Schiavo Autopsy report ready

[Ben Kenobi]

The only thing she could process was pain, and intubating someone to feed them goop through the stomach wall is a bit extraordinary if it's planned to be done for decades.

First of all, unless you do an autopsy on Ms. Schaivo, how could you know precisely what she could feel and how much of it Schiavo could feel?

That's the real issue here, whether the evidence, before the death of Ms. Schiavo, constituted brain death or not. If she could feel pain, that means she is still sentient, and retains some brain function.

If she could feel pain, how must it have been for her to suffer from starvation for 2 weeks before finally succumbing?

Secondly, I don't think they planned to intubate her for decades. I see plenty of articles arguing that she ought to receive therapy so that she can regain her ability to eat on her own.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
Did they personally shoot and edit it?

Yes. Or at least, they shot it themselves and had someone edit it to their liking.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov


Yes. Or at least, they shot it themselves and had someone edit it to their liking.

I'm sure they were standing right there and saying "yes, we have to cut out that 15 minute gap which clearly shows she's a vegetable so we can splice together 30 seconds of random movement we can claim is responsive."


News outlets edit tape all the time. I suppose that's lying too, instead of trying to focus on the point of the story?

There's nothing that indicates that the Schiavos did anything more than engage in fanatical wishful thinking and denial.

[Mrs. Tuberski]

There's nothing that indicates that the Schiavos did anything more than engage in fanatical wishful thinking and denial.

Thats exatly what this family did. Doesnt make them wrong or unreasonable, but rather more in a land that the chose to stay in

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
News outlets edit tape all the time. I suppose that's lying too, instead of trying to focus on the point of the story?

Yes, if the edited tape shows something directly opposite to what the original does.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
I'm sure they were standing right there and saying "yes, we have to cut out that 15 minute gap which clearly shows she's a vegetable so we can splice together 30 seconds of random movement we can claim is responsive."

Yeah, that's pretty much what happened. They shot the footage with a home video camera on their visits. Either they or someone they got to edit it proceeded to splice all the footage that to show Schiavo was responsive. They then, of their own volition, offered their tape as proof that she was responsive.

Are you saying a third party happened to get a hold of their footage, edit it without their knowledge and then give it back to them so they could give it to the judge? Preposterous.

News outlets edit tape all the time. I suppose that's lying too, instead of trying to focus on the point of the story?

As UR said, if a news outlet were to edit footage to give the exact opposite impression of reality, then they would indeed be lying.

There's nothing that indicates that the Schiavos did anything more than engage in fanatical wishful thinking and denial.

If they thought the whole tape told the same story as the heavily edited version, then why have they categorically refused to release the whole tape? The only reason the judge got to see the whole tape was because they proferred the doctored one as evidence, but he insisted on seeing the whole thing.

If it were a simple case of fanatical wishful thinking, then they wouldn't have any problem with the entire tape being shown. But their refusal to show it tells us that they know it doesn't show what their carefully-edited version tried to show. Ergo they were being knowingly dishonest, no buts about it.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
No, I merely said the bill signed by Gov. Bush in Texas does not apply to Ms. Schiavo.

My position is that regardless of the cognitive state of the patient, no patient should be denied food and water. She was not hooked up to a ventilator. She was not having her bodily functions sustained through extraordinary means. She was deliberately starved, in order so that she may die. That is what I find the most wrong, and the most despicable violation of the right to life of Ms. Schiavo. She did not say that she wanted to die. There was no evidence that she ever said that she wanted to die, and yet she was starved and eventually died from lack of food.

A court of law found sufficient evidence that Terry had expressed a wish to end her life if she was a in hopeless position. They had evidence that lead to that conclusion. What is your statement based on?

Oh, and she did not die from lack of food. Read the OP. She died of dehydration.

[Tuberski]

ACK!

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
First of all, unless you do an autopsy on Ms. Schaivo, how could you know precisely what she could feel and how much of it Schiavo could feel?

That's the real issue here, whether the evidence, before the death of Ms. Schiavo, constituted brain death or not. If she could feel pain, that means she is still sentient, and retains some brain function.

Go take some molecular bio and anatomy classes. Pain is not primarily processed in the cerebral cortex. Higher thought processes related to pain are, such as "is this migraine bad enough to take an Imitrex?" but the physiological response to pain is not processed in that area of the brain. All sorts of creatures with next to no cortex, which we do not classify as intelligent, have clear pain responses. Non-chordates generally don't have cerebral pain responses, but may still have localized reflexes. Pain response is not synonomous with awareness or processing higher sensory input to any degree.

Would you argue a mouse is sentient? Then I guess it must have a right to life. Go demonstate in front of a lab that experiments on mice. A PVS means a lack of cortical processing and stimuli response, it doesn't mean a total lack of sensation.

If she could feel pain, how must it have been for her to suffer from starvation for 2 weeks before finally succumbing?

Probably a lot less than years of bed sores, pressure, atrophy, etc.

Secondly, I don't think they planned to intubate her for decades. I see plenty of articles arguing that she ought to receive therapy so that she can regain her ability to eat on her own.

By the same ideologically-driven quacks who argued "she could get better" without any medical evidence? There was no real evidence, ever, that she could have been mouth fed again, let alone eating on her own.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
Are you saying a third party happened to get a hold of their footage, edit it without their knowledge and then give it back to them so they could give it to the judge? Preposterous.

Did I say that? No. So nice strawman. Now eat me.

As UR said, if a news outlet were to edit footage to give the exact opposite impression of reality, then they would indeed be lying.

Another nice straw man. Do news outlets have an irrational emotional stake in their stories or the results deriving from their stories?

If they thought the whole tape told the same story as the heavily edited version, then why have they categorically refused to release the whole tape? The only reason the judge got to see the whole tape was because they proferred the doctored one as evidence, but he insisted on seeing the whole thing.

If it were a simple case of fanatical wishful thinking, then they wouldn't have any problem with the entire tape being shown. But their refusal to show it tells us that they know it doesn't show what their carefully-edited version tried to show. Ergo they were being knowingly dishonest, no buts about it.

And again, you're ignorant about the weakness of the human mind and the ability to rationalize just about anything into a belief system. Go talk to a few jihadis or Jonestown survivors. Apparently you haven't dealt with many fundamentalists in your time.

[The Emperor Fabulous]

Originally posted by GePap


A court of law found sufficient evidence that Terry had expressed a wish to end her life if she was a in hopeless position. They had evidence that lead to that conclusion. What is your statement based on?

Allow me to say that, here and now, if I am ever in the position that Terry was in, please put me to death.

At that point, you are not denying me life. Life has already been denied. However, if you choose to keep me alive, you are denying me Heaven. I would not be able to enjoy this world, but only sit in a chair with drool coming out of my mouth. If I am allowed to die (and certainly it is only a freak of nature that I am alive in the first place), then you will be doing me the greatest service.

And that's all I've got to say about that.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
Did I say that? No. So nice strawman. Now eat me.

I was asking if you were saying that, because I can't figure out what the hell you're trying to say. The only thing that seems to make sense in the context of this argument was that you were saying just that. So I'll refrain from dining at the moment.

Another nice straw man. Do news outlets have an irrational emotional stake in their stories or the results deriving from their stories?

How the hell is that a strawman?

You asked if a media outlet editing footage of a tape was an example of lying, and I said that if they did it the same way the Schindlers did it, then yes. That's not a strawman at all.

And again, you're ignorant about the weakness of the human mind and the ability to rationalize just about anything into a belief system. Go talk to a few jihadis or Jonestown survivors. Apparently you haven't dealt with many fundamentalists in your time.

That's nice, dear, but doesn't at all address the point. I'll spell it out simple:

1. Schindlers video tape daughter
2. Schindlers selectively edit 4 hours down to 15 minutes
3. Schindlers give 15 minutes to judge as proof, and release 15 minutes to media
4. Judge sees it, but demands to see all 4 hours
5. Judge sees 4 hours, is singularly unimpressed, says the full tape shows she isn't responsive and rules against Schindlers
6. Schindlers refuse to this day to release all 4 hours, but still trumpet 15 minutes as proof of their claims.

Now, there's no reasonable way you can say the Schindlers are being honest about what the video depicts. Nowhere was I saying they don't really believe she was treatable or responsive. What I'm saying is that the entire, unedited video indicated she wasn't responsive, and they selectively edited it to make it look like she was. Since they refuse to release the entire video, they must know that it does not depict what they claim, as the judge stated. Else, why not release the whole thing? If they sincerely believed the entire video showed Terri was responsive, why not release it? Because it doesn't, and they're lying about it to keep their 15-minute fantasy video in the media and public mind as the real impression.

The Schindlers were sincerely delusional about the state of the daughter, but they were quite insincere and dishonest when it came to that video tape.

[Dis]

it begins again...

http://www.6292.kofcva.org/news.cgim?news_id=377

this is more of a blog entry. Even though I heard it on my local news I can't find an real news story on the internet/google.

Yes I know this case is completely different from Terri Schiavo. But I don't even think the most heartless right to die proponent would advocate killing the baby.

[MrFun]

I think for the first time in Apolyton's history, someone has pwned MTG??

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Dissident
Yes I know this case is completely different from Terri Schiavo. But I don't even think the most heartless right to die proponent would advocate killing the baby.

But there's no reason to, since her husband (and presumed legal guardian) wants to keep her alive so the baby can be born. It's a no-brainer.

Erm, I should rephrase that...