Second thoughts on Terri Schiavo

[Stu]

Christopher Reeves required more care than Terri Schiavo currently does. Many seem quick to say she is suffering in her current state but then at the same time advocate starving/dehydrate her to death which is by all accounts painful and prolonged. Sad really.

_______________________________

Posted on Fri, Feb. 25, 2005

John Grogan | Second thoughts on Terri Schiavo

http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/news/local/10985482.htm

By John Grogan

Inquirer Columnist

Sometimes even newspaper columnists change their minds.

In the matter of Terri Schiavo, the permanently brain-damaged former suburban Philadelphia woman caught in a life-and-death tug-of-war, this columnist has changed his.

I no longer so blithely believe Schiavo's feeding tubes should be pulled and her life allowed to end. I'm no longer so sure her parents do not deserve a say in their daughter's future. I no longer am totally comfortable assuming her husband, Michael, who now has two children by another woman, is acting unselfishly.

That's not to say I have changed my opinion about the right of all of us to die with dignity when life has lost all meaning. But for Terri Schiavo, who lingers in a Florida nursing home, the devil is in the details, uncomfortable details that raise sticky moral dilemmas.

Detail 1: Terry Schiavo is not dying. She is not being kept alive artificially. Her heart beats and lungs breathe without help. She cannot swallow food or water. Once the feeding tube is removed, she would slowly starve to death over days or weeks.

Detail 2: Schiavo is not comatose. Her eyes open, and she sometimes responds to stimuli. Doctors say there is no brain activity and her responses are simply reflexive. Her parents, Robert and Mary Schindler, want to believe otherwise.

Unanswered questions

Detail 3: The Schindlers think their daughter could benefit from physical therapy and might someday swallow on her own, but her husband, as her legal guardian, reportedly will not allow it. Which leads to an equally uncomfortable question: If Schiavo merely required spoon feeding instead of tube feeding, would anyone seriously be arguing to withhold food and water? Does not every human, no matter how incapacitated, deserve sustenance?

Detail 4: Unproven allegations that Schiavo might have suffered physical trauma immediately before her heart stopped for several minutes in 1990, leading to brain damage, have not been fully investigated. The Schindlers have long suggested their son-in-law strangled their daughter; Michael Schiavo's lawyer says the abuse allegations have never been substantiated. Before pulling the plug on this woman, don't these questions need to be fully answered?

The abuse allegations against Michael Schiavo may be nothing but scurrilous rumor spread to damage his credibility. But what if there is even a tiny chance he is guilty of abuse? Should such a person be in a position to decide this life-and-death issue?

Last month, I wrote that Michael Schiavo's wish should be granted and his wife allowed to die rather than suffer for years in what the courts have deemed a "persistent vegetative state." I still believe Terri Schiavo, if she were aware today, would instruct us to not make her linger on like this.

Undisputed devotion

But she is not aware and left no written directives. So we are left to guess her wishes. Last month, I said we could look inside our own hearts and know what she would want. Today, with the latest stay barring the removal of the feeding tube set to expire in hours, I am less confident making such assumptions.

Who best to decide? In the murky mess that this case has become, we are left with one unwavering truth: Over the last seven years of fighting, Terri Schiavo's parents have proved themselves nothing if not fiercely loyal, utterly committed parents. They might be misguided. They might be in denial. But no one can argue their devotion. They have not given up. They have not stopped caring. They have not stopped loving. Who are we, as a society, to tell them they must?

Clearly, Schiavo's husband has moved on to a new life, and who can blame him? It's been 15 long years. But parents cannot move on. Parents cannot give up. Their child will always be the precious gift they brought into the world.

If the Schindlers want to dedicate the rest of their lives and resources to caring for their brain-damaged daughter, if they want to shower her with attention and affection she likely will never recognize, who among us will tell them they cannot?

It won't be me.

[Kilmer17]

I hope to God that if I ever fall into the state that she is in, my wife has the courage and conviction of Michael Schiavo.

He, and he alone, is acting in HER interests and abiding HER wishes.

Her parents are acting in their own interests. And I can see why. I would be heartbroken if she were my child.

[ntotoro]

This poor woman's Parents are detroying what's left of her dignity. She has been dead, in a sense, for years now. I don't believe in euthanasia, but I also don't believe in keeping someone alive for years and years by mechanical means, especially when she has no real quality of life. It's time for her Parents to let go, but I can imagine it's hard for a Parent to accepting outliving his child.

Nick

[Burgold]

Been through this myself. Quality of Life is a really meaningful term. There is a point when one is living, but not alive. Nearly impossible decision, God give them all peace.

[Destino]

1 - The fact that the frenzied zealots have made it impossible to have mercy on anyone drives me up a wall. You can't put someone out of their misery, you have to stand by and starve them to death or leave them brain dead on a tube.

2 - This situation should have NEVER gotten this far. A choice should have been made final long ago in this case. The fact it's been dragged out has done nothing at all to ease anyone's pain, not Terri's, not her parents, and not her husband that is being accused of all sorts of things by anti-right to die advocates and Terri's parents.

3 - Laws need to be written to clear this crap up. If the law calls for a legal guardian to make the call between life and death, then that is how it should play out. No more of this court inference and political grand standing. If I get in an accident I want to know that one way or another I don't end up draining anything my wife could have kept from a settlement or caused all this terrible pain. Terri would not be happy if she knew what was happening to her.

[@DCGoldPants]

I'm 100% with Kilmer here.

I understand her parents are holding out for hope. But its been such a long time.

You got to ask yourself..... if I was in that state, would I want to do this to my parents and spouse? No, I personally wouldn't.

[chomerics]

Originally posted by Destino

1 - The fact that the frenzied zealots have made it impossible to have mercy on anyone drives me up a wall. You can't put someone out of their misery, you have to stand by and starve them to death or leave them brain dead on a tube.

2 - This situation should have NEVER gotten this far. A choice should have been made final long ago in this case. The fact it's been dragged out has done nothing at all to ease anyone's pain, not Terri's, not her parents, and not her husband that is being accused of all sorts of things by anti-right to die advocates and Terri's parents.

3 - Laws need to be written to clear this crap up. If the law calls for a legal guardian to make the call between life and death, then that is how it should play out. No more of this court inference and political grand standing. If I get in an accident I want to know that one way or another I don't end up draining anything my wife could have kept from a settlement or caused all this terrible pain. Terri would not be happy if she knew what was happening to her.

great post, my sentament exactly.

[Kilmer17]

That's exactly right.

The people who cant understand this always try to put themselves in the hubby or parents position.

The correct thinking would be "what would I want my spouse to do if I was in her state."

Des, the laws are very clear on this in FLA. The only reason this has the legs it has is because Jeb and the legislature made it a political issue and started trying to write new laws.

Let this be a lesson though to all. If you dont have a living will. GET ONE TODAY.

[KingGibbs]

The only thing I can say is that I pray to God that I don't have to make these decisions. Like my father always says, "Everybody handles situations differently" and I can see both parties point of view.

Everyone always says "I would do this" or "I would do that" but until you are put in that situation I don't think any of us have a clue as to how we would react to these type of travesties.

[Kilmer17]

Which is exactly why you should make it official NOW. And not place the burden on your surviving family.

[GoCommiesGo]

I agree with Kilmer. I would in no way want to put that burden on my family or my spouse. I have no clue how hard that must be but I know that I would not want to live like that.

God grant them peace.

[Funkyalligator]

It simply has become a religious and political issue with all sides fighting eachother....I've been following this story with some interest....when Jeb Bush intervened awhile back it didn't surprise me....just as long as the federal government stays out of this one I will be okay with things...but I myself truly believe that the husband should have final say in this thing...

I take exception to the article pointing out that this guy has had two children with another woman, like that is bad thing...she has existed this way since the early 1990s....shouldn't he be able to go on with his life....she is non-responsive and brain dead......his life has been ruined by this and now they are trying to use "abuse" allegations against him which are totally unfounded.

[Stu]

Originally posted by ntotoro

This poor woman's Parents are detroying what's left of her dignity. She has been dead, in a sense, for years now. I don't believe in euthanasia, but I also don't believe in keeping someone alive for years and years by mechanical means, especially when she has no real quality of life. It's time for her Parents to let go, but I can imagine it's hard for a Parent to accepting outliving his child.

Nick

There is nothing mechanical keeping her alive. She only requires a tube for feeding. Defining one's dignity by their quality of life becomes a danerous precedent and rather limits us a human beings. Did Christopher Reeve have dignity or Stephen Hawkings? How about when somebody was changing their diapers?

Folks there is evidence out there that she does in fact have some conciousness.

http://web.tampabay.rr.com/ccb/videos/Terri_Mum.rm

We don't know what Terri's desires are so to say with certainty what she would want is pointless. And to say Michael Schiavo is alone acting in her interests is also questionable given circumstances in his life now as well. I will be fair and also say that the parents could be refusing to see reality but they have taken evey effort to care for her while he has used her insurance money to do nothing but hire lawyers to get her food stopped.

Here are some other facts:

1. Terri Schiavo is not dying.

2. Terri Schiavo does not have a terminal disease.

3. Terri Schiavo is not in a coma.

4. Terri Schiavo is not on any life support equipment. She only requires feeding by tube which is the case for many people in the hospital in many different medical states. Note her husband has refused any attempts to teach her to chew her own food through therapy. Why even refuse that unless you are afraid of what success brings?

5. Terri Schiavo's parents visit and take care of her everyday.

6. Terri Schiavo appears to be in no pain.

7. Terri Shiavo has not asked to die.

The way they are proposing to kill her is by letting her starve to death. This is in fact a painful way to die that lacks dignity. You know I hear many opponents of the death penalty (a direction in which I lean) say that if one innocent man is killed because of capital punishment then it is too much. Well I same the same thing applies here. Terri Schiavo is alive. An while she might not be living the ideal life to you or I she is still in fact alive and we don't know what she wants. If one person who wants to live is killed and tortured because of such practices then it is too much in my opinion.

More below:

A "Painless" Death?

Michael Schiavo insists that dehydration is "the most natural way to die." It's more like torture.

by Wesley J. Smith

11/12/2003 12:00:00 AM

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/370oqiwy.asp

MANY WHO SUPPORT Terri Schiavo's threatened dehydration assert that removing a feeding tube from a profoundly cognitively disabled person results in a painless and gentle ending. But is this really true? After all, it would be agonizing if you or I were locked in a room for two weeks and deprived of all food and water. So, why should we believe that cognitively disabled patients experience the deprivation differently simply because they receive nourishment through a feeding tube instead of by mouth?

An accurate discussion of this sensitive issue requires the making of proper and nuanced distinctions about the consequences of removing nourishment from incapacitated patients. This generally becomes an issue in one of the following two diametrically differing circumstances:

(1) Depriving food and water from profoundly cognitively disabled persons like Terri who are not otherwise dying, a process that causes death by dehydration over a period of 10-14 days. As I will illustrate below, this may cause great suffering.

(2) Not forcing food and water upon patients who have stopped eating and drinking as part of the natural dying process. This typically occurs, for example, at the end stages of cancer when patients often refuse nourishment because the disease has distorted their senses of hunger and thirst. In these situations, being deprived of unwanted food and water when the body is already shutting down does not cause a painful death.

Advocates who argue that it is appropriate to dehydrate cognitively disabled people often sow confusion about the suffering such patients may experience by inadvertently,

or perhaps intentionally, blurring the difference between these two distinct situations. For example, when Michael Schiavo, Terri's husband, and his attorney, George Felos, appeared on the October 27, 2003 edition of "Larry King Live" the following exchange occurred:

KING: When a feeding tube is removed, as it was planned [for Terri], is that a terrible death?

SCHIAVO: No. It's painless and probably the most natural way to die.

FELOS: When someone's terminally ill, let's say a cancer patient, they lose interest in eating. And literally, they--by choice--they stop eating.

SCHIAVO: Cancer patients, they stop eating for two to three weeks. Do we force them to eat? No, we don't. That's their choice.

Later in the interview, Schiavo reiterated the assertion in a response to a telephoned question:

CALLER: Does it bother you that the death is so slow?

SCHIAVO: Removing somebody's feeding tube is very painless. It is a very easy way to die. Probably the second best way to die, the first being an aneurysm.

Yes, it is true that when people are actively dying from terminal disease, they often refuse food and water. The disease makes the food and water repulsive to them. In such circumstances, it is medically inappropriate to force food and water into a person who is actively rejecting it. Indeed, doing so could cause suffering.

But this isn't what is happening to Terri. She isn't dying of cancer. Her body isn't shutting down as part of the natural dying process. Indeed, she is not dying at all--unless her food and water is taken away.

WHAT HAPPENS to non-terminally ill people with cognitive disabilities whose feeding tubes are removed? Do they suffer from the process?

When I conducted research on this question in preparation for writing my book "Forced Exit," I asked St. Louis neurologist William Burke these very questions. Here is what he told me:

A conscious [cognitively disabled] person would feel it just as you or I would. They will go into seizures. Their skin cracks, their tongue cracks, their lips crack. They may have nosebleeds because of the drying of the mucus membranes, and heaving and vomiting might ensue because of the drying out of the stomach lining. They feel the pangs of hunger and thirst. Imagine going one day without a glass of water! Death by dehydration takes ten to fourteen days. It is an extremely agonizing death.

Dr. Burke opposes removing feeding tubes from cognitively disabled people and so some might dismiss his opinion as biased. But Minnesota neurologist Ronald Cranford's pro-dehydration testimony in the Robert Wendland case--Cranford also testified that Terri's feeding tube should be removed--supports much of what Dr. Burke asserted. While Cranford called seizures "rare," his detailed description of the dehydration process reveals its gruesome reality:

After seven to nine days [from commencing dehydration] they begin to lose all fluids in the body, a lot of fluids in the body. And their blood pressure starts to go down. When their blood pressure goes down, their heart rate goes up. . . . Their respiration may increase and then . . .

the blood is shunted to the central part of the body from the periphery of the body. So, that usually two to three days prior to death, sometimes four days, the hands and the feet become extremely cold. They become mottled. That is you look at the hands and they have a bluish appearance. And the mouth dries a great deal, and the eyes dry a great deal and other parts of the body become mottled. And that is because the blood is now so low in the system it's shunted to the heart and other visceral organs and away from the periphery of the body . . .

MOST OF THE TIME, we never know for sure what a starved or dehydrated person experiences. But in at least one case--that of a young woman who had her tube feeding stopped for eight days and lived to tell the tale--we have direct evidence of the agony that forced dehydration may cause.

At age 33, Kate Adamson collapsed from a devastating and incapacitating stroke. She was utterly unresponsive and was diagnosed as being in a persistent vegetative state (PVS). Because of a bowel obstruction she developed, her nourishment was stopped so that doctors could perform surgery.

Adamson eventually recovered sufficiently to author "Kate's Journey: Triumph Over Adversity," in which she tells the terrifying tale. Rather than being unconscious with no chance of recovery as her doctors believed, she was actually awake and aware but unable to move any part of her body voluntarily. (This is known as a "locked-in state.") When she appeared recently on "The O'Reilly Factor," host Bill O'Reilly asked Adamson about the dehydration experience:

O'REILLY: When they took the feeding tube out, what went through your mind?

ADAMSON: When the feeding tube was turned off for eight days, I thought I was going insane. I was screaming out in my mind, "Don't you know I need to eat?" And even up until that point, I had been having a bagful of Ensure as my nourishment that was going through the feeding tube. At that point, it sounded pretty good. I just wanted something. The fact that I had nothing, the hunger pains overrode every thought I had.

O'REILLY: So you were feeling pain when they removed your tube?

ADAMSON: Yes. Oh, absolutely. Absolutely. To say that--especially when Michael [schiavo] on national TV mentioned last week that it's a pretty painless thing to have the feeding tube removed--it is the exact opposite. It was sheer torture, Bill.

O'REILLY: It's just amazing.

ADAMSON: Sheer torture . . .

In preparation for this article, I contacted Adamson for more details about the torture she experienced while being dehydrated. She told me about having been operated upon (to remove the bowel obstruction) with inadequate anesthesia when doctors believed she was unconscious:

The agony of going without food was a constant pain that lasted not several hours like my operation did, but several days. You have to endure the physical pain and on top of that you have to endure the emotional pain. Your whole body cries out, "Feed me. I am alive and a person, don't let me die, for God's Sake! Somebody feed me."

Unbelievably, she described being deprived of food and water as "far worse" than experiencing the pain of abdominal surgery. Despite having been on an on an IV saline solution, Adamson still had horrible thirst:

I craved anything to drink. Anything. I obsessively visualized drinking from a huge bottle of orange Gatorade. And I hate orange Gatorade. I did receive lemon flavored mouth swabs to alleviate dryness but they did nothing to slack my desperate thirst.

Apologists for dehydrating patients like Terri might respond that Terri is not conscious and locked-in as Adamson was but in a persistent vegetative state and thus would feel nothing. Yet, the PVS diagnosis is often mistaken--as indeed it was in Adamson's case. And while the courts have all ruled that Terri is unconscious based on medical testimony, this is strongly disputed by other medical experts and Terri's family who insist that she is interactive with them. Moreover, it is undisputed that whatever her actual level of awareness, Terri does react to painful stimuli. Intriguingly, her doctor testified he prescribes pain medication for her every month during the course of her menstrual period.

BEYOND THE TERRI SCHIAVO CASE, it is undisputed that conscious cognitively disabled patients are dehydrated in nursing homes and hospitals throughout the country almost as a matter of routine. Dr. Cranford, for example, openly admitted in his Wendland testimony that he removes feeding tubes from conscious patients. Thus, many other people may also have experienced the agony described by Adamson and worse, given that dehydrating to death goes on for about a week longer than she experienced.

AT THIS POINT, defenders of removing feeding tubes from people with profound cognitive disabilities might claim that whatever painful sensations dehydration may cause, these patients receive palliating drugs to ensure that their deaths are peaceful. But note: Adamson either did not receive such medications, or if she did, they didn't work. Moreover, because these disabled people usually can't communicate, it is impossible to know precisely what they experience. Thus, when asked in a deposition what he would do to prevent Robert Wendland from suffering during his dehydration, Dr. Cranford responded that he would give morphine but that the dose would be "arbitrary" because "you don't know how much he's suffering, you don't know how much aware he is . . . You're guessing at the dose." At trial, Cranford suggested he might have to put Wendland into a coma, a bitter irony considering that he had struggled over many months to regain consciousness.

The time has come to face the gut wrenching possibility that conscious cognitively disabled people whose feeding tubes are removed--as opposed to patients who are actively dying and choose to stop eating--may die agonizing deaths. This, of course, has tremendous relevance in the Terri Schiavo case and many others like it. Indeed, the last thing anyone wants is for people to die slowly and agonizingly of thirst, desperately craving a refreshing drink of orange Gatorade they know will never come.

Wesley J. Smith is a senior fellow at the Discovery Institute and an attorney and consultant for the International Task Force on Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide. His current book is the revised and updated "Forced Exit: The Slippery Slope From Assisted Suicide to Legalized Murder."

[Kilmer17]

"We don't know what Terri's desires are so to say with certainty what she would want is pointless."

Yes we do. She told her husband what she wanted.

That's all the law needs to know. It's his call at this point.

[Stu]

Originally posted by Funkyalligator

I take exception to the article pointing out that this guy has had two children with another woman, like that is bad thing...she has existed this way since the early 1990s....shouldn't he be able to go on with his life....she is non-responsive and brain dead......his life has been ruined by this and now they are trying to use "abuse" allegations against him which are totally unfounded.

I guess I see things differently. I married my wife and whatever happens to her is part of my life with no need to "go on". (Something about for better or worse, till death do us part).

I realize his choices may have been made in good faith. I can't judge. But I do think they are relevant when discerning his motivations and I would say the same is true for the parents.

[Stu]

Originally posted by Kilmer17

"We don't know what Terri's desires are so to say with certainty what she would want is pointless."

Yes we do. She told her husband what she wanted.

That's all the law needs to know. It's his call at this point.

You can't really say that is for sure and keep a straight face.

So if her parents came forth and stated that she indicated that she would want to be kept alive who would be write.

Your sentiment about a living will is correct. But here you cannot say with certainty what she would want.

[ntotoro]

Originally posted by Stu

There is nothing mechanical keeping her alive. She only requires a tube for feeding.

That's mechanical and it's basically keeping her from death, isn't it? Notice I didn't say "life support" because I was trying to choose my words carefully.

If she were out in the wild or this were a different time period, she would be dead. She is being kept alive beyond what her body is capable of doing and has been for well over a decade now. It's time to let go.

Defining one's dignity by their quality of life becomes a danerous precedent and rather limits us a human beings. Did Christopher Reeve have dignity or Stephen Hawkings? How about when somebody was changing their diapers?

There's a big difference between those two guys and someone who basically hasn't been a functioning human being and has been bed-ridden for 15 years.

Nick

[Kilmer17]

Originally posted by Stu

You can't really say that is for sure and keep a straight face.

So if her parents came forth and stated that she indicated that she would want to be kept alive who would be write.

Your sentiment about a living will is correct. But here you cannot say with certainty what she would want.

Yes I can, because the law says that the Husband get's to tell us.

The husband trumps the parents.

[Destino]

Originally posted by Stu

The way they are proposing to kill her is by letting her starve to death. This is in fact a painful way to die that lacks dignity.

But isn't the reason this method is considered because folks against the right to die have made sure to outlaw any doctor induced death? It's dishonest to outlaw any method of painless death and then complain about the options remaining being painful.

Originally posted by Stu

Did Christopher Reeve have dignity or Stephen Hawkings? How about when somebody was changing their diapers?

You want to compare a man that fought every day after an accident to rid the human race of what happened to him.....and a man that is considered one of the greatest minds in human history...... to a case involving someone who doctors say is almost completely brain dead?

[Stu]

Originally posted by ntotoro

That's mechanical and it's basically keeping her from death, isn't it? Notice I didn't say "life support" because I was trying to choose my words carefully.

If she were out in the wild or this were a different time period, she would be dead. She is being kept alive beyond what her body is capable of doing and has been for well over a decade now. It's time to let go.

There's a big difference between those two guys and someone who basically hasn't been a functioning human being and has been bed-ridden for 15 years.

Nick

Spoon feeding her by your definition would also be "mechanical".

And those "two guys" left out in the wild in a different time period would also be dead.

[Stu]

Originally posted by Destino

But isn't the reason this method is considered because folks against the right to die have made sure to outlaw any doctor induced death? It's dishonest to outlaw any method of painless death and then complain about the options remaining being painful.

You want to compare a man that fought every day after an accident to rid the human race of what happened to him.....and a man that is considered one of the greatest minds in human history...... to a case involving someone who doctors say is almost completely brain dead?

Destino,

I would have a problem here with doctor induced death as well. No dishonesty. And aside from the faith in her husband, we don't know what she wants. To have a doctor in this case make the call to kill her I think would also bes wrong.

My point is that she may not be brain dead after all and more artifical means have been given to those two gentlemen in keeping them alive than her. And given that, her life is as valuable as anyone elses regardless of their accomplishments.

[jbooma]

Originally posted by Kilmer17

I hope to God that if I ever fall into the state that she is in, my wife has the courage and conviction of Michael Schiavo.

He, and he alone, is acting in HER interests and abiding HER wishes.

Her parents are acting in their own interests. And I can see why. I would be heartbroken if she were my child.

This is why everyone should have at least a living will, or something to show what their wishes are in the same situation. I understand the parents actions, but don't agree with them. The parents need to realize they are not as important as a spouse, that the most important person in your life should be your children and spouse first, before your parents.

I have told my wife numerous times I would never want to live as a vegetable, never, and don't care what my parents would want.

[codeorama]

I'm counting on my extremeskins brothers to sneak into my hospital room and put me out of my misery...

[Kilmer17]

Exactly.

If I was ever in Michael Schiavo's position, I would fight my wifes parents tooth and nail to abide her wishes.

[Thiebear]

TRUTHFULL husband trumps parents:

MYTH: Terri said she wanted to die if her life could only be sustained artificially.

FACT: Terri never executed a will or a living will. Terri had NO WRITTEN DIRECTIVE nor is there any written record

expressing Terri’s wishes regarding medical care should she ever become incapacitated. There is NO DOCUMENT in

existence indicating Terri’s wishes, much less any wish to die or be refused therapy should she become disabled.

During the 1992 malpractice suit, Schiavo testified: “I believe in the vows I took with my wife, through sickness, in health, for

richer or poor. I married my wife because I love her and I want to spend the rest of my life with her. I’m going to do that.” He

also told the jury that he intended to bring Terri home and that, if he had the equipment and resources, he would do so

immediately

Terri’s alleged “wishes” only surfaced in 1998, after Schiavo petitioned the courts to remove Terri’s feeding tube. However, during the 1992 malpractice lawsuit, Schiavo, in pursuit of a 20 million dollar award, pleaded with the courts for money he said he needed for Terri’s extended long term care. He presented this case based on Terri's estimated life expectancy of 50 years or more. However, seven months later, after receiving this money, Schiavo instructed nurses caring for Terri not to give her antibiotics for a urinary tract infection. This untreated infection could have brought about Terri’s death and this fact was

known to Schiavo.