First, welcome to FR.
Second, if you are really an MD, then you should be able to discern what was in that autopsy report. It was widely reported that the autopsy confirmed the PVS diagnosis, which is a blatant lie, because the report stated that PVS is a clinical diagnosis and can only be determined in a live person. It stated that her condition upon death was consistent with either a PVS or MCS, and that it could not be determined which state Terri was in most recently.
Third, I believe that had Michael continued therapy and rehab for Terri after 1993, that maybe she would have continued the progress she had already made. However, if one forgoes therapy, you as a doctor, would know quite well that it would be unlikely for anyone to recover, and in fact one would digress, as Terri did. It is unconscionable to withhold therapy, especially if you have just begged a jury for $$ to provide that therapy for the next 20 years, which is what Michael asked for.
First, welcome to FR.
Thank you.
Second, if you are really an MD, then you should be able to discern what was in that autopsy report. It was widely reported that the autopsy confirmed the PVS diagnosis, which is a blatant lie, because the report stated that PVS is a clinical diagnosis and can only be determined in a live person. It stated that her condition upon death was consistent with either a PVS or MCS, and that it could not be determined which state Terri was in most recently.
I read the autopsy report, and agree completely that PVS is a clinical diagnosis. The autopsy report didn't quite say that her condition was consistent with either - it mentioned that while there is literature on what findings tend to accompany a diagnosis of PVS, there is no literature on findings characteristic of MCS. So a pathologist could not say it was consistent with MCS, as that information isn't known. He did say, "Neuropathologic examination of ... (Terri Schiavo's) brain - or any brain for that matter - cannot prove or disprove a diagnosis of persistent vegetative state or minimally conscious state." I also agree that there was a lot of misrepresentation of medical information, from both sides. Sadly, much of it continues to occur, sometimes from lack of knowledge, sometimes willful.
Third, I believe that had Michael continued therapy and rehab for Terri after 1993, that maybe she would have continued the progress she had already made. However, if one forgoes therapy, you as a doctor, would know quite well that it would be unlikely for anyone to recover, and in fact one would digress, as Terri did. It is unconscionable to withhold therapy, especially if you have just begged a jury for $$ to provide that therapy for the next 20 years, which is what Michael asked for.
If therapy for the first few years didn't help her - and my reading indicates it didn't - then I have to sadly conclude it would be unlikely to make a difference afterwards. If I missed documented improvement in the GAL report, or another credible source of medical information, please point me toward that information.
Also, I said early on that I don't agree with everything MS has done, so one shouldn't assume I approve of his every decision. I completely understand that people will have different opinions on such end of life decisions - it's a difficult issue. I respect those who argue the tube should not have been removed. It's the effort to distort or deny facts that disturbs me, which is why I stopped responding to certain posters on this thread.
Again, thanks for your welcome to FR.