The brainwashing around the "Schiavo" case...

by Brummie 138 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  exjwshell

  They can't do an MRI because she has metal implants in her head because they tried neurostimulation to try to jumpstart her cognitive function. They can't do an MRI unless they subject her to neurosurgery first. It's good to get the rest of the story instead of just the emotionalist appeals where only the tiniest bit of information is given to try and make the other side appear monstrous.

  They can remove the implants...as a matter of fact the doctor that put the implants in Terri told her husband to have them removed - Michael said NO.

  That IS the rest of the story.

  It was NOT my intention to make the other side appear monstrous.

  ~Shell
• 

  Odrade

  WHY did he say no? THAT is the rest of the story...

  Having worked with doctors, they will tell you that people always want to know the "removal" options. I know one oncologist who "recommends" surgery for 93 year old cancer patients in comas, just because that is "standard treatment protocol" for tumors, NOT because it is appropriate for the case. Doctors are required by courts (read: malpractice suits) to recommend standard treatments, whether or not it is case-specifically appropriate.

  Using the example of the oncologist, if she has a 93 year old coma patient who has a tumour, and she recommends to the family that the patient NOT be operated on, IF that patient dies of something even remotely related to the tumour, the family can come back and sue her for not recommending standard treatment. AND they would probably win, whether or not the treatment was appropriate. In addition, they can sue her if she recommends standard treatment, it is followed, and the patient dies on the operating table OR post-surgically.

  Now, I realize that Mrs. Schiavo is not 93 years old. I also realize that she does not have cancer. I believe this is analogous though, as to the doctors' "recommendations." They are easily misinterpreted by family who see the case through the lenses of personal grief, hope and perhaps unreasonable expectations. Sometimes the doctors are forced to make "recommendations" that are not in the best interest of the patient, because there is no directly related precedent for treatment, and their hands are tied into following the most closely related protocol.

  On a Schiavo related note... if her cerebral cortex has been largely replaced with cerebro-spinal fluid, what do you expect will happen when they drill a hole in her skull to remove the implants? Do you think the loss of the cerebro-spinal fluid will improve her condition? Keep in mind that the function of CS fluid is to protect the brain... even if she has very little brain left, it is still protecting it.
• 

  exjwshell

  On a Schiavo related note... if her cerebral cortex has been largely replaced with cerebro-spinal fluid, what do you expect will happen when they drill a hole in her skull to remove the implants? Do you think the loss of the cerebro-spinal fluid will improve her condition? Keep in mind that the function of CS fluid is to protect the brain... even if she has very little brain left, it is still protecting it.

  First and foremost, the issues and concerns that I've posted are simply my opinions - I am not related to Terri, nor am I a neurologist.

  Second, I'm not suggesting that TODAY they should take her into surgery and remove the implants so that an MRI can be performed...My point was that it SHOULD have been done earlier if it was recommended by medical professionals.

  And finally, I'm not completely convinced that her cerebral cortex is full of spinal fluid. The CT scans are hard to read - and they do not give a clear and accurate picture with enough detail to fully see condition or damage - an MRI is needed to do this.

  Here is an interesting medical blog if anyone is interested in reading what another doctor thinks of her condition and her brain scans: http://codeblueblog.blogs.com/codeblueblog/2005/03/csi_medblogs_co.html

  ~Shell
• 

  Odrade

  I'm not a neurologist either, obviously, but even I can see the difference between the scan you posted and the normal scan below. The media and the Schindlers have done an excellent job on this one. And though I'm not a neurologist, I believe the courts should have the right to decide that the trained neurologists who say that her brain is replaced with fluid, with no hope for regeneration, are qualified to make that judgment. It seems to me, they have.
• 

  Brummie

  Commendations to all for discussing this maturely. Neither side deserve a "whoopin" just because they disagree with eachother, yet I have seen discussions about this case get nasty, sad.

  I found it alarming that she was able to swallow on her own until they put the feeding tube in, consequently that weakened the muscles so that she couldnt swollow later! Its almost as if her fate has been a "set up". People read the paper work but didnt think about the person. Now who stopped the feeding through the mouth? I hear it was her husband? Maybe not, I dont know for sure..

  Perhaps someone needs to face responsibility for her inability to swollow now? How kind they have all been to her, weakened her muscles which added to her suffering and now they want her dead because she may be "suffering" more. If they had allowed her to continue to use her muscles she may by now have been able to feed without the aid of the tube...They stop her feeding abilities and now they wont feed her. Totally ironical.

  By getting her out of the way all the misdiagnosis can be buried with her sooner.

  I just dont understand why they would use this cruel way of killing her
• 

  talesin

  I just dont understand why they would use this cruel way of killing her

  I dont wish to comment on the rest of the debate, but I agree, Brummie.

  This has been an issue for me for many years. As far as I know, it is SOP here, as injection of a life-ending substance is considered murder most foul, even in the case of someone who had clearly stated their wishes in writing while of sound mind.

  It just doesn`t, as the wise Odrade said, feel right. (in all cases, not just this one)

  Living will for moi, that`s all I have to say on the rest of it.

  tal
• 

  NewLight2

  What if Michael was a JW and Terri a non-JW and the issue was not a feeding tube, but BLOOD. And Terri had never signed the Blood Card/DPA but had expressed her wishes to RECIEVE blood to her parents who were also not JW. Enter JW Michael who ONLY CLAIMS that he and Terri had discussed this issue and that she had indicated to him that she was NOT to receive blood.
  
  Who do you think the courts would side with - Michael or Terri's parents?
  
  Would the courts withhold life-saving blood from Terri just because her JW husband CLAIMS this is what she wanted regardless of lack of written proof?
  
  Prior to the "Schiavo" case, Terri would have been ORDERED by the courts to recieve the life-saving blood.
  
  How will this case affect 'court-ordered' Blood given to minor children/babies of JW parents?
  
  Will courts STOP interferring in the 'blood issue' when it involves minor children/babies of JW parents?
  
  Will the courts just allow these children/babies to die???
  
  Sobering thoughts!!
  
  NewLight2
• 

  Mary

  Ok, as far as if I would keep my pets alive if they were living like Terri: It would be a hard decision and it would depend on whether they were in pain or not, if they had any brain activity or not. But although I love my pets like family members, I wouldn't have the money to do that and I would have to make the hard decision to let them go and spend the money helping a human being.

  It's got nothing to do with money. The bottom line is: if your pet was a vegetable, you'd have it put to sleep to end it's suffering. It's a lousy thing, because we love our pets like they're family and we don't want to see them go, but we do it out of compassion and what's best for THEM, not what's best for US. I feel really sorry for the Shindler's because no one wants to lose their child, but I think the most compassionate thing they could do is to just let the poor woman go.

  I just think the thing that gets to me the most is the whole starving thing...

  I agree.....I think they could do it in a much more dignified way.

  and that the person who says they know whether or not this was her wish now has a relationship with another woman and I would question his motives because of that.

  I don't blame this guy for moving on......he's flesh and blood and who can can we wouldn't all do the same thing if we were in that situation? I would not want to go the rest of my life in no relationship with someone.
• 

  Brummie

  Can anyone document where people who have been starved to death have said it to be a "not so bad" way to die? And that the collapse of the internal organs through starvation is merciful ?

  That the conscience is located in Schiavo's part of the brain that is damaged? That she may not be finding enjoyment in just being able to see or be conscious of her family being present? If you say she is not conscious then please say how consciousness is measured, what technology was used to determine this...

  I just think that peoples philisophical beliefs rather than science is edging this woman to her death. Being fed is NOT an extra-orinary medical intervention, it is a basic right of humans.

  Brummie
• 

  Satanus

  It seems to me that there is something going here on that we don't see. Some kind of political or mass psychological bs. This whole thing is too wierd. Another one of those 'distract the masses w heart tugging bs' things, mass conditioning, or division of the population. This is why i refuse to get involved.

  S out