posted on March 24, 2005 02:46:10 AM new
What I would like to know is why Mr Schiavo wants custody of Teri why he won't allow the biological parents be her guardians when he has a live in girlfriend and 2 children. Why doesn't he give up his rights to her and move on or does he have something to hide. It is beyond me why he subjects his girlfriend and children to this. I wonder what they think.
posted on March 24, 2005 02:46:26 AM newBasically there have been so many ridiculous allegations...
fenix, I too, find it hard to believe that he said, "when will that bitc* die?" (I wonder if its something he mumbled under his breath?)
I think at least in the beginning, he was dogmatic about her care. But I wouldnt be surprised if that waned after awhile. I also am not surprised about things that get overlooked in nursing homes or such type care facilities. I remember when geraldo riveria did a big story on one such facility in NY. It blew the whole facility right out of the water - all that was going on there...people couldnt believe it, but it was right before our eyes on tape! Well,.broken bones, I dont know about that,..but if she couldnt tell anyone about it - how would they know? I've seen way more sh* at such facilities than I'd ever care to recall regarding neglect of patients.
..
[ edited by dblfugger9 on Mar 24, 2005 02:49 AM ]
posted on March 24, 2005 03:30:36 AM new
...fenix, I too, find it hard to believe that he said, "when will that bitc* die?" (I wonder if its something he mumbled under his breath?) ...
Who cares if it's true or not. It's too good a line not to repeat. And when we have a circus going on, we need more stuff like this. Now we have the b-list celebrities chiming in on this due to their "direct personal experience" (i.e., some lame story, not at all related).
I don't know all the details of the family dynamics involved, and neither does anyone else posting here. But I also do not believe there is a conspiracy within the judicial system to execute this woman.
In an ideal situation, there would be input from medical professionals, family members, and the patient. Not MSNBC insta-polls.
I can truly feel for the parents - having a relatively young woman go into this state so quickly is not the same as an elderly person getting gradually sicker and less cognizant.
Having already been at more deathbed scenes in my life than I would like, I know how easy it is to interpret any sign as an improvement (or sometimes as a sign of imminent death). The medical professionals, while admittedly not perfect, have far more experience and the emotional detachment to see what is really happening.
[ edited by Damariscotta on Mar 24, 2005 03:31 AM ]
posted on March 24, 2005 03:48:00 AM new
coincoach -- I disagree again. There are people who are placed on feeding tubes for other reasons than brain injuries. Case in point, my little girl was born with severe gastric reflux. It was so bad that she had trouble sucking on a bottle and then later on with swallowing solid foods. Her ped GI wanted her placed on a gastric feeding tube to help heal her esophagus, but I refused. I worked with her everyday and through alot of patience we got through it. I saw plenty of babies and children on feeding tubes due to their severe gastric and feeding problems.
I don't understand why the husband just wouldn't divorce her and let her parents take care of her.
posted on March 24, 2005 05:17:55 AM new
I hate the way she has to die. I think it's wrong. However, I think it's wrong to allow her to go on the way she is. To me, love is letting go of someone if you know that's the best thing for them. Not holding on because you can't bear the thought of life without them. That's selfishness. If it weren't for my brother's suffering, I would have wanted everything possible done to save him. It's instinct to not let go of someone we love. But, there comes a time when you have to because it's what's best for the patient. It's QUALITY of life, not quantity. It's not all about YOU, it's all about THEM.
What sin is she committing here? She's not committing suicide. Her parents are not assisting in it. So, I don't think that should even be a matter for discussion. Her caregivers and the courts have made this decision and it's theirs to live with.
The parents need to let go. Parading her before the cameras is shameful. She is being made a spectacle of and her parents don't even seem to realize it. Exploitation. A pawn in a political game. The politicians have a lot more to be ashamed of.
posted on March 24, 2005 06:13:30 AM new
Amen Fenix and Cheryl. This has become a horrid situation. Bizzy-I know many people have feeding tubes and recover, just like many people are on respirators and recover. But this poor girl has a huge chunk of her brain destroyed. That is the difference. Plus the fact that the courts have determined that she would not have wanted to live this way. Apparently there was more evidence of the fact than not. Why would her husband go through 7 years of this torture if he did not care about her and what she wanted? If he didn't give a crap about her, the easier way would have been to hand her over to her parents and move on.
posted on March 24, 2005 06:51:41 AM new
fenix - They didn't wait until now to give SWORN affidavits. This happened in the mid 1990's. AND this article is from 2003....not since all this came up once again.
On this link the nurse who testified about 'the bitc* dying' is mentioned also.
And his promise to care for Terri, for life, and his immediate withdrawl of care once he received the money from the lawsuit.
Also....the court appointed guardian that you mentioned, fenix, was against dehydrating her....but because the husband had full control....it didn't matter what her guardian felt was in Terri's best interests. The husband was bound and determined to withdraw anything that would help her.
posted on March 24, 2005 08:20:48 AM new
::They didn't wait until now to give SWORN affidavits. This happened in the mid 1990's::
Read your link again Linda....
In the mid 1990s, according to another nurse's affidavit filed under penalty of perjury, Michael was overheard saying things such as, "When is she going to die," "Has she died yet?" and "When is that #*!@ going to die?"(This affidavit was only recently filed. Michael has not yet filed a response.)
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
If it's really "common" sense, why do so few people actually have it?
posted on March 24, 2005 08:36:22 AM newWell,.broken bones, I dont know about that,..but if she couldnt tell anyone about it - how would they know?
DBL - the allegation is that she had them when she was initially admitted to the hospital but somehow no one noticed a broken neck, pelvice, foot... just does not make any sense.
Also, why are all these people so willing to talk now? Why weren't they going to terris parents when all of this abuse was supposedly going on offering to testify on their behalf to gain guardianship? One nurse says that they kept a watch on the door for fear of being caught giving treatment by Michael who was always there and looming and cruel and horrible and another turns around and says she only saw the guy once? These people need to work on co-ordinating their stories.
Libra - He has said it 107 times. This is what Terri wanted and he is trying to see that it is done. If he was the money hungry SOB that everyone is trying to portray him as, he easily could have taken the offer from the guy in California for $1,000,000 to sign guardianship over to her parents.
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
If it's really "common" sense, why do so few people actually have it?
posted on March 24, 2005 08:41:23 AM new
fenix - There is nothing wrong with my reading nor my understanding of the SEPARATE facts that are pointed out in in.
----
After Terri collapsed from unknown causes in 1990, she became profoundly cognitively disabled.
Michael filed a medical-malpractice lawsuit, during which he said he would care for her for the rest of her life, which, assuming proper care, would be a normal lifespan. He also presented at trial a medical-rehabilitation expert who had developed a plan to provide support for Terri to maximize her ability to respond to her environment.
A jury awarded $1.3 million in the malpractice case, of which $750,000 was put in trust to pay for the kind of care that Michael promised to provide Terri.
Michael never kept his promise.
Within months of the money being deposited in the bank, Michael ordered a do-not-resuscitate order placed on Terri's chart. He has also repeatedly denied her other forms of medical care, such as treatment for infections.
A point was made
**Once the money was in the bank, according to affidavits filed by nurses under penalty of perjury, Michael ordered that Terri be denied stimulation.
Please note WHEN he received the money.....
A separate point made was
In the mid 1990s, according to another nurse's affidavit filed under penalty of perjury, Michael was overheard saying things such as, "When is she going to die," "Has she died yet?" and "When is that #*!@ going to die?" (This affidavit was only recently filed. Michael has not yet filed a response[/i].)
AND as I said....this this happened in the mid 90's. The last part....only recently filed....was from mid 2003...not 'recently, nor in the present withdrawl of food and water...but rather the LAST time he tried to starve and dehydrate her to death....in 2003. Another time when her caregivers came out to make legal affirmations to HIS behavior - 2003.
posted on March 24, 2005 08:48:28 AM new
fenix - Why weren't they going to terris parents when all of this abuse was supposedly going on offering to testify on their behalf to gain guardianship?
It's my understanding they DID...and that's when her family started trying to get a peek at her medical records...to see for themselves. But Judge Greer and the husband BLOCKED them from doing so. It wasn't until 2002 that their attorney's WERE able to allow those same records to be seen by anyone other than her husband.
posted on March 24, 2005 09:23:31 AM new
On the money issue....funny how Michael didn't even mention to the court, or anyone else for that matter [that I've read] his 'desire to be sure Terri's "wishes" to die were carried out. NOR that he intended to do just that.
No...he lies to the court about his 'intentions' and what his 'actions' are going to be.
HAD he told the court, 'my wife didn't want to live like this', I for one, bet their damage award wouldn't have been what it was.
And I doubt there's a single parent alive that believed their SIL actually meant to do what he said he would....but then when he turns around MONTHS after being given guardianship and the settlement money...who then decides he wants her to die, who wouldn't have started acting just as her family did. They went into protective mode.
posted on March 24, 2005 09:29:07 AM new
Oh the posters in here who aren't doctors, aren't lawyers, aren't the Supreme Court, spouting off their weak arguments based on hearsay, interviews on talk shows(UH, DUH, those AREN'T courts of law in case you're not aware of that) and the gossip of nurses who should have been fired long ago.
Pretending they care about this one person when around the world millions die REALLY horrible deaths from REAL starvation caused by poverty and, of course, these posters would blame these people for not getting a job.
They also continue to ignore the sleezy use of this woman's case to further a political agenda. Tom Delay even had the nerve to compare Teri's case with his "persecution" (his ethics violations and the people who think he should be held accountable).
It's backfiring big time, however, as well it should.
posted on March 24, 2005 10:01:19 AM new
And whose Aunt Millie had a stroke or Uncle Gus with Alzheimers is totally irrelevant in referring to someone who has less brain function than an arm chair.
posted on March 24, 2005 11:30:14 AM new
There were FOUR different nurses/caregivers who testified to Terri's condition and her husband not allowing any care be given.
So according to the 'pull-the-plug' group...they don't know what they're talking about.
Nor, I take it do any of the doctors who believe differently than Michael and his attorney.
[taken from Syndcated News]
Dr. William Hammesfahr, Nobel prize nominee and neurologist testified that Terri's neck injuries are consistent with only one type of injury: that of strangulation.
And as for the topic of rehabilitation, several doctors have all testified that Terri would indeed benefit from therapy, their names are Dr. William Hammesfahr, Dr. Alexander Gimon, Dr. Jacob Greene, Dr. Richard Neubauer, Dr. William Russell, Dr. Jay Carpenter, Dr. James Avery, Dr. John D. Young, Dr. William Maxfield, Sarah Green Mele – Speech Pathologist and Myra Stinson – Speech Pathologist.
posted on March 24, 2005 11:48:02 AM new
""Dr. William Hammesfahr, Nobel prize nominee and neurologist testified that Terri's neck injuries are consistent with only one type of injury: that of strangulation.""
Excuse me but he was NOT a Nobel nominee! A letter was sent on his behalf by a congressman who does NOT qualify to nominate ANYONE to the Nobel committee for a Nobel prize. There are only certain people who can nominate people and the nomination did not come from them.
AND, nominee's names are not publicized.
Check your sources.
He also has a few problems with HIS medical practices.
He was NOT Teri's "treating" physician but based his opinion on observation of a few hours.
The courts have spoken......don't you believe in the law?
posted on March 24, 2005 12:49:20 PM new
Yes Linda check my post above and there are three nurses in that article.
I see Jeb Bush is trying to make her a ward of the state and I can understand why. If Teri dies do you think there will be an autopsy and will Michael Schiavo consent to one? I think that will be the next controversy.
posted on March 24, 2005 01:01:46 PM new
No need for an autopsy. She has been under doctors care during this final period. There is no question regarding cause of death therefore there is no legal reason to compell one.
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
If it's really "common" sense, why do so few people actually have it?
posted on March 24, 2005 02:10:27 PM newShe's not committing suicide. Her parents are not assisting in it.
She wasnt dying Cheryl. She just needed assistance with food and water. To me, its kinda like a body that needs insulin. We are sending her to her death - and the parents have to stand by and watch it and do nothing.
btw, I agree with you about letting go. But I dont think its anybody's place to impose those beliefs on this family. Christopher Reeves had no quality of life either. He couldnt breathe on his own, he couldnt move his head, his legs, he couldnt talk in the beginning, he would never have sex again...on and on. And still, he fought to live. Who the hell is to judge what QUALITY of life is worth living for someone else?
I really dont think the parents arent making it up when they say they see some responsiveness in her. They know their daughter.
AND Doctors and science are confounded everyday with things beyond medical explanation.
I feel terrible for this family and the state of our country when we think its a good thing to put an innocent being to death.
.
[ edited by dblfugger9 on Mar 24, 2005 02:15 PM ]
posted on March 24, 2005 02:18:05 PM new
Again, the silly comparisons. Christopher Reeve ABSOLUTELY had a "quality" to his life, whether or not it is something YOU could endure. He was a brain with no body, but he was "Christopher Reeve". Schiavo is furniture, not "Terri".
Don't think I don't understand the other side of this. I do. I've lost loved ones as well. You can hardly compare this to Christopher Reeve. His Cerebral Cortex was not liquified. His injury was a spinal injury. He was able to think, feel emotion, verbally communicate with the ones he loved. His brain was fully intact. Not even close enough to compare.
Again, I think starving her is cruel. We treat our animals better. However, our laws do not allow for euthenasia. It should. A person's right to die is highly personal. No one, including parents and siblings and particularly NOT the U.S. government, have a right to interfer in that. It is betweent that person and his or her God.
Jeb Bush tried to interfer by having guardianship removed from her husband. That's overstepping his bounds - by leaps. Whatever the outcome of this, one thing is for sure, she made it possible for all of us to see just how far the federal government will go to intrude upon our personal lives. And that little ditty should frighten everyone. Even the conservatives.
posted on March 24, 2005 02:57:14 PM new
The difference between Terri and Christopher Reeves is that Christopher Reeves was wealthy and had clout and Terri wasn't.
Around 1995 she was able to do some things and slowly went down hill. Was it because she wasn't allowed any rehabilitation. I have worked with Speech Therapists that when they get a patient that have no swallowing function and when they are through with them they do great. As a x-ray technician we did barium swallows on these type of patients that get rehabilitated by Speech Therapists to that they can eat. Maybe not steak but who cares as long as it was food. Many were like Terri or worse.
posted on March 24, 2005 04:01:46 PM new
Cheryl, Christoper Reeves couldnt breathe on his own. Think about that. So his brain was working, and he knew he couldnt breathe and his quality of life as he once knew it was gone.
If I came to this board and said, Well I think his quality of life was not worth him keeping that breathing tube affixed, he's a burden to his wife and family now, let him die. That is the exact same sentiment.
I do believe in the right to die. But its a very personal choice. Since she cannot speak on for herself and the husband has obviously gotten another life, and the parents dont believe in it...where is the harm in letting her live?
Nobody can answer that.
Her dysfunctional and impaired life is harming NO ONE!
And Libra, you're right. Reeves had the best care and therapy money could buy. When Terri Schiavo had an early chance at some rehabilition, it was cut off. I dont think any of them expect(ed) a full recovery, it wasnt about that. It used to be if you had a pulse, you were alive. If she didnt die from the inital accident or thereafter, why do we have to insist she has to die now?
posted on March 24, 2005 05:29:16 PM new
Her cerebral cortex is liquified. It is filled with spinal fluid. There is nothing to "rehab". In case you don't know, here's the cerebral cortex's function: Determines intelligence, determines personality, interpretation of sensory impulses, motor function, planning and organization, touch sensation. The extensive outer layer of gray matter of the cerebral hemispheres, is largely responsible for higher brain functions, including sensation, voluntary muscle movement, thought, reasoning, and memory.
Now, what is there to rehab? Any movement right now is involuntary. People with this condition are known to have movement, but it is not deliberate movement even though it may appear to be.
