Parents of Terri Schindler-Schiavo Told to Pay to See Their Daughter

The Terri Schindler Foundation ^ | May 7, 2004 | Terri Foundation

[amdgmary]

Parents of Terri Schindler-Schiavo Told to Pay to See Their Daughter

Clearwater, FL May 7, 2004: In yet another bizarre twist of the Terri Schindler-Schiavo case, the Schindler family was informed that they must now pay a fee for “security” each time that they want to visit their daughter.

On Wednesday, May 5, 2004, Deborah Bushnell of Dunedin, an attorney representing Michael Schiavo, faxed a letter to attorneys representing the parents of Terri Schindler-Schiavo.

In her communication, Ms. Bushnell recommended that Ms. Schiavo's parents could be permitted to visit their disabled daughter if they would agree to hire an off-duty police person to accompany them. This comes after attorney Patricia Anderson, who represents Ms. Schiavo's parents, filed a Writ of Quo Warranto, demanding that Mr. Schiavo demonstrate what authority he has to deny his wife visits from her immediate family. Should the Schindlers fail to pay, they would be denied visitation rights.

Ms. Schiavo currently has an off-duty police person, paid for by Hospice of the Florida Suncoast, assigned to her on a 24 hour a day basis. Additionally, the Schindlers have reported that, during their visits, nursing staff frequently enter their daughter's room.

Ms. Schiavo's parents, Bob and Mary Schindler, have not been permitted to visit her since March 29, 2004 (39 days), when attorney George Felos of Dunedin issued a press release stating that suspicious marks were found on her arm. A toxicology study conducted on Ms. Schiavo concluded that no unauthorized chemicals were found in her system. Ms. Schiavo's parents, along with her siblings, had attempted to visit her the following day at Park Place Assisted Living and were turned away by nursing staff in compliance with "Mr. Schiavo's orders".

Statement of Attorney Patricia Anderson:

By recommending that the financially-strapped Schindlers may only visit Terri if they pay yet another off-duty police person to accompany them, is an effort to inhibit them from freely seeing their own daughter. A couple of years ago, Michael Schiavo contacted Terri's parents and offered to give the balance of Terri's money over to charity. He and his attorneys used this a talking point for the media - claiming that Michael had no financial interest in Terri's death. What they neglected to mention was that that particular offer was predicated upon the Schindler's agreeing to Terri's dehydration and starvation death.

This latest tactic from Ms. Bushnell is really no different. I will not be surprised if Ms. Bushnell uses this as another talking point with the media in an attempt to make her and her client appear less cruel.

No mother should have to pay an admission fee to see her child on Mother's Day. Perhaps Ms. Bushnell has forgotten how most people spend Mother's Day."

[TOUGH STOUGH]

Given her religion, her family, her Catholic school education,her childhood friends, several of whom have had masses said on Teri's behalf (praying Terri wins and her life is spared), and the fact that she is alive despite her appalling abuse and physical illnesses, the chance that Terri WANTS to die, are almost nil.(TS)

All of the above is an indication of what Terri wants now, most particularly the fact that she has survived serious illness, injury and attempts to starve her to death. Her past and her present influences have made her the person she is today.

You still did not answer the first question I posed earlier. Neither did you answer my second question.

[supercat]

There are millions of people in this country who are incapable of feeding themselves, or of even coherently expressing a desire to be fed. Many (indeed most) of these people would gain those abilities if efforts were made to teach them. Absent such efforts, it's unlikely that they would be able to gain such abilities on their own.

Should parents be forbidden from caring for these people, on the basis that they can't care for themselves and may or may not want to live?

[Ohioan from Florida]

Killing a person and not devoting time, resources and labor to keeping them alive are not the same thing.

That's funny, I thought that when neglect leads to death it is considered murder. At least it is if I allowed that to happen to my pet, and I know I'd go to jail for that! Why are humans less worthy than our dogs and cats?

[supercat]

Christopher Reeves and Stephen Hawking have nothing to do with that. They are obviously conscious, aware and direct their own lives, and make the production to keep them going.

Were it not for years spent in therapy, Stephen Hawking would be absolutely incapable of making his wants and desires known. His conciousness, which to you seems obvious, would not be so had it not been for the work of many people. Without such efforts, his apparent level of conciousness would likely be even lower than Terri's.

[Politicalmom]

Wait a minute. In post 173 you said you didn't think she should be starved to death. You want to KILL("euthanize" is such a sanitary word, isn't it?) her.

So which is it?

[TOUGH STOUGH]

"I'd say, using your assumptions, that if she wanted to live, she would be able to without help."(WT)

Your original comment is above. I then asked if Christopher Reeves and Stephen Hawking want to live because neither one, like Terri, can live without help.

In your last response to me you added additional qualifiers presumably because I pointed out the absurdity of your original comment.

[supercat]

That's funny, I thought that when neglect leads to death it is considered murder. At least it is if I allowed that to happen to my pet, and I know I'd go to jail for that! Why are humans less worthy than our dogs and cats?

Actually, "not expending the resources to keep someone alive" is not necessarily criminal, if one's non-expenditure of resources is performed in such a way as to allow others to take over the responsibility.

For example, in Illinois, mothers who don't wish to expend the effort to keep their newborns alive can drop them off at hospitals or staffed fire stations and be free of further obligation.

What Michael is seeking to do, however, is not merely to absolve himself of responsibility (which he could easily do in any number of ways) but rather to actively prevent anyone else from taking over. The issue isn't that he doesn't want to provide care for Terri--it's that he doesn't want anyone to provide care for Terri.

[William Terrell]

With the implication that if nobody volunteers to feed someone, that person should be allowed to starve. Not great, but not an unreasonable philosophy if one accepts that one person's need does not obligate anyone to fill it.

It is the basic philosophy, that you do no harm. Now, many are willing to advance beyond the basic philosophy. There are people that volunteer to take care of someone, who would ordinarily die, all the time.

That is their choice. It's also Mr. Shiavo's choice, and rightfully his under the law, the common law and custom. Conservatives supposed to conserve that. It is closest to Nature. Nature is unforgiving and we have a contract of obedience with her when we are born.

Michael's actions are between him and God, since the law that grants them presumes honest care, which is the case in almost all instances.

[Ohioan from Florida]

Exactly. That's leaves only one "choice" for Terri, death. Murder in my book, no matter how much someone wants to muddy the water.

[TOUGH STOUGH]

An absolutely excellent point, supercat. Without the computer and sound devices which help Stephen Hawking to communicate, he would appear less conscious than Terri.

If we could give Terri the same ability to communicate as that which was given Stephen Hawking, it would positively blow the socks off the naysayers.

[Politicalmom]

The law isn't being followed. The murderous "husband" has a clear conflict of interest. Guardianship should automatically revert to Terri's parents.

[William Terrell]

Are you the Honorable William Terrell Hodges?

No. If I were a judge, I wouldn't use anything close to my own name out here.

[supercat]

That is their choice. It's also Mr. Shiavo's choice, and rightfully his under the law, the common law and custom. Conservatives supposed to conserve that. It is closest to Nature. Nature is unforgiving and we have a contract of obedience with her when we are born.

Michael isn't merely making the choice not to give Terri food and water himself, though; rather, he's seeking to prevent anyone else from providing it.

If you pick up a cat from a shelter, you are accepting the responsibility of providing a certain level of care for that cat. Severe neglect is punishable by law. That does not mean, though, that you're obligated for life to provide for the animal. If you become unable to care for it yourself you are allowed to either find someone else to care for it or return it to the shelter and let the shelter try to find someone (which they may or may not manage to do).

In short, you're not required to care for the animal yourself, but that does not give you the right to prevent others from doing so.

Should Michael's "property interest" in Terri exceed that of a cat owner over his pet?

[floriduh voter]

Oh, I get it. You're just friends with Felos in Dunedin.

[floriduh voter]

Not a judge. He lives in same town as Felos. Sounds like he has his own Terri file in front of him.

[floriduh voter]

Friday Florida Law Trivia Answer

Justice William Glenn Terrell served from 1923 to 1964, but he was not the court's longest serving employee (assuming justices don't mind being considered employees).

WAS A JUDGE? I'm getting warmer. lol

[yesnettv]

Have you considered a brain transplant from a human being?

[floriduh voter]

OPERATION ROTTEN APPLE. Justice Terrell is deceased. Not him.

[L.N. Smithee]

As Mrs. Browning lay motionless before my gaze, I suddenly heard a loud, deep moan and scream and wondered if the nursing home personnel heard it...In the next moment, as this cry of pain and torment continued, I realized it was Mrs. Browning. I felt the mid-section of my body open and noticed a strange quality to the light in the room. I sensed her soul in agony. As she screamed I heard her say, in confusion, "Why am I still here...why am I here?" My soul touched hers and in some way I communicated that she was still locked to her body. I promised I would do everything in my power to gain the release her soul cried for. With that the screaming immediately stopped. I felt like I was back in my head again."

Holy cow...if Felos was working on behalf of a someone on the "right" side of this controversy, they would have called him a wacko by now.

[phenn]

>> It's also Mr. Shiavo's choice, and rightfully his under the law, the common law and custom.<<

Wrong. Mr. Schiavo is not a durable power of attorney over his wife's medical care. Therefore, he has no authority to withhold basic humane care such as food, water, shelter, cleanliness, treatment of infections. He is simply a guardian and guardians do NOT have that right. Under the Florida Statutes, he has no rights, only responsibilities to his ward.

You must be a judge because you certainly don't know the law.