The Popes casket.

[George]

Yep, or what purported to be. Showed fluid where the brain used to be.

I see blood intruding in MRI/CT fairly often, so if they were hers, she was bad off.

[George]

Was teaching a class of EMTs-to-be one night and used evolution of the organ to help understand the brain and the sites for various functions. Had a couple of sour-lookers out in the class, so I checked with some of the others. SDAs apparently don't accept evolution. Stem is really the first electrical center, and takes care of almost all autonomic functions. Somatic higher, then some senses and sensibility on top.

When I gave the evolution of the mammalian heart as a key to understanding the various electrical paths, they looked sour again, but the rest said it made things easier to understand....

[Kenneth]

Howdy,

I am a psychologist by trade, and often teach folks certain aspects of Freud's theories. I start by explaining that theories are best understood as "tools" rather than "truths", and, as such, should be assessed in terms of their utility rather than their veracity.

When someone tells me that they don't "accept" Freud (or as in your example, "evolution") I hear it as if they had told me that they don't accept "chisels" or "glue." (Whew, with that, we are back On Topic.)

All the best,

[fredfighter]

Who are SDAa?

[George E. Cawthon]

Can't help but add a comment. There is no chance the autopsy will prove anything one way or the other. Looking at a dead brain won't provide any of the sought after information. That was expressed by experts before she died. Besides our science has not progressed far enough to look at a dead brain and tell how it functioned while living.

Brain dead all depends on your definition. Her autonomic system was functioning, so in one sense she wasn't brain dead. But most people also use brain dead for failure of the cognitive functions and the cognitive function was the focus of the controversy in this case.

[Edwin Pawlowski]

Seventh Day Adventists

[fredfighter]

Thanks. I have a friend (probably more than one) who is a Seventh Day Adventist. He's also the only person I know who lost his job because of 'drug screening'.

[fredfighter]

Some people don't accept chisels or glue, or don't accept particular chisels or particular glues, meaning that they won't use them, consider them to be unsuitable for a particular job, or have some other material or philosphical objection.

Which I daresay is a perfect extension of your analogy.

In Science, which may or may not include psychology, I have had correspondence from psychologists who deny that psychology is a Science, a theory is useful if it may be used to generate testable hypotheses. Scientists 'believe in' theories whose predictions are then confirmed by subsequent experimentation or observation.

This is where Religion usually parts from Science. Most of the hypotheses generated by Religions are untestable, or when tested, the outcome is unobservable by the living.

[Kenneth]

Well, no...

They may indeed choose not to use them, but that is rather different from "acceptance" and that was precisely my point.

All the best,

[Duane Bozarth]

...

At least what were purported to be on one of the networks--I don't recall which one, but w/ commentary by a neurologist who (if I got the credits correct) had examined her case earlier. To me, assuming they were both genuine and not doctored (so to speak) and I have no reason to think they were, it didn't even take an expert to see there was functioning brain mass of any consequence remaining--the cranial area was mostly solid indicating fluid, not brain tissue.

[George E. Cawthon]

Whoa! You mean people have logical minds? Could have fooled me.

[Doug Miller]

Clarification: they are functions of a *living* brain stem.

-- Regards, Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

Nobody ever left footprints in the sands of time by sitting on his butt. And who wants to leave buttprints in the sands of time?

[Doug Miller]

However, Mike Schiavo didn't make known his recollection of that conversation until some years after it was alleged to have taken place. During the first several years of her disability, he apparently never thought to mention that to anyone. That, combined with his apparent financial interest in her demise, perhaps should have raised a bit more skepticism with the court than it did.

-- Regards, Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

Nobody ever left footprints in the sands of time by sitting on his butt. And who wants to leave buttprints in the sands of time?

[Doug Miller]

rely on what other people say. And according to the Schindlers, their doctors say it's not as bad as the Schiavo's doctors say it is.

-- Regards, Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

Nobody ever left footprints in the sands of time by sitting on his butt. And who wants to leave buttprints in the sands of time?

[firstjois]

Students for Democratic Action?

See:

"Double pith a frog. There are several ways to do this. Firmly grasping the frog in one hand, quickly push a sharp metal probe through the skin from the back of the neck up into the brain. move the pointer tip around in the brain to destroy it. This is then a single pithed frog, one in which all higher brain function has been destroyed. Then, you can take the pointer and insert it into the spinal column and push it down until the legs extend and then relax. This is then a double pithed frog, one in which both higher brain function and reflex function is destroyed. The pointer should be long enough to reach the end of the spinal column, and should be easy to insert. If it is not easy, then the probe is probably outside the column."

The brain is a multipart organ and what the person is or isn't can or can't do depends on the area damaged.

Makes me wonder that our congresspeople did in high school biology.

Josie

[fredfighter]

No. I rely on the commentary on the imagery and observe the extent to which that commentary agrees with the image itself and in how much detail. On the links I provided, the fellow who calls himself a radiologist makes some observationas that call into question whether or not that is really her scan (the shunt). Otherwise, his comments are pretty general. The guy writing at the first link (my own prior article hasn't shown up yet on google so this is from memory) where there is a comparison with a healthy brain, goes into detail about the apparent condition of the remaining tissue. The radiologist simply indicates how much is there.

Again, the extent of the void is NOT conjecture.

My experience with imagery of the brain has been that a radiologist interprets the imagery in terms of the structures that are revealed, a neurologist then interprets that report in terms of functionality.

Contrary to what you see on TV, I think you'll find that most doctors do not look at the films until they show them to the patient or family. OTOH, few radilogists interact with the patient beyond injecting them with dyes as needed and telling them to hold still.

It may well be that the Schindler's doctor doesn't think the condition is as bad as the Schiavo's doctor does. By itself, that tells us nothing. I expect both parties to be able to get expert testimony to favor their viewpoint in court.

[George E. Cawthon]

And you base your opinion on what the Schindlers want/think? It should be quite obvious to any observant person that the Schindlers are in full denial. They think all the doctors, who know much more and had more experience than they do, are wrong. I guess that makes you in full denial also.

[Doug Miller]

It may well be that they are in denial. It may also be that they're right. Unless you've been intimately involved with the case, it's just a mite presumptuous of you to state so boldly that it's "quite obvious" which is which. I'm just wondering who would have been harmed by keeping the woman alive a little longer... what purpose was served by starving her to death?

-- Regards, Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

Nobody ever left footprints in the sands of time by sitting on his butt. And who wants to leave buttprints in the sands of time?

[fredfighter]

,

"A little longer", no harm or at worst only a very little bit of harm. But her body had been kept alive for 15 years after the fatal injury to her brain and nearly ten years after the lawyers got involved. That is way beyond "a little longer".

[fredfighter]

If they have a philosophical objection, as opposed to a practical one it's pretty much analogous to rejecting evolution on religious grounds, no? (e.g. Roy Underhill autographed a book for me with "Just say no to power tools." A vegan might not use hide glue, and so on.

If they have a practical objection then it is pretty much analogous to rejecting Freud's theories on Scientific grounds, no?