. . . 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.
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.
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.
Today it was my extreme pleasure to be reunited with my client, Florence Wendland, as we sat down together in her Stockton living room to be interviewed by KGO-TV Channel 7 in San Francisco. I hadn’t seen Florence, whom I call, simply, “Mom,” for awhile and I am happy to report that she looks and is feeling well at the age of 82.
Watching the suffering of Bob and Mary Schindler on the news these past few days has been very difficult for Florence. Although Robert Wendland never died by dehydration and starvation, he died nonetheless, with Florence at his bedside, approximately 3 weeks before the California Supreme Court issued its ruling in Florence’s favor. So when Florence sees Mary Schindler on newscasts pleading for her daughter’s life, the memories of watching her eldest child die come flooding back to Florence.
When Robert was residing at Lodi Memorial Hospital-West, Florence spent at least 3 days per week with him. Unable to drive, she would ride the county-operated bus approximately 20 miles or so from Stockton to Lodi, arriving in the morning and staying until late afternoon when she would walk back out to the bus stop near the hospital and head home. One Christmas, the hospital staff took up a collection and presented Florence with many dollars worth of bus tokens.
Today she told me that she misses Robert and the days they would spend together, and looks for ways to occupy her time.
Her cozy living room, where I spent many hours over the years, mostly being probed by reporters from around the world, was freshly painted and the furniture rearranged since the last time I visited. But the familiar pictures of Robert were still there, along with several photos of Florence with Robert in his hospital room, smiling as she posed next to him seated in his wheelchair.
Those images are burned into my memory. I used to look at those photos in the wee small hours as I stumbled out of my bed, tripping over the boxes of trial and deposition transcripts, notes, medical records, and all the other documents that were stored in my bedroom. Those boxes of documents seemed to multiply exponentially as the case dragged on. I would look at those photos as I paced the floor planning my next legal maneuver or sat at my desk while my children and husband slept, drafting brief after brief. Those photos revealed Robert’s humanity and the unconditional love his mother felt for him. They inspired me to keep fighting.
Controlling the Images and Access
Peruse the many, many news articles on the Robert’s Legacy website, paying particular attention to the images you see there of Robert. (Read those articles with caution and a great deal of cynicism, however, because I can’t think of even 1 news article that ever presented the facts with total accuracy.) You will realize that, in large measure, you are looking at pictures of a man lying in a hospital bed wearing a hospital gown. The images that the public saw of Robert while his case was pending were within the exclusive control of his wife, Rose, and her advisers because she was his conservator (guardian). Rose always contended that Robert recognized neither her nor their 3 children, did not respond to stimuli or commands, and had no appreciation of his environment.
Bobby Schindler talked today of his frustration with the images of Terri that members of the public have seen. He complained that Michael Schiavo, Terri’s estranged husband, has blocked access to Terri that would allow the public could see that she is not in a vegetative state, but is conscious, interactive, and aware of her surroundings.
Terri has been seen in videos on the Terri’s Fight website which have also been played over and over during every newscast in this country. We did not have the benefit of being able to provide videotape of Robert to the public. The value of videotape cannot be measured or overestimated, which is why I advise families who contact me because their loved one is in danger of being euthanized to immediately get videotape of the patient interacting and responding. It is imperative that such evidence be preserved before any litigation is commenced because once a conservator (guardian) is appointed, that individual will be able to dictate who sees the patient and, more importantly, in what context and setting the patient is seen. From that point on, it may be impossible to obtain video footage that reveals the patient’s true status.
Bob and Mary Schindler told commentator/host Sean Hannity this evening that they were prohibited by Michael Schiavo from seeing Terri for a period of about 5 hours today, for reasons that were not explained to them. The cruelties visited upon them by their estranged son-in-law are inexplicable and inexcusable. They are searched and monitored as they enter the hospice and visit with their dying daughter. An armed police officer stands by Terri’s bedside to make sure that her mother, Mary, doesn’t slip her an ice chip as she slowly dehydrates.
WHAT CRIMES HAVE ANY OF THE SCHINDLERS COMMITTED THAT THEY ARE SUBJECTED TO SUCH TREATMENT?
Yet the stories coming out of Florida have a familiar theme. Rose Wendland was given absolute authority by the San Joaquin County Superior Court to dictate who could and could not visit Robert. For the most part, his mother was allowed to visit, but several other members of his family were not. The list of approved visitors was kept at the hospital’s reception desk and an armed guard was posted in the lobby. I was not allowed to see Robert, even though Rose routinely met with her attorneys in Robert’s hospital room and granted access to reporters and camera crews, conducting interviews at Robert’s bedside. Time and again, reporters related to Florence and I that they had just come from the hospital where they observed and photographed Robert. They would stare incredulously at Florence as she recited Robert’s accomplishments and abilities and look at me as if to say, “Do you know that your client is crazy?” They stated that during their visits with Robert, they did not observe him interacting or responding in any meaningful way. Many times, reporters told me that Robert was asleep the entire time they were in his hospital room.
I independently verified the stories Florence related about her visits with Robert and his capabilities. So at all times during the litigation, I knew that my representations to the court were truthful and accurate, despite the claims made by Florence’s adversaries.
One bioethicist who testified pro bono on Rose’s behalf described spending several hours in Robert’s room discussing the case and Rose’s desire to dictate that Robert’s feeding tube be removed. When I asked her what Robert was doing as that conversation took place, she testified dispassionately that he was curled up in the fetal position in his bed, clearly within earshot as the discussion of bringing about his death took place.
I once went to the hospital to meet with Florence and a reporter. I had no intention of attempting to crash the gate. I simply planned to sit in the public lobby of the hospital and talk quietly with the 2 women over a cup of coffee. But when the hospital administrator discovered us, we were ordered to leave, ostensibly because Rose had specified that I not be permitted in the hospital. (Ironically, I was and am a taxpaying resident of Lodi — a city that only has 1 hospital.) Rather than make a scene, we adjourned to the fireside room of my church and conducted the interview there.
When the case was pending in the California Supreme Court, Florence showed a painting that Robert made during an activity session to the reporter from “Good Morning America.” As a result, demands were made that Florence never show the painting again. In fact, she was pressed to surrender it. If she refused, I was informed that her visits with Robert would be terminated.
Too late. By then, the painting had been shown on national television and posted on websites.
The Wounds Don’t Heal
Florence has had no contact with Rose since the case concluded. Rose and Robert’s 3 children have nothing to do with their grandmother. Florence also told me today that her son, Michael Hofer, who sided with Rose and testified that Robert should die, does not visit her. (Ironically, Mr. Hofer testified that he was a practicing Jehovah’s Witness.) She remains close to her other surviving children and grandchildren.
It is my firm belief that the loss is not Florence’s. Rose, her children, and Michael Hofer and his family are missing the opportunity to have a close and loving relationship with a woman who demonstrated unconditional love, support, and devotion to her child after his life-altering accident. Robert was profoundly disabled following his 1993 car accident. He was never again the same as the night he made the tragic decision to get into his pick-up while legally drunk. It didn’t matter to Florence. Robert was still her child, her baby boy, and she didn’t care that he could no longer speak or run to her. She did not blame Rose for wanting to get on with her life, and encouraged her to allow Robert to live peacefully in the care of Florence and her other children, rather than continue battling to bring about Robert’s death. Florence’s overtures were rebuffed and scoffed at.
Mary Schindler feels the same way about Terri. She, Bob, and their 2 other children have begged Michael Schiavo to let Terri live in peace. He moved on with his life long ago, living since at least 1996 with another woman and fathering two children by her. Like Rose, Michael Schiavo has refused to surrender custody and control of Terri to her family.
Instead, Terri has, at this writing, been without even an ice chip for 6 long days, slipping further and further away from the people who raised her and want to continue lovingly caring for her.
Again, I ask: WHAT CRIMES HAVE ANY OF THE SCHINDLERS COMMITTED THAT THEY ARE SUBJECTED TO SUCH TREATMENT?
I pray that the Supreme Court responds quickly and appropriately to the Schindlers’ final appeal for relief so that Terri can be saved.
“Uncle.”
People have been asking me since the conclusion of Conservatorship of Wendland in August 2001, if I plan to write a book about my experiences — and encouraging me to do so. Until now, I have resisted those suggestions for many, many reasons.
But the events of the past few weeks involving Terri Shiavo and her family have inspired me to begin this blog as an alternative to publishing a book or law review article. This will document my six-year experience litigating the Wendland case and serve as a resource for other attorneys litigating such cases, families who find themselves having to make painful, difficult end-of-life decisions, and members of the public who want to learn more about the issues.
I am also going to reveal information about “the players” in this and other cases. As will become apparent, the culture of death is being promoted in this country by a small group of devoted, determined people whose names appear repeatedly in the case records, media, and “scholarly” analyses of the cases.
All entries in this blog must be read with an understanding that I have distinct opinions and approached my work in the Wendland case from a very specific viewpoint: I believe in the sanctity of all human life and saw my involvement in the case as a matter of faith. My beliefs informed and focused my efforts, on behalf of my clients, to save Robert Wendland from a cruel death by dehydration and starvation.
Welcome to all who visit this blog and I hope that you find the information you find here useful.