According to Terri Schiavo’s autopsy report, she was severely brain-damaged. OK.
For me, the whole tragedy surrounding Terri and the people who wanted her dead didn’t hinge on how severely brain-damaged she was. She was alive and wasn’t on life support, and her husband’s credibility was extremely low, too low to trust his assertion that Terri wanted to die if ever severely brain-damaged. Forget about what you’d want if you were ever in the same condition. Take yourselves out of the equation.
The way they killed her was appalling, and I was angry for a long time afterward. I’m giving you a heads-up. Don’t be alarmed or disgusted by the liberal media and liberal bloggers (and some conservatives, too) declaring that Terri’s wayward husband is somehow “vindicated” by the autopsy report. The doctor-induced starvation was immoral.
Look at the thing itself, to paraphrase a fictional man-eater paraphrasing Marcus Aurelius. What is it in itself? What is its nature, this culture of death?
It is dark, dank, and putrid. And hungry.
Related posts and links: See the entire Schiavo category for background, Damnum Absque Injuria, Blogs for Terri, Pro-Life Blogs, ThreeBadFingers…
News: NYTimes, CNSNews, MSNBC (autopsy report “backs” husband), Associated Press, more Associated Press…
Update (6/16): Michelle Malkin responds:
Late last night, I took the time to read the 39-page autopsy report of Terri Schiavo–something which, it is clear to me, most of the callous gloaters on the other side of this debate have not bothered to do. And will never do. These are people who can only talk about the sanctity of life if it’s enclosed in ghost quotes and pronounced with a sneer.You do not need a medical examiner’s license to see that the report raises many more questions than it answers, though from the (once again) misleading media coverage, we are led to believe that the matters of Terri’s life and murder are resolved. They are not.
Blogger and radio show host Cindy Swanson interviewed Schindler family attorney, David Gibbs III. An excerpt:
DAVID: We need to remember that the IME, the independent medical examiner, is looking at a dead body, a corpse, and trying to evaluate by looking at what is there and essentially, we understood as the Schindler family and as the legal team that Terri was brain-injured. And he has confirmed in that report that indeed she was significantly brain-injured.But that does not eliminate some of the questions that still remain as to what caused her injuries, and certainly what we would call the larger moral or legal issues still remain.
The IME said clearly that Terri was not terminal, and what that means is she was not going to die because of her brain-injured condition, her disability; she had no living will, she’d put nothing in writing as to her wishes; her heart was remarkably strong and would have continued for many years; and that the immediate cause of death was this brutal dehydration that Terri was taken, where she had no hydration, no nourishment, and died over those period of days.
{ 18 trackbacks }
{ 110 comments }
There were two questions here – the first was what condition she was in, the second was whether or not she should be killed. The autopsy said that she was indeed in the state he claimed, thus vindicating from charges that he was wrong about her condition. Of course it doesn’t vindicate him on the second question – autopsies provide medical information, not moral information.
Frankly, La Shawn, you have much less credibility on this issue than Michael Schiavo. He’s been completely vindicated by this report, yet you still attack him.
Culture of life indeed; show some respect for the living.
Considering that emotions are running high on this issue and I did, after all, blog about it, I’ll take your comment for what it’s worth. Terri was, in fact, among the living.
Yes, she was among the living 15 years ago for sure, and more recently it was a matter of opinion. What is clear is that Mike still is, and your attacks on him have been proven baseless.
Show a little class and apologize.
“…respect for the living?” Um, do the dead need to be starved to death to be – well, you know – DEAD?!?
“Vindication” indeed. “See? She deserved to die!” It’d be laughable if it weren’t so damned tragic.
If an atrophied brain is justification enough for death by starvation/dehydration, all you “Reality TV” fans had better lock your doors!!
It is sad that this happened. When it was decided that she should die, they should have given her a death shot. Simple, quick, and painless. She was going to die. Death was certain. There was no excuse for having her die of dehydration.
There IS the question of whether she should die or not.
There is NO question about the wrongness of the WAY she died.
Peace be with her.
No Dan, her brain was so far gone she didn’t feel a thing. It would be nice if the law permitted an injection, but that would be more for the sake of the living more than for her, and there are certain side-effects to such laws that many people wouldn’t like.
Richard…
I guess Hitler should be vindicated also (based on that anaology)… doesn’t the report vindicate him also??? Seems like it.
So over the 15 years, her brain had atrophied to half the typical weight. So how much had it shrunk at the 5 year mark or at any other point where sleazebag Michael cut her family off and banned therapy.
The autopsy also surmised that broken bones were due to osteoporsis. Again, what is the rate of atrophy after being bedridden for 1 year, let alone 15?
If the x-rays taken a year after being bedridden, showed broken bones, I don’t think osteoporosis was to blame. This is even more ridiculous in that bedridden people don’t break bones unless someone breaks it for them.
The only reason the report was released is because Michael liked what he saw — while time may heal all wounds, in his case time blurred whatever evidence would have pointed to his abuse of her. And of course, the spin as vindication would be good for another round of MSM PR interviews.
The autopsy also surmised that broken bones were due to osteoporsis. Again, what is the rate of atrophy after being bedridden for 1 year, let alone 15?
Grrrr, that 2nd sentence should have read: “Again, what is the rate of bone loss after being bedridden for 1 year, let alone 15?”
I can’t believe the hate I see here. This remarkable statement is absolutely false: “The only reason the report was released is because Michael liked what he saw…” as Michael had no control over the autopsy. And another remark equating Michael to Hitler is astonishing.
Do you people call yourselves Christians?
What a tragic story this was, and now we have to watch as the MSM wallows around in it once again. They seem so proud of themselves.
I’ve always had mixed feeling about this. If it were my wife, I wouldn’t want her to “live” in that condition. However, I probably would have deferred to the parents… maybe. I would want someone to pull the plug on me if I were in that condition. There is a difference in being alive and living.
Again, there is a good chance that I would signed away my rights to make a decision and let her parents have the final say. Considering they had no problem with her existing in the state that she was in.
Richard, short term memory eh? When Terri died, Michael didn’t tell her family where he was going to bury her. He also made it clear that he wasn’t going to release the autopsy.
As sole custodian, he has every right under law to restrict the publication of it — you know, the right to privacy.
LaShawn, thanks for the link. A bit of friendly advice: don’t bother arguing with trolls like Richard Bennett. His idea of an argument consists of telling an atheist who doesn’t hate religious people that he isn’t really an atheist, tell two lawyers who disagree with him that we aren’t really lawyers, and falsely claiming the support of Antonin Scalia, who has said nary a word about his opinion on the Schiavo case. Now he’s lying again and falsely claiming Patterico and I said something he knows damned well we didn’t. Argue with him long enough, and sooner or later he’ll probably claim you aren’t really black, that you aren’t really a woman, that your first name isn’t really LaShawn, or God only knows what else. Even his TTLB ranking is phony.
Bennett is nothing more a garden-variety troll. Handle him accordingly.
Jeff (Xrlq) Bishop is having a hard time accepting that the autopsy contradicts every claim he’s made against Mike Schiavo, so he’s trying to let off some steam by attacking me. Pay him no mind.
Tsk. Seems some folks here don’t believe the mentally disabled deserve to live as those of us who are not. Terri Schivo was murdered, whether or not she was aware of it. Life is life is life. There is no degree of life, or humanness,either. And as for the hate, I see none except that spouted by one particular commentor. No one needs to apologize for anything here, particularly LaShawn.
Do you people call yourselves Christians?
Another prime example of Bennett in action. Neither Renee nor Andy, the only two commenters he was replying to, said word one about religion. But the general pattern continues: first Dean Esmay isn’t really an atheist, then Patterico and I aren’t really lawyers, now two commenters who haven’t even disclosed their religion may not really be religious. I’ll save Richard the trouble of typing out his next comment, in which he informs everyone that LaShawn’s blog isn’t really a blog.
Clearly, this is, and probably always will be, an emotional issue. Still, folks, hear what Richard is saying…he makes alot of sense. Despite an assertion by another commenter, no amount of “therapy” could have saved her brain from atrophying away. Her brain was in an irreversible death spiral.
Michael was, in many ways, a less than savory character…this is what made this case so difficult. But this report DOES vindicate him; despite her parents’ assertions, there was NO CHANCE for her to make a recovery. And LaShawn, I take issue with your suggesting that she was alive by virtue of the fact she wasn’t on life support. She most clearly WAS on life-support! A feeding tube is life-support! My problem with your position is that, for you, there is no line…breathing and eating apparently is all it takes for you to call it “life.” Not for me, and not for alot of people, and we’re not “bad” because we feel that way.
Richard,
You said… “[Michael Schiavo]’s been completely vindicated by this report” and “her brain was so far gone she didn’t feel a thing.” Have you read the report? I have, and it doesn’t justify either of these statements.
As to the first claim, Michael said Terri was in a PVS state. The autopsy said “Was Mrs. Schiavo in a persistent vegetative state (PVS)? (See attached neuropathology report) PVS is a clinical diagnosis arrived at through physical examination of living patients. Postmortem correlations to PVS with reported pathologic findings have been reported in the literature, but the findings vary with the etiology of the adverse neurological event.†While this does not contradict Mr. Schiavo’s assertion, Michael is not “completely vindicated by this report” on this claim. Also, the report makes no attempt at moral arguments justifying killing of the brain damaged. So Michael is not “completely vindicated by this report” on moral grounds.
As to your second claim, the autopsy speaks to atrophy of the optical center of Terri’s brain and her ability to see, but not her ability to feel. So your claim that “her brain was so far gone she didn’t feel a thing†is purely conjecture.
It seems the autopsy, which you herald as justification for the convenience killing of a disabled person, falls short of your purpose.
Jeffrey King
Wendy – I understand what you are saying to a point. Life is life is life sounds good but there is a quality element to life as well. I don’t think a lot of peole would choose death than lay in a hospital for the rest of their lives existing as a vegetable. What’s the point of that?
I concede that if the parents are find with her continuing to live that way I would sign away my rights if I were the husband. Otherwise, I’m pulling the plug and I would want it pulled on me if I were in the condition.
A woman, who had committed no crime, was deprived of food and water until dead by government edict. Michael Schiavo is merely a pus-filled blister which developed on the bloated, disease ridden corpse that used to be morality in the hallowed halls of our capital buildings.
Murder the babies and call it choice, murder the infirmed and call it mercy.
I wonder who will be next.
Who’s next? Babies in utero with Down Syndrome or some other chromosomal abnormality. The day doctors find something similar for homosexuality, and parents opt to abort the fetuses, is the day liberals will suddenly become pro-life, I predict.
It’ll be good to have them on the team.
Let’s remember, too, that the human brain is about 80% water. After being dehydrated for 2 weeks, OF COURSE Terri’s brain would have shrunken to half the normal size by the time of the autopsy! The report proves nothing for either side.
The “vindicated” headlines are simply nauseating, La Shawn. I don’t know why the media couldn’t have been completely honest with themselves and just used the headline “Media vindicated by Schiavo autopsy.”
It’s “pat yourselves on the back” week in the media, and no doubt that’s what they are doing now. It’s not exactly surprising that Terri Schiavo’s brain had deteriorated. Mine would too if I’d been in her condition and not gotten any meaningful therapy for 13 years after my accident. There’s no way she was totally blind because the videos clearly indicated that she was able to both track the movements of the balloon and smile at her mother. Are we supposed to believe that instead of seeing these things she just “sensed” them. Once again, a report on what happened to Terri Schiavo leaves us asking more questions, rather than closing the book on this sad story.
Look, folks, there’s no point in re-arguing the same positions we had two months ago, we know that nobody’s going to change their minds. If you believed then that a beating heart is a life regardless of the condition of the brain, you most likely still do; and if you believed that it takes some brain waves to make a human being then, you probably believe it today.
So the question is whether there is anything in this report that casts light on the things we may not have been so sure about a couple of months ago, or whether it turns the things we were sure about upside down.
For me, I was surprised that it showed no evidence of bulimia (this usually shows up as bad teeth, eaten away by the stomach juices the bulimic hurls up). But I was not surprised there was no evidence of abuse. I though it likely that the Schindlers had abused Terri as a child, but knew I had no evidence for thinking that.
I’m disappointed that we don’t know any more about why the woman’s heart stopped 15 years ago, but I guess too much deterioration had taken place.
Now can any of you folks comment in this vein without trying to impeach anybodys integrity?
Richard, I did in #s10, 11 & 15, try talking truth to that and we’ll take it from there.
If you’re polite, then maybe we can deal with #s 21-25 in light of your #27.
Scratch 21 – 25, I mean 21 – 26
Richard,
“… without trying to impeach anybodys integrity?” It seems you missed the log in your own eye.
Exhibit A: Top post on you blog is titled “Schiavo autopsy exposes lying liars”
Exhibit B: Comment 12:”I can’t believe the hate I see here… Do you people call yourselves Christians?”
Troll indeed.
Richard Bennett-
I love all the Biblical references you use to tell us Christians how to live our Christian lives.
We dont’ impeach persons integrity on this blog. We attack arguments.
All those pro-Michael Schiavo types forget the one thing that makes whatever you say go in one ear and out the other:
WE DON’T CARE ABOUT QUALITY OF LIFE MORE THAN WE CARE ABOUT LIFE ITSELF.
Dick Bennett said: Now can any of you folks comment in this vein without trying to impeach anybodys integrity?
Because that would distract him from spitting all over a dead person who can’t defend herself, ala:
For me, I was surprised that it showed no evidence of bulimia (this usually shows up as bad teeth, eaten away by the stomach juices the bulimic hurls up)
Or it might take time away from casting aspertions on people at random Do you people call yourselves Christians?
But who know, maybe he will Show a little class and apologize
But I ain’t holding my breath.
#4 Richard wrote, “Show a little class and apologize.”
I disagree that she should apologize and I think La Shawn has much more class. (100 fold)
#12 Richard wrote, “equating Michael to Hitler”
Nobody did that Richard.
#15 Andy wrote, “When Terri died, Michael didn’t tell her family where he was going to bury her.”
Sean Hannity had her family on tonight and they STILL don’t know where Terri is….
#27 Richard wrote, “Now can any of you folks comment in this vein without trying to impeach anybodys integrity?”
Take your advice maybe?
Good post, La Shawn! I think that this nation crossed a threshold the day the courts decided to starve Terri to death.
It’s possible that Terri’s bulimia was diagnosed after the fact, based upon her weight loss after she was an overweight child, in an attempt to explain her heart failure. Wasn’t that the point of Michael’s malpractice suit – that her bulimia wasn’t diagnosed? Maybe she was never bulimic.
I never thought her autopsy would reveal any useful information, because we don’t know what the brain of a healthy person would look like if she was confined to a bed with no visual or aural stimulation for ten years.
Questions for Richard due to your passion:
1) Why the effort to kill a woman via starvation and dehydration? Why not just have no effort (not killing) What is requiring the effort?
2) Why couldn’t it have been a position of the government (the court) to allow the parents who wanted to bear complete financial and physical responsibility of Terri to do so? It required no effort on Michael’s or anyone elses part (except for the nurses – but they were paid to do so by).
3) Choosing to kill versus allowing the parents to have complete physical and financial support just seemed odd and when we saw evidence like the many bone fractures and the denial of therapy and the denail of ice chips over a decade period and the closing of her blinds to make her room dark we came down on the side of hoping the parents could provide the care, the therapy, the love that Terri needed but didn’t receive. What made you Richard come down on the side of killing Terri? I’m interested in your view as it seems as it may be different that those who had the technical view that Michael spoke for Terri because he had custody of her (never mind that you aren’t allowed to not feed your own dogs when you are owners of a dog).
What bothers me is that it seems that the conservative media was manipulated by the parents–they released those videos, insisting that she saw things, was alert, etc. She was blind–the autopsy showed that. Her brain was half its size. She was in a vegetative state. The parents kept feeding the conservative media with another view, while many doctors with her husband said that her condition had greatly deteriorated. So in a way, I agree with Richard–the husband has been vindicated.
But the difference is the end result: I still think that the husband should have just given medical custody to the parents, and Terri shouldn’t have been starved to death.
It’s sort of like babies: I don’t think that people should rush to have kids, but women get pregnant. I don’t think that women should smoke crack and then get pregnant. A lot of people agree with that. But the difference, again, is the end result: life over death.
Andy #10 and #15
I’m afraid you don’t know much about the laws regarding autopsies. They’re public record.
From the A. P.
“Pinellas-Pasco Medical Examiner Jon Thogmartin said he will release the autopsy results at an 11 a.m. news conference. Attorneys for Terri Schiavo’s husband, Michael Schiavo, and parents, Bob and Mary Schindler, expect to get the report hours earlier.”
Even more clearly, from crosswalk.com:
But Pellan [forensic services director] indicated that regardless of Michael Schiavo’s wishes, “Pursuant to Florida law, the autopsy report will be public record.”
MJ wrote, “But the difference is the end result: I still think that the husband should have just given medical custody to the parents, and Terri shouldn’t have been starved to death.”
That’s all I’m saying.
MJ wrote, “her condition had greatly deteriorated.”
Some of that deterioration could’ve been mitigated in some of our eyes with some care (which was denied and prohibited).
MJ, you also wrote that Michael was vindicated. That seems to suggest that you think that Michael was right to actively try to get her killed. How do you square that active role with your second paragraph. I don’t think Michael was vindicated at all. The autopsy only showed what we all knew and that was that her brain power was very very very limited.
Yes she wasn’t as aware as we all wished. Yes she wasn’t able to function by herself. But she had parents and a brother and sister who wanted to take care of her but were prohibited.
The entire Schiavo case is still a puzzle to me, first and foremost because I can’t fathom family members allowing thirteen years to pass, IF they were aware that their son-in-law was actively prohibiting therapy and therefore blocking recovery for their daughter.
He may have completed his crime with judicial help in 2005, but it was a long, slow and torturous process, almost analogous to the hate-filled husband a few years ago who injected his son with HIV to make his ex-wife, the child’s mother, suffer. Mixing evil with a bit of hatred and venom truly produces monsters.
I believe now as I did upon learning the pertinent facts of the Schiavo case that Pinellas County, Florida really needs a Bob Cooley. Cooley, author of “When Corruption Was King,” was the Chicago attorney – an insider with a crisis of conscience – who brought down the notorious First Ward and some of the corrupt Cook County judges. One of those judges also fixed a murder case, but at least the Chicago victim was already dead.
I was in Florida during the recent bout of rejected appeals, and called the Pinellas County Prosecutor’s Office to ask about the case. No interest. “That’s a civil matter… those charges were looked into years ago, no reason to believe…”
So, what could Terry Schiavo’s family have done, upon realization their daughter’s husband was preventing effective treatment? I don’t know. But if that son-in-law had turned up in the pines, and I’d been summoned to jury duty, I’d have a hard time not voting for jury nullification based on justifiable bug-squashing.
Sometimes I think it boils down to different world views, which is why I said “in a way” because if I held the world view that Richard and others do, I’d simply say, “he was vindicated.” Sort of like abortion: I can understand why people do it, but it doesn’t mean I think it’s right.
Another issue is the slippery slope that people perceive. On the life side, people think that any willful death of a handicapped person leads to such deaths of anyone. And on the other side, any public pronouncement of Christianity will lead to some type of Taliban society.
That’s why the Schiavo case went to extremes: the opposing slippery slope theories collided.
joeyangtree , you’re right I don’t know much about that aspect since I had no cause to learn about it, let alone FL law.
But as you stated that contrary to Michael’s wishes… That’s what I took note of back when she died, him saying he wasn’t going to release it. Thanks for enlightening me. So tell me, is the same true in all 50 states?
I majored in chemistry in college. Listening to “scientific” experts on TV never fails to amaze me. In one program they will be telling us that we use only 15% of our brain. Then, on another program, some “expert” will be on TV telling us that Terri’s brain us 80% gone so there is no point in keeping her alive.
She was alive. She was not dying. Something horrible happened–or more accurately, many horrible things were done.
My own grandmother elected to forego the feeding tube.
Her brain of course was entirely intact (or as much as it had ever been).
The big difference of course is that she was in late stage heart and kidney failure – plus of course she had made her own wishes quite clear.
It was not painless by any stretch of the imagination. On the other hand I had seen her far sicker with the flu.
Basically, at the end of the day, about the only thing you can say about the whole Terri Schiavo situation is that it was just plain sad. Hopefully her soul can get some rest now.
Didn’t we already know she was severely brain damaged? That’s still not justification for death by dehydration and starvation.
From WorldNetDaily: The autopsy report concluding Terri Schiavo suffered no trauma prior to her collapse under disputed circumstances in 1990… Trackback by Danny Carlton (aka Jack Lewis) — 06.16.05 @ 8:04 am
Heh! WorldNetDaily… puhleeze. You might as well be citing The Onion.
La Shawn:
Too bad people don’t let Terri Schiavo rest in peace.
Both sides played the media like a violin.
Schindlers still insist that “Terry Saw Us” in spite of autopsy shoeing no visual cortex.
Terri did not need dehydration – they simply could have withdrawn antibiotics – she would have died of infection.
All this stuff about “Terri talked to us” etc. was made for the media.
Autopsy added NO useful information not already obvious to medical observers.
Time to let Terri’s soul rest in peace.
Richard says, “And you call yourselves Christians?”
Yes, and so does the Pope. Remember this was just before the Pope’s death, and he came out in very strong language against allowing Shiavo to die, almost issuing an ominous warning that we are headed down a dark path. Maybe he knew something we didn’t.
Also, George Felos’ (Schiavo’s attorney) spiritual and rather odd approach to death bears some looking into. Apparently, he has written a book about the legal system and the spirituality (or beauty) of death. Felos made comments like “I’ve never seen Terri look so beautiful”, etc…as she died. There is some very weird stuff that has yet to be uncovered with Felos and his ilk.
What is amazing to me is that there is a selective group of people that deserve life and deserve death. Does your position on pro-life mean also that the death penalty should be eliminated? Should Terri’s brain have been allowed to atrophy to the point that even life support could not sustain her? Is death when you cannot sustain yourself any longer? All these questions – without the attached emotion – are the questions that should be asked. As a christian I would have to ask what would Jesus do? As a Christian that believes in the word of God I would also believe that she, being a christian as well would be much happier in Heaven with our Lord receiving the bounty of her blessings from her work on Earth rather than trapped here on Earth blind and uanble to care for herself or recover. If it was me I would want to go home. As a Christian I know the Earth is not my home.
You don’t have to wonder what Jesus would do, JB. Read the Bible, and he’ll tell you. And justly executing murderers is not the same as murdering an innocent woman. The attempt to make the two morally equivalent betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of God’s law and adherence to man-centered ideology. I’m always frustrated when Christians fail to see the biblical distinction. I expect it of unbelievers and people who’ve never cracked open the book. Read through the “Faith” category archives for more information.
I agree with everything you’ve written, LaShawn, except the “hungry” part. The culture of death is a culture of “whatever.” She can’t speak for herself, she can’t stand up for herself, her long sojourn in the hospital has left her flaccid and somewhat unattractive, and her husband wants her dead? “Whatever.” Michael was hungry, yes. The people who picketed on his behalf were merely parading their bone-deep sense of ambivalence toward life and living.
These folks’ ambivalence is a blot and a roadblock to bringing about God’s kingdom on earth, but they’re not really much of a threat except to those with weak wills. Stay strong in Christ and keep fighting the good fight, and these people will part like wheat before the harvest.
Now La Shawn – I read your post about respect your opinions on your blog and respect for you. Do you think that it was respectful to suggest that I never cracked a Bible? Yes in the old testament there was a teaching that an “eye for an eye” was just punishment but the whole purpose of the Son of God coming to this Earth was to place a spirit of Forgiveness in it for sins, for we all would sin and come short of the Glory of God.
Isaiah 55:7 “Let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts: and let him return unto the LORD, and he will have mercy upon him; and to our God, for he will abundantly pardon.”
Ezekiel 18:21, “But if the wicked will turn from all his sins that he hath committed, and keep all my statutes, and do that which is lawful and right, he shall surely live, he shall not die.”
I am a Bible toting Christian that Walks by Faith Everyday. I will read your Faith postings to see where you found that God delegated to man the opposite of his teachings in the verse from Ezekiel listed above. I could be wrong…I’m only human.
Dear LaShawn,
Compliments on a great post—you said what needed to be said: Terri’s brain damage (NOT brain death)was no reason for starving her to death.
And the “you people call yourselves Christians” routine is just that—a tired routine, a cliche, at once off base and terribly boring.
All the best—or, as they say in Germany, where I’m staying for a few months, alles Gute.
Adrian
Come on, JB, you know I did not suggest that YOU’VE never cracked open the Bible, and you know that. Good grief. The implication was that you have read the Bible. Re-read what the Book of Romans says about the role of government.
Follow this link: http://lashawnbarber.com/archives/2004/05/14/bronward-christian-soldiers/
…and others in the “Faith” category.
LaShawn, despite my contrarian ways
, I agree with you 100% on this issue.
Hindsight is 20 / 20, and this does nothing to change the nature of the arguments that were raised ‘during’ the process. That is why they are called post mortem autopsies, they can’t be done until you are dead, which is kinda after the fact.
Just stop and think for a minute, what if Terri had requested that she not be kept alive in a situation such as this? I find it disturbing the Michael isn’t more desrving of the benefit of doubt.
I see you’re still sticking to the tired, discredited lies of the Terri-bots. Just for starters, Michael did not “ban” therapy; he was, in fact, widely known to be the one spending the most time with Terri, was closely involved with her ongoing physical therapy, and was even known in the hospital as the kind of “relative from Hell” who kept on badgering the staff to get Terri the best possible care.
If Michael starts to sue for defamation, slander, and/or libel, you lot had better watch out.
Also, y’all need to face the fact that the autopsy report proved what Michael had alleged from the start: Terri’s brain was GONE, and Terri with it; there was NEVER any sign of brain activity, other than carefully-edited video-tapes and outright fabrications. Terri died in 1990, plain and simple.
JB, it’s good that you not only tote a Bible, but can look up verses, altho you’re stretching to link what those two OT verses have to say with capital punishment.
Isa 55:7, “As the two preceding chapters are prophecies of Christ and his church, this treats of his word and ordinances, and of the nature, use, and efficacy of them. It begins with an invitation of thirsty souls to them, Isa_55:1, an expostulation with them for taking wrong methods, and a dissuasive from them, Isa_55:2, which is followed with an exhortation to hear the word of Christ, attend on his ordinances; to which they are encouraged with promises of life and covenant blessings, Isa_55:2. Christ is prophesied of in his offices; and the conversion of the Gentiles to him is foretold, Isa_55:4, men are called upon to seek the Lord, where and while he might be found; and both wicked and unrighteous persons, forsaking their ways and thoughts, are encouraged to turn to the Lord, in hopes of pardon, and in consideration of his ways and thoughts not being like theirs, Isa_55:6, the nature and efficacy of the word of God are expressed and illustrated by the similes of rain and snow, Isa_55:10, and the conversion of the Lord’s people, in consequence of the word being made effectual, is predicted, the issue of which is the glory of God, Isa_55:12.”
Ezk 18:21, “This chapter contains an answer to an objection of the Jews to the dealings of God with them in a providential way. The objection is expressed in a proverb of common use among them, and complained of as being without cause, Eze_18:1; however, for the future, no occasion should be given them to use it; for, though God could justify his proceedings upon the foot of his sovereignty, all souls being his; yet he was determined none but the sinner himself should suffer, Eze_18:3; and puts various cases for the illustration and vindication of his proceedings; as that a just man, who is described by his proper characters, as abstaining from several sins specified, and doing what is right and good, should surely live, Eze_18:5; but that the son of such a just man, being the reverse of his father’s character, should surely die, Eze_18:10; and again, the son of such a wicked man, observing the heinousness of his father’s sins, and abstaining from them, though his father should die in his iniquities, he should not die for them, but live, Eze_18:14; by which it appears that the dealings of God with the Jews were not according to the proverb used by them, but quite agreeable to his resolution; that the sinner, be he a father or a son, shall die for his own sins; and that the righteous man’s righteousness shall be upon him, and the wicked man’s sin upon him, and accordingly both shall be dealt with, Eze_18:19; which is further illustrated by a wicked man’s turning from his sinful course, and doing righteousness, and living in that righteousness he has done; which is more agreeable to God that he should live, and not die in sin, Eze_18:21; and by a righteous man turning from his righteousness, and living a vicious life, and dying in it, Eze_18:24; from both which instances this conclusion follows, that God is to be justified; and that his ways are equal, and the Jews’ ways were unequal, and their complaint unjust, Eze_18:25; and the same instances are repeated in a different order, and the same conclusion formed, Eze_18:26; upon which the Lord determines to judge them according to their own ways, their personal actions, good or bad; and exhorts them to repentance and reformation; and closes with a pathetic expostulation, with them, Eze_18:30.”
Quotes taken from the John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible.
Now, let’s move to the NT, and compare these two verses; Mat 10:34, Rom 13:4. One discusses how Jesus is going to deal with man and the other deals with the God-given authority for governments to apply the sword of justice to evildoers. You may even want to check out Rev 2, to dispel the false teaching that Jesus is all lovey-dovey.
Cracking open the Bible is one thing, understanding its message is another.
First, let me preface this by saying that I write this from the standpoint of a Catholic – as were Michael and Terri Schiavo. And from that standpoint, Michael Schiavo was, is and will continue to be scum in my eyes. A man – while still married, whatever the circumstances – who takes another woman into his bed and with that woman produces two children, cannot and should not call himself a Catholic. A Church approved annulment was always available to him, as well as a civil divorce. That would have been the honest and honorable thing to do – for the sake of Terri and his own soul. But then of course, her parents would have had the use of the trust fund that had been established to care for Terri, not him. And they would have actually cared for her.
In the Church’s eyes, and my own, NO LIFE is lacking in value. So no, Michael Schiavo is NOT vindicated. BUT, and this is my final thought on the subject – IT IS NOT FOR US TO JUDGE the man. There is a Judge in Michael’s future who knows the contents of Michael’s heart, the state of his soul and his hidden motives and intentions and this Judge will assess his guilt or innocence with absolute clarity and justice.
That one will be whacked.
La Shawn, I’m having trouble tracking back to you. But I did want to let you know that I quoted you in my interview with Schindler family attorney David Gibbs III. I believe you perfectly captured what so many pro-life Americans are feeling in the wake of the autopsy results being released.
I posted a transcript of the interview on my blog. Hope you’ll have a moment to check it out!
Thanks, Cindy. I’ll check it out. WordPress and HaloScan don’t get along. Try Simpletracks;
http://kalsey.com/tools/trackback/
Two years ago my father died from Alzheimer’s. But what he really died from was dehydration. In other words, as the disease progressed he lost the ability to feed himself. We could have gone to great lengths to prolong his life, including nourishing him intravenously, but we judged it was his time. What are the differences between this and what happened at the end of Terry Schiavo’s life? Did I murder my father? Or is there a time when a we have to accept the inevitability of death; that death is a natural part of life.
Max, I don’t think you murdered your father. These are difficult issues, and I think they should be judged on a case by case basis. As much as I blog negatively about him, I have sympathy for Michael Schiavo.
The problem was the contention between him and Terri’s parents. Outsiders perceived a dogged determination on his part to kill her, even though her parents were willing to continue her care. His razor-sharp focus on ending her life was instinctually distasteful to some people.
If I ever become incapacitated, I wouldn’t want my family to go to extreme measures, and they know that. But Michael had lost so much credibility, and shacking up with and impregnating another woman didn’t help. If Terri’s wishes had been in writing or witnessed by others, I think people would’ve been more willing to support his decision. But on his word alone, I don’t know…
Just a thought:
If it was never about how severely brain damaged she was, why did so many on the right spend so much time claiming that Terri Schaivo was liable to snap out of it at any moment and order a pizza.
Horatio, I suggest you ask the “many on the right” who said it. I didn’t say it, and I can’t answer for them.
Who here thinks that Terri’s family actually had Terri’s best interests at heart?
The following has been documented:
a.) Hypothetically, even if Terri had told her parents of her intentions to withdraw artificial nutrition they would not do it.
b.) Hypothetically, if she were to develop diabetes and require amputation of all her limbs due to gangrene, they would be willing to do that.
c.) If Terri had developed heart disease, they would be willing to have open heart surgery performed.
So let’s combine this hypothetical situation with what we do know about Terri’s condition.
We would have a woman who is blind, half of her brain is gone, can’t think, walk or talk, has heart disease and with her arms and legs cut off.
And her parents would still be willing to due every thing possible to keep her alive.
I submit to you that these are the most selfish people in the world. It is crystal clear that they never had Terri’s best interest at heart, they had their own.
I submit to you that you are committing slander. I’ve read volumes on the case and haven’t even come close to seeing the ALLEGATIONS that you allege in order to make your case.
Go back to my post #41 to get a better perspective.
I disagree, I’ve read that several places including here:
http://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/WolfsonReport.pdf
I can’t believe you all are still discussing this case. Terry was dead and is dead again and this time for good.
None of us are family members and even if we were, we’d be biased one way or the other so why keep rehasing the same old speculative garbage about a twice dead woman?
A quick comment:
People who were for pulling the plug on Terri often said and say things like we can’t judge Michael, etc. Now, I just read about a guy who is supposed to have abused thousands of kids in California, Mexico, and Brazil. Is there anybody in their right mind who wouldn’t judge his actions as being wrong? So what could be the only rason why judgment not ok in the Schiavo case? Well, it could only be that people have already made up their minds that pulling the plug on Terri is no big deal ethically. Well, you may think so, but you have to argue for that position, and telling the other side not to judge is no argument—it’s actually a way of scoring an easy victory without argument.
Yes, we don’t judge in the sense of pretending to decide anyone’s eternal destiny, but it is just silly to think that we should not judge actions. Otherwise we can never condemn what Hitler or Stalin or the creep in California did.
Adrian
John you didn’t address post #41.
I read your link and it’s an argument made by someone which can state anything as strongly as they want to state it. It may or may not be how Terri’s parents feel and from all of what I read from them doesn’t seem to be near how they feel.
Address the real issues that are laid out in #41. This slanderous topic is over.
Re: #81
Fair enough.
I never heard that claim either.
Baklava,
Let me respond to your post.
First off let me say that I hate the fact that Terri had this happen to her. I wish that every person on this planet was healthy and happy.
But, I find it offensive that we would force someone to endure the existence that she had.
While I’m not going to detail everything about myself, I’ve battled physical ailments/diseases over the last 12 years and have suffered a great deal and while quality of life may not be eveything it is most of it.
We all have interactions and relationships with other people, family, and friends but we are all autonomous beings and don’t exist for other peoples amusement. Her parents would visit her and rub her and pet her like she was a dog and that would make them feel better, they wouldn’t have to deal with the loss of their child. Well I’m sorry that’s not enough, no one should have to live like that to make someone else happy.
Like you, I’ve also read a lot on this, almost to the point of it being an obsession but in all the reading I’ve done from all the people who think the tube shoud not have been remove have I ever once read anybody say that “yeah, I’d trade lives with her” or “I’d be happy to live like that”. Why? Because no one would yet they are so willing to make her edure that existence.
Look, I don’t want to make this a confontation between you and I but this is how I feel.
One other thing, their are so many aspects of this case that are fascinating and worth discussing/arguing over but let me say this. I wish people would stop using the dog analogy. Either stop using it or complete the ananlogy. While it may be true that we wouldn’t starve a dog to death we also wouldn’t let it lie their like a lump for 15 years, urinating on itself, deficating on itself, not moving and not doing the things that dogs do. And why is that? Because it would be inhumane to allow it.
There are many handicapped people that you scare.
She gave no indication of being in pain and there are people that need help using the restroom or being cleaned up or eating and it seems….
that you have decided that her existence should be snuffed out because of some criteria that you set that it’s not a life that she would want to live. —- Obviously that’s the point. She can’t speak for herself which brings us back to my post #41. However, it seems that you didn’t want to allow the parents to take care of her and you sided on killing her. I respect that you have an opinion, I was just troubled by 2 things from you: 1) Your speaking concerning the parents thoughts as if you knew them because they are in this report made by someone. 2) Your scary criteria that would affect many living handicapped individuals today (and people with severally diminished mental capacity). But it’s ok, it’s good to have this debate because people can see what criteria and policy would lead to if the government took on the deciding role.
“Forget about what you’d want if you were ever in the same condition.” La Shawn, I’m afraid that most people who I’ve read who supported this awful tragedy were not able to do that. So many people projected what they believed they would want in that situation onto Terri Schiavo. “If I was in that situation, I’d want them to pull the plug!” That’s why so many accepted Michael Schiavo’s claim that Terri would not have wanted to live that way.
The problem is, that’s not at all what it was about. It was not about, “pulling the plug,” and discontinuing life support. It was about witholding basic hydration and nutrition. The way they dehydrated her to death was unbelievably cruel. They KILLED her. No kind of rationalization that they use can justify it to me. EVER!
“There were two questions here – the first was what condition she was in, the second was whether or not she should be killed. The autopsy said that she was indeed in the state he claimed, thus vindicating from charges that he was wrong about her condition.” I dunno. Didn’t the pathologist who did the autopsy refuse to allow any observers as he conducted it, and specifically refused to allow the Schindler family’s request that their own hand-picked pathologist be allowed in to observe the procedure? Seems odd to me. But then maybe I’m mistaken about that.
I too see hate in these posts, but I see it coming from both sides and I see more of it coming from the people who are attacking Michael Shiavo.
There are a good many people in this country who die every day from removal of feeding tubes. Are any of Terri Shiavo’s defenders concerned about these other people? I would think that if you have a problem with Terri’s death, you would also have a problem with what is happening, as we speak, with the other PVS patients in this country. Rather than continuing to debate Terri’s fate, wouldn’t your time and energy be better spent trying to “save” the PVS patients who are still alive?
Also, I thought the crowd of protestors in front of the hospice where Terri Shiavo was in residence showed total disrespect for the other individuals inside who were sick and dying and their families. It seems to me that once these “defenders” make the decision they are right, any means they undertake to bring about the end that they want is justified. I don’t agree with their philosophy.
The autopsy results are obviously not going to end this bitter and sad controversy as many people predicted it would not. I think the controversy rages on because there is so much fear and anger in our society today. The Terri Shiavo situation is being used as a way to vent that fear and anger. I will say a prayer tonight for all of us.
LaShawn: In post #81, you explicitly admit that Max was not a “murderer” for letting his father die EXACTLY as Michael had let Terri die. Then you add that you yourself would not want to be kept alive by “extreme measures.” So why does Michael have so little credibility in your eyes, when you explicitly condone (twice in one post) the decision he made?
Michael’s credibility suffered ONLY from groundless, made-up charges, repeated endlessly in blogs such as this, despite the total lack of credible supporting evidence. So it seems you’ve literally made up an excuse to trash Michael, even as you condone the decision he made.
So who is the next PVS patient you folks are going to try to save?
Take your pick, cable news anxiously awaits your choice.
And half of this country does not appreciate being called a dark, putrid, culture of death.
Here’s a thought. There’s lots of people getting their brains damaged rather greusomely in Iraq right now. Why don’t you go help out the kind of death you support?
Josephus, it’s one thing for a family to decide that the time had come and that death is inevitably near. It’s another thing to ty to ramrod a death thru as Michael did.
There’s nothing hypocritical about what La Shawn said, it depends on a case by case base and Michael’s case stunk to high heaven.
A few years ago, my grandmother was in a somewhat similar life/death situation — with doctors giving her a slim chance of surviving her latest bout of pneumonia. After my sister, the last who was flying in to see her, left her hospital room for the evening. Granny pulled the IV out and spared everyone the hassle of taking extrordinary measures to keep her. Quite simply, she had given up the will to live and had been patiently waiting for death to take her naturally for several years.
It was hypocritical for LaShawn to trash everyone who supported Michael’s decision as a “culture of death” and then to admit that such decisions might not always be so evil after all — without retracting ANY of the made-up charges against Michael or those who agreed with him, and without retracting any of her disgraceful “culture of death” rhetoric. When all of those phony charges are dispensed with, how did “Michael’s case stink to high heaven?”
One of the far right’s central talking points has always been “life is life is life,” and that anyone who even thinks of letting someone die rather than continue with extreme treatment measures is tantamount to a Nazi. LaShawn has just explicitly backed away from that position without admitting it.
Terri Schiavo: Charts Show Discrepancy Of More Than 2 Hours Re: Terri’s “Collapse” And Time Michael Schiavo Waited In Seeking Help
Please provide me feedback re: charts,. I created
Schiavo “Collapse” More Than Two Hour Discrepancy Proven By Charting
http://tekgnosis.typepad.com/tekgnosis/2005/06/terri_schiavo_c.html
Here is a link to a very good article from Minister John Danforth. I think the people who accuse those who thought it best that Terri be allowed to die as being part of a “culture of death” really need to read it.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/17/opinion/17danforth.html
Josephus,
One of the far right’s central talking points has always been “life is life is life,†and that anyone who even thinks of letting someone die rather than continue with extreme treatment measures is tantamount to a Nazi.
Provide one link, one, that says that. Make sure it breaks Godwin’s law, or it doesn’t count.
The only place I’ve seen that is from leftist rhetoric (mis)characterizing the right.
Josephus,
There’s a fundamental distinction between (A) opting not to pursue aggressive treatment when all it’ll do is prolong, but not reverse, an inevitable dying process (that is not caused by foregoing the treatment)and (B) euthanizing someone. A is not necessarily wrong. B always is.
It seems to me that LB was simply observing this distinction. You make it sound as if she were saying that B—euthanasia—is sometimes ok, sometimes not. That’s not at all what she was saying.
Maybe others on the “Right” say that euthanasia is ok, either sometimes or always. I do know that many on the Left think that euthanasia is ok.
What do you think?
As far as I understood ‘em, the facts indicated that what happened to Terri Schiavo was euthanasia, not foergoing aggressive treatment, B, not A. But even if I’m wrong, the distinction still stands.
Adrian
Josephus,
In other words: the distinction between foregoing aggressive treatment and euthanasia is just a true and helpful distinction, which no party or side has a monopoly on, but which civilized societies can’t afford to confuse. Are you trying to confuse the distinction so as to legitimize euthanasia? Or do you honestly hold to the distinction and simply think that, in this one case, the facts of the case indicate that no euthanasia was involved. Or, if you do think euthanasia is ok, then why not come out and argue for it, instead of confusing things rhetorically?
Adrian
Yeah those who have embraced the death culture and i,ll bet a lot of them are big time tree huggers and belong or donate to PETA and whine about over population then the say death is the way to go frankly its a sick sick soceiety that allows someone to die of malnutrition and dehydration
Adrian, spot on — eloquent as usual.
First, let me preface this by saying that I write this from the standpoint of a Catholic – as were Michael and Terri Schiavo. And from that standpoint, Michael Schiavo was, is and will continue to be scum in my eyes. A man – while still married, whatever the circumstances – who takes another woman into his bed and with that woman produces two children, cannot and should not call himself a Catholic.
Maybe that’s why Michael Schiavo is Lutheran.
This is the exact opposit of the 1960s. Instead of peace, love, and understanding, it’s now war, hate, and deliberate misrepresentation. And it’s those who support war who call people baby killers.
Weird, huh?
Calling abortionists baby-killers.
Ain’t that the truth, huh?
“A man – while still married, whatever the circumstances – who takes another woman into his bed and with that woman produces two children, cannot and should not call himself a Catholic.”
And I suppose the parents who knowingly and repeatedly bore false witness against Mr. Schiavo, and took active measures to misrepresent Terri’s condition to the public and elected officials, were perfectly good Catholics?
Adrian: in both of the cases you’re trying to separate, a decision was made to forego the treatment required to keep the patients alive, and thus to let the patients die. There is no moral difference between the two that can possibly justify the vindictive trashing of everyone who had anything to do with one such decision, while excusing the other without qualification.
Here’s what post #80 said:
“Two years ago my father died from Alzheimer’s. But what he really died from was dehydration. In other words, as the disease progressed he lost the ability to feed himself. We could have gone to great lengths to prolong his life, including nourishing him intravenously, but we judged it was his time.”
LaShawn explicitly — and immediately — said that this was not “murder,” and had no harsh words for this respondent. Please tell us why this is different from Terri’s case.
Josephus,
One was a degenerative condition, the other stable.
Still looking for those Nazi quotes?
What the hell is a “liberal culture of death”? 82% of America is not liberal. This all comes down to the religious right not liking a decision which must have been excruciating to make so they decided to interfere via the government in someone’s intensely personal matter. 82% of us were horrified by that.
If I remember correctly, Michael had her cremated soon after she died, which was a few months ago. How does a coroner examine ashes?
Congress makes hundreds of single issue personal laws/actions.
For example right now, two are currently intervening in a deportation case where an American died in Iraq and BCIS wnts to send his widow back to Bosnia, even tho she promised him she would take care of his 12 year old son. IIRC, Durbin and Obama are moving to make her a permanent citizen.
So where’s the hypocrisy?
“82% of us were horrified by that”
…82% of somebody may have been horrified by what they were misled (by the MSM) into believing was unconstitutional….but somehow that 82% never includes me or anyone I have ever known. I am very skeptical about the proper randomness of samples in media polls.
FACT: Congress did not act outside its constitutional authority in ASKING the appeals courts to consider ordering a de novo or “new” look at the original heresay evidence provided by Michael Schiavo, his brother, and his sister-in-law.
Perhaps Congress felt that the Schindler family and all of their witnesses should not have been initially dismissed out of hand as not credible in the initial evidentiary hearings. I know I felt that way and I vote.
Every legal challenge after the first court decision did not re-evaluate or review the alleged evidence of Terri’s wishes. All the appellate courts did was rule on procedural due process (i.e. did the prior court handle procedure according to the established processes of law). (Unfortunately, the very letter of the law can be followed, thus destroying any chance for successful appeal, and still not provide justice…. as many an innnocent but executed persons, could tell you….IF they were here to speak.)
Therefore all the Schindlers’ challenges were doomed. All they did was postpose the inevitable. And the real crime of it all was that Terri never has her OWN legal representation. MS had his, parents had theirs, Terri never had her own. Now, that IS a right guaranteed by our Constitution.
I have heard liberals defend Michael, saying…he just couldn’t let her go; benevolently tried all means of rehab in the early years; and only after exhausting all hope, finally threw in the towel and decided to follow her wishes! Well…we don’t have our cake and eat it too! If you choose to believe that MS is an intransigent man of integrity, then please explain to me why was he not a stand up guy and HONEST about HER wishes from the get-go?
Mr. Schaivo has always “smelled” real fishy to me because he flip-flopped on his expressed intentions and contradicted himself so many times over the years. It’s hard to believe he is an honest man. Time will tell if he is the hero that some make him out to be–or simply the pawn of a “euthanasia” interest group that found themselves a stupid patsy.
One of the most intriguing things about this whole affiar to me has been the MSM’s STANGE and UNCHARACTERISTIC restraint in their treatment of Ms. Centonze and the children? Why such scant information..and why no photos? (All other famous and notorious people have to resort to armed body guards to keep the paparazzi from publishing pics of them changing their children’s diapers or taking a whiz) The lack of MSM publicity about MS’ “other” family is just plumb strange! It ain’t natural..unless…of course…the MSM have some agenda…
“One was a degenerative condition, the other stable.”
In BOTH cases, a decision ws made not to put off death via more medical treatment. In BOTH cases, the patients could have been kept alive longer than they were. The only significant moral difference here is that LaShawn has chosen, for reasons entirely her own, to cling to her previous hateful position on one case, and not to admit any link to any similar cases that might threaten to undermine her shaky position.
As for the “Nazi” quotes, they are all over the dittosphere, and you know it.
One more remark like that about me, and you’re gone, “Josephus.” Lord only knows why I’ve put up with it this long. Comment on the subject WITHOUT referring to me. – Admin
For those interested, here is a link to a very interesting article:
http://www.lifeissues.net/news.php?newsID=00011202&topic=eu
So what? La Shawn can delete anything she wants. Are you posting this from your work computer? Better be careful. – Admin
Dear Andy,
Thanks, pal.
A.
Dear Josephus,
There IS a difference between withholding aggressive treatment that simply prolongs an otherwise inevitable dying process and euthanasia, whether the euthanasia comes in the form of withholding non-aggressive treatment for someone who is not otherwise dying (Terri) or casuig death through lethal injection or whatever. This difference outweighs all the similarities you mention.
Your position seems to be: it’s all euthanasia, and euthanasia is ok. LB is simply saying, no, there is a distinction, and the things on one side of the distinction are ok and the things on the other aren’t. Perfectly reasonable.
It seems to me that yuo can tell others not to judge behavior or action X only when you’ve already made up your mind that X is ok. Well, some people disagree, and instead of hysterically dismissing them, you ought to provide an argument and not just a tirade, to show that everything is euthanasia and euthanasia is ok.
Cheers.
Adrian
Sorry Josephus, but “all over the dittosphere”
does not equate to evidence. Put up, or perhaps shut up.
Now, if I go to the lefty side of the sphere, I’d only have to visit DU or DailyKos’s front page to find a Nazi or fascist reference. No seraching required.
Comments on this entry are closed.