For those commentators on the thread below parrotting George Felos that Terri's brain has liquefied, please read:

http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/johansen200503160848.asp

As the article states, she hasn't even been given the tests, MRI and PET, that are prerequisite in determining PVS.

Posted by: John Klemick at March 19, 2005 3:42 PM

This is terrific! I hope that finally Terri can see some "justice".

Posted by: Miranda at March 19, 2005 3:45 PM

She hasn't been given the tests because of electrodes implanted into her brain in 1992 for an experiment. The doctors said that they should be removed but of yet they haven't

Posted by: Ian at March 19, 2005 3:49 PM

has anyone tried to find a sympathetic police organization and have this "judge" and her husband arrested for attempted murder? This way if when she does die we can upgrade the charge to murder 1 just
like in any other murder for hire plot. I mean that is exactly what it is.

Posted by: scott at March 19, 2005 4:02 PM

I hope and pray that if Terri does have to die in 2005, it is of natural causes and she goes quickly rather than a one-week long starvation. Of course, I hope and pray even more that she is allowed to live, and Michael and his "judge" get what they deserve! It breaks my heart to think that this poor woman will die from a cruel death. And it angers me, too, when others out there, out of their own ignorance, think that letting her die is somehow "right." Terri, I hope and pray that you will see through this. I want you to know that you have most of America on your side, and that those who are not on your side are either purely stupid/bigoted or else spawn of the devil. Know that through it all, we love you and believe in you. God bless you!

Posted by: Christina at March 19, 2005 4:06 PM

Here's the link that says terri had CAT scans in 1996.
http://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/infopage.html

Synopsis:
As time passed, her brain further deteriorated -- to the point where much if not most of her cerebral cortex (the portion of the brain that controls conscious thought, among other things) was literally gone, replaced by spinal fluid. Doctors hired by Terri's husband say the deterioration of Terri's brain left her without thoughts or feelings, that the damage is irreversible, and that Terri's life-like appearance is merely the result of brain stem activity -- basically involuntary reflexes we all have. An independent doctor hired by the court reached the same conclusions. Doctors hired by Terri's parents did not dispute the physical damage done to Terri, but they claim there are new therapies that could improve her condition. In two separate trials, the trial court found such claims of potential improvement to be without merit. Terri's body continues to function without her cerebral cortex.

hmmm, i know of no new therapies that can grow cortical tissue from spinal fluid. Ironically, embryonic stem cell research might have benefitted Terri. heh. The same people that are so bent on keeping Terri alive have closed the most promising research avenue for a cure for her condition.

But i still think fMRI and PET are good ideas. If the compromise bill fails, press for those tests by petition to terri's legal guardian.

Posted by: jinnderella at March 19, 2005 4:06 PM

If this dehydration continues, I hope the judge et al are right and Terri can't feel a thing. If they're wrong, it'll be horrifying to know what we (as law abiding citizens) have allowed to be done to her.

Posted by: Ceci at March 19, 2005 4:12 PM

It seems that there is a lot of misinformation out there. No one is disputing that Terri suffered brain damage as a result of whatever happened on the night of her collapse.

It is the comments about the state of her brain at this point in time that are inaccurate. Terri has not had the benefit of the PET and SPECT scans. She has not been allowed to have continued therapy.

Michael, the two-timing husband who is living in an adulterous relationship and has children by another woman wants Terri dead because he is afraid that if she recovered sufficiently she would be able to tell what happened that night - that he attempted to strangle her after and argument.

His attempts to kill Terri are pathetic.

Posted by: Maggie at March 19, 2005 4:15 PM

Three things Terri has in common with a baby undergoing partial birth abortion:

1) both are defenseless;
2) both are fed with tubes; and
3) both have problems with their heads (Terri's is damaged and the baby's is trapped in the mother).

One big difference:

The baby will get a faster death by having a rod jammed into his/her skull and his/her brains sucked out, whereas Terri will be refused food and water. And the only reason the baby is given a faster death is to make it easier for its head to come out.

If it weren't for the inconveniences a complete child birth brings to a woman's social/night life, they babies would not be spared from the pain and suffering of starvation and dehydration.

If Terri's husband can starve his unwantedwife to death, why can't a mother starve her unwanted child to death? They're both defenseless and lack the mental capacity and mobility to consume food and water on their own! Why bother sucking the baby's brains out?

Just cut the umbilical cord and leave the baby on the table to die--thus sparing him/her from the "indignity" of being raised by unloving parents. Oh--I left out another difference between Terri and this unfortunate baby. The baby's screams and cries will be better heard and understood than Terri's.

Posted by: Chris Wu at March 19, 2005 4:16 PM

Chris Wu: Strong words, well said. Thank you.

Posted by: Old Coot at March 19, 2005 4:22 PM

Aaargh! Multiple physicians retained by all parties AGREED THAT PART (at least) OF TERRI's NEO-CORTEX HAD BEEN REPLACED BY SPINAL FLUID.

Don't you understand how serious that is? This is not misinformation. you can view the court records. AND THERE ARE NO THERAPIES TO REGROW CORTICAL TISSUE>

That is why petitioning terri's legal guardian for fMRI and PET is the way you should have gone all along. Perhaps there is more remmant cortical tissue than previously believed. Tests are the only way to prove your hypothesis.

Posted by: jinnderella at March 19, 2005 4:31 PM

The people who oppose embryonic stem cell research do so because they destroy life and have adverse consequences in people who receive such therapy as Wesley Smith has proved Wesley Smith They are also the same people who favor the more ethical and successful ADULT STEM CELL RESEARCH!!! That's an important distinction some people forget.

What Terri needs is not stem cell therapy, but the basic therapy she has been denied by her abusive husband. She has been denied care even bore the tube was removed. Most people don't realize that, and the media has not reported this fact.

Posted by: Mike Egan at March 19, 2005 4:34 PM

to jinnderella:

http://www.blogsforterri.com/archives/2005/02/a_few_facts_abo.php

Posted by: Ruth at March 19, 2005 4:36 PM

Mike Egan:

You are correct. Adult Stem Cell research is the way to go, not embryonic stem cell research.

I am also pro-choice, pro Terry, and not a xtian.

Posted by: Ruth at March 19, 2005 4:37 PM

jinnderella, I think you are misinformed about one or two key points. A number of experts have stated that a CAT scan does not provide the level of detail necessary to determine the state of the cortex. And numerous attempts have been made to conduct the scans you reference that could determine this, but they have been rejected by Michael Schiavo.

Posted by: Christopher Rake at March 19, 2005 4:38 PM

I tried adding a link to my last post but it didn't work. Here is the address:

http://wesleyjsmith.com/

Posted by: Mike Egan at March 19, 2005 4:40 PM

*sigh* where to start?
ASC is NOT THE SAME as ESC research. embryonic cells are undifferentiated, adult cells are specialized. Be for it or against it, i don't care, but don't try to tell me they are the same.

THE COURT HAS RULED THAT TERRI IS IN PVS. The experts agreed on everything but potential therapy. Sure, fMRI and PET should have been run. But there is nothing you can do about it now, except to counter-sue requiring those tests. (why hasn't that been done?) or petition the guardian (why hasn't that been done?).

Everyone is expecting Big Goverment to save terri. It may not happen.

Posted by: jinnderella at March 19, 2005 4:54 PM

Jinnderella, really, please leave.

Did you not hear Tom DeLay?

BTW, Jinn, are you a Democrat?

Posted by: Ruth at March 19, 2005 5:01 PM

Nope, i'm a libertarian sociobiologist. Thanks for the hospitality. ;)

Posted by: jinnderella at March 19, 2005 5:07 PM

Jinn, The judge denied the motion to have the tests done. You can read the judgment here. http://terrisfight.org/documents/030905denmedtest.pdf Yes, I agree with you that they should have been done. If they were, the facts in this case would be much more clear.

Posted by: Dory at March 19, 2005 5:13 PM

dory, i read. thank-you for the link. The judge ruled that the burden of proof required by Schiavo III was not met. I guess i have to agree with him.

This America. That is the law. due process and all that.

I listened to Delay, the bill has not yet passed. there may be a states rights issue-- as a libertarian those are important to me.

Now, i'll honor ruth's request, and stop telling you things you obviously don't want to hear. 'bye!

Posted by: jinnderella at March 19, 2005 5:26 PM

The subject of stem cell research is one that I have studied both as a lay person and then as a researcher. The following is part of a book I am writing:

It is wrong to use fetal stem cell tissues because they are usually obtained from destroyed
preborn persons whose genetic makeup is determined at fertilization. Any college textbook, even Developmental Psychology books, now admit that life begins at fertilization. It is no longer just a "religious doctrine."

As the great Doctor of the Church, Saint Thomas Aquinas, said: "An evil action cannot be justified by reference to a good intention" (Summa Theologiae, Dec.praec, 6) and The Catechism of the Catholic Church defends Aquinas' teaching when it says: "The end never justifies the means" (CCC, n. 1759) and Sacred Scripture says that we may not do evil even if good comes from it (Romans 3:8). So even if embryonic stem cell research was proven to be effective (which is not the case) it would still be immoral because the end result is death to a person already in existence!

Stem cell research is immoral because it involves aborted fetuses and discarded embryos. As Father Joseph Howard of the American Bioethics Advisory Committee, said: "To obtain stem cells from a human embryo necessitates the removal of the inner cell mass which each and every time destroys a human life."

The human embryo must be treated with love and respect and it should be protected according to the principles found in the Nuremberg Code of Medical Ethics. The code provides that experimentation may be performed only for the benefit of the human subject, and then, only if there is no threat of harm, injury, or death to the human subject.

The New England Journal of Medicine reported that fetal stem cell implants have resulted in serious side effects for patients with Parkinson's disease. 15% of patients who
had the fetal stem cells of aborted babies injected in their brains had so much cell growth
that the patients writhed and jerked uncontrollably. Researchers say there is no way to remove or deactivate the transplanted cells. According to Dr. Paul E. Green, a neurologist
at Columbia University's College of Physicians and Surgeons and a researcher in the study,
the results were devastating to the patients: "They chew constantly, their fingers go up and down, their wrists flex and distend. It was tragic, catastrophic. It's a real nightmare. And we can't selectively turn it off. One man was so damaged by fetal stem cell implants that he could no longer eat, but had to be fed through a feeding tube" (Traditional Values Coalition, www.traditionalvalues.org, March 10, 2001). On the June 20th, 2001 edition of EWTN's The World Over, one opponent of stem cell research reported that a failed
experiment of fetal stem cells caused the deaths of some patients who participated in the
experiment. When autopsies were performed it was discovered that skin and hair formed on the brains of the victims!

Congressman Chris Smith of New Jersey introduced the Responsible Stem Cell Research Act which is a bill that authorized $30 million for ethical stem cell research, requiring that stem cells used for such research be taken from adults and umbilical chord and placenta blood obtained from live births and although the media claimed that this version of stem cell research is a failure, it has proven to be a success in practice. Noted consumer advocate, Wesley J. Smith, writing in a June 22, 2001 New York Post op-ed piece, gave examples of successes with non-embryonic stem cells that are already healing human illnesses and disabilities. Unfortunately, according to STATS (Statistical Assessment Service) which is a reputable non-partisan research group dedicated to the accurate use of scientific research in public policy debates, all of these successes with non-embryonic cells are not being reported by the mainstream media. For example, Smith's op-ed piece in the New York Post pointed out that in Los Angeles, transplanted stem cells harvested from umbilical chord blood saved the lives of three young boys with defective immune systems. The doctors at UCLA Medical Central have pronounced the boys cured. Smith also said that an underreported case took place a few years ago when Israeli scientists implanted Melissa Holley's white blood cells into her spinal chord to treat the paraplegia, caused when her spinal chord was severed in an auto accident. Melissa was able to regain control of her bladder and she recovered significant motor function in her limbs. She can now move her legs and toes, although she is unable to walk.

Smith also reported that in one study scientists injected diabetic mice with adult stem cells and another group of diabetic mice with fetal stem cells. The mice injected with adult stem cells had a higher level of insulin than the mice injected with embryonic cells. And what happened to the mice who were treated with embryonic cells? The mice treated with embryonic cells all died! And how did the media report this? They reported that the fetal stem cell research was a major success!

In the world's largest study thus far, a group of prominent researchers transplanted placenta stem cells into 562 patients suffering from leukemia and a wide variety of other diseases to achieve beneficial results (New England Journal of Medicine, Nov. 26, 1998, 1565-1577) and University of Pittsburgh scientists demonstrated that muscle-derived stem cells can become bone after transplantation. The National Neurological
Institute in Milan demonstrated that neural stem cells (when transplanted into bone marrow) became a variety of cell types, including myeloid, lymphoid, and hematopoietic cells and the National Academy of Science demonstrated that bone marrow stem cells can become brain cells.

Embryonic stem cell research was convincingly rejected by a Rhode Island doctor from Brown University named Ralph Miech who appeared on a Rhode Island television program titled "Life, God's Greatest Gift" in which he ingeniously voiced his opposition to embryonic stem cell research. He said: "I am morally and ethically opposed to embryonic stem cell research. From a moral point of view, one has to kill the embryo to isolate its living stem cells. Life begins at fertilization. Human life then proceeds through the following stages: embryo, fetus, baby, child, teenager, adult and senior citizen. To kill an embryo to procure stem cells is morally equivalent to killing an adult human being so that you can use that human being's heart for a heart transplant in another human being." When asked if he could describe how scientists go about obtaining embryonic stem cells, he replied: "Scientists first have to collect human eggs from women and sperm from men. In vitro fertilization of an egg by sperm is allowed to occur in a petri dish for about five days. After about eight cellular divisions, the embryo is in the form of a blastocyst which consists of about 256 embryonic cells. Only a few of these cells are stem cells. The stem cells are sucked out and
put into another petri dish. This process of sucking out the stem cells kills the embryo and
the remaining embryonic cells are washed down the sink. The stem cells are treated with different growth factors so that they will develop and reproduce into the type of mature
cells that the scientist wants. Morally there is no difference from sucking out these cells
from an embryo as removing a heart from a living human being for a heart transplant in another human being." In proving that the embryo is truly a human being, Dr. Miech said: "If one were to take a single cell from an embryo in utero without killing the embryo, and one cell later on when the embryo became a fetus, and one cell when the fetus became a baby, and one cell when the baby became a child, and one cell when the child became an adult, and one cell when the adult became a senior citizen and give these cells to a scientist and asked him to determine what species of animal these cells came from, the scientist would perform DNA fingerprinting and tell you all the cells are all human cells and in fact they all came from the same human being. To me this is scientific proof that embryos are distinct human beings. Thus a human embryo is a distinct period in the life of that human being. Just as we refer to babies, children and adults as human beings, embryos are also human beings."

Pro-lifers are often misunderstood when it comes to the stem cell issue. People who are not educated in this particular issue must realize that an important distinction must be made between ethical stem cell research and embryonic or fetal stem cell research. It must be clearly understood that pro-lifers are in favor of ethical stem cell research.

Many people fail to realize the miraculous achievements of ethical stem cell research.

Not everyone who suffers from a physical ailment shares the views of people favoring embryonic stem cell research. For example, former New York police officer, Steven McDonald, strongly favors ethical stem cell research. During an interview on Fox News, Officer McDonald said that despite the fact he longs to walk hand-in-hand with his wife he strongly rejects the willingness to be
cured by research that is based on the annihilation of human embryos.

(All Rights Reserved)

Posted by: Kevin D. Dello Iacono at March 19, 2005 5:50 PM

Greer went beyond his jurisdiction as state judge to overrule and reject a Federal subpoena. He acted in violation of the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution which provides that everyone, including a state judge, must follow federal law in the face of conflicting state law.

Posted by: Kevin D. Dello Iacono at March 19, 2005 5:54 PM