So why doesn’t the husband allow a quick and painless EEG & MRI to prove you are right?

There’s a good reason she hasn’t been given an MRI. In the early years of her condition, an experimental treatment was done on her that implanted electrodes in her brain in order to stimulate neuronal growth. Those implants are still in her skull. An MRI uses powerful magnets to create it’s image and would cause the implanted electrodes to act as a blender inside her skull. Not a good idea.

You could put someone in front of all the commentors here, and ask if the person was conscioius, and get all sorts of opinions. Only someone who takes the time and effort to examine(sometimes multiple times are neccessary) and has a good idea of what is reflex and what is conscious movement, can give a good answer. People can get “feelings” about who is conscious or not, but that is just a gut feeling, and not very scientific, and not very provable.

Dr. Dilbert, what’s your area of specialization? I asked a physician today and he contradicted this Dr. Nelson, if he meant to say that a Doctor would not need to sign off on the administration of morphine. Morphine is an addictive, controlled substance. It is illegal to administer it without prescription. In these settings it is common to sign a prescription on an as-needed basis, but they have to sign off.

Furthermore, you said that the state of the person is determined by observation, and then said the nurses might have doubted. I will agree with you that a doctor knows far better what he’s looking for than a nurse, but he still had to sign off on the prescription, and the administration still means the nurses had doubt.

Dov, address that. Don’t say doctor this or doctor that. Tell us that you believe that the nurses cared for this woman 24/7 and had the strange misconception that she feels pain, but they were totally wrong, because that’s what you are saying. You just refuse to put it in so many words.

The CT scan posted by the radiologist shows a tremendous amount of loss of brain substance, and the spinal fluid spaces have enlarged to fill the space left by the shrunken brain. The person posting the picture is clearly not a neuroradiologist(someone specially trained to read head CT ’s and neurologically related studies). This is not a scan of a normal person, not even a 93 year old normal person. It is a scan of a person who has suffered a PROFOUND loss of brain substance. It is consistant with(but not diagnostic of) persistant vegetative state. I have posted some information about brain injury on my site, for those interested.

“So why doesn’t the husband allow a quick and painless EEG & MRI to prove you are right?”. She’s already had EEG’s, and she’s had two CAT scans.

Michoel: You can’t run away from the fact that an expert doctor said “�It�s not uncommon for the nurse to suggest, �Let�s just give her a suppository to be on the safe side.��

And you can’t run away from the fact that three judges heard compelling evidence that she feels no pain and has no chance for survivial.

You’re trying to, but you can’t. People who know more than either of us about the facts of this case have spoken, and they disagree with you.

Actually, I would be willing to consider that suggestion. Although you accused Zev of being a GOP-jew who undoubtedly supports capital punishment [something you can't know] I personally do not. I agree that the judicial system is highly flawed and I’d be willing to dispense of capital punishment today.
Your comparison stil holds no water. Why should Terry be allowed to die because of flimsy evidence in CP cases?

Did he say that nurses do it on their own when they are absolutely certain that she is brain dead and feel no pain? Did he actually say that doctors don’t sign off, and nurses just wander off with controlled substances and claim they gave them to patients?

No, he didn’t say that. He didn’t say that because if they were absolutely certain that she was brain dead, they would have no reason to give her morphine.

The Times is trying to explain away the evidence. But the evidence is still standing there, making a stench.

Make up all the excuses you want. The fact is that nurses aren’t stupid. They don’t give dead people medicine. And they don’t give brain-dead people pain medication for pain they can’t feel.

Well the case has been reviewed multiple times, and each time, the opinion of Judge Greer was upheld, so either their is a massive conspiracy to kill this woman, involving multiple courts, doctors and witnesses, orthe doctors and witnesses were convincing. Which seems more likely to you?

As for the morphine, be snide about the times all you want. They still produced an expert who said on the record that nurses deliver small morphine doses on their own , which is exactly the argument you keep sumarilly rejecting. Speaking of ignoring elephants…

Initially, I believed she was obviously in a persistant vegetative state, and didn’t care — the Torah says you don’t kill someone even if they are in “PVS.” But I’m a little more open-minded than you, and I don’t ignore huge elephants wearing the word MORPHINE on their backs when they wander up to my preconceptions.

“To be on the safe side,” they give her morphine? That’s hardly “sorry, but you lose.” The fact that they gave her morphine proves doubt in their minds, however small, as to whether she really feels no pain. And regardless of what the Times delivered, I’m sure Dr. Nelson is well-aware that he has to sign off on doses of morphine.

If the nurses really want to be on the safe side, they’ll keep giving her food and water until they know she needs no morphine. And we’ve not arrived at that point.

Obviously, they don’t know that she doesn’t feel pain.

First, I contest the theory that Terri’s brain actively continues to degenerate as implied by the above statement. How could they gauge serial brain degeneration without serial follow-up? And by what mechanism would her brain CONTINUE to atrophy? Second, Terri’s cerebral cortex has not been replaced by fluid. That is inaccurate. The cortex is thinned and the sulci are enlarged. There is a difference.
…
First of all, the University of Miami’s appellation for this scan is inaccurate. “Cortical regions” are not and can not be filled with spinal fluid. The sulci (spaces between cortical ribbons) are enlarged secondary to cortical atrophy and these sulci are filled with cerbrospinal fluid.

The most alarming thing about this image, however, is that there certainly is cortex left. Granted, it is severely thinned, especially for Terri’s age, but I would be nonplussed if you told me that this was a 75 year old female who was somewhat senile but fully functional, and I defy a radiologist anywhere to contest that.

I HAVE SEEN MANY WALKING, TALKING, FAIRLY COHERENT PEOPLE WITH WORSE CEREBRAL/CORTICAL ATROPHY. THEREFORE, THIS IS IN NO WAY PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE THAT TERRI SCHIAVO’S MENTAL ABILITIES OR/OR CAPABILITIES ARE COMPLETELY ERADICATED. I CANNOT BELIEVE SUCH TESTIMONY HAS BEEN GIVEN ON THE BASIS OF THIS worrisome, no alarming thing that I heard a bioethicist and several important figures on the major media describe Terri’s brain as MUCH WORSE. One “expert” said that she had a “bag of water” in her head. Several experts described her as a “brain stem preparation”

These statements are wholly inaccurate. This is an atrophied brain, yes, but there is cortex remaining, and where there’s cortex (?life) there’s hope.

If you starve this woman to death it would be, in my professional and experienced medical opinion, the equivalent of starving to death a 75-85 year old person. I would take that to the witness stand.

In addition, the EEG is not “flat.” At least not according to Dr. William Hammesfahr, who examined her in 2002 for the Florida appeals court. His report is here and it makes very interesting reading. (I am not a physician and I had no problem understanding it.) About the EEG, he says,

EEG: I have reviewed the EEG recently obtained. The EEG has large amounts of artifact. The technician’s attempted to remove artifact by filtering. Unfortunately, filtering also affects and reduces evident brain electronic activity. This EEG is not adequate and should be repeated. It should be repeated at the patient’s bedside, with the patient in a non-agitated state.

He also recommends several other tests, which I believe were not done. He also says (emphasis added):

ENT: The patient can clearly swallow, and is able to swallow approximately 2 liters of water per day (the daily amount of saliva generated). Water is one of the most difficult things for people to swallow. It is unlikely that she currently needs the feeding tube. She should be evaluated by an Ear Nose and Throat specialist, and have a new swallowing exam.

Did you hear that? “It is unlikely that she currently needs the feeding tube.” Yet, after ordering the removal of the feeding tube, Judge Greer also ordered no feeding by mouth, either.

He did not simply order the removal of a “feeding tube.” He ordered removal of food and water, delivered by whatever means.

They now have three police officers posted in her room to make sure she isn’t given a sip of water, an ice chip, or whatever it is they give for Catholic communion.

Is this what halacha allows, even if the feeding tube is considered “medical”?

As for the morphine, here’s the quote: (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/29/national/29schiavo.html)

“The issue of whether Ms. Schiavo was receiving morphine and why has been a persistent source of concern among the protesters outside her hospice. Some of the placards and statements from supporters have referred to her being on a morphine drip, which many saw as evidence that she was dying in pain.

Mr. Felos said Monday that Ms. Schiavo had never been on a morphine drip. She has received two five-milligram suppository doses of morphine in the last 11 days, most recently two days ago, he said. Each dose was minimal, he said, and would have worn off in about four hours. [snip]

Another doctor with long experience treating patients at the end of life, Douglas Nelson of Hickory, N.C., said that providing morphine to a patient in a persistent vegetative state was unnecessary because the patient would be unaware of pain or discomfort.

But, Dr. Nelson said, “It’s not uncommon for the nurse to suggest, ‘Let’s just give her a suppository to be on the safe side.’”

See? Sorry, but you lose.

I said that testimony was that her EEG was flat. Those are two different things. If brain dead, then EEG is flat — but not the other way around.

A flat EEG, at least how I understand it, indicates no activity in the cortical areas of higher function. This correlates with CAT scans taken of Terri which show the vast majority of her cortex to be, quite simply, missing. (Her CAT scans are all over the web).

In fact, some of Terri’s supporters say the same thing. They accept that the EEG is flat, and they argue that this doesn’t prove that she’s brain dead. They are correct.

What we, apparently, are able to see are some of the functions that originate in the brain stem: breathing, blinking, yawning, digestion and some reaction to light and noise, sleeping and waking. This is brain stem activity, reflexes, but not from the cortex.

Don’t tell me he doesn’t have the money to afford the MRI.

Overly cautious nurses? Don’t be silly. I’ve had relatives in hospice care, and no medicine can be administered without a doctor’s prescription, especially an addictive drug like morphine. Access to morphine is controlled. So what are these nurses, who are at her side, “overly cautious” about? Don’t tell me they’ve never seen a brain-dead patient before.

I don’t think Greer overstepped his authority. I think he’s wrong. He didn’t afford Terri the opportunity to seek alternate counsel.

Honestly, if she is feeling no pain — what is the benefit in having her die now? Let Michael move on, marry his girlfriend, and let the parents take over visitation. The parents want to have their daughter. Is that so evil?

First, the judge heard sworn testimony from five people, not just her husband. Second, the case has been in litigation for 8 years in 6 different venues. That’s not “numerous opportunities? Third, what you call “capital punishment carried out in the name of vengance” is often based on bad evidence, and driven by feelings of vengance, not justice. If you’re willing to err on the side of life for Terry Schavio (which is commendable) why not err on the side of life for people who MIGHT be innocent, who MIGHT have been convicted on bad evidence? Why do you presume that evry convicted criminal is in fact guilty? Why not err on ther side of THEIR lives, too?

Zev, et al: The issue isn’t whether or not Terry is a convicted criminal (of course she isn’t) the issue is whether or not judges have the right to make life and death decisions. People who are pro-death penalty say they do. If pro-death penalty people are today objecting to Judge Greer’s decision on the grounds that he overstepped his authority they are being inconsistant. In this country, unfortunately, Judges are empowered to make those sort of decisions; sadly, it happens all the time, often on flimsier evidence than Judge Greer heard.

When a person is sentanced to death on bad evidence (and, again, it happens all the time) where are the “let’s err on the side of life people?” Most (including President Bush, and Congressman DeLay) are conspicuously silent. Why?

Then you haven’t bothered to check out the article I pointed to a number of comments back.

No, I’m not an M.D., but it’s well-known. Did you check the Labor Law Talk Encyclopedia? This is an undisputed one-to-one relationship: brain death, i.e. flat EEG, means no pain response. “A brain dead individual has no electrical activity and no clinical evidence of brain function on neurologic examination (no response to pain, no cranial nerve reflexes (pupillary response (fixed pupils), oculocephalic reflex, corneal reflexes), and no spontaneous respirations).” Also see this lawyer’s site which refers to the criteria for brain death, including “total unawareness of external and internal stimuli; no response to pain.”

Note that this Dr. Cranford is a “death activist” who addressed the Hemlock Society in 1992, and in 1997 wrote an opinion piece in the Minneapolis Star Tribune titled: “When a feeding tube borders on barbaric.”

He is projecting his own opinion of what should be, onto the patient. If she were brain dead she would not be receiving morphine. Again, this isn’t “conspiracy” mumbo-jumbo. Since he believes she “ought” to be dead, he may be telling you what you want to hear. The administration of morphine absolutely puts the lie to the claim that she is completely brain-dead.

Are you a doctor? Can you point me to an authoritative source which concludes such?

At least I’m willing to admit I don’t know. I only know what I read, and I read (and quoted to you) that the court appointed doctor said that her EEG is flat. I haven’t seen anything reputable which disputes that. Does it mean she can or can’t feel pain? I have no idea. Even if it can, what does that imply vis-a-vis her consciousness (most of her cerebral cortex is just _gone_), I have no idea.

I have not heard a compelling argument that would make me think the court was wrong for finding Michael Schiavo’s testimony about her desire not to live in such circumstances as truthful.

This is a question both of personal choice and the right to die. Specifically, in what circumstances does society feel its appropriate to allow the person the right to choose to self-terminate. We know that with death approaching, especially where pain (and also where enfeeblement may occur), death is often allowed. What I did not know, until this case, was that a suicide in the case of a person who is neither in pain nor in danger of imminent death is lawful. Frankly I don’t understand that nor do I like it. But lawful it is.

If we want to change the law fine. But as murder is an unlawful killing and this is a lawful killing, it is not murder under US law. You may morally find it no different then a murder but the state of Florida, and by implication the majority of its citizens, disagrees.

If you feel this is equivalent to murder the goal should then be to change the law and limit personal choice. But not interfere w. the death of Terri Schiavo whose case has run the gamut of the US court system.