Posted on 06/15/2005 12:27:19 PM PDT by veronica
(1st Add: Includes comments from George Felos, Michael Schiavo's attorney.)
(CNSNews.com) - Terri Schiavo's body did not show any signs of trauma or other criminal activity that would explain her brain injury, nor was there evidence to support previous diagnoses of a heart attack or an eating disorder, the Florida medical examiner who conducted her autopsy said Wednesday. A representative of Terri's family complimented the report, but said it still leaves many questions unanswered.
"She died of dehydration," Dr. Jon Thogmartin, the Florida medical examiner for Pinellas and Pasco counties said, noting that the official cause of death would be listed as "complications of anoxic encephalopathy."
"That's the only diagnosis that I know for sure, is that her brain went without oxygen," he added. "Why? That is undetermined."
George Felos - attorney for Terri's husband, Michael Schiavo - said the report confirms what he has argued all along.
"The courts have found that there was no abuse of Terri, no evidence of abuse, and that's what the medical examiner found," Felos said.
Terri Schiavo collapsed under unknown circumstances in 1990. Michael Schiavo was awarded nearly $2 million in judgments and settlements in a medical malpractice lawsuit claiming that the collapse was caused by a heart attack triggered by a potassium imbalance, caused by an undiagnosed eating disorder, bulimia nervosa. Thogmartin challenged that determination.
"No one observed Mrs. Schiavo taking diet pills, binging and purging or consuming laxatives and she apparently never confessed to her family or friends about having an eating disorder," Thogmartin found. "Furthermore, many other signs of bulimia nervosa were not reported to be present."
Terri was "heavy" as a teenager, according to Thogmartin, and had lost more than 100 pounds after graduation. The eating disorder diagnosis was based on that fact and a low potassium level measured during a blood test about an hour after Terri was first hospitalized.
"Her low potassium level appears to be the main piece of evidence purporting to show that she had an eating disorder," Thogmartin said. But he noted that she received numerous medical treatments when she arrived at the hospital that would have lowered that measurement.
"Thus the main piece of evidence supporting the diagnosis of bulimia nervosa is suspect," he concluded.
"Once you eliminate the potassium problem, which is known in bulimics, you end up with a 26-year-old who used to be healthy, who now lost the weight, is reveling in her thinness now, enjoying her life and doesn't want to gain the weight back," Thogmartin said. "If that's a bulimic, there's a lot of bulimics out there. It's just not enough."
Thogmartin said that because he cannot, "with reasonable medical certainty," ascertain why or how the blood and oxygen to Terri's brain were interrupted, he cannot rule on what started the chain of events that led to her death.
"The manner of death is different from the cause of death. Manner of death is the circumstances of death or how the death came about," Thogmartin said. "Since I don't know the circumstances or can't tell, actually, what the underlying cause is, the manner of death has to be 'undetermined.'"
Other allegations and theories addressed
Thogmartin dismissed the theory that the oxygen depravation to Terri's brain might have been the result of a myocardial infarction, the medical term for a "heart attack," or death of heart muscle from coronary artery disease.
"Mrs. Schiavo's heart was anatomically normal without any areas of recent or remote infarction," he explained.
In response to the allegations that Terri's collapse was the result of a physical assault, Thogmartin noted that she received nearly 30 X-rays, CAT scans and ultrasound examinations during the medical examination that followed her collapse.
"Any fractures - including rib fractures, leg fractures, ankle fractures, skull fractures, spine fractures - that occurred concurrent with her initial collapse would almost certainly have been diagnosed in 1990, especially with the number of physical exams, radiographs and other evaluations she received during her initial hospitalization," Thogmartin said. "No fractures or trauma were reported or recorded."
There was also, Thogmartin said, "no evidence to support or the evidence did not support," various allegations that Terri was abused or neglected after her initial brain injury.
Was Terri in a Persistent Vegetative State?
Thogmartin brought in Dr. Stephen Nelson, an expert in pathology of the brain and central nervous system, as a consultant during the autopsy. Nelson stressed numerous times that the diagnosis of a "Persistent Vegetative State," which was used to justify the removal of the feeding tube that kept Terri alive, "is a clinical diagnosis, it's not a pathologic diagnosis that has precision associated with it." But he did not dispute the finding.
"There is nothing in her autopsy report, in her autopsy that is inconsistent with Persistent Vegetative State," Nelson said, adding that there was evidence to support the finding.
"A normal brain weight for somebody who is approximately 41 years of age ought to be somewhere in the neighborhood of 1,200 to 1,300 grams," Nelson explained. "Her brain is 615 grams and is largely reduced to what is termed granular atrophy ... associated with the loss of blood flow that happened many years prior.
"Those all are consistent with what is reported in the literature for Persistent Vegetative State," Nelson added. "We found nothing that is contrary to what has previously been reported for Persistent Vegetative State."
Nelson compared the physical condition of Terri's brain to that of Karen Ann Quinlan, the New Jersey woman who died in 1985 -- nine years after her parents won a court battle to remove her from a respirator.
"Her brain, Karen Ann Quinlan's, weighed more than Terri Schiavo's brain weighed," Nelson said. "The findings here are, perhaps, worse, even, than Karen Ann Quinlan."
Thogmartin also concluded that Terri's brain injury was irreversible.
"Her brain was profoundly atrophied," the medical examiner concluded. "This damage was irreversible and no amount of therapy or treatment would have regenerated the massive loss of neurons."
Michael Schiavo relied on the diagnosis of a Persistent Vegetative State when he sought permission from the Florida courts to remove Terri's feeding tube. He and two of his relatives testified that Terri had said she would not want to be kept alive in such a condition. Thogmartin discussed the contention by many right-to-life advocates that Terri's family should have been allowed to offer her food and water by mouth after that feeding tube was removed.
"She would not have been able to consume sustenance safely or in sufficient quantity by mouth," Thogmartin said. "Mrs. Schiavo was dependent, therefore, on nutrition and hydration by her feeding tube and removal of her feeding tube would have resulted in her death whether she was fed by mouth or not."
In layman's terms
After a technical explanation of his findings, laden with medical language, Thogmartin was asked to summarize his findings in an exchange with one unidentified reporter:
REPORTER: "In layman's terms, did Terri Schiavo starve to death?"
THOGMARTIN: "No."
REPORTER: "Did she suffer any neglect or abuse?"
THOGMARTIN: "No."
REPORTER: "Will we ever know what caused her death?"
THOGMARTIN: "I don't know."
Pamela Hennessy, spokeswoman for the Terri Schindler Schiavo Foundation and Terri's parents, Bob and Mary Schindler, complimented Thogmartin on his report.
"However, it does seem that the conclusions of his report leave as many unanswered questions as there were previously," Hennessy said. "For instance, if Terri did not suffer bulimia and she had as healthy a heart as Dr. Thogmartin proclaimed, what caused her collapse?
"It doesn't really bring much in the way of closure to [the Schindlers] as far as what happened to their daughter, why this happened in the first place and what could have been done for her," Hennessy concluded.
Thogmartin said he is open to answering those questions.
"It is the policy of this office that no case is ever closed, and that all determinations are to be reconsidered upon receipt of credible new information," he explained.
"In addition to fading memories, the 15-year survival of Mrs. Schiavo after her collapse resulted in the creation of a voluminous number of documents, many of which were lost or discarded over those years," he continued. "Receipt of additional credible information that clarifies any outstanding issues may, or shall cause an amendment to her cause and manner of death."
Logically, then, we shouldn't do anything to extend life artificially, either.
Nobody was libelled, it's not my style.
And I doubt you have deep enough pockets to make a suit against you worthwhile.
Perhaps not but everything in them was earned by the sweat of my own brow as an independent businessman.
But speaking of doubt, there is little doubt in my mind that you support state ordered killings by unusual methods of the severely disabled. Perhaps you have the balls to claim that is libelous and take me to court?
I'd keep an eye on Sean Hannity and possibly Mark Fuhrman, though.
Right, the first amendment doesn't apply to those you disagree with. What a loser.
I have read through this entire thread, and a couple related ones, with growing dismay. I am a newcomer to FR, so perhaps one of you could fill me in. Is this kind of name-calling, sarcasm, and overall disrespect typical here for discussing emotional controversies, or does Schiavo bring out the worst in this forum?
You just proved what we are all complaining about. The death culture wants to become the norm.
The death culture is taking away the constitutional rights of all citizens and in its place making the norm an obligation to die unless they have taken steps to assure their life. Then the death culture just makes laws to circumvent any Living Will.
This is already in the works in Florida law with the
They also state that advanced directives providing for treatment should not carry the same weight as directives withdrawing care, and advanced directives should not compel the physican to provide them, regardless if the patient needs them (Doty). Doty is part of the Florida Bioethics Network as well as Project Grace. One of the changes in the law in CB/CB/SB 2228 includes the Bioethics Network as part of the process of withdrawing care."
Note the progression of laws to allow more and more leeway in determining expendibility of the weak/sick.
(Posted by mercyme)
"The 765 law was revised in 1999 to include "end-stage condition" as a reason to withdraw life prolonging procedures along with persistant vegetative state and terminal illness. This was also put into law. Geldart also redefines terminal illness as not just conditions that cause death, but "irreversible" conditions or conditions "with no reasonable chance of recovery". Felos used this definition for the argument that Terri is terminal because she has a "irreversible" neurological condition with no "reasonable hope for recovery".
Geldart also details the the change in law that permitted nutrition and hydration to be considered medical treatment and the changes to life-prolonging procedures in the absence of advanced directives.
Project Grace member William Leonard then points out a common scenario in Florida in his article: an elderly couple moves from out of state to Florida and then one spouse dies within a year 's time. Leonard then expands the definition of family to a neighbor, friend or caregiver who is now in the position of articulating the wishes of the elderly person to withdraw medical treatment, rather than "some distant relative".
And indeed the 765 law was changed to allow an "friend" to say that the person wanted life-pronging procedures withdrawn without a written directive. This also effected the outcome of Terri's case. Authors of Project Grace advocate for terminal sedation (Basta), withdraw of nutrition and hydration (Basta), and the refusal of physician to provide "futile" treatment as unethical even with advanced directive asking for treatments (Doty).
They also state that advanced directives providing for treatment should not carry the same weight as directives withdrawing care, and advanced directives should not compel the physican to provide them, regardless if the patient needs them (Doty). Doty is part of the Florida Bioethics Network as well as Project Grace. One of the changes in the law in CB/CB/SB 2228 includes the Bioethics Network as part of the process of withdrawing care."
Yes and yes.
No, you were careful to tiptoe around the issue without being explicit.
But speaking of doubt, there is little doubt in my mind that you support state ordered killings by unusual methods of the severely disabled. Perhaps you have the balls to claim that is libelous and take me to court?
You are flat-out wrong, but I won't take you to court for expressing your (uninformed and erroneous) opinion.
Right, the first amendment doesn't apply to those you disagree with.
Slander and libel are not protected speech.
But the information and resources you can access is second to none.
Good luck. :-}
I agree.
Here it is again - since blueblazes has been banned - why we do not know. Apparently some are out to get her.
"ClancyJ - you are 100% correct and I was thinking the same thing when I left posting this afternoon, although you put it far better than I probably wouuld. The autopsy doesn't change a damn thing. It's meaningless regardless of who issues it or what he says. It is pointless arguing about the size of her brain or what was in it. It doesn't change the fact that a women was starved and dehydrated to death by a court order and that is MORALLY WRONG and it will be wrong from now to doomsday regardless of how many autopsy reports are issued.
The autopsy report is irrelevant, both because there is no independent corrobration of the review and analysis and because the bottom line is this:
- Michael Schiavo should not have been allowed to maintain guardianship over his wife with such obvious conflicts of interest as a long term common law wife and 2 children by her, as well as the obvious financial issues. THAT WAS WRONG.
- Her family was willing to take care of her and as there were no indications WHATSOEVER of what her desires were prior to the accident except conflicting reports, the error should have been made on the side of LIFE.
- It was MORALLY WRONG for Judge Greer to issue an order dehydrating and starving this woman to death, regardless of what her alleged condition was. We have had an example recently of a man, a fireman I believe, who was in a coma - in a PVS some doctors said, for several years and who just came out of it right after Terri died and has been talking with his family and recovering. (posted by blueblazes).
- This ME might be able to weigh a brain and discuss how it looks or what he thinks it means, but the bottom line is when we consider cases like that firefighter, we don't know how the brain operates or what a human being really is.
- Who are we to be so arrogant as to horribly kill another person because she disgusts or frightens us or because we think that WE would not want to live in such a way?
What happened to Terri Schiavo was pure unadulterated evil and the truth will come out some day.
Now you death cultists - those of you who could not bear to see this woman alive and who seem so passionately attached to killing her, post until your fingers break. I don't give a damn what you think. You were wrong then, you're wrong now, and you will be wrong 500 years from now.
It was wrong to kill this woman and to kill her in such a brutal and vicious manner." (Posted by blueblazes)
"I see. . .so you are claiming to have all knowledge of the brain, while scientists readily admit they know little."
You don't need to have "all knowledge of the brain" to see what is so plainly obvious in this case. Emotions are very powerful in making a person see what they want to see as opposed to what is reality.
"does Schiavo bring out the worst in this forum?"
Bingo.
Most threads are nowhere near like this.
I tiptoed around nothing. there is no evidence to assert that MS haarmed his widfe. There is plenty of evidence that he was conflcited and should have been removed as guardian to be replaced by next of kin, not the state.
You are flat-out wrong, but I won't take you to court for expressing your (uninformed and erroneous) opinion.
The opinion is informed and the truth. I simply described the TS case where the state ordered a severely disabled woman death by an unusual method, starvation and dehydration. You support it, the shoe fits perfectly and the evidence is rife throughout these threads.
Slander and libel are not protected speech.
The invoking of slander and libel on these threads by people who do not understand that they are terms in law that have specific meaning is simply an effort to squelch debate. Kind of a fascist thing.
Post hoc.
What on earth are you talking about? lol And you call me confused?
Geez. Even the ME yesterday tried to clarify it for you people yesterday. I could have told him it was an insurmountable task.
In the simplest terms possible:
She most definitely had cardiac arrest.
She did not have myocardial infarction (MI).
To say that, because she had no "heart attack" (MI), she did not have *cardiac arrest*, they way they do, is wrong. Period.
They are not the same things, no matter what you try to spin with your cheap, elementary definitions.
Where was the error? 19 other judges couldn't find one. But you can?
We still do not kill a non-dying woman without a written directive that that is what she wanted.
I discount the use of "hearsay" as it allows any person to over-ride the wishes of family.
I discount the use of hearsay as it provides any person with the option of killing off unneeded relatives or even friends by merely claiming "Joe told me he did not want to live if he could not walk 5 blocks before tiring out".
Hearsay opens up the whole killing agenda to be used as any wish. A neighbor can be bought to claim that Sue said she did not want to live and did want to be starved to death if she fell into a slight coma.
Hearsay allows this neighbor to override the information provided to a trusted relative years prior.
Hearsay allows each and every married person the right to kill off a mate rather than work with them for healing. Many marriages are not ideal in today's society and we set up every person to be murdered should the mate find a way to put them in a "state" that currently provides the right to kill.
Any of us are absolutely nuts to want free murder available for us and our children and grandchildren.
Yes, really.
And if you think showing that previously explained bone scan, with words of the obnoxious, lying quack Hammesfahr (including a pretense that a heart must totally "stop" to be in cardiac arrest), means a thing, then you're too far out of your league for me to bother even playing catch with.
Enjoy yourself. lol
Oh no, we must stick to all that justifies Michael killing an unwanted wife rather than turning her over to the parents that still loved her. Michael has the right to kill you know - wonderful Michael.
Champion for those who wish the opportunity to kill off an invalid spouse rather than pay for their care. Makes them free to move on you know and it is free murder.
The younger generation at work. Such a problem having to make these old religious people see the value of this law. So much easier if marriage allows killing rather than "in sickness and health".
And each and every one of our children is at risk in future marriages because of the "wise" changes in the law by their parents.
The manner of death is different from the cause of death.
I don't see the difference. Can you explain?
Cause of death is a scientific thing; manner of death is a legal thing.
"Cause of death" are things like penetrating trauma, exsanguination, anoxia, metastatic cancer, etc. "Manner of death" are things like suicide, homicide, accident, etc.
Obviously the Florida courts disagreed with you.
The opinion is informed and the truth. I simply described the TS case where the state ordered a severely disabled woman death by an unusual method, starvation and dehydration. You support it, the shoe fits perfectly and the evidence is rife throughout these threads.
Please do me the courtesy of not imputing beliefs to me. I think I have a little better idea of what I think than you do.
You said, "there is little doubt in my mind that you support state ordered killings by unusual methods of the severely disabled.". You may believe this to be true, but your opinion is both uninformed and erroneous. I support nothing of the sort.
The invoking of slander and libel on these threads by people who do not understand that they are terms in law that have specific meaning is simply an effort to squelch debate.
Slander and libel are torts, whether it comes from you or from someone like Hannity. The difference between you and Hannity is that you are tiptoeing around the edges, posting anonymously, to a small audience, and you likely have little in the way of assets to make an action against you worthwhile. Hannity is a whole different ballgame.
But that doesn't mean that explicitly calling someone else a murderer is not libel. Slander and libel are NOT protected speech, and pointing it out when someone skirts either one is not "squelching debate".
Kind of a fascist thing.
Slander and libel laws are fascist? Who knew?
I could just as easily say that your throwing around terms like "fascist" is an attempt to "squelch debate".
Then why did you ask me a number of times when I thought it would be released?
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.