Ideas and Society

To read more from Jeff Lindsay, visit his blog, Arise from the Dust. 

Within walking distance from my home in Appleton, Wisconsin, a beautiful Down Syndrome young woman died from “COVID” (per her death certificate) on Oct. 13, 2021, at Ascension St. Elizabeth Hospital. She died after receiving a heavy dose of three dangerous drugs (Precedex®, lorazepam, and morphine) that nearly killed her twice before during her fateful stay. The third time, the dose was even higher. As her vitals were plummeting, her parents pleaded via Zoom for the nurses to do something to revive her. They could not, they explained, because there was a DNR order (Do Not Resuscitate). The doctor in charge had entered that order that day without informing the patient, Grace Schara, or her parents, who had medical power of attorney. According to the law, the DNR should have been immediately revoked when the parents asked for Grace’s life to be protected, but the staff ignored the request and allowed her to die.

Grace Schara at a baseball game with the Appleton Timber Rattlers, just one month before her death.

In the opinion of Scott Schara, her father, Grace was a victim of medical murder by a hospital that showed little respect for her life. As the doctor had noted in her medical records, she was unvaxxed, Christian, and had Down Syndrome—for some, these labels could be three strikes against the value of her life. Scott did not know if prejudice was the key motive for the choices that led to Grace’s death. There were also significant financial incentives for reporting COVID deaths in hospitals across the nation. Whatever the motives, Scott is convinced that the actions the hospital took reveal a terrible intent to bring about the death—the unnecessary death—of his cheerful, playful, and loving daughter and “best buddy,” who likely would have been alive today if she had never entered the hospital.

During the ensuing court case for the wrongful death of Grace, I was fortunate to have a seat in the courtroom as part of the audience for the last day of the trial on June 19, 2025, in Appleton. As I looked over the jury, it seemed that all but one were very young, as if they were current college students or recent graduates of high school or college. As multiple technical issues were summarized, I began to feel that this trial would also be a referendum on education in Wisconsin. Would the jurors be able to understand the basic medical and scientific issues involved? Would they grasp the power of the key evidence: a drug mix had nearly killed Grace a few days before an even higher dose of the mix was administered? Would they understand that the death that followed was easily predicted? Would they recognize that the efforts to get family members out of the room before administering the drugs that killed Grace might point to intent? Would they fathom the implications of the improper DNR added without informing the parents? Would they see the smoking gun of the illegal refusal to revoke the DNR order and resuscitate her?

Or would they yield to the defense attorney’s appeal to bigotry against Grace’s father? The opening words of the defense’s closing comments struck me as aimed at stirring prejudice against Scott Schara. The words I recall included statements about how “he was a researcher,” the kind of person who didn’t trust medical authorities but instead liked to do his “own research”—highly loaded pejoratives that were frequently used online against skeptics of the COVID vaccines and lockdowns during the pandemic.

As I recall, there were also references to “conspiracy theories” Scott had about COVID and the modern medical establishment—theories that developed after Grace’s death, inspired by the apparent willingness of the medical industry to mistreat Grace and other members of society. When he brought Grace to the hospital while she was struggling with COVID, he came as one who, like most of us, generally trust and respect doctors and hospitals. It was what he experienced that shattered that trust.

I felt that the defense’s discourse about Scott’s attitudes and beliefs was intended to demean him as a problematic “right-winger,” perhaps another implicit strike against the value of Grace’s life. But would the jury be smart enough to realize that Scott’s views, whether justified or not, have nothing to do with the actual charges? Was Grace mistreated, was she denied proper care, was the DNR illegal, was the refusal to revive illegal, and was she killed by deliberately applying a higher dose of a drug mix that had nearly killed her twice before? These were critical and sometimes complex issues that needed to be carefully considered in light of the law and the actions the hospital took, not Scott’s later feelings about medical tyranny or abuse.

For Grace’s family, the actions of the jury almost immediately after the closing remarks were a painful insult to Grace that many felt showed no respect for her life nor compassion for her death. The jury needed only about fifteen minutes to discuss and reach conclusions on the long list of thirteen charges, ruling for the defense every time. It had taken over an hour that day just to read and briefly explain the several pages of charges to consider, some with multiple issues. (The decision had been reached after about 15 minutes, though it was about two hours before the court announced the decision.) Almost all of the issues were decided by a unanimous vote, with only a couple of the thirteen charges having one dissenting juror out of twelve (not enough dissenters to make a difference). Given the clarity of the case, in my opinion, the decision was painful to me as well.

As Scott Schara would explain at a rally I attended the day after the decision, his family’s decision to sue St. Elizabeth’s for the wrongful death of Grace was not based on financial gain. It was a prayerful decision in which he felt God wanted him to fight that battle for reasons he did not fully understand. But it clearly wasn’t a financial decision. For malpractice suits in Wisconsin, gain is generally not possible. Wisconsin law limits the maximum malpractice penalty for non-economic damages to $750,000 (“non-economic” includes damages for loss of life, pain and suffering, etc., apart from economic damages such as medical bills or lost wages), while it typically costs well over $1 million to pursue a malpractice suit. However, he hoped that a victory would show the nation that victims can fight back against apparent medical murder. Had victory been obtained, Scott thought he might then consider taking the case to the Wisconsin Supreme Court to oppose the unfair legislative cap on malpractice awards so that other victims could sue without a guaranteed financial loss—another long shot.

At the rally, I had the chance to ask some questions and learn more. Based on some of the judge’s decisions that allowed the defense to bring up Scott’s religion and personal beliefs, I increasingly hoped that Scott would keep fighting by appealing the decision. But he pointed out how difficult that would be and was not yet sure what God wanted to do. He needed more time, but it seemed that he was not inclined to appeal.

I wanted him to appeal because this case seems so important. This was the only COVID wrongful death case in the nation to go to a jury. It is also a pioneering case against the rise of patient abuse and even medical murder. I had personally seen the abuse of patient rights during the pandemic driven by inhumane policies and attitudes, my elderly mother with severe dementia being one example—after breaking her leg, family members were not allowed to accompany her as she was carried away, screaming in fear, into the emergency room of Intermountain Medical Center in Salt Lake City. I then spent two hours calling various offices and leaders of the hospital, arguing for her right to emotional support as specified by the hospital’s own official policies, before finally being granted permission for one and only one person to accompany her. What awful trauma she experienced that night. How many others in desperate need of family support would die alone or give birth alone in hospitals across the country, and how many others would suffer abuse, neglect, or lack of informed consent due to the insanity of the pandemic era.

I felt we needed a turning point to prevent the inhumane abuses of the COVID era from occurring again the next time a politician, whether in the U.S. or, say, with the World Health Organization, declares a pandemic exists and that human rights must be “briefly” suspended because “we are all in this together” or something. Perhaps the dramatic Grace Schara case could be that catalyst for justice and humanity, but that seemed out of reach at the moment.

Now, to my amazement, Scott Schara has recently obtained new information that helps explain why so many early decisions during the trial seemed to unfairly favor the defense, such as allowing the defense to attack the Schara family based on legally irrelevant issues such as their religious faith and Scott’s recent concerns about the medical establishment. This new information shows that the Judge had strong animosity toward our local Appleton newspaper, the Post-Crescent, and was infuriated at Scott Schara for doing an interview with them and inviting them to attend the trial. The newspaper had previously accused Judge Mark McGinnis of serious wrongdoing. This helps explain why the Judge warned Schara that there would be “consequences” for making the mistake of turning to the Post-Crescent, and why reasonable requests were declined that allowed the defense to deliver many low blows that should have been improper.

This new evidence for judicial bias gives reasonable grounds not for an appeal, but for a new trial. This is wonderful news, for I think the chance of success with a less biased judge and a new jury should offer much greater odds of success than an appeal. I am praying that the request for a new trial will be granted. After you read what I consider to be the compelling petition for a new trial, I hope you’ll agree and join me in prayer for the Schara family. Also feel free to join me in donating via GiveSendGo to support this effort.

The full motion for a new trial is somewhat long, but you can see highlights on Scott Schara’s Substack site, Our Amazing Grace.

Here’s wishing and praying for a new trial for Grace and for justice at last.