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

[thepizzalady]

Has anyone stated a reason why Terri's husband refuses all therapy or treatment for his wife? Or why food and water or antibiotics would be considered artificial means?
Please understand that "Do Not Resuscitate", does not mean "Give no treatment" It means if incapacity or death occurs and all conventional treatment has been attempted, then and only then, do not use extraordinary or artificial means to support life.
Obviously Terri survived even after the feeding and hydration were denied her. Which could mean that she was able to be nourished by mouth all these many years.

Terri's husband is trying to Kill his wife right before our eyes. Whatever the reason, be it inconvenience or more sinister reasons (perhaps he himself being the cause of her plight) maybe money. What is his real reason to withhold food, treatment for infections and therapy from another human being? And how is standing by and allowing this to happen any different than watching a parent withhold nourishment from an infant until death occurs?

[dubyagee]

If he's this stupid and the hospice was that lax, why not just 'off' her while alone with her. This doesn't make sense.

[libravoter]

(pardon my typos and run-on sentence): . . . Use a bad thing to cover up a worse thing.

Please never ever apologize for typos or grammar; it makes the rest of us who screw things up and don't atone look like schlubs ;-)

That said, I hadn't considered that reasoning . . . that at the time he might have been trying to bring folks minds away from murder. But then again, these statements bring people's minds closer to murder, don't they?

I noticed some folks talking about their own experiences and how they either make them thing the affadavits are bogus or real. I did work as a medical assistant in a public health clinic when I was in college (the unlicensed peon type of assistant.) And we had to document everything, and god forbid we scratch something out so that it couldn't be read. Any changes could only be one line through the error and then our initials next to it. Otherwise, if we were ever sued, we would look guilty no matter what the facts were.

[Leatherneck_MT]

and what proof do you have that it's a farce?

Facts please, not hyperbole

[attagirl]

But then again, these statements bring people's minds closer to murder, don't they?

Not really. Selfish people (and our society has been taught to be very selfish)would just look at her and see her life is going nowhere and would probably empathize with not her, but Michael.

Show me the money! (sigh)

[libravoter]

ick

[editor-surveyor]

" I think the evidence, in this age, that this passage applies is greater than the evidence it doesn't."

Hogwash!

You must have flunked sunday school 1a. - It is more than clear that the reason that people will seek death as stated in that passage is to excape the judgements of the Great Tribulation, since that is what is 'in view' in that passage. In addition, Terri is not seeking death, she has openly reacted against it. Her adulterous husband is seeking the "right to have a dead inconvenient spouse."

Sorry to see that you have joined the death advocates; I would have thought higher of you.

[atruelady]

"Wesley Smith: The Horrifying Case of Terri Schiavo"

Posted by Jean Shaw
Monday, October 13, 2003


Wesley J. Smith, writing for The Weekly Standard, examines the horrifying case of Terri Schiavo, and the ramifications for medical ethics.

AT 2:00 P.M. on October 15, 2003, Terri Schiavo's feeding tube is to be removed, after which she will slowly dehydrate to death. This is to be done at the request of her husband, Michael Schiavo, and at the order of Judge George W. Greer of the Sixth Judicial Circuit, in Clearwater, Florida. If the order is carried out, Terri will die over a period of 10 to 14 days.

The Schiavo case is only the most recent ''food and fluids'' case to make national headlines, after Nancy Cruzan (Missouri), Michael Martin (Michigan), and Robert Wendland (California). But Terri's case has gone a step beyond all the rest: Not only are Michael Schiavo's conflicts of interest so blatant that he should be allowed no say over her care, but Terri is also being denied rehabilitative therapy that several doctors and therapists have testified could wean her off the feeding tube.

Terri Schiavo collapsed from unknown causes in 1990 and experienced a devastating brain injury. Michael brought a medical malpractice case in which he promised the jury that he would provide Terri with rehabilitation and care for her for the rest of his life. The jury in 1993 awarded $1.3 million in damages, approximately $750,000 of which was set aside to pay for her care and rehabilitation. But once the money was in the bank, Michael refused to provide Terri with any rehab. Moreover, within months, he had a do-not-resuscitate order placed on her chart.

Had she died then, Michael would have inherited all the money. But he denies having a venal motive, claiming that the trust fund money is now exhausted. If true, this is bitterly ironic. For the past three years he has been in litigation, opposed by Terri's parents and her other relatives. Rather than the funds going to pay for medical therapists to help her, as the jury intended, much of it instead paid lawyers that Michael retained to obtain the court order to end her care.

Michael's second conflict of interest is deeply personal. He is engaged to be married and has had a baby with his fiancée, with another one on the way. The couple would like to marry, but Michael's wife, inconveniently, is still alive.

Judge Greer ordered Terri dehydrated based on dubious testimony from Michael, his brother, and his brother's wife that Terri told them she did not want to be hooked up to tubes--something he never told the malpractice jury when he sought a financial award. To the contrary, the malpractice jury was told that Terri could expect a normal lifespan.

Whatever Terri said or did not say, she certainly never asked to be denied the very treatment that might allow her to eat without medical assistance. Yet, in the ultimate injustice, Judge Greer refuses to permit Terri to receive rehabilitative therapy that could help her relearn to eat by mouth, even though several doctors and therapists have testified under penalty of perjury that she is a good candidate for tube weaning.

True, experts hired by Michael disagree. But so what? This isn't a case where we have to believe one side's medical experts or the other's. The issue can be decided empirically by providing Terri with six months of therapy to see if she improves. But Judge Greer, in a decision that elevated procedure over justice, won't do that because, he ruled, it would mean retrying the case.

In that unreasonable denial, it looked as if Greer might have crossed a crucial line. St. Petersburg attorney Pat Anderson, who represents Terri's blood family, believed that denying food and water and potentially rehabilitative therapy that could have made the feeding tube unnecessary, reeked of discrimination against the disabled. She filed a civil rights lawsuit seeking a federal injunction against the dehydration. Adding to the suit's potential legal heft and credibility: Florida governor Jeb Bush dramatically signed on to the federal case, urging the court in an amicus brief to prevent Terri's dehydration until she received treatment to determine whether she could relearn to take food and water by mouth. But once again, the law turned its back on her. U.S. District Court Judge Richard Lazzara ruled on October 10 that the federal courts had no jurisdiction and dismissed the case.

People are often shocked at how Terri has been treated as somehow less than a fully human person by the legal and medical experts who are determined to see her dead. They shouldn't be. This case illustrates how utterly vulnerable people with profound cognitive disabilities have become in this country. Not only are many routinely dehydrated to death--both the conscious and unconscious--but often the people making decisions to stop food and water, like Michael, have glaring conflicts of interest.

Some of the worst such conflicts come not from family members but from a medical establishment eager to remedy the chronic shortage of organ donors. The literature is brimming with advocacy that death be ''redefined'' to include a diagnosis of permanent unconsciousness. An article just published in Critical Care Medicine, the journal for doctors who specialize in treating the most seriously ill and injured patients, urges the adoption of an even more radical policy. Drs. Robert D. Troug and Walter M. Robinson, from Harvard Medical School and the Medical Intensive Care Unit at Children's Hospital, Boston, want to discard the ''dead donor rule'' requiring that vital organ donors die before their organs can be procured, writing: ''We propose that individuals who desire to donate their organs and who are either neurologically devastated or imminently dying should be allowed to donate their organs, without first being declared dead.''

The authors urge that the relevant question about organ donors should be changed from the current query--is the patient dead?--to, ''Are the harms of removing life-sustaining organs sufficiently small that patients or surrogates [e.g., Michael Schiavo] should be allowed to consent to donation?'' This is a prescription for moral freefall. Not only do the authors strongly imply that some of us have less value than others but that those so denigrated can be killed for utilitarian ends.

The answer to such a moral travesty would not be to expand medical homicide beyond patients who have suffered a total cessation of brain activity. Rather, it would be to permit doctors to procure organs only from donors who have been declared dead in the traditional manner; because their hearts have ceased beating without hope of restarting.

Advocacy in Critical Care Medicine for discarding the dead donor rule follows on the heels of the Ethics Committee of the Society of Critical Care Medicine's advocacy for legalizing ''futile care theory,'' which would permit doctors to refuse wanted life-sustaining treatment--including ''low tech'' treatments such as antibiotics--based on the doctor's perception of the ''quality'' of the patient's life. ''Given finite resources,'' the Ethics Committee stated in 1997, ''institutional providers should define what constitutes inadvisable treatment and determine when such treatment will not be sustained.''

This plan is currently being implemented. Medical and bioethics journals have reported in recent years that futile care protocols are being adopted quietly by hospitals throughout the country.

The Schiavo case has drawn attention only because her family is in profound disagreement about the care she should receive. If futile care theory takes hold, we may see fewer such cases, if only because the unilateral refusal of treatment will quietly take place without anyone speaking up for the patient.

The sad truth is, many practitioners of bioethics, medicine, and law no longer believe that people like Terri Schiavo are fully human. As a consequence, these patients are being systematically stripped of their fundamental right to life and, perhaps worse, are increasingly looked upon as mere natural resources whose bodies can be plundered for the benefit of others. If it is true that a nation is judged by the way it treats its most vulnerable citizens, a lot is riding on the Schiavo case.

Wesley J. Smith is a senior fellow at the Discovery Institute. His most recent book is "Forced Exit: The Slippery Slope From Assisted Suicide to Legalized Murder."

[atruelady]

OK, a couple nights ago I let everyone know that Jodi Centonze, Michael Schiavo's girlfriend had posted a profile on classmates.com. She graduated from Pinellas Park H.S. in 1983. Well, I just checked the site to see if any of my good friends with premium memberships posted a message to her school about her waiting in the wings while Schiavo murdered his wife just so she could marry him. Anyway, she has posted a second profile for herself. My guess is that she was bombarded with rotten e-mails and she re-created a new account. The most recent one probably has be more recent e-mail. I am suprised she didn't call herself "Jodi Schiavo".

[William Terrell]

Well, these are the days when people can be kept alive beyond the time to die.

[Ethan_Allen]

Re: Revelation 9:6 "Are those those days"?

IMO, no. I believe 'those days' occurred around 70 AD.

Luke 21:22 For these be the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled. http://www.blueletterbible.org/tsk_b/Luk/21/22.html

See a good partial preterist view on the book of Revelation, chapter by chapter, verse by verse. I don't have the link, but you can try searching for the on-line book, DAYS OF VENGEANCE by David Chilton. Or see my tag-line. On it you will probably find a link to David Chilton; also see Josephus' WARS OF THE JEWS http://www.preteristarchive.com/JewishWars/index.html .

After you've spent some time there and gotten that out of your system, come back and see the videos of Terri at http://www.terrisfight.org and help us fight for her life. "....What ye do for the least of these, ye do for me."

Respectfully,
Ethan Allen

[Ethan_Allen]

Wesley Smith pretty much nailed it in that article.

See what SpaceBar posted on another thread THE CHIC CULTURE OF DEATH...... http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1007052/posts?pag=4


"To: nickcarraway

Berlin, 1 Sept. 1939

Reich Leader Bouhler and Dr. Med. Brandt are charged with the responsibility of enlarging the competence of certain physicians, designated by name, so that patients who, on the basis of human judgment, are considered incurable, can be granted mercy death after a discerning diagnosis.

A. Hitler


4 posted on 10/23/2003 10:43 PM PDT by SpaceBar "

[Ethan_Allen]

Re: #248
"The authors urge that the relevant question about organ donors should be changed from the current query--is the patient dead?--to, ''Are the harms of removing life-sustaining organs sufficiently small that patients or surrogates [e.g., Michael Schiavo] should be allowed to consent to donation?'' This is a prescription for moral freefall. Not only do the authors strongly imply that some of us have less value than others but that those so denigrated can be killed for utilitarian ends."

Just wanted to add that I believe the media whores may have been given their marching orders on this. Witness their lies and misrepresenting the truth about Terri Schiavo. Further, last night the Jamie Kennedy show had a skit whereby a funeral director was making plastic casts of the dead, after harvesting their organs for profit ($17,000 was the figure given). They were making light of it, programming us to believe this is acceptable. They are becoming SO transparent. Thinking themselves wise, they appear as fools.

[Aracelis]

Would you care to translate this for us?

The radiologist's findings indicate that Terri suffered multiple traumas, resulting in multiple fractures. Sounds to me that she got beat-up pretty well.

[Ethan_Allen]

I have to close a window - I have too many, and will have to sacrifice this one for now. Just wanted to be sure you all had this link:

http://www.wtlv.com/news/news-article.aspx?storyid=9362

See the article and video there.

[William Terrell]

Context, context.

Context? In Revelation?

What is "medical opinion"? What makes this so sacred?

It's all we have, lacking as we do the ability to look into men's minds and souls, and God's plan. Perhaps we should all come to you for counsel in what is right, wrong and what should be.

[William Terrell]

I have no opinion either way. I just threw out considerations. I don't know the hearts of any players in this drama, and I offer that none here do either.

Note: Revelation is entirely composed of symbolism. Do you believe that actual locusts, the grasshopper, will actually come out of the Earth and sting people to death? That men will actually have a visible mark on their foreheads. 9:5 says that the locust will not actually kill them but torment them for months, and their torment would be like being stung by a scorpion.

Well, I think the plaguee of locusts is here, liberals, who will, in the name of the sacredness fo life, bring us to the pits of hell itself, where right is wrong, left is right, black is white, love is hate and hate is love, and lead us past the path of reason for emotion's sake.

There is no "context" in revelations. And in this age, like in no age before, a person can be kept form dying against his will, or the will of his soul and spirit.

I would leave this issue alone, because none of us knows what God wills in it, and it's God that avenges evil when that evil is disguised.

[thulldud]

Context? In Revelation?

Yes, context in Revelation. Even the book of Jeremiah has some context. Even posts on FR have context.

Perhaps we should all come to you for counsel in what is right, wrong and what should be.

You have a scintillating talent for missing any point addressed to you. Do you understand the meaning of the quotes around "medical opinion" in my question? I'm trying to get you to see that the definition of "medical opinion" which you are assuming is not what is being used in these "right to die" cases, yet in your comment you persist in your assumption. By failing to analyze and expose the shift in meaning, you assist in your own and others' victimization by the culture of death.

Normally, one would not need to spell out rhetorical devices in this manner. I really feel like I'm feeding a troll....

[William Terrell]

Sounds to me that she got beat-up pretty well.

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

[Coral Snake]

I'm JUST WAITING for one of these pro death jerks here at FR to post a vanity titled I (heart) George Felos so that I can summon the "Kitties" and the full scale lightning bolt ZZZZZOOOOOOTTTTTTT!!!!! on him. In the mean time Abuse button anyone?