Unconvincing. Ask yourself some questions.

Post #200,156 by Another Scott 3/23/05 3:22:24 PM Reply	Unconvincing. Ask yourself some questions. 1) Why would the experts that testified for the court during the trials be giving anything other than their best professional opinion? 2) Was the CAT scan the only evidence of her brain's condition? 3) Is there any history, anywhere, of a patient in her condition recovering to any meaningful extent? 4) How do the professional qualifications of the people who testified at the trials compare to the people on that blog? It's very easy to cast aspersions nearly 10 years later. It's tougher, though, to present contemporaneous evidence that the diagnosis or ruling by the court was incorrect. My $0.02. Cheers, Scott.
Post #200,169 by Arkadiy 3/23/05 4:54:35 PM Reply	Answers 1) Why would the experts that testified for the court during the trials be giving anything other than their best professional opinion? Because they have views about "death with dignity". People tend to develop professional opinions that do not conflict with their ideology. 2) Was the CAT scan the only evidence of her brain's condition? I don't know. Can you tell me more? 3) Is there any history, anywhere, of a patient in her condition recovering to any meaningful extent? SOme people do recover from being unable to feed themselves. I don't know if 10 years of coma and similar CAT scan happened before. Certainly some amazing recoveries did happen. 4) How do the professional qualifications of the people who testified at the trials compare to the people on that blog? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Biography An M.D. graduate of Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons. After a medical internship and a year in the emergency room at Jacobi Hospital in the Bronx, did a four year Radiology residency at The New York Hospital-Cornell Medical Center. Spent the last 15 years as a 24/7/365 inpatient radiologist in South Florida. <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< versus [link\|http://www.bioethics.umn.edu/faculty/cranford_r.shtml\|Ronald Cranford, MD] >>>>>>>>>>>>> Ronald Cranford, MD, a neurologist and medical ethicist, is Assistant Chief in Neurology at the Hennepin County Medical Center (HCMC), Minneapolis, Minnesota; Professor of Neurology, University of Minnesota Medical School; and Faculty Associate, Center for Bioethics, University of Minnesota. He was Director of the Neurological Intensive Care Unit at the Hennepin County Medical Center from 1971 to 1991. Dr. Cranford has specialized in the field of clinical ethics since the early 1970s. During this time, he served as a consultant to several national commissions on right-to-die issues. These included the President's Commission for the Study of Ethical Problems in Medicine and Biomedical and Behavioral Research, primarily the reports on "Defining Death" and "Deciding to Forego Life-Sustaining Treatment" and the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws on the Uniform Determination of Death Act and the Uniform Rights of the Terminally Ill Act. He was a member of the panel that formulated the Hastings Center's "Guidelines on Termination of Treatment and the Care of the Dying" and the project consultant to the National Center of State Courts' project on "Guidelines for State Court Decision Making in Authorizing or Withholding Life-Sustaining Medical Treatment." Recently, he was co-chairman of the Multisociety Task Force on Medical Aspects of the Persistent Vegetative State. <<<<<<<<<<<<< Seems to me that the good doctor is nowadays more into right to die than into saving patients. -- And what are we doing when the two most powerful nations on earth -- America and Israel -- stomp on the elementary rights of human beings? -- letter to the editor from W. Ostermeier, Liechtenstein
Post #200,189 by Another Scott 3/23/05 5:51:09 PM 3/23/05 9:11:03 PM Reply	Rebuttal. 1) Nothing about Cranford's testimony was impeached at the trials. Cranford has commented on a NRO article [link\|http://pekinprattles.blogspot.com/2005/03/schiavo-dr-cranford-offers-reply.html\|here] and discusses some of the criticism raised by the Schindlers and others. [edit:] [link\|http://pekinprattles.blogspot.com/2005/03/dr-cranfords-complete-terri-schiavo.html\|This] page gives lots of details about Terri's examinations (multiple CT scans, etc.), her treatment over the years, and the legal activities. It's written by Cranford. It's a good read.[/edit] 2) People can and do have opinions about their work and their field. That does not mean they are biased toward or against a particular outcome. And giving views about death does not make one an advocate of death. Bias can be an insidious thing, but there's nothing to indicate that Cranford and the other neurologists who testified were biased. See below. 3) A radiologist interprets X-ray, ultrasound and similar images. A neurologist studies the nervous system. Which would be more likely to know more about the brain? I don't know the details of the evidence presented at the trial. I've only seen the links that we've all seen of the ruling by the courts. For example, from [link\|http://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/trialctorder02-00.pdf\|2000]: Turning to the medical issues of the case, the court finds beyond all doubt that Theresa Maria Schiavo is in a persistent vegetative state or the same is defined by Florida Statutes Section 765.101 (12) per the specific testimony of Dr. James Barnhill and collaborated by Dr. Vincent Gambone. The medical evidence before this court conclusively establishes that she has no hope of ever regaining consciousness and therefore capacity, and that without the feeding tube she will die in seven to fourteen days. The unrebutted medical tesimony before this court is that such death would be painless. The film offered into evidence by Respondents does nothing to change these medical opinions which are supported by the CAT scans in evidence. Mrs. Schindler has testified as her perceptions regarding her daughter and the court is not unmindful that perceptions may become reality to the person having them. But the overwhelming credible evidence is that Terri Schiavo has been totally unresponsive since lapsing into the coma almost ten years ago, that her movements are reflexive and predicated on brain stem activity alone, that she suffers from severe structural brain damage and to a large extent her brain has been replaced by spinal fluid, that with the exception of one witness whom the court finds to be so biased as to lack credibility, her movements are occasional and totally consistent with the testimony of the expert medical witnesses. The testimony of Dr. Barnhill establishes that Terri Schiavo's reflex actions such as breathing and movement shows merely that her brain stem and spinal cord are intact. Argument was presented regarding the woman in New Mexico who awakened from a coma a few months ago after sixteen years. Dr. Barnhill testified that he would have to believe tht the patient had a different kind of condition or else it was a miracle. Since he knew nothing more than what appeared in the newspaper, any medical explanation would be "speculative". The court certainly would have expected a more complete explanation from the stipulated expert but the unrebutted evidence remains that Terri Schiavo remains in a persistent vegetative state. Dr. Barnhill earlier drew the distinction between comas which are catatonic in nature (no brain damage) and those caused by structural brain damage as in this case. Again, the court cannot speculate on the New Mexico situation as neither party has offered evidence in that regard. Typos are mine. I think anything more I post will just be rehashing old comments, so I'll bow out for a while. Cheers, Scott. Edited by Another Scott March 23, 2005, 09:11:03 PM EST Expand All History
Post #200,286 by Arkadiy 3/24/05 9:39:10 AM Reply	Neurologist vs. Radiologist Radiologist does indeed interpret various images, including, I think, CAT scans. And he does it, as he says, 7/24. The neurologist in question was a political creature back when his original testimony was given, and he turned into full-fledged "medical eticist" now. I cannot prove it you, but if I had to choose my own doctor, I'd hesitate to pick Dr. Cranford, just as I would hesitate to pick Dr. Dean. -- And what are we doing when the two most powerful nations on earth -- America and Israel -- stomp on the elementary rights of human beings? -- letter to the editor from W. Ostermeier, Liechtenstein
Post #200,288 by Another Scott 3/24/05 9:42:12 AM Reply	What about Barnhill and Gambone?
Post #200,295 by Arkadiy 3/24/05 10:08:39 AM Reply	Dunno [link\|http://www.measehospitals.com/1237.cfm\|Dr. Gambone]: <<<<<<<<<<<<< Specialty\t Internal Medicine* Geriatrics \t Board Certifications Geriatrics Internal Medicine * Indicates primary specialty, location. >>>>>>>>>>>> Not sure if he is the right specialist for the case. I could not find anything on the web except a for-fee link at [link\|http://www.healthgrades.com/directory_search/Physician/Profiles/Cardiology/Duluth_Georgia/Dr_James_Barnhill_MD_25C86D93.cfm\|www.healthgrades.com]. Dr. James Barnhill, I -- And what are we doing when the two most powerful nations on earth -- America and Israel -- stomp on the elementary rights of human beings? -- letter to the editor from W. Ostermeier, Liechtenstein
Post #200,195 by jb4 3/23/05 6:17:53 PM Reply	Re: Answers 1) Why would the experts that testified for the court during the trials be giving anything other than their best professional opinion? Because they have views about "death with dignity". People tend to develop professional opinions that do not conflict with their ideology. And that differs from this doctor (that just magically showed up 15 years after the fact, and presented by none other the Jeb! hisself) how? Really Ark, how gullible are you (or is it that, except for geography, you'd be one of the "faithful" standing vigil outside of TS's hospice room)? jb4 shrub\ufffdbish (Am., from shrub* + rubbish, after the derisive name for America's 43 president; 2003) n. 1. a form of nonsensical political doubletalk wherein the speaker attempts to defend the indefensible by lying, obfuscation, or otherwise misstating the facts; GIBBERISH. 2. any of a collection of utterances from America's putative 43rd president. cf.* BULLSHIT
Post #200,285 by Arkadiy 3/24/05 9:23:22 AM Reply	I was not referring to Jeb's doctor at all. That one is pure political crap. -- And what are we doing when the two most powerful nations on earth -- America and Israel -- stomp on the elementary rights of human beings? -- letter to the editor from W. Ostermeier, Liechtenstein
Post #200,391 by johnu 3/24/05 7:31:20 PM 3/24/05 8:59:32 PM Reply	Re: Answers 2) Was the CAT scan the only evidence of her brain's condition? I don't know. Can you tell me more? Reverend Robert Johansen has been following this case and wrote [link\|http://nationalreview.com/comment/johansen200503160848.asp\|this]: Terri\ufffds diagnosis was arrived at without the benefit of testing that most neurologists would consider standard for diagnosing PVS. One such test is MRI (Magnetic Resonance Imaging). MRI is widely used today, even for ailments as simple as knee injuries \ufffd but Terri has never had one. Michael has repeatedly refused to consent to one. The neurologists I have spoken to have reacted with shock upon learning this fact. One such neurologist is Dr. Peter Morin. He is a researcher specializing in degenerative brain diseases, and has both an M.D. and a Ph.D. in biochemistry from Boston University. In the course of my conversation with Dr. Morin, he made reference to the standard use of MRI and PET (Positron Emission Tomography) scans to diagnose the extent of brain injuries. He seemed to assume that these had been done for Terri. I stopped him and told him that these tests have never been done for her; that Michael had refused them. There was a moment of dead silence. \ufffdThat\ufffds criminal,\ufffd he said, and then asked, in a tone of utter incredulity: \ufffdHow can he continue as guardian? People are deliberating over this woman\ufffds life and death and there\ufffds been no MRI or PET?\ufffd He drew a reasonable conclusion: \ufffdThese people [Michael Schiavo, George Felos, and Judge Greer] don\ufffdt want the information.\ufffd EDITED: Looks like the Rev. is incorrect about the MRI according to Another Scott's [link\|http://pekinprattles.blogspot.com/2005/03/dr-cranfords-complete-terri-schiavo.html\|Link]: prior to these most recent two CT scans, CT scans had been performed on February 25, 1990, February 27, 1990, and March 30, 1990, with an MRI scan on July 24, 1990. EDITED AGAIN: I should follow Scott's links more closely...[link\|http://pekinprattles.blogspot.com/2005/03/schiavo-dr-cranford-offers-reply.html\|this one] draws into question other parts of Rev. Johansen article. As [link\|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=200169\|Arkadiy] pointed out, we should still be very wary about Dr. Cranford's opinions. It seems the believe that there was only one CT is a common one. [link\|http://www.mayoclinic.org/neurology-jax/11736755.html\|Dr. William Cheshire] also made a similar statement in his [link\|http://www.nationalreview.com/pdf/Affidavit.pdf\|affidavit]. Edited by johnu March 24, 2005, 07:40:33 PM EST Edited by johnu March 24, 2005, 08:59:32 PM EST Expand All History
Post #200,422 by Another Scott 3/24/05 10:11:44 PM Reply	It's best to go to the source when possible. The people opposing the results of the trials thus far have a vested interest in presenting the evidence in a way to show that the courts made a mistake so that they can demand a review or retrial. If they're wrong about a simple thing like how many CAT scans have been done over the years, ask yourself - what else are they wrong about? It's best to look at the original documents to see what what testified to and what evidence was presented. For example, from [link\|http://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/trialctorder02-00.pdf\|this] order from 2000: The court took testimony from eighteen witnesses, including the parties, the brother and sister of Theresa Marie Schiavo, (sometimes referred to as "Terri Schiavo"); the brother and sister-in-law of Petitioner, and the treating physician for Terri Schiavo. The court also received into evidence certain exhibits, including CAT scans of Terri Schiavo and, for comparison purposes, Dr. James Barnhill. And [link\|http://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/trialctorder11-02.txt\|this] ruling from Judge Greer in 2002: In response to the Mandate [from the Second District Court of Appeal on October 17, 2001], the court directed that a physical examination of Terry Schiavo be done by her treating physician. The court then directed Dr. Victor Gambone, M.D. testify, essentially to set the stage and provide a basis for the five experts to begin their examinations and ultimately provide their testimony. The court does not consider the testimony of Dr. Gambone to be relevant to the ultimate decision this court is required to make, confining itself instead to the testimony of the five experts for that purpose. Additionally, the video examinations which formed a part of the evidentiary hearing and which the court viewed in their entirety at the requests of both parties, contained conversations between the parties and various doctors. Some of these conversations could be considered probative as either admissions against interests or bolstering of positions. Nevertheless, the parties were not under oath at that time and, as a consequence, the court has not and will not consider those statements except to assess any response or non-response that Terry Schiavo may have had thereto. [...] Dr. Maxfield also felt that '02 CT Scan showed improvement in the quality of the remaining brain matter and that one reason Terry Schiavo was not in a persistent vegetative state was that she could swallow her own saliva and breathe on her own. These views were not supported by any of the other doctors and Drs. Greer, Bambakidis and Cranford strongly disagreed with his '02 CT Scan opinion. Dr. Cranford further testified that saliva handling is from the brain stem, a reflex. Viewing all of the evidence as a whole, and acknowledging that medicine is not a precise science, the court finds that the credible evidence overwhelmingly supports the view that Terry Schiavo remains in a persistent vegetative state. Even Dr. Maxfield acknowledges that vegetative patients can track on occasion and that smiling can be a reflex. It's clear that more than one CAT scan was done. (A CT scan is the [link\|http://www.radiologyinfo.org/content/ct_of_the_body.htm\|same thing] as a CAT scan.) Please remember that the trials were by nature adversarial. Each side does (or should do) their best to present the most compelling evidence for their position. If it's so clear these many years later that the trial result is incorrect, why wasn't it clear during the trial? Why weren't the Schindlers able to find more compelling experts? Also remember that Greer did not volunteer or lobby to be the judge on this trial. [link\|http://abstractappeal.com/\|Abstract Appeal]: Judge Greer is a Republican and a Southern Baptist. No doubt he has his own views about what he thinks he would do, or what he thinks might be in Terri's best interests. But he was charged with deciding only what Terri would do. He found the evidence presented at trial clear and convincing that Terri would choose not to have her life prolonged by the affirmative intervention of modern medicine. Three appellate judges unanimously affirmed that decision. A lot of people have made a lot of hateful, outlandish claims about this case. If you really want to know what's going on, you really need to read the original documents and take the comments on the blogs with a very large grain of salt. My $0.02. Cheers, Scott.

Welcome to IWETHEY!