NURSE: Michael Injected Terri With Insulin

Terri_4A nurse who took care of Terri in the 1990s is now speaking out (having been released from a gag order now that the matter is in the federal courts, I’m given to understand). Not only is the nurse forcefully stating that Terri is able to communicate and use certain words, she also states that Michael has refused any therapy for Terri and further:


Iyer was eventually fired by the home because of a disagreement with Michael where she claimed he injected her with insulin.


After one visit by Michael in Terri’s room for 20 minutes with the door shut, Iyer found Terri lethargic and "crying hysterically."


She checked Terri’s blood sugar levels and they were barely showing any reading on the glucometer, she told Fox News. She also saw a vial of "insulin concealed in the trash bin."


Iyer said there were needle marks [on several intimate places on Terri’s body].


She went to police with the details and then told administrators at the facility, who were upset she didn’t report to them first.

GET THE STORY.

The affidavit that Nurse Iyer filed with Pinellas County, Florida (and which was dismissed) has now become public.

READ IT.

Excerpts:

To the best of my recollection, rehabilitation had been ordered for Terri, but I never saw any being done or had any reason at all to believe that there was ever any rehab of Terri done at Palm Gardens while I was there.  I became concerned because nothing was being done for Terri at all, no antibiotics, no tests, no range of motion therapy, no stimulation, no nothing.  Michael said again and again that Terri should NOT get any rehab, that there should be no range of motion whatsoever, or anything else.  I and a CNA named Roxy would give Terri range of motion anyway.  One time I put a wash cloth in Terri’s hand to keep her fingers from curling together, and Michael saw it and made me take it out, saying that was therapy.    

Terri’s medical condition was systematically distorted and misrepresented.  When I worked with her, she was alert and oriented.  Terri spoke on a regular basis while in my presence, saying such things as “mommy,” and “help me.”  “Help me” was, in fact, one of her most frequent utterances.  I heard her say it hundreds of times.   Terri would try to say the word “pain” when she was in discomfort, but it came out more like “pay.”  She didn’t say the “n” sound very well.  During her menses she would indicate her discomfort by saying “pay” and moving her arms toward her lower abdominal area.  Other ways that she would indicate that she was in pain included pursing her lips, grimacing, thrashing in bed, curling her toes or moving her legs around.  She would let you know when she had a bowel movement by flipping up the covers and pulling on her diaper. 

I made numerous entries into the nursing notes in her chart, stating verbatim what she said and her various behaviors, but by my next on-duty shift, the notes would be deleted from her chart.  Every time I made a positive entry about any responsiveness of Terri’s, someone would remove it after my shift ended.  Michael always demanded to see her chart as soon as he arrived, and would take it in her room with him.

Throughout my time at Palm Gardens, Michael Schiavo was focused on Terri’s death.  Michael would say “When is she going to die?,” “Has she died  yet?” and “When is that b*tch gonna die?”  These statements were common knowledge at Palm  Gardens, as he would make them casually in passing, without regard even for who he was talking to, as long as it was a staff member.  Other statements which I recall him making include “Can’t you do anything to accelerate her death – won’t she ever die?”  When she wouldn’t die, Michael would be furious.

Any time Terri would be sick, like with a UTI or fluid buildup in her lungs, colds, pneumonia, Michael would be visibly excited, thrilled even, hoping that she would die.  He would call me, as I was the nurse supervisor on the floor, and ask for every little detail about her temperature, blood pressure, etc., and would call back frequently asking if she was dead yet.  He would blurt out “I’m going to be rich!,” and would talk about all the things he would buy when Terri died, which included a new car, a new boat, and going to Europe, among other things.

When Michael visited Terri, he always came alone and always had the door closed and locked while he was with Terri.  He would typically be there about twenty minutes or so.  When he left Terri would would be trembling, crying hysterically, and would be very pale and have cold sweats.  It looked to me like Terri was having a hypoglycemic reaction, so I’d check her blood sugar.  The glucometer reading would be so low it was below the range where it would register an actual number reading.  I would put dextrose in Terri’s  mouth to counteract it.  This happened about five times on my shift as I recall.  Normally Terri’s blood sugar levels were very stable due to the uniformity of her diet through tube feeding.  It is my belief that Michael injected Terri with Regular insulin, which is very fast acting.

Crimen

Terri_3Down yonder some folks have been discussing what canon law would say about Michael Shiavo getting married to his common-law wife if he’s successful in bumping off his actual wife.

This raised the issue of crimen or the impediment of "crime," which is described in canon 1090.

Assuming he’s Catholic (something of which I have no knowledge but which may be the case), Michael Schiavo may be a potential subject of Canon 1090, which states:

§1. Anyone who with a view to entering
marriage with a certain person has brought about the death of that person’s
spouse or of one’s own spouse invalidly attempts this marriage.

§2. Those who have brought about the death of a
spouse by mutual physical or moral cooperation also invalidly attempt a
marriage together.

Michael could be impeded from marrying his common law wife under section 1 if he has operated alone in trying to bring about Terri’s death, though the impediment could also arise under section 2 if his common-law wife has cooperated with him in bringing about Terri’s death. Since I don’t know what his common-law wife may or may not have done, let me focus on section 1:

The central question is whether Michael is trying to kill Terri in order to marry his common-law wife. If he is trying to murder her for reasons unrelated to marrying his common-law wife then this canon would not be triggered.

If, after Terri’s death, especially if it were soon after Terri’s death, he sought to marry his common-law wife then that would be evidence that the murder was performed at least in part to facilitate this and thus that he was impeded from marrying her.

Note that the canon speaks of performing the crime "with a view to" marrying someone. This suggests that the canon is triggered even if the death is not done principally for the sake of marrying the new person. One could have additional motives for wanting to kill one’s spouse. For example, if Michael wanted to kill Terri (a) because he stands to gain money by doing so and (b) because he’s afraid of what she might say about him should she ever recover and (c) because he wants to marry his common-law wife then reason (c) alone would seem to trigger the canon as the killing was done "with a view to" (c) even if (a) or (b) were the stronger motives. (Mind you: I’m not saying that Michael has motives like (a) or (b), nor am I saying that he has motive (c); I don’t even know if he’s Catholic; I’m just illustrating a point of Church law.)

Note that the canon speaks of performing the crim in order to marry "a certain person." There has to be a definite person with respect to whom the crime is committed. If one were to kill one’s spouse simply to be able to remarry, but without having a certain person in mind, then the canon is not triggered.

Note also that the canon speaks of one who has "brought about the death" of a spouse. This is different than murdering the spouse. Whether something counts as murder tends to be a matter of the civil law, and so even if the state of Florida does not judge Terri’s killing as murder, the canon would still seem to be be triggered as Michael would have still "brought about the death" of Terri though a perversion of the civil law. (NOTE: Accidents don’t count under this canon unless the "accident" is brought about deliberately. True accidents are, well, accidents, and thus are not done "with a view to" anything. Thus if you and your spouse are Darwin Award stupid and are having a happyfun game of toss the rattlesnake and one of you dies, it doesn’t trigger the canon.)

The canon does not require any judicial process to take it’s effect. It’s automatic. If Michael brings about Terri’s death in order to marry his common-law wife (and if he’s Catholic) then he’s impeded from marrying her. Whether his having done so is provable in an ecclesiastical court is a separate matter, but he’s impeded from marrying her whether it’s provable or not. If he tries to marry her soon after Terri’s death, that would seem to establish a presumption that he did so and is thus impeded.

The impediment also is not removed if he defects from the Church by a formal act. Defecting from the Church by a formal act would avert the impediment of failing to observe the Catholic form of marriage, but failure to observe form is a different impediment than this one, and there is no removal of this impediment by leaving the Church. If he ex-Catholicizes himself then he is still impeded from validly contracting marriage with the woman.

He would not, however, be impeded from contracting marriage with a different woman. The canon says that he "invalidly attemts this marriage" where "this marriage" refers to the marriage for whose sake the killing is done. If he killed Terri in order to marry his common-law wife and then, afterwards, concludes "Well, enough of you" with respect to the common-law wife and marries somebody else, he would not be impeded in that case. He’s only impeded from marrying the woman for whose sake he committed the crime.

Finally, all of this hinges on one other fact: that he is actually validly married to Terri. If he’s not validly married to her then the canon would not be triggered as she would not in actuality be his spouse. If, purely for purposes of example, he was always such a twisted individual that he failed to exchange valid matrimonial consent with Terri such that she was his wife under civil law only and he then bumped her off then the canon would not be triggered.

It might ought to be. The next time the Code gets revised or amended they might want to strengthen this canon, but as it is

Laws which
establish a penalty, restrict the free exercise of rights, or contain an
exception from the law are subject to strict interpretation [canon 18].

Since canon 1090 restricts the free exercise of a right (the right to marry), it has to be given a strict interpretation, and so there would be a number of matters (such as those described above) in proving that Michael had triggered the canon.

(Cowboy hat tip to the reader who e-mailed to make sure I took note of the combox discussion.)

Blog Operations Policy

Down yonder a situation arose which I thought I might ought to comment on in the main blog area as it pertains to how I do things generally on the blog.

Basically, I linked a story that I wrote on St. Patrick some years ago, and a reader challenged some of the things it said. He didn’t provide any scholarly sources for me to look stuff up in, he simply said that some of the things were wrong.

Then a couple of days go by and he writes back and says:

Gezz, Jimmy; I was hoping you’d have proved me wrong by now. If not, then I think your article should be revised accordingly.

Just a thought.

I think this would be a good occasion to explain how I handle such challenges, as from time to time they get made in the comments box.

I operate on the rule that not everybody has to agree with me. In fact, that’s Rule 1. It’s why I don’t delete every comment disagreeing with me or feel the need to argue against it vociferously. I don’t have to have the last word on everything.

A converse of this rule is that I don’t have to agree with you, either, and so we can just politely disagree. I may, therefore, choose to let stand both what I wrote and the comment disagreeing with it and people can make up their own minds about it.

I also often sit back and let others weigh in on a subject rather than jumping all over it myself. I may have an answer handy, but I may let others kick the issue around and have their say. The blog is a community, and it’s a friendlier place that way.

I may eventually respond, but only when I have time. That is a commodity in short supply for me. When I have 276 e-mails in my Gmail inbox awaiting answers, that’s almost 300 new issues I have to deal with. Going back and doing research to deal with a challenge to an old issue  may not be at the top of the priority list–especially when it involves an article I wrote years ago and when the challenge is not sourced in a way that makes it easy for me to look up the basis of the challenge.

Also, given the amount of activity on the blog, I may simply forget that the challenge is there, especially if it doesn’t get e-mailed to me per my prior request.

The upshot is that I can’t promise to respond to every challenge. So here’s the compromise that I can offer: Except in Rule 20 situations, you get to have your say, other people get to see it and make up their own minds, and if I’m able, I’ll try to respond at some point if my schedule permits.

Hope that’s satisfactory.

“Family Confession”

A reader writes:

A friend of mine says she attended confession with her whole family.
I.e., they were all confessing together. I wonder if this is
advisable, but is it valid? Does the sacrament require privacy to be
valid?

This is gravely illicit but would be valid unless somethign else is affecting the situation. Privacy of confession is not needed for it to be valid, though it is needed for it to be licit, and this kind of situation completely flies in the face of the Church’s law on this point. Any priest who did this is gravely violating liturgical and canon law as well as engaging in a highly destructive practice whereby some family members might feel pressured to hold back things they don’t want other family members to know or, if people blurted these things out in front of others anyway, they might harm family relations.

Further, the seal of the confessional binds all of these people regarding what they heard other family members say. You can disclose your own sins out of the confessional if you want, but you can’t disclose anybody else’s.

"Family Confession"

A reader writes:

A friend of mine says she attended confession with her whole family.

I.e., they were all confessing together. I wonder if this is

advisable, but is it valid? Does the sacrament require privacy to be

valid?

This is gravely illicit but would be valid unless somethign else is affecting the situation. Privacy of confession is not needed for it to be valid, though it is needed for it to be licit, and this kind of situation completely flies in the face of the Church’s law on this point. Any priest who did this is gravely violating liturgical and canon law as well as engaging in a highly destructive practice whereby some family members might feel pressured to hold back things they don’t want other family members to know or, if people blurted these things out in front of others anyway, they might harm family relations.

Further, the seal of the confessional binds all of these people regarding what they heard other family members say. You can disclose your own sins out of the confessional if you want, but you can’t disclose anybody else’s.

SOWELL: Stop The Erosion Of Democracy!

In a sequel to the column quoted yesterday, Thomas ("He’s So Smart") Sowell continued to address the theme of judicial tyranny.

EXCERPTS:

One of the big confusions in the impending Senate fight over the confirmation of judicial nominees is that this is an issue about "liberal" judges versus "conservative" judges. The vastly more important issue is whether people who go into court should expect their cases to be decided on the basis of the law or on the basis of the particular judge’s own philosophy.

The more we can keep judges’ philosophy out of our legal system, the more we approach the ideal of "a government of laws and not of men."

The issue of judicial activism is not just an issue of the moment. It is an enduring issue of great moment because it means the erosion of the American people’s Constitutional right to govern themselves. If activist judges are allowed to continue to become increasingly our real rulers, what are elections for? Just to provide jobs for politicians?

Public acceptance of judicial coups has only led to increasing audacity in words and deeds by activist judges. Justice AnthonyDarth Kennedy’s recent decision banning the execution of murderers under the age of 18 was a classic case in point. It was based, he said, on "evolving standards" and a "national consensus," as well as on what people were saying in other countries. Even if all of this were true, none of these things is statutory law, much less the Constitution of the United States.

It is incidental that these things are not all true. What do pretty words like "evolving standards" mean except that some people agree with you, even if the law says nothing of the sort? As for a "national consensus," we have elections to determine that and judges have no special expertise as pollsters.

What all this vaguely romantic verbiage boils down to is that judges can treat the Constitution as simply a grant of power to act as philosopher kings and respond to whatever constituency they prefer to the voting public. That is lawless law.

Such judicial behavior is not going to stop until it gets stopped.

GET THE REST.

STOP PRESSES!!!

Here’s part of a transcript of Michael Schiavo talking to Larry King last Friday:

KING:  Have you had any contact with the family today?  This is a sad day all the way around, Michael.  We know of your dispute.

M.SCHIAVO: I’ve had no contact with them.

KING:  No contact at all?

M.SCHIAVO: No.

KING: Do you understand how they feel?

M.SCHIAVO: Yes, I do. But this is not about them, it’s about Terri.  And I’ve also said that in court. We didn’t know what Terri wanted but this is what we want…..

READ THE TRANSCRIPT.

The Empire Journal states:

Schiavo’s nationally televised admission establishes grounds for him to be charged with perjury and for Gov. Jeb Bush to immediately move to take the disabled woman into protective custody before any further harm is done to her by this attempt at judicial homicide.
 

GET THE STORY.

Europe Needs To Reject Constitution

And not just because their proposed Constitution enshrines secular ideology and refuses to even mention Christianity.

It needs to reject the Constitutional Treaty because of what it will do to Europe in purely secular terms, leaving aside the question of religion.

Europe has a problem with statism.

Eastern Europe was only recently freed from crushing totalitarianism, and Western Europe has been rapidly giving up its freedoms to ever-more invasive nanny regimes who are out of touch with the people and who have implemented social policies that are crippling Europe’s economies.

But there is at least one candle shining in the dark in Europe: All these invasive nanny regimes at least aren’t the same nanny regime.

To the extent countries maintain national sovereignty, they retain the ability to serve as laboratories for experimentation. They can try different laws and policies and see which ones work best. That holds out the hope that someone, somewhere in Europe may one day vote people into office who are willing to try the kind of market and regulatory reforms that have, y’know, had something to do with America being able to become the first global hyperpower and stuff.

That’s what happened here: Back during the reign of History’s Greatest Monster we were on the Euro-track, with the welfare states of France and Germany being extolled as models and our own economy in the dumpster.

But then someone (figuratively) said: "Hey, maybe this being on the Euro-track thing is what’s The Problem. Maybe if we did something diff’rent, things would improve."

That someone was Ronald Reagan, and enough people thought it was worth a shot, and the shot hit the bullseye. Our economy started growing, people started leading better lives, we won the Cold War, and, while there have been ups and downs (like the reign of History’s Other Greatest Monster), the trendline has been upward.

So, in view of the demonstrable recent success of America, might some Europeans ever get fed up enough with their oppressive nanny regimes to try to vote into office people willing to try the America-track?

They might!

Only those people won’t be able to do diddly in office if national sovereignty has been erroded away to the point that all of the big-picture decisions are being made by an elite political uberklass that is the locus of nanny regime-ism.

The creation of a pan-European nanny regime is only going to make harder the experimentation that is needed for Europe to be able to see for itself that it’s current policies spell C-I-V-I-L-I-Z-A-T-I-O-N-A-L D-I-S-A-S-T-ER and either avert or blunt the force of the disaster.

FORTUNATELY, THE FRENCH SEEM TO BE TURNING AGAINST THE CONSTITUTIONAL TREATY.

We’ll see when it comes referendum time whether they have the wherewithall to say NO or whether they’ll in the end cave in to what their Political Masters want them to do.

According to the Financial Times:

The EU constitution, which contains new rules for the expanded union
and strengthens Europe’s foreign and security policy, can come into
force only when all 25 members adopt it.

That seems like a rater dumb way to write law to me, but if it’s true then it holds out hope that someone, somewhere in Europe will say no to the treaty.

Gotta protect those national laboratories of experimentation.

PREPUBLICATION UPDATE: Before this post went live, I found THIS PIECE that makes similar points and is well worth y’all’s while to read. (Cowboy hat tip: Southern Appeal).

Quo Vadis, Viri Selecti?

(NOTE: That should be Quo vaditis, viri selecti? but then nobody would get the allusion.)

A staple part of the annual Lent fight has been the question of whether only men should be used in the footwashing ceremony on Holy Thursday. Since the rite re-enacts Jesus’ washing of the Twelve Apostles’ feet (all of whom were men) and since the text for the rite in Latin refers to it being performed on viri selecti ("selected men"), the answer seems to be yes: Only men should be used.

But things just got muddier.

Last year the Archbishop of Boston caused waves by daring to obey what the Church’s rubrics actually say. He promised, however, to consult the Congregation for Divine Worship to get their take on the matter.

He did:

O’Malley promised to consult with Rome, and yesterday his
spokeswoman said the Congregation for Divine Worship, which oversees
liturgical practices, had suggested the archbishop make whatever
decision he thought was best for Boston.

”The Congregation [for Divine Worship] affirmed the liturgical
requirement that only the feet of men be washed at the Holy Thursday
ritual." However, the Congregation did ”provide for the archbishop to
make a pastoral decision."

O’Malley then decided to include women in this year’s ceremony.

One can’t blame O’Malley for that. He did what he was supposed to do: He
tried to follow what the Church said to do last year and, when
challenged on that, he asked Rome for a clarification as to whether
there is leeway. Rome (apparently) said that there was, and at that
point it’s hard to fault him for exercizing that leeway in order to
prevent the kind of blowup that happened last year–only this time without him being able to say, "Sorry, guys, but this is what the law says, and as far as I know, there’s no leeway." Now he knows.

Assuming that the above report is accurate, we now, officially, have a mess on our hands.

Rome is reported to be saying that on the one hand the law is still in place but on the other hand the Archbishop can ignore it. If he can, who else can? In the absence of the document they sent him (if they sent him a document), it’s hard to know. Hypothetically, the document might be worded in such a way that the Archbishop himself is the only person to whom this applies, or it might apply to any bishop, or it might apply to any pastor. Without the document, we have no way of knowing.

We don’t even know if the document has any force. If it’s written by some junior liturgical guy and was not run past Arinze then it might not have any authority at all.

So what we have here is a mess.

We may also have a doubt of law situation, and as well all know, "Laws, even invalidating and incapacitating ones, do not oblige when there is a
doubt of law" (CIC 14).

I would anticipate future developments on this.There will be increased pressure for Rome to weigh in on this in a more public manner.

GET THE STORY.

(Cowboy hat tip to the reader who sent it.)