Tags
Related Posts
Share This
Newsmakers of the Year?
I bought a copy of “People” magazine today…I find it to be good reading when one is really bored, but doesn’t feel like concentrating. As I was thumbing through it, I ran across an article that proclaimed to be about the “Newsmakers of the Year”. The headliner for this story? Michael Schiavo. The picture above accompanied the story. I can’t find it online, so in order to quote it, I’m actually going to have to type. Which I’ll do, because I had trouble believing what I was reading.
Michael Schiavo
Widower
____________________Michael Schiavo’s life has settled down since doctors removed the feeding tube from his brain-damaged wife, Terri, on March 18. After their long and bitter legal battle, he and Terri’s parents, Robert Sr. and Mary Schindler, may never speak again. But Schiavo, 42, who works as a nursing supervisor in Pinellas County, Fla., is still angry at the way his personal family drama climaxed on the national stage-and the way the battle over Terri’s fate set off a stunning display of political histrionics, including an emergency session of Congress, that landed him squarely in the middle of the culture wars. Schiavo, who according to his brother Brian received death threats, will tell his story in a memoir, Terri: The Truth, which is due out in the spring: he has also started a political action committee. “There’s more important stuff going on in the world right now,” says Brian, “but he’s not going to let people forget how he was vilified-so it doesn’t happen again to someone else.”
Oh…..my…….God! He was vilified. VILIFIED! He caused his wife to die a miserable death, and he’s worried about how he was vilified! He looks so damned sad sitting there next to his wife’s grave…next to the gravestone that he made sure that he got the last word on. Her gravestone, that doesn’t even have the VASE with some FLOWERS in it.
And what really set me off here? He’s writing a book about this. Why am I not surprised? Why don’t I see where poor ol’ Mike is donating the money to some good cause? Because he isn’t, that’s why. Back when I originally posted about Terri’s gravestone, another blogger sent me a link to what he felt was the “correct” version of her gravestone. Seems that thought still holds true.
**off subject**
Jo from Jo’s Cafe is doing open trackbacks. I wandered over there in my search for Carol from The Gray Tie. If anyone has heard from her, please let me know, or ask her to get in touch with me, as I’m quite worried about her. Thanks.
Michele sent me.
Wasn’t he the one who wanted to ‘pull the plug’, so to speak? With all due respect, what would have been the point of keeping her alive as a vegetable? I only say this because Karen Anne Quinlan was hospitalized and died in my hometown. I went to see her in 5th grade. When it’s time to let go, it’s time to let go.
Also, as a former professional celebrity photographer who has worked for all of the major magazines (including People) I can tell you that the ONLY people who know the truth about what really happened are the people involved with this Schiavo ‘case’; the family members. Please don’t believe ANYTHING of what you read. That’s one of the reasons why I got out of the journalism business.
With all due respect, what would have been the point of keeping her alive as a vegetable?
With all due respect, her parents wanted her alive. I thought y’all were pro-choice. Terri’s mother chose life.
Yes, he was the one who wanted to “pull the plug”, and was finally able to
do so. What bothers me is, that her family was willing to care for her.
They didn’t feel that she was a “vegetable”. And even if she was, they were
willing to take care of her. Terri was not on any life support beyond the
feeding tube. To me, feeding someone is not life support. My gramma was on
a feeding tube the last year and a half of her life. We no more would have
even considered taking it away.
I don’t know, there’s just something about Michael Schiavo that I don’t
trust. It’s hard to explain, it’s just like a gut feeling, you know?
And Stace, I’m with you on that one. Not only was her mother pro-choice, but I do believe that Terri was as well.
this has got to be one of the hardest decisions a family has to make. of course, one would always choose to have a loved one live. even given the fact that that person could live out the rest of his/her life as a vegetable, most of us would choose not to “pull the plug” so to speak. on the other hand, it will also kill you slowly, seeing your loved one wasting away before your eyes, being kept alive by a pacemaker, a dialysis machine, and other numerous tubes. on the schiavvo case, i think one of the cruelest things done to her was removing her feeding tube. the life support machine i could at least try to understand. but leaving her to starve was unthinkable.
i have a friend who’s uncle had suffered a massive heart attack which left him comatose and basically depending on life support. the family voted on whether they should keep him alive. all but one voted to pull the plug. because of that one dissenting opinion, they kept him on the machine. the family was well-off in the beginning. but as years passed, they had to sell off property one at a time to defray the hosputal bills. eventually, when they no longer had any money left, there was no choice but to pull the plug. that’s when it became apparent that eventually, it all boils down to economics. which is sad, really. :(
We’re going to disagree strongly on this issue, so rather than start a fight with a total stranger, I’ll just say Merry Christmas, and be on my way.
Michele sent me.
Hello, Michele sent me.
It’s a difficult task to decide wheather to keep someone a live or “pull the plug”. I would like to say I wouldn’t pull the plug, but I won’t know untill I’m in that position. It’s hard to imagine before you are right in the middle of it.
Regarding the book, I think that’s strange. If he really want to write a book, he should wait. It’s too soon. Plus he should donate the money or at least some of it.
Writing a book never seems the right thing to do, although keeping a person alive artificially when they are hopelessly brain damaged isn’t, either.
But is feeding a person a form of life support, or a way of keeping a person artificially alive? I just don’t see it that way.
Frankly the use of the word “vegetable” in reference to a living human being disgusts me. That some of you use it so glibly shows an enormous disrespect for life.
If any of you would like to actually educate yourselves on the facts surrounding Terri’s case I suggest you start at this link and then click around a little more. http://www.prolifeblogs.com/articles/archives/2005/02/terri_schiavo_i.php
As you’ll see in the video and from the testimony Terri wasn’t comatose or un responsive. Her only means of “life support” was a feeding tube. She was NOT on a “life support” machine. Her heart and lungs worked just fine.
Michael Schiavo murdered his severely disabled wife by starving her to death.
The whole damn thing is just sad.
The most salient point of the whole Schiavo affair is about how the LAW should approach these life and death issues. Terri was not on extraordinarly life support. She was only being cared for as one would any fully dependent individual – bathed, talked to, fed, hydrated, etc. Even the original malpractice case, the award was based on what was considered would be her normative lifespan in her dependent state.
Terri left no written instructions. Indeed, the testimony on Terri’s purported verbal wishes was, IMHO, exceedingly thin (and pretty self-serving by Michael). Since Terri was NOT on life support and left NO written instructions, the argument basically about should the law take a DEATH default or a LIFE default?
In other words, should Terri’s custody, absent Terri’s own unequivocal instructions, go to those that are willing to care for her until natural death occurs or go to someone that wants to put her down?
This became an alarming matter to people who have family members who are severely disabled, since it comes startling close to open euthanasia. Couple that with Michael’s attorney and his major medical” expert witness” ARE open advocates of euthanizing the “inconvenient” and that Michael had already moved on with his life, taking a mistress and having children with her, and you have a situation in which Michael’s motive appear less than sterling and his subsequent behavior (such as putting Terri’s death date on her tombstone as the day she went into a coma, and his media whoring above) reinforces and to some extent substantiates the initial appearance.
I find it ironic that Terri’s life was of no value to those on the left, but Tookie Williams’ was. Murder the innocent, save the guilty.
Despite whatever anyone may believe about Terri’s condition, starving her to death was inhumane. People are imprisoned for starving their pets. All the time here we see people charged with animal cruelty for not feeding their horses.
Frickin’ A!! Better go before I curse.
To think that he is going to profit (YET AGAIN) from telling “his” story speaks volumes about his “character”.
Nobody expects PEOPLE to be offering “fair and balanced” articles. Nor do we expect them to write above a third-grade level. Even so, I was equally stunned to see a giant two-page spread featuring the freshly quaffed Michael Schiavo SITTING against Terri’s headstone (didn’t ANYBODY teach the man that it is irreverent to sit, stand, walk, jump, or sleep on a headstone?) followed by a brief “article.” The caption for this section said:
“NEWSMAKERS OF THE YEAR: Unthinkable disasters, astonishing revelations, and remarkable human spirit. Here are the people who made 2005 memorable.”
I guess you could argue that Michael Schiavo falls into the category of “unthinkable disasters” considering he took the medical malpractice money awarded by a jury to rehabilitate his wife to, instead, have her starved to death. But, I’m pretty sure that’s not what PEOPLE had in mind.
As for the “astonishing revelations” — I’d say if Michael came clean about what really happened that night 15 years ago while he waited a full 70 minutes to call 911 after his perfectly healthy wife collapsed, then he’d fit that category.
Which only leaves the “remarkable human spirit” department for Mr. Schiavo. Let’s see. I guess PEOPLE believes it’s a “remarkable” quality of the human spirit when a married man lives with another woman while pledging love to the wife he’s trying to put down like a wounded animal.
Interestingly, a full half of the 167-word article promoted his new book. QUESTION: Is PEOPLE owned by, or have a financial interest in, Michael’s publisher? That might be a gem to disclose since this flotsum reads like a shameless plug for his book.
I agree that starving someone to death – actually she dehydrated to death – no water or food until she died – was absolutely inhumane! People would be jailed for doing the same to a pet or a prisoner. Yet they did it to Terri because she was unable to protect herself and because she was a hindrance to her husband. He had already started another relationship and had children by another woman. I don’t see why he was so determined to see Terri die.
I do not Michael Schiavo. He gives me th creeps. I question his motives. How can anyone not question his motives. He moved on with his life long ago. It wouldn’t have made a difference in his life if Terri was taken care by her parents. Did he want the insurance money. I read there was insurance money. Now he wants to write a book!
I still have a problem with his history of demanding behavior and unwillingness to let Terri’s family be involved in many ways and at various times while she was still alive and in the hospital.
If Mr. Schiavo feels vilified it’s because he brought attention to himself and his family. He doesn’t care about what this might have done to his family or he would have backed down long ago. He kept this in the news and now he has to keep up his sad story to help sell his book. I hope his new family (that he started well before any of this while still married to Terri) is proud.
I am sorry, but when this happened, even at the age of 22 I went and created a living will. Do you know why? Because I do not want my husband to go through the same thing. If there are brain scans proving that I have no brain activity (which by the way, there were), I would not want to be kept alive. If I have little to no brain activity and my brain looked the way Terri’s did, i would not want to be artificially nourished. There would be no point.
But everyone can just go on believing what they want. Me? I’ll just look at the facts and won’t judge others. Hmmm I wonder if that means I have no morals? Sorry for the sarcasm, but this kind of thing really irritates me to no end.
“who are you to judge the life I live? i know im not perfect – and i don’t live to be. but before you start pointing fingers..make sure your hands are clean.”