Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Calpernia; TaxRelief; huck von finn
Dr. Webber's affidavit made it to court. But the court denied Dr. Webber the petition for examination. So how could he testify on her behalf if he wasn't allowed to examine her?

Facts:

Oct. 17, 2001: Using Dr. Webber's affidavit as a main reason, the 2nd District Court of Appeal rules that five doctors can examine Terri to determine whether she has any hope of recovery. Two doctors are picked by the Schindlers, two are picked by Michael Schiavo and one is picked by the court.

Oct. 12, 2002: Weeklong evidentiary hearing begins in the case. Three doctors, including the one appointed by the court, testify that Terri is in a persistent, vegetative state with no hope of recovery. The two doctors selected by the Schindlers say she can recover.


You quoted the remand by the Second Court of Appeals in 2001 to prove that Dr. Webber was not given a chance to testify in 2002.

If you have read the 2001 document carefully, you would have noticed that the court of appeals ordered that the Schindlers be allowed to present two doctors in a brand-new evidentiary hearing. The new evidentiary hearing was held in 2002.

You have to keep up with your time line. Quoting a newspaper from 2000 to prove that the Marlins are not World Champions in 2003 is useless.

Dr. Webber was given his opportunity to testify in 2002 and he did not show up. The Schindlers could not come with two neurologists in 2002, so they presented a radiologist and a neurologist. The Schindlers' neurologist has his license on probation and is a poster boy for Quack Watch.

Which brings about the questions: Why did Dr. Webber not testify? Did he change his mind about Terri?

396 posted on 10/27/2003 11:31:10 AM PST by george wythe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 244 | View Replies ]


To: george wythe
Believe the opposite of what is on quackwatch - they are big time liars and big time litigators and they lose their litigation. If Quackwatch is against something, I check it out because it's probably pretty good. I have found some great things from what they denigrate.
399 posted on 10/27/2003 11:38:15 AM PST by yesnettv (We need to decide to save Terri's life. I did.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 396 | View Replies ]

To: george wythe; ambrose; TheAngryClam; onyx; redlipstick; LPM1888; lugsoul; Long Cut; ArneFufkin; ...
TCD testing is useful for evaluating certain patients who have strokes. However, the routine testing and monitoring Hammesfahr recommends would result in considerable unnecessary expense. Florida Medicare regards vasodilation therapy for stroke rehabilitation or other brain damage as "investigational" and therefore does not cover the cost of TCD studies (CPT codes 93886, 93888) associated with this treatment [1].

Nice find - a fact, and it explains what Hammesfahr is really about. I'm sure though, that there was some insidious conspiracy betweem Michael Schiavo, Judge Greer, the hospice, the malpracice inurance company, and the other doctors to suspend this doctor's license.

400 posted on 10/27/2003 11:42:49 AM PST by Chancellor Palpatine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 396 | View Replies ]

To: george wythe
So are you saying Dr. Webber did examine Terri Schiavo?

quackwatch.org? Isn't that Dr. Stephen Barrett's site? Isn't he the same person that was listed at healthfreedomlaw.com with charges againest him for: trespassing; illegal influence of foreign government officials; filing false police reports; stalking; mail fraud; wire fraud; perjury; subornation of perjury; and extortion? Or is that another quackwatch.org?

413 posted on 10/27/2003 12:28:44 PM PST by Calpernia (Innocence seldom utters outraged shrieks. Guilt does.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 396 | View Replies ]

To: george wythe; Calpernia; TaxRelief; huck von finn
Which brings about the questions: Why did Dr. Webber not testify? Did he change his mind about Terri?

Precisely. When it came time to put up or shut up, he chose the latter. The appellate court fully expected him to testify and was somewhat mystified as to his absence.

From the 2002 appellate court ruling

On remand, this court anticipated but did not require that Dr. Webber, whohad claimed in his affidavit that he might be able to restore Mrs. Schiavo's speech andsome of her cognitive functioning, would testify for the parents and provide scientific ..support for his claim. However, Dr. Webber, who was so critical in this court's decisionto remand the case, made no further appearance in these proceedings.

414 posted on 10/27/2003 12:32:00 PM PST by RGSpincich
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 396 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson