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.

[supercat]

Thus, it is society that has failed in recognizing, as a whole, what you have so dutifully discerned.

Society, as a whole, believes what the "news" media say. Even when the "news" media lies so blatantly that it's obvious to anyone knowledgeable about the subject being reported (see the National Guard document fiasco) many people still believe them.

The fact that "society as a whole" believes Michael Schiavo to be a good and the Schindlers bad tells me nothing more nor less than that the "news" media want them to think that.

Well, except for one small detail: it all can be explained much more readily by coming to a completely different conclusion.

How do you explain Michael's contradictions, without concluding that he's a liar: Michael claimed that he was restricting video/audio of Terri to "protect her privacy", but he had no trouble discussing indelicate aspects of her gynecological exams on national television. He has claimed to want Terri to get better, while refusing to allow her any therapy that might accomplish that. He claims to want to honor his wedding vows and yet he as openly moved in with another woman, fathered children by her, and pledged to marry her. In 2003, he claimed that it was because of the court's will, not his, that Terri's feeding was withheld even though he was the person who sought the order. Is the word of a man such as that credible? BTW, a partial repost of a January 2005 blog entry

As I read about the goings on in the case of Terri Schiavo, I find myself increasingly discouraged by this country's legal system. There is so much wrong with the case that it's hard to know where to begin, but I find myself perhaps most amazed at the media's willful blindness to some of the real issues of this case.

But shouldn't a husband's statement of his wife's wishes have significant weight?

Michael Schiavo lives in an openly-adulterous relationship with Jodi Centonze, by whom he has fathered at least two children. He has openly stated his desire and intention to marry Jodi as soon as his wife is dead. To suggest that a man who has openly stated his intentions to marry another woman should have any authority whatsoever over his wife is to make a mockery out of marriage.

Why should Michael have to stay married to some vegetable? Why shouldn't he be able to find happiness with another woman?

He is free to find happiness with another woman. All he has to do is divorce Terri. Or, if he were to release guardianship, a new guardian would seek divorce on Terri's behalf (and almost certainly receive it). Terri's supporters aren't complaining that Michael is starting a new family. What they're complaining about is that he has, to date, refused to release the old one.

Why are Terri's parents spreading rumors about Michael rather than presenting their issues in court?

Terri's parents don't have full legal standing in most court cases; they may petition as friends of the court, but their authority is limitted. In nearly all cases involving Terri, there are no principle parties who don't want Terri dead.

Terri's parents would have full legal standing in a case to challenge Michael's guardianship. They filed such a challenge in November of 2002--more than two years ago. Unfortunately, Judge George Greer has granted perpetual continuances to Michael Schiavo. Further, when Michael has refused to appear for required depositions, George Greer simply cancelled them without charging Michael with contempt or doing anything else of consequence.

If Michael would like to put the "rumors" about him to rest by actually appearing for a deposition, he is more than free to do so. Given that he refuses to do so, however, I see no reason why his behavior should be given a free pass.

But isn't Terri just a vegetable anyway

It's unclear what Terri's exact condition is. Doctors who have been hired by Michael Schiavo or Judge George Greer seem to think she's in a persistent vegetative state, but other doctors who have examined her or seen videos of her state that there is no way she is in a persistent vegetative state; people in PVS don't act like Terri does on the videos.

As to those who would question whether videos are adequate for diagnosis, I would offer the following analogy: suppose someone showed you a somewhat fuzzy Polaroid of a painting that was supposedly by Rembrandt; the painting clearly depicts an IMac, complete with the Apple logo. Suppose further that a few experts hired by the painting's owner confirmed, after examining the painting, that it was a genuine Rembrandt, and a dozen experts who examined the blurry Polaroid declared it was a fake. Whose opinion would be more credible--the people who examined the actual picture, or the ones who merely examined the blurry Polaroid?

Further, it should be noted that until Michael Schiavo received a malpractice award (which gave $300,000 to him for loss of consortium and $750,000 to Terri for her continued care) he gave Terri treatment and therapy which appeared to have some degree of success; such treatments and therapy were stopped as soon as the malpractice award was issued. Any decline in Terri's condition since then is almost certainly a result of Michael's willful mistreatment of her.

Yes, but didn't Terri say she didn't want to be 'hooked up to tubes'?

According to Michael, Terri's remark was made after Terri watched a movie about Karen Ann Quinlan. At the time of the legal battle over her treatment, Ms. Quinlan was on a respirator. After a judge ordered that life support be discontinued, Karen An Quinlan started breathing on her own; she lived for years after that.

If anything, Terri's desire not to be hooked up to tubes would seem to be a desire to be weaned off them. Not by death, but by useful therapy. Unfortunately, for many years, Michael has forbidden anyone from making any effort to give Terri food or water by mouth, or from giving her any sort of therapy whatsoever. If Terri had been on a ventilator, rather than on a feeding tube, Michael's interpretation of her remarks would not be to remove the ventilator and see if she can start breathing on her own, but rather to remove the ventilator and smother her to ensure that she couldn't start breathing on her own.

Further, a feeding tube isn't something one is "hooked up to" in the same way one would be a ventilator, heart-lung machine, or other life support apparatus. A feeding tube is an implanted device that allows food to be put into the stomach without going through the esophagus. When one is fed (about 3 times/day), a container of food is attached for a few minutes. Otherwise, there's nothing external attached.

But haven't dozens of judges agreed with everything Michael has said?

There has only been one trial-court judge who has agreed with what Michael has been saying and doing: Judge George Greer. All of the other judges who have agreed with Michael have been appeals court judges. Although it is commonly perceived that appeals court judges are "more powerful" than trial court judges, this is often not the case. If a trial court judge fails to accept a piece of evidence that contradicts his findings, an appeals court can order him to consider it. If, however, the trial court judge claims that he looked at the piece of evidence but found it unconvincing, the appeals court can do nothing.

[supercat]

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.

Suppose the risk were 75%. Would it be worth trying to orally feed a patient if the alternative were to feed the patient via g-tube? Certainly not. But if g-tube feeding were no longer possible and the alternative was guaranteed death by dehydration? In that case, the 75% risk would instead become a 25% chance of survival. Hardly great odds, but not worth dismissing either.

[BagelFace]

a response within a response? neat trick.

"while refusing to allow her any therapy that might accomplish that"

not accurate

"He claims to want to honor his wedding vows and yet he as openly moved in with another woman, fathered children by her, and pledged to marry her."

sounds quite reasonable to me under the circumstances. and divorce? i don't think so! Oh, yeah, sorry, he was out to kill her in an obvious way, right - sorry, next time I'll try to keep that in mind.

[Ohioan from Florida]

I kind of thought that it was strange that the Shiendlers lived with Micheal for several years before it turned into a big media circus.

Please make sure you get that right. They did not live with Michael, he lived with them, and for a few months, they all took care of Terri together. When Michael moved out, it was because he was moving in with another romantic interest (not Jodi, this was around the time of the malpractice trial). He had Terri's two cats euthanized because his girlfriend had a dog, and didn't want to add the cats to the mix. As it turned out, Michael ended up not moving in with this woman, on the advice of his lawyer, because it wouldn't look good at the malpractice trial.

Also understand that Mr. Schindler didn't have doubts about Michael until after the malpractice trial jury had awarded money for Terri's rehab. That's when it started to sink in what he was up against. You mentioned that there "were several stories true or false about the Shiendlers that were never asked of them". I can only say that the same has gone on for Michael.

[XR7]

You know, the Terri Schiavo case is why I stopped coming to Free Republic and why I switched churches

LOL
You're still here!

[Ohioan from Florida]

First, welcome to FR.

Second, if you are really an MD, then you should be able to discern what was in that autopsy report. It was widely reported that the autopsy confirmed the PVS diagnosis, which is a blatant lie, because the report stated that PVS is a clinical diagnosis and can only be determined in a live person. It stated that her condition upon death was consistent with either a PVS or MCS, and that it could not be determined which state Terri was in most recently.

Third, I believe that had Michael continued therapy and rehab for Terri after 1993, that maybe she would have continued the progress she had already made. However, if one forgoes therapy, you as a doctor, would know quite well that it would be unlikely for anyone to recover, and in fact one would digress, as Terri did. It is unconscionable to withhold therapy, especially if you have just begged a jury for $$ to provide that therapy for the next 20 years, which is what Michael asked for.

[Ohioan from Florida]

But those five doctors didn't all reach the same conclusion, now did they? In fact, the most reliable brain scans weren't performed on Terri, because Michael wouldn't approve of her money to cover those tests. She had an MRI, but not a PET scan, and not an fMRI. Either one would have given better information than an MRI.

Did the autopsy find anything wrong with Terri's sense of smell? I don't remember anything about that. But Terri turned away from smells she didn't like. She *complained* as best as she could when her mouth was swabbed with something unpleasant.

[Ohioan from Florida]

Didnt MS pull the pug on both is and his current wifes parents?

Not in the way you might be thinking. I don't think either of his parents had a long term feeding tube like Terri had. One of his parents, I believe it was his mother, died from cancer. I think his dad had heart problems but I am not completely sure about that. However, Michael did admit on Larry King Live a few years ago that he had withheld food and water from his parents while they were actively dying from their diseases. Terri was not dying.

As for Jodi's parents, Jodi's father passed away before Michael and Jodi met. Jodi's mom passed away, it is suspected from cancer (ovarian?), while she was at M & J's home around August, 2004.

[Ohioan from Florida]

Perhaps Hodaka has followed this closer than you, but by no means should you consider his information conclusive. I and many others have looked very closely at Terri's case for years before it reached it's peak in the MSM last year, and I can assure you one thing. Michael is not a decent guy that tried to do the right thing. A decent guy would not try to flaunt his adulterous relationship while claiming to be the loving, devoted husband of another. If that's anyone's definition of decent, then this country is in despicable shape.

[retMD]

First, welcome to FR.

Thank you.

Second, if you are really an MD, then you should be able to discern what was in that autopsy report. It was widely reported that the autopsy confirmed the PVS diagnosis, which is a blatant lie, because the report stated that PVS is a clinical diagnosis and can only be determined in a live person. It stated that her condition upon death was consistent with either a PVS or MCS, and that it could not be determined which state Terri was in most recently.

I read the autopsy report, and agree completely that PVS is a clinical diagnosis. The autopsy report didn't quite say that her condition was consistent with either - it mentioned that while there is literature on what findings tend to accompany a diagnosis of PVS, there is no literature on findings characteristic of MCS. So a pathologist could not say it was consistent with MCS, as that information isn't known. He did say, "Neuropathologic examination of ... (Terri Schiavo's) brain - or any brain for that matter - cannot prove or disprove a diagnosis of persistent vegetative state or minimally conscious state." I also agree that there was a lot of misrepresentation of medical information, from both sides. Sadly, much of it continues to occur, sometimes from lack of knowledge, sometimes willful.

Third, I believe that had Michael continued therapy and rehab for Terri after 1993, that maybe she would have continued the progress she had already made. However, if one forgoes therapy, you as a doctor, would know quite well that it would be unlikely for anyone to recover, and in fact one would digress, as Terri did. It is unconscionable to withhold therapy, especially if you have just begged a jury for $$ to provide that therapy for the next 20 years, which is what Michael asked for.

If therapy for the first few years didn't help her - and my reading indicates it didn't - then I have to sadly conclude it would be unlikely to make a difference afterwards. If I missed documented improvement in the GAL report, or another credible source of medical information, please point me toward that information.

Also, I said early on that I don't agree with everything MS has done, so one shouldn't assume I approve of his every decision. I completely understand that people will have different opinions on such end of life decisions - it's a difficult issue. I respect those who argue the tube should not have been removed. It's the effort to distort or deny facts that disturbs me, which is why I stopped responding to certain posters on this thread.

Again, thanks for your welcome to FR.

[Ohioan from Florida]

The Schindlers did encourage Michael to move on with his life and give Terri's care back to them. That was in 1995.

However, Michael had already had several romantic interests before they wrote that letter pleading for Terri's care. I believe there were at least two, one was even happening before the malpractice trial in late 1992. Now with Michael and Jodi's story coming out, we find out that they met in 1993, and by 1995 they had fallen in love, and Michael had asked Jodi to marry him. Maybe you can tell me how someone would ask another to marry him, while currently being married to another? That just reeks of devotion, doesn't it? (sarc on that last one)

[retMD]

But those five doctors didn't all reach the same conclusion, now did they? In fact, the most reliable brain scans weren't performed on Terri, because Michael wouldn't approve of her money to cover those tests. She had an MRI, but not a PET scan, and not an fMRI. Either one would have given better information than an MRI.

I suggest reading the autopsy report, which has a summary about this. Terri never had an MRI, not because Michael wouldn't approve the test, but because early on she had an experimental stimulator implanted in an effort to improve her brain's function. MRIs are not done in that circumstance, as there are reports of serious injury and death. I'm interested in what experts feel a PET scan would have added - do you have a link?

Did the autopsy find anything wrong with Terri's sense of smell? I don't remember anything about that.

I didn't see any specific mention.

[Ohioan from Florida]

but the autopsy and supporting reports were proof that Terri was in a PVS

The autopsy concluded no such thing. It stated that it could not determine whether Terri was PVS or MCS because that is a clinical diagnosis, meaning one that is determined on a living person, not a dead body. It also said that what they found was consistent with what you would find with PVS, but also consistent with MCS.

Therefore, there was NO CONCLUSIVE PROOF that Terri was PVS before her death.

[Ohioan from Florida]

These issues were heard by the Courts

Make that singular. Greer was the only one who made findings of facts. The appeals courts went towards procedural errors, not factual errors that Greer made. This is precisely why Congress wanted the de-novo review. Only one court (Greer's) ever looked at findings of fact. Criminals can get this review, but Terri couldn't. What a shame.

[Ohioan from Florida]

2nd edition? twenty years ago in Catholic school we used the fifth edition at least. Maybe this is an old copy.

Are you serious? An old copy? Surely you saw the date of 1997, didn't you? Please tell me this was a feeble attempt at humor rather than an admittance of ignorance.

[Ohioan from Florida]

I don't think she gave anything towards the world anyway.

I think you ought to give yourself a big pat on the back for that one, 'cause you obviously need one. I cannot fathom why anyone would make such a remark.

[Ohioan from Florida]

But is food, water, or air ordinary care or extraordinary care? I consider them to be ordinary care, no matter the delivery.

[Ohioan from Florida]

Please tell me why Michael did not go take Terri right up to Shands Hospital in Gainesville after being awarded money for her rehab. It is a mere two hours drive, and less by ambulance or helicopter, and is what the doctor who implanted her stimulator suggested that he do as soon as he could afford to have her seen by the specialists there.

Michael stopped all of Terri's rehab and therapy shortly after the money was in the bank (Jan. 1993). The only thing that changed between Nov. 1992 (Michael's testimony for the trial), and the cessation of rehab and therapy (Feb. 1993) was $$ in the bank. What part about that do you not get???? In November he's telling a jury he wants to take care of Terri for the rest of her life (and asks for money to care for her for 20 years, mind you), and within 4 months ceases her therapy. How dim are you??? Surely this is not how you treated your husband.

[Ohioan from Florida]

Sadly, I suspect that Dr. Cheshire's hopes for her got the better of objective medical judgement.

Is that what you call it when a doctor doesn't perform the necessary medical tests to determine his patient's faculties? You call someone like Ronald Cranford objective? Hey, I have some swampland I'd like to sell you!

[Ohioan from Florida]

Certainly not a good md.