Revisting an old national tragedy
Jun. 15th, 2005 10:33 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
elfsIt should not be regarded as a coincidence that the New York Review of Books publishes a long and somewhat accusatory article about Theresa Schiavo on the same day as the release of her autopsy. Joan Didion, usually regarded as one of the most thoughtful of essayists alive, raises a number of points that show a remarkable amount of bias.
She asserts that Dr. William Cheshire wanted to perform a more extensive examination but Michael interfered, and he assessed that she may not be in a "persistent vegitative state" because, he asserted, Ms. Schiavo held his gaze.
The autopsy indicates that Theresa Schiavo was blind, her vision completely disconnected from her brain. All of the assertions that her eyes tracked people and moving objects or held a gaze-- were all either wishful thinking, or they were lies.
Ms. Didion raises the old question of whether or not Michael assaulted Theresa. She quotes an interview with a physician, Dr. Campbell Walker, who asserts that X-rays indicate trauma to some of Theresa's bones.
The autopsy indicates that Theresa Schiavo's skeleton indicated not one of the traumas Dr. Walker described were evident.
Ms. Didion asserts that there was never any medical diagnosis that Theresa Schiavo was bulimic, and therefore there was no evidence to indicate that she was mistreating her body so badly she might suffer a cardiac incident.
While this is true on the face of it, she ignores the following malpractice case which Michael Schiavo won, on Theresa's behalf, based on her physician's failure to diagnose an eating disorder that led to her current condition. There was never any such diagnosis because her physician was incompetent, and the courts found that a competent physician would have diagnosed an eating disorder. The funds from that malpractice win were what bought Theresa the degree of care she received.
I think the timing of the article is meant to distract us from those medical facts. Didion wants us to debate whether or not Theresa's life was worth living, not the specific prognosis in Theresa's case. But the medical facts are inescapable: Theresa was not living. She was no more "a human being" than a heart in transport from accident victim to transplant recipient qualifies as "a human being." (Imagine the moral and legal nightmare were we to regard it as such.) Theresa was dead. She had been dead for a long time. The warm meat left on the gurney was only a painful reminder of a life lost.
She asserts that Dr. William Cheshire wanted to perform a more extensive examination but Michael interfered, and he assessed that she may not be in a "persistent vegitative state" because, he asserted, Ms. Schiavo held his gaze.
The autopsy indicates that Theresa Schiavo was blind, her vision completely disconnected from her brain. All of the assertions that her eyes tracked people and moving objects or held a gaze-- were all either wishful thinking, or they were lies.
Ms. Didion raises the old question of whether or not Michael assaulted Theresa. She quotes an interview with a physician, Dr. Campbell Walker, who asserts that X-rays indicate trauma to some of Theresa's bones.
The autopsy indicates that Theresa Schiavo's skeleton indicated not one of the traumas Dr. Walker described were evident.
Ms. Didion asserts that there was never any medical diagnosis that Theresa Schiavo was bulimic, and therefore there was no evidence to indicate that she was mistreating her body so badly she might suffer a cardiac incident.
While this is true on the face of it, she ignores the following malpractice case which Michael Schiavo won, on Theresa's behalf, based on her physician's failure to diagnose an eating disorder that led to her current condition. There was never any such diagnosis because her physician was incompetent, and the courts found that a competent physician would have diagnosed an eating disorder. The funds from that malpractice win were what bought Theresa the degree of care she received.
I think the timing of the article is meant to distract us from those medical facts. Didion wants us to debate whether or not Theresa's life was worth living, not the specific prognosis in Theresa's case. But the medical facts are inescapable: Theresa was not living. She was no more "a human being" than a heart in transport from accident victim to transplant recipient qualifies as "a human being." (Imagine the moral and legal nightmare were we to regard it as such.) Theresa was dead. She had been dead for a long time. The warm meat left on the gurney was only a painful reminder of a life lost.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2005-06-15 05:40 pm (UTC)I was extremely satisfied that the autopsy confirmed what the doctors and courts had already decided - Schiavo was not alive in the sense of a human being.
Unfortunately, in this day and age, facts are often outweighed by the agenda and shrillness of those who are not in agreement of the facts.
no subject
Date: 2005-06-16 12:23 am (UTC)This in itself is misleading. There are many types of blindness, some where people do hold gazes whilst still not being able to see anything. Just worth thinking about. I guess it depends on what you mean by disconnected from the brain, as there are number of ways that can happen too.
no subject
Date: 2005-06-16 02:32 am (UTC)