Terri's Autopsy

Mr. Thogmartin has told us that, after fifteen years of a patient lying in bed recovering, Terri Schiavo might have fully recovered from any abuse she endured. Miraculously he was also unable to see whether or not this person had, fifteen years ago, a heart attack or not. Of course, I’ve never met anyone whose cardiologist was ever unsure, say 24 hours after the incident, that a heart attack had occurred or not. No, in my experience cardiologists can tell you precisely how many nano-seconds the heart attack lasted.

Continuing, the Pinellas medical examiner tells us that a person's brain, which consists of 85% water, can, oh my gosh, shrink when dehydrated for 12 days while simultaneously being starved to death.

Last, he reveals that this excruciating process could leave a person blind, actually subjecting their brain to being killed as a horrible consequence of the rest of them being killed.

Friends, that's all we really know from the autopsy of Terri Schiavo. There’s nothing particularly observably wrong with anything Mr. Thogmartin did. He is simply an observer reporting the present state of the laboratory truths: brain shrunk, brain was killed, person was thirsted to death, fifteen years of living recovery erases much data. He is a scientist performing an observation today on remains which were subjected to most nasty kind of stresses and trying to say something credible about facts a decade and a half in the past. We have been deprived, by the Pasco good ole boy club, of the normative scientific process of peer review – neither science nor the law of Moses allows anything to be established without at least two observations of the same phenomena.

So what does this report mean? It means absolutely nothing. All of its substance could have been easily predicted before the report based on publicly known facts and it is the testimony of only one individual – it cannot be confirmed or denied.

What does mean something is that these no-brainer findings are being used to perform an acquittal on the national conscience – and that is vile. The argument being forwarded by the witlessly evil pontificals is that: because after being thirsted to death her brain shrunk it means that her brain must have been shrunk for all the fifteen years before that. But regardless - proof of brain damage is proof enough that we were perfectly OK to have murdered her. NPR smarmily danced around demanding an apology from Bill Frist who had the audacity to assert that a diagnosis of persistent vegetative state was hard to make.

That she was brain damaged and that thirsting people for 12 days shrinks the brain.

But what you don’t understand dear reader is that the smear campaign to anesthetize the American conscience to this murder needed some exalted “science” to say that proof that she was, gasp, blind means it was OK to murder her too. Blind on March 29^th 2005 or blind in March 1997? Doesn’t matter, shut up.

But the absolutely damning proof is that we can now see that she was brain damaged irrecoverably! The fact that the brain damage was “irreversible” (yeah when I’m dead on an autopsy table and my brain is in a jar, its pretty irreversible too) is equated in the popular press to mean Terri was a total loss like your car when you wreck it. See? She couldn’t have been taught the full webster’s dictionary again so...it’s OK to have even shot her! That my friends is the smarmy argument being foisted on us by the devil Felos and his apologists. And it is an evil that thinking people must forcefully resist in word and deed. They act as though proof of disability is proof of murderability – and they want you to nod your head as if you agree.

Friends, we have to cut to the quick here: this meaningless autopsy is trying to mislead the public mind away from core moral truth which is: it is evil to starve and thirst to death an innocent defenseless injured woman NO MATTER THE EXTENT OF HER DISABILITY. If we begin to make ANY disability worthy of judicial murder ALL DISABILITIES will be under threat of preemptive claim to the authority of judicial murder. They argued before hand that “substantial” disability was enough to murder her - “substantial” being a term they defined. They search afterward and announce that “substantial” disability existed – safe knowing they can define “substantial” up or down as needed. Then they celebrate everyone’s relief that their moving-target definition was reached. They stamp Terri as “worthless”, stamp the file “closed”, pop their champaign and cheer Michael Schiavo’s cheer, “When will that bitch die?”

Expensive weasels now pound one another gently on their Brookes Brothers backs comforting each other that they were right all along: whew! She was worthless! Thank God!

But God sits in judgment of them and knows that they were never given power over the life and death of the innocent. The Almighty knows that all men were created equal and endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights. Yes - God knows there will be hell to pay.

This is a smear job on the worth of Terri Schiavo and is a failed attempt to exorcise the conscience of all those who cheered her death or who sat meaninglessly by and did nothing. It is just another damnation in the string of evils spewing from the contagion that is Felos-Greer. But we don’t fall for it. The smarmy bar boys of the Pasco-Pinellas watering hole cannot convince us of their righteousness. Couch it in as much lawyer-speak as you want; the man on the street knows they committed murder.

Holocaust survivors have observed that holocaust denials are like "double killing" because they erase even the memory of the horror. Yet we who remain are responsible for all the more deliberately holding a megaphone before Terri's Blood which cries out from the ground, saying:

You state that the brain damage is old. You state that many samples were taken. You state these with confidence. But the only testimony that we have that these things are true is the report from Dr. Thogmartin. I consider him to be a single credible witness without the ability to confirm him. What you say may be utterly true. But so what? These facts are being forwarded as justification killing a woman. Hence, one unconfirmable testimony is not sufficient. Is a person sentenced to death based on 1 witness? Is a scientific phenomena confirmed that way? Yes, a fact is a fact irrespective of how many discover it. But a fact is not admissible persuasive testimony without at least 2 observers of the same.

Secondly, even assuming these things are true you have avoided the core of my post: namely that the moral argument hasn't changed at all to discover great brain damage. We knew she was irreversibly brain damaged before. We get a credible report from a trained observer that this was so.
So what? Murder her then? Tell our consciences it was OK to have murdered her?

1. If Dr. Throgmartin's analysis of the samples and other physical evidence is correct, Mrs. Shiavo had been dead for fifteen years.
2. Allowing an empty shell to cease functioning is not murder.

Or, at least, that is the way I see things.

As I am certain you disagree, and that you shall not be persuaded by anything short of a direct revelation from the Almighty, I now bid you a pleasant evening and retire from this thread.

Welcome to Free Republic.

"Incremental-ism" has historically been an effective weapon against a freedom loving people. Most of us here readily recognize it when it takes the form of taxation, regulation, gun control, and lately, property rights. {and rightly so}
When the state takes an innocent life and then pronounces it's evil to be good, this is incremental-ism in leaps and bounds. We ignore this at our own peril.
Who gains power from this? Government.
Who loses? We do.

FR Searches:

On Schaivo:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/search?m=all;o=time;s=schaivo

On Terri:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/search?m=all;o=time;s=Terri

On Schiavo:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/search?m=all;o=time;s=Schiavo

On Schindler:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/search?m=all;o=time;s=Schindler

(The correct spelling is Schiavo.)

Your points about the autopsy are well-made. Exactly how many twelveth day death-by-dehydration have been reliably medically examined? Exactly how much does a brain diminish by the multiple starvations (three) Terri was forced to endure?

Despite the denials -- and its easy to be a denier, to admit murder by Judge is VERY threatening to the comfort of most, and people are VERY comfort-seeking. The truth uncomfortable rarely is seen when shadowed by a more comfortable option.

Finest Prout,

1) If Dr. Thogmartin's analysis of the samples and other physical evidence is correct, Mrs. Shiavo had been: badly
brain damaged for an unknown amount of time.

1a) There is limited science to demonstrate when in the course
of that 15 years that damage occurred.
1b) As per another post: there is no science included in the
analysis to determine whether being starved/dehyrdated
(once fatally) caused the observed damage.
1c) The autopsy clearly sets forth (ref: World Net Daily)
that the cognitive portions of the brain were intact
whereas vision, motor portions, were deadest.
1d) Testimony from 25+ nuerologists and a Nobel prize
winning cognitive therapist oppose the conclusion
you reach as well, though your conclusion may be
objective and reasonable based on your view of the
autopsy.

2) Hence: at very least you and I do not know she was
an empty shell.

There is suggestive evidence she was. There is far more
persuasive suggestive evidence that she was not.
But in the presence of the suggestive, we must
definitively err on the side of life - can you imagine
your own self in a situation? A mind alive and
a body struggling?

And it is therefore a startling bit of terror for
a judge or an autopsy to declare the moral worth of
her person murderable. She "might have been"
non-cognizant therefore wipe her out? In all objectivity
"might have been" is as much as you or I might say
from Dr. Thogmartin's testimony.

The autopsy clearly sets forth (ref: World Net Daily) that the cognitive portions of the brain were intact whereas vision, motor portions, were deadest.

Incorrect. the term used is "relatively preserved"

as in: the frontal lobe structures were in much better shape than the occipital lobes. Not in any way an indication that the frontal lobes were "intact" - as the occipital lobes were essentially utterly ruined, ANY level of preservation in comparison to such total ruination would be "relatively preserved", just as the value of 1 is an infinite multiple of the value of zero.

Now, an illustration - say you have 1000 computers arranged in a network, using five routers. The network suffers an EMP attack which slags 200 computers and all five routers. The fact that you have 800 operable computers does not in any way indicate that you have an operational network. IIRC, the autopsy clearly indicated that the routing structures of the brain, especially the Pons, were slagged. No network. No mind. No Teri.

Again, IIRC, the section on the pyramides proves the damage is several years to over a decade old. So much for that.

"Nobel prizewinning" oh, no, not that again.

I repeat my observation: I am certain you disagree, and that you shall not be persuaded by anything short of a direct revelation from the Almighty, I now bid you a pleasant evening and retire from this thread.

so, again, adieu

I think you are quite vigorous for a retiring individual actually! But I enjoy your many emergences from retirement more than I enjoy Mike Tyson's.

1) You insist "relatively preserved" cognitive sections over "intact" congitive sections. Ok - let's cede that to you.
Again: if your heart was relatively preserved on autopsy and
we had killed you because we had determined your heart was just no good, with this be a vindication for us? Again you have focused on honing facts which do not bear on the moral conclusion. Can we admit that we do not know whether she was wide awake in there?

2) You cede that the observed damage could be as little as
a few years old. Fine. Such as from the first time they
tried to starve & dehydrate her to death? Or from the second? Or are we forced to again admit we don't know?

3) Nobel prize winners are a burden to include in a
discussion of scientific authority. As are expert
testimonies. I ought not irrationally inject them again?

4) Your confidence that the human brain and some
man made system, with which you are familiar, are entirely
analagous is...? I think the casual observer may note
that there is little necessary correlation between the two.
One is an entirely known and controlled phenomenon.
The other is unknown, a subject of research,
unbelieveably complicated, mysterious. If you were suddenly to
work on IBM's Blue Gene and were to discover its
user interface to have crashed, would you conclude
that its operating system and kernel were entirely
beyond repair? And so it would be of no loss to have the entire machine trashed & recycled for gold & silver? Arbitrary analogy by free association
can lead the reader anywhere. So while it inspires
your own confidence to insist she was a computer network
objectivity has to lead us towards humbly admitting: we
just didn't know.

And if we do not know, we had better not murder.

And if we DID know, we had better not murder as well.

Again: if your heart was relatively preserved on autopsy and we had killed you because we had determined your heart was just no good, with this be a vindication for us?

false analogy. If, on autopsy, it was found that my heart was terribly scarred, and my liver was totally liquified, the report would indicate that my heart was "relatively preserved" in comparison to my liver.

get the point?

As to the morality of the issue, for me it is simple: No network = no mind = no person home = not murder.

Your casual observer can make many notes, all of them incorrect. There are significant similarities between an electronic data exchange and routing network and the cellular routing network of the brain, the most significant of which is: No routers = no network.

get it?

I hope so, but doubt you will allow yourself to do so.

In any case: good night.

Don't mean to butt in, but I'll save Rockaway the trouble.

Dr. William Hammesfahr was never awarded a Nobel prize. He was never nominated for the Nobel prize. That was a fiction he perpetuated on his website to pump up his resume.

He tried to amp up his credibility with a lie. Instead, he revealed that he has no credibility at all.

Any argument that relies on Hammesfahr for support is automatically a loser.

Well, how happy I am you have now collapsed to rhetoric since the logic is over.

If your liver was liquefied, your heart scarred, and we had killed you because we had insisted your heart was no good we would be thoroughly able to justify having killed you. You agree. Splendid. Forgive me but the premise wasn't about the liver. It was about the heart.

Your second statement is merely religious irrationality. YOU BELIEVE a brain is a 100 base T network because it looks like one to you, therefore it absolutely is one and so killing Terri Schiavo is no more than pulling the wall wort from your cisco. Such free association is your prerogative but I wouldn't want you making diagnoses of me. You'd be too liable to skip evidence and cut straight to prophecy.

As for Hammerwhatshisname, if he isn't then he isn't and
I'll happily stand corrected. There is a massive enough
body of affidavits filed by other neurologists to continue
to support the position. I think I did mention the source so
hats off to the fellow who tracked down the source.

your ignorance of neural anatomy, neurochemistry, and the empirically well demonstrated existence of critical routing structures (pons, amygdala, hippocampus, etc...) in the brain, upon which the brain depends for function, is now fully exposed.

as is the fact that you were quoting second-hand allegations of having a "nobel prizewinner" supporting your position - without bothering to do any fact-checking.

this is good night and good bye.

Your ability to say many goodbyes is almost as strong as your ability to carpet bomb name drop with vocabulary. Yet you always come back after your testy fairwells. Why? If I am so dumb, why feel the need to answer again and again?

I already ceded the nobel-guy if he was wrong. Would you
like me to do it again so you feel better? It's no real loss to my logical position. Only to the posturing & rhetoric about which I don't care.

When evidence isn't on your side, pound the table?

Your freedom from being required to substantiate your faith that a router from Best Buy adequately maps 1-to-1 with the human brain makes it clear that your interest is in making your own analogies, your own vocabularies, appear to be the
important power on the scene...rather than objectivity.

Sad: your whole arguement still rests on your demand that
a brain is a thing totally understood. Everyone knows this
is not true including you. So it must just be pride.
That pride allows no mystery in your life? Everything
must be sujected to mappings you think well defined?

Tell me this. If your brain is a network and you admit that networks unpredictably fail in sections rendering them useless, then is it possible that your brain failed during the process of concluding it was a network? If so is its conclusion in doubt? You don't have to run a complete diagnostic for me to believe you. I'll take it on faith because you are vehement.

Or does logic again admit to us that we just don't know
about your brain?

Or Terri's?

If your brain might not know things about your brain, can
we allow Terri to live because our brains don't know
everything?

Thanks babe. You're lots of fun, but now *I* am done
with your thread!

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Oh! Well, it's OK to have Murdered Her Then.