. . . 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.
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.”