Posted on 04/16/2005 8:15:30 AM PDT by kingattax
I gotcha cboldt. ; ) Just wanted to make sure everyone knew that Walker did say about the consistency of the cpr/fall and HO, and that others had even more complete answers. : )
Excuse me? I posted the link and now you want excerpts and analysis too? That's not a requirement on FR and your snotty tone is duly noted.
And, btw, there are several posts below yours that you should read that give a full analysis. This is more complex than just grabbing a few quick snippets so if you're really interested, you (not anyone else, but you) will have to do some reading.
Q. Are you aware of any treatment anywhere that can help Terri? SCHIAVO: There is no treatment anywhere that can help Terri. No. Q. If there were, what would you do? SCHIAVO: I would be there in a heartbeat
That last statement by Schiavo "I would be there in a heartbeat" leaves me to wonder. This was in 2000, after he was living with Jodi. If he were telling the truth, I wonder what MS would have done if Terri actually was treated and somehow she came out of it and was able to function in the real world, with MS? Do you think he would have dumped Jodi and their 2 kids and gone back to Terri? I doubt it, therefore, he must have been lying because it would have changed his plans.
I just can't see him, in 2000, changing his life. And that's what would have had to happen.
"which is an out and out falsehood."-billbears
It seems you left out a few lines out of Schiavo's testimoney. As I said, that is what Michael says. Read it for yourself.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SIXTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA, IN AND FOR PINELLAS COUNTY
DEPOSITION OF: MICHAEL SCHIAVO
DATE: November 19, 1993
15 BY MR. SHEEHAN:[Shindler attorney]
16 Q You can answer.
17 A My job is to take care of Terry and meet all of
18 her medical needs, to make decisions based on what Terry
19 would want. I'm still vague on your question of what you
20 would want out of that question.
21 Q How often do you meet with the doctor? Do you
22 meet with him on a regular basis?
23 A Terry goes every two months, unless there is
24 something else that comes up, and we take her over there.
25 Q Do you, meet with the doctor?
___ 12
1 A Yes, I do.
2 Q Do you discuss with him such things as what type
3 of treatment he's providing, what type of medication he's
4 providing?
5 A Yes, I do.
6 Q Do you give him direction as to what steps he
7 should take or what things he should or shouldn't do in
8 the future?
9 MR. NILSSON: Objection. Compound......
10 Answer to the best of your ability.
11 BY THE DEPONENT:
12 A I don't tell the doctor what to do. He's gone to
13 school for that.
14 BY MR. SHEEHAN:
15 Q Uh-huh. Have you taken any steps or given any
16 direction to the doctor or the nursing home, and I'm
17 particularly concerned with the area of July and August of
18 this year, with regard to your wife's care or treatment/
19 MR. NILSSON: Objection........
23 BY MR. SHEEHAN:
24 Q You know, unfortunately, this is a discovery
25 deposition and the purpose of my questions is to find out
___ 13
1 what. I can give you a little factual scenario and see if
2 that will help you?
3 A I'm -- I'm --
4 Q See if that will help you in answering the
5 question. We were contacted -- my office was contacted by
6 the nursing home and they indicated that something had
7 changed as far as the treatment of Terry in July and
8 August and the change had something to do with the
9 direction that you had made, either to the nursing home or
10 to the doctor.
11 My question to you is: Did you -- did you change
12 any directions that you had given to the nursing home or
13 to the doctor prior to that or did you do anything that
14 you're aware of?
15 A Yes.
16 MR. NILSSON: Let me make my objections...
22 BY MR. SHEEHAN:
23 Q You said yes?
24 A Yes.
25 Q What did you do or what did you not do?
___
14
1 A I put a -- after speaking with my doctor, I gave
2 an order not to treat a bladder infection Terry had.
3 Q Who was the doctor you spoke with?
4 A Mulroy.
5 Q And Mulroy is your doctor or Terry's doctor?
6 A Terry's doctor.
7 Q Tell me about the conversation you had with
8 Mulroy.
9 A I talked to him about what he felt Terry's future
10 was. And he told me that Terry is basically going to be
11 like this for the rest of her life and I was trying to
12 make decisions on what Terry would want.
13 Q What was her bladder condition?
14 A She had UTI.
15 Q Excuse me?
16 A She had a UTI.
17 Q What is that?
18 A Urinary tract infection.
19 Q What -- did the doctor tell you what the
20 treatment for that would be?
21 A Antibiotic usually.
22 Q And did he tell you what would occur if you
23 failed to treat that infection.
24 A Yes.
25 Q What did he tell you?
___ 15 1 A That sometimes urinary tract infections will turn
2 to sepsis.
3 Q And sepsis is what?
4 A And infection throughout the body.
5 Q And what would the result of untreated sepsis be
6 to the patient?
7 A The patient would pass on.
8 Q So when you made the decision not to treat
9 Terry's bladder infection you, in effect, were taking a
10 decision to allow her to pass on?
11 A I was making a decision on what Terry would want.
12 Q I don't think you answered my question.
13 Could you repeat the question?
14 (Whereupon, the pertinent portion of the Record was read
15 back by the Court Reporter.)
16 MR. NILSSON: Let me make an objection ..
21 Answer to the best of your ability.
22 BY THE DEPONENT:
23 A That's what would happen. That's what would
24 happen.
25 BY MR. SHEEHAN:
___
16
1 Q Has the bladder condition been treated?
2 A Yes.
3 Q And was -- what was the reason that the bladder
4 condition was treated?
5 A Sable Palms Nursing Home said they could not do
6 that by some Florida law which wasn't stated.
7 Q But you didn't change your opinion or your
8 decision to not treat the bladder condition?
9 A We did change it.
10 MR. NILSSON: Objection. Asked and answer.
11 BY MR. SHEEHAN:
12 Q Correct?
13 A Repeat your question.
14 Q You did not change your decision not to treat the
15 bladder condition, correct?
16 A I had to change my decision.
17 Q Sable Palms changed it for you?
18 MR. NILSSON: Objection. Arguing with the
19 witness. He said he had to change it based on what
20 Sable Palms position was.
21 BY MR. SHEEHAN:
22 Q Okay. Is there any reason that you would not
23 make the same decision that you previously made if the
24 problem came up again?
25 A Repeat your question again, your losing me here.
___
17
1 Q Let me be more specific. If you're wife
2 developed another condition that could result in her
3 death, is there any reason that you would not take the
4 position that you're not going to treat that condition and
5 you're going to instruct the doctor not to treat that
6 condition?
7 A I wouldn't instruct anybody, no.
8 Q You instructed the doctor not to treat the
9 bladder condition, correct?
10 MR. NILSSON: Objection.....
18 BY MR. SHEEHAN:
19 Q You did instruct the doctor not to treat her
20 bladder condition correct?
21 A Uh-huh, yes.
22 Q If a similar condition arose in the future,
23 would you do the same thing?
> 24 MR. NILSSON: Objection.....
___
18
1 anything.
2 MR. SHEEHAN: I don't think he did.
3 BY THE DEPONENT:
4 A I'm thinking.
5 BY MR. SHEEHAN:
6 Q Take your time.
7 A I probably wouldn't instruct the doctor to do it.
8 Q So you've changed your opinion?
9 A Sort of, yeah.
10 Q Why have you changed your opinion?
11 A Because evidently there is a law out there that
12 says I can't do it.
13 Q Is that the only reason?
14 A Basically, maybe.
15 MR. NILSSON:(objection) Move to strike the witness' 16 statement, ...........
9 BY MR. SHEEHAN:
10 Q What you're telling me is, is that there is
11 nothing in your belief or feelings that have changed. The
12 only thing that has changed is the fact that you perceived
13 the law prevents you to do what you intended to do?
14 A Correct.
15 Q Okay. Are you presently employed?
16 A No, I'm not.
Q Do you give him direction as to what steps he should take or what things he should or shouldn't do in the future?Clearly he was basing his decision on what the doctor told him, not against the order of the attending doctor as you state. It is clear he was basing his decision on what the doctor suggested because later in his testimony he says he wouldn't take that advice again because of the law.MR. NILSSON: Objection. Compound......
Answer to the best of your ability.
BY THE DEPONENT: A I don't tell the doctor what to do. He's gone to school for that.
I know I said I wouldn't post anymore...But----Notice #12? I thought MS already KNEW what Terri wanted! Which was it? Was he "trying to make decisions on what Terri would want? Sounds to me like he wasn't sure. I am more and more convinced that Terri hurt by MS the night she collapsed. Thanks for posting this. Not that I needed convinced, just re-affirmed.
Oh, brother...
Once again, I ask the question: What is it, praytell, that any of us can do about that?
Let me supplement my question so you can better understand it: See if you can stop with the knee-jerk anti-Christian it's-all-about-oil schtuff and tell me what influence Schindler family supporters could possibly have in Sudan!
Nonsense! Now THAT'S what I call "an out and out falsehood!"
Schiavo, in his carefully worded answers, made it perfectly clear who was in the driver's seat when Dr. Mulroy diagnosed Terri with a UTI, which is probably why his attorney was so determined to prevent questions along those lines from being put to Schiavo. To wit:
Nowhere in this testimony did Schiavo suggest that Mulroy gave him "advice" that led him to insist Terri's infection be allowed to ravage the rest of her body and kill her. A doctor wouldn't have been very smart, making an illegal suggestion to a man who had already won a malpractice suit, now would he?
Q: Tell me about the conversation you had with Mulroy.A: I talked to him about what he felt Terry's future was. And he told me that Terry is basically going to be like this for the rest of her life and I was trying to make decisions on what Terry would want.
Nice try.
The nursing home knew the law, the doctor knew the law. That is why he ended up in court and admitted ordering the doctor and the nursing home to withhold treatment. You are defending a liar.
I feel sorry for people like that. Thanks L.N.
Look up Trudy Capone's affidavit that covered that time frame. She says he is a liar too, about that.
Oops....there's another one.
Q. Prior to your making – you know, the decision we’re talking about, the decision that you made to treat your wife’s bladder infection – had any physician ever suggested to you that if she has an infection in the future that you don’t treat it or that you allow her to die?SCHIAVO: Well, I went and talked to Dr. Mulroy about it.
Q. And what was Dr. Mulroy’s advice to you, if any?
SCHIAVO: Not to treat the infection.
Well there you go...the doctor was in on the conspiracy as well. Pinellas County must be eat up with the most corrupt, evil bunch of people in the entire world. Well that and Scientologists I hear....
The nursing home knew the law, the doctor knew the law. That is why he ended up in court and admitted ordering the doctor and the nursing home to withhold treatment. You are defending a liar.
I'm going to answer your silly arguments all at once instead of bothering to respond to each of you seperately. Well let's see. According to Schiavo, the doctor's advice was not to treat the infection. According to the Wolfson report (that factual report to the Governor that you all seem to run from), the doctor's advice was to not treat the infection. I understand the law was different in Florida at the time and I understand that's why Schiavo changed his mind.
But let's take your premise and say that it is true. Everybody in this case is a liar except the Schindlers, a supposed 'Nobel Prize nominee' (that no one can confirm BTW), and the perennial crackpot Randall Terry. I suppose the court testimony by the Schindlers to cut up their daughter if necessary and to ignore her wishes to die even if they knew them are a lie to as well. Nope, the fix must be in. Greer got to everybody except the select few I mentioned above...
But really I tire of this. Every time I come on one of these damn threads I'm getting deeper and deeper into nonsensical arguments based on nothing but feeling. Tired of the misreading of Article I Section 2 of the Florida Constitution from carpetbagging politicians and their lackeys, of Article III of the US Constitution (which doesn't apply in this case) from Constitutional 'scholars' (who haven't bothered to read the Federalist Papers), and of the he said, she said from a group who apparently doesn't want the state of Florida to exercise her rights as a sovereign state in determining what laws are best for them. This is what it boils down to in a nutshell. Unless you are a citizen of the state of Florida, it is none of your damn business what Florida decides and doesn't decide. Drop it, quit whining about what what happened to 'Saint Terri' and get the law changed in your own state if you feel so strongly about it.
Whatever state you live in, approach your state legislators and get them to change the law to make it clear. But quit bothering the 436 lifelong politicians in Washington with your conspiracy theories and supposed 'due process' emergencies. They don't do anything as it is. As a conservative, I want a smaller government first and foremost. I can see Republicans want nothing of the kind
I'm going to ping a few folks to this to let them know I appreciate their support and kindness over the past few weeks if you don't mind. Also to state I'm not going to say another damn thing about this. I'm tired of it and there's no sense in arguing with a group that sees a conspiracy around every corner. This 'All Terri, All the time' is plain and simple BS. She's gone. Her family grieves, her husband grieves, let it go. I will leave you with this though
Testimony provided by members of the Schindler family included very personal statements about their desire and intention to ensure that Theresa remain alive. Throughout the course of the litigation, deposition and trial testimony by members of the Schindler family voiced the disturbing belief that they would keep Theresa alive at any and all costs. Nearly gruesome examples were given, eliciting agreement by family members that in the event Theresa should contract diabetes and subsequent gangrene in each of her limbs, they would agree to amputate each limb, and would then, were she to be diagnosed with heart disease, perform open heart surgery. There was additional, difficult testimony that appeared to establish that despite the sad and undesirable condition of Theresa, the parents still derived joy from having her alive, even if Theresa might not be at all aware of her environment given the persistent vegetative state. Within the testimony, as part of the hypotheticals presented, Schindler family members stated that even if Theresa had told them of her intention to have artificial nutrition withdrawn, they would not do it. Throughout this painful and difficult trial, the family acknowledged that Theresa was in a diagnosed persistent vegetative state.
If her parents and she were so strong in their faith as we were told to believe, what does it say about them that they would want to keep their daughter in that state for a few more years at most instead of standing in Heaven?
I feel sorry for people like that. Thanks L.N.
I'm not the one I would be feeling sorry for if I were you. I know where I'm going when I die and I don't want my family sitting around a bed looking at me in a comatose state when they could be out enjoying their lives the Good Lord gave 'em. Good day
A great post, billbears. And it does get old, arguing the same points over and over. And finding information for people who then just turn around and discount it.
Anyway, thank you for the ping.
I don't know the answer to that. But I can tell you what I'd probably do.
My first husband died while mountain climbing. I've been remarried happily for 25 years this year.
If for some reason my first husband had been in a coma for all those years, I'd welcome his return to the world and help him as best I could to readjust. But I'd go on with my current husband.
A person can love two people at the same time and my love for my second husband in no way takes away that I'd be happy to know that my first was still here and healthy and happy.
10 MR. NILSSON: Objection.....
18 BY MR. SHEEHAN:
19 Q You did instruct the doctor not to treat her
20 bladder condition correct?
21 A Uh-huh, yes.
Terri with her father Video after 10 years of NO THERAPY
And I should have added this, which isn't hypothetical.
My second husband was married before as well. They have two children who we raised all their teenage years.
I am quite close to my husband's second wife and both of us would do whatever we could for her if she needed help, which she has over the years.
She is the mother of his children and although I have his heart these days, that doesn't negate the fact that at one time she had it and she will always be his children's mother. As such, she is treated with respect and great fondness.
You obviously have a kind heart. We just disagree on this. but hey, to each their own I think. You're probably a very nice person. And I'm glad people can have disagreements and still like each other on here. I bet we could sit down and have a good lunch together and find some agreement on many other issues.
I'll bet you're right and we'd have a good lunch :-)
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.