Terri Schiavo to be Starved to Death

If she can open her eyes, she cannot be brain dead. If she can breathe unassisted, she cannot be brain-dead.

There are two types of patients who exhibit Higher Brain Death who are not Brain Dead: Anencephalic infants and adults in a persistent (or permanent) vegetative state. [..] Someone who is in a Persistent (or Permanent) Vegetative State (PVS) is one whose neo-cortical functioning has been destroyed by disease or injury, so that she or he is in a "chronic state of wakefulness without awareness." Since the patient still has brain stem functioning respiration, digestion, reflex response, homeostatic mechanisms, circulation, and so forth all take place spontaneously. However, the patient has lost the ability to be conscious. The patient is incapable of consciously experiencing, although there are responses to stimuli. [..] There have been those in persistent vegetative states who have regained a rudimentary consciousness and low level of functioning, and this has led to extreme cautiousness. Though these events have taken place only with patients who have been in a persistent vegetative state for less than six months, current practice is to hold out on a diagnosis of irreversibility until someone has been in a Persistent Vegetative State for 12 months. [..]

By looking at confusions over the definition of human death, we can see some confusions over the essence of human life. Because of our desire to preserve human life, we have developed medical technologies to replace the functioning of the body with mechanical devices, transplants, and biochemical additives (hormone replacement, insulin injections, . . .). The essence of human life, however, is not the life of the organism so much as the life of the conscious mental processes that the organism supports. When we strive to prolong life, we are striving to prolong those mental processes. Nevertheless, we are very far from adopting the Higher Brain definition of death. [..] When we later read about Karen Ann Quinlan, we will learn that her family fought to have her removed from a respirator (essentially euthanasia), because she was in a persistent vegetative state. When the nurses in the Catholic hospital where she was a patient predicted the court would rule in favor of the family, they took steps to wean her from the respirator, so that cardio-pulmonary activity did not cease with her removal. Her parents took her home, where she died seven years later. They kept her human organism "alive" through naso-gastric feeding, changing of bedclothes, regular massage and movement of limbs, etc., although her consciousness was irretrievably absent. Those who are in a Persistent Vegetative state look like living organisms, metabolize like living organisms, and maintain homeostasis like living organisms. Our culture would have a very difficult time coming to treat them as living organisms, but dead human persons.

The legislation would give Schiavo's parents the right to file suit in federal court over the withdrawal of food and medical treatment needed to sustain the life of their daughter.

It says the court, after determining the merits of the suit, "shall issue such declaratory and injunctive relief as may be necessary to protect the rights" of the woman. Injunctive relief in this case could mean the reinserting of feeding tubes.

Quote:

Viewing all of the evidence as a whole, and acknowledging that medicine is not a precise science, the court finds that the credible evidence overwhelmingly supports the view that Terry Schiavo remains in a persistent vegetative state. Even Dr. Maxfield acknowledges that vegetative patients can track on occasion and that smiling can be a reflex.

Quote:

The Mandate requires something more than a belief, hope or "some" improvement. It requires this court to find, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the treatment offers such sufficient promise of increased cognitive function in Mrs. Schiavo's cerebral cortex so as to significantly improve her quality of life. There is no such testimony, much less a preponderance of the evidence to that effect. The other doctors, by contrast, all testified that there was no treatment available to improve her quality of life. They were also able to credibly testify that neither hyperbaric therapy nor vasodilatation therapy was an effective treatment for this sort of injury. That being the case, the court concludes that the Respondents have not met the burden of proof cast upon them by the Mandate and their Motion.

http://www.libertytothecaptives.net/order_nov_22_2002.html

Maybe the courts should have consulted Lash before their
ruling was finalized.

I wish Colbalt was around cause I think her son was born with no brain matter - would wonder about her thoughts here.

husker wrote:

I wish Colbalt was around cause I think her son was born with no brain matter - would wonder about her thoughts here.

That is incorrect.

Quote:

Viewing all of the evidence as a whole, and acknowledging that medicine is not a precise science, the court finds that the credible evidence overwhelmingly supports the view that Terry Schiavo remains in a persistent vegetative state. Even Dr. Maxfield acknowledges that vegetative patients can track on occasion and that smiling can be a reflex.

Quote:

The Mandate requires something more than a belief, hope or "some" improvement. It requires this court to find, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the treatment offers such sufficient promise of increased cognitive function in Mrs. Schiavo's cerebral cortex so as to significantly improve her quality of life. There is no such testimony, much less a preponderance of the evidence to that effect. The other doctors, by contrast, all testified that there was no treatment available to improve her quality of life. They were also able to credibly testify that neither hyperbaric therapy nor vasodilatation therapy was an effective treatment for this sort of injury. That being the case, the court concludes that the Respondents have not met the burden of proof cast upon them by the Mandate and their Motion.

http://www.libertytothecaptives.net/order_nov_22_2002.html

Maybe the courts should have consulted Lash before their
ruling was finalized.

People in different times, and under different circumstances seek to rewrite language.

According to the National Institute for Neurological Disorders and Stroke people in PVS "have lost their thinking abilities and awareness of their surroundings, but retain non-cognitive function and normal sleep patterns. Even though those in a persistent vegetative state lose their higher brain functions, other key functions such as breathing and circulation remain relatively intact. Spontaneous movements may occur, and the eyes may open in response to external stimuli. They may even occasionally grimace, cry, or laugh. Although individuals in a persistent vegetative state may appear somewhat normal, they do not speak and they are unable to respond to commands."

What I meant about the language--what would you consider a "persistent vegetative state"...not having someone else define the term for you?

But, please God, if we do. Don't do it like abortion and say she's not really alive with disgusting, cowardly language. Just do it, and call it what it is. [..] She is alive.

This situation is unspeakably cruel. Some people are grandstanding. Some are manipulating this situation. And, some can't stand the fact that this woman is being killed.

Schiavo’s husband, Michael Schiavo, said he was outraged that congressional leaders were intervening in the contentious right-to-die battle. He has battled for years with his wife’s parents over whether she should be permitted to die or kept alive through the feeding tube.

“I think that the Congress has more important things to discuss,” he told CNN, calling the move political and criticizing House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, who helped broker the congressional compromise.

* * *

The bill passed in Congress applies only to Schiavo and would allow a federal court to review the case. The House passed the bill on a 203-58 vote early Monday after calling lawmakers back for an emergency Sunday session. The Senate approved the bill Sunday by voice vote.

“In cases like this one, where there are serious questions and substantial doubts, our society, our laws and our courts should have a presumption in favor of life,” President Bush said in a statement after signing the bill.

There are a number of questions King should have asked Schiavo:

(1) Why did Schiavo tell a medical malpractice jury in 1992 that Terri would live a normal life span?

After Terri's collapse, Schiavo sued for medical malpractice. Under civil law, the longer Terri was expected to live, the larger the verdict would probably be. This fact of legal life could explain why Michael presented evidence to the malpractice jury not only that Terri would likely live a normal life span but also that he intended to be a good and loyal husband and care for her for the rest of his life.

(2) Why did Schiavo have a rehabilitation expert testify in front of the malpractice jury to present a detailed plan of therapy for Terri?

Schiavo and his lawyer claimed that Terri is incapable of improving physically, but during the 1992 trial, a rehabilitation plan and its anticipated undertaking provided one of the underpinnings for the jury's $1.3 million award. Of that money, Schiavo received $300,000, lawyers' fees were paid, and about $750,000 was put in trust to pay for Terri's rehabilitation.

(3) Given that the jury awarded $750,000 to be used in part for Terri's therapy, why hasn't Schiavo provided any rehabilitation for her since 1991?

When asked by King about the issue of rehab, Schiavo described some early efforts to help Terri, such as an experimental surgery in 1990. But he never identified when this rehab took place.

Which is an important point. The only efforts ever undertaken to improve Terri's condition took place in 1990 and 1991. They had ceased by the time of the malpractice trial in 1992 because her insurance coverage had run out. Indeed, the pressing need to restart therapy was an urgent part of the malpractice case. It could have--and should have--paid to restart the rehabilitation that had been abandoned due to lack of funds.

Once Terri's $750,000 was in the bank, however, Schiavo would not approve a single cent of it to be spent on rehabilitation. Not only that, but once the money was in the bank, Schiavo ordered a "do not resuscitate" order placed on Terri's chart so that if she had a cardiac event, the doctors would not attempt to save her. And within a few months of the money being deposited, Schiavo also refused to permit curative treatments, such as antibiotics for infections. If Terri had died during the early or mid-1990s, as Schiavo's orders were designed, he would have inherited somewhere around $700,000.

The issue of Terri's money did come up several times during last night's interview. Schiavo assured King he isn't in it for the money because there is only about $50,000 left in Terri's estate.

(4) Is it true that Terri's money has paid for attorneys to make her dead, instead of therapists to make her better?

The answer is, unquestionably, yes. According to court records, George Felos, the dutiful "right to die" attorney who sat at Schiavo's side on King's show, has been paid over $350,000 from Terri's trust fund. Another of Schiavo's attorneys, Debra Bushnell, has received about $90,000. These two lawyers alone have received more than half of Terri's entire trust.

According to court records, when Schiavo began his quest to pull Terri's feeding tube in 1998, she had more than $700,000 in the bank. This was primarily because Schiavo generally refused to authorize payments for any nursing home services on Terri's behalf beyond the basics of room and board. Thus, only about $50,000 was paid on her behalf in the five years following the jury verdict. Since 1998, about $650,000 (not taking into account any earnings from the fund) has gone out--not for therapy, but primarily for lawyers.

And yet on "Larry King" Schiavo went so far as to suggest that Bob Schindler, Terri's father, is fighting to save Terri's life because he wants her money.

(5) So how could Terri's father make any money off the case?

Schiavo's story is that once Schindler became Terri's guardian, he would get her a divorce, and then he would stop her food and fluids. The alleged point of such a scheme being that as next of kin, the Schindlers would inherit their daughter's money.

This sounds like a mighty stretch, particularly given that Bob Schindler has spent every nickel he has--including his entire retirement fund--desperately trying to save his daughter's life. If Bob Schindler is a venal man, he has a funny way of showing it.

Schiavo told King that his falling out with his father-in-law occurred in February 1993, when Schindler demanded a share of the proceeds in Terri's trust fund. But Schindler and his wife Mary tell a different story. They claim that the argument was over their insistence that the long-suspended rehabilitation recommence, since there was finally money available to pay for it. They contend that the breach of relationship occurred because Schiavo refused. The behavior of both parties since seems much more consistent with this story than with Schiavo's version of events.

Too bad Larry King didn't ask.

With being obsessed about torture, wife beating and what not,
you seem to forget brooke, that a bigger issue is here at stake:
government interference in private matters.

You don't know if Terri was indeed a victim of domestic abuse , I don't know either. Regardless, this is irrelevant to the case.