Read Online Fighting for Dear Life by David Gibbs - Free Book Online Page B

being recognized as a diagnostic entity. Before 2002, the minimally conscious state had never been formally defined. In addition, the full range of behavioral elements seen in the minimally conscious state was still being characterized. In the wake of these advances, Dr. James P. Kelly offered to reevaluate Terri so that her diagnosis would be based on up-to-date medical knowledge. Dr. Kelly is a highly acclaimed member in the neurology community. He is a diplomat in neurology in the American Board of Psychiatry and Neurology, a fellow of the American Academy of Neurology, on the board of governors for the International Brain Injury Association, and one of the authors of the seminal paper that defined the minimally conscious state. Despite his credentials, authority in the area, and expertise in rendering diagnoses concerning states of consciousness, his offer, as well as those from many other reputable neurologists, was flatly rejected.
    How could the court refuse that offer?
    Why didn’t the media report this?
    We also heard from speech pathologists who said Terri could be taught to swallow and speak using new techniques and advances in treatment. Dr. Jill Joyce, as both a psychotherapist and a speech/language pathologist, spent more than twenty years working with the severely brain-damaged. As with the other doctors who were not permitted by Michael to personally examine Terri, she studied the videotapes and related articles about Terri’s condition. She wrote:
    It is my opinion that Ms. Schiavo would be able to learn how to swallow if given the proper therapy. I have personally treated stroke patients, and other patients with severe brain damage similar to Ms. Schiavo’s that have regained their ability to swallow after being given the proper therapy . . . It is my opinion that Ms. Schiavo . . . would improve with aggressive swallowing therapy.
    When these declarations from medical professionals of this caliber were put before Judge Greer, we asked the court for a reassessment of Terri’s condition. The answer was always the same: No. All we were trying to do was to have the court allow Terri to be reevaluated in 2005 using the advances in medicine that had been made since 2000 and 2002. But we were rebuffed at every turn. I couldn’t understand why there was such a rush to kill Terri.
    I still don’t.
    Even though these compelling statements under oath by the aforementioned doctors and therapists—as well as many others we received—were ignored, I, for one, have had my confidence in the medical profession restored. This is, after all, a litigation-crazy world. The willingness of these doctors to volunteer their time, resources, and expertise for free, and to take the side of Terri against a husband who had already sued and won a medical malpractice suit, was nothing short of a real inspiration for those of us trying to save Terri.
    Why did they do it?
    They believe life is sacred.
    They believe life is worth preserving.
    ENDING LIFE IS NOW
A LEGITIMATE MEDICAL PURPOSE?
    When Florida legislators passed a law in the late 1990s that permitted Michael Schiavo to go to court and ask a judge to discontinue his wife’s food and water, thereby causing her death, a line was crossed that had never been crossed before in America. This legislation declared that use of a ‘‘feeding tube’’ was a form of ‘‘medical treatment,’’ which any person who is terminal or in a persistent vegetative state has a ‘‘right’’ to refuse.
    But the law went even further in Florida.
    If the person who is terminal or in PVS never had a living will or an advanced care directive, and can no longer speak for themselves, the guardian or other family members may go to court and convince a judge that death is what this patient would have wanted. The evidence used to support that claim is evidence that is generally not admissible in court because it is hearsay— no