathing and movement shows merely that her brain stem and spinal cord are intact.

What do they hope to do with a body and no brain? Read that again, to a large extent her brain has been replaced by spinal fluid.

Last time I checked the gray matter did the thinking, no gray matter, no thinking.

This never should have reached the Federal Courts. This was all done for political grandstanding by the Congress and the Republicans are the most to blame for this. These shenanigans don't make the party look good.

I've been writing this all ... (Below threshold)
-S-:

I've been writing this all along, at least as long as I've been aware of the statemets made by Michael Schiavo, and that is that he's not a reliable personality. He routinely and continuously makes demands based upon his own insistence (since Terry Schiavo left nothing in writing, and since everyone else who knows her closely offer a complete opposite in experience with her other than what Michael S. says she 'wanted,' it AT LEAST poses a reasonable doubt that the 'husband' is being lucid about what Terry did/did not want or intend for her own care). His very ongoing comments affirm to me that his focus is on his own will (he "needs" Terry to die, he insists that she die, he's devoted his entire recent lifetime to "ensuring" that Terry Schiavo die, and it seems to my view to be an indication of the guy's will to be 'right' not the guy's desire or willingness to provide care for is wife and we have a huge collection of statements made by Michael Schiavo at this point that prove the strange psychology of the guy, the distancing and often refusal by him to even refer to Terry Schiavo as being alive at present, to defer to her with any compassion other than that "Terry died fifteen years ago" [she did not, since she's still alive by all medical standards]).

I think Michael Schiavo is a nutcase but that's my opinion. If and when someone becomes so incapacitated as to be "a vegetable" (Terry Schiavo isn't in a "persistent vegetative state" despite the insistence by some and that's medically evidenced), it doesn't render them "dead" if and when there's a capacity to maintain them as being alive.

On a purely scientific basis alone, Michael Schiavo makes no sense and continues, as it appears other imablanced individuals are doing (hint, hint), to force their own opinion onto others simply because it's their opinion, without regard for what someone else may or may not desire or even conclude.

cindy: whgat julie wrote (... (Below threshold)
-S-:

cindy: whgat julie wrote (^^), among others.

I've tried to take in stride so many of your earlier comments on Wizbang, but unless those comments (this thread, your first ones, calling for President Bush to abandon the Presidency and for Terry Schiavo to be put to death) were written by a very disturbed impersonator, I'm completely horrified at what you've written.

What you've (or whoever) have (has) expressed is so inaccurate as to call your own person into question. You've written before that you're in a wheelchair (I believe so, anyway) and I'm wondering how you'd reason if Oliver Willis and his kind started to campaign that all inconveniently physically characterisations be eliminated -- they're on that train of thought already in the Netherlands -- and it is the logical progression of thought after you've first decided that any/certain phsycial/mental/emotional conditions are too costly, too inconvenient, too difficult, too whatever, for others to be responsible for.

DavidB: you've quoted Felo... (Below threshold)
-S-:

DavidB: you've quoted Felos as posing statements HE accredits as being those of Terry Schiavo (as has his client, Michael Schiavo) and yet the family and OTHER friends all say that they never heard Terry ever express such a statement nor anything similar.

She HAS been established to have been 'a devout Catholic." If that was the case ( and it is from what's being reported), then she (Terry Schiavo) could never and would never endorse or support putting anyone to death under such circumstances.

Because Terry left no written directive about what it was she wanted, we are (society is) left to reason our way through this as best and humanely as possible. I realize that many people cannot perceive any worth of persisting or allowing someone to persist while requiring medical helps to do so. But, it doesn't make that the humane decision, to put a person to death, just because it's an inconvenience to care for them, or to maintain under those circumstances.

Felos and Michael Schiavo -- along with Oliver Willis -- seem like very evil, uncaring and quite insane persons about this issue, based upon their insistences that their opinions are truth.

Terry Schiavo has done nothing to require being put to death. Allow her family to care for her since they've offered and desire the responsibilities involved, and at least allow qualified and competent medical and rehabilitative care if not only merely evaluations, and then arrive at some decision about her. However, this is a person (Terry Schiavo) who has been denied much of the rehabilitative care that she was originally decided she be provided with and without that, we'll never know what she is capable of. Whether she can ever sustain life independently is doubtful, everyone (nearly) understands this, but it's a case of erring on the side of life. About which, I completely agree with President Bush's statement about this as I do with Terry Schiavo's parents and brother.

Interesting, friends of Ter... (Below threshold)
-S-:

Interesting, friends of Terry Schiavo are now coming forward and saying that Terry was not happy in her marriage with Michael, that she even discussed divorcing him, and that she (Terry Schiavo) rejected the idea of removing a feeding tube from those who were suffering with such prior to her collapse and her own experiences with that.

And yet you have Michael Schiavo (one person) and his attorney (another person, not at all unbiased, nor anyone who has any familiarity with what Terry Schiavo wanted or wants now) and that's it. Those are the only two persons promoting that Terry be put to death, while all the other persons who knew and know Terry Schiavo repeatedly and have consistently expressed that Michael Schiavo is not representing Terry's wishes.

Perhaps Terry COULD have said at some point in her past that she found being maintained on a feeding tube not acceptable. Maybe she did, maybe she didn't. BUT she also could have changed her mind, been under undue influence when she expressed what it's alleged she did (to and by Michaal Schiavo only)...who knows, but she was also bulemic it's reported and in an unhappy relationship with Michael Schiavo at the time of her collapse and that's enough for me to indicate that someone else should be responsible for her care other than Michael Schiavo, coupled with the fact that afterward, his behavior and very statements indicate someone more bent on enforcing what it is HE wants and not that he's acting on Terry Schiavo's behalf, certainly not in her best interests.

And Brian: thanks for shar... (Below threshold)
-S-:

And Brian: thanks for sharing what it is you would want on your own behalf and for sharing who it is that you regard as being most responsive to what it is you would want, or may want, or do want, depending.

But, the issue isn't about your life nor about Michael Schiavo's life nor about Oliver Willis' life nor about what it is you all as individuals reason your own decisions would be under whatever circumstances.

The issue is about what Terry Schiavo wanted and wants now. Which is yet more evidence that we as a society are obligated to find that out as best we can. So far, the social evidence exists far more abundantly that what she wanted in the past and may still want now is that she remain alive. There are people who love her and want to assume her care and would like to help her maintain her life, so let them. I can't see concluding that someone be put to death simply because a former spouse insists upon it.

Or you do, or does Oliver Willis. You all have the right to ensure that society put you to death if and when you experience whatever, but you don't have the right to insist on taking someone else's life simply because that's what you'd want for yourself.

And, DavidB: a key point h... (Below threshold)
-S-:

And, DavidB: a key point here is that Michael Schiavo HAS displayed behavior that indicates to my view (and I think to many reasonable persons' also) that he is not providing acceptable care as a representative to Terry Schiavo. And, unfortunately, the judicial process he's claiming has avoided booting him from his "husband" and therefore spousal responsibilities as representative for Terry Schiavo, that judicial process has involved individuals who are, even tonight/this morning, exhibiting real need to prove their own perspective as to issues and not as to what is best for this person (Terry)...meaning, there's reason to assume that there is no clear representation of what is best for the individual but what certain persons are using in relationship to Terry Schiavo to prove some point of their own.

Even the judge tonight indicates that he has some upset about enforcing "what a person wants for themselves" and seems to assume that becauase Michael Schiavo says so, it must be what he says Terry wanted.

I do believe that there are a handful of individuals who are persistent on Terry Schiavo being put to death simply because that would ensure their perpsective, and are abandoning, if not long ago abandoned, any desire to do what it is is best for Terry Schiavo. Since her parents and siblings and now even friends say the polar opposite to what Michael and attorney and commercially related judge have had to say about this situation, I'm thinking that there's reason to believe that we can at least, as a society, allow the woman to die a less painful death, if not to simply live out her years as she is now under someone else's care.

That Michael Schiavo prevented any rehabilitative, or even basic health care, for Terry for so many years, along with disallowing her the interactions with anyone, much less those who loved her (and particularly after he was awarded funds for that purpose on Terry's behalf), I'm of the opinion that the guy has done what is best for himself and abandoned any empathy for his (former) wife. I write former because he's obviously moved on with his life -- perhaps he should let his former wife do likewise and allow her to receive the care and affections that others would so love to devote to her. Notice that Michael Schiavo refuses that last part and yet justifies his own life experiences as being unremarkable to include intimacy with another woman resulting in children with her. Not like he's willing to allow Terry Schiavo to have anything other than death.

DavidB: that "aggressive r... (Below threshold)
-S-:

DavidB: that "aggressive rehabilitative care" is curiously never explained in any details that would substantiate just what that involved.

Another thing: there's conflicting evaluative information been provided about Terry's capacity even by a few physicians offering opinions about her. However, I'm willing to assume that Terry Schiavo is not capable of sufficient mental function to ever maintain life independent of requiring intensive medical care by others. Even if she never displays the ability to swallow food (something yet to be established), it is not a reason to put this person to death, to conclude her life.

Otherwise, there are many others with grave mental and/or physical impairments and conditions who'd "deserve" to die also. Which they shouldn't, just saying here that despite Terry's current situation, what her condition is does not justify by definition that she be put to death.

Particularly since there are persons willing and able to care for her, to maintain her current life. The situation is whether or not Terry Schiavo should be maintained as currently alive and that equals, whether or not she should be put to death by denial of care. I don't think it's much of an argument.

S,Your level of mi... (Below threshold)
DavidB:

S,

Your level of mis-information is astounding and disturbing.

I never quoted Felos, go back and read the decision by the judge. Get it, the judge!

If you are having a hard time finding this stuff, here you go . . .

http://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/trialctorder02-00.pdf

That is the initial document that I quoted from.

You are clearly the one having a hard time looking at the evidence, let me say that again for you, EVIDENCE, and understanding what it means.

You clearly have not read much on this other then what the biased view point is. If you had bothered to go back and read a little more about it, you would have found material that clearly contradicts the statements you have made. Material from the court, the numerous doctors involved, the numerous appeal decisions. It is all available, you just don't want to deal in fact.

Get the facts.

Time and again the parents have lost on the points of law and the evidence presented.

Try this link, I know it will be hard for you because it flies in the face of everything you want to believe, but the decisions contain the explanations as to why they were made.

http://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/infopage.html

Thought this was agood one ... (Below threshold)
G.:

Thought this was agood one from Fox's John Gibson.

The Schiavo's Marriage Is Clearly a Sham

Monday, March 21, 2005

By John Gibson

Here's my take on the Terri Schiavo (search) deal:

A huge argument has broken out about whether or not Congress and the president should have stuck their nose into the Terri Schiavo case. Some people say thank God they did. Some say it's the end of the Republic — that Madison is rolling in his grave and that the separation of powers have been trampled by Congress butting into the business of the state courts.

I say we never would be in this position if it weren't for the Florida courts recognizing what is clearly a sham marriage.

At this point, Michael Schiavo (search) asserted his right as husband and guardian to insist his wife Terri's feeding tube be removed. At this point Michael Schiavo is married to Terri Schiavo only for the purpose of ending her life.

The reason I say that is that he has another "wife," has two kids by her and is leading another life.

If Terri Schiavo were in good enough shape to say whether she wanted to live or die, she might first say she wants a divorce, considering the fact her husband has another wife and two kids.

And if she were to do that, would Michael Schiavo still have the standing to claim guardianship to be able to pull her feeding tube? No.

If he didn't have that guardianship, who would? Her parents. Would they pull the feeding tube? No. Would it then be necessary for Congress and the president to get involved? No.

So this whole thing turns on whether Michael and Terri Schiavo are really married and the fact that the Florida courts continue to recognize a marriage that exists only for the purpose of killing her. Surely the Florida courts cannot be that dumb. And, if they are, then surely somebody else ought to get involved — perhaps even Congress and the president.

I don't think this is so hard. If you recognize reality you will see that as of Friday, when Michael Schiavo ordered the feeding tube removed, they weren't really married. They haven't been since he took the other "wife" and had two kids.

Are the Florida courts saying an ex-husband gets to decide when an ex-wife dies? If so, there is going to be a very long line at the court's front door.

That's My Word.

Only a few quick points . .... (Below threshold)

Only a few quick points . . .

-S-: Excellent posts. You more exhaustively addressed many of the comments that have been flying here than I am capable of doing, with my current time constraints.

DavidB: I have read extensively the information you quote (prior to your posts, btw), and yes, we get it--the judge. In your line of thinking, obviously, the great, omniscient, omnipotent judge. Any fool can read the letter of the law, but we are supposed to have courts to apply the spirit of the law to a given case. Such has been done in numerous court decisions--but not this one. In no way could the law have been directly intended to apply to a spouse who has so removed himself from his incapacitated wife socially, physically, and emotionally as to take up residence and family with another woman.

And to Brian: There is still a lingering question, that you avoided by taking issue with the word "estranged." Would you be comfortable--no, I'll go farther--would you knowingly allow a spouse who has set up a second household after your incapacitation make the types of decisions for you as Michael has made for Terri? Nobody requests Michael put his life on "pause", we just wonder why he insists on pushing the "stop" button on Terri's when he seems to be living a pretty full life without her.

And a personal note to DavidB and Brian: I truly like a spirited debate. I have enjoyed (believe it or not) sparring with you two, and you, for the most part, have proven yourselves to be artful in this department. I disagree with your conclusions, but you've generally maintained an air of respect towards me and towards others. There's an air of antagonism that necessarily comes from debate, but it needn't be uncivilized. I thank you for attempting to maintain that level of civility, and look forward to more of the same, whether on this case or on the next hot issue.

DavidB: ahh, stupid grassh... (Below threshold)
-S-:

DavidB: ahh, stupid grasshopper, but I never stated that you "quoted Felos."

You misunderstood what I wrote, so I'd say that that astounding misinformation, misperception problem (that last part is something I just added in case you misperceive these comments) is one of yours, not mine.

You can accuse people all you want about much of any personal failing but to my read, your comments are sorta crumbly, certainly inaccurate.

And, I've been able to quit... (Below threshold)
-S-:

And, I've been able to quite successfully find almost everything I've been curious about. That I was "having trouble finding (whatever)" is another one of those crumbly, unsubstantiated wanderings of yours. That's me being nice about you making inaccurate statements.

DavidB: many times, failed... (Below threshold)
-S-:

DavidB: many times, failed arguments "succeed" (for a time, at least but certainly in effect with enough duration to ensure human suffering) in "a court of law."

It does not mean that there's an actual success, just that some one thing or many are advanced or allowed to be sustained simply because they are (advanced, sustained). It does not, by a long shot, make them moral, ethical, acceptable, just that they've been "allowed to stand."

Most liberals liberally apply that line of retort to their own issues, those that are DISallowed in "court(s) of law," but in this case, there's an argument of ethics that involves the quite possible and it's looking like impending loss of life of a human being. Something worth fighting for.

No one's argued which what has not been 'won' in "a court of law," passed what judge or hasn't, but about the credibility, the moral acceptability, of those.

And, I don't read anywhere, on Wizbang and a few other blogs, that people are not facing facts or are unsuccessful in finding anything. In fact, I was just reading an article written by a physician and comments by other physicians about the problematic (that is, inaccurate) interpretation by "the court" about Terri Schiavo's CT scan. Link which I found in Wizbang...so it seems readers/commentors here, many of us, are, in fact, quite handy at finding a lot of things.

My error...I read that I wr... (Below threshold)
-S-:

My error...I read that I wrote "you've quoted Felos..." but that's an error. I intended (the point I was making) that you've referred to information that Felos has provided....

Meaning, you are and have referred to Felos and information he's, umm, provided, while also referring to Felos as source of fact.

Not that you cut and pasted comments by Felos, failed to accredit, etc., but that, my point earlier, that you're relying on arguable sources as "fact(s)" and seem to be routinely avoiding a certain perspective of curiosity about Terri Schiavo and related persons that seems unreliable in and of itself.

Meaning, you display obvious prejudice. Facts are only as factual as is the source credible.

Bo,Thanks . . .</p... (Below threshold)
DavidB:

Bo,

Thanks . . .

S,

You clearly need someone to lead you by the hand. Here is what you posted earlier,

DavidB: you've quoted Felos as posing statements HE accredits as being those of Terry Schiavo (as has his client, Michael Schiavo) and yet the family and OTHER friends all say that they never heard Terry ever express such a statement nor anything similar.

Take a look back, that's a direct quote from your earlier rant. So you did indeed say that I quoted Felos. If you can't even get that right . . . .

So who is the stupid grasshopper? Have a mirror handy Skippy?

Oh, and I'm not a liberal, just a person capable of reviewing the facts, evidence and the moral implications and arriving at a conclusion for myself.

S,Every quote that... (Below threshold)
DavidB:

S,

Every quote that I have made has been from court documents, scanned and made into PDF's. Are you saying the court is not a credible source of information?

I trust the court as a more reliable source of information then any blog, obviously prejudicial, or biased web site.

Please, please, please, provide one link, to a credible source, that refutes what I have quoted from court documents!

You can't!

So which quote that I made from a court document was inaccurate? You see, you make accusations that are without merit, have no basis in fact and lack the evidence to support them. Your statements about the accuracy of mine are certainly backward.

Now slow down a little and read carefully . . .

Remember what you say and how you say it . . .

S,Nice try at a ba... (Below threshold)
DavidB:

S,

Nice try at a back pedal, by the way . . .

If Michaels girlfriend is h... (Below threshold)
G.:

If Michaels girlfriend is his common law wife does that make him guilty of Polygamy?

DavidB: have you ever made... (Below threshold)
-S-:

DavidB: have you ever made a point, you concluded, and then moved on from there, and then later read or heard from some stranger who you have no reference or familiarity on or about, that they allege some misperception, they continue, based upon something they swear you said, wrote, expressed but that wasn't an aspect of the point you'd originally made in your own memory?

Well, that is what took place earlier. I wrote something occluded and intended a point that you perceived quite literally and quite entirely incorrectly, alleging some interpretation (that I now can see how you would since you read my comments in a critical perspective and appear to my view to need some sort of warfare or sticking point about anything I'd written, and you pounced on the vulerable, or sloppy, expression that I used). I interpreted your later critique, such as it was, as you misperceiving my point earlier because it was your misperception.

However, I wasn't clear on the point as I expressed it, so now you're continuing with the onslaught.

How's this: bad work by you perpetuating misperceptions based upon what appears to be an egotistical need to be on top?

Does that work for you? No? Hey, you 'said' that, you did, in what and how you expressed yourself. Perceptions are in the read of the beholder.

No backpeddling, because the point I made earlier is still sticking. You referred nearly in carbon copy to the content of the Michael Schiavo attorney's communication, and although not directly "quoting" the guy, you did, in fact, quote him by indirect reference in what you wrote, which misrepresents as surely as the attorney did, the information that should otherwise be reported clearly.

It's not a word game, just a rush of a keyboard, a complex framing of ideas. Surely you can comprehend that, if nothing more. If "backpeddling" works for you in that sense, then, yes, you are.

But, I do conclude and did ... (Below threshold)
-S-:

But, I do conclude and did earlier that it is you who is gravely misperceiving much here, out of some need you have that you aren't being lucid about, to perpetuate points that there is ample evidence to many of us to disprove or at least hold as invalid.

Much the same as has Michael Schiavo: because you will it to be, it just has to be...and despite the intellectual contributions of others, every other option is discounted because...you...must...be...right...by...whatever...ploy...possible.

That mentality bespeaks of the recent Kerry loss. And Dean loss. And others. Winning is about measurement of and about truth among your peers, not insistence.

S,{insert laugh tr... (Below threshold)
DavidB:

S,

{insert laugh track here}

Just because you don't understand the point, or choose to ignore it does not make it invalid. All of my "points," or views, are supported by documented sources. You have yet to provide one to support yours. There was no "perpetuating of misperceptions."

Your conclusion that I referred to someone's communication is clearly wrong and without basis. As I said, and provided the links for, my quotes came from the court documents, you can read, right?

You are clearly, again, delusional and unable to see the forest for the trees.

I will leave you with this little thought. You base your "points" on emotion without regard to the evidence to the contrary.

I base my "points" on the evidence and sum it up with emotion. You see, I have lived a portion of this story and speak from a level of experience.

I have a friend that I have known since high school, years ago. The summer after graduation he broke his neck in a surfing accident. For a while he was "dead," but brought back by a caring individual who pulled him from the water and administered CPR. He now lives in a wheel chair as a quad and tells me every time I see him how he wishes he was dead. His mother has views to the contrary. If it was within his power he would do it.

This is a thinking man, brain intact, who has expressed his wishes as to what he desires. He will never have his wish as long as his mother survives him.

His quality of life is a measure above Terri's, but only in that he has his brain intact and can think.

You have no idea of which you speak.

But, the issue isn't abo... (Below threshold)
Brian:

But, the issue isn't about your life nor about Michael Schiavo's life nor about Oliver Willis' life nor about what it is you all as individuals reason your own decisions would be under whatever circumstances. The issue is about what Terry Schiavo wanted and wants now.

So I guess you think that every person should have their own unique law specifically tailored to them.

I have been reading the com... (Below threshold)
Maggie4life:

I have been reading the comments with interest. I have to say that Bo, S and College Pundit have made some very good points. Their arguments (probably because they coincide with my own thoughts) are excellent.

DavidB: I have a problem with the way in which you have superimposed the selfish thoughts and wishes of your quadrapelic friend onto Terri. There are plenty of other individuals who have been in the same situation and who have done the best that they can to remain optimistic and give back something to the community. Christopher Reeve, despite his limitations gave to the community before he died. I can think of two other exceptional individuals, one being Stephen Hawking, and the other a man by the name of Quentin who have shown how they can do their best in adversity. Quentin has Spina Bifida and he has maintained a sense of humour above all else. I have often seen others who have a severe case of cerebral palsy. It is not always a pretty sight to see them like that but my thoughts do not give me the right to dictate that they should die because of their disability.

I think that S in particular has done a great job with the points that he has raised regarding Terri. It is very relevant to this issue that the husband is the one who is shacking up with another woman and he so obviously wants his wife dead.

As for Matt's site: Abstract Appeal, I have also looked at the comments that he has made on that site. I cannot fault his commentary about the facts that he has presented, however, I can fault his lack of investigation on the issues that surround this case. There are other issues that are very relevant to this case, especially the power that is given to guardians in relation to their wards, and the ability to make life and death decisions that go against what the ward wanted in the first place.

I do not believe that the evidence of Michael's brother and sister in law should in fact be seen as totally credible. There remains the possibility that they were coached about what they should say. In fact I would not call Joan a life time friend of Terri, therefore when George Felos claimed that a life time friend gave that evidence he was not being truthful.

As I have been reading up on all of the issues I have discovered that Michael Schiavo has been very inconsistent with his evidence about when Terri had allegedly made those wishes known to him. The time and place keep changing. First of all it was on attending a dying grandmother, then it was in relation to a dying uncle, and finally it was supposed to have been whilst watching something on Karen Ann Quinlan. This last one is in direct conflict with the evidence of Terri's real friend. The likelihood that she ever expressed those wishes, I believe to be entirely remote and the evidence from such a biased source should not have been accepted in the first place.

I noticed that some silly woman came into the argument claiming that Terri is on machines and that she is brain dead. To this I have to say that if Terri was brain dead then her parents would have relinquished her without this fight. However, she is not brain dead and I have seen sufficient video footage to prove that she is not brain dead. I mean, here in Australia the ABC actually ran footage that showed Michael taking Terri for a walk in her wheel chair. You cannot do that with a brain dead or comatose patient.

There are many questions to be asked in this case, including getting clarification on the reason that Terri was injured in the first place. How did she end up with a very stiff neck? Asphyxiation through an attempt to strangle her perhaps?

As for the question about the medical experts who have attended Terri, I have this comment for you. Dr. Cranford spent 45 minutes with Terri. He did not conduct any MRI or other tests. His brief seems to have been "I want a diagnosis that she is PVS". He in fact went against his own advice in how he handled his medical opinion about Terri. The CT scan cannot be considered as sufficient evidence as to the state of Terri's brain, especially when there had not been a follow up since the scan was taken in the emergency room. Therefore Cranford's opinions remain tainted by his association with the Hemlock society. There is also the issue of the bone scan and the analysis of that scan that indicates that Terri had injuries consistent with receiving physical trauma, including evidence that there was an attempt to strangle her.

BoDiddly wrote:Th... (Below threshold)
Brian:

BoDiddly wrote:
There is still a lingering question, that you avoided by taking issue with the word "estranged." Would you be comfortable--no, I'll go farther--would you knowingly allow a spouse who has set up a second household after your incapacitation make the types of decisions for you as Michael has made for Terri? Nobody requests Michael put his life on "pause", we just wonder why he insists on pushing the "stop" button on Terri's when he seems to be living a pretty full life without her.

Honestly, yes, I would. And I would also be very happy if my wife moved on with her life and found someone else to make her happy and help her raise a family. She knows more about me than anyone, and that wouldn't change with time. Even if you say that her love would fade over time, her knowledge of my wishes would not. And I would not care one whit how it looked to outside observers, even those who claimed to know more than she what my best interests are, and especially to governors, senators, and presidents. And my parents would need to accept that when I said "I do", I was no longer momma's little boy, and I pledged my life--literally--to someone else.

I thank you for attempting to maintain that level of civility

And to you. I've been known to change my mind on issues (uh oh, I'm a flip-flopper!), but that comes only after considering intelligent arguments. But whether I wind up changing my mind, I still value expanding my understanding of others.




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy