From what I've seen, the biggest reason to discount Dr. Cheshire is that he's not really an expert on vegetative states (he studies headaches), and has never actually examined Terri. What we need to do is trim off the "experts" at the ends of both sides (the two doctors mentioned above, for example).

Go hit the article over at Tech Central Station for some more info.

Ace,

One thing is certain: the media would not be showing the "just an innocent little tike" photo if the Supreme Court had not ruled the death penalty for juveniles unconstitutional.

I personally think the pic of the little jabba with the hair-horns is simply precious.

Fat looser sez: tol you I wuz hardcore.

Thanks for the link as always Ace!

As to the first comment, Dr. Cheshire has actually met with Terri and has reviewed all her records. He did not "examine" her, probably because of the time factor.

And as to his credentials, actually he "directs a laboratory at the Mayo Clinic branch in Jacksonville dealing with unconscious reflexes like digestion" and he doesn't just "study headaches." He is a neurologist and bioethicist. While, his published papers have dealt with headaches, that does not disqualify him for this case.

Also, the other doctor mentioned, Dr. Cranston, has actually examined Terri. He was the court appointed doctor. It makes you wonder how neutral the court was when it appointed a known "right-to-death" doctor to investigate the PVS claims.

That is my main complaint, the opinion of Dr. Cheshire is viewed as biased by the courts and the NY TImes because of his beliefs and opinions, but Dr. Cranston is A-OK, even though his beliefs are just as strident and passionate as Dr. Cheshire.

Nope, no bias here!

A disgusting truth about the medical profession is they have not policed expert testimony to be rendered objective and reflecting the best science and consensus of the medical profession. In Europe, the Court pays - in America, it is the plaintiff and defendent that pays.

Ergo, the customer gets what they pay for..."It's 600 dollars an hour for my work and testimony to come up with a court-declared opinion that will give you your money's worth".

We need to clear the air on the experts, not just the medical ones, and find another way of paying that does not set up a financial motive to lie. We also need to be able to tell the court (and jury) if such experts are somehow impugned by their political, business, or religious associations.

Another one that got a free ride from the media, especially Fox and the right wing pundits was Dr. Hammseyer, who was cast for several days as the Nobel-nominated examiner who was convinced Schiavo was not PVS and that several therapies promised significant, if not full recovery.

It turns out that the Dr. is under investigation for quackery over promised false cures for other medical conditions, that he has never treated anyone in Schiavo's condition before, that he is a regular "expert" called up by the Right to Life groups in other cases, his hyperbaric treatment is considered useless for other brain injuries, and his Nobel nomination was by a fellow Evangelist golf buddy who wasn't even a doctor who decided to write the Nobel Committee and say Hammseyer was a great doctor.

Well, forget it! It's over, Cedarford has decreed it as he sees it.

Something tells me Cedarford has a buttload of scratch riding on this...

I don't think the doctor's philosophical stances (pre-euthanasia/anti-euthanasia or whatever) are as important as the underlying facts and arguments they make. Acknowledging that a person may have a bias is important but it has become a factor that is weighed far too heavily so that people can skip the hard part about getting educated and making a decision. It allows you to discount what you don't like without dealing with it.

Hey CF,

How about a link for the evidence that Terri Schaivo shows no evidence of pain response? Or ability to swallow?

Never did see if you provided it. It actually might make a difference in how I view the moral ramifications of this case (I'll still think that Michael Schaivo's a cocksucker, but I might not find his actions so morally abhorrent). And providing a source for your "facts" might make me take what you say about other things a bit more seriously.

Again, I'm asking sincerely. Are you going to "put up"?

On the issue of medical experts, how would you propose to police the bias of court appointed experts. Now, a dr. favorable to the defense is a breeze to find, and the "plaointiff's doctors" are few and expensive (doctor collegiality and all that). How can you overcome such obvious professional protectionism?

Hobgoblin - I take it you never read the 38-page Wolfson Report which discusses the PVS state and the Schindlers refusal to agree to therapy to restore Schiavo's swallowing reflex in return for an agreement to agree she was vegetative and let her die if, as all but the Schindler doctors agreed, that Schiavo was unable to swallow because she lacked a cerebral cortex.

The Schindlers, naturally, refused the offer.

Read his report, get back to me, Hobby.

Pain? No more than the tens of thousands of other Vegetatives that have their feeding & watering tubes pulled every year. Less than the couple hundred thousand cancer & other conscious end-stagers that refuse food and water as part of their dying process. Probably more than a live oyster you eat.

But most people say that they would not want to exist in Schiavo's state, and would wish to not have their lives artificially extended.

Listen CF,

I'm not concerned about championing the cause of PVS folks across the planet (or even Terri, in certain instances), I'm trying to answer my own moral question or whether her tube removal is "right" or "wrong."

I'm not concerned about Michael's douchebaggery, about the thousands of PVS patients on the public dole, the public dole itself, or any of teh other myriad aspects of this case. The permanent inability to swallow is an important factor to me, and the fact that the parents would bargain her life on a reasonable medical test is not shocking to me.

I asked for "a link."

Do you know how to html?

Can you cut and paste?

That's all I want to do. Read what you have read. In the same form. And then come to my own conclusions. A link to this report (if nothing else to prove that you have access to the original) would be most appreciated.

Now, if what you're saying is that there's been no swallow test, please just admit that. I'm trying to be civil (not really easy, but God's granting me a certain amount of charity here) and ask for facts and proof, and it seems like you're obsfucating and speechifying.

Also, is there any proof of involuntary muscle reaction or lack thereof to pain stimulus in that report or any other?

Again, please provide a link.

I may disagree with you about Michael's motives, but it's possible that you're not completely wrong about the morality of "pulling the plug."

Thousands of people each year are allowed to die, and in at least some portion of the cases it's a morally acceptable decision. I'm asking you to help me out here. If you just want to argue about it, I'll stop asking you to defend your position and let you and BrewFan call each other names.

.

Hobby - I gave you the guys name, the existence of a report. There are numerous reports and news articles that posters refer to, and no one is footnoting and supplying a link to each factoid used. I don't have the time or frankly the inclination to look up links for you when you can simply Google and see for yourself.

You do know how to Google, right?? You do know about the abstractreports.com site??

You do know about the abstractreports.com site??"

No. I did not. That's why I asked you.

i also asked you for another reason. I want to know where you saw the report, so that when I look at it, you can't say, "Oh THAT site edited the report to make it look bad."

I really want to know where you saw this report. I'm not trying to make you my google-bitch.

Again, if you want to convince me, I'm trying. If you just want to argue and be pedantic, then I'll leave you alone to argue with others.

CF means abstractappeal.com . Go to the Schiavo page. It's a pretty good timeline with links to the major documents. It claims to be neutral and I see no reason to suspect it isn't.

Hobgoblin,

Why the shot at me? Have I done something to offend?

Hobby - When I type in "Jay Wolfson" + Report on Google, the 1st hit that pops up is the report - Dec 1, 2003 GAL Report to Governor Bush.

http://jb-williams.com/ts-report-12-03.htm

I may have misinterpreted your request as asking someone else to look up something that you preferred not to spend time on. Obviously, Blogs are not academic papers where facts are footnoted and sourced. Usually, I expect someone to look up a fact they don't believe, not demand "link this, link that"...because some anonymous fellow slug is in no position to demand anything. But if you write and say that you looked high and low for something mentioned, can't find it anywhere...and request help...and I see the message..I will try to help.

Hey, this is neat- when I type in "douchbag who sits down to pee, and liked to hide things in his ass when he was a little kid" on Google, I get a picture of Cedarford.