Posted on 08/10/2005 10:38:54 AM PDT by marshmallow
Terri's hypokalemia was a single episode -- one lone blood test. Even that was a one-time thing, not a chronic condition (more reason to think it had nothing to do with a persistent dietary disorder). It was treated right away and her potassium level normalized within hours. It stayed normal thereafter.
What caused it? Various kinds of stress can do it. Dr. Thogmartin thought it was perhaps the defibrillations or epinephrine administered in the frantic efforts to revive Terri. Or, it may have been from IV fluid. With several good candidates at hand to explain a one-time situation, you don't have to looking for some far-fetched theory like bulimia.
We can rule out bulimia for another reason now, based on the autopsy. If it had been low potassium that caused Terri's cardiac arrest, the damage would have been global. She would have suffered anoxic damage -- oxygen deprivation -- to other organs, including the heart itself. But that was not the case and her heart remained healthy.
Instead, the injury was limited to her brain, and mainly the front part of her brain. Pressure to the carotid arteries, which supply oxygen to that part of the brain, must now be considered the prime candidate as the cause of Terri's so-called collapse.
Instead, the injury was limited to her brain, and mainly the front part of her brain. Pressure to the carotid arteries, which supply oxygen to that part of the brain, must now be considered the prime candidate as the cause of Terri's so-called collapse.
It's too bad, of course, that no real examinations were allowed after MS got the $$$millions rehab money; if Terri had been given state of the art tests with that money, and had the implants been removed from Terri's brain prior to the $$million award....well, one just doesn't know what all could have helped Terri, does one? For some, it was "best" that nothing be done to try to help Terri.
I think there are maybe a few words that could describe him -- not that we could use them in a family forum. Several of these words are primarily known to longshoremen, pimps and sensible mothers who keep a bar of lye soap handy to wash your mouth out if you say any of them.
This is the season for awards. My award for the worst of the lot (a very, very tough call) goes to Mr. Best Guardian himself who pulled the plug on his mother, pulled the plug on his father, killed his wife's cats, stole his wife's wedding rings, embezzled his wife's trust fund and used the money to kill his wife.
Tomorrow he'll be whining that he's widowed and an orphan.
What's quite frightening, as well, is that these same "reports" have been cited by different Judges in their opinions to justify the dehydration of the disabled and/or withholding of "medical treatment," which, of course, was redefined to include traditionally understood basic necessities for every living creature, such as food and water.
"Vegetative state," a subjective term, has also be redefined over the years (I believe even Dr. Cranford keeps changing what he says it means)....it appears the term is an ever-expanding, more broadly interpreted definition, rather than keeping it to a very specific meaning....of course, there are reasons for that, as well.
The more people who can be diagnosed as "vegetative," the more can be gotten rid of. The more gotten rid of, the less demands, expenses and "burdens upon society, insurance companies, and hospitals" there will be by the elderly/disabled.....draining funds which "should" be better spent on America's youth." (That quote is a fairly accurate interpretation of a statement made by one of the "all-knowing" doctors (I believe to be from Janet D. Rowley, M.D., D.Sc., The University of Chicago) in one of the Bioethics Commission's transcripts. You may be interested in seeing a few of the report here.
There are many doctors, neurologists, who, quite rightly, have stated, and continue to state, that they do not fully understand the human brain or its true capacity and functioning. Of course, we all know this to be true. Those who believe doctors are all-knowing only need look at the walking miracles who abound, defying the all-knowing doctors' prognoses.
These redefinitions, such as "death," "medical treatment," and "vegetative," were intentionally put into place quite some time ago (I believe this all began back in the 1970's) in the Protection of Human Subjects Commission to lead up to where we are now, and where we have yet to tread....for their ulitmate use throughout our society upon those who are deemed to be a burden because of their monetary costs and demands. In fact, the Bioethics Commissions continue to discuss how our medical crises should evolve, due to the longer life expectancy of Americans and the consequent drain the older people will be placing on the taxpayers....yes, it was basically said in those terms. I've actually read through several of the reports on that site.
Your consideration and analysis of the "facts" on this thread and others is simply awesome!
Someone told me that "Dr." Ronald Cranford said that people with Alzheimer's should not have Constitutional rights. Is this true??
My dad who fought in WWII has Alzheimer's. We had a big birthday party for him, and he was so proud to blow out his birthday candles. Today, we took him to a sing along, complete with organ player, and he sang, and clapped his hands along with the music. He loves ice cream. He loves to eat period. He loves so many things that we all do.
My dad did such tough duty for his country, and could not see the movie Titanic that many folks saw several times for entertainment. Why? Because when he was in the Navy, he saw a ship next to him sink, and all of the sailors in the ship drowned, and there was nothing they could do to save them. Then my dad lost his brother in the war.
And "Dr." Cranford is saying that he and other disabled people do not have constitutional rights.
"Dr." Cranford has the freedom of speech to say these horrible things, because men like my dad (some who have Alzheimer's now) fought for his freedom.
However, that's not a fracture of her right femur, it's a bone bruise. Which is also pretty unusual and maybe even more difficult to explain :-) Something with a lot of pressure on the area but not the kind of extreme trauma that might snap the bone.
The compression fracture to her spine at L1 is even odder. The BACKS of the adjacent ribs are fractured. Sometimes ribs are injured in CPR, but not in the back! Something put a lot of force on that specific spot to fracture the spine and ribs. An RN friend familiar with the case and I both think it was Michael's left knee. His right knee was on her right thigh, causing the bone bruise. He's a big man, twice her size, so if he pinned her that way and put her in a strangle hold, she didn't have a chance.
Oh, and did we all know that Terri's blood showed lactic acidosis? That's a condition caused by extreme exertion in the absence of oxygen -- like fighting desperately for her last breath.
I believe that is true, that he Dr. Cranford made that comment....I will try to find out where I've read that; I do believe I recall Sean Hannity even confronted him with that statement during his t.v. program a few months ago.
Seems like getting the state to murder his wife isn't enough for this guy.
Transcript: Dr. Ronald Cranford Talks With Hannity & Colmes
Wednesday, March 23, 2005
HANNITY: Did you once say that people in vegetative states should have no constitutional rights? Did you once, sir, say that patients with advanced Alzheimer's Disease, it makes no sense at all to put a feeding tube in them? Did you say those things?CRANFORD: I think I did write an article on constitutional rights many years ago with another constitutional scholar about the constitutional rights in a vegetative state...
HANNITY: So you said it?
CRANFORD: Yes. Yes, I did.
HANNITY: So people with Alzheimer's Disease, sir, it makes to sense at all to put a feeding tube in them and that people in a vegetative state have no constitutional rights? You said those things?
CRANFORD: Those are two things. With the second thing, with the advanced Alzheimer's, if it's advanced Alzheimer's it doesn't make sense to put a feeding tube in them because if they can't — they're at a point where they need a feeding tube, they're so severely demented...
COLMES: All right. Dr. Cranford, we thank you very much for your time tonight.
[snip]
Yes, I've read that.
As far as the bone bruise on the thigh....I thought the report showed there was a fracture to the femur...not a bruise. But, since I'm not a doctor (and haven't read the scan recently), I'm sure my recollection is incorrect. Yes, I've also read that broken ribs (in the FRONT) do happen during CPR....NOT, however, IN THE BACK. Thanks for sharing that information, as some was new to me.
I'd really like to know what permanent results there is from short term bulemia and how that can be determined 15 years later after so much else has been done to the body. Doesn't make sense. I'm just curious is all.
So the ME says there was "LIKELY" no bulimia and you believe that. But he said there was no trauma and you don't believe that. You can't have it both ways.
Does "Able Danger" mean anything to you? But I can have it both ways, and have already explained this in detail, in anticipation of your response....please re-read that answer.
MS DID NOT GET MILLIONS. At least don't make things up.
But, Hildy, you are the one making things up. I don't and have never.
All of the money awarded to Terri was used for her care. The money Michael got was separate. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and say you didn't make it up, you just don't know what you're talking about.
But Terri/Michael were awarded $$millions Hildy.
Michael chose to spend her rehab money on lawyer fees getting her killed, instead.
He didn't spend it on rehab.
He didn't even spend on hospice; illegal Medicaid monies were spent on her care there.
Surely you know this.
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.