[Peace-discuss] Liberals and Schiavo

[C. G. Estabrook]

The point is that there was doubt about the brain death, and under those
circumstances (at least) you can't deprive a person of food and water.
--CGE


On Thu, 31 Mar 2005, Dan Schreiber wrote:

> > 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
> 
>