Skip to comments.Find out the TRUTH about Terris Fight for life
Posted on 05/03/2007 3:17:03 AM PDT by 8mmMauser
I purchased this book last year, and found it to be one of the best references for facts in Terri Schiavo's case. Reading this book is like sitting down with Cheryl and Jan, and listening/watching them present the actual evidence and truth about so many things that the mainstream "pro euthanasia" media has refused to tell. You will see the actual hospital documents, police reports, and so much more.
I will warn you though, that once you learn about the judicial misconduct, FL laws broken, the details of Michaels malpractice case,(money was paid under the claim that Terri had a heart attack brought on by potassium imbalance that was undetected. The autopsy confirmed this assumption was bogus, and that Terri never had a heart attack brought on by anything. The news however, is consistently reporting to this day that the autopsy confirmed the heart attack! There is a lot more about the autopsy that has never been reported. The geniuses reported that the autopsy proves Terri was not strangled, however, it only proves that 15 years later, there is no sign of soft tissue damage - nor would there be if someone was strangled that long ago!) Reporters should be charged with a misleading the public charge for purposely reporting assumptions as truth. And why is it that all the TV stations do not disclose that Terris records were SEALED by Judge Greer?
No one reports on the bone scan that indicated a tremendous force hit her, as well as the multiple fractures and other damage. ****HBO Autopsy Dr. Himself, Mr Baden, had commented on the bone scan before Terris death, and suggested there may have been foul play.*** There is so much corruption involved in Terris case, Pro death judges making their political position the law, instead of obeying the law and keeping their opinions out of it! Greer sealed her case, so why isnt any anchors asking about that? Why were Michaels prescribed anti depressant bottles witnessed by the police the night of the "Incident" taken as evidence? Why were Terris friends and family not questioned regarding Michaels attitude, or any marital problems? The first report on what happened at the Schiavo residence, was titled a homicide. Why was it changed? What happened to the woodwards and Bernsteins in our country? Now each network or cable news feeds off the other, like vultures. They report the same story over and over, from reuters or the like, and rarely ever investigate it themselves. Newspapers follow suit. If someone investigated the five different interviews that Schiavo has given to the media and police reports, Michael Schiavo might very well be behind bars, in the cell next to Scott Peterson.
There is actually v ery little difference between the two, the more you learn about what may very well have happened that night to Terry. Yet strangely, Matt Lauer and Larry King, and all the other news media does not bring up these questions, or question Michael why in the 7 years after Terris "incident" did he never ever tell a soul about Terris wishes that for seven years he supposedly denied? No media outlet reported on the testimony that Schiavo told other people that he had no idea what Terri would have wanted, as they had never spoken of something like that happening in any context. The only time Michael did come out with this revelation was after he asked his girlfriend to marry him, and all of a sudden there was a rush to get rid of Terri and whooops, there it is, a million dollar inheritance!
If someone is in a position to gain something from another persons death, they should not be the guardian of that person. PERIOD. For all the sappy journalists that report that Michael became a nurse to take care of Terry, the truth is that he did not really "care" for Terry. He bossed around nurses, on a Schiavo power trip but he didnt take care of Terri. Did anyone report on the testimony of nurses that said that Terri would be visibly shaken after his visits, and afraid, crying, etc? Did they report that there were nurses that made entries in Terris medical file about things Michael said or did, or how Terri responded, and Michael would see to it that they were removed?
I could go on and on! If you care about the truth, learn more about this case, not just what you hear your TV anchor saying. We all owe that to Terri, because at the very least, what happened to her will affect all of the laws regarding other disabled people like her.
Of course the "Pro Death" movement hates this book, which is why I see some entries in the reviews desperately trying to persuade others to pass it up. They dont want you to see it, which is why you need to see it. Cheryl, who is by the way, a registered nurse gave up her life on the West coast as a consultant to the Schindlers during the fight for Terris life. She was on the inside, aware of all of the facts regarding Terris injuries, her marriage, the inconsistent interviews, Testimonies regarding the night of Terris "incident", and so much more. Ford and Craddock do the legwork in reading all of the court documents, and bring out the parts that others left buried. Cheryl also led thousands of Terris supporters, that grew once the videos were released. Here michael and Judge Greer were talking of Terri as if she were in a coma, as if she were sleeping and not responsive at all. Greer and Schiavo were furious that the videos were released to the public. That now there was proof that Terri was aware, and did respond to family, dr's questions, and requests, could track things with her eyes. Another fallacy of the autopsy was that Terri could not see. False. It was stated that to be sure that Terri could or could not see, a doctor would have to do just what the videos did. They would have to examine her and see how much she was able to see - and any moron could tell that Terri could see to some extent after recognizing family, and following baloons and lights she was requested to follow. The fight4terri group worked 24/7 through internet emails, faxes, phone calls, letters, protests, to reach those with the power to save Terris life.
Anyone upset about the facts in this book, is really angry that the truth is coming out in it. when the truth comes out, the advocates for people like Terri have their agendas pushed back once again. If people like Terri and others with Alzheimers and brain damage, chronic disease, etc are looked at as liabilities within the health system rather than human beings who still have worth, who still have hope, and who still have a right to live with simple food and water. Terri, was not on any machines as was reported on many programs, she was not weak, my Lord, she lasted 14 days without one drop of water. Many of us who are healthy would not last one quarter of that time.
Without this book, you will be missing a great deal of the story on Terris life, the autopsy, as well as what really happened before, during, and after Terri was injured. The book is well written and what really went on in Terri's life will keep you glued to the pages. I am purchasing additional books for lawmakers in hopes of changing our country's guardianship laws. I would encourage everyone who reads it to do the same, if you want to stop seeing other innocent people like Terri sentenced to death. There are many more than Terri, every day, who die silently, with no one to speak for them. The hospice agenda of starving patients has gone out of control. Terri and others like her, are dying painful, horrible deaths, in rooms far away from Katie Courick, Matt Lauer or Larry King. They are dying with nurses and doctors standing by, ignoring the oath they took not to harm their patients. These are people who never agreed to such torture, and pain. People being starved, guilty of being disabled, and needing someone to bring the food and water to their mouth, to a straw or to a longer straw going into the stomach if their swallowing is affected. there is no difference. The Judge in Terris case (Greer) didnt mandate that she only have the tube taken out, he mandated that even if Terri could eat or drink sustenance by mouth, it would not be offered to her, by his decree. He made sure that police would be there to see that no one allowed Terri to even attempt to eat or drink on her own, regardless of testimony from numerous nurses that she could and did indeed eat on their shifts, jello, pudding and other soft or liquid foods. Instead, given that testimony from multiple sources, Greer made sure that no tests would be done on Terri to confirm whether or not she could eat by mouth! He mandated that Terri do nothing less than DIE. We dont starve murderers, it would be too cruel a death. However, for those with disabilities who can not speak, they are the ones who are forced to suffer that fate, by a Judge who never ever went to see Terri once in all the years that her case was in the courts. Bottom line, we need laws that insure food and water be given to any person without a clear written and signed directive. We need to make sure that men who move on and take another family do not get to decide whether hat happens to the woman they left behind. Every womens group that turned a deaf ear to Terri, should be totally ashamed. ACLU as well. The same Judge that was appointed to watch over Terris medical funds to make sure they were there for her, should not have been able to allow her husband to take them, and buy an expensive lawyer that he could not afford on his own with her medical care money! You will see the judicial misconduct in this case and it will make you scream! If the world knew what was in this book before Terri died, she would be alive right now! My gratitude to Ford and Craddock for such an excellent and much needed book.
Mrs. Debra Ferguson Disability Rights Advocate, SC
Unfortunately, both sides rely on half truths or lies pushed on us all by the media. This review points to some air-clearing truths. Perhaps it may provide some grist for more reasoned choices.
"We will not be silent. We are your bad conscience. The White Rose will give you no rest."
As for the debate, these 10 Republicans have a lot of explaining to do when it comes to the party's identity crisis. Are they the party of small government? (If so, then defend the creation of the Dept. of Homeland Security - which came without the disbanding of another agency.) Are they the party of national security? (If so, then defend why the public has lost confidence in the current Republican president in regards to Iraq.) Are they the party that defends America's culture of playing by the rules to get ahead? (If so, defend the president's stance on illegal immigrants as well as whether this global economy is good for so-called American Exceptionalism). Are they the party that stays out of your daily lives? (If so, then defend the Terri Schiavo intervention.)
The drawn-out fight by Terri Schiavo's family to save her life is something that countless millions of people witnessed through the news media.
Bobby Schindler, brother of the Florida woman who died March 31, 2005, after her life-sustaining feeding tube was removed by a court order, believes many other people will face a similar fight in the future.
Since dealing with this issue, Schindler said new U.S. laws are being created, making it easier to terminate peoples' lives.
He shared his message of concern as guest speaker during the Right to Life Kent's annual banquet Tuesday.
Schindler sees money as a prime motivation for this effort, noting if it costs too much to keep a person alive, their life should be ended.
"I believe that's what's happening, not just with people like my sister, but the elderly and other people who are disabled," he said. Travelling across the U.S. and to other countries as spokesman for the Terri Schindler-Schiavo Foundation, he believes the attitude of the medical community is changing.
"I'm hearing more and more from people where doctors are consulting with families and, in many cases, are deciding it would be best to take steps to end a life," he said.
A misconception about his sister portrayed in the media was that she had no quality of life, Schindler said. He noted she was responsive and the only thing she needed to stay alive was her feeding tube.
The laws have pretty much changed in every state where feeding tubes are now considered medical treatment and an artificial means of life support, instead of being basic care, Schindler said.
I’ll ask Mrs Don-o to order this book. Thanks for the post
But the Gipper can't save them. Bush's signature failures - the war in Iraq, Katrina, Enron and the corporate scandals, failed tax and trade policies, the attempt to privatize Social Security, the posturing around Schiavo and stem cells - can be traced back not simply to the conservative ideology and ideologues that sired them -- but to the core conservative doctrine that Reagan championed. The Gipper can't lead Republican candidates out of the wilderness because, to paraphrase him, his conservatism is not the solution to their problem; his conservatism is the problem.
Promoters call it the Freedom of Choice Act, which is actually true. If passed, it would retroactively and forever free the abortion industry to infinity and beyond from every "federal, state and local statute, ordinance, regulation, administrative order, decision, policy [and] practice," encumbering abortion in any way whatsoever.
Pro-aborts reintroduced FOCA immediately following the Supreme Court's April 18 decision upholding the Partial Birth Abortion Ban with expressions of financial panic not seen since the stock market crashed in 1929.
Pro-lifers have aborted FOCA several times since the 1980s, but terrified pro-abortion politicians and abortion-industry thugs fearing for their deathlihood seized on the Supreme partial-birth abortion decision to attempt a do-over.
The media and the left (what’s the difference?) wanted Terri to die because they are for forced murder of the elderly and the sick.
They lied about her suffering. They lied, saying that she was in no pain, that she was in euphoria. The same leftists raise a fuss over condemned criminals feeling pain from lethal injection.
They would find death by thirteen days of dehydration to be cruel and unusual for condemned killers or stray dogs.
ping to buy the book
We have a responsibility to tell the truth, too. This thread will help to do that.
To our readers: Last week, a 42-year-old father of three young children wrote us about his 39-year-old wife who is unable to move from the waist down. He can no longer provide for her care at home, go to work and also take care of their children. At the same time, the family can't afford the $6,000-plus per month it costs for a nursing facility. And there is no long-term care insurance because who could imagine a 39-year-old finding himself/herself in this condition? Medicaid won't help, penalizing this young family for being frugal and saving their money. And, without proper planning, any inheritance will go to pay nursing home expenses, not to educate their children.
He and his wife are torn because their options are limited. They have considered divorce in order to allow her to qualify for Medicaid assistance that would provide for her care while allowing him to raise and educate their children.
So long as the institutionalized person has sufficient capacity, he or she should sign new durable financial and health care powers of attorney by which they can still name their former spouses to make their decisions for them should they be unable to do so. But a caveat here to prevent the Terri Schiavo situation: Make sure these documents include language strong enough to disqualify a former spouse who becomes involved in a relationship with another person in order to avoid conflicts of interest.
While the decision may be difficult, the additional planning requires expertise that resides in the hands of lawyers who understand all of these issues. This is not an exercise for the inexperienced.
We have been following the plight of little Emilio and the Texas Futile Care law that threatens the Emilio's of the world. Here is a sample of the commentary from Wesley J. Smith for National Review Online...
What if hospitals could put a sign over their doors stating, We reserve the right to refuse life-sustaining care? People would be outraged. Yet that is precisely what Texas law explicitly grants to hospitals namely, to say no to wanted life-sustaining treatment, on the basis of subjective judgments about the quality of the patients life. It is an example of a bioethical concept known as Futile Care Theory, a.k.a. medical futility.
Current Texas law allows a physician to decide to withdraw life-sustaining treatment, including food and water, from a patient despite the patient's directive or expressed wishes. Once the physicians decision is validated by the hospitals ethics committee, the patient and/or family have 10 days to find a transfer to another facility. If the doctor and hospital go through this procedure, they are immune from any lawsuit involving withholding care.
According to a statement by Texas Right to Life, Ms. Gonzalez holds no unrealistic expectations and recognizes that Emilio is quite ill and that he is unlikely to see his second birthday. Instead she wants him to die naturally, not by a direct act of euthanasia at the hands of his doctors.
Emilio is suspected to have Leigh's disease, a disorder of the central nervous system that causes deterioration in motor skills. He is currently breathing with the help of a ventilator and is receiving nutrition through a nasogastric feeding tube.
"I know there's no cure. I know my son is going to die," said Catarina. "But I want him to die when God calls him, not when someone pulls the plug."
Texas law falls firmly on the side of the hospital. "You have control over nothing," Gonzales's attorney Jerri Ward told the press. "The hospital has total control over your body, records, and decisions."
According to the current law, passed in 1999 by then-Governor George Bush, if doctors determine that life-sustaining treatment requested by a patient's family is futile, the case is then considered by the hospital ethics committee. If the committee agrees with the doctors, the family has 10 days to find another facility and move the patient, or treatment will end. The law was the product of two years of negotiations prompted by Bush's veto of a measure that would have afforded no notice to patients and families.
In recent testimony before the Texas Senate, Painter played a voicemail recording (read transcript) left for one of his clients, in November 2006, from a Houston-area hospital administrator. The patient involved needed dialysis in order to live, but his family lacked the resources to pay. The administrator said that the corporate headquarters and hospital administration wanted the patient out of their hospital, because the family could not pay, and that if the family did not act, they would resort to the courts and get approval to send the patient on to glory.
(Spero News has confirmed the identity of the patient and hospital and the family wishes to remain anonymous.)
The patient is still alive and stable five months later.