Posted on 04/01/2005 11:52:28 PM PST by FairOpinion
I believe there is a cause of action which can be brought by the parents against any physician on this case who allowed the starving of the patient. Also the administrator,board or directors of the hospice, owners of the hospice, the lawyer Felos, and the police department who prevented people from getting fluid. It would require a lower burdon of proof 50% + 1 in a court. It might not be successful, but it would make public all of the records of this case and dispense with a large proportion of speculation. I think that case should be brought.
Correct!
In fact, it is Islam's DENIAL of the Trinity which produces its followers' warped 'conquest' beliefs.
You have been lied to. The hospice protocol could not over ride Greer's ruling any more than Terri's mother's wishes or the DCF. None of them had any choice, except Michael, who only allowed one drop of communion wine two times in the last two weeks. There was no turning back as is usual for AD's. Guns enforced the judge's order to dehydrate Terri, remember? I would welcome evidence to the contrary.
Here is the judge's ruling from March 7 (in anticipation of yanking the tube) from this post:
http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-chat/1372022/posts?page=11#11
Greer's ruling:
Order
This cause came before the Court for hearing on March 7, 2005 on Respondents’ Emergency Expedited Motion for Permission to Provide Theresa Schiavo with Food and Water by Natural Means after the assisted nutrition and hydration are discontinued. The Court heard the argument of Daniel Gibbs, for the Respondents and of George Felos, for the Petitioner.
Having also reviewed portions of declarations or affidavits of several doctors, which were submitted to the Court by Respondents, it has become clear that the motion is part and parcel of the Respondents’ FLa. R. Civ. P Rule 1.540(b)(5) motion on medical evaluations. The same declarations are being used for both motions and the motion appears to be an alternative pleading to the 1.540(b)(5) motion. Both are asking for an experimental procedure. The Court reasons that if the 1.540(b)(5) motion is granted, there is no need for this motion. If the 1.540(b)(5) motion is denied, the Court should not do indirectly what is has not done directly.
It is therefore
Ordered and adjudged that the Respondents’ Emergency Expedited Motion for Permission to Provide Theresa Schiavo with Food and Water by Natural Means is DENIED.
If you read the FNC story which contains the claim that 'there are thousands...of these...occuring in the USA every year...' (and follow the FNC links embedded in the story) you will realize that "Hospices" are not healthy places.
"It is therefore Ordered and adjudged that the Respondents’ Emergency Expedited Motion for Permission to Provide Theresa Schiavo with Food and Water by Natural Means is DENIED."
It is therefore Ordered and adjudged that the Respondents’ Emergency Expedited Motion for Permission to Provide Theresa Schiavo with Food and Water by Natural Means is DENIED.
As far as videos go, I'm unimpressed with the claim that they were edited out of several hours of footage (if that claim is true). Have you seen them for yourself? There is nothing random about Terri laughing and smiling at peppy music. It is a definite reaction to stimuli. If she had been unresponsive, no amount of editing could make it look otherwise. (If I want to prove that my cat can perform advanced calculus, how many hours of video do I need to edit?) In the genuinely non-responsive--for instance, an anencephalic having just enough brain stem to maintain life, but no other brain structures--if there is movement, it is slow and repetitive. For instance, the head might turn from side to side, incessantly, always in the same pattern. The movements will stop upon physical restraint, but as soon as restraint is removed, they resume. Even Michael Schiavo, when he was suing for malpractice, made a big point of demonstrating how responsive Terri was.
If someone cannot remember to eat, and wanders off (dementia) and they freeze to death, or die of heatstroke, is someone culpable? Or is the death the result of natural causes?
This death is not from natural causes. To determine if someone is culpable, you really have to look at the situation, don't you? Did the person wander off without anyone being aware of it, or was he neglected intentionally?
If a child cannot learn to suckle, or cannot breathe on its own, or cannot eat on its own, and no extreme efforts are made to intubate air or food or water, is it killing the child, or is it allowing nature to take its course?
Again, you have to look at the situation. Standard SOP is that the newborn is whisked away to intensive care immediately. What happens afterwards is really according to the prognosis. There are lethal genetic conditions--death might be held off for a little while, but not for long (like that Houston baby). What about this--a little girl starts to go into respiratory arrest. Her mother, a nurse, recognizes the breathing pattern characteristic of a dying person (I forget the name of it), calls 9-11, and applies CPR. The child recovers, but ends up having a breathing monitor attached all the time, and oxygen tanks and a ventilator are put into her bedroom. She stops breathing several times a day. As she grows older, she learns to ventilate herself when the alarm goes off. This actually happened several years ago, the story was in a women's magazine. Now, should she have been allowed to die naturally, or should we be happy that advanced medical technology kept her alive?
Now, back to Terri. As I have pointed out, she is not an isolated case, and although she became that way as a result of some incident, she was not different than tens of thousands of people born like that. The fact that you have not seen people like that is not surprising--most people haven't, and don't have the opportunity to, unless they (like me) have a close family member who works in an institution for the retarded, or have a family member who is being cared for in such an institution. I see Terri as one among many. I've seen a line arbitrarily drawn to distinguish human life worthy of living from that which isn't worth living, and I am concerned. With my scientific background, I understand enough about biology to know that there is not a logical place to put such a line, once it is decided that such a line should exist. Putting Terri on the other side of that line necessarily puts thousands of others on the other side. And then, because the line is arbitrary, it can always be moved to put more people on the other side (hence the term "slippery slope"). I wish I could believe that Terri is an isolated case, but, given history, I cannot. How long is it until some group purporting to represent taxpayers sues to have the profoundly retarded killed, on the basis that there is no hope for their improvement, and they are costing us money and resources that could be better spent?
You want to put a religious perspective on this. Well, I'm not all that religious, but how about another perspective. You could argue that a person who is born completely unresponsive and unaware is just a body functioning mechanically without a soul. Maybe God's plan is not for that person, per se, but for those whose lives bring them into contact with that person. Did not Jesus say something to the effect of "How you treat the weak among you is how you treat Me"? It could very well be that God is judging us on how we take care of someone who will never benefit from our care, who will never talk or thank us, who might never even be aware that he or she is alive.
If someone with dementia were to wander off on a cold day, despite reasonable efforts by a caregiver to prevent such a thing, and if that person by chance failed to encounter anyone who could help them, the death would be ruled 'accident'.
If someone with dementia were dumped out in the cold by a "caregiver" who watched their movements and worked deliberately to ensure that nobody else could get close enough to help, the death would be a homicide, more specifically, murder.
Quite true. If Michael had, on March 15, announced that in 48 hours he was going to drop Terri on a public park bench and have nothing more to do with her, and if Terri ended up fatally dehydrating on the park bench because nobody came to her aid despite the fact that her location and condition were widely known, then it could have been said that Michael 'let her die'.
That isn't what Michael did. Rather, he forbid people from coming to Terri's aid who otherwise would have done so. Given the foreseeable fatal consequences of his action, it constitutes nothing less than murder.
Hospice should be restricted to the last 6 months or so - usually the last month, although in reality many are referred only the last few days, way too late in my opinion. They are intended for truly dying-already patients. Not for killing patients, but for relieving the symptoms that are uncomfortable and for helping the family as well as the patient through the last few days, both physically and emotionally.
Hospices are good if their nurses and doctors are well-intentioned. The board of this hospice is not, at least in their cooperation with causing Terri's death while obeying the order prohibiting food and water by natural means.
(Actually, that should be "if and when" they obeyed. I believe that the nurses held to their profession of nursing care as much as they were able, at risk to themselves, because of what I know about nurses and hospice nurses in particular. There may be one in a million psychopaths in nursing, just as there are in all professions, but hospice nurses are in general the most caring and concerned of professionals. )
I am a doctor,and I have worked with hospice and patients at the end of life. Terri could swallow. The judge ordered "no hydration and nutrition by natural means"(not "no medical treatment"). That action is deliberate murder. There can be no intention and no result in prohibiting "natural means" but to cause death.
Here's the court order in question:
http://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/trialctorder030805.pdf
Again, you have been lied to or misunderstand.
Terri Schiavo was *intentionally* starved and dehydrated to death. There was a tube in place which was deliberately and intentionally removed. That tube could have been used without machines - gravity would have worked, or her mother or nurse could have used a syringe. Greer simultaneously and specifically prohibited the use of natural means - including spoons or feeding cups - of administering food and water at Michael's discretionary decision.
Terri did not "wander off." There was no accidental reason that her mother and the medical staff (who should have been paid by Terri's own money from the malpractice settlement) could not feed Terri. Regulated technology, the guns of law enforcement, and the court orders of Greer *caused* the intentional ending of Terri's life.
The findings in the swallowing test were that Terri aspirated some of the liquids and that at times the liquid was not swallowed. The tube was preferable. But, Terri had survived over 7 years since the last test, without choking or being suctioned. She obviously could and did swallow - one to 4 quarts a day.
And compared to nothing, allowing her mother or the nurses who should have been paid for by the money she was awarded for that purpose in the malpractice case, oral feedings would have been preferable.
Sounds like a good idea.
Why wasn't she given rehab in eating by mouth?
So many unanswered questions.
At least the Schindlers know that they didn't give up on Terri. They fought to the end and should be able to live at peace with themselves.
If they went "home to reflect" when Felos suggested that they should, they would have always wondered if they should have kept fighting.
Yes. They can be proud of themselves.
Mikey Schiavo is a nurse, by some reports.
As long as the Trade Ass'n's Treasurer is the President of Sunrise, something smells.
I agree with you that the original intent of these places was good.
But as the rules change about what constitutes PVS (and who knows what OTHER rules have changed), I think that hospices should be closely examined by families who have to put Mom someplace...
A wrongful death suit against Michael would also seem apropos. AT MINIMUM it is clear that his original actions against Terri--even in the most Michael-friendly interpretation--constituted severe negligence and contributed materially and severely to the condition the medical examiner will likely claim to be the cause of death.
"Can you imagine, if we would do that to the terrorist prisoners?"
Are you kidding? We'd also give 'em a cash settlement and a letter of appology! This country is whacked out!!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.