Was Terri "Aware"?

[Jolee]

This is so heartbreaking. Please keep the Schindler family in your prayers.


June 19, 2005
9:15 p.m. Eastern


© 2005 WorldNetDaily.com

Refuting the findings of the county medical examiner, a neurosurgeon who examined Terri Schiavo before her death says the autopsy report confirms she was aware of what was going on around her.

Dr. William Hammesfahr, nominated for a Nobel Prize for his work in medicine and known as a pioneer in approaches to helping the brain injured, said to ignore the facts would "allow future Terri Schiavos to die needlessly."

"The record must be set straight," he said. "As we noted in the press, there was no heart attack, or evident reason for this to have happened (and certainly not of Terri's making). Unlike the constant drumbeat from the husband, his attorneys, and his doctors, the brain tissue was not dissolved, with a head of just spinal fluid. In fact, large areas were 'relatively preserved.'"

He said the autopsy results confirmed his opinion that the frontal areas of the brains, the areas that deal with awareness and cognition were relatively intact.

"In fact, the relay areas from the frontal and front temporal regions of the brain, to the spinal cord and the brain stem, by way of the basal ganglia, were preserved, thus the evident responses which she was able to express to her family and to the clinicians seeing her or viewing her videotape," he said. "The Spect scan confirmed these areas were functional and not scar tissue, and that was apparently also confirmed on Dr. (Stephen) Nelson's review of the slides."

Dr. Hammesfahr describes Terri as "a woman trapped in her body, similar to a child with cerebral palsy, and that was born out by the autopsy, showing greater injury in the motor and visual centers of the brain. Obviously, the pathologists comments that she could not see were not borne out by reality, and thus his assessment must represent sampling error. The videotapes clearly showed her seeing."

He was critical of the findings that she was not capable of swallowing on her own. He cited her ability to swallow up to about 1.5 liters per day of liquid, confirmed, he said, by two other physicians.

"With respect to the issue of trauma, that certainly does not appear to be answered adequately," he added. "Some of the types of trauma that are suspected were not adequately evaluated in this assessment. Interestingly, both myself and at least one neurologist for the husband testified to the presence of neck injuries."

Hammesfahr concluded: "Ultimately, based on the clinical evidence and the autopsy results, an aware woman was killed."

His statements concur with others who have conducted analyses of the autopsy results. Last week, an attorney specializing in medical ethics cases, Jerri Lynn Ward of Austin, Texas, made similar observations. She particularly took note of this autopsy finding: "The frontal temporal and temporal poles and insular-cortex demonstrated relative preservation."

"What this tells us is that her cortex retained function and that her brain was more normal in the area that controls higher-level thinking," said Ward, who has weighed in on the case in her weblog and in an interview with "Joseph Farah's WorldNetDaily RadioActive" show.

Schiavo died March 31, nearly two weeks after the feeding tube that had kept her alive was removed under a court order obtained by her husband, Michael Schiavo. Her parents, Bob and Mary Schindler, said they were willing to care for their daughter, insisting she had a strong will to live.

Experts supporting Michael Schiavo – contending Terri Schiavo's brain cortex essentially was missing and filled with fluid – concluded she was in a persistent vegetative state. The Schindlers, arguing that their daughter recognized and responded to family members, produced neurologists who diagnosed her as "minimally conscious."

Pinellas-Pasco medical examiner Jon Thogmartin, speaking at a news conference Wednesday, said the damage to Terri Schiavo's brain was "irreversible, and no amount of therapy or treatment would have regenerated the massive loss of neurons."

But Ward, pointing to the autopsy report, noted the brain's frontal lobe plays a part in impulse control, judgment, language, memory, motor function, problem solving, sexual behavior, socialization and spontaneity.

"It is very possible that she remained cognizant of sounds and other things without being able to communicate," Ward said. "It's possible Terri was aware of everything being done to her – yet could do little to make people aware that she was there."

Ward pointed out that major damage to Schiavo's brain was shown to be toward the back – the areas that affect motor skills.

So the question remains, says Ward, was Terri Schiavo still a thinking, aware human being?

In fact, neuropathologist Nelson, whose assessment is included in the report, conceded there is no way of determining through an autopsy whether a person was in a persistent vegetative state.



Read this article at World Net Daily.

[LogicChristian]

It's so great to hear these educated medical diagnoses from folks that were never within 20 feet of Schiavo.

WND just needed a story that was contrary to the autopsy reports every major news distributor had already posted.

[MercyMe]

All though it doesn't matter because it is completely wrong to murder someone for the sake of convienence, I think it is dangerous to dismiss someone who was "nominated for a Nobel Prize for his work in medicine and known as a pioneer in approaches to helping the brain injured".

[LogicChristian]

I think it is dangerous to dismiss someone who was "nominated for a Nobel Prize for his work in medicine and known as a pioneer in approaches to helping the brain injured".

I think it's pretty easy when he throws out a diagnosis without ever seeing a patient in person.

[cinlynn]

Refuting the findings of the county medical examiner, a neurosurgeon who examined Terri Schiavo before her death says the autopsy report confirms she was aware of what was going on around her.

Sometimes...(or maybe...ALWAYS!) it's a real good idea to actually READ an article.. before dismissing what it says. ;):

It's the first paragraph. :rolleyes

[GodwithUS]

I have worked with handicapped people in the past, a few had received severe brain injuries. You would be surprised on how the brain can take such trauma and the individual can function fairly well.

[My Abba's Child]

What REALLY gets me is that all these doctors who reported the damage to her neck, but no investigation was done in how she got that damage. The article states that the doctors said there was no heart attack and that she had injuries not consistent with a collapse.

I know my opinion means nothing, but I tend toward thinking that she was attacked. It's just another warning cry to any woman out there who is living in an abusive situation because she thinks it's going to change.... GET OUT NOW! And for goodness sake, PLEASE file a legal living will!

In His love,

[springfield]

I read it, it's ludicrous. He's dismissing an autopsy finding based on what he thinks he saw in a videotape of her?
Dr. Hammesfahr describes Terri as "a woman trapped in her body, similar to a child with cerebral palsy, and that was born out by the autopsy, showing greater injury in the motor and visual centers of the brain. Obviously, the pathologists comments that she could not see were not borne out by reality, and thus his assessment must represent sampling error. The videotapes clearly showed her seeing."
The article states that the doctors said there was no heart attack and that she had injuries not consistent with a collapse.
The autopsy said it could not determine the cause of the collapse, but evidenced no sign of abuse or trauma.

WND is truly ludicrous.

[svend]

This Doctor did examine terri, before she died.

[cameron222]

It is appointed unto man once to die. I often wonder if the "appointment" can be altered one way or the other.

[Old 33]

This Doctor did examine terri, before she died.
You're right, he did. He then went on Hannity & Colmes and pronounced that, in his expert opinion, she could make a full recovery and lead a normal life if only she received therapy.

The autopsy proves him wrong on that count.

(A transcript of that interview: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,151148,00.html)

[sundero]

Am I recalling correctly that the family requested someone else be involved in the autopsy (other than the local ME who is part of the local system) and they were denied that request? I could be wrong, but I am certain I read that at some point.
If that is the case, can we ever be certain the findings didn't have a bias in favor of the judge and MS?
susie

[sundero]

You're right, he did. He then went on Hannity & Colmes and pronounced that, in his expert opinion, she could make a full recovery and lead a normal life if only she received therapy.

The autopsy proves him wrong on that count.
Old, I don't think an autopsy can prove that one way or another (of course, unless there was no brain at all). An autopsy cannot even be used for a PVS diagnosis.

edited to add--I don't think she could have made a full recovery, however, I also believe we err on the side of life, especially when there is not any proof that the person wanted to be killed by dehydration.

[Devoted Servant]

Am I recalling correctly that the family requested someone else be involved in the autopsy (other than the local ME who is part of the local system) and they were denied that request? I could be wrong, but I am certain I read that at some point.
If that is the case, can we ever be certain the findings didn't have a bias in favor of the judge and MS?
susie

"The Schindlers had also sought to have independent medical experts observe her autopsy at the Pinellas County Medical Examiner's Office, but the office refused the request, Gibbs said."

http://www.sptimes.com/2005/04/03/Tampabay/Amid_objection__Schia.shtml

[sundero]

"The Schindlers had also sought to have independent medical experts observe her autopsy at the Pinellas County Medical Examiner's Office, but the office refused the request, Gibbs said."

http://www.sptimes.com/2005/04/03/Tampabay/Amid_objection__Schia.shtml
Thanks. That's what I thought I remembered. I cannot imagine why they refused the request, esp since it would have put to bed any speculation about anyone not being 100% unbiased.
susie

[ConservPride]

You're right, he did. He then went on Hannity & Colmes and pronounced that, in his expert opinion, she could make a full recovery and lead a normal life if only she received therapy.

The autopsy proves him wrong on that count.

(A transcript of that interview: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,151148,00.html)

The transcript does not say that he believes she could make a full recovery. It says that she could be rehabilitated.

HANNITY: Doctor, wait a minute. I've got to get this straight here.

You were nominated to get a Nobel Peace Prize in this very work. Are you saying that this woman could be rehabilitated?

HAMMESFAHR: Absolutely.

HANNITY: Could she talk one day?

HAMMESFAHR: Yes.

I've seen the videos, and to me she looks like she is following the balloon with her eyes. She also reacts to her mother by smiling, and you can see her eyes light up. She is told to open her eyes, and she opens them very wide. It also seems like she is trying to verbally communicate, but it is something that is difficult for her.

I, for one, don't believe the autopsy proves anything. There have been plenty of cases where doctors have examined live patients and given them a negative prognosis only to have a misdiagnosis or some kind of miraculous healing.

Regardless of her future medical prognosis, her rights were trampled by the state. Terri DID NOT have a living will or any kind of directives as to her care in case of something like this. If a parent of a child with cerbral palsy or some other kind of debilitating illness were to dehydrate their child, the state would be all over them for child abuse, child neglect, child endangerment, and/or attempted murder. Yet the state allowed this kind of treatment for Terri.

Not to mention, the attorney for Michael Schiavo made a LOT of money from her death, and even had ties with the medical facility that killed her. The medical facility is also for terminal patients who aren't expected to live for approx. 6 months. Terri did not even fit that condition. She lived over a decade with proper medical treatment, and it was only by FORCED dehydration that she died. (which would kill ANY living human no matter what their medical condition!)

[Jiggy37]

So the question remains, says Ward, was Terri Schiavo still a thinking, aware human being?If she was, that's actually quite scary. Not even just because of the factor of killing her, but also because it would basically mean she'd been sitting alone in a hospital room the majority of the time for several years in a row with absolutely nothing to do. Can you imagine the sheer torment of boredom under those circumstances? :faint

[blitzkreig]

It is appointed unto man once to die. I often wonder if the "appointment" can be altered one way or the other. No it can't Cameron. Finally someone said it ...

.

[Jiggy37]

So are you suggesting that, if she hadn't died this way, she would have died at the same time in another way?
Or rather that it was impossible that it could have gone any other way than her dying this way? (e.g. Leibniz' "This is the best of all possible worlds" answer to the problem of evil.)

[Chris4Christ]

I read it, it's ludicrous. He's dismissing an autopsy finding based on what he thinks he saw in a videotape of her?
Um, no.

Go back and read the very first paragraph. He EXAMINED Terry Schiavo, which Cinlynn also pointed out to another mistaken poster just three posts before yours.

[frisian1970]

No it can't Cameron. Finally someone said it ...

.So when Christ raised someone from the dead...the first appointment had been canceled?

[Jiggy37]

So when Christ raised someone from the dead...the first appointment had been canceled?Maybe the Hebrew has different definitions for "die," much like (if I remember correctly) God told Adam and Eve they would "die die."

[frisian1970]

Why is choosing to end a life, or determining when a life should end..."playing God"...whilst choosing to conceive a child (for instance) not? Seems to speak strangely of God.

:noidea

:hrm

[Chris4Christ]

No it can't Cameron. Finally someone said it ...

.
Hi, blitz.

What does our supposed "Appointment with Death" have to do with this thread or the Terri Schiavo case?

There are people murdered by the hundreds, maybe even thousands, in this country every day. Just because it was "their day to die," that doesn't in any way excuse the murderers or make the act any less murderous. :sigh

[Chris4Christ]

If she was, that's actually quite scary. Not even just because of the factor of killing her, but also because it would basically mean she'd been sitting alone in a hospital room the majority of the time for several years in a row with absolutely nothing to do. Can you imagine the sheer torment of boredom under those circumstances? :faint
It's not scary at all, Jiggy.

Until you actually know and live with a person in that situation, you really can't make that judgment. :):

[frisian1970]

It's not scary at all, Jiggy.

Until you actually know and live with a person in that situation, you really can't make that judgment. :):It isn't boring?

[Chris4Christ]

How is that question responsive to my post? :confused

[blitzkreig]

Honest question I have never heard discussed. Where has Terri's soul been these last number of years? As it turns out was her vessel here empty?

.

[Chris4Christ]

Honest question I have never heard discussed. Where has Terri's soul been these last number of years? As it turns out was her vessel here empty?

.
Is there some passage in Scripture that leads you to believe that a person's soul flees their body once they become brain damaged? :confused

[frisian1970]

How is that question responsive to my post? :confused:confused He suggested it would be boring, and he found that scary? That was his opinion (aka) judgement.

[Chris4Christ]

:confused He suggested it would be boring, and he found that scary? That was his opinion (aka) judgement.
You're mischaracterizing his post and mine.

[frisian1970]

Honest question I have never heard discussed. Where has Terri's soul been these last number of years? As it turns out was her vessel here empty?

.Not sure any of us can know, but interesting question to me. When does our soul depart? Is it connected to our brain? Our heart? Of course there are stories of miraculous recoveries...my grandfather was "dead" for a moment (and believes he was watching the surgeons or ER personnel work on him) whilst having a heart attack. :noidea So did his soul leave temporally? Are they transient?


Edited- used odd word. :twitch

[frisian1970]

You're mischaracterizing his post and mine. :doh Hmm, I don't follow then. I will let Jiggy clarify if he so desires.

[sundero]

No it can't Cameron. Finally someone said it ...

.
Yeah, but I think we're held accountable if we have something to do with helping someone keep that appointment.
susie

[sundero]

Why is choosing to end a life, or determining when a life should end..."playing God"...whilst choosing to conceive a child (for instance) not? Seems to speak strangely of God.

:noidea

:hrm
I dunno, maybe because God commanded us to be fruitful and multiply, but I don't recall him commanding us to thin the herd....
susie

[frisian1970]

Yeah, but I think we're held accountable if we have something to do with helping someone keep that appointment.
susieIndeed, before the foundation of the world...we were.

[frisian1970]

I dunno, maybe because God commanded us to be fruitful and multiply, but I don't recall him commanding us to thin the herd....
susie
Because only God can determine who is to be thinned? When does the soul depart? Who decides when it has departed?

[sundero]

Because only God can determine who is to be thinned? When does the soul depart? Who decides when it has departed?
I dunno fris, you're way too deep for me.
susie

[Chris4Christ]

Because only God can determine who is to be thinned? When does the soul depart? Who decides when it has departed?
Why is this even a question? The soul departs once we are dead. I don't recall any instances in Scripture that speak of souless, zombie-like humans inhabiting the earth. :noidea

The question isn't when does the soul depart. It is completely illogical, IMO, to assume that there is even the slightest possibility that a person with a self-functioning body -- a body that breathes on its own, pumps blood on its own, cleanses the body on its own -- does not have a soul (or, indeed, life).

I believe the more pertinent question is, when is a human being dead?

Is a person dead that can no longer feed themselves?

[frisian1970]

Why is this even a question? The soul departs once we are dead. I don't recall any instances in Scripture that speak of souless, zombie-like humans inhabiting the earth. :noideaIt doesn't speak of Pepsi either. Many things, in fact. :noidea

The question isn't when does the soul depart. It is completely illogical, IMO, to assume that there is even the slightest possibility that a person with a self-functioning body -- a body that breathes on its own, pumps blood on its own, cleanses the body on its own -- does not have a soul (or, indeed, life).So the soul remains if someone is in a PVS in your opinion? Actually, this could be blurring the lines between soul and spirit. I would think spiritually dead people are walking and breathing all around us. The soul, is an animator, much like that which animals have. Aka 'nephesh'. Some consider it that which "drives" consciousness. If you are considered brain dead, does your body pump blood on its own? :confused

I believe the more pertinent question is, when is a human being dead?Ah, you may have framed the question better. I would say spiritually at conception. Physically, when you are not conscious. Although, consciousness can be regained.

Is a person dead that can no longer feed themselves?I think they could be, of course that isn't the sole determinant. People's hearts are beating while their body is in a grave...and in someone elses body.

[Jiggy37]

It's not scary at all, Jiggy.

Until you actually know and live with a person in that situation, you really can't make that judgment. :)::confused How is it not scary? I can't sit alone doing nothing except thinking in my head for 40 minutes without getting bored, never mind sitting alone for--what was it--like 12 years with only intermittent visits from medical faculty and family.
Unless her parents were by her side the entire time, which they'd said Michael Schiavo prevented, that sort of sensory almost-deprivation sounds about as close to hell on earth as anything I can imagine.

[Jiggy37]

Why is this even a question? The soul departs once we are dead. I don't recall any instances in Scripture that speak of souless, zombie-like humans inhabiting the earth. :noideap

The question isn't when does the soul depart. It is completely illogical, IMO, to assume that there is even the slightest possibility that a person with a self-functioning body -- a body that breathes on its own, pumps blood on its own, cleanses the body on its own -- does not have a soul (or, indeed, life).Did Nebuchadnezzar have a soul when he was given over to act like an animal?
(If I remember the story correctly; I may not.)

[Chris4Christ]

First of all, we are talking about brain damaged here, not brain dead. There is a difference, and I find it manipulative when people repeatedly "mistakenly" confuse the two, even after having been corrected numerous times.

Ah, you may have framed the question better. I would say spiritually at conception. Physically, when you are not conscious. Although, consciousness can be regained.
Frisian, you are straining at gnats with the rest of your post, so I won't even go there with you.

As far as physical death occuring when you are not conscious... :faint

Unconsciousness does not equal dead. It's ludicrous to suggest it.

See, these are the types of thought processes that led us to the abortion crisis...except now we're using them from the other end. The fact that Christians can't see that, and so-called Pro-Life Christians at that, is astounding to me.

Per the "experts," fetuses aren't "alive" because of facts a, b and c. Per the "experts," brain damaged individuals aren't "alive" because of facts, a, b and c.

I think that life and death are pretty basic concepts. In fact, I know they are. It's not until man comes in, with all his great "wisdom," that the waters become muddied and people become great fools.

[Chris4Christ]

:confused How is it not scary? I can't ...
That's why. Because you're speaking in terms of yourself. You're not speaking in terms of Terri Schiavo or others like her.

[Jiggy37]

That's why. Because you're speaking in terms of yourself. You're not speaking in terms of Terri Schiavo or others like her.So you're saying that Terri wasn't aware enough to find it boring?

[blitzkreig]

Why is this even a question? The soul departs once we are dead. Scripture actually describes death in terms of the reverse ... dead is when the soul departs.

There is no concept of "brain dead" anything of the sort in Scripture.

That is why the question is relevant. Because all the other questions are "irrelevant".

.

[frisian1970]

First of all, we are talking about brain damaged here, not brain dead. There is a difference, and I find it manipulative when people repeatedly "mistakenly" confuse the two, even after having been corrected numerous times.It's not manipulative. I don't know in Terri's case. None of us do, I was speaking in general. What IS the difference? I don't know.


Frisian, you are straining at gnats with the rest of your post, so I won't even go there with you.

As far as physical death occuring when you are not conscious... :faint

Unconsciousness does not equal dead. It's ludicrous to suggest it.What equals dead? And what does unconsciousness equal?

See, these are the types of thought processes that led us to the abortion crisis...except now we're using them from the other end. The fact that Christians can't see that, and so-called Pro-Life Christians at that, is astounding to me.Well, I am asking so I can know and so I can defend a position greater.

Per the "experts," fetuses aren't "alive" because of facts a, b and c. Per the "experts," brain damaged individuals aren't "alive" because of facts, a, b and c.Ok, those type of things I can make my own mind up about. What are the facts that term someone brain dead as opposed to brain damaged?

I think that life and death are pretty basic concepts. In fact, I know they are. It's not until man comes in, with all his great "wisdom," that the waters become muddied and people become great fools.Agreed, that is why Paul likely had to explain it more succintly?

[Eklektos]

This is such a difficult topic. I understand that Terri's brain was still able to keep her basic bodily funtions going - heart beating, breathing, etc. The debate is whether her brain was still able to do more than that. For me, the last few posts are really getting to the real question:

at what point during the process of passing from this world to the next does the spirit depart the body and enter eternity with Jesus?

Is it dependant on some physical sympton, like a beating heart, breathing, brain activity? Or perhaps what keeps our spirit "attached" to our physical body is not dependent on physical characteristics, but instead is dependant only and wholly on God's will? Was lazerus in heaven with God between the time his body died and when Jesus brought his physical body back to life? I don't know, but if he was, what a dissappointment it would have been to Lazurus to find himself torn from heaven and forced to be back in his human body! Perhaps, since God knew he was going to bring Lazarus back to life, he spared him that pain by simply allowing his spirit to remain in a state of unconsciousness during that time? Perhaps it was the same for Terri? On the otherhand, God knew that Terri would never regain consciousness. Perhaps in His mercy he allowed her spirit to depart some time ago and she has been with Jesus since?

I don't think any of us have absolute answers to these questions. When my brother was hit head on by a drunk driver, the drunk's truck went onto the hood of the car, through his windsheild, and smashed him in the chest. His legs were destroyed, his hands were destroyed, and he had severe internal bleeding, yet when they pulled him from the car more than an hour later (they had to cut her out of the truck first, then remove the truck, then cut him out of the car), his heart was still beating and he was still breathing. He died at the hospital an hour or so later. I pray that he went to be with Jesus the second the impact occured. I'm grateful we never had to make the decision of whether to keep him on any type of life support. But if we had, I'm confident everyone in the family would have agreed to disconnect all machines (even if it was only food and water) and release him to God. I hope they would do the same for me. But I'm not saying that was the right decision for Terri. Only God knows.

(edited to clarify)

[sundero]

So you're saying that Terri wasn't aware enough to find it boring?
I"m finding it interesting to imagine boredom as frightening. Do you really mean that?
susie

[frisian1970]

This is such a difficult topic. I understand that Terri's brain was still able to keep her basic bodily funtions going - heart beating, breathing, etc. The debate is whether her brain was still able to do more than that. For me, the last few posts are really getting to the real question:

at what point during the process of passing from this world to the next does the spirit depart the body and enter eternity with Jesus?

Is it dependant on some physical sympton, like a beating heart, breathing, brain activity? Or perhaps what keeps our spirit "attached" to our physical body is not dependent on physical characteristics, but instead is dependant only and wholly on God's will? Was lazerus in heaven with God between the time his body died and when Jesus brought his physical body back to life? I don't know, but if he was, what a dissappointment it would have been to Lazurus to find himself torn from heaven and forced to be back in his human body! Perhaps, since God knew he was going to bring Lazarus back to life, he spared him that pain by simply allowing his spirit to remain in a state of unconsciousness during that time? Perhaps it was the same for Terri? On the otherhand, God knew that Terri would never regain consciousness. Perhaps in His mercy he allowed her spirit to depart some time ago and she has been with Jesus since?

I don't think any of us have absolute answers to these questions. When my brother was hit head on by a drunk driver, the drunk's truck went onto the hood of the car, through his windsheild, and smashed him in the chest. His legs were destroyed, his hands were destroyed, and he had severe internal bleeding, yet when they pulled him from the car more than an hour later (they had to cut her out of the truck first, then remove the truck, then cut him out of the car), his heart was still beating and he was still breathing. He died at the hospital an hour or so later. I pray that he went to be with Jesus the second the impact occured. I'm grateful we never had to make the decision of whether to keep him on any type of life support. But if we had, I'm confident everyone in the family would have agreed to disconnect all machines (even if it was only food and water) and release him to God. I hope they would do the same for me. But I'm not saying that was the right decision for Terri. Only God knows.

(edited to clarify):nod Nice post, I believe these are terribly pertinent questions. Likely always have been, but with technological advances in medicine...more apparent dilemmas shall arise.

[sundero]

Actually, it would appear that we cannot know the answer to when the soul leaves the body, altho for most people, it is probably pretty clear, most of the time.
Because we cannot know, it is really just an academic matter. We should err on the side of life.
And, food and water are NOT life support, even tho the state of FL might legally describe it so. If one wants food and water to be with held and they make that clear, legally, ahead of time, then that is between them and God. However, barring something in writing specifically stating such, I believe it is wrong to with hold it.
susie

[frisian1970]

Actually, it would appear that we cannot know the answer to when the soul leaves the body, altho for most people, it is probably pretty clear, most of the time.
Because we cannot know, it is really just an academic matter. We should err on the side of life.
And, food and water are NOT life support, even tho the state of FL might legally describe it so. If one wants food and water to be with held and they make that clear, legally, ahead of time, then that is between them and God. However, barring something in writing specifically stating such, I believe it is wrong to with hold it.
susieHmm, so one should assume from the get go...they don't have enough evidence to determine whether one is alive or dead? Or should be considered such? I still don't see that the logical conclusion shouldn't then apply to death penalty cases...to err on the side of life. What if in those cases we don't have all the facts? Should we not bury people? To err on the side of life?

:noidea Ya' know? Like his heart isn't beating, his brain isn't functioning, but...we should err on the side of life?


I would think anyone that asserts someone is dead...is playing God...no?

[sundero]

Hmm, so one should assume from the get go...they don't have enough evidence to determine whether one is alive or dead? Or should be considered such? I still don't see that the logical conclusion shouldn't then apply to death penalty cases...to err on the side of life. What if in those cases we don't have all the facts? Should we not bury people? To err on the side of life?

:noidea Ya' know? Like his heart isn't beating, his brain isn't functioning, but...we should err on the side of life?


I would think anyone that asserts someone is dead...is playing God...no?

:doh
Fris, does it give you a headache to contort like that?
susie

[frisian1970]

:doh
Fris, does it give you a headache to contort like that?
susieNope. To not do so, that is what gives me headaches.

:noidea

[Chris4Christ]

It's not manipulative. I don't know in Terri's case. None of us do, I was speaking in general. What IS the difference? I don't know.
ALL OF US know what it was in Terri's case, and YOU were told repeatedly.

Even her husband and his death camp doctors said that she was BRAIN DAMAGED, NOT BRAIN DEAD.

PVS IS NOT THE SAME AS BRAIN DEAD. IF SHE WERE BRAIN DEAD, SHE WOULD HAVE HAD TO HAVE BEEN ON TOTAL LIFE SUPPORT.

And unless y'all believe in zombies, then you must also believe that Terri Schiavo had a soul.

:doh :tsk


This is the same exact BS that people say time and time again about fetuses/abortion -- "Do they have souls yet? Are they conscious? They can't function on their own," yadda, yadda, yadda!!!!!! -- and yet none of you would say that it was valid in their case. Why do you insist that this thought process is valid now???


Oh, well. People are fools, and then they die and meet the King. Then we will know shame for all of our ridiculous puffed up pride.

[sundero]

Nope. To not do so, that is what gives me headaches.

:noidea
Well then, it's probably time for me to bow out before I :fish you!
susie

[frisian1970]

ALL OF US know what it was in Terri's case, and YOU were told repeatedly.

Even her husband and his death camp doctors said that she was BRAIN DAMAGED, NOT BRAIN DEAD.There are those that suggest higher brain "death" = "dead". http://www.miracosta.edu/home/lmoon/wk3death.html

PVS IS NOT THE SAME AS BRAIN DEAD. IF SHE WERE BRAIN DEAD, SHE WOULD HAVE HAD TO HAVE BEEN ON TOTAL LIFE SUPPORT.But perhaps she was "higher brain dead" as explained in the article I posted above. But alas, we don't know either way.

And unless y'all believe in zombies, then you must also believe that Terri Schiavo had a soul.

:doh :tskHad? Certainly.


This is the same exact BS that people say time and time again about fetuses/abortion -- "Do they have souls yet? Are they conscious? They can't function on their own," yadda, yadda, yadda!!!!!! -- and yet none of you would say that it was valid in their case. Why do you insist that this thought process is valid now???Because consciousness is to come. Such doesn't seem to be the case of someone that is PVS?


Oh, well. People are fools, and then they die and meet the King. Then we will know shame for all of our ridiculous puffed up pride. :confused




Edited- I cite the link, for discussion only. I don't agree with all of it.

[Chris4Christ]

There are those that suggest higher brain "death" = "dead". http://www.miracosta.edu/home/lmoon/wk3death.html

But perhaps she was "higher brain dead" as explained in the article I posted above. But alas, we don't know either way.
I cannot believe that you would stoop this low, that you will stop at nothing, risk any and all contortion and manipulation in order to continue to play Devil's Advocate. :tsk

Now you are trying to justify calling her BRAIN DEAD because her higher brain function was supposedly "dead"?

Good grief. That's what brain damage is!

As often as I've disagreed with you, I don't think I've previously been so totally disappointed as I am right now.

Had? Certainly.
Yes, had. Her soul is hopefully with the Lord now, where it went the moment she DIED after having been starved for two weeks.

Because consciousness is to come. Such doesn't seem to be the case of someone that is PVS?
Same difference.

Whether or not consciousness is to come is moot. The same argument applies and has led to the legalized murder of babies. Because consciousness is not there, "they say," it is perfectly moral and legal to rip to shreds the clump of tissue/fetus.

(FYI, there have been cases of people coming "out of" a PVS.)

[frisian1970]

Hmmm, this is interesting, and if correct...then would suggest that all such things constitute soul and I think...suggest that any part of functioning determines presence of the soul...I think. :noidea

http://www.ancient-hebrew.org/emagazine/012.html


Word of the Month
Soul
What is the soul? Webster' Dictionary gives the following definition. "The spiritual nature of humans, regarded as immortal, separable from the body at death, and susceptible to happiness or misery in a future state." In most cases people will understand the soul through this definition. But, as I have so often stated, our interpretation of Biblical words should be from a Hebraic perspective, not a modern western perspective such as English.

The Hebrew word translated as "soul" is the word nephesh (Strong's #5315). If we look at the various ways in which this word is translated in an English translation, such as the KJV, we will see a wide variation in its interpretation. Some of these translations include; soul, life, person, mind, heart, creature, body, dead, desire, man, appetite, lust, thing, self, beast, pleasure, ghost, breath and will. What exactly does this word mean?

I had always assumed that only humans had a soul but, it was during a study of the word "soul" that I discovered that translations often influence how we interpret Biblical concepts. In Genesis 2:7 we find that man is a "living soul" and in Genesis 1:21 we find that animals are "living creatures". When I first started using a concordance to look up the original Hebrew words I was amazed to find out that these two phrases were the identical Hebrew phrases - nephesh chayah. Why would the translators translate nephesh chayah as "living soul" in one place and "living creatures" in another? It was this discovery that prompted me to learn the Hebrew language.

In the Hebrew mind we are composed of three entities; body, breath and mind. In future issues we will examine each of these but for now let us simply make some general definitions for them. The body is the flesh, bones and blood, the vessel. The mind is ones thoughts and emotions. The breath is ones character, what makes a person who they are.

The soul is the whole of the person, the unity of the body, breath and mind. It is not some immaterial spiritual entity it is you, all of you, your whole being or self.