The latest twist in the Schiavo case.......

[SuperJerk 0]

That's not to say that liberals wouldn't be complaining if the Bush administration had done what was done in Waco, but to me it seems like a lot of the "outrage" on the part of conservatives over the deaths of Koresh's followers was all acting on their part to try to mobilize the anti-Clinton folks.

Except you can't find a conservative who actually has a single nice thing to say about David Koresh.

Which negates his point in no way whatsoever.

[Guest MikeSC]

That's not to say that liberals wouldn't be complaining if the Bush administration had done what was done in Waco, but to me it seems like a lot of the "outrage" on the part of conservatives over the deaths of Koresh's followers was all acting on their part to try to mobilize the anti-Clinton folks.

Except you can't find a conservative who actually has a single nice thing to say about David Koresh.

Which negates his point in no way whatsoever.

So, in YOUR eyes, nobody can have a problem with how the gov't handles things that has nothing to do with who is in party? It had to be because it was Clinton, and not because it was just one REALLY poorly executed raid where they could have hardly done worse without extreme levels of effort.

 

Nobody can POSSIBLY have a problem with an armed gov't raid into a building with kids AND guns inside that the people being raided KNOW ABOUT in advance? And, gee, I suppose it's just a coincidence that they waited for the TV cameras to get there and rolling before they did anything. Yup, no need to grab the guy when he was in the city, AWAY from the children and numerous armed people who the gov't believed to be brainwashed --- it's MUCH easier to do it in a well-fortified compound.

 

Yup, the raid wasn't horribly flawed. It was simply because it was Clinton.

-=Mike

[Guest MikeSC]

For anyone curious what's happening here, they tried and failed once again in court. This time, they tried to educate this braindamaged woman to say "I want to live" and then propose that the sounds “AHHHHH” and “WAAAAAAA” were interpreted as such.

 

They were denied because, well, cmon. That could interpreted as anything. Even if she was cognitive of what was happening, that could just as easily have been "I want to die" as "I want to live."

Yeah, her desire to die has been proven "beyond a reasonable doubt".

 

Convicts have more right than the disabled. Lovely.

-=Mike

[Red Hot Thumbtack In The Eye 0]

I think at this point, it's clear that there's no chance for her to recover and become anything more than a burden on the medical system and her family right?

 

Sedate. Euthanize. Allow the family and psychotic media fed dimwits to move on, while clearing out the bed for someone who might have a chance.

[SuperJerk 0]

Nobody can POSSIBLY have a problem with an armed gov't raid into a building with kids AND guns inside that the people being raided KNOW ABOUT in advance? And, gee, I suppose it's just a coincidence that they waited for the TV cameras to get there and rolling before they did anything. Yup, no need to grab the guy when he was in the city, AWAY from the children and numerous armed people who the gov't believed to be brainwashed --- it's MUCH easier to do it in a well-fortified compound.

Was the media even there for the initial raid on the compound? Sure, they were there for the second raid, but they'd already been camped out for weeks at that point.

 

As I stated earlier, that would have created a situation in which the government would be passing up the chance to apprehend both accomplices and evidence.

 

Excuse the hell out of me for sticking up for our nation's law enforcement agencies.

[Guest Brian]

Tip the drill, yo.

 

Oops, wrong bitch.

[SuperJerk 0]

Some lawmakers find their views scrambled by Schiavo case

 

 

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Should Congress guide the nation's morals, or just make its rules? Micromanage the states, or let them govern themselves?

 

The answers came more easily to most lawmakers before last weekend, when Congress passed a bill to let federal courts review Florida court decisions on Terri Schiavo's right-to-die case. The law President Bush signed Monday scrambled the positions of some of Congress' staunchest partisans.

 

Supporting it in the House were Republicans who trumpet states rights. Joining them were 47 Democrats, only six fewer than the number who opposed it. On the Senate floor, the bill was approved by voice vote after minority Democrats who opposed it -- not a shy bunch -- stepped aside.

 

The lone Senate objection, in fact, came from a southern Republican -- who quietly inserted his statement into the Congressional Record hours after the measure passed.

 

"'The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people,"' Sen. John Warner, R-Virginia, said, quoting the 10th Amendment. "This is a principle of federalism which, I believe, is not being followed by Congress in enacting this legislation.

 

"Greater wisdom is not always reposed in the branches of federal government," he added.

 

In the House, leaders herded members on Easter break back to the Capitol for the midnight vote. The bill passed 203-58. Democrats split -- 47 in favor, 53 against. Republican voted for it 156-5. Skipping the vote were 174 lawmakers, including 102 Democrats and 71 Republicans and the House's lone independent.

 

Rep. Jose Serrano, D-New York, a veteran of the civil rights movement who opposes government involvement in such personal decisions as abortion, found himself voting for the bill.

 

He has trouble explaining why, recounting that he spent Sunday being angry at the leaders of both parties for letting the bill come to the floor for a vote while at the same time feeling sympathy for the family he saw on television.

 

"I felt that no matter how I voted, a lot of people would think that I voted the wrong way. So given the choice, I thought I should err on the side of giving the family a chance to let her live," he said. "That's why we (Congress) were the wrong people to ask. We don't know what the answer is except that the involvement doesn't belong to us."

 

Now Serrano wonders who will suffer more at the polls, Democrats who voted "yes," or lawmakers who didn't show up.

 

Another liberal Northeastern Democrat, Rep. Stephen F. Lynch of Massachusetts, said the "human side" of the drama inspired him to buck his state delegation and vote for the bill.

 

"I felt the position of the parents was particularly compelling. I have a daughter, so I understand how powerful that kind of love is," he said. "The bill was so narrowly tailored to this instance I didn't see it as a general intrusion, which is what we (Democrats) are usually accused of."

 

Several Republicans bristled throughout the weekend over the notion that voting for the bill dented their credentials as proponents of states rights, saying the tragedy of this case trumps other considerations.

 

"I'm a states' rights Republican who believes passionately in having the federal government as the absolute last resort," Rep. David Drier, R-California, said Sunday on CBS.

 

Rep. Don Manzullo, R-Illinois, said the Constitution gives Congress the right to decide the jurisdiction of federal courts.

 

"To say that Congress should not get involved is to say that Congress should just fold up and go home," Manzullo told reporters Sunday. "Terri is in the process of dying."

 

credit: http://www.cnn.com/2005/ALLPOLITICS/03/25/...s.ap/index.html

 

 

My opinion of John Warner just increased dramatically.

[BUTT 0]

Tip the drill, yo.

 

Oops, wrong bitch.

I believe the correct saying is "Tip drill the bitch, yo".

[Guest Brian]

tomato, tomato; potato, potato.

 

eh

[Guest MikeSC]

Nobody can POSSIBLY have a problem with an armed gov't raid into a building with kids AND guns inside that the people being raided KNOW ABOUT in advance? And, gee, I suppose it's just a coincidence that they waited for the TV cameras to get there and rolling before they did anything. Yup, no need to grab the guy when he was in the city, AWAY from the children and numerous armed people who the gov't believed to be brainwashed --- it's MUCH easier to do it in a well-fortified compound.

Was the media even there for the initial raid on the compound?

Yes. That is how you got the footage of the guys being shot at on the roof of the compound.

Sure, they were there for the second raid, but they'd already been camped out for weeks at that point.

They were there for the first one as well.

As I stated earlier, that would have created a situation in which the government would be passing up the chance to apprehend both accomplices and evidence.

The government's own case was that Koresh was similar, in many ways, to Charles Manson or Jim Jones --- virtually controlling every aspect of his followers' lives. If you use the government's own logic, Koresh was THE target and everybody else was, pretty much, a pawn in his game.

Excuse the hell out of me for sticking up for our nation's law enforcement agencies.

Why not stick up for competence once in a fucking while? Our gov't can do fucking moronic things.

-=Mike

[Guest Arnold_OldSchool]

tomato, tomato; potato, potato.

 

eh

Let's call the whole thing off

[Slickster 0]

TALLAHASSEE, Florida (CNN) -- Florida Gov. Jeb Bush said on Sunday there is nothing else he can do to save Terri Schiavo's life.

 

"I cannot violate a court order," Bush said after attending Easter Sunday church services. "I don't have powers from the United States Constitution or -- for that matter from the Florida Constitution -- that would allow me to intervene after a decision has been made."

 

To Terri Schiavo's parents -- who have said Bush should do more to help their daughter -- the governor said: "I can't. I'd love to, but I can't."

 

Source

 

Here's to Terri Schiavo. The victim of politicking from both the Left and Right, neither her parents nor her husband will be happy to see her go. Though she had lived in almost total obscurity for the last 15 years of her life, she has been the name on everyone's lips for the last ten days. I hope that her life and death serve as a reminder to all of us to make a living will and prepare for the unexpected.

[Guest Arnold_OldSchool]

The public has been told that Terri Schiavo is a "vegetable" - a shell of a person in what is called a "persistent vegetative state" (PVS). They say that her brain is "mush" (an actual quote), and that she is unaware of her environment and unable to communicate at even the most basic level. We are also told that she had expressed her desire to be removed from life support if she were ever in such a state. Her husband, supposedly out of love for her, claims to be striving to fulfill her wishes and relieve her of the burdensome life she leads. Her poor, misguided parents, on the other hand, are portrayed as delusional saps who canít let go. They desperately cling to the false hope Terri will somehow "pull out of it."

 

Where shall I start? First of all, Terri's brain is not "mush." She is able to communicate. People in a "persistent vegetative state" make meaningless noises and movements. Those who haven't studied the case closely dismiss her actions as typical PVS activity. But numerous people, including three nurses charged with her care, have testified to the contrary. One nurse testified that Terri clearly said "hi" to her whenever she entered the room. She said that Terri also told the nursing staff she was in pain by saying something that sounded like "pay." (She couldn't apparently pronounce the "n" sound.) She had distinct signals to notify nurses when she had soiled her adult diaper or started her period.

 

Most heartbreaking of all, Terriís attorney reports that, the day the feeding tube was removed, she looked directly at Terri and said, "If you could just say 'I want to live,' this would all be over." Terri immediately became agitated, and began loudly saying, "I waaaaa . . . I waaaa . . ."

 

Second, Terri is not completely reliant on the feeding tube. She is able to swallow water. Nurses have testified that she had also been fed orally, but that her husband Michael had ordered she be fed by tube instead. And, chillingly, Judge Greer's order didn't just require that the feeding tube be removed. It expressly forbids anyone from feeding her orally, from giving her water, or even putting ice chips to her mouth.

 

That, my friends, isn't just "removing extraordinary means." It is an active order to starve someone to death.

 

This is made all the more chilling by the fact that, before this starvation began, Terri wasn't dying. She was simply a disabled woman who needed assistance in order to eat.

 

But isn't that what she wanted? It certainly doesn't look that way to me. She had no written directives. Her husband claims that she had privately expressed her wishes to him. But there were no witnesses to that conversation, and several of her friends have testified to the contrary. Apparently she had been vocal in her opposition to Karen Ann Quinlan's parents' decision to take their daughter off her respirator. As Terri allegedly said, "Where there's life, there's hope."

 

Why would her husband say such a thing? Well, a disturbing pattern is emerging there, too. Terri's brother and several friends have testified that Terri had expressed to them her intention to divorce Michael. They had a "violent" fight on Feb. 24, 1990, the night before her - what would one call it - incident? She was found, in the early morning hours, on the hallway floor with her hands around her neck. The cause of her brain damage has never been determined. Michael has ordered those medical records sealed. Michael Schiavo, two years later, won a $1.5 million settlement, which he pledged would go to Terri's care. All of her rehabilitative therapy stopped immediately thereafter, by Michaelís order.

 

Several nurses have testified that Michael's behavior around the nursing home was odd. He would frequently ask "Is she dead yet?" and "When is that b---- going to die?" Nurses who made positive notations on Terri's chart found those notations removed by the next day. For a long time, Michael instructed that there be no sunlight, no radio and no television in Terri's room.

 

Since the early 1990s, Michael has been living with another woman with whom he has fathered two children?

 

This is not a "right to die" case. This is a "right to kill a disabled woman who can't speak for herself" case. God help our nation if this is the way we choose to treat our weakest and most defenseless members.

 

For more information, go to www.terrisfight.net.

 

 

Schiavo denied communion as parents' legal battle reaches desperate point

 

Sunday, March 27, 2005

 

ASSOCIATED PRESS

 

PINELLAS PARK, Fla. -- It's no coincidence, some supporters of Terri Schiavo's parents say, that the couple's long struggle to keep their brain-damaged daughter alive would reach its most desperate moments as the holiest day of the Christian calendar approached.

 

As intense as the religious overtones have been in the legal fight over Schiavo, they seemed even more pronounced Saturday, the day before Easter. Twenty-two protesters arrived outside her hospice bearing wooden crosses and Schiavo's parents tried in vain to convince her husband to let her receive communion, which in her case would be a tiny fleck of host and a droplet of wine.

 

Schiavo's brother, Bobby Schindler, and others drew parallels between the fight over Terri Schiavo and Holy Week celebrations.

 

"It's the most significant weekend for Christians, and God wants us to be aware of the preciousness of life," said Louis Hymel, one of the coordinators of the cross demonstration by a Christian community based in Augusta, Ga. "God calls us always to the cross, and this is an example of us taking up our cross."

 

Schiavo's parents, Bob and Mary Schindler, appeared to be near the end of their legal battle with her husband, Michael Schiavo, who has maintained for years that his wife would not have wanted to be kept alive in what a judge has agreed is a persistent vegetative state. The tube that supplied her food and water was removed March 18, and experts say she probably would live only a week or two without it.

 

Michael Schiavo's brother said religious conservatives' criticism of his position has been painful because he believes he is acting out of compassion for his wife.

 

"He knows in his heart he is doing the right thing, he is doing what Terri wanted," Scott Schiavo said. "He's having a hard time understanding why people are fighting him on this, why they are calling him a murderer. It's very tough on him."

 

Lawyers for the Schindlers made a last-ditch plea to the Florida Supreme Court on Saturday to get the feeding tube reinserted, but the request was dismissed later in the day. The family decided against filing another motion with a federal appeals court, essentially ending their effort to persuade federal judges to intervene -- something allowed by an extraordinary law passed by Congress.

 

At least two appeals by the state and Gov. Jeb Bush still loom, but those challenges were before the state 2nd District Court of Appeal, which has rebuffed the governor's previous efforts in the case.

 

Supporters of the Schindlers said Terri Schiavo's breathing became increasingly labored during the day. An attorney for the Schindlers, Barbara Weller, said hospice workers began giving Schiavo morphine to alleviate pain brought on by her body's failure.

 

Weller said Schiavo cried when her mother hugged her Saturday night.

 

"She knows what's going on. She was trying to vocalize something with Mary," Weller said. "The governor should know that Terri still knows who her mother is and she's extremely distressed. She's not a vegetable who doesn't know what is happening."

 

Meanwhile, a spokesman for the Schindlers said Michael Schiavo denied their request to allow his wife to receive the sacrament of communion at sundown Saturday -- when Catholics begin celebrating their holiest feast of the year. She received last rites the day the feeding tube was pulled.

 

"Terri Schiavo ... a practicing Roman Catholic all her life, has been denied the precious body and blood of our Lord, Jesus Christ," said Paul O'Donnell, who also is a Catholic Franciscan monk. "This is in violation of her religious rights and freedoms and allows the governor to ... intervene."

 

Pinellas County Circuit Judge George Greer and the state's high court rejected the family's latest motion Saturday. The family said Schiavo tried to say "I want to live" hours before her tube was removed, saying "Ahhhh" and "Waaaaa" when asked to repeat the phrase.

 

Doctors have said her previous utterances weren't speech, but were involuntary moans consistent with someone in a vegetative state. Greer agreed.

 

Contrary to Michael Schiavo and court-appointed doctors, the Schindlers said their daughter could improve and say she laughs, cries, responds to them and tries to talk.

 

After visiting Terri Schiavo inside the hospice Saturday afternoon, her father said she was "doing remarkably well under the circumstances."

 

"She has put up a tremendous battle to live. She's not throwing in the towel," Bob Schindler said.

 

George Felos, attorney for Michael Schiavo, insisted that Terri Schiavo's condition was stable and that death "is not imminent." He denied reports by the parents' attorneys that her tongue and eyes were bleeding.

 

"She is calm. She is peaceful. She is resting comfortably," Felos told reporters Saturday as four sheriff's deputies stood by to protect him.

 

Bobby Schindler called Felos' assessment "sick" and "heinous" and challenged him to allow videos and photos of his sister to be released. Felos said earlier Saturday that allowing video recording inside Terri Schiavo's room would violate her privacy.

 

Outside the hospice, about 60 protesters maintained a subdued vigil and, like her parents, hoped for a miracle.

 

"Things are all done in God's timing," said David Vogel, a 47-year-old Steubenville, Ohio, musician who was arrested for trespassing last week when he tried to enter the hospice to take water to Terri Schiavo. "Does he have his hand upon this? Oh, yeah. The parallels are there with what happened to Jesus Christ. He was condemned to death, an innocent man. She's an innocent woman."

 

Saturday night, the Schindlers asked the protesters to go home and to pray for their daughter at Easter services.

 

"Be with your children. Hold them close and cherish every moment you have with them," O'Donnell said.

 

Terri Schiavo has been without food and water longer than she was in 2003, when the tube was removed for six days before Bush pushed through a law to have it reinserted. The law was later thrown out by the state Supreme Court.

 

Many supporters of the Schindlers say the governor could simply ignore the courts and take emergency custody of Schiavo. But Bush, himself a convert to Roman Catholicism, has said he's not willing to go beyond the boundaries of his powers.

 

Terri Schiavo suffered brain damage in 1990 when her heart stopped briefly from a chemical imbalance believed to have been brought on by an eating disorder. She left no living will.

[EricMM 0]

I haven't gotten involved with this before, because I don't know all of the specifics. If one person says she's a veg and one person says she's not, who do I believe? I don't know.

 

Personally I believe that if she is a vegitable, then she should be allowed to die, or even euthanized. Personally if I have to go slowly through starvation or quickly through some sort of painless O.D., I know which one I THINK I'd prefer.

 

They say where there's life, there's hope. But what is life? A beating heart and pumping lungs isn't life. Life is communication, and interaction. Life is thought.

 

Who do I believe? I think people are letting themselves believe who they WANT to believe, so the same people are arguing the same points. The pro-life people arguing that aspect and others arguing that she should be allowed to die on her own. But I don't know who's right, so I won't say.

 

But I think it's fucking odd that at the same time Reps can fight for putting this women on a feeding tube at this time and Bush could fight for keeping people off respirators another. If the circumstances are different, the outcome is the SAME. Especially because Bush's had to do with money. I mean, I don't like Bush at all, and this doesn't surprise me. But what are the REPUBLCIANS supposed to do besides (maybe?) ignore it? That's not always so easy...

[Jobber of the Week 0]

So, in YOUR eyes, nobody can have a problem with how the gov't handles things that has nothing to do with who is in party? It had to be because it was Clinton, and not because it was just one REALLY poorly executed raid where they could have hardly done worse without extreme levels of effort.

Well, considering that "GOSH DARN GOVERNMENT CAUSED A BUNCH OF CHILDREN TO SUFFER" only starts popping up in the wake of someone saying "Janet Reno," I'm not quite sure it fits that criteria. Maybe THEN it did, but now it doesn't.

 

But even then, I remember polls showed a majority of people blamed the Branch Davidians for their own death.

[Guest Arnold_OldSchool]

Personally I believe that if she is a vegitable, then she should be allowed to die, or even euthanized. Personally if I have to go slowly through starvation or quickly through some sort of painless O.D., I know which one I THINK I'd prefer

 

 

 

 

Her death is painless, she has no sensation of pain

[Vyce 0]

Man, I'm so totally bored with this story now. Terry was SO last week. Aren't we done murdering her yet?

 

MikeSC - hey, in reference to this whole Waco thing, just do what I'm doing: let this one go, but remember it in the future should RobotJerk bitch about how we're mistreating terrorists or some shit like that. Because then you'll be able to turn around and use his "well, they brought it on themselves" logic for yourself.

[2GOLD 0]

Just flush her and let's call it a day.

[EricMM 0]

Terry Schaivo isn't a goldfish...

 

is she???

[bobobrazil1984 0]

Just flush her and let's call it a day.

yeah really.

 

its ridiculous this has been the top news story for this long.

[Guest Arnold_OldSchool]

OMG Bush is Wagging the dog cause Iraq was such a controversey

 

 

/read it somewhere

[Guest MikeSC]

I haven't gotten involved with this before, because I don't know all of the specifics. If one person says she's a veg and one person says she's not, who do I believe? I don't know.

 

Personally I believe that if she is a vegitable, then she should be allowed to die, or even euthanized. Personally if I have to go slowly through starvation or quickly through some sort of painless O.D., I know which one I THINK I'd prefer.

 

They say where there's life, there's hope. But what is life? A beating heart and pumping lungs isn't life. Life is communication, and interaction. Life is thought.

 

Who do I believe? I think people are letting themselves believe who they WANT to believe, so the same people are arguing the same points. The pro-life people arguing that aspect and others arguing that she should be allowed to die on her own. But I don't know who's right, so I won't say.

 

But I think it's fucking odd that at the same time Reps can fight for putting this women on a feeding tube at this time and Bush could fight for keeping people off respirators another. If the circumstances are different, the outcome is the SAME. Especially because Bush's had to do with money. I mean, I don't like Bush at all, and this doesn't surprise me. But what are the REPUBLCIANS supposed to do besides (maybe?) ignore it? That's not always so easy...

And for a take on the law Bush signed in Texas. From Nat'l Review:

 

WHAT PRESIDENT BUSH DID IN TEXAS [K. J. Lopez]

I got into this a little last night, but here’s a little more background on something I suspect you might have heard yesterday and will continue to hear today. During the debate over Terri Schiavo’s life in Congress on Sunday, Democrats in the House of Representatives argued that President Bush is inconsistent in his support for Terri Schiavo because when he was governor of Texas he signed a bill that was recently used in a terrible case in Texas to deny lifesaving treatment to a baby against the child’s family’s wishes.

But according to a source familiar with what went down in Texas, the then-governor signed into law the best bill he could get at the time, improving an already bad situation. Here’s some background explained:

In August 1996 the Journal of the American Medical Association published an article describing procedures then in effect in Houston hospitals. Under these procedures, if a doctor wished to deny a patient lifesaving medical treatment and the patient or the patient's surrogate instead steadfastly expressed a desire for life, the doctor would submit the case to the hospital ethics committee. The patient or surrogate would be given 72 hours notice of the committee meeting would be allowed to plead for the patient's life at it. During that short 72 hour period, the patient or surrogate, while preparing to argue for life, could also try to find another health care provider willing to give the lifesaving treatment, food or fluids.

If the ethics committee decided for death, under these procedures there was no appeal. There was no provision that the food, fluids, or lifesaving treatment be provided after the decision while the patient or family tried to find another hospital willing to keep the patient alive.

So under these procedures, the hospitals in Houston were denying life-saving treatment, food and fluids against the wishes of patients and their families, when the hospital ethics committees said their quality of life was too poor. Patients and families were being given only 72 hours after being notified of the proposed denial to find another health care provider.

In 1997 there was an advance directives bill going through the Texas legislature that would have given specific legal sanction to such involuntary denial of life-saving treatment. An effort in the Texas legislature to amend the bill to require treatment pending transfer to a health care provider willing to provide the life-saving treatment had been defeated. When that bill reached Governor George Bush’s desk, he vetoed it, and said he was vetoing it precisely because it authorized hospitals to deny lifesaving medical treatment, food, and fluids against the will of the patients.

But even without that bill, these procedures were still going on. So there was an effort in the next sitting of the legislature, in 1999, to pass protective legislation. Unfortunately, the votes just weren’t there to require lifesaving treatment, food, or fluids be provided by unwilling hospitals. So there were negotiations that resulted in a bill that gave partial protection. That 1999 bill:

first, formalized more protections for in-hospital review

second, gave patients 10 days of treatment while seeking transfer, and third, authorized court proceedings to extend the 10 days for reasonable additional periods to accomplish transfer.

Now this was not what patient advocates wanted and it wasn’t what Governor Bush wanted. However, it was an important advance over the existing situation of no legal requirement of treatment pending transfer, for any period of time. The votes were not there in the Texas legislature to accomplish a more protective bill. So Governor Bush signed it because it was an improvement over the existing law.

-=Mike

[EricMM 0]

Again, ironic considering the conservative state of Texas is probably CHOCK full of people proclaiming this to be a state sanctioned murder, yet they couldn't vote for this issue back then.

[Guest MikeSC]

Again, ironic considering the conservative state of Texas is probably CHOCK full of people proclaiming this to be a state sanctioned murder, yet they couldn't vote for this issue back then.

Bush signed the best bill that could be passed.

 

You can't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

-=Mike

[Prime Time Andrew Doyle 0]

I find it really weird that Schiavo won't let the family take care of her. Presumably he has nothing to lose or gain if she dies, so why is he fighting so hard for her to die. I also saw in that article about a half a page up which sort of implied that he may have had something to do with her state. Is that a genuine opinion, or could it just be a random speculation

[Stephen Joseph 0]

I find it really weird that Schiavo won't let the family take care of her. Presumably he has nothing to lose or gain if she dies, so why is he fighting so hard for her to die. I also saw in that article about a half a page up which sort of implied that he may have had something to do with her state. Is that a genuine opinion, or could it just be a random speculation

That's pretty simple.

 

He contends that Terri told him that she would not want to live in such a state. Assuming that is correct, then he as the husband w/ spousal rights is trying to uphold her wishes. If he gave up control, she would be kept in such a state for many years to come, and that would be against her wishes.

 

So it's not difficult to see why he could *in a good light* be not wanting to give up rights to her family.

 

Now, he could also be a scummy bastard like MikeSC would have you believe.

 

My thoughts? There's enough vilification on both sides that any character judgements on our parts will be flawed and incorrect. Thus, best to air on the side of the legally recognized argument.

[Guest MikeSC]

You don't find his decree that she'll be IMMEDIATELY cremated (her family wants an autopsy followed by a Catholic burial) somewhat questionable?

-=Mike

[Vyce 0]

Is Michael going to keep her ashes?

 

Cause if so, then man, that's like the final knife in the back to her family.

[Guest MikeSC]

Is Michael going to keep her ashes?

 

Cause if so, then man, that's like the final knife in the back to her family.

No, he's going to spread them.

 

The Schindlers want an autopsy to see if they can be given any explanation for what caused her problems that led to all of this.

 

I'm not sure what CAN be found after all this time, but they have requested it.

 

I actually assume the state MIGHT be able to demand this, but I'm not positive.

-=Mike

[Stephen Joseph 0]

Mike,

 

The state can't interfere. It's the same issue as with whether to pull the feeding tube or not. It would be a court issue, and suffer from the same problem (from your viewpoint) that the court fights were over initially (spousal rights).

 

I'm not familiar with the whole cremation when Catholic=bad thing. My father's Catholic and he wants to be cremated. Where'd this come from.

 

I think clutching at cremation as pointing to Michael being a bad man is alot like grasphing at loose straws. I think ultimately that's a matter something higher up will have to decide.