Affidavit of Carla Iyer, nurse who cared for Terri Schiavo from April 1995 to July 1996

Terri's Fight (website established on Terri's behalf by her parents and that side of the family) ^ | August 29, 2003 | Carla Iyer

[William Terrell]

Yes, context in Revelation.

Right. Well, maybe we will eventually find out.

Do we have any doctors whose opinions are that Terri will or can recover with therapy? Has there ever been anyone who came out such a vegetative state, like those that have come out of a coma?

You miss my point, too. I can see myself frozen in a noncommunicative state, hoping that I will not be put to death until I have a chance to recover. I can also see myself frozen in a forever hell of dreary moment by moment existance with no hope but old age to release me.

My point is that you have no idea which it is. You may actually be doing evil to her by keeping her alive.

The other point is that her husband may have beat her into the state she is in. From the details of a report posted on this thread (and an interpretation kindly given to me by another poster) he may have beat her with a bat, and that may have been one of several prior beatings.

If that is as indicated, he should burn in Hell, and were I on a jury, I woudl be happy to send him there.

But how she got there is not the point, except that he pay the Bill. Once she is there, the issue is will she recover or will she not. I don't think it justice if she is crying out for release in her heart, she be kept alive in a tedious limbo in order to keep her husband from getting some money.

[First_Salute]

Does a person have the right to die?

Yes.

Not only does a person have a right to die, but such a right is between God and the person, and woe be any Constitutional claim otherwise, and so it was that wise men, the Founding Fathers, never entertained that our Constitution should lay the government's hands upon the matter.

Can the government put a person to death?

Yes.

In criminal cases, the Constitution provides the authority for the Congress to make laws establishing the penalties for heinous crimes, that punishment being up to and including death.

Can the government put a person to death using cruel or unusual punishment?

No.

The Constitution prohibits cruel and unusual punishment.

Thus, neither the federal government, nor the states, have the Constitutional authority to put a person to death by cruel or unusual means, and that includes torture, which itself includes, starvation. On that note, the United States of America has at length fought against such miserable ends.

That is why, for "capital crimes," the death must be swift in the United States.

Now come the "legal experts" at university and in the "liberal media," who claim that the federal government and the states, have the power to kill an incompetent ward, that is, put that human being to death by starvation, regardless of the cold, hard, fact that starvation is recognized in our laws and under the rule of law, as being torture.

This matter is a concern for all Americans; it is a Constitutional issue.

There is nothing in the Constitution that authorizes our governments with the power to put to death a person for any reason whatsoever, by tortuous means.

Yet the 'legal experts" at university and in the "liberal media" are advocates of a government by judiciary that is self-absorbed of such deadly powers, enough that it shall have in their view, the "legal grounds" --- no matter how diabolically wrenched from extra-Constitutional space --- with which they can sanction that infants, whose mothers have chosen that their infant die and not be born, will, as "incompetent wards" under the grip of their mother's "legal guardianship," be helplessly subject to said "judicial activist courts' 'decisions'" that they be put to death by starvation.

No woman will need to resort to "partial birth abortion;" that will not be required, and a law banning "partitial birth abortion" will be meaning-less.

I am against "partial birth abortion," and I am against "partial life abortion" with the following two exceptions; either:

a) when you have expressed an affirmative statement of intent in writing to not be kept alive as an incapacitated ward, by artificial means other than food and water; or

b) when you have expressed an affirmative statement of intent in writing to not be kept alive as an incapacitated ward, by artificial means including your clear understanding that your "end may be by starvation, and so be it."

You must have three witnesses to your writing, and it must be notarized.

God help you.

May God forgive me.

I will respect such a properly expressed wish to die.

Yet Terri Schiavo made no properly expressed wish, and her husband's behavior that indicated his lack of knowing such a wish, that he effectively relied upon to convince a court that she wished to live and thereby she, not really he, won the cash award from the lawsuit ten years ago, supports this argument.

The reasonable doubt that is the right of the people, so that we err on the side of life, must be upheld.

I think that Michael Schiavo's treatment of his wife, strongly indicates criminal intent and ill will toward her. Such behavior as his, is not care-full; he has not cared about her.

He has not stood by his wife; rather, he appears to have attempted to cover up his harmful (to her) activities even to the extent of formulating an alibi: a new relationship with another woman, including two children, in order to establish that he is not a wife beater.

The women of this forum, who have surmised that the new "wife" is at risk, and not aware enough yet to know this, I suspect, have nailed him.

[Coral Snake]

I already have a thread set up for that purpose here:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1004242/posts>
It is NOW Time for CRIMINAL PROSICUTION for Michael Schiavo

I set this up when Terri's Law was being debated because I felt that criminal investegation of Michael Schiavo and George Felos was the natural next step after getting Terri "reprieved". It is also where the original affidavit that is being posted on the Terri threads was first posted.

[supercat]

This is a case of a husband seeking release to die for his wife, who is in a persistant vegetative state. The feature of all is history is a husband or wife's responsibility to give permission for their opposite to be allowed to die when the medical opinion is that spouse will be forever in a braindead state.

There are procedures by which such wishes can be expressed in writing. Nobody here is questioning the legitimacy of such written requests.

Yes, there are suspicious circumstances. Yes, the husband stands to gain from her death. But, the fact is that no one here knows what Terri's wishes are. No one here took vows of marriage to her. Only her husband.

Her husband is now shacked up with another woman and has fathered two children by her. He has abandoned his wife, and yet refuses to grant her a divorce. Do you believe that he holds his wedding vows sacred?

In the absense of clear and compelling evidence that a person wishes to die, the default is supposed to be a presumption that they wish to live. Michael's testimony about Terri's statements, even if it is true (which I doubt) should not in the eyes of any reasonably judge be considered clear and compelling evidence that she wishes to die, since the allgeged circumstances of her saying it are not ones in which one would normally intend to make binding statements, and since the timing of Michael's revelation strongly suggests that he made the whole thing up. Unfortunately, appeals court judges are not allowed to address the reasonableness of trial courts' actions.

If he does this with evil and gain in his heart, that is GOD'S business. The public has no business in it.

Murder is very much the public's business. And an examination of Terri's medical and financial records may show a very clear motive.

I understand the problem and the fear of many. Should this become a precedent, then we, ourselves, may be in a similar situation where we are conscious and unable to communicate and do not want to die. We can put ourselves, in our ignorance, in Terri's place, and feel the fear of death we don't wish.

Indeed, many of us see this as a very big danger. Given a sufficiently corrupt doctor and Judge Greer heading a case, anyone with insufficient muscular control to feed themselves would be at risk.

But how many have been screaming inside to die, unable to screan outwardly, and been denied that by machine and medicine? Distinguishing from the senario in the last paragraph, what may happen when we may be in a vegetative hell, screaming to get out and the public won't let us die.

A person who's wanting to die doesn't survive seven days of dehyration.

[First_Salute]

You two get all the credit for this topic. All I did was follow the links that you supplied and typed up some of the stuff, then brought it to these pages.

Thanks.

[cyn]

bump

printing out to pass on. may the facts get out; may they make a difference in this cold world.

[jwalsh07]

Thank you. I'm bookmarking this one.

[William Terrell]

There are procedures by which such wishes can be expressed in writing. Nobody here is questioning the legitimacy of such written requests.

What happens when there is no written request? My wifes father was in a vegetative state after having suffered a stroke. My wife's family had to make the decision to let him die without support. They did.

I understand that Terri's husband may well be a criminal. There seems to be evidence posted on this thread that he beat her, and had a history of beating her. He appears to be breaking formal and moral vows left and right.

But until he is tried and convicted, with all the evidence presented, examined, rebutted and explained, he has the responsibility for this decision for his wife. If he is tried and convicted, then the people through their representatives probably would hves the responsibility to determine her fate.

I think if we allow a precedent like this from mere suspicion, however stark the reasons for that suspicion, we set up rules that can be applied very badly indeed. It would be very much like taking action against a person because of a crime he is thought to be going to commit.

There is evidence posted on this thread that indicates he put her in this state by beating her. Maybe he did. That is not for the public to decide directly, else we return to lynch mob days. From his actions, if he were tried, he probably not want me on his jury. But these are just my feelings and some scraps of evidence which has not been allowed to be formally refuted.

In the absense of clear and compelling evidence that a person wishes to die, the default is supposed to be a presumption that they wish to live. Michael's testimony about Terri's statements, even if it is true (which I doubt) should not in the eyes of any reasonably judge be considered clear and compelling evidence that she wishes to die, since the allgeged circumstances of her saying it are not ones in which one would normally intend to make binding statements, and since the timing of Michael's revelation strongly suggests that he made the whole thing up. Unfortunately, appeals court judges are not allowed to address the reasonableness of trial courts' actions.

I would think a judge would have to take a man's sworn statement about his knowledge of his wife's wishes without a mindreader, or some other clear evidence that it was otherwise. How would a person in his wife's state give clear evidence she's willing to die?

I don't think we have any idea, just theories, about what is in the heart of this lady. I don't think we, as the public, ought to take any action like we do know. She could be longing for death, and all else is reading what we want into what actions and indication she has seemed to give.

If we, without knowing, consider the possibility she doesn't want to die then we have to consider the possibility that she wants to die, because we simply don't know. If she does want to die, then we will be keeping her alive because we don't want to see her husband get a lot of money, which he will not get if she lives. This is fine as long as she really wants to live, but what if she really wants to die?

Nobody can really call that, her being incapable of such complicated communications. Everybody is going to have a different theory. So someone has to be responsible, and it has to be her husband. As repulsive as that is, him being who he is, any other way leads to social chaos, in my opinion.

If what we suspect is true, and he is found to have killed her for his own interests, then we can burn him for murder.

[joanie-f]

I have a dear friend who, up until two months ago, was a vibrant, healthy young woman (thirty-eight years old). Today she suffers from a rare form of vasculitis (an inflammation of the blood vessels)—hers is rare because it has affected significant areas of her brain. To make a very long story short: despite consultations with the ‘best’ doctors in the country (at the Mayo Clinic and Johns Hopkins, among others), her prognosis is very poor, and she lives from day to day with debilitating symptoms – caused by both the disease and the two powerful drugs which are being used to treat (not cure) it.

My friend may not survive the year, and it appears that the time she has left will be far from pleasant.

I brought lunch over to her on Wednesday and we spent the afternoon talking about her present, and her uncertain future.

During the conversation she said something that will always stay with me: ‘I believe that one of the most difficult parts of this illness is watching the effect my deterioration has on my family. And there may come a time when two things happen – I may no longer be able to stand the progressive effects of the disease, and I'm afraid I may want someone to help me leave this world if that happens, and if I believe it would be best for my family for me to do so.’ We discussed sad thought process at length.

We also talked about Terri Schiavo, and we agreed that:

According to most accounts, Terri’s husband has proven by his behaviors over the past thirteen years that her welfare, and her family’s (perhaps not legal, but certainly moral) rights were nowhere on his list of priorities.

Since the feeding tubes were long ago inserted into her body, whether she wants to continue living is a matter only between her and God. Under the current circumstances (in which she is unable to make or voice that decision), no one else has a right to take steps to terminate her life.

The government, and the legal system, almost always choose the path that will hold them the least culpable. ‘Allowing’ her to now die by removing her feeding tubes would have caused an excruciating death. But it would have been a death in which the medical profession and the legal system contributed only passively. Causing her death by painless lethal injection (not that I am advocating that, mind you) would have been much more humane for both Terri and her family. But the medical profession and the legal system would have had to shoulder responsibility for contributing actively to her death. A medical professional would have had to insert the syringe, with the consent of the court. And her death would not have been through ‘natural’ means (how grotesque that starvation is considered ‘natural’).

Wouldn’t want that on their consciences, would we? It’s okay to declare that her death is the desirable outcome, but it’s not okay to allow her to die without pain and agony – because the method to accomplish that would be somewhat uncomfortable for lawyers and judges.

But we must remember who, after all, is served by the legal/justice system in this country.

Answer: lawyers and judges, and those who share their personal agendas (and whoever else happens to benefit from their arbitrary, self-serving maneuvering).

My friend’s statement, ‘I'm afraid I may want someone to help me leave this world,’ is a desire that we are generally not allowed to have fulfilled. It is a wish that Michael Schiavo claims his wife also expressed to him, should she ever be in the condition she is in now. But Michael Schiavo’s words are not worth the breath expended to speak them. And Terri and her family deserve more respect, consideration and empathy than a man like Schiavo is capable of mustering. A dying or incommunicative person’s welfare should be overseen by those who have exhibited love and concern for her. Not by a person simply deemed ‘legally’ responsible.

Laws are not only fallible, but they are quite often based on irrational -- yet convenient -- foundations.

[attagirl]

So, have a nice day. While you still can.

You're funny!

[sfRummygirl]

This just makes you sick, doesn't it?

[Concerned]

BRONCO_BUSTER_FWEETHYAGH WROTE: "I don't believe this [the Nurses' Affidavits re: Terri and "LOVING Hitleresque-husband Michael] for even a second. Total fabrication."

I AM RESPONDING: Let me see now.

Do you BELIEVE the word of a man:

(1) whose wife has injuries of EXTREMELY SUSPICIOUS source but which have NEVER been INVESTIGATED,

(2) who HAS PETITIONED the COURTS to KILL her several times by starvation and dehydration, and who according to NON-CONFLICTED NURSES, has allegedly apparently INJECTED his wife with INSULIN when she is NOT diabetic, (to cause INSULIN SHOCK),

(3) who received $750,000.00 for his WIFE's REHAB so she CAN learn how to eat and speak but who in SEVERAL YEARS hasn't seen fit to spend even ONE DIME on her REHAB,

(4) whose wife suffered broken bones all over her body according to a BONE SCAN taken approximately 13 months after an alleged "HEART" attack (which was later TOTALLY DISPROVEN by an EKG) and was diagnosed as having a "history of trauma" and "hemmorraging" as a result of trauma,

(5) who stands to KEEP the $750,000.00 if his wife DIES---OR---would have to PAY IT BACK if she LIVES and her BLOOD-RELATED, ACTUALLY-LOVING PARENTS get Guardinship,

(6) who obtained HIS WIFE'S $750,000.00 award FOR REHAB by apparently FRAUDULENT and PERJURIOUS TESTIMONY, and IMMEDIATELY began petitions to have her FEEDING and HYDRATION STOPPED,

(7) who has ABSOLUTELY NO WRITTEN, NOTARIZED DOCUMENTATION of his wife's so-called "WISH TO DIE" yet bases his ENTIRE CLAIM of HER "WISH TO DIE" on HIS WORD* that she said it,

(8) who suddenly REMEMBERED that she said she "WISHED TO DIE" AFTER he COLLECTED HIS WIFE'S $750,000.00 award for HER REHAB,

(9) who IMMEDIATELY AFTER COLLECTING $750,000.00 for HIS WIFE'S REHAB, BEGAN REFUSING ANTIBIOTICS for his wife when she had infections and was allegedly "happy" and "elated" according to NON-CONFLICTED NURSES,

(10) who REFUSES to let his wife's PARENTS & FAMILY to have access to THEIR DAUGHTER and SISTER or her MEDICAL RECORDS,

(11) who ORDERED DNR---"DO NOT RECUSSITATE"---IMMEDICATELY AFTER RECEIVING $750,000.00 for HIS WIFE'S REHAB,

(12) who ORDERED CREMATION to PREVENT INVESTIGATION of possible ATTEMPTED MURDER,

(13) who RECEIVED $300,000.00 for lack of consortium yet has a GIRLFRIEND, a BABY from that relationship, has ANOTHER BABY on the way, and is now ENGAGED to marry her, at which time SHE would SHARE in the $750,000.00 + $300,000.00 that "LOVING" Hitlereque husband has ALREADY RECEIVED (BTW, it sounds like he's getting PLENTY of sex to me!),

(14) whose wife had an alleged SUSPICIOUS, RARE, SUDDEN, ONE-TIME POTASSIUM IMBALANCE (i.e. the same as the "LETHAL INJECTION" a death-penalty receiver gets), which could be TESTED NOW to see if she STILL has a POTASSIUM IMBALANCE,

and

(15) who Pathologist BADEN (?) just stated on Fox News Channel that could have been caused by FOUL PLAY (not his exact words) and "SHOULD HAVE BEEN INVESTIGATGED" back in 1991!!!

Is that the person YOU BELIEVE over NON-CONFLICTED, HANDS-ON NURSES who have given SWORN AFFIDAVITS and have NOTHING TO GAIN and EVERYTHING TO LOSE???

[GOPJ]

bump

[windchime]

Bump

[Aracelis]

It would appear that, by the statement, then, she had a history of trauma, too. Would mean a history of prior beatings?

As far as I know, only a forensic radiologist would be able to date the injuries. The radiologist that read her x-rays, etc. indicated evidence of past trauma but did not assign a date range to them in the report we have seen.

What we do know, however, is that MS is abusive (as revealed by his dealings with medical staff), and that Terri was bulemic. Is there a connection? I don't know, but it's a question worth investigating.

[faithincowboys]

Why nobody surreptitiously filmed this jerk when he was alone with her is beyond me.

[texasredtop]

I would guess Michael is suffering from narcissism. By everything I've read about him, it fits pretty good. He believes that he is so clever that he can tell anyone anything and they will believe whatever he says. In other words, he's smarter than the rest of the world.

I was always taught that if it's quacking, then there is a 99.9% chance that it's a duck. Michael is quacking his behind off.

[nmh]

you must have me confused with someone else. I am NOT an advocate for the death of Terri. Please redirect your comments to the proper person.

[MVV]

Bravo! Thanks for posting this, someone had to do it. I DO believe this nurse. Michael is an S.O.B., he makes me sick!

[slimer]

Petition to Ascroft and Justice Dept.

Keep up the fight!