Murder will out

[fpb]

Having a severely disabled person in my family, and having been involved in disabled organizations, I know a thing or two about disability: enough to know that the mass media's reading of the Schiavo autopsy was ignorant and prejudiced bullshit (a functioning brain mass of half the whole represents severe disability, but certainly not brain destruction). And by the same token, I have a personal stake in the struggle against the increasingly-popular, increasingly-encouraged murder of the old and sick: my reaction to all promoters of euthanasia must be, quite simply, get your filthy hands off my family, or I will duff you up. But I am no doctor, much less a specialist in brain functions. So here is what one such person had to say about the evidence for the loathsome judicial murder of a disabled woman:

Physician Who Examined Schiavo for Over 10 Hours--Critical of Autopsy Report
Insists that based on clinical evidence and autopsy results, “an aware woman was killed”

CLEARWATER, Florida, June 20, 2005 (LifeSiteNews.com) – A neurologist who spent 10 hours examining Terri Schiavo while she was alive has issued a release criticizing the autopsy conclusions drawn by the independent medical examiner.

Dr. William Hammesfahr, nominated for a Nobel Prize for his work in Medicine, and a patent holder for a medicine to help people with brain injuries and stroke, released the following statement in response to the independent medical examiner’s autopsy conclusions:

“We have seen a lot on the autopsy of Terri Schindler Schiavo in recent days that I feel needs to be addressed,” Dr. Hammesfahr began. “To ignore these comments will allow future ‘Terri Schiavo's’ to die needlessly after the wishes of clinicians and family are ignored.”

“The record must be set straight. As we noted in the press, there was no heart attack, or evident reason for this to have happened (and certainly not of Terri's making). Unlike the constant drumbeat from the husband, his attorneys, and his doctors, the brain tissue was not dissolved, with a head of just spinal fluid. In fact, large areas were ‘relatively preserved.’”

“I have had a chance to look at Dr. Nelson's analysis of the brain tissue, and essentially, as a clinician, these are my thoughts. (Neuropathologist Dr. Stephen Nelson performed the autopsy on Mrs. Schiavo's central nervous system.) The autopsy results confirmed my opinion . . . that the frontal areas of the brains, the areas that deal with awareness and cognition were relatively intact.”

“To use Dr. Nelson's words, ‘relatively preserved.’ In fact, the relay areas from the frontal and front temporal regions of the brain, to the spinal cord and the brain stem, by way of the basal ganglia, were preserved, thus the evident responses which she was able to express to her family and to the clinicians seeing her or viewing her videotape. The Spect scan confirmed these areas were functional and not scar tissue, and that was apparently also confirmed on Dr. Nelson's review of the slides.”

Terri Schiavo “was a woman trapped in her body, similar to a child with cerebral palsy, and that was born out by the autopsy, showing greater injury in the motor and visual centers of the brain,” Hammesfahr continued. “Obviously, the pathologists comments that she could not see were not borne out by reality, and thus his assessment must represent sampling error. The videotapes clearly showed her seeing, and even Dr. Cranfoed, for the husband, commented to her that, when she could see the balloon, she could follow it with her eyes as per his request.”

“That she could not swallow was obviously not borne out by the reality that she was swallowing her saliva, about 1.5 liters per day of liquid, and the clinical swallowing tests done by Dr. Young and Dr. Carpenter. Thus, there appears to be some limitations to the clinical accuracy of an autopsy in evaluating function.”

“With respect to the issue of trauma, that certainly does not appear to be answered adequately,” Hammesfahr added. “Some of the types of trauma that are suspected were not adequately evaluated in this assessment. Interestingly, both myself and at least one neurologist for the husband testified to the presence of neck injuries. The issue of a forensic evaluation for trauma, is highly specialized. Hence the wish of the family to have observers which was refused by the examiner.”

“Ultimately, based on the clinical evidence and the autopsy results, an aware woman was killed.”

Comments

[gunderpants.livejournal.com]

My thoughts on the Terri Schaivo case were incredibly mixed and when considering that Australia heard very little about the case, I can hardly say I'm aware of all the details, suffice to say it was appalling how she was left to die. Whatever my thoughts might be on voluntary euthanasia, there is absolutely no way in hell that it's right to determine such a case when the patient cannot speak for themselves and has made no legally defining will on the matter. I think that the notion of cutting off food or oxygen to a mentally and physically disabled patient who cannot speak for themselves is incredibly bad because of the notion that it would de-emphasise the dignity and value of the life of the patient, and as such would similarly devalue the lives of many other patients in similar situations, meaning they would, in essence, be treated even worse than animals who are euthanased (if only because the animals are given the chance to die quick and painlessly).

In any case, my thoughts on the matter are that legal rights over matters like this should definitely be granted to blood family over spouses any day, when one considers that the love and financial support of a family member is nearly always going to be greater than that of the spouse, if the Schindlers v. Michael Schiavo has taught us anything.

[fpb.livejournal.com]

Unfortunately, quite apart from the loathsome propaganda (I will never call it anything else) for euthanasia, this case got caught up in the hatred that the losing half of the American nation feels for George W.Bush. The media, that did everything in their power to stop his victory last year, decided that Terry Schiavo's case was one way of getting at him through his brother, and did not even bother to wonder whether there was anything vaguely uncomfortable about asking for a woman's death for political advantage. Terry Schiavo had to die, and die among a blizzard of lies, in order to blacken Jeb Bush before American public opinion. And since journalists speak to other journalists, the lies told about Terry Schiavo spread across the world. I need not describe how I feel about this process.

[gunderpants.livejournal.com]

In that sense, I don't know how to respond: certainly, much of the media in America is owned by conservative organisations and groups (Sinclair media and Fox to name a pair, and there are certainly other players), with many publications seemingly taking on a conservative slant of late. It certainly doesn't justify any media source, no matter the backing, utilising the plight of a family to swing popular political opinion.

I think a huge problem is that physical signs of abuse can be so hard to detect, particularly after such a prolonged period of time. I've read several sources about the possibility of Michael Schiavo abusing his wife, and have read several accounts of his conduct while she was in hospital that certainly don't put him in a very favourable light. I think it's yet another extremely unfortunate case of abuse not being able to be proven, though it is very probable that it did happen, and god only knows how many cases of abuse cannot be proved either way.

[fpb.livejournal.com]

Yes, and who did you hear about Sinclair and Fox media from? Other journalists. Who told you about them because Fox, let alone Sinclair - which is a provincial penny-ante operation - are well out of the loop. The leading media in the US are AolTimeWarner, CBS, ABC, NBC, and the New York Times/Washington Post/Los Angeles Times/New York Herald combine, all ferociously anti-Bush. If you want to see the mind of the American mass media in action, read the comic strip DOONESBURY.

I prefer, now, not to take the charges against Michael Schiavo as a wife-beater too seriously. I do still think that there is a question mark there, but the medical evidence gives no strong support to the idea (that is why the media in general played it up) and at any rate the issue is quite simply what he did after securing his million-dollar payout from medical insurance for his wife's alleged poor treatment, which is more than enough to damn him before any unbiased conscience.

That the legal claims of marriage should trump those of the blood family is a Christian legal concept, built on the notion of "one flesh", which you remember I discussed a while ago. Once the Christian idea of marriage has been booted out of the legal system, as it certainly has in America, then the prevalence of marriage over the claims of blood kin has no business being there, because in a pagan society blood family certainly does trump marriage partnership. (When the marriage link breaks down, after all, who do you expect to go to?) Michael Schiavo took advantage of a legal right afforded him by a religion for which he had not the least respect.

[caprinus.livejournal.com]

theregoesyamum: In any case, my thoughts on the matter are that legal rights over matters like this should definitely be granted to blood family over spouses any day, when one considers that the love and financial support of a family member is nearly always going to be greater than that of the spouse

This is based on what? In an informal poll of my flist, the concensus was strong: we would all rather have our mates (whom we freely choose for the similarities in world-view and temperament) make decisions over our life and death than our parents (who are linked to us by a biological imperative, and from whom we as children have to struggle to individuate). I don't know how old you are, or how married or otherwise committed, but to say the love and financial support of a family member are greater than that of a spouse is to misapprehend the meaning of love and overvalue the importance of generational wealth. My mother loves me like a child, and I will be a child to her till the day she dies; but I am not a child, and don't want to be treated like one in death.

[caprinus.livejournal.com]

fpb: That the legal claims of marriage should trump those of the blood family is a Christian legal concept, built on the notion of "one flesh", which you remember I discussed a while ago. Once the Christian idea of marriage has been booted out of the legal system, as it certainly has in America, then the prevalence of marriage over the claims of blood kin has no business being there, because in a pagan society blood family certainly does trump marriage partnership. (When the marriage link breaks down, after all, who do you expect to go to?)

Should my marriage ever break down, I sure don't expect either of us to go home to Mommy. Ah, but you're Italian, yes? I notice a lot of your compatriots in Toronto still live in their parents' basement at 35. As I mentioned below, in a poll of my flist, concensus was strong people wanted their spouses to have rights precedent to those of their parents. And my flist is mostly non-Christian.

As for your views on "pagan societies" and the idea that there even should be such a thing as a Christian legal system -- *rolleyes*. In primitive societies of all stripes maybe you have legal systems bound by particular tribal doctrines, but to say that Michael Schiavo took advantage of a legal right afforded him by a religion is such a monstrous subversion of the idea of the rule of law in a modern society, and of the role organized religions have in the development and administration of secular law (ideally, none), I pray you never become a lawyer or a bureaucrat, at least not anywhere where I live. Perhaps in Iran?

I've followed your journal for a refreshing (I hoped) perspective after your amusing rant contra Arabic influences on Spanish in linguaphiles, but it's the same thing over and over again. You're like me at 14, and I've had enough of that back then, bye.

[fpb.livejournal.com]

Sure, go trust the mate you have freely chosen. Then watch him/her turn you in for a younger model. That is the one thing your parents cannot do.

[fpb.livejournal.com]

You won't be missed, if that is your reaction to views different from your own. Grow up, will you?

[rfachir.livejournal.com]

(I think I've infected you with my poisonous perception of marriage.)

Don't open the door to blood relatives - it's a slippery slope and goes both ways. It may be hard to imagine a parent who has watched a child suffer so much they pray for the child's death, but I know it's happened, with love in their broken hearts. It may be easier for someone who is more removed from the pain to make the choices you think best.

And downstream, the children of a sick old person could decide to pull the plug on them, overriding the spouse. The financial incentive (either inheritance or avoiding the further burden of care) is clear. And I don't know a single child who never had an issue with their parents. Benign spousal neglect may be all some people have left in the end.

[fpb.livejournal.com]

True enough. The right to life should never be left to personal emotion to defend, whatever the emotion, and relatives are just as likely as spouses to tip you into the ovens, especially if they have had a bad kind of sentimentalist education where murder is presented as some sort of act of mercy and even nobility. And we both know that this is the state of media discourse in the Western world. Mind you, even the clearest statement of the absolute Right to Live in a constitution does not prevent, it seems, corrupt courts from overriding it at leisure, and even to thumb their noses at Congress when Congress tries to reinforce the laws by which they should be acting.

What I was saying, however, is something quite different, which the appropriately-named Caprinus ("goat-like") refused to understand. (The saddest thing about being a fanatic is how stupid it makes you.) It is simply that, where the notion of marriage as a lifelong and unbreakable bond which trumps all other bonds is NOT or NO LONGER embodied in the law, there is no reason to award the spouse rights that overcome those of any related person, and that any such rights are simply the fossils of a conception of marriage which does not exist in law.