Re: An open post to Mark Schiavo

From: Putney Swope (PS_at_lostcauze.com)
Date: 03/25/05 

Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2005 22:23:34 -0800

LOL! 500 words and you can't even get the guys name right. 

-- 
"Putney says the Bormann 6 girl is got to have soul! Got to have soul!"
"Tom Barrister" <tombarrister@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1111728234.479689.42470@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> The following represents my views. It may or may not represent those of
> other people.
>
> Mark Schiavo: what's the hurry in killing your wife Terri?
>
> And please don't feed us the "She didn't want to live like this,"
> baloney.  For one, I seriously doubt that she ever said that to you or
> to anybody else.  You never brought that up in the first seven-plus
> years after she collapsed.  Why not?  If that was her wish, you should
> have had the figurative plug pulled back in 1990 when it happened.
> Certainly no later than 1992.  Why did it take you seven years to
> remember that?
>
> I'll tell you why. Because she never said it, Mark.  It's your cop out.
> You couldn't take it anymore.  You couldn't handle the stress of the
> situation any longer.  So you decided to get rid of the inconvenience.
> You claim to love her.  You have a weird way of showing it---starving
> her literally to death.  And I understand that there's another woman in
> your life.  Terri's being alive isn't convenient for that situation, is
> it?  Better off killing the old girl off and getting it out of the way,
> right?
>
> But it wasn't that simple, was it?  Many others were opposed to it,
> most notably her parents.  So why didn't you turn Terri's custody over
> to them and be done with it?   Then you could do as you please with the
> other woman.  Would your conscience bother you then?
>
> Let's assume that you're doing this because you simply can't stand to
> see her in this state anymore and that there isn't any ulterior motive
> involved with the other woman (or women).  Don't you understand that
> there are still people who love your wife and want to see her continue
> to live?  Why can't you turn her over to them?  They'd take care of
> her.  Assign guardianship to them.
>
> Instead, you've gotten stubborn about it.  You're bound and determined
> to have her killed off----and make no bones about it, that's exactly
> what you're doing.  This isn't a case of a person who has no brain wave
> activity, who will die within seconds or minutes of a heart-lung
> machine being disconnected, and who won't even know that it happened
> because his/her brain is already dead.  We're talking about a person
> whose body is still functioning with the aid of feeding.  True, she has
> to be cared for, but so do millions of other people.  Many elderly
> people are that way.  Most infants are that way. Should we kill all of
> them, too?
>
> Please don't feed me the "She's in a persistent vegetative state."  If
> that doesn't matter to her parents, and if the state and/or private
> sectors are willing to take care of her and relieve you of all
> responsibility, why would it matter to you?
>
> I see that some experts think that she might be in a minimally
> conscious state.  Shouldn't that be looked into?  Why are you so
> insistent about killing Terri off?  You've waited fifteen years.  Why
> would another few months matter?
>
> I understand the the courts have ruled that you're her guardian and can
> decide matters such as removing her feeding tube.  But just who
> appointed you God here to decide whether she lives or dies?  What's she
> guilty of?  Not being able to function normally on her own account?  If
> so, how about killing off all the learning-challenged people?  How
> about killing off all the elderly who need care?  Why not end the lives
> of all infants under the age of two?  Most of those can't care for
> themselves, either.
>
> What's the hurry, Mark?
>
> I've read that you haven't left her bedside since the feeding tube was
> removed.  Is that supposed to be a final gesture of love?  Or are you
> staying nearby to make sure nobody sneaks her food or water until she
> dies of a lack of both?
>
> Whether you realize it or not, her death won't bring you peace.  Far
> from it.  It will make things worse.  You won't understand that until
> after she's gone though.  But trust me on this, Mark: I've been through
> your situation twice with loved ones who were (in each case) in
> supposedly irreversible states.  I wanted to take the easy out like
> you're doing.  But I stuck it out both times.  Once it worked out well
> and the person came back to us and lived a reasonable life for a few
> more years.  The other time it didn't and the person passed on.  It's
> tough, but in retrospect, I realize that I made the right decision both
> times.  You haven't----yet.  You seem so obsesed with ending this that
> you won't listen to anybody who has an opposing view.  You won't just
> turn your wife over to your parents and be done with it.  They'll love
> her.  They'll care for her. If they pass on while Terri's still alive,
> others will gladly continue her care.
>
> In other words, Mark, you're not going to be out anything or
> inconvenienced in any way by turning Terri over to your parents.  By
> not doing so and forcing her death, you're alienating not only Mr. and
> Mrs. Schindler, but literally millions of others.  I doubt anybody
> would be majorly angry at you if you let Terri's feeding tube be
> reconnected.  But I shudder to think of all the people who will be very
> unhappy with you if she dies from your imposed starvation.  Or what
> those people might do.
>
> If none of the above makes any sense to you, remember your marriage
> vows that stated:
>
> "....to have and to hold from this day forward, for better, for worse,
> for richer, for poorer, in sickness and in health, to love and to
> cherish, till death do us part"
>
> "Better or worse", Mark. Not just "better".  "Sickness and health".
> Not just good health.  In other words, you were supposed to stick it
> out, even though times are bad.  Not get rid of what you probably
> perceive to be a problem and/or inconvenience because things aren't all
> that rosy.
>
> Oh, and "till death do us part," doesn't mean that you're supposed to
> hasten her death.  Because you're essentially her executioner here.
> And it just doesn't make sense to me no matter how its sugar
> coated----it's still murder.
>
> Tom Barrister.
>
> (apologies if this appears more than once in a newsgroup)
>

Relevant Pages

  • An open post to Mark Schiavo
    ... Mark Schiavo: what's the hurry in killing your wife Terri? ... sectors are willing to take care of her and relieve you of all ... Whether you realize it or not, her death won't bring you peace. ...
    (sci.med)
  • An open post to Mark Schiavo
    ... Mark Schiavo: what's the hurry in killing your wife Terri? ... sectors are willing to take care of her and relieve you of all ... Whether you realize it or not, her death won't bring you peace. ...
    (sci.med.transcription)
  • Re: An open post to Mark Schiavo
    ... Mark. ... Better off killing the old girl off and getting it out of the way, ... > sectors are willing to take care of her and relieve you of all ... > Whether you realize it or not, her death won't bring you peace. ...
    (sci.med)
  • Re: An open post to Mark Schiavo
    ... Mark. ... Better off killing the old girl off and getting it out of the way, ... > sectors are willing to take care of her and relieve you of all ... > Whether you realize it or not, her death won't bring you peace. ...
    (sci.med.transcription)
  • Re: An open post to Mark Schiavo
    ... Mark. ... Better off killing the old girl off and getting it out of the way, ... > sectors are willing to take care of her and relieve you of all ... > Whether you realize it or not, her death won't bring you peace. ...
    (sci.med)