Skip to comments.Mother fights hospital to keep baby on life support (Terri's Legacy)
Posted on 06/01/2006 7:20:27 AM PDT by 8mmMauser
click here to read article
Digressing? I simply took your criteria and applied it to Terri's case.
If that makes you uncomfortable to the point where you feel a need to (mis)characterize my actions, so be it.
How could it? The autopsy report clearly stated, "The Persistent Vegetative State and the minimally conscious state are clinical diagnoses, not pathological ones".
The pathologist is not in a position to make that call.
Assuming she had wanted to, of course. Which she didn't.
"That in itself is strong evidence that Terri was in at least a "minimally conscious" state."
No it's not. The pathologist is in no position to determine minimally conscious state. He stated that in his autopsy report.
Baby Daniel was pronounced "almost" brain dead, not by doctors (who would not use such a term among themselves) but by state bureaucrats. That often means they want to cut him up for his organs. Very profitable business.
"Almost" brain dead doesn't mean anything, medically. "Brain dead" doesn't really mean "dead," either. It means a comatose, unreflexive condition thought -- thought -- to be irreversible.
The tests for it are quite horrible. The patient is banged around brutally (people who have watched it tell me they cringed). The docs try to cause pain, put ice water in the ears, shine bright lights in the eyes and suchlike. (See this site for a detailed discussion, especially the warnings and pitfalls: Testing for death by brain criteria. ) The tests are to insure (as best we can) that the patient is utterly unresponsive in brain function. (For my two cents, the stricter the standards, the better.)
Note that one of the criteria is lack of brain-stem function, meaning that the patient cannot breathe unaided. A patient who can breathe is not "brain dead." Karen Ann Quinlan was not "brain dead." Neither is Sunny von Bulow, possibly the victim of attempted murder by insulin poisoning in a famous case in 1980, who is comatose but is still alive and lovingly tended all these years later.
In the end we don't really know. It is impossible to test a brain from the outside and find "mind" on the inside. Mind is and always has been a mystery. It is certainly possible that "brain dead" patients are aware of their surroundings. Occasionally one of them wakes up and says so. Perhaps such a person was a misdiagnosed case in the first place and the others are truly "mind dead." Perhaps not. We don't know.
Of course it is. You entirely missed the point. Terri's longevity was the medical evidence that her mental activity was higher than PVS. She had substantially outlived expectancy for PVS. (And was given at least ten more years by the M.E. on top of that.)
Your thinking here is a fountain of confusion.
You said she was dead. Now you say she wanted to die. But you see, according to you, she already did die. She could not have wanted to die because she was already dead, you said. She could not have been dead because she didn't want to go on living, you said.
Her physical condition was an indicator of her mental ability. Uh-huh.
It seems to me that her physical condition was a tribute to how well Michael took care of her.
That's what medical statistics say, yes. That Terri survived so long, and would have lived a good deal longer if she hadn't been put to death, is certainly strong evidence that she was misdiagnosed as PVS.
No, it's the way you're interpreting those medical statistics.
If the statistics say that an average PVS patient lives 10 years, and Terri lived for 15, you're saying Terri does not have PVS. I'm speechless when faced with this kind of "logic".
Such as trying to kill her by denying her antibiotics for her urinary tract infection? You remember, he testified that he had indeed tried to kill her (caring man that he is).
Women do love their excruciating urinary tract infections! Right, ladies? And they find it SO romantic when their husband makes them die in agony! Right, ladies?
Nope. What I said is above for anyone to read. Your interpretations are unnecessary and incorrect.
>> I'm speechless
Is that a promise?
After this testimony, did the judge then remove Michael as her guardian? The fact that he didn't should put this "murderous act" in perspective.
It does not make Michael's admitted attempt to kill his wife any less illegal.
It does put the judge into perspective, doesn't it? Judges are perforce officers of the court, sworn to uphold the law. Here it is uncontested that Michael flouted the law, and that he admitted it under oath. The judge did nothing. Thank you for that fascinating detail.
Future historians will have a field day tracking the court bias in the Terri Schiavo case.
"thus proving that the original "futile care" decision was the correct one."
Denying medical care to a sick person isn't justified simply because they died while still receiving care. We all go naturally at some point. There's a distinct difference between Ms. Clark's natural death and the hospitals desires to kill her.
Murder by ommision is never a "correct" decision.
I'm not interested in killing anyone.
Something stinks about hospitals only claiming futility on cases that lack any factors to solicit public sympathy.
Note: Sun Hudson's mother was quite crazy, claiming that Sun was conceived by the Sun itself.
Spiro Nikolouzos,Yenlang Vo, and Tirhas Habtegiris=all immigrants.
Like lions- they never hunt for the fastest, healthiest prey, but go after the weakest and easiest victim. They never go for the upper-middle class white soccer moms, but those who are poor, disenfranchised or otherwise lack support. The futility vultures choose their victims carefully, playing on the prejudices, moral bankruptcy and apathy of our culture of death.
A brain damaged child is still a child. You don't throw away human beings like bruised tomatoes because of a disability.
Your hyperbole is not applicable to the discussion. Hospitals are free to determine who they will treat and who they will ask to seek care at another facility. An ethics committee at Houston Hermann Hospital made a decision that Ms. Clark was terminal, and that another facility would have to be sought for long-term care for her.
The decision was delayed, and during that delay, Ms. Clark died. It appears that, in fact, she was terminal.
Hospitals always give families the option to find a facility that will provide the care they need for their loved one.
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.