Doctor: Schiavo Autopsy Conclusions Flawed

NewsMax ^ | 6/19/05 | Carl Limbacher

[wagglebee]

Dr. William Hammesfahr, nominated for a Nobel Prize for his work in Medicine, has been recognized by agents for Medicare, the federal government, and others for new approaches to helping the brain injured.

Dr. Hammesfahr has been identified in helping patients with chronic brain injuries from many causes actually leave long term disability, and return to work.

Dr. Hammesfahr was identified the first physician to restore deficits caused by stroke.

Dr. Hammesfahr has released the following statement in response to the autopsy report on Terri Schindler Schiavo:

We have seen a lot on the autopsy of Terri Schindler Schiavo in recent days, that I feel needs to be addressed. To ignore these comments will allow future 'Terri Schiavo's' to die needlessly after the wishes of clinicians and family are ignored.

Considering that there were so many physicians and therapists who were willing to step forward to treat Terri Schiavo, from university based practitioners to those in private practice, it clearly shows that the mainstream medical community across the board, those involved in treating patients, knew that they could help Terri.

The record must be set straight. As we noted in the press, there was no heart attack, or evident reason for this to have happened (and certainly not of Terri's making).

Unlike the constant drumbeat from the husband, his attorneys, and his doctors, the brain tissue was not dissolved, with a head of just spinal fluid. In fact, large areas were "relatively preserved."

The purpose of the therapies offered by so many, from major universities, brain injury centers, and from private practice physicians, is to improve and restore quality of life, and function, which the mainstream medical community clearly tried to get to her.

I have had a chance to look at Dr. Nelson's analysis of the brain tissue, and essentially, as a clinician, these are my thoughts.

The autopsy results confirmed my opinion and Dr. Maxfield's opinions, that the frontal areas of the brains, the areas that deal with awareness and cognition were relatively intact. To use Dr. Nelson's words, "relatively preserved." In fact, the relay areas from the frontal and front temporal regions of the brain, to the spinal cord and the brain stem, by way of the basal ganglia, were preserved, thus the evident responses which she was able to express to her family and to the clinicians seeing her or viewing her videotape. The Spect scan confirmed these areas were functional and not scar tissue, and that was apparently also confirmed on Dr. Nelson's review of the slides. Dr. Maxfield's estimates of retained brain weight were apparently accurate, although there may have been some loss of brain weight due to the last two weeks of dehydration.

Dr. Maxfield and myself both emphasized that she was a woman trapped in her body, similar to a child with cerebral palsy, and that was born out by the autopsy, showing greater injury in the motor and visual centers of the brain. Obviously, the pathologists comments that she could not see were not borne out by reality, and thus his assessment must represent sampling error. The videotapes clearly showed her seeing, and even Dr. Cranfoed, for the husband, commented to her that, when she could see the balloon, she could follow it with her eyes as per his request.

That she could not swallow was obviously not borne out by the reality that she was swallowing her saliva, about 1.5 liters per day of liquid, and the clinical swallowing tests done by Dr. Young and Dr. Carpenter. Thus, there appears to be some limitations to the clinical accuracy of an autopsy in evaluating function.

With respect to the issue of trauma, that certainly does not appear to be answered adequately. Some of the types of trauma that are suspected were not adequately evaluated in this assessment. Interestingly, both myself and at least one neurologist for the husband testified to the presence of neck injuries. The issue of a forensic evaluation for trauma, is highly specialized. Hence the wish of the family to have observers which was refused by the examiner.

Ultimately, based on the clinical evidence and the autopsy results, an aware woman was killed.

s/Dr. W. Hammesfahr

[Dr. Hammesfahr was nominated for the Nobel Prize in Medicine and Physiology in 1999. The Nomination was for work started in 1994. In 2000, this work resulted in approval for the first patent in history granted for the treatment of neurological diseases including coma, stroke, brain injury, cerebral palsy, hypoxic injuries and other neurovascular disorders with medications that restore blood flow to the brain. It was extended to treat successfully disabilities including ADD, ADHD, Dyslexia, Tourette's and Autism as well as behaviorally and emotionally disturbed children, seizures and severe migraines.]

[blueriver]

How do you know which way people changed their minds?

I don't know, I never said I did know. If the study said that most people change their minds after 2 years then a lawyer could have used that study to dispute Michaels claim. That is all I said.

[Peach]

You said lawyers could have used that to dispute MS's claim. That would mean that Terri would have changed her mind and wanted to be kept alive.

But you don't know that the study meant that people preferred being kept alive when it says they changed their minds. It may be the other way around.

I don't know, not having read the study.

[.38sw]

And if you don't wish to have a feeding tube removed, just make sure your living will states that you want to remain on machines or feeding tubes indefinitely regardless of your prognosis and cognitive ability.

I've told my husband that I don't anyone sticking a feeding tube in me in the first place if I've suffered a devastating brain injury and have no cognitive ability and no hope of recovery. Since brain tissue doesn't regenerate, what's the point of feeding the body? Nobody's home.

[Saundra Duffy]

Can't wait for Mark Fuhrman's book!! And the movie based on Fuhrman's book. I heard that Michael Schiavo already signed a book or movie deal. Big bucks but he has Terri's blood on his hands. The autopsy opened the door to a myriad of lawsuit possibilities for the Schindler's. Stay tuned . . .

[Peach]

Exactly. Terri died 15 years ago.

And every medical article I've read about PVS says that after 3 years of rehab, if nothing happens, it's not going to get better. It never has.

[WestVirginiaRebel]

Well, that's the whole point of this mess, isn't it? If Terri's wishes had been clearly spelled out, would this case have become the circus that it did?

[.38sw]

Yes, it is. I'd better stop procrastinating and put my wishes in writing. My husband certainly knows what I want, and I know what he wants, but you never know what the future holds.

[Peach]

Baloney.

[blueriver]

The point you're responding to is the observation that FR has changed. The deliberate and willful misrepresentation of where people stood on Terri Schiavo is part and parcel of that.

This may be true - I have not been witness to it.

You make think you know what position someone took on her, but most likely you're over-simplifying at best or flat out wrong at worst.

Actually I was speaking in more general terms - including people that I may meet on the street or at work ect. I think where a person stands on what happened to Terri does say a lot about that person. And for me I think it is a good way to know what type of individual a person is.

You may or may not think the same way - only most likely in the oppsosite way.

The rejection of documented fact in favor of malicious gossip is another unfortunate path that has been chosen by far too many here.

Everyone thinks they know the "facts" in this case - only problem is that there is ONLY ONE person who really knows the facts and that is Michael Schiavo. Everyone else is just thinking they know the facts based on what was said by this person or that person. So when it comes down to the end it all is based on what you think of Michael Schiavo and if you believe him.

[Dave S]

The autopsy opened the door to a myriad of lawsuit possibilities for the Schindler's

I dont think the Schindlers have any legal standing to file suit, especially since they were not the legal guardians of Terri. I believe any new lawsuits by them will be tossed as quickly as the appeals courts tossed their appeals.

[blueriver]

Terri has metal probes of some kind inserted in her brain.

Probes the were supposed to be removed.

[Peach]

Link, please.

[Future Useless Eater]

=========================================================================================================

Here's something for sane people to use to judge for THEMSELVES who is better at analyzing responsiveness:
A neurologist examining a LIVE patient, or a pathologist, analyzing a dehydrated brain!

From "Terri Big Eyes" video available at www.terrisfight.org

Terri starts out apparently asleep. A doctor wakes her to start his tests.

Doctor: Terri. Open your eyes up...

Terri: (Startled at hearing her name. She starts moving her mouth and fluttering her eyes, like a person who is just waking up)

Doctor: Open your eyes, Terri open your eyes

Terri: (slowly at first, Terri struggles to open her eyes, then turns toward the doctor, and opens her eyes a normal amount)

Doctor: There you go, good.

Terri: (then, either to show off(?) or wanting to perform well, she leans further forward toward the doctor, looks straight at him and opens her eyes as WIDE AS SHE CAN. Note the WRINKLES ACROSS HER FOREHEAD caused by her also RAISING HER EYEBROWS as high as possible )

Doctor: [now obviously impressed] GOOD!! GOOD JOB! GOOD JOB YOUNG LADY! Good Job.

And one neurologist who spent the MOST time with Terri made MANY excellent observations about the autopsy...
The most interesting of which might be this:

"The autopsy results confirmed my opinion and Dr. Maxfield's opinions, that the frontal areas of the brains, the areas that deal with awareness and cognition were relatively intact." ====================================================

[blueriver]

Link, please.

Link to what? I did not write the post that said there was a study done. I only responded to the poster who did and said that if such a study was done it would have been nice if one of the lawyers could have used it to debunk a claim that Terri made years before. You would have to get the link to the study from the posters who said such a study existed. And I also don't know if a lawyer could be successful in using such a study to debunk testimony - but I am sure it would not have hurt to try.

[Saundra Duffy]

For one thing, the reason Michael Schiavo was awarded all that dough was found to be false. I think the Schindler's can sue up a storm and I hope they do and get kazillions.

[DJ MacWoW]

They should have been removed but were not. The procedure was experimental and as such, dangerous and invasive.

However, MS refused to have them removed on the grounds it was too invasive. I find that ironic. The original links are no more but there is this:

Late this past winter, Robert and Mary Schindler petitioned the court for time to allow that an fMRI be done on their daughter, but the request was denied. "One of the Respondents' affiants," the order denying the request read, the "Respondents" in this action being the Schindlers,

cautions that fMRI testing is an experimental procedure that has shown promise but is not yet routinely used for clinical purposes and that any fMRI testing should be conducted in an academic setting with ongoing research protocols investigating coma/VS [vegetative state]/MCS [minimally conscious state].

Michael Schiavo, the order continued,

contends that no MRI can be conducted on Terri Schiavo without brain surgery to remove a device that was previously inserted in her brain [a "thalamic stimulator" implanted during an experimental procedure at the University of California Medical Center in San Francisco in 1990] and that such an invasive procedure has not been previously favored.

Here

[ClancyJ]

There are no lies.

The fact that Rush, Sean, Pres. Bush, Gov. Bush, Sen. Frist, T. Delay, A. Coulter, P. Noonan, Brit Hume, and many, many writers have been outraged by what happened to Terri and have written a federal law, signed by George Bush coming back to Washington from vacation solely to sign it to merely get a new trial with a new review before death - should tell you something.

We don't all miss that Michael is doing a good thing.

Gov. Bush kept her alive for two years and tried this time but failed.

Now why would they all go to that trouble?

Because they see what you and your cohorts fail to see - that this will set a precedent for future cases, this is a turning point in America and does not honor the America we knew. It totally changes America for our future and the future of our children.

When you allow man to judge the worthiness of others to live, when you allow this decision to lead to killing of a non-dying person that is endorsed by the state, or you allow the state to write law that kills its citizens - the country has taken a major turn that endangers each and every person.

When man is allowed to do this - all men with all different value systems are allowed to use their values and faults to determine that others need to be killed and act on it. Some men will be good and fair - but there are also the evil people, the corrupt, the criminals, those killing for greed.

You also are taking away the constitutional rights of the victim for the right to life and instead through your value system making a judgement about some other's life killing them when you feel their life does not meet your value system. What about their right not to be killed?

Who gives you the authority to put yourself above others and take on their liveability?

No, I will not stand for anyone telling me that some relative does not meet the criteria necessary to get care needed to live - instead we intend to kill them.

Now, in your defense, maybe you are looking at this from a different viewpoint - that of a spouse listening to the views expressed before or that of a sick child. No one is saying that you do not have the right to carry out their wishes but if it involves death - there has to be undeniable proof ideally or medical power of attorney.

This is to protect the victim from the killing until it is proven that the victim wanted the killing and not other interests in the killing.

I pray that you and the other posters here will be able to see that we are merely fighting for the status quo - the America we always have had.

And Terri showed us that we better start fighting now - we are already seeing that the beliefs in the sanctity of life have been corrupted more than we thought. Otherwise, we would not be looking at the total blankness on the face of Juan as Brit tried to explain why it is wrong to kill a non-dying woman or the rage on the Terri threads.

[Earthdweller]

"But again, I wonder what he would say now that it has been determined that she was blind?"

Are you aware that there a varying levels of blindness? Like the kind where you only see shadows?

Have you ever heard someone who is wearing glasses say that they are legally blind?

It was documented prior to the autopsy that she was blind at some level and the autopsy does not state any level.

[Earthdweller]

Oh my Gosh those pics are good.

Some of the disabled patients I take care of everyday don't perform that well.

Great job on finding these FUE.

[Pan_Yans Wife]

That proves she could open her eyes, not that she could see.