. . . lose his . . . ahem . . . cookies, so to speak.
I was reminded tonight, as I watched the services for President Gerald Ford and caught a few moments of Ben Stein’s appearance on The O’Reilly Factor, about the evening that I spent with him.
Most people know Ben from “Win Ben Stein’s Money” and “Ferris Bueller’s Day Off.” Lesser known is the fact that Ben worked as a speech writer for Presidents Nixon and Ford, and is a conservative political commentator. He is also a life advocate.
In the July 2006 issue of “California Lawyer,” Gerald Uelmen reviews the work of the California Supreme Court over the past decade under the leadership of Chief Justice Ronald George.
Among the best, i.e., well-reasoned, decisions rendered by the Court during Chief Justice George’s tenure, Professor Uelman recognized Conservatorship of Wendland (2001) 26 Cal.4th 519.
The following comes from the AP:
Injured Man’s Brain Rewires Itself
By MARILYNN MARCHIONE
(July 4) – Doctors have their first proof that a man who was barely conscious for nearly 20 years regained speech and movement because his brain spontaneously rewired itself by growing tiny new nerve connections to replace the ones sheared apart in a car crash.
Terry Wallis, 42, is thought to be the only person in the United States to recover so dramatically so long after a severe brain injury. He still needs help eating and cannot walk, but his speech continues to improve and he can count to 25 without interruption.
Wallis’ sudden recovery happened three years ago at a rehabilitation center in Mountain View, Ark., but doctors said the same cannot be hoped for people in a persistent vegetative state, such as Terri Schiavo, the Florida woman who died last year after a fierce right-to-die court battle. [NOTE: Whether or not Terri was actually PVS was very much disputed and remains unclear.] Nor do they know how to make others with less serious damage, like Wallis, recover.
“Watching Florida” posted a comment in response to my prior entry about the death of Dr. Ronald Cranford that I feel deserves comment, so I am moving it into the body of this blog to assure that readers don’t overlook our exchange.
“Watching Florida” said:
Without a doubt you are a better person than I am, aren’t you. Do you feel better now? I am sure you are referring to my post which I expressed JOY that Cranford was removed from this earth. Cranford was a criminal and should have been tried accordingly and jailed. As a rule, I am not civil to criminals that co conspire to murder. I was flabbergasted at his motive in Terri’s case. Cranford was a brutal man and he was paid a lot of money to say Terri Schiavo did not have person hood which caused her barbaric death. He was paid by the same money that was to be used to rehabilitate her. Knock off the pleasantries about Cranford, you of all people should know better. I knew the State of California sent him and his black bag packing in the Wendland case but I didn’t know who made that happen. It was you and I thank you. Terri Schiavo could have used your expertise, perhaps you could have challenged Cranford when he said Terri was PVS without hope yet he was on tape telling Terri, “Good Girl, you ARE following me”. Cranford deserves nothing but contempt.
Medical expert in Terry Schiavo case dies
Associated Press
MINNEAPOLIS – Neurologist Dr. Ronald Cranford, one of the nation’s leading medical ethicists and right-to-die advocates, died Wednesday at a hospice in Edina, from complications of kidney cancer. He was 65.
Cranford was thrust into the public spotlight by the case of Terry Schiavo, a Florida woman he diagnosed in 2002 as being in an irreversible vegetative state. He defended his diagnosis throughout her husband’s court battle to remove her feeding tube in 2005.
In response to my post about Florence Wendland’s passing, a visitor wrote the following:
While reading about this case I would say that if that were my husband no one would stand in the way of letting me do what I felt was best. Your words over the tears in regards to this case and your beautiful memorial to his mother makes me question just what I would do in a similar situation.
I experienced a lot of amazing reactions from people because of my involvement in the Wendland case and even now — five years later (hard to believe) — still get some amazing responses when people learn of my involvement.
Sometimes the most extreme reactions come from surprising sources. For instance, one of my best friends — a person I have been close to for nearly 30 years — had a very emphatic, visceral reaction to my involvement. She was not supportive, thought I was nuts for representing Florence and her viewpoint, and told me enthusiastically that she would not want to be kept alive under any circumstances if she were in Robert Wendland’s condition.
The good news is that we decided, for the sake of our friendship, to agree to disagree.
At the other end of the spectrum . . . I received telephone calls and e-mails from people I had never heard of who just wanted to express their support for Florence, her family members — and me. I have been greeted warmly by complete strangers who, having read about the case or seen reports on the news, want me to know that they agreed with Florence’s stand and would do the same thing were it their loved one’s life at stake.
My friend’s comment, “if that were my husband no one would stand in the way of letting me do what I felt was best,” is certainly well-intended, but quite naive on a couple of levels.
First, there were a good number of people who felt that Robert Wendland’s wife should have had the right to make medical decisions on behalf of her husband without having those decisions questioned by anyone, including the courts. But our legal system just doesn’t work that way — and for good reason. No one is “above the law,” clothed with unfettered and unquestionable discretion to make decisions about another human being. A person who is appointed by the court to serve as the conservator (guardian) of another individual must understand that his/her actions will be subjected to scrutiny, especially when one word from the conservator could bring about the death of the conservatee (person on whose behalf the conservator is acting).
And a lot of people don’t understand that, under California law, “any interested person,” whether related to the conservatee or not, can ask the court to examine the actions taken by the conservator. Florence Wendland, Robert’s mother, was certainly “interested” in his welfare. So she had every right to challenge Rose Wendland’s assertion that Robert would have wanted to die by having his feeding tube removed.
And therein is the key: The son that Florence knew would never have wanted that. Like Terri’s Schindler-Schiavo’s parents, Bob and Mary, Florence was confident that her son would not want to be dehydrated and that the sparse statements Rose and a couple of other folks attributed to Robert did not rise to the level of informed consent to die in that fashion.
My friend mentioned what the spouse deems best. This is precisely where a lot of people missed the point of the Wendland case, as well as that of Terri Schindler-Schiavo. People told me “the wife should be in control” and “his mother has nothing to say about it,” actually quoting the Bible to me in support of their argument (“a man leaves his mother . . .” and all that). They felt that the spouse’s values and outlook should control the conservatee’s destiny.
But the whole point of a conservatorship is this: The court appoints the person to serve as conservator whom it believes will most likely carry out the wishes of the conservatee, at least to the extent that those wishes are known or can be ascertained.
Stated differently: The focus is on what the incapacitated person (the person who is no longer capable of expressing his/her wishes and making his/her own treatment decisions) would want and what directions that person would give to the healthcare provider(s) if he/she were still capable of expressing him/herself.
What the spouse wants is basically irrelevant.
So, in the Wendland case, as in the Schiavo matter, the focus of the court’s inquiry was this: If Robert could speak for himself, what would he tell the court he wanted to have happen in light of his present circumstances? Figuring that out is sometimes extremely difficult, i.e., when the conservatee has left no advance written directive nor discussed his/her wishes with the persons he/she was closest too. But it is the only important inquiry because, ultimately, it’s not about what the wife, the children, the mother, the father, the siblings or anyone else connected to the incapacitated person wants to see happen to him/her. It is ALL about the incapacitated individual’s wishes, goals, and desires.
Robert Wendland never executed a durable power for healthcare, living will, or any other written document that would have given everyone involved in the case a clear understanding of whether or not he would have wanted to continue living following his traumatic injury in light of the fact that he would never again be a full-bodied person. And the few statements that his wife, children and half-brother attributed to him were, unfortunately, cryptic, at best.
I will write more about the few, brief comments attributed to him, why they could never have been legally sufficient to support bringing about his death, and the evidence of his wishes that the court never heard — and I have never publicly revealed.
A shot of Florence and I immediately following the memorial service for her son, Robert Wendland, in July 2001.That’s what I called my client, Florence Wendland, who died in early 2006 at the age of 83. After all, we spent six years fighting together to prevent her cherished son, Robert, from being dehydrated. And she came to be like a surrogate mother to me.She was an amazing woman, completely devoted to her children, grandchildren, great-grandchildren, nieces, nephews, and friends. She was an example of unconditional love, support, encouragement, and enthusiasm. She never once believed that she would lose her battle to save Robert. She never once let me get discouraged, even though it was my job to keep her spirits up.
The following is from the North Country Gazette, February 13, 2006.
by Pamela F. Hennessy
On April 30 and May 1, 2006, the University of Pennsylvania’s Center for Bioethics will be hosting their 10th annual symposium. Their case study for this year’s gathering has been titled “The Legacy of the Terri Schiavo Case: Why is it so hard to die in America?”
I didn’t realize it was hard to die in America. I always thought it was rather easy. Become fatally injured, suffer a terminal disease, put a gun to your own head and I’m almost entirely certain it’s an easy task to die . . . in America.
Perhaps a more apt legend for this particular exercise would be “Why is it so hard to kill someone in America?”
Certainly, the guest speakers seem to all share the sentiment. What’s just a tad more disturbing is that they know each other.
Kicking off the fun-filled extravaganza and addressing “Personal Experiences with Death and Dying” is none other than self-made widower, Michael Schiavo. I can only imagine Schiavo will spend his time, once again, bemoaning lawmakers who tried to protect the life of his disabled wife, Terri Schiavo, by calling them intruders on a private and family matter.
Schiavo never discloses to the public that it was he who involved the government in 1998 by petitioning the circuit court in Pinellas County, Florida to decide what to do with his wife in her incapacitated state. It’s not to be missed that Schiavo had never — not once — approached his young wife’s parents or siblings, urging that the entire family openly discuss the best course for her, her wishes, her personal feelings on such subjects and what would be most loving and respectful for her.
I understand that Schiavo had a row with Terri’s father years previous. Still, in a case of ending someone’s life, I’d think he would have been man enough to put angry feelings aside and do right by his mate. He didn’t.
I can only hope that someone at that symposium will ask him why not.
Following what will surely be a riveting performance by Schiavo (which I don’t doubt will include him yanking out a hair from his bushy moustache to bring forth a tear) is none other than court-appointed and ‘independent’ guardian ad litem, Jay Wolfson, discussing “Who Should Decide – Surrogates or Families?”
Wolfson’s appearance at such a jamboree is not just a little improper. It’s downright outrageous. Charged with tendering an independent and unbiased report of an incapacitated ward to Florida’s Governor, Jeb Bush, in 2003 should have set forth a path for Wolfson to remain impartial, serving only his incapacitated ward and upholding both the law and practical ethics as they relate to the treatment of people who can no longer speak for themselves.
Instead, it’s become something of a macabre celebrity for the University of South Florida professor. This is not his first speaking engagement standing shoulder-to-shoulder with Schiavo. Earlier this year, the pair were featured in a Minnesota conference of much the same nature.
Wolfson should rethink his career path. Either he is an unbiased presenter of fact to the court or he is yet another out of place seeker of poorly placed praise. Can you imagine having any comfort level with him representing your loved one?
It comes as no surprise that the presentation of “How Should American Society Cope with Death” is given by the man who calls himself “Dr. Humane Death”, Ronald Cranford. [Note to readers: Review my discussion about the real “Dr. Death” — nothing “humane” about it.]
Having been an expert witness in the cases of Nancy Cruzan, Robert Wendland, Terri Schiavo and many more (according to him), Cranford isn’t exactly the picture of a caring and helpful physician. Instead, he has employed himself as a spokesperson for dehydrating and neglecting non-terminally ill patients with severe cognitive and neurological injuries to death. Cranford has opined that Alzheimer’s patients need not be kept alive. Surely, he’s forgotten the Hippocratic Oath, his calling as a physician and the very concepts of medicinal art. Instead, he’s floundered in an odd notoriety as the grim reaper’s unpaid spokesman.
Imagine him treating your child or spouse.
If all of this hasn’t sickened you enough, there is one other name that bears mentioning in this all-star line up of soulless prostitutes: Judge George W. Greer.
Yes, Greer himself will be presenting “Who Should Decide – Courts or Legislators?”
I simply cannot imagine that the embattled Greer would openly promote passage of laws protecting the disabled from people like himself. Imagine him deciding the life of your child.
Words cannot possibly express how utterly distasteful and inappropriate Greer’s presence at such an event is. After all, he is supposed to be an unbiased, fair finder of fact and applicator of the law – not an advocate for the right-to-die movement. His presence at a symposium of this nature casts a very jaundiced eye on his ability to act as an impartial and fair jurist. The thought of him favoring a bioethics conference with a slant on death makes me shake in my shoes for any incapacitated person whose case comes before him.
In a word: this round up of goodfellas is ghastly and worthy of scrutiny.
Say what you want about your own desires and wishes, would you want this to be the crew making decisions for you?
While all of these men were charged – by either law or simple humanitarianism – to act with compassion and kindness to a woman so utterly vulnerable against them, they didn’t. Now – they are hanging together like the cast of a bad movie – taking their bows and spewing their nonsense and no one is asking the first question about the ethics of it.
Expect no less from a ‘bioethics’ symposium. 2-13-06
Pamela F. Hennessy is a marketing and media executive in Florida and has volunteered for the Terri Schindler-Schiavo Foundation (www.terrisfight.org) since November of 2002.
The following is from the North Country Gazette, February 9, 2006:
by Pamela F. Hennessy
Yet another case
Throughout the past few years of being active in the campaign to protect the life and basic rights of Terri Schiavo, I’ve been fortunate enough to meet a number of learned and thoughtful people in and around the disabled community.
Bob and Mary Schindler spoke at Life Legal Defense Foundation’s (“LLDF”) annual dinner on November 12, 2005, in Berkeley. It was my privilege to finally meet them face to face, and have a little time to visit with them.
The first thing that struck me about the Schindlers is that they appeared to be utterly exhausted — physically, mentally, emotionally. Since Terri’s death last March, they have been traveling around the country speaking about the case, her death, and doing their best to educate families about the dangers they could face if a loved one becomes incapacitated. As I looked into their eyes and listened to them speak, it seemed incomprehensible to me that either of them could even get out of bed in the morning and concluded that they must be carrying on through a combination of sheer iron will and a deeply-held faith.
The Schindlers were not, until their whole nightmare began when Michael Schiavo decided to end Terri’s life, public people. And that is readily apparent both when you meet them in person and when you hear them speak. They are plainly still uncomfortable with public speaking, with Bob reading a prepared statement as Mary holds and turns the pages for him while standing next to him to support his efforts. He stops periodically to interject, clarify, or emphasize various points. Mary corrects him from time to time. It is obvious that these are just ordinary people who were thrust into a situation they could never have imagined or prepared for and had to do the best they could to deal with it.
I first became aware of Terri, her plight, and her parents’ bravery when my case, Conservatorship of Wendland, was pending here in California. I did a few radio appearances with Bob, most notably on KSFO with Barbara Simpson, “The Babe in the Bunker.” Barbara became interested in and outspoken about both cases. Bob and I corresponded via e-mail and spoke on the telephone. I gave him what little assistance I could offer, given that Terri’s case was unfolding in Florida under a different set of laws and her mental impairment more profound than Robert’s (an important point because, although George Greer, the Florida judge who issued Terri’s death sentence, found her to be in a persistent vegetative state (“pvs”), nobody even dared to suggest that Robert Wendland was pvs), making the Schindlers’ legal battle more daunting.
I don’t remember when I first heard that the Schindlers were coming to the end of their financial rope. I believe I heard it not directly from Bob, but from one of my friends at LLDF, but I am just not sure. I do know that Bob confirmed the fact at some point.
Apparently — I have no recollection of this at all — I advised Bob to contact LLDF to see if that organization could provide some financial assistance or other support with the fight to save Terri. Bob insisted during his remarks at the LLDF dinner that I referred him to that group and, had I not done so, their fight to save Terri, and her life, would have ended much sooner because LLDF did, in fact, assist the Schindlers.
WOW! I just sat there with my mouth hanging open because, as I said, I have no recollection of that conversation.
Moreover, because I don’t remember it, I had no appreciation that I played any part — no matter how small or inconsequential — in the battle for Terri’s life, other than providing moral and prayer support, sending some legal information (briefs, etc. that I filed here in California) to the Schindlers’ counsel on the chance that they might provide some helpful information, and speaking out (for all the good that did since I’m not a celebrity and have no platform) against what happened to Terri.
I have referred many, many people to LLDF over the years, so it would not have been out of character for me to give Bob the same information and advice. In fact, following the conclusion of the Wendland case, I had to change my cell phone number because it was placed on press releases and I was besieged with calls from people wanting me to take on their case, folks who just wanted to give me their opinion about the case (both sides — including a lot of people who just wanted to call me vile names and then hang up), authors hustling their books, etc. I routinely referred prospective clients to LLDF.
Bob’s revelation made me extremely uncomfortable not only because it was unexpected, but also because I was embarassed by my failure to remember the conversation.
You see, to me, it was “just another day.” Just another unremarkable conversation during which I (apparently) found myself giving out LLDF’s telephone number, assuring the caller that Mary Riley, their tireless Administrator and my dear friend, would provide guidance — and then getting back to whatever activity I was engaged in.
But, unbeknownst to me, the discussion was much more than that to Bob, Mary, and the Schindler family.
Again . . . WOW!
How often does this happen to us as we go about living our insanely busy lives? I’ve been thinking a lot about that question since November 12th.
And, more importantly, how often does this happen to us but we never find out about it later? In other words, how many times as we go about the routine of our daily lives do we have a profound impact upon someone else’s life that we never learn about later?
There is, of course, no way to know, no formula by which to compute an estimate. It is and will remain one of those “cosmic mysteries” that baffle and amaze us. But for me, at least, it has been worth pondering and I have found myself — not consistently, of course, because I am crazy busy and am on autopilot more often than I care to admit — trying to be more aware of my actions, my words, and their potential impact on others. That is, of course, the only thing that we can do in the face of our limitations, the uncertainties of life in general, and the fact that we can control our own actions and words, but not others’.