Plight of Terri Schiavo: Facts, Emotions, and Outcomes

[scarecrow]

Is there an insurance policy on her? Because that might be one of the motives Shiavo's husband doesn't want to give up the rights to her to her parents. I just heard about this case recently though so I don't know much details.

My opinion: Since the husband deserted her, i.e., has a girlfriend and kids -- then the parents should regain custody of her. How can they allow her to die? That just shows how wrong our justice system is.

 

[kyleb]

Well GENIRE claimed:

The large insurance premium paid after her death may be a motivating factor.

But I have no clue where he came up with that info.

Last I heard he turned down considerable sums of money offered for him to back down.

 

[adrenaline]

The Schindlers have been painted as being purehearted and innocent in all this, while Michael Schiavo has been painted as the veriest devil.

The irony is that Terri had anorexia nervosa, and most psycologists feel this disorder stems from bad family dynamics, which is probably what is playing out publically and perpetuating this struggle by her parents .

Many researchers claim that family dynamics are at the root of eating disorders such as anorexia nervosa. The role of dysfunctional family interactions in the pathogenesis of anorexia nervosa has been given a prominent place in the research field. Evidence for a specific family constellation in this disorder, however, has been conflicting. While the majority of studies argue for a specific family interaction style, further studies must be conducted to identify distinguishing characteristics of anorexic subtypes and to determine whether these characteristics are of a causal or consequential nature (Minuchin, Rosman & Baker, 1978).

Family focused treatments for anorexia nervosa have been developed based on accounts in family therapy literature of the "typical" anorexic or "psychosomatic" family (Weme & Yalom, 1996). Anorexic families may appear to have a perfect or ideal environment on the surface, but upon close observation little expression of affection or warmth is seen. Members of these families seldom take specific stands on issues, and conflict is avoided at all costs. Underlying dissatisfaction and tension is often present within the parental dyad. It has been suggested that parents of anorexic offspring put high expectations on their children to over-compensate for the lack of love in their own marriage (Blinder, Chaitin & Goldstein, 1988). The anorexic is then capable of using the illness to unite his/her parents.

In a review article on anorexia and family issues, Yager describes how anecdotal reports of child-parent interactions and personality styles of parents show a great deal of variability. The relationships between mothers and daughters are reported by some to be rejecting and by others to be ambivalent or overinvolved. Although these mother-child interactions are contradictory, several general themes are present (Blinder, Chaitin & Goldstein, 1988). Anorexic mothers tend to focus all of their attention on the well-being of their children (Minuchin, Rosman & Baker, 1978). They set high expectations and foster ambitions for external achievement. The mothers of anorexics may be involved socially, they usually lack intimate friends. In many cases, the daughter becomes the mother's confidant. This overinvolvement creates separation difficulty later in life (Blinder, Chaitin & Goldstein, 1988). A great amount of variability exists in father-daughter dyads as well. Some anorexic fathers have been described as kind and affectionate, while others have been described as passive and ineffectual. These fathers are often peripheral to the family (Blinder, Chaitin & Goldstein, 1988). ...etc etc.

http://www.vanderbilt.edu/AnS/psych...gy/famstruc.htm

I am not a psycologist, but most anorexics do have a lot of emotional/ family baggage. in other words, I think a psycologist will say Terri's family response is intricately linked to years of preceding psycological/ family dynamics (probably dysfunctional) and we have little hope of them changing their attitude and behavior.

Physicians see the interplay of family dynamics and dysfunctional behavior battle it out when a family member is sick. More often then not, just from experience, the family members with the closest ties are not afraid to relinquish their hold on the patient and let them die, while estranged children, spouses or parents
want to hold on...perhaps to assuage their guilt over years of neglect or distance?

What's ironic is that even if Terri was not physically brain damaged, her psychiatric diagnosis of Anorexia Nervosa would preclude her from making any decisions regarding feeding (in much the same way a depresssed suicidal patient is no longer mentally competent to decide wether he wants to stop his artificial life support after a suicide attempt.)

She would probably opt for no feeding, no? I just find this whole thing ironic since it stems back to her Anorexia.

 

[russ_watters]

So the not wanting to let go thing, besides causing the conflict with the husband could also be causing the family to irrationally hold out hope for her recovery, which is why they don't want to pull the plug. Interesting - and I didn't know about her anorexia.

 

[gnome]

I have a question:

Have Terri's parents ever attempted to press charges for adultery? If not, why not? It seems to me that they could use that as leverage, instead of tying up the Federal government.

I find it astounding that you would propose using an obsolete law to add even more misery to these people's lives.

Are the adultery laws to be used only against people you disagree with, or are you in favor of incarcerating all of the 10s of millions of offenders?

 

[gnome]

My opinion: Since the husband deserted her, i.e., has a girlfriend and kids -- then the parents should regain custody of her. How can they allow her to die? That just shows how wrong our justice system is.

He has not deserted her. HIs willingness to subject himself and his new family to the strains of this legal melee for all these years, fighting for what he believes is Terri's wish, shows his love and devotion to her. If he wanted to desert her he could have simply dropped the fight years ago & gone on with his life. He probably could even have gotten a divorce under these circumstances.

If this shows anything wrong with our justice system, it's that lawyers can drag something like this out and torture people for 15 years. Her parents have no right to make this decision. And Michael is not making the decision either. Keep in mind that this has been more than thoroughly litigated, and the courts have consistently found that the preponderance of the evidence is that Terri would not want to be artificially kept alive in this manner, and that is the basis for the rulings.

And why should that surprise anyone? Surveys show that about 80% of Americans would not want to be kept alive this way.

 

[quantumdude]

I find it astounding that you would propose using an obsolete law

As opposed to using the US Congress and President?

You bet.

to add even more misery to these people's lives.

That's a bit 1-sided of you. Certainly Michael Schiavo would be miserable if Terri were to be kept alive, but what about the rest of the family?

Are the adultery laws to be used only against people you disagree with, or are you in favor of incarcerating all of the 10s of millions of offenders?

That's not up to me. That's up to law enforcement officials, prosecutors, and citizens who wish to file charges. All I am saying is that it is an avenue by which the Schindlers could have wrenched the say-so over Terri's life out of her husband's hands.

 

[Shadow]

Last I heard he turned down considerable sums of money offered for him to back down.

Of course he didn't. Probably because since this is now a nation wide story, he doesn't want the whole nation to see him for who he is. If he took the money we would all see that he was in it just for the money, and making a great deal of his story up, and that he does not care for his disabled wife. Another reason could be (which several people I have spoken to outside of PF agree with) is that if she gets better, which doctors say is a possibility, she may say that he did something to her.

By the way, does anyone else find it "sketchy" that he won't let any media or her own parents and family into see her? If she is going to die, would you not think that he would at least let her family see her?

 

[Shadow]

He has not deserted her. HIs willingness to subject himself and his new family to the strains of this legal melee for all these years, fighting for what he believes is Terri's wish, shows his love and devotion to her. If he wanted to desert her he could have simply dropped the fight years ago & gone on with his life. He probably could even have gotten a divorce under these circumstances.

If this shows anything wrong with our justice system, it's that lawyers can drag something like this out and torture people for 15 years. Her parents have no right to make this decision. And Michael is not making the decision either. Keep in mind that this has been more than thoroughly litigated, and the courts have consistently found that the preponderance of the evidence is that Terri would not want to be artificially kept alive in this manner, and that is the basis for the rulings.

Hah. Love and devotion? Sorry but you don't cheat on your wife consistantly (he did before this accident happened) and have kids with your girlfriend while still "married" to your wife that's in the hospital. You should visit her, try to make her better.
Her parents absolutely have the right to make this decision. They obviously care more aobut her than her "husband."
Her parents that brought her into this world and cared for her for years, which is a lot more than can be said about her husband.

And why should that surprise anyone? Surveys show that about 80% of Americans would not want to be kept alive this way.

Show me the survey. Last time I checked, the majority supported terri and her parents. That's what they said on ABC and CNN yesterday, not to mention the radio...

 

[Moonbear]

By the way, does anyone else find it "sketchy" that he won't let any media or her own parents and family into see her? If she is going to die, would you not think that he would at least let her family see her?

The family has been into see her. Her parents and brother have stated so in interviews I've seen this week.

The part of what her parents say that holds the least water, in my opinion, is that they say she would not want to starve. Yet, the way she wound up in this condition in the first place was by starving herself; that's what anorexia is, either not eating or eating far too little to sustain yourself.

 

[Moonbear]

You should visit her, try to make her better.

How could he make her better? Nobody can make her better. That's the point. She is NOT getting better.

 

[gnome]

Show me the survey. Last time I checked, the majority supported terri and her parents. That's what they said on ABC and CNN yesterday, not to mention the radio...

Where have you been checking? And what do you mean, "supported terri and her parents?" Who says Terri wants what her parents want? The courts have decided, based on years of litigation, that Terri does not want to be kept artificially alive (if you can call that living).

Would you want to be kept alive like that: 15 years with, as far as we know, no conscious brain activity.

According to an ABCnews poll on 3/21, 63% support removal of the feeding tube
and 70% feel it inappropriate for congress to be involved. And the support for removal is pretty consistent among all groups: even evangelical protestants were 46% in favor of removal vs 44% opposed. Non-evangelical protestants were 77% in favor of removal.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/PollVault/story?id=599622&page=1


In an unofficial poll on CBSNews.com, readers following the story have voted 63 percent to 37 percent that Schiavo should be allowed to die.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/02/25/national/main676611.shtml

Similar numbers in a CNN-Gallup poll quoted in USA Today (it covers many topics; scroll down towards the bottom)
http://www.usatoday.com/news/polls/tables/live/2005-03-21-poll-results.htm


According to this Fox poll, about 60% of respondents would remove the feeding tube if they were her guardians, and 74% would want the same done for themselves if they were in that condition.
http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/030405_schiavo.pdf

 

[gnome]

As opposed to using the US Congress and President?

You bet.

You seem to be saying that Congress & the President should not have gotten involved.

If so, we certainly have no disagreement there.

But why suggest following up one inappropriate action with yet another?

That's not up to me. That's up to law enforcement officials, prosecutors, and citizens who wish to file charges. All I am saying is that it is an avenue by which the Schindlers could have wrenched the say-so over Terri's life out of her husband's hands.

Not likely. How many people go to jail for adultery? If he's been willing to wage this battle for 15 years, how much of a deterrent do you think a $500 fine would be?

That's a bit 1-sided of you. Certainly Michael Schiavo would be miserable if Terri were to be kept alive, but what about the rest of the family?

What about Terri? Why do you think she would want to prolong "life" in her condition?

 

[quantumdude]

You seem to be saying that Congress & the President should not have gotten involved.

Yes, that's right.

But why suggest following up one inappropriate action with yet another?

Who says it's inappropriate? It's a legal means for the Schindlers to have obtained the relief they sought. It's entirely within the bounds of due process, which is more than I can say for involving the highest levels of government.

Not likely. How many people go to jail for adultery? If he's been willing to wage this battle for 15 years, how much of a deterrent do you think a $500 fine would be?

It's not just the fine, it's also the possible jail time. Also I imagine that he could be prosecuted repeatedly for not having dissolved the adulterous relationship. If the Schindlers had pressed this over the years, they might have attained their goal of divorce.

What about Terri? Why do you think she would want to prolong "life" in her condition?

I don't know that Terri wants anything, in the normal sense of the word. My point is that there was an avenue of relief open to the Schindlers which for some reason they did not take advantage of. Instead, they've got Bush and the Congress working overtime on their case. What I'm wondering is: Why?

 

[gnome]

Certainly Michael Schiavo would be miserable if Terri were to be kept alive,

I'm particularly curious about this. Why do you think he would be miserable?

I assume we can agree that he doesn't expect to get rich by her death. And I imagine if he simply wanted to be rid of her, he could get a divorce. And if he simply wanted to quietly get on with his life without remarrying, he could do so, and simply relinquish guardianship to her parents. So what do you think is motivating him?

(Not that it really matters. In the final analysis, it's what's best for Terri, and what she would want, to the best of our ability to determine that, that's most important. Not what her husband wants, and not what her parents want.)

 

[quantumdude]

I'm particularly curious about this. Why do you think he would be miserable?

Because he's expressed as much. As for his own reasons, only he knows. Some speculate that he is genuinely in anguish over his wife's prolonged life, and so he refuses to divorce her so that her family cannot have any say over her fate. Others speculate that he refuses to divorce his wife because doing so would cost him the inheritance he stands to receive.

I don't know which is true of him. I am just wondering why the Schindlers didn't pursue the avenue of relief that I brought up.

 

[gnome]

My point is that there was an avenue of relief open to the Schindlers which for some reason they did not take advantage of. Instead, they've got Bush and the Congress working overtime on their case. What I'm wondering is: Why?

I guess the most likely answer to that is that their lawyers didn't think that was a useful strategy. For one thing, that's not a civil action that they could bring against him. The supposed wronged party, Terri, can't press criminal charges, and her parents have no legal standing on which to do so on her behalf. They'd have to convince a county prosecutor (or the equivalent) to do so. And the prosecutor would have to weigh the "benefit to society" of pressing that charge versus the controversy (and cost to the county) that it would entail. It would just be another media circus and colossal waste of taxpayers' money.

And even if, despite all of that, he were to be put on trial, what do you really think the odds are of a jury sending a man to prison for starting a new relationship under these circumstances?

 

[gnome]

Others speculate that he refuses to divorce his wife because doing so would cost him the inheritance he stands to receive.

What inheritance?

 

[Kerrie]

So the not wanting to let go thing, besides causing the conflict with the husband could also be causing the family to irrationally hold out hope for her recovery, which is why they don't want to pull the plug. Interesting - and I didn't know about her anorexia.

That is interesting to note in this case. Perhaps the parents' need to hang on is a sense of guilt for the family issues they had while she was a child?

So that they could force a divorce and regain the decision to keep her alive, obviously.

What I am curious about is, the husband has moved on with his life-and I would expect anyone to in this situation. From what I have read, he has a common law wife and children. Why didn't he divorce her (Terri) in the first place and allow the parents to care for her as they wished anyway? If he has moved on, why does also hang on to the decision-making control of her as well? Does he truly have something to gain? If he divorces her, can her parents sue him for half of the assets?

 

[quantumdude]

What inheritance?

The portion of Terri's assets to which he is entitled as her husband. For one thing, she was the recipient of a malpractice settlement.

 

[quantumdude]

And even if, despite all of that, he were to be put on trial, what do you really think the odds are of a jury sending a man to prison for starting a new relationship under these circumstances?

I don't think the jury would send him to jail for finding a new mate (I wouldn't). But I do think they might do it for not having divorced his previous mate, which is really what makes it a misdemeanor. Now that I would convict on, if I were a juror.

 

[Evo]

The portion of Terri's assets to which he is entitled as her husband. For one thing, she was the recipient of a malpractice settlement.

The malpractice settlement was reduced to around $700,000, most of which has already been spent on medical & legal bills.

Michael reportedly turned down an offer of $10 million dollars to relinquish guardianship of Terri. Apparently, money is not what he is after.

 

[russ_watters]

Yes, that's right. [re: President shouldn't have gotten involved]

And after Bush's brother and Florida's Congress did near exactly the same thing a couple of years ago, that should be the most straightforward thing about this case. The judge on Tuesday even mentioned that it was probably unConstitutional, but that the question is kinda moot as this is a single-case law.

What inheritance?

IIRC, there is a small life insurance policy as well.

That is interesting to note in this case. Perhaps the parents' need to hang on is a sense of guilt for the family issues they had while she was a child?

I have an overprotective mother who is still having separation issues, so I have a lot of thoughts on this issue. Sounds reasonable to me, but I'm not a pshrink...

What I am curious about is, the husband has moved on with his life-and I would expect anyone to in this situation. From what I have read, he has a common law wife and children. Why didn't he divorce her (Terri) in the first place and allow the parents to care for her as they wished anyway? If he has moved on, why does also hang on to the decision-making control of her as well? Does he truly have something to gain? If he divorces her, can her parents sue him for half of the assets?

I've thought about that as well. Aside from basic greed for the life insurance policy (which I don't buy), all I can come up with is that he still loves her and believes to die is what she would want. If he didn't love her, then divorce would be the simplest way out.

 

[faust9]

...all I can come up with is that he still loves her and believes to die is what she would want. If he didn't love her, then divorce would be the simplest way out.

Exactly. Why would anybody subject themselves to this kind of torture? Why wouldn't he take the 10 mil and leave? Why would he subject himself to going on 8 years of media attention and the demonizing of Mr Schivo? For what? Personally I think it's what she wanted (others aside from Schivo have testified to that fact) and he's simply trying to carry out HER wishes. Keeping a loved one alive is a lot easier than knowing your actions caused their death. Knowing that he (Schivo) will have caused her death has got to be hard to say the least. So why do it? Because it's what she wanted. She didn't want to be a tube fed heart beat. She wanted to go with dignity(again multiple individuals have attested to this). Schivo isn't taking the easy road here. He's fighting the christian right, Florida's entire government, the US government, and the parents of his wife to carry out her wishes--for what? A small chunk of change. If you believe that, then you've never had to make a decision like this (I did--not food and water but a respirator).

To say "He's a greedy bastard" minimizes the gravity of the decision to say the least. To lay this decision at the alter of $$$ forgets the larger offers made to simple walk away. He's carrying out her wishes. I hate to sound cruel when I say this but they are married and that contract entitles the spouse to certain benefits such as guardianship and decision making. Unfortunately, parents lose many rights when this contract is formed (marriage) and simply have to learn to deal with the decisions made between a husband and a wife. It's apparent the Schivos made this decision amongst themselves (again she told multiple people her intentions) and the parents have really no legal recourse--as has been show at the end of an almost 8 year battle.

My 2 cents. Let her go.

 

[Moonbear]

I've thought about that as well. Aside from basic greed for the life insurance policy (which I don't buy), all I can come up with is that he still loves her and believes to die is what she would want. If he didn't love her, then divorce would be the simplest way out.

In one interview I saw (the only interview I've seen of Michael; the Schindlers seem to be talking to the press far more than he is), he said that in an early (he didn't give any indication of how long ago that one was) court battle, her parents testified they would keep Terri alive even if they had to cut off her arms and legs to do it. I don't know what led to that statement, or if he was accurately representing it, but he followed up by saying he could never let them do that to Terri if they were willing to go to such extremes just to keep her alive.

As for any inheritance, I find it hard to believe that would be enough motive to not get a divorce if the money was all that he really wanted. If he had filed for divorce, given Terri's condition, I can see no reason any court wouldn't be sympathetic to his desire to move on with his own life and grant him a substantial amount of their shared assets.

 

[gnome]

Well, I hope those people (all of them) can find some peace.

Maybe the only good thing that can come out of this is to show how important it is to have a living will.

I don't think the jury would send him to jail for finding a new mate (I wouldn't). But I do think they might do it for not having divorced his previous mate, which is really what makes it a misdemeanor. Now that I would convict on, if I were a juror.

Tom, if the law were such and the facts of the case were such that a person was clearly in violation of some law, I suppose that we would both feel obligated to vote that way. But I, for one, would certainly feel terrible if put in that position. We are all entitled to equal treatment under the law. To take a statute that (if it still exists; who knows?) is unenforced in 99% of cases and use it against someone because we particularly dislike him or disagree with him would be a serious miscarriage of justice. Laws that criminalize behavior that most people don't consider to be crimes, and that are usually not enforced, should be stricken from the books. Else, they can be used by unscrupulous officials as weapons against any of us. But I guess that's a topic for a different thread.

 

[Shadow]

The family has been into see her. Her parents and brother have stated so in interviews I've seen this week.

That has come about recently though, since this story became nationwide news. Her brother flew in from out of state to see her I believe...could you imagine the public outcry if her husband denied her brother entry, especially while the whole nation is watching?

Where have you been checking?

I stated where I heard that in that post.

And what do you mean, "supported terri and her parents?" Who says Terri wants what her parents want?

When I read this I thought you had a point. Until you said:

The courts have decided, based on years of litigation, that Terri does not want to be kept artificially alive (if you can call that living.)

That's bull. The courts can't decide what she wants! They can not claim she wants to die! And she is not exactly artificially alive. She needs food but that is all. All her other life processes such as breathing, etc do not need to be controlled. She's in better shape than many across the country. Many that continue to live


My ABC station says that the majority of people support her parents...


How can you defend such an act. It makes me sick to think that such a great nation has fallen to such lowly levels... The courts deciding a woman "wants" to die. Disgusting.

 

[Smurf]

well... at least the first page of this thread was civil, then Grace posted and all hell broke loose. People should learn to control their emotions better so that it doesn't cloud their judgement.

 

[learningphysics]

IF Terri's wishes were to be allowed to die under these circumstances... then does everyone agree that the feeding tube should stay removed?

 

[Evo]

The courts deciding a woman "wants" to die. Disgusting.

Based on testimony from friends of hers that had discussions with her and knew of her feelings about it. That's what courts do. It was not an arbitrary decision.

I have told both of my children that I don't want any heroic means of saving my life, but after all of this, I don't want to have to place them in this kind of situation where they may second guess what I truly meant, or even worse, someone else stepping in and questioning them. I will be sure my attorney has a notarized copy of my wishes.