Terri Schiavo, RIP
My vacation was considerably soured by the release of the Schiavo autopsy results. Not the report itself: There wasn't much in it that surprised. It was the disgusting spin on the story by some who sought to use the report to further demagogue the story for political and partisan ends. But lest we forget, the federal attempt to have a de novo review of the case was bipartisan. All Democrats in the Senate went along, giving unanimous consent to the legislation. Moreover, Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA), deserves much credit for his dedicated work in helping pass the legislation. Had one senator refused to consent, the legislation would have died. In the House, about half the Democratic Caucus voted for the bill. This should be a source of pride, not shame, since it sought to protect the life of a defenseless human being. As he so often does, John Leo hit the right note about the autopsy report in his weekly U.S. News and World Report column.
In a new development, Michael Schiavo finally deigned to obey a court order and reveal where Terri is buried. Here is a photo of her tombstone. The inscription says so much to me about the character of Michael Schiavo and the attitudes he apparently shares with many toward people with profound disabilities.
According to the tombstone, Terri departed the world in 1990. No, she suffered a catastrophic injury that caused a profound disability. But she was no less a fully human and precious being because of it.
Second, it is worth recalling that Michael Schiavo didn't tell a medical malpractice jury in 1992 that she was morally equivalent to dead. But then, at the time he wanted a lot of money so he testified that Terri remained his beloved wife to whom he was and would thereafter be devotedly committed. Well, not quite. By then he had already "moved on," as it were. Moreover, he presented expert testimony that Terri would live a normal lifespan. It wasn't until the money was in the bank that Michael Schiavo remembered that Terri would rather be dead than disabled and began seeking that end by withholding antibiotics.
Third, if she is at peace now, which we all fervently hope, the way she was made to die certainly wasn't peaceful.
Finally, the "I kept my promise" line on the tombstone is a cruel and gratuitous dig at Terri's parents the Schindlers, a way of flipping them the bird every time they visit her grave. We shouldn't be surprised. Michael Schiavo frequently treated Terri as if he owned her, to the point that I half thought he would keep her ashes on his mantle as a trophy. It seems to me that this final insult directed at the Schindlers is along those lines.
Terri Schiavo, RIP: Terri is gone, her death a bitter and cruel injustice. But we must move on. So, barring the unforeseen, I will not be commenting further on the details of her case in the future. What is done, is done. What people think, they think, and no further sifting of the ashes or arguing will change minds.
The task now is to create humane policies that protect other profoundly disabled people from suffering Terri's fate and to promote public attitudes that value the full equality and worth of the lives of each and every one of us regardless of disability or illness. I presented some ideas toward these ends recently in the Weekly Standard.
One last point: We are in danger as a society of accepting the odious notion that there is such a thing as a life unworthy of life. True, the advocacy pushing us toward this end isn't generally steeped in the language of hate as it was when we ventured down this path before. But just because the lexicon of the culture of death and bioethics are often steeped in "compassion" and a supposed regard for individual autonomy, doesn't make these emerging attitudes less dangerous or insidious. Or to put it another way, actions speak louder than words.


44 Comments:
I fear that the so-called "personal autonomy" espoused by supporters of this sort of thing --is really only "autonomy" from law, ethics and God and will prove to actually be "autonomy" only for the medical profession and judiciary to do as they please with those deemed as unworthy of health resources.
Actually, it only applies if you "choose" to die. If you want to live, and the bioethics consensus is that your life is of too poor a quality to permit that, well, autonomy has its limits. See my articles on "futile care theory," the Leslie Burke case in the UK, and the new "duty to die."
I fully agree with you,Wesley, but I also feel that if one studies closely the language of the nazis one realises they also used plenty of arguments about compassion. This is striking when one watches Ich Klage An, a film that if shown today, and it should be shown, would create enormous embarrassement among all the "progressive" people, since it echoes one by one all the main arguments for mercy-killing and utilitarian destruction of defenceless human life.Somebody should finance the projection of this german nazi movie throughout western society, as a warning.
The plot of Ich Kleige An is actually strikingly close to that of Million Dollar Baby; the part about the voluntary euthanasia that is, not the part about killing disabled infants.
This post indicates that your view was and is that her life should not have been ended regardless of its quality, and (probably) regardless of her wishes.
That is fine. If that is your view, it is important to state and defend it. That would help clarify the debate. However, if that is so, why include the other, apparently extraneous claims in your joint statement with Ralph Nader?
There you emphasized doubts about her condition. That surprised me since those who watched the case closely, including judges and doctors, were as close to unanimous in their opinions as you could possibly imagine. As one close and seemingly dispassionate observer noted: "Terri's situation has arguably received more judicial attention, more medical attention, more executive attention, and more 'due process,' than any other guardianship case in history. Terri's family has had the benefit of excellent legal representation as well as the Governor's own top-notch attorneys, all of whom have scoured the case for ways to assist the effort to keep Terri's feeding tube in place" (http://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/infopage.html#init).
The autopsy verified the judgment of the courts was accurate -- at least with regards to her condition. Had it not, that would have posed some interesting questions.
It also include the unexpected finding that she was blind . . . so those who were convinced she could visually recognize them were mistaken.
Aside. I notice you are concerned about people receiving adequate health resources. A noble concern. Are you active in efforts to increase government spending for health care in the U.S. and around the world? Are there specific advocacy groups you favor?
At the top of your blog you endorse human exceptionalism. Could you briefly explain what that is, and precisely why you think it true?
Briefly Stated: Human exceptionalism stands for the proposition that human life has ultimate intrinsic and special moral value simply and merely because we are human. We have objective value based on simply being, not subjective value based on measurable capacities. I view this as the essential foundation of universal human rights. This heightened or special status brings with it unique responsibilities, first to other humans and also to all life on the planet.
Wesley, a good article. I was hoping to ask you to come along to my own blog for a question and answer session on the autopsy.
However, you are correct to point out that we have to move on and continue with an action plan for the future that stop others thinking that they have the ideal way to get rid of a spouse who is not wanted.
With regard to your correspondent who is in love with the somewhat jaundiced opinions that are to be found on abstract appeal, I believe that this person has either not read the autopsy or is just not interested in the fact that the ME has not let MS so totally off the hook, or in any way agrees with the consensus of the legal injustice that was perpetrated against Theresa Schindler. I have dropped the other name because that man deserted his wife in order to live with another woman.
Just a few points that I believe need to be brought as a result of the opinion with this autopsy report. The first thing to note is that Drs Hammesfahr and Maxfield were vindicated in their assessment of Theresa in the autopsy report. It was Dr. Hammesfahr who pointed to the fact that Terri had a problem with her sight.
The autopsy report does not state that she was blind from the time of her collapse. It says that at the time of her death she was blind. I could infer from that this blindness is a direct result of the dehydration that was cruelly forced upon her in the last two weeks of her viable life.
The second point that is made is that the M.E. positively ruled out bulimia as well as a heart attack as the cause of her original collapse. This is very significant because it opens the way to examine what happened as well as examining the lies that were told in order to bring about this particular death in the name of the Culture of Death.
One point where I disagree with John Leo concerns the issue of abuse. Who can deny the level of psychological abuse that Terri suffered over the 15 years that she was held a prisoner of her faithless husband? This form of psychological abuse has never been criticized by the main stream media. They claim to be on the side of the battered spouse, yet they were encouraging the psychological abuse of Terri. It does not make sense.
Also there is a large gap between the time that Terri collapsed according to evidence given and the time when 911 was called. Significantly Michael Schiavo stated that she collapsed at around 4.30 in the morning and 911 was not called until near 6.00. That is a significant time gap. It is long enough to have tidied up an apartment that showed signs of a struggle.
With regard to comments that were made by George Felos, Michael Schiavo and others to the MSM, I believe that the report in fact makes them into very big liars. Take for instance the lawyer Mark Fox. He even went on national T.V. claiming that Terri had a big meal and had gone to throw it up when she collapsed. Wrong. Michael was at work the previous evening. They did not share a meal together. She did not throw up anything.
The ruling out of bulimia as a cause for the collapse of Terri is significant. It leaves open other scenarios, including the nature of the "promise" that was kept. Since I do not believe that Terri ever made that remark to Michael in the first place,( because she watched that film with her childhood girlfriend),and that the real promise happened on the morning of the collapse in the form of "I am going to kill you". The M.E. has not ruled out attempted asphyxiation. The only thing ruled out is that there was not some form of heavy beating (maybe).
My own research in the intervening months has brought up a number of issues that need further clarification. One of the issues happens to be that Felos and Schiavo have been feeding us with the belief that in order for an attempted strangulation to have taken place there needs to be positive evidence of such. After a period of 15 years any evidence of attempted strangulation would not be visible. In a report on attempted strangulation, Dr. McClane concluded that over 62 per cent of attempted strangulation cases go under reported because of apparent lack of evidence. The majority of men and women in that situation have no marks on their bodies that indicate that there has been a very violent attack.
One possibility is that the policeman's hold was employed by Michael Schiavo to injure his wife. The reason that I feel this is possible is that I have seen a case here in Australia where a young man suffered injury of a similar nature and he had been restrained by Queensland police.
Whatever happened, she suffered soft tissue injury to the neck. That form of soft tissue injury is very painful and it can cause long term difficulties depending upon the severity of the initial injury. I am speaking as one who has been injured as a result of whiplash and then had further complications due my first work environment (involving heavy lifting as well as a broken compactus at Australian Archives in Canberra)
The case itself is not over. Terri is dead, and now we must ensure that people are educated about the horrors of dehydration and starvation.
My late sister suffered a lot because of dehydration and I defy anyone who states that doing this to a cognitively aware person is humane. That is one of many lies that need to be exposed and brought into the light.
I would like to see if we can separate the issues.
Would you be willing to answer a couple of questions, Maggie?
1. Suppose the schindlers had agreed with Michael concerning Terri's wishes. Would it have been OK to remove the tube?
If not, why not?
2. Would it have mattered if she had a living will?
3. Suppose what she needed was not nutition, but a ventilator. Would it have been OK to turn it off?
1. That happens every day in every state, with conscious and unconscious patients. I think it is immoral, but I am not the dictator. So, there is nothing to be done about it.
2. Yes. See # 1.
3. I think there should be a distinction between turning off a ventilator and stopping food and water. The former is more intrusive and the results are uncertain. Thus, Karen Ann Quinlan lived 10 years after her vent. was turned off. Refusing food and water can have only one result. Moreover, the symbolism of refusing basic sustenance is such that I believe this form of care should be treated differently than other forms of care.
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
I appreciate the candor of your answer to 1.
However, I am curious. If this really is the engine driving your view, wouldn't it be better to make it clear, and state it up front - e.g., in the joint statement with RN?
I am also curious just how much this belief shapes how you read and interpret other data about this (and related) cases?
Perhaps it does not shape your reading much. But it seems it surely does shape many people's. I am surprised at the contortions people go through to find some way of reinterpreting every bit of data. This would be unnecessary if people had made and stuck to their central claim: that it is just wrong for people to not take all positive steps required (or at least all non-extraordinary steps) to stay alive.
Having asked the question, I understand the impulse. People use the arguments that they think will be persuasive against the "other side." I have certainly succumbed to that impulse more than once.
Still, it does concern me that this confuses the issues in undesirable ways.
I think you have articulated the belief of some number of people who thought TS was "killed." However, that was normally not the central argument that was made publically. Instead people claimed she was responsive, had not had due process, life with a philandering husband, etc.
The other side also occasionally resorted to similar tactics.
On balance, though, doesn't this make genuine discussion of the issues more difficult?
Let me end by appending some observations about MS . . . although I think they are related to earlier comments.
Two points:
1. The autopsy does not say TS didn't have bulimia, only that it wasn't supported by the forensic evidence. Still, that is enough for me.
Many commentators have made much about that. I am not sure why. For MS didn't come up with the claim that she had bulimia; the docs did. As I recall, he even testified that he has no firsthand of her bulimia (I am not certain of this. If I am incorrect, please send me the appropriate citation.)
I find that significant. If he were trying to hide something, why didn't he testify that she had a running battle with bulimia rather than just relying on the doctor's claim? Doesn't look like the behavior of a guilty man to me.
2. Jeb is making a big do about the "time gap." Curious. First, there are better explanations of the gap (lapse in memory). Second, docs said that if there had been a 40 minute gap, TS would have been dead. Third, if MS is SOO smart that he could have found a way to off his wife so that he didn't leave a trace for the docs or the coroner to find, it strains credulity to think he could not concoct a coherent story without a time gap.
We don't know what happened 15 years ago. And for that reason alone it will always be open for those wanting to do so to find another conspiracy theory. But the evidence suggests that, for whatever other vices he might have, he did not kill his wife. Stronger than that, Judge Greer (a conservative republican) commented that all evidence indicated MS had, overall, given her exceptional care. Judge Baird (also a Republican) apparently agreed.
Last aside for those who do not know. Both Greer and Baird have had numerous death threats.
in response to HHL. I think that Wesley has answered well enough for me. However, I have a few responses as well.
1. Since we have no positive evidence that Terri requested to have her nutrition removed we cannot give a positive or negative answer to this question.
Since Terri was not dying then the denial of nutrition and hydration remains murder. Period.
I refuse to get involved in the kind of scenario that you are trying to create because you are using false assumptions.
2. There is a stark difference between keeping someone alive on a ventilator and someone being fed through a tube. There are times when turning off the ventilator is appropriate. The parents of Karen Quinlan felt that she would be better off, but when she continued breathing on her own they refused to disallow the feeding through the tube. Mr. Quinlan's response to that situation is the most appropriate. Karen Quinlan died of natural causes, not as a result of unnecessary intervention.
3. Since I am a realist I know the difference between when someone is at the end of their life and when in fact that person is alive and we have no right to interfere in that life. I give the example of the deaths of members of my family here. My sister was not able to eat and drink because of her bone cancer
HHL you made some very obvious errors in your analysis. With regard to the suggestion of bulimia, the autopsy report definitely ruled that out. There was no medical evidence that she had bulimia. The hospital report did not state that she had bulimia; there was a suggestion that the results of possible malnutrition might be caused by bulimia. However, there was nothing in the apartment such as purgatives that indicated that Terri was bulimic. There was no soft tissue evidence in her throat at the time of her admission to the hospital that she was bulimic. Her family and friends indicated that there was nothing that pointed to bulimia. MS himself admitted that there was nothing that indicated that Terri had bulimia. The bulimia was the invention of MS and it grew in size with the lies that he told. Having read the depositions from the malpractice trial I am shocked that a jury ever agreed to award the lawsuit in his favour.
What the coroner said was: there was no evidence of bulimia. That is not the same as saying that it was not bulimia. But, as I said in the last post, I am willing to believe it was not.
Indeed, I was suspicious that it wasn’t bulimia primarily because MS (as far I as I have read) never gave any independent reason for thinking it was bulimia. What he did do is buy the inference that it must have been bulimia give the weight loss and the potassium levels. This is not Michael's lie. Again, if it were, he should have talked about how he tried to stop her, etc.
Now to the core point. Unless I misunderstood your post (and that is always possible), your response illustrates, what I was trying to suggest in my previous post: that those who think TS life should not have been ended, period -- no matter what her wishes or the conditions -- are prone to fish around for some other argument on which to hang their conclusions.
Why not confront the real argument rather than tangential issues?
To make the point vivid. Suppose for a moment that:
1. She had a living will specifying that she would not want to live in a PVS (I know she didn’t).
AND
2. MS had killed her (he didn’t).
Grant both assumptions. The second claim has nothing straightforward to do with whether we should or should not honor her (assumed) expressed wishes (although it would matter to MS since it would make the difference between a murder and an attempted murder charge).
So the bottom line is: why do you think it is ALWAYS wrong for a person to take steps to shorten his/her life. Give your reasons and then let us begin the real debate there.
Indeed, perhaps WJ Smith should join since, if I read his previous response correctly, he would agree with that claim.
What I want to know is WHY apparently you think it is okay for a guardian to have his ward killed?
ESPECIALLY when there is so brazen a conflict of interest as was in the case of Michael Schiavo and such flimsy excuses made that Terri didn't want to "live like that"--YEARS LATER, AFTER THE MALPRACTICE CHECK WAS IN THE MAIL.
I am so SICK of people apologizing for this guy. Wake up, will you?
I am glad to discuss the issues.
I have no interest in getting into name calling or getting tracked onto diversions.
Can a person ever choose to end her own life, either by active means, or by refusing to have medical care. If not, why not?
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
Let me amplify my last remarks. In reading this blog and listening to comments during
the Schiavo debate, it seemed that most people who thought the tube should not be
removed did not think so primarily because they thought MS was a philanderer or that
Terri Schiavo was still conscious. Why do I think that?
At the time . . . because of the way I interpreted the comments.
Now . . . because almost no one who thought the tube should not have been removed
has changed their minds since the autopsy. [That is SURELY not to say that no one
held that view for those reasons. Only that few did.]
So what is really going on? It seems most people outraged by the Schiavo affair
thought it is never acceptable for a person to end her own life; that also seems to be
WJS's view (given his response to an earlier post).
Given that belief, you infer - somewhat understandably - that Michael Schiavo must be
a moral monster since he wanted the tube removed. You cannot fathom that a loving
husband would do that.
It thus seems that (a) your assessment is MS is driven wholly by your rejection of the
idea that the tube can be removed, not by an independent assessment of the evidence,
and (b) this is a diversion from the central issue (the never-do-anything-to-end-a-life
view - no matter what the circumstances, no matter what the person's wishes).
THAT, it seems, is the real issue.
Why not discuss the real issue?
Two possibilities come to mind: (a) you don't know how to defend that view, and (b) you
know it is strategically unwise to do so since the overwhelming majority of Americans
don't agree with you.
Perhaps there is a third . . . but I am not sure what it is. I would love to be enlightened.
Again, I understand the strategic appeal of discussing tangential issues. However, I
assumed that the purpose of this blog was to discuss the fundamental issues. Perhaps
I misunderstood the purpose of the blog.
If I am wrong about its purpose, please let me know and I will leave you all alone.
So could you, or Maggie, or WJS explain and defend the NDATEAL view? I really would
like to understand it.
I find it peculiar. When I think a view is peculiar, I assume it is because I must not have
heard it articulated by a good spokesperson.
I will leave Wesley to deal with the words that I do not understand because I think that you are using the newspeak of the euthanasia movement as a smokescreen.
Fact 1: Michael Schiavo was a philanderer. As such he should not have been allowed to be the guardian of his disabled wife. An honest judge would have removed him from that role. I have reason to doubt the honesty of George Greer.
Fact 2: Theresa Schiavo was cognitively aware. This is something that I have learned by doing further research into the autopsy report. The damaged portion of her brain controlled the motor function and caused the dysphasia. The area that controls awareness and emotion was intact. She was cognitively aware.
Fact 3: Having seen the video clips and having had relatives who have been in a "vegetative state" as a result of a stroke, I cannot accept that Terri was not a living human being as Michael Schiavo, George Felos and all their friends who are complicit in her homicide tried so hard to convince the general public.
Fact 4: In neurologic terms, and this is in her hospital reports, Terri was "awake", not dead.
Terri's situation was not an end of life condition. She had brain injuries from what are considered "unknown" causes. The damage to the occipital portion of her brain normally happens as a result of a blow to the back of the head. The autopsy report also indicated that she had muscular atrophy on her right side, which is also an indication of some form of injury. The report remarked that the left side was not remarkable. This is an indication that there was a level of violence in her collapse but the form of violence is still undetermined.
Since Terri was cognitively aware she was in a minimally conscious state, and the video clips that I viewed attest to the fact that she was MCS and not totally PVS. Her condition at the time of autopsy was clouded by the fact that all forms of therapy were forbidden for her.
I have a lot more that I could say on these issues, but I have to go out to a meeting soon. However I have some of my own questions to pose and so far I have heard nothing but a deafening silence from the apologists for the faithless Michael Schiavo.
Why is it that the supporters of euthanasia seem to think that there is nothing wrong with subjecting someone to 15 years of psychological abuse? This is something that the MSM and the euthanasia supporters have not grasped at all.
Theresa Schindler endured years of psychological abuse at the hands of her husband as he continued his attempts to murder her. He followed the SciFi protocol of making sure that she had no stimulation in the hope that she would give up and die. However, Terri was too strong to give in to that particular form of abuse. If the eye witnesses in the nursing homes and hospitals are to believed, and Michael Schiavo actually admitted his own guilt in the matter, then he used other forms of abuse such as the denial of treatment in the hope that she would be forced to die of natural causes. Why is that acceptable to treat a disabled person in that way?
Since there is absoulutely no proof that there ever was any conversation between Terri and her faithless husband, let alone the alleged throw away remarks allegedly stated in front of Schiavo family members but not in front of other friends and family (very suspicious if you ask me) why is it ok to end the life of someone who showed so much will to live?
Theresa managed to survive all forms of abuse from that man for 15 years. That is proof in itself that she never expressed a death wish. If there had been any truth to that claim then Terri would have given up a lot sooner that she did. Her endurance is an indication that the husband and guardian was a liar and that this is no ordinary end of life case.
Just a further comment here about Michael Schiavo being a "moral monster".
First of all, this is not just about the removal of the feeding tube. It is about the denial of any nutrition and hydration after the tube was removed. That is what makes the whole thing extremely immoral.
Second, that is only a part of the reason why this man should be locked up. There is the matter of 15 years of psychological abuse that was endured by Terri, and we do not know how many years of soft tissue injuries that might have been caused during the period of the actual marriage.
Third, the behaviour of Michael Schiavo during the last years of Terri's life towards Terri indicates that he was not a loving husband. That just happens to be a very sick way of thinking as far as I am concerned. If he was so loving why was he shacked up with another woman? Why did he have children with this other woman? Why did he tell one of his "women" that Terri was dying when in fact she was not an end of life person. Terri did not have an end of life condition. Brain damage does not cause an and of life situation unless that damage is so acute that the person dies very suddenly from those injuries.
Fourth, if Michael really loved Terri, why would he not divorce her and allow her parents to look after her?
There were options available but Michael Schiavo refused to entertain any of the options. He had to refuse the money offers to keep Terri alive in order to maintain the illusion that he was not interested in Terri's money. That proved to be yet another smokescreen because he went before Greer on the day of Terri's death in order to have the estate wound up. Why such haste?
Need I say more. There is something very rotten with regard to the way that guardianships are handled in the state of Florida and especially Pinellas County. The Schiavo case is in reality the tip of the iceberg when it comes to what is very wrong.
There is no justification for the involuntary euthanasia of Terri Schiavo.
I apparently misunderstood the purpose of this blog.
Sorry to have bothered you.
However, I am flummoxed (and more than a bit depressed) by Maggie's insistence that TS was cognitively aware. Even a minimal reading of the autopsy coupled with a minimal knowledge of the brain shows that just ain't so. This demonstrates the very point I was trying to make: that you are so convinced of your view that you go to astounding lengths to try to hold your ground.
However, then you never really have to examine or defend the real issue.
That's a shame. For you. And for other readers of this blog.
I suppose I apparently misunderstood the purpose of this blog.
Sorry to have bothered you.
However, I am flummoxed (and more than a bit depressed) by Maggie's insistence that TS was cognitively awarely. Any reading of the autopsy coupled with any knowledge of the brain shows that just ain't so. All this demonstrates the very point I was trying to make: that you are so convinced of your view that you go to astounding lengths to try to hold your ground.
However, then you never really have to examine or defend the real issue.
That's a shame. For you. And for other readers of this blog.
I am also surprised that the host of the blog doesn't join in -- and doesn't acknowledge that we have no reason to think TS was reacting with her parents.
But, again, maybe I just misunderstood the blog's point. It now seems clear that I did.
Best to you all.
Can't join in on that point. The autopsy report did not say she was incapable of any awareness. That is a clinical diagnosis. It said her injuries were consistent with that diagnosis. And I have talked with too many people who were in the room with her frequently, and not just her family, to believe that something wasn't going on there.
But from my perspective, it matters not a whit anyway. Terri had a right to live regardless of her condition. She was made to die on the weakest pretext that she would not want "tubes" or a "machine," made in casual conversations more than twenty years ago BEFORE the populace knew bioethicists wanted the ability to remove feeding tubes so that "biologically tenacious" patients would die.
Moreover, of the many injustices inflicted on Terri one included, in my view, Greer refusing to try rehab to see if she could be improved while she was still alive, particularly given that at the time of the requests, appeals were ongoing and there were a minority of experts saying she could be helped, for example, to learn how to swallow. (She swallowed her own saliva.) There was no reason not to try. These brain injuries are not cut and dried.
As I said, people believe what they believe on this case and further dissection doesn't serve much purpose for what I am trying to accomplish. But that doesn't mean it isn't an important conversation. People should feel free to engage these matters here to their hearts' content.
Poor HHL, it seems that this person does not understand what is meant by the neurological term "awake". Since Terri was awake, that is she was not dead, anyone who claims otherwise was living the lie.
Also HHL has indicated a gross ignorance of the brain. After my own amusing read last night of the various parts of the brain and how they are injured, I have learned that the portion of Terri's brain that was injured was the portion that controls motor function. A proper reading of the autopsy report revealed that the portion of the brain that controls awareness was intact. Therefore to be amazed or flumoxed that anyone could say that Terri was cognitively aware indicates the lengths to which the members of the culture of death will sink in their desire to make false claims about the condition of a disabled woman.
Too many witnesses, especially nursing staff mentioned that she loved to laugh at their jokes. Sounds like cognitive awareness to me.
I have more to say but am at work so will do so tonight.
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
After some thought, I have decided to return for another post.
I appreciate Maggie's concern for me. I can use all the help I can get.
Concerning the autopsy. On page 7 of Dr. Nelson's report to Dr. Thogmartin, he says "two major patterns have characterized detailed reports of the neuropathology of a persistent vegetative state." The one of relevance here is "diffuse laminar necrosis and diffuse axonal injury."
Now to his finding on page 5: "Encephalopathy, anoxic-ischmeic, multi-focal/global, laminar necrosis. . . . "
Now I am not a physician, but it looks as if TS's condition corresponds with expected the neuropathology of people in a persistent vegetative state.
The chief medical examiner seems to agree. Here are just some of the lines (my transcription) from his press conference. Her brain was "profoundly [said with emphasis] atrophied," with "massive neuronal loss or death." Consequently her condition was "irreversible. No amount of therapy or treatment would have helped her."
He also dismissed the claimed that the collapse was caused by trauma at the time of her collapse -- or that she suffered trauma later.
He was also emphatic that she was "not able top consume food safely or in sufficiently quantity to sustain life."
. . . About Maggie's concern about the lengths to which people like me will go to fix the data. Is this something about which we all out to be concerned? For sure. Anyone who has lived (and a little knowledge human psychology helps) knows our proclivities to see what we want to see. Self-deception is rampant. Any of us who is self-reflective and honest could regale us with stories about how we have deceived ourselves about what we believe, what we see, hear, or remember, etc. There is no miracle cure for this malady. The only protection is intellectual honesty, openness, self-examination, and hard-work. Unfortunately these skills are not easy to acquire or regularly excerise.
The real test of whether we are fixing the facts around our desired conclusion is to carefuly watch what we do and listen to what we say. Are we willing to admit errors? Do we ever change our beliefs and conclusions in the face of evidence? I would have thought I met that requirement. I have acknowledged the possibility of my own error. I have acknowledged mistakes by folks on "my side. " Although the autopsy came out as I expected (and as the evidence suggested), I spent considerable time thinking about how and why the resport would change my views. I said the autopsy changed my view about the bulimia.
So the reader can decide if my claims indicate "the lengths to which the members of the culture of death will sink in their desire to make false claims."
Several closings points:
1. To dub my position 'the culture of death' is just to resort to loaded language: to seek to win the debate by definition rather than argument. I can use loaded language to describe your case too. However, to do so does not treat you with respect, and it surely doesn't advance honest discussion. Believe me I understand the urge. However, I generally try to resist. (Unfortunately, not always successfully.)
2. I am also surprised at Maggie's, Wesley's and Susan's willingness to interpret limited anecdotal evidence as demonstrating that TS was aware in any meaningful or rich sense. Judge Greer examined the Schindler's (not MS's) tapes at length -- the tapes the Schindler's choose as putting the BEST gloss on their case. He said the so-called signs of awareness were episodic and not repeatable. I have seen many of the tapes too, as have any number of journalists (who had no stake in this debate). None of us see them as sign of consciousness.
And, neither did the coroner.
So to interpret the eratic behaviors as signs of awareness is - and let me understate the case here - very generous.
What would happen if we required some little evidence to indicate a vibrant mental and emotional life?
If notthing else, we would have to judge that VAST numbers of animals have mental and emotional lives --sufficiently rich so that we should not morally use them just any way we wish (e.g., for food).
As I turned out, that is my position . . . I think we shouldn't be using animals in most of the ways we do.
That is my conclusion even though I am much more cautions when construing animal behavior as indicating a robust mental and emotional life.
If I reach these conclusions, given my relative skepticism, it would think you all would be unshakeable advocates for vegetarianism. Of course, at least in the case of WJS, I know that is not true.
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
A few closing comments.
I got lured into discussing Terri Schiavo's condition.
Perhaps that is not at all bad. It still connects to my central concerns about end-of-life issues and about our ability to have civil, enlightened, and productive conversation between people who disagree.
When we dispense with the rhetoric, the central moral issue is still: is it ever acceptable for a person to refuse food and water as a means of ending her own life? [Before you
raise three mental objections to what I just said, please let me finish.]
You may think those were not Terri's wishes. I agree that is an important issue.
You may think Terri was not in a persistent vegetative state. I agree that is at least legally relevant.
You may fear what will happen if we legalize people's ability to end their own lives. That is a concern. But it is a concern most bioethicists openly acknowledge and worry about.
The difference is that while I think these ARE relevant, I can only infer that some contributors do not.
Let me explain.
The core issue is what I indicated three paragraphs earlier.
Why is that the core issue? Because if you think the answer to that question is yes, then your views of what should have been done would change were you confident about Terri's wishes (e.g., if the Schindler's agreed) and if she were in a PVS.
If your answer is no, then for you Terri's condition and wishes are irrelevant, wholly side issues, diversions from the real issue. Why? Because changes in her condition or her wishes won't change your view of what should have been done.
If they ARE diversions, why are these issues -- rather that the real issues -- always raised? I have suggested why in earlier posts.
Having said that, I am glad I got diverted. Why? Because unless you think people are never justified in refusing food and hydration to end their lives, then you will begin to think that people who disagree about her condition and her wishes are not
moral monsters. Perhaps you can then listen to them, you can at least consider their views.
[sorry for the deletions and repost -- I am having trouble with the computer's translation of characters in my posts]
about the idea that Terri Schiavo's death would be OK if she had a death wish--- that she would not want to live if profoundly disabled:
when we value a person's life, such as a young teenager with everything to live for, if the person says, my life is too horrible, I want to die, we run for the suicide prevention people, get the person counselling, and so on.
it's only if we don't value a person that we want to hold their death wishes sacred. the elderly, 'terminally' ill and disabled aren't young and sexy enough for our shallow culture. we think they ought to want to die, and so those death wishes, unlike others, are held sacred.
but if we are unwilling to value the lives of imperfect people, we are just dooming ourselves.
To value people and their lives IS to let them choose. That is what I want and expect from my family. My wife and I have made that clear to our children in person and in writing. Were my children to ignore those wishes (thank goodness they won't), then they would thereby show incredible disdain for me and my life.
That brings me back to the original question: how do any of you defend the claim that people should never, ever be able to choose to end their lives?
That is the real issue.
Imperfect people. Of COURSE we should value of lives of imperfect people (both physcially, mentally).
I think we should also value the lives of animals. A chimp and a dog and a rat may not be as sophisticated as we are, but that doesn't mean they are just ours to use.
I also think the 100,000+ innocent civilians we killed when "liberating" Iraq also deserved our concern.
However, concern for the different challenged is not engine that drove the debate over Terri Schiavo. Surely some who joined in were so concerned. However, that debate was driven by the belief that people should never, even be able to choose to end their own lives.
That certainly is what key to understanding the Schindlers. They said they didn't care what her condition or wishes were. See the following from the guardian ad litem report: "Throughout the course of the litigation, deposition and trial testimony by members of the Schindler family voiced the disturbing belief that they would keep Theresa alive at any and all costs. . . . [the] Schindler family members stated that even if Theresa had told them of her intention to have artificial nutrition withdrawn, they would not do it. Throughout this painful and difficult trial, the family acknowledged that Theresa was in a diagnosed persistent vegetative state."
To ensure that HHL does not remain under the impression that I have any feelings or sympathy of his position, I will make it clear that I do believe that there are a group of bloggers out there who are what I term "goobers". If the cap fits, especially the nature of comments relating to Terri's cognitive condition, then HHL can wear that description with pride.
I have been continuing my own research into the autopsy document. There are many pages full of medical terminology and I defer to the members of the medical profession that I trust to give an proper opinion of that terminology.
On page 15 of the autopsy report I have noted a few things that in fact point to the condition of Terri's brain, and these are things that I believe do not support the "she is PVS and has no consciousness etc."
First of all, the portion of Terri's brain that was damaged controlled her motor skills. The portion of the brain that controls thought was intact. That means she had awareness.
Second, the consulting doctors who examined Terri at Humana Northside observed that the basal ganglia were intact. The portion of her brain that controls hearing was also left undamaged.
Third, as was observerd by the doctor on Code Blue Blog, Terri's brain was not in that bad a condition and was not as described by George Felos and others who were so keen to carry out their task of putting her to death for no other reason than Michael said "I am going to kill you". They helped him to keep the only real promise that was ever made.
From what I am reading on page 15 of this autopsy report, there is evidence that the work of the damaged Purkinje cells was taken over by the Bergmann Astroglia. This appears to be evidence that her brain was operating at a higher level than the murderers were prepared to accept and admit. There was evidence of damage to the spinal cord too - the report says that the crossed and uncrossed fibres of the corticospinal tract were abnormal. There was degeneration of the posterior columns.
Some of these comments seem to be at odds with the first few pages of the autopsy where it was indicated that there was no long term spinal cord damage. I suspect that this is one of the areas of contention in the report.
I do not dispute most of the conclusions of Dr. Nelson but I am willing to have a go at his less than positive research into the fact that this woman was deprived of therapy for something like 12 years (the period after receiving money from the malpractice suit).
Since I am a trauma victim, not of domestic violence but injury resulting from accidents, I know that in the long term effects of a lack of exercise. There is one injury that I seem to have in common with Terri, that of the fracture in the lower back. Mine occurred because I slipped and fell down some stairs, fracturing and dislocating my coccyx at the same time. I have just gone through several months of intense pain in that region (again) and I know that if my body does not get the necessary degree of exercise, therapy and stretching in particular then I will get worse. At the almost 29 year mark since the original accident I have evidence of arthritis in that region and yes I have problems with sitting down. If that region is not getting adequate therapy then the degeneration accelerates. It is the same in other areas of my body that have been traumatized as a result of several falls and motor car accidents. The other major area of my body that is involved is my neck due to the damage caused by stretched ligaments and a torn neck muscle.
Terri was quite young when whatever happened in her apartment deprived her of the ability to ever get up and walk again. If she had the proper therapy I do believe that other portions of her brain could have been trained to assist her to gain some extra function. She was denied that opportunity.
This is why this case is extraordinary. It is not a private family matter. It is very much a public matter because the sole intention of making the request to continue the murder of Terri was based upon the belief of helping the voluntary euthanasia movement to continue the impetus of getting rid of the unwanted people in society. Just deprive them of water and food. They cannot feel a thing etc etc.
Wrong. Terri could feel everything. There was nothing wrong with the auditory portion of her brain and yes she could hear what was going on around her. She was responding with coldness to Michael Schiavo, and with warmth to her carers, family and friends.
This case is going to prove the beginning of the end of the Culture of Death because we now know the lengths to which they will go to bring about death. They went too far by ordering the death of Terri Schiavo.
To Maggie,
I am sorry you have had a difficult life.
HHL,
there is no need to feel sorry for the fact that I have had a pain where it hurts to sit down.
Sometimes there are things that we cannot control and accidents just happen to be one of those things. Having been born with a very slight defect in my feet, I have had a tendency to fall over. This tendency has aggravated the trauma over the years.
However, the physcial trauma from an accident is not comparable to the psychological abuse that was endured by Terri Schindler ( I have dropped that other name, it is a lie to use that other name)after she experienced some form of trauma in her apartment.
The mere fact that I am acutely aware of the fact that she did undergo physical trauma that did not show up (which is typical in more than 60 per cent of attempted strangulation cases) followed by a further 15 years of torture at the hands of a man who cared only for himself, is an indication that Terri's trauma has been very real.
My own awareness of the effects of trauma has helped me to understand some of the nuances of this case. That is all. I can handle the effects of the injuries. On the other hand the estranged husband of Terri wanted to make sure that the job he started was completed.
I have been asking further questions about the autopsy report. I am not satisfied with any report in the press that continues to make false claims about some of Terri's cognitive abilities, despite her disability. Her basal ganglia was intact and her auditory pathway was not affected by any trauma - that means she could hear. Other cells in her brain had taken over some of the function of the cells that had been shocked into dying prior to her death - that is also a sign of higher function.
This was not a case of brain death. The problem is that there were people who wanted this woman dead and they stooped to the lowest levels to force her death.
This was clearly wrong.
Were all you speculations about Terri's condition true, then of course it would have been wrong to end her life. Neither I, nor anyone I know, would disagree.
There are two points of disagreement.
1. That is not her condition. The evidence, both before and after the autopsy, indicate that your speculations are false.
2. I (and apparently a substantial number of Americans) think that since that is not her condition, and also think she did not want to live in that condition, that it was not wrong to end her life. Indeed, we think that is to respect her.
We clearly disagree about 1. I am virtually sure we disagree about 2. as well.
To be sure, let me once again put the question to you: if she were in a persistent vegetative state and had clearly expressed a wish not to live were she in such a state, would it have been OK to end her life?
Why won't you answer this fairly simple question? If you don't like asking it about Terri, ask it about some John Doe, for surely you would admit there are people out there for whom it IS true.
Can they reasonably expect others to respect their wishes and end their lives?
I can see HHL that you have not examined the facts of other cases either. What is not right for Theresa Schindler is also not right for others who have been left in a severely brain damaged state.
First, I will speak from experience concerning a very dearly loved great aunt who suffered a stroke and was rendered brain damaged, and who lived in a nursing home until her death. She was semi-conscious but she could not recognize certain members of the family. That was after the first stroke. She was given good nursing care until her death by natural causes.
Second I will use Mae's case, where she was also elderly when diagnosed with a severe heart condition. Mae had a Medical Direction that spelled out precisely what she wanted. Her granddaughter attempted to have her starved and dehydrated to death against her wishes. I am very familiar with this particular case. In the end, thankfully Mae received treatment for her heart condition, and then she died as the result of a stroke (with food in her belly).
The third case I will cite is that of a woman who signed a living will, and as she lay in the hospital she pleaded to be given food and water but her reqests were ignored. This is unconscionable in my view. Food and water should not have been denied.
Then there are other cases where the power over medical matters had been given to a family member but the state intervened and appointed a money hungry guardian. The family member won in the end, but the guardian was willing to starve the woman to death.
I can cite many other cases of elderly and disabled abuse where guardians have in fact stolen the estate of the individual and the people concerned have been on the receiving end of the kind of treatment given to Terri Schindler.
So my answer is "NO". It is not OK to follow such a directive. The medical profession should be following standards that pertain to the necessary preservation of life.
We cannot and must not play God. People in pain do get depressed and depression is often clouded with suicidal thoughts. Anyone who is living with pain needs to be comforted with compassion and empathy, not by dispassionate people who are all too willing to end the life of someone that they consider to be useless to society.
This is an issue that is not about cancer patients, or even patients with motor neurone disease. It is about what is right medically and ethically.
It bugs me to know that the people who are so gung ho about the rights of animals, who get upset and claim that a chicken in a battery cage can feel pain, and who continue to behave like lawless thugs (which they are) are the same ones who deny human rights to the newborn, newly conceived, the elderly, sick, disabled and dying.
What they espouse is a false compassion and they suck people in through the use of clever words that hides their intent to kill as many people as possible.
Perhaps you need to address the potential for criminal fraud that comes from the existence of these living wills as well as the guardianship abuse cases that are on ther ise.
http://www.ewtn.com/vnews/getstory.asp?number=58120
27-June-2005 -- Catholic News Agency
NEUROLOGIST DISCREDITS SCHIAVO AUTOPSY REPORT, SAYS SHE DIED
'HORRIFIC' DEATH
CHICAGO, USA, June 27 (CNA) - A neurology expert has discredited
several aspects of Terri Schiavo's autopsy report, released earlier
this month, saying that the main cause of death listed in the report
is inaccurate.
Dr. Thomas Zabiega, MD, has said the medical examiners' claims that
Schiavo died from anoxic-ischemic encephalopathy are wrong.
"She died of starvation and dehydration, plain and simple, although
many of the ischemic and anoxic changes may have resulted from the
chemical abnormalities caused by the starvation and dehydration," he
wrote.
The 41-year-old physically disabled and brain-damaged Florida woman
died March 31, almost two weeks after her feeding tube was removed.
She had fallen into this state after she suffered a heart attack in
1990 that left her without oxygen to her brain for several minutes.
Her husband won a years-long court battle to remove her feeding tube,
sparking an international right-to-life debate in the process.
"She did not die from the injuries that caused her to have brain
damage, rather from the enforced starvation and dehydration," said
Zabiega. "The examiner only notes she died from dehydration in one of
the last sentences of the report, but does not list it as the main
cause of death."
The neurologist and vice president for legislative affairs of the
Chicago Physicians' Guild questioned whether medical examiners were
making this claim in order to exonerate the issue of how she died.
"If I have lung cancer and someone gives me cyanide, I died from the
cyanide, not the lung cancer," he said.
The neurologist added that osteoporosis, joint degeneration, and
muscle atrophy that medical examiners found in Schiavo were not the
result of anoxic-ischemic encephalopathy either, but "a direct result
of lack of physical therapy and lack of activity that Terri Schiavo
was not allowed to have due to her husband's orders."
The report also indicated that Schiavo's heart, lungs, kidneys, liver,
and gastrointestinal tract were "normal except for changes secondary
to the dehydration/starvation process," Zabiega noted.
He concluded, therefore, that Schiavo "would have probably lived for
many more years without any major health problems" had she received
proper food and hydration.
The autopsy report stated that Schiavo had no memory - because her
hippocampus was damaged - and no cognitive ability. But Zabiega noted
the "relative preservation" of the frontal and temporal lobes.
"Complex cognition and executive decisions as well as emotional output
are often associated with the frontal lobe, while the temporal lobes
are often associated with memory, as well as hearing," he explained.
"Therefore Terri Schiavo's ability to think, react with appropriate
emotions, memory, and hearing could have all be intact at the time the
feeding tube was removed," he stated. The same may have been true
about her memory since damage to the hippocampus could have been
caused by the dehydration and starvation, he added.
Schiavo may have been cortically blind, but there was no way of saying
if the preserved occipital lobe had taken over and whether there was
macular sparing, allowing her to see up close, the neurologist said.
This would make it possible that Schiavo could indeed see her mother
and react to her.
What Zabiega says is "most horrific" is that Schiavo had only
acetaminophen (Tylenol) found in her blood. This means that she was
not receiving appropriate amounts of morphine after her feeding tube
was removed and that "she died a horrific, painful, excruciating death
that would be worse than any form of execution used in modern times,"
he said.
Need a grand jury.
Post the following to as many blogs asking them to feature it as a regular post.. also when contacting jeb via fax and e-mail include this, and also spread as far and wide as possible:
Michael Schiavo's 30-70 Minute Gap Exploded Away Regarding 911 Call Seeking Assistance for Terri Schiavo
Charts prove a much larger gap in which Michael Schiavo did not seek help and also prove his various testimonies are merely concocted stories made up while under oath,.
Michael Schiavo asserts on Terri Schiavo's tombstone that she departed this earth on February 25, 1990 but failed to tell that to the medical malpractice jury when seeking and winning millions of dollars for her care. Charts explode away 30-70 minute gap mentioned by authorities regarding Terri's "collapse" and time Michael Schiavo waited in seeking help and add an additional 2 hour gap. In fact Michael's accounts proven to be no more than stories hiding his complicity in her collapse. See the charts:
Demand a grand jury! Make sure the special prosecutor is not Bernie McCabe, Everett Rice, Charlie Crist or some other shill of the FL cover-up cabal.
http://tekgnosis.typepad.com/tekgnosis/2005/06/terri_schiavo_c.html
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
The report and letter from the prosecutor:
http://www.sptimes.com/2005/07/08/Tampabay/Result_of_the_State_A.shtml
http://www.sptimes.com/2005/07/07/Tampabay/Letter_from_State_Att.shtml
Unfortunately, given what I seen so far of this discsussion, I suspect this will change few people's mind.
Why do I think that? Because I have yet to any regular blogger admit an error; I haven't seen even the whisper of a suggestion from a regular blogger that they might be wrong about any aspect of this case. Or that the evidence to hand has changed their views one iota.
I find this disturbing and unfamiliar. I am a fairly careful chap, but I frequently err.
If you study the history of science and inquiry, you know that if someone embraces a view that CANNOT be falsified, then you can infer that the view is blind ideology; it is not based on evidence.
When people scurry to find ways to discount all evidence that counts against their case; when they reinterpret ALL the data, no matter how bizarre; when they charge that the other side is guilty some complex conspirary (even when the chief players are poltical cousins); whose only response is to firmly (and often shrilly) restate their conclusions, you should ask yourself: what possibly COULD change that person's mind?
The answer, I fear, is nothing.
This bodes ill for having civil, productive discussions. Discussion becomes a charade. That is so sad.
It also bodes ill for those who steadfastly refuse to see or acknowledge evidence against their views.
They do not learn from experience, and can often be used by others for political means.
HHL
not everyone who believes that there is a cover up in the Schiavo case are conspiracy theorists.
I can assure you that in the case of the disappearance of Azaria Chamberlain, for example, I was very much on the other side, and never believed that Lindy Chamberlain killed her baby. However, here in Australia, at the time, the general consensus of the public happened to be that Lindy was guilty of the murder of her child.
When Lindy Chamberlain was placed on trial for the murder of her daughter I read the newspaper reports about the evidence given in the trial. There were inconsistencies, and there was strong evidence that did not support the prosecution case. One of the inconsistencies in that case occurred because the forensic pathologist made a number of errors and drew a wrong conclusion about a substance that she had tested. She claimed that the substance in the car was fetal blood. It was later proved that the substance that she claimed to be fetal blood was sound deadener. I was totally shocked, considering the inconsistencies of the evidence that the jury found Lindy Chamberlain guilty. I continued to maintain that she was innocent and finally I was vindicated in that belief, and Lindy was also vindicated. The truth always remained the same - a dingo took the baby.
When I first heard about the Schiavo case I was not interested at all. In fact I went along with the MSM story that she was comatose through her own fault. However, earlier this year I took a second look at the case and I discovered a lot of little known facts - this was information that is not easily available through the MSM.
Unfortunately some of the information I discovered was on a web site where the owners are very much into conspiracy theories, to the point that they are over the top with their comments. It was from this site that I learned quite a bit about the beliefs of the Scientologists (there is a slight connection to scientology in this case but as far as I can see the connection remains tenuous at best)
I read the detail on the case, and I began to look into a lot of facts concerning what happened to Terri. At the same time I learned about another case, Lisa McPherson, who was dehydrated to death as a result of her connection to scientology. The photograph of her dehydrated body is available on the Internet. I have viewed the photographs and it was not a pretty sight.
As I continued to read about the saga of the Schiavo case I learned that there are doctors, such as Dr Ron (the quack) Cranford who charge to go to a patient and declare that person PVS. In Terri's case he was used for this very purpose. He spent no more than 45 minutes with Terri. He did not follow his own protocol for determining the state of a patient. He did not order any tests, but he declared her to be PVS and a candidate for death.
Quite often I hear the lie about the number of doctors who claimed that Terri was PVS and those who said otherwise. However, we are up against a problem with definition because there are at least three stages of PVS, and only one of those stages is fatal or terminal. Terri was not at that stage.
I applaud the job done by Jon Thogmartin in the autopsy report. I do believe that he attempted to maintain a high level of independence in coming to his conclusions. The report is correct when it states that at death Terri's brain was consistent with PVS. However, an autopsy cannot determine the stage of PVS, since it is more than likely that she was minimally conscious.
The last neurologist who examined Terri was Dr. Chesire. He spent a longer period of time with Terri as she lay on her bed starving and dehydrating to death. He went there believing that she was comatose and he came away with a change of opinion. His opinion, since it conflicted with Cranford, Felos and Schiavo was ridiculed by many, including the pro-euthanasia MSM.
There are lots of questions that were never answered. However, one can still draw conclusions as a result of the neglect of Terri over a period of at least 12 years. This case is extraordinary because a man was allowed to neglect his wife to the point that she was denied any form of therapy. If the nurses were caught giving her range of motion therapy, let alone placing a wash cloth in her fingers to her her contractures, they were threatened with the sack.
There is definitely a hallmark of conspiracy in this case. There is a wall of silence that no one seems to be able to penetrate. However, there have been some witnesses coming forward with information that has given us a glimpse of the real Michael Schiavo. One former girlfriend (Cindy Brasher) stated in her affidavit that he was mean and that when they broke up he stalked her to the point of running her off the road.
If Michael Schiavo did that to Cindy, then how do you know that he did not give Terri a beating over something as simple as spending money on a hairdo? How do you know that he did not get extremely angry when he caught Terri trying to sneak out of the apartment as she attempted to leave him forever?
I am curious about why he thought it necessary to place on the gravestone: "I kept my promise". That phrase has a very ominous sound to it. For I suggest that the only promise that was ever made happened to be "I am going to kill you".
A man who cannot remember his mother's name, who cannot remember when he arrived in Florida or when he got married could not possibly have such a clear memory of his wife's wishes, unless of course he was coached on exactly what he had to say. In that case there is probable evidence of consipiracy to murder Terri via a judicial decision so that he would not have to face criminal charges for the torture of his wife.
The sick people are those like Wesley who wanted to keep Terri 'alive' but did not campaign as hard for people like Allan (www.save-allan.org) to get the double-lung transplant he needed to live.
BTW, the autopsy proved the pro-lifers wrong on this issue. Terri lost her cognitive functions - the very things that make people people.
Post a Comment
<< Home