Posted on 10/28/2003 5:44:59 AM PST by MVV
NATIONAL
For love or money? That's the question surrounding lawsuits in Florida that by the end of July may result in the death of Terri Schiavo, 37, a St. Petersburg woman institutionalized since February 1990 with severe brain damage.
It has been more than 11 years since Mrs. Schiavo suffered a heart attack at age 25. An eating disorder-related potassium imbalance triggered the seizure, squelching for five minutes the flow of oxygen to Mrs. Schiavo's brain. She suffered acute and permanent brain damage, and lost all speech and most cognitive ability. Initially, a neurologist classified Mrs. Schiavo as "PVS"—in a "persistent vegetative state," or "eyes-open" state of unconsciousness. Other doctors said such a diagnosis was premature.
For a decade Mrs. Schiavo, a dark-haired woman with large brown eyes, lived in a succession of hospitals and nursing homes. Today, she is confined to a tiny room with a slim bed, chest of drawers, and a single aluminum window at Woodside hospice in Largo, Fla., a secluded, pine-shaded facility where terminally ill people go to die. She receives food and water through a tube. But though her condition is considered "terminal" according to Florida statute, she is not terminally ill in the sense that she is actively dying. She also is not in PVS, according to her parents and others who visit her regularly.
"When we come to visit, she'll see us and laugh ear-to-ear," said Bob Schindler, Mrs. Schiavo's father. "Her mother will hug her goodbye and Terri will start to cry." Mrs. Schiavo often turns her head purposefully when people speak to her, according to affidavits filed this year by six neurologists. She makes guttural sounds that appear to be attempts at speech. She also opens her eyes during the day and closes them at night to sleep.
A total of nine neurologists have also stated that Terri Schiavo is not in PVS. "It is obvious to me that Ms. Schiavo is a viable human being who is at least semi-responsive to her environment," physician Richard Neubauer stated in a May 2001 affidavit. Dr. Neubauer is a recognized expert in hyperbaric oxygen therapy, a type of treatment he believes might improve Terri's condition. "She is not brain dead nor is she in a persistent vegetative state."
So why did a Florida appeals court on July 11 decide that Mrs. Schiavo should die sometime after July 20, unless a circuit court judge changes his mind? And why is Mrs. Schiavo at Woodside, a home for the terminally ill, in the first place? Because her husband Michael ordered her transferred there last year.
Mrs. Schiavo's trip to the hospice actually began in 1997, when Mr. Schiavo hired as his attorney George Felos, a yoga devotee and right-to-die specialist. Mr. Schiavo told Mr. Felos that before her attack, his wife had given him an "oral living will," telling him that if she ever were radically incapacitated, she would not want to be kept alive by artificial means. Terri Schiavo is not hooked to any heroic lifesaving devices, but Mr. Felos had in 1990 successfully argued before the Florida Supreme Court that tube-feeding constitutes artificial life support. In 1997, Mr. Felos filed with the Pinellas County Circuit Court, on Michael Schiavo's behalf, a petition asking that doctors withdraw Mrs. Schiavo's food and water.
When Mrs. Schiavo's parents Bob and Mary Schindler learned of the petition three months later, they were devastated. Since 1993, they had locked legal horns with Michael Schiavo over their daughter's future and his use of medical funds set aside for her care. That year, he'd cut off the Schindlers' access to her medical records. In addition, he refused to allow any physicians to examine her without his specific approval. To block Mr. Schiavo's attempt to end her life, the parents filed an objection to his petition.
The Schindlers charged that Mr. Schiavo was in a hurry to bury their daughter so he could inherit $700,000 in medical funds that remained from a 1992 malpractice settlement won on Mrs. Schiavo's behalf—and marry the woman he'd been engaged to for five years.
But when the life-support petition went to trial in 2000, Judge George Greer ruled that neither Mr. Schiavo's financial interests nor his love life were relevant to the case. Doctors testifying on Michael Schiavo's behalf called his wife's apparently conscious responses—laughing, crying, turning toward visitors—"reflexes." Mr. Schiavo and two of his relatives testified that Mrs. Schiavo had made statements to them, when healthy, about not wanting to be hooked up to machines.
On Feb. 11, 2000, Judge Greer granted Mr. Schiavo's petition to terminate his wife's life. On April 24, 2001, after both the Florida and U.S. Supreme Courts had rebuffed the Schindlers' appeals, Woodside caregivers removed Mrs. Schiavo's feeding tube—her only source of nutrition—and for 60 hours she slipped slowly toward her grave. But on April 26, the death march abruptly ceased. Frank Quesada, another circuit court judge, ordered feeding resumed after the Schindlers presented evidence that Mr. Schiavo had lied about his wife's "oral living will."
It is no surprise that Mrs. Schiavo, a severely disabled but apparently aware human being, should be targeted for death. Beginning in the 1980s, bioethicists—some of whom have no medical training and no objective moral anchor—began to debate the emerging "ethical problem" that disabled and frail elderly people were living too long. Wesley J. Smith, an attorney for the Anti-Euthanasia Task Force, shows in Culture of Death (Encounter Books, 2000) that some argued that patients who couldn't feed themselves had descended to a subhuman moral rank with a "quality of life" no longer worth sustaining. Withdrawing food and water from such "un-people" would be the same as withdrawing, say, artificial respiration from patients who could not breathe on their own.
Many doctors and theologians disagreed that administering nutrition to a patient amounts to artificial life support. Theologian Paul Ramsey, for example, argued that withholding food from an actively dying patient who could no longer assimilate food and water could be humane. But withholding nutrition to cause death is wrong because it is not based on the patient's actual medical needs, but rather on the perceived moral worth of a human life.
Despite such objections, the slippery ethical slope rapidly became an established beachhead. Dehydrating disabled people to death, a practice that seemed barbaric only two decades ago, today is legal in all 50 states. Among those patients most commonly targeted are those profoundly disabled—people like Terri Schiavo.
Though Michael Schiavo claims today that his wife said she would not want to live cognitively disabled, receiving food through a tube, he apparently forgot that statement when, on Nov. 5, 1992, he sat in the witness box in Courtroom B of the Pinellas County Courthouse in Clearwater, Fla. From behind a wooden railing to his left, six jurors could see that he was a blond young man, tall and strong, but with blue eyes drawn with grief. It had been nearly three years since Mrs. Schiavo's heart attack. While she lay institutionalized at Mediplex, a nearby rehabilitation facility, her husband's attorneys laid out for the jury in Courtroom B a malpractice case against Stephen Igel, a Pinellas County doctor Mr. Schiavo said could have prevented his wife's seizure.
Mr. Schiavo's then-attorney Glenn Woodworth let the jury know that his client had enrolled in nursing school to learn to care for his wife, and that he wanted to care for her at home. "If you had the resources available to you," Mr. Woodworth asked, alluding in part to any malpractice award the jury might grant, "if you had the equipment and the people, would you do that?"
"Yes, I would—in a heartbeat," Mr. Schiavo replied. "She's my life and I wouldn't trade her for the world." Grief closed Mr. Schiavo's throat and he seemed unable to go on. He bowed his head while Mr. Woodworth asked the judge to grant a moment of pause. Then, collecting himself, Mr. Schiavo continued haltingly: "I believe in the vows that I took with my wife, through sickness, in health, for richer or poorer. I married my wife because I love her and I want to spend the rest of my life with her. I'm going to do that."
On Nov. 10, 1992, the jury awarded Michael and Terri Schiavo nearly $2 million for damages, future rehabilitation, and medical care. Three months later, Michael Schiavo received the money. Four months after that, he made his first attempt to end his wife's life.
Shortly after receiving the malpractice money, Mr. Schiavo moved Mrs. Schiavo from the Mediplex rehab facility to Sabal Palms nursing home. There, he added a "Do Not Resuscitate" order to his wife's medical record and in July directed caregivers to withhold from her antibiotics needed to treat a urinary tract infection. He knew, he later said in a deposition, that his wife would likely develop sepsis—poisoning of the bloodstream—and die. Nursing home employees refused to comply, saying such an act would be illegal.
The Schindlers contend that Mr. Schiavo's attempt to end his wife's life so soon after pleading with a malpractice jury for money to pay for her care and rehabilitation show that he either misled the jury or is lying to the court now about Mrs. Schiavo's "oral living will." If she said she would not want her life sustained by artificial means, why would Mr. Schiavo sue for her long-term care? If he sued hoping his wife would recover, but now wants to disconnect her feeding tube because she has not progressed during the past eight years, why did he try to end her life just four months after receiving the funds to rehabilitate her?
Most Florida newspapers downplay Mr. Schiavo's two adulterous relationships during his wife's ordeal. (Attorney George Felos objected to WORLD's use of the word adultery. Is it so awful, he asked, "that a young man who lost his wife might seek comfort in the arms of another woman?") Mr. Schiavo has admitted affairs with a Cindy Brashers during the 1992 malpractice trial and with a Jodi Centonze soon afterwards. Mr. Schiavo is now engaged to Jodi Centonze.
WORLD asked Mr. Felos why, if Mr. Schiavo really isn't after his wife's medical fund money as the Schindlers charge, his client doesn't simply divorce his wife and marry Miss Centonze? "He wants to carry out his wife's wishes not to be kept alive artificially," Mr. Felos said. "He's afraid the Schindlers won't do that."
The media portray the Schindlers as well-meaning but unreasonable parents who don't know when to let go. Mary Schindler manages a Hallmark store in St. Petersburg Beach. Bob Schindler, a former distributor and engineer, made the decision last year to resign from his job so that he could devote his full attention to his daughter's case. The two are practicing Roman Catholics. "We're fighting for Terri's life to the end," he said. "Any parent would."
All the fighting, it seems, has been uphill. The Schindlers, for example, had little money to pay attorneys and no money to hire or depose expert witnesses for the 2000 life-support trial. Meanwhile, using the fund meant for his wife's care, Mr. Schiavo has paid George Felos at least $200,000 to expedite her death.
During the 2000 trial, neurologist James Barnhill testified on behalf of Mr. Schiavo about Mrs. Schiavo's condition. Based on his review of her CAT scans, he told the court that most of her brain was destroyed, replaced by scar tissue and spinal fluid, leaving her no hope of recovery. But Florida neurologist William Hammesfahr, in a June 2001 affidavit, stated that his own review of Mrs. Schiavo's CAT scans revealed significant, viable brain tissue. "The CAT scan readings or MRI readings of Ms. Schiavo's brain were misrepresented to the court during the trial in January 2000," Dr. Hammesfahr said.
Mr. Schiavo declined to be interviewed for this article and has not allowed new doctors to examine Mrs. Schiavo in person. On June 25, 2001, Tampa Bay television reporter Laura McElroy asked him why: "There's six doctors who say that they could help Terri. Why not let them examine her?" Mr. Schiavo responded, "That would be up to the judge." Ms. McElroy asked, "But would you like to see Terri improve if there's that possibility?" He responded, "Ah, Terri has been through years and years of rehabilitation. There's no more improvement for Terri."
Michael Schiavo is his wife's sole medical guardian; he needs no judge to approve a doctor's visit, according to Pat Anderson, the parents' lawyer. Further, Ms. Anderson said her office's "painstaking review" of Mrs. Schiavo's medical records revealed "no evidence of systematic, proper rehabilitation efforts. We do, however, find instances where Mrs. Schiavo's physicians recommended physical and occupational therapy, and her husband would not permit it."
Neither would Judge George Greer permit Ms. Anderson to submit new evidence that surfaced the day after Mrs. Schiavo's feeding was stopped. On April 25, 2001, a St. Petersburg deejay batted the Schiavo case around on a radio call-in program. One listener who called in was Cindy Brashers Shook, the woman with whom Mr. Schiavo had a 1992 affair. Mrs. Shook, now married, portrayed Mr. Schiavo in a negative light.
The Schindlers heard about the call and, with their daughter's dehydration already underway, immediately called a private investigator, who interviewed Mrs. Shook. She told the investigator that during their relationship Mr. Schiavo said things like, "How the hell do I know what to do?" about his wife: He and his wife were young, the conversations went; they hadn't been married that long, and had never discussed such life-and-death topics.
On April 26, two days after Terri Schiavo's feeding tube was removed, Pat Anderson contacted Judge Greer. Mrs. Shook's statement, she told him, was evidence that Mr. Schiavo fabricated his wife's "oral living will." But Judge Greer said more than a year had passed since the 2000 trial, and it was too late for new evidence. Within an hour, Ms. Anderson filed a new lawsuit before Judge Frank Quesada, charging Mr. Schiavo with perjury. Judge Quesada ordered Mrs. Schiavo's feeding resumed. Mr. Felos then threw a legal counterpunch by asking a Florida appeals court to enforce Judge Greer's original mandate, and have Terri Schiavo put to death by removing her feeding tube.
Last week, the appeals court issued its opinion: The panel affirmed Judge Greer's denial of new evidence, and reversed Judge Quesada's injunction to resume feeding Mrs. Schiavo. But the panel also denied Mr. Felos's motion to enforce Judge Greer's life-support removal mandate, and directed Judge Greer to delay such enforcement until after July 20. The court applied a narrowly construed rule to the case that permits a party to challenge a judgment regardless of time limitations when "it is no longer equitable that the judgment or decree" be applied.
Bob and Mary Schindler have until July 20 to prove that it is "no longer equitable" that their daughter should be dehydrated until dead.
It has NOT been so proven. Her husband and the judge refuse to allow her to be tested, even though Florida law requires it be done every six months for someone on a feeding tube.
The court had been offered a taped incident, but that incident has not and can not apparently be repeated for the court or court appointed Physician.
The judge refused to look at any tapes.
The judge ordered five doctors to give findings. Two were paid by Terri's "family", two by Terri's husband and one court ordered neutral. The findings were conclusive, Terri is in a vegetated state and can not improve.
The doctors disagreed with each other. And the one who was neutral, wasn't. He has a personal relationship with George Felos.
With all that was posted, some people do not read a thing more than they care to know. They seem to prefer to wallow in the pits of the half-truths, to perhaps rid themselves of some hidden guilt they might have.
How funny. What a perfect description of you, based on your posts on the Terri threads.
PERFECT DESCRIPTION!
I was just wondering if that happened. We've heard that Terri was unhappy in her marriage, was going to go out dancing.
I don't think she would have gone dancing without Michael without his having done something like that.,
We do know that Schiavo ordered that Terri receive no dental care for years.
I wonder if the hospice where Schiavo is warehousing Terri has any specialized equipment for bathing disabled patients?
Since hospices are intended to be places where people live only a couple of weeks, you wonder what kind of long-term care facilities they have.
A hospice is a totally inappropriate place for Terri.
You don't read too well, do you ?"When we come to visit, she'll see us and laugh ear-to-ear," said Bob Schindler, Mrs. Schiavo's father. "Her mother will hug her goodbye and Terri will start to cry." Mrs. Schiavo often turns her head purposefully when people speak to her, according to affidavits filed this year by six neurologists. She makes guttural sounds that appear to be attempts at speech. She also opens her eyes during the day and closes them at night to sleep.
A total of nine neurologists have also stated that Terri Schiavo is not in PVS. "It is obvious to me that Ms. Schiavo is a viable human being who is at least semi-responsive to her environment," physician Richard Neubauer stated in a May 2001 affidavit. Dr. Neubauer is a recognized expert in hyperbaric oxygen therapy, a type of treatment he believes might improve Terri's condition. "She is not brain dead nor is she in a persistent vegetative state."
Though Michael Schiavo claims today that his wife said she would not want to live cognitively disabled, receiving food through a tube, he apparently forgot that statement when, on Nov. 5, 1992, he sat in the witness box in Courtroom B of the Pinellas County Courthouse in Clearwater, Fla. From behind a wooden railing to his left, six jurors could see that he was a blond young man, tall and strong, but with blue eyes drawn with grief. It had been nearly three years since Mrs. Schiavo's heart attack. While she lay institutionalized at Mediplex, a nearby rehabilitation facility, her husband's attorneys laid out for the jury in Courtroom B a malpractice case against Stephen Igel, a Pinellas County doctor Mr. Schiavo said could have prevented his wife's seizure.
Mr. Schiavo's then-attorney Glenn Woodworth let the jury know that his client had enrolled in nursing school to learn to care for his wife, and that he wanted to care for her at home.
"If you had the resources available to you," Mr. Woodworth asked, alluding in part to any malpractice award the jury might grant, "if you had the equipment and the people, would you do that?"
"Yes, I would—in a heartbeat," Mr. Schiavo replied. "She's my life and I wouldn't trade her for the world." Grief closed Mr. Schiavo's throat and he seemed unable to go on. He bowed his head while Mr. Woodworth asked the judge to grant a moment of pause. Then, collecting himself, Mr. Schiavo continued haltingly: "I believe in the vows that I took with my wife, through sickness, in health, for richer or poorer. I married my wife because I love her and I want to spend the rest of my life with her. I'm going to do that."
On Nov. 10, 1992, the jury awarded Michael and Terri Schiavo nearly $2 million for damages, future rehabilitation, and medical care. Three months later, Michael Schiavo received the money. Four months after that, he made his first attempt to end his wife's life.
Shortly after receiving the malpractice money, Mr. Schiavo moved Mrs. Schiavo from the Mediplex rehab facility to Sabal Palms nursing home. There, he added a "Do Not Resuscitate" order to his wife's medical record and in July directed caregivers to withhold from her antibiotics needed to treat a urinary tract infection. He knew, he later said in a deposition, that his wife would likely develop sepsis—poisoning of the bloodstream—and die. Nursing home employees refused to comply, saying such an act would be illegal.
The Schindlers contend that Mr. Schiavo's attempt to end his wife's life so soon after pleading with a malpractice jury for money to pay for her care and rehabilitation show that he either misled the jury or is lying to the court now about Mrs. Schiavo's "oral living will." If she said she would not want her life sustained by artificial means, why would Mr. Schiavo sue for her long-term care? If he sued hoping his wife would recover, but now wants to disconnect her feeding tube because she has not progressed during the past eight years, why did he try to end her life just four months after receiving the funds to rehabilitate her?
During the 2000 trial, neurologist James Barnhill testified on behalf of Mr. Schiavo about Mrs. Schiavo's condition. Based on his review of her CAT scans, he told the court that most of her brain was destroyed, replaced by scar tissue and spinal fluid, leaving her no hope of recovery. But Florida neurologist William Hammesfahr, in a June 2001 affidavit, stated that his own review of Mrs. Schiavo's CAT scans revealed significant, viable brain tissue. "The CAT scan readings or MRI readings of Ms. Schiavo's brain were misrepresented to the court during the trial in January 2000," Dr. Hammesfahr said.
Mr. Schiavo declined to be interviewed for this article and has not allowed new doctors to examine Mrs. Schiavo in person. On June 25, 2001, Tampa Bay television reporter Laura McElroy asked him why: "There's six doctors who say that they could help Terri. Why not let them examine her?" Mr. Schiavo responded, "That would be up to the judge." Ms. McElroy asked, "But would you like to see Terri improve if there's that possibility?" He responded, "Ah, Terri has been through years and years of rehabilitation. There's no more improvement for Terri."
I am on a short schedule today, but here is some of the information I pieced together, from a substantial amount received from another forum member for review, regarding Richard Pearse, Attorney at Law who was Guardian Ad Litem (GAL) for Terri Schiavo at one time. Late tonight I will address all this information in full - Ed--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In Short - WHAT IS GOING ON HERE?!:
Everyone is talking about a new appointed GAL, when the previous GAL's findings were totally ignored. What is this, a "fish until you win" venture on the part of George Felos and his client Michael Schiavo!?
GAL Richard L. Pearse, Jr., Attorney at Law was suddenly dismissed after filing his report in which he stated that it was his opinion that
(1). Michael Schiavo was not a suitable guardian due to his standing to gain financially and
(2). The possibility of rehabilitation for Terri was too great to advocate any kind of Exit Protocol.
George Felos is the one who asked for a GAL in the first place! Felos doesn't like what he hears so he gets Judge Greer, who is legally blind per news reports, to totally quash this experts testimony. THIS IS CRAZY!
ATTORNEY PEARSE NEEDS TO BE CONTACTED IMMEDIATELY - HE IS EASY TO CONTACT PER BELOW:
October 24, 2003 - News Article
An independent guardian has not served in the Schiavo case since 1999, when Clearwater attorney Richard Pearse Jr. issued a report recommending Michael Schiavo not be allowed to disconnect Terri Schiavo's feeding tube among a number of other matters.
PEARSE SAID IN AN INTERVIEW LAST WEEK HE MADE THAT DETERMINATION BECAUSE MICHAEL SCHIAVO STOOD TO BENEFIT FINANCIALLY FROM HIS WIFE'S DEATH BY INHERITING ABOUT $750,000 IN A MEDICAL TRUST FUND.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HERE'S SOME PIECED TOGETHER INFO: - Some information is repetitive
--
RICHARD, L PEARSE, JR - FLORIDA ATTORNEY AT LAW,
GUARDIAN AD LITEM FOR TERRI SCHIAVO - AT ONE POINT IN THIS LITIGATION
In June 1998, soon after Michael asked the court for permission to remove Terri's feeding tube, the court appointed Richard L. Pearse, Jr. Attorney at Law as Terri's Guardian Ad Litem (GAL). Pearse's job was to investigate the facts of Terri's case and represent her interests in court. He issued a 10-page report in Dec. 1998 on his finding, and also in January 2000 testified on his findings before Judge Greer.
Ironically, at the beginning of the case in 1998, it was Attorney George Felos who requested an independent guardian for Terri Schiavo and recommended Richard Pearse Jr, Attorney at Law.
At a January 2000 trial, Pearse concluded that he had not found clear and convincing evidence that Terri would have rejected life support. He said she should be kept alive and questioned Michael Schiavo's credibility.
Pearse urged in no uncertain terms that the petition for removing the feeding tube be denied. He made it clear that he did not believe Schiavo's sudden recollection of Terri's wishes.
Pearse stated: "Regarding the pending petition filed by Mr. Michael Schiavo to withdraw the gastric feeding tube which sustains the ward (Terri), (ward = Terri throughout) Mr. Schiavo claims that the ward (Terri) told him after their marriage that she would not want to be kept alive artificially."
Pearse wrote, "Mr. Schiavo indicated strongly to me (Attorney Pearse) that his petition to withdraw life support has nothing to do with the money held in the guardianship estate, which he would inherit upon the ward's (Terri's) death as her sole heir-in-law."
Pearce continued: "The only direct evidence probative of the issue of the ward's (Terri's) intent is Mr. Schiavo's hearsay testimony regarding removal the ward's feeding tube which would inevitably result in her death" However, his credibility is necessarily adversely affected by the obvious financial benefit to him in the event of her death while still married to him. Her death also permits him to "get on" with his life, as Mr. Schiavo stated during questioning."
Per Attorney Pearse's Report - "Since there is no corroborative evidence of the ward's (Terri's) intentions, and since the only witness claiming to have such evidence is the one person who will realize a direct and substantial financial benefit from the ward's death, the undersigned guardian ad litem is of the opinion that the evidence of the ward's (Terri's) intentions developed by the investigation, DOES NOT MEET THE CLEAR AND CONVINCING STANDARD." <-VERY IMPORTANT LEGAL WORDS - ED
In his report, Pearse said Michael Schiavo was not a credible witness to his wife's end-of-life wishes because he waited years before coming forward with the claim that she wanted to die. Pearse also noted that Michael Schiavo would benefit financially from her death and be able to "move on with his life" in Mr Schiavo's words.
Pearse stated that after Michael Schiavo received the malpractice settlement, "HE HAS A CHANGE OF HEART CONCERNING FURTHER TREATMENT OF HIS WIFE." Pearse, noting that Schiavo would benefit financially if his wife died, recommended that the feeding tube remain.
That Michael Schiavo's attitude and actions changed as soon as the money from the malpractice suit was in the bank (Feb. 1993) was not lost in Pearse's Expert Court Appointed Review. - (News Report Comment)
Per Attorney Pearse - "From that point forward, the ward's husband has isolated the ward from her parents, has on at least one occasion refused to consent for the ward to be treated for a urinary tract infection (in the hopes that she would die), and, ultimately, four years later, has filed the instant petition for the withdrawal of life support on the basis of evidence apparently known only to him which could have been asserted at any time during the ward's illness," he said.
Attorney Pearse said he was "troubled by the fact that Michael waited until 1998 to petition to remove the feeding tube, even though he claims to have known her wishes all along, and that he waited until he won a malpractice suit based on a professed desire to take care of her into old age".
Pearse continued: As her husband, Michael would inherit what is left of her malpractice award, originally $700,000, which is held in a trust fund administered by the court. Accounting of the fund is sealed. BUT MICHAEL'S LAWYER, GEORGE FELOS, SAID MOST OF IT HAS BEEN SPENT ON LEGAL FEES ASSOCIATED WITH THE CUSTODY DISPUTE.
Pearse also said he did not find Joan and Scott Schiavo's testimony credible.<<<<<<<<<<<<<
* * INTERESTING - By the time the case came to trial in Jan. 2000, Michael Schiavo had found two witnesses to corroborate his version of Terri's wishes: Scott Schiavo, his brother, and Joan Schiavo, a sister-in-law. When Pearse initially became involved in 1998 Michael had NO OTHER WITNESSES TO HIS STORY * * .
Pearse stated "One of the interesting and ironic aspects of this case is that all of the parties have portrayed themselves as representing her interests," he said. "It's always desirable that a person in Terri's position have an independent representative who has no particular interest in the case other than Terri." (THIS IS STANDARD JUDICIAL PROCEDURE IN CASES LIKE THIS - PARTICULARLY WITH THE LACK OF AGREEMENT BETWEEN FAMILY MEMBERS. - Ed)
Pearse recommended that a guardian ad litem (not necessarily himself) be appointed to protect Terri's interests on a go-forward basis.
Charging Pearse was "biased", Felos promptly had Pearse removed as guardian ad litem. No one was appointed in his place by Judge Greer.
GEORGE FELOS RECOMMENDED A GUARDIAN AD LITEM IN THE FIRST PLACE. FELOS DIDN'T LIKE WHAT THE EXPERT WITNESS ATTORNEY PEARSE HAD TO SAY, THEN HAD JUDGE GREER REMOVE PEARSE AND NULLIFY THIS EXPERT WITNESSES TESTIMONY - IS THIS DUE PROCESS AND PROPER ETHICAL STANDARDS REQUIRED OF A FLORIDA JUDGE ?! WHAT IS GOING ON HERE! - ED
Greer accepted their testimony as "creditable and reliable." .......(This is inferior to "clear and convincing" required in Attorney Pearse's expert report, and clearly would have been the prudent requirement under Florida Law for the Judge to require in these unusual circumstances - Ed.
Judge Greer also dismissed the criticism that "Michael Schiavo has not acted in good faith by waiting eight plus years" to file his petition. "THAT ASSERTION HARDLY SEEMS WORTHY OF COMMENT," GREER SAID.
GREER RULED IN MICHAEL SCHIAVO'S FAVOR.
Other Added Info:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pearse stated in this report: "Since there is no corroborative evidence of the ward's (Terri's) intentions, and since the only witness claiming to have such evidence is the one person who will realize a direct and substantial financial benefit from the ward's death, the undersigned guardian ad litem is of the opinion that the evidence of the ward's intentions developed by the investigation, DOES NOT MEET THE CLEAR AND CONVINCING STANDARD."<- THESE ARE VERY IMPORTANT LEGAL WORDS - ED
VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV
The Schindlers had contacted a woman Michael dated in 1991 who told them Michael had confessed to her he did not know what Terri would want. Although the woman refused to sign an affidavit, it bought the Schindlers some time.
And with it, they found Trudy Capone.
A former co-worker of Michael's, Capone signed an affidavit on May 9, 2001, stating "Michael confided in me all the time about Terri ... He said to me many times that he had no idea what her wishes were."
Attorney Patricia Anderson, who began representing the Schindlers in 2001, said the failure to replace Pearse has hindered the parents' case because Michael Schiavo, as Terri's legal guardian, controls her medical care and even her visitors.
The parents' hands are tied in terms of what evidence they could present," she said, "because they didn't have access to Terri. They're not even permitted to know if she's been running a temperature. If a guardian ad litem had been appointed, it would have been a different story."
276 posted on 10/26/2003 8:27 PM EST by pc93 (A good site to visit is http://www.terrisfight.org . Oct. 15th 2pm death order must be stopped)
ping. Can you look into this and ping the others who are working on the legal aspects of this case, please? I can't remember all their screen names, but there are at least two others.
If she is cognizant within her body, she can learn, pray, and "be" with those who love her. She is a child of God like any other disabled person and deserves a chance at life. At the very least, she should be given a chance at rehab before we pronounce her a vegetable.
If she is not cognizant within her body, then there is no pain in her death or her life. If we assume she is "brain dead" and then kill her, it is irreversible. If we assume she is alive in there and preserve her, the decision can be reversed at any time.
Erring on the side of life in this case is the only logical solution.
Deep_6: With all that was posted, some people do not read a thing more than they care to know.
I couldn't have said it better myself.
You are very brave.
Just move on MS and let Terri be a peace with her family, who loves her. That SOB had the nerve to claim that his "fiance" cared more for Terri than her own mother, can you believe that jerk? I was outraged.
FReegards.
Let's forget Mr. Schiavo, The Schindlers and anything they've
said. Let's instead look closely at the attending physician's
reports, the court appointed physician's report and Terri's
condition 13 years ago and now.
It would be conclusive. Heartbreaking, but conclusive. Terri's
cerebral cortex is gone and it isn't coming back. Without it,
there is no hope for any recovery whatsoever.
Why in hell are people arguing? She would have been dead
13 years ago if it hadn't been for the insertion of the tubes that
keep her alive. They were not affixed to her as a permanent
device, but to give time to properly diagnose and assess the
damage. The Schindlers fought each attempt to remove those
tubes, continuing this madness for 13 years.
If she was destined to "get better", she had 13 years to do
so. I can understand love for one's child and/or spouse, but
Terri's soul has been entrapped for 13 years. Let the
poor thing move on.
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.