The Man Who "Guards" Schiavo
Thursday March 24, 2005
When did this nation -- and our media -- decide that the best way to debate issues is to stoop to character assassination rather than discuss the issues? Can we escape from this never-ending cycle of emotional rhetoric that is perhaps best illustrated by the movie Network?
A quick scan of conservative-leaning blogs -- or a review of House Republican comments during the Palm Sunday floor debate -- reveals a portrait of Michael Schiavo, Terri's husband and guardian, as a "scumbag" and opportunist who doesn't love Terri and either wishes she were dead or who - some assert - tried to murder her. Until recently, Michael has refused requests for interviews. In the past week, as the rhetoric directed at him personally has become more hate-filled, Michael has appeared on some TV shows.
The Seattle Times ran a Knight-Ridder feature that offers a glimpse into the life of the man who returned to school to become a nurse after his wife's initial injury, when both were 26 years old.
He rented a house that would accommodate him, Terri and her parents; he and her parents continued to live under the same roof until the successful malpractice suit ($700,000 for Terri's care and $300,000 for Michael). According to his attorney, he has been offered up to $10 million to relinquish his guardianship to Terri's parents.
The woman he lives with, Jodi Centonze, washes Terri's laundry. He calls the hospice daily; he visits Terri several times each week. His life, as the reporter notes, would have been much easier if he had walked away, handing over his guardianship to her parents. It appears he took seriously "... til death do us part."
Some would call this behavior "dedicated" and "loyal" -- and the reporter quotes friends who use those terms. The picture here is a stark contrast to the "money-grubbing" opportunist painted by those who side with the Schindlers, Terri's parents.
When you have nothing else, impugn the motives -- a classic technique used to deflect attention from facts or evidence. The case, as many lawyers point out -- in their often dry, lawyerly manner -- is not a personality contest. The question is this: have the courts followed Florida law and provided appropriate due process in this case? Procedural law doesn't stir emotion, however, except, perhaps, among lawyers. And it certainly doesn't make for great TV -- whether on the 6 o'clock news or in a political campaign commercial.
A quick scan of conservative-leaning blogs -- or a review of House Republican comments during the Palm Sunday floor debate -- reveals a portrait of Michael Schiavo, Terri's husband and guardian, as a "scumbag" and opportunist who doesn't love Terri and either wishes she were dead or who - some assert - tried to murder her. Until recently, Michael has refused requests for interviews. In the past week, as the rhetoric directed at him personally has become more hate-filled, Michael has appeared on some TV shows.
The Seattle Times ran a Knight-Ridder feature that offers a glimpse into the life of the man who returned to school to become a nurse after his wife's initial injury, when both were 26 years old.
He rented a house that would accommodate him, Terri and her parents; he and her parents continued to live under the same roof until the successful malpractice suit ($700,000 for Terri's care and $300,000 for Michael). According to his attorney, he has been offered up to $10 million to relinquish his guardianship to Terri's parents.
The woman he lives with, Jodi Centonze, washes Terri's laundry. He calls the hospice daily; he visits Terri several times each week. His life, as the reporter notes, would have been much easier if he had walked away, handing over his guardianship to her parents. It appears he took seriously "... til death do us part."
Some would call this behavior "dedicated" and "loyal" -- and the reporter quotes friends who use those terms. The picture here is a stark contrast to the "money-grubbing" opportunist painted by those who side with the Schindlers, Terri's parents.
When you have nothing else, impugn the motives -- a classic technique used to deflect attention from facts or evidence. The case, as many lawyers point out -- in their often dry, lawyerly manner -- is not a personality contest. The question is this: have the courts followed Florida law and provided appropriate due process in this case? Procedural law doesn't stir emotion, however, except, perhaps, among lawyers. And it certainly doesn't make for great TV -- whether on the 6 o'clock news or in a political campaign commercial.
Comments
I jusst ran across this piece, so a comment may only satisfy my own lingering distaste for the rulings in this case.
So let’s not disparage Michael Schiaivo. Even though the money was running out, the cited $10 million has no factual substance and he abandoned his marital vows ’til death do us part.’
So, let’s look at some facts: (1) The Florida Constitution prolhibits any judge from pronouncing death outside due process. Since due process could not be rendered, the judge was prohibited from pronouncing death by starvation on anyone. (2) Florida statutes provide that when a conflict of interest is exists guardianship may be revoked. In this case, the money was running out. Schiaivo was living with another woman outside his marriage with whom he had two children and wanted his wife dead. Wow! What a conflict of interest! And Terri’s parents had offered to take guardianship. Why? You might ask didn’t the judge follow the state’s statutes to resolve the case?
Instead, what we got was involvement by a higher court that gave us a a garbage ruling, not in accordance with any Constitution or written law but based on precedent and porcedures which are nowhere to be found in constitutional law. What a sad day for American jurisprudence.
Come to think of it. Michael Schiaivo was a scumbag. Hugh
This is not a dupe just corrected E-mail address.