0
   

Has the Schiavo case Become a Political Football?

 
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Mar, 2005 12:03 am
Montana and Thomas--

I appreciate what each of you said.

Thomas--

If you care to elaborate on what that brain physiologist said, I'd be quite interested. I wonder if he concurred with the PVS diagnosis, cognition, anything... Also, I wouldn't have expected this story to carry internationally. What would you say is the general opinion about it there?
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Mar, 2005 12:04 am
Thomas and Montana, I can appreciate the questions you have about Terri's case. Most people that have seen the short clip of Terri moving her eyes and seeming to respond to her mother is "real." She really seems to be reacting, but according to the neurologists that have examined Terri, they have all concluded that she is in a Persistent Vegetative State, which means she has no cognition - no feeling, no pain, and no hunger or thirst. Her brain, the part that allows us cognition, is filled with liquid as revealed by an MRI. Electrograms shows no response from her brain to show she has cognition. The experts, the neurologists who have examined her, say she feels no pain. I am not about to second guess the experts in the field.
0 Replies
 
Montana
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Mar, 2005 12:06 am
All I know is that there's not one person on this planet who knows what she is feeling. There is still so much that doctors don't know about the brain.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Mar, 2005 12:06 am
cicerone imposter wrote:
Thomas and Montana, I can appreciate the questions you have about Terri's case. Most people that have seen the short clip of Terri moving her eyes and seeming to respond to her mother is "real." She really seems to be reacting, but according to the neurologists that have examined Terri, they have all concluded that she is in a Persistent Vegetative State, which means she has no cognition - no feeling, no pain, and no hunger or thirst. Her brain, the part that allows us cognition, is filled with liquid. Electrograms shows no response from her brain to show she has cognition. The experts, the neurologists who have examined her, say she feels no pain. I am not about to second guess the experts in the field.

It was my impression that of 5 doctors who examined her in 2002 by court order, only 3 reached the conclusion you say was unanimous.
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Mar, 2005 12:07 am
Eorl wrote:
Thomas, what was the physiologists feelings about the matter? Did he have a personal view?

Not really. He described the ethical dilemma, but held back on his feelings (which is part of why I liked him). Like many people in this thread, he referred to the law instead of expressing a personal view, and even this doesn't give a clear answer. Under Florida law, as interpreted by the judges in this case, removing the feeding tube was legal. Under German law, it would have been a crime. So one thing I learn from this is that it is asking too much of the law to expect that it have a definite answer to difficult ethical problems.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Mar, 2005 12:10 am
I didn't say anything about "unanymous." What I did say was that the judges who ruled in this case all agreed with the findings of the doctors who diagnosed Terri with PVS, and made their legal decisions accordingly.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Mar, 2005 12:14 am
cicerone imposter wrote:
I didn't say anything about "unanymous." What I did say was that the judges who ruled in this case all agreed with the findings of the doctors who diagnosed Terri with PVS, and made their legal decisions accordingly.


cicerone imposter wrote:
...but according to the neurologists that have examined Terri, they have all concluded that she is in a Persistent Vegetative State, which means she has no cognition - no feeling, no pain, and no hunger or thirst....

The doctors who have examined her have not all concluded this.
0 Replies
 
Eorl
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Mar, 2005 12:16 am
Lash,

It's an international story because it's an international human rights issue.

I'm in Australia.
0 Replies
 
Eorl
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Mar, 2005 12:19 am
Brandon, I presume that segregation laws have been changed? How did that happen?
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Mar, 2005 12:22 am
Eorl wrote:
Brandon, I presume that segregation laws have been changed? How did that happen?

My point is that just because a case makes its way through the Supreme Court, that doesn't mean that the decision reached was just. In a hundred years, maybe the laws will be changed to forbid euthanasia in this situation. The courts of various countries have a long history of doing things that are now regarded as abhorrent. Not very much creedence at all should be given to your argument that if Lash's ethical position were wrong, the courts would not have decided the opposite.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Mar, 2005 12:27 am
"All - wholly, entirely; for every; of everything (all includsive)."

"Unanimous - united, single, collective, combine, unified, concerted, harmonious, concordant, concurrent, public, popular, undivided, of one accord, agreed, common, communal, shared, universal, accepted, ......"
0 Replies
 
Eorl
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Mar, 2005 12:28 am
Brandon, that seems fair. I stand corrected. But with the risk of bringing up a previous matter between us, what makes you (or Lash) think they can walk in and give medical and judicial assessments that are likely to be more correct than those who specialise in these fields?
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Mar, 2005 12:34 am
First, find where either of us made that claim.
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Mar, 2005 12:35 am
Lash wrote:
If you care to elaborate on what that brain physiologist said, I'd be quite interested.

Well, it was a five-minute interview, about half of which were about describing the facts of the Schiavo case to the German audience. He didn't say whether he concurred with the PVS diagnosis, but for the purpose of the interview he implicitly did. Most of what he said was about what patients in a Wachkoma (coma vigil), as he called it, can and cannot do. Judging by some quick Googling, the definitions for coma vigil and persistent vegetative state are practically the same.

Lash wrote:
Also, I wouldn't have expected this story to carry internationally. What would you say is the general opinion about it there?

Like Americans, we have a continuous debate here about the ethics of euthanasia and abortion. The Terri Schiavo case kind of fits in on the euthanasia side, even though patients like her are neither brain-dead nor dying. General opinion is about as divided about both issues in Germany as it is in America, though our laws are much more 'conservative' than yours. (One of the things I find ironic about the American debate is how the same liberals who urge that American law adapt to international standards decency about punishment (capital and otherwise), ignore those standards in their end-of-life and beginning of life positions.) The feelings about Terri Schiavo don't run nearly as high here. Her case is more like a journalistic hook to discuss the general issue.
0 Replies
 
Brandy
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Mar, 2005 12:38 am
I think all the judges in this case did not rule on the doctors opinions. One judge did. I think all the others did was rule on whether the one judges ruling was properly done. They didnt have time to even look at the case much.

I think those who are so sure the pro life people who want to save Terri Schiavo have cut their political throats may be less sure as time goes on. Who knows what motives anybody has anyway? In time I think people will think about being on the side of life is better than killing a disabled person because some judge decided her life was no longer worth living. And I think we will think how we might act and what we would ask for if it was our child that was ordered killed. I don't know if Terri Schiavo can think or is aware or can feel pain. But when we dont know we I think we should err on the side of life. If she cant think or isnt aware or cant feel pain there is no harm in allowing her to live. If she can it is cruel to kill her the way they are.

Sorry for being long winded.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Mar, 2005 12:38 am
Eorl wrote:
Brandon, that seems fair. I stand corrected. But with the risk of bringing up a previous matter between us, what makes you (or Lash) think they can walk in and give medical and judicial assessments that are likely to be more correct than those who specialise in these fields?

I have never done that in any post.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Mar, 2005 12:41 am
cicerone imposter wrote:
"All - wholly, entirely; for every; of everything (all includsive)."

"Unanimous - united, single, collective, combine, unified, concerted, harmonious, concordant, concurrent, public, popular, undivided, of one accord, agreed, common, communal, shared, universal, accepted, ......"

I don't know what you're on about here, but there have been doctors, even court appointed ones, who disagreed with the idea that she was as good as dead.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Mar, 2005 01:18 am
http://mediamatters.org/items/200503290005

Here's a neurologist really knocking the crap out of Scarborough on his show:

Quote:

SCARBOROUGH: Now, the question on everybody's mind tonight is this: How is Terri Schiavo doing? You know, it's been 10 days. She is starting her 11th day now without food and water. Let's go back to Pinellas Park [Florida], where Lisa Daniels [MSNBC daytime anchor] is standing by -- Lisa.
DANIELS: Well, Joe, at this point, we are going to delve into the medical aspect of the story. I want to bring in Dr. Ronald Cranford. He's a neurologist at Hennepin Medical Center in Minneapolis. And, Doctor, before we continue, I want our viewers to understand what your role was in the legal case. I understand that Michael Schiavo and his team asked you to examine his wife. Is that correct?

CRANFORD: Yes. Yes, they did.

...

CRANFORD: Wait a minute. You are not accurate on a lot of things here. You're saying a lot of -- she's not starving to death. Do you understand that? She is dehydrating to death.

DANIELS: Well, why do you say that? Tell us how you came to that conclusion?

[crosstalk]

CRANFORD: Can I tell you why? Because I have done this 25 to 50 times. I don't know how many times Joe has done it, but I've done it 25 to 50 times in similar situations. And they die within 10 to 14 days.

Nancy Cruzan did not die in six days [as guest Patrick Mahoney of the Christian Defense Coalition suggested earlier in the program]. She died in 11 days, 11.5 hours. And Terri Schiavo will die within 10 to 14 days. And they are dying of dehydration, not starvation. And that's just a lie. And Joe doesn't have any idea what he is talking about. And you don't have any idea what you're talking about.

DANIELS: Well --

CRANFORD: I have been at the bedside of these patients. I know what they die from. I've seen them die. And this is all bogus. It's all just a bunch of crap that you are saying. It's totally wrong.

...

DANIELS: Are you 100 percent correct in your opinion that Terri Schiavo is in a persistent vegetative state? Do you agree with that?

CRANFORD: I am 105 percent sure she is in a vegetative state. And the autopsy will show severe irreversible brain damage to the higher centers, yes.

DANIELS: Why are you so sure, Doctor?

CRANFORD: Because I examined her. The court-appointed guardian examined her. Four neurologists at the hospital where she was has said she's carried a diagnosis of vegetative state for 12 years. Every neurologist that examined her, except for Dr. [William] Hammesfahr [a neurologist selected by Terri Schiavo's parents], who is a charlatan, has said she is in vegetative state. That's what the court found. Just because you don't like --

[crosstalk]

DANIELS: Doctor, was a CAT scan -- Doctor, your critics would ask you, was a CAT scan used? Was an MRI taken? Were any of these tests taken?

CRANFORD: You don't know the answer to that? The CAT scan was done in 1996, 2002. We spent a lot of time in court showing the irreversible -- you don't have copies of those CAT scans? How can you say that?

The CAT scans are out there, distributed to other people. You have got to look at the facts. The CAT scan is out there. It shows severe atrophy of the brain. The autopsy is going to show severe atrophy of the brain. And you're asking me if a CAT scan was done? How could you possibly be so stupid?

...

SCARBOROUGH: Why don't you go ahead and tell the rest of the story there? Why don't you tell us that the radiologist that looked at the two CAT scans said she showed improvement in 2002 over 1996? You know, you seem so sure of yourself. The Associated Press reported yesterday --

CRANFORD: Joe, the judge didn't believe him.

SCARBOROUGH: Hold on a second. Hold on a second. You're so sure of yourself -- respond to this. AP had a report yesterday. They said seven doctors have looked at her. Four said she was in persistent vegetative state. You were one of them, hired by Michael Schiavo to do that. There were three others that looked at her that disagreed. How can you be so absolutely sure that everybody that agrees with you is 100 percent accurate and everybody on the other side is a charlatan?

CRANFORD: Joe, Judge -- Judge [George W.] Greer disallowed, didn't believe what [Dr. William] Maxfield [a doctor selected by Terri Schiavo's parents] said. You got your numbers wrong. There were eight neurologists saw her. Seven of the eight said she was in a vegetative state. Only one said she wasn't.

SCARBOROUGH: I am quoting an Associated Press report from yesterday.

CRANFORD: Joe, you've got to get your facts straight.

SCARBOROUGH: I have got my facts straight.

CRANFORD: Get your facts straight. You've got your facts way off.

SCARBOROUGH: Why don't we talk about -- hold on a second.

CRANFORD: Go ahead.

SCARBOROUGH: You talked about a 1996 scan.

CRANFORD: No, 2002, 2002.

SCARBOROUGH: Let's talk about it. A radiologist told the court that the 2002 scan actually showed improvement over the 1996 scan. Is that inaccurate? Did the AP report that wrong?

CRANFORD: Absolutely. Maxfield said it was improved. And Judge Greer didn't buy it because the others said it wasn't improved. It was probably worse than it was before.

SCARBOROUGH: Is he a charlatan also?

CRANFORD: Yes. Maxfield is an HBO [hyperbaric oxygen], vasodilator -- look it up, Joe. See what vasodilator does. See what hyperbaric oxygen, see in these cases, and you tell me they are not charlatans. Just because you don't agree with me -- I don't call everybody a charlatan. I'm not calling [Dr. Richard] Cheshire [who has argued that Terri Schiavo is not in a persistent vegetative state] a charlatan. I think he's a reputable neurologist. I think he examined her, he interviewed her. So, just because I disagree, I don't call them charlatans. But you have got your facts so far off that it's unbelievable, Joe. You don't have any idea what you are talking about. You've never been at the bedside of these patients. And this will come out in the next three to five years about this condition and starvation.


and for the reading impaired

a video clip

http://movies.crooksandliars.com/Scarborough_Country.wmv

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Mar, 2005 03:12 am
Cycloptichorn wrote:
http://mediamatters.org/items/200503290005

Here's a neurologist really knocking the crap out of Scarborough on his show:

You see "a neurologist really knocking the crap out of Scarborough", I see a self-important, arrogant advocate who happens to be a medical doctor. He contradicts himself on minor matters even within the passage you quoted, and cites no source that would allow me to check his account against the AP report on the major issue, which is how many doctors reached which conclusion. Based on the passage you quoted, I am disinclined to trust Mr. Cranford. I don't think he makes your case very well, and I hope you can find someone who makes it better. Good luck.
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Mar, 2005 03:20 am
Brandy wrote:
Sorry for being long winded.

You're not. Welcome to A2K! Smile

At the moment, I'm inclined to agree with you, Lash, and Brandon about the moral issue, to agree with the other side on the legal issue, and to conclude that law is a cruder and blunter instrument than I was aware of.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 1.85 seconds on 11/18/2024 at 06:38:28