 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / General / April 2005Terri Schiavo Question
This is probably just asking for trouble, but I can't help but ask... First of all, according to the best available public evidence, is Terri Schiavo's cerebral cortex completely, totally liquified, or has there instead been a major loss of cortical tissue but with some tissue remaining. Second -- would it be possible for oxygen deprivation to cause loss of the cerebral cortext, but for the lower brain centers to remain more or less intact? That is, can the cerebellum, limbic system, and mid-brain remain pretty much functional and alive? And, if yes, is there any evidence as to how much of Terri Schiavo's lower brain centers remain active? Finally -- and here is the real kicker -- if the cerebral cortex is gone, but the other brain centers remain alive, is there any possibility that some kind of primitive experience continues, even with all cortical-based thinking gone? My understanding is that some lower animals have no cortical brain at all, yet one would assume they still have some kind of experience or awareness. So, I am wondering if that could be the case for TS. All thoughtful replies are appreciated. Steve O. > This is probably just asking for trouble, but I can't help but ask... > > First of all, according to the best available public evidence, is > Terri Schiavo's cerebral cortex completely, totally liquified, or has > there instead been a major loss of cortical tissue but with some > tissue remaining. My understanding is that most, but not all, of her cerebral cortex has been replaced by fluid. > Second -- would it be possible for oxygen deprivation to cause loss of > the cerebral cortext, but for the lower brain centers to remain more > or less intact? That is, can the cerebellum, limbic system, and > mid-brain remain pretty much functional and alive? I guess so. Her midbrain is alivve (where eye movement is generated) and her medulla. > And, if yes, is there any evidence as to how much of Terri Schiavo's > lower brain centers remain active? Here midbrain and medulla are probably alive. > Finally -- and here is the real kicker -- if the cerebral cortex is > gone, but the other brain centers remain alive, is there any > possibility that some kind of primitive experience continues, even > with all cortical-based thinking gone? We will never know for sure, but I don't think so. > My understanding is that some lower animals have no cortical brain at > all, yet one would assume they still have some kind of experience or > awareness. So, I am wondering if that could be the case for TS. I think thsoe functions require a working cortex in humans and other mammals. Jeff > All thoughtful replies are appreciated. > > Steve O. There are several good links to medical documentation, some videos, and lots of court documents at www.terrisfight.org I originally had some very hard and fast opinions, and I am still very much in the right-to-die/euthanasia camp, but after doing some research around the web, not just at this site sponsored by her and Michael Schiavo's family, I have changed my opinion of this particular situation. >There are several good links to medical documentation, some videos, and >lots of court documents at www.terrisfight.org >I originally had some very hard and fast opinions, and I am still very much >in the right-to-die/euthanasia camp, but after doing some research around >the web, not just at this site sponsored by her and Michael Schiavo's >family, I have changed my opinion of this particular situation. Oh please. You claim to be unbiased and in the right-to-die camp but you cite an activist site like terrisfight.org? See any balanced info or opposing views there? No, of course you don't. Try some objective reality for a change http://www.nationalreview.com/pdf/SchiavoFinalReport.pdf well, now wait. I'm just saying I happened to change my own opinion about this particular situation because of what I saw on that website. I know it's a website sponsored by her family..but it's sponsored by his too. Not saying much, just giving a resource. >well, now wait. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >Not saying much, just giving a resource. Okay, but on this subject I won't even look at sites that have an obvious bias, which this one clearly does. They all conveniently omit pertinent facts, and many conveniently invent new "facts." And they all have one thing in common: They do not care about Terri, the person. They care about their cause, and they inflict more pain and suffering on Terri and her family through their self-serving, gratuitous activism. But when you stick to the objective, factual sources, it all becomes very clear. Terri is just one of thousands who will die soon because there is no hope for them and they have someone who cares enough and has guts enough to do the right thing. There is nothing unusual or special about Terri. She has been most sincerely dead since the day she died many years ago, along with thousands of others. Those who would keep her "alive" are just plain f.cking evil. I hear ya. I only meant that they have court documents and medical documents posted, and that's what I thought the person wanted to see. >First of all, according to the best available public evidence, is >Terri Schiavo's cerebral cortex completely, totally liquified, or has >there instead been a major loss of cortical tissue but with some >tissue remaining. Not totally, but a significant portion is gone now and replaced with CSF. >Second -- would it be possible for oxygen deprivation to cause loss of >the cerebral cortext, but for the lower brain centers to remain more >or less intact? That is, can the cerebellum, limbic system, and >mid-brain remain pretty much functional and alive? Yes. >And, if yes, is there any evidence as to how much of Terri Schiavo's >lower brain centers remain active? She breathes and regulates blood pressure and pulse, so her lower brain is clearly functioning. >Finally -- and here is the real kicker -- if the cerebral cortex is >gone, but the other brain centers remain alive, is there any >possibility that some kind of primitive experience continues, even >with all cortical-based thinking gone? Well, no way to know with certainty, of course, but ask someone who's been under anesthesia if they had a primitive experience. Even before amnesia agents, the answer would have been no. So even if they did experience something primitive, it appears to be irrelevant to life as we know it. >My understanding is that some lower animals have no cortical brain at >all, yet one would assume they still have some kind of experience or >awareness. So, I am wondering if that could be the case for TS. She is responsive to physical stimuli, but so is an earthworm. Does an earthworm know it is an earthworm? Does it have thoughts and cares and desires? Well, I don't think so, but that's un-provable. What I do know is we would question the value of heroic surgical methods for keeping one alive. > >First of all, according to the best available public evidence, is > >Terri Schiavo's cerebral cortex completely, totally liquified, or has [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > we would question the value of heroic surgical methods for keeping one > alive. Yes, I agree. Her plug should have been pulled years ago perhaps a couple of week in as best I can tell. >>First of all, according to the best available public evidence, is >>Terri Schiavo's cerebral cortex completely, totally liquified, or has [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] >we would question the value of heroic surgical methods for keeping one >alive. Perhaps a better analogy would be a brain-pithed frog (or other decerebrate animal preparation). You can completely destroy the brain of a vertebrate, leaving the spinal cord intact, and produce clear, seemingly "purposeful" reflex responses. That is, tickle the brain-pithed frog's belly and it scratches its belly. Tickle its back and it scratches its back. It "knows" where the stimulus is located and directs it response appropriately. Of course, there is no such "knowledge", only automatic activity. People with spinal injury have no knowledge or feeling or consciousness of what happens below the injury point even though their bodies down there can respond. Terri Schiavo has a lot more lower CNS function remaining than just the spinal level, but the fact that there does exist a very low level of CNS function does not automatically mean that the "person" is still conscious or aware or perceptive or, if you will, "alive". You're not the R Norman who, with Buchwald and Villablanca, looked at classical conditioning in decerebrate cats, are you? > >>First of all, according to the best available public evidence, is > >>Terri Schiavo's cerebral cortex completely, totally liquified, or has [quoted text clipped - 51 lines] > of CNS function does not automatically mean that the "person" is still > conscious or aware or perceptive or, if you will, "alive". That's RJ, I am RS. But I, too, do date back to the 70's! And that R Norman's work confirms what I (and every other knowledgeable commentator) pointed out about Terri Schiavo -- that lower CNS functions totally below everything we believe to be responsible for consciousness and awareness are capable of producing complex behavior, including learned behavior. >You're not the R Norman who, with Buchwald and Villablanca, looked at >classical conditioning in decerebrate cats, are you? [quoted text clipped - 57 lines] >> of CNS function does not automatically mean that the "person" is still >> conscious or aware or perceptive or, if you will, "alive". > Perhaps a better analogy would be a brain-pithed frog (or other > decerebrate animal preparation). You can completely destroy the brain [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > of CNS function does not automatically mean that the "person" is still > conscious or aware or perceptive or, if you will, "alive". But how reliably can we apply this sort of analogy to humans? The PNS is, for lack of a better term, more specialized in some of these animals. Whereas spinal cats, for instance, may be able to walk a treadmill, humans cannot. It's often presumed that many complex functions are controlled in the PNS or more "peripheral" aspects of the CNS (eg. the retina) in lower animals, whereas such control is handled in the brain in humans. Just how certain are we that Schiavo's responses are truly subcortical? I'm not suggesting that it matters, really. Perhaps these are just patterned residual responses from a damaged cortex, and are not conscious responses to external stimuli. I just think it may be a mistake to attribute her responsiveness entirely to subcortical mechanisms. I'm also not suggesting that this is what you're implying, Dr. Norman, but it appears that this may be growing sentiment among others. >> Perhaps a better analogy would be a brain-pithed frog (or other >> decerebrate animal preparation). You can completely destroy the brain [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] >not suggesting that this is what you're implying, Dr. Norman, but it appears >that this may be growing sentiment among others. My impression is that the qualified physicians, including a set of court appointed medical experts, who have actually examined Terri Schiavo have determined the diagnosis of "persistent vegetative state". There are many mysteries and uncertainties about human brain function, but in the end when dealing with clinical questions, you go with the best clinical evidence and practice you have. An enormous number of legal opinions have unanimously agreed with the decision to stop artificially feeding her. There is a by now well-known photograph and a video of very selected movements that seems to indicate otherwise but everyone knowledgeable about such things seems to agree that the selected use of video and photographs is extremely misleading about her true condition and misrepresents her status. An large number of people including some with medical credentials have made statements, expressed opinions, even offered diagnosis without ever having actually examined the patient, herself. Yes, there is a growing sentiment among others. There seems also to be a growing sentiment saying that evolution is a false theory. There is a growing sentiment that the earth is six thousand years old, that we are now living in the "end times". There is growing sentiment that all arabs and all muslims are evil terrorists who hate the United States. There is a large (but probably not growing) sentiment that Ronald Reagan was a great president. Sentiment does not make truth. Sentiment does not represent reality. >> Perhaps a better analogy would be a brain-pithed frog (or other >> decerebrate animal preparation). You can completely destroy the brain [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > Whereas spinal cats, for instance, may be able to walk a treadmill, humans > cannot. Actually, that is a spinal reflex. Humans have the same reflex. You can get a little kid (like a few months old) to make walking motions but pulling her along and holding her up by her hands. > It's often presumed that many complex functions are controlled in > the PNS or more "peripheral" aspects of the CNS (eg. the retina) in lower > animals, whereas such control is handled in the brain in humans. The spinal cord is part of the central nervous system, not PNS. > Just how > certain are we that Schiavo's responses are truly subcortical? Considering she doesn't have a working cortex, pretty certain. > I'm not suggesting that it matters, really. Perhaps these are just > patterned residual responses from a damaged cortex, and are not conscious [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > appears > that this may be growing sentiment among others. The opinions of the neurologists who have examined her is that this just subcortical. Jeff > > But how reliably can we apply this sort of analogy to humans? The PNS is, > > for lack of a better term, more specialized in some of these animals. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > a little kid (like a few months old) to make walking motions but pulling > her along and holding her up by her hands. I was referring to the central pattern generator which, to my knowledge, humans do not have*. * actually, there's some evidence that it does exist in humans, though it's certainly not to the extent seen in lower animals, which was my point. > > It's often presumed that many complex functions are controlled in > > the PNS or more "peripheral" aspects of the CNS (eg. the retina) in lower > > animals, whereas such control is handled in the brain in humans. > > The spinal cord is part of the central nervous system, not PNS. Yeah, that's why I said "'peripheral' aspects of the CNS." Almost looks like a contradiction in terms, but I think the point managed to squirm its way through. :) > > Just how > > certain are we that Schiavo's responses are truly subcortical? > > Considering she doesn't have a working cortex, pretty certain. But do we know just how much of her cortex has deteriorated? > > I'm not suggesting that it matters, really. Perhaps these are just > > patterned residual responses from a damaged cortex, and are not conscious [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > The opinions of the neurologists who have examined her is that this just > subcortical. Have they come out and said that, or is that just the implication? If so, are there any reports on what tests they've performed to make this determination? (...) > Have they come out and said that, or is that just the implication? If so, > are there any reports on what tests they've performed to make this > determination? In the court records, which you can get by searchng the internet. www.findlaw.com has many links. Jefff > (...) > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Jefff I just read an interesting article related to Terri Schiavo at this site: www.villagevoice.com The title of the article is Terri Schiavo--Judicial Murder I believe that this is the first time in America that various judges have conspired with a husband to murder his wife by starving her to death. The judges won't even allow family members to put ice chips on the tongue of Terri Schiavo.  SignatureNEWSGROUP SUBSCRIBERS MOTTO We respect those subscribers that ask for advice or provide advice. We do NOT respect the subscribers that enjoy criticizing people. | [...] | [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] | The judges won't even allow family members to put ice chips on the tongue | of Terri Schiavo. There's a =lot= of Crucial stuff that's being "swept under the table" in the Terri Schiavo 'case'. Her Husband's "Malpractice" Lawsuit was Predicated upon his "wanting to keep her Alive. The Decision was made to keep her Alive. That Decision Acted within, and Determ- ined, her Existence for 15 'years'. Her Parents are Willing to do the Work inherent in Sustaining her existence. I've seen [and discussed here in bionet. neuroscience] a more-drasticly-damaged brain which belonged to an Englishman who was largely-functional. Now, after allowing Terri to endure 15 'years' of the Sustained Existence, her Husband Decides that the Decision which Predicated his Lawsuit was In- correct, and, after 15 'years' of their believing his prior Decision, their Lives being pretty-much Determined by it, that he cannot allow her Parents to just con- tinue believing in the Correctness of his prior Decision. --- There's a lot of 'medical' stuff that under- pins what's going-on. Folks're routinely Killed by 'medicine' as a matter of 'con- venience'. I've some personal experience with this. My Mom was Killed in this way. She had terminal cancer, and, after Fighting like the Champion-Woman she was for eight 'years', had left instructions to forgo "heroic efforts". Part of her former treatment was to receive massive blood transfusions when her intern- al organs would reach the point where they'd hemorrhage. The transfusions would resttore her blood-counts, and she'd rebound to relatively-strong 'normal' functionality for 6 'months' or so. She went through such transfusions repeatedly, always with the 'same' result. When she had her final crisis, I was 'incarcer- ated', and, in my absence, no one expressed her wishes to not "heroically" ressuscitated. So, during her emergency care, she was given massive transfusions, which 'completely' res- suscitated her. She met my eyes, there in her intensive-care bed, all tubed and wired up, with her usual impish grin -- just happy to see me. I'd seen the same Joyous result repeatedly during the 'years' she Struggled against her cancer, and Knew that we'd have 'time' to- gether. But her Doctors didn't see the same. They put her on a morphine drip, saying that she'd expire at any 'moment'. Listening to them, I stayed with her, giving her water with a sponge. After staying for 7 days, I finally discussed her cyclic-transfusion-"rejuvenation" with her Doctors, and told them that she was not succumbing to her cancer but to Thirst. After listening to me her Doctors promised me that they would get her out of that wait- ing-for-Death 'state', and take actions that would take advantage of the results of the massive transfusions that she'd received. I went home that night so I could take a shower, only to receive a telephone call saying that she'd died. She was Murdered. This same sort of thing happens routinely, as a matter of 'convenience', within 'medicine'. "After all, everybody dies." But, you see? Just as my Mom's Life should've been Sustained be-cause, despite her having Decided to undergo no further "heroic efforts", be-cause Heroic efforts were, nevertheless, enacted, the Decisions that Predicated her Husband's Legal action must be Honored. The only thing that's altered is "money"-stuff, and that's moot because Terri's Parents have said that they are willing to Sustain Terri's Life, and the Court's original Disposition in Terri's case, which was in-Accord with her Husband's stated wishes and Decisions. If it's as her Husband says -- that Terri had expressed to him that she would not want to be sustained in the way that she has, in fact, been Sustained, her Husband was Wrong either then, or now. So, see? Decistions that are made =matter=, and, once those Decisions =Act= to alter the course of things, one cannot 'toss-out' those Decisions, and their Ramifications, as a matter of 'con- venience'. But that's exactly what's being done in the Terri Schiavo case. And it Stinks -- be-cause, in what's unfolding, a Mockery is being made of everything that underpins Medicine. Medicine is =not= a "crap-shoot". The doing of Medicine is Predicated upon the fact that Medicine is Functional, so when Medicine Acts, Medicine cannot, subsequently, deny the Rationale for it's having taken-Action -- else the Rationale for Doing Medicine becomes undermined. Everything that's been going on in the Terri Schiavo case falls into this "Undermining of the Rationale upon which the Doing of Med- icine Rests". The =Decision= was made 15 'years' ago. A Court Case was won by Terri's Husband. Everything that's transpired since then, up until the recent "changing of her Husband's mind", Derived in that Legal Decision. Terri Schiavo has been Sustained in her 'state' of Existence be-cause of that prior Legan Decision. Now the Court 'denies' its former Decision? How, then, is =Law= to be Sustained? I mean, the former Decision, which has Determined Terri Schiavo's Existence for 15 'years', is, now, after having Dared to so alter the course of her Existence, and her Parents' and Brothers' Existences, a "Whoops!"? If that's the case, then it's also the case that everything that Derived in that earlier Legal Decision must be reversed if the former Decision is reversed. But how can that be done? Folks Lived in accord with that earlier Decisions, Good Citizens, Honoring the Decision of the Court. Now the Court says, "Whoops!"? Who will pay back the Malpractice Award? Who will give Terri's Parents and Brother a "different 15 'years'? And, most important of all, who will say what is "different" for Terri Schiavo now, than what were her interests when the former Legal Decision was made? Surely her nervous system is different, now, than it was 15 'years' ago. 100% of that "difference" Derives in the Court's prior Decision. I wish I could be more-"eloquent", but the above is what the Terri Schiavo "case" means to me. Her Parents are Willing to Care for her. Her Life was obviously Sustainable. Just as my Mom's was. After the Decisions that Sustained her Life, and which Imposed upon her Parents and Brother what they did Impose upon her Parents and Brother, were made, why Kill her? It doesn't make-Sense. K. P. Collins > | [...] > | [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > brain which belonged to an Englishman > who was largely-functional. Irrelevent. Her brain is non-functional above the brainstem. > Now, after allowing Terri to endure 15 > 'years' of the Sustained Existence, her [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > tinue believing in the Correctness of his > prior Decision. Actually, it was after about 8 years when he finally smelled the coffee and realized that she will never get better. > --- > > There's a lot of 'medical' stuff that under- > pins what's going-on. Folks're routinely > Killed by 'medicine' as a matter of 'con- > venience'. Evidence. > I've some personal experience with this. > [quoted text clipped - 60 lines] > This same sort of thing happens routinely, > as a matter of 'convenience', within 'medicine'. Evidence please. This report is anecdote, at best. > "After all, everybody dies." > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > been Sustained, her Husband was Wrong > either then, or now. He was wrong in that he thought she would eventually get better. After he realized that she would not get better, ever, he decided it was time to carry out her wishes. > So, see? > [quoted text clipped - 46 lines] > alter the course of her Existence, and her > Parents' and Brothers' Existences, a "Whoops!"? No. The situtation was different after he determined that she would not ever get better. > If that's the case, then it's also the case that > everything that Derived in that earlier Legal [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Who will pay back the Malpractice Award? The malpractice award was for poor medical care that resulted in a heart attack. > Who will give Terri's Parents and Brother > a "different 15 'years'? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > than what were her interests when the former > Legal Decision was made? The person she designated by marrying him. > Surely her nervous system is different, now, > than it was 15 'years' ago. [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > It doesn't make-Sense. It doesn't make sense. This is a personal matter between her husband and her. The courts ruled. that should be the end of it. Bush and Bush should not be involved. Jeff > K. P. Collins > It doesn't make sense. This is a personal matter between her husband and > her. The courts ruled. that should be the end of it. Bush and Bush should > not be involved. > > Jeff EXACTLY-well put Jeff. Just to point out how surreal this whole thing has become, the "Neverend" Jessie Jackson wanted to go see her. What the hell for? A f.cking photo op? Sick bastard. I heard that her husband said no, but I hope he really said "f.ck off you oportunistic vulture." | > It doesn't make sense. This is a personal matter between her husband and | > her. The courts ruled. that should be the end of it. Bush and Bush should [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] | Sick bastard. I heard that her husband said no, but I hope he really said | "[...] off you oportunistic vulture." It's 'hilarious'. If what you say were Sustainable, America would never have been Founded -- because no one could've come-together to Found Her. Or do you think that the State Represent- tatives, to Congress in Philadelphia, were competing in some "popularity contest"? k. p. collins > | > It doesn't make sense. This is a personal matter between her husband and > | > her. The courts ruled. that should be the end of it. Bush and Bush should [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > one could've come-together to Found > Her. What a lame objection to an objection to Jessie Jackson's action. Most of these clowns are greedy opportunists on both sides. > Or do you think that the State Represent- > tatives, to Congress in Philadelphia, were > competing in some "popularity contest"? > > k. p. collins >> It's 'hilarious'. If what you say were >> Sustainable, America would never >> have been Founded -- because no >> one could've come-together to Found >> Her. Let's not get into the pros and cons of that. (-; > What a lame objection to an objection to Jessie > Jackson's action. Most of these clowns > are greedy opportunists on both sides. Well, maybe. But her husband can do or say what he likes. I don't see any oportunism on his part with respect to Jackson. But Jackson - photo op for sure. >> Or do you think that the State Represent- >> tatives, to Congress in Philadelphia, were >> competing in some "popularity contest"? I think we can safely say that with very few exceptions, all politicians are only concerned with staying in office. >> k. p. collins | > | [...] | > | [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] | | Irrelevent. Her brain is non-functional above the brainstem. I stand on what I posted. | > Now, after allowing Terri to endure 15 | > 'years' of the Sustained Existence, her [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] | Actually, it was after about 8 years when he finally smelled the coffee and | realized that she will never get better. I stand on what I posted. | > --- | > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] | | Evidence. I stand on what I posted. | > I've some personal experience with this. | > [quoted text clipped - 62 lines] | | Evidence please. This report is anecdote, at best. Eye Witness, to which the attending Physcian Agreed. | > "After all, everybody dies." | > [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] | realized that she would not get better, ever, he decided it was time to | carry out her wishes. I stand on what I posted. "Her wishes" were "her wishes", in the first instance, and he Decided with respect to "her wishes" in the first instance. | > So, see? | > [quoted text clipped - 49 lines] | No. The situtation was different after he determined that she would not ever | get better. I stand on what I posted. "Her wishes" were "her wishes". The only thing that's "different" is his Decision with respect to "her wishes". | > If that's the case, then it's also the case that | > everything that Derived in that earlier Legal [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] | The malpractice award was for poor medical care that resulted in a heart | attack. I stand on what I posted. The argument was that the malpractice award was to cover the costs of her care. | > Who will give Terri's Parents and Brother | > a "different 15 'years'? [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] | | The person she designated by marrying him. I stand on what I posted. "Her wishes" were "her wishes", when the first Decision was made. | > Surely her nervous system is different, now, | > than it was 15 'years' ago. [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] | her. The courts ruled. that should be the end of it. Bush and Bush should | not be involved. I've restricted my discussion solely to the actions of The Judiciary. k. p. collins New discussion added at the end of my prior post, which I've retained in its en- tirety, because I'll be taking a couple of Firm-Stands, so I want the entire context to remain-together. || [...] || [quoted text clipped - 235 lines] | | K. P. Collins You know? Individual Citizens whose Lives are impacted by Judicial Decisions are not some trivial "beach balls" who can be "batted-around" as if all that's entailed is some "lark"-stuff. In cases such as the Terri Schiavo case, where Lives are Ravaged even before folks come in- to Court, it's the Duty of the Court to Act with, and from, an understanding 'heart' -- a 'heart' that understands the Sorrow that the folks who come before the Court must endure. These folks aren't Criminals. They are Citizens. And, in case any Members of The Judiciary have "forgotten", The Judiciary's Employer is The Citizenry. The Judiciary =does not= "work for the gov- ernment. The Judiciary's =sole= Rationale for Existence is Service to The Citizenry. The Judiciary Serves at the pleasure of The Citizenry, not as some "princely class" that, 'somehow", is "divorced" from the Needs of The Citizenry. Truth is 'just'-the-opposite of such "princely" legerdemain. =Everything= that The Judiciary is Permitted to do, and Charged with Doing under The Constitution Of The United States Of America, Derives, not in that Document, =solely=, in the Trust of The Citizenry as it is written in that Document. Perhaps there are some, but I've a bit of experience with The Judiciary, and I've never experienced any Member of The Judiciary who'd "forgotten", or never Learned, that the =sole= wellspring of their Authority ar- ises in Service to The Citizenry. Why all of this deliberate emphasis? In the Terri Schiavo case, the early Decision rendered under The Law greatly-impacted the Lives of =Innocent Individuals=. Now, the recent 'decisions' that've been Rendered by one Court after another have been Devoid of Understanding with respect to the Terrible Impact that the Decision, Ren- dered 15 'years' ago had in the Lives of In- nocent Individuals. These folks are =Citizens=. They are not some damnd "beach balls" that can be "batted-around", first this way, and then that way, at the "whim" of 'a court' that's "forgotten" that it's =sole= Purpose is to Serve the very Citizens that it is so "batting-around". Rather, when The Judiciary Decides in ways that greatly-Impact the Lives of Innocent Individual Citizens, it must =Never= "Renege" on the Promise that is embedded in the Decision it has Rendered -- in the Action it has taken. But that's Exactly what has happened in the Terri Schiavo case. And that makes a Mockery of 'the judiciary'. Note well, I'm =NOT= asserting that The Judiciary cannot Render Decisions that overrule Decisions that The Judiciary has formerly Rendered. If that were the case, then Human Judges would be completely unnecessary. Rather, Human Judges are Necessary be- cause, as experience in Adjudicating The Law accumulates, The Judiciary becomes better-able to carry out its Obligation to Serve The Citizenry. But =not= in cases in which The Judiciary has already acted with Great-Impact in the Lives of Innocent Individual Citizens. Such just cannot be. If it's allowed to be, then, instead of acting as a Fair Witness and Arbitor on behalf of The Citizenry, The Judiciary becomes an Agent of Recurrent-Hurtfulness that's in- flicted upon The Citizenry. Once The Judiciary Renders Decisions that Greatly-Impact the Lives of Innocent Individ- ual Citizens, the =only= actions that can be, subsequently, Rendered by The Judiciary on behalf of the Citizens involved are Deci- sions that do not compound the Great _m- pact that The Judiciary's former Decisions Imposed in the Lives of those Citizens. Else The Judiciary is Reduced to being some Bulleying-Force that acts Maliciously in the Lives of the Citizens involved. Do folks understand what I'm saying? It cannot be that The Judiciary Imposes Great-Impact within Citizens' Lives, and, subsequently, acts to Impose further Great- Impact within the Lives of the Same Citizens, which Contradicts the earlier Decision. Yes, refine The Judiciary's position with respect to =future= Decisions. But don't go back in ways that Impose Double-Suffering in the Lives of Innocent Individual Citizens. To do so Renders The Judicary a Mockery of what The Citizenry has Trusted it to Be, and leaves it 'existing' only Conceptually, not in Reality. The Fundamental Law is: =Think!= The Law Fails-Completely when the result of it's 'implementation' in the Lives of Citizens is indistinguishable from the results of Criminal Behavior. That's how I see what's unfolding in the Terri Schiavo case. 'a judiciary' that's Inflicting Harm, rather than relieving Citizens from such. Decisions in such cases =must= be Inviolable. Understand? It's be-cause the former Decision Imposed such Great Impact in the Lives of Individual Citizens. The "adjustments" in their Lives were Arduous. Now, 'the judiciary' is 'just' ignoring all that, and imposing Redoubled-Arduousness within the Lives of the =same= Individual Citizens. That's what =Criminals= do, not The Judiciary. Learn, from such cases, how to Adjudicate in =OTHER= such cases, but =DO NOT= bat Citizens around, first this way, and then the other way, Imposing Compound Arduousness in the Lives of Innocent Individual Citizens. Now that I've thought about it, what I see happening fairly makes my blood-boil. This is rank, thoughtless, Cruelty, being Perpetrated 'in the name of the law'. It's a Total Disgrace. 'the judiciary' Rendering itself a Mockery of the Trust that The Citizenry has given it. K. P. Collins Typo alert. | [...] | Perhaps there are some, but I've a bit of | experience with The Judiciary, and I've never | experienced any Member of The Judiciary | who'd [not] "forgotten", or never Learned, that [<-- typo fixed] | the =sole= wellspring of their Authority ar- | ises in Service to The Citizenry. k. p. collins >> (...) >> [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > I believe that this is the first time in America that various judges > have conspired with a husband to murder his wife by starving her to death. Conspired? What did they do? Conspire at the local bar over beers, shots and cigars? The judges merely decided, after reviewing all the evidence, including the report of hte guardian ad litem, that Terri would not want to be kept alive artificially with a tube that goes through her abdominal wall into her stomach. > The judges won't even allow family members to put ice chips on the tongue > of Terri Schiavo. She can't swallow. Jeff She can't swallow.< Water is absorbed through the tongue as with a gtn spray Well, at least Terri Schiavo's personal tragedy is over. Now the wrongful death suit can begin. I think the husband absolutely did the right thing to allow her to die when it was clear to him there was no hope left. Of course, an overdose of anesthetic should have been administered long ago. The parents, on the other hand, seem to have wanted the WORST situation, where she would be aware of the state she was living in. That's just about the most cruel thing I can think of. I don't blame the husband for not wanting the parents at her bedside at death if that's the situation they were hoping for. I hope the person I named as Power of Attorney over my medicial decisions will be as compassionate has Michael Schiavo was. > She can't swallow.< > > Water is absorbed through the tongue as with a gtn spray > Well, > > at least Terri Schiavo's personal tragedy is over. Now the wrongful death > suit can begin. Spoken like a true "American Litigious Moron", and you're probably not even a lawyer. I hear Johnny Cochrane is taking the case. > > Well, > > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Spoken like a true "American Litigious Moron", and you're probably not even > a lawyer. Actually, I'm a Canadian but the "American Litigious Moron" was the effect I was going for. :-) >> > Well, >> > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > I > was going for. :-) Sorry about that, eh? Subtle, clever, sarcasm is sometimes hard to perceive in NG postings, much like decrypting the hidden innuendo of Don Cherry comments. (-; > Well, > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > > > Water is absorbed through the tongue as with a gtn spray He did not allow her to die. The judges forced her to starve to death. If you locked your dog or cat in a room and did not feed the cat or dog for three weeks--you would be arrested and placed in jail for animal abuse. They done the exact same thing to Terri. A man in my town was recently arrested and placed in jail because he had about one dozen really skinny horses on his property that he owned. SignatureNEWSGROUP SUBSCRIBERS MOTTO We respect those subscribers that ask for advice or provide advice. We do NOT respect the subscribers that enjoy criticizing people. >> Well, >> [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > you locked your dog or cat in a room and did not feed the cat or dog for > three weeks--you would be arrested and placed in jail for animal abuse. It was Terri's wish that she not be kept alive artificially. > They done the exact same thing to Terri. No. Food was available to Terri. She was unable to eat. The difference is that Terri expressed that she did not want to be kept alive artificially. > A man in my town was recently > arrested and placed in jail because he had about one dozen really skinny > horses on his property that he owned. Good. But in Terri's case, it was Terri who was unable to eat. It was her wish that was carried out. Jeff > > Well, > > [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > arrested and placed in jail because he had about one dozen really skinny > horses on his property that he owned. I think you're quite right. She should not have had to starve to death. Ideally, she should have been able to receive an overdose of anesthetic long ago but that's illegal. The husband and doctors therefore were forced to use the only means they had available to them. The laws should be changed to allow more humane methods of euthanasia. > He did not allow her to die. The judges forced her to starve to death. If > you locked your dog or cat in a room and did not feed the cat or dog for > three weeks--you would be arrested and placed in jail for animal abuse. This is always brought up as some sort of argument to attempt to portray Terri as lower than a dog in their eyes. Or whatever the effect is. But it's quite clear that such laws regarding animal cruelty are hypocritical at best, and should be stricken from the books. What's done to cows or pigs for making our sandwiches is sometimes far worse than starving the animal, yet it's not only allowed - it's encouraged (sometimes through subsidies). So, even though your point may be that Terri should be given the "rights" of these animals (the difference, of course, was that Terri couldn't perceive the pain that the animals can perceive), I'd counter that the animals shouldn't be given any rights in this regard. > > He did not allow her to die. The judges forced her to starve to death. If > > you locked your dog or cat in a room and did not feed the cat or dog for [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > the pain that the animals can perceive), I'd counter that the animals > shouldn't be given any rights in this regard. I understand your point of view. My point was that a human should have more rights than dogs and cats. You mentioned that Terri could not perceive pain. Neither you or I or anyone else knows whether or not Terri could percieve pain. We can only guess. I have fasted for 24 hours and did experience pain--I drunk plenty of water. I have seen a cat that appeared to be in terrible pain related to being hungry or in need of water. The cat appeared to be in pain. It's my guess that Terri did experience pain. Her parents told the news media that she appeared to be in pain. It's my guess that she was in pain. SignatureNEWSGROUP SUBSCRIBERS MOTTO We respect those subscribers that ask for advice or provide advice. We do NOT respect the subscribers that enjoy criticizing people. > I understand your point of view. My point was that a human should have > more rights than dogs and cats. You mentioned that Terri could not [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Her parents told the news media that she appeared to be in pain. It's my > guess that she was in pain. When I said she couldn't experience pain, I wasn't saying that the process of hunger didn't produce pain. I was saying that her brain was not capable of producing a conscious representation for pain. You're right that we don't know for a fact whether or not she was able to generate this sort of response to pain. But an educated guess was made by the physicians treating her that she was unable to do so, based upon the extent of her injuries. If the line that her "cortex had disintegrated beyond usefulness" is indeed true, then it's probably a safe assumption. >> > He did not allow her to die. The judges forced her to starve to death. >> > If [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > Her parents told the news media that she appeared to be in pain. It's my > guess that she was in pain. She may or may not have been in pain. I can't really tell. The parts of the cortex that are needed for true consciousness of pain were gone. The way her muscles were contracted, I would not be surprised that, if she could feel pain, she was in pain from the contractures. If she was leading any type of life, it must have been a miserable life. And it was her wish that she not be kept alive artificially. Jeff >The way her muscles were contracted, I would not be surprised that, if she >could feel pain, she was in pain from the contractures. If she was leading >any type of life, it must have been a miserable life. FWIW, her muscles were contracted in a pattern consistent with decerebrate rigity associated with a disconnection (or removal) of the forebrain from the spinal cord. There's no indication that any pain is associated with that condition. Kal >>The way her muscles were contracted, I would not be surprised that, if >>she [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > forebrain from the spinal cord. There's no indication that any pain > is associated with that condition. Thanks. Of course, that doesn't mean that she doesn't feel pain. Other evidence indicates this. Jeff > Kal >>>The way her muscles were contracted, I would not be surprised that, if >>>she [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > >Of course, that doesn't mean that she doesn't feel pain. It suggests that, from observing this posture, one cannot infer that she is feeling pain . That's all. Kal >>>>The way her muscles were contracted, I would not be surprised that, if >>>>she [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >It suggests that, from observing this posture, one cannot infer that >she is feeling pain . That's all. I would like to see evidence from qualified specialists in neurology who actually examined her condition that would indicate that she could respond appropriately and "consciously" or "with awareness" to stimuli. I cannot accept impressions gained from non-specialists or even board certified medical personnel who have only viewed edited and excerpted photographs and videos and hearsay or anecdotal evidence. >Kal >I would like to see evidence from qualified specialists in neurology >who actually examined her condition that would indicate that she could >respond appropriately and "consciously" or "with awareness" to >stimuli. Sorry, none to be found. All those who examined her came to the same conclusion. As if the courts didn't impose the same requirement.... >>I would like to see evidence from qualified specialists in neurology >>who actually examined her condition that would indicate that she could [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >As if the courts didn't impose the same requirement.... That is exactly what I thought. And I should have expressed myself better, saying something like "before accepting any arguments about Terri Shiavo's competence or 'right to life' I would like to see ...." Before anyone accepts arguments, they should read the testimony of specialists who actually did examine her specifically to evaluate her state. There is, however, a larger issue here in that terms like "consciousness," "awareness," etc. raise sticky conceptual issues. If Shiavo would have shown reflexive movements to [what most of us would call] "painful stimuli" would we say that she is aware of pain? Most would say "no," but reflexes (not simple ones though) are often what we examine when we look at "pain" in nonhuman animals. Notice that I am not arguing that Shiavo is "conscious" or "aware" but, rather that difficult conceptual issues are raised. My actual view regarding pain (and my wife and I have written a paper on this topic) is that we use "pain language" when we observe reflexive behavior, escape and avoidance, as well as first-person reports (i.e., we say someone is in pain when they tell us they are). We also use "pain language" when we observe pain responses in ourselves. Non-human animals show reflexes and escape and avoidance, but they are not aware of their own pain responses, though they can be made aware in that sense. > >>I would like to see evidence from qualified specialists in neurology > >>who actually examined her condition that would indicate that she could [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > specialists who actually did examine her specifically to evaluate her > state. >There is, however, a larger issue here in that terms like "consciousness," >"awareness," etc. raise sticky conceptual issues. If Shiavo would have shown [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >escape and avoidance, but they are not aware of their own pain responses, >though they can be made aware in that sense. An excellent point, which is exactly why I used the terms "conscious" and "awareness" in talking about responding to stimuli. Isolated spinal cords can respond to complex stimuli with complex motor patterns that are appropriately directed towards the stimulus and different types of stimuli elicit different responses, including those closely related to what a conscious human would call pain. The real problem is decided when higher brain functions are sufficiently lost so that the "person" is essentially dead although the living cells in the body still are capable of reacting. I strongly believe that the video and the photos are enormously misleading in that they are carefully selected to cause naive onlookers to think that there is consciousness or awareness. From the news reports I have been able to glean, it seems that trained medical examiners who had actually examined her concluded that there was none. > >There is, however, a larger issue here in that terms like "consciousness," > >"awareness," etc. raise sticky conceptual issues. If Shiavo would have shown [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > examiners who had actually examined her concluded that there was none. > ] I say a CAT of TS's brain, it was largely gone in the cross section shown. Gone!! She been dead for 15 years. If I am that situation, I hope they harvest me for organs though at 56 years they are getting a bit too old. >>There is, however, a larger issue here in that terms like "consciousness," >>"awareness," etc. raise sticky conceptual issues. If Shiavo would have shown [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] >news reports I have been able to glean, it seems that trained medical >examiners who had actually examined her concluded that there was none. The problem with the video that was played repeatedly is that it was actually about a 4-hour video that was "heavily edited" for the only pieces that showed her apparently tracking a balloon held by her mother, etc. We cannot know what actually happened and how "aware" she might have been without viewing the entire thing. In this case, the only *objective* evidence available to the viewing public is the court testimony of doctors and guardians ad litem who personally examined her and they all concluded the same thing (well, except for the one who was paid by the Schindlers): that she was no longer conscious of herself or anything around her. > >>There is, however, a larger issue here in that terms like "consciousness," > >>"awareness," etc. raise sticky conceptual issues. If Shiavo would have shown [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > who was paid by the Schindlers): that she was no longer conscious of > herself or anything around her. If a living will had been written and signed--none of these things would have ever been on television. There was a local man that was arrested for having skinny horses on his farm. My feeling is that humans should have as many rights as horses. Since we don't have any written records as to her wishes, we should have let her keep living as long as her parents wished to pay all of the related expenses. I respect the opinions of those people that disagree with me. I have written a living will and don't want to ever be kept alive by any medical equipment. SignatureNEWSGROUP SUBSCRIBERS MOTTO We respect those subscribers that ask for advice or provide advice. We do NOT respect the subscribers that enjoy criticizing people. (...) > If a living will had been written and signed--none of these things would > have ever been on television. There was a local man that was arrested for > having skinny horses on his farm. But horses can eat by themselves. Mrs. Schiavo couldn't eat. At all. > My feeling is that humans should have as > many rights as horses. Since we don't have any written records as to her > wishes, we should have let her keep living as long as her parents wished > to pay all of the related expenses. Actually, the courts determined her wishes by talking to her friends, including her husband, the person who was given the responsibility of making these sorts of decisions. So she should have been allowed to die a long time ago. Dubya signed a law like this in Texas. I mean, her medical expenses were partly paid for by Medicaid. So does this mean those without the means to pay for medical care shouldn't get it? > I respect the opinions of those people > that disagree with me. I have written a living will and don't want to ever > be kept alive by any medical equipment. I do. If I have a good chance of making a good recovery. Mrs. Schiavo didn't have any chance. Jeff > She can't swallow.< > > Water is absorbed through the tongue as with a gtn spray Then why do people choke on their salvia? Jeff >> She can't swallow.< >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Jeff The same reason that people drink water, but drown when they "get too much" of it. This last question has moved Habshi perilously close to the plonk file, but he is SO STUPID it's still a bit amusing-like watching a dog chase it's tail. > > She can't swallow.< > > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Jeff People choke on salvia because they are no longer swallowing or coughing. And it does build up and it is disgusting. They are often pretty well brain dead in my limited experience. It is the RNs job to clear the throat with a suction tube. JQ Daddies don't let daughter grow up to be RNs as the hours suck..........stuff like mandatory overtime. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.