Wednesday, June 15, 2005

The Results Are In On The TS Autopsy

Here is the story from Fox News and from CNN. Whatever your preference, it says the same things. Her brain was half normal size. When it comes to body organs, that is not a good number. It typically does not mean half-functioning. It typically means little or no functioning.

An autopsy on Terri Schiavo backed her husband's contention that she was in a persistent vegetative state, finding that she had massive and irreversible brain damage and was blind, the medical examiner's office said Wednesday. It also found no evidence that she was strangled or otherwise abused.

"The brain weighed 615 grams, roughly half of the expected weight of a human brain," he said. "This damage was irreversible, and no amount of therapy or treatment would have regenerated the massive loss of neurons."

So are all of those people that said she was "alive somewhere in there and just needed a little TLC", or that she could feel pain but not express it, and so much other such unsupported nonsense thrown out there mostly by conservatives, need to right now own up, and admit that shockingly enough, doctors know more about medicine than you do.

Now that we've gotten that unpleasantness out of the way... Let's hope that issues like this one, along with stem cell research, will show voters that there are many issues where it is clearly the Republican leadership that are out of the mainstream.

On an unrelated note, if you ever wanted to find out what life is like as a hostage in Iraq, here's a story on it. You can probably guess that the experience is not much fun.

21 comments:

Hector Vex said...

Hey, she had the brain size & function of a liberal during an election year! Hahahahaha!

Oh, I slay me.

Two Dogs said...

I think that it was twice the size of that, Hector, in the off-election years, three times on the election cycle years.

And yea, you do be funny.

Hector Vex said...

If I could, I'd break out the cardboard and do a special 'I bring da funny' breakdance. But I can't so I won't.

Erik Grow said...

You wacky Republicans! Hehheh.

Imara said...

Speaking of you wacky Republicans (I know this is off topic- sorry Erik)- what's up with the stipper/pron star at the fundraiser last night? I thought y'all were the 'moral majority'?

Back on topic... I wonder if there will be heat for the republicans based on the autopsy? Over 70% of the country was against the government getting involved. This report sorta proves them right.

Devo said...

I doubt there will be any heat. Those guys are protected by a NASA heat shield. Like Billy C. when he was gettin' hummers in the Oval Office, only instead of blowjobs and cigars, THIS leadership is playing around with life and death issues like euthanasia and WAR.

I think my favorite part about this whole thing is that Jeb, Tom Delay and Ol' Fristypoo were busy "giving false hope" to Terry's poor, grieving parents at the very same time that they were DAMNING those who would "give false hope" to Nancy Reagan and the Reeves family by supporting federal funding for stem cell research.

Ahhhh, I love the smell of hypocrisy in the morning!

What? That's not hypocritical? OK, lets get it straight once and for all. What kind of false hope is OK to give to the terminally ill and their families? Please, clear this one up in language that a foolish, anemic-brained liberal can understand.

Two Dogs said...

Response to Imara: Republicans operate the party of inclusion. Not unlike Jesus taking his message to the people that needed it. Pr0n stars, yea, we want them in our Party. Give us your tired, your huddled masses, heh, I just made that up. I think that maybe I should make a plaque or something.

Devo, try to do a little research on the embryonic stem cell stuff before you state something and sound like you have no idea what you are talking about. Which obviously you don't.

Devo said...

Oh Two Dogs, we've already HAD that conversation. I was merely tossing out a bone (heh, I'm clever).

Now, back to my question. What kind of "false hope" is it OK to give to the terminally ill and their families?

Erik Grow said...

It's the new "faith-based science", haven't you heard Devo? Anything that deviates from what the Bush Administration "already knows" about the world is edited out, ignored, or counter-studies are found to latch onto, even if they contradict most other research.

Two Dogs said...

Oh, yea, I'm guessing that John Edwards blaming Bush for Christopher Reeve being in the wheelchair was something that didn't contradict research?

Let's just get this out of the way, everything bad that has ever happened is Bush's fault. Cancer, Bush. AIDS, Bush. Spinal cord injury, yep Bush again. Now can y'all come up with one solution to any problem that you see in this country?

For every silly statement, I can come back with a specific incident of the Left doing exactly what y'all blame Bush for doing without specificity.

Imara said...

Well, let's see Two Dogs...

Social Security: Don't make the tax cuts permanent. Or if you don't like that one, raise the cap. Both will solve the solvency problem.

No Child Left Behind: Make sure it's fully funded and the teachers and the schools have the resources that they need to properly impliment it.

Stem Cell Research: Stop listening to the religious freaks and do the research! In the meantime, pray one of them needs the benefits that this research can bring, and watch how fast they change their opinion.

The War: We're there, we need to ensure that the re-building is a success. Let the Iraqi citizens decide what their government is going to look like, and control their own natural resources. Yes, everyone wants to be free. Not everyone wants "American Freedom". There is a difference. In the meantime, take a serious look at our foreign policy. One day, we're not going to be the big kid on the block and we might regret the way we're treating our neighbors.

Devo said...

Hmm, Imara, THAT sounded like a load of... actual viable alternatives to the ridiculous policies being passed on a daily basis in DC! I can't believe it!

Seriously, though, I don't blame Bush for anything "wrong" with this country any more than I blame Bucky the Dummy for anything that's ACTUALLY coming out of the ventriloquist's mouth. The President is merely a mouthpiece (and an embarassingly inept one at that) used to promulgate a more general agenda. Unfortunately, it seems that a crew of sketchy, greedy, arrogant bastards has gotten control of Bucky the Dummy's vocal cords of late. Perhaps he shoulda stayed on the sauce. Maybe then he'd merely be the owner of the Texas Rangers, just like he always wanted! Rather than this taxing and confusing business of running the world...

nicnerd said...

Please set me straight. The woman had brain damage, I will even say irreversible because it makes the liberals smile for some odd reason. So it is ethical to starve people to death if they have irreversible brain damage? Is that where we are today?

For the record Clinton's "legacy" is not so much about hummers and cigars. It is about lying while sworn under oath. It is about, "I did not have relations with that woman, Ms. Lewinsky". I recall a Republican who had a TRUTH issue and could not come clean. Mr. Nixon resigned sparing us the impeachment process. Aside from the fact that the President should lead by example, perjury is a crime, adultery is a crime, for that matter sodomy was a crime in DC at that time.

So you gloat that Ms. Schiavo had half a brain, somehow that justifies the horror of murdering her? May you find your peace, someday.

Erik Grow said...

Hey if the courts see it as ethical, it's because there is no law. You told me yourself it's your party that keeps killing those right-to-die laws when they come up for discussion. No it doesn't look good when someone starves, but then again if she feels nothing it makes no difference how she dies. The aesthetics is all that matters, gruesome as that sounds, I KNOW...

Two Dogs said...

Woo, there was a shit storm will I was gone. Imara, the tax cuts have nothing to do at all with Social Security. I have no idea what that statement means. Are Democrats for raises taxes to grow the SS budget? Yea, that's a great idea. Net loss: five seats.

Federal School Policy: Get the fed outta the school business. Democrats want further intrusion? Net loss: probably 10 seats.

Embryonic stem cell research: This is the true third rail. Dems want to federally fund research on unborn children? Net loss: 30 seats.

The War: Democrats want to continue to talk about it? Bad idea, most Americans want our boys to kick the mortal shit outta anyone that shoots at them. Dems want to concentrate on getting out before the getting is good? Net loss: I'm guessing that you will never have another Democrat president.

Erik Grow said...

How many different ways Two Dogs do I have to prove that you are in the minority opinion on stem cell research? The Republican House just passed a bill by a large margin in favor of it. Every poll I have ever seen has come out in favor of it. Many prominent Republicans have supported it. Stem cell research will cost Republicans seats, not Democrats. I am very certain on that.

Two Dogs said...

Erik, I firmly believe that most Americans want our government to do less, not more. You may prove to be right on this, but somehow I don't think so.

And if you have a bill number, I would appreciate not having to look for it.

Erik Grow said...

No I do not unfortunately. Nicnerd may have it.

Two Dogs said...

Got it. HR 810. Four different versions are here. http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:h.r.810:

I can't see anything wrong with this. It is only dealing with embryos that are not ever going to be used at fertility clinics. And no monetary compensation shall be given. Is it the beginning of the slippery slope, probably. But in itself, this bill doesn't throw up any red flags with me.

Erik Grow said...

Excellent! Something we can agree on! Thanks for looking it up. Two Dogs, don't ever let me say again that you are always against a little pragmatism when the situation warrants. *;-)

Two Dogs said...

Erik, I am the most open-minded person that you have ever debated. And I just can't find anything wrong with this, so what? I'm already going to Hell.