Free Republic

Excellent sign! Very readable and I love the reflective areas. Bumper stickers maybe...?

"They don't even discuss Terri as a human being. WHAT A BUNCH OF SICKOS."

Nothing from WND about Demer's latest violation of Terri's civil rights, but two new articles both commenting on acceptance of the right-to-die movement as a result of Roe v. Wade.

Florida court denies state guardians for fetuses

ORLANDO, Fla. - A Florida appeals court panel ruled on Friday that the state could not appoint a guardian for the fetus of a retarded rape victim, dismissing what civil liberties groups complained was an attack by Gov. Jeb Bush against abortion rights.
In a somewhat similar case, Bush intervened in a dispute involving a brain-damaged woman whose husband won a judge's permission to disconnect her feeding tube.
The Legislature passed a law last fall that allowed Bush to order the tube reinserted. The husband of the woman, Terri Schiavo, 40, has asked the courts to strike down the law.
In both cases, critics of Bush have accused him of trying to establish precedent for encroaching on the privacy of individuals. His supporters have applauded him for acting on his belief that "innocent life" should be maintained at any cost.

At BPNews
Equipping for pro-life cause among key ERLC aims, Land says

"By allowing this barbarity -- for over 30 years now we have been killing a baby every 20 seconds -- we have brutalized our whole society, including our court system, in that we have devalued and de-sanctified human life to the point that a court can as casually sentence a human being to die by malnutrition and dehydration as it can allow a partially delivered healthy baby to be murdered by a physician."

- Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission President Richard Land

"We are a hurting people for this dear child, Heavenly Father, yet we know that she has been sustained because of Your grace and mercy, because of Your abundant love for this afflicted one. Were it not for You, she would have perished."

Dear Pegita, as always your prayers calm our churning emotions and remind us that Terri is protected by His mercy, despite the suffering the laws of men have inflicted on her loved ones. Though the men who hold her life in their hands increase our anguish, we are secure in our faith that He hears our prayers and in due time His wisdom will expose the follies of those who do not respect or understand their precious duty to apply the law fairly and without prejudice, to the weakest as well as the strong. May He grant them the vision they lack, in matters of the spirit as well as the law.

"I think we should start writing a book right now, The Judicial Murder of Terri Schindler-Schiavo. How "good old boy" judges and lawyers in Florida are conspiring to put a disabled woman to a gruesome death. (Or some such title.) All we need is a two-chapter outline to send it to publishers and get out press releases about the forthcoming book."

Count me in! The truth is right here on the Terri threads at Free Republic, let's take it to another level. We could write a book about the facts the FelosFraudSquad won't let the mainstream media cover.

Don't forget to listen to Carla Iyers tomorrow at 10 ET on Highway2Health. Should be interesting.

Argggh!

"Demers says Terri's Law is 'presumptively unconstitutional' based on Felo's one-sided argument (at the time Demers made the comment he had not even read Bush's response)..."

I should have said, BAIRD first said Terri's Law is 'presumptively unconstitutional' based on Felo's one-sided argument . . . and DEMERS now parrots BAIRD's commentary because the 2nd D.C.A. refused to remove BAIRD for bias.

So goes the merry-go-round at the Pinellas Circus.

"The Sleep of Reason Produces Monsters"
by Francisco de Goya
from Los Caprichos 1797-98, etching with aquatint

This etching has been given various interpretations,
but it is generally thought that the work represents
the "triumph of nightmare."

The root of the rot, as I see it, is that the appeals court holds all previous legal findings to be beyond reproach. Demers says Terri's Law is 'presumptively unconstitutional' based on Felo's one-sided argument (at the time Demers made the comment he had not even read Bush's response) and the Appeals Court consistently rubber-stamps Demers and Greer, compounding the errors instead of correcting them!

MS, the jerk, is assumed to be the perfect caring hubby, only looking out for his wife's best interests despite the overwhelming evidence offered to the contrary.

Of course if the evidence showing his numerous conflicts of interests and outright perjury were allowed in as evidence, the situation would be different.

But, in an amazing disply of see-no-evil, hear-no-evil, the overwhelming evidence of conflict of interest and evidence indicating MS suppressed evidence of trauma and abuse (in the malpractice trial) has been IGNORED and disregarded by the court - yet the judges claim they've followed the law and Terri must die - and their rulings based on false, incomplete and misleading evidence are upheld!

The evidence proving he is an unfit guardian has not been heard by Greer and yet the march to withdraw the feeding tube continues. The 2nd District Court of Appeal backs up Greer, Demers and Baird. Where does it end? Even a videotape of MS strangling her would be barred as evidence at this point! Greer would say it's too late to revisit the prior findings, sorry, good bye.

How can justice be served when a woman's life rests on this suspiciously remembered hearsay, when the court acts as an accomplice to attempted murder? MS refused to allow Terri antibiotics, which is against the law, even before he even asked to have the feeding tube removed! How can that NOT be interpreted as attempted murder?

The only hope to see justice is to move this out of civil court and into criminal court. Let the HINO defend his actions under oath before a jury. Let the full weight of the law come down on his head and put his freedom at risk. Isn't that the very least the State of Florida owes Terri, whose LIFE is at risk?

These psycho judges put the right to privacy above an individual's right to life.

And this all-powerful right to privacy is not based on Terri's written health care choices, but on MS's fishy, conflicting hearsay about her alleged wishes.

It's gone beyond bad law, it's INSANE. Where does it end? When did innocent American citizens become nothing more than grist for the Hemlock Society controlled judicial mills? And how do we get back our rights as long as this form of tyranny controls the courts?

Request Denied For Schiavo Probe

Jan 10, 2004

By DAVID SOMMER

CLEARWATER - Gov. Jeb Bush's request for additional independent investigation of the Terri Schiavo case has been denied by Pinellas and Pasco counties' chief judge.

Bush wanted a guardian ad litem to take a closer look at how the 40-year-old St. Petersburg woman became ill and the suitability of her husband to serve as her guardian.

Last month, Bush sent Chief Circuit Judge David Demers a list of questions he said were not addressed in an earlier investigation by University of South Florida Professor Jay Wolfson.

Wolfson served as Schiavo's court-appointed guardian ad litem for about two months before being discharged in December.

The governor said then that Wolfson had not had the opportunity to probe deeply enough into the case.

Bush listed 10 areas he wanted investigated, including what happened the night Schiavo's heart stopped in February 1990, cutting off oxygen to her brain and leaving her in what has been diagnosed as a persistent vegetative state.

The governor also asked about ``statements of law enforcement, emergency medical professionals and staff members of medical facilities where Schiavo was treated.'' He asked what Michael Schiavo, his wife's legal guardian, said ``at the time regarding her condition and how she was found.''

Demers subsequently asked Michael Schiavo and his in-laws, Bob and Mary Schindler, for their positions on Bush's request.

The two sides have been locked in a 5 1/2-year battle over whether Terri Schiavo should be kept alive with the help of a feeding tube.

Michael Schiavo contends his wife made statements prior to her illness indicating she would not want to be kept alive with no hope of improvement. His doctors have testified that her brain was destroyed and she will never be able to eat normally.

The Schindlers say their daughter reacts to them and could improve. They say their daughter never said she would not want to be kept alive with a feeding tube.

In response to Bush's request, Michael Schiavo argued Wolfson had performed his duties as outlined in Terri's Law, a legislative measure enacted in October to allow for Wolfson's appointment and to allow Bush to intervene in the case.

Bush used the law to order that the feeding tube be reinserted after the woman spent six days without nourishment. It had been the second time the tube was removed with court permission.

The Schindlers supported Bush's request and added some questions, including ``the advisability of the dissolution of the marriage'' since Michael Schiavo is living with another woman with whom he has had two children.

In a three-page ruling signed Thursday, Demers said the 2nd District Court of Appeal recently ruled Terri's Law is presumptively unconstitutional. Demers denied the governor's request without further explanation.

The Living Will is a trap, if people think it will protect them from being killed. If they want to die before their time has come, it works just fine. I am sad that doctors and hospitals are now orienting patients toward making a choice to die instead of finding ways to make their life as good as it can be, regardless of disabilities and old age.

There is less and less value placed on a basic respect for life by the bioethicists shaping our future. Will there come a day when living past retirement age is considered an excessive drain on 'the system'?

"Greta Van Sustenance emailed me today. Something tells me that she's going to look into a few things."

Well, FV, if anyone can get her activated, you can! :)
Greta's credentials are impressive:

A graduate of the University of Wisconsin, Van Susteren received a bachelor's degree with distinction in economics. She earned a Juris Doctor from Georgetown Law in 1979 and a Master of Law from the school in 1982. Van Susteren was the first Stuart Stiller Fellow at Georgetown Law Center and was awarded an honorary doctor of laws degree from Stetson Law School. She served as an adjunct professor at the Law Center from 1984 through 1999.

(from her FOXNews bio)

FL_engineer transcribed Greta's On The Record segment with Ken Connor here.

Thanks, FL_engineer, as always!

"Felos stated "Terri's condition is essentially the SAME as it has been the past thirteen years."

Also, she can't be terminal if her condition has remained unchanged for 13 years, can she?

Like the Chatty Cathy doll, he can only come up with a limited number of carefully worded 'talking points' which quickly ring hollow on close inspection and comparison to other FelosFraudSquad 'talking points.'

"I may have missed it...is there a link to the article that contains this? This is very important news and I want to pass it on far and wide."

This was in a radio broadcast, not in print. The 1-7-04 interview with Dr. Hammesfahr, who has met with and evaluated Terri, is at Highway2Health, here.

Also, Carla Iyer, RN, the nurse who was fired for reporting MS's suspected injection of Terri with insulin, will be interviewed by Ron Panzer on Highway2Health this Tuesday, Jan. 13 at 10 p.m. Eastern, 6 p.m. Pacific. Details and link here.

I thank Wesley J. Smith for all he has done and continues to do to advance public awareness of Terri's Fight.

Sorry for the scanty ping list tonight, folks - please ping others to this thread :)

CARLA IYERS will be on Highway2Health Tuesday night, Jan. 13:

YOU WON'T WANT TO MISS THIS TUESDAY'S SPECIAL INTERVIEW!

RON PANZER
HOSTS HIGHWAY2HEALTH
WITH VERY SPECIAL GUEST
CARLA IYER, RN
who cared for Terri Schiavo in 1995 - 1996

* CARLA FILED A POLICE REPORT IN 1996
DETAILING THE VIAL OF INSULIN FOUND IN TERRI'S ROOM

* CARLA FILED AN AFFIDAVIT DETAILING HER CONCERNS
THAT TERRI MIGHT HAVE BEEN INJECTED WITH INSULIN

* AFTER MICHAEL SCHIAVO VISITED, CARLA CHECKED TERRI'S BLOOD GLUCOSE LEVEL AND FOUND IT TO BE VERY LOW, TERRI WAS SHAKING, PALE AND SHOWED SYMPTOMS OF HYPOGLYCEMIC SHOCK

* CARLA WAS FIRED FOR FILING THE POLICE REPORT, EVEN THOUGH NURSES ARE REQUIRED BY THEIR LICENSE TO REPORT WHAT THEY BELIEVE TO BE CRIMES AGAINST INDIVIDUALS!

* LISTEN TO RON PANZER AND CARLA IYER, RN TUESDAY NIGHT at 9-10 PM EASTERN/6-7 PM PACIFIC TIME

* Providing information the major media withholds from the public *

Highway 2 Health Home Page: http://www.highway2health.net/

Listen Live Link (9-10 pm Eastern 6-7 pm Pacific) http://www.warpradio.com/popTuner.asp?id=14108

Ron Panzer and the Hospice Patients' Alliance: http://www.hospicepatients.org/

Yes, he would be a great person to appear on national TV for an in-depth interview. This just came in - CARLA IYERS will be on Highway2Health Tuesday night, Jan. 13:

YOU WON'T WANT TO MISS THIS TUESDAY'S SPECIAL INTERVIEW!

RON PANZER
HOSTS HIGHWAY2HEALTH
WITH VERY SPECIAL GUEST
CARLA IYER, RN
who cared for Terri Schiavo in 1995 - 1996

* CARLA FILED A POLICE REPORT IN 1996
DETAILING THE VIAL OF INSULIN FOUND IN TERRI'S ROOM

* CARLA FILED AN AFFIDAVIT DETAILING HER CONCERNS
THAT TERRI MIGHT HAVE BEEN INJECTED WITH INSULIN

* AFTER MICHAEL SCHIAVO VISITED, CARLA CHECKED TERRI'S BLOOD GLUCOSE LEVEL AND FOUND IT TO BE VERY LOW, TERRI WAS SHAKING, PALE AND SHOWED SYMPTOMS OF HYPOGLYCEMIC SHOCK

* CARLA WAS FIRED FOR FILING THE POLICE REPORT, EVEN THOUGH NURSES ARE REQUIRED BY THEIR LICENSE TO REPORT WHAT THEY BELIEVE TO BE CRIMES AGAINST INDIVIDUALS!

* LISTEN TO RON PANZER AND CARLA IYER, RN TUESDAY NIGHT at 9-10 PM EASTERN/6-7 PM PACIFIC TIME

* Providing information the major media withholds from the public *

Highway 2 Health Home Page: http://www.highway2health.net/

Listen Live Link (9-10 pm Eastern 6-7 pm Pacific) http://www.warpradio.com/popTuner.asp?id=14108

Ron Panzer and the Hospice Patients' Alliance: http://www.hospicepatients.org/

You know - your post says it ALL:

Judge: Comatose woman must be treated

THIS WOMAN IS NOT IN A COMA!

And this poll, asking the incredibly biased question, "Should Florida Gov. Jeb Bush have ordered a comatose woman to be kept alive?" is still open for voting!

FReep here: http://www2.cnn.com/2003/LAW/10/22/coma.woman/

Should Florida Gov. Jeb Bush have ordered a comatose woman to be kept alive? Yes   27% 56543 votes No   73% 155864 votes Total: 212407 votes

Felos would do well to remember, where there's fire, there's brimstone.

LOLOL I totally agree with you there! Be afraid, FeelLousy...what you've done in this world to Terri is only a taste of what's in store...and Our Father does not go by Judge Greer's playbook!

The Rule of Terri's Case

"If following a legal procedure will likely result in Terri dying, it will be adhered to. But if a procedure could make that outcome more difficult to attain, it will not be followed."

Read what Pat Anderson, Terri's attorney, has to say in Wesley J. Smith's latest (and possibly greatest) Weekly Standard column on Terri (no URL at this time):

What we can learn from the Schiavo case.
by Wesley J. Smith
01/19/2004, Volume 009, Issue 18

IT IS THE CALM before the storm in the Terri Schiavo case. The Florida woman, who was in the throes of a court-ordered death by dehydration last October when Florida's legislature and Governor Jeb Bush intervened, continues to receive tube-supplied food and water. But this good news may not last. In December, as her family and many supporters celebrated her 40th birthday, their joy was tempered by the knowledge that powerful cultural forces are adamant that Terri Schiavo not live to see age 41.

The Schiavo case was one of the most important stories of 2003. The big news wasn't that she was ordered dehydrated to death: Conscious and unconscious cognitively disabled people like Terri are often denied tube-supplied food and water in America's hospitals and nursing homes. What made this case remarkable was the successful public campaign mounted by Terri's parents Bob and Mary Schindler to prevent their daughter from suffering a slow and potentially agonizing death. As a result, millions of people awakened to the ugly reality that we treat helpless humans in a way that would be criminal if done to a horse.

When more than 100,000 people contacted Florida governor Jeb Bush demanding that he intervene and save Terri's life, the result was the passage of "Terri's Law," a measure that permits the governor to suspend the removal of a feeding tube from patients (a) who do not have a written advance directive instructing that they not be nourished and (b) whose families disagree with the decision to dehydrate. Bush acted and Terri's food and water were restored.

But Michael Schiavo, Terri's quasi-estranged husband--he's lived with another woman for several years and has two children with her--remains adamant that Terri die. Assisted by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and cheered on by the bioethics establishment and media, which view the case through a distorting "right to die" prism, Michael Schiavo sued to have Terri's Law declared unconstitutional. If he succeeds, Judge George Greer of Florida's Sixth Judicial Circuit will undoubtedly order Terri's feeding tube removed as he has done twice before.

As we await further court proceedings, it is a good time to take stock of the case, clear up some common misperceptions, and see whether anything can be done to prevent future Terri Schiavos.

The Myth of 19 Judges: Supporters of Terri's dehydration often argue that Terri's rights have been fully protected through extensive judicial oversight. Michael Schiavo put it this way on "Larry King Live": "Nineteen judges have come to the conclusion that this [dehydration] was Terri's wish." His attorney George Felos then added, "This case has gone from the trial court to the appellate Court to the Florida Supreme Court, to the U.S. Supreme Court, to the Federal District Court. All of those judges have looked at this case, have looked at the facts, and have found that Mike acted properly."

Well, bunk. The case has been shunted back and forth between the Sixth Judicial Circuit Court and the Florida Second District Court of Appeal, where the rulings have been repeatedly replayed like a looping audio tape. Only one trial judge and one appellate court actually reviewed the evidentiary record. Moreover, contrary to Felos's assertion, the Florida Supreme Court and the U.S. Supreme Court did not look at the facts. Rather, both declined to review the case. Refusing to rule is not the same thing at all as studying the record.

This is a crucial point because many important and highly relevant facts have never been fully litigated. For example, because the Schindlers could not afford to hire a neurologist to examine Terri at the time of the original trial, Judge Greer heard only one perspective about Terri's medical condition.

This situation has now changed. Several doctors and rehabilitation experts have signed affidavits asserting not only that Terri is conscious, but also that she could be weaned off her feeding tube with rehabilitation. Judge Greer refused to permit this evidence to be presented fully in open court, however, because to do so, he said, would be to retry the case.

But the case should be retried. A human life is at stake. And there are many other issues in addition to the heterodox expert medical opinions about Terri's condition that must be considered if justice is to prevail over mere legal procedure.

For example, Michael Schiavo was not cross-examined at the first trial about the two different stories he has told to two different courts, from which he wanted two different verdicts. When he wanted a money award from a medical malpractice jury, he presented evidence that Terri would have a normal life span, that she would need extensive and expensive rehabilitation throughout her life, and that he would provide her this care as long as he lived. (In cases such as this, the longer the patient is likely to live, the higher the award probably will be.)

Six years later, when he wanted his wife's feeding tube removed, he changed his story, contending that she told him she wouldn't want to live "on anything artificial." Surely, the credibility gap created by this 180-degree turnabout is worth considering, given that Michael's testimony and that of his brother and sister-in-law constituted the only evidence presented to Judge Greer that Terri would want to die.

There are other inconsistencies in Michael Schiavo's story: After the medical malpractice jury money was safely in the bank, he withheld antibiotics from Terri when she developed an infection. Because of this, the Schindlers sued to remove him as Terri's guardian. When Michael was questioned in a deposition about a conversation he had with a doctor about removing Terri's feeding tube, he testified, "I said [to the doctor] I couldn't do that to Terri." He also admitted that he did not want Terri to regain consciousness because he did not think it in her best interests.

There is also considerable evidence that would be presented in a new trial casting doubt on Michael's good intentions toward Terri. Several nurses who cared for Terri in the mid-1990s have come forward and signed sworn affidavits that are highly relevant to the dispute over Terri's medical condition and Michael's good faith. For example, the nurses testified in their affidavits that Terri was responsive and could even speak on occasion.

The affidavit of Carla Sauer Iyer, RN, is especially damaging to Michael's case. She testified that Michael refused medical recommendations that Terri be given therapy, insisting that "Terri should not get any rehab, that there should be no range of motion [therapy], whatever, or anything else. . . . One time I put a wash cloth in Terri's hand to keep her fingers from curling together, and Michael saw it and made me take it out, saying that was therapy."

Even more disturbing, Iyer has stated under penalty of perjury:

Throughout my time at Palm Gardens [Terri's former nursing home], Michael Schiavo was focused on Terri's death. Michael would say, "When is she going to die?" "Has she died yet?" and "When is that bitch going to die?"

Of course, Iyer's accusation should not be accepted at face value and should be tested by rigorous cross-examination. But so too should Schiavo's version of his disputes with care providers. He admits clashing with Terri's nurses, but claims he was angry because they were not providing her with good enough care.

These matters are sufficiently serious to warrant a thorough airing in a full-blown trial. This should be uncontroversial. After all, if Terri were a condemned murderer facing execution and factual matters of this import and relevance had not been adequately addressed in the original proceeding, the ACLU would never stop suing. Yet, even though Terri's case is just as much a death case as any murder proceeding, the ACLU wants Terri to die.

Unfortunately, the judges of the Sixth Judicial Circuit are not eager to face new facts. Indeed, Judge Greer's Sixth Judicial Circuit colleague, W. Douglas Baird, has now refused to permit Governor Bush's attorneys to conduct any factual discovery in the lawsuit over the constitutionality of Terri's Law.

This is to stack travesty upon travesty. Despite the general legal rule that laws are to be presumed valid when being challenged constitutionally, Baird instead declared Terri's Law "presumptively unconstitutional" before Governor Bush had even filed pleadings in the case. Such a statement at least presents a sufficient appearance of bias to require Baird be removed. Instead, the looping tape brought the controversy back to the Second District Court of Appeal, which true to form refused to order that Baird be disqualified. And now, even though Judge Baird has been transferred to a criminal court, he has nonetheless held on to the Schiavo case.

The Missing Guardians ad Litem: "I have never seen anything like the Terri Schiavo litigation," the Schindlers' attorney Pat Anderson told me recently. "I call it the 'Rule of Terri's Case.' If following a legal procedure will likely result in Terri dying, it will be adhered to. But if a procedure could make that outcome more difficult to attain, it will not be followed. It's the most frustrating experience of my legal career."

Bitter words from a lawyer who has, so far, lost her case? I don't think so. Consider the fact that Terri does not currently have a guardian ad litem who would be duty-bound to look out for her interests. This, despite a Florida statutory requirement that an ad litem be appointed whenever a conflict of interest may arise between a guardian and a ward, as it clearly has between Michael and Terri.

Terri once had a guardian ad litem, attorney Richard L. Pearse Jr. of Clearwater, Florida. But after opining before the trial that Terri's dehydration should not be permitted and further urging that she continue to be represented by a guardian ad litem, he was dismissed from the case and no replacement has ever been appointed. When the Schindlers appealed, the Second District Court of Appeal brushed their concerns aside, ruling in essence that Judge Greer could serve both as Terri's advocate and as a neutral arbiter of her fate. As a consequence, Terri was sentenced to die without having an unbiased, zealous advocate acting solely on her behalf.

The same pattern has now occurred under Terri's Law, which explicitly requires a guardian ad litem be appointed for a patient whose dehydration has been suspended by the governor. Accordingly, David A. Demers, chief judge of the Sixth Judicial Circuit, appointed health law professor Jay Wolfson to represent Terri and ordered him to review the case and report back to the court and to the governor within 30 days. Wolfson filed a 38-page report on December 1, 2003. While accepting Judge Greer's ruling that Terri is in a persistent vegetative state, he recommended that Terri be given a swallow test--she has not had one since 1992--opining that if she "has a reasonable hope of regaining any swallowing function," her feeding tube should not be removed. Wolfson also expressed his belief that "due process requires that the ward's interests continue to be represented in all further proceedings herein" by a guardian ad litem or "other appropriate fiduciary."

Judge Demers was having none of that. He thanked Wolfson for his report and dismissed him from further service. Thus, Terri is yet again being denied an advocate to call her own.

The Lack of a Legal Presumption for Life: The Terri Schiavo case shows the acute dangers posed to the most weak and vulnerable among us by the so-called right to die. We are now a society that too often gives the benefit of the doubt to death in cases such as Terri's. Terri's Law was merely a stopgap measure.

A more thorough and well-thought-out law is clearly needed. Such legislation has been filed in Florida. Senate Bill 692, to be considered in the 2004 session, would create an explicit legal presumption in favor of providing tube-supplied food and fluids to cognitively disabled patients. But this general rule would not be ironclad. The presumption would not apply for patients who had signed a written advance medical directive instructing that the tube-supplied sustenance be withheld if it "would not contribute to sustaining the incompetent person's life or provide comfort to the incompetent person."

Such a common sense law would strike a proper balance between the right to make our own medical decisions and the right to life of our most vulnerable citizens. It would also go far in preventing bitter intra-family litigation such as the Schiavo case that has roiled the nation in recent years. A just and compassionate society should accept no less.

Wesley J. Smith is a senior fellow at the Discovery Institute, an attorney for the International Task Force on Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide, and a special consultant to the Center for Bioethics and Culture.

"The related stories have titles "Judge allows comatose woman to die" and "Ruling ends feeding of comatose woman"; the email alerts are for Terri Schiavo, coma, and comatose. Gee, d'ya think they have an agenda??"

It's crazy, isn't it??
There are no rules except the rule that Terri must die...

Read what Pat Anderson, Terri's attorney, has to say in Wesley J. Smith's latest (and possibly greatest) Weekly Standard column on Terri (no URL at this time):

What we can learn from the Schiavo case.
by Wesley J. Smith
01/19/2004, Volume 009, Issue 18

IT IS THE CALM before the storm in the Terri Schiavo case. The Florida woman, who was in the throes of a court-ordered death by dehydration last October when Florida's legislature and Governor Jeb Bush intervened, continues to receive tube-supplied food and water. But this good news may not last. In December, as her family and many supporters celebrated her 40th birthday, their joy was tempered by the knowledge that powerful cultural forces are adamant that Terri Schiavo not live to see age 41.

The Schiavo case was one of the most important stories of 2003. The big news wasn't that she was ordered dehydrated to death: Conscious and unconscious cognitively disabled people like Terri are often denied tube-supplied food and water in America's hospitals and nursing homes. What made this case remarkable was the successful public campaign mounted by Terri's parents Bob and Mary Schindler to prevent their daughter from suffering a slow and potentially agonizing death. As a result, millions of people awakened to the ugly reality that we treat helpless humans in a way that would be criminal if done to a horse.

When more than 100,000 people contacted Florida governor Jeb Bush demanding that he intervene and save Terri's life, the result was the passage of "Terri's Law," a measure that permits the governor to suspend the removal of a feeding tube from patients (a) who do not have a written advance directive instructing that they not be nourished and (b) whose families disagree with the decision to dehydrate. Bush acted and Terri's food and water were restored.

But Michael Schiavo, Terri's quasi-estranged husband--he's lived with another woman for several years and has two children with her--remains adamant that Terri die. Assisted by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and cheered on by the bioethics establishment and media, which view the case through a distorting "right to die" prism, Michael Schiavo sued to have Terri's Law declared unconstitutional. If he succeeds, Judge George Greer of Florida's Sixth Judicial Circuit will undoubtedly order Terri's feeding tube removed as he has done twice before.

As we await further court proceedings, it is a good time to take stock of the case, clear up some common misperceptions, and see whether anything can be done to prevent future Terri Schiavos.

The Myth of 19 Judges: Supporters of Terri's dehydration often argue that Terri's rights have been fully protected through extensive judicial oversight. Michael Schiavo put it this way on "Larry King Live": "Nineteen judges have come to the conclusion that this [dehydration] was Terri's wish." His attorney George Felos then added, "This case has gone from the trial court to the appellate Court to the Florida Supreme Court, to the U.S. Supreme Court, to the Federal District Court. All of those judges have looked at this case, have looked at the facts, and have found that Mike acted properly."

Well, bunk. The case has been shunted back and forth between the Sixth Judicial Circuit Court and the Florida Second District Court of Appeal, where the rulings have been repeatedly replayed like a looping audio tape. Only one trial judge and one appellate court actually reviewed the evidentiary record. Moreover, contrary to Felos's assertion, the Florida Supreme Court and the U.S. Supreme Court did not look at the facts. Rather, both declined to review the case. Refusing to rule is not the same thing at all as studying the record.

This is a crucial point because many important and highly relevant facts have never been fully litigated. For example, because the Schindlers could not afford to hire a neurologist to examine Terri at the time of the original trial, Judge Greer heard only one perspective about Terri's medical condition.

This situation has now changed. Several doctors and rehabilitation experts have signed affidavits asserting not only that Terri is conscious, but also that she could be weaned off her feeding tube with rehabilitation. Judge Greer refused to permit this evidence to be presented fully in open court, however, because to do so, he said, would be to retry the case.

But the case should be retried. A human life is at stake. And there are many other issues in addition to the heterodox expert medical opinions about Terri's condition that must be considered if justice is to prevail over mere legal procedure.

For example, Michael Schiavo was not cross-examined at the first trial about the two different stories he has told to two different courts, from which he wanted two different verdicts. When he wanted a money award from a medical malpractice jury, he presented evidence that Terri would have a normal life span, that she would need extensive and expensive rehabilitation throughout her life, and that he would provide her this care as long as he lived. (In cases such as this, the longer the patient is likely to live, the higher the award probably will be.)

Six years later, when he wanted his wife's feeding tube removed, he changed his story, contending that she told him she wouldn't want to live "on anything artificial." Surely, the credibility gap created by this 180-degree turnabout is worth considering, given that Michael's testimony and that of his brother and sister-in-law constituted the only evidence presented to Judge Greer that Terri would want to die.

There are other inconsistencies in Michael Schiavo's story: After the medical malpractice jury money was safely in the bank, he withheld antibiotics from Terri when she developed an infection. Because of this, the Schindlers sued to remove him as Terri's guardian. When Michael was questioned in a deposition about a conversation he had with a doctor about removing Terri's feeding tube, he testified, "I said [to the doctor] I couldn't do that to Terri." He also admitted that he did not want Terri to regain consciousness because he did not think it in her best interests.

There is also considerable evidence that would be presented in a new trial casting doubt on Michael's good intentions toward Terri. Several nurses who cared for Terri in the mid-1990s have come forward and signed sworn affidavits that are highly relevant to the dispute over Terri's medical condition and Michael's good faith. For example, the nurses testified in their affidavits that Terri was responsive and could even speak on occasion.

The affidavit of Carla Sauer Iyer, RN, is especially damaging to Michael's case. She testified that Michael refused medical recommendations that Terri be given therapy, insisting that "Terri should not get any rehab, that there should be no range of motion [therapy], whatever, or anything else. . . . One time I put a wash cloth in Terri's hand to keep her fingers from curling together, and Michael saw it and made me take it out, saying that was therapy."

Even more disturbing, Iyer has stated under penalty of perjury:

Throughout my time at Palm Gardens [Terri's former nursing home], Michael Schiavo was focused on Terri's death. Michael would say, "When is she going to die?" "Has she died yet?" and "When is that bitch going to die?"

Of course, Iyer's accusation should not be accepted at face value and should be tested by rigorous cross-examination. But so too should Schiavo's version of his disputes with care providers. He admits clashing with Terri's nurses, but claims he was angry because they were not providing her with good enough care.

These matters are sufficiently serious to warrant a thorough airing in a full-blown trial. This should be uncontroversial. After all, if Terri were a condemned murderer facing execution and factual matters of this import and relevance had not been adequately addressed in the original proceeding, the ACLU would never stop suing. Yet, even though Terri's case is just as much a death case as any murder proceeding, the ACLU wants Terri to die.

Unfortunately, the judges of the Sixth Judicial Circuit are not eager to face new facts. Indeed, Judge Greer's Sixth Judicial Circuit colleague, W. Douglas Baird, has now refused to permit Governor Bush's attorneys to conduct any factual discovery in the lawsuit over the constitutionality of Terri's Law.

This is to stack travesty upon travesty. Despite the general legal rule that laws are to be presumed valid when being challenged constitutionally, Baird instead declared Terri's Law "presumptively unconstitutional" before Governor Bush had even filed pleadings in the case. Such a statement at least presents a sufficient appearance of bias to require Baird be removed. Instead, the looping tape brought the controversy back to the Second District Court of Appeal, which true to form refused to order that Baird be disqualified. And now, even though Judge Baird has been transferred to a criminal court, he has nonetheless held on to the Schiavo case.

The Missing Guardians ad Litem: "I have never seen anything like the Terri Schiavo litigation," the Schindlers' attorney Pat Anderson told me recently. "I call it the 'Rule of Terri's Case.' If following a legal procedure will likely result in Terri dying, it will be adhered to. But if a procedure could make that outcome more difficult to attain, it will not be followed. It's the most frustrating experience of my legal career."

Bitter words from a lawyer who has, so far, lost her case? I don't think so. Consider the fact that Terri does not currently have a guardian ad litem who would be duty-bound to look out for her interests. This, despite a Florida statutory requirement that an ad litem be appointed whenever a conflict of interest may arise between a guardian and a ward, as it clearly has between Michael and Terri.

Terri once had a guardian ad litem, attorney Richard L. Pearse Jr. of Clearwater, Florida. But after opining before the trial that Terri's dehydration should not be permitted and further urging that she continue to be represented by a guardian ad litem, he was dismissed from the case and no replacement has ever been appointed. When the Schindlers appealed, the Second District Court of Appeal brushed their concerns aside, ruling in essence that Judge Greer could serve both as Terri's advocate and as a neutral arbiter of her fate. As a consequence, Terri was sentenced to die without having an unbiased, zealous advocate acting solely on her behalf.

The same pattern has now occurred under Terri's Law, which explicitly requires a guardian ad litem be appointed for a patient whose dehydration has been suspended by the governor. Accordingly, David A. Demers, chief judge of the Sixth Judicial Circuit, appointed health law professor Jay Wolfson to represent Terri and ordered him to review the case and report back to the court and to the governor within 30 days. Wolfson filed a 38-page report on December 1, 2003. While accepting Judge Greer's ruling that Terri is in a persistent vegetative state, he recommended that Terri be given a swallow test--she has not had one since 1992--opining that if she "has a reasonable hope of regaining any swallowing function," her feeding tube should not be removed. Wolfson also expressed his belief that "due process requires that the ward's interests continue to be represented in all further proceedings herein" by a guardian ad litem or "other appropriate fiduciary."

Judge Demers was having none of that. He thanked Wolfson for his report and dismissed him from further service. Thus, Terri is yet again being denied an advocate to call her own.

The Lack of a Legal Presumption for Life: The Terri Schiavo case shows the acute dangers posed to the most weak and vulnerable among us by the so-called right to die. We are now a society that too often gives the benefit of the doubt to death in cases such as Terri's. Terri's Law was merely a stopgap measure.

A more thorough and well-thought-out law is clearly needed. Such legislation has been filed in Florida. Senate Bill 692, to be considered in the 2004 session, would create an explicit legal presumption in favor of providing tube-supplied food and fluids to cognitively disabled patients. But this general rule would not be ironclad. The presumption would not apply for patients who had signed a written advance medical directive instructing that the tube-supplied sustenance be withheld if it "would not contribute to sustaining the incompetent person's life or provide comfort to the incompetent person."

Such a common sense law would strike a proper balance between the right to make our own medical decisions and the right to life of our most vulnerable citizens. It would also go far in preventing bitter intra-family litigation such as the Schiavo case that has roiled the nation in recent years. A just and compassionate society should accept no less.

Wesley J. Smith is a senior fellow at the Discovery Institute, an attorney for the International Task Force on Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide, and a special consultant to the Center for Bioethics and Culture.

I will give media a little bit of credit for recently substituting "brain-damaged" for "comatose" (probably in response to emails from Terri's attorney and the public) but that is just the tip of the disinformation iceberg.

The whole case is a perversion of law! Take this quote from CNN on August 26, 2003:

"But Greer said Terri Schiavo's infection must be treated aggressively until the moment of her death."

Also, the misleading title of that article is "Judge: Comatose woman must be treated" yet the first sentence of the article is:

MIAMI, Florida (CNN) -- A woman who has been ruled to be in a persistent vegetative state and is fed through a tube must be given life-saving treatment in a Florida hospital, according to a Pinellas County judge.

Larry King gave a full hour to the HINO and his attorney - when will the 'other side' get their due?

Ken Connor, Dr. Hammesfahr, Dr. Walker deserve equal time on LKL.