I can answer your question in two words: "no documentation". From every news source and research I have done trying to find out about this I have yet to find where Michael has produced any documentation that she said she never wanted to be in this shape. That is why the big buzz about living wills is going around now. The courts have said well if he said she said it then that is good enough for us. Since when does a court of law go by that? When did the rules change? I have been in two trials and believe me your word against anyone or nobody means nothing. For myself, it is all about the flat out no to any further investigation. There are too many questions that were left unanswered that could have been in the trial. It deserved a second look. It is not us conservative Christians who want to stick our nose in other people's lives. If there were not all of the uncertainity in this it would have been different. Michael is highly questionable still. Any other time, you liberals would be clamoring for more investigation. I bet you had no problem with the O.J. Simpson tiral did you?
how come the courts didn't consider it hearsay?
from the same doctor who took her bone scan. By the way, how many times must I prove you wrong about everything?
November 21, 2003, deposition
(excerpts) taken from Dr. Walker, a board-certified radiologist at Manatee Memorial Hospital. Dr. Walker is the doctor that prepared the bone-scan report from the image of Terri Schiavo taken on March 5, 1991.
15 Q What is a total-body bone scan used for
16 typically?
17 A It's to look for abnormalities of the
18 bone, whether they -- if they would be recent
19 abnormalities.
20 Q Recent --
21 A Recent.
22 Q -- abnormalities?
23 A Correct.
24 Q Is it also a technique to diagnose
25 osteoporosis?
1 A No.
3 Q And the next sentence, "There are an
4 extensive number of focal abnormal areas of nuclide
5 accumulation of intense type." What does that mean?
6 A Well, that means that there are a lot of
7 areas that look black on the images because lots of
8 that radioactive decaying material was happening at
9 those points and was being recorded by the imaging
10 system.
11 Q Okay. "These include multiple bilateral
12 ribs." What would that mean to you?
13 A Well, you know, there's left ribs and
14 right ribs. And that would mean that more than two
15 ribs on each side were involved.
13 Q "Several of the thoracic vertebral
14 bodies, the L1 vertebral body, both sacroiliac
15 joints." These are all areas that were abnormal on
16 the scan?
17 A That's what this indicates, yes.
18 Q "The distal right femoral diaphysis,"
19 what area of the body is that?
20 A That would be the right leg, the upper
21 part of the right leg.
22 Q Distal?
23 A Above the knee.
5 Q So on the thigh bone above the kneecap
6 but not involving the joint?
7 A That's what that particular thing says,
8 but I think somewhere in there also, it mentioned
9 that both knees --
10 Q Right. Right after that.
11 A Right after that. So that's different
12 from the knee activity.
13 Q And, "Both ankles, right greater than
14 left." Those are two additional areas that showed
15 up as abnormalities on the scan?
16 A That's correct. Correct.
13 Q Would you draw any conclusions from that
14 how old the ossification was?
15 A You could say that it wasn't real old,
16 because typically, as we mentioned, the bone is a
17 dynamic structure, and it's constantly being
18 remodeled normally. So the body tends to take away
19 extra bone eventually to remodel it to look like
20 normal bone. So typically old bone injuries are
21 remodeled so that eventually they may almost
22 disappear, particularly in young people. In the
23 very young, a fracture you won't even see in three
24 or four years, it will be totally erased.
8 Q Then you go on to say, "Most likely the
9 femoral periosteal reaction reflects a response to a
10 subperiosteal hemorrhage." Would that be a bone
11 bruise?
12 A Correct.
16 Q Then you go on to say, "And the activity
17 in L1 correlates perfectly with the compression
18 fracture which is presumably traumatic."
19 A That's what it says.
20 Q In other words, the x-ray confirmed the
21 L1 fracture?
22 A The x-ray shows an abnormality at L1
23 which happens to correspond with the abnormal bone
24 turnover on the bone scan at that point.
7 Q Is this compression fracture, then, in
8 common parlance, a broken back?
9 A Yes.
10 Q Is there any way to tell how old that
11 fracture would be?
12 A Well, as I've alluded to, the bone scan
13 gives some suggestion of that.
14 Q More recent rather than less recent?
15 A Correct. Typically in trauma the rule of
16 thumb is that a traumatic fracture is not active on
17 the bone scan after 12 to 18 months.
9 Q The report goes on to say, "The
10 presumption is that the other multiple areas of
11 abnormal activity also relate to previous trauma."
12 A That's what it says.
13 Q And, again, that's based on the fact that
14 Dr. Carnahan is a rehab physician, that you were
15 asked to evaluate for trauma?
16 A And the pattern of activity is fairly
17 typical of multiple traumatic injuries of relatively
18 recent origin.
19 Q I realize you can't assign a cause to
20 these injuries that you picked up in this report.
21 But typically in your experience, what would be the
22 causes of this pattern of abnormality?
23 A In somebody her age, an auto accident is
24 by far the most typical cause.
25 Q Assume that she was not in an auto
1 accident but that she had suffered an anoxic or
2 hypoxic encephalopathy type of injury from a cardiac
3 arrest and had been bedridden for a year at this
4 point. What might account for these abnormalities?
5 A In my knowledge, that type of injury
6 would not account for this pattern of abnormalities.
5 Q Okay. Is this a pattern of heterotrophic
6 ossification as reported in the literature that you
7 looked at?
8 A Not typically.
9 Q What makes it atypical?
10 A Well, if I were to pick one thing, I
11 would say the activity in the ribs is not typical.
12 And typically heterotrophic ossification occurs
13 around the joints because they're not being moved.
14 And typically you will see on the radiographs
15 calcium deposits actually sitting there. And they
16 don't look like periosteal reaction typically
17 either; they have a different appearance.
4 Q Can you say, then, within a reasonable
5 degree of medical certainty whether this bone scan
6 is consistent with heterotrophic ossification?
7 A In my knowledge, it's not consistent with
8 heterotrophic ossification as I typically see it.
21 Q Okay. And later on in your direct
22 examination you were saying that traumatic fractures
23 typically are not active on a bone scan after 12 to
24 18 months. Is that correct?
25 A That's correct.
19 Q Okay. Is there any way for you to say
20 from looking at this report when any of these
21 occurrences took place that caused the abnormality
22 to appear on the bone scan?
23 A I can only say that if they were
24 traumatic that they probably occurred within 18
25 months.
1 Q Is it possible that the abnormalities
2 that you noted on the right femoral diaphysis and
3 metaphysis could have occurred if the patient was
4 standing and suffered a cardiac arrest and fell to
5 the floor?
6 A Probably not. That wouldn't be a typical
7 mechanism of injury that would cause a periosteal
8 bruise. Typically you need a direct blow of some
9 kind. I suppose one could speculate that she fell
10 on a piece of furniture, that that could produce
11 that injury. But just typically falling on the
12 floor would not do that.
9 Q Okay. The bone scan and radiographic
10 report shows only one fracture. And that is a
11 compression fracture to L1. Correct?
12 A Well, I should clarify that by stating
13 that not all of the areas of bone-scan abnormality
14 were imaged concurrently. Okay. And that's
15 important. In other words, we didn't x-ray every
16 area that was hot on there. A couple of typical
17 areas were imaged but not all. Of those areas that
18 were imaged, the only area that showed what was a
19 clear fracture was L1.
2 Q The radiographs did not show any
3 fractures of the right femur. Correct?
4 A They don't show a typical fracture. They
5 show periosteal reaction, which could be the result
6 of a bone bruise, which is a bone injury that's not
7 a loss of continuity of the structure of the bone.
8 So to the extent that you define fracture as a loss
9 of structural continuity, then, yes, that is an
10 actual fracture as is typically described.
10 Q Okay. If an immobile patient is going
11 through physical therapy and part of the physical
12 therapy is to have manual manipulation of the legs,
13 particularly flexing of the knees, is it possible
14 that that physical therapy would result in an
15 abnormal appearance on a bone scan?
16 MS. ANDERSON: Objection. That question,
17 I think, is virtually unanswerable because it
18 is so vague.
19 A I could only speculate.
20 Q Okay. In your opinion, is that something
21 that would show up on a bone scan?
22 A I would think only if the joint were
23 injured would it show up on a bone scan. Just
24 simple manipulation of an injured part should not
25 show up as an abnormality on a bone scan.
22 Q Would a kick be the kind of direct blow
23 that would produce that femoral abnormality?
24 A That would be a possibility, yes.
25 Q Would being thrown into a sharp furniture
1 corner?
2 A That would be a possibility.
3 Q Would being struck with some sort of
4 blunt object like a golf club or something do it?
5 A Yes.
22 Q You mentioned that you have seen
23 fractures in bedridden patients before?
24 A Yes.
25 Q How frequently have you seen that?
1 A Rare.
2 Q It's rare?
3 A Yes.
for you kooka. This has a doctor, eye witnesses, everything you have been spewing in your agreement with Michael Schaivo. There is NO DOUBT that this man is suspicious. More should have been done in the investigation before the first trial. He tried to kill her; pure and simple.
Believe it or not I have medical knowledge. No degree or anything, btu I have taken some classes.
Terri's body would have been very much weakened by the malnutrition from her bulimia. Just hitting tripping over a rug could have broken her bones and show collapsed. A not too uncommon issue that comes from CPR is damaging bones due to the pressure being exhorted on the body. That is a reason you should not do CPR if you do not know what you are doing, because even the professionals cause injury when doing it. Also, since her body was brittle to begin with, any moving around done by paramedics to get her to the hospital could result in such injuries. If you wish to go and research the case itself you will find that all of this is right there for all to see if the read the legal aspects of the case, not the propaganda. The courts have already looked at all of this and professional Doctors have already showed that such injuries were very much likely to have been due to her poor nutritional state and all of the trauma around her accident and attempts at recovery. You od not let your body get that fragile and expect to not get harmed easily.
Do your homework. Investigators concluded beyond a shadow of a doubt that Michael Schiavo had nothing to do with Terri's heart attack and collapse from a potassium deficiency. To accuse him of murder is to bear false witness because you base your accusations on fabrications.
What's more, the courts have afforded the Schindlers extraordinary opportunities (even agreeing to hear an appeal after a statute of limitations had already expired) to refute the testimonial hearsay presented in Michael Schiavo's petition. The Schindlers couldn't even come up with anecdotal evidence to rebuff the three separate occassions when Terri expressed a desire to refuse treatment.
I can't understand why people like you insist on keeping Terri alive. I challenge you to provide ONE benefit Terri might realize from the mandated prolonging of her torturous existence.
Why do you subscribe to this "culture of torture?" After all, you worship an icon of torture. Your faith has a history of cruelty to animals. You symbolically drink blood and eat flesh on a weekly basis. And your faith threatens anyone who doesn't adhere with eternal death. Why are you so morbid?
Why can't you understand that Terri will find more benefit in the glory of God; as He has already called her by removing her ability to swallow? Why can't you understand that man has already defied God's will by shoving a tube through her navel just to sustain her flesh when God has already summoned her spirit?
What benefit does Terri realize by waking up every morning to stare through cold eyes at the same four walls, hoping that today will be the day that her nightmare ends? Why do you put your selfish desire to feel better about your righteousness above the comfort of the soul at the center of this maelstrom? I'll tell you why, because you're a shortsighted, self-centered, unthinking zealot with a religious agenda. And your exploitation of Terri Schiavo's condition is enough to gag a maggot.
DM
