5.0 out of 5 stars
Terri Schiavo was a healthy, responsive DISABLED WOMAN, September 7, 2011
This review is from: The Terri Schiavo Story (DVD)
The Terri Schiavo case was never about the right to die, despite what popular media and talk show hosts declared with every lurid headline. It was a far more brutal story that should scare each of us to the core and provoke changes that will keep this from happening to anyone else, ever again.
This video's strong suit is the stunning footage of Terri, showing her true condition which was not 'vegetative' but alert and aware. It shows the unbelievable Orwellian legal battle her biological family fought to save her, and reveals the deep corruption which exists in our medical establishments and courts.
Terri Schiavo was brain-damaged, yes, but few know that she was physically healthy and responsive to her environment right up to the day she died from two weeks without food or water via her husband's court order. News agencies failed to mention that her husband and legal guardian was also a registered nurse who appointed himself not only her guardian, but her sole medical case manager. As an RN, it seems strange that he fought so valiantly, for so long, AGAINST Terri's own best care... and fought her family in court numerous times in order to insure her death.
For example, he never once allowed Terri to have a swallow test in the 15 years since the mysterious 'accident' in their home that left Terri with severe bruising and swelling of the neck and permanent brain damage. The swallow test would have shown whether she could eat or drink normally without a gastric feeding tube. It must be noted that this feeding tube was the ONLY ARTIFICIAL DEVICE that had been attached to her body in all those years. She was NOT on a respirator, NOT on a heart-lung machine, NOT on an I.V. or anything else. She was fed and hydrated through the feeding tube, and her bowels and kidneys (and other organs) functioned normally.
Under her husband's direction she received no therapy of any kind for 13 years prior to her death, despite documented positive results when rehabilitative therapy was begun after her 'accident'. Her husband kept her isolated from her family with suspicious and troubling legal restrictions while he profited financially from her disability. He received over $2 million from a malpractice suit that was supposed to provide for her rehabilitation and medical needs. (He asked for $20 million.) In that suit two rehabilitation experts testified that Terri "could expect a normal life span and would require extensive care throughout her life."
She was not near death, had no terminal illness, was not on any artificial life support except the feeding tube, yet in 2000 her husband moved her to a hospice center run by the famous right-to-die lawyer, George Felos. The media remained silent on that fact, and also 'forgot to mention' that the husband had hired Felos years before in order to file a Petition to Withdraw Life Support (i.e., have Terri's feeding tube removed). The court appointed a Guardian ad Litem (an advocate for Terri) to investigate the merits of the petition. He reported back to the court that "the petition should be denied, based on conflicts-of-interest by Michael Schiavo". Attorney Felos objected on claims of "personal bias". The court dismissed the Guardian ad Litem without ever appointing another one, or examining the conflicts-of-interest.
The case was heard in January of 2000 and Judge George Greer ruled that Terri's feeding tube should be removed. For the next five years, Terri's family filed every motion they could to save her life, but the legal system forged ahead, leaving the definition of Terri's condition (and her life) literally in the hands of a judge instead of a medical doctor.
In 2005 Judge Greer ordered, once again, the removal of Terri's feeding tube. Few know that this was the third time such an order had been given, or that her feeding tube had actually been removed in 2001 for almost 3 days before another judge issued an injunction for its replacement. Few know that Judge Greer also ordered that this time, Terri COULD NOT RECEIVE ANYTHING BY MOUTH, in case she might be able to swallow (which, you recall, had never officially been tested thanks to her self-appointed medical case worker-aka-husband who also happened to be the one pressing for the feeding tube's removal i.e., her death).
Her feeding tube was taken out for the last time on March 18, 2005. Despite appeals to the Florida State Supreme Court and the US Supreme Court (both declined to hear the case), and even an emergency act of Congress, Terri's feeding tube was never replaced. She died 14 days later of dehydration, surrounded by the very people who tried everything in their power to get custody of her and overturn this heinous, heartbreaking decision.
Visit Terri's website at terrisfight-dot-org for complete background and documentation.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
1 of 2 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
A Concise & Thorough Account of the Tragic Abuse of Terri Schiavo, July 11, 2010
This review is from: The Terri Schiavo Story (DVD)
I found this DVD to be a concise & thorough account of the tragic abuse of Terri Schiavo. Even if Terri were in a PVS, Pope John Paul II reminded us that:
* "The sick person in a vegetative state, awaiting recovery or a natural end, still has the right to basic health care (nutrition, hydration, cleanliness, warmth, etc.), and to the prevention of complications related to his confinement to bed. He also has the right to appropriate rehabilitative care and to be monitored for clinical signs of eventual recovery.
* "I should like particularly to underline how the administration of water and food, even when provided by artificial means, always represents a natural means of preserving life, not a medical act. Its use, furthermore, should be considered, in principle, ordinary and proportionate, and as such morally obligatory, insofar as and until it is seen to have attained its proper finality, which in the present case consists in providing nourishment to the patient and alleviation of his suffering....
* "The evaluation of probabilities, founded on waning hopes for recovery when the vegetative state is prolonged beyond a year, cannot ethically justify the cessation or interruption of minimal care for the patient, including nutrition and hydration. Death by starvation or dehydration is, in fact, the only possible outcome as a result of their withdrawal. In this sense it ends up becoming, if done knowingly and willingly, true and proper euthanasia by omission"
(from Pope John Paull II's 3/20/2004 address to the International Congress, "Life-Sustaining Treatments and Vegetative State: Scientific Advances and Ethical Dilemmas").
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
