[Peace-discuss] Liberals and Schiavo

[Dan Schreiber]

>
> Defenders of Schiavo's court-ordered killing have to contend that she was
> brain-dead or admit that that's what they supported.
>

The wording here makes it seem like we all wanted her killed, and had to
come up with a reason for it, and decided that brain-dead was the best
choice.  Perhaps instead we came to the conclusion that she was brain-dead
and then became defenders of the court order because of it.

And, yes, to be crass, "brain-dead" is exactly what I would call a flatlined
EEG and a liquified cerebral cortex.

Lastly, those 2 neurologists were the Schindler's, and one was apparently a
huckster.  Below is the court transcript that explains the decision, which I
would encourage anyone who still cares to read.  I fear that this has become
an issue where basic facts cannot be agreed upon because it is now a debate
rather than a search for truth.

http://www.miami.edu/ethics/schiavo/Nov22%202002%20TC%20%20trialctorder11-02
.txt

Excerpt:

Dr. Hammesfahr feels his vasodilatation therapy will have a positive affect
on
Terry Schiavo. Drs. Greer, Bambakidis and Cranford do not feel it will have
such an
affect. It is clear that this therapy is not recognized in the medical
community.
Dr. Hammesfahr operates his clinic on a cash basis in advance which made the
discussion regarding Medicare eligibility quite irrelevant. ... What
is significant, however, and what undemises his creditability is that he did
not
present to this court any evidence other than his generalized statements as
to the
efficacy of his therapy on brain damaged individuals like Terry Schiavo. He
testified that he has treated about 50 patients in the same or worse
condition than
Terry Schiavo since 1994 but he offered no names, no case studies, no videos
and no
tests results to support his claim that he had success in all but one of
them. If
his therapy is as effective as he would lead this court to believe, it is
inconceivable that he would not produce clinical results of these patients
he has
treated. And surely the medical literature would be replete with this new,
now
patented, procedure. Yet, he has only published one article and that was in
1995
involving some 63 patients, 60% of whom were suffering from whiplash. None
of these
patients were in a persistent vegetative state and all were conversant. Even
he
acknowledges that he is aware of no article or study that shows
vasodilatation
therapy to be an effective treatment for persistent vegetative state
patients. The
court can only assume that such substantiations are not available, not just
catalogued in such a way that they can not be readily identified as he
testified.


Dan