Bedtime for Democracy

T

Timescape

New Member
Messages
8
Re: Bedtime for Democracy

HUTCHINSON, Kan. ? For 20 years, Sarah Scantlin has been mostly oblivious to the world around her ? the victim of a drunken driver who struck her down as she walked to her car. Today, after a remarkable recovery, she can talk again.

Scantlin's father knows she will never fully recover, but her newfound ability to speak and her returning memories have given him his daughter back. For years, she could only blink her eyes ? one blink for "no," two blinks for "yes" ? to respond to questions that no one knew for sure she understood.

"I am astonished how primal communication is. It is a key element of humanity," Jim Scantlin said, blinking back tears.

Sarah Scantlin was an 18-year-old college freshman on Sept. 22, 1984, when she was hit by a drunk driver as she walked to her car after celebrating with friends at a teen club. That week, she had been hired at an upscale clothing store and won a spot on the drill team at Hutchinson Community College.

After two decades of silence, she began talking last month. Doctors are not sure why. On Saturday, Scantlin's parents hosted an open house at her nursing home to introduce her to friends, family members and reporters.

A week ago, her parents got a call from Jennifer Trammell, a licensed nurse at the Golden Plains Health Care Center (search). She asked Betsy Scantlin if she was sitting down, told her someone wanted to talk to her and switched the phone to speaker mode:

"Hi, Mom."

"Sarah, is that you?" her mother asked.

"Yes," came the throaty reply.

"How are you doing?"

"Fine."

"Do you need anything," her mother asked her later.

"More makeup."

"Did she just say more makeup?" the mother asked the nurse.
 
Z

Zoomerz

Member
Messages
218
Re: Bedtime for Democracy

In 1984, when she was 18 years old, Sarah Scantlin, of Hutchinson, Kansas, was walking to her car when she was hit by a drunk driver. Critically injured, she was confined to a bed, and unable to communicate verbally for 20 years, limited to blinking once for \"no\" and twice for \"yes\" to questions.
Click to expand...
The key words here are "blinking once for 'no' and twice for 'yes'. This girl was not in a "Persistent Vegitative State". There is a huge difference.

A miracle that she recovered? Yes, of course. But the fact that nobody (not even the liberals) was questioning whether she should live or not after 20 years is testimony to the difference, if for no other reason.

Why is it that pro-life neocons, normally staunch defenders of the Constitution, are unwilling to review the facts of this case and honor the truth. Rather, they lead with their initial emotional reactions instead, showing themselves to be ignorant, uninformed, and self-centered. There is no point to be made here, on either side. Pro-life advocates are not furthering their cause by making rash statements without investigation. Nor are the liberals making any statements, or advancing any cause in this instance. And the politicians are eating it up, struggling to gain some political advantage.

I will say again, Timescape, (and btw, my statement above is not specifically directed at you), please investigate the truth of this case for yourself before trying to analogize. You will find the facts to be heart-wrenching, but clear.

All; Sorry for the outburst. I am so frustrated listening to uninformed jerks like Michael Savage, who threatens to "lead a group to FLorida" in protest, yadeeya...Going off half-baked without ever having done due dilligence. I know, I know,,,,stop listening to that junk. Just try to listen to everyone so I don't get too polarized....heh....

Z-
 
C

Crosstika

Member
Messages
264
Re: Bedtime for Democracy

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(\"Timescape\")</div>
Why the hell are liberals against the death penalty for murderors and rapists but clamoring for Terri to die? This is crazy.[/b]
Click to expand...



Why do neocons claim to be so for states rights then throw that completely out the window when something like this happens?
 
P

pauli

Junior Member
Messages
141
Re: Bedtime for Democracy

Unfortunately, this is a very sad case. I am providing a link to a recent diagnosis from a neurologist, who has both seen Terri and reviewed the boxes of medical records. His comments come across as credible and consistent to the words of others who have tended to her needs. http://www.nationalreview.com/pdf/Affidavit.pdf

Sorry to most of you who feel differently, but there is a lot of evidence to show that Terri is NOT in a persistent vegitative state. And, if there is any doubt as to the matter, why not reinsert the feeding tube, have the court order for 3 independent neurologists to examine her, give her an MRI - which has not been done yet - and finally put this question to bed.

It seems amazing to me that we jump through twenty different hoops to prevent the premature death of a convicted murderer, but we are so quick and ready to starve an innocent woman to death. And, for those who will argue that it hasn't been a quick process consider that by the time a death row inmate has gone through their appeals, a twenty plus - maybe even thirty - year amount of time will have passed. Terri has had what? 10 years? 15? The facts of this case need to be reviewed again and the affidavits should be taken into consideration. Also, it might be interesting to have Michael Shiavo take the MMPI - a diagnostic tool for measuring psychological disturbance. He comes across to me as a sociopath. We should at least rule out any questions as to his character.
 
S

sosuemetoo

Active Member
Messages
723
Re: Bedtime for Democracy

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(\"pauli\")</div>
It seems amazing to me that we jump through twenty different hoops to prevent the premature death of a convicted murderer, but we are so quick and ready to starve an innocent woman to death. [/b]
Click to expand...

Pauli... I'm so glad you brought this up. The US is looked down upon for the death penalty and the alegations of abuse of prisoners.

I guarantee you that the UN and the world would be breathing down the back of the US if we starved a death row inmate. What about those horrible pictures we've seen in the past of the children starving to death in Somolia and Sudan? Yet, this woman who cannot speak for herself is starving to death. The UN and the world says nothing.
 
Z

Zoomerz

Member
Messages
218
Re: Bedtime for Democracy

Pauli;

It seems amazing to me that we jump through twenty different hoops to prevent the premature death of a convicted murderer, but we are so quick and ready to starve an innocent woman to death.
Click to expand...
Respectfully, do you call 19 adjudications since 1998 "quick"? No individual case in history has received this much attention, or been given more time in the courts in order to reach the most accurate outcome.

If you have read the "reasons" why these affidavit testimonies were not admitted, then you would realize that they WERE considered. Now, I could believe that 1, 2, EVEN 3 judges that heard this case might have had predispositions (I doubt it, but it's possible). But there's no way you can tell me THEY ALL DID.

Have you read the judge's decisions? Even the parents themselves did not call on the 2 nurses' testimonies. Why not? Because their allegations could be proven to be inaccurate (or "Incredible" as one judge put it), that's why. They do nothing to help the parent's case.

I'm not asking anyone to change or be of any certain opinion here. Just please be informed. Read the decisions. Be armed with as much information as possible before having an opinion.

Z-
 
C

Crosstika

Member
Messages
264
Re: Bedtime for Democracy

I can't for some reason open pauli's link, but if it's the "doctor" jeb bush whipped up over night that didn't even examine Terri , I don't know if that's too credible a source, no offense.

I'd have to agree with Zoomerz though, this has been through the courts for years, and basically beaten to death. Terri had the right to refuse medication, and she did. The courts have ruled in favor of that since 98'. I say let the woman rest peacefully and not be a political tool for congress destroy people's rights over anymore.
 
C

Crosstika

Member
Messages
264
Re: Bedtime for Democracy

Here's a message board I found that has a link to a "GAL" report regarding Michael Schiavo's caring for Terri...

Here's part of it..

March 23, 2005
Terri Schiavo's GAL Report

On Oct 31st, 2003, as a result of Florida HB 35-E, the 6th Judicial Circuit appointed a Guardan Ad Litem to represent the interests of Terri Schiavo and to review all the medical and court evidence relating to her case, and upon completion of that review, make a recomendation to Gov. Jeb Bush as to what was best for Mrs. Schiavo.

On December 1st, 2003 Dr. Jay Wolfson, Guardian Ad Litem for Mrs. Schiavo filed his report.

Here are the salient points of the report:

1) On February 25th, 1990 Terri Schiavo suffered a heart attack which resulted in anoxia, the loss of oxygen to her brain. This resulted in permenant loss of brain function and Mrs. Schiavo slipped into a coma.

2) Mrs. Schiavo came out of her coma, but did not recover consciousness. From May to September 1990, Mrs. Schiavo underwent extensive testing, observation and therapy, but never displayed any cognitive function.

3) Mrs. Schiavo was taken home for three weeks, but was returned to professional care because "the family was overwhelmed by Terry's care needs."

4) Jun 18th, 1990. Michael Schiavo is appointed his wife's guardian. Appointment was undisputed by the family.

5) Clinical records show that Mrs. Schiavo was unresponsive to neurological and swallowing tests despite intensive physical therapy.

6) From the report:

Theresa?s husband, Michael Schiavo and her mother, Mary Schindler, were virtual partners in their care of and dedication to Theresa. There is no question but that complete trust, mutual caring, explicit love and a common goal of caring for and rehabilitating Theresa, were the shared intentions of Michael Shiavo and the Schindlers.

7) Mr. Schiavo takes his wife to California for experimental therapy and returns in January of 1991.

8) Mrs. Schiavo receives extensive "aggressive" therapy into 1994.

9) Michael Schiavo files a malpractice suit against his wife's obstetrician and is awarded $750,000 for his wife and $300,000 for himself.

From the report:

The court established a trust fund for Theresa?s financial award, with SouthTrust Bank as the Guardian and an independent trustee. This fund was meticulously managed and accounted for and Michael Schiavo had no control over its use. There is no evidence in the record of the trust administration documents of any mismanagement of Theresa?s estate, and the records on this matter are excellently maintained.

10) After the court award, the Schindlers petition the court to remove Michael Schiavo as guardian. They made allegations that he was not caring for Theresa, and that his behavior was disruptive to Theresa?s treatment and condition.

From the report:

Proceedings concluded that there was no basis for the removal of Michael as Guardian Further, it was determined that he had been very aggressive and attentive in his care of Theresa. His demanding concern for her well being and meticulous care by the nursing home earned him the characterization by the administrator as ?a nursing home administrator?s nightmare?. It is notable that through more than thirteen years after Theresa?s collapse, she has never had a bed sore.

11) At this point, Michael Schiavo, in consultation with his wife's doctors, comes to the conclusion that his wife will never recover. It is decided to not treat a urinary tract infection and to enter a "do not resuscitate" order for his wife. The nursing home questions this order and it is rescinded. Mrs. Schiavo is moved to a new facility.

From the report:

Michael?s decision not to treat was based upon discussions and consultation with Theresa?s doctor, and was predicated on his reasoned belief that there was no longer any hope for Theresa?s recovery. It had taken Michael more than three years to accommodate this reality and he was beginning to accept the idea of allowing Theresa to die naturally rather than remain in the non-cognitive, vegetative state.

12) Before enmity arose between Mr. Schiavo and his in-laws, the Schindlers encouraged him to "get on with his life" and start dating. Mr. Schiavo even introduced women he was dating to his in-laws. All of this was prior to the court award.

13) A Guardian Ad Litem (GAL) was appointed to investigate claims of abuse by the Schindlers. His March 1, 1994 report found no abuse and that Michael Schiavo had been very attentive to his wife. After two years of legal procedures, the action was dismissed with prejudice.

14) Hostilities escalated between the Schindlers and Mr. Schiavo.

15) In 1998 a petition to remove life support is entered and the court appointed a GAL to review the request.

16) On December 20, 1998, the GAL's report is rendered:

His review of the clinical record confirmed that Theresa?s condition was that of a diagnosed persistent vegetative state with no chance of improvement. Mr. Pearse?s investigation concluded that the statements of Mrs. Schindler, Theresa?s mother, indicated that Theresa displayed special responses, mostly to her, but that these were not observed or documented.

However, the GAL also brings up questions of financial "conflict of interest". He postulates that Michael Schiavo is more interested in the $700,000 left in the trust account than his wife's well being.

Michael Schiavo counters:

In response to Mr. Pearse?s report, Michael Schiavo filed a Suggestion of Bias against Mr. Pearse. This document notes that Mr. Pearse failed to mention in his report that Michael Schiavo had earlier, formally offered to divest himself entirely of his financial interest in the guardianship estate. The criticism continues to note that Mr. Pearse?s concern about abuse of inheritance potential was directly solely at Michael, not at the Schindlers in the event they might become the heirs and also choose to terminate artificial life support. Further, significant chronological deficits and factual errors are noted, detracting from and prejudicing the objective credibility of Mr. Pearse?s report.

The Suggestion of Bias challenges premises and findings of Mr. Pearse, establishing a well pleaded case for bias.

In February of 1999, Mr. Pearse tendered his petition for additional authority or discharge. He was discharged in June of 1999 and no new Guardian Ad Litem was named.

http://www.thoughtcrimes.org/mt/archives/001986.html
 

Top