Blog Recommendation: William Peace on UK "interim" Guidelines on Swiss Suicide Tourists

I'll be writing more on my own next week on this, but the Director of of Public Prosecutions in the UK issued his long-awaited "interim guidelines" on prosecutions in cases of friends/family assisting family members traveling to Switzerland to commit suicide.

William Peace at Bad Cripple writes that the guidelines are a slam dunk for assisted suicide:

I knew the guidelines released by Keir Starmer would be a victory for advocates of assisted suicide but I had no idea just how lopsided they would be. The new guidelines that go into force today may only be interim guidelines and are subject to debate before a final version is issued next year. However, don't let this technicality fool you nor be swayed by misleading statements by Keir Starmer who maintains "Assisted suicide has been a criminal offense for nearly 50 years and my interim policy does nothing to change that". Mr. Starmer is correct, assisted suicide is still against the law in Britain but if one actually commits this crime the odds of being prosecuted are non existent. Again, don't be misled by statement such as this: "There are no guarantees against prosecution and it is my job to ensure that the most vulnerable people are protected while at the same time giving enough information to those people like Mrs. Purdy who want to be able to make informed decisions about what actions they may choose". What a relief, Starmer is concerned about protecting the most vulnerable. Well, to all those vulnerable people out there I have a word of advise: watch out because your relatives and loved ones can kill you without fear of prosecution.

Like I said, I'll turn to this myself next week. In the meantime, William Peace has said a lot of what I might have, but said it better. Read the rest. --Stephen Drake

New Blog from Steve Gold: First Entry is a "Modest Proposal" on Health Care Reform

Steve Gold is a long time friend, ally and warrior in the disability rights movement. Of special interest to NDYers is that Steve was the primary author and Counsel of Record on the NDY amicus brief in the 1996 Supreme Court cases examining assisted suicide as a "constitutional right." Steve has written and filed other briefs on behalf of NDY since then, some of which can be found here.

Many disability activists and advocates are on Steve's mailing list or check his website for Steve Gold's Nuggets of Information on housing, medical assistance/medicaid, nursing homes, education and other useful ADA-related information.

Steve has now joined the world of bloggers and blogging.

I expect to be checking SteveGoldADA regularly to see what he's up to and what he's writing.

Steve's first entry cuts is a sort of "modest proposal" - with his own (tongue in cheek) suggestions on Preventing Health Care Reform from Burdening Our Country:

Every day 14,000 Americans lose their health coverage. More than 46 million people are without health care. But maybe many of these people really do not deserve and should not receive health care. Just because someone is poor or ill or disabled does not mean he or she deserves health care.

Similarly, many of the remaining millions of people who are already paying for private health insurance or are receiving publicly funded health care do not deserve the benefits they take for granted.

We must cut costs and the only fair way is to deny health care to all people who do not deserve to receive it.

Throughout the current health care debate, we have worn blind folds. In darkness, we have each touched a part of the health crisis, like the elephant’s tail, trunk, or ear. Based on what we touched, we thought we understood the problem and had the answers.

But just feeling up part of the animal is not enough. The trick is to figure out how we decide who really should not receive health care. Who is unworthy of receiving it? How we can persuade them not to request or receive health care? Once we figure this, we will significantly reduce our health costs.

The goal: Increase the number of people among us who should not receive health care because they do not worthy.

We have assumed that there is a health care crisis because of the health care insurance companies, the pharmaceutical drug companies, the doctors and hospitals, and the lawyers. But these folks represent only part of the trunk and the elephant’s left front foot.

No, the cause of the health crisis is much bigger. It’s them - those people who do not deserve unlimited health care – for themselves, for their children, for their parents.

Please read the rest here. And remember - it's satire. Steve's one of the good guys. --Stephen Drake

BMJ Editor Says He Doesn't "Get" Disability Opposition to Assisted Suicide - Is He Really That Stupid or Just a Liar?

I'm late getting to this one. Last month BMJ published an editorial by Deputy Editor Tony Delamothe titled "Assisted Dying: what's disability got to do with it?"

Here's his intro:

The debate on assisted dying has been hijacked by disabled people who want to live. It needs to be reclaimed for terminally ill people who want to die

Assisted dying, assisted suicide, assisted killing: call it what you will, I’m in favour of it as an option for terminally ill adults of sound mind who want to die. Nevertheless, I try hard to keep up with the arguments against it. I think I understand them all, with the exception of those emanating from various disability lobby groups.

Delacothe claims he doesn't understand the arguments from disability rights groups. After reading his commentary, I can only guess that hasn't bothered engage in any research or critical thinking in regard to the the disability activists who have actively opposed legalization of assisted suicide.

Either that, or he's lying - and hoping his readers are both uninformed and stupid.

I'm leaning toward the latter explanation.

Here's why:

Delacothe devotes a lot of space to discussing Jane Campbell's statement during the debate in the House of Lords prior to the vote on the Falconer bill. Campbell, who has spinal muscular atrophy, spoke about meeting the "qualifications" for admission to a Dignitas clinic. Delacothe complains that she didn't "tick off" a box saying she wanted to die and is therefore irrelevant to the debate. He conveniently omits any mention of the struggles her husband had during a recent health crisis - having to convince doctors that his wife's life was one worth living - and saving. Or Campbell's own concerns about how easily she could have been talked into an easy death in her debilitated state. (Quotes are in this blog entry - the links from the original news coverage aren't working for me right now.)

Further, he discusses Debbie Purdy, a woman with muliple sclerosis, who wants assurances her husband won't get prosecuted if he helps her go to Dignitas to commit suicide. Purdy is not terminally ill - she has a chronic condition with an uncertain trajectory. Likewise, Daniel James, a 23-year-old man whose parents took him to Dignitas due to his inability to adjust to life with paraplegia is mentioned by Delacothe. Since the parents of Daniel James were left alone by police and supported by the public, how is this not an issue that impacts directly on the lives of people with disabilities?

The short answer is that this is a disability issue. I strongly suspect that Delacothe knows that, but doesn't want to argue with disability activists in an honest and open debate.

It's easier to lie, especially when the rest of the editorial staff gives you a free pass.

If Delacothe ever loses his job as an editor at the BMJ, there's a bright future for him in one of the more sensational tabloids. His willingness to distort facts and abuse his position of editorial privilege prove his qualifications for a job at one of those rags. --Stephen Drake

What Other Bloggers Are Saying: Turner & Kowalski on Suicide Prevention Week and Day In Washington on the Baucus Bill

As often as possible, we like to make it a point to share what other bloggers (especially in the disability community) are saying about NDY-related topics.

Our friends at Turner & Kowalski are saying that Suicide Prevention Week Failed Bigtime and invite you to explore the Disability Implicit Association Test.

Day Al-Mohamed offers a "Quick Overview on Disability Issues" she's found in the Baucus Health Reform Bill on the Day in Washington blog.

Please check these blogs out. They're worth your time and attention. --Stephen Drake

Arizona Daily Star Romanticizes the Suicide of a Disabled Woman in a "Tribute"

Well, now that National Suicide Prevention Week is over, I guess the field is wide-open when it comes to romanticizing the suicides of people with disabilities in the popular press. Scary thought.

Just when I get to the point where I think I've seen everything in terms of sensationalized coverage that condones and sympathizes with the suicides of people with disabilities, something new comes along that shows me we haven't hit bottom yet. That "yet" is a scary thought, too.

Just today, the Arizona Daily Star published "Helping others lightened the darkness in nurse/counselor's life," part of a series titled "Life Stories." The series "chronicles the lives of recently deceased Tusconans." Here are the first few paragraphs about Shari Hope Kelly:

There's no telling how many souls Shari Hope Kelly escorted into the world during her decades as a labor and delivery nurse.

Nor can one quantify the innumerable psyches she soothed as a rape crisis counselor and an instructor in social science at Pima Community College.

And Kelly treated herself as compassionately as she did all others. She spent years thoughtfully formulating a plan. She long suspected the day would come when the physical pain of her disability and the emotional anguish over the abuses she suffered in childhood would outweigh her enjoyment of life.

Kelly wrote long letters to family and friends. She called people she knew to tell them how much they meant to her. She got the minutiae of her life in order. And she found a loving home for her service dog, John Denver, and her eight rescue cats. Only then did she release her spirit from her damaged body and troubled mind in an act she considered euthanasia. Kelly died at her own hand Aug. 11. She was 59.

"Treated herself compassionately?" "Release her spirit?"

In other words, Shari Kelly's life, unlike most, was a second-by-second act of heroism. When she could no longer be the hero, she did the understandable and "compassionate" thing.

But here's a little more info:

Kelly spent the first nine months of her life in a children's hospital ward in Brooklyn, N.Y. An orthopedic deformity required multiple surgeries that left her with clubbed feet, fused ankle bones and the need for leg braces when she learned to walk.

Kelly's parents divorced when she was 7 and her mother remarried. It was around then that a relative began physically abusing Kelly, said her brother, Ron Reddock of Tombstone, who was three years younger than his sister. He was the only person who knew the depths of torment she suffered.

A few friends and family describe the ways in which she reached out and enriched the lives of others. But I have to wonder - because the reporter doesn't - was maybe Kelly a better friend to others than others were to her?

I ask that, because I have to wonder if anyone - anyone at all - asked why Kelly was giving away her cats. Or why she gave away her service dog. That is really really rare - I personally don't know anyone who has done that. It takes something extraordinary for it to happen.

I also went to her online memorial and the guest book. For all the lives she touched, people she helped, people she reached out to -- there are only four entries in the guest book.

The article mentions that Kelly's mobility issues had increased over the past couple years and she used a scooter. Did that make friends less ready to make time for her, worrying about the accessibility of whatever meeting place they chose for a social gathering? Other people who use mobility devices have written of having limited social circles and one wonders what happened to Kelly's social supports as her mobility impairments increased.

But, in the framework of this story, no one is encouraged to think along those lines. Kelly's death is seen as almost inevitable and as a deserved act of compassion toward herself. Kind of like a hot bubble bath at the end of the day. (yes, that's sarcasm)

In retrospect, it's not surprising that the Arizona Daily Star would treat Kelly's death this way. The paper has a lousy track record. It ignored the the 2007 story of the investigation into the death of Janet Van Voorhis (allegedly facilitated by the Final Exit Network) and published a factually inaccurate and self-serving op-ed by Final Exit Network member Earl Wettstein earlier this year. Given this, I won't predict that the the paper can't sink any lower - I'm betting it can and very well may in the future, although I hope not.

Interestingly, groups such as the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention (AFSP) have published guidelines for covering suicide deaths, which this article departs from in important ways. But I won't bother linking to it, since it's clear that the AFSP doesn't mean for the media advisory to apply to media coverage of women with disabilities.

It's Suicide Prevention Week - Except for Old, Ill and Physically Disabled People

I'm not sure how many people are aware of this, but we are nearing the end of National Suicide Prevention Week (Sept. 6-12). In fact, today - September 10 - is World Suicide Prevention Day.

For readers of this blog, it might have been easy to miss this important week. After all, there have been some strange acts of "recognition" in the press over the last week.

For example, on Tuesday, September 8, the pro-assisted suicide group Compassion & Choices issued a press release detailing and celebrating the body count under Washington State's 6-month-old assisted suicide law. Apparently, there hasn't been a lot of concern that a private political advocacy group now provides more information about implementation of the law than the state does.

In any case, it has meant that the news in Washington State during this Suicide Prevention Week has been dominated by discussion of the "success" of the law enabling the suicides of seriously ill (allegedly terminal) people in that state. Talk of suicide prevention? Practically nil.

In fact, today, World Suicide Prevention Day, The Columbian published an editorial praising the law and what the facts (as presented by Compassion & Choices) indicate to them about its success.

None of this surprises me. I also don't expect any of the various suicide prevention groups to complain about the inappropriateness of exalting suicide during a week in which they're trying to promote the value of prevention.

The reason I don't expect any complaints from suicide prevention organizations is that - to me, at least - they've made it pretty clear that they've written off the lives of old, ill and physically disabled people as "acceptable losses." I specify "physically disabled," because having a label of psychiatric disability too often leads to indefinite terms of forced institutional treatment - with or without a wish to commit suicide. But it's one thing to have concerns about excesses in the name of "prevention" and another thing to embrace the facilitation of suicides for select groups in the population.

Specifically, there is an appalling lack of voiced concern over the promotion of suicide in the populations of old, ill and physically disabled people. For the first few months of this year, there was nationwide coverage of the Final Exit Network - an organization that supports and facilitates the suicides of people with nonterminal disabilities and chronic conditions. Over the course of many months, stories appearing in countless outlets included the URL for the Final Exit Network in their stories. The website provided information on obtaining suicide instructional materials and how to get involved with the Final Exit Network. Most of the articles treated the Network and its "work" sympathetically.

In case you're wondering, suicide prevention groups do get involved in media issues. The American Foundation for Suicide Prevention and the Suicide and Mental Health Association International both have sections devoted to media issues. Except for a brief mention of suicide increases related to publication of Derek Humphry's book, Final Exit, there is no acknowledgment that the suicides of old, ill and physically disabled people are being facilitated and then covered in a way that legitimizes them in the press.

So it's not like these organizations don't get involved in breaking news or policy issues. Back in March of this year (while coverage of the Final Exit Network was running high), the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention issued a letter blasting Senator Charles Grassley for comments he made suggesting AIG executives should commit suicide, which he soon apologized for. In addition, the organization has actively been involved in the effort to install barriers on the Golden Gate Bridge to prevent suicides and issued a statement of concern over the movie "Seven Pounds," in which the suicide of a young and healthy man was a crucial plot point.

To be fair, the Foundation and other organizations have expressed concerns about high rates of suicide among the elderly, but avoid discussion of the impact of the active promotion of assisted suicide - which has legitimized "fear of being a burden" and "loss of autonomy" as "rational" reasons to commit suicide (if you are old or ill, anyway).

But when it comes to coverage of the Final Exit Network, promotion of assisted suicide, and other issues - these organizations maintain a studied silence. And it's a silence that speaks volumes to those of us who have been paying attention.

The complete absence of suicide prevention organizations from the public discussions of these issues sends a message: the suicides of the elderly, the ill, and people with disabilities aren't their concern.

There could be many reasons for that. Perhaps they're afraid that being critical of suicide promotion for these groups could alienate potential donors. Another possiblity is that there is division within the ranks of these groups - that some influential professionals believe that some lives aren't worth saving - and that the suicides of old, ill and physically disabled people call for a different kind of response.

That response right now is silence. It may be a silence fueled by simple cowardice and political expediency. Or it could be something worse - that they really have written us off.

No way to know because they're not talking. And up til now, everyone has been too polite to point out that this is an arena in which their voices belong.

I plan to revisit this topic. These organizations need to know that we are listening and watching.

Have a happy Suicide Prevention Week - for you young, healthy, nondisabled people that seem to be its only focus right now. For the rest of us, it's just another week. --Stephen Drake

Blog Bonanza: Montana and Assisted Suicide

Last week, this blog devoted some space to the oral arguments held at the Montana Supreme Court over a lower court's finding of a "constitutional right" to assisted suicide for "terminally ill" people.

Since then, there has been surprisingly little discussion about the decision being awaited in Montana. Nevertheless, some people have been moved to write on the topic and I want to highlight them here today.

William Peace at Bad Cripple wrote about it in "Montana, Suicide and Disability":

(excerpt)

If you accept the premise that more people prefer death to a life with disability then Montana is not a place to live. Here I refer to anyone who has a disability or lacks human dignity. The New York Times, Wall Street Journal and other national news outlets are reporting about the Bill Baxter case. For those unfamiliar with Baxter he died of cancer and fought not to live but die with the help of his doctor. Montana's highest court will decide this week if Mr. Baxter's claim a doctor's refusal to help him die violated his rights under the Montana's State Constitution. This would be an interesting legal question if lives were not at stake. If Baxter's position is upheld Montana would become the first state to declare an assisted death to be a constitutional right. Montana's constitution holds that "the dignity of the human being is inviolable". I can only assume not all humans are perceived in the same light. Among those that come to mind are those with a chronic illness, the elderly and people with a disability. I suppose the court like the rest of society sees some people as not fully human and thereby lack dignity. Much of course depends upon on what defines us as human and dignified. I consider myself to be fully human. I would also like to believe I have a certain amount of dignity. Much to my chagrin, many strangers that see me go by do not consider me fully human and certainly not dignified. A few have told me directly "I would rather be dead than in a wheelchair".

Michael Kirsch, M.D. at MD Whistleblower shared his thoughts in "Physician-assisted Suicide: Constitutional Right or Just Plain Wrong?:

(excerpt)
Physician-assisted suicide is wrong and no court decision can make it right.

I expect some to claim that my categorical view against this practice is callous and dogmatic. I reject these arguments. There are some moral lines that simply must not be violated. The medical profession is sworn to relieve suffering and to comfort those who cannot be healed. This is our mission. Our patients trust us with preserving and protecting their lives. If we were to hasten or cause death, regardless of the motive, we squander this trust and sacrifice the essence of what it means to be doctors. It would change how we physicians view our own profession and would certainly change how society view us. Euthanasia would conspire with overzealous organ procurement in intensive care units and nursing homes as forces that distort how we view these human beings. If physician-assisted suicide were to become accepted, then it will inevitably enter the minds of physicians, nurses and family members who are caring for dying, or even chronically ill patients. Once this becomes an option, then it becomes legitimatized. It’s easy and frightening to extrapolate where this could lead us. The medical profession must remain guardians of life, not expediters of death. We need to keep our mission pure.

Finally, Kevin Yuill shared some of his own analysis on Spiked Online in "Assisted suicide: the real slippery slope":

(excerpt)

In some ways, what happens in this state will have little impact beyond its borders. Just one million people live in this huge territory, which is nearly one-and-a-half times the size of the British Isles. But the implications of the outcome of this case, of course, do not end with Montana. If successful, which both sides admit looks likely, the plea for a right to a death with dignity will make the restrictions contained in the Oregon, Washington and the proposed British legislation – that the recipient of a physician-assisted suicide must suffer from a terminal illness and have less than six months to live – irrelevant.

These three individuals come from distinct perspectives. Bill Peace is a disability activist and anthropologist. Michael Kirsch is a practicing physician with some significant fears about some of the directions that medicine may be heading. Kevin Yuill is a professed liberal who teaches American studies in the UK.

For all their differences, there is significant overlap in their respective analyses - I hope people go read what these individuals have to say. --Stephen Drake

Oklahoma: Reporter labels an attempted murder as "failed mercy killing"

I don't know if there are any journalistic guidelines for using the term "mercy killing" or if reporters just make it up as they go along.

A story out today marks one of the more outlandish uses of the term that I've seen in the press. Writing on Newsok.com, the website of the Oklahoman, Nola N. Clay reports on the apparent plea bargain and sentencing of Thomas Wayne Garrett, who attempted to shoot his wife to death last December. The title of the news story is "Midwest city man gets 20 years in failed mercy kill":

A Midwest City man has been sentenced to 20 years in prison for shooting his longtime ailing wife in a failed attempt at a mercy killing.

Thomas Wayne Garrett, 60, pleaded guilty Thursday to assault and firearm possession during a felony.

He admitted shooting his wife, Cynthia Garrett, on Dec. 9 after picking her up from the hospital. He told police she had been very ill and suffers from several chronic diseases. The two have been married more than 30 years.

"He said that he wanted to kill her and put her out of her misery,” police reported.

He also told police they had been evicted from their house but he had not told his wife because he had not wanted to burden her while she was in the hospital, police reported.

He shot her while pretending to drive her to their home.

So let's get this straight - While he told the police his wife was ill and suffering, it also turns out that they'd been evicted from their house and that he hadn't told her. He also didn't ask her if she wanted to be killed - this was his decision.

So - what are the rules and rationale for using the term "mercy killing?"

If the perpetrator gives that as his or her motivation, is that both necessary and sufficient?
Is there any way to call it plain old "murder" if the perp claims mercy and the victim is old, ill or disabled?

How do reporters figure these things out?

With reporting like this, imagine if Garrett's murder attempt had been successful. Without the testimony of his wife - who didn't want to be killed - his claim of "mercy" just might have gotten him a lighter sentence than the attempt to kill her did.

BTW, this case is fairly typical of elderly men killing female partners according to the research done by Donna Cohen, which is quoted and described in this blog entry. --Stephen Drake

Belated blog recommendation: "My life is unbearable - don't fix it, just kill me," by Clair Lewis

I'm still catching up with news and posts that came out during my unplanned hiatus. Last week, the Heresy Corner published a guest blog entry by Clair Lewis, a prominent disability rights activist in the UK.

Below is the intro to "My life is unbearable - don't fix it, just kill me":

Care staff had to help me out of bed this morning. It happens increasingly often these days, as my incurable disease and my unfit body's slow ageing makes its mark. Some mornings, being lifted hurts so much I cry. It's only a matter of time before I end up wet in bed and need a commode and then a nappy. I regularly tip coffee down myself in the mornings because I can't hold a mug, and I still can't type properly because it takes two hours for my hands to warm up. I am only 36.

I'm pretty lucky actually. I am reminded almost every year by a social care manager that if I was childless I wouldn't qualify for care at all - in which case I'd be lying here alone with a bladder full to bursting, paralysed by pain and stiffness. Instead of writing and drinking coffee, I'd be trying to work out how to make it to the toilet before I wee. My life, what there was of it, would be pretty unbearable.

Nobody wants me to suffer. I don't want to suffer. My friends and colleagues don't want me to suffer. Neither do my doctors, my care manager, either of my beautiful girlfriends, or my three wonderful kids. If I died tomorrow, it would indeed end my suffering. If I said I wanted to commit suicide when it all gets too much, many people would support me and think the state should do it for me. If I said I wanted to die, would you rage at the state for not offering me a final solution?

Please read the rest of this essay by Clair Lewis at the Heresy Corner.

NY Times: Montana Court to Rule on Assisted Suicide Case (NDY Quoted)

Tomorrow (Sept. 2, 2009) the Montana Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in the Montana Attorney General's challenge of a lower court ruling that defined assisted suicide as a "right."

Today's edition of the New York Times contains a fairly good account of the stakes - and stakeholders - in the current legal battle in Montana. Kudos to reporter Kirk Johnson for going beyond the "usual suspects" and giving a richer picture of the players and arguments in play against legalization of assisted suicide:

Some people speaking out about the case, like Bob Liston, are also expressing sentiments that one might not expect.

Mr. Liston, 54, a research associate at the University of Montana who has spent most of the last 40 years in a wheelchair because of an auto accident, has been a passionate advocate for the disabled in arguing for autonomy and respect.

But this time he is arguing just as passionately on the other side, contending that aid in dying could backfire on people with debilitating conditions, leading not to more autonomy, but less. Mr. Liston, an organizer for a national disability-rights group called Not Dead Yet, said he envisioned people like himself being nudged toward life-ending choices by their doctors or families, out of compassion or perhaps convenience.

“People with disabilities don’t get to live with dignity, let alone die with dignity,” he said.

Other opponents of a “right to die well,” as some are calling the argument made by Mr. Baxter and the group of physicians who joined him as plaintiffs, say that rural Montanans could be left out, too.

In places like Scobey, in the state’s far northeast corner, where Julie French lives, the population density is about one person per square mile. Minimal health care is hours away.

“Before we deal with assisted suicide, we should make sure first and foremost that everybody has equal access,” said Ms. French, a Democratic state legislator who opposes an expansion of death rights. “It is not simply whether everyone has a right to choose; it’s whether they are given all the choices.”

More news as it develops over the coming days, weeks and months...

Robert Schindler, Father of Terri Schiavo, Has Passed Away

Most of our regular readers will know this already from other sources - I've been busy with other issues that have kept me offline for a couple of weeks.

Last week, Robert Schindler passed away at the age of 71.

Our thoughts are with the Schindler family and we are all saddened by their loss.

Here is the statement issued by Bobby Schindler, including instructions for sending your support and condolences:

Statement from Bobby Schindler Regarding the Death of
His Father, Robert Schindler

For Immediate Release
August 29, 2009

Media Contact:
Chris Tatum
(615) 275-6161
chris@anewpr.com

Statement from Bobby Schindler Regarding the Death of
His Father, Robert Schindler

I am heartbroken over the loss of my father and yet I know at this moment he is rejoicing with my sister, Terri. My dad was a man of integrity, character and compassion who was blessed with a close and loving family. He taught all three of his children to respect and value life and to love our fellow man.

Even at the height of the battle to save my sister Terri’s life, when his patience and temperance was near exhaustion, he managed to display a gentleness of spirit. Yet it was his unfathomable strength that allowed him to shoulder up his own heartache and lead us through our darkest hour.

What greater legacy could a man leave behind?

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

A Mass of Christian burial with visitation preceding will be scheduled to take place in Philadelphia, PA. Times and location will be announced at a later date.

In lieu of flowers, memorials may be made to the Terri Schindler Schiavo Foundation, 5562 Central Avenue, Suite 2, Saint Petersburg, FL 33707, phone 727-490-7603.