kidzpca

I've had a few patients that I have taken care of and making the decision to allow them to die after all other means to improve their lives (therapy, surgeries, and such) failed time and time again. Many Parents then came to conclusion that allowing their child to die peacefully IS in their best interest.

It is a difficult decision but if those people involved with Terri's care, including her Parent's, and Siblings need to examine whom they are doing this for...Terri's best interest or Their's.

The Family seems more intent on destroying each other rather than looking into Terri's wishes. This case should never have gone to the Supreme court 3 times in the past 5 years as it has already...It is a private family matter. No special laws need to be passed for one individual... but if the courts look at this case again perhaps someone outside the family will be able to see what is best for Terri since the Family will never agree and it will continue to go on and on if they keep control.

When all else fails...people have the right to die too.

Enough said.

__________________
Father of Kyle, Elizabeth, Tiffany & Andrew. Proud Parent of a Cancer Survivor!

onfire4god57

For those of you who have been presenting a wide range of statements as 'truths' and other presumptive speculation culled from biased sources, you may find the following interesting. It will dispell many of the non-truths that have been spoken out on this thread.

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

What follows are some questions about the history of the Terri Schiavo case as well as the best answers known to me. My focus on this case has always been from a legal perspective, though I've recently updated this section to address some questions I am repeatedly asked. In each answer, I try to indicate my source.


What happened to Terri?

The Second District's opinion in the first appeal in this case explains:

On February 25, 1990, . . . Theresa, age 27, suffered a cardiac arrest as a result of a potassium imbalance. Michael called 911, and Theresa was rushed to the hospital. She never regained consciousness.


I've heard Michael beat or strangled her nearly to death and that he wants her to die to cover up his abuse. What really happened?

I do not know this family and will not comment on whether any abuse occurred. I can, however, look to the case's history and point out some items that might be relevant to anyone considering this issue.

First, "Terri's Law" required the chief judge of the local circuit court to appoint a guardian ad litem (GAL) to examine Terri's case and advise the Governor. The chief judge appointed Dr. Jay Wolfson from the University of South Florida. Dr. Wolfson's December 2003 report to Governor Bush included this bit of factual history:

The cause of the cardiac arrest was adduced to a dramatically reduced potassium level in Theresa's body. Sodium and potassium maintain a vital, chemical balance in the human body that helps define the electrolyte levels. The cause of the imbalance was not clearly identified, but may be linked, in theory, to her drinking 10-15 glasses of iced tea each day. While no formal proof emerged, the medical records note that the combination of [Theresa's] aggressive weight loss, diet control and excessive hydration raised questions about Theresa from Bulimia, an eating disorder, more common among women than men, in which purging through vomiting, laxatives and other methods of diet control become obsessive.

Also relevant to questions about the cause of Terri's collapse is the lawsuit that Michael brought on Terri's behalf against Terri's doctors. The premise of that early 1990s lawsuit was that the doctors committed malpractice by failing to diagnose Terri's bulimia and that her bulimia led to her cardiac arrest. The case was tried to a jury, which ruled in Michael's favor, finding that Terri had bulimia, that her bulimia caused her cardiac arrest, and that the doctors were negligent in failing to diagnose the situation. The verdict was appealed, and before the appellate court could rule, the parties settled, with Michael recovering approximately $750,000 for Terri and $300,000 for himself.

After this case gained national attention in 2003, Gary Fox, the lawyer who represented Terri and Michael in that suit, wrote a stirring column concerning Terri's bulimia and how the tragic effects of that disease have been lost in the hoopla surrounding this case. The St. Pete Times still has that column online, and you can read it here.

The significance of the medical malpractice lawsuit can be seen in a few ways. A jury agreed that bulimia caused Terri's collapse. The defendants were her doctors -- one might think that they, of all people, would have been able to show that Terri had been beaten or strangled if that was what had occurred. Also, to believe that Michael caused Terri's collapse by beating her is to believe that Michael initiated a lawsuit against someone else for causing her collapse, opening the whole matter to serious inquiry and greatly increasing the risk that someone would discover his role.

Finally, I am not aware that anyone -- not the paramedics, doctors, nurses, family members, friends, or anyone else -- who saw Terri in the hours, weeks, and months after her collapse ever suggested at the time that Terri had been beaten or strangled.

As I said above, I am not commenting on whether any abuse actually occurred. I don't know.

But isn't there a bone scan that shows Terri was beaten?

I honestly don't know. What I understand is that a bone scan was taken in 1991 and that the doctor who read it saw on it evidence of past trauma at various places on Terri's body. Some consider that evidence of a severe beating by her husband, others consider it evidence consistent with bulimia, a fall, and CPR by paramedics. Whether trauma really happened, or what kind, or when, are all unclear.

The bone scan was not raised in the original trial regarding Terri's wishes. The issue was raised by the Schindlers in a November 2002 emergency motion. Judge Greer rejected the matter as being irrelevant to the issue of Terri's wishes. See the order linked in the timeline above.

What's happened to Terri since her collapse?

The Second District's first opinion in this case explained:

Since 1990, Theresa has lived in nursing homes with constant care. She is fed and hydrated by tubes. The staff changes her diapers regularly. She has had numerous health problems, but none have been life threatening.

Over the span of this last decade, Theresa's brain has deteriorated because of the lack of oxygen it suffered at the time of the heart attack. By mid 1996, the CAT scans of her brain showed a severely abnormal structure. At this point, much of her cerebral cortex is simply gone and has been replaced by cerebral spinal fluid. Medicine cannot cure this condition. Unless an act of God, a true miracle, were to recreate her brain, Theresa will always remain in an unconscious, reflexive state, totally dependent upon others to feed her and care for her most private needs.

In a later opinion in the same case, the Second District further explained:

Although the physicians are not in complete agreement concerning the extent of Mrs. Schiavo's brain damage, they all agree that the brain scans show extensive permanent damage to her brain. The only debate between the doctors is whether she has a small amount of isolated living tissue in her cerebral cortex or whether she has no living tissue in her cerebral cortex.

onfire4god57

Did she have a living will?

No. If she had, this case would probably never have generated much controversy. The one sure lesson to be taken from all of this is that each of us should have a living will. Florida law permits living wills and defines how and when they may be effective.

Terri is given food and water through tubes. Is disconnecting a feeding tube the same as ending life support?

Yes, under Florida law, which governs the ability of each person to determine, or to appoint someone to determine, whether each of us should receive what the Legislature terms "life-prolonging medical procedures." The Legislature has explained:


The Legislature recognizes that for some the administration of life-prolonging medical procedures may result in only a precarious and burdensome existence. In order to ensure that the rights and intentions of a person may be respected even after he or she is no longer able to participate actively in decisions concerning himself or herself, and to encourage communication among such patient, his or her family, and his or her physician, the Legislature declares that the laws of this state recognize the right of a competent adult to make an advance directive instructing his or her physician to provide, withhold, or withdraw life-prolonging procedures, or to designate another to make the treatment decision for him or her in the event that such person should become incapacitated and unable to personally direct his or her medical care.
§ 765.102(3), Florida Statutes.

The Legislature has also defined what is a "life-prolonging procedure":


"Life-prolonging procedure" means any medical procedure, treatment, or intervention, including artificially provided sustenance and hydration, which sustains, restores, or supplants a spontaneous vital function. The term does not include the administration of medication or performance of medical procedure, when such medication or procedure is deemed necessary to provide comfort care or to alleviate pain.
§ 765.101(10), Florida Statutes.

Why did Terri’s husband get to make the decision about whether she should live or die?

Michael Schiavo did not make the decision to discontinue life-prolonging measures for Terri.

As Terri's husband, Michael has been her guardian and her surrogate decision-maker. By 1998, though -- eight years after the trauma that produced Terri's situation -- Michael and Terri's parents disagreed over the proper course for her.

Rather than make the decision himself, Michael followed a procedure permitted by Florida courts by which a surrogate such as Michael can petition a court, asking the court to act as the ward's surrogate and determine what the ward would decide to do. Michael did this, and based on statements Terri made to him and others, he took the position that Terri would not wish to continue life-prolonging measures. The Schindlers took the position that Terri would continue life-prolonging measures. Under this procedure, the trial court becomes the surrogate decision-maker, and that is what happened in this case.

The trial court in this case held a trial on the dispute. Both sides were given opportunities to present their views and the evidence supporting those views. Afterwards, the trial court determined that, even applying the "clear and convincing evidence" standard -- the highest burden of proof used in civil cases -- the evidence showed that Terri would not wish to continue life-prolonging measures.

Why didn’t the court appoint a guardian other than Terri’s husband to speak for her?

The trial judge could have utilized a guardian ad litem as a neutral party to speak for Terri, but in the end the trial judge did not do so. The Second District affirmed this decision and explained its rationale in this way:


Under these circumstances, the two parties, as adversaries, present their evidence to the trial court. The trial court determines whether the evidence is sufficient to allow it to make the decision for the ward to discontinue life support. In this context, the trial court essentially serves as the ward's guardian. Although we do not rule out the occasional need for a guardian in this type of proceeding, a guardian ad litem would tend to duplicate the function of the judge, would add little of value to this process, and might cause the process to be influenced by hearsay or matters outside the record. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court's discretionary decision in this case to proceed without a guardian ad litem.

Why didn’t Terri’s parents get a chance to prove that Terri wouldn’t want her feeding tube to be removed?

They did. As explained above, the trial judge held a trial on this issue and determined that the evidence clearly and convincingly showed that Terri would not want to continue life-prolonging measures in her current state.

Can't the parents appeal the trial judge's decision, and shouldn't conflicting evidence be judged in favor of continuing life?

The Schindlers did appeal, and the Second District determined that while a surrogate decision-maker should err on the side of life, the trial judge had sufficiently clear and convincing evidence to determine that Terri would not wish to continue the life-prolonging measures she needs to live. The appellate court explained:


The Schindlers argue that the testimony, which was conflicting, was insufficient to support the trial court's decision by clear and convincing evidence. We have reviewed that testimony and conclude that the trial court had sufficient evidence to make this decision. The clear and convincing standard of proof, while very high, permits a decision in the face of inconsistent or conflicting evidence. See In re Guardianship of Browning, 543 So. 2d at 273.

In Browning, we stated:

In making this difficult decision, a surrogate decisionmaker should err on the side of life… In cases of doubt, we must assume that a patient would choose to defend life in exercising his or her right of privacy.
In re Guardianship of Browning, 543 So.2d at 273. We reconfirm today that a court's default position must favor life.

The testimony in this case establishes that Theresa was very young and very healthy when this tragedy struck. Like many young people without children, she had not prepared a will, much less a living will. She had been raised in the Catholic faith, but did not regularly attend mass or have a religious advisor who could assist the court in weighing her religious attitudes about life-support methods. Her statements to her friends and family about the dying process were few and they were oral. Nevertheless, those statements, along with other evidence about Theresa, gave the trial court a sufficient basis to make this decision for her.

In the final analysis, the difficult question that faced the trial court was whether Theresa Marie Schindler Schiavo, not after a few weeks in a coma, but after ten years in a persistent vegetative state that has robbed her of most of her cerebrum and all but the most instinctive of neurological functions, with no hope of a medical cure but with sufficient money and strength of body to live indefinitely, would choose to continue the constant nursing care and the supporting tubes in hopes that a miracle would somehow recreate her missing brain tissue, or whether she would wish to permit a natural death process to take its course and for her family members and loved ones to be free to continue their lives. After due consideration, we conclude that the trial judge had clear and convincing evidence to answer this question as he did.


Was Michael the only person who testified about Terri's supposed statements on her views about living on life support?

No, others did as well, and when making the decision in the case, the trial judge took into account all of that testimony and additional evidence. As the Second District explained:

We note that the guardianship court's original order expressly relied upon and found credible the testimony of witnesses other than Mr. Schiavo or the Schindlers. We recognize that Mrs. Schiavo's earlier oral statements were important evidence when deciding whether she would choose in February 2000 to withdraw life-prolonging procedures. See § 765.401(3), Fla. Stat. (2000); In re Guardianship of Browning, 568 So. 2d 4, 16. Nevertheless, the trial judge, acting as her proxy, also properly considered evidence of Mrs. Schiavo's values, personality, and her own decision-making process.

Did the trial judge reach the right decision?

The "right" decision would be whatever decision Terri would make. I did not attend the trial, and I have not even reviewed the trial record. I do not pretend to know what the "right" decision would be.

onfire4god57

Why has this case become such a controversy?

This case has become such a controversy because of Terri's parents' insistence that their daughter would not wish to die under these circumstances and their claim that Terri is conscious and responsive to stimulation.

The case has also become controversial because, for years, Terri's parents have publicly questioned Michael's motives for wanting to discontinue Terri's life support. Specifically, they have charged that Michael remains Terri's husband and is working to end her life so he can inherit whatever money remains from a $1 million 1993 medical malpractice settlement Michael recovered on behalf of himself and Terri. Presumably, if Michael divorced Terri, then he would not have access to Terri's portion of the money, and upon her death her parents would inherit it. News reports also indicate that Michael is engaged to another woman.

Is Michael really just looking for money?

I have no way to know. I know what the Schindlers say to reporters, but then I know that the Second District's first decision in the case used these words to describe Michael's care for Terri:


Theresa has been blessed with loving parents and a loving husband. Many patients in this condition would have been abandoned by friends and family within the first year. Michael has continued to care for her and to visit her all these years. He has never divorced her. He has become a professional respiratory therapist and works in a nearby hospital. As a guardian, he has always attempted to provide optimum treatment for his wife. He has been a diligent watch guard of Theresa's care, never hesitating to annoy the nursing staff in order to assure that she receives the proper treatment.
Recently, Michael received an offer of $1 million, and perhaps a second offer of $10 million, to walk away from this case and permit Terri's parents to care for her. These offers, assuming there were two, were based on a misunderstanding of the situation here. Michael lacks the power to undo the court order determining Terri's wishes and requiring the removal of her feeding tube. He did not make the decision and cannot unmake it. The court made the decision on Terri's behalf. Nonetheless, Michael apparently rejected each offer.

What about the Schindlers' claims that Terri is conscious and responds to stimulation?

When the Second District first reviewed the trial court's decision that Terri would chose not to live under her present circumstances, the appellate court expressed no reservations when it explained that Terri was and "will always remain in an unconscious, reflexive state, totally dependent upon others…" In October, 2002, as a result of Terri's parents' claims that treatment options offered promise to restore some of Terri's cognitive functioning, the Second District ordered the trial court to hold a trial on that issue. The trial court did so, and in the course of that trial the parties litigated whether Terri is in a persistent vegetative state.

The trial court heard testimony from five experts: two selected by Michael, two selected by the Schindlers, and one independent expert selected by the trial court. The two experts selected by Michael and the independent expert agreed that Terri was in a persistent vegetative state and that her actions were limited to mere reflexes. The two experts chosen by the Schindlers disagreed, but the trial court found their positions not credible. For instance, the trial court explained:

At first blush, the video of Terry Schiavo appearing to smile and look lovingly at her mother seemed to represent cognition. This was also true for how she followed the Mickey Mouse balloon held by her father. The court has carefully viewed the videotapes as requested by counsel and does find that these actions were neither consistent nor reproducible. For instance, Terry Schiavo appeared to have the same look on her face when Dr. Cranford rubbed her neck. Dr. Greer testified she had a smile during his (non-videoed) examination. Also, Mr. Schindler tried several more times to have her eyes follow the Mickey Mouse balloon but without success. Also, she clearly does not consistently respond to her mother. The court finds that based on the credible evidence, cognitive function would manifest itself in a constant response to stimuli.

The experts also disagreed about whether any treatment could improve Terri's condition. The two experts selected by the Schindlers each proposed a potential therapy method, but the trial court rejected both of them based on "the total absence of supporting case studies or medical literature."

Affirming those decisions, the Second District explained that it, too, reviewed the videotapes of Terri in their entirety as well as Terri's brain scans. The appellate court explained that it not only affirmed the decision but that, were it to review the evidence and make its own decision, the court would reach the same result reached by the trial court.

Were the Schindlers' doctors given an opportunity to examine Terri?

Yes. As the Second District explained:

Through the assistance of Mrs. Schiavo's treating physician, Dr. Victor Gambone, the physicians obtained current medical information about Theresa Schiavo including high-quality brain scans. Each physician reviewed her medical records and personally conducted a neurological examination of Mrs. Schiavo. Lengthy videotapes of some of the medical examinations were created and introduced into evidence. Thus, the quality of the evidence presented to the guardianship court was very high, and each side had ample opportunity to present detailed medical evidence, all of which was subjected to thorough cross-examination. It is likely that no guardianship court has ever received as much high-quality medical evidence in such a proceeding.

What about the video clips that show Terri reacting to her mother?

The court opinions indicate that similar videos were viewed in their entirety by the trial court, which found that Terri's actions were no more than reflexive and could not be reproduced with any consistency. The Second District affirmed that decision.

by Matt Conigliaro
http://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/infopage.html

cavemtmomma

If you starve a horse or dog you will see jail time if you're caught. If you don't feed your kids ENOUGH you will have them taken away. So according to some people Terris life is less valuable than those examples. Have you stopped to consider that Terri is less incapacitated than Christopher Reeves was? Lucky for Mr. Reeve his wife didn't go find a new lover and want him dead. She wouldn't have had to even starve him, she couldv'e just turned off his resperator.The only court testimony about Terri's wishes were from her husband who said that upon viewing someone with catastrophic injury Terri said she wouldn't want to live that way. At the time she supposedly said this starving people to death was not an option. Two other people testified that her husband told them that she said this. They were his sister and brother-in-law. It was hearsay eveidence and was only allowed because her case is being heard in PROBATE court. This is the same husband who denied Terri treatment for a urinary tract infection. If you've ever had one you know that they are very painful and debilitating. Why would someone who claims to care for her want her to suffer through that? I guess alot of you would like to see my step-daughter starved to death too. She's 18, she's Down syndrome, Autisitic and suffers from the effects of abuse by her birth mother. Unlike Mike Shiavo we didn't get any big settlements to take care of her. So the state foots the bill for her around the clock care. Unlike Terri it is known that there is virtually no chance she will ever get better.I raised her from the age of three until she was seventeen. She has never once called me "Mom" or said "I love you" because she doesn't talk. Once it's ok to starve one inconvieniant person where does it stop? Terri, like my daughter, has a mom who loves her and wants to care for her. If you kill Mrs. Schindler's daughter, will mine be next?

PS as far as the court having seen tapes of Terri the current judge hearing this case and ignoring the federal subpeona is Judge Greer and he is LEGALLY BLIND so he has NEVER seen a tape of Terri

__________________
Eretz Yisrael L'Am Yisrael!

dangerousfem

"Was Michael the only person who testified about Terri's supposed statements on her views about living on life support?"

Who were these other people? I had heard that no one else had ever heard her say this first hand... not her husband telling them she said it.

__________________


I ain't from the south... but I got here as fast as I could!

cavemtmomma

Reprinted from NewsMax.com

Sunday, March 20, 2005 10:19 a.m. EST

Nurse: Terri Can Eat Normally

A certified nursing assistant who cared for Terri Schiavo in 1997 filed a sworn affidavit in the case stating that she was able to feed Schiavo normally on multiple occasions - but that husband Michael Schiavo would allow only a feeding tube.

Heidi Law, a CNA at the Palm Gardens nursing home, testified: "At least three times during any shift where I took care of Terri, I made sure to give Terri a wet washcloth filled with ice chips, to keep her mouth moistened. I personally saw her swallow the ice water and never saw her gag.

"[Another CNA] and I frequently put orange juice or apple juice in her washcloth to give her something nice to taste, which made her happy. On three or four occasions I personally fed Terri small mouthfuls of Jello, which she was able to swallow and enjoyed immensely."

Law testified that the only reason she didn't attempt to feed Ms. Schiavo more frequently was "because I was so afraid of being caught by Michael."

Editorializing on the case in light of Law's account, the Pittsburgh Post Gazette said Sunday, "It is one thing to withdraw a feeding tube; another entirely to withhold that day's meal tray."

Carla Sauer Iyer was a registered nurse at the same facility. In her own affidavit Iyer testified that Ms. Schiavo was capable of speech, explaining, "[Terri] spoke on a regular basis, saying such things as 'Mommy' and 'help me.'"

When she put a washcloth in Terri's hands to keep her fingers from curling together, Iyer said, "Michael saw it and made me take it out, saying that was therapy" that he had forbidden.

"Throughout my time at Palm Gardens, Michael Schiavo was focused on Terri's death," the RN noted. "Michael would say 'When is she going to die?' 'Has she died yet?' and 'When is that b**** gonna die?'"

__________________
Eretz Yisrael L'Am Yisrael!

TammyJoR

Now the loving husband "Choke choke" is stopping her family from being with her or seeing her while she is dying. What is next. What a peice of work he is.

Jolie Rouge

Just an example - Terri was a practicing Catholic prior to her illness; M. has refused to allow her Last Rites or honor a Catholic burial as he plans on having her cremated. Just yesterday he had people arrested that were trying to bring her Holy Communion and to give her the sacrement of Annointing of the Sick. If he were trying to think of what she wanted would he be doing this ??

She never told anyone else she would want to "live like this" but M. In fact, several people besides her parents, her brother and her sister have said that she has said the exact opposite.

Please read Cavemtmomma's research from NewsMax.com (( Thank you - I had heard this information but had not found it on the internet.))

__________________
Laissez les bon temps rouler! Going to church doesn't make you a Christian any more than standing in a garage makes you a car.** a 4 day work week & sex slaves ~ I say Tyt for PRESIDENT! Not to be taken internally, literally or seriously ....Suki ebaynni IS THAT BETTER ?

Cindee

What woman in their 20's could actually say what they want in life(at the time it happend to her)? I'm the same age as she is now and I'm sick about it. 1990

Feb - Terri Collapses in her home

May - Terri discharged from Humana Hospital in St Petersburg, Florida.

Dec - Terri taken to California for experimental implant


1991

Feb - Terri moved to home with husband.

Jan - Terri moved to Bradenton Mediplex Rehabilitation Center.

Apr - Terri's condition is assessed as improving.

Apr - Terri's husband advised to move her to Gainesville Rehabilitation Center to receive advanced therapy to continue Terri's recovery.

Jul - Terri moved to Sable Palms Nursing Home.


1992

Aug - Terri awarded $250,000 in malpractice settlement.

Nov - Terri awarded $1.4 million in malpractice trial.

Nov - Michael Schiavo awarded $600,000 in malpractice trial.


1993

Feb - Michael Schiavo denies recommended rehabilitation treatment.

Feb - Schiavo and Terri's parents have falling out regarding lack of therapy for Terri.

Feb - Schiavo withholds medical information from Terri's parents.

Feb - Schiavo posts Do not Resuscitate order in Terri's medical chart.

Jun - Schiavo threatens Schindler family with lawsuit.

Aug - Schiavo orders medical staff not to treat Terri for potentially fatal infection.

Sep - Bob and Mary Schindler petition courts to remove Schiavo as Terri's guardian.

Nov - Schiavo admits in deposition that he knew withholding treatment of infection could result in Terri's death.


1994

Feb - Judge Penick dismisses guardianship suit.

Apr - Terri moved to Palm Gardens Nursing Home.


1995

Sep - Schiavo orders Palm Gardens not to treat Terri for potentially fatal infection.


1996

Jun - Terri's parents obtain court order for access to Terri's medical records.


1997

May - Judge Shames approves Schiavo action to remove Terri's nutrition and hydration.

Jul - Schiavo's engagement to Jodi Centonze announced.

Aug - Attorney Felos's letter notifying Terri's parents of action to remove Terri's nutrition and hydration.


1998

Jun - Guardian ad Litem appointed by court to investigate Terri's case.

Oct - Schiavo offers to donate Terri's inheritance to charity if family agrees to allow removal of her hydration and nutrition.

Dec - Guardian ad Litem recommends the court not approve Schiavo's petition.


1999

Feb - Attorney George Felos files bias charges against Guardian ad Litem.

Jun - Guardian ad Litem dismissed by the court.


2000

Jan - Judge Greer Conducts Terri’s Feeding Tube Removal Trial.

Feb - Greer Rules to Remove Nutrition Feeding Tube.

Feb – Affidavits filed by 3 doctors state Terri can swallow and is not PVS.

Feb - Greer denies petition to allow Terri swallowing tests.

Apr - Terri Moved from Palm Gardens Nursing Home to Hospice Facility.

Apr - Greer denies motion to return Terri to Palm Garden Nursing home.

Apr - Greer imposes restricted visitor list for Terri.

Jul - Appeal filed with Appellate Court to overturn Greer’s verdict.

Nov - Appellate Court Conducts Oral Arguments.


2001

Jan 25 - The appellate court upholds Judge Greer’s ruling to remove Terri's feeding..

Feb. 8 - Motion for an Appellate Court rehearing or clarification - Denied.

Mar 12 - Schiavo petitions to remove Terri’s feeding immediately.

Mar 23 - Florida Supreme Court denies motion with the to review Terri's case.

Mar 22 - Appellate Court issued a 30 day execution stay.

Mar 29 - Judge Greer moves up feeding removal date to April 20, 2001.

Apr 1 - The Appellate Court denies extending Terri's stay of execution.

Apr 12 - Attorney Anderson files motion disqualify Judge Greer.

Apr 16 - Judge Greer denies disqualification motion.

Apr 18 - The Florida Supreme Court refuses to hear Terri’s case & denies Stay.

Apr 19 - The Federal Court claimed the issue was beyond that court's jurisdiction.

Apr 23 - The US Supreme Court refused to hear Terri’s case.

Apr 24 - Terri Feeding was terminated.

Apr 25 - Schiavo bans Terri brother and sister from visiting Terri.

Apr 25 - Schiavo ex girlfriend (Cyndi) reveals Schiavo lied about Terri’s death wishes.

Apr 26 - Judge Greer refuses to hear new evidence about Schiavo’s lying.

Apr 26 - New evidence compels Civil court Judge Quesada to resume Terri's feeding.

Apr 30 - Schiavo files an emergency motion to have Terri's nutritional feeding stopped.

May 7 - Affidavit filed by Dr. Hammesfahr (neurology) states Terri is not in a PVS.

May 7 - Schiavo charged in the Civil Court with fraud.

May 8 - Schiavo ex girlfriend (Cyndi) refuses to testify for fear of Schiavo.

May 9 - The 2nd District Court of Appeals announces "Oral Arguments Hearing" date.

May 11 - Schiavo motion to negate Judge Quesada's order denied.

Jun 1 - Affidavits by five (5) Doctors were filed stating Terri was not in a PVS.

Jun 1 - Schiavo excused from rendering his deposition.

Jun 18 - Schiavo files an affidavit that Terri is in an irreversible vegetative.

Jun 21 - Chief Judge Demers gave Judge George Greer's Court authority to decide whether Terri should have any new medical evaluation or treatment.

Jun 25 - A three-member panel presided at the Appellate Court hearing.

Jul 11 - The Appellate Court ordered Greer court to conduct evidentiary hearings. The court denied Schiavo's attorneys request to order Terri's feeding stopped.

July 23 - Schiavo filed a motion for Judge Greer to immediately stop Terri's feeding.

Aug 7 - Judge Greer totally ignored or rationalized all the evidence presented to him. Orders Terri's feeding stopped on August 28, 2001.

Aug 10 - Attorney Anderson motion to disqualify Judge Greer denied.

Aug 14 - Greer denies request for Conducting Terri Medical Examinations.

Aug 16 - Attorney Anderson files a Notice of Appeal with the 2nd District Appeal Court.

Aug 17 - Judge Greer grants Terri a stay of execution until October 9, 2001.

Aug 20 - Schiavo files with the 2nd District Appeal Court to overrule Judge Greer stay.

Oct 7 - 2nd District Appeal Court orders Terri to be neurological tested.

Oct 23 - Schiavo files a motion to reverse the Appellate Court neurological tests order.

Nov 1 - The 2nd District Court of Appeals denies Schiavo's motion..

Nov 16 - Terri's medical testing plan will be determined before a mediator.

Dec 19 - Attorneys meet with a mediator in an attempt to agree upon the tests .


2002

Jan 18 - Mediated agreement failed, testing is back Greer’s courtroom to be resolved.

Jan 25 - Attorney Anderson petitioned the court for an evidentiary guardianship hearing.

Jan 29 - Judge Greer approved Schiavo's motion to cancel the evidentiary hearing.

Feb 7 - Schiavo files with the Florida Supreme Court to overturn the Appellate Court's October ruling which spared Terri's life.

Mar 14 - The Florida Supreme Court denied Michael Schiavo’s appeal.

Jun 19 - Schiavo objects to the medical and neurological testing.

Jul 1 - Judge Greer conducted a 3+ hr hearing involving three issues:
1. Schiavo’s Plan to Enroll Terri into a Medicaid Program
2 Termination of Schiavo's Attorney Fees
3. Equal Payment for Terri's Examining Doctors

Jul 10 - Court Hearing again was for the purpose of allowing certain medical tests that were requested to evaluate Terri’s true medical and neurological condition.

Jul 12 - Judge Greer ruled -not-to-pay- Terri’s doctors for their professional fees to examine Terri. Notably, in a previous hearing, Judge Greer -approved- payment for Schiavo’s doctors fees.

Jul 22 - Judge Greer approved three of Terri’s desired neurological tests and rejected a dozen other.

Aug 28 - Judge Greer established the dates for Terri's trial.

Oct 2 - Schiavo files petition to prohibit the media from seeing Terri’s recent neurological examination videotapes or airing the video’s to the public after they have been presented to the court as evidence.

Oct 2 - Schiavo petitioned the court to authorize Terri’s cremation.

Oct 11-22 Terri’s trial

Nov15 - Judge Greer conducted a hearing in response to a motion Attorney Anderson filed requesting time to investigate recent evidence suggesting Terri’s heart failure may have been caused by physical abuse.

Nov 22 - Greer orders Terri’s starvation death to begin on Jan 3, 2003.

Dec 9 - Attorney Anderson filed a ‘Notice of Appeal’ to the 2nd District Appellate Court.

Dec 9- Attorney Anderson filed a motion with Judge Greer to ‘stay’ the January 3rd feeding termination date.

Dec 10 - Schiavo filed a motion with Judge Greer to strike attorney Anderson’s motion to ‘stay,’ requesting a court hearing to argue his objection.

Dec 13 - Judge Greer acquiesced to Michael Schiavo’s attorney motion to conduct a hearing, which resulted in a ‘stay’ being granted, pending appellate resolution.

Dec 18 - Schiavo filed a motion with the 2nd District Appellate Court to overturn Judge Greer’s December 13th order.

Dec 23 - The 2nd Appellate Court denied Michael Schiavo’s attorney motion to overturn Judge Greer’s December 13, 2002 ‘stay’ order. Furthermore, the Appellate Court established filing dates and scheduled Appellate oral arguments to take place on April 4, 2003.

__________________
http://forums.bigbigsavings.com/images/avatar/Ahh.gif

Jolie Rouge

After reading Cindee's post I have to ask : "How much is Greer being paid ?"

__________________
Laissez les bon temps rouler! Going to church doesn't make you a Christian any more than standing in a garage makes you a car.** a 4 day work week & sex slaves ~ I say Tyt for PRESIDENT! Not to be taken internally, literally or seriously ....Suki ebaynni IS THAT BETTER ?