Another Take On The Schiavo Autopsy

Doug at Bogus Gold gives his analysis of the aftermath:

. . . The autopsy reveals Terri Schiavo was blind. The reaction to the autopsy reveals that many of those disparaging Terri's defenders are virtually deaf.

Why do I say so? Because knowing what we know from the autopsy, what exactly would it have changed? Does it suggest those opposed to pulling Terri’s feeding tube were wrong in suggesting:

1. The best and most accurate diagnostic tests should have been performed.


2. The mentally retarded have an inherent right to life.


3. The evidence that Terri had asked to die if in such a condition didn’t meet a reasonable evidentiary standard to decide a matter of life and death.


4. Issues around her court appointed guardianship deserved more consideration.


5. The court system demonstrated too many arbitrary decisions in this case that, unlike criminal cases, had no avenue of appeal.

Someone can feel free to walk through every finding in the autopsy report and explain how it resolves any of the above questions. Short of that, I’m puzzled at the exclamations of vindication over this. The only vindication here is to those who have remained fixated on this particular case without regard for how the issues it uncovered can help us decide future cases of the sort.

Read the rest here.