Schiavo Autopsy Shows Massive Brain Damage

[Pengwuino]

Maybe you misunderstood my question, hope? hope for what.. she claimed she didnt want to live? If it was in her will to do this, would there be any problem?

Nope, like i said, there was a huge lie propogated by the "pro-death" side of this argument that stated that she had actaully said she wanted to be killed. There was absolutely no proof that she said anything and like i just said, a living will would have made all these lies and BS negligable sinec the problem would have been over the day she was put on (or taken off, depending on what the will would have said) the life support.

 

[russ_watters]

Oh, one more thing:

...contempt...

As usual, much of my contempt here goes to the lawyers for the family. They played the role of John Whatshisnutz here. Their case was utterly, utterly hopeless. So why pursue it? Well, the parents wanted to and, what the heck - it was profitable. In what other profession is that acceptable? Let's say some guy really, really wants a heart transplant. The doctor tells him he's pretty much guaranteed to die if he gets it, but the patient persists. Does the doctor give in and perform the surgery? No, he has an ethical responsibility not to. Ugh, lawyers.

 

[whozum]

Nope, like i said, there was a huge lie propogated by the "pro-death" side of this argument that stated that she had actaully said she wanted to be killed. There was absolutely no proof that she said anything and like i just said, a living will would have made all these lies and BS negligable sinec the problem would have been over the day she was put on (or taken off, depending on what the will would have said) the life support.

Makes you wonder, if a petition was issued on a national level with the sole question "If you were for any reason and in anyway rendered into a state of severe irreversible brain damage and/or death would you choose to live or die knowing that you're choice today could never be changed?" how many would say live? I don't know, maybe it deserves its own thread.

By the way, my post was addressed to russ, not you, I don't know if you picked up on that.

 

[Pengwuino]

Well, don't be so rude :) I was just overing some factual information for the argument if you don't mind. I assumed that question mark after "she claimed she didnt want to live" was suppose to be a period because it didnt make much sense otherwise which made me think you were bringing it out as a fact which was not the case.

 

[whozum]

Well, don't be so rude :) I was just overing some factual information for the argument if you don't mind. I assumed that question mark after "she claimed she didnt want to live" was suppose to be a period because it didnt make much sense otherwise which made me think you were bringing it out as a fact which was not the case.

It was a 'by the way', I wasn't meaning to be rude. I thought you thought I was challenging you.

I didnt pay much attention to the case, but that was one of the premises that I actually heard on the news.

 

[Pengwuino]

Yah the news got it all screwed up (wooo so out of character lol). There was no proof she had said anything and that's what really created this crap. No one knew her actual wishes. A living will would have made sure this was never brought to the medias attention.

 

[Evo]

Yah the news got it all screwed up (wooo so out of character lol). There was no proof she had said anything and that's what really created this crap. No one knew her actual wishes. A living will would have made sure this was never brought to the medias attention.

Three witnesses testified that she had said she would not want to be kept alive. That is accepted as proof in a court of law. The news did not get it wrong.

 

[FredGarvin]

Yah the news got it all screwed up (wooo so out of character lol). There was no proof she had said anything and that's what really created this crap. No one knew her actual wishes. A living will would have made sure this was never brought to the medias attention.

Hate to tell you this, but even wills are contested. Just because you have one in place is no guarantee.

 

[Astronuc]

Hate to tell you this, but even wills are contested. Just because you have one in place is no guarantee.

Posted by me in another thread:

A living will 'may not be valid' depending on 'State' laws. Best to execute a 'durable power of attorney' which takes effect only when one is incapacitated. One should see a lawyer in one's jurisdiction.

 

[russ_watters]

Posted by me in another thread:

A living will 'may not be valid' depending on 'State' laws. Best to execute a 'durable power of attorney' which takes effect only when one is incapacitated. One should see a lawyer in one's jurisdiction.

Yeah, but when you're married, isn't that redundant? That was half the problem here: the family contested the husband's authority. No, there wasn't a case to be made, but the way our court system works, it still took years to sort out. Having that document wouldn't have changed anything. In the parents' state, nothing would have changed anything.

In more normal circumstances though, the point of the living will is two fold - yes, it is to make sure your wishes get executed, but as important, it makes sure your wishes are known.

Yah the news got it all screwed up (wooo so out of character lol).

Actually, I thought they did a better than average job on this one - probably because they had time to learn the issue themselves, hire experts, etc. After the initial circus in which they reported a lot and said very little, the quality improved markedly.

Issuse such as the quality (or lack thereof) of the husband's basis for beliving she wanted to be let to die -- and more importantly, the irrelevancy of the quality of that evidence were reported by the media.

 

[Astronuc]

Yeah, but when you're married, isn't that redundant? That was half the problem here: the family contested the husband's authority. No, there wasn't a case to be made, but the way our court system works, it still took years to sort out. Having that document wouldn't have changed anything. In the parents' state, nothing would have changed anything.

Yes it is redundant, but it seems necessary these days. It is amazing how outsider's can involve themselves in one's own life.

A living will is not necessarily enough, and may not have been enough in the Schiavo case. Even an 'durable power of attorney' could be contested. It all depends on the local and state laws.

One's spouse, AFAIK, assumes power of attorney, but that may be only in a matte of death. If one is living but mentally incompacitated, it may not be so clear. One must do one's homework - i.e. go see a lawyer if it is a concern.

 

[Moonbear]

I don't have much knowledge in this area. Couldn't the brain damage be scanned or measured by a CAT or MRI scan?

It was. There was a CAT scan done and two images from it were posted all over the internet where just doing a side-by-side comparison with a CAT scan of a normal brain and her brain showed the extent of damage was severe even to an untrained eye (it was that obvious). However, the parents still held out hope that somehow half her brain would regenerate and return her to normal function.

Probably not, but do they have anyone who is trying? Sometimes it takes a serious - physical - kick in the ass or slap in the face to get someone to listen when they have lost it. That can only come from a very close friend or relative. Too often in situations like that people think they need to be "supportive" and they go along with it just to make them feel better about their delusions. Its Crossing Over syndrome (that talk-to-the-dead show staring John Whatshisnuts). In the short term the hope makes them feel a little less bad, but they will never get over it.

Well, they see how well that turned out for Michael Schiavo to stand up to them. Though, it didn't help that he barred them from the funeral. They needed to be present and to go through the ceremony more than most to see she's dead, gone, cremated, and the ashes buried.

 

[SOS2008]

Per Americans United:

The autopsy results, released today, showed that Schiavo suffered massive and irreversible brain damage and that she could not have been responsive to outsiders because she was blind. Doctors said what appeared to be responses were merely automatic reflexes.

"These Religious Right zealots owe the entire country an apology," said Barry W. Lynn, executive director for Americans United. "They intervened in a personal family matter, gave this poor woman's parents false hope, libeled her husband with unfounded accusations and turned a tragic situation into a political football. Have they no shame?"

Like I said...

G'dangit*%!frickin'*@#! frackin' -- Let's just round up these people who are in deep denial, clinging to their delusional beliefs, and put them on feeding tubes - yeh!

Frist, DeLay, Santorum--gotta get rid of these guys (along with that Dubya knucklehead).

 

[Loren Booda]

What if Ms. Schiavo's life depended on stem cells?

 

[2CentsWorth]

What if Ms. Schiavo's life depended on stem cells?

Tough luck until:

Frist, DeLay, Santorum--gotta get rid of these guys (along with that Dubya knucklehead).

 

[Evo]

What if Ms. Schiavo's life depended on stem cells?

Good one!

 

[Persefone]

Good one!

 

[enigma]

Bush and the neo-cons effectively killed stem cell research by banning any government funding into research into that topic.

 

[Astronuc]

I heard that Tom DeLay allowed his father, who was in a similar situation to that of Terri Schiavo, to die rather than intervene to keep him alive. I am not sure how true it is but,

Published on Sunday, March 27, 2005 by the Los Angeles Times
DeLay's Own Tragic Crossroads
Family of the lawmaker involved in the Schiavo case decided in '88 to let his comatose father die

by Walter F. Roche Jr. and Sam Howe Verhovek

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0327-01.htm

Hmmm.

 

[FredGarvin]

Yes. It is true. It was a kind of bizarre accident, but I fail to see the differences he states for his situation vs. Terry's.

 

[Skyhunter]

Schiavo widower battles politicians over privacy

Michael Schiavo has formed a PAC in his dead wifes name and is going after the politicians that used the tragedy to advance their own careers.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13844509/

“I want to ask Marilyn Musgrave who gave her the right to speak about Terri,” Schiavo said. “Who gave her the authority to bring Congress into my family decisions?”

And here is what the politicians are saying.

State GOP chairman Bob Martinez criticized Schiavo’s involvement in Colorado, saying he thinks most residents “were appalled to learn that Michael Schiavo is helping political candidates profit off his wife’s death.”

But Peggy Lamm, another Democratic congressional candidate, said she is proud of Schiavo’s support.

“He wouldn’t even be here if it weren’t for the shameful way the Schiavos were treated by the Bush administration and the Republicans in Congress,” she said in a statement.

Looks like Michael is not going to let people forget what Bush and the GOP did to him last year.