home

She Speaks After 20 Years

By Jeralyn, Section Civil Liberties
Posted on Sat Feb 12, 2005 at 03:57:55 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Someone should send this to this article to Terry Schiavo's husband. Not that it would change his mind, but still....

< Report on Biased Ward Churchill Coverage | Secret Rendition Plan: Outsourcing Torture >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    She Speaks After 20 Years | 23 comments (23 topical)
    Re: She Speaks After 20 Years (none / 0) (#1)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Feb 12, 2005 at 04:14:36 PM EST
    For years, she could only blink her eyes - one blink for "no," two blinks for "yes" - to respond to questions that no one knew for sure she understood. I don't get the connection to Terry Schaivo, who has no ability to communicate and minimal brain activity. Perhaps you can explain the parallel?

    Re: She Speaks After 20 Years (none / 0) (#2)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Feb 12, 2005 at 04:19:45 PM EST
    the connection is that both have brain-damage, and in this case, according to the doctr, critical pathways in the brain may have regenerated.

    Re: She Speaks After 20 Years (none / 0) (#3)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Feb 12, 2005 at 04:20:11 PM EST
    its about what is possible, Einstein

    Re: She Speaks After 20 Years (none / 0) (#4)
    by Lindsay on Sat Feb 12, 2005 at 05:13:09 PM EST
    Terry Schiavo should be allowed to rest in peace. As the parent of a brain damaged child (now a 39 year old adult) - I can tell you -there are things worse than death.

    Re: She Speaks After 20 Years (none / 0) (#5)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Feb 12, 2005 at 05:15:13 PM EST
    Brain Dead by all mneasures in the of Ms. Schaivo vs. a woman who had some physical control and obvious awareness in the case cited. Little or no connection except for those who wish to continue to torment Ms. Schaivo's husband. Much like those who oppose late term obortions for the protoplasm being carried that it is discovered have no brain in the (anencephaly) rio grande valley. They calculate that it is "poosible" that rather then just a brain stem that magically a whole brain "could" be created after birth. It has never happened but it is "possible". No need to pass on this irrelevent article to anyone involved in the tragic case of Ms. Schaivo except for those sadist's among us who wish to see pain prolonged and mental anguish exasperated.

    Re: She Speaks After 20 Years (none / 0) (#6)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Feb 12, 2005 at 05:25:17 PM EST
    The Terry Schiavo case is a difficult situation without an easy answer, although that doesn't stop lots of people from declaring they know the absolutely correct resolution to the problem. My own suspicion is that Terry's family is fooling themselves. I've heard her mother on Catholic Radio talking about how Terry reacts with joy when her parents visit and talk to her, and that her eyes shine with intelligence. Nevertheless, the best evidence Terry's parents have to share with the world is a series of short clips in which she appears to be reacting to stimuli. As many doctors have pointed out, the random actions of a person in a persistently vegetative state would necessarily, by sheer coincidence, occasionally seem to be reactive. It's entirely possible her parents are simply fooling themselves as they deny the weight of the medical testimony that Florida courts have found persuasive on many occasions. The Schiavo case is a cause celebre in pro-life circles, where it is assumed as a matter of fact that Mark Schiavo is simply a would-be murderer. No one entertains the possibility that he is a sincere spouse who is trying to follow what he believes are the wishes of his incapacitated wife. I don't know that he is, but it's certainly possible. Otherwise, he could have acceded to the demands of his in-laws that he divorce Terry and allow her to revert to the control of her parents. If he's waived any supposed monetary benefits from her physical death, why wouldn't he file for divorce and free himself to marry the girlfriend with whom he's been living in recent years? Sincere devotion to his wife's wishes could be on explanation. I'm glad the decision is up to the Florida courts and not to me.

    Re: She Speaks After 20 Years (none / 0) (#7)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Feb 12, 2005 at 05:39:41 PM EST
    I'm actually kind of dissapointed that TalkLeft would make such a flippant remark considering the reams of past insightful and subtle takes on a wide range of cases. The Terry Schiavo case is a complicated one, and basically gets to the heart of whether a person who is in a vegetative state is the same person, whether its ethical to cut the plug on them, and a host of other end of life issues. Simply pointing to one case of a person being able to talk, out of thousands of similar cases that never go that way, is specious at best. What if this women was to have woken up and demanded that she be cut off? What would people say then?

    Re: She Speaks After 20 Years (none / 0) (#8)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Feb 12, 2005 at 06:03:06 PM EST
    What if this women was to have woken up and demanded that she be cut off? What would people say then? I would say she found out Dubya is President. Sorry, just couldn't pass up the straight line. Also, there is some connection since this is a thread about brain damage anyway.

    Re: She Speaks After 20 Years (none / 0) (#9)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Feb 12, 2005 at 06:45:02 PM EST
    As a resident of Florida it is quite outstanding when you talk to people around the country who think the TS case has only been going on a short time, when you tell them it has been over 14 years they say "I didn't know that". I can't believe any parent would want their son/daughter to continue in a situation that she is in. I find no connection to either cases, on a much lower level it is like comparing a retarded child with a child who is dead but still breathing. You would never harm the retared child but you hope like hell that the child with no hope could simply die peacefully. TS's husband is NOT the money hungry grub that the right wing wackos would have you believe he is.

    Re: She Speaks After 20 Years (none / 0) (#10)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Feb 12, 2005 at 07:20:55 PM EST
    Her parents want her to live. Why is he so insistant on her death in spite of this fact? What if you had to look her parents in the eye and explain to them why you support her death? What would you say? Let me guess, its complicated. BS, its pretty simple.

    Re: She Speaks After 20 Years (none / 0) (#11)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Feb 12, 2005 at 07:26:10 PM EST
    Sean S., I linked in the post to a neutral site that discussed all aspects of the case. The problem for me here is that Terry Schiavo did not have a living will, and only her husband says she would not have wanted to be kept alive. There are disagreements over whether she is brain dead and whether she has responded or just exhibited involuntary muscle spasms.
    In the absence of a living will, or an absolutely clear declaration by the individual, should the line be drawn at the “absolutely brain dead” - that is, those who cannot survive without an external respirator and are in a permanent coma? Even the definition of brain death has its controversy, as this article points out. But while we can say that Terry has a right to die, without a clear indication from her, how can we say for sure that she has to die?
    Also there are issues with whether she will suffer pain with the discontinuation of the feeding tube. If she does have any degree of consciousness, that sounds torturous to me. I support the right to die when one wants to. I'm just not sure she wants to.

    Re: She Speaks After 20 Years (none / 0) (#12)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Feb 12, 2005 at 09:20:07 PM EST
    Why is he so insistant [sic] on her death in spite of this fact?
    How about: Because he knows she doesn't want to "live" this way? He is not the only person to have testified that Terry didn't want to live under circumstances such as those she has endured for so many years. Are they all lying? Perhaps. Perhaps not. If Terry had expressed such a wish, although not in writing, would she have changed her mind given the present situation? No one knows. It is complicated, except for the all-knowing among us, who seem happy to share their certitude.

    Re: She Speaks After 20 Years (none / 0) (#13)
    by BigTex on Sat Feb 12, 2005 at 10:57:47 PM EST
    How about: Because he knows she doesn't want to "live" this way? Perhaps. Perhaps there's too much bad blood between them and he's goin' t' say let her die just t' spite them. Sad thing is, this doesn't have t' be a cause fer contention. He is already with another filly, and they are livin' like husband and wife, father and mother t' their children. He could simply, as suggested, divorce TS, marry his new love, and proceed with life. Th' refusal t' take such an action points equally as weighty in both directions. Ultimatley, though, TL brings up th' best argument. Public policy argues in favor o' keepin' her alive. She didn't take th' legal action necessary t' make known an intent fer her to not have prolonged medical support, and she may feel pain. In addition her religious beliefs would indicate that she would want t' be kept alive. While th' religious beliefs shouldn't be a dispostivie issue, th' fact that she voluntarally practiced her religion should be give some weight as an indication o' her wishes. Although th' case is messy, considerin' that she took no affermative act t' make her wishes known, that th' death may be long and painful, and that there's some evidence t' indicate that she would want t' be kept alive public policy seems t' weigh in favor o' keepin' her alive. Add t' th' mix that reasonable people can disagree with th' state bein' able t' successfully meet a rational basis standard o' review and prudent caution dictates that she be kept alive.

    Re: She Speaks After 20 Years (none / 0) (#14)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Feb 13, 2005 at 12:28:06 AM EST
    Just to be clear, my position has only to do with this case and my sense that she didn't make a preference known. Had she left a written preference, or had her verbal declaration been attested to by neutral persons, I would support that, whichever way it went. The fact that James Dobson and the radical right are exploiting this case to trumpet their anti-choice positions is appalling. Bottom line: Accidents happen. Get a living will today if you want control over life and death decisions such as these. Many banks have the forms and provide them for free.

    Re: She Speaks After 20 Years (none / 0) (#15)
    by cp on Sun Feb 13, 2005 at 04:46:31 AM EST
    TL, and the rest of you, failed to bring up a particularly salient fact:who is paying for the continued hospitalization of ms. schaivo? i realize this is a harsh aspect, but it is a legitimate one. it is cases like this, where modern medical technology is able to keep someone "alive", who would have been dead 20 years before, that contribute to the huge increases in the cost of medical care. however, attention must be paid! how many people aren't getting treatment, so that ms. schaivo can continue to be kept on life-support?

    Re: She Speaks After 20 Years (none / 0) (#16)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Feb 13, 2005 at 05:52:54 AM EST
    This makes me doubly glad about the study reported last week (sorry I don't remember where I read it) that researchers found that they could, through MRI readings, distinguish between aware and unaware patients who were in a vegatative state. When playing tapes of a loved one speaking, some patients' brains responded in the language sectors, while others showed no reaction. Hopefully, these sorts of developments will help families making difficult, horrible decisions.

    Re: She Speaks After 20 Years (none / 0) (#17)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Feb 13, 2005 at 06:25:10 AM EST
    Obviously Terry's parents aren't really Catholics in the sense that they know actual church teaching, only the rhetoric of one radical position. There is a huge difference between killing someone and letting them die. If this had happened to her 100 years ago, long term life support wouldn't even be possible. There is nothing evil about letting someone who has no hope of recovery to die. In fact, it may be the more painful, but righteous choice. I think the parents are being selfish. They are using resources to keep their daughter alive that could be used to make sure poor children have basic health care. There are only a finite amount of health care resources out there and they are monopolizing some for a fantasy.

    Re: She Speaks After 20 Years (none / 0) (#18)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Feb 13, 2005 at 08:17:17 AM EST
    Obviously Terry's parents aren't really Catholics in the sense that they know actual church teaching Huh? Care to elaborate? It seems that they are taking the position that "life is precious", which is not the rhetoric of "one radical position", as you state. They are using resources to keep their daughter alive that could be used to make sure poor children have basic health care. This is a great arguement against Socialized Health Care. The last thing we need is people like you deciding that tax dollars are too precious to keep someone's child alive. I think the parents are being selfish. So what does that make you? Thrifty, cost-concious, expediant... or cold-hearted and partisan to the point that you want to see this girl taken away from her parents to further some nuance in your political agenda?

    Re: She Speaks After 20 Years (none / 0) (#19)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Feb 13, 2005 at 08:46:35 AM EST
    as to cost,: "Terry was awarded a substantial malpractice settlement for the improperly diagnosed potassium deficiency that led to the heart attack and collapse which damaged her brain. The settlement was for continuation of her care and rehabilitation, among other things. " If she dies, her husband gets the rest. "The malpractice award is also part of the controversy. If Terry dies, her husband Michael will then receive the balance of the remaining money, though there is little left. Nevertheless, if Michael stands a significant financial gain, does he really have Terry’s true interests at heart? Is his role as guardian suspect because he stands to profit from her death? Terry's parents say so, but Michael points out that he's willing to donate Terry's money to charity."

    Re: She Speaks After 20 Years (none / 0) (#20)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Feb 13, 2005 at 12:40:26 PM EST
    There are disagreements over whether she is brain dead and whether she has responded or just exhibited involuntary muscle spasms. She's not brain dead. No one claims she's brain dead. She's in a persistent vegetative state. Brain death, coma and persistent vegetative state all present very different clinical pictures. Here's what the courts have said, after looking at the actual evidence: "Over the span of this last decade, Theresa's brain has deteriorated because of the lack of oxygen it suffered at the time of the heart attack. By mid 1996, the CAT scans of her brain showed a severely abnormal structure. At this point, much of her cerebral cortex is simply gone and has been replaced by cerebral spinal fluid. Medicine cannot cure this condition. Unless an act of God, a true miracle, were to recreate her brain, Theresa will always remain in an unconscious, reflexive state, totally dependent upon others to feed her and care for her most private needs. ... Although the physicians are not in complete agreement concerning the extent of Mrs. Schiavo's brain damage, they all agree that the brain scans show extensive permanent damage to her brain. The only debate between the doctors is whether she has a small amount of isolated living tissue in her cerebral cortex or whether she has no living tissue in her cerebral cortex." Okay? Her brain is mostly gone. I find it extremely callous and snide to insinuate about Michael Schiavo that a story of a woman who was not in a persistent vegetative state wouldn't "change his mind", when he's lived with his wife's present condition for 15 years.

    Re: She Speaks After 20 Years (none / 0) (#21)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Feb 13, 2005 at 06:50:31 PM EST
    The law leans toward keeping TS alive because there is not enough solid evidence that her wishes were to die rather than linger in what most experts believe is an irreversible state. But wouldn't most reasonable people prefer to die rather than have loved ones suffer like this. Most daughters I know would rather see their parents have closure. Hard to believe that Terry would want her parents, who are obviously loving people, live out the balance of their lives watching her continue in this vegetative state.

    Re: She Speaks After 20 Years (none / 0) (#22)
    by pigwiggle on Mon Feb 14, 2005 at 07:22:17 AM EST
    If this was my wife, and she had made her wishes known to me, I would have taken this into my own hands long ago.

    Re: She Speaks After 20 Years (none / 0) (#23)
    by Sailor on Mon Feb 14, 2005 at 10:56:26 AM EST
    I think TL got this one wrong and that the snide remark about TS's husband was really uncalled for. There are almost no medical similarities to these 2 cases. One had a functioning brain that has been responsive, TS's brain has atrophied to the point where there is no structure left that can 'regenerate.' Scantlin was "diagnosed as minimally conscious". Not a coma, not brain dead and not "persistent vegetative state." With more advanced stem cell research she might have recovered years ago, and still might have a much fuller recovery if the research is allowed.

    She Speaks After 20 Years | 23 comments (23 topical)