New Terri Schiavo update & request for information

What is Michael Schiavo Afriad Of?

http://www.apfn.org/apfn/Terri_michael.htm

Bump.

Maybe it's as simple as this: afraid of giving up his grudge towards the Schindlers.

I read on one of the threads that it is Greer's wife who is on the board.
If so, maybe she is using her maiden name.

RGSpincich's Reply 59 above, calls into question, the following, as posted above by cpforlife.org:

1. Dr. Hammesfahr, of HAMMESFAHR NEUROLOGICAL INSTITUTE. http://www.hni-online.com/ emphatically stated that the neck spinal injury this patient incurred was by Strangulation. Schiavo's attorney avoided challenging Dr. Hammesfahr's strangulation statement. Proof of those statements below - video of the Dr saying it, along with saying that with therapy, her condition can improve. http://www.floridaneurologicalinstitute.com/schiavo_channel10_may7,8,2001.htm Debi, there are 5 video and audio clips. They total more than 20 MB's so they wouldn't be practical to email. All are available at the address above.

I listened to and watched all the audio and video at that Channel 10 link. There is no information about Dr. Hammesfahr stating anything about "Strangulation."

HOWEVER ---

In the second Channel 10 News clip, video for May 8, 2001 ---

Channel 10 5:00 PM Clip Part 2 - Dr. Hammesfahr coverage on Terri Schiavo case

--- the Channel 10 news anchor states:

An ex-girl friend of Michael Schiavo, is set to give a court deposition this week; Cindy Shook has said Michael once told her that he didn't know what his wife's wishes really were.

Cindy Shook, in that news anchor's report, is Cindy Brashers Shook, who is the court witness for May 8, 2001 in the chronology of events that are listed in iowamomfor freedom's Reply 48, above. Unfortunately, that chronology does not indicate Cindy's information, but the Channel 10 news anchor has provided a glimpse, here.

From the last appleate court decision:

But in the end, this case is not about the aspirations that loving parents have for their children. It is about Theresa Schiavo's right to make her own decision, independent of her parents and independent of her husband. In circumstances such as these, when families cannot agree, the law has opened the doors of the circuit courts to permit trial judges to serve as surrogates or proxies to make decisions about lifeprolonging procedures.(Ths is the crux of the matter.) See In re Guardianship of Browning, 568 So. 2d 4 (Fla. 1990) (affirming In re Guardianship of Browning, 543 So. 2d 258, 273-74 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989)); see also § 765.401(3), Fla. Stat. (2000).

It is the trial judge's duty not to make the decision that the judge would make for himself or herself or for a loved one. Instead, the trial judge must make a decision that the clear and convincing evidence shows the ward would have made for herself. § 765.401(3). It is a thankless task, and one to be undertaken with care, objectivity, and a cautious legal standard designed to promote the value of life. But it is also a necessary function if all people are to be entitled to a personalized decision about life-prolonging procedures independent of the subjective and conflicting assessments of their friends and relatives.

It may be unfortunate that when families cannot agree, the best forum we can offer for this private, personal decision is a public courtroom and the best decision-maker we can provide is a judge with no prior knowledge of the ward, but the law currently provides no better solution that adequately protects the interests of promoting the value of life.

We have previously affirmed the guardianship court's decision in this regard, and we now affirm the denial of a motion for relief from that judgment. At the conclusion of our first opinion, we stated:

In the final analysis, the difficult question that faced the trial court was whether Theresa Marie Schindler Schiavo, not after a few weeks in a coma, but after ten years in a persistent vegetative state that has robbed her of most of her cerebrum and all but the most instinctive of neurological functions, with no hope of a medical cure but with sufficient money and strength of body to live indefinitely, would choose to continue the constant nursing care and the supporting tubes in hopes that a miracle would somehow recreate her missing brain tissue, or whether she would wish to permit a natural death process to take its course and for her family members and loved ones to be free to continue their lives. After due consideration, we conclude that the trial judge had clear and convincing evidence to answer this question as he did.

Schiavo I, 780 So. 2d at 180. Nothing in these proceedings has changed this conclusion. The extensive additional medical testimony in this record only confirms once again the guardianship court's initial decision.

------------------------------------------------------------

I am not a lawyer First_Salute but I can read English as well as any lawyer that I know thanks to an excellent public school education that is no longer available.

What this Appellate Court has said is that since there is no consensus among the family members indicating clear and convincing evidence of Terri's wishes, the courts will play God and make the decision for the family.

It is astounding. The reasoning of the Appellate Court is that since there is no clear and convincing evidence as witnessed by the various family members, the STATE will decide who lives and dies. Breathtaking in its scope when one really reads this stuff.

Torie, what say you? I trust you're opinion implicitly. Am I reading this wrong or right?

Here is the most recent Appellate Court decision.

Here are three affidavits Greer would not allow into evidence...

Affidavits are almost never allowed as evidence; did the Schindlers seek to call the affiants to the stand?

cpforlife.org

In your original post, above, your information states:

1. Dr. Hammesfahr, of HAMMESFAHR NEUROLOGICAL INSTITUTE. http://www.hni-online.com/ emphatically stated that the neck spinal injury this patient incurred was by Strangulation. Schiavo's attorney avoided challenging Dr. Hammesfahr's strangulation statement. Proof of those statements below - video of the Dr saying it, along with saying that with therapy, her condition can improve. http://www.floridaneurologicalinstitute.com/schiavo_channel10_may7,8,2001.htm Debi, there are 5 video and audio clips. They total more than 20 MB's so they wouldn't be practical to email. All are available at the address above.

I listened to and watched all the audio and video at that Channel 10 News link. There is no information there about Dr. Hammesfahr stating anything about "Strangulation."

However, at Schindler's attorney Pat Anderson to appear on Fox News with reaction to Michael on Larry King --- posted at FR, Oct. 27, 2003, by amdgmary ---

Greta van Susteren interviews Mr. and Mrs. Robert Schindler's attorney, Pat Anderson ---

Reply 22, by FL_engineer ---

From Greta's "On the Record" - Schiavo segment - Monday, 27 oct 2003
(this was taped in the hour immediatly after the L.K.Live interview)

[snip]
Greta: Alright, um, is there ANY indications she had ANY head injuries from from any records there are... any physical injuries at all?

Anderson: There is a NOTATION that her neck was "rigid", and "stiff", and that her body was stiff, when she posit...[interrupted]

Greta: What does that mean? in the 40 seconds we have left, I'm sorry to do this time thing to you.

Anderson: Well, Dr. Hammesfahr, a neurologist who testified at a big evidenciary hearing last year, said HE had only seen ONE other neck THAT rigid, and that was in an attempted STRANGULATION victim. There's LOTS of questions about this case. LOTS of unanswered questions.

[snip]

Please note that, according to Atty. Anderson, Dr. Hammesfahr testified that "he had only seen one other neck that rigid, and that was in an attempted strangulation victim." Atty. Anderson did not state that Dr. Hammesfahr testified that his opinion was that Terri had been strangled.

Your take is correct, but that is long standing law. There is nothing new here. The key here is the assumption that the person in question has passed the point of no return as to sentience, and will beyond a reasonable doubt, never return. If that is the case, I agree with the decision, absent unusual evidence. Few of us would want our corpus kept alive by tubes with the mind gone forever to a moral certainty, absent strong religious convictions that demand otherwise. I assume that there is no such evidence in the record.

The point here is that the court is operating as a body with a medical power of attorney of last resort. I favor that as a matter of public policy.