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

MediaCulpa ^ | March 22, 2005 | Unknown

[conservativecorner]

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."

CodeBlueBlog:

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.

Link to bone scan.

[BB62]

ConservativeCorner,

This is a perfect example of those who shoot their mouth off and run.

I have compiled my own little list of such people - I suggest you do the same. I suspect they are either paid, or have so little to do with their lives that they just like to take the opposite tack on matters of significance.

You asked a perfectly reasonable question, to which CoC could have taken 1/2 second and found the supposedly 'numerous' threads. Of course he isn't going to do so. It is much easier to allege then not back up your "facts".

Regards,
BB62

[ContemptofCourt]

You obviously did not read this whole thread, genius.

PS, FR has a search button for a reason.

[shhrubbery!]

(Hammesfahr's words, not mine.)

AH, but I notice you left that little word "cure" out of quotation marks when you claim he had stated he could "cure 'almost anyone with brain injury or stroke'."

Give me a link showing actual Hammesfahr quotes, where he claimed he could "cure" "almost anyone."

I'll bet you won't because you can't.

You provided no links except for a dubiously titled site named "quack.com." What are the qualifications of a website called "quack.com" to make judgments about doctors? Please post facts.

[Tarantulas]

Decisions like this are made every day. I heard a great interview with a doctor who has to "pull the plug" on two or three people every year. He said that the overriding concern in these cases is to honor the wishes of the patient. He told a story about an old man who was brain dead and being kept alive on total life support. All of his family members were in the room, and they all wanted to keep the life support going for him. But the doctor asked them what the patient would have wanted, and they all said he wouldn't have wanted that. So they all agreed to let him go.

In the case of PVS patients, do you oppose compliance with their wishes as established in a living will? That is, if a patient specifies in writing that she doesn't want to be kept alive by artificial means if there's no hope of recovery, do you oppose the doctors pulling her plug? If not, then what's the difference with oral authorization? The living will is a fairly recent invention. Years ago, and in many places it's still done today, a doctor would ask the next of kin or the closest family member to make that final decision. Why is that wrong?

[ContemptofCourt]

I have already posted the court opinion regarding his testimony. Why don't you address that?

[BB62]

You obviously did not read this whole thread, genius.

I see no references to FR threads in any of your posts.


BB62

[ContemptofCourt]

No, instead I posted the direct links. What, do you really think that there are no other threads regarding Dr. H?

[BB62]

You posted quackwatch and another site in response (eventually) to post 43.

You posted none of the "numerous threads" you said existed on the matter.


BB62

[shhrubbery!]

No, decisions like this are NOT made every day. Your analogy with the "old man who was brain dead" and "being kept alive on total life support" is NOT analogous to Terri's situation.

Terri Schiavo
- is NEITHER old nor "brain dead"
- is NOT "on total life support"

Nor is Terri Schiavo
- terminally ill
- without any hope of improvement with therapy.

If you're going to talk about "decisions like this that are made every day," at least provide a valid example.

[ContemptofCourt]

Do those threads exist? Have you used the "search" function? Do you have anything of substance to offer?

[Tarantulas]

If you're going to talk about "decisions like this that are made every day," at least provide a valid example.

I was repeating what the doctor said in the interview I had heard. Decisions to remove life support from patients are indeed made every day across this country and around the world. In many cases the decision to take action comes after nothing more than a consultation with the patient's family. Labyrinthos wanted to see that decision in writing before action was taken, so I asked why.

[BB62]

"Do those threads exist? Have you used the "search"
function? Do you have anything of substance to offer?"

YOU are the one that said "numerous" threads existed.

I can find ONE - and its not about how Hammesfahr is a quack.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/1367528/posts

Do YOU have anything of substance to offer? Can you back up your statement rather than simply questioning/insulting me?

You are supposedly a lawyer, right? Isn't the term 'hearsay" used to describe such things?


BB62

[Kozak]

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

I guess we'll know more when does the lecture tour, the book tour and the made for tv movie appearances

[ContemptofCourt]

1. If you are going to use the term "hearsay," learn what it means.

2. If you deem what I have posted thus far as lacking substance, then there is little reason to discuss any issue with you.

3. Did you understand the commentary on quackwatch, or dou you need to have that explained as well?

4. Your search skills are lacking: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1367452/posts , http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1358370/posts

Do you need me to summarize these threads for you, or can you do that by yourself? Ping me when you have something of substance to offer on this thread, lest I have to "catalog" you as a troll.

[ContemptofCourt]

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

You are aware, of course, that Michael and the Schindlers stopped speaking when they asked him for 1/2 of the loss of consortium award. Strange, huh?

[Kozak]

It is also why the appeals will be affirmed. There is no evidence of a due process violation. There is no evidence of a legal violation. If anything, the FL appellate courts bent over backwards in reviewing the case.

If the law allows this woman to be starved and dehydrated to death, an act that would result in jail for her owner if she were an animal in the same county, that the courts would all consider cruel and inhuman punishment for a prisoner, then we have all the evidence we need that the law is indeed an ass.

[Tarantulas]

If the law allows this woman to be starved and dehydrated to death, an act that would result in jail for her owner if she were an animal in the same county, that the courts would all consider cruel and inhuman punishment for a prisoner, then we have all the evidence we need that the law is indeed an ass.

The law and the trials, of course, were about honoring Terri's wishes. People seem to keep forgetting that.

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 theCatholic 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.

In the final analysis, the difficult question that faced the trial court was whether Theresa Marie Schindler Schiavo, not after a few weeks in a coma, but after ten years in a persistent vegetative state that has robbed her of most of her cerebrum and all but the most instinctive of neurological functions, with no hope of a medical cure but with sufficient money and strength of body to live indefinitely, would choose to continue the constant nursing care and the supporting tubes in hopes that a miracle would somehow recreate her missing brain tissue, or whether she would wish to permit a natural death process to take its course and for her family members and loved ones to be free to continue their lives. After due consideration, we conclude that the trial judge had clear and convincing evidence to answer this question as he did.

Link

[philman_36]

So her religion really doesn't figure into any part of the discussion.
Then why did you bring it up? I only commented on his adulterous habits which are part of my religous beliefs.

[Labyrinthos]

In the case of PVS patients, do you oppose compliance with their wishes as established in a living will? That is, if a patient specifies in writing that she doesn't want to be kept alive by artificial means if there's no hope of recovery, do you oppose the doctors pulling her plug?

I am absolutely willing to accept person's wishes as set forth in a written, living will that is signed by the person making the will and acknowledged and/or witnessed in the same manner as a testimentary will. The legal rules governing the making and proving of wills, hearsay testimony, and the requirment of a writing to prove certain contracts and transactions, have evolved over hundreds of years from the commonlaw that existed at the time of the drafting of the constitution. These rules, which often seem archaic and even silly to those outside of the legal profession, are there to prevent fraud and misrepresentation in situations just like Terri's.

The living will is a fairly recent invention. Years ago, and in many places it's still done today, a doctor would ask the next of kin or the closest family member to make that final decision. Why is that wrong?

The living will is a fairly recent invention, which many in the medical profession opposed because of the obvious conflict with their ethical obligation to "do no harm." Even today, there are many doctors who refuse to honor a living will in the absence of a court order and in some jurisdictions, living wills are viewed as advisories rather than mandates.

The short, is that I'm in favor of living wills as long as they meet the same legal requirements (in writing and acknowledged and/or witnessed) that we require for wills and other transactions that have far less of an impact than death.

[philman_36]

You are aware, of course, that Michael and the Schindlers stopped speaking when they asked him for 1/2 of the loss of consortium award. Strange, huh?
And do you have some insight as to what they were going to do with that money? I don't. I'd have to see their reasoning before I'd describe such an action as strange.