Home  |  About  |  Contact  |  Site map

« BREAKING NEWS: DCF DECLINES TO TAKE ACTION | Main | DCA Says No, Lawmakers Prepare to Save Schiavo »

Life Issues: March 16, 2005

Why Hasn’t an MRI been done for Terri?

Fr. Rob Johansen (Thrown Back) has written an exception article that appeared today in the National Review. He completely erodes the medical arguments behind assertions that Terri Schiavo is in a persistent vegetative state (PVS) and that her brain has been liquified. What is utterly amazing is that she faces a judicial sentence of death via starvation beginning this Friday on the basis of a mythical medical diagnosis.

Here is what Fr. Johansen has to say (all emphasis mine):

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.” -

[more]


[HT: BlogsforTerri, see Captain's Quarters for more information]

Cross-Posted at ProLifeBlogs

Posted by tim at March 16, 2005 10:55 PM




Articles Related to Life Issues:

Comments

When people CAUSE others to lose their life, it is murder. Society has drifted of into a broad debate about what is alive and what isn't. The whole thing is ridiculous. I think they think if they question the validity of life long enough and say that they are right long enough, someone will believe them. It reeks.

The husband is clearly on a hell-bent fury to have his wife killed. Why? Because he gets to keep all that money. If he divorces her, then Terri's parents will have control of it. If Terri dies, he will get to keep the money and be a widower. No strings. As usual, it boils down to money. Who knew?

However, I think the US and the media and all you bloggers out there, have done spectacular at getting the word out and awareness up.

Praise God. Even Congress has listened, opting to sign into law a bill the Monday after Easter, when they were supposed to be on 2 week holiday. So, at least, our conservative leaders are doing what we hired them to do: protect life and liberty. There is still some of that left here in America. Thank God!

Posted by: Annie at March 20, 2005 10:38 AM

Terri HAS had an MRI:

7/24/1990
MRI Report Dr. Pinkston
Profound atrophy w/ very atrophic appearing cortex. Mild white matter disease, anoxic/hpoxic injury

Posted by: margie at March 21, 2005 5:46 AM

Well, let's see, if Terri's feeding tube needs to be removed, than maybe, just maybe, we ought to remove everyone's feeding tube that is deemed an unworthy recipient of life. Yeah, let us all starve everyone who is on a feeding tube....:o(

Posted by: Annie at March 21, 2005 12:36 PM

yo soy de colombia,,,y mi opinon acerca de esa mujer es que la desconecten no se da cuenta que esta sufriendo???' que le estan haciendo daño a ella??' y a su marido....esa es mi opinion

Posted by: lissette at March 22, 2005 11:38 AM

1) What would a MRI reveal that a CT scan didn't?

2) Why did none of the five doctors who's examination of Terri was entered into evidence, including those of the Schindlers, ask for an MRI??

3) Why do you not mention the fact that Terri would require surgery to remove the probes that currently sit in her brain in order for an MRI to proceed?

Posted by: mgd at March 28, 2005 2:34 PM

I've been doing a lot of reading about the Terri Schiavo case - right, left, and center - and I'm amazed at the number of things that Johansen omits or chooses to mis-state in the National Review. It should be noted that his piece is an editorial - an opinion - not news reporting. I'm disappointed that a respected periodical such as the National Review does not post a disclaimer about Johansen's piece. For a refutation of the article, with links to sources, you might want to read:


http://www.amptoons.com/blog/archives/2005/03/26/lies-about-terri-schiavo-in-the-national-review


For those who want an even-handed approach to the Terri Shiavo saga in all of its facets, the following is highly recommended:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schiavo


The wikipedia webpage has links to all the major subjects that touch upon this case from across the political spectrum. It is VERY readable. Wikipedia policy is that all articles should be written from a neutral point of view; while not perfect it's pretty dang good, definitely the class of all that's been written on the internet.


Finally, one last website, by a lawyer knowledgeable about Florida law and the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, written to help folks understand the legal aspects of the Terri Shiavo case. Regardless of what one thinks about lawyers, the author of this page gives clear, objective explanations of the events. He's not interested in taking "sides"; he's trying to clarify the events. Truly, he's done a great job. Make sure you check out the Rough Timeline and Decisions (from 1990 to the present) with links to many of the actual judicial decisions:


http://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/infopage.html


Here's an example of the author's clear explanation of an oft-asked question that so many seem not to understand:


Why did Terri’s husband get to make the decision about whether she should live or die?


Michael Schiavo did not make the decision to discontinue life-prolonging measures for Terri.


As Terri's husband, Michael has been her guardian and her surrogate decision-maker. By 1998, though -- eight years after the trauma that produced Terri's situation -- Michael and Terri's parents disagreed over the proper course for her.


Rather than make the decision himself, Michael followed a procedure permitted by Florida courts by which a surrogate such as Michael can petition a court, asking the court to act as the ward's surrogate and determine what the ward would decide to do. Michael did this, and based on statements Terri made to him and others, he took the position that Terri would not wish to continue life-prolonging measures. The Schindlers took the position that Terri would continue life-prolonging measures. Under this procedure, the trial court becomes the surrogate decision-maker, and that is what happened in this case.


The trial court in this case held a trial on the dispute. Both sides were given opportunities to present their views and the evidence supporting those views. Afterwards, the trial court determined that, even applying the "clear and convincing evidence" standard -- the highest burden of proof used in civil cases -- the evidence showed that Terri would not wish to continue life-prolonging measures.

Posted by: Peter at March 28, 2005 7:57 PM






Categories


Recent Entries

Most Popular



Subscribe

Add to Yahoo
Subscribe to MyMSN
Add to Newsgator
add to pluck
Subscribe in AOL
Add to Rojo
Subscribe in Bloglines
Subscribe to Feedster
Subscribe with Netvibes
Subscribe with Fusion
subscribe
Subscribe to NewsIsFree


Archives


Helpful Sites