As the previous Terri Schiavo thread threatens to reach 500 posts, I thought I’d start a new thread. Please use this thread to continue any discussions started on the three previous extra-huge Schiavo discussion threads.
To start us off, a few links:
The Gimp Parade has a collection of links to articles by disabled activists about the Schiavo case and its related issues. From Harriet McBryde Johnson’s Slate article:
There is a genuine dispute as to what Ms. Schiavo believed and expressed about life with severe disability before she herself became incapacitated; certainly, she never stated her preferences in an advance directive like a living will. If we assume that Ms. Schiavo is aware and conscious, it is possible that, like most people who live with severe disability for as long as she has, she has abandoned her preconceived fears of the life she is now living. We have no idea whether she wishes to be bound by things she might have said when she was living a very different life. If we assume she is unaware and unconscious, we can’t justify her death as her preference. She has no preference.
I think Johnson has a good point regarding changing preferences. However, if we accept that point, then why does it make a difference whether or not someone leaves a living will? If someone who is not yet disabled lacks the information needed to make an informed choice about life while disabled – and it seems to me that is probably true – then they don’t magically become more informed if they leave their wishes in the form of a living will, rather than in the form of talking to their spouses and loved ones.
See also this Washington Post article, which respectfully quotes disabled activists on both sides of the Schiavo issue (is that fair because it doesn’t pretend that all disabled activists agree, or unfair because it gives undue prominence to marginal dissenters from a genuine consensus?), and this critique of the disabled rights argument by Cathy Young. (Like Young, I just can’t get over my belief that there is a substantial difference between being disabled and having no cerebral cortex to speak of). Both links via Disability Law.
An “Alas” reader George F pointed out this article, “Before the Circus,” by a journalist who visited Terri Schiavo several years ago.
Back then, both sides were civil to one another. No one disputed that Terri was in a persistent vegetative state and had been for a decade. Or that an eating disorder probably had led to Terri’s cardiac arrest and collapse, not physical abuse by Michael as some now contend.
Nobody was a murderer, an abuser, an adulterer, a fanatic, a liar. They were just family, trying their best to do right by their daughter, wife, sister. […]
After all these years, what haunts me is something Terri’s brother once said: “If Terri knew what this had done to this family, she would go ballistic.”
And he told me that before things spun out of control.
And, finally, a Schiavo-inspired post from the blog Transterrestrial Musings, which is noodling about with the question of self and soul. If we replaced someone’s brain with a mechanical brain, but the person still “feels” like herself, then does she still have a soul?
To the degree that I understand the concept of the soul, I can’t believe that it is associated simply with a body, living or breathing. To the degree that I believe in souls, I think of it as a different word for “mind.”
Susan,
Thanks for the daugther hint. It’s a good idea, and I will talk to her. Usually I do, but more indirectly, sometimes in the form of hints, etc..
Monica,
I will make 2 points only in interest of brevity:
1. I said a bit earlier: Now that’s off my chest, let’s try to stay on the subject(s) more, I really don’t want to fight on here.
With that in mind, I’m not going to reply to all your statements. I just don’t have the time today, I’m a guy on the net that has an opinion. We both have that right.
2. This I will reply to: Except that’s not really how you put it, with your mighty sentences about anorexic women being driven by the pursuit of attractiveness in the eyes of a mate.
On April 24th I said: I suppose it might reflect my view more accurately if I referred to our present day “slim”? society as a catalyst rather than a cause. Certainly some people seem more vulnerable to it than others, and I would not argue that. I will not argue that it’s complex, and there are myriad issues of the mind, genetics, etc., etc.. Of course there are social pressures, I happened to think of the reproductive area as primary, there are others; acceptance etc..
I did mention the reproductive area as primary cause in my first statement before the above, I’m not going back to get the exact wording. That is my right to have that opinion, and that’s all it is. It was not an attempt to offend. Sally, in her short reply mentioned a reason that never occurred to me, I’m sure that I could learn a ton. As to your comment of grand sentences, I think as Susan mentioned you have a lot of hostility, and I hope you can get it resolved.
So if you would like to write me without hostility and sarcasm, fine. If not, I’m not going to respond, we can keep our differences and leave it at that, if that works for you. Let me know, if that is ok?
Amp,
It’s good that you noted Susans’s reply to you. Thanks for the site, and being moderator, certainly would not be an easy thing. I’ve agreed with other calls of this type before, if I was involved or not. I did not agree with your first comments to Susan, but it seems that is clarified now. Have a good evening.
… sigh…
Here’s a couple of very polite, straightforward, non-sarcastic thoughts for the meta-discussion on etiquette. Definition of patronising: treating in a condescending manner. Someone insisting their idea of ‘common sense’ – encapsulated in armchair psychology comments on “the” anorexic woman – is enough to pass simplistic judgement on a serious mental health issue they have no direct experience of, and to dissmiss comments from those with direct experience as if it was completely irrelevant (and explaining said dismissal by saying that it’s a bit like knowing a store has cheaper prices than another without actually going into it), is writing condescending comments, by any definition of the word. Also, it’s not a stretch to imagine it might come across as insulting. It’s not difficult to see the impression was, my inexperienced common sense rules, your experience doesn’t count. See response to Sally.
Saying a comment is simplistic, condescending and nonsense, and actually explaining why, in patient and polite terms, with no personalised offences, is not an ad hominem attack or rude responses. It’s called, having the right to criticise what someone writes. That’s what was being discussed, not the personality of the writers. That right goes both ways, and the criticism was always on the arguments, not the person, until those weird, cheap derailments into personalised territory.
Add to that, that forcing people to reply, repeatedly, to a series of straw men and deliberate misreadings (parents are to blame for all their chidlren’s ills; today is exactly like in the fifties; anything you read on the internet is true; books are a substitute for experience), and refusing to acknowledge those misreadings even after repeated clarification, is not even close to the basic standard of correctness, politeness and civility in a discussion. Or maybe we just have different standards, I guess.
What’s weird is, there was in fact very civil agreement, and disagreement, on a lot of what was being said in general, because no one was ever arguing extreme positions like those depicted in those ridiculous straw men. But one can’t expect to have a discussion in which they get never called on blatant displays of intellectual dishonesty.
I noticed about 50 posts ago someone tried to point out that she had bulemia but to no avail in redirecting the discussion.
When do the autopsy results come out?
Ted – I doubt the autopsy could actually reveal anything at this stage about that. That Terri did have bulimia has in fact already been established by the ruling on the malpractice suit – see from the information page at Matt Conigliaro’s Abstract Appeal site:
For those interested, here’s some general helpful information from the British EDA (Eating Disorders Association).
Ted,
I’m not sure when the autopsy is coming out, imagine soon though. Be nice for the family if it settled things, doubt that’s the case.
How this got started: A poster named Kathi threw out suicide, eating disorders, Terri as a point of discussion. We needed a change of venue, I replied first, some did not agree, with my opinion. The point I made was she was not suicidal, that eating disorders did not point that way. Some got upset with my statement, (eating disorders more society-reproductive based). Mentioned modern “slim” society. From there it went into arguments about the cause of eating disorders, which was not the point of Kathis proposed subject anyway. You can look “above” for a post from Kathi, it’s toward the end of her post.
As to Terris illness, I think I called it by the wrong name. Really don’t remember what I was typing about, it was more about logic than the name to me. Probably my fault. I did write Sally back about it.
The board is supposed to be about T. Schiavo, and it has gotten off the course.
Read your point on the condition(s), interesting.
Regarding .sigh.
This is a T. Schiavo discussion. My original reply was to Kathis proposed subject relating to eating disorders, suicide, Terri, towards the end of her post. I replied first stating I did not think that I did not think Terri was suicidal, and that her eating disorder did not indicate that.
It was never about, the cause of her affliction, it was simply a much needed new subject. It was first stated in relationship to Terri.
The forum is not about patronizing, so on and so forth. I’ve seen a lot of meandering diatribe, how about a coherent return to Kathis original proposed subject. Maybe something else. I really don’t much care, but this is a message board related to T. Schiavo, right?
Strictly speaking, eating disorders may not be suicidal behavior, in the same way, I guess, that alcoholism or drug addiction is not suicidal behavior. But saying any of that is playing with words a bit, because you can, and many people, do, die of these behaviors, and everyone knows that. Including the people who engage in the behavior.
It is, at a minimum, objectively speaking, self-destructive behavior.
The “suicide” factor enters into the Terri Schiavo story at another point as well. If Terri wanted the feeding tube disconnected, and if disconnecting it was not morally permissible (as I have heard argued with some vigor on some right-wing religious blogs), then logically instead of blaming her husband, these right-wingers should have been blaming Terri for committing suicide. (Some of them did.)
But as we have observed previously, blame isn’t a particularly useful concept in this situation.
No one knows what “causes” eating disorders. (Just as no one knows what causes alcoholism.) Both seem to have genetic and environmental components, but that’s a nothing statement. What complex behavior pattern doesn’t? And there is always, too, the elusive element of choice. Not all alcoholics continue drinking. Many stop, permanently. Many people are able to establish control over bullimia as well.
So have I. It doesn’t seem much to the point.
That Terri’s bulimia was self-destructive behaviour is self-evident and was never denied. She had an eating disorder. It’s inevitable that should raise a more general discussion on the views and approaches to eating disorders. Her story does also highlight some of the typical problems, such as the all-round silence and denial, starting with herself, of course. It’s interesting, though, that even after the malpractice suit that established she had bulimia that had not been diagnosed, there were attempts by Terri’s parents to turn the blame against the husband for provoking the heart attack through physical abuse, for which there was no evidence, and thus deny the existence of an eating disorder, for which there was indeed evidence.
In respect to the suicide factor itself, I have also seen, on other sites, how some blamed Terri for her behaviour. I also think it’s neither here nor there, regardless of the general attitude on eating disorders or the usefulness of blame, it doesn’t have any relevance on the legal decision. It was about not prolonging unnecessary treatment, not enforcing euthanasia. So whether Terri was suicidal or not, and how much she hated herself and wanted to die, is beside the point. Even people who shoot themselves in the head or slash their wrists open get treated in hospital. If they remain unconscious or fall into a vegetative state or coma, then the person legally responsible, family or partner, can take decisions about treatment, to enforce the person’s wishes about that specific decision on treatment in case of vegetative state or coma.
So, if instead of getting a heart attack, she’d slashed her wrist open and ended up in that very same condition, and the legal dispute that followed had been exactly the same, then the reasons being considered would have been exactly the same. (There would simply have been no malpractice suit.) I guess, at least, from other cases. I don’t see how judges could have been influenced by the specific way in which the vegetative state came about. As far as I know, decisions on end of life care are not predicated on the overall behaviour of the person prior to their coma or vegetative state. Only on their actual preferences, if expressed, about how much treatment should be prolonged even when there’s no chance of recovery.
From a public debate point of view, though, of course it would have definitely been interesting to see how those who campaigned to keep her alive at all costs would have framed their position, if she had actually slashed her wrists, instead of engaging in a more indirect form of self-destructive behaviour. It would have probably changed the nature of the arguments, if not the legal dispute itself.
monica,
You’re assuming your conclusion when you call artificial feeding and hydration “treatment.” The opposition contends that feeding and hydration are not “treatment,” but rather the care we owe each other. For example, someone paralyzed from the neck down cannot use a spoon, but we don’t regard spoon-feeding such a person “medical treatment.” And refusing that would probably cause quite an outcry.
Is a surgically implanted tube any different? That’s the question. If it is, if that is medical treatment, it is legitimate according to what Terri said to disconnect it. If it isn’t, if it’s just eating and drinking, then, according to the reasoning on the blogs I referred to, then it is not legitimate to discontinue it. ( think this is what dan is saying.)
You are correct that the circumstance which produced a person in this condition is irrelevant. Nevertheless, such a difference would probably have affected the tone of the public debate. (“She was trying to kill herself anyway, so we don’t owe her as much consideration, let’s just go ahead and finish the job.”) I suspect, however, that her parents’ position would not have been substantially different in that case; some way would have been found to shift the blame from Terri to someone else.
Regarding post 177 from Kathi:
This is a fascinating – to me, anyway – book on the interrelatedness of genetics and traditional cuisines. The relevance is that the author does discuss alcoholism and two different non-related genetic factors of the disease. Both of these genes affect how your body metabolizes alcohol. Note, they do not cause one to be an alcoholic, but do affect the chances of becoming alcoholic once one begins to drink to excess.
Whether there is a loci that influences whether one is predisposed to an eating disorder is an interesting idea. I haven’t heard of any investigations into this, but then, I’m not an expert.
I am familiar with the potassium imbalance that Terri Shiavo had. My mother was admitted to the hospital at the age of 46 with her first hypertensive crisis. Her potassium levels were so low from excessive dieting that they were unmeasureable. She spent a week in the ICU. She did not suffer brain damage, which surprised her doctors, but has had poor heart health ever since. That was almost 30 years ago. Mother was over weight at the time, and has never been visibly thin. Her family has very thrifty genes.
And so, I have never been tempted to follow in her footstepts and have avoided excessive undereating, purging and related over-reactions to being less than body-ideal. I don’t think we can tell what drives someone to excess. For myself, watching someone I love destroy herself has been enough to keep me from committing the exact same mistakes – and so I seem to have committed other mistakes. I don’t think Terri herself knew what drove her to do what she did and I don’t think we can figure it out for her.
Almost certainly Terri had no idea whatever what was driving her to this behavior. At the same time that she was bullimic, she was trying to conceive a child. The simplest analysis will suggest that the one behavior would frustrate the other….but we’re not talking about analysis, we’re talking about illness.
Mental illness in its many varieties is still mostly a mystery. Some mental illnesses respond to treatment in some people; some don’t, or respond only imperfectly. We just plain don’t know why.
It is my own belief, based on nothing much, that the increased stresses in our society are producing more eating disorders than were occurring two generations ago. That is, more young women who were “borderline” for this problem are manifesting symptoms because of environmental factors. I wouldn’t rank picutres of skinny models high on this list of factors, but they’re in there somewhere.
In a Darwinian sense, young women – our future reproducers – are an early warning system. If a lot of them become unable to reproduce, it’s a sign that we’re doing something very wrong. Global overpopulation turns this whole calculation on its head, of course, but that will be corrected by natural factors in due time.
Susan,
I seen your post above, mentioning feeding tube, and what you thought might be my opinion on it. A doctor, I know discussed this with me saying that it is the most minimal of life support. He said many people are on it, stating he had patients on it himself.
My thoughts on it, are yes it was minimal, but it was artificial. My impression, taken from reading extremes on the net on the subject and averaging them out is that she could swallow, but in a very limited fashion. That the chance of her aspirating, was very significant, therefore the tube was necessary.
So if there is limited ability to swallow, is that all reflex, or maybe there is a feeling on the tip her tongue, and just a blip of taste. We could argue that, but I don’t think we can say for sure. If the area of the brain, is mostly destroyed, can other areas pick up, say taste, feeling? I surely don’t know, if that occurs, but it might.
We do the best with what we have today. To me it was a roll of the dice, that nothing in her mind “re-routed”, that an occasional swallow was only reflex. Just depends on what bet you are willing to take. You see that bothered me a lot more than whether the tube was life support or simply giving nourishment to a human being. I think it was both, but really just the syntax we to applied to the action.
The whole thing leaves me with discomfort.
In a Darwinian sense, young women – our future reproducers – are an early warning system. – Interesting, it’s so damn easy to see the trees, and miss the forest. Maybe you are catching a glimpse of the forest.
I did not intend my comments to precipitate a heated personal debate and regret the confusion regarding my comments.
My original comment about whether Terri was suicidal has been taken a bit out of context:
I was responding to remarks made by Susan and Disspassionate Reader:
To clarify my opinionated point:
1) Terri probably did not directly choose suicide as a means to end her life. However, her actions, (for which she is ultimately responsible though not necessarily to blame for) lead to her not being able to live and function without artfical means of support.
2) She expressed a desire to not continue living under these circumstances.
3) One could, given a certain set of beliefs, present an argument that her actions and the preferences she expressed constitute a wish to commit suicide, and by taking that argument further, assert a claim that to remove her feeding tube would be assisted suicide.
In this case the irony of her being removed from feeding machines when an eating disorder lead to her condition may serve as greater “proof” of the “suicide theory”.
I, however, do not subscribe to that set of beliefs. Hence “only Terri could have told us that”.
4) The entire situation, I believe, raises questions about what suicide is; what it means to assist or facilitate suicide; what are “heroic” measures, etc…
5) I expressed my opinion that eating disorders are like many other diseases which manifest themselves in behavior (mental illnesses) and in doing so, hopefully made clear my opinion that blaming anyone (parents, Michael, society at large) is useless, futile, and (to use Monica’s word) reductionistic.
6) I used examples from my own experience and education as explanations of and bonafides for my opinions. And I hoped by doing so, I might help dispell misconceptions about bulimia and other mental illnesses.
Ultimately, everything I say is my opinion, whether reinforced by the opinions of others or not.
I maintain the feelings I first expressed about this situation: I am sad for Terri and her family.
Kathi,
It’s ok, we needed a change of subject at the time. While I got in trouble on here, better me than any of Terris family being growled about on here. It turns out that we all probably have learned a bit. I probably got the most education, as I didn’t know much in the first place. Frankly, it occurred to me, that my blunt analysis, might elicit some irritation, I underestimated that by a multiple. We got off your original subject, that’s not your fault at all.
The only thing that bothers me, is that I unintentionally might have caused some hurtful memories, to be dredged up in some people on here, and for that I’m sorry. Something like that happened with me recently, so when I thought of that, there really wasn’t anything I could think of to say.
Have you heard when the autopsy report is due out?
Kathi,
I agree whether is it suicide or is it not, isn’t a straight forward question, with only complex answers. My own mother has – I believe – been attempting to kill herself for years. She hasn’t succeeded because she has a very strong constitution, body and mind. It is very off balancing to watch someone acting in ways that are obviously self-destructive who at the same time expresses opinions that are demonstrative of a love of life.
I have a relaxed view of assisted suicide. I live in Oregon, and voted twice to pass and keep our assisted suicide law. If a person is dying, will die, can not be ‘saved’ from dying, is uncomfortable, in pain, living in an undignified fashion, I think they should have the option of saying ‘enough, stop it’. And I think they should have what assistance is necessary for them to end their life gently and quickly, without the messiness of someone else coming into their life and interferring with their decision.
Oregon law requires that you be determined of sound mind, not depressed, able to make lucid decisions, with less than 6 months to live and that this is verified by two independent doctors. Paperwork must be filled out, and the patient is given a prescription and instructions suitable for their situation and the medication. The interesting fact is that for many patients, actually taking the medication is not necessary. What they needed was the knowledge that they had some control. That they were able to end their life if at any time it was too much. And so they never used the medication. This does not apply in Terri’s case. She would never have been declared competent. And so I have a difficult time calling it assisted suicide.
Removing the feeding tube from someone who is physically or mentally unable to do so for themselves, however, crosses the boundary. Is it a mercy or a curse. I think that is why so many people have been so passionate on both sides of the question. I am not comfortable with this debate, but my husband and I have promised each other that we would ‘kick the plug’ if either of us are ever in the position of being unable to make our wishes known to our doctors. We are working on our living wills. I can see why so many people are upset, but I do wish they would stay out of other people’s business and I hope they stay out of mine and my family’s life and death decisions if it ever comes to that.
Now when I took the “birds and the bees” lessons, I seem to recall that bees manage reasonably well with quite a low proportion of females “able to reproduce”. But I suspect that’s a digression.
But perhaps in a Darwinian sense we might be doing something very right, by increasing the proportion of female reproductives who will bear offspring who will be able to reproduce (on an assumption of a genetic component).
The “natural factors” including starvation, famine, pestilence and, possibly, wars. So much better then unnatural approaches like contraception. And probably much more likely than abstinence.
Not that I know anything very much about Catholic teaching. (Oh dear – I should have resisted that aside).
I sent these links to Ampersand yesterday, but I thought I’d share them with others on this thread. I only watched part of the second one and went to the network’s web page for the transcript, which is how I found the first one. I recommend reading both.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,155947,00.html
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,156078,00.html
I thought for sure things would have died down by now, but it’s just more of the same. You would think these guys would use their national news exposure to push for changes in the system (Schindlers to change the legal definition of feeding tubes, Schiavo for better privacy protections, maybe), but instead they spend their time bashing each other. How sad.
Lee,
I checked the links. Noticed on her site a few weeks ago, that they had made new entries. If there was injustice as the Schindlers say, it would probably be best for the Schindlers to put their trust in God for justice.
It would be better not to bash one another, directly or indirectly. Time heals, they say, and it does. Her death took a long time, it will probably take a long time also for them to let go.
Yes, it is sad. Peace is much needed in this situation, and seems quite elusive.
If & when the autopsy results finally come out, I doubt if it quells much argument, (might fuel it). I thought the court should have allowed a 3rd party at the time of autopsy, as the Schindlers requested. Not so much as to find something amiss, but to allow some peace of mind and closure.
I’ve wondered just why the delay in the autopsy results being made public. Words can influence much, so it has occurred to me that there has been more work on how to present the results, than on the actual autopsy.
Dan – Check out the Abstract Appeal web site. Matt has a link to a recent newspaper interview with the pathologist who is responsible for the autopsy. Very interesting, and also explains why no outside observer.
I think one of the worst things is the lack of context to many of these accusations. Like, Michael Schiavo allegedly lost his temper when Terri got an $80 haircut, but 15 years ago, $80 was a LOT for a haircut, and we don’t know if they had agreed to cut back on spending or if they needed the $80 for something else, or what. I know I get angry if my husband and I agree to limit our discretionary spending and then he goes out and buys something that could have waited a bit. Or, Bob Schindler allegedly told Brian Schiavo that, essentially, Michael needed a good lay. What was the context? Surely he didn’t use that as a conversation-starter, you think?
Lee,
You have a good point, in mentioning lack of context. $80 is still a pretty good chunk of dough for a haircut from where I come from. We can assume it’s true about the haircut, and it resulted in a squabble. I would have gotten pissed about it also, unless I’d squandered some money right before or wanted some luxury myself. Conversely, I don’t ask how much my wifes haircuts cost. Hopefully I notice it got cut, and say it looks nice. We could wonder, did he monitor all her expenditures (not a good sign), or just happen to look in the checkbook (normal thing).
We just weren’t there to know how far the squabble went. Some people squabble much differently than others. I don’t think we are going to find the answer to how they argued in this lifetime.
Conversation can rightfully be called an art, so unless we were there, we don’t know exactly what the meaning behind the “getting laid” words was. I tend to doubt it was meant nearly as crude as it might sound, if it was said at all.
I have seen the abstractappeal site before, just looked again, can you send the link you mention. Couldn’t find it. thanks have a good weekend.
Dan – Here’s the link to the article I mentioned about the autopsy. I think Amp has posted it, too.
http://www.sptimes.com/2005/05/09/Tampabay/Schiavo_findings_won_.shtml
Somebody once said (maybe Ben Franklin?) that the only people who know what’s going on in a marriage are the participants, and not always even they do.
Thanks Lee,
Seems like an interesting fellow, we’ll all get to see what he has to say. It would seem from the article he would tend to be objective, and have a good eye for detail.
So Ben F. said that, has a rather true ring to it. Occasionally I get the cold shoulder, and it’s not unheard of for me to not have any idea why. As to their arguement, well, for now, I’d best remain speechless.
if terri was a hispanic or black woman would there have been any controvsery or media coverage?
RR
Roberta – My guess is, unlikely. Unless she had been really photogenic in her “before” pictures, of course.
The autopsy is out. And it does not look good…….
for her parents.
from daily kos(which does not copyright its stuff):
“Frist is a terrible doctor
by kos
Wed Jun 15th, 2005 at 09:11:14 PDT
Someone should review Frist’s medical license. Think Progress:
Terri Schiavo’s autopsy reveals that she was was blind:
Pinellas-Pasco Medical Examiner Jon Thogmartin concluded that…her brain was about half of normal size when she died. …
Thogmartin says her brain was “profoundly atrophied” – and that the damage was “irreversable.” He also says, “The vision centers of her brain were dead” – meaning she was blind.
Which makes Dr. Frist’s expert “diagnosis” all the more outrageous:
Bill Frist (R-Tenn.), a renowned heart surgeon before becoming Senate majority leader, went to the floor late Thursday night for the second time in 12 hours to argue that Florida doctors had erred in saying Terri Schiavo is in a “persistent vegetative state.”
“I question it based on a review of the video footage which I spent an hour or so looking at last night in my office,” he said in a lengthy speech in which he quoted medical texts and standards. “She certainly seems to respond to visual stimuli.”
More on the autopsy:
An autopsy on Terri Schiavo backed her husband’s contention that she was in a persistent vegetative state, finding that she had massive and irreversible brain damage and was blind, the medical examiner’s office said Wednesday. It also found no evidence that she was strangled or otherwise abused.
But what caused her collapse 15 years remained a mystery. The autopsy and post-mortem investigation found no proof that she had an eating disorder, as was suspected at the time, Pinellas-Pasco Medical Examiner Jon Thogmartin said […]
“The brain weighed 615 grams, roughly half of the expected weight of a human brain,” he said. “This damage was irreversible, and no amount of therapy or treatment would have regenerated the massive loss of neurons.”
Not that wingers have any respect to “science” and “reality”, but Michael Schiavo has more ammunition to use against the hordes of idiots who viciously slandered him during the emotional battle. I still hope he sues all their asses. “
By the end of the week, there will be spin on the neutrality of the M.E. Just watch.
Can anybody with a medical background help me with this question? I’ve read the autopsy report and the neuropathology section describes several parts of the brain as being golden-brown. What does that signify? Most of the other terms I wasn’t familiar with I was able to Google but with this one no luck..
I’ve really appreciated the comments from medical personnel on these threads, especially earlier regarding the CAT scan. They’ve been very helpful.
Lee,
Just seen this come up on yahoo.
http://news.yahoo.com/fc/US/Assisted_Suicide/
Will be over when it’s over, I’d say. Seen no spin on neutrality as of yet. Unfortunately they did not pinpoint a reason for her collapse, if that had been done, it would have quelled most arguements. The finding of her not having an eating disorder is interesting, just an example of herd mentality, simply accepting widespread published opinion as fact.
Initially it seemed a good deal in favor of her husband: the condition of the brain supported his contention, and lack of hard evidence of abuse. The only cloud so to speak, was the un-answered question of what caused her collapse, now we have a proposed investigation back in the picture. Doubt if they will accomplish much, so long ago.
Dan – Thanks for the link. I was in a training class all weekend, so I only got the tail end of all of the spin. Bleah. And also, why on earth are they looking into this 15 years late? You would think it would have come up sooner, what with all of the abuse allegations and things.
I’m with Amp. I wish these guys would make a noise like a hoop and roll away. Although that might leave more air time for Holloway. Maybe I’ll just cancel my cable instead.
Lee,
Although I sided more with the parents than most on here, I think this rings of stupidity or maybe political ambition. Not a Bush fan here, actually libertarian, but 15 years? They allowed cremation, and now this, utter bumbling. We really don’t and I doubt if we will ever know what made her fall. It’s too bad and may accomplish only spending more tax $. It might if escalated turn into an expensive game of “clue”, un-solvable, only a waste of tax dollars. Though the government likes to waste our $’s, such as the Clinton dress thing, feable porn at best, how much did that cost us? Sorry Amp, off the subject I know.
Dan – It’s not exactly political ambition, more like political expediency. These guys have backed themselves into a corner where the logical thing to do would be to apologize, but they can’t do that without angering their very vocal base. So they either have to scratch around for some more dirt that they will hope will divert the voters from the real issue, or they should just lie low. I don’t know too many politicians who would do the latter.
My classmates were discussing the autopsy report this weekend, and the main idea that emerged seemed to be that there was never One Single Cause, rather a combination of things, and there’s no way we’ll ever know exactly what happened. But the coverage is useful in bringing up some issues that don’t usually get on the air, such as caffeine poisoning and electrolyte depletion and misuse of laxatives. The most positive spin I can put on it is that maybe deaths will be prevented because of Terrigate.
couple of links, so I get bored, I’m on the net a lot with work.
http://www.terrisfight.org/statement.html
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050621/ap_on_re_us/schiavo_interment_7
Oog. And I just ate lunch. *Sigh.* Is it too much to hope that the media will now drop the whole thing? I can deal with the anniversary specials, I think.
And for more on the whole timeline thing:
http://www.sptimes.com/2005/06/17/Tampabay/Schiavo_timeline_trou.shtml
Most have left this site, and discussion. Hate to see many tax $’s wasted on this thing, if they cannot resolve it. After 15yrs., how can they find out who done it, if it was done at all.
I really hope when W. leaves office, his brother Jeb does not step in for him. Off the suject again. I know.
what are the psycological and social problems faced by disabled people in childhood, adolescence and adulthood and how can we minimize these problems?