I've seen this story on a number of blogs, and when I looked for the original source, all I could find was one unattributed comment from "Feminists for Life."

Does anyone have a solid original source for the Mack story other than FfL? Cranford has been repeatedly misquoted before by both sides, so my first reaction is to completely discount this one until we get a good reliable source.

Yeah, Cranford is something of an interested party, you might say, when it comes to diagnosing PVS with the expectation of killing someone.

I think the one thing that explains the Schiavo result more than anything else is that the Schindlers were simply outlawyered. They didn't put much money to put into the court fights and thus didn't have any legal talent on their side, whereas Michael Schiavo spent hundreds of thousands and had some of the most energetic, passionate and experienced euthanasia advocates on his side.

No need to bring up the fact that 15 court appointed doctors examined Terri and came to the same conclusion.

Man, I can't wait to use that line next time I'm at oral argument.

"Your Honor, Defense counsel is a fucking retard. I have nothing further to add."

QED, brother, QED.

CRANFORD: I am 105 percent sure she is in a vegetative state.

KCTrio:

Is there a new statistical way we can be more than 100% sure?

And if there is why is he only 105% sure?

If not, do errors in grade school arithmetic matter in the practice of neurology?

Cleavage is never subtle, but can be very tasteful, indeed.

frank:
I love that "15 doctors this, 20 doctors that" bullshit, frank. In response, I'll recycle the spew that you would use had I mentioned the 30-some doctors on the Schindler's side:

"Duuuuhhh, none of those doctors examined Terri personally, duuuhhh, you can't tell anything from 5 minutes of video tape edited down from 4 hours, duuuuhhhh, those probably aren't really even doctors, duuuuuhhhh, she was dead 15 years ago, duuuuhhhh, Hammesfahr is a quack, duuuuhhhh, hey look somebody dropped a gum wrapper heh shiny."

Sorry, you can't make excuses for Cranford. He's the real quack, since he hasn't prescribed anything but starvation/dehydration for patients in the past 20 years. At least Hammesfahr has tried to heal patients, for which Hippocrates wouldn't fault him. Hammesfahr even offered to treat Terri for free, so money wasn't his big motivation in her case.

If I was completely f'n evil, I'd get my sons into medical school and have them become bioethicists. It's even easier than being morticians. Just say "kill the useless bitches" and collect the money without your hands ever getting dirty.

Anonymous first poster person:
Google is your friend.

Here's a piece with a Los Angeles Times tagline (or dateline or what have you) that mentions Mack's case.

Here is an article co-written by Cranford that mentions Mack as well.

Sorry to burst your bubble. Evidently, Mack's recovery burst Cranford's little bubble of happiness as well.

I've got some more stuff written by Cranford where he advocates dehydrating Alzheimer's patients and even minimally conscious people, if you want to read it. Takes a little digging, so it would have to wait until I get home tonight.

GOPUSA probably got that information from Cranford himself, since he was asked on CNN if he ever got a diagnosis wrong. Cranford said, readily, "Yes. A very famous case, in which we learned a great deal about PVS."

He then went into detail about it. I'll see if I can find the transcript.

I've read any number of other papers mentioning it, too. But GOPUSA can be secure in the knowledge that none of their readers have the foggiest acquaintance with facts.

Cranford isn't a quack. I completely disagree with him about both Alzheimers and minimally conscious patients, but calling him a quack is simply ignorance. He's a highly regarded neurologist who, in fact, was part of the team who defined minimal consciousness to distinguish it from PVS. He was selected for the panel because of his expertise.

Cranford regularly includes his "Mack" screw-up of 25 years ago in his lectures on PVS. He said that it is important for every doctor, since every doctor makes errors in diagnosis, to hone the science by reviewing and doing formal discussion of errors.

Indeed, the Mack case led to more use of diagnostic tests that would have caught the Mack error, and a recommendation to wait a year to confirm a PVS diagnosis.

Cal is right that Cranford was part of a group of doctors that brought up the need to explore a condition of "minimal consciousness" - though he thinks it is just as bad as PVS and no hope of recovery exists so it and end-stage Alzheimers completely justify "pulling the plug".

After the Mack case, Cranford's new standard has worked well. NONE, absolutely NONE, of the tens of thousands diagnosed as PVS in just the USA has ever recovered, including 10's of thousands kept alive for years like Schiavo.

He has no doubt that T Schiavo was effectively brain dead from 7 minutes into her heart attack 15 years ago, no doubt that the autopsy will confirm his and all the examining non-religiously affiliated board-certified neurologists diagnosis. Nor that the medical community will have a healthy debate about how doctor's ability to make an objective diagnosis may be compromised by money, religious belief, even their politics.

"Cranford's new standard has worked well. NONE, absolutely NONE, of the tens of thousands diagnosed as PVS in just the USA has ever recovered, including 10's of thousands kept alive for years like Schiavo"

Nothing ambiguous about this statement so I'm sure you have a link at your fingertips to share with us that backs this up?

BTW, don't try any of that "you can Google it" crap. You made the assertion, now back it up or tell us you made it up.

I'll bet everyone knows how this story turns out.

I had thought of something about the Schiavo case that wasn't discussed much, and it deals with the Camp that said that since M Schiavo had a new relationship, he had a conflict of interest and custody should go to the Schindlers.

Well, lets say for the sake of argument the Courts and Guardian ad Litems had not found the Schindler's unfit to be guardians by their stated views on getting custody. (They said that if they found out later evidence came up that Terri had wished to die they would not honor that wish because keeping her alive was pleasurable to them, until 2000 they said she was completely PVS then started with the talking, interactive Terri that no one found credible, their violation of court orders, finally, their method of dealing with bedsores afflicting most PVS patients was to be amputation of afflicted parts to keep her alive)

Well, aside from the Schindler's unfitness. Lets assume that Conflict of Interest is all important and decisions must be removed from any relative that has a conflict.

That would mean that parents who had one child in PVS but who had other children must lose decision-making ability because a conflict of interest between their caring best for the afficted child and the non-afflicted ones may arise - and guardianship must go to any interested grandparent or neutral guardian.

Because PVS is expensive and requires time. And parents seeking to keep a child alive at all costs risk neglecting their healthy children and putting all money towards the PVS child, damaging the other's well-being. Conversely, by the same Conflict of interest logic applied by some to Michael Schiavo, those parents have strong family motives to pull the plug on the vegetative child to preserve care and resources for their healthy kids. The grandparents just want to keep the PVS kid alive, dress her, pet her.....so what's the problem???

Plenty.

We as a society have to defer to family's decisions unless evidence exists that family decisions are flawed. Every State has determined that medical decisions are those of the parents for a minor (except the State can currently intrude in case of minor's abortions) , the spouse for an incapacitated adult. That families have competing priorities does not constitute grounds for the Feds, politicians, or courts to supplant parents or spouses - and award children or spouses fates to "more neutral" parties. That is intrusive Big Government at it's worst.

No, the Schindlers said that if diabetes set in and required the amputation of one of her limbs to keep her alive they would do so.

Man, I hope you never have a teenage kid who says in a black fit "I want to die." You'd probably fall all over yourself finding him a razor, a bottle of Jack, and a copy of "Apocalypse Now."

But then, you'll be too busy spending all your money on the fully functional children to care. Because it's all about the QUALITY OF LIFE, you know.

okay, okay, stop beating a dead 'shiavo'! Oops! I mean horse. Sorry to the overly sensitive ones......

You all do realize that if the Schindlers had had guardianship nothing would have necessarily changed, right?

What am I saying? Of course you don't.

"That would mean that parents who had one child in PVS but who had other children must lose decision-making ability because a conflict of interest between their caring best for the afficted child and the non-afflicted ones may arise - and guardianship must go to any interested grandparent or neutral guardian"

This has to be the biggest strawman ever built. That in his tiny little brain this scenario has anything to do with Terri's Schiavo's case is simply amazing. Cedaretard completely ignores the fact that Michael wanted Terry alive until it was in his financial interest to have her dead. Even a moron like Cedaretard should be able to understand that.

"nothing would have necessarily changed, right?" [emphasis mine, highlighting this brilliant analysis]

Cal, you do realize then that something could have changed, right? What am I saying! Of course you don't.

SpewFan asks once again to link him to the court documents and GAL Report that he still hasn't read on the prospects of recovery from PVS.

Whassa problem, Spewie? You can't open PDF files? Did you ever even bother to visit the abstractappeals.com Site?

Here's another link, written in the aftermath of Cruzan case and after the 1986 AMA decision it is ethical to remove the feeding life support machine from PVS patients after standards of diagnosis are met because odds of recovery were effectively zero.

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/Lifedebate.html

Now, it seems to be that you believe people can recover from PVS. Care to provide an example to back up your words? I know, I know, that would require work rather than just shooting your mouth off....

Cedaretard makes a statement of fact:
"Cranford's new standard has worked well. NONE, absolutely NONE, of the tens of thousands diagnosed as PVS in just the USA has ever recovered"

Your link has absolutely no reference to Dr. Cranford or who accepts his clinical approach as a standard. Furthermore, there is nothing in your link to substantiate your claim as to the efficacy of the application of his clinical techniques. In other words, you are a fucking liar.

BTW, just so you're not confused, I don't think people can recover from PVS. What I do believe is that when there is a question as to the accuracy of a diagnosis of PVS then the person who is going to have the feeding tube removed should have access to the same level of due process as a convicted murderer.

Jamie -

In cross, the Schindlers answered hypotheticals. Would they amputate one limb to keep her alive? (diabetes, bedsores, clots are reasons why amputations vs, death decisions are commonly made with vegetatives). Yes! Would they then amputate the other 3 limbs if needed to keep her alive? Yes! Would they then subject her to open heart surgery if she required that to keep her alive? Of course! Would they then follow that with aggressive cancer treatment if her limbless body already opened up for heart surgery needed that too? Absolutely! And would they do all those things even if they found it was all against Terri's wishes? Then the Schindlers really hanged themselves. They said it was not about her wishes, that they would do all those things even knowing she would have objected....because keeping her alive at all costs would give them pleasure and allow them to love her..

In polite terms, reviewing this testimony, the Guardian Ad Litem called their attitudes "most disturbing". What he meant was they were two real sick puppies unfit for guardianship.

The courts felt the same way. The only thing they seriously considered other than Michael Schaivo was giving guardianship to a GAL, not the Schindlers.

*****************
And the fact of guardians of a patient being considered for pulling the plug on - having other family members interests to balance in making decisions - is not uncommon. Thousands and thousands of cases like Schiavos every year.

Where one child got in a PVS condition and the parents had to balance the best interests of that child and their other children, and each other. Had one at work whose kid went PVS from a near-drowning and had to weigh matters - including grandparents sometimes unwelcomed butting in - they kept him alive for 4 1/2 years as Christians, finally pneumonia took him...and they regretted not pulling the plug years beforehand in reflection because their other kids and their marital relationship had been SORELY neglected.

With a Spouse, people like M Schiavo are not unusual, in they seek a nourishing relationship once hope is lost for recovery, especially if they have kids that they feel need a Dad or Mom to help take care of them - while still being loving and devoted to the vegetative spouse. And yes, those situations do involve competing interests without rising to a legal definition of a conflict of interest...a legal term that is very difficult to apply to any family situation. We know that society will never permit Big Government to regularly reach into family matters at any hint of competing interests in a family and turn over any decision to an "uninterested, gov't appointed 3rd party, or more distant relative not as close...thus more objective."

The "Family Values Crowd" risks all turning the most important family decisions over to the government.

Sue:

While the Contra Costa Times (from the LAT) mentions Cranford and Mack in the same article, it doesn't say that Cranford disgnosed Mack as PVS.

Neither has any other real article I've found on the subject. Other than the one comment from the Feminists for Life website (which doesn't have an actual cite), the quote doesn't have a factual source.

The "PVS" report is from one (and only one) person, Frederica Mathewes-Green, who didn't actually tell us where she got her info.

The vast majority of comments on this use the exact same phrasing, and have obviously been cut-and-pasted from the same source, which is that same unattributed comment by someone with an obvious and public agenda.

During the "hot" part of the Schiavo story, people were telling us that Cranford had diagnosed other folks as PVS, when court records showed that he didn't (Robert Wendland and Michael Martin).

Predictable SpewFan. Unable to list any recent diagnosis of PVS where recovery happened, as I requested. Just shooting his mouth off.

Certainly a woman 15 years in PVS with most of her brain dead and liquified away...Why we "just don't know if therapy won't regrow CNS tissue!!!" And Let Terri Swallow!!

You're just a pedantic twit, Spewie.

Come on Spewie, name a name! Explain why, unlike all other long-term PVS patients, your favorite rutabaga had a chance of recovery. What medical yardstick, what specific test, what specific patient are you banking your case on??? What data other than quacks in the hire of RTL claiming otherwise do you think makes a reasonable case for misdiagnosis?

Do you understand that the autopsy will result in spotlighting doctors and lawyers and nurses that let their religious feelings ruin their professional reputations, even make them commit perjury?

Now even the RTL crowd is readying for what they know the autopsy will reveal. The fanatic "Priests for Life" are now saying that just because she may not have a brain doesn't mean it wasn't murder....

Cedarford, you dick.

Answers to hypothetical questions are not legally admissable, and the only reason why the Schindlers said anything was because their attorney was too damn stupid to object.

You refuse to acknowledge Michael Schiavo's obvious contradictions (telling the malpractice jury one thing and doing the opposite as soon as the check was cashed), yet you're ready to hang the Schindlers because they couldn't afford a half-ass attorney.

You have no credibility.

Sue,
I am not making excuses for anyone. Point being that you can point to a doctor appointed by Mr. Shaivo and say he is a biased quack, I don't give a fuck. Fail to mention that the Shindler's doctors were not full of shit and you are a hypocrite freak. Now let's talk about the 15 COURT appointed doctors who examined the woman. No that would make you look like a fucking idiot wouldn't it?

Speaking as a science-fiction fan, I think future technologies will enable us to regrow CNS tissue from the patient's own cells.

I will not speculate about a spontaneous recovery because I'm a science-fiction fan, not a fantasy fan.

Joseph Hertzlinger -

Yes, but the pro-life crowd will object if the only way you can regrow CNS tissue is from discarded, unwanted embryos. Because thats murder dontcha know??

The other problem, even if they - predictably - cast their cherished religious principles aside if a family member could benefit from any therapy - unlike what they wish to impose on other families - is new CNS tissue would be "tabula rosa". Blank slate.

In other words, a clean slate. CNS stem cell implants might very well work great for spinal paralysis, but if it replaced upper brain tissue, it would never replace the personality and memory lost when the original brain died.

Like if your hard drive smoked and you lost all your files and programs. You can buy a new hard drive, but all the stuff you had , presuming you didn't back it up, is gone. And even sci-fi writers have problems with "downloading" people's memory, emotions, personality because so much seems associative and reactive - people only react or remember in the context of specific stimulae.

***********

Sir Fartsalot -

So your objection is that the Schindler lawyer made no "objection" when the Schindlers revealed what they really think about the details and motivations they had seeking guardianship??? I could be wrong, but dealing with Probate/Family Court before, the courts have much more latitude in getting to the truth in cases. The 5th does not apply. And judges - at least the two I dealt with, allowed regular use of hypotheticals in inquiry..

Sue Dohnim -

Given the autopsy results will be out shortly and reveal the Schindlers and their followers as liars, shouldn't you traipse on out to a new cause?

Look, lots of stupid people, and some otherwise smart ones, got manipulated by the Schindler/Randall Terry video. No shame in that.

Persisting as you do that M Schaivo - or in your mind, Scott Peterson II - as the Problem in the face of the now-obvious lies - just makes you look prideful, obstinate, and wrong.

T Schiavo died 15 years ago. Her body was finally allowed to go. Be thankful the spouse and the courts had the courage to fight off psychotic parents and siblings, and a pack of religious fanatics........to do the right thing..

Damn, can't someone please pull Cedartard's tube? Please don't feed the PVS (Persistently Viciously Stupid) person.

"And judges - at least the two I dealt with, allowed regular use of hypotheticals in inquiry..."

Well, I know a couple of guys who run stop lights regularly. Guess that means it must be legal, as well.

I'm very familiar with judges who deal with Family Law issues, and they constantly make legal mistakes. Constantly. And unless the case involves someone with an extremely high public profile and tons of money for appellant playtime, those mistakes are buried forever and never set straight.

Once again, you have no consistancy. Michael Schiavo used money designated for his wife's medical care to hire high-priced attorneys and doctors who specialize in Right-to-Die cases. In fact, his expert witness referred to himself as "Dr. Humane Death". They coached his testimony and told him exactly what to say and how to say it. Proof is easily available by reviewing deposition transcripts (where his attorney is recorded stopping questioning many times and then having Michael submit modified answers to questions) and by comparing his testimony in the malpractice trial with the death trial.

The Schindlers, on the other hand, did not have competent legal counsel and did not have a budget of hundreds of thousands of dollars available to buy the right kind of expert whore testimony.

The most pathetic part is this:

It is obvious from your numerous posts that you know, better than anyone else, everything I just said is true, yet you choose to selectively use facts to argue your position.

You, sir, are scum.

cal wrote:

Cranford isn't a quack. I completely disagree with him about both Alzheimers and minimally conscious patients, but calling him a quack is simply ignorance.

Incorrect. Calling him anything other than a quack is willful, blind ignorance.

That is unless you consider a doctor who has prescribed starvation/dehydration for every single patient he's seen in the past 20 years to be a fine, upstanding member of the medical establishment.

I'll be glad to call him a doctor once you provide me with proof of even one patient he judged to be worthy of life in the past 20 years. Otherwise, I consider him to be as much of a doctor as Mengele was.

cirby wrote:

(stuff about unattributed sources, Cranford not diagnosing Mack as PVS)

Here's a doctor who didn't cut and paste from the FFL article.

I've done enough legwork for you, now it's your turn. Show me where Cranford denies his PVS diagnosis of Mack and what Cranford's "real" diagnosis was.

During the "hot" part of the Schiavo story, people were telling us that Cranford had diagnosed other folks as PVS, when court records showed that he didn't (Robert Wendland and Michael Martin).

You're right, he didn't diagnose those two as PVS. Reasonable people probably assumed he did because he still wanted them to die.

Cranford admitted that these two people showed signs of consciousness, and yet in Cranford's eyes they were still not fit to live. Does that make him a good doctor in your opinion? If so, would you like for your next of kin to call him if you experience head trauma?

Cedarford wrote

(some shit or other)

It's sad to think of all of Pat Buchanan's dingleberries going uncollected while you take time to post here.

Poor sirFartsalot -

I think the RTL really screwed itself with the Schiavo case.

1. Badly embarassed the Republicans by demanding election IOUs be called then and now.

2. Presented a sorry spectacle of brainwashed 10-year old kids being arrested for trying to bring "holy water" to "help Terri".

3. Distinguished itself with rampant death threats.

4. Picked psychotic parents and siblings who have been caught in lie after lie. Picked a real rutabaga where no question exists of her vegetativeness according to treating physicians and nurses. Overall a real bad test case.

5. Decided to manipulate politicians and the public with false stories and deceitful videotape.

**************
After the autopsy results, a lot of people are going to feel like used, clueless assholes once the truth comes out. And be pissed off they were duped. And a lot more wary of appointing judges that approve of RTL efforts to have Government involve intself in all sorts of family decisions.

Andrea Harris and Sue Dohnim are just 2 females who made an emotional judgement in the absence of any evidence so they could have a new man to hate with Scott Peterson now behind bars. They are going to hate M Schiavo until a new tabloid-created "bad guy" shows up and then forget Schiavo and fasten their claws on the new desperado. They don't honestly care they were duped - as long as they have a man to hate and can go on living their lives vicariously through the soap operas fed them....

Sir Fartsalot, SpewFan....just shithooks that enjoy mouthing off.

One more thing to cirby.

Ace's original freakin' link doesn't cut and paste from the FFL article either, it used AP reports probably gleaned from Lexis/Nexis.

Original freakin' link. Imagine that.

Seedy's typing is merely reflex, he has CRI and has lost all upper cortical function. I know this because I am one of the pioneers in researching CRI and will testify at any courtroom of your choosing for a mere $5000 per appearance.

I recommend withholding all extraordinary life-sustaining measures from Seedy and let nature takes its course.

Cedarford:

For future reference, it's "tabla rasa," not "tabula rosa."

cedaretard wrote "Picked a real rutabaga..."

When you let your mask slip is when I feel like I've done my job. Thanks once again.

"Decided to manipulate politicians and the public with false stories and deceitful videotape"

Ah, yes. Sworn statements from five different women, all stating the same thing- Michael Schiavo lied about his knowledge of Terri's wishes.

Backed up by massive contradictions in Michael Schiavo's own sworn testimony in the two court cases (malpractice vs. forced starvation).

And videotape, which shows a woman being asked a question, hearing the question, understanding the question and responding to the question.

That's "deceitful" to you?

So, tell me, how exactly does an autopsy prove Terri wanted to die? How does an autopsy prove Terri was not enjoying spending time with her family? How does an autopsy prove she wasn't responding, time after time, to external sights, sounds and sensations? How does an autopsy prove she couldn't have swallowed foods and liquids?

What a sick, sad, twisted wretch you are.

Bystander - Thanks for the correction. You sometimes hear a phrase and then your mind sorts out how it is spelled....quite often incorrectly.

SirSniffsHisFartsaLot -

Ah, yes. Sworn statements from five different women, all stating the same thing- Michael Schiavo lied .

Yes, the 5 "caregivers" - who unlike the hundred or so that backed the M Schiavo side of events, sided with the Schindlers change after 2000 from their daughter being PVS to the New, Improved, Talking & Interacting Terri. Yes, those 5.... 3 of whom were discredited as liars in court. 2 who remain had minor testimony not believed "Why, Teri always talked to me, but I didn't think much of it until the RTL people found me and we worked some testimony out."

And videotape, which shows a woman being asked a question, hearing the question, understanding the question and responding to the question.

Do thirty hours of videotaping, repeating the same question - and eventually you will align a random grunt and response of a vegetative with the question. Then cut that one segment out and air it despite court order, saying "See, she Knows All!"

That's "deceitful" to you?

No more deceitful than the Disney movies showing "proof" of complex behavior and human intelligence by animals. Or the old videos of "Mr. Ed, The Talking Horse".

So, tell me, how exactly does an autopsy prove Terri wanted to die?

The court decided she wanted to die after hearing witness testimony. Not surprising since 82% of the American public say they would not want to exist in a vegetative state like Shiavo's.

How does an autopsy prove Terri was not enjoying spending time with her family?

By proving all brain matter associated with "thinking enjoyment or thinking prayer" died 15 years ago in that unfortunate creature. (A sidenote: In an interview, M Schiavo said her brother Bobby only visited 3-4 times in ten years until the RTL folks started grooming him after 2000.)

How does an autopsy prove she wasn't responding, time after time, to external sights, sounds and sensations.

Again, by showing that brain areas showing she had any consciousness about any external stimulae long ago died, rotted, and liquified away

How does an autopsy prove she couldn't have swallowed foods and liquids?

Again, by showing with the autopsy data that the brain areas controlling the voluntary swallowing reflex long since died, rotted, and liquified away.

What a sick, sad, twisted wretch you are.

If that is what you call people that think rather than emote in utter ignorance, I stand guilty. I on the other hand, initially duped by the Schindler video myself, think of those that did not bother to look at the evidence as credulous fools. Or worse, those so blinded by religious belief that they willed themselves into being credulous fools used as putty by Randall Terry and the Schindlers.

**************************

Speaking of the scumbags, the Schindlers, did you know they sold the names and addresses of all those who contributed on their website to right-wing marketers? That they, and media whore son Bobby are now pitching appearances for profit, and supposedly working on a book?

Though they do seem, even as the In-Laws from Hell, to be more savory than the latest family accusing Michael Jackson of unspeakable perversions after they got a tom of money from the creep after pushing their son in his arms.

"For future reference, it's "tabla rasa," not "tabula rosa."

No, it's not either: it's tabula rasa.

"...unlike the hundred or so that backed the M Schiavo side of events..."

A HUNDRED nurses testified on Michael Schiavo's behalf?

Um, care to back that up with a citation?

That's a nice fantasy land have you created for yourself. Guess it comes in handy whenever you get into a "discussion".

(Need a fact, right now? No problem, I'll just enter the co-ordinates on my trusty Cedarford Industries BS9000 Fact-Creator, and presto! I win again! Hahahaha...)

Our cedaretard is like an idiot savant when it comes to making stuff up. I heard he can make up an entire phone book worth of lies in a matter of hours!

No, Dr. Cranford is far from a quack. Nonetheless, I would not want him in charge of, say, Stephen Hawking.

Cedarford on April 12, 2005 02:48 PM (and BrewFan) please note the very first Google return for "PVS+recovery+rate" is one of the many articles stating that it is over-diagnosed up to 37% of the time. Those are the survivors, post-diagnosis, dude.

Yeah, the actual study is from the UK, but I have heard a rate of 29% stated for the US.

Now, I do think she was PVS at this time. My problem is whether she was in the first four years.

But mainly my REAL problem is with making a person, in whatever condition, die more horribly than wold be allowed for a dog or horse.

John Anderson wrote:
No, Dr. Cranford is far from a quack. Nonetheless, I would not want him in charge of, say, Stephen Hawking.

Why not? If he's not a quack, Hawking should be safe.

If the afflicted are not safe around a particular doctor, is that doctor not a quack?

What's the point of someone having a medical degree if they actively want patients dead? Doesn't that go against the entire purpose of being in the medical profession?

If not, what the hell does a doctor have to do be classified as a quack in your and Cal's opinion? Not kill people?

Am I the only one who can step back from the trees and see the forest?

I think somebody pulled Common Sense's feeding tube.