Jun 15 2005
And?
I listened with much interest today as people talked about the autopsy of Terri Schiavo being released to the public. Of course, most people were dying to find any reason to point to it and go, “See? Michael isn’t such a bad guy, after all!” After all, Michael is a Saint, and the evil Schindler family was inhumane for fighting for Terri’s life while Saint Michael was advocating repeatedly, based on a flippant remark that nobody heard but him and his sister and her husband, that she “wouldn’t want to live that way.”
So let’s go over the autopsy as reported by the Washington Post, because there are some very interesting points made in it.
Point 1:
Although the meticulous postmortem examination could not determine the mental state of the Florida woman, who died March 31 after a judicial and legislative battle over her “right to die,” it did establish the permanence of her physical condition.
Schiavo’s brain damage “was irreversible . . . no amount of treatment or rehabilitation would have reversed” it, said Jon R. Thogmartin, the pathologist in Florida’s sixth judicial district who performed the autopsy and announced his findings at a news conference in Largo, Fla.
That’s wonderful. Of course, it took her dying to know it. I think the proper way to frame this point is as follows. If we are to follow the logic that we always know after death what happens, we might as well let everyone die so we can find out definitively if they can or cannot be treated. Terri did have severe brain damage. I don’t think a single soul on the planet thought otherwise.
Point 2:
Still unknown is what caused Schiavo, 41, to lose consciousness on a winter morning in 1990. Her heart beat ineffectively for nearly an hour, depriving her brain of blood flow and oxygen.
A study of her organs, fluids, bones and cells, as well as voluminous medical records, failed to support strangulation, beatings, a drug overdose, complications of an eating disorder or a rare molecular heart defect. All had been offered as theories over the past 15 years. Thogmartin said the cause will probably never be known.
In other words, the people claiming that Terri had some sort of eating disorder and got what she deserved are no more or less accurate than the folks who thought Michael Schiavo beat the hell out of her. The fact is that any claim made is speculative, but some facts are what they are. Terri’s bone scan from when she checked into the hospital showed numerous broken bones. That is not in dispute at all and never will be. So while we’ll never know what actually caused her to collapse, but we will know that despite what medicine can’t substantiate, medicine did plainly present a picture of a severely traumatized woman, and those trauma were never investigated because Judge Greer believed they were immaterial. Physical trauma heals over time, and an autopsy 15 years later does not prove that she wasn’t abused 15 years ago.
Point 3:
Thogmartin confirmed that Schiavo’s immediate cause of death was “marked dehydration — she did not starve to death.” As measured by the balance of salt and water in body fluids, the dehydration was the most severe he had ever seen, he said.
No kidding? Really? So in other words, her death was not until water was removed. In other words, she would’ve lived had she not been dehydrated. The cause of death was the removal of her water supply. Not brain death. Not cardiac arrest. Not lung failure. Not kidney, liver, or any other organ failing. Dehydration.
Point 4:
The condition of her brain was “consistent with a persistent vegetative state,” said Stephen J. Nelson, a neuropathologist in Winter Haven, Fla., who was consulted by the medical examiner’s office.
Some people argued that Schiavo was in a “minimally conscious state,” a recently formulated condition defined as a notch above “persistent vegetative state.” Both states, however, are diagnosed by examining a living patient. Neither can be confirmed with certainty on the basis of autopsy findings.
In other words, nobody knows or will ever know for sure. Instead, there were conflicting medical reports, and we erred on the side of death.
Point 5:
Although destruction of the “visual cortex” of the brain had left Schiavo blind, it is remotely possible she could have responded to some visual stimuli through a strange phenomenon known as “blindsight.” In that condition, people who have no conscious vision sometimes can direct their eyes toward bright or moving objects because the nerve pathways leading from the eye are intact, even though the destination of those pathways is destroyed.
Or she could have not been blind, and she actually was seeing. Since we’re merely speculating, let’s throw some more into the mix. Note the words “could have.” Had they been certain, they would say “did” or “was.” Instead, they’re trying to explain it away. Maybe they’re right, but “could have” is hardly authoritative.
Point 6:
On the subject of what might have caused Schiavo’s original collapse, Thogmartin was skeptical that it was from an electrolyte imbalance brought on by an eating disorder.
Although Schiavo had lost about 100 pounds by dieting in the years before she went into a vegetative state, she never confessed to an eating disorder and nobody saw behavior suggestive of one. The principal evidence for that theory was a very low level of bloodstream potassium when she was admitted to the hospital in 1990.
Vomiting and laxative abuse can cause low potassium. The normal serum level is 3.5 to 5 millimoles per liter. Schiavo’s was 2, a level that can cause the heart to beat weakly or stop. However, intravenous fluids and the heart-stimulating drug epinephrine — both given in large quantities in an effort to resuscitate her — can lower potassium. He suspects that is the explanation.
So we still don’t know what caused this woman to suddenly go into a hypokalemic state. Interesting, because all the critics of the people who thought Terri should die at the hands of her husband had no problem drawing conclusions. In fact, many web sites authoritatively claimed that Terri collapsed due to a potassium imbalance caused by an eating disorder. Wonder if any of them will even bother to correct the record. I’m not holding my breath.
Conclusion:
“Once you eliminate the potassium problem, you end up with a 26-year-old who used to be heavy, who had lost a lot of weight and is reveling in her new looks,” Thogmartin said. “If that’s a bulimic, there are a lot of bulimics out there. It’s just not enough.”
Understand what Thogmartin is saying and what it means.
There is not enough evidence to prove anything conclusively.
As people pat Michael on the back and use this autopsy to somehow let him off the hook, read the words of the person who presented it. What we learned from this much-hyped autopsy report is that we really don’t know what happened, what caused it, or anything else. I can live with that, actually. However, I will not stand by as this inconclusive report which presented nothing new will be spun into some sort of vindication of her husband’s actions. It wasn’t, it isn’t, and it’ll never be.
Anyone who tries to turn this into a justification for killing Terri Schiavo is only doing so in an effort to redeem their guilty conscience.
June 16th, 2005 at 1:16 am
That’s right Vinny! To hell with Science! There is no in between, it is either 100% or 0%, right?
Oh, you failed to mention (or intentionally left out) the par about how she developed osteoperosis (and she had it so bad her bones basically turned into mush) which was most likely the cause of those borken bones. They also believe she was consuming way too much caffine (a gram a day from all of the tea she drank) which led to her collapse, but because of course there is no physical proof of that (a theory) they will never know for sure.
The problem with people like you Vinny isn’t that you live off of faith. Faith is a good thing. Faith is the belief in something where there is no evidence or proof. No. The problem is Vinny, people like you use faith just for the opposite - the disbelief in something because there is no evidence or proof. Nobody ever said scienece is 100% Vinny. Nobody ever said medicine was mastered (this is why doctors “practice” their profession). But who the hell are we to get involved in provate affairs of families on decisions such as these? On one hand you sit there and talk about the sanctity of marriage (yes, Vinny, I was married catholic, which happens to be a sacrament) and how sacred it is, but on the other hand, all of a sudden a husband cannot make decisions for his incapacitated wife (or vice versa) who told him she would not want to live that way. All of a sudden, we need to spell it the fuck out in mounds of legal documentation because our government is playing politics with peoples lives based on the polotic of the day from a minority view point of right wing radical wack jobs like you. Suddenly, we have zealots trying to make policy for the rest of society based on their crazy view points. Suddenly, those who are casting the stones seem to be without sin. (no vinny, going to confession and swalloing cardboard wafers and drinking cheap kosher wine [yes, many catholic churches buy maneschevitz] does NOT give you or anyone else the right to pass judgment on anyone). And while we are at it, why did Bush, the great Crusader, when he was governer of Texas, sign it into law to give the hospital the right to terminate life support? In one case, a 6 month old boy was taken off of life support, against his parents wishes. (the fact they had no more money to pay the hospital really had NOTHING to do with that now does it). See where I am going with this…
Unlike with Bush and the rest of the GOP, I do not doubt your sincerity to this issue Vinny, as wacked out and ill conceived as it me bay. But, when once dismisses all of science for faith, to me, is an act of defience against God in and of itself.
June 16th, 2005 at 2:25 am
this autopsy report did nothing for me, because ‘justification’ after death seems a bit shallow. when it comes to life and death, UNLESS IT’S WRITTEN AND VERIFIABLE, it’s best to err on the side of life. you don’t have to be religious to believe this way, you just need some humanity. to allow somebody to die of starvation like they did to her is unconscionable. the thought of anybody going through a slow, slow death makes me cringe. the only good to come of this is that she is in a better place now, where nobody can harm her.
hey pilot– can you state your position without the ad hominem bullshit? I’m sure your cliche smack downs make you feel like a better person than “right wing radical wack jobs”, but they do nothing for your credibility. reading your comment resulted in 90 wasted seconds I’ll never get back.
June 16th, 2005 at 7:16 am
Pilot, you’re so wrong about me it isn’t even worth addressing.
June 16th, 2005 at 7:35 am
“After all, Michael is a Saint, and the evil Schindler family was inhumane for fighting for Terri’s life while Saint Michael was advocating repeatedly, based on a flippant remark that nobody heard but him and his sister and her husband, that she “wouldn’t want to live that way.”
That’s as far as I got in this post. When a discussion starts with a straw man of that proportion, you KNOW it’s not going to go anywhere rational.
June 16th, 2005 at 8:15 am
I love when people publicly point out what they aren’t going to read and make sure to provide reasons for why they aren’t going to read it. :roll:.
June 16th, 2005 at 9:02 am
Yeah Vinny, sort of like you and just about every other pro-GOP’er did with Farenheit 911, huh?
June 16th, 2005 at 9:48 am
Yawn…
Sirrios, you’re a wonderful and integral part of this site. Keep up the great insightful comments. I can’t begin to tell you how much your biting wit and amazing analysis of every situation means to me.
June 16th, 2005 at 10:52 am
The reality is Vinny, everyone is a hypocrite to a degree. The fact is Vinny, you and legions like you are more so than most. Your statements above make that so very clear. I agree with Pilots asessment that you are a fool for disregarding science in place of faith. Faith is a good thing to have and even an integral part of dealing with science, but to relay on one and not the other is plain assed foolish.
Nathalie - your argument is so easy to break down, I almost feel sorry for you, but here goes:
“this autopsy report did nothing for me, because ‘justification’ after death seems a bit shallow”
The autopsy was not done to “justify” anything. The autopsy was requested by both parties involved. When it did not “fit” what the Schindlers wanted to hear, they disregarded it. Much like the religious right is doing now. Denial is an easy feeling to accept. Of course you err on the side of life. But the doctors were so sure that they were not going to err on the side of life because all of their tests, all of the data they had showed this woman had NO CHANCE of recovery. The only thing barbaric would be to continue to keep her alive with no quality of life other than to statisfy the selfishness of her desperate parents.
“UNLESS IT’S WRITTEN AND VERIFIABLE”
It is sad when it will take volumes of legal documentation for our wishes to be honroed if any of us become incapacitated because the religious right and the poloticians that apnder to them have brought it to such extreme measures. It is even more sad when a husband or wife, the most trusted confidant in that persons life, cannot make that decision either.
“you just need some humanity”
Why is it so “humane” for us to put down our pets when they are terminally sick and the quality of their life is nil, but we cannot extend that act of love to our own family?
“allow somebody to die of starvation like they did to her is unconscionable.”
Try reading the report (I would say again, but you probably didn’t read it at all). She didn’t die of starvation.
“the thought of anybody going through a slow, slow death makes me cringe.”
She didn’t suffer, she didn’t have the brain function to preceive suffering. That has been determined. Why can’t you accept that? And on the other hand, do you support what our government is doing to he detainees? If so, than your statment proves you are a hypocrite. If not, I apologize.
“the only good to come of this is that she is in a better place now, where nobody can harm her.”
She was not being harmed nor ever has been harmed. The report showed that too.
That was too easy.
June 16th, 2005 at 10:54 am
Even Frist has accepted the report. Why can’t you guys?
June 16th, 2005 at 11:03 am
What’s there to accept? Everything on it is inconclusive and nothing new came out of it. It’s there and it is what it is.
I don’t know whether you’re a graduate of Strand, a student there, a professor, teaching assistant, or staffer, but God help the world if you’re the kind of person with a casual disregard for life that Strand Medical School is turning out. There’s nothing humane about letting a woman sit for a week and dehydrate. Whether or not she “perceived” pain or not, it’s not humane to do to a human being. To compare a human being to a dog is ludicrous. We shouldn’t be “putting humans down” like dogs unless we are 100% certain that’s what they want.
Surely someone attending / teaching at / working for a medical school should know that.