An Open Letter to Terri

How can it be? How can I have loved you so much without ever having met you? How can my country have abandoned you and starved you to death? How can it be?

I first heard of you on Catholic radio in 2003. Johnette Benkovic and Fr. Edmund Sylvia let us listeners know that a disabled woman might be killed merely because she couldn’t speak for herself. I began praying for you then, but suddenly the wheels of injustice had begun to crush you. Your starvation and dehydration began, and I wept for you and cried for you and called your governor. God bless him, he was able to save you then.

That’s when I began to dig into the circumstances that led to a runaway judicial system deciding to kill you.

I learned that your husband had received hundreds of thousands of dollars to care for you. Then, with all that money sitting in a trust fund he could inherit, he chose to let you suffer with a urinary tract infection in hopes that it would turn to septicemia and kill you. What pain you must have endured.

I learned that your husband was living with another woman and now has two children with her. I learned that your parents, your wonderful, loving parents, tried to have him removed as your guardian so that they could take care of you. I’ve learned now that the judge who decided you should die never ruled on your husband’s fitness to be your guardian.

I learned that you’ve been living for fifteen years assisted by nothing more complicated than a feeding tube. I heard from other members of the disabled community that they love their tubes. I’m sure that you loved yours. But I learned that the same judge who decided you should die also refused to allow you any swallowing therapy so that you might live without that feeding tube.

I learned that your dear friend Diane Meyer testified in court that you had great sympathy for Karen Ann Quinlan, a girl also famous for her disability. You said of Karen, “Where there’s life, there’s hope.” I repeated your words over and over as I watched your parents fight valiantly for your life. But the judge who decided you should die discounted Diane’s testimony and called for your death.

I learned that doctors disagreed over your condition. Many, many doctors and therapists watched video tapes of you and said that therapy would help you get better. But the judge who decided you should die judged you from those same video tapes and said therapy was useless.

I learned that the wheels of injustice would not stop turning. Your governor’s actions were declared unconstitutional, and the judge who had never met you called again for your death.

Your parents turned to the Holy Father who just a year ago spoke the words that could save you. All life, he said, is a fundamental good and must be protected. He was speaking specifically of you, Terri, and of all disabled people. Most importantly, he said that feeding you was morally obligatory. But the judge who decided you should die said that wasn’t important.

Your feeding tube was pulled, and for 24 hours I chose to starve along with you. How my heart broke for you as I, too, shivered and thirsted. My heart further broke at the thought that though I’d be able to eat again soon, that might not happen for you. Your parents fought and fought and fought for you, when I know they would have loved to have been by your side. Yet no matter how hard they fought, and no matter how hard thousands of us prayed for you, no judge would take pity on you and let you eat.

You passed from this world into the next, and thousands of us mourned. Please know that we promised in your memory that we would work to make sure this never happened to anyone else.

The Holy Father did not forget you either. He, too, has now passed from this life to the next, and his journey was blessedly similar to yours. As you approached the end of your earthly life, he accepted a feeding tube. His teaching became his treatment, and he showed his solidarity with you.

But it did not end there. Just as your husband had first hoped you’d die from a urinary tract infection, so too the Holy Father developed one. As if to prove to the world what danger you had suffered, his infection turned to septicemia and his body began to ebb.

As you clung to life longer than any of us knew was possible, so too did the Holy Father. A false report of the Holy Father’s death was announced and some thirty of us gathered at a playground fell to our knees in prayer for him. We ended by asking for your prayers, too.

In this octave of Easter, just three days after you died, so too died the Holy Father. Both of you died in the 9th hour, you in the morning, he in the evening. What an appropriate comment from God on the stages of your lives.

Just as we waited three days for Jesus to emerge from His tomb, you were in Heaven for three days waiting for the comfort of your Holy Father, the man who all the way from Rome reached out to try to save you.

Toni Collins is a convert to Catholicism, a church musician, a freelance writer, and a summa cum laude graduate in computer science of the University of California-Irvine. She and her husband, Rick, are the parents of four daughters and live in Northern California.

If nothing further could have been done, then what were the additional hearings for?

The additional hearings were done only to confirm that Judge Greer had conducted the trial in a procedurally correct manner.

Higher courts did not review fact. Judge Greer was the only trier of fact, and his "factual" conclusions are taken by all higher courts as indisputable.

There should have been a de novo review of the facts, and would have been, IF the federal courts had followed the law passed by Congress -- the one that extended jurisdiction of the case to the federal courts. However, the federal courts refused to follow the law and perform a de novo review of the facts.

Perhaps you should have informed the Schindler family of your findings. It would have saved them a lot of effort.

Those were not my "findings." That's the way courts are run.

As for the efforts by the Schindlers: There has been much Monday-morning-lawyering to the effect that the Schindlers had bad legal advice (after all, they didn't have money to burn on high-powered lawyers the way Michael Schiavo did after he received Terri's settlement).

All lawyers say that Terri's legal fate IN STATE COURT was sealed by that decision in Greer in 2000 that it was her "wish" to die. Some lawyers claim that before the court got to that point, the Schindlers should have pressed harder for a divorce -- something difficult, but not impossible to get. (Problem is, they tried that and the court wouldn't hear it.)

Other lawyers say the Schindlers should have pressed abuse charges against Michael earlier and thereby attained a transfer of custody before the fatal court decision. (Problem is, Michael Schiavo had sealed all of Terri's medical records; the Schindlers didn't even know about Terri's broken bones until 2002.)

In the face of all this, the Schindlers had to throw a Hail Mary pass. Actually they threw every Hail Mary pass they could to try to save their daughter's life -- court actions, entreaties for legislative or executive actions. "Media circus?" Who the hell cares when it's your daughter's life?

And why should they have "spared" you, for God's sake?

The additional hearings were done only to confirm that Judge Greer had conducted the trial in a procedurally correct manner

Actually that's not true. Each appeal considered the alleged facts presented by the Schindler family. In fact the 2d District CA ruled that 5 doctors would make a determination to be reviewed. Sounds like more than a procedural review to me. Also don't forget that Greer himself issued a number of stays before giving Michael the final say in removing the tubes.

Higher courts did not review fact. Judge Greer was the only trier of fact, and his "factual" conclusions are taken by all higher courts as indisputable.

Nonetheless, any additional "facts" presented were considered. If Greer was as out of line as many here feel he was, why was it not noted by some court somewhere? Didn't the 2d District CA spend 6 months in 2002-2003 reviewing the case? Wasn't an independent guardian appointed to determine Terri's prognosis and reported she had no hope of recovery? Didn't a judge stop Michael in response to Terri's law?

There should have been a de novo review of the facts, and would have been, IF the federal courts had followed the law passed by Congress -- the one that extended jurisdiction of the case to the federal courts. However, the federal courts refused to follow the law and perform a de novo review of the facts.

Perhaps they saw the politics involved and the absurdity of creating a federal law to direct a judge to perform a de novo review of a case that has no business in the federal purview. In any case, they reviewed it sufficiently to determine there was no reasonable likelihood of success for the Schindlers.

Those were not my "findings." That's the way courts are run.

The numerous hearings and stays by Greer himself would seem to belie that.

All lawyers say that Terri's legal fate IN STATE COURT was sealed by that decision in Greer in 2000 that it was her "wish" to die.

Neither one of us knows this for sure, but certainly Greer held many hearings on both the subject of Terri's wishes and her prognosis, as did the 2d District. So it would seem that all of those lawyers may have missed something...or be onto something.

Other lawyers say the Schindlers should have pressed abuse charges against Michael earlier and thereby attained a transfer of custody before the fatal court decision.

Perhaps they should have. If they were so close to their daughter, why were they so out of the loop? Apparently they were extremely close to Michael....until the money split issue. Maybe the autopsy will show the extent of abuse alleged by some here.

I don't fault the Schindlers from doing everything they honestly believed in. But one would have to be blind to totally blow off anything that might question their motives, or mitigate in either Greer's or Michael's favor. As for the media circus, I didn't complain about the media. I complained about the circus outside the hospice. The media is going to follow news where ever it takes them. That's their job.

And why should they have "spared" you, for God's sake?

I believe the phrase I used was "spare us all". Many of us were less than pleased with all the ridiculous displays of lunacy that unfortunately seemed to be labeled as "conservative". Nothing could be further from the truth.

Perhaps they saw the politics involved and the absurdity of creating a federal law to direct a judge to perform a de novo review of a case that has no business in the federal purview.

How imperious of them.

And btw, it is absurd to claim that the case "has no business in the federal purview." Ahem. Congress establishes the purview of the federal courts. See Article 3 of the Constitution.

In any case, they reviewed it sufficiently to determine there was no reasonable likelihood of success for the Schindlers.

Hahaha! That's so funny it could make someone die! Of course there was no likelihood of success for the Schindlers -- without the de novo review. Very clever Catch 22!

Nonetheless, any additional "facts" presented were considered.

Really? Where's your evidence for that? You can't introduce new facts at the state appeals level. At least that's my understanding. That's why Congress went to all that bother to pass a law -- so new factual evidence COULD be introduced.

If they were so close to their daughter, why were they so out of the loop?

They were out of the loop because Michael Schiavo ordered all medical personnel to NOT GIVE THE SCHINDLERS ANY INFORMATION about their daughter's medical condition. He also, as noted above, had the court seal all Terri's medical records. The bone scans showing her suspicious fractures (which by law should have been reported to police in 1991 --but weren't) were unknown to the Schindlers until 2002. Too late.

Wasn't an independent guardian appointed to determine Terri's prognosis and reported she had no hope of recovery?

Both guardians ad litem recommended that Terri have further medical tests. Michael Schiavo refused. The first guardian ad litem found Michael Schiavo's testimony not credible and recommended Schiavo not retain guardianship. Judge Greer dismissed that guardian because he was "sided too much with the Schindlers."

don't forget that Greer himself issued a number of stays before giving Michael the final say in removing the tubes.

So what does that prove? Greer ultimately said he was "tired" of issuing stays in that case.

"Tired" for Judge Greer = death for Terri. Yeah, that was just.

Who are these people? Can you document any of this? What hold would they have on Michael? Or are you just assuming all of this?]]]]]

This is a pretty good article to start with...tom

http://www.apfn.net/Messageboard/03-01-05/discussion.cgi.53.html

GEORGE SOROS' 200 MILLION DOLLAR PROJECT ON DEATH
Date: Sunday, 27 February 2005, 3:23 p.m.

THE END GAME - Why Terri Schiavo Has To Die
........ Could Michael Schiavo be a pawn, a pawn in a much larger game being played for much higher stakes?

---snip---

Enter one George Felos, a kind of weird, yoga practicing guru lawyer who is fixated on helping people die. Felos, a board member of the Hospice, has U. S. Dollar visions, ideation that figures on book signings and movie rights once Terri is dead. Not to mention all the fame and fortune that will accrue to the man who finally overturns the law that protects the handicapped, the elderly, and the terminally ill's opportunity to live until they die – by natural means. ......---snip----

....Few people realize that every single Florida institution, (Governor Bush excluded), every legal, judicial, medical, societal, journalistic and even religious, from the office of Attorney General Charlie Crist on down through the ranks to the local police department, is arrayed against this woman. This is a big case. Whatever happens to Terri has the potential to affect the entire U. S. population, a fact few people realize.

Death in America

In 1994, emigree [someone who leaves one country to settle in another] billionaire Geroge Soros wrote a check for $15 million to finance the Project on Death in America (PDIA). Its goal was to "transform the culture of death in the United States." By 2003 when the PDIA ended its grant making and closed the program, it had distributed $45 million to organization and individuals working on end-of-life issues. Altho, the project is closed the work goes on. Is a large part of that work to make doctor-assisted suicide legal? It would seem so. ---snip---

For more about the plan for euthanasia in the US look here.
It's an eye opener...

http://www.soros.org/initiatives/pdia/about

http://www.hli.org/judge_death.htm

http://www.philanthropyroundtable.org/magazines/2001/january/marker.html

It was for me...anyway...all I did actually, was 'google' your question...and I got those answers.
Learn new things everyday.

Tom

And btw, it is absurd to claim that the case "has no business in the federal purview." Ahem. Congress establishes the purview of the federal courts. See Article 3 of the Constitution.

So to make sure I understand this new "federalism", any time Congress sees individual cases in any state having jurisdiction, regardless of the Tenth Amendment, in may intercede, assign it to a federal court and instruct the court in how to conduct its review?

Doesn't sound like the conservative principles I have become accustomed to.

Hahaha! That's so funny it could make someone die! Of course there was no likelihood of success for the Schindlers -- without the de novo review. Very clever Catch 22!

Glad you are easily amused. So if I read the 2d CA decision in which it took 6 months to reach, I will find nothing but a one line decision that says: "Yep, Greer went right by the book". Well, at least it won't waste my time much. And as for the federal decision, though it will not impress you much, here is one law professor's take on the absurd attempt by Congress to take over state and federal courts:

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/lazarus/20050331.html

Facts can always be presented, especially in life and death issues, to show prejudice, errors of law, or failure to consider evidence. Any new evidence which could demonstrate the above would be considered. Funny how the 30 some judicial reviews failed to find errors. And, I think most jurists would not look favorably on the sudden words "I want to live", never heard by any of the daily workers at the hospice, but only by one of the Schindler family's "experts".

You may be right, but I doubt you have any credible information other than the rumor mill, which, hopefully will be settled by the autopsy report.

Not true. At least as far as the second one goes. You may want to read Professor Wolfson's report. Wasn't he also the first GAL? And wasn't he appointed at Michael Schiavo's request? In any case this was his findings:

The GAL concludes from the medical records and consultations with medical experts that the scope and weight of the medical information within the file concerning Theresa Schiavo consists of competent, well documented information that she is in a persistent vegetative state with no likelihood of improvement, and that the neurological and speech pathology evidence in the file support the contention that she cannot take oral nutrition or hydration and cannot consciously interact with her environment.

http://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/WolfsonReport.pdf

So what does that prove? Greer ultimately said he was "tired" of issuing stays in that case.

Greer considered himself a right wing Christian, who seems to have agonized over the Schiavo case. Many feel he strove to follow the law, which was his duty. Interestingly, of the over 40 judges involved in this case, many were very much conservative.

Or as some here believe, a giant cabal funded by the killing industry have directed all of the state and federal judges involved, Congress, the President and the Governor to relent and murder Terri....

Is this the Soros foundation you are concerned about?

PDIA’s mission was to understand and transform the culture and experience of dying and bereavement. Over the course of nine years, PDIA created funding initiatives in professional and public education, the arts, research, clinical care, and public policy. PDIA and its grantees have helped build and shape this important and growing field, and have helped place improved care for the dying on the public agenda.

That was the mission statement for the organization you referenced below.

The second link simply took me to an opinion piece that was anti-Greer. There are plenty of those, and was completely devoid of facts.

The third link you gave my again referenced Soros's PDIA and stated the following:

One such foundation is George Soros’s Open Society Institute (OSI). The OSI, through its Project on Death in America, gives millions of dollars for enhancing end-of-life care and none of the Project’s money is used for assisted suicide purposes. But the OSI provides grants for assisted suicide advocacy through OSI’s President’s Fund in its U.S. Programs office.

So it appears that the major source of funds, that is, Soros money is used simply to enhance end of life care. Why would you not want that?

As for the message board essay, It is filled with inaccuracies, innuendo and is clearly aimed at Soros' Foundation but seems to omit where the money actually goes.

So I ask, where is this great cabal that caused all the judges in the country to murder Terri Schiavo?

don't forget that Greer himself issued a number of stays before giving Michael the final say in removing the tubes.

Greer did issue a number of stays but he absolutely did not give Michael the final say in removing the tubes...

Greer's order read: 'ORDERED and ADJUDGED, that absent a stay from the appellate courts, the guardian, Michael Schiavo shall cause the removal of nutrition and hydration from the ward, Theresa Schiavo at 1 p.m. on Friday March 18, 2005.'

Note that Greer's order said 'shall', not 'may' and also note that the order said nothing about feeding tubes. Greer ordered her to be starved to death. Even if she began talking and stated that she wanted a steak and a glass of wine, she would have still been murdered!

To the best of my knowledge, this is the first time that a judge has ordered the death by starvation of an innocent person in this country. And for that, he should not just be impeached, he should be tried for murder.....

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.