Schiavo autopsy finds no sign of trauma

[Guest charlie]

Here's the best site I've found on the whole sad sorry saga:

http://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/infopage.html

This is one exerpt from the questions section:

Question: But isn't there a bone scan that shows Terri was beaten?

I honestly don't know. What I understand is that a bone scan was taken in 1991 and that the doctor who read it saw on it evidence of past trauma at various places on Terri's body. Some consider that evidence of a severe beating by her husband, others consider it evidence consistent with bulimia, a fall, and CPR by paramedics. Whether trauma really happened, or what kind, or when, are all unclear.

The bone scan was not raised in the original trial regarding Terri's wishes. The issue was raised by the Schindlers in a November 2002 emergency motion. Judge Greer rejected the matter as being irrelevant to the issue of Terri's wishes. See the order linked in the timeline above.

----------

My brother-in-law was in a car accident in 1992 in which he suffered brain damage. While in the hospital the staff was moving him and didn't strap him down and he rolled off a gurney. My great-grandmother also rolled out of bed in the hospital and lay on the floor for several hours before the hospital staff noticed. That kind of thing happens and is always a possibility.

Edited June 15, 2005 by charlie

[Guest charlie]

We know this for sure.....how? Because of the autopsy?

The autopsy said she was blind; something we didn't know until now.

So do you think Judge Greer's former Baptist church will apologize and invite him back?

Edited June 15, 2005 by charlie

[Ovedya]

You're making the jump from no proof of an eating disorder to "She didn't have one" Ovedya.

The same fallacy applies to the abuse allegations.

You're contending that the abuse was covered up by healing over time yet the type of injuries that would cause the severe brain damage that put Terri in that state would likely still be evident 10 years later. I broke my arm 13 years ago, recently had an x-ray for a wrist injury and the doctor commented on the evidence of a previous fracture in my arm. Just because it happened 10 years ago doesn't mean there would be no evidence.

Is it possible there would be no evidence? Yes. Is it likely? No.

The orginal admitting report showed that she had signs of trauma consistent with abuse, but the judge didn't allow that evidence into the case. Why is that?

I've seen a lot of sites say this but yet to see anyone post the original admitting report. Do you have a link?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It was all on the Terri's fight website during the battle. But apparently it's gone now.

Soft-tissue damage such as strangulation does not necessarily compare with scar tissue from a healed bone, does it? Can it appear on an autopsy more than 10 years after the incident? What about suffocation?

There was a vast amount of time between Terri's first admittance to the hospital and this autopsy. I don't really think that it proves anything.

[Ovedya]

We know this for sure.....how? Because of the autopsy?

The autopsy said she was blind; something we didn't know until now.

So do you think Judge Greer's former Baptist church will apologize and invite him back?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It doesn't say completely blind. I don't know.

[Guest charlie]

Of course it's gone.

That website I gave you is very concise and complete from start to finish. The primary focus of that site is the legalities of the case and clears up a lot of the "rumors".

[Ovedya]

I understand that you are approaching this from the legal side.

I still have my doubts as to the moral side, with regard to the issues of "right to die" and especially with regard to my suspicions.

[Sojc]

I understand that you are approaching this from the legal side.

I still have my doubts as to the moral side, with regard to the issues of "right to die" and especially with regard to my suspicions.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Right to die? She could not have lived without a feeding tube. The autospy stated that she could not eaten and had severe atrophy to her digestive system and muscles.

Giving terri food and water to her mouth like her parents wanted would not have saved her. She needed nutrients pumped directly into her.

Medical technology is moving so fast, is it natural to keep someone alive even if they were vegetated, unconcious, and could not survive by putting food and water in their mouth?

Eventually medical technology could make it that we could take people's brain out of their bodies and put in in a replacement human made shell so that they would never die. If people never died would they go to heaven? Would it be natural and god's will?

I hate how politics are mixing into this issue. In the past, Terri would have already been with God long ago (hopefully if she were saved) since medical technology could not keep her unaturally alive. There is too much disinformation of both sides of the debate. But too much emphasis is placed on hearsay like "reports" that Terri could see (the autopsy has not shown that Terri was blind due to great atrophy of the visual centres of the brain). Atrophy of half of ones brain mass is not disabling, it is deadly. You cannot regenerate brain matter of that scale.

As much as you may not like Michael Schiavo and believe that Terri should have been kept alive, you must use credible evidence to back your claims. Hearsay from unverified sources helps no one. Claims such as Terri's eyes could fallow her parents and that Nurses have talked to her are medically unsubstantiated. Anything can be manipulated, changed, or created. Do you remember playing the telephone game as a child, where people would whisper a secret message across a chain of people and by the end it does not resemble anything like the original?

Edited June 15, 2005 by Sojc

[Guest charlie]

I don't think it's moral to accuse someone of murder when theres no proof to back it up.

I don't think it's moral to tell a judge he can't come to your church anymore becaue he upheld the law either.

[Cerran]

Ovedya if there had been clear instructions written down from Terri Shaivo on what her wishes were, would you then have objected to them pulling the feeding tube on moral grounds?

I'm just curious as to the basis of the stance you are taking.

[Ovedya]

I don't think it's moral to accuse someone of murder when theres no proof to back it up. 

I don't think it's moral to tell a judge he can't come to your church anymore becaue he upheld the law either.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Wjp accused anyone of murder?