Page 1 of 3

Terri Shiavo's quality of life

Posted: Sun Apr 03, 2005 8:15 pm
by Darwin_Rocks
I read an article on the internet that really shed some light on the subject for me.

Firstly I think that idea of her ever being rehabilitated were grossly exaggerated. This is due primarily because her brain was almost totally destroyed.
A CT scan taken in 1996 revealed profound abnormalities. An EEG performed reveals that there is no electrical activity. In 2002, a CAT scan demonstrated massive atrophy. In place of normal brain tissue, almost all that is left are connective tissues and spinal fluid. Aside from a brain stem that keeps some autonomic functions going, she simply doesn't have a brain.
Im trying to understand from a christian perspective why there is such a want to keep her alive. I mean her brain was gone, the only really functions she could perform were as a result of her brain stem. The rest was all destroyed.
When your brain is gone, it's gone for good. Some describe Terri Schiavo as “brain damaged,” but this is as irresponsible as it is inaccurate. Terri Schiavo is “brain damaged” in the same way that a quadruple amputee has “arm damage.”
Why keep someone alive if they have no real awareness of their surroundings? If all their brain activity allows them to do is the basic necesities of human life. To me it seems like Terri is alive only in the sense that some of her major organs were working, her brain the thing that creates an actual quality of life was gone.

Discuss if you wish.

PS: This is my first ever poll, I'd be excited if it wasn't such a sombre topic under discussion.

Re: Terri Shiavo's quality of life

Posted: Mon Apr 04, 2005 11:33 am
by bizzt
Darwin_Rocks wrote:I read an article on the internet that really shed some light on the subject for me.

Firstly I think that idea of her ever being rehabilitated were grossly exaggerated. This is due primarily because her brain was almost totally destroyed.
A CT scan taken in 1996 revealed profound abnormalities. An EEG performed reveals that there is no electrical activity. In 2002, a CAT scan demonstrated massive atrophy. In place of normal brain tissue, almost all that is left are connective tissues and spinal fluid. Aside from a brain stem that keeps some autonomic functions going, she simply doesn't have a brain.
Im trying to understand from a christian perspective why there is such a want to keep her alive. I mean her brain was gone, the only really functions she could perform were as a result of her brain stem. The rest was all destroyed.
When your brain is gone, it's gone for good. Some describe Terri Schiavo as “brain damaged,” but this is as irresponsible as it is inaccurate. Terri Schiavo is “brain damaged” in the same way that a quadruple amputee has “arm damage.”
Why keep someone alive if they have no real awareness of their surroundings? If all their brain activity allows them to do is the basic necesities of human life. To me it seems like Terri is alive only in the sense that some of her major organs were working, her brain the thing that creates an actual quality of life was gone.

Discuss if you wish.

PS: This is my first ever poll, I'd be excited if it wasn't such a sombre topic under discussion.
Basically the main problems I had were the deprivation of Food and Water. BUT what I had a Problem the most with this case was the Way Michael Schavio acted. To tell you the truth after her death he still acts like an Idiot. Taking Terri's ashes or body to PA away from her parents and on top of that did not want to disclose the location of the Funeral.

My Two Cents

Posted: Mon Apr 04, 2005 4:15 pm
by AttentionKMartShoppers
I've only got one cent, I spent the rest.

If Terri were a vegetable, then she would have been in bed, staring at the ceiling...something like the last scene in One Flew Over the Cuckoo's nest. But, she did move around and respond to people. But, if my sources are wrong, and the lights were on but nobody was really home-she was not alive. Only in a biological sense was she alive-heart pumping, breathing, etc... The driver is gone even though the car is running? I'd say kill the engine in that case....

Posted: Tue Apr 05, 2005 10:16 am
by bizzt
AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:I've only got one cent, I spent the rest.

If Terri were a vegetable, then she would have been in bed, staring at the ceiling...something like the last scene in One Flew Over the Cuckoo's nest. But, she did move around and respond to people. But, if my sources are wrong, and the lights were on but nobody was really home-she was not alive. Only in a biological sense was she alive-heart pumping, breathing, etc... The driver is gone even though the car is running? I'd say kill the engine in that case....
Good Analogy... But would you let the Engine run out of Gas or just turn it off? :wink:

Posted: Tue Apr 05, 2005 2:47 pm
by Dan
Where's the 'maybe' option? You know I've heard directly contradictory reports of schiavo's brain so I can't possibly make the decision now. When in doubt, go life. There could always be a chance.

Posted: Tue Apr 05, 2005 3:10 pm
by Felgar
Dan wrote:Where's the 'maybe' option? You know I've heard directly contradictory reports of schiavo's brain so I can't possibly make the decision now. When in doubt, go life. There could always be a chance.
I agree. We didn't really have any way to know FOR SURE that she was not able to comprehend her environment. And since there's no way to know, we have a moral obligation to preserve life as best we can. It's kind of like negotiating with terrorists, once you take the line from "absolutely not" to "well, maybe" then you're openning the door for the very things that you oppose.

Posted: Tue Apr 05, 2005 5:36 pm
by AttentionKMartShoppers
I wouldn't kill the engine (metaphors....), I would let it run out of gas, because who knows, the lack of support my cause the driver to wake up...

Posted: Tue Apr 05, 2005 5:48 pm
by Darwin_Rocks
I did put a maybe option on this poll and went to submit but it didn't work. Maybe I did something wrong.

I dont think it is enough to just say 'if there is any confusion to just keep the life.' we really need to do more research into it rather than just kick back and wait for something to happen. The majority of reports I have read suggest that her brain was pretty much totally destroyed.

plus the tapes that we see of her moving around were probably heavily edited.

Posted: Tue Apr 05, 2005 6:08 pm
by AttentionKMartShoppers
It's a :roll: conspiracy!

Posted: Tue Apr 05, 2005 11:42 pm
by Felgar
Darwin_Rocks wrote:I dont think it is enough to just say 'if there is any confusion to just keep the life.'
Why isn't that enough? What can possibly be more valuable than a human life? What can possibly outweigh the risk of murdering an innocent person?

Posted: Wed Apr 06, 2005 3:54 am
by Dan
Darwin_Rocks wrote:I did put a maybe option on this poll and went to submit but it didn't work. Maybe I did something wrong.

I dont think it is enough to just say 'if there is any confusion to just keep the life.' we really need to do more research into it rather than just kick back and wait for something to happen. The majority of reports I have read suggest that her brain was pretty much totally destroyed.

plus the tapes that we see of her moving around were probably heavily edited.
Then they should've kept her alive long enough to be able to do a conclusive examination of her in first person. No one who said that she was dead actually examined her first-hand and there were no tests done prior to the decision. It was just kill and get on with it, which is... not good.

Posted: Mon Apr 11, 2005 8:49 pm
by Darwin_Rocks
I thought a first hand analysis had been done, at least on CNN I saw a doctor reporting his findings, he claimed that she was dead.

Posted: Tue Apr 12, 2005 5:02 am
by Mastermind
Darwin_Rocks wrote:I thought a first hand analysis had been done, at least on CNN I saw a doctor reporting his findings, he claimed that she was dead.
Yea, she fit quite well under Hitler's definition of what "dead" means.

Posted: Tue Apr 12, 2005 8:13 am
by Kurieuo
Darwin_Rocks wrote:I dont think it is enough to just say 'if there is any confusion to just keep the life.'
Err... what makes killing the default position? And wouldn't it be more reasonable to assume life rather than death?

On a different note, what happened to your position of the mother's choice to keep or abort her child? The situation seems very similar to me, only in one instance you believe the mother wanting the child is enough, while in the other it isn't.

Kurieuo.

Posted: Fri Apr 15, 2005 3:26 am
by Anonymous
ermm killing here is the default position as it is a request of terri schiavo not to be kept artificially alive.

In anycase this whole thing is an issue because of the christian adherence to their dogmatic teaching that suicide is wrong.

Why is suicide even wrong?

Also to dan, they have been keeping her alive for more than 10 years, (isnt that long enough) while inumerable medical examinations has conclusively established that terry schiavo is brain dead. All the reason to pull the plug.