Author Topic: Michael Schiavo wants proof of Terry Schiavo's brain damage! (Read 1285 times)

TweetyBird · « **on:** March 28, 2005, 07:14:24 PM »

It seems Michael Schiavo wants proof of the extent of his estranged wife's brain damage. So did he allow a PET or fMRI?

Nope. He ordered an autopsy. Just when you think it could get no weirder. I just hope he doesn't have to say "oops."

>>Felos also said that the chief medical examiner for Pinellas County, Dr. John Thogmartin, had agreed to perform an autopsy on Schiavo. He said that her husband wants proof of the extent of her brain damage.

<<

Un friggin believable.

Chairboy · « **Reply #1 on:** March 28, 2005, 08:23:05 PM »

What you're doing here is making a 'straw man' argument. You may have missed the cat scans that ALREADY show the brain damage. Wait, did you miss it? Or are you deliberately not mentioning it because it's an inconvenient fact that hurts your "argument"?

Maverick · « **Reply #2 on:** March 28, 2005, 08:29:16 PM »

How many thread are you going to open on this subject??? You have 3 so far and Skuzzy deleted the second one. You don't like what is happening, that is plain.

It isn't your family, it's not your call. Deal with it.

moose · « **Reply #3 on:** March 28, 2005, 08:36:21 PM »

apparently he has to argue on an internet message board to make himself feel that he's fighting for the 'cause.'

Chairboy · « **Reply #4 on:** March 28, 2005, 08:36:29 PM »

A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject.
-Winston Churchill

Chairboy · « **Reply #5 on:** March 28, 2005, 08:40:42 PM »

I used a website to get the exact wording on the previous quote, and it had two others that, in hindsight, I see are equally as applicable to the situation:

A fanatic is a man who does what he thinks the Lord would do if only He knew the facts of the case.
-Finley Peter Dunne

The worst vice of the fanatic is his sincerity.
-Oscar Wilde

TweetyBird · « **Reply #6 on:** March 28, 2005, 10:09:23 PM »

Its a different topic, a test after a person is dead to prove something that could be proven before the person is dead.

But you ya don't have have to hit me in the head with a brick.
If enough people want me to stop posting here, I will. There's other forums. I'm sure not trying to mess up yours.

john9001 · « **Reply #7 on:** March 28, 2005, 10:23:15 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Chairboy
A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject.
-Winston Churchill

i didn't know churchhill knew michael schiavo.

quote
Michael Schiavo "is that b**** dead yet?"

TweetyBird · « **Reply #8 on:** March 28, 2005, 10:24:06 PM »

Personal attack

TweetyBird · « **Reply #9 on:** March 28, 2005, 10:29:51 PM »

>>You may have missed the cat scans that ALREADY show the brain damage. Wait, did you miss it? Or are you deliberately not mentioning it because it's an inconvenient fact that hurts your "argument"?
<<

Do you know how a CT scan works? Do you know how meaningless one slice of a CT scan can be? Have you seen ONE 3d image of Terri Schiavo's brain? Do you think its possible to show all the slices of a CT scan to create a 3d image?
Do you know why this hasn't been done?

Because she has some cerebral cortex. A PET or fMRI would show if there was activity there. Her husband would rather use an autopsy.

Raider179 · « **Reply #10 on:** March 28, 2005, 10:30:23 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by TweetyBird
Its a different topic, a test after a person is dead to prove something that could be proven before the person is dead.

But you ya don't have have to hit me in the head with a brick.
If enough people want me to stop posting here, I will. There's other forums. I'm sure not trying to mess up yours.

The test after is for proof for people like you. The rest of us already know what the CAT scans show.

Silat · « **Reply #11 on:** March 29, 2005, 12:24:03 AM »

TweetyBird please read this. Click on the links after every piece of information.
You can then be at peace knowing that all tests have been performed and many many experts have agreed that the poor women is a vegetable.

http://www.miami.edu/ethics2/schiavo/timeline.htm

Sandman · « **Reply #12 on:** March 29, 2005, 12:55:44 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by TweetyBird

If enough people want me to stop posting here, I will.

I'll second this motion.

All in favor, say "aye".

Note: This vote is regarding the Shiavo case, not all posts by Tweetybird in general.

straffo · « **Reply #13 on:** March 29, 2005, 03:15:04 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by TweetyBird
Its a different topic, a test after a person is dead to prove something that could be proven before the person is dead.

But you ya don't have have to hit me in the head with a brick.
If enough people want me to stop posting here, I will. There's other forums. I'm sure not trying to mess up yours.

As the scan the same legal value as the autopsie ?

Dinger · « **Reply #14 on:** March 29, 2005, 05:34:19 AM »

Nor do they show the same thing with defintiive proof.

In fact, autopsy is the only way to find out what exactly was going on in the brain. So, for example, many US insurers used to exploit this loophole to get out of paying for Alzheimer's patients: they required a definitive diagnosis before they would pay for care. Only way to diagnose Alzheimer's definitively is an autopsy. MRI or brain scan don't work.

So yeah, autopsy's a good idea; after all the medical examinations and tests by people without a theological axe to grind show that she is, indeed, vegetative, an autopsy will put to rest the line of arguments that she might improve. Who knows? It might even reveal that a conscious human bieng was murdered.