I’m Not Biased, Just Right
I think it’s high time for the Puppyblender to stop pretending he has no position on the Terri Schiavo case. For one with no position, he seems to be gunning pretty hard for the pro-death side. The last straw for me was a favorable link to Football Fans For Truth, whose Schiavo F.A.Q. could have been written by George Felos, Michael Schiavo and George Greer, followed by an even more shrill entry that compares Schiavo skeptics to the “Free Mumia” crowd. Glenn later backs off a bit from the Mumia analogy, but not really:
Well, the “Free Mumia” comparison only applies to the unwillingness of some commentators to look at the actual record, and the willingness to posit a huge and implausible conspiracy on the part of numerous judges, attorneys, etc. (And Schiavo-partisan Randall Terry is just Al Sharpton with an inferior tailor. At best.). But the point is taken, and I apologize for any suggestion that the cases are otherwise comparable, because of course they’re not. There’s nothing tragic about what happened to Mumia.
Um, yeah, but I think there’s a more fundamental difference than that. Reasonable doubts exist as to whether Michael Schiavo has Terri Schiavo’s best interests at heart, whether Terri ever expressed a desire to be killed rather than put on life support, or even whether she really is PVS. There is no reasonable doubt as to Mumia’s guilt.
UPDATE: Reynolds goes further out into left field by drinking the phony phederalist Kool-Aid (in a more literal sense than that analogy is normally applied). Hat tip: Prestopundit, who appears to have drunk more than few cups of it himself.
March 28th, 2005 at 12:19 am
Reasonable doubts exist as to whether Michael Schiavo has Terri Schiavo’s best interests at heart
How so? Michael has on several occasions offered to donate Terri’s estate to charity. On the other hand, the Schindlers have testified that they would fight to keep Terri alive even if she had stated to them that she didn’t want to live in her condition.
whether Terri ever expressed a desire to be killed rather than put on life support
You have the testimony of three people who’ve said that Terri Schiavo told them that she wouldn’t want to be PVS. This against her parents argument that as a Catholic, she wouldn’t want to commit suicide even though she rarely attended Mass.
or even whether she really is PVS
no credible doctor has said that she isn’t PVS. The Schindlers offered up 2 doctors to look at Terri. One wasn’t even a neurologist. The other was the quack who claimed to have been nominated for the Nobel Prize (which was in the form of his Congressman writing a letter to the Nobel committee), his methods are so experimental that they are n’t covered by insurance..hmmm..gee I wonder who the Schindlers would pay to help Terri if they had custody of her.
If you have not done so already, I’d highly recommend that you read the report written the Guardian ad litem appointed by Gov. Bush. Its about as unbiased as a report on the case that you will find.
March 28th, 2005 at 1:05 am
Glenn. Jumps. Shark.
Xrlq has the particulars….
March 28th, 2005 at 5:01 am
So, what is your opinion, Glenn?
March 28th, 2005 at 6:37 am
I think Glenn is simply placing his faith in the law, which is natural for a law professor.
Perhaps he should remember that this case required a lower standard of evidence than is needed in criminal trials.
I’m with you, xrlq, in thinking that a jury tril would have hashed it all out a lot better. No matter the outcome, I would have trusted it better if twelve of my peers had argued over it and arrived at a unanimous conclusion.
Michael Schiavo will be doubted his entire life. Too bad if he does happen to be a good guy.
March 28th, 2005 at 6:55 am
How white of him. On other occasions he’s claimed there was no money there at all. Meanwhile, he’s dated at least three other women, one of whom he lives with now in open adultery - a crime in Florida, and proof positive in any state that he’s Terri’s husband in name only. Michael Schiavo’s concern for his wife was pretty well summed up by “When is that bitch going to die?”
That would be Michael Schiavo himself, plus two of his family members. Yeah, that’s “clear and convincing” all right. Not.
AFAIK, no one ever claimed they talked about PVS as such. Even if they had, well, duh. Nobody wants to be PVS.
Boy, you haven’t been following this case at all, have you? There’s a hell of a lot more contrary evidence than that. Like the testimony of Diane Meyer, a witness whom Judge Greer originally wrote had “appeared believable at the offset [sic],” yet whose testimony he discounted because she recalled Terri’s 1982 statements about Karen Ann Quinlan in the present tense rather than the past tense.
Then there’s the fact that Schiavo himself didn’t “remember” this supposed discussion until eight years after the incident, and one month after he had hired the Dr. Death of the legal profession. To top it off, in the intervening years he specifically told at least two nurses or nursing assistants, one of whom he dated for a while (and then stalked for a year, but that’s another story) that he and Terri had not discussed what to do if either of them became incapacitated.
If “credible” means “believed by Judge Greer, who has no medical degree,” then of course you are right. The five doctors you mentioned are not the only ones who have weighed in since. Quacks don’t work at Mayo Clinic. Between Cheshire’s opinion that Terri was “minimally conscious” and the statements by others that she probably was PVS but that it would take an MRI or a PET scan to be sure, allowing her to die without one is unforgivable.
And yes, I have read the report you linked, and a hell of a lot more. Here’s something you should read.
March 28th, 2005 at 8:12 am
I’d feel a lot better actually, if the law was one-half as skeptical of Greer’s civil trial verdict as it has shown of the jury verdict against Mumia.
If Schiavo were suing to obtain premarital property, would the testimony of three witnesses to a conversation with Terri get him anywhere?
March 28th, 2005 at 8:22 am
Like XLRQ I’m amazed at the evidence which was allowed to satisfy the “clear and convincing evidence” threshold. As a practicing plaintiff’s employment attorney, I’ve had summary judgment granted against my clients when we have presented evidence of the employer’s own statement which support an inference of discriminatory animus. These courts have held - consistent with the law and have been supported by the Appellate Courts - that such statements constitute “stray comments” which do not really evidence the employer’s state of mind.
Now, the standard for defeating summary judgment is the lowest conceivable; nothing like the “clear and convincing evidence” standard.
In the Schiavo case, the trial judge credited off-hand comments purportedly made at a funeral to Schiavo clan members about how she wouldn’t want to be in the same position as her aged grandmother. She purportedly made statements about wanting her will to reflect that intent. But she never made out such a will.
Even if the testimony is credited, one inference from all this is that she made the statements in the “heat of the moment” but on calm reflection, she thought better. Since that inference is at least as reasonable as the contrary, only the judge’s prior bias against life in a persistent vegetative state allowed the jump to “clear and convincing evidence.”
March 28th, 2005 at 8:59 am
O.K. Let’s just assume that Terri is in a PVS. Her quality of life is next to nothing by all standards. But she is not on a ventilator. Her life sustaining systems work well with one exception. She can’t swallow. Meaning that she can’t eat or drink. But she can breath on her own. Her heart beats regularly without assistance. The only thing she needs to live is nourishment and hydration. That is not the same as being on life support.
What’s terrible about this case, and I don’t mean to downplay the tragedy of Terri’s imminent death, is the fact that her natural/biological parents are being legally prevented from giving food and water to their child.
The urge to provide for children unable to provide for themselves is an innate parental instinct. It is not peculiar to humans. Animals, insects and other living things demonstrate that trait as. Look outside! Its spring! The birds and bees are doing what they always do. Building nests, making babies and then spending most of their waking hours finding and delivering food and water to them.
Caring for one’s children is an inbred, genetic trait of living creatures. The Schindler’s are being legally prevented from doing that which we, as parents are born to do.
Terri’s dying is not the most important issue here. She is fatally stricken, it is impossible to believe that sooner or later the cerebral insult she received 15 years ago would not be a major factor in her death when it arrives. But she is capable of living if fed. Her parents are forced not only to watch her die, but are farcibly prevented from following a basic parental instinct.
Saddam’s forcing parents to watch while their children were brutalized and killed is barbaric enough. But forcibly preventing them from raising a finger to help may we be the cruelest of all.
What our courts and politicians are doing here is much more civilized until we get to the last part. Terri’s parents share much with the parents of Saddam’s child victims in that aspect.
March 28th, 2005 at 9:24 am
Yell: I think you’re on the right track, but AFAIK spouses inherit everything by intestacy, so Michael Schiavo would not have needed any witnesses for that. If Terri Schiavo had told 30, 300, or any other number of witnesses that she intended to disinherit Michael and leave everything to, say, her parents. Three witnesses would probably be enough to vouch for the validity of any will that she executed, but couldn’t take the place of that will. Whether she told three witnesses, 30 or 300, or even if she went on national television “I hate my husband, I want a divorce, and if I die tomorrow I’m leaving everything to my parents,” same result. No will, no dice.
One side of me says that the same rule should apply to DNRs and the like. The other says the “clear and convincing” standard is better, if only we could trust all judges to have the common sense to adhere to it. Suppose that a lucid, terminally ill patient tells two doctors, a nurse and his next of kin that he does not want to be resuscitated if he goes into a coma and is believed to have little chance of recovery, and that he wants to sign a living will or durable POA to effect that. His next of kin calls the family attorney, who drafts the document, but the patient goes comatose before he gets a chance to sign it. In his case, the evidence really is clear and convincing, and ought to be respected. But if the price of doing that is giving the Judge Greers of the world a free hand to divine whatever “intent” they want from the flimsiest of evidence, then the price is too high.
March 28th, 2005 at 9:44 am
X..if you’ve read the report I linked to, then you know that it was the Schindlers that encouraged Michael to date. Here’s more on the nurse. Cheshire has never examined Schiavo. Each of the 5 doctors could have requested an MRI or PET scan, but none did, saying they would be helpful, but not necessary.
IIRC, Meyer’s testimony was also overshadowed by the fact that Terri was much younger when she made those comments.
If “credible” means “believed by Judge Greer, who has no medical degree,” then of course you are right.
So which doctors should be believed? The ones that Randall Terry decides are credible?
March 28th, 2005 at 11:10 am
I did read the report, but as one who doesn’t accept anything as gospel truth, I don’t “know” that the Schindlers encouraged him to date. I also don’t care, as that’s a non-issue. I don’t blame him for moving on with his life and starting a family with someone else. I also wouldn’t blame him if he had chosen to stay celibate and stand by his beloved wife to the very end. I do blame him for attempting to have it both ways. Once he decided to move on, he should have divorced her, leaving the Schindlers as her next of kin, and this whole national spectacle would have been averted.
I don’t know what Schiavo’s age had to do with Meyer’s testimony. If you’re going to argue that she was too young at 19 to have an opinion on this issue, you might argue that she was too young to know what she was doing when she married Michael Schiavo two years later. Besides, Meyer isn’t exactly the only witness to cast doubt on the Clear and ConvincingTM evidence of her supposed intent to die. What do you make of the two nurses who both testified that Michael Schiavo told them they had never discussed what to do if either of them were incapacitated?
As to your last question, any question that can’t be asked without bringing up Randall Terry is too dumb to be worth asking, or answering. To anyone whose mind isn’t made up already, there are plenty of doctors on both sides of the PVS issue. Judge Greer simply chose to believe some of them, and to ignore the others. Which is fine if your theory is that the state should kill everybody who “probably” committed murder, and who “probably” is PVS, and who “probably” would have rather be taken off life support. Some of us demand a higher standard for life and death matters, and Florida law is supposed to reflect that.
March 28th, 2005 at 1:41 pm
Manish says,
Well, Ronald Cranford (the Kevorkianesque ‘right to die’ advocate who labeled Terri “PVS”) examined Terri approximately 45 minutes, even though it takes weeks of close observation of a patient to positively distinguish between PVS and minimal consciousness.
Examining a patient for 45 minutes and signing them off as PVS is an utter sham. Cranford knew what findings he would write in his report before he even visited Terri.
March 28th, 2005 at 2:41 pm
Clark…what about the other two docs? They aren’t Dr. Death and one of them was appointed by the court.
X…just because the Schindlers bring out two quacks, one of whom doesn’t accept insurance and is trying to pass himself off as a nominee to the Nobel Peace Prize in Medicine (a prize that doesn’t exist by the way) and the other of whom isn’t even a neurologist, doesn’t mean that some form of “doubt” has been cast. By this standard, there would be no facts ever in a court case because anybody can get someone who is an “expert” to testify to anything.
I did read the report, but as one who doesn’t accept anything as gospel truth, I don’t “know” that the Schindlers encouraged him to date.
So you won’t accept something coming from an independent observer tasked with getting both sides, but you’ll accept anything coming out of the Schindler camp as pretty much gospel no matter how dubious the source, including the testimony of the nurses, Diane Meyer, etc.
I do blame him for attempting to have it both ways.
How is he having it both ways? The cases have been about what Terri would have wanted, period. The court ordered Michael, as guardian, to pull the feeding tube. If the Schindlers were the guardian, the court would have ordered them to pull the plug. The Schindlers have stated in court that they wouldn’t have pulled the feeding tube even if they had a written, notarized living will from Terri.
March 28th, 2005 at 3:15 pm
Manish, there is no evidence that Hammesfahr made up the “Nobel Peace Prize in Medicine.” You made that up. While Congressman Bilirakis’s letter did erroneously refer to the prize by that name, I don’t see how you get off blaming Hammesfahr on that. Note that despite the typo, the letter was properly addressed to the Nobel Committee for Physiology or Medicine, which does exist (and, unlike the Nobel “Peace” Prize, actually means something). Whether the Congressman’s letter resulted in an actual nomination or not, we’ll never know, which is why I did not bring it up to bolster my argument. And seeing as none of the death-friendly doctors (as they apparently must be, to qualify as non-quacks in your book) can claim Nobel Prize nominations, either, I’m not sure why you saw fit to bring it up yourself, unless your intent was solely to muddy the waters.
That’s not all you made up, by the way. Your claim that I accept anything from the Schindlers as gospel is patently not true. Unlike you, I take everything I hear on this topic with a big grain of salt. That’s why, at the end of the day, I am not comfortable with the fact that somebody who is maybe brain dead is being starved to death because maybe that’s what she wanted anyway. You appear to be comfortable believing 100% of the “facts” Judge Greer believes, while ignoring 100% of the testimony he chooses not to believe. I don’t have that kind of blind faith in anybody.
It’s pretty clear that your mind is as made up on this issue as that loser judge’s is (whose judicial incompetence has previously helped another abusive husband murder his estranged wife in 1998), and that you are just as eager to dismiss any contrary information as he is rather than entertain the possibility that your original conclusion might have been wrong. If you ever progress beyond the point of automatically writing off as a “quack” every doctor whose diagnosis differs from you the conclusion you want to reach (and yes, there were a lot more than the two you keep harping on), or as “dubious” the testimony of friends, family and even nurses who aren’t Michael Schiavo or his close relatives - we can resume the debate then. Until then, I frankly don’t see the point.
March 28th, 2005 at 6:52 pm
First off, if you look at the list of 7 types of people who can nominate someone for the Nobel Prize in medicine, you’ll note that member of a national assembly is not on the list as it is with the Peace prize. As such, clearly Hammesfahr was not nominated.
Unlike you, I take everything I hear on this topic with a big grain of salt.
Which has mysteriously lead you to the belief that most of the things that further the Schindler’s case is true and little of what advances Michael’s case is true…including the belief that the GAL of all people got it wrong on the dating thing.
It’s pretty clear that your mind is as made up on this issue as that loser judge’s
of course, yours is not.
If you ever progress beyond the point of automatically writing off as a “quack” every doctor …
As I see it, the court appointed doctor is whom I see as the most reliable. The doctors selected by both sides probably already have their conclusions drawn. Its interesting though that the Schindlers couldn’t come up with 2 neurologists and the one neurologist they did come up with was someone who deals primarily in experimental medicine. Even if you dismiss “Dr. Death”, Michael atleast selected one neurologist who hasn’t been slammed. Beyond that, you’ve got doctors who have examined Terri via videotape at best.
March 28th, 2005 at 8:03 pm
Possibly, maybe even probably, but clearly not “clearly.” The only thing that’s clear - beyond the fact that he didn’t win - is that the Congressman’s letter did not itself constitute a valid nomination. Whether or not it resulted in one, we’ll never know. They don’t release that information.
March 28th, 2005 at 8:28 pm
Frankly, I’m a little bothered by some of the libertarians’ various positions on the Schiavo case, myself. James Pinkerton as much as implied that people who want to keep Terri, and others like her, alive are going to have to support socialized medicine. Well, I’ve been a capitalist all my life, but the day euthanasia becomes a prop for capitalism then that’s the day I become a socialist.