Posted on 04/16/2005 8:15:30 AM PDT by kingattax
TAMPA, Fla. -- State investigators found no evidence that Terri Schiavo had been abused or exploited by either side of her family, according to documents released by Florida's Department of Children and Families.
The agency investigated 89 complaints dating back to 2001, when Schiavo's feeding tube was removed for the first time and the legal battle surrounding her right-to-die case intensified.
The calls alleged that the brain-damaged woman was being mistreated by her husband and her parents for financial gain. One complaint alleged that Schiavo's parents were selling videos of her through a Web site; another said Schiavo's husband wasn't spending money intended for her rehabilitation.
But investigators said they found no evidence that either her husband or parents were exploiting her, and often noted in their records that they found Schiavo well cared for on their visits to her Pinellas Park hospice.
The agency released the records Friday under court order.
Schiavo, 41, died last month after her feeding tube was removed for the third time, ending a bitter court battle between her husband, Michael Schiavo, and parents, Robert and Mary Schindler, over whether she would have wanted to live in a vegetative state.
The repeated allegations of abuse were based partly on bone scans showing Terri Schiavo suffered fractures and statements she made to family and friends that she was unhappy in her marriage.
Schiavo's husband has denied harming his wife. His lawyer said the fractures resulted from osteoporosis caused by the woman's years of immobility and complications of her medication.
Robert Schindler declined to comment there on the release of the DCF documents. An attorney for Michael Schiavo did not immediately return calls
I know you are a states rights person. The problem with your argument is that the state had a law forbidding him or his doctor not to treat her for that infection. He admitted it under oath. I will quote it tomorrow unless you would care to do so now.
Ah, but that's not what you stated originally is it now? No, what you stated originally was
I know Mike tried to let her die of an UTI in 1993 against doctors orders
which is an out and out falsehood. Now as to what Florida's laws state, I don't know and frankly I don't care. That issue belongs to the citizens of the state of Florida and the Florida state courts, per Scalia but more importantly the 10th Amendment.
The problem with your argument is that the state had a law forbidding him or his doctor not to treat her for that infection.
Will be more than happy to quote it. Doesn't prove your point though
Q: Why have you changed your opinion?All that tells us, in context with his other statements of receiving advice from the doctor is that he still believed the doctor's advice is valid over a state law. It does not prove anything else. I don't know about you, but when and if the time comes for me or anyone in my family, I'm going to tend to believe what an attending doctor tells me over some politicianSCHIAVO: Because evidently there is a law out there that say I can’t do it.
Q: Is that the only reason?
SCHIAVO: Basically, maybe.
Q: What you’re telling me is, is that there is nothing in your belief or feelings that have changed. The only thing that has changed is the fact that your perceived that the law prevents you to do what you intended to do?
SCHIAVO: Correct.
The EEGs were described as "flatline". Given that the patient had some level of brain function (as evidenced by the fact that the brain had been keeping the body systems functioning for years), the "flat" EEG constitutes proof positive of one of three things:
Keep reading the threads.
Terri had multiple EEG's. They all indicated no cognitive ability.
There are two regions of the brain that are examined. One determines whether we can breath on her own. She obviously could.
The other determines other stuff and that is the one that is one of the worst EEG's that doctors had ever seen.
Too many have shown no brain function on these tests but later have came out of the PVS or coma, sometimes about 20 years later and they've been aware the whole time.
Not to mention they'd have been dead if their families had killed them off mostly likely on a doctor's advice.
Just because these tests show a person as having no brain activity, these tests don't seem to be very reliable or else those giving them and reading the results are incompetent, we should err on the side of life since there is reasonable doubt that these people are in fact "gone".
And what, praytell, is it that any of us can do about that?
Don't chicken out. Answer the question.
I am not Evelyn Wood. I don't have time to read that entire transcript.
Obviously, you have certain points in mind when you just post a link. If you know enough HTML to post a link, you can cut-and-paste. Why don't you do that, and save us and yourself a lot of time?
There is a qualitative difference between many PVS patients and the behavior exhibited in some of the videos. One could shoot days of footage of the other patients and not be able to get reactions as observed in these.
Having video to capture clearer bona fide efforts at communication would have been good, but Michael wouldn't allow such things. If he were acting in good faith, he would have sought to be (or at least act like he was) accommodating to the parents. Offer to let the parents shoot video if they like, but shoot his own copy with a wide-angle camera so as to be able to expose any trickery the parents might conceivably pull. Let Terri receive more testing. Let the parents try to give her food and water by mouth.
On the latter point, if giving food and water by mouth really were impossible, Michael would have benefitted from letting the parents try. Only if Terri was in fact able to accept food and water would such a concession be harmful to Michael. Given that it is unlawful to starve/dehydrate someone who is able to take food by mouth, I can see no legitimate basis for Michael's refusal. Illegitimate reasons are pretty easy to see, though.
I didn't say heart attack.
The article referred to heart failure resulting from a potassium defficiency. Her heart stoppage precipitated the brain destruction.
I did exactly as you suggested a month ago, repeatedly, but it didn't help that actual testmiony was highlighted. And now I'm done doing homework for people. If they want to base their beliefs on unsubstantiated rumors vs under oath testimony, they've shown what and who they are. I mostly post the links for the lurkers who may have actual open minds and do their OWN darned homework.
It's not that long. And taking the time (at your liesure) will be worth the effort.
I've found that the summaries posted here are often misrepresentation, and that the source material contradicts the conclusions asserted by the poster.
I assume you want to objectively reach your own conclusion, confronted with a cacophany of conflicting points of view. Source material is a powerful ally in that.
As for the deposition of WILLIAM CAMPBELL WALKER, M.D, dated November 21, 2003, the following excerpts may be of interest. I haven't carefully read the entire transcript, so don't be lulled into some sense that these excerpts represent the sum conclusion of Dr. Walker, pardon the length of the excerpts. It's still shorter than reading the entire transcript ;-) ...
6 Q Now, because of the sentence structure, 7 I'm not sure if there is a single compression 8 fracture at L1 or a second compression fracture also 9 in the femur. 10 A What this says is there's a compression 11 fracture of the lumbar vertebral body at L1 and an 12 additional radiographic abnormality, irregular 13 periosteal ossification along the femoral bone. 14 Periosteal ossification is not a compression 15 fracture. It's a different kind of abnormality. 16 Q And the ossification referred to in the 17 femur is primarily ventrally? 18 A Ventral is that surface of the body 19 related to the belly. Ventral is belly. Dorsal is 20 back. 21 Q So it was on the front side of the femur? 22 A Correct. 23 Q The abnormality was? 24 A It would be on that side facing closer to 25 you if the patient was standing in front of you ? 22 1 looking at you. 2 Q Okay. And by "shaggy irregular 3 periosteal ossification," you are speaking there of 4 the information you got from the bone scan or from 5 the x-ray? 6 A The radiograph. 7 Q What does that word "shaggy" refer to? 8 A It's just a descriptor like the shaggy 9 dog. 10 Q Just means that the ossification is 11 not -- 12 A The opposite of smooth. 13 Q Would you draw any conclusions from that 14 how old the ossification was? 15 A You could say that it wasn't real old, 16 because typically, as we mentioned, the bone is a 17 dynamic structure, and it's constantly being 18 remodeled normally. So the body tends to take away 19 extra bone eventually to remodel it to look like 20 normal bone. So typically old bone injuries are 21 remodeled so that eventually they may almost 22 disappear, particularly in young people. In the 23 very young, a fracture you won't even see in three 24 or four years, it will be totally erased. 25 Q By "young," you mean? ? 23 1 A Say a six- or eight- or ten-year-old. As 2 you get older, the bone remodeling process slows 3 down, and so those injuries may persist for longer 4 and longer times, but it depends on the individual 5 too. But I would say it would be more recent than 6 less recent; same with the bone scan. 7 Q In an adult female in her twenties, would 8 a bone fracture be capable of being aged by a 9 radiologist? In other words, could you look at an 10 image of a fracture and say is it a new fracture or 11 an old fracture? 12 A I would have to refine that to say that 13 the bone scan actually gives you more information on 14 fracture age than a plain radiograph. A plain 15 radiograph may give you some gross indication of 16 age. 17 Q If this patient were to today have a bone 18 scan, would there likely be traces of these 19 abnormalities in her skeleton? 20 A It would depend on the cause of the 21 abnormality. 22 Q And that brings us to the next sentence 23 in the report, which is, "The patient has a history 24 of trauma." What likely led you to that conclusion? 25 A As I mentioned before, the indication ? 24 1 "evaluate for trauma" and the history of closed-head 2 injury and the fact that Dr. Carnahan is a rehab 3 doctor who typically works with patients who have 4 been severely injured and need to be rehabilitated. 5 Q Anything else? 6 A Not that I could speculate on at this 7 point in time, no.
[ STOP at page 24 - there is more following, regarding the injury to Terri's femur - the big bone of the upper leg - RESUME at page 28 ]
6 Q So the skeleton is sort of a work in 7 progress? 8 A It's always turning over, yes. 9 Q The report goes on to say, "The 10 presumption is that the other multiple areas of 11 abnormal activity also relate to previous trauma." 12 A That's what it says. 13 Q And, again, that's based on the fact that 14 Dr. Carnahan is a rehab physician, that you were 15 asked to evaluate for trauma? 16 A And the pattern of activity is fairly 17 typical of multiple traumatic injuries of relatively 18 recent origin. 19 Q I realize you can't assign a cause to 20 these injuries that you picked up in this report. 21 But typically in your experience, what would be the 22 causes of this pattern of abnormality? 23 A In somebody her age, an auto accident is 24 by far the most typical cause. 25 Q Assume that she was not in an auto ? 29 1 accident but that she had suffered an anoxic or 2 hypoxic encephalopathy type of injury from a cardiac 3 arrest and had been bedridden for a year at this 4 point. What might account for these abnormalities? 5 A In my knowledge, that type of injury 6 would not account for this pattern of abnormalities.
[ STOP at page 29 - RESUME at page 33. I'm unable to summarize the doctor's conclusion here. There is later testimony on the same subject. ]
5 Q Okay. Is this a pattern of heterotrophic 6 ossification as reported in the literature that you 7 looked at? 8 A Not typically. 9 Q What makes it atypical? 10 A Well, if I were to pick one thing, I 11 would say the activity in the ribs is not typical. 12 And typically heterotrophic ossification occurs 13 around the joints because they're not being moved. 14 And typically you will see on the radiographs 15 calcium deposits actually sitting there. And they 16 don't look like periosteal reaction typically 17 either; they have a different appearance. 18 Q The periosteal is where the membrane that 19 covers -- I guess that's the periosteum. Right? 20 A Right. 21 Q That covers the bone, separates from the 22 bone? 23 A Correct. 24 Q And then calcium ossification occurs 25 between those two? ? 34 1 A Correct, right. And heterotrophic 2 ossification usually involves the actual joint and 3 the anatomic structures in and around the joint. 4 Q Can you say, then, within a reasonable 5 degree of medical certainty whether this bone scan 6 is consistent with heterotrophic ossification? 7 A In my knowledge, it's not consistent with 8 heterotrophic ossification as I typically see it.
All of the above testimony was elicited by counsel for the Schindlers. The deposition continues with testimony elicited by counsel for Schiavo.
19 Q Is it possible that the abnormalities 20 occurring on the bone scan with respect to the 21 fracture of L1, the compressions fracture of L1 -- 22 could that have occurred when the patient -- or if 23 the patient fell onto the floor from a standing 24 position? 25 A That's possible. ? 40 1 Q Is it possible that the abnormalities 2 that you noted on the right femoral diaphysis and 3 metaphysis could have occurred if the patient was 4 standing and suffered a cardiac arrest and fell to 5 the floor? 6 A Probably not. That wouldn't be a typical 7 mechanism of injury that would cause a periosteal 8 bruise. Typically you need a direct blow of some 9 kind. I suppose one could speculate that she fell 10 on a piece of furniture, that that could produce 11 that injury. But just typically falling on the 12 floor would not do that. 13 Q Okay. Is there any way to tell from the 14 information in this report how many months or years 15 prior to the bone scan and the radiographs that the 16 bruise on the right femur occurred? 17 A Because it is active on the bone scan, if 18 it were traumatic, it would probably would have 19 occurred within 18 months. 20 Q You mentioned that the report indicates 21 multiple bilateral rib abnormalities and that that 22 was not consistent with heterotrophic ossification. 23 Is that right? 24 A I mentioned that in this deposition, yes, 25 but not in the report. ? 41 1 Q Okay. Were you looking for heterotrophic 2 ossification when you read the bone scan and the 3 radiographs? Do you know? 4 A I think that's in our mind when we see a 5 rehabilitation patient because we don't know from 6 the history how old the injury was. And, of course, 7 heterotrophic bone is something that occurs 8 particularly in people who are immobilized for long 9 periods of time. So that would be something that we 10 would mention were we to see a typical pattern for 11 that, yes. 12 Q Okay. The abnormalities in the multiple 13 bilateral ribs, could that have occurred during an 14 attempt at resuscitation by the paramedics or 15 hospital staff? 16 A A vigorous resuscitation could do that, 17 yes.
[ STOP at page 41 - RESUME at page 44 ]
22 Q Okay. Now, Dr. Ricciardello's indication 23 that there is no acute injury in either of the knees 24 is consistent with your findings and is not 25 inconsistent with your findings on the compression ? 45 1 fracture of L1. Correct? 2 A That's a -- I don't understand that 3 question. 4 Q Okay. His indication that there is no 5 acute injury on either of Ms. Schiavo's knees, 6 that's consistent with the radiographic report that 7 you issued on March 1991. Correct? 8 A I would have to say no, that's not 9 consistent, because the bone scan shows that there 10 is activity at the knees of some type. The bone 11 scan can't be more specific than that because it 12 doesn't show anatomy. 13 Now, I don't know if this right-knee 14 image included the area that we're talking about as 15 the periosteal reaction or not. I don't know 16 whether that includes that area or not. And the 17 other problem with this is that these are obtained 18 portably in the nursing extended-care facility, and 19 these quality x-rays are typically of bad quality, 20 "quality" being a misnomer here. 21 So the fact that this doesn't even 22 describe periosteal reaction doesn't surprise me, 23 because that's a subtle finding that you probably 24 would not expect to see in this radiograph but that 25 I would expect to see in a hospital-based radiograph ? 46 1 because of the different equipment and the different 2 techniques. So this -- except to the extent that it 3 doesn't show a big fracture -- is fairly 4 meaningless. 5 Q Okay. 6 A I think it probably is -- it doesn't show 7 any calcium in the joints, which you would expect to 8 see with heterotrophic ossification. It does 9 describe osteopenia. But, again, osteopenia is a 10 loss of bone substance, which is a fairly judgmental 11 call on a radiograph and depends a lot on the 12 technique too. Osteopenia is, however, something 13 typically seen in someone who is bedridden because 14 the body tends to put more calcium in areas that are 15 stressed. 16 And if you're bedridden, your legs are 17 not under any stress anymore, so the body tends to 18 take some of the mineral away from those areas. So 19 the osteopenia is consistent with someone who is 20 bedridden. Beyond that, because I know the quality 21 of these films because I read them at that time too, 22 I wouldn't make a lot of judgment call on those.
[STOP at page 46 - RESUME at page 53 ]
6 Q In that affidavit, Dr. Alcazaren gives 7 his interpretation of the radiologist's report dated 8 March 5, 1991 of the bone scan as an indication of 9 "heterotrophic ossification, not trauma." Do you 10 see where it says that? 11 A Yes, I do. 12 Q Would you say that Dr. Alcazaren's 13 opinion is consistent with yours or inconsistent? 14 A Again, this document was produced by a 15 physician whose area of expertise is not identical 16 with mine. His findings are based again on clinical 17 findings. He's not an imager. I'm not a 18 rehabilitation physician. So I would not be able to 19 comment on the significance of that except to say, 20 again, that the bone scan is not typical of 21 heterotrophic ossification. 22 They're saying that the clinical 23 findings, which are entirely different, may, in 24 fact, be consistent with that. And I can't make a 25 judgment on that because I'm not a clinician. ? 54 1 Q So you're not saying that Dr. Carnahan 2 and Dr. Alcazaren were wrong? 3 A I couldn't say that because they're 4 commenting from an area of expertise that I don't 5 have. 6 Q Okay. 7 A So I would be presumptuous to say that 8 they were wrong. 9 Q Okay. The bone scan and radiographic 10 report shows only one fracture. And that is a 11 compression fracture to L1. Correct? 12 A Well, I should clarify that by stating 13 that not all of the areas of bone-scan abnormality 14 were imaged concurrently. Okay. And that's 15 important. In other words, we didn't x-ray every 16 area that was hot on there. A couple of typical 17 areas were imaged but not all. Of those areas that 18 were imaged, the only area that showed what was a 19 clear fracture was L1. 20 Q Okay. So of the documents that you had 21 the benefit of reviewing, the only fracture that 22 showed up was a compression fracture to L1? 23 A You're speaking of the documents at the 24 time that this was interpreted? 25 Q Correct. ? 55 1 A Yes. That's correct. 2 Q The radiographs did not show any 3 fractures of the right femur. Correct? 4 A They don't show a typical fracture. They 5 show periosteal reaction, which could be the result 6 of a bone bruise, which is a bone injury that's not 7 a loss of continuity of the structure of the bone. 8 So to the extent that you define fracture as a loss 9 of structural continuity, then, yes, that is an 10 actual fracture as is typically described.
There is more. The general sense I get from reading the deposition is that this doctor is unable to conclude how Terri obtained her injuries, but that the totality injuries is not consistent with a falling down incident, or with CPR, or with being manipulated by physical therapists, or due to bone weakening - skeleteal rearrangement due to being bedridden for a year.
Again, sorry for the length of the post. I hope you (and others) find it helpful.
Peach: Thanks for nothing.
Now, that is why I am very angry. You know, if you insult a woman, all women comes to her defense, the same thing with gay, a Jewish person, a fat person, a black person, a Hispanic person, a Chinese person; so why in havens name Christians as whole do not band together and react to aggression against other Christians?
For your information, the reason the US is not bombing the hell out of Sudan is because two of our main allies, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia tell us not to get involved! Why do you think these worthless countries are pressuring us not to get involved? Of course because they are Muslims, and like to stick up with this Muslim aggression with the fanatical Sudanese government. In the mean time, these same worthless countries came to us crying to help them defend the Muslims in Bosnia, and Kosovo. Like prostitutes who obey the order of our pimp, we went and bombed the hell out of Serbia. My anger is well founded in the truth, and the STUPID Christians are wasting their time, and Energy as a solid block fighting one single issue, ABORTION, while they could be ACTIVELY involved in multitude of issues.
As for the bruised femur, if you read the other physicians' replies ...
http://home.comcast.net/~trinity_tx/attacktheory.htm <-- Your page
... 3 other doctors look at it before I put it up, and they all said it was 100% correct and consistent.
Here is what your webpage says about the bonescan deposition ...
First, remember that a bone scan is very non-specific - it only shows where there is calcium uptake more or less.Not making any judgement. Just putting the information here for others' convenience of reading.Also remember that the radiologist said he calls any discontinuity of bony substance a "fracture". He had never laid eyes on Terri Schiavo, or knew what her condition was, or why the scan was ordered.
Here is what was described in the deposition:
- Possible fractures of 2 or more bilateral costovertebral junctures - where the ribs meet the vertebrae. (This could be a result of resuscitation efforts, or even severe seizures in a woman with bulimia-induced osteopenia)
- Compression fracture of 1st Lumbar vertebra (same as above, or her fall)
- Bruised femur just above her right knee.
The rest of the so-called "fractures" were deemed by her attending physicians, who specialize in such matters, to be joint problems common among bedridden patients undergoing therapy. Her doctors ordered the bone scan because of this, and treated the hot joints.
Her right knee was stiff within the first 8 days - look at the bottom of the discharge summary - they x-rayed it on 3-5-90, and it showed no bony problems.
She also had a neck x-ray right off, and it showed nothing but the spastic rigidity mentioned above.
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.