quote:“It’s a hard fact, it’s a scientific fact that Terri Schiavo was blind,” Felos said. He said Michael Schiavo plans to release autopsy photographs of her shrunken brain in the near future.
He said that after her feeding tube was removed, she would not have been able to eat or drink if she had been given food by mouth, as her parents requested.
“Removal of her feeding tube would have resulted in her death whether she was fed or hydrated by mouth or not,” Thogmartin told reporters.
He also said she was blind, because the “vision centers of her brain were dead,” and that her brain was about half of its expected size when she died 13 days following the feeding tube’s removal.
Crud, I can't find the link now, but the story was on MSN. So, anyway, am I missing something that her being blind means her husband was right to prevent her being given rehabilitative therapy?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
The brain being half the expected size is of more signifigance. Did you miss that part?
Posted by mothertree (Member # 4999) on :
Do we have good data on how big a brain should be after a decade of neglect and being dehydrated to death? The brain is estimated to be 75-80% water.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
Yeah, I think it's more of a "her brain was shriveling up and dying" issue than a "she couldn't see" issue. I think they're just using her blindness to illustrate how brain-damaged she was.
mothertree: I didn't think about the effect of dehydration. I suppose that might worsen the brain damage, but I'm no doctor.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
They're also mentioning the blindness specifically because the "other side" argued that she was able to track objects and people that moved across her field of vision.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
A large part of the argument that she was aware of her surroundings rested on the claims that she recognized the faces of family members and could sometimes track objects with her eyes as the moved across her field of vision. That her brain was incapable of processing visual data naturally undermines the argument.
Posted by mothertree (Member # 4999) on :
But the brain shrivelling occured over the years, it wasn't that mass all along.
I don't think it's in this clip, but they also said they couldn't figure out why she collapsed in the first place. There wasn't any evidence of the rumored eating disorder, but how could there be after this long- assuming she's had good nutrition since then. I guess the media just played that up for the potential irony.
Basically, I don't know what the autopsy showed.
Also, there are several cases of people with diminished brain mass who are functional.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
Curse your speedy fingers, TomDavidson!
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
That's why I never based my arguments against removal of the tube on her actual condition. Besides poor evidence, it also creates the implication that it would be OK to remove the tube if she were in a persistent vegative state.
Posted by mothertree (Member # 4999) on :
"They're also mentioning the blindness specifically because the "other side" argued that she was able to track objects and people that moved across her field of vision. "
Okay, I guess that's what I was wondering about.
The only way to settle the controversy would have been to let people try rehabilitative therapy with her for a few months. What would that have hurt?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Blindness and brain half the size didn't prove it for you?
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
I would just assume that they'd been doing any rehabilitative therapy that she could have participated in during the...what, 16 years? that she was in this state. I guess I could be wrong about that, but it seems like a reasonable assumption.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Kat, who was that addressed to?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Oh, the how to settle the controversey. I'm not sure what controversey is being referred to, and I am with you - whether or not the tube needed to be pulled out did not rest on how much function was there - but the autopsy report has convinced that there was no hope of her gaining more function than she had then.
Posted by Goody Scrivener (Member # 6742) on :
I read an article about this in yesterday's Tribune, probably the same article that mothertree saw. If I'm regurgitating correctly, the article stated that the significantly reduced brain size indicated the vast amount of damage simply because of the loss of neurons and that there would have been no way she could have recovered from that amount of loss.
My question is this: if the doctors know how big a normal adult female's brain is (on average), couldn't they have used MRI or CAT scans or something like that to have imaged her brain and gotten some idea of the damage done before it got so out of control? Or was this done and the parents were ignoring the results in their struggle to keep her hooked up? (I avoided coverage of this as much as I could so I really don't know)
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
This was brought up when my step-brother was so sick this spring - there really isn't a good way to measure brain damage. They can do a few different scans, but none of the doctors would hazard a prediction on how much brain function Ryan would have when/if he woke up. I don't think there is a good way to tell, yet.
Posted by UofUlawguy (Member # 5492) on :
This kind of thing get me riled up. Basically, the autopsy shows that a lot of the loudest people that were against Teri's death by dehydration were absolutely wrong in their reasoning. I can accept that, no problem. They annoyed me at the time, anyway.
But there were a lot of other people, myself included, who were against the withdrawal of the tubes for entirely different reasons, which the autopsy results have done nothing to change. However, just because these other yahoos were proved wrong, those that supported the withdrawal of the tubes are declaring victory against the whole lot of us, and mocking us. (I don't mean anyone here is doing this, by the way.)
I was going to draw a parallel to the justifications for the invasion of Iraq, but I don't want to muddy these waters like that.
Posted by Papa Moose (Member # 1992) on :
quote:. . . but I don't want to muddy these waters like that.
And you call yourself a Jatraquero....
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
I haven't seen any mocking going on anywhere.
The reports of the autopsy are probably disappointing to some who hoped it would vindicate their position that she SHOULD have had life-sustaining treatment, too.
This seriously cuts both ways.
And it's because there are a lot of people out there who understand this only from the "quality of life" perspective and think they know what quality of life means.
I'm not sure what percentage of the population viewed this only as a quality of life issue, but I'd say it was probably the majority opinion of what this case was about. And that's sad no matter how the autopsy came out.
I said all along that the most likely scenario was that she would never get better. The autopsy pretty much says that. But so what? Lots of people never get better. That doesn't mean they WANT to die, or should be killed.
It still comes back to making sure that you have a legal document for your doctors and loved ones to refer to in case you are incapacitated.
The autopsy changes nothing.
Posted by UofUlawguy (Member # 5492) on :
I agree with you, Bob.
Oh, and Papa: I have never called myself a Jatraquero.
Posted by UofUlawguy (Member # 5492) on :
Calling someone Papa makes me feel like I'm calling in to the Papa Joe Chevalier radio sports talk program.
Posted by Papa Moose (Member # 1992) on :
You haven't? And you call yourself a Jatraquero....
Oh, no, wait. Never mind.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by Goody Scrivener: My question is this: if the doctors know how big a normal adult female's brain is (on average), couldn't they have used MRI or CAT scans or something like that to have imaged her brain and gotten some idea of the damage done before it got so out of control? Or was this done and the parents were ignoring the results in their struggle to keep her hooked up? (I avoided coverage of this as much as I could so I really don't know)
They did; that's one of the reasons they were so certain there was zero brain function left. The autopsy just confirmed the CAT scans.
About the religious objection; what is the problem with turning off a body that presumably no longer has a soul animating it? This seems a fairly clear-cut case of nobody home. The lights weren't even on.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
Maybe it's a fairly clear-cut case to you, King of Men, but not anywhere near clear-cut to everyone else.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
KOM:
zero brain function? Nobody ever said she had zero brain function.
Is the brain the organ in which the soul resides? If the brain is damaged, does that person have less of a soul? Or is there a point at which the soul simply departs? This much brain, the soul is there, a bit less brain, no soul?
Posted by mothertree (Member # 4999) on :
I already conceded my initial point in that I didn't understand why they were so excited about her being blind.
I agree with Bob, the issue is about whether her wishes were adequately determined by the court. I still have serious doubts that they were, and I wish the law allowed for someone else to take over her care if her husband didn't wish to continue.
I mean, based on my religious tradition, I should be agreeing that her husband owns her body. But as an adult woman, it bothered me.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Seems reasonable to me, yes. Certainly you believe that the soul departs at death, don't you? I don't understand why it should be bound to the death of the body, rather than the actual person.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
mothertree, if its any consolation, the law would work the same if the genders were reversed.
KOM: I've heard lots of varying doctrines on the soul and if/when it departs the body. I don't take anything as certain. It seems sort of silly to try to answer your objections as if I did. If I said that part of my reason for not wanting to end a life was precisely BECAUSE I didn't know everything, would that suffice?
Posted by mothertree (Member # 4999) on :
Bob- okay, I guess that sort of helps but would a judge have ruled the same if it were a man and not a woman? A hypothetical we'll hopefully never learn the answer to.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
mothertree -- yes, let's hope. But I suspect that there'd be pressure to end a man's life in these circumstances too. For all we know, cases just like this have happened with men and no-one stepped forward to try to keep them alive...
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
That is almost certainly the case. There are cases like this every week, if not every day; they're inevitable in a civilisation as large and advanced as ours. It's just that few of them make national media.
Posted by mothertree (Member # 4999) on :
I don't see how there could be cases exactly like this every week. So "like this" becomes a relative term. Are people allowed to die? Sure. I personally have a directive that I not be allowed to die until my life insurance less college funds are used up. Though I guess I should be more specific with that since 3 kids could use up 500,000 on unneccisarily expensive schools pretty quick.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Cases where the brain is gone, and the family has to make a decision to cut life support, yes, I'll stand by every week and every day. My own family had one such when my father's mother died. Cases where the family can't agree, and take it to court, are probably a bit rarer, it's true.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
"the brain is gone."
Can we maybe inject a bit of precision here? Saying "the brain is gone" doesn't really mean anything. If you're talking about the WHOLE brain, there's probably nobody who ever was in the position of "no brain, but on life support."
So, maybe what you mean is that the cerebral cortex (held to be the seat of higher cognitive function, including purposeful action and reasoning, plus, of course, our powers of perception.
So, let's see. If a person lost their entire cortex, but was still alive, would you say that's enough?
What about 1/2 of the cortex? or 90% of it, or 30%
Where do we draw the line?
Maybe it should be specific to different sections of the cortex. So, you'd have to have at least 3 out of six major cortical functions surviving, perhaps?
But why 3? Why not 2 or 4? or 1?
It just doesn't make much sense to treat this as a question of "how much brain function" is left.
We have no basis upon which to make the decision except our sense that someone is or is not demonstrably "there." And that's simply not good enough.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
The law works the same both ways. Whereever you're getting the idea that a husband owns his wife's body, it's not from the religion.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
It doesn't change anything for me, for several reasons:
1) a blind person can still have quality of life - the fact that she was blind is of no real consequence in my book
2) The issue here wasn't whether or not she could see, but that a feeding tube, in my mind, is different from "life support." I don't have a problem with turning off a respirator that is breathing for someone artificially if that person can no longer breathe on their own. I do have a problem with starving to death someone that is breathing and has a functioning heart.
3) The other issue is her wishes - which were not, in my view, adequately determined. In my opinion, unless we have clear evidence what a person's wishes were - by living will or some other definite legal determination, I believe we should err on the side of life and continue to feed people.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
So it's okay to turn off the lung machine of a polio victim?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
The issue for me was never primarily her quality of life, it was the quality of the evidence of her wishes being made known.
I do not like the idea that a husband or wife has the power of life or death over their spouse without being expressly given that power, even though it currently is legal. I think that she probably would not have wanted to go on living under those circumstances, but I don't think her 'husband' was the man to make that choice. That choice should've been hers to make, and the responsibility to make sure it is known should have been hers as well.