Wow, when Kristen gets a hold of a bit of bullshit she clings to it tightly. Let’s take a closer look at her claims. First she says:

She never had impartial representation.

Then she turns around and immediately contradicts herself:

The only impartial representation she had was the guardians ad litem (spelled righte? grammar right?)

This pretty much destroys any credibility for constructing a logical argument that Kristen might have had. First she claims Terri never had impartial representation and then turns around and admits that she did have it, but the recommendations were ignored.

who both - years apart - recommended further testing, therapy and investigation into Terri Schiavo’s wishes.  Those recommendations were ignored.

Let’s take a look at just what is said in the reports^(pdf) from the guardians ad litem. According to the report file by Jay Wolfson on October 31, 2003 the first guardian ad litem was appointed by the courts in May of 1998 as soon as Michael Schiavo petitioned to have Terri’s feeding tube removed.

The court appointed Richard Pearse, Esq., to serve as Guardian Ad Litem to review the request for withdrawal, a standard procedure.

Mr. Pearse’s report, submitted to the court on 20 December 1998 contains what appear to be objective and challenging findings. His review of the clinical record confirmed that Theresa’s condition was that of a diagnosed persistent vegetative state with no chance of improvement. Mr. Pearse’s investigation concluded that the statements of Mrs. Schindler, Theresa’s mother, indicated that Theresa displayed special responses, mostly to her, but that these were not observed or documented.

Mr. Pearse documents the evolving disaffections between the Schindlers and Michael Schiavo. He concludes that Michael Schiavo’s testimony regarding the basis for his decision to withdraw life support – a conversation he had with his wife, Theresa, was not clear and convincing, and that potential conflicts of interest regarding the disposition of residual funds in Theresa’s trust account following her death affected Michael and the Schindlers – but he placed greater emphasis on the impact it might have had on Michael’s decision to discontinue artificial life support. At the time of Mr. Pearse’s report, more than $700,000 remained in the guardianship estate.

Mr. Pearse concludes that Michael’s hearsay testimony about Theresa’s intent is “necessarily adversely affected by the obvious financial benefit to him of being the sole heir at law…� and “…by the chronology of this case…�, specifically referencing Michael’s change in position relative to maintaining Theresa following the malpractice award.

Mr. Pearse recommended that the petition for removal of the feeding tube be denied, or in the alternative, if the court found the evidence to be clear and convincing, the feeding tube should be withdrawn.

Emphasis mine. At first glance it does look like Mr. Pearse’s recommendation was ignored, until you get to that last bit where he basically offers two recommendations. In his opinion he felt that Michael Schiavo had a conflict of interest because he was due to receive any remaining money in the trust fund at the time and therefore the petition should be denied unless the court found the evidence to be clear and convincing, which it did, in which case he recommended the tube be removed. So the court followed his recommendation after all because he offered two of them to choose from. Note that Mr. Pearse

did not recommend

that additional tests be performed nor did he suggest that Terri wasn’t in a persistent vegetative state—in fact at that time even the Schindler’s agreed that she was—his recommendation was based solely on his perception that Michael Schiavo was motivated by the money he’d receive at Terri’s passing.

Still, it could be argued that Mr. Pearse’s opinion was discounted out of hand, but here’s the bit of the Mr. Wolfson’s report that apparently Kristen hasn’t read:

In response to Mr. Pearse’s report, Michael Schiavo filed a Suggestion of Bias against Mr. Pearse. This document notes that Mr. Pearse failed to mention in his report that Michael Schiavo had earlier, formally offered to divest himself entirely of his financial interest in the guardianship estate. The criticism continues to note that Mr. Pearse’s concern about abuse of inheritance potential was directly solely at Michael, not at the Schindlers in the event they might become the heirs and also choose to terminate artificial life support. Further, significant chronological deficits and factual errors are noted, detracting from and prejudicing the objective credibility of Mr. Pearse’s report. The Suggestion of Bias challenges premises and findings of Mr. Pearse, establishing a well pleaded case for bias.

Emphasis mine. Mr. Wolfson even recognizes that Michael Schiavo put together a good argument that Mr. Pearson was biased in his recommendations and thusly

not

an impartial representative of Terri’s best wishes. This is part of why his first recommendation was ignored and why he was not appointed to continue in the role of guardian ad litem.

Now let’s take a look at what Mr. Wolfson has to say about the swallowing tests that had, by the time he was appointed, become the focal argument of the Schindlers:

The review of the medical and clinical evidence in the case goes directly to the issues of the feasibility and value of swallowing tests and swallowing therapy, and to the relationship between neurological function and swallowing food and liquid.

Three, independent sets of swallowing tests were performed early in Theresa’s medical treatment: 1991, 1992 and 1993. Each of these determined that Theresa was not able to swallow without risk of aspiration (and consequent infection).

Swallowing tests and swallowing therapy address many of the core issues in contention. If Theresa can swallow, then she can take nutrition and hydration orally, and it is argued that she would not elect to stop eating. But to orally eat and drink, Theresa must possess cognitive capacity beyond mere reflex, or she will not only fail to ingest, but could easily aspirate substances into her lungs and be subjected to infections and subsequent death.

If Theresa were capable of orally taking nutrition and hydration, this GAL suggests that Theresa’s reasoned best wishes might be not to choose to stop eating, depending upon the difficulty, burden to others and costs involved. The conduct of swallowing tests by an independent, competent clinician, shielded from the public process, would provide competent, scientifically based medical evidence as to Theresa’s ability to swallow and whether swallowing therapy could improve her capability to orally eat and hydrate.

Three general methods of swallowing test can be performed to assess swallowing capacity and swallowing potential. A bedside test examines cranial nerve function, speech potential and trials of certain food textures through spoons, syringes, straws and cups. It is relatively non-invasive and low risk, with the exception of silent aspiration – which is the unnoticed sucking of food or water into the lungs, rather than transporting it down the throat.

The second is also bedside based test, call Flexible Endo Exam Swallowing (FEES). A nasal tube is inserted and spontaneous swallowing is observed, again using various textures of liquid and foods. This is a bit more objective and also has the advantage of being done at the bedside.

The recognized gold standard test is the modified barium swallowing test, generally done in a hospital or at a facility that has radiology equipment. Theresa’s three previous tests were barium swallowing tests.

Swallowing therapy, if swallowing potential is identified, may consist of posture management (head and neck positioning), training to focus on the food ingestion process, holding utensils and other activities. Electrical stimulation therapy has been promoted, but there is no objective, scientific evidence as to its effectiveness or value.

The ability to orally ingest food and water – to swallow substances other than saliva, is predicated on a level of cognitive capacity. Without cognitive capacity, the intentional act of oral nutrition and hydration is likely to lead to aspiration. Eating and drinking are not unconscious processes. Therefore, Theresa’s neurological status is directly linked to her ability to swallow.

Early in Theresa’s care, neurological examinations were performed to assess her cognitive capacity. Competent medical practitioners determined that Theresa was in what has been consistently defined as a persistent vegetative state – a finding that throughout the litigation was not disputed by either side. Quite recently, the Schindlers have disputed that Theresa is in a persistent vegetative state, and in the alternative, they have argued that even if she is, she deserves to live and be maintained via artificial nutrition and hydration.

Emphasis again mine. So let’s review, shall we? Terri was given three independent swallowing tests in three different years all of which were the best test available and all of which determined that she was unable to consume food orally. That oral ingestion of food is dependent on cognitive ability and that no one has ever disputed the findings that Terri was in a persistent vegetative state and

not merely disabled

. And that the Schindlers changed their mind about her status when it appeared that claiming she wasn’t PVS might win them their fight, but then being stupid enough to admit that even if she was PVS they would want to continue to keep her alive artificially.

Here’s another section of Wolfson’s report that I think is very relevant to this discussion:

Like the law, which offers prescriptive guidelines to be applied on a case by case basis, Neurology, a nationally recognized specialty within Medicine, has sought to define the elements of disease states for purposes of treatment. The persistent vegetative state has been accepted as a formal diagnosis in modern American medical practice and it is recognized by American Academy of Neurology as:

The vegetative state is a clinical condition of complete unawareness of the self and the environment, accompanied by sleep-wake cycles, with either complete or partial preservation of hypothalmic and brain stem autonomic functions. In addition, patients in a vegetative state show no evidence of sustained, reproducible, purposeful, or voluntary behavioral responses to visual, auditory, tactile, or noxious stimuli; show no evidence of language comprehension or expression; have bowel and bladder incontinence; and have variably preserved cranial-nerve and spinal reflexes. We define persistent vegetative state as a vegetative state present one month after acute traumatic or nontraumatic brain injury, or lasting in least one month in patients with degenerative or metabolic disorders or developmental malformations. The Multi-Society Task for on PVS, Medical Aspects of the Persistent Vegetative State, New England Journal of Medicine, 330:1499-1508, May 26, 1994.

A particularly disarming aspect of persons diagnosed with persistent vegetative state is that they have waking and sleeping cycles. When awake, their eyes are often open, they make noises, they appear to track movement, they respond to deep pain, and appear startled by loud noises. Further, because the autonomic nervous system those brain related functions are not affected, they can often breathe (without a respirator) and swallow (saliva). But there is no purposeful, reproducible, interactive, awareness. There is some controversy within the scientific medical literature regarding the characterization and diagnosis of persons in a persistent vegetative state. Highly competent, scientifically based physicians using recognized measures and standards have deduced, within a high degree of medical certainty, that Theresa is in a persistent vegetative state. This evidence is compelling.

Terri is a living, breathing human being. When awake, she sometimes groans, makes noises that emulate laughter or crying, and may appear to track movement. But the scientific medical literature and the reports this GAL obtained from highly respected neuro-science researchers indicate that these activities are common and characteristic of persons in a persistent vegetative state.

In the month during which the GAL conducted research, interviews and compiled information, he sought to visit with Theresa as often as possible, sometimes daily, and sometimes, more than once each day. During that time, the GAL was not able to independently determine that there were consistent, repetitive, intentional, reproducible interactive and aware activities. When Theresa’s mother and father were asked to join the GAL, there was no success in eliciting specific responses. Hours of observed video tape recordings of Theresa offer little objective insight about her awareness and interactive behaviors. There are instances where she appears to respond specifically to her mother. But these are not repetitive or consistent. There were instances during the GAL’s visits, when responses seemed possible, but they were not consistent in any way. This having been said, Theresa has a distinct presence about her. Being with Theresa, holding her hand, looking into her eyes and watching how she is lovingly treated by Michael, her parents and family and the clinical staff at hospice is an emotional experience. It would be easy to detach from her if she were comatose, asleep with her eyes closed and made no noises. This is the confusing thing for the lay person about persistent vegetative states.

But let’s get to what, exactly, Jay Wolfson recommends in his report:

All parties agree that core issues persistently raised with respect to Theresa’s condition that have been subject to the most consistently stated contest are:

• Whether Theresa can take nutrition and hydration orally
• Whether Theresa’s neurological condition:
  • Includes cognitive functioning and/or capability
  • Provides a basis, given good science and medicine, to be improved to permit her to interact more with her environment

...

In the informed opinion of the GAL, following the directive guidelines of the Court, no “feasible and valuable� recommendations can be made that will be in Theresa’s best interests and best wishes until and unless there are changes in the status quo among the parties. These changes are best approached incrementally.

In order to create a common ground among the parties, essential to feasibly and valuably addressing the best interests of Theresa, the parties agree in principle as follows:

1. The GAL is accepted and trusted by all the parties as having clean hands and acting exclusively in the interests of Theresa.
<objectively, fairly, scientifically and caringly represent these interests is accepted by all the parties.The GAL will select competent, neutral, clinical specialists to make a formal determination about the feasibility and value of swallowing tests and therapy for Theresa. The specialists’ identities will be kept confidential from the public. The specialists’ determination will have value to the process of gaining a common and agreed-upon understanding among the parties.
2. The GAL will select competent, neutral, clinical specialists to conduct appropriate examinations and tests to make a formal determination about neurological capacity and prognosis. The specialists’ identities will be kept confidential from the public. The specialists’ determination will have value to the process of gaining a common and agreed-upon understanding among the parties.
3. The GAL should be permitted and authorized to move forward with a plan, designed to gain the data regarding swallowing tests/therapy and neurological capacity in a manner consistent with items 3 and 4, above, with and through the advice and input of the parties’ counsels and the Court.
4. The parties agree in principle to establish in advance, parameters for their respective actions based upon the outcomes of the examinations and tests. These parameters will be developed, through the auspices of the GAL, within 10 days of the presentation of this report to the Governor, and said parameters, agreed upon by the parties, shall serve as the predicate for proceeding with the initiation of the testing and examination.
5. The successful recruitment and deployment of the clinical experts to perform the exams will be under the direction, supervision and discretion of the GAL, with advisement proffered to the attorneys for each of the parties.
6. Barring unforeseen events, the recruitment, deployment and reporting to the parties on the results of the tests will occur within 45 days of the specification referenced above in item 6 regarding the parameters.
7. In fairness, and because of the significant public policy issues involved, the costs associated with the recruitment and deployment of experts to perform the examinations and tests should be born by the State.
8. The parties respectfully request that the Court accept and honor this understanding in the interests of justice and with the expectation of achieving a feasible and valuable solution in a complex and challenging matter that has acquired a high level of public policy significance.

In essence what Mr. Wolfson is recommending is that everyone involved should just ignore all the examinations, testimony, and court hearings that have been done previously and allow Mr. Wolfson pick out qualified specialists—the identities of which he will not reveal to the public—to re-test Terri again with the agreement that this round of tests will be the final determination of whether or not to yank the feeding tube. Not because he feels there’s any problems with the previous examinations and tests that confirmed Terri is PVS and is beyond recovery—he repeatedly states that all the exams and tests establishing this fact are credible and convincing throughout his report—but because he thinks the only way to resolve the disagreement between the two sides is to “wipe the slate clean” with an agreement from both parties to accept whatever outcome of the last round of tests arranged by Mr. Wolfson happens to be. He even says as much in a footnote in the report:

The GAL concludes from the medical records and consultations with medical experts that the scope and weight of the medical information within the file concerning Theresa Schiavo consists of competent, well documented information that she is in a persistent vegetative state with no likelihood of improvement, and that the neurological and speech pathology evidence in the file support the contention that she cannot take oral nutrition or hydration and cannot consciously interact with her environment.¹

1But that is not enough. This evidence is compromised by the circumstances and the enmity between the parties. Until recently, while both Michael Schiavo and the Schindlers agreed that Theresa was in a persistent vegetative state, they could not agree as to the matter of discontinuation of life support. Recently, the Shindlers have adopted what appears to be a position that Theresa is not in a persistent vegetative state, and/or that they do not support the fact that such a medical state exists at all. Yet throughout the nearly ten years of litigation, it is the issue of her ability to swallow, ingest food and hydration, and the findings regarding any residual cognitive ability that have marked the medical substance of this dispute.

Of the Schindlers, there has evolved the unfortunate and inaccurate perception that they will “keep Theresa alive at any and all costs� even if that were to result in her limbs being amputated and additional, complex surgical and medical interventions being performed, and even if Theresa had expressly indicated her intention not to be so maintained. During the course of the GAL’s investigation, the Schindlers allow that this is not accurate, and that they never intended to imply a gruesome maintenance of Theresa at all costs.

Of Michael Schiavo, there is the incorrect perception that he has refused to relinquish his guardianship because of financial interests, and more recently, because of allegations that he actually abused Theresa and seeks to hide this. There is no evidence in the record to substantiate any of these perceptions or allegations.

Until and unless there is objective, fresh, mutually agreed upon closure regarding measurable and well accepted scientific bases for deducing Theresa’s clinical state, Theresa will not be done justice. There must be at least a degree of trust with respect to a process that the factions competing for Theresa’s best interest can agree. To benefit Theresa, and in the overall interests of justice, good science, and public policy, there needs to be a fresh, clean-hands start.

The Schindlers and the Schiavos are normal, decent people who have found themselves within the construct of an exceptional circumstance which none of them, indeed, few reasonable and normal people could have imagined. As a consequence of this circumstance, extensive urban mythology has created toxic clouds, causing the parties and others to behave in ways that may not, in the order of things, serve the best interests of the ward.

Ultimately Mr. Wolfson’s recommendations were made moot when the SCOTUS ruled that Terri’s Law was unconstitutional. Still that fact remains that Kristen’s repeated implications that both Guardians Ad Litem felt that there should be further tests because they weren’t satisfied with the ones done previously is wholly false. The first guardian made no such recommendation at all and the second one only suggested doing a new round of tests only after getting both sides to agree that they would abide by the final outcome. Additionally, neither guardian recommend further “therapy and investigation into Terri Schiavo’s wishes” as Kristen keeps claiming which just leads me to believe that she’s not actually read either report.

Continuing with the rest of the nonsense Kristen spewed last time we have:

Politics aside…A disabled individual - regardless of the disability - deserves representation in the event there is dispute as to that persons wishes.

She was represented both by her legal guardian and by guardians ad litem and no matter how many times you try to claim that she wasn’t represented that won’t change the fact that she was. Terri was also well beyond disabled. Being “disabled” requires that there be some cognitive function that is impaired whereas Terri had no detectable cognitive function at all. If she had been merely disabled I’d be wholly in agreement with the statement above, but she wasn’t.

Further, a disabled individual deserves to be placed in a facility designed to meet the treatment, care and therapy needs of that individual.

She wasn’t disabled, but even then the report from Mr. Wolfson indicates that she was placed in several facilities designed to meet the treatment, care and therapy needs she had:

Theresa spent two and a half months as an inpatient at Humana Northside Hospital, eventually emerging from her coma state, but not recovering consciousness. On 12 May 1990, following extensive testing, therapy and observation, she was discharged to the College Park skilled care and rehabilitation facility. Forty-nine days later, she was transferred again to Bayfront Hospital for additional, aggressive rehabilitation efforts. In September of 1990, she was brought home, but following only three weeks, she was returned to the College Park facility because the “family was overwhelmed by Terry’s care needs.�

On 18 June 1990, Michael was formally appointed by the court to serve as Theresa’s legal guardian, because she was adjudicated to be incompetent by law. Michael’s appointment was undisputed by the parties.

The clinical records within the massive case file indicate that Theresa was not responsive to neurological and swallowing tests. She received regular and intense physical, occupational and speech therapies.

Theresa’s husband, Michael Schiavo and her mother, Mary Schindler, were virtual partners in their care of and dedication to Theresa. There is no question but that complete trust, mutual caring, explicit love and a common goal of caring for and rehabilitating Theresa, were the shared intentions of Michael Shiavo and the Schindlers.

In late Autumn of 1990, following months of therapy and testing, formal diagnoses of persistent vegetative state with no evidence of improvement, Michael took Theresa to California, where she received an experimental thalamic stimulator implant in her brain. Michael remained in California caring for Theresa during a period of several months and returned to Florida with her in January of 1991. Theresa was transferred to the Mediplex Rehabilitation Center in Brandon, where she received 24 hour skilled care, physical, occupational, speech and recreational therapies.

Despite aggressive therapies, physician and other clinical assessments consistently revealed no functional abilities, only reflexive, rather than cognitive movements, random eye opening, no communication system and little change cognitively or functionally.

On 19 July 1991 Theresa was transferred to the Sable Palms skilled care facility. Periodic neurological exams, regular and aggressive physical, occupational and speech therapy continued through 1994.

Clearly Mr. Wolfson feels that Terri received quite a bit of therapy over the years. Continuing with your next claim…

Further, a disabled individual who has won a judgement on the basis of funds needed for future care and treatment deserves to have those funds expended to that purpose.

And, indeed, they were. Once again according to the guardian ad litem’s report:

Michael Schiavo, on Theresa’s and his own behalf, initiated a medical malpractice lawsuit against the obstetrician who had been overseeing Theresa’s fertility therapy. In 1993, the malpractice action concluded in Theresa and Michael’s favor, resulting in a two element award: More than $750,000 in economic damages for Theresa, and a loss of consortium award (non economic damages) of $300,000 to Michael. The court established a trust fund for Theresa’s financial award, with SouthTrust Bank as the Guardian and an independent trustee. This fund was meticulously managed and accounted for and Michael Schiavo had no control over its use. There is no evidence in the record of the trust administration documents of any mismanagement of Theresa’s estate, and the records on this matter are excellently maintained.

Which leaves us with your final statement:

Terri Schiavo was denied all of that.

Bullshit.

Oh look, Kristen managed to post while I was doing up my reply. Not surprising considering the length of mine. Looks like she’s managed to do some selective reading of Wolfson’s report after all. Apparently she missed the bits where Wolfson states that two issues he’s making his report on have nothing to do with Terri’s wishes as he was satisfied that the courts had established what those would have been. Rather he bases his recommendation completely on medical questions.

That only speaks to her medical condition - not her wishes.

The court ruled that Michael Schiavo had produced convincing evidence of what her wishes would have been which was upheld over several appeals and it was never argued as a point of contention in court by the Schindlers.

Um, Les.  Confronting Kristen with facts isn’t going to make any difference.  Even though she alluded to her law school education many posts ago (and still dances around my questions about that obvious tall tale), I’m not totally convinced she can even read.  I am completely convinced, however, that she has no cognative reasoning skills.  In other words, she may be brain dead.

Actually whether or not Kristen has a law degree is irrelevant. It doesn’t take a law degree to read the facts as presented in the documents made public on this case including the reports from the guardians ad litem. Mr. Wolfson’s report repeatedly states that the courts competently and properly applied the rule of Florida law in the decisions they made in regards to this case so from a legal standpoint there’s not much to debate. In fact he points out that several courts bent over backwards to allow the Schindlers to argue their case based on the flimsiest of evidence and still ruled against them in the end because their case was so weak. His recommendations were based on the idea of getting both sides to agree to letting him do one more round of testing of Terri’s medical condition and abiding by the outcome and had nothing to do with investigating further what Terri’s wishes might have been because he felt they had been adequately established.

Kristen is reality immune which is, as Nunya points out, typically found in the Fundys, but I don’t think she’s a Fundy herself. She does share many similar traits, however, of selective reading to confirm her own opinions and only seeing what she wants to see. She’s probably not beyond help yet though, unlike Terri Schiavo was, so it’s probably best not to pull her feeding tube just yet.

“Until and unless there is objective, fresh, mutually agreed upon closure regarding measurable and well accepted scientific bases for deducing Theresa’s clinical state, Theresa will not be done justice.

From the the recommendation of the Guardian Ad Litem - Jay Wolfson.

Mine is selective reading and yours is not? 

“Being “disabledâ€? requires that there be some cognitive function that is impaired whereas Terri had no detectable cognitive function at all.“

Who died and made you king of disability definitions?

Federal law defines a “Disability” as a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits or restricts the condition, manner, or duration under which an average person in the population can perform a major life activity, such as walking, seeing, hearing speaking, breathing, learning, working, or taking care of oneself. (An impairment or diagnosis, in and of itself, does not necessarily constitute a disability: it must “substantially limit” these activities. Disabilities do not necessarily impair the individual’s performance but may require the individual to seek alternate methods of carrying out a given task.)

Disability definitons

It would be easy to detach from her if she were comatose, asleep with her eyes closed and made no noises. This is the confusing thing for the lay person about persistent vegetative states.

Mr. Wolfson said it.  I bet there would not have been any fuss at all, if Terri hadn’t had her eyes open.

Many comatose people who seem worse off than Terri- eyes closed, no noises, no waking- recover and get back their lives.  There was someone there the whole time, after all.  Thus, how easy it is to assume that Terri, who slept and woke and opened her eyes, must be at least as well off, and might yet recover at least partially.  How human it is to hold on to hope for a beloved daughter, a
beloved wife.

Having to make decisions about life and death is always going to be hard, and I don’t envy anyone in that position.  There is simply no logical line we can consistently draw, and say “on this side, life; on this side, death”.

That said, considering Terri’s condition, and what was said and done by her husband and parents, that she deserved a dignified end.  The one bright spot in the circus that evolved around her is that she was oblivious to it all.

Mine is selective reading and yours is not?

No, mine isn’t. Note the key phrase in that statement: mutually agreed upon closure regarding measurable and well accepted scientific bases for deducing Theresa’s clinical state. He’s arguing for the idea of getting both parties to abide by the findings of a final round of tests arranged by himself. He doesn’t claim that the previous tests were invalid or inconclusive—in fact he states exactly the opposite in his report which you have decided to ignore—he’s hinging his whole recommendation on getting both parties to agree to allow him to make the final decision on whether or not to yank Terri’s feeding tube.

Who died and made you king of disability definitions?

The same could be asked of you.

Federal law defines a “Disability� as a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits or restricts the condition, manner, or duration under which an average person in the population can perform a major life activity, such as walking, seeing, hearing speaking, breathing, learning, working, or taking care of oneself. (An impairment or diagnosis, in and of itself, does not necessarily constitute a disability: it must “substantially limit� these activities. Disabilities do not necessarily impair the individual’s performance but may require the individual to seek alternate methods of carrying out a given task.)

Amazing, you go ahead and prove my point for me with the definition you provide. Again allow me to point out the key phrase you appear to be overlooking: Federal law defines a “Disabilityâ€? as a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits or restricts…

Terri was way beyond being “substantially limited or restricted” which is why she had to have the feeding tube in the first fucking place. The majority of her brain was gone and that pretty much makes walking, seeing, hearing, speaking, learning, working, or taking care of herself im-fucking-possible. The one thing she COULD do on her own was breathe and that was due to the brain stem being intact. What part of “85% of her cerebral cortex has been replaced by cerebrospinal fluid” do you not understand?? Even the report from Wolfson points out this fact and mentions that Terri received quite a bit of therapy:

Theresa’s neurological tests and CT scans indicate objective measures of the persistent vegetative state. These data indicate that Theresa’s cerebral cortex is principally liquid, having shrunken due to the severe anoxic trauma experienced thirteen years ago. The initial oxygen deprivation caused damage that could not be repaired, and the brain tissue in that area continued to devolve. It is noteworthy to recall that from the time of her collapse, and for more than three years, Theresa did receive active physical, occupational, speech and even recreational therapy. 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.

He further goes on to attest that all of the responses from Terri that have been observed are correctly attributed to reflexes and not cognition:

In the observed circumstances, the behavior that Theresa manifests is attributable to brain stem and forebrain functions that are reflexive, rather than cognitive. And the substantive difference according to neurologists and neurosurgeons is that reflexive activities of this nature are neither conscious nor aware activities. And without cognition, there is no awareness. (Descartes addressed this in his proposition that it is our awareness, our consciousness that defines our being: “Cogito, ergo sum�. This logic would imply that unless we are aware and conscious, we cease to be.)

In reading the whole report it’s clear that Mr. Wolfson accepts and agrees with the medical findings done over the years and I suspect that he believed that another round of testing would have produced the same results as all the previous tests. If that were to have turned out to be the case then the solution would have been to remove the feeding tube as he plainly states in his report. It’s probably no big stretch to guess that Mr. Wolfson fully expected that last round of tests to produce the same results and thusly the discontinuation of Terri’s feeding tube. It’s clear from a number of interviews that Mr. Wolfson (whom I should be properly calling Dr. Wolfson) had no qualms with the medical evidence or the court decisions that had come previously. Here’s an excerpt taken from a Q&A session he did for the Washington Post on March 23, 2005:

washingtonpost.com: Dr. Wolfson, thank you for being with us today.

You served as the legal appointed guardian of Terri Schiavo for 30 days in 2003 and issued your report in December of 2004.

How did that come about? What did you observe? What did your report say?

Dr. Jay Wolfson: I was appointed by the judiciary, according to the requirement of the law for a special guardian to investigate Terri’s swallowing capacity. This opened the door to issues relating to her neurological capacity. I was required to review and report on the previous 14 years of legal and medical evidence and activities. After spending hours with Terri, getting to know her parents and siblings and her husband, and reviewing all of the evidence, my conclusion was that the competent medical evidence provided in the the case, following the Florida rules of civil procedure and evidence, and according to the Guardianship law in Florida, which was carefully crafted over fifteen years of bipartisan political and religious efforts—- indicated by clear and convincing evidence that she was in a persistent vegetative state, according to the most credible science and medicine. I also concluded that based on the same Florida laws and rules, the trier of fact appropriately determined that Terri had expressed, while she was competent, the intention never to be kept artificially alive under such circumstances. The evidence supporting this included competent legal evidence demonstrating that she personally expressed those intentions at the funerals of two family members who had been on life support—so it was contextual. Due to the conflict between the parties, I suggested that additional testing could and should be done but ONLY if the parties agreed in advance as to how the results would be used. We almost came to agreement on this option, but for legal reasons, one of the parties pulled out on the last minute.
...
Upper Marlboro, Md.: Dr. Wolfson,

Can you state which party disagreed?

Dr. Jay Wolfson: Mr. Felow, Michael’s attorney, properly disagreed, because he was in the midst of a constitutional challenge to the law that appointed me—if he had bought into my suggestion, then he would be lending credence to the very law he was challenging—and that would have diluted his challenge. he was legally correct.
...
Bethesda, Md.: Over the past few days ,many people on television and on the radio have contended that she could be rehabilitated, but hasn’t been given the chance. In your medical opinion, is that true, or is she beyond that point?

Dr. Jay Wolfson: I offer no medical opinion - only a carefully thought through review of the actual medical facts and legal documents, according to the rules of evidence and the rules of civil procedure and the guardianship law of Florida.
...
Ottawa, Ontario, Canada: Understanding the right to a dignified death, my question pertains to the validity of the ‘legal guardian’ in this matter. From what I have read/seen, the husband would appear to be in a position of conflict of interest, as he has a girlfriend, and children with her. Obviously, then, there becomes an issue with his motivation to have the feeding tube removed - where, if at all, does this factor into the overall issue?

Dr. Jay Wolfson: He was appointed the legal guardian. that was challenged legally and upheld. But at another level—and this is somewhat personal, i can love my wife and my mother—i can retain love and affection for persons with whom i had previous intimate relationships, without abandoning the goodness of intent and caring i have for them. that alone, may not create a conflict of interest.
...
Beltsville, Md.: I went to the Web site that Terri’s parent’s have on her situation. They say that much of what’s said about her condition is false. She can eat on her own, she could get better with therapy. Why is there no common ground when it comes to the medical opinion of Terri’s hope for recovery or whether she would benefit from having her feeding tube reinserted?

Dr. Jay Wolfson: if she were given food, she would likely aspirate and either choke or develop an infection that would kill her. she does not eat or drink and she cannot.

Interestingly enough in another interview on MSNBC’s Countdown with Keith Olbermann Dr. Wolfson explains why people like Kristen continue to deny the facts:

OLBERMANN:  Let me start with this news of the day, the governor’s announcement that there is a neurologist who thinks that perhaps Mrs. Schiavo is not in a persistent vegetative state but might have been misdiagnosed and could be minimally conscious.  Is that plausible to you, or is it a red herring?

WOLFSON: There are several physicians across the country who have expressed that very opinion.  I’m not familiar with what he did nor when he did it, nor how he did it.  I understand from what you just said that he did not actually evaluate nor examine Terri. People are going to have different opinions.

And honest people are going to differ about their opinions.  The fact is we’re dealing with 15 years worth of medical evidence and legal evidence that were admitted through the Florida judicial system, based on laws that were created by the legislature, rules of evidence in the Florida courts, rules of civil procedure and the guardianship law in particular, which over 15 years evolved with very carefully designed bipartisan political and religious cooperation.

And you’re either going to believe the facts that have been accepted by the courts, using the standards of competent evidence and clear and convincing evidence, or you’re not.

And there’s a reason why you won’t.  The reason why you won’t is because it’s hard.  For those of us who are parents, I’ve got three sons.  It’s incomprehensible for to us imagine what it’s like for these really good— the Schiavos are really good, decent people.  I’ve got to tell you.  They’re the people I grew up with in Chicago.  Their kids are the kids I played with.  These are fine, decent people.  But I cannot imagine one of my sons or anybody’s son in a position where they’re no longer capable of interacting and the idea of them dying by pulling a tube.  It’s extraordinary.

But the evidence that was submitted and the process that was used throughout the Florida judicial system and the federal judicial system substantiated that information about her state and about the evidence that was used to establish her intentions. 

He goes on in that interview to say exactly what I’ve been saying all along about his recommendation for further tests:

OLBERMANN: Ultimately, when you were involved in this case, what were your recommendations to Governor Bush and would you give the same recommendations under these circumstances today?

WOLFSON:  My recommendations were that additional swallowing tests and neurological tests should be performed for the purpose of resolving the dispute between the parties.  Because the legal process and the medical process, I felt, had been competent and had met the standards of proof. But only if the parties agreed in advance as to how the results of those tests could be used.

If you’ll look at my final report, we had a draft agreement.  And we almost got there.  At 11:50 p.m. on the 30th of November, Sunday night, before my report was due on the first, all of us were pretty much agreeing to walk into that room and talk about how we would do that.

Mr. Felos called me at 11:50, Michael’s attorney.  And he said, “Jay, I can’t do it.  I can’t do it, because I’m challenging the law that appointed you, the constitutionality of it.  And if I accept anything that you’re proposing, then I am diluting my legal and constitutional challenge.  I can’t.“

He was right in doing that legally.  And as you know, the law was deemed unconstitutional and then everything I did was technically moot.

Emphasis, once again, is mine. Would you look at that? I’ve backed up my position once again with citations from credible sources. Something Kristen seems to be inept at doing. When she tries to she just ends up proving my point for me. So, yeah, Kristen, you do suffer from selective reading.

“Until and unless there is objective, fresh, mutually agreed upon closure regarding measurable and well accepted scientific bases for deducing Theresa’s clinical state, Theresa will not be done justice.

From the the recommendation of the Guardian Ad Litem - Jay Wolfson.

Mine is selective reading and yours is not? 

“Being “disabledâ€? requires that there be some cognitive function that is impaired whereas Terri had no detectable cognitive function at all.“

Who died and made you king of disability definitions?

Federal law defines a “Disability” as a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits or restricts the condition, manner, or duration under which an average person in the population can perform a major life activity, such as walking, seeing, hearing speaking, breathing, learning, working, or taking care of oneself. (An impairment or diagnosis, in and of itself, does not necessarily constitute a disability: it must “substantially limit” these activities. Disabilities do not necessarily impair the individual’s performance but may require the individual to seek alternate methods of carrying out a given task.)

Disability definitons

“This fund was meticulously managed and accounted for and Michael Schiavo had no control over its use.“  Yes it was meticulously managed.  Court records show expenditures for legals costs and none for treatment and therapy.  They forgot to tell the jury that the funds were to litigate for her death not treatment and therapy.

I’m done here.  You have called me names that I am not just because I don’t agree with your narrow, media satiated scope of the events.

Cindi - go starve yourself - I hear it results in a state of euphoria.  Then you can snipe to everyone about your “cognative” superiority.

Cindi - go starve yourself - I hear it results in a state of euphoria.  Then you can snipe to everyone about your “cognativeâ€? superiority

Oops.  “Cognitive.“ Meow.  And no thanks on the starvation suggestion.  I’m quite thin enough as it is and euphoria is probably vastly overrated.

It’s not superiority, Kristen.  It is frustration.

Now she’s repeating herself. But she did tack on some new nonsense. Let’s take a look…

Yes it was meticulously managed.  Court records show expenditures for legals costs and none for treatment and therapy.  They forgot to tell the jury that the funds were to litigate for her death not treatment and therapy.

So all the money spent by Michael Schiavo before the lawsuit on over three years of medical treatment and rehabilitation doesn’t count because it’s not from the lawsuit? For that matter, what’s your basis for this claim?

I’m done here.  You have called me names that I am not just because I don’t agree with your narrow, media satiated scope of the events.

Which implies that you have a much broader range of sources than just the media for the basis of your arguments. If so, what are they? I’ve been using citations from the official reports as well as interviews with the man who wrote the most recent report and they back up my opinions quite well. You’ve made repeated claims without citing your basis and expect us to just roll over and accept you as some form of authority.

Personally, I think you’re a clueless idiot and I base that opinion on the idiotic comments you’ve left to date that clearly demonstrate your inability to grasp the facts of this case. I think together they make for a pretty good argument that your idiocy is factual rather than just my subjective opinion, but then I’m biased in that way.

At least I can admit to my biases…

Cindi - go starve yourself - I hear it results in a state of euphoria.  Then you can snipe to everyone about your “cognativeâ€? superiority.

And here you again reveal your own bias. It’s clear that the reason you have a hard time with this case is because you can’t fathom how someone can die of dehydration and not feel incredible torment in the process combined with your abject lack of medical understanding that you have to have more of a cerebral cortex than Terri did to experience much of anything. You seem to feel that Terri somehow managed to still remain cognitive (note proper spelling) despite the fact that the majority of her brain was gone. A fact you still haven’t managed to repudiate or even address. Then again, you’ve not shown a helluva lot more cognitive ability than Terri herself at this point.

But I do hope you’re serious about giving up with your pathetic attempts at an argument because it would really free up my time to do more enjoyable things such as going back to my video games.

Here you go

[bunch of links to some message forum elsewhere deleted]

When you finish those I will get some more for you

If you want to flame me that is okay I have thick skin,I will ask Theresa Marie Schiavo and Pope John Paul 2 to pray for you guys:)

Lisa, if you have something to say then say it. If all you’re going to do is post links to someplace else then I’m going to remove them.

That’s all she had to say, Les.  Looks like it was a pretty complete brain dump, too.  I hope she has enough left to keep breathing.

My bad I thought you might want to do some research on the case instead of making assumptions based on the MSM coverage:( You guys seem awfully angry.What’s up with that?Do you just make assumption anyone who disagrees with you are idiots?Geek mom I went to sleep that is necessary from time to time you know:)In case you haven’t noticed I do not believe someone should be dehydrated and starved to death.My uncle is a Polish Jew that escaped and his whole family were killed out in the camps,it is not a pleasant way to die.Is this a site in which if your opinion is not the same as the rest,you are flammed?

My bad I thought you might want to do some research on the case instead of making assumptions based on the MSM coverage

Hilarious, coming from someone who clearly prefers to ignore the mounds of legal and medical evidence of Terri Schiavo’s condition, proving she had all the cognitive abilities of a houseplant.  While I’ll not disagree that the starving and dehydration of your Polish Jew uncle’s family is indeed tragic, and that it would be a terrible way to die, the fact of the matter is that your relatives had healthy and fully-functioning cerebral cortices, while Terri Schiavo did not.  She never felt a thing, because the part of the brain that makes those sensory perceptions possible was GONE.

There were mounds and mounds of evidence to the contrary as well.And coincidentally, no human ever become a carrot or a houseplant regardless of your opinion of what evidence you choose to believe.As far as not feeling anything morphene was given to her,what do you suppose that was for?On top of that when Terri had hger menstral cycle she was given demerol for pain,that is in her medical records as well.So instead of being sarcastic perhaps you might want to research the case,instead of basing it on a repulsion and fear of the severly disabled:(

My bad I thought you might want to do some research on the case instead of making assumptions based on the MSM coverage:(

Fuck you, Lisa. You have no fucking idea how much research any of us might have done on this case. What is it with you religious nuts and all the arrogant assumptions you like to make? And who the fuck made you an authority that I should have everyone reason to believe just because you show up and proudly proclaim yourself being “4Catholics?“ If anything that already shows me you have poor judgment to begin with.

You guys seem awfully angry.What’s up with that?Do you just make assumption anyone who disagrees with you are idiots?

I’m angry cause I’m sick of assholes like yourself coming in here and telling me what I know and don’t know and how I might want to do my research. Fuck you.

In case you haven’t noticed I do not believe someone should be dehydrated and starved to death.

It’s not how I would’ve ended her life either, but it’s the only legal means available at the moment.

My uncle is a Polish Jew that escaped and his whole family were killed out in the camps,it is not a pleasant way to die.

Neither is being burned at the stake, but I believe your precious Catholics made heavy use of that one for awhile. Of the two choices, I’ll take dehydration.

Is this a site in which if your opinion is not the same as the rest,you are flammed?

No, this is a site where if you come in and act like an arrogant ass you get flamed.

There were mounds and mounds of evidence to the contrary as well.

Bullshit. Provide some. The video tape was 10 minutes of a heavily edited 10 hour session that largely shows an entirely different picture than the edited version depicts. The quacks who claimed to be able to regrow her brain were of questionable backgrounds and without any evidence for their claims. There isn’t any reasonable evidence to the contrary to present as the courts decided over and over and over again.

But you assholes aren’t interested in following the law, you only want to force your particular way of life onto everyone else regardless of what they might want for themselves.

And coincidentally, no human ever become a carrot or a houseplant regardless of your opinion of what evidence you choose to believe.

So you’re claiming that there’s no such thing as a persistent vegetative state? That people who have lost nearly 85% of the brain are still able to think clearly and respond beyond a purely reflexive nature? What drugs have you been smoking lately?

As far as not feeling anything morphene was given to her,what do you suppose that was for?On top of that when Terri had hger menstral cycle she was given demerol for pain,that is in her medical records as well.

Her ability to experience anything cognitively was gone. That doesn’t mean she wouldn’t respond reflexively to pain stimulus. When you touch a hot stove you don’t think about removing your hand, you do so by reflex and that’s controlled by the brain stem which is the only bit of Terri’s brain that wasn’t damaged.

If you’d done your research on the brain, you’d know that.

So instead of being sarcastic perhaps you might want to research the case,instead of basing it on a repulsion and fear of the severely disabled:(

Once again a great big fuck you for trying to tell us why we thought Terri should be allowed to die and how much research we’ve done. You want to come in and discuss the case, fine. But don’t show up here and proclaim yourself some sort of morally superior authority and assume that none of us have bothered to look beyond what the mainstream media had to say. It makes you look like a stunningly arrogant idiot who, like other recent commenters, thinks she’s got it all figured out and anyone who disagrees obviously MUST think THIS way about the issue and hasn’t done their research.

For the record, I’m not remotely repulsed by the severely disabled. I’ve been friends with many, had some as coworkers, had friends whose relatives were badly disabled, and have gone out of my way to help them when I can. You have no fucking clue how I feel about the severely disabled and it’s insulting to have you come in here and make blanket statements like you do have a clue. My wife’s family has long-time friends that are both physically and mentally retarded, but, unlike Terri, they both still have intact brains and cognitive ability so they are aware of their lives and can participate in them.

If you want to ignore all the medical evidence that shows that Terri had a hole in her brain filled with liquid and lacked any cognitive ability at all then that’s your fucking problem, but don’t try to tell us we’re wrong because we agreed with the folks who actually examined her over some quack who’d never even seen her or because it conflicts with your belief that all life is sacred no matter how lacking in worth it happens to be or what the wishes of that individual might have been.

Wow. You are a very angry person aren’t you?I am not basing my assertions on the video or doctors that had not seen Terri.When humans feel they can judge what the worth of a life is there is plenty of history to show the outcome of that mentality.In your profile you say you are atheist,so what if I am proud of being Catholic.It is rather disinginuous to call me down for that as well as hyprocritical.I am not ignoring evidence I looked at all of it available including case history and the background of the lawyer and the judge in the hospice and the hemlock society.You asked me to put forth evidence and you deleted the links to the forum where the research was posted.So it seems to me you do not care to keep an open mind the same thing you accuse me of.But I have not cussed you out,called you an idiot or anything else.Aparently,you feel entitled to pass judgements on whom is deemed worhty respect.

Let me add my “Fuck You” to Les’.  I have no fear of the severely disabled… the severly religious, however, are quite another story.  It’s difficult NOT to fear those who clearly value religious rhetoric, superstition and their own self-proclaimed moral superiority over scientific evidence and rational thought.

As the parent of a disabled (though not “severely” so) child, I think I can reasonably say that I understand and sympathize with supporting their rights.  I can also unequivocally state that I’d never be so fucking ghoulish as to prefer her to exist as a living corpse should the very part of her that makes her a person be destroyed.  I find it particularly disgusting that the Schindlers allowed their daughter to be used as a poster child for people with a specific political agenda, and even went so far as to trust Randall Terry to speak on their behalf.

Christians have some nerve painting themselves as a “culture of life” when they rally ‘round the symbol of a dead guy on a stick and would use a woman who would’ve been dead 15 years ago if not for medical technology (and was time and again determined in a court of law to NOT have wanted to exist that way) but instead spent those years as nothing more than an insentient, empty husk of flesh, as a political tool to advance the agenda of tearing down the wall between church and state.  I won’t even start on the hypocrisy inherent in the calls for Michael Schiavo to renounce his matrimonial vow and divorce Terri, from people who pay lip service to the “sanctity of marriage” when it suits their purposes.

Stay ignorant if you like, but stay the hell out of other people’s marriages and keep your god-bullshit in church or at home where it belongs.

Lisa4C, just for the record, no court ever found that Terri’s life wasn’t worth living or that she’d have been better off not living it.  Instead they found credible evidence that she - Terri herself - had not wanted to live that way.  They listened to her husband, her parents, and various hangers-on from both sides.  Apparently her husband was more convincing.  That’s what judges do; they judge.

But the “save Terri” crowd is ready to overturn separation of powers and all jurisprudence to get what they wanted because they didn’t like the outcome.

The court’s findings are hardly an extraordinary claim, given that most people do indeed feel as Terri did.  How many people do you know who would insist on being kept alive even when the higher-functioning parts of their brains are gone?

As for why Les is pissed off at you, would you mind if I stop by your living room and yammer on about what you know, think, and feel, even though I clearly have no idea about any of those things?  You would?  Why, how judgmental of you.

I looked at all of it available including case history and the background of the lawyer and the judge in the hospice and the hemlock society.

And yet you find them less interested in determining the worth of life than Randall Terry, whose rhetoric drove one of his followers to commit murder in the name of being “pro-life?“

Lisa,

Perhaps you should look at the archives at the University of Miami website they have a ton of material regarding Terri Schiavo.  They have information drawn from both sides of the debate.  More importantly though they have medical assessments of Terri and include at least one of her CT scans.  If you review that material, you would get the chance that there really wasn’t much left of her.  Indeed, from the CT scan image I would venture to say that she probably had to cognitive function of a goldfish (and that’s a generous estimate).  Much of her brain tissue had atrophied.  This is something that no one really can dispute if they have indeed seen any substantial portion of Schiavo’s medical records.  As for the suffering, the suffering was entirely on the part of the various members of Schiavo’s family including Michael Schiavo and I feel comfortable asserting that it was more the media circus and America’s obsession with what was a private family matter that was the source of the suffering.  There wasn’t enough left of Terri to say that she suffered.  All that was left of her was a spinal chord and a hind brain.  I would guess that she was capable of little more than breathing and perhaps simple uncoordinated motor function.  She definitely would have little idea of what was in fact happening to and around her.

Oddly enough, I’ve spent a couple of hours in an IM conversation with Lisa this afternoon and my anger with her has subsided quite a bit. I was already annoyed by our friend Gjin and Lisa just stepped right into the middle of it and caught the blast. Sometimes a little interactive communication can go a long way to promoting understanding of each other.

I’ve invited her to lay out her argument with links to source material if she chooses to do so as I’m willing to consider what she has to say. Don’t know if she’ll bother, but I thought I’d make the offer just the same. Her opening approach wasn’t handled well, but I feel she’s sincere and not beyond agreeing to disagree.

I will consider it Les but I think I will let you look at my research first,I have friends that are atheists and of every other flavor,but they can see me beyond a Catholic and Christian,and I am making others uncomfortable here,I do not want to do that.So for the time being I will shre it with Les,thankyou for your time and I apologize if I upset you guys it was not my intent.