"The last minute report from Dr. Cheshire, a Christian fundamentalist neurologist, is a sham. He never examined her, he never viewed her CT scans, and he made no mention of her EEG. He viewed her for 90 minutes, and in his report states that she had no visual tracking and she had no conscious awareness -- cardinal signs of the vegetative state."
I haven't read anything concerning his religion. He did not use religious belief as basis for his concerns.
He did not make a diagnosis, but rather showed concerns that some of Terri's behaviors "may" be intentional (sign of awareness) He used words like "might" and "could" -and correctly refers to recent studies revealing the high rate of misdiagnosis in pvs - and also new developments in neuroimaging. This opinion certainly isn't going out on a limb as these concerns have shown up in many articles concerning pvs.
Judge Greer is a baptist - yet I'm sure you don't question his judgement.
George Felos claims he can talk to the spirits of comatose patients (they want to die of course) and even change the trajectory of an airplane just with his thoughts...but I doubt you question his legal opinions.
pvs cannot be diagnosed with a ct scan.
Regarding EEG's...
http://physiologyonline.physiology.org/cgi/content/full/17/1/38
I see you quote Cranford word for word...ex..
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/7328639/
Cranford was just as sure about Sgt. Mack as he was about Terri....but he was wrong.
"Ah. But minimally conscious can. I see."
There you go again....I never said that.
My point is that where there is doubt we ought to err on the side of life.
If there is ANY question, ANY doubt - then a person should not be killed.
"At the time of the trial in 2002, seven neurologists who examined her said beyond any doubt whatsoever Terri was in a vegetative state."
Not true. At least not according to this....
http://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/trialctorder11-02.txt This claims 3 out of 5 reached that conclusion.
You description of "beyond any doubt" is exagerrated as this same document says...
"the record is replete with the doctors disagreeing over what the videotapes appeared to portray"
Doesn't sound like certainty to me.
"Who knows? Everyone who's kept up with this saga knows. Terri's doctor told Michael there was no hope of recovery. "
Terri's prognosis during the malpractice trial was no different than it was immediately following the malpractice trial.
What changed was Michael's attitude.
While it is understandable that a person may lose hope - may fall into despair - that should not be the basis for which Terri was denied the very same therapy he claimed he was fighting for.
"Not on the health of a person who can't see, hear, smell, touch, feel, or even know someone was in the room."
There you go discounting the testimony of nurses who worked with her and family members who interacted with her.
Even Michael - at one point- stated she was responsive.
Why would Terri be given Naproxen during menstruation if she wasn't capable of feeling pain? - How was it the staff knew to give her this pain reliever?
How was it the staff knew to change her diaper? (she would make a face of distaste and try to "scoot" away from it)
Why was she given pain reliever during her dehydration?
How is it that her rehabilitation specialist knew to order a bone scan? - He claims she expressed discomfort during a rehab session.
So there are contradictions here concerning this person who supposedly could not feel anything.
"The decision to remove the tube, yes. Provide some basis for your statement that she was moved to a hospice because of her brain injury, and why she wasn't moved to a hospice before Greer's decision. "
The federal regulations state terminal illness. It's as simple as that.
A judge cannot order a terminal illness.
Dehydration and starvation are not terminal illnesses.
"All well and good. But Terri didn't WANT therapy -- she wanted to die. You still don't get it, do you? "
Again...this decision was made so sloppily that there is too high a degree of uncertainty as well.
The alleged statement Terri made was vague and had nothing to do with feeding tubes or hydration. She had just seen a member of the family on his deathbed. She made a vague statement about not wanting to live like that (and really...who does?)
No one can say if she was referring to ventilators? Dialysis machines? feeding tubes? Water?
So wouldn't it be prudent to balance this vague statement against the testimony of others who heard her opinions as well?
One of Terri's friends testified to a statement...Greer disregarded it based on an erroneous assumption.
Later he admitted his basis for disregarding the statement was faulty but the infallible judge refused to acknowledge it added clarification to Terri's possible wishes.
One of Michael's ex-girlfriends claims he told her had no idea what Terri would have wanted.
So again...there it is - uncertainty. There really was no way to exactly know what her wishes were, and that is why hearsay evidence should never be allowed in cases like these. Too much opportunity for abuse and mistakes.
One of Terri's court appointed guardians stated he thought it was possible Michael had conflict of interest.
This too was disregarded.
"Oh, but you know better. That was what YOU wanted for Terri"
There you go again pretending you know me when you don't.
Here are more excellent articles concerning pvs/coma/minimally conscious. Again the more I read the more I see this diagnosis of pvs is anything but an exact science.
http://bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/abstract/313/7048/13 http://bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/321/7255/196 http://bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/313/7062/943/c http://bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/313/7062/944 http://bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/73/4/355 http://neurology.org/cgi/content/full/58/3/349 http://brain.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/124/7/1263 http://www.med.cornell.edu/news/press/2003/03_31_03.html http://assc.caltech.edu/assc8/SSOwen.html http://pmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/75/884/321 http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/319/7213/841"Cranford was just as sure about Sgt. Mack as he was about Terri....but he was wrong."You're saying Dr. Cranford was wrong when he stated, "He (Dr. Cheshire) never examined her, he never viewed her CT scans, and he made no mention of her EEG. He viewed her for 90 minutes, and in his report states that she had no visual tracking and she had no conscious awareness -- cardinal signs of the vegetative state"?
Are you saying that Dr. Cheshire DID examine her, he DID view her CT scans, and he DID make mention of her EEG? Are you saying that Dr. Cheshire DIDN'T view her for 90 minutes, and in his report DIDN'T state that she had no visual tracking and she had no conscious awareness?
"This claims 3 out of 5 reached that conclusion."
Yes, and I would therefore assume that there were four others prior to the trial such that at the time of the trial in 2002 we had a total of seven neurologists.
"Doesn't sound like certainty to me."
The court was convinced.
"There you go discounting the testimony of nurses who worked with her and family members who interacted with her."
Testimony? As in court testimony? As in under oath, penalty of perjury testimony?
Or "testimony" as in comments made to The National Enquirer? Don't tell me you took their gossip "testimony" seriously.