Posted on 03/29/2005 9:45:05 PM PST by flixxx
TRANSCRIPT Updated: 4:04 p.m. ET March 29, 2005 The overwhelming majority in the medical community say Terri Schiavo has close to no brain activity and has no chance of regaining awareness. Dr. Ronald Cranford, who actually examined Terri Schiavo in 2002 and testified to her condition, joined "The Abrams Report" on Monday. Cranford is the assistant chief of neurology at the Hennepin County Medical Center in Minneapolis as well as a faculty member at the University of Minnesota's Center for Bioethics. Below is the transcript of their conversation.
DAN ABRAMS, HOST: You're one of the few people who has actually examined Terri Schiavo and you're hearing all of these people who are coming on from the sidelines saying, "She's has been misdiagnosed," et cetera. How confident are you in your diagnosis and why?
DR. RONALD CRANFORD, UNIV. OF MN NEUROLOGIST: I'm extremely confident. I think at the time of the trial in 2002 there had been eight neurologists who examined her. And of those eight neurologists total, seven of them said beyond any doubt whatsoever Terri is in a vegetative state. Her CT scan shows severe atrophy or shrinkage of the brain. Her EEG is flat and there's absolutely no doubt that she's been in a permanent vegetative state ever since 1990. There's no doubt whatsoever, Dan.
(Excerpt) Read more at msnbc.msn.com ...
I made no attempt to determine her capabilities.
How many times am I going to have to say that to you people?
It's truly no wonder you guys aren't getting this.
LOL! The excuses are already starting in order to provide justification for dismissing the autopsy results and the autopsy hasn't even been performed yet!
If you made no attempts to determine her capabilities, please explain what you meant by this?
The scans posted are very clear. What do you all have to say about that?
That statements gives the impression you already have by what you saw in the CT.
That is truly a profound article. It's one flaw, however, is that the author assumes that the decision about Terri's wishes was based on conversations with Michael, and we know that is not true. I also think it's a little weak on the fact that people can make their wishes known verbally; I'm not sure the author would ever accept verbal statements concerning one's wishes; he even seems to be advocating ignoring living wills. But he raises many thoughtful questions.
Let me try this again.
The scan very clearly shows that there is significant atrophy.
What exactly are you trying to get out of me?
I sure seem to be consuming a lot of your time.
Here's a tip.... you will not get me to tell you what I really think.
There is a difference between killing someone and allowing them to die. When you remove life support, you're not killing anyone.
Look up the definition of euthanasia.
Mr Dictionary is your friend.
"I noticed you all ignored them and decided to try and bash the doctor instead"
Okay, you're right. Everyone needs to report immediately for a CT scan. If it resembles these, they are to starved to death as quickly as possible.
You admit that you can't interpret CTs, then you go right ahead and interpret the CT and say that this CT shows atrophy. Is that what you refer to as "reason"?
You got it wrong anyway. The CT does not show atrophy. It cannot possibly show atrophy. Atrophy means deterioration from the prior state. You can't show the condition has worsened without knowing the prior condition.
In everyday words, you must compare a Before and After photo to show the change of condition. All you gave us was "After."
Let's let the docs do the interpreting.
Are you aware of the fact that your post is incorrect?
Don't be foolish. You are letting your emotions control you.
Not yet.
How many times must I say this? I will give you a break because you are obviously you are at the beginning of the thread but check the last half of it.
Over and over again, I have said the exact same thing.
The scan shows significant atrophy. I made no attempt to diagnose Terri or make any sort of determination as to her capabilities.
"Don't be foolish. You are letting your emotions control you"
Emotion played no part in the comment at all. If you believe that a CT scan justifies starvation, you should be consistent in justifying it for all with the same type scan. I personally don't believe any test available justifies euthanasia, but that's just me.
As I also said, the pictures were the ones accompanying the article.
I did not chose them.
I did not make any comment whatsoever about what should be done.
I did not make any comment about her capabilities.
So why show it unless you want to misinform the public into thinking that the fact leads to the additional fact that a person without a large portion of brain cannot function, or feel, or really be alive.
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.