Posted on 03/24/2005 7:22:09 AM PST by ConservativeMan55
Edited on 03/24/2005 7:43:21 AM PST by Admin Moderator. [history]
Mod note: Calls for violence will result in suspensions
Michael Schiavo has filed a petition with the Supreme Court asking them to stay out of the case.
Immigration is a federal matter Luis. I thought we opposed Reno's storm trooper attitude because it was immoral to send a boy, whose mother had died getting him to the USA, back to a communist country.
Probably MacDill AFB, Tampa, a quick helicopter ride accross a piece of Tampa Bay from the Pinellas Park area. Hmme of Central Command.
Who were elected, not appointed. And a Florida Senate that was elected, not appointed.
Why didn't you plan a trip here to stand shoulder to shoulder with Florida freepers when you were needed?
Trust me -- you don't ever want me standing shoulder to shoulder with me in a situation like this. I'll send a Freep-mail message to you later tonight to clarify this.
Based on the standards for impeachment generally deployed on these threads, it's all too easy to paint Cheshire as "conflicted". If affiliation with various right-to-die and death-with-dignity organizations is enough to impeach the court-appointed doctors who support Michael Schiavo, then Cheshire's affiliations are quite enough to attack his credibility when he opposes him.
FWIW, I think all those sorts of arguments are pure garbage, regardless of whether we're talking about doctors who are pro or con. Cheshire is clearly a qualified expert, as are the other doctors who have rendered their opinions on the case. It should, I expect, present a bit of difficulty for those who argue against the credibility of court-appointed doctors, and yet prefer to maintain some sort of logical consistency.
And second, Greer erred bigtime when he disregarded testimony as to Terri Schiavos state of mind vis a vis Karen Ann Quinlan.
And here they go, walking that argument into the same court - Whittemore's - that's turned them down once already. I don't root for failure here, but I'll not be surprised if it does not go well, again.
I PVS diagnosis means nothing more nor less than that the person making it was unable to find signs of cognition. One isn't apt to find signs of cognition if one isn't looking very hard. The notion that failure to find cognition in a single exam of less than an hour's duration means anything is absurd.
Few of us here are doctors, and even fewer are board-certified neurologists. For the vast majority of us, we have little choice but to sort among the conflicting testimony of the experts, and determine which ones most closely reflect the current state of knowledge in the field. Not an easy task, I might add, particularly for non-experts - I do not envy the judges in this case.
To clarify: finding cognition in a five minute exam would be more meaningful than failing to find it in an hour. Doctor Cranford, one of Michael's "doctors", has an amazing knack for making PVS diagnoses even for patients who can move about with a wheelchair. Why would Michael hire that sort of "doctor"?
Does one have to be an art expert to recognize that a Rembrandt landscape which features telephone poles in the background is a fake? Or to know that an art expert who takes five minutes "authenticating" a painting is himself fake?
But lets get real. The two hired experts for MS examined this woman for 45 minutes each. No diagnostic imaging was performed. It would seem to be the courts burden to prove PVS before the court orders removal of hydration.
You can't prove a patient is in PVS by observing them for 45 minutes and without looking at, at least, new CT and PET. And to tell you the truth I don't understand why you'd argue that they can.
From Whittemores holding. He seems to be telling the Schindlers attorney what they need to do.
Wrong on that point.
The Schindlers have testified they would try to keep her alive even if she'd made it clear to them that she would not want to continue in her condition. Therefore since I know how they feel I think Mike is the one doing what she wished.
Then I hope these quotations won't get me banned:
"What country can preserve its liberties if its rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them." --Thomas Jefferson to William Stephens Smith, 1787. ME 6:373, Papers 12:356
"Governments, wherein the will of every one has a just influence... has its evils,... the principal of which is the turbulence to which it is subject. But weigh this against the oppressions of monarchy, and it becomes nothing. Malo periculosam libertatem quam quietam servitutem. [I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.] Even this evil is productive of good. It prevents the degeneracy of government, and nourishes a general attention to the public affairs." --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1787. ME 6:64
"The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions, that I wish it to be always kept alive. It will often be exercised when wrong, but better so than not to be exercised at all. I like a little rebellion now and then. It is like a storm in the atmosphere." --Thomas Jefferson to Abigail Adams, 1787.
"God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion... We have had thirteen States independent for eleven years. There has been one rebellion. That comes to one rebellion in a century and a half, for each State. What country before ever existed a century and a half without a rebellion?" --Thomas Jefferson to William S. Smith, 1787. ME 6:372
"The late rebellion in Massachusetts has given more alarm than I think it should have done. Calculate that one rebellion in thirteen states in the course of eleven years, is but one for each state in a century and a half. No country should be so long without one. Nor will any degree of power in the hands of government prevent insurrections." --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1787. ME 6:391
"[An occasional insurrection] will not weigh against the inconveniences of a government of force, such as are monarchies and aristocracies." --Thomas Jefferson to T. B. Hollis, July 2, 1787. (*) ME 6:155
"There are extraordinary situations which require extraordinary interposition. An exasperated people who feel that they possess power are not easily restrained within limits strictly regular." --Thomas Jefferson: Rights of British America, 1774. ME 1:196, Papers 1:127
"I hold it that a little rebellion, now and then, is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms are in the physical. Unsuccessful rebellions, indeed, generally establish the encroachments on the rights of the people, which have produced them. An observation of this truth should render honest republican governors so mild in their punishment of rebellions, as not to discourage them too much. It is medicine necessary for the sound health of government." --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1787. ME 6:65
"The boisterous sea of liberty is never without a wave." --Thomas Jefferson to Richard Rush, 1820. ME 15:283
"What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure." --Thomas Jefferson to William Stephens Smith, 1787. ME 6:373, Papers 12:356
Do they recognize adultery as grounds for divorce? Why was no lawyer appointed to represent Terri's interests, both marital and financial, as distinct from those of her husband. This could have been done at the request of her parents.
I like Thomas Jefferson!!! ; )
Think whatever you like. But in the absence of definitive instructions from Terri, the bias needs to be in favour of life, in particular if there is an open dispute between first line family members as to what exactly she would wish.
Ivan
Throw it out then. Throw out anyone who's possibly biased by the fact that they've been hired by one camp or the other, and stick with the court-appointed doctors. You still wind up in the same place.
Does one have to be an art expert to recognize that a Rembrandt landscape which features telephone poles in the background is a fake? Or to know that an art expert who takes five minutes "authenticating" a painting is himself fake?
If it were that clear-cut, I don't think we'd be having this discussion.
And shouldn't conflicting evidence be judged in favor of continuing life?
Was Michael the only person who testified about Terri's supposed statements on her views about living on life support?
No, others did as well, and when making the decision in the case, the trial judge took into account all of that testimony and additional evidence. And the Second District Court of Appeals determined: that while a surrogate decision-maker should err on the side of life, the trial judge had sufficiently clear and convincing evidence to determine that Terri would not wish to continue the life-prolonging measures she needs to live. The appellate court explained:
[The Schindlers argue that the testimony, which was conflicting, was insufficient to support the trial court's decision by clear and convincing evidence. We have reviewed that testimony and conclude that the trial court had sufficient evidence to make this decision. The clear and convincing standard of proof, while very high, permits a decision in the face of inconsistent or conflicting evidence. See In re Guardianship of Browning, 543 So. 2d at 273.
In Browning, we stated:
In making this difficult decision, a surrogate decisionmaker should err on the side of life… In cases of doubt, we must assume that a patient would choose to defend life in exercising his or her right of privacy.
In re Guardianship of Browning, 543 So.2d at 273. We reconfirm today that a court's default position must favor life.
The testimony in this case establishes that Theresa was very young and very healthy when this tragedy struck. Like many young people without children, she had not prepared a will, much less a living will. She had been raised in the Catholic faith, but did not regularly attend mass or have a religious advisor who could assist the court in weighing her religious attitudes about life-support methods. Her statements to her friends and family about the dying process were few and they were oral. Nevertheless, those statements, along with other evidence about Theresa, gave the trial court a sufficient basis to make this decision for her.
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.
765.101 Definitions.--As used in this chapter:(12) "Persistent vegetative state" means a permanent and irreversible condition of unconsciousness in which there is:
(a) The absence of voluntary action or cognitive behavior of any kind.
(b) An inability to communicate or interact purposefully with the environment.
765.306 Determination of patient condition.--In determining whether the patient has a terminal condition, has an end-stage condition, or is in a persistent vegetative state or may recover capacity, or whether a medical condition or limitation referred to in an advance directive exists, the patient's attending or treating physician and at least one other consulting physician must separately examine the patient. The findings of each such examination must be documented in the patient's medical record and signed by each examining physician before life-prolonging procedures may be withheld or withdrawn.
Now look at this video of Terri and her father and determine for yourself if she fully and exactly fits the legal definition given above. Both parts of the definition must apply without exception, as stated above.
When the Second District first reviewed the trial court's decision that Terri would chose not to live under her present circumstances, the appellate court expressed no reservations when it explained that Terri was and "will always remain in an unconscious, reflexive state, totally dependent upon others…" In October, 2002, as a result of Terri's parents' claims that treatment options offered promise to restore some of Terri's cognitive functioning, the Second District ordered the trial court to hold a trial on that issue. The trial court did so, and in the course of that trial the parties litigated whether Terri is in a persistent vegetative state.
The trial court heard testimony from five experts: two selected by Michael, two selected by the Schindlers, and one independent expert selected by the trial court. The two experts selected by Michael and the independent expert agreed that Terri was in a persistent vegetative state and that her actions were limited to mere reflexes. The two experts chosen by the Schindlers disagreed, but the trial court found their positions not credible. For instance, the trial court explained:
At first blush, the video of Terry Schiavo appearing to smile and look lovingly at her mother seemed to represent cognition. This was also true for how she followed the Mickey Mouse balloon held by her father. The court has carefully viewed the videotapes as requested by counsel and does find that these actions were neither consistent nor reproducible. For instance, Terry Schiavo appeared to have the same look on her face when Dr. Cranford rubbed her neck. Dr. Greer testified she had a smile during his (non-videoed) examination. Also, Mr. Schindler tried several more times to have her eyes follow the Mickey Mouse balloon but without success. Also, she clearly does not consistently respond to her mother. The court finds that based on the credible evidence, cognitive function would manifest itself in a constant response to stimuli.
The experts also disagreed about whether any treatment could improve Terri's condition. The two experts selected by the Schindlers each proposed a potential therapy method, but the trial court rejected both of them based on "the total absence of supporting case studies or medical literature."
Affirming those decisions, the Second District explained that it, too, reviewed the videotapes of Terri in their entirety as well as Terri's brain scans. The appellate court explained that it not only affirmed the decision but that, were it to review the evidence and make its own decision, the court would reach the same result reached by the trial court.
I'm not. What I am pointing out is that the same standards that have been employed to discount them - not by you, that I've seen - should be sufficient to discount Cheshire. This is not a legal argument, but it does provide a rather compelling illustration of how deeply flawed some of the rhetoric used by supporters of the Schindlers has been. Affiliations are meaningless. Personal philosophies are irrelevant. What matters is how well the diagnoses accord with mainstream medical science. Hammesfahr is right out - his hyperbaric treatments have never been shown to have any effect on PVS or comatose patients, as he himself admits. Cheshire is a much better and more credible source - unless we hold him to the same standards that the Schindler supporters hold Schiavo's doctors, and the court-appointed doctors to. In which case, he is equally worthless, given his clear stance on end-of-life issues.
My point is not to keep Cheshire out of the game - on the contrary, I'd like to keep him in the game. If his examination of 90 minutes, with no new imaging, is sufficient to arrive at an accurate diagnosis, how can we logically say that the same sort of exam by a doctor who arrives at a different conclusion a priori insufficient? I don't think we can, not without abandoning any hope of consistent standards. It is entirely possible, in my mind, that both sets of doctors can be fully qualified and have all the information they need to arrive at a reasonable diagnosis, and yet still disagree - this is not algebra, where the correct answer is a logical necessity. Therefore, to hold one set of experts to one standard, and another set to another, does not, in my opinion, aid anyone in a search for the truth.
He seems to be telling the Schindlers attorney what they need to do.
Hopefully Torie's new buddy Gibbs has figured out how to take a damn hint by now ;)
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.