Terri Schiavo's (Flat?) EEG
- Thread starter Rouser2
- Start date
-
- Tags
- terri schiavo
Originally posted by Roadtoad [/i]
>>As seems to be typical of Rouser2, he has yet to read or even acknowledge the evidence posted by others, while continuing to post the speculation of others.
For example?????
>>(1.) Fact: Terri Schiavo's cerebral cortex was destroyed. She could not think, she could not feel, her actions were involuntary and random.
Terri could laugh, cry, interact with loved ones, and speak several words.Your pronouncements to the contrary have no basis.
>>(2.) Fact: Michael Schiavo was Terri's legal next of kin. He had the right to decide her fate.
Legally, yes. Morally, no. Morality trumps legality.
>>(3.) Fact: There was no way to "save" Terri. There was NOTHING to save, except her body.
Those who loved her (not her husband), her blood family felt quite differently.
>>(4.) Fact: The courts after years of listening to argument after argument stating that Terri Schiavo could not be revived to any extent that she would or could live anything resembling a normal life, (she didn't even have bladder or bowel control, as near as I can recall reading), decided enough was enough.
Indeed. And did so without any contemporaenous clinical basis.
>> And while there is some judicial activism in all of this, much of that wouldn't have been able to happen if people had just LET HER DIE.
Depriving her of water and food is not "letting her die" but murdering her via starvation and dehydration.
>>As seems to be typical of Rouser2, he has yet to read or even acknowledge the evidence posted by others, while continuing to post the speculation of others.
For example?????
>>(1.) Fact: Terri Schiavo's cerebral cortex was destroyed. She could not think, she could not feel, her actions were involuntary and random.
Terri could laugh, cry, interact with loved ones, and speak several words.Your pronouncements to the contrary have no basis.
>>(2.) Fact: Michael Schiavo was Terri's legal next of kin. He had the right to decide her fate.
Legally, yes. Morally, no. Morality trumps legality.
>>(3.) Fact: There was no way to "save" Terri. There was NOTHING to save, except her body.
Those who loved her (not her husband), her blood family felt quite differently.
>>(4.) Fact: The courts after years of listening to argument after argument stating that Terri Schiavo could not be revived to any extent that she would or could live anything resembling a normal life, (she didn't even have bladder or bowel control, as near as I can recall reading), decided enough was enough.
Indeed. And did so without any contemporaenous clinical basis.
>> And while there is some judicial activism in all of this, much of that wouldn't have been able to happen if people had just LET HER DIE.
Depriving her of water and food is not "letting her die" but murdering her via starvation and dehydration.
kookbreaker
Evil Fokker
- Joined
- Aug 23, 2001
- Messages
- 15,960
Roadtoad said:
Not Quite. He did have such rights, but gave it up voluntarily. Terry was a ward of the courts for many years. After much work the court determined, beyond reasonable doubt, that Terry would not have wanted to 'live' that way.
Rouser2 said:
Lauging and crying are random actions if not in response to stimuli. The claim that Terry could "interact with loved ones" is unsupported at best, laughable at worst.
Legally all decisions were in the hands of the courts. Morally the determination was what Terry would have wanted. If you feel otherwise I assume you feel all living wills should be ignored.
The courts determed what Terry's wishes were and those judgements were upheld at all levels.
Thoroughly, utterly, and contemptably wrong.
Is it the same with those whose Living Wills are being carried out too?
Boyle makes some compelliing arguments. (To a lay person at least.) Note that to the doctor's credit, he places a disclaimer on his site:Rouser2 said:
Rouser2 said:
The 1-dimensional CT scan that is being bandied about is misleading. The brain is a 3-dimensional structure or volume and CTs of it consist of between 9 and 36 sections at different levels depending on the thickness of the section. This scan is just one of those sections which was selected to show the press. We do not know if there was more or less cerebral cortex at other levels. The large black areas in this picture are the normal CSF-filled ventricles of the brain. At some levels they do appear almost but not quite as large as the ones in this selected section. Boyle can probably find a section of a healthy brain's CT or MRI that approaches the ventricular size seen on the CT scan being bandied about. Frankly I have seen thining of the cortex which shows in this publicized section in people who are not in a PVS but which have other brain injuries. The cortex is still there, it is just thinned or flattened out; this is a very debatable subject area. There were other reasons to let Teri go but I am sorry that this became one of them. Using this section was extremely misleading to the public and to a lot of so-called medical experts on the news shows.
On the issue of flatline EEG being indicative of brain death. This was the criteria some years ago but while a flat EEG may indicate brain death, one that isn't absolutely flat doesn't mean there isn't irreversible brain damage. The EEG is an extremely small signal that is amplified thousands of times so electrical activity from elsewhere including the muscles, and yes the brain stem,
could produce a non-flat eeg over the cerebral cortex. This is why it is used to diagnose brain death but is not used to exclude it. Spectral analysis of the waves collected by the leads and electrodes placed over the cortex may show markedly dimished activity whereas looking at the EEG may indicate higher levels of activity. It is obvious that Schiavo's eeg (s?) were not subjected to spectral analysis.
There is just too much we do not know and until the autopsy results are released it is futile to speculate. We can argue to tomorrow about the EEG and the CT scan when in the final analysis both can be misleading in favor of allowing Teri to die as well as allowing her to live.
Rouser2 said:
I can't prove to you that somebody with less brain than a chicken can't do anything that a chicken can't, because you won't take reality as an arguement. You think somebody can talk lacking the part of the brain that allows for speech. I have little doubt your "doctor" is also in the land of the unicorns with you.
Roadtoad
Bufo Caminus Inedibilis
Rouser2 said:
Well, let's just scroll up and take a look at Kookbreaker's response to your screed. Much of what Kook said has been told to you REPEATEDLY on other threads regarding this sad episode, and yet, you continue to ignore what has been said. What you FEEL might have been right does not make it right. Sorry about that.
At no point have I seen you admit you might be wrong on this. Kookbreaker, myself, Aerocontrols, Tricky, hell, any number of other posters on this board will admit it when they're wrong. You don't. The only thing missing that would confirm your troll-dom is three billy goats and a bridge for you to hide yourself under.
I'm sorry Terri Schiavo is dead. I'm sorry she opted to kill herself in the manner she did, refusing treatment for bulimia. She was a sick woman, and she did not deserve to die as she did, nor should her body have been kept around for fifteen years as some sort of sick memorial to the woman she once was. But the facts remain what they are: While there was not a flatline on her brain activity, there was ample evidence that there was no brain activity which showed she had any will to live. The husk that once was Terri Schiavo could move it's body parts in response to the most basic stimuli, but that was a very limited response. She could not, for example, hold a fork and feed herself. She could not recognize anyone, because the mechanism which made that possible had been destroyed. Her cerebral cortex, according to evidence which has been posted again and again on this site, had detached itself from the brain, and was now incapable of performing its most basic functions. EVERY action of Terri Schiavo's body was random; the part of Terri Schiavo that made her who she was had been torn away from the rest of her body and had died.
Thank you, the rest of you, for allowing me this chance to vent.
BTW, Kook: thanks for the correction. I should not have forgotten that part about Michael's release of his wife to the courts.
kookbreaker
Evil Fokker
- Joined
- Aug 23, 2001
- Messages
- 15,960
Roadtoad said:
No biggie, but it is one that both sides tend to forget. Its more inisidious that the Schindlers' side forgets since they get to imply that Micheal is doing everything he can to "kill Terri".
On the Micheal Schiavo side the only change is that the offers of $1million to Micheal to turn over care become irrelevant since it is no longer his custody to give up. But he has stated that if it were in his hands such an offer would mean nothing to him.
In fact, Micheal voluntarily gave control over to the courts on the basis that his own feelings should be seperate from the final decision. He felt it should be Terri's decision, as determined by the courts, not his.
The courts determined that Terri was in a PVS and that her wishes were that she not exist in such a manner. This was upheld again and again and again, not by "progressive" judges as the Schindler cronies claim, but by conservative judges.
Some of Rouser's comments worry me, he has accused people of 'murdering' Terri by letting her starve. This has implications across the board: Does Rouser respect Living Wills? If no, that chill up your spine is a bad one, and not the simple reaction to his hypocrisy. Incidently, where were Rousers' tears for Sun Hudson? A six-month old child taken off life support in Texas despite the wishes of her mother. I guess poor black children don't count, after all the same folks screaming in front of the Hospice Terri was in helped write those Texas laws.
Originally posted by kookbreaker [/i]
>>Lauging and crying are random actions if not in response to stimuli. The claim that Terry could "interact with loved ones" is unsupported at best, laughable at worst.
Yeah, right. Only supported by her loved ones. That would, of course, strangely, not include her 'husband".
>>Legally all decisions were in the hands of the courts. Morally the determination was what Terry would have wanted. If you feel otherwise I assume you feel all living wills should be ignored.
Terri had no living will. Only the hearsay conveniently remembered 7 years after her trauma by her estranged husband.
>>The courts determed what Terry's wishes were and those judgements were upheld at all levels.
The court (not courts) determined that her estranged husband should be believed, and her blood family, not belived.
(No contemporaenous clinical evidence)
>>Thoroughly, utterly, and contemptably wrong.
Oh, how so?
(Starvation/dyhdration)
>Is it the same with those whose Living Wills are being carried out too?
In many states, living will or not, starvation and dehydration is illegal. I doubt that many 'living wills" account for a young person, partially brain damaged, to be dehyrated and starved to death. Living wills address old age supported by artificial means that do not involve nutritiional sustenance.
>>Lauging and crying are random actions if not in response to stimuli. The claim that Terry could "interact with loved ones" is unsupported at best, laughable at worst.
Yeah, right. Only supported by her loved ones. That would, of course, strangely, not include her 'husband".
>>Legally all decisions were in the hands of the courts. Morally the determination was what Terry would have wanted. If you feel otherwise I assume you feel all living wills should be ignored.
Terri had no living will. Only the hearsay conveniently remembered 7 years after her trauma by her estranged husband.
>>The courts determed what Terry's wishes were and those judgements were upheld at all levels.
The court (not courts) determined that her estranged husband should be believed, and her blood family, not belived.
(No contemporaenous clinical evidence)
>>Thoroughly, utterly, and contemptably wrong.
Oh, how so?
(Starvation/dyhdration)
>Is it the same with those whose Living Wills are being carried out too?
In many states, living will or not, starvation and dehydration is illegal. I doubt that many 'living wills" account for a young person, partially brain damaged, to be dehyrated and starved to death. Living wills address old age supported by artificial means that do not involve nutritiional sustenance.
SezMe
post-pre-born
This is an unattributed article from my local paper, thus no link.
Vagabond said:
If there are 100 board certified neurologists who declare that a patient does not have sufficient brain to talk, and the patient talks, it is the 100 board certified neurologists who need to have their brains examined. Along those lines, do you have even the faintest clue as to what the standard error rate is for PVS diagnosis by certified board neurologists??????
Originally posted by Roadtoad [/i]
>>Well, let's just scroll up and take a look at Kookbreaker's response to your screed. Much of what Kook said has been told to you REPEATEDLY on other threads regarding this sad episode, and yet, you continue to ignore what has been said. What you FEEL might have been right does not make it right. Sorry about that.
Yeah, well I've sort of noticed that you, yourself never really have much to say, except "Amen"
to someone else's posts. Can you think for yourself?
>>... While there was not a flatline on her brain activity, there was ample evidence that there was no brain activity which showed she had any will to live.
And you base that on what? The one inconclusive EEG test in 2002?
>>She could not recognize anyone,
That is disputed by her parents.
The rest of your own screed nothing but unsuppored assertions.
>>Well, let's just scroll up and take a look at Kookbreaker's response to your screed. Much of what Kook said has been told to you REPEATEDLY on other threads regarding this sad episode, and yet, you continue to ignore what has been said. What you FEEL might have been right does not make it right. Sorry about that.
Yeah, well I've sort of noticed that you, yourself never really have much to say, except "Amen"
to someone else's posts. Can you think for yourself?
>>... While there was not a flatline on her brain activity, there was ample evidence that there was no brain activity which showed she had any will to live.
And you base that on what? The one inconclusive EEG test in 2002?
>>She could not recognize anyone,
That is disputed by her parents.
The rest of your own screed nothing but unsuppored assertions.
Roadtoad
Bufo Caminus Inedibilis
Rouser2 said:
Obviously, you've never read any of my posts.
Originally posted by kookbreaker [/i]
>>No biggie, but it is one that both sides tend to forget. Its more inisidious that the Schindlers' side forgets since they get to imply that Micheal is doing everything he can to "kill Terri".
It was MS who ordered non-treatment of her uninary infection in 1997,which would have killed her,but only overruled by the Hospcie. And it was MS who forbade any attempt to feed Terri orally as well as MS who forbade any rehabilitation shortly after having the malpractice settlement money in the account which which he promised the jury would be used for Terri's life-long rehabilitation. I
>>Some of Rouser's comments worry me, he has accused people of 'murdering' Terri by letting her starve. This has implications across the board: Does Rouser respect Living Wills? If no, that chill up your spine is a bad one, and not the simple reaction to his hypocrisy. Incidently, where were Rousers' tears for Sun Hudson? A six-month old child taken off life support in Texas despite the wishes of her mother. I guess poor black children don't count, after all the same folks screaming in front of the Hospice Terri was in helped write those Texas laws.
Ah, well, now we have the (these same folks)_ canard together with a racial smear. All a part of the "high ground" one learns to expect from the goose-stepping members of The Chorus of Death.
>>No biggie, but it is one that both sides tend to forget. Its more inisidious that the Schindlers' side forgets since they get to imply that Micheal is doing everything he can to "kill Terri".
It was MS who ordered non-treatment of her uninary infection in 1997,which would have killed her,but only overruled by the Hospcie. And it was MS who forbade any attempt to feed Terri orally as well as MS who forbade any rehabilitation shortly after having the malpractice settlement money in the account which which he promised the jury would be used for Terri's life-long rehabilitation. I
>>Some of Rouser's comments worry me, he has accused people of 'murdering' Terri by letting her starve. This has implications across the board: Does Rouser respect Living Wills? If no, that chill up your spine is a bad one, and not the simple reaction to his hypocrisy. Incidently, where were Rousers' tears for Sun Hudson? A six-month old child taken off life support in Texas despite the wishes of her mother. I guess poor black children don't count, after all the same folks screaming in front of the Hospice Terri was in helped write those Texas laws.
Ah, well, now we have the (these same folks)_ canard together with a racial smear. All a part of the "high ground" one learns to expect from the goose-stepping members of The Chorus of Death.
Roadtoad
Bufo Caminus Inedibilis
Rouser2 said:
Speaking of smears...
I don't recall any of these folks expressing any pleasure at the thought of TS dying. More to the point, I would suggest that if it were possible for her to have recovered, the majority of them, (with the exception of maybe one or two who are a little screwy), would have welcomed the alternative, Kookbreaker included. Granted, I'm extrapolating from their previous posts on this subject, but I do believe I'm accurate in this.
No one thought this was a positive outcome. A positive outcome, however, was out of the question when Terri Schiavo's brain hit this point...
And if you need to refer back to it, the image was posted on this board on this thead.
kookbreaker
Evil Fokker
- Joined
- Aug 23, 2001
- Messages
- 15,960
Rouser2 said:
Loved ones who have also said they would ingore a living will had Terri had one.
Terri's husband showed more care for her than any other person around. Her care assured she had no bed sores despite years of being bed-laded.
Don't play the "Meanie Micheal" routine. It does not wash.
More to the point: Terri's parents agreed for years that Terri was in a PVS, until they decided it was no longer legally convenient to think that way.
Her husband was not estranged. They were trying to have a child when this tragedy struck. Estranged is mere hyperbole from your end.
More to the point, it was not just Micheals' word. The courts had several witnesses who stated that she had made statements to the effect that she would not want to live that way.
Lose the "estranged" hyperbole. The Schindlers had some 15 years or so to make their case. They failed so badly that every single appeal failed. Why? Evidence.
You ignore the courts tests, including swallow test, scans, etc.
They cover much more than that.
kookbreaker
Evil Fokker
- Joined
- Aug 23, 2001
- Messages
- 15,960
Rouser2 said:
He also cared for her so much that she never had a single bed sore. He became so stringent in assuring the staff cared for her that the admins' called him a nightmare. He also got nurse training to care for her.
As for the 1997 incident, you would have us beleive that 5 years of healthy, happy bed living she suddenly developed a condition and thus had Micheal wringing his hands with glee in anticipation of her death. In fact, the conditions she already faced (according to the Miami Herald:
Micheal did far more than could be expected. Many others might have said "screw it" and walked away from her. He didn't. He tried to have her wishes carried out. He realised that the woman he loved wasn't coming back. He could have thrown it aside and the parents deal with her, but that wasn't what Terri wanted.
Because she would have choked to death, moron. She failed three swallow tests administered by the courts.
Wrong. According to the Miami Herald Micheal took her from hospital to hospital and:
"each rehabilitation facility treated her with aggressive physical, recreational, speech and language therapy, moving her arms and legs, trying to rouse her with scents. But according to court filings, Terri was not responsive to neurological or swallowing tests." Terri was even sent to California to have experimental platinum electrodes inplanted to get her brain going again.
He also used the money for the hospice and to get nurse training. Much as you want to, you can't make this man into a villain. Especially by lying.
Meanwhile, according to Micheal, the parents asked for a part of the money for purposes that are indetermined, but weren't likely to be therapy.
Where are your cries for Sun Hudson, Rouser?
Originally posted by kookbreaker [/i]
>>Her husband was not estranged. They were trying to have a child when this tragedy struck. Estranged is mere hyperbole from your end.
I'd say that living with another woman for 12 years and siring 2 children is fairly "estranged".
>>More to the point, it was not just Micheals' word. The courts had several witnesses who stated that she had made statements to the effect that she would not want to live that way.
Yeah, all from Michael's family. But Michael's subsequent girl friends say different. They say he admitted to them that they never even discussed it -- that he made the whole thing up. The Schindler family, of course, had other recollections.
>>Lose the "estranged" hyperbole. The Schindlers had some 15 years or so to make their case. They failed so badly that every single appeal failed. Why? Evidence.
quote:
(No contemporaenous clinical evidence)
>>Thoroughly, utterly, and contemptably wrong.
Oh, how so?
>>You ignore the courts tests, including swallow test, scans, etc.
You ignore the word "contemporaneous" ???
>>Her husband was not estranged. They were trying to have a child when this tragedy struck. Estranged is mere hyperbole from your end.
I'd say that living with another woman for 12 years and siring 2 children is fairly "estranged".
>>More to the point, it was not just Micheals' word. The courts had several witnesses who stated that she had made statements to the effect that she would not want to live that way.
Yeah, all from Michael's family. But Michael's subsequent girl friends say different. They say he admitted to them that they never even discussed it -- that he made the whole thing up. The Schindler family, of course, had other recollections.
>>Lose the "estranged" hyperbole. The Schindlers had some 15 years or so to make their case. They failed so badly that every single appeal failed. Why? Evidence.
quote:
(No contemporaenous clinical evidence)
>>Thoroughly, utterly, and contemptably wrong.
Oh, how so?
>>You ignore the courts tests, including swallow test, scans, etc.
You ignore the word "contemporaneous" ???
SezMe
post-pre-born
Rouser2, in light of your continued defamation of Michael, please respond the the report issued by the Florida Department of Children & Families as summarized in my previous post earlier on this same page.