Powered by
Movable Type 3.2
Design by
Danny Carlton





Made with NoteTab

March 23, 2005

Breaking news: Press Conference

From Cheryl Ford via email:

PRESS CONFERENCE JUST RECORDED: 
GOVERNOR BUSH MAKES ANNOUNCEMENT
3:35 PM ET --FLORIDA

* MAY BE NEW EVIDENCE

* THERE SHOULD BE NEW INVESTIGATION BEFORE THE COURT, BASED ON FINDINGS FROM DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY.

* DR WILLIAM CHESTSHIRE (SP) WORLD RENOWN NEUROLOGIST FROM MAYO CLINIC HAS COME FORWARD TO SAY THERE IS REASON TO BELIEVE THAT TERRI IS NOT IN A PERSISTENT VEGETATIVE STATE.

*THERE IS A MOTION RIGHT NOW IN FRONT OF JUDGE GREER ENCOURAGING HIM TO ALLOW THE DCF TO CONDUCT THEIR INVESTIGATION.

* GOVERNOR WAS ASKED BY REPORTER DURING THE CONFERENCE IF HE WOULD PLACE TERRI INTO PROTECTIVE CUSTODY ACCORDING TO 415.1051. GOVERNOR REPLIED: THAT WILL BE HIS DECISION.

* IF THE STATE PASSES THE CURRENT BILL THAT HAS BEEN IN TALLAHASSEE FOR THE LAST FEW WEEKS 701 ND 804, BY 2/3RDS VOTE, MEANING 21 SENATORS WILL HAVE TO SIGN THE BILL, THE GOVERNOR STATES HE WILL SIGN THE BILL BY THE END OF THE DAY.
THE GOVERNOR HAS ASKED THAT THE SENATORS PLEASE GIVE CAREFUL CONSIDERATION WHEN REVIEWING THE BILL TODAY.

*GOVERNOR BUSH SENDS MESSAGE TO ALL OF TERRI'S SUPPORTERS: YOUR PRAYERS AND PETITIONS ARE WORKING. THERE IS NO NEED FOR THREATS, PLEASE REMAIN PEACEFUL EVEN THOUGH HE RECOGNIZES SUPPORTERS ARE DISTRESSED.

----
SIMULTANEOUSLY ON FEDERAL LEVEL: A DECISION WAS JUST RETURNED BY ALL 12 MEMBERS AT THE 11 CIRCUIT COURT IN ATLANTA DENYING THE TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER.

coverage: HyScience

Posted by Danny Carlton at March 23, 2005 03:20 PM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.jacklewis.net/cgi-bin/mt/jl-tb.cgi/749

Comments

Keep on praying!
-FTM

Posted by: FTM at March 23, 2005 03:25 PM

What an utterly horrible condition to be in. We should be exhausting all means to rehab her instead of trying to kill her. And what of her husband! Geeze she just had the cards stacked against here. It is very evident that after Terri spent two years in her “broken” state of consciousness that here husband was ready to “dispose” of her. He had grown tired of his vows of “for better or worse” and was plotting to engage the “untill death do us part” clause of the contract.

Posted by: Freaki at March 23, 2005 03:41 PM

This woman simply cannot, from a scientific standpoint, he "rehabbed." Her cerebral cortex is liquid. Rehab was, in fact, attempted after her injury. She has now gone 15 years without changed. Your slander of her husband is truly disturbing. If he was such a horrible person, he would have divorced his wife and left her to her parents years ago, or sold her to the Republican who offered him a million dollars. For God's sake, have you people no shame? What's next? Carry Terry Schiavo around the country on the back of a truck to make a political point? I don't understand why so many Christians cannot leave this woman to God. And what is a "broken state of consciousness?"

Posted by: Mike R at March 23, 2005 09:05 PM

Mike R,

Your statement that Terri's "cortex is liquid" is based on an assertion put forth by Michael Schiavo's lawyers.

I find it very disturbing that people who are armed with little or no information are willing to allow a woman to be starved to death.

There must be something better for you to do with your time.

Posted by: John from WuzzaDem at March 23, 2005 10:50 PM

John, my statement is based on the opinions of every competent neurologist who has examined Mrs. Schiavo over the years. Notice I say competent neurologist; I am aware that Mrs. Shiavo's parents have submitted affidavits from other doctors, none of whom are qualified neurologists. Believe me, I understand the position of her parents; they desperately want to believe anyone who tells them their little girl can be saved. However, this does not change the science of the situation. As regards how I spend my time, I do believe that the actions of the Republican congress in this case are endangering the rule of law in this country; that may seem an abstract principle, but we can't have Congress passing laws and people threatening judges just because they don't like the outcome of a particular case.

Anyway, we have a difference of opinion. Can I ask you a question? Why do I not hear this kind of outcry for persons involved in other "right to die" (or, as I imagine you would describe it, "right not to die") situations? I'm not being facetious, I really am interested. I particularly wonder about the little black boy in Texas who was taken off life support against the wishes of his mother, who was his guardian. I guess I'd believe in the good will of the people supporting Mrs. Schiavo's parents if I saw some consistency in the approach.

Posted by: Mike R at March 23, 2005 11:45 PM

Mike R,

it seems to me that you are yet another one who is not aware of all the facts concerning the differences between Terri's case and that of the little boy in Texas.

First of all, Texas is to be commended because they have in place safety checks that guarantee that someone cannot face the same situation as this woman and her family is facing today. The little boy's situation was sad, but the doctors had got to the point where they felt that further medical treatment was futile. It happened to my father when he had his last stroke and he was discharged from the hospital and sent back to the nursing home to die peacefully.

Terri is not PVS. She is severely brain damaged due to mysterious circumstances on the night she collapsed. She did not have a heart attack, and there is no real evidence that she was bulimic.

The few doctors who have seen Terri are divided on their opinion. On the one hand you have Dr Death Cranford, and the Greer/Schiavo appointees, then on the other hand you have at least 30 other neurologists and medical professionals who disagree with their opinion. The latest opinion from a neurologist who has examined Terri within the last month, Dr. Chesire, is that this woman has been misdiagnosed and she is not PVS.

This is a case of wife abuse that is being permitted by the probate court of Pinellas County. The unjust judge George Greer should be removed from the bench. He has acted corruptly and illegally in this case.

I feel sorry for the mother whose child could not survive. I know the heartache of bad decisions. My great-nephew was allowed to die in the womb as he struggled with the umbilical cord around his neck. He was due to be born and the doctors opined that his heart was weak and instead of scheduling an emergency caesar they let him die. If ever there was injustice, then what my niece suffered was the ultimate injustice because she was deprived of a perfectly healthy child. The other little boy was terminally ill and that is the difference that you have to consider.

Posted by: Maggie at March 24, 2005 12:28 AM

Maggie, I believe you are misinformed on the nature of the medical opinion. However, people of good conscience can certainly disagree as to facts; if they didn't, we wouldn't need courts in the first place!

I am a bit concerned with your criticism of Judge Greer, though, particularly your comments that he is "evil" or "corrupt." As a lawyer myself, I can tell you that judges are not nearly as susceptible to political influence as commonly perceived. Unfortunately, many people simply don't believe it's even possible that this judge made a good-faith ruling based on the evidence he heard. I have been a lawyer for 13 years, and based on what I know, would have made the same decision. I have never considered myself evil or corrupt.

These judges are human like anyone else, and I really doubt that if you sat down with Judge Greer, or talked to his family or friends, you would find him to be evil or corrupt. He's just a man who has been stuck with a difficult job.

Anyway, if nothing else, this case has raised the issue to national prominence, and regardless of the outcome, will probably cause many people to prepare living wills, etc., which is certainly a good thing.

Posted by: Mike R at March 24, 2005 02:00 AM

For the record, numerous qualified neurologists have stated Terri MAY NOT BE in a Persistent Vegetative State. The reason they can't be sure is that the required tests have never been done. Any doctor, even a neurologist that claims to KNOW she is or isn't is basing that on too little evidence. The pro-euthanasia advocates who demand she is in a PVS have displayed their own incompetence by not requiring the needed tests.

Posted by: Danny Carlton at March 24, 2005 04:15 AM

Look folks, I know you're all well-meaning. But there's a simple reason that the Fla state court, the Fla court of appeals, Fla supreme court, us district court, us court of appeals, and us supreme court have all come down on the side of the husband. That is this: every single qualified neurologist who has actually examined this woman has reached exactly the same result. If anyone can point me to "numerous" "qualified" "neurologists" who believe otherwise I will be happy to check to see if you are correct. Please, I am begging you! Name for me all these numerous qualified neurologists, by name! But rather than listen to the real facts, you'd rather invent conspiracy theories about how the judge is evil and horrible and corrupt and a liar and just wants to kill this poor woman. Dr. Cheshire is not "world renowned." He is a self-described Christian ethicist who approaches this case with a particular result in mind. Contrary to your beliefs, most doctors, lawyers, judges, ditch diggers, waitresses, etc., do not approach their work with a particular political view. Good doctors - good doctors, mind you - do their work based on science, not on ideology. You all may have a hard time believing this.

Posted by: Mike R at March 24, 2005 06:10 AM

You equate an appeal of one point, dismissed for jurisdictional reasons, as "siding with the husband"? You really need to either study some law, or learn more about this case, because you're spouting nonsense. The only judge who has heard the whole case is Judge Greer. One appeals court judge ruled Terri's feeding tube reinserted and ordered Judge Greer to review testimony he'd rejected earlier. Geer rejected the testimony again and ruled the feeding tube removed.

No one should have to "point you" to the numerous neurologists who disagree with the pro-euthanasia advocates. They are childishly simple to find. That you choose to not bother says that rather than the truth, you are interested only in rationalizations for your presumptions.

Dr. Cheshire supported the Judge's ruling, before he examined Terri. He changed his mind only after that examination.

Posted by: Danny Carlton at March 24, 2005 08:21 AM

If, as you say, these neurologists are "childishly simple to find," what are their names? Really, it shouldn't be difficult for you to name some of them. I have looked. The reason I can't find them is that they don't exist. Give me a few names other than Dr. Cheshire, who "examined" Ms. Shiavo but did not take or review any new diagnostic tests that contradicted earlier tests. Given your familiarity with the case, it should not be too much of a stretch to provide names of some neurologists who agree with your position.

Also, I have, in fact, studied law. I have been a lawyer for 13 years, and have handled litigation in both state and federal courts, including injunctions and constitutional issues (for that matter, I've handled injunctions involving constitutional issues). Judge Greer handled all the trial court work, as American legal systems provide. When the case went up on appeal to the Fla courts (3 separate times), the entire transcript of evidence, including testimony, medical affidavits, documents, etc., went to the Fla court of appeals. That court reviewed all the evidence, as did the Fla supreme court. I think it is you, not me, that needs to study some law.

Look, if your position is that people in permanent vegetative states should be kept alive in all cases, please have the honesty to say so. That, at least, would be a position I could respect, if not agree with.

Posted by: Mike R at March 24, 2005 08:49 AM

>"Dr.Cheshire is not 'world renowned'. He is a self-described Christian ethicist who approaches this case with a particular result in mind."

Mike R. hits it on the head: It's called "shoe-horning".....where a result is subjectively PRE-determined and then fact's are bent, twisted, manipulated, and even invented to support said "result". It's commonly used in defending mythology.

Posted by: Boomslang at March 25, 2005 02:50 PM

Post a comment




Remember Me?

(you may use HTML tags for style)

Security verification

Type the characters you see in the image above.