17 Medical Affidavits about Terri Schiavo
| March 9th, 2005In a comment on “Alas” last month, TZ and I had this exchange:
Amp: “What I haven’t seen is an explanation of how a woman who, according to cat scans, lacks the physical capability to have thought or emotion or feeling or experience, can be said to be having any sort of life.”?
TZ: “You’re making a statement on a highly complex clinical issue about which even experts in this matter disagree.”
It has not been established that “experts” do disagree. At her own (extremely good) blog, TZ writes:
Seventeen medical experts have reportedly filed affidavits questioning whether Terri Schindler-Schiavo is in a persistent vegetative state and supporting the need for additional neurological, neuropsychological, and other testing of her abilities, particularly with new technologies.
The affidavits are available on the web at Terri’s family’s website. Here’s a quotation from one of them: “She obviously is not in a vegetative state.”
“17 experts” certainly sounds impressive. Yet, if you visit creationist websites, you can find many more than 17 “experts” claiming that Darwinistic evolution couldn’t have happened. That doesn’t mean that it’s true that experts disagree about Darwinistic evolution; it just means that sometimes unqualified people claim to be experts, or advocates misunderstand or misrepresent what experts say.
The quote TZ provides is from Dr. David Hopper. Dr. Hopper does not comment on Terri’s cat scans at all; this is rather like someone arguing gravity doesn’t exist but not commenting on the issue of how it is everything tends to stick to the ground. He doesn’t disagree with the most essential evidence in Terri’s case; he ignores the evidence altogether.
Although Hopper claims to have a doctorate “in neuroscience” on his website, in his under-oath affidavit his only claimed Ph.D. is in counseling psychology. According to the bibliography he provides, he’s never had any research published in specialized neuroscience journals. In fact, apart from some allegedly “in press” articles, he hasn’t published anything in over a decade - and the majority of his publications before that point appeared in Somnology, a journal edited by - what a coincidence! - Dr. David Hopper. (Somnology, by the way, is the study of sleep disorders.)
Dr. Hopper is the sort of faux-expert who makes a big deal of being listed in a bunch of “Who’s Who’s” directories - never mentioning that virtually anyone can be in “Who’s Who” if they write a check to the publisher. He collects certifications - however lame most of them are - like they were baseball cards (hilariously, he reproduces 20 or 30 mostly irrelevant wall-decoration certificates and degrees with his affidavit). For most of the past decade his main academic position has been high school science teacher. There’s nothing wrong with teaching in high school, but it’s not a position held by actual experts in brain science.
* * *
How about the others? None of them apart from Dr. Hopper are ridiculous. However, regarding the specific issue discussed in my and TZ’s exchange, most of them are not experts. There are more speech pathologists and psychologists than there are neurologists. And the most qualified experts in this group, seem to take care not to state an opinion. For example, Dr. Kennedy - arguably the best-qualified neurology expert of the 17 - says that he’s willing to examine Terri with the most modern MRI technology. And that’s all he says.
I’ve read all 17 affidavits. I’m not a doctor, of course. But I know a lot about argumentation and debate. One of the most basic tenets of debate is that you have to address the opposing arguments. These affidavits simply don’t do that; like Dr. Hopper, rather than addressing the most crucial evidence and arguments in this case, they pretend that they don’t exist.
There are two issues here: Terri’s cerebral cortex, and the famous videos of Terri appearing to smile and react to her parents.
1. The Cerebral Cortex Argument.
The conclusion the court came to is that, based on medical testimony and Terri’s CAT scan, her cerebral cortex has basically turned to liquid. The cerebral cortex is the seat of all our higher brain functions. Without a cerebral cortex, it is impossible for a human being to experience thought, emotions, consciousness, pain, pleasure, or anything at all; nor, barring a miracle, is it possible for a patient lacking a cerebral cortex to recover.
There are only two logical responses to that argument, that I can think of.
A) An expert could argue that someone can experience consciousness without a cerebral cortex.
B) An expert could argue that Terri’s CAT scan was faulty, or was not read correctly.
Not one of the 17 experts clearly made either of the above arguments. Nor did they make some other argument I didn’t think of. In fact, none of them mentioned the term “cerebral cortex” at all. None of them even referred directly to Terri’s CAT scan.
Many of the 17 pointed out that there are more subtle tests than a CAT scan or MRI (several recommended an fMRI). However, it does not require a subtle test to detect that someone’s cerebral cortex is mostly liquid; nor do any of the experts suggest that a CAT scan is incapable of distinguishing between liquid and solid. (On the contrary, Dr. Uszler - an expert on medical scanning technology - states that “CAT scans are good for examining anatomy”).
None of the experts argued that any mental life is possible sans cerebral cortex. None of them argued that Terri’s CAT scan was inaccurate or misunderstood. Contrary to TZ’s claim, if these 17 affidavits are a fair sampling, experts don’t disagree about these matters.
However, two of the 17 - Dr Weidman and Dr. Uszler - addressed the cerebral cortex argument obliquely.
Dr. Uszler says that he hasn’t examined Terri, and has no opinion one way or the other about her case. He does say that “CAT scans are good for examining anatomy, but they do not tell you about brain function.”
That’s doubtless true in many cases, but in Terri’s case the CAT scan shows that her cerebral cortex anatomy has liquefied. It would be bizarre to claim that a CAT scan can accurately show that brain anatomy is essentially absent, but cannot support a claim that absent anatomy isn’t functioning. Nothing in Dr. Uszler’s comments addreses the specifics of Terri’s case, or argues that someone who lacks a cerebral cortex could possibly recover higher brain functions; nor does he argue that the CAT scan already done of Terri has been misunderstood or is faulty.
Dr. Weidman also addresses the question of the CAT scan, pointing out that his mother had cognitive functioning even after CAT scans showed “a significant decline in gray matter.” However, there’s a big difference between a “decline in gray matter” and a near-total liquidization. Unless Dr. Weidman’s mother’s CAT scan shows a cerebral cortex as destroyed as Terri’s - and he doesn’t claim it did - then the comparison simply doesn’t address the question of how someone without a cerebral cortex could possibly recover higher brain functions.
2. Those Famous Video Clips of Terri
So if none of the 17 experts address the cerebral cortex issue, what do they talk about? None of these experts have examined Terri, and only one claims to have looked at her medical records. What they discuss is the famous videos of Terri apparently tracking a balloon’s movement with her eyes, smiling at her mother, and so forth.
The court ruling addressed those videos. Although the out-of-context video snips featured on the terrisfight.org website, and on TV newscasts, seem to show Terri reacting to things around her, the full, uncut video shows Terri smiling and moving her eyes at random. In one instance, her eyes appear to track a balloon; that short sequence has been shown over and over. What they don’t show is the many failed attempts made to get Terri to follow the balloon. With clever editing, even random motions and reflexes - such as smiling and eye movements - can seem conscious. The intelligence and cognition on display isn’t Terri’s, but the film editor’s.
This is a well-known argument, brought up by past expert witnesses and relied on by Judge Greer in his decision. Yet not one of the 17 experts address this argument at all. Not one of the 17 experts reports having viewed the uncut films of Terri (and I doubt any of them did); in fact, several of them specify that they viewed the short clips available on the internet or seen on TV.
These 17 affidavits do not respond, in any way at all, to the court’s reasoning regarding the videos of Terri. Again, rather than addressing essential arguments, they simply pretend they don’t exist.
* * *
Obviously, I am not a medical expert. But you don’t have to be a doctor to understand that you can’t refute an argument if you don’t address it. These 17 expert opinions do not address any of the arguments for why Terri experiences no cognition, feelings or thoughts at all; nor do they address the court’s reasoning regarding the videos. They do nothing but repeat long-discredited arguments; which is great if the goal is to be able to say “look, 17 doctors say blah blah blah,” but not useful if the goal is to meaningfully discuss Terri’s medical condition.
UPDATE: Majikthise has more criticism of the 17 affidavits.
March 9th, 2005 at 2:03 pm
Red herrings 17 “medical experts” threw at me
This comment was written by Pandagon.Ampersand has a great post about the 17 affidavits filed on behalf of Terri Schiavo by “medical experts.” These experts seem very impressed with the own CVs, but as Amp notes, none of the affidavits addresses the implications of Terri’s…
Report this comment to the moderators
March 9th, 2005 at 4:36 pm
I believe you meant “One of the most basic tenets of debate”, not “One of the most basic tenants of debate”.
[Thanks! Correction made! –Amp]
This comment was written by Dale.Report this comment to the moderators
March 9th, 2005 at 5:46 pm
Aw, you deleted the ipod scam spam!
This comment was written by Josh Jasper.Report this comment to the moderators
March 9th, 2005 at 6:54 pm
For me, the value of the affidavits is that they make a case for two things: re-examination and retesting. I have no personal knowledge of Terri’s case; however, it would seem to me that it is more reasonable and prudent to test a person with currently available technologies — to exhaust every avenue — before deciding to take the person’s life. In a simple cost-versus-benefits analysis, testing has more advantages than imminent death with out them, and no harm is done by the testing.
If new tests do not demonstrate that she is not in a PVS, then there would, of course, for some, be less to argue about. Then, again, if you read my “nature of the person post,” you might see how I have discussed whether Terri’s life is worth arguing for regardless of her particular cognitive capacity. I am, of course, quite wary of valuing human life by measures of cognitive capacity and function. To do so is to buy into the monist belief that we are nothing more than the sum of our working parts. I have ethical issues with that stance.
I think one matter is particularly notable in this case, which is that Terri’s life circumstances have galvanized the nation — perhaps the world — around a number of issues, many of which are moral in nature. Many people now care about what happens to Terri. I care, not because I want to see one moral argument trump another; I care because, fundamentally, all persons deserve our respect and care.
The difficulty for the state, of course, is that it does not operate within a moral framework beyond that of established law, and Terri’s case, if it is about anything at all, is about morality, even moreso than cognition, and that, of course, is the main reason why it has galvanized the opinions of so many.
Even if she had no higher brain function at all, even if the best medico-ethical arguments were made in favour of her life being ended, many people would still not want to see her ordered to death, particularly in the manner set to occur March 18, 2005. Personally, I wouldn’t let my dog die in that manner, and that, for me, is just one of the reasons her case has captured my attention.
With warmest regards,
This comment was written by tz.tz
Report this comment to the moderators
March 9th, 2005 at 9:18 pm
It’s the PRECEDENT it sets, NOT Jeb’s dubious involvement, NOT the right-to-lifers’ involvement, or Michael Schiavo’s dubious “saintliness” that’s the issue.
I have YET to read ONE coherent argument in favor of Schiavo having his wife killed by starvation. NOT one.
And this is from somebody who is pro-choice on abortion, but this case stinks to high heaven on the part of the “husband.”
This comment was written by Susan Nunes.Report this comment to the moderators
March 9th, 2005 at 10:54 pm
With all due respect, TZ, the Terri Schiavo case has been going on for many years. The medical issues have been carefully examined in not just one, but two trials. There is no question of rushing Terri to her death; on the contrary, her condition and the questions surrounding her treatment have been given more examination than that of any other medical patient this decade, with the exception of the Pope.
There really does not seem to be legitimate doubt about Terri’s medical condition. Nor do any of the 17 affidavits suggest any real reason to doubt the tests that have already been done. Instead, the continual call for new treatments seems more like a pretext to delay the court’s decision from ever being carried out.
You say “no harm” is done. But if (and I realize this is a big “if”) the court was correct that Terri would not have wished to have her body kept alive indefinitely, then neverending delays do harm to the principle that her wishes should be respected. It’s quite possible that Terri would have found the idea of her body being kept alive and moving for over a decade after she had died to be grotesque (I’d certainly find the thought of my being treated that way grotesque).
Am I absolutely certain that the court’s decision was correct? No, I’m not. But since making a decision is unavoidable, we need some means of deciding; and a trial with advocates on both sides making their best case seems to me to be the most legitimate decision-making mechanism we have available to us, in our system.
Then how is it acceptable to ever say that anyone is dead, under any circumstances at all? There is no way of determining death apart from reference to the physical parts.
Would I put a dog down by starvation? No, of course not; there are humane and virtually painless ways of putting a dog down, when necessary, and I’m extremely grateful for that. However, the reason I feel that way is that dogs are capable of suffering. Terri Schiavo has not been capable of suffering for many years.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
March 9th, 2005 at 11:19 pm
Terri Schiavo has not been capable of suffering for many years.
If this is true, then there is no harm being done in letting the shell of her body live on, regardless of its condition or quality of life.
If you genuinely believe that her life is over and she is deceased, then from your point of view she is, essentially, property - and the dispute is over who gets to dispose of the property, her parents or her husband. The complication to the dispute is that one side appears to think that the property in question is a human being.
That being the case, the appropriate resolution would be for Terri’s husband and parents negotiate over the status of the property. Unless, as a leftist, you subscribe to the notion that people with a greater moral claim to a particular piece of property should get it. In which case, I would think that you’d be on her parents’ side of this dispute.
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
March 9th, 2005 at 11:41 pm
“It’s quite possible that Terri would have found the idea of her body being kept alive and moving for over a decade after she had died to be grotesque (I’d certainly find the thought of my being treated that way grotesque).”
You are correct in saying that the above statement is a big “if.” It’s tempting to think about how we, personally, might want or not want to be treated in Terri’s situation. On the other hand, the only overtly documented evidence of how she lived her life and what she might have wished to have happen is her personal choice for faith and morality. One of the reasons that a large question mark forms in my mind with regard to claims about her “wish” to die is that it appears to be morally inconsistent with how she lived her life premorbidly.
I, personally, would be inclined to examine whether the morality of the guardian appears to match that of the vulnerable person. Unfortunately, the test is not perfect because moralities can change. However, we at least do know something about her premorbid belief system, and it might be appropriate to use that as a guideline for whether people who now are speaking on her behalf are respecting how she lived her life previously.
I want to add one further point. I think I’ve stated this before here, but I think it’s important to reiterate that determination of PVS is extremely complex and not something that can be solved through socratic dialogue, rationalizing, or philosophizing. Your question about how to determine if a person is dead other than by “physical parts” is reductive in this instance because Terri Schiavo, in fact, is not dead, nor is she actively dying. She merely is being sustained by food and hydration through a tube due to alleged swallowing dysfunction. I would not consider that “artificial life support,” but apparently someone in Florida sought fit to lobby for that type of change in the law.
This comment was written by tz.Report this comment to the moderators
March 10th, 2005 at 3:13 am
A coherent argument in favor of allowing Michael Schiavo to control his wife’s treatment - including allowing her body to die by starvation.
1) As much as possible, Terri’s treatment should be based on Terri’s decisions. No decision of Terri’s should be overturned or ignored lightly.
2) If Terri had made any direct decisions about this matter (e.g., a living will), we should respect those decisions. But she did not.
3) Since Terri did not decide what is to be done in this case, someone other than Terri will need to decide.
4) Terri did decide who should decide for her when she can’t decide for herself. By marrying Michael, she decided to make him her legal guardian should she ever be unable to take care of, speak for, or make decisions for herself.
5) We cannot put someone other than Michael in charge of controlling Terri’s treatment without ignoring or overturning the decision Terri made to make Michael Schiavo her closest relation. But (see premise 1) Terri’s decisions should not be overturned or ignored.
Therefore, Michael should be in charge of Terri’s medical care -including the decision to allow her body to die.
* * *
You might not agree with that argument, but it’s coherent.
I’d be more at ease making this argument, frankly, if it were Michael who was in a vegetative state and Terri who were trying to have his body put to rest. I’m aware that my argument can be misinterpreted as a “husband owns the wife” argument. But I don’t think that’s a fair characterization of what I’m saying; the proposition that one’s decisions in life (including who one chooses to marry) ought to be respected is sex-neutral.
Like you, I’m concerned about precedent. But what I see as problematic is the president that if the usual legal decision-making procedures lead to an outcome the Christian Right disagrees with, then our usual decision-making procedures should be chucked out the window. I’m concerned about the precedent that our individual moral decisions should only be allowed when they don’t conflict with fundimentalist Christian theology.
I also see a problem with the anti-science president set by all this; it’s not a coincidence that the claim that Terri can recover is coming from the same people who brought us creationism, “there is no such thing as global warming” and “breast cancer is caused by abortion.”
Finally, I agree with you that Michael’s character isn’t the issue here (I’ve never called him a saint!). But whether or not he stinks to high heaven isn’t the issue, either. Unless there’s very strong evidence against him - not just speculation - I don’t think ignoring Terri’s choice for guardian is justified.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
March 10th, 2005 at 3:44 am
I read statements like this on your blog, and I’m frankly amazed at how confident you seem to be that you know what Terri’s beliefs were better than Michael possibly could, and better than a court which heard from many witnesses possibly could.
As I said earlier, it seems to me that the best way our society has of resolving unresolvable conflicts like “what would Terri have wanted,” if our usual decision-making mechanisms have somehow broken down, is to allow advocates on both sides to present their best case in a courtroom. That has been done, and the view you express here has been presented in great detail to a judge. The court came to a decision you personally disagree with, but you haven’t explained why the decision-making process was illegitimate, or what a better decision-making process would be, in your view.
You’re right. It’s something that can be solved through looking at CAT scans, which show unambiguously that she has no cerebral cortex to speak of, and is therefore in a permanent vegetative state.
Your response to that fact is to engage in unashamed rationalization and philosophizing to try and get around it (i.e., “to do so is to buy into the monist belief that we are nothing more than the sum of our working parts”). I think that questioning to your rationalizations and philosophical arguments with more of the same is legitimate; and I’m not in agreement with your “philosophical arguments are fine when they support my beliefs, but are dismissable when they don’t” approach.
Edited to add: I’m concerned that the tone of this post may seem too harsh. I disagree with you, but I’ve got a lot of respect for you; sorry if that didn’t come through in my tone.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
March 10th, 2005 at 3:46 am
I see two harms. First of all, there’s the harm done to the principle that Terri’s decisions (including her decision to marry Michael, making him her legal guardian if tragedy occured) ought to be respected. Second, there’s harm done to the principle that we should be legally allowed to make moral decisions that contradict evangelical Christian moral values.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
March 10th, 2005 at 4:15 am
It’s pretty ugly the way that parents and their supporters demonize Michael. However, I suppose it’s necessary to hold up their point of view, otherwise they would have to consider the pain it puts you through to watch a spouse rot in a hospital bed for god knows how long. I know people who’ve been through it–it does a number on you. Finality causes grief but at least it allows the grief process to begin, which I guess is what the parents are trying to avoid.
This comment was written by Amanda.Report this comment to the moderators
March 10th, 2005 at 5:22 am
Taking away the right of a husband to make a decision for his wife does more to undermine traditional marriage than gays ever could.
That said, I’ll make a few other points.
In every instance (if I’m not mistaken) where this case has gone before a judge who has seen ALL of the evidence, Michael Schiavo has prevailed.
Unless you believe the latest stories coming from her parents, Terri Schiavo had an eating disorder. Eating disorders are all about control. In that context, I shudder to think how she would feel about her situation today.
I can only pray that if I were in Terri’s position, my husband would care enough about me to allow me to die. Michael Schiavo has absolutely no reason to continue this fight except that he thinks he’s doing the right thing for Terri. He could turn over her care to her parents today, move away and be done with her if he were not concerned with carrying out her wishes. (For those who want to argue that he wants the malpractice settlement, you obviously don’t know how much nursing care costs).
Another thing, people die of starvation every day. When my father-in-law was ready to die (a year after suffering a stroke), he simply refused food and liquid. This is a natural part of the dying process for lots of people.
And finally, where is the faith of Terri’s family. If they are as religious as they proclaim, why do they hang on so fiercely to having her live on in this world. Shouldn’t they want to release her to go on to the next where she is free of pain and suffering? I say that as a deeply religious person, not as a cynic.
This comment was written by Susan S.Report this comment to the moderators
March 10th, 2005 at 8:42 am
“I read statements like this on your blog, and I’m frankly amazed at how confident you seem to be that you know what Terri’s beliefs were better than Michael possibly could, and better than a court which heard from many witnesses possibly could.”
It’s difficult to make any definitive statements about her case because none of us are parties to it. However, based on what I have read about the case, it does seem disturbing that there is such a split between the husband/in-law camp and the biological family/close friend camp, particularly in light of recent discussions regarding how the court interpreted information regarding Terri’s views on Karen Ann Quinlan.
One thing that troubles me about your arguments in this matter is your ongoing reference to the premise that “the court already decided that” or “evidence was already presented.” In this particular case, I believe we could, as a society, commit a real injustice by failing to reconsider whether what was done in the past was, in fact, the best that could have been done for this woman.
This comment was written by tz.Report this comment to the moderators
March 10th, 2005 at 3:42 pm
First of all, there’s the harm done to the principle that Terri’s decisions (including her decision to marry Michael, making him her legal guardian if tragedy occured) ought to be respected.
To clarify:
The rationale of the Florida court’s decision was that the evidence showed that Terri Schiavo would have wanted termination of nutrition, etc., based on testimony by Michael Schiavo and other witnesses that she had made statements to that effect before she was stricken. (Her parents testified that she would would have wanted continued nutrition, etc.) The court ruled that the evidence showed that her wishes were in accord with Michael Schiavo’s position, not her parents’ position.
(Florida law is very clear that living wills or other written documents are not required; you can establish an incapacitated person’s wishes by testimony alone.)
In short, the rule of law that was applied is that Terri Schiavo should be treated in accordance with what the evidence shows her wishes would have been. That’s different from a rule that Terri Schiavo should be treated in accordance with the wishes of the person whom Terri chose to make decisions for her.
This comment was written by alkali.Report this comment to the moderators
March 10th, 2005 at 4:35 pm
This isn’t really about whether Terri Schiavo is aware. It’s about the problem that, to all appearances, her husband took money that was meant for her rehabilitation and used it to find himself a girlfriend and start a new life the second Terri died, and nobody wants to see him get away with it.
This comment was written by mythago.Report this comment to the moderators
March 10th, 2005 at 6:20 pm
Mythago, he didn’t start a new life the second Terri died (not sure how you are calculating her death date). Terri was PVS for something like five or six years before Michael began to believe that she would not recover. He took her to California when he heard of an innovative program there. I think he even took a nursing course so he could care for her without subjecting her to the usual secondary effects of being bedridden. She has never had bedsores. His in-laws actually encouraged him to begin dating. They never had a bad word for him until he changed his mind about life support. This is all in the Florida record.
He could start a new life now, I can’t believe there’s much if anything left of the malpractice recovery. So that just doesn’t seem like a plausible explanation for what’s happening. It’s certainly not the most likely, in my judgment.
The hardest thing about this case is that the court relied principally upon the testimony of Michael’s relatives in determining Terri’s wishes. This makes me very nervous. On the other hand, I have to say that even if Michael is misguided I think that he is sincere in his belief that this is what Terri would want. I feel the same way about the parents though, as they have said themselves, they don’t want Terri to be taken off life support even if that is what she would have wanted. It was honest of them to say so, but it probably didn’t boost their case much.
This comment was written by Barbara.Report this comment to the moderators
March 11th, 2005 at 12:04 am
he didn’t start a new life the second Terri died
I understand, but I’m addressing the public perception–and really, from the court’s or Terri’s parents’ point of view, a husband who has a girlfriend and a child with that girlfriend, and apparently still has money that was not spent on his wife’s rehabilitation, may not be the most credible source for saying “No, she would preferred to have died.”
This comment was written by mythago.Report this comment to the moderators
March 11th, 2005 at 5:54 am
First I want to thank the host of this blog and the comment posters. This conversation is head and shoulders above what passes for dialogue on most websites.
I would like to extend (or maybe restate) slightly to #9 Ampersand’s argument of why the husband should be allowed to make these decisions. To me it comes down to 3 reasons:
1> As Americans we have the right to control what medical treatments we accept. Jehovah’s Witnesses refuse blood transfusions, other Christian Science adherents refuse most treatment. The doctor makes recommendations, but in all cases I have the right to make the final decision. Sometimes it may offend others, but we can refuse medical treatment if we wish.
2> Since the early 1990’s (when Nancy Cruzan entered the national psyche) nutrition and hydration pumps have been considered medical treatments and can be refused.
3> If a person is unable to make that decision for him/herself then the court system must try to divine their wishes, giving special consideration to the opinions of those closest to the patient.
This is not really that unusual of a case. Every week hundreds of families have to make the heart rending decision whether or not to end medical treatment of a loved one. Most are older than Terri Schiavo, and most never enter the public consciousness. If you believe this is being decided incorrectly, I challenge you to come up with a different construct that will allow families all over the country to make the decisions for their loved ones without huge intrusions by the local constabulary into their private grief.
This comment was written by Buckland.Report this comment to the moderators
March 11th, 2005 at 6:23 am
Susan S says: “Taking away the right of a husband to make a decision for his wife does more to undermine traditional marriage than gays ever could.”
Yeah, because we all know that only men and women can make decisions for each other. Those damn queers shouldn’t be able to make the same decisions for their loved ones…
This comment was written by Q Grrl.Report this comment to the moderators
March 11th, 2005 at 7:54 am
alkali wrote:
Well, yes and no. The reason the trial was held is that Michael - recognizing that he appeared to have a conflict of interest - petitioned for a trial to determine what Terri’s wishes would have been. The court virtually automatically granted this request, because it came from Terri’s legal guardian; they might not have granted the request had it come from another sourse. But Terri’s chosen guardian still made the decision, in a sense - in this case, her chosen guardian made the decision to have a trial to determine what Terri would have wanted.
I’d be happy with either form of decision-making, “Terri’s chosen guardian decides” or “court decides what Terri’s wishes might have been.” Both those decision-making models are based on the idea that Terri’s choices - even if we can only determine them in a fragmented, indirect or unreliable fashion - should guide her treatment and fate. It’s an imperfect method, but no one that I’ve seen has suggested any better method of decision-making.
TZ may be an exception, but in general I think many of the folks who oppose Terri’s death would oppose anyone being allowed to choose to die, ever - even if there were a living will, or even if the person was conscious and in sound mind and wanted to die. It’s a position based, for most of those folks, in a religious belief in the sanctity of human life - not in a belief in letting people choose their own paths.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
March 11th, 2005 at 8:08 am
Yeah, because we all know that only men and women can make decisions for each other. Those damn queers shouldn’t be able to make the same decisions for their loved ones…
Q Grrl, did you read Susan S’s comments as implying that? I ask because I read them as implying something much closer to the opposite. Something like: “the people who are raising the bullshit specter of gay marriage undermining traditional marriage are the same people who want to apparently eliminate the ability of spouses to make decisions for one another, which is far more harmful to ‘traditional marriage’ than gay marriage would ever be.”
—Myca
This comment was written by Myca.Report this comment to the moderators
March 11th, 2005 at 8:09 am
Yes, this is the position of Terri’s parents, as I said above, and it did not sit well with the court. They would oppose removing life support even if the evidence indisputably showed that Terri would have wanted to remove life support. I agree with Buckland that the process utilized in this case was eminently fair, I just get a little queasy that the only evidence of Terri’s wishes came from parties with an arguable bias. However, I don’t know these people personally, and it may very well be that they would never lie on behalf of Michael Schiavo, especially about something with such grave consequences.
This comment was written by Barbara.Report this comment to the moderators
March 11th, 2005 at 8:24 am
Myca, thanks, you read me right.
This comment was written by Susan S.Report this comment to the moderators
March 11th, 2005 at 8:51 am
What would have ‘indisputably shown’ Terri Schiavo’s wishes would have been a living will or medical directive, prepared while she was alive; it’s very unfortunate (to say the least) that she did not have one.
This comment was written by mythago.Report this comment to the moderators
March 11th, 2005 at 9:04 am
Absolutely agreed, Mythago.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
March 11th, 2005 at 5:57 pm
even terrisfight.org acknowledges there is no more than $50,000 left in the trust, so monetary conflicts are not an issue at this point
the girlfriend issue is similarly specious - the parents did not just acquiesce, but actively encouraged the husband to date again, as they freely admit, as a tactic to get him to relinquish guardianship.
since they chose that approach they hardly can claim it is a conflict of interest. the courts have agreed repeatedly that it is not a sufficient conflict to remove the husband as guardian
remember, it does not matter at this point whom is guardian.
the decision to remove the feeding tube stands as an independent ajudication of Terri’s wishes.
unless successfully challenged, when all stays expire (good luck), whomever is guardian is compelled by court order to remove the feeding tube
since the parents and related family testified they would not remove the feeding tube, no matter Terri’s wishes, they have no chance of ever being guardian for her
even if the Florida DCF chooses to ignore the court’s order and chooses to take Terri into protective custody, they do not have the authority to appoint a guardian.
nor can they prevent the removal of the feeding tube, unless the appellate court so orders
This comment was written by Bill.Report this comment to the moderators
March 11th, 2005 at 6:17 pm
I noticed Barbara said Terri has never had bedsores.
Dr. Wolfson, in his December 2003 report as guardian ad litem, also notes that, which he attributes to her husband’s attentiveness to her care.
however, shortly after that report, she did indeed develop one, which fortunately was resolved.
it is important to emphasize that Terri is not getting better, but is having all the complications we would expect for someone in her debilitated condition
she has also had at least one episode of pneumonia, in 2003 as well.
but ultimately, there is very little objective medical information now coming out about her condition.
we probably have HIPAA to thank for that.
one of the more recent complaints the parents have made was that whenever they went to visit Terri, she had a new hospital bracelet on, and no one would tell them why
oral antibiotics could easily be administered via her feeding tube
if she has to go to the hospital for whatever is happening, it suggests serious complications are even now occurring, though we as the public have little chance of ever knowing what they are
it should not surprise anyone to read one morning that Terri had died the previous night, as the result of aspiration pneumonia, or sepsis from an infected bedsore
even with the money he spent on his care, the lowly bedsore claimed Christopher Reeve
This comment was written by Bill.Report this comment to the moderators
March 18th, 2005 at 10:42 am
Tom Delay says, “Terri doesn’t want to die.” I really wonder how he knows this.
This comment was written by Joe.Additionally, for those who say that the only thing that Terri cannot do by herself is to eat and drink (therefore she needs her “feeding tube”) no one has addressed the issue of how she deficates and urinates.
Report this comment to the moderators
March 18th, 2005 at 11:09 am
I really don’t think that’s relevant or important, Joe. Everyone knows that Terri Schiavo requires help to deficate (and also to avoid bed sores, and many other things); it is not an “issue” that requires addressing.
There are many people who lead great, worthwhile lives while requiring assitance going to the bathroom, eatiing, etc.. That’s not in dispute, and it’s not (or shouldn’t be) part of the issue when considering the Terri Schiavo case.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
March 18th, 2005 at 12:07 pm
[…] tackles the main issues that are brought up over and over regarding the Schiavo case, see here BTW, I hate the fact that every single article […]
This comment was written by crayz.org » Schiavo.Report this comment to the moderators
March 18th, 2005 at 1:29 pm
I find all of this incredible. Lawmakers are clearly wasting taxpayer money on a person’s choice to refuse treatment. It ahs long been established that a person can refuse treatment at any point. It’s not a right to live or a right to die issue. That is why the Supreme Court refused to hear the case, because that pecident has long been set. Her husband has the legal authority to make the decision to stop treatment, because she cannot make that decision for herself. You may not like him for how he has lived his life, but the fact remains he is her legal representative.
This comment was written by Dennis J.Report this comment to the moderators
March 19th, 2005 at 12:01 am
“”A CT scan is useful only in pretty severe cases, such as trauma, and also during the few days after an anoxic (lack of oxygen) brain injury. It’s useful in an emergency-room setting. But if the question is ischemic injury [brain damage caused by lack of blood/oxygen to part of the brain] you want an MRI and PET. For subsequent evaluation of brain injury, the CT is pretty useless unless there has been a massive stroke…Attorney George Felos has claimed that Terri’s cerebral cortex has “liquefied,”? and doctors for Michael Schiavo have claimed, on the basis of the CT scans, that parts of Terri’s cerebral cortex “have been replaced by fluid.”? The problem with such contentions is that the available evidence can’t support them. Dr. Zabiega explained that “a CT scan can’t resolve the kind of detail needed”? to make such a pronouncement: “A CT scan is like a blurry photograph.”? Dr. William Bell, a professor of neurology at Wake Forest University Medical School, agrees: “A CT scan doesn’t give much detail. In order to see it on a CT, you have to have massive damage.”? Is it possible that Terri has that sort of “massive”? brain damage? According to Dr. Bell, that isn’t likely. Sometimes, he said, even patients who are PVS have a “normal or near normal”? MRI.” Massive damage would make her require much more life support than a simple feeding tube.
This quote contradicts your analysis, or rather, your conclusions. Your analysis seems to support the idea that if CT/CAT scans lack the resolution to determine “liquefication” then another conclusion is required.
The quote comes from a conservative mag article. Honestly, I myself doubt whether all the facts are straight in this piece, but even if there is severe bias, I’m impressed that the quotes are from among “50 board certified neurologists”–including professors of neurology at major universities and a nobel-nominated neurologist. They all say more tests are needed.
These aren’t just pundits. And concerning bias, the doctor the court has relied on most is not independent, but was hired by the husband’s attorney, AND is a leading advocate of the right to die movement who has misdiagnosed multiple patients as PVS in the past. He’s the one who says the CAT scan shows what neurologists say CAT scans can’t show in this case, that the cortex is shot. This is the guy you’ve been relying on for your “unbiased” opinions.
http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/johansen200503160848.asp
This comment was written by observer.Report this comment to the moderators
March 19th, 2005 at 9:33 am
[…] timeline with relevant links to papers and court petitions and decisions. Alas, A Blog - 17 Medical Affidavits about Terri Schiavo Amp looks a […]
This comment was written by feministe » More On Schiavo.Report this comment to the moderators
March 19th, 2005 at 3:17 pm
“4) Terri did decide who should decide for her when she can’t decide for herself. By marrying Michael, she decided to make him her legal guardian should she ever be unable to take care of, speak for, or make decisions for herself.”
People make mistakes. Perhaps after the honeymoon wore off, Michael turned out not to be the person she thought he was? Happens to the best of ‘em.
“Second, there’s harm done to the principle that we should be legally allowed to make moral decisions that contradict evangelical Christian moral values.”
You don’t have to be an evangelical Christian to think Terri should live, but that’s not the point. Some decisions affect more than just the person making it (we all know what George Felos will do with the publicity). I worry that anyone who is considered burdensome or somehow less than human — whether that’s babies, Jews, disabled people, whatever — could become fair game; my faith in this country is pretty much my only reassurance.
On a tangent…
…”there is no such thing as global warming”? and “breast cancer is caused by abortion.”?
I think that’s a bit unfair to conservatives…the question is not whether global warming exists (the planet has warmed and cooled since it came into existence, in other words, without our help), it’s whether humans can do a damn thing about it. And the claim was not that abortion causes breast cancer, only that it increases the risk.
This comment was written by Nikki.Report this comment to the moderators
March 19th, 2005 at 8:50 pm
observer, a lot of the things that you mentioned are factually correct, but either incomplete or not relevant to the Schiavo case. Ischemic brain injury is tough (often impossible) to see on a CT — that’s true. However, ischemic brain injury is generally followed by a process known as liquefactive necrosis — turning the brain to liquid. That is absolutely visible on a CT. This is the case with Terry Schiavo. Her brain injury would probably not have been visible immediately following her ishemic event, but the results of necrosis would become visible within days, and would certainly be evident now.
Many people in a PVS do have rather normal appearing scans. That’s not the case with Terry Schiavo. She is not merely brain damaged; she has no cerebral cortex. The fact that there are other people in a PVS who do not have the same level of brain damage does not say anything about Terry Schiavo’s state.
This comment was written by Frippety Fra.Report this comment to the moderators
March 20th, 2005 at 12:35 am
I am horrified by the Political challenge to fundamental US constitutional rights for a husband to make the ultimate decisions for his wife - It is no business of other family members and certainly no business of the government - Unless you agree that the Government should have a right to meddle in you choice of medical treatment this congressional action based on an uninformed emotional response should be challenged and quashed; just as quite rightly the highest court in the country has refused to get involved. How can this view be voiced ?
This comment was written by Jonathan Weston.Report this comment to the moderators
March 20th, 2005 at 3:14 am
This is a photo of Terri’s scan they used in the original 2000 trial showing a very large dark area where Terri’s cerebral cortex used to reside. It’s now filled with cerebral/spinal fluid.
http://www.miami.edu/ethics2/schiavo/CT%20scan.png
Terri no longer has a cerebral cortex. what little showed up in the scan, as very light areas, has since deteriotated further because that is what happens to vegitative people.
They need to let her body die ASAP like she did 15 years ago.
This comment was written by Cat.Report this comment to the moderators
March 21st, 2005 at 9:10 am
I am so outraged by this congressional action that I need to respond somewhere. My wife just had surgery and as standard procedure she had a living will. She’s fine but I was honor bond to not resesitate by her wishes even at the risk of offending her relatives. So is Michael Schiavo. Bond till death do you part.
This comment was written by bahusband.Report this comment to the moderators
March 21st, 2005 at 6:59 pm
Bottom line: We don’t know of she is in there. Neither position can be villified, because we all go on what we think is happening.
Caution, and ethical prudence demand that we err on the side of hope, and keep her alive. I don’t, however, think that euthanasia supporters have anything but her best interests in mind. This is just a very tough decision.
Who are we to say anyone’s life has no value? As long as extraordinary means are not required to keep Terry alive, I don’t see the harm in feeding her. Even if the euthanasia supporters are right, and she experiences nothing, then it won’t hurt her.
This comment was written by Rich.Report this comment to the moderators
March 22nd, 2005 at 1:28 am
STATEMENT OF SENATOR TOM HARKIN (D-IA) ON THE CASE OF TERRI SCHIAVO
FRIDAY, MARCH 18, 2005
March 18, 2005
“I have long been an advocate for the rights of people with disabilities. Many in that community are keenly aware of the risk of incapacitation. In such cases, I believe that every precaution should be taken to learn and respect their desires regarding the removal of life supports.
“Over the last week, I have been working hard, and in good faith with Senator Mel Martinez (R-FL), Senator Rick Santorum (R-PA), and others to come up with legislation that would allow federal review of the Terri Schiavo case. Yesterday afternoon, we came up with bipartisan measure that did just that and many of my Senate Republican and Democratic colleagues deserve praise for their hard and swift work.
“Unfortunately, the House Republican Leadership refused to take up the bill before sending members home for a two week vacation. There is no excuse for stalling a matter of such an urgent and life threatening nature. They are solely responsible for the consequences Ms. Schiavo and her family now face, as well as for today’s unfortunate events. Congressional action is this area should be based on respect for the wishes and dignity of those who are incapacitated.
“It is my belief that people with disabilities and those who are incapacitated deserve the utmost dignity and respect. I plan to continue to work with my Senate colleagues on both sides of the aisle to give cases like this an opportunity for further review in federal courts.”?
–30–
This comment was written by Dave.Report this comment to the moderators
March 22nd, 2005 at 1:38 am
The only scans that have been done on Terri Schiavo were CAT scans, rather than the more sophisticated MRI and PET scans that should have been done. Here’s what some prominent neurologists have said about that (this is an excerpt from an article by Reverend Robert Johansen):
[Long quote from National Review article snipped by Amp. I’ve already linked to, and discussed, that article in this post. –Amp]
This comment was written by Dave.Report this comment to the moderators
March 22nd, 2005 at 9:01 am
Oops… Michael Schiavo departed from Felos’s script, and admitted the truth on Larry King Live:
CNN LARRY KING LIVE March 18, 2005
That’s consistent with what he told other people (including a girlfriend) up until the malpractice settlement was awarded (which he stood to inherit): that he didn’t know what Terri’s wishes would be.
It also vindicates guardian ad litem Pearse, who concluded that Michael Schiavo’s claim (to recall conversations with Terri in which she said she’d not want to be kept alive) was not credible.
It also means that a key official conclusion of Judge Greer was wrong. Greer ruled that there was “clear and convincing evidence” that Terri had told Michael that she not wish be kept alive with assisted feeding or other support if she were in this condition. But now we know that is untrue, because Michael, himself, has admitted it: Terri did not express a wish to die in circumstances like these.
-Dave
This comment was written by Dave.Report this comment to the moderators
March 22nd, 2005 at 12:56 pm
One frequently reported misunderstanding by laypersons is that death by dehydration — NOT starving; if Ms. Schiavo dies after her artificial nutrition and hydration are removed, it will be from dehydration — is somehow cruel or painful.
Indeed, as hospice workers and hospice physicians and nurses will tell you if you interview them (as I have as a journalist, extensively, for many years) that dehydration is actually the most natural death in the world.
Essentially, once there is no more water to process, urination output turns dark, then ceases altogether. Then, toxins begin to build up in the kidneys, and move into other organs and systems. Physicians believe that these toxins even produce an “endorphin effect,” a natural response — sort of nature’s morphine — that paves the way for death.
Meanwhile, hospice workers also will tell you that the people with the most agitation and evident discomfort in dying are those who have been artificially hydrated in a hospital setting before coming to hospice. The medical director of HospiceCare of Boulder and Broomfield Counties in Colorado says that of “thousands” of terminal cases she’s worked with through hospice, those who have been artificially hydrated to extend life are in the most discomfort during the dying process. Such treatment, in such cases, is “not prolonging life,” she says, “but prolonging death.”
I personally have been at bedside for three terminal cases, my brother’s, my father’s, and that of a man about whom I was writing a story on hospice care. The best of the three deaths — i.e. the most peaceful — by far was that of the third man, who consciously rejected all artificial nutrition and hydration. When his body was “ready to go,” it simply rejected the water he tried to drink. Hospice workers kept his lips and mouth moist, but just hours later, he peacefully died. Meanwhile, my father was maintained in a coma, in a brain-damaged condition, with artificial hydration for two and a half weeks; the hydration caused severe edema in his lungs, necessitating suction, and his body bloated beyond all recognition. I had to fight hard to get that “treatment” removed.
The implication that “starving” Terri Schiavo — again, that’s not what would happen — is like denying food to a dog is simply wrong, informed by emotion rather than reality.
This comment was written by CB Evans.Report this comment to the moderators
March 22nd, 2005 at 3:01 pm
Quoting Ampersand, from No. 6, above…
I understand and agree with the “dog bit” of Ampersand’s arguement from 6. above. Starving a dog to death should get you put away for a long time.
However, the unequivocal claim that Terry Schiavo has not been capable of suffering for many years, without even the slightest consideration that this might not be the case, is unnerving. Even a comatose dog lying at side of the road, speculations on the impossibility of recovering from injuries notwithstanding, would be given the benefit of the doubt and put down humanely, not left to die “…like a dog”.
Why doesn’t Terry Schiavo deserve the same unwillingness to take even the most remote chance that death by starvation will be experienced with some degree of sentience, however primitive? Fact is, I don’t believe we know what the body experiences at the unconscious or even cellular level when despite it’s fiercest, most desperate, and still coordinated efforts to retain life, it is denied food and drink.
Consider, for instance, the recent research establishing that the heart is loaded with receptors that respond only to specific ligands, i.e. chemicals originating in the brain. As an organ, it seems the heart has its own way of “feeling”… see “broken heart, “sinking heart”, “heartsick”, etc.
That’s not aerie faerie, that’s not even the Ancients, who thoughts on the subject have survived in dozens of expressions in most languages… that’s today’s science. Do we really know what Terry Schievo’s heart may or may not “know”, as it struggles against purposeful deprivation to continue beating? I believe the answer is “No, we do not.”
Seems to me that at minimum, if we’re determined the deed be done, it’s moral cowardice to “watch” her body fight to the last breath instead of stepping up with a needle and putting it to an end, right now, just as we’d expect from the SPCA on behalf of the lowliest mutt, and for the same reasons.
As a footnote… thanks to everyone who has argued their case on this blog. I may not agree, but respect the thoughtfulness, honesty and passion of most every post.
This comment was written by Howard.Report this comment to the moderators
March 22nd, 2005 at 5:04 pm
CB Evans, posting No. 44, provides a harrowing account of hospice death that has the ring of truth. However, it seems to me there is a profound difference that renders it largely irrelevant to Terri Schiavo’s circumstances. Terry Schiavo was not on death’s doorstep, as hopsice patients are, by definition. In fact, quite the opposite… the problem for those who will her death is that her body has been altogether too robustly successful in its efforts to stay alive and support whatever limited mental functioning she maintains. The decision to deny her body food and water is neither a concession to impending death nor an attempt to ease her crossing. Rather, it is a forceful shove across the threshold, and she is unlikely to go gently into that dark night. That’s not emotion, that’s fact.
This comment was written by Howard.Report this comment to the moderators
March 22nd, 2005 at 6:11 pm
Hi, Howard. I appreciate your civil disagreement; there’s too little of that in the world today, imo.
You said that “it’s moral cowardice to “watch”? her body fight to the last breath instead of stepping up with a needle and putting it to an end, right now.” But I can understand that sort of moral cowardice; it’s the “cowardice” of people who don’t want to spend the rest of their lives in prison for homocide. Considering that the people in question believe that Terri is already gone and incapable of feeling pain, I think it’s too much to expect that they should be willing to spend life in prison over the exact means of Terri’s death.
I think that the law should allow humans the same mercy we’d show a begrudged pet; a humane shot would be better, for those who are already dead (which I believe is the case with Terri) or (much more so) for those who are in pain and would choose to die. But that’s not going to happen in any realistic political future, alas.
As for the “there is no absolute certainty” objection, I think I answered that in my comment number 6 on this thread, and I stand by what I wrote there.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
March 22nd, 2005 at 8:05 pm
Hello Ampersand,
Thanks for the reply. If I’d focused more closely, I would have said that it’s our society that stands indicted for “moral cowardice”… when it comes to the innocent, we can apparently accept slow death induced by witholding food and water, but not quick death by injection with which we favour the guilty. Moral equivocation of the first order.
When I listened to the Terri Schiavo tape, I found it quite horrifying. On the other hand, my wife, who has worked for two years as a volunteer with the severely mentally handicapped in the Riding for the Disabled program, she was not horrified at all… many of the youngsters and adults who partake of that program have little or no more ability to express themselves verbally than Terri Schiavo. It’s difficult for the non-familiar to conceive that many of them could receive any pleasurable sensation from contact with a horse… and yet they do… and sometimes express their reaction more eloquently - perhaps sporadic gentle stroking, for instance - than they do with their human caregivers, who see such behaviors on the part of their charges under no other circumstances.
These are people who are either assisted in the saddle, or held there. Their various “positive” reactions on a given day may include hardly any at all, grunting, eyes rolling, babbling… you name it - but they are reacting, sometimes in ways that can’t even be pinned down, but are clearly positive. One woman in her mid-thirties who has been blind and deaf from birth - with a few other problems thrown in for good measure - sits “alert” and confidently, and leans over the horse’s neck to sniff its scent, which seems to give her pleasure. How can she be so clearly confident, when she has never seen, and never heard? Maybe God knows, but I don’t.
Long-term volunteers with these folks learn, often more quickly than they would have expected, to see through the behaviors we would find unbearable from the point of our own wholeness - and to notice and marvel at the courage of life that finds ways to express itself.
I’m not suggesting that there isn’t a qualitative difference between anyone who can sit a horse, however aided, and Terry Schiavo. Nevertheless, she is in a place on a continuum… and here’s my point: I have a virtual certainty that much or most “public opinion” would be quite comfortable making the case, for instance, that a severely deformed thirty-year-old with an always-protruding tongue, rolling eyes and strangled grunts - who communicates “something pleasurable” from placing his now-quieted hands on the neck of a walking horse, led around the arena and supported on both sides… should be done away with for offending our sensibilities with their impossibly compromised humanity.
One problem… to do so, they’d have to get through the laymen - and laywomen, mostly, who have come to see them as individuals in their peculiarities… over their dead bodies as it were. And surely this protectiveness of the life they recognise pales in its intensity besides that of Terri Schiavo’s parents.
If her husband “can’t take it any more”… who would blame him? But if her family - mother, father and brother - are willing to provide the mental and emotional underpinnings to sustain her until she dies a natural death, I for one can’t see why the state sees an urgent need to stop them.
And I’ve got to wonder, once society has got used to the idea, who else will be given a push down the slippery slope.
This comment was written by Howard.Report this comment to the moderators
March 23rd, 2005 at 4:18 am
I would like to respond to two of Howard’s comments:
First, you infer that Terri does not fit the criteria for Hospice because she wasn’t at death’s door. My mom was a Hospice patient for two and a half years. It’s my understanding that the only criteria to become a Hospice patient is that you are terminal and are no longer seeking treatment for whatever illness you are suffering.
Second, you state that by removing the feeding tube from Terri Shiavo, we are going over some “slippery slope.” Hardly. Similar situations to Terri’s are happening in hundreds of hospitals and nursing homes around the country every day. Hers is just being exploited to further the agenda of right wing zealots. My friend’s 85 year old father is presently dying in a nursing home because he is no longer taking in food, and is only swallowing small amounts of water. He isn’t capable of making decisions for himself. Should my friend ask the doctors to insert a feeding tube to keep him alive? Is she going over a “slippery slope” by not doing so?
This comment was written by Susan S.Report this comment to the moderators
March 23rd, 2005 at 6:54 am
I am wondering if she will feel pain in the starvation process and if there is not a better way to end this then to let her starve to death.
This comment was written by Don.I for one feel the government is on board to detract from the mess they have created in Iraq and our economy etc….
Report this comment to the moderators
March 23rd, 2005 at 7:39 am
I would assume Hospice is giving her pain medication just in case. For my mom, that was one of the biggest benefits. They are more knowledgeable and have more leeway with pain medications than ordinary caregivers.
This comment was written by Susan S.Report this comment to the moderators
March 23rd, 2005 at 8:52 am
So much for staying on issue… there’s my correct point of view on the one hand, and on the other, ya got yer right wing zealots. Ah, well. But name-calling is not actually an arguement.
Folks don’t usually take up residence in a hospice unless death is actually on the horizon, agreed? On the other hand, Terri Schiavo is being pushed over that horizon to meet her death… that’s the difference, and it’s a big one.
This comment was written by Howard.Report this comment to the moderators
March 23rd, 2005 at 9:56 am
Howard,
I wasn’t calling you a name. I was referring to the people in Pinellas Park, Florida (about 20 miles from where I live) who are controlling the Schindler family throughout this ordeal. Check out this website and then look who’s milling around in the background at every Schindler press conference.
http://www.operationsaveamerica.org/misc/misc/director.html
My mom turned to Hospice at the doctor’s recommendation when she was diagnosed with emphysema. Her death was not imminent but she was in need of an array of services, including pain relief, that we couldn’t coordinate on our own.
This comment was written by Susan S.Report this comment to the moderators
March 23rd, 2005 at 10:59 am
In Post #35, Nikki opined:
Which seems to be a meme which has spread like wildfire through the blogosphere as a seemingly obligatory reference to the Schiavo case by those who are (typically) adamant that Terri S. MUST be allowed to “live” (regardless of any other considerations). “‘Save Terri’, or else it’s ‘Arbeit Macht Frei’ time.”
You must know, Nikki (if you have read even a fraction of the ink/pixels expended on discussions of the Terri Schiavo case) that her case (which, to push the point home yet again is NOT in ANY WAY unusual in this country) has been examined, adjudicated, re-examined, and re-adjudicated under a stringent framework of legal controls (adminstered by each State’s court system) designed specifically to avoid making “fair game” of ANY disabled patient; especially in the absence of a specific directive from the patient concerning their treatments.
The problem with the Schindler family is that they just simply don’t want to accept the findings and rulings of the courts which have gone against their obsessive fixations, and have resorted to the “court” of loud political activism to make their “case”.
If you are indeed worried about becoming “fair game”, Nikki, I would first of all advise you to make your wishes known, in writing, as to what sort of “terminal” care you would prefer. But, even if you don’t, you should then get about your life like the rest of us, secure in the knowledge that the law, not just “faith in the country” will actually be on YOUR side should anything happen to you.
This comment was written by Jay C.Just as (like it or not) it was/is for Terri Schiavo.
Report this comment to the moderators
March 23rd, 2005 at 1:31 pm
I’m not saying that I am an expert, but I am currently working toward becoming a board ceritfied Chiropractic Neurologist. Having a large amount of study in radialogy, neurological examination, neurophysiology, and various ways to stimulate different regions of the nervous system, I can tell you for assurity that if Terri’s Cerebral Cortex has liquified in enough regions she will never be able to gain consiousness. She may have reflexes that are viewed during an exam, but a reflex is a far cry from cognition and intention. The pure neuronal synaptic action that happens with a reflex is typically only from a simple neuronal route. Just as when you burn your finger on the stove, the impulse is sent and the hand is pulled away long before the neuronal stimulus is recieved into the brain. There are many functions that happen in the mid-brain and lower that can account for Terri’s ability to breath, blink eyes, digest food…etc. Point being she will never be able to be contious again with the amount of damage that, neuronal liquifaction has created. I know of several highly respected Chiropractic Neurologists that work intensly with post-stroke and current coma patients. I am sure that they would offer the same type of information. One of the World’s most acknowledged Doctors specializing in Coma is just down the road from Terri, in the Daytona Beach area. I’m sure that he has probably been solicited for this patient, yet she hasn’t been able to come out of it, even if he has very near a 70% success rate. Anyone that has been given the opportunity to view her medical records can come to this conclusion.
This comment was written by Cole Snyder.Report this comment to the moderators
March 23rd, 2005 at 7:24 pm
Susan, my apologies for misinterpreting your” zealots” remark. But I don’t think that zealots are “controlling” the Schindlers just because they’ve made the Schindlers’ cause their own. Once a private cause becomes a public cause, there’s not much can be done to suppress “allies” that you’d perhaps rather not have and that may even do more harm than good by appropriating the private cause in question, often motivated by an agenda of their own.
On the subject of hospice stays, thank you for clarifying your earlier reference to a two-and-a-half year stay, which I now understand. Unless my information is incorrect, though, there are federal guidelines that usually require a doctor’s assertion, with supporting tests, etc. that a prospective hospice patient is expected to be deceased within six months.
The tenacity of life is not subject to accurate prediction, so naturally, there will be patients who “linger” longer, sometimes much longer. But five years? That’s how long ago Terri Schiavo was transferred from a nursing home to a hospice where Michael Schiavo’s lawyer is chairman of the board of directors. Whereupon two things happened: therapy ceased, and costs-per-day rose, but were covered by a successful application for Medicaid, despite the non-existence of a fatal illness. Whether Terri lives or dies in the next few days, now that the glare of publicity is shining into some dark corners, it appears there’s some explaining to be done, probably in a court of law.
Finally, my “slippery slope” comment was not intended to apply to hospice patients for whom death is already on the horizon, where surcease is mercy. My reference was to people suffering from severe mental disabilities who are healthy enough in a physical sense, but cause us, with our intact faculties, to flinch, to quail, and in some instances, to be willing to prescribe death in the face of their “horrifying” incapacities and “bizarre” behaviors.
Visit a therapy center for the severely mentally handicapped and focus on the most severely handicapped individual - the one whose quality of life seems most lacking or disturbs you the most. Then ask yourself if you would be willing to turn thumbs down. From your comments, I don’t think you could do it, especially if you asked a caregiver who knows and loves that person to tell you their inevitable stories of successes, tiny by our enabled standards, but nevertheless real.
But there are plenty who could, and they’re standing at the top of the slope, ready to give a shove. In Terry Schiavo’s case, they’ve done just that, and they’ll probably succeed… and accomplish… exactly what?
This comment was written by Howard.Report this comment to the moderators
March 23rd, 2005 at 8:56 pm
The latest “expert” to weigh in on the case is Dr. William Cheshire, who asserts Terri Schiavo is “most likely in a state of minimal consciousness.” I was curious about the medical credentials of the Mayo Clinic (Jacksonville) neurosurgeon, cited by Gov. Jeb Bush in suggesting she may regain consciousness.
The trail may be found at this entry on my blog.
This comment was written by Charlie Q.Report this comment to the moderators
March 24th, 2005 at 6:58 am
Two points:
1. Dr Cheshire is and makes a big deal out of the fact that he is a member of the Christian Medical and Dental Association. I have insufficient information concerning his educational and professional bona fides, but note that he has offered his opinion based on an hour’s observation of Ms. Schiavo at some unspecified time and not on an independent medical examination.
2. An MRI is inot possible for Ms. Schiavo because there are shunts/electrodes that were implanted in her brain when the experimental procedure in CA was tried that have not been removed. MRI depends on massive amounts of magnetism–these units have metal in them. Put the two together……you get the picture. That’s why many folks w/ tattoos learn later to their dismay that they cannot have an MRI if there is some sort of metal in the dye used.
This comment was written by Regina.Report this comment to the moderators
March 24th, 2005 at 9:14 am
an article from the NY Times on Dr. Cheshire’s bona fides.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/24/national/24doctor.html
This comment was written by Regina.Report this comment to the moderators
March 24th, 2005 at 4:16 pm
This has been a very informative and interesting blog. I have been watching all of the newscasts…reading the papers…and of course reading the above. As do all, I have my opinion which is to allow the lovely lady to die with dignity, without all of the news media, politicians and supposed do gooders around
My County in PA has a 13 page pamphlet written by lawyers and physicians on the County website. It has been approved by both the County Medical Assoc. and the County Bar Assoc. It shall be filled out, notarized and will only be accepted in it’s complete 13 page form and can be reproduced for the purposes of receiving/refusing medical care in case of unresponsiveness whether it is from an accident or by natural reasons, such as Terri’s case. Needless to say, I have printed the forms and will have them notarized Monday. Everyone should think of this and take care of it before the fact. My parents did it for me…they made the decision, ……..I didn’t have to