The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection$
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewMichelle Malkin Archive
Never Forgotten: the Lies About Terri Schiavo
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • B
Show CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeThanksLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

This week marks the 17th anniversary of the court-sanctioned murder of Terri Schindler Schiavo. Under the order of a Florida judge who never bothered to visit her and an adulterous spouse-in-name-only who ranted “When is that b—— gonna die?” to one of Terri’s nurses, American legal and medical authorities supervised the cruel, two-week-long starvation and dehydration of a profoundly disabled woman who was not terminally ill and who had an army of family members ready to care for her for the rest of her natural life.

Bobby Schindler, Terri’s stalwart brother, penned a tribute to Terri this week as a reminder to those who have forgotten the family’s landmark battle to save her life. “It was 1990, for those who do not remember, when Terri, at the age of 26, sustained a brain injury resulting from suspicious circumstances while home alone with her husband, Michael Schiavo,” Bobby wrote. “Terri’s brain injury affected her ability to swallow and therefore she needed a feeding tube to receive nourishment.”

Michael Schiavo became Terri’s court-appointed caretaker since she hadn’t created a medical directive. But shortly after a nearly \$1 million medical trust was established to provide for her long-term medical needs, he declared he wanted to end her life — and inherit the cash. Terri’s family fought Michael Schiavo all the way to the Supreme Court and lost. Pro-life politicians tried to intervene, but the judicial deal was sealed, and Terri’s death sentence was unstoppable.

What I will never forget are the feckless, callous corporate media lies about Terri and those who defended her. National outlets derided the Schindlers and attacked the “radical, antiabortion, right-to-life Christian right” for casting doubt on medical experts who wrote Terri off as hopeless and falsely mischaracterized her as “brain-dead” or on “life support.”

Here are the facts: As I reported in my 2005 column calling out the lying media liars at the time, Terri was on a feeding tube. A feeding tube is not a ventilator. Terri was breathing just fine on her own. She was capable of saying “Mommy” and “Help me.” And as many of her medical caretakers and parents have argued, if given proper rehabilitation, Terri could learn to chew and swallow on her own as well. She was disabled, not brain-dead.

And that perturbed Michael Schiavo. Registered nurse Carla Sauer Iyer, who worked at the Palm Garden of Largo Convalescent Center in Largo, Florida, while Terri Schiavo was a patient there, testified in a sworn affidavit: “Throughout my time at Palm Gardens, Michael Schiavo was focused on Terri’s death. Michael would say ‘When is she going to die?’ ‘Has she died yet?’ and ‘When is that b—— gonna die?'”

ORDER IT NOW

When Terri’s 39-page autopsy report was released a few months after her state-ordained murder, gloating propagandists concluded that it exonerated Michael Schiavo of allegations of abuse. “No trauma before Schiavo collapse,” a typical headline blared. But on page four of the medical examiner’s summary, what the report actually noted with regard to possible strangulation was this: “Autopsy examination of her neck structures 15 years after her initial collapse did not detect any signs of remote trauma, but, with such a delay, the exam was unlikely to show any residual neck findings.” Indeed, the autopsy report refuted Michael Schiavo’s widely disseminated claims in the media that she had an eating disorder or had suffered myocardial infarction. But if mentioned at all, news reports downplayed and buried those astonishing revelations (revelations which bore directly on Schiavo’s credibility regarding his claim that Terri would have wanted to die).

With regard to Terri’s alleged persistent vegetative state, most news articles inaccurately portrayed the report as supporting that diagnosis. But “(i)t’s always seemed to us that PVS isn’t really a diagnosis; it’s a value judgment masquerading as a diagnosis,” Stephen Drake, research analyst for the disability rights group Not Dead Yet, commented. “When it comes to the hard science, no qualified pathologist went on the record saying she couldn’t think or couldn’t experience her own death through dehydration.”

Diane Coleman, president and founder of Not Dead Yet, agreed. “The core issues remain the same. Protection of the life and dignity of people under guardianship, and a high standard of proof in removing food and water from a person who cannot express their own wishes. These are issues of great concern to the disability community — evidenced by the 26 national disability groups that spoke out in favor of saving Terri Schiavo’s life over the past few years.”

“The sooner we realize … that we are battling a systemic, radical, anti-life, anti-Christian value-system, the more we will understand it is now our urgent duty to defend the medically weak. If we don’t protect them now, it will be impossible to protect our own families if and when the time comes to do so,” Bobby Schindler warned this week. Terri’s murder at the hands of a cabal of liars and grifters is more relevant than ever as Big Pharma, Big Government, Big Tech and Big Media elites conspire to undermine medical autonomy in the age of COVID-19. As we have witnessed repeatedly over the past two years, the “Trust the Science” control freaks don’t take kindly — and never have — to dissident families who dare question their authority.

Michelle Malkin’s email address is [email protected]

 
• Category: Ideology • Tags: End of life issues, Schiavo Memo 
Hide 42 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. Thanks. I had forgotten about Terri. Propaganda wins all the time, it seems.

  2. I saw the parents video of Terry being aware. There was no “aware” there.

  3. Legal bright line questions to Ms Malkin. Who should have the right to “pull the plug” or in this case feeding tube? The husband? The family? The state? The doctors? The church? What if the feeding tube would keep the person alive but the husband and family both say she would want the feeding tube pulled? What about a person with sepsis (different fact pattern), that person is unconscious, who can authorize cutting off all the person’s limbs? (that happens quite a bit with sepsis) It is easy after the fact to say that it was wrong to pull Terry Schaivo’s feeding tube, but Ms Malkin cannot establish a bright line rule about “who should decide.” Typically we want the spouse to decide. In the absence of a spouse, we want the family to decide. Again this is one of those cases where folks kwow that bad facts make for bad law. The “virtue” in the Schaivo case as a teaching tool is this (1) it reminds us Ms Malkin is usually hyperventilating and has zero conception of how the law actually works; (2) real life cases force difficult decisions (3) our assumptions about good and bad actors are often wrong (4) we should have single payer universal health care so there is never a financial component to the decision-making. Note in this story there was a fund created to pay for Terry Schaivo’s care. With universal single payer you can remove the fund variable. That might actually be the take away lesson here. If we had single payer care that included long term care, Michael Schaivo simply could have walked away and abandoned his wife with zero financial obligation. The “fund” to pay for Schaivo’s care actually incentivized Schaivo to pull the feeding tube (because he got the money). Time and again in medical cases the rationale for single payer health care grows stronger.

    • Replies: @C.W. Smith
    @Harry Huntington


    (4) we should have single payer universal health care so there is never a financial component to the decision-making.
     
    That anyone could type that with a straight face, and actually believe it, completely blows me away. Especially when they're trying to demonstrate their own perceived intellectual superiority with the highest possible degree of condescension.
    , @Anonymous
    @Harry Huntington


    If we had single payer care that included long term care, Michael Schaivo simply could have walked away and abandoned his wife with zero financial obligation.
     
    That sounds like something an idiot would say.

    He had no financial obligation.

    What he did have was a conflict of interest and he profited from her death.

    Now who doesn't know how the law works? Hmm?

    Replies: @Harry Huntington

  4. @Harry Huntington
    Legal bright line questions to Ms Malkin. Who should have the right to "pull the plug" or in this case feeding tube? The husband? The family? The state? The doctors? The church? What if the feeding tube would keep the person alive but the husband and family both say she would want the feeding tube pulled? What about a person with sepsis (different fact pattern), that person is unconscious, who can authorize cutting off all the person's limbs? (that happens quite a bit with sepsis) It is easy after the fact to say that it was wrong to pull Terry Schaivo's feeding tube, but Ms Malkin cannot establish a bright line rule about "who should decide." Typically we want the spouse to decide. In the absence of a spouse, we want the family to decide. Again this is one of those cases where folks kwow that bad facts make for bad law. The "virtue" in the Schaivo case as a teaching tool is this (1) it reminds us Ms Malkin is usually hyperventilating and has zero conception of how the law actually works; (2) real life cases force difficult decisions (3) our assumptions about good and bad actors are often wrong (4) we should have single payer universal health care so there is never a financial component to the decision-making. Note in this story there was a fund created to pay for Terry Schaivo's care. With universal single payer you can remove the fund variable. That might actually be the take away lesson here. If we had single payer care that included long term care, Michael Schaivo simply could have walked away and abandoned his wife with zero financial obligation. The "fund" to pay for Schaivo's care actually incentivized Schaivo to pull the feeding tube (because he got the money). Time and again in medical cases the rationale for single payer health care grows stronger.

    Replies: @C.W. Smith, @Anonymous

    (4) we should have single payer universal health care so there is never a financial component to the decision-making.

    That anyone could type that with a straight face, and actually believe it, completely blows me away. Especially when they’re trying to demonstrate their own perceived intellectual superiority with the highest possible degree of condescension.

  5. It shouldn’t have been up to the husband.

    • Agree: Liza
    • Replies: @don62
    @Antiwar7

    The spouse is the next of kin and most certainly should be the decision maker. If you tried to get a decision from 2 parents, six kids, 12 grandchildren, 4 siblings and cousins, aunts and uncles you would never get any decisions.

    Replies: @Antiwar7

    , @Harry Huntington
    @Antiwar7

    You would perhaps prefer the decision be left to some guy who does the accounting for a private equity firm? Reality is that the math never favors keeping any patient alive. It is a bad economic prospect all around. We keep people alive because we love them and because we believe in miracles. I contended above that this teaches we need single payer so that the economics is never a part of it. Perhaps we should think like Republicans and business people and say that anyone who wants to keep her alive must pay all of the costs to do so. Where do you come down on the math problem?

  6. This case pointed out numerous flaws in American values and their expression in the legal system re: DNR’s that have yet to be addressed.

    First, the culture of death itself. Millions of Americans with no skin in the game were supporting this woman’s death. It wasn’t even a matter of something as cynical as muh tax dollars being spent to keep her alive. A lot of people just wanted her to die as some kind of weird “own” on the pro-lifers/Christians.

    And even if you support euthanasia, the due process in this case was very shady. At the very least there should be stronger requirements for multiple witnesses and recordation/solemnization – something that has been addressed inadequately if at all in state laws since.

  7. Anonymous[269] • Disclaimer says:
    @Harry Huntington
    Legal bright line questions to Ms Malkin. Who should have the right to "pull the plug" or in this case feeding tube? The husband? The family? The state? The doctors? The church? What if the feeding tube would keep the person alive but the husband and family both say she would want the feeding tube pulled? What about a person with sepsis (different fact pattern), that person is unconscious, who can authorize cutting off all the person's limbs? (that happens quite a bit with sepsis) It is easy after the fact to say that it was wrong to pull Terry Schaivo's feeding tube, but Ms Malkin cannot establish a bright line rule about "who should decide." Typically we want the spouse to decide. In the absence of a spouse, we want the family to decide. Again this is one of those cases where folks kwow that bad facts make for bad law. The "virtue" in the Schaivo case as a teaching tool is this (1) it reminds us Ms Malkin is usually hyperventilating and has zero conception of how the law actually works; (2) real life cases force difficult decisions (3) our assumptions about good and bad actors are often wrong (4) we should have single payer universal health care so there is never a financial component to the decision-making. Note in this story there was a fund created to pay for Terry Schaivo's care. With universal single payer you can remove the fund variable. That might actually be the take away lesson here. If we had single payer care that included long term care, Michael Schaivo simply could have walked away and abandoned his wife with zero financial obligation. The "fund" to pay for Schaivo's care actually incentivized Schaivo to pull the feeding tube (because he got the money). Time and again in medical cases the rationale for single payer health care grows stronger.

    Replies: @C.W. Smith, @Anonymous

    If we had single payer care that included long term care, Michael Schaivo simply could have walked away and abandoned his wife with zero financial obligation.

    That sounds like something an idiot would say.

    He had no financial obligation.

    What he did have was a conflict of interest and he profited from her death.

    Now who doesn’t know how the law works? Hmm?

    • Replies: @Harry Huntington
    @Anonymous

    You really need to read the facts of the case. The husband is financially responsible for the wife unless they are divorced. He did not divorce her. Initially her care was paid by insurance, which ran out. Then her extended family chipped in money and they held fundraisers. In 1993, Micheal won a malpractice verdict against her gynecologist. $300,000 went to him. $700,000 went to a trust to pay for her medical care. He care cost over $80,000/ year. Her parents wanted a cut of the malpractice award. Buy the time Terri died, Michael's money had been spent on legal fees. Terri's trust was down to $50,000. Medicaid was paying most of Terri's expenses (which means Michael was impoverished to a level to be Medicaid qualified). Thus it is clear money was an issue and as long as Terri lived, Michael would have to live in poverty to keep her Medicaid eligible.

    No one wants to talk honestly about the money because it is not on any side's agenda. The fact is with single payer medical care, there would have never been a money issue.

    Replies: @Chris Mallory

  8. That was a tough one. If I found myself in the same position, I’d want my wife, or my kids, to pull the feeding tube and let me die with some dignity. But Terri’s parents were a different case. They were willing to care for her. Maybe she’d told the husband she wouldn’t want to live that way? A horrible situation, but the law is written so that the spouse has final say. Horrible to lose a child, and I wasn’t aware that the parents had suspicions about the husband and his motives. Still, anyone the law gave the final say to could make a decision you don’t like.

    • Replies: @Liza
    @Rich


    If I found myself in the same position, I’d want my wife, or my kids, to pull the feeding tube and let me die with some dignity
     
    I am not sure there is anything dignified about starving to death unless you've freely opted to die that way, in which case there is no struggle. My grandmother died a truly natural death that way. At home, with a relative nearby. And with no illness, sickness or disease. Yes, it does occasionally happen that way.

    Replies: @Chris Mallory

  9. @Rich
    That was a tough one. If I found myself in the same position, I'd want my wife, or my kids, to pull the feeding tube and let me die with some dignity. But Terri's parents were a different case. They were willing to care for her. Maybe she'd told the husband she wouldn't want to live that way? A horrible situation, but the law is written so that the spouse has final say. Horrible to lose a child, and I wasn't aware that the parents had suspicions about the husband and his motives. Still, anyone the law gave the final say to could make a decision you don't like.

    Replies: @Liza

    If I found myself in the same position, I’d want my wife, or my kids, to pull the feeding tube and let me die with some dignity

    I am not sure there is anything dignified about starving to death unless you’ve freely opted to die that way, in which case there is no struggle. My grandmother died a truly natural death that way. At home, with a relative nearby. And with no illness, sickness or disease. Yes, it does occasionally happen that way.

    • Replies: @Chris Mallory
    @Liza


    I am not sure there is anything dignified about starving to death unless you’ve freely opted to die that way
     
    It is probably more dignified than spending years laying in your own bodily waste while minimum wage employees fight over who is going to give you your weekly sponge bath.

    Replies: @C.W. Smith

  10. As a hospital Respiratory Therapist for 34 years, we watched this play out. Many times prior to this we watched family put patients through much suffering because they didn’t want to let go or Doctors decided to do everything they could. Even against patient’s wishes. Only a small percentage of patients had a living will which wouldn’t even apply in this case because she was not terminal. We have moved to Healthcare surrogates who make decisions for the patient. (Hopefully the patients wishes). The spouse is the next of kin for decisions if a surrogate is not designated. Then adult children, parents, siblings, extended relatives (cousins, aunts, etc) in that order. Michael Schaivo said they had discussed it prior and she didn’t want to live like that. There is no way to know if that is true or not but he was the decision maker and no one else. I don’t know if the parents tried to have him replaced as the decision maker but he remained. That is what to court ruled. Patients have a right to decide their care or refuse care. If they cannot make that decision, the legal decision maker has that right given to them. No one else has a right to interfere with that barring circumstances that a judge could remove those rights. We see patients refuse treatments even though they could survive. The Schaivo case put patient decisions in the hands of patients and families.

    • Agree: Chris Mallory
  11. @Antiwar7
    It shouldn't have been up to the husband.

    Replies: @don62, @Harry Huntington

    The spouse is the next of kin and most certainly should be the decision maker. If you tried to get a decision from 2 parents, six kids, 12 grandchildren, 4 siblings and cousins, aunts and uncles you would never get any decisions.

    • Agree: Chris Mallory
    • Replies: @Antiwar7
    @don62

    There's got to be some temperance in that one person's sole discretion, especially if they don't like their spouse, which is not uncommon.

    Replies: @Harry Huntington

  12. Even if left up to the husband, the extended family offered to care for Terri in any circumstance, with or without “hubby” (who seemed to want her dead, for some reason.) What’s ol’ Mikey been up to lately, anyone know? Its not surprising the usual media gas-faces don’t care, but do any actual humans know what Michael Schiavo has been doing since the death of his wife, to assuage his guilt?

  13. Rather than click reply further above will just respond here, comment 3. –

    ‘reminds us Ms Malkin is usually hyperventilating and has zero conception of how the law actually works; (2) real life cases force difficult decisions (3) our assumptions about good and bad actors are often wrong (4) we should have single payer universal health care so there is never a financial component to the decision-making.’

    – the claim of ‘how the law works’ is faulted, because you’re not dead yet or put in jail or had your property stolen by cons, yet, doesn’t mean anything. It has been a slide con, and by now should be obvious. Masses of people have been robbed by what you call ‘the law’, divorcing people with children whose lives were made worse, not settled, people who had their property stolen as some predator decides to make false claims hires a predator lawyer to dig in, then if you pay a lawyer that further digs into what you had as they use volumes of bogus ‘rules’ to basically commit theft, and too often the judge gets in on the action and poof, gone, and most people can’t afford to appeal, then there’s the con of ‘probate’, having a dead relative’s property chewed on by lawyer ‘feez’, and don’t forget the rest of supposed laws, surveillance on phones by govmt, hyper taxes etc. As for ‘universal health care’ corporate hospitals rule now because people sat for ‘mandatory insurance’, the same time add a hundred million more immigrants, the solution is not more of the same ‘big thing’ ‘universal’, supposing ‘no financial consideration’ -because the trade off isn’t free, the trade off is freedom. The last two years should have made people recognize problems with monopoly and law, and, the failure of people to refuse ‘lockdowns’ and ‘masks’ and didn’t question laws. Back to Malkin, beside this piece the one on probate some time ago was also worth noting. The Shiavo situation where the parents and others were able to care for her should have had the right, or the manner of death should have been brief, not what it was.

    The problems with ‘law’ are many. Whatever the answers are people need to at least see the problems. Appreciate the article.

  14. They really wanted to see Terry dead. I couldn’t understand why it was necessary to starve that woman to death, when her parents were in fact willing to devote the rest of their lives to her care. I understand that many in similar circumstances would have died without proper care, but in her case she had people willing to look after her. It was truly Satanic; the bloodlust of those who simply had to see her dead. I mean, what business is it to the rest of us, if she had people to take of her? But no, Terry had to die to satisfy the demons running in the heads of those banshees.

    • Agree: Jack McArthur
  15. @Liza
    @Rich


    If I found myself in the same position, I’d want my wife, or my kids, to pull the feeding tube and let me die with some dignity
     
    I am not sure there is anything dignified about starving to death unless you've freely opted to die that way, in which case there is no struggle. My grandmother died a truly natural death that way. At home, with a relative nearby. And with no illness, sickness or disease. Yes, it does occasionally happen that way.

    Replies: @Chris Mallory

    I am not sure there is anything dignified about starving to death unless you’ve freely opted to die that way

    It is probably more dignified than spending years laying in your own bodily waste while minimum wage employees fight over who is going to give you your weekly sponge bath.

    • Replies: @C.W. Smith
    @Chris Mallory

    Which, it has been clearly established, was not the case here.

    Replies: @Chris Mallory, @Harry Huntington

  16. How many more microwaved leftovers and flattery of her even more obscure peers (see previous column) before this unrepentant NeoCon warmonger finds something to say about Ukraine?

  17. who had an army of family members ready to care for her for the rest of her natural life.

    That “army of family members” would have soon melted away. Parents die. Siblings move away and have their own lives. Other relatives find reasons why they can’t make it to bedside today.

    When you are caring for a bedridden disabled family member you do not get days off. You do not get sick days or holidays. Sleep? You better not drop off too deeply. Hot food? That is a distant memory; cook the meal, feed the patient, maybe microwave what ever congealed mess is left when you get a chance to eat. Quick trips to the grocery, hoping they don’t need you while you are gone. You still love the person, but you get tired, oh so tired mentally and physically.

    The government give any help? HAHAHAHAHAHA. What dream world are you living in. The government will give you a chump change disability income and after two years of suffering some health insurance. But actual help in caring for a disabled citizen? Not gonna happen. We have to ship welfare to Israel, import hordes of 3rd world savages, send troops to guard the borders of every nation on Earth except our own. The government raped you with taxes while you could work, but now they just don’t give a shit about you, not that they ever gave any more of a shit about you , than a butcher does for livestock.

    • Replies: @Liza
    @Chris Mallory

    Pardon me for interrupting, but this has to go beyond the either/or discussion as it's being constituted here. The point is that starving anyone to death is wrong. I guess if they could do this to countless Ukrainians in 1932/33, one apparently retarded, disabled woman really would not matter all that much to the folks who make these kinds of decisions. I hear that doctors are doing this all the time, i.e., giving their nearly-dead patients a shot of whatever it takes, and the family looks the other way. However, there is also the issue of hastening death in order to satisfy the demons involved in the organ "donation" business.

    Yes, we have to talk about merciful euthanasia if the only other option is starvation.

    Replies: @Chris Mallory

  18. @Anonymous
    @Harry Huntington


    If we had single payer care that included long term care, Michael Schaivo simply could have walked away and abandoned his wife with zero financial obligation.
     
    That sounds like something an idiot would say.

    He had no financial obligation.

    What he did have was a conflict of interest and he profited from her death.

    Now who doesn't know how the law works? Hmm?

    Replies: @Harry Huntington

    You really need to read the facts of the case. The husband is financially responsible for the wife unless they are divorced. He did not divorce her. Initially her care was paid by insurance, which ran out. Then her extended family chipped in money and they held fundraisers. In 1993, Micheal won a malpractice verdict against her gynecologist. \$300,000 went to him. \$700,000 went to a trust to pay for her medical care. He care cost over \$80,000/ year. Her parents wanted a cut of the malpractice award. Buy the time Terri died, Michael’s money had been spent on legal fees. Terri’s trust was down to \$50,000. Medicaid was paying most of Terri’s expenses (which means Michael was impoverished to a level to be Medicaid qualified). Thus it is clear money was an issue and as long as Terri lived, Michael would have to live in poverty to keep her Medicaid eligible.

    No one wants to talk honestly about the money because it is not on any side’s agenda. The fact is with single payer medical care, there would have never been a money issue.

    • Replies: @Chris Mallory
    @Harry Huntington

    The way Medicaid works in many states now, not only must the family be impoverished, but the states have a "clawback". So that if in the statuary number of years before the patient became disabled requiring long term care they had won a small amount money in a lottery and had gifted some of that money to family or charities, even buying their mother a car, the state is legally allowed to recover that money. I have seen them try to require a church repay the tithes that a person had donated from their savings in the five years before they required long term care.
    Most states will allow a spouse to live in a "marriage property" home, within limits. But if the non care spouse dies and the long term care spouse is now the home owner, the state takes that home. Tough luck if they have non minor kids, no inheritance for you!

  19. @Antiwar7
    It shouldn't have been up to the husband.

    Replies: @don62, @Harry Huntington

    You would perhaps prefer the decision be left to some guy who does the accounting for a private equity firm? Reality is that the math never favors keeping any patient alive. It is a bad economic prospect all around. We keep people alive because we love them and because we believe in miracles. I contended above that this teaches we need single payer so that the economics is never a part of it. Perhaps we should think like Republicans and business people and say that anyone who wants to keep her alive must pay all of the costs to do so. Where do you come down on the math problem?

  20. @Chris Mallory

    who had an army of family members ready to care for her for the rest of her natural life.
     
    That "army of family members" would have soon melted away. Parents die. Siblings move away and have their own lives. Other relatives find reasons why they can't make it to bedside today.

    When you are caring for a bedridden disabled family member you do not get days off. You do not get sick days or holidays. Sleep? You better not drop off too deeply. Hot food? That is a distant memory; cook the meal, feed the patient, maybe microwave what ever congealed mess is left when you get a chance to eat. Quick trips to the grocery, hoping they don't need you while you are gone. You still love the person, but you get tired, oh so tired mentally and physically.

    The government give any help? HAHAHAHAHAHA. What dream world are you living in. The government will give you a chump change disability income and after two years of suffering some health insurance. But actual help in caring for a disabled citizen? Not gonna happen. We have to ship welfare to Israel, import hordes of 3rd world savages, send troops to guard the borders of every nation on Earth except our own. The government raped you with taxes while you could work, but now they just don't give a shit about you, not that they ever gave any more of a shit about you , than a butcher does for livestock.

    Replies: @Liza

    Pardon me for interrupting, but this has to go beyond the either/or discussion as it’s being constituted here. The point is that starving anyone to death is wrong. I guess if they could do this to countless Ukrainians in 1932/33, one apparently retarded, disabled woman really would not matter all that much to the folks who make these kinds of decisions. I hear that doctors are doing this all the time, i.e., giving their nearly-dead patients a shot of whatever it takes, and the family looks the other way. However, there is also the issue of hastening death in order to satisfy the demons involved in the organ “donation” business.

    Yes, we have to talk about merciful euthanasia if the only other option is starvation.

    • Replies: @Chris Mallory
    @Liza

    I agree, a hot shot of morphine is more merciful than years in a nursing home.

    I think you had meant to reply to my first post. The second talked about the reality of trying to care for a bedridden disabled adult family member who is slowly dying but still dying faster than the rest of us. Where every week, every month they are in worse shape both physically and mentally than they were the last.

  21. There’s more to the story…
    Terri Schiavo’s husband had something, possibly criminal, to do with her comatose state. He wanted her dead so she could “tell no tales” implicating him for causing her condition. This was his reason for wanting to “pull the plug” along with forced starvation.
    Most people are unaware that when organs are removed from a donor, the patient is still alive…something the medical profession does not want commonly known.

  22. @Liza
    @Chris Mallory

    Pardon me for interrupting, but this has to go beyond the either/or discussion as it's being constituted here. The point is that starving anyone to death is wrong. I guess if they could do this to countless Ukrainians in 1932/33, one apparently retarded, disabled woman really would not matter all that much to the folks who make these kinds of decisions. I hear that doctors are doing this all the time, i.e., giving their nearly-dead patients a shot of whatever it takes, and the family looks the other way. However, there is also the issue of hastening death in order to satisfy the demons involved in the organ "donation" business.

    Yes, we have to talk about merciful euthanasia if the only other option is starvation.

    Replies: @Chris Mallory

    I agree, a hot shot of morphine is more merciful than years in a nursing home.

    I think you had meant to reply to my first post. The second talked about the reality of trying to care for a bedridden disabled adult family member who is slowly dying but still dying faster than the rest of us. Where every week, every month they are in worse shape both physically and mentally than they were the last.

  23. @Harry Huntington
    @Anonymous

    You really need to read the facts of the case. The husband is financially responsible for the wife unless they are divorced. He did not divorce her. Initially her care was paid by insurance, which ran out. Then her extended family chipped in money and they held fundraisers. In 1993, Micheal won a malpractice verdict against her gynecologist. $300,000 went to him. $700,000 went to a trust to pay for her medical care. He care cost over $80,000/ year. Her parents wanted a cut of the malpractice award. Buy the time Terri died, Michael's money had been spent on legal fees. Terri's trust was down to $50,000. Medicaid was paying most of Terri's expenses (which means Michael was impoverished to a level to be Medicaid qualified). Thus it is clear money was an issue and as long as Terri lived, Michael would have to live in poverty to keep her Medicaid eligible.

    No one wants to talk honestly about the money because it is not on any side's agenda. The fact is with single payer medical care, there would have never been a money issue.

    Replies: @Chris Mallory

    The way Medicaid works in many states now, not only must the family be impoverished, but the states have a “clawback”. So that if in the statuary number of years before the patient became disabled requiring long term care they had won a small amount money in a lottery and had gifted some of that money to family or charities, even buying their mother a car, the state is legally allowed to recover that money. I have seen them try to require a church repay the tithes that a person had donated from their savings in the five years before they required long term care.
    Most states will allow a spouse to live in a “marriage property” home, within limits. But if the non care spouse dies and the long term care spouse is now the home owner, the state takes that home. Tough luck if they have non minor kids, no inheritance for you!

  24. Actually, it was the damned birth control pill that did this to her. I’d rather risk getting pregnant than end up like that. Never did understand why it isn’t called “conception” control rather than birth. It’s not the damned birth you’re trying to prevent, it’s the damned conception. Sick of everything, lately.

  25. I hated this issue in 2005. I still hate it

  26. @Chris Mallory
    @Liza


    I am not sure there is anything dignified about starving to death unless you’ve freely opted to die that way
     
    It is probably more dignified than spending years laying in your own bodily waste while minimum wage employees fight over who is going to give you your weekly sponge bath.

    Replies: @C.W. Smith

    Which, it has been clearly established, was not the case here.

    • Replies: @Chris Mallory
    @C.W. Smith

    It was not the case while the case was being argued. Ten years later I suspect the circumstances would have been a bit different. A million dollars would be burned up rather quickly with the care she needed. Her parents would age, in poor health themselves or dying. Siblings would be facing their own lives. Schiavo would have ended up in a nursing home on medicaid, living the exact life I described.

    , @Harry Huntington
    @C.W. Smith

    You are wrong. Read my post above. Money was definitely an issue at the time of death. The husband had spent a fortune on treatment and therapy--with no result. Terry Schaivo was on Medicaid (which meant her husband had been impoverished) and there was only $50,000 left in the trust at the time of her death. Her $1 million dollar in malpractice money was gone. Schaivo's husband could escape the medicaid impoverishment trap only by divorcing her.

    Also recall Scahivo's parents had tried to get a cut of Terry's malpractice award for themselves. They wanted control of Terry and they wanted her "trust fund."

    Reality was that Michael Schaivo would have been destitute unless he divorced Terry.

    In all cases, the taxpayers of Florida would pay the bills until her death.

  27. @C.W. Smith
    @Chris Mallory

    Which, it has been clearly established, was not the case here.

    Replies: @Chris Mallory, @Harry Huntington

    It was not the case while the case was being argued. Ten years later I suspect the circumstances would have been a bit different. A million dollars would be burned up rather quickly with the care she needed. Her parents would age, in poor health themselves or dying. Siblings would be facing their own lives. Schiavo would have ended up in a nursing home on medicaid, living the exact life I described.

  28. I share the sentiments of other commenters: Many thanks to Michelle for reminding us of this profound injustice perpetrated on a very innocent woman. This is a story that should never be forgotten, but unfortunately is. The media is too preoccupied with injustices of four centuries ago to be bothered with the state sanctioned murder of someone just 17 years ago. Many renewed condolences to the loving member’s of Terri’s family. I’m sure their pain is still with them.

    This case makes me wonder about how laws involving the well being of (or medical decisions made for) family members are formulated…or should be formulated. Given that the divorce rate is something like 50% (or greater) in our culture, I don’t believe it can be assumed that a spouse has a greater interest in the well being of a person than that person’s parents do. Parents seem to have a somewhat greater interest in the well being of person than a spouse does. That’s not always the case, but it usually is.

  29. Terri Schiavo Autopsy Report
    https://www.thesmokinggun.com/documents/crime/terri-schiavo-autopsy-released

    Now why did Malkin not include a link to the actual autopsy? This is about a blind person with a brain which had withered away to half-size who “could learn to chew and swallow on her own…”

    Wonder how the author figures she can make money out of a piece like this. Maybe it’s just a ‘publicity’ thing.

    • Replies: @Greta Handel
    @Zachary Smith


    Wonder how the author figures she can make money out of a piece like this. Maybe it’s just a ‘publicity’ thing.
     
    It’s primarily filler, to dodge saying what she thinks about Ukraine.
    , @Liza
    @Zachary Smith


    This is about a blind person with a brain which had withered away to half-size
     
    Inasmuch as the brain of a living person is 77% water, and Terri had been dehydrated to death, isn't it logical that her brain would have withered away to half size?
  30. @C.W. Smith
    @Chris Mallory

    Which, it has been clearly established, was not the case here.

    Replies: @Chris Mallory, @Harry Huntington

    You are wrong. Read my post above. Money was definitely an issue at the time of death. The husband had spent a fortune on treatment and therapy–with no result. Terry Schaivo was on Medicaid (which meant her husband had been impoverished) and there was only \$50,000 left in the trust at the time of her death. Her \$1 million dollar in malpractice money was gone. Schaivo’s husband could escape the medicaid impoverishment trap only by divorcing her.

    Also recall Scahivo’s parents had tried to get a cut of Terry’s malpractice award for themselves. They wanted control of Terry and they wanted her “trust fund.”

    Reality was that Michael Schaivo would have been destitute unless he divorced Terry.

    In all cases, the taxpayers of Florida would pay the bills until her death.

  31. I missed this story for the usual reason of not having a TV and not clicking on website headlines that looked like Infotainment. (I remember that the name, hence the story, were in the news for a long while.)

    However, I just learned so much about this very deep philosophical and legal issue from Mrs. Malkin and you commenters here that I wanted to write in THANKS. Even to Mr. Huntington this time* – thanks for the great discussion.

    .

    * OK, minus the nutty push for Total Government Health Care, errr, “Single Payer”, yeah, that’ll fool ’em.

  32. @Zachary Smith
    Terri Schiavo Autopsy Report
    https://www.thesmokinggun.com/documents/crime/terri-schiavo-autopsy-released

    Now why did Malkin not include a link to the actual autopsy? This is about a blind person with a brain which had withered away to half-size who "could learn to chew and swallow on her own..."

    Wonder how the author figures she can make money out of a piece like this. Maybe it's just a 'publicity' thing.

    Replies: @Greta Handel, @Liza

    Wonder how the author figures she can make money out of a piece like this. Maybe it’s just a ‘publicity’ thing.

    It’s primarily filler, to dodge saying what she thinks about Ukraine.

  33. @don62
    @Antiwar7

    The spouse is the next of kin and most certainly should be the decision maker. If you tried to get a decision from 2 parents, six kids, 12 grandchildren, 4 siblings and cousins, aunts and uncles you would never get any decisions.

    Replies: @Antiwar7

    There’s got to be some temperance in that one person’s sole discretion, especially if they don’t like their spouse, which is not uncommon.

    • Replies: @Harry Huntington
    @Antiwar7

    Let's take your thinking and apply it to children, not spouse. Ms Malkin repeatedly posts here about allowing parents to have unfettered discretion as to how to raise and take care of children. The lesson in the Schaivo case that Ms Malkin wants us to draw is exactly what you said, "some temperance in that one person's sole discretion." If that is true for a spouse (who selected the spouse who is exercising the control) it is double true for children who had zero choice as to who their parents would be. Time for America to take a long step backwards and ask seriously why we think parents have any qualifications to make any decisions about children--when we don't trust those same parents to make medical decisions about their spouse or their parents or their siblings.

    Replies: @Liberty Mike

  34. Apart from love of Terri it is noticeable the stress the family still place on what their Church teaches in an article written by her brother in 2020:

    Terri Schiavo, the Brain Injured and Church Teaching

    The Catholic teaching is clear: “The ordinary care owed to a sick person cannot be legitimately interrupted.” (CCC 2279)
    https://www.ncregister.com/blog/terri-schiavo-the-brain-injured-and-church-teaching

    More generally the “culture of death” v “culture of life” is the background that cast its shadow over this case and is part of the suicide of the West.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Culture_of_life

    • Replies: @Jack McArthur
    @Jack McArthur

    https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/10380/vatican-addresses-terri-schiavo-case-end-of-life-issues

    , @Tom F.
    @Jack McArthur

    This is also my recollection of this awful case. Thank you, Jack. Schiavo's parents didn't want her taken off life-support, and didn't want her autopsied (and when she was, didn't want the results released). What this case was useful for, was for 'abortion' and what constitutes a viable blah, blah, blah.

    Schaivo's 'brain' had turned into soup. Terry's parents wanted Michael (who they never liked) to divorce Terry, if he wanted to move on with his then live-in girlfriend. The parents would take over stewardship, and Michael would be 'the bad guy.'

    I've had to make the decision, twice, and it feels terrible. The thing I remember most is the compassion of the hospital staff. They must see this happen often, and I'm grateful for people like that who choose to serve the world in this way.

  35. @Jack McArthur
    Apart from love of Terri it is noticeable the stress the family still place on what their Church teaches in an article written by her brother in 2020:

    Terri Schiavo, the Brain Injured and Church Teaching

    The Catholic teaching is clear: “The ordinary care owed to a sick person cannot be legitimately interrupted.” (CCC 2279)
    https://www.ncregister.com/blog/terri-schiavo-the-brain-injured-and-church-teaching

     

    More generally the "culture of death" v "culture of life" is the background that cast its shadow over this case and is part of the suicide of the West.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Culture_of_life

    Replies: @Jack McArthur, @Tom F.

  36. @Antiwar7
    @don62

    There's got to be some temperance in that one person's sole discretion, especially if they don't like their spouse, which is not uncommon.

    Replies: @Harry Huntington

    Let’s take your thinking and apply it to children, not spouse. Ms Malkin repeatedly posts here about allowing parents to have unfettered discretion as to how to raise and take care of children. The lesson in the Schaivo case that Ms Malkin wants us to draw is exactly what you said, “some temperance in that one person’s sole discretion.” If that is true for a spouse (who selected the spouse who is exercising the control) it is double true for children who had zero choice as to who their parents would be. Time for America to take a long step backwards and ask seriously why we think parents have any qualifications to make any decisions about children–when we don’t trust those same parents to make medical decisions about their spouse or their parents or their siblings.

    • Replies: @Liberty Mike
    @Harry Huntington

    Why would any sane human being reason that an education major at Woke U. is somehow qualified to proffer any advice to children, much less make decisions regarding their life?

  37. @Zachary Smith
    Terri Schiavo Autopsy Report
    https://www.thesmokinggun.com/documents/crime/terri-schiavo-autopsy-released

    Now why did Malkin not include a link to the actual autopsy? This is about a blind person with a brain which had withered away to half-size who "could learn to chew and swallow on her own..."

    Wonder how the author figures she can make money out of a piece like this. Maybe it's just a 'publicity' thing.

    Replies: @Greta Handel, @Liza

    This is about a blind person with a brain which had withered away to half-size

    Inasmuch as the brain of a living person is 77% water, and Terri had been dehydrated to death, isn’t it logical that her brain would have withered away to half size?

  38. Michelle you need to resurrect your website again. This UNZ thing is a demotion. I miss the DAILY articles you provided. You speak my thoughts. Come back.

  39. @Jack McArthur
    Apart from love of Terri it is noticeable the stress the family still place on what their Church teaches in an article written by her brother in 2020:

    Terri Schiavo, the Brain Injured and Church Teaching

    The Catholic teaching is clear: “The ordinary care owed to a sick person cannot be legitimately interrupted.” (CCC 2279)
    https://www.ncregister.com/blog/terri-schiavo-the-brain-injured-and-church-teaching

     

    More generally the "culture of death" v "culture of life" is the background that cast its shadow over this case and is part of the suicide of the West.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Culture_of_life

    Replies: @Jack McArthur, @Tom F.

    This is also my recollection of this awful case. Thank you, Jack. Schiavo’s parents didn’t want her taken off life-support, and didn’t want her autopsied (and when she was, didn’t want the results released). What this case was useful for, was for ‘abortion’ and what constitutes a viable blah, blah, blah.

    Schaivo’s ‘brain’ had turned into soup. Terry’s parents wanted Michael (who they never liked) to divorce Terry, if he wanted to move on with his then live-in girlfriend. The parents would take over stewardship, and Michael would be ‘the bad guy.’

    I’ve had to make the decision, twice, and it feels terrible. The thing I remember most is the compassion of the hospital staff. They must see this happen often, and I’m grateful for people like that who choose to serve the world in this way.

  40. @Harry Huntington
    @Antiwar7

    Let's take your thinking and apply it to children, not spouse. Ms Malkin repeatedly posts here about allowing parents to have unfettered discretion as to how to raise and take care of children. The lesson in the Schaivo case that Ms Malkin wants us to draw is exactly what you said, "some temperance in that one person's sole discretion." If that is true for a spouse (who selected the spouse who is exercising the control) it is double true for children who had zero choice as to who their parents would be. Time for America to take a long step backwards and ask seriously why we think parents have any qualifications to make any decisions about children--when we don't trust those same parents to make medical decisions about their spouse or their parents or their siblings.

    Replies: @Liberty Mike

    Why would any sane human being reason that an education major at Woke U. is somehow qualified to proffer any advice to children, much less make decisions regarding their life?

  41. In these difficult situations, there is no perfect answer, especially as to who should be entitled to make life or death decisions for another person based on a relationship founded a long time ago (marriage, birth, whatever).

  42. You left out Billy Boy Frist making diagnosis of Terry’s vegetative state from his comfy office in DC. How conveniently misleading.

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Michelle Malkin Comments via RSS
PastClassics
The Shaping Event of Our Modern World
Becker update V1.3.2
Analyzing the History of a Controversial Movement
What Was John McCain's True Wartime Record in Vietnam?
The “war hero” candidate buried information about POWs left behind in Vietnam.
The Surprising Elements of Talmudic Judaism