US Court of Appeals denies Schiavo appeal

[bearrock]

I believe other people such as the brother in law and friends testified that Terry Schiavo told them she did not want to be on life support.

As for the nurses, if they were credible and willing to testify under oath, why wouldn't the parents call them as witnesses?

[Larry]

Originally posted by Johnny Punani

This is nothing but hearsay. Her husband doesn't have proof that she told him that. Also, if what darkladyraven said is true he has a motive for wanting her dead. Recently, there have been nurses who came forward and stated Michael Schiavo said to them "when is that b!tch gonna die?" "Is it possible to quicken her death?" when they were taking care of Terry Schiavo. If that is true Michael Schiavo doesn't have best interests of his ex wife in mind.

Yeah, it's terrible the way people pay attention to her next of kin's hearsay. Obviously it should be ignored.

Also, can you define what "gone" means? From what I've seen on film she doesn't look like she is in a vegetative state. She can react to her surroundings and is only fed through a tube. It's not like she is on life support or lying there in a coma.

And the doctor who examined her and her records says he's seen the whole tape. What they did was spend an hour waving a balloon, and then trimmed out the five seconds where her eyes were pointed at the balloon.

----------

I understand this isn't a joke, but what I'm remembering is:

"This parrot has died. It is no more. It has gone to meat his maker."

"No it's not. He's resting."

[Johnny Punani2]

Originally posted by Zen-like Todd

I get all of it. I get the part that with every post you make, you are literally arguing against yourself. To what end, I dont know, but it is very amusing.

ok, if you think me showing you that Mr Schiavo's testimony is hearsay while the 3 nurses isn't is some how showing me arguing against myself then more power to you...

[DarkLadyRaven]

Originally posted by Johnny Punani

The fact is NO one knows what her wishes were.

Why wouldnt she tell her husband and several other of her friends as so claimed and verified in the orginal case?

My friends and boyfriends know things about me that I would never tell my mother- Not everyone is close to thier parents as they are to a husband/ lover.

[Johnny Punani2]

Originally posted by DarkLadyRaven

Why wouldnt she tell her husband and several other of her friends as so claimed and verified in the orginal case?

My friends and boyfriends know things about me that I would never tell my mother- Not everyone is close to thier parents as they are to a husband/ lover.

If she told friends as well that is another thing. I've never heard she told other people as well as her husband.

Well, I'm off to make some dinner. Good debate folks. later...

[wskin44]

The problem with telling someone that you would never want to be on life support is that there are so many circumstances that you probably haven't sorted through. You can be terminally ill and in a coma, or just in a coma but physically healthy or seemingly awake but not really conscious, or awake but not able to communicate, and probably other variations.

In addition, life support can mean all sorts of things. Life support can make our hearts and just about every other critcal organ in our bodies function, or it can be as simple as a feeding tube.

The point is that few, if any of us, ever try to sort through all of the possibilities when we make brave statements like "I never want to be on life support". I just can't believe that this poor woman ever really sorted through the possibilities and communicated her specific desires to her husband.

[DarkLadyRaven]

Originally posted by Johnny Punani

If she told friends as well that is another thing. I've never heard she told other people as well as her husband.

Well, I'm off to make some dinner. Good debate folks. later...

Those friends are who the court ran by Judge Green resorted to IN THE VERY FIRST CASE. It sucks when people dont read court documents

[chomerics]

Originally posted by Johnny Punani

If she told friends as well that is another thing. I've never heard she told other people as well as her husband.

Well, I'm off to make some dinner. Good debate folks. later...

JP, you are a fairly intellegent guy, I can't believe you got sucked in like that. I thought you really could see through a lot of the BS, I guess I was wrong.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/print?id=600937

[Guest Gichin13]

Originally posted by Thiebear

didtnt the "doctor" say that in the article? the doctor that wasnt even allowed to test if she could swallow? It may be true but to have the same doctor dismiss the nurses based on hearsay he has a bit himself...

Man people are really not paying attention.

The person you are calling the "doctor" is both a lawyer and a doctor. He was appointed guardian ad litem by Gov. Bush.

For quite a while everyone was in agreement that she could not swallow until this nut job nurse popped in. If she can swallow and talk like the nurse claims, that begs the question of why no one bothered to present that evidence in court.

[Guest Gichin13]

Originally posted by Johnny Punani

This is nothing but hearsay. Her husband doesn't have proof that she told him that. Also, if what darkladyraven said is true he has a motive for wanting her dead. Recently, there have been nurses who came forward and stated Michael Schiavo said to them "when is that b!tch gonna die?" "Is it possible to quicken her death?" when they were taking care of Terry Schiavo. If that is true Michael Schiavo doesn't have best interests of his ex wife in mind.

Also, can you define what "gone" means? From what I've seen on film she doesn't look like she is in a vegetative state. She can react to her surroundings and is only fed through a tube. It's not like she is on life support or lying there in a coma.

They are showing the five second of tape out of literally hours to create that impression. The judge expressly discussed that in his written opinion. So did the guardian ad litem in his report.

Her state is actually defined as further out than a coma. Her brain stem is active, but the CAT scans showed no activity in the cerebral cortex. It is my understanding that coma patients are often more like in a permanent sleep but still having brain wave activity.

Both the judge and the guardian ad litem found that her physical actions did not demonstrate consciousness, they were not repeatable despite extensive efforts by the parents and their experts to demonstrate repetition.

[Johnny Punani2]

Originally posted by chomerics

JP, you are a fairly intellegent guy, I can't believe you got sucked in like that. I thought you really could see through a lot of the BS, I guess I was wrong.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/print?id=600937

Chom,

I am in no way trying to bringing politics into this ok. All I am trying to do is get some info about the whole case.

[Guest Gichin13]

Originally posted by Johnny Punani

you asked for it...

http://www.patterico.com/2003/10/26/re-start-the-clock-mickey-kaus

Perhaps the most dramatic affidavit is from Registered Nurse Carla Iyer. Here are some excerpts:

...

I cite this evidence only because I find it interesting, and because I find it reassuring that the right thing has happened. I don’t expect to convince people on the “kill her” side of this issue. Their minds are made up, no matter the evidence.

For example, I was in a debate with some people at one particular internet site in which a woman named “Anne,” who had read the above affidavits, discounted them because they were all notarized by the same notary public! Here is a direct quote from Anne: “Who is Patricia J. Anderson, Notary Public? What is her interest in all of this.”

I don’t mean to say that there aren’t rational arguments on both sides of the issue. I think there are. But people like Anne are in OJ-land. The above evidence won’t change their minds, because no evidence on earth could.

The problem I have is that these new affidavits are clearly bogus. If these nurses observed this activity, they sure did not note it on contemporaneous charts as required, particularly in a case involving someone alleged to be in a persistent vegetative state.

The guardian ad litem appointed by Gov. Bush reviewed the entire medical file. If anything, he would be baised towards keeping her alive (both in GAL role and because of how he was brought into the case.)

Here is a link to the report (which I have read all 38 pages, as well as reading all 30 Westlaw cited cases on this one matter):

http://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/WolfsonReport.pdf

Highlights:

"Despite aggressive therapies, physician and other clinical assessments consistently revealed no function abilities, only reflexive, rather than cognitive movements, random eye opening, no communications system and little change cognitively or functionally." (Page 9)

Despite the parents allegations of lack of care for Theresa after the malpractice award, "it was determined that he had been very aggressive and attentive in his care of Theresa. His demanding concern for her well being and miticulous care by the nursing home earned him the characterization by the adminstrator as a 'nursing home administrator's nightmare'. It is notable that through more than thirteen years [note -- this report is dated to then] after Theresa's collapse, she has never had a bedsore." (Page 10)

"Throughout the course of the litigation, deposition and trial testimony by members of the Schindler family voiced the disturbing belief that they would keep Theresa alive at any and all costs. Nearly gruesome examples were given, eliciting agreement by family members that in the event Theresa should contract diabetes and subsequent gangrene in each of her limbs, they would agree to amputate each limb, and would then, were she to be diagnosed with heart disease, perform open heart surgery." (Page 14)

"Schindler family members stated that even if Theresa had told them of her intention to have artificial nutrition withdrawn, they would not do it. Throughout this painful and difficult trial, the family acknowledged that Theresa was in a diagnosed persistent vegetative state." (Page 14)

"The two neurologists testifying for Michael Schiavo provided stron, academically based, and scientifically supported evidence ... the testimony of the Schindler's physicians was substantially anecdotal ..." (Page 16)

"The fifth physican, chosen by the court ... presented scientifically grounded, academically based evidence that was reasonably demed to be clear and convincing by the court." (Page 17)

"There is evidence early in her records of care that she said "no" during physical therapy session. That behavior did not recur and was not further referenced." (Page 31)

"The GAL concludes from the medical records and consultations with medical experts that the scope and weight of the medical information ... consists of competent, well documented information that she is in a persistent vegetative state with no likelihood of improvement ..." (Page 33)

[Johnny Punani2]

Originally posted by Gichin13

The problem I have is that these new affidavits are clearly bogus. If these nurses observed this activity, they sure did not note it on contemporaneous charts as required, particularly in a case involving someone alleged to be in a persistent vegetative state.

The guardian ad litem appointed by Gov. Bush reviewed the entire medical file. If anything, he would be baised towards keeping her alive (both in GAL role and because of how he was brought into the case.)

Here is a link to the report (which I have read all 38 pages, as well as reading all 30 Westlaw cited cases on this one matter):

http://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/WolfsonReport.pdf

Highlights:

"Despite aggressive therapies, physician and other clinical assessments consistently revealed no function abilities, only reflexive, rather than cognitive movements, random eye opening, no communications system and little change cognitively or functionally." (Page 9)

Despite the parents allegations of lack of care for Theresa after the malpractice award, "it was determined that he had been very aggressive and attentive in his care of Theresa. His demanding concern for her well being and miticulous care by the nursing home earned him the characterization by the adminstrator as a 'nursing home administrator's nightmare'. It is notable that through more than thirteen years [note -- this report is dated to then] after Theresa's collapse, she has never had a bedsore." (Page 10)

"Throughout the course of the litigation, deposition and trial testimony by members of the Schindler family voiced the disturbing belief that they would keep Theresa alive at any and all costs. Nearly gruesome examples were given, eliciting agreement by family members that in the event Theresa should contract diabetes and subsequent gangrene in each of her limbs, they would agree to amputate each limb, and would then, were she to be diagnosed with heart disease, perform open heart surgery." (Page 14)

"Schindler family members stated that even if Theresa had told them of her intention to have artificial nutrition withdrawn, they would not do it. Throughout this painful and difficult trial, the family acknowledged that Theresa was in a diagnosed persistent vegetative state." (Page 14)

"The two neurologists testifying for Michael Schiavo provided stron, academically based, and scientifically supported evidence ... the testimony of the Schindler's physicians was substantially anecdotal ..." (Page 16)

"The fifth physican, chosen by the court ... presented scientifically grounded, academically based evidence that was reasonably demed to be clear and convincing by the court." (Page 17)

"There is evidence early in her records of care that she said "no" during physical therapy session. That behavior did not recur and was not further referenced." (Page 31)

"The GAL concludes from the medical records and consultations with medical experts that the scope and weight of the medical information ... consists of competent, well documented information that she is in a persistent vegetative state with no likelihood of improvement ..." (Page 33)

Ok, that does make sense because my wife is an RN and she has to document everything.

[Guest Gichin13]

Originally posted by Johnny Punani

Ok, that does make sense because my wife is an RN and she has to document everything.

This really is a sad, gut wrenching situation. I have faced these types of decisions with two different loved ones. I am very happy that I was blessed to have God take those decisions away from me and my family.

I can understand her parents' pain and attachment. The thing that really strikes me is if you really read everything deeply -- all Judge's Greer's opinions and orders, the appellate decisions, the GAL report I just quoted -- this case really has been handled incredibly well by the courts. The court system has been very patient and understanding with the views of the parties.

In the end, the judge is left with making the best call possible based on the totality of the evidence. The reasoning and analysis in this opinions shows that at each stage, the judge took a very careful, sensitive, fair and deliberate approach all the way through.

What really makes me sick about this case is the grandstanding and bandwagon political scene that has jumped on to this cause for their own purposes.

[Johnny Punani2]

Originally posted by Gichin13

This really is a sad, gut wrenching situation. I have faced these types of decisions with two different loved ones. I am very happy that I was blessed to have God take those decisions away from me and my family.

I can understand her parents' pain and attachment. The thing that really strikes me is if you really read everything deeply -- all Judge's Greer's opinions and orders, the appellate decisions, the GAL report I just quoted -- this case really has been handled incredibly well by the courts. The court system has been very patient and understanding with the views of the parties.

In the end, the judge is left with making the best call possible based on the totality of the evidence. The reasoning and analysis in this opinions shows that at each stage, the judge took a very careful, sensitive, fair and deliberate approach all the way through.

What really makes me sick about this case is the grandstanding and bandwagon political scene that has jumped on to this cause for their own purposes.

Yeah, it is pretty sad. I wouldn't want anyone to have to go through that. It's hard trying to figure out what is going on exactly without the media putting a spin on everything. However, I would still like to know exactly what therapies they used in their attempt to rehabilitate her.

[Guest Gichin13]

Originally posted by Johnny Punani

Yeah, it is pretty sad. I wouldn't want anyone to have to go through that. It's hard trying to figure out what is going on exactly without the media putting a spin on everything. However, I would still like to know exactly what therapies they used in their attempt to rehabilitate her.

There is some information on the therapy and care received in the GAL report link, but it is pretty limited info.

[chomerics]

Originally posted by Gichin13

This really is a sad, gut wrenching situation. I have faced these types of decisions with two different loved ones. I am very happy that I was blessed to have God take those decisions away from me and my family.

I can understand her parents' pain and attachment. The thing that really strikes me is if you really read everything deeply -- all Judge's Greer's opinions and orders, the appellate decisions, the GAL report I just quoted -- this case really has been handled incredibly well by the courts. The court system has been very patient and understanding with the views of the parties.

In the end, the judge is left with making the best call possible based on the totality of the evidence. The reasoning and analysis in this opinions shows that at each stage, the judge took a very careful, sensitive, fair and deliberate approach all the way through.

What really makes me sick about this case is the grandstanding and bandwagon political scene that has jumped on to this cause for their own purposes.

Great Post, spot on.

[JimboDaMan]

Originally posted by Thiebear

didtnt the "doctor" say that in the article? the doctor that wasnt even allowed to test if she could swallow? It may be true but to have the same doctor dismiss the nurses based on hearsay he has a bit himself...

It's true that he was not allowed to test her swallowing. But he also stated that there was no medical or legal reason to conduct that test, the question of whether Terri was capable of swallowing had already been resolved. The only reason that he recommended the test was to placate the parents. Or, as he delicately put it, "resolve the dispute between the parties".

He also stated that, legally, Michael Schiavo was right to stop him from conducting the test.

[chomerics]

Originally posted by Johnny Punani

Chom,

I am in no way trying to bringing politics into this ok. All I am trying to do is get some info about the whole case.

JP, you didn't have to, DeLay already has.

Which I why I completely despise this deplorable situation, politicking over this poor family is so far beyond anything done before, it is truly sickening.

:puke:

[@DCGoldPants]

I look at it like this.

If these few Nurses who some have their own records with the law, didn't do anything this whole time....then they are just as criminal as the people who were mistreating this woman.

If I was at work, and somebody was being killed in my cube, but I just stepped over them and didn't say or do anything.... shouldn't I be responsible for not at least calling the cops? I know they said they did, but there is no record of complaints with the police down there.

Somebody isn't being honest.

[CrabR]

I know Heidi Law's affidavit was thrown out because her supervisor who cared for Terri for 1 1/2 years refuted her saying the things she said never happened and the nurse had run ins with Michael, and Michael gave her Hell for not caring for her properly.

Carla Iyer did not submit an affidavit until in 2003, what she said goes against the other nurses affidavits. The judge dismissed Iyer's allegations as "incredible. Just last night Terri's second Guardian refuted her on Terri's condition

I do not know about the other nurse other than she was an 18 year old Nursing Assistant

[Thiebear]

Originally posted by Gichin13

Man people are really not paying attention.

The person you are calling the "doctor" is both a lawyer and a doctor. He was appointed guardian ad litem by Gov. Bush.

For quite a while everyone was in agreement that she could not swallow until this nut job nurse popped in. If she can swallow and talk like the nurse claims, that begs the question of why no one bothered to present that evidence in court.

Yes but Micheal challenged his very existence in the case so his lawyer fought every finding and refused every request. As stated by the Lawyer/Doctor, he couldnt agree with anything I said because he didnt want me to be gaurdian ad litem...

Hence, no progress... and a lot of speculation... (and its not One nut job, its 3)

[@DCGoldPants]

Originally posted by Thiebear

Yes but Micheal challenged his very existence in the case so his lawyer fought every finding and refused every request. As stated by the Lawyer/Doctor, he couldnt agree with anything I said because he didnt want me to be gaurdian ad litem...

Hence, no progress... and a lot of speculation... (and its not One nut job, its 3)

Were all 3 found not credible in court, or just one?

I heard that one has all sorts of legal problems of her own.....maybe not to speak up for a few $$$ to clear up her own problems?

[Dah-Dee]

From AP via Yahoo:

Supreme Court Won't Hear Schiavo Case

3 minutes ago Top Stories - AP

By HOPE YEN, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court on Thursday refused to order Terri Schiavo's feeding tube reinserted, rejecting a desperate appeal by her parents to keep their severely brain-damaged daughter alive.

The court announced it would not intervene in a terse one-page order. It did not explain the decision. It was at least the fifth time the court has declined to get involved in the Schiavo case.

Link: http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e=1&u=/ap/20050324/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_schiavo

[flyingtiger1013]

Who gets the body? I bet once she is dead, he gives it to her parents.