Schiavo autopsy:

[carrrnuttt]

This is for all the fucking meddlers out there, that would presume to know more than her husband, and the doctors that attempted to treat her, and advised the husband: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8225637/

It's also for those that would presume that the judges that upheld her feeding-tube removal, were shooting from the hip, and not studying the evidence from the doctors.

The parents were also claiming that she was the way she was, due to the abuse of the husband.

Who's the jackass now?

P.S.
Apparently, the parents aren't done yet, according to the article. I would love to give all of them swift kicks in the rear, at this point.

[-GS-]

Now this whole Terri Schiavo case can be put to rest. Everyone knows the right decision was made, and had it turned out differently, damn there would have been hell to pay for all the people that wanted the tube removed.

Just one question, did they ever find out if she had said she didnt want to live as a "vegetable"?

[Rally Sport]

Who cares? I saw this on the news about 2 hours ago. I really dont care anymore because she's dead, what happend, happend because it did, it's over the parents need to move on.

[superbluecivicsi]

uhoh. now you get to see my last paper before graduation. its only a rough draft.

On February 25, 1990, Terri Schiavo suffers a heart attack which leaves her with severe brain damage. Taken to the Humuna Northside Hospital, doctors give her a percutaneous endoscopes gastronomy (PEG) to supply life sustaining nutrition and hydration. After a court appointment of Michael Schiavo (Shiavo’s husband) as her legal guardian and with no objection from the Schindlers (Shiavo’s parents), a disagreement between Schiavo’s parents and husband on the course of therapy for her rehabilitation arises. Schiavo’s husband wants to remove the life sustaining PEG feeding tube while her parents oppose, saying they want to keep Schiavo alive. From this disagreement, the battle for the life of Terri Schiavo begins. It was a battle that took place in the courtrooms and hearts of many Americans. It was a battle that put the majority of the American public to support pro-choice issues. It was a battle that turned judges into bad guy scapegoats, and failed to show that, “we the people,” were responsible for her death.
“Terri Schiavo is a woman who stirred America’s conscious on how far the government can intervene in people’s personal life and the decisions they make,” says Jonathan Huang in an interview at Disneyland’s Grand Californian Hotel. Huang is an attorney in the State of New York. He begun his legal career as a Public Defender in the county of Oneida in the State of New York. He then moved on to practice with a private law firm in civil litigation. He is experienced with medical malpractice and toxic tort litigation. Huang is now privately practicing law on his own. Huang first heard about the Schiavo story back in 2003. It wasn’t long before his interest was consumed into the Schiavo case, just like many other people who have heard about it.
When Huang first heard the story, what caught his attention was how the government and political figures in Florida was so entrenched in the issue. “I first heard this story from a friend back in the Fall of 2003. What really caught my attention was that the Florida State legislature passed “Terri’s Law,” which gave Gov. Jeb Bush the power to overturn a courts decision, specifically targeted towards saving Schiavo’s life. It’s not everyday that you see a legislative and executive branch of power working together to help one individual.”
There were hundreds of cases like Schiavo that never received the level of publicity as she did. Huang describes it best with his statement, “Other cases similar to Schiavo’s case never received much attention. It’s only newsworthy if the media gets their hands on it.” Not a night would go by where updates on the Terri Schiavo case would flash across our television screens. It was the media that drove the legal movements and groundwork in the Schiavo case. Without the media, Congress would have never passed a special act requiring federal courts to intervene. Without the media creating a circus-like atmosphere, we would of never written to our congressmen to do something about Schiavo. As one news commentator put it, “ It was the crime of the century (Miller, 2005).”
Schiavo’s case demonstrated the far reaching powers of the courts and government. In March of 2000, the courts granted Michael Shiavo’s petition to limit visitation to Mrs. Schiavo. In granting the petition, the courts also granted Michael Shiavo’s request to bar pictures from Ms. Schiavo’s room. The granting of Michaels’s petition raises many questions. Is it within the court’s power to bar pictures from the room of Terri Schiavo? Is it in the court’s power to formally deny pictures from anyone? They are only pictures. What harm can pictures do? The American Constitution was framed around the idea that government should stay out of the personal lives of it’s citizens. Though it was Michael Schiavo and not the government who initially requested that pictures be barred from Schiavo’s room, the question still arises, “ Is it ok for government to intrude into this area of our privacy?”
Though it was Michael Schiavo who requested the courts to intervene deep into his personal life and the way he lives, its implications are applicable to the average American citizen. This case demonstrated the power of a judge’s ability to decide whether or not Schiavo wanted to die. It was a judge who decided that her last wishes if in the case if she became a vegetable, was to die. It was not Schiavo’s husband or her parents that had the final word in expressing her assumed wishes. The fight for Terri Schiavo showed how vulnerable we are from outside interference.
Currently there are 35 states that criminalize assisted suicide. 9 states criminalize assisted suicide through common law. Only 3 states do not have assisted suicide laws. Ohio’s State Supreme Court has ruled that assisted suicide is not illegal. Virginia only has civil sanctions that are imposed onto individuals who assist in suicide. Oregon is the only state that has legalized assisted suicide (http://www.euthanasia.com/bystate.html). If someone wanted to commit assisted suicide, it would be easier just to move to a state that didn’t make assisted suicide illegal. With all the inconsistency of laws used by different states, what about the people who are serving prison sentences for committing assisted suicide? Are they unjustly imprisoned? If Michael Schiavo can do it, why couldn’t they?
Though many states have assisted suicide laws, these states that use these laws still allow exceptional cases of assisted suicide to be legal, such as individuals who are in a vegetative state. The definition of being in a vegetative state combined with the definition of suicide to form the action of assisted suicide are inconsistent. Florida’s definition of a vegetative state is:
“a permanent and irreversible condition of unconsciousness in which there is (a) The absence of voluntary action of any kind. (b) an inability to communicate or interact purposefully with the environment.”
In order to qualify as being in a vegetative state, the person must not have any voluntary action and not be able to communicate. The definition of suicide is:
“a person who intentionally kills himself/herself.”
Comparing the two definitions, suicide is a voluntary action to die. If assisted suicide in a vegetative state is supposed to be a form of suicide, then, where is the voluntary decision if the person who is a vegetable can’t communicate the decision to die? If a person cannot make a voluntary decision to die, because, they don’t have the ability to communicate, then, is this an assisted suicide? Shouldn't this be called assisted murder instead? Should we keep pulling vegetative persons off their life support if we can’t even correctly label the action of killing someone in the name of humanity?
With all these inconsistencies in the law concerning assisted suicide, someone would think that the US Supreme Court would step in and set a national standard on this issue. Instead, when the issue was brought up to the US Supreme Court in March of 2005, by a petition from the Schindlers, it was rejected. As Huang put it, “Not since Roe v. Wade (1973) had an issue become so conservative vs. liberal.” Though, the issue brought up before the US Supreme Court was not based on the same concepts of Roe v. Wade (1973), the ideas of pro-life vs. pro-choice was still there.
The issue of pro-life vs. pro-choice in the Schiavo case can be supported by two great conflicting studies. Jecker and Schneiderman (1995) believed that treating patients who have no chance of recovery is a futile cause. Harper’s study (1998) is the complete opposite of Jecker and Schneiderman’s (1995) findings. Harper’s study (1998) showed that providing treatment to unrecoverable patients is not a futile cause. Even though, Harper’s study is very convincing, the court’s decision to allow Michael Schiavo to pull his wife’s feeding tube clearly places the court in the pro-choice position. A position that is no different than Roe v. Wade (1973), and a position that reflects the majority opinion of the American public years ago.
“Schiavo’s case represented the governments position concerning assisted suicide. The government’s opinion and position on anything is always important.” says Huang. Michael Schiavo fought to have her feeding tube pulled. The Schindlers fought to keep Ms. Schiavo alive. From trying to take custody away from Michael Schiavo to petitioning to the US Supreme Court to have their case heard, the Schindlers efforts proved to be a futile attempt. After exhausting all legal means to keep her alive, the courts still held that Ms. Schiavo’s feeding tube be pulled. The court’s showed that they sided and supported Schiavo’s death. They supported her death, because, the law permitted them to.
Throughout the whole ordeal of Schiavo’s parents twelve year fight for her through numerous court litigation, petitions, fighting for custody, and appeals, traveling throughout the entire federal and state court systems of America, their attempts to save her life failed. Despite the public outrage at the horror of an innocent woman being starved to death, despite the desperate pathetic pleas of her parents, despite even a special act of Congress requiring the federal courts to intervene, those courts let stand an order that Terri Schiavo die. Though, Terri Schiavo’s death was tragic, her legal rights were never violated. The argument that Schiavo’s rights were ignored and violated does not hold true. The courts followed precisely in their decision that none of Terri Schiavo’s rights under the laws and Constitution of The United States were violated. Though, her death may still seem unjust to many Americans, it is not because the courts decided her death was not unconstitutional, it was because, the laws of Florida allowed the death to occur. It is within these laws that allow us to decide the death of our loved ones when they are in a persistive vegetative state (Miller, 1995). We built our society that allows the law to give the strong and healthy the power to determine the fate of the weak. We made these laws in the belief that some lives are not worth living. We were brought to believe that compassion can be shown through death. The death of Terri Schiavo didn’t occur because a bunch of judges decided not to help her. The death of Terri Schiavo occurred because, “we the people,” decided that the law of assisted suicide for people in a vegetative state was legal.

[kcg795]

I didn't know Terri Schiavo was a singer!!!!

http://www.americaoffline.org/mp3/schiavosings.mp3

[fredjacksonsan]

The parents, as Carrrnuttt said, need a swift kick in the pants, which is apparently where their half-sized brains are.

For crying out loud, the woman is gone. Medical evidence shows she was in fact mentally dead, and therefore not the person she was before the heart attack.

[YogsVR4]

It took them long enough to do the right thing and let the feeding tube be removed. It also took long enough to get the autopsy done to verify that she was little more then a vegitable.

[pnoiSR20]

Get over it. I mean, she is gone. This is just a waste of time.

[carrrnuttt]

Originally Posted by pnoiSR20

Get over it. I mean, she is gone. This is just a waste of time.

Go tell her parents, and the "religious leaders" still supporting them.

[Rally Sport]

Also it's kinda weird because a couple of days later after she died this fireman who was a vegitable for 10 or so years then outta nowhere woke up asking "I wanna see my wife". So who knows what would've happend, but the thing is that she's dead people, GET HER OFF THE NEWS!

[carrrnuttt]

Originally Posted by Rally Sport 92

Also it's kinda weird because a couple of days later after she died this fireman who was a vegitable for 10 or so years then outta nowhere woke up asking "I wanna see my wife".

Really?

Was he in a coma, or in a non-responsive, apathetic state, or did he actually have 2/3rds the size of his actual brain left, with spinal fluid filling in the blanks?

If it's similar to what Terry had, please show me a link, as I need to print it out to show to the doctors at the practice where my wife works as a nurse.

That's a nice excuse for the meddling: "Who knows? There was this guy..."

Doctors do NOT fuck around with these kind of things. There are these things called MRIs, and CT-scans, that allow you to see what is in a person's brain, and what's functioning or not.

You are right, she shouldn't be on the news anymore. SHE SHOULDN'T HAVE BEEN ON THE NEWS IN THE FIRST PLACE.

She became national news, because her parents could not accept what the doctors were saying for literally a decade. She became national news because meddling religious fanatics wanted airplay. She became national news because some politicians saw an angle with her story. She became national news because people can't leave other people's fucking lives alone, and hypocritically judge other people by what their "religious leader" goes by.

[-GS-]

Originally Posted by carrrnuttt

Really?

Was he in a coma, or in a non-responsive, apathetic state, or did he actually have 2/3rds the size of his actual brain left, with spinal fluid filling in the blanks?

If it's similar to what Terry had, please show me a link, as I need to print it out to show to the doctors at the practice where my wife works as a nurse.

That's a nice excuse for the meddling: "Who knows? There was this guy..."

Doctors do NOT fuck around with these kind of things. There are these things called MRIs, and CT-scans, that allow you to see what is in a person's brain, and what's functioning or not.

You are right, she shouldn't be on the news anymore. SHE SHOULDN'T HAVE BEEN ON THE NEWS IN THE FIRST PLACE.

She became national news, because her parents could not accept what the doctors were saying for literally a decade. She became national news because meddling religious fanatics wanted airplay. She became national news because some politicians saw an angle with her story. She became national news because people can't leave other people's fucking lives alone, and hypocritically judge other people by what their "religious leader" goes by.

Very nicely put man

[Rally Sport]

It was the same thing that Terry had, I dont have the link because it was a while ago, sorry.

[carrrnuttt]

Originally Posted by Rally Sport 92

It was the same thing that Terry had, I dont have the link because it was a while ago, sorry.

Wow.

What a HUGE miracle!

Did he actually LOSE 1/3rd of his brain mass, and have the rest pressured with spinal fluid, and he actually "woke up" from this?

Let me help you out: http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories...MPLATE=DEFAULT

Here's another, with mentions of other cases:

BUFFALO, N.Y. (AP) -- A brain-injured firefighter who started speaking after almost a decade of near-total silence has had moments of clarity but nothing as dramatic as that first long conversation Saturday, his wife said Wednesday.

But she and his doctor remain hopeful. Don Herbert's startling improvment came three months after his medication was changed.

Herbert, who will turn 44 Saturday, went without oxygen for several minutes after being trapped under a collapsed roof while fighting a house fire in December 1995. He spent 2 1/2 months in a coma, was blind and had little, if any, memory.

But last Saturday, he suddenly asked for his wife, Linda. And over the next 14-16 hours, until he fell into a 30-hour sleep early Sunday, he talked with her, his four sons and other family and friends, catching up on what he'd missed.


Ahmed was hopeful for Herbert's future.

"He may fluctuate with the time, but the way he improved and woke up, we are hoping he will progress," he said.

"He was almost like in the persistent vegetative coma state, and suddenly this thing happened," the doctor said. Where have we heard that before???


In 2003, an Arkansas man, Terry Wallis, returned to consciousness 19 years after he was injured in a car accident, stunning his mother by saying "Mom" and then asking for a Pepsi. His brain function has remained limited, his family said months later.

Tennessee police officer Gary Dockery, who was brain damaged in a 1988 shooting, began speaking to his family one day in 1996, telling jokes and recounting annual winter camping trips. But after 18 hours, he never repeated the unbridled conversation of that day, though he remained more alert than he had been. He died the following year of a blood clot on his lung.

Those people were brain injured. Terry's brain degenerated. Her brain LIQUIFIED for even now, unknown reasons.

Not exactly a recovery from THE SAME "THING" Terry had, is it?

[Knifeblade]

Well, yeah sometimes those "miracles" happen, but the evidence was conclusive. I with carrnut on this one.

At risk of beating the story further, the one thing that stayed in my mind about this [let's presume hubby's promise wasn't made], is why didn't hubby just say okay, then I am divorcing her [which he could have] and you parents get to deal with everything, including the finances and burden and stress now. Laters.

But it all hinged on this promise he continues to state he made to wife, and the parents are idiots for not letting him fulfill his promise to his wife.