Schiavo Thread Part the Third

[GePap]

Luckly there wil be an autopsy once she dies, just to shut the wackos up.

[Drake Tungsten]

An autopsy is going to do a whole hell of a lot in determining her current cognitive capacity or how she wished to be treated in this situation, isn't it?

[GePap]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
An autopsy is going to do a whole hell of a lot in determining her current cognitive capacity or how she wished to be treated in this situation, isn't it?

It will do a great job of exposing the true extent of her brain damage in order to show those *****ing that she was certainly in a PVS, plus it will be used against the trully despicable, like Terry randall, or Ned, who claim she was abused.

[Drake Tungsten]

PVS is a subjective diagnosis. An autopsy will let us know the true extent of her brain damage was, but it will do nothing to reveal whether she was in a PVS or not. Hard to subjectively judge her responses to external stimuli when she's dead...

[GePap]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
PVS is a subjective diagnosis. An autopsy will let us know the true extent of her brain damage was, but it will do nothing to reveal whether she was in a PVS or not. Hard to subjectively judge her responses to external stimuli when she's dead...

So explain why you were *****ing about a MRI not being conducted? Would an MRI have discovered what you now call subjective???

/me presents a wonderful case of flip-flopping, courtesy of Drake.

[Drake Tungsten]

An MRI (or PET) would've let us know the true extent of her brain damage before she died. Doesn't do much to help her condition if we don't get that information until she's dead, does it?

And I never claimed an MRI would have any bearing on the debate over whether she's in a PVS or not.

[GePap]

Whatever.

I love how complete medical noobs have all of a sudden become experts.

The autopsy will determine the extent of her brain damage and show just what chance of recovery there ever was. From your response, obviously being proven wrong by the direct evidence will do nothing. Well, what more could be expected?

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
An MRI (or PET) would've let us know the true extent of her brain damage before she died.

If you look at her CAT scan and the cat scan of a normal person, there is no doubt in the viewers mind that the majority of her brain is gone. Your blathering about this is really stupid, and I genuinely mean that. Anyone with a modecum of medical knowledge can look at her CAT scan and say, there's no brain there. A PET or MRI cannot show greater detail of something that doesn't exist.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
PVS is a subjective diagnosis.

No it isn't.

[Drake Tungsten]

I love how complete medical noobs have all of a sudden become experts.

I fail to see how wanting a quailty brain scan to be performed on the woman equates to me pretending to be an expert...

The autopsy will determine the extent of her brain damage and show just what chance of recovery there ever was.

Chance of recovery is irrelevant to the issue at hand, at least when using the standard set by the Cruzan case. The two relevant factors are whether she is an a PVS now and whether it is clear that she would wish to be killed in this situation. The latter is more in question than the former, IMO at least, but neither is completely settled.

No it isn't.

Yes, it is.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

I love how complete medical noobs have all of a sudden become experts.

I fail to see how wanting a quailty brain scan to be performed on the woman equates to me pretending to be an expert.

A quality scan was performed. You just latched on to something you think makes you look smart, but only makes you look like a complete tool.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

No it isn't.

Yes, it is.

Then everything medical is subjective.

[Drake Tungsten]

Then everything medical is subjective.

Sure it is, che.

[chequita guevara]

Then a PVS isn't a subjective definition. This is one of those things that doctors can know with pretty much certainty. There isn't a lot of debate about it, except when you get doctors who put politics or sliminess before the truth, like one of the Schindler's doctors who claimed he was a Noble Prize winner. When an EEG show no brain activity for that part of the brain, and when any of the internal imaging technologies shows the organ is missing, there is no subjectiveness to the diagnosis. You just want to play poltiics, and so you're grasping at things that sound smart but show you as a fool.

[Drake Tungsten]

It's a judgement on whether a person has any cognitive function or not. Unless you can point me to the test for cognitive function, it's obviously a subjective diagnosis. Note "diagnosis", not "definition"...