Florida Court Prohibits Terri's Parents From Joining "Terri's Law" Battle (ACLJ)

LifeNews.com ^ | November 4, 2003 | Steven Ertelt

[TigersEye]

The evidence shows that Terri's cerebral cortex is deteriorated to the point that it can no longer support it's purpose. It leaves Terri with nothing more than involuntary movements.

This is hardly an involuntary response.

[Deep_6]

Re:
"This is hardly an involuntary response."

And is that why the court refused to accept it as valid evidence?

Let me give you a hint: It was not corroborated evidence; the
action in those pictures cannot be duplicated.

And that, is a fact as presented to the court[s] on numerous
occasions by physicians of both parents and husband and including
the independent court-appointed physician.

Terri's head turns and bobs from side to side; her eyes move
about as if to focus, continually. Stand in the right spot and
eventually Terri will appear to be responding to you. It must
be the most unnerving thing for Terri's parents to endure. It
must give them an incredible amount of belief that Terri is
indeed somewhat coherent. But the proof is in all the medical
documentation and physician's examinations.

And it is in that documentation that the court must base it's
findings, not the emotionally based wishes of those that
love her.

It's interesting to see so many people refusing to accept a court's
balanced decision and instead wish to have the legislation and
executive branches decide their fate.

What if the situation were reversed and you had clinton democrats
making legislation and clinton as Governor? The judge deciding
you can allow your spouse to remain on life support, but legislation
is passed and signed into law by the Governor, that reverses the
court's decision?

My, my, my... what an outcry would be heard from the so-called
"can't trust a judge and court" crew.

But thankfully, that scenario [as real as it is], is being presented to
a Constitutional test. I hope it proves to fail the test as it should.

[TigersEye]

...and marry his sort-of-new flame.

Sort-of-new is right. He moved in with her in May of '92. That was before Terri was awarded the malpractice settlement of $250,000 in Aug. '92.

It is very interesting to read what he says while testifying in the malpractice lawsuit in Nov. '92 about "through sickness, in health, for richer or poorer" and how he would bring Terri home "in a heartbeat" if he had the 'resources, equipment and people' and "spend the rest of my life with her". That was the big payola, awarded in Nov. '92 and recieved in Feb. '93. $1.4 million awarded to Terri and $600,000 awarded to him.

Feb. '93, a mere three months after testifying to the above, is the same month he had a falling out with the Schindlers over lack of therapy, witholds medical info. from them and places a DNR on her medical chart. In June '93 he threatens them with a lawsuit and in Aug. he orders that she not be treated for a potentially fatal infection.

But of course moving in with his honey in May '92 had no influence on any of this and he surely would have kicked her to the curb and brought Terri home if only he could have. /sarcasm

Or maybe he would have kept her there to help take care of Terri. //sarcasm

[TigersEye]

So what I hear you saying is ... that even trolls have a place and serve a purpose.

All of God's creatures have a place and purpose in the great chain of life.

Mosquitos feed fish.
Slugs feed birds.
Pond scum feeds ducks.
... and Trolls feed the bacteria in the bottom layers of rotting muck beneath brackish waters that pond scum have banished forever from the surface for having bad table manners.

[Deep_6]

An example of inadmissible hearsay:

"....a mere three months after testifying to the above, is the same month
he had a falling out with the Schindlers over lack of therapy, witholds
medical info. from them....."

[TigersEye]

And is that why the court refused to accept it as valid evidence?

Did I say that? Did I give that as the reason it was dismissed by the courts? No! I didn't.

It's interesting to see so many people refusing to accept a court's balanced decision ...

It doesn't seem to be balanced.

What if the situation were reversed and you had clinton democrats making legislation and clinton as Governor? The judge deciding you can allow your spouse to remain on life support, but legislation is passed and signed into law by the Governor, that reverses the court's decision?

Straw man 'what ifs' are never sound arguments. But if Clinton ever sided with preserving a life I would support that position without reservation.

[TigersEye]

An example of inadmissible hearsay that the court actually heard and accepted:

Michael Schiavo testifies that his wife said she "wouldn't want to be hooked up to tubes" after seeing a tearjerk movie.

Of course he didn't remember it until '97, didn't remember it in '93 when he decided to post a DNR on her charts and didn't remember it when he told a jury he wanted to "bring her home and spend the rest of his life with her.

[Deep_6]

It's an emotional issue that can play on one's innermost
feelings, if it is allowed to do so.

If it were my wife? It could have been; I sat in ICU with
my wife for two weeks, praying for her recovery.

If I was Terri's husband? I would have had strong feelings
to convey to the original court, regarding her continued life
on support. But, if after hearing all the evidence and
documentation of physicians that all corroborate the same
facts: that my wife will never recover her cogency; that
she will remain forever with nothing more than involuntary
movements?

I'm not certain I could have the will to remove her and let
her go, but that would be the only right thing to do.

I would not want to lock my wife in a living coffin. I have
a stronger belief that our Lord will direct the proper course.

And that, may very well mean removing the life supporting
feeding apparatus.

[please note, in previous posts I added links to the clergy's
attitude regarding removing life support aids]

Stay well; life is short.

 

[Deep_6]

Incidentally... My wife is doing fine. Neither she nor I have
a living will, only a love of each other that we know will direct
our moves through eternity.

If I lie in state as Terri is now doing, I would hope that my
wife has the courage to allow my soul to pass. But I would
not slight her for her inability to do so, either.

Likewise, I hope and trust that if I am too weak of spirit to
allow her soul to pass, she will forgive me as well.

 

[TigersEye]

It's an emotional issue that can play on one's innermost feelings, if it is allowed to do so.

I'm sorry to hear that. Thankfully I have learned to always temper emotion with reason. Why go through life a slave to emotions that come and go when the consequences of actions can have such lasting effects?

I feel great sorrow for what looks like a terrible way to live when I think of Terri. That emotion would disappear like breath on a mirror if she responded to therapy and said "thanks for helping me", which can only happen if she gets the chance. Or my sorrow for her could instantly become deep despair and guilt if, in the throws of death by starvation, she shouts out "HELP" and I had said "pull the plug."

Emotions are like that, here one minute and gone the next, because things are always changing and we never really know what will happen next. Fleeting emotions lead to bad decisions that can effect us for a lifetime. Some consequences last even longer.

If you can look at the videos of Terri and still say "let her die" then you can do it to your wife, don't worry about that. Maybe you can even live with that in this life. If you can forgive yourself would you really need your wife's forgiveness? You are making your statement now about Terri Schiavo, a living human being. If you want to take that into the life beyond go for it.

[Deep_6]

Re:
"...if she responded to therapy and said "thanks for helping me", 
which can only happen if she gets the chance....."

After 13 years, I'm not too sure about not having a chance.

Please forget [at least for a moment] the "right to live" rhetoric,
and concentrate on fact? The Clergy would not condone keeping
a soul locked in the manner it is with Terri. When physician after
physician, over the course of 13 years, have all come to the same
conclusion, I would sincerely doubt Terri will make any type
of rehabilitated comeback.

You now read about a "new therapy" that can rejuvenate a partially
decayed brain. That method is with enormous promise and credit,
but it will not work when the decay has lasted 13 years. Terri's
brain has been shrinking. That is fact. She has lost near all of her
cerebral cortex. That is fact. Terri can not rejuvenate her cortex.
That is fact.

And with all the other medical facts of this case that a court must
consider, there is no true hope for Terri.

Give her another month? Send in some more physicians to 
evaluate her condition? 

Sure, why not.

But..... Do you think it will change any minds if after a month
of testing, Terri is said to have only involuntary motions and that
her condition will never change for the better?

My argument isn't with those as yourself, that may eventually 
find that Terri's time to be in God's hands has come.

My argument is with those that will argue for a cause out of their
emotionally percolated interest.

It's sad for Terri.