The website has no substantiation of their timeline and events that take place, and they also make glaring omissions.
The facts still remain, that:
1. There was significant uncertainty about Terri's wishes, certainly no "clear and convincing evidence" that she wanted to be starved and dehydrated to death.
2. PVS is misdiagnosed in 35-43% of the cases, according to several medical research papers.
3. MS had significant conflict of interest with Terri being allive: money and another family he establiished, so he is hardly an unbiased guardian.
4. Terri did NOT have a lawyers representing her interests. Her interests were only represented by her guardian, who had significant conflicts of interest, thus her rights to due process were denied.
5. Terri's parents offered MS to keep the money, book and movie deals, just let them take care of their daughter, and MS and Judge Greer refused.
6. In view of all of the above Greer ruled to not only withhold "artificial" nutrition or hydration, but food and hydration by any means, even specifically denying the petition to allow Terri to be given food and water by mouth.
Within Florida law, there was enough. It is therefore Florida law which must be changed, and that is done through legislation, not from a bench. I do agree that there should be a higher standard of proof.
"2. PVS is misdiagnosed in 35-43% of the cases, according to several medical research papers."
Relevance? There is no credible evidence which suggests it was misdiagnosed HERE.
"3. MS had significant conflict of interest with Terri being allive: money and another family he establiished, so he is hardly an unbiased guardian."
See #1 above. No court found anything justifying ther denial of his guardianship.
"4. Terri did NOT have a lawyers representing her interests. Her interests were only represented by her guardian, who had significant conflicts of interest, thus her rights to due process were denied."
Which guardian? She had several.
"5. Terri's parents offered MS to keep the money, book and movie deals, just let them take care of their daughter, and MS and Judge Greer refused."
Which pretty much demolishes the "He did it for the money" slur. Besides, as the link I provided shows, they were unable to care for her. There is other documentation for that, BTW. Check out abstractappeal.com.
"6. In view of all of the above Greer ruled to not only withhold "artificial" nutrition or hydration, but food and hydration by any means, even specifically denying the petition to allow Terri to be given food and water by mouth."
Because this could have drowned her. She couldn't swallow
2. Can you cite sources that are substantiated?
3. The Schindlers would be considered unbiased?
4. There were two Guardians ad Litem.
5. Again, do you have substantiated proof?
6. I do have a problem with that. The reasoning was that she would choke to death. Now if the feeding tube was removed and she had been fed orally and then choked to death, where would that put us?
It was also in Wolfson's report to Jeb Bush.
In September of 1990, she was brought home, but following only three weeks, she was returned to the College Park facility because the "family was overwhelmed by Terry's care needs."
On 18 June 1990, Michael was formally appointed by the court to serve as Theresa's legal guardian, because she was adjudicated to be incompetent by law. Michael's appointment was undisputed by the parties.
The clinical records within the massive case file indicate that Theresa was not responsive to neurological and swallowing tests. She received regular and intense physical, occupational and speech therapies.
Theresa's husband, Michael Schiavo and her mother, Mary Schindler, were virtual partners in their care of and dedication to Theresa. There is no question but that complete trust, mutual caring, explicit love and a common goal of caring for and rehabilitating Theresa, were the shared intentions of Michael Shiavo and the Schindlers.
The timeline jumps around a bit but, so to put it in order, Michael is made guardian in June 1990, Terri goes home in September 1990. Both Michael and Mrs. Schindler were partners in the care of Terri, so when Wolfsen writes that the "family was overwhelmed by Terri's care needs," I assumed he was talking about both Michael and the Schindlers.
"PVS", as described by Jennet and Plum in their rather speculative Lancet paper in 1972, was never so conceptually solid as to allow its use as a bright line between life and death (this issue is critically reviewed HERE).
It does not matter whether or not Mrs. Schiavo had "PVS" or "almost PVS" or "not quite PVS", as you point out, there are frequent disagreements about diagnosis.
I'm still getting called a Nazi doctor here (and, Jim Rob, I don't like it at all) for pointing out that Tereri Schiavo had profound and irreversible brain damage.
In that light, the real question, obfuscated by all of the players in this case for their own reasons, is, "Should we kill persons with severe brain damage?"
Obviously, if the proposition is stated this way (correctly, IMO), the answer will be, "No, absolutely not".
The thanatologists and killers have seized on "PVS" in an attempt to expand the scope of their "mercy" killings, so far successfully.