The Schindlers were given a chance to present two doctors of their choice at the evidentiary hearing in 2002, and they only provided one neurologist whose license is on probation.
The Schindlers had a chance to present Dr. Webber as their second expert, but instead introduced a radiologist.
Dr. Webber had asked to testify in court in the affidavit submitted in 2001; Dr Webber was given the chance in 2002. Dr. Webber did not show up. Why?
I previously posted these excerpts from Schindlers v. Schiavo IV opinion written by the Second District Court of Appeals in Florida.
In 2001, the Schinlers provided an affidavit by Dr. Webber about a new treatment that could help Terry. The appeal court using such affidavit ordered the trial court to rehear the case, allowing Dr. Webber to testify.
The new evidentiary hearing was held in 2002, allowing 2 doctors chosen by the Schindlers, 2 doctors chosen by Schiavo, and 1 doctor chosen by the court.
In 2002, when given the chance to testify in person, Dr. Webber was a no show.
In our last opinion we stated that the Schindlers had "presented no medical evidence suggesting that any new treatment could restore to Mrs. Schiavo a level of function within the cerebral cortex that would allow her to understand her perceptions of sight and sound or to communicate or respond cognitively to those perceptions." Schiavo II, 792 So. 2d at 560. Although we have expressed some lay skepticism about the new affidavits, the Schindlers now have presented some evidence in the form of the affidavit of Dr. [Fred] Webber, of such a potential new treatment.
On remand, this court anticipated but did not require that Dr. Webber, who had claimed in his affidavit that he might be able to restore Mrs. Schiavo's speech and some 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 decision to remand the case, made no further appearance in these proceedings.
Despite Dr Webber's absence, the trial court again listened to the evidence in a brand-new evidentiary hearing in 2002, and allowed 5 experts to testify; 2 chosen by the Schindlers, 2 chosen by Schiavo, and 1 chosen by the court.
Extensive videotaping of the doctors examining Terry were provided to the court:
Instead, the parents provided testimony from Dr. William Maxfield, aboard-certified physician in radiology and nuclear medicine, and Dr. William Hammesfahr, a board-certified neurologist. Michael Schiavo, Mrs. Schiavo's husband and guardian, selected Dr. Ronald Cranford and Dr. Melvin Greer, both board-certified neurologists, to testify. The fifth physician, selected by the guardianship court when the parties could not agree, was Dr. Peter Bambakidis, a board-certified neurologist practicing in the Department of Neurology at the Cleveland Clinic Foundation in Cleveland, Ohio. He is a clinical professor of neurology at Case Western Reserve University. His credentials fulfilled the requirements of our prior opinion.Did the Schindlers presented new evidence to back up their claims?Through the assistance of Mrs. Schiavo's treating physician, Dr. Victor Gambone, the physicians obtained current medical information about Theresa Schiavo including high-quality brain scans. Each physician reviewed her medical records and personally conducted a neurological examination of Mrs. Schiavo. Lengthy video tapes of some of the medical examinations were created and introduced into evidence. Thus, the quality of the evidence presented to the guardianship court was very high, and each side had ample opportunity to present detailed medical evidence, all of which was subjected to thorough cross-examination. It is likely that no guardianship court has ever received as much high-quality medical evidence in such a proceeding.
On the issue that caused this court to reverse in our last decision, whether new treatment exists which offers such promise of increased cognitive function in Mrs. Schiavo's cerebral cortex that she herself would elect to undergo this treatment and would reverse the prior decision to withdraw life-prolonging procedures, the parents presented little testimony. Dr. William Hammesfahr claimed that vasodilation therapy and hyberbaric therapy "could help her improve." He could not testify that any "specific function" would improve. He did not claim that he could restore her cognitive functions. He admitted that vasodilation therapy and hyberbaric therapy were intended to increase blood and oxygen supply to damaged brain tissue to facilitate repair of such tissue. These therapies cannot replace dead tissue.