Subscribe, unsubscribe or change your subscription on the www.bisga.org website or visit http://listserv.tbinet.org/scripts/wa-tbinet.exe?SUBED1=b-news&A=1

* Inside This Issue:

• Editor's Note -John Pistorius

• Medicine's Vegetative Legacy -Andrea Williams

• Congress Steps in on Terri Schiavo Case March 8, 2005

• Rally For Terri Schiavo

• Additional Resources

• Eye-Witness Account on Terri's Current Condition -Barbara Weller

• QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS ON THE FEDERAL "TERRI'S LAW"

• Silence Must Be Heard (Song Lyrics) by Enigma

• Using Your Head -Q & A

• The Term PVS is Insensitive and Inaccurate -Frank Tetto

• Facts Related to Terri Schiavo -by Diane Coleman, J.D.

• Lethal Error: The Schiavo Ruling -By Walter M. Weber

• The BIA USA Position on The Terri Schiavo Issue -John Pistorius

• MYTHS and FACTS

• Days Go By (song lyrics) by Dirty Vegas

• Social Engineering/Culling Damaged Goods -by John Pistorius

• Support Group Development Tools -Free help for starting or running peer groups

• Upcoming Support Group Meetings

• Thank You!

• B-NEWS Subscriber Policy

• Subscribe/Unsubscribe Instructions

• ETC.

* Editor's Note

 

Hi Folks,

 

The 6th century B.C., Greek poet Phocylides wrote "Give no decision till both sides thou'st heard." It is a reasonable, wise person who listens to both sides prior to making decisions. In our modern society, both sides are rarely presented, much less heard.

 

British philanthropist Thomas R. Dewar is quoted as having said "Minds are like parachutes - they only function when open." Our minds are under our own control. We alone, hold the keys to unlocking our minds to open them.
 

This edition of B-NEWS is dedicated to enlightening my readers on issues surrounding Terri Schiavo. The outcome of this case will undoubtedly have life or death consequences for all persons who sustain traumatic brain injuries. Forgive me if you believe you already have all of the information that you need regarding this issue. I believe many of my readers can benefit from receiving what I've assembled here.

 

Terri was injured about 15 years ago. The injury to her brain was severe. Early in her recovery, she received excellent care. After a lawsuit was won and a settlement paid, her husband remembered that she once commented that she would not want to be kept alive artificially.

 

He stopped therapy and all but the absolutely necessary care and nourishment. Now he is pressing for her source of sustenance to be stopped. He refuses to let Terri's parents have custody of their daughter. They want to get her therapies to improve her recovery. And they are fighting to stop the removal of basic food and liquids from her.

 

Nurses and others have commented that he could be heard asking when she would die and if she was ever going to die. In their sworn statements, they repeated expletives that I've chosen not to publish.

 

The Florida Department of Children and Families wants to intervene in order to investigate allegations of abuse and neglect by the woman's husband. And in Tallahassee, lawmakers have introduced a bill requiring that Schiavo and others who are incapacitated be provided water and nutrition unless a living will directs otherwise.

 

The husband has coupled himself with another woman and sired two children. He's moved on with his life, but he can't use the settlement money for anything other than his wife's care and legal fees while she is alive. He has spent more than a half million on lawyers in an attempt to have his wife's feeding tube removed and thereby end her life.

 

Family Feud or Greater Social Issue?

I'm not one to get in the middle of family feuds. However, this debate has far reaching possibilities. If this one man succeeds in terminating the life of this one woman the negative implications will immediately flow like a powerful force against people who experience TBI. The outcome of this debate can potentially affect the lives of millions of American citizens with disabilities.

 

None of us can ever be sure if Terri would want to remain alive. If she were able to vocalize her wishes, we could know. But even still, if she wanted to die, who are we to cause the death of another human being by starvation and dehydration?

 

Her silence leaves the question of her will in this matter unanswered.  However, we can guess that she would not want to remain married to a guy who has fathered two children with another woman. But the man who claims to want to honor his wife's wishes by having her food and liquids withheld ignores that likelihood. And few others even consider it. Let my readers ponder that thought.

 

If we think in terms of what any woman would want for herself under the circumstances, we must ask if she would  want to permit the man who stands to gain financial reward upon her death to make the decision of whether she should live or die. Would you want to give the power of this decision to someone who stood to be rewarded financially upon your death?

 

Why are so many people galvanized in one stand for or against the removal of food and liquids from this one woman? Because it matters.

 

Why does it matter?

For some, this is an issue that encompasses the sanctity of human life. For others it is about the so-called right to die. Some believe it is about the power to exercise choice. Still others see Terri and others like her as being devalued by society and vulnerable. They believe our society needs to protect those who are vulnerable.

 

For persons with disabilities, this is a very real threat to their healthcare, safety and longevity. The decision to starve and dehydrate a human being to death is seen as inhumane, cruel and torturous. The persons arguing in defense of Terri Schiavo want to save her from this punishment and death.

 

Those arguing for her death use her husband's remarks as justification. They ignore the reality of his choices, his use of the money and his motivations. They argue that this is one isolated case.

 

In my search for the truth of this matter, I've learned many things that the mainstream media outlets have not covered, have ignored or have downplayed. British writer, Aldous Huxley once wrote, "Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored. "

 

Just as I was about to send this newsletter out, I learned of a Los Angeles attorney Gloria Allred reporting that she planned to hold a news conference with one of her clients Thursday afternoon to make an announcement regarding the case of Terri Schiavo.

Allred said the client is a businessman who has deposited $1 million into her law firm's trust account to offer Terri Schiavo's husband, Michael, if he agrees to certain conditions to keep his wife alive after the feeding tube is scheduled to be removed. It will be interesting to see how the husband responds to such a juicy offer.

 

I've not presented every piece of information here. I couldn't. This little newsletter could not handle it all. What I'm presenting in this edition are pieces of the story that are clearly relevant, yet have not made it big in the mainstream media, if at all. I've also included some opinions from persons with disabilities, advocates, attorneys and other parents.

 

Hopefully, those of you who are fully enlightened regarding the facts surrounding this debate will forgive me for packing this edition with things you might already know.  I'm equally hopeful, that the rest of you will at least read the material presented here with an open mind. For it is as Paul Harvey would say-The rest of the story.

 

Till next time-
John

Back to Table of contents

The medical profession has long been asked to change the phrase vegetative state because it ends with people getting called vegetables - of all the dehumanizing bull that is propagated by the medical profession this is one of the worst. It is unethical, immoral and it is damn stupid. It wasn't that long ago people were buried alive because they didn't know how to tell if someone was breathing or not. and they do it still, because they don't know how to communicate with someone who is in this state. Breathing isn't enough anymore.

A quick look at the statistics on divorce and brain injury will tell you how reliable the spouse is in a situation like this. He wants a divorce and that would be fine. He does not have the right to kill her because he wants to be let out of his responsibility to her. Unfortunately the attention goes to her husband because he is still seen as a human being no matter how horrific his behavior - he talks - so he is still human. Is he really? I read an article that says she chose him by marriage so she trusted him to make this decision for her. Lots of us did that and found out that we had misplaced our trust. I shudder on this one, because I know too well what an angry spouse can and will do to you when you are unable to defend yourself due to a brain injury. And I have seen it happen too many times.

An examination of the "science" of vegetative state will show you that we don't know much about this state of consciousness. Non-responsive coma, minimally responsive coma, those make sense and can be defended. People under anesthesia have a similar consciousness and we know they hear and respond to what is said to them.

When I argued this label was immoral, I got no where. When I argued that it was unethical, I got no where. Even the argument that it was unscientific got me minimal response. But when I said, gentleman, it wasn't that long ago that your profession buried people alive because they could not tell they were breathing or had a heartbeat. With all the advances in medicine in the last decade do you want to risk that in 20 years your own profession will be pointing to you and saying, "Can you imagine they caused people to die because they did not know how to communicate with them?" That will be your legacy, that will be the legacy you leave to your grandchildren. - then they began to budge at the thought of having to bear the brunt of their decision. By then I was on my feet and I said, "You don't know these people are not communicating, you only know that you do not know how to listen!

These are people, not vegetables and they know full well the consequences of referring to them this way, it effects their care, the language that is used around them and the efforts that are extended to listen. They are guilty; as guilty as anyone who takes another's life. An M.D. does not give them that right.

Let us all be warned of the danger of not having an advance directive. It won't defend you from traditional medicine dehumanizing you, but it will stop them from killing you. This situation is gut wrenching, it always is, there are 5.3 million of us out here. Most of us talk, few of us get the assistance we need. Fewer still are being listened to whether we talk or not. When loving families make the decision to pull life support, it is a horrible thing for them. When an unloving family member is allowed to make that decision so they can "get on with their life" it is simply murder.

Every 21 seconds someone in this country sustains a traumatic brain injury. Think about that.

Andrea Williams
 

* Additional Resources
 

http://www.terrisfight.org/

 

http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=WU05C03

http://www.cnsnews.com/specialreports/2003/schiavo.asp -CNS News Archives Related to Terri Schiavo

http://www.fight4terri.blogspot.com/

http://www.notdeadyet.org/

 

Florida Governor Jeb Bush (at 850.488.4441 or jeb.bush@myflorida.com)

Florida Senate President Tom Lee (at 850.487.5072 or lee.tom.web@flsenate.gov)

Florida House Speaker Allan G. Bense (at 850.488.1450 or speaker@myfloridahouse.gov.)

Back to Table of contents

* Eye-Witness Account on Terri's Current Condition
Monday, January 03, 2005

By Barbara Weller

This past Christmas Eve day, 2004, I went to visit Terri Schiavo with her parents, Bob and Mary Schindler, her sister, her niece, and Attorney David Gibbs III. The visit took place at the Woodside Hospice for about 45 minutes just before noon.

When I knew I was going to visit Terri with her parents, I had no idea what to expect. I was prepared for the possibility that the Schindlers love their daughter and sister so much that they might imagine behaviors by Terri that aren't actually evident to others. The media and Mr. Schiavo clearly give the impression that Terri is in a coma or comatose state and engages only in non-purposeful and reflexive movements and responses. I am a mother and a grandmother, as well as one of the Schindlers’ attorneys, and I could understand how parents might imagine behavior and purposeful activity that is not really there. I was prepared to be as objective as I could be during this visit and not to be disappointed at anything I saw or experienced.

I was truly surprised at what I saw from the moment we entered the little room where Terri is confined. The room is a little wider than the width of two single beds and about as long as the average bedroom, with plenty of room for us to stand at the foot of her bed. Terri is on the first floor and there is a lovely view to the outside grounds of the facility. The room is entered by a short hallway, however, and there is no way for Terri to see out into the hallway or for anyone in the hallway to observe Terri.

From the moment we entered the room, my impression was that Terri was very purposeful and interactive and she seemed very curious about the presence of obvious strangers in her room. Terri was not in bed, but was in her chair, which has a lounge chair appearance and elevates her head at about a 30-degree angle. She was dressed and washed, her hair combed, and she was covered with a holiday blanket. There were no tubes of any kind attached to her body. She was completely free of any restraints that would have indicated any type of artificial life support. Not even her feeding tube was attached and functioning when we entered, as she is not fed 24 hours a day.

The thing that surprised me the most about Terri as I took my turn to greet her by the side of her chair was how beautiful she is. I would have expected to see someone with a sallow and gray complexion and a sick looking countenance. Instead, I saw a very pretty woman with a peaches and cream complexion and a lovely smile, which she even politely extended to me as I introduced myself to her. I was amazed that someone who had not been outside for so many years and who received such minimal health care could look so beautiful. She appeared to have an inner light radiating from her face. I was truly taken aback by her beauty, particularly under the adverse circumstances in which she has found herself for so many years.

Terri’s parents, sister, and niece went immediately to greet Terri when we entered the room and stood in turn directly beside her head, stroking her face, kissing her and talking quietly with her. When she heard their voices, and particularly her mother's voice, Terri instantly turned her head towards them and smiled. Terri established eye contact with her family, particularly with her mother, who spent the most time with her during our visit. It was obvious that she recognized the voices in the room with the exception of one. Although her mother was talking to her at the time, she obviously had heard a new voice and exhibited a curious demeanor. Attorney Gibbs was having a conversation near the door with Terri’s sister. His voice is very deep and resonant and Terri obviously picked it up. Her eyes widened as if to say, “What’s that new sound I hear?” She scanned the room with her eyes, even turning her head in his direction, until she found Attorney Gibbs and the location of the new voice and her eyes rested momentarily in his direction. She then returned to interacting with her mother.

When her mother was close to her, Terri’s whole face lit up. She smiled. She looked directly at her mother and she made all sorts of happy sounds. When her mother talked to her, Terri was quiet and obviously listening. When she stopped, Terri started vocalizing. The vocalizations seemed to be a pattern, not merely random or reflexive at all. There is definitely a pattern of Terri having a conversation with her mother as best she can manage. Initially, she used the vocalization of “uh’uh” but without seeming to mean it as a way of saying “no”, just as a repeated speech pattern. She then began to make purposeful grunts in response to her mother’s conversation. She made the same sorts of sound with her father and sister, but not to the same extent or as delightedly as with her mother. She made no verbal response to her niece or to Attorney Gibbs and myself, but she did appear to pay attention to our words to her.

The whole experience was rather moving. Terri definitely has a personality. Her whole demeanor definitely changes when her mother speaks with her. She lights up and appears to be delighted at the interaction. She has an entirely different reaction to her father who jokes with her and has several standing jokes that he uses when he enters and exits her presence. She appears to merely “tolerate” her father, as a child does when she says “stop” but really means, “this is fun.” When her father greets her, he always does the same thing. He says, “here comes the hug” and hugs her. He then says, “you know what’s coming next---the kiss.” Her father has a scratchy mustache and both times when he went through this little joke routine with her, she laughed in a way she did not do with anyone else. When her father is ready to plant the kiss on her cheek, she immediately makes a face her family calls the “lemon face.” She puckers her lips, screws up her whole face, and turns away from him, as if making ready for the scratchy assault on her cheek that she knows is coming. She did the exact same thing both times that her father initiated this little routine joke between the two of them.

The interactions with her family and our appearance in her room appeared to require some effort and exertion from Terri. From time to time, she would close her eyes as if to rest. This happened primarily when no one was paying particular attention to her, but we were talking among ourselves. After a few minutes or when one of the visitors approached her and started to talk directly to her again, Terri would open her eyes and begin her grunting sounds again in response to their conversations. Although I approached her, leaned close and stroked her arms and spoke to her, she did not verbally respond to me.

Terri’s hands are curled up around little soft cylinders that help her not to injure herself. I understand that these contractures are likely very painful, although there was a time when Terri was receiving simple motion therapy when her hands and arms relaxed and were no longer as constricted. When the therapy was discontinued by order of her guardian and the court, the contractures returned. These contractures would apparently be avoidable if Terri were given the simple range of motion therapy she previously received. It is very sad to observe firsthand these conditions that make her life more difficult, but that would be correctable with little effort.

When we were preparing to leave, the interactions with Terri changed. First, she went through the joke routine with her father and the “lemon face.” When her niece said goodbye to her, Terri did not react. Nor did she react to me or to Attorney Gibbs when we said our goodbyes to her. When her sister went to her to say goodbye, Terri’s verbalizations changed dramatically. Instead of the happy grunting and “uh uh” sounds she had been making throughout the visit, her verbalizations at these goodbyes changed to a very low and different sound that appeared to come from deep in her throat and was almost like a growl. She first made the sound when her sister said goodbye and then, amazingly to me, she made exactly the same sound when her mother said goodbye to her. It seemed Terri was visibly upset that they were leaving. She almost appeared to be trying to cling to them, although this impression came only from her changed facial expression and sounds, since her hands cannot move. It appeared like she did not want to be alone and knew they were leaving. It was definitely apparent in the short time I was there that her emotions changed—it was apparent when she was happy and enjoying herself, when she was amused, when she was resting from her exertion to communicate, and when she was sad at her guests leaving. It was readily apparent and surprising that her mood changed so often in a short 45-minute visit.

I was pleasantly surprised to observe Terri’s purposeful and varied behaviors with the various members of her family and with Attorney Gibbs and myself. I never imagined Terri would be so active, curious, and purposeful. She watched people intently, obviously was attempting to communicate with each one in various ways and with various facial expressions and sounds. She was definitely not in a coma, not even close. This visit certainly shed more light for me on why the Schindlers are fighting so hard to protect her, to get her medical care and rehabilitative assistance, and to spend all they have to protect her life.

I realize that Terri has good days and bad days. There are obviously days when she does not interact with her family, as they had previously told us. There are also apparently days when Terri is even more interactive and responsive to them than she was on the day I visited. Since this visit I am more convinced than ever that the Schindlers are not just parents who refuse to let go of their daughter. There really is a lot going on with their daughter and potentially, it seemed obvious to me, Terri could improve even more with appropriate care and 24 hour a day love that can only come from a dedicated family. As I watched her, my foremost thought was that on the next day, Christmas, Terri should not have been confined to her small room in a hospice center, nice as that room was, but that she should have been gathered around the Christmas dinner table enjoying the holiday with her family.

Source: http://www.reclaimamerica.org/Pages/News/newspage.asp?story=2327

Back to Table of contents

* Silence Must Be Heard (Song Lyrics)

By ENIGMA

   
Look into the other's eyes,
Many frustrations
Read between the lines,
No words, just vibrations
Don't ignore hidden desires
Pay attention, you're playing with fire
Silence must be heard, noise should be observed
The time has come to learn, that silence...
Silence must be heard
Or diamonds will burn, friendly cards will turn
Cause silence has the right to be heard

People talk too much for what they have to say
Words without a meaning, just fading away

Silence must be heard, noise should be observed
The time has come to learn, that silence...
Silence must be heard
Or diamonds will burn, friendly cards will turn
Cause silence has the right to be heard

(Editor's note: Lyrics originally published on a CD called The Screen Behind The Mirror. It is also known as Enigma 4. Originally published by Virgin Records in 2000.)

* Using Your Head

Most Common Questions and Answers

 

Q -If Terri hasn't recovered after all these years of therapy, why not let go?
A -Terri hasn't had meaningful therapy since 1991, but many credible physicians say she can benefit from it.

Q -Why can't Terri just divorce?
A -Terri's husband/guardian speaks for her. She cannot divorce without his permission

Q -Does Terri have an advanced directive or any wishes about her healthcare?
A -Terri never signed any directive or living will and there is no evidence that she foresaw her present situation.

Q -Why do Terri's family fight to keep her alive? Shouldn't they let her husband decide?
A -Terri's husband has started another family and has gone on with his life. Terri's family want to provide her therapy and a safe home.

Q -Is Terri receiving life support?
A -Not in the traditional sense. Terri only receives food and fluids via a simple tube.

Q -Isn't removing her tube a natural and dignified way to die?
A -No. Dehydration and starvation cause horrific effects and are anything but peaceful.

Back to Table of contents

Brain Damage is also a term that is often tossed around and places individuals at risk. The local paper did an article on my daughter and the headline was brain damaged girl...Damage in my mind indicates permanency and a need to replacement. Damage is used primarily in reference to things. When things are damaged they are all too often discarded. When I speak about my daughter it is always about her injury. Injury heals and people recover from an injury. Do any of us say we damaged our hand when we experience an injury.

By Walter M. Weber

The case involving Terri Schiavo continues to be litigated in the Florida courts as Terri faces a March 18th date when the court said her feeding tube can be removed. The ACLJ has offered assistance to the Florida attorneys representing Mary and Robert Schindler, the parents of Terri Schiavo. The ACLJ continues to urge Florida Governor Jeb Bush and the state legislature to intervene in Terri's case.

As you may remember, the first attempt by the Governor and legislature to help Terri resulted in the passage of "Terri's Law" -- a Florida law that ordered feeding and hydration tubes to be restored to Terri after a state court ordered them removed. "Terri's Law" was declared unconstitutional by the Florida Supreme Court. The ACLJ, which represented the Schindlers in the matter, filed a brief at the Supreme Court of the United States in support of Governor Bush's request for the high court to take the case. The Supreme Court refused and now Terri's life is once again in the hands of the Florida courts.

ACLJ Senior Litigation Counsel, Walter Weber, who worked on the Schiavo case, wrote this commentary about the damaging and faulty decision reached by the Florida Supreme Court last fall.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Supreme Court of Florida unveiled its unanimous decision last fall striking down Terri's Law, the Florida statute that authorized Governor Jeb Bush to save Terri Schiavo's life.


Observers have criticized the decision as a frustration of the will of the people, as an exercise in judicial arrogance, and most disturbingly as a green light for the adulterous Michael Schiavo to seek yet another court order terminating the tube feeding of his brain-injured wife.

All true. Yet the decision is something else as well: an embarrassingly bad legal decision.

The seven supreme court justices hinged their ruling on two constitutional doctrines that supposedly doomed Terri's Law: separation of powers and unlawful delegation of authority.

Separation of powers, of course, is a familiar concept. The basic notion is that the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of government should not usurp each other's functions.

In the Schiavo case, the state courts had previously ruled that Michael Schiavo, as Terri's guardian, should withdraw the tube that provided food and fluids to Terri. Because Terri's Law "allows the executive branch" (Governor Bush) "to interfere with the final judicial determination" in Terri's case (i.e., to order the tube replaced), the state supreme court declared, "it is without question an invasion of the authority of the judicial branch" and thus unconstitutional.

Nonsense.

Every time a governor pardons someone convicted of a crime, he "overturns" a judicial determination of guilt and imposition of sentence. So what? The courts gave their opinion, but the governor decided, for whatever reason (perhaps new DNA evidence of innocence), respectfully to differ.

Or suppose a court has awarded custody of a child to someone (for example, in divorce proceedings or through an adoption). Does "separation of powers" mean the state child protection agency -- an executive branch entity -- may not intervene if it has strong evidence that the custodian is abusing the child?

If I win a court fight with a rival claimant over title to some property, does that mean I can raise a "separation of powers" objection when the local government condemns that same property for a new highway?

Must police ignore threatening behavior by individuals recently released from mental institutions because courts have concluded they are "not dangerous to others"?

The fact is, the legislature and the governor "interfere" all the time with matters the courts have previously sorted out. If that were unconstitutional, law enforcement and legislation would be practically impossible. The two non-judicial branches would have to spend all their time tiptoeing around every case a court had decided on anything.

The state supreme court's second rationale for overturning Terri's Law is similarly flawed.

In Florida, the courts have adopted (made up?) a rule that says it is unconstitutional for the legislature to give the governor "too much" discretion in carrying out a program, as that would be an "unlawful delegation" of legislative power to decide law and policy. How much discretion is "too much"? The courts will let you know, thanks. (Curiously, there is apparently no corresponding ban on courts assuming too much power over decisions of law and policy.)

Obviously, there are some fundamental problems with this judge-made doctrine of unlawful delegation. But even accepting the doctrine as legitimate, the state supreme court's invocation of it against Terri's Law is screwy at best.

The Florida Supreme Court has already ruled that a fluid standard like "the public interest" is sufficient to defeat a claim of "too much" discretion. The governor's power to pardon criminals, of course, is quintessentially discretionary. And a host of other laws authorizing the governor to act -- in emergencies, in the transfer of state land for federal projects like lighthouses and parks, in staying the execution of insane persons -- employ such subjective standards as the governor's "opinion" or what the governor "deems proper," if they specify any standard at all.

Terri's Law carefully cabins the scope of the governor's authority to spare from death certain vulnerable disabled people, while leaving the ultimate fact-based judgment calls to the governor. That limited grant of executive discretion easily passes muster under the state supreme court's "unlawful delegation" test. (And if it doesn't, someone had better let Governor Bush know his far broader discretion to respond to the emergencies caused by the recent wave of hurricanes is probably unconstitutional!)

The Supreme Court of Florida made no effort to reconcile its decision in Bush v. Schiavo with the pardon power, the governor's emergency powers, and so forth. Instead, the court's opinion reads like a conclusion in search of a justification.

Maybe that's what it was.

(Walter M. Weber, Senior Litigation Counsel with the American Center for Law and Justice, is one of the attorneys who represented Terri Schiavo's parents, Mary and Robert Schindler, in Bush v. Schiavo.)
 

* MYTHS and FACTS

MYTH: Terri is PVS (Persistent vegetative state)
FACT: The definition of PVS in Florida Statue 765.101:
Persistent vegetative state means a permanent and irreversible condition of unconsciousness in which there is:

(a) The absence of voluntary action or cognitive behavior of ANY kind.
(b) An inability to communicate or interact purposefully with the environment.

Terri's behavior does not meet the medical or statutory definition of persistent vegetative state. Terri responds to stimuli, tries to communicate verbally, follows limited commands, laughs or cries in interaction with loved ones, physically distances herself from irritating or painful stimulation and watches loved ones as they move around her. None of these behaviors are simple reflexes and are, instead, voluntary and cognitive. Though Terri has limitations, she does interact purposefully with her environment.

MYTH: Terri does not need rehabilitation
FACT: Florida Statute 744.3215 Rights of persons determined incapacitated:

(1) A person who has been determined to be incapacitated retains the right
(i) To receive necessary services and rehabilitation.

This is a retained right that a guardian cannot take away.  Additionally, it does not make exception for PVS patients. Terri has illegally been denied rehabilitation - as many nurses have sworn in affidavits.

MYTH: Removal of food was both legal and court-ordered.
FACT: The courts had only allowed removal of Terri's feeding tube, not regular food and water. Terri's husband illegally ordered this. The law only allows the removal of "life-prolonging procedures," not regular food and water:

Florida Statute 765.309 Mercy killing or euthanasia not authorized; suicide distinguished. Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to condone, authorize, or approve mercy killing or euthanasia, or to permit any affirmative or deliberate act or omission to end life other than to permit the natural process of dying.

MYTH: Many doctors have said that there is no hope for her.
FACT: Dr. Victor Gambone testified that he visits Terri 3 times a year. His visits last for approximately 10 minutes. He also testified, after viewing the court videotapes at Terri’s recent trial, that he was surprised to see Terri’s level of awareness. This doctor is part of a team hand-picked by her husband, Michael Schiavo, shortly before he filed to have Terri’s feeding removed. Contrary to Schiavo’s team, 14 independent medical professionals (6 of them neurologists) have given either statements or testimony that Terri is NOT in a Persistent Vegetative State. Additionally, there has never been any medical dispute of Terri’s ability to swallow. Even with this compelling evidence, Terri’s husband, Michael Schiavo, has denied any form of therapy for her for over 10 years.

Dr. Melvin Greer, appointed by Schiavo, testified that a doctor need not examine a patient to know the appropriate medical treatment. He spent approximately 45 minutes with Terri. Dr. Peter Bambakidis, appointed by Judge Greer, spent approximately 30 minutes with Terri. Dr. Ronald Cranford, also appointed by Schiavo and who has publicly labeled himself “Dr. Death”, spent less than 45 minutes examining and interacting with Terri.

MYTH: This is just a family battle over money.
FACT: In 1992, Terri was awarded nearly one million dollars by a malpractice jury and an out-of-court malpractice settlement which was designated for future medical expenses. Of these funds, less than $50,000 remains today. The financial records revealing how Terri’s medical fund money is managed are SEALED from inspection. Court records, however, show that Judge Greer has approved the spending down of Terri’s medical fund on Schiavo’s attorney’s fees - though it was expressly awarded to Terri for her medical care. Schiavo’s primary attorney, George Felos, has received upwards of $400,000 dollars since Schiavo hired him. This same attorney, at the expense of Terri’s medical fund, publicly likened Terri to a “houseplant” and has used Terri’s case on national television to promote his newly published book.

MYTH: Michael Schiavo volunteered to donate the balance of the inheritance to charity.
FACT: In October, 1998, Schiavo’s attorney proposed that, if Terri’s parents would agree to her death by starvation, Schiavo would donate his inheritance to charity. The proposal came after a court-appointed Guardian Ad Litem cited Schiavo’s conflict of interest since he stood to inherit the balance of Terri’s medical fund upon her death. This one and only offer stated “if the proposal is not fully accepted within 10 days, it shall automatically be withdrawn”. Naturally, Terri’s parents immediately rejected the offer.

MYTH: Terri's Medical Trust fund has been used to care for her.
FACT: The following expenditures have been paid directly from Terri's Medical Trust fund, with the approval of Judge George Greer:
 

Summary of expenses paid from Terri’s 1.2 Million Dollar medical trust fund (jury awarded 1992)

NOTE:  In his November 1993 Petition Schiavo alleges the 1993 guardianship asset balance as $761,507.50 Atty Gwyneth Stanley Atty Deborah Bushnell Atty Steve Nilson Atty Pacarek Atty Richard Pearse (GAL) Atty George Felos $10,668.05 $65,607.00 $7,404.95 $1,500.00 $4,511.95 $397,249.99 Other 1st Union/South Trust Bank $55,459.85 Michael Schiavo $10,929.95 Total  $545,852.34

You figure it out.

Back to Table of contents