Attorney: Terri Cried at News

An attorney for Terri Schiavo said the severely brain-damaged woman cried and yelled out that she wants to live after being told today her life-sustaining feeding tube was about to be removed by court order.

Barbara Weller was in Terri Schiavo's room at the Woodside Hospice in Pinellas Park, Fla., when the encounter took place, according to activist Randall Terry, who spoke with WorldNetDaily from outside the building as demonstrators continued a vigil.

If true, the report apparently refutes the court's finding that Terri Schiavo is in a "persistant vegetative state" and cannot currently express her wishes. Her husband, Michael Schiavo, contends she had indicated she would not want to live in such a condition, but parents Robert and Mary Schindler dispute that and suspect he is responsible for the 1990 incident in which oxygen to her brain was temporarily cut off, causing severe brain damage.

Weller essentially told Terri Schiavo, "You had better say you want to live or they will kill you. Just say you want to live."

Schiavo responded with a drawn out, "IIIIII," then screamed out "waaaaaaaa" so loudly that a police officer stationed outside the room came in.

The event was witnessed by Terri Schiavo's sister Suzanne Vitadamo and Suzanne's husband Michael.

"I talked to Suzy and Michael, and they both said it was unbelievable," Terry said. "It was very articulate, for Terri, but they also say this is normal [for her to communicate]."

Terry explained the family says Schiavo often is talkative, though similar to a 10-month-old.

"The words usually are not discernable, but she's responsive to commands, uses slow diction and her voice lilts to show emotion and context," he said.

Weller teared up after hearing Schiavo respond today, Terry said, and indicated Schiavo was crying.

Terry has established a website, helpterri.com with information about how to get involved, including phone numbers of lawmakers and details of a rally and lobby-training sessions to be held next week in the Florida capital, Tallahassee, beginning Monday.

"We need people there Monday night, people who have never lobbied before, to come, and we're going to be begging the [Florida] Senate to get its act together," Terry said.

And, you want to kill her because it is easy and clear cut?

Have you ever wondered why Michael is so determined to see her dead? Why every effort to allow the parents to be her guardian and for him to go on with his life with his new family is rebuffed?

Why there are plans for immediate cremation upon her death?

This man is avidly per-suing her death for years now at great expense. Don't you find that a little weird when he has a new wife and family? Seems he would be involved with them instead of insuring Terri does not live another year or two.

Or, do you know thousands of other husbands pulling the same stunts over their invalid wives and that this is not in the least unusual?

Why would a judge be so determined that that tube was pulled today that he risked ignoring subpoenas?

Doesn't look like business as usual to me and thank goodness a few of our lawmakers, our governor, some church leaders, the Vatican seem to notice some dangerous actions also.

Of course, they are all just radical right-wingers - a little unhinged for no reason.

Yeah and the Judge is breaking the law in my mind

Here is more of Florida law.

765.401 The proxy.--

(3) Before exercising the incapacitated patient's rights to select or decline health care, the proxy must comply with the provisions of ss. 765.205 and 765.305, except that a proxy's decision to withhold or withdraw life-prolonging procedures must be supported by clear and convincing evidence that the decision would have been the one the patient would have chosen had the patient been competent or, if there is no indication of what the patient would have chosen, that the decision is in the patient's best interest.

Hearsay evidence of off the cuff comments during a movie is clear and convincing evidence(it can't be evidence since it is not admissable hearsay) of Terri's choice? Or lacking that, the decision to starve her to death is in her best interest?

She was told she would die. She understood.

She doesn't understand feeding tube but understands that she is going to die? How do yoyu image she is able to understand that whe is going to die if she can't equate the two ideas?

Out of all the words spoken to her she understands nothing but when she hears the word die she automatically understand and then begins to spean and say she wants to live?

You are really going out on a limb here trying to explain what it is she understands.If you are able to tell me what it is she thinks and understands why is it that people who actually have spend time with her and are able to help her are not capple of the same thing namely her guardian ad litem Jay Wolfson.

Or is he just anotherone of those euthanasia, culture of death folks?

This is not all that complicated.

This is murder. It does not matter how rational it sounds.

It used to be brain-dead was the only time we pulled the plug. Now, with Terri, brain dead allows someone to move, cry, make noises, etc. Who changed the criteria?

Also - now hearsay is enough to kill. No official written decision by the one dying - but hearsay from a husband who has another wife and children and has suddenly remembered she once said she did not want to live that way. Wonder why that never came up prior to his sudden memory.

What happens if hearsay is sufficient for life and death decisions? Look at the ease of committing murder in the future.

Precedent, precedent, precedent. That is what everyone is upset about. Don't you believe that this case will be used as a precedent for all future cases of pulling the plug?

Something to remember for all of us.

Matt. 25:41-45

"Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.

For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink,

I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.'

They also will answer, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?'

"He will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.'

Yeah and the Judge is breaking the law in my mind

Why hasn't anyone been successful at having this judge indicted?

Arrested?

I know at least twice so far her feeding tube has been removed and the the jusdge was overruled but there has been no charges brought against him so apperantly it is only a matter of opinion not a matter of breaking the law.

Why hasn't anyone been successful at having this judge indicted?

I don't know that anybody has tried...... Yet.

But, you can read the law for yourself. What is the clear and convincing evidence that the proxy(Michael) has that Terri would want the feeding tube removed? Remember, by default hearsay is inadmissible. And if that can not be established, how is starving Terri to death in her best interest? She can live indefinitely if fed and hydrated and is in no apparent pain. In other words, she is not painfully dying. By allowing Michael to remove the tube without meeting the law, the Judge is breaking the law.

If she wasn't also told "you're going to die" I will eat my hat.

I don't doubt that whe was told she was going to die but if she is truly consious and able to reason then whe must be able to understand why she is going to die.

We are all going to die so for someone to tell me I'm going to die would not be any surprise.

For me to act in the manner that was reported today where it was said she got so worked up as to draw the police into her room and have the attorney removed then she must have had to been able to understand that "you're going to die" was something more than just the eventuality that we all face. She must have understood that it was going to be a result of having her feeding tube removed.

Which brings us back to the point that if she is able to understand and comminicate in the slightest way that whe would have given her absolute best effort when the only person likely to prevent her feeding tube from being removed was there to help her ensure that very thing. That person being her guardian ad litem Jay Wolfson.

Does my reasoning make any sense to you?

By allowing Michael to remove the tube without meeting the law, the Judge is breaking the law.

If that is true then wouldn't it seem obvious that her parents would have long ago brought charges. Or if not her parents then the state. After all you don't need a family member to bring charges against someone who murders someone the state will do that automatically. Or can we assume that once she it dead then thius will atuomatically happens seeing as how we are talking about something that has not occured yet.

Say that someone suddenly comes into your face, and announces to you that you're going to die. Do you (1) react with blissful thoughts of passing away years hence in your peaceful old age at that point? Or do you (2) react with the horror that here's someone about to kill you? Which thought would take less thought to conjure up, would be more gut level? Surprise, surprise, it's #2.

By allowing Michael to remove the tube without meeting the law, the Judge is breaking the law.

Although at this point we can safely say that attempted murder has happened 3 times which should be sufficient to have someone arrested and tried and easily convicted.

I would say that in fact the judge has not broken the law because he is still a judge and has not been arrested tried and convicted.

Face it, you are beginning to try to weave your way out of this with strained arguments, when the bare naked truth is that in this judgment is an abomination that has devolved upon Terri. Her husband in name only should not be allowed to kill her that way, any more than we should stand by if he himself attempted suicide.

I would say that in fact the judge has not broken the law because he is still a judge and has not been arrested tried and convicted.

What kind of cloud-cuckoo-land do you come from? Because the burglar has not been arrested, he is not a burglar? Maybe with respect to applying criminal penalties, but in common sense this is looniness.

react with the horror that here's someone about to kill you?

Oh, I agree with #2.

But what you said before is that she is consious able to understand and interact with her parents, laugh at jokes, follow a ballon around the room.

Then you say she can't comprehend the idea of feeding tubes.Is she PVS or not?

What I think is that you do not think she should be staved to death and with that I agree.

However, you can't make a convincing agruement that whe is not PVS.

Now the real question comes down to whether or not you think being PVS is a valid reason to be allowed to die or killed in this case.

Clearly you and I would both say that it is not.

So the whole problem comes down to the fact that she did not put in writting her wishes if such a situation where to occur.

So all we have is her husbands word that in fact it was her desire not to be kept alive under these circumstances. Which someone has stated hearsay is not good enough under Florida law.

What a mess.

I'll keep Terri and the rest of her family in my prayers.

What kind of cloud-cuckoo-land do you come from? Because the burglar has not been arrested, he is not a burglar?

The burglar has to be identified found and caught then tried and convicted.

The judge is not doing this by cover of darkness we all know eho he is and his action are a mtter of record.

Cloud-cuckoo-land?

Please lets not stray into a flame.

What are all these whe's?

Part of her is apparently vegged, but not all of her. And even a vegged person is still a person in God's eyes. Should Mikey stride in there and shoot her dead he'd rightfully get the needle. But when Greer says starve her to death, he gets the very you-suck (ussc) to stand up for that.

If that is true then wouldn't it seem obvious that her parents would have long ago brought charges

Not necessarily. In any case, this is from Jay Wolfson..

A REPORT TO GOVERNOR JEB BUSH AND THE 6TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN THE MATTER OF THERESA MARIE SCHIAVO

Mr. Pearse documents the evolving disaffections between the Schindlers and Michael Schiavo. He concludes that Michael Schiavo's testimony regarding the basis for his decision to withdraw life support – a conversation he had with his wife, Theresa, was not clear and convincing, and that potential conflicts of interest regarding the disposition of residual funds in Theresa's trust account following her death affected Michael and the Schindlers – but he placed greater emphasis on the impact it might have had on Michael's decision to discontinue artificial life support. At the time of Mr. Pearse's report, more than $700,000 remained in the guardianship estate.

Plus hearsay evidence is by default inadmissible.

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.