Terri Schaivo autopsy out

And much comment in Catholic circles. Very few recognize the extreme damage done to the pro-life position.

A commenter “Ian” at Amy Welborn's always thoughtful Open Book says it best:

I think those who were supporting Terri discredited their effort by justifying her life based on the potential to recover. Like many, I wanted to believe this was possible, but the evidence wasn't there. With the release of this autopsy report, pro-lifers have lost credibility among those who don't have an opinion one way or the other. These are the ones we should work to convince; the Left is against us and always will be.

Amy disagrees saying:

Ian:

I really do believe that if you look back over years of commentary on this case from prolife experts and institutions (rather than spleen-venting on the internet), you would very rarely find any defenses of continued feeding of this woman based on her potential to recover. I for one, never made it part of my argument, and most I know and read did not either. That is not the point, and falls into the "You're human and worthy of life if you can perform" mentality.

I disagree cautiously with her on this point. She for one has been single consistent proponent of the value of any life and opposed removal of feeding tubes whether or not there was any hope of recovery simply because we treat human beings with dignity regardless of their condition. [I hope I summarized her position properly.] I agree with this position--but that was not the public positon that was argued.

Perhaps pro-life experts and institutions did confine themselves to this argument but the vast majority of pro-life supporters did not. The emphais was clearly on misdiagnosis. It’s clear that hope of recovery/misdaignosis was the basis for Congressional action, as well. Senator Frist, as a doctor, reported in favor of legislation that she had been misdiagnosed, but now claims he never said that. Congress would not have interefered if he had not taken that position.  The comments in blog comments boxes often expounded conspiracy theories approaching “UFO-ness. Now her family is raising questions about a “50 minute gap” essentially accusing the husband of murder 18 years ago. This is nonrational thinking by the family members and, for them, it can be excused.

The problem is that others have jumped on this “conspiracy” bandwagon. Certainly both the posts and the comments at Thrown Back were not in the constrained vein Amy suggested was the real position. Maybe she considers that internet spleen venting, and that’s fair, but even the televised quotes from Father Pavano emphasized potential consciousness and recovery. The televised vigil services being held outside the hospice made no mention at all of this issue. Most insisted on calling Michael Schaivo a “murderer.” Many, if not most of the accusations were based on the fact she was conscious and could or would recover, or at least, recovery could not be ruled out. I think it’s more accurate to say that the matter was handled in a “shotgun” fashion and all available potential arguments and conspiracy theories, plausible or not, were made with equal vigor.

I think this public relations tactic was both intentional and seriously mistaken, harming the pro-life movement. The tactic was intentional because the vast majority of Americans do not favor ceasing medical efforts for comatose people who have a reasonable prospect of recovery. Consequently, the emphasis on recovery was essential to this strategy and the criticisms are still being made today based on swallow tests, MRI’s etc by people who need to invoke this tactic.

This tactic has to be employed because otherwise, accepting the autopsy at face value and medically accurate, we are presented with the situation in which a person is hopelessly in a vegetative state. In such cases the vast majority of Americans would be in favor of family members deciding to discontinue artificial nutrition and hydration. Making Amy's argument would simply not be persuasive.

Then we have the teachings of the Catholic Church. Those teachings handle the two cases very differently.

As to situation one--the potential recovery scenario--I believe the Church teaches that medical care cannot morally be withheld.

As to situation two—the non-recovery scenario—The Church’s teaching are prudential. People may legitimately decide that the burdens outweigh the benefits based on the facts of each case.

Catechism section 2278: "Discontinuing medical procedures that are burdensome, dangerous, extraordinary, or disproportionate to the expected outcome can be legitimate; it is the refusal of "over-zealous" treatment. Here one does not will to cause death; one's inability to impede it is merely accepted. The decisions should be made by the patient if he is competent and able or, if not, by those legally entitled to act for the patient, whose reasonable will and legitimate interests must always be respected."

There is no one right answer for every situation. Consequently, at least some pro-life advocates conceded the possibility that Terri Sciavo’s husband made a morally correct decision. One of these people was her own bishop. Was he given the respect for his teaching position? You be the judge.

If I was in Terri Schaivo’s position I would hope my family would lovingly and prayerfully remove all artificial efforts to prolong life. If I was in Michael’s shoes, I would probably wait several years until there was no hope and make the same decision he did, if that decision was allowed by the Catholic Church, as it is today.

In short, Michael’s decision may or may not have been moral. I don’t know what he was thinking, I do know it was not objectively wrong to make that decision. Pro-lifers who actually have read the Church’s teachings, including, for example, American and Australian Catholic Bishops, recognize the decision is prudential. There is no one size fits all answer. Catholics who claim there is misrepresent the teachings of the Church.

But, the Schaivo situation became a public relations affair, not a calm discussion on the sanctity of life. And it got that way by supposed pro-lifers. They seriously damaged their cause.

Comments

[Todd]

That's about the best summary I've read of it this week. The small bit I would add is not to underestimate the dysfunction of some family rifts. It wouldn't surprise me than many people have been sucked into this public display of acrimony. Coming from a family with a history of alcoholism, many aspects of this episode had a spooky familiarity.

[Elena]

if not, by those legally entitled to act for the patient, whose reasonable will and legitimate interests must always be respected."

Well that's where Michael Schiavo's case falls apart for me. He obviously had other intersts in the persons of his common law wife and two children with her, not to mention those cloudy financial considerations. I also wonder how "reasonable" it was to go to the extraordinary lengths to kill Terri when it was abundantly clear that her parents were ready, willing and able to assume her care. I somehow highly doubt that it was ever Terri's wish to die the death she did in front of her parents, watching helplessly.

I disagree that it hurt the pro-life movement. If anything I think it might have given it some more backbone after seeing how far this country really has fallen in regards to defending the weak and the voiceless.

[Paul]

The Holy See was clear on this issue, and did not contradict Church teaching. Ordinary care was removed in this case, thus Terri died not from her disability, but from neglect at the hands of her husband and certain secular authorities involved.

News Story: "Autopsy Reveals Terri Schiavo Would Have Lived “At Least” another 10 Years
Bush opening investigation into the delay calling 911 after Terri’s 1990 collapse

PINELLAS COUNTY, Florida, June 17, 2005 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Results of an autopsy performed on Terri Schiavo, released Wednesday, revealed that she could have lived “at least” another 10 years, according to Pinellas-Pasco medical examiner Jon Thogmartin.

“Terri was not terminal,” Terri Schiavo’s family emphasized in a statement to the media. “The medical examiner said with proper care Terri would have lived at least another 10 years even in her disabled condition.”

“Terri's case was NOT an end-of-life case,” the Schindler’s added. “Terri's case was about ending a disabled person’s life.” The Schindler’s explained that, “First, Thogmartin’s report confirms Terri's physical condition and disability . . . This is nothing new.” They emphasized that the medical examiner’s “report also confirms that TERRI WAS NOT TERMINAL, THAT TERRI HAD NO LIVING WILL, THAT TERRI HAD A STRONG HEART, and THAT TERRI WAS BRUTALLY DEHYDRATED TO DEATH.” (Emphasis theirs.)

“Second, our family would encourage the media to remember that this case was allegedly about ‘Terri's choice,’” the Schindler’s continued. “There is absolutely no evidence that Terri wanted to die of dehydration, or that she believed that that the level of one's disability gives anyone the moral and legal right to end another's life.”

“Third, the medical examiner said clearly that dehydration, not her brain injury, was the cause of her death. Terri was dehydrated to death before our eyes. The moral shame of what happened is not erased because of Terri's level of disability. No one would say that ‘blind people’ or ‘brain-injured’ people should be put to death. That would be an irresponsible and heartless position to take. Tragically, that is what happened to Terri. As a society, it seems that we have lost our compassion for the disabled.”

In addition, the medical examiner confirmed that Terri was brain-injured. “This does NOT mean that she was brain-dead,” the Schindler’s added. “Many seem to not understand this absolutely critical distinction. The medical examiner clearly stated that persistent vegetative state is a clinical diagnosis made on a living patient. That is something a medical examiner cannot do by looking at a corpse. Dr. William Cheshire, a neurologist from the Mayo Clinic, agreed with our family's perception that Terri was awake, aware, and at least minimally cognitive. The medical examiner stated that no conclusive medical studies have been done on what a minimally conscious state brain should look like as opposed to a persistent vegetative state brain in an autopsy.”

According to the autopsy, Terri had a strong heart. “The medical examiner essentially ruled out bulimia and heart attack as causes for Terri's condition,” the Schindler’s continued. “In one sense the medical examiner’s report created as many questions as it may have answered. The major question for our family that now remains is what happened?” The lack of evidence of heart disease as claimed by Terri’s estranged husband Michael is particularly troubling, as he won a massive payout in medical malpractice suits based on this claim.

The Schindler’s aren’t the only ones questioning the discrepancy between Michael Schiavo’s admission that Terri collapsed at 4:30 a.m. and that paramedics did not arrive on the scene until 5:52 a.m. – Florida Governor Jeb Bush has decided to open an investigation into the discrepancy after talking to Dr., Thogmartin privately before he released the autopsy findings, revealing that he could not find any reason for Schiavo’s collapse in 1990. “What he did say to me that was troubling . . . was that there was some doubt about when she collapsed and how long it took for a phone call to be made to 911,” Bush said, as reported by the AP. “I think that is worthy of some investigation.”

Right-to-die campaigner, attorney George Felos reacted, saying, “The extent to which [Bush] will prostitute himself to right-wing constituents for his future political gain I think is just pitiful.”

“Our family would encourage Michael Schiavo to do the right thing and return the funds that were paid by the innocent doctors who were sued for Terri's collapse,” the Schindler’s said in their release.

“No mother and father should have to watch their child that they love more than life itself, be dehydrated and starved before their eyes,” the Schindler’s concluded. “Civilized societies should not tolerate such barbaric acts.”

See the Schindler’s statement:
http://www.earnedmedia.org/tf0616.htm

See local coverage of Gov. Bush’s investigation:
http://www.sptimes.com/2005/06/17/Tampabay/Schiavo...

tv

[Wendy]

There are several well known and established activists for the disabled who where horrified as to how this ended. Many disabled cannot feed themselves or have the possiblity of recovery, is that considered extraordinary circumstances?

[Unapologetic Catholic]

I appreciate the thoughtful comments. Observations about financial interests and new family are not facts, merely circumstantial inferences and people are certainly entitled to draw different inferences from the circumstances, or to draw no inference at all. The "financial considerations" inference is surely the weakest of all. As a matter of fact, my own wife may make the decision for me if I am not able to do so for myself. I would like her to follow Catholic teaching, but if she is ever in a situation to make the decision, she makes it with the knowledge that she will become a millionaire upon my death. Should she therefore not be permitted to make the decision? Does the entire rest of the United States get to second guess that decision? Every person who stands to inherit upon the death of their spouse is "financially interested" in the outcome. In spite of that frequent and obvious fact, the catechism still leaves the prudential decision to the family members.

That's not to say that peope who think Micahel Schaivo did not follow Catholic teachings aren't right. They might be--we just don't know. I just disagree with those who say that the evidence and Catechism compel a specific result in this case and those who don't agree are somehow part of the culture of death. That's simply not true.

Wendy raises a good consisderation. I wouldn't presume to speak on behalf of disabled people--or their families. The Catechism clearly allows disabled persons to make the decision to forego futher medical treatment (under certain circumstances) for themselves. If a disabled person is competent to make that decision then nobody else can make it for them. That was my point. Each situation is unique and there can only be general guidelines--that don't include euthanasia. There is a reason that there are two separate sections of the Catechism 2278 and 2279. Euthanasia is addressed--and prohibited--in 2279. 2278 deals with a different situation.

Paul cowardly accuses Michael of attempted murder in 1990, with no basis. I flatly repudiate and disown these despicable remarks.

[Elena]

the catechism still leaves the prudential decision to the family members.

But in this case, those family members (mother, father, sister brother) who didn't find Terri to be a burden, who wanted her to live, who wanted to take full responsibility for her care and well-being were denied the right via the court system.

[Mark]

The Schiavo autopsy news was spun as a whitewash designed to cleanse the pro-death side from culpability and to tarnish the pro-life side as fanatics. Of course Terri's brain was seriously deteriorated, and of course her condition at death did not contradict a diagnosis of permanent vegetative state.

This case's legal jousting was tragic, much like the way Christ was finally condemned to death -- after being through several forums. The disciples didn't think Christ's execution would be good for the movement either. The point for me is that I thought America was where we had a right to life -- and we had a right to care for our dying loved ones.

There is no disputing that the attorney and doctors on Michael's side are part of a dark "right" to die agenda. There is no disputing that Michael terminated all rehabilitative therapy as soon as he won the damage claim against Terri's doctors; or that the attorney appointed as guardian ad litem for Terri was removed after expressing concern over Michael's obvious conflicts of interest; or that after winning, Michael put Terri in hospice care (care not for healing but for those expected to die); or that the Flordia Supreme Court overturned the Governor's feeding tube order as an exercise power over a Governor they would not have elected; or that Michael barred Terri's parents and siblings at the time of her passing, and had her surrounded by the people that sought her death.

It is redeeming that many heroic characters came to Terri's aid. I thank God that this legally sanctioned killing of Terri on the fiction that she wanted it that way, was blocked and publicized at so many turns. It hurts that the death advocates prevailed, and this result reveals truths about where society is going -- but neither this nor the spinning of autopsy results in any way dishonors those of us that prayed, or donated or actually participated in the struggle to free Terri from Michael and Judge Greer.

[Todd]

"The Schiavo autopsy news was spun as a whitewash designed to cleanse the pro-death side from culpability and to tarnish the pro-life side as fanatics."

A cleansing from culpability implies there was some sense of sin, which I don't agree there was. The pro-Terri side was certainly more vocal in this, especially the more extreme elements. While the autopsy didn't give outright discredit to Michael's view, it did explode some exaggerations from the other side. Sadly, that's news.

"The point for me is that I thought America was where we had a right to life -- and we had a right to care for our dying loved ones."

Legally, that right is not absolute. Self-determination, within legal limits, supercedes the "rights" of some to impose their will others.

"There is no disputing that the attorney and doctors on Michael's side are part of a dark "right" to die agenda."

There's a lot of dispute on that point. Michael may simply have given up hope after several years of caring for his wife. He hired a good lawyer who was able to effectively win a case and every appeal for him. The same medical community was unable to surface any evidence during the original malpractice trial that would help their cause (malicious attack on the husband's part, Terri's physical condition at the time of her stroke, etc.)

"There is no disputing that Michael terminated all rehabilitative therapy as soon as he won the damage claim against Terri's doctors ..."

Yet he continued to use the settlement money on her behalf.

" ... or that the Flordia Supreme Court overturned the Governor's feeding tube order as an exercise power over a Governor they would not have elected ...."

It's not unheard of for individual members of a judiciary to have political views, but it is also possible their political leanings had nothing to do with a matter of jurisprudence.

" ... or that Michael barred Terri's parents and siblings at the time of her passing, and had her surrounded by the people that sought her death."

That can be blamed on the family squabble, which began, at Mr Schindler's instigation, over money.

There are lessons to be learned from this tragedy, but first we need to disentangle the discussion from a very acrimonious family dispute.

[somaie]

Having been a part of the Online Universal Work Marketing team for 4 months now, I’m thankful for my fellow team members who have patiently shown me the ropes along the way and made me feel welcome

www.onlineuniversalwork.com

[christian louboutin]

Your articles and photos are really shock me. The pen can be a weapon! You are a talented writer with a pen, and maybe you will be

a great politician with the power given from citizens.

[Account Deleted]

Paul's reply caught my attention. I was actually looking for stuff about medical malpractice in blogs. I want to ask those Oakland medical malpractice lawyers about the consequences of medical malpractice, and the premiums that go along with it. It's a good thing that there's a good attorney who supported the victim's family. Here in Oakland, medical malpractice attorneys are not that hard to find, since most of them are really adept in that field. Do remember that when you're looking for a lawyer, it's not the best lawyer you're looking for. You're supposed to look for the right one.

[Georgiann 211K]

Wanted to for a good morning! http://www.xking.com Hardcore Video