Soxy Posted June 16, 2005 Author Share Posted June 16, 2005 QUOTE(FlaSoxxJim @ Jun 15, 2005 -> 02:05 PM) What about an exceptionally high dose of corticosteroids? I don't know, just guessing. Excellent guess! You're right, they cause you to execrete the K from the system (and also increase loss of Ca). Learn something everyday. (Thanks to my pharm textbook for this delectible fact.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soxy Posted June 16, 2005 Author Share Posted June 16, 2005 Frist weighs in... Frist: Schiavo Autopsy Results End Case By CONNIE CASS, Associated Press Writer 1 hour, 54 minutes ago WASHINGTON - Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, a surgeon who had questioned Terri Schiavo's diagnosis during the intense national debate on whether to remove her feeding tube, said the autopsy documenting her severe brain damage brings "a very sad chapter to a close." "She had devastating brain damage, and with that the chapter is closed," Frist said Thursday on ABC's "Good Morning America." Frist, R-Tenn., said he never made his own diagnosis but did argue there wasn't enough information about Schiavo's condition to justify allowing her husband to remove her feeding tube against her parents' wishes. "I raised the question, 'Is she in a persistent vegetative state or not?' I never made the diagnosis, never said that she was not. I did say that certain tests should be performed to determine that before starving her to death," Frist said in the interview. In March, Frist and other Republicans pushed through unprecedented emergency legislation, signed by President Bush, aimed at prolonging Schiavo's life by allowing the case to be reviewed by federal courts. But federal courts rejected the parents' request to have her feeding tube reinserted. Polls found a majority of Americans opposed to federal involvement and the issue contributed to a drop in approval ratings for the Republican-controlled Congress. Debating the emergency legislation on the Senate floor, Frist questioned the diagnosis of the court-appointed doctors, referring to video footage provided by her family that seemed to show Schiavo responding to people around her. "I question it based on a review of the video footage. ... And that footage, to me, depicted something very different than persistent vegetative state," Frist said at the time. Other doctors said her reactions were automatic responses and not evidence of consciousness. The autopsy by a medical examiner in Florida, released Wednesday, showed irreversible brain damage, consistent with a persistent vegetative state. "The diagnosis they made is exactly right. It's the pathology, I'll respect that. I think it's time to move on," Frist said on CBS' "The Early Show." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted June 16, 2005 Share Posted June 16, 2005 QUOTE(ChiSoxyGirl @ Jun 16, 2005 -> 08:51 AM) Frist weighs in... Frist, R-Tenn., said he never made his own diagnosis but did argue there wasn't enough information about Schiavo's condition to justify allowing her husband to remove her feeding tube against her parents' wishes. "I raised the question, 'Is she in a persistent vegetative state or not?' I never made the diagnosis, never said that she was not. I did say that certain tests should be performed to determine that before starving her to death," Frist said in the interview. Absolute 100% Bulls***. Pure Bulls***. Complete lie. Here's his speech on the Senate floor about the Schiavo bill. Persistent vegetative state, which is what the court has ruled -- I question it. I question it based on a review of the video footage which I spent an hour or so looking at last night in my office here in the Capitol. And that footage, to me, depicts something very different than persistent vegetative state. One of the classic textbooks that we use in medicine today is called "Harrison’s Principles of Internal Medicine." In the 16th edition, which was published just this year, 2005, on page 1625, it reads, "the vegetative state signifies an awake but unresponsive state. These patients have emerged from coma after a period of days or weeks to an unresponsive state in which the eyelids are open, giving the appearance of wakefulness." I'll stop quoting from the classic internal medicine textbook, but one last sentence, "in the closely related, minimally conscious state, the patient may make intermittent, rudimentary vocal and motor responses." I would simply ask, maybe she is a not in this vegetative state and she's in this minimally conscious state. In which case the diagnosis upon which this whole case has been based would be incorrect. Fifteen neurologists have signed affidavits that Terri should have additional testing by unbiased, independent neurologists. I'm told that Terri never had an MRI or a PET scan of her head. And that disturbs me only because it suggests that she hasn't been fully evaluated by today's standards. You don't have to have an MRI Scan or a PET scan to the diagnosis of a vegetative state. But if you are going to put somebody to death I would think you would want a complete neurological exam in reaching that conclusion. In a 1996 British medical journal study conducted at England’s Royal Hospital for Neurodisability concluded that there was a 43% error rate in the diagnosis of PVS. It takes a lot of time, as I mentioned earlier, to make this diagnosis with a very high error rate. If you're going to be causing somebody to die with purposeful action, you're not going to want to make a mistake in terms of the diagnosis. I mentioned that Terri's brother told me that Terri laughs, smiles, and tries to speak. Doesn't sound like a woman in persistent vegetative state. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YASNY Posted June 16, 2005 Share Posted June 16, 2005 QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Jun 16, 2005 -> 11:49 AM) Absolute 100% Bulls***. Pure Bulls***. Complete lie. Here's his speech on the Senate floor about the Schiavo bill. Where's the bulls***? He said he questioned the vegetative state. You quoted him questioning the vegetative state... in bold print. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steff Posted June 16, 2005 Share Posted June 16, 2005 QUOTE(YASNY @ Jun 16, 2005 -> 11:52 AM) Where's the bulls***? He said he questioned the vegetative state. You quoted him questioning the vegetative state... in bold print. He inferred a diagnosis at the end of his speech, but said today he didn't. Just guessing what Balta is calling bulls***. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YASNY Posted June 16, 2005 Share Posted June 16, 2005 QUOTE(Steff @ Jun 16, 2005 -> 11:55 AM) He inferred a diagnosis at the end of his speech, but said today he didn't. Just guessing what Balta is calling bulls***. Sorry. But I do not see a contradiction here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steff Posted June 16, 2005 Share Posted June 16, 2005 QUOTE(YASNY @ Jun 16, 2005 -> 11:57 AM) Sorry. But I do not see a contradiction here. Everyone has an opinion.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YASNY Posted June 16, 2005 Share Posted June 16, 2005 QUOTE(Steff @ Jun 16, 2005 -> 12:02 PM) Everyone has an opinion.. True. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted June 16, 2005 Share Posted June 16, 2005 I'm sorry, but i just can't see how a guy standing up, saying he's a doctor, and then saying "And that footage, to me, depicts something very different than persistent vegetative state" can be construed as anything other than making a diagnosis. But as you said, everyone has an opinion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YASNY Posted June 16, 2005 Share Posted June 16, 2005 (edited) QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Jun 16, 2005 -> 12:11 PM) I'm sorry, but i just can't see how a guy standing up, saying he's a doctor, and then saying "And that footage, to me, depicts something very different than persistent vegetative state" can be construed as anything other than making a diagnosis. But as you said, everyone has an opinion. It's making an opinion based on a video, not examining a patient and making an informed diagnosis. He stated that's what he was doing. That's like taking a video of you opening your mouth, saying ah, and sending to your dentist. Edited June 16, 2005 by YASNY Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted June 16, 2005 Share Posted June 16, 2005 Ok...I've got a better Frist one thanks to the The Center for American Progress Bill Frist on the Today show in an interview with Matt Lauer: LAUER: But when you stood on the floor and you said, She does respond, are you at all worried that you led some senators… FRIST: I never said, She responded. I said I reviewed the court videotapes – the same ones the other doctors reviewed – and I questioned, Is her diagnosis correct? And from the testimony above... She certainly seems to respond to visual stimuli… I have looked at the video footage. Based on the footage provided to me, which was part of the facts of the case, she does respond. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YASNY Posted June 16, 2005 Share Posted June 16, 2005 QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Jun 16, 2005 -> 12:20 PM) Ok...I've got a better Frist one thanks to the The Center for American Progress Bill Frist on the Today show in an interview with Matt Lauer: And from the testimony above... So what's changed? He is still basing everything on the video footage? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YASNY Posted June 16, 2005 Share Posted June 16, 2005 Ok folks .. enough fun for today .. I have to get some sleep. Later. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rex Kickass Posted June 16, 2005 Share Posted June 16, 2005 QUOTE(YASNY @ Jun 16, 2005 -> 12:15 PM) It's making an opinion based on a video, not examining a patient and making an informed diagnosis. He stated that's what he was doing. That's like taking a video of you opening your mouth, saying ah, and sending to your dentist. He did make law based on it. I guess that's better ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LowerCaseRepublican Posted June 16, 2005 Share Posted June 16, 2005 http://newclips.crooksandliars.com/Countdo...avo_autopsy.wmv Olbermann takes on the Shiavo autopsy. Lots of vid clips of some pretty nutty statements made by certain people and the Schindlers' attorney tries to spin the autopsy results -- the Schindlers are going to more doctors and are planning to sue again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Queen Prawn Posted June 16, 2005 Share Posted June 16, 2005 QUOTE(LowerCaseRepublican @ Jun 16, 2005 -> 12:49 PM) Olbermann takes on the Shiavo autopsy. Lots of vid clips of some pretty nutty statements made by certain people and the Schindlers' attorney tries to spin the autopsy results -- the Schindlers are going to more doctors and are planning to sue again. They need to let this go. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlaSoxxJim Posted June 16, 2005 Share Posted June 16, 2005 I particularly like Arianna Huffington's quips on Frist: Bill Frist may be a lousy Senate Majority Leader, but it seems that we’re all better off that he left medicine.... All indications are that Frist is planning to run for president in 2008. His best slogan might well be: “Send Me to the White House -- or I’m Going Back to Medicine.” Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jackie hayes Posted June 16, 2005 Share Posted June 16, 2005 QUOTE(YASNY @ Jun 16, 2005 -> 05:22 PM) So what's changed? He is still basing everything on the video footage? Frist didn't say, 'I said she responds, but only based on the video tape.' He said, "I never said, She responded." He did say that, whatever it was based on. Which makes it a lie. Frist seems to be making the argument that merely by saying 'In my opinion', or 'Based on my viewing of the tape', his statements were essentially never made. Bs, he did say those things, and if the source (or his knowledge, since he has no expertise about the brain) wasn't sufficient to back up his statements, it's his fault for saying anything. This caviling makes Kerry's I-voted-for-the-bill-before-voting-against-it sound wholly convincing by comparison. Frist is slime, I pray this comes back to bite him in the ass in some future election. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steff Posted June 16, 2005 Share Posted June 16, 2005 QUOTE(Queen Prawn @ Jun 16, 2005 -> 12:51 PM) They need to let this go. Or at least keep it out of the press. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YASNY Posted June 17, 2005 Share Posted June 17, 2005 QUOTE(jackie hayes @ Jun 16, 2005 -> 01:32 PM) Frist didn't say, 'I said she responds, but only based on the video tape.' He said, "I never said, She responded." He did say that, whatever it was based on. Which makes it a lie. Frist seems to be making the argument that merely by saying 'In my opinion', or 'Based on my viewing of the tape', his statements were essentially never made. Bs, he did say those things, and if the source (or his knowledge, since he has no expertise about the brain) wasn't sufficient to back up his statements, it's his fault for saying anything. This caviling makes Kerry's I-voted-for-the-bill-before-voting-against-it sound wholly convincing by comparison. Frist is slime, I pray this comes back to bite him in the ass in some future election. Show me again where he said that she was responsive ... in the complete and proper context. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jackie hayes Posted June 17, 2005 Share Posted June 17, 2005 QUOTE(YASNY @ Jun 17, 2005 -> 11:30 AM) Show me again where he said that she was responsive ... in the complete and proper context. Balta already gave you that. "Based on the footage provided to me, which was part of the facts of the case, she does respond." The full quote: Mr. President, I will be very brief. This is an opportunity to talk to a number of my colleagues. As most people know, this is coming to the floor very quickly. And the real, fundamental reason is, if we do not act, there is a good chance that a living human being would be starved to death in a matter of days. That is why the action now. That is why we are, not rushing things, but deliberating quickly, so we can get it to the House of Representatives. She will be starved to death next Friday. I have had the opportunity to look at the video footage upon which the initial facts of this case were based. And from my standpoint as a physician, I would be very careful before I would come to the floor and say this, that the facts upon which this case were based are inadequate. To be able to make a diagnosis of persistent vegetative state--which is not brain dead; it is not coma; it is a specific diagnosis and typically takes multiple examinations over a period of time because you are looking for responsiveness--I have looked at the video footage. Based on the footage provided to me, which was part of the facts of the case, she does respond. That being the case, and also recognizing she has not had a complete neurological exam by today's standards--allegedly, she has not had a PET scan or MRI scan; not that those are definitive, but before you let somebody die, before you starve somebody to death, you want a complete exam and a good set of the facts of the case upon which to make that decision. All we are saying today is, do not starve her to death now--forever, I would argue--but establish the facts based on medical science today, and then make a determination in the future. That is what we will accomplish with passage of this bill. Balta did NOT take it out of context. Frist said, "she does respond". Yes, it is "based on the footage". Which doesn't change anything. Whatever the basis, he still made the statement. If the footage wasn't adequate evidence, then he shouldn't have said anything. Since he did, he should be held accountable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YASNY Posted June 17, 2005 Share Posted June 17, 2005 I don't f***ing believe what I'm reading. It's stated over and over throughout this thread that Frist said he based everything on what he saw on a video tape. That is not a diagnosis. Yet, you want to hold him accountable because he gave a diagnosis. You know what? You guys enjoy yourselves. I'm out of this ridiculous conversation. I've had all the political rhetoric and spin I can take. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jackie hayes Posted June 17, 2005 Share Posted June 17, 2005 I never used the word "diagnosis" and I don't care how it's labelled. He stated that she responds, he now claims that he never said anything like that. Diagnosis or not, that's just a lie. I'm not the one "spinning" here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted June 17, 2005 Share Posted June 17, 2005 He should have just called her a Nazi... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rex Kickass Posted June 17, 2005 Share Posted June 17, 2005 Governor Jeb Bush is now asking Michael Schiavo to be investigated because he wants to know why it took him so long to call 911 when she collapsed. Why won't people let this go? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.