CNN's Larry King asked Robert and Mary Schindler what they
thought Michael Schiavo's reasons are for wanting Terri to die.
They both answered that they didn't know. After eleven years of battling their son-in-law,
they still don't know.
Of course, none of us can know what goes on in another person's mind. Their actions,
however, can give us a glimpse into their thinking.
In television clips I have seen of Michael, he comes across as arrogant, brash, and
intimidating. Michael makes it easy to dislike him.
But just because I don't like someone doesn't mean he's not telling the truth.
At the same time, it's been hard for me to judge Michael's thoughts because I have never
been in his place. In fact, I can not imagine being in his place.
Since 1997, Michael has consistently said that he wants Terri's feeding tube removed
because it is what she would have wanted -- that he is honoring her wishes because he
loves her very much. He testified that Terri mentioned on several occasions that she would
not want to live "by artificial means". As witnesses, he presented his brother
and sister-in-law who verified his testimony.
I would not hesitate to take Mr. Schiavo at his word, if it weren't for other things he
has said and done that cause me to doubt his sincerity. So, for me to get a better
understanding of what he's been thinking, I'd like to ask him a few questions:
1. Why has he refused several recommendations for Terri's continued therapies?
In April of 1991, about a year after her collapse, therapists at Bradenton Mediplex
Rehabilitation Center determined that Terri's condition was improving and recommended
Michael have her transferred to Gainesville Rehabilitation Center to receive advanced
therapy so she could continue her recovery.
But by July, Michael had instead moved her to Sable Palms Nursing Home, with no such
therapy.
Later, he refused to allow therapies that her parents believed might have allowed her to
swallow, so she would not have to rely on a feeding tube.
2. Why did he not mention his wife's wishes during one of two malpractice cases?
In late 1992, one of Terri's doctors settled a malpractice suit out of court for $250,000.
The following January, a Pinellas jury awarded about $1.4 to Terri and $600,000 to Michael
in a suit filed because her gynecologist failed to ask about her medical history while
treating her.
Michael had asked the jury to grant $20 million to pay for Terri's future medical and
neurological requirements, based on her life expectancy, which he and his attorneys
estimated at 51 years. Michael also told the court he wanted to become a nurse so he could
help his wife for as long as she lived.
His attorney told the court about Terri: "She can't respond much but she can respond,
and she does respond a little bit, not much. But enough to give him hope."
The following month, February 1993, Terri's parents had a 'falling out' with their
son-in-law, because, they claim, he refused the therapies that professionals had
recommended.
3. If Michael expected Terri to live to at least age 51, why did he order her caregivers
not to treat her for a potentially life-threatening infection in August of 1993, and
another in late 1995?
4. Why did he invoke a "do not resuscitate" order just a few months after the
jury award?
5. Why, in 1997, did he announce his engagement to another woman, while still married to
Terri?
6. Why, also in 1997, did he hire George Felos, an attorney with a reputation for fighting
"right to die" cases, to represent him?
7. Why did he petition the court, also in 1997, to have Terri's feeding tube removed so
she would starve and dehydrate to death.
8. Why did several nursing home workers swear that Terri's demeanor changed after he was
in the room with her?
9. Why did nursing home workers swear that he at times stormed into the facility asking
when "that bitch" would die?
10. Why did he have Terri, who does not have a terminal illness, moved to a hospice in
2000, even though hospices are designed for people who are expected to die within six
months? According to his earlier calculations, she still had at least 15 more years left
to live.
I have no reason to believe that Michael Schiavo did not love his wife. My guess is -- and
this is only a guess based on his actions that have been reported -- that he did plan for
his wife to live a long life, and that he even thought there was a chance she might
recover some of her "old self" right after her injury.
I wonder, however, if her costly therapy became less of a priority when he saw the $20
million he projected for her long-term care and rehabilitation -- and to compensate him
for his loss -- shrink to $1.4 million. I wonder, too, if the fact that he had been living
without a lover for three years weighed heavily on him, along with feelings that it was
time for him to "move on with his life".
I can imagine a vague comment Terri may have made about life-support suddenly taking on
new meaning and new urgency: Terri would not have wanted "to live like this".
We really don't know.
But something clearly shifted in his mind. Choosing George Felos, who even in 1997 had a
history of supporting "right to die" causes, was a clear and conscious choice,
in my view. From that point on, Michael wanted his wife to die and was willing to spend
most or all of the money from her trust fund to make that happen.
And Terri, bless her, did not die.
Finally, there are two questions that nag at me more than any others and which I cannot
reconcile:
11. Why won't he allow Terri's parents and siblings to take over her guardianship
12. Why did Michael not allow Terri, a Catholic, the holy sacraments of Communion and last
rites when her feeding tube was removed last October?
I am not Catholic, but I understand these rites to be an extremely important practice in
Catholicism
Michael said it was because she might choke on a communion wafer or inhale some of the
wine.
In my view, nothing could be more absurd.
For one thing, priests have explained that the ceremony could have been adapted by
dissolving much of the wafer before placing it on Terri's tongue and touching a cloth
dabbed in wine to her lips.
For another, Michael planned on starving her to death and had believed she only had a few
more days to live.
If he loves his wife as he says he does, why did he deny his wife this most important,
final gesture of love?
Why, Michael? Why?
Why, Michael? Twelve
Questions For Michael Schiavo
By Dave Reynolds, Inclusion Daily Express October 23, 2004
http://www.inclusiondaily.com/archives/04/10/21/102304flschiavomichael.htm
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Schiavo rejected an offer of $1 million to give up
guardianship of his brain-damaged wife – an attempt by a California businessman to
save her from court-ordered starvation set to begin next Friday.
George Felos, attorney for the estranged husband, called the offer "offensive,"
and said other offers, including one for $10 million, already had been made and rejected.
"Michael has said over and over again that this case is not about money for
him," Felos said, according to the Associated Press. "It's about carrying out
his wife's wishes. There is no amount of money anyone can offer that will cause him to
turn his back on his wife."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Blog 3-19
Comment about MONEY....If Terri finally gets therapy and miraculously improves to the
point of speaking out...She might be the witness that would convict Michael. No amount of
money would pay for the rest of his life behind bars.
|
