Of course I won't. I never said she was "brain dead"! "Brain Dead" isn't what we're talking about..that's an irrelevant issue!
See there were a heck of a lot of freepers, myself included that actually did the research, which is why we were all so incensed.
Well, you didn't do a very good job of your research if at the end of it all you still dont' know the difference between "PVS" and "brain dead." Try less bluster and more facts.
Might I recommend
http://home.comcast.net/~trinity_tx/index.htm
and
http://www.freerepublic.com/~trinitytx/
Do you jsut throw statments out to get a reaction?
No, I write them because they are true. Please stop projecting.
Oh, and...
AFTER the Legal decision in 2002 a Brand New Medical diagnosis was created. It is called Minimully Conscious.
Yes, and the doctors who testified that Mrs. Schiavo was PVS were quite aware of the condition. In fact, Dr. Cranford has used that diagnosis in other high-profile cases, such as Robert Wendland. Dr. Cranford also made it QUITE clear that Mrs. Schiavo is NOT "minimally concious"...she's PVS.
Then you quote someone who says:
"I have viewed the short video clips on the Terri Schiavo website. Based on those short clips there appears to be evidence that Ms. Schiavo responds to her mother and is able to distinguish her mother form other persons who interact with her."
Bias is only reason I can see that you'd listen to a doctor who has not examined the patient--and who is basing his judgements on SELECTIVE clips--rather than listen to ALL THE NEUROLOGISTS who EXAMINED Mrs. Schaivo (except for the National Enquirer one).
If this doctor is TRULY knowledgeable about PVS, then he would know that smiling, crying, limited tracking, etc., are all common in PVS patients. Those who viewed the WHOLE FOUR AND A HALF HOURS OF VIDEO (Greer wasn't the only court to do so) were quite convinced that the diagnosis was correct. IF I could selectively present a few clips of a huge pile of data, wow, what things I could "prove"!!
My understanding is that Greer is legally blind, so I'm not sure that he actually viewed the tapes and saw them CLEARLY.
Owe you an apology. I misread your statment I think it was post#232 You actually said
She was vegetative, just not brain dead.
I misread that.
Now that I cleared that up, Minimul Conscious was a medically accepted diagnosis AFTER Judge greer Ruled. Doesn't matter if anyone would have proposed it during the time frame of the Judges Ruling because at that time, it was NOT a Medically Accepted Diagnosis.
You wrote:
Then you quote someone who says:
"I have viewed the short video clips on the Terri Schiavo website. Based on those short clips there appears to be evidence that Ms. Schiavo responds to her mother and is able to distinguish her mother form other persons who interact with her."
My reply: That "Someone" happens to be EDITOR IN CHIEF OF THE JOUNAL OF AMERICAN PHYSICIANS AND SURGEONS. This is no quack someone, as are many many many of the other Medical Provider Affidavits.
Let me ask you this. If you were the Judge and YOU read the Affidavits would you have ordered more tests before you signed off on the Death Sentence? Just a simple Yes or no with an expliantion if you care to make one. But you have to take the time to read the Medical Affidavits on the www.Terrisfight.org webstie before you answer. No fair answering if you have not done the research.
Well I guess you feel you can make better medical judgments than the Editor and Chief of the American Journal of Physicians and Surgeons then?
Again his affidavit:
March 3, 2005
Lawrence Huntoon M.D. Neurologist clinical office Derby new York
Editor-in-Chief of the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons
I have viewed the short video clips on the Terri Schiavo website. Based on those short clips there appears to be evidence that Ms. Schiavo responds to her mother and is able to distinguish her mother form other persons who interact with her. There is also evidence of sustained visual pursuit, which is the clip where she is following the balloon. These behaviors indicate awareness of the environment, and this type of behavior distinguishes minimally conscious state (MCS) from persistent vegetative state (PVS)
The definition and diagnosis criteria for minimally conscious state were published in “Neurology” in February 2002.
Food and water should be offered to patients in the ordinary way in the case where artificial nutrition and hydration are being terminated. Providing food and water in the natural way, by mouth, constitutes “ordinary care” not “treatment.” Ordinary, comfort care should always be provided irrespective of instructions regarding “limitation of treatment”
How is it that the esteemed Dr. Cranford can even make such a diagnosis when he didn't even perform tests considered essential to an accurate diagnosis? Where is the MRI? Where is the PET? Go to the library and check ANY first year neurology textbook and look up what's required to diagnose PVS. When you consider that Cranford previously MISdiagnosed someone as PVS who subsequently made a FULL recovery, don't you think he'd want to make sure he performed the ALL the tests necessary for an accurate diagnosis? The 2 tests that were performed (YEARS BEFORE), were the most superficial and least accurate in determining PVS. Maybe Terri was PVS, maybe she wasn't. The FACT is, we just don't know. It seems that if we're going to order someone's death, we should, at minimum, make sure STANDARD neurological tests are performed. There is statement after statement from doctors who say a diagnosis couldn't be made without further testing, but we're supposed to accept the word of a doctor who's life work is going around the country and testifying that patients are PVS. So far, he's found 100% of the patients he's diagnosed to be PVS, including the one that made a full recovery...sounds like an "expert" to me.
Cindie
"Those who viewed the WHOLE FOUR AND A HALF HOURS OF VIDEO (Greer wasn't the only court to do so) were quite convinced that the diagnosis was correct"
As I recall, the court commented that there were 6 "possible" responses out of 106 attempts to elicit a response. Kinda like...lights are on, nobody's home.
What do we owe those who are not dead or dying but profoundly disabled and permanently dependent? And even if such individuals made their desires clearly known while they were still competent, is it always right to follow their instructions--to be the executors of their living wills--even if it means being their willing executioners?