Unfortunately, I’m not very well versed in neurological medicine, so much of Dr. Hammesfahr’s statement I cannot adequately evaluate. However, reading his descriptions and comparing them to this definition of Persistent Vegetative State from Wikipedia, what he describes does match that of PVS:

Most PVS patients are unresponsive to external stimuli and their conditions are associated with different levels of consciousness. Some level of consciousness means a person can still respond, in varying degrees, to stimulation. A person in a coma, however, cannot. In addition, PVS patients often open their eyes, whereas patients in a coma subsist with their eyes closed (Emmett, 1989).

PVS patients’ eyes might be in a relatively fixed position, or track moving objects, or move in a disconjugate (i.e. completely unsynchronized) manner. They may experience sleep-wake cycles, or be in a state of chronic wakefulness. They may exhibit some behaviors that can be construed as arising from partial consciousness, such as grinding their teeth, swallowing, smiling, shedding tears, grunting, moaning, or screaming without any apparent external stimulus.

Individuals in PVS are seldom on any life-sustaining equipment other than a feeding tube because the brainstem, the center of vegetative functions (such as heart rate and rhythm, respiration, gastrointestinal activity), is relatively intact (Emmett, 1989).

Also, a correction that I discovered in searching for more information on Dr. Hammesfahr. He was apparently not nominated for a Nobel Prize. There are several google results on this.

Regarding his statement that he could treat Terri, I discovered an entry on Quackwatch.org, unrelated to this particular case, that questions some of his treatment techniques.

Ultimately, is statement has not made the issue much clearer for me. Quite beside which, it does nothing to address the problems in Ms. Iyer’s testimony. The weaknesses I mentioned still exist and have not been mitigated by anything in Dr. Hammesfahr’s statement.

Tom, please keep in mind that I am addressing only what you are presenting and am not offering opinion or judgment of Mr. Schiavo. There is a good bit of stuff that I’ve seen suggesting he’s a bit of a jerk, to be mild, but as far as the legal case goes, I do not know enough about the case or the evidence, let alone the specific legal minutiae involved, to come to a sound conclusion.

At any rate, your persistence on discussing the Schiavo case is off-topic, having no bearing on Phil’s post. Ethics issues aside, once again, please note that the overall legal issues are different. You raised a valid question regarding the ethics of “legal” vs. “illegal” death and attitudes toward them, but the conversation has since veered way off course.

Dr. William Hammesfahr, who examined Terri in person, concluded just the opposite – that she was NOT in a nonrecoverable vegetative state. I think a live examination by a world-renowned expert in brain injury carries more weight than an autopsy report. BTW, the autopsy report which is at:

http://www.michaelschiavo.org/docs/autopsy.pdf

does not contain the word “vegetative” anywhere in it. I’m not sure where you are getting that information from.

“she was no longer capable of higher cognition in 2005.”

Again, that is disputed by a neurologist who examined her in 2002.

“While you can certainly argue that his testimony was of dubious validity”

I would say it Michael’s testimony was more than dubious. It was a flat-out lie. Here is yet another affidavit from a former girlfiend of Michael Schiavo:

http://www.michaelschiavo.org/docs/trudy.pdf

“…KRT asked me if Schiavo ever confided in me regarding Terri’s case. I told her that Michael confided in me all the time about Terri. I did say, “I will tell you one thing: Michael never knew what Terri wanted. He never knew.” He would say to me all the time, “I don’t know what to do. I don’t know what to do with her. I just don’t know.” I told KRT that if he said anything different he was a liar and that he said to me many times that he had no idea what her wishes were…”

Terri Schiavo Can Still be Rehabilitated, Nobel Prize-Nominated Doctor March 7, 2005

Clearwater, FL (LifeNews.com) — Despite the contention of Terri Schiavo’s estranged husband Michael and courts that have allowed him to starve her to death, a doctor nominated for the Nobel Prize says he believes medical therapies are still available that could help Terri party recover from her disabled state.

Dr. William Hammesfahr is an internationally recognized expert on cases of brain-injured patients. He has been identified in helping patients with chronic brain injuries from many causes actually leave long term disability, and return to work.

Terri Schiavo’s injury, hypoxic encephalopathy, is a type of stroke that he treats every day with success.

“We, and others I know, have treated many patients worse than Terri and have seen them regain independence and dignity,” Hammesfahr said.

“There are many approaches that would help Terri Schiavo,” Dr. Hammesfahr explained. “I know, because I had the opportunity to personally examine her, her medical records, and her X-rays.”

“It is time to help Terri, instead of just warehousing her,” he added. “She would have benefited from treatment years ago, but it is not too late to start now.”

This isn’t the first time Hammesfahr has discussed Terri’s plight.

Last year, he explained that, after examining Terri, he believed that she could eventually eat and drink on her own. He also said he believes Terri would be able to talk and have good use of one arm and one hand should be given proper rehabilitative treatment.

Hammesfahr also said he thought Terri would eventually be able to transfer herself from a wheelchair to a bed.

“The patient is not in a coma,” concluded Hammesfahr said after observing Terri. “She responds to specific people best. She tries to please others by doing activities for which she gets verbal praise.”

He says Terri’s eyes clearly fixate on her family and she tries to follow the simple commands her parents give her.
“She looks at you, she can follow commands,” Hammesfahr said.

Dr. Hammesfahr was nominated for the Nobel Prize in Medicine and Physiology in 1999.

@Pat “On the contrary; given the fact that her testimony contradicts the medical testimony (again, that I’ve read, you may have other references to cite) done by the actual brain experts”

O.K. guys, so you won’t take the word of a lowly RN. You apparently require the word of a doctor. Well, how about this testimony from a neurologist who examined Terri Schiavo on September 3rd and 4th, 2002. Interesting how Dr. Hammesfahr’s testimony backs up and confirms what Carla Iyer was saying, now isn’t it?

http://libertytothecaptives.net/hammesfahr_dr._report.html

Complete report of Dr. William Hammesfahr, a world-reknowned neurologist
September 12, 2002

Re: Terri Schiavo

I was asked to examine Terri Schiavo per the request of the Second District Court of Appeal. They requested that current information about her present medical condition be obtained. They also requested that an evaluation be performed to ascertain treatment options.

.
.
.
Medical examination and evaluations were performed on Ms Schiavo on September 3 and 4 with videographers present. Medical reviews of the charts provided were carried out, from which the above history is obtained.

On September 3, I spent from approximately 11AM until 4PM with Ms. Schiavo, returning the next day to also observe Dr. Maxfield and complete my portion of the exam (which duplicated that of Dr. Maxfield, so I observed without myself specifically repeating that part of the exam that same day).

The exam was videotaped at my request.

The exam started with the setting up of the video camera by the videographers, with Mr. Michael Schiavo present. I then came into the room and introduced myself to Ms. Schiavo. The patient was looking at the ceiling in a chair. She had a wide-eyed look to her. She appeared to be aware of my presence with slight facial changes and tone changes in her body, She did not look at me, or turn to look in the direction of my voice, continuing instead to look directly forward. Her mother then entered the room, coming toward her and speaking her name. THE DAUGHTER IMMEDIATELY SHOWED AWARENESS OF THE PRESENCE OF HER MOTHER, LOOKING FOR HER, THEN FINDING HER VISUALLY WHEN THE MOTHER WAS APPROXIMATELY 8 INCCHES FROM HER FACE. SHE THEN SMILED AND MADE SOUNDS. Her father also entered the room with further apparent recognition by the daughter.

The first part of this exam included observing her interactions with her mother and her father. Here SHE CLEARLY WAS AWARE OF THEM AND ATTEMPTED TO INTERACT WITH THEM: THE SOUNDS, FACIAL EXPRESSIONS, AND SEARCHING OUT AND TRACKING THEM. There are several previous reports by medical personnel and others of her responding to live piano music. Accordingly, I asked the mother to bring a tape of piano music. Two separate pieces were listened to. The first she appeared aware of the sound, but would not sing or interact significantly. The second she did interact making sounds with the music. SHE STOPPED MAKING THESE SOUNDS, WHEN THE MUSIC STOPPED.

During this time, she would move her head and track her head and eyes to the sound of music, or her mother’s voice. I started my exam first on her right side, introducing myself and then examined her contracted right arm, the goal being to get a blood pressure, as neurological abilities are very sensitive to blood pressure. SHE LOOKED AT ME AND WOULD TRACK ME WITH VOLUNTARY FACIAL AND UPPER TORSO MOVEMENTS. I later moved to the left arm and attempted to release contractures there. In order to get significant relaxation of the arm to a degree necessary to obtain a blood pressure, I worked for approximately 35 minutes to release the contractures enough to get arm extension to approximately 140 degrees. During this time, the patient would track the mother or the father, depending on who was interacting with her. Interestingly, she appeared to respond to her mother or father by tone of voice. At one time, after working on her arm for approximately 20 minutes, and no further extension of the elbow was to be had, the father walked up and started speaking reassuringly to his daughter. The elbow immediately extended approximately another 20 degrees. This was during a time period that I had been talking with Ms. Schiavo, and the music was also running. Yet with neither the addition of the music nor my voice did the elbow extend. WITH THE FATHER COMING TO HIS DAUGHTER AND SPEAKING, SHE IMMEDIATELY EXTENDED THE ARM FURTHER. At other times, he ould speak more sharply to her, and she would immediately tighten, and appear to lose her spot of visual focusing, and her expressions would change. At times during and immediately after this part of the exam, she would also appear to voluntarily move her right upper extremity.

.
.
.
The general facial exam was significant for acne, probably due to a chronic stress induced steroid responses. No bruits were identified. Cranial nerves were intact, and THE PATIENT WAS ABLE TO SWALLOW and handle all secretions.
.
.
.
Alertness: The patient was alert throughout essentially the entire exam.

Responsiveness:

The patient would immediately respond to sound, tone of voice and to touch and pain. With respect to responding to those around her, she had limited responsiveness to me personally until approximately 45 minutes into the exam. SHE STARTED TO LOOK AT ME, against her traditional right gaze preference, about the same time that we started getting significant relaxation in her contracted left arm (the arm that had been contracted for several years.) She appeared to identify the sound of my voice, with the relaxation of the arm. From that point, she would generally look toward the sound of my voice when heard, attempt to find me visually, then track the sound of my voice in its movements, or track me if I was within approximately one foot of her eyes. Prior to that time, she did not track me, or try to locate me visually. When playing music, SHE HAD A CLEAR PREFERENCE TO THE SPECIFIC SOUND TRACK PLAYED, and would listen to piano music, but change levels of listening depending on the track played. Her attention to the music would not wander during the track she preferred. She would pick out her mother’s voice or her father’s voice separate from the music or other voices or sounds in the room, and re-fix her gaze to those people. She would tend not to blink when watching those people. She ignored her husband’s loud foot-tapping that went on for approximately five minutes at one point. SHE ALSO IGNORED HIS VOICE AND DID NOT TRY TO SEEK HIM OUT VISUALLY when he would at times interject comments during the exam or immediately afterwards.
.
.
.
Following Commands: At various times during the exam, I asked her to close her eyes, or open her eyes widely, look towards her mother, or look towards me. At times, SHE APPEARED TO PROPERLY FOLLOW THESE COMMANDS. Interestingly, some of the commands, such as close your eyes, open your eyes, etc. she tended to do several minutes after I gave her the command to do so. She had a delay in her processing of the action. However, when praised for the action, she would then continue to do the action repetitively for up to approximately 5 minutes. As we had moved on to other areas of the exam, at times she was continuing to do the previous command, then at inappropriate times since the focus of the exam had changed. During different portions of the exam, I would ask her to squeeze my hand on command, or, in the lower extremities, to pick up her right lower leg to command.
.
.
.
COMA PATIENTS CANNOT DIRECT THEIR GAZE TO SPECIFIC THINGS AND MAINTAIN THEIR GAZE ON THOSE THINGS REGARDLESS OF HEAD MOTION OR MOTION OF THE OBJECT. SHE CAN DO THESE THINGS. She appears to see things best at approximately the.8-12 inch area. She was best able to track large reflective objects like aluminum balloons or sparkling lights (for which a focal length limitation is not an issue.)
.
.
.
Sensory Exam: The patient was tested to light touch, pressure, and sharp touch and pain in all four extremities and on her face. The pain portion in the extremities was conducted by pinching the nail beds of her hands and feet. SHE CLEARLY FEELS PAIN AS THE VIDEOTAPES SHOWS.
.
.
.
Impression:

The patient is not in coma.

She is alert and responsive to her environment. She responds to specific people best.

She tries to please others by doing activities for which she gets verbal praise.

She responds negatively to poor tone of voice.

She responds to music.

She differentiates sounds from voices.

She differentiates specific people’s voices from others.

She differentiates music from stray sound.

She attempts to verbalize.

She has voluntary control over multiple extremities

She can swallow.

She is partially blind

She is probably aphasic and has a degree of receptive aphasia.

She can feel pain.
.
.
.
Communication: She can communicate. She needs a Speech Therapist, Speech Pathologist, and a communications expert to evaluate how to best communicate with her and to allow her to communicate and for others to communicate with her. Also, a treatment plan for how to develop better communication needs to be done.
.
.
.
Interestingly, I have seen this pattern of mixed brain (cerebral) and spinal cord findings in a patient once before, a patient who was asphyxiated.
.
.
.
William M. Hammesfahr, M.D.”

But that may be completely beside the point. As said in a previous post, when someone is suffering from diabetic ketoacidosis, you know something is wrong. The point where any sensible parent would take their child to see a doctor would have been reached long before her condition turned critical.

Where I think the biggest problem is going to enter into this case is whether the Neumanns actually believed that what they were doing was sufficient help to their daughter. If they really, truly thought that their prayers were just as good, if not better than insulin shots, can they still be charged with neglect, or would they be able to get off on something like an insanity plea? (<- actual legal question. anybody?)

It has been brought up that we don’t know what Kara’s wishes would have been had she been in any position to make them known. Two reasons this is a moot point. First, she was 11 years old. For seven more years, it is her parent’s responsibility to make the choice that is best for her. Unfortunately, they failed this one quite spectacularly. Secondly, even if she did favor faith healing over western medicine, all that proves is that her parents had succeeded in indoctrinating her to their faith. I suppose in a way you *could* say that the parents are victims as well, but victims turned victimizers, in the sense that victims of domestic abuse often perpetuate the cycle.

> An autopsy conducted on woman who died as the result of being deprived of
> food and water for 13 days is of limited utility.

I don’t know that this is true; I’ll readily admit I’m not a Medical Examiner. However, there is analysis of the autopsy report by doctors that state that the autopsy shows she was in a nonrecoverable vegetative state. If you’re challenging that statement, you need to establish your bona fides for doing so.

> As you are probably aware, signing an affidavit is the equivalent of
> sworn testimony in most jurisdictions.

Certainly.

> Thus, if Iyer was lying in her affidavit she opened herself up to a possible
> perjury prosecution.

Of course.

> I think you have to tell us what her motive for lying would be.

On the contrary; given the fact that her testimony contradicts the medical testimony (again, that I’ve read, you may have other references to cite) done by the actual brain experts, I think the burden is instead upon you to explain why an RN is more capable of providing an analysis of a patient’s state than several doctors… especially when there are multiple possible explanations for the RN’s testimony other than outright lying.

> BTW, in many murder cases defendants are sent to death row on the
> testimony of a single witness. Thus, your assertion that a single witness
> account without confirmation is not credible is completely absurd.

Your pardon, I was not clear. I’m not talking about whether or not a legal case can be made against Michael Schiavo. I’m talking about whether or not your argument is going to sway someone who is weighing all the evidence in question outside of the legal context. Quite simply, I don’t find a single eyewitness account to be a credible basis for counterclaim against a volume of contradictory evidence, and you’re not going to convince me without lots more. Inside of the legal context… well, more on that later.

> LOL. She misinterpreted guttural sounds for “Help me” and did so hundreds
> of times. Yeah, right.

She can misinterpret a sound ten times and remember it as a hundred. And I can think of several thousand guttural combinations that sound like “help me”; certainly it is likely that someone hearing them in a context where they expect to *hear* the phrase “help me”. If you don’t believe this is not only possible but probable, hang out with new parents. They interpret baby babble as words well before an infant is actually using words.

> An autopsy conducted in 2005 after Terri was starved to death and
> dehydrated for 13 days cannot have any bearing on the possible
> effectiveness of treatment back in 1996.

Again, I’m not an ME. However, if you’re claiming that starvation and dehydration will reduce the size and composition of your brain significantly, you’re going to have to back that up somehow.

> Please provide the reference for that.

http://www.northcountrygazette.org/articles/062506SchiavoNurse.html

From that, I quote:

HEMMER: So you heard those words, “mommy” and “pain” and “help me?”

IYER: Correct.

HEMMER: Why was there no videotape taken of that speaking opportunity?

IYER: That was back in ’95 and ’96. There’s four hours of videotape that the judge has put a gag order on.

HEMMER: But you’ve seen it, you say, and that was not entered into court, that’s your claim?

IYER: Correct.

> Well, what you don’t address is that Michael Schiavo was in effect a
> bigamist living in a common-law marriage with another woman. This is
> not even in dispute by Mr. Schiavo himself. Thus, he has a basic conflict
> of interest. Any claim he asserts concerning a supposed conversation
> with Terri cannot be taken at face value because he has a motive for lying.

Even if Michael Schiavo was not involved with another woman, his claims cannot be taken at face value any more than the parents’ claims can be taken at face value. There is certainly a large volume of doubt that anyone in this sort of situation can be relaying the complete truth; it stands to reason that both sides suffer from confirmation bias. That said, if Michael Schiavo’s testimony as to Terri’s wishes was accepted without challenge, she would have ceased receiving food and water permanently in 1998. While you can certainly argue that his testimony was of dubious validity, one can also argue that the parental testimony was of dubious validity, and the court decided between 1998 and 2005 that Michael’s claim was of less dubiousness. If you accept the framework of the Florida law (http://bressler.com/news/publications/BA&R%20Health%20Care%20Proxy.pdf) regarding health care proxies, then it’s quite simple… barring an advanced directive, the right of health care proxy (as far as determining life sustaining treatment) falls to a judicially appointed guardian, not the parents, and not the spouse. If you’re ruled to be in a persistent vegetative state and the judicially appointed guardian chooses to pull the plug, that’s it for you. Your rights are spelled out, right there.

> Ah yes, the appeal to personal preference. You wouldn’t want such and such
> to happen to you. Therefore it is reasonable to think that Terri wouldn’t
> want it either, unless there was documentation to the contrary.

That’s not an appeal to personal preference, it’s my own stance. If I happened to be assigned by a court to make a health care proxy decision in Terri’s case, that’s what I would have decided, based upon the evidence that I’ve seen. That is to say, it’s certainly reasonable to judge that both the parents and the husband have dubious validity as to Terri’s wishes, and they both certainly have vested personal interests in Terri’s state (regardless of Terri’s actual wishes). I would choose that particular path because of the medical testimony; IMO, regardless of the cause or when precisely she was no longer capable of higher cognition, she was no longer capable of higher cognition in 2005.

> And I suppose now you will tell us that if you were in a similar state as
> Terri, you would prefer to be slowly starved and dehydrated to death
> over a long period of 13 days. After all, it’s the only humane thing to do.

If I’m no longer capable of cognition, I don’t think my preferences matter a damn. I’m gonzo; I’m either passed on to the afterlife or (if there isn’t such a thing) I’m no longer a person (my personal belief in an afterlife being irrelevant here) … in either case what happens to the carcass is of no direct import to me. That said, I personally would wish that should I get into such a state I’d be allowed to die, so that the people who are left behind can actually get some closure and the resources that are being used to keep me alive can be redirected at someone who could benefit from the care. The most humane thing to do in such a case is probably to simply stop the heart, but such an option isn’t currently available legally. So yes, given the current options available, I would rather my wife choose to pull the feeding tube than keep what remains of my body running.

Of course, I wouldn’t want my wife to *have* to make this decision (since it’s obviously an emotionally traumatizing event, one should spare one’s loved ones from having to make this call), so I’ve already made that clear.

Consider the case of Gary Graham who was executed in Texas on June 22nd, 2000. Only a single eyewitness fingered him for the murder of Bobby Lambert. There was no other forensic evidence linking him to the crime.

http://www.crimelynx.com/nostop.html

No, Carla Iyer made the accusation. I wasn’t there so I can’t make the accusation. I merely referenced it.

“You ignore everything else we assert in defense of Michael Schiavo, and use only one affidavit as evidence?”

Please pay attention. I provided much more than just one affidavit. Go read http://michaelschiavo.org for more information.

“Obviously, whatever ethical standards you’re applying to this case is influenced by your religious views.”

Yes, strong stuff coming from a fella who claims President Obama is a closet atheist based on absolutely nothin’. If we gave you a million dollars you might be able to buy a clue (Hint, Obama isn’t an atheist but I am). LOL.

“Yet, if a man who’s shown to be caring and nurturing, with no record of misbehavior”

You haven’t addressed Mr. Schivao’s bigamy. Do you deny that he was shacking up with another woman during his wife’s ordeal and that he fathered two children by that woman?

“This is what we mean when we say religion corrupts independent thought.”

Apparently religion is not the only thing that can corrupt independent thought based on your recent behavior.

Just to preface my statement, I’m not arguing that Michael Schiavo was a saint or that he was right or justified. I’m going to try to focus solely on the statements that you have presented in support of your argument.

You mentioned that people are sent to death row based on a single witness testimony. Please provide a citation for even one case that supports this claim. It is my understanding that physical evidence is typically required, and a “beyond a reasonable doubt” conclusion reached, which is impossible based solely on a single testimony. One testimony might provide something that swings the overall balance toward a guilt verdict, but by itself it is not much.

Ms. Iyer certainly has some motive to lie. She was terminated by the hospice. Her description of Michael’s behavior, if true, could also justify ill feelings toward him, though based solely on what you’ve posted here, we can’t conclude with certainty that she did indeed have poor relations with him.

A couple things in her testimony that cast some doubt on it. Although she maintains that she was not afraid of being fired, and that she was concerned about the overall standard of care at the facility, she apparently did not report anything to the state medical board. Erasing notes from a patient’s chart would, I believe, be grounds for a charge of medical malpractice. Quite apart from the chart issue, if conditions were such that she had concerns about more than just Terri’s care, at the very least, an investigation of the facility should have been undertaken. It is reasonable to expect that a licensed practical nurse would be aware of what measures could be taken in cases of medical malpractice and mistreatment.

Second, the affidavit is from seven years after she worked at the hospice. Particularly because of the great length of time that passed, and understanding the nature of human memory, the paricular words she ascribes to Mr. Schiavo are almost certainly inaccurate. It is not inconceivable that she is either remembering incorrectly and filling in the gaps based on her opinion of Mr. Schiavo at the time of the affidavit or she is lying about what he said. While it may be possible that she is accurately reporting what she heard him say, it is more likely that she is reporting incorrectly, for one reason or another.

Others have already mentioned the possibility of confirmation bias regarding Terri’s reported reactions and vocalizations. In addition to the tendency for people to see what they expect to see, and to find patterns in otherwise meaningless stimuli (which Terri may or may not have produced), the amount of time between Ms. Iyer’s work and her affidavit again comes into play. Once again, in the seven years that passed until her statement, her memories of Terri’s behavior almost certainly changed. While the change may not have been much, the possibility must be considered that the intervening years, recountings of the experiences, hearing stories about the case, personal feelings and beliefs, etc., worked to solidify in her mind a mistaken memory of Terri’s functional level. And, as with the rest, there is also the possibility that she was lying.

Finally, regardng the injection of insulin, you went from initially stating simply that Mr. Schiavo was accused of injecting insulin to stating that he “apparently was overdosing her with insulin trying to kill her”, as if it were established fact that he was indeed taking such actions. Based on Ms. Iyer’s affidavit, it was her belief that he was doing so, but she even stated that she had no proof that he was indeed injecting her with insulin. Be careful with your rhetoric. While you may believe that he was doing so, you have yet to provide any evidence to back up that claim.

The affidavit aside, the Neumann case and the Schiavo case are not equivalent. The fundamental legal issues are different: the right of parents to neglect a dependent child (who by legal definition is unable to make decisions for their own care) by depriving them of proper medical care vs. the question of whether an adult made her wishes known to her husband regarding what she would want should she ever be in a severe medical condition. It is not a question of whether a parent has the right to decide to deprive their child of proper medical treatment, leading to death vs. the right of a husband to deprive his wife of proper medical treatment, leading to death. This is a very important distinction. It seems you have been trying to argue the latter. You sound pretty similar to the courts, in that they generally view life, regardless of quality, as better than death. There are numerous cases where the courts have rejected suits by those suing based on a “right to die” argument. I’m personally not convinced that life is necessarily better than death, but that’s irrelevant to this thread.

Starting to ramble now, so I’ll just end it here.

An affidavit from a hospice nurse compared to brain scans, numerous imaging procedures, and hundreds of doctors is solid evidence to you? Again, you accuse Michael Schiavo of using insulin to kill her? That’s pretty slanderous accusations for someone who has no defense against the core of our argument. You ignore everything else we assert in defense of Michael Schiavo, and use only one affidavit as evidence? This is pretty tenuous data that you’re using for your baseless accusations.

Obviously, whatever ethical standards you’re applying to this case is influenced by your religious views. You want Schiavo’s husband to be guilty and therefore, you find any small discrepancy to attack his character.

Further, you forget that the CT of Terri Schiavo’s shriveled brain was one of the numerous pieces of data that the doctors to point to her permanently persistent vegetative state. The problem here is that if you knew your dog was in a coma and unable to revive, you would probably like most people decide to put him out of his misery. Yet, if a man who’s shown to be caring and nurturing, with no record of misbehavior requests that his wife’s wish was a DNR, who had little contact with her parent’s due to their irrational religious views, he’s suddenly a murderer? This is what we mean when we say religion corrupts independent thought.

Phil is a big boy and you’re a big boy. I’m sure you can take someone disagreeing with you.

“Your bringing up of the Schiavo case is still a distraction as far as I’m concerned.”

I brought it up to point out that most of the people who want to see the Neumanns go to prison have not clearly thought out their position. Their stance is not: The preservation of human life through all medical means necessary is the supreme virtue and must be pursued over religious beliefs, superstitions, etc., etc. In other cases such as the Schiavo case they take the position that there are numerous caveats that must be taken into account and that medical science must be used in certain circumstances to snuff out human life.

An autopsy conducted on woman who died as the result of being deprived of food and water for 13 days is of limited utility. Just what do you expect it to show?

“One witness account is precisely that: one witness account. The testimonial of one witness does not provide a credible counterclaim to a volume of medical evidence, particularly when lacking in any confirmation.”

As you are probably aware, signing an affidavit is the equivalent of sworn testimony in most jurisdictions. Thus, if Iyer was lying in her affidavit she opened herself up to a possible perjury prosecution. I think you have to tell us what her motive for lying would be. BTW, in many murder cases defendants are sent to death row on the testimony of a single witness. Thus, your assertion that a single witness account without confirmation is not credible is completely absurd.

“Some of this can be easily explained without assuming malice on the part of Iyer; independent head movement can be improperly correlated to “reaction” due to confirmation bias on the part of the observer, gutteral noises can be interpreted as speech, etc.”

LOL. She misinterpreted guttural sounds for “Help me” and did so hundreds of times. Yeah, right.

“I’ve found reference to a claim by Iyer that there is a video backing up her testimony, but that it was suppressed by a court gag order.”

Please provide the reference for that.

“According to the autopsy, not at all, as there were virtually no neurons left.”

An autopsy conducted in 2005 after Terri was starved to death and dehydrated for 13 days cannot have any bearing on the possible effectiveness of treatment back in 1996.

“Given the length of the court case and the legal fighting over her care, even if this allegation is true one can easily substitute the phrase “trying to fulfill her wish to terminate” for “trying to kill her”.”

Well, what you don’t address is that Michael Schiavo was in effect a bigamist living in a common-law marriage with another woman. This is not even in dispute by Mr. Schiavo himself. Thus, he has a basic conflict of interest. Any claim he asserts concerning a supposed conversation with Terri cannot be taken at face value because he has a motive for lying.

“All I can say in this particular case is that I personally would not want my existence continued in such a state, and it is reasonable to assume that Ms. Schiavo believed similarly, barring the existence of some personal documentation to the contrary.”

Ah yes, the appeal to personal preference. You wouldn’t want such and such to happen to you. Therefore it is reasonable to think that Terri wouldn’t want it either, unless there was documentation to the contrary. And I suppose now you will tell us that if you were in a similar state as Terri, you would prefer to be slowly starved and dehydrated to death over a long period of 13 days. After all, it’s the only humane thing to do.

I stand by my last post.

You have often posted here taking a contrarian standpoint. And you often take the side of apologetics IMHO. Your bringing up of the Schiavo case is still a distraction as far as I’m concerned.

> Well, there’s just a basic disagreement on what the facts are. I disagree
> with your assertions. They are NOT the facts.

This is a pretty bald claim. There are many testimonials from medical experts prior to Schiavo’s death that claim otherwise, as well as the results of the autopsy.

> Here is an affidavit by that same hospice nurse who took care of Terri
> from 1995 to 1996.

One witness account is precisely that: one witness account. The testimonial of one witness does not provide a credible counterclaim to a volume of medical evidence, particularly when lacking in any confirmation. To sum up the below: I find your evidence to be insufficient to back up your claim.

> So this supposedly totally brain dead woman reacts to her name, uses
> the phrase “help me” hundreds of times, and laughs at jokes.

All of this is alleged, and has not been credibly confirmed by any other account. In fact, I’d argue that this has sufficient dis-confirmation. Some of this can be easily explained without assuming malice on the part of Iyer; independent head movement can be improperly correlated to “reaction” due to confirmation bias on the part of the observer, gutteral noises can be interpreted as speech, etc.

In fact, I’ve found reference to a claim by Iyer that there is a video backing up her testimony, but that it was suppressed by a court gag order. And yet, I can find no evidence of such a gag order, or any other reference to the video itself. This seems to be a highly unlikely scenario; if such a video existed *and* it was ordered to be suppressed, I would expect to find some sort of reference to the suppression… in fact, in this day and age, I’d be astonished *not* to find some copy of it available somewhere on the internet. The fact that Iyer alleged that this video existed and yet I’ve been unable to find any reference to it other than her testimony would be (to me) a compelling argument that her testimony is, overall, of questionable validity.

> Who knows how far she could have progressed in therapy if her
> douche-bag husband hadn’t wanted her dead.

According to the autopsy, not at all, as there were virtually no neurons left. The autopsy is available on the Internet, if you want to read it. I can’t vouch for the accuracy of this copy (http://www.blogsforterri.com/archives/5050439_autopsy%20report%20and%20supporting%20documents.pdf), but I don’t have any reason to believe it is a forgery. The douche-bagginess or lack thereof of her husband is not relevant.

> He apparently was overdosing her with insulin trying to kill her.

Given the length of the court case and the legal fighting over her care, even if this allegation is true one can easily substitute the phrase “trying to fulfill her wish to terminate” for “trying to kill her”.

> That may have caused her to deteriorate later but back in 1996 she
> was partially responsive and her cerebral cortex was functioning at
> least partially.

You’re affirming the consequent here, and presupposing that (a) he was trying to kill her (b) she was responsive and (c) she was functional, all of which are open to debate and none of which I’d personally be willing to grant you outright One can easily say that all evidence of her being responsive is based upon biased eyewitness accounts seeing what they wanted to see, and there is no medical evidence to indicate that her cortex was indeed capable of regaining advanced functioning, regardless of its state in 1996.

> Wasn’t she worth preserving?

All I can say in this particular case is that I personally would not want my existence continued in such a state, and it is reasonable to assume that Ms. Schiavo believed similarly, barring the existence of some personal documentation to the contrary.

We have agreed in this country (the U.S.) that religious freedom is in and of itself a good. Of course, if you want to debate that there are certainly reasonable positions on either side, but for the purposes of my analysis, I’m taking that as an existing assumption (in any event, it is a practical given, so the meta discussion isn’t germane to the immediate issue).

Given: religious freedom is good
Given: some religions have belief systems that run counter to empirical rationalism

We therefore have a situation where occasionally it will come to pass that under these two givens, someone will execute a behavior that runs counter to empirical rationalism. We choose, in this country, to accept that this is an occasional outcome of our givens; the overall good of religious freedom, in a societal sense, outweighs this occasional exception scenario.

Some people in the comment thread are attempting to “squeeze” the exception scenario into the rules, by attempting to finesse a set of laws that will reduce the frequency of the exception scenario. I would argue that this is the incorrect approach, for several reasons.

First of all, there is the practical problem that it is difficult (as other posters have pointed out) to quantify “belief”; any attempt to prove negligence requires you to show that the parents had the intention to harm their child.

Secondly, generally speaking I’m not a fan of legislating morality any more than we absolutely have to, because the resulting law is usually badly worded, poorly implemented, and usually results in misuse anyway (sections of the country that are strongly religious will have a practical implementation of the law that is wildly different from other sections of the country that are less or differently religious… and worse, the “community standard” premise that is so often used in these cases can actually result in a tyranny).

The idea that we can (or should) legislate what is and isn’t acceptable religious freedom actually maps directly onto my criticism of the “pro-life” movement: you are attempting to correct what you regard as horrible behavior using a mechanism that is unsuited to the purpose… and if you succeed, the unintended consequences of your success (which you’re probably not even considering) are likely to outweigh the goodness.

You can’t make people who don’t believe in rational empiricism follow rational empiricism by legislating it. You can’t make people who measure goodness by adherence to a set of religious dogma match their measurements to people who believe in utilitarianism (or, for that matter, match another religious dogma).

Now, there are some exception scenarios (say, for example, a religion that promotes human sacrifice) wherein there is an obvious huge negative result that must, for the sake of overall societal stability, be taken into account. You can’t have a stable society if people in purple robes have a right to kill people. However, when it comes to the question of “allowing people to raise their children as they see fit” there are consequences to curtailing those behaviors, and it is very easy to attempt to remove one exception from the possible list only to introduce several others.

Yeah, is sucks that people with religious freedom refuse medical treatment for their children. Yeah, it sucks that people with religious freedom refuse medical treatment for themselves. Yeah, it sucks that people with religious freedom attempt to legislate their religion. It also sucks to try to take away religious freedom, because attempting to do that usually not only fails miserably, it also usually results in all kinds of unintended consequences.

Imprisoning the parents isn’t the answer – you’re not even punishing them for their societal transgression, you’re martyring them for their faith. The result isn’t even what you’re looking for.

If you want to reduce this sort of stupidity, you have to do it with education, and you have to accept the fact that it’s occasionally going to come to pass that education isn’t enough to prevent all the badness you want to prevent.

*crickets*

*crickets*

The defenders of Michael Schiavo are awfully silent today.

@Helioprogenus “It wasn’t like she was coming out of her coma, and her persistent vegetative state would not have improved, considering the extensive brain damage.”

@TheBlackCat “No, you are missing the point. Terri Schiavo’s brain was essentially gone, dead. There is no mind without the brain. There is no dualism here, destruction of the physical brain results in destruction of the mind as well. Terri Schiavo’s brain was destroyed. She could not and would not recover.”

Well, there’s just a basic disagreement on what the facts are. I disagree with your assertions. They are NOT the facts. Here is an affidavit by that same hospice nurse who took care of Terri from 1995 to 1996. So this supposedly totally brain dead woman reacts to her name, uses the phrase “help me” hundreds of times, and laughs at jokes. Who knows how far she could have progressed in therapy if her douche-bag husband hadn’t wanted her dead. He apparently was overdosing her with insulin trying to kill her. That may have caused her to deteriorate later but back in 1996 she was partially responsive and her cerebral cortex was functioning at least partially. Wasn’t she worth preserving?

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1006944/posts

“AFFIDAVIT
STATE OF FLORIDA
COUNTY OF PINELLAS

BEFORE ME the undersigned authority personally appeared CARLA
SAUER IYER, R.N., who being first duly sworn, deposes and says:

1. My name is Carla Sauer Iyer. I am over the age of eighteen and make
this statement of my own personal knowledge.

2. I am a registered nurse in the State of Florida, having been licensed
continuously in Florida from 1997 to the present. Prior to that I was a
Licensed Practical Nurse for about four years.

3. I was employed at Palm Garden of Largo Convalescent Center in
Largo, Florida from April 1995 to July 1996, while Terri Schiavo
was a patient there.

4. It was clear to me at Palm Gardens that all decisions regarding Terri
Schiavo were made by Michael Schiavo, with no allowance made for
any discussion, debate or normal professional judgment. My initial
training there consisted solely of the instruction “Do what Michael
Schiavo tells you or you will be terminated.” This struck me as
extremely odd.

5. I was very disturbed by the decision making protocol, as no allowance
whatsoever was made for professional responsibility. The atmosphere
throughout the facility was dominated by Mr. Schiavo’s intimidation.
Everyone there, with the exception of several people who seemed to be
close to Michael, was intimidated by him. Michael Schiavo always
had an overbearing attitude, yelling numerous times such things as
“This is my order and you’re going to follow it.” He is very large and
uses menacing body language, such as standing too close to you,
getting right in your face and practically shouting.

6. To the best of my recollection, rehabilitation had been ordered for
Terri, but I never saw any being done or had any reason at all to
believe that there was ever any rehab of Terri done at Palm Gardens
while I was there. I became concerned because Michael wanted
nothing done for Terri at all, no antibiotics, no tests, no range of
motion therapy, no stimulation, no nothing. Michael said again and
again that Terri should NOT get any rehab, that there should be no
range of motion whatsoever, or anything else. I and a CNA named
Roxy would give Terri range of motion anyway. One time I put a
wash cloth in Terri’s hand to keep her fingers from curling together,
and Michael saw it and made me take it out, saying that was therapy.

7. Terri’s medical condition was systematically distorted and
misrepresented by Michael. When I worked with her, she was alert
and oriented. Terri spoke on a regular basis while in my presence,
saying such things as “mommy,” and “help me.” “Help me” was, in
fact, one of her most frequent utterances. I heard her say it hundreds
of times. Terri would try to say the word “pain” when she was in
discomfort, but it came out more like “pay.” She didn’t say the “n”
sound very well. During her menses she would indicate her discomfort
by saying “pay” and moving her arms toward her lower abdominal
area. Other ways that she would indicate that she was in pain included
pursing her lips, grimacing, thrashing in bed, curling her toes or
moving her legs around. She would let you know when she had a
bowel movement by flipping up the covers and pulling on her diaper
and scooted in bed on her bottom.

8. When I came into her room and said “Hi, Terri”, she would always
recognize my voice and her name, and would turn her head all the way
toward me, saying “Haaaiiiii” sort of, as she did. I recognized this as a
“hi”, which is very close to what it sounded like, the whole sound
being only a second or two long. When I told her humrous stories
about my life or something I read in the paper, Terri would chuckle,
sometimes more a giggle or laugh. She would move her whole body,
upper and lower. Her legs would sometimes be off the bed, and need
to be repositioned. I made numerous entries into the nursing notes in
her chart, stating verbatim what she said and her various behaviors, but
by my next on-duty shift, the notes would be deleted from her chart.
Every time I made a positive entry about any responsiveness of Terri’s,
someone would remove it after my shift ended. Michael always
demanded to see her chart as soon as he arrived, and would take it in
her room with him. I documented Terri’s rehab potential well,
writing whole pages about Terri’s responsiveness, but they would
always be deleted by the next time I saw her chart. The reason I wrote
so much was that everybody else seemed to be afraid to make positive
entries for fear of their jobs, but I felt very strongly that a nurses job
was to accurately record everything we see and hear that bears on a
patients condition and their family. I upheld the Nurses Practice Act,
and if it cost me my job, I was willing to accept that.

9. Throughout my time at Palm Gardens, Michael Schiavo was focused
on Terri’s death. Michael would say “When is she going to die?,”
“Has she died yet?” and “When is that bitch gonna die?” These
statements were common knowledge at Palm Gardens, as he would
make them casually in passing, without regard even for who he was
talking to, as long as it was a staff member. Other statements which I
recall him making include “Can’t anything be done to accelerate her
death – won’t she ever die?” When she wouldn’t die, Michael would
be furious. Michael was also adamant that the family should not be
given information. He made numerous statements such as “Make sure
the parents aren’t contacted.” I recorded Michael’s statements word
for word in Terri’s chart, but these entries were also deleted after the
end of my shift. Standing orders were that the family wasn’t to be
contacted, in fact, there was a large sign in the front of her chart that
said under no circumstances was her family to be called, call Michael
immediately, but I would call them, anyway, because I thought they
should know about their daughter.

10. Any time Terri would be sick, like with a UTI or fluid buildup in her
lungs, colds, or pneumonia, Michael would be visibly excited, thrilled
even, hoping that she would die. He would say something like,
“Hallelujah! You’ve made my day!” He would call me, as I was the
nurse supervisor on the floor, and ask for every little detail about her
temperature, blood pressure, etc., and would call back frequently
asking if she was dead yet. He would blurt out “I’m going to be rich!”
and would talk about all the things he would buy when Terri died,
which included a new car, a new boat, and going to Europe, among
other things.

11. When Michael visited Terri, he always came alone and always had the
door closed and locked while he was with Terri. He would typically
be there about twenty minutes or so. When he left Terri would be
trembling, crying hysterically, and would be very pale and have cold
sweats. It looked to me like Terri was having a hypoglycemic reaction,
so I’d check her blood sugar. The glucometer reading would be so low
it was below the range where it would register an actual number
reading. I would put dextrose in Terri’s mouth to counteract it. This
happened about five times on my shift, as I recall. Normally Terri’s
blood sugar levels were very stable due to the uniformity of her diet
through tube feeding. It is medically possible that Michael injected
Terri with Regular insulin, which is very fast acting, but I don’t have
any way of knowing for sure.

12. The longer I was employed at Palm Gardens the more concerned I
became about patient care, both relating to Terri Schiavo, for the
reasons I’ve said, and other patients, too. There was an LPN named
Carolyn Adams, known as “Andy” Adams who was a particular
concern. An unusual number of patients seemed to die on her shift,
but she was completely unconcerned, making statements such as
“They are old – let them die.” I couldn’t believe her attitude or the fact
that it didn’t seem to attract any attention. She made many comments
about Terri being a waste of money, that she should die. She said it
was costing Michael a lot of money to keep her alive, and that he
complained about it constantly (I heard him complain about it all the
time, too.) Both Michael and Adams said that she would be worth
more to him if she were dead. I ultimately called the police relative to
this situation, and was terminated the next day. Other reasons were
cited, but I was convinced it was because of my “rocking the boat.”

13. Ms. Adams was one of the people who did not seem to be intimidated
by Michael. In fact, they seemed to be very close, and Adams would
do whatever Michael told her. Michael sometimes called Adams at
night and spoke at length. I was not able to hear the content of these
phone calls, but I knew it was him talking to her because she would
tell me afterward and relay orders from him.

14. I have contacted the Schindler family because I just couldn’t stand by
and let Terri die without the truth being known.

FURTHER AFFIANT SAYETH NAUGHT.

signed
CARLA SAUER IYER, R.N.

The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 29 day of August,
2003, by CARLA SAUER IYER, R.N., who produced her Florida’s driver’s license
as identification, and who did take an oath.

signed Patricia J. Anderson
Notary Public

My commission expires
Notary seal of Patricia J. Anderson”

“March 29, 2005
Why Hasn’t Michael Schiavo Been Charged With Criminal Adultery?

Adulterer Michael Schiavo

The attorney for Bob and Mary Schindler is David Gibbs, Jr. The Schindler’s legal team has met with Governor Jeb Bush “a number of times,” and Gov. Bush has refused to use the authority of his office to pursue the criminal adultery issue regarding Michael Schaivo. [who has co-habited with another woman not-his-wife for 10 years and fathered two children by her]

Under Florida state law, adultery is a criminal misdemeanor. Gov. Jeb Bush is refusing to enforce Florida state law in an effort which could make the case that Michael Schiavo has a clear (and obvious) “conflict of interest”, and should not be allowed to continue as Terri’s “legal guardian.” During the course of the criminal investigation, Terri could be taken into the state’s protective custody.

Gov. Jeb Bush has also apparently refused to pursue the allegations by the hospice nurse, Carla Iyer, of Michael Schiavo’s alleged attempted murder of Terri by insulin injection.

Gov. Bush has said publicly he will not exceed his authority. However, Jeb Bush is deceiving the people of Florida and the American – the truth is, Gov. Jeb Bush is not using the lawful authority that he has to save Terri Schiavo.

Unless he changes his behavior and acts, his life’s legacy may well be that of a Pontius Pilate, who stood by while an innocent woman was killed by the withholding of water, one of life’s basic necessities for any one of us.”

Ooo, so a hospice nurse accused Michael of attempting to kill his wife by insulin injection. I think this pattern of behavior by Mr. Schiavo negates any alleged remembered conversation he claims he had with Terri in which she said she wouldn’t want to be kept alive in such circumstances. Mr. Schiavo has zero credibility because he wants his wife dead.

@TheBlackCat “Unless you have an actual evidence implicating Mr. Shiavo, either of harming his wife or of lying about her wishes, then let’s hear it. Otherwise you are accusing a man of murder based on nothing but your own totally unfounded suspicions, which I think is horrible.”

There is evidence that Michael Schiavo may have been responsible for his wife’s collapse. Unfortunately it was never strong enough for the authorities to prosecute him.

http://michaelschiavo.org

“Michael Richard Schiavo led a well publicized 15 year court battle to end Terri Schiavo’s life. In the early morning hours of Feb 25, 1990, Terri collapsed at the age of 26 of unknown causes at the apartment she shared with her husband. The night of her collapse, Michael and Terri had an argument. Terri had told her brother that she wanted to divorce Michael due to his abusive behavior. Several hours after the argument, Terri was unconscious. The only person who witnessed her collapse was Michael. Even though Michael knew CPR, he didn’t administer it to her as she lay on the floor. The collapse left Terri disabled and dependent on a feeding tube for her nourishment. Approximately 30-45 minutes after her collapse, Michael called 9-1-1. Read the St. Petersburg Police report here.

In 1992, Schiavo won over $1 million dollars in a medical malpractice lawsuit against Terri’s doctors. The medical malpractice award was based on Schiavo’s contention that Terri suffered from bulimia, which allegedly resulted in her collapse. The medical examiner proved the bulimia theory to be false. Shortly after he was awarded the money, Schiavo began a multi-year campaign to remove Terri’s feeding tube and stop all medical treatment and therapy. At this time, he began a multi-year affair with the woman he would eventually marry – Jodi Centonze.

.
.
.

In January 2006, ten months after Terri’s death, Schiavo married the woman, Jodi A. Centonze, with whom he led a 13 year affair and fathered two children. Jodi supported Schiavo’s effort to end Terri’s life. She wrote in Terri: the Truth, “What happened to Terri on that morning in 1990 was God’s will.” Jodi admitted that she didn’t care that Michael Schiavo was married to Terri when she began an affair with him in 1993.”

So the guy was having an affair which gives him a definite motive in getting rid of his wife. He knew CPR but didn’t administer it to his wife after her collapse. He didn’t call 911 until more than a half hour after his wife collapsed. And to top it off Terri had a conversation with her brother in which she told him she wanted a divorce because Michael Schiavo was physically abusive towards her. I’d say that makes him a prime suspect IMHO.

Why does this philandering creep get to make the decision about whether to unplug his wife’s life support and her parents have no say in the matter? Can someone explain that one to me?

Thank you for sharing the symptoms of DKA.

Regarding whether or not they knew, I’m sure that they knew something was wrong. That part of it probably will not be disputed. However, they may argue that they did not know that she would definitely die, nor that medical intervention would have been better than prayer. The standard for the prosecution to use, then, is the “reasonable person” standard.