Terri Schiavo's Parents

Once the kids leave the nest, the spouse becomes the primary family member. He is the legal guardian. It even says so in the bible. The parents have no standing here as long as the husband is alive and well and has no ill will toward the wife, of which there is no indication here. To be blunt, the Schindler's need to accept the reality that their daughter is gone and move on with their lives. As does the rest of America. This episode has been on focus for far too long.

Me and my wife shook our heads and had a mutual agreement- our folks are the last people on earth we want making that kind of a decision. There's a reason we married each other and left our respective families. Cut the apron strings, mom and dad. I trust my spouse more than any moron politician that uses someone's invalid condition for political game. And a spouse should always come first. Ahh. . .doesn't anyone remember Dubya's speech on the sanctity of marriage? And don't give me any hate mail about how much of a jerk he is- that isn't the legal or ethical point of the argument.

Terri's parents ought at least to have an opportunity to have their day in court, but it appears that that will not be the case. This is either a case of judicial blinders, or of judicial blunders. The Schindlers seem to have a lot of evidence (I say seem, because nothing has been proven with regard to their assertions) that points to Terri not being in a PVS. I thought that judges were supposed to weigh all of the evidence, not just evidence (in this case more hearsay than proven fact)that one party puts forward. What a travesty.

Legally they don't have a leg to stand on, and more importantly though in this case the ends- preserving life- would actually justify her being given to her parents- if the tables were turned would that be a good precedent? If say her parents wanted to pull the tube and her husband wanted to save her and nurture her would the change in legality make sense in the future? Of course not. I've actually been following this case for a while and the reason it's such a volatile issue is because it illuminates our individual world views. It forces people into camps both who become equally outraged with the other's position. In the end however the liberal position proves brutally deficient. Liberals are the same people who would grant the husband NO right to assume anything for the wife under child custody circumstances, family matters, and are ardently in opposition to the concept of a contractual marriage in extreme circumstances.... now it's up to the husband to determine whether she li... Read more

These people are just ghastly. I understand the undying love of a parent for a child, but when that child has become a shell of themselves, it's time to let go. I think that they would want to take care of Terri more to avoid the loss of whatever is left in there than to actually care for her, and that they have lost sight of their daughter's suffering during the course of their crusade. UPDATE: this has gotten ridiculous. Their daughter has the cognitive abilities of a bowling ball. What they need is to buy a dog; at least the dog will bark and wag its tail when it sees them. Yes, this is a cruel comment, but no more cruel than trying to torture their little veggie to make themselves feel better. Puppets!!!!

The parents should decide. The creepy husband already forfeited his rights when he took a common law wife years ago and also had children with her.

I'm certainly not qualified to decide something of this magnitude. But I am a father of four daughters and one son, and I am a husband, so I do have an opinion. I can't imagine ever giving up on any of my kids, not while I still believe that there is a chance that she might regain some semblance of her life back, or if I thought that she had some awareness of what was going on around her. Would I fight to regain control of my daughters life and future? You better believe it. The Husband on the other hand has appeared to move on with his life. He has a common law wife and two children, from this woman and as I understand it, he stands to gain one million dollars upon her death. Without a living trust or a will, we have to assume she would want to live. This is troubling to me. If he wants to be rid of her and is not concerned about the money, he should turn over guardianship of Teri to her parents, who are more then willing to take care of her. In a way, at least in my opinion, this cas... Read more

This is a spectacularly difficult issue, and while ultimately I think her husband has the say (due to legal precedent and next-of-kin laws, and the disastrous consequences of bypassing the constitutionally defined judicial process) how can you possibly *not* feel compassionate for their point of view? Would you want your own child to be removed from life-support? This case tears me up. The opinions that baffle me are the ones where people think it's an easy decision one way or another.

The husband in this case has more say that the parents do. This is a very unique case. Most euthanasia cases involve disputes between the state and medical practitioners. This is a dispute amongst family members concerning a matter of life and death; two views are coming at it. Yes, it can be argued that the parents remain Terri's only advocate, but the husband is the executor in this situation. Whether or not they were planning on separating the day before her heart attack is immaterial; once you're married, the parents lose their rights as next of kin unless expressly noted. UPDATE: This case obviously has many facets, one of them being the nature of a marriage contract. It's not a question of signing over authority; under law, he has the authority to determine her care, being that Michael, as the husband, is legally the next of kin, not the parents. This is a unique situation, therefore there is no law in the books exactly delineating what should happen in these situations. Since sh... Read more

From all reports, this man is one extremely pitiful example of a husband. Instead of staying with his wife through sickness and health he drop kicked her into a hospice as soon as a better opportunity presented itself. Well, bully for him! Now, he apparently wants this reminder of his former life gone. Good LORD people - for all intents and purposes Terri Schiavo IS a single woman whose only true remaining advocates are her parents and siblings. In a day when marriage is taken about as seriously as hey, lets make it legal so we can see how many gifts we can score or Ill stick around until the going gets tough I would think it was obvious that odds were very great from day one that he would bail in a case like this. No, I dont put much stock in spousal loyalty because I think, for the most part and for most people, it is a big fat fairy tale that rarely makes it in the long run anyway. And, for every case of so-called true love I will give you 20 cases of parents who will be ther... Read more

PBeavr's point is exactly correct. But these people are the only reason that this situation became public. Stating that she should be put out of her misery is one thing. Pulling the plug and starving her to death, at the request of her husband, without benefit of a living will, makes this a case nobody wants to take responsiblity for. Playing God is a tough role, for most compassionate humans. UPDATE: What I don't get is how casually everyone is about signing over the executioner's authority to her husband. On what basis does he have any authority to end her life? What law states that you can pull this tube? And why now? Some Florida judge says so? Is he Harry Blackmun or something? Lucky Michael.

Flick, you are absolutely right. If he wanted to honor her wishes and keep her from suffering, he should have done so in the beginning. Her state has not changed in fourteen years. He is doing this out of convenience and it is dispicable.

I would most likely have a different opinion if she was being kept alive by a breathing machine and was not conscious. But she is neither terminal or comatose and I know from personal family experience that no one, not even the doctors, know for certain what she does or does not comprehend. For all anyone knows she might be aware and just not able to communicate in a physical way. If the parents are willing to care for her and Michael wants to be free from all responsibility and obligations, I feel he should divorce her and let the parents take charge of her care.

This is the best choice. What would be best for Michael would be to allow Terri's parents to have custody of her and make all decisions concerning her welfare.

I would not have any problem at all with her parents making this decision if Terri Schiavo had been a single person. However, when a person gets married there are responsibilities that leave the family and reside with the spouse. I think it is unfortunate for everybody involved that Terri's family and her husband cannot come together and agree on a proper way to handle this after so many years.

the woman isn't 12. they have no claim to her. what they are doing is a crime against humanity.