Terri Schiavo's (Flat?) EEG

SezMe said:
So, a husband wanting to spend time private, alone with his incapacited wife is grounds for suspicion? I suspect this puts millions of loving couples under suspicion.

This is the part that gets me. By all reliable accounts, Michael Schiavo was a most attentive and caring husband, going to all conceivable lengths to save her. Still, people try to take perfectly normal activities and try to use them as evidence that he was sinister. For example, this aspect of spending time alone with her. Yeah, how evil of a husband to do that.

Even his new woman and kids are taken way over the line. The reports are that the kids are "toddlers," meaning they are a couple of years old. So let's say that the older is 4 years old. That means that this new woman got pregnant about 5 years ago, which means it was 10 years since his wife had her collapse that he got serious with another woman.

Yep, that's real evidence that he hated his wife and wanted her out of the picture. I mean, he only waited 10 years (after doing everything he could possibly do for the first 5 of those years). I want to know, of the people who seem to think that he moved on too easily, how long would he have had to wait before you would be satisfied? If it's not clear after 5 years of doing everything you can to revive that she ain't coming around, how much longer must he keep trying?

As I have said, he clearly did everything he possibly could do for a long time, and came to the conclusion (upon consultation with doctors) that he wasn't going to be able to help her. From that point on, I imagine that he considered her gone. How much more would he have had to done to satisfy people?
 
pgwenthold said:
How much more would he have had to done to satisfy people?

There's nothing he could have done. The Culture of Life needs him to be Utterly Evil. Therefore, if he wasn't responsible for her illness to start with, he was certainly plotting to murder her the entire time. He was so evil that his evil got in the way of the murder, and so he had to evilly get the evil courts to do it for him, evilly.

If Terri had miraculously revived, confirmed that her husband was completely correct about her expressed wishes, and proceeded to sue the hell out of her parents, the state, the hospital, the governor, Congress, and the president....the Culture of Life people would insist that she was being brainwashed and controlled by her Evil Husband.

There is NO evidence, NO argument, NO possible thing that would ever convince Culture of Life people otherwise. You can't make headway using rational means against fundamentally irrational positions.
 
TragicMonkey said:

There is NO evidence, NO argument, NO possible thing that would ever convince Culture of Life people otherwise. You can't make headway using rational means against fundamentally irrational positions.

The culture of life folks were snookered by the Schindlers. They outright lied about her condition, her responsiveness, and that she could speak (the biggest whopper of them all).

They painted Michael Shaivo (who apparenly isnt the most sympathetic person in the world from his younger years) into being an outright monster.
 
corplinx said:
They painted Michael Shaivo (who apparenly isnt the most sympathetic person in the world from his younger years) into being an outright monster.

It was a bit over the top to claim he didn't cast a reflection in a mirror, and that holy water burned him, and that he was seen colluding with Spike and Drusilla, and that he was executive producer of the latest straight-to-video Olsen Twins movie.
 
TragicMonkey said:
It was a bit over the top to claim he didn't cast a reflection in a mirror, and that holy water burned him, and that he was seen colluding with Spike and Drusilla, and that he was executive producer of the latest straight-to-video Olsen Twins movie.

Yeah...That last one's a bit below the belt.
 
Rouser2 said:
There was not chance to present the issue on appeal. You just don't understand how the system works. Courts of appeal do not address facts, only process. Get it???

If so, then why was the "fact" of the date brought up in the appeal such that the judge further explained his position? Seems that you don't know as much as you claim to. But you've already claimed to know more than lawyers, judges, and neurologists.

I am a sovereign citizen. Judge Greer is a public servant. In the state of Florida, he is a servant of the people and a oath-taker of both the Florida and the Federal Constitutions.

That's nice. You are aware that he followed procedure to the letter, yes? That He followed all the laws regarding this case and Terri's wishes? Or does that not matter?

Terri S was never PVS. Not for one year; not for 15 years. [/B]

Because you say so? I don't think so.
 
corplinx said:
They painted Michael Shaivo (who apparenly isnt the most sympathetic person in the world from his younger years) into being an outright monster.

And I'm not suggesting the guy is a saint or anything, but they try to paint anything that would be considered normal activities under less extreme circumstances as evil.

Another example, his wish to have his wife's ashes spread at the same plot where he will be. This is a bad thing? For most people, that is a sign of a loving couple! But supporters of his parents consider it to be some evil act perpetrated against them. But then, ask them, as a married person, where do you want your spouse to be buried? With you? Or in their parents' plot? Yeah, I thought so...
 
TragicMonkey said:
It was a bit over the top to claim he didn't cast a reflection in a mirror, and that holy water burned him, and that he was seen colluding with Spike and Drusilla, and that he was executive producer of the latest straight-to-video Olsen Twins movie.

Hey, at least it was straight to video. If the guy was truly evil, he would have forced it upon theatres first.
 
You know, all snarky jokes aside, there's one thing that remains: Rouser2 has been shown time and again to be WRONG, and he simply ignores it. It doesn't matter that multiple neurologists with years of training and experience looked at Terri's MRI and determined there was no hope. It doesn't matter that these same people with the skill and knowledge examined her time and again and found no evidence of foul play and it doesn't matter that they continually tried to find some hope that she could be revived, and could not. All Rouser wants to do is bleat and complain about how nobody saved Terri!!! And we're all terrible people because we won't agree with him.

Frankly, I have not had to deal with a situation like this. The closest we've come is with my grandmother who died from liver cancer, (yeah, I know where it came from...), and her death was slow, miserable, and painful. It was made worse because the bastards at Hy Lond in Sacramento did nothing about the thieving SOBs who were stealing my grandmother's personal effects, including the jackass who my mother caught trying to yank my grandmother's wedding ring from her finger. (They didn't even discipline the creep; he was still working there when my grandmother died. We were just being "emotional.") This crap about death with dignity is just that: Crap.

At some point, someone had to make a decision. Terri Schiavo, no matter how badly anyone wanted her to, was not going to recover. I'm not a neurologist, and yet, looking at the websites which have posted her MRIs, even I can figure out there's no hope. Her brain died. All that remained was a heartbeat.

Starvation is a gruesome way to go. I could kick Michael Schiavo's attorney for his hyperbole and his florid descriptions, all of which were designed to hide how painful this would be for someone who actually had brain function, which, perhaps in this case, Terri did not have, thankfully. What reactions there were from Terri were random. There was no cohesive indication that she wanted to live. And I'm sorry, but I don't trust the Schindlers' testimony in this. (I'm not really crazy about Michael, but some of what's been posted does make me wonder if I'm wrong.)

Nor do I trust someone coming along well after the fact and making claims of finding syringes in the wastebasket, or claims of finding needle marks on Terri's body. If this was so damned critical, then the nurse in question had a moral and professional obligation to speak up right then and there, and to make sure that action was taken. She kept quiet, so that tells me there was likely nothing there at the time, and this is little more than a play for attention. Sorry, that's not how we do things in this country.

As for the rest of it, f*** it. I'm sick of Rouser's ad hom attacks on people.
 
I think Rouser2 should be angry that he fell for the same misinformation that the Schindlers fooled others with. These people are lieing and schemeing and just because they did it for what they think is a noble purpose doesn't justify it.

It made me sick to my stomach when they said their daughter said "I want to live". Nothing in her medical history except an _uncorroborated_ story from a disgruntled nurse indicates she could speak. Moreover, her brain is simply too far gone to allow it.

When the Schindlers made this claim it finally convinced me that they weren't simply deluded but were intentionally fabricating.
 
Originally posted by Eos of the Eons [/i]

>>
http://www.amptoons.com/blog/archiv...schiavos-brain/

quote:you do not need an MRI to tell you how severely the brain in the pictured CAT scan is damaged, nor do you need to see more slices than the one depicted here. This single image shows a very severely damaged brain. The large “blue blobs” in the middle are ventricles, also present in healthy brains (you can see the two little dark crescent shapes in the brain on the right) that have expanded to such a large size because the overall brain volume is so low. Cranial space that would otherwize have been filled by gray matter is now filled with cerebrospinal fluid. And yes, that’s what the blue space is: cerebrospinal fluid that is filling up space left behind by necrotic brain tissue that has been scavenged and removed by the body. The white squiggly things are white matter - connective tracts that have the loose, uncoiled look about them that they do because, again, the grey matter that once compressed them is no longer there, so they “float” loosely in CSF. The gigantic ventricles, expanded white matter, and undifferentiated blue space in that scan all point to the same thing: massive loss of grey matter in the cerebral cortex. You don’t need an MRI to tell you that, it’s clearly visible in the CAT scan.


Comment: Your blogger says he's not an MD, not neurologist, not a radiologist, but he doesn't have to be because he's taken a single class in MRI and CT scans. Well,that may be about what Dr. Death (Cranford) knows as well, but you and your blooger cohort need to collect the $100,000 a certain board certified radiologist is offering to anyone who can really tell the difference, between Terri's CT scan and those of elderly, who are not PVS:

http://codeblueblog.blogs.com/codeblueblog/2005/03/codeblueblog_is.html

CodeBlueBlog Issues $100,000 Challenge to Terri Schiavo Neurologist Experts

A Few Good Men

"I'm getting tired of hearing what neurologists have to say about Terri Schiavo's CT of the brain. Real Tired. The Florida Sun Sentinel had a gang of neurologists analyze one of Terri's CT's of the brain. Here's what they said:

About 70 percent to 90 percent of Schiavo's upper brain is gone, and there's also damage to her lower brain that controls instinctive functions such as breathing and swallowing, said three Florida neurologists who viewed 12 of her CT "computed tomography" X-ray scans Tuesday and Wednesday.

"This is as severe brain damage as I've ever seen," said Dr. Leon Prockop, a professor and former chairman of neurology at the University of South Florida College of Medicine in Tampa, upon viewing the scans.

Then there's the infamous Dr. Ronald Cranford, who has the double-whammy credentials of neurologist AND bioethicist (have you had enough of bioethicists for a while? Why is it they all have the same opinion and they all start out their spiels by saying "this is a tragic case for everyone involved...") who also defined Terri's CT of the brain as being as bad as he's seen.

So What Have You Seen?

I've watched a steady stream of neurologists, bioethicists, and neurologist/bioethicists from Columbia, Cornell, and NYU interviewed all week on Fox and CNN and MSNBC. They all said about the same thing, that Terri's CT scan was "the worst they'd ever seen"or "as bad as they've ever seen."

Here's the problem with these experts: THEY DON'T INTERPRET CT SCANS OF THE BRAIN. RADIOLOGISTS DO.

*Oh*

You see, a neurologist will look at the CT of the brain of one of his patients, but this is entirely different from interpreting CT's of the brain de novo, for a living, every day, without knowing the diagnosis and most times without a good history. In addition, whereas I heard Dr. Crandon say he's "seen" a thousand brain CT's... well I've interpreted over 10,000 brain CT's. There's a big difference.

When I look at a CT of the brain every case is a new mystery about a patient Idon't know. I must look at the images, come to a conclusion, dictate my findings and report a conclusion. This becomes a part of the official legal record for which I am liable. I bill Medicare for a CT interpretation and am paid for this service.

Neurologists do not do this. They don't go on the record, alone, in written legal documents stating their impressions about CT's of the brain. The neurologist doesn't get sued for making a mistake on an opinion of a CT of the brain THE RADIOLOGIST DOES.

A neurologist has no where near this type of practical experience. And their cases are skewed according to where they practice and what their specialty is. Now, some of my best friends and some of the smartest docs I eve4r met are neurologists, but that doesn't change my observation that most neurologists I've met, in my experience, show an incomplete grasp of the nuances involved in image interpretation.

I have seen several neurologists -- in the printed media and on television -- put up a Representative CT of the brain of a normal 25 year old female and contrast this with Terri Schiavo's CT. This is a totally spurious comparison. No one is disputing that Terri Schiavo does not have the CT of a 25 year old female.

What I'm saying is that Terri Schiavo's CT could be the brain of an eighty or ninety year old person who is not in a vegetative state. THOSE are the CT scans we should be showing next to Schiavo's, because in THAT case you would see similar atrophy and a brain much closer to Schiavo's.

To prove my point I am offering $100,000 on a $25,000 wager for ANY neurologist (and $125,000 for any neurologist/bioethicist) involved in Terri Schiavo's case--including all the neurologists reviewed on television and in the newspapers who can accurately single out PVS patients from functioning patients with better than 60% accuracy on CT scans.

I will provide 100 single cuts from 100 different patient's brain CT's. All the neurologist has to do is say which ones represent patients with PVS and which do not.

If the neurologist can be right 6 out of 10 times he wins the $100,000.

I Said What I Meant, And I Meant What I Said

My points are what I first said about the image from Terri Schiavo's CT scan:

1) It is NOT as bad as the neurologists and bioethicists play it up to be; and,

2) There are many elderly patients with various levels of mental functioning who have severe atrophy that is difficult to distinguish from Terri Schiavo's atrophy


I stand by what I said. And I'm putting my money where my mouth is.

Posted by Doctor Thomas P.Boyle,M.D.
Thomas P. Boyle, M.D. blogs at CodeBlueBlog.
http://codeblueblog.blogs.com/codeblueblog/2005/03/codeblueblog_is.html

So far Cranford hasn't accepted the challenge. Neither have you, nor your blogger reference, nor anyone else. This is just another example of the "echo chamber" of repeated brainwash that fills the media when its suits their own ultra left pro-death agenda.
 
Re: I think...

Originally posted by King of the Americas [/i]

>>Terri did NOT try to tell anyone in the room that she was thursty, or that she was hungry. That is because she wasn't aware of the fact. In order to live the ONLY thing she would have been required to do is lift a single hand to her mouth, ONCE, or look longingly at the glass of water that was within arms reach.

Comment:
In which case she would have been in violation of the court order, and restrained by the police officers present. And there were no glasses of water within arms reach. Even a few saving chips of ice her mother tried to administer to her dried, chapped lips were denied by the police officers present. And that is the bottom line of what the Court's monstrous decision comes down to. A parent tries to give aid and comfort to her starving, dehydrating child, but restrained by the police. Shame!
 
Originally posted by pgwenthold [/i]


>>This is the part that gets me. By all reliable accounts, Michael Schiavo was a most attentive and caring husband, going to all conceivable lengths to save her. Still, people try to take perfectly normal activities and try to use them as evidence that he was sinister. For example, this aspect of spending time alone with her. Yeah, how evil of a husband to do that.

From the sworn affidavite of RN Carla Iyer:

" Throughout my time at Palm Gardens, Michael Schiavo was focused on Terri's death. Michael would say "When is she going to die?,"
"Has she died yet?" and "When is that bitch gonna die?" These
statements were common knowledge at Palm Gardens, as he would
make them casually in passing, without regard even for who he was
talking to, as long as it was a staff member. Other statements which I
recall him making include "Can't anything be done to accelerate her
death - won't she ever die?" When she wouldn't die, Michael would
be furious."
 
Originally posted by TragicMonkey [/i]

>>If Terri had miraculously revived, confirmed that her husband was completely correct about her expressed wishes, and proceeded to sue the hell out of her parents, the state, the hospital, the governor, Congress, and the president....the Culture of Life people would insist that she was being brainwashed and controlled by her Evil Husband.

What a perverse fantasy. Along those same lines, perhaps some people, discontent with their lot, may someday sue their parents for not aborting them. And in the US, the courts may some day reach such a level of perversity, that such suits will be accepted in the courts. How much lower can this nation sink?
 
Originally posted by kookbreaker [/i]

>>If so, then why was the "fact" of the date brought up in the appeal such that the judge further explained his position? Seems that you don't know as much as you claim to. But you've already claimed to know more than lawyers, judges, and neurologists.

Like I said, Courts of Appeal do not deal with FACTS.

>>That's nice. You are aware that he followed procedure to the letter, yes? That He followed all the laws regarding this case and Terri's wishes? Or does that not matter?

Judge Greer may have followed Procedure; he did not follow the law as to properly interpreting the facts of the case.
 
Regnad Kcin said:
Wow. (And look: FOUR question marks!)
Yeah, I know. Pretty devastating, eh? Well, I, for one, cannot compete with four question marks, so I hereby capitulate. You're right, Rouser2, the world is flat. Please, for the sake of my sanity, push me off the edge.
 
Yeah, sure Rouser, just ignore that the links I provided back up everything that was said on the blog. Ignore that the picture came from a medical site, etc. etc.

Just go on being delusional. Nobody says you have to be rational.
 
Rouser2 said:
What a perverse fantasy. Along those same lines, perhaps some people, discontent with their lot, may someday sue their parents for not aborting them. And in the US, the courts may some day reach such a level of perversity, that such suits will be accepted in the courts. How much lower can this nation sink?

This seems to suggest that the wishes of the patient don't matter. The dispute in the case was whether Terri wished to die or not. You seem to be arguing against allowing patients the choice entirely. Is this the case?
 

Back
Top Bottom