| Barbara Schwarz 2005-03-26, 10:00 am |
|
Tom Barrister wrote:
> The following represents my views. It may or may not represent those
of
> other people.
>
> Mark Schiavo: what's the hurry in killing your wife Terri?
I am thinking the same thoughts, Tom.
>
> And please don't feed us the "She didn't want to live like this,"
> baloney. For one, I seriously doubt that she ever said that to you
or
> to anybody else. You never brought that up in the first seven-plus
> years after she collapsed. Why not? If that was her wish, you
should
> have had the figurative plug pulled back in 1990 when it happened.
> Certainly no later than 1992. Why did it take you seven years to
> remember that?
That is what I think as well.
>
> I'll tell you why. Because she never said it, Mark. It's your cop
out.
> You couldn't take it anymore. You couldn't handle the stress of the
> situation any longer. So you decided to get rid of the
inconvenience.
> You claim to love her. You have a weird way of showing it---starving
> her literally to death. And I understand that there's another woman
in
> your life. Terri's being alive isn't convenient for that situation,
is
> it? Better off killing the old girl off and getting it out of the
way,
> right?
Well said, Tom.
>
> But it wasn't that simple, was it? Many others were opposed to it,
> most notably her parents. So why didn't you turn Terri's custody
over
> to them and be done with it? Then you could do as you please with
the
> other woman. Would your conscience bother you then?
He just should have divorced Terri and should have gotten on with his
life. I assume he wanted fame through her case or became weird when he
was popping psychiatric drugs.
>
> Let's assume that you're doing this because you simply can't stand to
> see her in this state anymore and that there isn't any ulterior
motive
> involved with the other woman (or women). Don't you understand that
> there are still people who love your wife and want to see her
continue
> to live? Why can't you turn her over to them? They'd take care of
> her. Assign guardianship to them.
Everybody can see that Terri enjoys her family comming to her but
Michael apparently wants to take that away from her.
>
> Instead, you've gotten stubborn about it. You're bound and
determined
> to have her killed off----and make no bones about it, that's exactly
> what you're doing. This isn't a case of a person who has no brain
wave
> activity, who will die within seconds or minutes of a heart-lung
> machine being disconnected, and who won't even know that it happened
> because his/her brain is already dead. We're talking about a person
> whose body is still functioning with the aid of feeding. True, she
has
> to be cared for, but so do millions of other people. Many elderly
> people are that way. Most infants are that way. Should we kill all
of
> them, too?
>
> Please don't feed me the "She's in a persistent vegetative state."
If
> that doesn't matter to her parents, and if the state and/or private
> sectors are willing to take care of her and relieve you of all
> responsibility, why would it matter to you?
She isn't. She even tries to talk to her parents. I heard it on TV.
>
> I see that some experts think that she might be in a minimally
> conscious state. Shouldn't that be looked into? Why are you so
> insistent about killing Terri off? You've waited fifteen years. Why
> would another few months matter?
Absolutely.
>
> I understand the the courts have ruled that you're her guardian and
can
> decide matters such as removing her feeding tube. But just who
> appointed you God here to decide whether she lives or dies? What's
she
> guilty of? Not being able to function normally on her own account?
If
> so, how about killing off all the learning-challenged people? How
> about killing off all the elderly who need care? Why not end the
lives
> of all infants under the age of two? Most of those can't care for
> themselves, either.
>
> What's the hurry, Mark?
>
> I've read that you haven't left her bedside since the feeding tube
was
> removed. Is that supposed to be a final gesture of love? Or are you
> staying nearby to make sure nobody sneaks her food or water until she
> dies of a lack of both?
He wants to make sure that she has no chance to see her family again.
>
> Whether you realize it or not, her death won't bring you peace. Far
> from it. It will make things worse. You won't understand that until
> after she's gone though. But trust me on this, Mark: I've been
through
> your situation twice with loved ones who were (in each case) in
> supposedly irreversible states. I wanted to take the easy out like
> you're doing. But I stuck it out both times. Once it worked out
well
> and the person came back to us and lived a reasonable life for a few
> more years. The other time it didn't and the person passed on. It's
> tough, but in retrospect, I realize that I made the right decision
both
> times. You haven't----yet. You seem so obsesed with ending this
that
> you won't listen to anybody who has an opposing view. You won't just
> turn your wife over to your parents and be done with it. They'll
love
> her. They'll care for her. If they pass on while Terri's still
alive,
> others will gladly continue her care.
I think that he will be quite depressed after she is dead and will need
more and more psychiatric drugs to cope with his conscience.
>
> In other words, Mark, you're not going to be out anything or
> inconvenienced in any way by turning Terri over to your parents. By
> not doing so and forcing her death, you're alienating not only Mr.
and
> Mrs. Schindler, but literally millions of others. I doubt anybody
> would be majorly angry at you if you let Terri's feeding tube be
> reconnected. But I shudder to think of all the people who will be
very
> unhappy with you if she dies from your imposed starvation. Or what
> those people might do.
>
> If none of the above makes any sense to you, remember your marriage
> vows that stated:
>
> "....to have and to hold from this day forward, for better, for
worse,
> for richer, for poorer, in sickness and in health, to love and to
> cherish, till death do us part"
>
> "Better or worse", Mark. Not just "better". "Sickness and health".
> Not just good health. In other words, you were supposed to stick it
> out, even though times are bad. Not get rid of what you probably
> perceive to be a problem and/or inconvenience because things aren't
all
> that rosy.
>
> Oh, and "till death do us part," doesn't mean that you're supposed to
> hasten her death. Because you're essentially her executioner here.
> And it just doesn't make sense to me no matter how its sugar
> coated----it's still murder.
Very well said, Tom. Thanks for that posting.
>
> Tom Barrister.
>
> (apologies if this appears twice in any newsgroup)
A person is not her brain. Even if the brain is not more working, there
is a way to communicate with a person. She mourns, she smiles, she
recognizes her family, and she is no vegetable.
I think that Terri would have left the body despite the nutrition that
she got through the tube if she really wanted to. The reason why she
was sticking to that body is likely because she feels so much love from
her parents and siblings. She wants their tenderness and care.
If they would have not visited her and showed no love to her, she might
very well just have left the body. But as she didn't, you have to
assume that she wants to be with her family and does not want to die.
I firmly believe that there is a way to talk to Terri and find out what
she really wants. Under the law, a second set of experts should have
granted to her, a team who looks at her case with fresh eyes.
And people are wrong that there are no doctors in Congress.
Republican Majority Leader of the Senate, Bill Frist is a heart surgeon
and he is still practicing. He wants to give Terri a second chance of
a review.
What is all the hurry to get rid of that woman?
Barbara Schwarz
|