FL lawyer says Giuliani, Romney, McCain wrong on Schiavo case

OneNewsNow ^ | 5/28/07 | Jim Brown

[wagglebee]

The Christian attorney who fought to keep Terry Schiavo alive says the three leading GOP presidential candidates don't understand the important disability issues involved in the widely publicized 2005 case.

Hear This Report

During a recent Republican presidential debate in California, the candidates were asked whether Congress was right to intervene in the Terry Schiavo case by attempting to prevent the state of Florida from removing the disabled woman's feeding tube. The answers varied.

Mitt Romney, former governor of Massachusetts, said he thought it "was a mistake" for Congress to get involved and the matter should have been left at the state level. Senator John McCain said Congress "probably acted too hastily." And former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani called the case a "family dispute."

David Gibbs III of the Christian Law Association says the United States gives greater due process to convicted murderers than to innocent disabled people. The former attorney for Schiavo's parents argues that Congress did the right thing when it intervened to provide her those rights.

"Many of the candidates are following the political wind, if you will, instead of showing leadership and saying, 'You know what? That was good public policy back then. We need to stand up for the disabled. We need to stand up for the senior citizens,'" Gibbs says. "We need to have that compassion for vulnerable people as opposed to taking the mindset that those people that just don't matter," he notes.

It is disingenuous, the Christian attorney contends, for candidates to claim they are pro-life but not be willing to grant due process rights to the disabled. "If you're pro-life, you have to be pro-life at every step," he says.

"Please understand: our founding fathers understood that you don't have any liberty, our Constitution doesn't matter, if you don't protect the innocent life of the citizens," Gibbs explains. "That's why they talked about life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness -- your free speech, your freedom of religion, your right to own a gun or [receive] due process of law," he says. "If the government can kill you, you have no true liberty."

When Rudy Giuliani visited Florida he initially said he was in favor of assisting Terry Schiavo but later backpedaled from those comments, Gibbs points out. And in the recent GOP presidential debate, he says, only Kansas Senator Sam Brownback and Congressman Duncan Hunter of California got the issue right when they were asked about the Schiavo case.

[retMD]

Terri could have been asphyxiated or smothered in the posture I suggested -- and I believe you agreed with that?

I agree that suffocation against a soft surface would be possible. I don't agree that positional asphyxia would occur in the posture you proposed - see the article I linked and quoted.

[retMD]

Dr. Baden DID say he thought she was the victim of trauma,

Not exactly. He said:

"the other issue is: could it have been due to some other cause, which is raised by the family. [That] has to be looked at."

He went on to speculate about cause (erroneously implying that the bone scan showed a head injury, by the way):

”Baden said the injuries suggested some kind of trauma: "The trauma can be from an auto accident; the trauma can be from some kind of beating that she obtained from somebody somewhere. It's something that should have been investigated in 1991 when those findings were fresh," adding, "Maybe they were. Maybe they were investigated by the police at that time."

And of course, the police did investigate at the time, and found no evidence of beating. A beating that caused the fractures you postulate would leave huge bruises. Further, multiple rib fractures would have been impossible to miss on the many chest x-rays she had in the hospital. You can miss acute rib fractures, but healing ones are obvious.

[retMD]

The therapy one was post #373

...the guardian refused to let the ward have therapy or testing or even stimulation.

[retMD]

>> 9.Claims that Carla Iyer is a very credible witness.
--Carla Iyer shown to be either grossly ignorant of what she should know as a nurse, or fabricating.

It's your claim, based on your fancy-pants interpretation of a single word she used, that is ridiculous.

I challenge you to talk to any nurse or doctor who deals with patients and ask them what it means if a patient is "oriented". I'll thrown in paramedics and EMTs as well. It's analogous to a nurse not understanding what "vital signs" are. If you believe my "interpretation" to be "fancy-pants" then show everyone on this thread an alternatitve, widely accepted medical meaning for the word "oriented." I linked several nursing sites to show you. What medical information can you offer?

[retMD]

It's your claim, based on your fancy-pants interpretation of a single word she used, that is ridiculous.

I'll give you an analogy: It's similar to a nurse saying a patient gasping for air with a heart rate of 160, a respiratory rate of 50 and a blood pressure of 60/40, has "normal vital signs."

[erton1]

This post just shows your ignorance of the legal system. At a trial the parties, ie the Schindlers or michael Schiavo, call the witnesses to tesfy in court. The judge does not have the authority to call the witness. If a party calls a witness to testify and that individual refuses to testify, then the judge can order him or her to testify. The Schindlers never even called Iyer as a witness to testify in open court. No, I had nothing to do with this case, just an observer interested in the truth.

Then after the trials the Schindlers “miraculously” produce an affidavit, which relates to events that occurred prior to the trial, by a witness they could and should have called as a witness and you and others wonder why the courts and others question the credibility of the evidence and witness. To top it off, you blame the judge, for following the law in his denial of the motion for new trial and call him an “activist judge.” You and your cohorts would not know a law book if it smacked you between the eyes.

[erton1]

The Constitution and bill of rights applies to both civil and criminal cases. In a civil case, such as this one, both sides have the right to cross exam the witness. This right comes from the bill of rights. I hope most freepers learned this in school.

[wagglebee]

The Constitution and bill of rights applies to both civil and criminal cases. In a civil case, such as this one, both sides have the right to cross exam the witness. This right comes from the bill of rights. I hope most freepers learned this in school.

The Constitution makes no mention whatsoever about rights to cross examine witnesses. The Fifth and Sixth Amendments deal specifically with CRIMINAL matters. The only amendment that deals with civil matters is the Seventh and that just talks about the right to a jury.

So, when you are going to make a statement like, "I hope most freepers learned this in school," at least make sure that YOU have your facts right.

[erton1]

Is it your contention that a party does not have the right to cross exam witnesses in a civil case and that right does not flow from our Bill of Rights? The framers held our property rights as dear as all our other rights.

[wagglebee]

Of course property rights are important, but do not sit here and say that something is clearly spelled out in the Constitution or Bill of Rights when it isn't. And what does Terri's murder have to do with property rights?

Hold on, I think I understand where you are coming from. You believe that someone can be deprived of their life, even if they haven't been charged with a capital offense (or any other crime for that matter), as long as they have received due process.

Thanks for clearing that up for all of us.

[erton1]

No one has still answered the question as to these “great” witnesses and why they never were called to testify by the Schindlers. If they were so credible why didn’t the Schindlers want them cross examined? Instead they get some affidavits, most likely written by their lawyers, and produce them years later in a PR campaign.

[erton1]

All of Terri’s Constitutional rights were upheld. She has a Constitutional Right to decide not to live in the condition she found herself. That has been addressed by many courts, including SCOTUS. See the Cruzan decision. I don’t see a groundswell for a constitutional amendment to change that, or any other laws, particularly after the Schiavo debacle.

[erton1]

see # 1590.

[wagglebee]

At the time of Terri’s injury, a feeding tube WERE NOT considered life support for purposes of removing life support under Florida law. So, not only was there no written medical directive, she was starved and dehydrated based on a law that SHE NEVER COULD HAVE KNOWN ABOUT.

But again, it is obvious, you believe that ANYBODY can be put to death as long as a judge agrees.

[kozokey]

It's your claim, based on your fancy-pants interpretation of a single word she used, that is ridiculous.

T'wit, I'm sorry, but you are just wrong on this. It is not a fancy-pants interpretation" of the word "oriented" that retMD gave. It is basic, common, universal medical terminology that is used by every person even tangentially involved with medicine, from social workers to CNAs to LPNs to attending physicians. Here is just a sampling of the word's being defined that way by several widely-used references: BehaveNet CancerWeb Online Dictionary Online-Medical-Dictionary Stedman's TheFreeDictionary About.com

As I'm sure you must realize, there are many words which have a medical meaning and then a non-medical meaning that is different. You just didn't realize that "oriented" was one of those terms. That's OK; probably a lot of people didn't know it. But at least this discussion has given us all a chance to learn something! :)

[erton1]

And that changes Terri’s constitutional rights as upheld by the courts? This sounds like another one of your winning legal arguments.

[erton1]

Btw please show where a written medical directive is required under Florida law. In fact provision is made when there is not a written medical directive. If you have so many problems with the law, why don’t you go to the legislature and petition for changes rather than want a judge to ignore the law which he is sworn to uphold? I think that is the conservative model.

[retMD]

Thanks for pulling all these links together! Many non medical people don’t realize the specific medical meanings of certain words, just as I know there are words in other disciplines that would surprise or confuse me as to their technical meaning within those disciplines.

You obviously have medical training, legal also?

[retMD]

The author, doing medical research, discovered a “smoking gun” - an obscure 1994 Government Study that revealed how Theresa Shiavo’s hospital admission virtually parallels Emergency Room admissions caused by trauma such as physical spousal abuse - wife beating, which would account for her Hypokalemia diagnosis, cardiac arrest, etc. This was further confirmed by a larger detailed study published by the National Institute of Health in 2002.

Not even close to a smoking gun. Any researcher will tell you that correlation is not the same as causation. "Paralelling" does not prove anything.

We've also discussed the hypokalemia, and the fact that large volume of fluid in resuscitiation (which Terri Schiavo received) and epinephrine (which Terri Schiavo also received) can cause hypokalemia. There are many causes of hypokalemia besides trauma.

Additional skeletal trauma to Theresa Schiavo was documented at her autopsy.

Oh? And what skeletal trauma was that aside from a spinal compression fracture? And if you maintain the compression fracture was from domestic violence, please provide the mechanism of injury - there are very specific ones for compression fracture in a healthy young adult.

[erton1]

Gee Schindler’s lawyer claims reversible error! I’m shocked. He claimed the same thing in his points of error in appeals to three different appellate courts, that I am aware of. Guess what, none of the appellate courts agreed with him. I have much more faith in three different neutral appellate courts, who review cases for reversible error daily, than in an attorney and advocate of one of the parties grandstanding to the media.

Greer was anything but an activist judge in this case. He took the law of the State of Florida and applied it to the facts of the case. Just because you are not happy with outcome in a case does not mean the judge was activist.