Doctor: The "Water" in Terri’s Brain is a Myth [CT Scan Found As Well As Bone Scan Of Terri]

You have probably heard Michael Schiavo’s attorney George Felos say things such as this about Terri Schiavo’s brain:

"CT scans just don't lie. When you look at that picture, you see a big black hole filled with water where her brain used to be," Felos said. "There is no cognition, no thought process, no awareness."

Now the doctor at CodeBlueBlog has found the CT scan that Felos is referring to, and what the doctor has discovered is both shocking and wonderful: Felos is wrong, the courts have been wrong. Terri’s brain is not damaged as much as we have been led to believe.

Update: The doctor has also looked at Terri's bone scan report, and concludes that "someone either was physically abusing Terri or they dropped/mishandled her severely."

The most alarming thing about this image . . . is that there certainly is cortex left. Granted, it is severely thinned, especially for Terri's age, but I would be nonplussed if you told me that this was a 75 year old female who was somewhat senile but fully functional, and I defy a radiologist anywhere to contest that.

I HAVE SEEN MANY WALKING, TALKING, FAIRLY COHERENT PEOPLE WITH WORSE CEREBRAL/CORTICAL ATROPHY. THEREFORE, THIS IS IN NO WAY PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE THAT TERRI SCHIAVO'S MENTAL ABILITIES OR/OR CAPABILITIES ARE COMPLETELY ERADICATED. I CANNOT BELIEVE SUCH TESTIMONY HAS BEEN GIVEN ON THE BASIS OF THIS SCAN.

The worrisome, no alarming thing, for me, was that I heard a bioethicist and several important figures on the major media describe Terri's brain as MUCH WORSE. One "expert" said that she had a "bag of water" in her head. Several experts described her as a "brain stem preparation"

These statements are wholly inaccurate. This is an atrophied brain, yes, but there is cortex remaining, and where there's cortex (?life) there's hope.

If you starve this woman to death it would be, in my professional and experienced medical opinion, the equivalent of starving to death a 75-85 year old person. I would take that to the witness stand.

Wouldn’t you love to see the CodeBlueBlog doctor get the chance to take the witness stand and explain that Terri doesn’t have a "bag of water" in her brain? Spread the word about what the doctor has discovered -- and if you have an in with the Schindlers or their attorneys, please direct them to the CodeBlueBlog web site, where they can contact the doctor.

I just found Terri's 1991 bone scan and I believe she was I just found Terri's 1991 bone scan and I believe she was I just found Terri's 1991 bone scan and I believe she was abused, physically.

So what Michael's family said about her was hearsay, but what Terri's family said about her was somehow not hearsay? How does her family's testimony carry "more weight?"

No, they should be given equal weight and as a matter of law this means that clear and convincing evidence has not been brought before the court.

Okay, well earlier you said the Schindlers' testimony had more weight that the Schiavos'. Now you're saying they're both BS?

In the timeline on the Terri Schiavo page at Abstract Appeal, I just noticed that there are links to the actual court documents for each of the trials. The first one is the judge's order after the trial in January of 2000. Five people testified about statements Terri had made regarding maintaining life support. Mrs. Schindler and another witness testified that Terri commented about the Karen Ann Quinlan case that the father shouldn't remove life support from Karen. The court found inconsistencies with both witnesses. Michael Schiavo, his brother, and his sister-in-law testified about statements Terri had made about independence, quality of life, not to be a burden, hooked to a machine, etc. The court found no inconsistencies with the testimony of these witnesses. The court discounted the Karen Ann Quinlan statements, since Terri made them at the age of 11 or 12 and they were statements about what she would do for someone else rather than about herself in the same situation. The other statements were made when she was an adult. When her grandmother was in intensive care, she said that "if she was ever a burden she would not want to live like that." While she and Michael watched a TV show about people on life support, she again said she would not want to live like that. At her grandmother's funeral, she said to Michael's brother Scott, "If I ever go like that just let me go. Don't leave me there. I don't want to be kept alive on a machine." And while watching a TV movie about a man in a coma, she said to Scott's wife Joan that she wanted it stated in her will that "she would want the tubes and everything taken out if that ever happened to her." That court document is here, and I find the Schiavo statements much more credible than the Schindler statements. How about you?

Check post 23 - "Four board-certified neurologists in Florida consulting on her care (James H. Barnhill, Garcia J. Desousa, Thomas H. Harrison, and Jeffrey M. Karp) had repeatedly made a diagnosis of PVS over the years." Repeatedly. For years.

Check the court records, Judge Greer made his decision based on the testimony of 5 Docs, one of whom is a certifiable lunatic with views outside the mainstream of the medical and legal profession. That would be your guy. PVS patients have constitutional rights. PVS can not be diagnosed in 45 minutes. Patients with "PVS" in Terri's condition are not "flat lined".

In the first trial, the only medical testimony came from Dr. James Barnhill and Dr. Vincent Gambone. The court found that Terri was in PVS and "has no hope of ever regaining consciousness and therefore capacity."

What purpose would be served by more diagnostic imaging? Do you believe that brain cells spontaneously grow back?

The purpose of diagnostic imaging is to ascertain if Terri has cerbral cortex. To kill her without knowing that is criminal. No, but the brain is a funny thing that is not well understood in all of it's mechanisms. Do you claim to know that the brain can not compenstae for loss of mass?

CT scans show that Terri's cerebral cortex was replaced by cerebrospinal fluid many years ago. It is my understanding that brain cells do not grow back once they are destroyed. Do you have different information?

Remember that Dr. Cranford is probably the leading expert in the country on PVS, then consider revising your statement.

Yeah, and Mengele was the leading expert in genetics in Germany. So what? The idiot has written that PVS patients have no constitutional rights. That is more than enough reason to ignore his testimony since 40% of PVS patients are misdiagnosed and this idiot doesn't see them as persons.

Are you saying that Dr. Cranford misdiagnosed Terri and she really isn't PVS? Or are you just throwing rocks at the doctor to divert attention from the issue?

It has seemed to me that money has been an unstated issue/interest in all of this from the beginning.

I think you're right. In that first trial document, the judge noted talked about the money. Here's what he said:

During the period of time following the incident of February 23, 1990 the parties worked together in an attempt to provide the best care possible for Terri Schiavo. On February 14, 1993, this amicable relationship between the parties was severed. While the testimony differs on what may or may not have been promised to whom and by whom, it is clear to this court that such severance was predicated upon money and the fact that Mr. Schiavo was unwilling to equally divide his loss of consortium award with Mr. and Mrs. Schindler. The parties have literally not spoken since that date. Regrettably, money overshadows this entire case and creates potential of conflict of interest for both sides. The Guardian Ad Litem noted that Mr. Schiavo's conflict of interest was that if Terri Schiavo died while he is still her husband, he would inherit her estate. The record before this court discloses that should Mr. and Mrs. Schindler prevail, their stated hope is that Mr. Schiavo would divorce their daughter, get on with his life, they would be appointed guardians of Terri Schiavo and become her heirs at law. They have even encouraged him to "get on with his life". Therefore, neither side is exempt from finger pointing as to possible conflicts of interest in this case.

I find the fact that nobody has responded to your post to be very revealing.

It's those pesky facts again, difficult to dispute...

The hysteria on FR about this issue reminds me of typical leftist behavior. All emotion and no critical thinking.

And we used to be such a rational group, too.

The judge in the case I linked to also stated this...
Since the resolution of the malpractice lawsuit, both Michael and the Schindlers have become suspicious that the other party is assessing Theresa's wishes based upon their own monetary self-interest. The trial court discounted this concern, and we see no evidence in this record that either Michael or the Schindlers seek monetary gain from their actions. Michael and the Schindlers simply cannot agree on what decision Theresa would make today if she were able to assess her own condition and make her own decision.
There has been discussion among the parties that the money remaining when Theresa dies should be given to a suitable charity as a lasting memorial. If anything is undeniable in this case, it is that Theresa would never wish for this money to drive a wedge between the people she loves. We have no jurisdiction over the disposition of this money, but hopefully these parties will consider Theresa's desires and her memory when a decision about the money is ultimately required.
However, as for myself, I feel that Michael is a despicable lowlife who should've divorced Terry rather than become the adulterous slug that he has become. He is setting a fine example for his children, isn't he.
Sorry, but his not divorcing her shows to me that his motivation is money.

Sorry, but his not divorcing her shows to me that his motivation is money.

Maybe that motivation is mostly to prevent her slimy parents from getting their hands on it. When I see her mother stand in front of the cameras and go into her fakey dry-eyed "save my little girl" act it makes me ill.

I found something else interesting in that report:

The testimony in this case establishes that Theresa was very young and very healthy when this tragedy struck. Like many young people without children, she had not prepared a will, much less a living will. She had been raised in the Catholic faith, but did not regularly attend mass or have a religious advisor who could assist the court in weighing her religious attitudes about life-support methods. Her statements to her friends and family about the dying process were few and they were oral. Nevertheless, those statements, along with other evidence about Theresa, gave the trial court a sufficient basis to make this decision for her.

So her religion really doesn't figure into any part of the discussion.

jwalsh07 is way out of his league. While I recognize that as an imaging machine mechanic he may have greater knowledge in this area than most people, you and I both know that we would get laughed out of court if we offered this clown as an expert witness. Talk about junk science.

The other misconception is that Terri has been deprived of due process of law, at least from a procedural standpoint. Fifteen years of trials and appeals at both the state and federal level and all of the judges have come to the same conclusion. The problem I have is not with due process or even whether she is actually in a PVS. My problem has to do with the law itself that apparently allows the killing of another human being based upon verbal hearsay. As you know, under the commonlaw and the statutory laws of most states, a person cannot buy or sell real estate or even create an interest in real property (except for a lease having a term of less than a year), create a will, grant a power of attorney, or establish a trust, in the absence of a writing that is witnessed and/or acknowledged. Nor will the courts enforce a contract involving real property (except a lease for less than a year) or a contract to answer for the debt of another or a contract that cannot by its terms be performed within a year, in the absence of a writing signed by the person to be charged. A person can't even transfer securities or the assets of an IRA from one account to another without a signature guarantee. Yet the law allows a the killing of another human based solely upon the out-of-court, oral statements that the person allegedly made as a young adult. I don't blame Judge Greer or the numerous appellate judges or any of the doctors who have testified for either side. I do blame the members of the Florida State Legislature who have allowed this to happen.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.