[Cody Dawg]

Read here.

HUTCHINSON, Kan. (AP) - For 20 years, Sarah Scantlin has been mostly oblivious to the world around her - the victim of a drunken driver who struck her down as she walked to her car. Today, after a remarkable recovery, she can talk again.

We had that thread about Terry Schiavo a while back and people were arguing that she should be allowed to die.

For all of you who think she will never recover and her husband should be allowed to starve her to death, this thread is for you.

[sugar_coated]

I feel sad. I hope she continues to improve and is able to do more things. She will bring joy to the people around her by just showing that she is trying everyday to communicate more and more.

[wdlove]

Very sad. hope that she will improve.

[Mafia]

i'm glad she is improving.

[The Oracle]

the woman in the story could blink to yes or no questions and had some activity. Terry, unfortunately, is brain dead. You're manipulating a good story to transfer false hope onto another unrelated one.

[Psychonaut]

Originally posted by The Oracle:
the woman in the story could blink to yes or no questions and had some activity. Terry, unfortunately, is brain dead. You're manipulating a good story to transfer false hope onto another unrelated one.

Thank you.

[Cody Dawg]

Terry Schiavo does communicate.

Terri responds to stimuli, tries to communicate verbally, follows limited commands, laughs or cries in interaction with loved ones, physically distances herself from irritating or painful stimulation and watches loved ones as they move around her. None of these behaviors are simple reflexes and are, instead, voluntary and cognitive. Though Terri has limitations, she does interact purposefully with her environment.

When you go to the link click on "Myths" and read.

[TETENAL]

Originally posted by Cody Dawg:
Terry Schiavo does communicate.

If she is brain-dead she is dead already. Let her body follow her. It is possible to determine whether someone is brain-dead (EEG or whatever. I'm no physician, but it is possible to determine this for certain). If she is not brain-dead then not. It's not that a difficult decision.

[Cody Dawg]

I love how quickly people are to let someone else die.

Did you even read what was posted?

IT SAYS THAT SHE RESPONDS TO STIMULI.

She is more than just a vegetative body. She attempts to interact with her environment. That is not a "dead" person. Last I knew, dead people did not interact AT ALL with their environments.

[TETENAL]

Originally posted by Cody Dawg:
I love how quickly people are to let someone else die.

I'm not quick to let someone die. All I'm saying is that if she is brain-dead, she is dead already. Whether she is brain-dead or not I can not determine.

[OldManMac]

There are other medical experts who say that she doesn't respond to stimuli. None of us here are qualified to do anything but guess.

[saddino]

Originally posted by KarlG:
There are other medical experts who say that she doesn't respond to stimuli. None of us here are qualified to do anything but guess.

Not to mention the courts, when allowed to view the entire four hours of tapes (terrisfight.org only includes those fortunate "snippets" that are IMHO, purely there to misinform visitors), found no conclusive evidence of communication. Terri's body reacts to nothing and to everything, and that's why her body should be put to rest.

[OldManMac]

It's quite obvious, and understandable, that terrisfight.org would include only the clips that would show her in a positive light. Unfortunately, some take these clips and build their case around them, without acknowledging that this is a complicated matter that has been through numerous courts, with opinions voiced by some highly skilled medical authorities, and it can't be solved simply by pointing to a few video clips on a website. Based on what I know of the case, which is what's been on the news, I tend to agree with her husband, and that her parents are in a state of denial. Even if they were to get their wish, and get custody, what happens when they die, if Terri "outlives" them? It may sound cruel, but, to me, her parents are prolonging her misery because they don't want to let go.

I have made it very clear to my family that, were I ever to be in a situation like that, I want the plug pulled. I could never imagine asking my family to go through watching me, as a vegetable, day after day, on the extraordinary hope that I might regain some semblance of a living, responsive person.

[Captain Obvious]

Just unplug the veggie already. A decade and a half as a doorstop is enough.

[bstone]

Originally posted by TETENAL:
If she is brain-dead she is dead already. Let her body follow her. It is possible to determine whether someone is brain-dead (EEG or whatever. I'm no physician, but it is possible to determine this for certain). If she is not brain-dead then not. It's not that a difficult decision.

A CT scan would be able to determine if there was perfusion and brain activity. In think in this case she has some but very minor. The so-called "interactions" she has are not actually cognitive and, sadly, she has zero chance for improvement.

That, and her husband is the one who can decide if she should remain on a g-tube for nurtitional support. It seems she said she never would want to live like that, so even if there is some sort of interaction, cognitive or not, she had previously indicated she would want to end all support.

[malvolio]

Originally posted by Cody Dawg:
I love how quickly people are to let someone else die.

Did you even read what was posted?

IT SAYS THAT SHE RESPONDS TO STIMULI.

She is more than just a vegetative body. She attempts to interact with her environment. That is not a "dead" person. Last I knew, dead people did not interact AT ALL with their environments.

Responding to stimuli is not "interacting with her environment." And yes, dead animals can respond to stimuli, as in the famous experiment of making a dead frog's muscles twitch by applying electric current.

[demograph68]

Originally posted by Captain Obvious:
Just unplug the veggie already. A decade and a half as a doorstop is enough.

Well put Captain Asshole.

[bstone]

Originally posted by Captain Obvious:
Just unplug the veggie already. A decade and a half as a doorstop is enough.

Opinions are like ass-holes...everyone's got one. Capt Obviously, however, has a plethera (of both).

[lurkalot]

Originally posted by bstone:
A CT scan would be able to determine if there was perfusion and brain activity. In think in this case she has some but very minor. The so-called "interactions" she has are not actually cognitive and, sadly, she has zero chance for improvement.

That, and her husband is the one who can decide if she should remain on a g-tube for nurtitional support. It seems she said she never would want to live like that, so even if there is some sort of interaction, cognitive or not, she had previously indicated she would want to end all support.

http://www.miami.edu/ethics2/schiavo/CT%20scan.png

[xeo sez: img too big]

[saddino]

For those who don't know, the "empty" part in the middle of that scan is exactly that: empty (filled with cerebrospinal fluid). There is no brain there anymore. There is no chance of recovery.

[ink]

Originally posted by The Oracle:
Terry, unfortunately, is brain dead. You're manipulating a good story to transfer false hope onto another unrelated one.

Nobody is jumping for joy at the prospect of letting Terry die Cody Dawg; but from all the evidence that has been presented, I agree with her husband, and disagree with her parents.

[Captain Obvious]

http://olympics.reuters.com/newsArti...toryID=7745643



right thread

[Millennium]

Originally posted by ink:


Nobody is jumping for joy at the prospect of letting Terry die Cody Dawg; but from all the evidence that has been presented, I agree with her husband, and disagree with her parents.

Evidence is irrelevant when talking about killing an innocent person; all that matters are that her wishes are determined beyond any reasonable doubt. Given the clear conflicts of interest of all parties involved, the only logical conclusion is that there can be no conclusion. Given that, since any course of action risks error, the only just thing to do is to risk error in a reversible manner, and this is not reversible.

Whether or not her wishes were to die, a grave injustice has been done today, because there was no proof beyond reasonable doubt.

[Millennium]

Originally posted by TETENAL:
If she is brain-dead she is dead already. Let her body follow her. It is possible to determine whether someone is brain-dead (EEG or whatever. I'm no physician, but it is possible to determine this for certain). If she is not brain-dead then not. It's not that a difficult decision.

She does not meet the legal definition of braindeath. If she did, then the case would never have even gone to the courts; it would have been that cut and dried.

As it is, this case breaks new legal ground, and does so in what is frankly a terrifying manner, by allowing the killing of someone who has done no wrong when there is reasonable doubt that she would consent to such a thing.

[TETENAL]

Originally posted by Millennium:
She does not meet the legal definition of braindeath.

Then she should not be let died. Period.

Between brain-dead and not brain-dead is a hard line. But when you start letting die people who are brain damaged almost completely the hard line becomes a vague decision. Today you switch off people with 99% brain damage. Next year maybe 95% brain damaged people will be switched off. Where does this end? In 20 years maybe people who can't move their left arm after a stroke are helped to die.

It would set a precedent of something I would rather not like to happen.

[Cadaver]

This is why everyone, and I mean EVERYONE, needs to have documented (as in legal) advance directives (the so-called living will). I for one do not want to "live" in a persistent vegetative state, and my wife knows that (just as this woman's husband claims to know). And as soon as possible, I will have the necessary legal documents drawn up. I suggest you all do the same to guarantee your final wishes are respected and granted.

[demograph68]

Originally posted by TETENAL:
In 20 years maybe people who can't move their left arm after a stroke are helped to die..

And in 100 years, people who get a bump on the arm might be helped to die.... yeah right.

[bstone]

Originally posted by Millennium:
She does not meet the legal definition of braindeath. If she did, then the case would never have even gone to the courts; it would have been that cut and dried.

As it is, this case breaks new legal ground, and does so in what is frankly a terrifying manner, by allowing the killing of someone who has done no wrong when there is reasonable doubt that she would consent to such a thing.

Millennium,
I'll take for granted you are not medically trained. I and some others here are and there seems to be consensus among us, at least, on the issue of this woman's brain activity and her level of "awareness". It is rather clear, from the reports of the neurologist and the fact that she has lacked any rehabilitation or improvement over the past decate (at least) that her brain function in reactionary only. She has no independent congition and her actions are rather reactions, not unlike testing a reflex.

Please don't take this as a cold-hearted, mean, uncaring opinion of a physician (in training, in my case, but also with graduate work in biology AND neurobiology). It simply is clear that her chances of improvement are VERY VERY VERY small. Moreover, when she married she gave legal authority of what would happen to her to her husband. Not her parents. No parent wants to see their child die. It would break anyone's heart and make them feel as if they could never smile again. But she expressed her desire *not* to "live" this way, and as such her husband in honoring her choice.

You call it a "killing". I see it as letting her die the way she wanted to and not persisting in a state she undoubtly would deplore.

[Cody Dawg]

Between brain-dead and not brain-dead is a hard line. But when you start letting die people who are brain damaged almost completely the hard line becomes a vague decision. Today you switch off people with 99% brain damage. Next year maybe 95% brain damaged people will be switched off. Where does this end? In 20 years maybe people who can't move their left arm after a stroke are helped to die.

Amen.

[bstone]

Originally posted by TETENAL:
Then she should not be let died. Period.

Between brain-dead and not brain-dead is a hard line. But when you start letting die people who are brain damaged almost completely the hard line becomes a vague decision. Today you switch off people with 99% brain damage. Next year maybe 95% brain damaged people will be switched off. Where does this end? In 20 years maybe people who can't move their left arm after a stroke are helped to die.

It would set a precedent of something I would rather not like to happen.

I'm sorry, but this is pathetic.

[paully dub]

Bottom line, is someone's gotta pay for the care. As long as that's possible it should be ok to keep her plugged in.

[bstone]

Originally posted by paully dub:
Bottom line, is someone's gotta pay for the care. As long as that's possible it should be ok to keep her plugged in.

Even if it is against her wishes and the wishes of her husband? That seems a little ignorant.

Seems clear enough that she'd want them to just "pull the plug".

[Cody Dawg]

Her "husband" is:

1. Living with another woman
2. Is going to get insurance money even though it is not nearly as much as it would have been in the beginning
3. Wants to marry his girlfriend - whom he has two children with
4. Did everything possible to prevent Terry's parents from seeing their daughter
5. Could just walk away and let them take care of her

Instead, he has no concrete proof or evidence that her wish was, in fact, to die.

And, it now turns out that the Florida Department of Children and Families have unearthed some type of police record where Terry called 911 on her husband claiming physical battery or domestic violence.

He's a loser, plain and simple.

[bstone]

Originally posted by Cody Dawg:
Her "husband" is:

1. Living with another woman
2. Is going to get insurance money even though it is not nearly as much as it would have been in the beginning
3. Wants to marry his girlfriend - whom he has two children with
4. Did everything possible to prevent Terry's parents from seeing their daughter
5. Could just walk away and let them take care of her

Instead, he has no concrete proof or evidence that her wish was, in fact, to die.

And, it now turns out that the Florida Department of Children and Families have unearthed some type of police record where Terry called 911 on her husband claiming physical battery or domestic violence.

He's a loser, plain and simple.

So what you're saying is that he is unfit to make decisions because:

1) He wants to obey her wishes and move on
2) Will get insurance money (this is what happens when you have a Life Insurance policy)
3) Wants to move on with his life, most likely in respects to his wife's wishes (Don't dwell on me, go on with your lives, etc)
4) Perhaps Terry and her parents had a horrible relationship and he was following her wishes
5) DOesn't want to walk away because he is following her wishes


Loser or not, it's his call. People should be outraged at her parents for holding on to this unfounded idea that she wants to persist in a vegetative state, deteroirate and wither away.

Let the woman die with dignity already. Follow her wishes.

[TubaMuffins]

let her live or let her die, why should i care? I can understand this being in the local news for a day or a week, but why I am seeing it on my own local news and CNN and even the BBC? Why is it such a big deal, its not like people haven't become vegetables before. I don't see why it's such a huge story, and personally, I don't care.

[paully dub]

Originally posted by bstone:
Even if it is against her wishes and the wishes of her husband? That seems a little ignorant.

Seems clear enough that she'd want them to just "pull the plug".

Only if she signed a piecee of paper saying pull the plug (I didn't follow this enough to know if she did). Otherwise it's still grey. And besides, in most cases, it'll be a member of the family willing to pay. Let the husband go on with his life, but let her stay plugged in.

Anyway it's not my business. Can't this be dealt with privately?

[Cody Dawg]

No, it can't be dealt with privately because it is a precedent, as TETENAL said.

Millenium has talked oodles about the "slippery slope" that this issue, along with others, has created.

Sure, pull the plug on her. She's "practically" dead anyway.

Well, who is next?

Someone whose intelligence has diminished from, say, an IQ of 120 down to 84 because of a brain injury? Pull the plug on those folks also?

If that's the case, and you have retarded people who have a low IQ also, why not off them also? They have diminished brain function also.

The point is that there are all sorts of people who want to just pull the plug and forget about it.

As I pointed out earlier in this thread, another woman just woke up after 20 YEARS.

Anything is possible. Better to err on the side of caution and give this issue a chance.

Besides, who knows what medical advances will be made? That was what Christopher Reeve kept talking about. He kept saying that he was going to walk again one day due to medical and scientific advances.

What is the problem with trying to get this woman some therapy, see if there is ANY progress made, then re-evaluate?

The point is that Michael Schiavo will not allow therapy. Along with not allowing her own parents to visit her. He is a real sicko for that reason alone, IMO.

[TheBadgerHunter]

Originally posted by Cody Dawg:
No, it can't be dealt with privately because it is a precedent, as TETENAL said.

Millenium has talked oodles about the "slippery slope" that this issue, along with others, has created.

Sure, pull the plug on her. She's "practically" dead anyway.

Well, who is next?

Someone whose intelligence has diminished from, say, an IQ of 120 down to 84 because of a brain injury? Pull the plug on those folks also?

If that's the case, and you have retarded people who have a low IQ also, why not off them also? They have diminished brain function also.

The point is that there are all sorts of people who want to just pull the plug and forget about it.

As I pointed out earlier in this thread, another woman just woke up after 20 YEARS.

Anything is possible. Better to err on the side of caution and give this issue a chance.

Besides, who knows what medical advances will be made? That was what Christopher Reeve kept talking about. He kept saying that he was going to walk again one day due to medical and scientific advances.

What is the problem with trying to get this woman some therapy, see if there is ANY progress made, then re-evaluate?

The point is that Michael Schiavo will not allow therapy. Along with not allowing her own parents to visit her. He is a real sicko for that reason alone, IMO.

I believe the issue would be is it humane to keep someone alive in that state indefinitely? Under natural circumstances they would be dead and for all intensive purposes they are. Should we keep them alive because some day, maybe, we could find a cure?

Seeing as she put it in his hands it is his decision. It is not a precedent for that reason alone.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally posted by Cody Dawg:
Besides, who knows what medical advances will be made? That was what Christopher Reeve kept talking about. He kept saying that he was going to walk again one day due to medical and scientific advances.

Exactly! Stem cell research could yield discoveries that wake Terry up

oh, wait ...

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Captain Obvious:
Just unplug the veggie already. A decade and a half as a doorstop is enough.

Originally posted by demograph68:
Well put Captain Asshole.

Oh, and her husbands an asshat too.

[Cody Dawg]

Hi Zimphire: Glad you aren't leaving.



Anyway, she's alive and until they determine BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT that her brain IS "dead," not 50%, not 99%, but 100% dead, leave her alone.

[roberto blanco]

Originally posted by Cody Dawg:
Anyway, she's alive and until they determine BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT that her brain IS "dead," not 50%, not 99%, but 100% dead, leave her alone.

does that mean we can throw the switch on rush limbaugh now? *g*

BOT, this whole discussion is just so fu<kin' stupid. they should have let her go a long time ago. if this ever happens to me, and somebody decides to leave on the light (because of their retarded beliefs), i will make sure that their miserable lives find a swift and uncompromising end, should i ever wake up from my "slumber".

[Cody Dawg]

BOT, this whole discussion is just so fu<kin' stupid. they should have let her go a long time ago. if this ever happens to me, and somebody decides to leave on the light (because of their retarded beliefs), i will make sure that their miserable lives find a swift and uncompromising end, should i ever wake up from my "slumber".

That's nice.

[Wiskedjak]

I would also hope to be allowed a natural death so that I might move on to the next life

[paully dub]

Originally posted by Cody Dawg:
Hi Zimphire: Glad you aren't leaving.



Anyway, she's alive and until they determine BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT that her brain IS "dead," not 50%, not 99%, but 100% dead, leave her alone.

Um, you obviously don't know what "beyond a reasonable doubt" means. It's not 100% absolute certainty.

[saddino]

Originally posted by Cody Dawg:
And, it now turns out that the Florida Department of Children and Families have unearthed some type of police record where Terry called 911 on her husband claiming physical battery or domestic violence.

You are really not much of a critical reader, huh Cody? Every major, unbiased report as indicated that dozens upon dozens of "anonymous" complaints of abuse of been filed over the years and none have been shown to be credible.

Now, there are new "anonymous" complaints and the DCF is attempting to ask for a stay to "investigate" these charges. Again, every major news report makes clear that this is seen as a delay tactic.

Yet, somehow, you invent the notion of some "type of police record where Terry [sic] called 911." I don't know where you read that, but if these are the kinds of things you "learn" at terrisfight.org, then really, for the love of God, take some time to read something more unbiased. I really hope you aren't spreading this misinformation on purpose.

[bstone]

Originally posted by Cody Dawg:
Hi Zimphire: Glad you aren't leaving.



Anyway, she's alive and until they determine BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT that her brain IS "dead," not 50%, not 99%, but 100% dead, leave her alone.

Translation: Who cares if she never wanted to exist this way. Who cares that she has no chance of recovery. Who cares if what it seen is merely reflex and not cognitive. Who cares that her husband has been trying to honor her wishes for all these years. The State should stick their nose into something which has been clear for years and years (that her husband is trying to honor her wishes) and rather should let her persist in this vegetative state, with no chance of recovery, in an entirely uncognitive state, to let her wither and wane away.

That's the truly sick part of this whole thing.

[saddino]

Originally posted by Cody Dawg:
Anyway, she's alive and until they determine BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT that her brain IS "dead,"

Beyond a reasonable doubt:

[awaspaas]

Originally posted by Wiskedjak:
Exactly! Stem cell research could yield discoveries that wake Terry up

oh, wait ...

Conservatives head asplode.

[ghporter]

If the state again steps in and prevents a person's wishes, as proviede by her legal spouce-who is legally entitled to intervene in her care-then we have gone over the edge of that "slippery slope" wherein the state can direct care, regardless of the individual's wishes. A person with terminal cancer would not necessarily be allowed to forego life-extending procedures that would simply extend his pain. It could get to be very bad indeed.

The fact is that the spouce is legally the gardian of an incapacitated spouce, and Teri's parents, along with the Florida Legislature and Gov. Bush, stepped over the line in forcing Teri to remain alive when her brain is undeniably broken beyond recovery. Their actions violated both the spirit and letter of the law, and forced Teri's husband to watch his wife lie in a hospital bed without hope of recovery, simply because her parents WANT her to remain alive-though there is no conclusive proof that she is actually aware of anything.

Responding to stimuli in the environment shows that some part of her brain is functioning, but so does the fact that she's breathing. That CT scan is pretty conclusive; there's nobody home anymore.