Recently Updated Weblogs

Powered by TypePad

« Brooks on the Republican Congress | Main | And by the way... »



There is something missing in this story. Who is paying for all of this? I, nor any member of my family could afford to pay for attorneys on either side of the fence. They don't appear to be wealthy families.

There seems to be a hiden agenda that is not being focused on. Why is the guardenship so important to both sides? Was there a trust fund set up for Terri? Who is responsible for the money awarded from the law suite? Is this the real issue? Why won't Michael release his authority to her parents? He has his life, a woman, and children. Now of which has anything to do with Terri. Or does Michael and his new family live off of Terri's trust fund. The sooner she passes the more money is left for the living? Why is this issue not being addressed? This has gone public know, let all the facts be present.

This is not a political party issue here. My 2 cents: Greed has forced this trump card. Let both sides walk away and get on with their lives. Terri's life as she knew it is gone. Even if she recovered, her husband has a new family. He needs to walk away or is the balance of her awards too plentiful to let the torch go?


This is my favorite argument: "Why won't he just GIVE UP ALREADY and sign her over to her parents... I mean, he's already got another family now..." Yeah... God forbid the man move on with his life after 15 years.

Suddenly, a man still caring for someone after all these years becomes much less attractive when his version of caring doesn't match up with your's...

And "This is not a political party issue here..." Not for nothing, but THAT is a bit naive. The Republican's have been caught red-handed with memos saying that this is their purpose: Make this a political issue.

Thanks for your response though... it was much more articulate than your last.


I got into a argument about this last night with GS. He expressed disappointment with the public's unwillingness to see how this caring husband simply wanted to give his dying wife freedom. He then scoffed when I brought up the nurse's testimony about Michael Schiavo. Somehow, my information was less worthy than the opinion he had formed from reading information from the same types of sources. Very frustrating.

I'm all for having the plug pulled if I am ever in such a state, but I think the husband is being made out to be way too much of a saint in this story. Reading things like this:

made me think twice about the case.

I'm not saying everything in the affadavit is true, but I'm a believer in the "where there's smoke, there's fire" theory. I think the same way about Michael Jackson.

I just don't think either of side these stories has been portrayed truthfully. The Schiavo story is quickly becoming a republican v. democrat argument, and that makes me sad. Aren't there enough things for people to argue about and protest against?

I don't think the government should necessarily be involved, but certainly an arbitration is called for.


I, honestly, could care less if Michael Schiavo is a saint or not. These are family matters, and if the family wants to fight them out, then that is their issue, not mine.

My problem, however, is that Congress felt the need to intervene so aggregiously. It sets very bad precedents. But I do agree with you that, in cases like this, some form of arbitration needs to be provided. The thing is, it already was in the form of numerous court rulings. Courts are there to, in some instances, provide as an arbitrator. They've done their job, and Congress stepped in anyway.

Which is why this will be a political backfire for the Republicans. It is now going to go to the Supreme Court, somewhere it probably wouldn't have ended up in the first place, and unless there is a stunning new legal precedent set by the Supremes, they will find for Michael Schiavo's side, and the Republicans will have lost not only the battle but the war.

I hate that it is a political issue now, but it is only so because that is the way the Republicans wanted it, and it is going to be a real problem for them.



This was a very well-thought-out piece. I agree 100% that it enables very bad precedents to be setup in future cases like this. It seems that, probably due to the whole Armageddon issue you mentioned, none of the religious right really tends to think ahead to issues you pointed out, namely the part about the hundreds of thousands of bodies alive in name only.

Terry's case is very unfortunate, and something I would not wish on anyone. However, I would be interested to see how the backpedalling would commence if any of the 'wingers had a family member in a similar situation. It is abominable to me how our leaders take other people's issues and make them their own. And of course when the same issue turns its attention to their families, they will look the other way and nobody will ever know about it. It's all just more of the same do-as-I-say-not-as-I-do, hypocritical bullshit that everyone should be so used to by now. Still, it never ceases to sting.

Lastly, I wanted to say bravo on your statement regarding Christians and the afterlife. I can't even count the times that I have heard these people saying that they only wish that they could be done with this life and in Heaven. Of course, when it comes time to pony up, they'd rather not. Well, which is it? I had this same thought after my last posting about Terry Schiavo and wished I had included it. Great post!


Regardless of your political, religious, or moral views on the Terry Schiavo case, I can't help but look at her through therapist's eyes. I'm looking at this poor woman who is so contracted from over a decade of disuse that I want to make the argument for humaneness.

Dear Florida Politicals and Terry's family: if she ever "recovers" (highly impossible), she will be in excruitating amounts of pain for the rest of her life. Please, for the love of God (that you claim to be representing), let this woman go before she suffers more.


One thing that I am surprised this case hasn't pushed to the front of a lot of our minds is the importance of having a living will.

I received a call from my ex-husband asking me if it was OK with me if he listed me as the person responsible for making all final decisions concerning his estate and conditions under which life would be acceptable to him in the event that he couldn't speak for himself. After 15 years together, I know better than anyone what he would want...and just in case I don't, he is writing it all down for me.

Of course it's still sad and ridiculus that this poor woman has been put through this. And the laws are such that it NEVER should have gone this far. But.... a living will would have made things much more simple.

Andrew Watkins

I really wanted to talk about this, but the story was pretty well beaten by the time I left Mexico, and had internet/news access again.

I like that you didn't delve into particulars, because focusing on the specific details is what turns this into a human drama, a spectacle ripe for the exploiting.

The main concerns, as I see it, are twofold, and neither have anything to do with a sad, bitterly divisive, and what should be a private family affair.

What has happened is a concerned party, the parents, has decided running the full course of appeals through the judicial system is not a fair trial. Whatever else you want to say, whatever details you want to drudge up, the fact is that judge after judge after judge consistently denied giving any credence to the parents' arguments.

The second problem is the Republican party, as you point out well, Dylan, has seized this issue for its own gain in their moral values war. The most important part of the major polling data, to me, is not how America feels about this particular case, or even this issue -- it is that overwhelmingly, Americans realize this is a crusade embarked upon for purely political gain. If you haven't seen what Sullivan wrote about this, it's a damn good observation, this entire affair as an affront to conservative principles of government, and that the ideas of today's parties are being turned upside down.


Good comments Andrew!

I don't see though, where this was ever a personal agenda for the republic party. I don't believe they plotted to find a helpless soul and use this to gain some sort of control for their agenda. How ludicrous!

The parents have been pushing and pushing this issue as far as they can. Who is funding this? Court after court is not cheap. The average joe NEVER would have this apportunity to an appeal after appeal. It has become a political issue primarily due to unrelentless pursuit of the parents.

Who pays for Terri's care? This is not cheap! 15 years now! My husband is dying from a severe heart condition, CFH. He went into CFH at age 45. We don't have insurance. He well never be placed on a heart transpant list because of it. No mercy here. When he dies, which he has been told he is in his last year, (He'll defy it though),he well leave behind a wife, three minor children yet to be rasied, and 6 adult children. The only guarantee in life, is death. Even taxes can be avoided. But no one escapes death. Not even Terri!

As far as this being a Christian issue. I don't believe the people who are rallying to Terri's defense are true Christian's. They are blind, kenites (different subject, but they know who they are). Those who truly know Jesus God would glorify in her going home. He was the example. He carried his own cross to the death. No appeals or mercy pleas. Defeating death, only to receive His glorified body. Yes!

The flesh of this earth is deseased, decays, and rots. Why would any Christian loving partent want to see their child suffer as Terri has all these years? This is not the meaning of Christianity, thoughs who follow and believe in Christ. Christ exampled the meaning of defeating fleshly death. Yes, after earthly life our spirit body, (our inner soul, who we realy are), that once possessed our flesh body, leaves. Let Terri go and receive her glorified body!

Somebody has a lot to gain from the Terri crusade. And it is much higher than the Republician Party. I see the politicians,(both Democratic and Republicians), responding to the cry of the public, (not true Christian's), as being very similar to the actions of Pontus Pilot.

The blame for all this totally rest in the parents lap. And they DO NOT represent the Christian faith. Neither do the silly blinded advocates that were arrested yesterday. They disgrace the name of Christ. Christ never encuraged rebellion. He himself accepted the judgement of the court, even though he was innocent of the charges to the death!


What is the agenda of this web site?

Ms. Q

I am sorry I missed out on this discussion! I totally agree with you, Dylan. Another point I find interesting is that the Republican party, which has made such a big deal about upholding the sanctity of marriage, has now insinuated itself into this family dispute where the rights of the husband have been challenged by Terri Schiavo's parents.


"It brings to mind the often asked question of just why Christians, who are so sure about the afterlife, are always the ones who are most afraid to go to it."

This phrase you wrote reminds me of this book I read by Phillip Yancy. In it he describes working in a nursing home. One of the things he noticed was that there was a lot of things different between the white patients and the african-american patients. the white patients lived in constant fear of dying, but the african-american patients were able to find a peace to death, and welcomed the afterlife. the author suggested that often it is those people who have suffered far greater in life who have an ability to have hope, unlike those people who more or less lead a fulfilled, happy life. In many cases the african-americans had come from poor or broken homes, lived through the struggle for civil rights, yet had a faith in God far more real than the white patients.

I think that as far as death and dying are concerned, the beatitudes had it right. Blessed are the poor, the meak, etc. because they are the ones who probably welcome the afterlife in a way that the rich or strong can't.

I realize this has nothing to do about the Schiavo's situation, and actually I have not been following the news headlines at all.

It's just so rare that I write about religion, so I thought I'd give it a try.


You did well here, Jules.

I guess what I don't understand is why the "Right to Life" groups have turned into the "Life at all costs" group. I just don't see how it is irrespective of scripture to allow this woman to die, and it is a pretty cheap punchline that I used. But I don't understand the point of view.

The comments to this entry are closed.


  • Subscribe with Bloglines

Hit Map

Search My Site (Google and Technorati)

Google Adsense