Regarding The CAT Scan Of Terri Schiavo’s Brain
| March 20th, 2005[I'm "promoting" this comment left by "Cerebrocrat" in the Terri Schiavo News thread. --Amp]
Cerebrocrat wrote:
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.
(Please see the comments for Cerebrocrat’s description of his background).
March 20th, 2005 at 10:53 am
Out of curiosity, what are your qualifications for assessing brain imagery, Cerebrocrat?
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
March 20th, 2005 at 11:46 am
Hey, I got a promotion!
Robert: a perfectly fair question. Here’s what I’m not - I am not a medical doctor, and I do not evaluate human brain images as part of my daily work. I AM a recent behavioral neuroscience PhD, a research fellow in a neurophysiology lab at a major institution, and I took clinical neuroanatomy in the medical school of my graduate institution as part of my coursework; neurology rounds and clinical evaluations of CAT and MRI scans were part of the curriculum. In addition, the jewel in the crown of my graduate program was a research-dedicated MRI, which meant that many of my peers did imaging work and I had to sit through countless (zzzzzzz) departmental colloquia featuring functional brain imaging. So, no argument from me - I am not the most qualified person to evaluate Terri Schiavo’s status from one small CAT picture on the web; that would be someone who evaluates scans professionally (or at least, regularly). But part of the point of my post was that I don’t have to be - I know how brains work (I mean, up to a point, obviously), I know what healthy ones and sick ones look like, and I know what I’m looking at when I look at a brain image. Schiavo’s damage is so severe that it doesn’t take an *expert’s* eye, but merely an *educated* eye, to understand the basics of her status. That’s why I’m so amazed that her prognosis is being discussed as if it were controversial.
This comment was written by cerebrocrat.Report this comment to the moderators
March 20th, 2005 at 11:56 am
OK. I appreciate your answer. It seems clear that you know what you’re talking about.
I believe that most of the questions concerning Terri’s prognosis are rooted, not in politics, but in the adversarial nature of the Schiavo-Schindler relationship. Us reg’lar folks don’t know what to believe, and we have both camps saying contradictory things. It then becomes quite natural to believe whatever coheres with our own preferences for the case.
Looks like any strong argument for Terri will have to be rooted in philosophy or religion, and not in science.
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
March 20th, 2005 at 12:26 pm
Agreed. I actually know very little of the backstory to this case and didn’t start paying attention until I started seeing that picture on the web, and hearing people suggest that ocular following was evidence of cognitive function. I don’t know about the Schiavo-Schindler relationship, and I don’t know (though I have my leanings) about the philosophical argument to be made here. But I do know that if that CAT-scan picture is really hers, then the pre-heart-attack Terri Schiavo is gone, and she isn’t coming back.
Us reg’lar folks don’t know what to believe, and we have both camps saying contradictory things. It then becomes quite natural to believe whatever coheres with our own preferences for the case.
This comment was written by cerebrocrat.*Sigh* You said a mouthful. (keyboardfull?) Such are the perils of undermining consensus discourse as a political strategy.
Report this comment to the moderators
March 20th, 2005 at 2:59 pm
I am not a doctor, theologian, or political scientist. I can’t help but feeling that Congressional action on this matter is just pandering to the religious right.One step closer to a theocracy.
This comment was written by Simple Fella.A quick joke:
How many lawsuits does Mr. Schiavo have to win, before he can exercise his rights as an American…
Report this comment to the moderators
March 20th, 2005 at 4:21 pm
Ah, thanks. That cleared up a lot of my confusion.
This comment was written by Philip Brooks.Report this comment to the moderators
March 20th, 2005 at 7:12 pm
Interesting reading, but beside the point, in my opinion. We can talk about what sort of brain function she has or does not have, we can talk about whether or not her husband abused her, we can talk about which family members should have the right to make end-of-life decisions, but all of these questions - while interesting! - are moot, in my opinion.
For me, what it comes down to is: If someone’s body or brain lives, is it right to starve her to death?
I don’t believe so. And the rustling I’ve heard recently about the family asking permission to offer food or water to this woman and being denied - that’s just unconscionable, IMO.
This comment was written by Sarahlynn.Report this comment to the moderators
March 20th, 2005 at 8:40 pm
Sarahlynn, I totally agree. Terri Schiavo’s parents should definitely be allowed to force food and water down her throat. Hell, Bo Gritz and his band of loonies should’ve been allowed into Terri’s room to feed her that nice loaf of bread they had.
This comment was written by CaseyL.Report this comment to the moderators
March 20th, 2005 at 8:41 pm
“For me, what it comes down to is: If someone’s body or brain lives, is it right to starve her to death?”
There are a lot of issues here that aren’t going to go away. Medical technology has blurred the boundary between life and death, causing us to make decisions we didn’t use to have to make. Usually we think of death as a person losing the condition of being alive. Here, IMO, we have a situation in which the condition of being alive still exists, but the person is gone.
The greater evil is to allow this one case to create precedent and law that would take these decisions away from families in the future. Schiavo’s case isn’t as unique as the GOP is letting on, I suspect.
“And the rustling I’ve heard recently about the family asking permission to offer food or water to this woman and being denied - that’s just unconscionable, IMO.”
To me it’s only cruel if Schiavo’s body still has enough neurons wired together for there to be pain (and if so, isn’t keeping her alive also keeping her in a condition where there is pain?). It would be kinder to euthanize her, but we don’t allow that in this country.
This comment was written by maha.Report this comment to the moderators
March 20th, 2005 at 9:17 pm
If keeping her in pain is the problem, then surely that calls for painkillers, not euthanasia?
I don’t know. I’m undecided about the situation, because I’m not against euthanasia in appropriate cases, and though I don’t know how to interpret the brain scans, I’ll take cerebrocrat’s word for it. But I’m unhappy about the fact that she would effectively be starved/dehydrated to death, whether it’s painful or not, that just seems wrong to me. Stopping medical treatment when there’s no hope of success is one thing, stopping food and water quite another, IMO.
This comment was written by Sarah.Report this comment to the moderators
March 20th, 2005 at 9:21 pm
To those of us whose ethical ideas are at least partially consequential, this sort of thing is important because it helps us figure out what the consequences of our actions are. The brain scans and other diagnostic procedures performed on Terri tell us nothing we do will have any consequences for her, because she doesn’t exist anymore as a conscious being. But our actions will have other consequences, such as whether people can expect that the law is taken seriously by the government, whether people can expect their expressed wishes about their bodies to be respected posthumously, whether Terri’s parents will get to do what they want to, and so on. You’re right that the scans are moot now in that their utility was to figure out whether Terri was in a PVS, and they have filled that purpose. Most of the legal debate since then has been over other issues.
The question has been argued in court for years, and the persisting answer is yes, the right thing to do is to let Terri’s body starve to death. You’re also right that starvation is inhumane. Even though Terri isn’t aware of it, her family is and it’s probably tearing them up inside (all the more so because at least some of them believe she is still conscious). It would be far more humane if it were legal to give her an overdose of painkillers or something along those lines, but US law forbids it just as it requires that she die.
I can’t say for sure whether the law is right on what should be done with Terri’s remains because I’m not that familiar with what’s been going on in the courts and whether things were handled fairly. But I’m pretty certain the law is wrong regarding assisted suicide precisely because letting someone die slowly of starvation or dehydration is cruel (but less cruel than letting them die even more slowly of a terminal disease if the person doesn’t want to).
This comment was written by Philip Brooks.Report this comment to the moderators
March 20th, 2005 at 9:21 pm
“Stopping medical treatment when there’s no hope of success is one thing, stopping food and water quite another, IMO.”
Yes.
This comment was written by Sarahlynn.Report this comment to the moderators
March 20th, 2005 at 9:24 pm
I dunno . . . in this case, maybe food and water share some aspects with medical treatments, especially in the way they’re being provided? I’m not big on the whole starving to death bit either, but mainly because of the pain and suffering issue.
Just a sad, sad thing all around.
This comment was written by Dan S..Report this comment to the moderators
March 21st, 2005 at 2:01 am
For anyone for whom it is an issue starvation being a bad way to die, rather than a belief that no one should be allowed to choose before hand to be allowed to die when they are in a PVS, there was an interesting short NYTimes article.
Apparently, dehydration (if paliated by having your mouth kept moist) is a fairly painless and peaceful way to die, and is frequently chosen by people who are near death from terminal illnesses. Apparenly, because such people are often fully aware and capable of communication, the actual experience of dying from refusing water has been well documented.
This comment was written by Charles.Report this comment to the moderators
March 21st, 2005 at 4:10 am
Maha said:
See, I don’t like the idea that I’m possibly agreeing that a woman’s life should be sacrificed to protect the rights of all the rest of us, but I do think that her husband, who is legally next of kin, should be allowed to exercise his rights.
It’s because I’m terrified of the government interfering in this case and setting a precedent. If they have precedent, it makes intereference the next time so much easier, and I can’t imagine the power to interfer with end of life decision isn’t something a government would abuse in the long run.
This comment was written by Anne.Report this comment to the moderators
March 21st, 2005 at 4:12 am
wouldn not abuse in the long run.
Sorry about that.
This comment was written by Anne.Report this comment to the moderators
March 21st, 2005 at 6:28 am
Withholding food happens all the time, (I think I read 4000 cases a day) and does not involve pain (unless the person is conscious and unmedicated, as in the case of people starving in Sudan, for instance). My best friend with terminal colon cancer had her nutritional support withdrawn after she’d slipped into a coma.
There’s a good chance this will happen to you someday, too, or to a loved one when you’re older and have to make those decisions about your own parents. Better to find out the facts now.
This comment was written by KathyF.Report this comment to the moderators
March 21st, 2005 at 8:45 am
“To me it’s only cruel if Schiavo’s body still has enough neurons wired together for there to be pain (and if so, isn’t keeping her alive also keeping her in a condition where there is pain?). It would be kinder to euthanize her, but we don’t allow that in this country.”
This comment was written by chris.More facts gone unreported it appears. A nurse/caregiver has written that Terri would let them know when she was in pain…and it was a consistent pattern because she complained of menstrual pain. There was some “expert” on one of the cable news programs who also seemed to agree with many here…that “she ought to be let go, but perhaps just not in this way….this may be a situation for Dr. Kervorkian and his little kit”. We have reached the summit of our “disposable” society. Another unreported fact is a statement by another caregiver that she was feeding Terri by mouth at the time the husband ordered the feeding tube installed. She said she was forbidden to continue by Michael and was scared of him. He thus created the very means that he then used to base his desire to kill Terri on. Others reported they had to take out restraining orders against him because he was so intimidating when they tried to help Terri in any way. Where are all those probing, investigative reporters for the truth to come out re: all the collusion, conflicts of interest, and denial of presentation by witnesses by this court??
Report this comment to the moderators
March 21st, 2005 at 9:24 am
“And the rustling I’ve heard recently about the family asking permission to offer food or water to this woman and being denied - that’s just unconscionable, IMO.”
I think that the reason she was given the feeding tube in the first place was because oral feeding/drinking posed a high choking risk for her. That could be one of the reasons (if not the main reason) these are continuing to be withheld.
This comment was written by Brandy.Report this comment to the moderators
March 21st, 2005 at 10:06 am
Cerebrocat, I would like to ask for clarification of one assertion in your first (and excellent) post. You say: “All the neural equipment you need to do ocular following and emotional responses is subcortical.” With respect to emotional response, I think I recall that aggression is mediated by the medulla oblongata, but I thought emotion - happiness, sadness, etc. - was mediated by the cortex. Also, I would like know your interpretation of the story in which Barbara Weller (attorney for Terri’s parents) told Terri that “this could all be over if you would only say ‘I want to live’,” causing Terri to become agitated and to look directly at her and to say “Ahhhh whaa…” Ms. Weller says that Terri displays contextually appropriate expressions of emotion, as well.
Of course, I’m limited to stories gleaned from the internet, so it’s hard to know if there is really any significance to any of this. Your impressions would be very interesting. Thanks! Anniebird
This comment was written by anniebird.Report this comment to the moderators
March 21st, 2005 at 10:10 am
Terri will not starve to death, if this is any consolation to anyone. Instead, without fluids her kidneys will begin to fail, cascading into multi sytem organ failure. Ultimately her heart will fail brought on by electrolyte imbalances; which consequently was the cause of her brain damage, and was brought on by her own doing. She will be made comfortable, although it would be hard to believe that she feels any looking at that CT scan, and she will pass with dignity. I would hope that my family would have the strength and respect for me to initiate palliative measures should I ever need them.
This comment was written by Harry.Report this comment to the moderators
March 21st, 2005 at 10:16 am
I don’t know what Cerebrocat would say about Ms. Weller, but my own take on that story is that Ms. Weller is speaking directly from her anal orifice.
This comment was written by CaseyL.Report this comment to the moderators
March 21st, 2005 at 11:53 am
Bush had 152 prisoners executed as governor
This comment was written by Ron Rizzi.whose brains were in alot better shape for rehab than Terri’s. Didn’t faze him at all.
Report this comment to the moderators
March 21st, 2005 at 12:43 pm
[...] unless, of course the human in question is an unborn foetus or a brain-damaged woman whose cerebral cortex has turned to mush)? Why is the [...]
This comment was written by A Bird’s Eye View » News blogging.Report this comment to the moderators
March 21st, 2005 at 2:13 pm
I’m a med student…so I have a little knowledge on what we’re seeing.
Her ventricles–which carry CSF fluid around in the brain have expanded tremendously to fill the space left by the atrophied cortex. It’s a condition called hydrocephalous ex vacuo and happens in various situations including severe hypoxic brain injury. Essentially, fluid has replaced what used to be brain (the brain hasn’t technically “liquefied”–but close enough).
I’m not sure it’s fair to compare the two images of Terri to “healthy” because I’m not sure we’re in the same plane (notice the skull has a hole, or sinus, in the front on the one on the left but not the one on the right). But Terri’s brain is definitely SEVERELY damaged.
This comment was written by Jeremy.Report this comment to the moderators
March 21st, 2005 at 2:53 pm
This entire case and the intensity of government involvement is a very sad and frightening ordeal. It also makes me angry. I’m sorry for all involved especially Terri.
This comment was written by Schizophreniac.My wife and I have been procrastinating for years on making a living will. This case has put us in overdrive to complete the task.
My worry now is that the government may decide to interfere with the living wills next.
Thanks for the opportunity to vent,
Schizophreniac
Report this comment to the moderators
March 21st, 2005 at 4:38 pm
I guess the only way we will really know is with an autopsy after death, as a singificant number of doctors (not the ones appointed by Michael) have either suggested that rehabilitation for Terri is possible (what they mean by Rehabilitation is something else I guess). Six have determined that PVS does not exist at all. However, ther has been some talk that Michael intends to cremate Terri, and requests for other arrangements for burial have been turned down.
Other problems that exist is that the judge threw out the testimony of a freind of Terri’s who stated that after seeing a movie on Karen Ann Quinlan around 1982, Terry expressed a good deal of anger and stated that no one had the right to terminate life (pretty much in keeping with the fact that Terry was an active, practicing Catholic). Judge Greer threw out the testimony because he stated that it could not have happened because Quinlan died in 1976. He was incorrect. Quinlan died in 1985, when Terri was 21-22 and abut 18, just freshhly graduated from high school when the conversation occured. Unfortunately, though Greer was told of his mistake, he never reversed his dismissal of the testimony. Not unusual with Greer who has made other errors based on his legal opinion which resulted in disaters. In 1998, he turned down a womans request for protection from an abusive spouse. She was murdered by the spouse two weeks later. Greers LEGAL reason was that her request didnt mention PHYSICAL abuse, just abuse so by law he had to turn down her request.
On the other hand the doctors who have diagnosd Terri for the courts have a history in these cases. Cranford is basically a pro euthanasia figure, one of the foremost in the United States who has diagnosed every patient ever brought before him for a medical opinion by courts as having PVS. Since studies by the British Medical Association have determined that as many as 43 percent of the patients diagnosed with PVS and who have stayed in the condition for longer than 6 months have been found to be misdiagnosed. More problems with this case. A funny anecdote is that whenm presented with the profile of an un named patient, who could manipulate colored blocks and a joystick, Cranford gave his opinion that this was PVS. The profile was for Dr Steven Hawkings. I thought that was interesting.
As far as whether she will feel pain, whever I hear this I am reminded of my dental appointments. The dentist is correct when he says it wont hurt.
It wont hurt him. Oddly enough the same claim has been made for the use of lethal injection, but recently there have been studies that indicate that even when deeply unconscious, there is evidence that the person is experiencing a good deal of pain and terror.
As to legalities of governments and interference and constitutionality, this I always find of concern because every act comitted in Nazi Germany was completely legal under German law at the time.
The real problem in this case is that there diagniosing awareness is considered close to impossible without spending a long period of time observing the behavior of the patient on a daily basis to determine if any eye tracking, apparent emoting, and other behavior that could indicate awareness and cognition is random or purposeful. That sort of observation has not been done.
This comment was written by Uncle Ho.Report this comment to the moderators
March 21st, 2005 at 6:31 pm
I’m not a doctor and I haven’t studied this sort of thing at school, but even I can tell that there is something severely wrong with Terri’s brain by that image. I don’t see how anyone can argue otherwise.
This comment was written by Janet.Report this comment to the moderators
March 21st, 2005 at 7:19 pm
Hello, I’m a nurse anesthetists and work in Birmingham, Alabama. I live in the Bible belt, born and raised a Christian and I consider myself VERY conservative on politcal issues.
What Cerbrocrat has said, and what Jeremy has just said above me in a more technical sense, is right on point. This woman’s brain is SEVERLY damaged; the cerebral cortex is almost completely gone.
There is not a medication, therapy or experimental science that will ever change her condition. Like an arm or leg that has been amputated, the body can live without parts of the brain, but it will never regenerate. The only problem with my analogy is that although a person can actually function without an arm or leg, that’s not the case without a brain. There’s no such thing as a cortex prosthesis. She will be this way for the rest of her life.
I make my political and religious stance for a reason, that this is not a political issue; even if it has been made into one. This whole argument is about one single point, whether she would have wanted to live like this. Her husband (and some others) has said that she would not; her family says that she would. If all of you honestly were true to yourself, I would be willing to wager that at least 90% of you would say you wouldn’t want to live this way. Every person I have talked to, even the ones who have objected to letting Mrs. Schiavo die, have said they personally wouldn’t want to live like that. I know of dozens of family, friends, and co-workers who have just recently or are about to put this very thing into writing. Attorneys may end up the big winner when this is all said and done, but I digress.
The point here is that so many people would never want this for themselves, but somehow they want it for Terri and assume Terri would want to live like this. To me this is crueler than letting her die. I believe it is for the family’s own selfish reasons not to let her go, not the husband. If the husband wanted to be selfish, he would have been better suited to take the money and run 14 years ago, divorced her, walked away and just let here parents think he was an a$$. The money is all gone now, only about 50 grand remains, so what is his motivation at this point? To be the most hated person in America? It just doesn’t make sense unless he truly believes there is no hope for her and he knows she wouldn’t want to live this way.
I was asked today by a gentleman, “If it were your daughter, would you let her go.”? I said yes and he responded with, “well, then you don’t love her.”? I said, “Sir, it is because I do love her that I would want her to go home and be with the Lord, not suffer here on earth.”?
As a parent it is only human nature to want your children to outlive you; I know I want mine to outlive me. But people have to put aside their own selfish wants to realize what is best for their child, and what that child would truly want in a situation like this.
So put aside all the conspiracy theories, the selfish motivations, the moral and emotional arguments and ask yourself, would you want to live like this?…and then ask yourself, do you honestly think Terri would?
This comment was written by ALA-Anest.Report this comment to the moderators
March 21st, 2005 at 8:35 pm
there are procedures still in it’s infancy that has been used to repair the brain, curing parkinsons disease and repairing brain damage.
these are adult stem cells, with multiple venues to extract from for celluar therapy for the brain including the brain, nerves, nasal lining, and possibly elsewhere. these cell populations can be expanded in culture and reinjected, and by the very definition of a stem cell know what cell type to become and where to go to.
we all will see a big change in medicine in the next 5-15 years with either celluar therapies itself or drugs targeting stem cells and cancer. It could be here faster if the FDA was not so slow, and somehow when europe beats us in adult stem cell therapies the media will be blaming bush/republicans instead of the FDA. 3 years wait just for an IND in one unrelated product, after it was safely perform on over 1500 patients.w
This comment was written by np.Report this comment to the moderators
March 21st, 2005 at 8:37 pm
Was shocked to see CAT. Exactly right. Virtually no brain left. That does not change her humanhood or personhood. However, the facts are that Mrs. Schaivo is getting what she wanted and while I never thought I would agree with Democrats, I do on this…the courts were enforcing Living Will statutes. They do not have to be in writing. By not having one in writing, this woman elected her spouse to be her surrogate, by default. She made a choice by not having a LW in writing for him to do what he is doing. Therefore, the government and her parents had no rights to become involved. Am very disappointed in all of them. Her parents are totally irrational and I question as to if they are demented they way the get right up in her face, are are telling her they will take her out for breakfast, state she is trying to speak to them. …am also very disappointed in the Christians, a class of persons to which I belong. They are not behaving in a thoughtful manner, they are not helping the family cope with loss and facts, and they are hurting tens of thousands of people who are in the midst of these situations right now. I am sure this patient is getting pain medication and is not suffering. The brain damage and the inability to swallow are terminal when looking at this situation, for certain. It is only a matter of time before the patient would not have been able to absorb nutrients from the tube feeding, and all tube feeding patients aspirate and get pneumonia. While I was skeptical of Michael S. at first, after seeing the scan, I believe he is doing the right thing in this case. But I believe it would have been better for him to walk away and let this poor deluded family have their way. This is a very sad state and I wonder why the doctors let this get to this point. I hold them and the vindictive family responsible. After hearing what the father said about his willingess to allow multiple amputations (in a scenario) to keep her alive even if she had been on a ventilator, I am distrubed. He not interested in her pain and suffering. Also, all this stuff about Culture of Life, is a crock. Show me all the homeless, mentally ill, foster kids that all those people who are protesting this care for first hand, and I will change my mind. This is not a culture of life. It is a culture of competing camera happy control freaks. Such is the Culture of Life. Have the “ministers” with all their opinions, call on their followers to not threaten the life of Mr. Schaiver! Is his life less worthy than Terri’s? This has become cult-like at this point and as a conservative Christian, I think it is frightening,.. giving evangelical Christians a back eye. PLEASE COME TO YOUR SENSES. And remember, it is not about if you or I would want to live like this, it is that she appointed her spouse to make these decisions, by default. Have all of you who are talking about this written your LW, had it witnessed with certified signatures,..probably not.
This comment was written by NursePractitioner.Report this comment to the moderators
March 21st, 2005 at 8:51 pm
While the bugkiller can claim his piety, while bush can claim his complications, while the righteous can claim their divinity, what remains is that the freaking republicans have decided to reach out and slap the Courts, the States, and the Individuals upside their heads and dictate what they can and cannot do.
From this non-precedent case, how long will it be before they try to force a woman to carry that fetus to term? How long before they tell you where you can live? How long before they tell you what kind of education you can get and where? How long before they tell you what god to worship? How long before Guantanamo moves Stateside?
They can hold you prisoner without any Constitutional Protections, if they so choose. They can torture you if they so choose, so what makes this case any different, except in degree? The law is supposed to be equal to all, remember Gore vs Shrub and “equal protection”, and the quaint notion that exceptions prove the rule is just an absurd palliative to ease our consciences and the bitter burning sensation that reality can and does produce.
But now, the republican dictated Congress has said otherwise. They have said that some are more equal than others. And that’s supposed to be okay, and a fair swap to save the life of this truly messed up woman.
But it’s not okay. It’s as wrong as you can get. Sure, the circumstances make it appealing and troubling and tragic, emotional and cerebral (how ironic is that?), and golly, good teevee, but the circumstances can’t obviate the fact that this decision, this reprehensible, to me, action by the republican Congress (and don’t tell me about the Democrats, it’s frist and delay and rove and santorum el al, as sanctimonious as ever) is a direct assault on the very basic tenets that this country was founded on, and that millions have died for, and bled for, and sacrificed for, the notion that we are all equal under the eyes of the state, that no one person is above the law, or below the law.
The Federal State has no business in this case, because this case has no business with the State. It’s a personal tragedy, and its only the gross selfishness of the parents that has made it the spectacle that it has become. Or does the Catholic Religion have more primacy in this country than the Constitution? Maybe that’s the crux of the matter. Maybe that’s why the republican controlled Congress has decided to trample all over the laws and rights of this nation, so that they can push their stinking religiosity on the people of this land?
Could that be it? Or could their abuse of this woman and this families extremis be cover for something else, something uglier and dirtier? We’ve heard about the talking points circulating in gopper circles, and bush’s approval ratings stink, and Social Security Privatization is having a rough go, maybe the faithful need a pep talk? Maybe this is just a cold, crass manipulation by rove to prop up the ol bush family evil empire?
Terry Schiavo has, literally, nothing to do with this case, but this case has everything to do with you and I. Megans Law was written because of Megan, but not just for her, but for Society as a whole. Laws are written for Society, not for, and I know this comes as a shock to big corporations or businesspeople that seek to get laws written just to benefit themselves, individuals.
Laws don’t dictate our behaviors, they dictate the consequences of our behaviors on our Society. Run a stop sign, pay a fine; it’s a monetary reminder that hurts a little, but warns us that we might kill somebody Mr. Janklow and suffer a much larger hurt.
I could go on, but I’ve gone on long enough. Thanks for listening!
This comment was written by Duckman GR.Report this comment to the moderators
March 21st, 2005 at 8:52 pm
By the way I am am a hospice and palliative care nurse and I feel certain that if she is not getting the best plan for the removal of the tube (such as gradually reduced feedings and fluids) it is because of the in and out ordering by the courts. The situation is beyond sad and gives hospice a black eye too. We don’t “kill” patients in hospice, but the disease or injury state will do that. Very sad, but people are too vested in their words and deeds to turn back now. The proverbial game of “I’ve got you now you now, you >>>>”. PS the planes don’t have to be the same in the CATs, hers is the worst I have ever seen.
This comment was written by NursePractitioner.Report this comment to the moderators
March 21st, 2005 at 10:15 pm
“there are procedures still in it’s infancy that has been used to repair the brain, curing parkinsons disease and repairing brain damage.”
I knew as soon as I made my statements, someone would say something about stem cells.
I have done extensive research on stem cells for the last few years, after my brother was paralyzed from the waist down in a car accident. The potential of stem cell research has been talked about for a while, but the data supporting that potential is largely nonexistent. As of today, there is absolutely NO evidence that cells generated from stem cells can be safely transplanted back into a human (or animal for that matter) to restore the function of damaged or diseased tissues. Not even in Europe where the research is given carte blanche to find anything, has anyone been able to produce evidence of success. To simply throw away any requirement for evidence under the guise of a promise only causes people like the Schindler family to have a nonsensical dream. This is probably part of the reason why the family has continued to fight this, because if you ask enough doctors, one of them is going to tell you something you want to hear.
For the sake of argument, let’s say there is enough stem cell research to help make progress with someone with Parkinson’s. Let’s say everything about stem cell research comes true. It is unfathomable that it could regenerate a brain like Mrs. Schiavo’s; it is nearly a scientific impossibility. And let’s say that 1/1000000 of a percent chance that they could, Mrs. Schiavo would still never be the same. The cerebral cortex controls Intelligence, Personality, Motor Function, organization, and many sensory interpretations and the WHOLE thing has to be regenerated…come on you know this is a fantasy.
This comment was written by ALA-Anest.Report this comment to the moderators
March 21st, 2005 at 11:22 pm
Brandy brought up a point that i’ve considered (and not sarcastically). The Bo Gritz show and the parents wanting to bring her food and water made me wonder if she was even capable of chewing and/or swallowing, or was this for show. If they had tried to give her food and she choked to death, then, following on their presumption of life, wouldn’t they risk arrest for murder (or some variant)? Beyond the ethical dilemmas this thing poses (or purports to pose), the various angles are fascinating.
This comment was written by tony g.Report this comment to the moderators
March 22nd, 2005 at 12:53 am
I will be the first to admit that stem cell research with embryoes and cloning is a complete farce and fetal has issues with cells being not functional, but you should not be so easy to dismiss stem cell research using (preferably autologous) adult and cord blood. Moreover their quantities are not at issue since adult cells can be proliferated with growth factors either in vivo or ex vivo. these types of transplants, although population proliferation is about 15 years old and still not fda approved, have been going on for some 50 years and have been effective, it is not until more recently that there focus has changed to more than just bone marrow transplants. But yes, whether it is blood, bone, brain, collegan, epithelial, heart, liver, kidney, nerve, pancrease, whatever, adult cells have been effective. just a matter of convincing the FDA nazis that they are safe and effective.
the use of stem cells to heal the brain, to mind, has been done, at least 13 times that I am aware of. 5 for parkinsons around the globe and in china 8 for brain damage..
This comment was written by np.Report this comment to the moderators
March 22nd, 2005 at 1:58 am
An important point that bears repeating is that Michael Schiavo has no rights in the matter of Theresa Marie Schiavo. He is a nominal party, an “interested party” under the Florida statutes and a witness.
I read remarks like “How can the courts allow a philandering husband to kill his wife” and the like all over the net, and hear similar remarks on cable news. It is infuriating.
It was not Michael Schiavo, but the trial court, that determined to discontinue the life-prolonging procedure. The court based its decision on evidence. Although they have repeatedly made claims in the press/media, the Schindlers have not been able to produce any competent, credible evidence to contradict or undermine the trial court’s decision.
I recommend reading all of the Florida state court decisions. The Schindlers make a lot of claims in the press/media, but when it comes time for the hearing, they can’t produce the witnesses or evidence. The courts have really bent over backwards to give the Schindlers every opportunity to produce evidence to contradict the two key conclusions: Theresa Marie Schiavo is PVS and there is no hope of improvement, and she would not have wanted to continue this kind of existence. They have failed.
There is another infuriating refrain. Over the weekend I heard several pundits refer to the Schiavo case as “unprecedented.” Only some one who is willfully ignorant would say such a thing. Not only are termination of treatment decisions common, but the NJ Supreme Court decision in the Conroy case, and the US Supreme Court decision in Cruzan, are 20 and 15 years old, respectively.
If the Republicans and the Radical Right want to change the law on termination of treatment, why don’t they just enact statutes that make it unlawful to do so?
“Life-prolonging procedure” is a statutorily defined term. See §765.101(10), Fla. Stat. (2000). It includes the methods to provide sustenance and hydration that are involved in this case.
If they want to eliminate sustenance and hydration from the definition of “life-prolonging procedure” why not amend the statute?
I guess it wouldn’t make for great political theater.
This comment was written by James E. Powell.Report this comment to the moderators
March 22nd, 2005 at 2:07 am
This guy knows more about CAT scans than all of you.
This comment was written by Yehudit.Report this comment to the moderators
March 22nd, 2005 at 2:12 am
I find it scary that the “medical professionals” who posted their opinions can not spell. If Mr. Shiavo is sincerely devoted to his wife, why then has he had children with a woman other than his wife? It is very easy for all of us to have an opinion, but how many of us have been in this situation? How do any of you know that the picture of Terry Shiavo’s brain is real? The internet is a great tool, but let’s not believe everything we see. This is a tragic situation that we as Christians should be praying over. “Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness’ sake, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven” Matthew 5:10 (RSE)
This comment was written by Bo Gusman.Report this comment to the moderators
March 22nd, 2005 at 5:04 am
The fact that Terri Schiavo’s CAT scan is on the web is distasteful. Why should all of us (including me) are discussing Terri Schiavo’s medical condition makes me ill.
However, I am willing to criticize myself to hold up a mirror to all of us and the lack of dignity that is in this discussion of her private medical condition.
BTW, whoever put her CAT scan on the web should be prosecuted or sued under HIPAA. If not, then HIPAA is a joke and it is just make-work for hospitals.
This comment was written by Mike Jones.Report this comment to the moderators
March 22nd, 2005 at 7:01 am
Your analysis is correct.
What you lack is experience.
You have not looked at thousands of CT’s of the brains of 70. 80 and 90 year-olds, and I have.
You show the image of a young, healthy brain and juxtapose Terri’s brain. That is misleading.
I will bet you any amount that I could pull one hundred cross sectional images of the brain from my patient population in Florida and that you would be completely unable to tell me which patients were functional or not.
The best you could do would be 50/50.
Many of the CT’s would be similar to Terri’s.
I’ll bet you.
Finally, what I said in my post was that I was shocked at the difference in how Terri’s brain was characterized in the media (a black hole filled with water) and what it looks like in reality. I never said she was going to regain anything.
Finally, if we are going to stop feeding everyone with a CT like Terri’s we’re going to have to rebuild the concentration camps and dump out all the nursing homes into them, because that’s what those patient’s brains look like. It isn’t ME in the armchair. I’m out in the field.
This comment was written by CodeBlueBlogMD.Report this comment to the moderators
March 22nd, 2005 at 7:42 am
This is the best wrap-up I’ve seen on the facts of the case, by an impartial Fla. attorney. It explains why, for instance, Michael Schiavo would not have sued the doctors who misdiagnosed Terri’s bulimia if he’d actually tried to kill her, thus dispelling a favorite myth. Read it, it’s fascinating.
And please, learn to spell if you want to come across as an “expert.” (And playground language like “I’ll bet you” won’t be responded to. I’ll bet you!)
This comment was written by KathyF.Report this comment to the moderators
March 22nd, 2005 at 8:02 am
You say it is misleading to compare Terri’s brain to a healthy young brain, but doesn’t comparing Terry (a young woman) to a 75 year old indicate a state of decay that cannot be reversed? You say “I HAVE SEEN MANY WALKING, TALKING, FAIRLY COHERENT PEOPLE WITH WORSE CEREBRAL/CORTICAL ATROPHY.” But the fact is that the woman isn’t walking, talking, or coherent. As an experienced medical professional you should know that the clinical evidence must always be considered alongside testing. What we are seeing is irrecoverable decay on CT alongside extreme loss of function by any standard, and I know I wouldn’t want to be maintained for 15 years in that state. I do agree that it is very disturbing to see a slice of her CT scan appearing on the internet for us all to provide armchair diagnosis, and it is certainly a gross violation of HIPAA regulations. This whole case is disturbing.
This comment was written by Lizzybeth.Report this comment to the moderators
March 22nd, 2005 at 9:42 am
Terri’s parents have invited comment by standing in front of cameras and promoting the whole thing at their website, so I’m not as shy about commenting as I would otherwise be. (Lizzybeth hit the nail on the head when she said that this whole case is disturbing.)
Terri’s parents are off the deep end. You have only to watch the film clips they themselves have posted to see that. Her mother, in particular, addresses Terri as one would talk to a baby, and seems to enjoy having a grown daughter she can boss around. (I have two grown daughters, and I can’t get anywhere with them!)
But Terri’s not in there any more. This whole question has been litigated and medicated to death, and that’s where all the signs come out. Court after court has reviewed this matter, and they all agree. Judge Greer did his job.
Some societies inspect bird entrails when facts are in dispute. Some inspect human entrails. Some calculate the position of the stars. Some throw dice. Some use trial by ordeal. We have trials before judges or juries, and what they say goes. And what the courts say is, Terri expressed a desire not to be kept alive artificially under these circumstances.
Which of us, after all, would not agree with her?
This comment was written by Susan.Report this comment to the moderators
March 22nd, 2005 at 9:45 am
While there is value in looking at this CT scan, I am also reminded of a phrase I heard over and over again in vet school - “treat the patient, not the lab results”. Watch the videos of Terri. It sure looks like someone is still at home in there.
Anniebird
This comment was written by anniebird.Report this comment to the moderators
March 22nd, 2005 at 9:53 am
Remember kids, W signed a law in Texas that allows hospitals to shut off patients from life support after 10 days if continued support has been deemed ‘inappropriate’, if the patient’s estate/family can’t pay.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/3/21/162132/268
“Culture of life” my ass. This is pure pandering to the fundies which now rule the Republican party.
In marriage, legal guardianship in disability falls to the spouse. Terry didn’t wish to be kept alive in such a state. All this conspiracy theory crap about the husband ‘wanting to kill her’ is just that: crap. He’s been offered TEN MILLION DOLLARS to surrender guardianship and just walk away, and refused. There goes yr money theory, and that’s pretty much the only one. He doesn’t stand to inherit any forture — it’s all been used up. Furthermore, he offered to donate what little is left to charity if her parents would stop litigating.
http://majikthise.typepad.com/majikthise_/2005/03/debunking_lies_.html
The woman’s brain is gone. She didn’t want to be preserved in such a state. Let it go.
This comment was written by neurophyre.Report this comment to the moderators
March 22nd, 2005 at 10:04 am
anniebird, those clips are tiny pieces of hours and hours of filming, all of which were viewed both by the trial court and by the appellate court. Apparently, according to the court, that sweet smile Terri gave her mother was the same expression she had when the doctor touched her neck; furthermore, the “following the balloon” sequence could not be duplicated. These all might simply be coincidences.
This comment was written by Susan.Report this comment to the moderators
March 22nd, 2005 at 11:06 am
The videos are four minutes selectively edited from over four hours. The judge reviewed the entire video and found no reason to believe that anyone was “at home in there”. She repeatedly failed to perform the requested commands, except for once in a while, which would happen by chance over the course of four hours.
What’s pathetic is the fact we’re “judging” this case which has been thoroughly reviewed by more than one court, without knowing the facts. We should all be disbarred.
This comment was written by KathyF.Report this comment to the moderators
March 22nd, 2005 at 11:19 am
I do not understand the issues. She’s has lost 90% of her brains. All she has is a functioning brain stem and a few neurons in her cerebrum. There are no discerable connecting neual pathways connecting the residual brain tissues. And, in addition, most of what appears to be residual brain is just scar tissue. Doctors, nurses and family make these decisions everyday. I would estimate that three to five thousands cases are decided each day in this country alone. It’s a consensus aggreement. If the doctors felt that the requests by the family was unreasonable, they would not abid by the wishes to withhold care. She will not bounce back to life. She is dead. But I sympathize with the family’s hope that this is not the case. It’s hard to let go.
This comment was written by ron hansing M.D. Pathologist.Report this comment to the moderators
March 22nd, 2005 at 11:59 am
The irony of this situation strikes home with me the most. In 1990 Terri herself denied her body the nutrition it needed to sustain her which led to her heart attack. I know bulimia is a closeted disease but surely Terri knew that she was putting her health at risk. No government official intervened then to help her eat and stay alive thereby avoiding cases such as hers. Perhaps Governor Bush and Florida legislators should enact a law that ensures that all people of their state have three meals a day either by feeding tube or mouth, and monitor those at highest risk to make sure they are complying. This would include people with eating disorders, people with diseases such as diabetes, people who are disabled, people who are poor, all children because nutrition is paramount to their healthy development and the elderly who may be too infirm to shop for and prepare food. And let us not forget the thousands of Americans who require medications to sustain their lives and who have presence of mind to say they want to live, but slowly wither away because they cannot afford them.
To focus everything on one woman without changing the situation for thousands who are or could be facing this same situation is the height of hypocrisy. No one of importance and influence cared about Terri Schiavo when she battled bulimia nor did they concern themselves with her during her first thirteen years of confinement. Ms. Schiavo has become a political football on both sides only when her case fit into an agenda. Where on earth is the dignity in that?
If one good thing comes from this, it should be that every single American write a living will so that you and your family decide your fate. As much as this or any other President might like to decide when you die, the reality is he can’t possibly know you like your family does and besides he’s pretty busy. I’d hate like hell to have to count on him to fly back and sign a law every single time a hospital was about to discontinue life support. But then again, I have an uncle in Indiana who is clearly dying of some disease. He will not seek medical help despite his kids threatening to take legal action. I am thinking a call to Mr. Bush is in order. Do you think he will respond?
This comment was written by Carole G..Report this comment to the moderators
March 22nd, 2005 at 12:19 pm
I would appreciate it if one of the physicians here would address the statements of CodeBlueBlogdoc or whoever that it would not be unusual to find a CAT scan like this among functioning elderly people. Since he does not refute the explanation above, by numerous medical professions, that the blue in the scan is spinal fluid which has replaced brain tissue, I doubt his supposed expertise. But it would be nice if someone with more knowledge than I would take him on directly.
This comment was written by David in NY.Report this comment to the moderators
March 22nd, 2005 at 12:44 pm
I find it amazing that people keep on saying that she still have brainactivity enough to be able to be rehabitated. How many courts have the case been trhough? I have heard the number 10, with 19 judges (conservative as well as liberal) reaching the same verdict. Do people really think that all those judges would have done that if there was the slightest glimmer of hope?
Let the poor woman die.
Maybe it will also help her parents finally start living their own lives again, though somehow I doubt it. Bitterness and self-delusion can be harsh poisons indeed.
This comment was written by Kristjan Wager.Report this comment to the moderators
March 22nd, 2005 at 12:52 pm
Thank you Dr. Hansing, well said. 2 nights ago, I noticed the most prominant video being shown had a date stamp of 2001! How much has she deteriorated from that time?…Hum…As for those OC sufferers who are worried about spelling, this is an informal format of fast typers on busy schedules so a little latitude please, and what if I told you I am missing several fingers. I will slow down so you are not offended. I have 4 college degrees and another on the way, believe me I can spell and type, but, as I said..in a nutshell, typing not all that important here. That is the kind of judgemental attitude that gets us into some of the hot topics. There are people who want to be hypercritical and make judgements for everyone else to live by. I hope all turns out better for this patient, i.e. that she has a peaceful and quite passing. I hope her spouse is restored to humanhood by those who judge him, and I hope that her parents get serious counseling as they need it. They are not coping at all.
This comment was written by NursePractitioner.Report this comment to the moderators
March 22nd, 2005 at 1:09 pm
Terri’s parents are real victims here. One has only to view the videos to see that they are in deep emotional trouble. Whatever happens to Terri, I hope they get the help they need to put this tragedy in perspective.
This comment was written by Susan.Report this comment to the moderators
March 22nd, 2005 at 1:19 pm
NurseP, I wasn’t talking about you or anyone’s comments, but the guy’s site who posted the comment about being more expert at reading CT scans. My point was, if someone doesn’t take the time to clean up a permanent post, or worse, has a complete disregard for getting it right when it comes to spelling and grammar, why should I believe what that person claims is his “expert” opinion? I can’t help but infer he has a similar disregard for getting it right when it comes to the content of his posts.
I’ll be the first to excuse typos in fly-by comments, beleive me!
This comment was written by KathyF.Report this comment to the moderators
March 22nd, 2005 at 3:08 pm
[...] offer an opinion. So, I was amazed when I noticed a lot of people doing just that. (Okay, this fellow probably has a good idea.) Then I n [...]
This comment was written by The Phantom City » This is insane….Report this comment to the moderators
March 22nd, 2005 at 5:07 pm
As a lawyer involved with HIPAA, it is possible her CAT scan became public as a result of the litigation.
Otherwise, it seems incredible and definitely a violation.
Well, that’s my 2 cents.
This comment was written by Privacy Lawyer.Report this comment to the moderators
March 22nd, 2005 at 5:38 pm
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. Life!!!
This comment was written by Captain Obvious.One person asked this question.
How many lawsuits does Mr. Schiavo have to win, before he can exercise his rights as an American.
A better question is
How many lawsuits does Mrs. Schiavo have to win, before she can exercise her rights as an American.
I just have a hard time believing that we are not erring on the side of Life.
Report this comment to the moderators
March 22nd, 2005 at 6:27 pm
Captain Obvious, the premise upon which all this is happening is that this is Terri’s choice to discontinue artificial feeding. That’s what the court held. That this is Terri’s choice.
So the real question is, how many lawsuits does Terri Schiavo have to win before she can exercise her rights as an American to make her own decisions, free from government interference?
This comment was written by Susan.Report this comment to the moderators
March 22nd, 2005 at 10:26 pm
I am impressed by the respect and education of those frequenting this site. I am once again disgusted with Congress’ myopic world view. What of the millions of africans with fully functioning brains being murdered? I just read that in the Congo children are being boiled to death and then eaten in front of their mothers. My friend is in Sudan right now attesting to death and ill health, killing 1/4 of all newborns. Does this woman’s life so overshadow all of the others? Courts and churches have dealt with this issue of end- of -life. Its time for our federal government to attend to the truely neglected.
We are so priviledged here in the USA that we can argue and spend so much public funding on extending such a “life” while so many others go ignored. I spent some time working with severely brain injured adults, some that have hope for new treatment, some I saw write incredibly intellegent letters to loved ones as they showed very limited signs of engagement, but terri is unfortunately different, as she has very little brain left.
This comment was written by Sarah.Report this comment to the moderators
March 23rd, 2005 at 1:05 am
Apparently Robert Schindler removed his mother from life support after she had pneumonia. Here’s the link.
I think these people have been hijacked by Randall Terry. Can we send in a SWAT team?
This comment was written by KathyF.Report this comment to the moderators
March 23rd, 2005 at 7:18 am
I was initially puzzled by the involvement of the famouse abortion opponent Randall Terry here, but I think I’ve figured it out. KathyF’s word “hijacked” is a good one. Mr. Terry, like so many other people, is seeking to use this family’s private and heartbreaking tragedy for his own political purposes, purposes that have nothing to do with Terri Schiavo at all.
All these people, including the members of Congress, should be ashamed of themselves, but I doubt that they are.
I’m an attorney, and I’ve read the recent federal court decisions. They seem soundly reasoned to me. These judges are trying to do their job, under very difficult circumstances. I can’t envy any of them the task.
This comment was written by Susan.Report this comment to the moderators
March 23rd, 2005 at 9:16 am
If saving any life is so important, where were the Terri Schiavo supporters when a hospital removed the breathing tube of a Houston baby last week?
The hospital with a judge’s approval ended the life of this baby and yet the mother wanted the baby to be kept alive. Where was Mr. Bush? Where was Governor Perry? Where was Tom DeLay?
Here’s a quote from the article in the Houston Chronicle, “It’s sad this thing dragged on for so long. We all feel it’s unfair, that a child doesn’t have a chance to develop and thrive,” said William Winslade, a bioethicist and lawyer who is a professor at the Institute for the Medical Humanities at the University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston. Paraphrasing the late Catholic theologian and ethicist Richard McCormick, Winslade added, “This isn’t murder. It’s mercy, and it’s appropriate to be merciful in that way. It’s not killing, it’s stopping pointless treatment.”
I understand life sustaining measures that can be withdrawn under Texas law includes breathing tubes, medicines and nutrition/hydration. Good thing Terri doesn’t live in Texas!!!
This comment was written by Carole G..Report this comment to the moderators
March 23rd, 2005 at 11:21 am
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.
Since multiple witnesses have heard her speak and some have heard her put together a complete sentence that really makes the reults of your scan reading mute.
This comment was written by David Helson.Report this comment to the moderators
March 23rd, 2005 at 11:32 am
I think the Nazi’s were more compassionate during their medical sponsored eugenics movement. At least they would have had the decency to shoot her and get it over with. To completely deny any food or water, even by mouth is torture. I wouldn’t do that to my dog.
This comment was written by Phil.Report this comment to the moderators
March 23rd, 2005 at 11:54 am
The solution to this problem is not in the courts. The problem is that higher courts of appeal never retry the case and if it was decided wrongly it will never be overturned for that reason, only for some technicality.
One solution in this case is to throw out the testimony of lawyers like Cranford[who was the doctor who rendered the PVS diagnosis for the court] and who are really just shills for the euthanasia lobby. Cranford is a featured speaker for the formerly named Euthanasia Society of America. They have a conflict of interest. They want their patients to die.
Other doctors, I’ve heard it is thirty-three in number, claim she is responsive, in a minimally conscious state and will respond to therapy.
Dr. Hammesfahr disagrees with your scan reading. Who is Dr. Hammesfahr?
The federal government has recognized Dr. Hammesfahr’s clinical expertise, naming him Reviewer and Chief Reviewer for evaluation and funding for new clinical research programs. Dr. Hammesfahr has been identified as “the first physician to treat patients successfully to restore deficits caused by stroke.” - Judge Susan Kirkland of the Florida Department of Health. November 2002
After having gone over her complete medical files and after spending ten hours with her he claims she could probably be walking and talking.
The solution for this problem is in law enforcement. The Schindler family did try to have Michael prosecuted for attempted murder but were told that since the four year statute of limitations for attempted murder had run out, no prosecution attempt would be persued. However there should be no statute of limitations on protecting Terri from Michael.
If the Police in Florida or the DCFS or some Florida department responsible for protecting our life and liberty finally gets their act together and does the job they failed to do years ago, Terri will finally get the therapy she deserves and that the courts awarded her, and she will point out the reason she collapsed 19 years ago. And that is what this whole affair is about.
This comment was written by David Helson.Report this comment to the moderators
March 23rd, 2005 at 12:10 pm
THANK YOU, THANK YOU, THANK YOU. I havewanted to go hold a sign to say “…let Terri go home to God and Peace.” If these people are Christian as professed don’t they WANTher in a better place. I appreciate Michael’s quiet way. No circus for him. Bet when it is over we here more from him. I want to give him my support. I have told my husband many things many times (even early in our marriage) that I never told my parents - and THEY were not so controlling as her parents.
This comment was written by Nita Shaw.GO MICHAEL!! I truely believe you have your wife’s best interes at heart. Nita Shaw - Plant City, Fl
Report this comment to the moderators
March 23rd, 2005 at 12:16 pm
I’m too busy to respond to the specifics of your post, and I apologize for that. However, I think Dr. Hammesfahr is essentially a snake-oil salesman.
To support this, I’m going to reprint here some comments about Dr. Hammesfahr’s appearance on Hannity & Colmes, which I originally posted to a different forum. (Normally I don’t like it when people do this; call it a privilege of being the site owner).
This is almost certainly a lie, although it’s one that Dr. Hammesfahr has been at pains to spread. The Nobel Prize committee keeps who the nominees (other than the winner) were secret for many years. It’s very doubtful that Dr. Hammesfahr - who hasn’t been able to get his research results published in peer-reviewed journals, and is not a very accomplished doctor compared to the extraordinary accomplishments of most Nobel Prize winners - was nominated.
What Dr. Hammesfahr did was ask his Congressman (who I bet he donated money to) to write a letter on his behalf to the committee, which the Congressman did. That’s not the same as being nominated, and it’s dishonest of Dr. Hammesfahr to claim he’s been nominated.
Although Dr. Hammesfahr has claimed - when he’s not under oath - to have cured patients with conditions similar to Terri’s, when he was under oath he refused to give the name of a single such patient.
He’s a quack, a liar of the first order. He’s not just a witness-for-hire (as, arguably, one of the doctors Michael hired was); he’s a snake-oil salesman who routinely lies about his own qualifications and achievements, and who preys on the pain Terri’s parents are feeling to give them false hope and get a ton of free TV exposure. If anyone in this whole mess deserves public disdain, it’s Dr. Hammesfahr.
There’s nothing unethical about being paid for your time. Good doctors are busy professionals, and doing a trial takes up time that can’t be spent on treating patients or running a practice.
By the way, the last doctor was the neutral doctor chosen (and compensated) by the court. And many more doctors have commented in the press.
This is a flat-out lie; it’s including people who said nothing more than “I would be willing to examine this patient.” None of the doctors he’s referring to have actually examined Terri; the vast majority are making comments based on seeing a few out-of-context video clips.
Here’s the fact: CT scans show that Terri’s cortex is nearly entirely gone. She can’t think, or feel, or exist in any cognitive way at all without a cortex - it’s simply not physically possible. And there is no way known to science to make a cortex regrow once it no longer exists.
To believe that Terri is in any mental way alive, you’d have to believe one of two things:
1) That CT scans are incapable of telling when a cortex is missing.
2) That someone without a cortex can nonetheless have higher brain functions.
I don’t think either of those two propositions is defendable.
I read every one of the 17 affidavits from “doctors” (not all were really doctors) that Terri’s parents have released to the public; not one of them addresses the medical issues at hand; and most of them, contrary to what Dr. H. claims in the Foxnews segment, don’t state as a fact that Terri Schiavo can be rehabilitated.
You’re listening to a con man.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
March 23rd, 2005 at 12:21 pm
David, you want to have another trial, largely because you don’t like the way the first one (actually, there have been two) came out.
But our legal system has a legitimate interest in finality. That is, once a trial on the merits is held, and an appellate court has found (as the Florida courts have found here, more than once) that the finder of fact did nothing improper, there is the end of it. Appellate courts do not exist to re-try cases on the facts, only to examine what you call “technicalities,” by which I think you mean legal errors. If every litigant or advocate of a litigant who disagrees with the results of a trial (and that would be everyone who ever lost one) could go back and have another one (and another one? how many?) our courts would be even more hopelessly clogged than they are.
I have no idea whether Judge Greer, the finder of fact in this case, made the correct decision. I was not present at the trial, and I have not even reviewed the trial transcript. The Florida appeals court did so, and said that even IF they were to try the case anew, they’d come out the same way he did. But of course no one is going to try this case again.
I know all this sounds terribly cold when someone’s life is at stake. But our courts make life and death decisions every day. Since we’re all fallible, they make mistakes. However, this system works very well for us overall; at least no one has yet suggested a better one. We cannot operate this society - we cannot operate ANY society - without some principles by which decisions are made. We have a rule of law here, or try to. There are a number of people who would like to re-try the Schiavo cases by public acclaim, but I submit that this is not a procedure which would contribute to the justice we all need every day.
This comment was written by Susan.Report this comment to the moderators
March 23rd, 2005 at 12:45 pm
Also, we’ve been dragged a bit off the point here. The real question is not whether Terri is or is not in PVS. I submit that this issue has been emphasized because some want it to look as though we’re just murdering this woman because she’s incapable of recovery, and so forth.
Actually, the main issue before the trial court was Terri’s own wishes in this matter. Given that any substantial recovery is unlikely/impossible in her case, what did she say she wanted done if such a thing were to happen? Her husband brought forth not only his own testimony, but the testimony of witnesses, that she said she would not want to be kept alive artificially, by tubes, in that case. This is her protected Constitutional right, in the State of Florida, and everywhere else. The right to refuse medical treatment, even life-saving treatment, goes way way back in our legal system; in fact it pre-dates the Constitution.
Now, Terri was only 27 when she collapsed, so she didn’t go into great detail, and regrettably she didn’t write this down. However, her oral statements are binding in this matter. It makes sense that her husband would be the one who was closest to her on this. I certainly would never have kept such opinions from my husband only to confide them to my parents, and there is no evidence whatever that Terri did so.
But all this is to re-hash yet again decisions which have already been made. It has been found by the trial court (and therefore we must take it as fact) that she made such statements, that these are her wishes we are carrying out. It is her right, not her parents’ right, not the right of congressmen, not the right of doctors or abortion agitators or anyone else whoever, to make that decision. As it is my right, and yours. Even if someone else, or everyone else, thinks us misguided.
Please take this opportunity to write your wishes down in legal form, whatever the form is in your State. You can undoubtedly find forms on the internet. The younger you are the more important it is. The elderly, when seriously ill or injured, tend to die quickly anyway. The young can linger on for years, and put everyone in a terrible dilemma. Like this one.
This comment was written by Susan.Report this comment to the moderators
March 23rd, 2005 at 12:50 pm
We all have to recognize the issue of grief. This includes the grieving process of Terri’s husband as well as the grieving process of her primary family. Normally, grief is a private circumstance. There is a place for grief counselors. Having read many scans myself, I must concur that what we understand as normal human existance has fled this patient.
This comment was written by Jonathan.However, the news media has not been helpful. We need to make distinctions between three different circumstances: (1) Total dependency, though awareness, (2) Locked in syndrome, and (3) Vegetative State. The news media has been commenting that if the Vegetative state is a fact, Terri should be allowed to complete he life, otherwise, not so, at least that is the impression I get from them.
One can be totally dependent, unable to eat independently, dress, move, talk, etc., and be very aware. I for one would not want to live that way. Secondly, “locked in syndrome” occurs with severe brain injury. I have seen one such patient, who could not respond to any type of prodding, but he cried when “Little House on the Pairie” came on. It had been his favorite TV program. This is not a vegetative state. At the same time, many would not want to continue living in this state either. The point is that the “vegetative state” is not the only condition to allow basic life processes to expire. Finally, we must distinguish between consciousness and self-Consciousness. She is not likely self conscious.
Finally, I am terrified by the manner in which our Congress rushed to a vote and Bush endorsed this. It demonsrates that “governing at the consent of the governed” is outmoded. Those who lie about being in favor of states rights simply want their own way, however they get it.
Report this comment to the moderators
March 23rd, 2005 at 12:57 pm
I have read of hydrocephalus patients who had so much pressure applied to their brain that all you would see on a scan was a a tissue paper thin covering of brain on the skull and these people were fully functional. How can you possibly tell the many nurses who have heard many appropriate words and appropriate expressions and even sentences that they couldn’t possibly have done so?
Re: HAMMESFAHR, I have no idea why a doctor who is the only man to have come up with a way to significantly improve stroke victims shouldn’t have been nominated for a Nobel Prize. Perhaps you should go ask Neurologist Dr William Scott Russell.
please go to http://www.terrisfight.net/
court documents
William Russell
Not only does this doctor claim Terri is certainly not in PVS but he went to Dr HAMMESFAHR when he himself had a stroke and was cured of complete expressive aphasia in half an hour. It would seem the neuralogical community does not share your opinion of Dr HAMMESFAHR.
BTW if you think the federal government made a complete quack the chief reviewer for neurological research projects you have me beat in the ‘cynical of government’ department and that really takes some doing. Congratulations!
This comment was written by David Helson.Report this comment to the moderators
March 23rd, 2005 at 1:04 pm
Susan
I would like your opinion on this case…
“¢ Marjorie Nighbert signed an “advance directive” before she was hospitalized for a stroke in 1996. This document stated that she desired no “heroic measures.” Based on this, her family requested that her feeding tube be removed. When Ms. Nighbert begged for food, the courts deemed her “not medically competent to ask for such a treatment,” and the hospital physically restrained her in bed so that she could not pilfer food from other patients. She died ten days later.
There is a reason presidents and governors have the pardon. Sometimes the courts and the legal system is so egregiously wrong that you have to throw out the garbage.
If we don’t get this under control hospices will be little more than death camps before the euthanasia lobby is happy.
This comment was written by David Helson.Report this comment to the moderators
March 23rd, 2005 at 1:08 pm
One unfortunate result of this episode is that ‘living wills’ are getting an undeserved boost.
What living wills do is get you while you are young and still feel you are immortal, to agree to be euthanized. If you are a lawyer maybe you can survive the toolkit and avoid that.
For the rest of us go here for a safe alternative.
This comment was written by David Helson.Report this comment to the moderators
March 23rd, 2005 at 1:19 pm
Phil
If you did do that to your dog you might be facing a year in jail and a $10,000 fine in some states.
This comment was written by David Helson.Report this comment to the moderators
March 23rd, 2005 at 2:02 pm
David,
Was Ms. Nighbert’s case actually taken to court? I’ve heard this anecdote before, but the form I heard it in had the hospital making the decision, not a court. (Sometimes, in the alternative, her family.) (She also has a number of different names, depending on who’s telling the story.) Do you have any references I could follow up? I’ve become quite skeptical of anecdotes I read on the internet. For all I know, this woman might never have lived at all, let alone had the experiences you describe. On the other hand, your story may be true in every detail. I’d just like to find out where you got it, and verify it if possible.
IF a court decided this, they must have heard quite a bit of evidence on both sides, none of which I have seen, so I can hardly give an opinion on Ms. Nighbert’s state of mind or competency, assuming there ever was such a person. Do you think courts just flip coins or something? I’m by no means saying that courts are never wrong, but court decisions are almost always the result of the dedicated effort of a number of intelligent, well-meaning men and women who, believe it or not, are trying very hard to arrive at justice. They don’t just pick answers out of the air.
If you don’t like the way we make decisions in this culture, your suggestion would be what? I’m all ears. Newspaper polls? bird entrails? astrology? casting lots? consulting oracles? Name it, and probably someone somewhere has tried it, maybe with better results, who knows.
Also, as to Advance Directives, the California form (which was drafted by the California Medical Association) simply has several blank lines for the person to fill in with his or her opinion. Why this form should require a law degree for “survival” is beyond me. I am not familiar with the forms used in other States.
This comment was written by Susan.Report this comment to the moderators
March 23rd, 2005 at 2:03 pm
Send your Will To Live link to the President. He signed the Texas law that gives hospitals and doctors the power to withdraw life sustaining measures for patients who are terminally ill or have irreversible medical conditions. This law also provides an advance directive form that Texas citizens can use. Apparently, he thought this was a good idea at the time.
I wonder who will pay for the sustained medical care for the hundreds of thousands who don’t have health insurance. Their lives are valuable too….aren’t they? Many can’t even afford food let alone prescription medicines. How on earth can they afford to be on a feeding tube or ventilator or have nursing home care to the tune of $100 a day? In Texas, if you cannot afford to pay, that is taken into account when they decide to end life support.
Oh what a tangled web…we could push for socialized medicine to level the field but that smacks of liberalism which won’t sit well with the right. I guess that means those who can afford the “will to live” will live and those who can’t probably don’t matter much anyway.
This comment was written by Carole G..Report this comment to the moderators
March 23rd, 2005 at 2:04 pm
I AM A RADIOLOGIST AND READ HEAD CT’S AND MRIS ALL DAY EVERY DAY AND I AGREE WITH CEREBROCRAT AND SUSAN. I TOO REFUSE TO BE A HUMAN PETRI DISH IF I WERE TO BECOME A VEGGIE. MANY OF YOU WHO ARE PROTESTING ARE IN DENIAL OF YOUR MORTALITY. WELL, GUESS WHAT, PEOPLE DIE EVERY DAY.
WHAT WOULD YOU DO IF YOU GOT ALS? WHICH TUBE WOULD BE YOUR LAST BEFORE YOU ULTIMATELY DIE?
This comment was written by RADIODOC.Report this comment to the moderators
March 23rd, 2005 at 2:48 pm
Susan
I found that account at an official Catholic website. I have found this elsewhere as I google it now…
This comment was written by David Helson.Report this comment to the moderators
March 23rd, 2005 at 2:54 pm
Cerebro
You’ll find the advice from the American Academy of Neurology cautionary I am sure.
Which makes me wonder why they didn’t just say take a quick look at a brainscan?
BTW thank you Dr Cranford for your 45 minute diagnosis/death sentence. How you’ve ill-served humanity.
This comment was written by David Helson.Report this comment to the moderators
March 23rd, 2005 at 3:48 pm
David,
Unfortunately the author you quote does not include any references, so it’s hard to chase this Nighbert story down. I’m familiar with the site (I’m a Roman Catholic myself) . Some accounts say she did sign an Advance Directive, some accounts say she didn’t.
I was involved in a similar case myself, so let’s discuss that. At least we have the facts. A 93 year old client of mine was stricken with a very serious stroke, which deprived her of the ability to swallow. (This isn’t necessarily a “pretext”, you know. Patients like this can and often do aspirate food or liquids, which triggers pneumonia as well as other complications.) She had always been vehement on the subject of nursing homes: she didn’t want to go to one. Period. She said it over and over, and signed directives to that effect. Independence was an extremely high value for this individual. (She was still driving on the freeways, and driving well, by the way, right up until the day she had her stroke.) Because of the severity of her stroke, she would never have left some nursing facility or other for whatever time was left her, which, considering her age, wasn’t going to be long in any case.
Unfortunately, she did awake from her stroke a day later, and although she could not speak, she repeatedly asked for water - by mouth - by writing notes. Did she “change her mind”? Was she competent? Should she have been given artificial hydration? I don’t know. I was the lawyer, not a family member, though I sat with her too during the subsequent days. I’m not sure she recognized me, or any of us, so I’m not sure how “competent” she was, whatever that means. Her family obviously loved her dearly (I did too, to tell you the truth), and they very much believed they were doing the right thing to deny her hydration. In due course she died. I remain troubled by this case.
In the alternative, though, I easily picture her coming to in that nursing home, and really hating all of us for not following her wishes.
I’m not sure what you intend to prove by the Nighbert case, assuming that it ever happened. That Advance Directives don’t deal with every contingency? That nurses can be unsympathetic? That courts can be wrong? That families make mistakes, or can be badly motivated? No one disputes any of these statements.
None of these are easy questions, and I’d be the last to suggest that they are.
Write out your wishes for yourself, and hope we never need them.
This comment was written by Susan.Report this comment to the moderators
March 23rd, 2005 at 4:30 pm
It’s true; the majority of PVS cases are subtle and difficult to diagnos. I believe that one reason for that is the majority of PVS cases involve people whose brains are in much, much better shape than Terri Schiavo’s, making a brain scan irrelevant for diagnosis, meaning that all you have to go on are more subjective criteria. If most PVS cases had brain scans that looked like Ms. Schiavo’s, it would become an easier diagnosis to make.
Here’s the paper you’re referring to; I think people should read the paper itself, rather than trusting a clearly biased source like the National Review. If you’ve read the paper, you know that the misdiagnosis of PVS is generally caused by visual or physical handicaps. “Many patients who are misdiagnosed as being in the vegetative state are blind or have severe visual handicap; thus lack of eye blink to threat or absence of visual tracking are not reliable signs for diagnosing the vegetative state.”
Two-thirds of the falsely diagnosed patients were blind or nearly blind; alost 90% of them had severe physical problems which made it difficult for them to communicate (one of them was only able to communicate through a slight shoulder shrug). There’s no evidence at all that these problems are involved in Terri Schiavo’s case. Nor does the paper report any cases - not a single one - being misdiagnosed because of a misunderstood brain scan, or any misdiagnosed patients with scans showing a brain as severely atrophied as Terri Schiavo’s.
Does that prove that it couldn’t happen? No, of course not. But neither does the paper prove what you (I assume) want it to prove. Nothing in that paper supports the consulsion that it’s likely Terri Schiavo has been misdiagnosed.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
March 23rd, 2005 at 4:30 pm
To me that was a crime too. If she didn’t want to go to a nursing home why didn’t that ‘loving family’ take her home? It would have been inconvenient? See the word: loving. They didn’t know how to change her chux pads? Remember all that diaper changing when you were little? Of course you don’t.
My wife’s mother had a severe stroke which she never fully recovered from. For a year she couldn’t say more than ‘didema’. Up to the time she died she still took great effort to complete a sentence. Great effort.
She also produced the world’s most wonderful person during that time and had a deep love affair with her husband and my hero who really meant ‘for better or worse’.
If you are part of a system that would deliberately kill such a person change the system while you still can look in a mirror without a drink.
This comment was written by David Helson.Report this comment to the moderators
March 23rd, 2005 at 4:41 pm
Ampersand
Has Cranford ever diagnosed a patient as not having PVS?
It’s not a a matter of misdiagnosis with him, it’s like a religion of death calling for ever more sacrifices.
I happen to like NR and this quote…As one neurologist put it, if a patient shows “any response to the outside world, the patient isn’t in a PVS.”? All it takes, according to Dr. Jones, is “only one examiner to discover the presence of higher brain function and the naysayers’ opinions are, by the very definition of PVS, null and void.”?
In related news I also appreciated Jeb Bush’s news conference just now where he revealed a neurologist by the name of Dr. Cheshire, observed Terri, lengthy videos of her and her case record. He has concluded that she is not in a persistent vegetative state. Rather, he felt she was minimally conscious if not functioning higher.
This comment was written by David Helson.Report this comment to the moderators
March 23rd, 2005 at 4:46 pm
Well, David, you may well be right about my 93 year old client.
However, taking her “home” was not an option, largely because of the complexity of the care she would have required, which could only have been provided in a skilled nursing facility. If my client had suffered her stroke a hundred years ago, she would have died, just as she did die; the technology to keep her alive hadn’t been invented yet. Perhaps not using that technology is the equivalent, as you are asserting, of “killing her;” I am not certain on that point. This is without reaching the question of whether we were following her wishes or not.
I’m an attorney, not a clergyman. It isn’t my job to make tough moral decisions for my clients.
I’m still wondering what you’re trying to prove by the discussion of such cases. That our legal system is wicked? You have yet to suggest any alternatives. That I am a bad person? That well may be, but I can’t see how that is relevant to Terri Schiavo’s situation.
This comment was written by Susan.Report this comment to the moderators
March 23rd, 2005 at 4:57 pm
Susan
There is a difference between high tech expensive heroic measures and simple food and water. I have to rely on people’s basic consciences to see that [as untenable as that hope is becoming]. I was hoping the example would shock people’s consciences back towards healthy ethics.
Both cases are not ‘pulling the plug’, they about cold-blooded murder, legal as they may be somehow.
This comment was written by David Helson.Report this comment to the moderators
March 23rd, 2005 at 5:15 pm
I have read this entire thread over the course of three days. I have read one of the the court cases that ruled in favor of the husband. I have read many articles about this case so I submit the following opinions (premised in part on the assumpiton that the CAT scan above is real:
1) Shiavo’s parents because of their selfishness or stupidity have practically destroyed the memory of their beloved daughter. How would you like to be remebered? As a vegetable or a vibrant human being?
2) An animated corpse–and that is what Terri is basically–has no rights.
3) I am totally disgusted by what the Bush’s and congress have done. It is unconstitutional and does not bode well for the future.
4) If these are “real” Christians protesting against removing the tubes, what is wrong with sending Terri to heaven, or is it because they really don’t believe it in their hearts and minds?
5) The Shiavo’s (husband’s family) have contributed to this by still referring to the corpse of Terri as a person–she is not.
6) I agree that starving Terri’s body to death is wrong only because
it causes pain to the family.
These are my opinions on the matter.
This comment was written by Robert Angel.Report this comment to the moderators
March 23rd, 2005 at 6:01 pm
You are no angel, demon maybe.
1&2 You need a stroke victim in your family for the educational value it would provide you, if you are capable of spiritual growth. They sure wouldn’t need you tho.
3 They delayed things until jeb could get his law enforcement establishment to do the job they had been neglecting for several decades. That is all. No you won’t find every heroic measures legal case going before congress. No this doesn’t presage mob rule taking over the country.
4 Human life is sacred. Christians have never had a death wish to get to heaven early.
5 Why you can’t read her face as she looks into her parents’ eyes is a mystery to me.
This comment was written by David Helson.Report this comment to the moderators
March 23rd, 2005 at 6:07 pm
David, if you want to continue to be welcome to post here, you’ve got to take it down a few notches. Calling other folks demons is definitely inappropriate.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
March 23rd, 2005 at 6:08 pm
1&2 You need a stroke victim in your family for the educational value it would provide you, if you are capable of spiritual growth.
Wow. What a vile, hateful thing to wish on anyone. And I refuse to believe that disability exists to educate the non-disabled. It’s just a creepy argument.
This comment was written by Sally.Report this comment to the moderators
March 23rd, 2005 at 6:20 pm
“Mrs Marjorie Nighbert, an 83 year old lady who was in a nursing home after a stroke. She was deprived of a feeding tube by a Court order on March 23rd 1995. A nurse heard her ask “Will you give me a little something to eat?”?”
All of the discussion of the Schiavo case has me thinking about the experiences I had with both of my parents. And they remind me that things are not always what we assume them to be.
Both of my parents were in their 80’s when they died due, in great part, to the superb medical care of their primary physician and of all the other medical personnel who had participated in their care through a series of medical crises over the years.
My dad had suffered a series of small strokes over the years and had developed a degree of dementia, dementia that became most obvious when he was hospitalized for other health problems. However, prior to his last stroke he was still living at home with my mother, ambulatory and able to eat on his own. At times he would choke on his food but he was able to cough and clear his throat and continue eating. He required assistance with dressing and bathing which was provided by home health care workers. They also prepared meals, did light housework and errands and ferried my parents to appointments when I could not do so.
Dad had a mild stroke which caused incontinence and less interest in eating and in his surroundings in general. After several reports to the family doctor from a nurse from the health care service, Dad was hospitalized. He slept alot and was confused but spent some time sitting in a chair and ate the meals served to him. A swallowing test showed abnormalities in his swallowing response.
The doctor ordered “nothing by mouth” . We found out about the order when we arrived for one of our visits. Of course we immediately asked how Dad would receive food and water. An IV? A feeding tube? The nurse said no feeding tube had been ordered. It took a moment for things to settle in: We were being told that Dad was going to be deprived of food and water until he died. I remember flashes of possible scenarios during our remaining visits with Dad. Would he ask for food? For water? Would he understand what was happening? What would I say? This was a man who could STILL talk, who could sit in a chair and put food in his mouth.
Once over our shock, we GOT an order for a feeding tube and for therapy to improve his swallowing response. Dad was moved to a nursing home. He was kept on a feeding tube while the therapy continued, all the while asking us to bring him coffee or something from McDonald’s. A month or so into his nursing home stay, he was mistakenly served a full meal meant for another patient. HE ATE IT ALL WITH NO ILL AFFECTS.
Dad died about 5 months later, still fed from his feeding tube. He had gradually become unable to speak clearly, unable to move. He required turning every 2 hours and occasional suctioning to remove fluids from his throat. I was with Dad when his body finally shut down. He was made comfortable and he died peacefully. It was time.
The QUESTION I still have when I look back concerns the order to withhold food and water from my dad, in essence, to kill him. The order was given WITHOUT consulting my dad who, though definitely confused, was still conscious of his surroundings and his natural need for food and water. Nor was it issued after discussing the order or its consequences with us, his family. At the time I had NO idea such a life and death decision WOULD be made, much less followed, without discussing it with the patient and his family.
Our experience was a quick lesson in the importance of final directives, something we weren’t familiar with seven years ago. It was only because of our being able to get those in place, very quickly, that we were able to legally request the feeding tube and at least an ATTEMPT at restoring my dad’s ability to eat. And he did not have to die of dehydration/starvation while still being aware of what was happening.
I’m sorry for the length of this post but please allow me to tell my mom’s story before closing.
A month after Dad died, my mom was in the hospital. She was recovering from dehydration that occurred while she was in a nursing home. (She had fallen 2 days before my dad’s funeral and broken her hip. She was in the nursing home for therapy and was doing well therapy-wise.)
About to be released from the hospital, my mother developed Flash Pulmonary Edema. I was called and told to get to the hospital immediately. Upon arriving at the hospital I found the nurses tending to my mom in her room. She had an oxygen mask and was being given Lasix and morphine. I could hear the fluids in her chest. I went to her side and leaned down to her. She said to me, with obvious difficulty “I not want go Tom”, referring to my dad. This said to me SHE DIDN’T WANT TO DIE.
A nurse and I spoke in the hallway. I found out that a DNR order had been placed by Mom’s doctor that day. That order was being followed.
The problem was this: My mother HAD LEGAL DIRECTIVES ON FILE. We had been sure that the nursing home had them with her records on her admission there several weeks before. I had the legal authority to make the decision about DNRs and such. When I told the nurse this, and what my mom had said, she immediately began making arrangements to move my mom to intensive care.
It was a frightening night. I was told by a doctor that he had never seen someone her age (not to mention someone having survived several heart attacks) in her condition that night survive. While watching over Mom, I asked a nurse to look in her records for the directives. She found them, filed at the BACK of the voluminous records on Mom’s treatments. They had been at the nurse’s station down the hall from Mom’s room.
Once again I learned an important lesson: Hospitals don’t necessarily check to see whether or not directives are on file. The PRIMARY physician may not necessarily know, or ask, if directives are on file. (The doctor’s PARTNER was associated with the nursing home and had ordered Mom’s care there). And if a DNR is ordered, it is followed. A patient that wants to LIVE may be allowed to DIE simply because someone HASN’T BOTHERED to check on what that patient wants, to see if directives are in place.
My mom DID survive that night. She was moved to several different floors during her recovery. A sort of sad comedy occurred with each move as my sister and I met with the head nurse on each floor, clarifying our wishes as to what was to be done should Mom have another medical crisis.
Mom lived 3 more years, years she and I both treasured. With home health care she lived in her home and with me until the last 5 months of her life. Those were spent in the hospital or in a nursing home. She had been slowly developing dementia. She lived contentedly in the Alzheimer’s wing of a nursing home her last 3 months. She finally died in her sleep from her 5th heart attack.
The point of all this? Be aware. Do not make assumptions. I don’t think that there was any intentional malice in any of the doctor’s or hospital’s actions. But looking back, 7 and 4 years respectively, I am still appalled that a decision could be made to discontinue food and water without consulting a patient or the patient’s family. I am appalled that, inspite of final directives being present, that those directives could be “lost”, and a woman who wanted to live be allowed to die. And that is exactly what would have happened if I had not been home to receive the call from the hospital.
This comment was written by Sarah Wright.Report this comment to the moderators
March 23rd, 2005 at 6:34 pm
In the sense, that is what it would take. Of course I am not wishing that on him.
This comment was written by David Helson.Report this comment to the moderators
March 23rd, 2005 at 6:49 pm
Florida DCFS petition. I especially liked page three.
This comment was written by David Helson.Report this comment to the moderators
March 23rd, 2005 at 7:05 pm
David, Robert can disagree with you without being morally bad, and his disagreement doesn’t necessarily mean that he needs any more “spiritual growth” than you or anyone else. He just disagrees with you, OK?
One of the most distressing aspects of this case is the way it has caused people to talk to each other. I’ve noticed this on several sites, of all persuasions.
For example. Michael Schiavo is not necessarily a bad man, even if someone thinks he’s mistaken about Terri’s wishes or is otherwise badly motivated. It is possible, nay, likely, that he is sincerely trying to carry out what he believes were her wishes. Because someone thinks this a bad thing does not mean that he beat her senseless (an idea which has no evidence going for it) or that he’s after the money (which is gone anyway). At any rate, none of us have met this man, and we are most unqualified to judge his motivations.
I think Terri’s parents need some help and some grief counselling, but that’s just my opinion. I’ve never met these people, and one cannot but sympathize with everyone concerned in this tragedy, most emphatically including them. The whole thing is heart-rending. Because I do not agree with the tack they’ve taken does not make them “selfish” necessarily.
The overall fact of the matter, and this is not confined to this one case, is that, yet again, our knowledge has outrun our wisdom. A hundred years ago, Terri would have died the night she had the heart attack. As wonderful as the advances of medical science have been, there are downsides, and one of them is distinguishing between what we can do and what we should do. They’re not always the same.
This comment was written by Susan.Report this comment to the moderators
March 23rd, 2005 at 7:14 pm
Are we entirely certain that competence is a prerequisite for the revocation of advance directives? My understanding it is only necessary to demonstrate competence to create one.
This comment was written by ZenKnight.Report this comment to the moderators
March 23rd, 2005 at 7:26 pm
Thank you for your educated explanation. I’m not a doctor or a scientist but I did learn about brain damage when my mother was ill. I can clearly see that there is not enough brain present for Terri to have more than minimal reactions. That “she” is alive does in no way suggest that she is aware of being alive. I have seen her on TV a good deal and I just don’t see that much awareness. I think it would be mercy to let her go. Death for her is not painful even if she were aware of it and I can’t see anything to suggest that she is aware of anything, more than superficially.
This comment was written by Barb.Report this comment to the moderators
March 23rd, 2005 at 7:42 pm
Susan
Where do I start? There is so much circumstantial evidence. I understand circumstantial evidence isn’t perfect but if the evidence doesn’t prove attempted murder it sure proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that he doesn’t love Terri nor is he a fit guardian.
A number of doctors have pointed out that her injuries on her bonescan are very consistant with long term physical abuse and brutal strangulation. Dr Hammesfahr stated he had only seen injuries like her neck injuries one other time and that was a case of strangulation. Her best friend has disclosed Terri was planning on divorcing Michael. Michael was abusive and controlling. He kept track of her odometer readings. He splurged on himself and berated her if she spent anything on herself. He tried to keep her from family and friends. He made it difficult for her to get access to the family car. Immediately after the ‘event’ he attempted to assault Terri’s sister. He kept quite good care of her until he was awarded money for her therapy and then he demanded no therapy whatsoever be done for Terri. He bullied the nursing staff. He would frequently ask staff “is that B/tch dead yet?”, “can anything be done to accelerate her death?”, “is she dead yet?”. He would become thrilled at any negative news about her health. He would brag about what he would be able to buy after she died. He abused the first girlfriend after Terri, he stalked her, he ran her off the road. He made a faux pas on Larry king saying “We didn’t know what Terri wanted but this is what we want”.
But if you think he is a poor put upon husband who only wants what’s best for Terri you can have your opinion.
This comment was written by David Helson.Report this comment to the moderators
March 23rd, 2005 at 7:51 pm
David, you don’t know any of this of your own knowledge, unless, unknown to me, you know Michael Schiavo personally. You’re just repeating stories you’ve heard.
You spend too much time on the internet. Try getting outside more.
This comment was written by Susan.Report this comment to the moderators
March 23rd, 2005 at 7:53 pm
I don’t believe this is a left/right issue. I think it’s a human rights issue. I think anytime we make it partisan Terri loses. With that understood I still need to say something delicately. There was a time when some people took a great deal of pride in defending the powerless and abused women.
This comment was written by David Helson.Report this comment to the moderators
March 23rd, 2005 at 7:53 pm
Dr. Cranford, one of the experts who examined Terri Schiavo:
“An MRI was never recommended because, in this case and other patients
in a permanent vegetative state, the CT scans were more than adequate
to demonstrate the extremely severe atrophy of the cerebral
hemispheres, and an MRI would add nothing of significance to what we
see on the CT scans. Plus the MRI is contraindicated because of the
intrathalamic stimulators implanted in Terri’s brain. A PET scan was
never done in this case because it was never needed. The classic
clinical signs on examination, the CT scans, and the flat EEG’s were
more than adequate to diagnose PVS to the highest degree of medical
certainty, along with the credible testimony of the three neurologists
at the longest evidentiary hearing in American law, whose opinions were
strongly affirmed by the trial court judge and three appeal court
judges. Please see Judge Greer’s opinions on the credibility of the
experts testifying on behalf of the Schindler family.
http://pekinprattles.blogspot.com/2005/03/schiavo-dr-cranford-offers-reply.html
This comment was written by Tom Lewis.Report this comment to the moderators
March 23rd, 2005 at 7:56 pm
David says: “Since multiple witnesses have heard her speak and some have heard her put together a complete sentence that really makes the reults of your scan reading mute.”
I saw the nurse aid who was interviewed who claimed she saw Terri sitting up, talking with staff and visiters, responding etc. Unfortunately, she is the only one who is saying so. No one else has come forward with the same eyewitness accounts. There is a lot of emotion tied up with this case and there are a lot of uninformed activists out there making their cases. The keyword here is “uninformed”.
This comment was written by Barb.Who has motive and desire to tell the truth or an untruth? Many, many.
Report this comment to the moderators
March 23rd, 2005 at 7:59 pm
David is just a sad creature. If the CAT scan at the top of this blog is true, what is the point? The fight is just political and “my philopshy is correct and yours is wrong”. Stick to the facts. What was is?; 80% of Americans would not like to live like Terri? If heaven is real…let her go there. This is an ego fight, nothing more.
(Sorry, but up my other website. )
This comment was written by Robert Angel.Report this comment to the moderators
March 23rd, 2005 at 8:02 pm
David Helson said ‘He made a faux pas on Larry king saying “We didn’t know what Terri wanted but this is what we want”?.’
That wasn’t any faux pas. The court ruled on that from what her friends and relatives testified to. A sister-in-law and a brother-in-law, and friends, testified in court that Terri told them that she didn’t want to be kept alive like those whose funerals they were attending.
The court didn’t come to the conclusion from anything that Terri’s husband or parents said.
This comment was written by Tom Lewis.Report this comment to the moderators
March 23rd, 2005 at 8:08 pm
Oh, one more thing too. Much is made by some of the statement that Terri told her best friend that she was thinking of divorcing Michael.
Well, I’ve done more than think about divorcing my husband, I once moved out for some weeks, with the intention of divorcing him.
That was many years ago. We’re still together, 37 years now. Just because someone thinks about divorcing, or even talks about it, doesn’t mean the marriage is necessarily doomed. We don’t know what would have happened.
These are all private matters. Terri’s ambivalences towards her husband. His ambivalences towards her, his reaction to her heart attack. Her eating disorder. Whether he gets along well with her parents. (He lived with them for some time right after she collapsed.) Her current condition, and what she said she wanted. Her mother’s reaction to that. All the private matters of this family, which have been dragged into the open. But none of us knows these people, and so we don’t and can’t make judgments about them.
A court of law has determined - several times, actually - what Terri wanted under these circumstances. That’s all we know, really.
We should, if so inclined, pray for all these people, that the right be done (whatever that is). I’m a Catholic, as I said, so I do not believe that this life is all there is. I hope Terri and everyone else finds peace.
This comment was written by Susan.Report this comment to the moderators
March 23rd, 2005 at 8:19 pm
This case has only been heard once and only heard partially at that.
A list of the laws broken or ignored by judge greer.
There is no way this monster will ever win another term on the bench. The only question is whether he will be impeached. Sadly too late to save Terri.
This comment was written by David Helson.Report this comment to the moderators
March 23rd, 2005 at 8:30 pm
David. Terri is dead already. Move on.
This comment was written by Robert Angel.Report this comment to the moderators
March 23rd, 2005 at 8:38 pm
Here is a good article about all the isssues, from an atheist point of view of course.
http://atheism.about.com/b/a/154583.htm
By the way David, please stop embarrassing the Christians.
This comment was written by atheistfundamentalist.Report this comment to the moderators
March 23rd, 2005 at 8:48 pm
David Helson’s Godly website - ‘A list of the laws broken or ignored by judge greer.’
What a silly website that is. The very first charge that it makes is factually inaccurate.
Judge Greer is one of your own. He’s a devout Christian, conservative Republican, and has never been overturned.
This comment was written by Tom Lewis.Report this comment to the moderators
March 23rd, 2005 at 8:50 pm
Please don’t do put-downs of other posters on my website. Thanks!
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
March 23rd, 2005 at 9:03 pm
Ampersand, I was not putting down or trying to surpress David Helson. I am only stating the obvious. He is not representing his faith faithfully. I did not call him an idoit or a troll or insulted him in any way. I ask simply that he not embarrass the Christians. How is that a put down?
We are aware of the facts of this case, as stated in numerous court decisions thanks to your blog, yet David refutes them based on his beliefs. The legal system’s willful blindness to facts cannot succeed forever.
This comment was written by atheistfundamentalist.Is he not embarrassing himself and his fellow Christians?
Report this comment to the moderators
March 23rd, 2005 at 9:43 pm
Athiestfundimentalist, either you know perfectly well that “please stop embarassing yourself/your allies” is an insult, or you have a tin ear. If you have a tin ear, then I’ll just have to ask you to take my word for it.
David, PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE be careful that when you use “blockquote,” either typing it out or using the button, that when you post there is a closing “/blockquote” at the end of your quote. Also, please try to put a paragraph break (i.e., pressing return once or twice) before the opening blockquote and after the closing blockquote. Otherwise the page layout gets all messed up in some browsers.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
March 23rd, 2005 at 9:57 pm
Barb
One nurse telling the truth would be all it would take to prove Terri was not PVS. But it is not just one nurse.
Nora Lynn Wagner,
Carla Sauer Iyer
and here the nurse describes the time Michael tried to kill Terri and the nurse called the police and lost her job over it.
What a guardian Michael makes huh?
All that responsiveness that a piece of meat PVS patient can’t have but Terri has? Well you brainscan readers can try and pull rank on objective reality but we both know that postmodernism stuff is just crap don’t we?
This comment was written by David Helson.Report this comment to the moderators
March 23rd, 2005 at 10:20 pm
IF these two ladies are truthful, why have the experts, the doctors, the lawyers, etc., disregarded their claims? Frankly, I don’t believe these ladies.
“Judge George W. Greer, the Florida circuit judge who
has presided over several aspects of the Schiavo case, dismissed Iyer’s
allegations as “incredible” and noted in a September 17, 2003, order
that not even Terri Schiavo’s parents sought her testimony in the case.”
http://mediamatters.org/items/ÂÂ200503230001
If there were and or is, any doubt, it would be an easy thing to test her again. You are asking me to go paranoid and believe dozens, scores of people are trying to kill this clearly damaged woman. I’m sorry, I don’t buy it. I’ve seen the videos of Terri, I would not want to live like that even if I were cognizant. She is not.
This comment was written by Barb.Report this comment to the moderators
March 23rd, 2005 at 10:21 pm
Nurse Heidi Law thinks Terri is very responsive…and talkative…
This comment was written by David Helson.[court documents
Heidi Law]
Report this comment to the moderators
March 23rd, 2005 at 10:24 pm
Barb
Let me know how many nurses you need to hear desribe Terri talking and I’ll keep posting till I get to that number.
This comment was written by David Helson.Report this comment to the moderators
March 23rd, 2005 at 10:36 pm
Hey David, you sure she wasn’t saying ‘kill me!’
[Personal attack snipped by Amp.]
I truly feel for the true victims of this case, the Schiavo family (both parents and husband). A horrible situation has been magnified greatly by zealots who want to use the situation for their own ends.
This comment was written by Kevin.Report this comment to the moderators
March 23rd, 2005 at 10:37 pm
Thanks but I’d rather hear from knowledgable experts than the emotionally overwhelmed, or those with a “cause” to support.
This comment was written by Barb.Report this comment to the moderators
March 23rd, 2005 at 10:40 pm
Shes already dead. Now let her body die.
Geeze, next thing you know people will want machines to hook their lifeless pets too so that they ‘dont have to die’ .
They are dead. Machines are doing the other work.
This comment was written by nitro.Report this comment to the moderators
March 23rd, 2005 at 10:41 pm
Yeah, those nurses…must just be emotionalism huh? They’re women so you can’t take them for serious professionals? Is that your point?
This comment was written by David Helson.Report this comment to the moderators
March 23rd, 2005 at 10:50 pm
How bout doctors?
Richard Neubauer
Ooooh there he goes getting emotional…gotta find someone more serious than a doctor…shall I quote scripture?
This comment was written by David Helson.Report this comment to the moderators
March 23rd, 2005 at 11:27 pm
I can’t believe there are so many people willing to inject their own personal opinions into what is a private matter. Butt out! This is no one’s business outside of the family.
God forbid any of you ever experience anything like this. If you do, I hope you are able to avoid every busybody with a keyboard as well as those all those unmentionables in Congress.
Err on the side of life? Think about what that really means the next time you vote. Does it mean all lives, or only those that you personally care about? Think about all the lives you don’t care about before you get so opinionated.
This comment was written by You will all burn, you hypocrites.Report this comment to the moderators
March 23rd, 2005 at 11:34 pm
David, you can quote all that you want to, but it doesn’t change the scans in the post - they clearly show that those quotes can’t be accurate.
I have asked medical people I know to comment on those scans, and they all reach the same conclusion as the original commenter.
This comment was written by Kristjan Wager.Report this comment to the moderators
March 23rd, 2005 at 11:54 pm
Mr. Helson, you ignore and omit the most important part of Dr. Neibauer’s affadavit:
The problem with Dr. Neubauer’s statement is that he never examined the patient nor did he review her charts. As the aged doctor (86 or so) makes clear in his sworn testimony all his contact with Ms Schiavo consists solely of viewing a tape. (If you bother to research the case, you’ll find this is a heavily edited tape, too–not a realtime tape.)
Further, it should be noted that Dr. Neubauer is not a neurologist. Generally, one requires training in neurology or neuropsychiatry to undertake this sort of examination of a patient. (Of course, in all cases this kind of examination always requires physically examining the patient.)
As a physician I find it incredibly irresponsible that Dr. Neubauer would offer testimony on a patient’s condition only after the viewing of an edited tape– with neither a physical exam nor review of the chart. The fact he is offering testimony outside his field of formal training, internal medicine, is also telling.
Dr. Neubauer’s “examination” of a heavily edited videotape to diagnose an individual simply does not meet standard of care in any state of the union or modern country. Offering an affadavit with such an unequivocal opinion on such scant evidence suggests that Dr. Neubauer really did not care about the truth.
It is no wonder why the courts found Dr. Neubauer’s testimony unbelievable.
This comment was written by Woofaroni.Report this comment to the moderators
March 24th, 2005 at 12:35 am
I am a real live board certified neurosugeon. The scan at the top of this thread is not conssitent with the stories from the nurses quoted here. Our human brains are wired for empathy and pattern recognition. It is natural and common for family members to see purposeful activity in patients who cannot respond. Even brain dead patients will move when the ventilator expands there lungs. I myself can feel their “humaneness” but I also know that the observed response is tricking my empathetic mind onto seeing something that is not real.
This comment was written by Braindoc.Report this comment to the moderators
March 24th, 2005 at 2:01 am
When nurse Heidi Law proves she can pass neuro boards and shows her ability to make accurate diagnoses and prognoses of multiple patients with an acceptable level of inter-rater reliability with board certified (current board certification, medical license & actively in practice) neurologists, I will lend credence to her testimony. So far, all of the Terri has been misdiagnosed statements have been by healthcare professionals has been by those with a stated bias, those who have neither examined her nor her EEGs and/or have been enlisted (and paid for) by agents on behalf of the Schindlers. Her own neurologist and the impartial one appointed by the court have concurring diagnoses and their statements have been substantiated with appropriate clinical correlative data. I wonder how many of the healthcare professionals making/disputing Schiavo’s diagnosis would be willing to undergo a practical examination diagnosing other patients using redacted medical records with CT Scans, EEGs and other records to see how they compare to the diagnosis of neurologists who care for them. I have a feeling that without the politics and decisions regarding support, objective diagnoses would be different than those they would make in charged cases like this (by those who are even qualified); I also highly doubt they’d be willing to stake their medical licenses on their performance of this sort of test.
This comment was written by Ol Cranky.Report this comment to the moderators
March 24th, 2005 at 2:42 am
Article with people who know Micheal Schivao speaking out - he sounds far from the monster everyoneon the right makes him out to be. For godssake her parents encouraged him to date, they figured he’d divorce her. But no. This all comes down to the malpractice judgement he got in her name 10 years ago, he didn’t share it with them instead put it in a trust in her name for her care they have been fighing ever since to get custody.
They wanted the money, no w it’s gone, so now it’s all about who’s right for them.
This comment was written by jen.Report this comment to the moderators
March 24th, 2005 at 7:19 am
jen, like I don’t like people telling us Michael Schivao’s motives, I think we should be careful in making statements about the parents’ motives.
This comment was written by Kristjan Wager.Report this comment to the moderators
March 24th, 2005 at 7:21 am
As Gallileo would say to authority “and yet she speaks”…
Braindoc, another person trying to pull rank on objective reality…wow.
The nurses just all lied, huh? Terri’s parents are lying huh? Have you looked over the credentials of all the doctors on Terri’s parents side? People who actually worked with the guy who invented the term PVS. BTW I’ve also seen Wolfson be very very quick to point out just how wonderfully qualified Dr Hammesfahr is when it was pointed out Hammesfahr denies Wolfson diagnosis categorically.
It only takes one person hearing Terri speak to trump any expert on this by virtue of the very definition of PVS.
I wonder how many of the healthcare professionals making/disputing Schiavo’s diagnosis would be willing to undergo a practical examination diagnosing other patients using redacted medical records with CT Scans, EEGs and other records to see how they compare to the diagnosis of neurologists who care for them
The 34 doctors tesitfying she is obviously not PVS [as opposed to your 4 court appointed doctors and one main one, Cranford] are begging that she be given those very tests.
Cranford btw is a featured speaker at Hemlock society fuctions, makes his living going around the country labeling borderline patients PVS, spent 45 minutes complimenting Terri Schiavo for how well she was responding and then sentenced her to death. Dr Hammesfahr spent ten hours with Terri and a year going over her complete medical records and says she may be better than minimally conscious right now, an opinion held by dozens of the top professionals in the field.
This comment was written by David Helson.Report this comment to the moderators
March 24th, 2005 at 7:30 am
Has anyone noticed how quiet Michael Schiavo has been? Few press releases, only the one interview I’m aware of, no ranting and raving website that I can find at least.
Whatever his motives, I’m favorably impressed by that. This is his wife, after all, and she is dying. He doesn’t seem inclined to parade his side of this story over and over in front of the media. If he is not the monster so many people say he is, it must be difficult not to lash out in his own defense, but he doesn’t.
Polls show that the overwhelming majority of Americans think this is a private matter which should not be subject to interference from the federal government. I’d have to say that I’d agree - I don’t want my wishes on something like this debated in Congress, certainly.
This comment was written by Susan.Report this comment to the moderators
March 24th, 2005 at 7:30 am
Cransford, once having been given the description of Stephen Hawking but not the name, called him PVS. I’m supposed to take the word of someone whose wet dream is pulling the plug on Stephen Hawking?
This comment was written by David Helson.Report this comment to the moderators
March 24th, 2005 at 7:46 am
Barb:
Thanks but I’d rather hear from knowledgable experts than the emotionally overwhelmed, or those with a “cause”? to support.
But don’t you too have a cause to support? I am agnostic as to the claims of both sides, and from my position I see that both sides are looking to the evidence to support their cause, based on their a priori view of the issue in general, and not approaching the evidence in a truly empiricist manner.
How anyone can say that they know the proper resolution of this case is beyond me. Have you all really investigated all of the evidence? Do you really know that those you don’t agree with are biased and incompetent, and based on what information? Or is it just based on your information that the right/left pro/enti euthanasia side MUST be wrong, because they always are? Because you wouldn’t/would want to live in such a situation?
I am an atheistic humanistic left-wing sort, but I am very concerned about the assumption that virtually nobody would want to live in such a circumstance. Are we sure that it is not that assumption, WHICH MAY NOT BE TRUE OF TERRI (the courts notwithstanding; courts can be wrong and indeed frequently are), , that is driving the interpretation of this case by the judiciary and the public? She must feel that way, because anyone would! Well, not anyone would. Check out the arguments by mostly left-wing disabled proponents, like those of the members of Not Dead Yet. It is those sorts of assumptions, and the potential for biased interpretations of particular cases and societal pressure on the disabled, that terrify the members of this organization. Based on the records (which may be forged, for all I know, of course) of the nurses, Terri shows some enjoyment of basic bodily comforts like baths, body lotion, and having her hair combed. I might want to live if I could enjoy those comforts, especially since I do not believe in an afterlife. Frankly, I believe that sleep is pleasant enough to be preferable to death (not that I am saying she is in a sleeplike state; frankly, I do not believe we currently know what the experience of being in her physical condition is like).
As for the examples above of people being denied food and water because of advanced directives, those stories may not be true. However, they are enough reason for me to have an advanced directive indicating I am never to be denied those things. Being denied such things when I am not able to completely defend myself (when I am in a locked in state, or minimally conscious, but declared PVS; or the doctors think I am near death and refuse my request despite the fact I am a human being and I state I want foor and I should determine whether I am fed or not) is frankly terrifying.
And I write this all as a pro-choicer who would support federal funding for medical care and more funds for the poor, not a right winger.
This comment was written by Lisa SG.Report this comment to the moderators
March 24th, 2005 at 8:23 am
I maintain that artificial life support involves mechanical subsititution of bodily functions. Artificial breathing machines breath for the patient. Dialisys machines process the blood for the patient.
I argue that a stomach tube is only a delivery method the same as a food tray and qualifies as maintenance. A tube is not digesting the food for the patient.
My father suffered severe brain damage and in a coma for 8 months. I fought my family and his neuro doctors at Washington DC from delivering the final dose of morphine. He recovered after a year of physical therapy. We now pick out books at the library, watch John Wayne movies, discuss international trade policy and deep sea mining law. But he can’t remember what he had for lunch (great for left overs!).
On the occasion (common for his condition) he is dehydrated, he loses congnitive abilities. When I admit him for rehydration, doctors that do not know him rate him as vegatative. After a few bags of saline, he bounces back. Then they change the admit records. Every time.
I agree that in the case of Schiavo the brain damage has been extensive but has all efforts for therapy been made? Look at her hands and feet. I see no signs of therapy.
My questions are two fold: brain damage can be extensive yet there are many cases where “quality of life” can be obtained. Does wearing a diaper or Depends qualify as a loss of quality of life as my sister would say?
What about the handicapped at state schools? Should we stop feeding these people?
For the lawyers out there: does feeding through a stomach tube qualify as maintenance or life support?
I find withdrawing the feeding tube so outrageous and the same as putting a pillow over her face and withdrawing her right to breath.
This comment was written by Kim Morgan.Report this comment to the moderators
March 24th, 2005 at 8:31 am
[...] revive their spines than poor Terri Schiavo’s brain.” Speaking of her brain, see this. Via Mefi. Posted: 9:30 am | Enter [...]
This comment was written by dangerousmeta! » NY Times:.Report this comment to the moderators
March 24th, 2005 at 8:44 am
No, David, for the zillionth time, we’re all taking the “word” (we lawyers call it the “ruling”) of the trial court. Both sides had ample opportunity to bring out all the evidence they could, and the trier of fact made a decision. Which decision, by the way, was that Terri wanted that tube removed. It was only tangentially a decision about her precise medical diagnosis.
Some say she didn’t think that. These people are in conflict with the trial court, who said she did. Some people think she shouldn’t have the right to demand that even if she wanted to. These people are in conflict with the Constitution, and with long-settled principles of common law.
It is regretable that so much of this public debate is founded on a profound misunderstanding of our legal system. All appellate courts, including the Supreme Court, are required by law to take this statement about Terri’s wishes as fact unless they can find that the judge made legal mistakes, which they have not found in spite of repeated review. David on the other hand wants a new trial on the whole issue because he’s unhappy about how the first (actually there were two) trials came out.
This could undoubtedly be said of every trial. Certainly the losing party usually feels that way. That does not mean that we try everything over and over again, for obvious reasons.
Is this a correct decision? How would I know? and I’d suggest that David doesn’t know either. Neither of us attended the trial (so far as I know), and almost everything both of us know about this matter is hearsay, some of it wild stories without any substantiation whatever, picked up somewhere on the internet.
Terri’s case has probably had more judicial attention than any guardianship case in history, and all the courts agree, in the end, about how it should come out. We are to follow her wishes.
To take a trivial example, I think OJ Simpson murdered his wife. It’s a totally incompetent opinion, since I wasn’t there, never reviewed the evidence, and have never met any of these people, but it is nevertheless an opinion I hold. However, under the rule of law (as opposed to Rule by Newspaper and Internet) I accept the decision of the trial court that he didn’t.
That’s how we do things here. If you prefer a society where we examine bird entrails, or take the word of Mr. Helson without question, you’ll have to move.
This comment was written by Susan.Report this comment to the moderators
March 24th, 2005 at 8:50 am
Again David Helson ignores facts. If Mr. Helsom were to bother to acquaint himself with the facts, of which he is woefully ignorant, he would realize that the nurses’ affidavits were worthless. The court basically saaid the two lied. Here’s what the order says :
A PDF image of this order may be seen here.
Rarely in an order does a court discuss credibility in this detail. The extent the court attacks the affidavits shows how the court regards them as utterly worthless.
The court was right in doing this. As Cerebrocrat noted, the CT shows that Ms Schiavo’s brain has suffered such insults as destroy almost all of the cerebral cortex, the part of the brain that holds her personality and reason. I am sorry Ms Schiavo is in a permanent vegetative state but lies and denial won’t change this.
This comment was written by woofaroni.Report this comment to the moderators
March 24th, 2005 at 8:53 am
You can honestly look at this list of guardianship laws broken by judge greer and say with a straight face that her interests were ever adequately represented in court?
Wow, and you are a lawyer…what a screwed up world we live in.
This comment was written by David Helson.Report this comment to the moderators
March 24th, 2005 at 9:01 am
I’m a nurse, have been for 30 years. All institutions have rules and regulations about how documentation is done in patients’ charts, and if I had ever found that someone had removed notes from a chart, (she saw the notes in the trash and didn’t take them out??), I’d have had the VP for Nursing and the head of the Medical Records dept on the unit in an instant. Tampering with medical records is grounds for losing one’s nursing license, and so is NOT reporting it when you find it has been done. Any nurse worth her salt protects her patients and doesn’t let another medical professional “intimidate” her, as Ms. Sauer-Iyer stated she was intimidated by Mr. Schiavo’s size (6′7″) and “loud voice.” Where is the proof that these nurses went to their nursing administration to voice their concerns about the situation? Why did Sauer-Iyer call the police instead of going FIRST to the administration and documenting the meeting? Did these women go to the state Board of Nursing when/if they weren’t happy with the responses of the nursing administration? Did they report same to the regulatory agency that oversees nursing homes and hospices in Florida?
The accusations these nurses made smell very very fishy to me.
This comment was written by Frances.Report this comment to the moderators
March 24th, 2005 at 9:07 am
Responding to Susan’s post #129—Mr. Schiavo was interviewed one morning last week on the Today Show, and was surprised at his calm but firm answers to the mewly Katie Couric. Whatever else he may be, he has the courage of his convictions. It is to his credit that he stays away from the press.
This comment was written by Frances.Report this comment to the moderators
March 24th, 2005 at 9:09 am
yikes. That should say, “I” was surprised at his ….answers.
This comment was written by Frances.Report this comment to the moderators
March 24th, 2005 at 9:22 am
Whether or not her husband is a good guy or not is not an issue. Whether or not starving is a good way to die or not is not an issue. The law is written a certian way, if the voters of Florida ( ie the legislature) want to change the law, then do it. If not, then the situation is be handled according to current law.
This comment was written by Brad.Report this comment to the moderators
March 24th, 2005 at 9:33 am
I seem to recall reading that Judge Greer was asked to leave his church. The last time I checked, weren’t judges supposed to use the law when they rule and not base their ruling on their religious beliefs? It appears that this was what he did. The fact that he was asked to leave his church over this further cements my beliefs that some Christian churches don’t have a clue. Didn’t god say something about being forgiving? Didn’t he say something along the lines of forgive them because they know not what they do?
Don’t the fundies realize that their actions push those of us who are “on the fence” away from religion? You couldn’t pay me to worship in any of these churches.
I was a nurse’s aide while in high school and college and saw things that I would never wish upon another human being. Shortly after I started working there, I made it very clear to my family that I wouldn’t want to live like that and to take me out to a field and shoot me if I ever got to that point. I now have a living will and anyone, I mean anyone, who even thinks of challenging it will pay dearly when I come back to haunt them.
Let this poor woman go…
This comment was written by Theresa.Report this comment to the moderators
March 24th, 2005 at 9:38 am
The boards of hospices have had a sea change of opinion and can no longer be trusted to hew to the ethical standards you are refering to. Please be concerned enuff to look into all the nurses’ charges, [and there are more here] and make some noise about it before hospices are nothing more than pretty death camps. Most of the nurses at these hospices are some of the finest people on the planet but if they keep having to choose between their jobs or their ethics that will change. I can’t say such nice things about the board members tho.
Euthanasia Advocates Taking Over America’s Hospice Industry
- What are leaders in the euthanasia lobby like Ira Byok doing leading the hospice movement? You don’t find that chilling?
This comment was written by David Helson.Report this comment to the moderators
March 24th, 2005 at 9:38 am
[...] ay one way or the other wether Terri Schiavo should be allowed to die. However I did read this very interesting blog posting by a guy who [...]
This comment was written by The Geek’s Blog » Terri Schiavo’s Brain.Report this comment to the moderators
March 24th, 2005 at 9:54 am
Y’know, eventually, Terri Schiavo will be dead. At some point, she’s just not going to be alive any longer.
Perished. Not breathing.
Pushing up the daisies. Insert the rest of Python’s “Pet Shop” dialogue here.
The issue isn’t whether Terri lives or dies, because death is a part of life. She’s gonna die. Oh yes. Maybe not in the next few weeks, but dead Terri is gonna happen.
The issue is who takes responsibility for death.
Oh, everyone wants to be responsible for life. Life’s where it’s at. Sweet happy num-num, you can thank me for Life any time! I’m all about that.
But Death, well, sir, that’s a scary bad boo-boo. Fingers must point away, over there. No refunds on the parrot.
It comes as no surprise that politicians would cashier all the public’s trust in law and faith just to score points that they have no responsibility for.
They’re all cowards, of course. Cowards are irresponsible by definition.
Only the brave know how to shoulder the responsibilty of death.
This comment was written by Yamara.Report this comment to the moderators
March 24th, 2005 at 10:13 am
David, here are my standards for this discussion.
1) I believe that it’s always best to make decisions based on hard evidence whenever possible.
2) When hard evidence is unavailable, decisions must be made based on softer evidence, like hearsay, but this evidence is always trumped by hard evidence.
3) Conflicting sorts of soft evidence must be evaluated for credibility and bias in order to determine which evidence is most likely true.
For example: In the absence of any hard evidence of Terri Schiavo’s wishes regarding her health, the court was forced to evaluate her husband’s claims and her parent’s claims, and found her husband’s claims to be more credible. However, if tomorrow we found a legitimate living will signed by Terri saying “KEEP ME ALIVE AT ALL COSTS,” that would neatly trump anything and everything her husband has said.
Keeping this in mind, I would like to request some sort of hard evidence, any sort of hard evidence that Terri Schiavo is able to speak or concious in any way.
This evidence could include but is not limited to an unedited videotape of Terri audibly speaking and responding to questions.
See, the reason I ask for this is because we have hard evidence that she’s utterly incapable of thought. It’s up at the top of this page, and it’s called a CAT scan. This CAT scan shows that her brain is, essentially, gone. This hard evidence trumps any amount of soft evidence you’d care to offer, and can only be refuted with some sort of contradictory hard evidence.
Think of it like this: A photograph of a double amputee clearly showing that his legs are gome neatly trumps any number of nurses stories about how he would hop out of bed in the middle of the night and dance irish jigs around the hospital. Offer me something solid, and then I’ll take you seriously.
—Myca
This comment was written by Myca.Report this comment to the moderators
March 24th, 2005 at 10:16 am
David. I do not find any “list” at the site you link, just a screed about how Michael Schiavo is allegedly a liar.
I keep saying this over and over, but I guess you’re incapable of understanding it. One more time through. The trial court found what it found. Several appellate courts reviewed the entire case, and found no judicial error. All these people know more than you do, more than I do, and more than the person who posted the blog you listed does, about the facts in this matter, and about the provisions of Florida law which bear on this case. I trust them. And anyhow, that’s how we do it here.
You seem addicted to the idea that you, in your infinite wisdom, all by yourself, with no checks or balances, based solely on random blogs on the internet, at least half of which are totally incorrect, know more and would have made a better decision than the people who were there, and who spent many hours reviewing the evidence and listening to testimony.
You’ll forgive me if I’m a bit skeptical.
This comment was written by Susan.Report this comment to the moderators
March 24th, 2005 at 10:18 am
Carla Sauer Iyer worked at the Convalescent Center in Largo, back in ‘95-’96, not in the Hospice where Mrs. Schiavo is now. I don’t know how “hospice” works in Florida, but here in Connecticut you cannot be accepted to a hospice level of care unless your doctor asserts that you have fewer than 6 months to live. Should it become apparent that you will survive 6 months, you will be transferred to another level of care. I believe this is true for everyone, and not related to insurance issues. Perhaps in Florida the terms “hospice” and “long term care” are interchangeable.
In any event, regardless of what standards the institution’s board may have, Ms. Sauer Iyer must be held to the oath she swore when she became an RN, and to all of the state of Florida Nursing Board standards.
This comment was written by Frances.Report this comment to the moderators
March 24th, 2005 at 10:21 am
Thank you, Myca.
This decision had to be made somehow. If they’d had a writing from Terri, that would have solved it. Lacking that, the court did the best it could after listening to conflicting testimony, weighing the credibility of the witnesses, all that. Since neither David nor I was there, we are not qualified to do this over, and neither is the appellate court, which is why they can’t. We have to rely on the finder of fact.
Solid evidence to the contrary would be most welcome to all concerned. I suggest that you’re not going to find it by cruising blogs on the internet, however.
This comment was written by Susan.Report this comment to the moderators
March 24th, 2005 at 10:24 am
There is a lot of misinformation in these comments, some of which is most likely disingenuous. I’m a doctor, I’ve seen dying patients, I’ve seen PVS, and I’ve been there as families made decisions to hold or continue various treatments. Here are some facts.
1. TS has PVS.
This comment was written by doc nos.2. TS’s wishes, as stated by her next of kin, would be for no further medical intervention in her situation (which makes her exact diagnosis, PVS or MCS, a bit less important).
3. Tube feeding is an artificial medical intervention, much like sticking a tube down someone’s throat to breath for them.
4. Forcing someone to undergo an invasive medical treatment against their will (except in rare instances) is considered assault and battery.
5. Without water, death results in about two weeks. It is peaceful.
6. Because TS has no content to consciousness, she has no capacity for suffering, no capacity for thirst or hunger, and no awareness of the events around her.
Report this comment to the moderators
March 24th, 2005 at 10:25 am
Keeping this in mind, I would like to request some sort of hard evidence, any sort of hard evidence that Terri Schiavo is able to speak or concious in any way.
I don’t know why notarized affidavits from four of her nurses doesn’t count as credible evidence. These nurses had to pay with their jobs for their willingness to tell these stories. They all testify to the fear the entire staff at the Woodside Hospice of losing their jobs if they revealed Terri’s responsiveness.
For years Michael Schiavo has had Terri’s parents practically strip searched to prevent them from bringing in a video camera for fear the videos will destroy his case and generate sympathy for Terri. Michael is even today threatening lawsuits against Terri’s website from linking to the videos that escaped his censorship.
That sort of dispicable conduct should not be rewarded by fair-minded people or succeed against Terri’s interests.
This comment was written by David Helson.Report this comment to the moderators
March 24th, 2005 at 10:30 am
I don’t know how “hospice”? works in Florida, but here in Connecticut you cannot be accepted to a hospice level of care unless your doctor asserts that you have fewer than 6 months to live. Should it become apparent that you will survive 6 months, you will be transferred to another level of care.
Exactly. Judge greer has violated that very law. She is at the hospice illegally as she has never been diagnosed with a terminal illness.
This comment was written by David Helson.Report this comment to the moderators
March 24th, 2005 at 10:30 am
He is legally blind in more ways than one.
This comment was written by David Helson.Report this comment to the moderators
March 24th, 2005 at 10:36 am
David,
The court answered your question about the credibility of these nurses (which is not “hard” evidence anyway) at some length. Do you read other people’s posts?? Or do you just talk on, without listening to what anyone has to say, even people who are close to the facts?
The courts are all in on this conspiracy too, according to you? Florida courts, federal courts, the entire Eleventh Circuit, the Supremes? Only you know the right answer? Please. Talk sense.
You think the trial court’s decision was the wrong one, on the basis of nothing much, except that you don’t like the answer. You are certainly entitled to that opinion, and you may be right, since no court is infallible. But no one is going to re-try it. And we don’t try cases in newspapers or on blogs. This one was done in a court, where it belongs.
That’s how we do it here. We’re not going to erect the Tyranny of David Helson any time soon.
This comment was written by Susan.Report this comment to the moderators
March 24th, 2005 at 10:45 am
It is obviously all a vast right wing conspiracy…..
It would be a lot easier for the parents to get a credible doctor to state that she is not in PVS than to petition the supreme court. Of course they have not been able to…..Kinda tells you something. Maybe she is indeed in PVS.
Even if it is morally wrong ( we all have our opinions) the law is clear, if she can’t tell us her wishes, then her legal proxy can. The legal proxy is the husband. Whether or not anybody likes it.
This comment was written by Brad.Report this comment to the moderators
March 24th, 2005 at 10:51 am
I don’t know why notarized affidavits from four of her nurses doesn’t count as credible evidence.
David, you’re not hearing me.
I’m not making any judgement as to the credibility of these nurses. What I’m saying is that since we have hard evidence opposing them . . . since we have PROOF, we don’t need to judge their credibility. The only judgement I’m making is that ‘what they say’ isn’t the same thing as “proof.” Hard evidence trumps soft evidence. This isn’t difficult to understand.
This isn’t a judgement I’m just making for them, either. It applies across the board. No matter how personally credible I may find Michael Schiavo, if tomorrow he began to claim that the moon was made of green cheese, I’d disregard that claim as well. Why? Because we have proof that it isn’t, goddammit.
This isn’t a “he said/she said” situation. In a he said/she said situation, we judge the relative credibility of the speakers.
This is a “he offered a series of medical exams and charts and scans resulting in pretty damn irrefutable evidence that Terri Schiavo’s brain is gone/she said ‘nuh-uh’” situation. In a situation like this, credibility doesn’t count. It’s not important.
I’m offering you the opportunity to present some sort of hard evidence of your own. Something to counterbalance the hard evidence we’ve seen from the other side. It’s not surprising to me that you balk at this eminently reasonable request, because I don’t believe that you have any hard evidence. What I believe that you have is quite a lot of wishful thinking.
If you want to prove that the moon is made of green cheese, show me a videotape of an astronaut eating that cheese. Until I SEE that moon cheese, though, I’m going to go on believing that it’s a hunk of rock.
And I’m going to go on believing that Terri Schiavo is already dead.
—Myca
This comment was written by Myca.Report this comment to the moderators
March 24th, 2005 at 11:01 am
The fact is only one court has ever heard [as in ruled on] the fac ts of the case. All other appeals courts have merely ruled on process.
Judge Greer is a fully conflicted member of Florida’s vulture community. All the people on Michael’s side of the court were maxed out contributors to Greer’s campaigns. Florida judges are elected and have a max contribution of $500 to their campaigns.
Judge greer had a founding member of the euthanasia lobby on one side in George Felos and he conspired to keep Terri unrepresented or represented by members of the euthanasia lobby like Cranford.
As you know one glaring hole in our ‘justice system’ is that some people are much better represented than others and this has a huge role in who gets justice.
In this case judge greer and his friends/maxed out campaign contributors on Michael’s side of the courtroom conspired to keep Terri represented by euthanasia lobbyists, often without any ad litem at all, with a conflicted judge acting as ad litem illegally. With no one on her side she was lost from the beginning and no amount of appeals could ever save her unless one agreed to hear the facts which none have.
Judge Greer was a fellow council member with Barbara Todd Sheen who was a county commisioner serving with Greer and a board member of the hospice that has been trying to kill Terri.
George Felos in fact resigned from the board overseeing the Woodside Hospice to ‘avoid the apearance of impropriety’. We shouldn’t be so easily fooled.
>”Felos … was a founding member of the National Legal Advisors Committee on Choice in Dying, and served as Board Chair of The Hospice of the Florida. Where did the phrase “choice in dying” come from? Well, there was an organization called the Euthanasia Society of America which changed its name to “Choice in Dying” which no longer exists - it merged into the “Partnership for Caring” which was founded by Ira Byock
I believe Ira Byok is a member of the board that Felos resigned from.
Greer allowed Michael to flout every conceivable principle and law regarding guardianship.
The truth is only one corrupt judge is the cause and perpetuator of this human rights disaster. He simply papers over his own corrupt rulings, one patently faulty ruling with the next.
This comment was written by David Helson.Report this comment to the moderators
March 24th, 2005 at 11:04 am
David,
This comment was written by Brad.Do you know what Terri wants?
Report this comment to the moderators
March 24th, 2005 at 11:10 am
Judge Greer is a fully conflicted member of Florida’s vulture community
Aside from the fact that this sentence is gibberish, to the extent that I can figure out what it says, there doesn’t seem to be anything here but pure invective. Pure emotion.
doc nos, your analysis is admirably brief and admirably correct. That’s where we are.
I’d advise us all to stop arguing with David. His sentence structure is deteriorating, and we’re all just saying the same thing over and over, and he’s not listening.
This comment was written by Susan.Report this comment to the moderators
March 24th, 2005 at 11:11 am
Brad. Yes. David knows what Terri wants, along with every other fact in the universe. Or lacking that, he knows what Terri should want, according to him, and for him that’s good enough.
This comment was written by Susan.Report this comment to the moderators
March 24th, 2005 at 11:15 am
Because we have proof that it isn’t, goddammit.
Even if your proof could trump the objective reality that she can talk, your proof has been interpretted by other neurological experts just the opposite of your conclusions.
What does this professional think of the interpretation such as those presented by the posters in this thread?
This comment was written by David Helson.Report this comment to the moderators
March 24th, 2005 at 11:16 am
Thank You Susan…my point exactly. 90% of the comments on the web about this case have one thing in common….the person is injecting their own beliefs into a foreign situation.
Remember folks….Law is black and white, however, life is very gray. It is impossible to construct laws which fit every case the way we wish.
This comment was written by Brad.Report this comment to the moderators
March 24th, 2005 at 11:19 am
Blockquote begins at…My Grandmother’s Brain … OK … But Would I Stop Feeding My Grandmother?
Please excuse the syntax error.
[For those who were wondering, this post of David's refers to missing blockquote tags in his previous post. I've added in the blockquote tags - Amp.]
This comment was written by David Helson.Report this comment to the moderators
March 24th, 2005 at 11:20 am
One word…..Huh?
This comment was written by Brad.Report this comment to the moderators
March 24th, 2005 at 11:23 am
BTW Terri has therapy devices in her head that were supposed to be removed because they are an infection risk. Michael was instructed to have that done. Just another instance of attempted murder.
This comment was written by David Helson.Report this comment to the moderators
March 24th, 2005 at 11:27 am
Even if your proof could trump the objective reality that she can talk,
Right, David, that’s my point. I believe that Terri cannot talk. I believe that your ‘objective reality’ is a lie, and I want some proof of it.
You are making a statement which I do not believe, and I am asking you to back that statement up in a concrete way.
I HAVE SEEN MANY WALKING, TALKING, FAIRLY COHERENT PEOPLE WITH WORSE CEREBRAL/CORTICAL ATROPHY.
Lovely. Please submit a video of these people along with an accompanying CAT scan so that we may compare and evaluate.
Kindly either do so or admit that you are utterly unable to do so.
Of course, you are unable to do so. There is no evidence.
Offer some hard evidence. The harping on bias and corruption doesn’t do much to convince me that a body without a cerebral cortex can think.
—Myca
This comment was written by Myca.Report this comment to the moderators
March 24th, 2005 at 11:28 am
David, it’s hard for me to take the claims of a medical site which posts theories that Bill Clinton secretly has AIDS all that seriously. Also, he so far hasn’t been able to back up the claims you quoted with documented evidence.
I’m not willing to have my site used for extreme rhetoric like accusing someone of attempted murder when no one has even found enough evidence to call a grand jury. If you’re not willing to dial back your rhetoric a bit, I think I’m going to ask you to stop posting on my site.
As has already been pointed out, removing intrathalamic stimulators - even from a brain in great shape - is a difficult operation that carries risks of its own. Maybe they should have been removed, maybe not; but there isn’t enough credible evidence to make that judgement, let alone enough to justify accusations of attempted murder.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
March 24th, 2005 at 11:29 am
I got stuck here:
Michael is even today threatening lawsuits against Terri’s website from linking to the videos that escaped his censorship.
Let’s assume that Michael is indeed suing “Terri’s website” for releasing videos of his wife, even if it isn’t true. Why would he bother? The courts have seen every piece of evidence against Michael’s position that Terri’s parents can muster, including, I’m sure, all those “censored” video and photos. But they keep ruling in his favor, so I sincerely doubt that anything could possibly “destroy his case and generate sympathy for Terri” at this point.
Could there be any other reason for such a lawsuit? Well, maybe because anybody in his situation would be upset if videos of his wife were being disseminated over the Internet. In fact, if the lawsuit were real, I’d be rather surprised if Terri’s parents weren’t included in it. How would you feel if images of your daughter, whom you love very, very much, were being trotted out on the Internet by a bunch of strangers who never knew her, don’t really care about her, are only interested in her situation for ideological reasons?
Terri’s parents are probably heartbroken; they may hate Michael, but I don’t think they’re doing what they’re doing because they want to get revenge . They genuinely care about Terri and her welfare. They have no agenda other than helping their daughter.
But the government has an agenda. The media has an agenda. Everyone who’s trying to demonize Michael or Terri’s parents have an agenda. What saddens me most about the whole affair is that Terri the person has been replaced by Terri the symbol, which is often what happens when everybody gets involved in what should be a personal matter.
I don’t know if I’d make the same decision Michael is making. But I realize it isn’t any of my business, which is pretty much the point of this whole debacle. This decision should be left up to the people who really knew her and really love her, and I’m sorry they disagree about what should be done and had to resort to litigation. But they do, and they did–over and over again–and at this point we really need to respect that process and its outcome. There’s no other way to do it.
This comment was written by Hestia.Report this comment to the moderators
March 24th, 2005 at 11:29 am
If she were able to sit up and have conversations….even a devout euthanasia advocate would agree she should live and get therapy.
This comment was written by Brad.Report this comment to the moderators
March 24th, 2005 at 11:34 am
Michael has succeeded in preventing almost all video evidence. Congratulations.
…and Hitler tried to prevent the outside world from seeing the truth.
…and Kim Il Jung tried to prevent the outside world from seeing the truth.
…and so forth…
If the absence of video evidence proves anything at all it is that Michael doesn’t like what videos would show, ergo the evidence favors Terri’s parents.
The love and joy in Terri’s eyes as she gazes into her mother’s eyes in the few videos that escaped Michael’s clutches are all the evidence I need of Terri’s consciousness. I have truckloads of other reasons to side with Terri’s parents however.
This comment was written by David Helson.Report this comment to the moderators
March 24th, 2005 at 11:36 am
If she were able to sit up and have conversations….even a devout euthanasia advocate would agree she should live and get therapy. - Brad
Except two witnesses say she has actually uttered a complete sentence. The euthansia lobby wants this as their point of critical mass where euthanasia gains acceptance and they want her dead period.
This comment was written by David Helson.Report this comment to the moderators
March 24th, 2005 at 11:37 am
I have to admit…Michael an impressively powerful individual. He has been able to construct a conspiracy that goes from the janitor all the way to the Supreme Court, all for the purpose of commtting a murder ! And right under the most intense media scrutiny since OJ !
This comment was written by Brad.Report this comment to the moderators
March 24th, 2005 at 11:37 am
David, can you please document this claim with evidence?
Also, can you please link to the evidence showing that Michael has prevented video of Terri speaking from being released?
Thank you.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
March 24th, 2005 at 11:38 am
The euthansia lobby wants this as their point of critical mass where euthanasia gains acceptance and they want her dead period.
So….They need to use her as an example? I assume there are no other “real” PVS cases in the US that they could use…they needed to make one up.
This comment was written by Brad.Report this comment to the moderators
March 24th, 2005 at 11:40 am
and at this point we really need to respect that process and its outcome. There’s no other way to do it.
Nah, it is still not too late for the ADT [adult Protection Team] of the Florida DCF to do the job they have not been doing up to now. The DCF is part of the process too.
This comment was written by David Helson.Report this comment to the moderators
March 24th, 2005 at 11:41 am
That’s fine, David. I would also be happy to look at any evidence that indicates that a body without a cerebral cortex is still able to think.
Surely Michael Schiavo hasn’t been able to eliminate all of that evidence as well?
What? He has? That man is fiendish, I tell you.
Fiendish!
—Myca
This comment was written by Myca.Report this comment to the moderators
March 24th, 2005 at 11:42 am
Ampersand
I will track them down.
This comment was written by David Helson.Report this comment to the moderators
March 24th, 2005 at 11:45 am
David Helson - I went to the web site, and see an anonymous poster using an idea saying ‘DOCTOR”.
Can you tell us why you would put a lot of faith in such a post on a website that is obviously biased against the many, many court decisions and witnesses?
I suggest you look at this report by the person that Jeb Bush picked to investigate and report on the case a few years ago.
http://www.miami.edu/ethics/schiavo/wolfson%27s%20report.pdf
This comment was written by Karen.Report this comment to the moderators
March 24th, 2005 at 11:50 am
Well, David, you’ve finished with a flourish, comparing Michael Schiavo to Hitler. Something of a flourish. It’s pretty boring, actually.
It’s been real, David. However, you’re not listening to anything anyone says, much less to the rule of law, so this conversation is getting a bit repetitious.
Also, I am a Roman Catholic, and today is Holy Thursday, so I’m logging off until after Easter, because these days are for prayer, not for arguing. Those of you here who believe in prayer might try some: for Terri, for her parents, for Michael, for the judges who have worked so hard and so thanklessly in this case, for the attorneys and nurses and doctors and everyone involved. And for all of us, that we all find the peace of Christ.
This comment was written by Susan.Report this comment to the moderators
March 24th, 2005 at 11:52 am
I believe this legal case is the origination of this meme that is very much around the web atm. [151 googles]
Also, can you please link to the evidence showing that Michael has prevented video of Terri speaking from being released? - Ampersand
I can show you plenty of quotes that he has attempted to prevent any video of any kind from being made of Terri. This is common knowlege I thot. You really need this documented? I will if you like.
This comment was written by David Helson.Report this comment to the moderators
March 24th, 2005 at 12:04 pm
David:
So you’re now claiming that Dr. Cranford saw a patient using a wheelchair similar to Dr. Hawking’s, and diagnosed that patient as having PVS? That’s a significant shift from your earlier claim.
Also, as far as I can tell, your new claim isn’t true. I’ve been searching newspaper archives (lexis/nexis) and the court rulings relating to Mr. Wendland’s case today, and I have not found anything at all to support the claim that Dr. Cranford diagnosed Wendland as having PVS, let alone supporting the claim that he did so after Wendland starting using the wheelchair.
I did find a decade-old medical journal article in which Dr. Cranford discusses Wendland’s case, and that article doesn’t support the claim you quoted.
So, again: Do you have any evidence that supports your claim (either your first claim, or this new one) about Dr. Cranford?
That’s not what I asked. I asked why Terri’s parents, who it is very well known have access to hours of video of Terri, haven’t released any video of Terri speaking. If Terri speaks so often, why didn’t they release any video documentation of her speaking?
The real answer is, there is no video of her speaking, because she does not speak.
Given the extremely deceptive and dishonest way the existing videos of Terri have been edited and released, I don’t blame Michael in the slightest for not wanting to allow more of the same.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
March 24th, 2005 at 12:11 pm
The most famous image of Terri, looking at the balloon….impresses a lot of people. But, Stop and think about it. It is not that we see a smile, or a reaction etc….what we see is what we call a twinkle in her eye. I submit, that a twinkle in the eye, is in the eye of the beholder, not of the eye in question.
This comment was written by Brad.Report this comment to the moderators
March 24th, 2005 at 12:24 pm
Karen
And I suggest you take a look at the current doctor Jeb Bush is quoting from the Mayo Clinic. Dr Cheshire
This comment was written by David Helson.Report this comment to the moderators
March 24th, 2005 at 12:29 pm
Ampersand
I don’t believe she speaks often in complete sentences. That is certainly not what I said. I believe she’s managed the feat of three and four word sentences just a few times ever, but she has been denied therapy. Any severe stroke patient could be executed if speaking in complete sentences was the new test for deserving to live. That she has said innumerable appropriate single words to many many witnesses is also beyond dispute among honest people who are paying attention.
This comment was written by David Helson.Report this comment to the moderators
March 24th, 2005 at 12:34 pm
To Doc,
As a doctor you would also agree that dehydration also leads to extreme imbalances in mineral and salt levels in the blood especially potassium, magnesium. This causes confusion and anxiety while the body begins to steal minerals from tissues and the muscles begin to cramp.
Ultimately, the imbalance and lack of potassium predecates a very painful and final heart attack. Also, there are severe migraines and painful kidney failure. Hardly a peaceful and painless death. Perhaps with those who have consciencoisly made this choice they have some medications to help them smoothly through this.
While some would hope they fall into a coma before the organs fail, it may just be an alert human being too tired and weak to struggle in the final throes of death.
Please tell me I am wrong and that chemical imbalance induced heart attacks are not painful.
This comment was written by Kim Morgan.Report this comment to the moderators
March 24th, 2005 at 12:39 pm
She apparently says a lot of things….strange that “LIVE” isn’t one of them.
This comment was written by Brad.Report this comment to the moderators
March 24th, 2005 at 12:41 pm
Brad, if you offered her a chip of ice right now i am sure she would not turn her head away.
This comment was written by Kim Morgan.Report this comment to the moderators
March 24th, 2005 at 12:43 pm
Not turning her head away is not meaningful. Turning her head to take it would be.
If i offered ice chips to a rock, it would not turn away either.
( not meant sarcastic )
This comment was written by Brad.Report this comment to the moderators
March 24th, 2005 at 12:51 pm
She apparently says a lot of things….strange that “LIVE”? isn’t one of them. - Brad
Now I don’t know to a point of metaphysical certainty that she wasn’t trying to say “I waaa to die” but I would bet my car it wasn’t and I can tell you beyond a shadow of a doubt who doesn’t want to find out what she was trying to say.
This comment was written by David Helson.Report this comment to the moderators
March 24th, 2005 at 12:55 pm
I already knew of the “I waaaant” story. It is , however, utterly irrelevant.
This comment was written by Brad.My point is, you would think they could get her to say live, rather than a more complete sentence of i want to live.
Report this comment to the moderators
March 24th, 2005 at 12:57 pm
David, if there was any real evidence of her speaking, then you’d have a point.
There is not. Neruologists who have examined her in person have not found her to speak. No one has been able to video tape her speaking even one word.
As Judge Greer pointed out, an incredible conspiracy of silence - including Terri’s parents - must be going on if the Nurses’ testimony you’ve cited is truthful. Why would Terri’s parents choose not to subpheona a nurse who had been calling them and reporting Terri speaking on a regular basis?
I think what you have is wishful thinking, not evidence.
Finally, aside from doctors who apparently write for Supermarket Tabloids (”Bill Clinton’s secret AIDS crisis!”), all the credible medical evidence seems to indicate that she lacks a cortex, and would thus be incapable of speech.
* * *
Again, where is the evidence of the accusations you’ve made, that Cranford diagnosed Wendland (or Stephen Hawking) as having PVS? Please either provide evidence, or admit that you can’t back up your claim.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
March 24th, 2005 at 1:00 pm
Do we KNOW that Bill Clinton DOESN’T have a secret AIDS crisis? Hmm??
This comment was written by Brad.Report this comment to the moderators
March 24th, 2005 at 1:05 pm
So Mr. Terry, the well-known political activist and extremist, claims that a lawyer told him that she had heard Terri speak. That’s not exactly compelling evidence; he would say anything. The Boston Globe reported that R.T. said that Terri Schiavo was “chipper.”
This comment was written by Ampersand.The Associated Press reported the lawyer’s anecdote (in a collection of notable quotes), but at that time the anecdote didn’t include Terri responding. That bit appears to have been added later.
Report this comment to the moderators
March 24th, 2005 at 1:12 pm
Brad,
My point exactly. Thank you. I am sure she would turn to the ice regardless of her lack of physical therapy. The level of neglect reflected by her drawn hands and feet is apparent.
It is not surprising she has not curled into the fetal position yet although her neck has declined forward from sitting in a wheel chair.
This comment was written by Kim Morgan.Report this comment to the moderators
March 24th, 2005 at 1:18 pm
Sorry Kim, but I doubt any of us can be sure of that. I supose that is the issue.
This comment was written by Brad.Report this comment to the moderators
March 24th, 2005 at 1:49 pm
Working with the elderly for 20 years, I witnessed over a hundred people who died after having been without water or nourishment. Some of them had had their feeding tubes withdrawn, others had cancers of various kinds, and others had terminal illnesses like Parkinson’s disease. Some had had devastating strokes, others had multiple strokes, some had ALS.
Their bodies were already pretty ravaged, so they did not last long once food and water were stopped. I can tell you that none were in pain. Unlike the dehydration that occurs in otherwise healthy people, that is caused by some external event (overexertion on a sweltering day), the sudden drop in potassium and electrolytes doesn’t bring on a (painful) heart attack.
Instead, the organ systems shut down in a slow progression–kidneys first, heart last.
Think of a dessicated peach, rolling gently downhill to a stop.
Now, in cases where a family wanted to keep the IV or the feeding tube going, patients really suffered if they were near the end—fluid overload makes breathing labored and painful, and aspiration pneumonia causes fever, pain, and the feeling of being strangled. We always made sure these patients were getting morphine, because of the obvious distress they had.
This comment was written by Frances.Report this comment to the moderators
March 24th, 2005 at 1:51 pm
I meant to say, changes in electrolytes.
This comment was written by Frances.Report this comment to the moderators
March 24th, 2005 at 2:22 pm
Ampersand
Well played. That is about the only tactic my debate oponents have ever had success with against me. Send him on a wild goose chase and maybe that will take some of the wind out of his sails. Maybe Terri will die in the meantime.
Well I have a crucial religious meeting to attend and I am knee deep in findlaw documents but I will find it if it is on the web.
This comment was written by David Helson.Report this comment to the moderators
March 24th, 2005 at 2:53 pm
Yeah, David, that Ampersand sure is sneaky, using that underhanded tactic of “asking you to back up the obviously invented claims you’ve been making.”
What a groundbreakingly brilliant debating strategy! Require your opponent to use only facts and evidence? It’s so crazy it just might work.
—Myca
This comment was written by Myca.Report this comment to the moderators
March 24th, 2005 at 3:19 pm
The issue wasn’t central to my case. dear. I could easily prove Cranford is a menace to society with other means.
This comment was written by David Helson.Report this comment to the moderators
March 24th, 2005 at 3:24 pm
The absolutely worst aspect of this affair is that so many democrats, by some strange alchemy have suddenly decided they are the party of euthansia and dogged PC support of euthanasia even at the expense of abused women and the disabled is the required line.
I fear this is the waterloo of civil society and now we descend the road to hell on earth. I wish the lot of Michael’s supporters would hop on their time machine, set the dial for 1941 and take euthanasia back where it should have been left.
This comment was written by David Helson.Report this comment to the moderators
March 24th, 2005 at 3:40 pm
Regarding Cranford and Felos and Greer, a darkly amuzing think just occured to me on my way out the door. Ward Churchill was really right that there are little Eichmans around. It’s real easy to tell who they are, too. They are arguing for the very same thing.
This comment was written by David Helson.Report this comment to the moderators
March 24th, 2005 at 4:02 pm
David, you’ve had a more than fair chance to make your case here. Instead, you’ve refused to provide evidence to back up your claims, and now you’ve accused the folks here who disagree with you of being “little Eichmans.” Clearly you’re not willing to engage in a civil debate.
I’m going to give you one more chance. Post without calling other posters “dear” or “little Eichmans,” and either back up your claim about Cranford or admit that you can’t. If you won’t do that, then you’re not welcome to post on my blog any more.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
March 24th, 2005 at 5:42 pm
Here is probably the first instance of this report. Is Bill Buckley’s magazine so careless with the facts as to be tabloid in your opinion Ampersand?
[Enourmous quote, without any further commentary by David, snipped by Amp, except for a single relevant paragraph, below. Please don't quote huge tracts of material easily available on the web - just quote the relevant bit and provide a link. --Amp]
This comment was written by David Helson.Report this comment to the moderators
March 24th, 2005 at 6:00 pm
Mr. Ampersand, debating with David Helson is futile. He is not concerned with facts only his agenda, which is either: supporting some misbegotten Christian concept, supporting the Bushes, or something in between. (Then again, he could just be deluded.) When you only support ideals instead of facts you will have a problem…usually. I have read all his posts and they can easily be refuted, as many of the posters have done so eloquently. Yet, Mr. Helson carrys on totally blind to his arguments that have been DESTROYED. It would not matter if 100% of the medical establishment says Terri’s body will remain as it is. The only thing that matters to people like David is winning the debate or perhaps, establishing their philosophy as king. David and his ilk will and have fabricated “facts” to support their claims. We have seen it right here on your blog. There is no point to debate with people like David Helson.
This comment was written by atheistfundamentalist.Report this comment to the moderators
March 24th, 2005 at 7:10 pm
Thanks frances.
I wanted to know how it happens and wasn’t getting any replies. I hope she goes easily like you say although I fear that, since she is not elderly or terminally diseased, it might be tough. maybe since she has been bedridden for so long she is comprimised like you say.
Can one of the lawyers out there explain why providing baby food and water is the same as artificial life support? I still beleive the feeding tube is only a delivery system, not a digestive system whereas a dialysis machine or lung machine actually perform functions. This profoundly disturbs me.
If providing food is not allowed why not just put a pillow over her face and disallow air?
Not picking a fight, just looking for logical anwers. thanks
This comment was written by Kim Morgan.Report this comment to the moderators
March 24th, 2005 at 7:31 pm
Kim,
Providing food to her through the tube is life support because she cannot feed herself, nor can she be fed by others, aside from through a tube. Hence, it is life support. You are confusing this with a life support system which facilitates breathing and heart function when the brain is dead, or a similar state is induced pharmacologically. She has an intact brain stem so she still has organ function (heart and breathing etc.), and is not neccessarily “brain dead” as she would be if all of her brain was non functional.
She apparently lacks most of her cortical areas, and hence, likely feels no pain. She might show what are called nocifensive responses, but these are mostly reflexive and can include vocalization. Moreover, her spinal reflexes are intact and she would therfore withdraw from a painful stimuli. Having said that, I see no reason why she couldn’t be administered morphine for the comfort of the family, although I would be absolutely stunned if it had any effect on her whatsoever as it is HIGHLY unlikely that she has any conscious perception of pain. We must remember that pain is a perception, or conscious state, and requires some communication of that state. This is a difficult thing to ascertain in someone who cannot cumminicate verbally and even more difficult in someone who lacks higher brain function. Any response, such as a withdrawal to a stimulus that would be painful in others (because they say so), would have to be termed nocifensive response without some indication that it is actually painful. Nocifensive responses DO NOT require cortical function or the perception of pain. They can be conveyed in the form of spinal reflexes or even rudimentary brain stem function, which feeds back to the spinal cord through neuronal circuits that never make it the higher brain centers. Having said all that, I would not be able to reach any conclusions in a patient like Terri without seeing her personally for an extended period of time with some very complex equipment. Any doc who can spend 90 minutes with a complex patient such as her, or see some video footage (even worse) and reach a conclusion is acting in an irresponsible manner and likely has some prejudged agenda to push.
This comment was written by Dr. Ted.Report this comment to the moderators
March 24th, 2005 at 7:36 pm
Also this detailed account. Not as unimpeachable as NR perhaps but it adds weight at least.
This comment was written by David Helson.Report this comment to the moderators
March 24th, 2005 at 7:55 pm
David:
That’s the exact same National Review quote you provided the first time. I don’t think it proves a thing; the author (whom I’ve emailed, but not yet gotten a response from) doesn’t say what his source is. You don’t have evidence; you just have an article from a right-wing biased magazine written by an associate of Terri’s parents. Furthermore, I’ve read the California Supreme Court opinion he refers to, and nothing in it supports his account.
Your other link was even worse; it didn’t even claim that Dr. Crawford had ever diagnosed Wendland with PVS.
As far as I can tell, you simply can’t back up your claim at all.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
March 24th, 2005 at 8:05 pm
David,
You are comparing non-comparable cases. Not only that, fixating on one doctor who may have questionable judgement does not indicate that all the other opinions offered are off base.
Mr. Wedland, if he indeed is able to move about in a mechanized chair and answer yes, no with blinking or some other means, is suffering from a condition quite different from Terri’s. She cannot move herself voluntarily (moving in response to stimuli does not count, see my above post) and she has never shown any ability to convey answers to questions even in the yes or no state. Maybe, although improbable, she cannot do so because she is unable to make any voluntary movement, but doctors must make judgements based on evidence, not on what we think might be the case or what the family “feels” is happening with her. Remember as well that we have no method to regenerate lost or degenerated brain tissue and there is no method for doing so that is anywhere close to making it into humans. Even stem cell research is far from giving a regenerated brain. Even if it could lead to regeneration there is no guarantee that you woould end with anything meaningful. Neurons and brain structures are important, but it is a lifetime of experience that forms the connections that manifest in a “person” or “personality”. These connections cannot be rewired through any means that any neurologist or neuroscientist is aware of. In fact, we don’t even understand how they are formed in the first place.
This comment was written by Dr. Ted.Report this comment to the moderators
March 24th, 2005 at 8:16 pm
I’m finding two cases in the California Supreme Court.
Conserv. of Wendland co 29439
and
Wendland v Wendland SO 87265
I’ve read thru all 50 PDF pages of the first. Can’t find the second case in full yet. Admittedly I couldn’t find Cranford in the first.
This comment was written by David Helson.Report this comment to the moderators
March 24th, 2005 at 9:32 pm
Thank you, Dr Ted! I have searched everywhere for that!
So, still some question as to the level and degree of consciousness.
My father, known as Patient X, suffered a level 5 aneurism and survived as the first recipient of a new experimental drug that prevented swelling of the brain.
Yes, if he had not responded or was severly debilitated I would have opted for other choices. My choice. Not his. A lot of people pressured to give a little extra “push” to end it while he tried to rise from the coma and while I tried to collect more information.
Yeah, his brain scan looks like jello and they left the drainage stints in just like the picture at the top. Interesting: he also has a hole in the front of the skull where they went in just like the picture above.
My story is not comparable to this case but i am compassionate to both sides of this situation. I am trying to understand the issues further for when, not if, I have to deal with this again. Thanks.
This comment was written by Kim Morgan.Report this comment to the moderators
March 24th, 2005 at 9:50 pm
What a tragic case. A tragic clash between Terri’s husband and parents, all of whom believe they are acting in her best interest.
I read a number of reports from both sides. Jay Wolfson’s guardian ad litem report is the complete overview and he does an excellent job at laying out the facts of this complex case. He also has spent many hours with all parties involved in the case, including Terri. He is balanced, factual and covers all sides.
The unfortunate thing is the amount of lies and distortions surrounding this case.
Take a look at the video posted by Terri’s parents. What you are seeing are carefully edited snippets. In the case of the one showing her “responding to music” note that initially we hear music- and there is no video picture. When the picture comes on, Terri is staring blankly. Then she appears to smile. But we have no idea how long the music was on for, or whether this was a random movement.
In another video, Terri is grimacing and trying to avoid a mouth swab. This does not suggest cognition, but it may suggest discomfort. Having cared for, as a nurse, some severely neurologically impaired patients (in varying degrees of coma), I was always concerned about whether our interventions caused discomfort or pain.
As for Carla Iyer, who claims she heard Terri speak, her affidavit contains claims that are fantastical. She states that she went to the police to report Michael Schiavo attempting to murder his wife with an overdose of insulin (and claims to have discovered the insulin vial in the garbage). She also implicates another employee as possibly murdering patients, insinuating that alot of patients died on that nurse’s shift. So- where is a copy of her police report? What did the police do when she made this report? (She was alleging attempted murder!) And why didn’t Michael’s parents use her affidavit?
The judges in this case have bent over backwards to accommodate Terri’s parents as well they should. Anyone who is a parent can sympathize with their heartrending situation- and can understand their desperate desire to cling to any hope no matter how outlandish or based on quackery. On the other hand, it has been documented that Terri said she wouldn’t want to live like that, so Michael Schiavo has to fight for her wishes. You wonder what this once beautiful girl, who was so proud when she got down to 11o pounds (from over 200), and whose concern for her appearance to the point of dieting/bulimia led to this tragic event, would have thought of herself in this condition. Whether she lives a while longer or dies shortly, Terri will never regain any of her mental faculties.
Ironically, while so much time and effort is being spent to save her “life”, tort reform is being enacted that may well preclude the kind of malpractice award received on her behalf- which has paid for her care. Medicaid is being cut as well, and it is Medicaid that Terri would be dependant on once her trust fund is exhausted, if she were to live longer.
This comment was written by NY-RN.Report this comment to the moderators
March 24th, 2005 at 10:07 pm
David Helsen: I do not like being called a demon. I am certain you would not like being called the fool that you are. I am curious as to why Ampersand has allowed you to make a fool of yourself in this blog.
I just say simply; if Christianity is true why are you demanding that this poor woman continue to exist in this state? The only reason that you have been debating this issue is to support Christianity. Why do you argue against Christianity? Allow Terri to go to heaven. Isn’t that the ultimate goal of your philosophy? We suffer here for rewards in an afterlife? Terri has been in this condition for 15 years! Has she not suffered enough? Must you deny others their Glory to win a debate?
This comment was written by Robert Angel.Report this comment to the moderators
March 24th, 2005 at 10:24 pm
First of all, just as I told David that I don’t want him calling you a demon on my blog, I’d prefer you not call David a fool.
Second of all, you should see the comments I don’t let through! There was one earlier today from “eatshitanddie@yahoo.com” condemning us all to burn in Hell, for instance, which I deleted without letting it be posted.
But to more seriously answer your question: I find it helps my own thought processes to read, and sometimes respond to, skeptical opposition. I think it also brings out some of the best in some of the posters here who agree with me. I’ve learned a lot from reading replies “Alas” posters have written in response to David and other skeptics, and I wouldn’t like to have to do without that.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
March 24th, 2005 at 10:34 pm
David, if you want people to take you seriously, you’ll have to at least appear to be reasonable. One hallmark of that is the ability and willingness to change your mind. Having read through your many, many comments, you seem to have your mind utterly made up, and seem unable to understand that reasonable people could come to a different conclusion than yours.
That’s unfortunate, as so many other comments here are thoughtful, perceptive, and reasonable. I know you’re hoping to persuade others to agree with you, but at least for me, you’ve had the opposite effect. Perhaps you could let other people who support the Schindlers’ viewpoint speak for a while?
This comment was written by William.Report this comment to the moderators
March 24th, 2005 at 10:37 pm
and thanks to ampersand for hosting the blog. Alas, finally, one where I was able to learn and discourse. A blog with intelligence (blogencia?)
This comment was written by Kim Morgan.Report this comment to the moderators
March 24th, 2005 at 10:42 pm
Robert Angel
Why do you argue against Christianity? Allow Terri to go to heaven. Isn’t that the ultimate goal of your philosophy? We suffer here for rewards in an afterlife?
Not exactly.
It seems to be God’s goal (or one of his goals) to win souls to heaven. God is not bound by time; He therefore is not overly invested in any particular time of death for an individual. (He has Will, and He has preferences; we don’t know always know them.)
However, that does not mean that Christians throw themselves in front of moving buses, or intentionally leave electrical appliances running while servicing them, or yield readily to the notion that someone ought to die at our hands.
So no one on the “let Terri live” side is arguing against “Christianity”, at least not as I or anyone I know understands the term.
Terri has been in this condition for 15 years! Has she not suffered enough?
If she is a condition where she can suffer, then the premises of many, many people in the “let Terri die” camp are false.
If she is in a condition where she can suffer, then she has sufficient standing as a living entity that honor (in one conception) or obedience to the moral law (in another) demands she consent to her death at our hands, since she has done no wrong.
That is, you must realize, the serious sticking point for many, many people in the “Christian right” (and many outside it who nonetheless share its premises on this issue). That we’ll be killing her. Someone pulled out the tube; that person did not intend murder (I hope and assume) but he or she did kill her. I don’t like assisted suicide but I wouldn’t go on a vigil to try and stop one. If it were materially possible, I would do so in this case.
There is a fundamental commonality to many of the evils that have swept this globe. That commonality is that they originate in a feeling, or an articulatedly rational belief, that certain human beings aren’t really people. Whether because of their skin color, or their sexual nature, or their disability, or their mental status - some other group of people didn’t consider them human, or fully human. Slavery; sterilization of the retarded; euthanasia in the Netherlands; medical horrors of the 20th century. The motives for that feeling or belief are not always horrific or even bad; indeed, I believe that my friend Barry has that belief to a degree in this case, but I am convinced a priori that his motives are among the highest and best. (He’s just terribly wrong, which is also what I suspect he’d say about me.)
That common factor seems operative here, and that is what has got the wind up among a small but not insignificant portion of the populace.
This comment was written by Robert Not-Angel.Report this comment to the moderators
March 25th, 2005 at 12:49 am
I did some extensive reading after being told that my opinions that perhaps the judicial system was created for a reason and in difficult cases such as this the people who heard all the evidence might be in the best position to make a decision. One of the things I read was found at a website mentioned earlier and which I will bring to the attention of all those “outraged” by the courts:
http://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/infopage.html
I particularly reccomend the 38 page report from the Guardian Ad Litem appointed by Jeb Bush, after ordered the reinsertion of the feeding tube. According to Dr. Wolfson, who met with all parties–mulitple times, viewed the videos, talked with numerous experts and read through tens of thousands of legal and medical documents there is no evidence of Michael Schiavo assaulting his wife. According to him, both Mr. Schiavo and Terri’s parents are good, decent people stuck in the middle of a horrendous situation, made even worse by the media and public attention. The man appointed to look after Mrs. Schiavo’s best interests was convinced that a) she is in a PVS b) substantial effort has been made to offer Terri agressive therapy, which has not worked and c) though he does not say it in the recommendation to Governor Bush, has been interviewed and quoted as saying that he believes Terri would not want to be kept alive. (CNN, Friday, March 25, 2005 sometime between 1am and 3am, EST)
Reading his report has fully convinced me that everything that could be done for Mrs. Schiavo has been done and that the court has fulfilled its duty to look after the best interests of Mrs. Schiavo quite well.
……..And for Mr. Helson….in that report, Dr. Wolfson detailed that a second court, during the appeals reviewed ALL the evidence and found that there was nothing that would change the courts mind. I.E. the first judge had made a good decision. The other judges supported it. There is more than one judge who has reviewed the evidence and deemed it valid.)
…..Another side note, from way back….. Some of the early Christians could be seen as having a slight death wish. Martyrdom was a big deal. For an example, see the records regarding Perpetua and Felecity.
Note also…..as Christians we value life. But we are taught not to fear death. Death is not the end. It is true that death is not what God desired. Note 1 Corinthians 15:26 “The last enemy that will be destroyed is death”. And in each story in Luke where Jesus encounters death: the centurion’s daughter, the woman mourning her son, there’s another one or two in there I can’t bring to the top of my head at the moment, Jesus stands against death. Jesus raises each of these people from the dead. Poof. Miracle. They’re all better. Christians are for life.
And yet, it is not you or I who will conquer death, because we will all die. We cannot conquer death. Life will end, regardless of whether it’s tomorrow or 90 years from now. Christ conquers death. Only Christ. Therefore we do not need to fear death. And we can see this theology in 1 Corinthians 15 and 2 Corinthians 5:1-8, and at least 1 other place in the Pauline letters where Paul almost laments the fact that he’s still alive and therefore seperated from total union with God and Christ.
In America’s obsession with youth and with preserving life at all costs, I see a denial of Christ’s dominion over death. This is not to say advanced medical techonology is not amazing, and a gift of God. But it is easy to become arrogant and fearful of death. Suddenly avoiding death is all important. It’s up to US to stop death. This can be seen in the Terry Schiavo case, where despite court evidence that she would have chosen to deny medical care, many are determined to keep her alive no matter what.
It can also be seen in hospitals across America. Not all of these circumstances are evident of Terri Schiavo’s case, but are representative of our culture’s fear of death and inability to grieve: Working in a hospital one summer as a hospital chaplain resident, in several ICUs I encountered patients whose bodies were decomposing as respirators and blood pressure medicine and dialysis and feeding tubes kept them alive. For many people, turning these machines off, which kept the body “alive” almost against its will was “playing God” and I could not help but wonder whether using these machines to keep a person clearly trying to die was playing God, not taking people off of them.
Obviously cases in which patients are in persistent vegetative states are different and more complex. As Christians, though, we should value the dignity of life. We should value the individual person. As such, each person has the right to deny care. Terri Schiavo will live regardless of whether it is in this life, or the next. I almost hesitate to say it, because of the criticism I may recieve, but perhaps we should allow Mrs. Schiavo to return to her maker in keeping with her wishes, as responsible parties in this nation have judged that she expressed.
Ultimately we cannot know with certainty what is God’s will, we can only move forward, having done our best to be faithful to Jesus and to the people we love, depending not on our human decision, or the courts, or the president or the country but on God’s grace and love as shown through the death and Ressurection of Jesus Christ.
Have a Blessed Good Friday everyone. And a Beautiful Easter. May there be life, joy and ressurection at the end of whatever darkness currently occupies your life. And may their be peace and dignity and life for Terri Schiavo, whether she lives in this life, or in the life to come.
Thanks for letting me ramble.
This comment was written by K.W..Report this comment to the moderators
March 25th, 2005 at 3:11 am
KW
It is not death I fear, but ‘personhood theory’, the ethical theory that people have to prove they are human enuff to deserve to live. We thot we had that beaten back when Jefferson announced all men had inalienable rights. We thot we had that beaten back when the concentration camps were emptied.
I can’t believe some in america are suggesting we start a list of persons whose lives are not worth living. The truth is that for the past ten years if we have even made passing remarks about heroic measures, the courts have started to starve and dehydrate you even if you are able to beg for food and water.
I am not about to make the Niemoeller mistake: First they came for the minimally conscious, but I was not minimally conscious. Then they came for the alzheimer’s victims, but I was not an alzheimer’s victim. Then they came for those in cronic pain, but I was not in chronic pain. Then they came for the retarded but I was not retarded…
And when they came for me, there was no one left to speak out for me.
We are almost all going to become disabled to some extent some day. Unless you want to be living in a society where the courts and your relatives insist you have a duty to die, you had better dig your heals in now, because it is already ten years past time you did.
This comment was written by David Helson.Report this comment to the moderators
March 25th, 2005 at 5:24 am
To NY-RN post 212: Those video snippets we keep seeing were filmed in August 2001 (as far as I can tell, MSNBC is the only station that leaves the date and time stamp on when they show it)- surely by now there is more deterioration. Isn’t it safe to assume she’s had a few infections since then: UTIs at the very least, and possibly aspiration pnuemonia (which can happen even with PEG tubes)? And re: the nurses’ accusations that their documentation was found in the trash, and entries were deleted, and of course the insulin at the bedside–where is the evidence that the nurses reported this to their DON? or to the State Nursing Board? And why in heaven’s name would Mr. Schiavo leave such evidence out in a public trash can?
This comment was written by Frances.Report this comment to the moderators
March 25th, 2005 at 5:32 am
Good morning all….
This comment was written by Brad.I have a question. Much has been made about the arguement that maybe Terri is not in PVS, but perhaps MCS ( minimal cognitive state). Does the hold legal water? I mean, in lay terms, she supposedly told her husband that she would not want to live as a vegetable. I tend to doubt she meant she didn’t want to live in PVS, but MCS is ok. In lay terms, she is in a vegetative state,if the doctors call it PVS or MCS.
So, legally, she has the right to choose to die ( via proxy) if she is in PVS…Does she still have that right if in MCS??
Report this comment to the moderators
March 25th, 2005 at 5:51 am
Doctor Ted
She cannot move herself voluntarily (moving in response to stimuli does not count, see my above post) and she has never shown any ability to convey answers to questions even in the yes or no state.
Four of her caregivers sacrificed their jobs to deliver us the news that that is incorrect. I choose to honor their sacrifice. Others here do not.
This comment was written by David Helson.Report this comment to the moderators
March 25th, 2005 at 7:13 am
Brad,
You raise a really excellent point. These are all clinical definitions which are based on evidence you can gather through neurological tests and observing the patient, but there is no “yes or no” test to tell you what is going on with the patient. If you have a patient with cancer you can run tests to obtain biological values (levels of certain proteins in the blood, etc.) that tell you with a degree of certainty that the patient has cancer. We can do this with virtually every condition. Unfortunately, in cases like these, we have virtually no molecular evidence to tell us what the condition is. Moreover, we are forced to conduct tests in which we must make a judgement, which introduces bias, and hence the interpretation of those results is open to further interpretation by others based on the biases of the interpreter, in htis case, the neurologist. There is some evidence that people in MCS have some rudimentary “cognitive function”. What does this mean though? It means that certain parts of their cortex show responses in a functional MRI (fMRI) test to certain stimuli, such as meaningful speech. Does this really mean they have some cognitive function? That is a hard question to answer. My opinion would be that you are correct, she is in a vegetative state in either MCS or PVS, but I have no evidence to back that up, and I doubt that anyone could back that up rigorously with our current understanding of how the brain manifests a conscious state.
I seriously doubt if many people distinguish between an MCS and PVS in a living will or advance directive. Both of them are horrible, there is reeally no condition worse than seeing a person who is really no longer themselves because of a severe brain injury. From a medical perspective, our “self” is a manifestation of our brain, and when our brain is largely gone, or non-functional, or both, there is little if any of that “self” left. It is really a nightmare scenario, be it PVS or MCS.
This comment was written by Dr Ted.Report this comment to the moderators
March 25th, 2005 at 7:30 am
Thanks Ted,
This comment was written by Brad.The legal question remains though. There must be a line drawn somewhere. If we drew a “timeline”, starting at full cognitive ability, and ended at total and complete vegetative state, at what point along that line does the person get the legal ability to decide they no longer want to live?
Report this comment to the moderators
March 25th, 2005 at 8:00 am
Robert, do you agree that an arm - just an arm, nothing else - somehow kept alive by life support machines can be allowed to die (by turning the machines off) without committing the error you describe?
The arm is human (it has human DNA). But it’s not a person. Are you willing to accept that distinction? If so, then the only difference between your view on the matter, and mine, is where we each draw the line. What makes it okay to not go to extraordinary measures to keep an arm alive, in your view?
* * *
I actually think that the distinction is one of whether you think life is more essential than agency (and thus being willing to “err” on the side of saving a life, even if there’s a strong possibliity that the “person” you’re saving would have hated the idea of being kept “alive” in this fashion), or if you consider agency more essential (and thus being willing to “err” on the side of trying to respect Terri’s choices, as best as they can posisbly be determined - even though it’s always possible that “as best as they can possibly be determined” will be a mistake, and even if it means allowing a living person to die).
You’re willing to accept assisted suicide, but most people in your movement are firmly against it (the Bush administration will not pay a political price with their base for opposing Oregon’s assisted suicide law). In contrast, most liberals and leftists are willing to accept asisted suicide, as long as reasonable precautions are taken. I think that illustrates that the conflict I’m talking about - respect for life vs. respect for agency - really exists.
(Of course, by putting it this way, I’m not trying to imply that conservatives have no respect for agency, any more than I’m trying to imply that leftists have no respect for life.)
There’s also the question of religion here; although not everyone who sides with Terri’s parents is a right-wing evangelical or conservative Catholic, the large majority are. And the vast majority of those people would also, I suspect, feel that their religious preferences should be law not only in the matter of Terri Schiavo, but also in the matter of same-sex marriage, and in the matter of abortion.
The question is, when there’s a substantial lack of consensus on a moral question, should the law allow everyone to have their own agency, or should the law take the side of religious fundimentalism? (And please don’t bring up the “thou shall not murder” counterexample - that’s not a case where there’s a substantial lack of consensus).
Robert, you bring up the fact that many historic evils have been rooted in the belief “that certain human beings aren’t really people.” Wouldn’t you agree that many historic evils have also been rooted in the desire of religious fundimentalists to try to legally enforce their religious beliefs?
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
March 25th, 2005 at 8:08 am
Brad, from what I have seen from what some lawyers have written on the issue, it doesn’t matter. What is important is wether she is able to recover or not from the state she is in right now.
Dsiclaimer: I am no a lawyer, and am only repeating my understanding of what other people have writen.
This comment was written by Kristjan Wager.Report this comment to the moderators
March 25th, 2005 at 8:21 am
Kristjan, Thanks.
This comment was written by Brad.That is what I was thinking as well. I don’t see much of an arguement saying she will get better, the strongest arguement seems to be that perhaps she is in MCS rather than PVS. My reaction to that is…so what? I believe that she probably has the right to choose to die either way. So, PVS or MCS is a moot point.
Report this comment to the moderators
March 25th, 2005 at 8:28 am
Follow the money.
This comment was written by David Helson.Report this comment to the moderators
March 25th, 2005 at 8:53 am
Oh please
This comment was written by Brad.Report this comment to the moderators
March 25th, 2005 at 8:54 am
David, she is tying up one bed for all these years. They’re not making money off of her. In 5 years time they could have turned that bed over 3 or 4 times, at rates adjusted higher each time. That’s one way hospitals avoid going broke. If all these people, who have direct access to her Protected Health Information, have come to the conclusion that removing the PEG tube is the right thing to do, that has to be enough.
This comment was written by Frances.Report this comment to the moderators
March 25th, 2005 at 9:01 am
This figure is taken from: The minimally conscious state: Definition and diagnostic criteria
J.T. Giacino, PhD, S. Ashwal, MD, N. Childs, MD, R. Cranford, MD, B. Jennett, MD, D.I. Katz, MD, J.P. Kelly, MD, J.H. Rosenberg, MD, J. Whyte, MD PhD;, R.D. Zafonte, DO and N.D. Zasler, MD
Neurology (2002) Vol 58 pg 349-353
Data is based on a series of meetings over several years of a large group of REAL experts.
i have included the following table, which is organized as column headers followed by the respective rows in the order of the headers:
Table 1. Comparison of clinical features associated with coma, vegetative state, minimally conscious state, and locked-in syndrome
A.Condition
B.Consciousness
C.Sleep/wake
D.Motor function
E.Auditory function
F.Visual function
G.Communication
H.Emotion
row 1
A.Coma
B. None
C. Absent
D. Reflex and postural responses only
E.None
F.None
G.None
H.None
Row 2
A.Vegetative state
B.None
C.Present
D.Postures or withdraws to noxious stimuli Occasional nonpurposeful movement
E.Startle Brief orienting to sound
F.Startle Brief visual fixation
G.None
H.None Reflexive crying or smiling
Row 3
A.Minimally conscious state
B.Partial
C.Present
D.Localizes noxious stimuli Reaches for objects
E.Localizes sound location Inconsistent command following
F.Sustained visual fixation Sustained visual pursuit
G.Contingent vocalization Inconsistent but intelligible verbalization or gesture
H.Contingent smiling or crying Holds or touches objects in a manner that accommodates size and shape, Automatic movements (e.g., scratching)
Sorry this is somewhat hard to follow since I cannot paste in the actual table. If the moderator would like feel free to email me and I can send the PDF of the article. These are accepted definitions of MCS and VS.
This comment was written by Dr Ted.Report this comment to the moderators
March 25th, 2005 at 9:02 am
As I’ve stated before, it’s the vulture community.
The skids are greased.
Keep them alive, as the savvy and the connected strip the estate, kill them at your convenience, and hey, we can maybe even solve the social security/medicare crisis as the baby boom hits the end of the python and end up in those pretty, well respected, death camps.
Want a drink of water Gramps? Sorry, your estate just ran out and you’ve hit medicare.
This comment was written by David Helson.Report this comment to the moderators
March 25th, 2005 at 9:14 am
And yet, it’s Democrats who (by and large) support medicare and the idea that every US citizen has a right to medical care. The “no money? No medical care” philosophy belongs to the right wing.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
March 25th, 2005 at 9:24 am
Its apparent this person will not recover. Its apparent there is a question as to her state.
Too many contradictions.
-The husband claimes she would not want to live this way and filed suit to care for her for life. Once he obtained settlement he filed to discontinue care.
-The husband owns a life insurance company with his partner.(?)
-His statement that she would not want to live this way is hearsay and new information.
-Court systems make errors, don’t they?
-The judge and lawyers have ownership in the hospice. Is anyone curious why a non-terminally ill body is in a hospice instead of a long term care facility as defined by medicare?
-The case should have been moved.
-Probably, who knows, this is an empty shell.
What about cases addresing ultimate disposal of a body? Don’t courts rule in the favor of the religious practices of the family and manner the person was raised? If he feels there is nothing there, why bother and give it over to the parents?
Personally, we should have the choice to die and I should be able to carry out the wishes of my loved ones if they are clear and well defined. I want this right.
This comment was written by Kim Morgan.But this man has not convinced me of those wishes and the courts made the descision based on a shaky PVS.
Report this comment to the moderators
March 25th, 2005 at 9:32 am
To our moderator: When is enough, enough as far as snark goes? It d/n appear to be letting up from certain quarters.
This comment was written by moe99.Report this comment to the moderators
March 25th, 2005 at 9:47 am
Actually, there was a gap of years between these two events. Michael filed to discontinue care about five or six years after receiving the settlement. See this timeline, or this one; the court ruled in Michael’s favor in the malpractice lawsuit in 1992, the settlement was paid in January 1993, and Michael asked the court to discontinue the feeding tube in 1998.
Abtract Appeal, a blog by a lawyer, addresses this question in detail.
Yes, they do; that’s why we have an appeals process. And this case has been through the appeals process again, and again, and again.
I don’t claim that a court system is incapable of making errors. I do claim, however, that a court system is how our society resolves questions like this one; and as imperfect as it is, no better system is available to us. Certainly, the “congress will try to overturn court decisions they don’t like, if those decisions have gotten a lot of press coverage” system is even more likely to be arbitrary and error-prone.
No, not really. You sound like a conspiracy theorist, frankly. I don’t think there’s some Evil Conspiracy between this judge, the many other judges who have seen this case, dozens of doctors and health workers, etc.
A lot of people seem to want to make this a simple case of Good vs. Evil; this is shown in the constant character attacks on Judge Greer, on Michael Schiavo, and on many other folks. The truth is, there is no Evil Conspiracy to Kill Terri Schiavo; and this is an issue people of good faith can legitimately disagree on.
Perhaps because he loved Terri and wants to respect what he beleives were her wishes? But for you to believe that would require you to accept that people can disagree with you without being Evil.
Never mind.
I know! Michael is doing what he’s doing because he’s Darth Vadar in disguise! Or maybe he’s Doctor Octopus! Yeah, that’s it!
The diagnosis of PVS has been made by at least five of the (that I know of) six neurologists who have actually performed examinations of Terri (and the sixth was hired by Terri’s parents). It is based on a MRI, multiple CAT scans, multiple EEGs, and direct patient observation by qualified experts. If you think it’s a “shaky” diagnosis at this point, then I doubt that any future evidence will convince you, either.
Finally, it’s not up to Michael Schiavo to convince you of anything. It’s not even Michael Schiavo’s decision to make, and hasn’t been for years (even if Michael changed his mind, he still couldn’t legally put the feeding tube back in). In our system, it’s the court - not you - who has to be convinced.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
March 25th, 2005 at 10:21 am
Actually, there was a gap of years between these two events. Michael filed to discontinue care about five or six years after receiving the settlement
Michael may have filed after the law change I documented above but he started witholding treatment and therapy almost immediately.
See the timeline at Terri’s Fight site instead…
This comment was written by David Helson.Report this comment to the moderators
March 25th, 2005 at 10:26 am
If you think it’s a “shaky”? diagnosis at this point, then I doubt that any future evidence will convince you, either
Once there is one credible diagnosis to the contrary all other diagnosis are mute by the definition of PVS.
Once there is one credible person who says she has spoken all diagnosis of PVS are proven wrong by the very definition of PVS.
There are 34.
This comment was written by David Helson.Report this comment to the moderators
March 25th, 2005 at 10:40 am
I’ll anticipate one objection. The main opinion of four that I am aware of that the court leaned on the heaviest was that of Dr Cranford. He spent 45 minutes with Terri complimenting her on how well she was responding and then sentenced her to death. Dr Hammesfahr by contrast spent ten hours with her and pronounced her minimally conscious or better.
So Cranford is the nation’s most notorious euthanasia activist and Hammesfahr is decidely pro-life. Which one gave her the better examination? IMO Cransford’s very conduct during his examination puts the lie to his diagnosis. Since Cranford actually believes both PVS and minimally conscious states deserve euthanasia why does his diagnosis carry any weight at all?
This comment was written by David Helson.Report this comment to the moderators
March 25th, 2005 at 10:40 am
Robert, do you agree that an arm - just an arm, nothing else - somehow kept alive by life support machines can be allowed to die (by turning the machines off) without committing the error you describe? The arm is human (it has human DNA). But it’s not a person. Are you willing to accept that distinction? If so, then the only difference between your view on the matter, and mine, is where we each draw the line. What makes it okay to not go to extraordinary measures to keep an arm alive, in your view?
Sure. You can turn off an arm hooked to life support.
However, “where we draw the line” is not the difference between your view of the matter and mine. An arm does not analogize to a person who lacks some critical brain component in my view, because an arm was never a person.
The distinction between your view and mine is that your view is materialistic. You believe that the cerebral cortex is the necessary component of humanity or personhood (or whatever label you would prefer to mark someone who is the same as you or I). I disagree with that belief. Terri has (or is) a soul; it is her soul that makes her a person. I believe that while a person’s soul and body remain together, they are a person, whether their cerebral cortex functions or not, whether they are cognitively active or not.
I actually think that the distinction is one of whether you think life is more essential than agency (and thus being willing to “err”? on the side of saving a life, even if there’s a strong possibliity that the “person”? you’re saving would have hated the idea of being kept “alive”? in this fashion), or if you consider agency more essential (and thus being willing to “err”? on the side of trying to respect Terri’s choices, as best as they can posisbly be determined - even though it’s always possible that “as best as they can possibly be determined”? will be a mistake, and even if it means allowing a living person to die).
Agency is more important than life; both have very high value. But agency is something that we have to express ourselves. It is not “agency” or respect for agency that has a court making a determination of what someone would have wanted. That’s the court’s agency, or the petitioner’s agency, borne out of pragmatic concern (a decision must be made). If Terri Schiavo had provided any objective evidence of her desire not to be fed and hydrated in this circumstance, then following her will would be respecting her agency. Instead, the court is following hearsay (and hearsay on matters only somewhat related to the case in point - Terri didn’t say she didn’t want food and water, she said she didn’t want to end up like the folks who were kept alive by life support machinery.)
I think that illustrates that the conflict I’m talking about - respect for life vs. respect for agency - really exists.
I have no doubt that it does exist.
The question is, when there’s a substantial lack of consensus on a moral question, should the law allow everyone to have their own agency, or should the law take the side of religious fundimentalism?
This is a false dichotomization. This isn’t a question of “our beliefs versus your objective reality”, it’s a question of our beliefs versus your beliefs. The question could with equal fairness be phrased, “should the law respect human life, or should the law take the side of godless materialism?”
When there is a lack of consensus on a moral question, then the decisionmaking should be pushed down the hierarchy as far as possible. In this case, that would be to the individual in question. And if the person in question did not make a decision, and their feeling cannot now be determined with certainty, then I believe we should err on the side of preserving human life.
This is a nuanced view. If the consequence of the decision were trivial, or even only of moderate magnitude, then it would be acceptable, as a practical matter, to rely on the testimony of others or reasonable suppositions as to the implications of a person’s past verbal statements. As the consequences escalate, so too should the requirement we impose for clarity and objectivity in the evidence. Terri didn’t say write down what should happen to her dog, and if her guardian thinks the dog ought to go to the pound, then fine. Terri didn’t write down what should happen to her (hypothetical) million dollars in cash, so it should be administered by her husband or whomever the law specifies - but there ought to be more oversight than in the matter of the dog. Terri didn’t write down whether she wanted to be fed - and so she ought to be kept alive regardless of what her guardian wants.
Wouldn’t you agree that many historic evils have also been rooted in the desire of religious fundimentalists to try to legally enforce their religious beliefs?
Sure.
This comment was written by Robert Not-Angel.Report this comment to the moderators
March 25th, 2005 at 11:16 am
Ronald Cranfordlobbies for the euthanasia of Alzheimer’s patients.
This comment was written by David Helson.Report this comment to the moderators
March 25th, 2005 at 11:25 am
Robert wrote:
I’ll answer the rest of your post later, but let me initially say that this strikes me more as a dodge than as a sincere answer to my question.
Let me rephrase the question: Two patients are rushed into a hospital after an accident in which both of them had body parts crushed beyond all hope of repair. Technology is sufficient to keep either patient alive - tht is, to keep the blood pumping and all the remaining body parts functioning - indefinitely, but since the hospital has financial difficulties, they must choose only one of the two patients to help.
Patient 1, “Joe,” has lost his limbs. Patient two, “Carl,” has lost his head.
Which one of these two patients do you think the hospital should choose to help, and why? Is there no way of distinguishing which one of these two people can benefit more from treatment, in your view?
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
March 25th, 2005 at 11:41 am
The patient who has lost his limbs should be the one to live.
This comment was written by Robert Not-Angel.Report this comment to the moderators
March 25th, 2005 at 11:46 am
Yes, but why?
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
March 25th, 2005 at 11:47 am
Because s/he has a better chance of making a recovery.
This comment was written by Robert Not-Angel.Report this comment to the moderators
March 25th, 2005 at 11:48 am
The decision about what to do for Mrs. Schiavo is moot - her soul left her body a very long time ago. What is left is an empty shell running on automatic. What remains now is just how far the balance of power will go and just how far the legislature can intrude into court rulings.
It scares me to think that some day the government will overrule a DNS order from someone I love and make me or my loved ones watch a husk of a human being wearing the face of someone they care about lie in a bed with no chance of recovery.
This comment was written by Nathan Robinson.Report this comment to the moderators
March 25th, 2005 at 11:55 am
No s/he doesn’t. In my example, there is absolutely no chance that either patient will “recover,” that is, return to their previous state. Furthermore, there is an equal chance that either of them can be kept alive for a normal human lifespan.
The difference you suggest simply doesn’t exist, unless you are defining “recovery” in some odd way I’m unaware of.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
March 25th, 2005 at 12:01 pm
By recovery I don’t mean restoration to full health, I mean transition to functioning independence. A person with no limbs can live independently. A person with no head will be on the machines forever.
I think what you’re getting at is that you want me to concede that a person without a head has died, in both your sense and mine. In the materialist sense, yes, a headless person is clearly dead, even on machinery. In the spiritual sense, it is somewhat indeterminate. I think most theologians would probably come down on the side that yes, once the head has been removed from the body, the person is effectively dead and the soul has left. So I’ll bow to their better knowledge and agree, yes, a headless person is dead and gone.
And now I assume you’ll analogize this to Terri, but brain damage - even massive brain damage - isn’t parallel to being headless. She breathes on her own. She vocalizes. She moves. She does things that a headless person could never do. And I don’t believe that she has died. She’s just profoundly disabled and incapacitated, almost certainly (at this point) beyond any hope of recovery or improvement.
This comment was written by Robert Not-Angel.Report this comment to the moderators
March 25th, 2005 at 12:34 pm
Okay, thank you. Will you also concede that - if I did enough questions (”do you think a jawless person is dead and gone?” “Do you think an eyeless person is dead and gone?” etc) - you’d be forced to admit that the thing that’s special about the head - that makes a lost head different from a lost limb - is that the head contains the brain?
I very much deny that any of the traits you mention are at all morally relevant. Someone who requires mechanical assistance for breathing is not dead, or in any way less a person than you or I. Ditto for someone who cannot vocalize, or someone who is paralyzed. To destroy such a person, if they were otherwise like you or me, and assuming they hadn’t requested being killed, would be profoundly immoral.
On the other hand, I can easily create a machine that pumps air in and out, moans, and moves about now and then. (Well, okay, I can’t create such a machine. But I’m sure that it could be created). Yet such a machine would not be a person, and there’s nothing wrong with destroying it.
I can’t understand why you’d think any of the things you mention are morally relelvant at all.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
March 25th, 2005 at 12:39 pm
The bottomline is that we are trying to figure out if there is a soul….yet, we cannot define what a soul actually is.
This comment was written by Brad.Report this comment to the moderators
March 25th, 2005 at 1:09 pm
No, we are not trying to figure out if there is a soul - that’s something entirely left to religion, not science, medicine or law. We are entirely dealing with medical and legal issues here, and to try to bring religion into it goes against the whole separation of state and religion.
This comment was written by Kristjan Wager.Report this comment to the moderators
March 25th, 2005 at 1:10 pm
Will you also concede that - if I did enough questions (”?do you think a jawless person is dead and gone?”? “Do you think an eyeless person is dead and gone?”? etc) - you’d be forced to admit that the thing that’s special about the head - that makes a lost head different from a lost limb - is that the head contains the brain?
Sure.
I can’t understand why you’d think any of the things you mention are morally relelvant at all.
Because they’re things that require some brain function. Terri Schiavo isn’t brain-dead. She can’t do the things that (I think) you believe necessary for someone to be human, but her brain is still there, just in a very broken state.
Brokenness and incompleteness, to me, are not sufficient to remove someone’s status as a living person.
This comment was written by Robert Not-Angel.Report this comment to the moderators
March 25th, 2005 at 1:11 pm
To refomulate a little, you can believe in conciousness without believing in a soul, and you can believe that in this specific case there is a possibility for conciousness to be regained, and a recovery be reached, even if you don’t believe in a soul. Likewise, you can believe that there is no regaining of consciouness or recovery possible, and that death is the kindest option, even if you believe in a soul.
This comment was written by Kristjan Wager.Report this comment to the moderators
March 25th, 2005 at 1:15 pm
I agree Kristjan. However, I was referring to the difference between the machine that “breathes” and moans and vocalizes, and a human. The difference being a soul. This is where legal and religous issues start getting very close. Why is it legal to “kill” that machine but not ok to kill a person?
This comment was written by Brad.Because the person has a soul….the legal and religous have overlapped at that point.
Report this comment to the moderators
March 25th, 2005 at 1:17 pm
If you believe in consciousness, but not a soul…how would you define the distinction?
This comment was written by Brad.Report this comment to the moderators
March 25th, 2005 at 1:35 pm
Breaking revelation! Terri did not receive her brain injury when you thot.
- codeblueblog 2004 MEDICAL WEBLOGS AWARDS: BEST CLINICAL SCIENCES WEBLOG
FINALIST: 2004 Weblog Awards: Best of the Top 2500 - 3500 Blogs
2004 MEDICAL WEBLOGS AWARDS FINALIST: BEST MEDICAL WEBLOG
Wonder how that happened…
This comment was written by David Helson.Report this comment to the moderators
March 25th, 2005 at 1:44 pm
I’d prefer we use the label “personhood” and “is a person” for this conversation, if it’s all the same to you.
There are a couple of things I wonder about the non-materialist viewpoint.
First of all, how can you EVER declare someone is dead? For instance, when a body “dies” (stops breathing, blood stops pumping, etc), the only real measures we have of that event are materialist measure. How can you be so sure that the soul isn’t still connected to the body?
Second, I really do think there is a separation of church and state issue that comes up when you say, in effect, “never mind the science, we have to design our laws to protect people’s souls.”
When, exactly, did Terri Schiavo say “I want Robert Hayes to be my decision-maker if I ever can’t decide for myself, and he should decide according to his religious beliefs?”
Terri Schiavo expressed agency when she chose to marry Michael Schiavo, making him her closest relative, and the person who decides for her when she can’t decide. I’m not sure why you think it’s possible to both respect Terri’s agency and ignore the one decision we know for sure she made; your two positions seem entirely contradictory to me.
I agree, it would be better if she had left a living will - although I think it’s likely that even if she had, her parents would have contested it legally (which is no more impossible to do than contesting a legal guardian’s decision - arguments like “Terri didn’t say she didn’t want food and water, she said she didn’t want to end up like the folks who were kept alive by life support machinery,” or something similar, can be - and in some circumstances, should be - applied to many living will documents).
In other words, “if the individual in question did not make a decision, then I believe we should err on the side of Bob Hayes’ religious beliefs.” But what makes your beliefs any better than mine, in this regard?
There is no such thing as “determined with certainty” in these cases. Earlier we argued about if an MRI was necessary, and you quoted me a NR article arguing that without an MRI, there is no certainty. However, if you read the affidavits submitted on behalf of Terri’s parents by various doctors, many of them argue that an MRI provides no certainty, and we need an fMRI . I’m certain if a fMRI was done, doctors would be found who are wiling to say that they wouldn’t make a diagnosis without a PET scan. And so on, and so on.
Unless Terri left behind a 1150-page document written by a law firm with her initials after every single paragraph, there is no way of determining to a “certainty” what she wanted, for those who are determined to find uncertainty. And even if she did leave such a document behind, how do we know she didn’t change her mind later? (Remember, her parents argued that Terri would have changed her mind had she been able to hear what the Pope said last year).
Take me, for example. I’ve written a ton about Terri Schiavo’s case, and you might think that’s enough to establish my views to a certainty; but if I ended up in a PVS but with an intact cortex, a smart lawyer could certainly argue that my views weren’t known to a certainty.
Demands for “certainty” are a red herring. It’s a way of saying “never, never” without coming right out and saying it. No one but God (if God exists) is every truly certain.
Yes, but you’re not requiring a higher standard of evidence. You’re proposing a higher standard of evidence for outcomes that disagree with your religious preference, while asking for an incredibly low standard of evidence for outcomes your religious preference favors. That makes no sense to me.
It’s likely, although not absolutely certain, that Terri would not have wanted to be kept alive this way. It’s certain that Terri chose her husband Michael to be her husband (and therefore her guardian), not the Pope or Jeb Bush or George Bush. It’s more than a little bit possible, therefore, that we are doing Terri a gross injustice and ignoring her agency entirely by keeping her alive.
Why should doing that require virtually no evidence on your side? Why should doing what were probably Terri’s wishes (not living on like this), or what was definitely Terri’s wish (that Michael be her closest relative, and thus the decision-maker when Terri can’t decide), be something that requires impossibly high evidentary(sp?) hurdles to bring about; while doing what Christian fundamentalists would choose require almost no evidence at all?
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
March 25th, 2005 at 1:46 pm
I’d say not because of a “soul,” but because the person thinks and has consciousness, preferences, etc., while the machine does not.
If a machine does have consciousness - imagine the character “Data” from Star Trek, for example - then I would certainly want it to be murder to destroy such a person.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
March 25th, 2005 at 1:51 pm
You implicitly seem to be saying that it’s important to you that her brain is there. But earlier I think you agreed with me that it’s not morally important if a person is missing a limb. Why, in your view, is a brain important while a limb is not?
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
March 25th, 2005 at 1:51 pm
A soul is a metaphysical thingy that continues to exist past the death of your body. Consciousness is an observable thingy that does not continue past death.
This comment was written by Jake Squid.Report this comment to the moderators
March 25th, 2005 at 1:54 pm
Amp, I will write a lengthy response to your points. But right now I am in the midst of working on a book and can delay it no longer. ;)
This comment was written by Robert Not-Angel.Report this comment to the moderators
March 25th, 2005 at 1:57 pm
Ignore this if your conscience will let you.
This comment was written by David Helson.Report this comment to the moderators
March 25th, 2005 at 2:01 pm
David, that’s your 66th post on my blog. With all due respect, I don’t feel that you are really contributing to conversatational exchanges anymore. Plus, with 66 posts, I think you’ve been given a more-than-fair chance to express your views here.
So I’m therefore wishing you well, but asking that you not post on my website anymore.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
March 25th, 2005 at 2:02 pm
Not a problem.
By the way, in case you were wondering, that was your 503rd comment on “Alas.”
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
March 25th, 2005 at 2:18 pm
I demand that time back.
This comment was written by Robert Not-Angel.Report this comment to the moderators
March 25th, 2005 at 2:25 pm
Hi Im linda Im young 15. And i find whats been going on with Terri is interesting and disturning. firstly her “husband” I hate him . Why ? becasue all he wants is for her to Die so he can get her money. Its quite obvious. I mean he already has a new family with kids and all. How is it possible he still cars for her. HE DOESNT. he just wants her to slowly die with without the food tube. I belive that he has no right to have say what so ever since he now has a new wife and all. the parents should be the ones who decide whether or not to keep the food tube and keep her living. And the money shouldnt even go to him if she dies , because he DOES NOT deserve it. The FAMILY should be the only ones who make the decions and get any kind of money from Terri Schiavo . Another thing. Theres no reason to let her die. Shes still living on her own with no need of machine to keep her living. Also its not lke her brain is completley dead to the point that she has no use of it. It works , as seen in her videos she rsponds to many things. Like when her mom comes you see her brighten up and smile more. She responded when the doctors tell her to look in diffrent directions. So shes there. So its not like her living is pointless. And i DOUBT she said she doesnt want to live and that she made an agreement with her husband in the past. But according to her money hungry husband he says she doesnt want to live like that and they made a promise with eachother. I see right through that creep. He makes me angry. All I’m saying is that he deserves No say No money no NOTHING, let him go away and live his life with his new family and step out of Terri’s . The family are the ones that really care and know what is right. Who agrees??
This comment was written by LindaMedina.Report this comment to the moderators
March 25th, 2005 at 2:46 pm
That is akin to asking “where does walking go when you stop walking?”. Consciousness is a product of brain activity in the analogy of legs are to walking.
The soul would be a consciousness without a body–something that never been proven.
This comment was written by Atheistfundamentalist.Report this comment to the moderators
March 25th, 2005 at 3:05 pm
Linda: Before you make any more comments, you should first read all the posts on this thread and then go and read a couple of other threads from Alas and the posts that are there. And when they cite court records like the judge’s decisions and the report of the Guardian ad Litem, you should read those as well. You need to educate yourself to the facts in this case, and reading the court decisions and the Guardian ad Litem report is the best way to do it.
If you really are 15, then (I know you will find this hard to believe), you need to take some time and keep and open mind while you are growing up to look at the world around you and ask questions and not assume that you or anyone else knows everything there is to know.
The law in Florida gives spouses, not parents, the right to determine the future of their spouse. If you are only 15, it may not be within your experience to understand that when you marry someone you are taking a very public and solemn oath that you are now leaving your family and joining withthis other person. Your family, after you marry, comes second, according to the law.
Please do some reading on Alas and in the court records and think about it too. Good luck.
This comment was written by moe99.Report this comment to the moderators
March 25th, 2005 at 3:51 pm
To address David’s point, the brain doesn’t immediately become hydrocephalic after damage. It takes time for the dead tissue to be carted away and metabolized, leaving fluid in its place. The post he cites seems to be fairly ignorant of what actually happens in brain damage. Suffice it to say that the cells die over the course of days after the ischemia, and take even longer to physically vacate the cavity, leaving room for more fluid.
This comment was written by Another Brad.Report this comment to the moderators
March 25th, 2005 at 3:52 pm
Linda,
I agree with moe99 you need to read through everything before you make a judgement. I have been married for several years and my husband knows what my wishes are in the event I am incapacitated but my parents do not. As of this moment in my life, I only want my husband making those kind of decisions for me because I am much closer to my husband than I am to my parents. My husband knows everything about me and I tell him things that I dont tell my parents so to say Mr. Schiavo has no right as her husband to make decisions for her is not necessrily an accurate way of looking at the situation. Furthermore if I personally were in that state I would WANT my husband to move on eventually because I love him and I want him to be happy. Also if you read the document that Terri’s Guardian Ad Litem, who was appointed by the Governor’s office to review her case, submitted it states that Terri’s parents not only encouraged Michael Schiavo to date but that he also introduced the women he was dating to her parents so it was not a secret that he was moving on.
He has also offered to relinquish all of the money he won in his suits and has apparently also turned down 10 million offered to allow Terri’s parents to take over her care. If he was so concerned about the money, why didnt he divorce her and leave right after she was deemed incapacitated. Instead he has stayed married to her and fought for what he believes she wants. He knows that staying married to her is the only way to ensure that her wishes are carried out.
Also, your statement that she can live on her own without a machine is incorrect. She cannot swallow meaning she does in fact need a machine to live which, to me, is keeping someone alive artificially who otherwise would have passed on to a better place. And, as many people have pointed out, those videos are small edited sections of hours and hours of video of her not reacting to things and apparently some of her reactions have never been duplicated. Also realize that all of those videos are posted on Terrisfight.org, an obviously biased source of information, which is going to paint her mental capabilities in the greatest light possible and they will point out every bad thing that they can come up with about Mr. Schiavo and this legal battle.
Take some time to think about ALL of the facts rather than base your opinion on information from one or two sites. Rather than look at videos try to find testimony statements given by qualified medical professionals. This will be a good lesson in how to look at both sides of an argument (and there will always be at least two sides) and how to make an educated decision rather than one based on emotions.
This comment was written by Lotusblossom.Report this comment to the moderators
March 25th, 2005 at 4:35 pm
I too thought that starving someone to death was cruel and believed a needle would have been better but I came across this article and am no longer concerned at all that it is cruel. Here is a snippet:
Instead of feeling pain, the patient experienced the sense of euphoria that accompanies a complete lack of food and water. She was cogent for weeks, chatting with her caregivers in the nursing home and writing letters to family and friends. As her organs failed, she slipped painlessly into a coma and died.
Read the entire article if you wish :
This comment was written by Atheistfundamentalist.Newsday article
Report this comment to the moderators
March 25th, 2005 at 4:44 pm
It will be a very positive attitude at the end of this whole ordeal if people are forced to face questions of life and death and realize that death is not quite so bad if the alternatives are truly terrible.
This comment was written by Another Brad.Report this comment to the moderators
March 25th, 2005 at 9:31 pm
LindaMedina:
The argument “Having another family shows Michael Schiavo doesn’t love Terri, if he did he would divorce her and let her family care for her, he’s money hungry, hates her and wants her dead” wholly ignores two other equally likely things simultaneously: the central thesis that he believes what he is doing is what Terri [would have]wanted him to do, an obligation even, based on the relationship they had as husband and wife, and that his moving on, far from meaning he has it in for her, means he has accepted and understands that the “Terri” he knew and loved is gone and only her body remains.
This comment was written by ZenKnight.Report this comment to the moderators
March 25th, 2005 at 10:59 pm
terry schiavo is unable to feed or drink through the usual oral route without aspirating food into her lungs. Making a surgical hole into the stomach to place a feeding tube is, in my opinion, an extraordinary method of life support. I also feel the this not a unique case except for the politics involved. I have cared for several patients in a similar state. I have observed tremendous denial of reality by close family members.
I agree with Cerebrocrat’s assessment of her cat scan.
What I wonder about is why Christians are so afraid to let her die and go on to the afterlife, to a better place!
This comment was written by carrollnMD.Report this comment to the moderators
March 26th, 2005 at 1:33 am
I’d think that if the religious right has any respect for ‘god’ whatsoever, they’d let ‘god’ take this ‘child’ of his (as is obviously hinted at by her condition.
If anyone in general has ever had a family member who was incapable of even wiping their own ass, couldn’t walk, needed a family member to help them sit up just to drink a glass of water, and then coughing for 30mins after that sip of water would understand that life under certain conditions is FAR worse than death.
The woman has no hope for consciousness ever again. She is nothing but a cerebellum, a brainstem, and a few limbs. The only thing keeping her alive is the machines. She’s incapable of sustaining herself and has no hope to ever do so. She’s dead already. Worse now, however, that her parents wouldn’t let her go at a time that could have allowed for a certain amount of dignity in passing.
This comment was written by spectrm.Report this comment to the moderators
March 26th, 2005 at 4:56 am
LindaMedina:
I don’t mean any disrespect - but it’s quite obvious that you are young - even if you hadn’t told us as much.
I agree with others who have replied to you - you need to read what has been said on this blog (and elsewhere) a little more carefully - as despite what your *feelings* may be on this matter they are just that - *feelings* - with little or no objectivity involved.
You are taking a position that is based almost entirely on an affective emotional response to one side of the story - taken at face value. You simply cannot in all fairness take any position on this sort of thing based solely on your “feelings” or on a purely instinctive response - you may distrust this man - you may not like the look in his eyes - whatever - but you simply cannot judge him because you have some sort of visceral reaction to him - especially when you seem to have a somewhat distorted and partisan view of the subject.
Most of what you said is simply not true - and the rest is (as should be evident from the thread on this blog alone) very heavily debated and contentious.
I hope you eventually come to realise that there is more to making judgments and formulating your opinion than having a “feeling” - if life were truly that simple then we wouldn’t need any sort of legal system at all. Instinctive responses to complex issues lead to witchhunts and injustice in the worst case. At best you risk putting yourself in a vulnerable position where you stand to become hurt and confused by a world that you don’t even begin understand - because you don’t appreciate that it is a complex place and have a shallow and simplistic understanding of it.
Basically I have this advice for you - there are very few easy answers to anything and little in this world is so clear-cut as you seem to think.
You seemed to have missed quite a lot of what has been said so far - and appear to have made up your mind before you have actually heard even a fraction of what has been said by both sides. It is just *not* as simple as you have stated - and for this reason alone you need to take a closer look - and try your best to put how you *feel* aside for a while. You may not come to the same conclusion as I do - and thats fine- but as it is you are not being fair, reasonable - or the least bit objective.
Feelings are important - they are part of what makes us human - but they are a poor substitute for rationality - in fact I would contend that unchecked mammalian instincts are at the root of almost all of our problems as human beings. And not necessarily the ones you might think of right away either.
No matter what side of the fence you are on here the one thing that we should all agree on is that this is a very complex issue - if that is we stop to take a breath and try and be honest with ourselves. Too many people are making political mileage from this - and to be honest seem more concerned about ideology than anything else - it seems to me that many REALLY care less about the people involved than they do about what really amounts to dogma - yet another wedge issue that distracts us from far bigger and more pressing problems. And frankly the hypocrisy is getting a little hard to swallow. None of us are in a position to be judgmental here - because none of us know the truth. Self-righteousness is nothing but a function of fear - and as as someone very famous said amounts to nothing but “filthy rags” in the end.
You are only 15 years old - so it’s understandable that you react like this - I’m not so old that I have forgotten what being a teenager is like. I am not judging you - in fact I am sure I was more rational as an eleven year old than as a teenager - its a difficult time of your life - your emotions are turbulent and powerful - and it is tempting to reduce everything to “Black and White” or “Right or wrong” or “Left or Right”. But ultimately this a dangerous way to approach life - there are very few absolutes in the world. I hope you realise what exactly I am trying to say here someday - because far too many people never do - and it is largely to their own detriment.
Others I have been reading here however do not have youthfulness as an excuse for letting their limbic system override their neocortex. You know who you are - and considering what is being discussed here you should be grateful you still have a functioning forebrain to use (or MISuse as the case may be).
Peace
This comment was written by Protagonist.Report this comment to the moderators
March 26th, 2005 at 5:10 am
Brad, others have answered that question, so I won’t elaborate more on it, other than saying that souls are entirely within the bounds of religion (and probably most the Christian religion), while consciousness is well within the bounds of medicine. As an atheist, any medical or legal decisions based on souls, or lack of them, would be very troubling to me.
This comment was written by Kristjan Wager.Report this comment to the moderators
March 26th, 2005 at 5:15 am
Once Randall Terry affiliated with the Shindlers, the whole “principle” aspect of the case changed. Clearly Randall Terry’s motives are far removed from what the family’s ultimate wish is (if they are being sincere). I feel terrible for us as a country and as a race as we allow ourselves to begin legislating in the name of idealogues. This all runs parallel to “10 commandments in courthouses” “right to life” “prayer in the classroom” “One nation under God” etc…Of course I empathize with the mother, father, sister, brother…How come the images of Mrs. Shindler receiving “responses” from Terri are dated several years back? We are being emotionally manipulated by very saavy media specialists such as Randall Terry…
This comment was written by gaeducator.Report this comment to the moderators
March 26th, 2005 at 5:40 am
Having seen firsthand and heard anecdotes about the care provided by hospice organizations in Florida, my first instinct would be to say that no finer care exists anywhere.
That members of the judiciary in Florida might be members of hospice orgs or right-to-die orgs does not seem at all extraordinary to me. Much of the retirement culture in Florida is about preparing for decline and death. Seniors are familiar with it and at a level of peace with approaching death, moreso than younger adults who have not lived in Florida’s elderly havens. Death is discussed there far more than in any other state I’ve lived in.
I can see no profit motive unless the judges run mortuaries, crematoriums and cemeteries. Bias? Okay, there’s no doubt that belief in euthanasia can create an acceptance more easily than one opposed to euthanasia (and there are few undecideds on the question). But all euthanasia supporters I’ve read about or known advocate strict controls and multiple reviews to ensure it does not get abused. Courts above rule on the merits of the arguments and the soundness of decisions and none have expressed concern about evidence of bias impinging on the sound outcome.
I see a lot of selective information being tossed about, I presume that some are clutching at straws in their selections. I wouldn’t be surprised to discover some of the judges being trashed might be members of pro-life organizations or evangelical religions, as most who’ve ruled are conservative Republican judges. Bias both ways might be found with full examination.
As to the question of where souls take part and depart a life, I do not think God has made that point clear (if any sacred text can put forth such clarity, I’m content to be proven wrong.) It would seem to me that hope and guesswork is all that’s available on that point.
I would not think anyone, unless motivated by strict religious instruction, would choose to live a life like Terri’s experiencing now. The evidence is pretty strong that thousands of Americans have started creating living wills in response to this case, principally to avoid such an existence, if the polls are correct.
I cannot be knowing, as a God might be, but the decision I’d make would be for death. Not to avoid my own potential for discomfort, but to spare my loved ones from the burden imposed. Perhaps Terri’s shell could function with a feeding tube indefinitely, but I’d consider it more ethical to see that same time and money invested on those more obviously alive, who will die for lack of affordable care. (and yes, until someone demonstrates such care is universal, I do consider it an either-or proposition presently.)
This comment was written by Kevin Hayden.Report this comment to the moderators
March 26th, 2005 at 6:17 am
Thank you Kristjan for saying that. I would just like to add that people believe or have faith that they have a soul. I believe, or have faith, that I do not have a soul. I would never try to impose my faith that I have no soul on anyone else, nor would I like to have a belief that I have a soul imposed on me. As to the argument of Terri’s soul, is anyone sure they are not deciding for her that she has a soul? Is there any evidence that she had such a belief? Is there anyone in the world more likely to know that than her husband? Moreover, is there anyone in the world more likely to know what the brain inside Terri’s head had decided she wanted in the case that she would become totally mentally incapacitated than her husband? I really don’t think so. But I just believe that is the case. The burden of proof was placed on Terri’s husband, and he proved it to the courts over and over again.
This comment was written by Dr Ted.Report this comment to the moderators
March 26th, 2005 at 6:45 am
There must be a case out there where someone has a cat scan showing severe brain damage but the victim functions surprising well.
Can we get a comparison of Terri’s brain to that brain? Why must we compare her to a healthy brain? Shouldn’t the test be against some minimum level? And hasn’t there been evidence of parts of the brain essentiall cross training to perform functions once handled by a damaged part of the brain? Could, on day, stem cell treatment repair some of the damage.. enough of the damage? Aren’t people actually getting cryogenically frozen with the hope that one day their problems will be solved by medical technologies?
Why stop feeding her?
This comment was written by QuestionBoy.Report this comment to the moderators
March 26th, 2005 at 8:37 am
[...] e situation? I have an answer, but I want to know what you think. Please leave a comment. Regarding The CAT Scan Of Terri Schi [...]
This comment was written by El Segundo.net - El Segundo, California.Report this comment to the moderators
March 26th, 2005 at 9:14 am
Question boy,
I am a neuroscientist, not a neurologist, I have a Ph.D. whereas neurologists have an MD. I teach medical students about the brain (and undergrads, etc., for that matter) and regularly publish my research findings in leading journals in the field of neuroscience. Your questions are good ones, and perfectly reasonable, but I’m afraid there are no answers.
Brain injury is a terrible thing, made all the more terrible by our nearly complete lack of treatments and the seeming randomness of how the smallest injuries can lead to total incapacitation whereas huge injuries leave others nearly unaffected. If you are interested in this topic I would suggest reading some of Antonio Damasio’s or Oliver Sach’s works. They are well written and accessible for the interested reader. However, injuries where the majority of the cortex atrophies from oxygen deprivation and is eaten up by immune cells within the brain and replaced by the expanded ventricles of the brain almost always lead to a persistent vegatative state or minimal conscious state. Comparing her CT scan to someone else in a similar situation would tell you nothing because it only tells of the anatomical injury, nothing about the way the injury has manifested in brain function.
You are correct that other parts of the brain can compensate for damaged areas and take over their function, at least to an extent. This has been most widely studied in animal models and there is little physical evidence of it happening in humans, although most of us suppose that it does and can. The thing is that it requires functional neural networks to remain intact. If the majority of the cortical areas are gone, there is little hope that subcortical areas will be able to compensate.
One day stem cells might be able to replace damaged brain areas. There are several problems with this, the most immediate being that in the US neuroscientists are effectively blocked from doing this research by congressional and presidential action. The stem cells that are out there are largely not useful, but even if congress doesn’t change its laws, we will find ways to get stem cells from tissues aside from fetal stem cells, which is fine, scientific progress should always include an ethical dialogue. More importantly, stem cells, even if they could, on day, be used to regrow Terri’s cortex, would not bring Terri’s brain back to life in the way that most people assume. Most of who we are (from a neuroscience perspective) resides in our cortex and is a product of the neurons that are there, and the connections between those neurons and the rest of the brain. Those connections are formed from a lifetime of experience with our environment and important developmental, biological cues that are only present during development. Simply regrowing the neurons of Terri’s cortex would likely have the end result of creating a new personality that bears little resemblance to the Terri that anyone knew before.
People are getting cryogenically frozen, but their expectations are far beyond the rhealm of what any reasonable responsible person could ever promise them.
So why stop feeding her? Because the courts have decided that those were her intended wishes if she ever ended up in the state she is in today.
This comment was written by Dr Ted.Report this comment to the moderators
March 26th, 2005 at 9:52 am
Well, Terri Schiavo will presumably be dead within a week, so you’ll get a chance to show me how the money that would have been spent on her care will be used to save other people. I doubt that’s really true, but maybe you can show me how it works. My hunch is that Jeb Bush would rather cut taxes than extend coverage, so any money saved by killing off expensive patients will be given back to the rich rather than used to extend coverage to the poor.
But you know, this argument could be used about me, too. My insurance company spent tens of thousands of dollars on my medical care last year, money that came out of other people’s premiums. If it hadn’t been necessary to treat me and people like me, premiums would be lower and more people would be able to afford insurance. So maybe I should do a careful audit of my contributions to society and decide whether I’m worth the expense. If not, the un-selfish choice is to kill myself, right?
I believe people have a right to end their own lives. But the more I listen to this discussion, the more I understand the disability rights perspective on this case.
This comment was written by Sally.Report this comment to the moderators
March 26th, 2005 at 11:25 am
The Schindler’s are really pathetic.
Testimony provided by members of the Schindler family included very personal statements about their desire and intention to ensure that Theresa remain alive. Throughout the course of the litigation, deposition and trial testimony by members of the Schindler family voiced the disturbing belief that they would keep Theresa alive at any and all costs. Nearly gruesome examples were given, eliciting agreement by family members that in the event Theresa should contract diabetes and subsequent gangrene in each of her limbs, they would agree to amputate each limb, and would then, were she to be diagnosed with heart disease, perform open heart surgery. There was additional, difficult testimony that appeared to establish that despite the sad and undesirable condition of Theresa, the parents still derived joy from having her alive, even if Theresa might not be at all aware of her environment given the persistent vegetative state. Within the testimony, as part of the hypotheticals presented, Schindler family members stated that even if Theresa had told them of her intention to have artificial nutrition withdrawn, they would not do it. Throughout this painful and difficult trial, the family acknowledged that Theresa was in a diagnosed persistent vegetative state.
The above speaks for itself but if you wish, read the entire report.
http://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/WolfsonReport.pdf
This comment was written by Atheistfundamentalist.Report this comment to the moderators
March 26th, 2005 at 12:24 pm
OK, this is going to be super-quick, so please forgive me if I go roughshod over some fine points.
I’d prefer we use the label “personhood”? and “is a person”? for this conversation, if it’s all the same to you.
Suits.
First of all, how can you EVER declare someone is dead? For instance, when a body “dies”? (stops breathing, blood stops pumping, etc), the only real measures we have of that event are materialist measure. How can you be so sure that the soul isn’t still connected to the body?
If the body is dead - and I mean dead dead, not “her cerebral cortex doesn’t work so she’s as good as dead” - we can be reasonably sure.
Second, I really do think there is a separation of church and state issue that comes up when you say, in effect, “never mind the science, we have to design our laws to protect people’s souls.”?
And yet many of our laws were crafted by people who had/have that at the back of their minds.
Terri Schiavo expressed agency when she chose to marry Michael Schiavo, making him her closest relative, and the person who decides for her when she can’t decide. I’m not sure why you think it’s possible to both respect Terri’s agency and ignore the one decision we know for sure she made; your two positions seem entirely contradictory to me.
Well, I have to admit that’s a good point.
In other words, “if the individual in question did not make a decision, then I believe we should err on the side of Bob Hayes’ religious beliefs.”? But what makes your beliefs any better than mine, in this regard?
The fact that they preserve human life.
Unless Terri left behind a 1150-page document written by a law firm with her initials after every single paragraph, there is no way of determining to a “certainty”? what she wanted, for those who are determined to find uncertainty.
Even that wouldn’t establish it with certainty, of course. But you’re using a very high standard for certainty. I don’t argue that we must be certain beyond any possibility of any shred of any scintilla of doubt; I argue that hearsay ought not to be good enough. There’s a big spectrum between those two positions.
Demands for “certainty”? are a red herring. It’s a way of saying “never, never”? without coming right out and saying it. No one but God (if God exists) is every truly certain.
But all I’m asking for is something written and objective. I don’t ask for certainty; there is no certainty. Just better evidence than what we do have.
Yes, but you’re not requiring a higher standard of evidence. You’re proposing a higher standard of evidence for outcomes that disagree with your religious preference, while asking for an incredibly low standard of evidence for outcomes your religious preference favors. That makes no sense to me.
I’m proposing a higher standard of evidence for outcomes that end a life. That this is consistent with my religious beliefs is entirely immaterial. The preservation of life is a legitimate purpose for state action; a predisposition in favor of the preservation of life is consistent with my religious beliefs as well as with a secular preference for life.
I think that death penalty cases should face a very strict standard of judicial review; that’s also consistent with my religious beliefs. Is that problematic? If it isn’t, then neither should my view on this case.
Why should doing that require virtually no evidence on your side? Why should doing what were probably Terri’s wishes (not living on like this), or what was definitely Terri’s wish (that Michael be her closest relative, and thus the decision-maker when Terri can’t decide), be something that requires impossibly high evidentary(sp?) hurdles to bring about; while doing what Christian fundamentalists would choose require almost no evidence at all?
Two primary reasons.
One, the state interest in the preservation of life. Not at all costs, not in every circumstance - but as a basic assumption.
Two, because of the direction of the causal arrow. We can always kill a living person; we cannot resurrect a dead person. When we can fix one kind of mistake, and cannot fix a second kind of mistake, it behooves us to have a very strict set of safeguards around the second kind, and to be more relaxed about the first kind.
You and TS are both in PVS. We decide to kill you both. Tomorrow, we find a letter from Terri saying “I want to live”. Oops.
You and TS are both in PVS. We decide to keep you both alive. Tomorrow, we find a letter from you saying “let me die.” OK, we can fix our mistake.
This comment was written by Robert Not-Angel.Report this comment to the moderators
March 26th, 2005 at 12:29 pm
David, re: post #256
you wrote:4. How does one get #3.
BY BEING HIT ON THE HEAD AND SUFFERING INTRACRANIAL HEMORRHAGE.
how about: BY FALLING OUT OF THE HOSPITAL BED/FALLING OFF THE COMMODE/ FALLING OUT OF THE GERI-CHAIR AND SUFFERING ICH.
any of the above could have happened. Why don’t you go ask if you can read the chart?
This comment was written by Frances.Report this comment to the moderators
March 26th, 2005 at 12:35 pm
re: #285 Atheistfundamentalist quoted:
the Schindler family voiced the disturbing belief that they would keep Theresa alive at any and all costs. Nearly gruesome examples were given, eliciting agreement by family members that in the event Theresa should contract diabetes and subsequent gangrene in each of her limbs, they would agree to amputate each limb, and would then, were she to be diagnosed with heart disease, perform open heart surgery.
Just where would they find a doctor who would do these surgeries on their daughter, given her condition? And if they did find one, I don’t believe that any hospital would allow that doctor to admit her for such procedures. Thank God for that.
This comment was written by Frances.Report this comment to the moderators
March 26th, 2005 at 3:03 pm
The two images shown are possibly of two different people, but are most obviosly done at different levels of the brain. The one on the left has been done at a higher level with the frontal sinus visable at the top. The big dark areas you see in the middle are the ventricles…we all have them-they store the cerebralspinal fluid that flows through your spinal cords.
The image on the right is done at a much lower level. Cat scans are imaged like stacked plates and you can go from the top down or the bottom up.
In this case the two images are taken at distictly different levels of the brain…and besides that it is the cerebral cortex of Shiavo’s brain that is supposed to be damaged…not the middle part where the ventricles are…
I’m not sure what they were trying to do here but it doesnt support any theory of cerebral cortex damage by showing the wrong level of the brain…and yes I am familiar with cross-sectional anatomy and Computed Assisted Tomography…more than most.
This comment was written by rodney.Report this comment to the moderators
March 26th, 2005 at 3:53 pm
//All the neural equipment you need to be a self-aware, reasoning, behaving human being is cortical//
Well, as a student of neuroscience myself, what I have read indicates to me that the above is an overgeneralization. Even if you reject the notion that the highest human mental functions belong to the spirit of man, not to his body, it seems to me that there would be a good possibility that the thalamus is involved in those functions you restrict to the cortex, the outermost part of the brain. Yet I have read that if one surgically removes either the left or right cortex, the persons is still there; and that such surgery has been done to help a patient with one sided brain damage.
If you look at a model of the brain, the thalamus looks like the best protected part of the brain.
And one question: Is the image you posted on this site an actual brain scan or an artist’s model of what someone thinks is in that brain? Indeed if the brain is as gone as that alleged brain scan shows, one might not wish to live.
Enoch
This comment was written by ENOCH.Report this comment to the moderators
March 26th, 2005 at 4:38 pm
Guardianship is NOT ownership and we don’t live under a Taliban government where wives are their husbands chattel. Further, no matter what condition Terri is in she still has to the right to associate freely with her parents and they with her. Whatever Terri may have said before I seriously doubt that it included restricting her parents from associating with her.
That the courts decided that all artificial means of support should be withdrawn and she be allowed to die does not, or should not deprive her of the fundamental right to live. Though Michael, as her legal guardian, has the right to decline medical care for her by having the feeding tube removed, feeding her by mouth does NOT constitute a medical procedure and surely was never mentioned by her to anyone. If she is able and willing to eat she will and she will survive. If she is unwilling or unable to eat then she won’t eat. Using armed guards to prevent her parents from trying to care for her NON MEDICALLY and forcing her to starve to death is nothing short of homicide.
As far as the condition of her brain and the observation that she is no longer who she once was that is obvious. She isn’t who she once was, she is who she is now. She has much less brain to be sure but does she have less brain than say, a bird? It has been my observation that birds want to live. So why not Terri Schiavo?
This comment was written by PercySledge.Report this comment to the moderators
March 26th, 2005 at 5:16 pm
This case is a tragedy at many levels. It is a tragedy that Terri’s
brain was so severely damaged, and it is also a tragedy that so much
that is said and written seems (on both sides) to address side issues,
or be based on ignorance or misunderstanding.
I am neither a doctor, nor a lawyer, nor any kind of expert on ethics,
brain scans or anything else. And I do not really expect my views to
persuade many (if any) of those who hold contrary opinions. But I have
tried to make informed judgements based on extensive reading on the web.
I’ve also reflected on the position I might have found myself facing
when both my wife and my mother were facing death. Their circumstances
were not the same as in Terri’s case, neither of them lived in Florida
or the United States, and nor do I. But each had expressed a wish
(orally) not to undergo prolonged medical intervention in the event that
they became so ill that recovery was unlikely, or if the likely effect
of intervention was only to postpone death.
I’m glad that they were able to face these issues and make their wishes
clear. I would have felt it utterly wrong for anybody else, whether
doctor, politician, other family member, religious leader, agnostic,
atheist, journalist, commentator, ANYONE, to interfere. And I hope
nobody will interefere with my wishes either if (maybe “when” is more
realistic) the situation arises for me.
So here are my views on the case of Terri and my understanding of it:
The decision about what treatment to receive, and whether to receive
food and water through a tube should be Terri’s alone. That’s my opinion
- but as I understand it that’s also a right enshrined in the State
Constitution, and statutes.
Terri cannot now take or communicate her decision so a way needs to be
found to determine as best as maybe what it would be. Laws can provide
such a process, and legislators have framed them, and a court has
reached a determination. Notice not her husband, (who of course has a
view), but a court after trial. And this determination was based on
evidence found to be clear and convincing and not only from the husband.
At trial the parents contested that view but the court found otherwise,
The dtermination has been upheld on appeal.
To give effect to Terri’s decision, as best can be determined, a court
has ordered withdrawl of the tube. Again, note, not her husband. The
court has again been supported on appeal.
Of course to accept this must be exteremely difficult for Terri’s
parents, who naturally want her to live, and to do everything they can
to “care for her”. But now are they not substituting what THEY want, for
what Terri wants?
Supporters of the parents may well be motivated by the very best
intentions, but in the end they too are seeking to have their views
given priority. If there are any whose motives are other than the purest
(on either side) they are exploiting a tragedy.
Medical science is not perfect, nor is the law. But are they not the
best you’ve got? You live in a society subject to laws and under a
constitution that is aimed at protecting the rule of law and the rights
of citizens. It separates the powers of legislators, judiciary and the
executive. You should jealously guard that system and allow it to do for
you and for Terri the best it can.
I take one small comfort from this tragic, horrific saga: that Terri
knows nothing of it. But it is a small comfort set beside the agony of
the family - the husband and his relatives, and the parents and Terri’s
other relatives. Please do not forget either the thousands of other
families who are now facing similar situations, or will do soon.
Find out what you can about the care of the terminally ill, and of those
with severe brain damage (they need not be the same thing), and decide
what you want want for yourself. Consider how to make your wishes known
- if that means a living will, perhaps you should make one.
And no matter how hard it is, let your system work!
This comment was written by Acrossthepond.Report this comment to the moderators
March 26th, 2005 at 5:23 pm
I only think that painkillers would blur any mind she had left, that is assuming I believed after seeing the scans that she has any mind left at all. Starvation is the wrong way to do this, but at least it is supposed to be p[eacful. Euthanasia would be a more merciful way for her to go, though her parents won’t see it as such. I’m from Oregon and I voted for our Death with Dignity act both times because compassion is hard to have when it disagrees with our politics, but it is the right thing to do. I am not a wise person, but I have held the hands of dying people. Dying peacefully is definitely to be desired.
This comment was written by not-so-wise.Report this comment to the moderators
March 26th, 2005 at 5:30 pm
I’ve just spent the last hour or so reading through the many comments here. Many of you seem to be missing a couple of very significant points here.
First, were Terri a murderer rather than severely disabled her case would not be heard by a single judge but rather by a jury of 12. In most death penalty states those twelve jurors would be required to come to a unanimous agreement before a death verdict was rendered. Terri’s case, however, has been heard by a single judge. All of the various appeals courts have only been allowed to look at whether or not the judge followed the correct procedure.
Were Terri a convicted murderer both the state governor and the President of the US would have the authority to commute her sentence. Terri’s judicially ordered death is not subject to that commutation.
Terri is just one disabled person, but she represents all of us - including Dr. Stephen Hawkings and Christopher Reeves. She represents a possibility that each of us face. On that basis, how her case is handled and the precendent that it sets is important to each of us.
I’ve read a lot about the “sanctity of marriage” in regards to this case. But the cold hard facts in the USA today are different. More than 50% of all marriages end in divorce. If you don’t have an ex or soon to be ex out there, you very well may. In every state adultery is more than adequate grounds for divorce. Whatever else good or bad he may be, Michael Schiavo is an adulterer by his own admission. In most states Michael is not only an adulterer, he is a bigamist. He has lived with his current “fiance” for years and has two children by her. Even the Catholic Church would give Terri an annulment in light of Michael’s new relationship. In a divorce court Michael’s statement that he loves both women would be laughed out the door on the way to division of the assets.
There is a catch there though. Terri cannot file for divorce. No one but her legal guardian could file for divorce for her. In fact, in some states there can be no divorce simply because she is disabled in this way. Michael is Terri’s guardian only because no divorce has occurred and Florida state law says the husband gets guardianship. Had a divorce occurred Terri’s parent would be her guardians. I’m not at all sure I would want my ex-husband to decide my fate under these circumstances.
It really does not matter what cognitive state Terri is in. In truth, no one except Terri knows or can adequately determine that. Terri certainly does have a right to death with dignity, as do all of us. She also has the right to choose life, whatever the quality of that life may be. The choices that any of us make at 25 are very different than the ones we make at 40. The judge may be upholding the very letter of Florida law, but Florida law is wrong here. (Note that this would not be the first time that a law in the US was wrong - slavery was once legal. Even as recently as the early 1970’s married women in Massachusetts could not be prescribed birth control unless they asked the doctor for the prescription. Physicians were forbidden to bring up the subject.) The truth - and one of the underlying problems here - is that state law nearly everywhere dates from a time when marriage lasted a lifetime and divorce was frowned upon. Our laws simply have not kept up with changes in our society in this regard. Michael Schiavo effectively divorced Terri years ago. His wishes should not override those of her birth family.
And then there is the issue of killing Terri by way of starvation and dehydration. If Terri is completely unaware and feels no pain then perhaps (and even then I’m not so sure) this is acceptable. However, Terri’s physician regularly prescribes pain killers for her menstrual periods. Obviously she does indeed feel pain. As one who went through childbirth back in the old days when laboring women were not allowed so much as an ice chip, I can tell you that even a day of this is agonizing.
Were any of us to simply starve and dehydrate a sick pet to death, we would find ourselves in jail. Were we as a nation to deny any one of our thousands of prisoners a single meal we would be crucified. Death by starvation is quite simply inhumane by nearly any criteria. Why should any disabled individual - regardless of their mental state - be subjected to something that would be illegal to do to either a dog or a mass murderer?
In particular why should any disabled individual who did not leave specific written instructions and who is not capable of speaking for themselves be subjected to court-ordered death by starvation and dehydration on the word of a single judge rather than a jury and with no chance to have the sentence commuted?
This comment was written by Robin.Report this comment to the moderators
March 26th, 2005 at 6:16 pm
All of these responses are coming form a different theoretical framework (biological, metaphysical, Christian, etc.) For me, the ethical principle of self determination is most important- each of us decides what is an acceptable quality of life and what measures we are willing to take to maintain that desired state of being. When one isn’t able speak for ones’ self, the idea of a proxy seems a very reasonable alternative. I think that Mr. Schiavo has acted with integrety in fighting to uphold Terri’s stated wishes. The idea of proxy is key here- he is acting for Terri, going on the best knowlege he has of her wishes. This is only because she can’t speak for herself. The rights are outlined in the Self Determination Act (1991, I think). I hope this is moving everyone towards formally appointing a health agent (each state decides how to implement, for example, the legal document in NYS is a health care proxy and living wills have no legal standing).
This comment was written by Mary A.Regarding the starvation/dehydration concerns: I am a longtime hospice nurse and the lack of food and water has not contributed to any of our patient’s pain/discomfort during the dying process. If one were to offer Terri food or drink one would need to weigh the concern of aspiration and attendant distress from aspiration or pneumonia with the comfort he would derive from the food or drink. Since, based on available information about her degree of brain damage, she is not processing stimuli in a manner that would allow her to perceive suffering, it seems kind to allow her family to give her food or drink (or communion, which I read she wasn’t allowed to have placed in her mouth) as a way of caring for her in her last days.
Report this comment to the moderators
March 26th, 2005 at 7:29 pm
Robin: You may have read but do not understand.
This comment was written by Atheistfundamentalist.Report this comment to the moderators
March 26th, 2005 at 7:47 pm
The Schindlers have committed a host of questionable acts. When I first started researching this case a few years back, they were hawking videos of their daughter on their website, for a $100 “donation.” Reading over the court records, it appears they were caught secretly videotaping her in her nursing home room. The judge put a stop to it. The state of Florida fined them for illegal fundraising in January of this year, and they were ordered to pay a fine and file a financial report within 30 days. They still haven’t done so. Although this has been reported in the local press, but I haven’t seen it picked up by any of the national news agencies. The St. Petersburg Times has published 500 articles about this case in the last 15 years, going back to a time when they liked Michael, and complimented his care of their daughter. The community sponsored fundraising events to raise the $100,000 necessary to have implants placed in her brain, and for a one-year follow-up treatment protocol. Michael pursued treatment for 3 years before agreeing that she was in a PVS. Terri is a cash cow for a host of organization’s allegedly trying to uphold a “Culture of Life.”
I can’t believe how slanted the news coverage has been, although it’s been shifting the last couple of days. If I hear the term “liberal press” one more time I’ll scream.
Frankly I think both Michael and Judge Greer are heros.
This comment was written by Emmetropia.Report this comment to the moderators
March 26th, 2005 at 8:39 pm
One thing I have to say about the whole “Michael Schiavo is an adulterous creep” argument is that it just doesnt stick for me. Yes adultery is grounds for divorce if your sneaking around behind your completely mentally and physically competant spouse’s back and hiding things from him or her but this is not the case at all. As Ive pointed out before, Terri’s Guardian Ad Litem, stated that the Schindlers gave permission and even ENCOURAGED Michael Schiavo to move on and start dating again. He has never kept his relationships secret and seems to have always been open with the Schindlers as to what he was doing in the romance department, at least until their falling out. (And if they were just saying it to be nice then that is on them because you should never tell anyone to do something unless youre actually prepared for the event of them doing it). Also, just because 50% of marriages these days end in divorce doesnt automatically mean that their marriage was going to. I think, Robin, you might have a slightly biased opinion as well since you mention that you yourself have an ex-husband and i would imagine your views towards men who are in the position of making a decision for a woman would be affected as a result of that. Believe me, I watched my aunt go through an incredibly nasty divorce and I know what a creep ex-husband is and how much it affected not only her but my mother’s views on marriage in general. You have every right to whatever opinion of men you may have Im just stating that our past colors ours views so thats something to think about when passing judgements on other people.
I would also like to pose a question in regards to Terri’s abnormal bone scan. What is the possibility that her fractures were possibly caused as a result of her bulimia? Osteoporosis is a side effect of bulimia and anorexia nervosa. Is there any way she could have sustained fractures from simple falls such as an elderly person would?
This comment was written by Lotusblossom.Report this comment to the moderators
March 26th, 2005 at 9:46 pm
Have to add my opinion to all of these.
I have to agree that, while I’m not in the medical professions, it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to see there is a major problem with Terri’s brain.
I still have questions re: her cognitive ability, mainly because her so-called husband won’t allow any tests. Couple that with his refusal to allow her outside, refusal on numerous occasions to allow her family in to see her, the story of the nurse who found an insulin container in Terri’s room years ago and his desire to have her cremated knowing full well that an attended death won’t require an autopsy is too suspicious a behavior to allow this clown to have his way. He should have forfeited to rights as a spouse after he moved in with his present squeeze and fathered the children. But they’re in Florida, and those people can’t even vote right.
A person’s life is not a throw-away thing. If there remains a shread of decency in the law, what harm would there be in retesting her with the most up to date methods avaialable? There would be a definitive answer and Terri’s parents would have a little peace, Michael would get his money and marry his girlfriend, and all would go their separate ways.
While writing this, it occured to me that it’s a very good thing that Steven Hawking doesn’t live in Florida.
I’m not neccessarily anti on this matter, but there are more humane ways to go about ending a life if one is hell-bent on doing so.
Final item of interest - The judge’s (Greer) pastor told him not to come back to his church.
Frank
This comment was written by Frank.Report this comment to the moderators