No, if Michael were smart, and had any intention of doing the right thing, he would have handed custody of Terri and her life over to her family a long time ago.
I have been following this thread and the Terri case for the past week. From what I understand, she is in a persistent vegetative state according to some experts, a state she cannot recover from. Now, if this is true and poor Terri is not aware of what is going on around her, how is handing her over to the care of her parents harming anyone in any way? If they want to take care of someone who is brain dead, let them. And if she happens to recover by some miracle, then praise whatever higher power that allowed it to happen.
Michael could simply let the public know that he tried to carry out Terri’s wishes as he understood them to the best of his ability, and is now giving up custody to her family. Who loses in this scenario? No one. Terri’s parents get what they want, Michael can get on with his new life, and Terri is certainly not going to care since she is apparently not aware of what is happening.
Sorry, but by doing this one simple thing, Michael could have prevented this whole fuckin’ mess and we wouldn’t be here whining about how no one cares about poor Terri, just their political agendas.
Someone mentioned this already, and I repeat:
“Grandma was a devout Catholic, and wished to be buried in the church yard of Our Lady of Sorrows beside Grandpa, her beloved husband of sixty years, like she told us so many times. But hey-she’s dead, so she’s not going to care! So let’s just cremate the bitch and use the money we saved on a big kegger!”
YOUR attitude disgusts me. It’s about being respectful of a person’s wishes, even after they are gone.
The case isn’t closed because you say it’s closed. It’s not like you’ve answered all possible questions and settled all controversey. In fact, to generalize your comment, you’ve basically stated that some legal battles wouldn’t be fought if only people would not bother to demand their own legal rights. This is doubtlessly true, but it’s not an insightful or useful observation. In other words, nothing is closed or settled by your point.
On the other hand, if people would just let other people have their legal rights, and suck it up and live with it, we wouldn’t have messy cases like this. But now the finger is pointed at the parents.
Or even being respectful of the person, and not only their wishes. This woman’s parents have paraded her vacant, drooling visage all over the media. In the future, when anyone mentions Teri Shiavo, I will not think of a bright, vibrant young woman. I will imagine the lifeless lump of slack-jawed flesh that’s been displayed all over TV amidst hand-wringing assertions that she’s really okay.
NO WAY would I want to be remebered like that. I would not want the memory of the person I was dimished by a media circus around my husk of a body wasting away as everyone congratulated themselves on their legal wrangling to keep me “alive”. That is not alive. That is a travesty.
You’re either a liar or dumber than a box of dirty hair. If you’d really followed this thread you wouldn’t have asked assinine questions that have already been fucking answered numerous times.
Michael took vows of marriage that were intended to be “until death do they part.” He is HONORING those vows.
Michael obviously has a great deal of love and devotion to his wife; so much so that he has flown her back and forth across the country for therapies, tried experimental procedures and been the most frequent person by her side for a decade and a half.
Michael has not only a legal right, but a moral obligation to his wife to see her dying wishes fulfilled. This is an act of love and kindness, not an act of selfish politicizing, like that which her mentally ill parents and half our fucked up Representatives are trying to pull.
If you don’t understand the harm that would come from Michael abandoning his wife, the woman he swore before G-d to cleave unto until death, then I pity you.
Thankfully, some of the news coverage has shown pictures of her prior to her collapse. And despite the dated hairstyle and clothing, she was a beautiful young woman, and I try to think of her that way.
When Terri dies, her parents will probably deny it and sue Michael. And then this case will finally become what it’s been creeping toward all along: a tragic, nauseating version of The Dead Parrot Sketch.
I guess I am a horrible person, too, because I had the same thought. Even if they are not charged with murder or negligent homicide, at least Terri’s body can finally be at rest and the whole fiasco will be somewhat moot.
Out of curiosity, does anyone know how many times Ol’ Jeb stopped by to visit Terri in the past few years? You know, since he railroaded that bill through the state legislature a few years ago because he was so concerned about her. With all of his great compassion I would assume that he stops by at least monthly to wheel her outside for fresh air, talk with her, assist with any movement therapy, maybe even changing her diapers. And how about the wonderful Florida legislators? With all of their concern they must be stopping by on a regular basis as well. I mean after all, if they aren’t paying regular visits after all of their expressed concern, that would mean that they are all a bunch of hypocritical fucktards and I just know that can’t be the case.
I further contend that Terri has more brain capacity than the entire group of elected Florida Republicans combined.
I’ve been thinking about this analogy, and I’m not sure that it’s appropriate. So here I am, posting again, when I told myself I wouldn’t.
Addressing the issue of Michael’s responsibility to Terri – is there a reasonable limit to carrying out someone’s last wishes?
Using your analogy, of course the family should do what grandma wants, if they can.
But what if they can’t? What if grandma died in California, and grandpa was buried in Florida, and there was no money to fly grandma’s body to Florida? Hell, what if the family couldn’t afford a basic funeral, what if cremation was all they could pay for? Would grandma want the family to go into debt to carry out her wishes?
Assume even further that grandma’s sole surviving relative was a single mom on welfare. Should she rob the 7-11? Turn tricks? She’d like to do what grandma wanted, but she can’t – where does her responsibility end?
Michael Schiavo has done the best he can to carry out what he believes Terri would have wanted. His resolve is amazing. He’s even gone up against the President of the United States. You don’t think Terri would cut him some slack?
What if the court decisions had gone against him? Would his responsibility end then, or would you expect him to abuse the legal system as the Schindlers have done?
I don’t doubt that he would have. The Schindlers might be deluded that there is hope for Terri, but Michael just might have some issues too.
Yes, to whom he is not married because he already has a wife, and obligations to her that are not fulfilled. For finding love again after 10 years of his wife being persistently vegitative, I submit that “Terri would cut him some slack” in that regard. She, however, made it abundantly clear that she would not want to tolerate being hooked up to tubes and unconsious in a bed for decades on end, and would therefore be highly UNlikely to cut him some slack on that one.
I think, AuntiePam, that although he has maybe gone above and beyond what anyone can reasonably expect him to do to preserve her medical wishes, I suspect he is also acting in regards to what he thinks her wishes would be with regards to the media circus and political idiocy.
Jeb hasn’t visited her. I saw Michael Schiavo on the news a couple nights ago and he said that he invited Jeb to visit Terri when he first butted into this (well, he didn’t phrase it that way) and he has also invited Dubya, too. You’d think they’d be jumping at the chance to talk to Terri and hear how she wants to be kept on a feeding tube.