Posted on 04/15/2005 6:20:05 AM PDT by robertbrown
The Terri Schiavo Issues, From CodeBlueBlog
Orientation
I do not come from the perspectives of what people would consider a strict "right to lifer," the "religious right," or a "radical conservative."
My original issue was the feeding tube. I did not -- and still do not --understand how food and water came under the rubric of life support in the same category as intubation, forced breathing, and cardiac pacing. The best analogy I can use is the Foley catheter (tube through the urethra into the urinary bladder to allow urine to drain). If you are going to remove food, then why allow patients to urinate?
As a physician, I strongly object to actuating death. That is not what I was trained to do, and if society decides that is what it wants, I would propose some different professionals be assigned the duty to pull these tubes when the law orders it. For me, as a physician, it is an act that is inimical to all the reasons I went into the health care field.
Making terminal patients comfortable during their last days is, to me, is in a different philosophical and ethical cosmos than removing a feeding tube from a severely impaired patient.
The Infamous CT Scan
I saw, and heard neurologists, ethicists, and hospice physicians in media outlets such as NPR, Fox News, MSNBC, CNN, and all the newspapers, declaring that Terri Schiavo's higher brain functions were nil. To describe this they used terms like: "her brain is: "water," a "bag of water," and "totally without cortex." One medical ethicist on NPR said (paraphrased) that Terri's brain was completely without a functioning cortex and since the cortex is where the complex functions and emotions of life are carried out, she is therefore not alive, but dead.
I, like every one else I assume, took this as it was stated (it didn't change my mind about the feeding tube anyway) until I stumbled on the single mid-ventricular CT image of Terri's brain that was done either in 1996 or 2002 (no matter).
Upon seeing the CT slice I was shocked that, yes there was severe atrophy, yes, there was severe damage, and yes the cortex was markedly thinned, but the CT itself did not reflect the descriptions I'd heard; and worse, I have seen many old and debilitated nursing home/assisted living patients as well as younger patients with chronic brain damage, with similar or worse atrophy. And not all of these patients were nonfunctioning.
That same CT slice was used as a visual graphic on television and in the newspapers -- by the same group of experts -- to demonstrate why Terri Schiavo was suitable for euthanasia. I objected to this strongly as, to me, the implications for all the other patients with similar or worse CT scans was morally and ethically frightening (talk about slippery slopes!).
I've been heavily criticized as unethically interpreting Terri's CT from this single slice, and speculating from the limited data. Let's get something straight. First, this was the only slice available. Second, it was the same and only slice everyone other expert was commenting upon. The University of Miami bioethics webpage thought it was appropriate to use that single slice on their web page as a testament to Terri's brain damage. Third, I made observations, not a diagnosis. Fourth, this was a scan done in the remote past. Looking at that slice and speculating about questions it raises is no more unethical than looking at a fossil and speculating on the size and shape of a dinosaur. It's a fragment of an old map, or a puzzle. And putting puzzles together to try and figure out possibilities is one of the things radiologists do for a living.
I also felt strongly that it was disingenuous for experts to put Terri's CT slice side-by-side with a normal 25 year-old female's CT. To the nontrained eye, the striking disparity nailed the case shut. To me that was unfair journalism and tendentious in the worst way. It would have been far more appropriate to put up the CT of a patient with severe cerebral palsy or chronic atherosclerosis. But this would not have made their case so strong, and one must question why these experts were given a pass for passing judgment on a single slice of a CT and for a deceptive comparison. I certainly was given no similar pass by readers and commentators when I said something different using the same data set.
Well. Bottom line. Terri was the "landmark case" that FELOS and his outfit needed to establish the criteria for offing "undesirables" in the future Coldblooded Utopia he and his cohorts seek to give us. Mikey and Greer were the useful stooges (IMO) they had to have in order to enable them. - They don't factor in a living God. Science is their god (IMO).
Thank you for a very thought provoking article.
it was disingenuous for experts to put Terri's CT slice side-by-side with a normal 25 year-old female's CT.
And, worse, when at least one "expert" on the news placed those CT slices side by side and stated: This is a human brain; and this is Terri's.
"Actuating death" - I wonder if there are some synonyms for "actuating death."
I rather like it. It makes a clear distinction, in my mind at least, between easing an inevitable decline (say giving enough morphine to terminal cancer patient with intractable pain, even though it may shorten the period before death) and creating that decline.
The "redefinition" of nutrition and hydration into
optional "medical" interventions has a long history
but I do not know all the details. I have seen a
1988 (yes 1988) article by Dr. Fred Rosner deploring
the proposals then beginning to surface. There might
be more at http://www.hospicepatients.org
G*d Bless you bump!
Peach, honey, come tell this doctor how emotional, irrational, and hysterical he is that he doesn't even know that Terri's brain has TURNED TO WATER, as you have so shrilly proclaimed time and time and time again in an effort to shame and silence anyone who came to Terri's defense.
You said, "The "redefinition" of nutrition and hydration into
optional "medical" interventions has a long history
but I do not know all the details. I have seen a
1988 (yes 1988) article by Dr. Fred Rosner deploring
the proposals then beginning to surface. There might
be more at http://www.hospicepatients.org"
I've just started reading "Culture of Death," by Wesley J. Smith, and he goes into a lot of the history of how that happened. It is a very informative book, and I highly recommend it for learning important background for those who are seeking justice in the face of what was done to Terri.
Powerful and thank you for posting. It is really reassuring to read that there are doctors who practice healing and comfort rather than the overly eager euthanasiacs.
It's obvious you don't mind being known as a Class A liar. Sad.
Why am I a liar? Did you not state what I said? Did you not believe it to have been the case?
Why don't you find a link to that? I'll wait.
Natural death (cough* by dehydration *cough).
Not so. The precedent was set earlier, in Florida, in the Browning case.
Supreme Court of Florida.
In re GUARDIANSHIP OF Estelle M. BROWNING.
STATE of Florida, Petitioner,
v.
Doris F. HERBERT, etc., Respondent.
No. 74174.
Sept. 13, 1990.
BARKETT, Justice.
We have for review In re Guardianship of Browning, 543 So.2d 258 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989), in which the district court certified the following question as one of great public importance:
Whether the guardian of a patient who is incompetent but not in a permanent vegetative state and who suffers from an incurable, but not terminal condition, may exercise the patient's right of self-determination to forego sustenance provided artificially by a nasogastric tube?
Id. at 274. [FN1] We answer the question in the affirmative as qualified in this opinion.
FN1. We have jurisdiction. Art. V, 3(b)(4), Fla. Const. Estelle Browning died on July 16, 1989, at the age of 89. Although the claim is moot, we accept jurisdiction because the issue raised is of great public importance and likely to recur. In re T.W., 551 So.2d 1186, 1189 (Fla.1989); Holly v. Auld, 450 So.2d 217, 218 n. 1 (Fla.1984).
I. THE FACTS
On November 19, 1985, a competent Estelle Browning executed a declaration that provides, in part:
If at any time I should have a terminal condition and if my attending physician has determined that there can be no recovery from such condition and that my death is imminent, I direct that life-prolonging procedures be withheld or withdrawn when the application of such procedures would serve only to prolong artificially the process of dying.
#1. I have quoted what doctors who actually treated Terri have said. Under oath. In a court of law. Based on multiple brain scans. Nothing more.
#2. Your comment that posters on "my side of the argument" made statements and I failed to contradict them makes no sense. Are you saying that I have to read every single comment about this matter?
#3. Why don't I turn that around. Why haven't you contradicted the posters on "your side of the argument" who have told outright, provable lies about this matter?
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.