Teryy Schiavo

{ April 13, 2007 @ 1:41 am } · { Uncategorized }

“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.