« From LifeNews | Main | The Smarts? »
October 27, 2003
Newsweek on Terri Schiavo
But then Michael started clashing with the Schindlers over money.
He won a medical malpractice lawsuit in 1992 against Terri's
gynecologist for failing to administer tests that might have detected
her potassium imbalance. That award, combined with the settlement
of a suit against another of her doctors, netted Terri $700,000,
which was deposited in a trust fund, and $300,000 for Michael.
In Terri's room on Valentine's Day in 1993, Michael argued with his
in-laws over how to spend the cash in the fund, which he had sole
access to as Terri's guardian. The Schindlers hoped to continue
trying new rehab options--which Michael had assured them he'd
pursue, they say--but now he resisted, contending that such
efforts were futile. Tempers flared, the name-calling escalated,
and both sides stormed out; it would be the last time they talked.
As he later told Richard Pearse, another of Terri's guardians
ad litem, Michael had lost hope for her recovery. But, says
Pearse, "I had a great problem with the idea that Michael could...
get the money and then basically change his position... I was
rather struck by the coincidence of that."
Posted by Amy Welborn | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/225990
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Newsweek on Terri Schiavo:
» Newsweek on Terri Schiavo from DeoOmnisGloria.com
Here's an interesting article by Newsweek magazine on the still unfolding saga of Terri Schiavo. Here's a quote that got me: Battered by the earlier court rulings, the Schindlers appealed to public opinion. They posted videos online showing Terri seemi... [Read More]
Tracked on Oct 27, 2003 1:36:49 PM
Comments
Grrrgh, I just read Andrew Sullivan's blog and he said "Clearly, if there were indications of wrong doing or illegal activities the spouse could and should be challenged, but there ares are no such indications in this case that I know of." Perhaps not illegal, but this smallest bit of research will uncover the fact that Mr. Schiavo didn't keep his agreement to get rehab for Terri and also never mentioned her supposed wish to refuse this type of treatment until her parents started questioning his decisions. Grrrgh, what kind of fake journalism is this? Besides, there is a pretty weak tie-in to marriage rights and then gay marriage which, although I know it's a big issue for him, seems pretty shallow.
Nicole
Posted by: Nicole at Oct 27, 2003 3:13:26 PM
I'm sorry, not been paying close-enough attention to the threads on this topic. What strikes me as absent in all the hullabaloo about what a bastard that husband is, is an analysis of the situaion on the merits of Terri Shiavo's condition as such. How does the maybe/maybe not moral turpitude of the husband affect one's decision about whether or not reinserting the feeding tube constitutes extraordinary care--something that would be ruled out in traditional Catholic teaching on the subject.
For what it's worth, I think Sullivan is right.
Posted by: Grant Gallicho at Oct 27, 2003 4:46:23 PM
Grant, I don't totally disagree w/Sullivan, but to not mention any of the issues regarding the husband's care for her and to imply that they don't exist seems dishonest to me. I am not saying the husband is a bastard, just that it seems like he's been dishonest, when he promised to obtain rehab/therapy for Terri and didn't do it, and because he only more recently claimed that she wouldn't have wanted the feeding tube.
It sounds like, from what I've read, there is no clear right or wrong in this in Church teaching. If she had a living will and stated her preference, I would personally feel strongly about honoring that. Also, personally I would not want to have to remove a feeding tube from someone. I know you don't always know the outcome when you put one in, but I would rather refuse one in the first place than have to starve to death over a period of a couple of weeks. It sounds like refusing one would not be out of line w/Church teaching.
Nicole
Posted by: Nicole at Oct 27, 2003 5:27:53 PM
The husband's conduct is relevant because the only reason he was appointed Terri's guardian was due to his being her husband. His actions, denying her rehabilitative care after stating in her malpractice lawsuit that any money awarded would be used for that purpose, placing a DNR order on her a few months after the malpractice lawsuit was concluded, his alleged statements to a nurse about how he wanted her to die and how rich he would be from the money he would inherit, his shacking up with another woman by whom he has had one child with another on the way, are not the actions of a loving spouse and reveal a clear conflict of interest. The shocking thing about this case is that Mr. Schiavo was not removed by the Judge as Guardian long ago. Of course this is the same Judge who removed the Guardian ad Litem, court appointed attorney, for Terri Schiavo when he suggested that Mr. Schiavo be removed. Since that time the Judge has failed to appoint another Guardian ad Litem although such a new Guardian ad Litem has been requested by Mrs. Schiavo's family. For whatever reason, the judicial thumb has clearly been on Mr. Schiavo's side of the scales of justice in the farcially one-sided legal proceedings.
Posted by: Donald R. McClarey at Oct 27, 2003 8:23:50 PM
Grant/Nicole -- I think the main point is that Terri's parents want to care for her, and there's absolutely no justification for the state to stand in their way for the sake of starving her to death. Her husband, if he wants to be free of the burden of caring for her, can divorce her.
I've made this argument in more detail in a few blogs, e.g. moral argument here and legal observations here, plus a recent note here.
Posted by: pj at Oct 27, 2003 9:09:43 PM
pj:
Grant/Nicole -- I think the main point is that Terri's parents want to care for her, and there's absolutely no justification for the state to stand in their way for the sake of starving her to death.
The state is not standing in their way for the sake of starving her to death. The state is standing in their way in order to comply with her wishes. How many times do we have to go over this?
Her husband, if he wants to be free of the burden of caring for her, can divorce her.
It's not your place to tell him to divorce his wife. If you're a Catholic, you're even supposed to believe in divorce.
Posted by: J.B. at Oct 27, 2003 9:27:42 PM
The husband's conduct is relevant because the only reason he was appointed Terri's guardian was due to his being her husband. His actions, denying her rehabilitative care after stating in her malpractice lawsuit that any money awarded would be used for that purpose, placing a DNR order on her a few months after the malpractice lawsuit was concluded, his alleged statements to a nurse about how he wanted her to die and how rich he would be from the money he would inherit, his shacking up with another woman by whom he has had one child with another on the way, are not the actions of a loving spouse and reveal a clear conflict of interest.
The courts have examined these issues over and over again. 6 separate courts. 19 different judges. The Schindlers have exhausted the appeals process. The courts have found on each occasion that Terri's husband is her rightful guardian, as provided for under Florida law. The idea that you are in a better position to make this determination than the courts are is just absurd.
Posted by: J.B. at Oct 27, 2003 9:32:34 PM
Grant:
For the record, the issue as it is without reference to the husband has been discussed on several threads here over the past few weeks.
Posted by: amy at Oct 27, 2003 9:46:18 PM
Do not feed the troll!
Posted by: Donald R. McClarey at Oct 27, 2003 9:46:49 PM
For what it's worth, George Neumayr has some interesting thoughts about what he calls The Chic Culture of Death.
My own prediction is that Terri Schiavo will eventually be starved to death, as long as the Big Media is able to keep finding erudite spokesmen like Fr. Kevin Wildes of Georgetown University to help clarify these difficult and abstruse matters for ignorant people, such as myself, who mistakenly think that simply shooting her would have been more humane.
Posted by: Oengus Moonbones at Oct 27, 2003 10:21:29 PM
J.B. - Her wishes are not clear; she left nothing in writing; no one claims to have heard oral wishes but her husband; he didn't report having heard those wishes until after malpractice litigation was over, and Terri had money he could inherit; even if Terri did express such a desire orally, it could hardly have been an informed decision related to this situation -- how likely is it that she would have anticipated this situation, or that the only care should would need is food and water? Lastly, even if she expressed her wish, I don't believe we're obliged to respect it, any more than we're obliged to let a suicide finish herself off.
Lastly, the Catholic Church doesn't approve of divorce, but it does regard it as superior to killing by starvation/dehydration. A faithful Catholic can encourage a man choosing between divorce and killing to prefer the first.
Posted by: pj at Oct 28, 2003 8:05:18 AM
I wrote the following to Andrew Sullivan re his blog entry:
If you really think that the "religious right" is attacking the rights of traditional marriage in objecting to Michael Schiavo's treatment of Terri, you completely misunderstand what's going on here.
Traditional marriage isn't about neglecting your brain-injured wife for a decade while you start a new life with somebody else. Traditional marriage isn't about turning your wife into a chattel you can kill at will. Traditional marriage isn't about cutting off your wife from everyone who cares for her. What's traditional marriage supposed to be about? Grab your New Testament and read Ephesians 5:25: "Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave himself for her."
The "religious right" objects to Michael Schiavo's treatment of Terri because it is the exact opposite of how God has told husbands to care for their wives. In a perfect world, Michael would have spent the money he received for Terri's care on Terri, instead of using almost all of it to litigate her death. This world isn't perfect. Those of us who fight against Terri's death do so, in part, because Michael's behavior towards Terri has made a mockery of marriage. Regarding your emailer's question about wrong doing - check out www. Terrisfight.org and you'll see that the question of "wrong doing" by Michael towards Terri is at least a fair question to ask.
Posted by: Mark Edward Soper at Oct 28, 2003 12:08:20 PM
Wait, traditional marriage *isn't* about killing your wife (or husband)? OH! Well, now that you put it that way, it all makes sense.
Amy: I did say I hadn't been on here for a while as an apologia for my ignorance to those who have.
I don't believe the allegations that the husband said he wants her dead. Although, that may be true. The profound ambivalence experienced by everyone involved in wrenching decisions like this is rarely mentioned in this debate. I think that's as dishonest as not talking about the husband's supposedly cloudy motives. And, again, his motives aren't relevant to the question of whether or not Terri Schiavo's use of feeding tube constitutes extraordinary care.
P.J.: There's oodles of precedent for the husband's designation as guardian.
I don't know what this business of the court's being on the side of the husband it all about. Many courts, many judges, have rules in favor of him. There is no The Court. (Kind of like there is no The Church.)
As to whether or not he went back on his promise to pursue treatment, I thought he was intrumental in having the nerve tissue implanted in her brain. No? This isn't a sneeze of an operation, folks.
We don't like this moral knot because it's complicates the meaning of what counts as human life.
Posted by: Grant Gallicho at Oct 28, 2003 12:39:32 PM
Wait, traditional marriage *isn't* about killing your wife (or husband)? OH! Well, now that you put it that way, it all makes sense.
Amy: I did say I hadn't been on here for a while as an apologia for my ignorance to those who have.
I don't believe the allegations that the husband said he wants her dead. Although, that may be true. The profound ambivalence experienced by everyone involved in wrenching decisions like this is rarely mentioned in this debate. I think that's as dishonest as not talking about the husband's supposedly cloudy motives. And, again, his motives aren't relevant to the question of whether or not Terri Schiavo's use of feeding tube constitutes extraordinary care.
P.J.: There's oodles of precedent for the husband's designation as guardian.
I don't know what this business of the court's being on the side of the husband it all about. Many courts, many judges, have rules in favor of him. There is no The Court. (Kind of like there is no The Church.)
As to whether or not he went back on his promise to pursue treatment, I thought he was intrumental in having the nerve tissue implanted in her brain. No? This isn't a sneeze of an operation, folks.
We don't like this moral knot because it complicates the meaning of what counts as human life.
Posted by: Grant Gallicho at Oct 28, 2003 12:39:59 PM
Grant,
I would like to suggest that you go to www.terrisfight.org to get the side of the story that you won't see mentioned in the mainstream media. I especially recommend that you view the videos. Now, you may dismiss that after you've read/viewed it, but it would at least allow you to see where her parents (and the posters here who believe that removing her feeding tube is wrong) are coming from.
Posted by: Stacey at Oct 28, 2003 5:17:18 PM
