View Full Version : Terri Schiavo
Rhiannon
06-17-2005, 09:18 PM
Uh yeah.. But would you move on and still keep control over her? Wouldn't you just let her go? I don't really blame the asshole for moving on, but he KEPT control over the whole thing. Her family was more than willing to take care of her. They had even petitioned the courts years back to grant Terri a divorce from Michael. He fought that.
If you've moved on with your life, have children with another woman whom you plan to marry, why hold on to a life you left?
Let's not start with the whole "It's what Terri wanted and he was seeing to it that it was done." She left no clues to her wishes.
Madcap
06-17-2005, 09:47 PM
Uh yeah.. But would you move on and still keep control over her? Wouldn't you just let her go? I don't really blame the asshole for moving on, but he KEPT control over the whole thing. Her family was more than willing to take care of her. They had even petitioned the courts years back to grant Terri a divorce from Michael. He fought that.
If you've moved on with your life, have children with another woman whom you plan to marry, why hold on to a life you left?
Let's not start with the whole "It's what Terri wanted and he was seeing to it that it was done." She left no clues to her wishes.
Considering she wasn't even aware she was alive, had no higher thought, and it was just her body chugging on autopilot... if she was a veggie all these things are true (and he said he had 100% belief that she was), then i see no reason to not let mom and pop take care of her. It's not like she's in any pain with that kind of Brain Damage. I would have just gave her back and remembered her the way she was.
Jenny
06-18-2005, 07:02 AM
Wasn't he offered like a million dollars to keep her alive, and surrender custody of her? If he was doing it all for money, wouldn't he have just taken that settlement? And getting a girlfriend after your wife has been in a coma for a hundred years is certainly not unusual, or at all un-understandable. He can still love and have concern for his wife. After all, these relationships are NEVER going to be in conflict.
chrissy
06-18-2005, 07:25 AM
Thats bullshit! you would honestly stay with your husband if you could never have a conversation or have sex ever ever again. After a few years you would miss human companionship and wonder else is out there, He did what was human, hes not a scum bag. Alos people digging for a reason to find him being a bad person need to find better things to do, its none of our business, you dont never met him or the family so you have bo right to judge.
Rhiannon
06-18-2005, 08:29 AM
I don't have to dig for a damn thing. It's there. Look at the history of the case, not just statements by his superficial ass trying to play the grieving husband. He had written Terri off not even a YEAR after her incident. I wonder if he'll take his vows seriously with this other woman. I certainly hope so. Let's hope she doesn't "get sick" though, or their children. He'd probably want to pull the plug for them coming down with the ordinary common cold.
I also said before that I don't think it was about money. Of course it wasn't--He was offered millions quite a few times. This was all about POWER. But again, if he had taken the money, it would've proved everyone right. We can't have that now, can we? He was Terri's next-of-kin and refused to give that up even though he had moved on YEARS before. He's a selfish, heartless bastard. My opinion of him will never be changed, no matter how much his supporters defend him.
I'll judge him all I want, because I call it exactly like I see it. And the way I see it hasn't changed since the first time he had them pull the feeding tube, or even before then when he refused all treatment YEARS and YEARS back that could've benefited that wife he claimed to love so much.
threlayer
06-18-2005, 11:07 AM
I have to ask bottom line questions...
If it were your spouse in an irreversible coma, after a large amount of time, would it not be mentally unhealthy for the survivor try to freeze the relationship to how it was just before the time of the disabling incident?
Would the spouse want that for the surving one?
Would you be able to let go and let them have their peace, rather than an unacceptable quality of life?
I have lost several loved ones and have thought about my own future. I believe the survivors can be selfish by trying to extend a very poor quality of life so that they do not have to say "goodbye."
Think about how, or if, you would want to live for years in a severely disabled state.
Think about the stages of grief during a severe loss (via Kubler-Ross ideas) and where, as a survivor, do you find yourself in this situation?