Terri Schiavo Before dehydration
Posted on 03/26/2005 12:11:03 PM PST by TexasRainmaker
First, this case has boiled down to Michael Schiavo's testimony that it was Terri Schiavo's wish not to be put on life-prolonging technologies, including feeding tubes.
He and his attorney said Terri made it clear years ago that she would not want to live in such a condition -- even though she never made a living will. They said she once made the comment to her best friend after seeing a movie in which a character was in such a state. "She said, 'No tubes for me,' " Michael Schiavo said.
Her feeding tube was inserted on February 25, 1990. Michael Schiavo petitioned the courts in May of 1998 to have the tube removed.
Wouldn't that mean he was actually acting counter to her wishes for over 8 years?
In fact, it wasn't until the settlement money from the original lawsuit was paid, that Michael Schiavo had a DNR placed in Terri's medical chart. But if is contention is that this was her pre-injury wishes... why did he not object to the initial insertion of the tubes shortly after the injury?
Second, despite the fact that courts have ordered the feeding tubes removed pursuant to the questionable wishes as relayed by Michael, why does that include surrounding the Hospice with armed guards and prevention of the parents from taking in their own food and water to supply to their daughter?
Even if the court is acting in a manner so as to follow her alleged wishes not to have life-prolonging technology, how on earth does this include preventing regular food and water from being given to her?
It's called trying everything first, and when NOTHING has worked, then let her go as per her wish.
Because he is a lying sack of fecal waste. It is obvious she never said diddle squat about wanting to be killed.
So... despite the fact that this case is hinging on his allegation that letting her die now is pursuant to her wishes of "no tubes for me".... he is okay to violate her personal right to die for 8+ years?
So is this case about "her wishes" or isn't it?
You don't find it suspicious that he immediately shunned the parents shortly after the settlement was complete? You don't find it suspicious that he's been with two women since his wife began her ordeal? You don't find it suspicious that he's claiming her wish was for "no tubes", yet he "aggressively kept her alive" in the early years while the malpractice trials were going and promptly stopped when they were done?
Do you really think this is about "her wishes" at all?
I can't believe she did communicate such wishes.
Why? Because:
1) It took Michael Schiavo 8 years to decide she'd told him she wanted "no tubes."
2) A nurse who attended Terri (note: NOT a family member) testified that Michael had stated on MANY occasions that he did NOT know what Terri's wishes were ("How the hell should I know?")
3) A nurse (don't remember whether same nurse or different; there have been several nurses who testified) stated that Michael asked (I think on multiple occasions), "When is this bitch going to die?"
4) Several of Terri's friends and family have stated that having a feeding tube removed and being allowed to starve to death was definitely NOT what Terri would have ever wanted, or stated that she wanted.
You're changing the subject.
My question is... did she say "NO TUBES FOR ME" or not?
if she did, then her husband is guilty of acting contrary to her personal wishes... so he's not really in a position to be arguing that the parents should butt out and let him "carry out her wishes", since he conveniently didn't give a shit about those wishes for almost a decade.
He didn't try everything.
He forbade rehab after it was working to a degree.
He told others he didn't know what she would want for the first 7 years.
He never stated in the first 7 years that her "wish" was to be put to death in these circumstances.
WHY! Because it took that long until the Florida law was changed to allow'hearsay' as evidense.
None of you guys got it right. It was because, during those 7 seven years after her "accident" there WAS NO LAW STATING THAT FOOD AND WATER is considered medical treatment. AFTER Mikie and George Felos got food and water to be considered life support did he start saying that this was Terri's wishes and petitioning the court (Greer) to have the feeding tube removed and to "let her die". I'd REALLY like to know how they got that law amended to included feeding tubes for PVS patients. Anyone out there know the history of this law???. THAT'S why Michael didn't say anything about Terri's "wishes" for seven long years!
He might not have gotten a big settlement in the malpractice case if he made it clear he planned to have his wife killed.
"Statute 765 revisions of 1999. Someone commented that Statute 765 seemed to have been intentionally revised in 1999 for Terri's case. Terri is being held at Woodside Hospice, part of the Hospice of the Florida Suncoast. Michael Schiavo's attorney, George Felos was once on the Board of directors of the Hospice of the Florida Suncoast and was also once chairman of the hospice.
Although George Felos lied and misled the public that he had left the hospice at the time he took Michael's case, it turns out, from examining public records that he did not leave until 2001. In 1998, Felos filed a motion in Judge Greer's court to remove Terri's feeding tube.
In 1999, statue 765 was revised to redefine what a terminally ill patient was, and changed the law to withdraw nutrition hydration from a patient in a persistent vegetative state who had no advanced directives.
In 2000, Michael Schiavo moved Terri to the Hospice of the Florida Suncoast. In 2000, Judge Greer ordered Terri's feeding tube to be removed. In 2000, Judge John Lenderman, Judge greer's fellow judge on the 6th circuit court, joined the Advisory board of the Hospice of the Florida Suncoast for that year alone.
Martha Lenderman, sister of Judge John Lenderman, was also on the board of the Hospice of the Florida Suncoast, and later became chair of the hospice until public outcry forced her to resign. The entire time Felos was still on the board of the hospice. When Michael Schiavo first asked Judge Shames to allow him to remove terri's feeding tube in 1997, and then again in Judge Greer's court in 1998, the law at the time was not enough to let Greer order the removal of Terri's feeding tube under Terri's circumstances, so the law had to be changed in favor of Michael Schiavo.
In 1998, the florida legislature created the Florida Panel on End-of-Life Care for the purpose of revising the 765 statute for end-of-life issues. They were charged with coming up with the findings for changes in the law for the Florida legislature. Their findings were made law. Bill CB/CB/SB 2228, which revised the 765 as of October 1, 1999, also gave the authority to the End-to-Life panel to make findings for the legislature and that these findings were to made into law.
The legislature essentially gave them the authority to dictate to the legislature what changes to put in their bills. So the role of End-of-Life panel was not simply to make recommendations, but had the authority to determine what changes would be made into law. Robert Brooks , the head of the Florida Department of Health at the time, was appointed as the chair of the Florida Panel on End-of-Life Care.
In addition, Mary Labyak , CEO of the Hospice of the Florida Suncoast, was also appointed directly to the end-of-life panel, while Felos was still on the board of the Hospice. William Bell, a VP for the Florida Suncoast, was appointed as an alternate panel member of the End-of-Life Panel. In addition, a second group of people, which also included Mary Labyak, and others with connections to the Hospice of the Florida Suncoast became involved with the End-of -Life Panel as formal advisors, and began to work with Robert Brooks.
THIS MEANS THAT FELOS' ASSOCIATES DICTATED LEGISLATIVE CHANGES, THROUGH THE END-OF-LIFE PANEL, THAT BENEFITTED FELOS' CLIENT IN A CASE THAT WAS PENDING IN A COURT OF LAW. From 1998 to 1999, this group worked together hand-in-hand with the chair of the state panel, Robert Brooks, and after 1999, they were continued to work with Robert Brooks, even as the records of Terri's physician were being withheld and destroyed by the Department of Health.
Their group was called Project Grace (not to be confused with the anti-abortion group in florida) and Brooks actually joined their board while they were attending the end-of-life panel meetings and advising Brook and other panelists on the end-of-life legislation. When Florida passed the revisions to Statue 765 in 1999 that effected Terri's case, there were at least several individuals with the Hospice of the Florida Suncoast that helped with the revisions of 765 through the state panel mandated by the florida legislature.
THESE REVISIONS WERE ALSO APPLIED RETROACTIVELY TO TERRI'S CASE. At some point, two individuals with working relationships with the 6th circuit court also became involved with Project Grace, although it has been determined discover how far back their involvement with Project Grace was. Felos has mispresented that he left the hospice at an earlier date, to keep possible attention away from his role at Hospice of the Florida Suncoast at the same time the Hospice was influencing legislation specific to Terri's case.
Corporate records filed in 2000 still show Felos as a board member of the Hospice, he was not removed from Hospice board until 2001. Basically, the End-of-Life Panel and its relationship to the Hospice put Felos in the postion to influence both legislation and the 6th circuit to effect the outcome of this case while it was pending in Judge Greer's court. Add The Hospice of the Florida Suncoast's involvement in revising the legislation with state rep Gus Bilirakis, also on the board of the Hospice of the Florida Suncoast, role in getting it passed, shows it was being done to assist Michael Schiavo in the pending decision and retroactively apply it to Terri's case.
Brooks details his recruitment and the role Project Grace played in the formulation of the legislation, in the Journal of Cardiology, supplement to Vol 23, February 2000, which includes a series of articles written by other Project Grace members describing the revision of Statue 765 and detailing the work of Project Grace with the Florida Panel End-Of-Life Panel. Lofty Basta (his real name) then details how Project Grace influenced the End-of-Life Panel including providing a flowchart. Changes in the law mentioned in the series of articles that are pertinent to Terri's case were the "new pathway" for patients in a persistant vegetative state to have life-pronging procedures withdrawn without advanced directives (Brooks, prologue).
This new pathway was put into law. Also Project Grace member Geldart catalogues the changes to statute 765 in table 1 of his article, which he redefines medical terms for the state legislature. For example, Geldart defines "end stage disease" as a condition that is expected to cause death in the near future with or without medical treatment, and then includes a "nervous disorder"that causes "near complete total paralysis" with near total dependency as part of that definition.
Then Table 1 describes how the 765 law was revised in 1999 to include "end-stage condition" as a reason to withdraw life prolonging procedures along with persistant vegetative state and terminal illness. This was also put into law. Geldart also redefines terminal illness as not just conditions that cause death, but "irreversible" conditions or conditions "with no reasonable chance of recovery". Felos used this definition for the argument that Terri is terminal because she has a "irreversible" neurological condition with no "reasonable hope for recovery".
GELDART ALSO DETAILS THE CHANGE IN LAW THAT PERMITTED NUTRITION AND HYDRATION TO BE CONSIDERED MEDICAL TREATMENT AND THE CHANGES TO LIFE-PROLONGING PROCEDURES IN THE ABSENCE OF ADVANCED DIRECTIVES. Project Grace member William Leonard then points out a common scenario in Florida in his article: an elderly couple moves from out of state to Florida and then one spouse dies within a year 's time. Leonard then expands the definition of family to a neighbor, friend or caregiver who is now in the position of articulating the wishes of the elderly person to withdraw medical treatment, rather than "some distant relative".
And indeed the 765 law was changed to allow an "friend" to say that the person wanted life-pronging procedures withdrawn without a written directive. This also effected the outcome of Terri's case. Authors of Project Grace advocate for terminal sedation (Basta), withdraw of nutrition and hydration (Basta), and the refusal of physician to provide "futile" treatment as unethical even with advanced directive asking for treatments (Doty).
They also state that advanced directives providing for treatment should not carry the same weight as directives withdrawing care, and advanced directives should not compel the physican to provide them, regardless if the patient needs them (Doty). Doty is part of the Florida Bioethics Network as well as Project Grace. One of the changes in the law in CB/CB/SB 2228 includes the Bioethics Network as part of the process of withdrawing care.
In addition to this, there were two reports given to the Florida legislature by Brooks. In the interim report to the florida legislature, Brooks footnoted some of the changes. The final report that Brooks made to the legislature is missing from the applicable websites. This is a good indication that they are hiding something, namely how influential Felos' buddies were in on the changes made.
Individuals with Hospice of the Florida Suncoast that were also members of Project Grace that were also part of the were Mary Labyak ( on the Board of directors of Project Grace and appointed directly to the Florida Panel on the End-of-Life Care), Charlie Robinson (as detailed on his website, he is a member of Project Grace's steering committee and member of the Hospice of the Florida Suncoast ), and Susan Bruno, who was a co-author in the series of articles in the Journal of Cardiology.
Other Project Grace members and co-authors in the series of Journal of Cardiology articles Robert Walker, Ronald Schonwetter, Janice Lowell, Lori Roscoe, and David Mcgrew are also members of a University of South Florida (USF) center on palliative care founded and funded by the Hospice Institute of the Florida Suncoast, called the Center for Hospice, Palliative Care, and End of Life Studies. In addition, Schonwetter is being funded by Project on Dying.
Susan Bruno is also part of the center. Felos had to interact with the members of the USF center up until 2001, directly or indirectly through other board members, because he was on the board of the hospice then. There was a USF research project by Lori Roscoe and the hospice of the florida suncoast , funded by a USF collborative grant. It is called "provider perceptions of and ability to influence the quality of life domains for nursing home residents at the end of life". More evidence that the legislative changes to 765, and the role that the participants played on the End-of-Life Panel, were intended for Terri's case has to do with the public comments of members of Project Grace, including some with the Hospice of the Florida Suncoast - USF pallative center. Lofty Basta (yes, his real name), has continually campaigned against keeping Terri alive, and complimenting Judge Greer on his decisions, writing articles in the media and campaigning extensively in churches and other forums.
He has even stated that people like Terri have to die because there is no money to pay for the elderly's medication benefits, trying to get Pinellas' elderly population to turn against Terri. In one article, he seems to have some personal knowledge of Terri's medical records. In another, he states that Judge Greer made a wise decision to remove Terri's feeding tube. Basta cannot be unaware of his board members' involvement with George Felos. And Schonwetter, with the hospice-USF pallative center, made comments to the media to reassure the public when Terri's tube was removed the second time, that Terri would not feel pain.
Brooks requested funds from the legislature for educating the public on the End-Of-Care changes, as well as the clergy and health profession. Project Grace and Hospice of the Florida Suncoast received state funds through the Department of Health AND for educating the clergy and health profession. This makes me think that Lofty Basta is receiving Department of Health funds through the End of Life Panel as one of their educators to the public, which he used to undermine Terri's life and promote Michael Schiavo's position. I am basing this on the involvement of Project Grace on other education projects with the End-of-life Panel.
If so, Basta used state funds to stir up public support for Michael Schiavo and Judge Greer. Project Grace members Michael Bernstein and Charlie Robinson have a working relationship with the 6th circuit court. Robinson was also with the Hospice of the Florida Suncoast. Charlie Robinson is on the 6th circuit's Committee on Professionalism, which includes participation of 6th circuit judges. The 6th circuit does not openly advertise who was on this committee and when they served.
But I did notice an advertisement on a 6th circuit publication on the subject of professionalism training, with Judge Greer providing the training. This makes me very suspicious that Greer was on the Committee on Professionalism at some point, maybe with Charlie Robinson during the Florida panel on the End-of-life care meetings. Most importantly, Bernstein has provided mental health facilities for the elderly for the probate court for several years now, under Baker Act committments, which means he works with Judge Greer's probate court on mental health placements.
You may distribute freely, There is no restriction on reproducing, if you do not alter the content.
5 posted on 03/26/2005 10:03:01 AM PST by Texas Eagle (If it wasn't for double-standards, Liberals would have no standards at all)."
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.