Replies

From your first link, I noticed that the court ruled that he was not even qualified to read CT scans which sort of makes his opinion not relevant anyway. Hmmmm...

Considering the amount of talk about her cerebral cortex at the time of Terri's impending death sentence, I would think the M.E. could of been way more specific about the matter. Basically, he just said she had water on the brain ("Hydrocephalus")which is what Doc Hammesfhar said years ago. A not uncommon condition that is very treatable, but her caregivers chose not to intervene.

"From your first link, I noticed that the court ruled that he was not even qualified to read CT scans which sort of makes his opinion not relevant anyway. Hmmmm..."

No, what it says is that Felos (MS's lawyer) did not establish why he was or was not qualified to read them. The objection was upheld and then Felos proceeded to elicit Cranfords qualification.
2 BY MR. FELOS:
3 Q. First, Dr. Cranford, what experience do
4 you -- first, what experience do neurologists
5 generally have in reading CT scans?
6 A. A great deal of experience. It's a
7 daily, weekly thing.
8 Q. And what experience do you have?
9A. I've reviewed thousands and thousands
10 of CAT scans in the last -- well, CAT scans have
11 only been around for 10, 15 years, but I don't
12 have any idea how many, thousands and thousands
13 and hundreds and hundreds. Well, more than
14 hundreds and hundreds. I mean, I review CAT
15 scans several per week, so it's very common.
16 Q. Dr. Cranford, do you have an opinion,
17 within a reasonable degree of medical certainty,
18 as to whether the 2002 CAT scan shows a
19 regeneration of Theresa Schiavo's brain?

The Parents atty objected again, and the judge overruled obviously accepting the Dr. as qualified...acceptance by the court.

Didn't you read that far or just being misleading?

Basically, he just said she had water on the brain ("Hydrocephalus")which is what Doc Hammesfhar said years ago. A not uncommon condition that is very treatable, but her caregivers chose not to intervene.

Do you know even the first thing about hydrocephalus? Your post suggests not.

Hydrocephalus is merely a description of a pathologic change that occurs in the brain. "The term hydrocephalus is derived from the Greek words "hydro" meaning water and "cephalus" meaning head. As its name implies, it is a condition in which the primary characteristic is excessive accumulation of fluid in the brain. Although hydrocephalus was once known as "water on the brain," the "water" is actually cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) - a clear fluid surrounding the brain and spinal cord"

Hydrocephalus is not more an adequate diagnosis than "headache". It does not tell us the cause, and without that we can't decide if we can treat.

Hydrocephalus can be congenital or acquired, obstructive or normal pressure.

Obstructive hydrocephalus, which is caused by a blockage of thef low of CSF, can be treated with shunts.

But, if you had read the report, or even my post, you would see that her actual diagnosis was "hydrocephalus ex vacuo". (And you would have found a detailed pathological description of the findings.) Hydrocephalus ex vacuo is not a pressure phenomenon. It signifies "compensatory ventricular expansion secondary to cerebral atrophy and shrinkage, for example, in Alzheimer's disease and in Pick's disease."

In other words, the brain dies and shrinks, and the fluid fills in the empty spaces. The hydrocephalus is a by-product of the brain destruction, not its cause.

So treating it would do no good.

Actually, in this condition, shunts carry a substantial risk of subdural hemorrhage if implanted. So they would do more harm than good.

But then, what do doctors know?