Michael Schiavo lawyer on board of directors of Terri’s hospice

CFP ^ | March 25, 2005 | Judi McLeod

[MikeEdwards]

Tragic that some of the most compelling facts in the Terri Schiavo case didn’t emerge before she reached death’s door.

While the mainline media was probing whether the world’s most famous hospice victim had really told husband Michael she would not want to live in a persistent vegetative state, it completely missed the ties of Michael Schiavo’s lawyer to the very hospice where the life-and-death drama played out.

See The Proof Today! From February 13, 1997 to about April 26, 2001 Attorney George Filos was listed as a member of the Board of Directors for "The Hospice of the Florida Suncoast" on the non-profit’s annual reports.

Suncoast operates the hospice where Terri Schiavo has been held.

One doesn’t have to rely on the annual reports of the hospice where Terri Schiavo was left to die for proof of Filos’ board membership. It is stated in the author’s description in the George Filos book, Litigation as Spiritual Practice.

It was in the summer of 1998 when Filos filed the first lawsuit to withdraw food and water from the disabled Terri Schiavo.

The chronology of events is as follows: "Filos becomes Michael Shiavo’s lawyer and files the petition. Then the law in Tallahassee gets changed. The Schiavo case gets heard. In that order." (The David Allen Show).

Surely it’s important to look at who lobbied for changing the law on the books to make food and water be defined as "artificial" life support.

In 1999, House Bill 2131 was introduced for the Florida Elder Affairs and Long-Term Care Committee.

Representative Gus Michael Bilirakis, who also lists himself on the Suncoast Hospice Board of Directors, lobbied on Bill 2131.

It is difficult to understand why the mainline media did not bring these facts before the public in reporting . . . .

[MEGoody]

"What you described is not a conflict of interest. His representation of MS was not compromised by his being on the board, and vice versa."

The company I work for (and probably most in the nation) would fire an employee for having less of a conflict than this.

Please give a scenario (not necessarily related to the Schiavo case) that best defines 'conflict of interest' in your view. At this point, it seems that your view of it is different from the norm.

[gathersnomoss]

Too late. BTW, lets not forget to keep the feeding tubes in the dolphin's. Welcome to the Parallel Universe.

[Modernman]

Please give a scenario (not necessarily related to the Schiavo case) that best defines 'conflict of interest' in your view. At this point, it seems that your view of it is different from the norm.

If Felos was representing MS while also representing a pro-life group involved in the dispute. Or, a situation where Felos' own interests ran counter to that of his client.

In any event, the only person who should be concerned with a conflict of interest here is MS. Felos was his attorney, after all.

[MEGoody]

Okay, I see were the disagreement is. You view it only as a conflict of interest if it affects his desire to properly represent Michael Schiavo. I can see where you could hold that view.

I was coming from 'conflict of interest' being something that could cause (or tempt) an individual to do something illegal or unethical (e.g. pressure the hospice to do what it could to make Terri appear as unresponsive as possible) in order to gain personally. This is the definition I am used to from the business world.

[Dante3]

And when DeLay wants an investigation, he is suddenly attack, there are demands for his resignation, by even groups who came out in defense of Clinton remaining in office after he was dividing the country.