Well, that clears that up.
There have been many “last looks” over a period of 15 years. And after this “one last look” what other vague diagnosis out of left field will call for still another “last look?”
Grasping at straws is my description.
The NY Times has an article (free registration required) about Jeb’s doctor, who is published in Focus on the Family’s journal, no less. A few salient quotes:
Oooh! Now that’s compelling! There was no evidence that Terri’s diagnosis is wrong, he just got “a sense” that she was conscious. Such rigourous methodology! Listen, bub, I got “a sense of presence” from my grandfather’s mantle clock, too, but that doesn’t mean it was conscious. The article goes on to cite one of the independent experts appointed by the Florida courts:
No electrical activity coming from her brain (presumably he meant cortex, as there obviously is electrical activity coming from the brainstem). I don’t see how you get much more conclusive than that. If the neurons ain’t firing, you ain’t feeling anything.
Because it’s important for me to make the point that despite her condition you people are advocating the euthanasia of a human being in the most despicable way possible, because for whatever reason nobody wants to have the moral or ethical courage to put the syringe of potassium in her arm and end it mercifully, like you would for a common dog.
I want it known that not a single one of these experts have ever been in the position that Terri Schiavo is in and is therefore unable to state conclusively that she is not suffering. All they can provide in this regard is guesses.
I too want her suffering ended. But I want it ended in a merciful and ethically consistent manner. If we, as society, are killing her, let’s recognize that and get it over with instead of hiding behind “passive euthanasia” or whatever euphemism we want to come up with to hide the fact that we are starving a human being to death.
Withdrawing a feeding tube is not euthanasia. It is the ending of an artificial support. If as you claim she is suffering, then the tube just prolongs that suffering so why should it be left in?
Is this the case that you should use to ride this particular hobby horse? Active euthanasia in most of the US ain’t going to happen any time soon. So why should Schiavo be kept indefinitely as she is just so you can argue ‘If you are going to kill her, then kill her the right way?’
The Los Angeles Times has an article on the same neurosurgeon
The article starts off:
So the good doctor apparently reached this conclusion as soon as he “stepped into Terri Shiavo’s hospice room.” I’ve just got to think that must have colored his subsequent examination.
I wonder if “at some level” could mean at the level within the capabilities of someone in a persistant vegetative state?
For the record, again from the LA Times article:
I was referencing the hell that I believe she’s going through right now while she’s being starved to death. I don’t believe that she has been suffering the last 15 years. If, as you say, the cerebral cortex is the be all end all of human function and she’s incapable of feeling pain, then why are you guys so hip to put her out of the misery you claim she’s clearly not suffering? You can’t have it both ways. If she can’t suffer pain then what’s the urgency? If she can feel pain you’re torturing her.
We can hash this out elsewhere if you like, but I think that the starve her to death advocates are pretty chickenshit in that they say that it’s anything but killing her in the most heinous way possible. That’s my point. If this is what it takes to get some movement on this issue, than hell yes I think some hay should be made out of this.
Urgency? Urgency? Jesus H. Keerist, this has been going on for 15 fucking years. And you have just come into it all puffed up about URGENCY?
The plain fact is that the evidence shows that she didn’t want to be kept going under these conditions. And I think from that it would be a fair inference that she wouldn’t want to be used as your foil. Is that so hard to understand?
Airman No one, no one is advocating starving this woman as the PERFERRED means of ending her life. It is the ONLY means. This country, due to the influence of religion, has made "assisted suicide or “mercy killing” taboo. That’s the REAL problem here. We have two choices, either keep her alive;which is against her wishes or let her go and the only legal way to do that is not assist her in any way and that means not feeding her.
It sucks, no argument from me. However you do your position a disservice, by claiming that she suffering when she CANNOT be suffering…her cerebral cortex is mostly liquid.
If one of these experts were in Ms. Schiavo’s position, they wouldn’t be able to tell us anything as they would be unconscious, and NEVER wake up again. That’s a fact. How do we know? Terry Schiavo is still unconscious after 15 years. Terry Schiavo’s cerebral cortex doesn’t produce any electrical engery, it is dead. A dead cerebral cortex means no sensation. No thought. No awareness. Your request to provide more that a ‘guess’ would be a one way trip and not provide the proof you seek.
Think about this logically, please.
Does an expert have to have a spinal cord injury to understand the effect of such an injury on another person? Does an expert have to cut an artery to predict how long it’ll take for a person to bled out? Every day you take risks based on the best guesses of strangers, who themselves may have never experienced whatever it is, you’re taking their advice for.
If you want the next Terri Schiavo to have a quick death, tell your government to change the rules, but don’t blame ‘us’ for abiding by the rules that are already in place.
Ms. Schiavo feels nothing. She is unaware of her death as the part of her brain that would tell her of her discomfort is dead. Is it a lousy way to go? Sure, but asking for real world “proof” that is impossible to provide, is a poor excuse to say she’s suffering.
I don’t think there are any “starve her to death advocates” in this case. What, you think everyone here that thinks she should be allowed to die is chanting
KILL, KILL, KILL
while they are composing replies to this thread?
Couple of points:
- In all likelyhood she did not want to be kept alive in this state.
- Michael, the person who was more intimate with her than anyone else and is her next of kin, has been fighting for many years to have the life support withdrawn in honor of her feelings (see point 1).
- Her parents, who care about her and think she should be kept alive indefinately, have fought for many years to keep her alive through whatever means necessary (in spite of points 1 and 2).
- 19-25 Judges (how many?) from the state of Florida and the US federal government have ruled that point 1 is likely true, point 2 is definatly true and that Michael should be able to honor her wishes and withdrawl support, and that while 3 is true (her parents care) their caring does not trump 1 and 2.
So now we have the legislative branch of the federal government rallying behind some (IMHO misguided) right to life christians trying to override a spouses befief on what is best and negate the likely wishes of an individual who can no longer express herself. It is none of their business.
I know you and Robin have been through some tough times that were similar to this. So I don’t know how you can be against letter her pass on. She is on morphine so her pain should be managed. Even if she were not medicated, it is unlikely that she can feel anything according to many doctors that have examined her. Regardless of what she feels, this was what she wanted.
My grandmother passed away a couple of years ago with in home hospice care. She, like Terri, “starved to death”. She did not want any morphine. She did not want any food or water. She just wanted to pass away and she did. With all her family around her. With dignity. I can’t even imagine what I would have done if the government had tried to get involved and keep her alive.
This whole Shiavo fiasco pisses me off more than anything the government has ever done. The precedents it sets are (to me) astounding and incredibly distrubing. That there is now a precedent for the government to intervene in my marriage at the behest of my parents is disturbing. That there is now a precedent for the government to try and override my wishes if I become incapable of communicating just because I didn’t write it down but instead only made my wishes clear to my spouse is disturbing. That there is now a precedent of the government trying to force medical treatment on someone who did not want it because they were incapable of saying no is disturbing.
And finally the fact that many Americans of the “conservative” (my ass) bent are behind these precedents is the most disturbing thing of all. Where did all the true conservatives go (that want the government out of our lives)?
That probably was Dr. Hammesfahr and the Nobel Prize issue was a misunderstanding and a misrepresentation.
From here we can get some background on his wonderful credentials.
So, his claimed connection to the Nobel Prize is based on a Florida Representative sending an unsolicited letter to the Nobel Prize Committee. That would be as effective as you suggesting that your friend’s home movie get an Academy Award.
Hammesfahr’s claim to be able to help Terri is not based on any medical examination. There are probably a number of faith healers who would be willing to claim that they could re-grow Ms. Schaivo’s atrophied brain and have her lead a normal life again, but I wouldn’t believe any of them either.
How many times would you like to see “one more examination?” Her parents are deluded enough that this could go on until they both die of old age, with a weekly “Oh, let’s try this.” Reputable doctors who have actually examined her have concluded over the past several years that she will not get better!
I would like to chime in here. I’ve dealt with dead people a little bit, but I’ve dealt with the visual manipulation of media a whole hell of a lot.
I have also worked as an aide in a nursing home for a year, where I helped with the basic maintenance and caring for PVS patients. I have also worked at a summer camp for mentally retarded adults. Mild to Profound. The threshold at camp for attendance was a minimum level of response and recognition. NOT interaction. That threshold is established by the facility where the camper lives.
Anywhoo. What Mrs. Schiavo’s body is doing is responding to random electrical stimulii coming from the brain stem. No, IANAD. However, I have SEEN BRAIN DEAD people. Their brain stem controls base function ( as has been exhaustively discussed in here already ).
k.f.l. is correct. I can videotape various events and edit them to compress time. I can juxtapose images to create an emotional response or to create an illusion. I have looked for a link but cannot find it, but- years ago, someone shot footage of an adult with a VERY neutral expression on their face. They then cut in just before that shot, a shot of
A) Someone crying
B) Someone laughing
C) An act of violence
D) An act of affection.
You show a clip of someone weeping then cut to a shot of a person’s neutral expression and the viewer fills in the vacuum. They percieve the neutral expression to be one of sadness and empathy, predicated by the previous shot. One builds by editing and manipulating.
Similarly, one can shoot footage of Mrs. Schiavo’s parents talking to her lovingly and saying, " Honey, here we are, we brought you flowers, don’t you love Irises? Sure you do dear" and then cut immediately to a shot that lasts perhaps 3-5 seconds, culled from hundreds of hours of images shot of the woman while her body was moved through random facial and body gestures.
Voila…she is “reacting” to her parents’ voice and the information they are imparting to her.
It is vaguely horrifying to me that anybody would stoop to such depths.
< Philosophical two cents> I understand a parent’s love, I have two kids. I would let them go in a heartbeat, were their minds and souls and spirits dead already. Why torture the biological machine that once housed my son? ( or daughter ). </philosophical two cents>
Cartooniverse
Thank you for the reference to the name I couldn’t remember, and the clarification.
At least you are a decent human being who actually sought out the information I was referencing.
There are too many others on this board that feel every Great Debate exists for the sole purpose of being a showcase for their superb debating techniques.
If Terri doesn’t feel or know anything — why doesn’t her husband just let her parents take her as they’ve suggested? That would make everyone happy — or would it?
There is a major difference between letting die because of a refusal of care and of euthanizing, even if they both lead to the same end.
Again, patients have the right to refuse care, even if it will lead to death. But doctors do not have a right to proscribe lethal doses of drugs to anyone. This leaves the authority in the correct place: it’s the doctor’s job to do anything to keep you alive, it’s your right to refuse his help. Changing this arrangement may or may not be prefferrable, but it’s hardly a minor change that we can justify with “ahhh it’s all the same damn thing!”
There is no particular urgency. But her right to due process and have her wishes followed has postponed for 15 years now. Her parents can postpone it indefinately if the argument whenever it comes time to remove life support is “hey, what’s the RUSH!”
Except Terri. She did not wish to be alive in this state.
Except her husband. He wants to honor his wifes wishes and let her pass on.
Everybody else though could be happy.
Considering that Terri’s parents think differently in regards to Terri’s wishes, and considering that Terri’s parents are suffering over this, and considering that Terri’s parents will assume responsibility for their child — and considering Terri’s husband’s position that Terri is physically and mentally unaware –---- what’s the harm? Unless, of course, you take the position that Terri’s husband’s position, as you’ve expressed it above, is unfallible – sort of like the Pope’s -
This was said over in the Pit thread…
“I know Grandma’s will said we should give $10,000 to charity, but she’s dead, she won’t know…let’s take a vacation.”
“I know Grandpa wanted to be buried with a Catholic Mass in a Catholic cemetary, but he’s dead, I don’t believe in that.”
We respect even the wishes of the dead in disposal of their remains and their property.
Oh, and Terri’s parent’s haven’t taken responsibility for her. Her medical bills are being covered by a charity.
Again- that position is disputed. So what’s the harm?
Unfortunately, I don’t have a cite, but I KNOW I’ve read it somewhere. I’ll see if I can’t find it.