Article

2005-03-23 -Short Attention Span Theater-

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by BigEd 2005-03-23 12:46:00 PM|| || Front Page|| [6 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 Too bad they didn't come forward a little sooner. It's probably too late now.

Posted by Barbara Skolaut 2005-03-23 1:08:44 PM|| 2005-03-23 1:08:44 PM|| Front Page Top

#2 Parents are now asking for en-banc of the entire 11th circuit. En Banc

It is a "Hail Mary" pass, but I do remember the Pittsburgh Steelers game in the 1970s.

Posted by BigEd 2005-03-23 1:13:44 PM|| 2005-03-23 1:13:44 PM|| Front Page Top

#3 What is up with this whole situation? All the mounting evidence of mistreatment should be enough to put the brakes on the current situation and allow the whole thing to be sorted out.

Posted by Bomb-a-rama 2005-03-23 1:17:41 PM|| 2005-03-23 1:17:41 PM|| Front Page Top

#4 Barbara S. They came forward in 2003. See below.

Jeb has got to make her a ward of the state pending the new info ignored by Greer

Carla Johnson Affadavit

Heidi Law Affadavit

Posted by BigEd 2005-03-23 1:21:18 PM|| 2005-03-23 1:21:18 PM|| Front Page Top

#5 It agree, BigEd. I hope Jeb Bush will do that. I hate seeing our country turn into "THE UNITED STATES OF THE NETHERLANDS" or worse.

The "right to die" movement is one way the deconstructionists are trying to dismantle the Constitution (by devaluing life and slowly "teaching" people to accept the destruction of human beings). Did the supporters of abortion on demand really think it would end there? History says no.

The "slippery slope" of no return:

Pre-birth Infants (any age, any reason) - Terminally ill - Severely Disabled - Retarded/Mentally ill - Disabled - Elderly

Some thoughts on Terri Schiavo (reposted):

Michael Schiavo was known to be abusive. Terri had indicated that she wanted a divorce.

On the night of her injury it was reported by paramedics as a homicide. It was never investigated by police. Emergency room doctors said her presentation was inconsistent with a heart attack. Terri had broken bones and a head trauma.

Michael Schiavo has refused to allow for the provision of even the most rudimentary rehabilitative therapy--she was not given physical or speech therapy, or range of motion therapy. Her muscles have deteriorated and are contracted. She has not had the full benefit of modern medicine or the appropriate medical tests having to do with brain function.

She was not allowed to have her teeth cleaned.

She was not allowed to be given antibiotics when she had urinary tract infections and other infections. She has ulcerated bed sores.

She has not been allowed to eat on her own, although she can.

Michael Schiavo kept his extramarital relationship a secret, though he has had children through the relationship. By refusing to divorce Terri and hand guardianship over to her parents, he retains control of Terri.

Michael Schiavo has repeatedly indicated that he wants Terri to die. He evidently attempted to kill Terri by injecting her with insulin at a nursing care facility.

Michael Schiavo prevented Terriâs priest from administering Roman Catholic last rites Communion--i.e., the placement of a small crumb of the wafer on her tongue.

Michael Schiavo, with the help of the MSM, has misreported the facts regarding her. She is not in a persistent vegetative state. She is not on life support. She is not âbrain dead.â

The aim of Michael Schiavo is to, literally, bury the evidence against him regarding an attempted murder charge. I believe he is an abusive psychopath.

The aim of the deconstructionists, who are using the situation to their advantage, is to further redefine the value we place on human life by weakening that ethic. A second aim is to destroy peopleâs faith in government. End game goal? People who are afraid are much easier to control. When you destroy the things that make for a strong society, which way will the pendulum (eventually) swing?

The MSM's life and death distortions
here

Terri Schiavoâs nurseâs affidavit (Carla Iyer)
here

President Bush and the Culture of Life
here

Between Travesty and Tragedy
here

Posted by ex-lib 2005-03-23 1:36:25 PM|| 2005-03-23 1:36:25 PM|| Front Page Top

#6 You know, the more I think about this, the more I think I'm going to present Michael Schiavo with the Islamo-Abuser Equivalency Award. Here at Rantburg we don't like Islamo guys that abuse girls and women. Michael Schiavo's likeness to them is startling. It's a mere cultural difference.

Posted by ex-lib 2005-03-23 1:50:02 PM|| 2005-03-23 1:50:02 PM|| Front Page Top

#7 I personally think every judge that has denied the appeals and re-evaluations ought to be charged with murder if she dies. First degree pre-meditated murder and then all their appeals should be denied with the same blinders they used.

Posted by Silentbrick 2005-03-23 2:35:00 PM|| 2005-03-23 2:35:00 PM|| Front Page Top

#8 What I don't understand about this is why they don't give Mr. Schiavo a pillow and let him do the job quick-like? I suppose they think that by pulling the tube and letting her starve they are technically not killing her, thus absolving themselves of responsibility for her death. But isn't that negated by the fact that they are arresting others for attempting to feed her? Let's say that for some reason you couldn't leave your house. Friends and relatives come to bring you groceries, etc. If the police set up a barricade to prevent others from entering the home, could they say they weren't responsible for your ultimate death?

Posted by BH 2005-03-23 2:37:38 PM|| 2005-03-23 2:37:38 PM|| Front Page Top

#9 WABC stream just played an interview Hannity had with Heidi Law. She relates the story of how she became acquainted with a nurse named "Olga" who introduced her to Terri Schiavo. Nurse Olga was killed in an auto crash subsequently. But, did Nurse Olga leave a deposition.

Nurse Olga told Nurse Heidi, "Don't let the husband see you give Terri therapy."

Posted by BigEd 2005-03-23 2:37:46 PM|| 2005-03-23 2:37:46 PM|| Front Page Top

#10 When you come right down to it, the reason I'm so uneasy about this case is that I just don't find Michael Schiavo believable. Affidavits such as these reinforce that sense of disbelief.

I won't speculate as to his motivation, but I find his drive to have his wife die--and ASAP--disturbing, at a minimum.

Posted by eLarson 2005-03-23 3:10:48 PM|| [http://larsonian.blogspot.com] 2005-03-23 3:10:48 PM|| Front Page Top

#11 11th circuit cowardly denies en banc, but Jeb Bush sound about ready to step in, Fla legislature or no. At this point he is givig Fla Senate time to act (not morethan an hour or so, I suspect...

Posted by BigEd 2005-03-23 3:18:18 PM|| 2005-03-23 3:18:18 PM|| Front Page Top

#12

Kid arrested for trying to sneak Terri Schiavo H₂O

Civil disobedience continues...

Posted by BigEd 2005-03-23 3:21:44 PM|| 2005-03-23 3:21:44 PM|| Front Page Top

#13 Above : Hat Tip Drudge

Posted by BigEd 2005-03-23 3:22:27 PM|| 2005-03-23 3:22:27 PM|| Front Page Top

#14 "Let them eat cake" - so sayeth the court.

The courts are, well - the courts, and they have a higher calling. Rulings are result oriented. If a new law is needed to reach a result, the new law is created, made up. Other times, the court is simply handcuffed by the law, and cannot reach the result they would "like" to reach. Congressional intent and legislative intent, the voice of the people, be damned, "let them eat cake," so sayeth the courts.

Posted by Carlos 2005-03-23 3:22:54 PM|| 2005-03-23 3:22:54 PM|| Front Page Top

#15 Q: Gov Bush, do you have authority to take physical custody...

A: JEB : COUNSELOR...

A: BY JEB's LAWYER
Section 4.15.1051, (...in a word YES...)

Go JEB...

I think the Fla Legislature has 2 hours or less to get their fingers out of their collective asses...

Also Jeb pleaded for non-violence...

Apparently "husband" has been getting death threats...

And, EnBanc denied 10-2 who are the good two?

Posted by BigEd 2005-03-23 3:40:09 PM|| 2005-03-23 3:40:09 PM|| Front Page Top

#16 I've been doing a lot of thinking and reading on this lately. My thoughts on this situation have evolved from what I wrote a few days ago. They might evolve further. This is where Iâm at now as a doc:

1) Is she really in PVS? It can be VERY hard to tell sometimes. I've seen a single cut of her brain CT scan on the web, and it's horrific. If her entire CT looks like that (usual concerns about authenticity, etc), it's no wonder that she is the way she is.

I've seen some court filings and affidavits about her medical condition. One thing to know about PVS is that it takes a LOT of observation to know whether the behaviors noted in a patient like Ms. Schiavo demonstrate cognitive function or are reflexive. It does seem that the neurologists who have done the most detailed surveys of her believe that she's in PVS. One simply can't pluck a few minutes out of a 6 hr video and say, "ah-hah", she's demonstrating cognitive behavior.

That said, some parts of a PVS workup are missing. An MRI hasn't been done (but to do it, they'd have to remove the thalamic implants put in to help control her spasms, not an easy thing at all to do). A PET scan hasn't been done, but it wouldn't necessarily give you an answer. I'd like to see a truly independent neurological evaluation (not sponsored by either side) by a recognized expert. I'd like more reassurance that a truly good evaluation has been done from a medical standpoint, that all the bases have been covered, and that she's truly in a PVS. Because --

2) IF she is truly in a PVS, then it is NOT unethical to remove the feeding tube. Sorry folks, that's not only the law, that's recognized medical ethics (and not just in the Netherlands). These decisions are made every day by anguished relatives and are never easy. Withholding therapy that is deemed to be pointless for a hopeless medical situation, said decision being made by the patient (when possible), or a designated relative, or by a court (when there is conflict), is ethical and proper. We all understand that dying is part of living. If Ms. Schiavo is truly in a PVS, there is no hope for her whatsoever with present medical technology. While one could always argue "yeah, but at some point in the future something could come along", that's not how you made decisions in medicine.

I deal with patients who are dying with ALS (it's one of my patient panels). We help patients make decisions about feeding tubes, ventilators, tracheostomies, and other life-prolonging therapies. Part of that decision making is when to remove these therapies. It's part of a vital medical principle, that of patient autonomy, that one has the right both to accept and to refuse therapy, and to state the conditions as to when and how therapies will be applied to you. Every state has a law that protects this principle, and those laws are case-law tested and bullet-proof. That is why Judge Greer has consistently ruled the way he has -- if he hadnât, he would have been reversed by a higher Florida court. Heâs following the law. If you as a patient can't make the decision, your surrogate can do so on your behalf -- that's Michael Schiavo, in this case.

3) I don't like Michael -- he is, at the minimum, a sleazeball, and I think most people recognize him as such. I think that is part of what is driving this; if he were close to sainthood, this wouldn't have received as much publicity as it has. Nevertheless, unless and until someone demonstrates that he can't be allowed to make the decision, it's his decision, and the Florida courts -- correctly -- have applied Florida law and case law to that end. If he has indeed been abusive (or worse), it sure would be nice for some proof to pop up.

I point out that if some of the allegations of his actually wanting to murder Terri are true, then heâs a complete idiot to bring this much attention to himself. Far better to slink away.

4) I donât like a couple of the experts on Michaelâs side -- one in particular is big in the forced euthanasia movement. I expressed my thoughts on that before. Euthanasia is morally wrong, wrong, wrong, and Iâll never stand for it. To the extent that particular expert is driving the medical end of this, we need more experts.

5) I donât like some of the right-to-life people driving the other end. Theyâre almost as fanatical as the forced euthanasia people. This is a human life weâre talking about, not a gawddamned symbol.

6) I feel sorry for Terriâs parents. What a situation to be in.

7) Congress had the constitutional right under the 14th Amendment to guarantee Terri Schiavo due process under law. So I donât blame them for passing the law, and I understand the politics that drove this. But I think sheâs had due process -- hell, her situation has had more legal review than 99% of the cases out there like this. Thatâs good, we want to make the correct decision.

Posted by Steve White 2005-03-23 3:42:55 PM|| 2005-03-23 3:42:55 PM|| Front Page Top

#17 Two dissenters : Tjoflat (Bush 41 Judge) and Wilson (Clinton Judge - who was the dissent in the 2-1)

SHAME ON YOU JUDGE PRYOR
SHAME
SHAME

Posted by BigEd 2005-03-23 3:44:36 PM|| 2005-03-23 3:44:36 PM|| Front Page Top

#18 Steve, et al -I donât like some of the right-to-life people driving the other end. Theyâre almost as fanatical as the forced euthanasia people. This is a human life weâre talking about, not a gawddamned symbol.

Since I am the one griping the most about this on RB ... As many of you know my religious afiliation is somewhat vague, I am also mildly pro-choice in the Abortion area, but when I see this lowlife of a "husband", and how he is acting, I cannot be silent. Then as e-Larson said, Affidavits such as these reinforce that sense of disbelief (in Michael Schioavo).

I have had no religious ephiphany, I just see a great injustice being done here, and just am frustrated by legal purists who don't really see what America is all about, and judfges ignoring stsutes passed by the congress ticks me abit, and the MSM, and their leading question polls are unconscionable...(See Michelle Malkin's column)

So to my fellow RB'ers; Please excuse my anger...

Posted by BigEd 2005-03-23 3:51:28 PM|| 2005-03-23 3:51:28 PM|| Front Page Top

#19 Whatever gave you guys the impression that the Law was about Justice? It's not. Justice is, at best, a byproduct.

Posted by mojo 2005-03-23 4:07:25 PM|| 2005-03-23 4:07:25 PM|| Front Page Top

#20 And, mojo, we know what is the byproduct of the food we eat is.

And, in that vein, these judges have proven that they have "byproducts" of a higher education by thier decisions...

Posted by BigEd 2005-03-23 4:17:45 PM|| 2005-03-23 4:17:45 PM|| Front Page Top

#21 Many thanks to Steve White for bringing his enoormous knowledge and insight to this. The issue is not whether of not the husband is a sleaze ball. Maybe he is, maybe he isn't. The issue isn't whether or not some CNA's don't like him. (OBTW, the level of training CNA's get is actually pretty frightening - hospitals use them because they come cheap, not because they have the slightest clue as to what's going on). The issue is whether or not this woman has any realistic chance of recovery. Doesn't sound like it. PT and the like is done on someone like this to make it easier to care for them, not to facilitate their re-awakening. I find myself differing from his statement only in my outrage over the cynical posturing and smirking self-rightousness of congress (both parties) and Bush in bringing this last second action. After 15 years, what is left to discover? Finally if there is a soul involved here, what has happened to it? Did it leave when her cerebrum liquified 15 years ago, or is it trapped inside a body that doesn't appear to have much more self awareness than a pithed frog? Random thoughts on a bad day.

Posted by Weird Al 2005-03-23 4:18:16 PM|| 2005-03-23 4:18:16 PM|| Front Page Top

#22 Al : pithed frog???

You have just invalidated your arguement by making a statement like like that...

Some of your statements were thoughtful, I disagree, but the frog remark hurt your premise...

Posted by BigEd 2005-03-23 4:24:23 PM|| 2005-03-23 4:24:23 PM|| Front Page Top

#23 The folks on Hannity just got quite excited. A Liberal Democrat Senator who is black just announced he will vote for the bill. They are close to what they need...

(Remember Jesse Jackson Jr voted with us in the congress)

Posted by BigEd 2005-03-23 4:31:58 PM|| 2005-03-23 4:31:58 PM|| Front Page Top

#24 Said pithed frog, meant it. Sorry if it doesn't sound PC, but I meant it not to. If you never did this back in school, you took a living frog, bent it forward at the neck, and inserted a long needle between the skull and first cervical vertebra into the brain case, scrambling it. The frog retained basal function similar to that of the cerebellum in a human, but lost all other functions. The analogy isn't complete, since the frog was also paralyzed, but it had lost all of it's cognitive powers. Roughly the same situation. Just to clear up one other thing... CNA's are NOT nurses. They have extremely limited training. You want to get a real nurse to throw a large heavy object at you, compare her to a CNA

Posted by Weird Al 2005-03-23 4:43:53 PM|| 2005-03-23 4:43:53 PM|| Front Page Top

#25 Fla Senate rejects bill 18-21...

Posted by BigEd 2005-03-23 4:44:59 PM|| 2005-03-23 4:44:59 PM|| Front Page Top

#26 Roughly the same situation.

Excuse me?

Obviosly you haven't read the affidavits of the THREE REGISTERED NURSES whom the court ignored.

Cognitive function there...

As a doctor who called into Laura Ingraham said today, "The computer works, the printer is busted."

And the frog remark is still tacky. No one has ever accused me of being PC. The frog experiment is interesting, but are you sure it applies here?

Looks like Governor Jeb is about to take her into custody... If this happens, this question could become resolved, one way or another.

Also, one of the doctors shopped to file affidavits for the state courts made Colorado Governor Lamm-type statements in the past (Old People have a duty to die). Hardly an impartial arbitrator...

Posted by BigEd 2005-03-23 4:54:40 PM|| 2005-03-23 4:54:40 PM|| Front Page Top

#27 I'd like to see a truly independent neurological evaluation (not sponsored by either side) by a recognized expert.

That would be the proper thing to do; get an impartial third party to make a complete evaluation and make the data and conclusions readily available to all parties involved. Like I said yesterday, medical data is important, but it shouldn't be the only consideration.

The issue is whether or not this woman has any realistic chance of recovery. Doesn't sound like it.

The question is, what if she's conscious? She's obviously not in a coma, so what if there's some self-consciousness there that, due to her current state, she can't communicate across clearly? Then what? Do you still just kill her anyway?

I'm not Mr. Pro-Life by any stretch of the imagination, but when there's doubt, and in this case I believe that there is room for doubt, err on the side of caution.

Posted by Bomb-a-rama 2005-03-23 5:06:23 PM|| 2005-03-23 5:06:23 PM|| Front Page Top

#28 Bomb-a-rama

Thanks - You said it well - I have a tendency to babble...

Get her away from "husband", and have a gander at her condition...Probably take a couple weeks to recover from the Ghoul attempt, then, go for it...

Posted by BigEd 2005-03-23 5:16:33 PM|| 2005-03-23 5:16:33 PM|| Front Page Top

#29 There are two sets of issues here: (1) the individual situation involving this woman, and (2) the overall procedure/procedures which are/should be in place for such circumstances and decisions.

I have no idea about the actual merits of the underlying claim: maybe she is, maybe she isn't. I hope that she has no idea what's happening to her.

The procedure used here has some rather disturbing aspects: Such as a rep (the husband) who has an economic interest directly contrary to his ward. In a run-of-mill probate, you could have the representative removed without question.

The judge was supposed to have made a finding that she desired to have the tube-pulled by clear and convincing evidence. An offhand hearsay recollection from years before is not clear and convincing evidence. The medical evidence is very contraverted.

The reviews in the appellate court do not consider the merits of the underlying claim. Appellate courts (typically) only review the laws applied (was it the correct law). The appeals do not reach the actual merits of the trial court's decisions.

Another distrubing aspect is the trial court's order to remove the tube --- not an order that the doctor, or the husband or someone else could make the decision. That's amazing.

The process seems to have been both extensive and poorly worked.

One final point: when the question becomes, not life and death, but "quality" of life -- particularly the quality of someone else's life, there is a very dangerous potential for future problems.

Posted by Kalchas 2005-03-23 5:21:28 PM|| 2005-03-23 5:21:28 PM|| Front Page Top

#30 There's something that's been bugging me about this whole case, but it's hard for me to put into words... I suggest that before continuing the discussion, take a look at this: http://www.azcentral.com/health/news/articles/1123rabies23-ON.html.

Posted by Phil Fraering 2005-03-23 5:23:23 PM|| [http://newsfromthefridge.typepad.com] 2005-03-23 5:23:23 PM|| Front Page Top

#31 The guy got a $1.2m settlement. One year later, he tried to have her offed. If I were Terri Schiavo's hubby, I would, at minimum, have spent the money down before making any decisions. Or I would have divorced her and turned the money over to her parents so that they could administer to her. Michael Schiavo is a sleazebag not because he got a new wife - he is a sleazebag for treating the money from the malpractice lawsuit as a winning Lotto ticket and trying to off his wife after winning the lawsuit - the award was paid so that she could be maintained until some kind of treatment could be found. Mike Schiavo can always get a new wife - Terri's folks are going to find it much harder to replace her.

Posted by Zhang Fei 2005-03-23 5:28:41 PM|| [http://timurileng.blogspot.com] 2005-03-23 5:28:41 PM|| Front Page Top

#32 Intriguing reading.

Apologies if this has already been posted.

(via Right Thinking)

Posted by Bomb-a-rama 2005-03-23 5:36:25 PM|| 2005-03-23 5:36:25 PM|| Front Page Top

#33 Is Jeb getting the neccessary police in place?
"husband"'s attorney says he will try to physically block her removal from the hospice...

Snakey small attorney against a couple of buff Florida state police... He he he

I am reminded of the GEICO insurance ad on the radio... "...get thrown in jail...meet a guy named 'Wally'"

Visual images! he he he

Now husband is 6'7". Extra care needs to be used when dealing with a rabid bear...particulary one who could be in deep doodoo if anyone is listening to the nurses with those affadavits...

Posted by BigEd 2005-03-23 5:42:33 PM|| 2005-03-23 5:42:33 PM|| Front Page Top

#34 The one good thing that will have come out of this is that respect for the imperial judiciary will have diminished considerably after this set of loony rulings. But it won't bring Terri Schiavo back. These b@st@rds are a bunch of dictators-for-life in robes.

Posted by Zhang Fei 2005-03-23 5:50:01 PM|| [http://timurileng.blogspot.com] 2005-03-23 5:50:01 PM|| Front Page Top

#35 This case is totally based on Michael Schiavo claiming Terri said she didn't want to live in extreme circumstances. Terri would get a feeding tube tomorrow if M Schiavo repudiated this claim.

Anyone who believes Michael Schiavo on this is a fool. All one has to do is examine the record of how he has treated Terri, ripped off her settlement, tried to hasten her demise. Such as always keeping the curtains closed so she lives in gloom. Preventing any rehabilitation therapy, forbidding her teeth to be brushed..

Posted by sea cruise 2005-03-23 5:57:54 PM|| 2005-03-23 5:57:54 PM|| Front Page Top

#36 DCF Considers Removing Schiavo from Hospice by Force

State officials say they are considering removing Terri Schiavo from hospice, by force if necessary, despite numerous court orders upholding the removal of the artificial nutrition tube that has kept her alive for 15 years.

Lucy Hadl, secretary of the Department of Children and Families, said Wednesday morning that her staff is relying on a state law that gives the department the authority to intervene on behalf of a vulnerable adult who is 'suffering from abuse or neglect that presents a risk of death or serious physical injury.'

Now, has there ever been a standoff, like for example, beetween State Police (at the direction of Governor Bush), and Court Marshalls who (would be at the directive of Judge Greer)?

This could be UGLY

Posted by BigEd 2005-03-23 5:58:50 PM|| 2005-03-23 5:58:50 PM|| Front Page Top

#37 Big Ed: Irregardless of the other merits of this case,, I have re-read the initial story. The women making these statements call themselves nurses, but they are certified nursing assistants. Not even remotely the same thing. Roughly what I see coming out of ER reports and walk-in clinics where advanced practice nurses are calling themselves "doctors". As to the statements that the husband is a sleaze, don't know one way or the other. I do have the distinct feeling that the parents hate his guts, and if there were legitimate reason to think he had tried to kill lhis wife on one or more occassions, I would think they would be screaming it to the skies. Since I don't hear this, I assume the source is less than credible, to say the least.

Posted by Weird Al 2005-03-23 6:07:50 PM|| 2005-03-23 6:07:50 PM|| Front Page Top

#38 From Rev. Sensing/One Hand Clapping:

[on Fox New, Judge Andrew Napolitano] said that assertions that Michael Schiavo is either responsible for Terri's injury or worsening it have in fact been "exhaustively pursued" and that court records show this. Such allegations have been found to be without merit ...

FoxNews reported today that every doctor who has actually examined Terri, whether retained by Michael Schiavo, the courts, or the Schindlers, has concluded that she is in an irreversible PVS.

It's unspeakably barbaric that they're going to starve/dehydrate her to death, but there seems to be no real hope of recovery for her in any event.

Posted by VAMark 2005-03-23 6:08:46 PM|| 2005-03-23 6:08:46 PM|| Front Page Top

#39 Thanks Dr. White. I'm relieved.

Posted by Shipman 2005-03-23 7:14:36 PM|| 2005-03-23 7:14:36 PM|| Front Page Top

#40 Hugh Hewitt just read a statement by a doctor who says she was misdiagnosed. If Jeb risks contempt by acting unilaterally, he wll, in the end, be a hero. The jusdge will have to hold a hearing, or risk being either impeached or recalled if he fails to hear the new evidence.

Posted by BigEd 2005-03-23 7:14:43 PM|| 2005-03-23 7:14:43 PM|| Front Page Top

#41 Weird Al....

You are way out of the loop. The Schindlers and their people have been screaming for years about Michael Schiavo's conduct. You are lost on this case.

Posted by sea cruise 2005-03-23 8:02:54 PM|| 2005-03-23 8:02:54 PM|| Front Page Top

#42 "On three or four occasions I personally fed Terri small mouthfuls of Jello, which she was able to swallow and enjoyed immensely."

"When he left, Terri was very agitated, was extremely tense with tightened fists and sometimes had a cold sweat. She was much less responsive than usual and would just stare out the window, her eyes kind of glassy. ..."

This doesn't sound like PVS in 1997. Someone needs to do a lot of explaining, and it sounds like it should be Michael Schiavo.

Posted by Tom 2005-03-23 8:17:19 PM|| 2005-03-23 8:17:19 PM|| Front Page Top

#43 The women making these statements call themselves nurses, but they are certified nursing assistants. Not even remotely the same thing.

I don't see the relevance. Would such simple observations such as "I was personally aware of orders for rehabilitation that were not being carried out", or that "even though they were ordered, Michael stopped them" be any more valid if it were a certified nurse saying them?

Posted by Bomb-a-rama 2005-03-23 8:21:49 PM|| 2005-03-23 8:21:49 PM|| Front Page Top

#44 If Jeb risks contempt by acting unilaterally, he will, in the end, be a hero.

Actually he won't, he'll be vilified for prolonging her suffering as the courts will sentence her to death again after the appellate process runs its course. That chain of events has already been set in motion by the federal district court's ultra-narrow interpretation of the law passed on Terri's behalf as giving them authority to review only whether or not she has received sufficient due process. Given the extensive litigation in the state courts it's almost a foregone conclusion that sufficient due process will be found and it's a certainty if she lives and the case goes back to the same federal district court judge that heard the TRO argument.

On the off chance that extraordinary means are used to save Terri and she lives long enough for her case to be heard, it's a virtual slam-dunk that the judiciary will find Congress' action on Terri's behalf unconstitutional. The judiciary won't tolerate being ordered around by Congress on specific issues and we're seeing that in the district & circuit opinions here already. They will find a constitutional argument upon which to hang their hat, wring their hand, express regret, and solemnly note that the law ties their hands in this matter. See e.g., the district court judge's seizing upon a single comment by Sen. Levin to twist the intent of Congress into something that would allow him to let Terri to die and thereby dispose of this issue.

Barring action to physically remove Terri by Gov. or Pres. Bush sheâs doomed. Even if such means are employed keeping her alive indefinitely will likely require her removal from the jurisdiction of the courts acting on the case or a Jacksonian pronouncement along the lines of the famous, âMarshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it" by both Gov. and Pres. Bush.

Posted by AzCat 2005-03-23 8:30:47 PM|| 2005-03-23 8:30:47 PM|| Front Page Top

#45 The more I read about this case the more doubts I have about how to judge it.
Dr Steve White's post was particularily educating. If Terri is indeed in a PVS, the harsh "murder" allegations are not appropriate.
I have several questions: How important is the claim of the husband that Terri said she didn't want such a treatment? I understand that Terri's husband seems to be a questionable character but until some hard facts are brought up against him, his word is the word of the husband, and it trumpets that of the parents. This case has been extensively litigated, so can't we assume that the courts looked very hard into the husband's character and how he would "benefit" financially (and otherwise) from having the tube removed. I have also read (not knowing if this is accurate), that the husband has been offered several million dollars to let this matter go, just divorce, let the parents have custody and be free from everything.
As for the "new evidence": I don't know about those three nursing assistants, but they appear a bit late at the party. If Michael Schiavo's conduct was as described, legal action should and would actually be taken years ago. The parents clearly hate Michael, so what they say about him does not necessarily have to be true. And can a hospital be that intimidated by the husband? In Germany a doctor would simply throw him out if he behaved the way described and he could certainly not order people around like he is alleged to have done.
And this "doctor ex machina"? I don't know but a doctor who spends an hour with the patient, looks at 2 videos and then declares that the previous, much more thorough diagnosis "might" not be accurate doesn't sound like valuiable "new evidence" courts would or should consider. Imagine a death penalty case with all legal recourses exhausted. Would such a statement lead to a new trial nullifying the others? I doubt it.
I think there is some political overreaching in a tragic private case that at this very moment happens a thousand times in the U.S. Pulling the tube is not "unspeakable barbaric", but something that is routinely done in those cases, and my own doctor, whom I trust, has told me that this is indeed absolutely painless and whatever discomfort a dying patient might have is taken care of. I would certainly prefer to be "put to sleep", but this doesn't seem to be legally possible in those cases.
Even in death penalty cases litigation is exhausted at some point. Congress wouldn't make a law which only applies to a single case, voiding all state court decisions. And no governor should have the right to defy the law, now that even federal courts have ruled the same way state courts did.
People have been executed in the United States because their guilt had been proven "beyond any reasonable doubt" (which never excludes some unsolved questions which do not rise to be a "reasonable doubt".
There is a time when everything is said and done. Res iudicata.

Posted by True German Ally 2005-03-23 8:52:49 PM|| 2005-03-23 8:52:49 PM|| Front Page Top

#46 Now, has there ever been a standoff, like for example, beetween State Police (at the direction of Governor Bush), and Court Marshalls who (would be at the directive of Judge Greer)?

Certainly. I seem to remember reading about a similar stand off involving a southern university and some students who were considered the "wrong color" by the local government.

Posted by Robert Crawford 2005-03-23 9:10:13 PM|| [http://www.kloognome.com/] 2005-03-23 9:10:13 PM|| Front Page Top

#47 TGA,

It appears to me there has been a miscarriage of justice though all formalities have been followed.

This does not happen thousands of times in the U. S. If it did, there would be clearer law. We have a saying, hard cases make bad law. This is a hard case.

Pulling the tube that supplies water and food so that death is caused by dehydration is barbaric. No one knows what she will experience and it is my understanding that some in her condition have recovered and indicated that they were quite aware of what was going on and being said about them. Making someone die of thirst by withholding water is barbaric to me. We treat animals we slaughter for food better than that.

Congress did not void any state court decisions but did give the federal courts jurisdiction to review the state court decisions. The federal courts did not rule the same way the state courts did. They said not enough evidence was presented to convince them that the tube should be put back so that further litigation could take place. They did say the time has come when everything is said and done. It is still barbaric and a yet another blow to many Americans' confidence in their judicial system.

Posted by Mrs. Davis 2005-03-23 9:17:26 PM|| 2005-03-23 9:17:26 PM|| Front Page Top

#48 Enough seems to be enough. Throw out everything the parents have said. Throw out everything the husband has said. Exmaine the basic situation: you are the patient. Your entire basis of existence consists of maybe being able to smile every once in a while and maybe being able to follow a ballon every once in a while. Maybe. Would you consider death a boon, or want to live on indefinitely under such conditions. And I don't want to hear about how this is just a tribulation sent to you by god. When it's over it's time to draw the curtain and say good bye.

Posted by Weird Al 2005-03-23 9:19:40 PM|| 2005-03-23 9:19:40 PM|| Front Page Top

#49 Prof. Eastman on the Hugh Hewitt show recently said that there is a declaration given by the ex-girlfriend of the husband in which he admitted that he lied about Terri's desire to be "allowed to die". Such a declaration would be admissible as an exception to the hearsay rule, declaration against interest.

The State of Florida also filed a declaration today given by a FAAN that she was misdiagnosed. The examination was made this month.

Should Jeb take custody, he is not defying the law. Rather, the executive is exercising its rights under the law. When Protective Services take a child from an abusive household without a court order it's not illegal.

PS: I am amazed at the federal court and the state appellate courts being so careful about their jurisdiction. These guys are never shy about throwing around their weight. The only explanation is that the courts are thumbing their nose at the legislative branch.

Posted by Kalchas 2005-03-23 9:21:40 PM|| 2005-03-23 9:21:40 PM|| Front Page Top

#50 Mrs Davis, I don't see my personal doctor advocating a "barbaric treatment". This treatment is administered in countless cases, in every hospital, ordered by thousands of different doctors. I somehow feel that there is a bit of hypocrisy involved here, that pulling the tube is ok but administering a drug that puts you to eternal sleep is not, when both measures lead to certain death, just with a few days difference. It looks a bit like CYA to me.
When a patient is in an (assumed) PVS, nobody can ever know whats going on inside, she is closed to us forever and gone, even if body functions remain. From what I read all specialists that have examined Terri have concluded that she is in a PVS. A new doctor taking a rather quick look and then declaring something different is not good enough. The videos are not convincing. We're being fed short clips where Terri seems to have some sort of reaction which, if you looked at hourlong footage, probably is completely random. This is what the experts who sat with her for many days concluded.

As for Jeb: Taking her into custody maybe is not defying the court order, ordering the tube to be reinserted under his custody (which would be the only point of such an action) would be contempt of court. The court has clearly ruled against it.

You can't defy a death sentence either, just because you think the court was wrong.

I remember the Elian case. It was painful to watch. But in the end the court order prevailed.
Legal decisions can be painful sometimes. Defying them is not a road a governor can take. Not even a president.

Posted by True German Ally 2005-03-23 9:41:09 PM|| 2005-03-23 9:41:09 PM|| Front Page Top

#51 Also I'm wondering why THIS CASE doesn't seem to cause much outrage:

HOUSTON (AP) - A critically ill 5-month-old was taken off life support and died Tuesday, a day after a judge cleared the way for doctors to halt care they believed to be futile. The infant's mother had fought to keep him alive.

Sun Hudson had been diagnosed with a fatal genetic disorder called thanatophoric dysplasia, a condition characterized by a tiny chest and lungs too small to support life. He had been on a ventilator since birth.

Wanda Hudson unsuccessfully fought to continue her son's medical care. She believed he needed time to grow and could eventually be weaned off the ventilator.

"I wanted life for my son," Hudson said Tuesday. "The hospital gave up on him too soon."

Texas law allows hospitals to end life support in cases such as this but requires that families be given 10 days to find another facility to care for the patient. No hospital was found to take the baby. The ethics committee at Texas Children's Hospital reviewed Sun's case before recommending that life support be stopped. Hospital officials also recommended the case be taken to court and offered to pay Hudson's attorney fees.

"Texas Children's Hospital is deeply saddened to report that Sun Hudson has died," the hospital said in a statement issued Tuesday.

Posted by True German Ally 2005-03-23 10:00:06 PM|| 2005-03-23 10:00:06 PM|| Front Page Top

#52 How important is the claim of the husband that Terri said she didn't want such a treatment?

Absolutely critical. If admissible & believed she will die, if either not admissible or found not credible, she will live.

Hearsay statements of this type are generally NOT admissible in courts as evidence but the FL judge allowed it, probably under an exception that allows admission of such statements when the witness who allegedly made the statement isn't available to testify. The husband's case falls apart if this single piece of evidence admitted on an exception is disallowed because it is the allegations that the wife did not want to live in this condition that allows her life to end.

Whether or not the hearsay evidence should have been admitted it was and the question then becomes whether it credibly reflects the wife's wishes. The husband's potential financial gain; the nurse's statements that: the husband removed positive remarks from his wife's chart, may have attempted to kill her via insulin injections (there is apparently a police report to this effect as the CNA making the allegation reported it to the police and was interviewed by homicide detectives), and statements that the husband prohibited all rehabilitation and regularly asked things along the lines of, "Is the bitch dead yet?"; the affidavit by an ex-girlfriend of the husband stating that the husband told her that he had lied to the court regarding his wife's wish to die, etc. all call into question the hearsay evidence presented by the husband. It's not clear that ANY of this evidence beyond the husbandâs potential financial gain was admitted or considered by the FL trial court.

Normally when the litigant is a minor or incapacitated and/or guardianship is disputed the court will appoint an independent guardian ad litem to represent the plaintiff. This is not an extraordinary step. E.g., my sisterâs children were appointed such a guardian to determine custody following her divorce; such appointments are routine and done as a matter of course. Such a guardian was appointed but was dismissed by the FL state court when the judge who eventually handed down the decision that Terri should die appointed himself as her guardian ad litem for the purpose of the trial in his court. Any conflicts there? Any potential violations of due process?

Further there is a questionable relationship between the husbandâs attorney and the FL state trial court judge. The husbandâs attorney has made monetary donations to the trial court judgeâs election campaigns. Clear conflict of interest there but unfortunately one that is allowable under our system.

To recap: flimsy & contradicted evidence was used to hand down a death sentence after the husband had forum-shopped the case into a FL jurisdiction where the judge had a financial interest in not upsetting the husbandâs attorney. Troublesome evidence questioning the husbandâs assertions was ignored or suppressed by the trial court judge while said judge simultaneously acted as Terriâs legal guardian allegedly independently representing her best interests.

This is a travesty and a miscarriage of justice the likes of which has not occurred in my lifetime and a sad and frightening day in the history of our nation. And yes, it is more than somewhat reminiscent of Hitlerâs, âLife not worth livingâ mantra.

Posted by AzCat 2005-03-23 10:08:04 PM|| 2005-03-23 10:08:04 PM|| Front Page Top

#53 Also I'm wondering why THIS CASE doesn't seem to cause much outrage.

Very basic difference: the child had a terminal disorder and his death was imminent. Terri Schiavo has no terminal disorder, she is merely severely mentally handicapped.

Posted by AzCat 2005-03-23 10:10:10 PM|| 2005-03-23 10:10:10 PM|| Front Page Top

#54 Would you consider death a boon, or want to live on indefinitely under such conditions.

And like Hitler you would consider such an existence a "life not worth living?" Nice.

Posted by AzCat 2005-03-23 10:13:41 PM|| 2005-03-23 10:13:41 PM|| Front Page Top

#55 May God damn the federal and state judges who help carry out this barbaric act of murder.

Posted by badanov 2005-03-23 10:13:45 PM|| [http://www.rkka.org/title-boris.gif] 2005-03-23 10:13:45 PM|| Front Page Top

#56 You can't defy a death sentence either, just because you think the court was wrong.

Ever heard of a "pardon" TGA?

Posted by AzCat 2005-03-23 10:15:58 PM|| 2005-03-23 10:15:58 PM|| Front Page Top

#57 TGA - I saw a sympathetic interview with Sun Hudson's Mom and her attorney. In my brief (20 Min) viewing, it was apparent Mom is stone-cold insane and her atty is along for the crumbs/settlement. Hard truth - that baby was born without a chance, even if he'd lived

Posted by Frank G 2005-03-23 10:17:07 PM|| 2005-03-23 10:17:07 PM|| Front Page Top

#58 As to the child's disease:

Mortality/Morbidity: Although the literature documents several reports of survival into childhood, TD virtually is always lethal in the neonatal period. Respiratory insufficiency secondary to reduced thoracic capacity or compression of the brainstem leads to death.

How "imminent" was the death of the baby which was put to death (if you follow the same dictum) against the wishes of his mum (the baby can't say yet what it wants). Is life less precious if it is believed to end in a few weeks as opposed to several years?

I'm not trying to stir up trouble. But lets be careful with moral judgements about so many different judges that have ruled on the case.

If the court rulings in Florida were so wrong and due process was violated you would expect the Supreme Court to have taken the case. They didn't.

You carefully avoid my death penalty analogy: Shouldn't we "err on the side of life" if there is any little doubt even if the courts don't think so? And we know that some cases did have merit to be reconsidered.

As to the pardon: From what I read, the pardon powers of Jeb Bush are very closely defined by the Florida Constitution and do certainly not cover this case.

Again, I'm not saying that everything's right in this case. But let me put it this way. If I happened to be in Terri's state and I had voiced by will to my wife that I wouldn't want to be kept in that state I would hope she did everything to fulfil my will and fight other family members who merely "assume" what I might have thought if...

Posted by True German Ally 2005-03-23 10:45:20 PM|| 2005-03-23 10:45:20 PM|| Front Page Top

#59 Would you consider death a boon, or want to live on indefinitely under such conditions.

It's doubtful that I'd be in a position to cogitate about it, were I such a patient. Or perhaps I would be able to philosophize quite deeply. *shrug*

Either way, speaking as a person who gets mightily grumpy when my lunch is delayed, I highly doubt I would EVER beg for death by dehydration.

Posted by eLarson 2005-03-23 10:52:47 PM|| [http://larsonian.blogspot.com] 2005-03-23 10:52:47 PM|| Front Page Top

#60 To me a more proper comparison would be that of T. Schiavo to a mentally handicappe d but otherwise healthy newborn that is completely dependent upon the routine care of others for its survival, rather than the comparison to an infant with a terminal disorder that requires not only routine care & feeding by others but also extraordinary medical care. She's far more like the former than the latter since she required not extraordinary care to survive, she need merely be fed.

I donât necessarily believe that life is less precious if it will end in a few weeks though Iâm far less troubled when extraordinary medical care is withheld in such a circumstance as when, as here, no care is required and the otherwise healthy person is sentenced to death by starvation/dehydration. I actually avoided moral arguments for the most part because I believe the circumstantial irregularities indicate a clear deprivation of due process. One need not reach medical or moral arguments to determine that.

Appellate courts apply far stricter standards when reviewing trial court decisions than do trial courts when originally rendering those decisions. Thus Iâm not surprised by the Fl appellate courtsâ refusals nor am I surprised by the federal appellate courts decisions. That, however, does not change the current situation: Congress ordered a new trial in the federal courts irrespective of what transpired earlier in the state courts but the federal trial court thumbed its nose at Congress and in doing so tied the hands of the appellate courts. T.Schiavo did not receive a fair hearing in the Florida state courts and the Florida federal courts refused to preserve her life so that they could conduct a new trial as mandated by Congress. Iâm unclear how this can be viewed as anything other than a severe miscarriage of justice. Donâtâ forget that the current arguments are NOT about the final disposition of her case, theyâre about keeping her alive long enough to hear her case. Huge difference. Her case should be heard before she is killed, no?

Personally I donât believe the death penalty should apply unless there is significant physical evidence. E.g., Scott Peterson should not have been sentenced to death because he was convicted solely on circumstantial evidence. Thatâs also an extremely troubling circumstance.

And be careful of projecting your own views onto T. Schiavo. I might not want to live in her condition, you might not want to live in her condition, there might not be one other person on the planet who would choose to live in her condition, but did SHE want to die? Do we really know? If not, who are we to impute our beliefs to her and kill her?

Posted by AzCat 2005-03-23 11:06:03 PM|| 2005-03-23 11:06:03 PM|| Front Page Top

#61 AzCat, I see that you are consistent in your reasoning, which I appreciate very much. And again, my opinion about this case evolves with the knowledge I gather about it.

Do we really know what Terri wanted? Of course we don't. We wouldn't even know if Terri had signed a durable power of attorney a month before she fell into that state. She could have changed her mind.
But in the end someone has to make a decision. Usually those decisions are made in consent and quietly. Most relatives will prefer to let the doctor decide, and in "hopeless cases" they usually do.
The truth is, we wouldn't have a Schiavo case at all if the parents had agreed with the husband. Every day people are taken off life support. Are all these doctors and family members, who have to make the most difficult decision you can imagine, guilty of barbaric murder?

We would probably have an easier discussion about this, had the Nazis not abused the euthanasia subject in such a terrible, barbaric way.

I have signed all necessary legal papers, but in Germany, that doesn't give me total control about what will happen to me. At my age it is highly unlikely that the hospital would go against my will and I can trust my wife to defend my will, as I would defend hers.

With a 30yo it might be different. And just imagine Terri gets a "stay" and in a few months all federal courts still rule against her. What then? Is it ok then or still "murder"?

Posted by True German Ally 2005-03-23 11:37:27 PM|| 2005-03-23 11:37:27 PM|| Front Page Top

#62 If the court rulings in Florida were so wrong and due process was violated you would expect the Supreme Court to have taken the case. They didn't.

The latest news is that they might.

Posted by Elmoting Granter5118 2005-03-23 11:53:33 PM|| 2005-03-23 11:53:33 PM|| Front Page Top

#63 I'm not troubled by the imposition of a death sentence on a guilty party where there is a fair amount of certainty about the conviction. I'm not opposed to any adult's right to refuse medical treatment or life-sustaining care if their wishes are clearly expressed and not in dispute. Clearly there are situatons where the individual and/or the government must make life or death decisions and where it is right and proper for those decisions to be made.

I'm somewhat more troubled by cases where the wishes of an incapacited person are not known but are inferred by family members with or without consultation with medical professionals. But even in those situations I would acquiesce if the family members were unanimous and the medical opinions did not run contrary to the family's decision. That's the gray area.

But where there is a reasonable doubt about the intent of the incapacitated person I don't believe the imposition of a death sentence by the courts over the objection of the family is proper. In heading down this road, we're treading a very dangerous path.

Posted by AzCat 2005-03-23 11:59:09 PM|| 2005-03-23 11:59:09 PM|| Front Page Top

#64 Off-topic or abusive comments deleted]

Posted by anon 2005-03-23 6:12:56 PM|| 2005-03-23 6:12:56 PM|| Front Page Top

18:12 anon
16:03 anon
20:54 anon
09:06 anon
10:22 anon
19:49 anon
19:37 anon
13:42 Salahuddin
11:53 Salahuddin
11:38 Salahuddin
11:33 Salahuddin
10:50 Salahuddin
10:50 Salahuddin
10:26 Salahuddin
14:29 Salahuddin
12:14 Salahuddin
11:25 Salahuddin
10:50 Salahuddin
10:28 Salahuddin
10:17 Salahuddin
10:13 Salahuddin
13:32 Salahuddin
13:02 Salahuddin
14:11 Salahuddin