Re: An open post to Mark Schiavo
From: Jumping Jack Flash (bar9773_at_hotmail.com)
Date: 03/25/05
- Next message: A to Z: "Re: An open post to Mark Schiavo"
- Previous message: Dr. Jai Maharaj: "Schiavo Lessons Learned - Protect Yourself TODAY"
- In reply to: Tom Barrister: "An open post to Mark Schiavo"
- Next in thread: A to Z: "Re: An open post to Mark Schiavo"
- Reply: A to Z: "Re: An open post to Mark Schiavo"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2005 20:58:55 GMT
How did Springsteen find his way to this group of lists that this was posted
to?
"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)
>
- Next message: A to Z: "Re: An open post to Mark Schiavo"
- Previous message: Dr. Jai Maharaj: "Schiavo Lessons Learned - Protect Yourself TODAY"
- In reply to: Tom Barrister: "An open post to Mark Schiavo"
- Next in thread: A to Z: "Re: An open post to Mark Schiavo"
- Reply: A to Z: "Re: An open post to Mark Schiavo"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
