« Amber Dolle: Terri Schiavo sentenced to slow, painful death | Main | Michael Schiavo and his attorney on offensive »


March 18, 2005

Medical Facts About Terri Schiavo

Topics: Medical Issues

Many people have referred to the "medical evidence" that Terri has little to no brain matter remaining.
FACT: The only way to determine such a thing accurately is with an MRI or PET scan. Neither have been done, and they have been disallowed in her case per Michael Schiavo's instructions.

Many people have spoken of the doctors who have "evaluated" Terri.
FACT: The primary evaluator, Dr. Ronald Cranford is a board-certified neurologist who specializes in PVS cases. Why do I mention this? Because he has also been on the board of the Euthanasia Society of America and has ties to the Hemlock Society. He is called as an expert witness for euthanasia in "Right to Die" cases. Dr. Cranford has also advocated denial of SPOON-FED feeding.

These are just basic facts. Please continue reading--this is CRUCIAL to this debate on whether or not she's "brain dead" or whether she has been accurately diagnosed.

EXCERPT FROM OP-ED AT NRO, 3/16/05.

BAD MEDICINE

And, quite apart from the question of Terri’s therapy and care, it is entirely likely that Terri has never been properly diagnosed. Terri is usually described as being in a Persistent Vegetative State (PVS), and indeed Judge Greer ruled as a finding of fact that she is PVS; but this diagnosis and finding were arrived at in a way that has many neurologists expressing surprise and dismay.

I have spent the past ten days recruiting and interviewing neurologists who are willing to come forward and offer affidavits or declarations concerning new testing and examinations for Terri. In addition to the 15 neurologists’ affidavits Gibbs had in time to present in court, I have commitments from over 30 others who are willing to testify that Terri should have new and additional testing, and new examinations by unbiased neurologists. Almost 50 neurologists all say the same thing: Terri should be reevaluated, Terri should be reexamined, and there are grave doubts as to the accuracy of Terri’s diagnosis of PVS. All of these neurologists are board-certified; a number of them are fellows of the prestigious American Academy of Neurology; several are professors of neurology at major medical schools.

So how can Judge Greer ignore the opinions of so many qualified neurologists, some of whom are leaders in the field? The answer is that Michael Schiavo, his attorney George Felos, and Judge Greer already have the diagnosis they want.

Terri’s diagnosis was arrived at without the benefit of testing that most neurologists would consider standard for diagnosing PVS. One such test is MRI (Magnetic Resonance Imaging). MRI is widely used today, even for ailments as simple as knee injuries — but Terri has never had one. Michael has repeatedly refused to consent to one. The neurologists I have spoken to have reacted with shock upon learning this fact. One such neurologist is Dr. Peter Morin. He is a researcher specializing in degenerative brain diseases, and has both an M.D. and a Ph.D. in biochemistry from Boston University.

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.”

Dr. Morin explained that he would feel obligated to obtain the information in these tests before making a diagnosis with life and death consequences. I told him that CT (Computer-Aided Tomography) scans had been done, and were partly the basis for the finding of PVS. The doctor retorted, “Spare no expense, eh?” I asked him to explain the comment; he said that a CT scan is a much less expensive test than an MRI, but it “only gives you a tenth of the information an MRI does.” He added, “A CT scan is useful only in pretty severe cases, such as trauma, and also during the few days after an anoxic (lack of oxygen) brain injury. It’s useful in an emergency-room setting. But if the question is ischemic injury [brain damage caused by lack of blood/oxygen to part of the brain] you want an MRI and PET. For subsequent evaluation of brain injury, the CT is pretty useless unless there has been a massive stroke.”

Other neurologists have concurred with Dr. Morin’s opinion. Dr. Thomas Zabiega, who trained at the University of Chicago, said, “Any neurologist who is objective would say ‘Yes’” to the question, “Should Terri be given an MRI?”

But in spite of the lack of advanced testing, such as an MRI, attorney George Felos has claimed that Terri’s cerebral cortex has “liquefied,” and doctors for Michael Schiavo have claimed, on the basis of the CT scans, that parts of Terri’s cerebral cortex “have been replaced by fluid.” The problem with such contentions is that the available evidence can’t support them. Dr. Zabiega explained that “a CT scan can’t resolve the kind of detail needed” to make such a pronouncement: “A CT scan is like a blurry photograph.” Dr. William Bell, a professor of neurology at Wake Forest University Medical School, agrees: “A CT scan doesn’t give much detail. In order to see it on a CT, you have to have massive damage.” Is it possible that Terri has that sort of “massive” brain damage? According to Dr. Bell, that isn’t likely. Sometimes, he said, even patients who are PVS have a “normal or near normal” MRI.

So why hasn’t an MRI been done for Terri? That question has never been satisfactorily answered. George Felos has argued that an MRI can’t be done because of thalamic implants that were placed in Terri’s skull during the last attempt at therapy, dating back to 1992. But Felos’s contention ignores the fact that these implants could be removed. Indeed, the doctor who put them in instructed Michael to have them removed. Michael has never done so.

The most obvious possible explanation for what would otherwise be inexplicable behavior is that Michael Schiavo, George Felos, and Judge Greer don’t want to admit any information that would upset the diagnosis they already have. Dr. Morin, when told that Michael had refused an MRI, and that Judge Greer had confirmed the decision, said: “He refused a non-invasive test? People trying to do the right thing want the best and most complete information available. We don't have that in Terri’s case.” Dr. Bell agreed with this assessment, saying, “It seems as though they’re fearful of any additional information.”


THE CRANFORD DIAGNOSIS

Doctors for Michael Schiavo have said that an MRI and PET are not necessary for Terri because PVS is primarily a “clinical” diagnosis, that is, one arrived at on the basis of examination of the patient, rather than by relying on tests. And the neurologists I have spoken to agree on the clinical nature of the diagnosis, while insisting that advanced tests nonetheless are a necessary part of it. But the star medical witness for Michael Schiavo, Dr. Ronald Cranford of the University of Minnesota, has repeatedly dismissed calls for MRI testing, and his opinion has prevailed.

Dr. Cranford was the principal medical witness brought in by Schiavo and Felos to support their position that Terri was PVS. Judge Greer was obviously impressed by Cranford’s résumé: Cranford travels throughout the country testifying in cases involving PVS and brain impairment. He is widely recognized by courts as an expert in these issues, and in some circles is considered “the” expert on PVS. His clinical judgment has carried the day in many cases, so it is relevant to examine the manner in which he arrived at his judgment in Terri’s case. But before that, one needs to know a little about Cranford’s background and perspective: Dr. Ronald Cranford is one of the most outspoken advocates of the “right to die” movement and of physician-assisted suicide in the U.S. today.

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. He has said that PVS patients and others with brain impairment lack personhood and should have no constitutional rights. Perusing the case literature and articles surrounding the “right to die” and PVS, one will see Dr. Cranford’s name surface again and again. In almost every case, he is the one claiming PVS, and advocating the cessation of nutrition and hydration.

In the cases of Paul Brophy, Nancy Jobes, Nancy Cruzan, and Christine Busalucci, Cranford was the doctor behind the efforts to end their lives. Each of these people was brain-damaged but not dying; nonetheless, he advocated death for all, by dehydration and starvation. Nancy Cruzan did not even require a feeding tube: She could be spoon-fed. But Cranford advocated denying even that, saying that even spoon-feeding constituted “medical treatment” that could be licitly withdrawn.

In cases where other doctors don’t see it, Dr. Cranford seems to have a knack for finding PVS. Cranford also diagnosed Robert Wendland as PVS. He did so in spite of the fact that Wendland could pick up specifically colored pegs or blocks and hand them to a therapy assistant on request. He did so in spite of the fact that Wendland could operate and maneuver an ordinary wheelchair with his left hand and foot, and an electric wheelchair with a joystick, of the kind that many disabled persons (most famously Dr. Stephen Hawking) use. Dr. Cranford dismissed these abilities as meaningless. Fortunately for Wendland, the California supreme court was not persuaded by Cranford’s assessment.

Expert witnesses in court are supposed to be unbiased: disinterested in the outcome of the case. Part of the procedure in qualifying expert witnesses is establishing that they are objective and unbiased. But given Dr. Cranford’s history of advocacy in the “right to die” and euthanasia movements, and given his track record of almost always coming down on the side of PVS and removal of nutrition and hydration, one might question his objectivity. Indeed, the Schindlers’ attorneys attempted to do so in the 2002 evidentiary hearing at which Cranford testified, but went unheard. Organizations such as the International Task Force on Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide submitted amicus curiae (friend of the court) briefs in the appellate proceedings in Terri’s case, demonstrating Cranford’s bias in detail. But these arguments also seemed to fall on deaf ears.

Some neurologists who also consult in legal cases were not surprised at the handling of Dr. Cranford’s expert testimony. In theory, they said, the expert witness is supposed to be objective, but, as Dr. Bell explained, “the way it really works is that an attorney carefully selects an expert that will give him the outcome he desires.” He related that he has been asked by attorneys to serve as an expert. “I have looked over medical records,” he said, “and told attorneys what I thought.” But on occasion, he said, his opinion was “obviously not what they wanted to hear” and “they moved on to another expert.” Bell acknowledged that Cranford is “a highly accomplished and experienced speaker,” but said that in him the court “likely found a highly prejudiced expert.”

Neurologists who are familiar with diagnosing and treating PVS and other brain injuries have told me that PVS is a notoriously difficult diagnosis to make. It requires a great deal of time spent with the patient over several days or weeks. The reason for this, as Dr. Bell explained, is that brain-injured patients have severely disrupted sleep/wake cycles. Dr. Mack Jones, a neurologist in Ft. Walton Beach, Fla., added that patients with severe brain injury will have greatly varying levels of alertness: “Two independent examiners may get an entirely different impression depending on when and how long he/she has spent performing the examination. For example, one examiner may unknowingly attempt to evaluate the patient during a stage of sleep. Another examiner, by chance, may find a more responsive patient simply because [the patient is] now more aroused.” Dr. Morin concurred, saying that in his experience “the attention of brain-injured patients is very erratic,” and that because of this he has “seen inadequate assessments even by experienced neurologists.” Because of these difficulties, the American Academy of Neurology has made it clear that it can take months for a physician to establish with confidence the diagnosis of PVS. A 1996 British Medical Journal study, conducted at England’s Royal Hospital for Neurodisability, concluded that there was a 43-percent error rate in the diagnosis of PVS. Inadequate time spent by specialists evaluating patients was listed as a contributing factor for the high incidence of errors.

So, did Dr. Cranford, or any of the doctors testifying for Michael Schiavo, spend months evaluating Terri? No. To be fair, none of the doctors appearing for the Schindlers spent months with Terri either. But it is hardly coincidental that the doctors who spent the most time with Terri came to the conclusion that she is not PVS. The doctors brought in by the Schindlers spent approximately 14 hours examining Terri over more than two weeks; their conclusion was that Terri is not PVS, and that she may benefit from therapy.

In marked contrast, Dr. Cranford examined Terri on one occasion, for approximately 45 minutes. Another doctor for Michael Schiavo, Dr. Peter Bambikidis of the Cleveland Clinic Foundation in Ohio, examined Terri for about half an hour. When Dr. Bell learned of the cursory nature of these exams, he said: “You can’t do this. To make a diagnosis of PVS based on one examination is fallacious.” In Cranford’s examination, described by one witness as “brutal,” he discounted evidence under his own eyes of Terri’s responsiveness. At one point, Dr. Cranford struck Terri very hard on the forehead between her eyes. Terri recoiled and moaned, seemingly in pain. In his court testimony, Cranford dismissed the reaction and moan as a “reflex.”

I asked Dr. Bell if he thought a moan uttered after a painful blow could be a reflex. "It's highly unlikely," he replied. He qualified his answer by noting that he had not actually seen the video of the exam, but he believes that the description of Terri's reaction is not consistent with a reflex. "A moan is not a reflex," Bell said. "A wince or grimace is not a reflex."

By the very definition of Persistent Vegetative State, the patient must exhibit no “evidence of awareness of self or environment” or “ability to interact with others.” As one neurologist put it, if a patient shows “any response to the outside world, the patient isn’t in a PVS.” All it takes, according to Dr. Jones, is “only one examiner to discover the presence of higher brain function and the naysayers’ opinions are, by the very definition of PVS, null and void.”

As they say, READ IT ALL.


[Cross-posted at My VRWC.]

Posted by beth at March 18, 2005 9:07 PM


Articles Related to Medical Issues:

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Medical Facts About Terri Schiavo:

» FACTS ARE FACTS from MY Vast Right Wing Conspiracy
Many people have referred to the "medical evidence" that Terri has little to no brain matter remaining. FACT: The only way to determine such a thing accurately is with an MRI or PET scan. Neither have been done, and they have been disallowed in her ... [Read More]

Tracked on March 18, 2005 9:47 PM

» Tough Questions in the Terri Schiavo Case from knightopia.com | Journal
I've butted heads (a little bit) with Rick Bennett in the past, but I still like the guy — and he's asking some great questions of Christian conservatives about the Terri Schiavo case (which is happening right in his backyard... [Read More]

Tracked on March 18, 2005 10:55 PM

» On Medical Facts About Terri Schiavo from Hyscience
there is only one way to determine such a thing accurately, and that is with an MRI or PET scan. Neither have been done, and they have been disallowed in her case per Michael Schiavo's instructions. [Read More]

Tracked on March 18, 2005 11:32 PM

» Medical Facts About Terri Schiavo from bLogicus
Many people have referred to the "medical evidence" that Terri has little to no brain matter remaining. FACT: The only way to determine such a thing accurately is with an MRI or PET scan. Neither have been done, and they have been disallowed in her cas... [Read More]

Tracked on March 19, 2005 3:39 AM

Comments

Call NH Congressman Jeb Bradley's Cellphone! The number is 603-387-2365!

Posted by: GOP Fan at March 18, 2005 10:53 PM

Dr. William Hammesfahr, a Nobel Prize nominee, was asked to examine Terri per the request of the Second District Court of Appeal. He conducted an examination that lasted for more than 10 hours on September 12, 2002. In his exam report, he clearly stated that Terri was not in a coma. As to the EEG that forms the basis of the suggestion that Terri "has little to no brain remaining," he made the following comment:

"I have reviewed the EEG recently obtained. The EEG has large amounts of artifact. The technician's attempted to remove artifact by filtering. Unfortunately, filtering also affects and reduces evident brain electronic activity. This EEG is not adequate and should be repeated. It should be repeated at the patient's bedside, with the patient in a non-agitated state."

In another occasion, he said, "There are many approaches that would help Terri Schiavo. I know, because I had the opportunity to personally examine her, her medical records, and her X-rays. It is time to help Terri, instead of just warehousing her. She would have benefited from treatment years ago, but it is not too late to start now."

It is unbelievable that the opinion of an expert of such high qualification is treated as inferior to the opinion of those who only spent less than 1 hour to exam Terri.

Posted by: Miranda at March 18, 2005 11:13 PM

I heard that the House Committee is appealing to the Supreme Court for more time (no other bloggers are mentioning it though). Go to the link below for more info:

(http://www.nbc11.com/news/4297130/detail.html)

Posted by: Hidden Nook at March 18, 2005 11:53 PM

There are still too many folks who see Terri as a in PVS or in coma. Even with the vides!

Could someone help make waves with the media with the fact that Terri has not had an MRI or PET check? Even posters where people can see it in the news (outside the hospice maybe).

And maybe a big poster right at the front page of this blog. Lots of comments are clueless about this.

Just an idea.

Posted by: Jeff Tan at March 19, 2005 8:19 AM

I have read that obtaining food and water through a tube is considered to be maintaining life artificialy. The official medical reason given by doctors so that they can be paid for the prcedure, is it is being done to protect the patient against asperating. ( breathing in the food or water, causing an infection in the patients lungs) The actual reason for the procedure is to make it easier and less time consuming for the care giver (nurse or aid) to feed the patient. It saves the hospital or nursing home money.

Posted by: Larry Morris at March 19, 2005 9:47 AM

Larry, that's just SAD.

And the thought that tube-feeding is "artificial life support" is as preposterous as us eating food as life support. We ALL need feeding in some form. Hmm. Maybe we should all quit eating because it's "unnatural"? LOL

Posted by: Beth at March 19, 2005 10:50 PM

Tube feeding is not artificial life support. The fact that an adult(such as a stroke victim) or a child needs to be tube fed does not make them a candidate to be eliminated. Brain damage does not equal a death sentence. The day it does......society has gone to far and none of us are safe. Where does it end? Next it will be parents of handicapped children that want to "pull the plug", or shall we withhold food because cancer patients who have had their mouths burned by radiation treatment need a G-tube for awhile. Where do we cross the line between care and treatment and murder of the inconvenient? Take Michael Schaivo out of the equation. If there is a blood relative that is willing to care for this woman, one needs to ask.....why should he care? It is one of two things......monetary gain or his effort to clear his own conscience, i.e. my wife is dead. People like this rarely have a conscience, so I can only assume it is monetary gain and probably some publicity. Remember Micheal, it's payday someday. You will answer for this. Why would you withhold treatment all these years? Are you any different than Scott Peterson?

Posted by: Kathy at March 21, 2005 1:56 PM

If it is a "fact" that no MRI has been done, why are they able to show the results of her MRI on the evening news? People are manufacturing "facts" to make the husband look bad when, in "fact," he has had revolutionary medial treatments performed in an attempt to bring Terri back. He finally had to face the "facts."

Posted by: Another Kathy at March 22, 2005 3:01 PM

"Dr. William Hammesfahr, a Nobel Prize nominee . . ."

Nobel Prize nominees are not disclosed for fifty years. If one were nominated and told so in confidence, advertising such would be a gross violation of the personal relationship. I have never heard of any Nobel Prize nominees , so that scenario is highly unlikely.

I stumbled accross this webpage after seeing him not deny that qualification on Scarborough Country. Also, I have not found any medical articles he has written, or found any positive reviews of him from the medical community.

He also implied that a severe beating may have caused Terri's "stroke" (not heart attack as all other doctors stated). That would mean that Michael beat his wife into PVS (or whatever traumatic term you prefer), sued her GP for not diagnosing her bulimia, forced all her doctors to testify under oath, managed to have none of them mention the inevitable evidence, and won the case. It may be possible, but certainly such a horrible allegation should not be made passingly.

Posted by: alex at March 23, 2005 1:32 PM