Has the Schiavo case Become a Political Football?

Would someone please nominate me for an Academy Award? I'd like to add that to my resume. Thanks.

I just saw that same link, Tico. Unfortunately, Mr. Bilirakis, being a politician and a lawyer, does not seem to fit any of those categories.

Tico, I hereby nominate you for Grand Poobah of Stink on Dookie (not stix). Hope that helps your resume.

It would appear not.

Not really what I was looking for, but I appreciate the thought .....

Fox,

There IS a nobel prize for medicine. There is NOT a "Nobel Peace Prize for Medicine." Hammesfahr had a letter sent "nominating" him for the "Nobel PEACE Prize for Medicine". He was NOT nominated for an actual existing prize by the Nobel committee or anyone else. Hammesfahr was NOT nominated for the Nobel prize. That is a fact. Plain and simple.

Hammesfahr is a self promoting quack that lists a NON EXISTENT PRIZE when he claims he was nominated for Nobel. Fox, if I wrote a letter to the Nobel committee nominating you for the "Nobel Peace Prize for gobblydegook" would you post it on your professional website? Would you expect to be taken seriously if you did?

The only 'basis' for these assertions appears to me to be the video edited by the family, which collaged a few minutes of movement out of many, many hours of nothing. The movements edited into the montage are, as far as I understand, the kind of involuntary movements that are unexceptional for someone in a PVS - see Soz's repeated copy/paste above.

Also note that the Circuit Court for Pinellas County in November 2002 researched exactly such assertions and found that:

Those who felt she was not in a persistent vegetative state placed great emphasis upon her interaction with her mother during Dr. Maxfield's examination and the tracking of a balloon. Those who felt that she was in a persistent vegetative state felt that her actions were neither consistent nor reproducible but rather were random reflexes in response to stimuli. However, the court has not and will not make its decision or a simple head count but will instead consider all factors.

At first blush, the video of Terry [sic] Schiavo appearing to smile and look lovingly at her mother seemed to represent cognition. This was also true for how she followed the Mickey Mouse balloon held by her father. The court has carefully viewed the videotapes as requested by counsel and does find that these actions were neither consistent nor reproducible. For instance, Terry [sic] Schiavo appeared to have the same look on her face when Dr. Cranford rubbed her neck. Dr. Greer testified she had a smile during his (non-videoed) examination. Also, Mr. Schlinder [sic] tried several more times to have her eyes follow the Mickey Mouse balloon but without success. Also, she clearly does not consistently respond to her mother. The court finds that based on the credible evidence, cognitive function would manifest itself in a constant response to stimuli.

Dr. Hammesfahr testified that he felt that he was able to get Terry Schiavo to reproduce repeatedly to his commands. However, by the court's count, he gave 105 commands to Terry Schiavo and, at his direction, Mrs. Schindler gave an additional 6 commands. Again, by the court's count, he asked her 61 questions and Mrs. Schindler, at his direction, asked her an additional 11 questions. The court saw few actions that could be considered responsive to either those commands or those questions. The videographer focused on her hands when Dr. Hammesfahr was asking her to squeeze. While Dr. Hammesfahr testified that she squeezed his finger on command, the video would not appear to support that and his reaction on the video likewise would not appear to support that testimony.

(That's from the Court's order at the time.)


There are three nurses whose affadivits are quoted in defence of the family's case: Heidi Law, Carolyn Johnson and Carla Iyer.

The affidavit of Carla Sauer Iyer, in particular, has in turn come in for some ridicule. Amongst other things, she claimed that she made notes on Mrs Schiavo's charts that were then deleted by others, that Michael tried to inject Terri with insulin to speed up her death and regularly blurted out things about how he was going to be rich and wanted her to die, and that she was fired by the hospital because she spoke up about the case. I also read somewhere that she herself had a few run-ins with the law, but Google though I may, I can't find that back.

The other two affidavits in comparison look less, ehm, controversial, but both were by nurses, not doctors - none of Schiavo's own doctors has come forward to state that she was anything but in PVS, or that she could feel, act or recognize. In the meantime, this is what the Court had to say about the affadivits of Law and Iyer in September 2003:

They are incredible to say the least. Ms. Iyer details what amounts to a 15-month cover-up which would include the staff of Palm Garden of Lago Convalescent Center, the Guardian of the Person, the Guardian ad Litem, the medical professionals, the police and, believe it or not, Mr. and Mrs. Schindler. Her affidavit clearly states that she would "call them (Mr. and Mrs. Schindler) anyway because I thought they should know about their daughter." The affidavit of Ms. Law speaks of Terri responding on a constant basis. Neither in the testimony nor in the medical records is there support for these affidavits as they purport to detail activities and responses of Terri Schiavo.

(That quote can be found back here in the order of the Circuit Court for Pinellas County).

In turn, apparently, there were back then already also court testimonies by "full-time caregivers who said they never saw any indication of cognitive function from Terri."

In fact, the opinion of nurses who treated Terri over the years seem to be all over the place. MSNBC for example quoted one nurse, Trudy Capone, who called Michael "an evil, evil, evil man" and "a liar", but also another, Jill Schad, who said that Michael strokes her hair and holds her hand and kisses her: "He acts like a caring person should, like a loving husband should [..] You can just see the sorrow in his eyes ..."

The one about the two cat scans. "CRANFORD: You don't know the answer to that? The CAT scan was done in 1996, 2002.", vs. "SCARBOROUGH: You talked about a 1996 scan. CRANFORD: No, 2002, 2002." On writing this response, I now realize that his first answer can be interpreted as correcting himself. But I said it was a minor issue; my major gripe was about him not giving a source about a major issue, which may be owed to the heat of the moment. Still, this video isn't a basis on which I personally would choose to trust Mr. Cranford.


Most immediately, I was referring to the Supreme Court's recent decision against capital punishment for minors. In the majority opinion, the judges referred to "evolving standards of decency" as a source of their decision and mentioned the international trend away from the death penalty in that context. (Roper v. Simmons) As I said today in the "Democrats, what went wrong?" thread, I find it ironic that American liberals see international trends as a relevant guideline when it comes to capital punishment, but not when it comes to abortion euthanasia. As to what these "international standards" say, I was referring to European euthanasia laws, as I saw them summed up in a Sueddeutsche Zeitung article years ago. If I remember correctly, Dutch law was uniquely liberal in that regard. (A quick Google search on "European Euthanasia law comparison" yielded results compatible to this memory, but not the juicy comparison table I was hoping for.) Anyway, my point was that international trends either are relevant to interpreting domestic law, or they aren't. You can't cherry-pick one approach when interpreting domestic death penalty law, and the opposite approach when interpreting abortion and euthanasia law.


And? Given that civil rights activists in the 1950s considered segregation jurisprudence unjust, what's wrong with them having made Rosa Parks their poster case? Given that "pro-life" activists consider Florida abortion jurisprudence unjust, what's wrong with them making Terri Schiavo's parents their poster case? In terms of activism, the situations seem analogous to me, except that you think the civil rights activists were fighting the right fight, and the "pro-lifers" are fighting the wrong fight. But I don't think that should determine which poster case is appropriate and which isn't.


Wow, that's an impressive example of how things can escalate in discussions like this. As I admit at the beginning of this post, I spottet one (doubtful) contradiction, the one about the PET scans. I then post "He contradicts himself on minor matters", which you refer to as "you wrote that the article I posted was full of contradictions." Interesting. Anyway, I hope it's clarified now.

Tico,

The Academy of Moving people would like to let you know you have been nominated for an award this year.

The Academy Awards will be presented in the basement of Joe's Bar on June 3. Your donation of $1000 to help sponsor the event would be greatly appreciated. (And it would greatly increase your chances of winning.) This years Academy Award statue has been affectionately named the Barney in honor of the Simpson character. Burping during you acceptance speech is acceptable.

How many times are we going to have to go over the same information?

I mean, just what the hell are the people in wingnutland telling people? Straight-up lies? What a mess

Cycloptichorn

I may be wrong, but the only two doctors I've heard of who claimed further physical therapy was still possible and useful were the two who were called up by the parents to argue on their behalf in the November 2002 court case, where five doctors in total testified - see below.


In the Nov 2002 court case there were five doctors testifying to the court. Two on behalf of the family, who both claimed further treatment was possible. Two on behalf of Michael, who both claimed it was not. (Which neatly underlines your point.) There was one doctor appointed by the court who was 'neutral'. He unambiguously sided with the doctors on Michael's case.

Moreover, in the Judge's ruling, the testimonies of all five doctors were evaluated in detail. The ruling was quite insistent on various counts in which the doctors who claimed on behalf of the family were deemed wholly unconvincing, inconsistent and unqualified. Those are my words but you can reread the judgement here, or read this excerpt from the order:

The treatment options essentially were the vasodilatation therapy offered by Dr. Hammesfahr and the hyperbaric therapy proposed by Dr. Maxfield. [..]

Dr. Maxfield felt there was an 80% chance of improvement in Spect Scan results from hyperbaric therapy. [..] Drs. Greer, Bambakidis and Cranford have all referred patients for hyperbaric therapy but none for this type of brain injury. They felt that such therapy would have no affect on Terry [sic] Schiavo. It is interesting to note the absence of any case studies since this therapy is not new and this condition has long been in the medical arena.

Dr. Hammesfahr feels his vasodilatation therapy will have a positive affect on Terry Schiavo. Drs. Greer, Bambakidis and Cranford do not feel it will have such an affect. It is clear that this therapy is not recognized in the medical community. [..] what undemises [Hammesfahr's] creditability [sic] is that he did not present to this court any evidence other than his generalized statements as to the efficacy of his therapy on brain damaged individuals like Terry [sic] Schiavo. He testified that he has treated about 50 patients in the same or worse condition than Terry [sic] Schiavo since 1994 but he offered no names, no case studies, no videos and no tests results to support his claim that he had success in all but one of them. If his therapy is as effective as he would lead this court to believe, it is inconceivable that he would not produce clinical results of these patients he has treated. And surely the medical literature would be replete with this new, now patented, procedure. Yet, he has only published one article and that was in 1995 involving some 63 patients, 60% of whom were suffering from whiplash. None of these patients were in a persistent vegetative state and all were conversant. Even he acknowledges that he is aware of no article or study that shows vasodilatation therapy to be an effective treatment for persistent vegetative state patients. [..]

[..] While Dr. Hammesfahr blithely stated he should be able to get her to talk, he admitted he was not sure in what way he can improve her condition although he feels certain her can. He also told the court that "only rarely" do his patients have no improvement. Again, he is extremely short of specifics. Dr. Maxfield spoke of a "chance" of recovery although he stated there was a significant probability that hyperbaric therapy would improve her condition. It is clear from the evidence that these therapies are experimental insofar as the medical community is concerned with regard to patients like Terry Schiavo which is borne out by the total absence of supporting case studies or medical literature. The Mandate requires something more than a belief, hope or "some" improvement. It requires this court to find, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the treatment offers such sufficient promise of increased cognitive function in Mrs. Schiavo's cerebral cortex so as to significantly improve her quality of life. There is no such testimony, much less a preponderance of the evidence to that effect. [..]


See above and in Soz's post.

nimh, sozobe

Thanks for the recognition. I try but I don't always succeed.

(The masculine works best. ) Yeah, yeah, I know. I need to work on it. Sometimes sarcasm is the only arrow in the quiver.

sozobe, You have beat me to the punch on several occasions in posting so I guess it is only fair I return the favor. ;-)

parados, You also have my thanks, because you are the one that usually supports my opinion with the facts that I usually don't have at hand.

Let me chime in as well. Excellent research on several threads.

Cycloptichorn

I have no problem with Lash going on the information she has on hand, and it was instructive to look the relevant information back up again (found some new stuff).

But I can't quite believe Foxfyre is still peddling Dr. Hammesfahr as an ignored, Noble Prize-nominated expert on the matter. Why? Because we went over Mr. Hammesfahr on page 9-11 of this thread. Twice I excerpted the Court's rather unambiguous refutation of Mr. Hammesfahr's claims and credentials above - but Fox replied by saying she didn't "care enough to go back and re-read", and when prodded on the question again decided to "politely withdraw until [she was] no longer the topic of the thread". I can now see why - it was so as to still be able to refer to the same "credible neurologist" 100 pages on, I suppose.

I mean, come on - forget that the man was disciplined by the Florida Board of Medicine in 2003 (here's the Department's Final Order on that bit) - just, again, how can one read this and still insist?

[Hammesfahr] testified that he has treated about 50 patients in the same or worse condition than Terry [sic] Schiavo since 1994 but he offered no names, no case studies, no videos and no tests results to support his claim that he had success in all but one of them. If his therapy is as effective as he would lead this court to believe, it is inconceivable that he would not produce clinical results of these patients he has treated. [..] Yet, he has only published one article and that was in 1995 involving some 63 patients, 60% of whom were suffering from whiplash. None of these patients were in a persistent vegetative state and all were conversant. Even he acknowledges that he is aware of no article or study that shows vasodilatation therapy to be an effective treatment for persistent vegetative state patients.


Point taken - my question was purely about your reference to how those "international standards" were more 'conservative', that seemed guided by nothing more than what the German law says about it.

Appeals Court Considers New Petition in the Schiavo Case
By ABBY GOODNOUGH

Published: March 30, 2005


PINELLAS PARK, Fla., March 30 - In a new legal twist in a case already marked by back-and-forth maneuverings, a federal appeals court agreed late Tuesday to consider a request for a new hearing on whether a feeding tube should be reconnected to the severely brain-damaged Terry Schiavo.


The United States Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit ruled without comment. The motion was being considered this morning by all 11 judges on the Atlanta panel, a court official said today.

The court ruled against the parents last week in their appeals of rulings by a judge in Federal District court, James D. Whittemore, denying their request to reconnect the tube.

The new ruling came a day after the Rev. Jesse Jackson visited Ms. Schiavo's parents outside her hospice Tuesday, joining the religious conservatives who have encircled them for weeks in calling for Ms. Schiavo's life to be preserved.

The parents, Robert and Mary Schindler, said they had invited Mr. Jackson to join their vigil after seeing him on television criticizing the court-ordered removal of Ms. Schiavo's feeding tube. Ms. Schiavo's husband, Michael, had the tube withdrawn on March 18, five years after winning a state judge's permission to do so. Now in her 13th day without nutrition or water, she may not survive the week.

Mr. Jackson, who arrived in a white limousine and met privately with the Schindlers before addressing the news media, called Ms. Schiavo's case "one of the profound moral and ethical issues of our time." He also phoned several black Democrats in the State Senate and pressed them to reconsider legislation, defeated in the Senate last week, that would require the feeding tube to be reinserted.

"We cannot hide behind the law and not have mercy," Mr. Jackson said, calling the withholding of food and water inhumane, immoral and unnecessary.

The decision by the civil rights leader to enter the Schiavo fray at the last minute surprised some fellow Democrats.

"I don't question the motivation - I question the timing," said Donna Brazile, who managed Al Gore's presidential campaign in 2000. "The parents are in a last-ditch effort at this moment and have run out of legal options."

Yet Ms. Brazile also noted that eight members of the Congressional Black Caucus, including Mr. Jackson's son Jesse Jr., had supported legislation that gave federal courts jurisdiction in the case.

Mrs. Schindler said she and her husband had reached out to Mr. Jackson seeking moral support.

"He's very strong," she said. "He gives me strength."

The Rev. Patrick Mahoney of the Christian Defense Coalition, who has lobbied Congress and the Florida Legislature on behalf of the Schindlers, said he posed the idea last week of inviting Mr. Jackson to Pinellas Park. First, Mr. Mahoney said in a phone interview, he asked the Rev. Al Sharpton to get involved. When Mr. Sharpton refused, he said, he told Randall Terry, the anti-abortion activist who has served as a spokesman for the Schindlers, to reach out to Mr. Jackson.

"I suggested it to everyone I could see down there," said Mr. Mahoney, who left Pinellas Park this week to lobby lawmakers in Washington. "His coming says that it isn't a religious-right issue and it's O.K. for others to get involved, particularly in the African-American community."

Mr. Sharpton said in a phone interview that like Mr. Jackson, he supported resuming Ms. Schiavo's feeding, but that it would be hypocritical for him to advocate last-minute government intervention here after criticizing President Bush and Republicans in Congress for enacting the legislation that authorized the federal courts to step in.

"I do as a minister support her being reconnected," he said, "but I do not feel that I could respond to the request and at the same time criticize the president for intervening."

Pressed on why he had chosen to visit, Mr. Jackson spoke only in broad terms and said the Schiavo case should not be a partisan matter.

Increased blood flow will not assist dead tissue.

The higher brain (cerebellum?) has a faster metabolism, and during oxygen deprivation these tissues die sooner than the lower brain (cerebral cortex). This is what happens to folks with PVS.

Source is an NPR article I heard several days ago.... Tuesday, the 22nd, I think.

Appeals court denied new hearing on Terri Schiavo.

c.i.- Where did you hear that? I could not find anything about a denial on Google News!

It's on Fox News.