Steve says he wants to ask me 2 questions:
One, is it safe to assume that you favor of judge/forum shopping, and that you promise to never criticize the liberals and plaintiff’s attorneys when they engage in the same behavior?
Two, in light of your past criticisms of Terry’s[sic] fate having rested with a ‘single judge’, how can you support this law which gives a single judge the authority to review the case?
OK, I’ll answer… but then I have 2 for you….
#1) I think you have it backwards… You guys have been doing this for years to save murderers and now when people who want to save a sick woman from being killed do it, you whine. But to answer your question, people have been forum shopping since the dawn of a legal system. It is part of life. You’ve never heard me complain about it.
#2) I never made that argument so it is non applicable.
Now I have 2 questions for you and I know you’ll answer them right?
#1) She will live to be a ripe old age if we simply feed her. But you want her to starve to death. Since it is patently obvious that lethal injection is more humane than starvation, don’t you agree we should just kill her by lethal injection? And are you willing to be the one to inject her? (OK It is a compound question)
#2) Since you agree with starvation in the case of a woman whose only crime is being worth a million dollars to her ex-husband, do you agree that we should let murderers on death row starve to death too? And if starvation is ok for Terri, what would you say about the Administration starving prisoners at Guantanamo or Abu Grab to get information of out of them that might save American lives?… Certainly that would be ok right?
And lastly Steve… If you are going to advocate that we kill this woman, could you at least take a few moments to learn how to spell her name? Is it too much to ask that you take that much of an interest in her?
“If that perception exists, with specific regard to this situation, it’s because of the disingenuous way conservatives are exploiting Terri to go out of their way to frame the issue that way.”
Perceptions and polls aside, I think it pretty disingenous yourself to claim that those who wanted to write this bill did so solely for political purposes. I am pretty confident many of the congress members approving the bill were trying to save the life of a person they thought didn’t deserve to die, in a way they knew how. Sure congress was probably overstepping its bounds, but the government interferes in all sorts of aspects of our lives and you don’t hear the liberals make a peep. Let’s consider environmental laws-not much in the constitution requiring congress to address that, but they do.
I also think one mistake in all this was making the law specific to terri, but it was a compromise.
Also, I think the real lack in all this is in Florida. I am just not comfortable removing a feeding tube from somebody who is brain damaged without anything being in writing, and I think where there is a dispute among family members as to the wishes of the incapacitate person that at the very least they should have a continuous guardian ad litem appointed to represent specifically the incapacitated person.
All of this is something the Florida legislature would have to address, and it is too late for Terri anyway, but maybe not for somebody in the future.
Oh, and I have to admit that I am very concerned with the concept of killing people who are not terminally ill, and just brain damaged.
Matt:
No, you made an error and then became defensive about it. I didn’t misunderstand you so there was nothing for me to feel sorry about. And your writing was more than a bit ambiguous. No one owes you an apology because you can’t express yourself clearly. And once again, I only read into it what you conveyed.
Old Coot: No apologies necessary.
Old Coot:
You claim that “Prospective respondents were led to believe that 1) her condition was intractable and 2) that her “wishes” were not being carried out. The results, therefore, are meaningless except to folks with your sad agenda.”
As it happens, those are EXACTLY the facts of the Terri Schiavo’s case, as determined by the court after hearing all the evidence, expert testimony, etc.
“Michael Schiavo testified as to a few discussions he had with his wife concerning life support. The Guardian Ad Litem felt that this testimony standing alone would not rise to clear and convincing evidence…The court reviewed the testimony of Scott Schiavo (brother) and Joan Schiavo (sister-in-law) and finds nothing therein to be unreliable. The court notes that neither of these witnesses appeared to have shaded his or her testimony or even attempt to exclude unfavorable comments or points regarding these discussions. They were not impeached on cross-examination.”
The court finds “beyond all reasonable doubt that Theresa Marie Schiavo is in a persistent vegitative state…with the exception of one witness whom the court finds to be so biased as to lack credibility, her movements are occasional and totally consistent with the testimony of the expert medical witnesses…the unrebutted evidence remains that Terri Schiavo remains in a persistent vegitative state.”
As one other point, the court also found that, “The medical evidence before this court conclusively establishes that she has no hope of ever regaining consciousness and therefore capacity and that, without the feeding tube, she will die in seven to fourteen days. The unrebutted medical testimony before this court is that such death would be painless.”
Don’t get me wrong, I’d be much happier with a lethal injection for Terri to erase any possible spectre of suffering. Since that’s not legal under the Florida statutes, though, I’m willing to stand with the factual findings of the court based on the medical professionals that testified.
So, what is your belief that her condition is not intractable and based on? Is that a faith-based initiative?
>>And Paul, why the sarcasm.. “I know you’ll answer them, right?”.
Well mostly because you didn’t.
Would you be man enough to give her the lethal injection then stand there and watch the fruits of your labor while an innocent woman died?
“I want to see the law followed ” is bullshit. Answer the question.
Gee, Paul you do have a bug up your rear…
What in the world is wrong with wanting to see the law followed? What’s the point of having laws if we’re not going to follow them? Or are they merely advisory in nature, there to be ignored by the judiciary and anyone else who wants to when we don’t like the result? This goes to the thrust of my objections to what the GOP is doing: if we’re not going to play by the rules – especially when we don’t like the outcome – how do we complain when the other side refuses to play by the rules?
Contrary to your assertion, I don’t want her to starve. Not is it patently obvious (at least to this non-doctor) that lethal injection is more humane than starvation. Giving her a lethal injection is not a legal option. Since it’s not legal and since I don’t know that it would do any good, NO, I WOULD NOT GIVE HER A LETHAL INJECTION.
Satisfied?
jYt: The ABC poll was taken using false or misleading information. The poll was premised on the following (cut & pasted directly from the poll):
Schiavo suffered brain damage and has been on life support for 15 years. Doctors say she has no consciousness and her condition is irreversible. Her husband and her parents disagree about whether she would have wanted to be kept alive. Florida courts have sided with the husband and her feeding tube was removed on Friday.
What are the false or misleading statements? Here are two:
1) Terri Schiavo is not (and never has been as near as I can discover) on what most of us would consider “life support”. She breathes on her own. No machines are keeping her alive.
2) Only a few doctors have said she has no consciousness and that her condition is irreversible. At least as many competent physicians have said the opposite.
And finally, the polls, however accurate, are a refuge for cowards. We are discussing the life of an innocent person here. Will you accept without question polls regarding gay marriage? The death penalty? Partial-birth abortion? I think not.
Mr. Sturm: Would you have followed the “laws” when slavery was legal? Probably not.
G, let’s assume for the moment that Terri had a solid living will that said she didn’t want to remain alive in her current state. Would you concede that everything that you said is “not acceptable” would then become acceptable? That is,
-it would not be acceptable for Terri’s parents to take care of her
-Michael’s actions would be fulfilling his oath to “… love honor and cherish in sickness and in health”
-you would see it as honorable for a man to do this for ‘compasionate” reasons other than his own selfish wishes to move on
-it would not be more compassionate to allow his mother and father inlaw to try to get help for their daughter if they wish
-it would harm Terri
-it would become apparent to you that Michael cares very much for Terri as exhibited by his actions
-by not divorcing her, he would be ensuring that her wishes are followed
If you concede to that, then this case boils down to “does she or doesn’t she?”
How do you get to the truth? Let a judge decide. (After all, that’s the only reason why we have judges.) Don’t think the judge acted propertly? Appeal. Then appeal, appeal, appeal, all the way up to the Supreme Court. True, the appeals didn’t reconsider the facts of the case, but 19 judges (if I recall correctly) upheld that the original judge either considered them adequately, or was definitely the right guy to hear them.
Now, you’re perfectly entitled to not like the decision that came out of all that, and I also certainly don’t like all of the decisions that judges come up with these days. But whether a person agrees with the decision, the fact remains that the United States is a nation of laws.
What’s going on now is basically saying that the entire judicial system in America is broken, because it didn’t result in what some think is the “right” answer. Well, you know what? There is no “right” answer. It’s a terrible situation, but the only way we have to deal with situations like these is with our laws. The federal court cannot hear every right-to-die case. The Congress cannot draft new laws to overturn courts anytime they want. We have to trust the process, because we have nothing without it.
President Bush said:
We’re a nation of law. We adhere to laws. We have laws on the books. You might look at these laws. And that might provide comfort for you.
What comfort is there in knowing that a single person can be made exempt from the laws that apply to every other American, just because of public outcry or political expediency?
Oh, I see. The polls are wrong. But if they’re right, then they’re just for cowards. You seem to have both bases covered there.
I agree that judges shouldn’t rule based on polls. But isn’t that the argument against so-called “activist judges”? That they rule contrary to the will of the people? Now we have a judge who is ruling in favor of the will of the people. Oh, wait… he’s also an activist judge!
Must be very confusing. Or, perhaps the only polls that are valid, and the only judges that are honorable, are those that agree with your position.
Would you have followed the “laws” when slavery was legal? Probably not.
There’s a difference between our government officials circumventing the laws that define the operation of the very government they form, and an individual citizen disobeying a law with which they personally may disagree.
Regardless of the majority party, we should not and cannot accept the former.
Ya know I just did a big rant on how doctors aren’t gods, and they are not all knowing.
I guess I need to add one to the list. Judges also aren’t gods, and they aren’t all knowing.
I think the judge screwed up in this one, I think he screwed up, by ignoring the recomendation of her guardian ad litem, and he screwed up even more by not having a permanent one in place.
I don’t see evidence compelling enough to make me believe this woman wanted to die.
And appeals don’t always mean much, after all, Dred Scott was didn’t start at the Supreme Court now did it. Do you argue that the judges decided correctly in that one? Do you think they were right? Do you think abolitionists should have just given up, because hey a judge decided?
Terri is probably going to die, it is unlikely that she is going to have her tube put back in, and that the Federal courts will rule in her favor, but there is much we have learned from this-number one being if you really don’t want to live like her, then put it in writing, or if you don’t want your husband to murder you especially after he has found a new woman-put that in writing too, and I hope in the future, that when there is a dispute over the wishes of the person who is unable to speak for themselves, that that person is afforded more independant representation than Terri has been afforded in this case.
The right to die/eutnenasia movement has scored a huge victory, but I can’t help but wonder at what cost. When are we going to start actively euthenizing those who are disabled, because they are inconvienient.
Old Coot:
>1) Terri Schiavo is not (and never has been as near as I can discover) on what most of us would consider “life support”
I’ll agree with you and Paul on point 1. “Life support” is misleading. Of course, that’s a new point, not made anywhere in your previous post, so I hadn’t addressed it specifically. Lacking psychic capability, I don’t usually respond to arguments that haven’t been made yet. Good one, though.
>2) Only a few doctors have said she has no consciousness and that her condition is irreversible. At least as many competent physicians have said the opposite.
This is the “smoking isn’t proven to cause cancer” defense. Physicians came down on both sides of that issue, too. However, the courts found that smoking did cause cancer, as the courts found that Terri was in a persistent vegetative state with no chance of recovery as per my previous post. That is the factual finding of the court based on the evidence, and is therefore appropriate to use in the poll question.
I’d be interested in your complete list of physicians that think Terri’s condition is reversible, though. Please provide. I really, really want to see how many neurologists believe that a person missing as much of her cerebral cortex as Terri is can recover.
>And finally, the polls, however accurate, are a refuge for cowards. We are discussing the life of an innocent person here…
Jump to many other conclusions? Unlike you, I prefer my decisions to be made as set out in the constitution. That’s already happened here, and I’m confident that the latest, last ditch effort will also be correctly declared unconstitutional. Since you don’t respect the courts and don’t like popular opinion, what are you proposing as a deciding factor for this case?
Yes, we are discussing an innocent person here. The courts have decided that her desires should be carried out. You insist in standing in the way of that, and I’m not quite sure why. Why are your beliefs more important than hers again?
Ya know I just did a big rant on how doctors aren’t gods, and they are not all knowing. I guess I need to add one to the list. Judges also aren’t gods, and they aren’t all knowing.
What about Senators? Or Representatives? Or Presidents? Or you?
Are any of them better equipped to consider a medical-legal issue than doctors and judges?
No one claims that any of those individuals are infallable. But the one thing we have that is least fallable is our system of laws. Of course the system is not perfect, either. But our body of laws supersedes any one interest, any one agenda, any one political view. The laws defining operation of the judiciary and the separation of powers have survived hundreds of years, largely unchanged.
Of course, laws change as society changes. But “Congress can overrule the judiciary when they so desire” is not a law change that we should embrace.
If you get to end-run the law every time it rules against you, what good is it? And what will you say when the “other guy” wants to do it too?
RE: Brian’s post (March 21, 2005 08:42 PM)
Of course, laws change as society changes. But “Congress can overrule the judiciary when they so desire” is not a law change that we should embrace.
In view of this abomination, do you think it will come to fruition? If so, to what level do you think it will progress?
I just wonder how the judge (U.S. District Judge James Whittemore) who heard the case will accept the law as written – he might. I suspect (60:40) that should there be a reprieve, some fast-tracked appeals will follow with the Supreme Court ultimately rejecting the Congressional law as Unconstitutional and that will be the end of this legal saga. It’s a hot potato that no one really wants to tackle, and it will be interesting to see which court finally steps in to stop the process and defend the branch.
Anonymous I suspect Terri will be dead before anything is decided.
I suspect the law won’t pass constitutional muster as it is, the weakness in this case is in the state laws, and the federal congress doesn’t have much control over those.
I don’t think the judge is going to grant anything, if he was even contemplating it, he would have ordered the feeding tube replaced, that he didn’t pretty much doesn’t look good for the Schindler’s.
I also don’t think this sets any kind of horrible precedent either. Even if the law doesn’t get struck down, I doubt you are going to see this happening all over the place either. I really don’t think you or anyone else needs to worry.
It’s a sad state of affairs, that after decades of feminist triumphs, this all ultimately rests on her husband’s absolute legal right to control her body.
And are you willing to be the one to inject her?
If you really want to make this part of your defense of your position, you won’t have any reason to complain when anti-war posters call you chickenhawk for not going to Iraq to back up your beliefs, because this is the same type of thing. Unfair tactic to use.
She’s already dead. The courts will rule the husband has the right to make this decision.
As they have all along.
This isn’t euthanasia, this isn’t some “culture of death” thing. This is a question of who legally can make decisions regarding this womans care.
Brian sorry i was away for awhile. I’m sorry but I still have to disagree with you on the issues you replied on.It would still be the right thing for her parents to care for her. Better yet Michael would only be Honoring ,cherishing, his wife in sickness and in health by exhausting every avenue until death they do part, and assisting his inlaws in the same, until such time. Many other’s have kept this oath.
Sorry but I don’t by any stretch of the imagination see compassion as letting one’s wife die by dehydration/starvation as we are disscusing here. In my town the owner of 15 dogs did that and is now in Jail.I realize that one might put a sick animal down that is suffering or beyond help, but as you know Terri is not an animal. It has not been allowed to see, if I have my facts right, if Terri is beyond help.There is/might be a possibility that Terri can be helped with therapy. Granted she will probably never fully recover. But isn’t it worth a try to see if there is some hope for her? I see Terri as recieving no harm in all this.
I concede Michael was honarble in not divorcing his wife, but beyond that I see dishonor.
I believe you’re wrong, there is a “right” answer to this regardless of 10 million Judges,Michael or whomever,- to give mercy and a chance at life to Terri Schiavo. Even when many decry it. I know YOU and most every person on this planet (if they have knowledge of it)really know- this is wrong.
I know of no law saying one must be dehydrated /starved to death because of their incapacitation. I realize you started your premise with there being a living will. If there were I would still believe this to be wrong. As do most here. This is not the flick of a ventilator switch we are talking about. This is a heinous,immoral way to end any Human life. Period.
Ha, ABC Polls…same process that was sure that Kerry was “winning” and would become President.
You cannot evaluate public opinion with any reality, specificity, on the internet. Internet polling only takes into consideration the opinions of some (who, first, use the internet and secondly, interact on any polling process — which finely tune those being polled right there) and then also include those who participate with multiple votes (and who votes how many times, etc.)…something that internet polls don’t include, just that what numbers of the ‘yeah’ versus ‘nay’ button have been selected.
They are not reliable polling processes. A lot of people never access the interent but still vote, still have credibiltiy, citizenship, all that, many more do all of that but never participate in these online polls (I don’t), etc.
And, quoting Wikipedia inorder to suppose the medical condition of anyone is similar to…to…I give up. It’s not reliable academically, so much as it is this thing that exists on the internet. If you want a medical education, apply and then enroll and attend and complete an education in an American accredited college/university. If you want to cite medical information in general, then find published and academically reliable (and proven) medical texts and/or opinions (still opinions); if you want to cite an individual’s medical condition, for intance that of Terry Schiavo, then property evaluate her and then read the medical record. I can say here and now that even medical records have errors — frequently.
jYt: I’d be interested in your complete list of physicians that think Terri’s condition is reversible, though. Please provide. I really, really want to see how many neurologists believe that a person missing as much of her cerebral cortex as Terri is can recover.
I’m not sure where to find a complete list, but here are some that I’ve run across in the reading I’ve done. Some of the doctors mentioned don’t specifically speak to the issue of whether or not the brain damage is reversible, but they are on record as saying that the the tests that have been performed to date are not adequate to determine the exact condition of her brain.
From the article titled “Doctors Say Terri Not in PVS State, Could Recover With Proper Care” which can be found here:
Dr. John Young
Dr. William Maxfield – a radiologist, said CT scans from last summer show some damage but not the enormous loss of tissue described by others. “People ought to know she can be rehabilitated,” he said.
Dr. William Hammesfahr – a neurologist from Clearwater, where Terri was hospitalized, is a recognized national expert on PVS and is a Nobel prize nominee.
He says Terri’s eyes clearly fixate on her family and she tries to follow the simple commands her parents give her. “She looks at you, she can follow commands,” he said.
“This is a case about a judicial system making an error,” Hammesfahr concluded, referring to Judge George Greer granting Michael Schiavo’s request to remove Terri’s feeding tube.
**********************************************************************
From this article:
What you find when you examine the medical data and listen to the experiences of those who have spent the most time with Terri over the last decade is that a great deal of evidence belies the contention that Terri is in a PVS. Terri’s parents, brother, sister, and numerous other family members and friends who visit her regularly do not believe for a moment that Terri is unaware of her environment or unresponsive. At a press conference organized by the Schindlers on October 24, Terri’s mother, father, and eight others all gave accounts of how they see Terri consistently respond to people: She smiles, frowns, or acts sullenly depending on who the person is and what he or she does or says. She reacts quite markedly to music, particularly piano music, which she always especially enjoyed. A certified speech therapist asserted that Terri does attempt to verbalize and has been heard saying “yes,” “no,” “Mommy,” and possibly even “Help me.”
Even more powerful is the testimony of the numerous doctors who emphatically deny that Terri is in a PVS. The most convincing medical testimony comes from Dr. William Hammesfahr, a neurologist specializing in the treatment of brain injuries, who has spent approximately twelve hours examining Terri. At the October 24 press conference, Hammesfahr explained that Terri is able to respond to commands: She can raise and lower her limbs, although her range of motion is limited by severe muscular contractures from a lack of physical therapy for more than a decade. Doctors testifying for Michael Schiavo have dismissed such responses as reflexes. But what is most telling is Hammesfahr’s description of Terri’s response to a standard strength test: In this test he asked Terri to lift up her leg while he pressed down on it with his hand. He instructed her to keep lifting it in spite of his pressure. Hammesfahr explained how he could feel Terri pressing up against his hand with the same degree of force with which he was pressing down, so as to keep her leg in the same relative position. Such a response, Hammesfahr explained, is simply not reducible to a “reflex.”
Hammesfahr has even observed her move her head and limbs into positions that clearly cause her discomfort and maintain them in order to carry out instructions he gave her. Such behavior, Hammesfahr said, cannot be reflexive: “Reflexes are designed to avoid injury. They are there to prevent pain.” One has to overcome reflexes in order to perform a task in spite of discomfort or pain. …..
But Judge Greer accepted the medical testimony presented by Michael Schiavo that Terri is in a PVS and will not recover. That conclusion becomes even more dubious when you examine Felos’s well-known ties to the euthanasia movement and the background and testimony of Michael Schiavo’s principal medical witness, Dr. Ronald Cranford. ….
In contrast to the twelve hours Hammesfahr spent examining Terri, Cranford spent approximately 45 minutes. Rus Cooper-Dowda, who has endured neurologic exams himself, upon seeing the videotape of Cranford’s exam described it as “physically brutal.” He said that Cranford “clumsily poked, prodded, thumped, shoved, and pinched her.” Although Cranford admitted that Terri pulled away from him when he approached her, he did not deem that a voluntary response. When Terri moaned after he “thunked her hard between the eyebrows,” Cranford told the court that it wasn’t a response to pain. …..
Hammesfahr believes not only that Terri Schiavo is not in a PVS, but that she is treatable and could recover at least some of her former faculties. He believes, for example, that with proper therapy, Terri could once again swallow normally and take solid food by mouth. He has repeatedly advocated that Terri be given this therapy, but Michael Schiavo, who has complete control over Terri’s medical care, has steadfastly refused to allow it. The evidence for his contention, Hammesfahr explained, is that Terri does not drool. “The average human being produces one-and-a-half to two pints of saliva a day. If you can’t swallow it, you drool,” he said. “Terri can swallow that amount of her own saliva, which means that she can swallow liquids.” If Terri can swallow liquids, he reasons, it is quite likely that she can learn to swallow solid food again, which, of course, means she would no longer require tube feeding.
**************************************************************************
From this article:
have spent the past ten days recruiting and interviewing neurologists who are willing to come forward and offer affidavits or declarations concerning new testing and examinations for Terri. In addition to the 15 neurologists’ affidavits Gibbs [lawyer for the Shindlers] had in time to present in court, I have commitments from over 30 others who are willing to testify that Terri should have new and additional testing, and new examinations by unbiased neurologists. Almost 50 neurologists all say the same thing: Terri should be reevaluated, Terri should be reexamined, and there are grave doubts as to the accuracy of Terri’s diagnosis of PVS. All of these neurologists are board-certified; a number of them are fellows of the prestigious American Academy of Neurology; several are professors of neurology at major medical schools. ……….
Terri’s diagnosis was arrived at without the benefit of testing that most neurologists would consider standard for diagnosing PVS. One such test is MRI (Magnetic Resonance Imaging). MRI is widely used today, even for ailments as simple as knee injuries — but Terri has never had one. Michael has repeatedly refused to consent to one. The neurologists I have spoken to have reacted with shock upon learning this fact. One such neurologist is Dr. Peter Morin. He is a researcher specializing in degenerative brain diseases, and has both an M.D. and a Ph.D. in biochemistry from Boston University.
In the course of my conversation with Dr. Morin, he made reference to the standard use of MRI and PET (Positron Emission Tomography) scans to diagnose the extent of brain injuries. He seemed to assume that these had been done for Terri. I stopped him and told him that these tests have never been done for her; that Michael had refused them.
There was a moment of dead silence.
“That’s criminal,” he said, and then asked, in a tone of utter incredulity: “How can he continue as guardian? People are deliberating over this woman’s life and death and there’s been no MRI or PET?” ….
Dr. Morin explained that he would feel obligated to obtain the information in these tests before making a diagnosis with life and death consequences. I told him that CT (Computer-Aided Tomography) scans had been done, and were partly the basis for the finding of PVS. The doctor retorted, “Spare no expense, eh?” I asked him to explain the comment; he said that a CT scan is a much less expensive test than an MRI, but it “only gives you a tenth of the information an MRI does.” He added, “A CT scan is useful only in pretty severe cases, such as trauma, and also during the few days after an anoxic (lack of oxygen) brain injury. It’s useful in an emergency-room setting. But if the question is ischemic injury [brain damage caused by lack of blood/oxygen to part of the brain] you want an MRI and PET. For subsequent evaluation of brain injury, the CT is pretty useless unless there has been a massive stroke.”
Other neurologists have concurred with Dr. Morin’s opinion. Dr. Thomas Zabiega, who trained at the University of Chicago, said, “Any neurologist who is objective would say ‘Yes’ to the question, “Should Terri be given an MRI?”
But in spite of the lack of advanced testing, such as an MRI, attorney George Felos has claimed that Terri’s cerebral cortex has “liquefied,” and doctors for Michael Schiavo have claimed, on the basis of the CT scans, that parts of Terri’s cerebral cortex “have been replaced by fluid.” The problem with such contentions is that the available evidence can’t support them. Dr. Zabiega explained that “a CT scan can’t resolve the kind of detail needed” to make such a pronouncement: “A CT scan is like a blurry photograph.” Dr. William Bell, a professor of neurology at Wake Forest University Medical School, agrees: “A CT scan doesn’t give much detail. In order to see it on a CT, you have to have massive damage.” Is it possible that Terri has that sort of “massive” brain damage? According to Dr. Bell, that isn’t likely. Sometimes, he said, even patients who are PVS have a “normal or near normal” MRI. ……….
Neurologists who are familiar with diagnosing and treating PVS and other brain injuries have told me that PVS is a notoriously difficult diagnosis to make. It requires a great deal of time spent with the patient over several days or weeks. The reason for this, as Dr. Bell explained, is that brain-injured patients have severely disrupted sleep/wake cycles. Dr. Mack Jones, a neurologist in Ft. Walton Beach, Fla., added that patients with severe brain injury will have greatly varying levels of alertness: “Two independent examiners may get an entirely different impression depending on when and how long he/she has spent performing the examination. For example, one examiner may unknowingly attempt to evaluate the patient during a stage of sleep. Another examiner, by chance, may find a more responsive patient simply because [the patient is] now more aroused.” Dr. Morin concurred, saying that in his experience “the attention of brain-injured patients is very erratic,” and that because of this he has “seen inadequate assessments even by experienced neurologists.” Because of these difficulties, the American Academy of Neurology has made it clear that it can take months for a physician to establish with confidence the diagnosis of PVS. A 1996 British Medical Journal study, conducted at England’s Royal Hospital for Neurodisability, concluded that there was a 43-percent error rate in the diagnosis of PVS. Inadequate time spent by specialists evaluating patients was listed as a contributing factor for the high incidence of errors.
So, did Dr. Cranford, or any of the doctors testifying for Michael Schiavo, spend months evaluating Terri? No. To be fair, none of the doctors appearing for the Schindlers spent months with Terri either. But it is hardly coincidental that the doctors who spent the most time with Terri came to the conclusion that she is not PVS. The doctors brought in by the Schindlers spent approximately 14 hours examining Terri over more than two weeks; their conclusion was that Terri is not PVS, and that she may benefit from therapy.
In marked contrast, Dr. Cranford examined Terri on one occasion, for approximately 45 minutes. Another doctor for Michael Schiavo, Dr. Peter Bambikidis of the Cleveland Clinic Foundation in Ohio, examined Terri for about half an hour. When Dr. Bell learned of the cursory nature of these exams, he said: “You can’t do this. To make a diagnosis of PVS based on one examination is fallacious.” In Cranford’s examination, described by one witness as “brutal,” he discounted evidence under his own eyes of Terri’s responsiveness. At one point, Dr. Cranford struck Terri very hard on the forehead between her eyes. Terri recoiled and moaned, seemingly in pain. In his court testimony, Cranford dismissed the reaction and moan as a “reflex.”
“I asked Dr. Bell if he thought a moan uttered after a painful blow could be a reflex. “It’s highly unlikely,” he replied. He qualified his answer by noting that he had not actually seen the video of the exam, but he believes that the description of Terri’s reaction is not consistent with a reflex. “A moan is not a reflex,” Bell said. “A wince or grimace is not a reflex.”
TnTexas: Thanks, you did some heavy lifting there.
Thanks for the response TnTexas. I see from Old Coot’s response that your items are exactly the type of response that he will slurp down without further analysis, smile, and go to sleep.
You give three articles. Two of the three were penned by Reverend Robert Johansen, an outspoken “right-to-lifer”. Not that I’m discounting what he’s saying just for that, but we know the slant of the articles and can expect his to only present evidence supporting that view. The other one covered a press conference for the three doctors, Young, Maxfield, and Hammesfahr.
As you point out, I was looking for doctor’s saying that Terri’s condition was reversible. Of Terri’s condition, there are three possible positions “Yes”, “No”, and “I don’t know/needs more testing”. Obviously, the neutral position is the third. For the most part, even through extensive trying, that’s the best position Terri’s family has been able to get from physicians, especially neurologists. When Rev Johansen calls you up and asks you to sign on to just a little more testing, I’m not too surprised that he can get a few hits out there. After all, you’re not taking a position either way. If the tests are done and the results are the same, you can say, “at least we’re sure, now” and if they show more doubt, you’re a hero.
It’s humorous to me to see Rev. Johansen use 10 paragraphs to lay into Dr. Cranford in one article and then speak admiringly of Dr. Hammesfahr. In my previous response to the last article, I had asked, “How many paragraphs are spent on the independent doctor’s testimony (appointed by the court) that was presented in the trial? How many are spent examining the background, testimony, etc of the parent’s ‘expert witness’?” I think that question is even more relevant now.
You see, the trials and appeals of Terri Schiavo have already featured Dr. Hammesfahr, Dr. Young, and Dr. Maxfield. They are employed as expert witnesses by the Schlinders. Let’s see how their testimonies and presentations went:
The judge notes the following about Dr. Hammesfahr:
“Hammesfahr testified that he had treated patients worse off than Mrs. Schiavo yet ‘offered no names, no case studies, no videos and no test results to support his claim.'” and called him a “self promoter”. article
In his summary of the case, he also mentioned him as, “so biased as to lack credibility.”
If Hammesfahr is to be believed, there is no such thing as PVS, so it’s kind of funny that Rev Johansen didn’t mention that, since his arguments against Cranford are based on “obvious bias”, “predetermined outcomes”, etc. Of course, as I’ve already noted, he has exactly nothing to say about the court appointed physician, even though that was the testimony that the judge gave the most weight.
Dr. John Young is also in the employ of the Schlinders. He testified in Terri’s petition for more swallowing tests. The judge found his credibility to also be compromised, since he would not say when Terri would have stabilized after the cardiac arrest and would not concede that her treating physician would be in a better position to make that diagnosis.
Finally, Dr Maxfield testified in the 2002 hearing over new treatment relief. The summary was as follows:
“all of the evidence as a whole, and acknowledging that medicine is not a precise science, the court finds that the credible evidence overwhelmingly supports the view that Terry Schiavo remains in a persistent vegetative state. Even Dr.Maxfield acknowledges that vegetative patients can track on occasion and that
smiling can be a reflex.”
So, of your specifically named physicians that state that Terri could recover, all are employed or have been employed as expert witnesses by the Schlinders. All have had their best arguments for Terri’s state presented and heard by the court, and all failed to elicit any response other than that the credible evidence overwhelmingly supports Terri that is in a persistent vegetative state.
Transcripts for the referenced portions available at: link
Liberals can’t have it both ways. Democrat congressmen interviewed on Hannity and Colmes said that dems were against interfering in this case. When Hannity reminded him that 50% of dems who voted, voted for the congressional action, his reply was that they voted yes but still were against it.
Various posters in these replies have parroted that. They say it isn’t a partisan issue, that liberals are for life, but also that liberals were against interference in this case.
Dan Rather and Walter Cronkite no longer control the truth. Liberals – pick a view on this and stick with it. You can’t be both for and against it.