Posted on 03/30/2005 2:14:34 PM PST by CHARLITE
"Please, Lord," I groused plaintively last week as I stood a few yards from where Terri Schiavo lay dying because a gaggle of public officials had decided her life was not worth living. "Please don't let one more person tell me how 'complex' this whole case has become."
If I heard the "complexity" response once, I think I heard it a hundred times. Worst of all, I probably even thought it a few times myself.
But the Terri Schiavo case is "complex" only in the sense that any of our sinful behavior is complicated. Sometimes, it is true, we weave such contorted patterns that solutions seem hard to find. That's precisely when we ought to look for God's simpler answers.
There is nothing complex about a situation like this: Party A is desperately needy. Party B, the normal provider of Party A's needs, says he doesn't want to do so. Party C, however, is more than ready to step in and provide what Party B says he doesn't want to give. Doesn't seem so hard, does it?
The situation gets complicated only when an extraneous Party D steps in to say that Party C can't, by law, extend such a merciful hand. And Party D in this case, of course, turns out to be those same activist judges who have stood half of American society on its head in recent years.
Just think how simple all this might have been if it had not become the American habit to try to remedy every inconvenience in life with a trip to the courthouse. Set aside the worst things you've heard about Michael Schiavo, Terri's husband for eight years before she suffered a terrible heart attack in 1990 that left her with clearly serious brain damage. Instead, think only the best of Michael and the distress he faced.
Here's how the situation might have unfolded then. The growing emotional and financial burden confronting Mr. Schiavo might understandably have escalated to more than he was able to bear. That happens to lots of people all the time. Some such folk struggle on even then, buoyed either by remarkable personal courage, a wonderful faith, or a combination of the two. Others, however, stumble and fall. "It's too much," they say as they walk away from their burdens. And when we see that, we may be disappointed—but we temper our disappointment with understanding. Most of us haven't walked in those same shoes.
So Michael Schiavo could have done that, as thousands of people do every year, and we would never have known his name. He could have walked out on Terri, turned her care over to her willing parents, and there would have been no national debate last week. Michael Schiavo certainly wouldn't have been a hero, but neither would he have become known worldwide as a cad.
Only the American courts could have made it so complicated. It's not just the content of their decisions in all of this that have been so boneheaded. It's been the very thought that they had to make any decision at all. Why couldn't the very first judge to be involved with the Schiavos' sad tale not have had the wisdom to say to Michael, "Mr. Schiavo, why don't you simply divorce your wife, take the criticism that will come from such action, and get on with your life?"
That would have been too simple. I looked down the street from the Woodside Hospice last Saturday at the long lineup of TV trucks with their gigantic dishes and telescoping transmitting towers. I glimpsed the small city of high-priced reporters and network personnel who had moved in for a two- or three-day encampment. I tried—and failed—to estimate what legal fees and court costs and law enforcement bills might have been. The next day, Congress met in special session and President Bush and Air Force One made an unscheduled flight back to Washington to sign a special bill.
All this says nothing of the high spiritual, moral, and cultural bills from such folly. When the history of euthanasia in America is reviewed a generation or two from now, the story of Terri Schiavo will provide details for one of the earliest and most critical chapters.
It could all have been so simple. All it would have taken was a Solomonic decision by any of a dozen judges—all of whom in this case overcomplicated the case before them. One profound difference, of course, was that in Solomon's case, the court saw to it that the baby lived. —•
It might be possible to rule out bulemia.
What, Judge Greer's order earlier this month?
I have no idea. She can't swallow anyways, so I don't know why he wrote the order the way he did.
Oxygen deprivation killed her brain.
"Have they biopsied her brain to reduce the list?"
She has no brain to biopsy. It has been replaced by spinal fluid. Her brainstem is providing autonomic functions, keeping her body alive.
This is about repecting a persons wishes.
Have you all seen this incredible tape of Terri opening her eyes for the dr. - he keeps saying "open you eyes{ - so she finally arches her eyebrows high and her eyes wide as if to say: "Hey, how about THIS!"
It will make you laugh and then cry - SHE IS THERE - she needs therapy...THIS IS A MUST - must get it our everyone. I've sent it to all the FOX addresses, Rush, Hannity ets - but they have to get slammed with this to pay attention, so it doesn't get lost.
http://web.Tampabay.rr.com/ccb/videos/Terri_Big_Eyes.rm
Can she eat? Can she drink? What's your problem with the judges order?
What if the judge said that she's not allowed to walk around the room either. That a problem for you?
She didn't, huh? And what exactly did Nell say?
Now what do you say? That they're lying, also? That they're "mistaken"?
Not if Michael Schiavo won the award for a million dollars, which he did. Remember, the court is now contending it must uphold its previous decision. So it could not go back and say the judgement and award about bulimia was no longer valid.
Well, that's not the case here, now is it?
But to answer your hypothetical, since Snidely and Nell are not married, I doubt that his word, by itself, would carry as much weight.
Be that as it may, it would be up to the judge to hear the facts and make a determination. Florida law requires that he have "clear and convincing" evidence as to Nell's wishes.
Can you offer any basis in Florida law for the no attempt to feed by any means order?
She "drank" her saliva, and a similar flow of a food of the consistency of milk delivered by eyedropper, or off a spoon, would probably go down just fine.
Note that this is a question that the American idea of civil courts was ill prepared to handle. "Clear and convincing" normally obtains in questions such as who inherits Aunt Millie's antique china set when her will is contested. For it to obtain in questions as to who lives or is executed, is a dangerous precedent indeed. A murderer would get a better chance at living.
She was apparently capable of swallowing her own saliva, and nurse's affidavits claim she could swallow jello. Allowing the parents to attempt to feed her would seem a simple and logical means of solving that argument, would it not? And under the circumstances the only way I could see it would "hurt" anyone would be if the parents were able to feed Terri, thus establishing that there was no legal basis for killing her. And though that might "hurt" Michael, he would have no legitimate basis for objecting.
And if she had a Living Will or Durable Power of Attorney expressing her wishes in writing? Would you allow the feeding tube to be pulled if the conditions (in the signed documents) were met?
Assuming a sane and rational "yes", then why would you not honor a similar verbal wish expressed to three different people, testifying to that fact, under oath, in a court of law, in front of an impartial and disinterested judge, under penalty of perjury?
You're making all of these active/passive euthanasia arguments, completely missing the issue in this case.
I await your answers to my questions which are relevant to this case.
http://web.Tampabay.rr.com/ccb/videos/Terri_Big_Eyes.rm
Yes. I posted this on this thread earlier. I got it from "Citizen M" in a private email. People need to get this out.........but, alas, the courts aren't moved or impressed by any new facts, new videos, new proofs, new testimony about Terri's "aliveness" and awareness. The court and judicial procedures are so antiseptic and sterile. They are only concerned with whether the rules were duely followed. They aren't interested in the FACT that a gross, abominable injustice is taking place as Terri Schindler Schaivo dies.
Because one of the people is a proven liar, and the other two are relatives of his who didn't recall Terri's "wishes" until after it was suggested that Michael's testimony by itself seemed rather flimsy.
Had their plans worked quickly, they would have received about $750,000 from Terri's trust fund. It hardly seems implausible that Michael would have promised his relatives a cut.
Yes, I am saying Michael's relatives are liars. Believing a proven liar and his relatives to be liars is much easier than believing everything that would be necessary for them to be truth-tellers.
Actually a very good question. If this were my wife, and if she had expressed Terri's wish in the past, I would have pulled the feeding tube in 1993 upon realizing that she was in a PVS and never coming back (no one had after three years).
But, he did put a DNR on her at that time. Maybe he was thinking that she would die a natural death -- he now had the money to pay for her nursing home care.
After the 1996 CAT scan, coupled with the fact that it looked like this could go on forever, which was against her wishes, he decided to take action.
Dudley is just a dumb Canadian, Horse would make the decision to do the right thing.
Oh, but if she could only know the depth of support out here for her! She would jump out of her bed I am sure.
BTY if you have not seen Greta's show yet tonight, or have a chance to see the rerun later do so. There is another amazing video. A doctor is talking to her, asking her about pain.
Terri attempts to say Yes and No and the difference is CLEARLY AUDIBLE. He asks if one (specific) part of her body hurts - and she says YAAAAAA. Then another (like her ear) and she says NAAAAAA. He does this several times to see if she is processing thought. It is so obvious she is. Watch it!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.