Ronald Cranford, M.D.
Remember the name if you haven’t previously heard it. My money says you’ll hear it again.
If you have heard of him, it’s probably because you’ve either seen him on television pontificating in recent days about Terri Schiavo’s diagnosis and prognosis, or you’ve read about him in one of the thousands of news articles written about Terri.
Once again, Cranford has advocated for the death of a disabled individual.
Dr. Jay Wolfson, who served for a brief time in late 2003 as Terris Schiavo’s court-appointed legal guardian, was interviewed this week on MSNBC. Dr. Wolfson believes that the evidence adduced at trial about Terri’s wishes was sufficient to support pulling her feeding tube.
Dr. Wolfson got it almost right. But not quite. And, unfortunately, because Dr. Wolfson and so many other people have missed the mark, Terri Schiavo is now close to death.
I do not believe that the available evidence about Terri’s pre-disability wishes justifies bringing about her death. And it is quite possible that the California Supreme Court would not, either.
I successfully litigated the case of Robert Wendland here in California, a case remarkably similar to Terri’s in which Robert’s wife squared off against his mother. However, the California courts did not sanction removing Robert’s feeding tube.
Why? Because the evidence presented by his wife of Robert’s comments about his pre-injury wishes, made in part during arguments over Robert’s drinking problem, was insufficient to support a finding, by clear and convincing evidence, that Robert would have wanted to die by dehydration and starvation.
And that is the point that Dr. Wolfson, along with virtually all of the other commentators I have been listening to for the past week, have totally missed.
It is one thing to say “Oh, I wouldn’t want to be disabled.” It is one thing to say, “I would not want to just lie in a bed all day, unable to [insert the activity you look forward to most each day].” And it is one thing to say, after observing someone on a respirator, asTerri allegedly did, to say, “I don’t want to be like that.”
It is quite something else to say “I wouldn’t want to live ‘like that,'” knowing full well that in order to escape life as a cognitively disabled individual, you might have to die via dehydration and starvation over a period of up to two full weeks.
Robert Wendland allegedly made statements to his wife about not wanting to be left “like that,” meaning in a compromised, disabled condition. He also supposedly said that if he couldn’t be “a husband, father, and provider,” he wouldn’t want to continue living. (In his disabled state, Robert continued, of course, to be all of those things; he “provde[d]” for his family via Workers’ Compensation benefits, among other ways.)
Unfortunately, however, Rose Wendland presented no evidence on the question of whether Robert ever expressed an understanding that not leaving him in a disabled state for an extended period of time might possibly involve death by dehydration and starvation. (And you can ignore those experts who say that it is not painful or grueling because they are, simply, wrong. Even Ronald Cranford, M.D., the real “Dr. Death” in this country — a title he wears proudly — testified in the Wendland trial that Robert’s death by dehydration would be painful. And note news reports from Florida that Terri is receiving morphine.)
In this country, we have laws governing the medical profession. ou cannot undergo the simplest medical procedure unless you give the physicians, hospital, et. al. “informed consent.” Your doctor is obliged to spell out the benefits and risks of surgery to you and provide you an opportunity to ask questions about potential side effects, recovery time, etc.
Why should we require anything less when we contemplate deliberately bringing out the death of a cognitively disabled individual?
The deceptively clear answer is: “We shouldn’t.”
Before a feeding tube is removed and a disabled individual sentenced to die a grueling, prolonged death such as the one that Terri is experiencing even as I write this, there must be evidence presented that the patient in question knew and appreciated that the only way to release them from living in their disabled state might involve such a — as George Felos insists on referring to it – “death process,” and found such an exit from this world acceptable.
Comments that Terri made about removing patients from respirators do not meet the evidentiary hurdle I am describing. Death following the removal of a respirator comes in mere minutes. Terris is in her eleventh day of suffering from dehydration.
Moreover, it can now be told that I had the “smoking gun” in the Wendland case but never got to fire it. My client prevailed in that matter by demonstrating that Rose Wendland and Robert’s court-appointed attorney (who, ironically, advocated for his death) bore the legal burden of producing clear and convincing evidence to support their claims. The courts agreed that they did not sustain that burden and the trial ended without the need for me to make an opening statement, call witnesses or introduce any evidence of any kind.
The evidence I would have presented involved conversations Robert had with his family about feeding tube cases. In particular, he discussed the 1986 California case of Elizabeth Bouvia, a profoundly disabled woman who successfully fought for the right to have her own feeding tube removed. Robert believed that death via removal of a feeding tube was a terrible way to die — and made clear that he would never want to die in that fashion.
In my estimation, those statements would have legally trumped any vague, nondescript comments such as “I wouldn’t want to live ‘like that'” attributed to Robert by his wife and brother.
And that is why Terri Schiavo should not be, at this very moment, dying a cruel and torturous death. The trial court in Florida heard absolutely no evidence that Terri knew, understood, appreciated or consented to the kind of “death process” that has been foisted upon her.
For that reason, I believe that Terri’s father, Bob Schindler, is absolutely correct when he calls her death “judicial homicide.”
I continue to marvel, as I watch the ongoing coverage of the Terri Schiavo debacle and listen to all the folks weighing in with their opinions, at the number of times I hear Michael Schiavo referred to not just as Terri’s “husband,” but as her “devoted,” “loving,” “committed,” and even “faithful” husband.
It boggles my mind, frankly.
It is undisputed that Michael Schiavo moved on with his life after Terri became disabled. He has had at least several relationships with other women and has been living with his current companion, according to Terri’s brother, Bobby Schindler, for 10 years. He has fathered 2 children with that woman.
I’m not suggesting that Michael Schiavo was not free to get on with his life. I think you’d be hard-pressed to find someone who would begrudge him the chance to find love and happiness, and start a family, with someone else. After all, he and Terri were only in their 20’s when she sustained her life-changing injury and whether or not you accept the testimony of the neurologist who claim that she is in a persistent vegetative state (I do not), it is beyond dispute that, even with rehabilitative therapy, she will always be a disabled person.
So had Michael Schiavo divorced Terri, I think few people would have blamed him.
To Rose Wendland’s credit, if she was involved with someone new, she was at least discreet. While Michael and Terri did not have children, Robert and Rose had 3. The youngest, Robby, was just a youngster when Robert was involved in the car accident that left him disabled and his 2 older sisters were teen-agers. Rose was busy, by all accounts, raising the children on her own.
But when the subject of divorce came up during the Wendland case, Rose bristled. She insisted, a la Michael Schiavo, that she was attempting to carry out Robert’s pre-incapacity wishes, even though the California courts found that she did not sustain her burden of establishing that by clear and convincing evidence.
America’s Moral Decline and the Judiciary’s Refusal to Acknowledge It
Like Judge George Greer in Florida, San Joaquin County Superior Court Judge Bob W. McNatt was not interested in my attempts to introduce or elicit evidence that Rose Wendland had conflicts of interest which disqualified her from making decisions about Robert’s medical treatment.
However, as noted above, Rose Wendland’s conflicts pale in comparison to the one glaring conflict of interest that should have been deemed legally sufficient — years ago — by Judge Greer to remove Michael as Terri’s guardian. Michael effectively abandoned his marriage to Terri and the vows he made to her when he began a relationship with another woman.
How anyone can make a straight-faced assertion that Michael Schiavo has been “faithful” to Terri escapes me.
And leaves me pondering just how severely the moral fiber of this country has deteriorated when otherwise rational, intelligent adults can analyze Michael Schiavo’s circumstances and life choices, but still argue that he is Terri’s “husband” and, therefore, entitled to make decisions on her behalf.
Michael Schiavo is Terri’s “husband” only in the very strictest legal sense.
And consider the legal quagmire Judge Greer’s failure to acknowledge Michael’s conflict of interest created for Bob and Mary Schindler, Terri’s loving parents. They petitioned the court, seeking a divorce for Terri, but were blocked.
Why? Because a guardian (in California, the correct term is “conservator”) stands in place and stead of the person who has been adjudicated incompetent to make his/her own decisions. The guardian speaks for the incapacitated individual and is authorized by the court to exercise his/her rights. The guardian’s actions are governed by strict fiduciary duties. In other words, the guardian must be guided by and act at all times in accordance with the best interests of the ward.
Terri Schiavo, were she competent to make her own decisions, would have an absolute right to be divorced from Michael.
But since Michael stands, from a legal perspective, in her shoes and exercises her rights for her on her behalf . . . well, are you seeing the problem? Michael would have to petition the court on behalf of Terri, asking that Terri be divorced from . . . er . . . Michael. That would not be the case had Judge Greer, consistent with his duties, acknowledged and acted upon Michael’s inescapable conflict of interest in this matter by removing him as Terri’s guardian and appointing someone else to serve in that capacity.
Instead, Judge Greer abdicated his duties and responsibilities as the trial court judge when he refused to strip Michael of his status as Terri’s guardian.
I think John Gibson, subbing for Bill O’Reilly on his radio program on Friday, said it best. He noted that if Terri were to experience a miraculous recovery, sit up in her hospital bed and find Michael in her hospital room, along with his two children and their mother, her first questions might well be, in this order, “Who is this woman?” and “Who are these kids?”
Upon learning their identities, her first response would most likely be akin to that of 99.99% of the woman I know: “Get out and take them with you. I want a divorce.” That would certainly be my first reaction and I think any woman who tells you it wouldn’t be hers is being intellectually dishonest.
This is just one of several reasons why, in my opinion, Judge George Greer is not fit to serve as a judge.
And the fact that so many people are willing to overlook Michael Schiavo’s conduct and deem him still fit to bring about Terri Schiavo’s death by dehydration and starvation conclusively, in my opinion, the demonstrates how severely, as a nation, our moral perspective has declined.
Click here to read Wesley J. Smith’s observations.
It’s very clear that, even though Terri’s family continues to hope against hope for a miracle, the courts and Jeb Bush are not going to intervene to save Terri’s life.
Given that sad fact, it is time to pray for one thing: That death comes soon for Terri and her suffering, as well as that of her family, ends.
Terri Schiavo is being murdered. It’s just that simple. Her father, Bob Schindler, is calling what is happening “judicial homicide” and I strongly agree with him.
Putting that aside, however, on behalf of Terri and all who love her, we should all now be praying the ancient Maranatha prayer: “Come soon, Lord.”
The text of Judge Whittemore’s second denial of Bob and Mary Schindler’s request to have their daughter, Terri Schiavo’s, feeding tube reinserted can be read here. (I would post it in its entirety, but it is 11 pages long.)
Note the last paragraph of the ruling:
Finally, the court would be remiss if it did not once again convey its appreciation for the difficulties and heartbreak the parties have endured throughout this lengthy process. The civility with which this delicate matter has been presented by counsel is a credit to their professionalism and dedication to their respective clients, and Terri.
As a lawyer, I understand what motivated Judge Whittemore’s remarks. I’m sure he just wanted the world to know that he recognizes the humanity of this case, even though he was constrained to weigh only the legal considerations.
Note to Judge Whittemore: Nobody ever said it was going to be an easy job.
But from Florida comes a more thorough translation of his ruling. This was forwarded to me by a friend of the author, who wishes to remain anonymous. The person who sent it to me said the author should be identified simply as “my brilliant friend, the smartest lawyer on the planet.”
So, from “the smartest lawyer on the planet,” here is what the Federal District Court really said about the Schiavo matter.
Evidentiary errors are a matter of state law.
Translation: Evidentiary errors which cause the intentional taking of a life are a matter of . . . , um, . . . not my job.
Reasoning: Nope, those pesky evidentiary errors could have been taken care of by the state. They’re killing her, not me, no way, that’s not a federal thingy, nosiree. I only have to be responsible for those good federal evidentiary errors and I’m not gonna have any of those because I’m not taking any evidence. Not now. Not until after she’s dead. Then, all I have to find on my de novo review is that she’s dead. It’s moot. No other evidence, no evidentiary errors. Whew.
www.dictionary.com defines “de novo” this way:
* Over again, anew
* As if for the first time
* From the beginning
* Allowing independent appellate determination of issues (as of fact or law)
* Allowing complete retrial upon new evidence
And, interestingly, the entry for “de novo” includes the following:
“NOTE: A de novo review is an in-depth review. Decisions of federal administrative agencies are generally subject to de novo review in the U.S. District Courts, and some lower state court decisions are subject to de novo review at the next level.”
With that definition in mind, every rational, law-abiding citizen of the United States should be outraged by what is happening in Florida to Terri Schiavo and her family.
As usual, my pal Wesley J. Smith’s said it succinctly and cogently in his blog this morning:
When Congress directed the federal courts to take a fresh look at the Schiavo case, it was to be “de novo,” that is, to relook at the evidence with a fresh eye. Yet, Judge James D. Whittemore looks to have been more of a rubber stamp.
For example, the federal courts were to determine whether the clear and convincing evidence standard had been applied to determining Terri’s desires. Remember, all we have are hearsay statements from Michael, his brother, and his brother’s wife. Also, Michael told conflicting stories to different courts. When he wanted $, he told a
malpractice jury Terri would live a normal lifespan. When he wanted Terri
dead, he said she urged him not to live in her present circumstances.Yet, rather than look at the evidence itself–which is what a de novo review is supposed to do– Judge Whittemore states, “The state judge applied the heightened clear and convincing evidence standard in determining her intentions, as permitted by Cruzan and in accordance with [statute # omitted].”
UNBELIEVABLE. Judge Greer stated he applied the standard so I find he applied the standard. That is not a de novo review! The sense of profound injustice in Schiavo only continues to grow.
Have you heard of Wesley J. Smith? If not, you need to head over to his website and get to know him because doing so will enrich your life.
I didn’t always feel that way about Wesley. In fact, during the first 6 months or so that I knew him, I thought he was insane and destined to be the bane of my existence.
I met him for the first time during the initial hearing in the Wendland case. That was September 11, 1995. The day is burned in my memory because I was in a daze. I had been a lawyer for “about 5 minutes” but there I was involved in a case dealing with life vs. death.
I think I actually spoke to Wesley on the phone a couple of times before I met him that day in Stockton. He was intense. He was in my face. He was wound up, agitated. And he was telling me things I definitely did not want to hear about the culture of death in this country, the players on the other side of the Wendland case, what was motivating them, etc. He was doing so lovingly, but he was very clear: “Janie, you are now awake and you can never go back to sleep again.”
I really haven’t had a good night’s sleep since I met Wesley.
He immediately began writing about the Wendland case & his writing was nothing short of brilliant. His writings contributed to the media’s interest in the case and the dialogue that was taking place. It was nothing compared to the Schiavo controversy, but it was big stuff happening here in the sleepy little village of Lodi. People around here weren’t used to seeing the crew of a nationally broadcast network news show setting up for a live feed from in front of the local hospital.
Before you knew it, Wesley and I were fast friends and we remain so. He became my confidante, mentor, spiritual adviser, and all-purpose cheerleader. When I thought I couldn’t handle the pressure, he convinced me I could. When I was depressed, he cheered me up. When I wanted to really tell people on the other side of the case what I thought of them and their tactics, he talked me out of it. When I ran out of things to say to the media, he told me what to say and how to say it. When I ran out of legal strategies, he suggested yet another. When he couldn’t be present in the courtroom, he prayed with me on my cell phone as I drove to the courthouse. And when he was in the courtroom, it was his face I turned and looked for in the crowd from my chair at the counsel table when I had moments of doubt because I knew he would reassure me.
When Robert Wendland died, he comforted me. And he participated in the modest memorial service we organized in the public park for Robert, delivering the most moving tribute I have ever heard at such an event.
He enlisted cloistered nuns to pray for Robert Wendland and all involved in the case. He wasn’t even Catholic, but he knew how to contact cloistered nuns! I was amazed.
He once told me that he tried to explain our relationship to those nuns, but they didn’t understand his analogy. Turns out they don’t watch movies, so they hadn’t seen “Rocky” and didn’t appreciate his explanation of our relationship: “I’m Mickey and she’s Rocky.”
Wesley has been writing insightfully and brilliantly about Terri Schiavo for years now. Today, he and his friend & co-author, Ralph Nader, issued a call to the Florida Courts, Gov. Bush and Concerned Citizens to Take any Legal Action Available to let Schiavo Live. In their joint statement, they say:
The courts not only are refusing her tube feeding, but have ordered that no attempts be made to provide her water or food by mouth. Terri swallows her own saliva. Spoon feeding is not medical treatment. “This outrageous order proves that the courts are not merely permitting medical treatment to be withheld, it has ordered her to be made dead,” Nader and Smith assert.
The medical and rehabilitation experts are split on whether Terri is in a persistent vegetative state or whether Terri can be improved with therapy. There is only one way to know for sure- permit the therapy. That is the only way to resolve all
doubts.The court is imposing process over justice. After the first trial in this case, much evidence has been produced that should allow for a new trial-which was the point of the hasty federal legislation. If this were a death penalty case, this evidence would demand reconsideration. Yet, an innocent disabled woman is receiving less justice.
The federal and state governments are spending billions on what we are told will become miracle medical cures for people with all sorts of degenerative conditions, including brain damage. If this is so, why not permit Terri’s parents and siblings who want to care for her do so in the hope that such cures are discovered?
Benefits of doubts should be given to life, not hastened death. This case is rife with doubt. Justice demands that Terri be permitted to live.
Thank you, Wesley.
It’s been a long week of little sleep. I’ve been glued to the t.v., waiting to hear the latest developments in the Schiavo matter, listening to the various commentators and, in many instances, yelling back at the t.v. because they are so woefully ignorant about the true facts of the case. All of it causes me — and my client, Florence Wendland (see below) — to relive our days battling for Robert Wendland’s life and reexperience those emotions.
Since last night, when I heard that the Schindlers’ appeal had been lodged with the U.S. Supreme Court, I have had an old song going through my head. Remember “One Voice,” the old Barry Manilow song from about 1978? I haven’t actually heard it in many years, but from somewhere in the dark recesses of my brain it surfaced and I haven’t been able to get it out of my head as I think about Justice Anthony Kennedy who has the power to singlehandedly save Terri Schiavo.
Look at the lyrics:
ONE VOICE
Just One Voice,
Singing in the darkness,
All it takes is One Voice,
Singing so they hear what’s on your mind,
And when you look around you’ll find
There’s more than One Voice,
Singing in the darkness,
Joining with your One Voice,
Each and every note another octave,
Hands are joined and fears unlocked,
If only One Voice would start it on its own,
We need just One Voice facing the unknown,
And that One Voice would never be alone
It takes that One Voice.
My prayer this morning is that Justice Kennedy has the courage, strength and wisdom to be the One Voice that Terri Schiavo needs now.
Last night on one of the news shows, Al Franken was discussing Terri Schiavo. He kept insisting she is “brain dead.” Even after one of the other guests — a physician — corrected him numerous times, explaining the concept of brain death, Franken persisted.
I think Al Franken is brain dead.