B
Bella3502
Guest
Momofone:
Do you have a medical degree?
- Status
L
Lisa4Catholics
Guest
Yes she does.
B
Bella3502
Guest
Piety101— I, too look at this issue as you do. If the autopsy had gone the other way, one can only imagine what the other side would say.
I say, let her rest in peace. And I do believe she is.
S
Shoshana
Guest
L
Lisa_N
Guest
Yes but Fr Pavone reported there were bouquets of FLOWERS that were kept watered and the flowers WERE dead! The irony of watering dead plants and withholding water from a live woman amazes me. These are smart people but they cannot see the incredible inconsistency of their actions.
Lisa N
J
J.W.B
Guest
Let’s give all the doctors a two thumbs up, all of the infalliable doctors. What would we do without them? Yeah ok, she’s brain dead so let’s STARVE HER TO DEATH!!! Let’s MURDER HER!!! Let the husband who has another woman, and kids by her, tell us the truth. And now le’ts begin this process of death for other individuals.
On the radio today they were saying it IS STILL a mystery on how she was put in that state in the first place. But God knows. Nevertheless, why could not her parents have taken care of her in hopes that she would recover? Miracles still happen. Oh but I see, the infalliable doctors had spoken.
S
Sacramentalist
Guest
So, why is a feeding tube considered “ordinary/proportianate” and a respirator “extraordinary.disproportianate”?
(Devil’s advocate . . .)
(Devil’s advocate . . .)
M
Mom_of_one
Guest
Have either one of you read the court testimony? Or the medical records? Or the autopsy? No. I have, and so have the other posters here. Most of them have done this for years.
Have either one of you even read, much less responded to the inconsistencies that we have posted time and time again?
T
trailblazer
Guest
Anyone in doubt about the morality of what happened to Terry owes it to themselves to read the following exerpt from the director of Priest for Life’s 6/16/2005 newsletter. To not read it, is to not really care about right and wrong, only to justify one’s position.
…The big temptation is to stretch the autopsy beyond its purposes, and somehow get it to do more than it can do. Some, indeed, wonder whether this autopsy was, from the beginning, a political tool worked out by the euthanasia advocates to advance their agenda regarding Terri. Whether or not that is the case, the autopsy will certainly be used by such advocates to further de-humanize Terri and rob her of her claim to care and protection.’
But let’s presume that those who conducted this exam did so objectively and honestly. What, then, do we learn? For one thing, the autopsy shows that all the media reports that so confidently asserted that Terri collapsed because of “an eating disorder” or “a heart attack” should not have been so confident. In short, the autopsy does not provide a basis for those claims, and leaves the cause of her initial collapse in 1990 a mystery. Was Michael Schiavo at all responsible for her collapse? The autopsy does not answer that question. Perhaps Michael should.
What the exam does tell us, however, is that Terri died from dehydration. Of course, we knew that already. She wasn’t given any water the last two weeks of her life, and we know why. Michael, and those acting in concert with him, insisted on that and got the courts to enforce their wishes. We don’t know if Michael was responsible for Terri’s injury, but we do know he was responsible for her death.
The autopsy goes on to say that Terri’s brain was “profoundly atrophied,” and only half the normal size. Fine. If that’s what the experts tell us, there is no problem believing them. But what does that mean, that she was only half-human, only half a person, or that she had only half the rights that the rest of us have? That is the conclusion that we must never accept. That is a conclusion that does not come from an autopsy, but from a callous disregard for human life.
Terri did not die from atrophy of the brain. She died from an atrophy of compassion. Too many people, starting with Michael, were unwilling to accept the fact that profoundly injured people require profound compassion and care. Even if this autopsy report showed that Terri was ten times more damaged than she was, our moral obligation to respect and protect her life would not change at all. We don’t have to pass a test to qualify for our human rights. An autopsy is a measure of physical damage, not of human rights.
The autopsy says Terri was blind. That is not the morally relevant point. The point is that we are blind…Blind all too often to the fact that even the disabled and the severely injured have the same dignity and worth as the rest of us, and show forth the image and glory of God, even in their brokenness.
The autopsy says that Terri was beyond repair or rehabilitation. But that does not mean we are supposed to throw her away, like we throw away a car that is beyond repair. Again, there is no problem accepting this medical conclusion. But morally speaking, our compassion is not beyond repair. We can build a society that respects and protects all our brothers and sisters, recognizing that their value does not come from how well they function, perform, or produce.
I will never forget my hours with Terri, both before and after her feeding tube was removed. She responded to me, and she responded to others who visited her. She laughed, she tried to speak, she returned her parents’ kisses, she followed us with her eyes, she closed her eyes when I prayed with her and opened them when we were finished. Medical examiners can offer their conclusions because of what they saw, but none of that changes what we saw. But both we and the medical examiners were looking in from the outside. Any honest medical expert will admit that there is so much about the human brain we still don’t know. What Terri experienced on the inside is a mystery that only she and God know.
The challenge at this moment is simply this. Whatever she experienced, to whatever extent she was damaged, and even if she were totally unresponsive, Terri was one of us. She was our sister, she was a child of God, she was fully in possession of her human rights, and nothing can ever justify what was done to her.
Terri Schiavo was murdered, because she was deprived of food and water. We’ve done the examination on her body. Maybe it’s time for an examination of our souls.
THE ABOVE WAS TAKEN FROM THE June 16, 2005 newsletter from Fr Frank Pavone titled, “Atrophy of Compassion --Fr. Frank comments on Terri Schiavo autopsy.” The bolding of the words was my own emphasis to highlight Fr Pavone’s experience.
…The big temptation is to stretch the autopsy beyond its purposes, and somehow get it to do more than it can do. Some, indeed, wonder whether this autopsy was, from the beginning, a political tool worked out by the euthanasia advocates to advance their agenda regarding Terri. Whether or not that is the case, the autopsy will certainly be used by such advocates to further de-humanize Terri and rob her of her claim to care and protection.’
But let’s presume that those who conducted this exam did so objectively and honestly. What, then, do we learn? For one thing, the autopsy shows that all the media reports that so confidently asserted that Terri collapsed because of “an eating disorder” or “a heart attack” should not have been so confident. In short, the autopsy does not provide a basis for those claims, and leaves the cause of her initial collapse in 1990 a mystery. Was Michael Schiavo at all responsible for her collapse? The autopsy does not answer that question. Perhaps Michael should.
What the exam does tell us, however, is that Terri died from dehydration. Of course, we knew that already. She wasn’t given any water the last two weeks of her life, and we know why. Michael, and those acting in concert with him, insisted on that and got the courts to enforce their wishes. We don’t know if Michael was responsible for Terri’s injury, but we do know he was responsible for her death.
The autopsy goes on to say that Terri’s brain was “profoundly atrophied,” and only half the normal size. Fine. If that’s what the experts tell us, there is no problem believing them. But what does that mean, that she was only half-human, only half a person, or that she had only half the rights that the rest of us have? That is the conclusion that we must never accept. That is a conclusion that does not come from an autopsy, but from a callous disregard for human life.
Terri did not die from atrophy of the brain. She died from an atrophy of compassion. Too many people, starting with Michael, were unwilling to accept the fact that profoundly injured people require profound compassion and care. Even if this autopsy report showed that Terri was ten times more damaged than she was, our moral obligation to respect and protect her life would not change at all. We don’t have to pass a test to qualify for our human rights. An autopsy is a measure of physical damage, not of human rights.
The autopsy says Terri was blind. That is not the morally relevant point. The point is that we are blind…Blind all too often to the fact that even the disabled and the severely injured have the same dignity and worth as the rest of us, and show forth the image and glory of God, even in their brokenness.
The autopsy says that Terri was beyond repair or rehabilitation. But that does not mean we are supposed to throw her away, like we throw away a car that is beyond repair. Again, there is no problem accepting this medical conclusion. But morally speaking, our compassion is not beyond repair. We can build a society that respects and protects all our brothers and sisters, recognizing that their value does not come from how well they function, perform, or produce.
I will never forget my hours with Terri, both before and after her feeding tube was removed. She responded to me, and she responded to others who visited her. She laughed, she tried to speak, she returned her parents’ kisses, she followed us with her eyes, she closed her eyes when I prayed with her and opened them when we were finished. Medical examiners can offer their conclusions because of what they saw, but none of that changes what we saw. But both we and the medical examiners were looking in from the outside. Any honest medical expert will admit that there is so much about the human brain we still don’t know. What Terri experienced on the inside is a mystery that only she and God know.
The challenge at this moment is simply this. Whatever she experienced, to whatever extent she was damaged, and even if she were totally unresponsive, Terri was one of us. She was our sister, she was a child of God, she was fully in possession of her human rights, and nothing can ever justify what was done to her.
Terri Schiavo was murdered, because she was deprived of food and water. We’ve done the examination on her body. Maybe it’s time for an examination of our souls.
THE ABOVE WAS TAKEN FROM THE June 16, 2005 newsletter from Fr Frank Pavone titled, “Atrophy of Compassion --Fr. Frank comments on Terri Schiavo autopsy.” The bolding of the words was my own emphasis to highlight Fr Pavone’s experience.
M
Mom_of_one
Guest
One of the requirements for brain death is cessation of spontaneous respiration.She was breathing on her own just fine. I don’t need a medical degree to be able to read and do research.
Brain death
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
A brain-dead individual has no electrical activity and no clinical evidence of brain function on neurologic examination (no response to pain, no cranial nerve reflexes (pupillary response (fixed pupils), oculocephalic reflex, corneal reflexes), and no spontaneous respirations). It is important to distinguish between brain death and states that mimic brain death (eg. barbiturate intoxication, alcohol intoxication, sedative overdose, hypothermia, hypoglycemia, coma or chronic vegetative states). Some comatose patients can recover, and some patients with severe irreversible neurologic dysfunction will nonetheless retain some lower brain functions such as spontaneous respiration.
In a brain dead individual, the brain tissue itself is necrotic (dead). Conditions leading to brain death involve swelling of brain tissue and a rise in intracranial pressure, eventually shutting off all blood flow within the skull. Although some have proposed that loss of neo-cortical function should be termed “brain death”, the term as used clinically includes loss of both cortex and brainstem function. Thus anencephaly, in which there is no higher brain present, is generally not considered brain death, although it is certainly an irreversible condition in which it may be appropriate to withdraw life support.
Note that brain electrical activity can stop completely, or apparently completely (a “flat EEG”) for some time in deep anaesthesia or during cardiac arrest before being restored. Brain death refers only to the permanent cessation of electrical activity. Numerous people who have experienced such “flat line” experiences have reported near-death experiences, the nature of which is controversial.
It is presumed that a permanent cessation of electrical activity indicates the end of consciousness. Those who view the neo-cortex of the brain as solely responsible for consciousness, however, argue that only electrical activity there should be considered when defining death. In many cases, especially when elevated intracranial pressure prevents blood flow into the skull, the entire brain is nonfunctional; however, some injuries may affect only the neo-cortex.
The diagnosis of brain death needs to be made quite rigorously to be certain the condition is truly irreversible. Legal criteria vary from place to place, but generally require neurologic exams by two independent physicians showing complete absence of brain function, and may include two isoelectric (flat-line) EEGs 24 hours apart. The proposed Uniform Determination Of Death Act in the United States is an attempt to standardize criteria. The patient should have a normal temperature and be free of drugs that can suppress brain activity if the diagnosis is to be made on EEG criteria. Alternatively, a radionuclide cerebral blood flow scan that shows complete absence of intracranial blood flow can be used to confirm the diagnosis without performing EEGs.
R
Roman_Army
Guest
Here’s an interesting article about this autopsy and the Liberal media feeding frenzy by Deacon Keith Fournier at Catholic Online: Killing Terri All Over Again.
**No matter how bad her situation was unless the feeding tube were extremely painful (in this case it wasn’t), it is not justified to deprive her of food and water. **
**No matter how bad her situation was unless the feeding tube were extremely painful (in this case it wasn’t), it is not justified to deprive her of food and water. **
R
Ricardus
Guest
Ding dong the witch is dead? What a creepy, awful thing to say.
Seems to me that you and Sacramentalist have been just a l-i-t-t-l-e too eager to err on the side of death than on the side of life regarding Terri. Very strange.
M
mlchance
Guest
That is disputed.
No, her brain, heart, and lungs were keeping her alive. The feeding tube was keeping her fed.
– Mark L. Chance.
L
Lisa4Catholics
Guest
That is exactly what I say
L
LSK
Guest
All right then, sweetheart, I will rattle your cage door. You are wrong. Michael did NOT say from the beginning what his wife’s wishes were - he did not ‘remember’ those wishes until after he won a large malpractice suit. The fact that Terry was incapable of recovery was not the point and never has been. The husband was painted like a ‘bad guy’ because he behaved like one - he broke his marriage vows yet insisted he be given the ‘right’ to act as her ‘husband’.
Sorry - you are wrong. Dead wrong. Consider your cage rattled. And do not speak to us in a a nasty tone again. If you cannot discuss this with grace and dignity do not particpate on this forum.
S
Sacramentalist
Guest
So, why is a feeding tube considered “ordinary/proportianate” and a respirator “extraordinary.disproportianate”?
(Devil’s advocate . . .)
(Devil’s advocate . . .)
L
LSK
Guest
I understand your dilemna. I too often think we should not hold non-Catholics to the high standard of behavior we hold ourselves. Afterall, there is freedom of religion in the United States. And, though JPII spoke out definitively on the subject there has not been an ‘absolute’ decided by the Church. I objected to Mr. Schiavo being granted any kind of status as her husband because he had broken the marriage contract by breaking his vows. I felt he should not have been given standing with the court. I also felt that being brain damaged was not reason enough to kill someone. Her wishes were not clearly stated before her illness and therefore we, as a society, should err on the side of life rather than death.
However, I think you bring up valid points that need to be considered and discussed. And I personally want to thank you for not engaging in name calling and nasty inferences as was done by Piety (what a misnomer). That makes a real dialogue impossible - you, however, behave with dignity and grace. Thank you.
M
Marie
Guest
You hit the nail on the head!
A case of opinions from someone who has not got much of a clue about life yet, but likes to wax poetic about their wisdom. At the tender age of 21, Sacramentalist obviously has not faced adversity yet. Peity…obviously has lead a rather charmed life too. Lord have mercy when they has to come up against it.
S
SusanL
Guest
(Long whistle). Your name does not match up with your posts.
#1. Michael was and is still the “bad guy” and he is matched up with an even bigger “bad guy.”
#2. Too much evidence against what her husband says to go into here. Please read the old forum on Terri.
#3. Please spell Lisa’s name correctly and don’t call her “sweetie.” That is derogatory and she deserves better.
#4. Are you sure that you’re Catholic???
J
johnq
Guest
Why would you want to do that? Don’t we do it enough already?
- Status