Replies

About the Schiavo "Nobel Prize Nominated" Doctor
Amended 23 March. NewsMax reports that Dr. William Hammesfahr "believes that Terri Schiavo can recover with proper treatment." NewsMax -- along with FOX, MSNBC, the National Review and Dr. Hammesfahr's website -- indicates that he was nominated for the Nobel Prize in 1999.

From Nobel Prize FAQ (emphasis added):

3. Has X been nominated as a candidate for the Nobel Prize, or where do I find a list of Nobel Prize nominees?

According to the Statutes of the Nobel Foundation, information about the nominations is not to be disclosed, publicly or privately, for a period of fifty years. The restriction not only concerns the nominees and nominators, but also investigations and opinions in the awarding of a prize. Nomination information older than fifty years is public.

So, if he had been truly nominated -- he would be violating fundamental Nobel Foundation principles to say that. The 50 year vow of silence is up in 2049. But wait. There's more.

The Tampa Tribune reported in 2003 that the Nobel Prize nomination was a letter written by Hammesfahr's Congressman to the Nobel committee.

The Nobel Prize website articulates the nomination procedure: a letter from a Congressman isn't on the list. Does the Nobel Committee consider these "informal" nominations? In a word: no. (and a nod to News Hounds)

The Florida court found Hammesfahr's 2002 testimony in the Schiavo case to be anecdotal. A quick review of the handful of published research on his web site makes that judgment abundantly clear. It reminds me of the "doctor-by-mail-order" materials that land by the truckload in my parents' mailbox each month.

Censured by Florida Board of Medicine
In 2003, the Florida Board of Medicine fined him $2,000 for billing a patient for services not received, forced him to pay $52,000 in court costs, and directed him to perform 100 hours of community service. (cite - pdf) The Board of Medicine also

ruled that Hammesfahr's treatment of stroke patients, using a procedure he has claimed could help Terri Schiavo, was "not within the generally accepted standard of care" (Finding of Fact No. 55, PDF p. 33), it declined to rule that the treatment was harmful to his patients and noted that some patients improved after treatment. (cite)

In March 2004, an appeals court determined that Hammesfahr did charge a patient $3,000 for three days of services; however, the patient received only two days of services. The appeals court reversed the fine:
The record contains competent, substantial evidence to support the Board’s finding that the patient enrolled in a $3000 treatment program but only received a $2000 treatment program. However, the record does not contain clear and convincing evidence to support the Board’s conclusion that the overcharge was the result of exploitation for financial gain under section 458.331(1)(n)... At best, the facts in this case provide a basis for a civil contract dispute between the parties.