Posted on 04/01/2005 11:52:28 PM PST by FairOpinion
The amount of medical misinformation put out about Terri Schiavo has been truly stunning. The testimony of Terri’s physicians who believe that some recovery is possible has been largely dismissed. Judge Greer’s court and the media in turn, have focused only on the pessimistic interpretations of the raw data of her CT scan.
A physician at a credible physicians’ website has analyzed Terri’s CAT scan and concludes that it has been grossly misrepresented. There is some cerebral atrophy, but it is a completely inaccurate to characterize it as “bag of water.” Furthermore, the author states that
“the most alarming thing about this image, however, is that there certainly is cortex left. Granted, it is severely thinned, especially for Terri's age, but I would be nonplussed if you told me that this was a 75 year old female who was somewhat senile but fully functional, and I defy a radiologist anywhere to contest that.”
In one of the definitive court battles in 2002, five physicians examined Terri to determine if therapy would be of further benefit. Two chosen by Terri’s parents believed that she was not in a “persistent vegetative state” and that some recovery was possible. Two chosen by Michael Schiavo held that she had no chance of recovery, as did the “neutral” physician appointed by the court. This 3-2 decision was key in the 2003 attempt to pull her feeding tube.
One of Michael Schiavo’s medical experts was the right-to-die advocate Dr. Ronald Cranford, who has been an expert in a number other key court cases on our nation’s slippery slope to euthanasia, including those of Nancy Cruzan and Robert Wedlund. But Dr. Cranford has made serious errors in other cases when prognosticating about the prospects of neurological recovery. Frederica Mathewes-Green states that Sgt. David Mack, who was shot in the line of duty as a policeman, was diagnosed by Cranford as
"definitely...in a persistent vegetative state...never [to] regain cognitive, sapient functioning...never [to] be aware of his condition."
Twenty months after the shooting Mack woke up, and eventually regained nearly all his mental ability. When asked by a reporter how he felt, he spelled out on his letterboard, "Speechless!"
In fact, the entire field of diagnosing “persistent vegetative state” or “PVS” is fraught with inaccuracy. Recent studies have shown the rate of misdiagnosis to be as high as 37% or even 43%. PVS is a clinical diagnosis, meaning that it depends on the subjective judgment of the examining physician. Experts in the field cannot even agree on the usefulness of diagnostic imaging.
Dr. Ronald Cranford himself was upset about the articles showing the inaccuracy of diagnosis and prognostication about PVS. Childs and Mercer, authors of one of the studies citing the difficulties of diagnosing PVS, took Cranford to task for “zealously” promoting the concept of the "permanent vegetative state" despite the evidence of its problematic nature, and the regularity with which some patients recover from it .
The nomenclature of “persistent vegetative state” was coined in 1972 by Jennett and Plum in the prestigious medical journal The Lancet. The original article, “Persistent Vegetative State: A syndrome in search of a name” seems to have succeeded in its task as reclassifying severely cognitively disabled humans as non-persons - something akin to vegetables in the minds of many. Public perception of this highly-charged term predisposes many to dismiss the lives of human beings as no more significant than plant life. It is a brilliant, if chilling, masterstroke of propaganda, one which has been swallowed hook, line, and sinker.
This reclassification of non-terminally ill people has allowed for their dehydration and starvation deaths in Britain with a doctor’s recommendation, and in many states in the USA with the family’s wishes (or a patient’s own advance directives). The medical literature is rife with arrogant pronouncements in editorials of learned journals, such as life itself not being of “benefit” to someone in the PVS state. The echoes of current bioethics doublespeak resound in these journals.
In some respects the “persistent vegetative state” is more a political than a medical diagnosis, as it allows its unfortunate victims to lose their right to life and be medically killed through withholding food and water. It is unfortunate that some of the experts on the side of the Culture of Death seem to have had the upper hand in Terri’s fight, and have been portrayed by the media as reasonable and responsible members of the medical profession, rather than the zealots which, in fact, some of their own medical colleagues have branded them.
Yeah--if Terri wasn't "aware of ..existence...and ...caregivers..." then what's she doing smiling at her mom after watching the balloon?
Only Mikey said so, and only after it became necessary for his purposes. That wasn't the case, however, when Mikey was testifying to gain $1+MM in insurance settlements.
That's been pointed out numerous times to Dave and he's yet to answer it. The only person who gets the benefit of the doubt in Dave's world is the one whose stories shift with the wind.
Matter of fact, yes.
A Texas citizen has filed a complaint against Greer, in the last couple of days.
See EmpireJournal for details.
Hasn't been for about the last 25 years.
The original founder of the discipline made remarks to that effect during the Terri murder.
Needless to say, he's quite disappointed.
Watch carefully what your local "bioethicist" has to say about any number of issues and it gets more and more clear.
This bunch is devoid of morals and deliberately ignores first principles (or right order, if you prefer.)
We have one in Milwaukee who pontificates from the Medical College of Wisconsin, wrongly, and repeatedly.
Enough to make you puke.
If someone cannot chew or swallow their food, AND they cannot respond to queries (inactive brain), should society or individuals consider it a responsibility to unnaturally feed the person via a gastric feeding tube?
If one believes in God, and believes that God prepares a body for its last days by constricting the throat and making it impossible for a person to eat, chew or swallow food, the is society (or the family member) unnaturally extended life, circumventing God's purpose of imminent death?
Is leaving this earth and going to death and life after death in actuality a "culture of death" attitude?
Or could it instead be a "culture of life after death"?
Why would so many Christians fight so hard to avoid this?
Her initial injurty was in 1990. The infamous bone scans were over one year later. How can people connect the two and say that the abuse could have been at Michael Schavio's hand?
Further, why weren't these bone scans introduced into evidence during the malpractice suit?
Why didn't a radiologist see these bone scans prior to the malpractice suit?
The bone scan report, posted on terrisfight.org, makes the report itself potentially biased and inaccurate.
The Schindlers certainly appeared not to have disputed the bulimia claim when it meant possible money for them.
Why would the malpractice doctors (and their insurance companies) not have fought the bulimia claim if it meant their case would be thrown out?
The whole reason Terri Schiavo collapsed was because of a potassium imbalance, which stopped her heart from functioning.
The Schindler "side" is full of propaganda, matters which muddy the water, and perception that is clouded by factors which are not pertinent to the issues at hand.
I am not a Deathacrat. I am not a Democrat.
Sorry I didn't spell his name correctly, I wasn't familiar enought with the spelling.
I disagree with the reasoning to keep a person alive via a feeding tube. If God has made the person's body unable to chew, eat or swallow, then feeding by tube is unnatural.
I believe in life after death, eternal life.
Why would a Christian value life on earth over the life he gains after death. Live as best you can, as long as you can while living. But when the brain function and the ability to chew and swallow has left the body, let the spirit go to the Father in Heaven. My opinion.
I am afraid, very afraid:
that the choice to refuse medical care will disappear if we begin to force individuals into unnecessary legal battles, unnecessary human tragedy, and unwarranted extreme burdens for people (emotional, physical, mental and financial) by unnaturally extended life and forcing people to accept feeding tubes for unlimited time periods, respirators and surgeries unwanted by a person or their immediate family.
The question in the extant case was not whether anyone had the obligation to feed Terri, but whether anyone had the right to forbid Terri from being fed.
During medieal times, families with unwanted children would abandon them by the side of the road. They might starve, get eaten by wild animals, or be rescued. Even though the odds of the children getting rescued may not have been very good, the parents who left them by the side of the road at least gave them something of a chance.
Terri Schiavo had parents who were willing to care for her at their own expense (with the aid of many who offered their help of their own free will). Even if nobody had an obligation to care for her, why would that imply that those who wanted to care for her should be unable to do so?
If I remember correctly:
Because Michael and his lawyer didn't want them introduced.
The Schindlers didn't have access to Terri's medical records. Michael would not let them see them.
Maybe they thought they could trust people who said she was bulimic, even though they weren't sure she was.
Bulimia thrives in secrecy. Like abuse does.
The injuries were at least partly healed.
I've often thought that the word "vegetative" is a disrespectful way to refer to a human being. I don't use the term.
Why not use something less loaded like "severely brain damaged and non-responsive state"? Perhaps because the word "vegetative" allows interested parties to pass over such issues as responsiveness and consciousness.
The issue isn't whether Christians are fighting against death.
The issue is whether Christians are brave enough to speak out against killing.
I have seen only one cut of the CT Scan. I do see substantially dialated ventricles and cortical atrophy, but I wonder why on earth Ms.Shiavo did not receive a ventriculoperitoneal shunt, to decompress the central nervous system and perhaps rescue remaining cortical areas. It seems once the hydrocephali developed it would have been prudent to decompress. I am not a neurosurgeon and would be interested if there are any Freeper neurosurgeons to comment on this.
"Perhaps because the word "vegetative"
Because it's easier to sell the idea of murdering a human if you think in terms of the person as a carrot or cabbage. They're not a human, only an unfeeling and unresponsive vegetable. About the same logic used as an unborn child. They're not human so it's ok to murder them.
Legal murder--only in the USA. Better make sure you all feed your pets--they will prosecute for that, but it's ok to starve a person.
That's a highly offensive way to put it. Is that you, Dr Cranford?
So if the Schindlers had lobbied against this law that would have disqualified them from suing under it?
Huh?
The point is, the doctors couldn't conclusively determine bulimia either. You'd think there would be evidence in her mouth, gums, teeth, esophagus etc, of habitual vomiting, but nothing.
Maybe they did. I haven't read the trial transcripts, have you?
The Schindler "side" is full of propaganda, matters which muddy the water, and perception that is clouded by factors which are not pertinent to the issues at hand.
And the Schiavo side is pure as the driven snow?
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.