Rebuttal.
[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on brain stem activity alone, that she suffers from severe structural brain damage and to a large extent her brain has been replaced by spinal fluid, that with the exception of one witness whom the court finds to be so biased as to lack credibility, her movements are occasional and totally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.
