« Will Autopsy Report Make 'Outlandish' Claims? | Main | Autopsy Does Not Change Moral Aspects of Terri Schiavo's Murder says Priest Who Was With Terri Moments Before Her Death »

June 15, 2005

Terri Schiavo's Autopsy Report

Topics: Medical Issues

Terris Schiavo's autopsy report is available by clicking here.

Posted by tim at June 15, 2005 10:39 AM

Articles Related to Medical Issues:


The results that are reported on the autopsy report are baloney!!! Of course they're going to say that. I wonder if we'll ever know the real truth. I was very passionate about this when this was going on before she died and just cannot get myself emotionally involved like that again. Too upsetting. I have no faith in our government anymore at all.

Posted by: happy sicilian at June 15, 2005 10:55 AM

I read over the autopsy and perhaps I missed it, but didn't initial findings after Terri's collapse include broken bones? I didn't see anything about that in the autopsy report.

Posted by: Foug at June 15, 2005 10:58 AM

You can be sure that they're going to cover up alot. I guess because they didn't take the right approach to the whole thing to begin with and because there's alot of money getting slung around I'm sure.

Posted by: happy sicilian at June 15, 2005 11:10 AM

The fact that Michael won't even give Terri's family access to her after she's dead says something about him. He is a despicable person.

Posted by: happy sicilian at June 15, 2005 11:12 AM

I have to say that the autopsy isn't going to show what we think.. it's been too long. As for her brain being 1/2 the size of a "normal" brain, that is due to the horrid dehydration they put her through. It's common knowledge that organs shrivel up without hydration. But of course, those jerks, won't tell us that.... *sigh*

Posted by: Sirena at June 15, 2005 11:16 AM

That's your opinion, not mine!!! I also wonder why he rushed into having her cremated....which should also be investigated.

Posted by: happy sicilian at June 15, 2005 11:36 AM

Terri's parents loved her dearly and they fought bitterly against Michael Schiavo because she was a living, breathing human being. Yes, she was not mentally capacitated, but she was alive. Probably not alive in the way many out there view quality of life, but she was God's creature. She did not deserve to die by starvation, by the hands of her husband, his ghoulish lawyer and the death advocate Judge Greer. They executed Terri legally, but come Judgement Day, they will be held accountable with God.

Posted by: Bella at June 15, 2005 12:15 PM

Well, it appears that the conspiracy surrounding Terri's death has grown to include most of Florida. We must it by spreading the truth before this conspiracy winds up taking over the entire US!

Posted by: One True American at June 15, 2005 12:20 PM


Appropriate name. So where have you been hiding in wait to come trolling?

Posted by: Tom Spence at June 15, 2005 12:57 PM

While I am beyond disappointed I cannot really say I am surprised by this. Not to mention the usual suspects coming out to gloat.

Posted by: JRob at June 15, 2005 1:00 PM

How could she follow a balloon's path using her eyes if she was blind?? What the... I had hoped that an autopsy could have cleared things up, but it seems like it's even more murky now.

Posted by: Foug at June 15, 2005 1:31 PM

I think it was obvious what this report was going to say before the autopsy was actually conducted. That the medical examiner didn't allow an observer in spoke volumes, then and now.

Posted by: CeCe at June 15, 2005 1:48 PM


Appropriate name. So where have you been hiding in wait to come trolling?

This person is not trolling, they are calmly stating some facts.

How could she follow a balloon's path using her eyes if she was blind??

She couldn't. It's not possible. It may have seemed like she was following the balloon, but it didn't happen.

It doesn't make sense for this all to be apart of a greater conspiracy. Why would hundreds of people ban together to remove the feeding tube from one idividual? That just doesn't make sense.

Posted by: Fenchurch at June 15, 2005 2:04 PM

fen-church: church of the bog,

Are you just one person or has your father Apolloyon given you all a 24 hour pass? hotmail and mailinator email accounts -- you have great credibility.

Posted by: Tom Spence at June 15, 2005 2:10 PM

Tom Spence,

I'm not the same poster as above. This site was linked to (this article specifically) on another popular blog-type site. My guess is that you will get more comments like mine and the other poster.

I use hotmail as my 'everything goes here' e-mail account. I'm sorry if you think that hurts my credibility, I could care less what you're opinion is on the matter.

Do you have anything to say about my comment other than accusations about my authenticity?

I'll ask again - Why is this considered to be part of a mass consipiracy? Why would that even make sense?

Posted by: Fenchurch at June 15, 2005 2:14 PM

I apologize for my spelling, haven't had my coffee yet :).

Posted by: Fenchurch at June 15, 2005 2:15 PM

Wow......Kpar? I gather from your post, you're a democrat?? You're probably young? Aethiest too?
Wow....I timed out, and lookie what the rats dragged in. Not surprising.

Siigh......oh well, first things first.
Helloperson? I gather from YOUR post, you're brain dead? ADD inflicted ( That's Advanced Dumbazz Disease for the medically challenged )? Perhaps just plain old stupid? ( please not major sarcasim here. )

Funny, how a person with VERY limited medical knowledge, can still READ, and even comprhend, what I'm reading....as opposed to SOME of you morons, who can't get past " see spot run ".

Michael Shaivo hasn't been vindicated for squat.
That rat B****** is still a Rat B******.
15 years after the fact, and he can't explain his LACK of allowing for medical tests/exams? Basic medical care? Lack of dentistry? ( as reports have claimed ) After giving testimony IN COURT, he'd care for his wife regardless, he suddenly REMEMBERS his wife wanted to die, AFTER he got his malpractice cash?? Please....vindicated?
Two words come to mind in a simple phrase, beggining with the letter " F " .

If you so called, EXPERTS could understand simple english....you'd have seen the report say, there was no evidence of Bulimia Nervosa. WOW!!!! Imagine that??!!! No bulimia problems present or indicated. Vindicate that.
She has many normal organs with in her body. HOLY SMOKES! Now, what do we make of that??
PVS could not be determined. Hmmmmmmm........amazing admission. Even the AUTOPSY couldn't prove/disprove she was PVS or unaware. Of course, she's unaware...NOW! She's dead! Duh!!

ADD......my term for ' advanced dumbazz disease '....and it seems to have taken root on many folks here. You people claim Terri was PVS??
Geeesh, have you looked in the mirror lately? Terri seemed more AWARE than some of you so called, HEALTHY people.
So, who's next?? Special olympic kids? Jerry's kids?? MY kids? YOUR kids?? Where does this crap end??????

We've witnessed a murder plain and simple.
I don't believe it's a matter of US waking up and smelling the coffee?? I believe it's a matter of people like KPAR and HELLO understanding simple words. Perhaps, maybe even understanding simple logic and COMMON SENSE. However, one must HAVE some to understand it. Lacking in both cases here.

You people ( and yes, I said YOU PEOPLE ) clearly are more brain dead than you seem to think Terri was. This is an ugly precidence. Imagine, is life NOW, based upon someone being able to talk? Being able to Swallow?? Oh, my bad, the report didn't SAY how she was able to swallow her own spit without drowning herself. Slight oversight probably. Life based upon ONE person's claim against another? Based upon one " right-to-die " Supporting JUDGE's word?? You simpletons would have us believe, GOVERNMENT has no RIGHT to intervene!! BLAME BUSH!!
Well, ah...folks?? In case you failed basic ed classes? The Judiciary IS a part of Government. IT DID intefere. It DID order this woman destroyed. ( I use this word instead of Murdered, for you PC readers )

The last paragraph on her report stated, cause of death undetermined. Wow......Imagine that. The M.E. couldn't determine it. The M.E. stated that in 15 years between accident/death, some things might have been overlooked. Her Ostioperosis (sp) was in part CAUSED by her confinement in her bed?

Oh, my applogies....the brain dead here would rather believe, she was bulimic, PVS and dead meat anyways. They're convinced.

Amazing......simply amazing.
Everytime you people speak, you continue to prove my point, that she was murdered, Michael lied, the Judge ordered it, and that moron lawyer for Michael enjoyed the moment. Vindicate that.

Terri had a will to live beyond what people gave her. To me, that's a HOPE. To me, that's LIFE. For you?? That's disgusting.
I pitty people like you, for there is nothing else BUT pitty to offer. Mr/Mrs FOUG said it correctly;
We now have more questions than answers.

She breathed on her own, her heart pumped on it's own, and she had a will to live. You clowns contrived to kill her because of that???

The sooner YOU....people.....come to grips with the fact, YOU ENJOYED watching her die in front of you?? The happier YOU"LL be. Your pathetic excuse for continued existance will be confirmed by the fact that you inadvertantly got to aid in a woman's death.
How do you feel now? Are YOUR hands clean or bloodied?? Is YOUR soul clean or dirty? I forgot, godless people have no souls. They only exist.


Posted by: LNaranjoiv at June 15, 2005 2:38 PM

If anyone finds a text version of the report as opposed to the scanned version linked here, please post the link.

Posted by: extremecatholic at June 15, 2005 2:43 PM


Nice comment. It isn't worth engaging these trolls since they're only here to tag us with their grafitti. There's no knowledge of the situation only marching orders from their master.

Posted by: Tom Spence at June 15, 2005 2:52 PM


What? No one enjoyed watching this poor woman die. No one 'won'. This was an awful situation for EVERYONE.
It is not surprising that 15 years later there is no evidence of Bulimia. The fact is, we will NEVER know what caused her to go into the coma. NEVER. We know she had a Potassium deficiency - whether that be caused by bulimia, undiagnosed healthy problems, or something else.

It is ridiculous and ignorant to even suggest that a person *enjoyed* watching Terri die. That is a disgusting thing to accuse someone of.

I don't blame Bush. In fact, I'm quite the conservative, but I do not believe that there is a mass conspiracy here. The facts came out today. There is no reason for a Medical Examiner to withhold/make up information. That just doesn't make sense.

Can we let Terri rest in peace now and stop crusading in her name? We will never know what she truly wanted, and we will never know if her parents or Michael were the "wrong" ones. The point here is that both sides of the family get peace.

Posted by: Fenchurch at June 15, 2005 2:53 PM

Tom Spence,

Again, I'm confused by your comment. How are we trolling? I'm honestly interested in your point of view but the only way you'll engage me is by calling me a Troll. Am I not worth talking to if I don't share your opinion?

Posted by: Fenchurch at June 15, 2005 2:54 PM

Terri WAS dead long ago. Life is more than a beating heart and expaning lungs. Before you go off on how crazy I am (I am looking at you LNaranjoiv) I am a believer and I cherrish life. I didn't enjoy her death and I don't think this issue is about people who love to kill getting their way. It is about what is life and where does it end.
I have read alot today from people citing the fact that there are poeple out there who have parts of their brian removed for one reason or another and life good lives. This doesn't compare to Terri's atrophy. The survivors cited have the majority of a fully functional brain. ALL parts of terri's brain where decayed.

I think the biggest lesson most can pull from this is to make plans! If you believe that life exists in the body until the body stops working period; make a will and in it state that you want to be kept "alive".

I believe that Terri is finally at peace and happy in heaven. I don't think it wrong to allow her that peace.

Posted by: merken at June 15, 2005 2:54 PM


We're looking for a text version now. Will post in a comment when/if it is found.

Posted by: Tom Spence at June 15, 2005 2:55 PM

Fenchurch... she just HAPPENED to follow the baloons progress back and forth with her eyes, on command. This is what you're saying? That it was a coincidence that after being asked and coaxed to follow this balloons path the doctor was holding and moving around, she managed to perfectly follow its path. Or as you said, it didn't really happen. Camera tricks? Have you actually viewed the videos of Terri?

Posted by: Foug at June 15, 2005 3:27 PM

This site was not meant to be a sounding board for those who think it was perfectly fine for Terri's so-called husband (in name only) to starve her. If you need to be rude and insulting, please do it elsewhere, lest your IP be banned by the moderators.

Posted by: Sirena at June 15, 2005 3:54 PM

Tom.. out of curiosity how long is that video? was any of it spliced together? is it a complete video with hours of footage available to review.. how do we know they just didn't take the most favorable part of the video to support their claim that she is responding.. considering the part of her brain that governs her sight was basically dead and non functioning can't you accept that the video tells you nothing ..do you believe the world is flat?

Posted by: ernestreyes at June 15, 2005 3:55 PM

actually I meant Foug

Posted by: ernestreyes at June 15, 2005 3:56 PM

If she was brain dead, she wouldn't have responded at all. And even if she couldn't see, (which I actually believe she could, perhaps hazily), what gives anyone the right to starve and dehydrate them to death? That's the deal here. Life isn't about how "worthy or unworthy" it is. Terri was murdered out of greed. If you don't want to believe it, so be it. But if you actually were following her plight the past 3 years, and not just the past 3 months, you might have a different understanding of the situation.

Posted by: Sirena at June 15, 2005 4:01 PM

Let me add and forceful analysis.. considering we know that she was blind I think it is only reasonable to assume that the family chose only to show parts of videos that support their claim while keeping other parts out of public view... it is obvious to me that the video must be disregarded since it show us nothing.. at least nothing in terms of her believed cognizant state.

Posted by: ernestreyes at June 15, 2005 4:03 PM

ernestreyes said: "Let me add and forceful analysis.."

ernest your logic and fact finding equal your communication ability. You, sir/madam are the one who views the world as flat -- human life has no more value than the mohave pup fish.

Posted by: Tom Spence at June 15, 2005 4:11 PM

To Sirena.. are you a doctor? do you know for sure that dehydration would cause brain shrinkage of approx. 50%.. because i assure you dying of dehydration will not cause your brain to shrink by 50%.. you should stop making uninformed statements when fact can be easily found by asking a doctor this one direct questions: if a person where to die from dehydration, whould that persons brain to shrink? and if so, by how much typically? I assure you an autopsy professional would know the answer. But you don't even bother to ask that one simple question.

Posted by: ernestreyes at June 15, 2005 4:15 PM

My mother is a nurse. And it's a known fact that death by dehydration causes organs to shrink considerably.

Stop trying to argue something just for the sake of arguing, please.

Posted by: Sirena at June 15, 2005 4:16 PM

Nice Tom.. you must have been one of those school yard bullies.. why not let us know what significance the video has? does it have any signicance? We know she was blind. Therefore, we can only conclude the eye movement was just a matter of chance. I would also conclude there are probably other videos that show her not following the baloon. Again, they only showed what they wanted to believe.

Posted by: ernestreyes at June 15, 2005 4:21 PM

My whole family is filled with nurses.. I'm of Filipino descent.. and if you know anything about the Phillipines, know this, we export a large number of nurses to the USA.. yes there is shrinkage, but nowhere near the levels the autopsy showed. It is such a large anomoly that it can only be from something other than the death from dehydration.

Posted by: ernestreyes at June 15, 2005 4:24 PM

Ernest, since you're so negative to Terri even after her death, why are you even here posting? There are many other places for you to post. It seems you're only here to stir up problems. Those who care about the Schindlers and Terri's plight don't appreciate that.

Posted by: Sirena at June 15, 2005 4:24 PM

Well I don't appreciate folks who think it is appropriate to have the government be involved in this matter. MY BODY DOES NOT BELONG TO THE STATE. AND TERRI'S BODY DOES NOT BELONG TO THE STATE. Therefore, the state may not, cannot, should not, have any right to dictate what the outcome is in this situation. The government has no right. This is and always has been an issue between the families. btw, i'm negative on the folks on this board who think the govt should have done more, not negative on Terri.. there is a difference, ya know.. and to a libertarian like myself it is an important difference.

Posted by: ernestreyes at June 15, 2005 4:33 PM

Like I said, you're here only to be negative. Not very nice, I think.

Posted by: Sirena at June 15, 2005 4:35 PM

We KNOW she was blind? We KNOW the video means absolutely nothing? Wow. You're really informed.
Ah........yea........ah-huh, right.

If this so called VIDEO is so inconsequential? Why then, did MICHAEL deny ANY camera's of her for the past...oh, I don't know, let's try,....2 years??

She wasn't even allowed to receive her holy communion by her family priest. Why was that?
Afraid she'd DIE?? Cause, she couldn't SWALLOW??
Who were the so called, ' flowers and pretty things in her room ' for, during her slow execution? The Nurses, so they wouldn't feel bad? Her family, so the could enjoy the morbidness of the moment? Michael, his lawyer or his so called, FIANCEE?? So they could hide the stink of decay??

It will be interesting to see what excuses you come up with for these simple questions.

One last thing....what right did Michael's so called, " girlfriend " have to be allowed access to that room?? What legal right, did she have to view Terri at all???

Posted by: LNaranjoiv at June 15, 2005 4:37 PM


I agree with you fully. Those who don't want to see the real truth are the ones who are truly blind.

It's really a shame that those who only became interested in this case was when Terri was already starving or after she died. Truly sad.

I had been in contact with family members so I know the truth. Those who want to believe she really was blind, and brain dead, and all that nonsense, just want to sleep better at night, thinking it was perfectly fine and good to starve a DISABLED woman to death. What a sad sad world we live in where murder is disguised by "death with dignity". What a crock!

Posted by: Sirena at June 15, 2005 4:41 PM

the simple fact is that the Michael guy has full legal control of the situation.. that is just the way it is.. personally, i think it makes him a horses a$$.. but i think we all can agree that there was significant animosity and anger between michael and her parent.. that was obvious to see..

now do i think it was a oonspiracy? no.. i'm not a conspiracy nut, you are.

Posted by: ernestreyes at June 15, 2005 4:48 PM

Ernest?? You're PVS.

You said,

Besides being uniformed on the Schaivo case, you're also ignorant. It's cause of people like YOU, that people like ME stand up to fight for people like TERRI.

The JUDICIARY is part of GOVERNMENT..ie, THE COURTS ARE PART OF GOVERNMENT. Or did your education level advance that far????????

The GOVNERMENT had no right to allow BLACKS entry into white schools....but they did.
The GOVERNMENT had no right to disparage SEPARATE BUT EQUAL....but they did.
The GOVERNMENT has no right to save people from attempting suicide....but they do.
The GOVERNMENT has no right to keep convicted murderers in prison for ever and a day, once they're sentenced to die.....but they do.

I agree with you Ernest. Let's immediately execute the death sentences of ALL death row inmates, AS PER THE COURTS ORDER upon the WILL OF THE JURY...and starve them just like they did to TERRI. It is, after all, eurphoric and peaceful.
Wouldn't you agree??

By your own admission, you agreed it was between the families. Except, the STATE intervened ( ie, JUDGE GREER ) The GOVERNMENT interferred ( ie, JUDGE GREER ) If it was up to the families, ( and I WAS Terri's father? ) Michael wouldn't have had SQUAT to say about my daughters condition.

You sir, like so many others time and time again......are liers and con men. You try to impose your will upon others thru the courts, then cry FOUL when they intervene. You try to Kill innocent people like Terri, then cry FOUL when people like Scott Peterson are sentenced for murder.
You'd probably kill your own children, because you can, and cry FOUL if others try to stop your madness. You're the first to say HELP ME, I"M DYING, instead of " LET ME DIE " if ever you were in that situation.

Blame others for your ignorance. That's your creedo. Hate others for their moral views, that's how you get past YOUR moral inadequacies. Accuse others for knowing the difference between Right and Wrong, because you know neither. Demand from others your right to die, because you're afraid of life.

I pitty your kind most of all.

Posted by: LNaranjoiv at June 15, 2005 4:53 PM

rather the courts had it right with the exception being judge greer

Posted by: ernestreyes at June 15, 2005 5:25 PM

another thing... never make the mistake of pigeon- holing libertarians.. i have yet to meet any 2 libertarians that agree with one another..

Posted by: ernestreyes at June 15, 2005 5:28 PM

in fact, i'm one of those libertarians that understands and accepts some form of govt intervention in specific cases, i'm not a fanatical right winger or neo con.. ie. race issues, sec, etc.. but i still hold true to other libertarian ideals.. so i guess i'm a bit of grey.. frankly i didn't think i would have to go into my whole political worldview in order to post here.. but i can do that if you want..

Posted by: ernestreyes at June 15, 2005 5:35 PM

Ernest, you're simply trying to cause problems here. You're trying to push people's buttons and aren't intersted in what people have to say. I've reported you to the moderator...

Posted by: Sirena at June 15, 2005 5:38 PM


I have never been rude in any of my posts. I am interested in the othe rpoint of view, that's all. I am not a troll.

We can respectively disagree with each other without slapping on labels.

Posted by: Fenchurch at June 15, 2005 5:45 PM

The fact is none of you are willing to have a mature discussion about this.

We all care about Terri, and her family. That is a given.

Why are you all so quick to brand anyone who asks a QUESTION as rude and ignorant?

Posted by: Fenchurch at June 15, 2005 5:48 PM

Yes Sirena....ERnesto is a liberal, Blame America first, BEAT BUSH NO MATTER WHAT coward who revelled in watching this woman die.

I've said so on here on another post.
You're not " grey "...you're contemptable.
Fanatical right wingers? Neo-cons? Bothered by congress? Bothered by Florida's Gov?

Be a man ERnesto.....stand up for yourself. Face the truth.

You hate George W Bush. You hate his brother. You hate the NAME, BUSH period. Are you so afraid to admit to what you are or what you REALLY stand for?

You loved this murder on tv, didn't you?
Your contemptable kind, got off on this. You had BUSH right where you wanted him. He couldn't help, or you people would cry FOUL. You had the courts block out her family, and MADE them watch as they murdered their daughter. Did that make you happy ERnesto?

Was Terri the weapon against GW BUSH? Was her death the ONLY way you could defeat him? Cause, you clowns surely failed in FLORIDA, and in OHIO four years later.

You sacrificed a living, breathing human being, for the sake of " political payback " and you don't even have the courage to stand up to admit it.

When this comes to it's logical conclusion ERnesto? You and your ilk, will be the first to be fed to the EUTHANASIAN centers. WHY?
Cause your useless to everyone and anything.

Your life has as much meaning, as that stuff people scrape off their shoes when they step in it.

Pitty? I was in error. Contempt?
Pfffft....you aren't even worthy of that.
You aren't worthy of recognition that you even exist.

When it's your turn?? I'll be watching with a smile.

Poetic Justice

Posted by: LNaranjoiv at June 15, 2005 5:55 PM


You are so out of line. It's appalling that you would wish that on anyone.

All of you need to grow up.

I post four very non-threatening posts and get no replies. You focus on the negative instead of even entertaining the idea of having a nice mature discussion.

Report me to the moderator if you like. It's not like I'd come back and post in a place like this.

Posted by: Fenchurch at June 15, 2005 6:15 PM

Fenchurch, I wasn't talking about you, and I was not labeling anyone.

Posted by: Sirena at June 15, 2005 6:20 PM

LNaranjoiv, you are full of hate!

This is were we so often go wrong; difference of opionion become battle lines.

Posted by: merken at June 15, 2005 6:27 PM

LNaranjoiv, you're an animal... a cold, ruthless animal, it makes me physically ill to read your comments.

This discussion isnt even about Terri anymore. It's just you spewing your opinions at anyone that would dare to cross you.

You say it's barbaric to take pleasure in watching another die, yet you'll be waiting for ernest to kick it so you can watch with a smile... what does that make you? All your talk of Terri being used as a political weapon is nonsensical and makes you sound like a paranoid conspiracy lunatic.

There is NO reason that the reports would have been altered in any tremendous way... previous posters in this have said that there were no cameras allowed to film Terri in the last 2 years at least, so who the hell is to say that she was or wasn't blind at the time of her death. If that is also the truth then those videos must be at least two years old, shakey proof at best.

Before you get back on your soapbox to tear into me, I'm not another blame america first liberal, I'm not a conservative either... hell, I'm just a damned little 18 year old Canadian that happened upon this site, I was just so appalled by your narrow mindedness that I had to make an account and tell you.

Go ahead, flame on... lets hope it makes you feel better about yourself.

Posted by: Shiden at June 15, 2005 6:37 PM


You posted more than 4 times.

You say, you're here for an open discussion, and are only asking questions for honest debate.
You claim to be, (quote) " quite conservative ".
Conservatives don't need to expalin themselves. Especially by saying they're QUITE.

You asked 'why would hundreds of people want to see Terri die? ' That was answered on here many times by many people.

You wanted to engage in conversation...fine.
I've made some simple questions.....can you answer them? Or did you forget where they were posted? Can you even answer them?

I'll ask again, the easiest one:

Q) Why was Michael's so called " girlfiend " entitled to enter Terri's room ?

What legal right did that woman have to be there?

Now, as for what I wished for on someone?
I never said, I WISH IT TO BE YOUR TURN.
I said, WHEN it's your turn. I will be smiling.

You can't understand that comment? It's pretty simple.

Lastly, you've tried waaaaaaaay too much, to say,

Like a vampire would tell its victim during his/her last moments of life:


Nice try French........

Like Michael, you squirm when the lights are turned on. Unlike Michael tho, his turn under the lights will be more severe.

Posted by: LNaranjoiv at June 15, 2005 6:40 PM

Fellow posters, let's be nice to one another, k?

Name calling is not appropriate. And for those who are here just to get everyone riled up, please leave.

Posted by: Sirena at June 15, 2005 6:48 PM

"Q) Why was Michael's so called " girlfiend " entitled to enter Terri's room ?"

Michael wanted her for moral support. Why else would she be there? She was allowed to be there becuase she went with Michael. Michael, of course, was allowed to be there.

"Now, as for what I wished for on someone?
I never said, I WISH IT TO BE YOUR TURN.
I said, WHEN it's your turn. I will be smiling."

That makes it SO much different.

LNaranjoiv: You are so fanatical that it defies description. You make harmful accusations with not one shred of evidence to back them up. You just assume that everyone who doesn't share your viewpoint is a bad person and will be sent to Hell.

This planet is not made up of absolutes. Maybe you'll realize this when you finally land here.

Posted by: Shmoykins at June 15, 2005 7:15 PM


Moral support. Interesting excuse.

She wasn't immediate family. It has also been reported that this woman entered the room WITHOUT Michael present. Was that moral support too?

You stated: " this planet is not made up of absolutes ".

Ah.....and you wish to STAY with that concept??.


Then, we ABSOLUTELY agree, Terri Schaivo was ABSOLUTELY brain damaged and ABSOLUTELY PVS.
Wait...there aren't any ABSOLUTES here.....
Or did I land someplace else?

Michael should have moved on, Divorced his wife, ( given that she supposedly DIED so long ago )and married the new woman with his new kids.
Then, he would have had NO problems with Terri, the public OR the Schindler family.

That sounds simple. Her family wanted to take care of her AND bear the expenses. Huh.....
go figure.

Michael Schaivo, made some off hand remarks on national TV, which sound awfully close to comments ol Scot Peterson made during HIS time in the national lime light.

The ' accusations ' you so colorfully talk about, are given by Judge Greer's own hand. In his own court documents, Judge Greer ACKNOWLEDGES Terri has " awareness and exhibits awareness " under examination. EXCUSE ME......read up on PVS conditions...awareness does NOT mean PVS. It means consciousness..........That sir/maam, means that person is ALIVE.

Judge Greer has been linked to that hospice, as has the Sheriff and others. Follow the money?
Michaels lawyer went on a " HOW GLORIOUS TERRI"S DEATH WILL BE " crusade shortly before and after she died. She was beautiful in her demise?
Obviously, you've never seen a dehydrated/starving person before, have you.
It's far from , EUPHORIC and BEAUTIFUL.
The two years comment? I've heard there haven't been camera's in there for at least TEN!! Why couldn't they have a camera in there BEFORE she died? BEFORE they pulled the tube? DURING her final moments??
They show everything else on TV...why not that? Why not a bedside interview?
Why didn't our esteemed Senators go SEE her??
They did fact finding missions before in other places as well? Why not FLORIDA? BTW??
I asked that question too....even tho others disagreed with me........Ummm, I don't think I said they'd be sent to hell either.

You quoted me, then corrected my saying as SO DIFFERENT.
Is that any different that Executing Terri? Murdering her?
Why is it, " allowing her to die with dignity " is soo much better/different than what I've said or others here/before me have said?

You call it " allowing to die blah blah blah .."
We call it " murder/execution ".

Lolol......I'm fanatical and that defies description. Why? Cause I'm a father too? Cause I would have fought tooth and nails to save MY daughter from the cruel execution that Terri went thru? Wow.........Fathers sometimes GET that way.

If I'm fanatical about keeping her alive? What's that make those of you who wanted her to have a " RIGHT TO DIE " ?? I don't agree with killing someone, without benefit of doubt? We have criminals who get more scrutiny than Terri did, and ESPECILALLY if there's a conflict of interest, as was in this case. Never mind, having hearsay evidence.

If the basic case is corrupted, the appeals won't LOOK at that part. They only look at the PROCEDURAL part....as in TERRI's case. PROCEDURALLY, the court did what it did. Evedince wise? They are found lacking.

You are right about that....this planet is NOT made up of ABSOLUTES, as you say.

I'm landed in the right place...are you??
You can't even see thru your own words, that you're making the point people are here are trying to make:

There was NO ABSOLUTE to this case or her condition. There WERE conflicts of interest.
If the Video's are shakey proof, what's hearsay?
The JUDGES links to that hospice? Michaels SUDDEN memory gain about his wife's death, AFTER he got a payout from a malpractice suit??

Thanks Shmoykins, Shiden and the numorous others.
You're making the point for us.

Posted by: LNaranjoiv at June 15, 2005 7:55 PM

For those of you that don't believe that Terri Shiavo wasn't in a permanent vegatative state, who were fighting to keep her alive, try a little exercise.

When you wake up tomorrow morning, just lie in bed. Pretend that you can't move. The parts of her brain that controlled her motor function were, well, gone.

Keep your eyes shut. Pretend that you can't see. There were little or no neurons left in the part of her brain that control vision. Her optical nerves were half the normal size of normal optical nerves.

Try lying still for a few minutes doing nothing but breathing, and listening to your heart beat.

The most unaffected part of her brain was the part that would have controlled hearing. If she were cognitive, the only thing she would have been able to do is listen.

Don't say a single word because you are unable to speak.

When you feel that you have to urinate, you would have to do it in your bed. You would have no control over these functions. When you have to evacuate your bowels, you would have no control over that, either.

If people were to talk to you, you would be unable to respond.

Lie in bed all day. Lie in your own urine and fecal matter without moving.

When you are hungry, you would not be able to eat. When you are thirsty, you would not be able to drink. All your nutrition and liquids would be supplied through a feeding tube.

Lie in bed for a whole week without moving. Without talking. Without opening your eyes.

You have no communications with the outside world. If you have any cognitive function, all you could do is lie there and listen.

You will never be able to enjoy a meal again. You will never be able to sit on a beach with your friends and family and enjoy the sun again. You will never be able to laugh or cry again.

Try to lie in bed for a month doing nothing but breathing. What would you think? If you felt like screaming, no sound would come from your lungs. If you wanted to hug someone, no one would know. There would be no kissing those closest to you.

Lie there for a year. What would you do? Try to sleep? That would be the only escape from your hell. In your dreams, you would be whole. But upon waking, you would return to the hell that you are in.

Your family might be there by your side, but you wouldn't be able to reach out and touch them. You would not see them. You would not be able to tell them that you love them. You would realize the hell they are living sitting there watching you, praying that you come out of your state. All you would be able to do was listen to them cry.

How long would it be before you prayed to God to let it end? To let you die? No matter how you pleaded and begged, there would be no end. You can't beg your family and friends to let you die.

Imagine being imprisoned in your own body for fifteen years with no reprieve.

The people fighting to keep you alive are only prolonging your torture. For their own selfish motives.

Why are you so selfish? If you believe in God, why couldn't you let her go? Let her meet her maker? Go on to a better place than her own little prison?

Have a wonderful day...

Posted by: Tommy Diamond at June 15, 2005 9:04 PM

Tommy Diamond,

The who-would-want-to-live-like-that argument is inane. One could just as easily say that about you or anyone. Asserting that quality of life is a criterion for determining who lives and dies is despicable.

Selfish motives? like what, money? Power? Prestige? Glory? Easy street? Get real.

Posted by: Tom Spence at June 15, 2005 9:21 PM

Tom Spence,

So, if God's intent was to take her 15 years ago, who had the right to keep it from happenning?

Posted by: Tommy Diamond at June 15, 2005 10:05 PM

Jesus said, "Blessed are the merciful, for they shall receive mercy." Let us each pray, and trust God to answer our prayers, that we each get exactly the mercy we each wanted for Terri. That way those who think it is more merciful to be hustled off to meet their maker will be hustled off to meet their maker. And those who think it is more merciful to die in God's time will die in God's time and not at the hands of men playing God. What can be more fair than that?

Posted by: mary et. al. at June 15, 2005 10:24 PM

"Selfish motives? like what, money? Power? Prestige? Glory? Easy street? Get real."

Google Cache in HTML:

Go to page 14 of the Wolfson report.

"Within the testimony, as part of the hypotheticals presented, Schindler family members stated that even if Theresa had told them of her intention to have artificial nutrition withdrawn, they would not do it."

Posted by: Shmoykins at June 15, 2005 11:14 PM

Shmoykins wrote:
"Within the testimony, as part of the hypotheticals presented, Schindler family members stated that even if Theresa had told them of her intention to have artificial nutrition withdrawn, they would not do it."

I am shocked, shocked that a parent would say such a thing. How heritical, how heartless, how un-relativistic!

Notice the key word "hypotheticals."

Posted by: Tom Spence at June 15, 2005 11:24 PM

Tom: I see where you're coming from, but the testimony emphasizes that the parents refused to let go of their daughter and forced themselves to believe that she was still in there somewhere.

What I don't understand is how the parents said that Terri could get better with treatment but then appeared to contradict themselves in their testimony by agreeing that Terri was in a persistent vegetative state.

Posted by: Shmoykins at June 15, 2005 11:47 PM

So since I question the autopsy claiming she was blind, I believe the world is flat? If you're going to try to throw little insults think them through first. I didn't realize questioning equated accepting what someone else said. I'm questioning because I simply am not understanding the discrepancies. You're flatly believing a document. Experts are often wrong, and sometimes cases pop up where there is no "logical" explanation of a person's recovery from an "irreversable" condition. So why am I, and others, wrong to wonder why certain "facts" don't mesh with what's transpired? I question the blindness, for example, because in all these years, no one suspected she was blind. It does not make sense that not one person who spent time with Terri over the years would think, hey something's not right here. Yes, I'm sure there were times when Terri did not respond to commands such as following a balloon's path. But there were times she DID. I question because this case is filled with dirty deeds, so many claims of things happening to Terri, claims of abuse on the part of Michael by nurses who cared for her, etc. I question because I care, and so do others here. We don't support a culture of death.

Posted by: Foug at June 16, 2005 7:20 AM

Shmoykins- if you review the history of Terri's case, one of their attorneys (who was intertwined with Felos) suggested to the Schlinders that they admit in court she was in a PVS state.

A true part of why the Schlinders lost is corrupt attorneys who gave them horrible advice.

I think we all need to refocus here. These "trolls" need not be responded to.

We all know that the drs who preformed the autopsy very well could be part of the corrupt system in Pinnelas county. Add the fact that Dr. Jon T. didn't allow independants in during the autopsy.

The fact remains undisputed which warrants a criminal investigation. She didn't have a heart attack so why did she suffer such severe brain damage?. All fingers point to Michael Schiavo. He by no means is vindicated. If anything, his guilt is more evident. Moreso because he is defying a court order to tell Terri's parents where she is buried. 2 months is more than sufficient to let the parents know. It is time to hold him in comtempt of court and arrest Michael.

If this is not properly handled, we are telling future domestic abusers that it is ok to cause such extent of damage to your victim. Then we are also saying we can legally murder them. What happened to Terri is just disgusting & horrible.

Posted by: Julie at June 16, 2005 8:01 AM

"She didn't have a heart attack, so why did she suffer such severe brain damage?"

How about lack of oxygen? If I remember the autopsy report correctly, she went 12 minutes from the time the 911 call was placed that she collapsed, and the arrival of emergency crews. Within five minutes after that, she was intubated. That's a long time to be deprived (even if not completely) of oxygen.

Just a thought... :)

Posted by: groovingirl at June 16, 2005 9:36 AM

If indeed, the autopsy is accurate, it's pretty clear (to those of us who actually fought for Terri) that she wasn't at all blind when those videos were taken. She could see, albeit, not clearly, but even her mother said, (and you can see on the video) that she couldn't see far but when you got within a 15 inches of her or something, she could see, I'd bet my life on it.

All this hogwash about her brain being disfunctional, etc. etc. -- those who think it was fine for Michael to starve her, are not ever going to agree with those who think she should have lived and he didn't have the right to be her guardian.

He already had another common-law wife and 2 children with her, and had a vendetta against the Schindlers. And of course, whether or not you want to believe it, MS had money to gain from her death.

And most of the people who are in approval of her death, don't know that Michael fought for her 10 years ago, saying he wanted to take care of her for the rest of his life, and he won an insurance case because of it. Hello, people!? Doesn't that seem fishy to you? And then just 7 years ago he magically "remembered" that she said she wouldn't have wanted to live that way, AFTER he already received the million dollar settlement.

Not exactly the actions of a caring, loving, husband if you ask me.

Bottom line, Terri had parents who wanted to take care of her. If Michael didn't, he should have signed over custody to them - they were only married in paper only.

Posted by: Sirena at June 16, 2005 10:48 AM

Tommy D, if God wanted to take her, he would have 15 years ago. She was still alive. She WAS getting better for a while due to rehablitation (blind? NOT. couldn't communicate? Not.) but she started regresing because Michael stopped giving her rehabilitation AFTER he received the million dollar settlement.

That's abuse, plain and simple.

Posted by: Sirena at June 16, 2005 10:53 AM

Tommy D, if God wanted to take her, he would have 15 years ago. She was still alive. She WAS getting better for a while due to rehablitation (blind? NOT. couldn't communicate? Not.)

Posted by: Sirena at June 16, 2005 10:53 AM

She was only alive due to man playing God with her life. Without that, she would have been dead 15 years ago.

Read the autopsy report. "...The lateral geniculate nucleus (visual) demonstrated transneuronal degeneration with gliosis.."

This means that the neurons in the part of her brain involved with vision had died, and were replaced with scar tissue. She was blind according to the autopsy.

Posted by: Tommy Diamond at June 16, 2005 11:04 AM

Hello everyone...I just joined this site, but I've been reading this debate for months now. I wanted to get your reactions to some statements that Rep. Bill Frist (R-Tenn) made concerning the autopsy. As you all know, Frist was one the Congressman pushing for intervention in Terri's case and even questioned her PVS condition. It now appears he has whole heartedly agreed with the autopsy report and thus has politically disassociated himself from the entire case...Here's some quotes from the Associated Press article:

"She had devastating brain damage, and with that the chapter is closed,"

Not exactly the on-fire rhetoric he spouted when he was on the floor pushing for the midnight legislation to prolongue Terri's life.

Here's another quote:

"I raised the question, 'Is she in a persistent vegetative state or not?' I never made the diagnosis, never said that she was not. I did say that certain tests should be performed to determine that before starving her to death,"

Fair enough...but is it me, or does this take the tone of a backpedalling politician? He seemed pretty adamant that Terri was not PVS when he pushing the legislation, citing his physician background and the fact that he studied this tape of Terri.

Here's one more quote regarding the autopsy and the whole PVS question:

"The diagnosis they made is exactly right. It's the pathology, I'll respect that. I think it's time to move on,"

Time to move on....hmmm....he's pretty much saying here, 'They were right, I was wrong...now leave me alone about it'....backpedalling at its finest...

I'm interested in your thoughts and reactions to this. It seems a lot of the politicians who came forward as "champions" for Terri's cause are now cowing down and attempting to politically distance themselves from the whole issue. Bill Frist now joins Tom Delay in those ranks.

Posted by: wookiee2112 at June 16, 2005 11:37 AM

Let's get down to the two separate issues here -

[1] According to the autopsy, TS did have substantial brain damage. She was blind. She lacked the brain function to swallow. Based on her remaining brain function, it was highly unlikely that she could ever rehabilitate. Involuntarily responses from video of over 4 years ago classified by her parents as recognition and response were the hopeful thoughts of loving family members. They saw what they wanted to see. I can assume the same for anyone associated with the Schindlers. It is obvious that they are a devoted and loving family. I would guess that everyone would want a positive result for their sakes. Unfortunately, it was not going to happen.

[2] The deeper question is should the hopeless prognosis stated above be a valid reason to withhold feeding and hydration from someone? That is the ethical dilemma. MS was Terri's legal guardian. He was legally empowered to make the decision he did. You may not agree with it. But it is within his rights.

Advances in medical technology are going to pose questions such as this. Rather than harbouring all of this hate and name calling, maybe we should have an intelligent discussion on the protections that need to be put in place to protect the rights of the vulnerable so that such personal issues are not debated in public forums.

Posted by: Blogging Beth at June 16, 2005 12:03 PM

Political involvement.......sigh.

They flew 3 thousand miles, to witness the birth of 2 nations and the liberation of 50 million people.

No one came 3 HUNDRED miles, to see ONE citizen of their OWN country.

Not one, was allowed to see her do, anything.
Michael's girlfriend COULD see her, cause why? she was his Moral support?? Pfffffffft......she wasn't family.

Why couldn't her FAMILY see her, with THEIR moral supporters as well? Oh....they had no power over her...only Michael did.

Would they have arrested Condolece Rice, if SHE had gone there, to view a PERSON in pain?
Not even the Red Cross.....

and the lies begin again....from Bulimia now, to
" she was blind, unresponsive and the condition irreversable " .

We'll never know now, will we.

Even the promise of Stem Cells was denied to her.

There is a quote of Terri saying: Where there is life, there is hope.

I recall another viewpoint..

Where there is HOPE, there is life. Without hope, there IS no life.
15 years........is testitment to her HOPE to live, and to have a LIFE. That is NOT testiment to GOD calling her back, and MAN denying her.
She never gave up on her life...GOD didn't call her right away.....MAN killed her.

Posted by: LNaranjoiv at June 16, 2005 6:14 PM

Ok so I skipped most of the comments because you folk are getting upset and angry without reading the autopsy report properly. This report needs to be addressed in a cool manner.

First, that report does not vindicate Michael Schiavo.

Second, the ME, that is Dr. Thogmartin wrote in the report that Terri could have lasted for at least another 10 years.

Third, Dr. Hammesfahr was the first to note that there was something wrong with Terri's eyes and that she appeared to be nearly blind.

Fourth, when Terri was dehydrated to death this affected all of the organs in her body, including the remaining sight. The coroner reported on her state at her time of death, not the previous 15 years. In other words, the dehydration affected Terri at some very inhumane levels.

Fifth, take a good look at the language employed by Dr. Thogmartin. He is not sympathetic to the culture of death in his remarks. He is not sympathetic to Michael Schiavo and George Felos. If anything he was looking for that something that would pin murder on Michael Schiavo and his open finding is the best news that we could hope for at this time.

Posted by: Maggie4life at June 17, 2005 6:19 AM

Blogging Beth, dumb comments seem to be the only thing that comes from your blogging. You are wrong on every single point because you have not bothered to do the reading necessary to understand everything that happened.

1. At the time of her death, Terri lost the balance of her sight. That occurred because of the effects of dehydration.

2. The coroner stated that he could not make a comment on whether Terri was PVS or MCS and for good reason.

3. The degree of her brain atrophy was a direct funtion of the fact that she was denied physical therapy for a period greater than 10 years.

It is obvious BB that you have absolutely no knowledge of brain function. If you did then you would be aware of the wealth of material available regarding the need to exercise one's brain on a regular basis. People who do crossword puzzles and jigsaw puzzles are exercising their brains. Terri was not allowed even the slightest bit of stimulation.

The autopsy does not vindicate your position. In fact it does quite the opposite. There are too many who are reacting in an uncool manner regarding this report that they have not see the wood for the trees. So here are some things that point the finger at Michael Schiavo being nothing more than a low down lying scoundrel who should be charged with the attempted murder of his wife (the sooner the absolute evidence is provided the better as far as I am concerned).

The questions that we have needed to have answered have in part been answered:

1. Did Terri have Bulimia Nervosa and was it the cause of her collapse? The autopsy report gives a clearly resounding NO. Terri was not bulimic. That means that Michael Schiavo obtained money under false pretences when he brought the malpractice lawsuit.

2. Did Terri express a wish that she would not want to live in a certain manner? NO. That is something that has remained unproved because of the level of taint related to the accepted witnesses. The reason I answer in the negative is that MS did not remember this conversation until after he engaged George Felos to help him to cause the death of Terri. If you had bothered to read the deposition of the malpractice lawsuit you would not be sitting at a keyboard making so many stupid remarks that prove that you follow blindly the MSM and do not think for yourself.

(Yep I am not being too cool in this response because I am sick of this namby pamby attitude of stupid goobers)

I have more to say on this subject but it is time for me to go to bed. I need to read the report again, to absorb the contents and to ask questions of some professional people so that I can understand everything that is written. I would suggest that you get off your butt and start doing proper research into this case and stop being such a pain to everyone here.

Posted by: Maggie4life at June 17, 2005 6:34 AM

Once again - no discussion - just name calling. I suggest you read the facts Maggie -

"As to the most important question, about Terri‘s mental capacity, the medical examiner said that there was no reason to doubt the clinical diagnosis that she was in a persistent vegetative state. Her brain was severely atrophied and weighed half as much as a normal brain. She was blind, and the condition was irreversible, according to the doctors." - from MSNBC

Perhaps you should review my next post - copied from the NE Journal of Medicine.

Posted by: Blogging Beth at June 17, 2005 8:27 AM

Terri Schiavo — A Tragedy Compounded
(April 21, 2005) - previous to autopsy results being released so there may be a few discrepencies

Timothy E. Quill, M.D.

The story of Terri Schiavo should be disturbing to all of us. How can it be that medicine, ethics, law, and family could work so poorly together in meeting the needs of this woman who was left in a persistent vegetative state after having a cardiac arrest? Ms. Schiavo had been sustained by artificial hydration and nutrition through a feeding tube for 15 years, and her husband, Michael Schiavo, was locked in a very public legal struggle with her parents and siblings about whether such treatment should be continued or stopped. Distortion by interest groups, media hyperbole, and manipulative use of videotape characterized this case and demonstrate what can happen when a patient becomes more a precedent-setting symbol than a unique human being.

Let us begin with some medical facts. On February 25, 1990, Terri Schiavo had a cardiac arrest, triggered by extreme hypokalemia brought on by an eating disorder. As a result, severe hypoxic–ischemic encephalopathy developed, and during the subsequent months, she exhibited no evidence of higher cortical function. Computed tomographic scans of her brain eventually showed severe atrophy of her cerebral hemispheres, and her electroencephalograms were flat, indicating no functional activity of the cerebral cortex. Her neurologic examinations were indicative of a persistent vegetative state, which includes periods of wakefulness alternating with sleep, some reflexive responses to light and noise, and some basic gag and swallowing responses, but no signs of emotion, willful activity, or cognition.1 There is no evidence that Ms. Schiavo was suffering, since the usual definition of this term requires conscious awareness that is impossible in the absence of cortical activity. There have been only a few reported cases in which minimal cognitive and motor functions were restored three months or more after the diagnosis of a persistent vegetative state due to hypoxic–ischemic encephalopathy; in none of these cases was there the sort of objective evidence of severe cortical damage that was present in this case, nor was the period of disability so long.2

Having viewed some of the highly edited videotaped material of Terri Schiavo and having seen other patients in a persistent vegetative state, I am not surprised that family members and others unfamiliar with this condition would interpret some of her apparent alertness and movement as meaningful. In 2002, the Florida trial court judge conducted six days of evidentiary hearings on Ms. Schiavo's condition, including evaluations by four neurologists, one radiologist, and her attending physician. The two neurologists selected by Michael Schiavo, a court-appointed "neutral" neurologist, and Ms. Schiavo's attending physician all agreed that her condition met the criteria for a persistent vegetative state. The neurologist and the radiologist chosen by the patient's parents and siblings, the Schindler family, disagreed and suggested that Ms. Schiavo's condition might improve with unproven therapies such as hyperbaric oxygen or vasodilators — but had no objective data to support their assertions. The trial court judge ruled that the diagnosis of a persistent vegetative state met the legal standard of "clear and convincing" evidence, and this decision was reviewed and upheld by the Florida Second District Court of Appeal. Subsequent appeals to the Florida Supreme Court and the U.S. Supreme Court were denied a hearing.

So what was known about Terri Schiavo's wishes and values? Since she unfortunately left no written advance directive, the next step would be to meet with her closest family members and try to understand what she would have wanted under these medical circumstances if she could have spoken for herself, drawing on the principle of "substituted judgment." Some families unite around this question, especially when there is a shared vision of the patient's views and values. Other families unravel, their crisis aggravated by genuine differences of opinion about the proper course of action or preexisting fault lines arising from long-standing family dynamics.

Here Ms. Schiavo's story gets more complex. Michael Schiavo was made her legal guardian under Florida law, which designates the spouse as the decision maker above other family members if a patient becomes irreversibly incapacitated and has not designated a health care proxy. After three years of trying traditional and experimental therapies, Mr. Schiavo accepted the neurologists' diagnosis of an irreversible persistent vegetative state. He believed that his wife would not want to be kept alive indefinitely in her condition, recalling prior statements that she had made, such as "I don't want to be kept alive on a machine." The Schindler family, however, did not accept the diagnosis of a persistent vegetative state, believing instead that Ms. Schiavo's condition could improve with additional rehabilitative treatment.

The relationship between Mr. Schiavo and the Schindler family began breaking down in 1993, around the time that a malpractice lawsuit revolving around the events that led to Ms. Schiavo's cardiac arrest was settled. In 1994, Mr. Schiavo attempted to refuse treatment for an infection his wife had, and her parents took legal action to require treatment. Thus began wide-ranging, acrimonious legal and public-opinion battles that eventually involved multiple special-interest groups who saw this case as a cause célèbre for their particular issue. Michael Schiavo was criticized for being motivated by financial greed, and his loyalty to his wife was questioned because he now lives with another woman, with whom he has two children. The Schindlers were criticized for not accepting the painful reality of their daughter's condition and for expressing their own wishes and values rather than hers.

The right of competent patients to refuse unwanted medical treatment, including artificial hydration and nutrition, is a settled ethical and legal issue in this country — based on the right to bodily integrity. In the Nancy Cruzan case, the Supreme Court affirmed that surrogate decision makers have this right when a patient is incapacitated, but it said that states could set their own standards of evidence about patients' own wishes.3 Although both the Schiavo and Cruzan cases involved the potential withdrawal of a feeding tube from a patient in a persistent vegetative state, the family was united in believing that Nancy Cruzan would not want to be kept alive in such a state indefinitely. Their challenge, under Missouri law, was to prove to the court in a clear and convincing manner that this would have been Nancy Cruzan's own wish. The Schiavo case raises much more challenging questions about how to define family and how to proceed if members of the immediate family are not in agreement.

The relevant Florida statute requires "clear and convincing evidence that the decision would have been the one the patient would have chosen had the patient been competent or, if there is no indication of what the patient would have chosen, that the decision is in the patient's best interest." Since there is no societal consensus about whether a feeding tube is in the "best interest" of a patient in a persistent vegetative state, the main legal question to be addressed was that of Terri Schiavo's wishes. In 2001, the trial court judge ruled that clear and convincing evidence showed that Ms. Schiavo would have chosen not to receive life-prolonging treatment under the circumstances that then applied. This ruling was also affirmed by the Florida appeals court and denied a hearing by the Florida Supreme Court. When Terri Schiavo's feeding tube was removed for the second time, in 2003, the Florida legislature created "Terri's Law" to override the court decision, and the tube was again reinserted. This law was subsequently ruled an unconstitutional violation of the separation of powers.

On March 18, 2005, Ms. Schiavo's feeding tube was removed for a third time. The U.S. Congress then passed an "emergency measure" that was signed by the President in an effort both to force federal courts to review Ms. Schiavo's case and to create a legal mandate to have her feeding tube reinserted yet again. The U.S. District Court in Florida denied the emergency request to reinsert the feeding tube, and this decision was upheld on appeal. Multiple subsequent legal appeals were denied, and Ms. Schiavo died on March 31, 2005, 13 days after the feeding tube was removed.

This sad saga reinforces my personal belief that the courts — though their involvement is sometimes necessary — are the last place one wants to be when working through these complex dilemmas. Although I did not examine her, from the data I reviewed, I have no doubt that Terri Schiavo was in a persistent vegetative state and that her cognitive and neurologic functions were unfortunately not going to improve. Her life could have been further prolonged with artificial hydration and nutrition, and there is some solace in knowing that she was not consciously suffering. I also believe that both her husband and her family, while seeing the situation in radically different ways, were trying to do what was right for her. Her family and the public should be reassured and educated that dying in this way can be a natural, humane process (humans died in this way for thousands of years before the advent of feeding tubes).4

In considering such profound decisions, the central issue is not what family members would want for themselves or what they want for their incapacitated loved one, but rather what the patient would want for himself or herself. The New Jersey Supreme Court that decided the case of Karen Ann Quinlan got the question of substituted judgment right: If the patient could wake up for 15 minutes and understand his or her condition fully, and then had to return to it, what would he or she tell you to do? If the data about the patient's wishes are not clear, then in the absence of public policy or family consensus, we should err on the side of continued treatment even in cases of a persistent vegetative state in which there is no hope of recovery. But if the evidence is clear, as the courts found in the case of Terri Schiavo, then enforcing life-prolonging treatment against what is agreed to be the patient's will is both unethical and illegal.

Let us hope that future courts and legislative bodies put aside all the special interests and distractions and listen carefully to the patient's voice as expressed through family members and close friends. This voice is what counts the most, and in the Terri Schiavo case, it was largely drowned out by a very loud, self-interested public debate.

Posted by: Blogging Beth at June 17, 2005 8:29 AM

I have to say, I'm a little turned off by everyone on her saying that the autopsy proves nothing. For every article, publication, or news story, the people on this site find some way to distort the issues. Even with the ME, who is unbiased in every respect, the people here are still suspicious. Instead of distorting everything to fit your views, why not take the information to help educate yourself and your family of what to do if this situation hits you. The fighting really needs to stop. The autopsy does not prove MS' guilt. The autopsy clearly stated that this was a woman who had no chance of a recovery. She was a body that could breath and could pump blood, but beyond that the soul and life of her was gone. Stop crusading in her name, just to make the "facts" work for you.

I also disagree with how some of the people here are treating those with opinions different from your own. The truth is, we are all entitled to our opinions. Those who differ on here have been cordial and have not resorted to name calling. Instead of being so hostile, why don't you read the differing opinion, and simply agree to disagree with it. There is no need to get hostile. We want to understand where you all are coming from, and you ought to do the same for us. Just because we don't see the facts as you do, doesn't mean our opinions are wrong, it just means they are different.

Also, I'd appreciate it if you all would not call me a troll. I am in no way intending to troll; I'm simply stating what I feel about how this conversation has turned awry.

Posted by: SeriousSarah at June 17, 2005 11:08 AM

Dear serious....while I admire your post?

I am kinda dubious when you say, " even me, who's
unbiased in every aspect ". We ALL have some kind of bias.

With that said.....This could be simple.

Why did Michael not allow camera's into the room?
Why did Michael not allow Video into the room?
Why didn't a Government Official go into the room, and see for themselves??

I agree to disagree with different opinions on this post. I agree to disagree with calling a murder " death by choice " or " a beautiful way to die ".
I agree to disagree with those who believe Michael TOTALLY innocent and vindicated. I agree to disagree with those who don't think Michael should be jailed for defying a Court Order to release to TERRI's parents, her burial location.

I agree........We need to hear MICHAEL answer many questions, dealing with this case. I agree, Michael needs to answer WHY, he says he called 911 IMMEDIATELY, but the reports show a lapse of 70 minutes. ( Which, btw, I THINK that would have killed her off totally, not just 50% of her brain, she would have been " Brain-Dead " )
I agree wholehardily, Michael must be taken to court on a " Wrongful Death " lawsuit, as he supposedly WAS her legal Gaurdian, and he lapsed in his responsibilities AND his Duties.

I Disagree that Judge Greer is innocent in the murder of this woman. I Disagree, that Michael Shaivo, is innocent in the murder of this woman, who he CLAIMED was his wife. BTW?? How many years was he " living with that other broad? " ( I disagree, that there was NO conflict of interest )

I disagree with NOT dragging him out into the open, to answer the questions this Autopsy has raised.

Serious, Sarah.........can YOU AGREE with me?
Or do you DISAGREE that this needs to have a further review of ALL the actions of EVERYONE involved?

Posted by: LNaranjoiv at June 17, 2005 1:41 PM

BB.......wow...you must be some kind of Professor of Medicine to come up with your conclusions.
( applause )

I guess, given the same considerations, I too, am now an EXPERT MEDICAL DR...like your self(professed)

Given that I too, didn't examin Terri ( as you stated you hadn't ) I too, from the facts I've read, come to this conclusion:

1) You erred, Terri Schaivo wasn't kept ALIVE on a machine.
2) Michael Schaivo only remembered his wife's wish, AFTER his settlement for malpractice.
( Why wasn't that addressed DURING the malpractice?)
3) Judge Greer either Lied or MISrepresented his own court documents, in declairing BY HIS OWN ADMISSION< that Terri reacts to stimuli.
4) Far too many conflicts of interest were present during this case, to warrent outside review AND actions taken FOR the best interest of the Patient, ie....Terri Schaivo
5) Given Michael's live-in status with a woman and bastard children ( yes, I used the word, refer to a Dictionary if you're upset by it )His role AS Gaurdian should have been striped and terminiated.
6) Parental rights/Gaurdianship SHOULD have been given to the Schindlers, vis a vis Michael's status as " remarried to another woman " via Common law marriage. ( if such applied in Florida )
7) You have no clue as to what she consciously felt or not, given YOU weren't in the same position TERRI was in, nor can you prove with medical evidence, she WASN"T aware. You offer only opinion on that part
8) You PRESUME that dying this way is natural and humane. Why then, does this country NOT use this form of DEATH on DEATH SENTENCES for convicted criminals? YOU, allow for it's Humanity. All we need to do, is educate people, correct?
9) The evidence in Terri's case was NOT clear, and NOT concise. What judgement took place, was nothing short of Sactioned Murder.
10) If your so called, EXPERTISE can verify she was 100% PVS? Than obviously MY so called EXPERTISE can 100% verify that you maam, are indeed a walking case of the Brain Dead.

IN any event. It is exactly WHY we need to educate folks about this morbid murder by the hands of a dubious husband, and a dubious court.
You're just another token reason, why Murder ( disguised as " SOFT, HUMANE, PAINLESS end to SUFFERING VIA EUTHANASIA ) is disgusting.

You maam, would have made Dr Joseph Mengele proud.
I wonder, DID you recieve YOUR medical expertise degree at the

" Medical Institution for Science, Auschwitz Poland ? "

Just wondering................

Posted by: LNaranjoiv at June 17, 2005 1:59 PM

The way I view Serious Sarah and Blogging Beth (the same person?) is if they were so sure Michael was innocent, they wouldn't be here to argue.

If you use 10% of your brain and read the case, Michael is anything but innocent. When Jodi is running to the police because he tried to kill her (hey he doesn't have Terri to harass anymore) then what will be your excuse?.

Dr. JT said that you can not make a diagnosis of PVS on a corpse. PVS is a living condition not post.

:wonders if all Michael's supporters believe that nazi style murder is acceptable:

Posted by: Julie at June 17, 2005 4:04 PM

Bravo Sarah well said!

LNaranjoiv - first off - if you had read the post with an open mind and not half-heartedly while thinking of new and different names to call me and other dissenters - you would have noticed that I quoted from a article in the NE Journal of Medicine. I thought it was extremely well written and raised some points from discussion. Perhaps you should look up that word in the dictionary.

I will respond to your points -

(1) A feeding tube is an artificial means of nutrition. It is technically a "machine" as it is a mechanism that does the work that the human body cannot. And, the ability not to consume food is a NATURAL part of the dying process.
(2) MS was the guardian and, as the husband of TS, had the authority to make the decisions for his wife. What if his relationship never became public? Why does everyone conveniently omit that he examined alternative therapies for 3 years?
(3) Tell me how due process was not followed in this case. Courts were petitioned and re-petitioned. Congress intervened. The governor of the state passed a law. The measures that were taken in this case were unbelievable.
(4) Why didn't MS allow cameras in the room? Perhaps he didn't want further exploitation of his wife.

You all are grasping at straws. First it was she was not in a PVS. Then there was a conspiracy. Heck - the autopsy was fixed. Oh wait - no it wasn't because now we sort of like the results. So now lets focus on the infamous 70 minutes.

And on more thing - LNaranjoiv - because I was so utterly insulted by your last comment. No - I am not a doctor. And I am not Jewish. But, as a compassionate human being - I apologize on your behalf for your reference to Dr. Mengele and Auschwitz. For you even to make light of that situation simply to throw another spear at my back shows me what type of person I am dealing with. Sarah is right - all of us who dissent with your opinions are trying to be respectful. Comments like yours are what we get in return. Think about it!

Posted by: Blogging Beth at June 17, 2005 4:11 PM

We used to sing of HIM/HER in basic Training...lol

Anyways.....on the serious note.

That ' woman ' Michael is shacking up with.
Guess what? Is SHE clean too? What does SHE know?
After all this time with that " person ", He had to have told her something about this case. I'd guess, he screwed up, like he's done on National TV, and hinted/told her something else as well.

I think, if given the chance, she'd turn on him in a New York Minute.

Personally? I say she's culpable. Based upon the reports from here and elsewhere, that stated she was allowed entry into that room, with AND without Michael present.

Yet, she's NOT a family member. Why is that?

I think, she has a cloud on her as well.
That cloud, is called either " Conspiracy during and after the fact " , as well as " being an accomplice too " .....

Michael's not the ONLY one who needs to be brought under Examination. She's hidden her Nasty A**** self too long as well. Light needs to shine on her actions/inactions too.

" A relgious woman who won't marry a divorced man, but WILL marry a widower? "

Ah-----huh. Shacking up with a STILL married man, having BA******d children, assuming the role of NEW WIFE< while the old one was STILL breathing..
Innocent my eye. She's hardly innocent.

That link can be easily broken....BUT!!! If Michael is allowed to marry that ...ah.....( insert explanitive here ), then that LINK might forever be lost.....
Something akin to, " a spouse is not compelled to testify against a spouse " rule comes into play, me thinks.

This is why, The Schindler family and their lawyer MUST drag Michael Schaivo's sorry A*** into court. This is why, that woman, must be dragged into court. Both of them have to be dragged into the limelight, before circumstance allows them to fester more than they already have in Darkness.

She knows something............Just like HE does.

Posted by: LNaranjoiv at June 17, 2005 4:16 PM

Oh Please Blogging Beth....spare me the sactimonious mumbo jumbo of an apology FOR me.
If you were so utter insulted, good. I made my point then.
Just as people are utterly DISGUSTED at Michael's crap lawyer, trying to inform the world, Terri was dying BEAUTIFULLY.
Have you ever SEEN a dehydrated human, Ms Beth?
Do you KNOW what they look like? For one thing, they sure as hell don't look, ANGELIC nor BEAUTIFUL. So, before you start ATTEMPTING to appologize for ME< begin on yourself.

I"ve not seen you dissent a thing here, but I"ve SURE witnessed you POWDER up this woman's death.
The courts intervened? No maam, the courts did NOT intervene...they checked PROCEDURE< not FACTS.
Perhaps, you've become schooled at being a laywer too? Even the NEWS reports of the so called, APPEALS, said as much. They will, and DID not, appeal the verasity of the FACTS, only as to the Initial Judges handling of the PROCEDURE.

Congress did NOT intervene as strongly as you claim, neither did Mr Bush of Florida. Where does it give some whacko Judge, the ABILITY to order a Sheriff to DENY entry to Federal Agencies??
For the Protection service people for that matter?

OH MY GOD BETH!!! You're advocating that power to a JUDGE??!!
Bush should have sent in NG soldiers to clear that pathway, screw the sheriff at that point.
Federal Agents could have been sent in to clear that pathway, screw the sheriff. What, he'd fire on them? By who's authority?
You want to cry FOUL now, over law and precidence?

Refer MAAM, to ALABAMA. Wasn't it a States Rights to deny coloreds into white schools? How'd that get fixed?

Congress ORDERED baseball players TO Washington DC under threat of arrest, but some whacko JUDGE IGNORED the same subpeana for Terri?? Get a grip.

I'm not sure just what you're dissenting with:
The position of the case, or the right to justify Terri's murder. Pardon, I understand how ' sensitive ' this is for you....I'll use the word, DEATH for you instead of MURDER. FEEL better now??

You wish to dissent? Then dissent this: How is it, Judge Greer himself, acknowledged that Terri had reaction to Stimuli?? Was Judge Greer in contempt of his own rulings?? Did he LIE and commit Purjury?? I'm sure you'd know Beth, and we'd love to hear your answer.

Perhaps he didin't want to EXPLOIT his wife? Ah......you're a little too late for that. Michael EXPLOITED his wife for millions!!
A camera COULD have ended MUCH of the speculations about his WIFE"S Conditions. Then again, as far as YOU"RE concerned, Michael had already said his wife was DEAD. So BETH, again, WHO was he protecting by NOT allowing camera's INTO that room?
Technically a machine?? You want to play word games now, huh? Okay...let's begin.

Michael is TECHNICALLY a murderer. We just haven't FACTUALLY proven it yet. If I deny YOU food, you can't eat. TECHNICALLY, that's a natural part of your death. TECHNICALLY, you're GOING to die ANYWAYS. So, TECHNICALLY, I"d be speeding up the process.
TECHNICALLY, MICHAEL forfieted up his rights to his WIFE, when he clouded up HIS ROLE by shacking UP with that WOMAN. TECHNICALLY, he clouded that role further, by admitting his wife was DEAD, before she actually DIED!. TECHNICALLY, examining ALTERNATIVES isn't the same as INSTITUTING them, now is it? Or does that matter to you?? Wait...
I'll answer for you: it doesn't, because TECHNICALLY, you're still dissenting.

You want to DENY the faulty 70 minutes, but you WANTED us to believe she was Bulimic?? Please....
TECHNICALLY, you're about as brain dead as can be, and I'm amazed you want to DEBATE?
If JESUS himself stood before you, you'd STILL be in denial of GOD's CHILD being ALIVE.
TECHNICALLY, I really don't give a rats that you were offended by the Auschwitz comment, cause TECHNICALLY, what you did amounts to the same thing THEY did! Only on a MUCH smaller scale.

TECHNICALLY, if given the chance, if people who DISSENT with you weren't here, you'd probably ALLOW for the whole sale destruction of human life, cause TECHNICALLY, they HAVE no life worthy of LIVING ( Given YOUR standards as to what constitutes WORTHY OF LIVING ).

I don't need to THINK ABOUT IT......
My " spear " as you say, was right on the mark.
YOU maam, ...........disgusting. I'll leave it at that.

One last thing, paraphrasing something YOU said?
I"m sure glad you're NOT a doctor. Patients would have to worry about YOUR health care, cause YOU would be quick to END their lives, instead of HELPING them live.

Either way, we TOO, are only...as you say:

DISSENTING.......only WE are slightly more PASSIONATE in our voices of outrage, than YOU are in your syrup of poison.

Mengele murdered many more than just JEWS. Auschwitz, killed many more than just JEWS.

I too, have just learned WHAT I"m dealing with.

Ponder that.

Posted by: LNaranjoiv at June 17, 2005 4:43 PM

Thank you for making my point - I was insulted and you made no point by doing it. You ASSume too much. Yes - my grandmother died after suffering a massive stroke and NOT having a feeding tube inserted. She died a week later - peacefully.

Your wacko judge that did not intervene could have also been the voice of reason, choose life judge if he did. You spin things as you like - to your benefit. Just as the autopsy was first thought to be rigged. Look back on this site! They were discrediting it before the results were released.

Disgusting - well thank you! Again my point proven. I really do not care if you approve of my opinions or not. I worship to my God every Sunday and will be judged by him. I could care less what you think.

Go ahead - spin again. Write another litany against me.

Posted by: Blogging Beth at June 17, 2005 7:41 PM

Spin again?

AHAHAHA....the pot calling the kettle black.
No one mentioned your grandmother or how she passed away. However ,if she died I"m sure it wasn't for lack of water or food. She just, went.
You're right, Peacefully. Not horrendously.

Whatever GOD you worship, must be a good one.
Obviously, not the one most others worship. If so, you would have said:

" I really dont' care if you approve of my opinions or not. I WORSHIP GOD every Sunday and will be judged by HIM. I could care less what you think. "

Exactly the point.......
GOD is yours?? Care less what I ( much less what others ) think?

What happend to Utterly insulted? Maybe, no one's challenged you like I have, before?? First time for everything.

At anyrate.....in declaring God, YOUR GOD, you Ms Blogging Beth, ASSume way more than I do.
God will judge you in HIS time.....You're judging yourself now, in OUR time.

Posted by: LNaranjoiv at June 17, 2005 7:56 PM

":wonders if all Michael's supporters believe that nazi style murder is acceptable:"

Godwin's Law invoked: LNaranjoiv loses by default for bringing up Nazis.

"Michael is TECHNICALLY a murderer. We just haven't FACTUALLY proven it yet."

Actually, if you want to play wordgames, Michael would more likely be guilty of negligence and nothing more. That said, Terri's wishes have been established. Period.

"If I deny YOU food, you can't eat. TECHNICALLY, that's a natural part of your death."

No, that's you being cruel and negligent.

"TECHNICALLY, MICHAEL forfieted up his rights to his WIFE, when he clouded up HIS ROLE by shacking UP with that WOMAN. TECHNICALLY, he clouded that role further, by admitting his wife was DEAD, before she actually DIED!."

You can't even win your own wordgames. Technically, Michael was the most qualified person to make the decision. Going on one person's testimony is silly, so some activist judge did the unthinkable and went on the testimony of Terri's friends as well.

"TECHNICALLY, examining ALTERNATIVES isn't the same as INSTITUTING them, now is it?"


Terri was examined for the possibility that she could be a candidate for "swallowing therapy." She was denied the therapy because the doctor who examined her determined that it was useless.

"... TECHNICALLY, you're still dissenting."

Welcome to America.

Posted by: Shmoykins at June 18, 2005 12:18 AM

Murder is murder is murder. There are a lot of unanswered questions from the autopsy report.

With regard to some stupid doctor who did not examine Terri and who continues with the crap that she had not cortical activity. He was wrong. She had that function. The whole of that article was the worst load of rubbish that the culture of death can dish up at will. It provides all of the glib statements but is totally lacking in facts.

Terri's autopsy has I believe put paid to a lot of the culture of death myths. Over time I hope to be able to continue to expose those myths and to show the damage that those myths do to the lives of other people.

The culture of death wants to play God. Satan wanted to play God and was cast out of Heaven. Satan tempted Eve in wanting to play God and had Adam and Eve thrown out of the Garden of Eden.

It is not our right to deprive another living breathing human being of food and water. Terri was not dying. She was not brain dead. The video clips prove that she understood instructions even if she could not respond all that well she did her best to prove that she understood the commands. The clip with "open your eyes is revealing on this score.

The goober trolls need to go and do some very serious reading because they contribute nothing to what is already known.

Posted by: Maggie4life at June 19, 2005 3:32 PM

"The culture of death wants to play God."

Funny. I consider keeping a body alive artificially after the mind has been destroyed a form of playing God.

"It is not our right to deprive another living breathing human being of food and water." Terri was not dying. She was not brain dead. The video clips prove that she understood instructions even if she could not respond all that well she did her best to prove that she understood the commands. The clip with "open your eyes is revealing on this score."

Legally, it WAS Michael's right.

You are correct that Terri was not dying and that she was not brain dead, but your implication that this meant that she was conscious is playing with the semantics of "brain dead." The videos don't prove anything. There is at most five minutes of video on the internet, and of that, there is only about 40 seconds of her actually "following instructions." This is from over four hours of video.

Again: A broken clock is right twice a day. If you repeat the experiments enough, she will eventually look like she's following commands.

All of you have to stop denying that Terri was blind or Terri was this or Terri was that. Take the facts and see how they fit into your view of what's happening.

Posted by: Shmoykins at June 19, 2005 5:07 PM

Ummmmm, Shmoy?? You must have the powers of HINDsight......
How do you know what Terris Wished? Established how? You actually HEARD her wishes? You KNOW something the world doesn't??
Wow.....you're amazing. Quiet dumb to make that assumption, but amazing.

What is it you used? Oh yea...Goodwins law?
You never even made it out of the blocks, for assuming you know/knew what Terri wish WAS or WASN'T.

Terri was DENIED swallowing theropy? Gee, agian you have remarkable insight. Perhaps you can explain why she was never reported as being in a state of ' constantly drooling? ' Perhaps, you can explain how she managed to swallow her own siliva? Are you some kind of Medical Dr. embued with all this knowledge? Hells bells, perhaps YOU should have viewed the patient!!

Negligent if you deny someone food? Then perhaps, you can explain why babies are fed in the hospital? Can't they get it on there own?
They don't see, or swallow right either.
From some reports I've heard about, Terri's case wasn't much different that someone with the mental capacity OF a child, albeit, one who was brain damaged.

As to my comments on Death Camps.....perhaps, you're just ignorant of HOW the Nazi method of extermination of a race of people, came to pass?
Perhaps, you've no knowledge of their Euthanasia program? Back then, it started with the brain-damaged, mental defect , and deformed peoples. The excuse, was they " produced nothing for society and were only a drain TOO society. People like that would be better off dead. "

Was Terri a fitting candidate for this program??
In NAZI Germany time? She sure was.
My, how far we've come, to have quacks like you expound a system we fought so hard to destroy.

Get a grip if you wish to debate the status of the case.

Goober trolls....lol....Maggie, you're too much.
lolol....( I need to write that one down ..lol )

Posted by: LNaranjoiv at June 20, 2005 12:40 PM

If Terri's wishes were so clear, why did Michael tell one of his girlfriends before he employed George Felos that he did not know what she wanted? If Michael cannot remember how to spell his mother's name how come he had such a sudden and clear recall of Terri's alleged wishes in a conversation that never happened?

Posted by: Maggie4life at June 27, 2005 10:07 PM


CHICAGO, USA, June 27 (CNA) - A neurology expert has discredited
several aspects of Terri Schiavo's autopsy report, released earlier
this month, saying that the main cause of death listed in the report
is inaccurate.

Dr. Thomas Zabiega, MD, has said the medical examiners' claims that
Schiavo died from anoxic-ischemic encephalopathy are wrong.

"She died of starvation and dehydration, plain and simple, although
many of the ischemic and anoxic changes may have resulted from the
chemical abnormalities caused by the starvation and dehydration," he

The 41-year-old physically disabled and brain-damaged Florida woman
died March 31, almost two weeks after her feeding tube was removed.
She had fallen into this state after she suffered a heart attack in
1990 that left her without oxygen to her brain for several minutes.
Her husband won a years-long court battle to remove her feeding tube,
sparking an international right-to-life debate in the process.

"She did not die from the injuries that caused her to have brain
damage, rather from the enforced starvation and dehydration," said
Zabiega. "The examiner only notes she died from dehydration in one of
the last sentences of the report, but does not list it as the main
cause of death."

The neurologist and vice president for legislative affairs of the
Chicago Physicians' Guild questioned whether medical examiners were
making this claim in order to exonerate the issue of how she died.

"If I have lung cancer and someone gives me cyanide, I died from the
cyanide, not the lung cancer," he said.

The neurologist added that osteoporosis, joint degeneration, and
muscle atrophy that medical examiners found in Schiavo were not the
result of anoxic-ischemic encephalopathy either, but "a direct result
of lack of physical therapy and lack of activity that Terri Schiavo
was not allowed to have due to her husband's orders."

The report also indicated that Schiavo's heart, lungs, kidneys, liver,
and gastrointestinal tract were "normal except for changes secondary
to the dehydration/starvation process," Zabiega noted.

He concluded, therefore, that Schiavo "would have probably lived for
many more years without any major health problems" had she received
proper food and hydration.

The autopsy report stated that Schiavo had no memory - because her
hippocampus was damaged - and no cognitive ability. But Zabiega noted
the "relative preservation" of the frontal and temporal lobes.

"Complex cognition and executive decisions as well as emotional output
are often associated with the frontal lobe, while the temporal lobes
are often associated with memory, as well as hearing," he explained.

"Therefore Terri Schiavo's ability to think, react with appropriate
emotions, memory, and hearing could have all be intact at the time the
feeding tube was removed," he stated. The same may have been true
about her memory since damage to the hippocampus could have been
caused by the dehydration and starvation, he added.

Schiavo may have been cortically blind, but there was no way of saying
if the preserved occipital lobe had taken over and whether there was
macular sparing, allowing her to see up close, the neurologist said.
This would make it possible that Schiavo could indeed see her mother
and react to her.

What Zabiega says is "most horrific" is that Schiavo had only
acetaminophen (Tylenol) found in her blood. This means that she was
not receiving appropriate amounts of morphine after her feeding tube
was removed and that "she died a horrific, painful, excruciating death
that would be worse than any form of execution used in modern times,"
he said.

Posted by: Maggie4life at July 7, 2005 5:34 AM

The comments made by the neurologist Zabiega are very helpful because he cuts out the crap that we have been getting from the interested parties in the culture of death.

Once again he has affirmed the diagnosis of both Drs. Hammesfahr, and Chesire. People seem to forget that Dr. Chesire, a true independent went to visit Terri with a preconceived idea about her condition but he changed his mind whilst in the room with her. He diagnosed that she was MCS. These two doctors were honest in their assessment. The same cannot be said about Dr. Cranford who is more concerned about killing patients than he is in saving their lives through the real practice of neurology.

Posted by: Maggie4life at July 7, 2005 5:44 AM