« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Today is “Terri’s Day” — commemorating Terri Schiavo

Today is the sixth anniversary of Terri Schiavo’s murder.

I can already hear people objecting to that choice of words – so let’s just get that issue out of the way right off the bat. Murder is the deliberate killing of a human being. Terri was a human being, and her killing was deliberate.

The dirty secret of the murder of Terri Schiavo is that the American euthanasia movement had been itching for a long time for a court case garnering national attention that would do for the euthanasia movement what Roe v. Wade did for the abortion movement. To achieve that, they needed a “perfect storm” of the same three elements that made the legalization of abortion possible: 1. Hard-core activists, along with activist lawyers and judges; 2. ideologically sympathetic media who would carry water for the activists by taking their lies at face value and repeating them over and over; 3. an uninformed public, with ambivalent feelings about the issue, and thus, ripe for exploitation by agenda-driven media.

In Terri Schiavo, activists saw the same potential that pro-abortion lawyer Sarah Weddington had seen so many years earlier in a young, vulnerable Norma McCorvey, a.k.a. Jane Roe.

Both the judge who gave the order for deat- by-dehydration and the attorney who had argued for it had multiple personal and professional connections with “right-to-die” organizations and, significantly, with the hospice where Terri was held. Judicial ethics require that a judge with such a conflict of interest recuse himself from any case revolving on that issue. Judge George Greer failed to do so. And he has never been disciplined in any way for this violation.

Perhaps we should say that March 18 was the sixth anniversary of Terri’s murder – for that is when, by Judge Greer’s order, the murder began. Most human beings survive only three or four days without water, a week at most. But Terri was young, physically healthy and had a fierce desire to live. It took thirteen days to kill her. And so the murder dragged out, in full view of the whole world, as the victim’s mother, father, sister and brother desperately tried to save her — with police officers, in the end, forcibly blocking them even from seeing her.

How could this happen in a civilized nation? The same way such atrocities always do — with the help of some very big lies. Again, the parallel with the abortion movement: Just as the abortion movement relied on lies – for instance, the lie that Norma McCorvey had been raped (she hadn’t); the lie that a baby in the womb is just an undifferentiated clump of cells (in reality, all major organs are present within a few weeks, and heartbeat can be detected as early as 18 days); the lie that thousands of women were dying from illegal abortions (the true figure was in the dozens) – so too the euthanasia movement lied through their teeth about Terri Schiavo.

The biggest lie – the one the media repeated over and over until most people believed it – was that Terri was “brain dead.” When people finally started seeing through that lie – Terri, after all, was not even comatose, much less near death – they came up with a new one: that she was in a “persistent vegetative state” — an outdated term that is as inaccurate as it is demeaning, and has been much misused and abused.

To push their agenda, the media expertly played on people’s deep-seated fears for themselves – fears of disability and helplessness, fear of losing control over their lives, fear of “being a burden” – all of which had nothing to do with the particular individual, Terri Schindler Schiavo, and what she was experiencing. The media subtly got millions of people subconsciously projecting their own personal issues onto a particular woman in Pinellas Park, Florida.

Never shown in the lamestream media were the video clips of the real, actual person Terri Schiavo responding to music, vocalizing, beaming at her mother, laughing at her dad’s jokes. Euthanasia activists would say that Terri’s reactions in these film clips are just “reflexes.” (Just as pro-abortion activists who are shown the film “The Silent Scream” say that the baby’s frantic efforts to get away from the abortion instrument are nothing but “reflexes.”) I have always been particularly offended by such dismissive labeling because of my affection for a dear friend’s son – I’ll call him Carl – who’d suffered, as a toddler, an accident that deprived him of oxygen and left him profoundly disabled, much like Terri. (He died ten years ago, of natural causes.) Carl’s expressions, gestures and vocalizations were extremely similar to Terri’s; the first time I saw the video clips linked above, I felt almost as if I were watching Carl.

Perhaps that personal connection explains why I did what I did in March 2005. On the day of Judge Greer’s fatal decision, I listened to Sean Hannity on the radio interviewing Randall Terry. While Terri’s family and hundreds of supporters were down in Pinellas Park at the hospice where Terri was being held, Randall had been asked by the family to coordinate lobbying efforts at the Florida Capitol in Tallahassee. Sean asked Randall to tell his listeners what they could do to help. Randall said simply, “Come to Tallahassee. Come to Tallahassee.”

So I did.

I’ll save for another time the chronicle of all the things I witnessed during those four days in Tallahassee as Terri lay dying 250 miles away. For now, I’ll just say that rarely have I seen good and evil, distilled down to their essences, in such clear, sharp juxtaposition. I’ll give one example. Fighting for the good was then-State Senator Dan Webster, who introduced and worked indefatigably – but unsuccessfully – for a bill that would have made the state’s “default mode” life in cases where an incapacitated person had no written directive and his or her family members disagreed about what to do. (This of course would have applied to Terri, and so would have saved her life.) I will never forget Webster’s compassion nor his untiring effort to secure justice.

On the side of evil, I will never forget the female state legislator who, brusquely passing me in a Capitol hallway, barked at me, “We can’t afford to keep all these people alive!” Her outburst was not only inhuman, but in Terri’s case, just plain stupid – since Terri’s parents and siblings were begging simply to be allowed to take Terri home and care for her at their own expense for the rest of her life. Although nothing mitigates the cruelty behind that legislator’s comment, it’s worth pointing out that it’s quite possible she didn’t know that Terri’s family planned to care for her themselves, because there was a total media blackout of many crucially important facts such as that one.

The best information resource was and is the website that was set up by supporters of Terri and her family during an earlier legal battle, a site known then as Terri’sFight.org. After Terri’s death, the site changed, both in name and in purpose (more on that below), but it still contains valuable historical documentation of all the facts of Terri’s case, including a concise but comprehensive timeline. A quick perusal of it gives one an idea of how many disturbing issues there were that the lamestream media couldn’t be bothered to explore.

For example, after Terri’s mysterious collapse that deprived her brain of oxygen for a time and left her profoundly disabled, her husband, Michael, brought a medical malpractice lawsuit that resulted in a large award to be used for Terri’s care and rehabilitation. Terri did receive physical and speech therapy, and was relearning how to feed herself, and how to speak. But then, despite the progress she was making, after only a few months of therapy, Michael suddenly ordered all therapy terminated. Why?

A good investigative journalist would have wanted to dig into that – but the “mainstream” media did not. Neither did anyone seem to be interested in asking why Terri, who had no terminal illness, was put in a hospice. Hospices are supposed to be for terminally ill patients, generally with a life expectancy of less than 6 months. Terri was physically healthy, so what was she doing there? And why was she put in a back room, with the blinds closed 24/7, not allowed out of her room, and deprived of amenities that the other patients in the hospice had access to? Did the fact that Michael’s lawyer was on the board of that hospice (and indeed was chairman of the board when Terri was placed there) have anything to do with the whole arrangement?

Sworn affidavits by 35 doctors and six other medical professionals were submitted to Judge Greer; each and every one was dismissed or ignored. Most of these affidavits certified — under oath — the specialist’s professional opinion that Terri was not in a “persistent vegetative state.” And every single one of them testified that Terri would have benefited from further therapy, which Michael had abruptly discontinued many years earlier. As for the video clips of Terri, which show so vividly how aware and responsive she really was, Judge Greer never saw them; he is physically blind. Again, why didn’t he recuse himself, since the visual evidence on the video clips were so important to the case? (A diagnosis of PVS ought not be a death sentence, but unfortunately, in Terri’s case, everything was made to revolve around that issue.)

Why wouldn’t Michael Schiavo give Terri a divorce, as Terri’s parents begged him to do? Michael had been living with another woman since 1994 and had two children by her — yet he wouldn’t divorce Terri and leave her in the care of her parents. Terri’s parents encouraged him to move forward with his life, marry his girlfriend, and leave Terri to them. They even told him to just keep the rest of the malpractice settlement – take anything you want, just let Terri live!! But he wouldn’t. Why not?

So many questions that never got asked. And stories that never got told (except in conservative outlets), such as this one: On that horrible day of March 18, before the final order came down from Judge Greer, one of the Schindler family’s lawyers, Barbara Weller, spent a lot of time visiting with Terri in her room, while, in the world outside the hospice, every possible legislative, executive and judicial approach was being frantically pursued in a race against the clock — a clock that had been set ticking by one cranky, unjust Florida district judge. Later, that evening, Weller described the hours she had spent with Terri that day to millions of listeners on talk radio. An excerpt:

The most dramatic event of this visit happened at one point when I was sitting on Terri’s bed next to Suzanne [Terri's sister]. Terri was sitting in her lounge chair and her aunt was standing at the foot of the chair. I stood up and leaned over Terri. I took her arms in both of my hands. [Terri's family had been keeping Terri informed, gently but honestly, about what was going on -- and Terri already knew what severe hunger and thirst feel like, because Michael had had her feeding tube removed a couple of times in the past.] I said to her, “Terri if you could only say ‘I want to live’ this whole thing could be over today.” I begged her to try very hard to say, “I want to live.”

To my enormous shock and surprise, Terri’s eyes opened wide, she looked me square in the face, and with a look of great concentration, she said, “Ahhhhhhh.” Then, seeming to summon up all the strength she had, she virtually screamed, “Waaaaaaaa.” She yelled so loudly that Michael Vitadamo, Suzanne’s husband, and the female police officer who were then standing together outside Terri’s door, clearly heard her. At that point, Terri had a look of anguish on her face that I had never seen before and she seemed to be struggling hard, but was unable to complete the sentence. She became very frustrated and began to cry.

I was horrified that I was obviously causing Terri so much anguish. Suzanne and I began to stroke Terri’s face and hair to comfort her. I told Terri I was very sorry. It had not been my intention to upset her so much. Suzanne and I assured Terri that her efforts were much appreciated and that she did not need to try to say anything more. I promised Terri I would tell the world that she had tried to say, ”I want to live.”

To my mind, the worst lie, other than the “brain dead” lie and the “vegetative” lie and the “she wouldn’t have wanted to live” lie, was the lie about death by dehydration. Over and over, Michael and the people he’d recruited to present his case to the media told us that dehydration is a painless, benevolent way to die. How utterly monstrous.

It’s true that when someone is dying of cancer or some other degenerative disease, the body eventually starts shutting down, and in the late stages, is unable to process food and water; indeed, trying to force food and water on someone whose organs are shutting down can cause pain. But Terri was physically healthy. She had no terminal disease. She only had a feeding tube because, after Michael had discontinued her therapies years earlier, it was safer and more comfortable for her to get her food by tube than by mouth. But there was nothing wrong with her digestive system; she needed food and water just as you and I do.

When a healthy person like you, me or Terri is deprived of water, they do not die peacefully; they die one of the ghastliest deaths there is. Dehydration typically kills people in a few days. Terri’s agony – dragged out for nearly two weeks – is unimaginable.

One more fact that you won’t hear in most media: Terri was not an isolated case. Because of the family conflict, and because the euthanasia movement needed a high-media-profile case to set a precedent, Terri’s ordeal ended up getting extraordinary attention. But death by starvation and dehydration is shockingly common in American hospitals and nursing homes – in some cases, even in direct violation of the patient’s official, written directive; in some cases, even in violation of the family’s unanimous wishes.

What Terri’s family went through is so horrible I can hardly bear to contemplate it. Once the ghastly media circus around their daughter’s excruciating death was over, one might have expected them to get as far away from the eye of the public as possible, and try to somehow put their lives back together.

But it was faith that had sustained them through their hideous ordeal, and their faith continued to guide them in the days and weeks afterward. Within a short time, they set up the Terri Schindler-Schiavo Foundation, keeping the old terrisfight.org web address but transforming it into the site for the new Foundation, which is dedicated to educating people, advocating in the political sphere, and above all, helping other families who find themselves in similar situations to what the Schindlers went through, i.e., threatened with the involuntary death of a disabled family member. The Schindlers have made this outreach their life’s work. Terri’s father, Bob, has since gone to his reward in heaven, but her mother, Mary; her brother, Bobby; and her sister, Suzanne, are carrying on the mission.

The organization continues to grow more and more sophisticated and effective, and is now called the Terri Schiavo Life & Hope Network. It includes a nationwide network of doctors and lawyers who volunteer to help threatened families at no cost. The Schindlers also do writing, public speaking and lobbying. Bobby, in particular, has testified before state legislatures and appeared before countless other groups to speak out on behalf of the medically dependent, disabled and incapacitated. One of the long-term goals of the network is “establishing Terri Schindler Schiavo Neurological Centers to provide care for brain injury victims and support for their families.” As with the anti-abortion branch of the pro-life movement, anti-euthanasia advocates know that it’s not just about fighting death, it’s about affirming life — offering a loving, winsome vision, along with real, practical options for people.

In keeping with that positive, life-affirming outlook, the organization has instituted an annual benefit concert. (Last year, the first, starred Randy Travis.) This year’s concert, in Kettering, OH (near Dayton), will star the Beach Boys. (For information and tickets, go here.) Doesn’t get much more sunny and life-loving than that!

COMMENTS

  • lineholder

    I’ve worked in a long-term care facility before. Even in the best of cases, dealing with hydration issues can be difficult, simply because of the patient-to-care giver ratios and variations in patient needs. But to take the life of an otherwise healthy person by means of dehydration would definitely be a gruesome death that few words can describe.

    There are many patients who have severe physical limitations that can interfere with their ability to communicate, but this in no way implies that these human beings are totally incognizant of what is occurring within their environment. They frequently find a way to communicate with those around them. And it isn’t uncommon to hear them chuckle or gurgle in response to something that they find humorous.

    The correlation you’ve drawn between the abortion movement and the euthanasia is very much so true. Both movements place little value on life itself. Both movements place higher emphasis on the goals and objectives of the movement than they do on protecting and preserving human life. Both movements can and will use various forms of propaganda to accomplish and achieve their goals.

    And both movements advocate murder.

    Thanks for this post, heartlander. I’ll be thinking of Terry’s family today.

  • http://westforwestwing2012.com heartlander

    …but thanks to our media, many people lump all forms of brain damage together, and then to make matters worse, label them all as “brain dead” — when they are not dying at all but merely cannot take care of themselves.

    The three main conditions I know of are coma, PVS (which some now call “unresponsive wakefulness syndrome” or UWS), and “locked-in syndrome,” which is the condition of those like the author of The Diving Bell and the Butterfly (and the main character in the movie of the same title).

    The replacement of the 40-year-old term PVS by the newer and more accurate term “unresponsive wakefulness” makes even clearer how horribly Terri was misdiagnosed — for she was quite responsive indeed.

    Even those less outwardly responsive than Terri, however, may not be as “out of it” as they look. Did you see the news a couple of years back about how neuroscientists are learning to establish two-way, genuinely interactive communication with UWS patients? http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2010/feb/03/vegetative-state-patient-communication.

    “Locked-in syndrome” was something most people hadn’t even heard of until the release of The Diving Bell and the Butterfly. But many people who are being labeled comatose or PVS (UWS) may actually have locked-in syndrome, such as Rom Houben, a man who was labeled both “comatose” and “vegetative” — and was neither; he was fully aware of everything for 23 years. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,576311,00.html

    As for comas, a lot of people come out of years-long comas with very few permanent negative effects, and often with amazingly good recollections of things that happened during their comas, even world events, which they’d heard about on television newscasts. There’s been a slew of such stories in recent years. One example: http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/29462994/ns/today-today_people/

    I read (and heartily recommend) a mind-blowing book by a man whose vocation is ministering to comatose people — Conversations with the Voiceless, by John Wessells. He tells some utterly amazing stories about people who later came out of their comas — and shared with him their detailed recollections of his and others’ visits to them when they had been comatose and had looked, to all outward appearances, as if “nothing was going on upstairs.”

    Human consciousness is an awesome and mysterious thing. We should admit that — and give life the benefit of the doubt.

    • lineholder

      the entire final draft of PPACA that was passed into law, but I did read the original…all 1100+ pages of it. What I’m saying is that I don’t know whether the original language was changed.

      The original language in the draft called for extreme limitations in providing care for those who are considered “special needs” patients. I had to look back through three or four prior pieces of legislation to try to determine exactly what definition of “special needs” was being used. It more or less came down to anyone who was totally bedridden.

      I know a lot of people who are totally bedridden who are very much so cognizant. Maybe I should try to find the time to go back and see if this got changed in the final piece of legislation.

      I’ve yet to here anyone draw much attention to this point. Have you heard anything along these lines?

      • http://westforwestwing2012.com heartlander

        WOW. I did NOT know about that, lineholder. I will certainly look into the details.

        I am sorry to say I’m not too surprised. ObamaCare is and always has been all about rationing. Everyone who’d read Tom Daschle’s book that served as the framework warned that this was coming. And when we saw who Obama appointed to the relevant positions — Donald Berwick, Kathleen Sebelius, Cass Sunstein and others — we knew the fix was in.

        The Culture of Death did not develop overnight; the Terri Schiavo atrocity gave it a giant fuel injection, but it has been well under way for many years.

        Wesley Smith has written several books about all this — check out Culture of Death: The Assault on Medical Ethics in America, and Forced Exit: Euthanasia, Assisted Suicide and the New Duty to Die. He is a frequent contributor to the Weekly Standard,, blogs at First Things under the title Secondhand Smoke (http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/secondhandsmoke/), and is legal consultant to the Patients Rights Council, http://www.patientsrightscouncil.org/site/.

  • http://www.gmsplace.com/ civil truth

    Much of what you’ve written here I had not heard before. I can see you poured your heart and soul into this.

    • http://westforwestwing2012.com heartlander

      Yes, I did.

      One of the things that is so MADDENING about that whole ordeal — which I consider truly one of the lowest points in our history as a nation — is that most people NEVER DID hear these things.

      It was one of the worst cases of media malpractice we’ve ever had. With such “news media,” no wonder Barack Obama could get elected.

      THANK GOD for talk radio. On the day of Judge Greer’s death-by-dehydration decree, I remember being glued to the radio all day long, desperately seeking every possible detail — every possible shred of hope. (I don’t have TV, and this was before I had Internet access.) Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Mark Levin, Michael Reagan and yes, even Michael Savage — whatever else their faults might be, I will always love these men for what they said and did that day: for their love and concern for Terri and her family; for their outraged sense of justice at the barbarity as it unfolded; and, most of all, for being the only people out there who were providing all the REAL, FACTUAL INFORMATION that the lamestream media stubbornly, arrogantly refused to transmit.

      • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine
  • southernilpat

    For instance, the legal assumption that a person’s spouse, in all cases, has the final say so. Terri Schiavo had a husband in name only, who had a new spouse in all but name (whom he married a few months after Terri’s killing). A technical husband who had a clear monetary motive for her death. She also had parents who loved her and disagreed with her killing. Terri Shiavo had no living will detailing her wishes.

    Most people don’t understand this was not a case of removing extraordinary measures. Even removing the feeding tube did not have to automatically sentence her to death. Her parents were not even allowed to attempt to give her sips of water or bites of food.

    A sad, sad case all around.

  • tedpomeroy

    I expected you to know better! As a Federalist the real tragedy of the Terri Schiavo case were these facts. The Governor of Florida gave the order, Members of Congress still felt that they should intervene.

    The real crime of Roe v. Wade was the fact that 48 State statutes against abortion were overturned without sufficient stated justification within the Bill of Rights.

    The crime of Schiavo is how so much of the Right To Life movement did not back off when the Governor of Florida made his decision.

    Those that sought Federal intervention in Schiavo showed themselves to be just as “less than American” as the Pro Abortion crowd.

  • Doc Holliday

    I don’t know what you know, I really don’t want to know it. Our party was ripped apart over this thing and then we were pummeled at the polls.

    Our party has turned over a new leaf and rebuked big government interference. This was not a change of heart, but the fact that the voters forced it on the statists like Bill Frist.

    I am not arguing anything about Schiavo’s medical condition because I don’t know much about it. I do know we have laws where certain people are designated to make decisions for those who can’t make them at the time, I know people have Advance Directives.

    It seems to me the ardent supporters on both sides used this one case to argue over a personal philosophy and partisan politics. You may be right a wrong was done, but I am right most of us are over it. Hopefully people now take advance directives seriously. Hopefully people realize the federal government does not have limitless power. If someone committed a crime, than they should be prosecuted. If you have personal knowledge of a murder, do contact the police.

  • aesthete

    means that sometimes, outcomes that are sub-optimal must be tolerated for the sake of preserving a system that is mostly good. To use an example, sometimes a jury will convict an innocent man, or acquit an innocent man: does that mean that we should abandon that system when we feel that it hasn’t led to fair results in a specific instance, and that the judge should take the law into his own hands? Believing that to be the correct course of action essentially annuls the entire system of laws and precedent establishing a jury-based court, and leads to rule of man, not of law.

    Regardless of how you feel about Schiavo’s plight, trying to resolve the issue at the federal level was a travesty: there is no originalist or textualist reading of the Constitution that gives the federal government the power to override state law on an issue that lies outside the scope of the explicit and implied powers. Unpleasant corner cases like Schiavo’s are always bound to occur in imperfect systems, but while we should grieve, we should endeavor to preserve the federalist system even at the cost of a Schiavo. We have surely borne much more in defense of the system; the toll that wars take on our finest is proof enough of that.

    • tedpomeroy

      written like someone who knows Federalist Papers and rises above deciding through feelings!

    • Menlo

      While it may or may not have applied specifically in this case, Congress can do whatever is necessary to enforce the fourteenth amendment requirement of each state to offer equal protection and due process.

      However, it’s all irrelevant anyway as no branch of government has serious regard for the Constitution.

      • aesthete

        based on religious freedom/due process grounds. I have to agree with the SC that there was no case: the Equal Rights Amendment, for instance, would not have been necessary if one interpreted the 14th broadly enough to include any potentially unequal outcome or treatment of women. Heterosexual-only marriage would similarly have been found un-Constitutional. There’s really no textualist or originalist case based on the 14th to provide for Schiavo’s particular situation (especially when the Senate bill was meant to apply solely to Schiavo, and not to others potentially in her circumstance).

        • Menlo

          That case happened before I ever started following current events much so I cannot speak to it very well. Regardless, I am not sure what the Supreme Court or religious freedom has to do with anything I mentioned. I brought up equal protection in relation to physical disability based on my limited understanding. However, as I said, I wasn’t paying attention at the time so that may not have been an issue.

          My main point was that the fourteenth amendment authorizes Congress to enforce it. I don’t care whether Congress agrees with the Supreme Court. I just find it peculiar that I don’t think any liberals, let alone conservatives, have ever even attempted to seriously defend a Congressional act in such a way, even where it would have made much more sense than hiding behind “interstate commerce.”

          I’ll assume here there was not a Constitutional case to be made for Congress to act. I honestly don’t think it much matters as the Constitution has long been little more than a relic in practice, and that is a reality that is not going to change in the future.

          • tedpomeroy

            We need an act in order to return the 14th Amendment to its original intent. It was fostered by Republicans in order to protect African Americans from Democrats. We should reject all expansion of its intent and meaning from now on! And seek to undo all Court doctrine beyond its purpose which was to protect African Americans from Democrats.

            We Conservatives were guilty of using the “natural born citizen” clause during the Cold War.

            We need to admit it and stop using the 14th Amendment for our own purposes!

          • Menlo

            That’s saying a lot considering the elected officials since. The only proper course of action is a do-over. The chances of that are about the same if not better than government ever resorting to “original intent,” both less than zero.

            Regardless, I am not a “we” in regard to the amendment’s history or its use or misuse, and I refuse to accept any responsibility for it.

  • edwyrd

    He not only urged the senate to intervene for Terri, but travaleled to FL and prayed with the family.
    http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/3/16/105547.shtml

    • Doc Holliday

      he lost his last election in his own state. Why on earth would someone think he could win the presidency? Santorum is a statist and is bad at gaining votes. Perfect candidate? I think not.

      • edwyrd

        at our county convention. He was quitre impressive. I have been googling him and can’t find anythiong that would cause pause..
        Can you provide a link?

        • Doc Holliday

          I think he is too statist. He wants to solve everything with Constitutional amendments, I don’t like that. He sounds like he would be a great evangelical preacher and a good neighbor, but he doesn’t really bring anything fresh to the debate and the myriad of dangers we face right now in this country.

          As I said before, Santorum lost re-election in his own state. He is considered part of the crew that was thrown out because of big government, compassionate conservatism.

          Maybe he can repackage himself. Maybe he is a born again Tea Party, limited government type. I just don’t think he will be president so I find him less than the “perfect” candidate.

          • Doc Holliday
          • edwyrd

            He does sound evangelical. And he has remade himself somewhat. His stated top priorities are to repeal obamacare and reduce the size and scope of government.
            Unfortunately, i went to the convention unprepared ( i should have brought my video camera), and the local TV news station has the only video of the speech, and so far has not answered my emails.
            However, the speech was suprizingly similar to the more recent ones i am finding on youtube.
            Currently I see him as a staunch fiscal/social conservative with minimal negitives, and a good resume.
            he has already agreed to appear in the first republican primary presidential debate,which is being held in SC. i am looking forward to being a supporter of his, and maybe doing some work for his campaign.
            P.S. I’m a Catholic too!

          • Doc Holliday

            he doesn’t sound bad. He better be getting a major organization going because I don’t see him polling high at this point.

  • http://westforwestwing2012.com heartlander

    I admit it’s a long piece, so maybe you skipped over some parts.

    That’s my most charitable interpretation of your apparent failure to see the whole point. I didn’t even talk about federal intervention. The only government actions I specifically discussed were: 1. The horrific conflicts-of-interest on the part of the one crappy little district judge who wielded absolute power in this case; and, 2. the Florida STATE legislature. Got a problem with that?

    As regards it being a long piece, I plead guilty. But this issue was so complex, and ALL the substantive aspects of it were ignored or misrepresented by the media, so any effort to even scratch the surface of the case as far as redressing the media’s omissions and manipulations was bound to take some space.

    If you don’t want to read the whole thing, let me just suggest that you at least respond to my main point, which is the third paragraph (“The dirty secret…”).

    I would also call your attention to the fifth-to-the-last paragraph (“One more fact that you won’t hear in most media…”). If the fact that active euthanasia is becoming more and more widespread in these United States even before ObamaCare kicks in doesn’t make you a little nervous, then I’ve got a bridge in Brooklyn I’d like to show you.

    • Doc Holliday

      You are not the only one who gets to define the “facts” of the case. In fact, I would say you were extremely biased and did not support your assertions with primary sources. You even hinted at the conspiracy theory that the husband wanted her dead to cover something up; like she was going to wake up one day and spill the beans.

      Look, you are welcome to your diary, it has been well received. I am free to state my main point, which is this is not something we need to drag up now. It is not like I am concerned, it is just a diary. The country is focused on other things, true pressing matters. If I were a conspiracy theorist (which I am not), I could proffer you brought this up to divide us.

    • acat

      I am in agreement with Asthete and Pomeroy and Holliday.

      This should not have become a federal case – by allowing it to become one, we – that is, conservatives – have played into the hands of the death cult. We did not control the narrative. We did not get all the facts out. We were played.

      Mew

    • aesthete

      It is true that you did not mention federal intervention directly. However, I will note that the events that you describe above occured in the context of an effort by one part of the Republican party to un-Constitutionally turn federalism on its head to save a single person. I don’t doubt the sincerity and good intentions of that section of the party, nor can I in good faith condemn it, given my own conflicted feelings. I have no problem with Webster’s attempt to rewrite Florida law; I don’t live in the state and assume that Floridans could have informed me of the wisdom or unintended consequences of his proposal. (I do think that your interpretation of the district judge’s ruling is a bit hard to swallow, though; there really was no doubt that this was the correct ruling per Florida’s laws at the time which is why Webster was working to change the law.)

      The perils of destroying our entire federalist system are such that it would have been profoundly wrong for us to overturn it on the basis of one wrong outcome. Whatever you think of the solution proffered by Dan Webster, he worked within the system in a Constitutional manner. The Republican-led federal government? Not so much, and given that this was the note that most remember from the debate, I don’t find it out of bounds to explore that. For that reason, I don’t find my post out of bounds. Thanks for explaining where you are coming from, but I stand by my prior statement. I’ll attempt a response to euthanasia as a mass movement when I get some more time; I’m in the middle of a couple of projects so that might take a little while.

    • tedpomeroy

      Please understand, the Founding Fathers wanted battles such as Terri to end with the States.

      We needed to make an exception with the 14th and 15th Amendments because slavery predated the Constitution.

      Both Right To Life and the forces of darkness have been “stretching” the 14th Amendment.

      It ends with we Conservatives.

  • Doc Holliday

    Some of us take pride in that we state our true beliefs even when it goes against the crowd. How much easier it is to see what others are saying and go with the crowd. I say what I believe every time, I am willing to take on the views of my side when I think it is the right thing to do.

    It is correct you did not mention Federal interference, but the federal interference happened. Not mentioning something does not delete it from history.

  • http://westforwestwing2012.com heartlander

    One of the reasons this issue is maddening is that the media did such a good job of NOT reporting the most important facts that it’s almost impossible to have a reasonable discussion about it, since you can’t assume that all parties to the discussion are operating from the same factual basis.

    Let me just try to put a few things on the table here.

    1. Judge Greer — way back at the very beginning, years earlier, when the case first came to court, made a substantive ruling that Terri had PVS. He made this ruling based on the testimony of ONE doctor — who had never actually visited Terri, and who
    is a notorious “expert witness” in “right-to-die” cases nationwide. Later Greer threw out contrary evidence from dozens of doctors and other medical professionals who concluded that Terri did NOT have PVS.

    2. Once Greer had decided Terri had PVS, he concluded — based on HEARSAY from Michael and his relatives — that Terri would rather have died than live with PVS. Ordinarily, hearsay is not even allowed as evidence, but in this case, it was not only allowed, but the judge based his whole ruling on it — effectively sentencing Terri to the death penalty. On hearsay.

    Besides Greer’s blatant conflicts of interest (click on links in fifth paragraph of my piece) which should have made him recuse himself from the case, Greer also violated numerous provisions of Florida law.

    tedpomeroy, you said that Gov. Jeb Bush gave an order. Actually he did NOT give any orders. That was the whole problem. We begged him to sign an executive order that would have given Terri a reprieve, similar to the executive pardons that governors and presidents commonly give to particular prisoners. The Adult Protective Services Program in the Florida Dept. of Children and Families was standing ready to take protective custody of Terri. Bush decided not to do it.

    Doc Holliday, I didn’t “bring this up again” to stir up trouble, but because the real issues and concerns brought up by this case were never dealt with. Instead, one family’s tragedy was made into a media circus and treated as a soap opera. The media had a very strong agenda here, and they pushed it like crazy. I gave several examples in my piece of how they omitted and twisted facts. There was thus never any honest, informed discussion of the deeper issues. My piece is a very belated attempt to get that discussion going.

    In part, it’s simply an anniversary commemoration of a person I cared about. As I said in my piece, one of my dear friends had a son whose condition was nearly identical to Terri’s, and that gave me a personal connection. I have also met Bobby Schindler several times, and he is both a hero to me and a person with a very special place in my heart. I really wanted to write this piece six years ago — but it has taken me this long to address this extremely complicated and very personally painful issue.

    But this is more than just a personal issue. This is a national issue and it should matter to every one of us — in part because Terri was the Kitty Genovese of our time, publicly murdered while people watched, only with the duration of the killing being days rather than minutes, and with the audience of onlookers being multiplied by tens of millions.

    It also is a national issue that should matter to every one of us because, as I said in the piece, this starvation/dehydration of non-terminal patients is becoming more and more common in this country. Hospital “ethics committees” have become more and more powerful — and that trend will only accelerate when ObamaCare really kicks in. This issue WILL affect you and your family, sooner or later. To me, that makes it extremely relevant. Talking about the “right-to-die” movement, euthanasia, etc., without mentioning the Schiavo case is a bit like talking about abortion in America without mentioning Roe v. Wade.

    Doc, you said that something good that came out of all this is that at least people are making advance directives. That may be true — but another whole discussion is what kind of directives those are. The media may have frightened people into signing “living wills” — but these are extremely problematic. “Living wills” are hardly worth the paper they’re written on, since they can be ambiguous, fail to anticipate every possible situation, and give all power to unknown doctors or committees. The better type of directive is a protective medical decisions document (PMDD) that gives decision-making authority to the person of your choice, to whom you give durable power of attorney.

    As Wesley Smith describes in his excellent book Forced Exit, there have been cases who were temporarily intubated because of accident or illness from which they were expected to recover, but were starved/dehydrated against their will. There are cases where doctors ignored a patient’s “living will.” Cases where hospital “ethics boards” overruled patients and family members.

    In Europe, you can see the logical consequences of the “right-to-die” movement, which dresses up in civil-liberties and patient-empowerment language the real agenda, which is to get rid of “surplus” people (I’m talking about the agenda of the people who are spearheading it). Especially in the Netherlands, “assisted suicide” quickly devolved into active euthanasia, i.e., euthanasia against the will of patients and their families. Doctors and nurses simply take the initiative to dispatch people they don’t think are worth living.

    Doc, you said that I did not back up my piece with original sources. Did you click on any of the links? I especially recommend the link to the medical affidavits. There are 41 of them, in PDF format. Sworn affidavits by expert witnesses that were thrown out by the circuit judge — and never allowed to be presented in any other court. That, by the way, is what Congress was trying to redress — and I believe they were acting in good faith.

    • tedpomeroy

      No answer from Governor Bush was his answer.

      It should have ended there.

  • David123

    Mass murderer Timothy McVeigh was executed in a matter of minutes by lethal injection.

    No way would the execution of any murderer, no matter how vile, by dehydration not be unconstitutional as cruel and unusual punishment.

    Even the ancient Romans, who hardly emphasized humane execution methods, offered Jesus something to drink while He was being executed on the cross.

    Terri Schiavo was dehydrated to death.

  • congressworksforus

    Heart-wrenching story at the end.

    But, I wonder if the person in the room, and the others who were moved by the story ever considered if she was trying to say “I want to die”.

    We’ll never know of course, at least not in this lifetime.

    As for the rest of the piece, the judge absolutely should have recused himself as he couldn’t possibly understand part of the testimony. A good judge might even have insisted on spending some time with her himself to gauge her real state as video evidence sometimes doesn’t tell the whole story.

    But Doc and company are right: the attempted interference by the folks in D.C. was inexcusable and was made purely for political purposes. In my opinion, they made a bad situation even worse, making the story about them, and not the judge…

    • http://westforwestwing2012.com heartlander

      Regarding what was Terri trying to say: Her sister Suzanne was in the room; Terri had very close relationships with Suzanne, Bobby, and her mom and dad. Over the many years, they became very good interpreters of her vocalizations.

      In contrast, according to nurses who worked with Terri, she would freeze up and turn away whenever her “husband” Michael entered the room.

      Her family members had been with her every day; they knew her very, very well. They had no doubts at the time about what she was trying to say.