"I am not a vegetable!" -- Terri Schiavo

[Rouser2]

In his current commentary, James Randi wrote:

"Terri Schiavo died long ago, if living involves being conscious — which requires a cerebral cortex; she had none. Her reactions to light, movement, and sound, were attributable to simple reflexive brain stem and forebrain functions, not to cognitive processes. According to neurologists, such reflexive activities are neither conscious nor signs of awareness. Without cognition, there is no awareness."

Randi, like so many others, has failed to do any real homework in this case, and simply relied on the pronouncments of all of the pro-death partisans, including Judge Greer and the pro-death neurologists he appointed as advisors in the case. Fact is, Terri could see, hear, laugh, cry, speak several words, and if allowed, consume nutrition orally. Several sworn statements are in the record of nurses who actually cared for her that she defintely was a living, concious person. According to one nurse, one of her most common utterances were the words "Help me!". It is as though she was crying out to all those who wanted to end her existence, "I am not a Vegetable -- I am a human being!"

[Darat]

Any supporting evidence for your views or have you just, like so many others, failed to do any real homework in this case, and simply relied on the pronouncments of all of the pro-life partisans?

[steenkh]

I have understood that the court was shown an hours-long video sequence of mrs. Schiavo, but this also failed to convince the court, despite the 10-second clips shown in the medias that had all the "misses" cut out so that it looked as if she actually reacted to people.

How do the "pro-life" activists explain that she can think without most of her brain tissue?

[Blondin]

It's too bad she never made a living will so there would be no doubt about her husband's claim that she didn't wish to be kept alive artificially. Perhaps she is saying "help me", but does she mean "help me live"?

[headscratcher4]

Originally posted by Rouser2
In his current commentary, James Randi wrote:

"Terri Schiavo died long ago, if living involves being conscious — which requires a cerebral cortex; she had none. Her reactions to light, movement, and sound, were attributable to simple reflexive brain stem and forebrain functions, not to cognitive processes. According to neurologists, such reflexive activities are neither conscious nor signs of awareness. Without cognition, there is no awareness."

Randi, like so many others, has failed to do any real homework in this case, and simply relied on the pronouncments of all of the pro-death partisans, including Judge Greer and the pro-death neurologists he appointed as advisors in the case. Fact is, Terri could see, hear, laugh, cry, speak several words, and if allowed, consume nutrition orally. Several sworn statements are in the record of nurses who actually cared for her that she defintely was a living, concious person. According to one nurse, one of her most common utterances were the words "Help me!". It is as though she was crying out to all those who wanted to end her existence, "I am not a Vegetable -- I am a human being!"

Yes... a vast conspiracy of life-hating judges and people...both the state courts (elected judges, I think) and Federal Courts (mostly appointed by Republicans) kept coming to the same conclusion here. So it must be a judicial conpiracy of satanists who have got themselves elected and appointed to do the evil thing...uphold the laws as they currently exist....they ignored all this chattering and pleading that Terri did -- its a wonder that Terri didn't demand to walk over to the court house and testify herself considering how lucid the urban legends have her...
:rolleyes:

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by Darat
Any supporting evidence for your views or have you just, like so many others, failed to do any real homework in this case, and simply relied on the pronouncments of all of the pro-life partisans?

Oh, I have supporting evidence -- unlike Judge Greer. What woudl you like to know?

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by steenkh
I have understood that the court was shown an hours-long video sequence of mrs. Schiavo, but this also failed to convince the court, despite the 10-second clips shown in the medias that had all the "misses" cut out so that it looked as if she actually reacted to people.

How do the "pro-life" activists explain that she can think without most of her brain tissue?

How do pro-death neurologists explain how 37% of so-called PVS cases are mis-diagnosed?

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by headscratcher4
Yes... a vast conspiracy of life-hating judges and people...both the state courts (elected judges, I think) and Federal Courts (mostly appointed by Republicans) kept coming to the same conclusion here. So it must be a judicial conpiracy of satanists who have got themselves elected and appointed to do the evil thing...uphold the laws as they currently exist....they ignored all this chattering and pleading that Terri did -- its a wonder that Terri didn't demand to walk over to the court house and testify herself considering how lucid the urban legends have her...
:rolleyes:

According to one of her nurses, she frequently cried "Help me". Does that sound like "starve me???" "dehydrate me???", "torture me???? "Kill me????"

[jj]

Originally posted by Rouser2
According to one of her nurses, she frequently cried "Help me". Does that sound like "starve me???" "dehydrate me???", "torture me???? "Kill me????"

Why are none of these events present in any recorded footage?

Can you please explain just how you can make this assertion. Please provide solid, testable, verifiable evidence or stop wasting our time.

You've claimed, previously, that we all would cheer when the poor woman's body finally died.

I see nobody cheering.

Can you explain your false accusation?

Does your religion require "thou shalt not lie"?

Yes or no?

Since the answer is "yes", please explain your lie in this regard.

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by jj [/i]

>> quote:Originally posted by Rouser2
According to one of her nurses, she frequently cried "Help me". Does that sound like "starve me???" "dehydrate me???", "torture me???? "Kill me????"
Why are none of these events present in any recorded footage?

Michael Schiavo has prohibited cameras,

>>Can you please explain just how you can make this assertion.


From the sworn affidavite of nurse Carla Sauer Iyer:

"Terri's medical condition was systematically distorted and
misrepresented by Michael. When I worked with her, she was alert
and oriented. Terri spoke on a regular basis while in my presence,
saying such things as "mommy," and "help me." "Help me" was, in
fact, one of her most frequent utterances. I heard her say it hundreds
of times. Terri would try to say the word "pain" when she was in
discomfort, but it came out more like "pay." She didn't say the "n"
sound very well. During her menses she would indicate her discomfort
by saying "pay" and moving her arms toward her lower abdominal
area. Other ways that she would indicate that she was in pain included
pursing her lips, grimacing, thrashing in bed, curling her toes or
moving her legs around. She would let you know when she had a
bowel movement by flipping up the covers and pulling on her diaper
and scooted in bed on her bottom.

When I came into her room and said "Hi, Terri", she would always
recognize my voice and her name, and would turn her head all the way
toward me, saying "Haaaiiiii" sort of, as she did. I recognized this as a
"hi", which is very close to what it sounded like, the whole sound being only a second or two long. When I told her humrous stories
about my life or something I read in the paper, Terri would chuckle,
sometimes more a giggle or laugh. She would move her whole body,
upper and lower. Her legs would sometimes be off the bed, and need
to be repositioned. I made numerous entries into the nursing notes in
her chart, stating verbatim what she said and her various behaviors, but
by my next on-duty shift, the notes would be deleted from her chart.
Every time I made a positive entry about any responsiveness of Terri's,
someone would remove it after my shift ended. Michael always
demanded to see her chart as soon as he arrived, and would take it in
her room with him. I documented Terri's rehab potential well,
writing whole pages about Terri's responsiveness, but they would
always be deleted by the next time I saw her chart. The reason I wrote
so much was that everybody else seemed to be afraid to make positive
entries for fear of their jobs, but I felt very strongly that a nurses job
was to accurately record everything we see and hear that bears on a
patients condition and their family. I upheld the Nurses Practice Act,
and if it cost me my job, I was willing to accept that."

http://www.terrisfight.org/documents/CIyerAffidavit090203.htm

[ReFLeX]

Originally posted by Rouser2
Originally posted by jj [/i] Michael Schiavo has prohibited cameras,

Then how can it be that I have seen her, if I haven't even been following the case?

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by ReFLeX
Then how can it be that I have seen her, if I haven't even been following the case?


The videos you have seen are several years old. Once Michael got his million from the mal-practice lawsuit, where he promised the jury he would care for Terri till the end and use the money for rehab, he then got Terri into the hospice (without a doctors' required signature approval), promptly stopped all rehab treatment, closed all blinds on the windows (no sun), stopped all the music, radio, and TV, banned all cameras, and then proceded to wait for Terri to die, meanwhile using the lawsuit money (with the Court's approval) to pay his high-priced pro-death lawyers to try to get the courts to order her demise. Obviously, he finally succeeded.

[BillyJoe]

Terri Schiavo's brain scan:

http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/j/msnbc/Components/Photos/050329/Terri_CTscan.hmedium.jpg



A normal brain scan

http://www.acofp.org/member_publications/images/0604/0604_1_b.jpg



A neurologist explains her CT scan here (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7328639/)

Well it shows extremely severe atrophy. Where those black areas are, that should be white. That should be cerebral cortex, and so really there is no cerebral cortex left. It's just a shrinkage of the cerebral cortex. It's a thin band of white on the outside and any neurologist or any radiologist looking at those CT scans will tell you that her atrophy could not be more severe than it is. So even if she were mentally conscious, which she's not, she's irreversible. She's been like this for 15 years, Dan, and that CT scan shows the most extreme severe atrophy of the higher centers of the brain.

BJ

[Darat]

Originally posted by Rouser2
Oh, I have supporting evidence -- unlike Judge Greer. What woudl you like to know?

For a start - how many judges in total passed judgement on this matter?

[davidsmith73]

The journal Nature has this to say:

"In the case of Schiavo, whose brain was temporarily starved of oxygen 15 years ago, medical opinion seems clear. Neurologists say that she is in a persistent vegetative state and is unable to respond to instructions. Her chances of recovery are close to zero.

But when the prognosis is less certain, research may be able to help. Some severely brain-damaged patients are described as being in a minimally conscious state. These patients are occasionally able to respond to commands and are thought to have a slightly better chance of some recovery."



a state of ignorance (http://www.nature.com/cgi-taf/DynaPage.taf?file=/nature/journal/v434/n7033/full/434545b_fs.html)

[headscratcher4]

Both of these may be of interest to people who have followed the case...especially the second site which is a legal analysis of the various court proceedings, what they were asekd to look at, what they decided and the reasons the courts gave for those decisions.

This first one is commentary...so you can take it our leave it:

http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2005/3/23/204359/812


This next site is an overall legal analysis of the actions in the case in Florida and the determinations. Well worth reading if you want some understanding of why the decision came down the way it did.

http://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/infopage.html

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by Darat
For a start - how many judges in total passed judgement on this matter?

For a start, as to the underlying facts, one, and only one. All of the rest was simply a review of the "process."

[Darat]

Originally posted by Rouser2
For a start, as to the underlying facts, one, and only one. All of the rest was simply a review of the "process."

So only one judge has passed judgement on this matter?

[Rouser2]

]Originally posted by BillyJoe [/i]

Quoting Dr.Robert Cranford on the Dan Abrams show:

>>Well it shows extremely severe atrophy. Where those black areas are, that should be white. That should be cerebral cortex, and so really there is no cerebral cortex left. It's just a shrinkage of the cerebral cortex. It's a thin band of white on the outside and any neurologist or any radiologist looking at those CT scans will tell you that her atrophy could not be more severe than it is. So even if she were mentally conscious, which she's not, she's irreversible. She's been like this for 15 years, Dan, and that CT scan shows the most extreme severe atrophy of the higher centers of the brain.

Dr.Robert Cranford was specially picked by Michael Schiavo to perform an "evaluation." The "expert witness" is supposed to be objective, but Cranford is a well known right to die advocate who contends that Alzhemier patients should be similarly put to death -- that patients in such a state are no better than animals, and should have no constitutional rights. Cranford examined Terri for just 45 minutes. The CT scan is a 2-dimensional image. Most neurologists say an MRI or PET scan is necessary to make an accurate diagnosis of PVS. Morover, PVS is mis-diagnosed in over 37 percent of the cases, which fall into the category of "Locked-In Syndrome" where a patient is aware, but cannot move or communicate. Some patients do reccover from this state and have reported cognition in that state. Dr. Cranford makes no mention of this possilbility. Moreover, persons in PVS state do not carry on conversations with their nurses.

Theere are other prominent neurolgists who do not share Dr.Cranford's view:

Dr. Cheshire of trhe Mayo Clinic:

“There remain huge uncertainties in regard to Terri's true neurological status. I believe that, within a reasonable degree of medical certainty there is a great likelihood that Terri is in a minimally conscious state rather than a persistent vegetative state.�

Finally,, how do we really know that CT scan is that of Terri's brain? We thought we had x-rays and autopsy photos of JFK's brain, only to be informed by the Assassinations Records Review Board that those imaages are probably fake -- and belong to someone else's brain. The legal system has performed an under-color-of-law execution of a partailly diabled person -- a watershed in Ameircan history. Who then is next?

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by Darat
So only one judge has passed judgement on this matter?

Passed judgement as to the "facts"? Yes one and only one. If Terri had been a serial killer, she would have gotten a much fairer shake with the system. Heck, she could have gotten a pardon.

[Darat]

Originally posted by Rouser2
Passed judgement as to the "facts"? Yes one and only one. If Terri had been a serial killer, she would have gotten a much fairer shake with the system. Heck, she could have gotten a pardon.

Ok, so why do people claim so many other judges have been involved?

(Let me put my cards on the table, I suspect from reading other posts of yours on other matters, you are wrong about this case however I am willing to be shown that you are correct.)

[headscratcher4]

That, of course, is completely wrong. Appeals courts rarely IN ANY CIRCUMSTANCE take a second look at the factual determination. Unless the appeal is based on some allegation that the process was abused or so much in error that the lower court could not make a legally adequate factual determination. In any event, appeals courts don't make factual determinations. They review the process, claims about fairness and proceedure, and if the process or proceedure was abused to the point that a fair hearing of the facts was denied by the trial court, the appeals court sends it back for re-trial. The lower court judge was always the only judge int he FLorida courts who was going to hear the facts.

Blame the Shindler's if your not happy with the result, their idiot lawyer was unable to persuade any state courts reviewing the case that the process had been wrong or abused, or that the judged failed to consider all of the facts, etc.


Appeals courts and State Supreme Courts don't try facts on appeal. Period. End of Story.

The Federal Courts determinations -- all of the federal court determinations were based on answering the question of whether there was jurisdiction or whether there was an abuse of civil rights that denied Mrs. Schiavo her rights...not a one said that her rights had not been fully taken into conderation or protected by counsel able to introduce facts, cross examine witnesses, provide expert testimony, etc.

The review of a serial killers trial, would, if anything, have been even more limited. Court proceedure and denile of civil rights, likely would be the only basis of a appeal. Trial courts are given huge defference in criminal cases. In any event, even in a criminal proceedure (WHICH THIS WAS NOT), the appeals courts would not be trying facts, or even reviewing "facts." Any questions would be sent back to the originating court for a retrial.

[SezMe]

This is not the first thread in which Rouser2 simply repeats endlessly his "facts" and refuses to recognize any evidence contrary to his preconceived notions. It is a waste of electrons to keep him fed.

[headscratcher4]

Rough timeline (from the site I posted above) describing court actions in the Schiavo case through March 23.

May 1998… Michael files petition for court to determine whether Terri's feeding tube should be removed; Michael takes position that Terri would choose to remove the tube; Terri's parents take position that Terri would choose not to remove the tube
February 2000… Following trial, Judge Greer rules that clear and convincing evidence shows Terri would choose not to receive life-prolonging medical care under her current circumstances (i.e., that she would choose to have the tube removed) [READ]
March 2000… Judge Greer denies petition for more swallowing tests, finds it uncontested Terri cannot swallow sufficiently to live [READ]
April 2000… Terri is transferred to a Hospice facility
January 2001… Second District Court of Appeal affirms the trial court's decision regarding Terri's wishes [READ]
April 23, 2001… Florida Supreme Court denies review of the Second District's decision [READ]
April 23 or 24, 2001… Trial court orders feeding tube removed
April 24, 2001… Terri's feeding tube is removed for the first time
April 26, 2001… Terri's parents file motion asserting they have new evidence regarding Terri's wishes
April 26, 2001… Trial court denies Terri's parents' motion as untimely
April 26, 2001… Terri's parents file new legal action against Michael Schiavo and request that the removal of Terri's feeding tube be enjoined; the case is randomly assigned to Judge Quesada
April 26, 2001… Judge Quesada grants the temporary injunction, orders Terri's feeding tube restored
July 2001… Second District rules that Judge Greer erred in denying the motion alleging new evidence and, in essence, orders the trial court to consider whether new circumstances make enforcement of the original order inequitable; Second District also reverses the temporary injunction and orders dismissal of much of the new action filed before Judge Quesada [READ]
(uncertain)… Terri's parents detail their reasons why enforcement is inequitable: (1) new witnesses have new information regarding Terri's wishes, and (2) new medical treatment could sufficiently restore Terri's cognitive functioning such that Terri would decide that, under those circumstances, she would continue life-prolonging measures; Terri's parents also move to disqualify Judge Greer
(uncertain)… Trial court denies both motions as insufficient
October 2001… Second District affirms the denial of the motion to disqualify and the motion regarding the new witnesses; the appellate court reverses the order with regard to potential new medical treatments and orders a trial on that question with doctors testifying for both sides and a court-appointed independent doctor [READ]
March 2002… Florida Supreme Court denies review of the Second District's decision [READ]
October 2002… Judge Greer holds a trial on the new medical treatment issue, hearing from doctors for both sides and a court-appointed independent doctor; Terri's parents also assert that Terri is not in a persistent vegetative state
Schindlers file emergency motion for relief from judgment based on a 1991 bone scan report indicating Terri's body had previously been subjected to trauma
November 22, 2002… Following trial, Judge Greer denies Schindlers' motion for relief (new medical evidence motion), rules that no new treatment offers sufficient promise of improving Terri's cognitive functioning and that Terri is, in fact, in a persistent vegetative state [READ]
November 22, 2002… On this same day, Judge Greer denies Schindlers' emergency motion related to the 1991 bone scan [READ]
June 2003… Second District affirms the trial court's decision denying Schindlers' motion for relief from judgment [READ]
August 22, 2003… Florida Supreme Court denies review of the Second District's decision [READ]
August 30, 2003… Terri's parents file federal action challenging Florida's laws on life-prolonging procedures as unconstitutional
September 17, 2003… Judge Greer denies Schindlers' motion to provide additional therapy, finding it an effort to retry the issues that were previously tried [READ]
October 10, 2003… Federal court dismisses Schindlers' case
October 15, 2003… Terri's feeding tube is removed for the second time
October 20, 2003… Florida House passes a bill to permit the Governor to issue a stay in cases like Terri's and restore her feeding tube
October 21, 2003… Federal court rejects injunction request
October 21, 2003… Florida House and Senate pass a bill known informally as "Terri's Law" to permit the Governor to issue a stay in cases like Terri's and restore her feeding tube [READ]; Governor signs the bill into law and immediately orders a stay; Terri is briefly hospitalized while her feeding tube is restored
October 21, 2003… Michael brings suit against the Governor, asking to enjoin the Governor's stay on grounds "Terri's Law" is unconstitutional; Judge Baird rejects Michael's request for an immediate injunction, allowing the tube to be restored, and requests briefs on the constitutional arguments involving the new law
November 7, 2003… Judge Baird rejects Governor's motion to dismiss Michael's suit and have case litigated in Tallahassee
November 20, 2003… Judge Baird rejects Governor's request for the judge to recuse himself
December 1, 2003… Guardian ad litem appointed under "Terri's Law" to advise Governor submits report to Governor [READ]
December 10, 2003… Second District rejects Governor's effort to have Judge Baird disqualified
April 2004… Second District affirms Judge Baird's decision denying Governor's motion to dismiss and have case litigated in Tallahassee [READ]
May 2004… Judge Baird declares "Terri's Law" unconstitutional on numerous grounds [READ]
June 2004… Second District certifies "Terri's Law" case directly to the Florida Supreme Court
July 2004… Schindlers file new motion for relief from judgment based on Pope John Paul II speech
September 2004… Florida Supreme Court affirms Judge Baird's ruling that "Terri's Law" is unconstitutional [READ]
October 2004… Judge Greer denies Schindlers' most recent motion for relief from judgment (motion based on Pope John Paul II speech) [READ]
December 1, 2004… Governor asks U.S. Supreme Court to review Florida Supreme Court's decision declaring "Terri's Law" unconstitutional
December 29, 2004… Second District affirms (without written opinion) Judge Greer's ruling denying Schindlers' most recent motion for relief from judgment
January 6, 2005… Schindlers file new motion for relief from judgment, alleging Terri never had her own attorney, that the trial court impermissibly applied the law retroactively, and that the original trial on Terri's wishes violated separation of powers principles
January 24, 2005… U.S. Supreme Court declines review in "Terri's Law" case

February 11, 2005… Judge Greer denies Schindlers' latest motion for relief from judgment (motion raising various due process challenges) [READ]
February 23, 2005… Florida's Department of Children and Families asks to intervene and for 60-day stay to permit investigation of alleged abuse [READ]
February 23, 2005… Schindlers file motion requesting new tests to determine Terri's status [READ]
February 25, 2005… Judge Greer rules motions appear endless, he will grant no further stays; sets March 18 date for removal of feeding tube [READ]
February 28, 2005… Schindlers file motion requesting that Terri be fed orally [READ]
March 2, 2005… Schindlers file new motion for relief from judgment, arguing factual error in original judgment [READ]
March 8, 2005… Judge Greer denies Schindlers' motion to feed Terri orally [READ]
March 9, 2005… Judge Greer denies Schindlers' motion requesting new tests [READ]
March 9, 2005… Judge Greer denies Schindlers' most recent motion for relief from judgment (motion based on factual error) [READ]
March 10, 2005… Judge Greer denies Department of Children and Families request to intervene and for stay, finds agency is free to investigate [READ]
March 16, 2005… Second District affirms Judge Greer's denial of Schindlers' motion raising various due process challenges, emphasizes law has been followed in this case [READ]
March 18, 2005… Schindlers file new federal action arguing due process violations in original trial; case assigned to Judge Moody [READ]
March 18, 2005… Judge Moody denies new federal claim, citing lack of jurisdiction [READ]
March 18, 2005… Congressional committee issues subpoenas for Michael, Terri, and Terri's caregivers to appear at hearing to be held at the hospice where Terri has stayed [READ]
March 18, 2005… Congressional committee files motion to intervene and modify order requiring the removal of Terri's feeding tube
March 18, 2005… Judge Greer denies congressional committee motion, ruling no grounds exist for intervention
March 18, 2005… Congressional committee requests Florida Supreme Court and Second District stay the feeding tube's removal [READ]
March 18, 2005… Terri's feeding tube removed for the third time
March 18, 2005… Florida Supreme Court denies congressional committee request, citing lack of jurisdiction [READ]
March 18, 2005… Second District denies congressional committee request as without merit
March 21, 2005… Congress enacts Terri's Law II, authorizing Terri's parents to seek federal court review of whether Terri's federal rights have been protected [READ]
March 21, 2005… Schindlers file new action in federal court based on new law, claiming Terri's federal rights have been violated [READ]
March 22, 2005… Judge Whittemore denies Schindlers' request to have Terri's feeding tube reinserted, finding no substantial likelihood the Schindlers will succeed with their claims [READ]
March 23, 2005… In a 2-1 decision, Eleventh Circuit affirms Judge Whittemore's decision not to restore Terri's feeding tube [READ]

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by Darat [/i]

>>Ok, so why do people claim so many other judges have been involved?

Because they either don't understand the "system" or they don't want you to understand it. Like I said, no "facts" have ever been reviewed, only process. I refer you to headscratcher4's explanation which is correct, except when he talks about serial killers. Even serial killers could be pardoned. But not poor, helpless, vulnerable, innocent, partially disabled.

>>(Let me put my cards on the table, I suspect from reading other posts of yours on other matters, you are wrong about this case however I am willing to be shown that you are correct.)

Anyone can be "wrong" about an opinion in the opinion of someone else. Some people simply think that sick, disabled people should be put to death. Anyone has a right to their own opinion. But no one has a right to their own facts. And the fact is, this case smells as rotten as any I have ever seen.

[jj]

Originally posted by Rouser2
(more nonsensical paranoid ranting removed)
[/B]

Rouser2, you claimed that people here would cheer when Ms. Schiavo died. You have repeatedly failed to address the obviously incorrect nature of this claim, you have refused to show any evidence for your claim, and you have refused to even acknowledge this egregiously wrong accusation, let alone address it.

Please address your hideous mistake. I know full well that 'thou shalt not lie' is something that most religious people who profess the same religion as you believe in. Your failure to address this, regardless of its status as mistake or lie at the start, becomes a lie now, with your failure to acknowledge your egregious error and failure to admit same.

Please address this claim, which has risen to the status of an outright lie at this point.

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by jj
Rouser2, you claimed that people here would cheer when Ms. Schiavo died. You have repeatedly failed to address the obviously incorrect nature of this claim, you have refused to show any evidence for your claim, and you have refused to even acknowledge this egregiously wrong accusation, let alone address it.

Please address your hideous mistake. I know full well that 'thou shalt not lie' is something that most religious people who profess the same religion as you believe in. Your failure to address this, regardless of its status as mistake or lie at the start, becomes a lie now, with your failure to acknowledge your egregious error and failure to admit same.

Please address this claim, which has risen to the status of an outright lie at this point.

"People will cheer" is not a lie, it is a prediction, an opinion, a point of view. Get it? It is also a figure of speech, meaning, that there are people on this board -- many people, who will be happy when Terri is dead. And that is obviously the case. Get it now???

[Rouser2]

More on Dr.Robert Cranford, Terri's chief death-advocate neurologist. Cranford once diagnosed a patient as PVS who could pick out colored pegs or blocks as requested:

"Dr. Cranford seems to have a knack for finding PVS. Cranford also diagnosed Robert Wendland as PVS. He did so in spite of the fact that Wendland could pick up specifically colored pegs or blocks and hand them to a therapy assistant on request."

http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/johansen200503160848.asp

One has to wonder what kind of a society we have degenerated iinto when men such as Cranford can use their credential to influence a court ordered murder of an innocent, partially disabled person.

[SezMe]

Originally posted by Rouser2
*snip* partially disabled person.
Gotta hand it to you, Rouser2, you sure have a way with words. I doubt you would concede that a carrot is in a permanent vegatative state.

[Hawk one]

Originally posted by Rouser2
"People will cheer" is not a lie, it is a prediction, an opinion, a point of view. Get it? It is also a figure of speech, meaning, that there are people on this board -- many people, who will be happy when Terri is dead. And that is obviously the case. Get it now???

No, that is not obvious at all. I'm not happy that she is dead. I'm only relieved the farce around it generated by you and your likes will fade down for now. The difference is easy to spot. So your "prediction" has failed, but you are unwilling to admit this. Which basically turns it into a lie.

[jj]

Originally posted by Rouser2
"People will cheer" is not a lie, it is a prediction, an opinion, a point of view. Get it? It is also a figure of speech, meaning, that there are people on this board -- many people, who will be happy when Terri is dead. And that is obviously the case. Get it now???

YOu did not say that you PREDICT that others will cheer, you said that they factually, unquestionably would.

You have yet to show that a single person here is happy with what happened to Ms. Schiavo.

Please show your evidence. As there is none, apologize.

[sphenisc]

In his current commentary, James Randi wrote:

"Terri Schiavo died long ago, if living involves being conscious..."

Given this, I have been dying most nights and resurrecting the following morning since the day I was born. I am quite happy to repeat this miracle given a suitably comfy bed.


"...— which requires a cerebral cortex"

The brain of the reptile shows the first cerebral cortex of the vertebrates
http://io.uwinnipeg.ca/~simmons/1116/chordate.htm

This also means that all organisms which don't possess a cerebral cortex are ... dead.
All those frogs, fish, urochordates, protostomes, acoelomates, protists and monerans ... all dead, dead, dead. Has Randi just caused the greatest mass extinction ever seen? Will Richard Dawkins have to do a massive rewrite of 'The Ancestor's Tale'? I think we should be told!



[P.S. If my attempts at humour offend, I apologise in advance - I think the discussions on this topic have left me somewhat jaded]

[MRC_Hans]

In fact, you don't need a brain at all to be alive. For instance jellyfish are alive, but lack brains. So life without a brain is great ...


....if you want to be a jellyfish.


Hans

[BillyJoe]

Originally posted by Rouser2
There are other prominent neurolgists who do not share Dr.Cranford's view:

Dr. Cheshire of trhe Mayo Clinic:

“There remain huge uncertainties in regard to Terri's true neurological status. I believe that, within a reasonable degree of medical certainty there is a great likelihood that Terri is in a minimally conscious state rather than a persistent vegetative state.� If that is true, her situation was even worse than most of us thought. It would be BETTER that she was in a "persistent vegetative state" because, at least then, she would not be aware of her truely terrible situation. I would not wish even a "minimally conscious state" on a person in her situation.


But you didn't mention Dr Cranfords response to Dr.Cheshire's comment.

Here it is:

CRANFORD: "Well actually if you read his [Dr. Cheshire's] report, he says she has no visual tracking and she has no conscious awareness which are the cardinal signs of the vegetative state, so I don't think there's any doubt she's in a vegetative state. He never examined her.

He did an interview with her for 90 minutes, observing her. He never viewed her CT scans. He makes no mention of her EEG, so while he's a reputable neurologist, perhaps, at the Mayo Clinic, his report means absolutely nothing. It's a desperation, last minute move by the governor who just doesn't know what else to do, so he brings in a Christian fundamentalist neurologist. It's just not true. BillyJoe

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by BillyJoe [/i]

>>But you didn't mention Dr Cranfords response to Dr.Cheshire's comment.
Here it is:
quote:CRANFORD: "Well actually if you read his [Dr. Cheshire's] report, he says she has no visual tracking and she has no conscious awareness which are the cardinal signs of the vegetative state, so I don't think there's any doubt she's in a vegetative state. He never examined her.
He did an interview with her for 90 minutes, observing her. He never viewed her CT scans. He makes no mention of her EEG, so while he's a reputable neurologist, perhaps, at the Mayo Clinic, his report means absolutely nothing. It's a desperation, last minute move by the governor who just doesn't know what else to do, so he brings in a Christian fundamentalist neurologist. It's just not true.

And Dr.Cranford spent just 45 minutes with her, did not view any MRI's nor PET scans, which were not taken, and is a crusader for death to all disabled including Alzheimer victims.

"Dr. Cranford examined Terri on one occasion, for approximately 45 minutes. Another doctor for Michael Schiavo, Dr. Peter Bambikidis of the Cleveland Clinic Foundation in Ohio, examined Terri for about half an hour. When Dr. Bell learned of the cursory nature of these exams, he said: “You can’t do this. To make a diagnosis of PVS based on one examination is fallacious.� In Cranford’s examination, described by one witness as “brutal,� he discounted evidence under his own eyes of Terri’s responsiveness. At one point, Dr. Cranford struck Terri very hard on the forehead between her eyes. Terri recoiled and moaned, seemingly in pain. In his court testimony, Cranford dismissed the reaction and moan as a “reflex.�


"...In published articles, including a 1997 op-ed in the Minneapolis–St. Paul Star Tribune, he has advocated the starvation of Alzheimer’s patients. He has described PVS patients as indistinguishable from other forms of animal life. He has said that PVS patients and others with brain impairment lack personhood and should have no constitutional rights. Perusing the case literature and articles surrounding the “right to die� and PVS, one will see Dr. Cranford’s name surface again and again. In almost every case, he is the one claiming PVS, and advocating the cessation of nutrition and hydration. ..."

"In cases where other doctors don’t see it, Dr. Cranford seems to have a knack for finding PVS. Cranford also diagnosed Robert Wendland as PVS. He did so in spite of the fact that Wendland could pick up specifically colored pegs or blocks and hand them to a therapy assistant on request
...Some neurologists who also consult in legal cases were not surprised at the handling of Dr. Cranford’s expert testimony. In theory, they said, the expert witness is supposed to be objective, but, as Dr. Bell explained, “the way it really works is that an attorney carefully selects an expert that will give him the outcome he desires"


http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/johansen200503160848.asp

[ohms]

Originally posted by Rouser2
"...In published articles, including a 1997 op-ed in the Minneapolis–St. Paul Star Tribune, he has advocated the starvation of Alzheimer’s patients.

Not exactly, in that 1997 article he argues that feeding tubes not be used on those suffering end-stage demetia.

Link to article (http://www.startribune.com/stories/779/23033.html)

[headscratcher4]

Rouser insists for the purposes of confusing issues of mixing civil and criminal litigations.

Very different kinds of rights and process always applies to criminal vs. civil litigation

A serial murder's possibility of a pardon exists because the matter is a criminal matter.

In this case, A CIVIL case, Florida law (not, I suspect, written by culture of death leaning liberals, but Baptist good' ol boys) deemed that a. Mrs. Schiavo was incompetent and b. that in that situation her husband was the rightful, legal gaurdian of her rights and interests. This was/is consistent with most civil family law across the nation and hundreds of years of common-law regarding the priority of a spouse as gaurdian in a situation where the individual was judged incompetent. It is also, as has been pointed out, legislation that expresses a very old fashioned type of "family value" -- i.e., and again, that marriage endows spouses with more rights than other family to step in as gaurdian when a debilitating incapacity has occured.

In short, what Rouser wants to obscure is the fact that at heart, this isn't a "life" question, this is, and has always been, a question of her capacity and in the abscence of capacity who the CIVIL law endows with the power to act as her gaurdian. Following that, a determination was made regarding whether, in fact, Mr. Schiavo was acting in her best interest and carrying out her wishes as best could be determined in the abscense of a DNR or living will.

The actual, proper, analogy -- cold as it might be (as is the nature of CIVIL law) is to a dispute over a will not a CRIMINAL murder case.

In any event, in making his brave rhetorical (and legally obscuring and inaccurate) pronsouncements, Rouser may demonstrate a profound moral fiber and vision, but it is a vision that is at odds with hundreds of years of common-law and writen civil law. The fact is, this was no judicial conspiracy, the Judges -- ALL OF THEM -- were following the law, almost to the letter, not as "activists".

Now, you can change the civil law...you could even make it crimianl (though the state legislature would have to act to do so...or Congress) but the result was predictable. SO, while the law may be an A** (to quote Shakespear) from Rouser's POV, it is a completely understandable, and a-moral conclusion. Nothing in the decision smacks of having ignored evidence. But it is important to note, for example, that a critical distinction between criminal and civil law is that the evidenciary standard for CIVIL law are lower (usually a resonable man vs. beyond a resonable doubt for criminal). The courts all concluded that it was reasonable for the trial court to conclude BASED ON THE EVIDENCE BEFORE IT (evidence that was contested by both parties, represented by lawyers) that the husband was the guardian and that he was persuasive in convincing the court that Mrs. Schiavo had expressed the wish not to live in a vegitative state. Further, that the best medical evidence available (NOT AFTER THE FACT EVIDENCE THAT WAS NOT BEFORE THE COURT -- BECAUSE IT IS IRRELEVENT) to the court after hearing from multipul experts was that Ms. Schiavo was in a persistent vegitative state.

Now, Rouser might not buy that -- but, as is true in both Civil and Criminal law -- you can always find an "expert" who will pretty much say what you want. At some point, the courts have to weed through such evidence and make a determination (and courts, being human institutions, can make errors). The problem is that every competent authority (and I do not think Senators Frist, Rep. DeLay, Pres. and Gov. Bush are competent authorities) who reviewed the case said the trial court made a correct determination BASED ON CIVIL LAW (the only law it could apply to this situation).

Quit mixing apples and oranges. It is intelectually dishonet.

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by ohms
Not exactly, in that 1997 article he argues that feeding tubes not be used on those suffering end-stage demetia.

Link to article (http://www.startribune.com/stories/779/23033.html)

Noted. Pulling the tube on a dying person is one thing; pulling it on a young disabled, another. Nonetheless if you understand what he is saying, he is advocating pulling the plug (exterminating) first tens of thousands, then hundress of thousands, and by his own words, millions in the future.

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by headscratcher4 [/i]


>>Rouser insists for the purposes of confusing issues of mixing civil and criminal litigations.
Very different kinds of rights and process always applies to criminal vs. civil litigation

There is no confusion at all. Bottom line, it is much easier to exterminate an individual in a civil court, than it is in a criminal court. In a criminal trial, one person on a jury can stop the process. In a civil court like that of Judge Greer, there is a judge and jury of just one person who wields all power.

>>In short, what Rouser wants to obscure is the fact that at heart, this isn't a "life" question, this is, and has always been, a question of her capacity and in the abscence of capacity who the CIVIL law endows with the power to act as her gaurdian. Following that, a determination was made regarding whether, in fact, Mr. Schiavo was acting in her best interest and carrying out her wishes as best could be determined in the abscense >>of a DNR or living will.

We know all that.

>>In any event, in making his brave rhetorical (and legally obscuring and inaccurate) pronsouncements, Rouser may demonstrate a profound moral fiber and vision, but it is a vision that is at odds with hundreds of years of common-law and writen civil law. The fact is, this was no judicial conspiracy, the Judges -- ALL OF THEM -- were following the law, almost to the letter, not as "activists".

In that case, perhaps we owe an apology to all of the Judges convicted at Nuremburg. After all, all they were doing was following "the law."

>> Nothing in the decision smacks of having ignored evidence.

No, nothing. The learned judged even considered "inflectiions" and "pregnant pauses" in those who spoke in favor of Terri's expressed wish to live under such circumstances. And thus, scoffed and discarded their testimony.

>> But it is important to note, for example, that a critical distinction between criminal and civil law is that the evidenciary standard for CIVIL law are lower

You can say that again. My whole point.

>> The courts all concluded that it was reasonable for the trial court to conclude BASED ON THE EVIDENCE BEFORE IT (evidence that was contested by both parties, represented by lawyers) that the husband was the guardian and that he was persuasive in convincing the court that Mrs. Schiavo had expressed the wish not to live in a vegitative state. Further, that the best medical evidence available (NOT AFTER THE FACT EVIDENCE THAT WAS NOT BEFORE THE COURT -- BECAUSE IT IS IRRELEVENT) to the court after hearing from multipul experts was that Ms. Schiavo was in a persistent vegitative state.

Of course the "experts" were hand picked as noted Doctors of Death like Cranford to produce the desired outcome.

>>Now, Rouser might not buy that -- but, as is true in both Civil and Criminal law -- you can always find an "expert" who will pretty much say what you want. At some point, the courts have to weed through such evidence and make a determination (and courts, being human institutions, can make errors). The problem is that every competent authority (and I do not think Senators Frist, Rep. DeLay, Pres. and Gov. Bush are competent authorities) who reviewed the case said the trial court made a correct determination BASED ON CIVIL LAW (the only law it could apply to this situation).

Another noted attorney, a fella by the name of Ralph Nader points out that a principal error in the case was not applying principles of Equitable Law, questioning whether an estranged husband living with another woman for 12 years, with two children could really have the best interests of his "wife" at heart.

[jj]

Rouser,

Please address these lapses of veracity and accuracy as addressed in and near this post:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870847796#post1870847796

In which you assert first that people will cheer when Ms. Schiavo dies, and then later claim that your obvious accusation, obviously made in anger, is a "prediction", thereby compounding your initial lapse of veracity.

Given your demonstrated lapses, why should anyone put any value on any word you speak?

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by jj
Rouser,

Please address these lapses of veracity and accuracy as addressed in and near this post:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870847796#post1870847796

In which you assert first that people will cheer when Ms. Schiavo dies, and then later claim that your obvious accusation, obviously made in anger, is a "prediction", thereby compounding your initial lapse of veracity.

Given your demonstrated lapses, why should anyone put any value on any word you speak?

My goodness gracious. You seem so upset. Would you, personally have been happier had Terri not be exterminated??? Is this a change of heart????

[jj]

Originally posted by Rouser2
My goodness gracious. You seem so upset. Would you, personally have been happier had Terri not be exterminated??? Is this a change of heart????

It is typically dishonest of you to imply "change of heart" when you obvious have no idea what my position has ever been.

[BillyJoe]

Rousser,

First of all, let me say that I was not putting my point of view with my first two posts, but putting a view (that of Dr. Cranford) different to yours (and Dr. Cheshire) for comment. I have only recently heard of this case and knew very little about it till reading this thread and the links supplied.


However reading this (http://www.startribune.com/stories/779/23033.html) article (linked to above by ohms), does not put Dr. Cranford in a bad light from my point of view (but I've read very little else about him up till now so I can't comment about his other views)


In Europe, feeding tubes are rarely seen in nursing homes. Once a patient is so severely brain-damaged that only artificial nutrition can sustain life, many doctors and families rightly ask, "What's the point?" In many civilized countries, the question wouldn't be asked -- because placing a feeding tube in someone with end-stage dementia wouldn't even be considered.

But here in the United States, many caregivers wouldn't consider not placing a feeding tube in the same patients.

It's hard to understand why. If we want our loved ones to live and die in dignity, we ought to think twice before suspending them in the last stage of irreversible dementia. At it is, it seems that we're not thinking at all.
This is the situation in Australia as well.
Here we would not even consider placing a feeding tube in a patient with Alzheimer's disease. There would be no question about removing the feeding tube because no feeding tube would ever be put in in the first place.
I was not aware that this happens in America. If so, it is pure lunacy in my opinion.
It is sensible and moral to let nature take its course in these cases.
How could you not agree?

BillyJoe

[bouch]

Originally written by BillyJoe
This is the situation in Australia as well.
Here we would not even consider placing a feeding tube in a patient with Alzheimer's disease. There would be no question about removing the feeding tube because no feeding tube would ever be put in in the first place.
I was not aware that this happens in America. If so, it is pure lunacy in my opinion.
It is sensible and moral to let nature take its course in these cases.
How could you not agree?

I think you're comparing apples to oranges.

When she initially collapsed, they didn't know the extent of the damage, and they put her on the life support. Then the argument started about taking her off it once it was apparent that she wouldn't recover.

With an Alzheimer's patient, they KNOW its terminal, and its a lot easier decision to not insert the feeding tube.

BTW - My 100 year old Grandmother just died of cancer. The treatment her doctors perscribed was "keep her comfortable with these painkillers". She died in her own bed, in the house she lived in for 60+ years...

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by BillyJoe [/i]

>>This is the situation in Australia as well.
Here we would not even consider placing a feeding tube in a patient with Alzheimer's disease. There would be no question about removing the feeding tube because no feeding tube would ever be put in in the first place.
I was not aware that this happens in America. If so, it is pure lunacy in my opinion.
It is sensible and moral to let nature take its course in these cases.
How could you not agree?

BillyJoe

Why don't you ask that question of those who loved her? Her parents, brother, her sister??? Do you think they believe they were caring for a living corpse? Terrii was not terminally ill, and was a young age 41 when the court decided she had lived long enough. She was aware. She spoke a few words, and could respond with smiles to those around her who caressed her and gave her comfort. She responsed to music and to prayer. At one point her father reports she even tried to sing. The question in this particular case is really who should have been the guardian? An estranged husband who is suspected of causing her trauma in the first place, a man who used the rehab funds he promised to use for her care but instead used to hire high priced pro-death attorneys to argue for her demise??? Or should not the guardians rather have been the blood family who loves her? How could you not agree????

[BillyJoe]

bouch,

Originally posted by bouch
I think you're comparing apples to oranges. Hmmm....I simply made use of a quote from Dr. Cranford about the use of feeding tubes in Alzheimers patients and made a comment about that situation in Australia.

Originally posted by bouch
With an Alzheimer's patient, they KNOW its terminal, and its a lot easier decision to not insert the feeding tube. I am glad you agree. :)

Originally posted by bouch
BTW - My 100 year old Grandmother just died of cancer. The treatment her doctors perscribed was "keep her comfortable with these painkillers". She died in her own bed, in the house she lived in for 60+ years... That is a very happy story in the circumstances. :)

BillyJoe

[BillyJoe]

Rouser,

Originally posted by Rouser2
Why don't you ask that question of those who loved her? Her parents, brother, her sister??? Do you think they believe they were caring for a living corpse? As I said, in Australia the question does not even arise. Feeding tubes are not inserted into Alzheimer's patients. I guess, in a way, relatives are spared that decision. As for the patient, when they reach the stage where they are no longer able to eat, they are also no longer care. They are no longer even able to recognise their relatives.

Originally posted by Rouser2
Terrii was not terminally ill, and was a young age 41 when the court decided she had lived long enough. She was aware. She spoke a few words, and could respond with smiles to those around her who caressed her and gave her comfort. She responsed to music and to prayer. At one point her father reports she even tried to sing. The question in this particular case is really who should have been the guardian? An estranged husband who is suspected of causing her trauma in the first place, a man who used the rehab funds he promised to use for her care but instead used to hire high priced pro-death attorneys to argue for her demise??? Or should not the guardians rather have been the blood family who loves her? How could you not agree???? As I said I am not familiar with the case but I hope for her sake that she was in a PVS rather than in a MCS.

BillyJoe

[jj]

Originally posted by BillyJoe
As I said I am not familiar with the case but I hope for her sake that she was in a PVS rather than in a MCS.

BillyJoe

While we'll be more certain in a few days when the autopsy comes in, the CAT scan of the person's head showed quite clearly that she no longer had a cerebral cortex, let alone one that functioned.

Rouser2 has made a number of completely unsubstantiated claims in this case, including claims that no videos exist, even though everyone who watches US TV has seen such a video, claims that the person responded to speech, even though no evidence was ever captured, and so on.

[BillyJoe]

He has also hinted that the scan could be a fake.

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by BillyJoe
Rouser,

As I said, in Australia the question does not even arise. Feeding tubes are not inserted into Alzheimer's patients. I guess, in a way, relatives are spared that decision. As for the patient, when they reach the stage where they are no longer able to eat, they are also no longer care. They are no longer even able to recognise their relatives.

As I said I am not familiar with the case but I hope for her sake that she was in a PVS rather than in a MCS.

BillyJoe

If there was only a one percent chance that Terri was MCS and not PVSwould it be justified to sentence her to death? How about if there ws a ten percent chance? 20%? 30%, 50%?

Fact is, PVS diagnosis are incorrect (according to one study) in at least 37% of cases.

Chicago Tribune, March 27, 2005
http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/chicagotribune/index.html?ts=1112207877


Somer people recover even from the death sentence of having theiir tube pulled and recall the horror and sheer torture of being starved and dehydrated

http://www.catholiceducation.org/ar...ics/me0074.html


As to your insistence that in Europe and Austrialia feeding tubes are never used for Alzheimer patients, pardon me if my BS detector is buzzing. Can you offer a source on that other than Dr. Death or yourself? I can hardly imaigine a loved one, even in the land down under, who is at least partially communicative to be denied water or a merciful spoon feeding to alleviate the pangs of hungar, until theiy truly are terminal .That is very different than the broad statement that all Alzheimer patients are routinely denied sustenance.

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by jj [/i]

quote:Originally posted by Rouser2
My goodness gracious. You seem so upset. Would you, personally have been happier had Terri not be exterminated??? Is this a change of heart????

>>It is typically dishonest of you to imply "change of heart" when you obvious have no idea what my position has ever been.


Well then just what is your position? Terri died on March 31st, 2005. Are you "cheering" or mourning her death. Take a stand.

[Rouser2]

]Originally posted by jj [/i]


>>]While we'll be more certain in a few days when the autopsy comes in, the CAT scan of the person's head showed quite clearly that she no longer had a cerebral cortex, let alone one that functioned.

Of course that is pure baloney. Those pictures are 2-dimiensional photos of something compared to something else. Are you a radiologist? Could you tell the difference between Terri's brain and several others mixed in together which are definitely not PVS, but none identified? If you can, there is a radiologist on the Court TV board who will award you $100,000. Otherwise, let's hear no more statements about what those alleged CAT scans "clearly" show or what they don't "clearly" show. You simply don't know what the hell you are talking about.

[AWPrime]

I can see the difference between a healthy brain and a liquified brain.

So, where is my money?:D

[BillyJoe]

Originally posted by Rouser2
If there was only a one percent chance that Terri was MCS and not PVS would it be justified to sentence her to death? How about if there ws a ten percent chance? 20%? 30%, 50%?You say "sentence her to death". I would say "allow her to die". The natural course of events is that she would have died except for the medical intervention.
And, as I said before, the situation is even more tragic is she was in a MCS as opposed to a PVS. I hope I never find myself in a MCS for 15 years. Of course, if it was minimal enough, it might not actually make much difference to me.

Originally posted by Rouser2
Fact is, PVS diagnosis are incorrect (according to one study) in at least 37% of cases. That is very sad for these people who would perhaps be better off being in a PVS

Originally posted by Rouser2
Some people recover even from the death sentence of having theiir tube pulled and recall the horror and sheer torture of being starved and dehydrated I will read that anecdote when I get the chance.

Originally posted by Rouser2
As to your insistence that in Europe and Austrialia feeding tubes are never used for Alzheimer patients, pardon me if my BS detector is buzzing. Can you offer a source on that other than Dr. Death or yourself? I can hardly imaigine a loved one, even in the land down under, who is at least partially communicative to be denied water or a merciful spoon feeding to alleviate the pangs of hungar, until theiy truly are terminal .That is very different than the broad statement that all Alzheimer patients are routinely denied sustenance. Well, I was talking only about Australia. And I was not talking about routinely denying drink or food to a patient with Alzheimers disease. I was referring to operating on them to put in a feeding tube when their dementia has progressed to such an extent that they are no longer interested in or able to swallow the food and drink offered.
As for evidence that this is the case in Australia: My twin sister-in laws and my nephews mother-in-law have over sixty years of experience in aged care nursing. The only case they can recall is one patient who developed swallowing difficulties after a stroke whilst in the advanced but not terminal stages of Alzheimers disease. Other than this, terminal Alzheimers patients are "kept comfortable" by appropriate medications.

BillyJoe

[BillyJoe]

Rousser,

I can't seem to link to either of your two articles.
The first leads me to a search engine, and the
second produces a 404 error message.

BJ

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by BillyJoe
Rousser,

I can't seem to link to either of your two articles.
The first leads me to a search engine, and the
second produces a 404 error message.

BJ

The Chicago Tribune link is dated, but you can get the abstract (free) by typing in the words "Locked-in Syndrome" in the Search box.

Here is the corrected url for the other link:
http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/medical_ethics/me0074.html

[jj]

Originally posted by Rouser2

Well then just what is your position? Terri died on March 31st, 2005. Are you "cheering" or mourning her death. Take a stand. [/B]

Why thank you.

You've just admitted that you lied.

First, you claimed that we'd cheer. I'm one of the "we" so you're claiming, factually, that I would cheer.

Now, you're asking me what my position is. You've just admitted fully and completely that your original statement claimed something that you didn't know.

Please either demonstrate that you have evidence, from when you made the original claim, that I was going to cheer, or apologize and do pennace for your lie.

As to "taking a stand", I don't have to. You're the one with a claim to defend, it's completely, totally up to YOU to prove your claim. Of course, now you've admitted you can't, by admitting you don't even know the facts AFTER you've issued an explicit claim.

P.S. What was that about my gargling razor blades?

[pmurray]

Originally posted by Rouser2
Randi, like so many others, has failed to do any real homework in this case, and simply relied on the pronouncments of all of the pro-death partisans, including Judge Greer and the pro-death neurologists he appointed as advisors in the case.

Heavens! Relying on the authority of judges and neurologists on matters of law and neurochemistry! Whatever next!

Originally posted by Rouser2
Fact is, Terri could see, hear, laugh, cry, speak several words, and if allowed, consume nutrition orally. Several sworn statements are in the record of nurses who actually cared for her that she defintely was a living, concious person.
Oh ho! Did they actually testify that she coult eat? No one is arguing that she could not "consume nutrition orally". The feeding tube might have beenn orally inserted, as far as I know. And what is their evidence that she could see, as opposed to simply her iris responding to light? Do you really think that the court did not weigh these statements?
Originally posted by Rouser2
According to one nurse, one of her most common utterances were the words "Help me!". It is as though she was crying out to all those who wanted to end her existence, "I am not a Vegetable -- I am a human being!"
These people also hear backwards messages on albums, and insist that god speaks to them. A court - in fact several courts one after the other - heard evidence and rendered jugdments according to law, precedent, and the provisions of the US constitution. Isn't that good enough for you? Don't you love your country, and respect your constitution?

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by jj [/i]

>>As to "taking a stand", I don't have to.

Ah, another 5th Amendment plea, eh? Remember Dante's warning -- the hottest places in Hell are reserved for those who maintain their neutrality in times of great moral crisis!

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by pmurray [/i]

>>A court - in fact several courts one after the other - heard evidence and rendered jugdments according to law, precedent, and the provisions of the US constitution. Isn't that good enough for you? Don't you love your country, and respect your constitution?

Let me break this to you as gently as I can. Like Randi, it is obvious you haven't done a lick of homework on this subject but have merely relied on the pronouncments of one backwater judge and a few of his specially appointed Hemlock Society Neurologists. No, only one court heard (or refsed to hear) "evidence". The rest merely passed on procedure and process of that one court. Nor does the Constitution of the United States allow for court ordered executions of innocent, partially disabled people nor the cruel or unusual punishment of even convicted criminals, much less innocent disabled. Get your facts straight.

[pmurray]

Originally posted by Rouser2
I can hardly imaigine a loved one, even in the land down under, who is at least partially communicative to be denied water or a merciful spoon feeding to alleviate the pangs of hungar, until theiy truly are terminal. That is very different than the broad statement that all Alzheimer patients are routinely denied sustenance.

A "merciful spoon feeding" is not the same thing as having tubes stuck into your body, and you are confusing the issue - a person requiring tube feeding is genrally not partially communicative. As an Australian, it seems obvious that heroic means to prolong the lives of the dying is a wrong thing to do.

I think it's cultural, and possibly due to the extreme amount of religiousness in the US. Christians, generally, are terribly frightened to die despite the comfort that they claim their religion brings them. To them, death is the supreme evil to be avoided at any cost: hence relatives kept breathing with machines, and US armed forces mowing down civilians out of sheer terror.

Other parts of the world are a little more realistic. Death is part of life - the last part, of course, but still natural.

[AWPrime]

She could digest but she couldn't eat.

[BillyJoe]

Rousser,

Originally posted by Rouser2
The Chicago Tribune link is dated, but you can get the abstract (free) by typing in the words "Locked-in Syndrome" in the Search box. Here it is....

The diagnosis of persistent vegetative state was invented in 1972, but its utility has been questioned. According to one study, 37 percent of the time doctors incorrectly diagnosed persistent vegetative states in patients. If the diagnosis in [Terri Schiavo]'s case was mistaken, perhaps she is in a minimally conscious state."The diagnosis of persistent vegetative state was invented": Not a very dispassionate use of words, IMO.
"but its utility has been questioned": Like everything else, it should be questioned. Has it stood up to scrutiny is the real question.
"According to one study": Repeat...ONE study.
"If the diagnosis in [Terri Schiavo]'s case was mistaken": IF being the operative word.
"perhaps she is in a minimally conscious state": Yes, PERHAPS.


Perhaps I need to read the full article, but the abstract doesn't fill me with confidence.

BillyJoe

[BillyJoe]

Originally posted by Rouser2
Here is the corrected url for the other link:
http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/medical_ethics/me0074.html This article is about patients with "Locked-in Syndrome" who are totally unable to move their bodies in order to communicate the fact that they are actually fully conscious. I do not think this applies to either the Terri Schiavo case nor to the Alzheimers disease patients we were talking about.

Terri Schiavo was, at best, in a Minimally Conscious State. This would mean that she would have been minimally conscious of any impulses which are normally interpreted as pain. And increasingly less so as her condition deteriorated.

Terminal Alzheimers patients are also in a MCS when they stop taking in food and fluid. Clearly, they are not in a "locked-in" state. Together with appropriate medication they should not suffer. To insert a feeding tube would be to prolong any suffering they may have. Fortunately their deteriorating neurological state would mean that even this minimal suffering would lessen progressively over time.

BillyJoe

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by pmurray [/i]

>>A "merciful spoon feeding" is not the same thing as having tubes stuck into your body, and you are confusing the issue - a person requiring tube feeding is genrally not partially communicative.

Terri could have taken liquid nourishment orally, but even that was prohibited by the court order.

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by BillyJoe

>>"The diagnosis of persistent vegetative state was invented": Not a very dispassionate use of words, IMO.
"but its utility has been questioned": Like everything else, it should be questioned. Has it stood up to scrutiny is the real question. "According to one study": Repeat...ONE study.


Yeah, one study -- 37%. Another study would equal two studies. Because one and one make two, as long as you are into parsing words. And this second study says, not 37% mis-diagnosed but 43%. That's almost half.

"Of the 40 patients diagnosed as being in the vegetative state, 10 (25%) remained vegetative, 13 (33%) slowly emerged from the vegetative state during the rehabilitation programme, and 17 (43%) were considered to have been misdiagnosed as vegetative. The identification of misdiagnosis was more common in the later part of the study period: two were recognised in 1992, one in 1993, four in 1994, and 10 in 1995."

British Medical Journal
bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/313/7048/13

The BMJ article also contains exact reference and link to the afore cited study abstracted in the Chicago Tribune. This abstract is directly from the Neurology source:

Neurology, Vol 43, Issue 8 1465-1467, Copyright © 1993 by American Academy of Neurology

ARTICLES
Accuracy of diagnosis of persistent vegetative state

NL Childs, WN Mercer and HW Childs
Healthcare Rehabilitation Center, Austin, TX 78745.

"We reviewed pre-admission diagnosis in all patients referred for inpatient brain injury neurorehabilitation over a 5-year period (n = 193). All patients more than 1 month postinjury with diagnosis of coma or persistent vegetative state were selected for review (n = 49). We found that 18 (37%) of these patients were diagnosed inaccurately. Inaccurate diagnosis was more likely if the injury was more than 3 months before admission and the etiology of injury was trauma (48%). Results were statistically significant when traumatic injuries were compared with anoxic injuries (p < 0.10). Errors in diagnosis may result from confusion in terminology, lack of extended observation of patients, and lack of skill or training in the assessment of neurologically devastated patients. "

http://www.neurology.org/cgi/content/abstract/43/8/1465?ijkey=6107610cc9242f1187d6ba7efbc176b1fde0eea 4&keytype2=tf_ipsecsha


It would appear that if these studies are any indication, , one gets the impression that PVS diagnosis by "expert" neurologists has had something of a checkered history -- more like thowing darts with a blilndfold at an unknown target.

[BillyJoe]

Rousser,

Originally posted by Rouser2
http://www.neurology.org/cgi/content/abstract/43/8/1465?ijkey=6107610cc9242f1187d6ba7efbc176b1fde0eea 4&keytype2=tf_ipsecsha

It would appear that if these studies are any indication, , one gets the impression that PVS diagnosis by "expert" neurologists has had something of a checkered history -- more like thowing darts with a blilndfold at an unknown target. On the contrary, I got the following message....

These findings are therefore not an argument against the withdrawal of artificial nutrition and hydration but do emphasise the importance of accurate diagnosis of the vegetative state being made after expert assessment and provision of a rehabilitation programme by a very experienced team.

In other words, clinicians not used to dealing with large numbers of brain damaged patients will, as often as not, make a misdiagnosis of vegetative state. However, if these patients are referred to an experienced team, these misdiagnoses can be reduced to a minimum.

How, otherwise, did they know they were misdiagnosed than by diagnosing them accurately - which only proves that it is possible to do so. I suppose the only problem is whether even this expert team is missing something in those who retain the diagnosis of vegetative state. We are probably talking here of those patients referred to in the previous article who have "Locked-in Syndrome". They are likely to be extremely rare or, at least, one hopes so.

BillyJoe

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by jj
Rouser,

Please address these lapses of veracity and accuracy as addressed in and near this post:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870847796#post1870847796

In which you assert first that people will cheer when Ms. Schiavo dies, and then later claim that your obvious accusation, obviously made in anger, is a "prediction", thereby compounding your initial lapse of veracity.

Given your demonstrated lapses, why should anyone put any value on any word you speak?

Because in your heart, you know I'm right.

[AWPrime]

I am an engineer, I have no heart.:D

[pmurray]

Originally posted by Rouser2
No, only one court heard (or refsed to hear) "evidence". True. The justice process woudl take forever (as opposed to a very very long time) if this were not so. However, refusing to hear "evidence" is precisely what the appeals process looks at.

Originally posted by Rouser2
Originally posted by pmurray [/i]
Nor does the Constitution of the United States allow for court ordered executions of innocent, partially disabled people I understand that the US constitution leaves executions to the states. And aren't all executions "court ordered"?

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by BillyJoe [/i]

>>On the contrary, I got the following message....
In other words, clinicians not used to dealing with large numbers of brain damaged patients will, as often as not, make a misdiagnosis of vegetative state. However, if these patients are referred to an experienced team, these misdiagnoses can be reduced to a minimum.

Got the following message??? From where? Is that a spirit message?

>>How, otherwise, did they know they were misdiagnosed than by diagnosing them accurately - which only proves that it is possible to do so.

Obviously, there is no standard protocol for diagnosis. And the BMJ study denegrates diagnosis based on clinical evaluations, but emphasizes the necessity of family member involvement. A lot of the patients evaluated were never in a vegetative state to being with,much less a permanent vegetative state. Just like Terri S.

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by pmurray [/i]

>> I understand that the US constitution leaves executions to the states. And aren't all executions "court ordered"?


This is indeed a state court ordered execution, but there is nothing in the Florida constitution that has ever been cited which allows it (execution via dehration/starvation torture to an innocent,partially disabled person), and there are provisisions in the Federal Constitution which could be cited to deny such a execution in the 8th, 9th and 14th Amendments.

[BillyJoe]

Originally posted by Rouser2
Got the following message??? From where? Perhaps you missed my direct quote from your linked article.
Here it is again.....

These findings are therefore not an argument against the withdrawal of artificial nutrition and hydration but do emphasise the importance of accurate diagnosis of the vegetative state being made after expert assessment and provision of a rehabilitation programme by a very experienced team.

Originally posted by Rouser2
Is that a spirit message? That's a joke right. :confused:
Well then I suppose I should laugh. Here we go............ :D

Originally posted by Rouser2
Obviously, there is no standard protocol for diagnosis. And the BMJ study denegrates diagnosis based on clinical evaluations, Where, in that abstract, does the BMJ study denegrate diagnosis? On the contrary.....

These findings.....emphasise the importance of accurate diagnosis of the vegetative state being made after expert assessment and provision of a rehabilitation programme by a very experienced team.

BJ

[Rouser2]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by BillyJoe
>>Perhaps you missed my direct quote from your linked article.


Yeah, but you left out the first part:

"We also emphasise that a quarter of those diagnosed as vegetative by the referring team remained vegetative and were almost certainly, from our experience, likely to remain so. These findings are therefore not an argument against the withdrawal of artificial nutrition and hydration but do emphasise the importance of accurate diagnosis of the vegetative state being made after expert assessment and provision of a rehabilitation programme by a very experienced team."

In other words, the findings are not an argument against tube removal of those who are truly in a permanent vegetative state, of which they can only enumerate 25% in their study. The article's conclusions, while debateable, morally, do not extend to those who have been erroneously diagnosed. All the authors are saying is, get it right, and then and only then pull the tube. But that conclusion is adverse to the enitre tenor of the article, namely, that nearly half are mis-diagnosed and only one quarter judged in a permanent state which raises the question that with the lack of any standard, reliable protocol, how can anyone really be sure about who is and who is not permanently vegetative? The Doctors of Death seem to just say, " who really cares?"" Just pull all the plugs and let God sort 'em out."

[BillyJoe]

Originally posted by Rouser2
Yeah, but you left out the first part:

" We also emphasise that a quarter of those diagnosed as vegetative by the referring team remained vegetative and were almost certainly, from our experience, likely to remain so. These findings are therefore not an argument against the withdrawal of artificial nutrition and hydration but do emphasise the importance of accurate diagnosis of the vegetative state being made after expert assessment and provision of a rehabilitation programme by a very experienced team." Except for quantifying it, how is the first part (bold) not contained in the second part (bold)?

Originally posted by Rouser2
In other words, the findings are not an argument against tube removal of those who are truly in a permanent vegetative state, of which they can only enumerate 25% in their study. No argument from me.

Originally posted by Rouser2
The article's conclusions, while debateable, morally, do not extend to those who have been erroneously diagnosed. No. And here are a group of clinicians demonstrating to other clinicians how the accuracy of diagnosis can be improved (by using experienced, multidisciplinary teams making pertinent observations over time).

Originally posted by Rouser2
All the authors are saying is, get it right, and then and only then pull the tube. Again, no argument from me.

Originally posted by Rouser2
But that conclusion is adverse to the enitre tenor of the article, namely, that nearly half are mis-diagnosed and only one quarter judged in a permanent state which raises the question that with the lack of any standard, reliable protocol, how can anyone really be sure about who is and who is not permanently vegetative?Perhaps by using the reliable protocol of employing an experienced, multidisiplinary team as these clinicians have done. ;)

Originally posted by Rouser2
The Doctors of Death seem to just say, " who really cares?"" Just pull all the plugs and let God sort 'em out." A confusing mixed metaphor conveying a probably false presumption.

BJ


edit: housekeeping

[Markus702]

Sorry if this issue has been addressed already, but there are a lot of words in this thread and I'm not smart enough to take them all in.
I have two simple yes/no questions for Rouser.

1) Do you believe in God?

2) If answer to the first question is yes, would you rather a loved one be kept alive in a "minimal conscious" state (assuming Terri was in this state as opposed to the more likely vegetative state, but for the sake of argument we'll give it the benefit of the doubt) or would you rather they pass on and meet their maker?

Personally I don't believe in God. I would still not want to see a loved one kept alive with no quality of life just to appease me however. But if I did believe in God, and from what I can tell, Terri's parents in fact did, then why such desperation to keep her physical body alive? Certainly she would be better off in the after life?

[BillyJoe]

It is instructive to see how many of those who profess belief in an afterlife fight tooth and nail to remain in this life as if it is the only one they have.

BJ

[sphenisc]

Originally posted by BillyJoe
It is instructive to see how many of those who profess belief in an afterlife fight tooth and nail to remain in this life as if it is the only one they have.

BJ

I suspect [not claim, predict, state as an absolute fact] that it would be significantly different from a control group. Still if you've got any data on that, I'm prepared to be persuaded.

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by Markus702
Sorry if this issue has been addressed already, but there are a lot of words in this thread and I'm not smart enough to take them all in.
I have two simple yes/no questions for Rouser.

1) Do you believe in God?

2) If answer to the first question is yes, would you rather a loved one be kept alive in a "minimal conscious" state (assuming Terri was in this state as opposed to the more likely vegetative state, but for the sake of argument we'll give it the benefit of the doubt) or would you rather they pass on and meet their maker?

Personally I don't believe in God. I would still not want to see a loved one kept alive with no quality of life just to appease me however. But if I did believe in God, and from what I can tell, Terri's parents in fact did, then why such desperation to keep her physical body alive? Certainly she would be better off in the after life?

A belief in "God" presumes that one should live in acccordance with God's natural laws concerning life and death. If one does not believe in God then one must have respect for "live and let live" social contract. If one does not respect this universal Moral law, then might makes right prevails, and murder is perfectly OK. As regards to your first question, any person who believes in a Creator has a belief that is utterly lacking in any proof. On the other hand, anyone who does not believe in a Creator, also embraces a belief that is utterly lacking in any logic or proof. That said, an honest Believer as well as an honest non-Believer must admit the terrible unspoken truth, namely, that no one really knows either way.

[BillyJoe]

Originally posted by sphenisc
I suspect [not claim, predict, state as an absolute fact] that it would be significantly different from a control group. Still if you've got any data on that, I'm prepared to be persuaded. Hmmm....I don't think the statements made in my post and yours are mutually exclusive.

BJ

[BillyJoe]

Rousser,

Originally posted by Rouser2
A belief in "God" presumes that one should live in acccordance with God's natural laws concerning life and death. And those laws would depend on which particular God you believe in.

Originally posted by Rouser2
If one does not believe in God then one must have respect for "live and let live" social contract. There is also "live and let die". You need not strive assiduously to keep alive.

Originally posted by Rouser2
. As regards to your first question.... He asked "Do you believe in God?"
As a matter of interest - if you don't mind answering - do you?

Originally posted by Rouser2
.....any person who believes in a Creator has a belief that is utterly lacking in any proof. On the other hand, anyone who does not believe in a Creator, also embraces a belief that is utterly lacking in any logic or proof. That said, an honest Believer as well as an honest non-Believer must admit the terrible unspoken truth, namely, that no one really knows either way. I don't think it is terrible, unspoken, or true. First of all, we are talking about it just as numerous others have done throughtout history. And I do not see people recoiling in horror. As for being true....it's not the whole truth. There are actually three positions

The person who holds a belief that God does exist.
The person who holds a belief that God does not exist.
The person who does not hold a belief that God exists.

The first two could be described as "belief without proof"
The third is a not a belief and the logical position for a sceptic. The sceptic does not hold a belief (as yet) that god exists because there is no proof (as yet) that He does. He would hold a similar view in relation to dragons, goblins, and faeries.

BillyJoe

[Markus702]

Rouser,

Fair enough I suppose, even though my questions weren't answered as straightforwardly as I hoped. Let me ask two more yes/no question even more straightforward;

1) Would you personally want to be kept alive by a feeding tube if in a vegetative or even minimal conscious state?

2) Would you want your parents/family to keep their life on hold and spend the later years of their life caring for your vegetative self?

If the question were asked of me, the answer would be no on both counts.

[Markus702]

Originally posted by Rouser2
A belief in "God" presumes that one should live in acccordance with God's natural laws concerning life and death.

And this isn't necessarily true either. There are many different "gods" out there. Since there is no universal god, you can't speak of god's natural laws as if anyone who believes in god would all follow the same set of rules. Many people believe in a non-denominational god, and still don't necessarily believe the bible, koran, or any other supposedly holy writing is the divine word.

[Bronze Dog]

Originally posted by Rouser2
A belief in "God" presumes that one should live in acccordance with God's natural laws concerning life and death.

I'm curious as to what maltheists think of this. I suspect some of them would argue that because God made those laws, they must be defied. Additionally, I imagine that there are a number of people out there who believe God gave humans intellect for the specific purpose of defying those laws.

I may have missed it somewhere, but did anyone present evidence of Terry Schaivo being minimally conscious, as opposed to vegitative? If she's vegitative, it's my opinion that we're not dealing with life, but mere biological existence.

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by BillyJoe [/i]

>>There are actually three positions

The person who holds a belief that God does exist.
The person who holds a belief that God does not exist.
The person who does not hold a belief that God exists.

The first two could be described as "belief without proof"
The third is a not a belief and the logical position for a sceptic. The sceptic does not hold a belief (as yet) that god exists because there is no proof (as yet) that He does. He would hold a similar view in relation to dragons, goblins, and faeries.


The absurdity of your last sentence notwithstanding, it is my "belief" that all "believers" and non-Believes alike, if honest, and retaining half a rational brain are in fact agnostics. That does not include a reasonable suspicion in the possibility of dragons, goblins and faeries. depending on how you define each.

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by Markus702
Rouser,

Fair enough I suppose, even though my questions weren't answered as straightforwardly as I hoped. Let me ask two more yes/no question even more straightforward;

1) Would you personally want to be kept alive by a feeding tube if in a vegetative or even minimal conscious state?

2) Would you want your parents/family to keep their life on hold and spend the later years of their life caring for your vegetative self?

If the question were asked of me, the answer would be no on both counts.

The answer for me would be a very honest and straight forward "I don't know."

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by BronzeDog
I may have missed it somewhere, but did anyone present evidence of Terry Schaivo being minimally conscious, as opposed to vegitative? If she's vegitative, it's my opinion that we're not dealing with life, but mere biological existence. [/B]

There are medical "experts" on both sides. There is no consensus. There are also two families, each on opposite sides. For me, a person who can laugh, cry, speak a few words, interact with family, take nourishment orally (which is in controversy), is not in a vegetative state at all, much less a permanet vegetative state. I'll take the word of those who cared for her directly before any other so-called "expert."

And excerpt from Nurse Carla Iyer's sworn statement:

" Terri's medical condition was systematically distorted and
misrepresented by Michael. When I worked with her, she was alert
and oriented. Terri spoke on a regular basis while in my presence,
saying such things as "mommy," and "help me." "Help me" was, in
fact, one of her most frequent utterances. I heard her say it hundreds
of times. Terri would try to say the word "pain" when she was in
discomfort, but it came out more like "pay." She didn't say the "n"
sound very well. During her menses she would indicate her discomfort
by saying "pay" and moving her arms toward her lower abdominal
area. Other ways that she would indicate that she was in pain included
pursing her lips, grimacing, thrashing in bed, curling her toes or
moving her legs around. She would let you know when she had a
bowel movement by flipping up the covers and pulling on her diaper
and scooted in bed on her bottom.

When I came into her room and said "Hi, Terri", she would always
recognize my voice and her name, and would turn her head all the way
toward me, saying "Haaaiiiii" sort of, as she did. I recognized this as a
"hi", which is very close to what it sounded like, the whole sound being only a second or two long. When I told her humrous stories
about my life or something I read in the paper, Terri would chuckle,
sometimes more a giggle or laugh. She would move her whole body,
upper and lower. Her legs would sometimes be off the bed, and need
to be repositioned. I made numerous entries into the nursing notes in
her chart, stating verbatim what she said and her various behaviors, but
by my next on-duty shift, the notes would be deleted from her chart.
Every time I made a positive entry about any responsiveness of Terri's,
someone would remove it after my shift ended. Michael always
demanded to see her chart as soon as he arrived, and would take it in
her room with him. I documented Terri's rehab potential well,
writing whole pages about Terri's responsiveness, but they would
always be deleted by the next time I saw her chart. The reason I wrote
so much was that everybody else seemed to be afraid to make positive
entries for fear of their jobs, but I felt very strongly that a nurses job
was to accurately record everything we see and hear that bears on a
patients condition and their family. I upheld the Nurses Practice Act,Schiavo abuse claims declared groundless

Throughout my time at Palm Gardens, Michael Schiavo was focused on Terri's death. Michael would say "When is she going to die?,"
"Has she died yet?" and "When is that bitch gonna die?" These
statements were common knowledge at Palm Gardens, as he would
make them casually in passing, without regard even for who he was
talking to, as long as it was a staff member. Other statements which I
recall him making include "Can't anything be done to accelerate her
death - won't she ever die?" When she wouldn't die, Michael would
be furious."

http://www.terrisfight.org/documents/CIyerAffidavit090203.htm

[Beer Monkey]

Sadly, in today's U.S. society, out of the dozens (if not more) of nurses who attended to the patient over a period of fifteen years, I'd expect at least a couple of them to be lying and/or deluded nutjobs.

I'm certain that the vegetative Terri never said 'help me'. Sworn statements by a couple of people in a controversial, emotional situation like this really doesn't mean a darn thing, especially if they haven't been scrutinized by the legal process.

Spreading such statements as 'truth' is absurd.

[Bronze Dog]

Originally posted by Beer Monkey
Sadly, in today's U.S. society, out of the dozens (if not more) of nurses who attended to the patient over a period of fifteen years, I'd expect at least a couple of them to be lying and/or deluded nutjobs.

I'm certain that the vegetative Terri never said 'help me'. Sworn statements by a couple of people in a controversial, emotional situation like this really doesn't mean a darn thing, especially if they haven't been scrutinized by the legal process.

Spreading such statements as 'truth' is absurd.

My thoughts as well, though a bit more blunt. A handful of anecdotes means little to nothing to me. Now, if I had a recording of her responding to several stimuli in some consistent manner, it would be more reasonable to think she was minimally conscious. Those anecdotes, however, are like what I heard the media did with one video of her: Four hours of flopping around, apparently mindlessly, and they take one still where she appeared to be smiling at her mother. From what I've seen so far, she died years ago. Her body just kept operating without her in it.

[Starrman]

And excerpt from Nurse Carla Iyer's sworn statement:

Wow - I'm sure there must have been dozens who witnessed this as well during her 15 years in care. Can you link to any of their coroborating statements?

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by Starrman [/i]

>>]Wow - I'm sure there must have been dozens who witnessed this as well during her 15 years in care. Can you link to any of their coroborating statements? [/B][/QUOTE]

Oh, ye of little faith. It's right there in the medical record:

http://www.theempirejournal.com/02230551_medical_observations_sh.htm

Excerpts:

6/27/1990

History & Physical

Dr. Baras

"Had been seen by me at College Harbor and started to make improvement. Started to show some vocalization where she will say "no" and occasionally has had some voluntary movement on command of eyes and mouth as reported by husband and mother. Ready for inpatient rehab program here at Bayfront. Physical exam shows easily startled to her name or when bedrail fell down.

* * *


3/19/1991


Speech Language Notes

Occasionally responds to requests to verbalize, swallow and move arms



2/20/1991

Physical Therapy Notes

Pt has made significant gains since admission in all areas of range of motion. Have on one occasion when pt reclined, on command pt extended right knee, 4 X / 6 at random request. Appeared to follow command to turn her head while I had her on the mat the other day, but not (yet) consistant.


* * *

4/26/1991

MS Journal

John (nurse) says every time he is here Terri squeezes his hand when asked

* * *

6/17/1991


Treatment Plan Review

Vocalizing when prone in P.T., occasionally will say "Stop" to nurse during procedures. To T.R. groups. More relaxed to therapists voice, touch (habituation)

* * *


April 1995 to July 1996


Carla Sauer Iyer affidavit


Michaels orders: no rehab, no range of motion, no nothing. Alert & oriented, spoke regularly "Momma," "Mommy," "Help Me"

* * *

March to mid summer, 1997


Heidi Law Affidavit


No physical or other therapy. Extremely ticklish on her feet. Sat in a chair all afternoon. When in bed, preferred to lie on her right side and look out the window. Displayed likes and dislikes. Adored baths. Did not like the taste of the teeth-cleaning swabs or mouthwash. Did like the smell and feel of her lotion. Liked to have her hair combed. Did not like being tucked in. Terri would follow Olga with her eyes. She would suck on ice chips and swallow ice water. orange juice or apple juice in her washcloth to give her something nice to taste, which made her happy. On three or four occasions I personally fed Terri small mouthfuls of Jello, which she was able to swallow and enjoyed immensely. She hated it if her legs were tightly tucked. Terri reacted very well to seeing a picture of her mother. Could not bow head, but she would still try during prayer, would keep her eyes closed, opening them afterward. She laughed at jokes he told her. Used words "Momma," "Mommy," "Help Me." Other vocalizations like attempts to speak.

* * *

11/11/1997


Assessment Report Marie Piarade CTR


Resident enjoys listening to other people converse, loves to hear jokes and laughs; appears to enjoy music entertainment, likes when people tell her jokes; demonstrates occasional responses, i.e., eye contact, laughter, but not consistent;

* * *

/9/2002


Dr. Cranford Exam (Videotaped)


C 01 (Examination of Dr. Cranford on July 9, 2002) - After Terri’s mother enters the room, Terri greets her by speaking the word and makes good eye movement toward her.

* * *

9/3/2002


Dr. Hammesfahr Exam (Videotaped) (as interpreted by Neuro-psychologist Dr. Gimon)

During a return visit from her mother, Terri greeted her by speaking the word “Hi�. Dr. Hammesfahr introduced a balloon and asked her to look at it. Terri successfully accomplished this task. During eye examination, Terri responded to being asked to open her eyes and had effective pupil dilation to light.


* * *


9/4/2002


Dr. Maxfield Exam (Videotaped)


When Terri’s father moves a balloon and a box of bright lights, Terri is presented with too much stimulation and turns her head away. Later, when her father mentions a humorous event from her childhood, she rolls her eyes and laughs. This demonstrates a quality indicative of a memory shared interpersonally with an appropriate response.

* * *

0/30/2002


Tom Brodersen Notes


Long periods of vocalization in response to my urging. Demonstrated understanding of suggestion the we stop and remain quiet. Lauged several times, including when she apparently recognized song "Those Were the Days"

* * *

11/3/2002


Tom Brodersen Notes


Extensive twitching, very tired. Massaged her arm, shoulder, calmed her and twitches subsided. Spontaneous vocalization - approximation of word [cikir=red]"No" in response to question, several clear attempts at uh-hugh (yes). Immediate recognition of song "Puer Natus Est" - laugh and delighted smile. Clearly enjoyed "Somewhere Over the Rainbow." Did very well closing eyes & keeping them closed, opening on request. Moved right hand on request. In response to raise right leg, immediate upward jerk (small) 3 times out of 4. Adores having her hair stroked, obviously needs more human touch & tenderness.

* * *

11/4/2002


Tom Brodersen Notes


Terri smiles at Suzanne. Twitching hardly noticeable. While I read letter from locked in lady Rus, listened intently , looking up as if in deep thought. I asked her to close her eyes if she wanted me to read it again and she did. Same result when I asked if she wanted Rus to write to her again. Numerous attempts to speak, several times combining voice and movement of mouth.

* * *
11/11/2002

Tom Brodersen Notes

Extremely tired, doses off repeatedly. Played John Denver "Take Me Home Country Roads." Terri laughed all the way through song. (Terri had attended a John Denver concert in Philadelphia.) Terri's right leg jerked upward when I asked her to raise it.

* * *

In response to Q about whether Terri liked being visited by Alex, Terri said “yea�. Clearly audible to Suzanne & myself. At another point I heard what sounded like the word “Not�*. While struggling to speak Terri formed the “TH� sound 2 X. I played Puer Natus Est (Gregorian Chant) from MP3 player. Terri immediately recognized song, acted extremely animated, moving both arms continuously through song and for several minutes afterward. She also moved her head and eyes - appeared to be filled with thought. Terri also reacted to Streets of Philadelphia and Have you Ever Really Loved a Woman and other songs.


* * *

12/13/2003

Tom Brodersen


Terri responded to Tom's voice over the telephone (as she has consistently over the past year). Terri laughed four times, attempted to sing."

* * *

"The above chart was prepared by an assistant for a lawyer for the Schindlers. Given the HIPAA laws, The Empire Journal did not seek actual medical records. "

Comment: Some "vegetable"

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by Beer Monkey [/i]


>>Sadly, in today's U.S. society, out of the dozens (if not more) of nurses who attended to the patient over a period of fifteen years, I'd expect at least a couple of them to be lying and/or deluded nutjobs.

For the hopelessly incorrigable cynic, I would expert such expectations.

>>I'm certain that the vegetative Terri never said 'help me'.

Quite right. And a further proof that Terri was not vegetative.

>> Sworn statements by a couple of people in a controversial, emotional situation like this really doesn't mean a darn thing, especially if they haven't been scrutinized by the legal process.

Sworn statements ARE the legal process. And hold anyone liable for untruths. Fact is, they were submitted to the Court and the Court simply dared not address them.

>>Spreading such statements as 'truth' is absurd.

Not half so absurd as assuming they are false, especially in the face of plenty of corroboration.

[BillyJoe]

Rouser,

Originally posted by Rouser2
.....it is my "belief" that all "believers" and non-Believes alike, if honest, and retaining half a rational brain are in fact agnostics.Depends on your defintion of "agnostic" - and your definition of "atheist". ;)

Is an atheist.....
A person who holds a belief that God does not exist.
A person who does not hold a belief that God exists.

The first is not rational whereas the second is.

Is an agnostic.....
A person who witholds judgement until he sees evidence for or against.
A person who believes that the question cannot, by its very nature, ever be resolved.

And....you can be an agnostic atheist. :)

Originally posted by Rouser2
That does not include a reasonable suspicion in the possibility of dragons, goblins and faeries. depending on how you define each. And why not, in the vast universe, would faeries, goblins, and dragons not be at least as likely as God?

BillyJoe

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by BillyJoe
Rouser,

Depends on your defintion of "agnostic" - and your definition of "atheist". ;)

Is an atheist.....
A person who holds a belief that God does not exist.
A person who does not hold a belief that God exists.

The first is not rational whereas the second is.

Is an agnostic.....
A person who witholds judgement until he sees evidence for or against.
A person who believes that the question cannot, by its very nature, ever be resolved.

And....you can be an agnostic atheist. :)

And why not, in the vast universe, would faeries, goblins, and dragons not be at least as likely as God?

BillyJoe

This whole ":God" discussion is a good example of how to detour and divert a thread away from the topic. But I'll go one more round. Yeah, you can be an agnositc atheist via your definition. Agonistic is a whole lot more inclusive. As to dragons, faeries, goblins -- by definition those are fictitious creatures, though some people surely do believe in them..

[HypnoPsi]

Randi, like so many others, has failed to do any real homework in this case, and simply relied on the pronouncments of all of the pro-death partisans, including Judge Greer and the pro-death neurologists he appointed as advisors in the case. Fact is, Terri could see, hear, laugh, cry, speak several words, and if allowed, consume nutrition orally. Several sworn statements are in the record of nurses who actually cared for her that she defintely was a living, concious person. According to one nurse, one of her most common utterances were the words "Help me!". It is as though she was crying out to all those who wanted to end her existence, "I am not a Vegetable -- I am a human being!"

The thing I'm interested in here is the focus on neurology rather than psychology...

Cognitive psychologists have various tests that can be run to determine cognitive processing and self-awareness. The most obvious being to simply hold up a blue card and ask if it's red, to hold up a yellow card and ask if it's brown, to hold up a white card and ask if it's white... etc., etc.,.

Then there are other slightly more complicated ways of determining self-awareness by using pictures or a mirror, etc.,.

Does anyone know if this was done? It would be highly irregular I imagine for a clinical/neuro psychologist not to have run tests? What were the results? I there was anything positive then, with a little effort, a system of communication could have been developed.

I wouldn't want to live in the state that Terri Shiavo was in personally, but she might have. Either way, making a life or death decision on neurology alone isn't quite right. I think the odds were definately against Shiavo being capable of cognitive processing or self-awareness, but without knowing the results of any test I wouldn't jump to any conclusions.

Does anyone know if such tests were or were not carried out and/or the results?
_
HypnoPsi

[BillyJoe]

Rouser,

Originally posted by Rouser2
This whole ":God" discussion is a good example of how to detour and divert a thread away from the topic. The thread will inevitably flow elsewhere it on topic questions are continually ignored. ;)
(It was not MY diversion though)

Originally posted by Rouser2
But I'll go one more round.:(

Originally posted by Rouser2
Yeah, you can be an agnositc atheist via your definition. :)
(It is not really MY definition though)

Originally posted by Rouser2
Agonistic is a whole lot more inclusive. An on topic Freudian slip?

Originally posted by Rouser2
As to dragons, faeries, goblins -- by definition those are fictitious creatures, though some people surely do believe in them.. ....as do some believe in God.
(But, okay, I get your point....faeries, goblins, and faeries were created for the purpose of amusement, whereas God was created for the purpose of confusement. :D )

cya, then
BillyJoe

[BillyJoe]

Originally posted by HypnoPsi
Cognitive psychologists have various tests that can be run to determine cognitive processing and self-awareness......Does anyone know if such tests were or were not carried out and/or the results? A very good on topic question, HP. :)

More inclusively ;).......did Terri Schiavo undergo the sort of experienced multidisciplinary team approach to diagnosis as described here (http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/313/7048/13) in the article mentioned by Rouser earlier in this thread and about which he completely missed the point :cool: ?

BJ

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by HypnoPsi
The thing I'm interested in here is the focus on neurology rather than psychology...

Cognitive psychologists have various tests that can be run to determine cognitive processing and self-awareness. The most obvious being to simply hold up a blue card and ask if it's red, to hold up a yellow card and ask if it's brown, to hold up a white card and ask if it's white... etc., etc.,.

Then there are other slightly more complicated ways of determining self-awareness by using pictures or a mirror, etc.,.

Does anyone know if this was done? It would be highly irregular I imagine for a clinical/neuro psychologist not to have run tests? What were the results? I there was anything positive then, with a little effort, a system of communication could have been developed.

I wouldn't want to live in the state that Terri Shiavo was in personally, but she might have. Either way, making a life or death decision on neurology alone isn't quite right. I think the odds were definately against Shiavo being capable of cognitive processing or self-awareness, but without knowing the results of any test I wouldn't jump to any conclusions.

Does anyone know if such tests were or were not carried out and/or the results?
_
HypnoPsi

Terri, on occasion, responded to questions and some commands such as moving a particular limb, and had some vocabulary of communication including the words "uh huh," 'yeah," "no," "pain," "help," "Hi," "help me," "stop," and "mommy." For a synopisis of her medical history and evident improvement over time go to: http://www.theempirejournal.com/02230551_medical_observations_sh.htm

[Number Six]

If you tell someone "Move your arm" a thousand times and they do it a few of those times it doesn't mean they're responding to your commands, rather it just means you're data mining. In order to determine whether the person is actually responding to commands a more objective approach that is less susceptible to confirmation bias is needed. That's the point of having the various court appointed doctors do their exams, etc. instead of just having someone say "Look, she moved, she must be responding to our commands" or "It sounds like she said 'Mommy' to me."

More generally, you need a method of determining truth that is separated as much as possible from what we want truth to be, otherwise all manner of conscious and unconscious bias can alter our conclusions.

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by Number Six
If you tell someone "Move your arm" a thousand times and they do it a few of those times it doesn't mean they're responding to your commands, rather it just means you're data mining. In order to determine whether the person is actually responding to commands a more objective approach that is less susceptible to confirmation bias is needed. That's the point of having the various court appointed doctors do their exams, etc. instead of just having someone say "Look, she moved, she must be responding to our commands" or "It sounds like she said 'Mommy' to me."

More generally, you need a method of determining truth that is separated as much as possible from what we want truth to be, otherwise all manner of conscious and unconscious bias can alter our conclusions.

In many cases it was the "appointed doctors" who noted responses to commands. Nonetheless, according to representative studies of PVS diagnosed patients, neurologists inaccuratly diagnose PVS in anywhere from 37 percent to 75 percent of such patients. One study reported in the British Medical Journal conlcudes that neurologists should not be the only ones involved in making such determinations, but family members as welll.

bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/313/7048/13

[HypnoPsi]

A very good on topic question, HP. :)Thank you.More inclusively ;).......did Terri Schiavo undergo the sort of experienced multidisciplinary team approach to diagnosis as describedFrankly, I'm stunned that both sides aren't using the evidence gleamed from such a study. I can't conclude that no cognitive tests were run, but one would imagine that if she'd passed any such tests her family members and supporters would be making that public knowledge, and if she had failed such tests her doctors would be making that public knowldge. It's a bit of a mystery frankly.
_
HP

[HypnoPsi]

Originally posted by Rouser2
Terri, on occasion, responded to questions and some commands such as moving a particular limb, and had some vocabulary of communication including the words "uh huh," 'yeah," "no," "pain," "help," "Hi," "help me," "stop," and "mommy." For a synopisis of her medical history and evident improvement over time go to: http://www.theempirejournal.com/02230551_medical_observations_sh.htm

The point here is that only a Clinical/Neuro-Psychologist is guaranteed to have the necessary specific, in-depth, training in cognitive psychology needed to determine whether or not the above is wishful thinking or genuine attempts at communication and an ability to process sensory input/information.

Many a Neurologist or Psychiatrist (medical doctors) may very well have such training but there's no guarantee it's as in-depth as a psychologist's, on account of them being more medically orientated.

It must however be noted that the recent brain scans of Terri appearing on the newswires show that there was indeed very little cause for hope. It is virtually certain that Terri was gone long before her body died.

That said, if no comprehensive psychological tests were conducted to determine the degree of Terri's capacity for self-awareness and ability to process information, then some serious questions need to be asked.
_
HP

[HypnoPsi]

Originally posted by Number Six
If you tell someone "Move your arm" a thousand times and they do it a few of those times it doesn't mean they're responding to your commands, rather it just means you're data mining. In order to determine whether the person is actually responding to commands a more objective approach that is less susceptible to confirmation bias is needed. That's the point of having the various court appointed doctors do their exams, etc. instead of just having someone say "Look, she moved, she must be responding to our commands" or "It sounds like she said 'Mommy' to me."

More generally, you need a method of determining truth that is separated as much as possible from what we want truth to be, otherwise all manner of conscious and unconscious bias can alter our conclusions.

"Clinial Neuropsychology" is both a research field and 'applied clinical science' that deals almost exclusively with brain damaged individuals. It exists as a field both to determine what part of the brain does what and to help treat, care for and rehabilitate individuals with brain damage.

There are numerous tests in cognitive psychology and most clinical neuropsychologists (and, indeed, most clinical psychlolgists) will be creative enough to find a mode of communication with a brain damaged patient if such can be established.

Assessing someone's ability for self-referencing, self-consciousness, self-awareness and ability to process sensory input and stimuli is what clinical neuropsychologists do. As important and respectable as neurology certainly is, it is cognitive tests rather than neural scans that determine cognitive functioning. (Or, more accurately, they should be used in combination.)

The context within which the debate was/is occurring strikes me as rather odd.

Alas, yes, Terri probably was 'gone' and the decision made probably was the right one. But without knowing the results of any cognitive tests the situation will be forever be indeterminate no matter how much the neurological evidence suggests the worst.
_
HP

[Number Six]

Originally posted by Rouser2
In many cases it was the "appointed doctors" who noted responses to commands. Nonetheless, according to representative studies of PVS diagnosed patients, neurologists inaccuratly diagnose PVS in anywhere from 37 percent to 75 percent of such patients. One study reported in the British Medical Journal conlcudes that neurologists should not be the only ones involved in making such determinations, but family members as welll.

bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/313/7048/13

How is it that the opinion of these "appointed doctors" is good enough for you on that particular point but not good enough when their overall conclusion is that she was in a PVS?

And how do they know if someone is misdiagnosed as being in a PVS? Maybe their conclusion that their misdiagnosis was itself a misdiagnosis.

One study in a journal said the family should be included in the diagnosis as well? It'd take about 50 studies for me to buy it because of the nature of the claim. I wonder if it's the case that one study out of a bunch said maybe, possibly the family could be of assistance and you're cherry picking that one.

And anyway, what happens when the family members disagree? Michael Schiavo was a family member and the closest one to boot and he said she was gone. The Schindlers said she was not. Who is right and doesn't the fact that there is so much emotion involved lessen the credibility of their opinions, which necessitates getting indpendent parties in the first place?

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by HypnoPsi [/i]


>>It must however be noted that the recent brain scans of Terri appearing on the newswires show that there was indeed very little cause for hope.

How do you know that? Are you a radiologist?

>> It is virtually certain that Terri was gone long before her body died.

A 37 to 75 percent error rate is a "virtually certain" diagnosis????

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by Number Six [/i]


>> quote:Originally posted by Rouser2
In many cases it was the "appointed doctors" who noted responses to commands. Nonetheless, according to representative studies of PVS diagnosed patients, neurologists inaccuratly diagnose PVS in anywhere from 37 percent to 75 percent of such patients. One study reported in the British Medical Journal conlcudes that neurologists should not be the only ones involved in making such determinations, but family members as welll.

bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/313/7048/13



>>How is it that the opinion of these "appointed doctors" is good enough for you on that particular point but not good enough when their overall conclusion is that she was in a PVS?

The recorded responses of the patient are not "opinions."

>>And how do they know if someone is misdiagnosed as being in a PVS?

Obviously they don't. In the face of the statistics regarding mis-diagnosis, any diagnosis is the equivalent of a blind man throwing darts at an unknown target.

>>Maybe their conclusion that their misdiagnosis was itself a misdiagnosis.

If you are referring to the afore mentioned study, it's pretty hard do diagnose a patient as PVS who can do all of the things these mis-diagnosed patients could do. Nonetheless, if you've got a crendential to empower you, or in the case of Dr.Ronald Cranford, several crendentialsl, including Neurology and Bio-Ethics, then you can pretty much make any declaration you want, and the system will bow down to you. Cranford once diagnosed a patient PVS who could on command place colored pegs into their appropriate colored slots. Think you could do that? Then a super-credentialed doctor like Cranford could diagnose you as PVS too.

>>One study in a journal said the family should be included in the diagnosis as well? It'd take about 50 studies for me to buy it because of the nature of the claim.

Some people have the notion that families are more important than credentialed strangers.

>> I wonder if it's the case that one study out of a bunch said maybe, possibly the family could be of assistance and you're cherry picking that one.

There are only two studies out there. Pretty hard to cherry-pick when there are only two choices.

>>And anyway, what happens when the family members disagree? Michael Schiavo was a family member and the closest one to boot and he said she was gone. The Schindlers said she was not. Who is right and doesn't the fact that there is so much emotion involved lessen the credibility of their opinions, which necessitates getting indpendent parties in the first place?

Murder used to be thing that was wrong, no matter who wanted you to die.

[HypnoPsi]

Originally posted by Rouser2
Are you a radiologist?No.A 37 to 75 percent error rate is a "virtually certain" diagnosis???? No. Are you aware of the misdiagnosis rate for the degree of atrophy in cases like Terri's?

Nobody, absolutely nobody, is truly qualified to speak about Terri's degree of self-awareness or capacity for cognitive functioning unless they actually know the results of any cognitive tests undertaken with her. That includes you working from hearsay and all the amateur neuroscientists who seem to have sprung up everywhere.

Virtually certain may have been a poor choice of words. I accept that some of the footage of Terri was suggestive of cognition.

I also confess some surprise that so many 'atheists' were so willing to see Terri's one shot at life (they assume) ended without applying enough (any?) skepticism to the over emphasis on brain scans. I am further at a loss to explain why said 'atheists' should also support metaphysical ideas about marriage where the spouse has such remarkable power over the care of their partner - even if such metaphysical ideas have been written into legislation. Terri's parents and sibiling clearly cared about her very deeply and have known and loved her for much longer than her husband.

Archaic ideas about a spouse being the sole guardian of a husband or wife have no place in a modern world where the bride or groom's parents can be expected to live until about 75 themselves and to have a consistent role in their child's life over that time.

There is an almost celebratory attitude to Terri's death displayed by certain people online that should be condemned.
_
HP

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by HypnoPsi [/i]

>>Originally posted by HypnoPsi [/i]

quote:Originally posted by Rouser2
Are you a radiologist?

>>No.

quote:A 37 to 75 percent error rate is a "virtually certain" diagnosis????

>>No. Are you aware of the misdiagnosis rate for the degree of atrophy in cases like Terri's?

And just what "degree" would that be? No one really knows, though some neurologists think they know. Only a radiologist is best qualified to read CT scans upon which most of these superficial diagnoses are based and there seem to be sharp differences between what radiologists see and what neurologists think they see. Ditto for all of the "armchair" evaluators who only know what they hear from the mainstream media.

[Beady]

I've been watching this thread from a far, very reluctant to get involved. OTOH, why not? Since I haven't read every message (at least 50% of it seems to be "You don't know jack!"), this post is directed solely at the quotes, below:

Originally posted by HypnoPsi
No.No. Are you aware of the misdiagnosis rate for the degree of atrophy in cases like Terri's?

Not very relevent. The misdiagnosis rate could be 100% or 0.01%, but it would have no direct bearing on this case.

Nobody, absolutely nobody, is truly qualified to speak about Terri's degree of self-awareness or capacity for cognitive functioning unless they actually know the results of any cognitive tests undertaken with her. That includes you working from hearsay and all the amateur neuroscientists who seem to have sprung up everywhere.

Which is precisely why I've just been lurking and not contributing. Not a single person with any first-hand knowledge has been participating in this thread, yet participants are certain-sure that their position is absolutely correct, despite the almost complete lack of real facts.

Virtually certain may have been a poor choice of words. I accept that some of the footage of Terri was suggestive of cognition.

I don't know about you, but I've seen probably less than 60 seconds, total (probably closer to 10 or 20), of videotape. Mostly, it was the same bit, shown over and over again. I have no idea how much was actually shot, but I imagine there was an awful lot over 15 years. Was this little snippet (the most recent of which, I understand, is four years old), the most representative?

I also confess some surprise that so many 'atheists' were so willing to see Terri's one shot at life (they assume) ended without applying enough (any?) skepticism to the over emphasis on brain scans.

All I can say to this is that the majority of medical authorities with first-hand knowledge accepted this evidence, and it was compelling enough to convince the courts. My wife and I have agreed that, in like circumstances, we should each pull the plug on the other, and we have written living wills to that effect. Our feeling is that we can't know everything, ourselves, so we have to choose people whom we think we can trust, then trust them.

I am further at a loss to explain why said 'atheists' should also support metaphysical ideas about marriage where the spouse has such remarkable power over the care of their partner - even if such metaphysical ideas have been written into legislation.

This is hardly an atheistic idea. Biblicly(sp?), a wife is supposed to leave her parents and "cleave unto" her husband (please note I'm not being sexist, that's just what the Bible says - it applies the other way, too*). Catholics consider this a sacrament, while Luther's feeling was that marriage was more of a social-legal relationship (look up "Marriage," in a three-volume work called, "What Luther Says" - I imagine it's available in most Lutheran church libraries). For the religious, the laws of both god and man bind the couple and exclude the rest of the world. For the atheist, the laws of man are enough.

Terri's parents and sibiling clearly cared about her very deeply and have known and loved her for much longer than her husband.

I find this comment odd, given your apparent feeling about legislation. The above makes it sound like you, yourself, would legislate some sort of divorce, giving the biological relatives custody based on seniority. Under what circumstances should this divorce be invoked?

Archaic ideas about a spouse being the sole guardian of a husband or wife have no place in a modern world where the bride or groom's parents can be expected to live until about 75 themselves and to have a consistent role in their child's life over that time.

There are a lot of questions inherently included with this statement. For example, it appears that you wish to subject the married couple to the authority of their parents, so that the incoming spouse becomes a sort of adopted child with sexual privileges. What role do the spouse's parents play? What about the grandparents? For that matter, what role does the spouse play? What about siblings? Does everybody get a vote? Just exactly what does this redesigned family of yours look like?

There is an almost celebratory attitude to Terri's death displayed by certain people online that should be condemned.

Personally, I'm just glad it's over, and I wish the vultures would stop picking over the body.

*I feel ridiculous whenever I put in disclaimers like this, but some yutz is almost certain to seize upon it if I don't).

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by Beady [/i]

>>All I can say to this is that the majority of medical authorities with first-hand knowledge accepted this evidence, and it was compelling enough to convince the courts.

The "majority" of medical authorities in the final hearing consisted of just 5, 2 pro-life apointed by the Schindler family, 2 pro-death appointed by the Schiavo family and one pro-death appointed by "The Court." The vote was predictably 3 to 2 in favor of death. Some "majority." And they didn't convince "courts" but "court" -- just one court, consisting of a single judge, who acted as judge, jury and executioner. All the other "courts" only reviewed "process" -- not fact.


>>My wife and I have agreed that, in like circumstances, we should each pull the plug on the other, and we have written living wills to that effect. Our feeling is that we can't know everything, ourselves, so we have to choose people whom we think we can trust, then trust them.

Have you specified how you would like to "go"? Starvation and dehydration, OK???

[HypnoPsi]

Originally posted by Rouser2
Only a radiologist is best qualified to read CT scans upon which most of these superficial diagnoses are based and there seem to be sharp differences between what radiologists see and what neurologists think they see. Ditto for all of the "armchair" evaluators who only know what they hear from the mainstream media.If there is any intelligible purpose behind keeping websites and movements like "Terri's fight" in the public eye beyond Terri Schindler-Schiavo's passing, it can only be to prevent future mistakes.

Going over the video clips and brain scans isn't a way to move the argument forward as both sides are quite firmly entrenched - even though the evidence is inconclusive at best.

You need to stop focussing on neurologists and radiologists and think more about clinical/neuropsychology - because, for the Nth time, it is only these professionals who are guaranteed to have extensive training in the clinical application of cognitive tests.

That said, we have to face the fact that as medical science continues to advance we have more and more ways of keeping people alive in low quality of life states - sometimes very low quality of life states - after suffering severe physical trauma.

It is a simple fact of life that caring for such patients often requires highly skilled teams of doctors, nurses, physiotherapists, psychotherapists, counsellors, nutritionists and clinical/neuropsycholgists. Even the most optimistic diagnosis of Terri Schindler-Schiavo would have to accept that she required considerable daily care.

Even if Terri's parents would have gladly supplied most of this (the most optimistic diagnosis would be that Terri only required feeding via a tube, cleaning and social stimulation with occasional professional assistance) we still have to consider costs and resources.

There is significant and good cause for "Terri's fight" supporters to ask about tests conducted (or not conducted) by a clinical/neuropsychologist to determine her level of self-awareness and cognisance, but that is not the only issue society has to find the maturity to face. Nor is the possible lack of testing by a clinical/neuropsychologist reason to assume or conclude that Terri's medical team and husband were in any way unethical or adversely motivated in terms of Terri's wellbeing.
_
HP

[HypnoPsi]

Originally posted by Beady
Not a single person with any first-hand knowledge has been participating in this thread, yet participants are certain-sure that their position is absolutely correct, despite the almost complete lack of real facts.Exactly.I don't know about you, but I've seen probably less than 60 seconds, total (probably closer to 10 or 20), of videotape. Mostly, it was the same bit, shown over and over again. I have no idea how much was actually shot, but I imagine there was an awful lot over 15 years. Was this little snippet (the most recent of which, I understand, is four years old), the most representative?A very good question.All I can say to this is that the majority of medical authorities with first-hand knowledge accepted this evidence, and it was compelling enough to convince the courts. My wife and I have agreed that, in like circumstances, we should each pull the plug on the other, and we have written living wills to that effect. Our feeling is that we can't know everything, ourselves, so we have to choose people whom we think we can trust, then trust them.But we can't say for definate this was Terri's wish.I find this comment odd, given your apparent feeling about legislation. The above makes it sound like you, yourself, would legislate some sort of divorce, giving the biological relatives custody based on seniority. Under what circumstances should this divorce be invoked?A very difficult question to answer... but was it true that her husband had moved on and was in a new relationship (with children?)?There are a lot of questions inherently included with this statement. For example, it appears that you wish to subject the married couple to the authority of their parents, so that the incoming spouse becomes a sort of adopted child with sexual privileges. What role do the spouse's parents play? What about the grandparents? For that matter, what role does the spouse play? What about siblings? Does everybody get a vote? Just exactly what does this redesigned family of yours look like?No. I was not suggesting that spouses become adopted children (though they already are daughter's and son's in-law with mother's and father's in law) where their in-laws have legal powers over their care. What I was suggesting is that your parents shouldn't just lose all say in your physical care (in situations such as Terris) to the spouse just because you have married. (How long had Terri been married before she became debilitated?)

This of course, is a very, very complex issue but I think it's something that society needs to explore... Some people aren't close to their parents... some people develop antipathy and hostility to their spouses. It's a murky area for the courts to become involved in. I don't know what the best solution is, but I do know that in the Terri Schindler-Schiavo case it just doesn't seem right that Terri's husband had all the legal rights by default. Even if he had the best of intentions, banning her siblings from access towards the end and her entire family from access at the end just seems wrong.

In child custody battles estranged parents still usually end up with weekend access to their kids. (Itself not always a perfect solution.)Personally, I'm just glad it's over, and I wish the vultures would stop picking over the body.I think it's just the beginning of something. Something similar to the whole pro-choice v's pro-life debate.

We have to plan for pensions at 16/18, right? Maybe some legal requirement to draft up a living will might be useful as well?
_
HP

[Beady]

Originally posted by Rouser2
The "majority" of medical authorities in the final hearing consisted of just 5, 2 pro-life apointed by the Schindler family, 2 pro-death appointed by the Schiavo family and one pro-death appointed by "The Court."...

Have you specified how you would like to "go"? Starvation and dehydration, OK???

It's pointless to attempt reasonable discourse with drunks and bigots. Not many people make it onto my Ignore list after a single reply; congradulations.

For the record, however, you have failed to establish that anyone was pro-this or pro-that, and assertions without corroboration need not be considered.

As for our personal preferences, as I said, you choose people you can trust, then you trust them.

[Beady]

(The engine has deleted all the places you quote me, and combined your individual replies into one long paragraph. My apologies if I get the contexts a little off.)

Originally posted by HypnoPsi
But we can't say for definate this was Terri's wish.

That's because nothing was written down. I deal with evidence in my job; by law, I can't make decisions based on evidence that isn't there, I can only deal with what is actually present. The only real evidence we have here is a marriage certificate, and the knowledge that the couple did live together as man and wife until the hospitalization. It is reasonable to suppose that married couples discuss such things, and there is no credible contradictory evidence with which to challenge the husband's version of such a conversation. Near as I can tell, the Schindlers' case was based entirely on emotion, and not on evidence.

A very difficult question to answer... but was it true that her husband had moved on and was in a new relationship (with children?)?

This does tend to muddy the water a little. However, the legal relationship was still in force. Extramarital afffairs do not, in themselves, terminate marriages.

What I was suggesting is that your parents shouldn't just lose all say in your physical care (in situations such as Terris) to the spouse just because you have married.

It may surprise you to learn that, as a legal issue, this "revision" of the family would actually be a retrogression to the Roman republic and early empire, where it took formal manumission at the father's discretion, or the father's death, for the son to become an adult.

Anyway, it still sounds like you want the parents to be legally able to intrude into the maried couple's life. How much, and under what circumstances? Just for physical care? What if the parents don't like the husband's choice of, say, visiting nurse?

(How long had Terri been married before she became debilitated?)

Why is this relevent? Are you suggesting marriages go through a probationary period? Suppose Teri's (one "r" or two?) accident had occurred one day after probation? Even with such a probation, there would come a time when society and the law would judge that the marriage was viable.

Y'know, actually, a probationary period isn't such a bad idea. But that's another discussion.

I don't know what the best solution is, but I do know that in the Terri Schindler-Schiavo case it just doesn't seem right that Terri's husband had all the legal rights by default.

Like it or not, fair or not, that's the way it is and, for the most part, always has been, in all societies and in all times.

But look at your teminology, you only addressed the rights, and it's only the rights that you have been considering. Isn't it equally unfair that he also had all the responsibilities by default? As the Schindlers, themselves, said, he could have gotten a divorce and walked away. Instead, he fought for 15 years to retain both his rights and his responsibility.

Why did he do it? I'm vaguely aware that he received a pretty hefty financial settlement because of Teri's accident, but that was almost certainly swallowed up in legal fees and medical expenses over the last 15 years. There was therefore no financial incentive. Without a financial incentive, the only thing left to consider is emotion. Although I have no intention of assigning motive, does it seem reasonable that he was motivated to such lengths by dislike of either his wife or his in-laws?

Even if he had the best of intentions, banning her siblings from access towards the end and her entire family from access at the end just seems wrong.

It disturbs me, too. However, we don't know what actually occurred other than the public "He said/she said"-type of accusations that were made.

We have to plan for pensions at 16/18, right? Maybe some legal requirement to draft up a living will might be useful as well?

When we were married, we got a free kit full of stuff from local merchants, mostly "feminine hygene"items. Maybe legal firms should contribute living will forms.

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by HypnoPsi [/i]

>>You need to stop focussing on neurologists and radiologists and think more about clinical/neuropsychology - because, for the Nth time, it is only these professionals who are guaranteed to have extensive training in the clinical application of cognitive tests.

Oh, I've thought about it. And it is also fallacious to think that a so-called clinical/n europsychologist could have an definitive answers to be relied on. Fact is, many so-called PVS patients are mis-diagnosed. Some of those mis-diagnosed are fully or substantially cognizant, but have no way of communicating cognizance. And some have returned from that state and said so. The condition is called "Locked-In Syndrome":

"What is Locked-In Syndrome?
Locked-in syndrome is a rare neurological disorder characterized by complete paralysis of voluntary muscles in all parts of the body except for those that control eye movement. It may result from traumatic brain injury, diseases of the circulatory system, diseases that destroy the myelin sheath surrounding nerve cells, or medication overdose. Individuals with locked-in syndrome are conscious and can think and reason, but are unable to speak or move. The disorder leaves individuals completely mute and paralyzed. Communication may be possible with blinking eye movments"
http://www.ninds.nih.gov/disorders/lockedinsyndrome/lockedinsyndrome.htm


* * *

Locked in Syndrome, i recovered
This article submitted by Michael Hulbert on 5/22/99.
Email Address: michael hulbert

"I am a young man aged 28. In 1994 I sustained LIS, now, May 1999, I can say I have recovered to near normal. From only been able to move my eye lids, I can now walk and have managed to secure a good job. Im very interested in working with others who may have LIS, and, more so with Medical researches who may try and discover how I recovered from a neurological point of view."

http://neuro-www.mgh.harvard.edu/forum_2/GeneralNeurologyF/5.22.9910.55AMLockedinSyn.html


* * *

Who speaks for the patient with the locked-in syndrome?

[No authors listed]

KIE: "A case is presented involving a nursing home patient who suffered a stroke that left him unable to speak or move, and thus unable to communicate his wishes except through eye movement. Steffen ponders several questions related to whether this patient should be given life-prolonging treatment, including whether he is competent to give or withhold consent, how a guardian could justify a third-party consent or refusal, and whether the attending physician could write a "do not resuscitate" order without the approval of the patient's guardian. He concludes intuitively that life-sustaining therapy should not be given in view of the patient's quality of life and the burden of his illness. Franklin disagrees, contending that it is unfair to withhold life-sustaining therapy because a patient cannot communicate and that there is an increasing number of cases on record of patients with locked-in syndrome who have recovered or have learned to communicate through Morse code or computers."

from Pub Med, Natinoal library of Medicine

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=4066303&dopt=Abstract

[HypnoPsi]

Originally posted by Beady
As the Schindlers, themselves, said, he could have gotten a divorce and walked away. Instead, he fought for 15 years to retain both his rights and his responsibility.

Why did he do it? I'm vaguely aware that he received a pretty hefty financial settlement because of Teri's accident, but that was almost certainly swallowed up in legal fees and medical expenses over the last 15 years. There was therefore no financial incentive. Without a financial incentive, the only thing left to consider is emotion. Although I have no intention of assigning motive, does it seem reasonable that he was motivated to such lengths by dislike of either his wife or his in-laws?I disagree with the attributing of alterior motives to Mr Schiavo or to the Neurologists myself as well.

The thing is, it strikes me that it is better to "er on the side of caution". Terri Shiavo was self sufficient and definately displaying some level of seeming cognition occasionally. She obviously did need to be cleaned and fed with a tube, but that's about it. If she was not comprehensively assessed by a clinical/neuropsychologist (I don't know for sure), I think people definately need to ask why not - as it is only they who can properly assess self-awareness and cognitive ability. I'm not saying neurologists are redundant in this diagnosis - far from it - but it's not their speciality.

No amount of arguing about it in court or videotapes or brain scans can compare with a clinical/neuropsychologist spending a few quality hours with a patient. Compared to the time, resources and hours spent on everything else, I'm at a loss to explain the seeming absense of a clinical/neuropsychologist on either sides 'team'.Maybe legal firms should contribute living will forms. I'm thinking it's the only way to move the argument forward rather than getting stuck in a quagmire of finger pointing. We live in a world of staggering medical advances and even though many of us in western society will hopefully life to a grand old age, we must face the fact that we could easily, eventually, end up in a state where decisions have to be made for us.
_
HP

[Beady]

Originally posted by HypnoPsi
The thing is, it strikes me that it is better to "er on the side of caution".

It's better for *who* to err? That's the fundamental point. Who had the right to make the decision? If it's not you or I, then neither do we we really have a right to criticize the decision that is finally made. As to whether it should be the husband or the parents, laws are already in place defining that, and those laws have been in operation for centuries. If you don't like the laws, change them, don't violate them.

And, as far as erring on the side of caution, just exactly which side is that? What precise reasons do you have for doubting the husband's statement that his wife told him she did not wish to live as a vegetable?

Terri Shiavo was self sufficient and definately displaying some level of seeming cognition occasionally.

This is self-contradictory. Was she *definitely* displaying cognition, or *seemingly* displaying it? Also, as already discussed, this statement is made on the basis of less than 20 seconds of four-year-old videotape, selected from god-knows-how-much tape shot over 15 years. It is also made on the basis of statments made by people who have an interest in the matter.

The most trustworthy *evidence* available to the public is the opinions of the independently-appointed medical personnel, those who owe no loyalty to either side. The concensus of that opinion was that Teri was in a persistent vegatative state.

If she was not comprehensively assessed by a clinical/neuropsychologist (I don't know for sure), I think people definately need to ask why not - as it is only they who can properly assess self-awareness and cognitive ability. I'm not saying neurologists are redundant in this diagnosis - far from it - but it's not their speciality.

I'm not knowledgable enough about the differences in the specialties to comment, here. But I do note that you admit to being doubtful of the reliability of your own assumptions.

Do you have any *evidence* that proper medical authority was not consulted?

Compared to the time, resources and hours spent on everything else, I'm at a loss to explain the seeming absense of a clinical/neuropsychologist on either sides 'team'.

Or from any independently-appointed team, don't forget. Does it seem creditable to you, given the lengths gone to, that this step was simply ignored by everyone involved? Have you considered the possibility that this was considered unnecessary by all with direct and authoritative knowledge?

We live in a world of staggering medical advances and even though many of us in western society will hopefully life to a grand old age, we must face the fact that we could easily, eventually, end up in a state where decisions have to be made for us.

On this, you and I are in complete agreement. One thing I've learned in my job, and it should be apparent to anyone who watches Judge Judy, etc: "Paper Always Wins." The person who can produce a receipt, contract, living will, whatever, is always going to prevail over the person who cannot. A piece of paper is physical evidence which *must* be taken into account. The only thing that stands a reasonable chance of defeating that piece of paper is another piece of paper, typically with a more-recent date.

[HypnoPsi]

Originally posted by Beady
Who had the right to make the decision? If it's not you or I, then neither do we we really have a right to criticize the decision that is finally made.I understand what you're trying to say but I cannot agree with it. I think we could almost be said to have a civid duty to criticise decisions that we disagree with when we believe it is in the social interest (even if we turn out being wrong).As to whether it should be the husband or the parents, laws are already in place defining that, and those laws have been in operation for centuries. If you don't like the laws, change them, don't violate them.When did I say anything about violating those laws?And, as far as erring on the side of caution, just exactly which side is that? What precise reasons do you have for doubting the husband's statement that his wife told him she did not wish to live as a vegetable?I don't actually have any doubt that his wife told him she did not want to live as a 'vegetable'. What I have are some doubts about her actually being in a persistant vegitative state at the time the videos were taken.This is self-contradictory. Was she *definitely* displaying cognition, or *seemingly* displaying it?In the swab test video, Terri's raises her arm in addition to moving away from an unpleasant stimulation. Since reflexes are clear autonomic motions away from a stimuli we could conclude that is all the moving away was (though that seems rather unlikely since she moves away twice in a methodological manner rather than what one would expect if this were simply a reflex action). But her raising her arm in conjunction with moving away from the swab and the additional moaning indicates perception and intentional volition. (Let's put it this way, I fail to see how it can be considered reflexive since the reflex arc definately doesn't work that way.)The most trustworthy *evidence* available to the public is the opinions of the independently-appointed medical personnel, those who owe no loyalty to either side. The concensus of that opinion was that Teri was in a persistent vegatative state.From "http://makeashorterlink.com/?S2E2264BA "But it is hardly coincidental that the doctors who spent the most time with Terri came to the conclusion that she is not PVS."

From http://www.terrisfight.org/ (citing the Florida Statute): Persistent vegetative state means a permanent and irreversible condition of unconsciousness in which there is:

(a) The absence of voluntary action or cognitive behavior of ANY kind.
(b) An inability to communicate or interact purposefully with the environment.

PVS just doesn't fit with Terri in those videos - though she may have been PVS at the end.Do you have any *evidence* that proper medical authority was not consulted?It's not up to me to prove a negative. Nor am I making the assertion that Terri was not assessed by a Clinical/Neuropsychologist. I am, however, saying that it strikes me as incredible that one or both sides in this thing aren't presenting the evidence from any such assessment - as it is only thorough cognitive tests that can accurately determine congnition. And it is only Clinical/Neuropsychologists who are guaranteed to be fully trained in the clinical application of cognitive psychology. I think, by default, the burden of proof lies with those responsible medically and legally for Terri to declare that she was assessed thoroughly by a licenced Clinical/Neuropsychologist.Have you considered the possibility that this was considered unnecessary by all with direct and authoritative knowledge?That possibility is what interests me here since only genuine authoritative knowledge of cognitive functioning can come from comprehensive tests of cognitive functioning. The more I read the more that the absense of any debates over comprehensive tests of cognitive functioning strikes me - though I cannot say they definately were not undertaken.The person who can produce a receipt, contract, living will, whatever, is always going to prevail over the person who cannot. A piece of paper is physical evidence which *must* be taken into account. The only thing that stands a reasonable chance of defeating that piece of paper is another piece of paper, typically with a more-recent date. Almost certainly.
_
HP

[Beady]

Originally posted by HypnoPsi
I think we could almost be said to have a civid duty to criticise decisions that we disagree with when we believe it is in the social interest (even if we turn out being wrong).

I'm talking about the decision Michael Schaivo made; no venal motive makes sense, and so I will not criticise him.

As for the various governmental decisions to interfer, I'm critical as hell. And I'm almost livid at Bush's grandstanding flight back to Washington to sign the act, when he could have quietly signed off in Crawford. And then there's Delay, who apparently wants to make it an impeachable offence for a judge to rule against him.

When did I say anything about violating those laws?

Bad phrasing on my part. Sorry.

I don't actually have any doubt that his wife told him she did not want to live as a 'vegetable'. What I have are some doubts about her actually being in a persistant vegitative state...

Fair enough. My own view is that there is no reason to think the decision was reached by anything other than competent people of good will, acting to the best of their ability with the best of intentions. Whatever mistakes may or may not have occurred in Teri's case, I doubt that anyone in his right mind can justly claim that Teri fell through the cracks. This must have been one of the most intensively-examined cases in modern medical history.

[HypnoPsi]

Originally posted by Beady
I'm talking about the decision Michael Schaivo made; no venal motive makes sense, and so I will not criticise him.Terri's family just wanted to take her home - and her parents and siblings certainly didn't have alterior motives. It is very difficult to explain why Michael didn't just walk away in light of the financial situation not benefiting him unless one considers that he acted out of compassion - I agree. But that does not mean he made the right decision.

Terri's actions on the limited videos we have simply do not support the PVS diagnosis (The absence of voluntary action or cognitive behavior of ANY kind (and) An inability to communicate or interact purposefully with the environment.). And, again:

From "http://makeashorterlink.com/?S2E2264BA "But it is hardly coincidental that the doctors who spent the most time with Terri came to the conclusion that she is not PVS."As for the various governmental decisions to interfer, I'm critical as hell. And I'm almost livid at Bush's grandstanding flight back to Washington to sign the act, when he could have quietly signed off in Crawford. And then there's Delay, who apparently wants to make it an impeachable offence for a judge to rule against him.Being in the UK, I'm not completely aware of the American political situation surrounding this issue. What I will say is that since there is sufficient cause for doubt in the PVS diagnosis, and since Terri only required assistance with feeding, the possibility that she was aware of her own starving and dehydrating to death for the last two weeks is entirely unacceptable.My own view is that there is no reason to think the decision was reached by anything other than competent people of good will, acting to the best of their ability with the best of intentions. Whatever mistakes may or may not have occurred in Teri's case, I doubt that anyone in his right mind can justly claim that Teri fell through the cracks. This must have been one of the most intensively-examined cases in modern medical history. Hmmm.... I HypnoPsi, being of sound mind, etc., will catagorically state that if it turns out that Terri Schindler-Schiavo's cognitive functioning was not comprehensively assessed by a Clinical/Neuropsychologist (preferably more than one) or by a Neurologist who can demonstrate advanced training in Cognitive Psychology then she did indeed fall through the cracks.

I think people should be asking what tests were undertaken? What results were recorded? What training did the examiner(s) have? These are questions that anyone with an interest in skepticism and rationalism should be asking...

This affects all of us in the UK and US given the possibility that we ourselves or members of our family, even late in life, might (unintentionally) suffer prior to death.

Assessing cognitive functioning by brain scans alone takes us back to the days of Morton assessing the differences between the "races" via skull size alone (and he didn't even measure the cranial capacity correctly). This is sticks and stones stuff rather than precision science.
_
HP

[sphenisc]

I thought this was interesting in relation to the current debate.

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn7304

I guess it might be possible in the not to distant future to identify regions associated with awareness/consciousness and pickup activity (or its absence). If so it might make these cases a little easier to decide - depending on whether you regard that as an important factor in making such decisions.

[Beady]

Originally posted by HypnoPsi
Terri's family just wanted to take her home - and her parents and siblings certainly didn't have alterior motives. It is very difficult to explain why Michael didn't just walk away in light of the financial situation not benefiting him unless one considers that he acted out of compassion - I agree. But that does not mean he made the right decision.

Nor is there any definitive evidence that the Schindlers' wishes, had they been carried out, would have been the correct decision. For one thing, I really don't believe we've settled on what the "correct" decision would have been. IMO, the correct decision would have been to carry out Teri's wishes. I believe your argument here is to the effect that it has not been established that the conditions that would trigger her wishes had occurred. I disagree, for the reasons already stated.

Terri's actions on the limited videos we have simply do not support the PVS diagnosis (The absence of voluntary action or cognitive behavior of ANY kind (and) An inability to communicate or interact purposefully with the environment.).

Again, I disagree, for the reasons already stated.

Being in the UK, I'm not completely aware of the American political situation surrounding this issue.

Very briefly, Bush's party, the Republicans, generally argue that less government is better. In the Schaivo case, they seemingly did a complete about-face when the Republican-dominated Congress and the Republican president enacted unprecedented legislation enabling the government to enter into what, essentially, was a "private" and family matter. This even took the form of issuing a subpoena requiring Teri, herself, to testify before Congress. At one point, a memo by a Republican staff member became public, commenting on how much political capital could be realized in the next election; when all was over, the supposed author of this memo was fired, and the Senator(?) in whose office he worked did everything he could to distance himself from the matter.

What I will say is that since there is sufficient cause for doubt in the PVS diagnosis...

Caution: This is only your opinion; it is not a fact.

...and since Terri only required assistance with feeding, the possibility that she was aware of her own starving and dehydrating to death for the last two weeks is entirely unacceptable.

Such a possibility is only hypothetical. You are completely ignoring the medication she was given after the tube was withdrawn. I *believe* she was on substantial doses of morphine, among others. At any rate, there was more to her treatment and process than merely withdrawing the tube and leaving her to literally wither.

I think people should be asking what tests were undertaken? What results were recorded? What training did the examiner(s) have? These are questions that anyone with an interest in skepticism and rationalism should be asking...

Given the high profile and duration of the case, I am completely stumped that you seem unconvinced that these questions were addressed at the time. At any rate, I'm sure there will be several books in the extremely near future that will address these issues. Problem is, I've got a hunch these books are going to range across the entire spectrum, up to and including various conspiracy theories. Unless a person has personal access to the original documentation, I really doubt the "truth" will ever be known.

[HypnoPsi]

Originally posted by Beady
IMO, the correct decision would have been to carry out Teri's wishes.On this note we have two oppossing testimonials which should have cancelled each other out. On the one hand we have Michael's testimonial that Terri did not wish to live in a PVS while on the other hand we have Terri's family pointing out she was a very devout Catholic who would have followed the Pope's (JP II) recent declaration on the immorality of denying assisted feeding. (So that's both her parents and two(?) siblings against her husband. Technically more testimonials in favour of Terri not wishing to be deprieved of nutrition and hydration.)I believe your argument here is to the effect that it has not been established that the conditions that would trigger her wishes had occurred. I disagree, for the reasons already stated.Again Terri's wishes have not been definately established - even though the court ruled in Michael's favour. And again from:

"http://makeashorterlink.com/?S2E2264BA "But it is hardly coincidental that the doctors who spent the most time with Terri came to the conclusion that she is not PVS."

There was clearly disagreement over the diagnosis - and I still can't find any evidence of a comprehensive assessment by a Clinical/Neuropsychologist. You say you disagree that Terri was not PVS for the reasons 'already stated' that the Doctors acted in good faith. While I am sure of their professionalism, good faith simply isn't enough when we're discussing a matter of life or death. Unless a patient "fails" cognitive behavioural testing the default decision should be to assume self-awareness and cognition - just as we assume innocence until proven guilty.

Consider the following:

In re Guardianship of Schiavo, 780 So.2d 176, 177, the Second District appellate court in 2001 said this:
"Theresa's brain has deteriorated because of the lack of oxygen it suffered at the time of the heart attack. By mid 1996, the CAT scans of her brain showed a severely abnormal structure. At this point, much of her cerebral cortex is simply gone and has been replaced by cerebral spinal fluid. Medicine cannot cure this condition. Unless an act of God, a true miracle, were to recreate her brain, Theresa will always remain in an unconscious, reflexive state..."

As you can see for yourself in the CAT scans *much* (of the cerebral cortex) rather than *most* (of the cerebral cortex) is the operative word here. The midbrain, which is largely responsible for consciousness isn't even mentioned. From http://makeashorterlink.com/?G1CD234FA

"Small lesions in the midbrain and thalamus of patients can lead to a complete loss of consciousness, while destruction of circumscribed parts of the cerebral cortex of patients can eliminate very specific aspects of consciousness"

I have no doubt that Terri's capacity for cognitive processing was considerably impaired, but the information I've read suggests there was no damage to the midbrain (or brainstem). How then can anyone conclude Terri was in "an unconscious, reflexive state"? That's like saying that since someone has lost one or both legs they'll forever be immobile - rather than handicapped.Caution: This is only your opinion; it is not a fact.If the criteria for a PVS diagnosis in Florida are "The absence of voluntary action or cognitive behavior of ANY kind." and "An inability to communicate or interact purposefully with the environment." and if the doctors who spent the most time with Terri did not conclude she was PVS, then it is hardly an opinion that there is sufficient cause for doubt in the PVS diagnosis.Given the high profile and duration of the case, I am completely stumped that you seem unconvinced that these questions were addressed at the time. At any rate, I'm sure there will be several books in the extremely near future that will address these issues.It is because of the extremely high profile of this case and the lack of any discussion of any comprehensive assessment by a clinical/neuropsychologist that I have my doubts. Consider, many people point out that the videos of Terri are 4 years old. That makes me wonder where she would have been after 11 years of therapy and rehabilitation?

Reflexes are single motions controlled by the reflex arc in the spine/brainstem. In the swab test video Terri doesn't just move away from the swab she also raises her arm and can be heard moaning. Even if we can say her moving her head away is reflexive how can we explain her raising her arm unless it is intentional? A working brainstem and midbrain and "much" damage to the cerebral cortex (though not "most" or "gone" as people imagine) just doesn't add up to PVS.
_
HP

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by Beady [/i]

>>Very briefly, Bush's party, the Republicans, generally argue that less government is better. In the Schaivo case, they seemingly did a complete about-face when the Republican-dominated Congress and the Republican president enacted unprecedented legislation enabling the government to enter into what, essentially, was a "private" and family matter.

Nonsense. Once the case became the purvue of the "Courts" it already had involved "the government." In the US of A, as in the UK, the "Courts" are the government. And in the US, the Congress has the constitutional authority to define the jurisdiction of the courts.

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by HypnoPsi [/i]

>>As you can see for yourself in the CAT scans *much* (of the cerebral cortex) rather than *most* (of the cerebral cortex) is the operative word here. The midbrain, which is largely responsible for consciousness isn't even mentioned. From http://makeashorterlink.com/?G1CD234FA

Nonsense. No one can "see" anything for themselves but a trained Radiologist, and even they are not too sure. The 2-dimensional CT scan is nothing but a rorschach test where any lay person, or any neurologist for that matter, can see whatever he/she wants to see. And compared to a healthy, non-vegetative elderly person, there is no significant difference. Ask any radiologist.

http://codeblueblog.blogs.com/codeblueblog/2005/03/codeblueblog_is.html

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by HypnoPsi [/i]

>>It is because of the extremely high profile of this case and the lack of any discussion of any comprehensive assessment by a clinical/neuropsychologis..." blah, blah, blah


All anyone really needs to know about this case is that the family who loved her wanted to care for her for all of her remaining days. The family who did not love her wanted her dead. No clinical/neuropshycologist can trump the love of family. Nor can there be any valid "test" of a person's cognition, if they can't communicate cognition. In Terri's case, she was in and out -- there and not there, cognitive and not cognitive. So what? Does that give another human being the right to commit murder? Is it anything less than "murder" if ordred by a black-robed oath taker????

[jj]

Originally posted by Rouser2
Nonsense. No one can "see" anything for themselves but a trained Radiologist, and even they are not too sure.

Please prove this claim or withdraw it.

[Beady]

Originally posted by HypnoPsi
On this note we have two oppossing testimonials which should have cancelled each other out.

No, they shouldn't. The Schindler's claim is nothing more than an assumption, an inference. Michael's claim is based on an actual statement.

While I am sure of their professionalism, good faith simply isn't enough when we're discussing a matter of life or death.

I believe I actually said "good will." If they truly were professional, as you stipulate, and exercising their best judgment without reference to an agenda, then I see no reason to believe they didn't do everything that was indicated.

As you can see for yourself in the CAT scans...

Actually, those scans are meaningless to me. You might as well point out something in the Magna Carta in the original Latin, and tell me to see for myself how clear it is. I pay doctors to know these things for me.

But this does bring up a question I've been neglecting to ask: What is your medical background? Do you feel yourself competent enough to diagnose with the information you have at hand?

If the criteria for a PVS diagnosis in Florida are "The absence of voluntary action or cognitive behavior of ANY kind." and "An inability to communicate or interact purposefully with the environment." and if the doctors who spent the most time with Terri did not conclude she was PVS, then it is hardly an opinion that there is sufficient cause for doubt in the PVS diagnosis.

There are a lot of "ifs" in there.

It is because of the extremely high profile of this case and the lack of any discussion of any comprehensive assessment by a clinical/neuropsychologist that I have my doubts.

"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." And you have yet to establish that your opinion on the necessity of such a specialist is correct in this particular case. If one wasn't consulted, it was apparently because none of the specialists on-scene, including those favorably disposed to the Schindlers, thought it necessary. If you're going to claim that a clinical/neuropsychologist could have supplied the most definitive answer possible, then (assuming one was not consulted), why didn't the Schindler's call one in? Any attempt to answer that question, in the absence of actual knowledge, must include the possibilities that a) Teri's condition was plain enough to those already present that yet another specialist was unnecessary, or b) Teri's condition was such that they feared his opinion.

Consider, many people point out that the videos of Terri are 4 years old. That makes me wonder where she would have been after 11 years of therapy and rehabilitation?

"Wondering" is nothing more than speculation. We don't know, and there's little or nothing to base an argument on.

Even if we can say her moving her head away is reflexive how can we explain her raising her arm unless it is intentional?

I've never heard that reflexes or other autonomous movements can only occur one at a time.

[thaiboxerken]

I don't know why people try to have a rational discussion with dishonest people like Rouser. He is a liar. It's nigh-impossible to debate with outright liars.

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by jj
Please prove this claim or withdraw it.

http://codeblueblog.blogs.com/codeb...lueblog_is.html

[Beady]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
I don't know why people try to have a rational discussion with dishonest people like Rouser.

I don't. He's been on my Ignore list since his first response to me. I see that he's still posting here, but I have no idea what he's been saying (well, yes I do, which is why he's on my Ignore list - I feel I don't have to actually read him to know what he says).

[Rouser2]

A "Painless" Death? WESLEY J. SMITH


"When I conducted research on this question in preparation for writing my book Forced Exit, I asked St. Louis neurologist William Burke these very questions. Here is what he told me:"

"A conscious [cognitively disabled] person would feel it just as you or I would. They will go into seizures. Their skin cracks, their tongue cracks, their lips crack. They may have nosebleeds because of the drying of the mucus membranes, and heaving and vomiting might ensue because of the drying out of the stomach lining. They feel the pangs of hunger and thirst. Imagine going one day without a glass of water! Death by dehydration takes ten to fourteen days. It is an extremely agonizing death."


* * *

"When they took the feeding tube out, what went through your mind?"

Adamson: "When the feeding tube was turned off for eight days, I thought I was going insane. I was screaming out in my mind, "Don't you know I need to eat?" And even up until that point, I had been having a bagful of Ensure as my nourishment that was going through the feeding tube. At that point, it sounded pretty good. I just wanted something. The fact that I had nothing, the hunger pains overrode every thought I had."


http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/medical_ethics/me0074.html


"it was the most horrific thing I have ever seen" -- Father Pavone on Terri's death.

[athon]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
I don't know why people try to have a rational discussion with dishonest people like Rouser. He is a liar. It's nigh-impossible to debate with outright liars.

Rouser has too much trouble recognizing the bias and hypocracy in his own statements to be able to argue effectively. It doesn't even make for effective trolling; by selectively quoting the opinions of others, he offers nothing of substance to really address.

It's best to step past his nonsense and offer corrections to it only when there's a danger that somebody else might unwittingly think he has something valid to say.

Athon

[Beady]

Originally posted by athon
It doesn't even make for effective trolling; by selectively quoting the opinions of others, he offers nothing of substance to really address.

Notice that his posts have most recently led to a discussion of him, rather than of anything he says? It appears he's reached the point where he'll never be able to convince someone he's right, simply because it's him making the statment.

[HypnoPsi]

Originally posted by Beady
The Schindler's claim is nothing more than an assumption, an inference. Michael's claim is based on an actual statement.Actually, even though we ultimately only have Michael's word for that 'actual statement' my thinking here is that Terri probably did say something to the effect that she wouldn't want to live in a PVS (I know I wouldn't). However, if this was that important to her why didn't she inform her parents and siblings? As for the Schindler's claim, that is based on them knowing their daughter's dedication to the Catholic faith. All we have here on both sides is testimonials.

I'm thinking what I would do in Michael's situation, and I just can't see myself, if I had moved on to another family, locking out an ex's parent's and siblings just because my ex had at one point made a remark like Michael alleges.If they truly were professional, as you stipulate, and exercising their best judgment without reference to an agenda, then I see no reason to believe they didn't do everything that was indicated.I have no doubts as to the professionalism of neurologists. But they have the burden of proof when it comes to comprehensive cognitive testing of Terri. The emphasis on the neurology of the case and no mention of cognitive testing definately makes me curious about the extent to which she was tested.What is your medical background? Do you feel yourself competent enough to diagnose with the information you have at hand?I have no "medical background" or "right of primary diagnosis". My university studies in relation to cognitive psychology, biological psychology and neuropsychology are entirely academic. That's not to say I didn't cover a certain amount of degeneration, damage and disease in relation to psychology and neurophysiology, but I am not a "Clinical Psychologist" or "Clinical Neuropsychologist" which requires about 3-4 years specific post-graduate clinical training in a psychiatric or neurological setting.

I have trained as a therapist though, but that is hardly the same thing - but I'm not just an armchair amateur neuroscientist either...

I have a good enough (academic) understanding of Clinical/Neuropsychology to know roughly what type of thing a Clinical/Neuropsychologist would do with Terri and why it is so important in such cases that these tests be done.

It may well be because of my background that I am much more shocked about the apparent lack of information about these tests, but I'll guarantee anyone who thoroughly looks into this subject will recognise the importance of the role that can be played by these professionals in cases like Terri's. Whether or not Terri was tested thoroughly is still, for me, an unanswered question. But I just can't shake the feeling that we should have heard about this by now.There are a lot of "ifs" in there.So? I'll say it again:

If the criteria for a PVS diagnosis in Florida are "The absence of voluntary action or cognitive behavior of ANY kind." and "An inability to communicate or interact purposefully with the environment." and if the doctors who spent the most time with Terri did not conclude she was PVS, then it is hardly an opinion that there is sufficient cause for doubt in the PVS diagnosis.

This does seem to be the criteria for a PVS diagnosis in Florida and, by default, just as we assume innocence instead of guilt we should assume congition unless it is not displayed in comprehensive testing."Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." And you have yet to establish that your opinion on the necessity of such a specialist is correct in this particular case. If one wasn't consulted, it was apparently because none of the specialists on-scene, including those favorably disposed to the Schindlers, thought it necessary. If you're going to claim that a clinical/neuropsychologist could have supplied the most definitive answer possible, then (assuming one was not consulted), why didn't the Schindler's call one in? Any attempt to answer that question, in the absence of actual knowledge, must include the possibilities that a) Teri's condition was plain enough to those already present that yet another specialist was unnecessary, or b) Teri's condition was such that they feared his opinion.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but it is still absence of evidence and thus, cause for doubt. In instances where it is cognitive functioning that is contested it is self evident that a specialist in the clinical application of cognitive psychology (a Clinical/Neuropsychologist) is required. If Terri's parent's feared the opinion of a Clinical/Neuropsychologist then why didn't Michael seek the services of one?"Wondering" is nothing more than speculation. We don't know, and there's little or nothing to base an argument on.In which case there is little that should be read into the argument that Terri's videos are 4 years old and so should be discounted as evidence of cognition.I've never heard that reflexes or other autonomous movements can only occur one at a time. Reflexes can occur in clusters - jumping back, for example, requires that the leg muscles on both legs contract - but it all happens in one motion. Terri's behaviour during the swab test is not reflexive since she raises her arm a second or two after the swab test and then moans/frowns. I don't see how we can explain this without accepting a degree of cognition
_
HP

[Beady]

Originally posted by HypnoPsi
However, if this was that important to her why didn't she inform her parents and siblings?

To my knowledge, neither my wife nor myself have informed the family of our feelings. Maybe we should. Anyway, it's not the sort of thing that crops up in daily conversation.

As for the Schindler's claim, that is based on them knowing their daughter's dedication to the Catholic faith. All we have here on both sides is testimonials.

The Schindlers thought they knew Teri's attitudes. If her husband's version is/was correct, then the Schindlers were wrong.

I'm thinking what I would do in Michael's situation, and I just can't see myself, if I had moved on to another family, locking out an ex's parent's and siblings just because my ex had at one point made a remark like Michael alleges.

All we know for sure, there, is that things got really ugly. Frankly, I'm not entirely sure any of the family members were entirely rational, there at the end. Earlier on, they were still directly opposed to each other and probably not inclined to cut the other side any slack.

I have no doubts as to the professionalism of neurologists. But they have the burden of proof when it comes to comprehensive cognitive testing of Terri.

Well, they apparently proved it to the satisfaction of the people who ultimately had to make the decisions.

Neither you nor I really know what went into it. Remember, all you and I really have is what was reported in the media, and the media doesn't have a very good reputation around here for either accuracy or comprehensiveness. They're explaining things for the lowest common denominator, and are therefore simplifying to what is probably a major extent.

The emphasis on the neurology of the case and no mention of cognitive testing definately makes me curious about the extent to which she was tested.

I suggest you wait a couple of months, until the primary players have a chance to write things up for the professional journals.

I have trained as a therapist though, but that is hardly the same thing - but I'm not just an armchair amateur neuroscientist either...

Heh heh. I remember, back in my EMT days, the last thing any instructor wanted to do was be taken ill in the presence of their students. Something about overeagerness, I believe, although I don't know where they got that idea. :)

If Terri's parent's feared the opinion of a Clinical/Neuropsychologist then why didn't Michael seek the services of one?

Let's remember that both Michael and the Schindlers were acting on the advice of their specialists. If we are going to stipulate that these specialists were both competent and acting in good faith, the question then becomes, Why did they not call in a Clinical/Neuropsychologist? The answer which seems most likely is that these competent and honest specialists, from both sides of the aisle, didn't think a Clinical/Neuropsychologist's opinion was needed.

For you to think otherwise, it seems to me, would mean that you see another articulable possibility. If, however, all you have is a vague feeling that maybe something wasn't done that should have been, I'm sorry, but that just doesn't cut it. Vagueness is not a basis for an argument.

Terri's behaviour during the swab test is not reflexive since she raises her arm a second or two after the swab test and then moans/frowns.

I wasn't there, so cannot comment on the context of that particular snippet. Saying these movements were not reflexive, however, is still a long way from proving they were both purposeful and intelligent.

I don't see how we can explain this without accepting a degree of cognition

It seems perfectly comprehensible to me. Plants react to physical stimulus. So, too, do microscopic animals, right on down to the one-celled variety. Does this indicate cognition? Matter of fact, there are several marine animals that have no recognizable brain (jellyfish, etc), yet they move with seeming purpose. Are they cognitive, or are they just "hardwired" to do what they do? These animals (and plants) all react to what might be termed discomfort, and move to avoid it.