Terri's Fight - (Daily Thread/Updates) November 14-18

Isn't that great? I love it.

I tried the Bernie McCabe email and it was returned to me.

Most Americans still have never heard of Terri and those who have think she is "in a coma." It's hard to convince Americans of truth.

You are exactly right! Most people I talk to think she is in a coma, as you stated. I don't understand why Fox doesn't do a better job with Terri's case?

Dr. John Young, left, Dr. William Maxfield, Robert Schindler Sr. and Dr. William Hammesfahr spoke to the media Friday. "This woman is not in a persistent vegetative state," Young said.

Correct. She is alert, aware, responsive to most forms of stimuli, swallows.

Dr. Maxfield's testimony refuting the earlier "no brain" testimony of Dr. Barnhill is extremely interesting. As some of you may know, traumatic brain injury is not a permanent state in all cases. Brain tissue regenerates. Depending on the degree of injury and location, some are able to advance into semi independent life styles over a period of years with rehab.

Dr. Maxfield trained at Baylor and Johns Hopkins. Worked at Hopkins and Oschner Foundation and head of radiology dept at LSU. 49 years as a radiologist. "Invented medicine," as we say.

He testified that Terri has brain tissue in all major structures of her brain. Says the most severe damage is in her occipital region and probably her eyesight is affected. Says it is possible for her to retain memories, as she still has tissue in that part of her brain. Remember, Felos says there is nothing in the cerebral cortex.

And finally....he detects a change FOR THE BETTER between her 96 and 02 CT scans, which he attributes to the body's natural tendency to heal itself.

Thus sayeth Dr. Maxfield, the most qualified of all 6 docs to read those scans.

ag@oag.state.fl.us, jwolfson@hsc.usf.edu, berniemccabe@fdle.state.fl.us, guytunnell@fdle.state.fl.us,Jeb.Bush@MyFlorida.com

I believe he wants her dead because she may remember something or an examination of her body will tell what actually happened to cause her condition.

yep

Potassium is essential to maintaining a normal heart rhythm, and is responsible for the conduction of nerve impulses and muscle contraction. The ratio of potassium outside the cell to that inside the cell maintains polarity, allowing an electrical charge to conduct along a row of cells, causing the heart to beat.

Most types of chemical imbalance start to produce severe symptoms long before they cause cardiac arrest or other failure. Are you familiar with cases in the medical literature where a potassium deficiency has resulted in cardiac arrest without causing other severe symptoms first?

I tried the Bernie McCabe email and it was returned to me.

Most have gone through that I have heard. Keep trying. Maybe his servers are log jammed....yes!

Are you familiar with cases in the medical literature where a potassium deficiency has resulted in cardiac arrest without causing other severe symptoms first?

BINGO.....I swear, that was MS in the flesh yesterday.....daylate
Talk, tone used, same words, name calling, arrogant, abusive

Another thing we keep forgetting to stress: Schiavo would not allow her to be spoon fed after the feeding tube was removed. She might could have eaten yogurt, gelatin, sipped liquids. George W. Greer also went along with NO FOOD or WATER of any kind for her even though they knew that she might be able to eat and drink some. This is murder in the State of FL. Where is Agatha Christie when we need her to inform the public?

You try it and see what happens. I couldn't get my email thru him. Hoping it's crammed and jammed.

She might could have eaten yogurt, gelatin, sipped liquids. George W. Greer also went along with NO FOOD or WATER of any kind for her even though they knew that she might be able to eat and drink some.

Care givers have testified that they have fed her, she handles secretions well, no aspiration. SHE SWALLOWS.

More garbage a la Baird:

Judge calls Terri's Law intrusive

Amazing that a judge can make statements betraying his predetermination about the case and yet he is still deemed fit to hear it. Disgusting.

I emailed Bernie McCabe about 45 minutes ago and my email has not been returned. The email address I used is:

berniemccabe@fdle.state.fl.us

Are you familiar with cases in the medical literature where a potassium deficiency has resulted in cardiac arrest without causing other severe symptoms first?

BINGO.....I swear, that was MS in the flesh yesterday.....daylate

Actually, it was a serious question. If Daylate knows the answer and would be kind enough to share it, it could be illuminating.

I know that in my wife's case, there were symptoms which should have led a doctor to diagnose and treat her condition (progressive blood clot in the lung) before it became fatal, and had I been so inclined I probably could have successfully brought a wrongful-death lawsuit on that basis. But did such warnings exist in Terri's case?

You try it and see what happens. I couldn't get my email thru him. Hoping it's crammed and jammed.

All of mine have gone through. I will pen something and send.
Mine have all gone through
BERNIEMCCABE@FDLE.STATE.FL.US

Coleman v. Felos--Full Text of Opening Remarks

Tiger Bay Club - November 14, 2003
Coleman v. Felos:

Opening Statement of Diane Coleman on Terri Schiavo Case

You've been hearing for a long time that the only opposition in this
case is coming from the religious right. But a dozen national
disability groups filed friend of the court briefs in the state and
federal proceedings, and in the last month, 25 national disability
rights groups have adopted a statement in favor of feeding Terri
Schiavo. Surely, it will not be argued that the National Spinal Cord
Injury Association, the National Downs Syndrome Congress, the
Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund and all the rest, are now
or ever have been puppets of religious conservatives. So why have all
these groups come forward? Because we don't think guardians should
have carte blanche to starve and dehydrate people in guardianship,
people with severe brain injury, birth defects and Alzheimers. Many
of us had hoped that the appellate courts would come through, uphold the
limits on guardians that tens of thousands of people depend on.
Unfortunately, we've been disappointed that the higher courts instead
upheld a lower court
judge who ignored much of the evidence and, more importantly, ignored
constitutional standards for evaluating that evidence. Nor
is it reassuring that the press releases, legal briefs, opinion pieces
and letters issued by disability groups have pretty much been ignored in
the public debate about this case, ignored by both conservatives and
liberals. We applaud the Tiger Bay Club for wanting its members to
consider the disability perspective.

But why should you care what we think? If you don't buy the pro-life
puppets argument, then you might also hear that our concerns are at
best misguided, or perhaps even paranoid. Recently, a reporter asked
me if someone like me has anything in common with Terri Schiavo. I
just turned 50, joined AARP, and I know I might someday get Alzheimers,
or have a stroke. Temporarily or long term, any one
of us might someday be unable to make and/or communicate our wishes.
If you don't have a living will or health care proxy, a guardian will be
designated for you by operation of law, like in Terri Schiavo's case,
and there's a hierarchy spelled out in state law. It doesn't take
into
account things like the U.S. Surgeon General's report that the
overwhelming majority of elder abuse and neglect is perpetrated by
the spouse or adult child, who also happen to be priority statutory
guardians. You might also be interested to know that if you don't
have any relatives willing or able to be your guardian, then you get a
public guardian, employed by the government. And guardianship laws
haven't taken into account the financial pressures, and even conflicts
of interest, involved with public guardians.

If doctors don't think you're up to making your own decisions, they'll
explain your condition, and tell your guardian that he or she is
permitted to exercise your right to refuse treatment. This may
include refusing a
feeding tube if you're not in a condition to feed yourself. When it
comes to feeding tubes, I need to point out a few facts. First, they
were invented in the 1800's. About a month ago, the NY Times ran an
article about how people with dementia were being put on feeding tubes,
not because they couldn't eat orally, but because about 20% of folks in
nursing homes need help to eat, and there are staffing shortages.
And,
according to another recent study, people with dementia get put on
feeding tubes earlier in their disease process if they're
African-American, in an urban setting and in a for-profit nursing
home.

People hope that we can always trust the health care system and our
guardians, acting in privacy, to do the right thing. Unfortunately,
human nature being what it is, sometimes there are mistakes, and
sometimes there are conflicts of interest. That's why there are
supposed to be standards governing the behavior of doctors and
guardians, and sometimes government needs to be involved to enforce
those standards and let everyone know that our society doesn't approve
of the medical killing of people who didn't ask for it, even if their
lives are seen by some as burdensome or meaningless or costly. The
constitution requires that a guardian's decision be based on written
documentation or other clear and convincing evidence of the person's
wishes. The question is, how are those standards working in our
health care system and our courts today?

You should think of disabled people as the canaries in the coal mine.
We spend a lot of time in the health care system. Twenty-
five national disability groups are coming forward because it is our
lived experience that, when a surrogate exercises their right to
refuse someone else's treatment, the safeguards against mistakes and
abuses are not working. Behind closed doors in hospitals,
hospices and nursing homes, conscious people with disabilities, old and
young, are being deprived of food and water, in the absence
of a living will or other clear and convincing evidence that they would
choose this for themselves. This is being done based on physicians'
predictions and judgments about present and future quality of life,
predictions and judgments that numerous research studies prove are
scientifically unreliable, negative and inconsistent with the views of
people with disabilities ourselves.

Disabled people also know that we can't count on the courts to protect
us against a doctor or family member who feels that we would be better
off dead or they would be better off without us.

Florida statutes limit a guardian's right to starve a person, but
provide an exception if the person is in a persistent vegetative state
(PVS).
PVS is strictly defined in Florida to mean NO evidence of
responsiveness. Medical journals report a 40% misdiagnosis rate for
PVS. UCLA neurology professor Michael Wienir is one of many
professionals who've publicly stated their opinion that Mrs. Schiavo
displayed at
least minimal consciousness based on the videos. Judge Greer admitted
the experts were divided, but ruled that she's in PVS anyway because her
responsive actions were not "consistent" or "reproducible." When he
ignored Florida's strict definition of PVS,
he violated Terri Schiavo's constitutional right to due process.

There's also conflicting evidence about what Mrs. Schiavo would have
wanted if she were considering her situation from the vantage
point she had prior to her disability. Basically, the husband's
hearsay evidence only came up after he won the big malpractice case,
with
none of the money going to professional rehabilitation therapy like he
said it would. This is not the kind of evidence of her wishes that
should be considered to meet constitutional due process standards and
that's what the first guardian ad litem reported. Disabled people
are not comforted that the court threw out his report and accepted such
flimsy and contradicted evidence to justify starvation of a disabled
woman who has no terminal disease.
But what is really horrible is that the appellate courts upheld these
unconstitutional decisions.
Until now, courts have said that conflicting
evidence and doubts should be resolved on the side of providing food and
water, and other ordinary medical care. After all, if the mistake
you make is to kill the person, you can't go back and fix it. That's
what this case is really about. It's one in a series of food and
water cases in which certain people are saying that the risk of error
should be reversed to favor death over life, so that people with
significant cognitive disabilities can be starved and dehydrated without
clear evidence that they themselves would refuse food and water. The
leading people that are saying this call themselves bioethicists, mostly
physicians and lawyers who write journal articles and speak at
conferences, opining about health care rationing and the coming wave of
aging baby boomers. But they talk to the press and the public about
autonomy and compassion. So why do they want to change the legal
standards now? Why make it
easier for guardians to refuse food and water on behalf of persons who
cannot speak for themselves? In a l983 article, reflecting on the
possible outcome of this food and water debate, Daniel Callahan, then
director of
the prestigious Hastings Center, wrote that "...a denial of nutrition,
may, in the long run, become the only effective way to make certain that
a
large number of biologically tenacious patients actually die." 65 He
further predicted, "Given the increasingly large pool of
superattennuated, chronically ill, physically marginal elderly, it could
well become the nontreatment of choice." [Daniel Callahan, "On Feeding
the Dying,"
Hastings Center Report, October 1983, p. 22.]

The Schiavo case should be seen as a wake up call for all of us. This
case is about officially and permanently dismantling the constitutional
rights of people who have guardians and giving carte blanche to
guardians to starve and dehydrate people who are seen as not worth the
effort or expense. Disability rights groups are coming forward to
argue that it's
time to reestablish constitutional protections against a health care
system that's been putting profits before people for far too long. I
said that we're the canaries in the coal mine, but there's a problem
with that analogy: we don't see people who need guardians as
expendable. Maybe you disagree. But at least agree that we deserve
an honest public debate before we grant the health care system a
virtually unfettered right to kill.

But did such warnings exist in Terri's case?

Absolutely none. So it is strange as to MS's claim of bulemia causing the hypokalemia causing the heart attack.
She was asymptomatic. Healthy. How he won a medical malpractice lawsuit is beyond me. Course, look at the system currently fighting to murder a disabled woman. All within the same area.
The only things we do know is that the K was low and blood sugar elevated. Levels that would not kill a healthy individual. And yes K is depleted when one is bolused with fluids over a short period of time.

I emailed Bernie McCabe about 45 minutes ago and my email has not been returned. The email address I used is:

berniemccabe@fdle.state.fl.us

If you are experiencing any difficulty emailing bernie mccabe, resend in the am. Keep hammering him. Mine are going through

Terri is being denied necessary rehabilitation (in particular but not limited to range of motion therapy which has been denied her for approximately 10 years) because Michael Schiavo has knowingly acted to refuse same.

"The right to receive necessary services and rehabilitation is a retained right. Section 744.3215(1)(i), Florida Statutes (2003).

What are they doing or going to do about this? Michael Schiavo is breaking the law.

Terri is being denied the right to be restored to capacity at the earliest possible time
in contravention to:

Section 744.3215(1)(c), Florida Statutes (2003).
744.3215

and has been for approximately 10 years because Michael Schiavo has knowingly acted to prevent same.

What are they doing or going to do about this? Michael Schiavo is breaking the law.

Terri is currently being neglected and has been for the past 10 years. Michael Schiavo as guardian of Terri has been the cause of this neglect. Michael Schiavo is breaking the law and is guilty of committing felonies under:

Section 825.102 (3)(a) under the meanings of said Section 825.102 (3)(a) Items 2b and/or 2c.

Again, ask them what are they doing or are going to do about this?

Call the following people and tell them that you want some answers:

Executive Office of Governor, Legal Team to Jeb (ask
to speak to the following individuals):

Robert H. Fernandez (Deputy General Counsel to
Governor) -> fernanr@eog.state.fl.us

Raquel A. Rodriguez (General Counsel to Governor)
-> raquel.rodriguez@myflorida.com

Christa Calamas (Assistant General Counsel to
Governor) -> calamac@eog.state.fl.us

850 / 488-3494 (voice)
850 / 488-9810 (fax)

Jeb Bush, Governor
-> jeb@myflorida.com,jeb.bush@myflorida.com

850 / 488-4441 (voice)
850 / 488-7146 (voice)
850 / 487-0801 (fax)

Executive Office of the Governor
400 S. Monroe Street
The Capitol
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0001

Ask to speak to Lauren O'Conner

State Attorney Bernie McCabe
Voice: 727-464-6221
Fax: 727-464-6534

Attorney General Charlie Crist
Voice: 850-414-3990
Fax: 850-487-2564

REF:

Florida Statutes (2003)

744.3215 Rights of persons determined incapacitated.--
(1) A person who has been determined to be incapacitated retains the right:
(a) To have an annual review of the guardianship report and plan.
(b) To have continuing review of the need for restriction of his or her rights.
(c) To be restored to capacity at the earliest possible time.
(d) To be treated humanely, with dignity and respect, and to be protected against abuse, neglect, and exploitation.
(e) To have a qualified guardian.
(f) To remain as independent as possible, including having his or her preference as to place and standard of living honored, either as he or she expressed or demonstrated his or her preference prior to the determination of his or her incapacity or as he or she currently expresses his or her preference, insofar as such request is reasonable.
(g) To be properly educated.
(h) To receive prudent financial management for his or her property and to be informed how his or her property is being managed, if he or she has lost the right to manage property.
(i) To receive necessary services and rehabilitation.
(j) To be free from discrimination because of his or her incapacity.
(k) To have access to the courts.
(l) To counsel.
(m) To receive visitors and communicate with others.
(n) To notice of all proceedings related to determination of capacity and guardianship, unless the court finds the incapacitated person lacks the ability to comprehend the notice.
(o) To privacy.

+++

825.102 Abuse, aggravated abuse, and neglect of an elderly person or disabled adult; penalties.--
(1) "Abuse of an elderly person or disabled adult" means:
(a) Intentional infliction of physical or psychological injury upon an elderly person or disabled adult;
(b) An intentional act that could reasonably be expected to result in physical or psychological injury to an elderly person or disabled adult; or
(c) Active encouragement of any person to commit an act that results or could reasonably be expected to result in physical or psychological injury to an elderly person or disabled adult.

A person who knowingly or willfully abuses an elderly person or disabled adult without causing great bodily harm, permanent disability, or permanent disfigurement to the elderly person or disabled adult commits a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
(2) "Aggravated abuse of an elderly person or disabled adult" occurs when a person:
(a) Commits aggravated battery on an elderly person or disabled adult;
(b) Willfully tortures, maliciously punishes, or willfully and unlawfully cages, an elderly person or disabled adult; or
(c) Knowingly or willfully abuses an elderly person or disabled adult and in so doing causes great bodily harm, permanent disability, or permanent disfigurement to the elderly person or disabled adult.

A person who commits aggravated abuse of an elderly person or disabled adult commits a felony of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
(3)(a) "Neglect of an elderly person or disabled adult" means:
1. A caregiver's failure or omission to provide an elderly person or disabled adult with the care, supervision, and services necessary to maintain the elderly person's or disabled adult's physical and mental health, including, but not limited to, food, nutrition, clothing, shelter, supervision, medicine, and medical services that a prudent person would consider essential for the well-being of the elderly person or disabled adult; or
2. A caregiver's failure to make a reasonable effort to protect an elderly person or disabled adult from abuse, neglect, or exploitation by another person.

Neglect of an elderly person or disabled adult may be based on repeated conduct or on a single incident or omission that results in, or could reasonably be expected to result in, serious physical or psychological injury, or a substantial risk of death, to an elderly person or disabled adult.
(b) A person who willfully or by culpable negligence neglects an elderly person or disabled adult and in so doing causes great bodily harm, permanent disability, or permanent disfigurement to the elderly person or disabled adult commits a felony of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
(c) A person who willfully or by culpable negligence neglects an elderly person or disabled adult without causing great bodily harm, permanent disability, or permanent disfigurement to the elderly person or disabled adult commits a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
History.--s. 3, ch. 95-158; s. 2, ch. 96-322.