"What If This Was Our Daughter or Sister or Wife?"

Fr. Rob blogs, Feb. 26, a most revealing conversation with a "well-respected neurologist" concerning Terri's case:

.... In the course of our conversation, he made reference to the standard use of MRI and PET scans to diagnose the extent of brain injuries. He seemed to assume that these had been done for Terri. I stopped him and told him that these tests have never been done for her; that Michael had refused these tests.

There was a moment of dead silence.

"How can he continue as guardian?", the neurologist said in a tone of utter incredulity. "He refused a non-invasive test? How can they be debating a life and death decision without these tests?"

He explained to me that the use of the MRI and PET scans are considered standard for diagnosing brain injuries. He told me that he wouldn't dream of making a diagnosis in a case like Terri's without those tests. I told him that CT scans had been done, and were the basis for the finding of PVS.

The doctor snorted, and said, "A head CT is useful in cases of trauma, in an emergency room situation, but it only gives you a tenth of the information an MRI does." He said, "people trying to do the right thing want the best and most complete information available. We don't have that in Terri's case."

He said, "I can't believe intelligent people are debating this woman's life without these tests." ....

Also, Donald B. Hawthorne over at Anchor Rising has two monumental blogs, last week, on Terri's fight:

• What If This Was Our Daughter or Sister or Wife? What If It Was "Only" A Stranger's Life?
• What If This Was Our Daughter or Sister or Wife? What If It Was "Only" A Stranger's Life? Part II

P.S. Steven Riddle blogs, yesterday, his message to Judge Greer:

Dear Judge Greer,

Sometimes I think in the routine of day-to-day operation we forget some of the profound truths that influence and shape our lives. You are in the privileged position of having led a life dedicated to the legal system of our great country and now you are faced with a terrible decision. Logic dictates that if no written record exists and two parties disagree on an issue the better solution to the entire problem lies in a decision that is not irrevocable.

More, it seems that a legal system is erected first and foremost as a bulwark against the depredations of the strong against the weak. The first rule of law is to be the defense of the defenseless against those who would unjustly use them. This necessitates your intervention in the case of Ms. Schiavo. She has people willing to care for her. She responds to voices and is obviously engaged. It would be a disaster of the first order for our legal system to determine that it would be allowable for someone to say she cannot be fed. That way opens the door to horrors we dare not contemplate. A new-born child cannot feed him or herself, would it be all right to withhold food on the basis that they cannot care for themselves or they are not aware of the world around them in the same way we are?

I know that the law is not necessarily compassionate. But those who administer the law must be. The greater error here would be to take away what cannot be restored. Please do not let Florida once again be the leader in the paths of infamy. Please allow Ms. Schiavo's mother and father to take her home and care for her. Please don't sentence her to a slow, agonizing death by starvation.

Please remember that the law was made to serve us, not we to serve the law — it is not implacable, remorseless, nor immovable and it is time to decide in favor of life, compassion, and hope.

Lane Core Jr. CIW P — Mon. 02/28/05 07:18:47 AM
Categorized as Terri Schindler Schiavo.