Posted on 05/28/2007 9:33:12 AM PDT by 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.
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.
Right. I can see it all now. The three Schiavo's count as the bible, the Schindler's and all of Terri's friends count as liars. Just the way the game is played I guess. She's dead by barbaric means by a corrupt finder of fact judge. Have a nice day.
--That was Michael Schiavo medical evidence testimony you quoted.
Yes. Medical evidence, about medicine.
Do I need to link your comment about that?
Be my guest, as long as all context is included.
Ah what criminal statutes did she break... the state declared her a non person (a dead body) and property of her husband to dispose of has he saw fit... that is a Federal civil right issue when a living citizen of the U.S. is declared by a state a non person with no right and property of another person
It is possible to be selective in quoting medical testimony, wouldn't you say, sir? If you come down every time on one side of the controversial questions, that is tendency, isn't it? Let's review the record.
You declared a board-certified neurologist to be a "charlatan" over a trivial semantic issue (whether the doctor was "recommended" or "nominated" for a Nobel Prize) that had nothing to do with medicine. But Drs. Hammesfahr and Maxfield spent 15 hours with Terri (five times as much first hand testing and experience as the other three court-appointed neurologists put together). They took the time and trouble to make friends with Terri, knowing that she was more responsive that way. She did not respond well to strangers -- a factor that skews the tests of clinicians who did not bother to do it right. Calling Hammesfahr names does not refute his findings and it ignores the corroborative findings of Dr. Maxfield.
You kept saying there was no proof of violence to Terri -- so? Who officially ever tried to prove it? The bone scan is strong evidence of violence, especially set against the circumstances of the case. Drs. Hammesfahr and Maxfield's finding of a spinal cord injury around C4 is also evidence of violence. A stiffness in the neck was specified in Terri's Humana discharge report and it troubled her the rest of her life. And, of course, Terri's mysteriously nearly dead body on a hallway floor does suggest that she may have been the victim of domestic violence. There is no credible innocent explanation of her injuries.
Based on nothing but the title of their book, you dismissed as "ideological" the doctor and RN who assembled medical source documents about the case. The title is "Our Fight 4 Terri," so presumably being for Terri is ideological in your opinion, yes? That's all you had to go on.
You sided with the M.E.'s controversial finding to overrule the Dr. Walker and the bone scan, skipping over the fact that he refused to budge in his testimony that the pattern of hot spots he observed was NOT that of heterotrophic ossification. You also ignored Dr. C.B.B.'s comment sharply questioning the formation of so much H.O., and in that odd pattern, in just over 12 months. Dr. Walker, the only discussant who actually examined the radiographs, was firm in stating in sworn testimony that this was not a pattern of H.O.
You dismissed Dr. or Mr. Gerald Tedesco (whichever he may be) as not being "expert," as if that rebutted anything he said. He offered a long list of observations and questions about the autopsy findings, and suggestions for retests of controversial findings, all of which stand unrefuted.
You claimed that Terri's behavior was "random" motion and did not address my post of the Affidavit by Alexander Gimon, PhD. which listed and discussed numerous instances of cognitive behavior by Terri. Many other doctors and professionals offered similar affidavits at evidentiary hearings. They came forward in court, putting their credentials on the line.
When the fraudulent comparison of Terri's CT came up, you ignored the fraud, and said repeatedly how bad Terri's CT was, ignoring the comments of two radiologists that they had patients with similar CTs who were functional.
You sided with Dr. Thogmartin's press conference remark that Terri was cortically blind. But ophthalmologist Thomas W. Hejkal, MD, PhD., stepped forward to say that despite the autopsy findings that Terri was visually impaired (which everyone conceded), "cortical blindness could only be diagnosed by assessing her visual function while she was living." Three of the five court-appointed neurologists tested Terri for vision and all three (including the late Dr. Cranford, who was acting for Michael) affirmed that she had some vision (optimum 8-12" and up to 18' with some focus by the Hammesfahr-Maxfield measurements).
You said you searched the literature for any evidence that a large male could kill a small female by getting on her back -- until a Freeper radiologist affirmed that of course you could kill that way. Even then you questioned whether it could be done on a soft surface until he pointed out that that was even easier. Then you tried to argue that suffocation would leave external marks, when it was pointed out that it usually does not. So, with you resisting every inch of the way, we affirmed and established that it was perfectly possible for Michael to asphyxiate Terri with the weight of his body on her back, leaving no external marks.
In all of the above cases, sir, you invariably sided, in effect, with Michael, against Terri's right to live, and against specific findings by upwards of forty credentialed medical professionals.
In my opinion, sir, medicine used thus tendentiously is not science or medicine at all, but advocacy. Which, of course, absolutely is your right to express.
Check, and mate. Though I suspect he’ll keep moving his men around the board, as though he’s still in the game.
On the contrary, it has a lot to do with medical ethics. He was not legitimately nominated for a nobel prize, but that claim was still on his web site, as I posted. The only reason I can think of for continuing a false claim is to persuade patients to see him under fraudulent grounds. You also neglected his extravagant claims for his therapies, not backed up by research or the ability to produce statistics and evidence in court that his claims were valid. Charlatan I said, and charlatan I meant. I suggest to you that if a doctor you disagreed with on this behaved like that, you’d scream to the skies about his lack of medical ethics.
Calling Hammesfahr names does not refute his findings and it ignores the corroborative findings of Dr. Maxfield.
I respect Dr. Maxfield and his accomplishments, but I’ll point out he is not a neurologist – his field is radiology.
The bone scan is strong evidence of violence, especially set against the circumstances of the case.
Only if you stipulate the violence was a high speed car accident, or a fall from a height. You have to yet to show how the hot areas on the scan could translate to domestic violence. For all the reasons I have previously posted, they don’t,
Drs. Hammesfahr and Maxfield's finding of a spinal cord injury around C4 is also evidence of violence.
Please cite and/or link where Dr. Maxfield found a spinal cord injury around C4, or anywhere else. Dr Hammesfahr claiming one with no evidence, aside from muscle stiffness, which she had in many other muscles as well, is evidence of his willingness to misrepresent or his incompetence – take your pick.
A stiffness in the neck was specified in Terri's Humana discharge report and it troubled her the rest of her life.
And you accuse me of deception! Take a look at the discharge summary from Humana Hospital:
Neck: Somewhat stiff. All other muscles of the body were also stiff.
There is no credible innocent explanation of her injuries. .
Based on nothing but the title of their book, you dismissed as "ideological" the doctor and RN who assembled medical source documents about the case. The title is "Our Fight 4 Terri," so presumably being for Terri is ideological in your opinion, yes? That's all you had to go on.
I told you I would not pay for books, written by either side. That sounds evenhanded to me.
You sided with the M.E.'s controversial finding to overrule the Dr. Walker and the bone scan, skipping over the fact that he refused to budge in his testimony that the pattern of hot spots he observed was NOT that of heterotrophic ossification.
This again makes no sense. The pathologist having the last word is not “overruling” and is not at all controversial; it’s actually standard. I doubt you can find a doctor who agrees as to the “controversial” nature of a pathologist disagreeing with a clinician. Just because that is your view, doesn’t mean that’s the way medical information works.
You also ignored Dr. C.B.B.'s comment sharply questioning the formation of so much H.O., and in that odd pattern, in just over 12 months. Dr. Walker, the only discussant who actually examined the radiographs, was firm in stating in sworn testimony that this was not a pattern of H.O.
And you are not ignoring that he said it was a pattern for a car accident or similar trauma? And that he said the treating physicians had a more complete picture of the patient than he did? You do pick and choose, exactly what you are accusing others of doing.
You dismissed Dr. or Mr. Gerald Tedesco (whichever he may be) as not being "expert," as if that rebutted anything he said.
You claimed he was a doctor and a pathology expert. Neither is the case. His opinion is no more valid than any other person with limited medical training (no less valid, either.)
He offered a long list of observations and questions about the autopsy findings, and suggestions for retests of controversial findings, all of which stand unrefuted.
Some of what he said was common medical knowledge, which I agree with. Some of it was speculation, some of which can neither be confirmed or refuted.
You claimed that Terri's behavior was "random" motion and did not address my post of the Affidavit by Alexander Gimon, PhD. which listed and discussed numerous instances of cognitive behavior by Terri. Many other doctors and professionals offered similar affidavits at evidentiary hearings. They came forward in court, putting their credentials on the line.
Stop putting words in my mouth (again). I did not observe Terri Schiavo, so I never “claimed” her motion was anything. Many doctors testified that she was in PVS. I do know that PVS patients make random motions. And I know that hours of video were edited down to make motions reported by those doctors to be random appear purposeful. Perhaps we should both find and view the unedited footage reported to be available?
When the fraudulent comparison of Terri's CT came up, you ignored the fraud, and said repeatedly how bad Terri's CT was, ignoring the comments of two radiologists that they had patients with similar CTs who were functional.
The comparison of scans at two different levels doesn’t invalidate how bad her scan looked. In that same post, #359, Polybius said: “That is not to say that Schiavo was not really as bad off as they claimed.”
You sided with Dr. Thogmartin's press conference remark that Terri was cortically blind. But ophthalmologist Thomas W. Hejkal, MD, PhD., stepped forward to say that despite the autopsy findings that Terri was visually impaired (which everyone conceded), "cortical blindness could only be diagnosed by assessing her visual function while she was living."
That is, again, absurd. Cortical blindness may be a clinical diagnosis, but when the visual cortex is degenerated, that person must have been cortically blind. Did Dr Hejkal assert that she had vision? Please link to his original statement, not to a report about it (surprising how often the original statements turn out not to say what some have claimed. Like your statement that “Dr. Michael Baden, the world famous pathologist, has looked into the case. He thinks Terri was the victim of trauma." Which statement was contradicted by two of Dr. Baden’s interviews.)
Sorry, whatever clinician’s may think, the pathologist gets the last word. If her visual cortex was so damaged, she could not see. Period.
You said you searched the literature for any evidence that a large male could kill a small female by getting on her back -- until a Freeper radiologist affirmed that of course you could kill that way. Even then you questioned whether it could be done on a soft surface until he pointed out that that was even easier.
You misread that one completely. I was questioning whether the soft surface was in fact the culprit on one of the reports Polybius linked to. A soft surface that your original scenario did not have.
Then you tried to argue that suffocation would leave external marks, when it was pointed out that it usually does not.
Yes, Polybius taught me something, and I thanked him or her.
So, with you resisting every inch of the way, we affirmed and established that it was perfectly possible for Michael to asphyxiate Terri with the weight of his body on her back, leaving no external marks.
I still have questions about that, actually. And I cited the medical evidence why, if you bestir yourself to recall – a study in an emergency publication that concluded body weight on a healthy adult would not be sufficient to seriously depress respiration. If you want to postulate Terri Schiavo was suffocated with a pillow, it’s possible, but there’s no evidence. If you’re postulating positional asphyxia on the floor, I have grave doubts.
In all of the above cases, sir, you invariably sided, in effect, with Michael, against Terri's right to live, and against specific findings by upwards of forty credentialed medical professionals.
No, I said nothing about Terri Schiavo’s right to live. In fact, I said that I would not comment on that, not feeling it was my place to decide – another deliberate misstatement on your part.
You’ll note that I have said several times that domestic violence was possible, but there was no evidence for it. You seem determined to believe that’s what occurred, despite the lack of evidence. You have tried to manufacture evidence where it doesn’t exist. Who is the advocate (while claiming only to want the truth)? Who, despite being shown that the hot spots on the scan don’t translate to a domestic violence pattern of injury persist in saying they do, while producing no authoritative medical evidence that that is the case? Who accuses when he or she can’t produce facts?
If you want to pursue the science dispassionately, let's start with your claim that the bone scan was evidence of domestic violence. Tell me the mechanism of the injuries if the hot spots were fractures?
Looks like Dr. Hammesfahr proved his claims. Now what we have is only your biased opinion on him that is not based in reality.
======================================================================
"Based on evidence presented by Dr. Hammesfahr that several of his patients had actually improved after treatment, the ALJ(Administrative Law Judge) also concluded that Dr. Hammesfahr had not engaged in false advertising concerning his treatment of strokes."
2nd District Court of Florida - Dr. Hammesfahr cleared of all false charges.
Then you do admit that Terri may of not been in a persistent vegetative state and the videos may of been a real representation of her interacting with her parents?
He's all yours, sir.
I think you stopped reading too soon about Dr Hammesfahr. Next paragraph down:
On the third charge, the ALJ recommended discipline for a violation of section 458.331(1)(n), which prohibits “[e]xercising influence on the patient or client in such a manner as to exploit the patient or client for financial gain of the licensee or of a third party, which shall include, but not be limited to, the promoting or selling of services, goods, appliances, or drugs.” The ALJ found that Dr. Hammesfahr violated section 458.331(1)(n) by charging a patient $3000 for services that she did not receiveNot a good testimony for his character, along with all his other questionable actions. But actually, I was referring to the claim his treatment would help Terri Schiavo, and that he claimed in the deposition and 2002 trial he'd treated 50 to 100 patients worse than Terri Schiavo, which he was then unable to back up.
Q No. You made a claim -- and correct me, if you didn't make this claim, correct me. I believe that you claimed that you've treated, I think you either said less than a hundred or less than 50, you didn't give an exact number, of patients who were in the same or worse neurological condition than Theresa Schiavo and that your therapies have improved their neurological condition.He was then unable to back up these claims. He referenced a paper where most of the patients had whiplash, not anoxic brain damage.
--Then you do admit that Terri may of not been in a persistent vegetative state and the videos may of been a real representation of her interacting with her parents?
I don't see how that follows from what I said. I said if her visual cortex was so damaged, she couldn't see.
No, perhaps it means that that’s what the medical evidence says. You seem to think that anyone who disagrees with your interpretation of the medicine is “against” Terri Schiavo and “for” Michael Schiavo, as opposed to looking at the medicine. You still haven’t been able to challenge the medicine, all you can do is accuse me of being partisan, being dishonest, being a nazi, and wanting Terri Schiavo dead.
Try refuting some of the medical facts. Earlier I posted a list of all your assertions that turned out to be wrong - many of which you had to admit were wrong - would you like it again?
Refute me with facts, not accusations. Ad hominem attacks are a sign of a weak case. If all you can do is accuse instead of discussing the medicine, have fun insulting, but I won’t participate.
You claim it's a trivial semantic issue when a doctor falsely advertises - on his web site, letterhead, etc., that he was nominated for a Nobel prize? I would hope you are simply naive, not intellectually dishonest. It wouldn't matter if he advertised he was "recommended" for a Nobel prize, as it would still be an attempt (though subtler) to make potential patients believe he held an honor that he does not. That is despicable.
Pathetic.
>> You still haven’t been able to challenge the medicine...
That's funny, sir! You're the one playing armchair diagnostician and telling us that medical records and clinicians who worked with Terri are wrong.
>> ...all you can do is accuse me of being partisan,
I made no such accusation, but I did take notice of the relentless tendentiousness of your arguments. (So did everybody else in this thread.) Are you not partisan, sir?
>>...being dishonest,
That's not true.
>> ...being a nazi,
That's not true.
>>...and wanting Terri Schiavo dead.
That's not true. Are you having a bad truth day, doc?
I don't think so, doc. When you resort to ad hominem and denial of original clinical findings and million-to-one shots to make your case, you are straining FAR too hard in order to stay one-sided.
Cut the crap.
I didn't say anything like that. You really are having a bad truth day.
Anyway, it has nothing to do with the question at hand, sir. Here you are again, attacking the man's character instead of addressing his medical findings. That's the fallacy of argumentum ad hominem, sir -- it changes the subject. It doesn't address the issues at hand. You can call him names forever and you won't refute one single thing.
And as long as you insist on casting stones -- when did you rise above sin, sir?
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.