Am Not, You Are! - Clear Thinking in a Non-Thinking Age

An interesting comment in yesterday's New York Times article, A Diagnosis With a Dose of Religion (reg. req'd), provides an excellent case study in the art of critical thinking - or the lack thereof. The article sets out to debunk an affidavit by Dr. William Cheshire who argues that the diagnosis of Terri Schiavo is in a persistent vegetative state is faulty.

The reporters' quote Dr. Ronald Cranford, a University of Minnesota Medical School neurologist and medical ethicist, who has examined Terri for the Florida courts. Dr. Cranford says, "I have no idea who this Cheshire is," and then added: "He has to be bogus, a pro-life fanatic. You'll not find any credible neurologist or neurosurgeon to get involved at this point and say she's not vegetative."

Dr. Cranford, who admits he does not know Dr. Cheshire, nevertheless dismisses Cheshire's arguments as "bogus", "pro-life", and fanatical. After all, no "credible neurologist or neurosurgeon" would advise Terri is not "vegetative." In other words, you are only "credible" if your diagnosis agrees with Cranford's. No mention of why Cheshire's reasons may be wrong. In fact, no mention that Cranford has even read the affidavit.

Actually, there are many that do question Cranford's diagnosis as was documented by the Reverend Robert Johansen in a National Review Online article. Johansen provides names of neurologist's like Dr. Peter Morin and Dr. Thomas Zabiega. But I digress.

Who is Dr. Cranford.

• He is a right-to-die activist.
• He advocates starving those with severe brain damage including Alzheimer's.
• He is a Board of Choice in Dying, a right-to-die organization and has written numerous articles.
• And according to attorney Wesley Smith, Dr. Cranford believed "Robert Wendland should die so that his family can 'be allowed to live their lives.'"
  

If it is bogus and non-credible to be pro-life then, by implication, one must be pro-death to be credible. If pro-life is not credible then guess what you won't find even if it exists? That's right, a severely brain-damaged person who is in a non-vegetative state.

An MRI would verify the accuracy of Cranford’s diagnosis but that has not been done. Cranford, according to other neurologists, has made a diagnosis without the proper evidence. But Cranford did not do that. Why? Could it be that Cranford knows an MRI would show that Terri is not in a persistent vegatative state and so should not be killed thereby obstructing his pro-death views?

Dr. Cranford is pro-death. A diagnosis without evidence would be bogus. Insistence on that diagnosis and using ad homenim attacks to defend it would be fanatical. It sounds like Dr. Cranford is a bogus, pro-death fanatic.

The proper medical tests would reveal where the fanaticism lies. Dr. Cranford doesn’t want those tests. Dr. Chesire and others do.

When a life hangs in the balance don’t you want to make absolutely sure the diagnosis is correct?