March 22, 2005
From the desk of Jane Galt:Is Schiavo's brain gone?
Most of the anti-Schiavo people (pro-Michael? I don't know what to call them) have been stating unequivocally that Terry Schiavo's cortex has been replaced by spinal fluid. This doctor (the first medico I've seen weigh in on the matter) says that isn't correct.
Posted by Jane Galt at March 22, 2005 08:58 AM | TrackBack | Technorati inbound linksI found it remarkable, if it is true, that she never has had a PET scan, which is far more accurate than a CAT scan, in terms of determining the level of metabolic activity within a brain.
Posted by: Will Allen on March 22, 2005 09:13 AMI find it remarkable, if its true, that Terri can recite Shakepeare while juggling chainsaws and hopping on one foot. Why don't we stick to the facts and not speculate on this matter?
Posted by: Bert Cates on March 22, 2005 09:36 AMI know CodeBlueBlog best as the blog that was arguing quite firmly back in the fall that Yushchenko was not, in fact, poisoned with dioxin (see his November archives for more). That's not to say he isn't right, either in the Yushchenko case or the Schiavo case; I'm just saying that, in part because of my own political biases, I take him with a very large grain of salt.
Posted by: Jessica on March 22, 2005 10:17 AMBert, it was something from that the nortorious, foaming, right winger Mort Kondrake asserted yesterday, which I heard in passing as I was flipping around the channels. Mr. Kondrake has some interest with these issues, given his wife's death from Parkinson's. This forum in which we conversing is rather informal, and, in the grand scheme of things, not terribly important (sorry, Jane). If you have information that contradicts Mr. Kondrake's assertion,I'd be happy to hear it. Otherwise, why not lose the pointless sarcasm?
Posted by: Will Allen on March 22, 2005 10:36 AMWill, I believe that a PET scan would be utterly useless. We already know that Terri has suffered massive brain damage. Nobody's disputing that. Any diagnostic test to confirm it would leave us right back where we started.
See, the problem is that "massive brain damage" isn't enough to make the leap to "It's okay to kill her."
This isn't a case of a woman who's on a ventilator, being kept alive artificially. She's in perfect health and could live another forty years if we just keep giving her food.
Posted by: Jeff Harrell on March 22, 2005 10:43 AMCan you say "confirmation bias"? There are myriad sources claiming that Terri Schiavo's cortex is effectively gone; those are dismissed. Then you dig up one source, no more authoritative than many of the others, making a claim only that the deterioration is less than total ("The cortex is thinned and the sulci are enlarged"), and that evens the scales? Puh-lease. An expert witness can be found to defy any consensus, but that doesn't mean the opposing views are equally credible.
Posted by: Platypus on March 22, 2005 10:43 AMI thought the extent of the brain damage played a part in the judicial reasoning. I merely thought it remarkable that the procedure that would most definitively provide proof had never been done, in all the years that this conflict has been pursued.
Posted by: Will Allen on March 22, 2005 10:50 AMOh..So Morton Kondrake said it so therefore, it must be true? Parkinson's isn't really relevant to this issue and has no bearing on what the proper course for Terri Schiavo is. My grandmother has alzheimers and my grandfather specifically asked to be removed from a ventilator, so I guess that leaves me on at least an equal footing with Mr. Kondrake. I have heard so much crap from those supporting the Schindlers that I am inclined to take nothing that they say at face value. They have lied repeatedly (No CT scan was ever done, Michael stands to reap millions from the settlement, Michael never provided therapy, etc.)
Posted by: Bert Cates on March 22, 2005 10:57 AMBert, apparently, along with being insipidly sarcastic, you are also functionally illiterate, and are unable to deduce the meaning of the qualifier I employed, "if it is true,...",thus causing you to ask the question, "Oh..So Morton Kondrake said it so therefore, it must be true?".
I brought up Mr. Kondracke's experience with Parkinson's only to note that Kondracke likely has some sensitivity as to the toll on families from lingering long term care. This forum is a simple little place for informal dialogue, and it may come as a shocker, but not everyone has the time to review the legal briefs. Go ahead, though; engage in your pointless hostility.
Posted by: Will Allen on March 22, 2005 11:09 AMWell, if you readers are in an uproar over that CT, wait till you see what her bone scan shows. I was just given her bone scan report which shows, pretty conclusively, that Terri was abused or beaten or handled severely.
I am as expert as anyone anywhere in interpreting CT's of the brain (not a difficult task). I'll back that up. You can look at my credentials and training. You can ask me or my peers.
There is only ONE CT image available. I'd gladly go over the entire scan if you can get it for me.
My disconnect was in hearing Michael Schiavo's lawyer claim that Terri's brain was replaced by water and in hearing several NPR bioethicists say exactly the same thing. When I saw this image, I was shocked.
Terii's brain is no more atrophied than about a million or two 70-100 year olds in nursing homes today.
I defy, defy, DEFY ANY authority to challenge this assertion.
I will select one hundred images from one hundred different cases (of the elderly) in my files and I will submit those images to any radiologist in the world and I WILL DEFY him to tell me which ones represent functioning humans and what the level of their functioning is AND I WILL GIVE HIM $100,000 on $25,000 if he can do this with greater than 50% accuracy.
If we are going to starve people on the basis of THAT amount of atrophy then you better start building concentration camps and dumping all the assisted care facilities into them, because that's what we're talking about.
Posted by: CodeBlueBlogMD on March 22, 2005 11:15 AMWait, I got it!
All the courts, doctors, and lawyers (including the one who was appointed to represent the interest of Terri) are in a massive conspiracy with Michael S. to murder Terri so that they can split the malpractice money and deprive the Schindlers of their daughter.
There that is all wrapped up now. Michael S. is an evil bastard, the rest are leftist commie- pinko abettors and the Republican party has arrived just in time to save her.
And our Dear Leader has forgone a day or two of his precious vacation (something that he did not for go when 10's of thousands of human lives were wiped from the face of the earth in S.E. Asia) to come in to save her as well.
Terri should feel proud and feel so loved that our government would go to such unconstitutional lengths to save her life.
Someone should sit down with Terri and explain it all to her.
The problem might be that you would be talking to a flesh shell in which no soul resides, or that her soul and identity is irrevocably maimed by the loss of her memories and mental capabilities, or that the "Terri" that is there is tortured to the point of insanity from suffering 15 years of invalidity.
Let have a big round of applause for the society that can not settle this issue and resorts to crass and ghoulish political dog-and-pony shows at the expense Terri. Users of a profoundly disabled person at best and ghouls at worst.
(Clap) (Clap)(Clap)(Clap)(Clap)
I am so proud of my country today.
Posted by: j swift on March 22, 2005 11:18 AMYou can read about the strtling bone scan of Terri Schiavo here:
http://codeblueblog.blogs.com/codeblueblog/2005/03/csi_medblogs_co_1.html
By the way, I stand by weverything I write and everything I wrote about Yushchenko is on the mark, if youread carefully.
I see that Viktor has NOT instituted the investigation into his "poisoning." How about his alcoholisam?
Don't brand me JUST BECAUSE I ASK QUESTIONS AND FOLLOW UP ANSWERS AND HAVE ATHE KNOWLEDGE BASE TO DO IT!
Posted by: CodeBlueBlogMD on March 22, 2005 11:21 AMKeep in mind when you talk about Terri's condition that she has been bedridden for 15 years with no physical therapy for at least the last 10 or so. Her body has atrophied severely from neglect.
There is no reason to believe that physical therapy and treatment wouldn't restore function to the point where everyone would agree she was human. We can't know if it would work until someone tries it.
By and large, Michael's lawyers and ONE judge have been fighting to kill Terri. The Florida supreme court made some rulings, but those would be based on points of law only. The Florida Legal System has not conspired to kill Terri, only one judge and laywers hired by Michael who are ethically required to work as his advocates. The judge, by the way, has been amazingly reluctant to even allow any additional testing at the request of the parents. Other tests that might give a better indication of her condition.
Bolie IV
Posted by: Bolie Williams IV on March 22, 2005 11:54 AMWhat a mess. I was for a time firmly in the camp wishing her family could just let her go. I am also not in agreement with the Pope that a feeding tube is "natural" or "ordinary" means.
That said, what a mess. Now I am in doubt. About what happened to her. About whether her husband is to be trusted. About whether her parents are to be trusted. Yuck. The whole lot of them and the circus they are creating is a horror.
1. Terri deserves a do-over. Reconsider the whole matter elsewhere. Why not?
2. Please God, don't let this turn into laws stipulating that people cannot die without a feeding tube (especially if the patient expressly demanded no such tube be placed).
What a horrible way to go. If every aged person has to go out with tube-feeding, both the monetary and spiritual costs will be astronomical. I've seen endstage dementia with a feeding tube, many times. It's ugly. Not so bad without one. Am I to be permitted at least to make that decision for myself, without getting on the news? Yipe. And yuck.
Posted by: Pogo on March 22, 2005 12:00 PMIs anyone else uneasy about the qualifications of a purported medical doctor who writes about "acoholisam"?
Posted by: Jack Spratt on March 22, 2005 12:07 PMThanks Bolie,
I stand corrected, Michael S. and his attorneys and the judge are the murderous conspirators, the rest (the attorneys and doctors) are merely incompetent, leftist, pinko-commie, abettors.
Just curious Bolie, do you think the judge is a sociopath and just likes to kill disabled people/flesh shells or does he have some personally hatred for her? You seem a person in the "know", tell us all about it.
Posted by: j swift on March 22, 2005 12:08 PMYour credentials might be impeccable, doctor, but they're not unique. I said only that you are no more qualified than others who have offered opinions, not that you are unqualified. Is it really possible to get through med school nowadays without basic reading skills?
If we are going to starve people on the basis of THAT amount of atrophy then you better start building concentration camps and dumping all the assisted care facilities into them, because that's what we're talking about.
Such exaggeration only makes you look even less clued in to what's going on in this case. Most of those in assisted care are still capable of feeding themselves. Many more have not expressed any particular preferences regarding extraordinary lifesaving measures, or have explicitly said that they approve of such. Either consideration would distinguish their cases from Schiavo's, with few remaining. Your reference to concentration camps is pure appeal to emotion, without the tiniest shred of probative value. It's the argument of a three-year-old, not an educated professional.
Posted by: Platypus on March 22, 2005 12:13 PMWill, Whether or not Kondrake has some sensitivity to the issue isn't relevant. All you seem to have in rebuttal is juvenile name calling. A lot of people have sensitivity to issues but aren't well informed about them. Most of the people blogging about this issue have some sensitivity or at least claim to, but make numerous errors of fact, which are easily verifiable. You seem to be espousing the belief that because
Posted by: Bert Cates on March 22, 2005 12:18 PM(post continued)
Morton Kondrake may have some empathy because someone in his family died of a dissimilar conditinon, that you will accept a brief assertion that you caught while channel surfing as fact, unless proven wrong. In short, you have given Kondrake, an irrebuttable presumption of truth, despite the fact that he doesn't appear to have any special knowledge of the facts or medical issues at hand.
Posted by: Bert Cates on March 22, 2005 12:22 PMCodeBlueBlogMD -- in my earlier comment I was trying quite hard not to "brand" you, or even to say that you were wrong as to the cause of Yushchenko's disfigurement -- I'm not an MD myself, so I can't leap into that discussion, and as I stated, my political biases would lead me to give Yushchenko the benefit of the doubt. I apologize if you felt I was attacking you, though I'm not sure how you could have drawn that conclusion from my comment.
Posted by: Jessica on March 22, 2005 12:29 PMBert, remedial reading courses are available. When one writes "if it is true,..", one is explicitly NOT granting a presumption of truth, for one is explicitly expressing that one is less than certain of a claim's validity. Also, I haven't called you any names. I have stated that you are illiterate, after you demonstrated your inability to comprehend the meaning of the phrase "if it were true". I said you were insipidly sarcastic, after you responded with pointless bile to an innocuous statement that if it were true (try really hard, now, Bert) that this woman had never received a PET scan, it would be remarkable.
If I come across an NBA center, and remark, "My, that fellow is tall", I am not calling anyone names; I am merely engaging in empirical observation. I am doing the same when I remark that you are illiterate and insipidly sarcastic. Finally, in case it hasn't crossed the threshold of your titanic level of self-awareness, if you desire a civil exchange, it is best to engage others in a civil manner.
Posted by: Will Allen on March 22, 2005 01:33 PMAnd the Guardian Ad Litem appointed by Jeb Bush's Terri law before it was struck down says he's wrong, and she has indeed lost a significant portion of her brain. It is obvious that those who have an unhealthy attachment to the continuation of life without cognition are willing to lie about this. They lie about Terri's behavior, and they lie about Michael Schiavo's fitness as a guardian. The Schindlers have only recently started claiming that Terri is not in a persistant vegetative state, and accepted it in court before. The report was mentioned in the last Schiavo thread, and is here.
http://www.miami.edu/ethics/schiavo/wolfson%27s%20report.pdf
Quoting from this, page 33:
"These data indicate that Theresa's cerebral cortex is principally liquid, having shrunken due to the severe anoxic trauma experienced thirteen years ago."
There's a lot of interesting and frankly sad details in there, none of which backs up the parents' views.
Posted by: AK on March 22, 2005 01:41 PMAnd for those of you who hate PDFs, HTML.
http://jb-williams.com/ts-report-12-03.htm
Gosh, now Jane Galt has become a federal government pimp. The bitch recently even pimped a pro-christianity post. Shucks, you are off my reading list, shit bag. I thought you were a libertarian, but now you sound more and more suck ass republican. Go suck Blair's cock while you are in Brittanica.
Posted by: Terry Bradshaw on March 22, 2005 02:43 PMAnd our Dear Leader has forgone a day or two of his precious vacation (something that he did not for go when 10's of thousands of human lives were wiped from the face of the earth in S.E. Asia) to come in to save her as well.
The President of the United States has primary duties to the citizens of the country that elected him president? Who knew? And equally to the point, the US did send out aid in good time, including an aircraft carrier (==floating infrastructure and a crew who knows ho to run it), so the sniping about the president's vacation time rings as pointless and, at best, tangential to this discussion.
Posted by: anony-mouse on March 22, 2005 02:52 PMThe people who want Terri to continue to live don't have to lie. They have their bias and can choose to emphasize that which better or best supports their case. Since Terri is not a completely comatose patient, it is not that hard to come up with "supporting" evidence.
Personally, I would rather she live. I do not consider a feeding tube to be a heroic measure as opposed to a respirator. OTOH, I can empathize with Michael who, to put it in the best light, is seeking closure and the ability to get on with his life.
Posted by: A Comment on March 22, 2005 02:53 PMThanks, Terry Bradshaw, for that enlightened example of how a thinking-person reacts to a point of view s/he doesn't prefer.
Somehow, I think the loss of your readership will be more detrimental to you than to Jane, although the "read" portion of "readership" is questionable in your case since Jane's Schiavo post didn't explicitly endorse any point of view and I haven't seen her participate in this follow-up thread.
Posted by: anony-mouse on March 22, 2005 02:57 PMI found these comments surprising, as they run contrary to the comments at the following two sites, which are the only doctors I could find before your link discussing the case.
http://respectfulofotters.blogspot.com/2005_03_01_respectfulofotters_archive.html#111120735448873570
http://www.amptoons.com/blog/archives/2005/03/20/regarding-the-cat-scan-of-terri-schiavos-brain/
I have no idea whether Cerebocrat has the credentials he/she claims to, but Rivka has been posting about her medical work regularly for several years.
I notice that, while Rivka strongly criticizes the doctors arguing on the Schindler's behalf, she does not spend much time backing up her main claim that the cortex is destroyed, so it is possible that she is taking others' word for this. Code Blue and Cerebocrat strike me as pretty irreconcilable.
My own opinion on this issue comes down almost entirely to the resolution of this medical question, so it is frustrating that I am not competent to judge.
Posted by: david on March 22, 2005 03:11 PMWill, Don't take too much offense at this, but you are coming off as a self-important prick. I never attacked anyone before you attacked me, calling me functionally illiterate, simply because I carelessly used a phrase. The mere fact that I can respond to you and post here clearly demonstrates that I am not and that you don't know the meaning of the word. That you chose to use it to attack me personally, even though I had not attacked you speaks volumes about your near total lack of intellect and maturity. You have engaged in this smug and rather idiotic behavior with other posters before, apparently thinking yourself some great arbitor of what passes for intellect. Civility is a two way street and you never show any to anyone who disagrees with you and then go on the attack.
Posted by: Bert Cates on March 22, 2005 03:24 PMDr. Blue, I'm afraid I can't find your cv on your blog. Could you provide a link? Thanks.
I am sceptic of purported Dr. as much as I am of any of the "experts" who make such claims as Terri is not in a PVS or can be rehabilitated. One can find accredited scientists who can argue with a straight face that the the earth is only a few thousand years old and that the story of Noah's Ark is true if one looks hard enough. At the end of the day, to me, the issue is not how much brain function Terri Schiavo has, but whether she wanted to be kept alive in this fashion and whether the federal government should be playing a role in preventing what has been ruled legally to be her choice.
Posted by: Eamon on March 22, 2005 03:47 PMBert,
You were rude for no reason, and Will called you on it. Just let it go.
Posted by: Rex on March 22, 2005 03:53 PMBert, along with the remedial reading classes, perhaps you can take some therapy. You see, most people have enogh self-awareness to grasp that being needlessly sarcastic in response to what was a fairly innocuous conversational statement is an invitation for a hostile response. Apparently, you do not.
Here's a clue, Sherlock; if you want a civil exchange, lose the needless sarcasm, and have enough courtesy to respond to what the person you are having a dialogue with has actually written, instead of attributing to them sentiments that they haven't expressed, as you did by writing that I was granting a presumption of truth. I'll take your word for it, then. You aren't illiterate, you merely can't be bothered to actually read what someone has written when engaging in dialogue, because you're too full of yourself to avoid having an argument with what you imagine or wish someone has written, instead of what they actually did. This does make some sense, given the previous unwarranted, insipid, display of sarcasm with which you chose to begin the dialogue. You aren't illiterate, you are merely entirely self-absorbed. Congratulations.
Posted by: Will Allen on March 22, 2005 04:13 PMIf anyone ever read what I said, I'd be shocked, and they would be less irate.
My point was that, even as an experienced radiologist (I calculate that I have looked at over 10,000 brain CT's)the picture that I had in MY mind of Terri's brain -- given the press reports, lawyer statements and media proclamations, was shockingly different from what I saw when I opened that link. I heard an ethicist on NPR say that Terri's brain was a "bag of water," and Michael Schiavo's lawyer basically said that inside Terri's skull was a black hole. When I saw that CT I realized that they were totally mischaracterizing the truth. That was my FIRST point.
My SECOND point was that there are literally millions of people out there with similar brains. In Florida, where our population is heavy in the 70-100 year-old range, I see CT's like that all the time in people of variable funtionality. I heard another ethicist on NPR this week proclaim that given the amount of cortex Terri has lost she can be considered "dead" as the cortex is where all our "humanness" comes from. This bodes poorly for the population I just described.
My THIRD point is that there is something in Terri Schiavo's right ventricle that doesn't belong there. Is it a platinum electrode that was originally implanted in the thalamus? How did it get into her ventricle? Or is it a shunt?
If it is a shunt then why are they shunting her?
What are the most common causes for obstructive hydrocephalus in young people? Blood. Most young people get blood in their brain by trauma. That's just a statistical issue. The blood could have gotten there from other causes such as iatrogenic trauma.
Come to think of it those ventricles are very ROUND and BIG and there are no appreciable sulci in the occipital lobes...are the occipital lobes being compressed by hydrocephalic ventricles?
Let me see the rest of the scan and I'll tell you.
What's the point of all this? Why do I write my blog? I'll tell you why.
People are misinformed by the press and by the media and by physicians all the time. It's one of the reasons health care can't get out of it's own way in the United States, because people have been infantalized by the system to the point where you can tell them there is banana pudding in between your ears and they would believe it.
I say NO MORE. If people don't start getting wise and wising up, the government is going to take health care away from them and no one will even know what is missing (like the Canadians and the British). THIS IS MY POINT.
Why is everyone so upset at me all the time because I question all the foolish, silly, illogical and misleading media reports about every single health care issue that comes down the pike? I'M TRYING TO DO THEM A FAVOR!
Isn't this what the whole blogging experiment is supposed to be about?
I tried to use my spelling checker on this one --how'd I do?
Posted by: CodeBlueBlogMD on March 22, 2005 04:27 PMThis case is terrible. And it's the result of a bad law. From what I know (and my field is law, not medicine), under the law (including not just the particular Florida statute, but also the rules of evidence and standards of appellate review), the Schindlers lose this one.
The Florida statute is a bad one (and yes, the Texas statute that GWB signed as governor is bad too) because public policy should dictate for life in the absence of a clear, written directive from the patient as to when life-saving measures should be discontinued.
As it is, the Florida court must weigh (and can credit entirely) the testimony of a husband whose loyalty to and concern for his wife are certainly disputable. I hate to have courts in that position, when another statutory scheme could serve the interests of all so much better. I also have read enough not to trust Michael Shaivo, and I don't take a great deal of comfort in the fact that a judge somewhere does trust his testimony; I know a lot of judges; some are salt of the earth, some are scum of the earth; most are in between. I don't know a thing about Judge Greer, so I don't presume he is evil; nor do I presume infallability because of the black robe.
Finally, I don't think testimony of this kind should hold such great sway as it can under the Florida scheme. It is easy to say "I wouldn't want to live that way," as a passing response to a funeral or a movie, but if a person has to sit down with a piece of paper and give clear directives, with specifics, then the answers would generally be more carefully thought-out and therefore reliable as to true intent, and may not always be the same as the off-hand remark.
1. Put your wishes in a written Living Will so that this doesn't happen to you. Have anyone for whom you may be a guardian do the same.
2. When a person is incompetant to exercise their
rights, a court must appoint someone with power of
attorney to exercise those rights for them.
3. In Florida, the state courts are in this position. Congress and the President should stay out of it.
4. When the Florida courts decided Elian
Gonzalez' guardian would be his grandparents,
conservatives were outraged when the Feds (under
Ms. Reno and Prez Clinton) interferred. Now the
shoe is on the other foot.
5. We weren't there for all the hearings, etc.
that have been going on for, what, 7 years, in front of numerous judges. Frankly, I don't know
how credible either side's medical evidence or
testimony is.
6. Hopefully, the courts found the preponderance of evidence is on the side of Mr.
Schiavo. However, in a right to die case, the evidence should be beyond a doubt, not preponderance. This isn't yet the law, apparently, so let's follow current law. The
Florida legislature can make future remedy.
7. If the grandparents want to pay to keep Terri Schiavo alive, then let them - as long as Terri
is not in pain. If she is, then it would be cruel and unusal punishment, and she should be
permitted to die.
8. We need to grow up and allow people who wish
to die use a method that takes them out quickly,
not starves them over weeks. If your moral code or religion forbids suicide, then you are free to practice it. Those who want heroic measures
taken should pay for them. (Nothing wrong with a
medical insurance policy that spells out what
measures the policy will pay for and what it won't).
Creech:
Great post. I agree with all of your sentiments. I am an internal medicine physician, and I can see how your suggestions would remedy this mess rather well.
Posted by: Pogo on March 22, 2005 05:11 PMHallelujah, Denise. It really is bad legislation that grants such weight to testimony pertaining to what was said in the past, sometimes years previously in a casual conversation, on a topic that later becomes so profound; whether a now uncommunicative person wishes to be killed.
Posted by: Will Allen on March 22, 2005 05:13 PMWill, What is wrong with sarcasm? Many others use it here. I was simply pointing out that you were essentially throwing out something, implying it was true, since it wasn't rebutted and the learned Morton Kondrake, said it was. A lot of things would be shocking if they were true. My point was we should stick to what we know about this case instead of engaging in speculation. Those on your side seem not to want to do this. It is not my fault that you are so thin skinned that somehow took this a a personl attack, when all it was was an attack on your argument. Learn the difference. You did in fact post what can be reasonably interpreted as a grant of a rebuttable presumption of truth on the part of Mr. Kondrake whether you wish to see it that way or not. Again, as for civil dialogue, the phrase "physician, heal thyself" seems appropriate here given your sophmoric attacks on my educational level and mental health.
Rex, I wasn't rude to Will, I merely posted a comment in response to him using a literary device. If you read closely, and it is clear you haven't, it was little Willie that attacked me personally. I did attack his post, but not him. Get the difference? You come across as a partisan hack when you reprimand only one side, particularly the side which did not start with personal attacks, one that the attack has himself admitted was incorrect (conceding in his last post that I am not iilliterate.
Posted by: Bert Cates on March 22, 2005 05:18 PMAnother interesting aspect of this case was the threatened improper use of Congressional subpeona power, as a back-door method to compel the re-insertion of the feeding tube. Some Republicans embraced it, and the Democrats denounced it. When the Clinton/Reno Justice Department used blatantly false statements in an affadavit to a hand picked magistrate (they waited until the judge who was handling the case was unavailable), in order to get a search warrant for the Gonzalez home, and then went in and grabbed the kid and bustled him off to Cuba, the Democrats embraced the maneuver, while the Republicans denounced it. Of course, letting somebody die of thirst, or sending him back to Cuba, are fairly irreversible actions, so the parallel isn't precise, since the Democrats were on the irreversible side in both instances.
Posted by: Will Allen on March 22, 2005 05:23 PMWell, Bert, if it truly is beyond your comprehension, sarcasm in response to an innocuous remark is considered quite rude by many people, and an invitation to a hostile encounter. I responded to the invitation. Are you seven years old? If so, read, very, very, slowly; if you desire a civil exchange, refrain from sarcasm in response to an innocuous remark.
As to your reading comprehension, I may have to retract my retraction (in case it has escaped you, my allegation of illiteracy was sarcasm as well), if you really, truly, believe that to say "if it is true" is to imply something is true. Has it crossed your mind that someone may say such a thing because, as a matter of fact, they are uncertain as to whether something is true, and thus wish to communicate that the something may, in fact, not be true? Is this all too complex for you?
Posted by: Will Allen on March 22, 2005 05:41 PMOh, come off it, Will. IIRC, you've been known to be a bit rude or sarcastic in comments before. As long as it doesn't get out of hand, who cares?
Posted by: SomeCallMeTim on March 22, 2005 05:48 PMHey, Tim, it was Bert who objected to "name-calling", not I. If he wishes to have a hostile exchange, I'm happy to accomodate. If he wishes to have a civil exchange, losing the needless sarcasm (really, does such an innocuous remark warrant such a rude response?) would be well advised. I'm still curious, however, as to how the qualifier "if it is true" is taken as implying something is true.
Posted by: Will Allen on March 22, 2005 06:05 PMThanks, Will. As others have said elsewhere, no state law would ever permit disposition of a person's property with similar evidence to what we have here. "Judge, I swear even though Aunt Gertrude didn't have a will, she said 7 years ago that didn't want her no-good rotten kids to get her money when she was gone. She wanted it to go to the Humane Society."
Yet, apparently more than one state will allow disposition of a person's life this way. Amazing.
"As others have said elsewhere, no state law would ever permit disposition of a person's property with similar evidence to what we have here. 'Judge, I swear even though Aunt Gertrude didn't have a will, she said 7 years ago that didn't want her no-good rotten kids to get her money when she was gone. She wanted it to go to the Humane Society.'"
I must admit my puzzlement at the analogies people are making between living wills and ordinary wills, as if they disprove Michael Schiavo's position. Though I am certainly no lawyer, I'm pretty certain that if a person dies without a will, their property is distributed according to the laws of their state, with the spouse generally getting precedence (please correct me if I'm wrong!).
Now, wouldn't that mean that if we treat a person without a living will in a similar manner to a person dying without an ordinary will, then guardianship over that person would pass to the next-of-kin (spouse, then parents) in the absense of clear evidence to the contrary? In which case, aren't the Florida courts' rulings rather consistent with probate laws?
I'm not trying to be snarky, I genuinely don't understand the argument--unless you think ALL measures should be taken to protect EVERYONE in EVERY circumstance, which is a minority position, doesn't someone have to be appointed to make these decisions? And shouldn't that be the spouse? If not him or her, then whom?
(None of this, of course, speaks as to whether Michael Schiavo's decisions are in fact correct, I haven't anything like the medical knowledge to speak intelligently on that.)
Posted by: Steven on March 22, 2005 09:17 PMThis guy is the first doctor that you've seen express an opinion? Look harder. He posts here defending himself citing his expertise but ignoring his political bias. It's rather blatant after all. He has all the credibility of the geologist who, having decided that he is a Biblical literalist in his religious beliefs can prove that the earth really is only thousands of years old. For some odd reasons the only geologists who agree with him share his religious beliefs.
Posted by: Jim S on March 22, 2005 09:41 PM"He posts here defending himself citing his expertise but ignoring his political bias."
Your quasi-Marxist objection is silly. Everything in life is not per se political! This doctor is presenting an argument based solely on the hard evidence. Political ideology should have nothing to do with the matter.
Posted by: David Thomson on March 23, 2005 04:22 AMI very strongly recommend that those on both sides give this link a read:
http://www.terrisfight.org/documents/Hammesfahrexam.htm
It records the observations of Dr. William Hammesfahr, Nobel-nominated in medicine in 1999 for his success in treating brain-damaged persons even years after their traumas. His bias, if it is bias, is evident throughout his report: he speaks, for instance, of conducting his exam extremity-by-extremity because "her cooperation was best by focusing on specific regions, and then not coming back to those regions at a later time. Moving rapidly and from side to side tended to result in apparent confusion and stress in the patient, manifested by increased tone and less facial interactions, eye contact, and less accessibility to her limbs due to the increased tone causing contractures to redevelop." I say "if it is bias" because the other possibility is that it's purely observation. But I would actually consider a neurologist's bias toward assuming that a patient can be responsive to some degree, expressed by approaching an examination of the patient with respect for that person's humanity as opposed to approaching it as if she's a "flesh shell" (what a horrifying term), to be preferable, since a doctor committed to the succor of people is not the same as a lab scientist doing research.
He points out that "[i]n the spring of 2000, three physicians, including Dr. Jay Carpenter, who is a former Chief of Medicine at Morton Plant Hospital, filed affidavits after observing Ms. Schiavo. All three physicians stated that it is visually apparent that Ms Schiavo is able to swallow and, in fact, does swallow her own saliva" (saliva production is in the range of 2 liters of water per day). Elsewhere he states that "[i]t is unlikely that she currently needs the feeding tube" because she is indeed swallowing water, "one of the most difficult things for people to swallow." So pulling her feeding tube *and* forbidding any other form or method of sustenance is the mechanism for her impending death: contrary to what's been reported, she's quite possibly *able* to be spoon-fed; she just isn't *being* spoon-fed.
I think this woman is going to die. I think her husband's conflicts of interest are profound. I think that Michael Schiavo has no excuse for denying her the most basic physical therapy (such as to reduce her contractures) for the past ten-plus years, since if he believes she would not have wanted to live with brain damage, I have a hard time seeing how he could believe she would want to live with little or no flexibility in her limbs while he was waging his fight to "allow" her to die "with dignity." I think her parents' willingness - indeed, pleas - to take over her care, in the absence of her firmly stated or written and witnessed desire not to live in a brain-damaged but not significantly medically-supported state, ought to have more weight in the courts than they do. I think I'll never, ever go to Florida, on the off-chance that something might happen to me there and I'd fall under the jurisdiction of this court.
I am not reflexively for prolonging life through treatment; I am firmly for people's right to choose to die by withdrawal of treatment. But in a case like this one, in which the sides of the debate can be expressed as (a) husband claims that wife wouldn't want to live this way, and bases his claim on what he says is her complete lack of ability to function cognitively, versus (b) parents believe that daughter is responsive to them and to other stimuli, and are willing to undertake all her care to give her the best remaining life they can, true justice (as opposed to legal justice, I suppose) ought to lean toward life. After all, as I read either in this thread or the previous, if Terri Schiavo is effectively a "flesh shell," her dignity would remain intact under her parents' care and society's need to guard against steps down the path of externally-imposed euthanasia would be fulfilled. And yes, I think if you can't trust your spouse to speak for you when you can't speak, it's time for divorce - too bad you can't predict when you're going to collapse from a "heart attack" and be rendered unable to speak.
A word regarding the "Nobel-nominated" Dr. Hammesfahr: if you would like to be nominated for a Nobel prize, send a letter to Stockholm to that effect, and hey presto you're a Nobel prize nominee. (Dr. Hammesfahr got his Congressman to write him a letter.) It says something about someone that they would use that as a credential.
Posted by: alkali on March 23, 2005 07:29 AMGuys, please read the 2003 guardian ad litem report to Governor Bush (http://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/WolfsonReport.pdf) before you continue with this kind of speculation. All of this stuff came up before and there are extensive court records answering all your questions. The GAL report has a nice 25-page summary that is quick and easy to read, and which will point you to the relevant court records if you wish to go further.
Posted by: Jay on March 23, 2005 09:10 AMMy error, alkali - I didn't vet Hammesfahr's qualifications beyond a CV I found for him. If it's that easy, so be it. Wikipedia's (I know, I know) entry states first that the field of who can nominate (versus who can be nominated, which is not limited except to living people) is limited, and later that nomination records are sealed for 50 years, so the effect is that it ought to be "an honor just to be nominated" as they say, but claiming to have been nominated is not fact-checkable. I dunno. His examination was undeniably more thorough than Cranford's, and took into account the likelihood that she's legally blind (see the British Medical Journal here http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/313/7048/13, also on pervasive misdiagnosis of PVS), which the Cranford balloon-following thing does not.
Another of my errors: I've been commenting all over the place saying that Dr. Cranford is not a neurologist. He is one. But he has a history of giving exactly the diagnosis that he came up with in Terri Schiavo's case (see http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/johansen200503160848.asp for egregious examples), which means, not surprisingly, that each side is doing its cherry-picking. (I'm cleaning up my messes this morning, trying to return to my various comment spots and acknowledge my error like a good girl.)
Regardless of my inadequate fact-checking, I'm still heartsick that there are *any* reports that Terri Schiavo is responsive (and there are too many to ignore), yet the judge's finding of "fact" that she's in a PVS, the only rationale for removing her feeding tube and denying her sustenance, is holding. I'm sure she's not the only person alive today (but maybe not tomorrow) under these conditions - I don't know exactly why her case in particular is keeping me up at night - but there you have it.
Posted by: Jamie on March 23, 2005 09:17 AMWow! The report by the guardian ad litem that Jay references a couple of posts above is a MUST READ.
Posted by: Rex on March 23, 2005 10:30 AMDr. William Hammesfahr, Nobel-nominated in medicine in 1999 for his success in treating brain-damaged persons even years after their traumas
Well, um. But apparently he can't actually produce any patients that he has been successful in treating.
Steven -- The point is that in the intestate succession context, there is a clear set of rules, and those rules are followed in every case. There is no attempt to reconstruct a person's wishes after the fact. Such attempts would almost always be based on the testimony of witnesses who have a personal stake in the outcome.
Posted by: denise on March 23, 2005 10:50 AMAnd to amplify Denise's response, each state sets its own rules. Florida happens to permit testimony as to the person's intent in the absence of a living will or other advance directive. Other states do not.
Posted by: Rex on March 23, 2005 10:57 AMI haven't followed this case very closely, am not certain which way I lean as to whether what remains of Terry Schiavo should be kept alive, and in any case am not prepared to make a legal or ethical argument one way or the other.
However, I think I have a problem with the legal formalism whereby it's ok to decide a woman in a vegetative state should be "allowed" to die, and it's ok to achieve that result with utmost certainty by withholding sustenance until starvation does her in, but it's not ok to achieve the same certain result by simply euthanizing her. If there's the slightest chance that a shred of cognition remains (funny how our political inclinations suddenly turns us all into neuroscientists with dead certain opinions on this matter), it seems to me that withholding support is a far less humane option than say, lethal injection.
I'm reminded of the Simpsons episode where pirates make Homer walk the plank, and then tell him that for legal purposes, it will be the ocean that kills him, not them.
Posted by: Rob Leder on March 23, 2005 11:59 AMDenise, Will, Stephen, Rex, Jay:
Florida statutes do not allow a guardian or a surrogate to end life support for a person in a persistent vegetative state unless the evidence that that is the person's intent meets the standard "clear and convincing".
Clear and convincing is the highest evidentiary threshhold in civil law.
Judge Greer was Ms. Schiavo's trial judge. Back during the first trial, in 1998, he appointed a guardian to represent Ms. Schiavo's interests. That guardian's report concluded that Ms. Sciavo's husband had a financial conflict of interest and that her husband's hearsay testimony about Ms. Schiavo's intent could therefore not be clear and convincing.
Ms. Schiavo's husband filed a motion that the court-appointed guardian was biased against him. Judge Greer allowed the motion and ruled that the guardian was indeed biased.
It was then that Judge Greer elected to act himself as surrogate for Ms. Schiavo's interests. He heard testimony from Ms. Schiavo's family and friends. He ruled that a handful of comments Ms. Schiavo made to her husband and to two other persons indicated that she didn't want to be in intensive care for an indefinitely long time. He ruled that these statements were clear and convincing evidence of her preferences.
The problem here is not necessarily the Florida statute on health-care surrogates. The problem is the finding of fact by Judge Greer. The problem is the reluctance of the Florida appellate courts to critically review Judge Greer's finding of fact. Under Florida law, Judge Greer was mandated to err on the side of life and maintain life support, unless clear and convincing evidence of Ms. Schiavo's wishes could be found.
If Judge Greer improperly weighed Ms. Schiavo's husband's hearsay testimony, then he disregarded both the letter and the spirit of Florida law.
Posted by: Matthew Goggins on March 23, 2005 01:16 PMCodeBlueDude, you need to be careful around the pills.
Allegations that Terri was beaten or strangled or maimed by her husband are nothing new in this case, and if they were credible we would know that by now. Terri's been examined by dozens of doctors in connection with her treatment, a malpractice beef, and the termination of her treatment. Certainly, the parties to the malpractice beef would have brought out any facts relevant to a claim of wife-beating, for obvious reasons.
Why don't you try and calm down a little instead of offering little green men diagnoses from afar?
Your analysis of the record reminds me that your profession performed lobotomies for 75 years in the best interests of patients.
Posted by: Richard Bennett on March 23, 2005 01:31 PMMatthew,
If you read the report that Jay referenced above at
http://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/WolfsonReport.pdf
you will see that the state-appointed GAL (guardian ad litem) agreed that the first GAL was clearly biased. Judge Greer had the task of being the fact-finder in this case, and he was entitled under the law to give credence to the witnesses who heard Terri say, usually when she was attending funerals, that she wouldn't want to live in such a state. Florida law permits the judge to give whatever weight he wants to the evidence. He determined that the evidence met the required standard for the burden of proof, and NONE of the appellate courts have found that he abused his discretion in so deciding.
Judge Greer made a hard decision--but that's what we pay judges to do. And since none of the Florida appellate courts found that he disregarded or misapplied Florida law, who are we to say otherwise?
This is such an emotional issue. One can easily see why many states have decided that unless it's in writing, the plug won't be pulled.
I had no opinion one way or the other until I read the GAL's report referenced. Now I believe that the procedures were fairly and properly followed, and that Terri should be allowed to finish dying in accordance with her wishes.
Posted by: Rex on March 23, 2005 01:37 PMMatthew Goggins writes:
It was then that Judge Greer elected to act himself as surrogate for Ms. Schiavo's interests.
As the Florida appellate court noted, this is normal procedure in Florida courts. (In this case, there were two alternative course of action, and both were represented, one by Ms. Schiavo's parents and one by her husband. What would be the benefit of appointing a third person in addition to the court?)
If Judge Greer improperly weighed Ms. Schiavo's husband's hearsay testimony ...
Given that Terri Schiavo is not available to testify, all evidence regarding her desires and intentions -- including her parents' testimony -- would be hearsay.
In any event, statements regarding one's mental state, including statements of belief, desire and intention, are excepted from the rule against hearsay. (Examples: "Jane said hello" and "Jane said she was hungry" are not objectionable hearsay. "Jane said it was raining" is admissible if what's at issue is whether Jane thought it was raining at a particular time; it's generally not admissible to show that it actually was raining.)
Posted by: alkali on March 23, 2005 02:30 PMCodeBlueBlogMD
The info online said the the implants were done
many years ago, and the Doctor told Michael they
would eventually need to be removed
- he never did.
in fact, he uses that as an excuse why tests
like MRI, PET, etc. cannot be done.
The discharge report, and other sources,
(In spite of what Michael and his lawyer say) that it was NOT a heart attack.
The enzymes were not elevated and the EKGs was normal.
The doctors also ruled out toxic shock, and numerous other causes.
What was left was a neck injury consistent with strangulation, on a young woman with a "history of trauma", who had been brain-damaged from lack of air...
a woman who peole testified was afraid of him,
and wanted a divorce, and had been fighting with
him on the day of the "collapse".
j swift was very accurate, if you forget the sarcasm... 14.8 million enough ?
from The Empire Journal:
"(Sherriff) Rice and Schiavo’s attorney, George Felos, have also served on
the board of directors of the Hospice of Florida Suncoast, the corporation which
operates the Woodside Hospice in Pinellas Park where Terri Schiavo is a residence.
Felos failed to disclose his affiliation with the Hospice at the time in April,
2000 when he and Michael Schiavo moved Terri (illegally) to the Hospice. However,
it has since been learned by The Empire Journal that the proper certification
for Terri’s admittance to the Hospice was never completed and that she was not
legally designated as terminal, a requirement to be admitted to a hospice and
for her care to be paid for by Medicare. The federal government has initiated
collection procedures against the Hospice of Florida Suncoast to recover some
$14.8 million which they say was unlawfully paid to the hospice as a result of
fraudulent claims made for Medicare reimbursement for (hundreds of) patients
that were not terminally ill and therefore not eligible for hospice care."
Well clarification! How about a little more clarification.
You seem to quote the "Empire Journal" as some newspaper when in fact it is an extremist right wing pro-life blog. Why should I believe anything they have to say. Please clarify.
Please cite the FL statute that made it illegal for anyone to place Terri S. in the Sunrise Hospice. Did someone violate a hospice policy or a state law, regulation, or ordinance? Please clarify.
Same for statute, regulation or ordinance that requires a certification that Terri was terminal in order for her to be admitted to the hospice and/or receive medicaid. Please clarify.
Provide some documentation that Terri S. was admitted to the hospice at anytime or during the time that the federal government is alleging that the fraudulent claims were made.
Provide some documentation that any charges that were made by the hospice specific to the care of Terri S. were fraudulent.
Please provide some proof that Michael S. had any knowledge of the fraudulent claims, or conspired with the hospice to defraud or why it is even relevant to anything other trying to smear Michael S. reputation. Please clarify.
Why is the Sheriff relevant to anything dealing with legal and political issues surrounding Terri Schaivo other than the fact that he might be held accountable for mismanagement of the hospice if he was on the board at the time of the fraudulent claims and his weak connection to M.S.'s attorney and M.S. must mean that Michael S. is also a bad guy. Please clarify
Ditto for Felos.
Maybe the Sheriff and Felos are dirty. Can you cite any grand jury indictments, criminal charges etc. against them?
If the Sheriff and Felos are dirty why is that relevant to Terri S. case. Other than you wish people to assume that Michael S. is a evil bastard because his attorney may have been negligent in his role as board member of a hospice where Terri S. may have been. Please clarify.
My point was that it is bad legislation which allows anything short of written, notarized, documentation to be considered "clear and convincing" evidence that a now-uncommunicative person desires to be denied food and water.
Posted by: Will Allen on March 23, 2005 04:28 PMMay I also ask some questions ?
(Btw, originally, I had no particular opinion.
I'm even a libertarian who doesn't approve
of what congress did.
And personally, I would prefer to die in her situation.)
But reading Michael own contradictions in his own court testimony, etc., made a big difference.
In the malpractice case, he CLEARLY did not think
she was PVS according to his testimony. Curious...
and sworn affidavits from nurses and his ex-girlfriends made a big impression.
quotes like "when is the b.... going to die?"
don't make me think he is totally innocent.
Michael secretly moving Terri into a hospice that
she was not eligible for, connected to his lawyer,
disturbs me.
Ignore the stuff from Empire Journal if you wish.
But the hospice has been basically accused of
14.8 million of fraud, in hundreds of cases.
Whatever the details, it does provide for motivation, just as you obviously believe any
"right-wing" publication would lie.
Fact is, there is still enough about this whole
case that stinks, that any reasonable person would
agree, that Terri should at least have one honest
review of BASIC facts, with a Guardian to represent just her, with a Judge that had no ties to the case.
I freely admit I don't have the answers.
But i do have a LOT of questions...
The facts below are all available in actual court transcripts, and in sworn affidavits, available online.
Basic unanswered questions:
1. What caused all of Terri's broken bones (ref bone scan), which occurred around the time of her collapse ?
( "...history of trauma..." - not revealed for over 10 years because Michael had all her medical records sealed...)
2. What caused her collapse ?
(In spite of what Michael and his lawyer say, doctors testified -and the discharge report said- that it was NOT a heart attack.
The enzymes were not elevated and the EKGs was normal.
The doctors also ruled out toxic shock, and numerous other causes.
What was left was a neck injury consistent with strangulation, on a young woman with a "history of trauma", who had been brain-damaged from lack of air... )
3. Why was no police investigation done, after the initial suspicious report, as was normal procedure ?
( A 26 year old woman who wanted a divorce,
who had been fighting with her husband that day, found with a neck injury consistent with strangling, hands on her neck gasping for air ? )
4. Why did Judge Greer ignore the affidavits of 3 women who testified that they were afraid of Michael, that he stalked them, that he was insane, etc. ? (two had been romantically involved, one spoke to a policeman about a restraining order...)
5. Why did Michael lie about the fights, tell several contradictory versions of how he found Terri (with different times), etc. ?
(as well as MANY other contradictions in testimony...)
6. Why did he not call 911 FIRST ? (He called the Father, who told him to call 911.)
7. Why did he not attempt CPR when his wife wasn't breathing for almost 10 minutes ?
( He admitted in court he did not, and he did know CPR...)
8. Why did he have a lawyer representing him, who, in less than 48 hours, deceptively got her parents to sign away legal rights ?
(Especially when he had little money, was chronically unemployed, and basically lived off her income ? A lawyer so fast ? Why ???)
9. Why did estranged husband Michael say in court that he wanted the money to rehabilitate her, and that he expected Terri to live for about 50 years, when he had ALREADY stopped all therapy for her ?
10. Why did Michael never speak of Terri's "wishes" for many YEARS after the collapse ?
11. Why did Judge Greer ignore the sworn affidavits of two women that Michael was romantically involved with AFTER Terri's collapse, who BOTH stated that Michael admitted Terri had NEVER spoken to him about her "wishes" ?
12. Why did Judge Greer ignore the sworn affidavits of NURSES
who testified that Terri was NOT receiving even state-required minimal therapy, on strict orders from her "Guardian" ?
(Ordering that not even music be played for her...)
13. Why did Judge Greer label Terri PVS based on a 30 min exam, when another doctors 10 hour exam clearly stated she was not ?
AND ignore the sworn affidavits of nurses who testified in detail about her speaking and other responses !
14. Why does Judge Greer refuse to allow any video of Terri out ?
Why does Judge Greer not even allow the parents to take a photograph with their daughter ? ( He ordered that all such photos are the property of Michael !!! )
15. Why does Judge Greer allow Michael to deny state-required therapy, allow him to not file required annual reports, etc. ?
16. Why was the court appointed Guardian dismissed, when he requested to be allowed to stay on, after his report condemning Michael's lack of
care for Terri, and his conflict of interest ?
17. Why does Judge Greer allow the "appearance of impropriety" in accepting campaign aid from all of Michael's lawyers, and the county Sherriff ?
18. Why does Judge Greer not question the illegal transfer of Terri to a hospice that she was not eligible to enter - a hospice that Michael's attorney Zelos was Chairman of, and several other people involved in the case were on the Board of - including members who contributed to Judge Greer's campaign ?
19. With a 1.7 million settlement to care for Terry for the rest of her life, why did Judge Greer grant Michael's request to put Terri on Medicare ?
...and this IS just the tip of the iceberg...
please read the sworn affidavits by nurses, etc., the doctor's reports, etc.
please read the letter by Dr. Carole Lieberman
"
--As a psychiatric expert witness, I have had experience performing psychiatric examinations of men like Michael Schiavo, and testifying in court about similar cases. The above is simply meant to illustrate some of the indications that Michael fits the profile of an abusive husband. He should most definitely be investigated as the perpetrator of the 'incident' that caused Terri's collapse
and her current condition. If Terri were to be allowed to die, as Michael has been desperately struggling to achieve for years, it could help him escape detection. This would be a grave miscarriage of justice. "
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
www.zimp.org/stuff/
http://www.theempirejournal.com/greer_schiavo_articles.htm
http://abstractappeal.com/archives/2004_03_01_abstractappeal_archive.html
http://www.blogsforterri.com
http://www.blogsforterri.com/archives/2005/03/speaking_from_e.php#more
Posted by: clarification on March 23, 2005 04:32 PMOne more question to add to your list, clarification:
20. Why did Michael Schiavo order that Terri be cremated immediately after her death? Having controlled her body for the past fifteen years, why will he not allow her parents at least the comfort of putting her to rest in the way they wish? (Could it have anything to do with the bone scan? Or is he just vengeful?)
Posted by: Jamie on March 23, 2005 05:09 PM"My point was that it is bad legislation which allows anything short of written, notarized, documentation to be considered "clear and convincing" evidence that a now-uncommunicative person desires to be denied food and water."
Well said.
Posted by: denise on March 23, 2005 05:51 PMLike I said before: "Allegations that Terri was beaten or strangled or maimed by her husband are nothing new in this case, and if they were credible we would know that by now. Terri's been examined by dozens of doctors in connection with her treatment, a malpractice beef, and the termination of her treatment. Certainly, the parties to the malpractice beef would have brought out any facts relevant to a claim of wife-beating, for obvious reasons."
Take off your tin-foil hats.
Posted by: Richard Bennett on March 23, 2005 06:31 PMLike I said before: "Allegations that Terri was beaten or strangled or maimed by her husband are nothing new in this case, and if they were credible we would know that by now. Terri's been examined by dozens of doctors in connection with her treatment, a malpractice beef, and the termination of her treatment. Certainly, the parties to the malpractice beef would have brought out any facts relevant to a claim of wife-beating, for obvious reasons."
As a negative cannot be proven, all of the above can be true without completely excluding the possibility that there is more than what is already known. It reduces the probability, yes, but does not exclude it.
The countervailing point is that M. Schiavo has not been comporting himself in the manner of a dedicated and caring husband for the past ten years, which considered together with his desire for cremation of the body do not lend themselves to enhancing his own credibility when he seeks dehydration-starvation death of a wife who cannot presently speak on her own behalf.
Posted by: anony-mouse on March 23, 2005 07:13 PMIt's also possible that any bone trauma shown in Terri's medical records was the result of abuse she suffered as a child. And given her history of eating disorders and low self-esteem, she fits the profile of a child abuse victim. This theory would also explain her parents' obsession with preserving her body.
Not to be ghoulish or anything, but we have to examine all the facts thoroughly.
Posted by: Richard Bennett on March 23, 2005 07:41 PMI don't think Mrs. Schiavo could ever have anything resembling a normal life. Even if there's some truth that she could be something more than what she is, after nineteen years with no improvement it seems virtually impossible for there to be anything but the smallest improvement in her quality of life. Maybe this case could stimulate more talk about stem cell research, as it seems to be the only area of medicine that can possibly repair the brain by creating new neurons. I realize that there is a way to go before anything like that sort of stem cell therapy is realized, but we will get there eventually.
There are some very ugly aspects in Ms. Schiavos case. This death watch was very avoidable. I understand MDs need "to do no harm", but people in Ms. Schiavos condition shouldn't be starved to death. Giving Ms. Schiavo a painless lethal injection is no different then removing the feeding tube. In either case the MDs orders result in the patient's death. Beyond that, does anyone think Ms. Schiavo would have wished to be the center of a week long media frenzy in her current condition?
Another ugly aspect of this case is, is it the best use of an Insurance Co funds to pay twenty million dollars to a patient in Ms Schiavo's condition? In a time when malpractice suits are threatened to be capped due to high malpractice insurance rates, is it responsible for Insurance Co to pay out large settlements to a person without hope of meaningful recovery?
Posted by: So Fabulous on March 23, 2005 09:44 PMRex, you write:
If you read the report [by Jay Wolfson] that Jay referenced above at http://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/WolfsonReport.pdf
you will see that the state-appointed GAL (guardian ad litem) agreed that the first GAL was clearly biased.
I believe you may have misread GAL Jay Wolfson's report on this point. Here's the relevant passage by Mr. Wolfson:
In response to Mr. Pearse’s report, Michael Schiavo filed a Suggestion of Bias against Mr. Pearse. This document notes that Mr. Pearse failed to mention in his report that Michael Schiavo had earlier, formally offered to divest himself entirely of his financial interest in the guardianship estate.
The criticism continues to note that Mr. Pearse’s concern about abuse of inheritance potential was directly solely at Michael, not at the Schindlers in the event they might become the heirs and also choose to terminate artificial life support. Further, significant chronological deficits and factual errors are noted, detracting from and prejudicing the objective credibility of Mr. Pearse’s report.
The Suggestion of Bias challenges premises and findings of Mr. Pearse, establishing a well pleaded case for bias.
In February of 1999, Mr. Pearse tendered his petition for additional authority or discharge. He was discharged in June of 1999 and no new Guardian Ad Litem was named.
Mr. Wolfson does characterize the Suggestion of Bias as "establishing a well pleaded case for bias."
But he diplomatically refrains from actually saying that he agrees or disagrees that the first GAL's report was clearly or fatally biased. Mr. Wolfson does not discuss, or even mention, which if any of the GAL's conclusions may be suspect.
When you read the whole report by Mr. Wolfson, it becomes quite clear that one of his top priorities was to try to establish common ground among the warring parties and to work out some kind of consensus between the husband and the parents.
So while he needed to report that the Suggestion of Bias was well-pleaded in order to provide a complete record for Governor Bush, Mr. Wolfson was not about to freely stake out a position on such a controversial question as to how biased the first GAL was.
Posted by: Matthew Goggins on March 24, 2005 12:10 AMAlkali,
You write that it was normal procedure in Florida courts for the trial judge not to pick a guardian ad litem for Ms. Schiavo, and to act as Ms. Schiavo's surrogate himself.
There is actually some controversy on this point.
Judge Greer himself did appoint two different guardian ad litem's for Ms. Schiavo during the course of the years-long litigation. These two appointments would indicate that he himself did understand the benefit of appointing a third party to the trial in addition to the parents and the husband.
As far as I can tell, it is normal procedure to appoint a guardian in tricky cases like Ms. Schiavo's. If you have info to the contrary, I would be glad to take a look at it.
You also make a point about hearsay testimony:
Given that Terri Schiavo is not available to testify, all evidence regarding her desires and intentions -- including her parents' testimony -- would be hearsay.
In any event, statements regarding one's mental state, including statements of belief, desire and intention, are excepted from the rule against hearsay.
Your point is correct, and I actually strongly agree with you.
But I did not object to the hearsay testimony per se. I object that Judge Greer used it as clear and convincing evidence for Ms. Schiavo's preferences.
The biggest problem with using Ms. Schiavo's alleged quotes is not that they are not credible, or not credible enough. Even if Ms. Schiavo's husband had made videotape of Ms. Schiavo making each and every quote, they did not consitute a clear and convincing basis for establishing Ms. Schiavo's intent.
The alleged remarks were all casual comments on situations that some other person was in. As such, they were not statements of policy, or a commitment to actually refuse life support in any hypothetical situation.
On a handful of occasions, Ms. Schiavo expressed revulsion to three persons at the idea of being hooked up to a machine to artificially prolong life for an indeteminate time. To conclude that this revulsion, which is something that everyone shares, is akin to something like a living will is highly speculative, and does not meet the standard of clear and convincing.
Judge Greer made an error here, and this error is now the basis for the current euthanasia by dehydration of Ms. Schiavo.
Posted by: Matthew Goggins on March 24, 2005 12:41 AMIt's also possible that any bone trauma shown in Terri's medical records was the result of abuse she suffered as a child. And given her history of eating disorders and low self-esteem, she fits the profile of a child abuse victim. This theory would also explain her parents' obsession with preserving her body.
Sarcasm duly noted, but this actually works against your point; if T. Schiavo's parents had something worth hiding, they would have seen parity in M. Schiavo's point of view a long time ago.
Moreover, if M. Schiavo had spent the entire fight abstinently waiting by his wife's side, protesting "why are you doing this against her wishes," he would have a credible leg on which to stand. Instead, he dissolved his union morally but not legally, or in other words, forfeited the part which would have demonstrated that he was fit to judge his wife's best interests while maintaining the part that would link him to any future financial gain arising from her death.
How convenient.
The fact that the financial aspect has now been consumed by time and attorneys doesn't particularly sway, since he has invested a lot of "face" into the fight and may prefer not to lose it for any number of reasons -- basic pride, or perhaps something darker.
This also not "tinfoil hat" material as you dismissively described it. There is a motive and a means, and evidently, some unfortunate deficits in the available medical information. I readily acknowledge that the smoking gun may very well not exist, but it is not unreasonable to sniff around for the odor of combusted cordite.
Posted by: anony-mouse on March 24, 2005 02:56 AMThere is another ugly, troubling thing about this case. I have read nothing, anywhere that suggests Michael ever committed a single act of domestic violence, yet people are now theorizing he is the type of wife beater that caused trauma severe enough to show up on bone scans. Imo this is the worst type of slander, and this is the sort of unsubstantiated, repeated speculation that obscures the better arguments of those that support Ms. Sciavos parents. Her parents have testified that Michael was everything anyone could want in son in law, and that the Schiavos had a wonderful marriage in 1995. Unless someone produces police reports or eyewitness's to spousal abuse, I'll take her parents word.
The money is gone. Michaels new partner obviously knows of Terri's situation and the minor complications that has caused their relationship. So why does Michael continue to pursue the termination of his Terri's life? I realize that the Michael's testimony reguarding Terri's wishes is heresay evidence, but imo it's pretty clear that he believes that removal of the feeding tube is what Terri wants. Maybe the ugliest thing about this case is that the only person trying to fulfill Teri's wishes is being turned into Scott Peterson by the media.
Posted by: So Fabulous on March 24, 2005 07:20 AM"Not to be ghoulish or anything, but we have to examine all the facts thoroughly."
Why yes, examining all the facts is EXACTLY what we should be doing.
So we should be examining the allegations of mistakes of fact and law in re Judge Greer. We should be doing more brain scans of Terri, to see if there is any activity there. We should review the testimony of people who said Terri would wish to stay alive. We should investigate whether her husband abused her. We should, before we kill this woman, have a disinterested review, instead of relying on people hired by a husband who wants her dead, and a Judge who may have conflicts of interest, and may be unwilling to own up to errors. At the end, we may come to the conclusion that her feeding tube should be removed, but we'd have much better grounds for our conclusion.
But for reasons no one seems to be able to explain, this procedure is is regarded by many as some sort of wild idea, although we do such things regularly in far less important cases.
And if we did decide to remove the feeding tube anyway, why not allow Terri to be spoon fed? Why do so many regard her death as a good, indeed necessary thing? I'd really like an explanation of that.
THE SAUDS MUST BE DESTROYED!
Posted by: Stephen M. St. Onge on March 24, 2005 07:39 AM"... since Jane's Schiavo post didn't explicitly endorse any point of view ..."
anony-mouse, actually Jane did endores a point of view, though perhaps unintentionally, when she wrote:
"Most of the anti-Schiavo people (pro-Michael? I don't know what to call them) ..."
This would indicate that Jane believes that those who support removal of the tube are opposed to whatever beliefs or desires Terri Schiavo might have, or arguments she might make.
Whereas, in fact, that side has repeatedly said they believe pulling the tube is what Terri herself would have wanted. This would make them "pro-Schiavo" by any understanding of the term.
I think the problem with this case is that both sides are demonstrably "pro-Schiavo" ... the dispute is over what that means.
Posted by: Demongenes Aristophanes on March 24, 2005 08:53 AMWhat I find disturbing about this case is the lengths that some are going to throw questionable or outright false claims out there. Particularly nausiating is Attorney Barbara Weller's claim that Terri started yelling "I waannn" when she asked her to say she wanted to live. Even the doctors who say she has some hope of recovery don't say she has that much brain function. I believe the Florida bar should bring a disciplinary action against Attorney Weller.
Posted by: Booker T. MG on March 24, 2005 10:17 AMI'm sorry, but the whole PET scan thing is a red herring, mostly being pushed by people who have a cargo cult knowledge of medicine. The question isn't about subtlties of brain metabolism: it's whether she has any effective cortex at all. You don't need a series of x-rays to confirm an amputation.
The guy at CodeBlueBlog seems to be making an awful lot of conclusions about a CT scan for which he's only seen one "slice", and which even he has doubts about it being Schiavo's CT.
Posted by: Charlie (Colorado) on March 24, 2005 10:28 AMI never thought I'd wish I were a lawyer (too many already in the family), but I wish I were a lawyer today so I could understand this. In the name of all that's holy, why is Greer's finding of fact concerning Terri's supposed PVS, which finding is a lynchpin (I may be misspelling, but if so, it's a handy if unfunny pun) of the decision to pull her feeding tube and deny her sustenance by any other means, so sacrosanct that it stands unchallenged even in the face of credible experts' and long-term witnesses' affidavits calling it into question? If the available evidence and testimony were good enough for Greer, why does the Schiavo (versus the Schindler) side object so strenuously to a de novo hearing - are they less than confident that another judge might be convinced?
Last I heard, there was about fifty grand left of the malpractice settlement. That isn't chump change - others have no doubt been killed for less - and, too, its continuing shrinkage certainly looks like another hunk of conflict of interests to me. Who would pay for Terri after the settlement is gone, if she were to live that long, anyone know? Would Michael still be on the hook for it, or does she become a charity case (with donations, rather than taxes, supporting her, I don't doubt)?
Worst case for the Schiavo side: somehow Terri gets that de novo hearing and the judge who hears her case overturns Greer; she continues to live. How is this so terrible? If the Schiavo side is correct, she's beyond caring about the disposition of her body whether it's breathing or not. All Michael would have to do is divorce her, relinquish his guardianship to her parents, and forfeit the fifty grand. He would have to live with the knowledge that he'd failed to provide her the last thing he could - deliverance from the indignity of her inability to care for herself - but he could comfort himself with the knowledge that at least he'd succeeded in putting her family through a decade of hell to punish them for going against her wishes. And then he could carry on with his life, unmolested, unburdened.
Posted by: Jamie on March 24, 2005 11:24 AMJamie, short version: there has to be finality to a judge's decision unless (1) the judge didn't follow the law, which is what is decided on appeal, or (2) there is new evidence discovered which radically changes things. Item (2) doesn't always permit you to reopen a case, but it seems to have that effect here. Item (1) has been reviewed and reviewed by scads of judges. Item (2) has been looked at by the original judge, who decided to have another examination done. Schaivo got to pick two doctors, Terri's parents got to pick two doctors, and since they couldn't agree on the fifth doctor, the court appointed one. Schaivo's doctors and the court appointed doctor were credible witnesses and the court believed them. The other two doctors evidently weren't as credible, so the court discounted their testimony.
This case has been litigated and relitigated. Nothing new has come up which to my mind calls the original judgment into question. It is Terri's right to die if she so wishes, and under Florida law, she has established that wish through the legal proceedings.
Posted by: Rex on March 24, 2005 12:23 PMJamie,
I don't think there is a case in the history of litigation where the prevailing party wanted a de novo hearing. It just doesn't make sense. Why would a successful plaintiff in any matter, no matter how trivial or important want to be responsible for another round of hearings, accompanied by a large bill for attorney's fees? It's simply not human nature to want to do over something that you have prevailed in. There are more personal considerations as well, such as the stress of a trial, the publicity, dredging up bad memories all over again.
As for the worst case for Michael, I think you are mistating it. The worst case for Michael is also the worst case for Terri, according to a legal adjudication of her wishes. I think Rex just about nailed it when it comes to why this case shouldn't be open on legal grounds, so I won't bother going there. As for the fifty grand, its likely approaching a figure that is smaller and smaller every time Michael's attorney files a motion, objects to a motion, appears on t.v. etc. A De novo trial would most likely wipe out whatever is left and accomplish nothing.
anony-mouse, if I were ever to slip into a condition similar to Terri's where I was no longer offering anything like human affection, communication, or support to my partner, I would hope that no one would question his moral fiber if SEVERAL YEARS LATER he found companionship with someone new and tried to rebuild his life. I would be disgusted if someone claimed that this relationship devalues his integrity as a human being and his right to make any judgment about me. You should be so lucky to never find yourself in such a situation.
Posted by: Brittain33 on March 24, 2005 01:49 PMBrittain -- If Michael thinks what he has with Terry is no longer a marriage and that she can no longer be a wife to him (which as you say is an understandable position), what you don't answer is why he doesn't divorce her.
That's what most men do when they take up with another woman, usually sometime before they start having children with her.
What you are saying is that Terry's incapacity removes Michael's marital obligations, but he retains some marital prerogatives. Some of us don't think he should be having it both ways.
Posted by: denise on March 24, 2005 02:42 PMBased on the amount of time he has spent fighting to enforce Terri's wishes, the tremendous abuse and libel he's endured as a result, I would say that he is upholding his marital obligations quite admirably. He's been offered $10 million to divorce her and hasn't.
You and I don't know what the relationship of Terri and Michael Schiavo was before her heart attack, but while she clearly doesn't need a romantic partner or friend any more, there are other crucial roles a husband can play. He's been overseeing her care as she wished according to the finding of the courts. What he does other than that is between him, the God he swore his oath before, and his current companion. Maybe you were at their wedding or helped them write their vows, but I doubt it.
Posted by: Brittain33 on March 24, 2005 02:50 PMBrittain33,
Sorry, but if you really regard yourself as married to someone, no matter how disabled, you don't openly set yourself up with a new quasi-spouse and have a couple kids by her. Whatever else there is to be said about this case, it's obvious that Michael Schiavo has long since left off thinking of Terri as his "wife." Why he didn't sever the relationship legally as well as practically, I don't know. Unfortunately the only motives that come to mind are all mercenary.
Posted by: Michelle Dulak Thomson on March 24, 2005 03:47 PMSorry, but if you really regard yourself as married to someone, no matter how disabled, you don't openly set yourself up with a new quasi-spouse and have a couple kids by her
The circumstances in the Schiavo case are so extraordinary and bizarre that I would hesitate to compare it to anything in the realm of the normal. If not for the parents' thorough and tenacious use of the legal system, he would have carried out Terri's wishes 10 years ago. He never imagined that the parents would force him to preserve his guardianship for 15 years, i.e. much of his adult life, in order to see Terri treated as she requested.
Unfortunately the only motives that come to mind are all mercenary.
He turned down $10 million, so if he's being mercenary, he's doing a lousy job. But you don't even have to go that far if you're looking for another motive: his stated motive is that he feels bound to carry out Terri's wishes not to be kept alive in a debilitated state, and his only authority to carry out Terri's will derives from his being married to her. If he didn't care what happened to her, he could walk away from his marriage in an instant.
You're welcome not to believe him, but that's your choice, and represents your own biases and preferences among competing witnesses. That's fine. It just doesn't quite rise to the level of "A=A."
Because I don't know about you, but there's no hypothetical/mythological payoff that would make me go through what Michael Schiavo is going through.
Posted by: Brittain33 on March 24, 2005 04:01 PMI'm assuming that everyone involved in Ms. Schiavo's case strongly believes that he/she is acting to promote the best interests of Ms. Schiavo.
Ms. Schiavo's husband reasonably believes that his wife should die. Ms. Schiavo's parents reasonably believes their daughter should live.
The judges and the experts and the politicians all believe, quite reasonably, that they are doing right by Ms. Schiavo.
But that doesn't tell us what to do. People acting in good faith are urging mutually exclusive courses of action.
How should we pick the right course of action?
I've explained how I feel about it: Ms. Schiavo is probably not vegetative, she seems to be minimally conscious, we have no way of knowing her preferences, if the parents really want to care for her then Ms. Schiavo's husband should graciously surrender his rights, and neurological testing and therapy should resume.
My opinion has almost nothing to do with whether Ms. Schiavo's husband is a hero or a villain (or perhaps both). My opinion has almost nothing to do with whether Ms. Schiavo's parents are loving parental paragons or obsessive fanatics (or perhaps both).
My opinion is based on the fact that Ms. Schiavo does not appear to be a vegetable, she is not terminally ill, she doesn't seem to be in pain when she's not menstruating or being euthanized. My opinion is based on the fact that there are capable people who are eager to minister to her needs.
Reasonable people disagree about this, but whatever ends up happening should be based on what's best for Ms. Schiavo. We can all agree on that.
Posted by: Matthew Goggins on March 24, 2005 04:44 PMBrittain33,
The trouble for me is that the timeline is all screwy. Look, early in 1990 Terri has a heart attack. Almost three years later Michael wins a settlement in which the better part of a million dollars is, as I understand it, explicitly earmarked for his wife's care. What was happening in the interim? If he knew she would not have wanted to live like this, why did he initially take such trouble to keep her alive?
And why, after he got the settlement, did he then take so little — cutting down on her therapy, adding the DNR order, allegedly ordering doctors not to treat an infection, moving her to a hospice, all the rest of it?
I'm not imagining the guy to be an ogre by any means. I think he probably imagined that she could be helped, and just when he won his massive settlement it became clear to him that she couldn't. At that point he seems to have done everything he could to hasten her death; and maybe he did it because it had finally sunk in, after three years of PVS, that she wasn't susceptible to help. All the same, it seems odd that the question of her wish never to live in such a state seems not to have been raised before the case was settled, given that we're talking a few years here.
Posted by: Michelle Dulak Thomson on March 24, 2005 04:55 PM$1 million doesn't buy that much medical care in any event.
Gloria Allred said on the Dennis Miller show yesterday that she's got $1 million on deposit from a client who wants Mike to sell the guardianship to the Schindlers, and he won't take it.
These charges about Mike's alleged greed are scurrilous personal attacks that have no basis in reality.
Posted by: Richard Bennett on March 24, 2005 05:50 PMMichael is getting set for a best selling book which stands to make him far more than anyone ever offered him to stop trying to kill Teri.
These attacks on Michael Schiavo are probably accurate and appropriate. After taking up with another woman and impregnating her with children, he has no business continuing as Teri's guardian. He accepted responsibility for Teri because the money came with it.
Posted by: Robert Stinnett on March 24, 2005 09:50 PMRight Stinnett, who needs facts when you've got a strong opinion.
Posted by: Richard Bennett on March 25, 2005 05:59 AMGod, God, I know the law is an ass... and I know this case has been adjudicated within an inch of its life (or Terri's)... and I know there are legitimate reasons to allow Michael Schiavo to continue to claim the rights of a husband where Terri's care is concerned... But I also know that there are reasonable questions about his fitness as a guardian and about Terri's condition, and it's awful to consider that she'll die with those questions unanswered because of - what?
I'm trying to find peace with this: A woman who at best is profoundly brain-damaged, and at worst is entirely absent from her own skull (which might not be "worst" but is the opposing condition), has brought about intense discussion about so much - from the nature and value of life in its several forms, to federalism, to judicial license, to Congressional tricks, to the importance of early and searching personal examination of end-of-life issues. A woman who by all accounts hasn't been able to string three words together in over a decade has enriched the conversation of people of good will and thought in significant ways.
As a believer I'm never supposed to give up hope, but I'm also not supposed to put God to the test, and no one ever said I'd understand why terrible things happen. So I cling (by my fingernails at the moment) to faith that God doesn't waste anything. Apologies to any I might be offending by blurting all this out.
Posted by: Jamie on March 25, 2005 09:16 AMthe funniest thing about all the scurrilous attacks on Michael is that IT'S NOT EVEN HIS DECISION!
The court, not michael, made the decision to pull the tube. Michael has no power whatsoever at this point in the litigation to defy the court's order and order hydration continued.
Most people on this blog aren't lawyers; i imagine even fewer have ever needed the service of a lawyer. As a lawyer, i can guarantee that clients have NO interest in non-parties claiming that one more round of litigation is appropriate.
the degree of self-righteousness, ignorance and libel in this thread is just appalling. If I were Michael, once this nightmare is over I'd have my lawyer subpoena the webhosts of the worst threads, get the true identity of people like Michelle Dulak Thomson and Robert Stinnett and SUE THEIR ASSES for libel.
Even under the NYTimes v. Sullivan standard for libel against a public figure, i've seen plenty of writing that would qualify.
Posted by: Francis on March 25, 2005 12:19 PMit seems really sad that she has to die on easter weekend, especially given that her catholic parents really seem to love her.
it also seems that there are increasing numbers of rude, mean, and down-right malicious comments here.
Posted by: Jim on March 25, 2005 01:50 PMFrancis,
Technically speaking you are right: the judge makes the decision, not Ms. Schiavo's husband.
But the judges based their decisions on the testimony of Ms. Schiavo's husband. The judges did this because Ms. Schiavo's husband is the legal guardian.
If you don't understand this, then I wouldn't advise anyone to take legal advice from you.
Posted by: Matthew Goggins on March 25, 2005 03:18 PMMatthew,
The judge based his conclusion on ALL the testimony, not just that of Mr. Schiavo. There were other witnesses who butressed his account. This is one of the big lies being spread by the Schindlers and their allies.
Posted by: Willie Wonka on March 25, 2005 03:25 PMSteven Barnes had a telling comment that seems to be playing out here.
Answer this question: Do you feel that suicide is
a natural right? That is, if you have good reason (terminal illness, quality of life issue relate to age, etc) and are of sound mind, do you believe that you have the right to kill yourself, or do you believe that the state has an overriding interest in preventing that?
The answer to that question will pretty much determine how you come down on this case, since what we are talking about is suicide by proxy.
Willie Wonka,
My point was not that Ms. Schiavo's husband's testimony was unreliable. My point was that Ms. Schiavo's husband is her legal guardian, and that the judges made their decisions about Ms. Schiavo's fate based on the petition to the court by Ms. Schiavo's husband (in his capacity as legal guardian) to withdraw life support.
If Ms. Schiavo's husband had petitioned the court to keep the life support going, then that is what Judge Greer would have ended up doing.
Of course, if the courts had found Ms. Schiavo's husband's testimony unreliable, then they should have denied his petition. But his testimony was only important in the first place due to his being the legal guardian.
Willie Wonka, when you write, This is one of the big lies being spread by the Schindlers and their allies, I don't know if you realize how obnoxious that is.
Ms. Schiavo's parents are just trying to keep their daughter alive - show some respect. As for "their allies", why do you feel so threatened by them? What did they ever do to you? If someone is a friend or an "ally" of Ms. Schiavo's parents, does that make them a liar?
Posted by: Matthew Goggins on March 26, 2005 01:08 AManony-mouse, if I were ever
I can pretty much tell from that line alone that your post is headed into an emotive appeal, but for the sake of the argument let us proceed:
to slip into a condition similar to Terri's where I was no longer offering anything like human affection, communication, or support to my partner, I would hope that no one would question his moral fiber if SEVERAL YEARS LATER he found companionship with someone new and tried to rebuild his life. I would be disgusted if someone claimed that this relationship devalues his integrity as a human being and his right to make any judgment about me.
You speak of human beings as though they were not capable of self-control and fulfilling voluntary legally-binding contracts, and the rest of your analysis goes downhill from there. What we're discussing here does not involve an express written desire of the party whose neck is effectively layed out on the chopping block, so the character of the party desiring the most serious and final outcome (death) ought to matter, greatly.
M. Schiavo's position was indeed tragic -- right up until the moment where he aquired a new marriage in all but name while nominally keeping the marriage tie to a person whose cognitive self is not available to issue protest, but probably IS right now experiencing at least some low-level range of primal horror related to not having water (and corresponding toxin buildup). In many states you could be brought under criminal prosecution for carelessly doing that to an animal, but in this case, the opinion of a man who is openly two-timing his incapacitated wife is given the authority of the courts.
It may be legal, but if you don't see a serious and deleterious ethical problem in that, check your moral compass for the presence of rust.
Posted by: anony-mouse on March 26, 2005 03:45 AMMatthew,
I was merely responding to what you wrote. You did in fact write that the judge based his opinion on Michael Schiavo's testimony. And no, the reason it was so important was not because he was Terri's guardian, but because he was her husband and in the best position to observe Terri and discuss things like wishes with respect to life sustaninng measures. There were other witnesses who testifified to this too, providing corroboration and there were witnesses who testified otherwise, like the parents. The judge, acting as he should have, weighed all of the tesimony and rendered his opinion based upon the side which he found to be most credible. The mere fact that Michael was her guardian is not relevant to his credibility and is not the reason why the judge ruled in his favor.
As for sounding obnoxious, if that it is what calling out lies and outright bullshit, fine, call me obnoxious. But the Schindlers and their supporters have a long history of dealing in lies,innuendo, junk science and discredited testimony to advance their cause. The slurs against Michael for being a wife beater, murderer etc, all without any evidence are downright disgusting.
As for being threatened, I do feel something of a threat from people who can get the federal government to interfere in a fully adjudicated state matter in a matter of hours, without any credible evidence to support their cause. The fact that they have been able to commandeer the federal goverment for a weekend, including getting the president to interrupt his vacation,is in fact pretty scary, especially when we are dealing with such an intimate matter.
The Schiavo vs Schlindler problems started over the moneys from Terry's malpractise suit. The issue of guardianship has always been about the Schindlers getting the remaining $700,000.
But what will happen to the monies that are being collected now. If you inspect the terrisfight.net sight you will find that the monies that they are collecting are not tax deductable. That means they are a fee and taxable for the Schlindlers. I think the bible thumpers got a good trade off with the Schlinders,"We get your daughter as a cause and you get the money."
I think the Schlindlers are money grubbers who never cared much for there daughter until they could cash in on it. I'll bet there is a new car, new house and a great big vacation in the Schlindlers future.
Randy
Posted by: rroeges on March 26, 2005 12:53 PMWillie Wonka,
Thank you for your thoughtful and civil response.
I didn't mean to imply that you should have understood my point, I was just clarifying my ambiguous wording. Especially since I have made comments elsewhere discussing Ms. Schiavo's husband's testimony and its implications.
I think you are being too dismissive when you claim that one side in this case has all the credible evidence and the other side has none. I personally believe that Ms. Schiavo is/was quite possibly minimally conscious as opposed to vegetative. Here's a link to a report that gives supporting evidence for Ms. Schiavo's parents' assertions:
Dr. William Cheshire Affidavit
As for the fact that they have been able to commandeer the federal goverment for a weekend, including getting the president to interrupt his vacation, I would say that the chances that any one of us will find themselves at the center of such a tragedy involving all three branches of the federal government are about 10,000 times smaller than the chances that one of us will get struck by lightning while being attacked by a shark.
There are still questions of states' policies for euthanasia, the role of the feds versus the states, and the appropriate balance among the three branches of government that have been highly dramatized by this case and not yet resolved. But I don't think you should lose too much sleep over them, especially if you write a living will and designate someone to whom you would give durable power of attorney over your affairs.
Randy,
Your comments are bitter and disrespectful to a family that is losing their child. It shows the unsympathetic and uncaring nature that you have.
Is it so hard to believe that a parent loves their child so much?
And though I am definitely not a Bible thumper - I am beginning to repect them. They would take bitter insults from people like you, to show how much they value a stranger's life.
At least the Christians have stood for what they believe in whether you agree with them or not- unlike the ACLU (who stands up for nearly every criminal and supposedly speaks for people who have no voice and are nowhere to be seen)and the feminist groups who speak for women (i am woman hear me (not speak)roar. They would rather not agree with a cause the Christians show up at.
Just because you might not agree with the Christians - don't blind yourself to think that the parents are in it only to gain money. They also gain a lifetime of taking care of their daughter and the bills to pay for it. Something that they spent doing at the beginning of her life and are willing to do for the rest of it. That - if you are not familiar with it - is called love.
Posted by: someone on March 27, 2005 05:21 AMDear Someone,
I will put aside my cynical nature for your benefit and talk facts.
Prior to her heart attack, Terry had an aunt or grandmother who was kept alive in intensive care. This woman was kept alive well past when a quality life was possible. This disturbed Terry and she discussed it with many people. She told them that she didn't want the same to happen to her. In Schindler v Shiavo I five people testified to this. She didn't want to be kept alive by extraordinary means. Five people close to her testifying to this is the basis of the court's decision.
Terry was an adult when she said this and it must be accepted as her will. It is only through the strength of her husband that her wishes are not being trampled. It is Terry's wish to pass peacefully. The rights of the individual must be maintained in this most fundamental issue. Because the parents don't like it doesn't mean you strip Terry's rights.
Find and read the Guardian ad Liteum report. This is an attorney appointed by Gov. Bush to "stand in her shoes". For 30 days this attorney read all the documents interviewed all the parties and acted as Terry's attorney. Reading this will give all the facts of the case.
Now you can continue to feed on the rhetoric and politics that the parents handlers have created or read the truth.
Randy
Randy,
I have personally not cared much for any of the rhetoric or politics on either side.
This was never about what you, I, or anybody wants or thinks is best for Terri. Not even what the Schindlers or Michael Schiavo wants or believes.
This was supposed to be about what Terri wanted. Did she want to die?
Your "facts" are based upon what 5 people claim.
Of these 5 people:
One is Michael Schiavo who forgot to mention this desire to die until several years (wasn't it 7 years) after she was in her condition. This is a fact. The other two people that you base your "facts" on are Mr. Schiavo's brother and his wife. All 5 people forgot about Terri's wishes until years later.
If these 5 peoples' statements are "facts", then why is the statement from Michael Schiavo's former girlfriend that he never discussed death with Terri also not a fact. And how about Terri's friend that said that Terri wanted to live. And the nurses that accused Michael of abuse. If we rely on statements so strongly for facts, then why are these not facts that you mention?
You - as well as the Christian bible thumpers have bought into your side's "facts".
While the truth is - anyone can say anything - none of it has been proven. It is all heresay.
Therefore, for the parents to fight for their daughter to live - is not stripping Terri of her civil rights when it is unreliable to base "fact" on a forgetful Michael Schiavo. It is their duty as parents to see proof of such a statement, and not so easily accept a man's statement regarding their daughter.
If she wanted to die - I have no problem with it. But show me this in writing - from her.
That is all the fact I