The Terri Schiavo autopsy results are out and nobody seems to be talking about them. Or rather, it seems nobody who was rallying the troops in her defense is talking about them. Maybe I’m just reading the wrong blogs, but the only ones that I’ve noticed mentioning the autopsy at all are those by folks who were supporters of Michael Schiavo’s position – and they’re gloating.
She wasn’t abused.
Her brain was damaged beyond all hope of repair.
She was blind.
In short, it seems she had long ago ceased to be a living, thinking human being by any reasonable definition.
I’m still waiting to learn more of the details before saying too much, but I’m going to go out on a limb and suggest that the pro-life community and Christians in particular may owe Michael Schiavo and his supporters an apology.
Thoughts?
Update 06/19/05: Obviously, around the time I wrote this post, the skeptics (of the autopsy) started posting. Here are some examples.
"The autopsy also documented significant brain atrophy, and the medical panel called the damage ‘irreversible.’
"This is not the same as saying she had no cognitive ability. " – Pro-Life Blogs
To say that would be redundant to the CT scans taken of here brain (source 1, source 2, source 3). If the correct interpretation of scans is that she had no cortical function left, she could not have had any cognitive ability.
"For me, the whole tragedy surrounding Terri and the people who wanted her dead didn�t hinge on how severely brain-damaged she was. She was alive and wasn�t on life support, and her husband�s credibility was extremely low, too low to trust his assertion that Terri wanted to die if ever severely brain-damaged. Forget about what you�d want if you were ever in the same condition. Take yourselves out of the equation."
"The way they killed her was appalling, and I was angry for a long time afterward. I�m giving you a heads-up. Don�t be alarmed or disgusted by the liberal media and liberal bloggers (and some conservatives, too) declaring that Terri�s wayward husband is somehow �vindicated� by the autopsy report. The doctor-induced starvation was immoral." – LaShawn Barber
If Terri Schiavo ceased to be a a thinking, feeling human being years ago, was it actually wrong to starve her empty shell to death? I guess that hinges on whether Michael Schiavo could have had sufficient knowledge to demonstrate that she was, beyond reasonable doubt, lacking cognition.
BTW, Smart Christian seems to agree with my suggestion that there might be some apologies owed. For the record, I haven’t made up my mind on this matter. I’m just not content with plugging my ears, yelling "La, la, la. I can’t hear you!", and essentially ignoring the consequences of the autopsy report, as so many of my Christian and pro-life brethren seem to be.
Stay tuned for another post on this topic.
“ I’m not saying your a Social Darwinist, Theo, but that’s what led me to look to genetics. Ironically, similar problems crop up with that, too.“
No matter which way you go, there will be problems. Come to think of it, no matter which way you go in anything…there will be problems.
Regardless of whether you gauge by genetics or by behavior, it will still come back to other people being or doing a certain thing. And, really, the only reason anybody would challenge a particular kind of being (genetics) is if it led to a particular way of doing (behavior).
The threat of social darwinism aside, it must be admitted that every human on the planet cares about how other people behave, and every religious or political system ever invented has governed or affected behavior, and every one of those systems has had means of casting people out, chastising them, punishing them, or otherwise deterring them from misbehaving.
But the great evil of social darwinism was not the idea that some people are human and some are not, but its attempt to justify by genetics the social standing of elite members of the society, and the attempt by those elites to perpetuate the class division via genetic engineering, either through social herding or actual medical intervention (e.g., forced sterilization).
“If there is no supernatural component to humanity (i.e. a soul), human potential is essentially determined by biology. Even our ability to challenge the limits of our biology is an inherent part of our biology.“
I’m skeptical of that one; it’s the kind of assumption that led Francis Fukuyama to condemn biotech—change our biology, he argued, and human nature goes away, and that’s the greater loss. But I think human nature has always been at odds with human biology, because humans have long been attempting to “tame” their bodies, to suppress their impulsive instincts. Where does that come from? The answer to that question is complicated, but I don’t think it’s supernatural.
“How do you define the beginning and end of personhood, Theomorph?“
If “brain death” is to be the end-of-life standard (and I think it is a good one), something similar must be found at the beginning of life. Here is a rough idea:
When an individual can first consider its own condition, consciously or unconsciously, and act upon that consideration, it becomes a person. That is, when an individual possesses those attributes which are absent in “brain death.”
The point at which this occurs is not the same for everyone.
“I would find it rather odd if the Church held that the soul lingers when cognition is impossible.“
“The Church believes that the soul is joined to the physical body at conception.“
Isn’t that contradictory, or at least arbitrary?
“The biological definition of species membership is (AFAIK) genetic in nature.“
Yes, but I am of the opinion that being Human requires more than just genetics, and when I speak of defining “humanity,” or of “humanism,” that’s what I’m talking about. Tying Humanity to genetics opens the door to determinism, closes the door on biotechnology, and limits human potential to this barely civilized stage of evolution. I have little patience for those who, rather than challenging the limits of our biology, prefer to revel in the animal nature to which we can so easily descend.
“The eggs found in supermarkets are unfertilized ova.“
You’re ignoring the fact that people can and do eat fertilized chicken eggs all the time, especially if they have chickens of their own whose eggs are fertilized by their rooster. Those people make a distinction between eating eggs and eating chicken, too.
“Unlike Klingons, we don’t simply discard human bodies. It’s because Christians believe in the resurrection in the end times.“
More Christian arrogance. How do you explain non-Christian cultures that don’t “simply discard human bodies”?
FD: “If that’s the case, by Theomorph’s definition, infanticide (up to a certain age) should not be considered immoral. What say you, Theo? Have you taken a a shine to the ideas of Peter Singer?“
and
TS: “…it was once thought that the ‘quickening’ of a woman’s pregnancy was the point of ensoulment. Quickening was defined variously as the point at which the mother could first detect the developing infant or feel it kick the first time…“
Tom’s comment touches on the other side of the definition, which I originally addressed in that lost comment: Does personhood depend only on the subjective state of the individual, or also on the subjective perception of those individuals responsible for bringing it into the world?
Peter Singer’s views, as I understand them, incorporate the mother’s needs and perceptions into the definition of personhood. If all members of a society were to adopt this view, I would not object. That is, I don’t find it objectively, intrinsically objectionable.
However, our culture (on the whole) is clearly not interested in such a view, and adopting it would cause more trouble than not. As well, certain legal precedents have already been established, and rolling them back would take enormous concerted effort.
This is partly why I included in my definition the qualification that the individual (in this case a fetus or neonate) should be able to act upon its own consideration (either conscious or unconscious) of its condition. That does not require consciousness or linguistically communicable cognition, but a behavior on the part of the fetus or neonate that indicates selfishness. Does it want to live?
Of course, actions can still be interpreted, and different philosophies applied, but that is acceptable and healthy, I think, because it recognizes that human development is not driven by a ticking clock. I.e., every individual passes particular developmental milestones, but those milestones cannot be established to correspond absolutely with any particular “tick” of the “clock” (only with a range of ticks).
This opens a wide “gray area,” but one in which we have already been operating socially, legally, and philosophically for quite a long time. However, it most certainly closes off from personhood the fertilized egg.
Returning to the question about Peter Singer and infanticide, while I have always thought his was a rather gruesome option, I do think it would be useful in at least a few cases to offer a quiet, nonviolent way for newborns to be put down at the request of the mother. There are plenty of problems there, too.
Generally, I still think our social problems with reproduction are better solved by forethought and prevention instead of treating reproduction like a disease to be cured. (But the usefulness of prevention does not obviate the need for a cure, either.) Some people, many people, are simply not ready (and too many of them will never be ready) to properly care for a child.
I find something deeply disgusting in the idea that irresponsible parents have a “right” to reproduce, and that their unfortunate children have a “right” to live. Too often, for too many people, life seems not so much like a “right” and much more like a burden. Perhaps it would be better not to speak of a “right to life” in simple biological terms (i.e., you have a right to a beating heart and a functioning brain) but instead in more distinctly human terms: each of us has a “right” to follow our abilities and desires through goals and achievements. This is a thoroughly modern egalitarian view, but I think it suits our times. It does not require live birth of those who have achieved conception, it disallows slavery and caste systems, it allows for embryonic stem cell research, it makes biotechnology less fearful by defining human life in terms of its humanity instead of its biology, and it allows each individual his or her uniqueness.
“What of adoption? Why should an innocent child die simply because he/she is the product of a ditz and a putz?“
I intended adoption to be included in this sentence: “I still think our social problems with reproduction are better solved by forethought and prevention.”
But I certainly don’t think adoption is a sufficient universal solution to the problem of unwanted children. Much better to have a variety of potential solutions to meet a variety of potential circumstances.
“…to say that the zygote is not a member of H. sapiens is quite bizarre.“
That depends on what you mean by “member.” Is a chicken egg a “member” of Gallus gallus? When you eat a chicken egg, why is it not the same as eating chicken flesh? What is a “member”? Is a dead body a “member” of H. sapiens?
“final conclusion”? Please define.
I’m trying to discuss the definition of the conclusion of physical life. We are living spirit and living flesh. When the flesh dies, the spirit remains. At what point is the flesh dead? I submit that Terri Schiavo was dead in the sense that her body no longer supported cognitive functions. Thus, the flesh that really mattered was dead. What died of dehydration was an empty shell.
“Fr. Frank Pavone, national director of Priests for Life, said the autopsy does not change ‘the moral evaluation of what happened to Terri. Her physical injuries and disabilities never made her less of a person,’ said Fr. Pavone. ‘No amount of brain injury ever justifies denying a person proper humane care. That includes food and water.'”
Actually, I’ll argue that it’s quite possible she had long since ceased to be a person at all. She was not disabled. She was incapable of cognition. She didn’t have reduced function. She had no function (at that level).
“I suspect she had functioning cortex. Terri, as far as I know, did not. You can have holes lots of places and perhaps still function, but lose your cortex and you’re about as functional as a fish.”
The brain was smaller, but there was nothing saying that the cortex was gone in the reports I’ve seen. Her brain was small, fine, but without more anatomical data, we don’t have much to go on.
Perhaps we should start a separate thread about determining brain death and so forth in the light of Catholic thought. This is a distraction from the issue of Terri, whose diagnosis was too much of a mess, thanks to the messy circumstances, to definitively say jack, and whose husband reneged on promises to care for Terri early on in the game.
“If he was confident in the belief that she was no longer really a living human, wouldn’t any supposed abuse or mistreatment in hospice be on par with desecration of a corpse?”
If society would just give someone a free pass if they said “well, I didn’t believe that X was still a human being when I starved/euthanized/put a cap in his rear end”, I don’t think we’d last very long. Mr. Schiavo’s true intentions and so forth may never be known to us, and it is only for God to judge them anyway, but an objective wrong was done that undermines the already shaky integrity of how we treat the disabled. I still shake my head at how the disability-rights people got ignored by the media as they went after the beloved Christian-right angle.
“That was evident in the CT scans.”
Where was this evidence cited? I’m curious how those scans look, since differentiating soft tissues is not CT technology’s forte. I’d prefer to keep my eyes open for any autopsy results that are on the web as well…
“The gist I get from the autopsy results is that there was no longer a human person present in her body at all.”
The media have been jumping all over that interpretation, but still has to be reconciled with differing opinions of her behavior in the clinical setting. Recall, Funky, that story of a woman who was sharp as a tack in old age, yet had plaques rotting out much of her brain.
“BTW, I’m sure a competant medical examiner can tell the difference between the effects of dehydration and atrophy caused by trauma. I suspect it’s like the difference between a dry sponge being lighter and smaller than a wet one and kitchen sponge being smaller than one used to wash cars.”
Well, we’ll see. Again, your own little vignette makes me cautious. Perhaps she was brain-dead. Great. Her husband’s actions didn’t make a difference. But will the next patient be so “fortunate” if a caregiver does not provide the support he promised to give with insurance or lawsuit money? This case still reveals gaps in how we take care of the most defenseless members of our society.
The diagnoses of Terri’s condition were a mess, and we shouldn’t get stuck in that morass.
“Unlike Klingons, we don’t simply discard human bodies. It’s because Christians believe in the resurrection in the end times.”
“More Christian arrogance. How do you explain non-Christian cultures that don’t ‘simply discard human bodies’?”
-theomorph 06.17.05 – 2:31 pm
Wow, I really have to watch out what I write. When I wrote “we” I meant that Funky and myself who are Christian ‘don’t simply discard human bodies’ because “we” believe in the general resurrection.
In addition, I didn’t mean to imply that the reason most the rest of the world doesn’t (discard bodies) was because “we” set the norm.
I was pointing out that the person should not be seen as an “empty shell” and should be seen as a human person who is to receive food and water indefinitely.
Further, only further, as Christians, we should give the body respect as it shall, God willing, serve in the resurrection. (Hence, quite often, the emphasis in Christian burial.)
—
“You’re ignoring the fact that people can and do eat fertilized chicken eggs all the time, especially if they have chickens of their own whose eggs are fertilized by their rooster. Those people make a distinction between eating eggs and eating chicken, too.”
Well, it makes sense to distinguish between even fertilized eggs and matured chickens ‘cos you cook them differently. 🙂 Ever try making eggs benedict with a chicken breast? I haven’t, but I imagine it’d be messy. Likewise, egg cutlets don’t make much sense, and sound rather unappetizing.
Yes, a fertilized egg would be a chicken, and yes, some farms specifically sell eggs that have been taken with precautions to keep ’em from being fertilized as a vegetarian-friendly feature. For those of us who are not vegetarians, it doesn’t really matter!
‘In contrast to a case of say, Alzheimers, Terry Shiavo wasn’t dying of a chronic or untreatable infection–she wasn’t “dying” at all.’
Steve – I guess that’s the main point and you are absolutely right. My gut feeling in this specific case initially was that denying antibiotics would be on par with denying food and water, which I still totally disagree with. I guess I just wanted to point out that while medicine isn’t necessarily flashy and exciting like surgery, it is not without danger or burden.
(I stopped typing, pressed the “Publish” button, but kept thinking.)
I think putting the behavioral aspect above the biological aspect helps with the problem raised by Tom:
“[I]s a body also necessary for personhood? Is a disembodied soul not a person?“
If one is to believe in the existence of souls, and the idea that these things merely inhabit our bodies, or that our bodies are receivers of soul transmissions, or whatever, then the real value of a human life is not the body, but the soul. This gets dangerous, I know, when it becomes a blank check to destroy bodies, to shoot first and ask questions later, or to “kill them all and let God sort them out.” But that is why it’s important to keep that behavioral aspect, and maintain the right to individuality. If personhood is defined by one’s behaviors (e.g., if that body over there can pass my own instinctual “Turing Test”) instead of by one’s physical manifestation in space and time, then anyone who behaves like a human must be treated like one. (That’s still firmly in an extremely individualistic environment, though; the introduction of social life necessitates behavioral rules, enforcement structures, and punishments or deterrents, too.)
This also jibes well with the future potential for biotechnology that leads to the human habitation of non-biological bodies, and gives us a grounds upon which to avoid either biological or mechanical elitism. (I know I’m slipping into science fiction here, but I would rather have my ethics all ready to go in the event of a cyborg society, than to be caught off guard.)
1. The destruction of the brain tissue was clearly due to an hypoxic event in the past. Thus, it was not due to dehydration. They would look different on autopsy.
2. Dehydration would not have affected the mass of the brain significantly. The body protects certain organs. Death from dehyrdation would cause almost no change in brain mass.
3. Terri was not capable of communicating with her parents in any way.
Humans see communication, even when there is none present. Random output plus the warm body and a hope for their daughter made them see what wasn’t there. It’s easy to fall prey to this.
There were neurons in the cerebral portion of her brain. Individual, unconnected neurons. Mostly it was structural material, and even that had begun to fail.
4. If Terri, because her cells were alive, was considered alive, then so is Helen Lacks. The biologists among you probably know her as Helen Lane, although that was not her correct last name. She died of a tumor years ago, but a culture from the tumor still grows and propagates. Interestingly, it has also mutated – it’s no longer even human tissue, although there may be samples of tissue that might be genetically human somewhere. No one would consider Helen Lacks alive.
5. If brain death is not a form of death, then a) most transplants kill the brain dead donor b) the Catholic church may have two Popes. Are you sure no one cultured any of Pope John Paul II’s tissue?
“Generally, I still think our social problems with reproduction are better solved by forethought and prevention instead of treating reproduction like a disease to be cured. (But the usefulness of prevention does not obviate the need for a cure, either.) Some people, many people, are simply not ready (and too many of them will never be ready) to properly care for a child.”
What of adoption? Why should an innocent child die simply because he/she is the product of a ditz and a putz?
“Isn’t that contradictory, or at least arbitrary?”
Point conceded. For the time being, I’ll take Steve’s out.
“It is rather that, because it is a mystery when human beings become spiritual beings, we are obligated to behave as though the soul is present from conception until death.”
On the other hand, I don’t have any qualms associating conception with the begiining of human personhood. I just don’t know when personhood ends. This is not only a religious question, but a philosophical one. Personhood can be defined outside of reilgion.
So I can’t help but wonder. How do you define the beginning and end of personhood, Theomorph?
“Recall, Funky, that story of a woman who was sharp as a tack in old age, yet had plaques rotting out much of her brain.”
I suspect she had functioning cortex. Terri, as far as I know, did not. You can have holes lots of places and perhaps still function, but lose your cortex and you’re about as functional as a fish.
“The brain was smaller, but there was nothing saying that the cortex was gone in the reports I’ve seen.”
That was evident in the CT scans.
“Perhaps we should start a separate thread about determining brain death and so forth in the light of Catholic thought.”
I’ll hopefully get around to doing that tonight.
“Zygotes don’t have brains or even hearts, but they are to be defended. There is even a high likelihood that they will never be born, but they are to be defended in their sanctity. The same with those terminally ill: defend them until death and feed them.”
There is a key difference. The Church believes that the soul is joined to the physical body at conception. The smallest “unit” of physical humanity is a fertilized egg. The Church does not claim that the physical body be entirely reduced to constuent molecules (or even cells) in order for the soul to “leave”.
Are we mere humans able to make that determination?
Every day doctors, many of whom are Catholic, must decide when to declare people dead. The Church does not interfere with that duty (for the most part).
Even if there is “no human person” there, is the soul not still present?
I would find it rather odd if the Church held that the soul lingers when cognition is impossible.
Regardless of the results, the woman didn’t deserve to be starved to death.
Technically speaking, she died of dehydration, not starvation.
The Church believes that the soul is joined to the physical body at conception.
Source, Funky? AFAIK, there is no such claim, certainly none with authority, made by the Church. It is rather that, because it is a mystery when human beings become spiritual beings, we are obligated to behave as though the soul is present from conception until death. And I think it unlikely that the Church will teach that it is possible to count someone as “dead” when their only “medical” need is nourishment and hydration. Until there is an official pronouncement on the topic, is not the safer course of action to err on the side of life? Terry Shiavo passed the duck test: She appeared to be alive–far more so than the undifferentiated mass of cells of a humuan embryo. Ergo, without overwhelming evidence to the contrary, she should not have been treated as dead. And I am disappointed in you entertaining such modernist notions… [tsk, tsk]
Cheers!
What about the denial of proper therapy when she first collapsed?
I don’t think it’s clear whether or not early therapy would have helped her avoid some of her losses. Also, the alleged lag between collapse and 911 call has not been proven.
A few comments:
1. Her brain could not receive information from the eyes because necessary tissue was dead. I completely missed that possibility.
2. Could her brain have even received any sensory information at all? That may come up when the full data is released.
3. Her brain was less than half the weight of a normal human brain. Is that “normal” male or female? Did they estimate what her brain should have weighed had it been intact? How much of what remained was neural tissue and how much was structural?
4. Continuing on with 3, the coroner stated she was incapable of any thought. Given that we don’t know the “seat of consciousness” yet, is this a statement that the higher brain was completely devastated, or simply a statement that it was devastated? There’s a difference there, and it is crucial.
5.The statements by family and supporters were that Michael Schiavo abused her and that is why she was in this condition in the first place. They also stated that he abused her while she was in the nursing home. There is no sign of either type of abuse.
6. Abuse that would not show up on the autopsy is possible. But it’s incredibly unlikely that Michael Schiavo could have done it after becoming a nurse. It’s impossible that he could have done it before.
7. The purpose of accusing Michael Schiavo of abusing Mrs. Schiavo had nothing to do with whether he actually did it or not. Those accusing him of the abuse will have no trouble creating explanations for why the abuse did not show up on the autopsy. Expect to see the coroner villified. Expect to see the science contradicted and denounced.
For example, the coroner stated that the autopsy could not show that she was in a Persistent Vegetative State. PVS is a clinical diagnosis on a living human being. The autopsy was done on the dead Terri Schiavo. Watch for “The autopsy did not prove that she was in a PVS, and we believe she was in a vegitative state.”
Also, watch for “Neuoscience does not know everything” as an explanation for how she could follow the balloon when she was blind. I expect the whole “brain/mind/spirit” question to be raised as well. “Even though her brain was completely destroyed, that doesn’t mean she was not aware.”
No amount of science will ever change the minds of the parents and the die-hard supporters. It’s a question of faith, not science. Science would only be used if it had supported their position.
6. What caused her initial cardiac arrest? Cyril Wecht does not believe an eating disorder can be ruled out. There are other explanations, which are frightening. The healthier the human heart, the more dimensions and “hyper-volume” a plot of the heart activity will take in phase space. This means that there is a finite probability that a healthy human heart will stop beating for no logical reason.
7. What was the timeline from the time she passed out until EMS was called? If, as Terri’s “supporters” claim, there was such a gap between when she went down and when EMS was called and when EMS arrived, that she was resuscitated at all is astonishing. The timeline doesn’t make any sense. If the timeline is correct:
a) why wasn’t 911 called sooner?
b) why is this only being brought up now, instead of in the weeks following her cardiac arrest?
c) she could not have gone into arrest immediately – had she been in arrest for the entire time, she could not have been resuscitated.
I doubt the timeline listed by the supporters is correct. But then, what was the correct timeline, and how did the incorrect timeline come about?
Are we mere humans able to make that determination?
Autopsy online in PDF format:
Autopsy PDF
Reading through it, I realize that this is above even my training. I’m going to have to pull out my copy of Grey’s Anatomy and a medical dictionary to wade through the report, and even then there are implications that I may have missed. The summary by the neurologist, though, indicates that this was a devastating brain injury that left no chance for recovery.
An interesting fact that the report points out is that an MRI was contraindicated. They had implanted a neurological stimulator. The wire would have gotten very hot in an MRI, and could have caused further damage. I’m not clear as to whether the wire was anyplace where anything left alive could have been damaged.
Terri had a severe lung infection and bladder infection. I’m not sure if the lung infection was brought on by the removal of food and water. She’d apparently had repeated bladder infections.
I would think that withholding antibiotics would have resulted in her death from a bladder infection eventually. Of course, pneumonia could kill as well, and, if it wasn’t the result of the withholding of food and water, might have killed her even if the intent was to keep her alive.
My understanding is the Roman Catholic Church would have had no problem with the antibiotics being withheld in this case.
BTW, I’m sure a competant medical examiner can tell the difference between the effects of dehydration and atrophy caused by trauma. I suspect it’s like the difference between a dry sponge being lighter and smaller than a wet one and kitchen sponge being smaller than one used to wash cars.
BTW, pain is just another electro-chemical signal in the nervous system until it is abstracted by the cortex to have meaning. Fish feel pain, but only the most primative way. They have know way of conprehending “I am in pain. Something is hurting me. I don’t want to be in pain.” I’m just wondering out loud if Terri was in a similar situation.
Congratulations Funky, this thread has spawned more comments than any I’ve seen… AND in a very short time… AND with remarkably low levels of vituperation!
In short, I won’t apologize to Michael Shiavo because I never said anything bad about him. I disagree with what he did, although I know it happens every day… I could wish that there were laws to stop what he did, but there aren’t any… and I doubt there is any hope of ever getting such laws: Dems are too fond of the “right to die” and repubs are too fond of the “right to not spend my money on other people’s health care”. This is a perfect storm of interests against the hardcore prolife position, and is unlikely to change anytime soon.
So meanwhile, we play shuffleboard on the Titanic!
Devil’s advocate:
If he was confident in the belief that she was no longer really a living human, wouldn’t any supposed abuse or mistreatment in hospice be on par with desecration of a corpse? That’s not a nice or respectful thing to do, but it’s certainly not as bad as treating a functional human being like a corpse.
Donna, I just tried to find that out myself. It seems that the Church is leaving the definition of physical death to scientists, not theologians. I’m sure Rome would speak up if a definition of death contradicted with moral teachings. I’m fairly certain brain death suffices for organ donation, a practice the Church does not forbid.
Eating a chicken egg is not the same as eating chicken flesh because we do not eat fertilized eggs. The eggs found in supermarkets are unfertilized ova.
Even if there is “no human person” there, is the soul not still present?
I also have to wonder about the size of her brain. Indeed (I assume), in 15 years time, the brain would likely atrophy (I don’t know about that being related to dehydration as someone else suggested). However, had she been given proper therapy soon after her collapse, could the decrease in brain matter have been slowed, prevented whatever??
Regardless of the results, the woman didn’t deserve to be starved to death.
Funky, if this is a joke, it is not very funny… The CCC says:
2277 Whatever its motives and means, direct euthanasia consists in putting an end to the lives of handicapped, sick, or dying persons. It is morally unacceptable.
Thus an act or omission which, of itself or by intention, causes death in order to eliminate suffering constitutes a murder gravely contrary to the dignity of the human person and to the respect due to the living God, his Creator. The error of judgment into which one can fall in good faith does not change the nature of this murderous act, which must always be forbidden and excluded.
2278 Discontinuing medical procedures that are burdensome, dangerous, extraordinary, or disproportionate to the expected outcome can be legitimate; it is the refusal of “over-zealous” treatment. Here one does not will to cause death; one’s inability to impede it is merely accepted. The decisions should be made by the patient if he is competent and able or, if not, by those legally entitled to act for the patient, whose reasonable will and legitimate interests must always be respected.
2279 Even if death is thought imminent, the ordinary care owed to a sick person cannot be legitimately interrupted. The use of painkillers to alleviate the sufferings of the dying, even at the risk of shortening their days, can be morally in conformity with human dignity if death is not willed as either an end or a means, but only foreseen and tolerated as inevitable Palliative care is a special form of disinterested charity. As such it should be encouraged.
Unless you are willing to show that food and water were somehow “burdensome, dangerous, extraordinary, or disproportionate to the expected outcome”, then Terry Shiavo’s level of mental (or visual) function, since she was obviously not “brain dead,” was never at issue.
My $0.02
Furthermore, was she still truly a woman? Was she still a person?
gbm,
You wrote: “Also, when ‘zygote’ was written, I meant the human person at conception. It was technically incorrect.” What’s incorrect? A zygote is a fertilized egg, and thus a human being.
Theo, your concerns are quite valid, and is why the Church is still mulling aspects of the issue of brain death. I think that in the event of massive cognitive loss, that a family may elect not to undergo “heroic” measures the save the person’s life. This ability to turn down treatment is longstanding in moral theology.
This is also the crux of why the Church opposed withdrawing food and water for Terri, in that food and water is an ordinary condition for any human life, and it was not hurting her. (If her GI tract was ruined, that could be another matter.)
Has the Magisterium set forward a position on “brain death”? I’ve seen theologians saying it counts as dead, and others saying that it does not.
Hey Steve – I don’t know you but I like the way you think. 🙂
I would also like to respond to the antibiotics question, since that’s kind of my thing. Unfortunately, I think you could argue either way. Considering how long she had been hospitalized, the bugs she had were most likely pretty resistant, and if that’s the case, you’d have to hit her with some pretty broad spectrum drugs (meaning they kill lots of different things). In many cases, the broader the spectrum, the more complications, like secondary fungal infections, especially if an extended duration is expected (which is the case in many long-term hospital patients with really resistant bugs). Also, depending on the severity of infection and whether or not appropriate therapy can be given via feeding tube, you run into the risk of secondary IV line infections. Not to mention associated adverse reactions including but not limited to kidney impairment, reduced levels of various blood cells, QTC prolongation which can lead to heart arrhythmias, etc. All of which would necessitate further treatment to return to status quo. While not extraordinary, use of antibiotics may, because of the above reasons, be considered burdensome. It would be a question to be considered on an individual basis, I think.
I also offer no apology, and I feel very uneasy trying to decide now that she is “all” dead (to quote the Princess Bride) whether or not her soul was present when she was determined to be “mostly” dead. I do not pretend to have any expertise in this area, but for my part, I would like to dissociate this case from those of organ donations.
I have seen a few orders for Gift of Life patients (i.e. organ donors), and every order that I have ever seen has included some sort of pressor as well as insulin and levothyroxine (a synthetic thyroid hormone), not to mention some antibiotics. These patients need these medications in addition to mechanical ventilation to keep their vital organs going long enough to harvest whatever organs will be donated. Such is my understanding of “brain dead” as I have encountered it in my practice – the entire brain is dead and the “empty shell” is maintained completely by external means. Such also is my understanding of death as “imminent” – as in, if we don’t act very quickly in administering the appropriate meds and life support the body will die within hours and the organs therein will be useless.
Just wanted to give my background for the opinion I hold about Terri – I don’t find her death to be imminent since she managed to survive without nutrition and hydration for almost 2 weeks. So if she was, as you say, on par with a fish, I equate removing her feeding tube with flushing the goldfish down the toilet. Regardless of where you place her humanity, I don’t feel it was the most responsible nor respectable thing to do.
As far as equating her brain cells to tumor cells, I don’t necessarily agree with that either. Please correct me if I’m wrong, but I understand a tumor cell to be an already mutated cell that is no longer human, and as such interferes with the normal operation of the appropriate cells around it. I would not argue that a preserved tumor is human, only that it is a preserved tumor. In Terri’s case, the cells that were functioning were her normal and appropriate cells, communicating with all the other normal and appropriate cells in her body that were responsible for sustaining autonomic function. It’s just not a fair comparison.
I’m not saying I’m 100% certain that her soul and body were still united, but I would rather err on the side of caution.
I could be wrong about that…just thought I remembered something along those lines from Developmental Psych…perhaps Jerry knows…
I had written a very long, highly organized reply. Then, due to an annoying idiosyncrasy of the user interface*, all was lost. Since I am not in the mood to rewrite the whole thing now, here is the quote to which I was responding, and the question that launched my response:
“Theo, your concerns are quite valid, and is why the Church is still mulling aspects of the issue of brain death.“
But why should this concern (defining brain death according to cognition on the one hand while attributing a soul to a fertilized egg incapable of cognition on the other hand) lead the church only to mull “aspects of the issue of brain death” and not aspects of the corresponding issue at the other end of development?
*Why do the keystrokes for “select all” (cmd-A) have to be so similar to the keystrokes for “quit” (cmd-Q)?
I still want to know what constitutes a “member” of a species, and why. As far as I’m concerned, nothing is a “member” of my species until it’s behaving like a member of my species, and it can’t do that if it can’t behave yet. I.e., a fertilized egg is not a member of my species.
I thought it wasn’t until after birth that a child becomes self aware….
I was considering the following statement since yesterday. Sorry it seems out of place…
“What died of dehydration was an empty shell.” -Funky
I’m sorry, I had to laugh when I read this sentence. Should we also look into their eyes, growl, and roar into the sky when death occurs? Sorry about the dark humor, but I couldn’t resist pushing the reference.
Unlike Klingons, we don’t simply discard human bodies. It’s because Christians believe in the resurrection in the end times.
“I submit that Terri Schiavo was dead in the sense that her body no longer supported cognitive functions.”
Sure. By the colloquialism she was a vegetable. However, I agree with the former pope JP2 (RIP) that we should still feed them until they go flat lined (see my above URL reference above).
When do I define natural end? I don’t really know. I did think of a possible solution: maybe when a person’s cells cease respiration. I think a belief of some Jewish thinkers was that when the “breath” left a person, which they equated with spirit, the person was no longer living (this is also a justification for abortion with some). However, is a choking person dead? This lead me to think, not in exactly the same line, but of the cessation of the body’s cells respiration. Perhaps this is when we can define natural conclusion.
In fact some come “back from death” even after they stop breathing for a time. However, if the cells no longer function because they run out of oxygen, they’re dead (including the entire body).
I know the above may oversimplify it, but otherwise we would have to get into the metaphysical (soul talk and such). Just to say, I believe the “soul” leaves a person when they come to natural conclusion roughly as defined above. Quality of life or beliefs of other people are irrelevant insomuch as they are used to justify staving and/or thirsting someone to death.
Cognition has nothing to do with their humanness: I would go so far as saying the simple arranging of DNA to form a person is enough. Yes, all life on Earth has the same 4 building blocks, but society at least has to defend ours. (This is why I can’t understand Vegans who accept abortion.)
—
I wonder when an unborn child first becomes self aware (on average).
I’ll concede that point. Her parents were indeed willing to pay for her care. Michael’s refusal to allow that suggests that perhaps he was motivated by greed rather than respect for Terri’s wishes. Regardless, if Terri was actually long gone and if that fact was demonstrable, Michael was not murdering a person when he ordered her tubes removed. His actions may still have been callous, but that may not have been murderous.