Replies

My statement stands. He did not make the decision against the attending doctor's orders as you stated. He made the decision against the orders by the rest home.

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?
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.

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.

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.

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:

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.

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?

Nice try.

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.

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.