Memo to ABC, NYTimes: Terri Schiavo was not “brain dead”
Via LifeNews, Terri Schiavo’s family members try to hold the MSM accountable for continued lies and distortions about their loved one:
Terri Schiavo’s family is upset with the media for again erroneously depicting the disabled woman as “brain dead” when she was able to interact with them before her former husband took her life. This time, the Schindler family says ABC News and the New York Times wrongly reported on her condition.
Yesterday on ABC’s “This Week” program, George Stephanopoulos, in an interview with Senator Fred Thompson, commented that Terri Schiavo’s autopsy proved she was “brain dead.”
The New York Times reported on the television interview, and repeated the erroneous claim.
Terri’s brother Bobby Schindler told LifeNews.com on Monday that the “brain dead” assessment is patently false. He said Terri’s family is requesting that the media immediately stop using this “offensive and inaccurate expression” to describe her condition.
“Brain death is an authentic diagnosis, not some catch phrase that should be loosely used based upon a ’summary of widespread response’ or opinions that have been written about my sister,’ Schindler said.
“We are requesting that the media take a few minutes to research the facts regarding Terri’s case and, more importantly, her condition,” he added. In doing so they would learn that not one doctor ever diagnosed Terri as being ‘brain-dead.’”
The Terri Schindler Schiavo Foundation website is here.
More: Sworn affidavits of more than 40 medical and therapeutic professionals.
Flashback: The Schiavo autopsy–a sober look.
***
As for Fred Thompson, looks like he got his memory back:
Republican presidential candidate Fred Thompson gave no opinion Thursday when asked about efforts by President Bush and Congress to keep Terri Schiavo alive, saying he does not remember details of the right-to-die case that stirred national debate.
Thompson was asked in an interview for Bay News 9’s “Political Connections” program whether he thought Congress’ intervention to save the life of the brain-dead woman two years ago was appropriate.
“I can’t pass judgment on it. I know that good people were doing what they thought was best,” Thompson said. “That’s going back in history. I don’t remember the details of it.”
Fred Thompson set forth a more clear picture of his views on assisted suicide and euthanasia in a Sunday interview on ABC News. He said he would have supported Terri Schiavo’s parents in their efforts to prevent their daughter’s euthanasia death and he said courts should err on the side of life.
Thompson said the motives behind the actions Terri’s former husband took to subject her to a 13-day starvation and dehydration death were “suspect” and he said he would have backed the Schindlers’ efforts to save her life.
“From what I know about the facts, or recall about it, I would side with the parents in, you know, keeping that child alive,” Thompson said.
“Based on the notion that I can’t imagine a parent or a spouse or a doctor deciding anything — if there’s any question that this person might live,” he added.
His comments are a more pro-life presentation of his end-of-life views and could help him regain his footing with pro-life voters upset by earlier statements.
Looks like he’s going to need a lot more to “regain his footing:”
Former Tennessee Sen. Fred Thompson has skidded into sixth place in a new CNN/WMUR poll of likely Republican voters in New Hampshire, edged out by ex-Libertarian and anti-war congressman Ron Paul and former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee.
Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney topped the poll, widening a lead he has held for months in neighboring New Hampshire, while Arizona Sen. John McCain and former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani were running close in the second and third spots.
The CNN/WMUR poll was conducted by the University of New Hampshire between Wednesday and Sunday. Pollsters surveyed 404 Republican voters for the survey, which had a sampling error of 5 percentage points.
Thompson came into the GOP race late with the hope of winning over social conservatives unsatisfied with the rest of the party’s field, and racked up a key endorsement from the National Right to Life Committee last week. But the former star of the television drama “Law and Order” has trailed the GOP front-runners in early voting states since entering the race in August, and his support in New Hampshire dropped from 13 percent in a September poll to 4 percent in November’s survey.
See what others have said
Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.
Trackbacks
- Meptune.com
- Political Bloviation » Blog Archive » Michelle Malkin distorts Schiavo case
- best loss loss program weight weight, http
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Categories: End of life issues
Stop The ACLU
» Obama’s Approval Ratings Tank, But Media Still Love HimNewsBusters.org
» Top Press Secretly Parties With Obama on Fourth of JulyRiehl World View
» Palin In Iowa? Watch The Heads Explode!Pundit & Pundette
» Obama's drop in popularity and Michelle's handbag controversyPundit & Pundette
» Is the tide turning?Riehl World View
» The Three Stooges Now Appearing At HuffPoSister Toldjah
» Quote of the Day – from Carol Browner, climate-czar
The law in this area is not necesarily the issue, but how the law is applied and administered is certainly an issue.
Imkeep going back to comparing it with a capital murder case. Why? Because the outcome can be the same in both cases.
In a criminal capital case, the courts bend over backwards to protect the rights of the defendants. No judge likes to be overruled and have to try the same case again, so they tend to error on the side of caution.
In criminal cases, the accused is provided the opportunity to have the facts of the case determined by a jury of his or her peers.
In probate or family courts, the finder of fact is the judge and only the judge. The judge can also limit discovery and can appoint his own experts to form an opinion as to fact. There are no rights for the individual at issue per se, and no rights will be recognized unless raised by the individual or that individual’s guardian. Since the individual has a guardian, no counsel is appointed for the person.
The standard of proof to sentence someone to death involves beyond a reasonable doubt. That is the highest standard of proof in our legal system. If any reasonable doubt exists as to the guilt of a defendant, the jury is instructed to find the person not guilty.
The standard of proof in Probate or family court is a lower civil standard - more likely than not. In layman’s terms, that essentially means over 50%. The real problem arises via the nature of the probate court. The court, and not a jury, is the finder of fact. The court, and not the parties, is empowered to appoint his or her own experts, which the court is prone to give extreme deference to. In essence, the court is actually a third party in the proceedings.
If these peoceedings were conducted pursuant to the rules of an actual civil or criminal court, the court itself would not be a party and have a vested interest in the outcome - the court would merely conduct the trial and act as referee.
My ersonal view for some time has been that both the probate and family court systems are seriously broken. They follow their own set of rules, often making them up as they go. And since the proceedings in most cases are not public, the average person never sees or hears about the abuses that go on there. Thus, bad judges continue to remain on the bench. There is little outcry for change. And things only get worse.
My point here is where the ultimate outcome is the same for both a criminal and civil proceeding - death - why is someone who has not committed any crime, who is incapable of speaking for themselves, not afforded the same rights and protections as a murder defendant?
The medical issues here were anything but clear. And given the significant differences in opinion as to Terri’s condition, the willingness of Terri’s family to take care of her, and the absence of a clear and convincing directive from Terri of her choice for death, it certainly appears that there would be ample room for reasonable doubt if the criminal standards were applied to this probate issue.
We treat cases involving death for criminal defendants very seriously. Recently, an execution in Florida was stayed on the basis that lethal injection may cause undue pain to the death row inmate. Where the outcome of a decision will result in someone’s death, those same protections should be afforded to the innocent.
Had the Schaivo case been handled by a jury, I am confident that the outcome would have been very different.
Watershed,
With the degree of mental acuity you demonstrate here, I would recommend you avoid trips to the State of Florida.
#102
?
I was discussing Ms. Malkin’s synopsis of the medical report, and haven’t responded to anything you have posted at all about legal right to die issues.
Unless you are referring to what I wrote in post #37, in which the facts speak very loudly for themsleves.
Though Jim, it should be pointed out that every appeal to the original ruling affirmed it.
Had a jury heard the evidence, you might indeed have gotten a different outcome, but legal they shouldn’t.
Aplication of the law is aplication of the law.
Jim M.,
I don’t think you and I agree about the outcome of this case, but as one that has to endure the probate courts regularly, your comments about that are spot on. It is generally filled with barely competent people put on the bench as a political favor that then stay there for years, treating the chair as their own little fiefdom and abusing the power given to them and ignoring proper procedures and the law to arrive at the decision that they want.
Whew. Sorry. I am not bitter much. And my apologies to any probate judge reading. I am sure that YOU are the exception, your honor.
But…. that is the system in which Michael had to work in, legally speaking. One cannot fault him for that. Fact is, he followed all the steps that the law required of him and at every step of the way the law agreed with him.
The bottom line is that he didn’t HAVE to end her life because she had multiple family members that would have loved to take care of her. This says a great deal about his character. Michael was able to just say GOODBYE to the whole situation, get a divorce and move on. How could you knowingly end a person’s life when you have so many opposing members of family? How can a truly GOOD person with ethics go against what her family’s wishes were. This is the bottom line for me. His actions were clear and actions are telling of what type of a person one is.
You don’t know anything medical, especially about the Terri Schiavo case, watershed. Go back up to my post #93 and click the second link, then read and compare the scans to the Felos-touted scan of Terri Schiavo’s brain.
Also, to expose your ignorance more, tell me about the impossibility of regrowing neurons.
Then you can really make me laugh by telling me how many patients were healed by the doctor who diagnosed Terri Schiavo as PVS.
Last night, my wife’s uncle, her mother’s eldest brother, was taken off of life support. He had suffered a heart attack two weeks ago and they had attempted to stabilize him enough to perform bypass surgery to save his life, however they were unsuccessful. Over the last couple of weeks, his heart had stopped several times. He was on full life support and sedated. In order for them to make this decision, the reduced the sedation to the point that he became aware of what was going on, or as we in the medical field call A&O x’s 4 (Conscious, alert and oriented X’s4) The doctors and family are the ones that asked him whether or not he wanted them to remove him from the respirator. He emphatically said yes. He was ready to move on, and after suffering the MI’s as well as fungal infections in his lungs from the respirator etc. over the last two weeks, he was ready to say good bye.
The doctors then once again began sedating him with morphine and other medications and my wife, her mom, his wfe and children and other family members said their good-byes. this was at 4 in the afternoon Pacific time yesterday. My wife left the hospital and was home by 9 at night. He was gone by 11 at night last night.
It did not take two weeks to starve him to death. It was not a question of whether or not it was the right thing to do. It was not a question of dignity or not.
Those of you who are claiming that Terri had a dignified death are nothing short of heartless and callous. There was no harm in allowing her to live. She hurt nothing but someone who wasn’t man enough to get a divorce and go without the money he felt he deserved. Someone who would not let her parents continue to love and care for her. He committed the ultimate in spousal abuse and murder. He sat there and watched his wife starve to death in pain and misery, watching as her family suffered in torment as well. My Uncle-in-law was in no pain. He was dead within 2 hours of them turning off the machines that kept him alive. Without these machines he had no hope. The only machine she needed was a tube with food…it is the same machine each and every one of us needs every day of our lives…FOOD. To argue anything else shows a distinct harshness towards life that would make a serial killer blush.
I feel for your family members, and pray that none of them ever will be in the position of having you make the decision of whether or not to give them medical attention. When you feel that feeding someone is too extraordinary, then there is really no hope for you.
smurf,
One can argue about his motives or whether he was telling the truth, and frankly we will never know, but* if one is to take what he said regarding Terri’s desire to NOT stay in a vegetative state as true (*I know this is a big but), then the issues of how many family members would be willing to take care of her or what the wishes of the family were with regard to Terri are irrelevant and really doesn’t speak to poor character at all. I would hope my wife would ignore my family in the same situation.
Speaking of, what did Michael have to gain by going through this huge fight, having his name dragged through the mud, when as has been pointed out, he could have simply walked away, got on with his life, and let the family take care of her? Does this maybe, just maybe point to the possibility that Michael did care enough about Terri to try to carry out what he felt were her wishes? And please do not throw out the whole trying to off her to hide his attempted murder unless you have some evidence, not conjecture, that this occurred.
Not saying that removing her tube was the right answer, or that the law is not flawed, and I am not saying that Michael is a pristine guy. But people sure are quick to judge and say some pretty nasty things.
-chapoutier
Never thought I’d say this. . .but. . .I share your opinion.
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are LIFE, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
The right to life is in our Nation’s Birth Certificate. Any candidate that has abandon that birth certificate in favor of a philandering husband, will not get my vote.
I would not be surprized if the liberals and demos would favor Post Birth Abortion like say up to two years after a baby is born. If the mother decides the baby is too much trouble or if she wants to further her career she could post abort it and that would free her for more choices in life. This is the direction I see society is heading and I am sorry if I have offended some.
#65On November 20th, 2007 at 10:34 am, englishqueen01 said:
The feeding tube? Without that feeding tube, she couldn’t eat on her own.
I am sorry for your loss.
It was her wish to not live the way she did..And isn’t part of the fued really just about the money? That’s what really started the ball rolling on this fight? Neither side wanted it for Terri, it was each side thinking they should get the money..
P.S.
I just removed my Mom’s tubes on April 25th…
Originally he said that she wanted to live. It was not until years later, after spending time and money on rehab, doctors and treatments and getting a huge payout that he supposedly remembered this conversation he had with her where she allegedly said she didn’t want to be on life support. Again, feeding tube is not life support.
I am sorry for your loss as well. I am willing to bet that it did not take over two weeks either.
People having regular surgery, having emergency procedures, being admitted into the ED and other routine medical issues in the hospital receive feeding tubes. they are not “extraordinary” measures. They are used on a regular basis in hospitals, convalescant homes, retirement facilities etc. they are for people that either cannot or will not eat. they are even used to feed those happy Freedom Fighters who are rebelling against the heinous treatment they get at GitMo such as not agreeing to what is on the menu, someone touching their koran, having a toilet facing East and other things that only became issues in prison and thus decided to go on hunger strikes. their hunger strikes then lead to getting feeding tubes. Again, they are routing medical apparatus, used to give patients such things as Ensure and other “meals” to make sure they have enough vitamins, minerals and calories to live. It is the humane thing to do. Many retarted individuals also have them. Is it the Liberal contention that each and every individual who is incapable of feeding themselves, chewing or swallowing be removed from their feeding tubes? Because to me, that appears to be the argument that is being made.
Well, there was another group that felt the exact smae way. Nazi Germany had a similar policy towards the infirm. Remove the tubes, remove the weak from society. After all, they have and serve no purpose in the big picture. Terri was worth nothing, and thus, none of these other people are worth anything either.
Where is it exactly do you people draw your distinction?
She had to be fed via the tube becasue she could not swallow, so yes, it was a form of life support…Based on what I read in the autopsy, she could have handled sponged water in her mouth, but obviously not a cup of water, and I really don’t think that giving her the water would have prolonged her life any..they took the tube as it was. As was said earlier, they kill death row inmates with more kindness.
As to my Mom: All legal paperwork was in place, with my Mother’s stated wishes, which the doctors had in hand, so there was no question that it was the right decision. It was a heart breaking decision, but the right decision.
That’s what we all should be dicussing. I don’t care how old you are, everyone over the age of 18 should have legal papers drawn up, stating their death/dying wishes, with a medical power of attorney given to a trusted person.
I would be curious to see how many people that responded to this post, actually have their own wishes legally written drawn up…
Coorect my sentence to read, would not have prolonged her life..
Can we, regardless of our opinion here, take a little time to appreciate the awesomeness that is comment #112. Someone just built him/herself the biggest straw man imaginable.
Kudos!
The Government can kindly stay out of the following places:
My Book Case
My Movie Collection
My Video Game Collection
My Thoughts
My Home
My Hospital Room
The moment the Gov’t starts to step in and say “you can’t do that”, they are half a step away from “you must do that”.
The interesting part of this comment is that Government regulations, the ones that keep people safe as in drugs and food, are ways in which the Government tells us what we can and can’t do. So exactly where is it that you draw the line? Is it all or nothing? Or are there only certain points in which the Government is permitted to infringe on your or anyone else’s life? Personnally, if it means prolonging someone’s life vs. taking it away, I go for prolonging it. In this case, the Left is making the case that the Government was stepping in to prolong her life. On the contrary, it was the Government that had stepped in, in the guise of the courts, of the lawyers and such, to get her feeding tube pulled and allow her to painfully starve to death without her being allowed or able to beg for her life or to tell abyone of the horrors she was under going for those two weeks. It was the Republicans that were attempting to allow things to remain the way they were. Don’t let those pesky little facts get in the way though.
Oh, and by “you” I meant “You” as in everyone, not “you” the person who typed the quote. I was not singling any one person in this reply out.
You just contradicted yourself here…It is true that Republican members of State and Federal government did go to court to prolong her life(stop the State from removing the tube)..after the husband “won the right”, in court, to have the tube removed so that she would die.
No i did not contradict myself. If you go back to the start. try actually knowing what the case is about. There is no contradiction. She was already on a feeding tube. the Republicans were attempting to maintain the status quo…i.e. leaving the tube in. it was the husband that was attempting to remove it. Had he not interviened, she would more than likely still be alive today.