Via the AP: Schiavo Autopsy Shows Massive Brain Damage
The autopsy released Wednesday on Terri Schiavo backed her husband’s contention that she was in a persistent vegetative state, finding she was severely and irreversibly brain-damaged and blind as well. It also found no evidence that she was strangled or otherwise abused before she collapsed.Yet medical examiners could not say for certain what caused her sudden 1990 collapse, long thought to have been brought on by an eating disorder.
Although based on the sound bites of the press conference I heard on NPR this afternoon, the autopsy could not concude whether or not that Terri was in a PVS, but did rule out an eating disorder.
One thing is clear: her brain was severly damaged:
The autopsy showed that Schiavo’s brain had shrunk to about half the normal size for a woman her age and that it bore signs of severe damage.“This damage was irreversible, and no amount of therapy or treatment would have regenerated the massive loss of neurons,” said Pinellas-Pasco County Medical Examiner Dr. Jon Thogmartin, who led the autopsy team. He also said she was blind, because the “vision centers of her brain were dead.”
Of course, all of this is unlikely to sway True Believers. I was flipping around on the radio and briefly heard Sean Hannity talking about the media “spin” on the report (as if straight-forward facts from an autopsy are “spin”), and Terri’s brother was on the phone still raising questions about why Terri had a heart attack in the first place, and was clearly implying that Michael still needs to be investigated.
I certainly understand how family could be so captured by emotion as to be unable to see the truth, but any reasonable person has to look at this evidence and conclude that Terri was never going to get better.
Sphere: Related Content
June 15th, 2005 at 7:54 pm
The whole “he’s a murderer” line was the worse part of the entire episode. Too many people (many who I respect on most issues) were willing to take the easy way out on this issue. After all, if the other guy’s a murderer who only sees his wife as a cash register then anything done to frustrate him is fine, indeed obligatory. On the other hand, if he’s just a guy that was dealt a tough hand in life trying to do what his wife would have wanted then it becomes morally more difficult.
But in fact there is a good debate to be had about end-of-life issues. What is the government’s role at that time? When does the state have an interest in overruling a family decision? What are the guidelines that a family can withdraw care? The fact is few (none?)of the commentators that were so shrill on this issue have been interested in discussing the government’s role at the end of life since her death. Why does the death of 1 person change the calculus on that issue?
Maybe you should have gone loud, shrill, and obnoxious on this issue. It would surely have driven up your pageviews in March. But choosing calm discourse over pageviews is not an altogether bad thing.
June 15th, 2005 at 8:18 pm
I would like to think that I approach things largely from a reasonable point of view, and attempt to engage in rational discourse.
There are time when I think that I would have more traffic if I engaged in partisan rants, however
Still, that would drive me nuts.
June 15th, 2005 at 8:55 pm
Given that it’s been years since the original incident (15?), I’d be very surprised indeed if the autopsy would show any sort of “cause” for the heart attack. We (society) seem to have this idea that autopsies show all the details and tell exactly what happened. In some cases, they do. But this isn’t CSI, and these folks aren’t Quincy, M.D. Given enough time with the body functioning, whatever cause of her episode would have been significantly altered by repaired cells, later changes in her body, etc. It’s not like a tree with rings.
Similarly, while there would be evidence of “abuse” in terms of broken bones healed, I’m not sure how they would determine whether or not she’d been abused 12 years ago. The key is “found no evidence.” It’s sort of the same thing as the difference between not guilty and didn’t do it. O.J. and Michael were found not guilty. That doesn’t mean they didn’t do it.
Egad, now I’m starting to sound like a True Believer. I hope not. The evidence from the autopsy showed she had massive brain damage. The fact that she was blind puts a wet blanket on the videos where her eyes follow people. The other things: abuse and cause, are beyond proof, I’d say at this point.
June 15th, 2005 at 9:02 pm
Bryan,
All fair enough. Although some of the more outlandish claims, such that she was being abused by Michael while she was in the hospital, that he was drugging her, etc, should be put to rest.
The key, to me, was the brain. It was what I understood to be the case: she was dead in all but the body and was being kept alive artificially to no good end.
June 16th, 2005 at 7:36 am
The information from the autopsy just confirmed what was generally known for years. The problem is that many on “Terry’s side” in the media were lying through their teeth and claiming those doctors who knew the truth knew less than the commentators.