Entries from February 2006 ↓
February 17th, 2006 — Uncategorized
You're invited to subscribe to the Robert's Legacy RSS feed. Thanks for visiting!
eth·ics (thks)n.
The rules or standards governing the conduct of a person or the conduct of the members of a profession.
bioethics
n : the branch of ethics that studies moral values in the biomedical sciences
Arthur L. Caplan, PhD.
Emanuel & Robert Hart Professor of Bioethics
Chair, Department of Medical Ethics and
Director, Center for Bioethics
University of Pennsylvania
3401 Market St. Suite 320
Philadelphia, PA 19104-3308
You recognize the face, right? He’s what’s commonly known as a “media darling.” Whenever Katie or Matt or Larry or Charlie or Diane (don’t even get me started about Diane Sawyer and her history of interviewing people involved in end of life decision-making cases) or __________ (insert name of some other anchor or commentator) needs a “bioethics” “expert,” there’s good ol’ Art, opining in living color.
He loves to throw, as Pamela J. Hennessy describes them in her editorial below, periodic bioethics jamborees. Trouble is, they’re not usually fair and balanced events at which both sides of an argument are presented.
He’s got another coming up, about which Pamela wrote so brilliantly and accurately.
Art and I have a history. Specifically, way back in 1995 when the Wendland case was just beginning, I needed to find an expert to testify. More to the point, I needed, as I learned then, a “bioethicist.” I had never heard of such a person. Neither, at that point in time, had most of the country. But in the aftermath of Wendland and Schiavo, we’re all a lot smarter and some of us have stories to tell about our dealings with the pack of folks in this country who have labeled themselves “bioethicists,” most notably among them, Art.
I was referred to Art by my pastor at the time, a fellow who had recently come to Lodi from a large church in Minnesota where, being smarter than most Americans were back then, he had organized and hosted a symposium at which Art had spoken. He had really impressed my pastor who was kind enough to make introductions, etc.
So I had a number of lengthy discussions with Art about the case, Robert Wendland’s condition, prognosis, my clients’ positions on various issues, and, most importantly, my legal strategies and how his testimony would be an intricate part of them.
After considering all of the above, Art agreed to testify as an expert on my clients’ behalf.
Let me elaborate: Art agreed to testify for the folks who were trying to prevent a disabled person, who was not in a persistent vegetative or comatose state, or terminally ill, but had prepared no written advance directive prior to becoming incapacitated, from being dehydrated.
Somewhere in a box, piled in a stack of more boxes than I want to actually count, all of which are sitting in my garage, is my file on Art with my notes from our conversations.
And in that file is a first-class plane ticket bearing Art Caplan’s name that he never actually used. It is the ticket he insisted I purchase for him in exchange for him providing his testimony: A seat on a red-eye flight in first class from Philadelphia to San Francisco that cost $1,800. I remember it distinctly because I recall the fit the managing partner at my then-law firm threw over the cost. Art wanted no expert witness fee — he agreed to testify free of charge — but demanded that he fly out to California on a red-eye flight in a first class seat so that he could sleep comfortably en route, arrive early on the morning he was to testify, and go back home that night the same way.
The initial trial date was moved up. Art never came to California. The ticket stayed in my file. And we kept talking periodically about strategy, what the substance of Art’s testimony would eventually be, etc.
The trial was, in fact, postponed many times before finally commencing in October 1997.
Somewhere along the line (I can’t remember exactly when without heading out to the garage and digging through all those boxes to find my file with my notes in it which I’m not about to do), I called Art to notify him of the newest trial date and advise that it would be time for him to use that plane ticket.
And it was then that he informed me that he was no longer willing to testify.
I will never forget that telephone conversation. Why? Because that’s the very first time I ever heard the name “Ron Cranford.” I had never heard of “Dr. Death” before. And I distinctly remember coming out of my office after talking with Art and telling the other attorneys in my firm about the astounding conversation Art and I had just finished. None of them had ever heard of Cranford before, either, but they were all shocked by Art’s conduct.
You see, Art informed me that he had spoken to Cranford, found out that Cranford was going to testify on befalf of Rose Wendland in her quest to bring about Robert’s death, and, in light of his discussions with Cranford, he decided he could no longer serve as my expert witness.
Now there are a few things that you need to know about America’s “bioethicists,” if you don’t already: They travel in a pack like a bunch of wolves and nobody who wants to remain in good standing steps out of or away from the pack to challenge, contradict, or disagree with the leader, Ron Cranford.
So I set out on a quest to find a new expert witness. And every time I got on the phone to speak with another “bioethicist” to discuss the possibility of him/her testifying on my clients’ behalf, I got the same story, which I paraphrase here: “Oh, I know all about the case. I’ve already talked to Caplan [or Cranford or the last "bioethicist" I spoke with] and I could not testify for your clients because I agree with Caplan [or Cranford or the last "bioethicist" I spoke with] that Robert Wendland should not be kept alive in his debilitated state . . .” blah, blah, blah. So the answer was always the same: “Sorry.”
I lost count of the number of these purported experts I spoke with . . . I think at some point I was up to 35 before I just quit counting and eventually gave up looking for a witness altogether. And the number of hours I spent in this endeavor? Fuhget about it. I don’t even want to think about that or the frustration level.
But that’s not the end of the story.
I was blindsided one day during trial when the other side attempted to put on expert testimony during which the witness invoked Art Caplan’s name. Experts are asked to give their opinion and reveal the sources they rely upon as the basis for that opinion. When I was writing this entry the other night, I was trying to remember definitively which witness tried to invoke Art’s name without having to go digging through those boxes in the garage for the trial transcripts.
But my good friend, Wesley J. Smith, reminded me today that it was none other than Ron Cranford. I don’t know how I could have forgotten that! (Chalk it up to a “senior moment,” I guess.) But Wesley recalls being in the courtroom when the incident occurred — and how “furious” I was. (That part I recalled without being reminded.)
One of the primary bases for his testimony that Cranford attempted to invoke was his discussions with none other than Art Caplan! I know that Wesley’s recollection is accurate because I distinctly remember Cranford insisting that Art had never agreed to testify, and I was absoutely livvid that I was being called a liar!
Key was the fact that those discussions took place well after Art and I had spoken at length on a number of occasions. Therefore, all conversations I had with Art were protected and no other expert witness was entitled to rely upon any information obtained from Art which could be traced back to Art’s conversations with me.
To do so would constitute an ethical breach.
Even more astonishing was the fact that Art denied ever having agreed to testify on behalf of my clients.
Fortunately, Judge Bob W. McNatt knew me well enough to know that my representations to the court could be counted on because I had never mislead him or misstated the facts on any occasion in the past. He believed me when I asserted, as an officer of the court, that Art Caplan had agreed to testify as an expert for my clients — and I had that plane ticket to prove it. And he correctly barred Cranford from testifying any further on that point.
Ultimately, the trial went forward and my clients won. I guess I could just gloat here about the fact that not only did they win, that victory was secured without the necessity of my ever making an opening statement or calling a single witness to the stand, so, as it turned out, we didn’t need Art or any other “bioethicist’s” testimony, anyway.
But I think the victory is actually the least interesting part of the story. The details of how it was achieved — and the obstacles overcome along the way — are far more interesting.
And if you are thinking of attending any conferences, seminars, symposiums or similar “jamborees” put on by America’s “bioethicists,” you might want to review those definitions again before forking over your enrollment fee.
Technorati Tags Bioethics, Euthanasia
Related Articles
February 15th, 2006 — Uncategorized
When I first heard about Art Caplan’s latest little get-together (see below), I e-mailed him to chide him about the glaring lack of balance in the line-up of speakers:
“Looks like another lopsided symposium.
I find it intriguing that you guys never invite members of the ‘enemy camp.’ I mean, c’mon, you could at least invite Wesley, Rita, one of the Schindlers’ attorneys or SOMEBODY who doesn’t have the same cookie-cutter thoughts as the members of your posse!!
Or is that just too threatening?”
Looks like I hit a major nerve or maybe he had already heard about Pamela’s brilliant editorial because here is his testy response:
“The moderator for the first day is a right wing conservative talk show host, michael [sic] smerconish [sic] who substitutes frequently for Bill O’Reilly on Fox.
David Andrusko will be here who is the editor of the national right to life newsletter.
I have an invitation out to the Cardinal from the Philly archdiocese.
And I have someone coming from a disability group who has real issues with terminating tx from persons with disabilities (although not PVS). And I have asked Rick Santorum to come as well.
That is enough ‘balance’ for me. I have seen what the symposia are that the Schindlers and folks like Randall Terry participate in and there ain’t a shred of balance in evidence in those events. I think this meeting will be just fine. And so far from the pre-enrollments are bearing me out. [sic]“
Notes to Art:
* Just because a person is a Catholic — even a Cardinal — doesn’t mean that they aren’t going to share your group-think. Did you miss the fact that FOUR Catholic hospital organizations sided with Rose Wendland and filed amicus curiae briefs in her favor in the Wendland case? Are you not aware that Father Frank Pavone was a lone voice heard from the Catholic Chuch in his support of the Schindlers? Their own priest would not support them. The same cold shoulder was turned by Stephen E. Blaire, Bishop of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Stockton.
* The fact that you have invited a person “from a disability group . . . [who] has real issues with terminating tx from persons with disabilities (although not PVS)” doesn’t get you any points. In fact, that sentence scares me more than I can quantify. If you really want to hear from a representative of the disability rights folks and have an intelligent debate, start by issuing an invitation to Diane Coleman of Not Dead Yet.
* Rick Santorum? I thought you were in search of credibility. Read this.
* Michael A. Smerconish is a lawyer. Has he ever litigated (successfully or unsuccessfully) a case involving end of life decision-making? Do he have any understanding of the toll that such a case takes on ALL concerned? I know a few lawyers who have — and do. In fact, I know a couple of lawyers who, like me, literally bear physical battle scars. Let me know if you want their numbers. (Ask me sometime about my detached retina — brought on by stress — and the 4 ensuing surgeries.)
* David Andrusko? I am sick to death of people assuming that abortion and end of life decision-making are the same issue so all of us who stand up for the rights of those persons who are incapacitated and require a surrogate decision-maker to act on their behalf are a bunch of, as Cranford had the poor taste to call us during his testimony in Wendland, rabid “right-to-lifers.” Shame on you!
I stand by my words. And Pamela’s.
Technorati Tags Bioethics, Euthanasia
Related Articles
February 15th, 2006 — Uncategorized
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.
Technorati Tags Bioethics, Conservatorship of Wendland, Euthanasia
Related Articles
February 11th, 2006 — Uncategorized
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.
Continue reading →
Technorati Tags Bioethics, Euthanasia
Related Articles
Arthur L. Caplan, PhD.
