Memo to ABC, NYTimes: Terri Schiavo was not “brain dead”
Via LifeNews, Terri Schiavo’s family members try to hold the MSM accountable for continued lies and distortions about their loved one:
Terri Schiavo’s family is upset with the media for again erroneously depicting the disabled woman as “brain dead” when she was able to interact with them before her former husband took her life. This time, the Schindler family says ABC News and the New York Times wrongly reported on her condition.
Yesterday on ABC’s “This Week” program, George Stephanopoulos, in an interview with Senator Fred Thompson, commented that Terri Schiavo’s autopsy proved she was “brain dead.”
The New York Times reported on the television interview, and repeated the erroneous claim.
Terri’s brother Bobby Schindler told LifeNews.com on Monday that the “brain dead” assessment is patently false. He said Terri’s family is requesting that the media immediately stop using this “offensive and inaccurate expression” to describe her condition.
“Brain death is an authentic diagnosis, not some catch phrase that should be loosely used based upon a ’summary of widespread response’ or opinions that have been written about my sister,’ Schindler said.
“We are requesting that the media take a few minutes to research the facts regarding Terri’s case and, more importantly, her condition,” he added. In doing so they would learn that not one doctor ever diagnosed Terri as being ‘brain-dead.’”
The Terri Schindler Schiavo Foundation website is here.
More: Sworn affidavits of more than 40 medical and therapeutic professionals.
Flashback: The Schiavo autopsy–a sober look.
***
As for Fred Thompson, looks like he got his memory back:
Republican presidential candidate Fred Thompson gave no opinion Thursday when asked about efforts by President Bush and Congress to keep Terri Schiavo alive, saying he does not remember details of the right-to-die case that stirred national debate.
Thompson was asked in an interview for Bay News 9’s “Political Connections” program whether he thought Congress’ intervention to save the life of the brain-dead woman two years ago was appropriate.
“I can’t pass judgment on it. I know that good people were doing what they thought was best,” Thompson said. “That’s going back in history. I don’t remember the details of it.”
Fred Thompson set forth a more clear picture of his views on assisted suicide and euthanasia in a Sunday interview on ABC News. He said he would have supported Terri Schiavo’s parents in their efforts to prevent their daughter’s euthanasia death and he said courts should err on the side of life.
Thompson said the motives behind the actions Terri’s former husband took to subject her to a 13-day starvation and dehydration death were “suspect” and he said he would have backed the Schindlers’ efforts to save her life.
“From what I know about the facts, or recall about it, I would side with the parents in, you know, keeping that child alive,” Thompson said.
“Based on the notion that I can’t imagine a parent or a spouse or a doctor deciding anything — if there’s any question that this person might live,” he added.
His comments are a more pro-life presentation of his end-of-life views and could help him regain his footing with pro-life voters upset by earlier statements.
Looks like he’s going to need a lot more to “regain his footing:”
Former Tennessee Sen. Fred Thompson has skidded into sixth place in a new CNN/WMUR poll of likely Republican voters in New Hampshire, edged out by ex-Libertarian and anti-war congressman Ron Paul and former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee.
Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney topped the poll, widening a lead he has held for months in neighboring New Hampshire, while Arizona Sen. John McCain and former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani were running close in the second and third spots.
The CNN/WMUR poll was conducted by the University of New Hampshire between Wednesday and Sunday. Pollsters surveyed 404 Republican voters for the survey, which had a sampling error of 5 percentage points.
Thompson came into the GOP race late with the hope of winning over social conservatives unsatisfied with the rest of the party’s field, and racked up a key endorsement from the National Right to Life Committee last week. But the former star of the television drama “Law and Order” has trailed the GOP front-runners in early voting states since entering the race in August, and his support in New Hampshire dropped from 13 percent in a September poll to 4 percent in November’s survey.
See what others have said
Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.
Trackbacks
- Meptune.com
- Political Bloviation » Blog Archive » Michelle Malkin distorts Schiavo case
- best loss loss program weight weight, http
Did you see that Fred Thompson has revised his thinking on Terri?
Such a tragic, sad story. My thoughts and prayers are with the family.
Yes. Just added that to the post. Guess he got his “memory” back…the NRLC endorsement seems to have revived it….
Typical liberals telling the BIG LIE to support their false claims. Check out this link. It’d be funny if it weren’t true.
Right there with you Katie, I couldnt even imagine how painful this is.
Well, the MSM seems unable to stop the Jena 6 meme either, in spite of countless facts that were proven wrong by the local paper. Who cares about the truth when an agenda is at play?
Ditto Katieane.
As a parent, if my son-in-law was trying to take my daughters life, he would meet his maker before her and I would just face GOD later and pray HE understood.
As for Fred, I have never been too hyped up about him in the first place. I can say one thing for certain, he is way better than Rudy (conservative wise that is).
I know I’m going to be coming down on the wrong side of this for most of you, but as that was a local story for me, I seem to remember reading in the paper about the autopsy. They said she was completely blind as the optic nerves had disintigrated. And vast portions of her brain had deteriorated to the point they reasoned that she had no willful, autonomous actions.
The images of her smiling and seemingly following a balloon are from 4 years ago. A judge in the case ruled that no video or still images of Terri could be displayed in public while the case was under ajudication. These images give a false impression of her appearance and lucidity.
My heart goes out to the Schiavos. As the parent of a serving US Marine, that sort of situation is never far from my mind.
The autopsy was conclusive. Get over it. Not only was she brain dead, she had very little brain tissue left.
IMHO, I wouldnt be to hard on Thompson for having not remembered the details of this tragic story, look at how many have completely forgotten 9/11 or just chose to forget the details of it.
What gall for Stephanopolous to mischaracterize the truth of Terri’s condition when she was euthanized!
To me Georgie Porgie represents how the Left takes the “high ground”
with their concern about about “slippery slopes”.
Yet all the while they are busy with their continuous oiling of the glass by their “almost” correct handling of the facts.
Stephanopolous is a pretty-boy sychophant with a hollow chest cavity and without a shred of respect for life.
Get your facts straight. She was brain-damaged, not brain-dead. “Conclusive?” The autopsy left open many questions.
Did you read the autopsy report? I did.
Read more here.
Michelle feeding trolls - that’s rich - LOL!
My night is now complete!
Some people are just cold hearted B______.
trolls dont eat facts soap you know that.
This is something no one gets over, least of all the parents. Where is your heart? How can you even say such a thing? Have you ever suffered a loss? Did you “get over it”?
Apparently so, aj.
Yup AJ, I know!
p-dog,
While this all may be true (and I am not disputing you), is it not also true the husband would not allow any kind of treatment or therapy?
I did read the autopsy and no she wasn’t “brain dead”. She was in a vegitative state she wasn’t coming out of. She was also blind. Are there questions left unanswered? Yes, how did she get into this state..what caused the collapse..There is no denying that the brain damage was there. It wasn’t going to get better.
I also read the affidavits. The first 2 had never even treated her and so I picked a random third one and he read an affidavit from another doctor on your list and proceeded to send his own based on what he read…
No one, least of all Terri Schiavo, won in this case.
Okay, she had some serious medical issues whether or not she was brain dead even though there is nothing to indicate she was. Still, her husband decided to proceed with his life and take on a new life and a new wife. No judgment here, like many overlooked details, this is simply a fact. Once he assumed a common-law wife, he should have legally relinquished any rights or claims as Terry’s husband. If her family wanted to take care of her, let them. In Nevada, adultery is a felony offense. I wonder if that law exists in Florida.
All the association with the Hemlock Society and Bubba politics are enough to make any reasonable person shudder. The government deciding life and death issues should be not only questioned but decried as the government being allowed to determine our rights instead of us being able to limit the power of the government.
There is just so much wrong with this case that it is hard to know where to begin, much less what it would look like in a legal sense. The bottom line is that whether in matters of schooling, or life and death, no where does the government have a right to decide for we the people.
May the Lord have mercy upon her soul & for the sake of his mercy, comfort to the family.
Also, regarding those quotes from Fred back in September..couldn’t his hesitation on answering it have something to do with the fact that he faced a life/death decision with his own daughter?
Having buried 2 children I can tell you that there is
always an empty spot the child(ren) filled.
You develop scar tissue over the wound but the hurt
never ever goes away. I can only pray for these parents that God comforts him until they can be with
her again.
Meant to say … God comforts them…
The neo-libertarian in me is staying out of this one…
“Brain dead” is an inaccurate term. I wish people rehashing this story wouldn’t use it.
But since any Terri Schiavo post leads to people spouting off crap like this:
As a parent, if my son-in-law was trying to take my daughters life, he would meet his maker before her and I would just face GOD later and pray HE understood.
Ok, I messed up the block quoting. My B.
And thereby the difference between you and conservatives, Rusty; for you, if truth, facts and what is right is politically inconvenient or politically incorrect, then it’s to be abandoned and denounced post haste. A little light should go on for you somewhere in there, Rusty, eh?
I doubt a “strong majority” of the American people supported what happened to Terri Schiavo. Particularly if they knew the actual facts.
Terri was not brain dead. Terri was not on a respirator. She could breathe on her own. Terri was able to swallow about 2 liters of fluid a day (her own saliva). No attempt, none, was ever made regarding rehabilitation - to teach her to eat, swallow or to speak.
Granted, the autopsy report showed severe brain damage. But the brain is an interesting organ; with physical therapy it has been demonstrated that it can “rewire” itelf.
As far as the removal of the feeding tube, that is also highly inaccurate. Not only was the feeding tube removed, the staff and any visitors were forbidden to provide her water or food by mouth. Remember, she was capable of swallowing. That prohibition was so restrictive that she was barred from receiving the Last Rites, where a piece of a communion wafer is placed in the individual’s mouth.
And there was more than ample evidence, which was ignored, that raised serious doubts about the diagnosis that she was in a persistive vegative state. The doctor who did provide that diagnosis spent less than 10 minutes with her, and failed to follow the protocol for that type of diagnosis.
For some background:
http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/johansen200503160848.asp
http://libertytothecaptives.net/hammesfahr_dr._report.html
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=35156
I know it is not a fun world when you have to deal with facts. But get over it. The fact is, Terri Schiavo was executed by a method that would be prohibited for death row inmates as cruel and unusual punishment.
I doubt much light is able to reach the location of Rusty’s head - it seems to be wedged in there pretty tight.
And we all know that an autopsy is the usual treatment choice for any type of trauma.
We don’t know that to be true and it’s especially suspect since this could have easily been determined without killing her - if her sleazy thug “husband” had allowed her to be examined and treated. Instead, he made a killing and took the money & ran.
I have yet to meet anyone who can read minds, so I’ll just chalk that up to wishful thinking.
Again, that’s wild speculation at the very best. Obviously, the videos clearly show otherwise. That’s why her attacker…er…”husband” allowed no more cameras - much less any treatment for her condition.
Forgot to add this link:
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=35304
I’m as conservative as they come, but the Republicans were wrong on this one. Barney Frank embarrassed the Republicans in the floor debate over this one. If you look at her CAT scan, her whole cerebral cortex had turned to liquid. It is impossible that she had any brain activity other than reflex responses. See this post by a behavioral neuroscience PhD.
I may be the only person in America, or the world, who feels this way but I believe that issues such as abortion, euthanasia (in extreme cases)contraception and religion are personal decisions and should not be political issues unless someone tries to impose their judgement and beliefs on others.
God will take care of the final decision and if you do not believe in God, you don’t have to worry about the consequences until it is too late to recant.
The Schiavo case was and is a loser for Republicans. Decisions, like the one made in the Schiavo case, are made every single day in America. Do family members always agree? No, they do not. But in the end, Mommy and Daddy have zero say in when artificial life support is terminated once the child is an adult and married or has put their wishes in writing.
The feelings of otherwise rational people were manipulated in this case and I was ashamed to see so many people on the right behaving like leftists…shrieking, wailing, moaning and allowing emotion to completely drive them.
#12
“Did you read the autopsy report? I did.”
Then why did you leave out large sections of what it said?
You say you read the report, and then you linked to your post- The Schiavo Autopsy: A Sober Look.
http://michellemalkin.com/2005/06/16/the-schiavo-autopsy-a-sober-look/
I found that a very interesting post.
In it you left out vital information. Was it on purpose?
This is from your post:
The way you make it sound, there is a case for strangulation.
When in fact, the entire section of the report states (and this isn’t cut and paste mind you, I have to copy this from the pdf file)-
That’s a whole lot different, isn’t it? Why did you leave that part out?
So, in essence, they checked her TWICE for strangulation trauma, found NOTHING the first time she was admitted, and checked again 15 years later, even though they knew that it wasn’t really effective to check 15 years later.
So the articles that say there was no trauma, according to the full read of that section of the report, are right.
Why did you leave that part out? Why would you infer that there was a potential strangulation?
It was so nice to see that the tolerant, peace loving, non-violent Lierals have come forth to once again, grace us with their wisdom concerning this issue. Especially the ghastly human who made the crass comment about her being “brain dead” and how we should all get over it.
I have yet to understand how the ex-husband had any say in what happened with her once he decided to shack up with another woman. I could see it had he been by her side since day one, supporting everything that was going on, had epressed this alledged desire of hers from the beginning, had stayed loyal true and faithful throughout, had stayed out of the spotlight and not sought out the media attention etc., but no…he did the eact opposite. In fact, he is on record as saying that she indeed wanted to be kept alive, and it was only after he got a girlfriend and the money became an issue that all of a sudden Terri needed to die.
Also, had Terri been on a respirator, heart and lung machine etc., and not just a feeding tube, as is the case when someone is “brain dead”, then I could also see it. See, if someone is actually brain dead and hooked up to all that equipment and then the “puul the plug”, it is really only a matter of moments before the person dies. What they did was truly a case of murder that is not even permitted in eecuting the most heinous of our criminals. To have them claim it was “Peaceful” and “euphoric” was almost as criminal as the act itself.
Were my daughter’s husbands, once the grow up and get married, keep me from my daughters in a similar situation in the future, let me tell you, there will be a definate different outcome. The fact that he was out of the picture for so long, had an entirely different relationship going altogether and had for quite some time and refused to turn over care to her parents was unconscionable. All he had to do was to get a legal divorce and all care and responsibility would have been gone off his shoulders.
Which brings us to the real reason. Money. That was the one thing he would not have eceived with a divorce. He would not have received the insurance money, at least not as soon as he wanted it. With her murder, it came right away. With her contiued care, it could be another 20-40 years.
With all THOSE facts, it is really easy o see what the real issue was in this. And yes, this case very much kept with the Republican rule of thought. Life for the fetus, life for the sick and infirm. It is the Liberals that have to explain their wish of death to thise people, not us to explain our want for them to live.
Michael lived with Terry’s parents from 1990 until 1993. They encouraged him to see other women, and even set him up on dates. When the money was awarded in 1993, suddenly the relationship fell apart. Suddenly the parents accused Michael of having poisoned or strangled their daughter three years prior.
People make this difficult decision hundreds of times every single day. I hope that those of you who want to second guess his decision never have to go through that.
re: purplepeep
Again, my point was not to be callous here, but only to report what was in the papers at the time.
If your optic nerve is disintigrated, i.e. not there, you cannot see. That is not a point that can be debated. It is a medical fact.
And again, as I remember it, the autopsy said that large portions of her brain were non-functional, that she had only some basic involuntary functions. Obviously an autopsy is not a procedure that is performed on the living. But I think there has been enough science performed on the human brain to give doctors some idea what areas need to be functional for us to be conscious lucid beings.
The video and even the picture that is used on this site is completely misleading. That is not wild conjecture but absolute truth. That picture is from over four years prior to Terri’s death. Let me repeat, a local judge ruled that no images or videos of Terri could be made public. Multiple reports in the local papers described Terri’s condition on a daily basis. Her parents were desperately clinging to any hope for their daughter. And I completely understand and sympathize with them. But the belief of most medical professionals around here was that they were deluding themselves.
I had to watch both my parents die in a hospital, in fact, had to give the okay to allow them to no-code my father in the ICU. My heart still aches even today. The Terri Schiavo case was traumatic for plenty of us locals here. Don’t try and paint me as unsympathetic because the facts don’t say what you want them to say.
all life if precious. and compassion is a gift we share with one another. that includes compassion for the family too.
As zorro said, all life is precious.
The difference with Terri Schiavo was not that she had a DNR, or that extraordinary life-saving treatment was withheld to let her die in peace.
She was starved to death.
Whether or not you consider her “brain dead”, she was still conscious and she was - above all - still a human being.
Back in October, my husband’s grandmother died. We went to see her in hospice a few hours before she passed and it was difficult to watch her - someone so spunky and vibrant - suffer. But never did it cross my mind that we needed to expedite the process of her death because *we* were uncomfortable with it. She died peacefully, without pain, and with the full dignity that every human being deserves, receiving basic nutrition and pain medication (ordinary measures).
No human being should be denied the right to basic nutrition just because they are considered a “useless eater”.
As for Mr. Schiavo, my frank opinion is he lost his right to claim sovereign immunity as her husband the second he had an affair. His vows to Terri were “for better or worse, in sickness and in health” - not “until one of us is too sick to care for”.
Mr. Schiavo’s actions were not those of a compassionate, concerned husband because he had clearly made a home with someone not his wife long before Terri died. They were the actions of a man who - for whatever reason - wanted to punish both his wife and his in-laws in one of the cruelest ways possible. In fact, I believe he was so cruel as to deny Terri Last Rites and at least one member of the nursing staff said Mr. Schiavo repeatedly asked “When is that b*&^% going to die?” Anyone who calls him compassionate needs to get a new dictionary.
I pray he finds true repentance for his actions, because they were reprehensible.
There is a remarkably slight difference between the right and requirement to die when you don’t get to decide for your self. Not to worry, the same folks who infest the USPS and the DMV stand ready to decide your fate after the coronation…
Why, yes I did.
[quote]
COMMENT: Brain weight is an important index of its pathologic state. Brain weight is correlated with height, weight, age, and sex. The decendent’s brain was grossly abnormal and weighed only 615 grams (1.35 lbs.). That weight is less than half of the expected tabular weight for an decendent of her adult age of 41 years 3 months 28 days. By way of comparison, the brain of Karen Ann Quinlan weighed 835 grams at the time of her death, after 10 years in a similar persistent vegetatie state.
[/quote]
The Schiavo case was tragic, but don’t make it something it wasn’t. It was a private matter and should not have been a cause célèbre for the right.
I am so very sorry to hear that. My deepest condolences to you.
People just gloss over the fact that she was denied food and water for the 13 days preceding her death. Not only is that a torturous way to die, such a demise also causes fairly significant tissue and organ damage in the process.
With the brain being about 80% water, the effects of a prolonged dehydration will indeed shrink the brain to the point it ceases to function altogether. Check out some of Michelle’s links in the prior commentaries. The autopsy results would be similar to those of fire victims rather than those who remained hydrated up until the time of death.
And despite the fact that an MRI was repeatedly requested, one was never done. A CT scan is a very poor substitute and these days is almost never used by itself to form a diagnosis.
Prior to Terri’s death, her “guardian” had lived with another woman for 10 years and had 2 children with her. The fact that the court still found him to be an acceptable guardian is ludicrous.
In a life and death situation, why was not this woman given the benefit of the doubt? Why wasn’t she provided physical therapy? Why were aditional tests not performed?
In the criminal justice system, a suspect is certainly given the benefit of the doubt - the standard to convict is guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. With the issues raised in the Schiavo case, there was certainly ample evidence to raise the issue of reasonable doubt regarding the prior 10 inute diagnosis. What the court did was to say that criminals have much greater protections than the infirm.
And one last thing - a feeding tube up until the Schiavo case was never considered to be “life support”.
Once again, those inconvenient facts keep getting the way of rumor and outright lies.
Purple Peep, you are obviously very passionate about the subject, but let’s not pretend that an autopsy isn’t an accurate tool in determining what was wrong with a person. You refer to Michael as her attacker, yet the autopsy showed no such proof of that. You can call him many other things, but attacker is not one you can backup.
Jim M:
As opposed to the 40 doctors that gave their affidavits? They spent how much time with her?
Terri Schiavo was executed by a method that would be prohibited for death row inmates as cruel and unusual punishment.
You are absolutely correct..I agree with you!
Jim M, I should have block quoted you quote..I apologise.
All these facts not withstanding, there was law on the books as to who decides, and when they can decide.
The Feds had no reason to step in, and I’m concerned that no one else seems concerned.
Jim M,
I have read Michelles info. I read it when she originally posted it and I re-read it last night. It doesn’t change some basic medical facts…It raises many ethical questions..
potassium imbalance was brought up in the autopsy…This is what I have a question on with regards to the original collapse..
I wish everyone would let her rest in peace. I am certain she would be embarrassed by the attention this is bringing her.
Agree completely. I am ashamed that the media continues to bring up this case over and over as if it were an instant in time when they report on it. She was in a vegetative state for 15 years before she came to her final resting place. IT IS A FAMILY DECISION - it is her fault that she did not have a medical power of attorney!
So what would you suggest? Any time someone dies it is tragic. Fully healthy soldiers are dying every day and it is tragic. This case was also tragic, but Terri was not going to ever lead a life like anyone would want.
This was a Catholic issue. Bush jumped on it because it is sort of a ‘pro-life’ debate in the way that the Catholic Church is against condoms is ‘pro-life’. If this was a snap decision made quickly, I would understand the issue being big. But this case lasted for 15 years. The husband went to medical school to try to find a cure. He stayed by her side for a long time.
I wish people would stay out of the business of the family. If she had a medical power of attorney, there would not be an issue. Most people would not want to be a burden at all to their loved ones. I know I would not. Terri is in a better place now. If you are a Christian, and you believe she was, then you have to believe that.
SO LET IT GO! It is not about the ‘pro-life’ movement. It is about someone who did not have a medical power of attorney and so the decision was left up to her husband. PERIOD. END OF STORY.
Most organ donors are brain dead and cannot even breathe on their own. No one, ever, has recovered from modern day diagnoses of brain death, it is simply not possible. It is important to make this distinction, because when the next of kin is making a decision about donating the organs of a family member, it is important that they understand the person is truly dead and never, ever has a chance of recovery. Too many people die each year waiting for organs because many kind and generous people decline organ donation because they hold out hope for recovery or think it causes pain. Media mis-use of terminology for their own benefit (and many times in dramatic shows too) is not only unfair to families of those that are not brain dead, but also for the many people waiting for a donated organ to save their lives.
http://www.cdtny.org/
This doctor spent over 2 hours examining her at the request of one of the courts. His report can be found here:
http://libertytothecaptives.net/hammesfahr_dr._report.html
That report was disregarded by Judge Greer.
The 40 Neurologists who provided affidavits rendered their opinions based on the entire case file, which included both the report prepared by Michael Schiavo’s “expert” and the report prepared by Dr. Hammesfahr. An MRI would have put almost all of the conflict and speculation to rest. Why this was not done, in light of conflicting reports and the affidavits from 40 other neurologists is inexcusable. One $1000 procedure.
Death sentences in criminal cases are automatically appealed at both the state and federal levels. Appeals that cost the state literally hundreds of thousands if not millions of dollars. Yet for a woman who was guilty of no crime, a $1000 MRI that could very well have supported the Schindler’s positon was dismissed. To most people, the expectation is that we would treat those that cannot speak for themselves better than criminals.
I just have to ask…
What if the MRI had shown complete brain death, or even “mostly” brain death?
Would this still be an issue for you?
#37
Arguing right to die issues, as most of commenters are doing here, is one thing.
It is quite a different thing to mislead the readership of this blog and infer that someone strangled Terri Shiavo, as Ms. Malkin did here in her posts on this topic.
There are NO “open questions” in this autopsy. Quite the opposite, unless of course you leave out large sections of it when you attempt to make a case against what it plainly says.
But the problem is the papers haven’t gotten it right yet, postaldog. That’s what Michelle’s entry here is all about. There’s an old computer programmers maxim: GIGO - ” Garbage in, garbage out”.
With all the questions surrounding the autopsy and the “husband’s” demand that the “body of evidence” be hurriedly destroyed, it begs to be debated.
First, the simple fact is there was no need to kill her to do a simple eye responsiveness test to conclude if the eyes are functioning. You test eyes while they can respond. It should be extremely obvious that “dead eyes” will not have any reaction to a directly beamed floodlight, much less a standard slit-lamp exam.
Second, even if it were applicable here I’m don’t know that we should start to use blindness as a criteria on whether someone should be put to death or not. Last I heard, it’s not a capital crime and a great many people get along fine without sight.
So what happened there is the ones starved Terri Schaivo to death were desperate beyond all reason and common sense to come up with an ex post facto excuse for having done so. But “well, maybe she was blind” doesn’t come close in my book.
Doctors, judges, lawyers can “bury their mistakes”; moreso when there is a headlong rush to attempt to make sure no traces of mistakes remain and burial is thus out of the equation.
Woulda been nice if Terry’s family were allowed to have her treated so she could add her own input on that.
Yes, a person would have to be killed first. Do you see the bizarre absurdity of putting someone to death to determine the person’s condition? It’s win-win for the kill-happy “doctors” and the “husband”- post mortem they can pull any opinion out of their rears to cover themselves.
No, it just extremely inconvenient, as Algore would say, to your argument. Unless you are claiming mind-reading skills, you just zero basis to know what Terry Schaivo was thinking then or otherwise.
You do know who asked for that ruling? You do know that judges don’t just get up, read the morning paper and that’s how they find things to rule on, correct?
Is should be disturbing to you - and it certainly tends to demolish your arguement - the fact that no cameras were allowed by the thug husband. What should be even more disturbing is that medical treatment was not allowed by her husband long before he found a hangin’ judge to finish off Terri.
Well, as we’ve learned here, you certainly can’t depend on the papers. Also you need to learn to ask re:motivations, most medical professionals are quite okay with abortion and euthanasia. This is just as much a politically motivated thing for them as it is for a pro-lifer, if not more so. I don’t come at this from a “pro-life” view, but from a common-sense view. No common sense was exersized in the case of Terri Schaivo.
The one thing that is illuminating in all this is in how it provides a very, very clear demarcation line of those who did not want Terri Schaivo killed and those who did.
Since you fall in the latter camp, you can only offer this:
Sorry, but opinions do not=facts. But you’re certainly welcome to make all sorts of claims if you feel such a deep need to or if it helps to relieve some guilt. But doing the right thing in the first place instead makes for carrying a much lighter burden.
Quite correct. The law was applied. Several times.
My brother was just like Terri for almost five years before he died…actually he couldn’t follow an object like Terri did (only his eyes could follow) and, as he lay dying, the doctors finally acknowledged he was responding to our voices by the readings on the monitors he was hooked up to. Too bad they didn’t have MRIs to measure brain activity and Ambien to try to wake him up back then; too bad the experts didn’t know that damaged brain cells have cell memory that doesn’t die and it’s just waiting to have some researcher unlock the key…maybe some researcher who could have found a treatment was aborted in the past 30 years…we reap what we sow and once someone is physically dead there’s no hope, but alive hope remains.
“We are requesting that the media take a few minutes to research the facts regarding Terri’s case and, more importantly, her condition,” he added. In doing so they would learn that not one doctor ever diagnosed Terri as being ‘brain-dead.’”
Expecting the MSM to research the facts? Hello??
If being ” brain-dead” is grounds for euthanasia, Congress is going to thin out pretty quickly.
Very good pubscout.
ThackerAgency (#51)
Your post just doesn’t sit right with me.
There were a couple things that bothered me.
1. You cannot know how Terri felt about the issue of “being a burden.” Neither can I.
I would not want to be a burden to my husband, my parents, and/or my siblings… Then again, in the case of serious injury or illness, I don’t think that they would consider taking care of me to be a burden.
You mention the continuous media attention. Michelle’s post was reporting the request of Terri’s family to get the facts straight. ABC and the NYTimes misrepresenting the case is actually a current story, not the dredging up of an old one.
2. The eloquent way you shouted “SO LET IT GO!” at us all… You are right that the case has been decided, the power went to the husband, he made his choice, and it can’t be changed. That, however, does not mean we don’t have a right to discuss the case.
The Terri Schiavo case raises important questions for many people. Questions about our views on euthanasia, what role the government does and should hold in such cases, what we would want to do for our family or have our family do for us if such a tragedy should hit home, and so on.
We have every right to discuss these issues. If you are tired of hearing about it, fine, no one is forcing you to read about it or talk about it.
I can’t really speak for englishqueen or anyone else here, but I would venture the guess that most people here would suggest not dehydrating and starving to death living human beings.
This is why I recommend getting a medical power of attorney. Absent that, the decision is the husband’s. I am certain that he felt worse about it than anyone here.
Again, he wanted to live with her together forever. I think he handled the situation as well as he could have. When I say ‘what would you recommend’, it was obvious that she was going to need expensive custodial care for the rest of her life. Would you have been happier if they had overdosed her with heroin to kill her? I doubt it.
Again, she was fortunate due to the miracles of modern medicine to have lived as long as she did. Her husband loved her more than anyone else with an opinion on this case. Nobody against what happened in this case would have been willing to do spit for this woman. This man stayed by her for 15 years and people demonize him for his PERSONAL LOSS. She could have gone on living for another 100 years that way. . . that would have been better - how? I guess the hospital or custodian would have appreciated the check. Whenever she died it was going to be tragic. I bet she had died to the husband a thousand times before he was actually able to lay her to rest. And so many sit in judgment of this man who did not have a good decision to make no matter what he decided.
It is NOT the business of the federal government. It is a family decision. That is what the court decided and it is the correct decision.
I am sorry but the conservative view is that the family has authority over the government. . . unless of course you approve of the ‘it takes a village’ argument of Clinton’s best selling book.
Rusty you Moby troll.
First of all, you do not know every fact in this case. I watched with great interest as her husband did everything in his power to MKAE SURE she would not recover. The parents wanted to do everything in their power for their daughter but could do nothing. You have no idea of their helplessmess or how they felt. Legal action is best here? Hubby had the money and another woman in the picture and all he had to do was divorce her and be done with it. He seemed to be going out of his way to make sure she died.
If you had a daughter and someone was trying to make sure she died, you would be fine with that? RIGHT!
I pray YOU never find yourself on the parents end. Her life was precious to them and should never have been snuffed out.
Yep, you would be fine with someone starving your daughter to death.
I said it and I stand by it. Let anyone try that with one of my girls and he WILL meet his maker before her.
Really? You really think a husband who you say “wanted to live with her together forever”, then who shacks up with another woman while his wife is faced with a serious medical condition handled the situation well?
You really think a husband who repeatedly asked when she was going to die, referring to her has a “b*%#!” handled this situation well?
To handle it well would have been for him to divorce her and leave her care and the expenses to her parents - who clearly wanted to take care of her.
To all of you who say you hope we’re never in the position of Mr. Schaivo - I argue our decision is clear, and being in his position, would handle this situation better.
Thacker Agency - I would suggest giving her the ordinary medical treatment she deserves. Food and water are ordinary, life sustaining measures. There is no room for interpretation there - we all need food and water to live. I never said to keep her on life support, artificial machines, etc. Terri’s body was able to breathe and function inspite of her condition.
Death by starvation is a terrible way to die. There was nothing dignified or humane about it.
Michelle (and everyone)-
There is not universal agreement across Republicans on this issue.
I was right there with the majority of conservatives on this issue when it happened - until this spring, when one of my oldest friends died from the effects of a car accident.
She was brain-damaged, to the point where recovery was deemed impossible. Her family wasted no time in attempting to donate her organs (unsuccessfully, unfortunately). She was 33 and left behind a 9-month-old daughter.
Thank God her husband, parents, etc. all agreed that she would not want to live in such a state - they said if she ever regained consciousness she would have the brain of a 6-month-old. She would have despised that.
The thing that made her case different from Terry Schiavo is Terry’s parents’ religious convictions. It went against their firm Catholic beliefs to allow her to die the way my friend died, by withholding feeding.
What’s really sad in all this is that our culture CANNOT DEAL WITH DEATH. In both cases, these women weren’t technically killed by their injuries, they starved to death because they were too mentally handicapped to feed themselves - and in our culture, that’s the only way we can deal with this, by dragging out their (debateably felt) suffering, the families’ suffering, the medical bills, etc.
We are more kind to our pets than to our fellow men. If your cat had suffered permanent brain damage from an injury, and you were told by confident doctors that she would never be awake or feed herself again, is there any doubt in your mind you would have her put to sleep that instant to end her suffering?
Can you imagine requesting that of a doctor if it were your spouse?
My friend was a fierce liberal, a Michael Moore-loving, Canada-health-care-believing leftist - but this would have been the one thing we wouldn’t have argued about.
Brain dead is dead. There are numerous tests to check, more than two have to be conclusive to declare a person brain dead.
Persistive vegatative state is not brain dead.
Regardless of everything else, Terry Schiavo was by medical definition not brain dead.
A brain dead person does not need feeding and hydration withheld to cause death.
In fact, since a brain dead person cannot breathe on their own, it is simply a matter of turning off the respirator.
This initial point if Michele’s piece was the mis-use of the term brain dead, and it was wholly incorrect in the instance of Ms. Schaivo.
That is probably one of the goofiest things I’ve ever read. Like saying
“Bruno Richard Hauptmann was fortunate not to be die before he was executed.” You do realize Terry Schaivo was not dying, don’t you? Not until she was, like Haputman, executed.
And that is the runner up as the 2nd goofiest. In order to get his hands on big money the thug had to claim he was going to take care of her for the rest of her life. Of course, we now know “the rest of her life” meant “I got a high maintianance g/f in the bullpen so I gotta get the bucks and finish offing her as soon as possible”. The autopsy is inconclusive as to whether or not he caused her initial or other injuries. So the thug continues still in his crooked ways.
As has been noted:
“The Schiavo case was a public relations effort for euthanasia and assisted suicide, trying to make it acceptable and more palatable to terminate the disabled, elderly and vulnerable if it becomes too costly to keep them alive.
It was and is about egos, greed, jealousy, revenge, ideological agendas.
And money.
The Schiavo case has always been about money, first in life, then in death.
The Schiavo case was a clash of egos and greed. And the players were Michael Schiavo, Judge George Greer, Deborah Bushnell and the shell man, euthanasia advocate George Felos.
All had their eye on the pot of gold—Terri’s trust fund. ”
Michael Schiavo—What Goes Around, Comes Around
We can’t put to death or most sinister criminals after they commit brutal murders and other crimes, but the court allowed an innocent woman to be legally murdered. This entire case rubbed our household the wrong way and we pray for those that really loved her despite the fact she was brain damaged and not brain dead. Where there is life there is always hope.
ThackerAgency (#63)
Are you secretly Michael Schiavo?
Otherwise, how can you be certain about how his feelings over the loss of Terri?
Englishqueen responded to one of your points just as I would have. If Michael Schiavo wanted to “live with her together forever,” then why would he live with someone else while Terri still lived?
You also bring up the issue of the expense of her prolonged care. Terri’s parents were willing to handle that expense. While it was (as you have so kindly pointed out) deemed Mr. Schiavo’s choice, I don’t see what would stop him from divorcing Terri and allowing her parents to handle the care and expense when they were so eager to do so.
The answer is obvious, No
That’s one side of thinking. I have been married 27 years I love my wife very much. I can say with certainty that she would not want to live in this state and I would not want her to exist in this state either, but before I took any action I would have to discuss it with her family and decide ultimatley what I thought was best for her and fight for may decision. If this where my daughter I would expect the same but would also fight for what I think is appropriate as her father.
Me too, unimaginable agony.
I feel the same way about my daughter too and would probably feel like what the *!#% does he know anyway.
I think if you’re going to employ moral relativism, you should at least stick within one species. Otherwise we’ll have to talk about why we really should have other people carry us around town on their backs because horses do it, doncha know.
And, if in your cat story you’d included an extremely mysterious, uexplained injury and mixed in at least a few million dollars as kill-incentive, I think you’d indeed find quite a few folks in a big, big rush to have their critter put away. (ka-ching!)
I absolutely despise when people criticize Michael Schiavo for “shacking up” with another woman. Do you really expect a man to not date other women after his wife is permanently and irrecoverably brain damaged?
Mr. Schiavo was obviously in a very tough spot. He was balancing what he believed to be his wife’s wishes with maintaining a normal life. It’s not an easy thing to juggle. But even if he had a fiancee, he still had every right to determine what Terri would have wanted. That is his duty as a husband, period.
Soap Box…first, what exactly is a “Moby troll”?
Second, disagreeing with your typically undeveloped opinions doesn’t make me a troll. Plenty of libertarians and Republicans are on my side on this one. If you really need an echo chamber to confirm your half-baked ideas then sorry to spoil your good time.
Finally, threatening to kill your son-in-law for doing what he considers to be in his wife’s interest is ridiculous. The whole tradition of the father walking down the bride is that he is handing off responsibility to the husband. In other word’s, life and death decisions are now in his sphere, not yours.
I would never go as low as to criticize someone’s fathering skills. But I am 100% positive that you would be the worst kind of father-in-law.
Schiavo was not brain dead (she was in a “persistent vegetative state”), but claims of “interaction” are merely wishful thinking by her family. There was no evidence of any sort of higher brain function. This “interaction” claim is just that — a claim by her family, which, God bless them, held on to hope. From the judgement:
There was no constant response to stimuli. The videos that were publicized were culled from a lot of footage. A broken clock is still right twice a day, as they say.
FALSE
Ha! Should have ended the thread on that.
But people aren’t animals. People should not be treated like animals. You do not put a person to sleep when their health deteriorates.
As timbudd says above - Terri was not brain dead. Her body was able to breathe, pump blood, etc. Just because she could not communicate or fully function does not mean she ceases to be a person or loses her right to dignity.
Had she been brain dead and incapable of breathing or her heart couldn’t beat without assistance - there are no moral parameters that require extraordinary means to keep someone alive. Were she brain dead, “pulling the plug” would have resulted in a death that came quickly.
Rather, I believe it took nearly two weeks for Terri to die.
For the record, I don’t exactly agree with Rusty.
The only problem I have with this case (besides someone dying which is always tragic) is the intervention of the US Government.
#73
I absolutely despise when people criticize Michael Schiavo for “shacking up” with another woman. Do you really expect a man to not date other women after his wife is permanently and irrecoverably brain damaged?
With you on that. It’s well known (to people who aren’t blinded by their ideology) that Terri’s parents encouraged him to date.
Not surprising that many here are totally uninformed in this matter, when even the author of this blog implies (fantastically, outrageously) that Terri Schiavo was strangled. I wonder who she would have us assume strangled her?
I actually feel more strongly for Michael Schiavo than Terri’s parents. He carried out what he believed to be her wishes, which was his responsibility the moment they became married. And for doing what I hope I’d have the courage to do in a similar situation, he gets implications that he tried to strangle her, ’shacked up’, and all manner of other ridiculousness is hurled at him.
No way to believe ANY doctor’s “sworn affidavits” on this one. I’ve seen “sworn affidavits” on both sides.
It’s obvious which side of this you come down on Michelle, but the manner in which you continually beat on what is essentially a dead horse here is beneath you.
#76
Complete agreement. . although I’d add that another problem I have, is that it keeps getting dredged up as if it’s relevant to anything.
It’s relivant in the Federalist sense - keep Government out of my home and my life.
watershed (#77)
This sounds to me like you are saying that because we don’t agree with you, we are uninformed. As though no one, with their hands on the info that you have, could possibly feel any differently.
For my part, I wasn’t exactly (in what I wrote) criticizing him for shacking up. I was saying that since he was moving on with his life, I can’t understand why he wouldn’t divorce Terri and allow her parents to care for her.
However, since you and Rusty bring it up… No matter what state Terri was in, she was still alive and still Michael’s wife. Therefore, to start a relationship with another woman is adultery, plain and simple. In sickness and in health. If he wanted to move on and have a normal life, then he needed to divorce Terri. Why didn’t he?
It can’t be both ways. He can’t be totally devoted to what’s best for his wife while moving on to start a new life with another woman. To face what he did would be tough, but to start another relationship sounds selfish to me. He did it because he wanted happiness and normality (normalcy.) If I die before my husband, I absolutely want him to find happiness without me. However, I don’t consider the terms of our vows to be negotiable. ‘Til death means just what it says.
Thanks Blind_mule.
I am sick to death of people who want to bring up “The Doctors/experts said…” Twenty-three years ago the Doctors and experts said I would be dead in 3-6 months - get my stuff in order. HEH!
Snarkingly, I guess I am still here because I did not get my stuff in order.
Some of us who know, know GOD did HIS thing. Terri never got her chance and, yes, GOD could have done a thing in Terri. Evil prevailed.
I do want to add that Rusty is right on one thing. When parents give their daughter away to a husband, she is now his responsibility. My husband and I love our families, but part of marriage is starting a new family. We turn to each other first and foremost. My father is no longer the head of my family, my husband is.
So, yes, Terri was Michael’s responsibilty. But he wasn’t a faithful husband and I seriously question his actions.
soap - glad the doctors were wrong!
But…but…but….the experts go on Oprah, Montel, Maury, etc to guide and enlighten us on everything. They’re experts afterall, Soap - they say so!
Well, I mean, that sounds way more old-timey than what I was going for. How about this, when two people get married, they become each other’s responsibility. That sounds much less sexist and less heteronormative*.
*Buzz word added just to annoy.
As I said earlier…it’s a tough act to balance what’s right for the marriage while making the decision to move on. If he truly believed Terri wouldn’t want to be in that state, then it’s his responsibility to her to follow through on that.
Even if you disagree with Michael’s decision (and it’s obvious that people here do), surely he deserves some sympathy for being caught in such a bad spot. What was right for him might not be right for you or me, but he deserved the support of his in-laws in such a difficult time.
Terri’s song:
http://www.weatheroutpost12.com/members/Alexander_Arredondo
Thank you always, Michelle…..what happened to Terri was too sad for many of us….we prayed hard….& the Holy Father Jonn Paul II spoke out loud to save her & then died on the Vigil of the Feast of Devine Mercy,2 days after Terri died on Mercy Thursday….you know, He escorted her into heaven. She will be the Patron Saint of unseen suffering….I am certain. CF
Disclaimer: I have not read all the above posts. Most states, if not all, have Health Care Powers of Atty and Living Wills or a combination of both.
Our severely retarded son just had his 43rd birthday in another state. It was difficult having him declared incompetent, leaving him behind on our last move because he was in the best possible situation and he has a “no resucitation” order as well as our wish he be cremated and his ashes given to us.
I worked in estate planning for many years and you would not believe the horror stories of family fighting … well, you would because of Terri.
My choice is not to be kept in a persistent vegitative state. Make yours known in legal documents.
Spot on at #78 Yashmak…very nice post.
Rusty, you are a “troll” to soap because you have the audacity to advance points of view that differ from his.
Sorry Rusty, your argument flies in the face of common sense. As her husband, Mr. Schiavo indeed would want to look out for what she wanted. The fact that he had a new fiancee would seem to negate any previous spousal rights he might be entitled to. I don’t know of a judge in the land who would deny a divorce to a wife who found out that her spouse had taken a new fiancee.
If that were the only issue, Michael could have divorced her, walked away and lived happily ever after. Her parents would have taken care of her.
He wouldn’t do that though, because it would mean forfeiting the cash from the insurance policy.
The only “very tough spot” that Michael faced, was how to collect the money, and not appear to be the cad that he is.
Obviously, of the two, he was only successful at the former.
No, the issue would have been that someone he loved enough to marry was stuck inside the cage of her failing body. That’s not something we would wish on our worst enemy. He felt, correctly, that is was his duty to carry out his wife’s wishes.
Rusty,
You keep talking about his overflowing love for her. I can’t help but wonder why, if he was so in love with and concerned for Terri, he selfishly started a new relationship.
You are absolutely right that his situation of having a wife in that condition was tragic. I feel for anyone caught in that. However, he was either attached to his wife - brain damage and all - or he was looking to live a new life. I don’t see how it can work both ways. If he divorced her, it may not have been without pain and difficulty for him, but it would have been a better way to treat his wife.
Sorry, that was poorly written, but you get the point.
Jim M., purplepeep, and others who have a string of bookmarks on the Terri Schiavo case, here’s an additional link for your collection. It illustrates what can happen to a PVS patient when she is loved by her husband and they both are true to their faith.
Here’s another one showing how little brain tissue is necessary for consciousness.
Peace out.
#80
We disagree. I give you that. And you are not misinformed. Ours is a difference of opinion in which I happen to have both the law and medical science on my side.
By “uninformed”, I was referring to the striking brand of misinformation the Ms. Malkin gave about this matter in her synopsis of the autopsy, in which she claims there are “open questions” as to whether or not Terri Schiavo was strangled. She, purposely or not, left out an enormous section of the report that proves that was NOT strangled. Please see post #37 for the details.
I have no idea why Ms. Malkin would do such a thing, but anyone who would claim to get their info on this matter from this site is, yes, totally uninformed.
watershed wrote:
No.
Yes.
#80
watershed,
Indeed. It is exactly the sort of information you cite in that comment that would be included in any HONEST discussion of this issue.
To see this site apparently going through the same thing, willfully ignoring information that doesn’t fit a certain narrative, is discouraging indeed.