In a hospice in Florida, Terri is on day 7 of forced starvation and dehydration. Unless someone intervenes, she will die in the next week or so.
If she was on death row, this death would not be allowed. Instead, Terri is disabled. Her husband and his attorney say she is in a persistent vegetative state. Before you accept that fact, look at the videos of her. Where there is doubt, why not let her live?
Why not indeed? The background of the matter raises as many doubts as the videos:
Terri collapsed at home at 26. There's some suggestion that maybe there was a physical attack on her but that was never pursued. Instead, the husband claimed at a medical malpractice trial that it was a potassium imbalance that doctors should have caught. He was awarded $1.3 million in a trust to provide for her rehabilitation. After he got the trust, Michael, the loving, distraught husband suddenly remembered that she had mentioned in a conversation that she didn't want to be kept alive.
Terri's family, her mother, father and brother, don't recall such a wish and have offered for the past decade to take care of Terri and use that trust fund for rehabilitation. Michael portrayed this as a desire to get the money. He went to court to get an order for her to die. Terri has not died, leading Michael to utter the infamous words "when is that bitch going to die?" in earshot of a nurse. He is engaged to be married to another woman who has already borne him a child. When Terri dies, her husband will inherit the trust fund that was intended but never used to rehabilitate her.
Last week, Schiavo and his attorney, who is profiled here on his efforts to let many disabled people die, succeeded. Terri's feeding tube was removed. She is now starving to death. In the latest development, Schiavo forbade her from receiving communion as part of last rites.
Let's review. Terri was not on a respirator or any other equipment. If you think she was in a coma, watch just one of the videos. If you're remembering your own personal, painful experience letting a loved one go, watch the video and note the difference between Terri and your loved one.
Numerous doctors have testified that she is not in a persistent vegetative state. Yes, some doctors have testified that she is. But where there is doubt, should we not let her live, let her get some therapy and see if she is rehabilitated, especially when there is a trust fund established expressly for that purpose?
Governor Jeb Bush has expressed a desire to step in but does not believe he has the power. The Florida House has passed a bill giving him the power. We await Senate action.
It may be too late for Terri. After just 30-40 hours of starvation, she may have sustained permanent damage that will leave her in the persistent vegetative state that was in doubt before. However, it is quite possible that Terri is not alone.
UPDATE: Governor Jeb Bush has ordered the feeding tube re-inserted. It's my understanding that an IV has to be given first before she can manage the tube. I have not seen any medical updates.
I posted this in a few other areas on the web...and I'll post it here:
In all of this discussion, the one message I've seen missing is the possibility that perhaps Terri may have made the statement that she didn't want to live this way...and that it is just possible that her husband really does want to end her suffering...I think it is a callous attitude to suggest this is all about money. And more so, it is a dangerous idea that the government should be able to step in, defy the courts, and tell us what decisions are right or wrong in these situations.
At 12, I watched my mother succumb to cancer over the course of a year. I watched her struggle with a colostomy, seizures, vomiting blood, constant pain, and the complete loss of dignity as her 12 year old son had to take care of his mother, instead of the other way around. I watched her ravaged body take it's last breath, as my stepfather made the decision to remove her from the respirator. I guess we should have stopped him, I mean a cure for cancer could be any day...and perhaps my mother (unconscious and unable to speak) may have wanted to live that way.
Fast forward 20 years to my grandmother...incapacitated by cancer, paralyzed & bed ridden, unable to move or speak...but able to cry out from the constant pain. About the only functions left to her were her sobs and tears. This woman raised me after the loss of my mother (her daughter) and here we were in the position we discussed many times in the past. After witnessing the suffering of her daughter, she told me she never wanted to live that way...just let her go. In the end, my grandfather had a difficult time making the decision to remove her feeding tube and let her go, even though they could have kept her living for months. It took him two weeks to make that decision...it was not made lightly. He often told us, "I just can't let her go," even thought he knew her wishes...they were married 50+ years. But, in the end, HE decided to end her suffering. It was not a life worth living...and he knew it. So, I can't imagine a court or state legislature coming in to tell him that he had no right to make that decision for her. Doctors knew she would never recover (the cancer had eaten her spine), but they could treat her and keep her on life support for many months. I mean, there could be a cure for cancer any day...so to end a life would be a rush to judgment, right? She can't make the decision for herself in this vegetative state.
I mean, letting her die was based on the claim of myself and my grandfather that she didn't want to live her life this way. So like Terrie's husband, we should just throw that out and prolong the medical freak show that was keeping her alive? I mean there was property and money to inherit from my grandmother. I guess we should cast suspicion on my grandfather and myself for wanting her to pass away with little suffering and a last shred of dignity?
This topic is complicated well beyond the realm of religious intent. What it finally comes down to is that her parents do not want to believe there will be no recovery for their daughter. They want to believe that she is still "there" and that she would want to continue on, even though she cannot take care of herself in any manner or communicate in any way that we know for "sure" what her desire is...which leads me to one final statement...
Consider how you want to live your life...can any of us honestly say that to live this type of a life, to be a burden on our loved ones, to be trapped in a flesh coffin...is a life worth living? More importantly, if you decide (like me) that you do not want to live this type of existence, do you want a group of strangers making that decision for you? This case sets a dangerous precedent for the rights of the sick, and the people who love them.
the one message I've seen missing is the possibility that perhaps Terri may have made the statement that she didn't want to live this way
1. I would have a moment or two to consider this if he hadn't remembered it after the malpractice case in which he argued for rehabilitation and got money for rehabilitation or if he had tried rehabilitation.
2. That's why we have written advanced directives. If that is what you want, write it down. At the age of 18. Change the directive when you change your mind.
3. Any advance directive requires that there be no hope of recovery. That point is far from clear here.
Marriage is either sacred or it isn't. Either the husband/spouse decides or they don't--and we allow it to become a free-for-all for anyone who wants to express their opinion.
The details surrounding this care are irrelevent. It does not matter that the husband may have said this or that. I doesn't matter if there is a civil settlement. What matters, is that these two people were married and the husband decides on his wife's behalf.
One of my most painful personal memories is of my great-grandmother, Ruby Carnahan. Born around 1900, if I remember correctly.
She was a vibrant, intelligent, powerful woman. May have been a lesbian. An independent career woman long, long before such a thing was fashionable. Smart as a tack, elegant, beautiful, and powerful.
Had a stroke. Then another. And another. At some point we lost count. She was eventually reduced to something barely above a vegetative state. Could barely talk, take herself to the bathroom, or feed herself. Hated what she had become, and hated it so much that she frequently tried to kill herself. Her relatives did their best to stop her every time she did it.
I have nightmares about that. I genuinely pray that no one ever lets me get to that state, and keeps me alive in such a horrid state.
Yet it's not clear that Terri Shiavo ever made such wishes clear.
Yet still, you can go by whatever hearsay you want; anyone can say they heard this or that, and in the final measure what is it but hearsay?
I don't know what to think, except for this:
I'm very glad I'm not that judge.
Why not just let here go? Her parents want to keep her alive, but what happens once they pass? Who will care for her then? Who will love her then? A bunch of strangers? And if there is an afterlife...why not just let her pass to a better existance? It is my belief that, as with any parent, having your child die is a terrible thing...and the idea of parting with her is unbearable...but do they really want her to live because she would choose this life...or because they cannot let go?
I find it odd that a family member can not allow the organs of a deceased family member to be donated without the expressd written authorization of the deceased, even a donor sticker on the license will not due, yet the husband has the ability to decree that his wife should starve to death.
If nothing else the conflict of interest the husband has, access to insurance monies, should be a cause for dening his request.
Thank you for this post...for getting the truth out about this situation. Terri is not a "vegetable". She is not brain dead. She is brain damaged and disabled. Some have said that she may be able to take nourishment by mouth, because she doesn't drool. It seems nobody but her family wants to give her a chance.
Her husband's motives are very suspect. From what I understand, Terri's family have reason to believe that abuse at his hands may have caused her condition.
Her husband has no written proof that she desired to be starved to death. So, if you must err, err on the side of life.
I have been blogging this on my own site (some of the links in Justene's post are to my blog) and I have consequently received feedback from people who feel the way that agraham feels. They are concerned that Ms. Schindler-Schiavo not suffer. They don't think that she has much of an existence as it is. They are strongly supportive of the right to decide not to be kept alive by artificial means.
I respect that opinion. However, I think this case is radically different. There is considerable evidence available to show that the husband's motives are suspect, and his claim about his wife's statements are not credible. Justene has set forth many of them, and many of us have blogged about them. I don't just mean the money, or the woman that Mr. Schiavo is living with -- both of which are factors that could be consistent with his having innocent motives. There are very disturbing factors at work that set this situation apart from agraham's sitaution or any other one that I have heard about.
Critical to my opinion are the following facts, which I have seen reported widely and have not seen contradicted anywhere:
1) Mr. Schiavo argued to a jury hearing the malpractice case that he wanted money to rehabilitate her. After he received that money, he refused to pay for rehabilitation and fought the efforts of Ms. Schiavo's family to provide such care. When he made the argument to the jury, Ms. Schiavo had already (allegedly) made her wishes known to him. This raises real credibility concerns.
2) A nurse has filed an affidavit saying that Mr. Schiavo has repeatedly wondered aloud when Ms. Schiavo is going to die. Reasonable people could make such statements, but not the way he is alleged to have phrased them, as he is alleged to have said: "When is that bitch going to die?"
I know that agraham never said that about his mother or grandmother.
(Ms. Schiavo's family has made numerous other allegations, the truth of which is much more murky -- including claims that Mr. Schiavo may have put her in this condition, that a doctor who testified had a conflict of interest, etc. I do not rely on any of these claims in forming my opinion. What I have already said is enough for me.)
This is not a typical "right to die" case, folks. There is a very real conflict of interest issue here with Mr. Schiavo. However you feel about the right to die, you should be concerned about what is happening here.
However, the case does illustrate the concerns that many have about the right to die. Many worry that it could become, in effect, a right to murder. It is an unusual case where the wish to exercise this "right" is determined according to hearsay testimony by someone who calls the person a "bitch" and told a jury that he did indeed wish to rehabilitate her. It is more unusual still when this "right" is forced on someone who is not terminally ill, not in a true coma or vegetative state, has people who *want* to care for her, appears to be responsive, and has never indicated their wishes in writing.
I agree that the general philosophical issue is potentially a difficult one. But I think this is a fairly easy case. I agree with agraham on one point: "This case sets a dangerous precedent for the rights of the sick, and the people who love them."
Agraham: No one is writing off the "possibility" that Terri actually said something about not wanting to be kept on life support. However, some of us have a problem starving people to death simply because there is a "possibility" they may have wanted it that way. That's what living wills are for, and then only in situations more grave than Terri's is (or was, until last week, when the right to starve movement finally got its way). If you see something "dangerous" about government stepping in to protect life in situations of doubt, then with all due respect, you're not playing with a full deck. What the hell else is government there for? Worry instead about the very real danger of innocent people dying because self-interested family members "divined" their intent after they could no longer speak for themselves. Even if Michael "When is that Bitch Going to Die" Schiavo is telling the truth this time around, the next Michael Schiavo may not be.
Mrs. du Toit: It's all well and good to wax poetic about the sanctity of marriage, but last time I checked, the power to kill your spouse was not among the recognized "sacraments" of holy matrimony. Whatever "right" Terri herself may have had to be starved to death, no one else has that right, including her adulterous "husband."
One can say "no heroic measures"; one can hold that no medical care be given - but to deny food to a helpless human being? That is disgustingly inhuman.
Her husband got 1.3 million dollars to see to her care and if she doesn't die then he's just going to have to spend the money caring for her - new prospective wife notwithstanding.
Look how low we've fallen - we are going to watch a fellow human being die, all on the testimony of a man who stands to gain 1.3 million dollars. You can slice and dice it all you want, but normally this is grounds for a criminal investigation. Only in the utterly depraved world of 2003 is there even a debate about this.
Let me ask you this...
If Mr. Schiavo indeed caused his wifes injury, and if the whole thing is a plot on his part to get the money, marry his new girlfriend and be rid of Mrs. Schiavo, how did he persuade several doctors to testify that she is in a persistent vegetative state, and how did he manipulate a judge to beleive THOSE doctors over the doctors testifying for the family?
Did he actually pay those doctors to perjure themselves? Did he pay the judge to throw the decision his way?
Or, just perhaps, did the doctors who swore under oath that she was beyond recovery do so in good faith and with full credence to the idea that she was, in fact, beyond recovery?
And if they did that, did the judge actually make an unbiased judgement that the weight of the evidence and testimony fell on the side of the husband?
The husband may well be a scumbag. But that doesn't make the parents a fount of truth.
Gary,
That is an excellent question, and I don't think any of us know (or *can* know) the answer. I wish that I had access to court transcripts and documents, but I can't find them, and for all I know they are sealed.
I have a couple of observations, however:
1) I asked a friend of mine, who has been the director of neurology at a major metropolitan hospital, to look at the videos and give me his opinion. I posted his response here. (I think this is one of the links Justene gives above, but I am giving it again so you don't have to wade through the links.) My friend was not paid by either side in the case and has no axe to grind. I trust his opinion.
And I don't know how doctors can know to the contrary with such certainty. Also, one of the doctors (the one in the balloon video) can clearly be heard saying that she is following the balloon with her eyes -- but testified (according to the family) that she was completely unresponsive. I don't get it either. Honestly.
2) Courts screw things up. OJ was found not guilty and got custody of his children. (If you agree with either decision, fine, I'll accept that and just disagree -- I don't want the thread to get off topic.) Nobody here will accuse the judge of being bought off, as there is no evidence of that. But perhaps he formed a negative opinion of the parents or their case early on, for whatever reason, and has been reviewing everything since through that perspective.
3) Many of us believe that there should be a higher standard of proof in such a situation. Why shouldn't the husband have to prove his case beyond a reasonable doubt? As death penalty opponents are fond of saying: "Death is different."
I'm sure Kevorkian would be willing to testify that somebody was "beyond help". . .
Regardless of the experts' opinions, the simple fact that the husband brought this up only *after* gaining the trust fund to allegedly rehabilitate his wife fails the sniff test, big time.
Looks like the bill to save her has passed.
Xrlq...are you aware how convoluted the system is? Even with a living will, since there is no federal legislation providing for the right to die (and the means)...each state must enact their own laws, and few states have one. Since hospitals aren't allowed to end life, they simply remove feeding tubes and the person dies a slow and agonizing death of starvation (yet are allowed water). My grandmother was allowed to die in the same fashion. I thought it was barbaric then...but I also defend the right to make the decision to terminate a life of suffering.
What is really screwed up is that convicted murderers get the most humane death possible (in the case of lethal injection), while ordinary citizens must be kept alive and only allowed to die of "natural causes," as in starvation.
This is why the governments argument is so freakin stupid...we reserve the right to take the life of someone who commits a crime, but those who are sick and in need of a peaceful release, must continue on.
To me..it is the legal ramifications of this case that disturb me.
I am no lawyer, nor an ethicist, but, from the layman's point of view, it seems that the husband's motives are very, very suspect. And, it is not at all difficult to get attorneys, doctors, or other "expert witnesses" to suborn perjury if it fits their ideological agenda, or there are plenty of expert fees to be earned.
Agraham - "even with a living will" is a very different topic for a different day. Here there is no living will, only the disputed testimony of one "family" member over the objections of the real family. If I get sick, I don't want someone else making the determinination that I am "in need of a peaceful release." That's my choice and my choice alone.
As to your comment about there being no applicable federal law, so what? Regular wills aren't governed by federal law, either, so what makes you think that living wills should be? I can't wait to hear what part of the Constitution you think would authorize Congress to get involved in this area, even if it wanted to (which it probably doesn't).
I posted this on another blog too, but then remembered that Justene is a lawyer.
I know nothing about the legal ramifications of this, but someone suggested it and I said I would run it by a lawyer or two and see hwat they thought.
Is it possible for Terri to divorce her husband, or is that one of the rights she gave up when she became incapacitated? His treatment of her after she became ill would be grounds for divorce for anyone who was legally competent to make such decisions. Or is she stuck with him now unless he decides to divorce her?
Gov. Bush has signed Terri's Bill into law and ordered the feeding tube re-inserted.
I am strongly in favor of the individual's right to die. However, unless the individual's wish put down in legal language and signed, I don't think the spouse or other next of kin should have the right to let them die. It's about the individual's right, not the husband's right or the family's right. Unless we know what Terri wanted, and unless complete brain death can be proven, I can't see how starving this woman to death is the right or humane thing to do.
I want to add here at Mrs. du Toit's assertion that the sanctity of marriage makes it possible for one spouse to decree the death of the other is . . . there are many things I can say, but I'll content myself to saying that it's contrary to the concept of indivdiual liberty. Marrying someone doesn't give them the right to kill you.
She's receiving fluids by IV now. After six days of dehydration, she's not ready to get the feeding tube back just yet.
John,
I'm in whole-hearted agreement with your views - but I'll point this out: the thing is she wasn't being "allowed" to die but, rather, being forced to die...much as an infant who was denied food.
I don't want to have a respirator breath for me (save in some temporary emergency) and I think that pretty much all of us feel this way...but we can't refuse the basics to a fellow human being, regardless of how inconvenient they are, or how hopeless their condition is. Food is basic.
Sid,
...it is not at all difficult to get attorneys, doctors, or other "expert witnesses" to suborn perjury if it fits their ideological agenda, or there are plenty of expert fees to be earned.
True, but true for both sides. I'm as willing to believe the parents suborned perjury as I am that the husband did.
As for the eyes following the balloon, that doesn't require any self awareness at all. It's reflexive.
Gary,
But the decisive thing is who gets the 1.3 million dollars; once you figure out whom that is, then you've got your bunny.
The husband stands to have a very, very cushy life if his wife dies....ergo, his word cannot be trusted in the least, nor can the word of anyone taking his side.
Gary,
And, yes, there is a way for the husband to deflect all suspicion and criticism away...set up a foundation in his wife's name to care for severely ill people, keeping not a cent of the 1.3 million for himself....
There are very, very easy tests to determine if someone is pulling a fast one....there's a large and easily determined difference between shit and shinola....
My views on this,admittedly, are fairly simplistic, and I am no one of consequence. Primarily, I don't see that feeding someone is really considered "heroic effort", when it comes to the Living Will issue. Respirators? Those are heroic. To some extent, various breathing apparati, or even pacemakers, could be considered heroic. But feeding someone simply because they lack the ability to lift a fork by themselves is done all over the world, every day, by people with children.
There is every real possibility that she may want to die. I would have a hard time facing years of living in that state, but I am severely hyperactive, and can't stand lying in bed awake for more than 20 minutes, unless otherwise engaged. But my inability to sleep occasionally does not give my wife the legal right to drug me.
Of course, the whole unfortunate mess rather lends itself nicely to the whole "right to life / right to privacy" discussion fairly well, but that would have to be another thread.
There is every real possibility that she may want to die.
In which case, she is not a vegetable and should be rehabilitated.
But the decisive thing is who gets the 1.3 million dollars; once you figure out whom that is, then you've got your bunny.
That assumes that there IS a bunny. If I haven't made this clear, it's time that I did so. Just because the parents ascribe base motives to the husband does not mean that they exist (or that they don't). It is pretty clear, however, that the parents hate and loathe him and want the world to do the same.
Among other things to consider is that the video tape the parents have released to the press appears to be many years old. It does not reflect her current condition, which has deteriorated severely.
The question for the courts to decide is not whether she should live or die (that should not be the courts business, ever) but who has the RIGHT TO DECIDE.
Gary,
Fine and dandy...but as long as the money goes to the husband, he and all of his allies have a decided conflict of interest and thus cannot be allowed to decide.
Take away that money and lets see if he even cares one way or the other....
IMHO, I have to agree with Connie Du Toit on this one. I find her (Terri's) website troubling to say the least.
I find it pretty creepy how the whole world wants to express what should and shouldn't be done for this lady. Honestly, its none of their business, and sure as hell not the Government's decision to make.
Can't have a comment without a dig tho, so the dolt currently arguing about bunnies and 1.3 million dollars ought to go to the web site, where her family states that that money is almost gone anyways.
John
John,
This "dolt" was only repeating what was widely reported - the website does come out with $200,000 to $300,000 still in the account by last reckoning, still a pretty sum. Its also pretty clear that the husband got a good deal of money out of it already, and there is little indication that he tried very hard to get her fixed up.
Its also interesting that the money, supposedly for rehabilitation, has instead been spent on legal fees to get her killed....
As director of Citizens United Resisting Euthanasia (CURE), I do not agree with John about the Culture of Death-inspired "right to die," but he hits the head on the issue at hand.
In this case--and from CURE's 22 years in this battle, in most euthanasia cases--the decision to kill is made by a third-party and the "right to die" is a slick slogan used to hide what is really at stake--the "right" to kill another.
As John rightly observes, a marriage license should not consitute a license to kill--not even if you're fortunate enough not to be married to a more faithful and loving spouse than poor Terri.
Those seeking to protect their lives and the lives of their loved ones from involuntary epivalothanasia (imposed death) may contact me.
Some additional facts. I don't have an opinion either way - I don't trust either side of this debate.
Terri's medical testimony and support comes from quacks. Totaly repulsive quacks. The worst sort. According to WND, her doctors are the "Galaxy Wave Group"
Here's the WND article:
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=35077
Here's their main webpage:
http://www.galaxywave.com/
And the two quality quackery pages:
http://www.galaxywave.com/adam_technology.htm
http://www.galaxywave.com/the_math.htm
Some choice quotes from these (snark)esteemed doctors(/snark):
"This program is an educational program delivered via the Internet, in conjunction with a new form of telepathic communication."
"The ADAM machine opens a dimensional rift allowing direct communication between the machine and the other dimension."
Think three times, and then think again before you take anything that Teri's doctors say at face value. They are liars and frauds of the worst sort.
Correction - whereI wrote "Teri's doctors" it should read "Terri's parent's 'doctors'"
Hipocrite, I think the Galaxy Wave group has been involved only in the telephone "therapy" that the parents had been covertly trying over the last year. The Group has are no doctors and would not have been allowed to give medical testimony in court. I suspect no reputable doctor or therapist would try to do any therapy with a brian damaged woman by phone and in secret. While the parents may have been gullible to grasp at this straw, I don't think it speaks to the credibility of doctors whose testimony has been accepted under the rules of evidence - or for that matter to any doctor. Like you, I fear we are operating without all the facts, though that concern leads me to a firm opinion about the proper course.
The main problems I have with Terri's court-ordered death are, as many have already mentioned, her husband's getting a lot of money off her and that the process will likely take two weeks. I don't see how anyone can support it, given that even dogs are killed more humanely. I can't imagine anyone really wanting to die would wish to go through such a painful death. However, my main reason for this comment is that I just read a Newsweek article on msnbc (http://www.msnbc.com/news/985278.asp) which stated that Terri's husband refused to divorce her, even with a new girlfriend. That just killed my final doubts about any shred of credibility that the guy had.
This is very morbid and obvious. The husband has more than just money to gain. He doesn't want her to get well because she might just be able to shed some light someday on how she came to be in this terrible state. If the family wants to take the burden of her care, I say go for it. If Mr. Schiavo was in the military he would have been court martialed for having an affair. I will continue to pray that Terri gets better and that she has the final laugh on him. But of course if that were to happen then us taxpayers would be paying his legal fees. I guess for the public, the only win situation would be to see a fellow human being be allowed to be treated as a human being not an animal. Has everyone seen the videos? She doesn't look comatose to me.
Please participate in the Terri Schindler Life Ribbon Campaign.
http://bellsouthpwp.net/p/c/pc93/terri_schindler_life_ribbon_campaign.htm
ALT="Join the Terri Schindler Life Ribbon Campaign"
HEIGHT="76" WIDTH="468" BORDER="0" ALIGN="MIDDLE">
Join the Terri Schindler Life Ribbon Campaign!
To Teri: You have been my patient many times in my career as an RN with closed head injury! My heart is heavy for you! people just don't understand that you are in there, you have told me many times apon waking up, I could hear and see everything that was going on I just couldn't respond. You have made the comments many times how many fingers 1-2-3 How You wanted to say just leave me alone you dummies! and get out of my face! You have told me how many times how the staff and Drs. would talk over your bed, OH shes brain dead , she dosen't know whats going, she can't respond , there's no hope for her, her EEG'S are almost flat! You have told me how you wished you could just reach up and punch them in the face and how you prayed you would come out so you could tell them all off! Yes I have been your Nurse many time Teri hang in there! God will make the choice for you!
PS. 1. What were you doing when you fell ill?
2. Why were there neck injuries and trauma in the ER noted.
3. How long had you been without food and water for your electrolyets to be so abnormal.
4. How long had it been since you talked to family and friends before you became ill.
5.Was there any investigation into the trauma you recieved?
6. Who was the Dr. who diagnosed you with a potassium imbalance.
7. What does your husband do for a living? does he have any medical back ground?
8. Did you have an argument with Michael that day, was he seeing the woman he now has a child by
9. Did he ever hit you ar abuse you in anyway ?
10. You had no children is it because you didn't want any, did Michael want any?
11. Why does Michael want you dead so badly is he afraid you might just wake up!
12. Did you really make the statement , that you would not want to live under these circumstances! Most young people at 26 think they are infallable and don't even think about dying.
12. Where did all the trauma to your bones come from ?
13.Why did your husband withhold rehab treatment from you?
14 Why has he spent all of your rehab money on lawyers trying to get rid of you!
15. Why does he want you cremated ? Was this your wish also!
16. WHAT WAS YOUR POTASSIUM ? WAS IT HIGH OR LOW!
Talk to me Teri I am listening, I hope the proper authorities are listening also!
God bless you!