Well then what about the fact that she did not have a heart attack as the precipitating event? That was on her medical record from 1990 forward....
Since this issue has come up in all of the Terry Schiavo threads here's a link with a picture of her 2002 CAT scan along with commentary from Dr. Cranford who examined her. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7328639/ Note the large dark areas in the middle of her brain.
Why bother. Everyone knows you can regrow a new brain after you've been brain damaged! A miracle was coming! Randall Terry told me, so it must be true!!!!
Originally posted by Sishir Chang I saw the CAT scans on TV and they show large parts of her brain gone. On the contrary most of the doctors who've said that she brain damaged beyond recovery and not conscious are the ones who've been considered credible which is why every court has agreed. Including ones made up of judges who are Republicans or have been appointed by Republicans. I see, so what I read was a false assessment by a guy paid by the parent to gather some evidence that would possibly keep her alive. Gotcha. This is actually the first time I've ever seen any details about this case...man, I never even heard about it once and it's been going on since 90'? LOL. I need to crawl out from under my rock more often.
I see everybody talking about CAT scans. The fact of the matter is that an MRI would have been the appropriate "picture" to have had. This is what my father-in-law, a neurologist, has a large problem with. He cannot understand how a determination was made without the benefit of an MRI.
(Disclaimer: I'm not a neurologist, nor do I know one or play one on TV) From what I've read, the CAT scan was more than enough to show large areas of her brain (particularly her cerebral cortex, which controls higher brain functions) were missing. Also, she could not have an MRI done on her due to metal in her head from an experimental treatment. Beyond the scans, there were supposedly many other factors used in her diagnosis as well, including an EEG and long term observation showing no ability to react to outside stimuli (though I'm not entirely knowledgeable on the diagnostic criteria of PVS).
This is actually dylan's wife, Della. And, for whatever it's worth, I'm a neuroscientist. A CAT (computer assisted tomography) scan and MRI (magnetic resonance imaging) will show essentially the same thing, that is the structure of the brain tissue. What your father-in-law was likely wanting to see was an fMRI (functional magnetic resonance imaging), which will show not only the structure of the brain, but the relative activity of areas within the brain. In this case, if Mrs. Schaivo did have metal in her skull, then she would not have been able to undergo either the MRI or fMRI procedures, as they use mind-bogglingly huge magnets to image the brain. However, the CAT scan was more than capable of showing exactly how much damage there was to the cortex. If you look at the dark spot in the middle of the CAT scan and compare it to a normal scan, you can see exactly how much of that tissue is gone, and the tissue that is missing is responsible for pretty much everything that makes us human, including speech and higher thought processes. The undamaged tissue, which included the brainstem, is responsible for breathing and certain reflexive (not conscious) actions, such as breathing and some simple movements, like movements of the eyes.
Sorry for the double post, but I just remembered one more thing. Mori had just mentioned the flat EEG. What that tells us is that there is no activity in the cortex. This is expected, since the CAT scan revealed that the cortex had pretty much been replaced by cerebrospinal fluid, which is nifty stuff, but can't do much in the way of thinking. Anyway, between the CAT scan and the EEG, we have most of the information that an fMRI would give us. --Della
Basso, are you really that upset about the Plame felony that you can't let it go? Is it because you had pinned such strong hopes on the legal brief, and were so disappointed when it was shown to not clear the felon of having committed a crime? The evidence in that case far surpasses anything posted here. Your own post of the statute in the Plame case illustrates clearly that a felony was committed. You seem to be making a mistake about what indictments are for too. Indictments are not meant to be brought against a crime. Indictments are brought against the person who committed the crime. If there was a crime committed but no indictment is ever brought, the crime was still committed. It just means they don't have evidence against a specific person.
