Maybe she felt it

Remember Terri Schiavo?

The Terri Schiavo case was a legal struggle involving prolonged life support in the United States that lasted from 1998 to 2005. At issue was whether to carry out the decision of the husband of Teresa Marie “Terri” Schiavo to terminate life support for her. Terri was diagnosed by doctors as being in a persistent vegetative state. The highly publicized and prolonged series of legal challenges presented by her parents and by state and federal legislative intervention effected a seven-year delay before life support finally was terminated.

Terri Schiavo collapsed in her St. Petersburg, Florida, home in full cardiac arrest on February 25, 1990. She suffered massive brain damage due to lack of oxygen and, after two and a half months in a coma, her diagnosis was changed to vegetative state. For the next few years doctors attempted speech and physical therapy and other experimental therapy, hoping to return her to a state of awareness. In 1998 Schiavo’s husband, Michael, petitioned the Sixth Circuit Court of Florida (Pinellas County), to remove her feeding tube pursuant to Florida Statutes Section 765.401(3).[1] He was opposed by Terri’s parents, Robert and Mary Schindler, who argued that she was conscious. The court determined that she would not wish to continue life-prolonging measures,[2] and on April 24, 2001, her feeding tube was removed for the first time, only to be reinserted several days later. On February 25, 2005, a Pinellas County judge ordered the removal of Terri Schiavo’s feeding tube. Several appeals and federal government intervention followed, which included U.S. President George W. Bush returning to Washington D.C. to sign legislation designed to keep her alive. After all attempts at appeals through the federal court system upheld the original decision to remove the feeding tube, staff at the Pinellas Park hospice facility where Terri was being cared for disconnected the feeding tube on March 18, 2005, and she died on March 31, 2005.

Those who argued she was not conscious and should be killed used the following logic: absence of evidence is evidence of absence. Yet that very logic may have lead her to suffer a terrible death after being starved for almost two weeks. To see why, check below the fold.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

8 Responses to Maybe she felt it

  1. Bilbo says:

    Hi Mike,

    I got a comment that I’m holding in moderation from an “LK” who says that they tried posting a link about you here and that you deleted it. Not sure what to do about this.

  2. Michael says:


    Nothing was deleted. When trolls post personal attacks instead of addressing the points I raised, oddly enough, their flame bait gets held up in moderation. I have little patience with people who will not engage in the arguments.

  3. Bilbo says:

    Is there any truth to their accusation?

  4. Michael says:

    OK, now that you have made it sound all so serious, I approved his comment,

  5. Crude says:

    Bilbo, considering you – like me – run a blog where not a single comment passes by without your personal approval, don’t you feel a bit odd about doing what you just did? I mean, Mike demonstrably lets critics post here, usually with no moderation at all. But if he moderates a post and you catch wind of it, you think this is a good first step towards handling it?

  6. eveysolara says:

    This might be a good time to remind peeps that bilbo called for the banning of someone who disagrees with him over at biologos, in addition, he banned someone going by the name ‘anonymous’ over at his own blog who was criticizing his 9/11 conspiracy views.

  7. Bilbo says:

    First, I apologize to Mike. Luca Kaestner had posted the link to the Rush Limbaugh site a while ago at my blog. I read Mike’s post there too quickly and thought he was saying those were his own values. On second reading I see that he was saying those were Democratic Party values. Not nearly as serious as I had thought. Sorry about that.

    Crude, Kaestner has been continually trying to post at my blog for quite a while now. I told this person to take his/her accusation to Mike’s blog, instead. Finally Kaestner tried and then complained to me that Mike had deleted it. So maybe I handled it wrong, but it wasn’t a “first step.”


    I called for the banning of John because of his insulting comments of Behe, which I did not think belonged on a supposedly Christian blog. I didn’t ban anyone on my blog for criticizing my views on 9/11 truth. An anonymous blogger kept using the exact same insulting name for me, but then complained that I lacked creativity in my posts. So I insisted that they become more creative in their insulting names of me. Apparently they didn’t take it very well.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.