Posted on 03/08/2007 3:11:27 AM PST by markomalley
Bobby Schindler, brother of late Terri Schiavo, spoke to members of the Cornell community last night to promote awareness of issues facing disabled individuals.
After collapsing in her home on Feb. 25, 1990, Terri Schiavo suffered several minutes without oxygen to her brain, resulting in severe brain damage. Although she needed immediate care afterwards, a few weeks later, she only required a feeding tube to regulate her nutrition.
During 1991 and 1992, Schiavo showed signs of improvement due to rehabilitation programs and therapy, according to Schindler.
In 1993, Terri was awarded a medical trust fund of $1.5 million for life-long rehabilitation, of which her husband Michael was made guardian.
According to Schindler, after Michael deposited this money, Terri stopped receiving therapy.
Tensions arose in 1993 between Michael and Terri’s father Robert Schindler.
In 1998, Michael wrote the Schindler family a letter, explaining that he was petitioning the courts to remove his wife’s feeding tube.
Terri’s family opposed removal of the feeding tube. Michael, backed by his brother and sister-in-law, said Terri had made statements before she suffered brain damage that she would not want to live in such a condition.
“Our family was very naïve at what we were up against,” Schindler said. “The attitudes of our country [toward this issue] have been changed because of the influence of the media, judges, doctors and bioethics.”
Schindler said he was frustrated that the media portrayed his sister as bedridden and unable to be moved. In fact, Schindler said, had Terri been alive today, he could have brought her with him; she would have merely needed a wheelchair to be transported. Schindler emphasized that Schiavo was not connected to breathing stabilizers of any sort.
“My sister was not dying. She was physically as healthy as you and me,” Schindler said.
Although she could not respond rapidly, she did show signs of coherence, according to Schindler. He recounted a moment when he told his sister that he had the chance to shake hands with Bruce Springstein. Terri had purchased her brother his first C.D. by the artist. When he told her, she smiled.
Such responses were ignored by the court systems, according to Schindler. He said he believed then that videos demonstrating her ability to react to speech would convince the courts that she was not in a persistent vegetative state — one in which a person cannot respond to any external stimuli — but a judge said this did not prove his case.
On March 31, 2005, 14 days after the removal of her feeding tube, Terri died from dehydration.
“The courts have taken [on] a power of God,” Schindler said. Schindler said doctors took on a similar role and are still quick to overlook the benefits of long-term rehabilitation.
“If society knows the truth, then we can properly address the issue and give [the disabled] the right to live, a basic human right,” said Elisabeth Wilbert ’07, vice president of Cornell Coalition for Life.
CCFL invited Schindler to speak to demonstrate that the club supports pro-life organizations.
“It was a good opportunity for Cornell to get a personal view of something with such a national interest,” said Tristen Cramer ’09, president of CCFL. Schindler said his family would have preferred not to generate national interest; family members received a large number of e-mails that condemned the family for keeping Terri alive.
“I learned a lot more true information compared to what the media portrayed,” said Kourtney Reynolds ’09.
Schindler said he hopes to devalue false information given to the public by the media.
He also said that euthanasia occurred before his family’s struggle and continues to occur today.
“Are we going to care for [the disabled] or find ways to justify killing them?” Schindler asked.
If you are saying I am on the side of erring on the side of life if there is any doubt, then yes, that is the side I am on. Every right in this country is based first on the right to life. After all, if you aren't alive, there are no rights to have.
And it also settles the issue of who wanted and brought in the media.
Wrong. No one brought in the media, except the media themselves.
As with all activist groups, they use a situation to propel a crusade.
Again, the only 'crusade' they had was trying to save Terri's life.
As for kooks, I saw it on television.
Yes, that media you put so much faith in.
Yeah I fell for it when I saw all of the desecrated flags and crucifixes, the child abuse, the threats, the press conferences of Randall Terry.
Please post a link to desecrated flags and child abuse. (No, a child who wants to take water to Terri isn't being 'abused,' so don't bother trying to claim that.) These 'threats' you mention, I assume, are the ones that were claimed against certain ones on the "Michael" side. Was there ever any proof those threat were real, or are you just accepting their word for it? If that's the case, do you accept every person's word who claims they have had death threats, or just those with whom you agree?
They saw a circus and enjoyed every second of the coverage.
The media portrayed it as a 'circus' because it is good for rating. But thanks for admitting now that no one brought in the media except the media themselves.
your side loved it and did its spinning
I assume based on your other comments (agreeing that the 'Michael' side used the media), that you also believe that 'side' loved it and did its spinning.
So you don't think activist groups "bring in" the media by their actions?
The media goes because they want to - it's good for ratings.
And as for the media and their political agenda, I have asked many times here what exactly did they do
I've already told you, but you put so much faith in what the media tells you, you don't want to see it.
So who do you place your faith in to give the truth....WND and Life-Site News?
I read a variety of sources, but ultimately, I place my faith in God to give me the truth. He gives the gift of discernment.
So again, what relevant information did they miss?
Actually, if you read a variety of sources and were open to the information, you'd already know what they missed. But it is pretty clear you had your mind made up on the issue and blocked out anything you didn't want to know. For example: Michael was actively pursuing therapy on Terri until he got the malpractice settlement, then the therapy was stopped. After that, he didn't even want her treated for infections.
I'm sure you are going to blather some sort of justification for that particular action. Don't bother. It's clear you fell for the media hype and were all in favor of starving and dehydrating Terri to death. You probably even think it was 'euphoric' as the media tried to claim.
Irrelevant, because every issue brought up by "your side" was seen by the reviews.
I see. So if you took something to court and the judge was known to belong to groups opposed to your position in the case, you would not expect him to recuse himself. (Yeah, right.)
And that's fine. You just seem a tad nervous being linked to the Terri crowd, and there's no reason to be.
Wrong. No one brought in the media, except the media themselves.
Again, let's not be coy. Virtually everyone on your side of this issue wanted as much media coverage you could get, and set about taking the actions necessary to get their interest and their cameras. At least be intellectually honest about it.
As with all activist groups, they use a situation to propel a crusade.
Again, the only 'crusade' they had was trying to save Terri's life.
You're still having trouble logically. I'm not questioning your motives for bringing in the media, merely showing how it's done by most activist groups, as it was with yours.
As for kooks, I saw it on television.
Yes, that media you put so much faith in.
Okay then, let's try again. I described in detail the crowd I saw outside the hospice. Are you saying that crowd did not exist, and that it was a Hollywood presentation? They didn't desecrate flags and crucifixes, no threats, no children sent to be arrested? No Randall Terry?
Please post a link to desecrated flags and child abuse. (No, a child who wants to take water to Terri isn't being 'abused,' so don't bother trying to claim that.)
A link? In all of the Schiavo threads that I saw, you are the first to deny that American Flags were desecrated with various symbols in the blue field, and crucifixes with Jesus replaced by Terri Schiavo. I'm not going to go back and do a search, but if you wish, be my guest. As for the "little children", when a 2 time rapist sends children to get arrested by violating police lines and trespassing onto private property for no other reason than to get the media to show them in handcuffs, that's child abuse in my book, and in the book of most reasonable people.
These 'threats' you mention, I assume, are the ones that were claimed against certain ones on the "Michael" side. Was there ever any proof those threat were real, or are you just accepting their word for it? If that's the case, do you accept every person's word who claims they have had death threats, or just those with whom you agree?
Once again, you've left the arena of coyness and now are clearly in an area called ethical dishonesty. You know all about all the threats against Michael Schiavo's girlfriend and her two children, of the $250 thousand reward for the deaths of Michael Schiavo and Judge Greer, and in fact, just read some of the comments from the good Christians here on FR during those days. I recall one from a poster here who said he had the satisfaction of knowing that the rest of Greer's days would be looking over his shoulder, and always afraid to taste his food for fear of poisoning. From whom....the media?
The media portrayed it as a 'circus' because it is good for rating. But thanks for admitting now that no one brought in the media except the media themselves.
I guess obtuse would be the correct term here. I saw a violent protest in Latin America this morning against Bush. Now, did the protesters literally drag in the media? No. Did they "bring" them in with their actions? Of course, which was what they planned for and accomplished, just as did the Schiavo protesters. To suggest otherwise is, well, obtuse.
I assume based on your other comments (agreeing that the 'Michael' side used the media), that you also believe that 'side' loved it and did its spinning.
Did he spin anything? Sure. Did he want the media there? Of course not. But given all the various charges and threats from your "home team", he was continually on the defensive, even though he had the law on his side. The bottom line is that the media was there for your guys, not the Michael S guys.
And as for the media and their political agenda, I have asked many times here what exactly did they do
I've already told you, but you put so much faith in what the media tells you, you don't want to see it.
No, you've not yet given me one single thing the media has done in this case that put your side of it in an untruthful position, or failed to get your story out. That was the question.
I read a variety of sources, but ultimately, I place my faith in God to give me the truth. He gives the gift of discernment.
So how do you know it's coming from God...or from WND? Or does WND speak for Him?
For example: Michael was actively pursuing therapy on Terri until he got the malpractice settlement, then the therapy was stopped. After that, he didn't even want her treated for infections.
According to court transcripts, $750 thousand of the settlement was put into trust for Terri's rehab, untouchable by Michael, leaving him with $300k, and it was over the argument of how the split would take place between Michael and Mr. Schindler that suddenly Michael was no longer the wonderful son-in-law. That is in court transcripts, and I'm not aware of any evidence refuting that. You may well be. And to be fair, I saw almost nothing of that reported by the MSM, which if they were on Michael's side, should have been reporting it constantly.
It's clear you fell for the media hype and were all in favor of starving and dehydrating Terri to death. You probably even think it was 'euphoric' as the media tried to claim.
There you go, as all of you folks do, paint anyone who believes in the rule of law as enjoying the death of others. And I recall someone telling a reporter that Terri didn't suffer at all, but until the autopsy established that, most kept an open mind. I certainly didn't see the media making up anything about that.
I see. So if you took something to court and the judge was known to belong to groups opposed to your position in the case, you would not expect him to recuse himself. (Yeah, right.)
I don't know what group he belonged to, and I rather doubt it was anything that would have required his recusal since he was a fundamentalist Christian, but, did your side point it out during the numerous appeals? And if so, what was the result?
According to court transcripts, $750 thousand of the settlement was put into trust for Terri's rehab, untouchable by Michael, leaving him with $300k, and it was over the argument of how the split would take place between Michael and Mr. Schindler that suddenly Michael was no longer the wonderful son-in-law. That is in court transcripts, and I'm not aware of any evidence refuting that. You may well be. And to be fair, I saw almost nothing of that reported by the MSM, which if they were on Michael's side, should have been reporting it constantly.
Now how could the MSM report anything that had to do with Terri's trust fund money when Michael's lawyers were taking it all? You aren't that naive, are you?
The "split" took place because Michael didn't want to spend any money on Terri's rehap. In fact, he wanted to kill her to collect that 750k for himself, as witnessed in court testimony in 1993.
Why not? It's in court records. As for naive, anyone who reads WND and reaches any conclusions has upped the ante on naivety. And I notice you didn't discuss the argument over the money between Michael and the Schindlers. I don't recall them denying it. Nor has anyone mentioned the offers Michael refused to turn his wife over to an agreed upon guardian...offers ranging from 1 to 10 million dollars. If Michael was interested in the money, why didn't he take the offers?
The "split" took place because Michael didn't want to spend any money on Terri's rehap. In fact, he wanted to kill her to collect that 750k for himself, as witnessed in court testimony in 1993.
I thought the MSM couldn't know about these things? And whose testimony was that?
I will ignore the previous spin to get to the heart of the matter eventually.
Why wouldn't MSM know about PUBLIC court records? Fact is, they deceived you from that truth. Michael tried to kill his wife in 1993.
So after his trial for attempted murder, what was the verdict?
But don't bother, because I really don't care. This whole thread is not about Michael Schiavo, but about someone complaining the Terri protesters didn't get fair coverage, and my point was that they got almost all of it. I've been trying to get some examples of unfair coverage. I've said that I saw most of it on Fox, arguably a pretty conservative news site. Some here are now denying the obvious, which is some pretty nasty stuff took place and got a lot of coverage, because that is what nasty stuff gets.
I would suggest next time someone invites the press in to follow them on a crusade, they think twice, or ask someone who understands the press what to expect.
Your post was full of accusations. Prove them. If you aren't willing to do so, then I can only dismiss them as more drivel from the 'pro-Michael activists'. (Using your term, since you seem to equate agreeing with a group's positions to being involved in activism.)
Question the conventional wisdom around here, and you're a troll. Even if you've been here eight years.
Yeah, denial is usually a good defense. It's working well for the Democrats, none of whom wanted to vote for the Iraq War. It worked well for Clinton too. "I didn't have sex", and "oral sex isn't sex". And there was the NY Times reporter who wrote about how wonderful everything was in Russia in the 1930s. Ahmadinejad denies the Holocaust.
I'm not going to do your homework for you. I gave you far more attention than you deserved. If you participated in the Schiavo Wars here on FR, you know all about it. If you didn't, then you need to brush up before taking anyone on here.
You will find that many here on FR spent a lot of time justifying the actions I spoke of on this thread. If they never took place, well...you get the idea.
As for more drivel from the Michael Schiavo activists, I never saw any of them here. I did see a lot of common sense Freepers who expressed concerns over the attempt at destroying federalism, and who believed in the rule of law. And then there were the Terri activists.....
Sure, idiot. Whatever you say.
Umm... not sure I deserved that.
I thought you were calling me a troll. I apologize if that wasn't what you were saying.
That slimy slinking peice of sub-organic human offal who was Terri's husband should pay for his horrendous crimes.
Eventually what goes around comes around and I'm sure he will get his - one way or another.
My point is that this place is becoming inhospitable to anyone who does not toe the line - even long-time members.
You're right; I'm sorry I read your comment wrong.
Have a nice day.
Don't be. You get a lot of guff; it's understandable you were defensive.
I think it would've been beneficial to have a little background information about Michael from the press. They chose to ignore it.
After all, the media kept repeating the lie that the reason Terri collapsed in 1990 was because she was "bulimic" and or had a "heart attack". Both of which were dismissed by the autopsy report and also by her friends and family when she was alive. Of course, the MSM never got around mentioning any of that yet either.
In any case, the MANNER OF DEATH still remains OPEN according to the Medical Examiner. So all roads lead back to Michael, whom you don't want to talk about. Just like the MSM didn't and doesn't.
LOL. If that kind of thinking is the best the social right has to offer, we conservatives have been overly concerned about the RR. I feel a lot better about the '08 election already!
You take care.
I'm not sure what background info I am missing. For every story favorable to MS, I believe I heard several that made numerous accusations against him, so what did I miss from the media?
After all, the media kept repeating the lie that the reason Terri collapsed in 1990 was because she was "bulimic" and or had a "heart attack".
You may not like it, but it was in the medical records that she suffered a heart stoppage that cut off oxygen to the brain. Records reflect she had bulimia and in fact it the doctor's failure to properly diagnose it that led to the settlement, as I understand. Tests on her by competent doctors reflected imbalances that were consistent with bulimia, and she was on a diet of some sort, that may well have led to complications. You may disagree with the diagnosis, but it is all in the record.
In any case, the MANNER OF DEATH still remains OPEN according to the Medical Examiner. So all roads lead back to Michael, whom you don't want to talk about. Just like the MSM didn't and doesn't.
Try this link. It is from NBC news.
It appears that the MSM in fact did cover it, and you forgot their findings that Terri showed no signs of physical abuse that could have led to the heart stoppage. Since that is the essence of the RR case against Michael, do you think that finding is of importance?
Now, if you were a prosecutor, how would you handle this case?
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.