Posted on 12/07/2005 5:02:27 PM PST by eartotheground
Terri Schiavo's husband starts a PAC devoted to defeating the Bible-thumping politicians who used his comatose wife as a football.
By Michael Scherer
Dec. 7, 2005 | At the height of the battle, Michael Schiavo appeared to be a reluctant cultural warrior. His wife, Terri, lay comatose, in her 15th year of vegetative slumber, connected to a feeding tube, but well beyond resuscitation. Around her hospice, a political hurricane swirled.
In Terri's name, President George Bush interrupted his vacation, Sen. Bill Frist played doctor from the Senate floor, Florida Gov. Jeb Bush launched a flimsy criminal investigation, and Rep. Tom DeLay issued ominous political threats to the judiciary. The religious right had turned Terri into a symbolic beachhead in the battle for a "culture of life," and the Republican Party had answered the call.
But Michael Schiavo, who legally controlled his wife's fate, never showed any predilection for the limelight. In fact, he wished that everyone would just leave his family alone. "People are removed from their feeding tubes every day across this country," Schiavo told CNN's Larry King, in a rare interview last March. "The government chose this one to pander for their religious right, pander for their votes."
But now, as the one-year anniversary of Terri Schiavo's death approaches, Michael Schiavo is changing his approach and preparing to enter the political fray. Terri's fate has already been decided. Now her husband wants to claim her legacy. "For 15 years, I have been watching the politicians working their ways into my case. I felt I needed to do something when this was all said and done," Schiavo told Salon on Tuesday. "I didn't ask for this fight, but now I am ready."
This week Schiavo will roll out a new political action committee, called Terri PAC, with the hope of raising money to defeat the politicians who tried to intervene in the legal battle between Schiavo and Terri's parents, Bob and Mary Schindler. "Whatever I can do, I am going to do," says Schiavo, who works as a nurse in the Pinellas County Jail in Clearwater, Fla. Starting in January, he plans to change his work hours to three 12-hour shifts a week, allowing him more time to work on politics.
At the same time, Schiavo is putting the finishing touches on a book, "Terri: The Truth," which is scheduled for release in March. His former in-laws, the Schindlers, have also announced plans to publish a book with their side of the story in March. The Schindlers have been working to establish their own legacy for their daughter. This summer, the couple gave their support to a new seminarian scholarship in Terri's name at the Ave Maria University. "We feel that Terri was chosen by God to combat evil," Bob Schindler told a Catholic news service. "What a fine way to pay tribute to her life."
Terri PAC will not be the first time Schiavo has inserted himself into politics since his wife's death. During this year's Virginia governor's race, Schiavo volunteered his support for the victorious Democrat, Tim Kaine, after his Republican opponent, Jerry Kilgore, said he did "not agree to the forced starvation of any individual." Though Kaine did not trumpet the endorsement, the amount of press coverage it received was encouraging, says Derek Newton, a political consultant at the November Group, in Coral Gables, Fla., who is working with Schiavo. "From the PAC's perspective, Kaine's win was very important," Newton said.
One Florida Democrat, Rep. Robert Wexler, who represents parts of Palm Beach, says that Michael Schiavo could have an impact going into the 2006 midterm election. "Terri Schiavo and Michael Schiavo were some of the most prominent victims of the Republicans' abuse of power," said Wexler. "Michael Schiavo's effort is not only appropriate and timely, but it is also extremely important."
In addition to funneling money to certain political campaigns, the PAC will name those politicians who supported government intervention in his wife's case, as well as those who opposed intervention. Schiavo also hopes to use the Web site to educate people about the importance of living wills. Newton said that Schiavo has no plans to run for political office himself; the two have not yet discussed whether Schiavo will collect a salary from the PAC for his efforts.
In the interview, Schiavo mentioned Rep. DeLay, R-Texas, Sen. Frist, R-Tenn., and Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Pa., as primary targets of the effort. He also said he wanted to be involved in the upcoming Florida governor's race. "We are going to focus on holding these people accountable," Schiavo said.
Ah, but therein lies the crux of the issue. I would imagine that you feel that way about anyone who disagrees with you on any issue. From a perusal of your posts, the treatment of all those who disagree with you indicates to me you’ll always have a tough time being receptive and reasonable. And, as I’m sure you know there are those who are “personally embarrassed” by those who hold your opinion on this issue. So there it is. But hey, you’re welcome to put my comments on your self-aggrandizing homepage (which, by the way, caused me to lose any respect I may have had for you.) Bye Bob, have a good life.
Then you imagine wrong.
Prove to me that Michael, or his brother, or Joan lied on the stand. Give me a quote, a cite, a link, anything that caused you to believe this to be true.
But you have nothing. Zero. Yet you sit there and boldly make the insinuation that these three people lied under oath. How can you do that? A better question would be, how can you do that and not expect any repercussions from other posters?
You have the cojones to talk to me about respect? Well, coming from one who will libel others with no proof whatsoever, I wouldn't want yours.
"The link to that 10-year-old report? I got tired of reading phrases like "Agreement could not be reached" and "There is still some uncertainty" and "There is a lack of long-term follow up studies of vegetative patients beyond 2-3 years.""
You don't lilke those terms?
That's exactly the problem...diagnosing pvs is not an exact science. Mistakes are often made in diagnoses.
Dr. Cranford misdiagnosed a policeman prior to the Schiavo case - but what do you expect from a doctor who has an active political agenda?
Not much has changed since this report-except that improvements in brain imaging suggests that these people may have more capablities (pertaining to awareness) than previously thought.
"I never claimed that it could. I said it was confirmed by autopsy, and questioned why you would still have your doubts. I'll ask you again, are you still arguing that Terri wasn't in a PVS, even after the autopsy?"
The term used was "consistent with" - which is not the same as confirmation.
IF Terri were minimally conscious (as some doctors believe she was) then the findings were "consistent with" that state also.
There are also different degrees of pvs - the autopsy findings could be "consistent with" a wide range of level of damage.
So...there is uncertainty.
I cannot say what her problem was - and I see that very educated experts from different fields of medicine could not agree either.If they cannot agree - why do so many Americans feel so confident in their own opinion?
I tend to give more weight to those who work in the field of rehabilitation because they spend more time with the patients and usually are the ones to find new ways to treat these people.
Pvs cannot be diagnosed by one person with a cursory visit.
It cannot be diagnosed from a CT scan. It is a clinical diagnosis that must be made by a team of experts over a period of time.
"Well, I don't argue that fact. What's your point? Are you saying because he won the lawsuit he withdrew therapy?"
I don't know why he did it. Who knows why a man would argue he needs funds for decades worth of therapy only to then deny that very same therapy?
I will give you this though...Terri's condition DID change. Prior to that point he was very concerned with her hygeine - her teeth - making sure she sat up in her chair, and was taken outside.
When basic hygeine is taken away - teeth aren't cleaned - the shades are drawn - the music turned off - visitatons denied -well yes, that can have a negative aspect on a person's health.
So...while Terri's brain injury did not change - other factors affecting her health (hygeine,stimulation) did cause her to have more infections, and to become more withdrawn.
"No they're not. But Terri was ill and the court-ordered removal of her surgically implanted feeding tube made her terminally ill."
Lots of people are ill - that's not the point.
Terri was NOT terminally ill.
You are trying to argue that the order from the judge MADE her terminally ill. This is your own argument - and it is not even an argument that Michael attempted to make.
This was not the basis used for the removal of the tube - nor for her move to hospice.
They made these decisions based solely on her brain injury - not based on any terminal illness.
"Terri's hospice care of up to $5,000 per month was covered free of charge through a fund for indigent patients by Hospice of the Florida Suncoast."
How nice of them.
And George Felos had nothing to do with this I'm sure.
"I see. So where do these undesirables go? "
Undesirables?
"If I choose not to treat my terminal cancer, I can go to a hospice. But if I'm in a PVS and have previouly chosen not to be artificially fed through a surgically implanted feeding tube the rest of my life, I'm thrown into the street?"
Terri would not have been thrown in the street. As you recall there were people waiting anxiously to take her in.
I doubt you would be thrown in the street either.
There are rehab centers all over the nation treating people just like Terri. They are not "hospices" where they wait for death (or artificially cause death)
They are places where people actually get therapy.
"So much for your "so-called" compassion"
Another example of your attempt to exaggerate the position of another.
"Ah, here come the conspiracy theories. I wondered how long it would take you."
It is a matter of public record - but it's always your choice to disregard it I suppose.
"Rude? What's rude was your first post to me on this thread. No explanation. No argument. No information. Just a link to the land of a thousand links."
This is the first time I've been accused of rudeness just for posting a link. No information? The information is on the link.
But clearly you can not be bothered.
"That's rude. That's arrogant. And that's condescending. You're lucky I was in a good mood when I responded."
Posting a link is rude and arrogant?
And name calling - is....what?
"If you had researched the hospice beyond the run-of-the-mill gossipy conspiracy theories, for example, you would have known her care was provided for free."
Nothing is free.
The last minute report from Dr. Cheshire, a Christian fundamentalist neurologist, is a sham. He never examined her, he never viewed her CT scans, and he made no mention of her EEG. He viewed her for 90 minutes, and in his report states that she had no visual tracking and she had no conscious awareness -- cardinal signs of the vegetative state.
Any other doctor say she was minimally conscious?
"Pvs cannot be diagnosed by one person with a cursory visit."
Ah. But minimally conscious can. I see.
At the time of the trial in 2002, seven neurologists who examined her said beyond any doubt whatsoever Terri was in a vegetative state.
"Who knows why a man would argue he needs funds for decades worth of therapy only to then deny that very same therapy?"
Who knows? Everyone who's kept up with this saga knows. Terri's doctor told Michael there was no hope of recovery.
"the shades are drawn - the music turned off - visitatons denied -well yes, that can have a negative aspect on a person's health."
Not on the health of a person who can't see, hear, smell, touch, feel, or even know someone was in the room.
"They made these decisions based solely on her brain injury."
The decision to remove the tube, yes. Provide some basis for your statement that she was moved to a hospice because of her brain injury, and why she wasn't moved to a hospice before Greer's decision.
"They are places where people actually get therapy."
All well and good. But Terri didn't WANT therapy -- she wanted to die. You still don't get it, do you?
Oh, but you know better. That was what YOU wanted for Terri.
Er..not quite. More like 50%.
----Well, let me clarify my statement. It was more a figure of speech. I know a LARGE percentage of America is disgusted with him and I am one of them. There, is that better?
You're the one that went ad hominem.
Let me guess, you are a libertarian.
"The last minute report from Dr. Cheshire, a Christian fundamentalist neurologist, is a sham. He never examined her, he never viewed her CT scans, and he made no mention of her EEG. He viewed her for 90 minutes, and in his report states that she had no visual tracking and she had no conscious awareness -- cardinal signs of the vegetative state."
I haven't read anything concerning his religion. He did not use religious belief as basis for his concerns.
He did not make a diagnosis, but rather showed concerns that some of Terri's behaviors "may" be intentional (sign of awareness) He used words like "might" and "could" -and correctly refers to recent studies revealing the high rate of misdiagnosis in pvs - and also new developments in neuroimaging. This opinion certainly isn't going out on a limb as these concerns have shown up in many articles concerning pvs.
Judge Greer is a baptist - yet I'm sure you don't question his judgement.
George Felos claims he can talk to the spirits of comatose patients (they want to die of course) and even change the trajectory of an airplane just with his thoughts...but I doubt you question his legal opinions.
pvs cannot be diagnosed with a ct scan.
Regarding EEG's...
http://physiologyonline.physiology.org/cgi/content/full/17/1/38
I see you quote Cranford word for word...ex..
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/7328639/
Cranford was just as sure about Sgt. Mack as he was about Terri....but he was wrong.
sorry about the solid lines ...I thought I had used dashes instead.
You're saying Dr. Cranford was wrong when he stated, "He (Dr. Cheshire) never examined her, he never viewed her CT scans, and he made no mention of her EEG. He viewed her for 90 minutes, and in his report states that she had no visual tracking and she had no conscious awareness -- cardinal signs of the vegetative state"?
Are you saying that Dr. Cheshire DID examine her, he DID view her CT scans, and he DID make mention of her EEG? Are you saying that Dr. Cheshire DIDN'T view her for 90 minutes, and in his report DIDN'T state that she had no visual tracking and she had no conscious awareness?
"This claims 3 out of 5 reached that conclusion."
Yes, and I would therefore assume that there were four others prior to the trial such that at the time of the trial in 2002 we had a total of seven neurologists.
"Doesn't sound like certainty to me."
The court was convinced.
"There you go discounting the testimony of nurses who worked with her and family members who interacted with her."
Testimony? As in court testimony? As in under oath, penalty of perjury testimony?
Or "testimony" as in comments made to The National Enquirer? Don't tell me you took their gossip "testimony" seriously.
Paulsen's brain is brittle, I've seen the CAT scan. You'll make no headway with him. Oh ... maybe if one could show that the murdering husband Mike Schiavo was a pothead. That might sway Paulsen. Potheads are the lowest of the low in his book.
"You're saying Dr. Cranford was wrong when he stated, "He (Dr. Cheshire) never examined her, he never viewed her CT scans, and he made no mention of her EEG. He viewed her for 90 minutes, and in his report states that she had no visual tracking and she had no conscious awareness -- cardinal signs of the vegetative state"?"
No...I think I plainly said Cranford was wrong when he said Sgt. Mack was pvs. He was wrong.
He was just as convinced of Sgt. Mack's diagnosis as he was about Terri's.
Cheshire's concerns stemmed from concerns that we see in the links provided. Read them or not. They have to do with the high rate of misdiagnosis...and new techniques in neuroimagery (of which Terri never received).
Also that observed behaviors COULD be signs of responsiveness. He did not offer diagnosis.
"Yes, and I would therefore assume that there were four others prior to the trial such that at the time of the trial in 2002 we had a total of seven neurologists."
You would assume?
But you said this was beyond doubt.
Do you have links to their opinions?
The link I provided clearly shows there was room for doubt, afterall...3 out of 5 is hardly beyond doubt.
"The court was convinced. "
Well...Judge Greer was convinced. It's too bad a legally blind judge who never bothered to visit her - admitted he made mistakes in his rulings - ignored the advise of court appointed guardians - appointed HIMSELF guardian (against the law) - was the main decision maker here.
Criminals on death row get more due process than this.
"Testimony? As in court testimony? As in under oath, penalty of perjury testimony?"
Affidavits are considered sworn testimony- I believe the penalty of perjury does apply when they are signed.
"Or "testimony" as in comments made to The National Enquirer? Don't tell me you took their gossip "testimony" seriously."
I have no idea what you are talking about but apparantly you are omnipotent and have the power to tell who is telling the truth and who isn't?
Yes...affidavits from different nurses who worked with her at different times in different places.
Their descriptions of Terri's responses are remarkably similar - as well as their descriptions of Michael Schiavo.
I am reminded of this statement from this link I already provided....
http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/319/7213/841
"Medical assessors must not restrict themselves to direct formal examination of the patient. A patient's behavior may vary throughout the day and over longer periods, and some stimuli will arise only infrequently. Consequently, all available sources of evidence must be used, all written records including nursing notes should be reviewed and staff who have been in close contact with the patient over some time should be interviewed"
"It is particularly important to interview family members. They may have observed behavior that indicates awareness, and their opinion on the patients level of awareness must be sought..."
According to an affidavit signed by Heidi Law...
"You would always tell when Terri had a bowel movement, as she seemed agitated and would sort of 'scoot' to get away from it."
"At least three times during any shift where I took care of Terri, I made sure to give Terri a wet washcloth filled with ice chips, to keep her mouth moistened. I personally saw her swallow the ice water and never saw her gag. Olga and I frequently put orange juice or apple juice in her washcloth to give her something nice to taste, which made her happy. On three or four occasions I personally fed Terri small mouthfulls of Jello, which she was able to swallow and enjoyed immensely. I did not do it more often only because I was so afraid of being caught by Michael."
"During the time I cared for Terri, she formed words. I have heard her say 'mommy' from time to time, and 'momma,' and she also said 'help me' a number of times. She would frequently make noises like she was trying to talk. Other staff members talked about her verbalizations.
"...it was part of my job duties to write my observations down on sheets of paper, which I turned over to the nurse at the nurses station for inclusion in the patients charts. In the case of Terri Schiavo, I felt that my notes were thrown out without even being read. There were trash cans at the nurses stations that we were supposed to empty each shift, and I often saw the notes in them. I made extensive notes and listed all of Terri's behaviors, but there was never any apparant follow up consistent with her responsiveness...."
There were others who signed affidavits.
Do you have proof they are all liars?
I guess you've given up the battle for the "conservative cause" as it says on your Freeper homepage
In English does that mean he formed yet another 501c3 that liberals are so good at using to their advantage????/
Oops. You accidentally left out the last part:
"When obtaining evidence from other observers or from written material, it is vital that the examiner distinguishes clearly between observed behaviour and interpretation of the behaviour. Thus, family or staff should be asked directly what behaviour was actually observed. The examiner may then ask for their interpretations, which may show further observational evidence. However, interpretations made by observers may well be biased and the assessor should make her or his own interpretation.
Which leads us to .....
"According to an affidavit signed by Heidi Law..."
Getting desperate? Heidi Law's "medical" experience is one step above a Candy Striper ... if that. Even the nurses threw away her notes.
"Do you have proof they are all liars?"
Liars in what sense? I believe that they believe they heard Terri say these things. I believe that they believe Terri could voluntarily swallow.
Just as I believe that others believe they saw UFOs. Are they liars?
But what they saw was no more a UFO than the conclusion that Terri could talk or voluntarily swallow.
Are you saying that you believe Terri could talk meaningful and appropriate words? That you believe she could voluntarily swallow?
Justice
Just for the record, I wasn't making any suggestion whatsoever that Schiavo used or uses pot -- I was just speaking to what Paulsen's reaction would be if it came out that Schiavo did so.
""When obtaining evidence from other observers or from written material, it is vital that the examiner distinguishes clearly between observed behaviour and interpretation of the behaviour"
It is difficult for anyone to interpret anything when notes are thrown out and when staff members are fearful of writing down the behaviors in the first place.
" However, interpretations made by observers may well be biased and the assessor should make her or his own interpretation."
They may be...or they may not be. Again...hard to tell when their notes aren't even available for review.
"Getting desperate? Heidi Law's "medical" experience is one step above a Candy Striper ... if that. Even the nurses threw away her notes."
Not desperate at all...Heidi Law spent alot of time with Terri -as did others who make the same claims. This is not only about one nurse whose notes were thrown out.
Again from the link provided...
http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/319/7213/841
"Consequently, all available sources of evidence must be used, all written records including nursing notes should be reviewed and staff who have been in close contact with the patient over some time should be interviewed..."
This would certainly include the rehabilitation specialist who ordered Terri's bone scan because he believed Terri expressed discomfort during rehab. And sure enough..Terri was right...she had injuries that needed attention.
This would also include other staff who signed affidavits confirming the statements made by Heidi Law.
"Liars in what sense? I believe that they believe they heard Terri say these things. I believe that they believe Terri could voluntarily swallow."
I get it...you believe these folks are idiots - even though you haven't a clue what kind of people they are.
It comes down to whether or not they support your opinion or not.
"Just as I believe that others believe they saw UFOs. Are they liars? "
So even though you were not there looking after Terri - you can easily dismiss them as lunatics. Bully for you.
"But what they saw was no more a UFO than the conclusion that Terri could talk or voluntarily swallow."
You cannot possibly know that to any degree of certainty, although you can THINK you do.
"Are you saying that you believe Terri could talk meaningful and appropriate words? That you believe she could voluntarily swallow?"
Staff members believed Terri could swallow. Terri did not drool - she maintained her own saliva through swallowing.
A court appointed guardian recommended to judge Greer that she be given a swallowing test - Greer then dismissed the guardian from his position.
I don't know about "voluntarily" - many brain damaged patients can only do this after therapy...something which Terri never received.
"meaningful and appropriate words"...you certainly do keep raising the bar now don't you?
I would think that ANY words at all should be enough. Afterall this is supposed to be a person who cannot see, hear, feel, touch or vocalize. Just trying to make intentional unintelligible noises COULD be sign of awareness.
That staff members and family members felt they could understand words is pretty significant.
You have to dismiss quite a few people as lunatic idiots in order to be so confident that Terri was not aware of her surroundings.
Again...why would anyone give naproxen to a person who cannot feel pain? Terri was given this pain reliever "as needed"....how did they know how much she "needed"?
Why did she "need" it at all?
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.