FL lawyer says Giuliani, Romney, McCain wrong on Schiavo case

OneNewsNow ^ | 5/28/07 | Jim Brown

[mbraynard]

You are severely factually challenged. It's almost like you just asserted it was ok to kill the woman because she was an Al-Queda colaborator.

There was no state money involved in this. The parents were paying the bills and personally responsible for her.

[Gondring]

‘IF’ Terri really was not conscious then offering her food and drink through her mouth should not have been that awful since she would not ingest enough to keep herself alive indefinitely. Why was she not given that chance?

I bet you would have loved the spectacle of choking when she couldn't swallow, eh? Would you have said, "look at how cruel the Schindlers are!"? Somehow, I doubt it.

Besides, I am not arguing against her receiving morphine..that was her parents.

[bjs1779]

I was under the impression it had never been documented in the medical record, which means it is disputed, especially when it first surfaces years later. Which is probably also the reason Carla Iyer’s claims were dismissed as “incredible.” Am I mistaken in this? Do you have a link to the relevant record?

How many years went by before Scott and Joan Schiavo's testimony was allowed in Greers court for the purpose of killing her? You err on the side of death every time. Besides, Carla was not the only one.

[bjs1779]

I bet you would have loved the spectacle of choking when she couldn't swallow, eh?

Actually, the Greer court conceded that she could swallow. But he concluded that she could not swallow enough. It would only "prolong her death". Nice, eh?

[retMD]

You err on the side of death every time.

I would say instead I support the side of the medical documentation as the representation of what happened. If it's documented in the record, say so, and I'll reevaluate. From my perspective, it looks like some want to ignore the medicine, and believe anything that sounds like it might support what they want to believe, despite more evidence to the contrary. The classic statement that's been around in legal trials involving medical records: "If it isn't documented, it didn't happen." I can't imagine why they wouldn't document something like that - any nurse I know, would have.

[retMD]

No, it’s the only one I’ve seen, and looking at that scan tells me there’s very little cortex left. To believe that this is the scan of someone who speaks meaningful words is to allow hope to color perception.

[bjs1779]

I can't imagine why they wouldn't document something like that - any nurse I know, would have.

In your experience, how many nurses have had to request restraining orders against the patients primary caregiver?

[retMD]

What does that have to do with documenting that a patient ate?

[bjs1779]

From my perspective, it looks like some want to ignore the medicine, and believe anything that sounds like it might support what they want to believe, despite more evidence to the contrary.

Could you give us a brief background bio on Dr. Cranford?

[bjs1779]

What does that have to do with documenting that a patient ate?

> Don't know what you mean. Some testified that she could. Maybe more if they were not intimidated. You and Greer did not support another swallowing test. That is about as simple as I can put it.

Do you want me to post an early example of a restraining order against Michael Schiavo? Long before Carla ever saw him as a matter of fact.

[Gondring]

It would only "prolong her death". Nice, eh?

Considering the court decided that she wouldn't have wanted it prolonged, then that was a good decision.

[retMD]

Again, what does that have to do with a nurse documenting in the medical record that the patient ate? As far as I know, there was nothing about her eating in the medical record. If there was, why wasn’t the record brought up at any point?

[retMD]

What does that have to with the autopsy report?

[bjs1779]

Considering the court decided that she wouldn't have wanted it prolonged, then that was a good decision.

Did any Judge ever see her?

[bjs1779]

As far as I know, there was nothing about her eating in the medical record. If there was, why wasn’t the record brought up at any point?

The skinny is that Michael didn't want them to fed her. Read the affidavits.

I see you didn't reply to the Scott an Joan Schiavo testimony by the way.

[retMD]

I’m not sure I know the testimony - is it medical? Bottom line, is that you seem to be trying to change the subject from the medical, because it does not support what you want to believe.

[Gondring]

Did any Judge ever see her?

I'm not aware of any judge seeing her. But it goes back to the same basic question retMD asks: "What does that have to do with anything we're discussing?"

Judges don't see every person about whom decisions must be made--they rely upon experts. And there wasn't a single neurologist who examined her and said she was not in a Persistent Vegetative State (doctors who advertise in the National Enquirer don't count).

Some of the neurologists who examined Mrs. Schiavo and diagnosed her as in a PVS, with little hope of any recovery...

• Dr. Garcia J. DeSousa
• Dr. Jeffery M. Karp
• Dr. James H. Barnhill
• Dr. Thomas H. Harrison

Note, these are neurologists...but also, her family internist gave the same diagnosis.

[T'wit]

Thanks, retMD. I appreciate your take that "looking at that scan tells me there’s very little cortex left."

The CT has been discussed before. The following exchange last year opened eyes. I learned from it and I think others did. I trust Polybius won't mind if I quote this comment in full. (He's a radiologist.) He made several other valuable comments in this thread that I can try to link.

>> The scan on the left is a normal brain. The scan on the right was the remant of Terri Schiavo's brain:

>> Looks to me as if there wasn't much left to recover. [earlier post]

Reply by Polybius:

As a radiologist, the first time I saw those those two CT images used to make that point, I thought to myself, "Now there's a classic example of how the media can and will manipulate information."

The CT slice selected to illustrate "the normal brain" has been taken at the axial level of the frontal horns and the third ventricle.

The CT slice selected to illustrate "Schiavo's brain" was taken at the axial level of the lateral ventricles.

The ventricles are cerebral spinal fluid (CSF) filled cavities in your brain. (In purple in the drawing below.) They are supposed to be there. On CT, CSF is black.

The lateral ventricles are the very long, curved ventricles at the top of the ventricular system. The third ventricle is the little ventricle below the lateral ventricles. The frontal horns are the anterior tips of the lateral ventricles that are seen as little pockets of CSF when you clip them with a third ventricle level CT slice.

So, if you take the CT slice at the third ventricle/ frontal horn level, guess what? There are almost no CSF collections there.

But, when you take a CT slice at the level of the lateral ventricles.....WHOAAA!!!.....Big difference! These are mildly dilated lateral ventricles in a 76 year old.

To a layman, especially if they are shown a slice at the third ventricle level as an example of "what a normal brain should look like", the CT slice selected from the lateral ventricle level makes it look as if there were a huge hole in Granny's brain.

No need to try to euthanize Granny because of those lateral ventricles. She will just hit you over the head with her purse and tell you that she is cutting you out of her will as soon as she calls her lawyer in the morning.

There is no doubt the Schiavo had hydrocephalus (and cortical atrophy too) but I have had patients with just as much hydrocephalus with shunts in place walk in and walk out of our CT room.

Schiavo may have had other issues that would have made her a lost cause but, if I showed a layman third ventricle level CT images of a "normal brain" and then showed the layman lateral ventricle level images of any of your brains, I could very easily convince that layman that a significant chunk of your brain was gone.

94 posted on 07/03/2006 9:12:36 PM PDT by Polybius

The comment was in this thread (post #94)

[bjs1779]

I’m not sure I know the testimony - is it medical? Bottom line, is that you seem to be trying to change the subject from the medical, because it does not support what you want to believe.

Is Dr. Cranford medical? You didn't even answer that question. Why do you avoid things like that?

[bjs1779]

I'm not aware of any judge seeing her.

Thanks. Any murderer is seen by a Judge before sentence, agree?