Terry Schiavo’s autopsy report has been released, and proves that she was catastrophically brain-damaged, her brain was less than half normal weight, she was deaf and blind and never would have improved.

This article asserts that no abuse preceded Schiavo’s collapse.

Several graphics of her brain can be found here.

However, none of this convinces her parents, brother and sister.

Frist is frantically backpedaling, claiming he “never diagnosed” her condition. WA Post

Then there’s the fruitcake brigade: Rich Santorum, Tom DeLay, Randall Terry, Dubya and Jeb Bush, Sean Hannity and all the other talking heads and religious wingnuts who will never be convinced that what they did was wrong.

Personally, I believe every elected official (ahem, Congress) involved in the Schiavo debacle should be required to apologize personally to Michael Schiavo and this country for their actions…not that it will ever happen, but it should.

Does Michael Schiavo have grounds for legal redress against those who continue to libel and slander him?

(In a perfect world) should those members of the government and the US Congress be censured in any way for their unprecedented actions in the Schiavo case?

Does Michael Schiavo have grounds for legal redress against those who continue to libel and slander him?

If people are libeling him, then he has the ability to persecute them. This autopsy proves that he didn't beat her, therefore if people continue to publish things that said he did, then he can persecute them.

(In a perfect world) should those members of the government and the US Congress be censured in any way for their unprecedented actions in the Schiavo case?

I'm going to assume you meant should they apologize, because I don't see why you would suggest that we start editing their speeches before they are published.

Their claims that she wasn't a vegetable have been pretty handily beaten, however, they can still say that despite the fact that she was braindead, she was still a living human being. Consequently, they can still say that their actions were right.

Were their actions right?

I think the life of a single human being has been blown completely out of proportion, and the legislative branch has overstepped its boundaries. What they should've done, was make it illegal to remove someone from life preserving devices, if doing so would result in the death of that person. The courts could not have struck that down, because while it would have saved Schiavo, it would not overstep the legislatures boundaries, because it would have created a precedent rather then a ruling. Instead the right wingers decided to make a huge unneccessary anti-court debacle.

I don't believe that Michael Schiavo has any grounds for legal redress, because I don't think he made the most appropriate decision, and I'd think he would want to put everything behind him, which wouldn't be the case if he were to demand restitution. I think the whole thing was just overblown and poorly executed. It's not that I even think that they should have tried to keep her alive, I just thought that the whole thing was mishandled, which is terrible for Terry most of all. But I digress; the government should not be censured, but I think they were also misguided and mishandled the situation. It was just an unnecessary fiasco and I think America should move on and try to respect Michael's decision, whether agreeable or not.

Strangely, the autopsy also all but ruled out a heart attack and found no evidence of an eating disorder. A second autopsy is needed to try to determine the cause of Terri's collapse. That, thanks to Mr. Schiavo is not possible. I think he better just try to blend into the background and hope to fade into obscurity.

I am glad the autopsy stated that Terri Schiavo's collapse was not due to bulimia, i.e., not necessarily her fault. I think the whole Congressional thing was playing to the Religious Right audience, and that it was a tragedy that Congress would get together like that for this case when so many other serious issues facing many Americans do not merit Congresspeople staying up at night in front of the cameras and raising holy hell.

And no, I do not think Michael Schiavo's case for ending Terri's life was stronger or more legitimate than the Schindlers' desire to continue caring for Terri. It just went too far.

Michael Schiavo had gone on with his life and had two children by his common-law wife. In my "law" book, that should have constituted the relinquishing of his rights over the life of his "wife". If he moved on, he moved on.

Michael Schiavo can sue people whom he feels have vilified him, but I doubt that he will. The cremation of Terri's body took place awful darn fast, and it was obviously designed to put an end to any possible investigations, especially concerning how Terri was left for how many minutes? before her devoted husband had the paramedics there to work on her.

Seems awful damned convenient to me.

Hugo

No doubt I agree with you here. Those that sided with the idea that Terri should be kept alive for her parent's pleasure and peace of mind lost a difficult battle. Michael has a target on his back and guns are getting loaded. So is this the new line.... It took 40 minutes, no, it took an hour. He killed her!!! No poison, no bruising... this investigation would be a joke if it weren't for the fact "oh my God" the Governor, himself, finds it necessary to put the hit out on Michael Schiavo.

Very powerful people were made to look like fools when they decided to get involved in this case. What they seek is vindication. They need to vilify Michael so that he becomes a murderous husband covering up his wife's murder, rather than a husband who wanted to let his wife die, without the government getting involved. The case will go no where, but be sure this PR campaign will go forward.... I guess time will tell how successful it will be.

It is amazing to see people have proof given to them, and they still deny.
I guess its human nature. Nobody wants to be proven wrong. But, gee
whiz, they're making fools of themselves by not owning up to the fact that
they were incorrect on their assertions of her condition.



This is the argument that I hear from the folks who can no longer argue that she
is a thinking, self-sufficient person who should have been kept alive. Now, it
becomes all about how she got into that state in the first place. Regardless of
how she got there, she should have been let go long ago, and thanks to the
autopsy, we have conclusive evidence of that fact.

I see some people bashing Michael Shiavo for his part in this case. That is unfair,
considering none of us know him personally, nor do we know anyone involved in
that case. We only have the media to help us form our opinions on him.

Unless you have proof that he did something to cause her demise you may want to it.


(In a perfect world) should those members of the government and the US
Congress be censured in any way for their unprecedented actions in the
Schiavo case?

Indeed, they should. On top of that, people like Sean Hannity, who spout off
about things they know nothing about, should resign and give us all some peace.

I am perfectly willing to stop thinking about this case altogether. But as for Michael Schiavo, I will never be convinced that his sole purpose was to end his wife's suffering. There is a lot of room for suspicion there, and he has a less-than-sterling reputation.

Of course he has grounds for redress for things like libel and slander. The appropriateness of his decision has nothing to do with it, the legality does. Legally, he was entitled to make the decision he did, and if unfounded accusations were made against him, he has every legal right to seek justice.


I'm sorry, Paladin, but that's just not true. The medical examiner said he could find no evidence of bulimia, but that's a far different thing than saying she didn't have it.


I wouldn't necessarily expect them to find evidence of an eating disorder after 15 years, would you? As many conservatives were fond of saying during the search for WMD, "Absence of evidence doesn't mean evidence of absence". A lack of physical evidence in this case doesn't mean she didn't have an eating disorder, only that the ME couldn't find evidence of it.

As to the "heart attack" statement above, Hugo, I don't know if you truely don't know the difference between a "heart attack" and cardiac arrest, also known as heart failure, or if you are deliberately passing along the party line, here.

A heart attack occurs because the arteries that feed the heart itself become clogged, and the heart can't get enough oxygen to work. Heart tissue begins to die, and then the heart stops beating.

Cardiac arrest happens for a variety of reasons. Electrical shock, a severe blow to the chest, a chemical imbalance like a lack of potassium in the system, or even anaphylactic shock, as from a bee sting, if you're allergic. In that case, there is no physical damage to the heart muscles, the heart just stops beating, because of the external cause, whatever it is. In that case, brain tissue dies much more quickly than muscle tissue, which would account for Terri's advanced brain damage, with little or no damage to the heart.

And make no mistake, Terri went into cardiac arrest. According to the records of the paramedics, they found her in ventricular fibrillation, and had to perform defib (electrical shock) on her seven times to get her heart beating again.


What would a second autopsy show that the first did not? Listening to the press briefing from the ME the other day, he enlisted help and consultation from at least two other ME's from different jurisdictions in Florida, and had laboratory and chemical testing done by private labs as far away as Michigan and Connecticutt. I've seen other autopsy reports. They usally run six to ten pages in length. This one runs nearly forty? Please, if there were anything there to find, it would have been found.


I was speaking earlier of his legal right to sue for those who libeled or slandered him. I don't think he will actually do it, as I think he'd like nothing more than to fade into obscurity at this point, just to get back some peace and quiet in his life.

Unfortunately, it looks as if Governor Bush just can't leave well enough alone, and in pandering to the religious right, is going to keep on persecuting Michael Schiavo, until he runs out of things to "investigate" or his time in office expires.


Well, considering she had already been autopsied, what other "investigational use" would her body have been good for?

And let's look at this logically for a minute, ok? He wakes up, he finds his wife on the floor in distress, he calls his brother in law and paramedics to the scene. His time differs from what the 911 call center says, but in a medical emergency, untrained people don't pay close attention to things like the time. He may well have gotten the time wrong, is all.

If he really wanted to kill his wife, as some of you are insinuating, he actually had the perfect alibi. It's 5:00, 5:30 in the morning, or whatever, and he hears a noise. He finds his wife on the floor in obvious distress. He doesn't want her around any more. So what do you do? Do you call relatives and emergency services to the house soon after? Or do you let here lie there until 7:30 or 8:00 or 8:30, to make sure she really is dead, and then call paramedics, telling them you didn't hear anything, and only called once you woke up and found her?

Convenient? You call everything this man has gone through because of his in-laws, political groups with an agenda, pandering politicians, and the ensuing media circus "convenient"? You think it's convenient to have people stalking you and your family? Being called a murderer? Being physically threatened? And now having a Governor who just can't admit that he was wrong, continue to find ways to harass him, under the guise of "investigating the anomaly" of statements he made during a time of stress??

Michael Schiavo may not seek legal redress for all of the harm done to him, but he surely has that right, and I couldn't say that I'd blame him if he does.

Michael Schiavo does not have grounds for legal redress anymore than the politicians and commentators you called "wingnuts and fruitcakes" have a right to sue YOU.

Of course the members of government who tried to get this case handled in the correct manner (instead of the debacle that it was) should not be "censured". On what grounds? They were representing their outraged constituents as they should have.

Our constitution ultimately puts the legislature in charge of the judiciary, not the other way around. Frankly, it's long overdue for them to start exerting their authority and start impeaching judges who practice legislating from the bench.

The Schiavo case was a debacle in that the rights of the family were trumped by a person who was arguably an "ex husband". But, that argument is in a different thread so I won't ramble on about it here.

Just to make the cheese more binding, Gov. Jeb got up in front of cameras and insinuated that Michael Schiavo didn't call the paramedics in a "timely manner."

Are there no depths to which some people will sink in order to avoid admitting they are wrong?

This is what I meant about libel and slander. The right is lining up to participate in the character assassination of Michael Schiavo in an overwhelmingly embarrassing act of CYA, and I believe they ought to pay, one way or the other.

By the way, the PDF text of the autopsy is available on Newsday's site here, for those who want to wade through all the medical jargon. I've read it, and I don't see anything that contradicts Michael's version of events.

Michael Schaivo deserves all the scorn that he has received in my opinion. The autopsy does not exonerate him in ANY way for what he did wrong.

He changed his story after 7 years because he grew tired of caring for his severely disabled wife. Then, he went to court to have her killed in spite of the objections of her BLOOD RELATIVES.

What libel is there in that statement? It's FACT. You can't be sued for libel by correctly portraying the events around the individual.

The woman was severely disabled. The autopsy shows that. But being severely disabled does not give someone who decided to move on in life with another family the right to sign your death warrant.

Yes, I said "convenient". Just because Michael Schiavo did not foresee the ensuing trouble did not make it any less convenient.

I agree with lordhelmet: Michael Schiavo had clearly moved on with his life--what was Terri's fate to him since he knew that she did not have the awareness to feel imprisoned in her body and she still had loving parents to care for her?

Otherwise, why was he in such a hurry to deprive Terri's parents of having a decent burial for her? Why about cremating Terri right away was so damned important to Michael Schiavo? Did he actually think that would make his life easier? If so, "his bad."

If he likes banging his head against the wall, I say, Go for it, Mikey! And in the meantime, get Jeb's brother to stop bothering us with the Patriot Act! You'll get as much satisfaction doing that!

Does Michael Schiavo have grounds for legal redress against those who continue to libel and slander him?

He may have legal grounds but it very difficult to prosecute. Recall it took Richard Jewel years to get anything out of the FBI.

(In a perfect world) should those members of the government and the US Congress be censured in any way for their unprecedented actions in the Schiavo case?

The government is way too involved in this case. Yet, I don't believe censuring would have any useful effect on those frothing Congress-critters. I'll make a trade though. I'd be willing to support Michael being accused, investigated, even prosecuted if the same were done to, say, Rumsfeld for the torture stuff. Anyone want to trade?

Sounds like a good trade to me.

I can't feel sorry for Michael Schiavo. If Terri's parents wanted to care for Terri until hell froze over and Terri wasn't aware enough to be unhappy about it, what was it to him? A control issue?

Seems to me that if he still wanted to be considered Terri's legitimate spouse, he wouldn't have been boinking and begetting with someone else's daughter.

I agree wholeheartedly with everything you say Paladin Elspeth!! If Terri's parents wanted to take care of her and Terri had no sensations anyway-- where on earth was the harm?

Libel or slander would be impossible to prove. Michael would have no case.

Follow the money. I have heard that Mark Furman (OJ trial fame) is investigating this case. If you recall, it was Furman who wrote the book about the death of a young girl in Connecticut and exposed facts implicating one of the Kennedy relatives who was subsequently convicted for murder.

I am sure Furman will investigate this case and "follow the money" to show that Michael Schiavo somehow benefits from his wife's death. Schiavo has said that all the money is gone-- but no one knows for sure. Personally, I think financial reasons were driving all of this.

Again, this has nothing to do with whether Michael was "harming" Terri's parents by his actions. It had to do entirely with what was legal. Now, you may not like the law that entitled Michael to make all of the decisions regarding Terri's care, but you of all people Haleyanne, should at least appreciate the fact that it was his decision to make, legally. If you don't like it, change the law, but don't complain about it simply because it doesn't suit your opinion.

Impossible to prove? I don't think so. We have written newspaper and internet columns, we have interviews with people like Randall Terry, and others of his ilk. We have comments from the likes of Sean Hannity. All, I would presume are on tape somewhere. How hard would it be to pull those news archives, or tapes, and pull the appropriate quotes out that showed these people accusing him of something nefarious, up to and including attempted murder during that morning in 1990? I don't think it would be very hard at all.

Well, your personal opinion to the contrary, the company that controls Terri's trust fund has already said that at about a month before her death, there was only about $50,000 dollars left, and given that the Schiavo's were relatively young, they did not have a life insurance policy on her at the time, so he has nothing to gain there, either.

As to "following the money", yes, indeed, let's do that for a minute. Mark Fuhrman isn't going to investigate the Terri Schiavo case, he's already done it. The book will be released at the end of this month. Yeah, that's right, in a case where the ink hasn't dried on the medical examiners signature yet, Fuhrman's book has already been galley proofed, and is in the process of being printed as we speak. But, in the interest of fairness, let's see what the pre-release notes on the book have to say:
Fortunately, we didn't. We did see, however, the previously mentioned folks like Randall Terry, with a political agenda to push; pandering politicos like GWB and his brother, Bill Frist, the guy who can make a diagnosis from a three minute video, and just about every media outlet in the country parading themselves outside Terri's hospice.
Yes, so respected that O.J.'s defense team was able to tear apart his tesimony without breaking a sweat.
Let's see. That would be the same family members and legal advisors that accused Michael of violence against Terri that they could never prove, neglect that they could never prove, forensics experts that were not involved in the autopsy, and caregivers who perjured themselves by saying they fed and watered Terri by mouth, when results of the autopsy showed it would have resulted in her choking to death. I also notice that Fuhrman got no cooperation from Michael Schiavo and his family, so Fuhrman only has half of the story.
Not if you don't interview everybody involved, including Michael, it can't.
Yes, because the "broader, human" background is so much more amenable to spin, innuendo, and outright slander than are things like the legal aspects and medical facts.

A thoroughly discredited, retired LAPD detective. A detective who's tesimony in the O.J. trial was torn apart, and was given the nickname of Mark "I'll take the 5th" Fuhrman. A man who makes his living writing sensational books based on sensational crimes.

Yes, indeed. Follow the money, and you'll see that it's going to be Mark Fuhrman who profits from all of this.

Does Michael Schiavo have grounds for legal redress against those who continue to libel and slander him? There was never any evidence that Michael Schiavo has some evil master plan where he would give his wife a massive heart attack, go through nursing school to care for her and then after 10 years, after using all the money from the malpractice suit, decide that her feeding tube should be removed. When the right wing media continually and repeatedly says Michael Schiavo did all those terrible things, gave Terri a heart attack, abused her, etc... they are defiantly reprehensible. The problem is the libel laws in this country are not very strong. If Michael Schiavo wanted to win a libel case he would probably have to file it in another country with stronger libel laws like the UK against a foreign newspaper/media outlet.

(In a perfect world) should those members of the government and the US Congress be censured in any way for their unprecedented actions in the Schiavo case? Instead of censuring them, people could just not reelect them. That might work a little better. Censuring most of the congress is a lot more difficult than replacing some of them.


That seems to fly in the face of logic since Mr. Schiavo rejected one million dollars to give up custody of his wife. And if he was really concerned about money he could have given up the custody and financial responsibility much earlier?

What some of you appear to be forgetting here is that this case was not about what Michael Schiavo wanted. It was not about what Terri's parents wanted. This case was about what Terri Schiavo wanted.

Terri Schiavo did not want to be artificially kept alive in a persistent vegetative state. Period. This is what her husband testified to. This is what her in-laws testified to. This is what friends and colleagues testified to. And this is what the courts found - and how they ruled. From the outset, Michael Schiavo was trying to do what Terri wanted. Her parents were trying to oppose her wishes and force her into a semblance of life that she did not want.

I am dismayed that people are still so ardently arguing in favor of going against the will of this unfortunate woman - and siding with the selfish, publicity-hungry parents who wanted to thwart her will when she was clearly in no position to defend her own wishes.

For one moment, put yourselves in Terri Schiavo's place - consider what she wanted. Sure, one can sympathize with a family that simply doesn't want to let go. But if you have a conscience - or a bit of compassion - I don't see how you can possibly support opposing the will of the patient herself.


Does Michael Schiavo have grounds for legal redress against those who continue to libel and slander him?

He has very good grounds. The courts have already determined that it was Terri Schiavo's desire to have her life terminated should she ever fall into a persistent vegetative state. The autopsy has now absolutely determined that she was in a persistent vegetative state (if anyone ever really doubted it). Michael Schiavo did the right thing. Or, at least, he did the right thing if you give a damn about what Terri Schiavo wanted. Anyone trying to villify Michael Schiavo for simply standing by his wife's desires is slandering him.

(In a perfect world) should those members of the government and the US Congress be censured in any way for their unprecedented actions in the Schiavo case?

Of course they should. They were acting against the decision of the courts - the only body legally endowed with determining the outcome of the case. They were acting against he will of their constituents who overwhelmingly wanted Terri Schiavo's wishes to be honored. And, of course, they were acting against Terri Schiavo herself. And they were doing so not because they gave a flying hoot about Terri Schiavo - or her parents - but in order to pander to a small minority as a political expedient. They should not only be censured, they should suffer eternal perdition. They are soulless, self-interested opportunists with no sense of morality whatsoever.

Does Michael Schiavo have grounds for legal redress against those who continue to libel and slander him?

I think you have to prove that the libel and/or slander has caused negative economic impact, not sure. So what does Michael do for a living these days? Is the continuing focus on him hurting the career? Don't know, not sure.

(In a perfect world) should those members of the government and the US Congress be censured in any way for their unprecedented actions in the Schiavo case?

Just voting the bums out of office would be sufficient.

I have to agree with Wertz' take on what Terri wanted. I don't think many people want to be kept as vegetables that drain the assets of the family, or assets of the tax coffers, for no good reason at all. In my cosmology, the soul had left years ago, abandoned the useless hulk of the body by an act of will.

I base that on the observance that some people will their own deaths. The will is pretty strong stuff. Sometimes this happens just by letting go, such as when a spouse dies in later years, and the surviving spouse checks out shortly afterward.

Conversely, the will can keep people alive, even healthy during times when health needs to keep on going for survival.

Anyway, I also want to comment on thinking that a cremation was done to cover something up. This kind of thinking will drive you nuts, especially if suspicious about family members. The Shiavo case had plenty of investigation and had been through the courts numerous times. You'd think that over the 15 years, the suspicions would have been laid to rest. Or maybe that's just a sane take on things.

Lastly, it is funny as hell to watch the politicians spinning in the wind. You guys made it a big dot deal, and now that you've been proven wrong, spin spin spin. The compulsive liar comes to mind -- yep, that's the ticket: It was all about Michael.

I just think that we should be very cautious about what has been put forth
by the media. A person can be painted any-which-way.



If his decision to take his wife off of life support was based only on his desire
to not have to care for her anymore, he could have just let her family do it.



That is putting it mildly. She was literally a human vegatable, with no chance
for becoming anything more. Have you heard that adage, "If you love someone
set them free?" There is not a more befitting statement than that, in regards to
her situation. I applaud Michael Shiavo for doing the right thing, and doing while
his life, motives and judgment was being torn to shreds by people who didn't
even know his wife.



That is very harsh criticism. Because his wife is no longer there in spirit, only
the shell of what she once was, he must never look for or receive love from any
other human being? It had been YEARS. I find no fault with him for needing
the companionship of another. It is human nature.

Niteguy-- I never said his actions were illegal. Her wishes were not in writing. There was conflicting evidence on both sides as to what her wishes were. The autopsy proved she was in a vegetative state at the time she died. His decision to stop feeding her was a living nightmare for her parents -- and apparently Terri was oblivious to all of it. To the extent that no one knows for sure what her wishes were and since he had moved on with his life-- he should have given legal control to the parents and be done with it. No one is faulting him for moving on. But they find it wrong that he was viewed as her husband for legal purposes when he had a common law wife and child. It made no sense at all.






Mark my words -- there will be no case for slander. The elements are difficult to prove. The damages are difficult to prove. The costs of bringing suit are great. And finally, those who seek to bring slander or libel charges are faced with a dilemna: The negative comments are recycled-- and if the suit is lost, even more damage is done as the public then assumes that the allegations are TRUE. A slander suit will never happen.




Mark Furman provided equal opportunity for Schiavo to give his side of the story. Apparently, he refused. Why would that be? What is he hiding? I am glad that Furman has followed up on this. We will all get to know a whole lot more because of it. And like I said, FOLLOW THE MONEY, I am certain that Michael Schiavo will ultimately benefit financially from insuring that his wife died when she did.

Maybe he just doesn't want to deal with one of the most famous racists in the United States?

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/f...son/Fuhrman.htm



If I was put in the same shoes as Schiavo, and I truly loved my wife, I would have fought for her right to die as well, especially if she had told me personally that she wanted to die. There's only one hero here, and that's Micheal Schiavo, who essentially took on half of America to fight for ending his wife's pain, and won.

I agree with Wertz, these public, national comments assissinate this man's character with no factual grounding behind them. Put yourself in his shoes... You fought for something you believed in, all evidence points to your decision being the correct one, yet an army of people continue to slander your name in public, would you seek legal redress? I know how I would answer.

There has yet to be any evidence, that Schiavo recieved any financial gain from her death. Instead of wildly throwing accusations and assumptions, perhaps some proof? Or we could just wait for Fuhrman's fictionalized and one-sided account?

Does Michael Schiavo have grounds for legal redress against those who continue to libel and slander him?
Libel and slander laws are very weak in the US, and freedom of speech very strong. Folks like Limbaugh and Hannity lie and slander daily- but it is usually protected political speech, and very hard to prove otherwise. I am not complaining about the law- the character of those two are horrible, but the more blanketed the freedom of speech is over all speech, the more everyone is protected. I quote Larry Flynnt, truly one of the greatest freedom fighters of our time "If free speech protects a scumbag like me, then it protects everyone.

If Micheal can get some financial backing, he might pull it off, but then, he will never have the normal life he seems to so desperately want.

Let us not forget, that before the malpractise suit- he cared for her, and went to nursing school to learn better care for her.

The comments by Terry's father would make me fight as hard for my wife as he did for his Mr Shindler basically said "If I had to amputate her arms and legs and keep her, I would"- how horrible is that?

To me, the only real villian here is Robert Schindler.

(In a perfect world) should those members of the government and the US Congress be censured in any way for their unprecedented actions in the Schiavo case?

In a perfect world, Jeb Bush would be in jail for his behavior, same with congress, clearly usurping the power of the judiciary, a coup attempt really. The folks that villified Michael are pure scum, and should reap some justice here upon themselves, but, like ST\talin living to a ripe old age, these poeple will probably never get thier just desserts.

Good grief, that's your standard for guilt? Furman is writing a tabloid piece on this sad state of history, I don't blame Michael one bit for ignoring this glory hound/ambulance chaser. If you DO follow the money, its to Furman, Hayleyanne, not Michael Schiavo. As has already been stated here, he had very little to gain financially from Terri's death by the time the matter came to close.

My father dropped dead of a heart attack in an English town, at 64yrs old. The Ambulance crew arrived and got his heart beating. When I saw him that evening, he was lying motionless in the Intensive Care Unit breathing by means of a machine. After a week or two they managed to remove the breathing machine and my family and I thought that he was making progress. At his best moments he was able to move his head and raise his arms. These actions were so strikingly identical to the Terri Schiavo filmings that, when I watched Terri, I felt sick. So, I tried not to watch her. I would turn my head and leave the room.

Soon after, a diversity of opinion lanced the family. My siblings, in varying degrees, saw that my dad had recognized them and some even 'knew' what he was trying to communicate and knew his meaning. Me, I saw the carcas of a man that sometimes moved his head and sometimes seemed to smile, but neither of those actions corresponded with anything happening in the room. It appeared to me that he looked like a man getting excited over something that was 10 inches from his face that nobody else saw. My mom just sat through it all and said nothing. She still says nothing about that time.

One day I arrived at the hospital to be told that my dad had been moved to a regular ward. The hospital only had two ITUs and there'd been a car accident. Immediately, I knew what was happening. He was a useless case and would eventually stop breathing, in a regular ward with regular care. He did, around eight weeks later. Without the ITU care he just lay motionless and dwindled away to death.

It is true what my siblings say; that had they kept him on the ITU he would have lived longer. However, It is silly to believe that he would have eventually walked out of the hospital. IMO, the hospital staff made a decision that was correct. IMO, they went above and beyond their duty to try and keep my dad alive. But, my siblings don't see it this way. One sibling thinks that the hospital staff conspired to kill him, while the rest think that they were callously negligent. Occasionally, at family parties (when I revisit the UK) and the drink is flowing, the subject comes up and I leave the room. So fixed are they in their opinions, that I cannot reason or argue with them. So, I hang out in the kitchen where my mom will soon join me, still not revealing her thoughts.

If my dad had been a political event, I wonder what would have become of me and my family. Had my dad been made an issue, would I have been the bad-guy on Hannity-and-Combes? Would my siblings that I love have turned against me? Would I be getting death-threats? How dare politicians warp a family so?

From experience, I know why family want a person kept alive. Hope.
From experience, I know why family would not want to see a dead loved-one re-animated by machines.

My personal opinion on Terri is biased because she looks exactly like my dad in those clips I saw before I managed to turn my head away. Were my siblings stupidly optimistic to believe that my dad could rejoin society? Or, was I stupidly pessimistic to think that he was gone already? Science and autopsies mean nothing in this case.

If you believe that her brother murdered her, then you are probably a Conservative. Shame on you. If you believe that she had no right to live because that's what your Liberal radio/newspaper said. Shame on you. A person is dead, and none of us are emotionely hurt because we didn't know her. So. stop pretending. Only those who loved her know. And they argue now, largely because of politicians and media who split a family. How sad that she became a double-sided flag. The politicians and talk-show hosts won't let her rest because you won't. Let her go and they will have to.

They had a decade and a half to come to terms with the severity of their
daughter's condition. Besides, it wasn't about what will make the parents
happy, it was about what were the wishes of Terri Shiavo.

It is not our place to determine what Michael Shiavo's ulterior motives were.
He was the husband, by law, and as such he was the decision maker, period.



That is an ironic statement, considering the circumstances. A slab of flesh was
kept "alive" for fifteen years, but maybe that makes perfect sense to you?

Not true, haleyanne. There was no conflict, at least inside the courtroom, where other friends, relatives, and even Terri's mother testified that they heard Terri say she would not want to be kept alive in a condition such as she was in. Outside the courtroom, years later of course, the Schindlers say something entirely different.

What makes no sense? He was legally her husband in every way that mattered. There had been no annulment, no divorce, and he was still taking care of her. By the way, I've already debunked the "common law" marriage bit in another thread. Florida has no such thing. Please stop repeating it as if it were true.

You have a source that shows Michael was given an opportunity to tell his side of the story, I presume? Even if he was, and refused, so what? Who says he's hiding anything? Maybe he just didn't want to cooperate with someone looking to make money off of his and Terri's tragedy. And I don't see that he had to hide anything. His story has been out there, and quite transparent to anyone willing to look. The police and medical reports that found no abuse, or violence toward Terri. The legal fights started by his in-laws, wherein he won against each and every allegation brought against him. The autopsy, which vindicated his medical experts over the quacks and charlatans presented by the Schindlers.

Yes, some people just can't bring themselves to say that they were wrong, and let it go. Gov. Bush continues to make allegations and call for investigations, hoping to find something, anything they can use to villify Michael. Others, continue to claim that this was all some money making scheme, with nothing to back it up with.

But, once again, contrary to emotional opinions, the facts keep getting in the way. And, here they come--

Well, guess what? Removing Michael as guardian and making them guardians would have given them control of Terri's trust fund. They believed they were entitled to a portion of the money, because she was their daughter, and they were looking for a way to get it, when Michael refused to split it with them.

It was the Schindlers who always sought the "spotlight", sought to publicise this affair, and to solicit support, financial and otherwise from the public.

It was the Schindlers, and not Michael Schiavo, who continually wrote and emailed organizations to solicit money. And this money, unlike Terri's trust fund is unaccounted for, by any independent accounting or legal firm. There is no telling how much they received. It was the Schindlers who arranged to rent their donations list to right-to-life organizations, as well as other conservative groups, in exchange for an undisclosed sum of money.

Now we have people capitalizing on her life, and her death, with an agenda favoring her parents. Mark Fuhrman's soon to be released book; and "Remembering Terri Schiavo: Reflections of a Health Care Warrior" by Audrey Ignatoff. Ignatoff has been an ardent supporter of Terri Schiavo, and has written numerous articles about her case, including, “Saving Terri Schiavo” published in The Human Life Review, Winter, 2004. Hmm, I wonder how much these folks have offered to the Schindlers for all of the "exclusive access" they've gotten?

Word also has it that CBS is planning a movie about Terri Schiavo. No word has been given as to whether or not the Schindlers or Michael Schiavo have been paid any amount for their story, but which side do you think would be more dramatic? Michael's, which deals mostly with the legal side of things, or the Schindlers, with all of their wailing, and gnashing of teeth, in front of any camera that would stay still long enough?

And I shouldn't have to remind you that Michael turned down at least two offers, one for a million dollars, and one for an amount reported to be between $6 and $10 million, to just walk away, and let Terri's parents take care of her. If all he wanted was money, it looks like he's going about it the wrong way. On the other hand, I think I've just made a rather strong argument for the naked greed of the Schindlers.

Michael may indeed make money somewhere down the line, in a book deal or something, but so what? By then it have by far been outstripped in amount by all of the money brought in by his former in-laws.

Nighttimer-- Furman has been trying to rebuild his reputation. He has done good investigative work in recent years. I give him credit. Or are we supposed to hold his past actions against him for the rest of his life?





Doomed Planet-- terri was not just a slab of flesh to her parents. We are dealing with their feelings as well here. It was an awful situation. As it is now-- Michael has moved on with his life. Terri did not know nor could she feel anything. And the parents are irreparably damaged. If Michael had given them custody, he could have gone on with his life. Terri would still not know or feel anything. And the parents would at least have the comfort of taking care of their daughter.

The difference between the two scenarios is that in the first one-- the parents are hurt more than anything in the world. In the second-- no one is hurt. You may argue that Terri is hurt-- but think about it. She didn't know what was going on. Plus, we will never know for sure what her wishes were because she did not put them in writing and there was conflicting evidence. The presumption has to be in favor of life where the evidence is conflicting.

We can't impose our wishes/values on others. So we have to figure out whose wishes are the clearest in the situation. I would not want to live like that. I would likely not want to keep my daughter alive in that circumstance (don't know for sure). But clearly Terri's parents wanted this. Balance it: Terri's wishes, which were not clear vs. the parents' wishes which were crystal clear. If I were in Michael's situation and had moved on with my life I would have given custody to the parents. Even if Terri had told me informally (as she supposedly did after seeing an elderly relative in the hospital) that she would not "want to be kept alive like that". Add to that the fact that her parents said she had told them she wanted to live. I would have taken a very pragmatic approach. Parents hurt deeply if she dies; Terri's wishes ambiguous; Terri likely doesn't know or feel anything in that state. I would go with the decision that would cause the least amount of pain to those left behind. I would give over custody to the parents and get on with my life. I will never understand why he did not do this.




What are you talking about? There was evidence going both ways as to Terri's wishes. The judge weighed the evidence and decided the evidence for death was stronger.




Again, what are you talking about? There is nothing to "debunk" about common law wife status. I was using the term as a matter of common parlance. Of course Michael had a "common law wife" as everyone understands that term, whether the state of florida recognizes the status or not. That is not the point at all. The point is that he and the mother of his child were living as husband a wife and raising a family. What relevance is it that Florida technically does not recognize such a status? No one was suggesting that the florida judge ignored the law in florida in terms of who should be the guardian of Terri. If anything, I am suggesting that the judge's decision in the case was elevating form over substance.

1. Libel and slander are tough to prove, but from what I understand Michael Schiavo may be seeking a book deal. Well, why not? If the "runaway bride" and 91-year-old Mark Felt can get book deals worth thousands, why not Michael? Everybody else is getting paid. What a great country. Tragedy, stupidity and scandal all make fodder for book sales, TV movies and a seat next to Jay Leno on "The Tonight Show."

2. In a perfect world all those Senators and Representatives who interjected themselves into a private tragedy would not be censured. They would all be defeated at the polls the next time they went before the voters.

This is not a perfect world.



I'm sure you meant NiteGuy instead of Nighttimer, my dear Hayleanne and good investigative work aside, I do hold Mark Fuhrman's self-proclaimed racism against him for the rest of his life. I also hold O.J. Simpson responsible for the murder of two people for the rest of his life as well.

Just a couple points of fact here. The autopsy did not confirm Terri was in a persistant vegetative state. It also cast doubt on the prevailing opinion that her collapse was due to a low potassium level brought on by an eating disorder.

For the record, even Jeb Bush has given up on the notion of "foul play" in relation to Terri Schiavo's brain damage:
Hopefully, this sad chanpter of American history can now, finally, be closed.