Forums | MacLife

resedit wrote:

iBubba wrote:

resedit wrote:

No. He got an autopsy because he knew the parents didn't want one.
He didn't need an autopsy to vindicate himself, he had the courts and medical experts on his side.

The only people who would be convinced by the autopsy were those that were convinced already. Right? Isn't that exactly what happened?

FLORIDA STATE LAW DICTATES THAT THERE HAD TO BE AN AUTOPSY. QUIT WITH THE SPIN ALREADY.

Have a link for that?
Really - that's new to me - my understanding is it was done at his request, not the states.

The law only requires autopsy in cases where the body is to be cremated - which his parents did not want, which many catholics disagree with - Terri and her parents were catholic.

I'm sorry, but the autopsy WAS NOT REQUIRED - he wanted it that way.

Here's a nice, unbiased source

"The medical examiner's investigation into the cause of death is mandated by Florida law," said William Pellan, forensic services director. "And, for no other reason, an autopsy will be performed to determine the cause of death and family requests are immaterial in that determination."

"Pursuant to Florida law, the autopsy report will be public record," Pellan said.

Florida State Statute 406.11, entitled "Examinations, investigations and autopsies," mandates the circumstances under which an autopsy must be performed.

"In any of the following circumstances involving the death of a human being, the medical examiner of the district in which the death occurred or the body was found shall determine the cause of death and shall, for that purpose, make or have performed such examinations, investigations, and autopsies as he or she shall deem necessary or as shall be requested by the state attorney," the statute states.

The applicable condition bringing the law to bear in the Schiavo case is, "When a body is to be cremated, dissected, or buried at sea."

Okay?

Tria wrote:

Catholics have a problem with cremation?

News to me: my mother and grandfather, both resolute catholics, were cremated.

Kind of old-skool doctrine, the idea being that when you-know-who comes back, the dead will rise from the grave and get their moldy asses judged. Can't rise from the grave if you're ashes, tho, can we?

But like I said that's a bit of doctrine that, like most, has quietly fallen by the wayside.

resedit wrote:

The alleged agreement in which Michael Schiavo requested that an autopsy be performed on Terri Schiavo's body "to have the public know the full and massive extent of the damage to Mrs. Schiavo's brain," is meaningless. Because Schiavo plans to have his wife's body cremated, Florida law mandates that an autopsy be performed.

He didn't need to ask for the creamation.
He IS doing that out of spite.

Does this mean you've turned around on the autopsy issue?

resedit wrote:

The alleged agreement in which Michael Schiavo requested that an autopsy be performed on Terri Schiavo's body "to have the public know the full and massive extent of the damage to Mrs. Schiavo's brain," is meaningless. Because Schiavo plans to have his wife's body cremated, Florida law mandates that an autopsy be performed.

He didn't need to ask for the creamation.
He IS doing that out of spite.

...heard you cryin' out for a link earlier - you know, the whole law thing that you've now quietly avoided since SS provided you with said link. I would like to see a link for your little hunk of speculation, chum, regarding this latest tidbit of reasoning behind the cremation of Teri.

iBubba wrote:

resedit wrote:

The alleged agreement in which Michael Schiavo requested that an autopsy be performed on Terri Schiavo's body "to have the public know the full and massive extent of the damage to Mrs. Schiavo's brain," is meaningless. Because Schiavo plans to have his wife's body cremated, Florida law mandates that an autopsy be performed.

He didn't need to ask for the creamation.
He IS doing that out of spite.

...heard you cryin' out for a link earlier - you know, the whole law thing that you've now quietly avoided since SS provided you with said link. I would like to see a link for your little hunk of speculation, chum, regarding this latest tidbit of reasoning behind the cremation of Teri.

A link that he didn't need to ask for cremation?
Um, there are plenty of dead people in Florida who haven't been cremated. I can provide you with a link to a cemetery if you really want one.

I've read the statute.  It can be interpreted to require an autopsy because of 'unusual circumstances.'  But, I don't think that issue was ever reached because of Michael Schiavo's request.   Autopsies do not occur whenever someone's remains are to be be cremated.   

In fact, autopsies are increasingly rare.  Between five to 20 percent of deaths are autopsied, based on where a person dies.  (Teaching hospitals do more autopsies to educate medical students.)  There was a great article on the topic in the NYT a couple months ago, called "Buried Answers."  The incidence of autopsies has declined for economic reasons.  The hospitals have a disincentive to do them in the costs.  Many families are either against 'cutting up the body' or they don't want to pick up the cost, either. Some physicians are wary because the results can reveal malpractice.

resedit wrote:

A link that he didn't need to ask for cremation?
Um, there are plenty of dead people in Florida who haven't been cremated. I can provide you with a link to a cemetery if you really want one.

No, spin-master, a link proving he is doing it to spite Teri's family, like you are alleging. I love a poorly executed smaert campaign... it makes my job a lot easier.

SS wrote:

Good God, you're demanding!

I get that all the time

resedit wrote:

Sternum wrote:

Michael is her husband. He can cremate his his wife if he wants to. Her family just spent several years slandering him in the press, to the point at which he started to receive death threats. Why should he take their advice regarding funeral proceedings?

What reason did he have to choose cremation?
He did it because he knew it would piss them off - she had no request for cremation.

They gave her life and raised her, you can not ignore that his cremation request was a stab at them - sure, it may have been his "legal" right, but that certainly doesn't make it right - and it wasn't.

It was done out of bitterness, and that will do him more harm in the long run then had he honoured their desire for a standard burial.

You don't know that. This whole ordeal has been littered with self-righteous, right-wing blowhards making vast, sweeping assumptions about this man, and they've been proven wrong at every turn. Y'all should just walk away from the table and stop making fools of yourselves.

I definitely recall Right to Lifers saying they wanted an autopsy before Terri Schiavo died.  Among other things, an autopsy was supposed to support that fabricated report they were circulating claiming she had numerous broken bones.  As I said above, they changed their stance after it became clear an autopsy would be performed.  I don't know why Resedit is telling falsehoods about this.  The issue is not even particularly important.  What matters is what the autopsy revealed.

resedit wrote:

Sternum wrote:

Michael is her husband. He can cremate his his wife if he wants to. Her family just spent several years slandering him in the press, to the point at which he started to receive death threats. Why should he take their advice regarding funeral proceedings?

What reason did he have to choose cremation?
He did it because he knew it would piss them off - she had no request for cremation.

They gave her life and raised her, you can not ignore that his cremation request was a stab at them - sure, it may have been his "legal" right, but that certainly doesn't make it right - and it wasn't.

It was done out of bitterness, and that will do him more harm in the long run then had he honoured their desire for a standard burial.

You have absolutely no direct knowledge of 'why' he did anything.

You THINK he did it out of spite.  Quit stating your speculations as fact.

ShnickyShnack wrote:

Rez, you're being uncharactaristically obtuse. Page two, the debate was about whether or not the state ordered an autopsy.

Now, apparently surrendering that debate, you're making it seem like it's about cremation.

You're not doing yourself any favors here.

I'm not surrendering that debate.
The cremation AND the autopsy are directly the result of the choice HE made - a choice he made as a final smurf you to the parents.

He had no reason to care one way or the other how she was burried - but he chose the way that would be offensive to her parents. Don't be so blind.

resedit wrote:

ShnickyShnack wrote:

Rez, you're being uncharactaristically obtuse. Page two, the debate was about whether or not the state ordered an autopsy.

Now, apparently surrendering that debate, you're making it seem like it's about cremation.

You're not doing yourself any favors here.

I'm not surrendering that debate.
The cremation AND the autopsy are directly the result of the choice HE made - a choice he made as a final smurf you to the parents.

He had no reason to care one way or the other how she was burried - but he chose the way that would be offensive to her parents. Don't be so blind.

The autopsy was "required."  Wether that requirement was borne of a separate choice that he made is irrelevant.  You were incorrect in stating that it wasn't "required."

Second, I find it bizarre that you think he should have capitulated to any of the demands of her parents.  It was HIS choice in determining the handling of her body.  The law dictates that it is the spouse's choice in such matters (as well as decisions regarding medical care) AND NOT THE PARENTS for a reason.

Any observation you can conjure up regarding his intent is pure speculation, and nothing more.

Why on earth would he NOT want an autopsy?  He still has to deal with countless numbers of people such as yourself who are convinced that he is evil, despite mountains of evidence that suggests his theory of her condition was absolutely correct.

resedit wrote:

ShnickyShnack wrote:

Rez, you're being uncharactaristically obtuse. Page two, the debate was about whether or not the state ordered an autopsy.

Now, apparently surrendering that debate, you're making it seem like it's about cremation.

You're not doing yourself any favors here.

I'm not surrendering that debate.
The cremation AND the autopsy are directly the result of the choice HE made - a choice he made as a final smurf you to the parents.

He had no reason to care one way or the other how she was burried - but he chose the way that would be offensive to her parents. Don't be so blind.

Haha... you're kinda young to be going senile, aren't you?