Posted on 05/06/2005 10:21:34 PM PDT by Maverick32984
I read Vivek Thuppil's column concerning the Terri Schiavo case ("Republicans use Schiavo case for political advancement," The Triangle, April 29, p. 15). It makes for compelling reading, assuming it is fact-based.
However, as the Schindler family attorney for a number of years, I can tell you Mr. Thuppil's fact-assumptions are not accurate.
Consider these assumptions, for which there is factual support: Terri collapsed in February, 1990 of unknown reasons. She did not have a heart attack. Her tox screen was negative. No doctor ever diagnosed her with bulimia. She collapsed in the early morning hours on a Sunday morning, alone with Michael. They had a big argument on Saturday afternoon before he went to work, because she had spent $80 at the hairdresser.
In March, 1991, just 53 weeks after her collapse -- slightly more than a year -- a total-body bone scan revealed numerous traumatic injuries to her skeleton, including a fractured lumbar vertebra and an unusual injury to her right thigh bone. The radiologist who read the scan concluded all of her skeletal injuries were presumably of traumatic origin.
Under oath, he said the right thigh injury could only have been caused by a sharp blow or kick. He also testified that these types of injuries were visible on a bone scan for 12 to 18 months. That is, on March 5, 1991, the date the bone scan was done, her injuries would have been sustained sometime in the period from September, 1989 to February, 1990.
During his testimony to a medical malpractice jury in November, 1992, Michael testified that he intended to honor his wedding vows (he did not tell the jury he was dating at least two other women at the time) and intended to take care of Terri the rest of his life. He presented an expert who testified that, in fact, Terri would have a normal life span. Michael did not tell that jury that Terri would rather be dead than disabled, curiously enough. Incidentally, contrary to Mr. Thuppil's assumption, traumatic brain injury is not a terminal disease. She had no terminal disease. Terri was simply brain-damaged.
About three months after that testimony, Michael got the money from the medical malpractice case and stopped speaking to the Schindlers or allowing them any information about their daughter. From time to time, he even cut off their right to visit their daughter.
About seven months after that testimony, in June or July, 1993, Terri developed an infection, and Michael ordered her caregivers to withhold antibiotics from her. Later that year, in November, 1993, he gave a sworn deposition in which he said he had done so at a doctor's suggestion and he expected her to die of the infection. This testimony was just one year after he had told that malpractice jury he intended to care for Terri the rest of his life, so we can conclude from this that Michael is capable of lying under oath.
In that same November, 1993 deposition, Michael said he could withhold antibiotics for an infection, but in speaking of removing her feeding tube, he "could not do that to Terri."
In about 1995, Michael began living with Jodi Centonze. He had other girlfriends, but this romance was serious. They had two children together, even though he was married to Terri.
Assume if you will that everything I have written above is taken from the records of the case (of which it is) and apply your own common sense in analyzing the following question: Did Michael and his two relatives fabricate Terri's wish to be dead, because he wanted to "get on with his life" as you call it and she just would not die on her own?
Pat Anderson was the Schindler family attorney, parents of Terri Schiavo, from April 2001 to September 2004.
The Triangle - Ed-Op
Issue: 4/29/05
Republicans use Schiavo case for political advancement
By Vivek Thuppil
The Terri Schiavo case may be old by now, but I believe that the arguments I am about to make are still pertinent. Let me start out by saying that it was an injustice that she had to die on March 31, 2005. She should have had the dignity of death, as was her wish expressed to her husband, a long time ago, but for the actions of right-wing religious zealots and other Republican leaders politicizing her suffering in order to gain brownie points with other religious zealots.
This can be argued in two different ways. My first argument is for the legalization of euthanasia. There is nothing natural about death anymore. People can be kept alive for insanely long periods of time with help of medical technology though they are nothing more than a vegetable. Sometimes these people have no hope of recovery, are in extreme pain, and are kept alive artificially until death mercifully takes them months or years later down the line. People should have the dignity to decide that they want to end their suffering, and euthanasia should be legalized post haste to ensure that Terri Schiavo type controversies don't come up again. Illogical religious arguments aside, such as "only God has the right to take a life" and "prayer's healing power works," there is no substantial argument against euthanasia. Of course, strict oversight and legislation is necessary to ensure that euthanasia is not misused by doctors or relatives, but the first step needs to be towards legalization.
Back to the Schiavo case, the law could not be clearer on the subject. In the absence of a living will, the law defines a person who knows her best to decide in her best interest in the case of a terminally ill disease. In Terri's case, a living will was absent. Her husband was the person who would know her best. She had a terminally ill disease. Multiple doctors' opinions correlated in this regard. Her husband said that she had told him that she would not like to live in such a state. That's the end of story. That's why the federal judges hearing the case repeatedly struck down attempts to reinsert the feeding tube. Doing so would clearly have been unlawful. I realize that this would have been very difficult for Terri's parents.
But unfortunately, this was the sad reality and they had to look at it as fairly as possible. The foremost thought on their minds should have been "Does our daughter want to continue to live, or would she rather die," not "Do we want our daughter to live or die." The answer to the second one is only too obvious.
They also said that when they met their daughter, she seemed like she wanted to say, "don't let me die." Could it be possible they were thinking what they wanted to think, and she could also have been trying to say, "Please let me die with dignity?" Once again, we can all make our own conclusions of what she was trying to say.
Despite being painted as a villain and adulterer in the media, I commend and admire the bravery of Michael Schiavo for doing what his wife wanted. Yes, he is living with another woman right now, but what was he expected to do? Should he not be allowed to move on with his life? Just because he moved on with a part of his life, does it suddenly mean that his commitment to Terri disappeared?
No, the answer to all these questions is no. He seemed to be the only person in this whole drama that actually seemed to think rationally. It has also been reported in the media that after the Terri Schiavo case, people have started writing up living wills to ensure that "what happened to Terri" doesn't happen to them. That's wonderful. I encourage everyone to do the same. If you want to be kept alive as long as possible, please make a living will so that your wish can be respected. On the contrary, if you would not like to be kept alive indefinitely, please make a living will of that also. However, this does not guarantee that Republicans will not pervert rules to ensure that they get their way. Republicans went to great lengths of trying to pervert democracy to keep Terri Schiavo alive.
When Terri's feeding tube was last removed in 2003, Florida Governor Jeb Bush pushed through a law in the Florida legislature mandating that Terri's feedings continues, six days after a court ruled that the feeding tube be removed.
The Florida Supreme Court later ruled that the law was unconstitutional and struck it down. The Republicans tried a different method to subvert the system. If Florida courts wouldn't agree with them, they thought federal courts might. In an extraordinary "emergency" measure, the Republicans strong armed a bill through Congress that allowed federal courts to hear the case, a move Terri's husband rightfully described as "congressional thuggery." The thuggery didn't stop there. The federal courts subsequently followed the rule of law, and ruled against reinserting the feeding tube. Terri was allowed to die, as was her wish from more than a decade ago. Subsequently, Tom DeLay, perhaps the most corrupt leader of the most corrupt Congress in recent history, declared that the "time will come" for the judges who upheld the rule of law and stood up to Republican bullying to "answer for their behavior." If I was Tom DeLay, and thankfully I am not, I would be more concerned about putting together the shattered pieces of his own political life, and hoping that the House Ethics Committee doesn't come and ask him to "answer for his behavior" and that his "time doesn't come."
Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist argued not so long ago that there was a "real fire lighted by Democrats around judges over the past few days." He should be looking more at the rampant arson being carried out against judges by members of his own party. If Tom "the Corrupt Hammer" DeLay is not enough, Senator John Cornyn of Texas argued that the judges' decision adds to frustration in the public that "builds up and builds up to the point where some people engage in" violence. As was pointed out in an NY Times editorial ("The Judges Made Them Do It," The New York Times, Apr 6), as part of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Senator Cornyn is supposed to protect the Constitution and its promise of an independent judiciary, not threaten them with violence if they don't bend to his rabid right-wing stance.
The Terri Schiavo case was hijacked by the Republicans to try and distract attention from the corruption mounting against their House Representatives, many of whom made benefited from largesse on the part of DeLay's special interest buddies, often at the cost of the well being of the American people. At one point, we simply must say enough is enough.
Vivek Thuppil is a junior majoring in environmental science. Mr. Thuppil can be reached through ed-op@thetriangle.org.
I don't know how anyone can read this and still believe that "justice" was done in pulling the plug on Terri. It's been more than a month am I'm still mad as hell.
Yes, you'd have to be brain damaged if you believe Mike's innocent.
"Despite being painted as a villain and adulterer in the media, I commend and admire the bravery of Michael Schiavo for doing what his wife wanted. Yes, he is living with another woman right now, but what was he expected to do? Should he not be allowed to move on with his life?"
--Vivek Thuppil
As Bob Schindler said several times, this cannot happen again. This must not happen to anyone else.
Great rebuttal from Pat Anderson.
The MSM kissed up to Mikey boy.
I'm mad, but I'm also concerned about how HMO'S are going to take advantage of this. Medicare? Social Security? The old and disabled are going to be screwed....
Follow the money.
On H & C tonight Sean said Mark Fuhrman is working on this case and will have a book forthcoming, as well as digging up some interesting evidence. Sean hinted that it may not look good for MS.
I hope he blows the lid off of this murder/travesty.
Where's the autopsy?
Well he certainly seemed steeled to the prospect that the public, except for the worse liberals, would be howling at him. Maybe his future is to be a Rat politician.
Yes, I was wondering about that also.
Mr. Thuppil can look forward to his sophomoric Starvation Nation screed following him through the rest of his adult life.
Reading the volume of posts here at FR in recent weeks (on Terri threads), I'd say Vivek Thuppil has an FR identity and is one of the leading members of the 'Terri was dead for fifteen years so shut up already' crowd who enjoy egging on arguments and pouring salt in Terri supporters' injured hearts. Thuppil is a shallow, liberal, doofus with a very narrow focus bent toward lipserving/liplocking the democrat party's hind end. In making the accusations toward the Republicans, Thuppil is in fact trying to exploit the Terri Schiavo execution for democrat gain. A bit transparent, don'tchaknow!
If it has science in its name it isn't one.
___I think Schiavo saw the possibility that his cover-up of the murderous assault on his wife was unraveling after the body scan turned up the damage he did to her. He wanted to escape an attempted murder conviction. "Get on with his life"--without prison time.---
That would make it just another murder story. The question here is did society and the state fail to protect Ms Shivo's human and civil rights? Why did these judges follow this weak law with such blind obedience as to mandate her death in the face of a mother's pleading for her daughter's life? Are these men or beasts that do such things? In Roman times these fine gentlemen might have their heads and severed hands displayed in the Senate for the education and satisfaction of the living!
Looks Like Mr.Vivek is very busy writing columns for DemocRATs
Kerry's Post War Conduct is a Perfect Model of American Values
By Vivek Thuppil
Democratic Presidential Candidate John Kerry has enjoyed one month of favorable coverage in the media. It all started with him picking the charismatic, "Clintonian" senator from North Carolina, John Edwards, as his running mate in his bid to present George Bush a one-way ticket to Crawford, Texas. The Democratic National Convention followed soon afterwards, where Kerry formally accepted the nomination to become the presidential candidate for the Democratic Party.
At this convention, Kerry addressed the nation and soothed voters' concerns.
It seems to have worked. Although I personally wouldn't trust George Bush with a BB gun, before the convention, an alarming 51 percent of Americans trusted George Bush to be an able commander-in-chief of the armed forces compared with 43 percent who thought the same about Kerry. After the convention, Kerry and Bush are locked in a dead heat with 48 percent thinking that Bush is an able commander-in-chief and another 48 percent thinking the same about Kerry. Now that the convention is over, Kerry's boat is likely to sail into stormy waters.
The first hostile entity it will encounter is the new book that is to be released soon, Unfit for Command: Swift Boat Veterans Speak Out Against John Kerry. In this book, some American prisoners of war during the Vietnam War allege that John Kerry's actions as a member of Vietnam Veterans Against the War were taken advantage of by the North Vietnamese to degrade the morale of American POWs still in Vietnam.
Many former POWs certainly have no love lost for Kerry. One of them, Kenneth Cordier, an Air Force pilot who spent 2,284 days as a POW, said "[The North Vietnamese captors] were always talking about that," referring to the anti-war demonstrations, "and they picked up right on Kerry's throw-away line 'Don't be the last man to die in a lost cause, or die for a lost cause.' They repeated that incessantly."
Another critic of Kerry's actions during the war was Senator John McCain of Arizona, but he has then since changed his mind about the type of man John Kerry is. When asked to campaign for former Massachusetts Governor William Weld who was running against Kerry for a Senate seat in 1984, McCain said "I simply would not do such a thing. I couldn't do that ... I'm surprised you would ask ... Going to campaign against John Kerry is something I wouldn't consider." It would seem that is his feeling even today. It is obvious that John McCain's half-hearted "support" for the incompetent ... er ... I mean incumbent president is more out of his obligations as a member of the Republican Party than any real faith in Bush's abilities.
The feelings of these POWs are certainly understandable. I can sympathize with them. They were in a hostile enemy camp and their captors were showing them pictures of their fellow countrymen and fellow soldiers denouncing the cause they were fighting for, the cause that they were imprisoned for.
However, I firmly believe that John Kerry's actions after the Vietnam War make him a better candidate than ever before for the presidency. Unlike George Bush, who shirked his responsibility and avoided National Guard duty, John Kerry answered the call of duty and went and served his country in Vietnam faithfully, earning three purple hearts for his heroic actions during the war.
However, it isn't John Kerry's actions during the war that are most commendable. It is his actions after the war. After finishing his service and coming back to the U.S., John Kerry exercised those very rights that he had fought for in Vietnam. He exercised his constitutional rights to demand answers from the government. He demanded to know why American soldiers were fighting a war and getting killed in Vietnam. He demanded for accountability from the government, and called upon it to end a needless war. Though the war was long lost by that time, the government continued to ship out tens of thousands of troops to Vietnam; many of these soldiers would never see their loved ones again. John Kerry's actions after he came back, along with the actions of millions of other like-minded Americans, helped end the war that much sooner and bring back American POWs back home that much more quickly..
It is some of these very same POWs who mistakenly believe today that John Kerry betrayed them. John Kerry didn't betray them; their government did betray them when it knowingly sent them along with tens of thousands of others to a war it very knew that it was losing.
The situation today is not much unlike the situation in the early 1970's.
The government today also sent tens of thousands of soldiers to fight an oil-driven war on fictitious reasons. The current government has even stooped as low as to hijack the 9/11 tragedy for political gain as it has used its Orwellian politics of fear and hatred to justify its actions. And today, John Kerry finds himself in the same place he did so many decades ago. Once again, he is calling upon the government to be answerable to the people, and calling upon it to justify its unjustifiable actions. Much attention has been given in the conservative media of how he supposedly authorized the war and then denied the soldiers the funding they needed to stay alive.
Let's try the truth now. John Kerry believed the president when he said that he had indisputable evidence that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, and that Iraq was a "smoking gun," and an "imminent threat." In hindsight, it may have been foolish of him to take the bait, but hey, when the president of your country says something, you wouldn't think that it would be a blatant lie. When in fact it did turn out to be a blatant, bold-faced lie, he demanded to know what the president had done with the first $100 billion of taxpayers' money before handing him another generous check for $87.5 billion.
Despite all the funding, this administration's policies have been consistently anti-soldier. Not only have soldiers not gotten the armor and munitions they need, despite all the funding that the Bush administration has requested, their veterans benefits are being cut day by day. John Kerry finds himself in a very similar position to where he was more than three decades ago. The death toll in the current conflict is much lower, presently somewhere a little higher than 900. But as far as John Kerry is concerned, that is 900-something deaths too many.
Vivek Thuppil is a junior majoring in bioscience and environmental science at Drexel U.
originally published in The Triangle.
http://www.opednews.com/thuppil_080704_kerry_values.htm
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.