Posted on 03/23/2005 7:54:44 PM PST by jaime1959
I can't post an excerpt because it's in pdf format, but this is the Guardian Ad Litem's report to Gov. Bush in re: Teresa Marie Schiavo. I don't know if it's been posted before, but it should be required reading, especially for those who suggest that her husband never took any rehabilitative action on her behalf.
This guy is not credible. I saw him interviewed, he is pro-death and definitly on the adulterous scheming husbands side.
The "adulterous scheming husband" spent the first four years or so that Terri was in this state trying desperately to help her. That contradicts a lot of what I've read here.
He did take rehabilitative action at first and there are witnesses that have said that she was benefitting from it. Unfortunately, he ceased the therapy when he decided he would like the feeding tube removed and used the money he was awarded in the suit on lawyers fees. He has since denied her anything resembling therapy (even a washcloth in her hand to keep her fingers from closing in on her hand).
> He did take rehabilitative action at first and there are witnesses that have said that she was benefitting from it. <
The GAL report makes no mention that she benefitted from it.
But .. I believe it's the nurses testimony - along with the family that after the husband received the $1.5-2.5 mil settlement from the hospital - the following day he stopped all her rehab and after he moved her to the current Hospice (5 years ago I believe), he refused to allow her out of doors.
You should read the nurses affidavits - stunning.
Notice too that that first GAL recognized that the husband's attitude changed as soon as the malpractice award was made.
What doesn't seem to be mentioned in the report is the husband's adultery, which could have been avoided by a divorce, with the GAL, or a divorce specialist picked by him/her, representing Theresa's interests during the proceedings. Such proceedings might have left the husband with half the money then left in the medical trust. The adultery goes to the question of the husband no longer having Theresa's best interests in mind, and the money is an obvious conflict of interest.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.