Michael Schiavo's side of the story [sicko' barf-ola ALERT]

MSNBC ^ | 3/27/06 | Matt Lauer

[XR7]

CLEARWATER, FLA. - Michael Schiavo...has decided to tell his side of the story...

Schiavo invited us to his home in Clearwater, Florida to talk...It’s all in his new book “Terri the Truth.”

Matt Lauer: I guess you could’ve written a book to honor Terri. After reading it, it’s not really the book you wrote. This is a book that in some ways settles some scores, doesn’t it?

Michael Schiavo: Oh yes, it does.

Lauer: You did think about writing that honoring Terri book?

Michael Schiavo: Oh yes, many times. This book does honor Terri in a way. It sets her free. It tells the truth...

Lauer: You were her first date.

Schiavo: Uh-huh.

Lauer: You were her first kiss.

Schiavo: Uh-huh.....

But the medical examiner was skeptical...and could not conclusively determine just what caused her collapse 16 years ago.

Lauer (at Terri Schiavo’s grave site): How often do you come to her grave?

Schiavo: I try to get out here at least two or three times a month. I drive by a lot though.

On this day, approaching the one year anniversary of Terri's death, someone had left a crucifix by her grave, a grave marked with three dates: her birth date, the date of her collapse, and her death, with a final note from Michael: "I kept my promise."

Lauer: Why was it so important to put that in there?

Schiavo: It was from me to her — it had nothing to do with anybody else. It was very important for me.

Lauer: Do you ever come here Michael and wonder how she feels about this promise, so many years afterwards? Do you think it was it as important to her as it was to you?

Schiavo: Definitely, definitely. She's up there praising me right now… and saying thank you.

[candeee]

Did you observe her? What is your motive? You are no md

[bjs1779]

Except that we know from the autopsy that she was blind, because her visual cortex was destroyed

Is it impossible that dehydration caused this?

[retMD]

Did you observe her?

No.

What is your motive?

Originally I knew very little about this case, and wanted to understand the issues. I read the Guardian ad Litem's report, and all the medical information I could find. I read the autopsy report when it came out, as well. Having had a terminally ill spouse, these were questions that concerned me.

You are no md

My diploma says otherwise.

[bjs1779]

Originally I knew very little about this case, and wanted to understand the issues. I read the Guardian ad Litem's report, and all the medical information I could find

Then you should know that Wolfson urged that Terri should have another swallowing test. If I remember correcly, that was not done.

[ConservativeMan55]

bttt

[supercat]

So there is NO law that says an additional relationship is illegal. His wife had already made her desires known. Your interpretation of his motives is just that. I asked for the relevant information, you failed prima facie.

Actually, there are statutes forbidding open adultery, but they're essentially unenforced and, since Lawrence, probably unenforceable.

The issue, however, is not whether Michael's engagement was illegal, but whether there were conflicts between Michael's interests and Terri's. I would state that conflicts of interest clearly existed, and the engagement made one such conflict (of many) absolutely undeniable. Had Terri's condition somehow improved, it would have been good for Terri but bad for Michael. Michael thus had an interest in ensuring that Terri's condition did not improve, even though such improvement would have been good for Terri.

Do you think Greer's failure to provide written notice was accidental?

Irrelevant. You either have notice or not. Why would Greer err on purpose?

Is it really not obvious? Greer didn't want to have the hearings. He couldn't just declare that he'd never hold them, since the parents had the legal right to demand them. And if he'd scheduled them to occur in the year 2038, the parents would have been able to go to an appeals court and state that Greer's scheduling was patently unreasonable.

So Greer scheduled them as far in the future as he thought he could get away with. Then he granted continuances just short of the point that an appeals court would declare things were getting ridiculous. Then he made it so Michael wouldn't have to actually show up. The only plausible behavior I can see for Greer's behavior is that he didn't want the hearing to take place.

Had the hearing taken place, Michael would have been required to answer difficult questions under oath. It would be quite likely that Michael would give answers which, if true, would prove him inelligible to continue guardianship. If that occurred, Judge Greer could not allow Michael's guardianship to continue without being struck down by the appeals court. Although trial court judges may determine any witness to be credible or not credible, and appeals courts nearly always abide by such determination, some careless words from Michael could render that question irrelevant: if his statement were true, he'd be inelligible for guardianship; if it were false, his perjury would make him inelligible. No evaluation of Michael's credibility would allow a reasonable judge to conclude he remained an elligible guardian.

Putting off hearings to avoid holding them is not normal and proper behavior for judges. Greer obviously didn't want Michael's fitness as guardian questioned. One might reasonably ask why.

It's worth noting that Greer was required to oversee Terri's trust fund. If Terri's guardianship were ever transferred to anyone else, the trust fund books would have to be audited by the new guardian. Any misappropriations would fall not only on Michael's head, but also on Judge Greer's.

If you believe that Judge Greer would have liked someone to audit those books, I'd like to interest you in a wonderful piece of architecture. It's a suspension bridge, which while primarily used today for vehicle traffic, is also capable of surviving the weight of a full load of pedestrians. It features vertical cables for support and diagonal cables for stability, and is really quite lovely. Can I interest you in that?

[retMD]

Except that we know from the autopsy that she was blind, because her visual cortex was destroyed

Is it impossible that dehydration caused this?

A good question, but it couldn't been caused by the dehydration. The autopsy report says: "Of particular importance was the hypoxic damage [damage caused by lack of oxygen] and neuronal loss [the nerve cells were gone] in her occiptal lobes [where important visual centers are located] which indicates cortical blindness."

A quick translation: the lack of oxygen led to the death of the nerves in the part of the brain that "processes" vision. The only time she was known to be without oxygen was during the original cardiac arrest the night she collapsed.

[bjs1779]

Having had a terminally ill spouse, these were questions that concerned me.

Play Video

[supercat]

Each of these determined that Theresa was not able to swallow without risk of aspiration (and consequent infection).

If there is a risk that a patient might choke given oral food and hydration, doctors will prescribe a feeding tube. For patients with difficulty swallowing, feeding tubes are more convenient than oral feeding for patient and staff alike. Because feeding tubes are safer and more convenient than oral feeding, doctors are apt to prescribe them even when they are not absolutely necessary.

The fair way to resolve the dispute would have been to remove the G-tube but allow Terri's parents to either attempt to give Terri water and orally or to hire a doctor to so. Even if such attempts had an 80% chance of fatal complications and a 1% chance of success, that would still improve Terri's odds of survival by 1%. If it doesn't work, nobody is harmed by the attempt, but Terri's family gets to feel better for the attempt. And if it does work, it would show that Terri was able to take food orally and thus that starving/dehydrating her would not have been legal.

The only reasons I can see for refusing such efforts are (1) Michael hated Terri's family and wanted them to suffer [a possible reason, but not a legitimate one], or (2) Michael was afraid that such efforts might succeed [another possible reason, but again not a legitimate one]. Care to offer any legitimate reasons?

[bjs1779]

A good question, but it couldn't been caused by the dehydration. The autopsy report says: "Of particular importance was the hypoxic damage [damage caused by lack of oxygen] and neuronal loss [the nerve cells were gone] in her occiptal lobes [where important visual centers are located] which indicates cortical blindness."

Yes it is a good question.

[Acute cortical blindness: a reversible complication of acute kidney failure in a child with burns]

An 11 year old boy was admitted to the Department of Pediatrics Medical School of Vienna with 2nd and 3rd degree burns covering 30% of his body.

He presented with complications--high fever, vomiting, diarrhea and dehydration--which had led to acute renal failure.

After 6 hemodialyses renal function recovered after two weeks and the patient entered a polyuric phase. In connection with a transient dehydration the patient showed a sudden bilateral cortical blindness.

The computerized tomogram (CT) showed vague evidence of an occipital cortical ischemia. We assume that several factors have played a role in this sudden occurrence. As a result of hypovolemia and coincident anemia and electrolyte inbalance, cerebral edema and cortical tissue hypoxia with emphasis in the occipital cortical region developed in the brain possibly already damaged by burn injury. A complete reversal of the clinical state was achieved. The patient was discharged with normal vision and normalized renal function. www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=6835679&dopt=Abstract

[supercat]

I did watch it -- she is "responding" as an animal does. Yes, there is some response to stimulus, but it is not a reasoned response.

There are protocols to determine such things as ESP that would be perfectly suitable here. A person who claims the test subject can receive and process some sort of stimulus (be it sight, sound, or whatever) is placed in a room so as to be able to observe the subject, but not stimuli to which the subject is subjected. Various prearranged stimuli are "shown" to the subject in random order; the person communicating with the subject must identify the order in which they were shown.

One of the key benefits of a protocols such as these is that all subjective judgements are done by a person wanting the test to "succeed", but no amount of desire for success will allow the person to arrange the stimuli in proper order if the communication ability simply isn't there.

Michael opposed any sort of testing that would have had any possibility of proving that Terri wasn't PVS. I wonder why?

[retMD]

The only reasons I can see for refusing such efforts are (1) Michael hated Terri's family and wanted them to suffer [a possible reason, but not a legitimate one], or (2) Michael was afraid that such efforts might succeed [another possible reason, but again not a legitimate one]. Care to offer any legitimate reasons?

The swallowing tests were done in 1991, 1992 and 1993, and from the GAL's report that was a time when there was no disagreement between the Schindler's and Michael Schiavo. So it would appear it was neither reason (unless someone can provide contrary evidence). You'd have to ask her doctors at the time, but since she failed three swallowing tests, I assume they thought that the risk of aspiration was held to be very high.

[supercat]

I agree that there are exceptions to almost every rule, but the permanence of her condition is unquestionable.

Other people have recovered from conditions that were, by every appearance, just as bad.

Also, I would posit that if you treated a newborn the way Michael treated Terri, after 15 years that child's apparent mental state wouldn't be much better than Terri's.

[retMD]

The key elements here are the difference between "ischemia" (not enough blood flow to the area, but it isn't dead) and "neuronal loss" which means the nerves are gone.

[MHT]

The only answers to any questions that I want to hear from that man would address the inconsistencies he gave in four different depositions as to why she ended up in a vegetative state to begin with. He contributed to her demise and ultimate death, only I want to know when his contribution began.

[bjs1779]

The swallowing tests were done in 1991, 1992 and 1993,

Is it impossible that someone good improve on their own over say the next decade or so with no treatment? 1993, yes, that was the year Michael got the rehab funds. Correct?

[BykrBayb]

Thank you for trying to educate the doctor. He must have slept through all that in med school. I'll bet you .50^¢ he won't pay any attention now either. He'll probably come up with some almost related response, but he won't touch on the actual content of your post.

[supercat]

So it would appear it was neither reason (unless someone can provide contrary evidence).

Perhaps I was unclear. When the option of using a G-tube to feed Terri was available, it would be reasonable to use it if there was any meaningful likelihood that oral feeding could cause aspiration. When the G-tube was removed, what reason was there for not attempting oral hydration and feeding? That Terri did not choke on her own saliva indicated that she was able to swallow a significant quantity of liquid. The risks of oral feeding may not have been worth taking when there was a viable alternative, but when no alternative existed, what meaningful risks were there (besides the "risk" of success)?

[bjs1779]

The key elements here are the difference between "ischemia" (not enough blood flow to the area, but it isn't dead) and "neuronal loss" which means the nerves are gone.

The key element is the kid was re-heydrated, Terri was not.

[BykrBayb]

...what meaningful risks were there (besides the "risk" of success)?

None. That was more risk than Michael Schitvo was willing to take.