Starving Terri Schiavo
Society
| March 22, 2005
| Tim
I've refrained from writing signficantly about this, previously, for three reasons:
- I don't feel I've personally done enough
- Others are covering it much better
- It's too easy to be publicly righteous about an issue like this
But I don't want my blog, with it's comments about awful SciFi movies and rants about bias in the mainstream media, to reflect that the person behind it won't care what happens in this case.
To the contrary, this bothers me very much.
Everything about this case stinks, from square one. From the purported evidence I've seen, it seems there's a good possibility Terri's husband should be doing time, not being someone's guardian. There seems to have been a strange lack of interest regarding how a perfectly functional woman suddenly became this way over a weekend which began with her confiding to a co-worker that she wanted to divorce her husband. Shouldn't that have warranted closer investigation?
I am distressed when I hear report after report, via the back-channels you and I have to monitor to because the MSM won't carry this stuff, that undermines the official account. Such as reports Terri had been eating after her accident. Such over a dozen sworn affidavits saying she is an excellent candidate for rehabilitative therapy. Such as a former caregiver testifying under oath that therapy was ordered, but that her husband blocked every step, and that she found such information had been expunged from Terri records.
It also seems clear to me that he's not even her guardian, as, from what I've seen, he did not even fulfill Florida's very minimal legal requirements for that role.
For the record, I blame Judge Greer the most. Evil people are a dime a dozen, but to use such authority in such a perverse manner is beyond me. Why issue an order prohibiting Terri from being photographed or videotaped? If we're all doing the right thing, then why hide the glorious truth? Why keep Terri's own family from visiting and comforting her in her final, painful days? Even serial killers are granted more latitude.
In the past year, we've learned a lot about such injuries. A recent study shows, using the latest technology, that many people thought to be "gone" are appear to actually be "in there", listening to what goes on around them. Would it be so wrong to order a CAT scan to diagnose Terri before starving her? Shouldn't we know as much as possible before making this decision?
Further, it's clear Terri hasn't even been diagnosed reasonably by older medical criteria. As the Andrew McCarthy, writing for the National Review notes:
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.
Of course, as noted above, even many PVS patients seem to be "in there" and listening, aware of what is happening to and around them though unable to respond.
Then, there's Judge Greer's previous order to do Terri in, in 2000. He watched a videotape of her, and said it didn't show she was conscious. I have heard he had to be ordered several times to put his glasses back on (since he can't see the screen) and to actually look at the monitor! What's with this guy? Shouldn't he have actually visited her before and attempted to interact with her himself before ordering her killed?
A panel of five doctors chosen by the judge inspected her then. Three said her movements and reactions were merely a coincidence or reflex. Two disagreed, and stated she was indeed there. Greer called this "clear and overwhelming" evidence, and denied Terri further food and water.
Wait a second. 40% of the doctors who looked at her disagreed! Sure, that's not a majority, but do we sentence other people to death with when situations are unclear? Don't we demand the entire jury agree unanimously before a criminal is sentenced -- even to a few months? Is there a lower burden of proof required before we kill medically inconvenient people? That is what we are saying here. And these were doctors, not plumbers or software engineers, conscripted from the populace to rule on things about which they are otherwise generally unfamilliar.
If a doctor says you have only a 40% chance of recovery, is that now the legal standard for having you done in? 4 in 10? 2 in 5? Not to be extreme, but I find the legal implications of such a ruling, well, frightening.
Since then, I hear she's been examined by a Nobel prize-winning neurologist, who spent 14 hours with her, and concluded she was definitely there. And shouldn't that count for something in the eyes of the state?
Next, there's the matter of Michael's testimony that his wife had told him before her 'accident' that she wished to die. Really? It's a circular argument, since it's predicated on assumption that Terri is not there now and cannot communicate or express any desire or will to live. But the evidence for that position appears very weak to me. If reports I have heard, that Terri wept aloud and continuously when she was told what would happen are true (and why weren't they allowed to film that, if it really happened?) then it is impossible to say killing her is a form of 'respecting her wishes' and that Michael's word about how she felt beforehand is final.
Finally, there's the media. From what I can see, as reflected in the opinions of people around me, they're not being told all the information. Many are clearly hearing only one side of this (the "kill her" angle), as when I mention some of these things they express shock, and can't imagine why they weren't told.
I can't either, frankly. Is Death running for office on the Democratic ticket, such that we need to ensure his election? Has this become some kind of partisan issue? Or are we just now reflexively opposed to anything that concerns Christians?
Me, I think she's in there. Even if I were wrong, the fact remains that what we're doing in this case is completely out of whack. Judges have become God, and rather abitrary and sometimes cruel, heartless ones at that. We have high safeguards against sentencing or killing innocent people in the criminal justice system, but many of the same people who tell me they're completely opposed to the death penalty expressed disgust to me at the idea that Congress might intervene to save Terri's life. I guess it's only wrong to kill people who have been found guilty in a court of law. I ask them if they believe the Federal Government should interevene in cases where a state is violating someone's civil rights.
How many people die each day? What's so special about Terri?
(1) Terri is innocent of any crime, (2) this is a case where the state is actively killing someone, (3) everything done so far looks to me to be a perversion of justice, not the honest but unfortunate result of it, and (4) everything that happens in the court represents a legal precedent -- this kind of thing will become "law", in a sense, without anyone ever having voted on it. In fact, it probably already has. And finally (5) someone is willing to have her and love her.
Why kill a person under those circumstances?
For the record, I do believe there's a God in heaven, and I do believe that when a people do something like this, it's a black mark on our entire country. Most of us don't want this to happen, I suspect. But are we swarming Washington in huge numbers, scaring the heck out of every Senator and Congressman who wants to be re-elected? No. Here I sit, writing into my pathetic blog, my life going on comfortably.
Meanwhile, in Florida, someone hasn't had a bit to eat -- or even drink -- since Friday. Put yourself in her shoes. Imagine that happened to you. How would you be feeling today if you'd been denied even water since Friday? Can you imagine how excruciating her pain is?
I can understand your frustration as a human being watching this unfold, however, what you have put on the site is not correct.
YOU - Everything about this case stinks, from square one. From the purported evidence I've seen, it seems there's a good possibility Terri's husband should be doing time, not being someone's guardian. There seems to have been a strange lack of interest regarding how a perfectly functional woman suddenly became this way over a weekend which began with her confiding to a co-worker that she wanted to divorce her husband. Shouldn't that have warranted closer investigation?
ME - SHE had a eating disorder, THAT is what caused this to happen to her. The police DID investigate the 'allegations' and there was no evidence to show they were substantiated.
YOU - Such as reports Terri had been eating after her accident. Such over a dozen sworn affidavits saying she is an excellent candidate for rehabilitative therapy. Such as a former caregiver testifying under oath that therapy was ordered, but that her husband blocked every step, and that she found such information had been expunged from Terri records.
ME - not possible. AND she was receiving rehab therapy, but when she began to worsen, MD's said that it would not help. REMEMBER, the courts have been OVERSEEING every little thing that this man has done for and towards her care, Terri has court appointed guardian ad litem that have testified that this man has done everything AND more for his wife. They have never seen such care for a patient AND that he has incurred the wrath of employees because of his VERY verbal comments towards those that have NOT their jobs in taking care of his wife. THAT has been documented by the hospital AND the hospice. He is not 'trying this in the media' the way the parents are, but consider, 19 judges, 4 guardian ad litems, numerous government officials, have all seen the care of which has painstakenly oversaw for Terri and said that she could not have HAD a better advocate, one of the MANY reasons why her parents could not get any court to take away his guardianship over her. AND remember, for those employees that have been yelled at by him, those are the ones that have come forward to say negative things.
YOU - It also seems clear to me that he's not even her guardian, as, from what I've seen, he did not even fulfill Florida's very minimal legal requirements for that role.
ME - What do you base this on? The courts have ruled that HE is the guardian, he meets ALL requiremens AND the parents couldnt' prove him to be negligent in her care or the way he has managed her care.
YOU - I blame Judge Greer the most. Evil people are a dime a dozen, but to use such authority in such a perverse manner is beyond me. Why issue an order prohibiting Terri from being photographed or videotaped? If we're all doing the right thing, then why hide the glorious truth? Why keep Terri's own family from visiting and comforting her in her final, painful days?
ME - The parents brought that upon themselves, because they were taking her into the media WITHOUT her consent, and WHO can consent? Her husband. He has said time and time again and the courts concurred- Terri has the right to her privacy, just like you and I, the parents were using the films and pictures to spew forth more lies about her condition. It is one thing to want a personal remembrance of their daughter, but to use those to release to the media? No. That is not correct usage. AND the parents/immediate family are NOT being denied access to her, but again, because of THEIR past behavior, they have made it so that they can not be alone with her. A police officer has to stand guard. Has anyone thought to think about the other that are laying in the same hospice? What of their rights to die peacefully? They don't need all kinds of people walking through the halls, TV cameras, etc. The judges have made the correct ruling to protect them as well as the workers who have absolute right to privacy at work as well.
YOU - Would it be so wrong to order a CAT scan to diagnose Terri before starving her? Shouldn't we know as much as possible before making this decision
ME - CAT's have been done- they remain the same, and there is no brain wave activity. The CAT show that her brain has turned to liquid- about 2/3 of it so far- that is NOT recoverable from. There is NO rehab possible because of this. She will NOT improve, because there is NO way to stop this NOR to correct it.
YOU - 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.
ME - I am sorry, but have you listened to the legal rulings? There is ONLY so much that can be released regarding her medical condition- AND she does have the right to privacy after all, and with HIPPA enacted, you cannot just have everyone releasing all of her medical history.
All the courts have heard these same arguments over and over again, by the atty's for her parents- all the courts HAVE found that Terri's rights HAVE been protected and furthermore, that is partially WHY the MD's were court ordered to render their decision in the case. NOT Michaels pick of MD's -but court picked MD's. They found that under Floridas law, Terri unfortunately (because that IS what persistent means- NEVER GOING TO GET better) meets all the criteria for PVS.
YOU - I have heard he had to be ordered several times to put his glasses back on (since he can't see the screen) and to actually look at the monitor! What's with this guy? Shouldn't he have actually visited her before and attempted to interact with her himself before ordering her killed?
ME - some judges have and some haven't. But they are not under obligation to do so. AND in fact, they said to spare her more 'gawking'by gaggles of people parading through the hospice, nevermind through Terris'room, a tape would be fine. AND backed up by MD's - all consistent- not one has said anything different BUT the parents MD's - who have NOT been allowed to examine her. The parents have MD's who have given speculation, but never examined the woman, in the court room. After one time, when the 'MD's' did battle, the court went to court picked/ordered for any and all legal hearings/renderings so there would no bias.
YOU - A panel of five doctors chosen by the judge inspected her then. Three said her movements and reactions were merely a coincidence or reflex. Two disagreed, and stated she was indeed there. Greer called this "clear and overwhelming" evidence, and denied Terri further food and water.
ME - NOT exactly true. Court ordered MD's of which there were four, all concurred that she is not capable of recovering.
YOU - Since then, I hear she's been examined by a Nobel prize-winning neurologist, who spent 14 hours with her, and concluded she was definitely there. And shouldn't that count for something in the eyes of the state?
ME - Lysis of the cerebrum cortex IS not recoverable AND only the bottom part of her brain is 'functioning' and that is what is making her 'involuntary' muscle twitches,eye movements. That has been documented.
YOU - Even if I were wrong, the fact remains that what we're doing in this case is completely out of whack. Judges have become God, and rather abitrary and sometimes cruel, heartless ones at that.
ME - Judges have to follow the law, it is not for them to 'change' it so they can make a arbitrary ruling. That is why the last time they pulled the feeding tube based on Gov Bush 'law', the Supreme Court ruled it 'unconstitutional'. When you have THAT many judges agree, both republican (if you want to believe they are conservative to the point of breaking the law) and democratic, and have ruled the same way- it is based on facts, unmitigating facts, and she has been throughly represented.
CulverBabe/Teri,
First, I want to thank you for writing to attempt to correct me. That is how we all learn, and it's good of you to do so. I will disagree with you below, but that doesn't mean I recognize you are attempting to do another person a profound favor, and I want to recognize you for that and thank you.
SHE had a eating disorder, THAT is what caused this to happen to her. The police DID investigate the 'allegations' and there was no evidence to show they were substantiated. (emph added)
What you say is false. There is this evidence. About it, a doctor says: "That bone scan describes her as having a head injury. That's why she's there. That's why she's getting a bone scan," Baden explained, "and a head injury can cause, lead to the 'vegetative state' that Ms. Schiavo is [allegedly] in now."
Now, you may not like such evidence. You may not agree it is 100% conclusive. That's possible. But that isn't what you've argued. You have asserted there is no evidence. That is patently false.
So what evidence do you have for the bulima theory? The only evidence I've seen to say she had it so far (and you're welcomed to correct me if you know more) is Michael Shiavo's say-so. And this evidence would seem to rule out that possibility, if correct. And it looks correct.
So what have we got? I point to hard forensic evidence -- a bone scan. You point to a theory which I know only to be based on the say-so of her possible abuser and appears to be medically implausible. I'm sorry, but you can't say there is "no evidence". To me it looks like there is more evidence than for your favored view.
Again, you're welcomed to respond if you have more.
You, regarding my statements about a therapist's testimony: "not possible"
What do you mean "not possible"? Records are lost and destroyed; it does indeed happen. What, are you arguing it's absolutely impossible that therapy could have been omitted from her permanent records? On what basis?
In response to your lame "not possible", here is the "impossible" testimony itself.
AND she was receiving rehab therapy, but when she began to worsen, MD's said that it would not help
Show me evidence she began to "worsen" under the influence of rehabilitative therapy, please.
REMEMBER, the courts have been OVERSEEING every little thing that this man has done for and towards her care, Terri has court appointed guardian ad litem that have testified that this man has done everything AND more for his wife.
As far as I can see, you are again in error. Terri was injured in 1990. As far as I can see, the courts weren't dragged into it in any detail until 1998. That would be an eight-year difference, and would certainly not cover the time to which I have referred.
Futher, you seem confused as to what "oversee" means. It doesn't mean that courts stands over Terri's bed or watches the therapists. It simply would mean they'd review the records -- accurate or not. Saying a court looked at them doesn't refute a therapist's allegation that such records were incomplete.
Terri has court appointed guardian ad litem that have testified that this man has done everything AND more for his wife.
Look, you can let someone else think for you, but I don't work that way. I've seen enough divorce cases to know that "guardians" can sometimes say some very stupid -- and even untrue -- things. I believe the possibility exists. Do you?
There is a deep inconsistency in Michael's own testimony regarding Terri's care, as this prosecutor points out. He swore, in the lawsuit to get money for her support, that he would support her for the rest of his life. Then, and only after the money was awarded, he started saying it was her intention to die.
If it was her intention to die, then why wait eight years to 'remember' that? Why not mention that before the lawsuit, if that had been her wish all along?
That, plus a large number of people's testimony to the contrary regarding Michael's own statements, give me plenty grounds for believing I have the right to disagree with the judgements of a guardian ad litem.
But since you seem to think their testimony is unassailable, let me ask you a question -- are you even aware there were two such guardians appointed?
It seems the first one gave Michael and his care and arguments rather bad bill of health, so to speak, as described here. Michael's attorney went ballistic, and, for some amazing reason, the court then replaced the first guardian with one who then rendered a much more favorable opinion for Michael.
Well, isn't that interesting? Now you have two conflicting guardian ad litem testimonies to think about.
Which was the least biased one? The one who rendered the first report? Or the one who was chosen -- at the urging of Michael's attorneys, and by the same judge (I believe) who is doing the rest of this -- after the first report didn't reflect well on Michael?
They have never seen such care for a patient AND that he has incurred the wrath of employees because of his VERY verbal comments towards those that have NOT their jobs in taking care of his wife. THAT has been documented by the hospital AND the hospice.
Wow, that's amazing. There has never been a better husband than Michael EVER? And, yet I'm supposed to believe, at the same time that these same people hated him because they were all incompetant? You can't even keep your story straight within the same paragraph!
Here is what one of those employees testified, under threat of perjury, which could mean imprisionment:
... after Michael was there, she would withdraw for hours. We were convinced that he was abusing her, and probably saying cruel, terrible things to her because she would be so upset when he left...
... consider, 19 judges, 4 guardian ad litems, numerous government officials, have all seen the care of which has painstakenly oversaw for Terri and said that she could not have HAD a better advocate...
Are you just grossly uninformed or lying? It's always so hard to tell in these cases.
The "19 judges" didn't all rule on whether he was a good guardian. In fact, nine of those refer to the supreme court, who wouldn't even take the case. And some of them simply ruled on minor procedural questions. The core rulings come from only two principal judges, and mostly from Greer.
Further, I provide evidence refuting your contention that the testimony of the two guardians-ad-litem were both favorable to Michael. If there are two more I have missed, you're welcomed to point them out. But your statement about their unanamity is untrue regardless.
Me: what I've seen, he did not even fulfill Florida's very minimal legal requirements for that role
You: What do you base this on?
The core point is that Michael did not complete the training required for that role in the time required by Florida law. There are also valid arguments that he violates FS 744.474 (Florida guardianship statute) in many other ways, including a host of conflicts of interest.
Judge Greer decided none of these existed.
For you, this will come down to a simple question: Is law simply whatever a judge says it is, no matter what the facts are or what the actual text of the law says, or is it instead possible a judge may rule wrongly or even abuse his power?
That's almost a religious question for some, apparently, but I'm on the side which says judges can rule wrongly. And I believe overwhelming evidence shows this one plainly has.
The parents brought that upon themselves, because they were taking her into the media WITHOUT her consent, and WHO can consent? Her husband.
You're reasoning in a circle here. You are assuming she truly has no desires or intent, and then also assuming her husband has been correctly appointed her guardian. But that is the whole point of the debate you and I are having.
Sure, if you believe the judge has made no errors, then this argument makes sense. But each argument you've made to forward that idea looks grossly untrue so far.
Terri has the right to her privacy, just like you and I, the parents were using the films and pictures to spew forth more lies about her condition.
Unless they are doctored or cut deceptively, video speaks for itself, and the viewer may judge for themselves. And I see no evidence that has happened.
It seems you're implying the video evidence itself lies, or might make people think the wrong thing if people looked at it. Funny, you're actually testifying videotapes helped her parents' case. In essence, you're admitting you desire for uncomfortable evidence to be suppressed. Which speaks poorly regarding your impartiality in judging said evidence.
No wonder you wouldn't read any of the many links I supplied to you.
AND the parents/immediate family are NOT being denied access to her, but again, because of THEIR past behavior, they have made it so that they can not be alone with her.
Really? Show evidence please.
Has anyone thought to think about the other that are laying in the same hospice? What of their rights to die peacefully? They don't need all kinds of people walking through the halls, TV cameras, etc.
You seem to have a deep need to argue points I haven't made. I haven't complained TV crews were denied access. I've complained her parents were denied access.
Your argument stating that even a few close family cannot see a dying person in a hospice because it would "disturb" the others reveals the logical contortions you will embrace to justify your position -- because if it was applied as you say, even those others couldn't see their families either.
No, it seems you're simply trying to justify yourself by offering any argument you can think of, not matter how irrational or weird it might sound to anyone else. The phrase is "grasping at straws".
CAT's have been done- they remain the same, and there is no brain wave activity.
A CAT scan does not measure brain "waves" at all. It provides a cross-section of brain activity. As long as a person's body is functioning at all, you will find some (though perhaps reduced) brain activity, not "no brain wave activity".
I challenge you to provide even one shred of evidence backing up these two specific assertions you have made here.
The CAT show that her brain has turned to liquid- about 2/3 of it so far- that is NOT recoverable from.
This is interesting. After this, you argue we don't have all the evidence because privacy laws prevent release of scans. Well, which is it?
Frankly, it would not be suprising if some significant section of her brain was missing. That's because she's brain damaged.
Of course, there are people walking around with nearly half their brain missing -- and living a largely normal life (see here).
I'm not disputing that she's been damanged. That's completely obvious to everyone except people who need to misrepresent my argument. The question I am asking is whether she is responding in a manner consistent with consciousness.
You clearly didn't even bother to read the link I provided. The CAT scan to which I refer requires specific actions be done to see what kind of response the brain gives under those circumstances, and whether it is similar to what a normal person would experience.
As far as recovery, what does that have to do with anything? Do we kill everyone who "will not recover"? That seems to be what you're implying. That seems inconsistent.
If she's "in there", and aware, questions about "recovery" are secondary.
All the courts have heard these same arguments over and over again... NOT Michaels pick of MD's -but court picked MD's.
Again, you seem not to be listening closely. I pointed out the court picked the MDs. But saying so hardly refutes my general impression that Greer has acted in a bias fashion, as even more evidence I have now given to you suggests.
And you appear to be ignoring my point that 40% of these MDs dissented, and that seems a rather dangerous precedent when you're talking life and death. Repeating my own statement -- that the judge appointed these doctors -- as though I hadn't said it is hardly a rebuttal. Instead, it suggests you've got no good response, and are simply grasping at straws rather than acknowledge what appears to be valid point.
They found that under Floridas law, Terri unfortunately (because that IS what persistent means- NEVER GOING TO GET better) meets all the criteria for PVS.
Three of them found that. Two of them did not.
And again, you seem mistaken as to what PVS means. It means one thinks will not emerge. Contrary to what you seem to be thinking here, doctors are not 100% accurate. In cases where the person emerges later, or is found to be able to communicate, they are said to be "misdiagnosed".
Since you seem to know so little about these things, here, if you dare to read it, is a study showing 43% of PVS patients studied had been misdiagnosed. Wouldn't
So my view is that doctors -- and courts -- can make mistakes. Your view is apparently that such a thing is completely impossible.
I'll leave it to the reader to decide which one makes sense, and which is best supported by the evidence provided.
[judges] are not under obligation to do so. AND in fact, they said to spare her more 'gawking'by gaggles of people parading through the hospice, nevermind through Terris'room, a tape would be fine.
Am I misunderstanding you, or are you not actually paying attention here? One minute you claim I don't know the detail of the case, the next minute you make this statement: "a tape would be fine."
Again, I have alleged the judge has prohibited making such videotapes. Saying "a tape would be fine" is not even a rebuttal -- instead, it makes it sound like you're not even paying attention here, much less to the facts of the case.
AND backed up by MD's - all consistent- not one has said anything different
Plenty have said things different. Even some of the court-appointed doctors (see below) disagreed. Futher:
Four board certified neurologists, two board certified internists, one neuro-psychologist, and two speech pathologists have testified in person or by affidavit that Terri is not PVS. These opinions were reinforced by the affidavits of three nurses who cared for Terri in the mid-1990s and who claim to have observed her being interactive.
... who have NOT been allowed to examine her...
Are you even paying attention here? I have stated that Nobel-prize winning neurologist examined her extensively and concluded, on the basis of what I consider very strong evidence, she was NOT PVS. One account of that examination is found here.
I have supplied this link and evidence to you before. Simply making random statements to the contrary doesn't somehow magically make it go away.
Me: [Of the five] Two disagreed, and stated she was indeed there...
You: NOT exactly true. Court ordered MD's of which there were four, all concurred that she is not capable of recovering.
Are you aware you are coming off like a broken record? You seem fixated on this "recovery" thing without ever explaining why "recovery" is a more important criteria than being PVS. This is the third time you have done this.
Again: My statement is not that I think she will "recover". Instead, I argue she may not have wrongly diagnosed diagnosed as being mentally unaware.
I'm not some kind of idiot who won't notice when you're trying to change my argument into a different question, and I will mock you for attempting such a dishonest tactic, so it's in your own best interest to start paying attention and answering the arguments actually made.
(Perhaps you have absorbed and internalized, and now mindlessly parrot, the narrative the media wants you to have. That's called "brain-washing". Stop it, and start thinking for yourself.)
Finally, you are grossly in error regarding your alleged understanding of the case. I actually read Greer's decision, so I'm no so easily fooled. It is here and says "Three of the five doctors testified that Terry [sic] Schiavo was in a persistent vegetative state" and "Two of the doctors felt that she was not in a persistent vegetative state."
My statement -- 40% disagreed -- stands.
Now a question for you: Who told you otherwise? Unless there's a case I don't know about, that person or media outlet is either dishonest or incompetant. Either way, you should stop trusting them.
Lysis of the cerebrum cortex IS not recoverable...
Addressed already.
Judges have to follow the law
Well, if there was evidence Greer had scrupulously followed the law, I wouldn't be writing this. Schiavo wouldn't even be Terri's guardian, given the obvious conflicts of interest, for example.
No, Judge Greer has a great amount of lattitude, and I argue he has used it wrongly.
That is why the last time they pulled the feeding tube based on Gov Bush 'law', the Supreme Court ruled it 'unconstitutional'...
You argument is entirely circular, therefore a logical fallacy. The judge has to follow the law. But the judge gets to make the law.
You cannot argue one minute the judge is just a poor slave to the law, and then the next minute note that a judges can throw out law -- and also argue the law is what the judge says it is, not what's in the statutes.
You contradict yourself, but I doubt it's of any interest to you.
All you are saying is that the judge is the law. If your view prevails then we have lost our democracy. But hey, we're there already, thanks. Terri's dry rasping sounds are just its death throes.
Well, that was fun. Or would be if it didn't show how horribly mislead so many people are, and yet so apparently uninterested in looking at the evidence.
You didn't seem to provide even one correction to anything I wrote. Futher, most the statements you made were clearly refutable as false, and I have supplied you with evidence in each case.
You're welcomed to play again, but next time I'd say: (a) try reading my writing more closely, (b) look more closely at more evidence, and (c) try to make fewer arguments but of a better quality.
Thanks for playing, and have a nice day.
Hello Tim,
I just truly want to thank you for this fantastic article! I am 15 years old and had been searching for information regarding therapy to cure sociopathic personalities for my psychology lesson when I happened upon your site. My family and I have been following Terri's case for quite some time and have been so saddened by the turn of events. She and her family are continually in our thoughts and prayers here on the west coast, and we wanted to let you know how blessed my parents, sister, and I feel to have read your article and response to it's rebuttal. Thanks for taking a stand and encouraging the rest of the nation to be challenged.
With highest respect,
Vanessa
Corrections: Re-reading my rebuttal above, I see I've made a number of mistakes beyond the usual typos. It's a shame my critic didn't pick up on them -- could have scored a few minor points -- but you'd have to actually read outside the mainstream media to know them. In this case it's a matter of a man with only one eye versus the (willfully) blind...
For one, it does seem she has had a CT (CAT) scan -- the test I was looking for was MRI. (I sometimes mix up similar terms, sorry).
Second, according to a doctor in the link I provide below, a CT scan is of insufficient clarity to diagnose whether part of someone's brain has turned to "liquid". That line simply seems to be another fantastic assertion from Michael. It seems a lot of people are mindlessly repeating his every statement as though it was handed down from Sinai.
Third, I referred to the one of the neurologists who examined Terri as prize-winning. No, he was only nominated.
And I have heard that her parents have now been allowed to visit her. This is good, though, I'm sure, very sad, since I hear she's looking awful.
These are, however, rather minor points; and the rest of it stands, as far as I know.
I also see I did not rebut the assertion that Terri should not be videotaped because she has a right to privacy. That again is false. As the paparazzi demonstrate, none of us has the right not to be photographed. My critic is again living in an alternate reality.
Finally, I really recommend anyone interested read this article which contains such interesting tidbits as:
In the course of my conversation with Dr. Morin, he made reference to the standard use of MRI and PET (Positron Emission Tomography) scans to diagnose the extent of brain injuries. He seemed to assume that these had been done for Terri. I stopped him and told him that these tests have never been done for her; that Michael had refused them.
There was a moment of dead silence.
“That’s criminal,” he said, and then asked, in a tone of utter incredulity: “How can he continue as guardian? People are deliberating over this woman’s life and death and there’s been no MRI or PET?” He drew a reasonable conclusion: “These people [Michael Schiavo, George Felos, and Judge Greer] don’t want the information.”
And:
In addition to the 15 neurologists’ affidavits Gibbs had in time to present in court, I have commitments from over 30 others who are willing to testify that Terri should have new and additional testing, and new examinations by unbiased neurologists. Almost 50 neurologists all say the same thing: Terri should be reevaluated, Terri should be reexamined, and there are grave doubts as to the accuracy of Terri’s diagnosis of PVS. All of these neurologists are board-certified; a number of them are fellows of the prestigious American Academy of Neurology; several are professors of neurology at major medical schools.
Watching our "unbiased" media, you would never know any of this.
And I leave you with one more excellent point I heard earlier tonight: If Terri is truly PVS, then she is, by definition, unaware of her environment. Thus Michael could not claim his main interest in ending her life is to stop her suffering -- since, by definition, someone who is PVS cannot be aware of suffering.
So the question remains then -- if he truly believed she was PVS, then whose suffering is being alleviated by killing her?
I think we can see that one.
God bless you all.
I guess I will never understand……..(I’ll keep praying and ask God for the answer). We are not back in caveman days! How could we do something like this….starve someone to death………..My heart goes out to the parents and the rest of the family. To dismiss the parents as if they are nothing is unbelievable. Did the husband give birth to Terri, did he feel the birth pain? I don’t think another country would have done this barbaric act. He is only guardian to the children he has. Where does he come off saying he is legal guardian; her parents are alive. Yes, while in the hospital a paper is filled out stating who will be in charge of handling all medical issues; but my God, that does not mean to take over as if you gave birth. Terri’s parents wanted their daughter. He went on with his life…………..a fiancé and 2 kids ……..its not like he was waiting for her…so why couldn’t he have compassion and release her to her family…….My God it’s a feeding tube not a machine to keep her alive. Even if she said she did not want to live like that, God is still in control, not us, and sometimes we says things we don’t really mean (even if its in writing). Okay she is gone, but the feud will go on because to make matters worst the family were not allowed at her bedside in her passing……are we living in another world? That’s her blood family, not him, I think this is a wake up call for everyone. Everyone have to answer to God.
Tim, I've read everything you wrote, and everything your commenter wrote, and I've read all the original court documents, and as much primary information (not "back channel" information and not MSM information, but primary legal documentation, whatever is available to anyone who'd care to look) as I could get my hands on because initially, I too thought the husband should be strung up. Why wouldn't I? Any sane compassionate person who believed all that you believe (and let's face it, it's the prevailing theory put forth by most of the MSM that I usually pay attention to, Fox, NRO, etc...) would be outraged. BUT, I'm also deeply devoted to the sanctity of the constitution and to the premise that nobody--even those from "my side" of the political fence--rewrites laws on the fly simply because they don't like the outcome of a particular case in court. I didn't like it when Gore tried it in 2000, why would I be a hypocrite now, right?
So I read, and I read, and I read, and I questioned and read some more, and you know what? I decided that as barbaric as starving a person to death seems, the evidence does support Michael Schiavo's account of things, not the parents, not even the affiants who have come forth in the past year on behalf of Terri's parents (many of whom are being supported and brought forth by the NRTLO and Randall Terry).
What I did was step back and realize that both sides in this argument had a potential axe to grind, and both were (at least partly) financed and pushed into their present positions by forces outside the imidiate family. This I consider tragic and, to an extent disgusting. I think it's just as wrong for the NRTLO to use Terri's case as a platform as I think it's wrong for the right-to-die-ers to use it for their cause. I do see that there are lawyers, doctors, priests/advisors on both sides who represent each of these views, but I refuse to oversimplify the issue by focusing too heavily on one or the other. Instead, I tried to look just at the relationship between Terri and her husband, the court's decisions and the evidence that was admissible (i.e., credible) as well as the testimony of medical doctors who were unbiased (court-appointed).
All of the justices who viewed the evidence were Republican appointees, and all are self-described "conservatives."
In the end, I arrived at the conclusion that Terri had due process, that Michael was in no less appropriate position to "know" her wishes than her parents (and certainly presented more compelling evidence that he knew better than they), and that the parents' case was full of holes, rumor, innuendo and unsubstantiated allegation.
Do I understand their desperation on some level? Yes, of course. I am a parent. I wouldn't want to believe that my child was never going to get better, no way! I also woudn't want her to starve to death. On the other hand, I'm also a daughter, and as much as a adore my father, I am quite sure he has no clue what my final wishes are because I only discuss this sort of thing with my husband. Why? Because I presume--nay, HOPE--that it will be my husband who'll carry out my last wishes and not my father. No one wants to think that their death or incapacitation will precede that of their parents. Partly because I want to live a long healthy life, and partly because I want to be around to care for my Dad in his final days. It is not hard for me to believe that Terri Schiavo presumed, hoped and believed the same thing--especially in her mid-twenties (whereas I'm pushing 40 and still feel this way).
Anyway, this whole ordeal has been hard for me. I've lost friends because I have come to the conclusions I've come to and that hurts, but I have to make my decisions based on facts and what I really believe to be true, not what the MSM wants me to believe, not what my party wants me to believe, and not even what makes a good juicy story worthy of a Sunday-night-made-for-TV-movie.
If you're remotely curious how I arrived at my position, feel free to check the following links:
FAQ about the case
Pay special attention to this part:
"Why will Terri Schiavo be allowed to die by dehydration?
It's not a pleasant thought, but it's Florida law.
In 1999, in response to a Florida Supreme Court ruling, the Florida legislature updated its "end of life" statutes, which were first put into place in 1990. The House and Senate voted unanimously in support of a number of changes to the text. One of those changes added to the list of "life-prolonging procedure": including artificially provided sustenance and hydration, which sustains, restores, or supplants a spontaneous vital function. (Cite in Florida Supreme Court ruling, 1999 changes here.)
Governor Jeb Bush signed the bill in June of that year."
Also read Abstract Appeal's extensive documentation, which contains links to the original documents.
You are more than entitled to your opinion, and many many people share it. Even I am concerned that the laws governing how we decide these cases needs reform (i.e., I'd support a law that stated "If you have no living will, or something in writing stating that you want to die, you will be kept alive no matter what."), but I'm also concerned because I don't want the government "deciding" that the way I wrote my wishes isn't good enough, or that the fact that a family member "tore it up" because they disagreed with me, etc...is enough to cause them to take custody of me and my care, and there's not much my loving spouse can do to the contrary. After a point, the government just isn't the right party to deal with these issues.
Finally, I will tell you that when my stepmother was terminal (lung cancer), she stated MANY times that she didn't want to die. She said it over and over again, yet she knew that's what was happening to her, and her living will clearly stated that we were not to use heroic measures to extend her life beyond the point where she could communicate with us. As soon as the doctors told her there was no hope, she called us all to her side, said her goodbyes, passed on her wisdom, planned her funeral (down to picking out her clothes and her coffin) and then asked for morphine. Now remember, she said (even at this point) "I don't want to die!" but at the same time she said "I don't want any more medicine, just morphine." Now we knew she was too weak to handle more than small doses, but she insisted she wanted the pain to go away, so we kept it coming, even after the point where we knew IT was killing her faster than the cancer. In fact, clinically speaking it was the morphine that ended her life because it literally stopped her respiratory functions and she died. But did we kill her? She said she didn't want to die, right? But she had also planned her funeral and had been told there was no hope--she would die, she would never ever get better. During this whole Schiavo ordeal, I have asked myself, did we do the right thing? Should we have listened to "I don't want to die" or "I don't want pain"? We were willing to care for her, and we wanted her around as long as possible, regardless of the prognosis. My brother even wanted third and fourth and fifth opinons. Did we kill her? I don't think so, but I tell you this only as an illustration of how NOT black and white these issues are.
Let's face it, NO ONE "wants" to die, but lots of people don't want to live under certain conditions. That's why the words "I want to live" or "I don't want to die" cannot in and of themselves be taken as someone's last wish--they must be qualified. In this case, the court had to do the best it could with that task. It was not an enviable task, but from what I've read, I think they did a thorough and admirable job.
The comment rules will apply. Please post only once.
« NY Times: Deceiving About Iraqi Opinions |
Front Page |
Page Two
| Right to Bear Arms? »
|
I can understand your frustration as a human being watching this unfold, however, what you have put on the site is not correct.
YOU - Everything about this case stinks, from square one. From the purported evidence I've seen, it seems there's a good possibility Terri's husband should be doing time, not being someone's guardian. There seems to have been a strange lack of interest regarding how a perfectly functional woman suddenly became this way over a weekend which began with her confiding to a co-worker that she wanted to divorce her husband. Shouldn't that have warranted closer investigation?
ME - SHE had a eating disorder, THAT is what caused this to happen to her. The police DID investigate the 'allegations' and there was no evidence to show they were substantiated.
YOU - Such as reports Terri had been eating after her accident. Such over a dozen sworn affidavits saying she is an excellent candidate for rehabilitative therapy. Such as a former caregiver testifying under oath that therapy was ordered, but that her husband blocked every step, and that she found such information had been expunged from Terri records.
ME - not possible. AND she was receiving rehab therapy, but when she began to worsen, MD's said that it would not help. REMEMBER, the courts have been OVERSEEING every little thing that this man has done for and towards her care, Terri has court appointed guardian ad litem that have testified that this man has done everything AND more for his wife. They have never seen such care for a patient AND that he has incurred the wrath of employees because of his VERY verbal comments towards those that have NOT their jobs in taking care of his wife. THAT has been documented by the hospital AND the hospice. He is not 'trying this in the media' the way the parents are, but consider, 19 judges, 4 guardian ad litems, numerous government officials, have all seen the care of which has painstakenly oversaw for Terri and said that she could not have HAD a better advocate, one of the MANY reasons why her parents could not get any court to take away his guardianship over her. AND remember, for those employees that have been yelled at by him, those are the ones that have come forward to say negative things.
YOU - It also seems clear to me that he's not even her guardian, as, from what I've seen, he did not even fulfill Florida's very minimal legal requirements for that role.
ME - What do you base this on? The courts have ruled that HE is the guardian, he meets ALL requiremens AND the parents couldnt' prove him to be negligent in her care or the way he has managed her care.
YOU - I blame Judge Greer the most. Evil people are a dime a dozen, but to use such authority in such a perverse manner is beyond me. Why issue an order prohibiting Terri from being photographed or videotaped? If we're all doing the right thing, then why hide the glorious truth? Why keep Terri's own family from visiting and comforting her in her final, painful days?
ME - The parents brought that upon themselves, because they were taking her into the media WITHOUT her consent, and WHO can consent? Her husband. He has said time and time again and the courts concurred- Terri has the right to her privacy, just like you and I, the parents were using the films and pictures to spew forth more lies about her condition. It is one thing to want a personal remembrance of their daughter, but to use those to release to the media? No. That is not correct usage. AND the parents/immediate family are NOT being denied access to her, but again, because of THEIR past behavior, they have made it so that they can not be alone with her. A police officer has to stand guard. Has anyone thought to think about the other that are laying in the same hospice? What of their rights to die peacefully? They don't need all kinds of people walking through the halls, TV cameras, etc. The judges have made the correct ruling to protect them as well as the workers who have absolute right to privacy at work as well.
YOU - Would it be so wrong to order a CAT scan to diagnose Terri before starving her? Shouldn't we know as much as possible before making this decision
ME - CAT's have been done- they remain the same, and there is no brain wave activity. The CAT show that her brain has turned to liquid- about 2/3 of it so far- that is NOT recoverable from. There is NO rehab possible because of this. She will NOT improve, because there is NO way to stop this NOR to correct it.
YOU - 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.
ME - I am sorry, but have you listened to the legal rulings? There is ONLY so much that can be released regarding her medical condition- AND she does have the right to privacy after all, and with HIPPA enacted, you cannot just have everyone releasing all of her medical history.
All the courts have heard these same arguments over and over again, by the atty's for her parents- all the courts HAVE found that Terri's rights HAVE been protected and furthermore, that is partially WHY the MD's were court ordered to render their decision in the case. NOT Michaels pick of MD's -but court picked MD's. They found that under Floridas law, Terri unfortunately (because that IS what persistent means- NEVER GOING TO GET better) meets all the criteria for PVS.
YOU - I have heard he had to be ordered several times to put his glasses back on (since he can't see the screen) and to actually look at the monitor! What's with this guy? Shouldn't he have actually visited her before and attempted to interact with her himself before ordering her killed?
ME - some judges have and some haven't. But they are not under obligation to do so. AND in fact, they said to spare her more 'gawking'by gaggles of people parading through the hospice, nevermind through Terris'room, a tape would be fine. AND backed up by MD's - all consistent- not one has said anything different BUT the parents MD's - who have NOT been allowed to examine her. The parents have MD's who have given speculation, but never examined the woman, in the court room. After one time, when the 'MD's' did battle, the court went to court picked/ordered for any and all legal hearings/renderings so there would no bias.
YOU - A panel of five doctors chosen by the judge inspected her then. Three said her movements and reactions were merely a coincidence or reflex. Two disagreed, and stated she was indeed there. Greer called this "clear and overwhelming" evidence, and denied Terri further food and water.
ME - NOT exactly true. Court ordered MD's of which there were four, all concurred that she is not capable of recovering.
YOU - Since then, I hear she's been examined by a Nobel prize-winning neurologist, who spent 14 hours with her, and concluded she was definitely there. And shouldn't that count for something in the eyes of the state?
ME - Lysis of the cerebrum cortex IS not recoverable AND only the bottom part of her brain is 'functioning' and that is what is making her 'involuntary' muscle twitches,eye movements. That has been documented.
YOU - Even if I were wrong, the fact remains that what we're doing in this case is completely out of whack. Judges have become God, and rather abitrary and sometimes cruel, heartless ones at that.
ME - Judges have to follow the law, it is not for them to 'change' it so they can make a arbitrary ruling. That is why the last time they pulled the feeding tube based on Gov Bush 'law', the Supreme Court ruled it 'unconstitutional'. When you have THAT many judges agree, both republican (if you want to believe they are conservative to the point of breaking the law) and democratic, and have ruled the same way- it is based on facts, unmitigating facts, and she has been throughly represented.
Posted by: Teri on March 23, 2005 09:41 AM