Posted on 07/01/2007 3:27:40 AM PDT by 8mmMauser
Edited on 07/02/2007 4:50:59 AM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
That's the question Bobby Schindler asked in the case involving Jesse Ramirez, the Arizona man whose case paralleled that of Schindler's sister, Terri Schiavo, until Ramirez woke up. The Arizona Republic reports:
...Bobby Schindler of the Florida-based Terri Schindler Shiavo Foundation placed the blame on a medical establishment quick to dismiss patients with brain injuries.Why is Jesse alive? His family sought legal intervention with the help of the Alliance Defense Fund:
Schindler is the brother of Terri Schiavo, a brain-damaged Florida woman who died in 2005 after a decades-long court battle.
"What is the rush?" he asked. "This is not the first time we've heard of cases like this where doctors want to write off the chance of recovery, and the family, when they're told this, will make a decision to end a person's life.
"In the case of Mr. Ramirez, he'd be dead now."
His siblings and parents refused to give him up for dead, and today, Jesse Ramirez is alive and conscious.
Two weeks ago, he was the center of a family battling over of whether he should live or die.
Now, he can hug and kiss, nod his head, answer yes and no questions, give a thumbs-up sign and sit in a chair.
Related:
A Miracle for Jesse Ramirez and His Family
Jesse Ramirez Conscious, Moved To Rehab Facility
Terri was not in a coma. Even the dreaded PVS is not being "in a coma" but rather, a condition after you wake up from a coma.
The team would have all the trolls around here who lobbied so fiercely for Charlie before they marched off to their wanking new site.
..................................
Healthcare providers stopped feeding Terri Schiavo for the purpose of ending her life. Terri's brother, Bobby Schindler, and Presidential candidate Sam Brownback called this "killing" today at West Des Moines' Crossroads Fellowship Church (this article ). I agree with them. "Her life remained sacred to the very end," Brownback was quoted by the Desmoines Register as saying. "Whether it's a child in the womb or it's somebody that has had a very difficult situation...she nonetheless remains a person and she shouldn't be artificially, or by humans, terminated. Instead, we should protect these lives."
8mm
That might be Charlie, Chimps, and Chumps...
Thanks for the ping, diago.
We do not know exactly what Margaret Sanger said at the Silver Lake Klan Rally when she spoke there 81 years ago, but if she could have predicted the devastation her organization would bring upon the Black community, the racists would have gone away very happy. If the goal of the Ku Klux Klan 81 years ago was to wreak havoc and death upon the African-American community, Margaret Sanger could proudly report today: "Mission Accomplished!"
Margaret Sanger to Ku Klux Klan 81 Years Later: "Mission Accomplished!"
8mm
Must take my leave for the moment. Later....
Here's a final installment from law Professor Snead discussing the reversible legal error Greer made about Jackie Rhodes's testimony, and the four pathetic statements by Michael Schiavo, his brother and his sister in law, that he used to execute Terri Schiavo. Not one of these statements holds up to the required legal standards. Taken together, they are a farcical case. All of them were coached by George Felos, and they all appear to be shaped to Felos's legal "kill" strategy rather than being genuine recollections. The comments by Joan Schiavo were a scatterbrained cascade of illogic that sounded like a skit by Gracie Allen and "I Love Lucy."
Quite a bit of reading here, but it's worth it for those who take an interest in the law and the truth. (To save space I omitted numerous legal footnotes.)
"At the January 2000 trial, the court heard from five witnesses who recounted past comments by Ms. Schiavo ostensibly relating to her end-of-life preferences. Two witnesses, Mary Schindler (Ms. Schiavos mother) and Diane Meyer (Ms. Schiavos childhood friend) testified that, based on conversations with Ms. Schiavo about the widely publicized Quinlan case (involving a dispute about termination of life sustaining measures), they believed that Ms. Schiavo would not, under the circumstances, elect to decline artificial nutrition and hydration.43 An additional witness, Jackie Rhodes, testified that in the many times she and Ms. Schiavo had visited her grandmother in a nursing home, Ms. Schiavo never expressed to her that she would wish to decline artificial nutrition and hydration were she ever to fall into a profoundly dependent condition. Three witnesses: Michael Schiavo, Scott Schiavo (Mr. Schiavos brother), and Joan Schiavo (Mr. Schiavos sister-in-law) testified that Ms. Schiavo had, at various times, expressed her desire to decline life sustaining measures under certain circumstances.
"In making its decision, the court discounted the testimony of Rhodes, Schindler, and Meyer. Judge Greer deemed the Schindler testimony to be unreliable based on his understanding that Ms. Schiavos comments weremade in 1976 (the year in which Judge Greer thought Ms. Quinlan had died), when Ms. Schiavo was only 11 or 12 years of age.44 In fact, Judge Greers understanding of the Quinlan chronology was mistaken -- Karen Ann Quinlan died in 1985, which would suggest that Ms. Schiavos remarks could have been made when she was between the ages of seventeen and twenty (as Ms. Schindler had originally asserted at the hearing). Similarly, Judge Greer discounted the Meyer testimony based on the same error; he regarded Meyers testimony as uncredible because Meyer implied that Karen Quinlan was still alive in 1982.45 Judge Greer was mystified by Meyers testimony, and concluded that the conversation must have taken place in the 1970s, when Ms. Schiavo was a child.46 But this, of course, was not necessarily so. Thus, Judge Greer discounted evidence that Ms. Schiavo would not choose to decline artificial nutrition and hydration, based in significant part, on an easily verifiable factual error about a historical event.
"Far more troubling than what the Florida court discounted as credible, was what it took to be clear and convincing. Judge Greers conclusion that Ms. Schiavo would want, under the circumstances, to decline artificial nutrition and hydration, relied entirely on four statements she allegedly made regarding her own treatment in the event that she should become profoundly disabled. First, the court relied on Mr. Schiavos testimony that many years prior on a train ride, Ms. Schiavo stated that if she ever had to be a burden to anybody like [her uncle was to her grandmother], [she didnt] want to live like that.47 Ms. Schiavos uncle had been in a car accident, and was disabled: his right arm was paralyzed, he walked with a severe limp, and had slurred speech.48 Ms. Schiavos elderly and ailing grandmother was the sole caretaker for the uncle. Second, Mr. Schiavo testified that he and Ms. Schiavo watched documentaries involving disabled individuals who were profoundly dependent upon others. In response to the suffering of these patients, Ms. Schiavo purportedly asked Mr. Schiavo not to keep her alive on anything artificial.49
"The third statement relied upon by the court was the testimony of Scott Schiavo that in 1986, at the funeral following the death of his grandmother, Ms. Schiavo made remarks indicating what her views were regarding life sustaining measures.50 Scott Schiavos grandmother had been maintained at the end of her life solely by a host of life sustaining machinery against her clearly stated wishes. According to Scott Schiavos testimony, the interventions sustaining his grandmother included something that is breathing for you . . . [and devices that] pump blood [into your heart] and oxygen to your brain and everything else.51 He described the machinery as lifting [her] off the bed for air. . . [and causing] her chest [to] pump[]up.52 At the funeral for his grandmother, all of the grandchildren were expressing their anger that the grandmother had been kept alive on a machine against her wishes, after she was gone.53 According to Scott Schiavo, Ms. Schiavo added her thoughts in response to the suffering of the Schiavo grandmother, and stated, if I ever go like that, just let me go. Dont leave me there. I dont want to be kept alive on a machine.54 This comment made at the reception following the Schiavo grandmothers funeral was the only remark Scott Schiavo ever recalled Ms. Schiavo making about life sustaining measures.55 Curiously, Scott Schiavo failed to mention this one instance to anyone until nine years after Ms. Schiavo became severely cognitively disabled and profoundly dependent.
"The final comment relied upon by Judge Greer to support his conclusion regarding Ms. Schiavos wishes was reported by Joan Schiavo, Mr. Schiavos sister-in-law....56 Joan Schiavo testified that: We had watched a movie one time on television. It was about somebody. I dont remember. It was about a guy who had an accident and he was in a comma [sic]. There was no help for him. We had stated that if that ever happened to one of us, in our lifetime, we would not want to go through that. That we would want it stated in our will we would want the tubes and everything taken out.57 Joan Schiavo further testified that she thought that the character in the movie was sustained on a breathing machine or a feeding machine.58 Joan Schiavo added, however, I dont remember the movie. I really dont remember the movie.59 Nevertheless, she seemed to recall that the characters condition was terminal, and that he died within months to a year,60 though she added again that she wasnt sure about this aspect of the movie either.61 Joan Schiavo... failed to mention this conversation until nine years following Ms. Schiavos collapse and disability.
"These four statements were the sum and substance of the evidence upon which Judge Greer based his conclusion that Ms. Schiavo would want to terminate artificial nutrition and hydration under the circumstances presented. That such evidence would be regarded as clear and convincing is nothing short of astonishing. To the contrary, all of the foregoing comments are paradigmatic examples of statements that courts routinely deem to be presumptively unreliable. First, all of the four statements were general, remote, and made in casual circumstances. All of the statements were made at least five years prior to Ms. Schiavos collapse. Two of the four statements were made while watching television or movies; one was made during a casual conversation on a train; one was made during an informal (and highly emotionally charged) conversation at a reception following a funeral. Each statement could also fairly be characterized has an off-hand remark about not wanting to live under certain circumstances made by a person when young and in the peak of health.
"Most damningly, all of the statements attributed to Ms. Schiavo were made in response to seeing or hearing about anothers prolonged death, a category of comment that courts regularly dismiss as unreliable. Compounding this error, all of the statements were made in response to circumstances factually dissimilar to Ms. Schiavos. Ms. Schiavos condition was non-terminal. She was not in a coma. Most experts have described her condition as a persistent vegetative state, characterized by the absence of cognitive behavior of any kind, and an inability to communicate or interact purposefully with the environment.62 She was not maintained on a ventilator or other machine. She did, however, receive artificial nutrition and hydration by means of a PEG tube.
"By contrast, Ms. Schiavos uncles condition was nothing like hers he suffered from paralysis in one arm, difficulty walking, and slurred speech. Likewise, Ms. Schiavos condition did not resemble those of the terminally ill comatose character from the movie she and Joan Schiavo purportedly viewed together (to the extent that Joan Schiavo was able to recall the details of this film). Nor was Ms. Schiavos condition like that of the Schiavo grandmother, who was terminally ill and required all manner of invasive machinery to sustain her life. Finally, it is not clear at all that Ms. Schiavos condition matched those of the individuals in the documentaries that Mr. Schiavo claimed that they watched together. If Judge Greer had followed the well-developed body of persuasive authority for interpreting such evidence, he would have been compelled to conclude that these statements were not sufficient to support a decision to terminate life-sustaining measures for Ms. Schiavo.
"In another departure from the well-established jurisprudence in this area, Judge Greer chose to rely on statements that were near verbatim examples of comments that courts uniformly deem presumptively unreliable. Specifically, Judge Greer pointed to Ms. Schiavos remarks that she would not want to be a burden, and that she would not want to be sustained on anything artificial or on a machine as a basis for his decision to withdraw her PEG tube.
"Finally, in crediting the testimony of Michael Schiavo, Judge Greer relied on evidence that was patently equivocal and contradictory. Mr. Schiavos testimony that his wife would want to cease life-sustaining measures, based on his recollection of prior conversations, squarely contradicted his own testimony given under oath in prior judicial proceedings. First, during the damages phase of a medical malpractice suit brought on his wifes behalf shortly after her collapse, Mr. Schiavo requested compensatory damages sufficient to care for her for the rest of [his] life.63 Indeed, he testified that he was studying to become a nurse so that he could care for her for the rest of her life, which was not expected to be cut short by her disability.64 At this trial he made no mention of the fact that, based on her prior expressed wishes, he would shortly thereafter decide against sustaining her life by artificial means. But this is precisely the decision that Mr. Schiavo made a fact that caused Guardian ad Litem Richard Pearse to view with deep skepticism the entirety of Mr. Schiavos comments regarding his wifes wishes.65
"Moreover, Mr. Schiavos account of his wifes wishes directly contradicted comments that he made in a November 1993 deposition in which he discussed his decision not to treat his wifes urinary tract infection. Mr. Schiavo stated that it was his desire at that point to allow Ms. Schiavo to succumb to the infection, because this is what she would have wanted under the circumstances.66 However, when asked why he refused to take the advice of a physician who suggested that Mr. Schiavo remove her feeding tube (because, according to the physician Ms. Schiavo had died four years ago), Mr. Schiavo responded I couldnt do that to Terry [sic]. [emphasis added]
1) Prof. Snead missed Judge Greer's illegal order to deny Terri food or water orally. The law allows only the removal of the PEG tube, not denying the patient water, food, or ice chips in the mouth to relieve her agony. In other words, Judge Greer issued an illegal order to execute Terri.
2) Professor Snead also missed the impossibility of Terri being able to make an informed choice. He did point out that informed choice is central to the whole concept of patient autonomy, so it's surprising he let this one get by. Feeding tubes were not extraordinary care when she was injured (and shouldn't be now!). The law was changed after her injury. Terri therefore could not possibly have made an informed choice for the option of removing the PEG tube and dying the horrible death of dehydration that she was subjected to.
3) Prof. Snead (I suppose rightly in a legal essay) omits the affidavits by Michael's girl friends and Terri's nurses indicating that Michael did NOT know Terri's wishes and was getting rid of her out of spite and for the money. ("I'm going to be rich! Isn't that b*tch dead yet?")
4) I won't tax him for it, but Prof. Snead innocently wrote that Terri "collapsed" back in 1990. However, the odds are very high that she was the victim of assault by the very man who was putting her to death in court.
And after all the years of Michael swearing up and down that Terri would have wished to die, look at the two dinky remarks by her that Michael was able to come up with in his testimony. Two trivial, inadmissible off-the-cuff remarks that meant nothing. This was his ENTIRE case that Terri wished to die and that he was just being a loving husband! This is what he came up with many years late, after testifying to exactly the opposite, and after the malpractice award was made giving him a huge financial interest in her death.
Sorry, it was Diane Meyer's testimony about Quinlan, not Jackie Rhodes's.
Charlie Crist will be a one termer. He ignored the hugest civilrights case on the planet TERRI SCHINDLER SCHIAVO and now he’s betraying every other citizen of Florida. Live it up, Charlie. He’s a sociopath, wouldn’t you agree?
Sorry, Charlie, I agree with FV.
End-of-life issues top the list of ethical dilemmas hospitals face as medical progress enables doctors to extend an endangered life to the hard-to-determine point where they may actually only be dragging out death.
Private dramas like these play out in hospitals every day, rarely hitting the headlines as did the family feud over ending life support for Terri Schiavo in the United States in 2005 or a British couple's fight to save their severely handicapped baby Charlotte Wyatt in 2003 when doctors wanted to give up on her.
These patients used to just die naturally, but now it might be doctors, hospital ethics committees or courts that decide if and when to let them. The more science discovers, especially about the brain, the harder it can get to make that decision.
"The ability of medicine to keep people alive for such long periods of time -- despite their best efforts to die -- has changed the way people perceive the end of life," said Susan desJardins, a pediatric cardiologist and member of the ethics committee at Arnold Palmer Hospital in Orlando, Florida.
When to let go? Medicine's top dilemma
8mm
Murder pays, for some, a lot. Dr. Death makes a killing in this thread by wagglebee.
July 17, 2007 (LifeSiteNews.com) - ACCENT, the University of Florida student government funded speaker's bureau has confirmed that Dr. Jack Kevorkian has accepted a $50,000 speaking engagement at the University.
~Snip~
One person who was especially disturbed by the information that Kevorkian was being paid a hefty sum to speak to University students is the brother of Terri Schiavo, Bobby Schindler. While in prison Kevorkian had stated in an interview that he would have killed Terri Schiavo, had her husband asked him to.
In that interview, the interviewee asked Kevorkian about Terri Schiavo's death by starvation and dehydration: "Do you think after watching it that America has sort of changed its mood toward what you did?" Kevorkian responded, "If they're rational, I think they would." He continued by saying that he would have killed Terri had his husband asked him earlier. "After all that long period of time in a coma, I think she would qualify," he said.
Doctor "Death" Kevorkian to Speak at Florida University for $50,000 Speaking Fee
8mm
England, July 17, 2007 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Britain's Chief Medical Officer has urged that in order to meet the growing organ transplant demand, legislation should make organ donation the default for patients.
Chief Medical Officer Sir Liam Donaldson stated in Britain's annual health report this year that the United Kingdom needs three times the number of organ donors on the National Health Service (NHS) register, the Guardian Unlimited reports. He referred to the present situation in the UK as a transplant "crisis."
UK Chief Medical Officer Pushes for Automatic Organ Donation
8mm
Romans 1:22
Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools
MINNEAPOLIS, July 17, (LifeSiteNews.com) - On Thursday, July 12, the Minnesota Supreme Court handed down a ruling reversing the criminal convictions of pro-life protesters Ron Rudnick and Luke Otterstad.
The pair was convicted for displaying large signs on an overpass on two occasions in the Twin Cities suburb of Anoka, Minnesota just weeks before the 2004 national elections. One sign displayed a large color photo of the aborted infant, "Baby Malachi," while next to it was a large handwritten sign that branded a local Congressional candidate as "pro-abortion."
Minnesota Supreme Court Overturns Convictions of Pro-Lifers Who Held Graphic Signs
8mm
ZURICH, Switzerland, July 17, 2007 (LifeSiteNews.com) - The Swiss assisted-suicide group Dignitas has been evicted from its operation site in a suburban area due to growing complaints from neighbors.
For nine years the assisted-suicide clinic at Gertrudstrasse 84 received people who wanted to kill themselves, Spiegel News reports. The organization took up two apartments of the apartment block; but recently the owner cancelled their lease because residents were horrified by the stream of body bags that were carried out on the elevator and are frustrated by the police and ambulances that constantly come to the door.
Neighbor's Complaints Succeed in Evicting Dignitas from Residence (Swiss Euthanasia Company)
8mm
According to a study by the Coma Science Group of the University of Liège, Belgium, up to half the patients in an acute vegetative state regain some level of consciousness. Results of the study are also consistent with previous studies showing that at least 40% of patients deemed to be in a persistent vegetative state are misdiagnosed. The study showed how very hard it is to disentangle the minimally conscious state from the vegetative state, says Dr. Steven Laureys. And in cases that health workers diagnosed as minimally conscious, 10% were actually communicating functionally.
Comparing past studies on this issue shows that the level of misdiagnosis has not decreased in the past 15 years.
Persistent vegetative state misdiagnosed 40% of time; patient slated for Schiavo-style death awakens
8mm
Now there's a new idea. Everybody in the hospital is trying desperately to die, but the evil doctors keep them alive -- no doubt on machines that have tubes.
I have a counter offer. If you want to die, stay home. Besides, have you seen what hospitals cost these days? You'll save thousands and thousands of dollars. Leave hospitals for people who want to get well.
Another good idea would be to leave editorial writing to people who aren't sick in the head like this guy.
Well, medically it may be difficult. On a personal level, it's just a question of how much money you can steal by snuffing the patient. Sometimes you can pay lawyers half a million dollars to diagnose PVS and still come out ahead.
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.