Here’s part of a transcript of Michael Schiavo talking to Larry King last Friday:
KING: Have you had any contact with the family today? This is a sad day all the way around, Michael. We know of your dispute.
M.SCHIAVO: I’ve had no contact with them.
KING: No contact at all?
M.SCHIAVO: No.
KING: Do you understand how they feel?
M.SCHIAVO: Yes, I do. But this is not about them, it’s about Terri. And I’ve also said that in court. We didn’t know what Terri wanted but this is what we want…..
The Empire Journal states:
Schiavo’s nationally televised admission establishes grounds for him to be charged with perjury and for Gov. Jeb Bush to immediately move to take the disabled woman into protective custody before any further harm is done to her by this attempt at judicial homicide.
I doubt this will lead anywhere. He’ll just say either that he misspoke or that he was giving the parents position, not his own. Especially since he said earlier in the transcript what he’d been saying all along. It may be a case of the truth slipping out accidentally, but, again, I don’t see it going anywhere.
I emailed Gorvernor Bush about it anyway. It’s been 3 days of starvation for Terri, she’s apparently developed an infection because her feeding tubes were removed haphazardly, without using standard medical procedure. Things are desperate so let’s try anything.
Did you hear Felos? Putting the tube back in would be a VIOLATION OF HER CIVIL RIGHTS!!! Since when has Felos cared about any of Terri’s civil rights? I mean, seriously, does Felos ever really listen to Felos?
I have to agree with Publius. It sounds like he could be stating, or paraphrasing, the parents’ position.
We have to be careful about what we are arguing, here. I know little about legal matters or logic, but it seems to me that we either need to establish that Terri is NOT in a PV state, or we need to argue that a G-tube should NOT be considered extrordinary “medical treatment”, but only ordinary care.
If she is not in a PV state, then withholding nutrition and water would be murder. If she is in a PV state, what we are arguing against is assisted suicide. We have to leave room for the possibility that Terri, in fact, did express her wish (rightly or wrongly) that she not be kept alive in such a state. I have heard alot of rumor about Michael Schiavo, but have no way of knowing if any of it is true. Without solid evidence, I feel we should resist the inclination to assume that he is acting in bad faith. He may believe that he is carrying out her wishes. I would hate to see any move that would diminish the rights of immediate family members in favor of either other relatives or the state. The closest surviving relatives should speak for the person in question, if they are unable to express their own wishes.
Some people, like Terri, young and unable to imagine what it would be like to really be “body bound”, might decide that they would NEVER want to live “like that”. They might say this to their spouse without taking the trouble to write it down in front of witnesses. Unfortunately, this sort of rash statement, made in ignorance, can have serious repercussions. The trouble is, like getting a tattoo, it leaves no room for a change of mind.
Either way, there is a problem with the argument that she should be starved to death. Either she is minimally aware (at least) and therefore not in a PV state, or she is totally lacking awareness, in which case she could not be said to be “suffering” at all. Doing away with her, in either case, does seem to smack of convenience rather than compassion.
I agree that we have to be careful in what we say on this case.
I’ve heard it dogmatically stated that Terri is not in a PVS state. Yet I read the 2003 Guardian ad Litem report and found it reasonably persuasive that she is.
On the other hand, I heard a doctor (not sure if he was a neurologist) on Hannity today saying she isn’t.
It’s hard to know what to believe.
Well, there is no standard, universally-approved way of diagnosing PVS, so there is no way to prove that question one way or the other.
“Without solid evidence, I feel we should resist the inclination to assume that he is acting in bad faith. He may believe that he is carrying out her wishes. I would hate to see any move that would diminish the rights of immediate family members in favor of either other relatives or the state.”
As long as he is living with his mistress and having children by her, Michael Schiavo is acting in bad faith. He has no right to say what Terri would or wouldn’t want. It is a grievous injustice that he has been allowed to remain her guardian in defiance of Florida law and the Law of God.
I personally would love to see any move that would diminish the ability of family members to murder each other through legal fictions.
Ignore that previous comment. Here’s what I intended to post:
Well, there is no standard, universally-approved way of diagnosing PVS, so there is no way to prove that question one way or the other.
“Without solid evidence, I feel we should resist the inclination to assume that he is acting in bad faith. He may believe that he is carrying out her wishes. I would hate to see any move that would diminish the rights of immediate family members in favor of either other relatives or the state.”
As long as he is living with his mistress and having children by her, Michael Schiavo is acting in bad faith. He has no right to say what Terri would or wouldn’t want. It is a grievous injustice that he has been allowed to remain her guardian in defiance of Florida law and the Law of God.
I personally would love to see the United States and each individual state pass laws that would diminish the ability of family members to murder each other through legal fictions.
I certainly agree that Michael Schiavo’s lifestyle choices since his wife’s accident do not support the idea that he has her best interests in mind. This should be taken into account by the judge, along with any financial realities.
What I am saying is that we are a nation of laws, and that current law may (rightly or wrongly) support Michael Schiavo’s position. The fact that he is shacking up with another woman at present does not address the possibility that Terri MAY have, in fact, stated to him, as her (then) husband, that she would not want to be kept alive if she were in a PV state.
This does not mean that I wish to see her killed. I categorically do NOT. I’m simply saying that pointing out that Michael may or may not be a ratbag is not really relevant to the legal question. The fact that I want her to live does not change the reality that the courts have routinely (and wrongly, IMO) held that a G-tube constitutes “medical treatment” rather than ordinary care. I simply want to clarify what we are arguing: Either (A)Terri is NOT in a PV state, (in which case she is being murdered, which is WRONG), or (B)she is in a PV state. IF she is in a PV state, her (perhaps creepy) husband is either (a) telling the truth about her expressed wishes and trying to help her commit suicide (which is WRONG), or (b) lying about her wishes and trying to have her killed through legal starvation (also WRONG). I do not want Terri killed. I also do not want to see laws being made up on-the-fly, especially when those laws may end up granting the state even more power over the family.
(a) telling the truth about her expressed wishes and trying to help her commit suicide
It wouldn’t be assisted suicide. It would be voluntary (as opposed to involuntary) euthanasia. If someone else is causing the death (e.g., a doctor administering a fatal injection), even when carrying out the wishes of the person being killed, it is euthanasia. If the person being killed causes their own death with the help of a third party (e.g., by taking a lethal dose of pills provided by a doctor for that purpose), that is assisted suicide.
Here is the m-w.com definition of euthanasia:
“Main Entry: eu·tha·na·sia
Pronunciation: “yü-th&-‘nA-zh(E-)&
Function: noun
Etymology: Greek, easy death, from euthanatos, from eu- + thanatos death — more at THANATOS
: the act or practice of killing or permitting the death of hopelessly sick or injured individuals (as persons or domestic animals) in a relatively painless way for reasons of mercy
– eu·tha·na·sic /-zik, -sik/ adjective”
Nothing in there about it being necessarily involuntary.
True, Publius. I suppose I meant to distinguish between involuntary and voluntary euthanasia. Both evil.
The problem is that the courts have actually been permitting voluntary euthanasia under the name “refusal of medical treatment” for a while now.
I equated voluntary euthanasia and assisted suicide, which is incorrect, but the line between the two grows more blurred all the time.
If the claims by family members and other medical professionals say that she reacts to them, she cannot be in a PV state.
What about all the affidavits by medical professionals that were rejected by Greer?
No, she’s not PVS, and this is judicial murder, all to suit her so-called husband.
The frustrating (but not surprising) thing is that Larry King didn’t even follow up on the statement. What a cup cake interview….