Schiavo postscript

[SonomaCat]

With all of the evidence now in, it appears that the right decision was definitely made:

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f ... 939D69.DTL

[mslacat]

No matter what side of the fence you were on this was a very sad and terrible thing.
There were no winners only losers. I do not know if her husband and family will ever be
able to come to grips with this tragedy and each other but I think we all need to leave
them alone and let them come to grips with this very sad event.

BTW: I agree 100% with BAC.

[Bleedinbluengold]

Isn't that a liberal newspaper?






just jokin' around.

[SonomaCat]

Good point.

Here's the scoop from the only reliable media outlet:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,159606,00.html

[WYOBISONMAN]

Geez.......Fox News......??????? Now you are starting to offend the Bison fans....... Seriously.....the Shiavo deal was a damn tough call. I am proud to claim the tilte of a left wing Democrat, but it was still a tough choice.....glad I din't have to make it. This was one that did not follow closely with political philosophy.....

[SonomaCat]

Geez.......Fox News......??????? Now you are starting to offend the Bison fans....... Seriously.....the Shiavo deal was a damn tough call. I am proud to claim the tilte of a left wing Democrat, but it was still a tough choice.....glad I din't have to make it. This was one that did not follow closely with political philosophy.....

Except for the grandstanding politicians, who were all Republicans. On an individual level, though, I agree. Most everyone saw past the political stuff and empathized with the tough situation everybody personally involved faced.

['93HonoluluCat]

With all of the evidence now in, it appears that the right decision was definitely made:

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f ... 939D69.DTL

I disagree, for several reasons. I you read the autopsy report yourself, you will see a different picture.

I don't have time to author a rebut myself--I'm on my way to work--but Michelle Malkin has a great summary, and it's written better than what I could do myself.

Bottom line: there are more questions than answers from the report.

[Hell's Bells]

With all of the evidence now in, it appears that the right decision was definitely made:

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f ... 939D69.DTL

I disagree, for several reasons. I you read the autopsy report yourself, you will see a different picture.

I don't have time to author a rebut myself--I'm on my way to work--but Michelle Malkin has a great summary, and it's written better than what I could do myself.

Bottom line: there are more questions than answers from the report.

but Hcat personally I had a feeling this was going to happen, i just wish this case would just die

[SonomaCat]

The link doesn't work.

I have a feeling that the only ones who are going to persist in claiming that there are questions are the ones who were so adamant about keeping her alive and now, with further evidence that the poor lady was truly not going to recover, are going to keep fighting against the strong possibility that they were simply wrong.

That's what happens when things become politicized. I am sure Frist won't be recanting his floor statement that Schiavo was clearly responding to visual stimuli, based on his expert review of video tape evidence, even though medical evidence tells us that she was blind. The truth wasn't the issue at the time -- it was politics (except to those close to the woman on a personal level).

[SonomaCat]

but Hcat personally I had a feeling this was going to happen, i just wish this case would just die

She did, thankfully. Now she can have some peace. This autopsy simply shows that all of the bogus assertions people were making to try to use medical technology to artificially keep her alive (against the wishes of God, who obviously wanted her in heaven with him) were wrong.

[SonomaCat]

Here's Malkin's blog:

http://michellemalkin.com/

I honestly don't see anything too interesting in her attempts at raising questions. She just seems to be painting anyone who was right then and proven right now (not that there wasn't a huge amount of medical evidence available prior to the autopsy as well according to every credible medical professional who examined her) as "gloaters," as opposed to people who cared just as much about the welfare of the woman (and likely more in many cases, as they weren't tying it in to a political position) than she did.

[Hell's Bells]

ooh really?

michelle malkin wrote

Here's a typical example from an article headlined, "No trauma before Schiavo collapse:"

An autopsy report on a brain-damaged woman at the centre of a long legal battle in the US has shown that she suffered no trauma before her collapse.
But on page 4 of the M.E.'s summary, what the report actually says with regard to possible strangulation is this:

Autopsy examination of her neck structures 15 years after her initial collapse did not detect any signs of remote trauma, but, with such a delay, the exam was unlikely to show any residual neck findings."

basically stateing that after a extended amount of time, the ME did not expect to find any residual trama

Unquestioning journalists ran dozens of stories echoing the claim: "Eating disorder is real issue in Schiavo case," "Terri's life a lesson in dangers of bulimia," "The lost lesson of Schiavo case: the dangers of eating disorders," etc.

The autopsy report spends three-and-a-half pages debunking Schiavo's claim, as well as the related claim that she had a heart attack (or, more medically precise, myocardial infarction). But if mentioned at all, the news reports I have seen have downplayed and buried these astonishing revelations (revelations which bear directly on Schiavo's credibility regarding his claim that Terri would have wanted to die).

if, according to the ME she did not "die" of a heart attack, what did she die of?

from the ME's report of scheivo-schindler:

It is the policy of this office that no case is ever closed and that all determinations are to be reconsidered upon receipt of credible, new information. In addition to fading memories, the 15-year survival of Mrs. Schiavo after her collapse resulted in the creation of a voluminous number of documents many of which were lost or discarded over the years. Receipt of additional information that clarifies outstanding issues may or shall cause an amendment of her cause and manner of death.

sooo i guess we will never hear the end of it.

BAC like i stated in my last post i want terri to rest in peace and for this issue to die. I just thought it was funny that Michelle Malkin did not wright anything of "importance" in your eyes. But then again, she does not work for slate....

[Hell's Bells]

http://www.blogsforterri.com/archives/5 ... uments.pdf


****edit****

it is a .pdf file, might take a while to load

[SonomaCat]

BAC like i stated in my last post i want terri to rest in peace and for this issue to die. I just thought it was funny that Michelle Malkin did not wright anything of "importance" in your eyes. But then again, she does not work for slate....

Everything she was questioning didn't seem to address whether or not Schiavo should have been allowed to die, which I thought was the main question. She seems to be grasping at straws and bringing up insinuations of foul play or something from 15 years ago, which was never an issue in the court case. So no, I didn't find anything in there that was particularly interesting or noteworthy.

And there is some truth to the Slate comparison. Writers for Slate actually have to approach the subjects with a certain level of journalistic integrity, so the output tends to be much more worthwhile (they have an editor and some journalistic pride, which makes a big difference). They don't print stuff in there that amounts to rants (except for an occasional Hitchens pro-war piece, but I enjoy reading him) or political mouthpiece articles. Slate isn't alone in that, but it and many other news sources have a much, much higher journalistic and intellectual level of integrity than any of these commentators who are working for a cause as opposed to trying to find the truth about an issue.

['93HonoluluCat]

BAC like i stated in my last post i want terri to rest in peace and for this issue to die. I just thought it was funny that Michelle Malkin did not wright anything of "importance" in your eyes. But then again, she does not work for slate....

Everything she was questioning didn't seem to address whether or not Schiavo should have been allowed to die, which I thought was the main question. She seems to be grasping at straws and bringing up insinuations of foul play or something from 15 years ago, which was never an issue in the court case. So no, I didn't find anything in there that was particularly interesting or noteworthy.

And there is some truth to the Slate comparison. Writers for Slate actually have to approach the subjects with a certain level of journalistic integrity, so the output tends to be much more worthwhile (they have an editor and some journalistic pride, which makes a big difference). They don't print stuff in there that amounts to rants (except for an occasional Hitchens pro-war piece, but I enjoy reading him) or political mouthpiece articles. Slate isn't alone in that, but it and many other news sources have a much, much higher journalistic and intellectual level of integrity than any of these commentators who are working for a cause as opposed to trying to find the truth about an issue.

The fact your "source" and my "source" disagree should be no surprise.

I do not mean to make it sound as if I'm complaining my "side" lost in this overly-politicized issue, though I'm sure there are some that view my points and disagreements as such.

Many news reports are stating that Terri was "blind." The autopsy report does not say that. I don't have the exact quote with me at the moment, but I remember the autopsy report to say that her vision was reduced. While I disagree with Senator Frist's "expert" opinion, I also disagree with the media (and others') interpretation of the autopsy report to say Terri was "blind." (If someone has got the exact line from the autopsy, I would appreciate you looking that up--I think it was about page 25 or so...but don't take my word for it.)

That said, I still believe the autopsy report answers fewer questions that was hoped. The bottom line of the report is that we don't know her status--and the report even states the same.

It is safe to say that no one knows without a shadow of a doubt that killing Terri was the right thing to do, because we didn't, and still don't have all the facts and answers. When it is a matter of life or death, I wish we would turn to the safe side--life--because death is a permanent condition. Since we didn't know all of the facts then, and we don't know any more now, I think we did Terri a disservice by dehydrating her to death.

[SonomaCat]

We did nothing (literally) to "kill" her. God killed her. If he didn't want her to die, he would have had her stand up and get a glass of water within the last 15 years.

This is off-topic, and doesn't relate to anyone in particular, but it frustrates me that essentially the same political camp that is against using embryotic tissue for stem cell research that could save the lives of thinking, breathing, walking and talking people were at the same time in favor of "playing God" by artificially keeping this woman alive whose existence was so obviously miserable (or unconscious, in a best case scenario).

I mean, I can see a bunch of atheists being against pulling the plug -- in theory that's really the end for them. But the Christian right is the group that is supposed to believe in life after death, and that it is a good thing. Why would anyone want to keep that poor woman trapped in that broken shell of a body for over 15 years as opposed to letting her go to heaven, as God so clearly intended?

[SonomaCat]

From the Fox News article:

Jon Thogmartin (search), the Pinellas-Pasco medical examiner, told reporters that the 41-year-old Schiavo would not have lived after her feeding tube was removed even if she had been fed or given liquids by mouth.

"Removal of her feeding tube would have resulted in her death whether she was fed or hydrated by mouth or not," Thogmartin told reporters.

The autopsy also confirmed that Schiavo's mind was compromised at the time of death. "There's nothing in her autopsy report that is inconsistent with a persistent vegetative state," said Dr. Stephen J. Nelson, a medical examiner who assisted in the autopsy.

Thogmartin also said Schiavo was blind, her brain was half its normal size and she was suffering from severe osteoporosis at the time of death. Her "bones were pulpally soft from severe osteoporosis," Thogmartin said.

So it was the ME himself who said that she was blind.

[iaafan]

In one vein, I really don't think there's anything to agree or disagree on. If what happened to Schiavo happens to you, God forbid, then you should have something in writing that says what you'd like to see happen. Personally, I wouldn't want to live if I was like that. That's perfectly fine with me if someone else wants to.

Of course there are other issues, like who pays to keep someone in this state alive. I don't really want to pay (via my insurance, via having a hospital bed occupied, etc.) for someone else to be kept alive(?) this way.

The amount of money invested in keeping Schiavo running would've saved countless human beings that die needlessly around the world every day. That, too, is a disservice.

[SonomaCat]

I think her care was being paid for from the proceeds of a malpractice lawsuit or something, but I like where you are going with that. If we mix in a fiscal conservative argument into the mix, how does that affect things?

And I agree ... I guess my biggest emotional tie to the case is that I wouldn't want to be kept alive in that situation, and I have not spoken to anyone who would, so it upset me when all of the politicians got involved (and especially when Republicans so hypocritically ignore the tenets of Federalism when it is convenient for some grandstanding).

I can understand individual people saying that there are questions about whether she would have recovered (but not politicians) -- that's something that will never be answered. I personally just don't see how, after 15 years of no cognitive responses and a brain atrophied like a raisin, one couldn't be ready to give up hope and let them pass on. We have the technology to keep virtually anyone alive (as a human machine, but not as a person) indefinitely, but I don't think that's a road we want to walk down.

EDIT: Before anyone gets upset that I am picking on Republicans, please note that I hate it when any pol grandstands insincerely or in an intellectually dishonest manner. This time just happened to be the Republicans. I've made the same gripes about democrats and liberal groups many times. It just seems that the Republicans have a monopoly on power right now and thus have more opportunities to make a lot more mistakes (and they are taking full advantage, many times).

[Grizlaw]

I truly don't know where I stand on the issue of letting her die vs. keeping her alive, but the one thing that infuriated me during the whole public debate was the smear campaign against her husband by the true Christian conservatives. Here's a guy whose life has also been ruined by this whole episode, and they still had the audacity to try to paint him as a cheating, philandering husband because he is with another woman now! (And of course, these same people would argue against allowing him to divorce her, if you gave them the opportunity...)