Welcome to the
Marriage Builders® Discussion Forum

This is a community where people come in search of marriage related support, answers, or encouragement. Also, information about the Marriage Builders principles can be found in the books available for sale in the Marriage Builders® Bookstore.
If you would like to join our guidance forum, please read the Announcement Forum for instructions, rules, & guidelines.
The members of this community are peers and not professionals. Professional coaching is available by clicking on the link titled Coaching Center at the top of this page.
We trust that you will find the Marriage Builders® Discussion Forum to be a helpful resource for you. We look forward to your participation.
Once you have reviewed all the FAQ, tech support and announcement information, if you still have problems that are not addressed, please e-mail the administrators at mbrestored@gmail.com
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
#81811 03/22/05 11:38 AM
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 61
S
Sio Offline OP
Member
OP Offline
Member
S
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 61
I was barely aware of this case until about a week ago, and then heard the words "remove her feeding tube" on the news as I passed through the living room. I had heard of her before, but before I had assumed she was on full life support, heart/lung machine, and I had assumed she was brain dead, and thought, in passing, how sad it was, and though I sympathized with her parents I thought it was a little selfish to force her to stay alive.

Then I heard the words "remove her feeding tube". And the entire situation, as I've watched more and read more, has been ripping my heart out. I don't know if she would be better off dying. I am appalled at the idea of allowing an invalid to slowly die of dehydration and starvation. If I were in her situation I *think* I would have prefered to be let go at the very beginning, when her heart stopped. I am not her though, and because she has no living will it is impossible to truly know what she wanted, and even if she DID have a living will saying she would rather die or live, even then it may not be true for her in her current state.

While I find if horrible to an extreme, it's not the slow death that is bothering me the most about this case. It's the fact that every time I turn on the news, or read about it, or discuss it with anyone, it is always brought up that her husband is her next of kin, and he is the one who ultimately has to decide her fate. At the same time, it's brought up that he has moved on with his life, is with another woman, has children with her. It's taken as a matter of course.

I will ignore the creepiness about this man. I will ignore the rumors about him. The thing that is just an enormous slap in the face is that he has been having an affair for years, he has children as a result of that affair, he has in every way but legally moved on with his life. I can empathize to a degree, there is, as far as I know, no chance she will ever be the person she was again. I would not want nor would I expect my husband to not try to find happiness if something happened to me. If he DID move on though, I would certainly expect him to have enough respect for me and our marriage to divorce me and leave life and death decisions to my family.

I just don't understand how it can work like this. I understand what the law says, but we are living in a time when marriage is disposable. I hate it, and it goes against everything on this website, but unfortunately it's true. You can be the most wonderful person on earth, and your spouse can go file for divorce for any reason. Getting a no fault divorce is simple, it's less painful then going to the dentist, and yet we have laws in the books that state your spouse is your next of kin, and who will get to decide your fate over your family. It's just so unbalanced.

A little over a year ago my husband had his affair. If something would have happened to me he would have been the one to decide my fate. I don't have a living will, so during that time, while in the fog and all that he would have been the one to decide if I lived or died.

Poor Terri <img border="0" title="" alt="[Frown]" src="images/icons/frown.gif" /> Ugh the world just seems backwards.

#81812 03/22/05 12:07 PM
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 182
T
Member
Offline
Member
T
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 182
Hey Sio:

I've been paying attention to the Schiavo thing since it really started to hit the news, too. I see where you're coming from re Michael Schiavo.

I guess I have a slightly different take on his situation, though. If I were in his position, I'm not sure whether I'd ever "take up" with someone else. I'm half-convinced that if anything ever happened to my wife, I'd pretty much be finished with romantic relationships, period. But I guess I can understand why a man whose wife died (for all purposes other than the purely animal) at a young age, and who wanted to have children, might, after a decade or so, decide to pursue a relationship with someone, even though his wife's body still technically lived. Humans crave companionship, men particularly so. It might not be reasonable to expect him to have foregone sexual companionship for fifteen years.

But does that mean that he should also abandon his duty to carry out her wishes? There's been a lot of grumbling about this guy, as though he's some kind of monster who just wants the pleasure of "killing" his wife. But the only reason I can see for his so single-mindedly pursuing this course of action, despite all the criticism and people calling him a murderer and what-not, is that he honestly and sincerely believes that she would not have wanted to live in this condition. If he just wanted to "get on" with his life and abandon her, wouldn't he just agree to let her parents take over, divorce him, and let them do whatever they wanted with her body?

I guess when I look at Michael Schiavo, I see a flawed, imperfect guy, but I also see someone who is resolutely trying to do for his wife what he promised to do when he married her -- take care of her in sickness and in health, and carry out her wishes regarding her care. Simply giving her over to her parents, who, it is clear, will never allow her to rest, regardless of what condition she's in, would seem to me to be a betrayal of Terri, and one that would be far more profound than the sexual betrayal of shacking up with someone else.

The whole situation is just horrible.

#81813 03/22/05 03:10 PM
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 61
S
Sio Offline OP
Member
OP Offline
Member
S
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 61
It's not that I condemn him for moving on and starting a family with someone else, I really don't. I called it an affair because I keep seeing it glossed over in the news, and in the technical sense, it is an affair. My issue with this case isn't so much with him as a person, I don't know him, the rumors and speculation surrounding him may be entirely false or simply misunderstood. My issue is the entire system.

He did not want her to go into physical therapy even though she was making some progress, and refused to allow her to be treated for infections. One of her nurses claims that she used to be able to eat normally, but he demanded that she have a feeding tube inserted. I believe it was the same nurse that said that early on, when she was sick from one of those infections he was blurting out "is she dead yet? is the <expletive> dead yet?!" in the waiting room. When she was admitted initially she had injuries and bruising.

These are all things I've heard or read the last few days. They may be untrue, they may be misunderstandings. Maybe he didn't want her to have medical care because he felt it was hopeless and it would be going against her wishes, maybe that nurse is just looking for attention or a book deal or something, I really don't know.

The issue I have with the system is this: If there is this much doubt about a person's character, if that person has moved on with his life and started a new family, is he necessarily the best person to decide the fate of his spouse in a life/death situation?

I'm sorry for bringing up those rumors, I didn't want to bring them up in my first post because I really don't want to attack him as a person. He may be in it for the money from the lawsuit, he may be doing it because he's a monster, he may be doing it out of obligation or maybe he's doing it because he loves her and it is like a spike in his heart seeing her in the condition she is in.

I just think the system is out of wack...on one side of the spectrum we have Las Vegas weddings and do it yourself divorces, on the other side our very lives are in the hands of our spouses.

I'm sorry I'm not capable of being terribly objective about all this <img border="0" title="" alt="[Smile]" src="images/icons/smile.gif" /> . In a strange way it just hits close to home. When my husband was acting like a fool last year I would NOT have wanted my life to be in his hands.

I just hope that maybe some changes come about. Hopefully people will run out and write up their living wills, better yet I'd like to see it added to the organ donor program so when people get drivers licenses/ID cards they will have to put thier wishes on an official document, so this sort of thing never happens again.

#81814 03/22/05 04:36 PM
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 182
T
Member
Offline
Member
T
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 182
Hey Sio:

I've heard those rumors about the husband, as well. And they're troubling, as any unproven allegation would be. Of course, these allegations come up in the "heat of the battle," so to speak, and probably anyone who's been through a divorce or custody proceeding knows that that some pretty outrageous things get tossed around. Further, I've read in the court documents that he provided her therapy early on, at one point flying her to California for an experimental treatment he thought might help, and that he continues to visit her regularly.

Overall, I'm just left with the feeling that if his overriding concern wasn't doing the right thing by his wife, he'd have given up this fight long ago and let her parents have their way with her. That would have been the easy route to take, and he could take it at literally any point. I just can't see any other reason (short of him being some kind of complete psycopath) to insist on the course of action he's taken, and to fight it the way he has.

That said, I'm probably not that objective about this either, to tell you the truth. My folks just went through something similar to this with my grandfather, who had advanced, end-stage Parkinson's, couldn't swallow, but was still conscious, and could recognize people and speak, after a fashion. They decided against putting in a feeding tube for him, put him in hospice care, and he died within a day or two. So I probably have more sympathy for someone struggling to make a very hard choice like this than I do for the ones who are ready to try any therapy, cling to any hope, etc.

I also totally understand why this hits close to home for you. The law kind of assumes that certain relationships (husband-wife, etc.) imply certain things (trust, caring, concern, etc.), when everyone on this board knows that reality is a lot more complicated, and sometimes darker, than that.

<small>[ March 22, 2005, 03:45 PM: Message edited by: Taxman ]</small>

#81815 03/22/05 10:24 PM
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 16,412
S
Member
Offline
Member
S
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 16,412
I think it's interesting to note how she ended up in this state? Terri was anorexic and then bulimic for years. Her weight and her looks were the most important thing to her. After going out to dinner one night, she purged afterwards, and had a heartattack. Now tell me, for someone who's looks were this important....how much do you think she'd want her picture in this vegetative state to be plastered all over the news? It's rather ironic that this young woman who was trying to starve herself....is now in the middle of a controversy over whether to feed her or not. Her husband is now being painted as a monster...but who knows if these rumors or true? One of the things I've also heard though is that he won't divorce her and marry this new woman because then Terri's parents can keep her alive (according to him against her wishes).

#81816 03/23/05 12:07 AM
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 43
E
Member
Offline
Member
E
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 43
Just had to weigh in on this one. I live in Florida, so I've been hearing about this damn case for years. My opinion? This thing has gotten totally out of hand. It no longer has *anything* to do with Terry Schiavo. It has to do with politics.

For the congress, and then the President, to intervene in the manner in the way they did on this, was a completely inappropriate violation of the constitutional separation of powers. This woman is being used as a pivot point to plant a stake for future right-to-life legistlation, and to further a political agenda. "Despicable" is a word that doesn't quite cover it.

I also cannot believe the hypocrisy of an administration that berates judges for "legislating from the bench", when they approve gay marriages, or do something else they don't approve of. But when it's THEIR agenda at stake, why, they think nothing of a) passing a LAW to allow federal judges to intervene, b) SIGNING that bill into law at 1:00 a.m., and c) then immediately asking a federal judge to intervene. Regardless of your political views on euthanasia, or gay marriage, does anyone see the irony here?

Of course, this is all from the same congress and administration that has now made it impossible for individuals to seek bankrupcty protection, while themselves incurring a 450 BILLION dollar deficit, and sacking future generations with the bill to pay it.

To me, at this point, this case, and this administration, have gotten completely out of hand. It's all just one big power grab, and this case is just one more example of that. Meanwhile, the Democrats helplessly flail about on the sidelines, debating amongst themselves whether they are too liberal, or not liberal enough, and continuing to pretend that the middle doesn't exist. To me, one party consolidating this much power is scary, and this case is just one more example of the curtailment of civil liberties that are resulting from that.

BTW, I'm a registered Republican (though certainly ashamed of that at the moment).

#81817 03/23/05 12:25 PM
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 8,079
T
Member
Offline
Member
T
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 8,079
Living in Florida, and having heard about this case from the beginning as well the troubling aspects to me are the fact they were awarded a financial settlement for her to get treatment and therapy, her husband has refused to allow those treatments.

Now, if he's court allowed to remove the feeding tube he gets to keep any monies left from the settlement that have not gone to medical expenses that she COULD have and still Could recieve per some doctors.

However, if her parents get the right to keep her alive the less monies he will receive, upon her death. The parents have already stated if they have to go into their own savings and retirement incomes to pay the medical expenses they would do that.

So is it political? Or is it about the money involved?

Here are some of the theories of what happened--

Her husband, Michael Schiavo, who witnessed her collapse, says that Terri, then 26, had a heart attack caused by a low potassium level—possibly due to an eating disorder. This is the theory Michael, a nurse and respiratory therapist, successfully presented in a malpractice suit against Terri’s doctors. The jury award was over $1 million: $300,000 for Michael’s loss of companionship and $750,000 for Terri’s ongoing care and rehabilitation.

Another theory as to what happened is based on a recently discovered 1991 total-body scan, taken after her collapse and resultant brain damage. That scan reveals a history of severe physical abuse. "Somebody worked her over real good," concluded a doctor after reviewing the scan. During a court hearing, another doctor testified that, when she was brought into the emergency room, she had a "suspiciously rigid neck" and that the only other time he had seen this in a cardiac patient was in the case of an attempted strangulation. Despite the doctors’ findings, Pinellas County Circuit Court Judge George Greer—who has consistently ruled in Michael’s favor—refused to allow discovery of this body-scan evidence during the November 2002 hearing. Greer ultimately ruled that Terri is in a permanent vegetative state (PVS) and, therefore, there is no hope of recovery. The judge also granted Michael’s petition and ordered the removal of Terri’s feeding tube. He later stayed that order pending an appeal filed by Terri’s parents, Robert and Mary Schindler, who had obtained numerous opinions from neurologists and therapists that Terri is not PVS. (See Terri's Fight website for more information.)

Yet, when Michael testified at the malpractice proceedings in hopes of getting a sizable financial settlement, he gave no indication whatsoever that he would ever want to cause Terri’s death. Instead, he told the jurors, "I believe in the vows that I took with my wife, through sickness, in health, for richer or poorer. I married my wife because I love her and I want to spend the rest of my life with her. I’m going to do that." [St. Petersburg Times, 11/8/03]

As soon as he received the financial settlement, however, he placed a "Do Not Resuscitate" (DNR) order on her and would not permit any therapy or antibiotics for infections. He has denied Terri all therapy since the fall of 1991.

Michael claims that Terri once said she wouldn’t want to live in her current state (a claim her parents reject and Judge Greer accepts). The fact is that Michael never once mentioned Terri’s "wish" until after he had received the malpractice settlement.

And as far as his marital vows are concerned, Michael abandoned those almost 8 years ago when he began living with a woman with whom he now has one child and another on the way.

Michael’s credibility suffered another blow when three of Terri’s former caregivers revealed a husband who often acted against his wife’s best interest. According to one sworn affidavit by nurse Carla Sauer Iyer, Michael has said things like: "Has she died yet?" "When is that ***** gonna die?" and "Can’t anything be done to accelerate her death—won’t she ever die?" [Affidavit, 8/29/03]

So whats the truth?? It sounds more like the H here is only after the money--and not what Terri really wanted.

Another troubling aspect of this is that they will not even allow doctors to do a "swallow test" to see if she can actually eat on her own.

There has been some confusion as to whether Wolfson replaces Terri's quasi-estranged husband Michael Schiavo as guardian of Terri's person. (I use the term "quasi-estranged" because Schiavo effectively shattered the sanctity their marriage years ago by entering a committed relationship with another woman and starting a family with her.) He does not. Wolfson's sole responsibilities are to determine whether Terri should be allowed a swallow test, whether she should be provided rehabilitation, and to write a report with his recommendations about these matters--all within 30 days. In the meantime, Schiavo remains fully in control over Terri' life and care (or the lack thereof)--with the exception that he cannot, for now, remove her tube-supplied food and water.

A little known but interesting facet of this case is that Wolfson is not the first guardian ad litem appointed to represent Terri's interests. When Schiavo first petitioned the court for permission to dehydrate his wife in 1998, he properly admitted that he had two significant conflicts of interest: He was likely to want to remarry and if Terri died, he would inherit the more than $700,000 then on deposit in her trust account. (For those who have not followed this case, Terri received the money in a medical malpractice lawsuit.)

Because of these conflicts of interest, the Probate Court appointed Richard L. Pearse Jr. of Clearwater, Florida, as Terri's guardian ad litem and instructed him to investigate the matter and report back with a recommendation. Pearse filed his report with the court on December 28, 1998 urging that the court deny the petition to remove Terri's food and water.

Considering that Pearse's report was written long before the Schiavo case became an international cause celebre, it makes interesting reading. The guardian ad litem supported Schiavo's position on some points and the Schindlers on others. The following are its pertinent portions:

Just read the article--

http://www.internationaltaskforce.org/iua29.htm

<small>[ March 23, 2005, 11:30 AM: Message edited by: ThornedRose ]</small>

#81818 03/24/05 01:08 AM
Joined: Jan 2000
Posts: 14,283
K
Member
Offline
Member
K
Joined: Jan 2000
Posts: 14,283
Actually, after all those years of legal wrangling, I think most of the money is gone, and the husband has since turned down a million offered him to divorce her and let her parents take over her care. So, I find it plausible that he is, indeed, trying to follow her wishes.

I am very, very glad it is not my decision to make, but my best guess is that God is waiting for her with open arms, patiently waiting til we decide to stop intervening, and allow events to unfold naturally.

Kathi

#81819 03/24/05 01:28 AM
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 8,079
T
Member
Offline
Member
T
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 8,079
kam6318,

It's also possible that if he really did try to strangle her and she were to survive he would then face attempted murder charges and medical fraud charges by refusing her treatment.

And if these 'facts' are entirely true--

FACT: The following expenditures have been paid directly from Terri's Medical Trust fund, with the approval of Judge George Greer:

Summary of expenses paid from Terri’s 1.2 Million Dollar medical trust fund (jury awarded 1992)

NOTE: In 11/31/1993 Petition Schiavo alleges 6/8/1993 guardianship asset balance as $761,507.50

Atty Gwyneth Stanley $10,668.05
Atty Deborah Bushnell $65,607.00
Atty Steve Nilson $7,404.95
Atty Pacarek $1,500.00
Atty Richard Pearse $4,511.95
Atty George Felos $397,249.99

Other

1st Union/South Trust Bank $55,459.85

Michael Schiavo $10,929.95

Total $545,852.34


And he has refused to allow treatment for her--He should be required to pay all of that money back

#81820 03/24/05 01:46 AM
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 182
T
Member
Offline
Member
T
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 182
Yep, that's the worst, darkest allegation -- the husband beat the snot out of his wife, strangled her almost to death, and then either (a) kept her alive against her wishes so he could win a lawsuit and get money, or (b) is now trying to kill her against her wishes in order to cover up his crime and/or take the money that was meant for her. If that's true, that would make him, probably, one of the worst people on the planet.

But I just don't buy it.

He was offered a million bucks recently to walk away from his guardianship and let the parents take over. He refused. If he wanted more money, he had his golden opportunity.

It's not questioned that he was extremely vigorous in her care for the first several years, at one point flying her to California for an experimental treatment they thought would help. That doesn't sound like someone who doesn't care about her to me.

It's true, TR, that the court refused to allow ANOTHER swallowing test in 2000, when the Schindlers wanted one. But the reason it gave was that she had been given swallowing tests literally every year from 1990 through 1997, never came close to passing one, and nothing had changed since to warrant another.

The nurse who claims that the husband just couldn't wait for Terri to die also has said that Terri was talking to her in full sentences all the time. That's just completely at odds with what anyone else ever observed. Kinda throws whatever she says into question, doesn't it? Certainly, the Schindlers never called on that woman to testify, which would be odd if they believed her.

Finally, yeah, a lot of the money in Terri's trust funds has gone for lawyers. But isn't that because the Schindlers have constantly fought the husband's decisions as her guardian at every turn? Her care isn't really that expensive, just a feeding tube and someone to bathe her, and I believe that the husband stopped giving her aggressive therapy because doctors told him nothing was going to do any good.

But again, I'm probably pretty biased in favor of non-intervention. . .

#81821 03/23/05 02:18 PM
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 16,412
S
Member
Offline
Member
S
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 16,412
All these allegations, theories, rumors etc have surely come out in court....and yet judge after judge after judge has upheld Michael Shiavo's right to follow through with his wife's wishes. If I were a judge....and those allegations had been presented to me plausibly...I would take the decision for her care out of Micheal's hands. Why haven't any of these judges done that?

#81822 03/23/05 02:44 PM
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 182
T
Member
Offline
Member
T
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 182
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">If I were a judge....and those allegations had been presented to me plausibly... </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">"Plausibly" is the key, st*rfish. The allegations by the nurse simply weren't believable (Terri spoke to her but no one else?). The allegations about the bone scan were contradicted by the doctors who'd actually seen/ordered it, and by the fact that there was zero evidence from the emergency room docs or the cops that there was any foul play involved.

This, frankly, is the kind of stuff that often happens when things heat up in litigation, particularly personal family litigation like this. Lots of charges get hurled around as a means of asserting leverage and getting the other side to agree to what you want. The judge has to review the evidence, compare it to what he's seen of the parties, its relevance, reliability, etc.

Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 28
L
Member
Offline
Member
L
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 28
This does bring me out of "lurkdom." I have known about the Schiavo case for going on three years now. Michael didn't just wait for x number of years and then decide to "move on" with Jodi. He's had two other affairs (that we know of), one within a year of Terri's injury.

Then I now read that he will not allow Terri a Catholic funeral mass. If he's just acting to carry out her wishes, and she never left the Catholic church, why is he going to deny her a Catholic funeral? Even if she was at odds with her church over not being kept alive this way, she never left her church, so one can esily presume that she intended and wanted to have the Catholic funeral and burial rites.

Real "loving" guy there . . .
He's a spiteful mess, deep in fog, in my opinion.

Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 202
T
Member
Offline
Member
T
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 202
How do you know of his A's?


Me - 32
H - 44
Married - 6.5 years
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 28
L
Member
Offline
Member
L
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 28
Let's try this again. I posted a nice message and "hit post," only to find the MB logged me out.


On Monday I read an article at Newsweek, Slate or some such other place that talked about his affairs. I am trying to locate that article but information is changing so fast that they just take off the last and put another in it's place.

Monday I also googled and came up with the name "Cindy Shook" -- Terri's brother has spoken to her and asked her to come forward, she did and there is an affidavit attesting to her affair with Michael in late 1991. (according to google there is an article on Cindy Shook on terrisfight.org .. but it has either been moved or removed)

According to the article I read Monday there is an affair Michael had between Cindy and Jodi too.

While I know the nurses affidavit was dismissed, I don't believe Cindy Shook's ever was. Here's what I can give you thus far:

.telegraph.co.uk
lindenreport.com

.freerepublic.com
gulfcoastnews.com

Just found it on terrisfight
http://www.terrisfight.org/downloads/

Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 484
F
Member
Offline
Member
F
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 484
I agree esk.

All credible experts agree on Mrs. Schiavo's condition. And the Florida courts have upheld Florida law over and over and over again, that the spouse is the first in line in guardianship.

IOW, they UPHELD the law, rather than re-write what they may not have liked. Isn't this EXACTLY what conservatives say they want? It's sure what I want.

But the same people who rail aginst interventionist judges, have developed a massive blind spot in this case. At least that's what I'd LIKE to believe - they just don't see the irony.

What I'm afraid however, is that they see the hypocracy just fine, and yet are jumping on the bandwagon to placate who they feel is their hard-core. Or they're just afraid to go against the flow and take a consistent stand, in the face of the circus that this has become.

Let the poor woman die in peace. After 15 years, she deserves that much.

Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 28
L
Member
Offline
Member
L
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 28
Terri has passed away.

Top Stories - AP


Schiavo Dies After Feeding Tube Removed

5 minutes ago Top Stories - AP


By MIKE SCHNEIDER, Associated Press Writer

PINELLAS PARK, Fla. - Terri Schiavo, the severely brain-damaged woman whose final years tethered to a feeding tube sparked a bitter feud over her fate that divided a family and a nation, died Thursday, her husband's attorney said.

Schiavo, 41, died quietly in a Pinellas Park hospice 13 days after her feeding tube was removed despite extraordinary intervention by Florida lawmakers, Congress and President Bush — efforts that were rebuffed at every turn by the courts.


Her death was confirmed to The Associated Press by Michael Schiavo's attorney, George Felos, and announced to reporters outside her hospice by a family adviser.


A shy woman who avoided the spotlight, Schiavo spent her final months as the focus of a media frenzy and an epic legal battle between her husband and parents over whether she should live or die.


Protesters streamed into Pinellas Park to keep vigil outside her hospice, with many arrested as they tried to bring her food and water. The Vatican likened the removal of her feeding tube to capital punishment for an innocent woman.


Politicians repeatedly tried to intervene as her parents, Bob and Mary Schindler, pleaded for their daughter's life, calling the removal of the feeding tube "judicial homicide."


"Something has to be done and has to be done quick," Bob Schindler said, a week after the tube was removed March 18, as the family's legal options dwindled. "I think the people who are anxious to see her die are getting their wish."

Joined: Mar 1999
Posts: 2,121
N
Member
Offline
Member
N
Joined: Mar 1999
Posts: 2,121
<img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/frown.gif" alt="" />


Dday- Feb 1998
Recovered!!

Link Copied to Clipboard
Forum Search
Who's Online Now
0 members (), 1,116 guests, and 67 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Newest Members
Mike69, petercgeelan, Zorya, Reyna98, Nofoguy
71,829 Registered Users
Building Marriages That Last A Lifetime
Copyright © 1995-2019, Marriage Builders®. All Rights Reserved.
Site Navigation
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5