[Ghoser777]

Okay, let me spin the situation a different way: Should a person in a vegetative state ever be "put down"? If we should side with "life" (whatever it is defined to be in this case, I don't know), should we just keep every vegetative body "alive" for 50-60 years until the body begins to deteriorate from old age.

I mean, think about it this way - should we ever cremate a person's body? Shouldn't we really be freezing everyone up just in case in the future we might be able to cure their diseases and bring them back to life? I have more faith that we can bring a frozen person back to life like "Abre Los Ojos" than in this situation (how can you reconstruct what has already been lost via liquidation). I mean, it's not like you can put together the missing parts of her brain again - her memories and experiences that made her who she is are gone now. I think there needs to be a line drawn somewhere... right?

[Apple Pro Underwear]

Originally posted by Ghoser777:
Okay, let me spin the situation a different way: Should a person in a vegetative state ever be "put down"? If we should side with "life" (whatever it is defined to be in this case, I don't know), should we just keep every vegetative body "alive" for 50-60 years until the body begins to deteriorate from old age.

i would want to immediately die.

we talked about the suffering of starvation... what about the suffering of not being able to talk. or to not be able to move. or to live on while your family updates you on their lives during their hour visits twice a week. lying there while your family scrimps to pay your hospital bills.

nope. end it quick and i'll save a bar stool for you in the afterlife.

[docbud]

Originally posted by Apple Pro Underwear:
i would want to immediately die.

we talked about the suffering of starvation... what about the suffering of not being able to talk. or to not be able to move. or to live on while your family updates you on their lives during their hour visits twice a week. lying there while your family scrimps to pay your hospital bills.

nope. end it quick and i'll save a bar stool for you in the afterlife.

Same here!

d

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally posted by Uncle Skeleton:
As a woman, how do you feel about your husband remarrying after you die?

Originally posted by Cody Dawg:
I think it's necessary and good for him.

I also hope she looks like Elizabeth Hurley or some other fabulous woman and has an equally great mind to keep his attention when they're not making hanky panky.



P.S., She must also agree to take good care of my children - and my little dog too.

Here you go again talking about looks. What is up with that?

[shiny]

Originally posted by Cody Dawg:
And what if they're wrong?



It is better to err on the side of life.

I hope that you are an advocate against the death penalty, otherwise, you would sound like a hypocrite.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by Apple Pro Underwear:
lying in a hospital bed for 17 years?

having a nurse clean your bedpan 3 times a day?

having your family visit you daily for 1 hour?

when nobody visits you (during the course of 17yrs, her family must have had a vacation or 2 right?) having the head nurse wipe off the accumulated dust on your face?

people all over the world remembering you as a vegetable instead of the bright human being you once were?

not having the capacity to mentally understand what I just typed?

Much of that sounds like a baby's life.

She has no idea of what life is because she is not alive mentally anymore. [/B]

And what MRI and PET results are you referring to as your proof of this?

[Zimphire]

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by shiny:
I hope that you are an advocate against the death penalty, otherwise, you would sound like a hypocrite.

Only to ignorant folks who can't distinguish the difference between a capital death conviction and the life of a disabled citizen.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
Much of that sounds like a baby's life.

for about one year ... not seventeen

[shiny]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
Only to ignorant folks who can't distinguish the difference between a capital death conviction and the life of a disabled citizen.

In each case, the person went through the Court system and received due process. If you are saying that we should err on the side of life in the case of Schiavo, EVEN THOUGH SHE HAS RECEIVED DUE PROCESS, how can you say that we should not err on the side of life in the case of a convicted killer who claims to be innocent, EVEN THOUGH HE/SHE HAS RECEIVED DUE PROCESS.

In both cases, there is someone with doubt about the outcome that was reached by a Court. Why not err on the side of life in the case of the killer to see if more evidence comes up later that could exhonerate them. Of course it is not likely, however, it is just as likely as Schiavo being rehabilitated. There is a chance. If there is a chance, shouldn't we err on the side of life in both cases?

[goMac]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
And what MRI and PET results are you referring to as your proof of this?

Uh, the MRI posted in this thread probably?

I give up... This thread is going in circles. Cody an company refuse to acknowledge facts or have serious discussion. I now declare this discussion to be about grilled cheese sandwiches until it gets locked.

[Cody Dawg]

As long as they are grilled cheese sandwiches with the face of the Virgin Mary on them.

(Someone feed one to Terri, will ya?)

[d4nth3m4n]

Originally posted by goMac:
Uh, the MRI posted in this thread probably?

I give up... This thread is going in circles. Cody an company refuse to acknowledge facts or have serious discussion. I now declare this discussion to be about grilled cheese sandwiches until it gets locked.

welcome to the club.

[bstone]

Originally posted by Cody Dawg:
Actually, if you really think about it, she IS a perfect Christian.

Christians believe all people are perfect, created in God's image.

Except for Jews, who don't believe in Jesus (and go to hell)

and the Hindus who are polytheistic (and go to hell)

and the Buddhists who don't pray but rather meditate (and go to hell)

etc etc etc

[bstone]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
Much of that sounds like a baby's life.
And what MRI and PET results are you referring to as your proof of this?

Neither. A CT scan is best suited for this purpose. It's publically available and clearly demonstrated a completely lysed cortex.

[goMac]

Originally posted by bstone:
Except for Jews, who don't believe in Jesus (and go to hell)

and the Hindus who are polytheistic (and go to hell)

and the Buddhists who don't pray but rather meditate (and go to hell)

etc etc etc

I hate to refute a point against Cody here... But thats a pretty small minded description. I go to a Catholic University, and all students must take a Theology course which spends almost all its time on all religions other than Catholicism. There are people out there who do believe what you wrote, but a lot of Christians don't.

[Apple Pro Underwear]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
Much of that sounds like a baby's life.

Yeah. Think about that.

And what MRI and PET results are you referring to as your proof of this? [/B]

Me: She has no idea of what life is because she is not alive mentally anymore.

My proof of that is this:
Living life is talking to your family and friends. Learning something new at work each day. The daily trials and tribulations that push a person to think and love and live... Reading books, watching movies, social interaction are all things that not only make life worth living... they are exercise to a person's mind.

A MRI or PET can't properly diagnose the definition of "life" as determined by what I consider to be living.

[Cody Dawg]

Thank you.

I went to a Catholic university for two years. (And, even though I have Jewish relatives, I also have Catholic relatives and I attended parochial school when I was small. Now I consider myself an advocate of all religions - no lines and boundaries involved.)

[bstone]

Originally posted by goMac:
I hate to refute a point against Cody here... But thats a pretty small minded description. I go to a Catholic University, and all students must take a Theology course which spends almost all its time on all religions other than Catholicism. There are people out there who do believe what you wrote, but a lot of Christians don't.

I'm speaking more about the Catholic church. BTW, I was a religion and philosophy undergrad and do embrace the more universal Christian denominations. I, however, am a practicing Jew.

[goMac]

Originally posted by bstone:
I'm speaking more about the Catholic church. BTW, I was a religion and philosophy undergrad and do embrace the more universal Christian denominations. I, however, am a practicing Jew.

I'll note my University is specifically Catholic. I'm also loosely Catholic (i.e. I don't think the bible is a book of truths, and maybe more of a moral guide which people like to take the wrong way and use as more of a social weapon) and completely for the removal of the feeding tube.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by goMac:
Uh, the MRI posted in this thread probably?

I give up...

You should, because she hasn't had an MRI or PET because her husband repeatedly refused these tests that are commonly used to determine the extent of brain injury. From here...

Terri�s diagnosis was arrived at without the benefit of testing that most neurologists would consider standard for diagnosing PVS. One such test is MRI (Magnetic Resonance Imaging). MRI is widely used today, even for ailments as simple as knee injuries � but Terri has never had one. Michael has repeatedly refused to consent to one. The neurologists I have spoken to have reacted with shock upon learning this fact. One such neurologist is Dr. Peter Morin. He is a researcher specializing in degenerative brain diseases, and has both an M.D. and a Ph.D. in biochemistry from Boston University.

In the course of my conversation with Dr. Morin, he made reference to the standard use of MRI and PET (Positron Emission Tomography) scans to diagnose the extent of brain injuries. He seemed to assume that these had been done for Terri. I stopped him and told him that these tests have never been done for her; that Michael had refused them.

There was a moment of dead silence.

�That�s criminal,� he said, and then asked, in a tone of utter incredulity: �How can he continue as guardian? People are deliberating over this woman�s life and death and there�s been no MRI or PET?� He drew a reasonable conclusion: �These people [Michael Schiavo, George Felos, and Judge Greer] don�t want the information.�

Dr. Morin explained that he would feel obligated to obtain the information in these tests before making a diagnosis with life and death consequences. I told him that CT (Computer-Aided Tomography) scans had been done, and were partly the basis for the finding of PVS. The doctor retorted, �Spare no expense, eh?� I asked him to explain the comment; he said that a CT scan is a much less expensive test than an MRI, but it �only gives you a tenth of the information an MRI does.� He added, �A CT scan is useful only in pretty severe cases, such as trauma, and also during the few days after an anoxic (lack of oxygen) brain injury. It�s useful in an emergency-room setting. But if the question is ischemic injury [brain damage caused by lack of blood/oxygen to part of the brain] you want an MRI and PET. For subsequent evaluation of brain injury, the CT is pretty useless unless there has been a massive stroke.�

Other neurologists have concurred with Dr. Morin�s opinion. Dr. Thomas Zabiega, who trained at the University of Chicago, said, �Any neurologist who is objective would say �Yes�� to the question, �Should Terri be given an MRI?�

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by bstone:
Neither. A CT scan is best suited for this purpose.

Nope. See above.

[goMac]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
You should, because she hasn't had an MRI or PET because her husband repeatedly refused these tests that are commonly used to determine the extent of brain injury. From here...

And this is....?

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by Apple Pro Underwear:
A MRI or PET can't properly diagnose the definition of "life" as determined by what I consider to be living.

That's fine, and I'm with you.

The difference is that I refuse to project it by saying "I don't want to live like that, so starve her to death."

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by goMac:
And this is....?

It's a CT scan. Surely you're not using that in arguments when you don't even know what it is, are you?

[goMac]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
It's a CT scan. Surely you're not using that in arguments when you don't even know what it is, are you?

I'm no doctor, so please explain why this CT scan is not proof enough that her brain is fubar.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
You should, because she hasn't had an MRI or PET because her husband repeatedly refused these tests that are commonly used to determine the extent of brain injury. From here...

I'm glad you are willing to make up your own mind based on objective data instead of blindly repeating everything from a slanted propaganda site that advertises "the official 'red state' hat" for sale.

From your source:

But if the question is ischemic injury [brain damage caused by lack of blood/oxygen to part of the brain] you want an MRI and PET. For subsequent evaluation of brain injury, the CT is pretty useless unless there has been a massive stroke.

This guy is talking about brain-injury, not brain-gone. Would you expect an X-Ray on a leg that had been broken? Of course. Would you still order one if the leg had instead been severed and then grown over for 15 years? Doubtful. As a scientist, I would still be very interested in the results of more scans, as an opportunity to expand our knowledge about how the brain reacts to severe insult. But as a patient I wouldn't be convinced of the value of more scans once you can see that the important parts of the brain are literally absent.

[ironknee]

Originally posted by deej5871:
Was there supposed to be a wink smilie there, or are you trying to be a jackass?

hmm explain please...if i had a wink smile, ...what would that mean?

and that i didn't have one...what does that mean?

this will be good i mean, no wait...

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by Uncle Skeleton:
I'm glad you are willing to make up your own mind based on objective data instead of blindly repeating everything from a slanted propaganda site that advertises "the official 'red state' hat" for sale.

That article was the first I've read on Nat Review in months, and I've been posting on this topic well before I came to that article. Heck, if it weren't for my Googling of "MRI PVS Schiavo", I probably wouldn't have seen that site for many more months. Regardless, I already knew that she had not been given an MRI or PET scan prior to the PVS ruling, and I was researching it a bit more.

I realize that you want her to die. What I didn't realize was that you were all for denying her additional diagnostic tests - ones that are widely deemed as more appropriate and recommended for this type of diagnosis - to satisfy your desire and position on the issue.

Try doing some of your own research. The absence of these tests - both now and prior to the court ruling - is widely known and scrutinized. And it ain't just on the "red state" sites.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by goMac:
I'm no doctor, so please explain why this CT scan is not proof enough that her brain is fubar.

Here's a brief breakdown:

CT scanning uses a series of x-rays of the head taken from many different directions...

The CT scan is useful for quickly viewing brain injuries._ The CT scan can localize epidural blood clots outside the lining of the brain, subdural blood clots inside the lining of the brain, and hemorrhages within brain tissue._ The CT scan allows Neurosurgeons to assess the effects of bleeding on the brain, such as pressure moving sensitive brain tissue or decreasing blood flow to the brain._ The CT scan also allows the Neurosurgeon to evaluate for swelling due to both tissue damage and dilated blood vessels within the brain...

MRI scanning, like CT, also uses computer programs to produce cross sectional images of the brain._ Unlike CT scanning, the MRI scan uses a high intensity magnetic field to magnetically align hydrogen atoms within molecules in the brain._ These hydrogen atoms then produce radio signals, which are located and measured, and then used by the computer program to produce cross sectional images._ MRI scans can produce cross sectional images in any direction from top to bottom, as in CT scanning, from side to side, or from the front to the back of the head._ MRI scans have a higher resolution compared to CT scans, and can show differences in brain tissues based on their fat and water content._ Hydrogen in higher fat content areas, produces a radio signal more quickly than hydrogen in higher water content areas._ The MRI scan takes advantage of this property to produce images of different structures.

The choice of scan depends upon the urgency of the information needed and ability of the subject to participate in the scanning procedure._ For this reason, CT scans are often more used in the early stages of recovery to assess for life threatening conditions._ MRI scans are most useful in assessing the amount and location of brain injury for planning therapies and predicting recovery.

[lurkalot]

Terri was in a coma for approximately one month, and then evolved into a vegetative state. Four board-certified neurologists in Florida consulting on her care (James H. Barnhill, Garcia J. Desousa, Thomas H. Harrison, and Jeffrey M. Karp) had repeatedly made a diagnosis of PVS over the years. The initial CT scan on the day of admission, February 25, 1990, was normal but further CT scans documented a progression of widespread cerebral hemisphere atrophy, eventually resulting in CT scans of 1996 and 2002 showing extreme atrophy (CT scans-1996, 2002: �diffuse encephalomalacia and infarction consistent with anoxia, hydrocephalus ex vacuo, neural stimulator present); prior to these most recent two CT scans, CT scans had been performed on February 25, 1990, February 27, 1990, and March 30, 1990, with an MRI scan on July 24, 1990.The two most recent EEG�s have demonstrated no electrical activity-on July 8, 2002: �no evidence of cerebral activity;� and October 4, 2002-�does not have any definite brain activity. However, most of the tracing is obscured by artifact from muscle and eye movement.� The clinical exams over the years were entirely consistent with diagnosis of permanent vegetative state secondary to hypoxic-ischemic encephalopathy. From the initial hospitalization in February, 1990, until the present time, there have been no significant changes in Terri�s neurological findings, and nothing in the medical records to suggest any disagreement whatsoever among Terri�s attending and consulting physicians about the underlying diagnosis and prognosis for recovery. A deep brain stimulator was placed in Terri�s brain on December 12, 1990 at request of the husband who flew with his wife to San Francisco for the procedure. This highly experimental form of medical treatment did not result in any clinical improvement in Terri�s condition.

[lurkalot]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
Here's a brief breakdown:

The Doctors the Schindlers have found to bolster the MRI story don't prove what they think they do.

Their own comments confirm what we already know. Some very selective quotes:
"He (Dr. Morin) added, �A CT scan is useful only in pretty severe cases"

Dr. Bell: �A CT scan doesn�t give much detail. In order to see it on a CT, you have to have massive damage.�

It is quite clear from the way these people commented that they had not seen the actual images available of Terri's brain, in particular the scans available in court. The absence of the cerebral cortex was so obvious even on those images that a new MRI would have been overkill. All but the most staunch Schindler suporter would dispute the point.

Repeated: From the transcript of the testimony of Dr. Bambakidis taken on October 16, 2002:

25 A. The film, more precisely this

234

1 particular study, is markedly abnormal.

2 Q. Uh-huh. And can you explain why?

3 A. Yes. There is a very, very prominent

4 enlargement of the fluid spaces within the brain.

5 The fluids space are a normal phenomena, but in

6 this case they are markedly large.

7 The other associated finding, the one

8 that is directly related to that, is the atrophy

9 and the loss of tissue affecting the cerebral

10 cortex, to a lesser degree the back part of the

11 brain, although perhaps it's not as well noted on

12 the CT as it would be on an MRI scan.

13 Q. Okay. Dr. Bambakidis, perhaps with the

14 Court's permission, if you could step down and

15 point to the particular images. The images are

16 sequentially numbered on this exhibit and perhaps

17 point that out that you are referring to in your

18 testimony.

19 A. Yes.

20 THE COURT: You'll need to bring your

21 microphone, Doctor.

22 THE BAILIFF: I have the remote mic for

23 him, Your Honor.

24 THE COURT: Do you? Okay. You won't

25 need your microphone. I'm sorry.




235



1 THE BAILIFF: Here is the remote. It's

2 on.

3 BY MR. FELOS:

4 Q. Doctor, I believe you first testified

5 as to a marked increase in the ventricles or what

6 were your words? How did you describe that?

7 A. Well, I would like to describe it in

8 non-technical language. The normal occurring

9 fluid spaces in the brain, basically.

10 And this is -- it's for me the most

11 striking feature that I see. And, in particular,

12 it's best appreciated if we go, for example, to

13 Image 15 it has the level of ventricles. These

14 are markedly enlarged. And that's also seen in

15 the next image, Image 16 as well and in others.

16 Q. Now, in Image 15 this darkened spot

17 that looks like a butterfly?

18 A. Yes.

19 Q. Is that what you mean by enlarged

20 ventricles?

21 A. Those are the ventricles and they are

22 markedly large.

23 Q. Okay. Now, what might that look like

24 in a normal CT scan?

25 A. Well, that would be -- they would be




236



1 much, much smaller than that. Of course there's

2 some normal variation in the size of the

3 ventricular system, the size of those ventricles,

4 the size of those fluid spaces and some of them

5 are in the process of aging, but this is clearly

6 very abnormal.

7 Q. And, in your opinion, why does Terri

8 Schiavo have these markedly enlarged ventricles?

9 A. Part of the reason that I picked Image

10 15 is because it very dramatically illustrates

11 the atrophy of the cortex along the sides. The

12 cortex is the very, very most of the -- most

13 highly developed part of the brain, if you will.

14 If you look on Image 15, there are

15 spaces of the same density or lack thereof that

16 you see in the ventricular system. That is, in

17 fact, open space and filled by cerebral spinal

18 fluid, which normally occupies those little

19 spaces.

20 The reason that that fluid is there is

21 because there's been such profound loss of

22 tissue. It's become filled in by that fluid.

23 And with the atrophy, there is, if you would or

24 if you will, a pulling or compensatory pulling of

25 the ventricles themselves so that they enlarge




237



1 accommodating to the fact that that normal brain

2 cortex has become lost. It's not there anymore,

3 so you have compensatory dilatation or

4 enlargement of that ventricular system.

5 Q. Now, is there any correlation,

6 Dr. Bambakidis, to this profound loss of cerebral

7 tissue and the clinical condition of the patient?

8 A. Yes.

9 Q. And what is that correlation?

10 A. Well, the correlation here is that

11 clearly on the basis of her history, both the

12 initial insult that occurred and her subsequent

13 course, that this scan in total, both the

14 prominent fluid spaces in the brain and the

15 atrophy reflect severe damage to the brain,

16 specifically to the cerebral cortex, as a

17 consequence of anoxic encephalopathy.

18 Q. What function does the cerebral cortex

19 play for a person?

20 A. Oh, it's very, very vital. Those

21 aspects of human existence involving awareness of

22 one's self, awareness of those around us, our

23 ability to communicate, our ability to experience

24 pleasure on a conscious level and our ability to

25 suffer as well is a function of the cerebral

238
1 cortex.


The persistent vegetative state is a recognized condition, recognized as one from which there is no recovery in a case like Terri Schiavo's, based on the nature (anoxic) extent (90%) and location (cerebral cortex) of her brain damage and because of the time passed (15 years) since the event that put her in her vegetative state.

[shiny]

Originally posted by shiny:
In each case, the person went through the Court system and received due process. If you are saying that we should err on the side of life in the case of Schiavo, EVEN THOUGH SHE HAS RECEIVED DUE PROCESS, how can you say that we should not err on the side of life in the case of a convicted killer who claims to be innocent, EVEN THOUGH HE/SHE HAS RECEIVED DUE PROCESS.

In both cases, there is someone with doubt about the outcome that was reached by a Court. Why not err on the side of life in the case of the killer to see if more evidence comes up later that could exhonerate them. Of course it is not likely, however, it is just as likely as Schiavo being rehabilitated. There is a chance. If there is a chance, shouldn't we err on the side of life in both cases?

Spacefreak,

Are you going to answer the questions?

[vmpaul]

Originally posted by Millennium:
In which case, he would have strong emotional reasons on both sides; that does not resolve the conflict.

You don't know him, do you? The only reason you see conflict is because you're projecting motivations on him. The only conflict here is from those trying to impose their will into a private matter between a man and his wife.

However, the evidence is very much against your assertion anyway.

Wrong. The evidence was reviewed by an independent judge and upheld numerous times now. In both State and Federal courts. Are you going to question their motives? Not as easy to demonize a whole judicial system, is it?

BTW, it isn't only her husbands assertion she wouldn't want to be kept in this condition, there are others who assert this is Terri's wish as well.

There should, however, be enough doubt to not canonize him. The blind faith people have put in this man's word is impressive, given the scanty evidence he has to back up any assertion that the conflict of interest should be ignored

Nobody's trying to make a him a saint. He's just a man going through probably the hardest decisions he'll ever have to make. If you have sympathy for Terri, as you obviously do, I don't see how you can't have some empathy for him as well. If you were in his shoes, do you honestly think you'd make every decision perfectly? Wouldn't there be some decisions, over such a long period of time, that would appear to be callous or calculating to a barely informed media and public? Should he be blamed for not being more PR conscious?

No matter how much you try to make it so, this case isn't about Michael Schiavo. It's about Terri Schiavo and fulfilling her wishes. If you are ideologically against pulling life-support from PVS patients or against euthanasia in general, then just say so. Be honest about it. But to sit behind your keyboard and make blanket negative characterizations against someone you don't know is unconscionable to me.

I don't want to get in a tit-for-tat on this. There are more than enough people who've done that here already. I just don't understand how people can make such blanket statements against someone they've never met or blindly accept those opinions from others who have no intimate knowledge of this couple's relationship. People who are obviously pushing a political and social agenda of their own.

[itai195]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
That article was the first I've read on Nat Review in months, and I've been posting on this topic well before I came to that article. Heck, if it weren't for my Googling of "MRI PVS Schiavo", I probably wouldn't have seen that site for many more months. Regardless, I already knew that she had not been given an MRI or PET scan prior to the PVS ruling, and I was researching it a bit more.

Indeed, and I think it's instructive to note what the top results are when googling 'schiavo mri.' An MRI would prove what, exactly? Even in PVS patients, MRIs are sometimes nearly normal. Once the MRI were done and likely inconclusive, the terrisfight crowd would just push for another delay for some other test. That's likely the reason an MRI has never been done -- it isn't necessary, and would just snowball into a range of demands for other tests, therapies, etc. It's an endless road.

I say give it a rest already, it doesn't matter what any of us think. Michael Schiavo has the legal and [IMO] moral authority to make the decisions in this matter. The Schindlers had their day in court. Congress should NOT have gotten involved, it's unfortunate enough that the courts had to take up this matter in the first place. There is no legal or religious requirement that Terri continue to be subjected to extraordinary means in order to preserve her life, and while I sympathize with her parents' desire not to see her go, this isn't their decision to make.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
That article was the first I've read on Nat Review in months, and I've been posting on this topic well before I came to that article.

My apologies; I mistook you for "slow moe", because your post is in his style of linking to (exclusively) that site and then quoting a huge block of text from it. I'll double-check who I'm talking to in the future.

I realize that you want her to die.

On the contrary. No one wants her to die. Many people, including all the experts that have actually examined her, recognize that she has died. The only thing I want is to reconcile the logical paradox that arises when religious conservatives reject the lessons of medical science and then force the use of medical science to defy the natural order of things, that people die when they die.

Try doing some of your own research

Sadly, I have a job, and have barely enough time to read the rumors and propaganda presented in this thread; I don't have time to sift through the mass of it on the internet to find the few sources that are credible. But I know that plenty of people here do have that time, and I offer my services in pointing out when they have erred and mistakenly lent their endorsement to the wrong one.

[The Godfather]

Originally posted by Apple Pro Underwear:
i would want to immediately die.

we talked about the suffering of starvation... what about the suffering of not being able to talk. or to not be able to move. or to live on while your family updates you on their lives during their hour visits twice a week. lying there while your family scrimps to pay your hospital bills.

nope. end it quick and i'll save a bar stool for you in the afterlife.

What if it was the day before Mac World, and your friends got you tickets for the keynote. Would you miss that?

[Link]

Originally posted by vmpaul:
Nobody's trying to make a him a saint. He's just a man going through probably the hardest decisions he'll ever have to make. If you have sympathy for Terri, as you obviously do, I don't see how you can't have some empathy for him as well. If you were in his shoes, do you honestly think you'd make every decision perfectly? Wouldn't there be some decisions, over such a long period of time, that would appear to be callous or calculating to a barely informed media and public? Should he be blamed for not being more PR conscious?
[/B]

Yeah, standing up for something he suddenly came up with 'her wishes' -- after winning a huge malpractice lawsuit 7 years after her becoming disabled in the first place..

The guy has a new soulmate and wants to "get on with his life", he's said that before.. why he should have the rights to kill her is beyond me

[roberto blanco]

Originally posted by The Godfather:
What if it was the day before Mac World, and your friends got you tickets for the keynote. Would you miss that?

now that was cruel!

anyway, what APU said.

oh, and this whole discussion isn't about the husband, or even terri herself. once again, it is about who gets to set the standards for a highly debated socio cultural paradigm (see abortion, evolution, crime/punishment (death sentence)...)

can you imagine a world where abortion was punishable by the death sentence, as a matter of fact most crimes were, the w3rd of god and the bible was unquestionable literal truth etc., torture was an acceptable means of extrapolating information...

can you? i'm sure most people in afghanistan can...

OT, looks like she is going to get her well deserved rest. the brain dead in the us will have lost a kin, - but not to worry, there are more than enough left.

[OreoCookie]

Just to add some fuel to the fire: apparently neurologist William Cheshire (who made the diagnosis for Governor Bush) did not examine Terri Schiavo, but based his medical opinion solely on two videos supplied by the parents and one hour of observation.

[Apple Pro Underwear]

Originally posted by The Godfather:
What if it was the day before Mac World, and your friends got you tickets for the keynote. Would you miss that?

the big ThinkSecret in the sky is 100% accurate. I'd only miss the booth chicks.

[Cody Dawg]

Yeah, why she didn't have an MRI is questionable.

I think Jeb Bush and Cheshire are trying to make the argument that Terri deserves more extensive testing and some opportunity for more rehabilitation.

[Apple Pro Underwear]

Originally posted by Cody Dawg:
Yeah, why she didn't have an MRI is questionable.

I think Jeb Bush and Cheshire are trying to make the argument that Terri deserves more extensive testing and some opportunity for more rehabilitation.

just wondering, CD...

how much do you think she can improve from her current state? and if you can let me know how many years it would take her to rabilitate to reach that state.

Thanks, this thread is very interesting!

[techweenie1]

Hey that sig is pretty hott!....can you make me one that says Stupid WAR protesters, NUKE them all?

[Mithras]

I'm still waiting to hear Cody's opinion of Gov. Bush's law that permits individuals, families, and hospitals to decide to withdraw artificial nutrition and hydration.

I really am curious.

[Cadaver]

Originally posted by Cody Dawg:
Yeah, why she didn't have an MRI is questionable.

Cody Dawg, an MRI in this case wouldn't make a lick of difference. I'm a radiologist, a physician who reads CTs and MRIs for a living. I have also acted as an expert witness for legal precidings. Based on the CT images I've seen that have been published in the various media, I don't see how an MR would add any additional information. Atrophy is atrophy. What more are they looking for??

An MR wont add functional information in a case like this. Additionally, Terri Shiavo would have to be significantly sedated to get a good study - she'd have to hold still for around 30 minutes. In patients like her, that means general anesthesia.

A neurologist consulted by Jeb Bush can grandstand all he wants, but it wont change the facts. Additionally, neurologists don't interpret MRs. They order them all the time, and I'm sure their used to looking at them for the obvious findings, but they do not interpret them officially and do cannot bill for doing so. And I'd like to know how he thinks it would help.

[Moderator]

Originally posted by Mithras:
I'm still waiting to hear Cody's opinion of Gov. Bush's law that permits individuals, families, and hospitals to decide to withdraw artificial nutrition and hydration.

I really am curious.

...if the family can't PAY!

Yeah..the idealogues are suspiciously silent on this. Pathetic

[Cody Dawg]

I think that anything is permissible - as long as it is VERY CLEAR AND IN WRITING.

Seriously, that's what I think.

If this happened to me, guess what? I have it in writing that I do not want to be kept alive this way. I want my family to move on and BE HAPPY. That's all.

You know, my family sat here last night and talked about this. My son said that he would want me to stay alive. My husband said that he would want to honor my wishes and take me off of life support, whatever that would be.

Right here, in my living room, my son said that he thought that I might be able to get better and he would not want to pull the plug - even though I had just stated I'd want to be able to go. He and my husband started arguing about it!

See, that's what I think is going on: This issue polarizes everyone either to one side or another. It is the secular against the Christians. The parents against the kids. And so on. It is a very delicate issue.

My issue is that I don't trust Michael Schiavo. I think he is very questionable. The 911 calls for domestic violence before she became incapcitated. The affair with another woman (who is now living with). The fact that she went to the hospital that first night with broken bones. The fact that he refuses to take a lie detector test. The fact that there was a criminal investigation into his treatment of her.

I just don't trust him. Why didn't he want to allow more testing? Why didn't he allow speech therapy? Physical therapy?

This has more to do with distrust of Michael Schiavo than anything else. I don't know if Terri actually said she would not want to be kept alive this way - I think he's lied before and may be lying now. He is not trustworthy.

That's my opinion.

[Mithras]

Originally posted by Cody Dawg:
I think that anything is permissible - as long as it is VERY CLEAR AND IN WRITING.
.

Then you disagree with Bush's law, which permits, in the absence of a written directive from the patient, for family (first spouses, then adult children, then parents) to make a choice to remove artificial nutrition and hydration.

Fair enough. I hope you urge the Texas legislature to replace Bush's law, lest a similar tragedy unfold there.

--
I'm glad you talked about it with your family. I've done the same, and while fortunately they all supported my sentiments, I and you both need to get this in writing.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally posted by Cody Dawg:
This has more to do with distrust of Michael Schiavo than anything else. I don't know if Terri actually said she would not want to be kept alive this way - I think he's lied before and may be lying now. He is not trustworthy.

You're correct. Ultimately, this has nothing to do Terri Schiavo's medical state. I must believe that the doctors who've examined her and the judges who've reviewed the case have done their due diligence in confirming the diagnosis. Why would they have done otherwise?

The ultimate question here is Michael Schiavo's qualification to be her power of attorney and represent her wishes. And, in this, it must be assumed that the courts have also reviewed all of the factual information available that might impact that qualification. Why would they have done otherwise?