Michael Schiavo wants proof of Terry Schiavo's brain damage!

[Ack-Ack]

Originally posted by TweetyBird
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.

Next time you cite a news report, you should post exactly what they say in it instead of paraphrasing it and twisting it to fit your views.

If you had read the report, the M.E. said the autopsy was asked for to show the public the extent of her brain damage.  Michael Schiavo is going to make the autopsy results public.  He's not trying to hide or cover up anything.

ack-ack

[TweetyBird]

I wasn't paraphrasing. What I posted came from an AP story - quoted directly. The point was not the motive but the choice of test. Micheal Schiavo denied requests to have Terri undergo PET (which can be done while the patient is alive) but had no problem with an autopsy. I just found it a little like consenting to DNA testing after the execution of a prisoner.

If the DNA confirms the dead man is guilty, well its payday. If not, there are all types of excuse you can use to say its inconclusive.

Michael Schiavo can only win with an autopsy. If there is significant cerebral cortex, he can just claim it wasn't functioning.

You play poker much?

Now ask Michael if he'd take this bet. If an autopsy shows significant cerebral cortex, you stand trial for concpiracy to commit murder. I think if that was looming there, he wouldn't want to "prove" anything. But as is, he can only win, so how is that noble?

[NUKE]

Tweety, Michael Schiavo isn't gambling. Her brain is 80% gone and replaced by fluid. I saw the scans.

[TweetyBird]

Just catching up (believe it or not, I skip over some post)

>>What you're doing here is making a 'straw man' argument. You may have missed the cat scans that ALREADY show the brain damage<<

You are so wrong. I have addressed the limited value of CT scans in a few post. CT scans are a preliminary test. NO disease is confirmed by a CT scan. PET scans are a step up, and more accurate that a CT scan. When one is suspected of cancer the tests go like this, xray, CT scan, PET, biopsy.

In Terri's case a biopsy is not practical ( Michael is shooting for it with the autopsy) but a PET scan was practical but refused by Michael. No doctor would rip open a patients chest in search of cancer with just a CT scan. He would order a PET scan first, and then a biopsy. The CT is one of the first tests, but here we are treating it as a final test. We're gonna kill a woman with just a CT scan, and we're going to try to justify it after with an autopsy. But NO one is wondering why Michael isn't asking for PET?

[TweetyBird]

>>Tweety, Michael Schiavo isn't gambling. Her brain is 80% gone and replaced by fluid. I saw the scans.

<<

You saw a CT scan (more accurately one slice of a CT scan which means about nothing. You don't read one page of a book and claim you've read the book). A CT scan is a sophisticated test - 20 years ago. It falls woefully short and thats why things like MRI, fMRI and PET were developed.

[Ripper29]

I just heard on the news that she passed away....

[Maverick]

This has a few ways to play out but really lets try to keep the "spin off of it.

The autopsy results so no significant cortex remaining, obvious conclusion.

The autopsy shows significant cortex, really the same conclusion based on the years of no improvement and lack of cognitive behavior. Just because the equipment is present does not mean it works. Ask any para or quadraplegic.

Now please note I am not saying para and quadraplegics are in the same situation. Do not extrapolate anything into the example given.

[Raider179]

Originally posted by TweetyBird
>> I see nothing similar or nothing that would even come close to being on topic. <<

Thats exactly right, you don't see much, but you speak loudly.
Have you ever wondered that you don't fully understand the implications of a left brain injury? Have you ever even heard the term "prisoner in his own body"?

You don't see how this fits and I'm supposed to be patient with you?

1)Have I ever wondered that  I dont fully understand the implications of a left brain injury??? Explain how that relates to Terri Having had 80% mush in her brain... What she had was no left brain injury.

2)Yes I have heard the term.

3)I could care less of your patience.

4)The PET scans would be worthless as she can not do what is required to perform them. See my above posts but again you pick and choose your information and provide no links to stuff you quote.

[TweetyBird]

Inflammatory

[Nash]

Tweety.

I don't mean this as anything but as an observation... It seems you're kind of busted up over this. Which is perfectly cool.

I don't mean to pry, and don't answer if you don't want to, but have you made any changes in your life...... whether it be wrt family relationships, some sort of spititual awakening, volunteering, family planning....  any sort of proactive get-out-there-and-affect motions?

Or has it all been just..... effect?

For all I know, you are already the Mother Teresa in some slum. Either way... what's your investment?

[TweetyBird]

You are VERY right I'm busted up about this. I am absolutely furious about this.

[Nash]

So....

(and still just outta curiousity)

When you take stock of your reaction, and compare it to those who may seem ambivelent, what would you say the difference is?

Why do you think it is that you are having this reaction and others do not?

What, if any, changes will your life take as a result?

[Nash]

...and holy... I am sucking at the english language right now..

[TweetyBird]

>>When you take stock of your reaction, and compare it to those who may seem ambivelent, what would you say the difference is?
<<

What is the difference between the reaction of someone who feels strongly about something and those ambivlent about something??  Well, gee, I dunno, but I'd guess there's a big difference...

>>Why do you think it is that you are having this reaction and others do not?
<<

Are you still beating your wife? Your contention that no one else had been completely revolted and disgusted by the starvation of Schiavo is a blatant misprepresentation or ignorance. But I can't say or ignorant or my message may be edited.

>>What, if any, changes will your life take as a result?<<

An easy resolution. To never again take crap from stupid people.
Reserve compassion for those trying to help other and give those trying to manipulate others an 11 1/2 up the arse.

[Nash]

Ah..  

Mmkay....