No. I don’t practice an organized religion.
But you sure display the intolerant immature attitude of a brainwashed liberal arts education.
No, they did not test her adequately.
A very simple swallow test could have been performed which would have settled the nutrition withdrawl fracas once and for all.
It was not performed.
Nor was a PET scan done.
Hey wonderwrench, if you’d like to take a break from the the old give and go, how about answering** Holmes’ ** post just a few ticks up the page?
Here’s a hint, wonderwench:
Belief systems have shit-all to do with this. We’re talking facts, evidence and one woman’s witnessed desire to not be kept alive if there was no hope for recovery. The only people dragging belief systems into this is the side that thinks they know best for everyone.
That would be your side, btw…
Swallow? Have you read ANYTHING about this case? She couldn’t swallow! She no longer had the reflex to swallow. It was a good chance that she would choke on solid food through aspiration.
None at all, even faith has evidence that it originated from somewhere, your opinions in this matter were originally pulled out of your ass, or the asses of people with an agenda that would make the baby Jesus cry.
Lets see what a bishop in the area had to say:
http://www.virtueonline.org/portal/modules/news/article.php?storyid=2296
So, in your opinion is he attacking belief systems here? Or could be that you thinking that I did an “attack on belief systems which do not support the secular view” is also an opinion that it is full of shit?
HEAR YE! HEAR YE!
ONE AND ALL!
Be advised that the Trollop and Taven Drab Known As Wonderwench
is hereby granted the Title of…
Rude Person Of The Month Of April
Year of Our Og 2005
In The Name Of The Almighty **Cecil**!
Yours In **Cecil**,
**Bosda Di'Chi Of Tricor**
Commissioner of Yams for the SDMBLike shooting fish in a barrell:
wonderwench,
Do you have any cites that backup any of your claims (The web site run by Terri’s parents doesn’t count, obviously)?
I believe that the right thing was done in the end, but if you can produce any credible cites to back you up, I would like to look at them and see if I was wrong. Can you say the same thing?
wonderwench, why are you refusing to familiarize yourself with the facts of the case before forming an opinion? There are doctors and lawyers here willing to give you just the facts, not their opinions, and there are numerous cites, case studies, and court proceedings you could study independently in order to understand the case.
Yet you persist in willful ignorance. Why? Wouldn’t your opinion be better supported by the facts if you understood them? Are you afraid if you learned the true facts, you would lose faith in your own opinion? Surely that wouldn’t be the case. So why not learn the truth?
Bullshit. Three separate swallowing tests were performed in 1990, 1991 and 1992. Here is the fucking court record (warning: pdf). The parents asked a fourth test purely as a stalling tactic and the judge (rightly) told them to get fucked.
Nor was it necessary. The CT and the flat EEG are enough. PET scans would not have given them any more information than they already had.
I don’t practice an organized religion, either, but you must have missed that memo they sent around assuring us that we should still practice organized intelligence.
Can you produce a site for any of your claims? Test results to refute the PVS? A video is not a test result. I know some folks out there still talk about what a cool movie Weekend at Bernie’s was, but most of us are just not that gullible.
wonderwench
bolding mine.
http://hps.org/publicinformation/ate/q1265.html
Terri’s “organ” her Cerebral Cortex was no more. The PET wouldn’t have shown anything, because there was nothing left to show. The CT scan was the best treatment for her injury.
Terri was given swallowing tests in 1990, 1991, 1992 and annually until 1997 when they stopped due to the high risk of aspiration. They stopped because they realized she wouldn’t get any better…after 7 years of trying. All this information is in the actual court documents…you know the ones linked to in this and the GD threads.
Is it just me, or does that whole thread remind you of the dead parrot sketch?
SDMB: Terri’s in a persistent vegatative state. She’s not comin’ back.
Wonderwench: No no, she’s just restin!
SDMB: What?!?! She’s for all intents and purposes dead!
Wonderwench: No, no she’s ah…probably pining for the fjords.
SDMB: She’s not pinin’! She’s passed on! This girl is no more! She has ceased to be! She’s expired and gone to meet her maker! She’s a stiff! Bereft of life, she
rests in peace! Her metabolic processes are now history! She’s kicked the
bucket, she’s shuffled off her mortal coil, run down the curtain and joined the bleedin’ choir invisibile!! THIS IS AN EX-TERRI!!
I know, I’m going to hell.
[on preview – sorry all, but this turned out to be a long one]
I haven’t contributed to any of the numerous SDMB threads about this very sad case before now, but I have read most of them. I’ve read the court transcripts (which have been linked to repeatedly in this and other threads), and I’ve listened to a lot of the news coverage, though I missed all the TV and cable stuff through not subscribing to cable and not getting decent reception of any broadcast channel without it.
My initial emotional reaction to the plight of Terry Schiavo, her husband, and her parents was one of horror and sympathy. I heard that Mrs. Schiavo was in a persistent vegetative state, had been for the past 15 years, that her cerebral cortex was destroyed and that there was no hope of her recovery. I heard about Mr. Shiavo’s relationship with another woman and the fact that the two of them have had children together. I heard that he wanted to starve Mrs. Schiavo to death and that her parents wanted to take over responsibility for her care and keep her alive. I felt that it was reasonable, in light of the fact that Mr. Schiavo had moved on with his life, to give responsibility for Mrs. Schiavo’s care to her parents. I felt revulsion at the idea of withholding food and water from a helpless person, even if that person would not experience pain or discomfort as a result. I felt sympathy and compassion for the Schindlers’ refusal to give up hope for a miracle recovery despite the odds. I felt that it couldn’t matter particularly to Michael Schiavo if Terry died, but that it mattered enormously to the Schindlers that she live. I couldn’t understand why Mr. Shiavo would not accede to their requests and turn over decision-making authority to her parents, divorce Mrs. Shiavo and marry the mother of his children.
Gradually, it dawned on me that I was not taking Mrs. Shiavo’s own wishes into account. I learned some more – that it wasn’t Mr. Schiavo who had made the decision to remove the feeding tube; that it was a guardian ad litem who made that recommendation to a judge, and the judge made the decision; that that decision had been affirmed and reaffirmed by every court that heard the case; that multiple witnesses testified that Mrs. Schaivo had expressed a wish not to be kept alive should she ever end up in such a condition. I became convinced that Mr. Schiavo was doing his best to represent Mrs. Schiavo’s interests and stated wishes (at no small cost to himself), and that the Schindlers were (understandably) acting out of their own overwhelming desire to keep their daughter alive and with them at all costs.
The case was terribly tragic, and I pity the Schiavos, the Schindlers and every other friend and relative of Terry’s. All the credible evidence that I have seen demonstrates, however, that Mrs. Schiavo would not have wished her life to be sustained via feeding tube in her condition. And that, I believe, is the only just determining factor in deciding whether to continue or withdraw life support.
There are matters of fact in the Schiavo case, and there are matters of opinion and belief. As many here have said, it is possible to respect a diversity of beliefs and opinion and tenaciously hold and defend your own, in the midst of that diversity. It is possible for a person’s opinions and beliefs to change or be changed. It is also not shameful or hypocritical or indicative of any type of hostility to freedom of speech to vociferously decry a belief or opinion that differs drastically from your own.
(Examples of matters of opinion/belief:
- an individual has the right to refuse medical treatment
- all human life is inherently valuable and it is morally imperative that it be preserved
- a surgically inserted feeding tube is a form of life support
- a surgically inserted feeding tube is no different than spoon-feeding a baby
Some of these matters of opinion/belief have been “settled” via legislation, but simply because a thing is legally so does not prevent an individual from holding a contrary opinion and believing that the law is wrong.)
What it is impossible for people of integrity to countenance is willful disregard for or distortion of the facts as they know them. Where two parties are engaged in an honest factual dispute, it is incumbent upon both of them to provide evidence backing up their claims and fairly assess all the evidence presented. wonderwench, this is what you are failing or refusing to do and what many of the people disputing your factual claims are doing easily and willingly.
(Examples of factual claims that require evidence in order to rebut:
- Michael Schiavo did not make the decision to remove his wife’s feeding tube
- Mrs. Schiavo received excellent care during the long course of her incapacitation
- Mrs. Schiavo’s cerebral cortex was almost completely atrophied
- Mrs. Schiavo repeatedly stated that she would not wish to be sustained on life support)
By supporting a position that would force Terri to endure years of PVS against her will, you have demonstrated that living death is your one and only goal, superseding any and all of Terri’s human rights.
So long as all individuals accept your morality.
And when you are appointed to the bench, that will have any relevance in determining when the wishes of PVS patients should be carried out.
For yourself and yourself alone. Not for me, not for anyone posting here, and especially not for Terri Schiavo, whose right to discontinue medical intervention have consistently been upheld by the courts. You have a right to your beliefs, but you have no right to deny the same rights to others, especially when those rights have been upheld by due process.
Got it in one. And the reason Aholibah’s fine post will likely do no good.
Well, let’s not be hasty. 
Tee hee.
–Cliffy
A bedside swallowing evaluation rarely gives one more useful information than simply putting food in someone’s mouth and seeing if she can swallow it.
It would not have mattered one iota what the swallowing evaluation showed; the fact is that Terri was unconscious, and unconscious people cannot be fed regularly by mouth, because the danger of aspiration is too high. She would still have required the feeding tube, and if she has a PEG tube anyway, there is no reason at all to feed her by mouth and take the chance.
PVS is a clinical diagnosis; a PET scan would not have supported or refuted it. There was nothing to refute; she clearly met the definition of a PVS. What diagnosis do you think might have been supported by a PET scan?
But on the up side, you get priority seating and a backstage pass.
The Heathens of the SDMB will have their own section with an eternal Dopefest with scotch eggs galore.
It will be the soiree of the afterlife.