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].

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!