Skip to comments.FL lawyer says Giuliani, Romney, McCain wrong on Schiavo case
Posted on 05/28/2007 9:33:12 AM PDT by wagglebee
click here to read article
I appreciate your zeal in this matter. But remember the parable of the weeds.
24 ¶ Another parable he proposed to them, saying: The kingdom of heaven is likened to a man that sowed good seed in his field.
25 But while men were asleep, his enemy came and oversowed cockle among the wheat and went his way.
26 And when the blade was sprung up, and had brought forth fruit, then appeared also the cockle.
27 And the servants of the good man of the house coming said to him. Sir, didst thou not sow good seed in thy field? Whence then hath it cockle?
28 And he said to them: An enemy hath done this. And the servants said to him: Wilt thou that we go and gather it up?
29 And he said: No, lest perhaps gathering up the cockle, you root up the wheat also together with it.
30 Suffer both to grow until the harvest, and in the time of the harvest I will say to the reapers: Gather up first the cockle, and bind it into bundles to burn, but the wheat gather ye into my barn.
We do not want to include the cockle with the wheat when we harvest. We don't want to nurture the cockle either, for cockle is antithesis to the wheat. For a long time the cockle has been sitting there and growing right beside the wheat. Right now we are preparing to gather wheat for the harvest which is the election, so now we bundle up the cockle and burn it. The time is right Sounds good to me. You make my point. Thank you.
Hope certainly colored perception on this CT scan. (This is the one that was all over the Internet.) Have you seen some other scan?
Left: Scan of normal 25-year-old's brain; Right: Schiavo's 2002 CT scan at age 38 showing the massive loss of brain tissue.
31 And when the Son of man shall come in his majesty, and all the angels with him, then shall he sit upon the seat of his majesty.
32 And all nations shall be gathered together before him, and he shall separate them one from another, as the shepherd separateth the sheep from the goats:
33 And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on his left.
34 Then shall the king say to them that shall be on his right hand: Come, ye blessed of my Father, possess you the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world.
35 For I was hungry, and you gave me to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave me to drink; I was a stranger, and you took me in:
36 Naked, and you covered me: sick, and you visited me: I was in prison, and you came to me.
37 Then shall the just answer him, saying: Lord, when did we see thee hungry, and fed thee; thirsty, and gave thee drink?
38 And when did we see thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and covered thee?
39 Or when did we see thee sick or in prison, and came to thee?
40 And the king answering, shall say to them: Amen I say to you, as long as you did it to one of these my least brethren, you did it to me.
41 Then he shall say to them also that shall be on his left hand: Depart from me, you cursed, into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels.
42 For I was hungry, and you gave me not to eat: I was thirsty, and you gave me not to drink.
43 I was a stranger, and you took me not in: naked, and you covered me not: sick and in prison, and you did not visit me.
44 Then they also shall answer him, saying: Lord, when did we see thee hungry, or thirsty, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister to thee?
45 Then he shall answer them, saying: Amen I say to you, as long as you did it not to one of these least, neither did you do it to me.
46 And these shall go into everlasting punishment: but the just, into life everlasting.
I do wonder how you get around the fact that no food/liquid passed her lips. Even Karen Quinlan was weaned off her respirator, which in her case kept her alive, and allowed to live or die based on if her body could keep breathing on it’s own. I don’t think she was denied food/hydration tho.
‘IF’ Terri really was not conscious then offering her food and drink through her mouth should not have been that awful since she would not ingest enough to keep herself alive indefinitely. Why was she not given that chance?
Dr.s are quite willing to counsel pregnant women carrying a baby with down syndrome or some other problem to kill the child just because it’s going to have mental retardation or some other challenging disorder. So you think we should believe them when they say someone who does have brain damage isn’t aware? Hmm well I tend to be very skeptical.
She wasn't. The suggestion was made but her father angrily refused to take away her feeding tube, saying that that was her nutrition. Karen Ann died of pneumonia almost ten years after she was weaned off of the respirator.
Nobody is suspended for "differing views" on any issue. All you have to do to stay here is behave yourself.
What gets people banned is breaking Free Republic's rules against profanity and personal attacks, or for other kinds of flagrant bad behavior. They have only themselves to blame.
Food is artificial?
There was no state money involved in this. The parents were paying the bills and personally responsible for her.
I bet you would have loved the spectacle of choking when she couldn't swallow, eh? Would you have said, "look at how cruel the Schindlers are!"? Somehow, I doubt it.
Besides, I am not arguing against her receiving morphine..that was her parents.
How many years went by before Scott and Joan Schiavo's testimony was allowed in Greers court for the purpose of killing her? You err on the side of death every time. Besides, Carla was not the only one.
Actually, the Greer court conceded that she could swallow. But he concluded that she could not swallow enough. It would only "prolong her death". Nice, eh?
I would say instead I support the side of the medical documentation as the representation of what happened. If it's documented in the record, say so, and I'll reevaluate. From my perspective, it looks like some want to ignore the medicine, and believe anything that sounds like it might support what they want to believe, despite more evidence to the contrary. The classic statement that's been around in legal trials involving medical records: "If it isn't documented, it didn't happen." I can't imagine why they wouldn't document something like that - any nurse I know, would have.
No, it’s the only one I’ve seen, and looking at that scan tells me there’s very little cortex left. To believe that this is the scan of someone who speaks meaningful words is to allow hope to color perception.
In your experience, how many nurses have had to request restraining orders against the patients primary caregiver?
What does that have to do with documenting that a patient ate?
Could you give us a brief background bio on Dr. Cranford?
> Don't know what you mean. Some testified that she could. Maybe more if they were not intimidated. You and Greer did not support another swallowing test. That is about as simple as I can put it.
Do you want me to post an early example of a restraining order against Michael Schiavo? Long before Carla ever saw him as a matter of fact.
Considering the court decided that she wouldn't have wanted it prolonged, then that was a good decision.
Again, what does that have to do with a nurse documenting in the medical record that the patient ate? As far as I know, there was nothing about her eating in the medical record. If there was, why wasn’t the record brought up at any point?
What does that have to with the autopsy report?
Did any Judge ever see her?
The skinny is that Michael didn't want them to fed her. Read the affidavits.
I see you didn't reply to the Scott an Joan Schiavo testimony by the way.
I’m not sure I know the testimony - is it medical? Bottom line, is that you seem to be trying to change the subject from the medical, because it does not support what you want to believe.
I'm not aware of any judge seeing her. But it goes back to the same basic question retMD asks: "What does that have to do with anything we're discussing?"
Judges don't see every person about whom decisions must be made--they rely upon experts. And there wasn't a single neurologist who examined her and said she was not in a Persistent Vegetative State (doctors who advertise in the National Enquirer don't count).
Some of the neurologists who examined Mrs. Schiavo and diagnosed her as in a PVS, with little hope of any recovery...
The CT has been discussed before. The following exchange last year opened eyes. I learned from it and I think others did. I trust Polybius won't mind if I quote this comment in full. (He's a radiologist.) He made several other valuable comments in this thread that I can try to link.
>> The scan on the left is a normal brain. The scan on the right was the remant of Terri Schiavo's brain:
>> Looks to me as if there wasn't much left to recover. [earlier post]
Reply by Polybius:
As a radiologist, the first time I saw those those two CT images used to make that point, I thought to myself, "Now there's a classic example of how the media can and will manipulate information."
The CT slice selected to illustrate "the normal brain" has been taken at the axial level of the frontal horns and the third ventricle.
The CT slice selected to illustrate "Schiavo's brain" was taken at the axial level of the lateral ventricles.
The ventricles are cerebral spinal fluid (CSF) filled cavities in your brain. (In purple in the drawing below.) They are supposed to be there. On CT, CSF is black.
The lateral ventricles are the very long, curved ventricles at the top of the ventricular system. The third ventricle is the little ventricle below the lateral ventricles. The frontal horns are the anterior tips of the lateral ventricles that are seen as little pockets of CSF when you clip them with a third ventricle level CT slice.
So, if you take the CT slice at the third ventricle/ frontal horn level, guess what? There are almost no CSF collections there.
But, when you take a CT slice at the level of the lateral ventricles.....WHOAAA!!!.....Big difference! These are mildly dilated lateral ventricles in a 76 year old.
To a layman, especially if they are shown a slice at the third ventricle level as an example of "what a normal brain should look like", the CT slice selected from the lateral ventricle level makes it look as if there were a huge hole in Granny's brain.
No need to try to euthanize Granny because of those lateral ventricles. She will just hit you over the head with her purse and tell you that she is cutting you out of her will as soon as she calls her lawyer in the morning.
There is no doubt the Schiavo had hydrocephalus (and cortical atrophy too) but I have had patients with just as much hydrocephalus with shunts in place walk in and walk out of our CT room.
Schiavo may have had other issues that would have made her a lost cause but, if I showed a layman third ventricle level CT images of a "normal brain" and then showed the layman lateral ventricle level images of any of your brains, I could very easily convince that layman that a significant chunk of your brain was gone.
94 posted on 07/03/2006 9:12:36 PM PDT by Polybius
Is Dr. Cranford medical? You didn't even answer that question. Why do you avoid things like that?
Thanks. Any murderer is seen by a Judge before sentence, agree?
Look again at the scans. The scan on the right is worse than the one shown of the 76 year old - far worse. It isn’t just the level of the slice. The ventricles are much larger, and there is less cortex. Notice that the sulci, the folds, have more black space between them on Terri Schiavo’s scan, and there seem to be some missing, which is not the case with the 76 year old’s scan. I’ve heard radiologists say that Terri Schiavo’s scan is the worst they’ve ever seen. And the autopsy bore that out - read the neuropathologist’s section.
I’m not sure what Cranford’s bio has to do with this. It sounds like you’re trying to discredit him because you don’t care for the diagnosis, and want to believe something else. He was far from the only doctor to give that diagnosis for Terri Schiavo.
The point was, and is, that they were presented to deceive. As Polybius put it, "...to use those two CT images at different anatomical levels as comparison is total Bravo Sierra..." (post #103). And, "... when someone resorts to image trickery to make one point, your B.S. meter starts to go off about everything else they claim to be true" (post #134).
Exactly. Deception is the antithesis of science. Before you tell me how bad this brain is, tell me whose brain it is? Terri's? You have to take a deceiver's word for it. How do you know the CT hasn't been retouched to make it look worse? You have to take a deceiver's word for it. That's the trouble with liars and cheats. You can't trust anything else they say either.
Assuming it is a scan of Terri's brain, neither Dr. Code Blue Blog (also a radiologist) nor Polybius thought it looked so terrible. Both said the patient could be functional. As Polybius noted, "There is no doubt the Schiavo had hydrocephalus (and cortical atrophy too) but I have had patients with just as much hydrocephalus with shunts in place walk in and walk out of our CT room."
I have read it, several times. Its primary contribution was disposing of the far-fetched "bulimia theory" of Terri's supposed "collapse." There was never a question that Terri suffered a brain injury. It was no surprise to find damage at autopsy. Dr. Nelson himself stated that his findings did not rule out some awareness and ability to interact by Terri. Her pre-mortem medical reports indicated the same in many ways.
Here is a section of Dr. Hammesfahr's statement about the autopsy report. He was one of the court-appointed neurologists who examined Terri. He was very thorough in his testing, spending about ten hours with her. Dr. Maxfield, whom he mentions, also spent extra time with Terri.
"I have had a chance to look at Dr. Nelson's analysis of the brain tissue, and essentially, as a clinician, these are my thoughts.
"The autopsy results confirmed my opinion and Dr. Maxfield's opinions, that the frontal areas of the brains, the areas that deal with awareness and cognition were relatively intact. To use Dr. Nelson's words, 'relatively preserved.' In fact, the relay areas from the frontal and front temporal regions of the brain, to the spinal cord and the brain stem, by way of the basal ganglia, were preserved, thus the evident responses which she was able to express to her family and to the clinicians seeing her or viewing her videotape. The Spect scan confirmed these areas were functional and not scar tissue, and that was apparently also confirmed on Dr. Nelson's review of the slides. Dr. Maxfield's estimates of retained brain weight were apparently accurate, although there may have been some loss of brain weight due to the last two weeks of dehydration.
"Dr. Maxfield and myself both emphasized that she was a woman trapped in her body, similar to a child with cerebral palsy, and that was borne out by the autopsy, showing greater injury in the motor and visual centers of the brain. Obviously, the pathologist's comments that she could not see were not borne out by reality, and thus his assessment must represent sampling error. The videotapes clearly showed her seeing, and even Dr. Cranford, for the husband, commented to her that, when she could see the balloon, she could follow it with her eyes as per his request. That she could not swallow was obviously not borne out by the reality that she was swallowing her saliva, about 1.5 liters per day of liquid, and the clinical swallowing tests done by Dr. Young and Dr. Carpenter. Thus, there appears to be some limitations to the clinical accuracy of an autopsy in evaluating function.
1. Hammesfahr is a charlatan - anyone that has to have friends write letters to the Nobel committee in order to claim that he was a Nobel prize nominee is not credible.
2. I note Hammesfahr taking liberties interpreting Dr. Nelson’s original report. Your post indicates Hammesfahr said, “the autopsy results confirmed my opinion and Dr. Maxfield’s opinions, that the frontal areas of the brains, the areas that deal with awareness and cognition were relatively intact. “ But he notes in the next sentence that Nelson said certain areas were “relatively preserved.” These are not interchangeable. “Relatively intact” means that little damage was done. “Relatively preserved” means that one area was preserved better than other portions. Further, Dr. Nelson does not say that the frontal and temporal lobes were relatively preserved, only the frontal and temporal poles, a much smaller area.
We have dealt with the saliva issue on these threads, many times. Swallowing small amounts of saliva is not the same as drinking and eating. It’s too late tonight, and I’ve posted the information before - it’s out there for someone who wants medical facts instead of whatever slant supports their preconceived thought.
3. The fact that someone put the two scans together to make one look worse doesn’t change the fact that Terri Schiavo’s scan looks very bad with or without the other scan next to it. You know two radiologists who say it’s not that bad. I and others know radiologists who say it is terrible. Dr. Nelson’s report confirms that.
You don’t care ZIP about the constitution. If you did, you’d notice her FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS as re: religion were trampled all over. Teri S. was a PRACTICING Catholic. In other words, a real one, as opposed to a phony like Fat Teddy. When she was under court enforced STARVATION the court would not permit her to receive holy communion, not even a tiny bit of a communion wafer. Certainly not enough to keep anyone alive. But that bastard Michael and the evil courts wouldn’t let her have that, would they? Can’t have her 1st amendment right to religious expression respected when there’s a death to be had? As a practicing catholic, she would have wanted communion when she was dying. Nay, KILLED. By the state, and people like you who turned a blind eye to what was going on in there. Maybe, someday if you are in an accident, and your so-called next of kin wants you dead because they want the insurance mnoney, they’ll yank your feeding tube too. What goes around comes around.
Now how do you feel about it Mr/Ms “constitution supporter.”
You do believe the deceiver then, that this was an unretouched scan of Terri's brain?
Let's give that a second thought. If Terri's scan looks so bad, why do so-called right-to-die proponents have to cheat? We are supposed to stick to facts, stick to science, yes? This deceit poisoned public understanding of Terri's condition and helped Michael put her to death.
A number of neurologists swallowed the poison too. We all heard them on TV. Here's Polybius again:
"There is no question that Schiavo had prominent cortical atrophy but, when you have a neurologist comparing CT slices of a normal third ventricle axial level with Schiavo's lateral ventricle axial level (see Post 138), you do want to scream at the TV that, when it comes to interpreting CT's, that particular individual does not know his rectum from a Hounsfield unit."
Fact: she could swallow. She never drooled and could swallow whether lying down or sitting up. Opinion: she could not swallow enough for sustenance.
The fact is undisputed, the opinion is moot (and certainly open to question as well). Michael refused to let her be fed by hand or receive the swallowing therapy that had been offered to Terri.
In a civilized setting, it would not matter. A patient should not be put to death due to her inability to take food and drink orally.
And the ONLY logical and humane solution would be to at least find out.
Facts are most annoying because they get in the way of preconceptions. A hundred facts, a ton of facts will get you nowhere in the face of that.
It is easier to reason with Henrietta.
Wow! That is a fantastic explanation and Polybius did a wonderful job spelling it out in terms that laymen like myself could understand.
It is fairly obvious that anytime one is dealing with scientific or mathematics, that someone who is knowledgable in the field can usually skew the data to comply with his own agenda. And in Terri’s case, since most of us have no clue what a to look for in a CT scan, it was rather simple to point to a “black hole” and say that it was a hole in the brain.
You are absolutely correct that this should have been handled at the State level. Jeb! lost his nerve and asked his Bro’ to bail him out. ON so many levels, the law was violated in Florida by at least one judge and several bureaucrats (including the current beloved Governor Crist) — for that, Terri ended up dead. She is one of many who are being executed in nursing homes and hospices across the country. In Terri’s case, national news was made because her parents wanted to her to live and her husband wanted her dead. Who had the biggest conflict of interest there? Terri was a test case for executing disabled and old people who can’t take care of themselves. There are many cases where families want their loved one alive, but medical and legal forces have gathered against them. In most States, feeding and hydrating someone who can’t do it for herself/himself is now considered a “medical treatment” rather than a basic necessity of life. Thanks to George Soros and all his billions, the euthanasia movement will continue its evil march across the planet, aided and abetted by the ACLU, the Hemlock Society, and our own little PRAVDA/MSM.
However, when a state either cannot or will not take the necessary actions to protect the Constitutionally protected rights of its citizens, the federal government can and should step in.
:-) :-) Henrietta just pecks at her food, but she manages to keep her weight and health.
Somehow we are supposed to understand that smacking that Nobel stuff on him obviates his qualifications. It is sort of like calling a person a bigot or a Nazi. At least Henrietta does't use emotional buzzwords to make a point, is far more objective in her assessments.
I would like to buy an “n”.
With which I, too, agree. But that wasn't the fact in the Terri Schiavo case. It was her husband Michael who deliberately initiated government intervention. He couldn't kill her privately so he turned to the state to execute her. It took seven years of state intervention (financed by her therapy money) to kill her.
The scan looks bad, period. If you have a different scan, that can be reliably sourced to be that of Terri Schiavo, and that doesn’t show such lack of cerebral cortex, link it.
If you want to talk about deceit, then look at the many posts on these threads that distort the science. I have pointed out dozens of times where that happens, and somehow you never get upset about that deceit.
Which goes back to my original point - you want to hear only that which will support your fixed ideas. I didn’t start with a fixed idea of what I would find - it sounds very much like you did.
And the ONLY logical and humane solution would be to at least find out.
Which was done, three times, on three successive years of swallowing tests.