Replies

I have a passing interest in the detection of lies.

Cranford lied by omission in his interview.

>>ABRAMS: And what about those who say that there should have been more tests? That she's never had a PET scan. That she needs another MRI.

CRANFORD: Well she doesn't need an MRI because a MRI will not show any more damage than this C.T. and you can again check with any radiologists. They'll tell you this CT scan is more than adequate.<<

Cranford said the PET scans could confirm no consciousness very strongly. This was his diagnostic opinion to the AMA about PET scans.

>>The diagnosis of the permanent vegetative state is primarily clinical, with repeated neurological examination necessary over a period of time to establish absence of cognitive functions and irreversibility. Laboratory studies may be useful and confirmatory in some cases. For example, EEGs will show severe background slowing. When monitored over a few years, CT scans and MRIs will show progressive cerebral cortical atrophy. While the degree of cerebral cortical atrophy does not necessarily correlate with the complete loss of cerebral cortical functions, it does, however, help to confirm that the underlying process, given the severity of destruction seen on these neuroimaging studies, is irreversible, thus establishing to a high degree of certainty that the condition is permanent. Clinical studies evaluating the usefulness of PET (positron emission tomography) have confirmed the absence of consciousness in these patients by conclusively demonstrating levels of oxygen and glucose metabolism in the cerebral cortex consistent with deep levels of coma, and other forms of deep unconsciousness.<<

http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/category/12720.html

He had a test, that was definitive, but did not use it in a diagnosis. Why not? He omitted it in the answer, but it is in his diagnostic tools set. He reference PET tests as definitive in consciousness determination for other doctors.

He had a reason for not doing the test, ignoring questions about it, and not following his own teachings.

I can only guess on it, but I would have to go with In this case he was a paid "whore" (legal terminology for an expert that will testify in your favor...guarenteed). He firmly believes we should be killing PVS and Alzheimer patients because the cost will be too great to keep them alive in the future.

They have lost every case brought to the court. It was a disparity of money. The court gave Michael access to the rehab and care funds, for legal fees. Michael used that money to buy a "connected" (legal term for corrupt) attorney. His attorney (and firm) got $450,000 of Terri's rehab and care money.

You and I go to court. I mortgage my house and get $75,000 to do the legal thing. You rob a trust fund and have $780,000 to play with. My lawyer (and law firm) give a couple of grand to the judges reelection campaign. I trust the system will work.

The guardian ad litem (a person looking out for Terri's interest), appointed by the court said in 1998 when they were considering pulling the feeding tube had three recommendations:

Michael Shiavo be removed from guardianship status. He had another family and was no longer a real spouse. He had a conflict of interest because when Terri died, he would inherit her estate. And these facts made him an inappropriate guardian.

The feeding tube not be removed.

A Guardian Ad Litem be appointed in any future legal proceedings.

The court did not follow these recommendations.

Nothing could prepare a naive family for a corrupt legal system. They had introduction to money 101 given to them, and they will forever hurt.

I'm sorry TexasFlower (like the name) but this case is a travesty.

DK