Plight of Terri Schiavo: Facts, Emotions, and Outcomes

[quantumdude]

I'm particularly curious about this. Why do you think he would be miserable?

Because he's expressed as much. As for his own reasons, only he knows. Some speculate that he is genuinely in anguish over his wife's prolonged life, and so he refuses to divorce her so that her family cannot have any say over her fate. Others speculate that he refuses to divorce his wife because doing so would cost him the inheritance he stands to receive.

I don't know which is true of him. I am just wondering why the Schindlers didn't pursue the avenue of relief that I brought up.

 

[gnome]

My point is that there was an avenue of relief open to the Schindlers which for some reason they did not take advantage of. Instead, they've got Bush and the Congress working overtime on their case. What I'm wondering is: Why?

I guess the most likely answer to that is that their lawyers didn't think that was a useful strategy. For one thing, that's not a civil action that they could bring against him. The supposed wronged party, Terri, can't press criminal charges, and her parents have no legal standing on which to do so on her behalf. They'd have to convince a county prosecutor (or the equivalent) to do so. And the prosecutor would have to weigh the "benefit to society" of pressing that charge versus the controversy (and cost to the county) that it would entail. It would just be another media circus and colossal waste of taxpayers' money.

And even if, despite all of that, he were to be put on trial, what do you really think the odds are of a jury sending a man to prison for starting a new relationship under these circumstances?

 

[gnome]

Others speculate that he refuses to divorce his wife because doing so would cost him the inheritance he stands to receive.

What inheritance?

 

[Kerrie]

So the not wanting to let go thing, besides causing the conflict with the husband could also be causing the family to irrationally hold out hope for her recovery, which is why they don't want to pull the plug. Interesting - and I didn't know about her anorexia.

That is interesting to note in this case. Perhaps the parents' need to hang on is a sense of guilt for the family issues they had while she was a child?

So that they could force a divorce and regain the decision to keep her alive, obviously.

What I am curious about is, the husband has moved on with his life-and I would expect anyone to in this situation. From what I have read, he has a common law wife and children. Why didn't he divorce her (Terri) in the first place and allow the parents to care for her as they wished anyway? If he has moved on, why does also hang on to the decision-making control of her as well? Does he truly have something to gain? If he divorces her, can her parents sue him for half of the assets?

 

[quantumdude]

What inheritance?

The portion of Terri's assets to which he is entitled as her husband. For one thing, she was the recipient of a malpractice settlement.

 

[quantumdude]

And even if, despite all of that, he were to be put on trial, what do you really think the odds are of a jury sending a man to prison for starting a new relationship under these circumstances?

I don't think the jury would send him to jail for finding a new mate (I wouldn't). But I do think they might do it for not having divorced his previous mate, which is really what makes it a misdemeanor. Now that I would convict on, if I were a juror.

 

[Evo]

The portion of Terri's assets to which he is entitled as her husband. For one thing, she was the recipient of a malpractice settlement.

The malpractice settlement was reduced to around $700,000, most of which has already been spent on medical & legal bills.

Michael reportedly turned down an offer of $10 million dollars to relinquish guardianship of Terri. Apparently, money is not what he is after.

 

[russ_watters]

Yes, that's right. [re: President shouldn't have gotten involved]

And after Bush's brother and Florida's Congress did near exactly the same thing a couple of years ago, that should be the most straightforward thing about this case. The judge on Tuesday even mentioned that it was probably unConstitutional, but that the question is kinda moot as this is a single-case law.

What inheritance?

IIRC, there is a small life insurance policy as well.

That is interesting to note in this case. Perhaps the parents' need to hang on is a sense of guilt for the family issues they had while she was a child?

I have an overprotective mother who is still having separation issues, so I have a lot of thoughts on this issue. Sounds reasonable to me, but I'm not a pshrink...

What I am curious about is, the husband has moved on with his life-and I would expect anyone to in this situation. From what I have read, he has a common law wife and children. Why didn't he divorce her (Terri) in the first place and allow the parents to care for her as they wished anyway? If he has moved on, why does also hang on to the decision-making control of her as well? Does he truly have something to gain? If he divorces her, can her parents sue him for half of the assets?

I've thought about that as well. Aside from basic greed for the life insurance policy (which I don't buy), all I can come up with is that he still loves her and believes to die is what she would want. If he didn't love her, then divorce would be the simplest way out.

 

[faust9]

...all I can come up with is that he still loves her and believes to die is what she would want. If he didn't love her, then divorce would be the simplest way out.

Exactly. Why would anybody subject themselves to this kind of torture? Why wouldn't he take the 10 mil and leave? Why would he subject himself to going on 8 years of media attention and the demonizing of Mr Schivo? For what? Personally I think it's what she wanted (others aside from Schivo have testified to that fact) and he's simply trying to carry out HER wishes. Keeping a loved one alive is a lot easier than knowing your actions caused their death. Knowing that he (Schivo) will have caused her death has got to be hard to say the least. So why do it? Because it's what she wanted. She didn't want to be a tube fed heart beat. She wanted to go with dignity(again multiple individuals have attested to this). Schivo isn't taking the easy road here. He's fighting the christian right, Florida's entire government, the US government, and the parents of his wife to carry out her wishes--for what? A small chunk of change. If you believe that, then you've never had to make a decision like this (I did--not food and water but a respirator).

To say "He's a greedy bastard" minimizes the gravity of the decision to say the least. To lay this decision at the alter of $$$ forgets the larger offers made to simple walk away. He's carrying out her wishes. I hate to sound cruel when I say this but they are married and that contract entitles the spouse to certain benefits such as guardianship and decision making. Unfortunately, parents lose many rights when this contract is formed (marriage) and simply have to learn to deal with the decisions made between a husband and a wife. It's apparent the Schivos made this decision amongst themselves (again she told multiple people her intentions) and the parents have really no legal recourse--as has been show at the end of an almost 8 year battle.

My 2 cents. Let her go.

 

[Moonbear]

I've thought about that as well. Aside from basic greed for the life insurance policy (which I don't buy), all I can come up with is that he still loves her and believes to die is what she would want. If he didn't love her, then divorce would be the simplest way out.

In one interview I saw (the only interview I've seen of Michael; the Schindlers seem to be talking to the press far more than he is), he said that in an early (he didn't give any indication of how long ago that one was) court battle, her parents testified they would keep Terri alive even if they had to cut off her arms and legs to do it. I don't know what led to that statement, or if he was accurately representing it, but he followed up by saying he could never let them do that to Terri if they were willing to go to such extremes just to keep her alive.

As for any inheritance, I find it hard to believe that would be enough motive to not get a divorce if the money was all that he really wanted. If he had filed for divorce, given Terri's condition, I can see no reason any court wouldn't be sympathetic to his desire to move on with his own life and grant him a substantial amount of their shared assets.

 

[gnome]

Well, I hope those people (all of them) can find some peace.

Maybe the only good thing that can come out of this is to show how important it is to have a living will.

I don't think the jury would send him to jail for finding a new mate (I wouldn't). But I do think they might do it for not having divorced his previous mate, which is really what makes it a misdemeanor. Now that I would convict on, if I were a juror.

Tom, if the law were such and the facts of the case were such that a person was clearly in violation of some law, I suppose that we would both feel obligated to vote that way. But I, for one, would certainly feel terrible if put in that position. We are all entitled to equal treatment under the law. To take a statute that (if it still exists; who knows?) is unenforced in 99% of cases and use it against someone because we particularly dislike him or disagree with him would be a serious miscarriage of justice. Laws that criminalize behavior that most people don't consider to be crimes, and that are usually not enforced, should be stricken from the books. Else, they can be used by unscrupulous officials as weapons against any of us. But I guess that's a topic for a different thread.

 

[Shadow]

The family has been into see her. Her parents and brother have stated so in interviews I've seen this week.

That has come about recently though, since this story became nationwide news. Her brother flew in from out of state to see her I believe...could you imagine the public outcry if her husband denied her brother entry, especially while the whole nation is watching?

Where have you been checking?

I stated where I heard that in that post.

And what do you mean, "supported terri and her parents?" Who says Terri wants what her parents want?

When I read this I thought you had a point. Until you said:

The courts have decided, based on years of litigation, that Terri does not want to be kept artificially alive (if you can call that living.)

That's bull. The courts can't decide what she wants! They can not claim she wants to die! And she is not exactly artificially alive. She needs food but that is all. All her other life processes such as breathing, etc do not need to be controlled. She's in better shape than many across the country. Many that continue to live


My ABC station says that the majority of people support her parents...


How can you defend such an act. It makes me sick to think that such a great nation has fallen to such lowly levels... The courts deciding a woman "wants" to die. Disgusting.

 

[Smurf]

well... at least the first page of this thread was civil, then Grace posted and all hell broke loose. People should learn to control their emotions better so that it doesn't cloud their judgement.

 

[learningphysics]

IF Terri's wishes were to be allowed to die under these circumstances... then does everyone agree that the feeding tube should stay removed?

 

[Evo]

The courts deciding a woman "wants" to die. Disgusting.

Based on testimony from friends of hers that had discussions with her and knew of her feelings about it. That's what courts do. It was not an arbitrary decision.

I have told both of my children that I don't want any heroic means of saving my life, but after all of this, I don't want to have to place them in this kind of situation where they may second guess what I truly meant, or even worse, someone else stepping in and questioning them. I will be sure my attorney has a notarized copy of my wishes.

 

[gnome]

I stated where I heard that in that post.

Yes, you said ABC and CNN. And yet, I posted links to the ABC and CNN sources that directly contradict your claim.
In case you missed those, here's another ABC link:
http://abcnews.go.com/US/PollVault/story?id=583661&page=1

That's bull. The courts can't decide what she wants!

Unfortunately, nobody can know what she's thinking now, if she's thinking at all. All the courts can do is decide based on what she said before she was in this condition.

 

[russ_watters]

My ABC station says that the majority of people support her parents...

You must have misheard: every poll I've seen (and they are polling about every other day) has been heavily in favor of removing life support.

How can you defend such an act. It makes me sick to think that such a great nation has fallen to such lowly levels... The courts deciding a woman "wants" to die.

Actually, I don't think that was the decision: the courts decided that it was the husband's decision. He believes that she would have wanted to die. The way I understand it, the court cases were primarily about guardianship.

IF Terri's wishes were to be allowed to die under these circumstances... then does everyone agree that the feeding tube should stay removed?

I'd certainly say yes, but you probably meant that mostly for people who are for re-inserting the feeding tube. Shadow...?

 

[SOS2008]

Just as an FYI:

On Sunday, Tom DeLay and Bill Frist, the Republican congressional leaders, convened an emergency meeting of Congress to pass a bill that that interferes with the Terri Schiavo tragedy. And although in five years no other issue has prompted President Bush to return to Washington during a vacation—including the tsunami—Bush flew back from his ranch in Texas to sign it.

Bush, Frist, and DeLay claim that they're acting out of concern for Ms. Schiavo. But a memo intended only for Republican Senators—uncovered by ABC News—reveals Republicans' true concern: "The pro-life base will be excited...this is a great political issue...this is a tough issue for Democrats." This story also takes the heat off Tom DeLay, who is facing a number of serious ethics charges and legal scandals.

Americans can have different personal opinions about what should happen to Terri Schiavo—life is precious, and this case raises some important ethical questions. But we can all agree that that's what the courts are for: to make the call in difficult circumstances. That's why Congress' interference is such an ugly and shameful incident of political grandstanding. There's no legislative purpose here, just a blatant attempt to play politics with someone's life.

This is the real issue in regard to this case.

 

[stoned]

Where was that dumbass Bush "defender of preciouss life" when he signed 152 dead sentences while governor of Texas? not to mention war crimes he commited in Iraq.

 

[adrenaline]

Does the expression cutting the jugular fit in here: from the washington post editorial by Jonathan Weisman and Ceci Connolly

Then look at the paragraph where in 1999, then-Texas Gov. George W. Bush signed a law allowing physicians and hospitals to " withhold life-sustaining
care from patients with conditions deemed hopeless, even over relatives'
protests."

Yeah, they want her to live, but they don't want to pay for it.

As Republican leaders in Congress move to trim billions of dollars
from the Medicaid health program, they are simultaneously intervening to
save the life of possibly the highest-profile Medicaid patient: Terri
Schiavo.

The Schiavo case may put a human face on the problem of rising medical
costs, both at the state and federal levels. In Florida, where Gov. Jeb
Bush (R) is pushing a dramatic restructuring of the Medicaid program,
the cost of Schiavo's care has become political fodder. In Washington,
where a fight over Medicaid spending threatens to scuttle the 2006
budget plan, the role of the program in preserving Schiavo's life is
beginning to receive attention.

"At every opportunity, [House Majority Leader] Tom DeLay has
sanctimoniously proclaimed his concern for the well-being of Terri Schiavo,
saying he is only trying to ensure she has the chance 'we all deserve,' "
the liberal Center for American Progress said in a statement Monday,
echoing complaints of Democratic lawmakers and medical ethicists. "Just
last week, DeLay marshaled a budget resolution through the House of
Representatives that would cut funding for Medicaid by at least $15 billion,
threatening the quality of care for people like Terri Schiavo."

DeLay spokesman Dan Allen fired back: "The fact that they're tying a
life issue to the budget process shows just how disconnected Democrats
are to reality."

Lawyers for Schiavo's husband and guardian, Michael Schiavo, have said
repeatedly that Medicaid finances her drug costs, but it is not
entirely clear how dependent Schiavo's caregivers are on the joint
federal-state health insurance program for the poor and disabled. In 1993,
Michael Schiavo received a medical malpractice judgment of more than $750,000
in his wife's name, according to a report by her court-appointed
guardian ad litem. The money was placed in a trust fund administered by an
independent trustee for Schiavo's care.

Michael Schiavo's lawyers have said that $40,000 to $50,000 remains.
Patient care at the Florida hospice where Schiavo lives averages about
$80,000 a year, but the hospice now pays for much of her care. For two
years, Medicaid has covered other medical costs, including prescription
drugs, the attorneys have said in published reports.

Medicaid's share of Schiavo's care "is a big chunk," said Rep. Debbie
Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.), who until this year was involved in the
case as a state senator. "Governor Bush and President Bush are both
professing deep concern for the rights of one disabled person, yet their
rhetoric doesn't match their actions," she said.

Florida's Medicaid program is expected to cost about $14 billion
this year, with the state covering 41 percent of the budget, said Jonathan
Burns, spokesman for the state Agency for Health Care Administration.
For every $1 Florida spends on Medicaid, it receives about $1.44 from
the federal government in matching funds.

The governor has proposed limiting Medicaid spending and in essence
giving each beneficiary a voucher to shop for a health plan. Advocates
for the poor and disabled contend the approach would leave the most
vulnerable without adequate coverage.

If it passes, "I guess Mrs. Schiavo or someone on her staff would have
to find a network that will take care of her for the amount of money"
the state provides, said Andrew Schneider, a Washington-based health
care consultant who specializes in Medicaid.

In Washington, House Republicans approved a budget resolution for 2006
last week that would order $15 billion to $20 billion in Medicaid
savings over the next five years. But when Senate leaders tried to follow
suit with a budget that trimmed $14 billion from Medicaid, 52 senators
balked. The Senate and House differences over the program may jeopardize
lawmakers' ability to craft a budget this year, thus threatening all of
President Bush's cost-cutting efforts.

Ron Pollack, executive director of the health care advocacy group
Families USA, denounced the "two ironies" of the situation.

"At the same time congressional leaders were trying to keep Terri
Schiavo alive, they voted to cut the Medicaid program that keeps many
millions of people alive," he said in an interview. Jeb Bush, meanwhile,
"is grandstanding about Terri Schiavo at the same time he is pushing real
hard to place a limit on the dollars available for people's care,
including care like Terri Schiavo is receiving," he said.

Republicans say such rhetoric further complicates the unavoidable
task of controlling Medicaid's growth. "Too many people would rather
resort to scare tactics than have a constructive conversation about ways to
fix the nation's long-term budget crisis," said Gayle Osterberg,
spokeswoman for the Senate Budget Committee.

The cost of care in cases such as Schiavo's has vexed governments for
years. In 1999, then-Texas Gov. George W. Bush signed a law
establishing procedures for hospitals and physicians to withhold life-sustaining
care from patients with conditions deemed hopeless, even over relatives'
protests. The legislation affords a family 10 days' notice to find
another facility. Last week, Texas Children's Hospital in Houston invoked
the law to remove a 6-month-old boy from his breathing tube against his
mother's wishes.

It was a Republican, Rep. Steve King (Iowa), who first brought the
issue of Schiavo's Medicaid support to Washington. On the House floor
Sunday, he blasted Woodside Hospice, where Schiavo lives, for allegedly
bilking Medicaid, citing a Government Accountability Office audit that he
said ordered the company to repay $14.8 million in "inappropriately
collected" fees.

The Hospice of the Florida Suncoast Inc., which operates Woodside, was
cited in 1996 for nearly $15 million in payments for ineligible
beneficiaries and patients who may not have been terminally ill. But the issue
was Medicare charges, not Medicaid, and the investigator was the
Department of Health and Human Services' inspector general.

Mike Bell, a company spokesman, said the not-for-profit did not have
to repay any money. The investigation, which involved several hospice
care providers, "led to clarification and directions going forward," he
said.

But King was making a point other Republicans have argued: that waste
and fraud can be wrung out of the Medicaid system without sacrificing
patient care -- but only if Congress gives states more flexibility.

Said Osterberg: "The reason for the budget seeking . . .
administrative modifications is to ensure the program is more efficient and
financially sound moving forward, so that beneficiaries don't have to be kicked
off down the road."

 

[Zantra]

I don't pretend to know what's in terry shiavo's head, if anything, but neither does anyone else. However, what I do know, is that she's in a prison of the mind. Wether she's conscious or not, it's an existence no person would want to endure. After 15 years it's just not going to happen. Several doctors have made that abundantly clear. If I were in that state and there was little to no hope of recovery, I'd want to die, as I believe would most anyone else in that position.

Her parents are selfish, plain and simple. If she's got any type of consciousness, then she's suffering day in and day out, and she should be put out of her misery. But her parents aren't thinking about that. Only of their own need to not let their daughter go. They're just making allegations up as they go if only to prevent the death.

And now we have the government forcing their viewpoint upon an individual. What the hell happened to personal freedoms? This is why a living will is a necessary tool for anyone. No one can call Terry's existence "quality" by any stretch of the imagination. If Terry is conscious, and she has one thought running through her mind, it's most likely "please god let this end".

Ok I'm done ranting.

 

[Zantra]

How can you defend such an act. It makes me sick to think that such a great nation has fallen to such lowly levels... The courts deciding a woman "wants" to die. Disgusting.

So how is it that the government gets to decide that the woman wants to live? that's equally disgusting. That's like saying a person isn't in total control of their life and they can be tortured at the whim of someone who's never been in their position who "claims" they know what that person wants.

That the president of the United States (or anyone else for that matter) can even claim to think he knows what's best for an individual who has been in a virtual prison for 15 years is a joke. And unless you've been in that state yourself, you are just making it up. You can "pretend" to know what it's like, but you're only lying to yourself.

and don't take this the wrong way but your pretense makes you sounds like a self-righteous zealot.

 

[SOS2008]

When one segment of society is allowed to infringe upon another's civil liberties, it opens the door for other's to infringe upon their right's as well. Unfortunately, religious zealots (such as The Cause USA) can't see past their passion (the forest versus the tree).

 

[Monique]

If I were in that state and there was little to no hope of recovery, I'd want to die, as I believe would most anyone else in that position.

Her parents are selfish, plain and simple. If she's got any type of consciousness, then she's suffering day in and day out, and she should be put out of her misery.

You are making some big assumptions here, there is no way you can judge the situation. In that position you might cherish every moment you still have.

 

[Zantra]

You are making some big assumptions here, there is no way you can judge the situation. In that position you might cherish every moment you still have.

No I wouldn't. You might say well how do I know this if it's never happened to me? Well I've never had my fingers cut off with a rusty knife, but I can make the assumption that it's going to be painful. In the same way we can make the inferrence that even though none of us have ever been in a vegetative state unable to speak or control our bodies, that if we were conscious yet unable to react, we wouldn't cherish that life very much after 15 years. Is it possible ? In a world where some people's tastes go to extremes, maybe she likes the misery, but the safe bet is that she wants it to end. Yes it's possible that she doesn't want to end her suffering- Of course it's also possible a meteor could fall out of the sky and land right on top of her, but neither scenario is very likely

And I stand by my assertion that her parents are only prolonging her suffering to ease their own.

 

[fifiki]

florida court of appeal decision

Ok guys. I haven't read all the posts, but I thought that you all might like to read what the court of appeals found and said. Instead of pure speculation on bias media. Afterall, the courts, unlike media, do have all the facts and materials in front of them.

-----------

JUDGES: ALTENBERND, Judge. PARKER, A.C.J., and BLUE, J., Concur.

OPINIONBY: ALTENBERND

OPINION: [*177]

ALTENBERND, Judge.

Robert and Mary Schindler, the parents of Theresa Marie Schiavo, appeal the trial court's order authorizing the discontinuance of artificial life support to their adult daughter. Michael Schiavo, Theresa's husband and guardian, petitioned the trial court in May 1998 for entry of this order. We have carefully reviewed the record. The trial court made a difficult decision after considering all of the evidence and the applicable law. We conclude that the trial court's decision is supported by competent, substantial evidence and that it correctly applies the law. Accordingly, we affirm the decision.

Theresa Marie Schindler was born on December 3, 1963, and lived with or near her parents in Pennsylvania until she married Michael Schiavo on

November 10, 1984. Michael and [**2] Theresa moved to Florida in 1986. They were happily married and both were employed. They had no children.

On February 25, 1990, their lives changed. 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.

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.

The evidence is overwhelming that Theresa is in a permanent or persistent vegetative state. It is important to understand that a persistent vegetative state is not simply a coma. n1 She is not asleep. She has cycles of apparent wakefulness and apparent sleep without any cognition or awareness. As she breathes, she often makes moaning sounds. Theresa has severe contractures of her hands, elbows, knees, and feet.

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. She could remain in this state for many years.

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. [*178] 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 [**4] treatment.

Theresa's parents have continued to love her and visit her often. No one questions the sincerity of their prayers for the divine miracle that now is Theresa's only hope to regain any level of normal existence. No one questions that they have filed this appeal out of love for their daughter.

This lawsuit is affected by an earlier lawsuit. In the early 1990's, Michael Schiavo, as Theresa's guardian, filed a medical malpractice lawsuit. That case resulted in a sizable award of money for Theresa. This fund remains sufficient to care for Theresa for many years. If she were to die today, her husband would inherit the money under the laws of intestacy. If Michael eventually divorced Theresa in order to have a more normal family life, the fund remaining at the end of Theresa's life would presumably go to her parents.

Since the resolution of the malpractice lawsuit, both Michael and the Schindlers have become suspicious that the other party is assessing Theresa's wishes based upon their own monetary self-interest. The trial court discounted this concern, and we see no evidence in this record that either Michael or the Schindlers seek monetary gain from their actions. Michael [**5] and the Schindlers simply cannot agree on what decision Theresa would make today if she were able to assess her own condition and make her own decision.

There has been discussion among the parties that the money remaining when Theresa dies should be given to a suitable charity as a lasting memorial. If anything is undeniable in this case, it is that Theresa would never wish for this money to drive a wedge between the people she loves. We have no jurisdiction over the disposition of this money, but hopefully these parties will consider Theresa's desires and her memory when a decision about the money is ultimately required.

This is a case to authorize the termination of life-prolonging procedures under chapter 765, Florida Statutes (1997), and under the constitutional guidelines enunciated in In re Guardianship of Browning, 568 So. 2d 4 (Fla. 1990). n2 The Schindlers have raised three legal issues that warrant brief discussion.

First, the Schindlers maintain that the trial court was required to appoint a guardian ad litem for this proceeding because Michael stands to inherit under the laws of intestacy. HN1When a living will or other advance directive does not exist, it stands to reason that the surrogate decision-maker will be a person who is close to the patient and thereby likely to inherit from the patient. See § 765.401, Fla. Stat. (2000). Thus, the fact that a surrogate decision-maker may ultimately inherit from the patient should not automatically compel the appointment of a guardian. On the other hand, there may be occasions when an inheritance could be a reason to question a surrogate's ability to make an objective decision.

In this case, however, Michael Schiavo has not been allowed to make a decision to disconnect life-support. The Schindlers have not been allowed to make a decision to maintain life-support. Each party in this case, absent their disagreement, might have been a suitable surrogate decision-maker for Theresa. Because Michael Schiavo and the Schindlers could not agree on the proper decision and the inheritance issue created the appearance of conflict, [**7] Michael Schiavo, as the guardian of Theresa, invoked the trial court's jurisdiction to allow the trial court to serve as the surrogate decision-maker. [*179]

In this court's decision in In re Guardianship of Browning, 543 So. 2d 258, 273-74 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989), we described, in dicta, a method for judicial review of a surrogate's decision. The supreme court's decision affirming In re Guardianship of Browning did not squarely approve or reject the details of our proposed method. However, the supreme court recognized that HN2the circuit court's jurisdiction could be invoked in two manners:

We emphasize, as did the district court, that courts are always open to adjudicate legitimate questions pertaining to the written or oral instructions. First, the surrogate or proxy may choose to present the question to the court for resolution. Second, interested parties may challenge the decision of the proxy or surrogate.

In re Guardianship of Browning, 568 So. 2d at 16 (footnote omitted).

In this case, Michael Schiavo used the first approach. Under these circumstances, HN3the two parties, as adversaries, present their evidence to the trial court. The trial court [**8] 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.

Second, the Schindlers argue that the trial court should not have heard evidence from Beverly Tyler, the executive director of Georgia Health Decisions. Al though it is doubtful that this issue is preserved for appeal, we have reviewed the issue as if it were. Ms. Tyler has studied American values, opinions, and attitudes about the decision to discontinue life-support systems. As a result, she has some special expertise concerning the words and expressions that Americans often use in discussing these difficult issues. She also has knowledge about trends within American attitudes on this [**9] subject.

We have considerable doubt that Ms. Tyler's testimony provided much in the way of relevant evidence. She testified about some social science surveys. Apparently most people, even those who favor initial life-supporting medical treatment, indicate that they would not wish this treatment to continue indefinitely once their medical condition presented no reasonable basis for a cure. There is some risk that a trial judge could rely upon this type of survey evidence to make a "best interests" decision for the ward. In this case, however, we are convinced that the trial judge did not give undue weight to this evidence and that the court made a proper surrogate decision rather than a best interests decision.

Finally, 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. HN4The 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. [**10]

In Browning, we stated:

HN5In 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 [*180] 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 [**11] 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.

 

[fifiki]

And yet another appeal

This court of appeal decision will give you more information on the science aspect.

---------------

JUDGES: ALTENBERND, Chief Judge. FULMER and STRINGER, JJ., Concur.

OPINIONBY: ALTENBERND

OPINION:

[*183] ALTENBERND, Chief Judge.

Robert and Mary Schindler appeal the guardianship court's order denying their motion for relief from a judgment that ordered their daughter's guardian to with draw life-prolonging procedures. We have carefully reviewed all aspects of the record on appeal. We conclude that the guardianship court complied with the instructions provided by this court in its last opinion. The guardianship court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion for relief from judgment. Its ruling is supported by competent, substantial evidence and accords with the law of this state. Accordingly, we affirm the order on appeal.

I.

This is the fourth time that this court has reviewed an order from the guardianship court in this controversy. Schindler v. Schiavo (In re Guardianship of Schiavo), 780 So. 2d 176 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001) (Schiavo I); Schindler v. Schiavo (In re Guardianship of Schiavo), 792 So. 2d 551 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001) (Schiavo II); Schindler v. Schiavo (In re Guardianship of Schiavo), 800 So. 2d 640 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001) (Schiavo III). This case has a long and difficult history, which we will not detail in this opinion. As we explained in our last opinion, Schiavo III:

In Schiavo I, we affirmed the trial court's decision order ing Mrs. Schiavo's guardian to withdraw life-prolonging procedures. Schiavo I, 780 So. 2d 176 (Fla. 2d DCA), cert. denied, 789 So. 2d 348 (Fla. 2001) (table). In so doing, we affirmed the trial court's rulings that (1) Mrs. Schiavo's medical condition was the type of end-stage condition that permits the withdrawal of life-prolonging procedures, (2) she did not have a reasonable medical probability of recovering capacity so that she could make her own decision to main tain [**4] or withdraw life-prolonging procedures, (3) the trial court had the authority to make such a decision when a conflict within the family prevented a qualified person from effec tively exercising the responsibilities of a proxy, and (4) clear and convincing evidence at the time of trial supported a determination that Mrs. Schiavo would have chosen in February 2000 to withdraw the life-prolonging procedures.

800 So. 2d at 642 (footnotes omitted).

Schiavo III involved a motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.540 seeking relief from the original judgment after it had been affirmed in Schiavo I. In Schiavo III, we held that the guardianship court must conduct an eviden tiary hearing on the motion, limited to the fourth issue. We stated:

Of the four issues resolved in the original trial . . ., we conclude that the motion establishes a colorable entitlement only as to the fourth issue. As to that issue--whether there was clear and convincing [*184] evidence to support the deter mination that Mrs. Schiavo would choose to withdraw the life-prolonging procedures--the motion for relief from judgment alleges evidence of a new treatment that could dramatically [**5] improve Mrs. Schiavo's condition and allow her to have cognitive function to the level of speech. In our last opinion we stated that the Schindlers had "presented no medical evidence suggesting that any new treatment could restore to Mrs. Schiavo a level of function within the cerebral cortex that would allow her to understand her perceptions of sight and sound or to communicate or respond cognitively to those perceptions." Schiavo II, 792 So. 2d at 560. Although we have expressed some lay skepticism about the new affi davits, the Schindlers now have presented some evidence, in the form of the affidavit of Dr. [Fred] Webber, of such a potential new treatment.

Schiavo III, 800 So. 2d at 645.

On remand, we permitted the parents to present evidence to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the judgment was no longer equitable. We specifically held:

To meet this burden, they must establish that new treatment offers sufficient promise of increased cognitive function in Mrs. Schiavo's cerebral cortex--significantly improving the quality of Mrs. Schiavo's life--so that she herself would elect to undergo this treatment and would reverse [**6] the prior decision to withdraw life-prolonging procedures.

Schiavo III, 800 So. 2d at 645.

In order to minimize disputes between the parties, this court's last opinion also provided guidance to the guardianship court concerning the nature of the hearing to be held on remand. We required an additional set of medical examinations of Theresa Schiavo and the selection of no more than five physicians to provide expert testimony on the issue presented. We instructed that one of the five physicians must be a new, independent physician selected either by the agreement of the parties or, if they could not agree, by the appointment of the guardianship court. We indicated that this physician should be board certified in neurology or neurosurgery, with expertise if possible "in the treatment of brain damage and in the diagnosis and treatment of persistent vegetative state." 800 So. 2d at 646.

On remand, this court anticipated but did not require that Dr. Webber, who had claimed in his affidavit that he might be able to restore Mrs. Schiavo's speech and some of her cognitive functioning, would testify for the parents and provide scientific support for his claim. [**7] However, Dr. Webber, who was so critical in this court's decision to remand the case, made no further appearance in these proceedings.

Instead, the parents provided testimony from Dr. William Maxfield, a board-certified physician in radiology and nuclear medicine, and Dr. William Hammesfahr, a board-certified neurologist. Michael Schiavo, Mrs. Schiavo's husband and guardian, selected Dr. Ronald Cranford and Dr. Melvin Greer, both board-certified neurologists, to testify. The fifth physician, selected by the guardianship court when the parties could not agree, was Dr. Peter Bambakidis, a board-certified neurologist practicing in the Department of Neurology at the Cleveland Clinic Foundation in Cleveland, Ohio. He is a clinical professor of neurology at Case Western Reserve University. His credentials fulfilled the requirements of our prior opinion.

Through the assistance of Mrs. Schiavo's treating physician, Dr. Victor Gambone, the physicians obtained current [*185] 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 [**8] 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 sub jected to thorough cross-examination. It is likely that no guardianship court has ever received as much high-quality medical evidence in such a proceeding.

On the issue that caused this court to reverse in our last decision, whether new treatment exists which offers such promise of increased cognitive function in Mrs. Schiavo's cerebral cortex that she herself would elect to undergo this treatment and would reverse the prior decision to withdraw life-prolonging procedures, the parents presented little testimony. Dr. William Hammesfahr claimed that vasodilation therapy and hyberbaric therapy "could help her improve." He could not testify that any "specific function" would improve. He did not claim that he could restore her cognitive functions. He admitted that vasodilation therapy and hyberbaric therapy were intended to increase blood and oxygen supply to damaged brain tissue to facilitate repair of such tissue. These therapies cannot replace [**9] dead tissue. 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.

The evidentiary hearing held on remand actually focused on an issue that was not the issue we anticipated would be the primary issue on remand. The parents contended that Mrs. Schiavo was not in a persistent or permanent vegetative state. Both Dr. Maxfield and Dr. Hammesfahr opined that she was not in such a state. They based their opinions primarily upon their assessment of Mrs. Schiavo's actions or responses to a few brief stimuli, primarily involving physical and verbal contact with her mother. The three other physicians all testified that Mrs. Schiavo was in a permanent or persistent vegetative state. The guardianship court was most impressed with the testimony of Dr. Bambakidis, who concluded that Mrs. Schiavo remained in a permanent vegetative state.

The guardianship court determined that Mrs. Schiavo [**10] remained in a permanent vegetative state. The guardianship court concluded that there was no evidence of a treatment in existence that offered such promise of increased cognitive function in Mrs. Schiavo's cerebral cortex that she herself would elect to undergo it at this time. Having concluded that the parents had failed to meet their burden to establish, by a preponderance of evidence, that the judgment was no longer equitable, the guardianship court denied the motion for relief from judgment and rescheduled the removal of the hydration and nutrition tube. In re Guardianship of Schiavo (Schiavo v. Schindler), Case No. 90-2908-GB-003, 2002 WL 31817960 (Fla. 6th Jud. Cir. Ct. Nov. 22, 2002). When the parents appealed that order, the guardianship court stayed the removal of the nutrition and hydration tube pending review by this court.

II.

We are not reviewing a final judgment in this appellate proceeding. The final [*186] judgment was entered several years ago and has already been affirmed by this court. The Florida Supreme Court declined to review this case. See, e.g., Schindler v. Schiavo, 789 So. 2d 348 (Fla. 2001) (unpublished table decision). [**11] Today, our review is limited to an order denying a motion for relief from judgment.

HN1A trial court has broad discretion in determining whether to grant relief from a judgment. Kroner v. Singer Asset Fin. Co., 814 So. 2d 454, 456 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001). An appellate court reviews that decision to determine whether the trial court abused its discretion. Id. (noting that this should be particularly true for motions grounded on general "inequity" of final judgment's prospective application). Indeed, some cases suggest that an appellate court cannot reverse such an order absent a showing of a gross abuse of discretion. LPP Mortgage Ltd. v. Bank of Am., N.A., 826 So. 2d 462, 463-64 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002); Tilden Groves Holding Corp. v. Orlando/ Orange County Expressway, 816 So. 2d 658 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002); see also Emmer v. Brucato, 813 So. 2d 264, 265 n.1 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002) (expressing confusion as to difference between "gross abuse of discretion" and "abuse of discretion"). In this case, the guardianship court followed the instructions in our last decision. It conducted a thorough hearing and prepared an extensive order. [**12] We cannot conclude that the guardianship court abused its discretion when it denied the motion.

The Schindlers have urged this court to conduct a de novo review of the evidence in this case, primarily because of the finality of this decision for their daughter. The guardianship court heard live testimony from many physicians. When it reviewed the videotapes of Mrs. Schiavo and the diagnostic tests and brain scans, it did so with the assistance and expertise of those physicians. This court can review the evidence in the record with only its training in the law and its lay experience. It is simply not proper for this court to review such a fact-intensive determination using a de novo standard.

Despite our decision that the appropriate standard of review is abuse of discretion, this court has closely examined all of the evidence in this record. We have repeatedly examined the videotapes, not merely watching short segments but carefully observing the tapes in their entirety. We have examined the brain scans with the eyes of educated laypersons and considered the explanations provided by the doctors in the transcripts. We have concluded that, if we were called upon to review the guardianship [**13] court's decision de novo, we would still affirm it.

The judges on this panel are called upon to make a collective, objective decision concerning a question of law. Each of us, however, has our own family, our own loved ones, our own children. From our review of the videotapes of Mrs. Schiavo, despite the irrefutable evidence that her cerebral cortex has sustained the most severe of irreparable injuries, we understand why a parent who had raised and nurtured a child from conception would hold out hope that some level of cognitive function remained. If Mrs. Schiavo were our own daughter, we could not but hold to such a faith.

But in the end, this case is not about the aspirations that loving parents have for their children. It is about Theresa Schiavo's right to make her own decision, independent of her parents and independent of her husband. In circumstances such as these, HN2when families cannot agree, the law has opened the doors of the circuit courts to permit trial judges to serve as surrogates or proxies to make decisions about life- prolonging procedures. See In re [*187] Guardianship of Browning, 568 So. 2d 4 (Fla. 1990) (affirming In re Guardianship of Browning, 543 So. 2d 258, 273-74 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989)); [**14] see also § 765.401(3), Fla. Stat. (2000). It is the trial judge's duty not to make the decision that the judge would make for himself or herself or for a loved one. Instead, the trial judge must make a decision that the clear and convincing evidence shows the ward would have made for herself. § 765.401(3). It is a thankless task, and one to be undertaken with care, objectivity, and a cautious legal standard designed to promote the value of life. But it is also a necessary function if all people are to be entitled to a personalized decision about life-prolonging procedures independent of the subjective and conflicting assessments of their friends and relatives. It may be unfortunate that when families cannot agree, the best forum we can offer for this private, personal decision is a public courtroom and the best decision-maker we can provide is a judge with no prior knowledge of the ward, but the law currently provides no better solution that adequately protects the interests of promoting the value of life. We have previously affirmed the guardianship court's decision in this regard, and we now affirm the denial of a motion for relief from that judgment. [**15]

At the conclusion of our first opinion, we stated:

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.

Schiavo I, 780 So. 2d at 180. Nothing in these proceedings has changed this conclu sion. The extensive additional medical testimony in this record only confirms once again the guardianship court's initial decision.

On remand, following the issuance of our mandate, the guardianship court [**16] should schedule another hearing solely for the purpose of entering a new order scheduling the removal of the nutrition and hydration tube.

 

[fifiki]

After watching the news, I find that a lot of people have lost sight of the crucial issue: what Terri would have wanted. Some find it horrifiying that we are allowing the court to "decide" whether someone should live or die. Yet I have to wonder. Was what Congress tried to do better? Allowing a group of people, who have not seen the examinations, testimony of both sides, evidence decide what is best? Is that why the American public vote for them? So that a bunch of people without expertise or clear facts decide what is best for you, even when you express otherwise? It is the courts who heard the evidence and heard from experts and the parties concerned, not congress. Can 19 judges be all that evil?

Besides who was Congress really thinking about? Terri or what they themselves believe? Terri is not a political toy. What does it mean to live and die as one chooses anyway?

 

[fifiki]

That's bull. The courts can't decide what she wants! They can not claim she wants to die! And she is not exactly artificially alive. She needs food but that is all. All her other life processes such as breathing, etc do not need to be controlled. She's in better shape than many across the country. Many that continue to live


My ABC station says that the majority of people support her parents...


How can you defend such an act. It makes me sick to think that such a great nation has fallen to such lowly levels... The courts deciding a woman "wants" to die. Disgusting.

She is artificially alive. What do you call a feeding tube? Life support: equipment that makes life possible in otherwise deadly environmental conditions. So any equipment that if taken away would result in death is life support--feeding tube fits that definition.

It doesn't really matter how many people support or don't support her parents. We shouldn't be deciding this based merely on what the parents want. That would be tossing Terri's wishes away like it doesn't matter. That's why there was testimony of 5 people who all said that Terri have expressed to them what she wants. Without Terri's words, that is the next best thing to determining what her wishes were. And that is relevant.

For some reason people find it incredulous that a 25 year old woman would wish to die. Why would that be incredible? It's not just choosing to die, it's dying without dignity, according to one's own definition. I know many young people who have wholeheartedly expressed such a wish. We want people to grasp life so much (no matter what the circumstances are) that we ignore what it is that want, even when they've expressed their wishes to 5 separate people. No, no, they can't mean that, that's just too incredible. It must be abuse, greed, anything but true.

 

[Kerrie]

She is artificially alive. What do you call a feeding tube? Life support: equipment that makes life possible in otherwise deadly environmental conditions. So any equipment that if taken away would result in death is life support--feeding tube fits that definition.

Excellent point. What I have thought is, 100 years ago Terri would have died. We are sort of playing "God" by keeping her alive because it is our medical technology that is continuing her life. The natural process of our biology, however, would have taken her by now. Interesting how our medical advancements have caused such a dilema with nature and its course.

And I stand by my assertion that her parents are only prolonging her suffering to ease their own.

I completely agree with you Zantra, this dilema is more about what they want for her over what they think Terri would have wanted. It might have been different too if Terri had never married, then her parents would have the right to speak for her. Not to veer off subject here, but when you make the choice to be married, in a sense, you grant your spouse to be your spokesperson over your parents. I know in my situation, I would rather have my spouse make decisions for me over my folks, he knows me best at this point in my life.

 

[stoned]

i don't want to sound heartless, but when schiavo finnaly dies who is going to have rights to any royalties from movie makers or book writers? . now when even Dubya himself is involved in it, I'm sure big money awaits her parents or husband.

 

[misskitty]

Hah. Love and devotion? Sorry but you don't cheat on your wife consistantly (he did before this accident happened) and have kids with your girlfriend while still "married" to your wife that's in the hospital. You should visit her, try to make her better.

Shadow, I can see where you're coming from. Unfortunatly these circumstances are different. Terri has had PVS for 15 years. There is no hope for making her better. The video of the facial movements shown on the news are not voluntary movement. They are just natural muscle contractions.

The neurologists who have said she might be rehabilitated have only dignosed her from watching the video footage of Terri that is played over the news. The neurologists who actually examined her and come to a diagnosis have agreed part of her brain stem was damaged beyond repair or rehabilitation. Including the most recent physician from Maine who arrived at the same conclusion. I don't know his name; my family mentioned him briefly in a living room discussion.

I was watching Good Morning America (GMA) this morning and they interviewed Dr. Tim Johnson for his opinion on the matter. He had said there was no way of rehabilitating her. Her own brother, who was interviewed earlier in the week had made comments such as If only we could rehabilitate her... and If there was one more chance... Those aren't his exact words, I don't have a photographic memory.

The whole situation is heart-wrenching.

 

[motai]

Since the judges have already made their decisions (including the most recent one a few minutes ago that Judge Greer rejected the implantation of the feeding tube), shouldn't the Schindlers be trying to spend the last few days with their daughter, PVS or not?

Even if she is a vegetable, it wouldn't really matter now that she is coming ever closer to death. They should spend more time embracing their daughter rather than whiddling that time away trying to overrule court cases and making press statements.

 

[faust9]

Since the judges have already made their decisions (including the most recent one a few minutes ago that Judge Greer rejected the implantation of the feeding tube), shouldn't the Schindlers be trying to spend the last few days with their daughter, PVS or not?

Even if she is a vegetable, it wouldn't really matter now that she is coming ever closer to death. They should spend more time embracing their daughter rather than whiddling that time away trying to overrule court cases and making press statements.

IMHO yes. I've asked myself this very same question for the last 5 days. Their latest attempt strikes me as odd because they waited until the 25th hour to say Terri can speak? Weird huh? Anyway their current (or rather last attempt at appeal) states the sister heard Terri say she wanted to live because they heard Ahhhhh Waaaaa... How do they know it wasn't "I want to pass on" or "I want some ice cream" or "I want a lottery ticket".

The sad sad fact is Terri's family didn't want to accept the inevitable. They refused to let their daughter go. It has taken millions and millions of dollars and about 25 court rulings against them for the parents to accept the sad truth. Terri did not want to be kept alive(more than her husband heard this--I include this fact in every response because there are a lot of people out there who think only Michael heard this and that he has some monetary vested interest in her passing) as a vegetable. She wanted to pass on with some modicum of dignity.

 

[russ_watters]

Since the judges have already made their decisions (including the most recent one a few minutes ago that Judge Greer rejected the implantation of the feeding tube), shouldn't the Schindlers be trying to spend the last few days with their daughter, PVS or not?

Even if she is a vegetable, it wouldn't really matter now that she is coming ever closer to death. They should spend more time embracing their daughter rather than whiddling that time away trying to overrule court cases and making press statements.

IMO, these court cases are more about making them feel better than making her feel better. Perhaps if they spent Terri's last remaining days with her, they'd feel better about it - at least they'd be there with her.