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.

[daylate-dollarshort]

Oh?? You ever hear of Nancy Cruzan?? Her case puts the lie to your statement.

[philman_36]

Well actually I see it in a different way.
You certainly do. Live well with your vision.

[Tarantulas]

Oh?? You ever hear of Nancy Cruzan?? Her case puts the lie to your statement.

The Nancy Cruzan case was in Missouri. That's one of the two states I mentioned that doesn't allow removal of feeding tubes. See Post 196 (the post you're replying to).

Any other questions?

[daylate-dollarshort]

Nancy Cruzan's feeding tube was removed, or did I misunderstand your post?

[jwalsh07]

You should stick to selling diagnostic imaging equipment.

LOL, you're not the first attorney on FR who has made that premature judgement.

[Tarantulas]

Nancy Cruzan's feeding tube was removed, or did I misunderstand your post?

Yes, I believe it was removed in December of 1990, even though Missouri law prohibits it. As far as I know it's still against the law to take them out.

[daylate-dollarshort]

Missouri law pretty much mirrors Florida law. Ms. Cruzan's feeding tube was removed after further testimony satisfied the "clear and convincing" requirement establishing that she would not have wanted to be sustained artificially.

[Torie]

This may shock you but some lawyers are sharper knives than others. The one at hand has not I'm afraid read much that is relevant, like the Schiavo private bill statute or the judicial opinions of this week. If he has, then well, there is no need for me to go there I guess. :)

[jwalsh07]

I am well aware of that Counselor. I know my limitations, reading fast and comprehending what I read is not one of them. Legal training is.

I don't paint lawyers with a wide brush any more. The reason for that is the esteem I hold for your honesty and forthrightness even when we disagree.

That's your compliment for the year. Print it out. :-}

[rwfromkansas]

No they didn't. THE EMERGENCY STAY is what they ruled on.

That has nothing to do with the actual appeal.

[rwfromkansas]

That is odd...

[rwfromkansas]

though maybe they wanted to use it on her care......beats me.

[philman_36]

In my discussion with Tarantulas I almost asked why he believed hearsay evidence. I changed my mind and didn't ask that question, not being completely sure if the testimony given would fall into that category. However, after listening to several pundits tonight on television stating that such statements were exactly that I would like to ask you two if you place credence in the hearsay evidence presented as to what Terri's wishes were regarding being hooked up to machines, etc..
Secondly, should such statements have even been admitted into the early precedings as they were, after all, hearsay evidence?

[ContemptofCourt]

This is the short answer: the issue is moot. It does not appear that any attorney objected to the introduction of the evidence, and it was not preserved for appeal or raised on appeal.

May be a technicality, but it is one which is strictly enforced and every attorney knows that.

[Tarantulas]

I'm not an attorney and don't know much about hearsay other than what shows up on TV court trial dramas. There's a definition of hearsay here but it's not helpful (to me) in relation to this case. Here's the way I look at it. For many years, until the invention of the living will, these decisions were left up to the family at the patient's bedside. The doctor would listen to what the family said about the patient's end of life wishes and then take appropriate action...or not. That process is certainly the same thing as hearsay. It's the family speaking for the patient because the patient can't speak for himself. When the family disagrees, it starts a more formal process where the court and a judge gets involved. The judge listens to testimony from people who knew the patient and comes to a conclusion about what the patient would have wanted. ContemptofCourt says that it appears the hearsay was never appealed, so it seems to me that all these ideas from outside observers about what Terri really wanted are academic. But that's only my opinion, your mileage may vary.