Hospital prevails in wrongful death trial of 19-year-old Grace Schara, exposing systemic failures with COVID protocols and doctor worship
In a verdict that has left a grieving family shattered and advocates for medical freedom reeling, a Wisconsin jury sided with Ascension St. Elizabeth Hospital in the wrongful death lawsuit of Grace Schara, a 19-year-old with Down syndrome who died in 2021 after being subjected to aggressive COVID-19 treatment protocols. The Schara family alleged medical battery, negligence, and a lack of informed consent—claims that, if proven, would have exposed a chilling reality: hospitals nationwide have been operating under dangerous, protocol-driven mandates that strip patients of their rights and, in some cases, their lives. Yet, despite compelling testimony and evidence, the jury deliberated for just two hours before absolving the hospital and its staff of wrongdoing. The case reveals a grim truth—trust in the medical system is often misplaced, and justice for victims of institutionalized malpractice remains elusive.
Key points:
- Grace Schara died in 2021 after receiving a controversial COVID-19 treatment regimen, including sedatives and an unauthorized DNR order.
- Her family sued Ascension St. Elizabeth Hospital, alleging medical battery and lack of informed consent, but the jury ruled in favor of the defendants.
- The judge excluded the medical battery claim from jury deliberations, preventing the possibility of uncapped damages and shielding the hospital from greater liability.
- Legal experts warn that the case highlights systemic failures in patient consent and the dangers of protocol-driven medicine.
The fight for justice in a rigged system
Grace Schara’s tragic death was not an isolated incident—it was the result of a medical system that prioritizes rigid protocols over individualized care. Her family’s lawsuit detailed how doctors administered a lethal cocktail of sedatives, including Precedex, lorazepam, and morphine—drugs typically reserved for end-of-life care—without proper consent. Worse still, a “Do Not Resuscitate” order was placed in Grace’s chart against her family’s wishes, effectively sealing her fate.
Scott Schara, Grace’s father, did not mince words when describing the legal system’s complicity. “The legal system is in bed with the medical-industrial complex,” he told The Defender. His frustration is justified. Wisconsin law caps medical malpractice damages at $750,000—a figure that barely covers legal expenses, let alone provides meaningful restitution for a lost life. Worse, the judge’s decision to exclude the battery claim ensured that jurors never had the chance to consider whether hospital staff intentionally harmed Grace. The justice system in this case was a farce, built to worship doctors as if they are infallible and their protocols cannot be questioned, even when they cause immediate and deadly harm.
The illusion of impartiality and the power of programming
Jurors are conditioned from birth to trust doctors and hospitals implicitly. This subconscious bias makes it nearly impossible for them to accept that medical professionals could act with negligence—or worse, malice. As Scott Schara noted, “How can [jurors] be impartial in a society that programs them to rely on the state for their rights from the moment they are born?”
The speed of the jury’s deliberation—just two hours—speaks volumes. Cindy Schara, Grace’s mother, called the verdict “heartbreaking,” noting that the jury “did not give Grace the respect she deserved.” The family’s legal team argued that Ascension’s protocols overrode patient rights, yet jurors, steeped in societal deference to medical authority, could not reconcile the evidence with their ingrained beliefs.
Juries litigating wrongful death cases are prone to side with authorities, because people are told to trust their doctors. To go against this subconscious belief, an entire jury would have to be deprogrammed; however, most people sitting on a jury have a hard time believing that doctors and hospitals would commit medical battery, and their negligence would lead to death, even when the jury is faced with overwhelming evidence and testimonies pointing to this sad reality. No one wants to believe that doctors will not be there for them when the time comes, but wrongful death and medical malpractice is a common occurrence and this harsh reality is difficult to accept for many until it happens to them or a family member.
A crack in the system—and a warning to the public
Despite the loss, the trial exposed critical flaws in hospital protocols that endanger patients nationwide. Attorney Warner Mendenhall described the case as lifting “the veil” on a system where “doctors and nurses followed orders that were wrong.” The unauthorized DNR, the aggressive sedation—these were not isolated mistakes but part of a broader, dangerous trend in modern medicine.
Grace’s case also highlights the erosion of informed consent. As Mendenhall warned, patients “sign their rights away” upon entering a hospital, often without realizing the risks. The trial revealed that hospitals operate under a cloak of secrecy, keeping families in the dark about treatments, medications, and life-or-death decisions.
Scott Schara’s final warning was dire: “The jury ruled that no consent is required in a hospital, and a doctor can unilaterally place a DNR on a patient without consent, without a witness, without a signature, and without a bracelet. This should scare anyone with ears to hear.”
The Schara family’s fight is far from over. Legal options remain, and their story continues to resonate with those who recognize the dangers of unchecked medical authority. Grace’s death may have been in vain in the eyes of the court, but for those willing to listen, her legacy is a rallying cry for medical transparency, awareness of medical error and wrongful death in hospitals, accountability, and the fundamental right to bodily autonomy.
Sources include:
ChildrensHealthDefense.org
WCCA.Wiscourts.gov
Live.ChildrensHealthDefense.org
Read full article here