What killed Terry Schiavo
4 Apr 2005 02:20 pm...and why we should care and talk about that at least as much as we've yammered on about whether she should have been kept alive after it happened.
therealjae hits the nail on the head.
(Several folks on my flist posted this already, but I'm passing it on in case there are folks on mine who aren't on theirs.)
(Several folks on my flist posted this already, but I'm passing it on in case there are folks on mine who aren't on theirs.)
no subject
Date: 4 Apr 2005 10:06 pm (UTC)Terry Schiavo
Date: 4 Apr 2005 10:23 pm (UTC)What the hell is a realistic weight, then? I have no idea any more.
Re: Terry Schiavo
Date: 4 Apr 2005 10:31 pm (UTC)Re: What killed Terry Schiavo
Date: 4 Apr 2005 10:35 pm (UTC)Re: Terry Schiavo
Date: 4 Apr 2005 11:36 pm (UTC)Re: What killed Terry Schiavo
Date: 4 Apr 2005 11:40 pm (UTC)I read The New Yorker (my mother's copy) for decades, and in the past one would expect The New Yorker to do a pretty detailed investigation that would include such information. These days, though, I don't know.
Re: Terry Schiavo
Date: 5 Apr 2005 12:02 am (UTC)Re: Terry Schiavo
Date: 5 Apr 2005 12:23 am (UTC)I personally would consider any adult 5' or over who weighed 125 lbs to be on the smallish side. I wouldn't hold an opinion that they were underweight or malnourished without further information.
According to US guidelines based on BMI, an adult 5'6" tall who weighs less than 115 lbs (8.2 stone) is underweight and one who weighs more than 155 (11 stone) is overweight. A lot of us fat activists think the range of "normal weights" is much too narrow and represents only the low end of a weight range in which it's possible to be healthy.
Re: Terry Schiavo
Date: 5 Apr 2005 12:59 am (UTC)-J
no subject
Date: 5 Apr 2005 08:20 pm (UTC)http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/news_columnists/article/0,1299,DRMN_86_3639869,00.html