Which Just Goes To Show That Some People Will Never Be Satisfied, No Matter What
I'm sure most of us remember that during the hideously polarizing debate over the tragic case of Terri Schiavo, there were a lot of accusations made against the husband. How he was the cause of her condition. How he didn't want an autopsy because it would prove how he had abused her. How if we just had an autopsy, the truth would be known. Etc., etc., and so forth.
The autopsy results were released.
The autopsy, for instance, showed that physical abuse or poison did not play a role in her collapse, he said. Ms. Schiavo's parents, Bob and Mary Schindler, had accused their daughter's husband, Michael Schiavo, of abusing her, which he has steadfastly denied. Dr. Thogmartin also said there was no evidence she had had an eating disorder before she collapsed, although a disorder was widely suspected because she had diminished levels of potassium in her blood.
Well, there you have it. The autopsy results show that her condition was not caused by abuse or poison. We have the truth, right?
Sadly, not according to some people. You can find the links yourself, as I have no desire to link to the hysteria. They are posted on numerous other blogs, and I'm fairly certain that a good Google tomorrow will bring them up too.
There are several things the autopsy does not do. It does not solve the underlying moral debate regarding when medical assistance can be refused or when family members can make such decisions in the absence of a living will. It does not indicate why she collapsed in the first place. It only indicates what did not cause her collapse - abuse, poison, or bulimia. Isn't that at least sufficient to stop vilifying Michael Schiavo as an abuser, if nothing else?
Comments
The autopsy report found neither definitive evidence of an eating disorder (it says in the report that the low potassium could be attributed to the many drugs she was given in the immediate aftermath of the heart attack and before the toxicology tests were administered) nor of abuse. In fact the medical examiner did anything but rule out abuse, going so far as to list a number of potential causes of death (including non-tramamtic asphxiation) for which there would likely be no evidence.
I would not exactly call that an exoneration. What would go much further in exonerating Michael is a simple old-fashioned polygraph. I'm not suggesting not taking one is an indication of guilt. It's not. But I think you're being unreasonable to expect suspicion ought to be dispelled by an inconclusive autopsy after everything that has gone on in this case.
The autopsy does seem to establish she had pretty much no hope of recovery. I don't know that that necessarily proves anyone right or wrong from a moral perspective. Maybe those who used it strictly as a political football. To your credit you were not one of them. I do not believe I was either.
And yes I know you don't like me. Get in line. I won't be making a habit of opining, but this post cried out for clarification.
Posted by: Jim | June 16, 2005 08:56 PM
I meant to say causes of the heart attack, which for all intents and purposes took her life away. Obviously dehydration was the cause of her final passing.
Posted by: Jim | June 16, 2005 09:01 PM
Actually to clarify once more, the cause of the PVS was oxygen interruption to the brain I believe, not a heart attack. I guess a heart attack can do that, but I don't think it was the conclusion of either the medical examiner or the doctors who treated Terri. I'm not going to go back and read the report again, I've had enough.
Posted by: Jim | June 16, 2005 09:05 PM