*****************


April 2005

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
          1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24 25 26 27 28 29 30
Blog powered by Typepad

« Carnival of The Vanities There, Here and Everywhere | Main | HEY RUBE! WANNA TRY AT THIS? »

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8345304f769e200d83421e3cf53ef

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Terri Schiavo and the Turtle Eggs of Democrats:

» A despicable political act from Expert Opinion
Well, since everyone else with a keyboard is expressing themselves about the Terri Schiavo case... However... I'm not going to say anything about Ms. Schiavo's fate. Why? BECAUSE IT'S NONE OF MY BUSINESS!... [Read More]

» "Reasonable Doubt" in the Schiavo Case from AmbivaBlog
In criminal law, juries are instructed to find a defendant not guilty as long as his or her guilt cannot be proven "beyond a reasonable doubt." The concept of "reasonable doubt" can be usefully extended by analogy to other situations, [Read More]

» Human rights watch, cont. from Kesher Talk
All Terri Schiavo posts here. Here is a technical discussion of her CAT scan, by a radiologist with 15 years experience:... [Read More]

Comments

PaulG

Please don't make up another urban legend here. While it is true that some Democrats were against this (probably unconstitutional) legislation, it is also true that it was a Democrat, Senator Tom Harkin, who crafted the compromise that allowed this legislation to go forward. Harkin is not a newbie to this stuff or a political opportunist. He has been an advocate for the rights of the disabled for many years.

My own take on this is that the leadership in both the House and the Senate were quite happy with the way things were on Friday. They did their grandstanding; they passed their bills; they called them irreconcilable; and everybody left town for Spring Recess. This is a common ruse by politicians of both parties who want to get all the mileage they can out of an issue but don't actually want to do something that might come back to haunt them. Unfortunately for DeLay, Frist & Co., Harkin actually managed to get the bills that they had declared "irreconcilable" on Friday reconciled by Saturday -- a singular accomplishment.

I'm pretty indifferent to whether Terri Schiavo should "live" on or should be allowed to die. I'm repelled by the behavior of all of the principals in this case and absolutely disgusted by the pandering, preening and pontificating by those in the legislative and executive branches of government in both Florida and Washington, but I DO think that if you're going to talk about Republicans and Democrats you ought to give credit where credit is due.

roz casteel

short note - it's not even the state - it's a judge. does this seem to be a matter of whose will is going to prevail? never mind the mess re: dems & repubs - and didn't i hear on CSpan yesterday that the ONLY doctors opinion this judge has accepted is a judge from minnesota & is active in euthanasia "education"?

Buddy

"(Query to bioethicist: All of her cortex? Have YOU seen the MRI's?? Is there a specific volume of cerebral cortex below which you make this asseveration?)"

No, they havn't seen the MRI, because no MRI has ever been done, only a CT scan:

http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/johansen200503160848.asp

Quoting from the article:

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.

“That’s criminal,” he said, and then asked, in a tone of utter incredulity: “How can he continue as guardian? People are deliberating over this woman’s life and death and there’s been no MRI or PET?” He drew a reasonable conclusion: “These people [Michael Schiavo, George Felos, and Judge Greer] don’t want the information.”

NO MRI has ever been done on terri, just a CT scan, so far as I can tell.

Craig H

Impressions?

Yeah. Some worrisome ones related to whose scan this is. Why was it posted backwards? What is Ms. Schiavo doing with a shunt?

Jill

Great post. It's so good to see a doctor weighing in

Mike Stiber

I don't think that anyone has a right to insert themselves into this situation except the involved parties. The fact is that the Republicans have abandoned the idea of limited government control over people's lives in favor of their certainty that they know better than you what you should do (after all, God told them so). As the recent GOP memo (story at http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2002213728_memo20.html ) shows, they care nothing for Schiavo; all they see is political advantage. They're despicable. At least some Democrats have the common decency to say that this is none of their business.

CodeBlueBlogMD

I am so IMPRESSESD by this CT that i am going to post about it.

YES it is scanned in backwards, but that's no big deal and a frequent error in computer translation. And YES that is a shunt tip you see "shining" in the right ventricle (remember the film is mirror-image backwards.

And YES this image IS from U of Miami ethics site.

Wow.

Let me just say quickly that why INDEED was there a shunt in her brain in 1996!

And I have seen WORSE cortical atrophy in many 60 and 70 year old fully functional humans.

I CONTEST the assertion that all of her cortex is gone. That is a complete lie. Utterly.

I am working on a post.

This is outrageous if it is true.

Craig H

The shunt is the problem. I may be wrong here, but I don't think Terri Schiavo ever had one placed. I'd be hesitant to remark about her cortex until I knew it was her cortex.

Curious JD

What has happened to our world when Democrats are defending states' rights from Republican intrusions? These are strange times, indeed.

primer

Thank you and Dr. H for your rational medical opinions. As is the case with many bits of information lacking context, more questions can arise than are answered.

CodeBlueBlogMD

What rational medical opinion?

Bits of information lacking context?

Let me ask you this -- why are there not WHOLE PIECES of medical information, only bits.

This is one of my watershed issues. If WE THE PEOPLE were provided with adequate information we could figure all this stuff out ourselves. There would be EXPERTS like ME writing blogs about subjects with which they were totally expert in, explaining exactly what the situation was and then other experts would weigh in and we would come to reasonable and intelligent conclusisons.

But because we live in a society of medical idiocy, propagated by a payment system that excludes consumer feedback and fostered by a medical press filled wqith liberal arts majors who wopulkdn't klnopw a neuron from a jelly doughnut, we can then be fed bits of misinformation about which NO ONE complains or comments upon.

But when someone like me TAKES a rotten scrap of evidence and tries to stand up and ask WHY...WHO...WHAT...the most common response is cynical (and uniformed)...so, dear commentator...LET US STOP THIS PROCESS IF YOU FEEL THERE ARE TOO MANY QUESTIONS RAISED, EH?

Especially if you all are not up to the challenge.

John

Mr. Stiber, there are some serious questions about the GOP memo story. Powerlineblog.com points out that no one is showing a copy of the original memo and adds "It is described as "unsigned." What does this mean? Most Senate and House memos are written on letterhead that show whose office they came from. Is this memo on such letterhead? Apparently not. As best I can tell, it is anonymous. Is it simply a one-page memo on blank white paper that purports to come from a Republican? If so, is there any reason to assume that it is genuine? How does the Senate's mail system work? Can anyone write an anonymous memo, and send it to 55 Republican Senators, with a copy to ABC News?"

I'd like to know more about the circumstances around this memo before I believe that the GOP, or any political party for that matter, is so clueless as to describe this tragic case in such crass terms.

Jeff Tan

There was a question in the post earlier:

"Alzheimer patients, amputees, infants, and those with severe mental impairment are unable to feed themselves. Would we kill them?"

In fact, Judge Greer appointed a Dr. Ronald Cranford to make the definitive diagnosis as to whether Terri was in PVS. It was expected that he would diagnose PVS because he's one of the more prominent euthanasia advocates in the US. A report says that he rules PVS in all the cases where he's appointed to testity.

Dr. Cranford's answer to your question earlier would be yes, since he openly advocates (by his publications, mind you) the dehydration and starvation of Alzheimer sufferers:

"In published articles, including a 1997 op-ed in the Minneapolis–St. Paul Star Tribune, he has advocated the starvation of Alzheimer’s patients. He has described PVS patients as indistinguishable from other forms of animal life."

Read more here (and the link to that op-ed; search for "Cranford"):

http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/johansen200503160848.asp

primer

I think you mistook my appreciation to be a critique. I described Dr. H’s and your analysis as rational because it was based on the evidence presented, medical, because you are a professional.

You wrote:

“… we can then be fed bits of misinformation about which NO ONE complains or comments upon.”

I was commenting on that “watershed issue”. The CT is one piece of medical information. You provided an expert opinion. Then, consistent with my comment about “bits of information” at times yielding more questions than answers, you made my case:

- Why the shunt?
- Is this her CT?
- What does the rest of the series look like?
- Does the series confirm my assumptions based on the single slice image?
- Doesn’t this CT suggest previously undisclosed trauma?
- Is there a follow-up?
- What does the bone scan say?
- Did her anorexia impact on the condition of her bones?

… and so on. The bio-ethics academic to whom you referred is wrong, both, in his diagnosis, and in making medical diagnosis in the first place.

I don't "want to stop this process". It is the process that produces and uncovers the information that we used to progress.

Texas Cowboy

Stop the political attacks against us liberals and Democrats. kthxbye

jennifer

Today, I am trying to reach as many people of possible to request that we fly our American flags at half staff in solidarity for Terri and to reject American's New Culture of Death. PLEASE pass this on! Bless you.

Susan Nunes

Not all liberals and Democrats support the dubious Michael Schiavo.

I suspect much of the pro-Michael thinking is based on being contrary to the likes of Tom DeLay, Jeb Bush, the right-to-life movement, and other opportunists who seized on this case early on rather than on the merits.

Estelle

I'm glad I found this page...know other people are wondering what I have been wondering. Why are the Democrats siding with Michial Schiavo...and in such an aggressive way, with no doubts. I'm a Democrat and I am amazed by this situation...I'm finding my allies are Republicans. But the issue for Democrats I think, is not the ethics of euthenasia...but the accuracy of her diagnosis. Republicans are calling us Deathocrats and Nazis. It's so frustrating. I think Democrats just accept the "facts" of this case and really are sincere in there convictions. How can people ignore all these details? He didn't allow the family to be there when she died? That sounds out right malicious. He got his way and took her from her family...giving him the advantage of the doubt...assuming he really did have her best interests in mind...couldn't he at least comprimise enough to allow her family to have her body? Why are Democrats siding with Michial? Is it as Republicans accuse...they have an agenda? I don't agree with the right to life...life at any cost...no euthenasia, no abortion camp that has supported her. Rather I am with those concerned about the rights of the disabled. I wish I could just hear what her whole family has to say. I wish I knew about Michael Shiavo...about there marriage.

Estelle

I'm glad I found this page...know other people are wondering what I have been wondering. Why are the Democrats siding with Michial Schiavo...and in such an aggressive way, with no doubts. I'm a Democrat and I am amazed by this situation...I'm finding my allies are Republicans. But the issue for Democrats I think, is not the ethics of euthenasia...but the accuracy of her diagnosis. Republicans are calling us Deathocrats and Nazis. It's so frustrating. I think Democrats just accept the "facts" of this case and really are sincere in there convictions. How can people ignore all these details? He didn't allow the family to be there when she died? That sounds out right malicious. He got his way and took her from her family...giving him the advantage of the doubt...assuming he really did have her best interests in mind...couldn't he at least comprimise enough to allow her family to have her body? Why are Democrats siding with Michial? Is it as Republicans accuse...they have an agenda? I don't agree with the right to life...life at any cost...no euthenasia, no abortion camp that has supported her. Rather I am with those concerned about the rights of the disabled. I wish I could just hear what her whole family has to say. I wish I knew about Michael Shiavo...about there marriage.

Estelle

I'm glad I found this page...know other people are wondering what I have been wondering. Why are the Democrats siding with Michial Schiavo...and in such an aggressive way, with no doubts. I'm a Democrat and I am amazed by this situation...I'm finding my allies are Republicans. But the issue for Democrats I think, is not the ethics of euthenasia...but the accuracy of her diagnosis. Republicans are calling us Deathocrats and Nazis. It's so frustrating. I think Democrats just accept the "facts" of this case and really are sincere in there convictions. How can people ignore all these details? He didn't allow the family to be there when she died? That sounds out right malicious. He got his way and took her from her family...giving him the advantage of the doubt...assuming he really did have her best interests in mind...couldn't he at least comprimise enough to allow her family to have her body? Why are Democrats siding with Michial? Is it as Republicans accuse...they have an agenda? I don't agree with the right to life...life at any cost...no euthenasia, no abortion camp that has supported her. Rather I am with those concerned about the rights of the disabled. I wish I could just hear what her whole family has to say. I wish I knew about Michael Shiavo...about there marriage.

Estelle - the one "fact", among all others, I just CAN'T get past if the "Michael is legit" argument is to hold water is her dental care.

WHY did he refuse ordinary teeth cleanings and allow her teeth to rot to the point where 5 had to be pulled?

I could MAYBE buy refusing various tests like MRI or PET if he truly believed they would be a waste of time/money...maybe - its a stretch mind you, but I'm a sport and willing to give him a fair chance to vindicate his actions...

Applying Occam's razor, the only explanation that seems to explain the intentional dental neglect is trying to induce some sort of systemic infection that might eventually kill her. There is no "caring husband" scenario I can think of, and I've tried hard, to explain the MS ordered dental neglect.

If someone out there has a plausible explanation for the dental neglect that fits in with the "caring husband" scanario, please post it.

Estelle

Does anybody understand this situation? It seems bigger then the debate between Michael and the Schindler family. Why all the suppressed information?...and why all the hostility? People are so upset about the government interfering with Michaels' "difficult", and "personal" decision...but...where did this come from? Euthenasia (not that I believe euthenasia is the real issue here) has always been a rather controversial topic...assisted suicide is legal in Oregon...or was...the fedaral government interfered and I am not sure how it stands now. But i'd always thought it was a minority position...even in extreme situations. But Michael is being so overwhelmingly supported, even in this extreme situation. Why? Why does the Left support him so strongly? Why does everyone think this is about euthenasia? Why do people get angry even if you try to talk about it? They've heard about it too much and there's other things going on in the world...this is a distraction from real issues...they say. They think opposition to Michael is just a rude play on peoples emotions...what about the innocent people in Iraq...what about our lack of health care...and losing all our good jobs? I've always cared about those things...why does it have to be one or the other? Why is it undemocratic to side with the Schindlers?

trembling timberdoodle

Destroy turtle eggs and your in trouble with the law chop down a tree where a spotted owl lives and you go to jail starve a dog and your black listed starve a person and they will make a movie about it and sign them up for a big contract what a sick sick society

Estelle

The deed has been done and I get the impression most of the people on the blogs were opposed to it..probably because those people were much more informed then most people...since the media pretty much seems to be in love with Michael and considers anything the Schindler family says is inconsequential. Anyway...now that the deed has been done...now what? Is anyone doing any kind of investigation into all of this? I sure hope that Michael and his co-horts are exposed some day. I've heard that Thomas Delay wants to hold an investigation...and the Democrats just hate him for that.

The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo

2004 WINNER: BEST CLINICAL SCIENCES MEDICAL WEBLOG

What People Are Saying

  • "Dr. Boyle is a man of strong views and good will...read the weblog."
    Brad DeLong-- Semi-Daily Journal
  • "My New Favorite Internet Obsession"
    cripes, suzette
  • "Marvelous Medical Blog"
    Ambivalog
  • "Entertaining and lluminating"
    Counterpunch Magazine
  • "Enjoyable Weblog"
    Alexander Cockburn
  • "I have found a new medical blog, and a blogging hero."
    Liz Ditz-- I Speak of Dreams
  • "Your Blog Rocks!"
    Allyson Dyar-- DyarStraights.Com
  • "A remarkable blog."
    Eric Scheie – Cultural Values
  • "Good thoughts"
    E. Moritz-- Life Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness