Mar
28
2005
A study in contradictions.
It seems that contradictions abound in the Terri Schiavo issue.
Michael Schiavo: Is he a loving husband, tearfully supporting his wife�s final wishes or a cold hearted killer determined to remove her from his life? Is he an adulterous bastard, or man who lost his love and moved on with his life? Is he a grieving spouse who lost his loved one, or a cold blooded murderer?
The Schindlers: Are they controlling, money hungry parents trying to milk every penny from their daughters shattered life, or grieving parents who just want to continue caring for their daughter?
Both together (and their doctors): Is Schiavo a realist, who sees Terri�s condition for what it is- the end of her life, a living death that she would not have wanted, or are the Schindlers the right ones when they claim she was prime for rehabilitation, aware and conscious deserves to live?
Analysis (aka opinion): I think Schiavo has moved on, and so no longer cares about Terri one way or another. He may well be supporting her wishes, it�s possible. He denies any possibility that she might be aware, and insists she is gone. The money grubbing accusations against him do not stand up to the fact that the money in question is gone, and that by relinquishing custody of her, he would have been paid millions. His worst crime seems to be a heavy dose of reality coupled with a single minded obsession. Likewise, the Schindlers don�t strike me as money seekers, they seem more like eternally optimistic-blinded by their optimism loving parents, who see in Terri the life and person she was, not who she is now. They are victims of their love and refusal to let go. Their only crime it seems to me is denial.
The politicians:
The republicans: The right to life is their goal, yet they support capital punishment. Smaller government and less government intervention, yet they used Congress to try and force the issue.
The Democrats: They support the right to die and abortion, but not capital punishment? They decry government intervention, but remember Elian Gonzales?
Both: Using this for whatever political leverage they can. Period.
Florida: The state does not allow euthanasia or assisted suicide, but this case is certainly a blend of the two. A family member decides to allow someone to die. A person has a stated desire to not live after a severe trauma. All of these are elements of the Schiavo matter, and the court has consistently and specifically ordered her to be allowed to die. This area becomes semantics of the worst order: She hasn�t chosen to die; she has elected to not be kept alive. She has not been euthanized; she has had her life support measures terminated. All the sophistry in the world cannot hide the fact, that from the State�s perspective, they have ordered the mercy death (a new oxymoron?) of an innocent and helpless woman or they have enabled this innocent woman to terminate her own life based on her spouses declaration of her wishes to not continue living in that state. Either way the state is culpable.
Terri herself: Is she a person or a shell? Dead or alive? Pawn or player? It seems more and more apparent that much of the fuss surrounding this case is attributed to 3 factors:
- The right to die versus right to life debate
Mar
28
2005
A study in contradictions.
It seems that contradictions abound in the Terri Schiavo issue.
Michael Schiavo: Is he a loving husband, tearfully supporting his wife�s final wishes or a cold hearted killer determined to remove her from his life? Is he an adulterous bastard, or man who lost his love and moved on with his life? Is he a grieving spouse who lost his loved one, or a cold blooded murderer?
The Schindlers: Are they controlling, money hungry parents trying to milk every penny from their daughters shattered life, or grieving parents who just want to continue caring for their daughter?
Both together (and their doctors): Is Schiavo a realist, who sees Terri�s condition for what it is- the end of her life, a living death that she would not have wanted, or are the Schindlers the right ones when they claim she was prime for rehabilitation, aware and conscious deserves to live?
Analysis (aka opinion): I think Schiavo has moved on, and so no longer cares about Terri one way or another. He may well be supporting her wishes, it�s possible. He denies any possibility that she might be aware, and insists she is gone. The money grubbing accusations against him do not stand up to the fact that the money in question is gone, and that by relinquishing custody of her, he would have been paid millions. His worst crime seems to be a heavy dose of reality coupled with a single minded obsession. Likewise, the Schindlers don�t strike me as money seekers, they seem more like eternally optimistic-blinded by their optimism loving parents, who see in Terri the life and person she was, not who she is now. They are victims of their love and refusal to let go. Their only crime it seems to me is denial.
The politicians:
The republicans: The right to life is their goal, yet they support capital punishment. Smaller government and less government intervention, yet they used Congress to try and force the issue.
The Democrats: They support the right to die and abortion, but not capital punishment? They decry government intervention, but remember Elian Gonzales?
Both: Using this for whatever political leverage they can. Period.
Florida: The state does not allow euthanasia or assisted suicide, but this case is certainly a blend of the two. A family member decides to allow someone to die. A person has a stated desire to not live after a severe trauma. All of these are elements of the Schiavo matter, and the court has consistently and specifically ordered her to be allowed to die. This area becomes semantics of the worst order: She hasn�t chosen to die; she has elected to not be kept alive. She has not been euthanized; she has had her life support measures terminated. All the sophistry in the world cannot hide the fact, that from the State�s perspective, they have ordered the mercy death (a new oxymoron?) of an innocent and helpless woman or they have enabled this innocent woman to terminate her own life based on her spouses declaration of her wishes to not continue living in that state. Either way the state is culpable.
Terri herself: Is she a person or a shell? Dead or alive? Pawn or player? It seems more and more apparent that much of the fuss surrounding this case is attributed to 3 factors:
- The right to die versus right to life debate
Mar
28
2005
A study in contradictions.
It seems that contradictions abound in the Terri Schiavo issue.
Michael Schiavo: Is he a loving husband, tearfully supporting his wife�s final wishes or a cold hearted killer determined to remove her from his life? Is he an adulterous bastard, or man who lost his love and moved on with his life? Is he a grieving spouse who lost his loved one, or a cold blooded murderer?
The Schindlers: Are they controlling, money hungry parents trying to milk every penny from their daughters shattered life, or grieving parents who just want to continue caring for their daughter?
Both together (and their doctors): Is Schiavo a realist, who sees Terri�s condition for what it is- the end of her life, a living death that she would not have wanted, or are the Schindlers the right ones when they claim she was prime for rehabilitation, aware and conscious deserves to live?
Analysis (aka opinion): I think Schiavo has moved on, and so no longer cares about Terri one way or another. He may well be supporting her wishes, it�s possible. He denies any possibility that she might be aware, and insists she is gone. The money grubbing accusations against him do not stand up to the fact that the money in question is gone, and that by relinquishing custody of her, he would have been paid millions. His worst crime seems to be a heavy dose of reality coupled with a single minded obsession. Likewise, the Schindlers don�t strike me as money seekers, they seem more like eternally optimistic-blinded by their optimism loving parents, who see in Terri the life and person she was, not who she is now. They are victims of their love and refusal to let go. Their only crime it seems to me is denial.
The politicians:
The republicans: The right to life is their goal, yet they support capital punishment. Smaller government and less government intervention, yet they used Congress to try and force the issue.
The Democrats: They support the right to die and abortion, but not capital punishment? They decry government intervention, but remember Elian Gonzales?
Both: Using this for whatever political leverage they can. Period.
Florida: The state does not allow euthanasia or assisted suicide, but this case is certainly a blend of the two. A family member decides to allow someone to die. A person has a stated desire to not live after a severe trauma. All of these are elements of the Schiavo matter, and the court has consistently and specifically ordered her to be allowed to die. This area becomes semantics of the worst order: She hasn�t chosen to die; she has elected to not be kept alive. She has not been euthanized; she has had her life support measures terminated. All the sophistry in the world cannot hide the fact, that from the State�s perspective, they have ordered the mercy death (a new oxymoron?) of an innocent and helpless woman or they have enabled this innocent woman to terminate her own life based on her spouses declaration of her wishes to not continue living in that state. Either way the state is culpable.
Terri herself: Is she a person or a shell? Dead or alive? Pawn or player? It seems more and more apparent that much of the fuss surrounding this case is attributed to 3 factors:
- The right to die versus right to life debate
Mar
28
2005
A study in contradictions.
It seems that contradictions abound in the Terri Schiavo issue.
Michael Schiavo: Is he a loving husband, tearfully supporting his wife�s final wishes or a cold hearted killer determined to remove her from his life? Is he an adulterous bastard, or man who lost his love and moved on with his life? Is he a grieving spouse who lost his loved one, or a cold blooded murderer?
The Schindlers: Are they controlling, money hungry parents trying to milk every penny from their daughters shattered life, or grieving parents who just want to continue caring for their daughter?
Both together (and their doctors): Is Schiavo a realist, who sees Terri�s condition for what it is- the end of her life, a living death that she would not have wanted, or are the Schindlers the right ones when they claim she was prime for rehabilitation, aware and conscious deserves to live?
Analysis (aka opinion): I think Schiavo has moved on, and so no longer cares about Terri one way or another. He may well be supporting her wishes, it�s possible. He denies any possibility that she might be aware, and insists she is gone. The money grubbing accusations against him do not stand up to the fact that the money in question is gone, and that by relinquishing custody of her, he would have been paid millions. His worst crime seems to be a heavy dose of reality coupled with a single minded obsession. Likewise, the Schindlers don�t strike me as money seekers, they seem more like eternally optimistic-blinded by their optimism loving parents, who see in Terri the life and person she was, not who she is now. They are victims of their love and refusal to let go. Their only crime it seems to me is denial.
The politicians:
The republicans: The right to life is their goal, yet they support capital punishment. Smaller government and less government intervention, yet they used Congress to try and force the issue.
The Democrats: They support the right to die and abortion, but not capital punishment? They decry government intervention, but remember Elian Gonzales?
Both: Using this for whatever political leverage they can. Period.
Florida: The state does not allow euthanasia or assisted suicide, but this case is certainly a blend of the two. A family member decides to allow someone to die. A person has a stated desire to not live after a severe trauma. All of these are elements of the Schiavo matter, and the court has consistently and specifically ordered her to be allowed to die. This area becomes semantics of the worst order: She hasn�t chosen to die; she has elected to not be kept alive. She has not been euthanized; she has had her life support measures terminated. All the sophistry in the world cannot hide the fact, that from the State�s perspective, they have ordered the mercy death (a new oxymoron?) of an innocent and helpless woman or they have enabled this innocent woman to terminate her own life based on her spouses declaration of her wishes to not continue living in that state. Either way the state is culpable.
Terri herself: Is she a person or a shell? Dead or alive? Pawn or player? It seems more and more apparent that much of the fuss surrounding this case is attributed to 3 factors:
- The right to die versus right to life debate
Mar
22
2005
The tube is removed and she is fading.
The family's petition to the Federal Court (paved by Congress) was denied, and they have now appealed to the 11th Court of Appeals. I think it will also be denied, and this will end soon. I could be wrong, and frankly I am torn as to which I would hope for. A part of me wants it to be over, because while the manner of her death is repugnant to me, and her life is so tragic, the yo-yo actions of pulling her back and forth from the brink must be the cruelest irony of all. I know the *issue* of her life and death will continue on beyond her actual death, but that still should allow her the peace of her passing.
(The appeals court has just denied their request as I wrote this)
One new development, though not really new. Carla Iyer, a former nurse has been making the rounds of the radio and tv circuit, claiming (backed up by a 2003 court
affidavit) some fairly horrible things about Michael Schiavo's actions and motives, and some disturbing allegations about Terri's actual medical condition in the early years of her disability. If she is telling the truth, then Terri was not as bad as she is now, could eat and had a good shot at recovery or at least partial rehabilitation. If her account is honest, the Micahel was a cold hearted bastard. Period.
So is she? She is backed up by several other caregivers so it bears scrutiny, but it still is open to interpretation. Were I to try to make a definitive judgment it would be difficult to do.
In the end it moves me, it increases my suspicions, and it increases my compassion for Terri. And oddly, it makes me hope God takes Terri sooner then later. If this account is true, she deserves peace more then ever.
As for the players in the legal drama, I will have to be content to let God judge them. Let all involved examine their own souls.
One other side effect of my interest in this case. I am really having a hard time reconciling the "Culture of Life" rhetoric being sold by the conservatives. Sure its ok to fight for aborted babies. Sure its good to fight to stop euthanasia (and in my opinion, Terri's case is a quasi-case of euthanasia or assisted suicide...Euthanasia because her husband ordered her death for all intents as a mercy killing, and assisted suicide because the rational is that she wanted this). But I can no completely reconcile some of the rabid conservative stances supporting the death penalty. I am not necessarily against it mind you, but I am reexamining my beliefs on all of these issues.
Not that the right has all the criticism here, the liberal right to die campaign is sickening too. The worst line was from Michael Schiavo stating that "reinserting her feeding tube would be a violation of her civil liberties". I can't totally accept it.
As I am discovering more and more, as in politics, religion and many other facets of my life, the clear cut and well defined perceptions I have comfortably lived within most of my life are being rapidly punctured and deflated be the murky uncertainty of reality. Reality has intruded, and I will never be the same because of that.
I tore myself away from the safe comfort of certainties through my love for truth - and truth rewarded me.
~Simone de Beauvoir
May it be so.
God have mercy on all of us....and God have mercy on Terri.
Mar
22
2005
The tube is removed and she is fading.
The family's petition to the Federal Court (paved by Congress) was denied, and they have now appealed to the 11th Court of Appeals. I think it will also be denied, and this will end soon. I could be wrong, and frankly I am torn as to which I would hope for. A part of me wants it to be over, because while the manner of her death is repugnant to me, and her life is so tragic, the yo-yo actions of pulling her back and forth from the brink must be the cruelest irony of all. I know the *issue* of her life and death will continue on beyond her actual death, but that still should allow her the peace of her passing.
(The appeals court has just denied their request as I wrote this)
One new development, though not really new. Carla Iyer, a former nurse has been making the rounds of the radio and tv circuit, claiming (backed up by a 2003 court
affidavit) some fairly horrible things about Michael Schiavo's actions and motives, and some disturbing allegations about Terri's actual medical condition in the early years of her disability. If she is telling the truth, then Terri was not as bad as she is now, could eat and had a good shot at recovery or at least partial rehabilitation. If her account is honest, the Micahel was a cold hearted bastard. Period.
So is she? She is backed up by several other caregivers so it bears scrutiny, but it still is open to interpretation. Were I to try to make a definitive judgment it would be difficult to do.
In the end it moves me, it increases my suspicions, and it increases my compassion for Terri. And oddly, it makes me hope God takes Terri sooner then later. If this account is true, she deserves peace more then ever.
As for the players in the legal drama, I will have to be content to let God judge them. Let all involved examine their own souls.
One other side effect of my interest in this case. I am really having a hard time reconciling the "Culture of Life" rhetoric being sold by the conservatives. Sure its ok to fight for aborted babies. Sure its good to fight to stop euthanasia (and in my opinion, Terri's case is a quasi-case of euthanasia or assisted suicide...Euthanasia because her husband ordered her death for all intents as a mercy killing, and assisted suicide because the rational is that she wanted this). But I can no completely reconcile some of the rabid conservative stances supporting the death penalty. I am not necessarily against it mind you, but I am reexamining my beliefs on all of these issues.
Not that the right has all the criticism here, the liberal right to die campaign is sickening too. The worst line was from Michael Schiavo stating that "reinserting her feeding tube would be a violation of her civil liberties". I can't totally accept it.
As I am discovering more and more, as in politics, religion and many other facets of my life, the clear cut and well defined perceptions I have comfortably lived within most of my life are being rapidly punctured and deflated be the murky uncertainty of reality. Reality has intruded, and I will never be the same because of that.
I tore myself away from the safe comfort of certainties through my love for truth - and truth rewarded me.
~Simone de Beauvoir
May it be so.
God have mercy on all of us....and God have mercy on Terri.
Mar
22
2005
The tube is removed and she is fading.
The family's petition to the Federal Court (paved by Congress) was denied, and they have now appealed to the 11th Court of Appeals. I think it will also be denied, and this will end soon. I could be wrong, and frankly I am torn as to which I would hope for. A part of me wants it to be over, because while the manner of her death is repugnant to me, and her life is so tragic, the yo-yo actions of pulling her back and forth from the brink must be the cruelest irony of all. I know the *issue* of her life and death will continue on beyond her actual death, but that still should allow her the peace of her passing.
(The appeals court has just denied their request as I wrote this)
One new development, though not really new. Carla Iyer, a former nurse has been making the rounds of the radio and tv circuit, claiming (backed up by a 2003 court
affidavit) some fairly horrible things about Michael Schiavo's actions and motives, and some disturbing allegations about Terri's actual medical condition in the early years of her disability. If she is telling the truth, then Terri was not as bad as she is now, could eat and had a good shot at recovery or at least partial rehabilitation. If her account is honest, the Micahel was a cold hearted bastard. Period.
So is she? She is backed up by several other caregivers so it bears scrutiny, but it still is open to interpretation. Were I to try to make a definitive judgment it would be difficult to do.
In the end it moves me, it increases my suspicions, and it increases my compassion for Terri. And oddly, it makes me hope God takes Terri sooner then later. If this account is true, she deserves peace more then ever.
As for the players in the legal drama, I will have to be content to let God judge them. Let all involved examine their own souls.
One other side effect of my interest in this case. I am really having a hard time reconciling the "Culture of Life" rhetoric being sold by the conservatives. Sure its ok to fight for aborted babies. Sure its good to fight to stop euthanasia (and in my opinion, Terri's case is a quasi-case of euthanasia or assisted suicide...Euthanasia because her husband ordered her death for all intents as a mercy killing, and assisted suicide because the rational is that she wanted this). But I can no completely reconcile some of the rabid conservative stances supporting the death penalty. I am not necessarily against it mind you, but I am reexamining my beliefs on all of these issues.
Not that the right has all the criticism here, the liberal right to die campaign is sickening too. The worst line was from Michael Schiavo stating that "reinserting her feeding tube would be a violation of her civil liberties". I can't totally accept it.
As I am discovering more and more, as in politics, religion and many other facets of my life, the clear cut and well defined perceptions I have comfortably lived within most of my life are being rapidly punctured and deflated be the murky uncertainty of reality. Reality has intruded, and I will never be the same because of that.
I tore myself away from the safe comfort of certainties through my love for truth - and truth rewarded me.
~Simone de Beauvoir
May it be so.
God have mercy on all of us....and God have mercy on Terri.
Mar
22
2005
The tube is removed and she is fading.
The family's petition to the Federal Court (paved by Congress) was denied, and they have now appealed to the 11th Court of Appeals. I think it will also be denied, and this will end soon. I could be wrong, and frankly I am torn as to which I would hope for. A part of me wants it to be over, because while the manner of her death is repugnant to me, and her life is so tragic, the yo-yo actions of pulling her back and forth from the brink must be the cruelest irony of all. I know the *issue* of her life and death will continue on beyond her actual death, but that still should allow her the peace of her passing.
(The appeals court has just denied their request as I wrote this)
One new development, though not really new. Carla Iyer, a former nurse has been making the rounds of the radio and tv circuit, claiming (backed up by a 2003 court
affidavit) some fairly horrible things about Michael Schiavo's actions and motives, and some disturbing allegations about Terri's actual medical condition in the early years of her disability. If she is telling the truth, then Terri was not as bad as she is now, could eat and had a good shot at recovery or at least partial rehabilitation. If her account is honest, the Micahel was a cold hearted bastard. Period.
So is she? She is backed up by several other caregivers so it bears scrutiny, but it still is open to interpretation. Were I to try to make a definitive judgment it would be difficult to do.
In the end it moves me, it increases my suspicions, and it increases my compassion for Terri. And oddly, it makes me hope God takes Terri sooner then later. If this account is true, she deserves peace more then ever.
As for the players in the legal drama, I will have to be content to let God judge them. Let all involved examine their own souls.
One other side effect of my interest in this case. I am really having a hard time reconciling the "Culture of Life" rhetoric being sold by the conservatives. Sure its ok to fight for aborted babies. Sure its good to fight to stop euthanasia (and in my opinion, Terri's case is a quasi-case of euthanasia or assisted suicide...Euthanasia because her husband ordered her death for all intents as a mercy killing, and assisted suicide because the rational is that she wanted this). But I can no completely reconcile some of the rabid conservative stances supporting the death penalty. I am not necessarily against it mind you, but I am reexamining my beliefs on all of these issues.
Not that the right has all the criticism here, the liberal right to die campaign is sickening too. The worst line was from Michael Schiavo stating that "reinserting her feeding tube would be a violation of her civil liberties". I can't totally accept it.
As I am discovering more and more, as in politics, religion and many other facets of my life, the clear cut and well defined perceptions I have comfortably lived within most of my life are being rapidly punctured and deflated be the murky uncertainty of reality. Reality has intruded, and I will never be the same because of that.
I tore myself away from the safe comfort of certainties through my love for truth - and truth rewarded me.
~Simone de Beauvoir
May it be so.
God have mercy on all of us....and God have mercy on Terri.
Mar
21
2005
I sent my
Terry Schiavo blog to a handful of friends, and I got a surprising response. One of my friends, who is a fairly devout Christian is also involved in the hospice care industry, and had some interesting responses.
I am posting her responses and my thoughts to them, just to share how the other side views this....
******
Thanks for the input . While I have some strong opinions, I do also feel obliged to hear all aspects, and if its ok, I'd like to forward your response to some friends who are discussing it.
You said:
After 15 years the window of opportunity for neurological rehabilitation is closed but for a miraculous act of God. Consider - Man can now get in the way of God calling His children home by the fact that we perform resuscitation in the first place. Seeing the situation Terri is in, her functional progress would be VERY limited. Her hands and arms are contracted - a condition EXTREMELY painful to remedy - so painful it is rarely if ever worth it. And that is just in terms of gaining flexibility. Active, coordinated, purposeful, intentional, movement is another story. In general the window we look at is 3 to 6 months after incident for the dramatic recovery, occasionally for another year - maybe - small gains can happen, but usually not functional gains, hence the dismissal of services noted on the website.
***Yes, that was in line with my thought, and that's why I do allow that the family is likely living on optimism at the cost of reality to a degree.
What is more likely than Michael refused therapy is that he refused to appeal her denial of coverage.
Mar
21
2005
I sent my
Terry Schiavo blog to a handful of friends, and I got a surprising response. One of my friends, who is a fairly devout Christian is also involved in the hospice care industry, and had some interesting responses.
I am posting her responses and my thoughts to them, just to share how the other side views this....
******
Thanks for the input . While I have some strong opinions, I do also feel obliged to hear all aspects, and if its ok, I'd like to forward your response to some friends who are discussing it.
You said:
After 15 years the window of opportunity for neurological rehabilitation is closed but for a miraculous act of God. Consider - Man can now get in the way of God calling His children home by the fact that we perform resuscitation in the first place. Seeing the situation Terri is in, her functional progress would be VERY limited. Her hands and arms are contracted - a condition EXTREMELY painful to remedy - so painful it is rarely if ever worth it. And that is just in terms of gaining flexibility. Active, coordinated, purposeful, intentional, movement is another story. In general the window we look at is 3 to 6 months after incident for the dramatic recovery, occasionally for another year - maybe - small gains can happen, but usually not functional gains, hence the dismissal of services noted on the website.
***Yes, that was in line with my thought, and that's why I do allow that the family is likely living on optimism at the cost of reality to a degree.
What is more likely than Michael refused therapy is that he refused to appeal her denial of coverage.
