|
The Cleveland Clinic is in the news.
The Humane Society of the United States has called on the U.S. Department of Agriculture and Congress to take action in response to the recent surgery demonstration performed on a live dog for a sales presentation at the Cleveland Clinic, a Cincinnati-based animal rights group has asked for a federal investigation into where the Cleveland Clinic gets it research dogs, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture is sending an inspector to the facility to investigate.
The dog was induced with an aneurysm without proper authorization so the neurosurgeon could demonstrate to the sales force how a new medical device works to prevent blood flow.
While laws concerning the basic welfare of animals used in research do exist such as the Animal Welfare Act, the laws don't expressly prohibit any experiments. The HSUS is calling on Congress to amend the AWA specifically to bar the use of live animals in sales demonstrations, in light of the incident at the Cleveland Clinic.
The clinic is known for its heart center and for treating high-profile patients.
In another incident involving the Cleveland Clinic, an employee of the clinic's Florida operation has pleaded guilty to a superseding indictment charging her with conspiracy to commit computer fraud, conspiracy to commit identify theft and conspiracy to wrongfully disclose individually identifiable health information.
Isis Machado, a front desk office coordinator at Cleveland Clinic in Weston, Fla., improperly obtained Medicare information and other demographic information about Cleveland Clinic patients in Naples, Fla., and sold that information to her cousin, co-defendant Fernando Ferrer of Naples, for $5 to $10 each. Machado improperly obtained the patient information of approximately 1,130 patients.
After obtaining the information, Machado provided copies of the computer printouts to Ferrer at a gas station in Miami Lakes, and received payment based on the number of patients she provided. The investigation revealed that various Medicare numbers that Machado obtained from Cleveland Clinic and provided to Ferrer were later used by medical providers in Miami to fraudulently bill Medicare for services not rendered and equipment not supplied, resulting in a $7 million fraud to Medicare.
Machado is scheduled to be sentenced on April 27, and faces a statutory maximum of 5 years' imprisonment, a $250,000 fine, and may be ordered to pay restitution. Ferrer is scheduled to proceed to trial on Jan. 22.
Then there's the civil lawsuit against the clinic, brought by the daughter of a woman who underwent lung surgery at the Cleveland Clinic. Nearly seven years later, the 60-year-old woman told her daughter she felt something move inside her chest. She died the next day.
When an autopsy was performed, a 27-by-18 inch green cotton towel was found hat had apparently been left inside her by mistake during her 1995 surgery.
  And then there's the Terri Schindler Schiavo (left) case and the role of the Cleveland Clinic. A crucial question still lingers: How and why did a Pinellas County probate court judge choose Ohio neurologist Peter Bambakidis (right) to be his expert witness out of all the neurologists in the country?
 Sixth Circuit Judge George W. Greer had issued his first death order in the Schiavo case in February, 2000, granting Michael Schiavo's petition to discontinue artificial life support, not all food and water, natural AND artificial, as was his last order of February, 2005. As a result of the hearsay testimony of Schiavo, Schiavo's brother and sister-in-law, Greer decreed that the alleged declarations were reliable that Terri would want the feeding tube removed and that she was in a persistent vegetative state.
Following a series of motions and hearings, in October 2002, the Second District Court of Appeals sent the case back to Greer to conduct an evidentiary hearing regarding the brain damaged woman's medical condition.
 The 2nd DCA ordered that five doctors be selected to provide expert testimony. Two were to be chosen by Michael Schiavo, two by the Schindlers, Terri's parents; and one, an independent expert, was to have been selected by mutual agreement of the parties.
But the parties couldn't agree on the "impartial doctor" so Greer seemingly hand-picked Dr. Peter Bambakidis of Cleveland, Ohio to be the independent examining physician, charged with providing an independent medical review.
Bambakidis is not on the staff of the Cleveland Clinic but is chief of neurology at Fairview Hospital which is associated with the Clinic.
 The impartiality of Bambakidis has long been challenged. A review of his testimony at the October 2002 evidentiary hearing reveals improper ex parte communications between Greer and George Felos, attorney for Michael Schiavo. It also reveals that "they" had sought a doctor to testify from the Cleveland Clinic although Bambakdis failed to reveal under oath who "they" were. Greer specially telephoned Bambakidis, not the clinic, and asked him to be an independent expert witness. How Greer chose Bambakidis is yet unknown.
What is further suspect is that although Cleveland Clinic maintains a Florida facility where there are several neurologists on staff, instead Greer placed a telephone call to Bambakidis in Cleveland. Bambakidis had no experience as an expert witness in such cases as Terri Schiavo's.
Bambakidis received all of his information about Terri from Greer, Felos and Michael Schiavo. He did not interview the Schindler family or the Schindler's attorney, Patricia Anderson nor did he, by his own admission, make any effort to do so.
The bias of Judge George Greer against Patricia Anderson and the Schindler family is demonstrated by this exchange during the evidentiary hearing, just prior to the Bambakidis testimony on Oct. 15, 2002. BAMBAKIDIS TESTIMONY PDF
Page 216
ANDERSON: That is entirely inconsistent with what's been seen on these videotapes this week, Judge---
MR. FELOS: That's entirely consistent in what we've seen on these videotapes---
ANDERSON: Furthermore----
THE COURT: Don't talk over each other. This lady has been nice all day and I don't want her to have a tantrum.
Anderson has long said that the "Rule of Terri" prevailed in Greer's courtroom. "If following a legal procedure will likely result in Terri dying, it will be adhered to. But if a procedure could make that outcome more difficult to attain, it will not be followed".
She has also said that Greer's bias against her and her clients, Terri's parents, was blatant and his rulings arbitrary. She says he consistently ruled against her objections raised, often with no legal basis, seemingly saying, "you wore the wrong color shoes to court today. Denied".
Bambakidis examined Terri for approximately 30 minutes and failed to videotape the exam.  He testified and concluded that Terri was PVS. Allegations have been raised,questioning Bambakidis' objectivity and impartiality, given that all of the medical reports and foundation were provided to him by Felos at the direction of Greer. There may also have been an improper link between Felos and Bambakidis based on an investigation by CNS News and Pamela Hennessy, spokesperson for the Terri Schindler Schiavo Foundation which could explain how Greer chose Bambakidis to be the court's witness.
Ms.Hennessy referred to marketing materials distributed by Felos in which he  lists some of the professional and social organizations in which he holds membership. According to these documents, George Felos was governor of the American Hellenic Education Progressive Association (AHEPA). AHEPA is a Greek fraternal organization that counts among its members Gust Bambakidis, the older brother of Dr. Peter Bambakidis. 'Supporters of Terri believe that attorney Felos had a personal relationship with either the Bambakidis family or with Peter Bambakidis prior to Dr. Bambakis' testimony, representing himself to be an independent examining physician. FELOS FLYER PDF
CNS News said that Bambakidis did not return phone calls when they sought comment and Felos refused to answer any questions about any possible relationship with the Bambakidis family.
It was learned that the Ohio chapter of the AHEPA was managed by Gust Bambakidis. He maintained that his younger brother who testified at the Schiavo trial was not a member of AHEPA. Schindler supporters maintained that Felos should have disclosed his membership in the same organization as that of Bambakidis' brother.
Five doctors testified regarding the cognitive state of Terri Schiavo. The doctors split 2-2 with Bambakidis, the court-appointed attorney, testifying that he knew of no treatments that would improve Terri's condition leading Greer to rule that the brain damaged woman was in a persistent vegetative state with no hope for recovery, a finding that has been disputed by numerous medical professionals.
For many, the decision was pre-determined, pre-ordained and the testimony given by Bambakidis revealing ex parte discussions between himself, Felos and Greer, without knowledge or consent of the Schindlers, should have been grounds for a mistrial and immediate replacement of Greer as well as professional sanctions against both Greer and Felos.
Before the evidentiary hearing, Terri was evaluated in 1998 by neurologist, Dr. James Barnhill, a good friend and business associate of Felos', who has an office several doors from Felos' law office in Dunedin. Barnhill has traveled with Felos on educational boat cruises, advocating euthanasia.
Barnhill testified that he examined Terri for 10 minutes and determined that she had no chance for recovery and was PVS. A year later, with his friendship with Felos being a direct conflict of interest as he clearly was not impartial, Barnhill again reconfirmed his earlier diagnosis. He felt no tests of any sort were needed for evaluation and according to reports, never even bothered to obtain even a simple blood pressure measurement, raising serious questions about the competence of these exams.
The transcript of the testimony by Bambakidis also indicates that Judge Greer had a prohibited ex parte communication with Felos about the "impartial-independent" fifth doctor and indicates that there was no independent physician but rather three doctors which were controlled by Felos and Michael Schiavo.
The testimony also gives indication that the discussions between Greer, Felos and Bambakidis were done wholly without the knowledge of the Schindlers and their attorney.
The deck was stacked 3-2 against Terri and her family well in advance of the evidentiary hearing in October 2002 called to label Terri Schiavo in a persistent vegetative state with Felos and Michael Schiavo controlling three of the five doctors, with the assistance of Judge Greer, before the doctors ever took the witness stand.
A review of the Code of Judicial Conduct would seem to indicate that Greer minimally violated Canons 2 and 3 while a review of Felos' actions seems to indicate violations of the Code of Professional Conduct, perhaps even a basis for allegations of tampering with a witness. In fact, a review of his writings published outside of the Schiavo case, in particular his book published in 2002, while the Schiavo case was still at its height, by Blue Dolphin Publishing, entitled "Litigation as Spiritual Practice" lends serious questions about Felos' fitness to practice law at all, especially his admissions of suicidal and homicidal tendencies and thoughts. (To be discussed in Part II)
http://www.ablelegalforms.com/canons/judicialcode.html
http://www.law.cornell.edu/ethics/fl/code/FL_CODE.HTM
Canon 2A. Irresponsible or improper conduct by judges erodes public confidence in the judiciary. A judge must avoid all impropriety and appearance of impropriety. A judge must expect to be the subject of constant public scrutiny. A judge must therefore accept restrictions on the judge's conduct that might be viewed as burdensome by the ordinary citizen and should do so freely and willingly.
Conducting ex parte conferences between himself, Felos and the court's witness, without the knowledge of the Schindlers and their attorney is a huge appearance of impropriety if not a prohibited act.
The prohibition against behaving with impropriety or the appearance of impropriety applies to both the professional and personal conduct of a judge….. Actual improprieties under this standard include violations of law, court rules, or other specific provisions of this Code. The test for appearance of impropriety is whether the conduct would create in reasonable minds, with knowledge of all the relevant circumstances that a reasonable inquiry would disclose, a perception that the judge's ability to carry out judicial responsibilities with integrity, impartiality, and competence is impaired.
With the admission of Bambakidis indicating that Greer had convertly contacted Felos to discuss the medical records, and that Felos had communicated with him privately at least 10 times by Bambakidis' own admission, the public could have no confidence that Bambakidis was an "independent" witness in that all the medical records provided to him were provided by Felos> Bambakidis testified that he interviewed Michael Schiavo and Felos but not the Schindlers and Pat Anderson.
Greer's sarcastic comments directed towards Pat Anderson  seem to violate several judicial canons, demonstrate his bias towards her and his ex parte communications with Felos to arrange for the "independent" witness, seem to in particular violate Canon 3 (7) which states that a judge shall accord to every person who has a legal interest in a proceeding, or that person's lawyer, the right to be heard according to law. A judge shall not initiate, permit, or consider ex parte communications, or consider other communications made to the judge outside the presence of the parties concerning a pending or impending proceeding except that:
(a) Where circumstances require, ex parte communications for scheduling, administrative purposes, or emergencies that do not deal with substantive matters or issues on the merits are authorized, provided:
(i) the judge reasonably believes that no party will gain a procedural or tactical advantage as a result of the ex parte communication, and
(ii) the judge makes provision promptly to notify all other parties of the substance of the ex parte communication and allows an opportunity to respond.
In the Schiavo case, Greer's conversation with Felos about providing Bambakidis medical information outside the knowledge of the Schindlers and Anderson dealt with substantive issues, clearly gave Michael Schiavo a procedural and tactical advantage as the Schindlers had no opportunity to meet with Bambakidis or provide information as Schiavo and Felos did, and Greer took no steps to notify Anderson and Schindlers of his ex parte conversations with Felos about the "independent" witness.
From the Bambakidis testimony of Oct. 15, 2002, beginning at page 276.
ANDERSON: So that was the first that you heard of it, a phone call from Judge Greer?
BAMBAKIDIS: Yes. It was unsolicited by me.
ANDERSON: Do you know how it was he happened to phone you as opposed to one of your colleagues?
BAMBAKIDIS: No. No. Except they said that they wanted somebody for---I believe his comment was that they wanted somebody who worked for the Cleveland Clinic.
ANDERSON: Who is they?
BAMBAKIDIS: I don't know. You would have to ask the judge.
The choice of Bambakidis by Greer becomes more suspect as if "they" wanted somebody who worked for the Cleveland Clinic, the Clinic maintains an operation in Weston, Fla., known as the Cleveland Clinic Florida.
http://sck.clevelandclinic.org/florida/physicians/physicians.asp?location=&department=24
Bambakidis didn't work for the Cleveland Clinic, he worked for Fairview Hospital in Cleveland, associated with the clinic. There were well trained neurologists on staff at the Florida facility.
Page 222
ANDERSON: Okay. And are you employed at this time?
BAMBAKIDIS: Yes, I am.
ANDERSON: And how are you employed?
BAMBAKIDIS: I'm a neurologist in the Department of Neurology at the Cleveland Clinic Foundation in Cleveland, Ohio.
ANDERSON: And do you reside then in Cleveland as well?
BAMBAKIDIS: I live in the western suburb of Cleveland called Rocky River, Ohio. And since June of 2000, I've been, as I mentioned initially, a member of the Department of Neurology of the Cleveland Clinic Foundation.
ANDERSON: Did you inform Mr. Felos that you had no objection to the exam being videotaped?
BAMBAKIDIS: Yes, I believe I did during that conversation.
ANDERSON: About how many conversations have you had with him?
BAMBAKIDIS: Let me see. Oh, I would say probably anywhere from----oh, I would say about 10 conversations.
ANDERSON: When did they start?
BAMBAKIDIS: They started around about the time that the list of recommended tests to be performed was due in court. And I believe that was back in May.
ANDERSON: So in May you started speaking with Mr. Felos?
FELOS: He phoned me in May or actually a little bit before then because I had requested from the Judge that I receive some records that I could review those. And actually the first conversation was a conversation that I had with him with regard to what records I would want to review and that he would send those off to me.
ANDERSON: Who initiated that first conversation?
BAMBAKIDIS: Well, Mr. Felos contacted me.
ANDERSON: I see.
BAMBAKIDIS: And identified himself.
ANDERSON: How is it that you happened to be here on the witness stand here today? Why you and not a colleague?
BAMBAKIDIS: That's a good question. I know that the Judge telephoned me and asked me if I would be interested in serving as an independent expert to the Court in this particular matter. I gave it some thought and said that I would and sent him the information he requested, the CV, et cetera.
ANDERSON: So that was the first that you heard of it, a phone call from Judge Greer?
BAMBAKIDIS: Yes. It was unsolicited by me.
Page 277
ANDERSON: Does the Cleveland Clinic have a stroke team?
BAMBAKIDIS: Yes, they do.
ANDERSON: Are you on the stroke team?
BAMBAKIDIS: I'm on the stroke team in Fairview Hospital which is a Cleveland Clinic Hospital.
ANDERSON: Now, the clinic itself is a separate facility, isn't it? Isn't there a Cleveland Clinic Foundation Hospital?
BAMBAKIDIS: There is the main campus.
ANDERSON: Right
BAMBAKIDIS: That's right.
ANDERSON: And Fairview is one of the clinic operated hospitals?
BAMBAKIDIS: Yes, that's owned by the clinc.
ANDERSON: Is it also in Cleveland?
BAMBAKIDIS: Yes.
ANDERSON: The Cleveland Clinic bought that hospital a few years ago; did it not?
BAMBAKIDIS: Yes, it did.
ANDERSON: Now, you work in the hospital setting; is that correct?
BAMBAKIDIS: Well, both in the hospital setting and in the office, which is directly attached to the hospital where I do most of my work.
ANDERSON: What kind of office work do you do? What do you mean?
BAMBAKIDIS: Well, I see patients in the office.
ANDERSON: Oh, I see what you mean. So you have a private practice attached to the hospital, your staff position at the hospital with a private practice; would that be a proper way to describe it?
BAMBAKIDIS: I think the best way of making it clear is to state that I'm a member of the Department of the Cleveland Clinic Foundation. My office is an off-site location next to Fairview Hospital. I see patients in my office and also see consultations in the hospital. And I also perform neurophysiological testing in the hospital, that is, perform nerve conduction studies and EMG and read electroencephalogram.
Page 268
ANDERSON: Doctor, you were originally scheduled to examine Terri at six o'clock on the evening of July 9th; were you not?
BAMBAKIDIS: That's correct.
ANDERSON: And your plane was delayed I think you said three hours on the ground in Charlotte?
BAMBAKIDIS: Yes, it was.
ANDERSON: So what time did you actually begin your examination on the evening of July 9th?
BAMBAKIDIS: If I recall correctly, it was probably around seven or seven-thirty. I believe something like that.
ANDERSON: Seven or seven-thirty?
BAMBAKIDIS: Seven or seven-thirty.
ANDERSON: Where did you make up that---half of that three---
BAMBAKIDIS: Well, there was a layover anyway. And, you know, it may have been later. Mr. Felos may have a better idea, if he remembers.
ANDERSON: How would Mr. Felos know?
BAMBAKIDIS: Well, because Mr. Felos---I wanted to take a history from Mr. Schiavo and also from Terri's parents who my understanding was everybody was going to be there. So I was going to take the history from Mr. Schiavo, which I did, take a history from the parents to get the collateral history, to get a full history and then examine her.
ANDERSON: And you did not meet with the parents; is that correct?
BAMBAKIDIS: No, that's correct.
ANDERSON: In fact, I think you said that they were unavailable?
BAMBAKIDIS: That's correct.
ANDERSON: What efforts did you make to speak with the parents?
BAMBAKIDIS: Well, I believe I got there and shortly before I started taking the history I was advised they had actually had left and that was the first indication I had that they weren't going to be there.
ANDERSON: No, my question was: What efforts did you make to interview the parents?
BAMBAKIDIS: I couldn't meet the parents after that because----
ANDERSON: Well, you saw them in court the next day, correct?
BAMBAKIDIS: Yes.
ANDERSON: Did you speak with them then to supplement your understanding of her history?
BAMBAKIDIS: No.
ANDERSON: Have you called me or written to me in a subsequent time to try and interview the parents?
BAMBAKIDIS: No.
ANDERSON: If you started your examination at seven or seven-thirty, were Mr. Felos and Mr. Schiavo both present?
BAMBAKIDIS: Yes, they were both there.
ANDERSON: Were they present throughout the exam?
BAMBAKIDIS: Yes, they were.
ANDERSON: Were they the only ones present besides yourself?
BAMBAKIDIS: No, I don't believe they were because we enlisted---I think there was a nurse who helped me out with part of the examination with positioning and things like that.
Page 320
ANDERSON: Dr. Bambakidis, you've said that the CT scans have been drawn into question; is that what you said when I thought you said drama?
BAMBAKIDIS: You know, I'm not quite sure what exactly I said. If you could give me the context maybe I can.
ANDERSON: I think it was when Mr. Felos was asking you about the CT scans and you said that they had been drawn into question earlier this week?
BAMBAKIDIS: Well, it was mentioned that comments had been made with regard to the 1996 CT scan of the brain which I had not had an opportunity to review.
ANDERSON: And who mentioned that to you?
BAMBAKIDIS: Mr. Felos mentioned that to me.
ANDERSON: When did he mention that to you?
BAMBAKIDIS: Well, he mentioned that to me briefly before the testimony that started today, this morning.
ANDERSON: I see. And when you talked with him yesterday he asked you to examine the CT scan, the '96 CT scan----
BAMBAKIDIS: No
ANDERSON: ----the day before your testimony?
BAMBAKIDIS: No. No. No. Yesterday---the conversation yesterday morning stemmed from the fact that I had concerns that I had not received the entire videotape of Dr. Hammesfahr's examination and I wanted to make sure that I had that.
ANDERSON: I see. And so that was yesterday morning?
BAMBAKIDIS: Yes
ANDERSON: Where were you yesterday morning when you had that conversation?
BAMBAKIDIS: I was in my home in Rocky River, Ohio.
ANDERSON: And so somehow between then that conversation yesterday morning and this morning when you took the stand you watched the entire Hammesfahr examination, all three hours?
BAMBAKIDS: No. I had actually reviewed that on Sunday, but I had concerns that I had not had the entire examination. It turns out it was my error in the fact that the videographer said, I had to change tapes and I assumed that I had to change tapes. Not so.
ANDERSON: Okay
BAMBAKIDIS: Not so.
ANDERSON: I see
BAMBAKIDIS: So feeling a little silly I went back to that and the rest of the examination was on there.
ANDERSON: So you watched from that point forward?
BAMBAKIDIS: Yes
ANDERSON: And you also on Sunday looked at the entire examination of Dr. Maxfield and Dr. Cranford?
BAMBAKIDIS: That is correct.
ANDERSON: All right. Now, before yesterday's conversation with Mr. Felos, you say you had not examined the '96 scan?
BAMBAKIDIS: That is correct. I had seen reports----well, I'm not sure if there's a report of the '96 scan in the records that I reviewed. I don't think there is.
ANDERSON: Where did you get your records from?
BAMBAKIDIS: I get them from Mr. Felos.
ANDERSON: Let me make sure I have this down. The first contact you had on the case Judge Greer called you?
BAMBAKIDIS: That's correct.
ANDERSON: And he said, would you like to participate in this case?
BAMBAKIDIS: Yes.
ANDERSON: You're not sure why he called you as opposed to the neurologist down the hall?
BAMBAKIDIS: Essentially that's correct.
MR. FELOS: Excuse me, Your Honor, haven't we already gone through this line of questioning in cross-examination?
ANDERSON: No, we haven't finished this\
THE COURT: Well, we've certainly gone through these specific questions. Let's wait and see where she's going before we worry about it.
ANDERSON: And did you tell Judge Greer at that time you wanted to think it over before you said yes or did you say yes right away?
BAMBAKIDIS: If I recall correctly, the initial conversation was that I would think about it. Then I believe I got back to him relatively promptly with regard to that.
ANDERSON: So you called him?
BAMBAKIDIS: Yes
ANDERSON: And you said in that second conversation, I need to see medical records to review, is that right?
BAMBAKIDIS: Well, yes. It was either during the conversation or actually a letter that I sent to the judge. Then consequent to that I received a telephone call to Mr. Felos asking me what particular records he should send.
ANDERSON: I see.
BAMBAKIDIS: And I indicated in general terms what would be helpful.
ANDERSON: Did you make the assumption when Mr. Felos called you that he was calling you on the Judge's instruction?
BAMBAKIDIS: That's my assumption that either one of the attorneys would contact me in that regard. It just happened that Mr. Felos contacted me
ANDERSON: Now, is it your impression that you represent Mr. Felos and Mr. Felos' client in this case?
BAMBAKIDIS: No, that's not my impression at all.
ANDERSON: So Mr. Felos sent you records and that would have been---that first contact was some time in May; is that correct?
BAMBAKIDIS: Probably a little bit earlier than that. Since the deadline, I believe the initial deadline for submitting a notification for the tests that each expert would want to perform was in May so it was probably a few weeks before that that I received the records and, you know, a few days at least before that that this conversation with Mr. Felos took place.
ANDERSON: And counting that conversation, do you think you've had about 10 conversations since them?
BAMBAKIDIS: That's a very rough estimate.
ANDERSON: Okay. And----
BAMBAKIDIS: I would say conversations or communications. I mean, some of them are just, you know, directions from the airport to get to a hotel and things like that.
ANDERSON: Now, when did you get the '96 scan? When did you get access to it?
BAMBAKIDIS: I had access to the '96 scan this morning.
ANDERSON: AND how did you gain access to it?
BAMBAKIDIS: Mr. Felos mentioned to me that there was a scan from 1996 that I had not reviewed.
ANDERSON: And where were you when he mentioned this to you?
BAMBAKIDIS: Sitting outside in the hall.
ANDERSON: Did you have the scan?
BAMBAKIDIS: No.
ANDERSON: I mean, you had never seen it?
BAMBAKIDIS: I had never seen the scan.
ANDERSON: At all?
BAMBAKIDIS: No
ANDERSON: Did Mr. Felos provide you the film?
BAMBAKIDIS: No. No. He told me essentially this display of the scan, this poster, if you will, of the scan from 1996 was available.
ANDERSON: SO he asked you to step into the courtroom to look at it?
BAMBAKIDIS: Yes
ANDERSON: I see
BAMBAKIDIS: That's all.
ANDERSON: Now, did he tell you how the scans had been drawn into controversy regarding the----
BAMBAKIDIS: Not really. The only thing that was mentioned or implied was that light had been made of this particular scan and that I had not had the opportunity to look at it.
ANDERSON: That what had been made?
BAMBAKIDIS: Well, in some way during the course of this trial that this scan had been presented and comments had been made on it, presumably. This is my assumption. But I had not had an opportunity to look at that scan.
ANDERSON: Did Mr. Felos at any time since this hearing began share with you the testimony
BAMBAKIDIS: No.
ANDERSON: He's not shared with you any of the opinions or observations of the other physicians who have testified?
BAMBAKIDIS: No.
ANDERSON: AND you have had no contact with him?
BAMBAKIDIS: Certainly not.
In the court proceedings before Greer, beginning with the trial in January 2000, of the four doctors selected to be the court's medical authorities, three were handpicked by Michael Schiavo and Felos and one, Bambakidis, was selected by Judge Greer who thereafter relied heavily on medical records provided by Felos and information provided by Schiavo and Felos to make his 30 minute untaped exam.
With the acknowledged ex parte communications between himself, Greer and Felos, it is clear that Bambakidis was not a "neutral" authority and had never acted as an "expert" witness in such a case previously.
Dr. Melvin Greer, another expert chosen by Schiavo and Felos, testified that a doctor doesn't need to examine a patient to know the appropriate medical treatment. Schiavo later had much to say about Senate Majority Leader and physician Bill Frist's comments that Terri was not PVS after reviewing videotapes of the disabled woman. Frist said that after reviewing the tapes and conversing with one of several neurologists who had evaluated Schiavo, he concluded "that is not somebody in persistent vegetative state…there just seems to be insufficient information to conclude that Terri Schiavo is [in a] persistent vegetative state".
Schiavo attempted to belittle Frist for making a "diagnosis" on the basis of a videotape but Schiavo's own witness, ironically named Greer, had testified that no personal examination of a patient was necessary.
 
Dr. Victor Gambone (left), Terri's personal physician, stated that he had been startled by Terri's awareness and Dr. Ronald Cranford (right), on the board of the Euthanasia Society of America with ties to the Hemlock Society advocated spoon feeding for the disabled.
When lawyers enter the practice of law in Florida, they obligate themselves.
George Felos appeared to be using the Schiavo case to advance his own ideological agenda, to promote himself, his book, his beliefs and at the same time while he was chairman of the Hospice of Florida Suncoast where he and Schiavo transferred Terri, literally in the middle of the night, without notice to the court, without court order and without the proper admission papers, improperly certifying that she was terminal.
When lawyers enter the practice of law in Florida, they obligate themselves
to uphold the law and to abide by the Rules Regulating The Florida Bar. These rules of the Supreme Court of Florida specifically regulate the professional conduct of lawyers. Those who violate these professional standards are subject to discipline A lawyer may be disciplined only for violating the standards of conduct set forth in the Rules Regulating The Florida Bar.
Next: Felos: Ethics and Spiritual Practice 1-18-07
All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed by anyone without the express written permission of the publisher. This article is copyright protected.
© 2007 North
Country Gazette
|
