Hello again, Evil.
Just to clarify, I don't begrudge Michael Schiavo for moving on. Nevertheless, he chose to do so without making it legal by divorcing her. If she had no other family, I could relate, but in this case, she had a family willing to take custody of her. He could have divorced her and let her parents take over the care.
Sciavo autopsy
by rebel8 49 Replies latest watchtower medical
-
144001
-
cruzanheart
This case touched me on lots of levels. Hope I can make myself understood:
When I married my husband Chris (Big Tex) 22 years ago, I had an eating disorder brought on by my parents' overbearing, rigid, controlling behavior. Everything I ate, I threw up (involuntarily, not on purpose) and I weighed 107 lbs. (I'm 5'8" tall) on our wedding day. Chris took me away, literally as well as mentally, and protected me from my parents, which allowed me to heal so now I'm faced with normal middle-aged unwanted pounds ON instead of OFF. I am forever grateful to him for putting himself between me and my parents because I did not have the strength to stand up to them as I should have. I am convinced that if something similar happened to me as it happened to Terri, my parents would have behaved EXACTLY as hers did. And my husband would have fought for me to the end of my life to let me die with dignity. I would not grudge him another relationship and children and a normal life during those years. That is only natural. But if he had divorced Terri he wouldn't have been able to fight for her wishes. I respect him for hanging in there all of those years.
Okay, the other end of this: my mother died in February after 10 years of Alzheimer's. Even though I didn't like her very much, I did love her and Chris and I made sure she was well taken care of in her nursing home. At the end, she struggled to breathe, fighting for every breath as she always fought in her life. It was very painful to see, and the nurses said they'd ordered morphine for her. When it came, it was a very tiny dose, only about 1/4 teaspoon and I could swear none of it went down her throat -- she was dribbling mucous out of the side of her mouth and most, if not all, of the liquid went out and not in. Yet within ten minutes her breathing quieted down. She relaxed. Her breaths came further and further apart until they stopped altogether.
Was it morphine only? I'm not convinced it was, but you know what? I think whatever they gave her was GREAT. She eased out of this life with the minimum of pain and as much dignity as one can have under the circumstances. Poor little thing, she was so unaware of anything for years, not even aware of people in the same room with her. If she had been able to look on that with her old awareness, she would have hated it.
I think the parents were selfish. They wanted Terri alive, not for her own sake, but for theirs and they turned their daughter's death into a media circus that revolved around THEM, not Terri.
I'm glad she's past her pain. I'm glad her husband can go on with his life and go to sleep with a clear conscience, knowing he did everything and then some to see that Terri's wishes were carried out. And I'm glad he has a family that loves him.
Nina
-
Big Tex
Nina was worried that she did not express herself well.
I think you did great. Well said sweetie.
I'm glad she's past her pain
Me too. I wouldn't wish the existence of her last few years on my worst enemy.
Chris
-
ozziepost
Thank you so much Big Tex and Nina for sharing that. It reminds me of what a great support you two have been to so many.
Cheers, Ozzie (still upside-down class)
-
Abaddon
Nina, thanks for sharing that...
144etc.
I don't know everything about the case
Without being rude, this I already know, due to the factual inaccuracies in your description of events. If you are interested in the facts they are here, but they were always just a few key strokes away when you took a strong condemnatory stance about something you know you're not fully informed on. I don't get that. *shrugs*
-
144001
Abaddon,
I've yet to see you point out any factual inaccuracies in my statements, notwithstanding your conclusory allegation to the contrary. The reason for my admission to that point is that no one, except the principal parties to the case, knows all the facts in this case. Not every fact is admissible in a courtroom; the judges who reviewed this matter did so solely on the basis of evidence that was admissible in court, rather than the complete factual record.
Your demonstrated inability to empathize with Terri Schiavo's parents is a strong indication that you are not a parent, otherwise you most likely would "get that." -
rebel8
Yet within ten minutes her breathing quieted down. She relaxed. Her breaths came further and further apart until they stopped altogether.
Was it morphine only? I'm not convinced it was, but you know what? I think whatever they gave her was GREAT.
That sad scenario plays itself out daily in hospitals, hospices, nursing homes, and in residences. In many cases the intention is to use morphine to quicken death. Most people are not aware this really happens ALL the time. Walk into any hospital right now and you would find several people in that situation. It is not totally legal but everyone just looks the other way.
The legal way to "let" someone die is to starve them to death. For a person with brain function, it is a painful way to die. Morphine euthanasia is much better, but yet there are better drugs than that...drugs that kill you instantaneously rather than smothering you. Yet those are not accepted because it's obvious the intention is to kill...morphine is easier to justify because they can just say the pt. was in pain.
What I think is terribly sad is the lack of a reasonable choice to help a person end their life. Unfortunately, the Scaivo case seems to have polarized people even more instead of bringing about options for more humane treatment.
-
Abaddon
144etc.
Your demonstrated inability to empathize with Terri Schiavo's parents is a strong indication that you are not a parent, otherwise you most likely would "get that."
This proves that you are far too confident in your deductive abilities regarding someone having children.
I've yet to see you point out any factual inaccuracies in my statements,
*sigh*
If you're SO convinced you're right you won't even go through a link as you know you're right, I can save you the trouble and quote;
You:
her estranged, adulterer husband, who had already produced bastard offspring with someone else.
Facts:
Michael Schiavo was criticized by the Schindlers - contrary to their earlier support for his dating other women - and their supporters for entering into a relationship with another woman, Jodi Centonze, while still legally married to Terri. Michael and Jodi Centonze have had two children together. Michael denies wrongdoing in this matter, stating that the Schindlers actively encouraged him to "get on with his life" and date since 1991. Michael said he chose not to divorce Terri and relinquish guardianship because he wanted to ensure her final wishes (to not be kept alive in a PVS) were carried out.
So, her parents tell him to get on with his life, and then change their minds as a tactic in their court battle, which you seemingly swallowed hook, line and stinker?
You:
This subhuman didn't even allow her parents to be with her when she passed.
Facts:
Schiavo's parents, who had been denied access to her during her last hours, traveled to the hospice to visit her when they were informed that she may be approaching death, arriving half an hour after her death. The Schindler family was allowed into the room after Michael Schiavo had left it.
Her parents had been informed she was near death, your claim that he kept her parents out whilst her body died is just unfounded; they were on the way and simply didn't get there in time.
Interestingly CNN reported;
Her parents, Bob and Mary Schindler, had begged to be with their firstborn while she drew her last breath but police denied their request,
http://edition.cnn.com/2005/US/03/31/schiavo.deathbed/But this equally proves your allegation is false.
Her brother WAS present, but was asked to leave by medical staff so they could examine her; he then argued with a police-officer who was present and was not allowed back in the room until after she died as her husband wanted her final moments to be without acrimony.
I suppose you would allow people who had tried to traduce you for seeing your wife's wishes were complied with to stay and see her die when even at that moment they started causing a disturbance?
It is also worthy of note that whilst Michael was happy to give up any interest in the financial residue of her damages award, and refused a serious offer of $1 million to give up his guardianship; the Schindlers never gave up any interest in the monies that would have fallen to them if he had divorced her, or at least in the accounts I have studied. Whilst this doesn't mean they were doing it for the money, it is obvious his interests were not financial.
-
144001
Abad . . . etc.Your "facts":
Michael Schiavo was criticized by the Schindlers - contrary to their earlier support for his dating other women - and their supporters for entering into a relationship with another woman, Jodi Centonze, while still legally married to Terri. Michael and Jodi Centonze have had two children together. Michael denies wrongdoing in this matter, stating that the Schindlers actively encouraged him to "get on with his life" and date since 1991. Michael said he chose not to divorce Terri and relinquish guardianship because he wanted to ensure her final wishes (to not be kept alive in a PVS) were carried out.
My statement:
her estranged, adulterer husband, who had already produced bastard offspring with someone else.
Assuming the facts you've provided are true, which is a stretch in my opinion, they do absolutely nothing in the way of disproving my comments. In fact, they corroborate my assertion, which is that Michael Schiavo was an adulterer who produced bastard offspring. The Schindler's approval or disapproval of this fact is absolutely irrelevant to the issue of whether my claim is fact, so I'm not sure why you have provided this to support your contentions that I have falsely stated the facts?
Your "facts":
Schiavo's parents, who had been denied access to her during her last hours, traveled to the hospice to visit her when they were informed that she may be approaching death, arriving half an hour after her death. The Schindler family was allowed into the room after Michael Schiavo had left it.
My statement:
This subhuman didn't even allow her parents to be with her when she passed.
What does "who had been denied access to her during her last hours" mean to you? Michael Schiavo demanded that the Schindlers not be permitted to be present when their daughter died, a fact that demonstrates what a shithead he is. Your "facts" do nothing to disprove my statements; rather, like your other "facts," they only corroborate it (see the bolded and underlined portion of your quote).
it is obvious his interests were not financial.
Time will tell whether this opinion is valid.
How so? Do tell, Abaddon. I see that you didn't deny the truth of this assertion, and I'll assume that your failure to deny it is a tacit admission of its truth.Your demonstrated inability to empathize with Terri Schiavo's parents is a strong indication that you are not a parent, otherwise you most likely would "get that." 144001
This proves that;you are far too confident in your deductive abilities regarding someone having children. Abaddon
-
Abaddon
The point he was an adulterous man with bastard children means nothing in today's society. Out of your dislike of the man you dig into something which impacts on truely innocent parties. And your moral high-ground was where exactly? But yes, your dictionary definitons are nice and correct but they're meaningless to anyone who thinks using those words in this context is absurd. Which part of brain-dead don't you get? Are you married (if you are married) to a rising and falling chest, or to the presumably wonderful woman you love? The fact at one point her parents encouraged him leading a new life just makes them hypocrites for later using it against him.
However, how can you be estranged from a vegetable? Sorry to be blunt, but there you have it. Any person in a situation like that will be physically estranged, as in removed from customary environment, but you were criticising him for it - you meant when there is mutual enmity or indifference in where there had formerly been love, affection, or friendliness (Mirrian-Webster). The dictionary cuts both ways...
Thus your contention that he was estranged is false. The sad fact is there was nothing left of that which he loved to be estranged from. In additon, as I get into below, he was happy to have her, and give up the money. I can't see a man doing that if he was estranged from the memory of the woman he loved.
You missed this;
traveled to the hospice to visit her when they were informed that she may be approaching death
Why would they inform people who couldn't visit? If the implication a visit would have been allowed at that point is not seen, what say you to the report of it being a police ruling?
Re. the money. The only reason that Michael did not give up his financial interests in his wife's estate is he wanted to do so on the condition her parents stopped legal action. They wanted the money and his wife; he only wanted his wife. They never took up the offer, she died as his wife in law, and the estate falls to him.
He already proved that is not what was important to him. I am sorry that isn't good enough for you.
How so? Do tell, Abaddon. I see that you didn't deny the truth of this assertion, and I'll assume that your failure to deny it is a tacit admission of its truth.
Your demonstrated inability to empathize with Terri Schiavo's parents is a strong indication that you are not a parent, otherwise you most likely would "get that." 144001
This proves that;you are far too confident in your deductive abilities regarding someone having children. Abaddon
Look, I say, "you are far too confident in your deductive abilities regarding someone having children". Would CAPS help? LOL I can state it explictily if you like. I have kids. Your subsequent assumption was presumption. Striiike 2!
What you're missing is whilst you have every right to your moral opinion, when you start insulting someone acting in a lawful manner which is later vindicated by the facts of the case, when your moral outrage leads you to assume anyone who would agree with him couldn't have children (an ad hom, I am surprised at you), then you cross a line.
You put yourself on a moral highground you only occupy in your head.
I'm happy you to think what you think and disagree. But condemn the poor bastard morally and you end up making yourself look absurd.
Oh, and please take this as it is meant, I'd still buy you a round if we were in a bar. And then I'd ask if there was something in your life which makes you react this way. I'm not normally surprised to see people react as they do; I'm sure people can roll their eyes at my predictablities. But this just surprised me, as I say right at the top.