[ Post a Response | Inclusion Daily Express Discussion Board ]
Posted by paul > Those on “my side” of the issue did use this medical record to level some rather vicious accusations >at Michael Schiavo. Medical opinion’s such Dr. Baras’ that say that the, "Patient is awake and eyes are open." "She does give eye contact to family members." Should be respected. Medical opinions, such as Dr. Baden’s, that suggest, “physical trauma, specifically a head injury, probably caused Mrs. Schiavo's collapse” should be respected. He is a board-certified forensic pathologist and medical doctor. Reports, from a qualified radiologist such as Dr. Waker should be repsected as well. This “respsect” is my belief, but I think it apparent that you do not share in my belief, and her is my primary point about your modus operandi. Later, when presented with more information and some medical history Dr. Baden concluded that the explaination of bulimia/hypokalemia was also possible. Others argued that the trauma that Terry presented was consistent with cardiac arrest, a fall, and the resulting CPR attempts and eventual resuscitation. Dr. Walker, who penned that report, stated during a deposition,”…we're peeking through the keyhole of the patient's clinical condition. So we tend to throw in a few other things that might be something to think about. “We don't attempt to be exhaustive because there is a list of probably 30 or 40 things that could cause abnormal bone scans of this wide nature.” When questioned the attorney prefaces a question with, “I realize you can't assign a cause to these injuries that you picked up in this report. But..” These injuries ‘could’ be signs of abuse, but Dr. Walker, a radiologist, concludes nothing definite from ‘his’ report, but you seem confident enough in your abilities to “use this medical record to level some rather vicious accusations at Michael Schiavo”. Steve, if you can explain to me how your, “25 years […] experience with investigative reports” gives you more credibility regarding a bone scan than a radiologist I am allllll ears! Steve, To be a “civilized” society we must decide the “due process” for our decisions that is NOT based on pre-determined outcomes . In these cases we take a collection of ‘qualified’ professionals and we decide BEFORE THE REPORTS, and OPINIONS are filed just how we are going to process and proceed to our final conclusion. We have NOT come this far by basing our decisions on our “individual” agreement or disagreement with an opinion, or OUTCOME of the due process. Either I get $200 dollars for passing go or I do not. This MUST be decided BEFORE we roll the dice, not when you get annoyed because I own Boardwalk and Park Place. Like they say, everything we ever needed to know in life we learned in Kindergarten. This is to what I refer when I said, “If we could perhaps establish our criteria for ‘accepting’ or ‘refuting’ this information, before it is posted, perhaps someone […] could find it in his or her heart to post the information for discussion.” That is, do I get $200 dollars for passing go or not? Since we already know what this report says, and I do not expect you to deviate from your M.O. I am now only being rhetorical, but ask you this. Will you or will you Not respect the medical examiners report (autopsy) when it arrives. I will. However, even though I have been respectful enough to read your post, follow your links, and read your reports - you have not answered any of my questions so I will not hold my breath here. I presume, that you are waiting to see if you “agree” with the autopsy before you deem it credible or not.
on April 20, 2005, 11:13 am, in reply to "Re: Report on Schiavo Finds No Abuse"
68.6.36.93
First, I believe that my words were a bit disrespectful to the point of flaming, and I wishto apologize to Steve.
The bone scan medical record from 1991 that you site did nothing more than report injuries and made no definate conclusions as to cause. The very report you site ends with, “Additionaly possibility would be neoplastic bone disease, widespread disseminated infectious bone disease, or multiple bone infections from abnormal hemoglobine.”
I have trouble with this simple fact.You chose only to present ‘selective’ facts(“history of trauma”), medical opinions, and information. The selectivity seems to be based on a simple M.O. If you agree with the opinion, report, or it leads to the outcome you desire it is “credible”, and this is my “precise” point.
A doctor is a board-certified forensic pathologist or not, and unless we can find negligence, AND articulate and prove that negligence, then ALL those opinions, not just the ones we like must be, presented and respected.
By respect I do not mean “agreement” and I encourage ALL to continue to argue the issue. But “respect” is not calling people abusers without more proof and suggesting that people should be ‘jailed’ simply for having different opinions.
Message Thread:
« Back to thread