I know it’ll never happen, but I’d really like to hear from the nursing staff about Terri. I’d like to know what the independent third parties who interact with her every day have to say.
I know what it was like when my brother and I made the same decision for our mother; it was very clear-cut for us, and we had legal authority to do what we did.
She was on an IV drip of a med to help sustain her blood pressure, and at the highest possible dose. When we shut off the IV, her blood pressure didn’t change. Her heart was shot, and she had suffered a stroke about a week before. When the last of the liquid food ran out, the nurse pulled the tube. For the next 36 hours, we used wet swabs to moisten her lips, until she died 22 December, 1998.
But there was no question about our actions, and they were rooted in love. There was no question about our motives for doing what we did. I think there are tremendous questions here about Michael Schiavo’s motives. If he really didn’t want to deal with her anymore, and really wanted to legitimately move on with his life, then why didn’t he divorce her years ago? It might have been precedent-setting to divorce an incapacitated person, but what of this case hasn’t been? He’s already moved on to a great extent: he’s got two children from another woman. Precious little has been said about her; I’m sure that would be an interesting interview.
4 Comments
Ironic, isn’t it, that I’ve written over 1800 words here, and have done nothing towards any of the articles I’m thinking of, or my books. :sigh:
This court document from 1998 doesn’t cite specific conversations, but the author, Terri’s court-appointed guardian ad-litem for six months that year, does refer to general comments by the staff at the nursing home. http://www.hospicepatients.org/richard-pearse-jr-12-29-98-report-of-guardianadlitem-re-terri-schiavo.pdf
As for Michael’s motives, only he knows for sure. I don’t think anyone will try to argue that he is a stand-up guy. Maybe he doesn’t believe in divorce, maybe it was the money. At this point, considering the enmity between him and the Schindlers, I imagine it’s probably pure spite. But that’s just my baseless supposition.
Thanks for the link.
I don’t know that your supposition is baseless. If it’s not pure spite, why is he withholding communion? Why is he withholding Last Rites?
He’s had opportunities to move on with his life that would have kept her alive, and left her in the care of people who loved her. I can’t think of any other reason he’s not do it except spite.
From what I can see after reading the guardian ad litem’s report, his attitudes towards Terri’s care changed drastically after he received the compensation awarded him in his lawsuits. He’d gotten his money; there was no need to keep hounding the medical staff in charge of Terri’s daily care, as he apparently was before. And given the size of her estate that would become his at the time of her death, there was definitely motive for avoiding divorce.
According to several news reports I’ve read on Yahoo! in the last couple of days, Terri did receive last rites–or the equivalent thereof, since there;’s no official “last rites” sacrament these days (and this is according to those familiar with current Catholic rites–at the time the feeding tube was pulled.
But still, I think his motives clearly aren’t driven by the same love that her parents obviously feel for her. Regardless of who’s technically, morally, or legallyt right here, I think it’s fairly obvious–given the contents of the report from 1998 and Michael Schiavo’s actions and comments to the press, plus his extramarital relationship with another woman resulting in two children–his motives don’t appear to be those out of love.