Posted on 04/12/2005 7:20:07 AM PDT by kcvl
Schiavo's 'Dr. Humane Death' Got 1980 Diagnosis Wrong By Jeff Johnson CNSNews.com Senior Staff Writer April 12, 2005
(CNSNews.com) -- A neurologist hired by Michael Schiavo to confirm that his wife Terri was in a persistent vegetative state said he was "105 percent sure" of that diagnosis, but Dr. Ronald Cranford expressed similar certainty about a patient he examined in 1980 who later regained both consciousness and the ability to communicate.
Three days before Terri Schiavo's death, Cranford appeared on the MSNBC talk program, "Scarborough Country," to discuss her condition. Cranford was interviewed by reporter Lisa Daniels.
http://www.gopusa.com/news/2005/april/0412_schiavo_doctor1.shtml
hehehe
I think it's quieted down now.
Btw, keep up the good fight. :)
Well, I guess our definitions of "conscious" differ. Terri was definitely conscious in some of the videos I've seen of her, regardless of her inability to perform as often as Judge Greer wanted her to. Can you honestly tell me that you think what she does in this video is reflex only?
http://www.terrisfight.org/media/Terri_Big_Eyes.rmm
I understand that people who have never worked with the disabled may not be able to decipher their "noises" as communication, but that doesn't make it true. It's a different type of communication. Terri's eyes and facial expressions show awareness at times. People who are badly brain damaged may not always appear to be conscious or aware of their environment to those who are unaccustomed to working with them, but that shouldn't be taken out on the brain-damaged person. Terri was penalized for her disability.
I missed all that. I was having a problem with my server. I spent the whole evening trying to figure it out. In the end, all I had to do was shut the computer and the modem down for 30 seconds. Doh!
You're wasting your time. Justshutupandtakeit already said he/she is incapable of seeing what the videos show.
Hi!
Unfortunately, it's time for bed but I can't wait to see what tomorrow brings! :)
Well, in the words of a famous woman, "Where there's life, there's hope!". I thought I would give JSUATI another chance. Never can tell when you might light a spark with a little bit of "stimulation".
Time for bed for me, too! Tomorrow's another day! (Does that remind anyone else of "Gone With the Wind"?)
That's assuming there really is life. What's the definition these days?
I'll think about that tomorrow.
I guess you have to respond to every stimulus you're presented with, no option of ignoring them when you're a bit tired! Otherwise, you might not be conscious, and if not conscious, then your life isn't really a life, eh? ;-)
Oh, man! You're good! I'm getting a bit rusty...but don't tell anyone...I'm sure to be next if you do!!
I won't tattle on you, if you don't tattle on me.
G'nite.
Same here! Goodnight!
I am a former prosecutor and have prosecuted many people for murder. I know the elements well. Allowing Terri to die was not murder.
We know by clear and convincing evidence reviewed by over 40 judges in 5 courts in 15 appellate proceedings over 7 years that, if found in this situation, Terri wanted to die. We also know that Christ told us, "In everything, treat others as you would want them to treat you, for this fulfills the law and the prophets." Matt 7:12. Finally , we know that, were we in Terri's condition, we would want our wishes enforced. Accordingly, we know that the only truly moral response would be to assist Terri to achieve her wishes. QED
Unfortunately, your analogy doesn't prove that death by dehydration isn't painless. Uniform expert testimony proves that it is. Here is the testimony of three experts quoted by Knight-Ridder Newspapers:
"'Nature has given us a wonderfully peaceful way to exit this life,' said Ira Byock, director of palliative medicine at the Dartmouth Hitchcock Medical Center in New Hampshire. 'The dominant way that mammals die is that, at some point, they lose interest or the ability to eat or drink. The physiology and experience of people who are unable or refuse to eat or drink after progressive or advanced illness is one that is very gentle and very comfortable.' John Hansen-Flaschen, chief of pulmonary, allergy and critical care at the University of Pennsylvania Medical Center, made a similar point, saying, 'This is the way many, many people died over all of the millenniums until medicine got so actively engaged in the process.' Paul Marik, director of the division of pulmonary and critical care at Thomas Jefferson University Hospital, said Schiavo may react reflexively to pain, but only the most primitive part of her brain, the brain stem, is working. 'Pain is a conscious interpretation of what's happening,' he said. 'If you can't interact with the environment, if you're not awake and you're not conscious, you can't perceive pain.'" Schiavo will die of dehydration, not starvation, the doctors said. It will cause her kidneys to fail. Toxins will build up in her blood, eventually causing her heart to stop beating. Dehydrated patients gradually weaken, drift into a coma, and appear to die painlessly, Marik said. ``It's a very painless and very compassionate way of dying.''
Your analogy suffers several shortcomings, not the least of which is that famine sufferers in third world countries are not PVS patients with only functioning brain stems.
I cannot play video on my computer, so I cannot see your link. All the doctors who confirmed Terri's PVS status and her cortical damage not only saw the parents' "videos" but examined her in person. She had been in a PVS condition for 15 years.
The following is excerpted from Bradley et al.'s Neurology in Clinical Practice (Butterworth-Heinemann, 2003):
“In the persistent vegetative state, patients have lost cognitive neurological function but retain vegetative or noncognitive neurological function such as cardiac action, respiration, and maintenance of blood pressure… This state follows coma and is characterized by the absence of cognitive function or awareness of the environment, despite a preserved sleep-wake cycle. Spontaneous movements may occur and the eyes may open in response to external stimuli, but the patient does not speak or obey commands.
Let me answer in your order. If you require unanimity, 1 quack with a made-as-instructed opinion, outweighs 100 qualified and credentialed experts. Lawsuits are never decided that way -- nor should they be. In determining facts, the trier of fact always weighs the relative strengths of the opinions of the various proffered experts.
The parents' two doctors weren't "ignored". They both agreed that Terri was in a PVS state, however, without any support in any medical literature anywhere, they opined that their respective 'experimental therapies' ("hyperbaric" in one instance and "vasodilation" in the other) might have a beneficial effect. Their inability to demonstrate, scientifically, the efficacy of their desired courses of action led to their opinions being given less weight than others (as they should have been), not "ignored".
You know, I just can't figure out your position. You need some stronger language. Stop holding back and let 'er rip.
Let me provoke you anew. Have you calmly considered: (i) Terri may have wanted to die, (ii) the 40 judges in 5 courts in 15 appellate and one trial proceeding over 7 years may have correctly determined her wishes, (iii) people may have a right to die (just as you have a right to insist on preservation of whatever form of 'life' you may wish for yourself), (iv) people may have a right to have the courts enforce their rights, including their right to die, and (v) having done everything in strict accordance with law and Biblical morality, people who have assisted others in carrying out their lawful and rightful wishes to be allowed to die, may have a right not to be called "filthy filth" (in all caps) by folks of limited vocabulary like you.
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.