Forums Index >> General >> Terri Schiavo
Try googling "persistent vegitative state" - probably less positive. And, every rehabilitative effort under the sun was provided...including some pretty radical implantation surgery in california.
Last edited: Wednesday, March 30, 2005 at 10:33:56 AM
http://jb-williams.com/ts-report-12-03.htm
Historical Facts in Theresa Marie Schiavo's Case
Theresa Marie Schiavo was born in the Philadelphia, Pennsylvania area on 3 December 1963 to Robert and Mary Schindler. She has two, younger siblings, Robert Jr., and Susan. Through the age of 18, Theresa was, according to her parents, very overweight, until she chose to lose weight with the guidance of a physician. She dropped from 250 pounds to around 150 pounds, at which time she met Michael Schiavo. They dated for many months and married in November of 1984. The Schiavo and Schindler families were close and friendly.
Theresa and Michael moved to Florida in 1986 and were followed shortly thereafter by Theresa's parents and siblings. Theresa worked for the Prudential Life Insurance Company and Michael was a restaurant manager.
About three years later, without the apparent knowledge of her parents, Theresa and Michael sought assistance in becoming pregnant through an obstetrician who specialized in fertility services. For over a year, Theresa and Michael received fertility services and counseling in order to enhance their strongly held desire to have a child. By this time, Theresa's weight had dropped even further, to 110 pounds. She was very proud of her fabulous figure and her stunning appearance, wearing bikini bathing suits for the first time and taking great pride in her improved good looks. Testimony and photographs bare witness to these facts.
On the tragic early morning of 25 February 1990, Theresa collapsed in the hallway of her apartment, waking Michael, who called Theresa's family and 911. The lives of Theresa, Michael and the Schindlers were to change forever.
Theresa suffered a cardiac arrest. During the several minutes it took for paramedics to arrive, Theresa experienced loss of oxygen to the brain, or anoxia, for a period sufficiently long to cause permanent loss of brain function. Despite heroic efforts to resuscitate, Theresa remained unconscious and slipped into a coma. She was intubated, ventilated and trached, meaning that she was given life saving medical technological interventions, without which she surely would have died that day.
The cause of the cardiac arrest was adduced to a dramatically reduced potassium level in Theresa's body. Sodium and potassium maintain a vital, chemical balance in the human body that helps define the electrolyte levels. The cause of the imbalance was not clearly identified, but may be linked, in theory, to her drinking 10-15 glasses of iced tea each day. While no formal proof emerged, the medical records note that the combination of aggressive weight loss, diet control and excessive hydration raised questions about Theresa suffering from Bulimia, an eating disorder, more common among women than men, in which purging through vomiting, laxatives and other methods of diet control becomes obsessive.
Theresa spent two and a half months as an inpatient at Humana Northside Hospital, eventually emerging from her coma state, but not recovering consciousness. On 12 May 1990, following extensive testing, therapy and observation, she was discharged to the College Park skilled care and rehabilitation facility. Forty-nine days later, she was transferred again to Bayfront Hospital for additional, aggressive rehabilitation efforts. In September of 1990, she was brought home, but following only three weeks, she was returned to the College Park facility because the "family was overwhelmed by Terry's care needs."
On 18 June 1990, Michael was formally appointed by the court to serve as Theresa's legal guardian, because she was adjudicated to be incompetent by law. Michael's appointment was undisputed by the parties.
The clinical records within the massive case file indicate that Theresa was not responsive to neurological and swallowing tests. She received regular and intense physical, occupational and speech therapies.
Theresa's husband, Michael Schiavo and her mother, Mary Schindler, were virtual partners in their care of and dedication to Theresa. There is no question but that complete trust, mutual caring, explicit love and a common goal of caring for and rehabilitating Theresa, were the shared intentions of Michael Shiavo and the Schindlers.
In late Autumn of 1990, following months of therapy and testing, formal diagnoses of persistent vegetative state with no evidence of improvement, Michael took Theresa to California, where she received an experimental thalamic stimulator implant in her brain. Michael remained in California caring for Theresa during a period of several months and returned to Florida with her in January of 1991. Theresa was transferred to the Mediplex Rehabilitation Center in Brandon, where she received 24 hour skilled care, physical, occupational, speech and recreational therapies.
Despite aggressive therapies, physician and other clinical assessments consistently revealed no functional abilities, only reflexive, rather than cognitive movements, random eye opening, no communication system and little change cognitively or functionally.
On 19 July 1991 Theresa was transferred to the Sable Palms skilled care facility. Periodic neurological exams, regular and aggressive physical, occupational and speech therapy continued through 1994.
Michael Schiavo, on Theresa's and his own behalf, initiated a medical malpractice lawsuit against the obstetrician who had been overseeing Theresa's fertility therapy. In 1993, the malpractice action concluded in Theresa and Michael's favor, resulting in a two element award: More than $750,000 in economic damages for Theresa, and a loss of consortium award (non economic damages) of $300,000 to Michael. The court established a trust fund for Theresa's financial award, with SouthTrust Bank as the Guardian and an independent trustee. This fund was meticulously managed and accounted for and Michael Schiavo had no control over its use. There is no evidence in the record of the trust administration documents of any mismanagement of Theresa's estate, and the records on this matter are excellently maintained.
After the malpractice case judgment, evidence of disaffection between the Schindlers and Michael Schiavo openly emerged for the first time. The Schindlers petitioned the court to remove Michael as Guardian. They made allegations that he was not caring for Theresa, and that his behavior was disruptive to Theresa's treatment and condition.
Proceedings concluded that there was no basis for the removal of Michael as Guardian Further, it was determined that he had been very aggressive and attentive in his care of Theresa. His demanding concern for her well being and meticulous care by the nursing home earned him the characterization by the administrator as "a nursing home administrator's nightmare". It is notable that through more than thirteen years after Theresa's collapse, she has never had a bedsore.
By 1994, Michael's attitude and perspective about Theresa's condition changed. During the previous four years, he had insistently held to the premise that Theresa could recover and the evidence is incontrovertible that he gave his heart and soul to her treatment and care. This was in the face of consistent medical reports indicating that there was little or no likelihood for her improvement.
In early 1994 Theresa contracted a urinary tract infection and Michael, in consultation with Theresa's treating physician, elected not to treat the infection and simultaneously imposed a "do not resuscitate" order should Theresa experience cardiac arrest. When the nursing facility initiated an intervention to challenge this decision, Michael cancelled the orders. Following the incident involving the infection, Theresa was transferred to another skilled nursing facility.
Michael's decision not to treat was based upon discussions and consultation with Theresa's doctor, and was predicated on his reasoned belief that there was no longer any hope for Theresa's recovery. It had taken Michael more than three years to accommodate this reality and he was beginning to accept the idea of allowing Theresa to die naturally rather than remain in the non-cognitive, vegetative state. It took Michael a long time to consider the prospect of getting on with his life – something he was actively encouraged to do by the Schindlers, long before enmity tore them apart. He was even encouraged by the Schindlers to date, and introduced his in-law family to women he was dating. But this was just prior to the malpractice case ending.
As part of the first challenge to Michael's Guardianship, the court appointed John H. Pecarek as Guardian Ad Litem to determine if there had been any abuse by Michael Schiavo. His report, issued 1 March 1994, found no inappropriate actions and indicated that Michael had been very attentive to Theresa. After two more years of legal contention, the Schindlers action against Michael was dismissed with prejudice. Efforts to remove Michael as Guardian were attempted in subsequent years, without success.
Hostilities increased and the Schindlers and Michael Schiavo did not communicate directly. By June of 1996, the court had to order that copies of medical reports be shared with the Schindlers and that all health care providers be permitted to discuss Theresa's condition with the Schindlers – something Michael had temporarily precluded.
In 1997, six years after Theresa's tragic collapse, Michael elected to initiate an action to withdraw artificial life support from Theresa. More than a year later, in May of 1998, the first petition to discontinue life support was entered. The court appointed Richard Pearse, Esq., to serve as Guardian Ad Litem to review the request for withdrawal, a standard procedure.
Mr. Pearse's report, submitted to the court on 20 December 1998 contains what appear to be objective and challenging findings. His review of the clinical record confirmed that Theresa's condition was that of a diagnosed persistent vegetative state with no chance of improvement. Mr. Pearse's investigation concluded that the statements of Mrs. Schindler, Theresa's mother, indicated that Theresa displayed special responses, mostly to her, but that these were not observed or documented.
Mr. Pearse documents the evolving disaffections between the Schindlers and Michael Schiavo. He concludes that Michael Schiavo's testimony regarding the basis for his decision to withdraw life support – a conversation he had with his wife, Theresa, was not clear and convincing, and that potential conflicts of interest regarding the disposition of residual funds in Theresa's trust account following her death affected Michael and the Schindlers – but he placed greater emphasis on the impact it might have had on Michael's decision to discontinue artificial life support. At the time of Mr. Pearse's report, more than $700,000 remained in the guardianship estate.
Mr. Pearse concludes that Michael's hearsay testimony about Theresa's intent is "necessarily adversely affected by the obvious financial benefit to him of being the sole heir at law…" and "…by the chronology of this case…", specifically referencing Michael's change in position relative to maintaining Theresa following the malpractice award.
Mr. Pearse recommended that the petition for removal of the feeding tube be denied, or in the alternative, if the court found the evidence to be clear and convincing, the feeding tube should be withdrawn.
Mr. Pearse also recommended that a Guardian Ad Litem continue to serve in all subsequent proceedings.
In response to Mr. Pearse's report, Michael Schiavo filed a Suggestion of Bias against Mr. Pearse. This document notes that Mr. Pearse failed to mention in his report that Michael Schiavo had earlier, formally offered to divest himself entirely of his financial interest in the guardianship estate. The criticism continues to note that Mr. Pearse's concern about abuse of inheritance potential was directly solely at Michael, not at the Schindlers in the event they might become the heirs and also choose to terminate artificial life support. Further, significant chronological deficits and factual errors are noted, detracting from and prejudicing the objective credibility of Mr. Pearse's report.
The Suggestion of Bias challenges premises and findings of Mr. Pearse, establishing a well pleaded case for bias.
In February of 1999, Mr. Pearse tendered his petition for additional authority or discharge. He was discharged in June of 1999 and no new Guardian Ad Litem was named.
Actions by the Schindlers to remove Michael as Guardian and to block the petition to remove artificial life support took on a frenetic quality at this juncture. More external parties on both sides made appearances as potential interveners.
On 11 February 2000, consequent to hearings and the presentation of competent evidence, Judge Greer ordered the removal of Theresa's artificial life support.
The Schindlers aggressively sought means by which to stop the removal of Theresa's feeding tube. Most of the motions in these efforts were denied, but not without apparent careful and detailed review by the court, often involving hearings at which considerable latitude was afforded the Schindlers in their efforts to proffer testimony and admit evidence.
The motion and hearing process continued through 2000. Then the Schindler's sought to introduce new evidence that was believed to be of a sufficiently substantial nature as to change the court's decision regarding the removal of the feeding tube.
The hearings and testimony before the trial court leading to the decision to discontinue artificial life support included admitted hearsay from Theresa's brother-in-law (Michael Schiavo's brother) and his wife (Michael's Schiavo's sister-in-law) along with testimony from Michael.
The testimony of these parties referenced specific conversations in which Theresa commented about her desire never to be placed on artificial life support. The testimony reflected conversations at or proximate to funerals of close family members who had been on artificial life support. The context and content of the testimony, while hearsay, was deemed credible and consistent and was used by the court as a supporting bases for its decision to discontinue artificial life support.
The Schindler's new evidence ostensibly reflected adversely on Michael Schiavo's role as Guardian. It related to his personal romantic life, the fact that he had relationships with other women, that he had allegedly failed to provide appropriate care and treatment for Theresa, that he was wasting the assets within the guardianship account, and that he was no longer competent to represent Theresa's best interests.
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 court denied the Schindler's motions to remove the guardian, allowing that the evidence was not sufficient and in some instances, not relevant. It set a date for the artificial life support to be discontinued, as of 24 April 2001.
The decision was appealed to the Florida 2nd District Court of Appeals (DCA), and was affirmed in January 2001. The requested appeal to the Florida Supreme Court was denied on 23 April 2001, one day before the scheduled removal of Theresa's feeding tube.
On 24 April 2001, Theresa Schiavo's artificial feeding tube was clamped, and she ceased receiving nutrition and hydration. Under normal circumstances, Theresa would die naturally within a week to ten days.
Two days after the clamping of Theresa's feeding tube, the Schindlers filed a civil action in their capacity as "natural guardians" for Theresa. The trial court, in emergency review, granted a temporary injunction and the tube was unclamped. Michael Schiavo filed an emergency motion to vacate the injunction. This led to the second review and appeal to the 2nd DCA.
The 2nd DCA found that the intention of Florida Statutes 765 with respect to matters such as Theresa's, is to help expedite proceedings of the court when decisions have been made by the bona fide guardian. The 2nd DCA also noted that the Court had acted independently as proxy decision maker regarding the removal of artificial life support.
In October 2001, the 2nd DCA concluded that the Schindlers "have presented no credible evidence suggesting new treatment can restore Mrs. Schiavo." The injunction was lifted and plans moved forward to discontinue artificial nutrition.
Fresh and exhaustive motions regarding new evidence were again crafted and proffered to the trial court by the Schindlers resulting in a lengthy hearing. Affidavits from medical doctors and others alleged that Theresa's condition could be improved.
In particular, the sworn statement of a single, osteopathic physician, Dr. Webber, claimed that he could improve Theresa's condition and had done so in like and similar cases.
The quality of evidence in this affidavit was marginal, but the court allowed it to create a colorable entitlement to additional medical review. The case was remanded to the trial court with the charge that each side would select two expert physicians (a neurologist or a neurosurgeon, according to the court) and agree between them regarding a fifth, and if they could not agree on the fifth, the court would select it.
By May of 2002, the physicians were selected by both sides, but no agreement could be reached about a fifth, so the court selected one. Curiously and surprisingly, Dr. Webber, who had served as the basis for this entire process at the 2nd DCA, did not participate in the exams or the procedure.
Each of the physicians was afforded access to Theresa for the purpose of conducting a thorough examination. Video tape recordings were made of some of the examinations along with segments in which family members interacted with Theresa. The physicians were deposed and proffered testimony regarding their findings.
Written reports of the examinations were prepared by all five physicians, and a very detailed hearing was held in October of 2002.
The clinical evidence presented by the five physicians reflected their examinations and reviews of the medical records. Four of the physicians were board certified in neurology, as suggested by the court, and one physician was board certified in radiology and hyperbaric medicine. All of the physicians had excellent pedigrees of medical training.
The scientific quality, value and relevance of the testimony varied. The two neurologists testifying for Michael Schiavo provided strong, academically based, and scientifically supported evidence that was reasonably deemed clear and convincing by the court. Of the two physicians testifying for the Schindlers, only one was a neurologist, the other was a radiologist/hyperbaric physician. The testimony of the Schindler's physicians was substantially anecdotal, and was reasonably deemed to be not clear and convincing.
The fifth physician, chosen by the court because the two parties could not agree, presented scientifically grounded, academically based evidence that was reasonably deemed to be clear and convincing by the court.
Following exhaustive testimony and the viewing of video tapes, the trial court concluded that no substantial evidence had been presented to indicate any promising treatment that might improve Theresa's cognition. The court sought to glean scientific, case, research- based foundations for the contentions of the Schindler's physician experts, but received principally anecdotal information.
Evidence presented by Michael Schiavo's two physicians and the fifth physician selected by the court was reasonably deemed clear and convincing in support of Theresa being in a persistent vegetative state with no hope for improvement.
Simultaneous appeals of this decision and renewed actions to remove Michael Schiavo as Guardian were initiated based upon new evidence.
The June 2003 appeal to the 2nd DCA was Schiavo IV. The 2nd DCA panel of judges engaged in what approximated a de novo review of all of the facts, testimony and video tapes presented at trial. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's ruling and its conclusions, and in addition, ordered the trial court to set a hearing date for removal of the artificial life support.
The trial court set 15 October 2003 as the date for the removal of Theresa's artificial nutrition tube.
The Schindler's renewed efforts to remove Michael Schiavo as Guardian, and to disqualify judges, were not successful. Multiple amicus briefs and affidavits from parties supporting the Schindler's were submitted through the Schindler's actions and in some instances, independently to the court.
By mid 2003, the landscape and texture of Theresa Schiavo's case underwent profound changes. National media coverage, active involvement by groups advocating right to life, and the attention of the Governor's office and the Florida Legislature, catapulted Theresa's case into a different dimension.
The Schindlers, acting on behalf of Theresa, filed a motion in federal district court seeking a preliminary injunction to stay the removal of the artificial life support from Theresa, scheduled to occur on 15 October 2003. On 6 October 2003, Florida Governor Jeb Bush filed an Amicus brief in support of the motion for a preliminary injunction. The brief argues that removal of artificial nutrition, resulting in death, should be avoided if that person can take oral nutrition and hydration. The Governor predicates his memorandum on the pivotal question as to whether Theresa could ingest food and water on her own. That Theresa is in a diagnosed, persistent vegetative state is explicitly recognized.
On 15 October 2003, Theresa Maria Schiavo's artificial feeding tube was disconnected, for the second time.
The Florida legislature, in special session, passed HB 35 E on 21 October 2003, authorizing the Governor to stay the disconnection of the artificial feeding tube and required, among other things, the appointment of a Guardian Ad Litem to produce this report.
On that same day, 21 October 2003, the artificial feeding tube was re-inserted per the stay ordered by Governor Bush. Other suits and actions were initiated immediately. The governor became a named party in the matters involving Theresa Schiavo.
Cat, you need to read up a little more on this story. Stop eating up the hype. The husband did try a wide range of treatments for Terri to try to improve her condition. Nothing has worked. Has he tried every possible treatment available? I really don't know, but possibly not. Does that mean he hasn't tried very hard to help her though? It's amazing how much the people against him have managed to twist the facts to make it seem like he's some kind of evil bad husband who has refused any treatment for her.
Not that amazing when you consider what 6 months ago.
Okay you guys win,not.
Just trying to keep 44 busy they said they were bored.
Nothing else matters to me the religion , politics , NOONE SHOULD STARVE TO DEATH!
Thats my finial answer.
NINDS Coma and Persistent Vegetative State Information Page
Last edited: Wednesday, March 30, 2005 at 4:22:01 PM
Cat, you're entitled to feel the way you do, and I'll say that I don't even really disagree with you… mostly.
My response to you was in defense of the facts of this story, which so often in this day and age get distorted beyond recognition. I'm not saying that I am totally on Mr. Schiavo's camp on this. But even if I was completely against him, I would still reject some of the mis-information being spread around about him and his actions. Looking at the facts, it seems pretty clear to me that the Shindlers have waged a smear campaign against him to get their way, and I find that despicable.
As for this situation, I can't say exactly what I would do in Michael Schiavo's case. And as I believe Fleabiscuit said earlier in this thread, I 'wouldn't want to be the one making the decision'. It's got to be a very tough ordeal they're all going through right now. I will say from my own perspective that I wouldn't want to live in the state that Terri's in. In fact, I would argue that it's not really 'living' at all.
Think about this for a moment. What it is that makes us alive? Is it simply our heart pumping blood through our veins, air filling our lungs, or something more? With the tech we have now, you can lose limbs and they can put artificial ones on you. Your heart can go dead and they can put in an artificial heart to keep you going. There will come a time when you don't even need to have a human flesh and blood body to be considered alive. What they will never (hopefully) be able to replace is our minds, or more accurately, our brains. What good is having a functioning pair of lungs, heart, liver, limbs, etc. If you don't know who you are, where you are or what's around you?
There have been many people who've lived full lives and interacted with others while being in a severely disabled state. Look at the late Helen Keller, or the physicist Stephen Hawking. Despite these disabilities, these people were/are still able to interact and communicate with the world around them. Is there any hope of Terri being able to do the same? Of knowing who she is? Of who is in a room with her? I don't know the answers to those, and we may never know for sure. But it seems that all the experts brought in to evaluate her seem to think there is no hope of any recovery. I don't know, but it doesn't seem like what Mr. Schiavo is doing here is such a horrible thing.
No matter what though, I'll never feel comfortable with the end outcome, because the one person we will never hear from on her fate is Terri herself.
Last edited: Wednesday, March 30, 2005 at 4:49:29 PM
^good post
"I will say from my own perspective that I wouldn't want to live in the state that Terri's in. In fact, I would argue that it's not really 'living' at all."
What? You mean florida? Seems like a sh*t hole to me too...but tally seems to like it.
In the meantime, the women is in her final days of dehydration and starvation. If she had the capacity to scream inwardly before, she certainly is doing it now.
I think Norky's first post was probably the best.
Norky's post names the big three: no suicide, no assisted suicide, no extraordinary measures if requested. Non-extraordinary physical needs require life-sustaining treatment if the patient is out of it.
^ These reasons are sound because they stop the finagling with death for wrong reasons -- money, depression, or others of a long sordid list. And it's a circus now for the issue. The TV hype, the family squabbles, advocates, etc.
The ethical questions still stand on firm ground. Mentioned by Norky.
The medical/technical question is, I think, on center stage. The question is: when you are in this odd near-death state and no extraordinary measures are required to keep you alive how do you judge future care?
The question, more specifically, is how much chance of functional independence is there now or after a crisis. This is something medical.
The biggest tragedy would be for the TS case to set some kind of precedent for future cases similar to this.
Would the tube be reinserted and the medical experts dragged to a conference table?
Last edited: Wednesday, March 30, 2005 at 6:39:05 PM
@ OM
Very good post.
They shoot horses.
Put dogs to sleep.
Why starve a person to death.
That is the worst part of this to me now.
link
How can this be a vegetative state?
@JJ also good posts.
Last edited: Wednesday, March 30, 2005 at 6:39:35 PM
JJ: she has no cerebral cortex left. She has zero chance for functional idependence, or even assisted living options. Im not a doctor, nor do I play one on tv. But I've had courses in neuroanatomy, traumatic brain injury, and motor disorders...and I've worked in convalescent homes with severely impaired individuals (mostly stroke and TBI cases, as well as dementia...), and in clinics as well. Its heartbreaching stuff. Brain injuries differ greatly in severity, location of lesion, and prognosis.
In some cases involving small localized lesions, spontaneous neural arborization can occur. This means that the brain can generate alternate wiring to allow for cortical centers to regain communication with one another, or regain communication to lower order neural structures...but she has global, diffuse brain damage. None of us can regrow entire cortical structures. Without them, all higher level cognitive functioning is impossible.
I'm not endorsing any action. Its not for me to say. I don't think its for legislators either.
And for the record, I think starving her is a crappy way to handle this...
Cat, if you would have read that link that you yourself provided, you would understand why that could be a persistent vegetative state.
Lets cut with the emotional reaction and work from informed positions.
Last edited: Wednesday, March 30, 2005 at 7:59:41 PM
Terri has permanent brain damage and that means it will stay that way forever, just look at it in a dictionary. Yes I believe people can have there own opinions but they need to know the facts the true cold hard facts, after you are told this you either don't believe it or choose to hide it in the corner of your mind. When the truth is hidden people must find it out, when people know the truth they decide to disbelieve it. The human race is a very curious race, I myself am a very curious person I must know everything I don't already know, but you must take the truth it is what is real. Sometimes it is good to be persistent but when there is no hope left why even try? What do you have to gain by doing this? Her brain is literally mush, she can't feel any pain if she starves to death she just dies, there is no pain emotional or physical. Like I said before she is trapped in her own body, let her out and be free, she is being tortured not being able to tell anyone anything no way of communicating, she is running on nothing but machine. Accept the truth as it is, for it is the only truth you shall know.
"I don't have any respect for the Religious Right. There is no place in this country for practicing religion in politics. That goes for Falwell, Robertson and all the rest of these political preachers. They are a detriment to the country."
"Every good Christian should line up and kick Jerry Falwell's ass."
"A lot of so-called conservatives don't know what the word means. They think I've turned liberal because I believe a woman has a right to an abortion. That's a decision that's up to the pregnant woman, not up to the pope or some do-gooders or the Religious Right."
"When you say 'radical right' today, I think of these moneymaking ventures by fellows like Pat Robertson and others who are trying to take the Republican Party and make a religious organization out of it. If that ever happens, kiss politics goodbye.
"
Republican Senator Barry Goldwater founder of modern american conservativism.
This schiavo debacle is a sign that we can kiss politics goodbye...if bush's campaign wasnt already enough of a sign.
Did anyone really read at the link?
It would clear some things up that have been posted.
It is short and to the point.
Last edited: Wednesday, March 30, 2005 at 9:49:51 PM
Yes, I did.
"Even though those in a persistent vegetative state lose their higher brain functions, other key functions such as breathing and circulation remain relatively intact. Spontaneous movements may occur, and the eyes may open in response to external stimuli. They may even occasionally grimace, cry, or laugh. Although individuals in a persistent vegetative state may appear somewhat normal, they do not speak and they are unable to respond to commands."
@All - Well, it's over. Sad.
Last edited: Thursday, March 31, 2005 at 8:26:45 AM
And that's that.
I don't understand why her family (other than her husband) wasn't allowed to be with Terri at the end. I think that group are going to have some issues to deal with for some time.
I'm glad that Terri has gone on and her ordeal is over, but I can only wonder what this situation will beget in our future.
This sad saga comes to it's bitter end. Rabban's right about the family having issues to work on. I'm afraid this case will become some kind of sick rallying point, and we are all going to hear about it for a long time.
Rest in Peace, Terri Schiavo
Terri Schiavo dies 13 days after tube removed :(
R.I.P. Terri. :[
- b20
Last edited: Thursday, March 31, 2005 at 2:25:21 PM
And if...
Last edited: Thursday, March 31, 2005 at 8:32:26 PM
Interesting read here...
Maybe her husband was right? Maybe all of her doctors were right? Maybe the judge was right? Maybe all of the appeal courts were right? Maybe the experts were right?
Only one thing's for certain...
Our "culture of life" friends won't believe any of it...
New York Times
June 15, 2005
Schiavo's Brain Was Severely Deteriorated, Autopsy Says
By TIMOTHY WILLIAMS
An autopsy on Terri Schiavo, the severely brain damaged woman whose death sparked an intense debate over a person's right-to-die, showed that her brain was severely "atrophied," weighed less than half of what it should have, and that no treatment could have reversed the damage .
During a televised news conference in Largo, Fla., the Piniellas-Pasco Medical Examiner, Jon Thogmartin, also said the autopsy showed that Ms. Schiavo's condition was "consistent" with a person in a persistent vegetative state . That point had become a key issue in the debate over whether to prolong Ms. Schiavo's life and whether she had a chance to recover normal brain function.
Dr. Thogmartin said that recovery was not possible because of the massive brain damage that occurred after Ms. Schiavo collapsed in 1990. Her brain weighed 615 grams at the time of her death on March 31.
"This damage was irreversible," said Dr. Thogmartin. "No amount of therapy or treatment would have regenerated the massive loss of neurons."
Dr. Thogmartin said Ms. Schiavo technically died of "marked dehydration" - not starvation - after her feeding tube was removed.
But he said the underlying mystery at the heart of her case - why she suddenly collapsed 15 years ago -- could not be answered. He said he considered the manner of her death to be "undetermined."
Instead, the medical examiner discussed some factors that did not appear to lead to Ms. Schiavo's illness.
The autopsy, for instance, showed that physical abuse or poison did not play a role in her collapse , he said. Ms. Schiavo's parents, Bob and Mary Schindler, had accused their daughter's husband, Michael Schiavo, of abusing her, which he has steadfastly denied. Dr. Thogmartin also said there was no evidence she had had an eating disorder before she collapsed, although a disorder was widely suspected because she had diminished levels of potassium in her blood.
And despite a widely televised video that appeared to show Ms. Schiavo responding to voices and other movement in her room, the autopsy said that Ms. Schiavo was blind in her final days. The medical examiner said she would not have been able to eat or drink had she been fed by mouth, as her parents had requested. The autopsy found no evidence that she suffered a heart attack, or that she had been given harmful drugs that may have accelerated her death.
Asked about persistent vegetative state, Dr. Stephen Milton, a neuropathology expert who joined Dr. Thogmartin at the news conference, said that term referred to a clinical diagnosis, not a pathological diagnosis. But, he said, "There was nothing in the autopsy that is inconsistent with persistent vegetative state."
The lawyer for the Schindlers said at a news conference today that the parents continue to believe their daughter was not in a persistent vegetative state and thus should not have had her feeding tube removed.
"If Teri Schiavo had wanted to die, she had a lot of opportunities to die," said the lawyer, David Gibbs III.
Ms. Schiavo's parents sought the autopsy to determine the cause of Ms. Schiavo's mysterious collapse the night of Feb. 25, 1990. She had suffered extensive brain damage when her heart stopped beating and she lacked a pulse for more than one hour by the time emergency medical personnel arrived.
After her collapse, she had been able to breathe on her own and had periods of wakefulness, but most doctors agreed that Ms. Schiavo was in a "persistent vegetative state" and incapable of thought or emotion. Her parents however, argued that their daughter was minimally conscious and could recover through an intensive therapeutic regimen. The question of whether Ms. Schiavo should have been allowed to die, as her husband said she wanted, or be turned over to the care of her parents, who wanted to keep her alive, went on for seven years, and reached the Vatican, the White House, Congress and various state and federal courts, before finally reaching the Supreme Court, which declined to hear her case.
Her death on the last day of March came 13 days after a feeding tube that was keeping her alive had been removed. Her husband had sought the removal of the tube over the objection of the Schindlers.
At various times, the Schindlers accused Mr. Schiavo of physically abusing his wife, and suggested that poisoning or strangulation may have led to her collapse. Mr. Schiavo has repeatedly denied abusing his wife, and the medical examiner said several times today that there was no evidence of trauma consistent with physical abuse before her collapse .
At one point during the drawn-out dispute, President Bush returned to the White House from a Texas vacation late on a Sunday night solely to sign a law that allowed Ms. Schiavo's parents to seek a federal court review of the facts of the case. He praised Congress for "voting to give Terry Schiavo's parents another opportunity to save their daughter's life."
Ms. Schiavo's husband and parents, once close, battled over her fate since 1998, when Mr. Schiavo asked a state court's permission to remove life support.
Courts also found credible Mr. Schiavo's testimony that his wife, who left no written directive, had said on several occasions that she would not want life-prolonging measures to be used for her.
Mr. Schiavo's lawyer, George Felos, said today that his client was "pleased to hear the results" of the autopsy because it confirmed many of the points Mr. Schiavo has argued for several years. Mr. Felos also said that Mr. Schiavo had decided to release autopsy photos of his wife's brain in order to dispel any notion that she could have recovered.
He feels it is important to show "what is so apparent from these photographs," said Mr. Felos.
Last edited: Wednesday, June 15, 2005 at 2:47:01 PM
Bull-hooey. We can rebuild her.
You can make the brain, but you can't make the person.
^ That too may depend on our understanding of the "machinery" that performs life functions and our ability to keep detailed scans.
{WalMart free for over 24 months!}
56, that's the bomb.
The latest on Schiavo
Terri's Fight.org
So how do we feel about this one?
Personally, the wife and I have living wills that opt for termination if left in a vegetative state. Terri didn't have that paperwork in place, so the decision has turned into a battle between her husband and her parents. I'm really not sure myself. I can see where the husband may be trying to carry out his wife's wishes, but I can see how her parents may have a different position on the issue. Of course, their website presents their case in a way that makes me want to side with them, but I also recognise a parent's reluctance to let a child go (especially if they feel there's any hope at all of them having some sort of relationship with them).
Last edited: Thursday, March 24, 2005 at 10:36:52 AM