Bobby Schindler Discusses the Death of His Sister
Bobby Schindler is one of the finest, most decent people I have ever met. Over the years I have known him, I watched as he emerged, somewhat dazed, from a wholly private life as a high school teacher to becoming one of the most sought after activists worldwide standing up unequivocally for the equality and sanctity of human life, with a special concern for discrimination against people with disabilities.
Today, he has weighed in on the death of his sister, Terri Schiavo, two years ago. He believes--and I agree--that the facts of the Schiavo controversy have been so distorted and spun, and the supporters of the Schindlers have been so demonized--that there are few who remember what actually happened and what the fight was really all about. (For example, we are told that only religious conservatives supported laws to try and save Terri's life. Yet, the federal "Terri's Bill," received unanimous consent in the United States Senate, and about 40% Democratic support in the House of Representatives.)
In any event, I will let Bobby speak for himself at this link.
Labels: Terri Schiavo. Bobby Schindler.
posted by Wesley J. Smith @ 11:58 AM
10 Comments
10 Comments:
Wesley,
the sad fact is that the Schindlers contributed to the distorted view of the political players in the fight for Terri Schiavo's life.
I remember the time all too well. The last months of Terri's life represented a lot of work, little sleep and a great deal of emotional exhaustion.
The Schindlers themselves never highlighted the bipartisan nature of the Congressional votes, never mentioned Tom Harkin's role in brokering the agreement in the Senate.
While they often referred to Terri as a "disabled person," they rarely mentioned the 20+ disability groups that supported Terri Schiavo's right to live when talking to the media, in contast to their mentions of RTL allies.
Even in this essay, Bobby makes no mention of disability groups. That, together with his use of the term "activist judges," helps to further these misconceptions. The judges involved in the Schiavo decisions weren't activist at all - they rendered decisions that were right within the "mainstream" of "right to die" decisions, especially considering the legal arguments that were used.
Interestingly, I've been kicking around the idea of playing with Romney's statements - but in relation to Haleigh Poutre rather than Terri Schiavo.
Stephen: Haleigh Poutre's case is crucial. (For SHSers who don't know about 12 year-old Haleigh's near-dehydration, type "Poutre" in the search function at the top right. It links to my posts on her case, where an article I wrote about it can also be found. Steve is righteously upset about her case.)
Steve: If you make that important point, I will pass on what you say here.
This from a correspondent: "Wesley, regarding Mr Drake's comments -- I do recall that Rev. Jesse Jackson, though a late-comer, was a highly visible not-pro-life-right-wing-conservative advocate for Terri."
Indeed. So was Ralph Nader. In fact, Nader and I issued two joint press releases on the matter.
I have to agree with Stephen's comments. The Schindlers willingly sided with the right-to-life crowd, and this I believe totally distorted what the case was about.
The Schindlers should have been more involved with the disability community, and I think if they and their attorneys had framed the issue correctly as a disability rights issue instead of a "right to life" issue, there would NEVER have been the outcry from the so-called "other side." The "other side," after all, for the most part had a kneejerk response to the right-to-life crowd, and therefore tarring the Schindlers and their supporters as a bunch of theocratic nutjobs out to violate "privacy rights" obscured what was a truly horrible civil rights violation.
Old George Felos and Michael Schiavo played this nonsense like a violin, despite their completely preposterous arguments about what Terri "wanted."
I have to disagree with Susan. The Schindlers were in a desperate situation and took their friends where they could find them.
And it _was_ a right to life issue. A woman was being dehydrated _to death_. Yes, her disability was a major reason, but I think you underestimate the strength of rhetoric if you think casting it more often and more loudly (as Wesley and others did) in disability rights terms would have changed the public's perception. People who thought she "should" be dehydrated to death were intransigent. Whatever you tried to tell them ran off, even the stuff about her husband's neglect and mistreatment of her over the years since her injury, his lying in the court records about planning to care for her forever (and that was a matter of public record), and all the rest.
It's ridiculous to blame the Schindlers for accepting and welcoming the support of the pro-life community as though somehow they should have shunned or ignored that support because it might "tar" them somehow.
To Lydia and Wesley's correspondent,
You seem to be missing the points that both Susan and I have made. I certainly have never said that pro-life people shouldn't be involved. (OTOH, I have told at least one audience that if a pro-life activist's motivation for getting involved in a euthanasia case is to use it as an opportunity to talk about *abortion*, they should please do us all a favor and stick to abortion.)
The *reason* that both Rev. Jackson and Ralph Nader came across as shocks to the media and the public was due to how firmly entrenched the "culture war" frame was by the time they entered the picture - and briefly, at that.
And, Lydia, there is no way to test your assumption since neither the Schindlers nor their lawyers gave much mention of disability *advocacy* groups taking strong action in their numerous media appearances. The players they tended to mention favored the "culture wars" framework that both Tom DeLay and Howard Dean encouraged.
A final note - unlike Jackson and Nader, Not Dead Yet and other disability rights groups are still working at this - and going largely unthanked and unrecognized except for rare exceptions like Wesley and Nat Hentoff.
Stephen,
I hope you know how much my family appreciated all of the help we received from your organization and the other groups that were involved in advocating for Terri and supporting my family through what was the most difficult and painful time in our lives.
Quite honestly, my family was so busy trying to find some way to save my sister that we did not have the time to worry about who was getting credit for helping, nor were we keeping a count of how many or what groups were doing so. We were just extremely grateful to everyone who worked on her behalf, and always will be.
Perhaps you are right that during the time of my sister's two week dehydration, things could/should have been handled differently. My family had no idea that we would have to be part of something so inherently wicked. And I can't begin to tell you the dozens among dozens of directions that we were being pulled during that time.
What I can tell you is that we did everything in our power to save my sister’s life. I'm sure looking back some can argue that my family made some mistakes, and we probably did. And it's very easy, in hindsight, for people to say "it would have turned out differently, if..." However well-intentioned those people are, the fact remains that we did the best we could under the circumstances. And trust me, the cost of losing my sister weighs most heavily on those of us who knew and loved her best.
I would like to address your comment that we rarely mention the disability groups that supported my sister’s right to live.
Subsequent to Terri's death, I’ve been fortunate enough to be invited to speak throughout the country, and outside the country as well. In every speech I give, I make a point to highlight the role of the disability community in Terri’s struggle. There were actually 30 disability organizations that were supporting my sister, and I use every opportunity to mention how the media ignored their contribution to Terri's defense. I reference Diane Coleman in my presentations, as well. I am grateful for her leadership in advocating for people like Terri throughout the world.
I also cover this issue in letters that I write to the media, as well as when I am being interviewed. In fact, I have written several letters to the editors of major papers, in which I specifically mention the disability organizations supporting my sister. I have also addressed the bipartisan support by Congress and the support from Senator Harkin in some of these letters as well.
It is the media that continues to censor the disability community's involvement in Terri's case by editing my comments about the matter, in spite of my attempts to explain to them how important your role was.
I would be happy to provide you with original copies of these pieces, if you would like to read them. I think you will find that what you perceive as a lack of recognition is actually a matter of censorship by a media that would prefer not to recognize my sister as a disabled woman.
As far as my commentary for World Net Daily, my intention was solely to address this ridiculous notion that Congress got involved in a "private family matter" as it continues to be reported by the media. I purposely did not mention any of the groups that were involved in Terri's situation when I wrote this piece. It was neither the time nor the place to do that.
As you are well aware Stephen, we have a grave problem in our country, and you and your organization have been on the front lines of this fight for many years. You are correct that the fight against euthanasia is not a partisan issue, nor is it merely a right-to-life or a disability rights issue. It is a bi-partisan issue that encompasses both the right to life and disability communities...the sooner we learn to accept that and work together, the sooner we will win.
I sincerely hope that we can work together in the future to build a coalition of organizations to address the growing threat of euthanasia, and to prevent what happened to Terri from ever happening again. The only way we are going to accomplish this is by working together to fight the evil that threatens the lives of our disabled brothers and sisters.
We are probably not going to agree on every single issue out there, but let us please work together on the ground we do share.
Thank you, once again, for your support of Terri.
Sincerely,
Bobby Schindler
This comment has been removed by the author.
Stephen and Susan:
You guys support the right ideals and I believe in disability rights, but please keep in mind that the Schindlers did the best they could to save their loved one, and at first blush your repsonses sound like someone saying, "they deserved it because they went with the pro-lifers for help and not the disability-rights types."
On second look I saw that's not what you were saying, but you do come across pretty harsh. Nobody deserves to have a loved one murdered like that, and they were doing the best they could with what they have. Please keep that in mind and remember that it doesn't matter who got represented in the fight - Terri deserved to live because she was Terri, a human being, and someone who was very well loved.
I and mine continue to support your good works, please keep them up.
Deep Toad: When Randall Terry--Elmer Gantry, as I callhim--got involved, the NYT carried it on the front page and turned into a "religous right" crusade to invade privacy. Before that, most media ignored the story. That became the story line thereafter. Outrageous yellow journalism, but that is what I have come to expect in the MSM.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home