You are proving you have little to no understanding of how the brain works. Perception of pain is a conscious phenomenon. Reflexive action is just that - it produces a reflex, and carries with it a corallary stimulus to the higher brain to generate the appropriate sensory feedback. If the higher brain isn't functioning, as is the case with Terry Schiavo, the perception of pain or suffering can't occur. Lower-brain activity such as reflexive action will still occur, but there's nothing left in the brain to receive any stimulous of pain or suffering.

Naturally, you are the self-professed expert. In fact you seem to promote yourself as an expert in many things. Thank you for edumucatin' lil' ol' dumb me.

Did you take multiple classes in college that dealt with how the brain works?

Dola -

There's nothing stopping you from doing some research to figure this stuff out on your own.

Im still of the opinion she should be allowed to die HOWEVER if were waiting for another stinkin' decision, I think then she should have tubes stuck back in. Kinda silly to not have them on while there is still some legal discussion going on. IMO

Well, this is the whole point of the current legal proceedings. The parents are asking for the tube to be re-inserted. Even if this request is granted, there will still have to be a trial afterwards where they will try to have Michael Schiavo removed as a guardian. However, before the tube can be re-inserted, they have the burden of proof to show there is a likelihood of them prevailing in said case. The district judge found that they didn't meet that burden.

ok, fine, but until its appealed to the highest available court i think the tube should be reinputted or were really lawyering a moot point.

Hey, im for the lady being able to pass on, if that was her wish. Im down with that, but since it got back into the court stream (which I dont think it shouldve) we should put the tubes back in. eh?

So every time someone files, no matter whether the petition has merit, we should put the tubes back in? Because that's what you're advocating here...

The Supreme Court already declined to hear the case.

No, that's not correct. The statute passed by Congress confers jurisdiction to the federal court, but that jurisdiction is expressly limited to allegations that the state court proceedings violated Terri Shaivo's rights "under the Constitution and laws of the United States relating to the withholding or withdrawal of food, fluids, or medical treatment necessary to sustain her life."

There are no federal statutes relating to the withdrawal of food, etc. Consequently, the only claims the parents can raise at this point (and, in fact, the only claims they did raise) are for alleged violations of her rights under the US Constitution -- namely, procedural due process, equal protection, and free exercise of religion.

These alleged constitutional violations have been raised and rejected time and time again, most recently by the district court this morning, and they will continue to be rejected because they are frivolous.

There seems to be a huge misconception out there that this federal court judge is supposed to put on the hat of a Florida state court judge and relitigate every issue from scratch, but that's not the case.

And both the trial court and the appeals court determined that there was no merit to those claims (the appeals court making that statement despite the fact that such a judgement was not required).

It looks to me as though they are in an advanced state of denial about her current state.

With regard to the timeline in the case, Michael did not suddenly decide to act in 1998. The question of Terri's care actually came to a head in 1994.

Early 1993 - According to the original court decision on the 1998 petition, Michael became estranged from the Schindlers in early 1993, supposedly over the disposition of the $300k loss of consortium judgement he was awarded in the malpractice trial (apparently, they wanted a cut of it, the judge implied that there was some he said, she said about prior arrangements but gave no details).
1994 - Schiavo orders that Terri not be treated for a UTI, and also issues a do not rescucitate order. In response to opposition from her parents and/or the facility where she was lodged, he withdrew these orders. Also in 1994, the Schindlers petitioned to have Michael removed as Terri's guardian. The record is a little unclear about the timing of this -- the 2003 GAL report suggests that happened prior to the UTI incident, the 2000 ruling on Michael's petition suggests that happened in response to the UTI incident. At this time, Terri was appointed her first of three Guardians Ad Litem, John H. Pecarek, to determine if she had been abused. He found no problems with her care.
1996 - After two more years of legal wrangling, the case for removal of Michael as her guardian was dismissed with prejudice. The 2000 court decision mentions something about her parents abandoning the case for financial reasons.

I'm not sure where I read it, but I've seen at least one indication that the 1998 petition was actually filed in 1997. I can't find anything about that in the GAL report, the 2000 decision by Greer, or the 2003 decision by the appeals court affirming the decision against novel treatment.

true, but this is a new twist with the stinkin' legislature getting involved I think it should go up, like it's supposed to on this path, and then get shut down again. BUT while that happens, I think the tube should be in while we discuss.

Dont mistake what Im saying for that which she shouldn't be allowed to die, because Im confident the supreme court will shut it down again, but I think that this "new" path deserves to be exhausted before he can rest in peace.

FWIW, the medical reporter (who is a practicing doctor) on KCRA here in Sacramento did a story tonight on what happens when a feeding tube is removed from someone in Terri Schiavo's condition, and he said it is a peaceful death and there is no pain because the brain has already shut down in her case.

Appeal denied - http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/03/23/schiavo/index.html

I also wanted to include a summary of the situation that was written on a debate forum I frequent...it sums up my thoughts far better than I could do.

It's amazing that this has been decided in state court, politicians have created unconstitutional state laws on this that were struck down, they then wrote a most likely unconstitutional law to allow it to be reviewed federally; and now that the federal decision is the same, they are going back to possibly create new state laws again. Is this what our legal process has become?

Better be careful VPI, with all the non-doctors offering their medical opinions, those CAT scans are likely to come under heavy scrutiny.

That's the only part of that quote I don't agree with. I think that these people are 1) deeply religous (quite possibily more so since Terri's first got sick) and have a fear for her soul if her wishes are carried out; and 2) are very unwilling to let go of Terri, and will take her as she is if that is all they have.

I personally believe neither side have "evil" motives, but fully believe in what they are doing. This isn't a love of publicity, but a willingness to go to extremes to right what they feel are wrongs.

Since the outcome of this sad situation seems increasingly evident, this will be my last post on this matter.

I'll conclude by saying that as far as how the human brain works, there is a lot more we don't know than we do know. Even if we discount such metaphysical concepts as the soul or spirit from what constitutes human consciousness, our understanding of human conginition is in its barest infancy. In a 2003 paper, Yehouda Harpaz wrote:

"CogPsys tend to try to support theirs models by evidence about the macro-structure of the brain. However, from the little that we know about information processing systems (e.g. computers), it is obvious that you cannot understand the logic of the system from the macro-structure. (For example, consider figuring out how a word processor works from the physical structure of the computer it runs on). The main problem is that currently we only know about the existence of connections between various brain structures, but we don't have a clue about their activity in various situations.

New imaging techniques give a more dynamic picture of the brain, but they don't tell us anything about the interaction between various parts of the brain. In addition, they can only show places where there is a large change in activity, which do not necessarily correspond to the most important activity for cognitive function. On top of this, the actual results don't show consistent (across experiments) correlation between brain images and psychological variables. (There is in the field an illusion that imaging techniques do give significant results, but this is based on overinterpretation of the data. Here is a fuller discussion).

As a result of our limited knowledge of the activity in the connections between various structures, and the complexity of these connections, the knowledge we do have imposes very little constraints on the possible models. Thus this knowledge cannot be used to guide model building, and can be only used for constraining them. CogPsys, however, believe that this knowledge is very useful, and give large weight to 'evidence' from it. Since the 'evidence' from macro-structure is not actually useful for building models, this 'evidence' is normally actually based on some of the other reasoning errors."

Those of you who smugly argue that Terri is beyond experiencing discomfort or pain are full of sh*t. You can't know with any certainty. You can only speculate based on our current theories of how the brain works. No one can argue that a newborn baby is capable of cognizance, and yet the infant certainly knows when it is hungry or in discomfort (as anyone who has had to get up in the middle of the night knows). In the mid 1980s, Arthur C. Clarke wrote a book speculating on trends that might surface during the next Millenium. One of the trends he saw was the emergence of a "Cult of Death," encompassing those who are morbidly fascinated by and celebrate death and dying. He is turning out to be one prophetic athiest.

My position on this is clear. I believe society should always err on the side of life. However, to continue to argure with those of you in favor of continuing this travesty is pointless. I can only hope that the state or federal government enacts a law allowing euthanasia in cases like this because frankly, sick animals that need to be put down get better treatment.

He is right in one sense, but to suggest that a brain completely turned to liquid is still functioning is silly. To use his computer analogy, her power supply is still connected but her CPU has been removed.


Your idiology is showing. For your information, I'm firmly against the very "trends" you are talking about, but this case is not in anyway connected to those trends! This is just a "cause celebrita" (sp?), and it doesn't fit your "doom and gloom" scenario.
I agree, but sadly if the very people you are arguing for gets their way, we'll no longer even have the right to set DNR's and remove machines in hopeless cases. This case is not creating new medical laws, but if overturned will remove medical rights from indiviuals and put them in the hands of the government. Are you comfortable with that?

All of science that we know of is speculation. But at some point an overabundance of evidence should be enough for us to say, "Okay. thats how it works." or "thats how it is." Brilliant.

In this case, not evilly, and not without care, you and millions of people allow your sometimes religious, and sometimes over-emotionalness to try to control others. This is where, many times, political soapboxes differ but in this case its not, or should not be politics (eventhough it increasingly is so)...its only about her and her wishes. Not yours or anyone else's.

Now that the courts, which many times people like their decisions and many times they dont but we all live in this country where the courts interpret the law based on the constitution and its ammendments, have decided, we should allow her to pass on.

When a law backs one up, we laud it and use it to substantiate our claim...when it doesnt we target it and run over it and blame everyone including the judge for activism and misinterpretation. It isnt fair but its the truth. Luckily in this case, with as many different judges, at many different levels, expanding on the topic at hand, I feel fairly certain that, the smarter men and women, have, with all due respect, chosen wisely.

Im sure that this falls in line with the anti-abortion thoughts but this IMO is completely different. Ive heard many times that crowd extoll the fact that the fetus cant make their own decision. However in this case, many people came forward to state that Terri had expressed her desire, if fate should hold, to never have to live like she is today. Considering this, and ONLY this, and finding that it is the truth...what more can you ask for? She stated her wish and she wouldve wanted to move on after 7 years or more of her husband exploring avenues of recovery.

It is time that Mrs. Schiavo be allowed to rest in peace, as was her wish.

If the Schindlers are truly shocked that the judge denied an injunction based on a judgement related to likely decision on the merits of the case, they have a problem with their lawyer, who IMO should have laid the whole thing out for them.

Its over - the Federal appeals court denied it as well. At what point do you acknowledge you are in the wrong ?

I agree with you. I think the problem I have is allowing "religion" into this case by "outsiders" (people like us, congress, ect.). I am glad the courts are able to seperate this, and look at the medicial and Constitutional facts solely. What if this person happened to be a person who believe in something else, like an Arab (just using it as an example), anthesist, ect.

Actually, they can still appeal to the US Supreme Court. If it is denied, then its over.

Maybe not. Evidenty, Gov. Jeb Bush is petitioning the court right now to transfer custodial rights to him.

I'd love to hear his rationale for doing that... (and why the governor and not the parents?)

Some doc who hasn't personally examined Terri.. but swears she's not in a vegitative state.


Inside Politics
Florida officials move again to intervene in Schiavo case

Wednesday, March 23, 2005 Posted: 6:09 PM EST (2309 GMT)

Florida Gov. Jeb Bush announces a new legal filing in the Terri Schiavo case.


TALLAHASSEE, Florida (CNN) -- Florida authorities have filed a new request to intervene in the case of brain-damaged Florida woman Terri Schiavo, arguing that new information suggests she may retain some consciousness, Gov. Jeb Bush said Wednesday.

Dr. William Cheshire, a neurologist at the Mayo Clinic in Jacksonville, concluded Schiavo is "most likely in a state of minimal consciousness," rather than the persistent vegetative state previous doctors have diagnosed, Bush said.

"This new information raises serious concerns and warrants immediate action," Bush said.

Cheshire reviewed Schiavo's medical records, watched videotapes and observed her at the hospice, but was not able to personally examine her, Department of Children and Families Secretary Lucy Hadi told reporters.

A Florida judge, who also reviewed medical records and videotapes, in 2002 rejected arguments put forth by doctors chosen by Schiavo's parents that she was not in a persistent vegetative state. Three other doctors -- two chosen by Schiavo's husband, Michael, and one chosen by the court -- concluded she was in that state.

Michael Schiavo has said his wife told him she would not want to be kept alive in her current state. Florida courts have agreed, and Terri Schiavo's feeding tube was removed Friday.

Bush said the request was likely to go back to Pinellas County Circuit Judge George Greer, who issued the order to remove Schiavo's feeding tube and rejected earlier attempts by the state agency to step into the case.

The move comes amid last-ditch efforts to restore a feeding tube for Schiavo, who suffered severe brain damage in 1990 after heart failure linked to an eating disorder. Schiavo, now 41, has been at the center of a legal and moral tug-of-war between her husband, Michael, and her parents for the past seven years.

Bush said he is "doing everything within my power" to get Schiavo's feeding tube restored. His announcement came as federal appeals court in Atlanta rejected her parents' latest attempt to obtain a federal court order restoring the feeding tube.

"I'm to make sure that Terri is afforded at least the same rights that criminals convicted of the most heinous crimes take for granted," Bush said. "If a prisoner comes forward with new DNA evidence 20 years after his conviction suggesting his innocence, there is no doubt that the courts, in our state or all across the country for that matter, would immediately review his case. We should do no less for Terri Schiavo."

Repeated court rulings have held that Michael Schiavo is his wife's legal guardian and has the right to make decisions regarding her care.

Her parents, Bob and Mary Schindler, have been more successful in the political arena: Bush and his brother, President Bush, both have signed bills aimed at preventing doctors from removing the feeding tube and allowing her to die.

Wednesday afternoon, the Florida Senate rejected a bill that would have allowed Terri Schiavo's feeding tube to be reinserted to provide the brain-damaged woman with water and nutrition.

A Florida law that would have kept her alive was ruled unconstitutional last year, but a new bill that would prohibit the suspension of food and water from patients in a persistent vegetative state without a living will was working its way through the state Legislature on Wednesday.

And Congress passed a bill early Monday that pushed the issue into federal courts, but a federal district court in Tampa and an appeals court in Atlanta have since refused to intervene.

Terri Schiavo collapsed in her home in 1990, suffering from heart failure that led to severe brain damage. Michael Schiavo said his wife suffered from bulimia that resulted in a potassium deficiency, triggering the heart failure.

Her medicial records are being thrown around quite a bit.

The governor's effort has already failed:


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2005Mar23.html

If the bill had passed, can the courts call it "unconstitutional", and the bill would be dead anyways?

Yes. The reason it didn't pass is that the Senators pretty much agreed that this was a copy of the law that was already declared unconstitutional. But the courts couldn't unilaterally declare it unconstitutional, someone would have to petition the court for a ruling.

A Republican finally revealing himself. Both Republicans and Democrats think they are our parents and we need them to do everything for us. This is just someone who is finally willing to take off the sheep costume so we can see the wolf hiding underneath. It is perhaps one of the most honest things a Republocrat could be doing. He should petition for guardianship of everyone living in Florida.

It's a stall tactic that has been used over and over again. The tubes would be in forever because 'legal discussion' would start everytime they were finally about to be pulled.

Never, and you keep hugging religious fellows who are shown on TV comparing this to "Nazi Germany." The tactics of these people are frightening. They know no boundaries and will say anything if they think it will shock people into supporting them.

Its amazing, FLorida will execute killers by lethal injection. Its painless and pretty quick, yet Terri has to suffer for up to two weeks.

That piece of Shit who killed Jessica Lunsford right now is getting three square meals a day, Yet Terri Schiavo cant get a drop of water.

Nice System eh?

That what scares me. I'm no means religious, but I'm all for the freedom and liberty of it. I just don't like these people pressing "their" values on others and getting involve in where they don't belong (and slandering the opposing parties in the process). Escp. when they don't truly understand the entire facts and the reality of it. What if the person was a non-believer in God, or believe in another religion, would it be where it is at today?

You know what the perfect ending to this would be? If a nurse walking around the hospital tonight sees Terri Schiavo slapping at a vending machine saying "Fuckin' thing won't take a dollar!"

Or if the put a cup of water in her hand and she instinctively chucks it across the room at her mom and then dies.

I was gone most of last week and over the weekend as this discussion was raging on, so perhaps this thought has already been articulated. I apologize if I am parroting someone else.

I feel sorry for Terri Schiavo's parents. I have been in situations where family or friends have been kept alive on a ventilator or feeding tube and it is a horrible position. I'm fortunate that I have not had to make the decision myself to discontinue someone else's life, but I do know without a doubt that for me, watching someone I love in pain is much worse than letting them go.

Her parents have put their lives and the lives of others on hold for 15 years waiting for a miracle that cannot happen. I just don't know how you can think that keeping someone in a persistent vegetative state for 15 years is not painful to that person but letting them die and be at peace is cruel and unusual punishment.

I'm not a terribly religious person, but I have a deep respect for people who are religious and practice their religion faithfully. What I cannot abide are people who profess to be religious then lead their lives ignorant of their religion. I can't tell you how many politicians and run-of-the-mill citizens I have seen who invoke their faith and then want to keep Terri alive. If you are a Christian, you would know that according to faith those who have left us are in a "better place" in a world where God wants you to be. Professing religion then denying Terri the right to join her God smacks of the very worst of using a horrific situation for personal or political gain.

I hope that her parents can find a way to let her go. I realize not everyone is the same, but I think at some point you have to do what is best for your daughter and best for yourself. I doubt that her parents even realize how maintaining a false hope has done nothing but make the loss of their daughter that much more painful to her and to them.

Again, because nothing will change peoples mind, the contuining political fallout. In short, House Republicans fucked up, thinking this could be a wedge issue like gay marriage.

Oops.

Actually when she went into a coma.. i don't think vending machines even took dollars

Here is what I don't understand. A lot of people (including myself) think Congress and Jeb Bush have purely polictical motives for doing this. The rational seems to be that these people carry the power of a bunch of votes. Let's be real honest here... are all of the conservative Christian voters going to vote for a Democrat if Jeb Bush doesn't keep pushing this agenda? One issue versus thousands? Give me a break!

Is a tomato a vegetable or fruit? In the grand scheme of things, it doesn't matter if she has cognitive abilities or not. Who the hell cares. The fact is, she will not get better.

I believe that most people believe in the soul, or the concept of the soul. If Terri Schiavo has a soul, then where is it? If it already left her body, then her body can be killed without remorse. If her soul is trapped inside her body, wouldn't it be more humane to let her die (or even kill her)? I can't imagine what it would be like trapped inside of a body for 15 years and not be able to communicate.

Let's kill her and be done with this matter, now that the family has gotten the public involved.

Well on the up side, she won't notice.

They're not worried about Democrats stealing the Christian Right.

They're interested in taking this situation and running attack Ads against Democrats in the midterms- "My opponent is for the killing of women. I voted to keep Terry Schiavo alive." and using those attack ads to get a higher percentage of the Christian Right to show up.