The Schiavo case; separation of church-state abuse

She isn't brain dead, which is a very specific thing. I request that you not misrepresent the basic facts of the case.

If Terri is PVS (Permanent Vegetative State), she is brain dead. That's what we've been hearing for over ten years. October 23, 2003


Is Terri Schiavo Dead?

Eat, drink, and vegetate

Ronald Bailey





Terri Schiavo has been in a persistent vegetative state since 1990. Her husband wants to withdraw the nutrition and hydration her body has been receiving and allow her body to die. Her mother, father, and sister?-and now Florida Governor Jeb Bush?-want to continue supplying her body with food and water until... what? She wakes up? Dies of pneumonia?

What is a persistent vegetative state? 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." People suffering from PVS can generally be distinguished from afflicted but cognitively intact patients who suffer from "locked-in syndrome" by the fact that "locked in" patients can track visual stimuli and use eye blinks for communication.

According to most neurological experts, Terri Schiavo is definitely PVS?-her eyes do not really track visual stimuli and she cannot communicate using eye blinks. However, Terri Schiavo's parents have posted several short ambiguous video clips online which are meant to show that Ms. Schiavo responds to stimuli. But what they show seems to fit an AMA's report of how PVS patients can respond to environmental cues without being aware. Specifically, the report notes, "Despite an 'alert demeanor', observation and examination repeatedly fail to demonstrate coherent speech, comprehension of the words of examiners or attendants, or any capacity to initiate or make consistently purposeful movements. Movements are largely confined to reflex withdrawals or posturing in response to noxious or other external stimuli. Since neither visual nor auditory signals require cortical integrity to stimulate brief orienting reflexes, some vegetative patients may turn the head or dart the eyes toward a noise or moving objects. However, PVS patients neither fixate upon nor consistently follow moving objects with the eyes, nor do they show other than startle responses to loud stimuli. They blink when air movements stimulate the cornea but not in the presence of visual threats per se."

Ms. Schiavo has been in this state for 13 years. What are her chances of recovering at least some awareness? Minnesota neurologist Ronald Cranford told the Washington Post, "There has never been a documented case of someone recovering after having been in a persistent vegetative state for more than 3 months. However, the journal Brain Injury reported the case, of a 26-year-old woman who, after being diagnosed as suffering from a persistent vegetative state for six months, recovered consciousness and, though severely disabled, is largely cognitively intact. However, it is generally agreed that if a patient doesn't become responsive before six months, his or her prognosis is extremely poor. A report on PVS by the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council finds that "patients in a state of post-coma unresponsiveness may emerge from it to become responsive," that "the probability of emergence becomes progressively less over time," and that "there is general agreement that emergence is less likely in older people, and in the victims of hypoxic brain damage." Terri Schiavo is the way she is because oxygen was cut off to her brain for 14 minutes; in other words, she suffered severe hypoxic brain damage.

So is Terri Schiavo still alive? The odds are way against it. It's time that her long-suffering parents and the grandstanding politicians let her go in peace.




Ronald Bailey is Reason's science correspondent.

I never said anything about the legislature not being able to regulate euthanasia. They can but all the laws about euthanasia can't insert a feeding tube back into Terry Schiavo since they would violate the Florida state constitution concerning the court decision on Schaivo.

Perhaps you should stop leaping to conclusions as well as stop making assumptions. ;-)

This from the National Institute of Neurological disorders

First of all, I believe there is some disagreement about whether she is PVS. Secondly, your own article says that there is some brain activity. Therefore, although she may or may not be partially brain dead, she is not just plain brain dead. It would be instructive to know the degree and nature of the of activity in her brain. There are some claims that she reacts purposefully to those around her - even with emotion.

Even if it could be shown that she is unaware of her existence, the most I would agree with would be withdrawal of life support, but she is not on life support. I would still not feel it was proper to deny her food and water unless it could be shown that she was both unaware of her own existence and incapable of experiencing pain, and, even then, it would not be my choice of killing methods.

The "only" brain activity is her ability to sleep and wake somewhat normally. She responds to no external stimuli - no matter how hard her parents wish it so.

If a law were passed forbidding euthanasia for any person in her situation, then the basis of the court ruling would be defunct, and they would have to re-insert the feeding tube. Were it not reinserted, the hospice could be prosecuted for violating the new law. I find your use of a smiley rather offensive given the topic of debate and certain other factors which it would be pointless to bring to your attention.

I doubt you can prove either of your two specific statements above.

Nor can you; I'm depending on the experts who supports what I say.

Neurologists say after six months in PVS, the likelyhood of recovery is probably impossible. I agree.

For the record, my arguments don't usually make reference to recovery.

Actually no, the lower court ruled that the original law violated Schaivo's privacy to refuse medical treatment under the Florida constitution. That ruling would still stand. That particular ruling wasn't appealed because the law was tossed on other grounds. The court would toss that new law out very fast based on the exact same reasoning.
That was my original point. If the legislature keeps attempting to interfer, it makes it harder and harder for the courts to be lenient to their attempts.

The only Drs that say she isn't PVS are the two hired by her parents to specifically say that. And one of those 2 is presently charged with fraud in promoting a cure for PVS in a different case. The court appointed lawyer in the case stated she is PVS.

If I were convinced that she has refused medical treatment, or, to be accurate, feeding and water, and that her refusal described this type of situation, I would shake my head and withdraw my objections, although it is a heck of a cruel way to go. However, I do not believe there is any evidence that she did refuse treatment.

Nor do you have any evidence that she said she wanted treatment. Because you have no evidence either way we are forced to listen to the person most likely to have that evidence, her husband.

Yes, and he has no evidence except his unsubstantiated word. Before you kill someone, you ought to have actual evidence he/she they asked for it. His claim that she whispered something in his ear years ago isn't making it for me. His motives could be anything.

Sorry but hundreds of years of law going back to English common law gives him that right. You can't take it away without evidence.

Sorry, but an involuntary laugh came out after reading the following article. Quote, "There are some congressmen that are trying to stop this bill," Ms. Schiavo's mother, Mary Schindler, told reporters outside her daughter's hospice. "Please don't use my daughter's suffering for your own personal agenda."

yeah really C.I. kinda weird ain't it.

On the contrary, a health proxy's only role is only to state the prior wishes of the patient. The finding that she sould be killed is based on a finding that she whispered in something in his ear once. His unsubstantiated account is no basis on which to kill someone.

Since so many of the posters are arguing here based on very strong feelings that this is murder, why is it implausible that some of the congressmen are acting on that basis too? Claiming you know someone's motivation is a specious debating trick, since you have no knowledge of their motivations, and no one can prove or disprove your guess.