Terri Schiavo's autopsy confirms extensive brain damage

Folks, the results of Terri Schiavo's autopsy are out and they confirm the extent of Terri's brain damage following her still unexplained collapse in 1990. The autopsy's result is being bandied about as "proof" that her husband Michael was right in ordering her killing, and as "egg-on-the-face" of the different authorities in Congress and in the White House who added an extra layer of review in this life-and-death case.

The calculation that entered into Terri's process was brutal: her life, her very existence was ruled unproductive and a drain on valuable resources, and enough of a ethical fig leaf to cover the shame of her direct killing by refusing her food and water.

The Catholic Christian and humane moral stance remains unchanged: human life, even minimally functioning, is endowed with an intrinsic dignity and an inalienable right to life, that no "due process of law" can take away. Terri's life had value, at least to her parents and sibblings and that value should've been accorded a measure of respect by society and the courts.

Human life is too valuable to measure against its ability to produce a good or a service, or in terms of its lack of values to others, or of its need to consume resources better spent on others who have the advantage of a partial or full awareness. All laws, all procedures that violate human dignity at this most basic of levels are null and void by their very nature. They might be afforded the label of "legality" by those who hold the levers of power, but that only reflects an irresponsible use of power and not an objective sanction of the trampling of a basic human life.

Terri's autopsy's results change nothing of the original conditions that led to her fight for life. And the fight is not over. Remember Terri Schiavo.

Conservatives were on the wrong side of this debate. My wife has said during the Shiavo debate that she wouldn't want to be kept alive in a PVS. Suppose she were in a car accident or had a stroke and went into a PVS. Should I really ignore my wife's wish to be taken off the feeding tube? Just remarry and leave her be? She's my wife, I would want to honor her request and her memory.

Friend, as far as I know, Mr. Schiavo came out with that line 7 years after the fact, after he collected a hefty sum in malpractice insurance, and after he entered into a liaison with another woman who bore him children. Since Terri left nothing in writing, and her parents had another viewpoint, there was reasonable doubt on Mr. Schiavo's motivation for his belated interpretation of her wife's wishes. The conflict of interest was blatantly obvious, yet ignored by the courts.

The best your wife can do is to place her wishes in writing--her choices in the situation may not be ethical, but that's another subject for debate--yet they will be legal in some states, and you'll be able to keep whatever malpractice insurance money you may have coming without spending it in lawyers. Rejoice, because either of you will be quickly disposed off were you to become a drain in society's and your family's resources.

-Theo

Here is a very brief summary of my notes on the autopsy report:

Findings: "Anoxic-ischemic encephalopathy," implanted electrical stimulator, etc. Her brain weighed 615 gm., less than half that of a normal brain for someone her age and gender. There was significant damage to the occipital areas. Blindness.

Initial collapse not due to bulimia. No evidence of strangulation, poisoning or other trauma or foul play. There was no evidence it was caused by a "heart attack" (myocardial infarction). The examiner speculates on other possible causes, but admits this is only speculation.

PVS is a clinical and not a pathological diagnosis. Therefore, contrary to reports and spin in the news media: "Neuropathologic examination alone of the decedent's brain - or any brain, for that matter - cannot prove or disprove a diagnosis of persistent vegetative state or minimally conscious state." - Stephen J. Nelson, M.D., Chief Medical Examiner, 10th Judicial Circuit of Florida (neuropathologist in the case).

While she was dying, she did not receive morphine for pain, but only acetaminophen. I had headaches while wearing a nitro patch during a recent hospitalization. Acetaminophen may as well have been candy. I had relief only when I got morphine. I can't imagine the pain someone might feel during dehydration and starvation.

Mechanism of death: She died of dehydration, not starvation. As is usual in such cases, since one can go longer without food than without water.

Cause and manner of death: She suffered a "severe anoxic brain injury. The cause of which cannot be determined with reasonable medical certainty. The manner of death will therefore be certified as undetermined."

What is the difference between "mechanism," "cause," and "manner"? When did she die, at her initial collapse or after dehydration? If the former, why was it necessary to dehydrate a corpse? If the latter, how can it be said that the cause and manner of death is "undetermined"? Is the examiner confusing the cause of the collapse with the cause of death? Or is this simply saying the person or persons responsible for the dehydration cannot be determined from the autopsy itself? But the autopsy document contains numerous references to external media and medical reports to substantiate many of its findings. Why then make a single exception as to the cause and manner of death? The entire public knows the cause of her death. So why does the examiner pretend ignorance? I suspect it was to evade any possibility of being called as a witness in a wrongful death suit.

The autopsy does nothing to contradict the major facts and applicable moral principles in this case. Terri Schiavo, albeit brain-damaged, was alive and neither dying nor terminal before she was killed at the behest of her husband and with the complicity of all three branches of government. The judge in the case gave undue weight to highly suspect hearsay evidence as to Terri's wishes, suspect because he was living with another woman than his wife at the time and as his wife's legal guardian the recipient of a large malpractice settlement, based on a now discredited claim of undiagnosed bulimia. Even had there been irrefutable evidence of Terri's wish to die, this would still have been a case of assisted suicide which is illegal under the laws of the State of Florida. Her confinement to a hospice setting was inappropriate, given that she was not a terminally ill patient. The fact that Michael's attorney, an advocate of euthanasia, was a member of the board of that hospice is at least suggestive of a conflict of interest. In any such case, a major question must be: Who stands to benefit? Certainly not the Schindler family, which was willing to assume the burden and expense of her care. Take a wild guess....

You can obtain a copy of the official Terri Schiavo autopsy here:
http://www.sptimes.com/2005/06/15/schiavoreport.pdf

The autopsy does nothing to contradict the major facts and applicable moral principles in this case. Terri Schiavo, albeit brain-damaged, was alive and neither dying nor terminal before she was killed at the behest of her husband and with the complicity of all three branches of government. The judge in the case gave undue weight to highly suspect hearsay evidence as to Terri's wishes, suspect because he was living with another woman than his wife at the time and as his wife's legal guardian the recipient of a large malpractice settlement, based on a now discredited claim of undiagnosed bulimia. Even had there been irrefutable evidence of Terri's wish to die, this would still have been a case of assisted suicide which is illegal under the laws of the State of Florida. Her confinement to a hospice setting was inappropriate, given that she was not a terminally ill patient. The fact that Michael's attorney, an advocate of euthanasia, was a member of the board of that hospice is at least suggestive of a conflict of interest. In any such case, a major question must be: Who stands to benefit? Certainly not the Schindler family, which was willing to assume the burden and expense of her care. Take a wild guess....

Precisely! Hear hear!

-Theo

>>"her very existence was ruled unproductive and a drain on valuable resources"

>By who? Oh, and proof please?

The following is but a quick selection of what you can find on the web via Goodle on the subject of "Terri Schiavo waste resources"

http://www.mahablog.com/2005.03.27_arch.html#1112359175386

http://www.subaquasternalrubs.com/archives/2005/03/30/appeals-court-to-consider-schiavo-request/

http://dsadevil.blogspot.com/2005/03/politics-of-schiavo.html

Also, in Britain:

A lawyer for Patricia Hewitt, the British health secretary, told the appeal court that the National Health Service should not have to give life-prolonging treatment to every patient who requests it "because that would mean a crippling waste of resources," reported the Times newspaper May 19. The Health Department is supporting the appeal against last year's ruling. (http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2005/5/28/193754.shtml)

"Enjoy."

-Theo

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.