WARNING! Some opinions expressed may offend both "pro-Terri" supporters, and the "Let her die" crew -but

UPDATE: Early Tuesday morning (23 Dec 2003), word came that GAL, Jay Wolfson has been discharged from his position by Chief Pinellas-Pasco Circuit Judge David Demers, of the Florida Sixth Judicial Circuit. NONETHELESS, these analyses can be informative.

1) INTRODUCTORY COMMENTS: The 39-page report by Dr. Jay Wolfson was very long (and his command of the English language was superb, a necessary skill for a lawyer in writing briefs, speaking to the court, news media) -but probably much longer for him to write than for me to read, but he has two advantages: a) He's getting paid to do this - I'm poor, broke, and unemployed, and not getting paid to file my court briefs; b) He will get listened to so long as he doesn't act crazy; I will not get listened to unless I "Win Big in court," or something. This is known as the "Paparazzi Effect," so named after news media agencies who chase celebrity instead of substance, in one case, chasing someone (Princess Diana) quite literally to death. ** The "Paparazzi-Catch 22," phenomenon is related but distinct: The Courts do not respect poor, Pro Se litigants - unless news coverage places pressure on them to be fair, but the news media, under the first phenomenon, does not give coverage unless the "Common Man" or "Average Joe" wins big in court, hence the "catch-22," aspect of this phenomenon.

2) THE LAW IN GENERAL: The GAL is asked by the Governor to address issues of value (worth) and feasibility (good return of worth on your investment), however, the more important principles are -or should be, "what does the law say?" (Example: I admit I am "pro-Terri," but I accept the removal of life-extending procedures in some circumstances, because general law provides for it. ~~~ Conversely, I protest the violations of certain other laws by various parties as outlined in court briefs filed with the courts, plural.)

3) MEDICINE: There is much emphasis by the GAL on swallowing tests and cognitive function. While these are important facts in analyzing the overall situation and coming to terms with, acknowledging, and accepting the truth, whatever it may be, these facts may not - depending on the actual language - be relevant to the controlling state and federal law - as well as case law and constitutional rights at both the state and federal level.

4) CASE LAW: Which precedent is more prevalent in "unknown" cases, such as this one? My recollection of the case law is that generally, the right to life is assumed as the default in most but not all cases of "doubt." Is this true?

5) FINDING OF FACT - FINANCIAL CONFLICT: The GAL states that there is evidence that Michael Schiavo had offered to divest himself of the trust funds (i.e., give away the money so that he would not have a financial conflict of interest). Is this true, and where is the proof one way or the other? *** NEW - This just In: I've been informed that GAL, Dr. Jay Wolfson is correct in part - and omits or leaves out in part: Michael Schiavo is alleged by news reports to have offered to give up all money in re Terri Schiavo, on one condition: She be starved to death via the removal of the feeding tube. The Schindlers rejected his offer. For him to do this indicates that either he really thought she's be better off dead (happier), or maybe he was trying to "silence the witness." (See #6 below for that.) *** PENDING QUESTION: Why did GAL, Wolfson NOT report that Michael Schiavo's "condition" was Terri Schiavo's death in regiving up the monetary claims of big cash money? Was it an oversight? A human error, a mistake? We need to ask GAL Wolfson.

6) FINDING OF FACT - CRIMINAL CONFLICT: Why did the GAL not address the refusal of Michael Schiavo to release the bone scan results of Theresa M. Schindler? (This needs to be addressed, as Michael might have had a "criminal" conflict of interest in attempting to hide evidence of criminal domestic abuse - and possibly (???) silence the witness by pulling her feeding tube.)

LOGIC - Both analyses, #7, and #8: These come to similar -but not exact -Conclusions

7) LOGIC "Pro" - If Theresa Schindelr-Schiavo is conscious, then removal of food and water - be it "regular" or by feeding tube -would inflict a painful death. This would imply that she either should not be starved or -if it is necessary to kill her -be humane in that she is no worse than a death row inmate who is *not* given cruel and unusual punishment, but instead given lethal injection -or a quick and painless electric chair shock/jolt.

8) LOGIC "Con" - If Terri is NOT conscious, then allowing her to live would not inflict pain, and where there is not a victim, there is not a crime.

9) LAW: On what legal basis is there for a recommendation to lift the "feeding tube" stay by the Governor -even, assuming arguendo that Terri can not eat orally and does not have cognitive (thinking) abilities?

10) CASES: Is it -or is it not -true that many people can not eat food in a standard way and yet are kept alive with feeding tubes -even against their will?

11) MEDICINE: Is it true or false that many people have been diagnosed as PVS or otherwise lacking cognitive functions and yet recovered later to report that they could both feel and hear while "unconscious?" (Two examples are: (a) Rev. Rus Cooper-Dowda of Clearwater (UUDRE@aol.com) ; and (b) Kate Adamson, a New Zealand-native and 33-year-old mother of two; Both of the which report that they were conscious but were described as being PVS or similar.) (c) There are many more cases, only a few of which are listed below in the "extra case" section.

12) MEDICINE: (1) Are there even a few cases -like Dr. Stephen Hawking -who appear "non-cognitive" without a writing board or personal computer? *** (2) Also, if there is doubt in #11 or #12, here, would it still be appropriate to run the risk of terminating the person in question. *** (3) Were these points not mentioned in the GAL Report, as I recall, and, if so, why?

EXTRA: Cases: * “After a car accident in 1984, he [Terry Wallis] was in a coma for three months. He had brain stem injuries, was semiconscious and paralyzed below the neck. In June 2003, after 18 years, he woke up. His first words were ‘Mom. Pepsi. Milk.’ As of August, he was in rehab and was being evaluated to see how much cognitive ability he can recover.” (USA Today, “Cases through the years,” Source: News reports, USA TODAY research, Thursday, October 23, 2003, Page 6D, “Health & behavior,” Life, SECTION D)

* In 1983, a car accident left Nancy Cruzan unconscious but able to breath on her own. In 1990, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Nancy Cruzan had a right to die, and, after a Missouri court ruled that this was Cruzan’s wish, only her feeding tube, not regular food and water removed, which hints again that the Florida Courts overstepped their legal boundaries - in contrast to the Terri Schiavo being deprived regular food and water, beyond the court-ordered removal of her feeding tube: Lack of food and water, since it would prove fatal, constituted euthanasia AKA mercy killing, thus would be illegal according to Florida Law. (Info for Cruzan taken USA Today article cited above)

* “Cancer patient Yolanda Blake was hospitalized last November 30 after experiencing severe bleeding. Despite the insistence of her sister and of the friend who held her power of attorney, the hospital refused to leave in a feeding tube or a catheter, and on December 14 the county judge ruled in the hospital’s favor that Blake should be allowed to ‘die with dignity.’ On December 15 Blake woke up. When asked if she wanted to live, she responded, ‘Of course I do!’” (FreeRepublic.com “A Conservative News Forum,” “The Euthanasia/Abortion Connection” Feminists for Life of America, 2000, By Frederica Mathews Green)

* “Dr. Ronald Cranford, the euthanasia advocate who hopes to help Pete Busalacci take care of Christine when she is brought to Minnesota, had a similar case in 1979. Sgt. David Mack was shot in the line of duty as a policeman, and Cranford diagnosed him as ‘definitely … in a persistent vegetative state … never [to] regain cognitive, sapient functioning … never [to] be aware of his condition.’ Twenty months after the shooting Mack woke up, and eventually regained nearly all of his mental ability. When asked by a reporter how he felt, he spelled out on his letter board, ‘Speechless!’” (Ibid)

* (Dr. Cranford was one of Attorney Felos' experts for the PVS matter in re Terri Schiavo incap. - His track record is called into question, here.)

* 13) MORAL/ETHICAL/RELIGIOUS: Life has value, as evidenced by the fact that no scientist can create a dinosaur (extinct), even by "cheating" with the "top-three" methods -as was done in the cinema movie, "Jurassic Park:" (1) Technology; (2) DNA from Dead Dinosaurs; and, (3) DNA from live frogs. ~~~ So, it seems even *more* impossible (by the mathematical "Transitive Law of Inequality" that life could have gotten here on its own. (I.e., Ability to make life is larger than current technology. Current technology is greater than the void that eventually would have happened, "given enough time." Therefore, the ability to create life is *much* greater than the void of nothingness, implying some sort of creator.) The implication of a creator suggests purpose and worth of life, e.g., "value."

* 14) (Follow-up on #5 above: It's Michael's move)
FINANCIAL: Why does Michael Schiavo not divest himself now of the finances? *** Also, why does the GAL not suggest this to ease any concerns of financial motives? (Michael should keep the 300,000.oo that was awarded to him, personally, but not the "rehab" money, in my objective view - innocent or guilty, we should accord him "pain and suffering" money.)

* 15) PLANNING AHEAD: How much is necessary in re "The Tests?"
Must there be agreement on what to do with feeding tests before performing them -any more than, say, an agreement of what a police officer will do before he answers a 911 call? (No: The cop doesn't know what he will do, yet he responds anyway, and so should we. Wolfson is right in re feeding tests, except that he conditions it upon an agreement with the idea that lack of agreement will delay. FALSE: Lack of agreement will delay the proceedings regardless of whether there is a feeding test -or therapy done -even such therapy goes on for years.) *** The GAL wisely does not address the constitutional challenge of "Terri's Law," as that matter is moot for now.

* 16) LAW: How can the removal of said feeding tube square with State and Federal Law as cited below in Myths & Facts section -even assuming, aruendo that Terri Schiavo is PVS and has not cognitive brain function?

Myth 1) Terri S. is PVS
Fact 1) You can look up the definition of PVS in Florida Statues, 765.101 Definitions.--As used in this chapter:
(12)"Persistent vegetative state" means a permanent and irreversible condition of unconsciousness in which there is:
(a)The absence of voluntary action or cognitive behavior of ANY kind.
(b)An inability to communicate or interact purposefully with the environment. (emphasis added)
Comments: Only a person who is, themselves, "vegetative," can conclude that there is not any cognitive behavior of any kind, but even assuming, arguendo, that I were wrong: You report - let us decide.

Myth 2) Terri does not need rehab
Fact 2) What the LAW say, not what you or I say, is important, here, so all those people that either tell Michael to get on with it -or to "let her die," are both wrong - unless we are lawless thieves:
744.3215 Rights of persons determined incapacitated.-- (1)A person who has been determined to be incapacitated retains the right: (i)To receive necessary services and rehabilitation.
This is a retained right that the guardian can't take away, not like, say, the right to marry - Also, notice that there is NO exception made for PVS people - yet, Terri was illegally denied Rehab - as many nurses have sworn in affidavits. Why did they say this? Was there a motive of some sort, like money? No. Michael Schiavo, on the other hand, has both monetary motive - and also criminal motive: If she can be kept quiet, then she will not testify against him in regards to spousal abuse, which the bone scans have indicated. As well, these items were illegally withheld from discovery in court.

Notwithstanding these state laws, the courts have also awarded a settlement, and other courts - besides violating the above laws by prohibiting rehab - also violated the Doctrines of res judictata and collateral estoppel in that other courts have lawfully decided both the facts and laws in this case, and these newer courts are not allowed to relitigate these issues.

Myths 3 and 4) Removal of food was both legal and court-ordered.
Fact 4 first) You can look at the court documents if you don't believe me - or ask Pat Anderson, who, herself admitted in court papers that the courts had only allowed removal of said feeding tube, not regular food and water. Michael Schiavo illegally ordered this.
Fact 3, then) The law only allows the removal of "life-prolonging procedures," not regular food and water:
765.309 Mercy killing or euthanasia not authorized; suicide distinguished.-- (1)Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to condone, authorize, or approve mercy killing or euthanasia, or to permit any affirmative or deliberate act or omission to end life other than to permit the natural process of dying. (2)The withholding or withdrawal of life-prolonging procedures from a patient in accordance with any provision of this chapter does not, for any purpose, constitute a suicide.

The only exception is given by "life-prolonging procedures," but does this include regular food and water?

765.101 Definitions.--As used in this chapter:
(10)"Life-prolonging procedure" means any medical procedure, treatment, or intervention, including artificially provided sustenance and hydration, which sustains, restores, or supplants a spontaneous vital function. The term does not include the administration of medication or performance of medical procedure, when such medication or procedure is deemed necessary to provide comfort care or to alleviate pain.

LEGAL - Special Note:
(Special Note: Actually, sources tell me that at the time of Schiavo's alleged expression of an aversion to artificial life support, feeding tubes were not included under that definition. That inclusion did not occur until the passage of an amendment to the Florida Statutes in 1999. As you well know, new legal definitions cannot be retroactively applied to prior situations.)

Notice that it doesn't say anything about regular food and water, but if you want further proof, look at federal law:

Finally, In the OASAM Code of Federal Regulations, Part 35: NONDISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF DISABILITY IN STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT SERVICES 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, Section 35.130(e)(2) 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.

(Read that a couple of times, if you don't get it. It thus allows the mandatory rehab and food and water, as well as a few other things, that I've missed.)

Also please note that 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(b) Terri has been in Hospice 3 years. Where are the physician certificates authorizing this?

This violation - in addition to the refusal to release the bone scan for about ten (10) years, illegal denial of "discovery" of evidence in court - indicates that Michael Schiavo was more than likely *not* trying to rehabilitate Terri in experimental therapies, and further that he did indeed have both the financial and criminal (cover-up and witness silencing) motives alleged above.

So, I may just keep this in my records of Cc and contact the State's Attorney's office and the Dept of Adult Services and notify them of possible plans to amend my lawsuit to include them - not just the Woodside Hospice and the City Police - as is already the case. (Yes, I do have legal standing - read the court briefs posted online if you have doubt. My case number in the 6th Circuit Court is: 2003-005071AP - Section 88A.)

Do you think that the State Attorney's office will open up an investigation as I request? Or, instead, do you think that they will brush me off and provoke more Court action to uphold Florida law?

Gordon Wayne Watts

(Editor's note: These are just text versions of the web site addresses - for "real" links, see bottom of page - and, then from the front page, you can navigate to the desired story.)
http://HomeTown.AOL.com/Gww1210/SchiavoPressRelease.html or
http://www.GeoCities.com/Gordon_Watts32313/SchiavoPressRelease.html
www.GeoCities.com/Gordon_Watts & http://HomeTown.AOL.com/Gww1210

Editor-in-Chief, The Register

PRACTICAL CONSIDERATIONS
Even ignoring the moral and legal dilemmas, as a practical matter, the failure of local cops to uphold mercy-killing laws, and the failure of courts to abide by rehab laws - has caused the local police to have to stand guards twenty-four hours a day at Terri’s Hospice, at fifteen dollars per hour, (per cop) or whatever they're paying them now days, that's a LOT of taxpayer mullah, dough, cold cash, taxpayer waste:

If they abided by the laws, then this wouldn't happen. (The courts can not violate or re-write law. This is known as "Legislating from the Bench," and is strictly forbidden by the Separation of Powers clause of the State and US Constitutions. Courts can only find fact, apply law, and write law if the area is not covered - a gray area, but these areas are already law and must be obeyed - unless the judges like to break the law. Of they don't like the law, then they can petition their elected lawmakers to change it. Even I don't like the "feeding tube" law, but I accept it, and the judges should accept the law too, and the media should report on it, or we will, through lack of use, lose our press freedoms of free press, as have other countries, not the least of which is Iraq. Don't ever say: "It could never happen her in the good old USA." Those were the famous last words of other countries.)

RESTATEMENT of #16 Above -to refresh & jog the Memory:
* 16) LAW: How can the removal of said feeding tube square with State and Federal Law as cited above in Myths & Facts section - even assuming, aruendo that Terri Schiavo is PVS and has not cognitive brain function?

This is the last of my questions / comments of Dr. Jay WOLFSON’S report in his capacity as GAL for Theresa Schindler-Schiavo.

Gordon Watts, for The Register

LINKS OF IMPORTANCE:

| HomeTown/AOL Mirror | GeoCities Mirror |

Other Links:

| GeoCities site for Health/Diet Info | Tripod Mirror for Health/Diet Research |