The Biology Guru (I beat you Nick)

“doctors’ diagnosis of an irreversible persistent vegetative state”

“He [Schiavo’s husband] petitioned the court, asking it to act as Terri’s surrogate and determine what the she would decide to do if she were able. The court determined that Terri would not wish to continue life-prolonging measures. While Michael remained interested and visible in the proceedings, he had conceded control to the court and the Schindlers now faced the decision of the court. ”

” One objection the parents had was to Schiavo dying by dehydration. However, numerous studies have shown that for terminally ill patients who choose to die, deaths by dehydration are generally peaceful, not associated with suffering, when supplemented with adequate pain medication.”

“The court determined that she had made “credible and reliable” statements that she wouldn’t want to be “kept alive on a machine,” based on expert testimony, finding that Americans don’t want to live “with no hope of improvement,” and that her condition in a persistent vegetative state had “long since satisfied” the requirement that there be no hope of improvement.”

“Schiavo was legally in a persistent vegetative state ……includes the ‘absence of voluntary action’ and an ‘inability to communicate or interact purposefully.’

“[T]he court found that Schiavo was in a persistent vegetative state and that she had made reliable oral declarations that she would have wanted the feeding tube removed.”

“An EEG showed no measurable brain activity. The court viewed a six-hour tape of Schiavo and concluded that her vegetative condition was factual and not subject to legal dispute.”

“Wolfson visited Schiavo at least daily over the course of a month. In December, 2003, he submitted his report, referring to himself in the third person as “the GAL”. His central finding was: ‘The GAL was not able to independently determine that there were consistent, repetitive, intentional, reproducible interactive and aware activities.’ He notes further, that when joined by her parents no success was gained in eliciting a repetitive or consistent response from Schiavo.”

“Wolfson concluded: ‘(that there is) well documented information that she is in a persistent vegetative state with no likelihood of improvement, and that the neurological and speech pathology evidence in the file support the contention that she cannot take oral nutrition or hydration and cannot consciously interact with her environment.’ He observed further that while there appeared to be agreement about Schiavo and PVS: ‘the Schindlers have adopted what appears to be a position that Theresa is not in a persistent vegetative state, and/or that they do not support the fact that such a medical state exists at all.”‘

IF YOU ARE GOING TO READ ANY QUOTES READ THIS ONE!@!@!@!@!@!

“Examination of Schiavo’s nervous system revealed extensive injury. The brain itself weighed 615 g, only half the weight expected for a female of her age, height, and weight, an effect caused by the loss of a massive amount of neurons. Microscopic examination revealed extensive damage to nearly all brain regions, including the cerebral cortex, the thalami, the basal ganglia, the hippocampus, the cerebellum, and the midbrain. The neuropathologic changes in her brain were precisely of the type seen in patients who enter a PVS following cardiac arrest. Throughout the cerebral cortex, the large pyramidal neurons that comprise some 70 percent of cortical cells—critical to the functioning of the cortex—were completely lost. The pattern of damage to the cortex, with injury tending to worsen from the front of the cortex to the back, is also typical. There was marked damage to important relay circuits deep in the brain (the thalami)—another common pathologic finding in cases of PVS. The damage was, in the words of Thogmartin, ‘irreversible, and no amount of therapy or treatment would have regenerated the massive loss of neurons.’^[63] Dr. Stephen J. Nelson, P.A., cautioned that ‘[n]europathologic examination alone of the decedent’s brain – or any brain for that matter – cannot prove or disprove a diagnosis of persistent vegetative state or minimally conscious state.’^[27] The vegetative state is a behaviorally defined syndrome of complete unawareness, to self and to environment, that occurs in a person who nevertheless experiences wakefulness. As the condition is defined in clinical terms, it can therefore only be diagnosed in persons who, at some point, are shown to meet those clinical terms. Ancillary investigations, such as CT scans, MRI, EEGs, and lately fMRI and PET scanning, may only provide support for the clinical impression—as might the pathologic findings, after death. In the case of Terri Schiavo, seven of the eight neurologists who examined her in her final years stated that she met the clinical criteria for PVS; the serial CT scans, EEGs, the one MRI, and finally, the pathologic findings, were consistent with that diagnosis.”

One can determine one’s opinions based on what he or she quotes…..I think that if I stopped here you would most definitely be able to determine my opinion….but I will take it a bit further. 

The single most important thing in my article is the part of the last quote that was bold.  Let me spell it out for you….. Terry Schiavo was determined to definitely be in a permanent vegitative state (PVS) and a perminent vegitative state is one that exhibits no self-awareness (among the other things) and thus Terry Schiavo exhibited no self-awareness.  I think that most of us (considering it is a cliché in our classroom) think that life is determined by self-awareness.  Clearly by your own testimonies Terry Schiavo is not living.  Anyone who comments on my blog in oposition to this who I have a remnent of a memory using that phrase I WILL call you out!  In my opinion Terry Schiavo, whether or not you consider her living or non-living (I would add un-dead since she was brought back to life but that might link her to evil),  had already suffered enough so she DESERVED to be able to escape the pain.  One of my quotes indicated that dehydrating to death is NOT painful.  If I get a single comment questioning me on my ethicality about how I feel about letting someone suffer while dieing, I will clearly make sure you are called out for being an ignorant, arragant, insubordinate fool.  I suggest reading the wikipedia article.  It really touched me (I am not being sarcastic).  I felt empathy for her.  The cosmic dice did not throw her a fair roll but there is nothing you can do about it.  Her parents were self-seeking and were willing to let their daughter suffer for them to have a physical remnant of what once was.  Though Terry may have experienced what may have seemed a diluted form of conscienciousness from time to time, it was not truly having a life worth living. 

I am probably going to shoot myself for this next paragraph but, then again, someone may bring me back to life to live on a feeding tube.  Nevertheless, I am going to attack the church (I am very sorry for this but my opinion deserves just as much respect as theirs).  It is clear in religous doctrine that ALL thing come before God.  ALL things happen by the grace of God whether they be brought from him or from Satan (at least according to the fundamentalist view……I don’t need to argue against the more liberal churches for they probably agree with me).   If God truly had a qualm with Terry Schiavo, he could have invoked his unending power into the matter.  I see it that God tried to take her life but humans kept her alive (why God allowed this, I do not know and I seriously doubt you do either).  They acted against God and God always finishes what he started in his time.  He was behind the dieing of Schiavo or he allowed Satan to do it.  In this, the story should end but I am going to take it one step further.  If is also of the fundamental philosophy that this life is tentative and we should not be of the world.  God takes us once we have done our purpose for the world.   Terry was already saved so her death would not lead her to hell.  She could not be rehabilitated so she had no way of completing “her purpose.”  God does not let you die before you have done your purpose.  This leads me to believe she had completed her purpose 12 years earlier when she should have died.  The conservatives fighting for her to live where acting as children of the world which is a taboo in the fundamentalist philosophy.  Her worldly life was over.  She had a much better life ahead of her.  But no, humans wanted to trap her sould in an unawakening vessel.  So why do these so-called fundamentalists (Terry and her family were devout Roman-Catholic and their supporters were comprised of the devout catholics and the fundamentalist protestants) fight for her to live a worldly life????  I do not know but I WILL specualate.  They were self-seeking (this story falls apart when you consider those who supported them who had nothing to gain).  They wanted to have their daughter right there with them.  They disaproved the idea of death which must be faced by all people.  They denied the Bible’s position on this and formed their own opinion.

My rambling about the religous backing:

This right to life bull really is getting on my nerves.  She was DEAD.  She was NOT alive.  Therefor you were not keeping her alive, you were keeping her sould trapped!!!!!!!! You are not fighting the Christian Crusade in America.  You were fighting the Devil’s fight!  Your eyes could not see too far in front of you.  All you saw was:  she is blinking, therefor she is alive; therefor I need, no I must, no I WILL fight for to stay alive.  Did you ever consider her wishes or what God would say??????? 

I am not a theologian so my perspectives may be a little construed but that was the best I could do.  Hope you enjoyed the long read.  Anyone who had the will-power to read all of this, I thank you. 

Mr.  Butler,

I thought I made it clear where I consider death but I guess not.  Death is when someone is determined to have no awareness of their enviroment or theirselves and have no chance of ever being able to regain these.  I believe death applies to the brain….that is the only organ (in my perspective) that distinguishes as a human entity.  If the brain has lost all cognitive function then it is dead therefor you are dead.

I would first like to state two things:

This title is very misleading (the one you posted Mr. Butler) for the rights of the community supersede the rights of the individual in all cases so if someone’s rights did infringe on everyone else’s then that person would not benefit from his or her right.  But what right are you saying the community has?  There is no answer.

My second point is that I am upset that you allowed the comment by Ms. Fritz but that was up to you.  I can honestly say it has destroyed my initial thesis and it really has defeated the purpose of posting views.  Why would anyone post a view to have it shut down by the law.  I certainly would not just so that “Liberal Voice” or “Democrat Voice” could simply quote her and demolish my opinion.  But I commend you for providing a way out of this debacle: you made it an ethics debate so it will be easier to write (unless you are the one of the guys who base your opinion on the law and defend it with it but seriously do not grope because the law is always going to benefit one side!).  My point is that the post by her will certainly reshape some people’s opinion into conformity.  I can honestly say it has made my blog less abrasive than I initially was going to write. 

I would like to point out that Mr. Butler’s blog refers to all public schools – from pre-k to 12th grade.  I could easily say that we should wait until 5th grade (or any other ARBITRARY grade level) to admit these students….too easy and I am sure that someone would argue age-discrimination or would argue the age of maturity.  We all know that kids who have not matured do bite others— thus spreading the disease.  The kid could eventually create a an exponential succession of the disease with constraints of course….not really (how do you know if the kids who contract the disease will bite others).  Next I would like to look at it in the child’s point of view….sort of.  Are kids not cruel in school and like to exclude others who are not the norm???? This kid would be the 1 social outcast in the school and would be excluded from “everyone” else.  Yes, you could simply not let anyone know of that the kid had HIV but then would you not be putting the kids in some risk…..what happens if that kid DOES bite another kid— the parents would need to be informed (otherwise I do believe the school system is neglible and would be held accountable).  Then the seeds would be planted and the news would quickly spread.   Schools could not and would not be able to restrict knowledge.  Would the principal say over the intercom “don’t anyone tell anyone that Little Joe has HIV at the risk of expulsion”.  Another point I would like to make is that there would be a strong uprisal of the parents who would be sending their kids to school with a kid who has HIV where the kids could contract the disease.  I would love to be at that PTA meeting.  The parents would be looking out for their kids safety (ahhh I found the right that the community has).  The parents would have fear at backlash with vengence against the kid.  “Johnny do not play with Little Joe…….he is different from you…..he has a disease HIV — (just letters to the kid so they would have to now understand what it does….fear tactics…you have got to love them).  One of my last points would be the widespread ignorance of the disease….well actually the widespread ignorance of catching the disease.  When you were in sixth grade and your neighbor had the flue and coughed, you covered your mouth, right?  When he sneazed on the desk, you wouldn’t even want to sit there even after an anti-bacterial  substance was used, right?  Now why would these not apply to HIV????  Do not tell me that you have always known that you cannot contract the disease these ways and if you were told that you couldn’t, you were skeptial right?  (Just like when someone told you Santa did not exist or that the moon was not made of cheese)  Ignorance prevails in the argument against admittance and you can educate the people all you want ,but there will always be widespread ignorance or skepticality (I made that word up- let me define it as the essence of being skeptical).  And we all know that the possiblility of contracting the disease is slim to none is there not a chance?  (The same chance of slim to none is applied to the lottery but people still play it too, right?)  That little chance means more than the 99.999999999999999999999999999999999% chance that you will not contract the disease.  The funny thing is if you switched the chances people would not argue for that little chance that you will not contract the disease. 

In the end, the argument would be made that you cannot exclude individuals but are they still not excluded from others socially?  Second, I would like to say that the parents should have the right to protect their children and to be safe at mind and the children should not have to worry about Little Joe’s nose bleed giving them HIV.  And third,  irgnorance prevails and it prevents people from being safe at mind.  All in all, kids with HIV are currently held to have the right to attend school but just because it is considered a right now does not mean that it is wrong to oppose it because something this fragile can possibly change in the future as more scare is presented. 

In case you cannot realize which side I am on it is this:  I see no right (by right, I mean constitutional right) for kids with HIV to attend public school.  I see that people should have the right to be safe at school (OMG they do not let a person smoke 1000 feet away from the school for safety but a kid with a detrimental disease can associate freely….what????  You can choose to not smoke but you are prevented from having to make that choice while at school while you cannot choose to have HIV but you are right there in school with a person or people with HIV that will for sure interrupt your life).  I think that kids with HIV, though it is sad that they have it, should not associate freely with other kids without the kids consent.  If the parent wants to let his or her kid go to play at Little Joe’s house then that is their CHOICE.  Parents should not be put in a situation where they feel the only way to get away from it is to pay for their child’s education at another learning facility.   

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

Since when do we put the “right” (haha I do not see it as a right) of the individual above the right of the community— It is unamerican!

.

.

.

.

* This is as lukewarm as I could get and yet still express my opinion.  If you are sympothetic to the children and feel I was unjust and are apalled by my article….did you not choose to read it?

** I accept and post ALL comments from all people whether you give a name or pseudonym.  If you just want to create animoscity, then so be it; I do not mind and you have the right to have your opinion expressed.  This is your chance to attack and destroy me if you still hold a grudge from the first 6 weeks (gee, really cought up in it aren’t you).  Mine is probably not well supported—it is simply ethics and you can choose what ethics you wish to abide by.  I will not reply to whimsical generalities or “stupid” comments (sorry if you feel your comment was educated but if I think it is stupid oh well…send me a blog cursing me out).  On a second note, I will not take the time to edit any profanity so if you write a long thesis opposing my post and one word of profanity is found, I will refuse to post it.   

If I could turn back time I would go to the big wig of science…Albert Einstein.  He was an extraordinary physicist and mathematician.  I would go and visit him in switzerland in 1904 where he was just he year before publishing his work on the Theory of Special Relativity just to test one of his later hypotheses about time travel.  He created the grandfather paradox and it incorporated 2 ideas:

1) You cannot kill your grandfather prior to him giving birth to your dad/mom because then you could not be born to kill him to prevent your birth—he assumed that something would prevent you from killing your grandfather…something kind of nice to test!

2) The second, more relevant, assumption was that information could just pop up in time.   I could take his published work to him for him to publish for me to someday read and take to him to publish…talking about a paradox

 Enough of that; Einstein was simply one of the greatest minds of all of theoretical physics.  His major contribution was that light was mass and light are both components of energy and that light has mass.  His work was greatly profound and thoughtprovoking.  He solved ideas that no one had imagined could be solved. 

The one thing that I could tell him, with my limited knowledge, would be for him to stop telling God what to do with his dice.  For those who are ignorant to this quote I will inform you that Einstein was greatly opposed to theoretical physics at the atomic level because it was said to be random and Einstein said that nothing is random because “God does not play dice with the universe”.  Someone later on said the before mentioned quote.  If he would not have spent much of his life fighting the idea of randomness then he could have solved “the theory of everything” that he was working on until his death.  Could you imagine how far we would be if he had done this???? Well no matter, we have hawking working on that conundrum. 

That is all that I have to say at this moment;  if I feel the need to add anything else, I will do so later. 

Hey world!  I would tell you something about me but that would take some of my time…..and thus I will not be doing so.  I gotta study for AP Gov and AP Bio anyway lol.