[Marxism] Re: The Schiavo case and the facts (was: Judge...)

davidquarter at sympatico.ca davidquarter at sympatico.ca
Fri May 13 00:52:25 MDT 2005


------------------------------

Message: 19
Date: Tue, 10 May 2005 02:34:45 -0400
From: Joaqu?n Bustelo <jbustelo at bellsouth.net>
Subject: [Marxism] The Schiavo case and the facts (was: Judge...)


Joaqu?n wrote: 

This is going to be a long and perhaps tedious post. But, frankly, it is
necessary. >>>>>>>

DAVID"S response: 

Unfortunately. 


Joaqu?n wrote: <<<<<<There are FACTS about the Schiavo case which some 
people choose to ignore,preferring to base themselves on sound bites from the 
reactionary cabal that
came together around this issue, and even the most unmitigated slanders from
tabloid TV. Fred Feldman defended what I posted earlier saying, "Mr. Schiavo did 
notclaim the right as her power-of-attorney representative to decide whether
she lived and died."To which David Quarter replies:"How it is 'very clear' when it's 
all falling back on the husband's testimony/words? Of course what is he to say: 'I 
want to remove my wife's tube b/c she's an annoying b**tch getting in the way my 
self fulfillment'?, which btw, is a paraphrase attributed to him both from a former 
nurse of Terri's hired by the husband and one of the husband's previous girlfriends.
They are both quoted in a A and E documentary that aired a day after her
death."<<<<<<David Quarter is simply, factually wrong. And the alleged Michael 
Schiavo
quote he repeats/paraphrases is demonstrably a slander.

Mr. Schiavo was NOT the only person that testified about Theresa Schiavo not
wanting to be kept alive artificially. There were two other witnesses who
heard Terry Schiavo express the same sentiments.>>>>


DAVID: 

Why don't spell out these mysterious "two other witnesses" ?!


Joaqu?n wrote: 

>>>>>On the other side, there were claims made about contrary statements by her
mother and a friend. >>>>>

DAVID's response: 

Wrong! There was a nurse the husband had hired who made the 
same claim. 
Not a figment of my imagination, I assure you. She was interviewed at length on the 
A and E documentary aired after the deed was completed (i.e., after Terri was 
dead). So, there was the EX girlfriend, the nurse and of course the parents. 

On the other side, there was the husband...and well, i'll save the rest for below... 

Joaqu?n wrote: 

<<<<This was all brought out in open court. The judge found those statements
presented by the parents' side to be unreliable indications of her wishes as
an adult.>>>>

DAVID's response: 

One man's opinion with his owns biases. Big deal. 


Joaqu?n wrote: >>>>The testimony of the mother and the friend was in part
contradictory>>>>

DAVID's response: 

In what way?


Joaqu?n wrote >>>>>and Theresa's statements were said to have been made when 
she
was in her late teens prompted by a specific circumstance (the news coverage
of the Quinlan case). But that case had taken place many years before, and
it would have meant Terri Schindler, born in Dec. of 1963, was a child of 11
or 12 then, since the Quinlan case as a public controversy ended in
mid-1976.As to Mr. Schiavo's supposed anti-Terri sentiments quoted on the A&E
documentary, there is no quote like that in any of the court filings by the
parents that I've read, and I have read a few. >>>>>

DAVID's response: 

It means little to me what the court did or 
did not admit into evidence. Courts daily carry out injusticies; this has been 
happening for long as courts have existed. Evidence is always partial. But it's 
amusing to hear a 
marxist investing so much confidence in the bourgeois courts, but ok. 


Joaqu?n wrote: <<<<<<<But more significantly, they
are contradicted by this man's ACTIONS over 15 years, actions which are an
unchallenged part of the record in this case, recognized by repeatedly by
the courts and various Guardians ad Litem (someone named by a court to look
out for a person who can't speak for themselves in a legal proceeding,
usually children, for example, when their interests in a case might be
different from those of their parents or normal Guardian. There were several
of these in the various Schiavo proceedings.)What there is on the RECORD, the 
record based on sworn testimony, is that
Mr. Schiavo was engaged, and more actively than the parents, in making sure
his wife was well looked after; that he visited her more than they did; and
that he made all sorts of efforts for years seeking and trying treatments
that might hold out some hope of improving her condition; that only when
these efforts proved fruitless and after scans revealed that basically a lot
of her brain had disintegrated did he give up hope, and then and only then
sought to carry out what he believes were her wishes in such a case.<<<<<<<
"Only when these efforts proved fruitless?"


DAVID's response: 

A) You say the above as if the court testimony is the final arbiter of reality. 

B) as if you're in the husband's mind or something! 

Yes, "only when these efforts proved fruiless" did Michael Schiavo put the 500 000 
or so of the 1.5 million he and Terri had won from the malpractice settlement 
towards removing her tube. That's about as much that can be established 
concerning his supposed "altrustic motives". The part about "efforts proved fruitless" 
is debatable. The FACT 
is that he ONLY paid for her rehab out of his own pocket for a period of time, and 
then took 
an abrupt U-Turnin his position after "winning" the significant malpractice 
settlement. Another relevant point is the fight he had with the family over the 
distribution of the money; 
that's really what started this "argument", and it is also the point in time in which his 
actions 
suggested "rehabilitation was fruitleess" -- i.e., he wanted her dead. 

Finally, there is the issue of whether the rehab he paid for was even adequate? 
At the point that he was covering the rehab out of his own pocket, 
there was a lot less money to put towards her rehabilitaiton. When he won the 
lawsuit, which was primarily intended for the rehab, he decided that the issue" had 
been exhausted " and turned toward having the tubes removed. How jolly nice of 
him. 


Joaqu?n wrote: <><<<<As to the A&E documentary, I haven't seen it,>>>>>

DAVID's response: 

It's quite apparent.


Joaqu?n wrote: >>>>>but an honest, factual
documentary listened to with an open mind should certainly have presented
that well-documented record and disabused anyone from the idea that the
judge's decision acting as Terri Schiavo's surrogate was based only on the
husband's testimony or words.In fact, to simply walk away from Terri is *precisely* 
what her parents
asked Michael to do, and which he *refused* to do.>>>>>

DAVID's response: 

Interesting spin, but you neglect to mention the SPECIFICS of the parents 
demands, which was to look after Terri (including continue her rehab, which had 
been stopped shortly after the larger settlement was granted). And this was to 
happen WITHOUT THE MONEY granted through the settlement. There were 
foundations ready to cover all the costs of her care and rehabilitation, including a 
foundation in Alberta willing to send over nurses at their expense. The husband 
refused to allow this. 

So framing this as the parents asking him to walk away from Terri is interesting, 
although utterly misleading. 

Let's just compare the two sides motives for a sec:

The parents: wanting to look after their child intially using the money from the 
settlement, and subsequenly,
at a complete cost to themselves, using their own money and then relying on the 
generosity of outsiders...although with no guarantees for how long. 
What do they gain? As you yourself allude to below, the satisfaction of knowing that 
their beloved daughter is kept alive and also, possibily, to become functional again.

The husband: wanting to get rid of a burdensome wife (corroborated by the 
statements of the nurse and ex-girlfriend) What does he 
gain? 1) the elimination of a burdensome wife, the possibility of a new life without 
the presence of Terri hanging over him, and 2) possibly later on regaining enough 
of her bodily functions (including communication) to contradict his statements about 
how she supposedly never wanted to live in such a state 3) the ability at least 
initially to pocket the malpratice money, which evidence suggests was his intention 
all along. 

Admittently, he offered to donate what remained of the settlement to charity but 
this was conditional on the parents agreeing to 
relinquish their demands to keep the feeding tubes in place, and also after it was 
apparent that they were in the battle for the longhaul. It's a convenient 
smokescreen after all the efforts of the husband towards having the feedingtube
removed. 

(See my comments below). 



Joaqu?n wrote: <<<<<Compare to whatever impression you've gotten from 
bourgeois media coverage
to what Judge Greer actually ruled in 2000: "By all accounts, Mr. Schiavo has been 
was [sic] very motivated in pursuing
the best medical care for his wife, even taking her to California for a
month or so for experimental treatment. It is undisputed that he was very
aggressive with nursing home personnel to make certain she received the
finest of care..."... [T]here is little discrepancy in the testimony the court must rely 
uponin order to arrive at its decision in this case..."It has been suggested that 
Michael Schiavo has not acted in good faith by
waiting eight plus years to file the petition which is under consideration.
That assertion hardly seems worthy of comment other than to say he should
not be faulted for having done what those opposed to him want to be
continued. "It is also interesting to note that Mr. Schiavo continued to be the most
regular visitor to his wife even though he is criticized for wanting to
remove her life support. Dr. Gambone even noted that close attention to
detail has resulted in her excellent physical condition and that Petitioner
[Michael Schiavo] is very involved...."There was a lot of testimony concerning the 
Karen Ann Quinlin [sic] case in New Jersey. Mrs. Schindler [Terri's mother] testified 
that her daughter made
comments during the television news reports of the father's attempts to have
the life support removed to the effect that they should just leave her
(Karen Ann Quinlin) alone. Mrs. Schindler first testified that those
comments were made when Terri was between 17-20 years of age but after being
shown copies of newspaper accounts she agreed that she [Terri] was 11
perhaps 12 years of age at the time. A witness called by Respondents [the
parents] testified to similar conversations with Terri Schiavo but stated
that they occurred during the summer of 1982.... [The judge here has a long
discussion of the time frame, verb tenses attributed to Terri Schiavo by the
witness, contradictions between her testimony and an earlier deposition, and
her general demeanor.]"The court is drawn to the conclusion that this discussion 
most likelyoccurred in the same time frame as the similar comments to Mrs. 
Schindler. "Michael Schiavo testified as to a few discussions he had with his wife
concerning life support. The Guardian Ad Litem felt that this testimony
standing alone would not rise to clear and convincing evidence of her
intent. The court is not required to rule on this issue since it does have
the benefit of the testimony of his brother and sister in law.... The court
has reviewed the testimony ... and found nothing contained therein to be
unreliable. The court notes that neither of these witnesses appears to have
shaded his or her testimony or even attempt[ed] to exclude unfavorable
comments or points regarding those discussions. They were not impeached on
cross-examination....There are some comments or statements made by Terri 
Schiavo which the courtdoes not feel are germane to this decision. The court does 
not feel thatstatements made by her at the age of 11 or 12 truly reflect upon her
intention.... "Statements which Terri Schiavo made with do support the relief sought 
byher surrogate (Petitioner/Guardian) include statements to him prompted by
her grandmother being in intensive care.... Additionally, statements made to
Michael Schiavo which were prompted by something on television regarding
people on life support that she would not want to live like that also
reflect her intention in this particular situation. Also, the statements she
made in the presence of Scott Schiavo at the funeral luncheon for his
grandmother that 'if I ever go like that just let me go. Don't leave me
there. I don't want to be kept alive on a machine,' and to Joan Schiavo
following a television movie in which a man following an accident was in a
coma to the effect that she wanted it stated in her will that she would want
the tubes and everything taken out if that happened to her are likewise
reflective of this intent. The court specifically finds that these
statements are Terri Schiavo's oral declarations concerning her intention as
to what she would want done under the present circumstances and that the
testimony regarding such oral declarations is reliable, is creditable and
rises to the level of clear and convincing evidence to this court.Note that the basis 
of the decision is not what Michael claims to have heard
her say various times, but mainly what two other relatives on different
occasions heard, corroborated by Michael's testimony. >>>>>


DAVID's response: 

Ahh...so the testimony of
"two other relatives" (namely, THE BROTHER AND SISTER IN LAW) OF THE 
HUSBAND, not Terri's (or anyone without a particular stake in the decision), is the 
clincher for you. Nice to know! 

It's convenient also to omit the timeline of this position of the husband, i.e., The 
1998 testimony. The husband never raised this argument in 1993, during her 
guardianship hearing, and it was only after his brother and sister-in-law's testimony 
in 1998 (as last minute witnesses) that it suddenly became a matter of 'honouring 
Terri's will'. Also interesting is that the original guardian ad litem hired by the court, 
Richard Pearse, claimed that the husband wasn't fit to look after her, and 
specifically that he was out for the cash. For example, he wrote in Dec of 1998 the 
following: 


"After February 1993, Mr. Schiavo's attitude concerning treatment for the ward 
apparently changed. Early in 1994, for example, he refused to consent to treat an 
infection from which the ward was then suffering and ordered that she not be 
resuscitated in the event of cardiac arrest. The nursing home where she resided at 
that time sought to intervene, which ultimately led the ward's husband to reverse his 
decision and authorize antibiotic treatment".

This point is corroborated by the husband's own testimony in court during his Nov. 
1993 desposition on guardianship in which his behaviour towards Terri's bladder 
condition is cross examined: 
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.
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 did instruct the doctor not to treat her bladder condition, correct?
MS. Uh-huh. Yes.
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."

Joaqu?n wrote <<<<<The story that it was just Michael's word comes from the 
Guardian ad Litem's
report before that trial, who was only familiar with Michael's statements>>>>

DAVID's response:
This is also the same Richard Pearse recommended to the court by M. Schiavo's 
lawyer! 
He was subsequyently removed from this role as guardian also at the insistence of 
the husband's lawyer!
Perhaps the husbands lawyers should have been more careful on who they 
recommend as her Guardian ad Litem.

Joaqu?n wrote <<<<<Michael makes a strong case that this person was biased 
against him, because he says Michael has a conflict of interest because he stood to 
inherit what
remained of Terri's medical trust fund, whereas in fact he had offered an
agreement to the Schindlers to donate any leftover moneys to charity>>>>

DAVID's response: 

When the husband made this offer, which was conditional on the parents 
AGREEING TO to have THEIR DAUGHTER's LIFE TERMINATED, it was already 
after countless attempts to have the tubes removed as well as 5 years of the his 
neglect towards Terri. If he was such a man of principle, he would have offered this 
"deal" to the parents from the getgo. It is also significant that it coincided with the 
Pearse investigation, which the husband (or his lawyers) probably feared would 
result in a damning report against him, which is what ended up happening. Then 
there is the introduction of his finance. By 1997 he was engaged and had fathered 
two children with her. Terri staying alive obviously scuppered his marriage plans 
and his goal of starting a family. 


Joaqu?n wrote: <<<<<<<something the Guardian does not mention, nor does he 
mention that the 
SAMEconflict of interest applied to the Schindlers, since if Michael had walked
away from and divorced Terri, they would have stood to inherit the money.>>>>>

DAVID's response: 

According to what? And even so, what does this prove?


Joaqu?n wrote <<<<This report is what the priests and other right-wingers spoon- 
fed to the
press to convince them, and these socalled reporters, swallowed it whole.<<<<<

DAVID's response: 

You want to clump every defender of the poor woman as "right wingers", including 
the countless disability rights activitists/groups that had defended her from day one. 
I imagine, even brain dead Fred Feldman isn 't so ignorant. 


Joaqu?n wrote <<<<And, of course, the actual timing of Terri Schiavo's supposedly 
contrary
statements weren't in the Guardian's report, it was at the subsequent trial
that it was shown based on the description of the circumstances that they
were made when Terri was still a child.>>>>In upholding this decision, the court of 
appeals stressed this was thejudge's decision acting on Terri Schiavo's behalf based 
on "clear andconvincing evidence" of what she would have wanted, not Michael's 
decision>>>>>


DAVID's response:

Your evidence for this "clear and convincing evidence" - the brother and sister in 
law's testiony! that's it! both of whom, btw, you didn't even have the guts to 
specifically identify!

ALso when Pearse rejected the husband's argument of how supposedly Terri had 
wanted to die (it was "not credible" in his words), the "impartial" judge at the time at 
the insistence of the husband's lawyer deposed of Pearse as her guardian. The next 
judge Greer then admited into evidence as "clear and convincing the last-minute 
testimony of the husband's brother and sister in law; this while the earlier testimony 
of the friends of terri (who you allude to above) recounting her outrage at the 
suggestion of having the feeding tube of the Quinlan lady removed was 
inadmissable. 

Greer also refused to consider the opinion of Michael Baden, a world famous 
forensic pathologist arguing that the head trauma was most likely the cause of her 
"vegetative" state. Baden's words, as reported in a Fox interview, were specifically: 
"It's extremely rare for a 20-year-old to have a cardiac arrest from low potassium 
who has no other diseases... [It is] extremely unusual unless she had certain kind of 
diseases, which she doesn't have.
"She was in her 20s. The reason that she's in the state she's in is because there was 
a period of time, maybe five minutes or eight minutes, when not enough oxygen 
was going to her brain
"That can happen because the heart stops for five or eight minutes, but she had a 
healthy heart from what we can see.
[The] bone scan [taken in 1991] describes her as having a head injury. That's why 
she's there. That's why she's getting a bone scan, and a head injury can cause, lead 
to the 'vegetative state' that Ms. Schiavo is in now."
And Baden's conclusions were consistent with the Doctor who completed the bone 
scan, Dr. W. Campbell Walker. She stated that it indicated "a history of trauma" 
possibly from an "auto accident...a fall, or...from some kind of beating that she 
obtained from somebody somewhere. It's something that should have been 
investigated in 1991". 
But wasn't at the time, nor subsequently. 

Joaqu?n wrote <><<<<<<<"Under these circumstances, the two parties, as 
adversaries, present their evidence to the trial court. The trial court determines 
whether the evidence
is sufficient to allow it to make the decision for the ward to discontinue
life support. In this context, the trial court essentially serves as the
ward's guardian...."The testimony in this case establishes that Theresa was very 
young and veryhealthy when this tragedy struck. Like many young people without 
children,she had not prepared a will, much less a living will. She had been raised in
the Catholic faith, but did not regularly attend mass or have a religious
advisor who could assist the court in weighing her religious attitudes about
life-support methods. Her statements to her friends and family about the
dying process were few and they were oral. Nevertheless, those statements,
along with other evidence about Theresa, gave the trial court a sufficient
basis to make this decision for her."In the final analysis, the difficult question that 
faced the trial courtwas whether Theresa Marie Schindler Schiavo, not after a few 
weeks in a
coma, but after ten years in a persistent vegetative state that has robbed
her of most of her cerebrum and all but the most instinctive of neurological
functions, with no hope of a medical cure but with sufficient money and
strength of body to live indefinitely, would choose to continue the constant
nursing care and the supporting tubes in hopes that a miracle would somehow
recreate her missing brain tissue, or whether she would wish to permit a
natural death process to take its course and for her family members and
loved ones to be free to continue their lives. After due consideration, we
conclude that the trial judge had clear and convincing evidence to answer
this question as he did.">>>>>>>

DAVID's response: 

You can cite the "impartial" Judges until your face turns blue, but I have really no 
interest in a courts's ruling apart from demonstrating the symbolic quackery of a 
system that allows one or a few educated "white men" to play the role of (capitalist) 
G-d. What I'm more concerned with is the morality of the case, i.e., A) Whether the 
husband is an opportunitistic SOB and B) whether there was justification for having 
the women;s feeding tube removed. At the very least, the evidence raises disturbing 
questions about the former whereas B is a moral issue that I defend on the 
principle that allowing "brain damaged" people to be euthanized sets a bad societal 
precedent. It's eugenics plain and simple and I oppose it under all circumstances. 


Joaqu?n wrote: >>>>>If you read that appeals court decision in full, you'll see they 
explain
that the judge could be reversed on limited grounds, like abuse of
discretion, improper procedures and so on. But given the charged nature of
the case, they went further and specifically endorse that the evidence
itself was clear and convincing..>>>>

DAVID's response:

You're seriously putting me to sleep...
Appeals court have little if any interest in deliberating on the validity of evidence 
presented during trial. They are only (or primarily) interested in whether the trial 
proceeded "fairly". 

Joaqu?n wrote: <<<<This was not, not by a long shot, the end of the countless 
appeals and
challenges to the decision. I'll just quote one more, by the same appeals
court, several years later, after the reactionary cabal had succeeded in
turning the case into a three-ring media circus. And these parts of the
appeals court decision were specifically quoted and incorporated by the
Florida Supreme Court in its opinion holding that "Terri's Law" was
unconstitutional:"Despite our decision that the appropriate standard of review is 
abuse ofdiscretion, this court has closely examined all of the evidence in this
record. We have repeatedly examined the videotapes, not merely watching
short segments but carefully observing the tapes in their entirety. We have
examined the brain scans with the eyes of educated laypersons and considered
the explanations provided by the doctors in the transcripts. We have
concluded that, if we were called upon to review the guardianship court’s
decision de novo, we would still affirm it. . . ."The judges on this panel are called 
upon to make a collective, objective decision concerning a question of law. Each of 
us, however, has our own family, our own loved ones, our own children. From our 
review of the
videotapes of Mrs. Schiavo, despite the irrefutable evidence<<<<

DAVID's response: 
Maybe to you. Not to a good many medical expects a lot more qualified to speak to 
her state. They include: Board certified neurologists and internists, neuro- 
pychologists, speech pathologists, and nurses.There are other expects who the 
parents received opinions from who agreed with the position contrary to the PVS 
argument. 
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/337laakp.asp


<>>>>>> that her
cerebral cortex has sustained the most severe of irreparable injuries, we
understand why a parent who had raised and nurtured a child from conception
would hold out hope that some level cognitive function remained. If Mrs.
Schiavo were our own daughter, we could not but hold to such a faith.
"But in the end, this case is not about the aspirations that loving parents
have for their children. It is about Theresa Schiavo’s right to make her own
decision, independent of her parents and independent her husband....>>>> 
<<<<<<<It may
be unfortunate that when families cannot agree, the best forum we can offer
for this private, personal decision is public courtroom and the best
decision-maker we can provide is a judge with no prior knowledge of the
ward, but the law currently provides no better solution that adequately
protects the interests of promoting the value of life. We have previously
affirmed the guardianship court’s decision in this regard, and we now affirm
the denial of a motion for relief from that judgment.">>>>>

DAVID's response: 

yawn....




Joaqu?n wrote >>>>>>>>>>>>>>Another whole area of myths and fictions is the 
medical testimony. David
Quarter insists that "The facts aren't IN FACT as 'clear' as you puport
them. To begin with there were doctors arguing she wasn't responsive and
there were also doctors arguing that she *was* responsive. One doctor,
quoted on the said A and E documentary, specializing in the rehabilitation
of severely brain damaged patients, stated that he had seen instances of
patients far worse off than Terri recovering from their injuries."<<<<<<<There is an 
extensive summary of the medical record in the report of Jay
Wolfson, the Guardian ad Litem appointed at Gov. Jeb Bush's initiative under
"Terri's Law," including of the examination done of her by a panel of five
physicians, two appointed by the parents, two by Michael Schiavo, and one by
the judge. That examination was prompted by the claim of one doctor that he
could treat and improve her condition. Those findings were presented to the
lower court, and then subjected to an extraordinary appellate review where
the appeals court panel also looked at all the evidence and testimony.
(That's the appeal court ruling I just quoted.) And then Guardian ad Litem
Wolfson goes out of his way to incorporate those same findings in his
report:>>>>>>"Theresa's neurological tests and CT scans indicate objective 
measures of
the persistent vegetative state. These data indicate that Theresa's cerebral
cortex is principally liquid, having shrunken due to severe anoxic trauma
experienced thirteen years ago.....>>>>>>

DAVID's response: "Extensive summary"? 

Again, you're citing a summary by a court appointed lawyer (and PHD) as if he 
relects the entire medical field. Summaries aren't consensuses; they reflect partial 
readings of information. This was not also the opinions of all of the medical doctors 
who examined her, including, you conveniently omit to mention, the 6 you cited. 2 
ruled that she was NOT in a PVS. One concluded "probably PSV". Again, you are 
misrepresenting the information known.

Joaqu?n wrote >>>>"In recent months, individuals have come forward indicating 
that there are
therapies and treatments and interventions that can literally re-grow
Theresa's functional, cerebral cortex brain tissue. There is no
scientifically valid, medically recognized evidence that this has been done
or is possible, even in rats, according to the president of the American
Society for Neuro-Transplantation. It is imaginable that some day such
things may be possible; but holding out such promises to families of
severely brain injured persons today may be a profound disservice.
"In the observed circumstances, the behavior that Theresa manifests is
attributable to brain and stem forebrain functions that are reflexive,
rather than cognitive...."Theresa has also far outlived any documented periods from 
which persons in
persistent vegetative states have emerged in any functional capacity. The
reasonable degree of medical certainty associated with her diagnosis and
prognosis is very high."A "profound disservice." That's what this expert called these 
quack claims
about healing someone whose cerebral cortex was gone.>>>>

DAVID's response: 

This again presuming her cerebral cortex " was" in fact "gone" -- not the opinion of 
all the doctors who examined her. And then there is the issue what "gone" entails? 
And then the issue of whether a determined-to-be-gone "cerebral cortex' should 
justify the removal of a feeding tube. All moral issues. 


Joaqu?n wrote <<<And --remember-- this was Jeb Bush's guy, appointed under 
intense political
pressure to find some reason --any reason at all-- for Theresa's wishes, as
determined by a court, not to be kept alive artificially, to be ignored.>>>>

DAVID's response: 

"Jeb Bush's guy", you say. 

A) He was appointed by the court B) He was highly critical of Bush's "intervenion" in 
the case. 

I don't know how that makes him "Jeb Bush's guy", but perhaps you know 
something I'm missing. 


Joaqu?n wrote>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>The best Wolfson could come up with 
along that line was a FOURTH round of
swallowing tests, justified more than anything as a mechanism to try to
overcome the divide between Michael and Theresa's parents. >>>>>>

DAVID's response: 

Again it's your premise that "Jeb Bush's guy" is somehow partial in favour of the 
governor. 


Joaqu?n wrote <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<He wanted the parents and Michael 
to accept that these tests should be
decisive. If she couldn't swallow without a danger of aspiration --and three
previous rounds of tests said she couldn't-- then the parents should accept
that she was gone. If she could, that was an indication of some remnant of
consciousness.The proposal became moot once the law under which he was 
appointed was ruled
unconstitutional by the Florida Supreme Court. But just this March, a year
and a half later, he gave an interview to the Knight Rider newspapers where
he revealed both his mindset as he was undertaking the job and his
conclusion>>>>>>"Wolfson one of the very few people to have spent extended 
time with Schiavoand gauged her level of awareness without having a vested 
interest at stake."In the end, after long hours at Schiavo's bedside and after poring 
over30,000 pages of legal documents, Wolfson concluded that Schiavo was indeed
in a permanent vegetative state. "It wasn't the conclusion he'd hoped to make. 
"'You want to weigh in on life as opposed to death,' Wolfson said. 'You want
some way to elicit a response.' .Wolfson, who has a law degree and a PhD and is a 
distinguished serviceprofessor of public health and medicine at the University of 
South Florida,was asked to decide whether Schiavo's feeding tube should be 
removed andwhether more tests should be done to assess her ability to swallow. 
"He scoured 13 years' worth of legal documents and extensively interviewed
Schiavo's husband, Michael, and her parents, Bob and Mary Schindler. His
time with Schiavo was spent trying to determine whether she was aware of and
interactive with the world...."He played Elton John CDs for her, and Bach and 
Mozart and music from the ate 1980s, when she was in her 20s, prior to her 
collapse. He held herhands, squeezing them, and stroked her hair and face. "He put 
his face close to hers and tried to make eye contact, pleading
desperately, trying to will her into giving him any kind of sign. "I would beg her, 
`Please, Terri, help me,'" he said. "You want to believe
there's some connection. You hope she's going to sit up and bed and say,
`Hey, I'm really here, but don't tell anybody.' Or, `I'm really here, tell
everybody!'"But Schiavo never made eye contact. When Wolfson visited her when 
herparents were there, she never made eye contact with them either, he said.
And for all of Wolfson's pleadings and coaxing, he never got what he most
wanted: a sign...."Wolfson was dismayed to learn Friday that Barbara Weller, an 
attorney for the Schindlers, claimed that Schiavo tried to speak. 'Terri does not 
speak,'he said. 'To claim otherwise reduces her to a fiction.'
"One thing Wolfson never doubted was that for all their intense, mutual
antagonism, both Michael Schiavo and Terri's parents love and adore her. 
"She was cared for incredibly well, Wolfson said. Her hair was always
combed, and after 15 years of being incapacitated, she never developed a
bedsore. In fact, Wolfson said until about seven years ago, Michael Schiavo
had Terry's makeup and hair done regularly, and her clothes changed every
day - to the point that hospice staff protested that he was being overly
demanding about her care.">>>>>>>>>>>>

DAVID's response:

Another of your smoking guns, I presume. As far Michael S.'s atruism, recall the 
testimony of the previous Guardian ad Litem, Mr. Pearse, who reached quite a 
different conclusion. Or what about the nurses who testified about M. Shiavo's 
wanting the feeding tubes removed right after the court settlement, or of Schiavo's 
self-incriminating testimony above???


Joaqu?n wrote >>>>The record is totally clear and convincing.>>>>>

DAVID's response:

In your la-la land of a mind, not on planet earth. 



Joaqu?n wrote: >>>>>Even Wolfson --both a lawyer and
a medical professional-- who admits having gone in there looking for the
slightest glimmer of consciousness on Theresa Schiavo's part, could not find
any. >>>>

DAVID"S response:

A PHD, not a MD. Significant enough difference in my opinion. 


Joaqu?n wrote >>>>>>The appeals courts, not once but repeatedly, instead of 
merely upholding the
judge on narrow technical grounds, did its own extensive reviews of the
evidence and specifically upheld his conclusions in several stages of the
case.>>>>>

DAVID's response:

As I already pointed out, appeal courts review the process, not the evidence. 
Still whether my little knowledge of the court system is offbase still doesn't prove 
that you're right. Reducing this to "legalities" doesn't make your argument, it merely 
shows how desperate you are to "prove" something that is fundamentally a moral 
issue. 


Joaqu?n wrote >>>>>You can go to the federal case and see how the judge there 
does much
the same thing.The plain fact is that Theresa's parents, and especially her mother, 
forperfectly understandable human reasons, refused to accept the truth, that
she was gone, which Michael Schiavo also resisted, for most of a decade, but
eventually he came to accept it.A cabal of reactionaries of various stripes, Papists 
in the first order,
evangelicals and fundamentalist, and, of course, opportunistic Republican
politicians and their media pimps,>>>>>

DAVID's response:

This "cabal of reactionaries", it should be pointed out, include probably every 
existing disabitliy rights organization in the U.S., Canada, and probably the world. 
To label them reactionaries tells me how little you know of the politics of the 
disability rights movement. 

There is also llikely a fair amount of individuals (apart from myslelf and Ralf Nader) 
who share no particular interest with the folks espousing a religious defence of Terri. 
But even if I'm wrong, what of it?

Joaqu?n wrote<<<<<<viciously manipulated the mother's
sentiments to mount this circus in the hopes that somehow they could
leverage this case into getting some sort of "right to life" legal precedent
to sue against the right to abortion.>>>>>>

DAVID's response:

I assume that the mother is more than capable of thinking for herself. 


Joaqu?n wrote <<<<<The "liberal" Democrats and news media incessantly 
pandered to the right
wingers, and not due to public pressure, either>>>>>

DAVID's response:

You're kidding right? Which liberals are you referring to? The news media?

You must have a different take on deciphering spin if you believe the liberal news 
media was sympathetic to the right on this matter. 


Joaqu?n wrote <<<<as the polls showed, when
the facts of the case were honestly presented, people supported withdrawing
the feeding tube by an overwhelming majority.>>>>>>

DAVID's response: Probably cause they rely heavily for their daily news 
consumption on the Ny and LA Times, the Post, CNN, NBC, ABC, PBS, NRP, etc. 

Joaqu?n wrote<<<<<I would urge David Quarter and whoever else may have an 
abiding interest in
the case to STOP LISTENING TO THE BOURGEOIS PRESS and instead rely on 
theoriginal sources, insofar as they are available, which in this case, they
are and can easily be found through Google.>>>>>


DAVID's response:

I would urge you to fu*king buy a brain before you start lecturing me about anything. 


Joaqu?n wrote<<<< Citing slanders from tabloid TV
documentaries is simply NOT a procedure people should follow if the want to
be taken seriously.>>>>>

DAVID"s response:

Dude. You're a idiot, not least with your "papist" remarks a racist pig. END OF 
DISCUSSION. 

DOQ










More information about the Marxism mailing list