Another leech
I'm sure you are all wondering who this extraordinarily successful looking women is. She's the beautiful, but aging, Doctor Carole Lieberman, a psychiatrist with dubious links to the UCLA. She's best described as the medical equivalent to Gloria Allred, another person who has been successful taking "moral" stances in high profile cases.
From her website:
"TERRI SCHIAVO'S HUSBAND
FITS PROFILE OF WIFE ABUSER, PER PSYCHIATRIST
(Los Angeles, California) "As Terri Schiavo starves to death, it is time to alert more lawmakers to the truth: the wrong person is being 'punished' for Terri Schiavo's current state," says Carole Lieberman, M.D. a Board Certified Psychiatrist on the Clinical Faculty of UCLA. Having interviewed Terri's father on her radio show ("Dr. Carole's Couch" on voiceamerica.com), Dr. Lieberman uncovered the fact that Terri's husband, Michael Schiavo, fits the profile of a wife-abuser, the same profile that fit O.J. Simpson and Scott Peterson. At Terri's father's request, Dr. Lieberman put her opinion in writing (see below) so that the family could provide it to their attorneys, Governor Jeb Bush and Florida DCFS, who subsequently have begun investigating the possibility (supported by medical records and witnesses) that Michael Schiavo may well be the one responsible for the collapse that Terri suffered 15 years ago. Even offers of $1 million were not enough for Michael to take the risk of Terri being around to talk'. "Since writing my preliminary opinion, further information has come to light that continues to support this position. Unless this travesty of justice is stopped, the answer will truly lie where the bones are buried," warns Dr. Lieberman."
This is great stuff. How did she arrive at her diagnosis? She spoke to Terri Schiavo's parents. Call me a fascist liberal whiner but isn't it unethical to diagnose a patient without an examination?
posted by mochi at 6:53 AM
13 Comments:
This is the type of trash no one should tolerate. It is a clear cut example of one side losing a battle and subsequently throwing out all the filth they can because they did not get their way. Is it their family that is involved though? I would like to allude to a little something I saw in the craprag known as the Boston Herald. On Saturday, March 26, a headline on the front page read, "Schiavo's parents: Terry spoke!!! pg. 4" So naturally, as one who is intrigued by headline news, I swallowed my pride and opened the Herald, turned to page 4 and there was a little article about Terry in there. The headline and the opening paragraph, however, made no reference to Terry having spoken. In fact, there was not one sentence claiming that Terry spoke. I read the article five more times before confirming what I already knew: the Herald is trash (this was also made clear when they hired, and made a columnist out of known-plagiarist Mike Barnicle). Does there exist journalistic integrity? I understand it is not the Boston Globe, or the LA/NY Times, but are we going to get to hear Bill O'Reilly bitch about that in his "squawking points" segment tonight - how ugly these bombthrowers are? I can only begin to imagine the uproar if the Globe or the Times put on their headline something involving a major current event that would undoubtedly shift people's opinions, only to write nothing about it. These smut-peddlers like the Herald and Dr. Slutbag in the picture on the main page of this sight should be sent to Guantanamo. They are the terrorists.
If there are evolutionists who can tell you what happened 2.5 billion years ago then there are doctors that can examine evidence and come to conclusions with out a physical exam.
Mochi, as a former disability judge I had to make medical determinations based on objective medical tests presented to me. So no, its not unethical to present opinion based on reviewed medical evidence or record. (She isn't diagnosing...she is saying he fits a profile--psychiatrists do this often in criminal, domestic abuse cases, etc.)
Ok, CH, what battle are we talking about? The battle to terminate someone's existence? Were you a part of the fight, were you armed and ready to go off Terri if the government didn't? Geez! :)
She kinda looks like an older Heather Locklear...
Objectively speaking (I'm still on the fence and watching it all like an episode of Law and Order), it would be in interesting turn of events if this is considered to be substantial enough to run with. My questions would be, like Mochi's question "how did she arrive at her diagnosis?", What are the criteria she used? And, was this ever mentioned by anyone during the 15-year duration of this situation? It sounds like an attempt to distract and prolong, so the burden of proof seems to be on the accuser.
Oh, and that "Terri Spoke!" headline - sounds like it came right out of the Weekly World News!
You miss the point entirely Jack, this is not about a doctor offering her medical opinion, this is about scumbags with agendas who cannot let something go and have to bring out all the irrelevant garbage that does not pertain to this case. By battle, I mean the endless argument that we have with one another over such issues.
We know you were a judge and all, but this is not what this Dr. Dumbass is doing. What this clearly is, as Shea said, "It sounds like an attempt to distract and prolong, so the burden of proof seems to be on the accuser." Tragic for her family and all those INVOLVED, and I do feel for her family and for Terry. And I feel bad about the nature of this country's discourse. Anyone who needs to prolong this issue for whatever means they are trying to achieve can go shoebomb themself. Wild Bill O'Reilly is right in one respect, no one here is a winner.
And come on, if Michael had abused Terry, why would this be coming out at this point when she is near dead as opposed to when this story was at its emotional climax? This is such a mess.
As usual, Hertzberg does an excellent job of summing up the events surrounding this case.
New Yorker - March 28, 2005
"Terri Schiavo has become a metaphor in the religio-cultural struggle over abortion. This—along with the advantages of demonizing the judiciary in preparation for the coming battle over Supreme Court nominees—explains the eagerness of Republican politicians to embrace her parents’ cause. Her lack of awareness actually increased her metaphoric usefulness."
"Last weekend, as Good Friday gave way to Holy Saturday and Holy Saturday to Easter Sunday, Florida’s made-for-TV passion play neared its climax. The death of Terri Schiavo’s body will only enhance her symbolic value, elevating her to her destined place as another martyr in this dismal age of martyrs."
I think the more attention is paid to this by politicians, the more apparent it becomes that they are using her; they're seeing her not as a person but as a lucky political opportunity for themselves. Their followers cannot or will not even consider that the rhetoric may not reflect the agenda. That's sad.
CH, I was just picking at you. :)
In all seriousness, though, you're right. I remember all of the armchair quarterbacks who came out of the woodwork during the Iraq war. Profit may be this woman's motive, though. Expect to see many more situations, interviews, books as a result of this tragedy.
I believe thats what we will see as well, Jack. There is surely some money to be made off of Terry's plight.
(*disclaimer* due to my Polish heritage, I am sometimes slow to pick up on sarcasm and other ribbings, my apologies)
Here's the legal definition of slander:
Slander is the oral communication of false statements that are harmful to a person's reputation. If the statements are proven to be true, it is a complete defense to a charge of slander. Oral opinions that don't contain statements of fact don't constitute slander. Slander is an act of communication that causes someone to be shamed, ridiculed, held in contempt, lowered in the estimation of the community, or to lose employment status or earnings or otherwise suffer a damaged reputation. Slander is a subcategory of defamation.
The basic elements of a claim of slander include;
(1) a defamatory statement;
(2) published to third parties; and
(3) which the speaker or publisher knew or should have known was false.
Among the statments Dr Carole made are:
Terri was frightened to object to Michael's pathologically controlling behavior. For example, he would monitor her odometer to control where she went. He tried to isolate her from her friends and family. She had to account for every penny, though they often lived on her income, since he would be fired, sometimes only after two weeks. He would splurge on $400 suits for himself, while she had to economize. He called her at work 3-4 times a day, often complaining of hating his job because no one appreciated him. He was often observed scolding her.
Terri's family observed black and blue marks on her before the incident that plunged her into her current state. Medical records and/or experts have revealed that her neck injury was consistent with strangulation. A bone scan revealed multiple fractures occurring within 1-2 months before or after the incident, which has been described as equivalent to her being "hit by a mach truck". Michael has given three different explanations of how he found Terri after the incident.
I suspect that should he choose to continue this circus, Michael Schiavo could probably make a pretty good case for a slander suit. In expressing her "expert medical opinion", which was written and presented to courts in Florida as basis for yet another parental appeal, she cited at LEAST the above statements of fact, based on information given to her by the parents. I would think that the "should have known were untrue" test could easily be met for several of these statements had she, before submitting her "expert" testimony, investigated the facts.
Here's the legal definition of slander:
Slander is the oral communication of false statements that are harmful to a person's reputation. If the statements are proven to be true, it is a complete defense to a charge of slander. Oral opinions that don't contain statements of fact don't constitute slander. Slander is an act of communication that causes someone to be shamed, ridiculed, held in contempt, lowered in the estimation of the community, or to lose employment status or earnings or otherwise suffer a damaged reputation. Slander is a subcategory of defamation.
The basic elements of a claim of slander include;
(1) a defamatory statement;
(2) published to third parties; and
(3) which the speaker or publisher knew or should have known was false.
Among the statments Dr Carole made are:
Terri was frightened to object to Michael's pathologically controlling behavior. For example, he would monitor her odometer to control where she went. He tried to isolate her from her friends and family. She had to account for every penny, though they often lived on her income, since he would be fired, sometimes only after two weeks. He would splurge on $400 suits for himself, while she had to economize. He called her at work 3-4 times a day, often complaining of hating his job because no one appreciated him. He was often observed scolding her.
Terri's family observed black and blue marks on her before the incident that plunged her into her current state. Medical records and/or experts have revealed that her neck injury was consistent with strangulation. A bone scan revealed multiple fractures occurring within 1-2 months before or after the incident, which has been described as equivalent to her being "hit by a mach truck". Michael has given three different explanations of how he found Terri after the incident.
I suspect that should he choose to continue this circus, Michael Schiavo could probably make a pretty good case for a slander suit. In expressing her "expert medical opinion", which was written and presented to courts in Florida as basis for yet another parental appeal, she cited at LEAST the above statements of fact, based on information given to her by the parents. I would think that the "should have known were untrue" test could easily be met for several of these statements had she, before submitting her "expert" testimony, investigated the facts.
Here's the legal definition of slander:
Slander is the oral communication of false statements that are harmful to a person's reputation. If the statements are proven to be true, it is a complete defense to a charge of slander. Oral opinions that don't contain statements of fact don't constitute slander. Slander is an act of communication that causes someone to be shamed, ridiculed, held in contempt, lowered in the estimation of the community, or to lose employment status or earnings or otherwise suffer a damaged reputation. Slander is a subcategory of defamation.
The basic elements of a claim of slander include;
(1) a defamatory statement;
(2) published to third parties; and
(3) which the speaker or publisher knew or should have known was false.
Among the statments Dr Carole made are:
Terri was frightened to object to Michael's pathologically controlling behavior. For example, he would monitor her odometer to control where she went. He tried to isolate her from her friends and family. She had to account for every penny, though they often lived on her income, since he would be fired, sometimes only after two weeks. He would splurge on $400 suits for himself, while she had to economize. He called her at work 3-4 times a day, often complaining of hating his job because no one appreciated him. He was often observed scolding her.
Terri's family observed black and blue marks on her before the incident that plunged her into her current state. Medical records and/or experts have revealed that her neck injury was consistent with strangulation. A bone scan revealed multiple fractures occurring within 1-2 months before or after the incident, which has been described as equivalent to her being "hit by a mach truck". Michael has given three different explanations of how he found Terri after the incident.
I suspect that should he choose to continue this circus, Michael Schiavo could probably make a pretty good case for a slander suit. In expressing her "expert medical opinion", which was written and presented to courts in Florida as basis for yet another parental appeal, she cited at LEAST the above statements of fact, based on information given to her by the parents. I would think that the "should have known were untrue" test could easily be met for several of these statements had she, before submitting her "expert" testimony, investigated the facts.
Post a Comment
<< Home