Posted on 04/01/2005 11:52:28 PM PST by FairOpinion
The amount of medical misinformation put out about Terri Schiavo has been truly stunning. The testimony of Terri’s physicians who believe that some recovery is possible has been largely dismissed. Judge Greer’s court and the media in turn, have focused only on the pessimistic interpretations of the raw data of her CT scan.
A physician at a credible physicians’ website has analyzed Terri’s CAT scan and concludes that it has been grossly misrepresented. There is some cerebral atrophy, but it is a completely inaccurate to characterize it as “bag of water.” Furthermore, the author states that
“the most alarming thing about this image, however, 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.”
In one of the definitive court battles in 2002, five physicians examined Terri to determine if therapy would be of further benefit. Two chosen by Terri’s parents believed that she was not in a “persistent vegetative state” and that some recovery was possible. Two chosen by Michael Schiavo held that she had no chance of recovery, as did the “neutral” physician appointed by the court. This 3-2 decision was key in the 2003 attempt to pull her feeding tube.
One of Michael Schiavo’s medical experts was the right-to-die advocate Dr. Ronald Cranford, who has been an expert in a number other key court cases on our nation’s slippery slope to euthanasia, including those of Nancy Cruzan and Robert Wedlund. But Dr. Cranford has made serious errors in other cases when prognosticating about the prospects of neurological recovery. Frederica Mathewes-Green states that Sgt. David Mack, who was shot in the line of duty as a policeman, was diagnosed by Cranford as
"definitely...in a persistent vegetative state...never [to] regain cognitive, sapient functioning...never [to] be aware of his condition."
Twenty months after the shooting Mack woke up, and eventually regained nearly all his mental ability. When asked by a reporter how he felt, he spelled out on his letterboard, "Speechless!"
In fact, the entire field of diagnosing “persistent vegetative state” or “PVS” is fraught with inaccuracy. Recent studies have shown the rate of misdiagnosis to be as high as 37% or even 43%. PVS is a clinical diagnosis, meaning that it depends on the subjective judgment of the examining physician. Experts in the field cannot even agree on the usefulness of diagnostic imaging.
Dr. Ronald Cranford himself was upset about the articles showing the inaccuracy of diagnosis and prognostication about PVS. Childs and Mercer, authors of one of the studies citing the difficulties of diagnosing PVS, took Cranford to task for “zealously” promoting the concept of the "permanent vegetative state" despite the evidence of its problematic nature, and the regularity with which some patients recover from it .
The nomenclature of “persistent vegetative state” was coined in 1972 by Jennett and Plum in the prestigious medical journal The Lancet. The original article, “Persistent Vegetative State: A syndrome in search of a name” seems to have succeeded in its task as reclassifying severely cognitively disabled humans as non-persons - something akin to vegetables in the minds of many. Public perception of this highly-charged term predisposes many to dismiss the lives of human beings as no more significant than plant life. It is a brilliant, if chilling, masterstroke of propaganda, one which has been swallowed hook, line, and sinker.
This reclassification of non-terminally ill people has allowed for their dehydration and starvation deaths in Britain with a doctor’s recommendation, and in many states in the USA with the family’s wishes (or a patient’s own advance directives). The medical literature is rife with arrogant pronouncements in editorials of learned journals, such as life itself not being of “benefit” to someone in the PVS state. The echoes of current bioethics doublespeak resound in these journals.
In some respects the “persistent vegetative state” is more a political than a medical diagnosis, as it allows its unfortunate victims to lose their right to life and be medically killed through withholding food and water. It is unfortunate that some of the experts on the side of the Culture of Death seem to have had the upper hand in Terri’s fight, and have been portrayed by the media as reasonable and responsible members of the medical profession, rather than the zealots which, in fact, some of their own medical colleagues have branded them.
I don't know the answer, but I think it bears considering, individually, if nothing else. There seems to be no mention of such problems in the Bible. That the Bible is silent on this is interesting. Did people like that not exist then?
Allowing someone to die is not the same as killing someone.
The Ten Commandments were a guide to show man that he could not be perfect on his own, that he needed a Savior.
This is about as repugnant as it comes. Another scripture comes to mind : "the devil can quote scripture for his purposes" - I think, folks, we are either dealing here with a Hemlock personality or a psycho with a God complex - maybe both?
I suspicion, were we to find ourselves face to face with such a personality - we would feel a very cold chill in the room
My point was that choosing not to work is NOT the same as being unable to work.
Therefore, the verse would NOT apply to disabled or unable to work people
I was trying to express how verses and statements can be twisted and maligned.
So you have accused me of possessing a Hemlockian personality or that I am a psycho with a God complex.
That you have accused me does not make me so.
http://freerepublic.com/focus/news/1341036/posts?page=56#56
altho from your ghastly posts, I don't hold any expectation it will change your mind - Terri could've stood up and yelled in your face, "I am alive, I hear, I know what's going on, you J*cka**!" and you'd not believe her or others like her worthy of living.
This was the thinking that allowed it to happen in the mid 30's in Germany
Well at least you're being consistent. And it would a shameful day in America if ever this country began starving to death it's handicapped people in mass fashion. Terri was bad enough and if anything I expect politicians to write laws that strengthen protections not weaken them for the most vulnerable in our society.
If you are not a lawyer, you have missed your calling!
And it would be a shameful day in America...
your accusing me of accusing you does not make it so -
I said: "I suspicion" and I still do
I saw it posted - the actual court order - but I can't find it again...
If you are not a lawyer, you have missed your calling!
That reminds me of one lawyer who gave us the "it all depends on what the meaning of 'is' is."
God save us from activist judges and lawyers - (not meant as flippant remark - deadly serious)
I don't agree with starving people to death. But I do believe that when someone cannot chew or swallow, and that ability cannot be regenerated, and all that is left is the shell of the body and non-human yet physical responses, then the person as it were, their soul, has for all intents and purposes left the body. Keeping the body alive is worshipping the body, not the Creator. That's they way I view it.
=======
Interesting that you define it as "when someone cannot chew or swallow, and that ability cannot be regenerated." Oak Hay... let's just try a what if.
What if you were out deer hunting, then you tripped on the underbrush, fell to your knees, lost control of your shotgun and blew away your entire lower jaw??? But lucky for you, one of your hunting companions just happened to be a doctor who saved you from bleeding to death, then hauled your jawless body to the hospital... and Shazammmmm! you survived the entire ordeal.
But now you are a "useless non-eater" because you can no longer "chew" your food. Good thing they were able to patch your throat... so you can still "swallow"... very very difficult... but you can still swallow... otherwise you would be a "useless non-swallower" too, eh?
Can they "regenerate" your lower jaw so you can "chew" again??? Not likely. Good grief... looks like Judge Greer and company will be forced to issue an order that "thinkingman129 shall henceforth be starved and dehydrated to death" !!! Period, end of argument !!!
P.S. Maybe you can successfully avoid Judge Greer's judicial oligarchy by simply changing your screen name to "dreamingman129" !!! ;-))
Hopefully Greer's sentence of death will be the last time we have to read any kind of sick judicial order like that.
You believe, correctly, that God gives us "choice."
But not all choices are good. There's also that little line...."...choose Life..." which is a direct command from God.
Are you prepared to defend the proposition that all choices are morally neutral? Or, in the specific instance, that Terri "chose" death?
While you claim to be 'thinking,' you have not yet defended the position that a group of third parties may deliberately kill someone, by the way.
And "to kill" is a far cry from withdrawing excessively burdensome treatments meant only to extend a life which is irredeemable.
See, you're still trying to defend the proposition that Terri's life was ending, and ending very soon. So how come it took 14 days for it to end?
Your opinion, that "checks and balances" were violated by Congressional action, is hogwash.
Under the 14th Amendment, as well as the third Article of the Constitution, Congress and the President have EVERY right to interfere with life/death decisions made by courts, kangaroo or otherwise.
BTW, which Christian denomination educated you in these matters?
But your complaint was NOT about 'helping the body heal itself.'
You specifically have said that it was 'un-natural' acts which were inappropriate, and you specified that a feeding tube was 'unnatural.'
Now you're getting into Scientology cultism.
In fact, all rational men have valued both the physical and the spiritual body, as they are, during life, inseparable.
It is preposterous to "value" one over the other in the practical order. It is taught that the soul is immortal, which means that rational considerations must be made for the soul after the body's death.
But as you recall, it is ALSO taught that there will be a general bodily resurrection. Thus, no rightly-ordered Christian denomination has suggested that the body be viewed as some sort of 'encumberment' of the soul.
You have a theological cite for this belief?
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.