The anniversary of the murder of Terri Schiavo. It will appear to come into the spotlight and fade away but for many it has never truly gone away and truly never will.
Not a day passes I don't think about Terri Schaivo and feel sick to my stomach about all the different issues and all the lies that still float around to this day. It disturbs me greatly people think or use it in terms of people feeling politicians were using it for party gain. It bothers me people are more upset about the government interfering than a disabled woman being starved to death by order of Schiavo and Greer who had no moral or true legal standing. It bothers me people don't have a complete picture of all the wrongdoings and mishandling of the case. It enfuriates me to see Greer and Schiavo recognized with awards by organizations thus having their actions appear laudable and legitimate.
Read the rest at Crystal Clear
Remember Terri by joining the blogburst
Cartoon: Faithmouse
It disturbs me greatly people think or use it in terms of people feeling politicians were using it for party gain.
Although I believe they were mistaken, I agree that this claim is silly. If Terri's death made any difference in the eternal political "games" in this country, then it probably hurt the GOP and the conservative movement. Furthermore, it was obvious that Terri's case was a political "loser" at the time. The only reasonable conclusion is that those politicians who tried to interfere did so out of a (mistaken) belief that they were doing the right thing.
It bothers me people are more upset about the government interfering than a disabled woman being starved to death by order of Schiavo and Greer who had no moral or true legal standing.
And that's why they were mistaken, and that's what continues to bother me about Terri's case. As marriage is under attack all across the world, we suddenly decided that the sanctity of marriage was meaningless in this particular case. Like it or not, Michael Schiavo was her husband. When Terri became disabled, he had both a legal right and a moral obligation to speak for her. If his opinion was that Terri would have refused the feeding tube, then we really don't have any reason to interfere. Not unless we want to invite the government into a close examination of other marital decisions.
Imagine that you become helplessly disabled and unable to speak for yourself, just as Terri was. Now imagine that the only possible cure for your condition required embryonic stem-cell treatment or a fetal tissue transplant. Knowing your pro-life beliefs, your spouse decides not to pursue such treatment. However, your family disagrees. Wouldn't you rather have the government stay out of your decision? Would you really want Senators Kennedy & Clinton ramming a bill through Congress to override your spouse and require the treatment?
I am 100% pro-life, and I am 100% opposed to any form of euthanasia. However, Terri's case wasn't really about euthanasia, no matter how much it might seem that way on the surface. Underneath the surface, the core of the issue was a husband's right and obligation to make decisions for his disabled wife.
Naaman, you are obfuscating the issue. First of all, we ARE talking about Euthanasia, because food and water are not medical treatments, even if they are delivered through a tube. There was also testimony that Terri could eat without the tube, and could be given therapy to help her improve in her ability to eat. However, she was denied such therapy by her loving husband.
Secondly, there is no evidence that Terri would have wanted to be dehydrated to death over a period of two weeks. Absolutely none. Years after she suffered her brain injury, and years after Michael Schiavo insisted that she wanted to remain alive, Michael suddenly changed his mind and began to say that once upon a time he and Terri were watching TV and she told him that she wouldn't want to live connected to machines. That's it. That's the full extent of 'Terri's wishes' according to Michael; some comment about not wanting to live on machines made during a TV show, which he magically remembered years after the fact.
Thirdly, you are not giving an accurate portrayal of what Congress and the President did in this case. They passed a bill which REQUESTED that Terri be given the same rights as a mass murderer - that she be given the right to appeal her case. The bill didn't require that Terri be kept alive. As we saw, it didn't even require that Terri actually receive the same rights that murdering rapists get in this country. All it did was ASK the Judiciary to please take another look at this case before we became a country which starves disabled people to death. But, that was too much trouble to go to, so we just let Terri die without knowing all of the facts in the case.
Naaman, you are obfuscating the issue. First of all, we ARE talking about Euthanasia, because food and water are not medical treatments, even if they are delivered through a tube. There was also testimony that Terri could eat without the tube, and could be given therapy to help her improve in her ability to eat. However, she was denied such therapy by her loving husband.
No, I'm trying to clarify it. I was a "pro-Terri" blogger for a while, and then I saw the real issue. If you don't believe me, feel free to check my blog's archives. In particular, check out #8 in my FAQ. I'm not trying to "pick a fight" with pro-lifers or anything else ... I understand why we did what we did, but we were wrong.
Food & water are not medical treatment, but that's not really the point either. Surely you agree that people have a right to deny food & water, right? Otherwise, it's awfully hard to fast as our God commands us.
Terri's case was not about euthanasia in exactly the same way that hospice care is not euthanasia. Euthanasia is actively killing someone. Hospice care is simply stopping treatment (or other assistance) and allowing natural death to occur. In many cases (such as Terri's), a natural death may actually be more horrific than "clean" euthanasia would be. However, it's vitally important to make the distinction and not to blur the line from either side. As hard as we fight to oppose euthanasia, we must not allow our commitment to life to metamorphose into compelling people to receive medical treatment against their will.
As a free adult, Terri had a right to deny medical treatment, food, and/or water. When she became disabled, her husband had the right (and an obligation) to speak for her. I'm well aware that Michael Schiavo isn't going to win many "Husband of the Year" awards, but that's not really the point. He was still her husband, so he was still the person to speak for Terri. In a very real sense, Michael did not "deny" Terri anything. Terri herself refused further medical aid; her husband was simply her proxy.
Also, please note that no part of my argument actually depends on whether or not Terri was "brain-dead", "minimally-conscious", or merely disabled. Based on her brain scans, I have my own suspicions about her true state, but that's not the point. Terri was incapable of speaking for herself, so her husband had a duty to speak for her. End of case, as far as I'm concerned.
Secondly, there is no evidence that Terri would have wanted to be dehydrated to death over a period of two weeks. Absolutely none.
Yeah, I know. Everything would have been much clearer if Terri had made a living will or some other kind of document. But she didn't, so we really don't know what her wishes were either way. In the absence of such a document, we had no right to interfere with Michael's attempts to speak for her.
Unless you want the government to interfere with your spouse if he/she ever has to make a similar decision....
Thirdly, you are not giving an accurate portrayal of what Congress and the President did in this case. They passed a bill which REQUESTED that Terri be given the same rights as a mass murderer - that she be given the right to appeal her case.
Yes, but the purpose of the bill was plain.
Furthermore, you're still ignoring my central point. As her husband, Michael was legally and morally charged with speaking on Terri's behalf. In other words, Terri herself requested that the feeding tube be withdrawn. By attempting to reverse the action, pro-lifers (and the GOP) were actually trampling all over Terri's rights, not protecting them.
Now, I'm fine with trampling all over someone's rights in certain circumstances, especially when those rights conflict with a more basic right. For example, the unborn child's right to life must take priority over the pregnant woman's right to control her own body, which is why abortion must be banned. My right to breathe clean(ish) air must take priority over your right to smoke, which is why I'm okay with banning smoking in public places.
In Terri's case, her right to refuse any treatment or assistance must (and did) take priority over her family's wishes. Her husband's duty to speak on her behalf must (and did) take priority over her family's desires for her. Her right to life did not take priority, simply because it was Terri herself (acting through her husband) who chose to refuse any further care.
In other words, Terri herself requested that the feeding tube be withdrawn.
Terri herself did no such thing, even "legally" through Michael. It was impossible for her to do so, considering at what point in time she supposedly told her husband and in-laws about her supposed wishes.
It's my belief Michael lied about Terri's wishes, and got his brother and sister-in-law to lie as well.
While we are talking about Terri's wishes, it's also my belief that she would have wished for a divorce from her husband as soon as he fathered a child with another woman, thereby negating his "legal and moral" duties as her husband.
I don't know how anyone calling themselves Christian can accept Terri's death as being right, or how they can equate religious fasting with dehydrating and starving someone to death, refusing to give them sustenance even by mouth. I guess we could say all of those Germans lost in the T-4 programme were observing Ash Wednesday, and Jews in Auschwitz were observing Yom Kippur, and that would suddenly make everything alright in such a point of view.
Naaman,
Your contention that Terri chose to refuse further care would be laughable if it weren't such a serious issue. Even Michael admitted that he did not really know what Terri wanted. In addition, when Terri allegedly made the statement that she would not want to be kept alive artificially, food and water were not considered extraordinary means under the law in Florida at that time. It would seem a stretch, to say the least, to assume she meant food and water to be withheld.
You speak of sanctity of marriage as if there was no reason to believe that Michael may have had a conflict of interest on that point. Even the law recognizes the possibility that those who should have our best interests at heart might not. As her husband, Michael was morally charged with fidelity (and may have been legally charged with it). He lost his moral ground when he took what in many states would be consdered a common law wife and had children with her.
The legal travisties in this case are far too numerous to recount at this point. Anyone who cares to be truly informed can find that information. The moral travisties of this case are enormous.
Terri herself did no such thing, even "legally" through Michael. It was impossible for her to do so, considering at what point in time she supposedly told her husband and in-laws about her supposed wishes.
Well, yes, she did. That's why the feeding tube was withdrawn. It's not possible for someone to withdraw someone else's feeding tube, not legally anyway. You can argue about whether or not Michael had a right to speak on Terri's behalf, but that's clearly what he was doing.
It's my belief Michael lied about Terri's wishes, and got his brother and sister-in-law to lie as well.
Maybe. Maybe not. The point is that Michael was her husband, and the government shouldn't have interfered in the case.
While we are talking about Terri's wishes, it's also my belief that she would have wished for a divorce from her husband as soon as he fathered a child with another woman, thereby negating his "legal and moral" duties as her husband.
Maybe. Maybe not. Surely you know that there are all sorts of people all around the world who continue in marriages that are equally dysfunctional, if not more so? I'm not condoning those dysfunctional marriages, but I'm very sure that I don't want the government to be evaluating everyone's marriage. What if Senator Clinton decides that my marriage is horrible and dysfunctional because my wife & I believe in a Bible-centered home life?
I don't know how anyone calling themselves Christian can accept Terri's death as being right, or how they can equate religious fasting with dehydrating and starving someone to death, refusing to give them sustenance even by mouth.
Thanks for the ad hominem attack. :(
My point about religious fasting was to illustrate that the State does not have the power to compel someone to eat or drink. Perhaps fasting was a poor choice of examples, but it was the only one which sprang to my mind.
I guess we could say all of those Germans lost in the T-4 programme were observing Ash Wednesday, and Jews in Auschwitz were observing Yom Kippur, and that would suddenly make everything alright in such a point of view.
All of those people were forcibly denied food & drink. Terri refused it herself, acting through her husband.
---
Your contention that Terri chose to refuse further care would be laughable if it weren't such a serious issue.
That's not just my contention, it's also legal and moral reality. Laughing at it won't make it go away, you know....
Even Michael admitted that he did not really know what Terri wanted.
As stated earlier, it sure would have been helpful if Terri had forseen this possibility and recorded her own wishes somewhere. If any good came out of this tragedy, hopefully it got people to think seriously about end-of-life issues, and about the importance of either recording your wishes ahead of time or placing that decision in the hands of someone you trust.
Anyway, in the absence of any clear & compelling evidence of Terri's wishes, the proper moral & legal course is to trust her husband.
It would seem a stretch, to say the least, to assume she meant food and water to be withheld.
I'm not assuming anything, except that Michael probably knew more about Terri's wishes than you or I did. What are you assuming?
You speak of sanctity of marriage as if there was no reason to believe that Michael may have had a conflict of interest on that point.
No, I'm not. I'm certainly open to that possibility. However, the point still remains that they were married. "What God has joined, let no man separate" ... remember?
As her husband, Michael was morally charged with fidelity (and may have been legally charged with it). He lost his moral ground when he took what in many states would be consdered a common law wife and had children with her.
Like I said, Michael Schiavo is not likely to win many "Husband of the Year" awards. Yet he was still her husband.
Would things have been clearer if Terri had made a living will? Absolutely.
Would things have been clearer if Michael had been a saint? Absolutely.
Would things have been clearer if the Schindlers had been able and/or willing to agree with Michael? Absolutely.
Unfortunately, none of those things happened. So everything is murky and unclear, and we can be led astray. That's why it's important to keep coming back to first principles. The basic question here is marital rights & responsibilities: Does a husband (or wife) have an obligation to speak on behalf of his (or her) spouse if that person becomes incapacitated?
Subsequent questions include:
Should the disabled person's family be able to challenge that role?
If so, under what circumstances?
Should the government intervene?
If so, under what circumstances, and what sort of intervention is appropriate?
My position is crystal-clear. I believe in the sanctity of marriage, that husband & wife become "one flesh". Under those circumstances, I surely don't want anyone else meddling with our marriages.
" I understand why we did what we did, but we were wrong."
Fine, you want to argue the angle of the sanctity of marriage. We can do that.
Would you say that a husband has a right to murder his wife? I would not. I feel that Michael intentionally killed, and thus murdered, Terri.
In attempting to kill his wife, Michael violated his wedding vows. Of course, even if you don't believe this, Michael obviously violated his vows by shacking up with another woman for 10 years while he was still married to Terri.
I don't buy the argument that Michael cared about Terri and her beliefs. This is the same guy who refused Terri her Last Rites. Only after immense public pressure did Michael 'graciously' allow a priest to administer Last Rites.
Michael and his lawyer George Felos claimed that Terri looked beautiful and peaceful while she was dehydrating to death. Of course, we weren't allowed to see her, but Fr. Frank Pavone did. He said there was nothing beautiful and peaceful about her appearance; more like horrific.
You are also completely ignoring the testimony of Terri's father, mother, brother, sister, and some of her nurses. They all believe that Michael was up to no good.
There is plenty of reason to believe that Michael was not looking out for Terri's best interests. And as I said, I don't believe that a husband has a right to murder or abuse his wife. Yes, the two become one flesh in a wedding ceremony, but the marriage is unlawful if husband or wife lies during that ceremony.
"Yes, but the purpose of the bill was plain."
Oh please. So the purpose of the bill was something other than its actual text? Did you forget that many pro-choice Congressmen and Democrats voted in favor of this bill as well? It would not have passed without them. They understood that it was about getting the facts and making sure that we were doing the right thing. It wasn't going to force anything on Terri. If they wanted to 'force life' on her (how absurd), they could have written a bill like that. I'm sure that such a bill would never have passed, though.
Naaman,
Remember "in sickness and in health, for better and for worse, forsaking all others." We can play dueling vows here. The fact is that Michael, by having a 10 year relationship with another woman, held to NONE of these vows. MICHAEL himself violated the sanctity of their marriage, MICHAEL broke his covenant relationship, MICHAEL gave up his own moral standing. You have assumed an awful lot in Michael's defense here. I think that her mother, father, sister, brother, nurses, friends knew her at least as well as Michael did. For justice's sake, where there are ambiguities, the error must fall on the side of life. For justice's sake, where there are conflicts of interest, the error must fall on protecting the vulnerable. No amount of twisting will change that. I believe you have been led astray here.
Well, yes, she did. That's why the feeding tube was withdrawn.
No she didn't, circular logic notwithstanding (it was withdrawn because she requested it, therefore she requested because it was withdrawn).
Terri said things she said, and Michael said things he said. Michael saying something doesn't truly mean Terri said something, unless you believe that a courtroom magically allows someone's soul to possess someone else's body.
(1)
It's not possible for someone to withdraw someone else's feeding tube, not legally anyway.
So you're trying to say Terri removed her own feeding tube. This was after her soul magically possessed Michael, Judge Greer and the hospice nurses, with the magic made possible by courtrooms.
You and George Felos have creepily similar philosophies.
You can argue about whether or not Michael had a right to speak on Terri's behalf, but that's clearly what he was doing.
I did argue that, and I still argue that. That he accomplished it doesn't make it right, unless "might makes right". In which case we can all be murdered by our next-of-kin and it should be perfectly fine with you.
"He told me he didn't want to live anymore, officer, so I smothered him with a pi... I mean, I legally carried out his wishes by withdrawing medical air treatment." *winks to naked man hiding in closet*
Maybe. Maybe not. The point is that Michael was her husband, and the government shouldn't have interfered in the case.
The point is that Michael was the one who got the government involved in the first place when he first tried to murder his wife with neglect in 1993. He and Felos then demanded more government interference to make it legal to starve and dehydrate Terri (and every other Floridian "useless eater") in 1998.
The government interference you speak of was merely our representatives trying to correct the previous gross interference done by the government. Much like how the 13th and 14th Amendments were "government interference" in a "private matter" of one human being's ability to own another human being. (Page 15 of this PDF is relevant)
Maybe. Maybe not. Surely you know that there are all sorts of people all around the world who continue in marriages that are equally dysfunctional, if not more so? I'm not condoning those dysfunctional marriages, but I'm very sure that I don't want the government to be evaluating everyone's marriage. What if Senator Clinton decides that my marriage is horrible and dysfunctional because my wife & I believe in a Bible-centered home life?
In that case, you think you should be able to kill your wife and her lover if she commits adultery, and the government (Hillary or no Hillary) should have no say-so over that.
I say no, there is no amount of dysfunction in a marriage that allows one spouse to kill another without "government interference". Murder, by commission or omission, is never a "matter of privacy". I'm sorry you believe otherwise.
Thanks for the ad hominem attack. :(
If you considered that an attack, then you're welcome. If it makes you rethink your position, I feel that I have done you a service instead of an insult.
My point about religious fasting was to illustrate that the State does not have the power to compel someone to eat or drink.
Perhaps fasting was a poor choice of examples, but it was the only one which sprang to my mind.
The state/government does have the power to compel someone to feed the helpless, like babies, the disabled, and even pets. To do otherwise is murder by negligence. (2) I don't know why you are having trouble understanding this concept.
All of those people were forcibly denied food & drink. Terri refused it herself, acting through her husband.
See the responses (1) and (2) above.
Does a husband (or wife) have an obligation to speak on behalf of his (or her) spouse if that person becomes incapacitated?
Yes, until it becomes evident that the speaking spouse doesn't have the incapacitated spouse's best interests in mind.
Should the disabled person's family be able to challenge that role?
Yes, if it becomes evident that the spouse doesn't have the best interests of the disabled person in mind.
If so, under what circumstances?
If the spouse has an obvious conflict of interest in regards to the outcome of his/her advocacy of the disabled person, and/or if the disabled person's individual God-given rights (life, liberty, ownership of property, in that order) are being violated.
Should the government intervene?
Yes, if the disabled person's individual rights (life, liberty, ownership of property, in that order) are being violated.
If so, under what circumstances, and what sort of intervention is appropriate?
Intervention to protect the disable person's individual rights (life, liberty, ownership of property, in that order) from violation. Since loss of life is irreversible, whereas the loss of liberty or property is reversible, it stands to reason that it should given particularly careful consideration.
My position is crystal-clear. I believe in the sanctity of marriage, that husband & wife become "one flesh". Under those circumstances, I surely don't want anyone else meddling with our marriages.
"One flesh" does not equal "one soul". Your marriage is a contract between two individuals, from both a religious (souls) and a civil (persons) point of view. When one of you violates the contract, the other spouse's obligation is released.
Michael broke every vow he made to Terri before he petitioned for her death in 1998. He was not her husband by that time in any meaningful sense.