Piano World Home Page Forums Restricted and Archives The Coffee Room Terri Schiavo: Starving to death as we speak...

I just read his report, and he is clearly biased against Michael Schiavo and convinced that he caused the condition by trying to strangle her to death. (see the other Schiavo thread).

This about the guardian ad litem.

Guardian hasn't forgotten time with Schiavo, and never will
Kansas City Star ^ | Fri, Mar. 18, 2005 |


TAMPA, Fla. - (KRT) - Two dark scenarios haunt Jay Wolfson even now, a year and a half after his brief appointment to be a neutral arbiter, a guardian, an unbiased observer, the one man asked by the state of Florida to stand in Terri Schiavo's shoes.

One is that the severely brain-damaged woman is in a terrible lightless place, aware of nothing but a yawning, endless hopelessness.

The other is that even though he never elicited a response from her, despite all the pleading and cajoling he did at her bedside, that he might have missed some subtle, nearly invisible signs that she was somewhere in there, aware.

"Imagine not having hope and being aware that's all you had was no hope. The horror. It's like not being, but knowing that you're not," said Wolfson recently in his Tampa-area office. "That's one thing. The other is, what if she's knocking on a door somewhere and I was walking through all the wrong corridors and I missed it. What if?"

Wolfson was appointed by a Florida court in the fall of 2003 to be Schiavo's guardian ad litem, or guardian at law, to deduce Schiavo's best interests and represent neither her husband nor her parents but Terri Schiavo herself.

This makes Wolfson one of the very few people to have spent extended time with Schiavo and gauged her level of awareness without having a vested interest at stake.

In the end, after long hours at Schiavo's bedside and after poring over 30,000 pages of legal documents, Wolfson concluded that Schiavo was indeed in a permanent vegetative state.

It wasn't the conclusion he'd hoped to make.

"You want to weigh in on life as opposed to death," Wolfson said. "You want some way to elicit a response."

Wolfson was appointed Schiavo's guardian after the Florida Legislature passed "Terri's Law" in 2003, a move that allowed doctors to reinsert her feeding tube, despite a judge's ruling that it should be removed. The law has since been struck down as unconstitutional.

Wolfson, who has a law degree and a PhD and is a distinguished service professor of public health and medicine at the University of South Florida, was asked to decide whether Schiavo's feeding tube should be removed and whether more tests should be done to assess her ability to swallow.

He scoured 13 years' worth of legal documents and extensively interviewed Schiavo's husband, Michael, and her parents, Bob and Mary Schindler. His time with Schiavo was spent trying to determine whether she was aware of and interactive with the world.

At first, walking into Schiavo's room, he was struck by her presence, even though he knew in advance that she drifted between wakefulness and sleep.

"She's a person, like you or I, and the first disconcerting part is that she's awake," said Wolfson.

When awake, Schiavo's eyes rolled about the room. She made random noises that sounded like groaning or the start of a laugh or cry.

But court documents said Schiavo's cerebral cortex, where reason and emotions are housed, had degenerated to fluid. So Wolfson set about trying to determine whether Schiavo's noises and jerks were merely reflexive or if they indicated something more.

He played Elton John CDs for her, and Bach and Mozart and music from the late 1980s, when she was in her 20s, prior to her collapse. He held her hands, squeezing them, and stroked her hair and face.

He put his face close to hers and tried to make eye contact, pleading desperately, trying to will her into giving him any kind of sign.

"I would beg her, `Please, Terri, help me,'" he said. "You want to believe there's some connection. You hope she's going to sit up and bed and say, `Hey, I'm really here, but don't tell anybody.' Or, `I'm really here, tell everybody!'"

But Schiavo never made eye contact. When Wolfson visited her when her parents were there, she never made eye contact with them either, he said. And for all of Wolfson's pleadings and coaxing, he never got what he most wanted: a sign.

"I felt like there was something distinctive about whoever Terri is," said Wolfson. "But I was not clear that it was there, inside the vessel."

Wolfson was dismayed to learn Friday that Barbara Weller, an attorney for the Schindlers, claimed that Schiavo tried to speak. "Terri does not speak," he said. "To claim otherwise reduces her to a fiction."

One thing Wolfson never doubted was that for all their intense, mutual antagonism, both Michael Schiavo and Terri's parents love and adore her.

She was cared for incredibly well, Wolfson said. Her hair was always combed, and after 15 years of being incapacitated, she never developed a bedsore. In fact, Wolfson said until about seven years ago, Michael Schiavo had Terry's makeup and hair done regularly, and her clothes changed every day - to the point that hospice staff protested that he was being overly demanding about her care.

Also, Wolfson concluded, Schiavo would never have tolerated the enormous, "omnipresent" acrimony between her husband and parents.

In the 38-page report he wrote afterwards, Wolfson said the best decision for Schiavo could be made only if both sides agreed to fresh, independent medical testing. If the new testing showed she couldn't swallow on her own and that Schiavo had no hope for improvement, then the feeding tube should be pulled.

Both parties were on the verge of agreeing to these new conditions, Wolfson said, but once the Florida Supreme Court struck down Terri's Law his efforts were moot.

Wolfson still refuses to give his personal opinion on whether Terri's feeding tube should or should not have been pulled.

But he will say, as a parent of three sons, that after doing everything one can, sometimes the time comes to let go.

"When it evolves beyond that person into issues that are other people's issues or are broader issues, it becomes less objectifiable," said Wolfson. "It's hard to be objective anyway. This is the kind of thing you don't wish on anybody."

Luke'sDad,

Asked *by whom* to do an "independent" review?

If Michael or the parents asked him to do this review, then it wasn't independent, right?

More to the point, the parents had at least one opportunity to designate two doctors to examine Terry. (Michael also appointed two, and the court appointed the fifth one). One of the doctors the parents picked wasn't even a neurologist; he did radiology and something else, IIRC.

The court's decision as a result of those examinations came out in 2000, so it undoubtedly took into account the testimony and examination of this fellow in the late 1990s.

Sounds like there's some quackery surrounding this so-called independent expert.

I believe that he was asked by the court, and I'm sorry, it was 2001, not the late 90's. 1999 was the year he was a Nobel Prize Nominee. I don't know what year it was that he was lauded by the Florida Courts for his work and help with cases involving those with injuries, suffering from strokes, etc.... But I do know that it's happened. A man that has been nominated for a Nobel Prize for his work in Neurology, who has been asked by the court for help and assistance in similar cases and been held up by the courts for his fine work, and this is quackery?

Maybe you're right, but maybe you're wrong. Me? I say give the guy with the knowledge and experience in this field (recognized by the Nobel committee as one of the best ever in Neurology), the benefit of the doubt and let try.

...and after all this hoopla, the feeding tube has yet to be reinserted. She's been without food and water since Friday. Could any of you been happy about going without food and WATER for this long?
...and Congress could have just said, "put that damned feeding tube back in," but no, they left it back up to the courts which do a very good job of stalling. Just another reason for my grave suspicion about the judicial branch.

David, did you read the piece about the GAL and his comments? Given Terri's condition, I would be most grateful to finally have this invasive measure of artificial sustenance of my non-life removed.

"Congress could have just said, 'put that damned feeding tube back in.'"

No, they couldn't. Even this Congress recognized that they did not have Constitutional authority to do that.

Nope, maybe you could post a link, but I have certainly told my kids and everyone in my family never to let what\s happened to this woman ever happen to me.

And I have discussed this case ad nauseum with many people who assure me that:
1) Terri Schiavo is not "gone" as both my wife and mother in law were before they passed.
2) Though they have no written evidence that Terri would like to be living this way, she may want to die and just can't tell anyone. And the rhetorical question, WHO IN THEIR RIGHT MIND WOULD EVER CONSIDER THIS A LIFE THEY WOULD CONSIDER LIVING? And, ARE THEY NOT CONDEMNING THIS POOR WOMAN TO LIVE MOST OF HER LIFE IN THIS STATE? and FOR WHAT GOOD PURPOSE?
3) There does seem to be some evidence that Terri does react with her caregivers and parents. Some think this evidence of a life that's worth preserving even though it's been going on for FIFTEEN YEARS and if that feeding tube is not reinserted this woman will die of natural causes as she would have FIFTEEN YEARS AGO under normal NATURAL conditions.
4) Terri Schiavo's chances of ever regaining more than she has are slim and none.
5) Apparently there WAS or IS some $$$ motivation for Michael Schiavo to remain "married" to Terri and therefore his character may be more open to question, though again having been so close to a similar situation myself I will not judge him.
6) I still maintain that Terri Schiavo's parents are a couple of inhumane sickos who deserve a kind of social defamation reserved for better known sickos and crazies, and believe me, their numbers out there are LEGION!

We could and probably should do a thread on here about people who just wont let go, who believe that miracles are or should be more common than they are, who will not accept physical realities for what they are, etc. I ask you all in all honesty, is this LOVE? Is this an expression of FAITH?

I realize that this involves some judgment calls that may be difficult, but we are seeing here more respect shown to poor dumb animals in their time of need than has been shown to this woman. I heard the groaning tape suggesting that this woman was still alive and conscious. It sounded to me like an anguished cry to LET ME DIE. Meanwhile I heard the father trying to talk to her as if she were still normal. What a sicko! It made me VERY ANGRY.

The link to the guardian ad litem's report is in one of the other threads.

"There does seem to be some evidence that Terri does react with her caregivers and parents."

The guardian ad litem disagrees. He says that they are seeing what they want to see, and that he could not, after extensive attempts, get her to react. He ultimately concluded that her "reactions" and "responses" were random, and not related to the stimuli.

On your analysis, David, I agree entirely.

I hope we all remember this. We are dealing with real human beings here. Neither side is evil; both are acting their sense of compassion and love even if we think they may be misguided.

All of the conspiracy theories, all of the attacks on the characters of either party and especially all of the crass politics are unimportant.

Quirt, could you explain to me why not.

I thought that if the courts were dealing with law (as opposed to Constitutional questions) the Congress could change the law.

Why would this not have been permissible?

And for any of you attorneys....

I also thought that it was unconstitutional for the Congress to adopt a law that is as narrowly focused as this one -- aimed at one individual, as opposed to a class of individuals. Does this not come into play here? If not, why not?

That's funny, yesterday you were describing her parents as sick.

David, I have not read nor located the whole GAL report. It's very long - some 40 pages. Above your post, however, is a piece about the GAL, with recent statements and excerpts from his findings.

I too, couldn't agree more with your conclusions. I nearly posted similar thoughts, but rethought, knowing that anything I might have to interject about faith would fall on deaf ears around here.

I had a legal assistant (I'll call her Sue) who had lost her 21 yo son. He fell off a 20 story building in Singapore while his Naval ship was temporarily docked. THe circumsances surrounding his death were very mysterious, and no one was able to conclude how or why he fell. It had been a year since his death when I hired Sue. My heart ached for her and her loss. But, after watching how she used this death almost as a crutch in her life, I finally became disgusted with her. Sue allowed this to take over her life, to the detriment of her adolscent, living son, her husband and her job.
Hardly a conversation would arise when the lost son didn't become part of it. She made it clear to the younger son that it would have been preferable if he had been the one to die. It was no suprise (to me anyway) when he started skipping school and threatening suicide. She wallowed in drepesssion, and toward the end of her 2 1/2 year stint with me was absent from work more than she was present. It was a difficult decision, but I finally had no choice, but to let her go. I later found out that her problems preceded her son's death; she had huge absenteism problems at a previous job. The death, however, gave her a handy excuse, and one that I was sucked right into up until the end. I wonder about Ms. Schiavo's parents; what sort of void are they filling or lingering guilt they are assuaging. God knows, losing a child would be the absolute pits. If it ever happened to me, God grant me the strength to grieve and to move on.


PS, JB, sick does not equal evil.

How nice, a personal attack. Sure adds to the discussion, JBryan. But then, this seems to be your input more often than not in discussions on here.

Yes, based on information taken from a lengthy and credible report, I agreed with David Burton's characterization of their actions.

Whether they are sick or not does not deny they love their daughter and that they are in great pain. Please do not trivialize what they are going through.

Every day, particularly the democrats. Their party after all, is nothing but a mass of special interest groups, ranging from little blue haired grandma's who have been scared to death over their social security checks (by their own party, I might add) to full blown antiAmerican outfits bent on the destruction of our country.

What personal attack? I am reciting the facts as they are. If you find it attacks you personally then maybe you should look to yourself.

Maybe you should just add something of value to the discussion.

I will happily accept the judgment of others on that account if they are in agreement with you.

How nice, a personal attack. Sure adds to the discussion, JBryan. But then, this seems to be your input more often than not in discussions on here.

I don't see where you can say that was a personal attack, and Jbryan rarely says *anything* that one could take as such.

Maybe you should just add something of value to the discussion.

Maybe he did and you just don't like it. The closest thing I saw to a personal attack was your attempt to paint those who disagree with you as conspiracy theorists. There is plenty of evidence in the public arena to justify the opinion that the husband may have committed a crime.