Yes. It's nice to see an even-handed view, finally.
I think it's wrong to leave someone without stimulation and therapy for even muscular contractures, and a guardian should have to show they've had the comfort and well-being of their ward utmost in their mind.
I can't support pulling her tube because, while he did give her good therapy for the first 3-4 years, I think her husband should be forced to give her 6 months of therapy by today's standards, and then have her re-evaluated to show a good faith effort.
But, all this talk about him causing her collapse has reached the point of urban legend.
The "bunch of broken bones" is so misleading. The bone scan only shows broken ribs and the parts of the thoracic vertebrae connected to them
(very, very common after CPR), and a hairline compression fracture of one lumbar vertebrae,
(the radiologist said could have happened when she fell - my 36 yr old sister has even more of them in her neck and lower back - just from daily living.)
The rest are bruises
(like her femur), and joint problems her other doctors attributed to her therapy.
People take selected quotes out of the radiologist's
full deposition and then they use Hammesfher's ambiguously worded comments and turn them into a grand conspiracy theory.
Terri had a weight problem all her life. She hated and didn't exercise, yet went
from 250lbs to 110lbs Physiologically, she showed all the signs of bulimia, including infertility.
Her
medical chart shows she was undernourished, low in calcium, and critically low in potassium.
(Like Karen Carpenter) Terri's was 2, yet even at 3.5, a person is twice as likely to have cardiac arrest.
(Cardiac arrest means the heart is beating so erratically, the blood doesn't get pumped out and causes lack of oxygen to the brain.)
But we have people running around saying that because she had no "heart attack"
(No *doctor* of hers ever said she did - it's a different thing.) then there must be "questions" about her collapse.
Even the doctors and insurance company, who had access to the bone scan at the time, didn't bother to bring it up in their defense to save themselves millions in malpractice suit. They knew it only *supported* her diagnosis; Women with eating disorders can lose 30% of their bone mass in a single year, making their bones very brittle.
There would also have been outward signs like bruising had she been attacked, and it wouldn't explain such "severely" low potassium.
And as Matt brings up, why would Michael invite such rigorous investigation as to the cause of her collapse if he caused it?
And why didn't he pull the plug when she was on the respirator?
Why call anyone before she was dead? He called and told her dad she had *fainted*. Had he tried to kill her, he could have gone back to bed and "found" her in the morning.
Anyway, the whole attack theory leaves a lot more questions than answers. To bolster it, we see a lot of exaggeration of facts. To me, that's wrong, and it distracts from the issue of whether or not her guardian has shown a good faith effort to do what she would want.
On the other hand, I have a feeling that a girl who put so much effort into her appearance as she did, would not appreciate having videos of herself published to the extent she has had.
I also think people need reminded that last time she had her tube removed, her husband had her totally sedated. It was her parents who complained that she was unresponsive, and feared it would speed her death. Some say Michael got angry at that and removed her morphine.
It's a tragic, tragic situation for all.
I'm not trying to make her husband look like a good guy. I think he's neglected her, and done a lot of things in the last 7 years out of spite, and the fact that he doesn't even want to believe there is any consciousness in her.
So, I don't like the precedent pulling her tube under these circumstances this would set.
Anyway, I have to go, just had to get that off my chest. lol