Terri Schiavo's (Flat?) EEG

[Jaggy Bunnet]

Originally posted by pgwenthold [/i]


>>This is the part that gets me. By all reliable accounts, Michael Schiavo was a most attentive and caring husband, going to all conceivable lengths to save her. Still, people try to take perfectly normal activities and try to use them as evidence that he was sinister. For example, this aspect of spending time alone with her. Yeah, how evil of a husband to do that.

From the sworn affidavite of RN Carla Iyer:

" Throughout my time at Palm Gardens, Michael Schiavo was focused on Terri's death. Michael would say "When is she going to die?,"
"Has she died yet?" and "When is that bitch gonna die?" These
statements were common knowledge at Palm Gardens, as he would
make them casually in passing, without regard even for who he was
talking to, as long as it was a staff member. Other statements which I
recall him making include "Can't anything be done to accelerate her
death - won't she ever die?" When she wouldn't die, Michael would
be furious."

Presumably this is backed up by all the other staff members at Palm Gardens? It was "common knowledge" after all. The police must have taken statements when they investigated the attempted murders she reported to them.

And presumably she also mentioned it to the police when she reported the five (roughly, I mean its not like a big deal so why would you remember the details?) attempted murders. Still I'm sure we can check the police records of her reports to help her "remember" whether it was five or six times that she had to treat her patient after an attempted murder, or we could just check the records of the facility she was staying in.

Or maybe, just maybe, she is as unfamiliar with the truth as Rouser, which would explain why their is NOTHING to corroborate any of her fantasies.

 

[Rouser2]

This seems to suggest that the wishes of the patient don't matter. The dispute in the case was whether Terri wished to die or not. You seem to be arguing against allowing patients the choice entirely. Is this the case?

The "wishes"of this patient alll depend on whose hearsay is accurate. Those who love her say one thing, those trying to kill her, say another.

"In June 1998, soon after Michael asked the court for permission to remove Terri's feeding tube, the court appointed Richard Pearse as Terri's guardian ad litem. His job was to investigate the facts of Terri's case and represent her interests in court.

At the 2000 trial, Pearse concluded that he had not found clear and convincing evidence that Terri would have rejected life support.

Pearse said he was troubled by the fact that Michael waited until 1998 to petition to remove the feeding tube, even though he claims to have known her wishes all along, and that he waited until he won a malpractice suit based on a professed desire to take care of her into old age. As her husband, Michael would inherit what is left of her malpractice award, originally $700,000, which is held in a trust fund administered by the court. Accounting of the fund is sealed. But Michael's lawyer, George Felos, said most of it has been spent on legal fees associated with the custody dispute.

Pearse also said he did not find Joan and Scott Schiavo's testimony credible."

"The Schindlers had contacted a woman Michael dated in 1991 who told them Michael had confessed to her he did not know what Terri would want. Although the woman refused to sign an affidavit, it bought the Schindlers some time. And with it, they found Trudy Capone.

A former co-worker of Michael's, Capone signed an affidavit on May 9, 2001, stating "Michael confided in me all the time about Terri ... He said to me many times that he had no idea what her wishes were."

http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/johansen200503160848.asp

 

[Rouser2]

Presumably this is backed up by all the other staff members at Palm Gardens? It was "common knowledge" after all. The police must have taken statements when they investigated the attempted murders she reported to them.

And presumably she also mentioned it to the police when she reported the five (roughly, I mean its not like a big deal so why would you remember the details?) attempted murders. Still I'm sure we can check the police records of her reports to help her "remember" whether it was five or six times that she had to treat her patient after an attempted murder, or we could just check the records of the facility she was staying in.

Or maybe, just maybe, she is as unfamiliar with the truth as Rouser, which would explain why their is NOTHING to corroborate any of her fantasies.

"During the malpractice-suit trial... Michael Schiavo made no mention of his wife's alleged wish to die and conversely pleaded for the opportunity to personally take care of his wife at home for the rest of his life. He sought $20 million to cover the cost of her future medical and neurological care, estimating her life expectancy was 50 years.
Schiavo told the jury he was studying nursing because he wanted "to learn more how to take care of Terri." According to a transcript of his testimony, Michael Schiavo was asked how he felt about being married to Terri, given her condition.
"I feel wonderful. She's my life and I wouldn't trade her for the world," he replied. "I believe in my wedding vows. ... I believe in the vows I took with my wife, through sickness, in health, for richer or poor. I married my wife because I love her and I want to spend the rest of my life with her. I'm going to do that."

"Less than eight months later, [Michael Schiavo] tried to stop her medication for an infection," Bob Schindler told WND. "She would have died but the nursing home where she was at the time overruled him and treated her. ... Then he put a 'Do Not Resuscitate' order in her medical chart."


http://wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=43463

 

[R.A.F.]

Re: Re: Re: Terri Schiavo's (Flat?) EEG

Regnad Kcin...thanks for the explanation and welcome. (I really do need to post more and lurk less. )

Originally posted by R.A.F.
It has become painfully appearent throughout this whole "mess" that you simply are incapable of rationally discussing this subject. Are you ever going to "let it go"? Or are you going to continue to demonstrate your complete lack of understanding concerning this case.
Just curious...

It has become painfully apparent that some people are able to discuss facts, while others only can perform ad hominems. Obviously, it is you who cannot discuss facts.

Rouser...I stated that you don't understand the evidence in this case, how in the HELL is that an ad hominem? If I had said that you were wrong because you are an idiot...that would be an ad hominem...but I didn't say that. I can see that my (and others) assessments of you were correct. You are immune to reasoned debate. Congratulations on being a shining example of credulousness.

 

[Jaggy Bunnet]

<snip to remove content irrelevant to the post it was supposed to be replying to>

Unsurprising to see that you have nothing to back up any of Nurse Lyers claims.

Either everybody involved in the case except her is part of a conspiracy (and the includes Terri's parents) or she is wrong/lying/deluded.

You think the first explanation is more likely. I think that tells us a lot about you.

Have you ever heard a news story that DIDN'T involve a vast conspiracy to suppress the truth?

 

[Rouser2]

Unsurprising to see that you have nothing to back up any of Nurse Lyers claims.

Either everybody involved in the case except her is part of a conspiracy (and the includes Terri's parents) or she is wrong/lying/deluded.

You think the first explanation is more likely. I think that tells us a lot about you.

Have you ever heard a news story that DIDN'T involve a vast conspiracy to suppress the truth?

Michael Schiavo's documented actions speak louder than any words.

 

[kookbreaker]

Michael Schiavo's documented actions speak louder than any words.

Yes, they do.

Shame they don't paint the man as evil as you must have him be.

Remember this one thing Rouser: He gave up his rights as a husband to the courts. By Florida law, and it is the same in most states, the husband is the next of kin and can decide without court intervention or the concerns of other members of the family to remove care at any time.

But he turned over that right to the courts to make certain the decision was what Terri wanted.

He could have had her tube pulled at any time. It was his right as her husband. But he went to the courts to be certain.

Makes your allegations of murder attempts look completely illogical and downright silly. But who cares! It villifies the man, so who needs basic logic. Pay no attention to the next-of-kin laws behind the curtain.

Its a heap of dung Randall Terry and the Schindlers dropped in front of you and you lapped it up like fudge. ooooh! Allegations of MURDER!!! Coming out some EIGHT YEARS AFTER THE FACT ooooooh! They must be true-must be true-must be true 'cause the man must be villified!

All you have are allegations from people who are not trustworthy,and those don't make a lick of sense.

 

[KFCA]

A little off-topic, but

if Terri had died before or while the paramedics were working on her, I presume that the malpractice lawsuit still could have gone forward? Would Michael's "loss of consortium" been the only viable claim? Is a dead person (or their heirs) entitled to any "satisfaction" in their own right in a potential malpractice matter, useless as it may be to them personally?

About six years ago, I was a juror in a Northern California malpractice case that, coincidentally, also involved a feeding tube, There, the parents of the (unmarried) young man were suing the physician for negligence in inserting the feeding tube, which led to septic shock & his ultimate death (he was in a comma from a fall). They asked for $250,000 for their loss, PLUS punantive damages against the physician.

As I understand it, in the malpractice suit brought on behalf of Terri in 1992(?), Michael asked for a much higher amount than the jury awarded, the jury awarded an amount of something like $2 million, but then surcharged Terri for approximately half for being partly to blame for her own situation. Does anybody know about this?

 

[TragicMonkey]

The "wishes"of this patient alll depend on whose hearsay is accurate. Those who love her say one thing, those trying to kill her, say another.

And yet your previous tirade railed against the "perversity" of the scenario I outlined, where Terri Schiavo miraculously recovers, confirms her husband's testimony as to her wishes, and sues everyone who interfered. The implication is that Terri herself had no right to decide on her death.

This is why people are suspicious of the frothing-mouthed zealots like yourself. You claim to be upholding one principle, that of choice....and yet you don't. You're just using that to gain support, because your real position is that euthanasia is inherently evil, and even the patient shouldn't be allowed to choose their own death. But you know that wouldn't sell as well as the more reasonable, and more American, view that one has every right to choose one's own death.

If you're going to take a stand on principle, at least be honest about it. Hidden agendas are contemptible.

 

[Jaggy Bunnet]

at least be honest about it.

If you are going to use words he doesn't know the meaning of, should you not at least include a definition?

 

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by kookbreaker [/i]

>>Remember this one thing Rouser: He gave up his rights as a husband to the courts. By Florida law, and it is the same in most states, the husband is the next of kin and can decide without court intervention or the concerns of other members of the family to remove care at any time.


I don't think so. It's one thing to remove artificial heart and resperatory devices from a terminal patient; but quite another to invoke starvation and dehydration to a partially brain damaged, but otherwise healthy 41-year old patient. MS tried to bump Terri off by withholding treatment for a urninary infection in 1997, but was stopped by "the law'.

 

[Rouser2]

And yet your previous tirade railed against the "perversity" of the scenario I outlined, where Terri Schiavo miraculously recovers, confirms her husband's testimony as to her wishes, and sues everyone who interfered. The implication is that Terri herself had no right to decide on her death.

This is why people are suspicious of the frothing-mouthed zealots like yourself. You claim to be upholding one principle, that of choice....and yet you don't. You're just using that to gain support, because your real position is that euthanasia is inherently evil, and even the patient shouldn't be allowed to choose their own death. But you know that wouldn't sell as well as the more reasonable, and more American, view that one has every right to choose one's own death.

If you're going to take a stand on principle, at least be honest about it. Hidden agendas are contemptible.

The hidden agendas are your own fantasy. One moral question at a time, please. Euthanasia is not the question here. The two basic questions (and answers) in this particular case are:

1. Was TS in a permanent vegetative state??

Answer: No.

2. Did TS ever give clear and convincing instructions that if she was ever in the state she is now in, that she would want to be starved and dehydrated to death?

Answer: No.

 

[kookbreaker]

Originally posted by kookbreaker [/i]

>>Remember this one thing Rouser: He gave up his rights as a husband to the courts. By Florida law, and it is the same in most states, the husband is the next of kin and can decide without court intervention or the concerns of other members of the family to remove care at any time.


I don't think so.

Fortunately, the world and the law do not care what you think.

It's one thing to remove artificial heart and resperatory devices from a terminal patient; but quite another to invoke starvation and dehydration to a partially brain damaged, but otherwise healthy 41-year old patient.

First your assessment of Terris health is completely wrong. But you already know that. Secondly, a feeding tube is considered life support by Florida law. So you are wrong twice.

MS tried to bump Terri off by withholding treatment for a urninary infection in 1997, but was stopped by "the law'. [/B]

The date mentioned for said withholding was 1994 and Micheal stated that he did so under the advice of the doctors. He stated this in the trial and those comments went undisputed. So your interpetation of events and their outcome does not hold. Given that you have provided no real source for this event, it is suspect.

 

[Roadtoad]

Kook, never forget. You're dealing with a...

TROLL!

 

[King of the Americas]

To Rouser2:

YOU WROTE:

Comment:
In which case she would have been in violation of the court order, and restrained by the police officers present. And there were no glasses of water within arms reach. Even a few saving chips of ice her mother tried to administer to her dried, chapped lips were denied by the police officers present. And that is the bottom line of what the Court's monstrous decision comes down to. A parent tries to give aid and comfort to her starving, dehydrating child, but restrained by the police. Shame!

*In fact, you are wrong. The patient, besides the legal guardian, is the only one who can resend a DNR. Regardless of the legal documents present, when a patient requests aid, the doctor is legally obligated to render assistance.

Moreover, I understand that even though Terri could NOT control her swallowing, there WAS a pitcher of water in the room, just like there is in ever hosptial room.

Actually, I think you are quite mistaken about who were the ones torturing Terri. Force feeding an animal that could do NOTHING besides produce and lay in filth is in my opinion torture. What you NEED to understand is that Terri was being FORCE FED. If she was as 'thinking and reasoning' as you provoke, then SHE made the decision not to ask or motion for food or water...

I think the really telling part of your response was the lead-in. "In which case..."

Then you proceeded to set up your strawman. When in fact, Terri made NO motion with her hands to her mouth, nor did she search and focus on a container in the room that could possibly hold water. In the end, Terri did NOTHING as she lay there starving or dehydrating to death. TERRI CHOSE TO DIE by doing NOTHING in order to stop the process.

Previously you wrote that Terri could laugh, cry, and even talk to and recognize her partents...but she didn't know when or if she was thursty or hungry to the point of causing death???

 

[Rouser2]

Re: To Rouser2:

Originally posted by King of the Americas [/i]

>>Actually, I think you are quite mistaken about who were the ones torturing Terri. Force feeding an animal that could do NOTHING besides produce and lay in filth is in my opinion torture. What you NEED to understand is that Terri was being FORCE FED. If she was as 'thinking and reasoning' as you provoke, then SHE made the decision not to ask or motion for food or water...

Sounds to me like an argument for infanticide a well -- can't talk, laying in filth?? Where do you pro-death lefties get off?


>>I think the really telling part of your response was the lead-in. "In which case..."

>>Then you proceeded to set up your strawman. When in fact, Terri made NO motion with her hands to her mouth, nor did she search and focus on a container in the room that could possibly hold water. In the end, Terri did NOTHING as she lay there starving or dehydrating to death. TERRI CHOSE TO DIE by doing NOTHING in order to stop the process.

So a substantially paralyzed, vulnerable victim, who cannot adequately verbalize her needs deserves to be starved and dehydrated to death. Sounds just like something Dr. Mengele might have said to justify his many tortured deaths.

>>Previously you wrote that Terri could laugh, cry, and even talk to and recognize her partents...but she didn't know when or if she was thursty or hungry to the point of causing death???

Her father tried to get her to say "I want to Live!" And all she could say was "I waaaaaaa...."

Verdict? Execution. What kind of people are you who would defend such barbarism????

 

[LostAngeles]

At this point, whenever I see a Rouser2 thread, I greatly desire a beer and a cigarette.

Mainly because beer is flammable.

What kind of person is s/he to spread such blatant lies?

 

[Regnad Kcin]

...Where do you pro-death lefties get off?

And for the second time...

Seriously, are you normally so delusional, or do you stay up late practicing?

 

[kookbreaker]

Re: Re: To Rouser2:

Where do you pro-death lefties get off?

On the same side as that hyper-liberal Scalia court, I guess.

 

[King of the Americas]

To Rouser2:

>>Actually, I think you are quite mistaken about who were the ones torturing Terri. Force feeding an animal that could do NOTHING besides produce and lay in filth is in my opinion torture. What you NEED to understand is that Terri was being FORCE FED. If she was as 'thinking and reasoning' as you provoke, then SHE made the decision not to ask or motion for food or water...

Sounds to me like an argument for infanticide a well -- can't talk, laying in filth?? Where do you pro-death lefties get off?

*A 'baby' even an 'infant' cries when they are hungry or need changed. The point I made that you ignored was that Terri could do NOTHING but produce and lay in filth, and that is a quality of life I could be in favor of.


>>I think the really telling part of your response was the lead-in. "In which case..."

>>Then you proceeded to set up your strawman. When in fact, Terri made NO motion with her hands to her mouth, nor did she search and focus on a container in the room that could possibly hold water. In the end, Terri did NOTHING as she lay there starving or dehydrating to death. TERRI CHOSE TO DIE by doing NOTHING in order to stop the process.

So a substantially paralyzed, vulnerable victim, who cannot adequately verbalize her needs deserves to be starved and dehydrated to death. Sounds just like something Dr. Mengele might have said to justify his many tortured deaths.

*No, that isn't what I said. You are comparing apples to elephants, my friend. Someone paralyzed isn't the same as someone who suffered a heart attack who's brain was deprived of oxygen for some 11 minutes. For example, one's eyes don't get paralyzed and could easily blink once for yes, and twice for no. Paralysis and an inactive brain are 2 very different afflictions.


>>Previously you wrote that Terri could laugh, cry, and even talk to and recognize her partents...but she didn't know when or if she was thursty or hungry to the point of causing death???

Her father tried to get her to say "I want to Live!" And all she could say was "I waaaaaaa...."

Verdict? Execution. What kind of people are you who would defend such barbarism????

*Execution...? You really believe Terri was 'executed'?

Then I guess there really is no reasoning with you. Terri's FORCED feedings were stopped. Quite literally she couldn't, and for all that we know didn't WANT to eat. She had no expressed desire for a cheeseburger or a Crispy Creme donut. You said she said or expressed the thought "I waaaaaa.", and yet all that her dad needed to get her to say is "Water" with her expressing with her hand as to where to put it, and they'd have re-inserted the tube.

What I'd like you to understand is that no one 'killed' Terri. By removing the tubes they were removing the will upon her, one might even say that by removing the tube, Terri's free will was re-instated. Terri died because SHE refused to eat to drink, moreover she made NO motion or movement thereafter to have someone force food into her stomach, again.