Posted on 04/03/2005 8:53:52 AM PDT by Daisy4
Terri Schiavo autopsy completed Her parents, husband planning separate funeral arrangements Saturday, April 2, 2005 Posted: 1540 GMT (2340 HKT) http://edition.cnn.com/2005/US/04/02/schiavo.ap
TAMPA, Florida (AP) -- The autopsy of Terri Schiavo has been completed, and the body is ready for release to her husband, who plans to cremate her remains and bury the ashes in an unspecified family plot.
Results from the autopsy, which was completed Friday, will not be released for several weeks, according to the medical examiner's office.
Michael Schiavo has said he hopes the autopsy will settle questions about his wife's medical condition, but experts differ on whether that will happen. He declined to comment Friday.
Terri Schiavo's parents, Bob and Mary Schindler, and Michael Schiavo spent Friday planning separate funerals for the 41-year-old woman, who died Thursday -- nearly two weeks after her feeding tube was removed
Michael Schiavo's family has said he plans to take the cremated remains to Pennsylvania, where Terri Schiavo grew up, but her parents and siblings had wanted to bury her body in Florida so they can visit her grave.
David Gibbs, the Schindlers' attorney, said there have been no further discussions between the two parties about the remains. The Schindlers do not plan to press the issue in court, he said.
"The court has already determined that (Michael Schiavo) will control the burial decisions," Gibbs said.
Michael Schiavo's brother, Scott Schiavo, had said Thursday that the Schindlers might not be informed of the burial location near Philadelphia because his family did not want to turn it into a media spectacle.
However, Michael Schiavo has been ordered by the court to disclose the location of the burial site to the family and inform them of any memorial service he plans.
(Excerpt) Read more at edition.cnn.com ...
Based on...
=======
Based on the testimony of two of his prior girlfriends. Both
managed to escape his clutches when they learned how evil and
possessive he truly is. He threatened to kill both girls, and he
followed one gal down the highway and actually ran her off the
road. Fortunately she escaped unharmed, but she is now terrified
of the murderous asshole !!!
And then there's all the physical abuse that Terri had to suffer at
his evil hands... up to and finally including her death !!! ;-))
.
I love you folks. So, because poor Terri didn't have enough forewarning of her impending disaster to notarize or tape record her wishes, you get to disregard them and sentence her to innumerable years of abuse with stomach pumping and diapers.
Now I am perfectly willing to treat your body as you wish to have it treated, including endless preservation and up to and including freezing your brain after death (if you wish), but there is no basis in law or justice to disregard others wishes just because your obsession with physical life is greater than theirs.
The original argument from the assembled group here was that Terri's wishes had not been accurately determined. But as that became more and more difficult to sustain, they began to move to your position: Only wishes in writing and/or preceded by "mother may I" are to be regarded. Too bad that isn't the law. My wishes to have my life ended when I am no longer mentally present are entitled to as much 'regard' as your materialistic insinuation that only physical life counts.
Thank you for putting up with the nonsense purveyed here on this issue. My late wife also died of cancer and while she didn't die of starvation or dehydration (that I know of), she didn't eat or drink for the last two weeks. She was hydrated with an IV which carried the painkillers, but you are correct, that doesn't affect thirst. She just didn't have any.
It is odd; that had never occurred to me despite the nonsense perpetuated here for the last two weeks.
It is you who doesn't see the obvious: Terri didn't feel anything as she approached her final release.
So, you refuse to discern the difference between the unjust hate of perpetrators and the victim's righteous anger, as I pointed out in post #212? These ethical diametrics are useen by you, eh? Well, as I posted in another thread, "To those who have supported Terri's Fight for Life, you will always have my deepest respect. For those who have uninhibitedly worshipped the Law of man, may G-d forgive you..." By the by, your use of the Holy Bible to degrade the good and lift up evil- so as to level the "playing field" is an abomination.
I hope that you are right, for her sake.
My father suffered quite a bit leading up to his death from leukemia, but in his last day he had some sort of stroke and he couldn't speak. He was aware of us all though. He passed on that night pretty peacefully.
If I said something that was wrong or callous, I didn't mean to. I hope you will accept this as an apology as well as the other poster.
Upon reviewing our conversation, perhaps we should move this to freepmail. I am certainly interested in discussing this topic further with you, R. Scott.
At the time she supposedly uttered her wishes, no reasonable person would have expected that such utterances could be the basis for removing someone's food and water. It was preety much universally recognized that if a person wanted such wishes to be carried out they should put them in writing or other such tangible medium. That a person who was able to do did not would have suggested pretty strongly that the person wasn't sufficiently serious and certain of their wishes to commit themselves to them.
If a person walks into a leasing office day after day, expressing what they say is a serious interest in renting an apartment, but they never put down a deposit nor sign a lease, how serious are they about renting the apartment? Could a landlord use the fact that the person said they wanted to rent an apartment as a basis for holding them to a lease? Of course not. The fact that the person never signed a lease nor put down a deposit shows that--no matter what they said--they cannot be presumed to have been serious enough about it to commit.
If Terri was serious enough about her wishes to express them to three people with the intention that they be carried out, why wouldn't she have written them down? Lack of foresight cannot be the answer if you're claiming she had the foresight to tell three different people about them. Laziness could possibly be the answer, I guess, but tape recorders were common enough in the 1980's I would think she would have had access to one [video is much better than audio from an authentication standpoint, but audiotape is still way better than nothing]. What other explanation would you offer?
It seems to me much more reasonable to say that if people want to ensure their wishes are carried out they must commit them to some tangible authenticable medium (with failure to do so having the likely consequence that their wishes might not be carried out) than to allow hearsay in cases where a person could have expressed their wishes in tangible form had they wanted to. Allowing hearsay is bad for at least two reasons:
It is something I think of too often. The thread was a constant reminder of our last few days together.
You overstate your point. The obverse is true: a reasonable person would have expected that such utterances could (or could not) be the basis for removing [nutrition and hydration in the event of irreversible trauma]. That much is true; reasonable people could reach either conclusion. Judge Greer is a reasonable man and I (and others here defending Terri's right to die) are 'reasonable people.' But so are those who reach a different conclusion. That's what makes for lawsuits.
Unlike their pondering of policy choices, in resolving disputes like this, our courts do a relatively good job.
The important point is that for your statement to be true (i.e. "no reasonable person ..."), you have to posit that neither Judge Greer, nor any of the 19 judges who reviewed his decision in the state court system and many more in the federal court system, were 'reasonable people.' [For, although the appellate and reviewing judges cannot reweigh the evidence, if 'no reasonable person' could accept the evidence, they must find the verdict unsupported by the evidence -- that is their job.]
I think that is what is wrong with the tenor of this discussion here. Because the review of Judge Greer's findings was so extensive, there is very little room to argue that the parents did not get a fair hearing of their claims. You may not agree with the result -- and perhaps not want it for yourself (though I think the vast, vast majority would want it for themselves) -- but the process and the people involved were fair to all concerned.
If Terri was serious enough about her wishes to express them to three people with the intention that they be carried out, why wouldn't she have written them down?
In a nutshell, because she was 26. Most 26-year olds know they will die someday and they may even know they are likely -- in the present state of medicine -- to suffer dementia or stroke before they would otherwise die, but most think they have 'plenty of time' to worry about wills and living wills 'later.' The fact that she didn't run to a lawyer doesn't mean her comments didn't reflect her true thoughts, just that she (erroneously) thought she had 'plenty of time' for that 'later.'
It seems to me much more reasonable to say that if people want to ensure their wishes are carried out they must commit them to some tangible authenticable medium (with failure to do so having the likely consequence that their wishes might not be carried out)
Well, this really is the $64 policy question. Such an approach works fairly well with property distribution, but only because we provide, by statute, a default distribution system (it's called the law of intestacy). So, the penalty for failing to write down your wishes results in your property being distributed by a prearranged template, not in your property being burned on the corner.
The problem here is that, if the court did not attempt to determine Terri's wishes, her abominable condition wouldn't go away, it would continue -- particularly since she was so young and otherwise healthy when she was first afflicted. The vast majority of PVS people live only 1-2 years; very few live 5 years. Terri had already hung on for 15 years! What a terrible state.
So, at year 8, the court is asked to determine what to do. The important thing to understand here is that there are two and only two really awful choices: (i) the first 8 years are replicated for another 10, 15, or 20 years or (ii) all forms of third party assistance are withdrawn and she is allowed to die.
Now, I believe (as indicated above) that the vast, vast majority of people for themselves would choose to die -- if they had those facts before them. [You might not, but I have not found a single person anywhere who has told me that they would want to be kept alive in that condition.] Be that as it may, the law doesn't say "If you don't say anything, you get punished with more feeding tubes and more diapers" and it doesn't say, "If you don't say anything, you get to die." It says the Court has to determine by clear and convincing evidence what your wishes are.
But the critical point is one of those two things WILL happen. If the court doesn't decide, she doesn't get to get up and go home. She either has to suffer her condition or die. That's it.
Moreover, it is important that it is not what the next of kin's wishes are, what the parents' wishes are, what some church's wishes are -- but what your wishes are that control.
Having been through that with my wife, I can tell you that is a big difference. When my wife was dying, I -- left to my own devices and wishes -- would have done anything to keep her alive. She was my wife of 39 years and my best friend. I didn't want her to go. I didn't want to be without her. But she got to the point where she did want to go.
But -- and here's the point -- I still wanted her to stay -- and try one more chemo treatment, one more experimental this, or experimental that. But, ultimately, to me "love" meant putting her wishes above mine. And in the hardest decision of my life, I did.
So, it doesn't surprise me in the least that her parents have a different agenda than she did -- or that's thousands of Americans didn't weigh things the way she did -- or, quite frankly, the way they would have for themselves. The Golden Rule isn't easy.
So, no, I don't favor some super-majority threshold that requires people to be pumped and suctioned and diapered for years and years if they don't get around to writing something down and signing it before a notary. The penalty doesn't fit the 'crime.' 15 or 20 years of physical abuse because I didn't set an appointment with my attorney when I'm 26 years old? That's too harsh.
We've all studied the Florida law ad nauseum in the last couple of weeks. But I have come away impressed; I think they got just about right: preponderance of the evidence if written; clear and convincing evidence if oral.
Heaven help me, if it were my own daughter, I would have wanted her to go after 15 years of suffering. I'm sorry. The right result was obtained.
Michael Schiavo's family has said he plans to take the cremated remains to Pennsylvania,
Balony! They will be dumped in a dumpster on Central Avenue.
> A lock of her hair could possibly be used for DNA testing.
?? I have no medical background, but all I've ever heard about DNA testing is that it can demonstrate familial relationships, genetic weaknesses and/or diseases. Can DNA testing disclose other medical facts?
In any case, the ME required an autopsy which reportedly included full toxological testing, so Greer wasn't able to preclude all possible discovery.
Well, isn't that sweet? Would you care to try to articulate the Biblical argument for forcing Terri to endure another indefinite period of forced slurry pumping and diapers? [Please don't give me RCC dogma on suicide; you raised the Bible, so I ask for a Biblical argument. And please don't quote "You must not murder." Deut 5:17]"
While you have your Bible open, you may wish to peruse Matt 7:12: "In everything, treat others as you would want them to treat you, for this fulfills the law and the prophets." I believe this is the controlling Biblical principle and I freely admit that I (and everyone who has answered honestly has agreed) would want death for myself were I in Terri's circumstances. Do you disagree? Will you state here that you, in Terri's circumstances would prefer to be pumped with slurry and diapered for the next indefinite period rather than be allowed to die?
Sir- I do not, have not, and will not ever use the Holy Bible in any debate. The "Bible" was brought to reference by R. Scott, in our discourse on this thread. Start back- reading the post links. Still wish to comment?
Or perhaps withdraw your mis-placed diatribe, and present a new argument? Upon receipt of the former- I will consider the latter, boyo.
Not in the 1980's they wouldn't. Removal of a feeding tube based on oral hearsay was illegal in Florida until 1999. I can't see how someone in the 1980's could have expected that the law would change as it did. Absent such expectation, it would be impossible for a reasonable person to believe that their oral statements could have been used to justify fatally dehydrating them.
The important point is that for your statement to be true (i.e. "no reasonable person ..."), you have to posit that neither Judge Greer, nor any of the 19 judges who reviewed his decision in the state court system and many more in the federal court system, were 'reasonable people.'
The issue isn't whether Greer or the applant judges are "reasonable", but rather whether a reasonable person in the 1980's would have believed an oral declaration could result in dehydration or starvation. If a reasonable person in the 1980's would not have believed that, then one of two things must be true:
In a nutshell, because she was 26. Most 26-year olds know they will die someday and they may even know they are likely -- in the present state of medicine -- to suffer dementia or stroke before they would otherwise die, but most think they have 'plenty of time' to worry about wills and living wills 'later.' The fact that she didn't run to a lawyer doesn't mean her comments didn't reflect her true thoughts, just that she (erroneously) thought she had 'plenty of time' for that 'later.'
That is, to some extent, true but it leaves open the question of whether she wanted to commit herself to such wishes. Since there was a generally-recognized way of making such a commitment, one who failed to exercise it could be deemed not to have committed themself.
Bright-line standards are better than mushy ones, even when the mushy standards might have, ideally, been better placed. Realistically speaking, there is no way for a court to judge whether a person who gave oral directives meant them seriously unless there are unusual circumstances around their utterance. All a court can judge is whether the person reporting the utterances wanted to think they were meant seriously, and that is not a reliable proxy for what the speaker actually meant. Even an honest witness would find it difficult to avoid having their own wishes and opinions affect their testimony; if the witness is dishonest, of course, the reliablity of their testimony plummets further.
It seems to me much more reasonable to say that if people want to ensure their wishes are carried out they must commit them to some tangible authenticable medium (with failure to do so having the likely consequence that their wishes might not be carried out) Well, this really is the $64 policy question. Such an approach works fairly well with property distribution, but only because we provide, by statute, a default distribution system (it's called the law of intestacy). So, the penalty for failing to write down your wishes results in your property being distributed by a prearranged template, not in your property being burned on the corner.
There's a default here too. It's called feeding people.
The vast majority of PVS people live only 1-2 years; very few live 5 years. Terri had already hung on for 15 years! What a terrible state.
Perhaps that was a sign that her neurological state was not so dire as had been claimed? There are people who can walk and talk with only an extremely small portion of their cerebral cortex remaining. Terri's damage was substantial, to be sure, but there was still some tissue there; an MRI or PET scan could have better ascertained Terri's condition, but Michael didn't allow them. Further, the fact that Terri didn't recover in 12 years of zero therapy does not imply that she would not have recovered had therapy been given.
BTW, a supposed flatline EEG of a restless patient proves nothing except the incompetance or dishonesty of the person administering it.
So, at year 8, the court is asked to determine what to do. The important thing to understand here is that there are two and only two really awful choices: (i) the first 8 years are replicated for another 10, 15, or 20 years or (ii) all forms of third party assistance are withdrawn and she is allowed to die.
You forgot (iii) get rid of the guardian who kept her in a darkened room with no sunshine or fresh air, and give her over to parents who would take her outside in the sunshine and fresh air, let her have physical therapy, work with her to try to develop some form of communication, etc.
Now, I believe (as indicated above) that the vast, vast majority of people for themselves would choose to die -- if they had those facts before them. [You might not, but I have not found a single person anywhere who has told me that they would want to be kept alive in that condition.] Be that as it may, the law doesn't say "If you don't say anything, you get punished with more feeding tubes and more diapers" and it doesn't say, "If you don't say anything, you get to die." It says the Court has to determine by clear and convincing evidence what your wishes are.
From what I've read, the percentage of people who are not in bad circumstances who say they would wish to die is much, much higher than the percentage of people who actually find themselves in bad circumstances and [still] wish to. A few might, but such supposed desires are much more common in fiction [e.g. Million Dollar Baby] than in reality [e.g. Christopher Reeves].
But -- and here's the point -- I still wanted her to stay -- and try one more chemo treatment, one more experimental this, or experimental that. But, ultimately, to me "love" meant putting her wishes above mine. And in the hardest decision of my life, I did.
Was her wish, though, merely that she wanted to die, or rather that she wanted to be able to live a few hours or days free of chemo first?
Heaven help me, if it were my own daughter, I would have wanted her to go after 15 years of suffering. I'm sorry. The right result was obtained.
Terri's parents believed that they could communicate with her. Not at a conversational verbal level, but probably at a level comparable to my communication with my cat. I let him know when his presence would make me happy, or when he's being a pest, and he lets me know when I'm making him happy or when he wants me to do something for him.
Why, then, do you presume Terri was suffering in any way that could not have been cured with fresh air, sunshine, and attention from loved ones? Should I assume my cat is suffering because he lacks the intellect to understand particle physics or even fill his water dish from the tap? Or should I figure that when he snuggles up to me and starts purring he's probably a pretty happy cat?
The hair can disclose some heavy metal poisonings such as arsenic and strichnine which I don't think is applicable in Terri's case but my point was really that perhaps the judge and Schiavo weren't willing to take any chances on what sort of testing might be available on hair in the future.
Tossing crumbs....
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.