Posted on 04/15/2005 1:05:20 PM PDT by phenn
Clearwater, FL - The volunteers with the Terri Schindler-Schiavo Foundation were astonished to learn of the behavior of former Dunedin, Florida Attorney Constance d'Angelis. d'Angelis is the former wife of George Felos, legal representative to Michael Schiavo.
In a press release issued through PR Web, titled "Lawyer Who Presented CT Scan & Medical Evidence in Court Analyzes Autopsy Results in Terri Schiavo Case" Ms. d'Angelis claims she will be available to interpret the anticipated Medical Examiner's report on the late Terri Schiavo.
Quoted from her release: "Upon the release of the autopsy report, she can analyze the results and weigh in on the important matters of how--by reason, not emotion--the "persistent vegetative state" diagnosis of Terri Schiavo was arrived at, and why."
The Terri Schindler-Schiavo Foundation would like to take this opportunity to point out that not only was Ms. d'Angelis co-counsel to George Felos during the guardianship proceedings on behalf of Michael Schiavo, she is not qualified to interpret or analyze a Medical Examiner's report. She is only licensed as an attorney and as a massage therapist.
Ms. d'Angelis is the former owner of lovinglawsuits.com and the author of "Pancha Karma - A Life Changing Experience". She aided George Felos in bringing forth a petition to remove 'artificial life support' from Terri Schiavo that originated in 1998 though current law at that time did not provide for the removal of a feeding tube under Terri's circumstances.
Her release goes on to say: "The judge's February 2000 ruling was sustained throughout numerous appeals in both the State and Federal Courts." However, Ms. d'Angelis fails to make clear that no Federal Court has ever reviewed either Terri's case or the medical evidence presented to the lower court. Instead, they have declined jurisdiction.
It is, therefore, our conclusion that the Ms. d'Angelis is either attempting to capitalize on this tragic situation or preparing to support her former husband's contentions on a subject matter she is wholly unqualified to remark on.
Statement of Pamela Hennessy, Media Coordinator for the Terri Schindler Schiavo Foundation: "The former Mrs. Felos is not a doctor, a surgeon, a pathologist or even an orderly. She is a massage therapist. Certainly, she can lend absolutely no analysis or insight into the results of the Medical Examiner's report. Rather, she can only recant what her former husband suggests as the truth to Terri's condition. Medical analysis is best left to medical practitioners and not lawyers."
###
Ms. d'Angelis Press Release: http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/prweb/20050415/bs_prweb/prweb229659_1
Mark for later read.
***You may want to read the End of Life Panel Report to the Florida Legislature.
Where is this? I can't find it. Thanks
"Could these be injuries by a "massage 'therapist'"?"
What a chilling thought. Some of the injuries reportedly came a year or so AFTER she was admitted to the hospital.
"Neither are 99.99% of the FReepers on this forum "
I guess just plain logical common sense means nothing to you either? You accept everything as stated and we should all just fall into line accept what is spoon fed to us and all the "feel good" answers when so much of the murder
of this innocent disabled human being is in question? Not on your life.
Splutter...laugh! Don't do that to me when I'm drinking coffee!!!
=======
No sympathy for FReepers who splutter coffee and/or other
liquids. By this time you should have learned to connect your
feeding tube while reading and posting on FreeRepublic !!! ;-))
Why she is probably just as qualified as many Freepers here who became instant amateur radiologists and were able to interpret her supposed brain scans and EEG's as proof of PVS, while poor Terri was being murdered.
The 99.99% to whom I'm referring are those who call a brain damaged woman with all of her cerebral cortex turned into liquid slush "disabled".
Those who turned her plea not to live in a brain damaged state, with no hope of recovery, kept alive by artificial means, into "murder".
Those who lied and mislead with their half-truths, tying to turn the Terri Schiavo situation into a euthanasia case to promote their extreme right-to-life fanaticism.
Those 99.99%.
Key words: "by his definition."
PVS was not formally defined until 1994 by the Multi-Society Task Force on PVS, and subsequently by the American Academy of Neurology practice parameter in 1995.
Dr. Barnhill's comment was prior to that.
Sure. But all that did was to bring Florida law in line and up-to-date with existing federal rulings -- rulings that were made before anyone ever heard of Terri Schiavo.
I didn't know what it stood for either. This may help:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-backroom/1373116/posts
Welcome to Free Republic!
Those people who viewed the tape? Oh, they were simply duped into thinking that an edited tape was indicative of Terri's behavior. Doctors tried and failed to duplicate what was on the tape.
"You see no value in their lives so there for they must die."
See? You're back to turning this into a euthanasia case in order to get on your high horse and condemn those who would "murder" a "disabled" person.
Terri did not want to live like that. But that's not right by you. Oh no. She can't do that! No, she must live because YOU say so!
That's the disgrace.
I just don't see the parallels between what happened to Terri and the strategy implemented against German citizens by the Nazi's. /sarcasm
I would hope NO Judge would take thoughtless comments I made 20 years ago to mean, in a similar circumstance today or in the future, I would want to be STARVED, DEHYDRATED and CREMATED.
I am convinced after reading countless comments like yours on this forum, that people like yourself are so fearful of one day living in a reduced state, you have entirely lost the ability to be objective in such cases or to see the danger they pose to all of our lives.
"Terri did not want to live like that."
Going back in the history of this court case and Judge Death Greer, at first MS made no mention of Terri's wish to die, conventiently remembers a conversation,AFTER receiving the money from the lawsuit, a comment, the Judge accepts that but when her best friend comes back, with a conversation she remembers, the Judge got confused in relation to the date of death of Karen Quinlin, as the comment was from Terri concerning Karen. Does Greer reconsider not only his own error but then give any validity to her best friends testimony, NOPE he tossed aside. Additionally does Greer consider Terri's religion.... NO. No validity given her best friend's testimony who I might add knew her longer than her marriage to "her loving husband". NO NO
tosses it out. No life for Terri.
That's THE disgrace. Death Judge Greer, with his champion Michael Shiavo,teamed up with Felos all intent on killing Terri. To infer that people viewing tapes were duped is just flat out wrong. No I am not "turning this into a euthansia case" it just happens to BE a euthansia case.
Well actually its legal murder most foul. And the talking heads can talk and talk (you being one of them), but it was murder of a healthy disabled woman with no progressive illness who was shut away in a hospice in 2000 given 6 months to live by the well educated Drs.The only love this poor woman received was from her parents who were also treated poorly (understatement), my prayers go out to them, battling this insane hatred and contempt her "loving husband" had towards them with few opportunities at visitation. At one point had to PAY for the right to see their own child. Thats a disgrace too. Talk this to death, its still the murder of an innocent brain damage disabled human being who smiled when her mother came into the room and opened the curtains, which were ordered shut by her "loving husband", who responded to music, who opened her eyes when asked, and wider still. It's just tragic.
Conveniently remembers? So, you're saying that he forgot what Terri told him, then suddenly remembered?
Alright, where's your proof of that? What leads you to believe that he ever forgot? You have some statement, some writing of his which supports your hypothesis (since that's all it is)?
"AFTER receiving the money from the lawsuit"
Uh, yeah, like 4 years after? Plus, in 1998, he offered in writing to donate all of that money to charity if Terri's parents would abide by her wish.
"Does Greer reconsider not only his own error but then give any validity to her best friends testimony"
Nope. Her friend's testimony was still invalid, despite the judge's misstatement. It seems that everyone but you has accepted that.
"Death Judge Greer, with his champion Michael Shiavo ..."
Death Judge Greer"? Nice to debate someone with an open mind. Hey, don't let the facts get in your way.
The judge heard testimony from two others besides Michael. The judge had "clear and convincing" evidence as to Terri's wishes. This is not a euthanasia case, no matter how much you want it to be.
"with no progressive illness who was shut away in a hospice in 2000 given 6 months to live by the well educated Drs."
"Less than six months to live" is a requirement of hospice admission. Terri was admitted to the hospice shortly after the judge ordered the feeding tube removed. Assuming the judge's order was followed, do you doubt that Terri fit the requirement? What's your point?
"was from her parents who were also treated poorly "
Actually, they were treated very nicely by Michael ... right up to the point where they insisted on half of his $400,000 award for loss of consortium. It went downhill from there, and it was 100% the greedy parent's fault.
"who responded to music, who opened her eyes when asked, and wider still."
Strange. The doctors who examined her couldn't get her to do that. According to their reports, Terri's reactions were random and had absolutely nothing to do with the stimulus.
You have no facts. Your post consists of gossip and innuendo, half-truths and rumors, and propaganda that you've read elsewhere and never bothered to confirm.
Begone. Take your gossip elsewhere.
That's why he took the case to Judge Greer in 1997 and said, effectively, "Here. You figure it out."
The judge examined the evidence, took sworn testimony, and found "clear and convincing" evidence as to Terri's wishes. Now, what part of that legal and constitutional process do you have a problem with?
Are you upset because you weren't consulted? Are you upset because the decision wasn't made by a USA Today poll?
"... Schiavo, "remembered" years after her initial collapse that that Terri ..."
Remembered? So, you're saying that he forgot what Terri told him, then suddenly remembered?
Alright, where's your proof of that? What leads you to believe that he ever forgot? You have some statement, some writing of his which supports your hypothesis (since that's all it is)? No, you don't. It's just a bunch of hypothetical bull$hit on your part. Fling it around, see what sticks.
That's what passes for debate from your side.
"There was also at least one friend of Terri who had a conversation in which Terri indicated (in regards to the Karen Ann Quinlan case) that she would WANT to be kept alive because "where there is life there is hope"
Yep. When Terri was 11 years old. Should that comment be considered valid?
"Begone. Take your gossip elsewhere."
Oh Begone yourself, like your blather makes any difference at all or anyones really at this point. The deed is done, Florida needs to put some safe guards in place and always err on the side of life when that person is not ill or suffering and there are loved ones who will gladly take responsibility at their own home, if not that certainly with therapy, and love does wonders.
Testimony of Michael Schiavo, Medical Malpractice Trial
Q. Why did you want to learn to be a nurse?
MS. Because I enjoy it and I want to learn more how to take care of Terri.
Q. You're a young man. Your life is ahead of you. When you look up the road, what do you see for yourself?
MS. I see myself hopefully finishing school and taking care of my wife.
Q. Where do you want to take care of your wife?
MS. I want to bring her home.
Q. If you had the resources available to you, if you had the equipment and the people, would you do that?
MS. Yes, I would, in a heartbeat.
Q. How do you feel about being married to Terri now.
MS. I feel wonderful. She's my life and I wouldn't trade her for the world. I believe in my marriage vows.
Q. You believe in your wedding vows, what do you mean by that?
MS. I believe in the vows I took with my wife, through sickness, in health, for richer or poor. I married my wife because I love her and I want to spend the rest of my life with her. I'm going to do that.
NOTE: NO MENTION OF HER WISH TO DIE HERE
(copy paste from another thread here)
WHAT DID MICHAEL DO?
Aug 1992 - Terri awarded $250,000 in malpractice 'OUT-OF-COURT' settlement.
Nov 1992 - Terri awarded $1.4 million in malpractice trial.
Nov 1992-Michael Schiavo awarded $600,000 in malpractice trial.
After the malpractice suit Michael took Terri home for approximately four months....
In 1993-Michael Schiavo orders no treatment for Terri's potentially fatal infection.
Not only did Mr. Schiavo not provide Terri with rehabilitation, he has denied his wife any and all therapy, against Doctors' recommendations, since the 1993 malpractice award
Not only did Mr. Schiavo not provide Terri with rehabilitation, he has denied his wife any and all therapy, against Doctors' recommendations, since the 1993 malpractice award.
November 1993
Michael Schiavo Deposition, Guardianship Hearing
Q. What was her bladder condition?
MS. She had a UTI.
Q. What is that?
MS. Urinary tract infection.
Q. What did the doctor tell you treatment for that would be?
MS. Antibiotic usually.
Q. And did he tell you what would occur if you failed to treat that infection? What did he tell you?
MS. That sometimes urinary tract infection will turn to sepsis.
Q. And sepsis is what?
MS. An infection throughout the body.
Q. And what would the result of untreated sepsis be to the patient?
MS. The patient would pass on.
Q. So when you made the decision not to treat Terri's bladder infection you, in effect, were making a decision to allow her to pass on?
MS. I was making a decision on what Terri would want.
__
My comment, yes right, Terri would want to die from a urinary tract infection. That was her wishes, geez
___________________
Q. Had the bladder condition been treated?
MS. Yes.
Q. And was...what was the reason that the bladder condition was treated?
MS. Sable Palms Nursing Home said they could not do that by some Florida law which wasn't stated.
Q. But you didn't change your opinion or your decision to not treat the bladder condition?
MS. We did change it.
Q. Correct?
MS. Repeat the question.
Q. You did not change your decision not to treat the bladder condition, correct?
MS. I had to change my decision.
Q. Sable Palms changed it for you?
Attorney Nillson Objection
Q. Okay. Is there any reason that you would not make the same decision that you previously made if the problem came up again?
MS. Repeat your question. You're losing me here.
Q. Let me be more specific. If your wife developed another condition that could result in her death, is there any reason that you would not take the position that you're not going to treat that condition and you're going to instruct the doctor not to treat that condition?
MS. I wouldn't instruct anybody, no.
Q. You instructed the doctor not to treat the condition, correct?
Attorney Nillson Objection
Q. You instructed the doctor not to treat the condition, correct?
Attorney Nillson Objection
Q. You did instruct the doctor not to treat her bladder condition, correct?
MS. Uh-huh. Yes.
_________
My comment: This gives tons of credibility to the Nurses affadivit, IMO
__________________
Q. If a similar...would you do the same?
MS. I'm thinking.
Q. Take your time.
MS. I probably wouldn't instruct the doctor to do it.
Q. So you've changed your opinion?
MS. Sort of, yeah.
Q. Why have you changed your opinion?
MS. Because evidently there is a law out there that says I can't do it.
Q. Is that the only reason?
MS. Basically, maybe.
Q. What you're telling me is, is that there is nothing in your belief or feelings that have changed. The only thing that has changed is the fact that you perceive the law prevents you to do what you intended to do?
MS. Correct.
Q. What did you do with your wife's jewelry?
MS. My wife's jewelry?
Q. Yeah.
MS. Um, I think I took her engagement ring and her...what do they call it...diamond wedding band and made a ring for myself.
Q. What did you do with her cats?
MS. Her cats were put to sleep n the advice of my mother-in-law.
(Note: The veterinarian who performed the euthanasia of Terri's pets came forward to say there was never any suggestion from Terri's mother that this be done and only Mr. Schiavo's insistence.)
________________________________
Your comment:
"and it was 100% the greedy parent's fault."
Well you and types like you may assume that but from my thinking they always had Terri's utmost in their minds and it was the fact that MS didn't, that caused this rift.
And you are correct, I do not have an open mind about this, it's only my opinion that Terri was not only a victim of her monster husband,but also a victim of change in the Florida State Law.
They murdered this healthy disabled woman, that is my opinion. They even brought in some so called priest who compared his own experience with the death of his father who was terminally ill with cancer and made reference to the prior Pope 1953, not the current, now deceased Pope whose views on Life and Death were pretty clear.
Talk your talk, I'll do mine, Terri is ashes now, and if anyone had any doubts re: MS its clear that after he had his way, in my opinion, nothing was too low that MS would not do to the Shindler's re: Terri's cremation and funeral.
I had a friend die recently of uterine cancer. She died in a hospice. She had nuns with her holding her singing to her, her family there and even her dog.She was cremated, her husband shared her ashes with her family and he had his own burial and they theirs a rememberance. She was not starved to death and dehydrated, btw.
Terri didn't need to die, she had no progressive illness.
Hey I just know that if I was in the same situation my husband would melt my rings for a ring for himself, and kill my dog. (NOT) Whadda guy MS is FIRST CLASS All THE WAY. What a prize Jodi gets.
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.