Terri Schiavo: More Grandstanding

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
101

[quote]100meters wrote:
here’s some interesting reading for both sides, it’s the report from the Guardian Ad Litem appointed by Jeb after passing Terri’s law.

includes:
Theresa?s husband, Michael Schiavo and her mother, Mary Schindler, were virtual partners in their care of and dedication to Theresa. There is no question but that complete trust, mutual caring, explicit love and a common goal of caring for and rehabilitating Theresa, were the shared intentions of Michael Shiavo and the Schindlers.

?

His [Michael?s] demanding concern for her well being and meticulous care by the nursing home earned him the characterization by the administrator as ?a nursing home administrator?s nightmare?. It is notable that through more than thirteen years after Theresa?s collapse, she has never had a bedsore.

[/quote]

Excellent Link 100meters! I wonder how those who continually bash you will spin this one?!

102

Thanks for that, 100meters.

Up until now I have tried to present reasonable arguments, and taken a moderate position. Enough being the nice guy; now I’ll post something that will probably piss people off. Here it is:

The Schindlers are an evil, selfish people who only care about their own needs and don’t give a shit about their daughter.

Here is how I came to that conclusion. Terri most likely passed out due to bulimia. It wasn’t conclusive that this was her condition, but it appeared that way. From what I know of bulimia, it is an emotional disorder in people who feel that they have no control over their lives. They feel that my conrolling their intake of food, i.e., by binging and purging, they can have control over some part of their lives. My theory is that Terri’s parents were control freaks who wanted to control every part of her life, and tried to do so even after she was married. This lead to the bulimia. Do I have any evidence for this. Nope; none whatsoever. This is just my theory. But their statements that they would have kept the tube in even if Terri had told them she would not have wanted to be kept in that condition are very troubling and show a complete disregard for their daughter’s independence. And BTW, this is probably why she never told her parents of her true wishes – she knew that if she told them they would freak out. The fact that they admitted to the GAL that they “enjoyed” seeing her alive was just macabre. People here have complained about the “culture of death” in our society. Well, welcome to the culture of the macabre where the bodies of people with liquified cerebral cortexes are kept alive artificially for the amusement of their so-called “loved ones.” Why not just have her stuffed and mounted? Because that would be sick? The way I see it, what they are doing to her now is only one step removed from taking her to a taxidermist. At least death brings finality and a certain amount of dignity.

103

Ok joeweider, I hav read the link that you posted.

This is not convinvcing. an ameoba will respond to stimuli.

To state that "she responded to specific people " in a more pronounced way is a purely subjectlive observation, and not a test.

Swallow reflex may not be affected bu neurological damage, and even then is a poor measure of overall wellbeing and function.

Strength and adaptation of strength may could be reactive.

Now, i am not to argue with a neurosurgeon, a nobel prize winner (what for though, i dont know) but observations such as these are, on their own, subjective and weak.

Also, i will raise the pont again. imagine if it was a partner/mother/father of any of ours, what would you do when 99.9 pc of what they are has been desroyed. spend some time thinking of that because i have.

104

Keeping Terri Schiavo plugged in is playing God. As Jason 32 said in an earlier post, were we to allow nature to take its course without human intervention she would have been at peace fifteen years ago.

And before I get called Stalinist again; Stalin was the governmental entity who made those decisions for the populace. My entire point was the government should NOT be making those decisions. Micheal Schivo is the person to make this decision. If you do not like that, start a petition to eliminate the governmental insitution of marriage, I will be the first to sign it. Our government is out of control in its attempt to shape our lives and our sensibilities and morality. How dare these pontificating, pompous political whores use this the horrific plight of this woman to help “solidify” their constutiency. You can think whatever you like, and beat your chest until it is black and blue, the decision is not yours, not mine, and certainly not the whores up in Washington.

105

Hammesfahr is a quack. He is currently under investigation in Florida for false advertising.

106

[quote]MikeTheBear wrote:
Hammesfahr is a quack. He is currently under investigation in Florida for false advertising.

http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/Tests/tcd.html[/quote]

huh. I wonder how many other new treatments were dismissed as quackery by the threatened establishment?

107

Ducking Tough Questions
The federal court declines to reinsert Terri Schiavo?s feeding tube.

Is Terri Schiavo a PVS case? That is the core of the wrenching dispute that has gripped the nation. That is the question that impelled the extraordinary intervention of Congress and the president over the weekend. And that is the question that U.S. District Judge James D. Whittemore refused to entertain in rejecting, early Tuesday morning, a request to reinsert Terri Schiavo?s feeding tube. Thus, her excruciating march to death by starvation and dehydration continues.

??
In 1990, in a case called Cruzan v. Missouri, the U.S. Supreme Court assumed that a competent person would have a constitutionally protected right to refuse lifesaving hydration and nutrition, and held that where a person (a) was actually in a persistent vegetative state (PVS) and (b) had actually evinced a desire not to be sustained in that state (i.e., a desire to die rather than be kept alive), the state was permitted ? but not required ? to allow her surrogates to discontinue sustenance.

Cruzan is distinguishable from Terri Schiavo?s case in that there is powerful reason to doubt that Terri is in a PVS. There was no such reason given the condition of the woman in Cruzan ? the opinion indicates that from three weeks of coma she never progressed beyond an unconscious state, in which she was perhaps responsive to some painful stimuli but to nothing else. There was thus reason to doubt she would even appreciate the immense discomfort of starvation/dehydration. Cruzan is also distinguishable in that the evidence that Terri has evinced an informed and intelligent wish to die is even more suspect than the concededly thin evidence that supported this finding in Cruzan.

But, of course, Terri?s case is not distinguishable unless the federal court is open to a full reconsideration of the factual determinations made by the Florida courts that Terri is in a PVS and that she asserted an informed desire to die. This is where the bill passed by Congress comes in. In pertinent part, it says:
The United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida shall have jurisdiction to hear, determine, and render judgment on a suit or claim by or on behalf of Theresa Marie Schiavo for the alleged violation of any right of Theresa Marie Schiavo under the Constitution or laws of the United States relating to the withholding or withdrawal of food, fluids, or medical treatment necessary to sustain her life.

? [T]he District Court shall determine de novo any claim of a violation of any right of Theresa Marie Schiavo within the scope of this Act, notwithstanding any prior State court determination and regardless of whether such a claim has previously been raised, considered, or decided in State court proceedings. The District Court shall entertain and determine the suit without any delay or abstention in favor of State court proceedings, and regardless of whether remedies available in the State courts have been exhausted. [Italics mine.]

There are at least two ways to read this law. The first ? and the one that I believe the plain language indicates Congress intended ? is that there should be a complete, plenary, exhaustive review on a clean slate ? ignoring all prior rulings and factual determinations made by the courts of Florida. This is not a limitless grant of authority. The federal court cannot grant relief unless it can be shown that some federal right of Terri?s was violated. But, the federal court is not bound to accept as fact ? and, indeed, should not accept as fact ? any factual conclusion drawn by Judge Greer and the rest of the courts of Florida. In other words: Fully develop the facts and then determine if federal law has been transgressed.

Then there is a narrower construction which reverses priorities. The federal judge arguably could start from the premise that he was very constricted in what he could do by the limits of established federal law, including most significantly, the various aspects of the right to due process. He could then conduct a review only of the procedures of Florida law applied in Terri?s case (rather than the underlying factual determinations generated by those procedures) in order to assess whether those procedures as structured (rather than as carried out in this case) satisfied minimal federal due process requirements. If he found that they did, he could rule that Terri?s parents would not be able to show a violation of a federal right, without ever getting into the soundness of the factual findings actually made in Florida (viz., PVS and Terri?s purported expression of an informed desire to die). In other words: narrowly construe federal law as policing only state procedures, and develop only those facts germane to assessing the abstract soundness of those procedures; if the procedures are found sound, simply assume that they were properly applied ? don?t revisit the factfinding that was actually done under them in this particular case.

The latter is the course that Judge Whittemore chose to take. Here, it bears noting that Whittemore was placed on the federal bench by President Clinton in 2000 after spending a decade as a judge in the state courts of Florida. His opinion is a staunch approbation of the integrity of Florida?s procedural framework, and extremely deferential to the performance of his former state-court colleague, Pinellas Circuit Court Judge George Greer. Essentially, Judge Whittemore reasons: Florida?s procedures are fair and designed to achieve a just result, there is no basis to suspect that those procedures did not produce a just result here, and, therefore, federal due process has been satisfied ? without any need to revisit (i.e. , conduct a de novo review of) the facts that were actually found here under those fair procedures.

Even this cursory level of review ? in a case where Congress and the president believed it was important enough to convene in a weekend session to provide for searching de novo review ? has internal problems. Judge Whittemore, for example, finds there is no fundamental unfairness in a Florida process that allowed Judge Greer both to assume the role of Terri?s caretaker (when siding with Michael Schiavo in the dispute between Michael and Terri?s parents over treatment) and to sit as objective factfinder at the state trial ? i.e., to be both advocate and judge. Perhaps. But then later in the opinion, after having explained that Judge Greer was properly in the role of caretaker, Judge Whittemore sees no problem with the fact that Greer never met Terri personally and never personally assessed her level of cognition and responsiveness ? notwithstanding that in a PVS case, cognition and responsive are everything.

But most disturbing about Judge Whittemore?s opinion is its refusal to delve into the questions that impelled Congress to act in the first place: Whether Terri is really a PVS case and whether she really evinced an informed desire not to be sustained ? let alone to submit to two weeks of starvation and dehydration, which is unquestionably torture for a person who is responsive to stimuli and aware of pain.

Not only does Whittemore decline to get into the heart of the matter. In the one fleeting footnote in which he alludes to it, he blames Terri?s parents and their attorneys for this dereliction: ?Plaintiffs have submitted affidavits of health care professionals regarding Theresa?s medical status, treatment techniques and therapies which are available and their opinions regarding how and whether these treatments might improve Theresa?s condition. Plaintiffs have not, however, discussed these affidavits in their papers and how they relate to the claimed constitutional deprivations.? (Italics mine.)

Did Judge Whittemore really think the Schindlers submitted these affidavits simply to pad their submission with physical heft? Those submissions were obviously included because Terri?s parents contend the factual findings made in Florida are wrong, and could be proved wrong at a de novo hearing.

When Congress provided for de novo review, uninhibited by what had already been determined in Florida, it seems clear that this is what they thought they were getting at. They were saying: Before we allow state action to deprive the constitutional right to life, let?s be certain we really are dealing with a PVS case and a woman who actually made an informed choice to refuse sustenance. Judge Whittemore, to the contrary, has decided to interpret Congress?s command as limited to an inquiry about whether Florida?s procedures are likely to produce good results. As for the results actually produced ? a finding of PVS and informed choice to die ? he doesn?t see the need to kick those tires because, he lamely notes, the Schindlers haven?t explained how they could possibly relevant.

The judge, I believe, is wrong and needlessly stingy in construing what the just-passed law directs him to do. Terri Schiavo has had neither the standard medical tests (including an MRI and PET scan) nor the extensive clinical observation that should be mandatory for any finding of PVS on which an effective death sentence is to be predicated. If the proof supporting the PVS finding or the informed-choice finding ? which Florida law require to be proved by clear and convincing evidence ? is blatantly inadequate, then she has then not received the due process of law necessary to justify a taking of life under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. If she is not a PVS case and she is being tortured by starvation and dehydration, the Florida ruling removing the feeding tube is subjecting her to cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment.

That?s what we need a de novo review of: Why weren?t standard tests done, why shouldn?t they be done before a final PVS conclusion is made, and, in their absence, why should we be confident in the accuracy of the PVS diagnosis? There may be good answers to all these questions, but that is what evidentiary hearings are for.

That?s why the medical-expert submissions made by the Schindlers are relevant, even if Judge Whittemore is correct that, in the dizzying pace of the last few days, the Schindlers? lawyers failed to connect the dots in their papers ? a failing many, many courts would have understandably forgiven in these dire, hurried circumstances, where life is at stake.

Even profoundly disagreeing with Judge Whittemore, he should be commended for his work ethic here ? which many of us were too quick to question yesterday, when he waited until the late afternoon to hear arguments and then took the matter under advisement without ruling. He could have hand-wrung over this matter for days while Terri died. By turning out a decision overnight, and hours before the business day even began, he gave the Schindlers a meaningful opportunity to convince the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals that he was wrong.

And so it?s on to the Eleventh Circuit.

? Andrew C. McCarthy, who led the 1995 terrorism prosecution against Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman and eleven others, is a senior fellow at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies.

108

I still want to know the answer to a simple question: why are you guys so quick to want to kill this poor woman? What’s the harm in letting her live–under her parents care?

109

[quote]Joe Weider wrote:
http://libertytothecaptives.net/hammesfahr_dr._report.html

dr. hammesfahr was nominated for a nobel prize for his work in rehabbing people like Terri. He thinks she’s fine. He spent ten hours with her. He says she can in fact eat and swallow, the only reason she’s been forced to be on the tube is because the husband has insisted.
That way, he can pull it and kill her.
[/quote]
I know it’s a repost but, Joe, you never responded.

I don’t know if you know this, but peristalsis is a natural reaction that requires no higher brain function. It simply happens subconsciously. Do you know what that is? It is when food is introduced into the throat and the wave action of smooth muscle pushes it downward. That doesn’t mean she has higher brain function and the simple fact that a doctor is passing that off as a reason for improvement makes this even more suspect.

I also looked at the site you posted and they describe her opening her eyes when a doctor said “open your eyes”. Unless she can now close her eyes and reopen them on command, that is called coincidence. That site is quite possibly one of the most biased compilations of data I ever read.

110

A Doctor Who Has Examined Terri Talks with Hannity & Colmes
This is a partial transcript from “Hannity & Colmes,” Mar. 21, 2005, that has been edited for clarity.
SEAN HANNITY, CO-HOST: As we continue on “Hannity and Colmes,” I’m Sean Hannity. Right now, we’re broadcasting live outside the hospice where Terri Schiavo (search) is right now. Of course, her feeding tube has not been reinserted as of this point.

Joining us now is Dr. Bill Hammesfahr. And Dr. Hammesfahr, thanks for being with us.

DR. BILL HAMMESFAHR: Thanks for having me.

HANNITY: You were nominated for a Nobel Prize (search) in medicine?

HAMMESFAHR: Yes.

HANNITY: In 1999? For your work…

HAMMESFAHR: … in patients like Terri. For brain injury and stroke patients. We discovered how you get these people better, and we did it for 10 years with Medicare. We got evaluated by the state of Florida and we first discovered a technique that works in people like Terri.

google_ad_client = ‘foxnews_440x100’;google_ad_width = 440;google_ad_height = 100;google_ad_format = ‘440x100_pas_abgn’;google_safe = ‘high’;

HANNITY: This is what I want to talk about. You have spent, unlike Robert Wexler, who was commenting on medical issues this weekend, you spent how many hours with Terri?

HAMMESFAHR: I spent about 10 hours with Terri across three separate occasions, and I spent a lot of time with videotapes, the medical record which is in boxes and boxes and boxes. for about a year. And of course, you know, I spending time interviewing the family and people who actually have seen her. So I’ve spent a lot of time with her.

HANNITY: Do you believe she is aware, conscious and responsive?

HAMMESFAHR: Terri is completely aware and conscious and responsive. She is like a child with cerebral palsy. We have kids in the Pinellas County school system every day that are much worse than her, that we’re educating.

HANNITY: Doctor, wait a minute. I’ve got to get this straight here.

You were nominated to get a Nobel Peace Prize in this very work. Are you saying that this woman could be rehabilitated?

HAMMESFAHR: Absolutely.

HANNITY: Could she talk one day?

HAMMESFAHR: Yes.

HANNITY: Then how is it possible we’re in this position if you have examined her, you were up for a Nobel Prize. I – this is mind boggling to me.

HAMMESFAHR: I don’t understand it myself. You know, this is a – this is a case of a terrible error that’s happened and it’s a grievous case.

You know, what struck me about Congress, in the last couple of days is that there we have physicians who examined the videotapes, examined the same evidence I had, examined my records, my evaluation of her, stepped forward and said, this is not a person in a coma. This is not a person in PVS (a persistent vegetative state). We have to stop this.

HANNITY: All right.

HAMMESFAHR: It just goes to show, you do not want your medical care delivered by a judge.

HANNITY: Well, this is what I want to understand. This is your area of expertise that got you nominated for one of the most prestigious awards in medicine, the Nobel Prize.

And you’re saying after a thorough examination of 10 hours total with her, and an examination of records and an examination of records and an examination of tapes regarding her, that she could be rehabilitated. What about all of these other people that have said that that’s not possible, how can we have disparaging?

HANNITY: It’s not all of these other people. There’s four people on the other side, who say she can’t be rehabilitated. All were paid individuals. Three by George Felos…

HANNITY: …and you’re not paid?

HAMMESFAHR: I was not paid. Now, if you look at the people who are on Terri’s side and stepped forward, at last count, two weeks ago, 33 M.D.s, brain injury specialists from around the country, places like UCLA, Tulane, LSU, Boston University --Thirty-three physicians has stepped forward to say that this person can be rehabilitated. She’s not in PVS, not in a coma. And the – Judge Greer ignored this.

ALAN COLMES, CO-HOST: Dr. Hammesfahr, it’s Alan Colmes in New York. Thank you for being with us.

One of the other doctors who examined her, and by the way, among those doctors there were those who were not paid, who were independent, who were not on either side. –

Dr. Ron Cranford, who’ll be on this show tomorrow night. I want to put up what he said:

He said, “She’s vegetative. She’s flat out vegetative. There’s never been a shread of doubt that she’s vegetative, and nothing’s going to change that.”

“This has been a massive propaganda campaign, which has been very successful, because it deludes the public into thinking she’s really there.”

Explain to me, as a lay person, what I’m supposed to believe, hearing medical authorities saying what you say and saying what Cranford says?

HAMMESFAHR: Well, I think you need to go and look at the videotape of Dr. Cranford. Dr. Cranford’s videotape compliments Terri on following commands. At one point he moves a balloon around in front of her and he again compliments that she is able to see it that she can follow commands.

And I also think that you need to look a little closer. Dr. Cranford’s work has been attacked by other medical professionals in peer reviewed journals such as “Lancet.” So I think that we to look a little bit deeper at Dr. Cranford.

COLMES: Well, he’s going to be here tomorrow night. We’ll ask him. But Judge Greer also said that you said you’ve have treated patients worse off than Mrs. Schiavo but have not produced any case histories. Can you tell us of one?

HAMMESFAHR: Oh, that’s not true. That’s not true.

COLMES: You didn’t produce any evidence?

HAMMESFAHR: Well, the specific request was to produce a videotape of a person exactly like Terri Schiavo. No two patients are exactly alike but, in fact, we have videotapes and we’re releasing them tomorrow and have released them previously, if you call my office, you’ll get informational videotapes of people much worse than Terri who are better, one of them three months into their treatment is talking.

COLMES: All right. We would love to know of a similar case where somebody got cured. Thank you for being with us.

111

Joe, that whole conversation gave no information other than his opinion. He presented no facts and still has not released any tapes of other patients showing improvement after being in the same or worse condition as the woman in question. Every tape I ahve seen of her, she looks completely unresponsive. There is a large difference between having higher brain function and simply responding to stimuli.

Also, to answer your question as far as what we seem to have against her parents taking care of her, I would have no problem with that…if she wasn’t married and her husband was not now legally in charge on her behalf. You can’t ignore that just because you don’t agree with something. You seem to want the government to step in when it has done enough movement in and out of the personal lives of individuals as it is.

You can call her husband names and try to make it seem as if he is wrong for not remaining single for the rest of his life, but most people wouldn’t agree with you on that. Should the man never move on? Should he avoid carrying out the wishes of his wife because people like you want him to? Why? If it were my wife and I knew what she wanted, I would do the same. This woman is not “in a child-like state”. Her brain is simply keeping the light on at this point. Is it possible that government should stay out of this case? Is it possible that her HUSBAND deserves the right to make this choice? Your hatred of the man doesn’t take that away.

112

ProfX–sorry, I didn’t know I was supposed to respond. What should I respond to? You have your opinion, and I have mine.
I guess that’s really as far as it can go.

As far as the husband:
Riddle me this: why did he suddenly remember after 6 years that she’d said she wanted to die? I’m not ducking your question, I’m answering–that’s part of the problem that’s bugging me about the whole thing.
Another is why he won’t divorce her if he’s got this new woman etc.
I don’t mind if he has a new woman. I don’t mind if he gets on with his life. What bugs me is how he went about it.

113

Professor X–why are you in such a damn hurry to kill her?

114

[quote]Joe Weider wrote:
Professor X–why are you in such a damn hurry to kill her?[/quote]

Where, anywhere in this thread, have I written that she should die as soon as possible? It is not my decision. It is her HUSBAND’S decision. I want her husband to have the rights he is owed as being her husband. You want him to not have that right. Why?

115

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Joe Weider wrote:
Professor X–why are you in such a damn hurry to kill her?

Where, anywhere in this thread, have I written that she should die as soon as possible? It is not my decision. It is her HUSBAND’S decision. I want her husband to have the rights he is owed as being her husband. You want him to not have that right. Why?[/quote]

I thought I answered that. I’ll try again. Forgive me, my cold came back and it hates me.

Her husband has a common law wife and 2 children. He is, at present, a bigamist–charged or not, and it’s not my interest to see him charged. So why can’t he just divorce Terri and let her parents care for her if they choose?
Her husband didn’t remember that she’d had this wish and desire until after 6 years had passed and he’d managed to win the lawsuit.
He’s refused her therapy, and he’s refused her food.
Therefore, I believe he’s no kind of a husband, and has abdicated his “rights”. I also don’t happen to believe that a husband (the man) has sovreignity over the wife (woman).
I’m a little surprised you do.

116

This isn’t about “sovreignity”. This is about a married man having the right to handle his wife’s estate in a situation like this. Just to offset that little tangent you just went on, if you were married and you were in a coma, who is in charge of your business concerns? Is anyone else in charge other than your wife? Should they be?

117

[quote]Professor X wrote:
This isn’t about “sovreignity”. This is about a married man having the right to handle his wife’s estate in a situation like this. Just to offset that little tangent you just went on, if you were married and you were in a coma, who is in charge of your business concerns? Is anyone else in charge other than your wife? Should they be?

[/quote]

Prof, please don’t change the subject. I can’t deal with it today. Answer my questions/concerns. At what point does the husband cease being the husband? When he suddenly remembers after 6 years, when he finally wins the lawsuit? Or is it when he essentially takes another wife?

118

http://images.t-nation.com/forum_images/./1/.1111589266819.images.jpg

[quote]Professor X wrote:
This isn’t about “sovreignity”. This is about a married man having the right to handle his wife’s estate in a situation like this. Just to offset that little tangent you just went on, if you were married and you were in a coma, who is in charge of your business concerns? Is anyone else in charge other than your wife? Should they be?

[/quote]

Hey, Professor, this is for you!

119

[quote]DrS wrote:

For every extra day Terri is kept alive, I’m going to punch a pregnant Christian in the baby.[/quote]

There has been much healthy discussion on this topic, but this is over the line, sarcastic or not. What is your problem? You cannot argue your viewpoint logically, so you resort to this? Maybe you just need to grow up and realize that not everyone is going to agree with you. Just because I don’t agree with you doesn’t mean I want harm to come to you, although after that comment, I am rethinking that position.

120

[quote]Joe Weider wrote:
Professor X–why are you in such a damn hurry to kill her?[/quote]

He heard she used to work for a credit card company! :slight_smile: Oh come on smile…