Posted on 03/28/2005 1:26:35 AM PST by beyond the sea
Michael Schiavo decided to have his wife's body cremated after her parents' lawyers obtained medical records showing she had sustained broken bones, a nurse who cared for Terri Schiavo is now claiming.
"He wanted her cremated after the bone fractures and dislocations were found," nurse Carla Sauer Iyer, who cared for Terri in the mid-1990s while she was at the Palm Gardens Convalescent Center, told ABC Radio host Sean Hannity on Friday.
"He immediately went to court and [said he] wanted her body cremated at that time," she said, "after we got hold of the records that proved there were dislocations and fractures."
A 1991 report on a bone scan performed on Terri Schiavo states:
"There are an extensive number of focal abnormal areas ... These include: multiple bilateral ribs ... both sacroiliac joints ... both knees and both ankles."
Radiographs reveal "compression fractures" of the spine and right femur. ... "Compression fracture presumably traumatic," the report says.
Nurse Iyer said she recently contacted Palm Gardens to encourage co-workers who also cared for Terri to speak out - but said they have been muzzled.
"The administrator had gotten them together and they talked about what happened with Michael," Iyer told Hannity. "The people who have worked with Terri who are still there, they cannot talk to reporters - they would be terminated."
If your statement is not due to just being uninformed, I hope you won't be surprised when GOD has St. Peter tell you YOU AINT ON THE GUEST LIST.
That would make everything you post unsubstantiated rumor, wouldn't it?
Sorry. But, unlike you, I've backed up quite often what I've said. In fact, I've even corrected you before. Now, I say again, prove to me that the M.E. ordered an autopsy of Terri before Michael requested one. If you cannot do so, then you are simply repeating unsubstantiated rumor.
Until a few years ago, that's how I felt. I am hearing more and more stories from unhappy families who feel that the dying process was really speeded up. That is fine if the patient is in pain. For patients who are not in pain and aware of what is going on it's another story. And yes, witholding food and water from patients who are awake and aware is commonplace.
I should have added, many times the accelerated dying process is at the request of the patient's family. Hospice is hoping for donations if the family is happy. The family is happy when they get that long awaited inheritance. Be on the safe side: don't give power of attorney to a family member with a lot of credit card debt.
My son broke his femur and was in agony. He was put in traction for two weeks to straighten it out, then 2 months of a body cast until it healed.
Read for yourself...
Title XXIX Chapter 406
406.11 Examinations, investigations, and autopsies.--
(1) In any of the following circumstances involving the death of a human being, the medical examiner of the district in which the death occurred or the body was found shall determine the cause of death and shall, for that purpose, make or have performed such examinations, investigations, and autopsies as he or she shall deem necessary or as shall be requested by the state attorney:...
(c) When a body is to be cremated, dissected, or buried at sea.
It doesn't appear that MS's "request" has any bearing whatsoever on the law. It's all up to the ME.
Michael had gotten the judge to state no autopsy. Then, when they found they couldn't get away with it, BECAUSE IT IS THE ME'S decision, not Michael's, they changed their story. Short and simple. Needs no proof. It is a matter of law.
If Michael stated "THERE WILL BE NO AUTOPSY", do you think the ME would pay any attention to him?
The ME is doing this per the law, not Per Michael, and the ME issued a statement indicating he would do an autopsy, BEFORE Michael's statement was 'given' to the press.
As soon as I find it, I will post it to you.
Why do you choose to believe the Dan Rather type media and Michael? I just don't get it. You know the MSM lies all the time. That is a proven fact as well, and yet, you want to use them as proof.
That sounds discretionary to me. Now, I'm still waiting for some proof that the M.E. ordered the autopsy before Michael requested it.
So, while you are waiting, and I am searching, perhaps you could tell me what Terri's LAWYER stated about the need for an autopsy or not?
The ME has no choice, in this case, and neither does Michael.
"Regarding Michael Schiavo's motives on her being cremated, [MS] has requested autopsy, strongly; he believes it will show the public the full and massive extent of damage to her braine through her cardiac arrest in 1990. Dr. John Thogmartin, certified for this purpose will be doing this."Reporter: "Will there be full body scan for her supposed broken bones?" FWELOS: "You're watching too much CSI! [he laughs] I don't know what procedures they use for their autopsies. He's the examiner for Pinellas county.
Can't be any plainer -- Michael requested the autopsy.
A. A patient admitted and/or brought to an emergency room should only be classified as a PROBABLE MEDICAL EXAMINER CASE if one of the following applies (These classifications apply even when the patient lives for a prolonged period - up to days, weeks, months, even years in cases such as paralysis - before expiring.):
1. Any injury was sustained in the past that appears to be related to the death. This includes all drug overdoses, drowning, near-drowning, fractures, falls, head trauma, vehicular accidents, burns, electrical shock, gunshot, stab, or blunt trauma wounds. Paralysis is generally due to such injury even if it occurred several years prior.
You didn't qoute the whole thing, why is [MS] like that? Doesn't that indicate you are inserting something that was not there originally?
I am not claiming Michael didn't tell the press he wanted an autopsy.
I am claiming that the ME stated this weekend that he would be doing an autopsy due to the CT scan's where other damage (broken bones) was reported.
Michael told the press he demanded/asked for an autopsy, when?
They won't stop even after the autopsy is performed. They are already screaming 'the fix is in!' before Terri has even passed away and the autopsy has been performed. *sigh*
he believes it will show the public the full and massive extent of damage to her braine through her cardiac arrest in 1990. Dr. John Thogmartin, certified for this purpose will be doing this."
Dr. Thogmartin is not 'certified for this purpose' which the purpose stated in the preceding sentence is,,, 'show the public the full and massive extent of damage to her braine through her cardiac arrest in 1990.'
He is a medical examiner and his PURPOSE is to see if there is any allegations to claims Terri's accident was caused by abuse and criminal charges can be filed.
He is not there to make a judgment on whether or not she is braindead, EVEN THOUGH THAT IS WHAT YOU WANT, and WHAT THOSE WHO WANT TERRI DEAD,DEAD,DEAD, want to be able to live with themselves.
So your 'proof' is an excerpt of a posted article, which the substantive arguments contained within are falsehoods, or at the very least, non-relatable points given to a reading audience with the attention span of a young child, and less retained education.
You mentioned that you have supplied documentation before, and that I acknowledge.
You mentioned that I had made a mistake and you corrected me.
I admitted my mistake and accepted and Thank'ed you for you doing so.
Have you ever made a mistake?
Is it possible that Michael is an attempted Murderer, getting away with it because of the entanglement of a LAWYER and JUDGE who find it possible to alter the laws to line their pockets?
Your tinfoil hat is askew.
You are making entirely too much sense for a Schiavo thread. :)
The words (used very abundantly lately) of someone who has run out of ammo, and so wishes to make personal attacks to attempt to win the argument.
Usual reason: The subject of the argument is not even important. The fact that the poster MADE UP THEIR MIND way before all the information was brought to light, and now has not the courage to admit they might have been wrong.
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.