I assert based on the NIH site, which frankly I believe is more authoritative than the links you gave, that the attribution of CP to lack of oxygen is tentative and not fully medically proved. If you want I can go dig up the links upon which they base that and they will be just as authoritative as the Cleveland Clinic. The NIH represents the nationwide medical consensus which is "undecided". Some individual practitioners and medical practices will agree and some will not. There's a reason they call it the "practice" of medicine and there's a reason people go for second opinions. There are no medical certainties. All I'm asking is that you admit there might be some uncertainties.
But if you want to play the dueling links game, here's the Mayo Clinic
Treatment of Cerebral Palsy at Mayo Clinic
However, doctors don't completely understand the cause of most cases of cerebral palsy, which are present at birth (congenital). For many years, doctors and researchers believed that cerebral palsy was caused by a lack of oxygen during birth. Now they believe that only a small number of cases are caused by problems during labor and delivery.[my bold]
Doctors and researchers have now identified many possible causes of congenital cerebral palsy, including:
* Maternal infection during pregnancy, such as rubella or other viral infections
* Severe jaundice in newborns, which may be caused by infection, severe bruising or problems with red blood cells due to ABO or Rh incompatibility — two incompatibilities between the blood of the mother and her fetus
* Abnormal brain development before birth, resulting from genetic causes or metabolic disorders
* Disturbance to brain circulation before birth, caused by an artery spasm or blood clot, similar to a stroke in adults
Note that they specifically say that the oxygen starvation theory is out of date and now not thought to produce any but a small number of cases. Because of her unique birth she may be the one in a million but how can you not admit there is some doubt? There is clearly not the level of certainty as presented by Harvey.
In Jessen's case it makes no difference in the sense that she could have been born healthy and her effectiveness as an anti-abortion advocate would be unaffected. I do think that the science was too unsettled for John Edwards to destroy a doctor's career and transfer millions of dollars from our pockets into his. If you are insulted by holding the same medical opinions as John Edwards then that's not something I can do anything about. I do believe that Harvey/Jessen and Edwards both overstated the linkage between birth hypoxia and CP. Their motives for doing so are almost certainly different.
As confirmation, after the number of C-sections in NC skyrocketed as a result of John Edward win in court the incidence of CP remained unchanged. If there is a cause and effect it should have shown up.
I assert based on the NIH site, which frankly I believe is more authoritative than the links you gave, that the attribution of CP to lack of oxygen is tentative and not fully medically proved. If you want I can go dig up the links upon which they base that and they will be just as authoritative as the Cleveland Clinic.Really? If your attitude is that the only authorative sites are yours, I'm done debating with you. I feel that you're angry because you were proven to be wrong when you stated with absolute surety that it wasn't caused by lack of oxygen to the brain and I showed sites where it was.
Not only were you so sure of yourself, you went on to insult people who didn't agree with you by putting them in the same class as John Edwards. Actually, Edwards was right in this case and you weren't.
Now I can pull up as many or more sites that contradict that of Mayo Clinic which is not as highly esteemed in America as the Cleveland Clinic. To what avail? Just to have you say that yours are more authorative? I don't have time to play games.