![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
The Teri Schiavo autopsy results are in.
And her husband did his duty by her.
And the so-called "pro-life" activists? *waves red flag of personal opinion*
They have a long way to go before they can convince me that their "activism" isn't smoke from another fire - it appears to have little to do with "life" or dealing with the hard realities of end-of-life issues. There are worse things than being alive, if you truly believe in any kind of afterlife.
This was one of them. Thank God it's over.
And her husband did his duty by her.
And the so-called "pro-life" activists? *waves red flag of personal opinion*
They have a long way to go before they can convince me that their "activism" isn't smoke from another fire - it appears to have little to do with "life" or dealing with the hard realities of end-of-life issues. There are worse things than being alive, if you truly believe in any kind of afterlife.
This was one of them. Thank God it's over.
no subject
Date: 2005-06-16 05:51 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-06-16 01:16 pm (UTC)The transcript of this case - Pinellas County case 92-939-15, can be read in its entirety at this site.
It was during the November 1992 trial - the one that ended up initially awarding 1.4 million dollars - where the testimony Michael gave was:
Q. How do you feel about being married to Terri now.
MS. I feel wonderful. She's my life and I wouldn't trade her for the world. I believe in my marriage vows.
Q. You believe in your wedding vows, what do you mean by that?
MS. I believe in the vows I took with my wife, through sickness, in health, for richer or poor. I married my wife because I love her and I want to spend the rest of my life with her. I'm going to do that.
Of course, the fact that Michael had already taken a new girlfriend in 1991, Cyndi Shook, was not part of the record in 1992 because it came out in 2001 when she was issued a subpoena during the litigation with Terri's parents. According to her, Michael started seeing her at the end of 1991, so his testimony above doesn't jive with his actions. If he wanted to "move on", he should have said so in the trial, but of course that would have substantially reduced his winnings.
That's my interpretation of it.
no subject
Date: 2005-06-16 01:23 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-06-16 02:18 pm (UTC)Here's first-hand speaking now.
I was widowed in 1998 - I was 37, he was 36.
Before he died - he kept pushing me to "get on with my life" and take up with somebody new. (He even suggested
Taking up a secondary relationship does not mean you've discarded the original one - to a lot of minds, that's a difficult thing to get their heads around, but it does happen. I would have to say that's the case here.
Now, I had a number of very supportive "relationships" during the two years before he died - but none of them were of a romantic nature. Both sexes - so the fact he (M. Schiavo) had a relationship before the hearing you mention doesn't surprise me. Is it damming evidence? Please. I've been there. Not likely. When did it get as serious (and fecund) as it has? No idea. Not my bizness, either.
One of the other things that site clearly spelled out, in the clearest language I've read to date - the courts interviewed many people involved in Terri's case, not just her parents and her spouse - and they came up with the decision that her spouse's view was the "accurate" one.
So what are we left with?
Sorry toots - it's only your opinion. And while you are entitled to it, between yours, mine and the guy over in the corner - opinions are like assholes. We all have one, and sooner or later, they all stink.