These are quotes from the slide show on the home page of the site:
quote:
After an exhaustive three-month investigation, the autopsy of Terri Schiavo concluded that she was blind, had no chance of recovery and her brain was severely damaged.
"Her brain was profoundly atrophied," said Medical Examiner Dr. Jon Thogmartin, who conducted the autopsy on Schiavo. "The brain weighed 615 grams, roughly half of the expected weight of the human brain."
During a news conference Wednesday, he also said that Schiavo did not starve to death, but died of dehydration.
But he said there was no evidence of foul play.
"No evidence of strangulation was found, no evidence of trauma whatsoever was noted ... during her initial hospitalization," Thogmartin said.
I am so glad my parents know not to keep me alive if I'm ever in a vegetative state like that.
You're right that something didn't smell right, Vickles, but the stench wasn't coming from where you thought it was.
She was blind. The visions centers of her brain were dead. In other words, there's no way that she could have been tracking that balloon in that video clip. What the video really showed was the person with the balloon tracking random eye movement. That's just one of many deceptions in those video clips.
No evidence of abuse. So all those allegations that only came up when the cameras began showing up turn out to have been made up. More deception.
She didn't have "half a brain," in the sense that one half was functioning and the other half missing. She had a functioning brain stem and little else but disjointed fragments of what had once been a brain. Together, they totalled about half the mass of a normal brain, but nothing like half a normal brain.
The courts got it right on both law and facts. If other governmental bodies had kept their noses where they belonged, the tragedy could have ended much earlier, with much less pain for all concerned. The rest of us should never have known about it, except perhaps for reading a short story about it in the news a few years ago.
:o--> Well you got me pegged right on what I was thinking. LOL
Maybe in this instance they were wrong but what if they would have been right? What then? I would rather have caution than to kill someone that actually had thoughts and feelings...wouldn't you?
Do you really think that that conservative, evangelical Christian trial judge wasn't cautious, Vickles? Do you think that the other judges who ruled on aspects of the case (mostly appeals) weren't cautious? Even if you do, what other institution than the courts do we have that could better decide such matters?
I really don't think it was up to the courts to decide. I think it should have been the parents deciding what would happen.
I sure wouldn't have wanted my ex to make a medical decision about life or death while I was married to him.... He would have killed me for sure even if my brain would have been working a lot more than Terri's.
This is where I'm coming from. That her family should have made the decision not a man that had started a family with another woman.
I ain't a'gonna rehash old arguements about what is decent. -->
In response to the title of this thread -- I did see this story mentioned on CNN this evening, and likewise heard it on the radio (forget which network right now -- I think it was ABC), as I was driving in to work today.
I guess I underestimated the national news. I figured that since they were so biased toward her family they would be hesitant to publish anything that might exonerate her husband.
I still shudder at the "let's kill em then we can find out that we were right to do so" mentality
They spent many many years reviewing this, having every conceivable 'expert witness' testifying, and appeals upon appeals in courts ... it wasn't like it was a snap judgment.
It wasn't until the last few weeks when all the people who paid no attention all along -all of a sudden became the absolute experts for political maneuveuring purposes--they knew very well what they were doing
As to Trefor's characterization of what happened, all credible evidence indicated PVS, with no chance of recovery.
What I said was nothing to do with "credible evidence" but it was about the attitude regarding the element of doubt which is usual in such cases.
There have been people diagnosed as PVS who have recovered and there is no way that 100% certainty can be guaranteed. If the person has left a proper living will then that doubt should be put aside after all proper assessments have been made in favour of that expressed wish. We have only Michael's word for what Terri wanted and therefore the doubt had to remain. In such a situation the doubt can only be resolved (an it still has not in the mind of several people) with the aftermath of an irreverisble situation.
Trefor, her condition was clear and well documented. No person in that condition has ever recovered. It was an irreversible situation. Regarding her wishes, we don't "only have Michael's word for what Terri wanted." If you had bothered to read the court documents that are available on the Web, you'd know that. Living wills are good, but they don't settle things once and for all. Verbal statements (at least in Texas and Florida) have just as much force, and can override a pre-existing living will.
Recommended Posts
vickles
I don't know, belle, it says that there was half a brain. That means she still had half a brain.
I still believe that something didn't smell right about the whole thing.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Belle
These are quotes from the slide show on the home page of the site:
I am so glad my parents know not to keep me alive if I'm ever in a vegetative state like that.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GeorgeStGeorge
I don't know. I saw it on the CNN website.
George
Link to comment
Share on other sites
LG
You're right that something didn't smell right, Vickles, but the stench wasn't coming from where you thought it was.
She was blind. The visions centers of her brain were dead. In other words, there's no way that she could have been tracking that balloon in that video clip. What the video really showed was the person with the balloon tracking random eye movement. That's just one of many deceptions in those video clips.
No evidence of abuse. So all those allegations that only came up when the cameras began showing up turn out to have been made up. More deception.
She didn't have "half a brain," in the sense that one half was functioning and the other half missing. She had a functioning brain stem and little else but disjointed fragments of what had once been a brain. Together, they totalled about half the mass of a normal brain, but nothing like half a normal brain.
The courts got it right on both law and facts. If other governmental bodies had kept their noses where they belonged, the tragedy could have ended much earlier, with much less pain for all concerned. The rest of us should never have known about it, except perhaps for reading a short story about it in the news a few years ago.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
It said her brain "had atrophied to the point that it was just half of normal size."
That means that brain-damage was sufficient to "atrophy" the brain to 50%
of its original mass.
Her brain has wasted away 50% of its mass.
Mind you, losing 5% of your brain-function is a crippling injury.
Losing 50% probably is equal to or worse than death.
I'd rather die from something than survive with 50% of my brainmass.
What remains? The autonomic system? The cerebrum is less-protected,
so the thing you think with probably rotted away FIRST.
Next thing you know, I'll be hearing that nonsense about only using 10%
of your brain or something.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
That's probably the amount that the rabid political supporters trying to 'Keep her alive!' were using themselves. ... Tops!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
vickles
Maybe in this instance they were wrong but what if they would have been right? What then? I would rather have caution than to kill someone that actually had thoughts and feelings...wouldn't you?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
LG
Do you really think that that conservative, evangelical Christian trial judge wasn't cautious, Vickles? Do you think that the other judges who ruled on aspects of the case (mostly appeals) weren't cautious? Even if you do, what other institution than the courts do we have that could better decide such matters?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
vickles
I really don't think it was up to the courts to decide. I think it should have been the parents deciding what would happen.
I sure wouldn't have wanted my ex to make a medical decision about life or death while I was married to him.... He would have killed me for sure even if my brain would have been working a lot more than Terri's.
This is where I'm coming from. That her family should have made the decision not a man that had started a family with another woman.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
I ain't a'gonna rehash old arguements about what is decent.
-->
In response to the title of this thread -- I did see this story mentioned on CNN this evening, and likewise heard it on the radio (forget which network right now -- I think it was ABC), as I was driving in to work today.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
LG
I don't want to rehash old arguments either, so I'll leave it where it is.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ron G.
I saw it on the news.
The great lesson we can all learn from this is that a dehydrated brain weighs half as much as a normal brain...at least that's what they said.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Trefor Heywood
I can't help wondering if dehydradation was a factor or not either.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Belle
I guess I underestimated the national news. I figured that since they were so biased toward her family they would be hesitant to publish anything that might exonerate her husband.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
Plus this should mean an end to the Frist Medical Diagnosis by Video © means of determining medical illness and brain damage.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Trefor Heywood
I still shudder at the "let's kill em then we can find out that we were right to do so" mentality.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
LG
Well, I'll leave the legal/moral argument, but not falsehoods and mischaracterizations.
The dehydrated brain stuff Ron posted is nonsense.
As to Trefor's characterization of what happened, all credible evidence indicated PVS, with no chance of recovery.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ron G.
Long Gone...
I didn't mean that as a diagnosis or anything. It was just an observation. They said half her brain was atrophied...before the dehydration.
I ain't no doctor, although I did watch ER from time to time.
I was merely trying to find a lesson we could all benefit from in all of this.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
vickles
I totally agree with you, Trefor!!!!!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
mstar1
They spent many many years reviewing this, having every conceivable 'expert witness' testifying, and appeals upon appeals in courts ... it wasn't like it was a snap judgment.
It wasn't until the last few weeks when all the people who paid no attention all along -all of a sudden became the absolute experts for political maneuveuring purposes--they knew very well what they were doing
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Trefor Heywood
Long Gone
What I said was nothing to do with "credible evidence" but it was about the attitude regarding the element of doubt which is usual in such cases.
There have been people diagnosed as PVS who have recovered and there is no way that 100% certainty can be guaranteed. If the person has left a proper living will then that doubt should be put aside after all proper assessments have been made in favour of that expressed wish. We have only Michael's word for what Terri wanted and therefore the doubt had to remain. In such a situation the doubt can only be resolved (an it still has not in the mind of several people) with the aftermath of an irreverisble situation.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
LG
Trefor, her condition was clear and well documented. No person in that condition has ever recovered. It was an irreversible situation. Regarding her wishes, we don't "only have Michael's word for what Terri wanted." If you had bothered to read the court documents that are available on the Web, you'd know that. Living wills are good, but they don't settle things once and for all. Verbal statements (at least in Texas and Florida) have just as much force, and can override a pre-existing living will.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Trefor Heywood
"If I had bothered..."
Time and knowledge of their location can be factors - some of us have to work and have a plethora of other demands on our time.
I saw a helluvalot about this case on TV when I was in the States and I assume the media "could not be bothered" to cover this stuff in such detail.
But one can be bothered to be concerned about the general issues involved, not just in Terri's case but generally.
And to quote Sam Goldwyn:
A verbal contract isn't worth the paper it's written on.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
LG
Please forgive my tone, Trefor. I'm just tired of all the disinformation. The American media, which could have cut through it, chose to propound it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.