« James Kirk would kick Shatner's a** | Main | Terri Schiavo has just died »

March 31, 2005

Terri Schiavo -- Chicken Little on Xtians, Cranford as Moderate and the $100,000 challenge

I sense we are moving into a post-Terri realm where some of those on the Left who have watched Terri's imposed death with gleeful anticipation are going to use Terri as "red-baiting" of anyone who questioned Greer's decision. "Mainstream" media has been in the forefront of misinformation, selective reporting, editorializing from the newsroom and conducting pushpolls in order to get a results that coincide with the politics of their members. No where better than the NYTimes itself can this new focus-to-come be found than in the latest screed from former Enron advisor Paul Krugman. Absolutely every sentence of his excreable piece drips with falsehoods, contempt and faux alarm. Do you think that Terri may not have had a fair shake at the trial level? You're really the same as the Islamist extremists in the Netherlands murdering infidels. Worried that the profoundly disabled don't have the protection they should in Florida? You're really part of the drooling God Squad out to flaunt the Constitution and impose a theocracy. Summing up, Chicken Little Krugman runs in circles screeching "The Xtians are coming! The Xtians are coming! Lock up your children, bar the door! The Xtians are coming!"

On the heels of Krugman's piece comes this editorial from Star Tribune protraying Krugman's screed as mere "musing" on the "inherent in the rise of religious extremism in the United States."

It's extremist to worry about the rights of someone that has been legally declared a non-person? It's extremist to support appeal to higher courts when there is a dispute in order to protect the rights of the profoundly disabled?

Ah, but to do think such, the ST charges, means one does so "in order to impose upon the nation an extremist religious ethic that looks more Iranian than American."

If that's extremist, who is a moderate in the ST's eyes? Why, Dr. Ronald Cranford, of course! Cranford who is in favor of killing people who are not even PVS. Cranford had testified in the Robert Wendland case it didn't matter that he was minimally concious, only that his wife had the right to get rid of him and "move on" with her life. Cranford is forthright in his pro-euthanasia on "quality of life" and "personhood" definitions and is dismissive of the Constitutional rights of the profoundly disabled.

That's who the Star Tribune lauds as "an antidote to [Xtian] lunacy."

Dr. Cranford is making the talk circuit defending his 45 minute evaluation of Terri. A transcript of his interview on MSNBC's "The Abrams Report" can be found here and I'd direct you to look at the picture that accompanies this transcript of Terri's 2002 CT scan. Cranford is absolute in his statements.

So there's just no doubt about the diagnosis. I know there's sympathy for the family. When you see those pictures, it looks like Terri is interacting, but do you know what? She's really not. That's what the vegetative state is. It looks like they're interacting, but they're really not.
He's again dismissive of a modern MRI or PET. And here's where the $100,000 challenge comes in, from Code Blue blog
I'm getting tired of hearing what neurologists have to say about Terri Schiavo's CT of the brain. Real Tired. ...

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. ...

Do read his full post, but here's where he puts his money where his mouth is:
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.

Don't hold your breath, though, that any of the Felos/Cranford/pro-euthanasia crowd will take the challenge, because, obviously this radiologist is nothing more than the point man of the American Taliban.

Right?

hattips to all those who directed me to these articles: Kevin at Wizbang, Michelle Malkin, Mieke and bdwalsh

Posted by Darleen at March 31, 2005 05:45 AM

Comments

When the radiologist at CBBMD started posting about the other scans that he had--at first he was claiming tat he had scans from functioning seniors with worse 'apparent' brain damage--I asked him to post them.

Repeatedly.

He never did.

He now asks neurologists to do something that neurologists don't do, if they're good doctors. He's asking them to make diagnoses based on single scans of patients they've never seen.

NONE of the neurologists employed by the courts or the Schiavos did this. They examined her records, her tests, and Terri herself. They called for things on their own. And, based on all this, they made a diagnosis.

They did NOT look at a single shot of a single CT scan and pronounce judgement. It is disgusting to suggest it.

But then, this radiologist is given to that type of thing, making alarming pronouncements on mere shreds of evidence. Denigrating the skills of neurological specialists to try to score cheap points on a web log.

And I'll put up myself as well. I'll put up a hundred thousand myself if someone can find me a credible source that will show me that radiologists are more reliable in neurological matters than neurologists.

Posted by: jack at April 1, 2005 09:58 AM

But then, this neurologist Cranford is given to that type of thing, making alarming pronouncements on mere shreds of evidence. Denigrating the skills of other medical professionals who have actually treated patients to try to score free publicity on the national news and lots of money from speaking engagements.

Corrected it for you, jack.

Posted by: Sue Dohnim at April 1, 2005 10:32 AM

Thanks Sue

BTW Jack, Cranford spent 45 minutes with Terri. Last I looked, layman and all, was such a cursory examination is contrary to the protocols of determining PVS.

And Cranford is a "man" who declared Robert Wendland not worthy of living while admitting Wendland is not PVS (and I think because he lost that case he's decided to hardball all profoundly disabled as "PVS" in order to be the darling of the pro-euthanasia set).

Posted by: Darleen at April 1, 2005 01:05 PM

You're very welcome, Darleen.

Here's some more stuff from Cranford that will make your skin crawl:

When a feeding tube borders on the barbaric.

Advocates starving/dehydrating Alzheimer's patients.

Schiavo - Dr. Cranford offers reply

Pro-death blog posts letter from Cranford where he admits that he only trusts one place in the entire U.S. to do PET scans - no doubt the only one that gives him PVS diagnoses on command.

The More You Suffer, The Longer You Live

Cranford goes on a "why won't the mean old courts kill everybody I tell them to?" kick.

Posted by: Sue Dohnim at April 1, 2005 08:16 PM

Good post

Posted by: Jeff Blogworthy at April 2, 2005 10:43 AM

Wish I'd read this a few weeks ago. Great post. That last article from Cranford - "The more you suffer..." - makes his agenda as plain as day. America needs consensus on brain death. I don't disagree with that, but it's clear that Cranford would rather starve a lot of people, and I'm with Jeff G. I'd be storming the gates with twinkies and a soda.

Posted by: tee bee at April 2, 2005 12:21 PM

Desert Rat Ramblings posts the tale of David Mack, a Minnesota cop shot in the line of duty and instantly pronounced PVS by Cranford. And some 20 months later, Sgt Mack left the hospital in great shape. And I have read (I cannot confirm this) that Cranford was the moving spirit behind Nancy Cruzan and Christine Busalacchi. Dr. Dementia is really a piece of work. Arrogant, hateful - it's a shame he isn't sharing a cell with Dr. Kevorkian. BTW - he's a past president of the Hemlock Society (now sanitized to Choice in Dying).

Posted by: m c harrrison at April 3, 2005 02:43 PM