No, but regardless of what people think of Michael Schiavo, the autopsy report does verify that the impairments were there and a) even if her parents had been sucessfully able to administer food and water to her by mouth, she would not have been able to swallow, and b) absolutely no amount of therapy would have improved her condition, as was asserted by her parents.

I am saddened that this is in the news again, quite frankly.

Interestingly, though, from what I understand, there is no evidence of a heart attack or of an eating disorder, as was previously thought to be the cause of her brain damage. So I do woinder what caused it....but not that much, really. It was a sad, sad, chapter in the news cycle an of the people close to the situation on every side, and i wish it would just stop.

It is interesting how there doesn't appear to be any mention as to whether or not she could feel pain- I've only read that she had half her brain mass. If her brain stem truly was decimated, why didn't they clarify that? Anyone's brain will atrophy after so many years of non- stimulation. Also, is Micheal going to pay back the doc he won all that money from for not diagnosing a non-existant ailment? THere are quite a few Alzheimer's patients that fit the above description- perhaps we should just stop feeding them as well? By the time they pass, they have almost no brain function, yet no one seems to be rushing out to off the old folks.

I don't think anyone's suggesting a great movement to just "off" anyone -- old folks or otherwise. However, if the individual in question has left no living will and is completely dependent on mechanical support, I do support the right of their legally designated guardian to make decisions on whether or not to continue care. If you don't write down your wishes in a legally recognized way, someone else will be appointed to speak for you.

Not "off" in my definition, but many next of kin of those old folks will state "no extrordinary measures." My paternal grandmother had Alzheimer's before she died, and yes, my family considered a feeding tube to be extrodinary measures. Did we "off" her? Not in my book. You're entitled to your opinion, though.

That's fine, Mickey, but what about hydration? Listen, I have left a living will specifying what I want done. She did not. All we had was the word of a man who had a vested interest in her expiring. It's ironic that she was alive enough to prevent him from remarrying, but not not enough to prevent her legally sanctioned death. I'm still waiting to hear whether or not she was considered to be enough of a person to feel pain. Not a lot has been said on that as yet, post mortem, so I'll wait and see what the experts have to say about that, based on her autopsy results.

Sorry but that is incorrect. Michael Sheivo was in no way the only person who testified that these were her wishes in court. There were at least 3 or 4 others.

I also don't understand what is so hard to understand concerning him staying married to her. For all intensive purposes, she was gone and never going to come back. Still, he had the duty to see that her wishes were respected. If he had divorced her, that power would have gone to her parents. They stated that they would keep her alive even if it meant the amputation of all of her limbs. What other option did he have if he wanted to make sure that his wifes wishes were carried out? I think he had every right to try to make a new life for himself and yet, rather than take the easy way out, he stayed married and thus retained the ability to carry out her wishes. I really don't see what else he was supposed to do.

I'm still stunned that WB and I actually are pretty much in agreement on this.

Frankly I have taken the lesson of putting your wishes in writing and I just wish it would all stop now.....

*sigh*

I agree.

Well said.