Terri Schiavo's Parents Seek Divorce on Her Behalf

[Undertoad]

My position is based on pure reason.

[Griff]

Well she's dead now so...

[vsp]

Donning Kevlar now.

[Beestie]

Originally Posted by bluesdave

I was generalising, but you clearly don't understand evolution. You being a "believer" makes that understandable. Evolution is constantly experimenting. The general trend is towards a more efficiently running organism. Some species don't work out, and so drop off the tree. Others either continue with little or moderate change (eg. sharks, crocodiles), or evolve into something completely different (eg. whales).

I think this particular debate has been done to death in other threads, so I'll leave it at that.

First I will point out that this debate - the one we are having - has, to my knowledge never taken place before in the Cellar. To clarify, I frame our debate by challenging your assertion that evolution is efficient.

Secondly I will clarify that my belief in God in no way compromises my ability to look at the same evidence as you and and draw a more accurate conclusion. I'm not presupposing that my conclusion is more correct than yours - only that believing in God does not preclude it from being so. Einstien believed in God. I will also point out that I am not a creationist but fully embrace the idea of evolution.

So, here's the thing. You indicate that evolution is "efficient." You support your position by pointing out that we have fewer species today than we did "yesterday." I'll even point out that it is generally believed by those in the know that over 90% of all species that ever existed no longer exist. So, your definition of efficiency appears to be little more than a restatement of Darwin's position. The species that adapt better remain on the planet longer.

I would argue that evolution is neither efficient nor inefficient but merely an unstable chaotic system that tends toward an equilibrium that it will never reach. Weather changes, random mutations that continue to occur at a relatively constant rate, climate changes, terrestial catastrophes (volcanoes/earthquakes/floods, polarity shifts, etc.), extraterrestial bombardment and lastly - mankind itself are continually changing the landscape to which all organisms must adapt. These exogenous shocks to the system keep the rules governing which species is more fit to survive in continuous flux. All evolution is doing is constantly creating new species some of which stick around and some of which do not. To imply that evolution is "efficient" is to suggest that evolution cranks out "better" species today than it did yesterday. Not so. The ongoing creation of new species is entirely random.

In my mind, evolution is nothing more than two chaotic systems with one (life) constantly reacting to the other (earth).

For example, there is nothing to prevent evolution from cranking out a bacteria tomorrow that will kill every shark in the ocean and every pollinating honeybee on earth and then vanish from the planet (having exhausted its own food source). Would the outcome of such an event be a more efficient and stable ecosystem or a less efficient and less stable ecosystem? History is littered with examples of the ecosystem destabilizing itself through its own mechanism.

And it may turn out to be the case that the latest incarnation of evolution - the human race - will be the undoing of the entire system. Any system that spawns a creature capable of making the system less stable (if not destroying the system itself) can hardly be thought of as efficient. However, such a possibility fits very well in a model of evolution as a random process.

[Undertoad]

Originally Posted by Griff

Well she's dead now so...

...so the autopsy will verify my thinking on the matter.

[Griff]

I don't know if this guy is in the know, but wouldn't more brain imaging while she was alive have been more useful?

In order to begin to disprove my conviction that Terri suffered during her forced starvation her doctors would have had to perform an (1) EEG (electroencephalogram) showing cortical brainwave activity (2) PET (Positron Emission Tomography) Scan to show a reduction in cerebral metabolism (3) SSEP (Somatosensory Evoked Potential) to show brainstem neurophysiologic functioning and (4) MRI scan of her brain to show anatomical disruption. I understand that either these tests had not been performed in years or were never done in the first place. Although Terri was judicially condemned to death, she met almost none of the standard Harvard criteria for brain death.

[Undertoad]

She did have an EEG and it was flat.

[Griff]

I guess we have to take your word for it?

[Undertoad]

No, there is plenty of information available on this case for those who wish to seek it out.

[lizthefiz]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

She did have an EEG and it was flat.

According to CNN's neurologist Dr. Gupta that is not correct. They had a discussion regarding it last night.

Nevertheless, Terri has passed away. May she rest now in peace.

[Undertoad]

It's a polite oversimplification. One EEG lead was flat because one section of her brain was dead.

liz, Dr. Gupta did not address EEGs on Aaron Brown last night so on which show did you see him discussing this?

[Happy Monkey]

The doctor who examined her, and took the EEGs, said they were flat. Gupta based his diagnosis on the videotape, like "Dr." Frist and so many pundits who want to be considered experts on TV.

[lizthefiz]

Gupta was on Nancy Grace, Larry King & Anderson Cooper. He prefaced everthing he said with a comment that he did not examine Terri and to make a general statement re: her condition from a video would be wrong and essentially unethical.

He did look (apparantly previously) at some medical data that had been released from previous trial information. I thought overall he was non judgmental and very objective which is very hard to do in this case.

[Undertoad]

Got it liz, thanks. from Nancy Grace:

GRACE: Dr. Eric Braverman, are we convinced that Terri Schiavo feels nothing? I find it hard to believe that -- taking someone off a ventilator, that`s one thing, but allowing them to starve to death?

DR. ERIC BRAVERMAN, DIRECTOR OF PATH MEDICAL: I appreciate your empathy, but Terri has been dead for a very long time, essentially. And she has gone to God. And what you have there is a brain essentially filled with water and a flat line EEG of a persistent vegetative state.

And you need to understand that the empathy is being misplaced. We have a brain health crisis in this country, and this person has been essentially brain dead. Nobody has any hope of function -- even if it was MCS, a minimally conscious state, she would never recover. What you`re looking there is a corpse and an embalmed individual that is being preserved unnaturally, a waste of medical resources, a misunderstanding of false hope that`s been projected. It is a tragedy.

GRACE: Dr. Braverman, have you ever actually seen Terri Schiavo?

BRAVERMAN: I have spoken with Dr. Cranford. Actually, doctors don`t need to see the patient. The video analysis is a deception. What doctors need is to know a flat line EEG. I`ve kept hamster brains alive and guinea pig brains alive for ten hours in a dish and they had more EEG activity. You have to understand...

GRACE: Sanjay...

BRAVERMAN: You have to understand. She has less brain activity than animals. She has a brain filled with water or cerebral spinal fluid.

GRACE: Let me go very quickly to Dr. Gupta. Response, Sanjay?

GUPTA: First of all, you know, she doesn`t have a flat EEG. And I think that everyone who initially said that has disagreed that she has a flat EEG. Calling her brain dead just is not right.

And whether or not she`s in a persistent vegetative state, or a permanent vegetative state, or a minimally conscience, you can argue those terms, but I think it`s irresponsible probably to keep saying that she is brain dead. Because clearly you can look at that person and see that she`s not brain dead. It doesn`t add anything to the argument here, Nancy.

Braverman is using the "shorthand" of saying the EEG is flat because there was one dead section of her brain. The leads measuring activity in those sections would be flat although leads in other areas measuring involuntary activity would not be flat. Gupta objects because there are other sections of her brain that are not dead. Describing her as "brain dead" is wrong because she still had functioning brain matter that was not flat on an EEG. That functioning brain matter governed involuntary activity such as breathing and blinking.

[Troubleshooter]

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

The doctor who examined her, and took the EEGs, said they were flat. Gupta based his diagnosis on the videotape, like "Dr." Frist and so many pundits who want to be considered experts on TV.

Let's not forget Dr. Delay.