The laws are already there to protect Terri. We don’t live in a society where Euthanasia is legal. So I have to ask the question: Why hasn’t something been done on at least one of these counts? From Sweet Liberty with a few of my own comments thrown in:

Fla. Stat. § 415. 102(1)(2002). Michael Schiavo’s isolation of Terri and refusal to provide adequate physician attention, rehabilitative services, dental care and other medical services constitutes abuse under the Adult Protective Services Act as well as the guardianship statutes.

Terri is on a single gastric feeding tube. She is on the feeding tube because Michael ordered it. She used to eat soft foods from a spoon until Michael put a stop to it. Terri is under guard right now to prevent anyone from giving her food orally or stimulating her in any way. I have never heard of this before, but it appears as though actions are being taken to keep her in an illegal state of disability. Michael Schiavo refuses to allow a swallow test. Dr. William Hammesfahr determined back in 2000 that Terri can swallow. In the spring of 2000, three physicians, including Dr. Jay Carpenter, who is a former Chief of Medicine at Morton Plant Hospital, filed affidavits after observing Ms. Schiavo. All three physicians stated that it is visually apparent that Ms Schiavo is able to swallow and, in fact, does swallow her own saliva. ENT: The patient can clearly swallow, and is able to swallow approximately 2 liters of water per day (the daily amount of saliva generated). Water is one of the most difficult things for people to swallow. It is unlikely that she currently needs the feeding tube. She should be evaluated by an Ear Nose and Throat specialist, and have a new swallowing exam.

Michael Schiavo defrauded the courts by promising to care for Terri for the rest of his life and then used the jury awarded $700 thousand specifically designated for Terri’s rehabilitation for his own personal gain and to end Terri’s life. This also violates Fl Statute. 825.103 “Exploitation of an elderly person or disabled adult” which prohibits the misuse of a disabled person’s funds by the guardian.

Further, Section (2)(a) states that If the funds, assets, or property involved in the exploitation of the elderly person or disabled adult is valued at $100,000 or more, the offender commits a felony of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, s. 775.084.

The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. Sections 12101 provides that necessary and appropriate rehabilitation services and physical/motor skill therapy may not be denied a substantially disabled patient in the United States of America.

Cf 28 CFR, Ch 1, Subpart B, Sect 35.130 States “Nothing in the Act or this part authorizes the representative or guardian of an individual with a disability to decline food, water, medical treatment, or medical services for that individual.”

Failure to Discharge His Duties under FS § 744.474 (2) requires that the guardian protect the rights of the ward, provide for her health and safety, properly manage her financial resources and help her regain her abilities to the maximum extent possible.

The initial move to Hospice was done in violation of the annual plan and without court permission in violation of FS § 744.3215(4)].

Terri has the right to receive visitors and communicate with others. FS § 744.3215

Terri has the right to receive “palliative care” which is the comprehensive management of the physical, psychological, social, spiritual, and existential needs of the patient. FS. § 765.102.

In 1990, Michael took Terri to San Francisco for experimental medical treatment, without the necessary prior approval of the Court. FS. § 744.3215(4).

The guardian is required by law to prepare and present an annual plan. FS § 744.3675.Repeatedly, the annual plans have been filed late or not at all

In his annual reports, Schiavo has failed to prepare and present any plan for the provision of medical, mental health, and rehabilitative services in the coming year as required by FS §744.3675 (1)(b)(3)

The Adult Protective Services Act (Chapter 415 of the Florida Statutes) affords protection to disabled persons from abuse, neglect and exploitation

Fla. Stat. § 415. 102(1)(2002). Schiavo’s isolation of Terri and refusal to provide adequate physician attention, rehabilitative services, dental care and other medical services constitutes abuse under the Adult Protective Services Act as well as the guardianship statutes.

Schiavo’s decision to hold Terri at Hospice after it was clear that she was not “terminal” within Medicare guidelines was an improper use of the ward’s assets. In order to receive federal payment for hospice care, the facility must obtain a certification from the attending physician within two calendar days of initial admission that the patient’s “prognosis is for a life expectancy of 6 months or less if the terminal illness runs its normal course.” 42 C.F.R. § 418.22 (2001) Terri has been in Hospice 5 years, since April of 2000.

The Florida courts, DCF and Adult Protective Services have failed to do their job of protecting Terri’s rights under the existing Florida statutes. When people say that “case law” is on the side of Michael Schiavo, considering my limited knowledge of the law, I just have to wonder–what kind of “cases” ignored all the laws that protect the handicapped? Governor Jeb Bush has always had the executive power to remove Michael Schiavo as Terri’s legal guardian and to require a full investigation through every possible legal avenue, yet he hasn’t done it.

So what the hell is going on here?

Cross Posted to Cao’s Blog

NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, this material is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes only.

Said Cao @ 5:34 am | Permalink   

1. What’s going on is an activist judge who, until the bright light of publicity was thrown on the case, was perfectly willing to allow Terri’s husband to discard her like a piece of trash.

   BTW, anyone who thinks judges aren’t open to public pressure need only look at this case. Judge Greer has suddenly become very concerned with procedure and precendent…things that didn’t matter very much until the national media started to look at this case.

   Comment by superhawk — 2/26/2005 @ 8:48 am

---

2. And now it has come to light that he acted similarly in previous cases.

   Comment by Cao — 2/26/2005 @ 11:16 am

---

3. If we are not sure what Terri wants, shouldn’t we err on the side of life? A major argument against the death penalty is that we can’t be 100% sure the accused is guilty. Seems to me the same logic should apply here.

   Comment by GBlagg — 2/26/2005 @ 4:20 pm

---

4. The fact that one and the same person can hold to the right to life for convicted murderers, even those who actually want to die, on the one hand and to the right to kill those whose only fault is falling victim to an accident or illness that leaves them alive but helpless, is amazing (I don’t even mention those whose right to life stance does not extend to those who are totally dependent upon their mothers body for support of their life, whose only fault is having been conceived by a woman who can’t be bothered with pregnancy and birth).

   It seems to be a case of externalizing their own feelings to the case of others. Those who have most ably defended the right to life with regard to convicted murderers have done so by stating that society diminishes itself by institutionalizing the taking of human life. They would defend the decision to end Terri’s life, I suppose, on the grounds that Terri’s life is no longer worth living or that she, although alive, is no longer, by their standards, human - that she has been left without those capabilities that define human life.

   Comment by Craig R. Harmon — 2/26/2005 @ 5:42 pm

---

5. Not one but several Judges have been involved in this case. From a legal standpoint, this case has been “scrubbed”. By that I mean that if in fact a violation of anyone of the provions mentioned above had occured it would have come to light. It isn’t that the courts have ignored the law rather it is that the courts have either determined that the law was not applicable, not violated or that case law interpretation led to another conlcusion.

   Comment by Carol — 2/26/2005 @ 6:47 pm

---

6. This case was once about law, but it honestly is no longer. The judge made a ruling, back in 2003, to kill Terri. The legislative branch and the executive branch decided that was not OK, and they passed a new law so Terri would not be murdered. This really, really annoyed the judges.

   Therefore, the judges ruled that the legislature was not allowed to overrule the judges. This is now a battle between branches of government, and Terri is likely to be a casualty in the war because the judges will not back down, they will not accept that they can be overruled by the other branches of government.

   Comment by Ogre — 2/26/2005 @ 7:09 pm

---

7. Good points Carol that I have come to increasingly wonder about a great deal. For the past years I have just assumed those very thoughts. I now have the life experience with “the system” I didn’t have years back when this first started. My best explanation & understanding from having dealt with the legal system in dealing with for example,probation kids and foster kids & their families and the legal system , is that there are a number of ways for the system to go very awry and dangerously wrong. There are always lawyers and a judge. My understanding is that which the upper courts can uphold or deny is with regards to what is presented to or asked of them, please correct my assumption. I think we all have heard of the terms of “good judge” and “bad judge”.

   Just as there are good therapists and bad therapists and good and bad in every profession so it seems to go in Terri’s situation there has been consistent incompetence. It seems to be a massive comedy of errors. The story after story of laziness and incompetence with regards to CPS investigations of allegations that I can tell you are enough to keep you up for weeks…I say that also knowing how clearly it seems you have a value of laws and adherence to them…Thus I am really wondering how Terri has remained in a hospice facility although she is NOT terminal, how it is ok for a guardian to NOT provide for therapeutic services &/or to withhold stimulation. As my understanding and experience goes, there are situations, such as this that I would be mandated to report. I then report them but depending on the investigator and/or his/her experience or caseload and the temperament of his/her supervisor &/or the moon phase…charges may or may not go forward.

   It may scare you but there are more times than not that I PERSONALLY know of where cases are NOT pursued…If it is pursued..then enters a prosecuting lawyer who then also decides according to his/her supervisor whether they want to pursue a case…See how this goes??? There are more opportunities for things to get bogged down or screwed up than there are for situations to move towards safety and justice.

   Carol- I do greatly appreciate your persistence and thoughts. I hope if you can come up with actual specific issues in Terri’s case that we could blog about or comment on or respond to that would actually change your mind or position you would PLEASE pose those!!! and let us know. Otherwise if you are steadfast in your position as I am!, having now looked at all the court documents and rulings,and you are just throwing things out there…to raise doubt or to be the devil’s advocate that is fine but I personally probably won’t expend much more time answering.

   I guess I just want to know if there is genuine interest in exploring this case for mutual benefit or if the discussion is always going to go back to the legal document and proceedings. I have read the court proceedings and I don’t agree with his line of thinking at all. If we can go through the process of Greer’s reasoning..then also it seems there is further discussion. I personally just want to understand if this is always going to go back to the decisions of the judges.Hope this wasn’t too testy…I just always seem to get a bit lost in these teeny tiny comment boxes!

   Comment by Crystal Clear — 2/26/2005 @ 8:14 pm

---

8. Ohhhh Also Carol—Do you have a blog??? I would find it highly interesting to see how you write on other issues and to get a better grasp on the process you seem to understand things by. So please send me alink directly if you have one. I am greatly interested and would love to add you to the number of other bloggers I email to get feedback on my thinking and my own process.

   Comment by Crystal Clear — 2/26/2005 @ 8:17 pm

---

9. Euthanasia is illegal in the United States. The American Disabilities Act prohibits taking away food and water, whether it’s through a feeding tube or not.

   Greer is a rogue judge who should be taken to task for making rulings that have nothing whatsoever to do with the laws on the books. Looks like that’s beginning to happen, no thanks to the MSM.

   Comment by Cao — 2/27/2005 @ 7:39 am

---

10. No blog Crystal. Until very recently I was much too busy with husband and kids to spend time on the computer. Two weeks ago I suddenly found myself with an empty nest. I cannot be persuaded that the entire court system and all of the regulatory agencies, the hospital emergency room where Terery was admitted, the doctors and nurses and the hospice itself, all failed simoultaneiously and repeatedly to uphold their obligations towards Terry. I think it is wrong to paitn ther husband as a monster to support keeping her feeding tube in and I cannot be persuaded on that point. I canot be convinced that Terry’s brain will regneerate. I know better. My doubts in this case all center on whether or not given the likelhood that she will never recover ( I do not totaly rule out any type of improvemetn becaue I do not know what the future holds in terms of medical advances), and her lack of awareness would God want us to keep her alive? What are the parameters to our measurement of the sanctity of life? How “unaware” does a person have to be before we should consider that person gone? These are the issues I stuggle with. I will admit to you that I have been primarily influenced by what I would want my husband to do if I fell into such a state-let me go. However, becaue I recognize the bias, I remain open to persuasion.

    Comment by Carol — 2/27/2005 @ 7:43 am

---

11. Are Greer Bush & Schiavo above the law?
    Terri is on a single gastric feeding tube. She is on the feeding tube because Michael ordered it. She used to eat soft foods from a spoon until Michael put a stop to it.

    Trackback by Cao's Blog — 2/27/2005 @ 9:22 am

---

12. If you’ve seen these videos you know that Terri is far from being like Karen Ann Quinlan was–she is not in a coma, and she is not curled up in a fetal position waiting to die or hooked up to equipment. She breathes on her own, and the only thing that is keeping her alive is food. Just the same as what’s keeping you and me alive. So if it’s acceptable in your world, Carol, to kill someone like that because as the communists believe, you deserve to die when you no longer hold value to society, (what that “value” is based on, I have no idea) then I’d like to know who would decide who should die, and what that criteria should be.

    In nazi Germany, the Third Reich practiced euthanasia on mental patients. By the end of 1939, four men, in the presence of a group of physicians and a chemist, were deliberately killed with carbon monoxide. They were not even criminals or troublemakers. They were cooperative and confident. They were ordinary patients in a Public psychiatric hospital, responsible for their welfare. This “successful” experience led to the installation of gas chambers in many psychiatric hospitals (Grafeneck, Brandenburg, Hartheim, Sonnenstein, Hadamar, Bernburg). An important number of hospitals and psychiatric institutions, professors of psychiatry, hospitals’ directors and staff were involved in this. Mass elimination became a routine job. They created a specialized transport agency, built ovens in psychiatric hospitals, etc. Those psychiatrists followed on a voluntary basis, the same principle as the one of the famous concentration camp commander Koch: “In my camp there are no ill people. There are the healthy ones and the dead”. However, this operation was hidden under different names : “help to dying patients”, “liberation through death”, “destruction of worthless lives”, “euthanasia”, “charitable action”.

    So it seems to me that Carol is agreeing with this philosophy, tossing away any notion of the sanctity of life. Pretty scarey rhetoric, if you asked me.

    Comment by Cao — 2/27/2005 @ 10:56 am

---

13. No Cao I don’t agree with that philosophy. The mentally ill, the quadrapelegic, those with Down’s syndrome and other severly disabled individuals are distinguisable from Terry in that they have an awareness of life, of themselves. A person in PVS is not in a coma but they do lack awareness. They moan, cry, move because those actions are controlled by the brain stem and are involuntary. They differ from the “locked-in state” because people in a locked in state are aware. Her body is still functioning but is she alive? Does her soul still inhabit her body? These are questions that we must answer because more and more people will find themselves in this situation. Medical science has advance to the point that we are able to preserve people who mere decades ago would have died. We can preserve but not heal. We haven’t made the strides yet to heal. Furthermore, should Terry’s interest be put above her husband’s? Not her parents. Once she married she left her parents. Should her interest be placed ahead of society’s as a whole? Is it moral to expend so many resources on preserving her body when those resources could be spent on preventative medicine such as innoculations or even to provide treatment that would mean the difference between a healthy life for another and death?

    Comment by Carol — 2/27/2005 @ 8:39 pm

---

14. I was under the impression that Terri Schiavo’s cerebral cortex is, well, gone. That would make it difficult for there to be much of a “Terri” in any meaningful sense.

    Comment by Rob — 3/2/2005 @ 4:28 am

---

15. Sarah Green Mele, a speech-language pathologist on the staff of the top rehabilitation facility in the country, declared in a nine-page sworn statement that Terri is definitely not in a persistent vegetative state and that she is trying to talk.

    Comment by Cao — 3/2/2005 @ 4:39 am

---

16. Ms. Mele is a speech pathologist, who did nto examine Terry Shiavo but listened to tapes and reviewed the film clips. She states in her affidavit that the film clips were too close in to make a real determination of Terry’s resposnes and she says that Terry made noises approximating “yeah”. Wehn youread he raffidavit it is painfully obvious that she is nto asserting that Terry has or can talk but that she might be trying. Mele is not qualified as a speech patholosgist to render an opinion as to whether or not Terry is in a persistent vegetative state. It is for all the reasons above that her affidavit was not accorded much deference.

    Comment by Carol — 3/2/2005 @ 8:44 pm

---

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Line and paragraph breaks automatic, website trumps email, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>

Name (required)

Mail (will not be published) (required)

Website