Page 1 of 1

Schiavos husband was correct

Posted: Wed Jun 15, 2005 5:48 pm
by Mister Bushice
she was a tomato
Schiavo Autopsy Shows Massive Brain Damage

By MITCH STACY, Associated Press Writer 1 hour, 14 minutes ago

LARGO, Fla. - An autopsy on
Terri Schiavo backed her husband's contention that she was in a persistent vegetative state, finding that she had massive and irreversible brain damage and was blind, the medical examiner's office said Wednesday. It also found no evidence that she was strangled or otherwise abused.
ADVERTISEMENT

But what caused her collapse 15 years earlier remained a mystery. The autopsy and post-mortem investigation found no proof that she had an eating disorder, as was suspected at the time, Pinellas-Pasco Medical Examiner Jon Thogmartin said.

Autopsy results on the 41-year-old brain-damaged woman were made public Wednesday, more than two months after her death March 31 ended a right-to-die battle between her husband and parents that engulfed the courts, Congress and the White House and divided the country.

She died from dehydration, Thogmartin said. He said she did not appear to have suffered a heart attack and there was no evidence that she was given harmful drugs or other substances prior to her death.

He said that after her feeding tube was removed, she would not have been able to eat or drink if she had been given food by mouth, as her parents' requested.

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

He also said she was blind, because the "vision centers of her brain were dead," and that her brain was about half of its expected size when she died 13 days following the feeding tube's removal.

Michael Schiavo said his wife never would have wanted to be kept alive in what court-appointed doctors concluded was a persistent vegetative state with no hope of recovery. The Schindlers, however, doubted she had any such end-of-life wishes and disputed that she was in a vegetative state.

The medical examiner's conclusions countered a videotape released by the Schindlers of Terri Schiavo in her hospice bed. The video showed Schiavo appearing to turn toward her mother's voice and smile, moaning and laughing. Her head moved up and down and she seemed to follow the progress of a brightly colored Mickey Mouse balloon.

They believed her condition could improve with therapy.

However, doctors said her reactions were automatic responses and not evidence of thought or consciousness, and Thogmartin's report went farther.

"The brain weighed 615 grams, roughly half of the expected weight of a human brain," he said. "This damage was irreversible, and no amount of therapy or treatment would have regenerated the massive loss of neurons."

Thogmartin said the autopsy report was based on 274 external and internal body images, and an exhaustive review of Terri Schiavo's medical records, police reports and social services agency records.

He said hospital records of her 1990 collapse showed she had a diminished potassium level in her blood. But he said that did not prove she had an eating disorder, because the emergency treatment she received at the time could have affected the potassium level.

Testimony in a 1992 civil trial indicated that she probably was suffering from an eating disorder that led to a severe chemical imbalance.

Over the years, the Schindlers had sought independent investigation of their daughter's condition and what caused it. Abuse complaints to state social workers were ruled unfounded and the Pinellas state attorney's office did not turn up evidence of abuse.

Calls seeking comments Wednesday from the Schindlers and Michael Schiavo's attorney, George Felos, were not immediately returned.

Speaking before the report was issued, Felos, said the Schindlers continue to engage in a "smear campaign against Michael to deflect the real issues in the case, which were Terri's wishes and her medical condition."

During the seven-year legal battle, federal and state courts repeatedly rejected extraordinary attempts at intervention by Florida lawmakers, Gov. Jeb Bush, Congress and
President Bush on behalf of her parents.

Supporters of the Schindlers harshly criticized the courts. Many religious groups, including the Roman Catholic Church, said the removal of sustenance violated fundamental religious tenets.

About 40 judges in six courts were involved in the case at one point or another. Six times, the
U.S. Supreme Court refused to intervene. As Schiavo's life ebbed away following the final removal of her feeding tube, Congress rushed through a bill to allow the federal courts to take up the case, and President Bush signed it March 21, but federal courts refused to step in.

Posted: Wed Jun 15, 2005 5:50 pm
by DrDetroit
So?

Posted: Wed Jun 15, 2005 5:52 pm
by Hapday
Are you happier they killed her now?

Posted: Wed Jun 15, 2005 5:53 pm
by Mister Bushice
No, justified that his and her rights were properly upheld.

Posted: Wed Jun 15, 2005 5:55 pm
by Hapday
Mister Bushice wrote:No, justified that his and her rights were properly upheld.
Really? Was a document found, that Terry signed, that expressed her wishes? Can you highlight that in the story? I missed it.

Posted: Wed Jun 15, 2005 5:56 pm
by Variable
I'm just happy that all of the psychos (other than the conspiracy theorists) will now shut the fuck up about the "she's gonna be normal any day now" crap.

Since I'm sure this will rapidly deteriorate into a "you had no right to pull the tube", "she has a right do die" thread, go ahead and mark me down for "she has a right to die."

Posted: Wed Jun 15, 2005 6:01 pm
by DrDetroit
A "right" to die??

Again, this word, "right," is tossed around too lightly.

Yes, she had a "right" to die if she chose to. However, it was highly questionable whether she wanted to die. And the State was wrong to place that decision in the hands of a person who interest conflicted with her own.

Posted: Wed Jun 15, 2005 6:04 pm
by See You Next Wednesday
The courts found sufficient proof that she would have wanted to die in that situation. Nuff said.

Posted: Wed Jun 15, 2005 6:06 pm
by DrDetroit
And that's the problem with our society. We've abandoned the founding father's intent that the protection of life, liberty, and happiness being in the hands of the People (i.e., Congress) and have permitted it to be taken away by the Courts.

I guess if the Courts tell us something is right, it must be so... :roll:

Posted: Wed Jun 15, 2005 6:07 pm
by Hapday
See You Next Wednesday wrote:The courts found sufficient proof that she would have wanted to die in that situation. Nuff said.
The courts also found Jacko innocent, and let Blake and OJ walk. Nuff said.

Posted: Wed Jun 15, 2005 6:12 pm
by Variable
That isn't the issue. The issue was whether or not she had expressed her desire to exercise that right.
True, I think she had expressed that, if even in conversation.

I also can't think why any sentient being can look at what she had become and would want to live like that. I know I wouldn't.

Posted: Wed Jun 15, 2005 6:15 pm
by Mikey
I believe that, in the absense of a written document, the husband has the right to make that decision.

Posted: Wed Jun 15, 2005 6:20 pm
by DrDetroit
Mikey's just endeared himself with the feminists...who, curiously, were silent on this very point during this episode.

Mikey, from where does this "right" emanate?

Posted: Wed Jun 15, 2005 6:44 pm
by BSmack
DrDetroit wrote:Mikey's just endeared himself with the feminists...who, curiously, were silent on this very point during this episode.

Mikey, from where does this "right" emanate?
About 1000 years of common law.

Next?

Posted: Wed Jun 15, 2005 6:55 pm
by Mikey
DrDetroit wrote:Mikey's just endeared himself with the feminists...who, curiously, were silent on this very point during this episode.

Mikey, from where does this "right" emanate?
Why the feminists? It works the other way too, dolt.

Posted: Wed Jun 15, 2005 7:08 pm
by Mister Bushice
He's trolling Mikey. Let it go.
Marital rights are still legally recognized by the courts and have been for centuries.

Posted: Wed Jun 15, 2005 7:30 pm
by DrDetroit
Regardless of the severity of brain damage, it seems to me the moral principle still abides:

1. No human life should be contingent as to whether or not another person gives it credibility or not.

2. If a family member wants to terminate a human life where the human in question is not able to speak for him or herself, and another family member wants to sustain that life, defer to the family member that wants to keep the human in question alive.

3. A fortiori should this be the case where the family member wanting to keep the human in question alive is willing to care for that human in question. (in this case, the parents)

4. It remains true, no matter how many different circumstances one raises, the only direct cause of Schiavo's death was government action, i.e., a court order. ...

Posted: Wed Jun 15, 2005 7:46 pm
by Mister Bushice
DrDetroit wrote:Regardless of the severity of brain damage, it seems to me the moral principle still abides:

1. No human life should be contingent as to whether or not another person gives it credibility or not.
That's not relevant to this event. Her "Life" was contingent upon a feeding tube being inserted into her stomach. If she was actually some sort of conscious human (which she was not), she could have perhaps verbalized her choice, but since that was not possible, the one who was primarily responsible for her - Her husband - does it.
2. If a family member wants to terminate a human life where the human in question is not able to speak for him or herself, and another family member wants to sustain that life, defer to the family member that wants to keep the human in question alive.
They have no rights regarding that. She wasn't married to them.
3. A fortiori should this be the case where the family member wanting to keep the human in question alive is willing to care for that human in question. (in this case, the parents)
And the living spouse stated that under her persistent vegetative state from which there was no possibility of return, she had told him otherwise.
4. It remains true, no matter how many different circumstances one raises, the only direct cause of Schiavo's death was government action, i.e., a court order. ...
The government had no real right to be involved in the first place. It was only because the parents chose to oppose the rights of the spouse that this all happened.

Posted: Wed Jun 15, 2005 7:52 pm
by DrDetroit
That's not relevant to this event. Her "Life" was contingent upon a feeding tube being inserted into her stomach. If she was actually some sort of conscious human (which she was not), she could have perhaps verbalized her choice, but since that was not possible, the one who was primarily responsible for her - Her husband - does it.
Miss the point, much? In fact, you've just proven the statement correct.
They have no rights regarding that. She wasn't married to them.
Miss the point, again? The larger point is to defer to life. Her husband had already moved on in life getting remarried and having kids with that person. He should have deferred to "life" rather than a maniacal desire to kill her.
And the living spouse stated that under her persistent vegetative state from which there was no possibility of return, she had told him otherwise.


That's a mighty big presumption. There was no evidence that she ever said anything about not living under certain conditions. And her husband never articulated whether she had specifically cited the precise conditions under which she would not desire to live. In fact, it would be quite impossible to express such a desire given the multitude of conditions that could exist.
The government had no real right to be involved in the first place. It was only because the parents chose to oppose the rights of the spouse that this all happened.
Miss the point, again??

She died by court order. And in this type of instance the State should not be ordering death whereas on the other hand the State makes all types of accomodations for convicted felons...

Posted: Wed Jun 15, 2005 9:12 pm
by mothster
nice to hear that (per radio) the parents are still in denial, disputing the autopsy.........

Posted: Thu Jun 16, 2005 1:25 am
by At Large
I'm just waiting for the apology from Sean Hannity since he basically accused Michael Schiavo every night for weeks of directly causing Terri's condition in the first place. If I was him, I'd be suing for slander.

Posted: Thu Jun 16, 2005 4:13 am
by Cicero
Thank God. She didnt need to be kept alive.

Posted: Thu Jun 16, 2005 5:42 am
by Mister Bushice
I think "Thank Michael" is closer to the truth. God* bailed out on her long ago.


*used theoretically, and for allegorical purposes only.

Posted: Thu Jun 16, 2005 2:45 pm
by mothster
Hapday wrote:
See You Next Wednesday wrote:The courts found sufficient proof that she would have wanted to die in that situation. Nuff said.
The courts also found Jacko innocent, and let Blake and OJ walk. Nuff said.
but they nailed martha

Posted: Thu Jun 16, 2005 2:53 pm
by MuchoBulls
Michael Schiavo is indeed a scumbag, but he is the one who knew what Terri's wishes were, even if he is believable or not. He has to live with this the rest of his life.

As much as Jeb tried to circumvent the law, Michael Schiavo had the ultimate right to have the feeding tube removed.

Posted: Thu Jun 16, 2005 5:46 pm
by mothster
mothster wrote:nice to hear that (per radio) the parents are still in denial, disputing the autopsy.........
An autopsy that found Terri Schiavo suffered from severe and irreversible brain-damage has done nothing to sway her parents' position that she deserved to live and may have gotten better with therapy.

The long-awaited report Wednesday found Schiavo's brain had shrunk to about half the normal size for a woman her age when she died March 31 after her feeding tube was disconnected. (Full story)

The autopsy also determined she was blind.

Bob and Mary Schindler disputed the results, insisting their daughter interacted with them and tried to speak. Their attorney said the family plans to discuss the autopsy with other medical experts and may take some unspecified legal action.

"We knew all along that Terri was profoundly brain damaged," said Schiavo's brother, Bobby Schindler. "We simply wanted to bring her home and care for her. It all goes back to this quality of life."

The findings vindicated Schiavo's husband in his long and vitriolic battle with his in-laws that engulfed the courts, Congress and the White House and divided the country. Michael Schiavo and court-appointed doctors have said she had no hope of recovery. She died at age 41.

The autopsy also found no evidence that Terri Schiavo was strangled or otherwise abused before her sudden 1990 collapse -- countering allegations by the Schindlers that she was abused by her husband.

Yet medical examiners could not say for certain what caused the collapse, long thought to have been brought on by an eating disorder.

George Felos, attorney for Michael Schiavo, said the findings back up their contentions made "for years and years" that Terri Schiavo had no hope of recovery. He said Michael Schiavo plans to release autopsy photographs of her shrunken brain.

"Mr. Schiavo has received so much criticism throughout this case that I'm certain there's a part of him that was pleased to hear these results and the hard science behind them," Felos said.

The Schindlers fought their son-in-law in court over their daughter's fate for nearly seven years, battling to the end with conservatives at their side.

The autopsy counters a widely seen videotape the Schindlers released of Schiavo in her hospice bed. Schiavo appeared to turn toward her mother's voice and smile. She moaned and laughed. Her head moved up and down and she seemed to follow the progress of a brightly colored Mickey Mouse balloon.

Her parents said that showed she was aware of her surroundings, but doctors said Schiavo's reactions were automatic responses and not evidence of thought or consciousness.

"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 neurological portion of the autopsy.

Cause of death was dehydration from removal of the feeding tube, but the underlying reason for her brain damage was officially listed as "undetermined."

The autopsy included 274 external and internal body images and an exhaustive review of Schiavo's medical records, police reports and social services agency records.

Pinellas-Pasco Medical Examiner Dr. Jon Thogmartin said the autopsy produced no conclusion on what triggered the temporary heart stoppage that caused her collapse and brain damage. He said there was no evidence of drug use, though he cautioned that Schiavo was not tested in 1990 for every conceivable substance that could have been in her blood.

He said there was no proof she suffered from an eating disorder such as bulimia, which can disrupt the body chemistry with lethal effect. The main piece of evidence cited for an eating disorder -- the low levels of potassium in her blood in 1990 -- could have been caused by the emergency treatment she received at the time, Thogmartin said.

While she had lost more than 100 pounds since high school, Schiavo never confessed to an eating disorder, she did not take diet pills and no one had witnessed her purging food, the medical examiner said.

He discounted the possibility that she had overdosed on caffeine from drinking large amounts of tea in an effort to keep her weight down.

In addition, the autopsy found no traces of morphine in her system at her death, although she had been given two doses in the days before she died. The Schindlers had contended that morphine might have been used to speed their daughter's death.

In Washington, White House spokesman Scott McClellan said the autopsy did nothing to change President Bush's position that Schiavo's feeding tube should not have been disconnected. He had signed a bill, rushed through by Congress in March, that was a last-ditch effort to restore her feeding tube.

Experts said that the autopsy demonstrates how difficult it is for people to recover from severe brain damage.

"People should understand that sometimes, for known or unknown reasons, individuals sustain massive brain injury that for which healing is not possible," said Dr. Karen Weidenheim, the chief of neuropathology at Montefiore Medical Center in New York. "Everything that could have been done was done for this lady for 15 years, and this case is very tragic."