So, I was listening to the Greenhouse on WTMJ radio yesterday PM, while en route from job one (qual) to job two (free movies! in the cineplex! rah rah rah!), and the news-reader noted that a sixty-days stay of feeding-tube removal had been pronounced in the Mary Schiavo political football. Score (another) one for John Ellis Bush. (Oh. No. Too foppish, too foppish...)
As it is, the FLA Dept of Children and Family needs further opportunity to investigate sundry and various allegation of abuse, submitted "anonymously", against the comatostic woman's husband/ex-husband-to-be, inclusive refusal to pursue radical, experimental rehabilitation to bring the woman back to life. (Cue: Evanescence.)
My head spun, at hearing this. The reason: while I'll grant I heard this in the secular-humanist, radical-liberal chic (nigh communist) media, I thought it the case that in the first eight or ten years of the Ms Schiavo's vegetation, her husband had pursued avenues apart from traditional medicine in effort to return his wife to her pre-stroke livelihood. Eventually, though, he became weary of the time and money put forth to rehabilitate his wife, to no avail, and...
He began a long-term relation with another woman.
Now, maybe he was wrong for doing so, without divorcing her. Maybe, if the woman's parents and siblings love her so much, and have such profound faith that she'll wake up, the husband should have "turned the keys over to them", divorcing his wife and washing his hands of her survival -- and in the process, appeared every bit the cad the family now claims he is -- and maybe then we would have found out how desperately the family actually wanted to be responsible for their daughter's/sister's care, but even so, it wasn't as though the husband, from the minute his wife fell silent (among other things), took the opportunity to whore it up.
He did try to make things better, and prolong the marriage to the one toward whom he had vowed fealty "in sickness and health"... He just grew weary of it, after several years of flailing about, trying everything he could to lessen the sickness and make the marriage healthful, make it full, once again.
And, from that weariness, he strayed.
Maybe he shouldn't have. But, maybe, as well, he demonstrates his continued commitment to his wife's pleasure by wanting, finally, to let her misery end and let her go.
Sometimes, you show your deepest love for someone by knowing when it's time to let her go, correct?
And, I think, fifteen (twenty?) years into a persistent vegitative state is time enough to have let someone proceed, hoping against hope she'll get better, but then, realizing it is not to be, that she's missed too much, and would have forgotten so much beside that, that she could be happier parted, her soul in heaven (if such religiosity appeals to you).
I could be wrong though. (More on that, later.)
As it is, the FLA Dept of Children and Family needs further opportunity to investigate sundry and various allegation of abuse, submitted "anonymously", against the comatostic woman's husband/ex-husband-to-be, inclusive refusal to pursue radical, experimental rehabilitation to bring the woman back to life. (Cue: Evanescence.)
My head spun, at hearing this. The reason: while I'll grant I heard this in the secular-humanist, radical-liberal chic (nigh communist) media, I thought it the case that in the first eight or ten years of the Ms Schiavo's vegetation, her husband had pursued avenues apart from traditional medicine in effort to return his wife to her pre-stroke livelihood. Eventually, though, he became weary of the time and money put forth to rehabilitate his wife, to no avail, and...
He began a long-term relation with another woman.
Now, maybe he was wrong for doing so, without divorcing her. Maybe, if the woman's parents and siblings love her so much, and have such profound faith that she'll wake up, the husband should have "turned the keys over to them", divorcing his wife and washing his hands of her survival -- and in the process, appeared every bit the cad the family now claims he is -- and maybe then we would have found out how desperately the family actually wanted to be responsible for their daughter's/sister's care, but even so, it wasn't as though the husband, from the minute his wife fell silent (among other things), took the opportunity to whore it up.
He did try to make things better, and prolong the marriage to the one toward whom he had vowed fealty "in sickness and health"... He just grew weary of it, after several years of flailing about, trying everything he could to lessen the sickness and make the marriage healthful, make it full, once again.
And, from that weariness, he strayed.
Maybe he shouldn't have. But, maybe, as well, he demonstrates his continued commitment to his wife's pleasure by wanting, finally, to let her misery end and let her go.
Sometimes, you show your deepest love for someone by knowing when it's time to let her go, correct?
And, I think, fifteen (twenty?) years into a persistent vegitative state is time enough to have let someone proceed, hoping against hope she'll get better, but then, realizing it is not to be, that she's missed too much, and would have forgotten so much beside that, that she could be happier parted, her soul in heaven (if such religiosity appeals to you).
I could be wrong though. (More on that, later.)