The New York Times sought out Dr. Ronald Cranford, the University of Minnesota neurologist who examined Terri Schiavo for Judge Greer, and who apparently did not order a MRI or a PET scan of Teri Schiavo as part of his diagnosis --a gap that has stunned other neurologists who have commented on the case. Rather than respond to Dr. Chesire's affidavit, Dr. Cranford lashes out in the predictable fashion of a man of the left: "I have no idea who this Cheshire is," and 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."
In response, I can say that if Dr. Cranford is quoted accurately here, by making that statement he raises serious concern about his reliability as an expert. For 20 years as a lawyer assisting hospitals in complex medical quality peer review matters involving outside experts, I have worked with some of the finest medical expert reviewers in the world. None of them has ever attacked another expert in the manner Dr. Cranford attacks Dr. Cheshire. Instead, a truly professional expert sticks to the medical facts of a given patient's case. It's what is in the patient's chart that matters. Period.
I am not offended on Dr. Cheshire's behalf; I am simply saying that if I engaged an expert and he responded the way Dr. Cranford has, I'd be thinking about getting another expert because Cranford's credibility would be shot-- at least with me. He is not behaving the way a top-notch expert reviewer does.
I have a Boy Scout camping trip today so blogging will be not only light today, but impossible after a few more minutes. I hope this works out with some semblance of decency and humanity.