Schiavo Autopsy Leaves Most Important Questions Unanswered

Not Dead Yet ^ | June 15, 2005 | Not Dead Yet - Staff

[Mrs. Don-o]

Schiavo Autopsy Leaves Most Important Questions Unanswered

For more information: Diane Coleman or Stephen Drake

(708) 209-1500 exts. 11 & 29

708-420-0539 (cell)

Forest Park, IL, June 15, 2005 -- Today's release of findings in the autopsy of Terri Schiavo leave the central issues in her life and death unanswered, says a national disability rights group.

For example, contrary to articles stating the autopsy report "supported" the diagnosis of "persistent vegetative state (PVS)," a neuropathology expert today was careful to say that PVS is a clinical diagnosis rather than a pathological one. He added that nothing in the autopsy was "inconsistent" with a PVS diagnosis.

... Several studies have revealed high misdiagnosis rates, with conscious people being mistakenly regarded as totally and irrevocably unaware.

The autopsy also documented significant brain atrophy, and the medical panel called the damage "irreversible." This is not the same as saying she had no cognitive ability.

"It's always seemed to us that PVS isn't really a diagnosis; it's a value judgment masquerading as a diagnosis," said Stephen Drake, a research analyst ... for national disability rights groups.

Diane Coleman of Not Dead Yet, agreed. "The core issues remain the same. Protection of the life and dignity of people under guardianship, and a high standard of proof in removing food and water from a person who can not express their own wishes. These are issues of great concern to the disability community - evidenced by the 26 national disability groups that spoke out in favor of saving Terri Schiavo's life ..."

Not Dead Yet oppos[es] legalization of assisted suicide, euthanasia and other forms of medical killing.

NOT DEAD YET 7521 Madison St * Forest Park, IL 60130 * Voice/TTY: 708-209-1500 * Fax: 708-209-1735 * TTY: 708-209-1826

[EternalVigilance]

In fact, after hearing the details, no, I don't consider you to have killed them.

In the case of your father, he was in charge, you weren't. In your Mom's case, according to your account, you consistently tried to give her food and water.

It should be pointed out that both of your parents were dying. Terri Schiavo wasn't.

You have my sympathies, and my admiration for the way you cared for your parents.

[andysandmikesmom]

I do have to run...the hubby is looking at his empty dinner plate, and is wondering when in the heck we are going to eat dinner...its after 9pm here on the west coast, and we always eat late, but not quite this late...so let me go now, and I will hopefully read your reply sometime tomorrow...I am really interested in what you have to say, and your perspective on my actions concerning my parents...it does matter to me what other folks think, as now, I am getting near to 60, and since I have only one son left, who will be left with carrying out my and the hubbys last wishes, ,I would be curious to see what I am burdening him with, tho right now anyway, he is comfortable with what we wish...

So until tomorrow...have a good evening...

[backhoe]

These are the defining issues of our times:

-Men(ace) in Black? SCOTUS goes Rogue...--

-Useless Eaters vs The Death Cult--

-Thunder on the Border-- (Minuteman Project)--

1- an unaccountable Judiciary.
2- whose life is it, anyway? Yours, or someone else's?
3- whose Country is it?

There are other vital issues, of course- but these three will determine just who we really are as a nation.

[Mrs. Don-o]

You wrote: "Terri's husband WAS her family."

WAS. But Michael Schiavo publicly and dramatically repudiated their marriage ---without having the decency to repudiate the guardianship. What a fraud.

[Mrs. Don-o]

Terri's case certainly went through a lot of courts--- procedural due process--- but the one thing she DIDN'T receive was SUBSTANTIVE due process. Not one of those many courts actually examined the evidence, let alone granted her a trial de novo

The "evidence" amounted to hearsay from her estranged husband who was shacking up with a woman by whom he had two out-of-wedlock children, and whom he had promised to marry as soon as Terri died.

To state the obvious, I need documentation to get a driver's license. I need documentation to send my son to summer camp. I need documentation to get on a flippin' airplane. But an estranged husband, years after the collapse of his wife, can "remember" that she really, really wanted to be starved and dehydrated to death?

After he'd told a malpractice jury, under oath, that he'd use the substantial financial settlement to pay for his wife's therapy?

Jess. Listen. As a friend, I tell you: don't continue to argue this. You're inadvertently illustrating the phrase, "invinciple ignorance."

[Mrs. Don-o]

Invincible.

[lilypad]

"allowed" doesnt mean murder.

[jess35]

Terri wasn't murdered.

[lugsoul]

Jeez, that whole death penalty diatribe is so tired. Can't you come up with something just a little more applicable to make your argument?

[lugsoul]

"Food and water isn't 'life support'."

When it is scientifically engineered gruel administered via a surgically placed feeding tube, it is. If you don't like that, change the law.

[jess35]

Jess. Listen. As a friend, I tell you: don't continue to argue this. You're inadvertently illustrating the phrase, "invinciple ignorance."

But I will continue to argue this just as I will continue to argue with democrats. Stating that the courts "didn't really look at the evidence" and that the courts killed Terri because Michael wanted to "get rid of her" is kind of like the democrats saying that the downing street memo shows a deliberate attempt to manipulate intelligence. It's just not a very bright response. It doesn't show a careful examination of the facts.

[CMAC51]

Many courts heard hours of testimony and came to the conclusion that Terri would not have wanted to vegetate indefinitely.

This is a totally false statement propogated by the media. Only one court heard testimony and made a finding of fact. All other court actions addressed whether the original court followed the correct process. This is totally different. Your statement would say that many courts examined the correctness of the decision. In truth they only examined was the decision made correctly.

[jess35]

And it was, wasn't it?

[Mrs. Don-o]

Jess. Look up "substantive due process." Now look up "procedural due process." And please quit embarrassing yourself in public.

[jess35]

Excuse me, Mrs Don-o...but your feelings on the matter have clouded your judgement. The court ruled that Terri Schiavo would not have wanted to live for decades in a PVS state. The court also ruled that her wishes should come before those of her parents and strangers. She received Substantive due process...she also received procedural due process. Your dislike of the outcome doesn't change those simple facts.

[Mrs. Don-o]

There was no substantive due process, there was nothing more than some contested hearsay evidence by an estranged husband who had a personal interest in seeing her dead; and there was no trial de novo.

You haven't even addressed the fact that Terri's estranged husband, Michael Schiavo, who abandoned her maritally and lived in open adultery with another woman, with whom he established a household and had two children, should still have been considered, as husband, fit to be Terri's "guardian" -- (or do you think bigamy/adultery, destroying her wedding and engsagement rings, and disposing of all of her personal property, doesn't constitute marital abandonment and doesn't vitiate his claim in the least?)---

Nor have you addressed the fact that Michael swore to devote a substantial financial settlement to Terri's therapy, and THEN (after he got the money) remembered, several YEARS after her collapse, that, oops, oh yeah, she said she'd rather be dead---

Nor have you explained how she could have had "substantive due process" when she wasn't even allowed to have a MRI or PET scan which could have showed the anatomy of her brain BEFORE she was dehydrated for 14 days---

If you would review the shameful case history of Terri Schiavo's situation and continue to support the courts, then I am --- carefully considering my word choice here ---astounded at the atrophy of your sense of justice.

[jess35]

Hon, all you've done is thrown out allegations and made personal attacks about the character of Terri's husband. Look at your own words...."estranged husband". That is not a fact, that is YOU inserting your feeeeeelings into a debate that is quite frankly, none of your business. You need to let this go. Multiple witnesses testified that Terri stated she wouldn't want to live her life in a PVS state.

I am also astounded...at your total belief in the lies and distortions propagated by the Shindlers and their mindless band of myrmidons. You're so emotionally involved in this case, you can't see what is really going on.

[wireman]

Not Dead Yet???

Sounds like a Monty Python routine.

[Mrs. Don-o]

You don't respond to verifiable information.

Michael Schiavo's public and unambiguous repudiation of his marriage: public and verifiable.

His sworn testimony that he intended to devote lawsuit settlement money to his wife's therapy: public and verifiable.

His subsequent abandonment of therapy--- while paying substantial amounts of the settlement money to Atty. George Felos: public and verifiable.

Felos in his own book claimed to be able to channel people's spirits by looking into their eyes and getting this enlightened spiritual message that, by jinkies, they wanted to die. Public and verifiable.

Or -- hey,do yourself a favor and Google these search words: Felos "Litigation as a Spiritual Practice."

You can get Felos' book from Amazon for $14 if you don't trust the excepts you can read on Google for free.

And you say I lack objectivity? Pathetic. Good day. Good bye. May life treat you well.

[Mrs. Don-o]

Comments #56 and following. Wow.