Could someone answer these Schiavo questions?

[MikeG]

1. Is or is she not brain-dead?

2. If so, when did she become brain-dead?

3. What is with this video the networks keep showing of her blinking her eyes?

4. When was the video taken?

[Avalux]

1. This is what I know -

Terri's brain scan shows spinal fluid in the area where here cerebral cortex once was. She is not aware of anything and any movements, blinking of eyes, etc. are involuntary (that part of her brain is intact). She cannot be rehabilitated; she won't ever get better. She is essentially a body being kept alive.

The video was made by her family in an attempt to show Terri as a functioning person. I have read the tape was heavily edited to support their claim.

Terri should be allowed to die in peace in my opinion.

[POAS]

7. The tape

was edited down from hours long to a few minutes long in an attempt to remove the hours of unresponsiveness that Terri's body displayed while exploiting the few moments of involuntary movements that coincidentally seem to be responses to stimuli.

[Avalux]

9. Thanks -

do you have a link for this info? I knew I had read it somewhere but can't find it. :hi:

[POAS]

link below posted by others

[merh]

2. The video that I saw was taken in 2001

:shrug:

[BrklynLiberal]

3. You want to know the whole story, read it here.

http://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/infopage.html#qanda
here are a couple of excerpts

Terri Schiavo Information Page

The cause of the cardiac arrest was adduced to a dramatically reduced potassium level in Theresa's body. Sodium and potassium maintain a vital, chemical balance in the human body that helps define the electrolyte levels. The cause of the imbalance was not clearly identified, but may be linked, in theory, to her drinking 10-15 glasses of iced tea each day. While no formal proof emerged, the medical records note that the combination of aggressive weight loss, diet control and excessive hydration raised questions about Theresa from Bulimia, an eating disorder, more common among women than men, in which purging through vomiting, laxatives and other methods of diet control become obsessive.

Why did Terri’s husband get to make the decision about whether she should live or die?

Michael Schiavo did not make the decision to discontinue life-prolonging measures for Terri.

As Terri's husband, Michael has been her guardian and her surrogate decision-maker. By 1998, though -- eight years after the trauma that produced Terri's situation -- Michael and Terri's parents disagreed over the proper course for her.

Rather than make the decision himself, Michael followed a procedure permitted by Florida courts by which a surrogate such as Michael can petition a court, asking the court to act as the ward's surrogate and determine what the ward would decide to do. Michael did this, and based on statements Terri made to him and others, he took the position that Terri would not wish to continue life-prolonging measures. The Schindlers took the position that Terri would continue life-prolonging measures. Under this procedure, the trial court becomes the surrogate decision-maker, and that is what happened in this case.

The trial court in this case held a trial on the dispute. Both sides were given opportunities to present their views and the evidence supporting those views. Afterwards, the trial court determined that, even applying the "clear and convincing evidence" standard -- the highest burden of proof used in civil cases -- the evidence showed that Terri would not wish to continue life-prolonging measures.

[housewolf]

17. Yes - this is an excellent page of non-biased info

The author is a Florida appellate attorney and legal blogger who has been following this case for years. There is an easy-to-read timeline of all the events and actions in the case. The writer is non-biased and non-political - it's "the facts, Ma'mam, just the facts."

You'll get factual, non-emotional, non-spin answers to your questions there.

I highly recommend that everyone check out the facts presented there.

[cynatnite]

4. Hope this helps

1)She is in a persistent vegitative state.

http://healthlink.mcw.edu/article/921394859.html

"A persistent vegetative state, which sometimes follows a coma, refers to a condition in which individuals have lost cognitive neurological function and awareness of the environment but retain noncognitive function and a perserved sleep-wake cycle.

It is sometimes described as when a person is technically alive, but his/her brain is dead. However, that description is not completely accurate. In persistent vegetative state the individual loses the higher cerebral powers of the brain, but the functions of the brainstem, such as respiration (breathing) and circulation, remain relatively intact. Spontaneous movements may occur and the eyes may open in response to external stimuli, but the patient does not speak or obey commands. Patients in a vegetative state may appear somewhat normal. They may occasionally grimace, cry, or laugh."


2)Her heart stopped while battling the eating disorder, bulimia.

3)It's a tape taken of her two or three years ago, I believe. It's four hours long and the parts you have seen were one of the few which gives the impression that she is cognizant. It's edited to manipulate the watcher and is not a reflection of the truth.

You can also access unbiased information at: www.abstractappeal.com

[neebob]

5. Read this

http://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/WolfsonReport.pdf

It's the report of the second Guardian Ad Litem, dated December 1, 2003. It was posted on another thread, and I found it very helpful.

[mondo joe]

6. Sure - here you go:

1. She is not clinically brain dead. She is more brain-missing. Her diagnosis is PVS - Persistent Vegetative State. Over the years her brain atrophied and crumbled away, now replaced by spinal fluid.

2. See above.

3. A video fraud her parents made in which they tossed all the footage of her being non responsive, but kept a bit of the random acts her body makes that coincide with their pretend communications.

4. A few years ago - 2001 I think.

You can find answers to most questions here: http://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/infopage.html

[KC21304]

8. I'm going to be banned for spamming soon, lol, but

for anyone with questions about the Schiavo case, you can get the truth from the Guardian Ad Litem's report.

http://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/WolfsonReport.pdf


It is quite long but it you want to get right to the nitty gritty, scroll down to Historical Facts of Theresa Marie Schiavo's Case.

This Guardian was approved by both sides in 2003.

[BlueEyedSon]

10. She has been an breathing hat rack for 15 years. Enough is enough!

[BrklynLiberal]

11. A better question is why are the fighters for the "sanctity of marriage"

fighting so hard to override the rights of a husband over his wife's wishes? Huh? Answer me that.

I am not even going to ask about what happened to the Republican party's long standing protection of states' rights. We know they blew that after the 2000 election when they deferred to the Federal Supreme Court rather than the Florida Sumpreme Court.

How about the fact that while Governor of Texas, Bush signed a law that gave hospitals the right to disconnect life support from patients, even over the objections of the family, and even if judges ruled against it!!!!

Why isn't anyone asking these questions on the news programs?

What a silly question that is.

[POAS]

12. Simple answer

they are hypocrites

[BrklynLiberal]

16. OK I can live with that

:P :silly:

[question everything]

46. Even better question - why rush now to pass a law

Even if they needed this Congress - it has been four months now. Last month a judge issued a stay of 30 days, why the rush? Why pass a law without a minimum amount of debate? Isn't this supposed to be the "debating chamber?"

Answer. They don't care at all about her. It is an opportunity for them to generate headlines for their next campaigns. Especially, as Newsweek observed "House Majority Leader Tom DeLay in particular has brought pro-life passion to the cause, and the cameras. (His critics couldn't help remarking that it was a convenient time for DeLay, dogged by ethics questions, to change the subject.)"

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7244230/site/newsweek/

[MikeG]

13. Thank you all for answering my questions so quickly.

[TrustingDog]

44. and Thank You, for listening. Make your own judgements, but with...

some facts and not knee jerk emotional reactions the Busholes want you by.

[Career Prole]

14. the networks keep showing of her blinking her eyes

Things like blinking, heartbeat, respiration, etc. while triggered above the neck do not require conscious thought at all.
Blinking and other functions of the autonomic nervous system don't indicate a "live" brain...at least not to me. :shrug:

[LiberalFighter]

15. Another important piece of info

Terri's husband did everything possible to rehabilitate her. Experimental and otherwise.

It was 8 years later that he finally decided to petition the court to remove the feeding tube. It wasn't immediately after the malpractice case was settled. It wasn't a year or two after. It was 8 years after Terri was incapacitated. 6 years after the case. He even became a respiratory therapist so that he could personally care for her.

[LisaL]

18. In 1993, Michael Schiavo did not want antibiotic used to treat

her infection, even though he knew she could pass on if the infection is not treated. It wasn't years after the malpractice trial. It was just a few months after a malpractice trial.
http://www.zimp.org/abuse/denial_of_medical_treatment_for.htm

[phylny]

19. It's obvious to me, after reading your many posts, that you

are against the removal of enteral nutrition. I saw a question posed to you elsewhere that I haven't seen you answer. Perhaps you have answered it, and I merely missed it.

Would you want to be kept alive this way, knowing that there is no chance for recovery?

edited for clarity

[LisaL]

20. Let me just say, that I would not want to die that way-from dehydration

and starvation. If that is the only way to go, then yes, keep the feeding tube in.
Unless I can get a lethal injection like convicted killers, then by all means, leave the tube in.

[phylny]

21. Okay, fair enough.

You do understand that dying from dehydration and starvation is painless, right?

So, you'd rather hang on for years and years if that's your only choice?

Thanks again for your candor.

[LisaL]

26. Painless? Whatever in the world gave you that idea?

When my own relatives were starving to death during the siege of Leningrad, they didn't think it was painless.

[mondo joe]

28. Were they in hospice care in leningrad?

Please tell us what you think happens in hospice.

[LiberalFighter]

29. Rediculous to compare PVS to someone that is alive able to make decisions

[phylny]

31. They weren't in a state of PVS with a morphine drip

when they starved and dehydrated, I would guess. Sounds to me like these were people who had a cerebral cortex, and were not otherwise ill. Unless, of course, I'm wrong.

With no cerebral cortex, Terri Schiavo is really not going to perceive anything at all.

[mondo joe]

25. Please describe what you think death by starvation in hospice care is like

Thank you.

[LiberalFighter]

30. Apparently she thinks it is like withholding food and liquids from...

children who can feel the hunger and the pain.

[mondo joe]

32. Yup. It's like saying surgery is cruel because if you did it to a healthy

person without anaesthetic it would be terribly painful.

The people who are opposed to carrying out Terri's wishes, if given enough rope, always hang themselves with some personal revelation that taints their views. Either they hate men, or they had a family member who experienced starvation (in a completely different way), and so on.

[LisaL]

37. Well, maybe people who want the tube removed hate their

parents? Had horrible relationship with their parents, and thus transferring their hate toward their own parents onto Terri's parents?
Hmm?

[mondo joe]

38. But I know that's not the case. So please, tell us what you think happens

in hospice care.

Sorry you outed yourself as having a particular bias, but that doesn't mean everyone does.

[mondo joe]

33. I don't think I'll ever get an answer to that question.

:-(

[Luis Cypher]

58. dehydration

Personally I think she should have a more Humane Death.


Death by dehydration is anything but quick and peaceful; it can last as long as two weeks. Terri will suffer extreme thirst, drying out her mouth. She will experience nausea and cramping in her arms and legs. Her skin will become dry and wrinkled as fluids are drawn from the skin to hydrate the organs. The mucous membranes of her mouth and lips will crack. Her breathing will become labored and difficult. Her muscles will spasm, resulting in extreme agitation. She may suffer seizures. And finally, she will do what her estranged husband wants, she will die

[phylny]

75. And amazingly, with no cerebral cortex,

she'll be unable to feel a blessed thing.

[LiberalFighter]

22. Did she pass on? Is that information recorded anywhere in court documents?

You must have something to hide since you don't have a profile about yourself.

[LisaL]

34. No, she did not pass on. The antibiotics were given to her,

because, apparently, some sort of law prohibited not giving her antibiotics.

[LiberalFighter]

50. Apparently some sort of law prohibited it??

You don't know for sure?

[Lars39]

23. His decision was based on unrefuted medical advice.

[mondo joe]

24. That's the point of withholding treatment. To allow a natural death.

Many people choose this for themselves or their loved ones in such a state.

[LiberalFighter]

27. Please provide your name and address AND a copy of your living will

Stating that you want to be kept alive forever. And forcing your loved ones to endure the agony and hardship of your condition.

[LisaL]

35. Why don't you start with yours? How do I know that

you don't want to be kept alive forever? Maybe you just saying so on the message board, but in reality, your living will says something completely opposite?

[mondo joe]

36. Instead how about just telling us what you think happens in hospice

when a feeding tube is removed.

Thanks.

[LisaL]

39. Well, there you go:

"WHAT HAPPENS to non-terminally ill people with cognitive disabilities whose feeding tubes are removed? Do they suffer from the process?

When I conducted research on this question in preparation for writing my book "Forced Exit," I asked St. Louis neurologist William Burke these very questions. Here is what he told me:

A conscious person would feel it just as you or I would. They will go into seizures. Their skin cracks, their tongue cracks, their lips crack. They may have nosebleeds because of the drying of the mucus membranes, and heaving and vomiting might ensue because of the drying out of the stomach lining. They feel the pangs of hunger and thirst. Imagine going one day without a glass of water! Death by dehydration takes ten to fourteen days. It is an extremely agonizing death."



http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/370oqiwy.asp?pg=2

[mondo joe]

40. Funny, I guess they never heard of morphine.

And neither have you.

[LisaL]

41. I knew perfectly well you would not accept the link, or trash it

anyway. And if you gonna give them morphine for their pain, why not just give them an overdose to begin with?

[mondo joe]

42. Because one fundy account doesn't stand up to the body of

medicine and science.

[LisaL]

45. If it is so painless, wonderful and natural, maybe we should

start doing it to convicted criminals sentenced to death?
To be humane and all?

[mondo joe]

47. Self determination has nothing to do with capital punishment

and I think you're probably smart enough to know that, though you pretend you're not.

[LisaL]

52. I am talking about killing convicted criminals by

dehydration/starvation, instead of lethal injection. If that is such a wonderful natural painless death, why not do it?

[mondo joe]

54. That's for the courts and the person to decide, not me.

Though I'd say the prospect of a multi week process for a sentient unwilling person might be considered cruel.

But that does not describe Terri.

[Luis Cypher]

61. Willing

So it is your opinion that Terry is now willing to starve to death, gee I thought she was in a PVS? Must be your sixth sense kicking in HUH.

[mondo joe]

68. Terri has no will at all. She has no cerebral cortex.

But she did express her wishes about what she'd want in such a circumstance.

[mondo joe]

43. By the way, when you use anti-choice, anti-evolution, anti-freedom

to die sources like Wesley Smith, it doesn't help your credibility any.

[Luis Cypher]

59. Morphine

Then use Morphine to kill her not starvation. Besides I have had morphine and you are always fluctuating between too much and not enough. And this is with a cognizant individual providing feedback to the hospital staff. Just because you have an opinion does not make it right.

[mondo joe]

60. That's why hospice tends to be very generous with the morphine

to be sure it's doing the job.

[Luis Cypher]

63. HUH

You obviously missed the point, Why not just give her a fatal dose and then you don't have to worry about suffering. I find death by dehydration awake or not to be cruel and unusual punishment, for any person or criminal.

[mondo joe]

66. Because it's illegal.

I understood your point.

I also understand the law.

I furthermore understand that these are personal choices. I'd prefer to go out slowly with morphine than to OD on it. But I understand that's not everyone's choice.

[Luis Cypher]

70. Law

Then we need to change the focus of the argument don't we. Why not use this as way to change the law. Your position makes you look like a ghoul whereas if you say this is a result of not having any other option and use it as a platform to launch true reform and argue for the ability to have death with dignity then you can have at least the majority of Americans on your side. Now this is a losing argument for the democrats and makes us look bad.

[mondo joe]

71. Go ahead and try. But for now the only options available are

limited by law.

My position accepts a natural death. The ghouls are the ones who want to keep Terri suspended in death like a zombie.

This is NOT a losing argument for democrats, as polling shows repeatedly.

[Luis Cypher]

74. Thanks

Got to go but thanks for the discussion

[Luis Cypher]

67. Winning

This issue can only be won if the majority of people see some type of a graceful ending. Starvation and dehydration will not be graceful nor will the headlines for weeks on end. Do you not grant that if instead of withdrawing a feeding tube and waiting two weeks she was injected with a heart morphine then a heart stopping drug that this issue would be over?

[mondo joe]

69. Your opinion about how graceful it is conflicts with the

accounts of those who actually work in hospice and study the matter scientifically.

[Lars39]

64. FL state law does not allow it.

[LiberalFighter]

49. Your the one without profile info

[Bouncy Ball]

48. Brain dead?

Well, if you call missing most of your brain brain dead.

But in order to be "brain dead" we presume the person has a brain to be brain dead.

She is missing her cerebral cortex, which makes up most of her brain and ALL of her higher order skills, consciousness, thinking, emotion, personality, judgement, speaking, seeing, hearing, voluntary movements, etc.

Everything that makes us "us" is gone in her.

Her cerebral cortex liquified over time, but she has been this way for several years now.

The video was made a few years ago.

She can blink her eyes because sleep and wake cycles are involuntary and controlled by the small part of her brain she still has, which means she sleeps and wakes up. Blinking is involuntary, as long as you are awake.

So that's why she is blinking.

No one is home, though.

[spanone]

51. This is all about the abortion issue. Terri is just convenient right now.

[LisaL]

53. How do you mean? She is hardly an unborn baby.

:shrug:

[spanone]

55. Read this.

<snip> For many conservative activists, the Schiavo case is a proxy for expanding a pro-life agenda on everything from abortion rights to judicial nominations. "It's a real showdown with the courts," says Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, who has been in continuous contact with congressional leaders and "our grass-roots across the country" on the case. "This case is important to family members of Terri Schiavo and to our country as a whole - that we not move down this path where people are forced to die," he says. <snip>


http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0321/p01s03-uspo.html

[mondo joe]

56. A fetus has potential to function. Not Terri. But the fact of the matter

is the anti choice people don't believe in any INDIVIDUAL choosing to end a life.

You know.

[mondo joe]

57. Aren't you opposed to anyone choosing to end life support even

for themselves, or choose an abortion?

[LisaL]

62. I do not oppose abortion.

But Terri is hardly a fetus.

[mondo joe]

65. Do you oppose the right of individuals to decline or remove life support?

[LisaL]

72. I would not oppose it if I knew that that is what they actually

wanted.

[mondo joe]

73. So you'd need to be the judge in each case?

That should be interesting.

[LisaL]

76. Nope. I was answering your question-would I oppose it or not.

I said I would not oppose it. Why are you trying to twist my words when I was simply answering your question on what I would or would not oppose?

[mondo joe]

77. You said you would not oppose it if YOU believed they really

wanted it.

So I guess we can do away with legal guardians and courts and next of kin and just ask YOU if each person wanted life support or not.