Entries Tagged 'Conservatorship of Wendland' ↓
May 22nd, 2007 — Blog Carnivals, Conservatorship of Wendland, In "other" Words, Pro-Life Blog Carnival
You're invited to subscribe to the Robert's Legacy RSS feed. Thanks for visiting!
The Cost of the Call (Part Five)
“Until you settle the issue of your own worth, it’s impossible to bring holiness into anyone else’s life. Until you understand that your worth is already determined by the fact of your birth, everything else is an exercise in propping up a dying tree.”
~~ Carol Brazo ~~
Since I first saw the quote for this week’s writing exercise, one of my all-time favorite Bible passages has permeated my thoughts:
Continue reading →
Technorati Tags Conservatorship of Wendland, In "other" Words, Pro-Life Blog Carnival, The Cost of the Call
Related Articles
February 17th, 2007 — Blog Carnivals, Conservatorship of Wendland, Cost of the Call, Pro-Life Blog Carnival
The Cost of the Call (Part Four)
This is the story of yet another aspect of my life upon which the hand of God can be seen. It is also an example of what I talked about in my initial post about my six-year journey litigating
Conservatorship of Wendland: When you are truly
called, you have no choice but to answer.No matter what the cost.
Continue reading →
Technorati Tags Conservatorship of Wendland, Pro-Life Blog Carnival, The Cost of the Call
Related Articles
August 9th, 2006 — Blog Carnivals, Conservatorship of Wendland, Cost of the Call, Pro-Life Blog Carnival, Robert Wendland
The Cost of the Call (Part Three):
Reflections in Conjunction with the Fifth Anniversary of the Wendland Victory
“This is the hardest case.” So said the Third District Court of Appeal on February 24, 2000. It was the very first sentence of its lengthy ruling.
And, in my opinion, that sentence made about as much sense as did the remainder of their decision, which included a remand back to the trial court. In other words, a directive to go try the case again.
I remember reading that part and thinking, “Over my dead body. Literally.”
Continue reading →
Technorati Tags Conservatorship of Wendland, The Cost of the Call
Related Articles
August 8th, 2006 — Blog Carnivals, Conservatorship of Wendland, Cost of the Call, Pro-Life Blog Carnival
The Cost of the Call (Part Two):
Reflections in Conjunction with the Fifth Anniversary of the Wendland Victory
Tomorrow is the fifth anniversary of the California Supreme Court’s decision in Conservatorship of Wendland.So how ironic is it that tonight of all nights I happened to run into the trial court judge, Bob W. McNatt?
I hadn’t seen him for a couple of years and must say that I was genuinely glad to encounter him. I would not describe Judge McNatt as a brilliant jurist, but he is a decent, honorable man who is committed to his work. Throughout the Wendland case, I knew that he was doing his very best to be thorough, accurate, and in compliance with the letter of the law. During the trial, he knew that any ruling he made would be appealed, and I always felt that he did his best to provide the parties with his rationale so that the appellate court would have a decent record to review when making its decision.
Continue reading →
Technorati Tags Conservatorship of Wendland, Pro-Life Blog Carnival, The Cost of the Call
Related Articles
August 6th, 2006 — Blog Carnivals, Conservatorship of Wendland, Cost of the Call, Pro-Life Blog Carnival
The Cost of the Call (Part One):
Reflections in Conjunction with the Fifth Anniversary of the Wendland Victory
“Call” is defined as:
1. To order or request to undertake a particular activity or work; summon. He was called to the priesthood.
2. A claim on a person’s time or life: the call of duty.
3. A strong inner urge or prompting; a vocation: a call to the priesthood.
Among the various definitions I have found for “calling” are:
1. An inner urge or a strong impulse, especially one believed to be divinely inspired to accept the Gospels as truth and Jesus as one’s personal savior.
2. An occupation, profession, or career.
3. The particular occupation for which you are trained.
4. A profession, or as we usually say, a vocation (1 Cor. 7:20). The “hope of your calling” in Ephesians 4:4 is the hope resulting from your being called into the kingdom of God.
People ask me (I may have mentioned this before) if and when I am going to write a book detailing my recollections, advice, and feelings about the six years I spent litigating Conservatorship of Wendland. I have no plans for a book . . . just this blog. To write a book, I would have to focus all my energy on that endeavor to the exclusion of other activities, which would be impossible. It would require an intense emotional and psychological commitment. I would have to really “hunker down” and relive the events that took place in a concentrated, intentional manner over a specific time interval. I’m not ready to do that and don’t know that I ever will be. This blog allows me to comment about bits and pieces, here and there.
The cost was too high.
Continue reading →
Technorati Tags Conservatorship of Wendland, Euthanasia, Pro-Life, Pro-Life Blog Carnival, The Cost of the Call
Related Articles
June 2nd, 2006 — Conservatorship of Wendland, Wesley J. Smith
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.
Continue reading →
Technorati Tags Conservatorship of Wendland, M.D., Ronald Cranford
Related Articles
March 9th, 2006 — Conservatorship of Wendland
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.
In Part Two of this entry, I will talk 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 until now.
Technorati Tags Conservatorship of Wendland
Related Articles
March 2nd, 2006 — Conservatorship of Wendland
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 last Friday 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.
Continue reading →
Technorati Tags Conservatorship of Wendland, Florence Wendland
Related Articles
March 29th, 2005 — Conservatorship of Wendland
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. Continue reading →
Technorati Tags Bioethics, Conservatorship of Wendland, Euthanasia, Ronald Cranford M.D.
Related Articles
March 23rd, 2005 — Conservatorship of Wendland, Robert Wendland
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.
Technorati Tags Conservatorship of Wendland, Florence Wendland
Related Articles
