Terri Schiavo news
| March 18th, 2005So today Terri Schiavo is scheduled to have her feeding tube removed. Will it actually happen? I have no idea. (Update: Zuzu in the comments reports that Terri’s feeding tube has now been removed.) But even if her feeding tube is removed today, her body won’t die for a week or two, so this issue isn’t over.
Today, two Houses of Representatives - Florida’s and the country’s - passed laws intending to save Schiavo. Neither Senate went along, however. The newest delaying tactic is to subpoena Terri to testify before Congress (and forbidding anyone from removing her feeding tube in the meanwhile). Currently it appears that her feeding tube will be removed regardless. The subpoena seems to me almost a mockery - Terri can no more answer congress’ questions than she can fly counterclockwise around the Earth to turn time backwards. Several bloggers, who feel the same way I do, are pissed off by this latest development, and by the perceived cynicism - see Schussman.com, Stone Court, and Rude Pundit (who, I should warn you, lives up to her/his name).
But I realize that folks on the other side don’t look at it the same way. Some activists are going on a hunger strike to protest; I’m appalled, but I nonetheless admire their idealism and dedication. I hope they don’t harm themselves.
* * *
I hesitate to publish these next images. I’ve decided I’m going to, because the physical condition of Terri Schiavo’s brain is essential to any serious discussion of Terri Schiavo’s condition. By including these images, I don’t intend any disrespect to Terri Schaivo whatsoever.
On the left is a CT scan of Terri Schiavo’s brain (source). On the right, for comparison’s sake, is a CT scan of a healthy human brain. (You may also find it useful to look at these medical illustrations of the human brain, here and here.)
As I understand it - and goodness knows, I’m no doctor - the sparsely detailed dark areas in Terri’s CT scan (both the large dark area in the center and the smaller dark areas around the edges) are where Terri’s brain has been replaced with brain fluid. To quote myself: 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.
* * *
I’m not convinced that there is any legitimate doubt on this point. A National Review article (hat tip: Bob Hayes) quotes a few doctors arguing that CT scans are “useful only in pretty severe cases”; but what has happened to Terri Schiavo’s brain is, in fact, very severe.
When people argue that a CT scan could not possibly tell us anything about Terri Schiavo’s condition, logically they must believe one of the following two things:
1) CT scans cannot reliably detect when someone’s cortex has mostly turned to liquid.
Or:
2) That someone’s cortex has turned mostly to liquid does not tell us anything important about their condition.
I don’t think either of those propositions are defensible; therefore, I don’t think the proposition “a CT scan can’t tell us anything about Terri Schiavo’s condition” is defensible.
Finally, the National Review article implies that there’s some sort of death-cult conspiracy between the judge and the doctors to hide Terri’s true condition. I think that sort of conspiratorial thinking is ridiculous. But in any case, for it to be correct, it’s not only Michael Schiavo, the judge, and the two doctors hired by Michael who would have to be in on it; two court-appointed doctors and at least three more judges (pdf link) must be in on the conspiracy too. Not to mention all the other medical experts who have commented on the case and disagreed with the National Review’s conclusions (see the neurologists quoted in this article, for example). How far does the conspiracy go?
* * *
I thought this Abstract Appeal post - explaining why the question of “would Terri Schiavo have wanted to be kept alive?” wouldn’t normally come up during the malpractice lawsuit - was particularly well done. In general (and I know I’ve said this before), Abstract Appeal is the absolute-must-read blog for Terri Schiavo related news.
* * *
UPDATE: I’ve edited the post to remove an argument that I didn’t think I could stand behind; I’ve put the argument in the comments for posterity’s sake. I’ve also “promoted” an argument I made in the comments to the main post.
March 18th, 2005 at 2:22 pm
Michael refused permission for an MRI when her parents had her examined. I’m looking for a source.
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
March 18th, 2005 at 2:51 pm
OK, I went direct to the source; I have an inquiry in with Fr. Johanssen to see what his source is for saying Michael denied the MRI.
One other points:
a few doctors arguing that CT scans are “useful only in pretty severe cases”?; but what has happened to Terri Schiavo’s brain is, in fact, very severe.
Nope. CT scans are useful for trauma cases. Terri didn’t have a brain trauma. She had an oxygen deprivation. The neurologists cited by Johannsen specifically mentioned that in oxygen deprivation cases, you need an MRI and/or PET to get a good understanding of what the level of damage to the brain is; a CT scan doesn’t get it done.
I must also note a bit of circularity in your reasoning: you say her brain injury is severe, but that’s exactly what the MRI would definitively establish.
(And in any case, given even the tiny chance that her cerebral cortex is somewhat present, wouldn’t it make sense to do the one test that would establish that definitively? Since your whole case that she should be killed rests on your belief that she’s already dead from a lack of a cortex, why not go the extra mile and check?)
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
March 18th, 2005 at 3:20 pm
First of all, I stand by what I wrote. They said that it’s useful in severe cases. They’re assuming Terris’ case is not severe when they suggest it’s therefore not useful in her case, but I think looking at the CT scan blows away that assumption.
My reasoning is only “circular” if you assume that it’s impossible to make a diagnosis of a severely degraded brain from a CT scan. I don’t think that’s true.
Finally, I’d agree with you about doing an MRI - if both sides would agree that MRI results would establish anything “definitively.” But I don’t believe that the folks at Terrisfight.org and their allies are wiling to agree that any level of evidence whatsoever could show that Terri is gone.
If we did an MRI scan, it would certainly show the same thing the CT scans show - that Terri’s brain is degraded far beyond any hope of recovery, and far beyond the point where she has any ability to think, feel or experience. And the result? There would soon be an article in the National Review saying that an MRI wasn’t certain enough, we must delay further until we can have a f-MRI done. And then, if an f-MRI is done, we’ll be told that another test must be done in order to have certainty. And so on. The strategy for the Terrisfight.org people is not to genuinely seek new information, but to try and seek delays under any pretext whatsoever.
So do I have anything against doing an MRI? No. I wish one had been done years ago (for all I know, one was). But I do think that after fifteen years, it’s legitimate for the court to recognize that what’s going on now is not a genuine desire for new information, but delay for delay’s sake.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
March 18th, 2005 at 3:24 pm
One more comment: When you say “an CT scan is not useful in Terri Schiavo’s case,” you must logically be saying one of two things:
1) If someone’s cortex has turned mostly to liquid, a CT scan will not be able to dectect that.
2) That someone’s cortex has turned mostly to liquid is not useful information that tells us anything about someone’s case.
I don’t think either of those propositions are defensible; therefore, I don’t think the proposition “a CT scan is not useful in Terri Schiavo’s case” is defensible.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
March 18th, 2005 at 3:25 pm
It’s not so easy to understand why Terri’s doctors didn’t perform an MRI, if preforming an MRI is a no-brainer
That’s kind of an unfortunate turn of phrase, isn’t it?
The NYT is reporting the feeding tube has been removed.
This comment was written by zuzu.Report this comment to the moderators
March 18th, 2005 at 3:30 pm
You’re right. Geez! I’ve rewritten that sentence in the post - thanks.
Thanks for the breaking news as well.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
March 18th, 2005 at 3:34 pm
You’re right. I should say “a CT scan is not sufficient”.
I imagine that there are those who will not accept any test as sufficient; however, there are a number of people concerned for Terri who do not hold the hard-line RC position that you never end a life. For those folks, an MRI would provide a much better indicator. (And an openness to those tests would do a lot to dispel the idea that Michael Schiavo is hell-bent on ending Terri’s life.) In other words, it would bolster the strength of your position regardless of the outcome.
Just got a message from Fr. Johansen re: the MRI:
“My sources for the information regarding the lack of MRI for Terri are: the Schindlers, their attorneys: Pat Anderson (till last fall) and David Gibbs; statements by George Felos, testimony from Dr. Cranford (the chief medical witness for Michael Schiavo) himself, who argued in court that an MRI would not be necessary, and e-mails from Cranford himself. Needless to say, I can’t share the Cranford e-mails because I don’t have his permission to do so. The mere fact that Terri has thalamic implants contraindicates an MRI until they are removed (which Michael has refused to do in spite of a doctors instrctions to do so.)
The Schindlers did ask for an MRI at least three times, and each time Michael refused. Judge Greer refused to order an MRI for Terri, though the doctors for the Schindlers asked for one at the 2002 evidentiary hearing.
As far as news reports about this issue go, there aren’t any. The MSM has proven singularly uninterested in facts about her case that don’t fit into the “right to die” mold. As far as I know, my NRO piece was the first published article to make this fact known. “
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
March 18th, 2005 at 4:00 pm
Keep in mind that Michael Schiavo hasn’t been the decision-maker for years. Even if he decided to change his mind and advocate for Terri’s body to be kept alive, that would not change anything at this point; he’s under a court order. Similarly, even if they switched to a different guardian, that would not change anything; the new guardian would be legally required to remove her feeding tube.
I’m not sure if Michael could order an MRI without the court’s permission, at this point.
The question I have is one of timing. That the Schindlers have asked for an MRI is well-known and well-publicized; I don’t question that.
What I’m wondering is if they asked and were refused at a specific time (duirng the preparation for the trials regarding Terri’s medical condition). I’m not sure if you’ve answered that question.
In any case, why did this claim that it is impossible to diagnos PVS without an MRI not come up much, much earlier - say, a decade or more ago?
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
March 18th, 2005 at 4:01 pm
That said, however, I myself would have no objection to an MRI being performed on Terri, assuming the practicalities (paying for the surgury to remove her implants, etc) could be fairly worked out. I see nothing wrong with being sure. However, I remain skeptical that there are many people at all on the National Review’s side who would find an MRI, or any other level of evidence, sufficient.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
March 18th, 2005 at 4:11 pm
In any case, why did this claim that it is impossible to diagnos PVS without an MRI not come up much, much earlier - say, a decade or more ago?
I believe that it did, Amp. But once you have the judge say “no” and the appeal gets denied, there’s not a lot of point to trying to keep the issue going. Remember, the Schindler’s didn’t start out to try to change the culture on euthanasia; they started out trying to keep their daughter alive. Continuing to fight the MRI battle after it was lost would have been a misallocation of their resources ten years ago; they moved on and fought on other fronts. A decade ago, this case was not in the public consciousness; nobody cared other than Michael Schiavo, the Schindlers, (possibly) Terri, and a few hardcore activists on either side.
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
March 18th, 2005 at 7:13 pm
Before a decade ago, there was a time when Michael Schiavo and the Schindlers were in perfect harmony. If an MRI is so absolutely essential, why was no MRI done before there was any conflict?
In any case, you’ve convinced me enough so I’m removing that section of the post, and I no longer stand behind it. I have to admit, there’s a real possibility that I’m mistaken and you’re correct. Here, for posterity, is the bit I’ve removed:
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
March 18th, 2005 at 7:28 pm
You can’t do that! That’s playing fair and being a reasonable person! I cry foul.
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
March 18th, 2005 at 10:31 pm
Give it up, please. You and other people with knee-jerk reactions to the right-to-lifers are helping to bring disgrace on progressives.
YOU don’t know the truth of the case, and don’t pretend like you do with all of this bogus crap of “evidence.”
You are supporting KILLING of the disabled, and it is hypocritical in the light of pretending to be against the death penalty and of against war.
Shame on you and all of the others who carry a torch for slime like Michael Schiavo and George Felos.
This comment was written by Susan Nunes.Report this comment to the moderators
March 18th, 2005 at 11:12 pm
Well, that evened things out a little.
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
March 18th, 2005 at 11:29 pm
“As I understand it - and goodness knows, I’m no doctor - the sparsely detailed dark areas in Terri’s CT scan (both the large dark area in the center and the smaller dark areas around the edges) are where Terri’s brain has been replaced with brain fluid.”
This comment was written by Destruktor.Are you sure it is brain fluid? You can’t just make shit up, then go into a big rant about science. A more hypotheitcal thought derived from the pictures would be: whats all that blueness on the brain she has, as opposed to that heathy shade of grey brain? Or them dark blue areas, yep shes braindead alright, darkblue is bad, but to say that the dark blue areas equals brain fluid is getting way ahead of yourself.
Report this comment to the moderators
March 18th, 2005 at 11:55 pm
Very interesting and relevant post and dialogue. I am a Blogger for Terri and although I don’t focus so much on these specifics of testing and the argument about what it would show…I do know PVS is unfortunately a largely clinical diagnosis…Recent research has shown a large number of people are misdiagnosed with PVS and are more likely MCS (minimal conscious state) I do believe the fact Michael/Greer wouldn’t allow more testing fits in with a very ugly pattern of negligence in getting her adequate treatment and care. How can it be Ok as a guardian to NOT file required and appropriate financial and health care papers yearly? I have a very difficult time in thinking it is a good legal decision from the bench to mandate her starvation & dehydration based on hearsay…part of the hearsay from a husband who was the only one with her the night of her collapse, the only one who ever stood to gain anything from her death, and the only one who could potentially lose a whole lot if she ever recovered…For myself the case comes down to more than just a right to die case…it comes down to Terri’s right to her own representation, facts, and accountability. It comes down to a gestalt that desperately needs correction.
This comment was written by Crystal Clear.Report this comment to the moderators
March 19th, 2005 at 5:14 am
I think Susan is getting into the personal insults zone here. Aren’t commentors supposed to remain polite?
Anyhow, I know of a doctor of clinical psychology who’s had training in neuropsychology who states that without a cerebral cortex (Of which there’s no argument Terry is lacking), there is no real chance for higher brain functions. There’s no tissue there for it to happen in.
And PVS is largley a clinical diagnosis. That’s correct. But in this *specific* case, it’s a diagnosis based on there being no cerebral cortex. None. It’s been replaced by spinal fluid.
I could diagnose old computers as being possible to fix, but if there’s no CPU, I’d be counting on something outside of the realm of physics to provide for the fix. In Terry’s case, it’s similar. There’s no CPU, and no amount of wishing will make one appear.
If Terry is not in a PVS, then there is no such thing as a PVS. But if it is a *possible* diagnosis, then she’s in it.
This comment was written by Josh Jasper.Report this comment to the moderators
March 19th, 2005 at 5:35 am
Just a thought. If Terry is going to get better some day, why not cryonicaly freeze her? Then she can (a) be declared legaly dead, and (b) have a better chance of coming back to life.
This comment was written by Josh Jasper.Report this comment to the moderators
March 19th, 2005 at 9:46 am
[...] gnition on display isn’t Terri’s, but the film editor’s.” Even more from Alas here. Majikthise - Red herrings 17 “medical experts” threw at me [...]
This comment was written by feministe » More On Schiavo.Report this comment to the moderators
March 19th, 2005 at 9:46 am
[...] gnition on display isn’t Terri’s, but the film editor’s.” Even more from Alas here. Majikthise - Red herrings 17 “medical experts” threw at me [...]
This comment was written by feministe » More On Schiavo.Report this comment to the moderators
March 19th, 2005 at 9:56 am
What would an MRI establish that the CT hasn’t? I speak from medical ignorance here.
Also, what about the parents’ claim that Terri is actually showing brain function in her physical reactions? Are they just deluding themselves, or what?
Is anybody else as bothered as I am that the “let her die” solution consists of unplugging the feeding tube and letting her starve to death over the course of one or two weeks? Jesus Christ, I don’t care how brain-dead she may be, that’s inhuman! If it’s immoral to just give her an injection for euthanasia the way you’d do for a terminally ill dog or cat, it’s certainly immoral to remove a feeding tube. I’m appalled.
This comment was written by Simon.Report this comment to the moderators
March 19th, 2005 at 10:05 am
Schiavo reconsidered
Majikthise has a great summary of the issues, and has also made one persuasive comment here. I still stand by my utilitarian argument, that Schiavo is effectively dead and it's pointless to fight over whether she should be simply extinguished and …
This comment was written by Pharyngula.Report this comment to the moderators
March 19th, 2005 at 10:13 am
Crystal Clear said:
I think you are refering to this paper:
Misdiagnosis of the vegetative state: retrospective study in a rehabilitation unit
However if you look at the paper, you’ll see that it doesn’t apply to this case at all - one of the key messages is:
Since these methods weren’t the ones used to diagnose this in this case, it’s not relevant.
Crystal Clear, you also make a number of accusations, none of which you ack up. Please provide us with impartial sources for your statements.
This comment was written by Kristjan Wager.Report this comment to the moderators
March 19th, 2005 at 10:52 am
Simon, my understanding is that an MRI would provide high-quality images of Terri’s cerebral cortex, which would definitively establish its condition. This is important because if the cortex is in fact completely gone (as many believe), then there really is no hope of any kind of improvement in her condition. If it’s in bad shape but there’s still substantial tissue, however, then there is at least a fragmentary hope that she is still alive “in there” and could maybe one day awaken. The CAT scan images don’t go into much detail; as seen here, they’re basically colored blobs. That provides some information but not a complete map.
I’m not a doctor or a medical imaging technologist; this is just what I’ve been told. It seems reasonable.
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
March 19th, 2005 at 12:28 pm
Upon closely examining that CT scan of Ms. Schiavo’s brain, or what remains of it, I do believe that I can discern an miraculous image of the infant Baby Jesus. Do the husband and the parent’s know about this? They could put it up on eBay and recoup their medical expenses and then some. Probably even get more for the actual brain itself.
This comment was written by Barry Freed.Report this comment to the moderators
March 19th, 2005 at 6:23 pm
Simon –
Is anybody else as bothered as I am that the “let her die”? solution consists of unplugging the feeding tube and letting her starve to death over the course of one or two weeks? Jesus Christ, I don’t care how brain-dead she may be, that’s inhuman!
I know about this from personal experience with my mother, who did have a Living Will documenting her wishes. She was a healthy, active 73 year old who had a brain aneurysm in 2000. The doctor performed emergency surgery, with a 50% chance she would die during surgery, and if she did not die, a 10% chance that she would recover *some* functioning with extensive rehab. She did survive, but tests done immediately after the surgery showed that parts of her brain had been irreparably damaged. She was unable to respond to even the simplest verbal commands or move independently; she had reflexive responses to pain, and occasionally would moan.
We did not want to do anything to prolong her life in this state. The *only* choice available was to remove her feeding tube, and we also chose to remove hydration (except for keeping her mouth moist) so her death would come more quickly. Given her brain damage, we had no idea if she was “suffering” — but probably not. The US does not allow euthanasia by lethal injection, which would have been the quickest way and in my opinion the most humane. We were told it would take 2 days to 2 weeks for her to die, so we moved her to a hospice facility. Family members took turns staying in the room with her round the clock, and she died 4 days after being moved. My brother was with her, and he said that her death was extremely peaceful; over the course of 45 minutes she breathed less and less frequently, until she ceased breathing entirely.
There is nothing uncommon about what happenned here. If someone in a Living Will states that they do not want their life prolonged by “artificial means” that usually means removing a feeding tube, or, hopefully, not putting one in in the first place. My mother got one because when she arrived at the hospital, she was semi-concious. If the brain stem is functioning (as hers was), digestion and respiration are unimpeded, so a person can be kept alive with a feeding tube and artificial hydration for months or years. There simply is no other choice than this “inhuman” one that would have allowed us to respect her wishes.
This comment was written by Ann.Report this comment to the moderators
March 19th, 2005 at 8:40 pm
Jesus Christ, I don’t care how brain-dead she may be, that’s inhuman!
This comment was written by Omar K. Ravenhurst.Even if we postulate a soul, the brain clearly links consciousness to the body. If the brain can no longer perform this function, consciousness goes away. As someone said on Pandagon, this is an ex-parrot. I regret that foolish laws forbid shutting down the dead body quickly, to spare the feelings of the living. But as for the former occupant of the head in question, I doubt she’d care if we buried her old cells before they stop breathing.
Report this comment to the moderators
March 19th, 2005 at 9:07 pm
What are thalamic implants, how would they be removed, and what would be the consequences of removing them to perform an MRI?
This comment was written by CaseyL.Report this comment to the moderators
March 19th, 2005 at 9:09 pm
Even if we postulate a soul, the brain clearly links consciousness to the body. If the brain can no longer perform this function, consciousness goes away. As someone said on Pandagon, this is an ex-parrot. I regret that foolish laws forbid shutting down the dead body quickly…
Um. But see, not everybody accepts this premise. Until somebody dies and returns from the dead (again, from my POV ), we don’t know that for sure.
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
March 19th, 2005 at 9:20 pm
OK, I have the answer to my first question: thalamic implants are to prevent Parkinson-style tremors. I guess, without them, the shell of Terri Schiavo would have uncontrolled spasms - and in a body with no muscle control, not even a swallow reflex, uncontrolled spasms are clearly a Bad Thing.
But I can’t find much info about removing them. All I can find is that the problem is, the implants are made of silicon, and can fall apart during the surgery, leaving silicon shards behind in the body. Apparently, this is major surgery and requires a specialist who’s very very good at it.
So: the consequences of major surgery seem pretty dire; and if any silicon is left in the body, that compromises the MRI.
And, since Michael Schiavo no longer has the legal authority to authorize the surgery, and the Schindlers have no legal standing at all, the question of removing the implants to get a good-quality MRI seems moot.
This comment was written by CaseyL.Report this comment to the moderators
March 19th, 2005 at 9:28 pm
Robert, are you saying that some people believe consciousness does *not* reside in the brain? Where do they think it lives, in some ineffable ether dimension?
That’s got to be one of the battiest things I’ve ever heard. Is “brain death”
This comment was written by CaseyL.a fiction, then? Are acephalics actually viable beings? Are JFK and RFK still alive somewhere, functioning just fine, thanks, despite having their brains blown out?
Report this comment to the moderators
March 19th, 2005 at 9:59 pm
Casey, did you find that out on the internet? If so, would you mind sharing the links, if you still have them? If not, can you let us know what the source of your info is?
It’s not that I doubt you; it’s that I think I might want to be able to refer to that info in the future, and I’d like to steal your work if possible, rather than finding my own references. :-)
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
March 19th, 2005 at 10:04 pm
What little I know of the relevant issues I’ve learned from philosophers instead of neurologists, but I was under the impression that CT scans were essentially 3D X-rays, showing the physical structure of the brain, while MRIs were 3D images of brain activity. If this is the case, to find out whether part of the brain had turned into spinal fluid (which is not as dense as brain matter, and therefore distinguishable using X-rays), a CT scan would be more useful than an MRI. Furthermore, the picture shown is only a partial snapshot of the 3D model of Schiavo’s brain the CT scan produced, which would be more detailed than just colored blobs.
This comment was written by Philip Brooks.Report this comment to the moderators
March 19th, 2005 at 10:06 pm
On what thalamic implants are:
http://www.aafp.org/afp/20000515/tips/6.html
On removing them (not a medical article; a blog thread by people with experience of them):
http://neuro-mancer.mgh.harvard.edu/ubb/Forum86/HTML/000015.html
I just googled ‘thalamic implants’ and ‘removing thalamic implants’, and picked the references that looked most pertinent. Warning: you’ll get some Save!Terri! sites.
This comment was written by CaseyL.Report this comment to the moderators
March 19th, 2005 at 10:08 pm
Actually, after a bit of googling, it looks like I’m confusing CAT scans and CT scans. So never mind!
This comment was written by Philip Brooks.Report this comment to the moderators
March 19th, 2005 at 11:06 pm
What premise do you mean, Robert? We don’t start from the assumption that the brain controls consciousness, we conclude it from abundant evidence — drunkenness springs to mind. Having a liquid cortex would affect the mind more than alcohol, don’t you think?
This comment was written by Omar K. Ravenhurst.Report this comment to the moderators
March 20th, 2005 at 12:17 am
David Neiwert have a good psot about some of the more dangerous people the case is attracting - it can be found in this post:
Bo to the rescue
I don’t think there is any guilt by association1 here in regards to the people who tries to keep her in the vegetable state, but it is interesting to see what kind of people rally to their side.
1I don’t disregard guilt by association as a concept, as I believe it is appropriate in some cases, however in this case, I don’t feel it is so.
This comment was written by Kristjan Wager.Report this comment to the moderators
March 20th, 2005 at 12:30 am
And yet more googling reveals that CT and CAT scans are two different words for the same thing. It seems to be possible to create a 3D model of the physical structure of a brain or other organ from a CT scan, but I can’t find any indication that this is normally done, let alone whether it was done in Schiavo’s particular case. Someone with better knowledge of the subject or research avenues really ought to take over from here lest I should make a (bigger?) fool of myself.
This comment was written by Philip Brooks.Report this comment to the moderators
March 20th, 2005 at 2:41 am
I sent an email to my family yesterday, stating that if I were ever in a condition like Terri’s, and they didn’t let me die, I would find a way to haunt all of their asses.
I did ask them to do the impossible, though, and have someone shoot me up with something so that it wouldn’t be as traumatic on the physical body that was left, as well as the living people having to watch. Unfortunately, that’s not an option in the US.
A medical ethics class I took once discussed euthenasia, and this point has always stuck with me… (convoluted, but try to follow me here)
IF Bob is watching over his 2 year old cousin, and the kid is taking a bath - and Bob decides to reach in and hold the kid under water so the child drowns… OR… Bob is watching him in the bath, and the child slips and hits his head and is under water… Bob knows that if he doesn’t act, the kid will drown and die.. but he doesn’t act and passively watches as the child dies…. Which action is more ethical? Either one?
So, if you agree that it is ethically the same to actively cause death, and to purposefully allow death when you know it will happen, and could prevent it…… Why - when someone is in a condition where it is there wish to die, do we only allow the passive allowance of it, rather than active participation in the carrying out of their wish to die?
And for the rude posters that decided to flame the comments, particularly with comments about “us” wanting to kill this person but being against war… can I just say - what on earth is your point? my ability to refuse medical treatment, either on my own, or through those whom I have given the right to decide it, has NOTHING to do with the death penalty or war. It has to do with the rights of people in this country to make medical decisions for themselves, and for those they are charged with doing so for, such as their spouse.
This has been the most extensively litigated and court reviewed case regarding “right to die” that I can think of, and yet, people want to believe that every court appointed doctor, and every judge is “in on it” with supposed “slime” like Michael Shiavo? Psh.
I hope to hell that if I’m ever in a state like Terri’s, that someone who cares about me, will fight to make sure I don’t simply exist like that. Honor my life and who I was, back when I was “in there”, and let me leave with dignity.
Or, like I said…. I’ll haunt your asses.
This comment was written by Karrie.Report this comment to the moderators
March 20th, 2005 at 6:34 am
Philip –
CT and CAT are (as you say) essentially 3-D reconstructions from xrays. Of MRIs, there are two sorts: one is purely structural, and gives you the same sort of info as CT, only with much better spatial resolution; the other is called fMRI (for “functional”) and does a better job of imaging cerebral blood flow, which correlates (we think) with brain activity. In that sense fMRI is a lot like PET, except without the radiation.
fMRI would give us a very good idea about what structural damage there is to a brain, as well as some good indications of activity in it. But it sounds like the thalamic implants would make any sort of MRI problematic. PET would still be an option if you were interested in a good idea about brain function.
This comment was written by Marc.Report this comment to the moderators
March 20th, 2005 at 8:10 am
Like Ann, I had to make a decision to discontinue life support for my mother. She’d had a massive heart attack yet hadn’t recognized the symptoms, so it was two days before she got help. By then, her heart was so damaged that even surgery couldn’t repair it.
My siblings and I made the decision to let her die. She had very little chance of recovery and would have required a ventilator and machines to run her heart. Even though she’d never had any specific conversations with her about it, we all knew that she wouldn’t want to live that way. Several of us were there with her when it happened, as were her brother and my father’s sisters — one of whom, a Catholic nun, agreed with our decision. She went quickly, though it was clear that the actual end was painful for her (she was gasping as her heart stopped).
This is a decision that all kinds of people have to make every day. It’s a difficult one, but in my case, it was not something that I regret. I doubt anyone would say, “Hey, if I ever turn into a vegetable, make sure you keep me alive and hooked up to machines as long as possible.”
This comment was written by zuzu.Report this comment to the moderators
March 20th, 2005 at 9:01 am
My family allowed my father to die. He was comatose, and evaluated by a team of specialists who concluded he had no chance of recovery of function from “galloping Alzheimers” (in a week, he went from hosting a wedding to being a total care patient in a nursing home — unable to walk, talk, go to the bathroom, or feed himself).
Feeding tubes are an INTERVENTION — they are NOT “natural.” If the body ceases to function, death is “natural.” Feeding tubes did not exist 25 years ago. They require a tube down the throat or through a surgical slit in the body, to provide nourishment when the patient cannot or will not eat or be fed.
OUR FAMILY’S CHALLENGE: It was painful and difficult to let go. Some siblings hoped our father would “come back” — but the specialists’ report convinced us all that he would continue to live in a semi-vegatitive state, and would deteriorate. My father had a living will and had frequently expresed the wish not to be kept alive in a semi-vegatitive state; prior to his last illness, he had left notes all over saying “if but for a vegetable - NO!”
Only after the specialists report of his deteriorated state, and a family mediation guided by a skilled psychiatrist, did all siblings and spouse (step-mother) agree to: no feeding tubes, no antibiotics, no recussitation, no hospitalization.
EASY DEATH: We did not permit feeding tubes to be inserted at the nursing home. My father was given water, and food as long as he could feed himself or be fed. When he got pneumonia (called “the old man’s friend”), he was not given antibiotics, and he died comfortably.
My father died as he would have if no extraordinary interventions had existed. Thankfully, our family agreed to allow him to die. If there had been a dispute, the nursing home and hospital would have kept him alive.
This comment was written by MS.Report this comment to the moderators
March 20th, 2005 at 9:42 am
Marc is quite right about the imaging. MRI, whether functional or structural, is no good with implants because the electromagnet used is so powerful that anything metal in your head would come flying out your head (that’s only a slight exaggeration). PET could still be an option if you wanted to do functional imaging, although it would help to have some specific question to ask of the brain, and I’m not sure what the right question would be - “Is there any brain there” is not really a functional question.
But there’s something being lost in this discussion of brain imaging methods. The fact that an MRI would give a better structural picture of Terri Schiavo’s brain does not at all mean that the existing CAT scan isn’t good enough for present purposes. I see much serious armchair scan-reading in this thread that signals ignorance of the subject. Let me tell you: if you are sufficiently familiar with brains and brain images, you do not need an MRI to tell you how severely the brain in the pictured CAT scan is damaged, nor do you need to see more slices than the one depicted here. This single image shows a very severely damaged brain. The large “blue blobs” in the middle are ventricles, also present in healthy brains (you can see the two little dark crescent shapes in the brain on the right) that have expanded to such a large size because the overall brain volume is so low. Cranial space that would otherwize have been filled by gray matter is now filled with cerebrospinal fluid. And yes, that’s what the blue space is: cerebrospinal fluid that is filling up space left behind by necrotic brain tissue that has been scavenged and removed by the body. The white squiggly things are white matter - connective tracts that have the loose, uncoiled look about them that they do because, again, the grey matter that once compressed them is no longer there, so they “float” loosely in CSF. The gigantic ventricles, expanded white matter, and undifferentiated blue space in that scan all point to the same thing: massive loss of grey matter in the cerebral cortex. You don’t need an MRI to tell you that, it’s clearly visible in the CAT scan.
It is true that given the poor resolution of this image, it’s possible that some cortical tissue has been spared. But that doesn’t matter. Whatever wisps of cortex we might be missing in this image are not enough to sustain behaviors that could differentiate Terri Schiavo from any other vertebrate. All the neural equipment you need to do ocular following and emotional responses is subcortical. All the neural equipment you need to be a self-aware, reasoning, behaving human being is cortical. And since i gather this image was made some time ago, the present condition of the brain can only be worse.
There is no way any qualified brain doctor or scientist could look at this image and suggest that significant recovery of function is possible. The fact that we could have all this discussion on the subject is a triumph of politics over science. Tragic for Terri Schiavo, and really for us all.
This comment was written by cerebrocrat.Report this comment to the moderators
March 20th, 2005 at 10:17 am
On the matter of what differentiates a CAT or CT scan from an MRI, and from a PET scan, some technical clarifications.
CAT or CT scans are done using a large number of low power X-rays. I believe the frequency of the X-ray emission is also different than that of a conventional chest or abdominal X-ray. X-rays, as you probably know, are very small wavelength light radiation, having a higher frequency than ultraviolet and lower than gamma radiation. Their wavelengths are 100 picometers to 10 nanometers. Each narrow beam is attenuated by a different amount, and the amount of transmission is recorded. There is an important mathematical theorem of Radon (nothing to do with the element or radiation, just a guy’s name) which relates these measurements to the overall density of the space measured. This, if anything, is the “magic” of a CAT scan. Basically, it’s like finding the plums in a plum cake by proving with chop sticks and noting if resistence is encountered and noting the orientation of the chopstick with respect to the cake. Because CAT scans are sensitive to density gradients, they can see and map more than conventional X-ray imaging, which depends upon strong attenuation of X-rays by various tissues, bone vs soft tissue.
MRIs are Magnetic Resonance Images, and the technique is Nuclear Magnetic Resonance Imaging (NMRI). This technique surrounds the subject or sample in a strong and controllably oriented magnetic field. This field causes the hydrogen nuclei in water, located throughout the subject, to align with it. A radio frequency (RF) energy pulse is applied perpendicular to the magnetic field, raising the energy states of the nuclei. Once raised, some of them spontaneously relax, emitting an RF signal, albeit one at a different frequency than the driving pulse. These transmissions are detected and mapped, and form the basis for reconstructing the interior of the subject. MRIs have much greater resolution than CAT scans, particularly for neural tissue. But they have the disadvantage that resolution is limited by motion, so the best subjects are either inanimate or dead. Unfortunately, people breathe. I would guess the removal of thalmic implants, if it does induce seizures or tremors, would make an attempt at MRI useless for this reason. Often, to shorten the time for imaging, contrast dyes are administered to patients.
Brain activity can also be measured using PET scans, which are interesting and new. They involve injecting a number of radioactive materials in the body which emit positrons, and these emissions can be tracked and mapped to reconstruct density and detect changes. PET scans of the human brain are interesting because their result is a movie of changes going on in the brain, and are the basis for studying centers of cognition, motor control, creativity, and emotions.
This comment was written by Jan Theodore Galkowski.Report this comment to the moderators
March 20th, 2005 at 11:07 am
It’s worse than even that, Cerebrocrat. It’s a full-scale assault on the stability of our medical, legal and political institutions.
Congress, in calling for yet more court review, is saying that anytime a court reaches a decision it doesn’t like, it can pass a special bill ordering a new court review - theoretically, Congress can keep doing this until some court, somehere, reaches a decision it likes. Which leads to the question: Can Congress also order that a decision it likes not be appealed? The GOP is already working on saying “Yes,” by pushing for a bill that would remove certain policies and laws from Court jurisdiction by a simple majority vote in Congress.
Doctors, patients, researchers…everyone… will have to start looking over their shoulder for politically-motivated interference in their work, their decisions, their lives.
This comment was written by CaseyL.Report this comment to the moderators
March 20th, 2005 at 12:31 pm
CaseyL, while this may be a focused assault upon the medical, legal, and political institutions, and I agree about its implications for medical process participants, I think it’s simply institutionalizing a U.S. culturewide move away from seeing reason, knowledge, and the intellectual as being important for making decisions and setting policy.
Instead, I think it is enshrining the rule of mob and emotion as the ultimate authority under the banner of “personal values”. I don’t expect this will diminish until the public realizes what’s going on. Historically, and especially in democracies, once such a trend materialized there have always been politicians who sought to exploit it, as long as the minority who trotted out their sentiments were sufficiently loud and threatening.
I think the risk is much bigger. I know there have been people throughout U.S. history who have always claimed this, but here I believe the Constitution itself is under attack. If there is no due process and no rule of law, the Consitution is meaningless. If someone’s personal religious beliefs, whatever they might be, can justify going outside the Constitutional framework, then there’s a problem. Civil disobedience is one thing. Violence and manipulation of mechanisms of government to the neglect of important business is something else.
At least Congress deferred to the U.S. Supreme Court on the subpoenas for Committee appearances. Frist’s statement before that application was made amounted to a Constitutional crisis.
I’m cynical enough to think that the federal budget is in trouble in Congress and BushCo and the Congressional leadership don’t want people to see that, or give CNN and the rest of the media clowns any spare cycles to cover the gun China is holding to our heads called the Current Account Deficit. Hence, they produce a distraction.
This comment was written by Jan Theodore Galkowski.Report this comment to the moderators
March 20th, 2005 at 12:44 pm
If someone’s personal religious beliefs, whatever they might be, can justify going outside the Constitutional framework, then there’s a problem. Civil disobedience is one thing. Violence and manipulation of mechanisms of government to the neglect of important business is something else.
It’s fine when I do it, horribly destructive when people I don’t like do it, in other words. When I do it’s civil disobedience; when other people do it, they’re manipulating the government.
These issues are difficult and complex; they aren’t made easier when people pretend their side is made up of angels, and the other side of devils. (Hi, Kip!)
Liberals - human liberals, not demons, with flaws and strengths in abundance - made the bed they are currently having to lie in. Roe v. Wade may not have been the first extra-Constitutional ruling, but it’s certainly the one that started the trainwreck we’re in the middle of now.
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
March 20th, 2005 at 1:22 pm
Robert,
*I* am a conservative and I strongly support Roe v Wade for the same reason the father of George H Bush did, and for the same reason that the REPUBLICAN justices in the Supreme Court which made that ruling did: Because otherwise it is an unwarranted infringement on individual liberty, an enlargement of the role of government.
People can *voluntarily* choose to bring conceptions to term rather than abort them. And the logical practice for people who consider abortion murder is to urge widespread birth control. But that doesn’t happen because it’s fundamentally a *religious* practice.
But government support of birth control programs is also an unnecessarily government intrusion.
As far as individual beliefs go, one book says “The law of the land is the Law.”
How can a Supreme Court ruling *POSSIBLY* be “extra-Constitutional”?
This comment was written by Jan Theodore Galkowski.Report this comment to the moderators
March 20th, 2005 at 1:25 pm
[...] n clinical neuropsychology”) on the some of the medical issues. Rivka, in turn, points to Alas (a Blog) which has posted a copy of Mrs. Schiavo’s CT (which, in [...]
This comment was written by PoliBlog: Politics is the Master Science » More on Schiavo.Report this comment to the moderators
March 20th, 2005 at 1:56 pm
How can a Supreme Court ruling *POSSIBLY* be “extra-Constitutional”??
By not being rooted in the Constitution. Just as an act of Congress, or of some other governmental body, can be extra-Constitutional.
If the Supreme Court rules that it’s OK to hunt blacks for sport, is that a Constitutional judgment, or an extra-Constitutional judgment?
Just because an entity is the authority on a subject, does not mean that it is impossible for them to go against the black-letter law of that subject. Cops do illegal things all the time, even though they’re the guardians of law.
Don’t mistake supporting abortion rights for believing that Roe v. Wade was good law. You can do one without the other.
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
March 20th, 2005 at 2:03 pm
By not being rooted in the Constitution. Just as an act of Congress, or of some other governmental body, can be extra-Constitutional.
If the Supreme Court rules that it’s OK to hunt blacks for sport, is that a Constitutional judgment, or an extra-Constitutional judgment
Technically, whatever the Supreme Court rules is Constitutional. There are Constitutional remedies, ranging from impeachment to modifying the Constitution.
I find this hankering about Roe v Wade incredibly offensive because it is an attempt to short-cut the Constitutional amendment route. THAT is, in my book, treasonous. There is a process. If the Courts’ determinations are so offensive, use it. It’s been done before, notably with Prohibition, whatever the merits or faults of that Amendment were, which are irrelevant to this case.
The obligation to defend and protect the Constitution doesn’t go away simply because existing remedies are politically impossible. That they are means the electorate doesn’t believe strongly enough to make the change and the loud minority are just that.
This comment was written by Jan Theodore Galkowski.Report this comment to the moderators
March 20th, 2005 at 2:17 pm
Technically, whatever the Supreme Court rules is Constitutional.
If that is the case, then we have no Constitution. A document whose text can be ignored at the whim of its interpreters is not a governing document, it’s a cover sheet for fascism.
I find this hankering about Roe v Wade incredibly offensive because it is an attempt to short-cut the Constitutional amendment route.
That is the exact criticism leveled against the ruling by conservatives, Jan. If the people want a right to abortion, the people are/were perfectly free to create one via the legislative and amendment process - as they were doing before the Supreme Court short-circuited these democratic functions and imposed a nationwide rule. Abortion rights activists were unwilling to settle for the imperfect remedies provided by democratic processes, and instead sought a uniform imposition, and they got it.
I quite agree that there is an obligation to defend and protect the Constitution. One of the things it needs defense against is the legions of people, from all political philosophies, who want to override the mechanisms it creates for immediate partisan ends, such as abortion rights, or the rights of people in comas.
Finally, I don’t think it’s productive to label broad swatches of political activism “treasonous” because you don’t like them. Treason is taking up arms against your nation, or giving aid and comfort to its enemies. The justices who imposed a foundationless abortion right on the nation weren’t traitors; they were just bad judges.
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
March 20th, 2005 at 3:44 pm
I don’t think it’s productive to label broad swatches of political activism “treasonous”? because you don’t like them. Treason is taking up arms against your nation, or giving aid and comfort to its enemies. The justices who imposed a foundationless abortion right on the nation weren’t traitors; they were just bad judges.
The justices were all appointed through a political process mandated by the Constitution. The Constitution has no means of recall apart from impeachment.
Yes, I agree “treason” was too strong, sorry. But certainly it’s not “preserving and protecting” the Constitution. But not everyone, apparently, has that responsibility.
Why isn’t it possible to believe that the Constitution and legal precedent and argument over the past couple of 200 years defends the right of a person to do with their body what they want more than it protects pregnancies? The Supreme Court was considered the last bastion of reasoned moderation controlling the whims of a mob, something which was apparent in France at the time it was being formulated and signed. If the justices were supposed to be accountable to the public, they would have been elected.
That is the exact criticism leveled against the ruling by conservatives, Jan. If the people want a right to abortion, the people are/were perfectly free to create one via the legislative and amendment process - as they were doing before the Supreme Court short-circuited these democratic functions and imposed a nationwide rule. Abortion rights activists were unwilling to settle for the imperfect remedies provided by democratic processes, and instead sought a uniform imposition, and they got it.
As I’ve indicated, in my view these are not “conservatives”.
If that is the case, then we have no Constitution. A document whose text can be ignored at the whim of its interpreters is not a governing document, it’s a cover sheet for fascism.
No governing document can have portions which are not amendable and be flexible enough to survive. The Constitution has basically three, in order of decreasing time scale. (1) A Constitutional convention which can be called by the people. (2) A Constitutional amendment done using the process we are familiar with. (3) The interpretation of the Courts, ultimately the Supreme Court. The absence of constraints in Article III on the Supreme Court, even the failure to define “judicial power” means that it was intended to be expansive and open.
In contrast, Article I, Section 8 enumerates what Congress can do and what it can’t. The Constitution does not even define what “judicial Power” is, apparently thinking it was understood. Article III, Section 2, clause 2 does say In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make. Sounds like there’s an opening for legislation there.
This comment was written by Jan Theodore Galkowski.Report this comment to the moderators
March 20th, 2005 at 4:33 pm
It strikes me that the purpose of declaring what you want to be done in the event you’re permanently incapacitated is to ease the pain of those who love you. Terri Schiavo, the human being, has been dead for many years. I can only imagine how painful it is for Michael Schiavo to be forced to bear the abuse of the body of a human being he loved.
This comment was written by Brian.Report this comment to the moderators
March 20th, 2005 at 4:48 pm
Regarding the CT vs MRI debate. I am an RN and have read hundreds of CT and MRI reports. There are some cases where there is diffuse damage that cannot be picked up by a CT. With massive damage like this an MRI is not needed, the extent of the damage is clear-pretty much total.
This comment was written by Van.Report this comment to the moderators
March 20th, 2005 at 5:24 pm
I very much agree, Brian.
What I fear is that the same rationale and legislation that can intervene and intrude so much in Schiavos’ case can also make DNRs and Living Wills illegal, “for the higher good”.
This comment was written by Jan Theodore Galkowski.Report this comment to the moderators
March 20th, 2005 at 5:36 pm
Me too
Why don’t we all follow Terri Schiavo’s mother’s advice:
The New York Times > Washington > Facing Opposition on Schiavo Bill, Republicans Call a Recess:
“Please don’t use my daughter’s suffering for your own personal agenda.”
This comment was written by Thoughts from Kansas.This isn’t …
Report this comment to the moderators
March 20th, 2005 at 5:52 pm
If the people want a right to abortion, the people are/were perfectly free to create one
There is not, technically, a ‘right to abortion.’ It’s a right of privacy, following in the line of cases like Eisenstadt and Griswold, and is weighed against the state’s interest in fetal life.
I don’t think the Scalia wing of the court would say “Gosh, if the people want to give the fetus a right to life, we’re not going to find it in the Constitution, they’ll have to create it.”
This comment was written by mythago.Report this comment to the moderators
March 20th, 2005 at 6:03 pm
“Please don’t use my daughter’s suffering for your own personal agenda.”?
That is such a joke!
Yeah, right, Randall Terry, at her side, not having an agenda.
This comment was written by Jan Theodore Galkowski.Report this comment to the moderators
March 20th, 2005 at 6:13 pm
Regarding “… the Scalia wing of the court…”, does anyone have a link to a place or know how these things play out in the Court interior? I know the place is secretive, and I know Scalia has expressed sentiments like those offered in defense of keeping Schiavo’s feeding up, but does anyone know how the dynamics actually go internally?
One thing I respect about all the judges is that they do follow a process and do respect argument. I can’t see a High Court jurist making things up as they go along, ever. I also don’t see them voting in the same way that political parties vote, that on one issue or another they’ll break with what are seen from the outside as their “bretheren” and either go maverick or join “the other side”.
This is the one notion that very much consoles me about any attempt to “pack the Court” with Roe v Wade opponents: Social conservatives may end up regetting the day they do it because the same character might fiercely defend the rights of gays to marry or pornographers to do their thing.
This comment was written by Jan Theodore Galkowski.Report this comment to the moderators
March 20th, 2005 at 6:15 pm
I don’t think the Scalia wing of the court would say “Gosh, if the people want to give the fetus a right to life, we’re not going to find it in the Constitution, they’ll have to create it.”?
That’s because the right to life is already well-established.
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
March 20th, 2005 at 7:00 pm
But, Robert, not a definition of what constitutes life. Surely, in the original version of the Constitution, slaves were not considered to have protectable life. That had to be added in by amendment. Why would the framers have a right to life originally envisioned for pregnancies?
This comment was written by Jan Theodore Galkowski.Report this comment to the moderators
March 20th, 2005 at 8:06 pm
Why would the framers have a right to life originally envisioned for pregnancies?
Because everyone starts as a pregnancy, obviously. If there is a right to life, it extends backwards from the time of one’s natural death to the moment of one’s coming into existence.
Surely, in the original version of the Constitution, slaves were not considered to have protectable life.
Not true. Slaves were considered human beings, just human beings with a very limited number of rights. (And those few not protected very well at all by the legal system - but they weren’t rights-less non-humans.)
That had to be added in by amendment.
Nonsense. What was added in by amendment was a creation and extension of former slaves’ political rights. Although, in your exceptionally deferential formulation of what the Supreme Court can legitimately do, I don’t know why you see a need for an amendment. Surely they could have just declared it “by interpretation”. Heck, there’s a lot stronger contextual support for human equality in the Constitution than there is for the bizarro “privacy” right which gives us the power to end life, but doesn’t give us the power to actually shield our privacy.
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
March 20th, 2005 at 8:30 pm
[...] tex has been reduced to fluid. It’s simply gone. For those of you who like pictures, read this and scroll down to see a comparison of a healthy brain;s CAT scan [...]
This comment was written by verisimilitude » Blog Archive » Suicide and Euthenasia.Report this comment to the moderators
March 20th, 2005 at 8:52 pm
I have to admit that I didn’t read every post here. Please forgive me if I’m repeating info that’s already been shared. I thought I’d give you my impression - for what it’s worth. I’m a veterinarian, and thus not qualified to interpret the results of a human CT scan; brain structures in humans and animals are not so different, though.
You need to understand a bit about how a CT scan is performed to know what you’re looking at. The scan shows pictures of a body in slices, and my first question is, can anybody verify that we are looking slices from the same parts of Terri’s brain and the normal brain?
Here’s why I think we’re not.
Those dark areas in the center of Terri’s scan are the brain’s ventricles. These are areas present in every brain which serve as collecting areas for cerebrospinal fluid (previously referred to as “brain fluid”.) Terri’s ventricles appear to be dilated, which is not uncommon when there has been injury to the brain. The picture of the normal brain has almost no dark space in the middle - no ventricles are represented in that slice. If this image was from the same area of the brain that Terri’s image depicts, there would be more black space in the center of the normal brain. And if these ARE the same slice, that’s not a normal brain.
Second, the cortex of the brain is on the outside, adjacent to the skull. Maybe you remember that a great childhood insult was to tell someone that they were “smooth”….this is a reference to the wrinkles (or lack thereof) that a brain develops from infancy to adulthood? The more wrinkles, the smarter the person. Sorry, I digress. A CT scan is a poor tool for assessing the presence of a cortex - you can tell from the images posted that even the normal brain lacks sufficient detail to permit one to assess it’s cortex.
Okay, there’s where my expertise ends. I will add one more thing - I have read that most neurologists agree that a PET scan is the only diagnostic tool of value when assessing a patient with possible PVS (persistent vegetative state). A PET scan has not been performed on Terri, and without this, I’m not sure anyone can make an accurate pronouncement of what kind of thought or perception she is able to make.
Anniebird
This comment was written by anniebird.Report this comment to the moderators
March 20th, 2005 at 9:19 pm
Slaves were considered human beings, just human beings with a very limited number of rights.
No they weren’t. They were property. The only rights they had were those embued to them in the same sense one does to a car when it’s taken care of, to preserve its value.
I see the same conflict continues here. We have two completely different views of the Constitution, of the purpose of the United States, and of its future. This will never resolve. There are two nations, and as it appears, one feels it only wins when the other feels it loses.
There is no point in discussing further.
This comment was written by Jan Theodore Galkowski.Report this comment to the moderators
March 20th, 2005 at 10:14 pm
I could conduct a positive proof, but that would require seventeen pages of citations. God knows I talk enough; let’s essay a negative proof, instead. Quicker.
Here is a quotation from the Dred Scott decision, in which the appalling Chief Justice Taney, writing for the majority, said (regarding enslaved black Americans): “On the contrary, they were at that time considered as a subordinate and inferior class of beings, who had been subjugated by the dominant race, and, whether emancipated or not, yet remained subject to their authority, and had no rights or privileges but such as those who held the power and the government might choose to grant them.”
Taney, as is well known, went on to decide that the government in this case had not granted blacks the specific right to have standing to sue in Federal court.
If black people were rights-less, then please explain Justice Taney’s statement that they had whichever rights the government had granted to them.
(Shifting to the modern context, this is one reason a lot of non-crazy people believe that governments don’t grant rights - because of the shameful history of governmental mistreatment of blacks, among others, as exemplified by Taney’s hateful formulation. Rights are instead Creator-given (hey, just like they wrote in that wacky Declaration of Independence thingammy).
We have two completely different views of the Constitution
Indeed. Mine is rooted in on my best effort at an understanding of the historical events that actually occurred. I have no information as to what yours is rooted in; I would invite you to expound on it.
…of the purpose of the United States
In my view, the purpose of the United States is to make true the words written in its founding documents. Again, YMMV - tell us about it.
…and of its future.
Beats my pair of jacks. Hoping and praying for the best.
There is no point in discussing further.
Well, that’s up to you. Ask Amp; I’ll generally argue anything at anytime with anyone. (”Yes, yes, it’s very sad that she’s died. Lovely flowers, by the way. Now, about Social Security…”)
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
March 21st, 2005 at 1:59 am
There was mention that the parents had requested an MRI, and the reasons why it wasn’t done.
Was there ever a request for a PET? If the CT results are as claimed, I could certainly believe that a PET isn’t needed — but I can’t think of any reason (other than expense) not to have one done…
Karrie — I couldn’t agree more. The sharp distinction we make between action and inaction at time borders on lunacy, and the end of human life is one of those times.
Can you imagine the outcry if your local Humane Society began euthanizing stray cats and dogs by locking them in a cage with no water?
This comment was written by Clint.Report this comment to the moderators
March 21st, 2005 at 2:52 am
[...] Terry te gebruiken. Ze ademt zelfstandig, maar kan niet slikken en heeft geen bewustzijn: scans laten zien dat haar hersens deels vloeistof zijn geworden. Na 7 jaar [...]
This comment was written by marbelous » schiavo.Report this comment to the moderators
March 21st, 2005 at 7:08 am
With regard to Scalia’s take on this matter, when the Cruzon decision was handed down, Scalia sided with the majority, stating that these kinds of issues are the perogative of the state…
I would have preferred that we announce, clearly and promptly, that the federal courts have no business in this field; that American law has always accorded the State the power to prevent, by force if necessary, suicide - including suicide by refusing to take appropriate measures necessary to preserve one’s life; that the point at which life becomes “worthless,” and the point at which the means necessary to preserve it become “extraordinary” or “inappropriate,” are neither set forth in the Constitution nor known to the nine Justices of this Court any better than they are known to nine people picked at random from the Kansas City telephone directory; and hence, that even when it is demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence that a patient no longer wishes certain measures to be taken to preserve her life, it is up to the citizens of Missouri to decide, through their elected representatives, whether that wish will be honored. It is quite impossible (because the Constitution says nothing about the matter) that those citizens will decide upon a line less lawful than the one we would choose; and it is unlikely (because we know no more about “life-and-death” than they do) that they will decide upon a line less reasonable. (emphasis added) Cruzan v. Director, MDH, 497, U.S. 261 (1990)
as quoted in the Wolfson report (Wolfson was the person appointed by Jeb Bush to act as Guardian ad Litem on Terri’s Schiavo’s behalf, and his report is probably the best one-stop-shopping choice for those interested in the historyand issues involved)
http://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/WolfsonReport.pdf
Given the precedent established in Cruzon, and the fact that the US Supreme Court has already rejected a request to consider an appeal of the Florida court decisions, the likelihood of the Federal District and Appeals Courts intervening in this case is relatively small, despite the weekend passage of special legislation giving the lower federal courts jurisdiction. (State court decisions are appealable only to the US Supreme Court unless Congress specifically provides the lower Federal courts with jurisdiction.) And despite the rabid desire of the far right for Federal court intervention, I don’t see the Supremes wading into this controversy, given their expressed desire to avoid such decisions and preference for allowing these questions to be decided by state legislatures.
This comment was written by p.lukasiak.Report this comment to the moderators
March 21st, 2005 at 7:45 am
There is sobering and rationale as part of their ethics policy at the American Medical Association.
Also of interest is AMA policy regarding “Physicians’ Political Communications with Patients and Their Families and Communications Media: Standards of Professional Responsibility.
This comment was written by Jan Theodore Galkowski.Report this comment to the moderators
March 21st, 2005 at 7:59 am
This is probably old news, but USA Today is offering a link to a PDF file giving the Wolfson Report on Terri Schiavo in full. It cites the Cruzon case mentioned in the excellent post by P.Lukasiak above. (It may mention more. Haven’t read it in its entirety yet.)
Also, FindLaw has updated their profile on the Schiavo case, capturing the maneuvers of the weekend and today.
This comment was written by Jan Theodore Galkowski.Report this comment to the moderators
March 21st, 2005 at 9:04 am
Based upon the quote from Cruzon, sounds to me like I was wrong about Judge Scalia. mea culpa!
This comment was written by Jan Theodore Galkowski.Report this comment to the moderators
March 21st, 2005 at 10:35 am
Who do you believe?
Pennywit summarizes an evaluation of the so-called “expert opinions” in affidavits submitted by Mrs. Schiavo’s family. The evaluation was made by Rivka, who’s qualifications are: I have a doctorate in clinical psychology. I have completed a year-lo…
This comment was written by Random Fate.Report this comment to the moderators
March 21st, 2005 at 12:22 pm
I came by this post because I noticed it was being linked from several other blogs I regularly read. Heck, the images used above are being used on some other blogs, if I saw them correctly. I think, in the end, they’re more noise than signal in this case.
There are a lot of reasons to argue for and against removing Terri Schiavo’s feeding tube, and a lot of perplexing questions that the situation brings up. However, these CT scans aren’t really useful in the way a lot of the commenters are using them.
First, check Anniebird’s previous comment. It would be interesting to know whether the CT scans were taken from the same level. If we do not know, then we are going to have trouble comparing.
Second, let’s acknowledge that the brain is spongy and can get squeezed into smaller areas. Check hydrocephalus for an example. Here is an example of a brain with excess fluid, compared to the same brain after a shunt is installed to drain it off. The brain can be harmed when there is excess fuid, but it isn’t necessarily the case that there is less brain tissue. Can we tell how much brain tissue there is from the above scan? Not really. Her doctors might be able to.
Third, the cerebral cortex is not a synonym for the entire brain. It’s the outer shell part…the one we worry about. A lot of the stuff in the middle is connective tissue. Can we tell about damage to the cerebral cortex from the above scans? We still can’t. Perhaps her doctors can tell something.
Declaring someone to be in a persistent vegetative state is a complex diagnosis that requires several tests. Doctors and medical specialists who have actually examined the records and Terri Schiavo are in the best position to do so. Might they disagree? As someone with personal experience with severe injury, yes, doctors will disagree even in the most severe cases.
In our case, making broad statements based on a couple of images may make us feel better, but it doesn’t exactly add to the debate. It’s good we can debate the broader issues, rather than the bits of physical evidence we have.
This comment was written by Shane Thacker.Report this comment to the moderators
March 21st, 2005 at 12:47 pm
If Terri’s in there somewhere (seems unlikely, with a liquified brain), it’s even more morally reprehensible to keep her alive.
I dare you to think about being trapped for 14 years - unable to move, unable to communicate…
This comment was written by eyelid.Report this comment to the moderators
March 21st, 2005 at 2:05 pm
As a retired radiologist I would have little more than a semantic argument. The ct image shows severe loss of brain cortex. The process was generalized affecting all portions of the brain. There is some fluid surrounding the brain . The huge collection of central fluid represents dilated ventricals. They dilate to take up the space as “nature abhors a vacuum” In my opinion there is virtually no chance of recovery.
This comment was written by robert wilson.Report this comment to the moderators
March 21st, 2005 at 2:28 pm
Several people here are missing the point. If “20 judges” (UK TV news this evening) have already looked at this question, the other 249,999,980 people in the US have to pretty much decide that enough is enough. Otherwise, you’re going to have to have a plebiscite or referendum to decide every little issue.
Discussions about what might or might not help to refine the prognosis, and what might or might not make Terri better are all redundant. The argument now is no longer about this young woman and her wretched family and husband, it’s about whether America becomes even more of a militant religious society than it already is.
This comment was written by Stephenray.Report this comment to the moderators
March 21st, 2005 at 3:08 pm
People suffer strokes that wipe out big chunks of brain. Relatives have to decide if the drip is to continue, and if so, what it should contain. If there is more than morphine and the patient receives nutrients that will keep their organs going, the process of death can be drawn out at great expense.
Neurologists give the families their best professional judgment, and patients with far more brain tissue that Terri Shiavo are allowed to die by the decision to remove life support. It happens all the time. Some people with badly damaged brains might actually improve, but how many are really going to ever be themselves again? It’s a judgment call by the family. No doubt physicians, who may even hope to free up hospital beds, can influence these decisions.
The actions of Congress and the President suggest that the relationship between the doctor, patient and custodial relative is not so sacred. But how many people would like the public to debate whether a person in their family who was terminally ill with cancer should go for another round of chemotherapy, just because there is always hope.
Imagine people to whom you have no relation whatsoever suggesting that you wanted your terminally ill spouse or parent to die faster so that you could cash in an insurance policy. Horrible.
When the President and Congress got involved it made the whole thing even worse, since they made an exception out of a situation that was not really unique, except for the media coverage.
Furthermore, all of this compassion from politicians for people with brain injuries, is it real? There are probably service men and women back from Iraq who are medically not much better off than Terri. How many congressional vacations are cancelled for them? Why doesn’t President Bush have them round to dinner at the White House?
This comment was written by They might be quacks.Report this comment to the moderators
March 21st, 2005 at 3:48 pm
Drd Scott was a textualist gem. Employing the methods of jurisprudence embraced in the critique of Roe as activist. It was a case in which the justices faithfully applied the Constitutional text. There is no argument that the text of the Constitution at that time.
The attempted distinction above conflates natural law and postivistic law. To oversimplify, natural law holds that there are inherent rights granted to the Creator outside of the reach of secular government. Justice Scalia and his cohorts like to invoke this doctrine, especially of recent, but they don’t really mean it. The critique of Roe above embraces positivistic law, i.e., judges should not find right not set forth in statutory Constitutional text.
There are a thousand subissues, but one point is irrefutable. One cannot coherently critique Roe as outside the bounds of apprpriate judical restarint while criticizing Dred Scott which was restrained.
This comment was written by RKF.Report this comment to the moderators
March 21st, 2005 at 7:26 pm
This weird mess just arrived in Europe, where the general view is that American political culture is exhibiting a terminal pathology far more significant and dangerous than Mrs Schiavo’s. Current American politics seems like a Civil War moderated by Jerry Springer. Maybe there will be some sort of Reconstruction after a few years. But for the moment we’re scared as hell of those Republican mullahs in Washington, with all their money and weapons and powerful friends and infantile worldview. What can we do to support the rule of law and reason against your crazy new theocracy?
This comment was written by Martin, Amsterdam.Report this comment to the moderators
March 21st, 2005 at 7:44 pm
It appears most thinking people understand that she is not normal.
However, she is alive as are many disabled individuals who can’t hear or talk.
It is my opinion that letting her starve to death will cause her pain. If she can’t hear or talk, how does anyone know she feels pain. And, how does anyone know if a starving person feels pain in the process of dying.
Unless you have starved to death how do you know if its painful.
The issue of the Federal Court & Judge:
All criminals found guilty of a capital crime and sentenced to die are allowed to appeal to a Federal Court & Judges.
Why should this case be different? Shouldn’t Terri have equal treatment?
My Opinion, if you want to kill Terri, which is what is happening, it should be the Court’s decision and done with an injection.
If she can’t receive the same and equal treatment as a Murderer why should she be starved to death.
I doubt that it is anymore of an expense to the Govt. by having the Schindlers take care of her than, it is to keep and maintain a Murderer sentenced to life imprisonment.
Life has sentenced Terri to life imprisonment, why must she be starved to death?
This comment was written by Richard.Report this comment to the moderators
March 21st, 2005 at 8:09 pm
Any doctors out there willing to bet their professional reputation that consciousness can be restored? This maybe and perhaps crap is sub-professional. Ask me an engineering question and I’ll give you a straight answer, not a lawyer’s Weasel words. How about it? Put up or shut up.
This comment was written by Walter E. Wallis.Report this comment to the moderators
March 21st, 2005 at 9:05 pm
There are a thousand subissues, but one point is irrefutable. One cannot coherently critique Roe as outside the bounds of apprpriate judical restarint while criticizing Dred Scott which was restrained.
RKF, as a Constitutional conservative, I would have to say that Dred Scott was, in terms of method and propriety, properly done for its day. Remember, there were two dissenting opinions in that case, McLean and Curtis, and there’s been a couple of Constitutional amendments and quite some case law collected since that time which, if it were retried, might affect the outcome.
And Justice Daniel, concurring with the majority, said a very interesting thing:
Note that it is the virtue of rational argument that while overall conclusions might be incorrect, individual parts are correct.
Richard asks Life has sentenced Terri to life imprisonment, why must she be starved to death? As some ethicists noted in the many discussions held today on this topic, withholding food is ethically equivalent to removing respirator or dialysis support for patients dependent upon them. This patient cannot eat, cannot swallow. Indeed, nothing shows Randall Terry’s disingenuity and ignorance more than that widely printed quote he made the other day, that Schiavo’s parents “can’t even give her an ice chip”.
You, Richard, represent the sympathy of vitalism, that the “real Terri” is trapped in this body like a ghost in a machine. It seems a few people can’t understand how someone can see continuation of this flesh and blood puppet for whatever reason is ghoulish and incredibly disrespectful of the many good things Terri Schiavo once was but is no more.
I’m surprised noone has commented on this. Has anyone read the motion filed today by Schiavo’s parents for a temporary restraining order, declaratory and injuncitve relief? I dig the reattachment of the tube and the taking of custody, even if I disagree, but what’s all this nonsense about:
I’d say there’s a lot more going on here than saving someone’s life. I’d say this theory of continuation of spirit is an attempt to “save Terri” from a life in which she apparently rejected Catholicism. Equivalently, it might be seen as a device to inflict on someone who did not want to be a Catholic as an adult, having rejected the religion of her upbringing, the ultimate personal outrage.
This comment was written by Jan Theodore Galkowski.Report this comment to the moderators
March 21st, 2005 at 10:41 pm
Youre a complete ass. Why dont you educate yourself on catholocism before you make totally ignorant and uneducated comments such as that!
This comment was written by Justme.Report this comment to the moderators
March 21st, 2005 at 11:03 pm
This weird mess just arrived in Europe, where the general view is that American political culture is exhibiting a terminal pathology far more significant and dangerous than Mrs Schiavo’s.
You know, given all the political nutbarism European countries have going on, it’s tedious when they cluck about fractious America. We’re a big country, people. We have our Jean Le Pens and our Alessandra Mussolinis just like you do.
This comment was written by mythago.Report this comment to the moderators
March 21st, 2005 at 11:58 pm
I must admit that I have not thoroughly reviewed all of the above comments but there appears to be a common thread implicit in many of them. I am referring to the unstated assumption that Terry Schiavo as a “person”? exists. The issue is not one of being “normal,”? as stated above. The fact of the matter is that the “person,”? who did inhabited the body of what we see before us, has long since past into eternity. My training as a doctor in clinical psychology with study and work in the neurosciences coupled with a graduate degree in Christian philosophical theology leads me to conclude that the “personhood”? of Terry, in the most true human sense, no longer exists. Nothing can be done to the person of Terry along the lines of “letting her starve to death.”? Nor can Terry feel pain. We know that Terry does not feel pain as the brain structures responsible for sensing pain no longer exist. While it is true that a portion of the brain is functioning, that portion has little to do with these areas of concern mentioned above by Richard and some others. What is left of the brain structure has little to do with consciousness. A brain structure with the absence of cortical functioning, with only the lower brain stem operating to perform some basic biological functions cannot at a neuropsychological level be considered to meet standards of personhood in any meaningful sense. Irrespective of the brain image above, the examining doctors serving as forensic experts to the court left little doubt about this matter.
Let me be clear. “Personhood”?, inclusive of the potential for such, is understood to connote a potential for personal relatedness. Conceptually this encompasses three dimensions: first, subjective processes of self-relatedness and self-representation; second, inter-individual relatedness and three (for me) relatedness to God. Interesting is the fact that in the biblical sense the concept of the “soul”? arises out of personal relatedness and is a property of human cognition. This is not to say that a person is simply a pack of neurones. But when these basic elements no longer function or can be stated to exist, we as a human community can only impute personhood. I have no problem with imputing personhood as in some areas when dealing with the unborn. However, it is one thing to do this at the beginning stages of life, so as to protect it. But, it is quite another thing when no future capacity for human relatedness exists, as in this case. I understand that this is what is debated by the family, also misguidedly by many well meaning religious people, but when your computer’s hardware (hard-drive) goes out or is damaged in such a way that the screen only flickers in random nonsensical ways, do you hang on to it hoping that your software will run?
While I personally believe that Terry exists, my faith and training tell me that her existence is already in eternity, that the “soul,” deprived of relatedness here, has now been embraced by the eternal.
This comment was written by Mark.Report this comment to the moderators
March 22nd, 2005 at 4:56 am
There are three densities on x-ray ( A CT scan is done with X-rays) black is water or air, white is metal or bone, and finally grey is soft tissue. On the normal CT you can see all three of these densities -in the proper places. In Terri’s you can see all three of these but they are in the wrong places. ie this is grossly abnormal anatomy.
This comment was written by King Barnes.Report this comment to the moderators
March 22nd, 2005 at 6:51 am
Why, thank you, JustMe.
Actually, I’m quite familiar with the tenets of Catholicism, thank you. And quite familiar with the idea of someone, having been raised a Catholic, choosing to pursue another religion, or no religion.
This comment was written by Jan Theodore Galkowski.Report this comment to the moderators
March 22nd, 2005 at 7:54 am
Jan Theodore Galkowski Says:
March 20th, 2005 at 6:03 pm
“Please don’t use my daughter’s suffering for your own personal agenda.”?
That is such a joke!
Yeah, right, Randall Terry, at her side, not having an agenda.
The real agenda driving Schiavo’s new friends:
March 21, 2005 … The following memo listing talking points on the Terri Schiavo case was circulated among Republican senators on the floor of the Senate.
This is an exact, full copy of the document obtained exclusively by ABC News and first reported Friday, March 18, 2005, by Linda Douglass on “World News Tonight with Peter Jennings.”
S. 529, The Incapacitated Person’s Legal Protection Act
Teri (sic) Schiavo is subject to an order that her feeding tubes will be disconnected on March 18, 2005 at 1p.m.
The Senate needs to act this week, before the Budget Act is pending business, or Terri’s family will not have a remedy in federal court.
This is an important moral issue and the pro-life base will be excited that the Senate is debating this important issue.
This is a great political issue, because Senator Nelson of Florida has already refused to become a cosponsor and this is a tough issue for Democrats.
The bill is very limited and defines custody as “those parties authorized or directed by a court order to withdraw or withhold food, fluids, or medical treatment.”
There is an exemption for a proceeding “which no party disputes, and the court finds, that the incapacitated person while having capacity, had executed a written advance directive valid under applicably law that clearly authorized the withholding or or (sic) withdrawl (sic) of food and fluids or medical treatment in the applicable circumstances.”
Incapacitated persons are defined as those “presently incapable of making relevant decisions concerning the provision, withholding or withdrawl (sic) of food fluids or medical treatment under applicable state law.”
This legislation ensures that individuals like Terri Schiavo are guaranteed the same legal protections as convicted murderers like Ted Bundy.
This comment was written by snooper35.Report this comment to the moderators
March 22nd, 2005 at 9:07 am
Ok, just what in the record makes you think that that Terri Schiavo chose to “pursue another religion, or no religion.” Or are you arguing that Michael, as her guardian, gets to decide that too?
This comment was written by sj.Report this comment to the moderators
March 22nd, 2005 at 10:18 am
[...] spreading rapidly through other blogs I read and I felt the need to comment on it. He took CT scan images of Terri Schiavo’s brain and a normal brain and compare [...]
This comment was written by The Phantom City » This is insane….Report this comment to the moderators
March 22nd, 2005 at 11:47 am
BTW - The reason there has been no MRI is because Terri Schiavo had a intrathalmic (I believe that is the term) stimulator implanted early in her treatment. This piece of equipment is metallic and MRIs are counterindicated when a patient has one. The obvious reason for this is the M in MRI is “magnetic.” If a MRI was to be performed, the implant would be pulled on - which would be bad if the implant is in a patient’s brain.
Since Mrs Schiavo supposedly doesn’t have severe brain damage, you’d think the parents would not be pushing a treatment that would likely kill her (and often break the MRI machine).
This comment was written by Jake.Report this comment to the moderators
March 22nd, 2005 at 12:17 pm
[...] in or Jefferson in the same category as a person whose brain has literally ceased to exist (CAT scan of Terri Schiavo’s brain)? I’ve never heard a good me [...]
This comment was written by Rocket Science » Blog Archive » Terri Schiavo and Abortion.Report this comment to the moderators
March 22nd, 2005 at 12:23 pm
“k, just what in the record makes you think that that Terri Schiavo chose to “pursue another religion, or no religion.”? Or are you arguing that Michael, as her guardian, gets to decide that too? ”
The court took up the issue of religion during the trial and the appeals. Terri had no religious advisor to speak on her beliefs about what she would want done, or even that she’d been Catholic before going to the hospital. (The parents like to say that she does have a religious advisor, but the friar in question The parents claimed that Terri had been secretly going to Mass with them, but could provide no substantiating witnesses to support this position . . not a single person who could say they’d seen Terri at Mass once during the time shortly before she was admitted to the hospital.
This comment was written by Jeff.Report this comment to the moderators
March 22nd, 2005 at 12:43 pm
Thanks, Jeff, for replying to sj. To properly reply would have had me digging through the case history before I did, and have not had time today to do anything like that.
This comment was written by Jan Theodore Galkowski.Report this comment to the moderators
March 22nd, 2005 at 12:53 pm
Richard says “The issue of the Federal Court & Judge:
All criminals found guilty of a capital crime and sentenced to die are allowed to appeal to a Federal Court & Judges.”
He seems to be unaware that the Federal courts, up to the Supreme Court, have been asked to review the cases and they have all already decided that there was no reason to interfere with the decisions of the State courts (just as they usually do with death penalty cases). If a second round of federal courts decides the same thing, will you then call for a third round? At what point is a matter settled?
This comment was written by David Margolies.Report this comment to the moderators
March 22nd, 2005 at 2:22 pm
This began, and is perhaps ending, with food. The parents claim Terri regularly attended church with them before having dinner at their house on Saturday nights, while her husband was working late shifts. Her husband claims to know nothing of this arrangement, or anything but sporadic attendance, and the lower court noted, for example, that unlike a regular communicant she had no confessor or spiritual counsellor (who might testify in court to her beliefs). As I understand it, only her immediate family have testified to anything more than a nominal religious observance. But they claim that after the Pope last year controversially called removing artificail nutrition and hydration always and in any situation ‘murder or assisted suicide’, they know their daughter now wants to live like a good catholic in 2005 ““ they even claim the courts, since the Pope’s speech last year, now risk adding punishment and suffering in the afterlife (which the court, unlike the President, considered outside their jurisdiction) to their daughter’s woes.
There are many complex reasons for the eating disorder which (barring the parents’ theory of the 1990 oxygen starvation being a result of attempted murder by the husband) precipitated the 15-year persistent vegetative state. But aren’t difficult relations with parents (who cannot distinguish a child from their own restrictive image of her - and her body) often a key factor.
This comment was written by Martin, Amsterdam.Report this comment to the moderators
March 22nd, 2005 at 2:57 pm
That’s the stereotype, but I tend to attribute it to our pernicious culture of mother-bashing. Speaking from experience, I think the causes of eating disorders are a lot more complex.
I’m sort of baffled by the impulse to bash either Schiavo’s parents or her husband (or her, although as far as I can tell only Rude Pundit has done that.) I can’t really see any villains: just a bunch of people reacting differently to an incredibly painful and difficult situation. Whether you think her feeding tube should be removed or not, it seems to me that we should have sympathy for everyone directly involved. The people exploiting the situation are a whole different story.
This comment was written by Sally.Report this comment to the moderators
March 22nd, 2005 at 2:58 pm
Eating disorders are incredibly complicated things, with many causes, ranging from common familial pathologies to sexual abuse and rape. I urge anyone with questions to the National Eating Disorders Association.
This comment was written by Jan Theodore Galkowski.Report this comment to the moderators
March 22nd, 2005 at 3:39 pm
Sure, the whole thing is very complex, and very sad, and I sympathize with all the human beings involved at the personal rather than the political level (and isn’t the chief executive’s repeated view on the proper outcome of a current judicial process an astonishing contempt of court, apart from anything else?). But there does seem some basic pathology driving the whole tragedy, and involving a cruel subordination of human life (and death) to the abstract procrustean demands of celibate male theology.
I can’t help but imagine some relation between the supposed ‘hidden’ (from her husband) double meals of Terri with her catholic parents on Saturday evenings ““ the symbolic nutrition of Mass followed by food from her terrestrial mother - and the occult or hidden bulimia that probably precipitated the seizure one Sunday morning. And I can’t help think of Christ’s question to the Pharisees: Was the Sabbath (religion) made for Man, or Man for the Sabbath? I don’t think it’s just Terri who’s been harmed by a tragically constrictive image of herself and her body. More importantly, I think this repressive pathology masquerading as religion should be the key issue for everyone except the immediate family. The marriage of superstitious repression and politics, celebrated by the ‘mullahs’ in Washington and the Middle East is the central issue for our time, a contest between a liberating vision that celebrates Life even in inevitable Death, and a repressive cult that makes human existence a kind of living death.
This comment was written by Martin, Amsterdam.Report this comment to the moderators
March 22nd, 2005 at 4:04 pm
Certainly, Martin, the confounding of those demands for religious actions put there right up against those for restoring feeding and obtaining guardianship perked my attention up. I think you are right that many United States citizens don’t realize how easily sincere and genuine religious feelings can be manipulated by operatives like Randall Terry. In fact, his closeness to the Schindlers makes me really wonder about them. (Randall Terry is from my home town, so we have a long history of him.) The news media want to sell copy and they’ll play along with a good propaganda story, with all those soundbites about how a poor girl is being denied the company of her mom by some demonic judge.
That said, however, and admitting that there are an awful lot of clerics who seem to be taking advantage of this situation as much as some politicians, I do not think this can be placed on the Church or Catholic teachings. That’s like placing the blame for terrorists upon all of Islam, which I do not do either. Catholicism is a huge, varied religion, with variations in practices and beliefs much larger than the Vatican admits, and has been far more liberal at times in history — and still “proper” — than many care to remember. There is, too, here a rabid form of evangelical Christianity which is quite Protestant, preoccupied with eschatology, it’s deeply involved in this and the anti-abortion fight, and is part of the core support that some Republicans are manipulating.
I grant you, from what I know of traditional Catholic families, this secrecy stuff, accusing Michael Schiavo of murder, trying to drag somebody back to the Holy Communion, and all that makes me very suspicious about what’s going on. But I’m not a judge, and as many opinions I might form about it, it bears little on the particulars of the case.
This comment was written by Jan Theodore Galkowski.Report this comment to the moderators
March 22nd, 2005 at 4:21 pm
Sorry to speak twice in a row, but something just occured to me. Y’know, it might not be a bad idea to create some kind of accepted legal document, in addition to a living will, which formally declares a person’s religious faith, or lack of any, shortly after reaching adulthood. There is a precedent for an “ethical will” but this thing, which isn’t really that, would govern during the lifetime of the adult. I expect this not to be popular with established religions and popular with secularists, but it just offends me that parents might declare what the choice of religion of their child is, whether the parents are Catholic, Jewish, Muslim, or whatever.
If that’s hard to understand, then flip it. Suppose, in the far more common circumstance, children can dictate what the religious beliefs of a parent are over the objections of the parent’s spouse or, say, lover. A law like the Act which Congress passed which gives parents automatic standing in courts to contest rights of spouses could be readily extended to other family members.
This comment was written by Jan Theodore Galkowski.Report this comment to the moderators
March 22nd, 2005 at 4:49 pm
I don’t understand why a person’s religion should even be relevent. I routinely, consciously defy the tenets of my religion. I don’t really want some religious authority to assert that I must want something because my religion dictates it. I doubt most religious people do, frankly.
Children already do trump the wishes of a parent’s lover, I believe. Lovers have absolutely no standing at all, which is one of the arguments for gay marriage. Part of what disturbs me about this case is that we seem to be totally comfortable with ideas of guardianship that completely privilege the marriage bond over all other relationships. I’m not sure how I feel about that.
This comment was written by Sally.Report this comment to the moderators
March 22nd, 2005 at 5:02 pm
Speaking of the law: Slavery was legal once under they law, did that make it right? Terri S. is starving to death. We can’t even treat animals this way under the law. Roe v Wade may be the law, regardless, defenseless human beings are dying in the womb (do a search on Louis Pasteur’s biogenesis, if you don’t believe that they are human beings). Godspeed Terri, pray for us.
This comment was written by M..Report this comment to the moderators
March 22nd, 2005 at 5:40 pm
starving an animal to death = ANIMAL ABUSE
starving a human to death = not even considered animal abuse?
human beings are now worth less than animals?
This comment was written by drive by.Report this comment to the moderators
March 22nd, 2005 at 6:07 pm
So, incidentally…
The dark part in the middle is not her cerebral cortex. Its her cerebellum. The cerebellum controls fine motor control, balance and equilibrium, and muscle tone. While the cerebral cortex does look damaged, it is still there, and certainly has not been turned to liquid.
This comment was written by Eileen.Report this comment to the moderators
March 22nd, 2005 at 6:20 pm
M, I suppose you might support a Constitutional amendment to change the Preamble of the Constitution to read:
There are people who, in all possible affection for Terri Schiavo, believe continuation of feeding is ghoulish and horrific. Your opinion about “starvation” depends upon an assumption of her disposition. I respect your opinion, but there’s plenty written and cited by links above to read and think about. I bet you’ll find it’s a far more complicated situation than that painted in slogans by Randall Terry and his henchmen.
Peace.
This comment was written by Jan Theodore Galkowski.Report this comment to the moderators
March 22nd, 2005 at 7:05 pm
With some research expeience of MRI, fMRI and CT scans as well as EEG, brain functioning and psychological processes (I have a PhD in psychology) the CT scan as shown on this and numerous other blogs shows a massive dilation of the lateral vetricles at level at which the scan is taken. It probably is not at the same level of the normal brain used as a comparison but this is irrelevant as the extent of dilation indicates a massive level of damage to the neocortex.
Further to that if we examine the edges of the neocortex that is present we see a large amount of atrophy. There are large gaps between the neural tissue at margins of the neocortex which reinforces the degree of damage that Terri has sustained. Her cerebellum is not present in the CT scan shown on this blog.
With regard to the change is size of ventricles shown after the insertion of a shunt it is worth noting the difference in the margins of the neocortex shown i that scan versus Terri’s. As stated above, Terri’s exhibits a large degree of atrophyof neural tissue.
At a functional level this degree of damage would result in a significant cognitive impairmentt in a number of key processes. These processes are intimately involved in consciousness (as we currently understand it) but more importantly they are involved in what we see as essentially for determining what and who were are as individuals. I would suggestthat Terri has lost most of the functions that determine who she is as a person.
Does this warrant removal of a feeding tube? I don’t really know. At an emotive level I would say no. However at another level I wuld say let her go, but lether go quickly. Let her family remember the vibrant alive person rather than the damaged body that now exists.
This comment was written by Mark Chorlton.Report this comment to the moderators
March 22nd, 2005 at 7:45 pm
heh, indeed..
But then, if freedom of religion includes being able to not believe, how can any constitution which claims to hold that freedom in the highest regard ever claim to recognise a deity, or any such figures, in such a way?
Or am I assuming too much of freedom of religion?
The ideas on starvation seem out of context somehow. Depriving humans of food (or any primary needs) is considered against human rights as well, but that’s assuming people are alive, and given the circumstances have the wish to continue living.
But that’s really what the whole issue is about, isn’t it? If she’s not actually alive in there, or doesn’t wish to be, the deprivation of food would not be considered a violation of human rights.
for what it’s worth..
Both me and my sister have in our possession official documents made up and signed by our father which have details concerning just these cases. In his case, he does NOT want any treatment, and if there is any doubt, he leaves the decision to my sister, and then me (she’s a lot older than me). The papers are only legal for a certain number of years though, so they’ll have to be renewed to make sure my dad didn’t change his mind about it in the meantime.
Of course, these aren’t NICE documents to have, nor nice ideas to think about, but these cases do show how much easier life (or perhaps death) can become when you have everything written down.
This comment was written by Smy.The more I see this thing drag on (I remember hearing of it several years ago, so I was unpleasantly surprised to hear the currrent things on the news again - I had hoped it’d have been over), the more I’m thinking about getting these papers set up for myself. I’m not exactly old, but accidents do happen, and they’re a nice security in showing what you want.
(I guess I should note that I’m not a US citizen, so I don’t know how/if that’s possible there)
Report this comment to the moderators
March 22nd, 2005 at 11:46 pm
Eileen, not sure where you received your radiologic training, but that is most certainly NOT her cerebellum. The two symmetric dark structures are her grossly enlarged ventricles; I’d stake my license on it. I would agree that the cerbral cortex has not been “turned into” liquid; rather, the vast majority (if not all) of the grey matter making up the cerebral cortex has died and has been auto-digested by the body’s own immune system, and has been replaced by fluid. But then, the disctinction between those two descriptions seems to come down to just semantics.
In my opinion (which is admittedly a blend of professional and personal conviction) the person of Terri Schiavo died 15 years ago and the fight to let her body die or keep it from dying has been for the benefit of her living relatives and now politicians.
As a third point, the fact that this legal battle has gone on for 10 years is a testament to the hardheadedness of both Ms. Schaivo’s husband and parents. Decisions to withdraw care are made every day in hospitals throughout the country without any controversy or media attention at all; this case is by far not typical.
This comment was written by Bryan.Report this comment to the moderators
March 23rd, 2005 at 4:31 am
Thank you for posting these scans — but I think you should know that Terri’s scan and the “Healthy Brain” scan show pictures of the brain at two different levels (Terri’s is at a higher level of the skull, the comparison is taken at a lower level in the skull). This is kind of like comparing a cross-section of the knee of one person with the cross-section of the thigh of another.
I’m not saying this changes the read of Terri’s scan, which looks terrible. Her brain is completely atrophied. But the comparison scan doesn’t help at all and can be quite misleading if you don’t know you’re comparing two different levels.
This comment was written by Claudia.Report this comment to the moderators
March 23rd, 2005 at 5:57 am
To clarify (sorry):
People who are familiar with brain scans won’t have trouble seeing the near-total destruction of cortical brain tissue in Terri’s CT.
People who are not familiar with brain scans should probably ignore the “Healthy Brain” picture. You won’t know what can be compared, and what can’t.
Take, for example, those two large, dark, parallel banana-like shapes in the middle of Terri’s scan. This is what stands out as the obvious eye-catching difference in the two scans. As has been said earlier, these are her lateral ventricles — part of the plumbing system of the brain that stores cerebrospinal fluid and lets it circulate throughout the brain.
If the healthy brain were imaged at the same level as Terri’s, the banana-spaced empty spaces would be present there too. But they’d be much, much smaller — very skinny bananas — because they’d be surrounded by normal brain tissue.
The healthy brain picture shown here also includes a chunk of knotty, lumpy brain tissue in the midline of the brain — the thalamus and subcortical structures — that do not appear in the slice shown of Terri’s CT. But that’s not because she doesn’t have them (she has thalamic implants). They would show up if you looked at lower slices of the CT. So, once again, you’d have to ignore this apparent difference between the two pictures.
This comment was written by Claudia.Report this comment to the moderators
March 23rd, 2005 at 8:00 am
We have a government based on a balance of power. The courts are supposed to balance the legislative branch. No one branch is supposed to have total power over the others. So who balances the courts? .
This comment was written by Marilyn.Report this comment to the moderators
March 23rd, 2005 at 8:33 am
Marilyn -
Both the legislature and the executive get to check and balance the courts, but they have to do it in certain ways. Just as judges aren’t free to walk into Congress and rewrite laws that haven’t even been passed yet (let alone led to lawsuits yet), Congress has no right to try to use legislation to decide the outcome of particular court cases.
What Congress CAN legitimately do is rewrite the law so that future cases will be decided according to new rules that Congress thinks will work better. So, for instance, the Florida legislature could write a law saying that unless a patient left a living will, it should always be presumed that it’s in the patient’s best interests to be kept alive. If the legislature feels the courts have done wrong in Terri’s case, passing such a law would prevent similar wrongs from happening in future cases.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
March 23rd, 2005 at 8:59 am
To revisit the CT scan vs. MRI issue one more time…perhaps my layman’s knowledge can help clarify.
If we are arguing whether a CT can provide an image which distinguishes liquid from solid, the answer is yes. In my experience with my daughter, who has a brain tumor & hydrocephalus, an MRI has not always been necessary to diagnose problems. MRI’s are necessary to get a clear picture of the tumor, but if she goes in with a suspected shunt malfunction a CT scan is sufficient. Enlarged ventricles are easily diagnosed, because (as seen in the image above) the distinction between liquid and solid is quite clear. It can look like there’s “less brain” if the ventricles are enlarged, because the brain gets “squished” (I mentioned layman’s terms, right?). I can’t make the call on whether Ms. Schiavo’s brain matter is gone or just squished. I do, however, believe expert radiologists and neurologists–who have seen ALL of the slices from the CT scan–would be able to accurately make that judgement. An MRI would show the same areas of fluid & tissue, just with more definition & detail–and a few areas deep in the brain that a CT scan can’t reach. To my understanding, neither test would show if there was any “activity” in those areas.
As far as starvation goes, it does sound inhumane. I have a few points to make on this:
1-People who die of numerous natural causes–cancer coming first to my mind–have anorexia listed among the causes of death. It is not unusual for a dying person not to be given nourishment by artificial means. In those cases we don’t say “they were starved to death by murderers!” we say that they died from cancer. Their lives could have been extended with feeding tubes & IVs. Likewise, Ms. Schiavo began to die after cardiac arrest 15 years ago & has been kept alive since then by a feeding tube.
2-Euthanasia, unfortunately, is not an option in this country.
3-Many people, in reference to this particular case, have clearly stated that they would choose the period of starvation over a lifetime trapped in that body.
It is not fair to say “That poor woman, they’re going to starve her to death and she’s helpless” anymore than it’s fair to say “That poor woman, they’re going to keep her trapped in that body and she just wants to die.” None of us are qualified to make either statement. Neither are congressmen. What I know is this: If I were in that position, the person that I would want making the call, after medical experts weighed in, is my husband. Not Tom DeLay, not misguided Pro-Life advocates.
This comment was written by C. Snyder.Report this comment to the moderators
March 23rd, 2005 at 10:47 am
Just pretend that the thalamic implants aren’t there, and an MRI is ordered. It would take a whole lot of sedation to keep her in the MRI tube–the faintest motion makes garbage of the data collected. And for a functional MRI (fMRI), the patient has to be able to respond to commands, so I don’t think an insurance company is going to shell out approximately $2000.00 to prove that she can’t follow commands.
And surgery is risky business. I’m not sure I’d want to go through surgery to remove the implants just for an MRI, which in this case isn’t going to tell much, then have more surgery to replace them.
This comment was written by Frances.Report this comment to the moderators
March 23rd, 2005 at 12:49 pm
French soustain :
This comment was written by Lahire.http://lesalonbeige.blogs.com/my_weblog/2005/03/lagonie_cruelle.html
Report this comment to the moderators
March 23rd, 2005 at 1:44 pm
It is amazing that the sworn testimony of the many who have experienced Terri Schiavo’s interaction with others and her environment has not even been mentioned here, or is it because you all are unaware of its existance?
Just one example is the tstimony of Carla Ayer, who was interviewed on Fox news last night. What follows is from her sworn testimony in the case record. carla, an R.N. cared for terri Schiavo for over a year while she was at Largo Convelescent Center from April 1995 - July 1996:
[Very long quoted article snipped by Ampersand. Greg, please don't do that on my blog - choose some representative quotes and provide a link for those who are interested to follow to read the whole thing. --Amp]
There are more than Carla, CNA’s, - back when she got speech therapy after the collapse, she was saying words, etc. That was before the settlement after which Michael Schiavo terminated all therapy, even though he had testified in court to get the millions in settlement money that he was going to care for her and provide her thearpy for the rest of his and her life.
Don’t let personal views on death and suffering cloud your ability to search out the facts in this case. Much is not being commonly reported. Even the CAT scan comparison above in this listing is misleading, not being taken at similar resolution. Nor does it show a “liquified brain” bu rather a lower desity of remaining matter. Further, anyone that has had significant brain injury will end up with fluid areas - the body’s way of consolidating the rest for function. The existance of such does not in any way prove a total lack of functionality.
This case is filled with inconsistancies that makes the court’s rulings and actions extremely questionable. They all should be reconsidered and a bright light shined on all the evidence including Mrs. Schiavo’s mental capabilities or lack therof before the final (and potentially fatal) judgement is rendered.
This comment was written by Greg4TCP.Report this comment to the moderators
March 23rd, 2005 at 2:03 pm
Thank you you all very much for this very interesting and rational discussion. I second the recommendation of http://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/WolfsonReport.pdf as a good place for people to get facts as synthesized by someone who clearly had access to them.
This comment was written by Di.Report this comment to the moderators
March 23rd, 2005 at 3:46 pm
Greg,
The CNA’s testimony has been discredited. The Schindlers did not ask for this testimony. The Schindlers’ testimony contradicted that of these nurses. And the judge found the amount of conspiracy required to be beyond credibility.
As to court rulings, how many courts do we need here? It’s been argued before multiple courts, including those in the past couple of days.
As to the money, only $300,000 was accessible to Mr. Schiavo, for his personal losses. The rest was put in trust for Terri’s treatment; all of this money is surely long since gone in legal and medical fees. You’ve apparently skipped through reading most of the responses above, since you’re rehashing arguments that have been proven false through the court records quoted above and in links provided. Let the appeals end; today’s 11th Circuit en banc ruling of 10-2 against should end this discussion; the US Supreme Court has already turned down the case. Time for acceptance to begin.
This comment was written by Phoenix Rising.Report this comment to the moderators
March 23rd, 2005 at 4:27 pm
[...] ; Grandstanding Media Whores
Terri Schiavo news
“I hesitate to publish these next images. I’ve decided I’m going to, b [...]
This comment was written by My Big White Hairy Ass » Blog Archive » Terri Schiavo news.Report this comment to the moderators
March 23rd, 2005 at 4:56 pm
A note from a radiologist:
As a radiologist, I can tell you that I look at catscans all the time. The catscan which you are showing on your site (which has Terri’s brain) is very primitive and not very exact.
By looking at this picture, I can see that Terri’s s scan was taken by a first or second generation catscan machine. These machines are very primitive, and many advances have been done since their time. The catscan technology has evolved into 5 different generations, and the difference between the new stuff and the old stuff is as different between the laptops of today and the laptops of the late 80’s. In other words, it’s huge! If Terri’s brain had fluid, the fluid could obscure the older catscan machine from getting a true picture of her brain activity. The chances for this are pretty good!
Therefore, I personally cannot accept that scan as proof that Terri is braindead!
Dr. Joseph Arko, MD
This comment was written by Marge.Report this comment to the moderators
March 23rd, 2005 at 6:23 pm
Dr Arko: Since when did CT scans provide information on “brain activity”? They provide anatomical data, not functional data.
This comment was written by Mark Chorlton.Report this comment to the moderators
March 23rd, 2005 at 6:45 pm
BONE SCANS
Hello,
It’s Doc Joe again, and in this blog I would like to talk about bone scans!
On the Internet floating around in cyberspace is a report of Terri’s bone scan which was taken when she was brought to the hospital 15 years ago.
Now, as a cancer physician (radiology), I know bone scans because I have worked with a lot of patients who suffer from bone cancer. I’m not going to retype the report. You can probably find the pdf file in google, but let me describe to you in layman’s term what it means.
When Terri was brought to the hospital, a bone scan was done by Doctor Campbell Walker. In his medical report, he states that her spine, her femur, her ribs, and her knees and ankles had all been broken in the recent past. Further, he said that these bones had been broken over and over again. The rate of the bones healing themselves showed this.
According to his report, he concluded that this woman had undergone severe trauma. Or, in layman’s terms, Terri was MAULED! There are rumors on the Net flying around that Terri suffered from bulimia, and because of her eating disorder, she fell a lot.
If this situation was not so tragic, I would laugh in Michael Shiavo’s face!!!! Do you have ANY idea how hard it is to break a femur??????? Or the Li vertebral in your spine??????? Let me sum it up for you….IT AIN’T EASY!!!!!!
There are several ways in which all of these bones could be broken over and over again. 1) Terri was into extreme sports. She skydived, mountain climbed, bungee jumped and broke her bones over and over again. 2) She has bone cancer 3) She suffers from neoplastic bone disease……..or 4) Somebody repeatedly beat her over and over with a blunt object like a baseball bat. Which do you think it is?
The moment the hospital saw these results, they should have called the police. A criminal investigation needs to be done on Michael Shiavo.
This comment was written by Marge.Report this comment to the moderators
March 23rd, 2005 at 6:48 pm
Dr Arko: Since when did CT scans provide information on “brain activity”?? They provide anatomical data, not functional data.
Sorry, poor choice of words. I had PET Scan on the brain. The wife called me down and I had to finish my post quickly! Sorry!
This comment was written by Marge.Report this comment to the moderators
March 23rd, 2005 at 6:58 pm
Phoenix,
There is nothing in what you linked that discredits Carla Ayers testimony. It only states that Greer did not accept her testimony and found it “incredible”, perhaps in light of what he had already concluded. Also, as a correction. Carla Ayers is not a CNA, but an R.N. There are also the testimony of two other CNA’s from the facility same time frame that corroborate both how Michael Schiavo affected the work enviornment with his manner and orders as well as Terri’s responsiveness. That makes three people from the facility.
Nothing has ever been said by her to indicate her charges are new, they were part of the original court material, but material that was disregarded with no proven reason to do so by Greer.
Just because the death dispensing judge in this case said her charges sounded incredible does not make them false. Should he not have instead ordered an investigation into her allegations through the Florida DHF or the health care facility regulating body? If her allegations had proven false, she would have been in a world of hert legally, but for some reason Greer did nothing ot investigate the veracity of her statements.
To perjure onesself under oath regarding the care and activity of a patient under her care would not only place Carla Ayer’s career at risk, but would place her at risk of felony perjury charges. Exacltly why do you surmise she would lie about this? And the same could be asked about the two other CNA’s.
The personality tebdancies described in her testimony seems to mirror that contained in the testimony of Cynthia Shook, Michael’s former girlfriend/mistress from the 1-1/2 year after Terri’s collapse time frame. (The time during which he was quoting his marriage oaths in front of a jury and telling them he was going to personally care for Terri for the rest of their lives.)
BTW, sorry Amp for the previous long insertion and for finding a good online link as a substitute.
This comment was written by Greg4TCP.Report this comment to the moderators
March 23rd, 2005 at 7:27 pm
HEART ATTACKS, POTASSIUM IMBALANCES & OTHER MYSTERIES:
Hello!
Doc Joe again! Now that we have talked about scans, let’s talk about what actually made Terri collapse!
Now, let me first make an admission here. Eating disorders are not my speciality, but I do believe that I know enough general medicine to make the following claims. If you ever find me wrong, please post that info here! I would be glad to see if I erred.
Terri Schiavo did not have a heart attack. When a person has a heart attack, the heart releases enzymes that can be seen by doctors. These enzymes were not present in Terri’s body. What she most probably suffered from was a suddden irregular heart beat. What caused this irregular heart beat? She did not have any history of heart disease. Was it trauma? possibly. Bulimia….I doubt it.
Let me post my reasons why in my next blog!
This comment was written by Marge.Report this comment to the moderators
March 23rd, 2005 at 7:55 pm
With all due respect, as a specialist in Eating Disorders, I am waiting for your reasons that Bulimia COULDNT have caused her heart attack . The severity of physical damage caused by chronic eating disordered behaviors is well documented. I dont know the extent of Terri S’s ED behaviors, so I cannot be more specific on the cause of her trauma, but I am happy to supply any number of sources detailing the physical devastation of chronic eating disordered behaviors.
This comment was written by Amy.Report this comment to the moderators
March 23rd, 2005 at 8:00 pm
If indeed such updated CAT scan images are available, they are not publicly available. The original source of these removed them and they ended up on this Alas blog which brought many to the site.
The matter should not be a public one, and it should, rather, be a question for the family, the courts, and the experts.
I am very skeptical of 11th hour determinations and reversals giving “sudden new medical evidence”. This has been going on for 15 years. If they were so interested before, if Governor Bush had access to these before, why not bring them out then? No, these people are desperate and are resorting to desperate means.
This comment was written by Jan Theodore Galkowski.Report this comment to the moderators
March 23rd, 2005 at 8:16 pm
Sorry, Now that I’m back, let me continue…
In my last blog, I stated that Terri did not have a heart attack. She had a sudden irregular heart beat. The news is saying that this condition led to her collapse, prevented her brain from getting oxygen, and led to the state that she is in now.
The news is also stating that the heart lost its regular beat because of a potassium imbalance caused by bulimia. I cannot believe that this is true!
Terri was 26 when she passed out. According to her family, she was in perfect health. It is VERY difficult for a young, 20 year old woman to go into a vegetable state due to an eating disorder! Many years ago, (and forgive my stupidity on pop culture) there was a brother and sister singing group called the Carpenters.
Now, I don’t know how to post pictures here, so if you go to the Net and type in Karen Carpenter/ bulimia, you will see a picture of someone with an eating disorder. Compare that picture to the picture of Terri which you see on the news. Terri does NOT look like Karen Carpenter. She has too much body fat and muscle tone!
Now, I don’t know if Terri was starting an eating disorder or not, but most people who go into a potassium induced coma look like Karen Carpenter….not Terri Schiavo!!! Back this medical observation with the mysterious bone scans, and I can’t believe that her black out was self induced!!!!
What else, then, could make the potassium level in the body go crazy? What else could make the heart flutter. Answer: a sudden drop in blood sugar…..or a shot of insulin.
Now, I’m not saying that Terri went into her unconscious state because she had a shot of insulin. But what I am saying is that the circumstances are very suspicious!!!! Isn’t it interesting that nurse Iyers claims that when Michael visited Terri, after he left, Terri suffered from abnormally low blood sugar and she found a vile of insulin in the waste basket!!! Isn’t it interesting that another nurse who was interviewed on Hannity and Combs (Heidi and I forgot the last name) also claimed that when Michael left, Terri exhibited signs of very low blood sugar.
And did you know that WHEN you suffer from blood sugar that low, little by little, your brain cells die??????
This is just a conjecture….a theory. But, somehow I think my theory is a little more exact than the bull I am reading in the news!!!!
Somebody PLEASE investigate Michael Schiavo!!!!!!
This comment was written by Marge.Report this comment to the moderators
March 23rd, 2005 at 8:31 pm
Karen Carpenter actually didn’t die of starvation. She died of ipecac abuse, which is, I believe, the most common cause of death for bulimics other than suicide.
Some cites:
Pope HG, Hudson JI, Nixon R, Herridge PL. The epidemiology of ipecac abuse. N Engl J Med. 1986; 314: 245″“246
Schiff RJ, Wurzel CL, Brunson SC, Kasloff I, Nussbaum MP, Frank SD. Death due to chronic syrup of ipecac use in a patient with bulimia. Pediatrics. 1986; 78: 412″“416
And here’s a site aimed at a popular audience.
It sounds to me like you don’t know the first thing about eating disorders. Please don’t pontificate on things about which you’re really ignorant.
Thanks!
This comment was written by Sally.Report this comment to the moderators
March 23rd, 2005 at 8:36 pm
My quick 2 cents on Terri Schiavo, and that’s it.
What if poor Mrs. Schiavo’s face, the face we see in a small selection of repetitive undated video clips, was contorted into an hideous scowl or panged with horror and fright instead of her current uncontrolled hapless angelic idiot grin? You think there would be the same outpouring of sympathy and interest from the general public in keeping this woman alive?
This comment was written by Sam.Report this comment to the moderators
March 23rd, 2005 at 8:40 pm
Marge, yes, I agree with Sally, eating disorders are very complicated things, very dependent upon individual history, and very much diseases. See the National Eating Disorders Association for details. People with them have backgrounds ranging from common family pathologies to rape and sexual abuse.
This comment was written by Jan Theodore Galkowski.Report this comment to the moderators
March 23rd, 2005 at 8:46 pm
The problem with Marge’s argument is that it seems to suggest that eating disorders aren’t really dangerous unless you’re emaciated. And that’s not true. Most bulimics don’t look like Karen Carpenter: many aren’t thin at all. And they’re still doing tons of damage to their bodies. They could still die. It’s a big, dangerous myth that you have to be really skinny to have a serious medical problem.
/PSA. Sorry.
This comment was written by Sally.Report this comment to the moderators
March 23rd, 2005 at 8:49 pm
There is also an an excellent British site on these disorders, including a nice technical discussion of anorexia’s causes.
This comment was written by Jan Theodore Galkowski.Report this comment to the moderators
March 23rd, 2005 at 8:53 pm
And this section of the same site addresses how eating disorders can be misdiagnosed by medical professionals.
This comment was written by Jan Theodore Galkowski.Report this comment to the moderators
March 23rd, 2005 at 8:59 pm
Marge, the Schindlers hypothesized Michael Schiavo murdered Terri someplace along the litigation trail. That was dismissed, and they later dropped their hypothesis.
Marge, you really need to listen to someone who spent some time with Schiavo’s residuum, recently, both trained and doing it as a job for Governor Jeb Bush, like Dr Jay Wolfson.
This comment was written by Jan Theodore Galkowski.Report this comment to the moderators
March 23rd, 2005 at 9:06 pm
I am suspicious of those, as her dress and makeup and posing all are clearly intended to make her look alive and vibrant. But they are effective in convincing some “there’s a real person in there”.
This comment was written by Jan Theodore Galkowski.Report this comment to the moderators
March 23rd, 2005 at 9:11 pm
The Times has a story on the guy Jeb Bush has pulled out of his hat to provide 11th hour “expert testimony” on Terri Schiavo, Incapacitated .
This comment was written by Jan Theodore Galkowski.Report this comment to the moderators
March 24th, 2005 at 7:05 am
I thought I would show this CT-scan from a perfectly healthy individual after undergoing an hemispherectomy.
What would happen if this type of procedure were done to someone around 25 years old? They may end up like Terri Schiavo.
Granted, we’re talking about one side of the brain being removed, in this case, versus damage to both sides. Nevertheless, Michael Schiavo’s statement, “You can’t regrow a brain, Larry” is largely irrelevant. Many intelligent people have severe brain damage, as strange as that may sound.
This comment was written by TheDolt.Report this comment to the moderators
March 24th, 2005 at 9:03 am
This is who the latest doctor who has completely different opinion than doctors who have actually examined Terri Schiavo. Jeb Bush produced Dr. William Polk Cheshire . His biography is at the bottom of this page : http://www.restorationfoundation.org/volume_2/2122.htm
This comment was written by Di.Interesting.
Report this comment to the moderators
March 24th, 2005 at 9:29 am
Having one hemisphere removed is still consistent with consciousness, thought, awareness, etc. It’s not a desirable state — there will usually be major deficits, different ones depending on which hemisphere is removed — but it is in no way comparable to having profound, global damage to both hemispheres.
Age makes a difference only in the sense that a younger patient has a more plastic brain — the remaining hemisphere may be better able to pick up the tasks of the missing hemisphere. But in both a child or a 25 year-old, the key is: is there intact cortex, particularly in the frontal lobes? And is there an intact connection between the cortex and the centers regulating global consciousness, emotion, etc. — broadly speaking, the subcortical structures of the brain, including the brainstem. These centers don’t do the actual “thinking” themselves, but act as on/off switches, or control panels, regulating and coordinating states of awareness and emotional response in the cortex.
If these anatomic structures are intact and connected, the patient will still be capable of thought, awareness, and most of what we think of as the functions of the “self.”
Often, patients who wake up after long comas had some sort of transient damage to these lower subcortical structures that regulate awareness — the “on/off” switch was just dormant for a while, but the cortex was intact and just waiting to come back on line. That’s a totally different situation from having no cortex, but having your subcortical structures still intact, and keeping you in a bizarre, awake-appearing state, generating reflex, brainstem-driven facial expressions and responses. Which is more like Terry Schiavo.
This comment was written by Claudia.Report this comment to the moderators
March 24th, 2005 at 10:03 am
I have worked in medical for 30+ years in the area of radiology, CT, and I am the operator of MRI…she has sustained brain damage, and it appears quite significant. However, Michael has not allowed therapy or even working her muscles to prevent the contracturing of her muscles(shortening, hollowing, etc) The lack of intensive therapy has harmed her I am sure. If a person is restricted from utilizing brain function due to physical disability, it can weaken the brain. The lack of stimulus can enhance the damage. Additionally, although spinal cords and brain matter for a long time considered permanent once damage has occurred(due to the prior belief that damaged CNS/Brain could not regrow)it has been shown that BRAIN tissue can regrow in certain situations. It is poorly understood but recently we have had some ‘PVS’ people come out of their comas…miracles do happen, and all is possible with God. I truly believe she is severely brain damaged, but I also believe in science that we do not understand and that hasn’t been understood. The medical community has told people they were dying of invasive cancers and to expect death-to have them recover. Many times people have been given death sentences and survived. In my youth I had severe damage to my arm, it was so burned and crushed…we are talking late 50’s, and my prognosis was POOR-I would lose my arm with amputation, as during treatment, the gangrene was encroaching on my entire arm. Well, they said if they salvaged it, it would be short and useless…I have my arm, I am in later 40’s and it is completely functional, and looks completely normal except for a LARGE scar—Man does not understand the ability of the body to heal, especially with mega prayer-it is not for man to starve the ones who do not measure up to our definition of normal, nor to kill the disabled. For such an advanced medical ability in this country, we are pathetic in our total understanding. In all the years of working, I have seen people who have even 1/3 of a body, from severe injuries: no legs, no sexual organs, no bathroom except bags-believe it or not, no one can truly speak for another. This one gal in particular I am speaking of-she was so positive, even with only a chest and a head-she was grateful she was alive-when many would be wishing for death. She was glad to be 2 feet tall versus dead. Who are we to judge the quality of life once life changes us-just as many Downs’ children are happy-they are not thinking about their different physical features or the slowness-they are happy-we are the ones who are miserable and judging that which we know not. Time to think outside of the box, time to expect miracles is upon us-let us all pray that Terri doesn’t understand how many wish her dead. I wish only life for her until God calls her home, not by mans hand. If the glory of God can be revealed through her, let it be, and expect this, for one way or the other, God causes ALL things to be perfected-even the dark hearts of evil meant against us shall be used to lift the righteous up.
This comment was written by Christine.Report this comment to the moderators
March 24th, 2005 at 10:12 am
Interesting article Schiavo Lesson on Judiciary Trump Card at the Times. Notable excerpt:
This comment was written by Jan Theodore Galkowski.Report this comment to the moderators
March 24th, 2005 at 12:32 pm
An assessment of the implications of the Congressional Act giving federal courts jurisdiction over the Florida state court case involving Terri Schiavo, Incapacited, is given at FindLaw.com.
This comment was written by Jan Theodore Galkowski.Report this comment to the moderators
March 24th, 2005 at 1:03 pm
The Cassel article contains this link which recounts the tortuous history of this litigation and its timeline. I wonder where the Schindlers and Michael Schiavo got the money to continue this litigation, only because that would indicate who’s contest this really is.
This comment was written by Jan Theodore Galkowski.Report this comment to the moderators
March 24th, 2005 at 1:10 pm
Michael Schiavo has used the money he got in the malpractice settlement against Terri’s doctors to pay for litigation. I think, but I’m not sure, that the ACLU may be helping him as well. I don’t know if there are other sources or not.
The Schindlers have probably burned through all their savings, but most of their legal costs are being paid for by right-wing philantropists, the same ones who support pro-life causes.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
March 24th, 2005 at 1:32 pm
I am shocked at the lies and spiritual blackmail attempts being used to try to force the agenda of ‘christian’ extremists on our our legal system. We are a nation of laws. Conceived in that way to protect religious freedom. These people seem to be trying to force a national religion on us. For a voice of spiritual sanity I like http://www.interfaithalliance.org/site/pp.asp?c=8dJIIWMCE&b=447561
This comment was written by Di.Report this comment to the moderators
March 24th, 2005 at 2:05 pm
According their site:
Only the Terri Schindler-Schiavo Foundation and Life Legal Defense Foundation collect donations for the direct purpose of protecting Terri. ( http://www.lldf.org/ )… that latter I’ve been unable to connect to for a while but Life Legal Defense Foundation (according to http://www.mcgeorge.edu/academics/curriculum_catalog/full_course_descriptions/life_legal_defense_foundation_clinic.htm) is ” a nonprofit organization that provides legal aid to individuals injured by discrimination based on their support of alternatives to abortion and euthanasia. Constitutional legal issues are typically involved, such as free exercise of speech, free exercise of sincerely held beliefs, and equal protection under the law. ” (I love Google) At http://journals.aol.com/shjusticeforall/SavingTerriSchiavo/entries/882 I found reference to funding also from Arizona-based Alliance Defense Fund http://www.alliancedefensefund.org. The latter is the big guns I think. Guessing from the whois records:
lldf.org whois record:
Registrant: Make this info private
Life Legal Defense Foundation (20298489O)
PO Box 2105
Napa, CA 94558
US
Phone: 999-999-9999
Fax: 999-999-9999
Domain Name: LLDF.ORG
Administrative Contact :
Life Legal Defense Foundation (RM465-ORG)
MaryRiley@COMPUSERVE.COM
PO Box 2105
Napa, CA 94558
US
Phone: 707-224-6675
Fax: 707-224-6676
Technical Contact :
Telepacific Communication,
(HO3310-ORG)
hostmaster@telepacific.com
515 South Flower Street
47th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071-2201
US
Phone: 213-213-3000
Fax: 213-545-7845
AllianceDefencefund.org Whois record:
This comment was written by Di.Domain ID:D2585068-LROR
Domain Name:ALLIANCEDEFENSEFUND.ORG
Created On:23-Feb-1998 05:00:00 UTC
Last Updated On:11-Jan-2005 00:30:31 UTC
Expiration Date:22-Feb-2006 05:00:00 UTC
Sponsoring Registrar:DSTR Holdings, Inc. (R34-LROR)
Status:OK
Registrant ID:DOTR-00559863
Registrant Name:Jon Cline
Registrant Organization:Alliance Defense Fund
Registrant Street1:15333 N. Pima Road
Registrant Street2:Suite 165
Registrant Street3:
Registrant City:Scottsdale
Registrant State/Province:AZ
Registrant Postal Code:85260
Registrant Country:US
Registrant Phone:+1.4804440020
Registrant Phone Ext.:
Registrant FAX:+1.4804440025
Registrant FAX Ext.:
Registrant Email:jcline@alliancedefensefund.org
Admin ID:DOTC-02982475
Admin Name:Jon Cline
Admin Organization:Alliance Defense Fund
Admin Street1:15333 N. Pima Road
Admin Street2:Suite165
Admin Street3:
Admin City:Scottsdale
Admin State/Province:AZ
Admin Postal Code:85260
Admin Country:US
Admin Phone:+1.4804440020
Admin Phone Ext.:
Admin FAX:+1.4804440025
Admin FAX Ext.:
Admin Email:jcline@alliancedefensefund.org
Tech ID:DOTC-01998710
Tech Name:Jon Cline
Tech Organization:Alliance Defense Fund
Tech Street1:15333 N. Pima Road
Tech Street2:Suite 165
Tech Street3:
Tech City:Scottsdale
Tech State/Province:AZ
Tech Postal Code:85260
Tech Country:US
Tech Phone:+1.4804440020
Tech Phone Ext.:
Tech FAX:+1.4804440025
Tech FAX Ext.:
Tech Email:jcline@alliancedefensefund.org
Report this comment to the moderators
March 24th, 2005 at 2:34 pm
I have read through this blog hoping to find some info on if the patient has ever had an functional MRI. It appears to me, as a neuroscientist, that most have a basic misunderstanding of how the brain works and what it means to be “alert” and/or “responsive”. Moreover, there does not seem to be any understanding of the correlation between the extent of brain damage and conscious awareness, which of course is related to the previous misunderstanding.
First off, a CT scan or an MRI will never you tell anyone anything about anyone’s brain activity. This can be done in a crude manner by measuring evoked-potentials from the skull in response to stimuli, or more elegantly with functional MRI (fMRI) which is an extension of a standard MRI in which metabolic energy consumption in the brain can be measured in response to a variety of stimuli. I have been unable to find any evidence that Terri has ever had an fMRI, but even if she has, it would be exceedingly difficult to rule out that she has any higher brain function. It is quite easy to provide evidence, but nearly impossible to provide evidence of absence. Having said that, her CT scan, no matter how old, quite clearly illustrates that she has expansive brain damage. So the question is, how does this correlate to behavior. As far as I know there is NO true way to predict brain function based on the extent of damage. The tiniest stroke can be utterly devasting, whereas massive infarcts can lead to basically no behavioral manifestations that will affect someone’s daily life. Several people have mentioned, though, that she didn’t have a stroke, but that her heart stopped beating. It doesn’t matter what the cause was, she had an interruption of blood to the brain and, therefore, a loss of oxygen. This loss of oxygen, or ischemia, if sustained for more than several tens of seconds, will cause brain damage.
So what to make of her brain damage and behavior. Following familiar people with the eyes is easily explained as a reflex, as is smiling or even making sounds in response to other sounds, etc.. Not that a comparison should be made between Terri and an infant, but, even the smallest infants respond favorably to certain types of faces, music, etc.. They clearly have not had time to learn that these things are favorable or that they “like” them, however, they respond in a manner in which we interpret as “likeful” nonetheless. This is because, in all likelihood, these behaviors are inborn, or instinctive. Whether or not Terri is responding through an instinctive related pathway, which need not involve any higher cortical function (even the visual cortex is not needed, it can be carried through the supior colliculus), or if she is minimally conscious is open for debate. The fact, though, that she illustrates no other forms of higher function or mental processing strongly suggests that she has none.
This comment was written by Ted.Report this comment to the moderators
March 24th, 2005 at 3:27 pm
It is my understanding that an MRI cannot be performed because right after the heart attack, Michael took Terri to California where an experimental procedure was performed the implanted electrodes in her skull which then sent small electrical signals to her brain in an attempt to regenerate tissue. This failed. But not all of what was implanted was taken out. And given the nature of MRIs, if you have implants in your body, particularly any metal, this will cause injury if you submit to an MRI.
I used this in arguing against tattoos to my daughter a year ago (many of the tattoo inks have metal in them).
I’m not a doctor, I only examine them in my work as a worker’s comp attorney. So if there are any docs out there who can further enlighten us on the implant/no MRI issue, that would be great.
This comment was written by moe99.Report this comment to the moderators
March 24th, 2005 at 3:36 pm
Because of a reference made to it on NPR’s All Things Considered, I looked up a State of Texas law on advanced health directives which President George W Bush signed in 1999 when he was governor.
Not a bad law, that.
Is is too much to ask consistency?
This comment was written by Jan Theodore Galkowski.Report this comment to the moderators
March 24th, 2005 at 3:51 pm
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/7012320/ has ballpark figures on how much national right to life groups have paid the Schindlers - in the millions of dollars in legal assistance both in kind and dollars. It is obscene.
This comment was written by Di.Report this comment to the moderators
March 24th, 2005 at 5:00 pm
Whether I have a basic understanding of how an MRI works or not, I certainly understand that it is not possible to have an MRI performed when there are metal and plastic foreign “gadgets” implanted inside one’s skull.
And, if it is “major surgery” to have those gadgets removed, just so an MRI can be performed, there is no reason to perform such surgery on a dying person. IOW, it does not matter a hill of beans at this late date and would prove nothing that we do not already know. [Baring those who believe that G-d is in the habit of replacing destroyed brains, providing we keep bodies alive for more than 15 years.]
It is also easy to understand why her parents have never been interested in having an MRI performed. It would not help their case and would not have changed the course of action of the courts or of Mr. Schiavo.
While this case seems to hinge on feeding tubes, and brain scans, and whether it is wrong for the government to kill a “healthy” young woman, the most troubling aspects are (1) the ease with which it is possible to gin up the public into crazed hysteria through illogic and lies (Hitler knew that people will believe anything if it is phrased slyly enough), (2) the ease of some politicians to blindly pander to an hysterical public while disregarding the Constitution as if it didn’t even exist, and (3) the diabolically cleverness by which the “loving parents” managed to turn the public against a man who has done nothing wrong in his care for their daughter. Indeed, the husband made certain that every available cent has gone to Terri’s care, yet her parents stooped to dramatic acting out and constructed hate-filled lies about him, and the hysterical public fell for their entire pack of lies.
What is most shocking about this case is the eagerness in which certain elected Republicans are willing to politicize this case (while hoping for approval and checks from their far-Right constituents) rather than uphold their sworn oath to the Constitution. I have been an active Republican for many years, but I am so thoroughly disgusted that I am going to withhold my normal contributions. When I am contacted, I’m going to remind those seeking funds that they did not uphold the Constitution, and they can get their money from Randall Terry and the far-Right wing (fat chance! that bunch are notoriously tight with their wallets and very slow to pay). I see no need to “forgive” those politicians who refuse to use the brains that G-d gave them and speak the truth, even if the right-wing whackos go crazy.
What is most disgusting about this case is the greed of the Schindlers. Since the day the settlement money was forthcoming they have been ceaseless in their demands that Mr. Schiavo write them a huge check as their share. Their greed is both sickening and senseless. They are not obligated for one red cent of the medical bills for Terri’s care, so WHY do they need money? Why are they raising money? Why do they need to make money “for Terri?” The only logical answer is that they want money. Back in 1993 they demanded that Mr. Schiavo buy them a house. How would buying the Schindlers a house help Terri? They are so full of hatred for their son-in-law that they are willing to blame him for her condition, even though it leads to a contradictory theory. They are willing to take the money that resulted from a medical claim, yet they intimate that Mr. Schiavo was responsible for her condition. How can they try to get money from blaming the doctors and at the same time, blame Mr. Schiavo ? How can they have the claims both ways?
Their hatred toward Michael Schiavo is stunning and wrong. He has operated with the the overview of the courts since 1993 and the courts have found nothing wrong with his care for Terri. In fact, the courts have commended him. Judge Greer wrote about the “greed” of the Schindlers and that their major concern was “getting some money” from Mr. Schiavo. Yet, the Schindlers have been able to very cleverly turn the microscope away from them, and toward the “evil” husband.
I see the Schindlers as evil for the lies they are telling. They should be ashamed, but they are shameless. They would have shut up a long time ago if Michael Schiavo had merely written them a check. To his credit, he kept all of the money for Terri’s care. He is the good guy. The parents are skunks! I cannot express my disdain for the antics of her parents.
Mrs. Schindler is “chewing up the furniture” in front of the clinic with her melodramatic antics, when, in fact, she has not had very much time for Terri over the past 15 years. She turns into a suffering “mother” when the cameras are on. In fact, she sent Terri back to the nursing home a few days of trying to take care of her 12 years ago, and has let her lay in a bed, mostly alone, since then. (Just ask those who have worked in those homes over the years about how often the Schindlers visit and how much they “work” with Terri.)
Mary Schindler swoons and faints/feigns with emotion when the cameras are on, and blames the medical community for “starving” her daughter. She blames the politicans for “killing” her daughter. She blames Michael Schiavo for “not caring” for her daughter. Every single one of those statements are lies. She does not seem to care who she hurts or what lies she tells. Only that she “looks” like a deeply grieving mother.
Her daughter had an eating condition that ruined her health. [Was there something in her upbringing that caused her to have such severe psychological problems?] Her weight fluctuated dramatically, which is terribly dangerous. However, it seems that Terri didn’t believe that dangerous life choices would affect her. [What is it about this family, that normal rules don't apply to them?] Terri ruined her own health by her own conscious actions. Unfortunately, we have to live by our decisions. Except, of course, the precious Schindlers. Normal rules don’t seem to apply to them. The rest of the country loses family members every single minute of every single hour of every single day without involving the President of the United States, the US Senate, the US House of Representatives, the Supreme Court, the State of Florida, the Governor of Florida, the Florida Senate, the Florida House of Representatives, Florida Child Services, the Florida Supreme Court, every newspaper, TV station, radio station, almost every Internet blog, dozens of doctors, hundreds of ethicists, untold numbers of citizens, and even opinion in foreign countries. The Schindlers have managed to divide our country. I will never forgive them, and I will continue to stand up for Mr. Schiavo, who has been demonized for doing the right thing for his “wife” who is not really his wife, because none of us are anything without a brain.
This comment was written by secant.Report this comment to the moderators
March 24th, 2005 at 5:03 pm
http://pekinprattles.blogspot.com/2005/03/schiavo-dr-cranford-offers-reply.html has a thorough explanation on the imaging issues. This is Dr. Cranford who was one of the neurologists who examined Terri thoroughly and competently.
This comment was written by Di.Report this comment to the moderators
March 24th, 2005 at 5:04 pm
oops forgot to say - that was for Ted - re. the MRI and other imaging issues.
This comment was written by Di.Report this comment to the moderators
March 24th, 2005 at 6:28 pm
Thanks Di for the info…
IF the doctors implanted thalamic stimulators in her brain, at any point, they would have seen with their own eyes the extent of the damage since they would have had to either 1) open her skull to put them in or 2) use a CT scan to judge the location of the thalamus. With that extent of degeneration they could not possibly have gone by normal coordinates because her thalamus is mostly gone, and that which is left would have moved about somewhat (not literally moved but the location would be impossible to judge without prior knowledge, and a normal person would not be adequate to make such a judgement).
I completely disagree about the PET thing though. There are tons of hospitals that are perfectly capable of doing PET scans, they are as routine as they come. In a case like this, though, you don’t need the world’s greatest PET analyzer, the damage is so extensive, based on the CT, that it would be plain as day.
Also, I seriously doubt if the thalamic stimulators are still in there, so she could probably have an MRI. One needs to have some brain matter to chronically implant the electrodes for the stimulator, unless they are anchored to the skull (which they clearly are not), and it doesn’t appear that she has much brain matter to keep the stimulators in place. Moreover, they wear out and it has been 15 years since they were implanted. On the other hand, Dr Crawford states that she has had EEGs and there was no measurable brain activity. That being the case, there is no need for an fMRI either (at least in my opinion) but it could provide more evidence and could explain some of her instinctive behavior, which the family seems to think is “alertness”, if they could show that it was associated with hindbrain motor and sensory function and nothing else. This would be more than overkill, but, it seems that is what is needed to convince 18% of the population.
Hopefully this tragic situation will not only stimulate some debate leading to some meaningful legislation concerning right to die issues. Moreover, I hope it will cause more people to reflect on what consciousness really means and educate themselves more on their brain and how it works. The USA is literally full of neuroscientists who are eager to interact and educate the general public. Unfortunately, we are often thwarted by groups such as PETA who threaten us, or right wing activitist who block us from talking about things like evolution when we try to talk to young people in their schools about science, and the biological sciences in particular. For instance, the Society for Neuroscience (a group of 35,000 strong neuroscientists) conducts a national program every year where we go out and talk about the brain in schools. Unfortunately, we have largely been reduced to bringing out sponges that resemble the brain and talking about subjects that insult the intellegence of the nation’s youth because we would not be allowed in the door if we were to speak about anything that might be seen as controversial (evolution) even though there is no controversy over whether or not evolution occurs.
Well, I’ve gone on to long already…
This comment was written by Ted.Report this comment to the moderators
March 24th, 2005 at 6:28 pm
The CT scan posted above reveals all you need to know. Terri’s brain is half gone. My wife is a radiologist who has treated Terri and seen the actual CT. Those who think an MRI is needed are deluding themselves.
……………Bob
This comment was written by Dr Bob.Report this comment to the moderators
March 24th, 2005 at 6:49 pm
Can someone please tell me why this woman, who did not want to be kept alive through a feeding tube *was* kept alive for 15 years, but now should be allowed to die? I could go with the “her heart stopped beating for 15 minutes and a week later she was dead” scenario. I am having a lot of trouble with allowing her to live for 15 years on a feeding tube, but now someone says it’s time for her to die. How can I possibly believe a word her husband says, if he wanted to honor her wishes so badly, wouldn’t he have allowed her to die 15 years ago?
This comment was written by Radar.Report this comment to the moderators
March 24th, 2005 at 7:04 pm
Radar:
It took a few years for her husband to conclude that Terri was gone and no recovery was possible. After that, he tried to let her die, but her parents sued and it’s been tied up in the courts ever since.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
March 24th, 2005 at 7:39 pm
Well, you can hardly blame the parents. They have gotten used to the idea that their daughter will probably never walk or talk again. Now they are being forced to watch her die knowing that it doesn’t have to happen. It’s a sad situation all the way around.
At this point, pinning everything on her supposed wish not to be kept alive this way seems backwards. If we’re going to make this all about her wishes not to have life support then we shouldn’t even be having this discussion, because Terri would not be her. Under the circumstances (and I do believe these are special circumstances) I think the husband should say, if the parents want to keep her on life support then let them. The husband can walk away knowing he did all he could.
This comment was written by Radar.Report this comment to the moderators
March 24th, 2005 at 7:48 pm
Radar, I don’t blame the parents. I’m sure they’re acting in what they think are their daughter’s best interests.
Nor do I blame the husband, who I think is also, in all liklihood, trying to do his best for her. I understand that you disagree with him, but I really don’t think it’s your place - or mine - to cast judgement on what Michael, or what Terri’s parents, do in this unbelievably hard situation.
I do think that some people - the politicians and activists - have acted badly in this case. But I don’t blame any of Terri’s relatives, including Michael.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
March 24th, 2005 at 8:23 pm
I’ve never really wanted a tattoo, but after reading the many, many comments & reading (here and otherwhere) about the problems with medical directives & living wills, I’m strongly considering tattooing “Do not resuscitate” on my chest & getting a medical directive tattooed on my back.
This comment was written by Jake Squid.Report this comment to the moderators
March 24th, 2005 at 8:23 pm
I don’t blame either of them as this is an incredibly difficult situation. I do think the parents are letting themselves be manipulated, and I need to ask myself how they can let that happen, particularly when they’ve got to realize how many resources are being expended to mount this campaign. I mean, all hospitals have triage policies, have to have triage policies when their resources are overwhelmed by, say, a multicar pileup or something comparable. It’s a recognition that it’s not always possible to help everybody, that we are finite beings with finite resources and knowledge.
Michael has got to be highly principled and loyal. I mean, it’d be so darn easy to walk away.
Back to the Schindlers, it use to be that the only folks that used to be able to mount this degree of legal assault were the rich. This is a new kind of elite, based upon issues and causes. Nevertheless, there’s something wrong feeling about it, even sick, like Ahab persuing his great white whale, and that applies to whether the rich consume these kind of resources or causes do.
Evaluating their situation as a parent, all parenting is about letting go, letting your kids grow up and take risks. You need to be there for them, even if they mess up, but it’s finally their life. Still, I can’t imagine what death of one of my kids would be like, so I don’t know the space they are in. But that death happened in 1990, in this case, and that moment when they took Michael Schiavo on legally rather than coming to final terms with the loss was really transforming for them. I feel the entire cause has become what they do instead of living, moving on.
This comment was written by Jan Theodore Galkowski.Report this comment to the moderators
March 24th, 2005 at 8:26 pm
Jake, don’t! One of the several things I’ve learned from reading about this case is that many tattoo inks are metal based and will interfere with MRIs if they are attempted.
Another thing I learned is that in some states, including my State of New York, a Living Will does not suffice. You also need a Health Care Proxy and a Durable Power of Attorney. Also, apparently, in New York, there’s nothing to indicate priority to spouse or relatives in the case of there not being any kind of advanced directive.
This comment was written by Jan Theodore Galkowski.Report this comment to the moderators
March 24th, 2005 at 8:51 pm
There is a pretty good article titled “Terri Schiavo’s unstudied life” in the Post.
This comment was written by Jan Theodore Galkowski.Report this comment to the moderators
March 24th, 2005 at 9:10 pm
That is a good article - thanks for posting it.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
March 24th, 2005 at 9:17 pm
I wonder why these things are coming out now? There’s another article in USAToday which includes the interesting information
This comment was written by Jan Theodore Galkowski.Report this comment to the moderators
March 24th, 2005 at 9:28 pm
Yeah, that’s Randall Terry alright. The above is from the Kansas City Star.
This comment was written by Jan Theodore Galkowski.Report this comment to the moderators
March 25th, 2005 at 2:07 am
The Post article was interesting and pointed out the severity of her weight “yoyo.” We have seen pictures of TS as a slim young girl and as a “hefty” bride. The Post article says that she was over 200 in school, but lost 50 pounds before she met Michael. Then, she obviously went back up again at the time of her wedding, but at the time of her “attack” she weighted a mere 110. That is a range of 100 pounds and is very dangerous.
I Terry was indeed “innocent” if she wrote “hundreds” of letters to Starsky and Hutch, and wrote to John Denver asking him to sing at her wedding.
This comment was written by secant.Report this comment to the moderators
March 25th, 2005 at 2:41 am
As a neurologist with extensive experience in end-of-life decisions, it has often been my experience that in such hopeless cases as these, where there is no hope of meaningful recovery and further medical care is futile; and when there is a severe and intractable difference of opinion in the family, it is the estranged family members who do not want to “pull the plug.” I cannot explain it; perhaps, having failed to have a good relationship with the dying person in life, they want to “make it up” to the patient by refusing to withdraw life support. A more cynical view might be that keeping a person alive indefinitely, thus robbing them of all dignity, is the estranged person’s final revenge.
Therefore I am suspicious (though I know of no independent proof) that secant’s opinion of the Schindlers may well be the correct one.
This comment was written by AFGriffith.Report this comment to the moderators
March 25th, 2005 at 9:11 am
My husband and I sent the following thank you to Judge Greer. I think given all the death threats, spiritual blackmail and slime he’s been subjected to, that maybe some of us people of conscience and rationality might let him know how we feel as well. Feel free to adapt our letter. The address is publicly available on the Pinella’s County Web site. :
Honorable Judge George W. Greer
Rm. 484, 315 Court Street
Clearwater, FL 33756
Dear Judge Greer
Thank you very much for upholding the rule of law. Clearly it has been difficult to do so in the Schiavo case. We both felt we needed to send you our support and gratitude for upholding the laws of the United States and of the state of Florida in this matter. The people of the state of Florida chose well when they chose you. We respect your courage and integrity in continuing to make wise, rational, and informed decisions based in law and on the facts of the case, in the face of extreme provocation, threats, and spiritual blackmail.
Sincerely,
Diane
Michael
p.s. We have both read all of the rulings and as much of the other court documents as we have been able to find (mainly http://abstractappeal.com/). As a result of this tragic case and the media and political circus that has formed around it, we’ve both created our living wills and durable powers of attorney according to the laws of our state.
This comment was written by Di.Report this comment to the moderators
March 25th, 2005 at 9:19 am
Oh, yeah, this is good. Not.
Thanks for posting that, Diane. May do the same.
This comment was written by Jan Theodore Galkowski.Report this comment to the moderators
March 25th, 2005 at 11:17 am
This is not in any record other than the court transcript, so I thought I’d post it here, as quoted from ABC News:
This comment was written by Jan Theodore Galkowski.Report this comment to the moderators
March 25th, 2005 at 2:17 pm
Some people try to achieve objectives using any means.
This comment was written by Jan Theodore Galkowski.Report this comment to the moderators
March 25th, 2005 at 3:06 pm
Up until I saw Terri’s CT scan just a moment ago, I was adamantly against the removal of her feeding tube. Now that I have seen it for myself, I realize that I would not want to live like this either. Her scan shows absolutely devastating damage unlike I have seen in a long time. The pictures don’t lie, and now I feel so sad for her parents trying so hard to hold on to their baby as long as they can, just as I would be so compelled to do if it were my son. I hope that they can hold on to their faith in God and in the fact that the next time they see their daughter it will be in a better place, where she’ll be as beautiful as they remember her to have been.
This comment was written by Ann Miller.Report this comment to the moderators
March 25th, 2005 at 4:45 pm
Y’know, when Terri Schiavo Incapacited passes, I wouldn’t be at all surprised if the Committee Disrespecting the Law outside will make an attempt to snatch the body, in order to take it and bury it someplace. I mean, we’ve got a priest or brother encouraging Gov Jeb Bush to disregard a court order and remove Schiavo by force to a hospital, and Buchanan saying W should send in federal marshalls to do the same.
The Committee will say there was no specific court order against removing the body, and they couldn’t allow Schiavo to be cremated as her guardian wants. And they’ll probably get enough general public support and apathy to let it happen.
They’ll then have a site of a “martyr” to visit and will have triumphed in an important way, however small, over the Justice system.
Despite what anyone says, this whole thing is dangerous for rule of law.
This comment was written by Jan Theodore Galkowski.Report this comment to the moderators
March 25th, 2005 at 4:51 pm
What does it matter what a C Scan shows? I thought the legal point is that Terri’s husband “says” Terri’s wish was to die. Nothing in writing, just hear-say.
Hear-say doesn’t work in court, or so I thought.
This comment was written by Lloyd Snell.Report this comment to the moderators
March 25th, 2005 at 5:41 pm
Lloyd, the case is very complicated and has gone over all this stuff in great detail. Please see some of the excellent summaries linked above.
This comment was written by Jan Theodore Galkowski.Report this comment to the moderators
March 25th, 2005 at 7:11 pm
This case has a higher implication in law about who can decide another’s fate in situation like this. Not necessarily regardng Terri condition. I would think we need a law such as one that requires a unanimous vote from immediate family member including spouse and parents to make a life or death decision. Don’t we need a unanimous vote from a jury for a guilty verdicts in death sentence cases? In this case, it only make sense if Terri’s parent and husband agree. Why do we want to prevent Terri’s parent’s wish to take care of Terri’s body, live or death? If one has to choose, it is the parent who has more legal authority to decide, because they are related by blood, not a marriage certificate. After all, don’t people divorce and remarried? Can one change parents like a divorce? As a parent, I have no doubt, nothing is greater than the love of parents for their child. Are we afraid the parent won’t make the best decision for their child? How can any legal system have more say than the parent when it comes to keeping their child alive (or alive in their own perception) ? What is the negative implication for anyone else in this world? US has a great legal system. But this one decision is baffling and illustrates how intrusive the system is on people’s lives.
This comment was written by Vchong.Report this comment to the moderators
March 25th, 2005 at 7:14 pm
Not sure if I buy this, considering the source, but they are making claims that Ralph Nader, Jesse Jackson, Kent Conrad, and Jose Serrano are supporting an executive overrule of the oourts by Florida governor Jeb Bush.
Either way, it’s bad.
If these folks have allowed their emotions or, worse, political ambitions to overcome their allegiance to due process, we are entering a time of lawlessness, when the mob and legislatures can override deliberative judicial decisions.
If this is a fabrication, this is a new low — that these people probably won’t get called on — for propaganda. A polity which is fed and accepts such information uncritically and without the anchor of Constitutional principles has given up its democracy.
I say again, France, 1789.
This comment was written by Jan Theodore Galkowski.Report this comment to the moderators
March 25th, 2005 at 7:24 pm
Llloyd, the current comprehensive trail on the Schiavo case is presented by FindLaw.com.
This comment was written by Jan Theodore Galkowski.Report this comment to the moderators
March 25th, 2005 at 7:40 pm
I am astonished at the lack of voice from the Women Rights advocates. If Terri Schiavo has been physically abused by Michael Schiavo, which I understand has substantial evidence that will be presented upon Terri’s death due to legal terms, and led to Terri Schiavo’s heart attack, the courts have essentially provided the male abuser with the right to terminate his female victim’s life. This is an enormous setback in protecting sexually/physically abused spouses when they are incapable of defending themselves, whether unwilling or unable. For example, if a suspected male abuser beats his wife into a coma a lawyer may use the Schiavo case to further the husband’s efforts in terminating the wife’s life. As a Pre-Law student, I will be very interested in examining this case if in fact Terri’s parents pursue a rigorous investigation and charging Michael Schiavo with murder or manslaughter. The case may, in fact, lead to a loophole allowing sexual/physical abusers to terminate their victims.
This comment was written by Matthew.Report this comment to the moderators
March 25th, 2005 at 7:44 pm
Vehong says:
These parents also want to enforce Catholic rules on their daughter, including administration of last rites and burial instead of cremation. Now, Terri Schiavo may have been a practicing Catholic. I won’t argue whether she was or wasn’t here. But suppose a person was not? Suppose the daughter converted to a different religion and the parents see this as their last opportunity to “save the daughter’s immortal soul”? Should the parents have the right to override a spouse or even interfere with a spouse because “the parent is related by blood” or because “the parent knows best for a child”? Why not give them that right even if a Living Will is written? Why can’t the same argument give them the chance to override and contest it?
It can. So, it’s unacceptable.
This comment was written by Jan Theodore Galkowski.Report this comment to the moderators
March 25th, 2005 at 8:10 pm
The testimony of Father Gerard Murphy during the trial makes it clear that in the 2 years prior to her heart attack, Mrs. Schiavo had not received what the Roman Catholic Church terms ‘holy communion.’ It was phrased to him in the form of a hypothetical “assume that” yet the Schindler’s attorney did not object to the question, which I am sure she would have if there were not facts in evidence sufficient to support the hypothetical. The testimony is listed on the UMiami website.
This comment was written by Regina.Report this comment to the moderators
March 25th, 2005 at 8:18 pm
Matthew,
The guardian ad litem’s report dealt with the question of puported abuse on the part of Michael Schiavo, concluding in part:
The NPR interview with Terri Schiavo Incapacited’s former guardian recounts the things Michael Schiavo did to try to bring Terri back, until he finally concluded these efforts were in vain.
Finally, it strains credulity that someone, having attempted the murder of his wife and successfully escaped detection despite innumerable third party investigations over 15 years, would choose to remain her husband. It is far more plausible that Michael Schiavo remained so simply to protect the dignity and manner of her final death.
How do you know of “substantial evidence that will be presented upon Terri’s death”? If, in fact, such compelling evidence exists, isn’t its proper place of presentation during these hearings which were already held? Where did this evidence come from, 15 years after the incident? Isn’t it more likely this is simply another construction and fabrication to delay and manipulate courts and public? Or, if it has been held back, what kind of real caring for their daughter does this represent? Isn’t pure vengeance and spite a better explanation of holding this back? And if the Schindlers were in possession of such evidence but did not introduce it, weren’t Micheal Schiavo’s due process rights violated?
Law is about fact and legal principle, Matthew, not about cleverness in maneuver or posturing.
This comment was written by Jan Theodore Galkowski.Report this comment to the moderators
March 25th, 2005 at 8:19 pm
I haven’t received Communion in the last four years, and I am a practicing Catholic.
Someone not taking Communion is not dispositive. There are a number of legitimate reasons not to take the sacrament.
This comment was written by Robert Not-Angel.Report this comment to the moderators
March 25th, 2005 at 8:19 pm
JTG–I did see part of an interview last night, where Jesse Jackson said something similar to that article’s quote:
“I think the feeding tube should be reinstated,” Jackson said in a statement and adding that she is “brain impaired” not “brain dead.”
Basically that he thought the “starvation” was cruel, etc. I don’t know if he or any of the others mentioned are actually getting any more involved than that. If so….it’s a shame. (And a bit foolish considering how the conservative politicians involvement is biting them in the butt…).
Interestingly, the program Jackson was on, also asked opinions of a Catholic priest & a Baptist minister…guess which one thought it was ok to remove the feeding tube?
This comment was written by C. Snyder.Report this comment to the moderators
March 25th, 2005 at 8:22 pm
Robert, I might as well get my biases out here, too. I was raised as a Catholic, and formally converted to Judaism when I was 27. Technically, I am still considered a Catholic, and I’m sure my parents consider me so.
This comment was written by Jan Theodore Galkowski.Report this comment to the moderators
March 25th, 2005 at 9:18 pm
Robert: Not according to Father Murphy’s testimony. I would hie thee to confession right soon.
This comment was written by Regina.Report this comment to the moderators
March 25th, 2005 at 9:23 pm
Ok, Robert, you made me go back to the testimony of Father Murphy. Here it is at pages 16 and 17 of the transcript:
Q Let me rephrase it. Does the church have any particular definition of what a
17
practicing Catholic is?
A Certainly. We have what we call Easter duty, which means sometime from Lent to Trinity Sunday, in that three or four month window, a Catholic is required to receive holy communion. If necessary, confession. Catholics are mortally bound to assist at mass. Attend mass every Sunday. Every holy day of obligation. Certainly those are all criteria for a practicing Catholic.
Q If Theresa Schiavo had not taken communion over a two year period before her medical incident and not participated in confession, would she be considered by the church to be a practicing Catholic?
A Not according to the criteria. No. Practicing, no.
This comment was written by Regina.Report this comment to the moderators
March 25th, 2005 at 9:36 pm
Thanks, C.Snyder. That
is simply bad, in my opinion, of course.
This comment was written by Jan Theodore Galkowski.Report this comment to the moderators
March 25th, 2005 at 9:39 pm
On
logic would say it had to be the Baptist minister, but was there a surprise in the program? Was it the priest, C.Snyder?
This comment was written by Jan Theodore Galkowski.Report this comment to the moderators
March 25th, 2005 at 10:56 pm
God bless terri schiavo.
This comment was written by morton gall.Report this comment to the moderators
March 26th, 2005 at 4:02 am
Off-topic, but tattoo ink will not boil out of your skin or something if you get an mri. The most that could happen is if you get a tattoo with some seriously un-professional old-school ink that is heavy black and nothing else, it might interfere with the mri. But it won’t hurt you. And normal, safe, professional modern tattoos will not do anything.
Seriously, I saw it on Mythbusters.
This comment was written by plucky punk.Report this comment to the moderators
March 26th, 2005 at 7:15 am
Who said it would do that? It seems to me it suffices to interfere with the quality of the MRI to be a bad idea.
This comment was written by Jan Theodore Galkowski.Report this comment to the moderators
March 26th, 2005 at 7:18 am
Regarding Texas Congressman and House Majority Leader DeLay’s high profile intervention in the Terri Schiavo case, the Times sayshe’s melting into the woodwork.
Yeah, that’s what these emotion-based issue people count on.
This comment was written by Jan Theodore Galkowski.Report this comment to the moderators
March 26th, 2005 at 7:26 am
This is in response to Jan Theodore Galkowski’s previous repsonse to mine. Jan’s argument to me applies to any one who we give the decision to including Michael, isn’t it? That’s why my previous post suggested the court should require a unaimous vote from the immediate family as in the case of a quilty verdict for a death sentence case. For Michael, he can just walk away and forget about Terri’s body and go on with his life. Terri’s parent would take up the responsibility they ask for. As for the court, is it afraid that the body they said cannot feel anything will suffer because the parent want to take care of it? On the contrary, to allow a body to die like a flower withering is so inhuman I cannot believe there are people supporting that. It is extremely stupid to me. Imagine Terri’s parent watching the body wither. It is like their daughter dies a second time, and this time, only more horrifying.
This comment was written by Vchong.Report this comment to the moderators
March 26th, 2005 at 7:39 am
Sorry to leave you in suspense, it was indeed the Catholic priest (he may even have been a bishop) who felt, from a religious standpoint, that pulling the tube was justifiable.
This comment was written by C. Snyder.I don’t watch the news oft, but let me see if I can figure out what program it was & find a link.
Report this comment to the moderators
March 26th, 2005 at 7:41 am
Interesting, C.Snyder. I, of course, believe you.
This comment was written by Jan Theodore Galkowski.Report this comment to the moderators
March 26th, 2005 at 7:56 am
Ok, it was the Abrams report…
The transcript of the whole program:
The interview with Randall Terry is a fun read.
This comment was written by C. Snyder.Report this comment to the moderators
March 26th, 2005 at 8:17 am
(Interesting, WorkPress doesn’t automatically close dangling links.)
That’s a Randall Terry quote. Interesting theory of the Constitution he has there.
This comment was written by Jan Theodore Galkowski.Report this comment to the moderators
March 26th, 2005 at 8:18 am
Thanks for posting the O’Rourke statement, C.Snyder.
This comment was written by Jan Theodore Galkowski.Report this comment to the moderators
March 26th, 2005 at 8:22 am
ABC News is reporting that after Judge Greer hears their latest appeal, the one based upon the “Awwwww Waaaaa” claim, the Schindlers have stated they will file no further appeals.
This comment was written by Jan Theodore Galkowski.Report this comment to the moderators
March 26th, 2005 at 9:09 am
Vchong Says: “That’s why my previous post suggested the court should require a unaimous vote from the immediate family as in the case of a quilty verdict for a death sentence case.”?
Oh, contraire! She is not being “put to death”? or “starved to death.”? Both of those things require the ACTIVE INTERVENTION into someone’s life processes. Instead, what is being done is that after 15 years, about 26 court hearings before about 30 judges determining that it was her wish to not live in such a state, doctors are going to CEASE INTERVENING. A feeding tube is an intrusive intervention into one’s life processes.
You make it sound like she is going to be prevented from feeding herself! No, she is going to be allowed to have the natural processes of death take their course. This is natural, humane, and is very common.
Vchong Says: “For Michael, he can just walk away and forget about Terri’s body and go on with his life. Terri’s parent would take up the responsibility they ask for. As for the court, is it afraid that the body they said cannot feel anything will suffer because the parent want to take care of it?”?
I am tired of Michael being portrayed like a monster! He is, in the face of grand accusations and protests in front of his house by many of the same forces who protested in front of abortion clinics while doctors were being murdered, in the face of massive assault on his character, trying to carry out the wishes of his wife. I don’t know what gives him the strength ““ but I’d like to commend him! And thank him!
As for her parents ““ I don’t know where they are coming from fully and I don’t doubt their anguish at what has been going on with their daughter. But, in doing this they have allowed their daughter to be turned into the posterchild for a Christian fascist movement that has steadily and increasingly been trampling the separation of church and state and bringing about a theocracy, where the Bible becomes the law of the land. Folks like Terry Randall and Flip Benham don’t care consistently about “life”? ““ I haven’t heard a peep from them about the 100,000 dead Iraqi’s from a war based on LIES and EMPIRE! I haven’t heard them condemn the stuff in the Bible about how non-virgin brides should be stoned to death, saying that homosexuals should be executed, saying that rebellious children should be killed and condoning slavery. They manipulate the assumptions of most Christians and other good people to rope them into a fascistic, theocratic, highly repressive and deadly program ““ they really are just using this case.
And you should think about what you are advocating: that the system of checks and balances in this country, the separation of the 3 branches of government be disregarded. That men like George Bush ““ who LIED REPEATEDLY about Iraq, who executed dozens of death row inmates as governor ““ and Bill Frist (who refuses to deny that AIDS can be spread through sweat or tears) ““ be able to make their will law without any intervention by any other section of government? Even against the overwhelming opposition of the population of the whole country (even of white evangelicals) to what they are doing?!?!
Vchong Says: “On the contrary, to allow a body to die like a flower withering is so inhuman I cannot believe there are people supporting that. It is extremely stupid to me. Imagine Terri’s parent watching the body wither. It is like their daughter dies a second time, and this time, only more horrifying.”? What? There is nothing more human than the processes of life and death of human beings. If what you meant was “inhumane”? ““ this too is absurd. A body’s natural refusal to take in food or drink (which is what the feeding tube is intrusively overriding) is commonly a way that a body triggers itself to bring to an end a life which cannot recover.
This comment was written by Sunsara Taylor.Report this comment to the moderators
March 26th, 2005 at 10:02 am
The New York Times is reporting Judge Greer of Pinellas-Pasco Circuit Court has denied the latest and apparently last request of the Schindlers to reconnect the feeding tube of Terri Schiavo Incapacited.
This comment was written by Jan Theodore Galkowski.Report this comment to the moderators
March 26th, 2005 at 1:52 pm
Yo Sansara!
This comment was written by Jan Theodore Galkowski.Report this comment to the moderators
March 26th, 2005 at 3:48 pm
The notion that poor Michael Schiavo can merely “walk away and get on with his life” is absurd, unthinking, unfeeling, and cruel.
Few men have been through what he has been through, and cared for his hopelessly ill wife with such thoroughness, patience, and grace.
I am in awe of Michael’s accomplishments and his ability to stay above the Schindler’s hysterics and melodrama.
What the Schindlers have said about him and done to him is unforgiveable. That their followers are willing to murder an innocent man and a faithful judge truly defines the insanity of their cause.
This comment was written by secant.Report this comment to the moderators
March 26th, 2005 at 3:52 pm
I think that the Schindlers are very forgivable; I think the pain of losing a child must be horrible, and I’m sure they’re sincere in trying to save their daughters life.
I don’t think the political operatives taking advantage of the Schindlers pain are so forgivable, however.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
March 26th, 2005 at 4:01 pm
these are the ravings of a society driven mad by its own hypocrisy, lies, intellectual impotence. we are in no condition to know what the f* to do about these things. we don’t have the relationship with one another, between the system that was supposed to be by us, of us, for us, etc. as long as starvation without a whole lotta drugs to absolutely rule out suffering is not an option, this is a crappy road to take. even if i didn’t want to be kept alive in x y or z state, the reasoning from where that decision would come wouldn’t last long in agony i would have no way of understanding. we don’t have a civilisation where life support for someone so far gone isn’t destructive. admitting that does not mean we stop doing it, it means we get honest about what we want and what is going on, what we are and not what we claim to be. we have the means, not the civilisation. the option to die in comfort should be a given. it’s crazy that we can’t answer a whole bunch of questions so that our understanding of the right to die is understood, and in doing so and documenting ourselves as the identity who answered these questions and gave answers for questions to which we might not be in a position to respond (and no, there’s no guarantee we won’t howl like hell in silence wishing we hadn’t made that decision before losing the ability to communicate having changed our mind, or at least that we are here) we give the world a break from the horror of not having all the answers. it seems a fair trade for the world at least letting us die the pleasant death a thousand terrible deaths were not as i wrote this.
This comment was written by chaizzilla.Report this comment to the moderators
March 26th, 2005 at 5:18 pm
The images you are showing are comparing apples to oranges. The healthy brain you show was taken from a different part of the brain. Even a healthy brain has ventricles (the two big black areas in the Schiavo image). Only they would be much smaller.
I do not know what the right course is in this case. But I do know your image comparison is not really valid.
This comment was written by Steven Dzik.Report this comment to the moderators
March 26th, 2005 at 6:12 pm
I understand the points made in response to my post. Perhaps this case is clear cut. My post was more about how to handle vegetative state cases, do we need a legal frame work to go by as who can decide aother’s fate? I am not familiar with current law. The fact that this case lasted so long is an indication something is missing. Do we leave it to the decision of a spouse or the parent or both? Or the judge and pray that every judge makes good decision? Sometimes, it is not so much about what make sense scientifically but what matters to who. Again, I am not addressing this case in particular but the issue of deciding vegetative state in general.
This comment was written by Vchong.Report this comment to the moderators
March 26th, 2005 at 8:12 pm
Parents lose their children every day. For some, life goes on. For others, the pain is unremitting. One friend lost his spirit when his 10 year old died while sledding, and his other children paid the price for his lifetime of grief. Another friend “bounced back” and speaks of the happiness his child brought. One woman, whose son was killed in a work accident, was gracious beyond words to the medical facility and personnel who tried to save her son, and built a memorial in the hospital to honor her son.
People handle grief in different ways.
That said, the Schindlers have had 15 years to prepare, and their actions and responses are unusual to say the least. The notion of calling others “murderers” while not acknowledging that the initial condition was most probably brought about by their daughter’s lifestyle choices is dishonest. It is clearly an “error of omission.” No parent wants to blame their child, but to ignore her involvement while calling her husband a “murderer” is more than grief speaking.
It was stunning to hear Mrs. Schindler claim that the medical facility was “starving” her daughter. Certainly such a statement implies not just mere negligence, but also planning, preparation, and execution. Mrs. Schindler could not really believe that the clinic was “starving” her daughter and that they would “stop” once she reported their dastardly deed, and enough people made enough of a fuss. Yet, that is what Mrs. Schindler led her followers (and their young children) to believe. The supporters were arrested for “taking water to Terri” and Mrs. Schindler didn’t seem to stop them. She didn’t seem to notice that they were going to jail. Mr. Schindler then blamed Governor Bush for “putting Terri through a week of hell.” To attack the Governor, who has been on his side and tried to help for years (and actually ordered the reinsertion of the tube in 2003), is shocking, cold, and ungrateful. Even the most anti-Jeb Bush voter knows that Jeb didn’t do a thing to Terri. Again, this was more than grief talking. This was manipulative and dishonest.
The Schindler’s are determined to keep Terri alive yet they seem quite comfortable with the concept of murder. They easily call Michael a murderer and when one of their followers decides to murder Michael, they say nothing in any of their almost continuous press conferences.
I have worked in the ICU for many years and I have never observed parents who behave like the Schindlers. I have wracked my brain to think of any similar behavior and I can find none.
Perhaps the main difference is that most people are in a state of shock when death is sudden (such as accidents) or they are sadly resigned when death is due to a progressive condition.
In either case, behavior is “predictable” no matter what the parents background. Their grief manifests in shock when death is sudden or they exhibit a profound sadness when it follows a terminal illness.
In the case of the Schindlers they seem “practiced.” They seem like actors. Perhaps that is because Terri’s case has been so public for so many years. At any rate, their behavior is unique. But then, I can’t remember a situation where it follows that parents are able to collect great sums of money from total strangers for the singular reason that their child’s body is alive but facing death.
That too is unique.
This comment was written by secant.Report this comment to the moderators
March 27th, 2005 at 12:12 pm
1. Should religion…as opposed to faith in a god or gods…be discouraged?
1.1 Let’s rid ourselves of the pernicious tendencies of religion and get our religion dividend.
Beyond the history of religion as a pernicious force, with its inquisitions, holy wars, and other such historical charms, and beyond its continuing ability to divide (consider President Bush’s quote, “God is on our side.” versus President Lincoln’s milder, “I hope we are on God’s side.”?), religion exacts a heavy tax on the development of our civilization that can be measured in lives lost due to wasted effort. How much time, money and effort has gone into filling the coffers of Jimmy Swaggart and charlatans of his ilk, or popes and other such more mainstream religious leaders? Could not the monies for building and maintaining glorious new churches instead be donated to cure cancer? Science does work. Childhood leukemias, for example, are now highly curable, whereas a mere 50 years ago they were nearly always fatal death sentences. Or how about putting some of that wasted “church”? money into education for better schools and higher paid teachers? There are likely thousands of worthy causes struggling for cash that is otherwise wasted on religion. But wait you say! Religions do contribute to good causes. Certainly some nominal amount of church monies do go into cancer research and other good causes. But what fraction of it? Half? I doubt it. So cut out the middle man and send 100% of the cash to the good causes. Then instead of wasting time at church functions, people could put time into their communities. Again, yes I realize that some nominal amount of church time is spent on improving communities. But what fraction of it? Half. I doubt it. Cut out the middle man, and while you’re cutting out the middle man, cut out the hypocrisy as well. Why do good members of faith X, Y or Z do their good deeds and donate their coins of silver, or some of their hours, or even their very own lives? Is from out of the goodness of their own hearts, or for the reward of life after death for Christians or a harem for suicide bombers, etcetera? One can never trust that the religious do good deeds…like Christianize savages or pray to their god(s)…strictly out of the goodness of their own hearts. One must always suspect that the religious are to some degree motivated to save their own skins and, perhaps, the skins of those they care about. Although I don’t believe the phrase that there are no atheists in foxholes, I must always believe that the motives of the faithful are suspect at best, if not altogether disingenuous.
2. What is wrong with morality based on religion?
2.1 NO DOUBT there is trouble with religion.
This, NO DOUBT, is what most religions are predicated on. No doubt equals faith and conversely, and having NO DOUBT is the innate trouble of most religious doctrine. I believe that history shows that Hitler could not have come into power without the support of Christian peoples, and that if he had succeeded, it has been argued that he would have pushed for a new Nazi-based religion against the traditional religions to make his views more palatable. In this way religion, by its very own construct of NO DOUBT, is innately pernicious, because only under a moral philosophy of NO DOUBT can entire hordes of religiously motivated people throughout the ages, by reason of their NO DOUBT faith, become holy warriors, KKK nuts, al Qaeda members, witch burners, lynchers, homophobes, misogynists, child molesters, and other numerous types of nefarious -obes, -ists and -ers in order to raze entire civilizations, pillage, plunder, murder, maim, destroy, burn books, imprison scholars, discriminate, rape, butcher, segregate, and slowly eviscerate other peoples. And the vast majority of these religiously motivated people committed these crimes and atrocities against humanity without a doubt in their minds for they were following the will of their god(s) NO DOUBT.
2.2 Does lack of religion imply degeneracy?
If there is no religion, no faith in God, then what? Can there be no morality as Immanuel Kant would insist? Why does religion have to equate to morality? How many millions of atheists are there out there following the same basic morals of the faithful? Don’t kill, steal, cheat, help others, and so forth, these kinds of ethical rules need not have anything to do with religion. These morals, which try to hem our wanton natures, make good sense if one wants to enjoy the fruits of civilization. Does the lack of religion make the enforcement of such morals impossible? Ask the millions of atheists who aren’t busy chopping tens of thousands peoples with machetes or molesting children.
3. Can there be alternative, less dangerous moralities?
3.1 Morality based on the scientific method is less arrogant and thus less dangerous.
The scientific method is based on doubt up to reproducibility and error bars. Cold fusion so far has turned out to be some much bovine poop, as cannot yet be reproduced in other, independent labs. Newton’s law of (scalar) gravity, on the other hand, worked well within a large range of scales and phenomenology. Experiments and/or observations began to show cracks in Newton’s law of (scalar) gravity. The planet Mercury, with its exposure to a stronger part of the sun’s tensor (curved space-time) gravity field could not be made to jive with Newtonian gravity. Einstein’s more general theory of gravity, namely general relativity, took care of this and other discrepancies with Newtonian gravity, and we know of no experimental violations of this theory to date! Yet we doubt Einstein’s theory is complete. Of late, Gravity B probe is out and about testing general relativity as I type this essay, and though it is expected to verify general relativity, physicists fully expect that someday, with sufficient technology, the experiment will come that shows cracks in Einstein’s general relativity. Personally, at least a small part of me wouldn’t be completely surprised if, suspecting some deeper physics, the force of gravity just plum quit working one day. Still, if NASA, or a working space agency offered me a ride to Mars, I’d take my chances with Sir Newton.
Getting back to human morality, the innate doubt of the scientific method, should, if we adopt it as a basis for our general morality, make us more humble citizens of the universe. In a world where people shunned NO DOUBT religious faith, and instead searched for demonstrable, defendable, repeatable facts both scientifically and logically, it seems likely there would be less risk of committing holy war and other such crimes. People would categorize their belief systems according to their applicability, testability, utility, reproducibility and probability over other competing models within the error bars. They would realize that there can be no ultimate theory of truth, just models with certain ranges of utility. People such as these would, hopefully, be decent people in the conventional sense of not stealing, cheating, killing, etcetera., and would, recognizing that humans also have wanton tendencies, bind themselves to secular laws designed to prevent crime and corruption for the better good of civilization. Please don’t cite the failed Soviet Union (and other such “godless”? experiments) as a case in point that godless people can be evil as well. Religion didn’t die in the Soviet Union. It went underground. I agree however that godless peoples can be as evil as god(s) fearing peoples, especially if they have substituted one kind of NO DOUBT faith for another kind…say sports…but it seems less easy to incite a bunch of doubting Thomas’ to bash people’s brains in than Christians or Muslims say over a game of soccer or some holy relic.
4. Must we believe in god(s)?
4.1 One can’t prove existence or non-existence of God. One must have faith! Or not.
Immanuel Kant proved that we humans can’t prove the existence of God. Still, he thought faith (if not proof) of God’s existence made sense. He used a design type argument. If a watch needs an intelligent watch maker, then our complex world too, it seems, needs an intelligent creator. He could not have been aware of modern, corrected versions of Miller’s experiments that show that within weeks or less…forget about a billion years…complex molecules required for life as we know it can form from primordial soups, or be dumped on our unwary heads from meteorites. Immanuel Kant also thought that lack of faith in god(s) would make it impossible for civilization to arise. We’d all be killing each other off like godless Native American savages, the very way the millions of today’s atheists…errr God fearing warmongers…are wont to do all the time.
In its simplest form, Occam’s razor states that explanations should never multiply causes without necessity. When two explanations are offered for a phenomenon, the simplest full explanation is preferable. Kant, ignoring Occam’s razor for one reason or another, failed to consider the possibility that we humans inhabit only one of infinitely many universes, with this one universe allowing for the spontaneous evolution of life from a primordial soup of chemicals. Again, amino acids, which can be found in meteorites and cold, blue balls of space gas, can get “created”? in simulated, corrected primitive Earth environments. In this case (infinitely many universes), we don’t need an intelligent creator. This is not to say, however, that god(s) cannot exist. One can no more prove the existence of god(s) than their non-existence, but of this more will come down below.
4.2 Occam’s razor, it’s not a close shave man.
Imagining a world without religion, I would hope that its people would prefer, using Occam’s razor, to think of their existence as having no explanation, and of having no special purpose…Steve Martin’s special purpose aside…other than what they made of their own existence while they lived. They would be godless, and they would, hopefully, be driven to help each other out, not for eternal life in, say a harem, but out of the goodness of their own hearts, and/or out of some honest to goodness economic necessity so that they could enjoy the fruits of civilization over dwelling in caves. Presupposed in this imaginary world is the supposition that its “laws”? of physical nature would be as fairly “reliable”? as our physical “laws”? seem to be, else, if gravity turned itself on or off depending on the price of rice in China, I’d think it hard to imagine life evolving, let alone getting civilized.
4.3 But what about salvation?
Tough! When you die you D-E-A-D. Until we figure out how to cure aging and disease, and perhaps transform ourselves into more advanced types of indefinitely long lived beings, we die, and our lives will have had no meaning other than, perhaps, the quality of our children we raised and what we contributed to the better good of humanity whilst we lived. Eventually, though, as Marcus Aurelius noted, even this personal meaning to our lives would fade into time immemorial.
4.4 God is nuts!
The alternative to believing we are nothing special via Occam’s razor, is to believe we are something special in the eyes of some higher being, and this requires throwing logic out the window. If the higher being is simply a more scientifically and technologically developed being (or beings), then this is the least of the illogical alternatives to believing we are nothing special. Hey, humanity is little BloGorg’s 1st grade exobiology lab experiment. Maybe this is why, given little BloGorg’s inexperience and grubby hands, that vast portions of humanity’s history has and continues to suck. If, however, we chose to have faith in a perfect, eternal, omniscient, and omnipotent God, then we have real logical and egomaniacal problems! Let us consider a few:
4.5 Can an omnipotent god make a burrito so hot even he can’t eat it?
In many religious systems we are asked to believe that a god, who knew an eternity before creating us exactly what would happen after he/she/it created us, namely, that we would screw things up, will punish the wicked and reward the good. What? Say again! Given his/her/its omniscience, I say the wicked were condemned an eternity before they ever saw the light of day. Isn’t this predetermination? We then must conclude that the supposedly perfect creator (of ALL things) is the screw up. In light of his/her/its omniscience, how dare he/she/it punish (typically by roasting the wicked in hell) a single human being, and demand from the rest of us that we worship him lest we suffer the same fate as the wicked? Doesn’t the buck stop with HIM/HER/IT? If so, then he/she/it is the mother/father/progenitor of all masochists. Given just this first step into an infinitely illogical morass of believing in omniscient, omnipotent, eternal gods of love, how are we supposed to reconcile a perfect creator with an imperfect system that is predetermined by his/her/its omniscience without just giving up basic logic and selling our souls to some utterly indefensible bullshit faith-based scheme? Then, going down the slippery slope to my damnation, I ask myself just why would a perfect, omnipotent, omniscient, eternal being need the worship of lowly humans? To satisfy a really, really weak ego? I don’t thinks so. To me a perfect, omniscient, omnipotent, eternal being is a dead lump of nothing that would suffer zero motivation for doing anything. Create, or do anything, but what for? He/she/it knows the outcome, hence he/she/it would have zero motivation. (Have you seen the old TV commercial, “been there, done that”?) Someone, countering this line, once asked me, why should I procreate? You know what the kid will do he stated in defense of his purported god. The kid, predictably so, will breath, drink water, learn to read, and so on. I procreate…accidents aside…because I am not perfect, eternal, omnipotent nor omniscient, and ’cause sex feeeels good. It’s in my genes! And I simply don’t know whether my kids will become mass murderers or land on Mars. Their world will constantly change. Science will reveal whole new domains for exploration. Lacking omniscience allows for the possibility, if not the guarantee of motivation.
I know that some of you who read these arguments for dropping god (or gods) will cite the “father analogy” when I will point out the misery of the human condition. “When you were a kid,”? they will say to me, “and your father denied you ice cream as a punishment, he was doing it for your own good, to protect you, to teach a lesson, and so forth. As a child, you could not have understood his logic, and you probably thought he was being a bad guy for no good reason. He (assuming a Christian god) is our Father and we are His children.”? For hours they will droll on in their brainwashed fashion. In response to this insupportable analogy, I will reply that my father was not a perfect, omniscient, omnipotent, eternal being. The god being foisted on me supposedly is. This is a FUNDAMENTAL distinction people never seem to realize when they drop their father analogy. And, counter to those who, using the father analogy, claim we are too pea-brained to understand God, I claim that we humans are sufficiently intelligent to question God. We should, as a few religious people will accede to, have the right to ask, “If you are perfect, eternal, omnipotent and omniscient, then why X, Y and Z?”? I’m not arrogantly claiming that we would have the ability to understand this kind of God’s mastery of science and mathematics beyond M theory. I’m asking basic questions and pointing out self-evident contradictions like, “How can you condemn Hitler when YOU created him?”? Finally, again, if I’m too pea-brained to ask God questions, wouldn’t I be too pea-brained to worship Him even after becoming a human adult? Perhaps a prayer in obeisance is to him/her/it what a dog/cat/rat lick is to us?
Yet another related defensive tact on behalf of god(s) goes along the lines, without bad you can’t have good, that’s why we have bad in god’s world, so that we learn and appreciate things. What good comes of genocide? What lesson did the annihilated peoples, the children, mothers and fathers, learn? What benefit is conferred when a five year old child dies of cancer after years of misery? God had to create a child to teach his parents a lesson? To make them pray to him? To help pay for Bob the oncologist’s shiny new sports car? Or god, the omnipotent, as some say, needed little Ricky’s help in heaven? Really? I thought we humans were too pea-brained to understand him. Ricky must have been far more special than we thought. Truly I say to thee that the variations of the illogical contradictions of an omnipotent, eternal, perfect, omniscient god of love are countless.
5. Why should religion and faith in God should die?
5.1 Religion should die because of sections 2 thru 3, and faith in God should die because of section number 4.
6. Does killing religion and god(s) save humanity?
6.1 An a-religious humanity following a doubt-based morality is not guaranteed survival.
A humongous comet may yet squash us…or a planet of atheists…like the insignificant bugs that we are…splat! We humans, because we are innately competitive, and have difficulties with basic morality (e.g., we kill, steal, cheat, and so forth, and typically in the name of god) may yet treat ourselves to nuclear winter or death by advanced viral weapons. Yet, given that the scientific method based morality can be equated with DOUBT and that religious practice can be equated with NO DOUBT, it seems reasonable to believe that an a-religious world would be a bit more stable and likely to survive than a religious world. After all, a herd mentality requires a threshold number of initiators, and if there are less initiators there is a reduced likelihood to herd. Who do you see as more likely to cause trouble, a group of like-minded fanatics with NO DOUBT in their belief system, or a tough looking group of rowdy doubting Thomas’.
7. Is science Lily-white?
7.1 Since I seem to be advocating scientific, doubt based morality over a religion based morality, I’m sure people will point out the dark ways of science. First of all, science is us just as much as religion has been a part of us. No us, no religion or science.
Does science bring us evil? A-bombs? H-bombs? Sure it does, but when was the last time we had a full-blown world war? And how many American and Japanese lives were saved by using Fat Man and Little Boy? Or was President Truman an agent of Satan sent out to deliver the handiwork of demonic scientists? History will show that fifty-nine atomic bomb scientists signed a petition to President Truman asking him to instead demonstrate the bomb’s power to the Japanese on a remote island. Are there and have there been evil scientists? Yes. Are there are and have there been arrogant scientists? Yes. Have (and do) some scientists get tempted to play God? Yes. Are there and have there been evil priests? Yes. Are there and have there been arrogant popes? Yes. Have (and do) some people of religious faith get tempted to play God? Yes. These points, picking out individuals from a population, are not THE POINT. Scientists do not make the scientific method any more than religious leaders make up religious malpractice.
By the way, we goody-two-shoes Americans, the plain speaking little folk, are actually doing a nice job of hurting the planet with our massive SUVs appendages requiring boots in Iraq and a simultaneous, two-faced policy towards the Saudi royal, friends of the Bush family, family. We waste and pollute while we go to church without remorse or compunction. We demand our bigger LAND ROVING SUV penises as long as gas is cheap. Now that heating gas is getting pricey, suddenly we high school flunkies of basic science are saying go nuke…a move which I support based on science. We’re also quite okay with kissing the rainforests good-bye, filling them with methane farting cows so long as hamburger patties stay cheap. We, excepting a few deranged do-gooders, generally don’t push for more reasonable uses or our resources, until, that is, it hits us in our pocket books. The bottom line is that if we’re going to make it, it’s going to take all of us. See my article on “Some thoughts concerning law…in a post-Darwinian world of conflict, crime, social inequality,… at Forums, General Discussion, “Some thoughts concerning law, social identity…”? at:
http://www.convergingtechnologies.org/forum/forum.asp?FORUM_ID=39
8. Improving our chances.
8.1 I say that if we want to improve the lot of humanity, religion must die. Some can point to all the humanitarian good religion has done and continues to do. Though I can’t prove it, I suspect the net harm done in the name of religion far outweighs the net good it has done. A body count of saved versus killed off in the name of God could be one metric amongst others. But how would one count those who have died of cancer and other diseases because decades worth of charity and time have gone into building opulent churches and funding popes and their ilk over basic research?
8.2 But modern religion is truly enlightened and tolerant you say.
Some might argue that modern religions are now more enlightened. Which religions? Those practiced in Bosnia? Africa? Iraq? Or by our own homophobic (or was it vote pandering) president? Did President Bush, while he was pandering to homophobic voters, conclude the American constitution needs to be modified via an intellectual path, or out of religious conviction, tantamount to NO DOUBT? I saw him claim on TV that the base of great civilizations have been the union of man and woman. America’s government is modeled after the Greek and Roman states. Does President Bush not know that those toga wearing peoples had no problem with homosexuality? Does President Bush not know that as much as 10% of humanity is genetically predisposed to homosexuality according to an increasingly growing pile of scientific evidence? No. If we are to believe in Bush’s faith in a god, Bush has no god given doubt that homosexuals, as aberrant peoples with sinning ways, do not deserve the same legal rights as heterosexuals…never mind the point that in his universe his god created those sinning gays, some of whom are good enough to fight and die in Iraq, but NOT get married. Religion, even today in an “enlightened” western power, is just as vile as it ever was, and is still preaching holy war. How many times has President Bush stated it is America’s duty to spread freedom, which is God’s gift to humanity? If I had a nickel for every time some two-bit…
9. Putting logic aside, can religion ever be expected to die?
9.1 Will religion die?
Should humanity survive to evolve into post-corporeal beings, then I do believe religion will die, but I don’t expect it to do so in the near future. Not until humanity…should it survive…has transformed itself into beings with indefinitely long lives will the need for religion die. So long as we live but a handful of years, the need for religion and faith in God will continue to exist. There really could be, as some researchers believe, an advantageous “god gene”? locked into our genome passed on from god fearing caveman to god-fearing caveman. When Blogorg ‘believed’ there was a god out there looking out for him, he fought on, but poor, atheist Grung gave up an got eaten by the saber tooth. Thus Blogorg, who got to zug-zug Lana, passed on his genes. When we drop our carbon based bodies, however, we won’t need to pass on our god gene to zug-zug Lana, and it will be adios to the god(s).
10. A call for atheist preaching!
In the mean time, given that religion will be with us for some time to come, we godless people must accept and tolerate those religious people among us as they claim to accept and tolerate us…and I’m not trying to be funny. Moreover, just as religious people have a god felt need and duty to save our heathen butts so that all may enjoy some kind of holy paradise tending sheep, we godless people too must do our best to “unsave”? people so that we may all enjoy a more real (Occam’s razor based) reality in a safer, more stable world with more resources going to solve problems than building churches. We have to preach unGod and unSaving logically, as I have tried to do in this post, as well as push to get rid of religious tax exemptions, especially when child molesting priests illegally tip-toe about the law and pander for votes.
PS…Wouldn’t it be nice if religion, like cigarette packages, came with a warning sign listing off all its completely illogical foundations and inconsistencies, and its innate tendency to do harm thanks to NO DOUBT morals. People…before having to wait until we evolve into more advanced beings…could then decide to believe or not on a more informed basis despite their potential god genes. Science, with its scientific method, does this by definition. WARNING! All theories are subject to change given new data.
Alex Alaniz, M.S., Ph.D.
This comment was written by Dr. Alex Alaniz.4925 S. Sol
Los Alamos, NM 87544
Report this comment to the moderators
March 27th, 2005 at 3:04 pm
Can I get an “AMEN”? Alex, consider yourself invited to attend a meeting of Americans United for Separation of Church and State - WNC, the next time you’re in Asheville, NC.
This comment was written by Emmetropia.Report this comment to the moderators
March 27th, 2005 at 6:33 pm
As respectful as I am, Alex, of the rights of people to be atheists, agnostics, pagans, freethinkers, as well as religious, I don’t think the Schiavo case makes the argument for abandoning religion in favor of a purely reasoned worldview any stronger. Indeed, it is heartening for whatever the future might hold, it’s judicial success was an example of the triumph of principled reason over emotion.
Morever, I believe that only the media love the religious nutcase circus collected about the hospice, in the same way they collected about the home of Apollo 13 astronauts only after the accident in space happened, and not when that mission began. It’s the way they and the public are. I think someone would be very wrong to paint all religious viewpoints with the attitudes of these crazies, even all Catholics and despite what the Vatican or its newspaper might spout.
This comment was written by Jan Theodore Galkowski.Report this comment to the moderators
March 27th, 2005 at 8:08 pm
Jan-
The problem is not that the some individuals, with a love of and flair for drama, are now performing outside the Woodside Hospice. The problem lies with those religious leaders that have been quietly, and effectively infiltrating those decision-making bodies that are making policy for you and I and future generations. I have been observing the stealth like activities of Opus Dei now for over 20 years. My brother is a priest and Opus dei “supporter”. (Family reunions are a riot — the rest of my family is Mormon). Two Supreme Court judges are members. Senator Brownback, a possible candidate in the next Presidential election, recently converted to Catholicism, and is living in an Opus Dei residence in Washington. This organization deserves some serious discussion, not because of the storyline in the Da Vinci Code, but because OD is directing much of the new healthcare policies developed over the last ten years. Many of the nonprofit groups in Washington that are pushing a rightwing agenda, are operated by Opus Dei. Extremely right wing groups like this, encourage big families, and discourage critical thinking. The world is broken down into “us” and “them.” All the noise being perpetuated by the Terri Schiavo case, just detracts from what the real issues are.
This comment was written by Emmetropia.Report this comment to the moderators
March 28th, 2005 at 8:23 am
Yes, Emmetropia, I agree. The Catholic Church has long had this problem. As I wrote above, I was brought up Catholic, even attended Catholic elementary and secondary school. One of the things that split me off, I believe, was that Vatican II council had happened shortly before and that’s what I learnt while in school. But my parents, who are “conservative Catholics” whose mindset is the 1950s — and I believe parallel to this Opus Dei folks — objected to the things I was reporting, even if it was an official Catholic teaching, because they thought it too liberal.
I eventually said “rubbish” and turned atheist. I then discovered Judaism after become an adult, and converted to it when I was 27. My final reasons had a lot to do with compatibility with a strongly scientific and mathematical world view I’ve had since a child.
I don’t know which Supreme Court judges are members, but I bet Antonne Scalia is one. Despite my reservations about Justice Scalia, some of which I made public in my blog, I have since been impressed by his opinions and believe he can easily separate his personal religious beliefs and opinions from those the law, the Constitution, and the court needs to take. That is, after all, what a jurist does. And I have since publicly said I respect him and believe he would make a good Chief Justice, even if Roe v Wade is overturned on his watch. I support Roe v Wade, but if it is overturned, it will be the merits of the case.
I think this is not about imposition of religious dogma. I think it is about the triumph of emotionalism and superstition over fairness and reason. It is an attempt by some to extinguish some of the bright lights of the Enlightenment caught in our Constitution, an intellectual movement which many Christian — and Islamic and Jewish — leaders found suspect. We need to defend reason, and if that means, as I think you intend, condemning religious powers and authorities of whatever stripe who attack it, I agree with that and support that.
This comment was written by Jan Theodore Galkowski.Report this comment to the moderators
March 28th, 2005 at 8:27 am
There is a good article on the Schiavo case from Australia, and an op-ed in the Financial Times today by Amity Shlaes. Shlaes unfortunately rapidly leaves the topic of the case and goes on to attack fillibuster and other “parlimentary procedures”. However right her opinion might be, that’s a tangent.
This comment was written by Jan Theodore Galkowski.Report this comment to the moderators
March 28th, 2005 at 12:18 pm
For the Opus Dei conspiracy theorists on this blog, read the following article in Newsweek for a more balanced, nuanced view. The article was written by John Allen, a reporter for the (liberal) National Catholic Reporter, who has written a book on Opus Dei
This comment was written by LMA.Report this comment to the moderators
March 28th, 2005 at 1:33 pm
I have been reading and researching this case for many years and have concerns at how the judges arrived at their decision to leave Michael as Terri’s guardian, when he has technically abandoned her by living with a woman for ten years and having a family with her. Only on paper does he have a right to say pull the feeding tube, and the courts agreed that he has every right to say if she lives or dies. My biggest concern is not the amount of damage Terri’s brain sustained during her heart attack , how much brain is left and does any of what is left function or not, what is tissue, what is liquid? What did Terri really want and after 15 years what could she want now? I saw her laugh at a joke, that was enough for me. My biggest concerns are that the man given guardianship of Terri is not the quiet, softspoken, loving husband he appears to be. If you believe reports that paramedics called police the night Terri had her heart attack as they felt this was a botched homicide, if you believe her best friend about the multiple bruising on her arms and legs and that she was leaving Michael as she was very unhappy with him. If you believe she had multiple fractures caused by trauma, 14 of them I believe, than this is all too horrifying to imagine and if you believe none of this, than somewhere in between may lie the truth. Sadly, we may never know the full truth. She will die soon, from starvation and dehydration and maybe an intentional morphine overdose, and than Michael will have his final say, Cremation.
This comment was written by Kim.Report this comment to the moderators
March 28th, 2005 at 3:11 pm
LMA-
Even if there wasn’t a hint of conspiracy floating around Opus Dei, I would still believe it to be a supremely destructive force. I have seen two families disintegrate in a black hole of despair after becoming involved with Opus Dei. My sister-in-law who suffers from body dysmorphic disorder, manic depression, and severe anxiety, went off all her med’s after she and her husband returned to the RCC and became involved with Opus dei. After she gave birth to her first child, she suffered from severe postpartum depression, and called me up one day, crying hysterically. She kept fixating on the idea of slamming her infant daughter against the wall. I pleaded with my brother to bring her to the doctor, which he resisted. Finally he got “permission” from his advisor/confessor and was referred to an OD OB/Gyn. His diagnosis? She had failed to understand her role as wife and mother, and wasn’t loving enough. Medication? None. It would destroy her “moral center.” She was instructed to meditate and pray on the life of the Virgin Mary. And they accepted his opinion without question. Their lives have continued in a downward spiral, and they can’t begin to develop any perspective because to step outside the worldview perpetuated by Opus Dei, condemns them to hell. And they are not on the fringes of the organization. He appears on EWTN and is a Catholic apologist. Sorry, I guess I’m not sophisticated enough to appreciate a more nuanced view of the organization.
This comment was written by Emmetropia.Report this comment to the moderators
March 28th, 2005 at 3:50 pm
What a friggin’ monster this Bob Schindler is:
This is quoted here.
This comment was written by Jan Theodore Galkowski.Report this comment to the moderators
March 28th, 2005 at 3:58 pm
Regarding Opus Dei or other cracks: There is a strong self-destructive tendency in Catholicism that affects it and its practioners. All religions need to remember that having a religion is optional today. It is not only a question of which religion. These Catholic conservatives are arrogant quacks, acting as if the Church still has or can aspire to great political power. There are also rational sects of the Church, like the Jesuits, who oppose straightforward idiocy, sometimes to their personal loss and that of the Church as a whole.
Recall, Italy did not come to be until the Church was cut down to size and anti-clerics like the great Garibaldi fought in its cause.
Until people put their own opinions and thinking first, leaving clerics and the Church to be but mere advisors, I don’t think they’ll progress much.
This comment was written by Jan Theodore Galkowski.Report this comment to the moderators
March 28th, 2005 at 4:01 pm
That seems implausible along lines of previous suggestions. Mr Schiavo has formally requested the Pinellas County Medical Examiner do a full autopsy on Terri Schiavo to put to rest any question of her condition or causes of death.
Once again I say and affirm, this is hardly the behavior of someone who has something to hide and wants quickly put aside.
And by continuing such claims, Kim, you are simply fabricating false propaganda for yourself and the people who want to gain advantage at the expense of the suffering of this poor girl.
This comment was written by Jan Theodore Galkowski.Report this comment to the moderators
March 28th, 2005 at 4:30 pm
Here is an assessment of Opus Dei from what has to be be a balanced source. They are, on the whole, pretty critical.
This comment was written by Jan Theodore Galkowski.Report this comment to the moderators
March 28th, 2005 at 6:56 pm
America magazine (published by the Jesuits for nearly 100 years) is hardly unbiased. There has been a long-standing animosity between Opus Dei and the Jesuits for decades, over the “poaching” (the author’s words) of Jesuit novices by Opus Dei. For more, read the Newsweek citation in my earlier post.
This comment was written by LMA.Report this comment to the moderators
March 28th, 2005 at 8:27 pm
For the love of god can we stop talking about Terri already. It’s Elian Gonzales all over again. Will he go back to Cuba which is obviously worse for him, or will he stay in the United States? Who cares?!?! No one has any power over the decision, if you want information on it I’m sure you can contact somebody and they’ll tell you all about it. We’re getting to a point where every moral crisis will be solved by having the eyes of the world on it, who cares about individualism. And why the media all need to echo each other is beyond me. You know what I think this is, I think it’s the media trying to limit immigration. Who wants to move to a country where a family dispute is turned into international news coverage 24/7/365, and almost as an after thought they’re like “yes and by the way, uh, Paris was nuked, there’s been another tsunami, Adolf Hitler has risen from the grave, and uh, Martians have landed”. Terri should be the after thought here, don’t call me black hearted, I’d like to see her live, then again, I’d like to see the millions of children who die of malnutrition live, or what about the murders that have taken place since the Terri case began? Or for pete’s sake, what about the other 40,000 brain damaged people in the USA. The media could cover some 12 year old stepping on an ant and the nation would call for the 12 year old to have a giant foot fall down on him. We as a nation need to grow the fuck up!
This comment was written by John Galt.Report this comment to the moderators
March 28th, 2005 at 9:02 pm
And, LMA, I suppose Jesuits aren’t Catholics? If, indeed, there are Catholics opposed to Opus Dei, I would suggest that then Opus Dei can hardly claim they represent Catholicism.
As for me, even being a convert away from Catholicism, I would support the Jesuits for they, at least, and even if they deny me standing, are intellectuals with a commitment to reason, not the nutso, crazy viewpoint that apparently Opus Dei espouses.
I would say that if Catholicism has any future, it is with the spirit and thinking of the Jesuits, not that tripe of Opus Dei.
This comment was written by Jan Theodore Galkowski.Report this comment to the moderators
March 28th, 2005 at 9:05 pm
Also LMA, why should I care about what happens to Opus Dei or Catholicism? They are losers.
This comment was written by Jan Theodore Galkowski.Report this comment to the moderators
March 28th, 2005 at 9:13 pm
Opus Dei, the ochlocracy of a god (OOG).
This comment was written by Jan Theodore Galkowski.Report this comment to the moderators
March 28th, 2005 at 9:23 pm
John Galt, yes, I agree with you that there are millions of people in the world as or more deserving than Terri Schiavo of this attention, whatever her suffering. But there are evil people using her case to promulgate evil. That cannot go unchallenged. Period.
This comment was written by Jan Theodore Galkowski.Report this comment to the moderators
March 29th, 2005 at 8:16 am
ANNOUNCEMENT FROM AMP: Considering how long this thread is, I’ve decided to close comments on this post.
From now on, if you want to continue the discussion, please do so on this new post. Thanks!
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
January 3rd, 2006 at 12:22 am
Hide content Number One: Probably nothing put more eyeballs on “Alas” in 2005 than the Terri Schiavo controversy, and in particular this image (which was postedhereand here): [IMG Terri Schiavo CT scan] But the two best posts I wrote about Terri Schiavo didn’t include that image: Lies About Terri Schiavo’s Case In The National Review. The National Review’s most-cited article on the Schiavo case was, frankly,
This comment was written by feminist blogs.Report this comment to the moderators