ADVERTISEMENT
Advertise Here

Huckleberries Online

PS: Terri Schiavo Anniversary

Mary Schindler, mother of Terri Schiavo, comforts husband Bob during a mass at Ave Maria University’s Oratory in Naples, Fla., today to recognize the fourth anniversary of Schiavo’s death. Schiavo died March 31, 2005, at age 41, 13 days after her feeding tube was removed by her husband Michael Schiavo, who fought her family in court for eight years over removal of her life support, arguing she would not have wanted to be kept alive in what most doctors called a persistent vegetative state. (AP Photo/Naples Daily News, Greg Kahn) SR’s Today In Photos

Question: Have you had second thoughts re: the decision to remove Terri Schiavo’s feeding tube four years ago?

38 comments on this post so far. Add yours!
  • sue on March 31 at 6:25 p.m.

    The only thoughts I have about that case was how disgusting the republicans were in their politicizing that family tragedy. Most people saw it for the exploitation that it was.

  • cantyoureadthesigns on March 31 at 7:38 p.m.

    The public was near 80% against what the idiotic and sick Republicans in Congress and the administration did by trying to exploit this tragic case.

  • Arch_Druid on March 31 at 7:58 p.m.

    The answer is no. May she rest in peace.

  • Cis on March 31 at 8:02 p.m.

    The media and the Republicans made it a circus and played on the tragic situation, so they could grandstand, sickening the rest of us.

  • Escapee on March 31 at 10:40 p.m.

    I don’t ever think this situation can be totally resolved. But, just in case Terry Schiavo was suffering, well, she isn’t suffering any more. And that’s about the only positive thing I can offer here.

  • Cabbage Boy on April 01 at 8:25 a.m.

    While the republicans grandstanded and really didn’t offer a solution, the death mongers loved every minute of it.

    It was appalling how quickly they wanted to kill an innocent woman. She didn’t want to die, her money loving “husband” was eager to dispose of her.

  • BlueinIdaho on April 01 at 9:25 a.m.

    Boy, judge and jury all rolled into one vegetable, huh? What the “death mongers” demanded is that people who had no relation to this family stay the heck out of it. But, that was too much to ask those who want to decide everyone else’s life for them and then cast the first stone.

  • Cabbage Boy on April 01 at 9:38 a.m.

    The FAMILY wanted to take care of her. Those that were related wanted her alive. The one who stood to gain financially wanted her dead. And he had already abandon her for another woman.

    Follow the money. That hospice care was eating into the insurance settlement Michael receive to “care for his wife.”

  • scootermom on April 01 at 10:34 a.m.

    I think these decisions should be left to the family. And by that I mean the spouse first. My husband knows a whole lot more about me than my parents do at this point. I trust his judgment absolutely, and I would respect his end of life wishes over the objections of his parents.

  • florined on April 01 at 10:52 a.m.

    Since I don’t know, personally, any of the people involved, I am in no position to judge their motives. What I can do is urge you, each of you, to talk about your own preferences with your family, and IN WRITING, make clear who your decision maker is. Laws are in place to protect your choices, and your decisions can be changed, by you. Don’t wait till you think you’re “old enough to die.” A simple form could have prevented all that bruhaha and let Terri’s own wishes be the determiner. You can choose to have every single machine applied to breath, feed, and circulate the blood on your behalf, or you can say, “Let me go, with love.” But for your family’s sake, make your wishes known in a defensible way.

  • Kage_Mann on April 01 at 11:12 a.m.

    This Terry Schiavo case completely disturbed me.It was appalling how her husband, who no longer had her bests interests at heart,was allowed to kill her off for financial gain.He
    was writing a book at the time and he wasn’t using the money gained in a settlement to help with her care.The laws need to be changed.

    How can people be so cruel as to starve and dehydrate someone to death? Can anyone guarantee that she didn’t suffer? Of course not.

  • toadman on April 01 at 11:22 a.m.

    “How can people be so cruel as to starve and dehydrate someone to death? Can anyone guarantee that she didn’t suffer? Of course not.”

    Two things:

    First, I’m never surprised at the level of cruelty mankind can inflict on it’s own. For all our greatness, humanity is still the most cruel of all the animals. Having said that, not being surprised at humanities inhumanity to man, doesn’t make it right. Time to evolve, IMO.

    Second, the only thing I or anyone at this point can guarantee, is that she is not suffering now.

  • Cabbage Boy on April 01 at 11:23 a.m.

    Well said Kage. Starving and dehydrating to death is hardly “peaceful” way to go. Don’t know that a law needs to be changed, but the judge that was handling the case should have been removed. His incompetence is what turned it into a national case.

  • Cabbage Boy on April 01 at 11:25 a.m.

    “Second, the only thing I or anyone at this point can guarantee, is that she is not suffering now.”

    So Toad, you’re guaranteeing sainthood? How noble of you. :)

  • toadman on April 01 at 11:44 a.m.

    heh.. dude.. no.. I’m not guaranteeing anything other than the fact that non-existence is a sure-fire way of getting rid of pain and suffering.

    Of course, if you believe God would send Terry Schiavo to Hell, I suppose you could say there’s no guarantee she’s NOT suffering. I just can’t. And frankly, if God sent her to hell, I want nothing to do with the bastard.

  • Sisyphus on April 01 at 11:50 a.m.

    “Well said Kage.”—never thought I’d see these words in print.

    My Living Will provides to withdraw food and hydration in just this circumstance. And of all the Living Wills I’ve provided to people for the last fifteen years I’ve yet to see one that didn’t make this choice for themselves. Its also the advice of most medical care professionals and even clergy members I’ve run across who cared to express themselves on the subject.

    This was a personal matter that led to litigation over the dispute between two sets of people who all believed they had her best interests at heart. But Congressional grandstanding made it a three ring circus initiated by misguided parents and limelight hungry politicians. Neither the media nor those politicians had legitimate jurisdiction on the matter. Thank you Rick Santorum and Rupert Murdoch. All I can say is one down, one to go.

  • sue on April 01 at 4:30 p.m.

    Families make the decision every day to remove artificial life support for loved ones. We are a nation of laws, and in this case, her husband had the right to make that decision. Exploitive politics usurped every other consideration and the parents were either willing or naive participants. More than anything, it was just plain wrong to use that poor girl the way she was used, for political posturing. Absolutely shameful, and it colors how I see the republican party today.

« Back to Huckleberries Online

You must be logged in to post comments.
Please create a profile or log in here.


About this blog

D.F. Oliveria is a columnist and blogger for The Spokesman-Review. Huckleberries Online was judged the best 2008 Idaho newspaper blog by the Idaho Press Club. And the best 2007 news blog in the Pacific Northwest by the Society for Professional Journalist. Print Huckleberries is a past winner of the Herb Caen Memorial Column contest by the National Association of Newspaper Columnists. The Readership Institute of Northwestern University cited this blog as a good example of online community journalism.

Find DFO on Facebook

DFO on Twitter

Betsy Russell on Twitter

HBO newsmakers Twitter list

Take this week's news quiz ›
Search this blog
Subscribe to this blog
ADVERTISEMENT
Advertise Here