Thursday, March 24, 2005

Decisions

5 minutes ago, the Supreme Court refused to hear the case of Terri Schiavo.

As much as it was a victory for one side, it was just that much of a defeat for the other. There are no clear lines in a case like this. Both sides have merit. Both sides have a personal stake. Both side will weep over this outcome.
I, for one, will pray for both sides.
I hope this is an end to this case, even as I know it is not an end to the issues concerning it.

4 comments:

Anonymous said...

Michelle Malkin exposes the blatant mischaracterization in a widely-reported ABC poll of Terri Schiavo's medical condition. Whether it is an attempt to influnce the results or simple incompetence, it is a reminder of the deteriorating credibility of the MSM. Here is the question:

"As you may know, a woman in Florida named Terri Schiavo suffered brain damage and has been on life support for 15 years. Doctors say she has no consciousness and her condition is irreversible. Her parents and her husband disagree on whether or not she should be kept on life support. In cases like this who do you think should have final say, (the parents) or (the spouse)?"
In fact, she is not on life support. Malkin continues:
Imagine how the poll results might have turned out if ABC News had made clear to participants that Terri is not terminally ill. Not in excruciating pain. Capable of saying "Mommy" and "Help me." And of "getting the feeling she's falling" or getting "excited," in her husband's own testimony, when her head is not held properly.

Imagine how the poll results might have turned out if ABC News had informed participants that in a sworn affidavit, registered nurse Carla Sauer Iyer, who worked at the Palm Garden of Largo Convalescent Center in Largo, Fla., while Terri Schiavo was a patient there, testified: "Throughout my time at Palm Gardens, Michael Schiavo was focused on Terri's death. Michael would say 'When is she going to die?' 'Has she died yet?' and 'When is that b---h gonna die?'"

Oh, and BTW, I told Patrick that if killing me came down to starving me to death, PLEASE do NOT do it. Shoot me if you have to.

Kim

Anonymous said...

During the malpractice-suit trial nearly six years earlier in November 1992, Michael Schiavo made no mention of his wife's alleged wish to die and conversely pleaded for the opportunity to personally take care of his wife at home for the rest of his life. He sought $20 million to cover the cost of her future medical and neurological care, estimating her life expectancy was 50 years.

Schiavo told the jury he was studying nursing because he wanted "to learn more how to take care of Terri." According to a transcript of his testimony, Michael Schiavo was asked how he felt about being married to Terri, given her condition.

"I feel wonderful. She's my life and I wouldn't trade her for the world," he replied. "I believe in my wedding vows. ... I believe in the vows I took with my wife, through sickness, in health, for richer or poor. I married my wife because I love her and I want to spend the rest of my life with her. I'm going to do that."

"Less than eight months later, [Michael Schiavo] tried to stop her medication for an infection," Bob Schindler told WND. "She would have died but the nursing home where she was at the time overruled him and treated her. ... Then he put a Do Not Resuscitate order in her medical chart."

Anonymous said...

Ironic, Isn't It?
The 11th Circuit Court of appeals wouldn't issue a stay in Terri's execution today, but then we get to see this report from Texas:

HUNTSVILLE, Texas (AP) Texas' highest appeals court stopped the scheduled execution Wednesday of a man about five hours before he could have been put to death in the 1989 slaying of a restaurant manager.
Steven K. Staley, 42, won the reprieve after lawyers argued that instructions given to jurors at his 1991 trial were unclear when they were deciding whether he should get the death penalty. The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals sent the case back to a trial court.


Got that? because there was some question about instructions to the jury 14 years ago, the case has been sent back to trial court for review. Of course, this is ok; a man's life is at stake. We sure in hell wouldn't want to execute him without being 100% sure that everything had been properly reviewed. Too bad we can't do this for defenseless women who's ex-husbands want to kill them...

Stacey said...

I'm not sure how I feel about this particular case.

I don't envy any of the players in it, neither the husband or the parents. And at the same time, I can see both their points of view.

The problem is that as far as we can tell, no one knows the truth about what Terri would have wanted. Personally, if it were me, I wouldn't want to cling to life with no possibility of living it. And yet, put me into the mind set of a parent, and I can understand their desire to hold on to hope.

Starving a woman to death however is not high on my list of things that say dignified passing to me. It seems it would be far more humane to perform a lethal injection rather than drawing out her ordeal.

I fear there are no easy answers or solutions to be found for poor Terri or her family.