Saying No to the Culture of Death

Whilst the Schiavo case has been my focus, I have been learning more and more about how the men and women who are appointed to the judiciary or who are elected to the role, have become less ethical and more biased since the 1960s. It could be that the trend about which I speak was present in earlier years, but there has been a very unwelcome spike in the bias of judges.

Once again the Schiavo case is the catalyst as far as bias and discrimination is concerned. The way in which George Greer behave was definitely not the way of a professional and unbiased judge. In this case the bias concerned:
(a) Greer's attitude to helpless women unable to defend themselves against murderous husbands;
(b) Greer's pro-euthanasia beliefs;
(c) Greer's disregard for the civil rights of another human being.
(d) Greer's illegal action of making himself guardian ad litem over Terri.

As time has gone by since the forced death by starvation and dehydration - a death sentence handed down by an untrained probate judge - we are beginning to see the hidden biases during the height of the fight for Terri's life. I refer, of course to the fact that George Greer chose to speak at a pro-euthanasia conference on this case, and how he ridiculed the Schindler family and their attorneys. I am also talking about the fact that he was talking alongside Jay Wolfson, who was also supposed to be unbiased as a man who was asked to do a report for the governor of Florida. My focus, here is not on Wolfson, who has now compromised himself by freely standing alongside Schiavo, but it is on the way in which the judiciary are thumbing their noses at the whole idea of ethics.

The Schindler family have pointed out that it is not ethical for George Greer to appear at a conference that is so one sided in that it is about being pro-euthanasia. I think that what Bobby Schindler had to say on the subject is correct because his appearance, and his speech proves without a doubt that he did not approach his handling of the Schiavo case without bias with regards to the civil rights of the woman that he sentenced to death.

It is people like George Greer who should be removed from the bench. He is in Pinellas county in Florida, but he is not the only judge who has rubber stamped guardianships that have ended the life of the ward. Such a situation is not satisfactory because the role of any judge is to review what is placed before him or her and to act with justice. When a judge, such as George Greer is presented with information that suggests that the guardian is doing the wrong then, then that judge is obligated via fiduciary duty to remove that guardian and to at least appoint a temporary guardian as a replacement or where there has been a request for relief then that request should be granted.

The problem that people who are placed under guardianship, or conservatorship face, is that once they have been placed in that situation it is difficult to remove the guardian. The Schiavo case has highlighted the difficulty that is faced by so many who are placed in the same unfortunate situation. If one independently examines the evidence that was placed before Greer in the first place, and especially in the case that was presented in 2000, there should have been sufficient evidence to come to the conclusion that Terri should have been handed over to her parents, and that Michael Schiavo should have been removed as guardian. There was evidence of abuse in the intervening years that was ignored by Greer. He ignored the affidavits of people who had worked with Terri that indicated that she was capable of some form of communication. Greer made an error regarding the facts about Karen Ann Quinlan and as a result he dismissed the evidence of a reliable witness. Instead he accepted the coached evidence of Brian and Joan Schiavo who conveniently came forward at a time when there was an indication that Michael Schiavo had screwed up regarding evidence that he had given. The decisions made by Greer in the Schiavo case were unconsionable.

There is another reason that Greer has behaved in an unethical way for his attendance at a conference that includes several of the chief witnesses, that is Dr. Quack Cranford, is a further indication that he had a pro-euthanasia bias. The decision making in this case was so very bad because a lot of facts were ignored. The quack neurosurgeon, Cranford had examined Terri for 45 minutes. That was not enough time to come to any conclusion regarding her condition. On the other hand, another two doctors were ignored by Greer, yet they had spent ten hours with Terri. He also ignored the last of the reports that had in effect negated the evidence of Jay Wolfson.

This form of bias, whether it is George Greer or some other judge, means that the person who is seeking relief from what is a death sentence, is not getting justice. There are judges who do behave ethically, and yes they even recuse themselves when they find themselves getting caught up in a controversy. This happened in the case of Mae MacGourick, and the judge concerned worked for the benefit of Mae, even though Mae died from natural causes, but at least she was not starved and dehydrated to death which is what her granddaughter had sought to do to her. The other case that deserves a mention is that of Scott Thomas. The judge has been acting in the best interests of Scott Thomas and he is to be congratulated for his lack of bias towards the facts that have been placed before him. Scott continues to improve because he was allowed to receive the kind of treatment that was denied to Terri Schiavo. It makes a real difference when the judge is in fact one who acts without bias.

There are many reasons to remove George Greer from the bench. His actions regarding the conduct of guardianships need an urgent review. His pro-euthanasia bias is yet another reason why he should not be acting as a probate judge. He has behaved in an unethical manner and he deserves to be censured and removed from the bench.

As a Catbolic, I am also very familiar with Scripture, and have an understanding of what is really required in the field of ethics. I have pointed out in another post that what passes for ethics for students in university is a far cry from what is really ethical. The Schindler vs. Schiavo case is a classic example of how the civil judicial system in our time is no better than the judicial system that failed the weak within society at the time of Isaiah, and the eventual sacking of Jerusalem by the Babylonians. What is meant by true justice? Listen to the words of the prophet Isaiah and see how they apply to our own time:

"Take your wrong doing out of my sight. Cease to do evil. Learn to do good, search for justice, helped the oppressed, be just to the orphan, plead for the widow" (Isaiah 1:16-17)

Can it be said that a society that turns its back upon those who require a certain form of medical assistance is a just society? I think not. Isaiah continues to speak to us about our own behaviour towards those who are weak within our own community:

"Your princes are rebels, accomplices of thieves. All are greedy for profit and chase after bribes. They show no justice to the orphan, the cause of the widow is never heard." (Isaiah 1: 23-24)

 It may seem odd that I have chosen these Scripture passages in the context of ethics and protecting the weak within our society. However, I have recognized certain parallels between ancient times and our own time. Human nature, being what it is, so very weak and foolish, constantly repeats the same mistakes, and that includes turning away from God. When the brain injured, such as Terri Schiavo, remain unprotected by a judicial system that is supposed to protect all and sundry, then it is time to seek again what God said to the ancient people about turning away from Him. This is why I am writing on this subject by bringing to mind what was said and written by the ancient prophet Isaiah. The judicial system of Florida, and the United States of America is somewhat lacking because the judges are more interested in saving their political future than they are in protecting the rights of the innocent. Judicial activism has brought about a reversal of the civil rights that belong to all.

As an Australian citizen, one might wonder why I am following the situation so closely, and why I am making comments on this particular situation. The reason that I am choosing to go down this path happens to be that I have seen how the Australian court system in recent times has been following its counterpart in the USA rather than sticking to the Westminster judicial system of precedent. This means that judicial activists within the court system here in Australia are also trampling over the rights of Australian citizen by delivering judgements that take away from Australian citizens their real civil rights. This has been the trend since the Roe vs. Wade decision. What we saw after that decision is being repeated again after the successful judicial murder of Terri Schindler-Schiavo.

Terri's murder was permitted because the judicial activists in Florida had an agenda, and Terri became a part of that agenda - to allow for the judicial recognition of euthanasia on demand. Now that these activists have had their first success there are many more cases to follow. Already we await with interest the progress of Scott Thomas, yet another case where there are suspicious circumstances concerning the brain injury that he sustained. His wife wants to transfer him to a hospice where she has already lined up the staff to withdraw his feeding tube. There is a possibility that the wife in this case knows precisely how Scott sustained his head injury and her intentions make it clear that she has ulterior motives - will the judge continue to allow Scott's mother the right to be Scott's guardian? We shall just have to continue to watch this case.

There are other very unhealthy developments in the USA. These developments have come about because of the ageing population and I might add they are a result of Medicare fraud. For example, Florida Suncoast Hospice defrauded Medicare to the tune of over $14,000,000. This fraud occurred during the period in which George Felos was chairman of the board of the hospice. Why is it that Florida Suncoast has not been pursued through the courts to have this money returned to the government? In the meantime, in several states disabled people have to re-apply for necessary equipment, including feeding tubes, and if some civil servant says that the person does not deserve the opportunity to continue with the treatment, then that person is being forced into a situation of being starved and dehydrated to death. What kind of protection does that give to the weakest members of our community?

Imagine being a doctor who works hard to assist her patients as they lay dying from cancer. She is someone who has tried to always do what is right and understands that before God she will be held accountable for her actions. This is how one doctor from New Orleans has presented herself to the world as she told the harrowing story of having to make triage decisions that put many of her patients to death in the aftermath of hurricane Katrina. The doctor's story has been verified by some other witnesses who saw what happened. The patients had to be evacuated and the medical staff claimed that they were concerned about whether or not the patients would survive the evacuation. As a result, on the spot decisions were made concerning the level of morphine given to these patients so that they ended up dead.

This story throws a shadow on the ethics of the medical profession in the USA, and especially New Orleans. The doctor who has spoken under anonymity, appears to have been very upset over being forced to make such life and death decisions. Her statement concerning the fact that she has prayed to God for mercy and understanding is an indication that she had strong feelings about those decisions and especially the ethics of such decision-making.

It is difficult to form an opinion regarding the kind of ethics that were applied in this situation. Hurricane Katrina was a category 4 and that meant that the severity of the storm was extreme. It is doubtful that these particular patients would have survived the storm, and it is probable that their particular suffering would have been heightened if they had to go through the stress of Katrina. The doctor did in fact flee the hospital when the armed looters arrived on the scene.  Even if there was no breach of medical ethics in this situation, one cannot come to the same conclusion on the matter of ethics of the owners of St. Rita's nursing home.

The staff at the hospitals and nursing homes were given adequate warning and time to evacuate their patients. The majority of patients were evacuated without incident. However, when the rescuers arrived at St. Rita's Nursing Home they discovered 34 bodies - patients who had died as a result of Hurricane Katrina. What went wrong? Why did this happen? The patients should have been removed to safety. Well, the answer is quite simple. The owners of the Nursing Home refused to evacuate the patients and they refused the offers of help for their patients. They have been charged with the negligent manslaughter of their patients.

Another 40 bodies have been discovered at one of the New Orleans hospitals. This raises the question as to whether these bodies belong to the people who were put to death by the hospital staff or whether there has been another act of negligence over which the staff at the hospital are culpable. Then there is the case of the obese man who was put to death because the staff considered him to be too fat to evacuate. The doctor in charge of the evacuation used that rather trite phrase of "let him go home to Jesus". Has this doctor acted ethically by making that decision?

There are many questions that need to be raised about how the state of Louisana, and in particular the officials of New Orleans, handled the pre-hurricane scenario. From everything that I have read so far, including the histrionics of the left-wing moonbats, and the more conservative within politics, the person most responsible for what went wrong is the mayor of New Orleans. He made a series of bad decisions, including the refusal of an offer to move people out of New Orleans prior to Katrina touching down. That offer was made by Amtrak and there would have been no cost to the citizens of New Orleans since the train had come to move heavy equipment out of the area and there were plenty of free carriages available for the use of the evacuees. The officials of New Orleans have a lot of explaining to do about why they had not used the school buses to pick up those poor people who were left trapped as the flood waters were rising, and taken them to the Amtrak terminal where they could have been placed upon that train and taken to safety.

Why did the officials in New Orleans turn back the supplies that were being brought in by the Red Cross? Why did FEMA and the officials of New Orleans underestimate the amount of food and water that was required by those who were trapped in the Superdome? What happened to the medical supplies? Why is it that new mothers were not taken to somewhere that was a lot safer than the Superdome prior to Katrina hitting? How many of these new mothers ended up with infections as a result of the situation they were forced to endure?

As I find out more about what has happened in the wake of Katrina I will blog on the issue, hopefully with a focus on the ethics or lack of ethics that prevailed in the two weeks since Katrina touched down and caused so much havoc.

Professor Thomspon had his ethics students do a report card on the Schindler vs. Schiavo class. Typically, the class had to agree with the leanings of Professor Thompson or they would fail the assignment according to his gradings. In meeting their professor's biases, and through their grading of Michael Schiavo's ethics and actions as a B, then every other opposing player as a grade D, this class has exposed some of the major problems that stems from the teaching of ethics at the university level. The class has shown the naivety of the general public at large since they allowed themselves to be totally influenced by the reporting of the mainstream media.

If I was their ethics teacher, based upon the report card grading that the class gave to Michael Schiavo as well as the grading given to the Schindler family and other players in the whole drama, I would have to fail the whole class, and expect them to repeat their course of study. Here are my reasons for grading these students and their teacher with an F:

1. "The students applauded Michael Schiavo's concern for his wife." This statement is significant because it shows in a very precise way, why these students deserve a grade of F, for this particular assignment. These students have failed the test of critical thinking. They failed to carry out an in depth examination of the facts of the case. For example, by applauding the alleged concern that Michael Schiavo had for his wife, they failed to notice that this is a man who has a very abusive personality. They failed to see that for a period of approximately 12 years, after the malpractice lawsuit money was received, that Michael Schiavo suddenly remembered that his wife would "not want to live this way".  As a class they are guilty of not examining the motivation of Michael Schiavo with regards to the attempts to kill Terri by hook or by crook. Here is a short list of the events on public record that they ignored in their analysis:

• the circumstances in which Terri Schindler collapsed are suspicious. Even though there were no outward signs of a violent struggle, that does not mean that something violent did not take place. One possible explanation for Terri's brain being deprived of oxygen is that she received an injury due to lateral vascular restraint on the left side of her body. This would be consistent with the autopsy report that indicated muscle atrophy to the left side of her neck.
• the explanation given by Michael Schiavo and George Felos to the MSM (mainstream media) is that Terri had collapsed due to a heart attack brought on by bulimia - this explanation was never provable since Terri did not exhibit the behaviours of a young woman with bulimia nervosa. There was no evidence in her apartment that pointed to an abuse of laxatives or purgatives (a true sign of bulimimia); neither was there any evidence that Terri was an exercise junkie. The bulk of the evidence happened to be the story given by Michael Schiavo, that she drank gallons of iced tea per day.
• One of Terri's work friends stated that Michael Schiavo had been bullying Terri during the marriage; that there were signs of bruising when she would come to work; and that he went as far as checking the odometer to ensure that Terri was not taking unnecessary trips in the car. This witness testified that Michael had an argument with Terri on the day previous to her collapse because Terri had spent $90 for a hairdo. This evidence should be a red flag regarding what really took place.
• Terri's brother and sister also provided evidence of Michael Schiavo's violent and controlling behaviour.
• Michael Schiavo could not remember how to spell his mother's name. Also he could not remember exactly when he arrived in Florida, or the date of his marriage to Terri.
• Michael Schiavo helped himself to Terri's wedding and engagement rings, melted them down and had them made into jewellery for himself.
• Michael Schiavo had Terri's cats put down, even though the animals were not sick. He then lied by claiming that it was Mary Schindler who had them put down.
• As soon as the malpractice lawsuit was settled, Michael Schiavo had a DNR placed onto Terri's charts; he controlled the visitor list and he refused to allow the Schindlers access to Terri.

At the same time more information is coming to light concerning the lies that have been told by Michael Schiavo to the point that he committed several acts of perjury that have never been investigated. I will not deal with the perjury involving the malpractice lawsuit in this post, but suffice to say that Michael Schiavo lied in order to get the malpractice lawsuit awarded in his favour, so that he could make money off the wife that he in fact hated.

2. The female students in this ethics class claimed that it was ok for Michael Schiavo to have a concubine and for him to have children by that concubine. However, they have failed to address the outright conflict of interest in this kind of behaviour. This particular conflict of interest is such that it casts doubt upon any claims of integrity by Michael Schiavo.  Again the students of this class failed to ascertain the full facts surrounding the actions of Michael Schiavo. The alleged loss of consortium is not an ethical reason for a man to be carrying on an affair with other women within 12 months of his wife sustaining serious head injuries. If anything this behaviour should have been a red flag to these students that there is something wrong in the sudden push to kill Terri once the malpractice lawsuit had been decided.  For this reason, the female students have shown outright naivety when it comes to relationship matters. They have shown that they do not understand the serious nature of the marriage covenant between husband and wife.

3. Professor Thompson has used faulty definitions to distinguish between ethics and religious morals. He has drawn up a false definition of ethics by making what can only be considered as a false distinction between what should be regarded as right and wrong. His definitions are subjective rather than being objective. Thus he has forced the students to apply subjective criteria to their reasoning. In this particular case Professor Thompson must be given the lowest grade possible because he has failed to use proper critical thinking in his own approach to the case. The lack of objectivity has meant that there have been a series of judgmental values that have been applied to those Democrat and Republican politicians who worked together in order to attempt to give Terri her civil rights.

4. The ethics class failed to examine this case in light of the denial of civil rights to a disabled person. They failed to take into consideration that Michael Schiavo could have perjured himself with his testimony. They failed to consider the many attempts made by Michael Schiavo to murder Terri through the denial of necessary treatment for infections. They also failed to take into account the attempt to murder Terri through psychological abuse - that is it is psychological abuse of a patient to deny that person the right to go outside, the right to have stimulating objects in the room and the right to therapy. Then there is the issue of deliberately denying family and friends access to Terri, as well as Michael Schiavo's controlling behaviour in other ways.

The report card exercise has been useful because it points up the failure of what passes for ethics today. These ethics classes are nothing more than a sham since the students are not being taught to give deep analysis to the critical issues. The analysis of Terri's case by this class points up all of the logical flaws of what passes for ethics in such a setting. The class has shown a singular inability to analyse the real situation. Their report card analysis is flawed because of the over reliance upon the mainstream media. It is this reliance upon the MSM that has caused many to misunderstand the Schiavo case, for a lot of people were led to believe that Terri was attached to a machine to help her to breathe etc. when in fact all she required was a feeding tube. The class also fails because of their subjective reasoning regarding Terri's wishes. They failed to understand that no one really knew what Terri would want, and that the alleged clear and convincing evidence was in fact based upon perjury. At least two witnesses stepped forward with information that Michael Schiavo admitted that he did not know what Terri wanted. The judge in the case, George Greer, refused to accept the testimony of those witnesses, an indication of the bias that was being applied in this particular case. One witness, Diane Meyer gave credible evidence that was dismissed, and at the same time, the relatives of Michael Schiavo gave evidence that was lacking in credibility, but was accepted as credible by George Greer. The alleged statement simply did not happen. The manner in which these witnesses were lead to give their evidence is an indication that they were coached by Michael Schiavo's lawyers to make these statements. Also, and this is something that has been missed by many, the testimony over time kept on changing to the point that the "evidence" had a copy cat nature. In other words, the Schiavos did a copy cat of the evidence presented by both Diane Meyer and Mary Schindler. The scenarios were first described by members of Terri's family, and then the Schiavos manufactured their version of the same stories - e.g. who saw the movie about Karen Quinlan with Terri? Was it Diane Meyer, Michael Schiavo or Joan Schiavo? I have seen statements from all three sources, and that should have thrown into doubt the evidence of the Schiavo family.

There are several side issues that also need to be addressed with regards to the failure of this ethics class. I will address these issues in other posts. Needless to say the ethics class fails because they have shown the irrelevance of what passes for ethics in today's society. Their form of ethics is caught up in selfishness and in order to satisfy that selfishness they fail to see why their form of morality can only lead to the continued degeneration of society as a whole.