An autopsy released Wednesday found no evidence to contradict the diagnosis that Terri Schiavo was in a persistent vegetative state after her 1990 collapse, backing up her husband’s contention that she would not have recovered if she was given additional therapy as her parents requested.
“There’s nothing in her autopsy report that is inconsistent with a persistent vegetative state,” said Dr. Stephen J. Nelson, a medical examiner who assisted in the autopsy.
Pinellas-Pasco Medical Examiner Jon Thogmartin, who led the autopsy team, concluded that there was no evidence of strangulation or other trauma leading to her collapse. He also said she did not appear to have suffered a heart attack and there was no evidence that she was given harmful drugs or other substances prior to her death.
Thogmartin said that Schiavo’s brain was about half of its expected size when she died March 31 in a Pinellas Park hospice, 13 days after her feeding tube was removed in a wrenching right-to-die dispute that engulfed the courts, Congress and the White House and divided the country.
He said 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.
I can’t wait to hear the excuses for the folks on this board who claimed otherwise. Or maybe we’ll never heard from them again in this thread at least.
You aren’t paing attention you god hater. The autopsy did not prove that her husband did not try to kill her for her money. How did a woman with a severe eating disorder all of a sudden just get that sick?
Spokesman Scott McClellan says the president opposed the removal of her feeding tube because he thinks Americans should “stand on the side of defending … life.”
Spokesman Scott McClellan says the president opposed the removal of her feeding tube because he thinks Americans should “stand on the side of defending … life.”
What he really said was
Americans should “stand on the side of defending* the opportunity for us politicians to capitalize on other people’s private affairs if it will help us get votes from the religious right, I’ve been doing it all my* life.”
Seriously, it’s fine if people disagree. The problem is that for the most part, you dont hear too many people saying:
“Well, I know Terri was in a PVS and wouldnt get better, and I can see Michaels need to move on, but I just cant make myself support removing the feeding tube because I’m a softie/the Catholic position is that she should be kept on life support/etc…” Fine - agree to disagree.
What you get is 1)delusion (Terri would have gotten better, she wasnt that bad, let us feed her by mouth, she’s not even in a PVs, look she’s smiling at me) 2) delusion + hostility (Michael is a money-grubbing adulterating evil medical terrorist, I hope he gets run over by a bus) or 3) irritating soundbytes/talking points (I prefer to support life) - yeah sure you do George and no one else supports life but the far right. It’s that kind of shit that is really irritaing.
Maybe the majority of the pro-keeping-Terri-alive folks were the silent, reasonable type. But the wackjobs really got the lion’s share of the press.
How did a woman with a severe eating disorder all of a sudden just get that sick?
um, perhaps because she had a severe eating disorder… not a mild one, but a severe one…
Actually your statement proves your not really reading all the evidence … from a Yahoo news story "He said there was no proof she suffered from an eating disorder such as bulimia, which can disrupt the body chemistry with lethal effect. "
So there’s no proof that she an eating disorder … but there’s also no proof - NONE - of abuse by Michael…
