Was Terri dying?
No. Terri suffered
from no terminal disease or condition and her cognitive disability did not
jeopardize her life in any way. She was simply a physically healthy woman with a
brain dead or in a coma?
No. Brain death is
not a catch phrase used to describe a persons condition but rather an authentic
medical diagnosis determined when respiration and other reflexes are
absent. Coma is a profound or deep state of unconsciousness. An individual in a
state of coma is alive but unable to move or respond to his or her
environment. Terri was neither brain dead, nor was she in a coma.
any machines keeping Terri alive?
Absolutely not. Contrary to media reports, Terri did not require life sustaining
equipment such as a ventilator. The only thing keeping Terri alive was the same
thing that keeps every one of us alive – food and water.
Was this an "end-of-life"
No. Terri's case should not be confused with legitimate end-of-life cases in
which patients are terminally ill and imminently dying. As already stated, Terri
was neither ill nor dying.
in a Persistent Vegetative State?
No. Despite Judge
Greer's ruling, and in keeping with the 40 medical affidavits submitted to the
court by doctors, all evidence proves that Terri was not in a PVS. Terri's behavior
and ability to interact with her surroundings did not meet the medical or
statutory definition of persistent vegetative state.
Did the autopsy prove that
Terri was in a Persistent Vegetative State?
The autopsy was unable to determine whether or not Terri was actually in a
persistent vegetative state. In fact, on three separate occasions, the report
stated that an autopsy is unable to determine if a person is in a persistent
vegetative state because the person must be alive in order to make such a
diagnosis. The autopsy did prove that that, prior to Terri's death, she was
physically healthy and would have lived a long life had she not been dehydrated
over a period of two weeks.
Were Terri's parents able to
make any decisions regarding her medical care or well being?
No. From 1993 until her death, Terri's parents were not allowed to
participate in her care. As guardian, Michael Schiavo had 100% control over
Terri. He refused to allow her parents to help their daughter in any way. In
fact, during the final weeks of her life, Terri's parents were informed that if
they so much as tried to give her a drop of water, or provide comfort care in
any way, they would be arrested by the armed police officers who guarded her
room 24 hours a day.
receiving any rehabilitation in the years prior to her death?
No. Terri was
essentially warehoused and abandoned from 1992, when Michael Schiavo ordered all
rehabilitation and therapy stopped, until her dehydration death in March of
2005. This was in spite of the fact that countless doctors said Terri's
condition could have improved with continued rehabilitation and therapy – and
that her condition had been improving while she was receiving therapy.
Why did the
court allow Terri to be killed?
starve and dehydrate Terri to death was granted based on hearsay evidence that
surfaced almost eight years after her collapse, alleging that she wanted to die.
have an advance directive?
No. Terri had no
written advance directive that indicated her wishes. The court allowed her to be
killed based only upon hearsay evidence provided by Michael Schiavo, his brother
and his sister-in-law – ignoring testimony by Terri's biological family and
lifelong friends to the contrary.
Yes. A trust fund
of nearly $800,000 was established and earmarked for Terri's rehabilitation and
therapy, with Michael as the inheritor in the case of Terri's death. Tragically,
the bulk of this money was instead used to pay Michael Schiavo's attorney fees
in his quest to end her life.
court recognize the money Michael Schiavo stood to inherit as a conflict of
No. In fact the
court failed to acknowledge that not only was Schiavo's monetary interest a
conflict, but that he had moved on with his life, was engaged to be married to
another woman, and already had children with the other woman. In short, his role
as guardian was rife with conflicts of interest.
have her own attorney?
No, she did not. In
fact, the judge in this case defaulted as her guardian/attorney.
appropriate for Congress to step in to assist in Terri’s case?
Absolutely. Congress has every right to pass laws that prevent the deaths of
Was this a
private family matter?
No. Michael Schiavo
chose to take the matter out of the realm of privacy by introducing it to the
courts in 1998. It was Terri's family who reached out to Congress for help in
saving her life. Michael had essentially already started a new family with his
fiancé and children.
the law passed by Congress actually do?
It gave Terri the
right to a federal review – for a federal judge to make sure that her due
process rights had not been denied. This is the same right given to all
prisoners on death row.
For more information go to
More about Terri