Terri Schiavo to be Starved to Death

Bill, yes legally, and thank goodness for that!
What are you taking about? This woman is braindead, her pursuit of
happiness is in the hands of the one and only person who is legally
responsible for her: Her husband Michael!

The United States have upheld her most fundamental constitutional rights,
when they declared Bush' order of inserting the tube again, as unconstitutional.

When Terri's parents tried to see her medical records at the beginning of all of this - Michael made sure they were denied access by the hospital. When they found out about the bone scan and got their hands on it - two years later - they went to the police and tried to file a report on a possible assult on Terri by Michael. The police wouldn't help them.

This case is sickening.

Setting everything aside - we have a woman that responds to her mothers voice by smiling. That can track moving objects with her eyes. That will laugh if you tickle her. That will chuckle at jokes that are told to her. And we are supposed to believe she is in such a vegetative state that she should die. Be put out of her misery.

And this "power" to kill her is given to a man that mistreated her during the marriage. A marriage that was unhappy and proven as such by one of Terri's friends - whom she told she was thinking of leaving her husband.

Not to mention the other injuries to her - that just didn't get there all by themselves. But instead were born of trauma to her body. Broken limbs - fractured femur, etc.

BULLSHIT!

Her husband has moved on and has a new wife. Under every other circumstance the next of kin would revert back to the parents. I believe it is an oversight in legal language that is responsible for Michael remaining her next of kin. In other words; I do not believe it was the intention of lawmakers at the time of writing the law that Michael should retain this status after taking on a new wife. Ignoring this oversight and allowing Michael to have her killed against her true next of kin's wishes would be a failure to defend her most basic constitutional right, IMO.

I have Ex's from 10 years ago that I wouldn't want to have the authority to choose between sustaining my life in a greatly reduced capacity or a windfall of money. I'd prefer my true next of kin decides on the life part regardless of who gets the dough. My concern is the precedent and accepting a flawed law on the basis that it's flawed seems rather foolish to me.

I lack the knowledge and expertise to know if this can legally be corrected in time to save this woman's life (for whatever it's worth) nor do I know if the language in today's legislation is an honest attempt to do so or a sleazy attempt to usurp additional power for power's sake… but I do know that Terri's parents should have been making this decision in the first place.

brooke, have you any proof that Michael mistreated Terri?
If not, please refrain from such comments. Furthermore,
Terri had a heart attack due to selfinflicted binges with
eating disorders. Her brain was dead for a considerable
amount of time, thus her current state of mental incapacity.

She fell while having the heart attack, which would count
for some of ther injuries - no trauma whatsoever.

Bill, Michael does not have a new "wife". Legally he is still
married to Terri. He does have a relationship with another
woman, and after 15 years, who can blame him.

Again, legally he is still the responsible party for Terri, and
as such, he can decide, no matter what you emotionally
interprete into this case. Her parents ceased to have legel
power over Terry at age 21, when Terri became legally
an adult.

I'm curious what motive people think Michael might have, other than doing what he believes his wife wishes.

There is no money. The settlement money is long gone. American medical costs took care of that.

As the people who understand neurology have explained several times at A2K, and as other posters have linked, Terri in effect has no functioning brain. Keeping her alive seems akin to torture.

Perhaps the politics is more important that her quality of life. I don't understand people who can think like that. I think they are past cruel.

Very well said ehBeth!

Proof that Michael mistreated Terri? Only what Terri's closest friend stated. Why would she lie about that?

Complete report of Dr. William Hammesfahr, a world-reknowned neurologist

September 12, 2002

Re: Terri Schiavo

I was asked to examine Terri Schiavo per the request of the Second District Court of Appeal. They requested that current information about her present medical condition be obtained. They also requested that an evaluation be performed to ascertain treatment options.

HPI:

Ms Schiavo was in her usual state of good health until 2/25/90, when her husband reported that he was awakened from sleep approximately 6 Am by her falling. He reports that she was unresponsive.

Paramedics were called, and aggressive resuscitation was performed with 7 defibrillations en route.

In the Emergency Room, a possible diagnosis of heart attack was briefly entertained, but then dismissed after blood chemistries and serial EKG's did not show evidence of a heart attack. Similarly, a pulmonary or lung cause of the disorder was ruled out in the Emergency Room after normal blood gases and Chest X-Rays were obtained. The possibility of toxic shock syndrome was also entertained. The diagnosis of the cause of her condition was unknown. Her admission laboratory studies showed low potassium level, markedly elevated glucose level, and a normal toxic screen without evidence of diet pills or amphetamines.

Heart attack? What heart attack??

brooke, perhaps you want to read these court proceedings,
they give a clear insight about Dr. Hammesfah and his
allegations

http://www.libertytothecaptives.net/order_nov_22_2002.html

That is contrary to what I've been reading... and if she had no functioning brain; how could she be tortured?

Why no MRI? Why no trips outside? Why no recent pics or video? Why all the secrecy? What could possibly justify Michael's insistence that she be cremated immediately without autopsy? Something stinks.

What are you talking about? What politics are there?

She wasn't tortured!

CJ, after clicking on the link you provided, I felt it important enough to post an excerpt here.

Best friends, neighbors, all can have credible evidence, but they are automatically suspect, as well they should be, because of their subjective feelings or, in the case of Dr. Hammesfahr, a potential publicity--monetary interest.

Here are a couple of paragraphs: (italics, bold fonts and color are mine)

[quote]Dr. Hammesfahr feels his vasodilatation therapy will have a positive affect on Terry Schiavo. Drs. Greer, Bambakidis and Cranford do not feel it will have such an affect. It is clear that this therapy is not recognized in the medical community. Dr. Hammesfahr operates his clinic on a cash basis in advance which made the discussion regarding Medicare eligibility quite irrelevant. A lot of the time also was spent regarding his nominations for a Nobel Prize. While he certainly is a self-promoter and should have had for the court's review a copy of the letter from the Nobel committee in Stockholm, Sweden, the truth of the matter is that he is probably the only person involved in these proceedings who had a United States Congressman recommend him for such an award. Whether the committee "accepted" the nomination, "received" the nomination or whatever, it is not that significant. What is significant, however, and what undemises [sic] his creditability [sic] is that he did not present to this court any evidence other than his generalized statements as to the efficacy of his therapy on brain damaged individuals like Terry [sic] Schiavo. He testified that he has treated about 50 patients in the same or worse condition than Terry [sic] Schiavo since 1994 but he offered no names, no case studies, no videos and no tests results to support his claim that he had success in all but one of them. If his therapy is as effective as he would lead this court to believe, it is inconceivable that he would not produce clinical results of these patients he has treated. And surely the medical literature would be replete with this new, now patented, procedure. Yet, he has only published one article and that was in 1995 involving some 63 patients, 60% of whom were suffering from whiplash. None of these patients were in a persistent vegetative state and all were conversant. Even he acknowledges that he is aware of no article or study that shows vasodilatation therapy to be an effective treatment for persistent vegetative state patients. The court can only assume that such substantiations are not available, not just catalogued in such a way that they can not be readily identified as he testified.

Neither Dr. Hammesfahr nor Dr. Maxfield was able to credibly testify that the treatment options that they offered would significantly improve Terry Schiavo's quality of life. While Dr. Hammesfahr blithely stated he should be able to get her to talk, he admitted he was not sure in what way he can improve her condition although he feels certain her can. He also told the court that "only rarely" do his patients have no improvement. Again, he is extremely short of specifics. Dr. Maxfield spoke of a "chance" of recovery although he stated there was a significant probability that hyperbaric therapy would improve her condition. It is clear from the evidence that these therapies are experimental insofar as the medical community is concerned with regard to patients like Terry Schiavo which is borne out by the total absence of supporting case studies or medical literature. The Mandate requires something more than a belief, hope or "some" improvement. It requires this court to find, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the treatment offers such sufficient promise of increased cognitive function in Mrs. Schiavo's cerebral cortex so as to significantly improve her quality of life. There is no such testimony, much less a preponderance of the evidence to that effect. The other doctors, by contrast, all testified that there was no treatment available to improve her quality of life. They were also able to credibly testify that neither hyperbaric therapy nor vasodilatation therapy was an effective treatment for this sort of injury. That being the case, the court concludes that the Respondents have not met the burden of proof cast upon them by the Mandate and their Motion. Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND AJDUDGED [sic] that the Motion for Relief from Judgment filed herein by Robert and Mary Schindler, Respondents, be and the same is hereby denied. In the event the Motion for Relief from Judgement [sic] is denied, the Mandate also requires this court to follow the dictates of the prior Mandate of the Second District Court of Appeal and "enter an order scheduling the withdrawal of life- support". Accordingly, it is

FURTHER ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Michael Schiavo, as Guardian of the Person of Theresa Marie Schiavo, shall withdraw or cause to be withdrawn the artificial life-support (hydration and nutrition tube) from Theresa Marie Schiavo at 3:00 p.m. on January 3, 2003.[/quote]

It has been documented that Michael had rages of anger and would use his size to bully people. Terri's brother even had a few episodes with Michael . During one incident , Michael grabbed him by the neck and threw him down on the sofa - pushing one arm into his neck and pulling back his fist as though to punch him in the face.

Terri used to show up at her parents home with bruises on her body. When asked what happened she would just say "horselplay."

Before Terri's demise, she had talked for weeks about divorcing Michael. Terri's friend - Jackie, stated under oath that the day before all this happened - she had spoken to Terri and that she was very upset and sounded like she had been crying. When she asked her what was wrong - she said she had a fight with Michael….. Well, Michael DENYS that they had a fight the day before Terri collapsed. Hmmmmmmm, interesting.

Several weeks before this happened - Terri had lunch with her brother. Again - she was very upset. She spoke to him, also - about divorcing Michael. She kept repeating herself, over and over and over - "If I only had the GUTS…..If I only had the guts I would divorce him in a second!!" She was frightened.

On March 5, 1991 - a bone scan was done on Terri's body. The scan revealed that Terri had a history of trauma to her body. A healed, broken right femur bone. Healed fractures of her ribs … healed fractures of her pelvis … healed fracture of her ankle. Healed fracture of her spine.

Michael tried to assult Terri's sister, Suzanne ……but was stopped.

Cindy Shook, one of Michaels girlfriends (after Terri was injured) - stated under oath that Michael stalked her after she broke up with him. She described Michael as being incredibly mean. She stated under oath that his actions at times were life threatening and she has a great fear of him. She was reluctant to report his behavior because she herself was married and Michael was an affair. Michael had told Cindy while they were dating that Terri was a burden to him. That she was robbing him of his life. That he wanted a normal life back again.

Carla, a nurse that tended to Terri while she was put into the nursing home - stated that after Michael would visit his wife - Terri would be very upset. She would break out into a cold sweat - with clenched fists. She said that Michael would become very upbeat after any bout that his wife would have with an illness while she was in the nursing home. Carla lost her job the day after she called the police to report her fears of what might be transpiring in the room during Michaels visits with his wife. She, too, became fearful of her own personal safety.

Anyhow - God help us all. It seems a signed living will means nothing. All you have to do is state to someone - your wishes and that is enough. IF you even, indeed stated those wishes. Who's to know.

justa_babbling_brooke -Why is this all coming out NOW? If Michael was indeed an abuser, which he might very well have been, where were Terri's parents all that time? The whole thing stinks like week old fish!

Just so, Phoenix. It is troubling if all these stories are true, but at this point, they are irrelevant to the subject. I don't mean that in a cruel way, just a down-to-earth statement of fact.

Whether she told Michael she wanted a living will or not, I have a question that one poster always avoids. Would anyone here choose to continue living if you were in Terry's place?

I've made my position clear to all my relatives, so I don't have to worry--I hope. For me, I would far rather have all that money spent on people who really have a chance at productive lives, especially children.

The evidence collected over the years, just read the evidence I posted earlier, supports the decision to withdraw all life support systems

Has anyone else read Asherman's comments on this?

http://able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=1233750#1233750

Really to the point about the legal/jurisdictional issues - which are what matter in this particular case.

Those of us who have options - living will, etc - will hopefully do what we need to.

edit to bring back the link to Asherman. He's always on for the viewpoint from a true American federalist.

For those who don't want to read the entire post, here is the relevent paragraph. No matter what the personal issues involved, there is a greater issue here, and that is the separation of powers. I think that the Constitution has been trampled mightily in the Schiavo case! IMO, Asherman has called it exactly right!

so many Teri topics I was meaning to have this here

Doesn't matter, husker. It's not about any of our opinions - as much as we all love to express them.

Don't you worry about what this case says about your government and politics?

nope