Schiavo Videotape Misleading, Experts Say

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The videotape that runs endlessly on television stations around the world shows an apparently smiling Terri Schiavo being caressed by her mother's loving hand.

She seems to look deeply, even lovingly, into the off-camera eyes of her mother.

Schiavo's parents and their supporters, including doctors in Congress, have used the tape as evidence the 41-year-old brain-damaged woman is at least occasionally aware of her surroundings and might even be revived from her condition.

They are fighting to get her feeding tube reinserted against the wishes of her husband and legal guardian who says Schiavo would not want to be kept alive in that condition.

"Pictures do lie," said Dr. Lawrence Schneiderman, a physician and bioethicist at the University of California, San Diego.

"Every time they have done a videotaped neurological examination, the courts have reviewed them and said, 'Yes this woman is unconscious.' Those movements of her eyeballs are reflexive and have nothing to do with recognition."

Studies of people whose cerebral cortices are damaged in the way Schiavo's is show that their eyes will respond to stimuli such as movement or a human face, but there is no way for them to be conscious of what they are seeing.

Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, who has been part of the fight to prolong Schiavo's life, said on Wednesday a review of Schiavo's medical records by a neurologist for Florida's Adult Protective Services indicated she may have been misdiagnosed and was more likely in a state of minimal consciousness rather than in a persistent vegetative state.

Such a condition, in which a patient slips in and out of consciousness, was sometimes mistaken for a persistent vegetative state, said Dr. Joseph Fins of New York Presbyterian Hospital/Weill Cornell Medical Center. But Schiavo was not in that state, Fins said.

"I think now it can be argued that with the advent of minimally conscious state (as a diagnosis), that permanent vegetative state as a diagnosis becomes much more certain," Fins said in a telephone interview.

It is almost certain that when someone suffers brain damage from a lack of oxygen, they are permanently vegetative, Fins said. Schiavo's brain was starved of oxygen after her heart stopped 15 years ago and most doctors who have examined her say there is no chance of recovery.

Dr. Ronald Cranford, a neurologist and bioethicist at the University of Minnesota Medical School, said reflexes can fool nonspecialists.

"To the families and loved ones, and to inexperienced health care professionals, PVS (permanent vegetative state) patients often look fairly 'normal,"' Cranford said in a statement.

"Their eyes are open and moving about during the periods of wakefulness that alternate with periods of sleep; there may be spontaneous movements of the arms and legs, and at times these patients appear to smile, grimace, laugh, utter guttural sounds, groan and moan, and manifest other facial expressions and sounds that appear to reflect cognitive functions and emotions, especially in the eyes of the family."

Dr. Timothy Quill of the Center for Palliative Care and Clinical Ethics at the University of Rochester in New York, said reporting about the case had confused people.

"Distortion by interest groups, media hyperbole, and manipulative use of videotape have characterized this case and demonstrate what can happen when a patient becomes more a precedent-setting symbol than a unique human being," Quill wrote in a commentary published on Wednesday in the New England Journal of Medicine.

"Anybody who been around patients in a persistent vegetative state knows that it is an unnerving phenomenon because they are alternate between sleep and wakefulness but that have no ability to interact," Quill said in a telephone interview.

No one has anointed you to interject yourself into the legal system in Florida to protect anything.

First of all, uh, I haven't "interjected" anything. I haven't actually done anything. I'm writing words on a discussion board, that's all. What else is it that you think I've done?

But anyway, you're right, no one "anointed" me to protect anything. Similarly, if I'm walking down the street and see a bandit attacking a woman, it will be true that no one "anointed" me to do anything whatsoever to protect that woman. Clearly, my state has a policing system in place to protect that woman in such a situation.

Therefore, I should... do nothing, I take it? Because after all, I'm a conservative?

I don't think your concept of conservatism is the same as mine.

Florida has a legal system in place to litigate all issues involved.

Thanks, Einstein! Any other brilliant observations?

FYI, while it is true that Florida has a "legal system", it is also true that its "legal system" (which consists of human beings) can, theoretically, be wrong, and that others (people like myself who are not part of that "legal system") are entitled to have opinions to that effect, and to voice them, to undertake to reverse those decisions, and even to place pressure on our representatives and governors to take contrary action.

There is no part of any of that which is invalid or untoward. Indeed, the website you are reading, Free Republic, was set up explicitly for the purpose of discussion of news events, such as this one, and political activism. So, that is what I am doing. I'm sorry if this confuses you but if you were under the impression that citizens are not entitled to have opinions contrary to those of the almighty Florida legal system you are simply mistaken and it is better for you to learn that sooner rather than later.

Now go ahead, tell me where I err in any of that. I fricking dare you.

If you see someone attacking a woman on the street, you have a much better vantage point to access the essential facts and act, than you can possibly have to pass judgment on a Court in Florida. Moreover, what goes on in the streets of your community is far more your concern, than what happens in the Courts of another community.

That is all, oh so banally, correct. And you might notice that my behavior is dissipated and tempered accordingly. In scenario 1 I might actually take physical action of some kind. In scenario 2 - the scenario you're whining to me about my "interjecting" - I'm writing words on a freaking discussion board.

What is the problem?

My point is that you do not have any basis, other than the emotional climate that has been created over this subject Court case, to pass the judgment that you have.

What judgment have I passed and specifically why does it lack basis?

You don't know. Do you?

Simply pointing to my relative distance and ignorance from the case at hand (compared with, say, Judge Greer) does not constitute proof that whatever judgment I have made about him lacks basis, if that judgment is sufficiently generalized and based in solid foundational moral concepts rather than some fine technical-legal point.

For example, I don't actually know very much about the details of the actions and orders made and given by Saddam Hussein during his reign as dictator of Iraq. Nevertheless, I know enough to call him a mass murderer. The judgment I am making is general (that he is a mass murderer, which I know), not specific (that he ordered subordinate so-and-so to raze village such-and-such in the month of Whatever, 198x, which I don't quite know, and indeed, he might not have). (It might have been 198X+1.)

Similarly, I don't know know enough to dispute, say, some technical point about whether Judge Greer ought to have admitted into evidence such and such tape, scan, affidavit, document, doctor's testimony, etc in 199x. And I am not. That is not the judgment I am passing on him. As far as I know, the vast majority technical-legal decisions of Judge Greer were, indeed, correct.

The judgment I am passing on him - more precisely, on the state and federal government (all branches of which share responsibility to some extent) - is more general: That the court has ordered the death of a woman who is alive because her husband asked it to. The woman is alive. She is innocent, convicted of no crime, let alone accused. And she will become dead if and when the court's orders are carried out in full. The primary basis for those orders is the say-so of the husband. That much I know, and that much you cannot dispute.

And that is sufficient for me to form the opinion I have formed. Given the aforementioned undisputed facts about this case, there are no conceivable additional 'essential facts' that could alter my opinion about this case, any more than learning the number of home runs that Joe Charboneau hit in his career could alter my opinion about this case, so my ignorance of whatever 'essential facts' you have in mind is irrelevant. But by all means, tell me where I err: why is it not right to protect an innocent life?

But by all means, tell me where I err: why is it not right to protect an innocent life?

It is right. And when there is a dispute, such as there is, within the poor woman's family, as to how to do that, it goes to a Court, and the Court acts according to the Law in the jurisdiction. Your error is in trying to to inject matters that are irrelevant--as a matter of law--into that case. Such a matter is your effort to discredit the husband. The Court has weighed the credibility of the witnesses--that is a very basic part of its function as a trier of fact, in such a case.

Surely, you would not argue that an innocent life should be kept in limbo, artificially kept half alive, if there is not sufficient evidence to establish a legal basis for doing so? Frankly, I would think that if there is no recovery possible--no real recovery--and the husband now accepts that--that playing games with what is left of this unfortunate woman, is no longer of any benefit to anyone, least of all what remains of the life that was once hers.

We all progressively move through life to death. There comes a point when artificial means to prolong any life become a denigration not a vindication of the sanctity of life. I do not know, of my own knowledge, whether that is the case here. But I have heard nothing, so far, in this hoopla, which would incline me to believe that the Judge has not fairly weighed the evidence. And that he has come to believe those who have testified that the situation is hopeless, rather than those who claim otherwise, appears to be well within the scope of what a Judge must decide in such a case.

William Flax

And when there is a dispute, such as there is, within the poor woman's family, as to how to do that,

The dispute in question is, quite plainly and irrefutably, not a dispute over "how" to protect her innocent life, but whether.

Your error is in trying to to inject matters that are irrelevant--as a matter of law--into that case.

Which considerations are those that you have in mind? You keep pretending you have specific criticisms of me when I have not shared my opinion in any detail yet. In other words, you pretend to know more about my opinion and what I am saying than you possibly can. Do not make such assumptions.

In any event, if and where my considerations here or anywhere else are irrelevant as a matter of law, then the law is an ass, and you may feel free to consider that a component of my criticismm.

Such a matter is your effort to discredit the husband.

In what way have I discredited the husband? I have said nothing more and nothing less than that he seeks to have the state allow him to intentionally end his innocent wife's life, which is nothing but a cold, hard, indisputable fact.

For the record, if this is what you were assuming, I am properly skeptical of many of the slanderous rumors going around about him (he caused her injury in the first place, he only wants the money, etc). One or more such rumors may prove to be true but whether or not they are, none of them inform my judgment here.

Surely, you would not argue that an innocent life should be kept in limbo, artificially kept half alive,

I don't think you use these words with any coherent meaning. One is either alive, or one is not. What is "limbo"? What is "half alive"? These notions are untenable and have no objective meaning outside of metaphysics. Interesting; if notions such as "limbo" are informing your judgment, maybe it is yours that lacks proper basis.

Frankly, I would think that if there is no recovery possible--no real recovery--and the husband now accepts that--that playing games with what is left of this unfortunate woman, is no longer of any benefit to anyone,

Ok, you would think that. Meanwhile, I couldn't disagree with you more. Whether there is "recovery" possible from a disability does not impress me as being relevant as to whether the disabled person may be killed.

As for whether "playing games", as you put it, is of any benefit to anyone, there is one such person: the person who is going to be killed. What you're really saying is that you place no value on her life. Which is evident. But I disagree with you - which should also be evident. And so there we stand.

There comes a point when artificial means to prolong any life become a denigration not a vindication of the sanctity of life.

What is "artificial"? Why is feeding considered "artificial"? Define, scientifically, these concepts of "denigration" and "vindication"? I don't think these statements of yours bear scrutiny and I don't relish trying to follow the twisted logic in whatever answers to the preceding questions you attempt to come up with.

On the face of it you are asserting that to feed this living woman would "denigrate" life, and to intentionally starve her would "vindicate" it. If you wish to rob those words entirely of their meaning, you could hardly find a better way than to speak in this Orwellian fashion, which I reject.

And that he has come to believe those who have testified that the situation is hopeless,

Again, if 'the situation is hopeless' is indeed a valid legal reason to kill a person, then that law is an ass.

The situation is hopeless for the autistic. It is hopeless for those with Down's syndrome. It is hopeless for paraplegics, who will never have actual limbs again. The situation is hopeless for anyone who gets any sort of brain damage whatsoever, at least in the sense that those brain cells will never grow back.

The situation being "hopeless" simply does not supply a convincing reason why it is all right to kill a person. So whether or not "the situation is hopeless", in whatever sense you or the law might mean that, simply has no relevance for me.

In fact, let me just stipulate that she (if she were allowed to live) is never, in her life, going to improve measurably beyond the state she is currently in.

Nevertheless, it is life. Intentionally ending innocent human life is not ok.

[him believing the situation is hopeless] appears to be well within the scope of what a Judge must decide in such a case.

Apparently it is. The legal context that contemplated and provided for a Judge ordering someone to be killed on the basis of scientists testifying to "the situation is hopeless" is, therefore, one of the targets of my criticism.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.