Misdiagnosis of Terri Schiavo exposed on Hannity & Colmes
Michael Schiavo's abusive behavior also revealed
March 23, 2005
RenewAmerica staff
On Tuesday's Hannity & Colmes, testimony was featured that disproves claims that Terri Schiavo is in a Persistent Vegetative State (PVS).
The program also revealed that Terri's husband, Michael Schiavo, has been abusive and irresponsible in his guardianship of Terri.
Read for yourself. A transcript follows.
Featured are Dr. Ronald Cranford, a leading euthanasia advocate who pronounced Terri to be PVS after only superficial examination, and two nurses who are familiar with Terri's actual condition.
Hannity & Colmes
March 22, 2005
GUEST: Dr. Ronald Cranford, neurologist who diagnosed Terri Schiavo as PVS (Michael Schiavo’s medical witness)
ALAN COLMES, CO-HOST: First, the clock is ticking for Terri Schiavo. It has been four days since the brain-damaged woman’s feeding tube was removed. Doctors continue to debate whether or not she could be rehabilitated. Is there any chance she could make a full recovery?
Joining us now is Dr. Ronald Cranford, a neurologist and ethicist at Hennepin County Medical Center. He examined Terri Schiavo, and testified on behalf of her husband, Michael. Dr. Cranford, thank you for being with us.
DR. RONALD CRANFORD, NEUROLOGIST: You’re welcome.
COLMES: I appreciate it. Last night, we had on Bill Hammesfahr, another doctor claiming to be a Nobel Prize nominee who examined her. And here’s what he had to say about you. I want to get your reaction.
DR. CRANFORD: Well, first of all, there have been eight neurologist who have examined Terri over the years, from 1990 to 2002. There were four attending neurologists caring for Terri Schiavo. They all said she was in a Persistent Vegetative State.
At the evidentiary hearing in 2002- -which was the longest evidentiary hearing on a medical condition in a right-to-die case ever; 6 days- -there were three neurologists, including myself, who said she was in a Persistent Vegetative State. There was only one doctor who said she was not in a vegetative state, and that is Dr. Hammesfahr, and the judge discredited everything he said.
So, I think the record is very clear that seven of eight neurologists who have seen her have said she is in a Persistent Vegetative State. And that’s what the court found, after extensive evidentiary hearing, after reviewing all the tapes. The court of appeals reviewed all the expert testimony, and they said she was in a vegetative state. So, I think we stand on the record.
The fact is that when I did the tape, she did look at the balloon for a few seconds. I was talking to her like I normally do to any patient.
SEAN HANNITY, CO-HOST: Mr. Cranford? It’s Sean Hannity. Isn’t it true you only examined her once, for forty-five minutes, sir?
CRANFORD: Yes.
HANNITY: OK. Because the attorney for the family has affidavits, sir, from thirty-three different medical personnel that have very different opinions than yours, sir. And similarly, a British medical journal in 1996 found out that 43% of the time, patients in permanent vegetative state are often misdiagnosed.
CRANFORD: Yes.
HANNITY: Isn’t it a possibility- -wouldn’t we be better served by having at least a couple more definitive opinions before she dies, sir?
CRANFORD: This is the longest evidentiary hearing- -it was the longest right-to-die case in the history of American law. She has a CAT scan that shows noth(ing) . . .
HANNITY: So, then a few more weeks wouldn’t really matter, would it? A few more months wouldn’t really matter, if that’s what it takes to know 1000% for sure? Considering this ambiguity, wouldn’t it be in the best interest of justice, sir, to wait until we knew definitively?
CRANFORD: There is no ambiguity about the diagnosis. She had an EG which is flat.
HANNITY: There are thirty-three professionals who disagree with you, sir.
CRANFORD: No, those are affidavits.
HANNITY: You only saw her once. You only saw this woman once for forty-five minutes.
CRANFORD: All right. And the judge accept(ed) . . .
HANNITY: And let me just show a tape, by the way. Here’s a tape of you moving the red balloon over Terri Schiavo.
CRANFORD: Right.
HANNITY: And you’re quoted on the tape saying, “Hey, good, Terri! I see you’re following that.” Did you not say that to Terri? Why would you say, “Good! I see you’re following that,” if she is in a vegetative state?
CRANFORD: Because, when I examine vegetative [patients], I always communicate with them as if they are conscious. That’s a routine examination that I do. And I thought she did follow it for a few seconds, but she didn’t have sustained visual pursuit, which is a hallmark of being outside the vegetative state.
HANNITY: So, you talk to people who are in vegetative states. OK.
Now, let me ask you a question. My brother-in-law is one of the best radiologists in the country. This woman has never had an MRI? This woman has never had a PET scan?
CRANFORD: Right.
HANNITY: Don’t you think just for certainty purposes we ought to go forward with that, sir?
CRANFORD: Well, number one, she cannot have an MRI because she has intrathalamic stimulator in her head, so it’s contraindicated.
HANNITY: But you can remove it. Her doctor recommended removing that, sir. Isn’t that true?
CRANFORD: Fine.
Number two, an MRI isn’t going to show any more than the CAT scan, because in this situation with severe brain damage, an MRI won’t show anything more than a CAT scan would.
HANNITY: That’s not what my brother-in-law says.
CRANFORD: Well, your brother-in-law is just flat-out wrong, because this CAT scan shows massive damage. An MRI isn’t going to show any more than that, and a PET scan . . .
HANNITY: I have one last question.
CRANFORD: Sure.
HANNITY: Did you once say that people in vegetative states should have no constitutional rights? Did you once, sir, say that patients with advance Alzheimer’s disease, “It makes no sense at to put a feeding tube in them”? Did you say those things?
CRANFORD: I think I did write an article on constitutional rights, many years ago, with another constitutional scholar about constitutional rights and vegetative states . . .
HANNITY: But you said it.
CRANFORD: Yes. Yes, I did.
HANNITY: For people with Alzheimer’s disease, sir, it makes no sense at all to put a feeding tube in them, and that people in a vegetative state have no constitutional rights- -you said those things?
CRANFORD: Those are two things. With the second thing, with the advanced Alzheimer’s, if it’s advanced Alzheimer’s, it doesn’t make sense to put a feeding tube in them, because if they can’t get to the point where they need a feeding tube, they are so severely diminished, the . . .
COLMES: All right, Dr. Cranford, we thank you very much for your time tonight.
Hannity & Colmes
March 22, 2005
GUESTS: Carla Sauer-Iyer, nurse who treated Terri Schiavo from 1995-1996; Cheryl Ford, nurse
- -you took care of Terri for how long? About almost a year and a half, right?
CARLA SAUER-IYER: A year and a half.
HANNITY: And Cheryl Ford is a nurse. You have reviewed all the complete records, the medical records, of her.
I want to start with you, Carla, because you signed an affidavit in this case, and I want to go through some of the things you said in your affidavit.
SAUER-IYER: OK.
HANNITY: You said that Terri would often speak. You heard her on a number of occasions. She would communicate. She was conscious with you.
SAUER-IYER: Yes. She was reactive to her environment, to herself, and to other people. We would even have Terri sitting at the nurses’ station. She was interacting with the visitors and the staff.
HANNITY: How long have you been a nurse?
SAUER-IYER: Since 1993, I was an LPN, then I became an RN.
HANNITY: You’re a registered nurse now?
SAUER-IYER: Yes.
HANNITY: And you are not friends with the family in any way?
SAUER-IYER: No. No. Not at all.
HANNITY: You came out on your own volition. You said, “I wanted to speak out on what I saw, having worked with her for so long”?
SAUER-IYER: Yes.
HANNITY: You said that Michael was a bully to the staff. You said, quote, “Michael had about Terri, quote, ‘When is she going to die? Has she died yet? When is that”- -and used that B-I-T-*-* word- -“going to die? When is the b**** going to die?”
SAUER-IYER: Yes.
HANNITY: You heard him say that with your own ears?
SAUER-IYER: I heard him say that with my very own ears. Yes. He was very intimidating to the staff. “Follow my orders, and not the doctors’.”
HANNITY: He even said, “Can’t you do anything to accelerate her death?” Did other people hear him say these things?
SAUER-IYER: He would say it in front of visitors, staff. It doesn’t matter [who].
HANNITY: Wow.
SAUER-IYER: There’s no difference from what’s going on then to what’s going on now.
HANNITY: You said he talked about, you know, getting rich off this- -buying new cars and taking trips to Europe, and other things. What would he say?
SAUER-IYER: He would say, you know, “When is she going to die? What can you do to accelerate her death?”
HANNITY: You just heard the statement of Michael Schiavo’s attorney, and they came out against you today in a pretty hard way. They wanted to attack you. One of the things you said in a sworn affidavit- -which, by the way, that would be perjury [if untrue].
SAUER-IYER: Correct.
HANNITY: You did this under oath, before witnesses. You signed this affidavit.
SAUER-IYER: Yes.
HANNITY: You pointed out that every time that Michael Schiavo came to visit Terri, you would observe a pattern. What did you see?
SAUER-IYER: He would take the chart, and go into Terri’s room, and shut the door. And there were- -Terri would be withdrawn and be very sad and lethargic. She wasn’t herself after Michael [visited].
HANNITY: Noticeably different.
SAUER-IYER: Yes.
ALAN COLMES, CO-HOST: Hey, Carla, it’s Alan in New York. Thank you very much for doing our show tonight. We really appreciate it.
SAUER-IYER: Oh. You’re welcome.
COLMES: If you saw and have claimed that Michael would be in a room for 20 minutes, door shut, and when he left, she was sweating, crying hysterically- -you saw a vile of insulin- -did you report this to anybody at the time?
SAUER-IYER: Yes, I did. I reported that to my director of nursing and to the administrator, and I did follow up and I went to the police.
COLMES: And what did they do?
SAUER-IYER: They came over to my house. They took a report. And I was terminated the next day. I don’t know how the investigation went.
COLMES: Why are you saying this all now? Why have you not been more forthcoming and out, you know, talking to the media about all this up until now? Because, these are very startling charges you’re making.
SAUER-IYER: I have. This has been entered since 2003. It has been in my written affidavit, a sworn affidavit.
COLMES: You’re saying that Terri was not in a permanent vegetative state. You said she was talking, she was eating, she was interacting. And yet, Dr. Cranford and other doctors have said that’s just not true. You heard what George Felos said. Why would all these other people have a different story? I just want to understand this.
SAUER-IYER: Well, I was there. I took care of Terri in 1995 and 1996, and I witnessed her cognitive abilities, including speaking, eating, interacting with staff. She was saying words such as “mommy,” “help me,” and she would say the word “pain.” She wouldn’t say the “n” letter very well. But that means she was letting us know she would have pain regarding her monthly menses.
COLMES: Are there others, then, who would come forward to second, third, and otherwise verify what you’re saying?
SAUER-IYER: There have been two other caregivers that have sworn affidavits in the court.
HANNITY: That’s true.
COLMES: I would think [unintelligible] more than that coming forward, as well. Did anybody, then, if she was able to communicate so well, ask her what her preference would be, in terms of how she would like to proceed medically, or what she would want to have happen to her?
SAUER-IYER: The other words she would kind of garble. It wasn’t as clear, crystal clear, as just certain words, like “mommy,” “help me,” and the word “pain.”
COLMES: So, she was talking, she was eating, she was interacting. How communicative was she? How would you describe her ability to be aware- -a level of awareness and communication skills?
SAUER-IYER: She was aware of her environment, herself. She would say, “Hi.” She would know who you are. She would laugh if I told her something funny. She would turn her head. She would follow commands. She would move off the bed to be placed on a bedpan.
HANNITY: Let me get a question in for Cheryl. Cheryl, after your examining of all the medical records, what did you conclude?
CHERYL FORD, NURSE: I concluded that Terri- -I saw Terri on the news. I was watching her, and she’s not in a PVS. This is not indicative of a PVS patient.
HANNITY: Yeah. And you examined all the records?
FORD: I have read all the records, and there’s a lot of reports in her records from nurses that are saying that Terri responds them- -her likes, her dislikes. She doesn’t like to be alone in the room. She likes people there. She smiles.
HANNITY: Thank you, guys, for being with us. Appreciate your time tonight. Thank you very much.
RenewAmerica staff
On Tuesday's Hannity & Colmes, testimony was featured that disproves claims that Terri Schiavo is in a Persistent Vegetative State (PVS).The program also revealed that Terri's husband, Michael Schiavo, has been abusive and irresponsible in his guardianship of Terri.
Read for yourself. A transcript follows.
Featured are Dr. Ronald Cranford, a leading euthanasia advocate who pronounced Terri to be PVS after only superficial examination, and two nurses who are familiar with Terri's actual condition.
Hannity & Colmes
March 22, 2005
GUEST: Dr. Ronald Cranford, neurologist who diagnosed Terri Schiavo as PVS (Michael Schiavo’s medical witness)
ALAN COLMES, CO-HOST: First, the clock is ticking for Terri Schiavo. It has been four days since the brain-damaged woman’s feeding tube was removed. Doctors continue to debate whether or not she could be rehabilitated. Is there any chance she could make a full recovery?
Joining us now is Dr. Ronald Cranford, a neurologist and ethicist at Hennepin County Medical Center. He examined Terri Schiavo, and testified on behalf of her husband, Michael. Dr. Cranford, thank you for being with us.
DR. RONALD CRANFORD, NEUROLOGIST: You’re welcome.
COLMES: I appreciate it. Last night, we had on Bill Hammesfahr, another doctor claiming to be a Nobel Prize nominee who examined her. And here’s what he had to say about you. I want to get your reaction.
-
[clip]
DR. BILL HAMMESFAHR: Well, I think you need to go and look at the videotapes of Dr. Cranford. Dr. Cranford’s videotape compliments Terri on following commands. At one point, he moves a balloon around in front of her, and he again compliments her, that he was able to see it, that she can follow commands.
I also think that you need to look a little bit closer. Dr. Cranford’s work has been attacked by other medical professional professionals in [unintelligible] journals, such as Lancet.
[clip]
DR. CRANFORD: Well, first of all, there have been eight neurologist who have examined Terri over the years, from 1990 to 2002. There were four attending neurologists caring for Terri Schiavo. They all said she was in a Persistent Vegetative State.
At the evidentiary hearing in 2002
So, I think the record is very clear that seven of eight neurologists who have seen her have said she is in a Persistent Vegetative State. And that’s what the court found, after extensive evidentiary hearing, after reviewing all the tapes. The court of appeals reviewed all the expert testimony, and they said she was in a vegetative state. So, I think we stand on the record.
The fact is that when I did the tape, she did look at the balloon for a few seconds. I was talking to her like I normally do to any patient.
SEAN HANNITY, CO-HOST: Mr. Cranford? It’s Sean Hannity. Isn’t it true you only examined her once, for forty-five minutes, sir?
CRANFORD: Yes.
HANNITY: OK. Because the attorney for the family has affidavits, sir, from thirty-three different medical personnel that have very different opinions than yours, sir. And similarly, a British medical journal in 1996 found out that 43% of the time, patients in permanent vegetative state are often misdiagnosed.
CRANFORD: Yes.
HANNITY: Isn’t it a possibility
CRANFORD: This is the longest evidentiary hearing
HANNITY: So, then a few more weeks wouldn’t really matter, would it? A few more months wouldn’t really matter, if that’s what it takes to know 1000% for sure? Considering this ambiguity, wouldn’t it be in the best interest of justice, sir, to wait until we knew definitively?
CRANFORD: There is no ambiguity about the diagnosis. She had an EG which is flat.
HANNITY: There are thirty-three professionals who disagree with you, sir.
CRANFORD: No, those are affidavits.
HANNITY: You only saw her once. You only saw this woman once for forty-five minutes.
CRANFORD: All right. And the judge accept(ed) . . .
HANNITY: And let me just show a tape, by the way. Here’s a tape of you moving the red balloon over Terri Schiavo.
CRANFORD: Right.
HANNITY: And you’re quoted on the tape saying, “Hey, good, Terri! I see you’re following that.” Did you not say that to Terri? Why would you say, “Good! I see you’re following that,” if she is in a vegetative state?
CRANFORD: Because, when I examine vegetative [patients], I always communicate with them as if they are conscious. That’s a routine examination that I do. And I thought she did follow it for a few seconds, but she didn’t have sustained visual pursuit, which is a hallmark of being outside the vegetative state.
HANNITY: So, you talk to people who are in vegetative states. OK.
Now, let me ask you a question. My brother-in-law is one of the best radiologists in the country. This woman has never had an MRI? This woman has never had a PET scan?
CRANFORD: Right.
HANNITY: Don’t you think just for certainty purposes we ought to go forward with that, sir?
CRANFORD: Well, number one, she cannot have an MRI because she has intrathalamic stimulator in her head, so it’s contraindicated.
HANNITY: But you can remove it. Her doctor recommended removing that, sir. Isn’t that true?
CRANFORD: Fine.
Number two, an MRI isn’t going to show any more than the CAT scan, because in this situation with severe brain damage, an MRI won’t show anything more than a CAT scan would.
HANNITY: That’s not what my brother-in-law says.
CRANFORD: Well, your brother-in-law is just flat-out wrong, because this CAT scan shows massive damage. An MRI isn’t going to show any more than that, and a PET scan . . .
HANNITY: I have one last question.
CRANFORD: Sure.
HANNITY: Did you once say that people in vegetative states should have no constitutional rights? Did you once, sir, say that patients with advance Alzheimer’s disease, “It makes no sense at to put a feeding tube in them”? Did you say those things?
CRANFORD: I think I did write an article on constitutional rights, many years ago, with another constitutional scholar about constitutional rights and vegetative states . . .
HANNITY: But you said it.
CRANFORD: Yes. Yes, I did.
HANNITY: For people with Alzheimer’s disease, sir, it makes no sense at all to put a feeding tube in them, and that people in a vegetative state have no constitutional rights
CRANFORD: Those are two things. With the second thing, with the advanced Alzheimer’s, if it’s advanced Alzheimer’s, it doesn’t make sense to put a feeding tube in them, because if they can’t get to the point where they need a feeding tube, they are so severely diminished, the . . .
COLMES: All right, Dr. Cranford, we thank you very much for your time tonight.
Hannity & Colmes
March 22, 2005
GUESTS: Carla Sauer-Iyer, nurse who treated Terri Schiavo from 1995-1996; Cheryl Ford, nurse-
[clip]
GEORGE FELOS, ATTORNEY: Apparently, there is a person on television, a Carla Iyer, who has made charges against Mr. Schiavo, that he tried to inject Terri in a nursing home, and made statements that he wanted her die, etc., etc. That is absolutely false and untrue.
[clip]
CARLA SAUER-IYER: A year and a half.
HANNITY: And Cheryl Ford is a nurse. You have reviewed all the complete records, the medical records, of her.
I want to start with you, Carla, because you signed an affidavit in this case, and I want to go through some of the things you said in your affidavit.
SAUER-IYER: OK.
HANNITY: You said that Terri would often speak. You heard her on a number of occasions. She would communicate. She was conscious with you.
SAUER-IYER: Yes. She was reactive to her environment, to herself, and to other people. We would even have Terri sitting at the nurses’ station. She was interacting with the visitors and the staff.
HANNITY: How long have you been a nurse?
SAUER-IYER: Since 1993, I was an LPN, then I became an RN.
HANNITY: You’re a registered nurse now?
SAUER-IYER: Yes.
HANNITY: And you are not friends with the family in any way?
SAUER-IYER: No. No. Not at all.
HANNITY: You came out on your own volition. You said, “I wanted to speak out on what I saw, having worked with her for so long”?
SAUER-IYER: Yes.
HANNITY: You said that Michael was a bully to the staff. You said, quote, “Michael had about Terri, quote, ‘When is she going to die? Has she died yet? When is that”
SAUER-IYER: Yes.
HANNITY: You heard him say that with your own ears?
SAUER-IYER: I heard him say that with my very own ears. Yes. He was very intimidating to the staff. “Follow my orders, and not the doctors’.”
HANNITY: He even said, “Can’t you do anything to accelerate her death?” Did other people hear him say these things?
SAUER-IYER: He would say it in front of visitors, staff. It doesn’t matter [who].
HANNITY: Wow.
SAUER-IYER: There’s no difference from what’s going on then to what’s going on now.
HANNITY: You said he talked about, you know, getting rich off this
SAUER-IYER: He would say, you know, “When is she going to die? What can you do to accelerate her death?”
HANNITY: You just heard the statement of Michael Schiavo’s attorney, and they came out against you today in a pretty hard way. They wanted to attack you. One of the things you said in a sworn affidavit
SAUER-IYER: Correct.
HANNITY: You did this under oath, before witnesses. You signed this affidavit.
SAUER-IYER: Yes.
HANNITY: You pointed out that every time that Michael Schiavo came to visit Terri, you would observe a pattern. What did you see?
SAUER-IYER: He would take the chart, and go into Terri’s room, and shut the door. And there were
HANNITY: Noticeably different.
SAUER-IYER: Yes.
ALAN COLMES, CO-HOST: Hey, Carla, it’s Alan in New York. Thank you very much for doing our show tonight. We really appreciate it.
SAUER-IYER: Oh. You’re welcome.
COLMES: If you saw and have claimed that Michael would be in a room for 20 minutes, door shut, and when he left, she was sweating, crying hysterically
SAUER-IYER: Yes, I did. I reported that to my director of nursing and to the administrator, and I did follow up and I went to the police.
COLMES: And what did they do?
SAUER-IYER: They came over to my house. They took a report. And I was terminated the next day. I don’t know how the investigation went.
COLMES: Why are you saying this all now? Why have you not been more forthcoming and out, you know, talking to the media about all this up until now? Because, these are very startling charges you’re making.
SAUER-IYER: I have. This has been entered since 2003. It has been in my written affidavit, a sworn affidavit.
COLMES: You’re saying that Terri was not in a permanent vegetative state. You said she was talking, she was eating, she was interacting. And yet, Dr. Cranford and other doctors have said that’s just not true. You heard what George Felos said. Why would all these other people have a different story? I just want to understand this.
SAUER-IYER: Well, I was there. I took care of Terri in 1995 and 1996, and I witnessed her cognitive abilities, including speaking, eating, interacting with staff. She was saying words such as “mommy,” “help me,” and she would say the word “pain.” She wouldn’t say the “n” letter very well. But that means she was letting us know she would have pain regarding her monthly menses.
COLMES: Are there others, then, who would come forward to second, third, and otherwise verify what you’re saying?
SAUER-IYER: There have been two other caregivers that have sworn affidavits in the court.
HANNITY: That’s true.
COLMES: I would think [unintelligible] more than that coming forward, as well. Did anybody, then, if she was able to communicate so well, ask her what her preference would be, in terms of how she would like to proceed medically, or what she would want to have happen to her?
SAUER-IYER: The other words she would kind of garble. It wasn’t as clear, crystal clear, as just certain words, like “mommy,” “help me,” and the word “pain.”
COLMES: So, she was talking, she was eating, she was interacting. How communicative was she? How would you describe her ability to be aware
SAUER-IYER: She was aware of her environment, herself. She would say, “Hi.” She would know who you are. She would laugh if I told her something funny. She would turn her head. She would follow commands. She would move off the bed to be placed on a bedpan.
HANNITY: Let me get a question in for Cheryl. Cheryl, after your examining of all the medical records, what did you conclude?
CHERYL FORD, NURSE: I concluded that Terri
HANNITY: Yeah. And you examined all the records?
FORD: I have read all the records, and there’s a lot of reports in her records from nurses that are saying that Terri responds them
HANNITY: Thank you, guys, for being with us. Appreciate your time tonight. Thank you very much.