Has the Schiavo case Become a Political Football?

Quote:

A persistent vegetative state, which sometimes follows a coma, refers to a condition in which individuals have lost cognitive neurological function and awareness of the environment but retain noncognitive function and a perserved sleep-wake cycle.

It is sometimes described as when a person is technically alive, but his/her brain is dead. However, that description is not completely accurate. In persistent vegetative state the individual loses the higher cerebral powers of the brain, but the functions of the brainstem, such as respiration (breathing) and circulation, remain relatively intact. Spontaneous movements may occur and the eyes may open in response to external stimuli, but the patient does not speak or obey commands. Patients in a vegetative state may appear somewhat normal. They may occasionally grimace, cry, or laugh.

http://healthlink.mcw.edu/article/921394859.html

Brandon- Does this clarify things for you?

0 Replies

She isn't brain dead but her cerebral cortex is severely damaged. Mostly spinal fluid in fact. The cerebral cortex controls cognitive behavior and voluntary actions, as well as the processing of sensations. Hence, the belief that she cannot and will not feel anything.

The reason she is able to breathe is because her brain stem is not damaged. The brain stem is the part that controls all involuntary actions, like breathing. Often with patients who have severe cerebral damage but still have a functioning stem, do have reactions that appear to be voluntary but are actually involuntary.

The only way to in fact know if she is slightly conscious is to test her. That isn't going to happen. Not before she is dead.

It is unfortunate and it is cruel. But so is allowing her to exist this way when she clearly stated to several people (husband, sister and brother) that she did not want to be this way.

0 Replies

phoenix, thanks for the actual backup....I didn't bother to pull actual research. Embarrassed

0 Replies

Bella Dea- I think that people need to know the actual definition of the condition. There is so much misinformation. People see that picture of Terri, over and over again, and to the layman, it appears that she is "smiling". Well, she isn't. It is merely a reflexive motion, and is not a purposeful act on her part.

0 Replies

Brandon9000 wrote:

cicerone imposter wrote:
DrewDad's quote, "Removing the feeding tube is ending medical intervention.

Applying a flamethrower (or lethal injection, or smothering, etc.) is euthanasia.

Quite a difference."

Thank you, DrewDad for seeing the DIFFERENCE. It seems some people's arguments are just stupid ones, because they are so hell bent to prove something that is not remotely a comparison.

You liberals consistently fail to understand that I can compare some aspect of two things without thereby stating that they are alike in all respects. My point, which you appear too stupid to grasp, is that when you refer to starvation as a peaceful death, either you are incorrect, as it is the opposite, or else you merely mean that it is peaceful for her because you believe that she can feel nothing. If the latter, than it is is misleading, because according to your thesis, death by flamethrower would also be peaceful.

And apparently you are unable to comprehend the written word or to reason logically.

You consistently ignore posts that factually contradict your position.

You consistently state your opinions as fact.

We did not present the thesis that flamethower=ceasing nourishment; you did.

We did not present a thesis that death by flamethrower is peaceful; you attempted to introduce that as a strawman argument.

Brandon9000 wrote:

By the way, you would be wrong anyway. Removing the feeding tube is not ending intervention, since if someone attempted to feed her, they would be prevented from doing so by force.

Really? I presume you can back this up with a source? (A news or legal source, not someone's blog....)

Brandon9000 wrote:

You are killing her in the guise of letting her die...

Wrong.
a) She is not being killed. Legally, this is the fact of the matter. No one will be prosecuted for murder, manslaughter, or even a misdemeanor.
b) I am not involved in the procedure. (Neither is c.i.) Your logic baffles me.

Brandon9000 wrote:

...and to me, a person who argues on behalf of a great cruelty is complicit.

I would agree with this statement....

Personally I think it would be unthinkably cruel to force this woman to continue in her current condition against her express wishes.

0 Replies

Phoenix32890 wrote:

Quote:
A persistent vegetative state, which sometimes follows a coma, refers to a condition in which individuals have lost cognitive neurological function and awareness of the environment but retain noncognitive function and a perserved sleep-wake cycle.

It is sometimes described as when a person is technically alive, but his/her brain is dead. However, that description is not completely accurate. In persistent vegetative state the individual loses the higher cerebral powers of the brain, but the functions of the brainstem, such as respiration (breathing) and circulation, remain relatively intact. Spontaneous movements may occur and the eyes may open in response to external stimuli, but the patient does not speak or obey commands. Patients in a vegetative state may appear somewhat normal. They may occasionally grimace, cry, or laugh.

http://healthlink.mcw.edu/article/921394859.html

Brandon- Does this clarify things for you?

I doubt it; people have tried to educate Brandon about this on a number of occasions.

0 Replies

DrewDad- Well, you can't say that I didn't try! :wink:

Hey, some people never allow reason and logic to interfere with their beliefs.

0 Replies

Why haven't the feminists weighed in on this issue? I'm supprised that NOW hasn't been at the hospital doing their own little protest. Imagine a husmand being able to end the life of his wife. It should have been a hot button issue from them. So far I haven't heard a word from them.

0 Replies

Maybe it's because they have "common sense?"

0 Replies

http://www.coxandforkum.com/archives/05.03.22.GrandOldPragma-X.gif

0 Replies

sozobe wrote:

Still sad. :-(

Sad regardless. Sad

sozobe wrote:

Joe already covered the question of autopsy/ cremation well (btw is he demanding it?

Yes. He spent thousands getting a judgment proving he could before the fact to ensure that it happens immediately after death. Joe's explanation makes sense, but it doesn't cover that. I don't buy the religious angle because his religious feelings haven't come up anywhere else. His bizarre behavior of hindering her parent's access to knowledge about her condition (and the potential causes of it) are consistent from the onset.

Michael never said anything about her wish to not live in that condition until after the million dollar settlement for her care was won. He then started trying to kill her with some $700,000 left in the till, and miraculously remembered that was her wish. Over half a million dollars of that money has been spent on lawyers with a healthy chunk specifically to prevent autopsy.

While I agree death might be the very kindest thing for her, his behavior is no more defensible for it. There are several reasons to question his behavior but absolutely no reason to doubt her parents, brother or sister's sincerity. Some here have spread the falsehood that it was her siblings who agreed with Michael. Not so.

These motive questions obviously don't constitute sufficient proof for any Judge to believe the Judgment unconstitutional because of the lesser burden of proof in civil matters...but they do create a reasonable doubt. We would never execute a heinous murderer if a reasonable doubt existed, so an innocent woman should be entitled to at least as much protection. One need not be Republican, Conservative or of a political mindset at all to feel this way.

Okay, now I'm really done with this one. :wink:

0 Replies

Baldimo wrote:

Why haven't the feminists weighed in on this issue? I'm supprised that NOW hasn't been at the hospital doing their own little protest. Imagine a husmand being able to end the life of his wife. It should have been a hot button issue from them. So far I haven't heard a word from them.

Do they usually call you? Wow.

0 Replies

Agree with most of that post, O'Bill, and would add that I would expect Florida to amend its statutes to provide for a change in guardian if a spouse of an incapacitated person cohabitates with another. Creates a potential if not actual conflict of interest IMO.

0 Replies

Brandon
If your oracle Bush had agreed with the husband what would your stand than have been.

0 Replies

DrewDad wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:
cicerone imposter wrote:
DrewDad's quote, "Removing the feeding tube is ending medical intervention.

Applying a flamethrower (or lethal injection, or smothering, etc.) is euthanasia.

Quite a difference."

Thank you, DrewDad for seeing the DIFFERENCE. It seems some people's arguments are just stupid ones, because they are so hell bent to prove something that is not remotely a comparison.

You liberals consistently fail to understand that I can compare some aspect of two things without thereby stating that they are alike in all respects. My point, which you appear too stupid to grasp, is that when you refer to starvation as a peaceful death, either you are incorrect, as it is the opposite, or else you merely mean that it is peaceful for her because you believe that she can feel nothing. If the latter, than it is is misleading, because according to your thesis, death by flamethrower would also be peaceful.

And apparently you are unable to comprehend the written word or to reason logically.

If I can't comprehend the written word, how am I writing this? As for logical reasoning, why don't you come over to the science board and solve the math and physics problems frequently posted there that others and I solve. Your assertions above are false.

DrewDad wrote:

You consistently ignore posts that factually contradict your position.

I do not read every post in every thread. I do have a life oustide A2K. I usually answer challenges to what I have said.

DrewDad wrote:

You consistently state your opinions as fact.

I challenge you. Cite an example.

DrewDad wrote:

We did not present the thesis that flamethower=ceasing nourishment; you did.

I never made a post which said that death by flamethrower was the same as death by ceasing nutrition. I am hereby calling you a liar and insist that you provide a link to the post in which I said this.

DrewDad wrote:

We did not present a thesis that death by flamethrower is peaceful; you attempted to introduce that as a strawman argument.

I never accused you of claiming that death by flamethrower was peaceful. You appear not to comprehend much of what is said to you. I will go ever so slowly for you. I said that a posted liberal statement that death by starvation/dehydration was peaceful fell into one of two categories:

1. Wrong, because it is quite painful, or
2. misleading because if all that is meant is that she feels absolutely nothing ever, then any form of death, even death by flamethrower, would be peaceful.

Do you get it now, Einstein?

DrewDad wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:
By the way, you would be wrong anyway. Removing the feeding tube is not ending intervention, since if someone attempted to feed her, they would be prevented from doing so by force.

Really? I presume you can back this up with a source? (A news or legal source, not someone's blog....)

I am prepared to cite a source for you, if you will merely state that you disagree with what I said. Specifically, if you think that someone attempting to feed her would be permitted to and not stopped. Don't ask me to cite sources for blatantly obvious statements that you, yourself agree with.

DrewDad wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:
You are killing her in the guise of letting her die...

Wrong.
a) She is not being killed. Legally, this is the fact of the matter. No one will be prosecuted for murder, manslaughter, or even a misdemeanor.

She is currently living. They will now deny her food and water and stop anyone else who wants to give it to her. You can say she isn't being killed if you want to play games, but this is sure what most people mean by killed. The people who are murdering her will not be prosecuted because the state is involved in her murder. Many murderers of Jews, etc. in Nazi Germany weren't prosecuted either, but it didn't make them one iota less murderers. Now, if you tell me that Florida is not Nazi Germany, your inability to follow an argument will make me vomit.

DrewDad wrote:

b) I am not involved in the procedure. (Neither is c.i.) Your logic baffles me.

You are involved enough. I am sure my logic baffles you.

0 Replies

Brandon9000 wrote:

If there's no electrical activity in her brain, then how is she breathing? The brain controls the autonomic nervous system.

The system you refer to generally works automatically without voluntary control - hence the name which comes from ancient Greek meaning 'self governing'. We do not consciously direct the rate of our heart beating nor are we normally aware of the diameter of our blood vessels or the need to stimulate our salivary glands to produce saliva.

Source

Quadrapelegics feel no pain in their lower extremities because pain sensations are not transferred from the limb(s) in question throught the nervous system and into the brain. This is not a problem with the apparatus within the skull, rather a "malfunction at the junction", so to speak.
Schiavo's apparatus is being called into question, namely, the cerebral cortex and it's mushlike state.

0 Replies

Brandon9000 wrote:

You liberals consistently fail to understand that I can compare some aspect of two things without thereby stating that they are alike in all respects. My point, which you appear too stupid to grasp,

Tut tut.
You're straying from the issue Brandon.

0 Replies

Brandon9000 wrote:

My point is that when you refer to starvation as a peaceful death, either you are incorrect, as it is the opposite, or else you merely mean that it is peaceful for her because you believe that she can feel nothing. If the latter, than it is is misleading, because according to your thesis, death by flamethrower would also be peaceful.

It would be prudent to first distinguish between what is peaceful to the patient and peaceful to the observer.
You burn the corpse of some wild boar that has been rotting on the beaches of the Philippines for a month and that, to me, does not look peaceful or painless in spite of the knowledge I possess regarding pain sensations and dead animals.
Napalm over the jungles of Vietnam didn't look peaceful even though there were no people immediately below.
My point is this (and it is a fact that you may need to consider for further dialogue):
Pain and the appearance of what you would regard as painful should it be inflicted upon you in your current conscious state are two entirely different things.

Brandon9000 wrote:

By the way, you would be wrong anyway. Removing the feeding tube is not ending intervention, since if someone attempted to feed her, they would be prevented from doing so by force.

Not sure this makes a boatload of sense.
The act of feeding (previous to the removal of the tube) is called intervention.
The medical professionals have intervened by sticking a tube into her so that she can recieve nutrents that she would otherwise not be getting because of her diminished state.
Once that is done, she is in an independent state. Anyone attempting to feed her again is then attempting to re-intervene, or simply, intervene.
They would be stopped by force because shoving a Krispy Creme into her mouth would result in a ball of dough in the mouth of someone who can not process the food like a normal human being.
If they hooked her back up to a tube, they would then be making her dependent on the professionals who do that kind of thing.

Brandon9000 wrote:

You are killing her in the guise of letting her die, and to me, a person who argues on behalf of a great cruelty is complicit.

And I respect your opinion and perspective. I just don't agree with it on any level.

0 Replies

I don't think any of the appeals or any last minute legal efforts are going to change the outcome. Terri will most likely die very soon. I cannot imagine worse agony for her parents. This is their daughter and it's obvious they love her dearly.

Michael Schiavo is even now denying them this last bit of compassion by refusing them visitation with their daughter except at his whim. Last night Mr. Schindler said that Michael will leave orders at the hospice that no visitors are permitted, naming blocks of time (4 or 5 hours at a time).

They are at his mercy, and he's showing he has very little, for either them or for Terri.

0 Replies

JW, Why don't you people get the right information before you make unfounded charges about Micahel. He has been spending time with Terri almost every day - even during this legal ordeal. That's the reason he didn't allow others to be there the same time he wanted to visit.

0 Replies

Has the Schiavo case Become a Political Football?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know