HOME | POLITICS | SPORTS | LIFE | SCI/TECH | OPEDS | HELPFUL TIPS
|
Apr. 2, 2005 Now that Terri Schiavo is about to be laid to rest at last, it is time to lay some of the myths that have sprung up about the case to rest also. A month or two ago I knew nothing of the Terri Schiavo case, and if I listened only to talk radio I still wouldn’t know much. Having been a fan of talk radio since 1994, I am chagrined to find that the hosts aren’t nearly as scrupulous in fact-checking when they are beating on their own favorite drum. First and foremost among the unreliable is Sean Hannity, who drags in “witness” after “witness” with “signed affidavits” relating events which would make one believe that Michael Schiavo is the anti-Christ. Nurses who allegedly heard him call his vegetating wife “a bitch,” nurses who thought he might have injected her with insulin, Terri Schiavo’s brother who keeps insinuating that Michael may have murdered Terri, a psychologist (who has, just coincidentally I’m sure, written a male-bashing book) who claims that the “whirlwind courtship and precipitous marriage” are indications that Michael is a “controlling” man who could well have a violent temper, nurses who claim Michael Schiavo “denied his wife treatment for a urinary infection,” that he denied physical therapy for his wife, etc., etc., ad infinitum, ad nauseam. As with many things, however, it isn’t that difficult to ascertain facts. First, the courts have reviewed some of those “signed affidavits,” all of which are rather carefully constructed so that they can be neither proved nor disproved. I have just signed an affidavit in which I claim that I heard Sean Hannity, in a men’s room at the ODU Convocation Center last year, call his wife a bitch, admit that he had fantasies about Roseanne Barr, and claim that he never, ever admired Ronald Reagan. I’d like to see him disprove any of that. Just kidding, by the way, as I never heard him say any of those things. But I could darn well sign an affidavit saying I did! Has he never known anyone to lie before? Why does he choose to believe only the people on the side he already supports? Second, court records indicate that Michael and Terri had dated for two years and been engaged for one year before they were married. What fact-based psychologist would claim that was a “whirlwind courtship?” Sounds like a rather calm, laid-back courtship to me, not much different from a lot of people. Third, I once was asked to take over as medical director for a nursing home that was having a lot of troubles, had acquired a bad reputation, and was losing business because it had many patients with urine infections, most of which were resistant to multiple antibiotics. The problem, you see, was that both doctors and nurses in the facility thought that antibiotics were the cure for their problems, when they were really the cause. All that was needed was good hygiene, careful care of catheters, avoiding catheters whenever possible, and AVOIDING ANTIBIOTICS! All the antibiotics did in that situation was breed more resistant bacteria. After a few months, the urine infection rate decreased, the resistant bacteria were no longer present, and the nursing home’s reputation rose, and its census grew again. Court testimony, by the way, indicated that Michael Schiavo had medical advice that he should not authorize antibiotic use for his wife’s urine infections. I am merely presenting one explanation as to why that advice might have been excellent and why Michael Schiavo’s refusal to allow antibiotics might have been the correct decision. Fourth, regarding his “denial of physical therapy,” the court records indicate that he was remarkably solicitous of Terri and extremely zealous in his attempts to provide excellent care for his wife, on one occasion having her transported to California for some supposedly new and useful therapies not available elsewhere. Fifth, regarding the “murder” accusations, the “broken bones” accusations, etc., one only has to note the medical records from Terri’s admission to the hospital. She had a potassium level of 2, only half what it should be, and a potassium level that low quite commonly causes cardiac arrhythmias, and some of these arrhythmias stop the flow of blood altogether and cause collapse and brain damage if the patient is not given good CPR immediately. Also, one notes that there was absolutely no mention of bruises anywhere on the body, including around the neck or in other areas where the Schindlers and their attorneys repeatedly claim that there were fractures. Does anyone out there have any idea what force is required to produce the number and types of fractures that were supposedly found? How about being run over by a truck? How about falling from a 10 story building? Perhaps an hour’s beating at the hands of a few Mafia goons with baseball bats? Let’s get real! There is absolutely no way that the fractures claimed could exist without quite blatant and obvious evidence of massive trauma. And sixth and last, I am chagrined that pseudo-conservatives are now decrying Judge Greer’s decision in this case as an example of judicial activism. Reading the court records, from Judge Greer to the Florida Supreme Court, one is struck at how closely and narrowly and accurately Judge Greer followed Florida law. One specific example is in his applying three specific tests required by the Florida Supreme Court in prior cases to establish the legality of Michael Schiavo’s being awarded guardianship. Judge Greer didn’t legislate from the bench. He didn’t ignore Florida law, and he didn’t change Florida law. He FOLLOWED FLORIDA LAW EXACTLY! I note that elsewhere on this board, a writer I respect has said that Judge Greer’s other cases have been fraught with error. Perhaps so. I don’t know and as it regards the Terri Schiavo case, I don’t care! It is this case we are discussing, and in this case, Judge Greer was not an activist. He was a carefully conservative judge, following the law, and his decisions and logic were upheld innumerable times. He decided the case correctly. It is ironic that a case where there was no judicial activism incites the rage of those who have good reason elsewhere to decry and combat judicial activism. But using this case as an example undermines their credibility. In order to believe all the things they claim about this case, conservatives have to believe in a massive conspiracy involving Michael Schiavo, his family, nurses, doctors, nursing home administrators, multiple courts and judges—a conspiracy much more involved than Hillary Clinton’s “vast right wing conspiracy” that targeted her husband for his lying under oath. Finally, I note that the testimony of some of the Schindler witnesses were fraught with inconsistencies, hemming and hawing and other evidence of fabrication, and this leads me to believe that the Schindlers and their witnesses were quite willing to simply lie under oath in order to achieve their goal. In fact, under oath, Mr. Schindler admitted he would lie under oath. It is probably owing to Judge Greer’s compassion for a grieving family that he didn’t bring them up on charges of perjury. This case has brought together a strange conglomeration of anti-abortion activists, advocates of a Christian theocracy, advocates of violence against abortion clinic workers, anti-euthanasia activists, male-bashing feminists, Catholic and other clergy, and most strangely, conservatives who should have done more investigation before they hopped on the bandwagon. Perhaps with the passage of time, the latter can take a big breath, step back a few paces, gather more facts than they have so far shown an inclination to do, and try to apply logic rather than emotion. ------------ About the author Brooks A. Mick: 63-yr-old physician, still practicing medicine but retired from the US Army. Write just for the fun of it, but working on novel in the vein of Tom Clancy's politico-military genre. Email: brooks15@cox.net ------------ All articles are EXCLUSIVE to Useless-Knowledge.com and are not allowed to be posted on other websites. ARTICLE THIEVES WILL BE PROSECUTED! |
||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
