Discussion in 'Issues Around the World' started by ethics, Oct 16, 2003.
Yep.. Pass out the tin foil. The CT crowd is gonna go nuts with it.
The lack of oxygen to the brain can happen for OTHER reasons than another human beings involvement, Arc.
I'm just the messenger here, not an accuser.
The "official" medical reason and theory for the lack of oxygen to her brain has always been that she suffered a heart arrhythmia that fateful day. (Not a "heart attack" as the MSM keep mislabeling it.)
The theory and assumption on why her heart experienced the arrhythmia was due to her "eating disorder" that caused an imbalance of certain substances and functions to trigger the arrhythmia. (Exactly what killed Karen Carpenter.)
However, the autopsy showed no evidence whatsoever she suffered from any eating disorder.
Given that and the fact that members of her family have always contended that the heart arrhythmia was triggered by some evil deed by the hub and there you go.
And I have no opinion to the truth of any allegation against the husband but it is a legitimate question or issue. How it is dealt with is the potential problem--especially with those who have an agenda other than the truth and then as Bikes mention you throw in the CT group in addition to those folks I've mentioned....
More controversy is coming down the pike.
No, but there was <i>no evidence that she was strangled or otherwise abused.</i>
Welp, just because they accuse him of something that doesn't make the allegation true. As a matter of fact, from the people who -- AFTER this autopsy report -- think that they STILL had a chance of recovery, well, their allegations are suspect to me. Clearly people with no perception of the damage that was done to her brain.
Btw, the autopsy revealed that"
1. She was blind, because the "vision centers of her brain were dead".
2. "The brain weighed 615 grams, roughly half of the expected weight of a human brain. This damage was irreversible, and no amount of therapy or treatment would have regenerated the massive loss of neurons."
3. He said hospital records of her 1990 collapse showed she had a diminished potassium level in her blood. But he said that did not prove she had an eating disorder, because the emergency treatment she received at the time could have affected the potassium level. Which means-- to me-- that you can't rule out what the hospital did initially could not have triggered her brain to totally collapse.
All in all, an open and shut case as far as rehabilitation potential.
I cringe to think what would have happened if the Bushes got their ways.
Yes, it seems that while the autopsy did not confirm an eating disorder, it also didn't rule it out as a cause. There's no guarantee that the autopsy would have found any evidence (after all this time). There's certainly no evidence of "foul play," in any case. People have heart arrythmia (and die from them) relatively frequently, even with no eating disorder, and no apparent contributing cause of any kind.
I'm just responding to the part of your post on the single subject of the cause of her arrhythmia.
No there was no evidence that she was strangled or physically abused. And there was no evidence that she was shot, stabbed or abducted by aliens. All that reasonably implies is none of those events happened.
But that would not be surprising given the affliction she suffered was an arrhythmia. That would most likely be caused naturally or if artificially by the introduction of some substance into her system, which would long be gone by the time of her autopsy. But had she died that day instead of going into what would become a permanent vegetative state the autopsy then probably would have detected any foul play--IF there was any.
Again, I am only saying it is a legitimate question and I am not accusing anyone of anything. Nor am I suggesting that something should or should not be done.
And of course the nature of all the legal proceedings which were full and complete really never directed themselves to that question--and nor should they have under the legal and procedural circumstances. Legally there is no question she got due process.
But it is true the only one judge and one hearing really addressed any factual matters surrounding her condition and that hearing focused primarily on her wishes of what she would want in her condition, NOT on how she got into it.
It would be foolish to go CT on this. But it would be foolish to simply dismiss it out of hand and not acknowledge it is a legitimate unanswered and mostly unaddressed issue that due to the circumstance never will be addressed. That doesn't mean it did or did not happen.
In my professional experience I never investigated*, dismissed, or prosecuted a case on emotion. It was always business and the facts as well as weighing the cost versus benifts in those circumstances.
*At the investigative level I did go beyond my professional duty and responsibility on a few cases where I was angered by the damage suffered where otherwise under normal procedure might be dimissed. I did that on my own time and it usually paid off.
So much for her responding to balloons in her room and people making faces at her. She couldn't see them.
May this FINALLY be over.
Edit: The link to the full story
Yes, this puts an end to the doubters' concerns. It's unfortunate that it takes an autopsy to establish the facts.
You'd think so, wouldn't you? But, alas, no. The parents are still saying he did *something* and it's all his fault. My husband still thinks the husband did *something*. Strange, isn't it?
I can understand (at least emotionally) how the parents would want to hold, with utter faith, to what they've decided, regardless of the facts. They've been through so much, and the tragedy is so great, that that kind of faith (even when it flies in the face of facts) must be quite important to them.
But what I can't really understand is this:
Is it so hard for a president to say "I was wrong"?</FORM><FORM name=vbform onsubmit="return checkQR(this);" action=newreply.php method=post>
Are you kidding me? Bush!?!? Saying he was wrong??!!
What terrified me the most about this case is HOW the government got involved here. From local, to state, to federal with Congress and Bush rushing a friggin bill.
W. doesn't know he was wrong. It's just hard for Bush to shut up.
On a personal moral level, was he wrong? His conviction, and that of many right to lifers is that human life must be preserved at all costs...whether she is braindead/PVS or not. In terms of elevating this to the level of public policy, he was absolutely wrong.
Whatever his personal moral convictions, he was completely wrong on the facts, and wrong as a matter of public policy. That's what I would expect him to admit. I would not expect him to say "I was wrong on a personal moral level" because I don't know that he was. But I would expect him to say, as president, that his actions as president were both bad policy, and based on wrong assumptions (intentionally ignoring reliable, objective, judicial and medical decisions).
Although, as ethics points out, he's never really given the slightest appearance of meriting such an expectation.
Well, here's an apology (of sorts) for you... But I read this one differently as well.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/16/AR2005061600501.htmlFrist said he accepted the results of Schiavo's autopsy released Wednesday, showing severe, irreversible brain damage. But he stood by his statements on the Senate floor last March, when he argued that on videotape Schiavo appeared to respond to her family and doctors.
Frist said the autopsy should mark the close of a divisive chapter.</NITF>
<NITF>"The diagnosis they made is exactly right. It's the pathology, I'll respect that. I think it's time to move on," Frist said earlier Thursday on CBS' "The Early Show."
Read - "I was politicizing the entire affair, and now I don't want to look like a jackass with a doctor's license."
That's about how I read it, too. But he's certainly not going to come out and say that!
I wonder what Mr. DeLay will have to say? He seemed pretty sure of himself when he said this:
Will the words "I was wrong" pass through his lips?
Probably not. Because his brain is atrophied as well, and he still talks and laughs.
Oh, man, am I glad I didn't say that!
If it walks like a jackass, has fuzzy ears and a long face and eats grass and oats, you don't need a sign that says, "Jackass."
:rofl: But do his eyes track moving objects?
And finally, we have Michelle Malkin, who, today, totally loses her credibility as being objective.
Late last night, I took the time to read the 39-page autopsy report of Terri Schiavo--something which, it is clear to me, most of the callous gloaters on the other side of this debate have not bothered to do. And will never do. These are people who can only talk about the sanctity of life if it's enclosed in ghost quotes and pronounced with a sneer.
You do not need a medical examiner's license to see that the report raises many more questions than it answers, though from the (once again) misleading media coverage, we are led to believe that the matters of Terri's life and murder are resolved. They are not.
Here's a typical example from an article headlined, "No trauma before Schiavo collapse:"
<i> An autopsy report on a brain-damaged woman at the centre of a long legal battle in the US has shown that she suffered no trauma before her collapse.</i>
But on page 4 of the M.E.'s summary, what the report actually says with regard to possible strangulation is this:
<i> Autopsy examination of her neck structures 15 years after her initial collapse did not detect any signs of remote trauma, but, with such a delay, the exam was unlikely to show any residual neck findings."</i>
Wow Michelle, I never knew that an absence of evidence equaled evidence?
She has more babble, but to me that's all it is. Someone desperately trying to face how wrong she was about the whole thing. No mention of Terri being blind, no mention that her brain weighed 50% that of a normal human being, but hey, let's focus on PVS definitions.
Hey Michelle? Admitting you were wrong would have been a lot more honorable, respected, and you would not lose readers like myself.
P.S. Her original take is here: http://www.jewishworldreview.com/michelle/malkin032305.php3