There are obviously some that disagree on the Schiavo case

Many of us have tried repeatedly to explain that the person the Terri was is dead and gone. Yet there continues to be a number that insist she should still be given a chance. I would like to offer this thread as an opportunity for those that disagree to explain how they think the person that was Terri Schiavo has a chance to recover.

I ask those of us that are skeptical of such things to hold back from outright challenges from their explanations. Ask questions of what they mean or ask for more details. But lets find out what it is they are thinking.

Since their argument is so weak, we are seeing many attempts on the right to change the facts, claiming she really isn't in a persistent vegetative state.

Along these lines, TNR has an interesting article from a med school professor criticizing Frist's diagnosis off a video tape at:
http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=w050321&s=markel032305

also reported at Light Up the Darkness
http://www.lightupthedarkness.org/blog/?view=plink&id=609

I have been on chats. The reasons are #1. her cheating husband wants to kill her, and, #2. Starving is murder.

And don't forget those activiest judges are "going against the law." :eyes: And hospice is now a murdering place.

It is understandable that people would believe that being starved would be a cruel way to die. I had such fears earlier in my practice when families wanted to discontine tube feedings, fearing the patient might suffer from this. (That was in cases of people who were terminal but not brain dead--obviously this is not a concern at all in Terri Schiavo's case if you understand her neurological condition).

Fortunately what is known of such practices from hospice patients suggests that it is actually a humane way to die. See
http://www.lightupthedarkness.org/blog/?view=plink&id=588

Besides the post there, I also have a link to an article from New England Journal of Medicine in the comments.

There is 100% evidence that her brain is half liquid, but these idiots say she "looks at people".

People in this country completely are clueless to science and more interested in fantasies.

are the victims of media misinformation to create conflict where there is none. Sensationalizing the "news" for the Almighty rating.

some of us are able to think for ourselves. Get used to it.

Please tell us why.

I don't say anything I don't mean.

i guess are victims of media misinformation.



super post :eyes:

If she is brain dead, it doesn't really matter what they do now anyway. Lock her away in a dark basement and maintain this hoax forever if it makes them feel better about it. Perhaps some of these faith based groups can adopt the body and maintain it.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topics&forum=250

on edit: interesting responses so far, eh? So much for your request.

I have noooo problem if she had decided that she didnt want to continue like this. But obviously it is not on paper.

The main person claiming thats what she wanted is her husband who motives comes into question.

Yes, he was active early on but only after 7 years did he suddenly announce that "my wife didnt want to live like this"...and this after hooking up with a new babe and fathering 2 children.

I'm sorry ...i simply think the husband , given his dual loyalties and some questions of his true feelings, should not be the main person to decide.

what her wishes were? The only questions with regard to his true feelings are those that have been only recently trumped up. We should not know about this case at all, basically.

and people were on death row where people sweared they were guilty BEFORE dna evidence , thankfully , cleared them.

sentenced to a living hell.

she may be brain damaged or in persistent vegitative state but her heart and lungs still work.

She needs a PET SCAN which will answer many questions.


And as I said, if she signed a living will, noooo problem.

And all the wishing in the world, isn't going to change things after 15 years. Dead.

Insisting that she is regardless of the facts makes any argument you give weaker.

This goes to the very heart of the issue for many. Its a question of what do we consider important. Something that looks like a human or something that thinks like a human. She does not think any longer. All the parts of her brain that served to create her mind are gone. There is just enough brain left to keep the hardware running. But everything that was the person is gone.

If we could a brain transplant would get her up from that bed. But it certainly wouldn't be Terri in there. We are our brains. Our brains are us. We do not survive their loss.

Some facts regarding this


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=3341688

From the post:

But people have come out of these types of situations before. I read in Reader's Digest about this guy who was in a coma/vegetative state who suddenly started writing a novel...

Stop! This is an "apples and oranges" situation. The folks you have read about suffered physical trauma to their brain, usually as a result of falls and car crashes. The cerebral cortex was damaged, but still there. Mrs. Schiavo's cortex is not damaged, it is DEAD. The brain tissue died from lack of oxygen. In fact, the cortex has shriveled and liquefied.

Let's go to the CT Scan where Carol Merrill is standing:





As you can see, you can't think with what isn't there.


Nor feel, evidently.

female, one 17 years old and one 4 years old. This was prior to the days when we would have ever considered the option of withholding nutrition.

They simply didn't really exist, as hard as it is for me to say this. They were shells, or perhaps a better analogy, "vegetables" picked from the vine. They had life, admittedly, but were no more aware than a vegetable (I hate the use of the word "vegetable" to describe them, but it does make the point on a somewhat morbid manner).

I can see allowing these people to exist for a year or so, but beyond that, NOW (as opposed to when I cared for such people), it would only be humane to do so for the loved ones' sakes, not the patients.

FWIW, I believe in some sort of an afterlife and an indeterminate divinity (I call that spirit God but can accept other names as well), and I think it is cruel to keep people in this state from enjoying that reward.

The husband did NOT decide to end her life. The courts did.

"Florida law calls for the trial court to determine what Terri would chose to do in this situation, and after a trial hard fought by Terri's husband and her family, where each side was given the opportunity to present its best case about what Terri would do, the court determined the evidence was clear and convincing that Terri would chose not to continue living by the affirmative intervention of modern medicine -- that she would chose to have her feeding tube disconnected. In a second trial, brought about by Terri's family's claims new therapies could restore her and that the existence of such a therapy would make her "change her mind," the trial court again heard evidence from all sides and determined that no new therapy presented any reasonable chance of restoring Terri's brain function. The propriety of these decisions -- from the sufficiency of the evidence to the appropriateness of the procedures used -- has been unanimously upheld on appeal each time." (see: http://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/infopage.html)

The issues regarding Mr. Schiavo's intentions/motivations or "moral fibre" are moot. As are (unfounded, AFAIK) allegations of spousal abuse or murder. The issue here is that the courts have already decided -- again and again and again -- on this issue, and because people don't like their decision they are seeking to subvert the power of the Florida judiciary.

Terri's parents strongly encouraged Michael Shiavo to date and even met his girlfriend!

but that changes NOTHING as to MS compromised guardianship, imho.

The courts took over, appointed a guardian ad litem, and this case has been thoroughly adjudicated through, by now, THIRTY judges.

And let her parents deal with it.

But he stayed married to her because he didn't want to see her go on like that indefinitely.

No matter how many times that is explained to people they just refuse to even acknowledge it.

LOL! You can't 'suddenly' announce anything after trying to get her to come out of it after doing everything possible for seven years. SEVEN YEARS!! That's how long he was trying his damndest to get her to recover. That's how long it took him to finally accept that the doctors were right and she would never, EVER, recover any consciousness at all.

And the husband was NOT the main person to decide - 19 judges decided that, over the course of seven years. He asked the courts to decide, and they did, looking over all of the evidence and testimony. This is possibly the most adjudicated case in U.S. history.

the husband, given his actions, and the fact that many suspect he abused Terri, should not be the one to decide.

that the lack of a written directive makes the process harder, especially when the related people diagree. THAT however is why we have COURTS that base their determination on LAWS.

The State of Florida, through its elected representatives, passed a law, signed by its elected Governor, determining who should make the determination in absence of a written directive. It identifies them in priority order, starting with the SPOUSE, not the parents and not a majority vote of all living relatives.

You can disagree with this law, but the Florida legislature has not chosen to change it, and the voters of Flordia have not chosen to elect people who want to.

You can argue that the law didn't anticipate this particular situation, and perhaps that's true, but we don't make exceptions to the law on the fly, because to do so opens up the possibility that hundreds if not thousands of other plaintiffs will demand consideration for their special situation.

it's not black or white. Read this whole post and think before you reply.

I have in my mind the following things:

1. After fifteen years this whole discussion is absolutely absurd
2. If she really can't feel pain, why bother with the morphine
3. Why is pulling a feeding tube more acceptable than a morphine overdose?
4. If "she" really is just a vegetable, whose wishes are you honoring? I certainly don't think either side is doing anything for the "her" that is Terry in either outcome.

I agree that following the law, because it could be shown in court that her wishes would be in line with letting her go that it should be done. I also EXACTLY at the same time think that if she isn't really there, then let her parents have her.

Beyond an intellectual interest in this, I really don't care what happens to her either way - that's completely and basically emotionally honest on my part. It doesn't affect me at all and it's not "my" problem to deal with. I feel more pain for the husband and the parents than for Terry. Some people here have used the word ghoulish. I think both sides of the cultural debate on this are ghoulish for exactly the same reasons.

What I can say with 100% certainty is this:

If I were brain dead or unable to recover to a productive human life, I would rather be put down as soon as possible. If enough time went by and my parents or SO got it in their head that they wanted to keep my body around, then I love them well enough to let them have that bit of me. I would hope they would love me enough to do the right thing, eventually, but a day or a decade wouldn't make any difference to me if I were truly a vegetable.

Let me put it another way. If I truly believed my SO was a vegetable and would never recover and HIS parents asked to become his caretaker/guardian against his final wishes, AT THIS VERY LATE POINT I would let them. I would be more inclined to honor his wishes against his parents wishes BEFORE a surgical feeding tube was installed though.

Finally, my biggest problem with the DU side of the argument is that we want this one weird case to be the basis for every case and we want to generalize from this just as badly as the right wing nutjobs do. Each medical case is individual and has to be considered on its own merits.

So, now you see inside my mind. I'm a dualist. I think things can be both at the same time, right and wrong, and that I can be happy that Terry is finally getting what the courts have established her wishes to be, but entirely unhappy at the way we've gone about it both here, and on the other side of the fence.

In a nation of laws it has gone to the courts to establish what her wishes "would have been".

I suppose I could get you to answer your own question though. How do you propose to know what she wants?

She isn't there anymore. Do you think she will come back?

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

is that there is no Terri there to learn what her wishes are. If you want to learn what her wishes are, you have to consult what she said and did before she was unable to communicate. Who knows her wishes better than her spouse? The solution is to determine if the spouse is a reliable witness and guardian of her intentions. Michael Schiavo proved that to the satisfaction of the Florida courts, and the Florida courts ruled to the satisfaction of the federal courts who have so far reviewed the case.

still proving you either didn't read it or didn't get it.

That's okay lil burt - we're on the same side here. :P

I did not read your whole post, ya bastid.

:P

(Not fair to be reasonable while pretending to speak against the reasonable positon, lil sui. ;) )

On Larry King a few days ago M. Schiavo made the ff: comment: King asked him if he knew how the Schindlers felt. M. Schiavo answered:

"Yes, I do. But this is not about them, it's about Terri. And I've also said that in court. We didn't know what Terri wanted, but this is what we want..."



How can he say "We didn't know what Terri wanted" when he has been in court for how many years saying what she wanted.

to understand the context in which the statement was made. Unedited, of course.

As it stands, it's out of context and it's easy to speculate and be dead wrong about the meaning of what was said.

I agree that removing the feeding tube does nothing for or against her. She is dead and gone. Her body lingers on.

Some may try to reduce it to a financial descision and ridicule it for that reason. But I dismiss this as well. There are emotions still invested in this on the part of those still involved. They are being held hostage by a body. Some cannot let go and some can. The one that can let go happens to be the one that has the authority to make descisions. This creates a problem for the rest.

While it is true that in a purely rational sense she is dead her body still carries all the reminders of her identity for those that loved her. In a very real sense they cannot move on until the body is as dead as her mind. Its time. The husband asked the courts to decide what was in her best interest. They decided it was time to take out the tube and he agreed. The rest of the family cling to a fruitless hope.

it's a private medical concern. I can't judge them either way. All I can do is map this ONE PARTICULAR situation (medically speaking) onto my own life and see if it fits what I know of myself.

I know I'd rather move on in this circumstance. I also know if leaving my vegetative body around for the sanity of my loved ones (they really aren't that frail, just a "what if") was what it took, I'd be okay with that today, because on that day "I" wouldn't be the "me" of today. I could care less what you did with my hair clippings too.

Truth to tell, as soon as I hit alpha they're yanking my organs anyway!!! Who knows, someday some other DUer may log on and look at one of sui's old posts with one of sui's eyeballs!

Clinging to something like a breathing carcass is not exactly healthy. It keeps the grieving process from completing. In time it can even lead to very serious conditions. The family needs to let go for their own sake.

from if I where jungian.

It's not my place to administer their psyches. Healing takes place at its own pace.

Don't you think their belief that watching their child starve and thirst to death will offset the process of "letting go"? Their bitterness and anger at the son-in-law they used to love? The father's memory of walking his daughter down the aisle to "give her" to the groom.

I completely disagree that we have any say whatsoever about forcing them to "let go". Thinking that we do is unhealthy.

And he asked the courts to help decide. Keep in mind the process that occurred here. He did not declare that he wanted to unplug her. He asked the courts to determine what to do. They asked all witnesses that had any insite to her mindset during her life and determined that she would wish to be unplugged. He agreed with their descision the family didn't. Unfortunate for them their wishes do not hold any sway legally on the matter.

and I agree with it. Again, I can only formulate what would be "right" for me.

I'll take it one step further - I'd rather not lose ten years of my life. If you could promise me that I'd come out of this coma in ten years, I'd still rather have the laughing gas turned up full volume until the end of the song.

Not sure I understand the nature of your objections based on where this conversation is going. It your reaction just to people seeming to believe they have a say in her condition? Or is there some other aspect that is objectionable?

no, my objection isn't so much an objection as a discomfort.

I've explained that I'm dualistic about this, so the very tight black and white definition of how this situation needs to end by both sides doesn't fit, and the more strident both sides get the more I reject all of it.

If it were a purely dry intellectual exercise, there wouldn't really be an emotional argument here, and certainly, both sides wouldn't be as emotionally invested in the outcome, such as it is.

You asked me to explain my state of mind - I think I have.

While I too agree with the majority that this case is a ridiculous misuse of political grandstanding by republicans pandering to the religious right, your comment that Terri Schiavo clearly doesn't give a rat's buttocks any longer about whether or how she is kept alive highlights the fact that this case is as much about the rights and the motives of the living as it is about Terri Schiavo's wishes. Forgive me for the obvious paraphrase of your actual remarks.

I too would not want to be kept alive artificially under those circumstances, but that desire is ultimately predicated upon my being aware of the circumstances, even if I know intellectually that I would not be conscious of them. She's meat now, with some limited ability to maintain bodily function, i.e. heartbeat and respiration. Does meat really care one way or the other? If not, whose interests are actually being served by any decision, one way or the other?

I'm not going to try to answer that-- I'm still opposed to keeping her alive artificially-- but I do appreciate your pointing out this aspect of the argument.

those decision foryou when you're incapacitated.

Your rights to yourself, your privacy, do not terminate once you're disabled or even brain dead.

To suggest that because you are no longer in a position in which you can care anything can be done with you is -- well, I think it's vile.

I can designate the disposition of my estate before I'm dead and within legal parameters those must be followed. But I might not be able to designate what happens to my breathing body?

just saying that laying down a hard and fast "generalized" rule from this bizarro case may not be appropriate.

My infinitesimal splitation of the hair was that after enough time has gone by why does anyone care?

I suppose I could pretend give a damn about my hair and fingernail clippings, but in really real reality it wouldn't bother me what you do with my precious hair clippings.

However, you are correct - the gist of my original post up there was that my trusted lieutenant would exercise his DISCRETION, whatever that entailed, tailored to the situation at hand, and that I had provided enough input and guidelines to make exercising said discretion the entire part of valor, on my behalf.

and your post made me shudder for another reason. Consider this. We here are going on the assumption that she is a tomato, and i agree with that. However, what if there is just enough of her there to be aware she is on the planet. We know there are still areas of the brain that are functioning. I am not saying that she can have any cognitive thought, but what if there is just enough to make her aware she is trapped in there. How horrible would that be. Man, I am going to go make sure my living will is correct.

But my wife better damn well make sure it doesn't happen. Sure, I won't be AWARE of it, but allow my legacy a little dignity, eh?

Furthermore, I don't pretend to know if you or I have a "soul" or anything like it, but if we do, is it not conceivable that Terri Schiavo's has been trapped in her mortal fleshy prison for all these years, just praying for the sweet release of physical death?

I think after sleeping on this that I've concluded that I have to trust my SO to exercise his discretion tailored to the situation at hand, and that I have done everything I can for BOTH my SO and parents to know the extent of my wishes in several situations.

If I were going to be EXACTLY like Terry Schiavo, then don't even do the surgical implant of the feeding tube. Just spin the dial on the happy juice for me until the lights go out.

However, if a doctor says that there is a chance I could recover in a week or two and regain functionality then exercise your discretion. If "functionality" means being in an electric wheelchair with a catheter up my butt and drooling crosseyed in my armpit for the rest of my life, then please use the fire axe on me - I promise I won't mind.

If functionality means I merely lost a leg in the accident or I'm permanently blind, no problem, roll the dice, take a chance. I'm made of some pretty tough stuff, and those things are just inconveniences.

The Schiavo case is too simple to make general rules about every single situation you could possibly find yourself in. I think we're all being simple minded to think that the ramifications of this issue are black or white, whatever you believe should have been done.

If enough time went by and my parents or SO got it in their head that they wanted to keep my body around, then I love them well enough to let them have that bit of me.

But care of that body costs about $80,000 a year, more so if round the clock home nursing is utilized. Assuming at some point your parents or SO would spend down and you became eleigible for Medicaid would you want the government to foot the bill?

Terri's parents have already attempted to care for her, they brought he back after 3 weeks because they were overwhelmed by her needs.

if they can't then they wouldn't have much choice in the matter, and I wouldn't want to obligate them to bankruptcy or take away resources that might be used on someone with a better chance of recovery. Either way it wouldn't bother me if I were truly brain dead. We're going back to trust here. You want a law to govern this situation? I want the law to state that my SO (or appointed guardian) has a bit of discretion based on the situation at hand, and I have to yield to that discretion realistically. It's not black and white, however much we would like it to be.

Again, what I said applies to me. I am not trying to make it apply to anyone else, and I likewise have to reject letting anyone else set the agenda for me based on what I perceive is incomplete thinking.

Anyway, we're mostly on the same side here. My parents as medical professionals aren't anything at all like Terry's parents, and neither is my SO anything at all like her husband. So a law drafted for someone in PVS with contentious parents and SO's will not apply to me.

I answered the original post which is "what are you thinking".

Sarah Scantlin was 18 years old when, as a pedestrian, she was injured in a hit-and-run accident that left her in a semi-vegetative condition, aware of her surroundings but unable to speak or move.

Since that time, she has been in a care centre in the Midwest US state of Kansas.

Scantlin's parents unexpectedly received a phone call last week from the nursing home where their now 38-year-old daughter resides.

However, instead of the call being about Sarah, it was actually from Sarah.

"Hi mum," she said to her mother.

(snip)

Although Scantlin started making indiscernible noises a couple of years ago, she remained unresponsive except for the ability to make eye contact.

http://tvnz.co.nz/view/news_world_story_skin/473592%3fformat=html

Editing to say... Had a lot more to say but have to go to lunch. Interestingly enough, lunch today is with a neurologist :) Be back soon!

Shiavo has been diagnosed with persistent vegetative state. I'm not a doctor, but lots of them in Florida and California have diagnosed her.

Why do you second guess the attendant physicians?

If she's a muppet for the fundies I'm Brad Fucking Pitt...

Please make that a wireless keyboard ;)

Merci

that the answer is automatically "B" just because Bush said "A" in yet another perverse manipulation to further his aims?

Terri breathes on her own without the aid of a ventilator. Her only dependency is on a feeding tube into her stomach for liquids and nourishment. She swallows her own saliva indicating that with the proper therapy she could be swallowing fluids by mouth. Why are we so unwilling to see her get a chance of proper therapy under her parents' care?

I will not play this stupid knee-jerk game. Michael Schiavo won a medical malpractice case on Terri's behalf in 1992, pledged to use the money for Terri’s rehabilitation and care for the rest of her natural life. $300,000 was awarded directly to Michael and more than $700,000 for Terri’s care. Where's the care Michael?
If Terry didn’t want to be kept alive by artificial means, how strange he didn't mention that until AFTER he had pocketed the money to keep her alive. How strange that now that he needs to move on, her natural life must come to an end. If her life was natural enough back then to merit a cool $1 million, it's natural enough right now.

It's unfortunate for him that during the 12 years where he's lived with his girlfriend and their 2 new children that Terri couldn't keel over and die. Them there's the breaks. The time to not put Terri on life support was when he was thinking of suing for malpractice and weeping that he needed that money to keep her alive. Well she's still alive Michael. She's still flesh and blood and breathing alive. If you can't deal with it or walk away.

She's alive. And imo she's not PVS, despite Michael Schiavo's deepest wishes. I am so amused to see the sudden flurry of big terms like PVS being tossed around by people who never cracked open a first year med book or don't know squat about bioneurology. Neurosurgeons can't agree on what is PVS and what isn't yet all of a sudden, everyone at DU is an expert. Half of the patients they declare to be PVS are incorrectly diagnosed.

The sensory modality assessment and rehabilitation technique (SMART), which took 10 years to develop, is the brainchild of occupational therapists in the brain injury unit at the hospital. Dissatisfied with the lack of a standardised tool for assessing patients with brain injuries, they set about making their own.

In 1996 a study showed that after assessment with SMART 43% of the patients who had been admitted to the brain injury unit and believed to be in a vegetative state had been wrongly diagnosed.

Misdiagnosis of the vegetative state: retrospective study in a rehabilitation unit

Neurology itself is such a young science and what is wrong with the family holding out hope that it can help their daughter once Mr-Yank-the-tube-out-now is no longer the sole decision-maker? If that were my daughter up there, you BET I'd be hollering for every neurologist in the contintental US to come examine her and do EVERYTHING they could -leave NO stone unturned.

It's so sad to see the type of posts we've seen over the last few days on a forum that cheered for stem cell research as we paraded Christopher Reeves around as if, if only Bush were out of the way, he would be a Superman again. I don't get it- Christopher Reeve could one day have flown again but Terry Schiavo is doomed to be a permanent vegetable? I really wish many people here would refrain from declaring her to be a PVS with such certainty.

There are plenty of physicians who believe there's hope for Terry. Why would I not side with them in this devastating case where hope and proper care are so important? My mother is a brilliant psychiatrist (I don't say that because she's my mother- I say it as a recognized fact), we spoke about this case last night and discussed a woman in her hospital who spent 43 years as a hopeless "PVS" only to suddenly recover.

I grieve for Terri's family.
I grieve for Terri.

Who are we to determine that Terri's life is "futile"? Should the cognitively impaired now be sacrificed because the mentally astute find them to be a nuisance?

By whose "yardstick" are we going to determine whose life is worth living and whose life isn't worthy of treatment? The State's? The Insurance Companies'? Ex-husbands' who have been living a cushy life with their girlfriends for the last 10 years (on the PVS's money) and want to 'move on'?

No tests can definitively determine what Schiavo knows and feels.

"For all that medicine can do, we have no way of looking into another person's mind and understanding what is there," - Dr. James Bernat, professor of Neurology, Dartmouth Medical School

17 MEDICAL AFFIDAVITS AFFIRM TERRI SCHIAVO NOT PVS


Affidavit of Dr. Ralph Ankenman, MD

Affidavit of Dr. Beatrice Engstrand, MD

Affidavit of Dr. Alyse Eytan, MD

Affidavit of Dr. Harry Sawyer Goldsmith, MD

Affidavit of Dr. Jacob Green, MD

Affidavit of Dr. Carolyn Heron, MD

Affidavit of Dr. David Hopper, PhD

Affidavit of Dr. Lawrence Huntoon, MD

Affidavit of Dr. Pamela Hyikn, SLP

Affidavit of Dr. Jill Joyce, Phd

Affidavit of Dr. Philip Kennedy, MD, Phd

Affidavit of Dr. Kyle Lakas, MS, CCC, SLP

Affidavit of Dr. Richard Neubauer, MD, PA

Affidavit of Dr. Ricardo Senno, MD, MS, FAAPMR

Affidavit of Dr. Stanley Terman, MD, Phd

Affidavit of Dr. J. Michael Uszler, MD

Affidavit of Dr. Richard Weidman, MD

They admit they didn't examine Terri. They talk about responses and behaviors that are not evident.

--IMM

You could put a new brain in her skull and Terri would still not exist. You could use a new technique to get her brain to regrow and Terri would still not exist. A person is not just a body with a brain in it.

A person is a body and a brain that has recorded experiences. A person is the sum of their memories. Once you destroy the pysical medium those memories are stored in there is no chance of reconstituting them. Any new brain cells placed or grown in there will be blank slates. There will be nothing of Terri present in them.

In cases of brain damage where people go into comas and later recover there is no where near as much damage as Terri has. What happens in their case is that damage occurrs that disconnects areas of the brain from the rest of it. The information is still stored in the brain but it is diconnected. Brain cells can grow and expand. In these cases the disconnected brain cells can become reconnected and sentience can return. Thus the individual can wake up.

In Terri's case there is no disconnection. There is massive damage. The bulk of her brain has been destroyed. Liquified. It has gotten worse since her initial injury. The damage has destroyed everything that was the person. It has left only enough brain to keep the body running.

Some doctors are claiming that there is improvement in the brain. This may be true. Brain cells can grow. But this means nothing in her case. These new cells are not connecting to any stored or isolated clusters of existing cells. They are just blank pages being added to a blank book. Its improvement in the organ of the brain only. It is not improvement of the person named Terri. She is gone.

but as I read your thread, I had unpleasant flashbacks of past times when similar 'logical' explanations were rattled off based on what was considered sound science in several scientifically advanced countries when they too thought they had all the answers. A person is the sum of their memories? Well, you might be ;) if you insist but I believe we're much much more than that.

When did everyone at DU become such experts in neuroscience?

When did people at DU pore over her charts?

And lastly, whose information are you trusting? Are you so certain?

To declare her 'brain-dead' as a statement of fact should, at the minimum, require competent diagnosis by qualified neurosurgeon and at least 17 respectable physicians filed affadavits to challenge the competency and thoroughness of the original diagnosis. The idea that her brain partially liquified is based on a CT scan which is a blurry picture- too blurry to accurately see what kind of damage exists should make us really pause.

Does that fact not affect your thinking?

We do not know. We do NOT understand. This is exactly why when comatose patients wake up we flap all over the place yelling about miracles.

Man makes me laugh indeed. We understand next to nothing in this world other than elementary mechanics and we dare pronounce judgements of this nature. We dare talk about liquefied brains when neurologists are disputing the findings of the $5000/month hospice where her husband denied her even an MRI.

Surely, you wouldn't deny the parents the right, the time to get the proper tests done, the right to have experts examine her?

You can keep on insisting that we are ignorant about the brain. Its not true but you are entitled to your opinion. We really do know quite a bit about the brain. Comas are not the mystery you are making them out to be. We have mapped the brain and know a great deal about it.

Yes there are still things we need to learn. A lot of things. But this does not mean it is a blank slate.

People waking from comas are not the results of miracles. They are the very well understood results of brains reestablishing connections to existing portions of the brain that were severed.

As to what evidence we have concerning her state of mind we have numerous neurologistst that have directly observed her and stated categorically that there is no brain activity present in the higher order functions. Estimates of damage suggest that the vast majority of her cerebral cortex are gone. Replaced by spinal fluid over the years they have been replaced by goo. Your mind does not survive this. There is no recovery. We know this. We know this because numerous cat scans have shown the damage. MRIs are simply not required in such a case.

The Doctors that have made claims of her being salvagable have not had access to her records or been allowed to examine her directly. They are more activist than Doctor. They have no evidence other than an edited aging video to base their opinion on. This is not the basis of accetible contention of hard evidence and expert diagnosis.

Her parents are not her legal guardian. Her husband is. He is not divorced from her and maintains custody. He fought for her life and after many years asked the court to decide what was best. They decided it was time to remove the feeding tube based on numerous Neurologists examination of the case.

There is a world of difference between cases of patients waking up from comas and this case. There is brain left in their cases. Its drastically different. There has never been a case of a person waking from damage this severe. It just doesn't happen. There is no physical way for it to happen. Her brain is gone. Destroyed.

Most coma victims are the result of a localized injury. The brain is an amazingly adpative organ. Given time it can rewire to reconnect to lost portions of the brain. But only if there is brain to reconnect to. It is tragic but a fact that there is no brain matter for her brain to reconnect to. Its gone.

for her husband to resume standard marital relations with her. Would it be appropriate for him to impregnate her in her condition?
Just askin...

I've stayed away from DU (except for a few posts in the disabilities forum) because this whole thing is being blown out of proportion. That case has become a political football for the Right AND the Left.

Additionally, I couldn't bear the vitriol; the ugly language heard in here referring to Ms Schiavo as a "Vegetable". The utter lack of understanding in terms of people who suffer with various disabilities...the whole nine yards. It angered me at first, then it scared me.

I couldn't agree with you MORE. Thank you for posting your thoughts and data on this issue so thoroughly and so eloquently. For the FIRST time in many days, I can relax because: TINOIRE Has Spoken (LOL)

And NO newbies Tin is NOT a freeper. Tinoire is about as right wing as Dennis Kucinich.

While nobody will agree on everything regarding social/human rights policies, maybe, just maybe a few negative ideas were purposely set into motion here in DU by the real freeps to stir up division. :think:

Hoping you are well :hug: SB

between individuals that disagree. Unfortunately this topic is a very emotionally charged one. It strikes at several core issues simultaneously. I wish everyone could engage in such a conversation with decorum and civility. But one has to expect some explosions.

There are those of us that will continue to try to maintain civil discourse on even the most firey of subjects. Because such dialog is so vital in a free society.

That is why this particular thread is much more encouraging and somewhat calming to me. I appreciate all the info and civilized/sensitive dialog.

The issues surrounding quality of life, persons with disabilities, quality healthcare etc..are very personal ones for my family and me.

She has not seen the patient but is basing her diagnosis on watching a video, edited from 10 hours to a few minutes. If you believe this means that a woman whose cerebral cortex has been mostly replaced by spinal fluid can ever be conscious again, do you believe that dogs and cats can actually bark Joy to the World and meow Silent Night? I have a CD that says they can, but it's pretty heavily edited.

Doctors who have never actually examined her have no more standing than laypeople. "I knew someone else who was sort of like that" doesn't cut it as diagnosis.

I really don't know a thing about this case, but my roommate is a doctor, and he told me that in some cases, the brain can repair itself. Plus I really don't like the idea of anyone starving to death. But I understand how people can disagree on this.

What I find is interesting is the conflict between the “sanctity of marriage” and the “culture of life”.

Hammermba

The brain can sometimes, in the case of stroke or brain trauma, "detour" around damaged areas, much the way we can detour around road damage. Effectively, this creates a replication of function, but not the same function. But the brain cannot "repair" itself, because neurons in the brain don't regrow. When a brain cell dies, it is gone forever. That is the case with all neural tissue. So to be able to re-route action within the brain, there has to be sufficient functional neural tissue to do so.

That's not Ms. Schiavo's situation. She has very little neural tissue left.

How did they know she was "aware of her surroundings?"

A "semi-vegetative state" and a "persistent vegetative state" are not the same thing. Furthermore, such diagnoses need to be made on a case-by-case basis. I'm very happy for this women, yet this article is not relevant to the Schiavo case.

physically, and more-her muscles are contracted, her foot is twisted, and she is on the feeding tube. Again, I presume all of you would say you wouldn't want to live that way for 20 years-no?

Terri has a FLAT EEG. She has NO functioning brain that allows consciousness. That other woman has a functioning brain that registers activity.

Terri cerebral hemispheres have atrophied.

On how much of her brain had turned to liquid? This sounds like a decidedly different condition. Similar external symptoms but vastly different actual conditions. The majority of Terri's brain is gone. Even if something were to awake there would be no memory of who she had been. All the memories and experiences of Terri are gone. Liquified. Tragically. If some method of regrowing brains were available it wouldn't be Terri that said Hi. It would be someone new.

http://www.amptoons.com/blog/archives/2005/03/09/17-medical-affidavits-about-terri-schiavo/

Not sure how much of the brain that accounts for percentage-wise, but according to this site:

"Without a cerebral cortex, it is impossible for a human being to experience thought, emotions, consciousness, pain, pleasure, or anything at all; nor, barring a miracle, is it possible for a patient lacking a cerebral cortex to recover."

I'm neither a physician nor a neurologist but I accept the limits of our imperfect science and know that medical "miracles" occur often. We have such a limited understanding of the brain that I'm very hesitant to allow "old science" the definitive word.

Like most DUers, I have little understanding of it.

We know quite a bit about the brain. We know that brain cells don't grow on their own. We know that memory and identity come from developed brain cells. We know that once a brain cell is destroyed it cannot be reconstituted.

One of my favorite questions to ask people when I get involved with them is

"If you could visit any time in history, past or future, when would you choose".

Number one answer for my acquaintances in the medical field - about 50-100 years in the future so they can see the advances in neuroscience. It's the medical area in which we have the most limited knowledge and also in which we've seen the most "miraculous" recoveries.

Miraculous? pfffft... They only seem miraculous because our knowledge is too limited to understand.

Are you sure that we understand? That we know? We are just barely scratching the biochemical mechanisms underlying coma.

Anyway my point isn't so much to argue that she's this or that or can or can't- I am simply appalled to so many have made up their mind in a seemingly knee-jerk reaction that if Bush said A, it must be B and only B.

Lol, for all people know, Bush may have said A to make it A knowing that we are so frenzied in our hatred that we would immediately endorse B. B after all is a lot more consistent with his previous stance and total lack of respect for life.

Truly, if I were Terry, I would want my parents who raised me since I was a helpless baby to have more rights in making the decision on my life or death over my husband. No offense but men move on too quickly. Throw away the old wife for a younger one. Throw away the fat wife for a thinner one. Throw away the vegetable for a normal one. Well damn it. Move on Michael. You moved on in 1995 when you moved in with that other woman on the money the courts had awarded you to care for Terry. What's with this charade. Why did she suddenly become such an inconvenience AFTER you cashed the $1 million dollar check? Don't want her anymore? Divorce her- you should have done that over a decade ago the minute you "married" another woman and had children with her. Truly, I marvel. The parents told him he can keep the damn money, just give them back their daughter so she can have a chance with the proper care. What earthly reason is there to deny them/her that chance??

"Anyway my point isn't so much to argue that she's this or that or can or can't- I am simply appalled to so many have made up their mind in a seemingly knee-jerk reaction that if Bush said A, it must be B and only B. "


If the Reverand Jesse Jackson, Tom Harkin, the Reverand Al Sharpton, and half of the Congressional Black Caucaus say it's A it must be A....

very recently. If he was in it for the money, why did he do that?

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

She's been a real DUer far longer than most DUers, real or fake.

And she has a very interesting life, from what little I know of it.

I disagree with her about this, but because she has this opinion, I'm forced to take it seriously and respectfully.

Tinaoire and I had some battle royals during the primaries but if she's a fake DUer I'll go back to my bedroom and tell Jessica Alba it's time to get up...

The brain and the heart need a constant supply of oxygen. Terri suffered from hypoxic–ischemic encephalopathy brought on by extreme hypokalemia. She went 11 minutes without oxygenated blood flow to her brain when she had her heart attack. She was only intubated rather than pronounced because Michael Schiavo insisted.

http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/319/7213/841

The permanent vegetative state: practical guidance on diagnosis and management

"...If some method of regrowing brains were available it wouldn't be Terri that said Hi. It would be someone new..."

yes, YOU said that, Az.

A brain is not just a bunch of brain cells. Our memories and identity arise from the specific connections made between them. Replace the brain cells with new ones and you have not recreated the memories and experiences of the person. They are forever gone if the cells and connections that defined them are gone.

I am not sure what your objection is here.

sadly, it it is true.
Brain cells cannot be replaced.
the connections between them can be regenerated (axons & dendrites can regenreate), but the neurons cannot be replaced. Sorry, you are only partially correct, Az.

True, a brain is NOT just a bunch of brain cells, and yes, our memories arise from the specific connections made between them. That's all of your argument that made sense.

Neurons die, and are irreplaceable. That's the sad truth. The neural connections are active throughout life. Neural connections (ganglia) do work to reconnect the "memories" with the new learning that takes place.

That is pretty much what I said. Under natural conditions brain cells do not grow new cells. There is always the possibility that medical technology would learn to grow new brain cells (I believe on such method already exists). But this would not return the memories and experiences that made up the person. The new cells would be blank slates. They would have no learned connections.

So what is in error here?

Hopefully, your neurologist will clear up that distinction for you.

Sarah is also on feeding tube. The only thing she could do is blink her eyes. Would you like to live that way? Well, she does. Now that she can talk, she is not asking that her feeding tube was removed.

Her brain was still intact. As long as the brain is intact there is a chance someone can awaken from such a state. But Terri's brain is destroyed. Liquified. Thats not a minor inconvenience.

In Sarah's case there was enough brain left that new paths could grow to reconnect existing portions of the brain. Once the connections were restablished her existing memories and mind could restablish themself. The parts of Terri's brain that contain this information are gone.

While we're at it should we clamor for Stephen Hawking's tube to be removed also? He exhibits even less mobility than Terry Schiavo, can't speak without a specially designed voicebox and can't survive without a feeding tube yet his mind is one of the most brilliant we have in our age. Should we yank out that his tube too because we the ambulatory are so insensitive, so lacking in imagination that we would deem his life worthless because he is forced to live it in a manner totally different than that the one we live? Who are we to judge whose life is worth the expense and whose isn't? Who are we to declare other people Lebensunwertes Leben (lives not worth living)?

The slippery, slippery slope...

NONE of the physicians whose testimony condemned Terry as a hopeless PVS are qualified medical rehabilitation experts. I really wish we could take our knee-jerk blinders off and examine this with more open hearts. And mind you, I am NOT saying Bush has any kind of a heart. I REVILE those people even more for using this poor girl as their political football as the insurance companies cheer on calculating how many thousands this will save them down the road.

If that were your child, you'd have Michael Schiavo by his little nuts doing everything you could to rehabilitate your child. It's not one phsyician or two neurosurgeons or three rehabilitative experts saying she's not past gone- it's many.

The parents are asking for a chance to do everything they can for their daughter- to offer her rehabilitative therapy she was deprived of under her husband's care. Why are we so eager to say no? I truly don't understand it.

===

Politically, the logic of Lebensunwertes Leben grants the state, in the name of society, the power to determine who is "worthy" and who is "unworthy," that is, who shall live and who shall die. Those doomed to be "unworthy" are, therefore, "worthless" to society. In such a totally utilitarian setting, the "useless" must be disposed of, like refuse. Such a "pragmatic" society is obligated to rid itself of those deemed to have lost their claim to life. Once this line of reasoning is adopted, the philosophic path to Auschwitz is not so difficult to trace. (snip)

www.chgs.umn.edu/Educational_Resources/Newsletter/ The_Genocide_Forum/Yr_2/Year_2__No_6/year_2__no_6.html


===
The physically, the emotionally and the intellectually disabled.


Historically,, euthanasia has meant a voluntary request for death without suffering by the patient. However, in the 17th century its meaning was modified to grant the right to alleviate suffering exclusively to physicians. While the meaning and implications of euthanasia changed somewhat over time, it was universally accepted that the act of euthanasia was always voluntary. That is, when individuals exercised their right to voluntarily choose the timing and the manner of their death as a means of ending their suffering, it was a physician's responsibility to assist them.

However, in the 1890s the meaning of euthanasia in Europe, and especially in Germany came to include two other aspects. First, the notion of a voluntary "right to die" was extended to mean that in some instances the request for euthanasia could be made by persons other than the suffering patient. Second the extraordinary levels of care accorded the terminally ill and asylum inmates again raised the issue of negative human worth and underlined the possibility of involuntary euthanasia; that is, the economic burden that terminal illness or caring for the insane placed on families, caregivers, and the community was a factor to consider in decisions for euthanasia.
In one sense therefore, the debate quickly shifted from the idea of a "gentle death" itself to who would request or abet the patient's demise. Subsequent branches of the debate took up the notion of suffering among humans as comparable to that of animals and the implication that in certain instances humans could be disposed of in the same way - quickly and painlessly. The distinction between voluntary euthanasia and involuntary killing was thus effectively eradicated, and an ominous term was coined for the first time: "life unworthy of life."

http://www.regent.edu/admin/ctl/uselesseaters/


===

"Would you, if you were a cripple, want to vegetate forever? - Dr. Tergesten, in the Nazi propaganda film Ich Klage An! (I Accuse, 1941)

===

Lebensunwertes Leben

"...Nazi Germany killed at least 200,000 people because of their disabilities—people deemed physically inferior, ... doctors and hospital staff used gas, drugs and starvation to kill disabled men, women and children at medical facilities in Germany, Austria, Poland and the Czech Republic. . . .

"The Nazis launched the drive to root out what they called 'worthless lives' (and 'useless eaters')

(snip)

In an article in the July 14, 1949, New England Journal of Medicine, Dr. Alexander warned that the Nazis' crimes against humanity had "started from small beginnings . . . merely a subtle shift in emphasis in the basic attitude of the physicians. It started with the acceptance, basic in the euthanasia movement, that there is such a thing as life not worthy to be lived." That shift in emphasis among physicians, said Dr. Alexander, could happen here, in America.

Actually, the devaluing of apparent "imperfect life" had begun years before, in the United States. Various academics, in and out of the medical profession, had successfully advocated and instituted a eugenics movement—the perfecting of future generations of Americans by deciding who, depending on their hereditary genes, would be allowed to have children. The unfit would no longer be permitted to reproduce.

(snip)

These American eugenicists provided German proponents of a "master race" with inspiration. As Robert Jay Lifton wrote in his invaluable book The Nazi Doctors (Basic Books), "A rising interest in eugenics (in America had) led, by 1920, to the enactment of laws in twenty-five states providing for compulsory sterilization of the criminally insane and other people considered genetically inferior."

(snip)

www.villagevoice.com/issues/0348/hentoff.php


===

Useless Eaters: Disability as Genocidal Markers in Nazi Germany
http://www.regent.edu/admin/ctl/uselesseaters/text/2743414051_1.pdf

and should the various plugs be pulled on all of them as some DUers are so totally positive this is the right and moral thing to do to Ms. Schiavo. We'd be doing them such a big favor and letting them have their peace and dignity

was what they wanted, then yes. I don't get it. NO ONE Is advocating that this lady be killed just because of the state she is in. We are saying that it is HER decision- not that of her husband, parents, friends, the courts or our government. HER DECISION.

So yes, if there was evidence that those 30,000 people had also indicated they were opposed to any artificial means of life support, then I would support their right to control their own medical treatment and refuse same.


I really don't understand what's so controversial about the right of the individual to control her/his own boy and medical treatment. :shrug:

As soldiers have pointed out since at least the Civil War, maybe we should save time and just put these kids in a meat grinder.

:grr:

check your email.

I suspect he thinks you are my sockpuppet or I am your sockpuppet.

lol.

We've been arguing totally different sides. How could we be sock-puppets of each other? We would have to be cynically bored and/or totally schizophrenic to play such a game!

And I don't think this is a game for either of us.

Ok back to work...

of a certain group of people at DU is what disturbs me. If you don't agree with them you are a
1. freeper
2. atroll
3.stupid
4.an idiot.

I agree with alot on this thread that it is truly a complex issue and to me Mike Schiavo has moved on as he should have. However he is compromised. The parents want to take care of their daughter. Let them, remember blood is thicker than water.

... and attempts to stifle dissent or create "litmus tests" for "real DUers" are harmful.

though I am in complete and total disagreement with you on this issue. Nor have I used troll, stupid, idiot or any other such wordage. That's a generalization and, in my opinion, martyrdom isn't really becoming on a message board. :hi:

I'm sure you haven't but many have. There are a number of people who are pretty self righteous and I respect your views. This is justy an extremely complex issue. I have a good conservative friend that was surprised that I took this position. It's funny he said there has to be money involved. I know they all say the money is gone but we only have their word for that and no documentaion. Who Knows?

made by her husband, whom she was given to in marriage by her parents. Then the courts stepped in and agreed with her husband. We should not even know about this case.

People keep repeating the incorrect, or at least inaccurate, notion that Michael Schiavo "won" the court cases. No one "won," the courts made a decision on behalf of the patient.

In a rational republic, sort of like the one we used to live in, this should NOT be a public spectacle, a rallying cry for religious zealots, or a political football for the GOP.

Once he became unfaithful in the 1990s, I wouldn't want him making any decisions. He has conflict of interest issues galore. I cannot believe the judge didn't appoint a permanent impartial guardian. Two very temporary guardians were appointed, the second for 1 month, Mr. Wolfson, and he made no decisions for Ms. Schiavo.

After all, she can't be a wife anymore. She can't go play tennis, or go to a movie, or smile over a single rose. She's as gone as if she ran off with the plumber.

Why is his very difficult decision - initially supported by her parents, as it happens - to try to keep a foot in both his old life and to move on, subject to so much rancor, when, if the situation was that she had run off with the plumber and could not be found to consent to a divorce, that we'd be condemning her for acting so irresponsibly?

The effect is the same - she left him first. One can move on without removing principles.

Terri is not an innocent victim. Terri caused her own extreme hypokalemia by purging and excessive hydration. Terri's heart attack was self induced.

Talk about blaming the victim...

:puke:

had some anger to deal with over the hand they were dealt because Terri was secretly bulimic. 15 glasses of iced tea is so extreme I get nauseous just thinking about it.

I am sick of all the husband bashing simply because he has a female companion. If he is such a horrible person he did not have to ride the nursing home staff to provide good care3 He did not have to take a job just a few blocks away. He never had to visit her either.

gone as M. Schiavo says. I can find nothing to support it one way or another so far.

and worked for his camapign and so many other Dem campaigns in my life and because I don't necessarily agree with others on the Schiavo case, I have been accused of some really nasty stuff. Facts be damned! All of a sudden I am a freeper, etc. And these are from people who call themselves Democrats. Primal scream. This has gotten so damned polarized and all I am really interested in are the historical facts of the case AND the relationships of the people involved. This is a truly complex case as you write and many philosophical and legal arguments aree involved. I saw Alan Dershowitz this morning talking about how both right and left wing are taking hypocritical stances to advance their points. He was so right.

many who never have used this tactic...and yet this poster lumps us all. Amazing and incredible that people support that kind of crap.

posters when I would hope there would be more fact-based position taking as in a debate rather than screaming name-calling.

:hi:

Some people have been rude bastards about this. What makes you think the OP is about you? It isn't as far as I can tell.

:hi:

I was called a murderer and a mysoginist several times from the pro-life crowd here at DU over this issue.

And, I'm sorry, but it's hard to remain patient in the face of such blatant misinformation. The facts have been pounded over and over, and there are still people that either want to A.judge Michael for having a girlfriend, or B. Completely ignore science and modern medicine, and in both instances want those viewpoints to encroach on MY life, and the life of everyone else. They want to erode the bond of marriage and legal next of kin because of touchy feely bullshit propaganda spread by ultra right wing pro lifers like Terry Randall. I. Have. No. More. Patience.

I have seen in my life, and I've been a registered Dem since 1968 so I'm no teenager.

Clicking on DU these days is like stepping into a medieval bear-baiting pit amongst the crowd calling for the bear's death. Absolutely appalling.

Can you clarify that a bit. I am sure some will take that statement as adversarial.

If anybody has anything bad to say about her saintly husband, they are liars and freepers. Any Dr. who comes forward to say she might not be vegetative is a liar and a quack. People here are outraged when somebody makes a bad comment toward Scott Peterson's parents, but Terri's parents are fair game for anyone to call most disgusting outrageous names.

Is not a liar and a quack because of this incident. He is a liar and a quack because he was brought up on charges previously for lying and appears on the list of known quacks maintained at www.quackwatch.com.

At a minimum any proposed new treatment would need to show efficacy in animal testing. Anecdotal evidence based on 4 cases that are not even comparable and questionable lauding of an inapropriate Nobel nonination from a FL congressman who was not eligible to nominate make the Hammesfahr claims suspect. Terri has no blood vessels in her missing cerebral cortex to use vasodilators on.

the right wing is using her as a political pawn so therefore if the RW is for it, even for wrong reasons, then the left must be against it.

We're all bloodthirsty people here. I wonder why these people would ever want to share webspace with us. We're lowest of the low scum. Why should pointing out facts make a difference? You're obviously just suffering from blood lust.

Again. Are you suggesting we enjoy this situation? Are you saying that we are glad this happened to her? I am sickened by this situation. It is a tradgedy. I believe its continuation is torture to her family. How is this bloodthirsty?

accusing us of relishing Terri's death.

Was still fussing due to the lack of reaction to my first questioning of this line of attack.

that really got to me. Honestly. That poster either truly believes that, or is just covering up for lack of any other argument with ridiculous attacks against anyone who disagrees. Either way, it's disgusting.

Edited to add: I had responded directly to that attacking post. I was just being facetious in the other one.

Frankly.

more. It is like the Roman Coliseum. I to have been a demo since '72. I was the last group that had to wait until 21 to vote. I've never voted for a republican but I am now a freeper. It is those types that are exactly the same as freepers. My way is always right. end of discussion

When the State wants to put someone to death, the left tends to venue shop to get the person off, saying murder is cruel/unusual, etc. Well, the right is venue shopping here to keep this person alive and the left is taking the "pro-death" view. (My comment: This is Not where the Left wants to be; big, big mistake). What really takes the cake here is Schiavo committed no crime, so why pull the figurative plug on her life, such as it may be.

PS I am in your age group.

Why on earth would you want to keep company with blood thirsty murderers who care nothing about life? I certainly wouldn't waste two seconds at such a website. And I wonder why you never answer. Makes me wonder, truly.

that the depth that some posters will stoop to. One of the said that 1 only have a couple of hundred posts so what would I know. Like the number of posts make you better. I was accused of being a freeper and I come from a union household were my father was a union negotiator.

You are in good company...when you don't back down, the name-calling often starts. I have a really good one from earlier today who was name-calling and worse after I presented a set of facts and citations from the court documents. welcome to DU!!

I think you let female feelings about sex color your judgement. Of course Michael would move on as would anyone who was widowed or divorced. Terri is no longer a wife or a companion and has not been one for 15 years. This should not even be part of the equation.

If, given a choice between the care of my family (who have proven again and again that they are not interested in me except as a low interest bank) and of even my ex, I'd take my ex. I'd definitely take my husband's care. Because they are people I chose to trust, not people that were thrust upon me by fate and genetics.

We talk about money being an issue, but am I not hearing that the Schindlers are getting a lot of "financial support" from the right wing? Could they not be motivated to maximize their cash cow by doing what they're doing?

Or what Michael Schiavo wants. Or you, or I.

It is about what Terri Schiavo would have wanted had she the choice, and court after court has determined that she would not have wanted to be kept alive like this.

Michael Schiavo did not originally petition the court to have her feeding tube removed. He petitioned the court to determine what Terri would have wanted to do in lieu of a living will.

removal of the tube.

But does anyone know that she was on a feeding tube through her nose until the day she died. Yes, she was taken off the breathing machine, but her feeding tube stayed in. Her parents felt it was cruel to with hold nourishment.

I find it very odd.

because the brain is dead is one thing, if it is damaged and still has fuction, that is another story. in my humble opinion.

to support life in this case. End of story.

Surely you must be equally concerned about how terrible it was to take that little six-month-old baby off of life support, although the mother begged them not to do it?

The primary custodian rejected taking the child off life support and the hospital overrode her descision. This is a another tradgedy. And all enabled by George's pen.

It is just making me crazy how all the people who claim to care so deeply about Terri Schiavo don't seem to give a flying fuck about that baby and his mother.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topics&forum=250

I'm sure they can fill you in on their perspective quite nicely.

I don't think that everyone who believes her feeding tube should not have been disconnected believes that she will 'recover'; for some, it is far more basic than that. Some simply believe that even those in a PVS should not be dehydrated to death.

Our legal system does not allow for euthenasia. So her body can not be halted by medical intervention. The only legal recourse allowed is removing the tube and letting nature finish her off.

Now if it were a sentient person I can well share in the outrage at such a methodology. But we are not talking about a sentient being. Anything that might experience such a fate is gone. Emotionally it seems inhumane. But rationally when we realise that there is no person there then there is no one suffering.

I would object based on the fact that we cannot simply intervene directly and have to use this round about method to bring this to an end. But that is a different issue than the one legally presented in the case. One definately worthy of investigation on its own.

On Sunday, the Pope expanded on his previous statements and encyclical regarding (in part) hydration and nutrition in the context of basic, humane medical care. He said that "...the sick person, in a vegetative state, awaiting recovery or his natural end, has the right to basic health care, and to the prevention of complications linked to his state." The deliberate withholding of nutrition and hydration is "euthanasia by omission," since it has no other purpose than to cause the death of the person. This is the sticking point for many people, because they don't believe that life has a relative worth dependent on higher brain function.

That's their objection, in a nutshell.

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050322/ap_on_re_us/brain_damaged_woman_dying_1

Experts: Schiavo's Death Would Be Peaceful

NEW YORK - If Terri Schiavo dies from the removal of her feeding tube, her passing should be peaceful, experts say.

After all, she is in a persistent vegetative state without conscious awareness, they noted.

But studies show that even patients who can speak and who have chosen to stop eating and drinking generally don't complain of thirst or hunger, said Dr. Russell Portenoy, chair of palliative care at the Beth Israel Medical Center in New York.

"It's as if the body has a protective mechanism at the end of life, such that loss of appetite and loss of thirst precede the dying process," he said.

Peace.

(it sounds worse than you make it to be).

Please, just accept what I wrote at face value: some people oppose the withdrawl of nutrition and hydration in the Schiavo case on religious grounds.

Peace.

:hi:

impose their religious values on what another person does with their own body?

In addition, if a person is severely and permanently brain damaged, does that mean the proverbial plug should be pulled? ON Keith Olbermann this evening he was discussing with a bioethicist the issues in this case. The bioethicist mentioned there are 30,000 PVS patients in this country today. Should we pull all their plugs? What's their crime again?

What we really need to do here is to make cremation and burial illegal--only permanent cryogenic preservation allowed for all 6 billion of us. To do otherwise is to be anti-life and insufficiently trustful of the wonderful Star Trek medical miracles that will eventually cure whatever anybody dies of.

{1} I do not think that the media has provided enough information on the extreme nature of the brain injury that this lady suffered. Thus, many well-intentioned people may err in thinking that she has the potential to "recover." It is my understanding that only her brain stem remains capable of functioning, removing any possibility of her regaining any of the capabilities we associate with mammals.

{2} I suspect that many people are including closely related issues, such as a natural sympathy for the parents; a tendency to connect this case with numerous others, where the circumstances have been similar in context, but different in content; and from experiences that result in the general public realizing that medical professionals are prone to errors.

Our best bet may be to remove some of the more emotional aspects from the conversation. We need to be able to discuss differences of opinion without insulting one another, or questioning motives. That can be very hard, but it is possible. In fact, if we do not make the effort to do that, the very nature of the debate will polarize the public, and allow extremists to define the debate.

Rational debate on issues such as this are best resolved within the judical branch of government, not from a knee-jerk legislative response, or a plain jerk executive.

has some good diagrams of the human brain, on pages 36-7, 55, 59-60, and 73. For many of us, it is helpful to look at illustrations such as these, in order to fully appreciate how little of a functioning brain Terri Schiavo is left with.

In theory, it is beginning to look like science can keep a still breathing corpse "alive" indefinitely. I think that having some understanding of what has happened to her brain makes this prospect seem unappealing.

(note that I was administering bedside care, I don't claim medical knowledge past undergrad biology, but I have LOADS of experience), Ms. Schiavo would experience seizures--blunt, but that's how it is. A body lacking a cerebral cortex cannot experience seizures. Period.

When you care for patients in SVS and PVS side by side, you get a unique understanding of the differences. My SVS patients did have seizures.

Ms. Schiavo no longer exists, and neither did the young woman I cared for.

I could not say the same about her roommate, and would not consider doing so for a single moment.

I understand others' differing views on the matter, but I can speak from experience that we are arguing over nothing. Let the woman go on to any potential reward. Please.

I think that when someone like yourself can speak rationally to this, it takes away some of the emotional responses that cloud the real issues. On MSNBC, they just said that parts of her brain had "liquified." I think people need to understand what is there, and what is not there.

It's high school biology.

it is as easily understood as high school biology. And that is perhaps the most important part of the discussion: breaking it down into relatively easily understood parts.

We see people who believe that so many other issues are being decided. To name but a few: did her husband play a sinister role in her ending up in this state; does he have a vested financial interest; does he have a "new" common law wife; would she make the same choices in her 40s as she did in her 20s; and on and on. Yet regardless of how significant (or totally insignificant) any of these issues are, they are not part of the legal case now playing out. Any discussion of these things must be recognized as being distinct from the "high school biology."

I think that once we reach this stage, many of the emotional issues, including her parents' obvious torment, become easier to put in the proper context. We should feel compassion for them, but this is also a separate issue.

From the disability perspective, the point is that our lives have intrinsic value, not merely the hope that we "might get better someday". "Better dead than disabled" is a far too common attitude. It explains, for instance, why we got bent out of shape over "Million Dollar Baby".

That being said, if she's really, truly brain dead, and not merely significantly disabled, then please make it all stop before Tom DeLay decides to try to revive her using bug spray or something.

snorts DDT and loves it

It's fine to feel life has intrinsic value.

I think self determination has intrinisic value.

that Terri now has (or doesn't)? Do we apply a different standard to them? Plenty of children with significant disabilities are, indeed, refused medical treatment, on similar grounds: "to end their suffering", etc.

had the option to make a choice to begin with.

So yes, there's a different standard, though the outcome might be the same.

Its called anencephaly. There is no cure for it. If the child is not stillborn then they usually die within a few hours.

Here is a support page dedicated to the disorder. http://www.ninds.nih.gov/disorders/anencephaly/anencephaly.htm

Wikipedia covers it and suggests that Doctors favor not providing any life saving practices in such births as there is no moral point to it. There is no chance the child will ever achieve consciousness. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anencephaly

witnesses and made a determination.

Courts have to do this sort of thing all the time.

That being said, if she's really, truly brain dead, and not merely significantly disabled,

I worked with profoundly intellectually disabled adolescents last summer and there is a huge difference, to my mind, between their state of being and the state in which T.S. is. It's one thing to have a brain that doesn't function "properly", and quite another to be entirely missing the part of the brain that provides consciousness itself. I don't see it as a disability issue.

Then again, I'm not disabled, so...

KamaAina and Cuban Liberal, and I know that in at least some cases, the objections are religious, but I can't help thinking of medical interventions on relatives on mine.

In 1963, my great-grandfather had a massive stroke at the age of 93. He never regained consciousness and "died" several times, but in those days, there was no such thing as a DNR order, and the hospital staff resuscitated him each time until it became impossible.

In 1988, a visiting nurse resuscitated my father, who was at home bedridden with Parkinson's disease and assorted other ailments, when his heart stopped. He lingered for two more months, semi-conscious most of the time.

Just five years ago, my grandmother started on a steep decline at the age of 99. She had been partly deaf and partly blind for a long time, and then lost the ability to walk within the space of a few weeks. Then everything else started to break down: digestive system, kidneys, heart, lungs, everything. She had increasing periods of dementia, especially "sundowning"--dementia that worsens in the late afternoon. The last straw came a bit after she turned 100, when she lost the ability to swallow properly and began aspirating food and water into her lungs.

Her doctor, who had been treating her for 25 years, ever since she was an active 75-year-old, told us that she had pneumonia. He could administer antibiotics to cure the pneumonia, he said, but she would only develop pneumonia again. He recommended keeping her comfortable, letting her eat what she wanted to eat, and letting her go when her body finally gave out completely. She died during an afternoon nap.

In all three cases, letting go was the kindest thing, because it freed my great-grandfather, father, and grandmother, devout Christians all, to move on to Eternity. I would never have countenanced outright euthanasia for them, but it would have been cruel to insist that they must be kept alive at all costs and no matter what the consequences, just because we didn't want to let them go.

Back in 1988-89, the world saw a particularly grotesque example of keeping the dead alive when Emperor Hirohito was kept on life support for months despite a total physical breakdown and wasting away. (He weighed something like 87 pounds when they finally let him die.) Rumor had it that the Imperial Household Agency, which runs the imperial family's lives in an almost tyrannical manor, hated then-Crown Prince Akihito, thinking him "too Westernized," so they tried to keep him from becoming emperor for as long as possible. Yet the IHA claimed that they were keeping the respirator running in the interests of "the sanctity of life."

Life on earth IS precious, but it comes to an end for all of us, and if Terri Schiavo's parents really believe that she will recover any cerebral function with no cerebrum, then they are either misinformed or delusional.

:toast:

I wish I could nominate it for the Greatest. I didn't know that about Hirohito. Very interesting. And sad.

And I'm more in agreement with it than you think- what I don't like in this case are all the legal manouverings and the fact that Michael Schiavo didn't remember that Terry wouldn't have wanted to be kept alive when he sued for money to keep her alive. That's the part that's really irritating me.

I fully support the right to die and believe that suicide should be legally available to people who feel they're too emotionally impaired to continue but it has to be their choice. Michael Schiavo hasn't convinced me that he's following her wishes because he never once mentioned this choice until after he had that $1 million check in hand. I feel we're being played by both sides and that nobody's motives are honest here- except the parents which is why I'd really like to see them get the chance to give their daughter the care they feel she was deprived of before probably having to say good-bye.

Thanks for such a thoughtful post.

and other tubes on them? As you say, they are already "dead and gone." Should we pull all their plugs? Perhaps you can explain if you'd like to do a mass execution for 30,000 already "dead and gone."
Or is it not an execution because they're already "gone."


It is a very slippery slope we deal with here on PVS.

And not a position I think the Democrats should be proposing as all this stuff gets enormously simplified in the MSM
(GOP= pro-life, Democrats=pro-death)

this issue is hurting the GOP, btw. check the polls.

and bite the Dems in the rear re talk radio and the others who keep grinding away, like the far right wing churches

They let the GOP do whatever they wanted.

And it's not an execution if it's self determined.

Social security
Abortion
Gay Rights

EVERYTHING is simplified by the media--if it's not a 4-second sound-byte, it's too long, too tiresome, and past the attention span of the normal CNN viewer.

But to say that because the media simplifies matters (gee! like that hasn't been happening since...oh...the invention of the media) then we shouldn't deal with an issue is just obsurd.

---
Do you consider removing someone from a ventillator to be an 'execution'?

And yes. If anyone in a PVS (or any other terminal state) has stated that they wish to discontinue life support or extraordinary measures should they become incapacatated and unable to make their own decisions, then yes. I think their decisions should be honoured. As should Terri Schiavo's

now by the biblebeater set? by talk radio? 20+ % of the population easy believes Fox, Rush, etc.

If only Ms. Schiavo had a living will

nor do I trust her parents. That means I have literally no idea what Teri would have wanted. If I felt Teri had really wanted the tube removed, then go right on ahead. I just don't. Maybe Michael and his brother are telling the truth and maybe they aren't. I find it very odd that not one person who was closer to Teri than to Michael has come forward with a statement backing them on Teri's wishes. In this case, the result probably is OK anyhow (I figure she didn't really have a strong opinion in either direction given the dearth of evidence). But what about a case where you have someone like Christopher Reeve. What if his wife insisted that he wouldn't have wanted to live that way and had his plug pulled? I think when you have such a clear disagreement between the family and the spouse, and the spouse's motives can be challenged, there should be an independent hearing with a guardian and it should be all about the wishes of the patient. That didn't happen here since the law is overwhemingly on the spouse's side. All he really had to show was that he was the spouse and his side won.

My husband knows my wishes in the event of illness, injury, trauma, or death, and I know his.

But my best friend doesn't.

His sister doesn't.

My neighbor doesn't.

Who else should she have told such private, intimate information with to make it more 'valid'?

And the difference between Christopher Reeve and Terri Schiavo is that Christopher Reeve had a fully functioning brain. Terri Schiavo doesn't. Her cerebral cortex has deteriorated and replaced with Spinal Fluid. Christopher Reeve had an intact cerebral cortex.

She did have a guardian ad law (or ad litem) appointed in her behalf.

The law SHOULD be on the spouses side. When I married my husband, It was with the understanding that should I become incapacatated, HE has full legal rights to make decisions (medical, etc) on my behalf. That is one of the GREATEST (if not THE greatest) benefit of marriage and one of the reasons I'm so strongly in support of Gay Marriage.

I've been with my husband for 8 years. In those 8 years, we've had countless conversations about our future together, our individual wishes, our past, our present, our goals, our desires. Why should I, or he, be obligated to relay every bit of intimate conversations to our parents, our siblings, our cousins...just 'in case' something were to happen to one of us? That's obsurd.

Terri Shiavo CHOSE her husband. She did not choose her parents. I'm sure you're well aware that there are MANY parents who, as much as they propose to love their children, cause irrevocable harm to those children. I'm not suggesting that Terri's parents are in this group, but surely one isn't a 'good person' solely because they're a parent?

And you are aware that Terri's parents stated in court that even if they knew of her wishes to not have life support in the event of such a medical condition, THEY WOULD NOT ABIDE BY HER WISHES ANYWAYS.

There will always be disagreements between families, between parents and spouses, between siblings and parents. But the law provides that with marriage comes the legal right to make decisions on the other's behalf if the other is unable to make those decisions for themselves.

If we allow parents to intervene in THIS instance, to take away one of the GREATEST rights that is attached to marriage, what OTHER medical interventions will parents have the 'right' to intervene with?

Will there now be a precidence set that any adult who is married and of sound mind must notify their parents and obtain permission for ANY medical procedure to be done? To get a tubal ligation? To have an abortion performed? To continue a pregnancy?

This is a slippery slope, and I just don't understand who else you think should have known such intimate, private information as that which Terri shared with her husband regarding her wishes should she become incapacatated. That was a discussion between her and her husband, and it's not at all necessary, nor should it be legislated to be public infomration that one must share with every member of the family, friends, relatives, neighbors, and casual acquaintances.

of intimate thoughts and wishes of the spouse.

I know more about my husband than his mother EVER will. She knows him well up until the point where we became a couple and started spending our lives together.

My mother knows me well up until I was 21 and met my husband.

I should be under NO obligation to inform his mother of his personal wishes with regards to his life and death. Equally, my husband should be under NO obligation to tell my mother of my personal wishes with regards to my life and death.

Spousal rights should not only be upheld, but respected. And that is not happening in this case at all.

There are so many fluctuations in life--what if I told my mother and my husband today that I wanted to be on life support if i were in a persistent vegetative state? But next month I changed my mind and told my husband that I absolutely DID NOT want life support under any circumstances. I was going to tell my mom, but she was on vacation, other things came up and I forgot---at that point, who do you believe? The mother? The spouse?

I say, the spouse knows more about the other spouse than the parent ever will (Unless the child and the parent are so far up each other's asses as to relay every single conversation word-for-word to each other, which is just weird). My husband knows me on such an intimate, spiritual, personal level---a level that my mother will NEVER get to---not because I have anything to hide, but she's my mother. He's my husband, my lover, my soul mate. There's alot to be said for conversations in bed at 5am, or holding the hands of one and conversing while driving in a car. With a spouse (usually) there's an openness and honesty that isn't there with parents, or at a much different and personal level than with parents---at least in my case anyways.

better than anyone.

You'd be hard pressed to find anyone else who could testify that I said this or that about life support. Why? Because i told the one person empowered to make those choices for me.

and kids on the side) I would say the husband should be a guardian. The 2 "public" guardians in this case were appointed only for short, very temporary terms. 30 days for the last one, Wolfson, to examine a few issues and he was never in a decision-making capacity. The "guardian" concept is a farce in that sense in that state and with that judge.

If your husband had a woman and kids on the side, would you want him to be your guardian if you were incapacitated? Especially if he started the relationship once you became incapacitated and were unaware of it. I think most people get divorces from their spouses when there is philandering and birth of children. When this judge discovered the husband was seeing other women and having children, he should have immediately appointed a public guardian re the conflict of interest. This judge was sleeping on the job all the way. When you hire a lawyer don't you make sure he /she doesn't have a conflict of interest? Have you ever noticed that when you walk in a law office and discuss a case, the first thing the lawyer does is check to see if he has a conflict as he may already represent the opposing party. What in hell was wrong with this judge?

The parents subsequently retracted this statement to the second guardian and that is in his report. This keeps getting replayed and they retracted it I believe in 2003. "And you are aware that Terri's parents stated in court that even if they knew of her wishes to not have life support in the event of such a medical condition, THEY WOULD NOT ABIDE BY HER WISHES ANYWAYS."

Why do you believe the husband? Especially after he changed his mind about her care ( withholding care) within a year after he got the insurance settlement.

I have had conversations with my friends about what I would and would not want done if I were incapacitated. I don't think it is something reserved just for the spouse.

The guardian ad item long term was the court itself, for a very good and simple reason: a guardian ad litem is typically assigned to represent an individual in response to one other party.

But in this case there were already 2 opposing parties before the court. A guardian ad litem would have been redundant and would have served the precise function the court was already serving.

Please learn the case if you're going to try to discuss it.

PS: Would I want my spoouse to continue as my guardian if several years after I went into PVS he found someone else? Hell yes - I'd be glad he had love and support in his life.

guardianship. Also please learn the case before YOU discuss it. It seems here we go with the snotty crap emerging out of the cracks whenever you don't get an answer you're looking for. Please keep this on a factual, rational level. Also I already know the case and it is apparent you do not. A permanent guardian would have been totally appropriate in this case. The judge shouldn't have been playing judge AND guardian at the same time. He had his own conflict of interest then in playing two roles. That kind of crap would never have flown in my state. Why did he appoint the first guardian only after the Schindlers complained about Michael withholding treatment and his conflict of interest? If, after all, he could so easily play the two roles himself. Why did he appoint Mr. Wolfson?

Why didn’t the court appoint a guardian other than Terri’s husband to speak for her?

The trial judge could have utilized a guardian ad litem as a neutral party to speak for Terri, but in the end the trial judge did not do so. The Second District affirmed this decision and explained its rationale in this way:

Under these circumstances, the two parties, as adversaries, present their evidence to the trial court. The trial court determines whether the evidence is sufficient to allow it to make the decision for the ward to discontinue life support. In this context, the trial court essentially serves as the ward's guardian. Although we do not rule out the occasional need for a guardian in this type of proceeding, a guardian ad litem would tend to duplicate the function of the judge, would add little of value to this process, and might cause the process to be influenced by hearsay or matters outside the record. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court's discretionary decision in this case to proceed without a guardian ad litem.

And though this makes YOU a little cranky, no appeals court has overturned the case because of it.

uncommon. What is uncommon is having girlfriends and kids on the side

one partner has PVS. I'd like to see precisely how common it is.

do whatever or whoever she wants.

it's uncommon for a young spouse 15 years after the death of there partner to not have a girlfriend and kids. It's the parents that 15 years after the death of there daughter haven't moved on and gained acceptance. Conclusion the husbands action would seem to be the normal actions of a human being on this planet earth in that situation.

It doesn't matter that the family's statements were retracted. To the court is does, but individuals who read or hear about it aren't going to let it slide so easily.

"I'd like to rob a bank...OPPS I take it back"

Life support issues are probably talked about the most between spouses and not friends.

Terri's family and husband already had a whole trial (with appeals) surrounding the tube removal issue.

"Doctor, pull the plug."

"Um, I'm right here."

"He wouldn't want to live this way."

"Yes I did - I mean do! Helloooooo!"