From Unthinkable to Ordinary

[Cindy Seeley]

by Bobby Schindler, posted on Townhall.com

Last week, former U.S. President, George W. Bush released a memoir of his tenure in office called “Decision Points.” In
this 500-plus page account, Bush revisits a number of official and
personal events, as well as choices that shaped both his presidency and
his attitudes in private life.

I was disappointed to learn that Bush’s actions in March of 2005—that led to the passage of Terri’s Law—were not a part of this
account. On March 20, 2005 in what was called the Palm Sunday
Compromise, Congress passed “Relief of the Parents of Theresa Marie
Schiavo”—a law that gave the Federal court access to review of the case
to dehydrate my sister, Terri Schiavo, to death. President Bush left his
home in Texas—in the middle of the night—to return to Washington, D.C.
in order to sign this bill into law.

Some would praise him as a pro-life hero and a friend to the disabled. Others sharply criticized him for involving himself in a state
circuit case. Yet nearly all would remark that his actions were
extraordinary and historic.

Why, then, has Bush not recounted that experience in his memoir? A friend has reasoned with me that Bush may have some regrets over the
matter, or even embarrassment with how it was handled and eventually
politicized by both politicians and the corporate media.

I tend to think there is something more at play. Indeed, no major media outlets or political pundits have revisited Terri’s case since
her death in 2005. It’s almost as though a memorandum has been
circulated warning those in positions of influence that Terri’s name is
political poison, or that the notion of forced death died with Terri on
that day in March.

Unfortunately, it did not. As we have seen through our work to protect the lives of disabled people, cases like Terri’s persist. They
just simply aren’t getting the “face time” anymore.

People like Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh and so many others were tremendous supporters of Terri’s rights in the years we fought to
protect her life. Now they’ve fallen silent on the issue, and it’s an
issue that isn’t going away. It is most troublesome.

Care rationing and the act of denying profoundly disabled people ordinary care (such as food and hydration via feeding tubes,
antibiotics, etc.) is as prevalent now as it was when Terri’s case was
making its way through Florida’s Sixth Judicial Circuit. The reason you
don’t hear about such things is clear: media leaders and public servants
simply won’t talk about them.

There appears to be a fear of taboo in mentioning the Schiavo case, and perhaps that’s because of how it played out and how polarizing
it ultimately became. But, let’s not forget that Terri’s case was one
that was watched across the globe, was discussed by civil liberties
proponents, in religious communities, through groups serving the needs
of disabled people, and even in the halls of Congress.

This was no small story and it brought to light a very scary proposition: that your rights fall into incredible jeopardy the moment
your life is touched by a disability or complicated illness.

The danger hasn’t gone away. Indeed, it might be getting worse. But the conversation that favors life has dried up. The debate over
privacy interests has been dismantled. And the awareness of the rights
of disabled and ailing people is all but a memory.

When you do hear chatter or witness opinion on life and death, it’s nearly always on the side of death. Recently economist and New York Times columnist, Paul Krugman, opined that the answer to our current
financial crisis is a combination of sales taxes and death panels.
There’s that term again.

But Krugman is not alone. There are plenty of proponents of recent health care legislation that would be happy to tell you that
cooler heads need to decide who’s fit to live and who’s entitled to
receive wanted care. Not surprisingly, they oftentimes point out older
Americans and those with incurable conditions as the ones who are no
longer viable.

If we are to protect our own lives then we must reject such notions and be keenly aware of how the laws work, how to advocate for
ourselves, and why it’s important to do so. That includes the sharing of
knowledge on difficult cases, similar to Terri’s, and how they find
their way into our country’s courts.

My sister’s situation presented a unique opportunity for those in the public eye to bring forward the issues surrounding health care,
disability, personal liberties and retained rights. And prior to her
death, they did. My family and others touched by this issue were
grateful. But, where are they now?

It may go without saying, but rarely does a day go by that I don’t think about my sister and the suffering she was made to endure.
I’m also very much aware that there are countless others who face the
same fate, particularly so since the organization we established in
Terri’s memory receives hundreds of calls from people who are desperate
for help in defending a loved one’s life.

When Terri died, President Bush issued the following statement:

“Today millions of Americans are saddened by the death of Terri Schiavo. I urge all those who honor Terri Schiavo to continue to work to
build a culture of life, where all Americans are welcomed and valued
and protected, especially those who live at the mercy of others. The
essence of civilization is that the strong have a duty to protect the
weak. In cases where there are serious doubts and questions, the
presumption should be in the favor of life.”

He’s correct, of course. But if Mr. Bush is not writing and reflecting about it today—and if we’re not talking about it—then we’re
not educating people like we should. Consequently, we’re not doing
what’s necessary to spread that message. We’re pushing the issue aside
and pretending it’s no longer a problem. Avoidance and denial of what
happened to Terri is not going to save lives or protect the liberties of
individuals today and in the future. Aggressively working to teach the
public the truth about this vital topic so that innocent Americans can
never be starved and dehydrated to death again is the right course and
commitment.

The people who do not value your life have plenty to say; and they are rather bald-faced about it.

If people like President Bush truly believe the lives of vulnerable people are worthy of protection, they need to come back to
the table and defend those lives with vigor and resolve— now, tomorrow
and for years to come.

[Bruce Graves]

I posted this to my blog as well. My wife and I are over 65 and it hits home.

[Kathryn Ball]

Thank you for posting this, Cindy.

Glenn Beck brought this case to the forefront when he was still broadcasting from Florida, shortly after 9/11/2001. I looked it up and read Terri's sad story and could not, at the time, nor can I at THIS time understand her husband's insistance that she DIE when her family was more than willing to accept full responsibility for her care.

He had "moved on ", was in another relationship and even had children with another woman but remained obsessed with ending Terri's life, proclaiming loudly that [even thought there was nothing written] "Terri always said she wouldn't want to live like this".

I am sure that MOST of us, given a CHOICE would RATHER not live like Terri did for tha last several years of her life. However, LIVE she did without 'artificial/mechanical means'. her life was sustained much like all of our lives.........by being fed and recieving hydration, by having her hygienic needs met and passive range of motion exercises performed by the staff and her Mom.

Terri was not a "vegetable"..............she responded to her family. Would she ever be who "she used to be?" Probably not but then who of us are after any life altering ordeal?

When the order was given to stop feeding and hydrating Terri I was sick to my soul that ANY judge could sit on a bench and play at being God. Than any human could order the slow and painful death by starvation and dehydration of an innocent woman whose biggest mistake in life was to have married a selfish, self absorbed son-of-a- b--ch, whose sole purpose in life was to make certain she never really "woke up" or spoke to anyone again............he'll have to answer for it one day to a Judge Whose decisions are always JUST.

Bobby Schindler is correct. If allowed to become fully operational, 'ObamaCare' will ration care based on the 'usefulness' of the persons needing that care as well as the costs of the care. For example, a premature baby [let's say 32 weeks gestation], this tiny person will need neo natal intensive care for some time which is VERY expensive. Some premies are also slower to develop both physically and mentally thus costing the "collective" more........chances are, the care will be denied and the infant will be placed in an isolet on oxygen but not monitored as carefully as in NICU.
The baby is pretty much on his/her own to survive or not.

Next senario, a 78 yo retired farmer presents in the ER with chest pain, shortness of breath, nausea, profuse sweating indicating a probable myocardial infarction [heart attack].He was a long time smoker but quit five years ago, he also has a family history of heart disease. A catheterization of his heart vessels shows blockages in major arteries indicating open heart cardiac bypass surgery......................but he is 78, not in the best of health to begin with, is he "WORTH" the $100,000.00+ for the proceedure? Or, can they just give him some PAIN pills and some Nitro Glycerine to manage the pain......................................???????

Third................an 18 YO is driving home from a date, it's snowing and the roads are slippery. Being 18, he's driving too fast for conditions and slides off the road into a tree. He does not have his seat belt on and sustains a skull fracture, facial lacerations, fractured ribs and puctured lung.
He will recieve ALL of the treatment he needs to recover followed by all of the rehab therapy etc.-------------WHY? Because he is 18, he is or soon WILL be a PRODUCER/WORKER.

That, my friends, is how 'life' will be 'valued' by ObamaCare and those who administer it..............
[oh, that doesn't include the members of THEIR "class", the "elites" have a different set of rules.
This is exactly the reason that we can NOT ease off of Washington, not now, not EVER!]

We must never forget that whatever we do the least of God's creatures we also do unto Him.
God Bless.