Posted on 04/01/2005 11:52:28 PM PST by FairOpinion
The amount of medical misinformation put out about Terri Schiavo has been truly stunning. The testimony of Terri’s physicians who believe that some recovery is possible has been largely dismissed. Judge Greer’s court and the media in turn, have focused only on the pessimistic interpretations of the raw data of her CT scan.
A physician at a credible physicians’ website has analyzed Terri’s CAT scan and concludes that it has been grossly misrepresented. There is some cerebral atrophy, but it is a completely inaccurate to characterize it as “bag of water.” Furthermore, the author states that
“the most alarming thing about this image, however, is that there certainly is cortex left. Granted, it is severely thinned, especially for Terri's age, but I would be nonplussed if you told me that this was a 75 year old female who was somewhat senile but fully functional, and I defy a radiologist anywhere to contest that.”
In one of the definitive court battles in 2002, five physicians examined Terri to determine if therapy would be of further benefit. Two chosen by Terri’s parents believed that she was not in a “persistent vegetative state” and that some recovery was possible. Two chosen by Michael Schiavo held that she had no chance of recovery, as did the “neutral” physician appointed by the court. This 3-2 decision was key in the 2003 attempt to pull her feeding tube.
One of Michael Schiavo’s medical experts was the right-to-die advocate Dr. Ronald Cranford, who has been an expert in a number other key court cases on our nation’s slippery slope to euthanasia, including those of Nancy Cruzan and Robert Wedlund. But Dr. Cranford has made serious errors in other cases when prognosticating about the prospects of neurological recovery. Frederica Mathewes-Green states that Sgt. David Mack, who was shot in the line of duty as a policeman, was diagnosed by Cranford as
"definitely...in a persistent vegetative state...never [to] regain cognitive, sapient functioning...never [to] be aware of his condition."
Twenty months after the shooting Mack woke up, and eventually regained nearly all his mental ability. When asked by a reporter how he felt, he spelled out on his letterboard, "Speechless!"
In fact, the entire field of diagnosing “persistent vegetative state” or “PVS” is fraught with inaccuracy. Recent studies have shown the rate of misdiagnosis to be as high as 37% or even 43%. PVS is a clinical diagnosis, meaning that it depends on the subjective judgment of the examining physician. Experts in the field cannot even agree on the usefulness of diagnostic imaging.
Dr. Ronald Cranford himself was upset about the articles showing the inaccuracy of diagnosis and prognostication about PVS. Childs and Mercer, authors of one of the studies citing the difficulties of diagnosing PVS, took Cranford to task for “zealously” promoting the concept of the "permanent vegetative state" despite the evidence of its problematic nature, and the regularity with which some patients recover from it .
The nomenclature of “persistent vegetative state” was coined in 1972 by Jennett and Plum in the prestigious medical journal The Lancet. The original article, “Persistent Vegetative State: A syndrome in search of a name” seems to have succeeded in its task as reclassifying severely cognitively disabled humans as non-persons - something akin to vegetables in the minds of many. Public perception of this highly-charged term predisposes many to dismiss the lives of human beings as no more significant than plant life. It is a brilliant, if chilling, masterstroke of propaganda, one which has been swallowed hook, line, and sinker.
This reclassification of non-terminally ill people has allowed for their dehydration and starvation deaths in Britain with a doctor’s recommendation, and in many states in the USA with the family’s wishes (or a patient’s own advance directives). The medical literature is rife with arrogant pronouncements in editorials of learned journals, such as life itself not being of “benefit” to someone in the PVS state. The echoes of current bioethics doublespeak resound in these journals.
In some respects the “persistent vegetative state” is more a political than a medical diagnosis, as it allows its unfortunate victims to lose their right to life and be medically killed through withholding food and water. It is unfortunate that some of the experts on the side of the Culture of Death seem to have had the upper hand in Terri’s fight, and have been portrayed by the media as reasonable and responsible members of the medical profession, rather than the zealots which, in fact, some of their own medical colleagues have branded them.
Show me, please.
Thank you. I agree.
Yes. Michael did not allow Terri to be given rehabilitation in eating by mouth.
Rehabilitation is needed if someone has been fed by tube for a long time.
Terri had been able to eat by mouth after her "collapse" and was still able to swallow her saliva until her "forced exit."
Quite a trick Michael pulled.
He made Terri dependent on tube feeding and, then he said (like you), that Terri didn't deserve to live, because she needed to be fed unnaturally.
The serial philanderer widower, Michael, has shown the way for other guardians how to get rid of unwanted wards.
They are alive because our society long ago (before you, I, or anyone else now alive was born) decided to care for them. Most of them, probably over 90% of them, are sent to hospitals because their families do not have the resources or skills to care for them properly. These are state-run hospitals, it is your tax money and mine that is supporting them. They have doctors, nurses, nurse assistants, physical therapists, teachers, cooks, dietiticians, etc., whose jobs are to take care of these people. The videos of Terri revealed a woman who was aware of her surroundings and somewhat responsive. Not all retarded people have even that level of awareness--some have none--yet they are cared for.
I know about the state hospitals for the retarded, because my mother was a teacher at one. I've visited the hospital many times and been around many retarded people. Their abilities fall along a spectrum, from the "high level" who appear normal until you talk to them, to the "low level" who are comparable to or have less ability than Terri. Some require extensive medical support (including life-support equipment), and I have never seen them (my mother told me about them). Even when they are unresponsive and incapable of learning, teachers and therapists spend time with them.
Do you see now why I have a problem with the argument that it was right to kill Terri on the basis that she didn't meet some minimal level of functionality? You're telling me that the retarded people who were part of my childhood--people similar to Terri--do not deserve to live. Your response just now indicates that maybe you weren't aware of the existence of these people, but, now that you are, do you think we should end their existences the way Terri's was ended?
There are mentally retarded who are completely unable to feed themselves, totally unaware of their surroundings and are in a complete vegetative state as far as the thinking process goes. Should be they be starved to death as well?
I think I know what you mean.
Most likely you're right, people who advocate such behavior as pulling the plug on those who are not terminally ill but completely dependent on others to eat and drink as Terri probably aren't even aware there are thousands of Terris living in institutions today. Would they be willing to allow families to starve them to death as well?
If that had happened, wouldn't some of the nurses there have heard Terri crying out or something while he was in the room with her? Surely everyone at that place isn't deaf or part of a conspiracy, surely someone would talk. - It would be interesting to know how she appeared after each of his visits.
1. The questions that we often do not want to grapple with are questions such as yours. To discuss these questions without getting *heated* or *accusatory* is difficult, isn't it? 'How are they fed' and 'How are they *maintained*' are still legitimate questions, and obviously the answers are myriad. I could throw into the mix the questions on how much extreme medical care should be provided to even infants with little or no hope of recovering. I don't have the answers. But we cannot discuss these matters if accusations and invectives are thrust about against those who express different postures or ideas on their way to forming ideas. You state that the videos of Terri revealed a woman who was aware of her surroundings and was somewhat responvie. The videos were, however, edited. Hours of video recorded and mere minutes edited for the purpose of *proving* her responsiveness and awareness. I do not believe the minutes of video were conclusive evidence. The Guardian Ad Litem, appointed by Gov Bush, determined the same thing after he viewed the unedited videos. Have you read his report?
2. I have struggled with many questions, and I do not have definitive answers. I ask you just some of the the questions that puzzle me and my wife:
If someone cannot remember to eat, and wanders off (dementia) and they freeze to death, or die of heatstroke, is someone culpable? Or is the death the result of natural causes?
If a child cannot learn to suckle, or cannot breathe on its own, or cannot eat on its own, and no extreme efforts are made to intubate air or food or water, is it killing the child, or is it allowing nature to take its course?
Is allowing nature to *take its course* allowing God to finish His plan for that person (child or demented teen or adult), or is man required to bear all these burdens upon his shoulders? What does God truly require of us? Do we read more into some verses that we should? Do we assume responsibility that is not truly ours? Do we assume God's mantle and distribute medical care no matter what?
EDM: *Do you see now why I have a problem with the argument that it was right to kill Terri on the basis that she didn't meet some minimal level of functionality?**
I disagree with you on your word choice. I believe it was legitimate (legal) and spiritually appropriate to allow Terri to die. I do not believe she was killed, and I do not believe it is a *culture of death* to allow a person's body to realize the consequences of physical causes (in this instant case: inability to chew and swallow food). She had no functionality that indicated otherwise.
EDM: *You're telling me that the retarded people who were part of my childhood--people similar to Terri--do not deserve to live. Your response just now indicates that maybe you weren't aware of the existence of these people, but, now that you are, do you think we should end their existences the way Terri's was ended?**
I did not state that the retarded people who were part of your childhood (whom I have not met) did not not deserve to live. *Deserve to live* is a phrase that is loaded and I have not intended to *debate* that at all. My response was not at all indicative of my awareness of the existence of people such as you have referenced. Instead, I was asking you the extent of their disabilities, and your opinions regarding them.
I have countered with other questions which as I have stated, I have no answers, although I do wonder as to our legitimacy and responsibility in extending and prolonging life, as it were, in refusing to acknowledge the life after death that can be a welcome relief when not fought so arduously.
I am only offering food for thought. Jesus was the Bread of Life. His Bread was not actual food for the body (excepting the Lord's Supper), but was Bread for the spiritual body. We, as men, value the spiritual body. The Greeks certainly did. Christians, those who have accepted the Bread of Life and chew on His Word, look forward to the Eternal Life more than we hold on to this present life, don't we?
IF indeed, rehabilitation was possible for Terri Schiavo, to re-learn how to chew and swallow food, then you have a point.
However, tests were performed repeatedly. The idea that she might be rehabilitated was a pipe dream. Nothing more. You cannot relearn something if you have NO ABILITY to learn it in the first place. The lack of brain matter that governs the chewing and swallowing of food is the real issue. Terri Schiavo lacked that.
Her parents could not believe otherwise and found anything and anyone who would substantiate their hope.
Just because they found someone who substantiated their hope does not make their belief in this *cure* realisitc or valid.
If that had happened, wouldn't some of the nurses there have heard Terri crying out or something while he was in the room with her? Surely everyone at that place isn't deaf or part of a conspiracy, surely someone would talk. - It would be interesting to know how she appeared after each of his visits.
=======
Mikey's visits usually lasted about 20 minutes. He would be in her room alone, with the blinds closed and the door locked from the inside !!!
Now just take a moment and ask yourself why, Why, WHY is it necessary to CLOSE THE BLINDS and LOCK THE DOOR if the visitor is there merely for normal and peaceful reasons ???
Furthermore... 3 nurses have filed sworn affidavits and spoken on radio (and perhaps even on TV) testifying to the outrageous condition that Terri was in after Mikey's evil visits. But the nursers testimony is conveniently dismissed as being irrelevant to Mikey's demands that the "bitch" must DIE !!!
If that's the case then why not a mentally retarded human being in an institution if that's what the family desires? Their quality of life is in many cases the same as Terri's was. What's the difference? Why was her case special or different?
The question would be:
Should they be fed if they cannot eat?
*Should they be starved to death* is loaded with accusations. That is not what I am discussing.
However, consider the verse:
2Th 3:10 For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat.
This says that if a man would not work, then neither should he eat. I *could* take this out of context and say: Don't feed anyone who cannot work. But that would be misinterpretation, wouldn't it? It says that if one wills not to work.
I don't agree with starving people to death. But I do believe that when someone cannot chew or swallow, and that ability cannot be regenerated, and all that is left is the shell of the body and non-human yet physical responses, then the person as it were, their soul, has for all intents and purposes left the body. Keeping the body alive is worshipping the body, not the Creator. That's they way I view it.
The lack of brain matter that governs the chewing and swallowing of food is the real issue. Terri Schiavo lacked that.
=======
And yet she did NOT drool... she swallowed her own saliva and swallowed Jello that was spoon fed to her by her nurses !!!
Or was that merely the parent's wishful thinking too ???
I don't know the answers to your questions. But I do wonder what is appropriate even in those situations.
The difference regarding Terri Schiavo is that she was immobile. She was unable to chew or swallow. She was unable to communicate.
I dont know how similar her situation was (or dissimilar) to the mentally retarded human beings you refer to in your post.
Who's accusing anyone of anything? If you're going to allow the death of one person who can't feed themself or do much of anything, including express rational thoughts then to be consistent all families should be given that option, including those living in institutions for the mentally retarded.
don't know if you understand what it's like to be a battered woman - but if she had been battered by michael - and now she's helpless in bed - she is NOT going to make a ruckus when alone with him. However, more than one nurse testified as to her agitated state and withdrawal after his visits - as apposed to after parents or others. Pretty good indicator - or should she have jumped out of bed and run screaming down the hall? Is this the only way she would be believed?
And then there was the nurses testimony of the needle marks in hidden areas - like under her breast - and a needle in the trash after michael left - etc...nothing here, move on
We also believe in "Thou shalt not kill"
"grapple" with that one
That's exactly the point being made. There are hundreds of thousands of mentally handicapped people who cannot eat, drink, go to the bathroom, change their clothes without someone doing it for them. Mentally they are considered vegetables, there is absolutely no thought process or ability to communicate.
Looking at those videos of Terri I saw a responsive person, if only minimally. So the question is: if it's ok for this woman should families of the mentally retarded be allowed to starve them as well?
Interesting post, and I am now reading through...
The fall in the Garden was due to man (and woman)'s ingestion of the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. Having eaten of that fruit meant that man was supposed to know the difference between good and evil. But when we are not in true communion with Him, the One Who Knows the real difference...we cannot presume to know the answer in all things unless we go to Him. Even then we are subject to our own musings and muddying of the waters. The world is too much with us, and we often err in discernment when we listen to others and not to Him.
CV: **Today, all humans are born physically with bodily life in the womb, genetically inheriting the same nature as original man,...dead in the spirit and condemned in that death.
CV: **Upon birth from the body, God immediately grants souls life upon the man. At his point of our lives we are body and soul. **
I believe God breathes spirit/life into babies in the womb. However, He does not breathe His Spirit (the Holy Spirit) into anyone until that person requests it by asking Jesus to become their Saviour.
CV: **Upon faith alone in Christ alone, God is free in His holiness (i.e. Hie perfect justice and perfect righteousness, to once again regenerate a spirit life in that man who has faith.)
CV:**Whatever God ordains only He may remove. Where He has ordained a spirit life, it is returned to Him by His plan.**
God gives us free will and free choice. He allowed the Schindlers and the Schiavos to fight over Terri Schiavo's state of life. He has a permissive will and a perfect will. I believe that inappropriately placing feeding tubes can interfere with His perfect will.
CV: **Man might confuse the issue by associating the flesh or body, with the entirely of man, but this fails to address a multitude of experience, testimony, and simply life of soul and spirit. **
Who is to say that the spirit of Terri was not locked inside the infirm body, begging to be released? Begging to be let go? That which remained, remained to beg her parents to leg her go, not to hold on. But she couldn't express this, so her *spirit* (if indeed it was) held on.
CV: **The Christian or believer today has a relationship with God, not held by other believers prior to the first Advent of Christ. Upon regeneration, each believer is now filled with the Holy Spirit, who makes his body a temple to God. That temple now may be indwelt by the Son as the Shekinah Glory. **
Only those who have accepted Christ as their Saviour have the Holy Spirit indwelling. Just because someone attends Church, or professes to be a Christian, does not make it so. Only God knows. Only God is the perfect Judge.
CV: **There is a reason why Terri didn't die in the body, prior to the efforts to starve her and it might not have been for any man to know why whe remained alive. I do hope she remained faithful to him, and even if she sinned, returned to Him in her soul and confessed those sins directly to Him through Christ prior to her first death, to further glorify God. I suspect she did, and now has been promoted by His will where her remaining here would have been good for nothingness, ...not that the starving of her by man was just, nor that man's intervention had anything to do with her relationship with God,...it didn't, rather no person dies without that death having been planned and known by God. Her death, I suspect served a prominent example to other persons as to the mechanics of death. It also may have served as a testing of our government and our nation to manifest our true spiritual condition.**
Eloquently stated. I can understand how it could be a concern that some believe that our nation has manifested its true spiritual condition, IF one believes that not feeding someone who cannot chew or swallow is appropriate.
However, I believe G-D judges far differently than we humans do. I do not believe that the Islamic faith is the same, or similar enough, to the belief in the Trinity.
It is also likely that we misinterpret His meanings, and His actions in our lives. We strive to avoid suffering, and yet that is the cup he provides to us in order that we might learn to better glorify Him.
I heard it over and over that it was wrong to murder Terri Schiavo in such a cruel and painful way. I disagree with the term murder, but must ask this: what death is completely and totally painless?
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.