Posted on 04/12/2005 7:20:07 AM PDT by kcvl
Schiavo's 'Dr. Humane Death' Got 1980 Diagnosis Wrong By Jeff Johnson CNSNews.com Senior Staff Writer April 12, 2005
(CNSNews.com) -- A neurologist hired by Michael Schiavo to confirm that his wife Terri was in a persistent vegetative state said he was "105 percent sure" of that diagnosis, but Dr. Ronald Cranford expressed similar certainty about a patient he examined in 1980 who later regained both consciousness and the ability to communicate.
Three days before Terri Schiavo's death, Cranford appeared on the MSNBC talk program, "Scarborough Country," to discuss her condition. Cranford was interviewed by reporter Lisa Daniels.
http://www.gopusa.com/news/2005/april/0412_schiavo_doctor1.shtml
The missing element in most suicide is malice. Most suicides are depressed people who cannot face the future. I suppose I must concede the possibility of someone who is not in the former category and is in all respects well-balanced but simply harbors malice against himself. That might theoretically occur, but the difficulty is separating remorse (such as Judas below) from actual malice. I can't think of an example of such malice in a suicide.
"Malice aforethought" is a legal term. It "is comprised of any one of the following three elements: (1) an intent to kill; (2) an intent to inflict grievous bodily injury; or (3) an intent to act in a manner that creates a plain and strong likelihood that death or grievous harm will follow. Of these three prongs of malice, the first two prongs require a specific intent on the part of the defendant, measured subjectively, while the third prong only requires a general intent, measured both subjectively and objectively. Accordingly, malice aforethought may exist without an actual intent to kill or do grievous bodily harm, if there is proof of the "third prong" of malice. This simply means that the perpetrator knew of circumstances that a reasonably prudent person would have known created a plain and strong likelihood of death or grievous bodily harm resulting from the perpetrator's act. The law can infer malice from circumstantial evidence, such as from the intentional use of a deadly weapon."
Suicide, as we are discussing it would certainly seem to meet the elements described in the definition above.
On the "God's property" argument, that simply doesn't wash. Yes, we are the creations of God, but that doesn't equate to exclusive ownership. First, God told Adam (and us) that the earth (his creation) was for our use and exploitation. Second, such a doctrine would undermine all kinds of personal responsibility. ["God made me this way and I can't fool with His property."]
Yet the Paul's argument in 1 Corinthians 6 condemns sexual immorality on precisely that basis of ownership: "but the immoral person sins against his own body. Or do you not know that your body is the temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you, whom you have from God, and you are not your own? For you were bought at a price. Therefore glorify God with your body.". Interestingly, it says, "the immoral person sins against his own body." What does that mean? Since it is possible to sin against one's own body by sexual immorality, it would also seem not only possible, but likely to sin against one's body by killing it. The obligation to not sin against one's body is based explicitly on the principle of God's ownership, sexual immorality being the example given. Likewise, the principle of God's ownership is explicit in the context of I Corinthians 3, there in a corporate application of the principle, which shows that the principle is applicable not only to sexual immorality, but to other sins as well.
There are other passages that teach of God's ownership of all creation, including us.
"Behold, all souls are Mine; as the soul of the father, so also the soul of the son is Mine; the soul that sins, it shall die."
Ephesians 2:10 says,For we are God's workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do.
(Show me in the Bible where it says that suicide is a "good work".) Obviously, if you kill yourself you will not be around to do any good works. You were created in Christ Jesus and you are God's workmanship. That God owns you does not lead to fatalism as you assert; it simply means that there are relatively limited parameters of personal autonomy with respect to issues of your life. Your life is not yours to do with as you please. As Isaiah told Hezekiah, "What have you to do with the plans of the All-Merciful? You should do what you are commanded to do and let the Holy One, blessed be He, do that which is pleasing to Him."
Here the clear context shows that God is restoring social order after the carnage of the flood. He is saying He will punish every man (and even animals) who kills another man.
It is not limited to simply another man. Like the proscription against murder which has no direct object, the individual as well as the social component is inherent in the statement "Surely I will require your lifeblood.
Judas is recorded here as committing suicide in remorse over his betrayal of Christ. [Although Acts 1:18 records his accidental death due to a trip and fall on his land.] But in any event, nothing in Matthew's account condemns him for having done so. It is merely recorded that he did so. It may well have been the right thing for him to do.
I never thought I would see Judas held up as a possibly positive role model. I always thought he was "the son of perdition." And the other Old Testament role models that I referred to are not particularly notable for their righteousness accomplishments either. I think you would be hard pressed to come up with an example of a righteous man in the Bible committing suicide.
Cordially,
Will you set aside your 'videos' and your perceptions of them if, when the autopsy results are released, it is clear that her brain was indeed gone?
Don't get all hung up on whether she was PVS or MCS. The important thing is that, after 15 years, no improvement was possible: what you see is what you will always have. She was, in short, in a wholly stabilized condition. She would live that way until she died. Unfortunately, for Terri, she was so young when she suffered her brain injury that her body could hold on when her mind was gone.
Thus, she faced the very harsh choice of continuing to exist (as long as her heart held out) in her PVS/MCS condition or die. No other choices were present.
You are viewing your 'videos' with your heart, not your head.
Thank you for your thoughtful response. It deserves a careful reply. It is late tonight; I will give it attention tomorrow.
It seems far from clear that her life, reduced as it was, was "harsh" to HER. Of all the things alleged or documented as coming from her, groans of misery seem strangely absent. It is surprising how many people, who before a catastrophic accident thought they could never bear living in a reduced capability, find themselves oddly positive about life even after it happens.
THere is no "pumping" with a feeding tube. It's gravity flow.
No, thanks to YOU for demonstrating the paucity of depth in your thought.
Diamond, don't bother paying attention to wc's dissembling any more. It makes about as much sense as being fascinated with the devil, waiting for him to wave the white flag. It won't happen and he will only mess with your mind. By all means rebuke him, then go on.
Well, thank you for answering. I take your last sentence to mean you would want to live in that circumstance whether or not you had "... a family that loved me an[d] took care of me" -- since that would be outside your control.
You went off at some length villainizing Michael, but I think you make too much of the personalities of the people surrounding her because of the positions they take on the issue you care so much about. The parents are greedy, grasping people also who wanted half of Michael's settlement and wanted to become Terri's heirs at law. If Michael had been wise enough to simply give them half the money (even though they had no right to it) there never would have been a lawsuit and Terri would have died 7 years earlier. Similarly, if there had never been a malpractice settlement, there never would have been a lawsuit and Terri would have died 7 years earlier. Neither side distinguished themselves in this matter -- Michael for his adulterous relationship and the parents for their brazen money-grubbing.
We are clearly different people. For me, it's not 'all about me.' If I were not conscious or if I were conscious, I would not want to be the dead weight on the family eating into time and money with no hope of recovery, cheapening everyone's understanding of the significance of life. Either way, I would want to be dead. A fortiori if I were conscious. What agony that would be! Knowing of the needless burden I was imposing on all around me. Time for exit stage left.
No, a large syringe is attached to the tube and the excess stomach fluids removed to make room for the slurry, then the syringe is used to push the slurry through the tube into the stomach.
One of the things I find most interesting is the focus of those favoring vacant physical life on the subjective aspect of it -- whether or not the subject is aware of the emptiness and burden their 'lives' constitute. Certainly, a subjective awareness of your state would be unmitigated agony.
But in writing my living will, I am concerned with being allowed to die even if I am subjectively unaware of my condition and the burdens I impose. It is the objective fact of the loss of 'the image of God' that should trigger allowing me to die, not only my subjective awareness.
The supporters of vacant physical life seem only concerned, if at all, if they are going to be aware of it. That is passing strange.
Apart from your solely conclusory comment, what part of the explanation of the Biblical passages could you rebut?
I thought so.
Yet you would want the law to be, and remain, broad enough to pull others unwilling and unwitting into the pit where you deem you yourself ought to go.
I thought so.
This post of yours is proof positive that you are hearing imaginary voices in your head. Thanks for showing us that.
While there is certainly more than one way to skin a cat, a cursory google of "feeding tube" "gravity" will show many respected medical sources.
Absolutely, not. If I had my way, everyone's wishes would be enforced for them. I think it is very important that everyone write their specific desires down, so that we don't have any more of these debates about 'true' wishes than we must.
I've written my living will. Have you written yours? If not, please do so. If you want to be maintained indefinitely after your mind is gone, that's absolutely fine with me (provided, of course, you pay the cost of your own care).
Why should documentation that I don't want to be starved to death be required? Why shouldn't the burden rest on those who want to go down to the pit?
"A policeman considered 'vegetative' after being shot in the head in 1979 has come out of his coma and, although doctors caution he may never recover fully, he is spelling out some of his desires: 'TALK. WALK. SKI. DOG,'" the news report stated, explaining that someone would point to letters displayed in alphabetical order on a board while Mack nodded "yes" or "no" until the correct letter was reached.
This case should be cited every time someone takes the Almighty Greer's word for it that Dr. Hammersfahr wasn't credible.
You asked me what I would want if I was Terri. Terri had a family that loved her and wanted to take care of her. If I did not have a family then there would not be that option and I assume my husband (MS) would have me killed.
You went off at some length villainizing Michael, but I think you make too much of the personalities of the people surrounding her because of the positions they take on the issue you care so much about. The parents are greedy, grasping people also who wanted half of Michael's settlement and wanted to become Terri's heirs at law. If Michael had been wise enough to simply give them half the money (even though they had no right to it) there never would have been a lawsuit and Terri would have died 7 years earlier. Similarly, if there had never been a malpractice settlement, there never would have been a lawsuit and Terri would have died 7 years earlier. Neither side distinguished themselves in this matter -- Michael for his adulterous relationship and the parents for their brazen money-grubbing.
I see you have bought into MS's line lock stock and barrel. Once you believe what he has to say all bets are off with looking at this with a clear perspective. You do not know anything that you said is a fact. It is all based on what a lying cheating husband has said. You are wrong about Terri's parents. You don't know them so how do you know what motivated them? Oh yes I forgot you take MS' word for fact.
We are clearly different people. For me, it's not 'all about me.' If I were not conscious or if I were conscious, I would not want to be the dead weight on the family eating into time and money with no hope of recovery, cheapening everyone's understanding of the significance of life. Either way, I would want to be dead. A fortiori if I were conscious. What agony that would be! Knowing of the needless burden I was imposing on all around me. Time for exit stage left.
But it is all about YOU - as I said in previous posts - it is about what You would want done for You - it doesn't matter what Terri would want done for herself or what her parents wanted for her - nope it only matters what you and Felos want done for everyone else - cause you know best. Her parents obviously did not consider her dead weight and wanted to take care of her. Who are you to deny them or Terri of that. And how do you know for sure with advances in science that one day Terri could have improved. What gives anyone the right to deny her a future.
You asked me what I would want if I was Terri.
You misunderstood the question. Obviously, you could never be Terri. The question was: If you (with your own background and value structure) were to be afflicted with the same condition as Terri was (without getting into the PVS versus MCS debate -- just whatever it is), would you want to continue to be maintained by the stomach pumping and diapers or be allowed to die? [Basically, if you were writing a very specific living will focused on a condition such as Terri's, what would your instruction be?] Thus, you have to ignore your perception of the personalities around Terri, because they would not be those around you.
I see you have bought into MS's line lock stock and barrel. ... It is all based on what a lying cheating husband has said. You are wrong about Terri's parents. You don't know them so how do you know what motivated them?
Do you see the dichotomy in your thinking? You and I know no more about the parents than the husband, and vice versa. The husband has certainly given us reason to doubt his creditability, but so have the parents. Judge Greer was clearly right to distrust both of them. His extended discussion in his decision (which I won't reproduce again here) makes clear that, but for the husband and the parents fighting over access to the two portions of the malpractice settlement, there almost certainly would have been no lawsuit.
It is beyond dispute that the parents and the husband had their falling out over Michael's refusal to share his $300K with the parents and his refusal to share his status as Terri's heir at law with respect to her $700K. Of course, once the falling out occurred, each side adopted their respective public persona and the rest, as they say, is history.
I do not accept "MS's line lock stock and barrel." In fact, I (like Judge Greer) distrust him and do not feel he could have been allowed to make the life-death decision as Terri's surrogate. BUT, (again, as with Judge Greer) neither do I trust and accept "the parents' line." They have proven themselves hugely money-grubbing people. [BTW, wait for the forthcoming ghostwritten 'book project' from these two promoters.] Judge Greer looked largely beyond the husband and the parents for the basis of his determination of Terri's wishes, because of their mutual problems of credibility.
it is about what You would want done for You - it doesn't matter what Terri would want done for herself or what her parents wanted for her
The answers to your comments are 'no', 'no' and 'yes'. There are two questions debated endlessly on these threads: (i) Were Terri's own wishes regarding her death or life properly and accurately determined in the LEGAL proceeding? and (ii) Regardless of the accuracy of that determination, was it MORAL to deprive her of nutrition and hydration to cause her death? Think of these two as the 'legal' and the 'moral' question respectively.
The legal question is solely about Terri's wishes, not in any sense about what we respectively think. That is the way Judge Greer and all the reviewing courts approached it. BUT, it also has nothing whatever to do with what the husband or the parents want. Their views simply don't matter. It is Terri's position alone that matters.
[One big example is the parents' later effort to trade on the dogmas of the RCC. They surrounded themselves in the latter public relations campaign with priests and monsignors of the RCC who attempted to market the dogmas of that organization as relevant to the issues. But as the Court of Appeal noted, " She had been raised in the [RCC], but did not regularly attend mass or have a religious advisor who could assist the court in weighing her religious attitudes about life-support methods."]
However, once we turn to the second question, the moral question, the situation is reversed because she could not implement her own choice herself. Therefore, we have to ask: Is it moral for us to implement it for her? Moreover, since our basis of morality must come from the Bible and Jesus Christ, His declaration in Matt 7:12 ("In everything, treat others as you would want them to treat you, for this fulfills the law and the prophets.") becomes the critical determination. So, we must necessarily ask, "How would you want others to treat you (if you were in similar circumstances)?"
I hope this explains to you why the arguments go back and forth between what Terri wanted and what we would want in similar circumstances, depending on whether we are debating the "legal" question or the "moral" question.
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.