http://www.lutheransforlife.org/Life%20Issue%20Info/End-of-Life/ventilators_-_feeding_tubes.htm (snip)
When Minnesota policeman Sgt. David Mack was shot in the line of duty in 1979, Dr. Ronald Cranford diagnosed his patient as being in a "persistent vegetative state," never to regain "cognitive, sapient functioning." Dr. Cranford was ready to end his patient's life, but 20 months after the shooting, Sgt. Mack regained consciousness and nearly all of his mental ability.
Conley Holbrook was in a coma for eight years. On February 25, 1991 he woke up. Were eight years missing from his life? Apparently not because 26-year old Conley was able to call each of his relatives by name, including the small children who were born while he was unconscious. He knew what was happening around him, he just couldn't communicate.
The judge in this case. Bobby McNatt, is a friend of mine - over 30 years. A more intelligent, fair, and compassionate person I have never known. We could use him on the SCOTUS.
Excerpt from Calif paper:
In cases where other doctors don’t see it, Dr. Cranford seems to have a knack for finding PVS. Cranford also diagnosed Robert Wendland as PVS. He did so in spite of the fact that Wendland could pick up specifically colored pegs or blocks and hand them to a therapy assistant on request. He did so in spite of the fact that Wendland could operate and maneuver an ordinary wheelchair with his left hand and foot, and an electric wheelchair with a joystick, of the kind that many disabled persons (most famously Dr. Stephen Hawking) use. Dr. Cranford dismissed these abilities as meaningless.etc
See what Judge McNatt - now Presiding Judge of San Joaquin County Superior Court - had to say in his ruling on this site:
http://www.angelfire.com/ca7/robertsangels/WendlandToLive.html
and this from Robert's Legacy blog:
http://robertslegacy.blogspot.com/
"Then there’s Dr. Ronald Cranford, handpicked by Michael Schiavo to examine Terri and on whose say-so Terri was categorized in "persistent vegetative state". Cranford testifies in cases such as Terri’s around the country, always pumping the dehydration and starvation side. He was 1992’s featured speaker for the pro-euthanasia Hemlock Society, which was renamed The Choice in Dying Society. (WorldNetDaily).
Cranford nicknamed himself, "Dr. Humane Death".
A bioethicist, and a pioneer in euthanasia and right-to-die issues, Dr. Humane Death is a fully-fledged member of The Choice in Dying Society."
and on FOX news in 2001, (http://www.angelfire.com/ca7/robertsangels/BurdenOfProof.html#)
"Dr. Cranford, you are a neurologist, and you had the ability actually to look at Robert. Your opinion on this matter is that the feeding tube should be removed; is that correct?
DR. RONALD CRANFORD, NEUROLOGIST: Yes.
COSSACK: Why is that?
CRANFORD: Well, first of all, he's not in a coma, he's not vegetative, he is not unconscious, he is what we call minimally conscious. He does have some definite, but minimal, interaction with the environment. In that situation, he is so severely brain damaged that I think the one that is the most caring and most interested, which seems to be the wife and the children, should be allowed to make that decision....
(COSSACK:)Dr. Cranford, I want to ask you this, how would you respond to this criticism, that what this really represents, since Mr. Wendland really isn't in a complete coma, that the notion of pulling his feeding tube really represents a step by society of going in a direction where this kind of action, that is the death of a patient, is a form of treatment for economic and insurance reasons? And where do you stop between somebody who has Alzheimer's or someone who has dementia, who perhaps would be in the same kind of situation that Mr. Wendland would be in?
Dr. C.: CRANFORD: That is a legitimate questions because, prior to this. all the cases have been vegetative states. This is one of the first few cases of minimally conscious, or profoundly demented. So one of the legitimate questions in these case, where do you draw the line? There are thousands and thousands of patients with Alzheimer's who may be in the same condition.
Where do you draw the line? And there is no line. There was line with vegetative, but there is no line here.
On the other hand, I think that 90 percent of Americans would find a condition like Robert Wendland, where he may be aware to some degree, only minimally aware, absolutely horrifying and worse than being vegetative. On the one hand, you have what most of us would think; on the other hand, you have the genuine concerns of people about the slippery slope on where you draw the line, and that is why this case has such controversy because he's not vegetative, he is minimally conscious. Where do you draw the line on patients who are severely brain damage, where you want to stop treatment? Of course, one line to stop is if they are in a feeding tube, that means they are medically dependent; if you stop the feeding tube, he dies.
That's one line to be drawn right there.
SIESS answers: They should look at the statute itself, which is unconstitutional, and strike it down.
And I do need to make another point here. You know, they are describing Robert as minimally conscious. What the public needs to know is that there really is no such thing. That is a term that was made up by Dr. Cranford and some of his colleagues in order to move the line over where you can start killing people like Robert.<
I have a suspision that what these folks are meaning is that their ‘quality of life’ is being affected .
It is wise for us to give thought to end-of-life questions now, before we, too, are tempted to fall for evil disguised as compassion.
Dignity comes only when the medical profession, families and loved ones practice the art of comforting the sick and dying. Death with dignity isn't killing the patient. Death with dignity is caring for the patient, supplying whatever is needed - drugs, oxygen, fluids, nutrients, and personal contact - in order to make death an easier death.
But... what about food and water? Is medically assisted nutrition and hydration a form of "treatment" or "care"?
Although frequently debated among ethicists, this question is irrelevant for the Christian. We are commanded by Christ to treat the sick (Matthew 10:1,8) and to provide loving care in the form of food and water (Matthew 10:42; 25:35). Even when the sick are incurable they are never untreatable or unable to accept loving care. Regardless of whether we call nutrition and hydration "treatment" or "care," these must be provided to the sick.
Some helpless patients are tube fed, not because they can't swallow food, but simply because tube feeding is cheaper and easier for the health care-giver.
First of all, no human being created in the image of God should ever be called "vegetative."
Medication may be given to prevent great pain, but the patient dies of starvation or dehydration, not the disease. Those who advocate the "right to die" know how cruel withdrawal of food and water can be. They also know how difficult it is for loved ones to watch such suffering. Therefore, if "right to die" advocates can convince enough people that lethal injections are a painless and quick alternative to death by starvation and dehydration, then legalized euthanasia will naturally follow.
In some cases nutrition and hydration are withdrawn not because the patient is dying, /fontcolor=navy blue> but because the patient isn't dying fast enough. P> In a survey of nursing home residents, 80% said they would want life support if necessary. However, only 30% of their families thought their loved ones would want life support. Families need to talk! Families must communicate! This will also help eliminate anger and disharmony between family members.
We can influence our own congregations and communities by providing Bible studies on end-of life issues.
We can raise awareness by providing credible information on the growing practice of euthanasia.
We can help one another become care-givers as we bear one another's burdens.
EXCELLENT FIND!!! Thanks for posting it