In the parable of the Prodigal Son, the son returns home full of remorse and seeking his father’s forgiveness. Just as God does for us all, the father extended forgiveness before the son asks for it.

In Levi’s Will by W. Dale Cramer, the lessons of the parable are not immediately heeded. Levi Mullet, though a God-fearing Amish man, refuses to extend such Grace to his prodigal son, Will.

This refusal, which lasts decades, taints Will’s relationship with the family he creates after he leaves his stiflingly legalistic Amish Community. Thus, in Levi’s Will, we find a legacy born of Levi’s wilful emphasis on the Law, and his blind refusal to realize the true nature of love.

It is his escape from his family and his community for which Will asks forgiveness. He leaves behind a pregnant girl his father, Levi, and the rest of the Community attempt to force him to marry. Will refuses to stay and face this fate, which he believes was brought upon him by a Community desperate to retain its young—even if it meant committing deceit by omission.

Will leaves, but he can’t completely escape the effects of his dishonorable leave-taking and, eventually faces his father’s hardened resolve. Levi refuses to extend forgiveness and also subjects Will to repeated humiliations as Will tries to earn forgiveness.

This response, along with Will’s remorse and inability to forgive himself, causes Will to live in the way that he rejected when leaving his father. He emphasizes work over Grace as he tries to win back the approval of his father. He places the same kind of barriers between himself and his sons as were between him and his father.

Will goes through life throwing himself into work, at the expense of the care and raising of his family, believing that this will redeem him. His long-suffering wife continues to love him—but his troubled younger son, Riley, spirals down into a world of materialism and self-gratification. Eventually, Riley loses his own family as a result.

Finally, Will finds the Grace of God through the simple act of asking God what He wants . God shows Will that he had redemption within his grasp the whole time.

“He hath shewed the, O man, what is good, and what doth the Lord require of the, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God?”

He is able to forgive Levi for being too weak to forgive him. He discovers that, the “day that I stopped trying to earn my father’s forgiveness and gave him mine—that was the day things started to change.”

Will realizes that God does not require man to earn forgiveness–for as did the father of the prodigal son–He extends it before we can even ask–and He requires that we extend it to others in the same way. This knowledge enables Will to forgive and receive forgiveness from his son, Riley–reviving love between father and son.

Levi’s Will is very profound book. It is written, not in a chronological flow, but as a tapestry, going back and forth from past to present. The forays into the past explain the present—and deepen the reader’s understanding of the way that “every man’s failure dips its roots into the previous generation and drops its seeds into the next.”

In the end, the book teaches us that “Somehow you must come to understand that God is love, that love is proof of God, and forgiveness is the proof of love.”

This is a book well worth reading.

* I received this book as a gift from Mind & Media in order to write this review.

Scrappleface has a deliciously wicked post Court Allows 10 Commandments on Seized Land:

In a pair of rulings on the constitutionality of the 10 Commandments on government property, the Supreme Court today said the commandments may be displayed on public land if that property has been seized from private owners for ‘public purposes’ under eminent domain.

Hee Hee!

This is even more delicious and it’s true:

A private developer contacted the local government in Supreme Court Justice David Souter’s hometown in New Hampshire yesterday asking that the property of the judge – who voted in favor of a controversial decision allowing a city to take residents’ homes for private development – be seized to make room for a new hotel.

–snip—

According to a statement from Clements, the proposed development, called “The Lost Liberty Hotel” will feature the “Just Desserts Café” and include a museum, open to the public, “featuring a permanent exhibit on the loss of freedom in America.” Instead of a Gideon’s Bible in each room, guests will receive a free copy of Ayn Rand’s novel “Atlas Shrugged,” the statement said.

What a great idea.

Oh, and here is an update.

It seems that the town where Souter lives has its own Economic Development Committee with the basic purpose to: “develop strategies for economic development and redevelopment in an efficient, orderly manner; create parameters to retain and attract business development; maintain the rural character of the Town and continually seek to improve the quality of life of its residents” through two basic strategies;

1. Encourage the formation of new businesses
2. Promote tourism

Hmmm… sounds like taking Souter’s family farm and giving it to a developer for a nice little resort is consistent with those two strategies and fits the “public purpose” of the Economic Development Committee. Perhaps we should all write them and advise them about this: edc@weare.nh.us

Update:

Captain Ed at Captain’s Quarters is blogging about this and he quotes a letter by Mark Twain that is apropo. Says Captain Ed:

“Twain wrote the following in a letter to a Massachusetts group seeking to honor him with an award:”

It does look as if Massachusetts were in a fair way to embarrass me with kindnesses this year. In the first place, a Massachusetts judge has just decided in open court that a Boston publisher may sell, not only his own property in a free and unfettered way, but also may as freely sell property which does not belong to him but to me; property which he has not bought and which I have not sold. Under this ruling I am now advertising that judge’s homestead for sale, and, if I make a good a sum out of it as I expect, I shall go on and sell out the rest of his property.

So Justice Kennedy wants us lawyers to defend the judiciary when the people criticize them about stupid and unjust decisions, huh? I’d rather educate the members of the judiciary by allowing them to share the consequences of their decisions with the rest of us. To that end, here is the New Hampshire Statute that appears to allow the town of Weare to take Justice Souter’s property. This in the interest of his edification on real life consequences:

TITLE III TOWNS, CITIES, VILLAGE DISTRICTS, AND UNINCORPORATED PLACES
CHAPTER 31POWERS AND DUTIES OF TOWNS

Rehabilitation of Property

Section 31:18 31:18 Isolated Dwellings; Abandoned or Wasting Real Estate. – Whenever a town may find that real estate in said town is in an isolated location and is uneconomic for farm or home use or has been abandoned or allowed to go to waste, said town may at any legal meeting grant and vote such sums as it may judge necessary to purchase or rent said property and for the repair and improvement of any buildings thereon for the purpose of getting said land and buildings back into productive use and shall by vote authorize the selectmen to make such purchase or such improvements and repairs and to use or dispose of said property. The property acquired under the provisions hereof may be used or disposed of for such recreational, forestry or other purposes as the town may deem to be in the public interest, or may be sold at public auction or private sale by the selectmen or their authorized agents when in the opinion of the selectmen such sale would result in increasing the taxable valuation of the town, or be for the public interest.
Source. 1941, 66:1. RL 51:18. 1947, 223:1, eff. June 25, 1947.

(Emphasis Added)

Don’t y’all think that some rich guy’s “play farm” is an uneconomic use compared to a cash-flowing hotel? Sure seems like it’s in the public interest to seize it to me. Heh.

Mychal Massie hosts a show on Right Talk Radio called Straight Talk. I learned about Mychal through his excellent commentary published at World Net Daily and started e-mailing him about various issues.

Mychal asked me to guest-host his show tomorrow, Tuesday, June 28 at 12:00 pm CT and again on Tuesday, July 5, also at 12:00 pm CT.

Tomorrow, my guest will be Dr. John Eastman who is Director of The Claremont Institute Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence. We will be discussing the Kelo vs. New London case.

On July 5, my guest will be J. Wesley Smith , noted author and senior fellow at the Discovery Institute. Mr. Smith blogs at Secondhand Smoke. We will discuss the Terri Schiavo case and stem cell reasearch among other bio-ethical issues.

You can listen to the show by clicking here and then clicking on channel 1 when the show starts.

Update:

I think that the show went really well for my first time. My guests were utterly fantastic. Dr. John Eastman is a brilliant and kind man. It is really good to know that he is working to protect the rest of us on this and other liberty issues.

This morning, I also lined up Wright Gore. Wright’s family owns the Western Seafood Co. down in Freeport, Texas. A rich developer has been using the City to seize Wright’s business and another next door–which will essentially put them out of business. I am interviewing Wright for the blog tomorrow and will post the interview after it’s transcribed. The City of Freeport is rushing to get the property seized becaus of Kelo. Here’s the site that has been set up by the property owners on the issue. Wright did a great job on the show.

As I said here, Justice Thomas’s dissent is brilliant. One part of his dissent involves a discussion about the destructive impact of urban renewal on regular people, and I addressed that.

I also addressed the Midkiff case, one of the cases used by the Court in its decision. Midkiff inolved a situation where the U.S. Supreme Court allowed a Hawaiian land redistribution plan designed to transfer land from lessors to lessees to proceed. I just found a lesson plan on the internet detailing what actually happened in Hawaii. The land was not transferred to the native Hawaiians. It was developed for the wealthy tourism industry leaving the native Hawaiians with the worst housing conditions in the United States:

Eventually the plantation economy began to subside, and Hawaii was forced to adapt. A new Democratic majority began to fill Hawaii’s government, because the majority of residents were voters of many ethnic backgrounds. Before they took power, the Democrats spoke about the great changes they would make to land ownership. They spoke of forced land redistribution to make Hawaii more equal. But once they took office, most of the democrats abandoned the forced land redistribution they promised. Instead they opted for land development as a way to reform Hawaii economically and socially. This new development was supposed to create new wealth for new groups.

The republicans still owned most of the land, but the democrats had the capital that was necessary to develop the land. So these two groups worked with each other, to create the tourism industry that Hawaii is dependent on. While these groups worked with each other, the Native Hawaiians were continuously displaced from their land, and were left out of this new social development. With no land and no power, Native Hawaiians have suffered and face the worst housing conditions in the United States. This unequal distribution has set the battlefield for the next century, the battle to return the land to Native Hawaiians.

The Native Hawaiians ended up in worse circumstances than before the plan just as did the victims of urban renewal described in Thomas’s dissent. Could this be the future for those of us who don’t have wealth or power?

John at Wuzzadem has a devastatingly funny piece on how Kelo is going to play out in real life starring Jed Clampett. The piece is called Beverly Domain. His newest is good too.

But, as I wrote here, the outcome of Kelo will definitely not be funny. In fact, my Office Manager just told me something that I find frightening–though it may be coincidental.

She lives in a house located in a community on Lake Travis. The home was built in the late 70′s and is about 1600 sq. feet. It is not waterfront property–but has the best view of the lake of all the properties in the immediate area.

Last night a real estate agent with a large and national company called my OM at 8 pm after the Kelo decision hit the news. The woman badgered my OM to sell her house making such comments as “Do you know who we are?” and “I have 300 potential buyers who would like to buy your property.” The woman would simply not let my OM off the phone until, finally, my OM practically slammed the telephone in her ear.

The thing about the Lake Travis area is that the older lake houses are being replaced by huge mansions that, I am certain, yield far more in property tax revenues than does my OM’s property. What is to stop the realtor from encouraging and aiding a potential buyer who wants to build a mansion on my OM’s property from going to the local governmental entity to convince them that the property should be transferred because of the purported “public purpose” of maximizing property tax revenues? Nothing now.

We on the blogosphere should keep track of incidents like this. Coincidental or not, it is troubling.

Update: Go look at The Cassandra Page. He says:

To repeat myself from yesterday, in the brave new world that our activist courts have given us, you can lose your home to a private developer, but you can have all of the abortions you want and you can euthanize your parents when they get old (or even sooner). Without children or the elderly weighing us down, what do we need private houses for? What do we need extra space for? There is no reason not to move in to that nice federally subsidized apartment that the government has waiting for us. Our lives are one step closer to being completely planned from cradle to grave.

This comment is consistent with Alberto Piedra’s warnings about the detrimental impact on human dignity imposed by an economic system (and judicial system ) that is autonomous from restraints of Natural Law.

Natural Law: The Foundation of an Orderly Economic System by Alberto M. Piedra

I recently wrote a book review of the above book that is posted here. The thesis of the book is, that although capitalism is a great boon to humanity, its philosophical basis is weakened by the fact that its constructs are not based on Natural Law as derived from God. The writer, Alberto Piedra warns us about this weakness:

It would be ironic that, now that totalitarianism of the Marxist type has lost its luster, a new and more subtle danger would raise its ugly head and threaten not only the innermost dignity of the human being but also the very existence of free societies of the Western World….In order to avoid this danger and preserve his freedom and dignity, man must have a better understanding of Natural Law. Without such an understanding , the very concept of Natural law is distorted to such a degree that man ceases to be considered the most important reality within the social fabric. Consequently, the very dignity of the human person is jeopardized and man may fall prey to the abuses of brute force or the selfish interests of the powerful and mighty…. (emphasis added)

To strip a person of the right to control the fruits of his labor including his home and the land upon which he has built a business to sustain himself, his family and his employees is an assault on his dignity and human rights as given by God. It is a failure on the part of the Court to recognize that the rights enumerated therein are not bestowed by the government. They are a reminder to government that these are the Natural rights of man given by his Creator.

It is one thing to use eminent domain to take land for a road or a school or other public use that everyone has the right to enter and use. Indeed, governments must go to constituents for the funds to build such things, thereby naturally limiting such takings.

But now, the United States Supreme Court in Kelo vs. New London has given carte blanche to local and state governments to take your land to give to a Starbucks, Walmart or developer to use as office buildings. Your hopes, dreams, aspirations for and investment in your property are trumped by the hyper-materialistic drive of governments to pad budgets and “revitalize” areas deemed by the “anointed” as unattractive or not up to snuff by letting private interests use their own money for such endeavors. Likewise, these private interests now have the effective blessing of the Court to use local and state governments to acquire property that they cannot justly acquire through negotiation.

So “Lunchpail Joe” beware! You have become fodder in the grinder of those for whom economic progress is a concept totally uncoupled from Natural Law derived from God. God said that “Thou shalt not covet”– but Walmart and Costco don’t appear to believe that the Tenth Commandment applies to them when they covet the land upon which your little frame house sits.

Justice Stevens writes the majority opinion in Kelo, and his opinion is a continuation and expansion of a line of sorry cases that exemplify judicial activism and departure from constitutional principles. Using the doctrine of stare decisis does not exempt one from accusations of judicial activism if the seminal cases are, indeed, activist in their constructs. Poison seeds were sown with past cases.

To preface, the Takings Clause of the 5th Amendment states:

“Nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation”

Through the manipulations of past Courts, the phrase “public use” has been twisted beyond its original meaning. This Court confirms that it shall consider it to mean “public purpose” so that property can be taken–not to use for a public road or school–but to be given to a private interest as long as it fulfils some “public purpose” as defined by the state or local government. The Court, essentially abrogates its role of interpreting the U.S. Constitution, because it refuses to lay out any rule or limitation on the what the “actual use” of the property must be to be a constitutionally appropriately “public purpose” believing that one would be too “difficult to administer.”

Justic O’Connor points out the fallacy of failing to enumerate any limitations and she predicts the probable malevolent outcome of this decision will be to the benefit the rich and powerful at the expense of those who are not rich and powerful. Unfortunately, Justice O’Connor seems to suggest a finger in the dike approach with a prohibition on takings for “economic development” and she gives deference to two cases upon which the Majority bases its decision. These cases turned my stomach when I read about them in the opinion.

The first is Berman v Parker decided in 1954. The Court decided that a city could take a slum neighborhood, construct some roads and schools and public facilities and then sell the rest to developers for urban renewal. I guess this was the beginning of the sort of “gentrification” that Justice Thomas points out displaced thousands of blacks and other minorities. Berman was the owner of a department store who argued that since the store was not blighted, as was the rest of the neighborhood, his store should not be taken. The Court ruled against him because the City had a comprehensive plan and it didn’t want second-guess the City’s decision to treat the neighborhood as a whole.

The second case is Hawaii Housing Authority v Midkiff. In that case, decided in 1984, the Court allowed the State of Hawaii to indulge in the Banana Republic behavior of transferring land from lessors to lessees because of something called “land oligarchy”. As O’Connor notes, “It is only the taking’s purpose, and not its mechanics”, we explained, that matters in determining public use.”

Justice Thomas’s dissent is brilliant, in my opinion. It is the only principled approach to the decision. He does not, like O’Conner, suggest grafting on a new contortion to the existing cases to hold back the seemingly inevitable consequences of past case law. He wants to go back to the original meaning of the Constitution.

He recognizes that the Court is “nullifying” the protections of the Savings Clause and that the words of the Constitution have specific meaning. Public “use” is not the same as public “purpose.” One can be objectivley determined–the other can not. Thus, he says:

“The term “public use” then, means that either the government or its citizes as a whole must actually “employ” the taken property.”

Thus, Thomas proposes that we go back to the original meaning of the Constitution–sweeping away cases that conflict. He notes that the “Takings Clause” is not a power of the government it is a prohibition of power. And he recognizes that: “The “public purpose” test applied by Berman and Midkiff also cannot be applied in principled manner.”

Thomas sticks it to the Majority when addressing its decision not to enunciate an “actual use” standard when he says:

“It is far easier to analyze whether the government owns or the public has a legal right to use the taken property than to ask whether the taking has a “purely private purpose” unless the Court means to eliminate public use scrutiny of takings entirely. Obliterating a provision of the Constitution, of course, guarantees that it will not be misapplied.” (emphasis added)

He points out the absurdity of the Court in taking the stance that it shouldn’t place any restrictions on State and Local Governments by determining how the Takings Clause of the 5th Amendment of FEDERAL Constitution should be applied. He points out that the Court routinely restricts State and Local governments in searches of citizen’s houses:

Something has gone seriously awry with this Court’s interpretation of the Constitution. Though citizens are safe from the government in their homes, the homes are not.

Who will now protect us? Not necessarily free marketeer capitalists. I just heard one on Your World with Neil Cavuto use a pro-capitalist argument to justify allowing local governments to encourage economic growth through eminent domain.

Then there is this argument by the brilliant libertarian law professor Eugene Volokh:

The funny thing is that, in Kelo v. City of New London, it is the (mostly liberal) majority’s test that would give the government flexibility to serve public goals by taking property and selling it to private parties, when the government thinks the private parties will be better positioned to provide the public benefit. And it is the conservative dissenters’ test that would give the government a strong incentive to own and operate various enterprises itself, or insist that whoever owns and operates them labor under the burdens of being a “common carrier.”

Under the dissenters’ view, if the City of New London wants to take property to run a shopping mall, which would presumably provide more jobs and government revenue, it’s free to do so. But if it wants to take property and resell it to a private shopping mall owner, it may not. True, the latter solution isn’t the pure free market: The mall owner would be getting a government benefit in the form of property taken from the original owners (albeit with compensation), just as school choice programs get a government benefit in the form of money taken from taxpayers. Still, it seems better than the City running retail stores — yet the dissenters’ approach would give the City an incentive to do that, rather than lining up more efficient private businesses to do it.

This is a utterly materialistic and pragmatic argument that is grounded in neither Natural Law nor principle. It springs from pure rationalism without regard for justice for the human person.

Volokh’s argument and this case demean the dignity of the people who worked and saved for and invested in their property and who want to keep it. They diminish the significance of the work that these owners did to obtain and maintain their homes and businesses. As Piedras points out in Natural Law: The Foundation of an Orderly Economic System:

“Although Christianity stressed through the centuries the dignity of work and its importance for man’s ultimate salvation, most of the intellectual movements of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries reduced work, as any other factor of production, to a necessary object for economic growth and development.”

I believe that the logical outcome of this case is to further erode human dignity and to cause governmental entities to objectify their constituents as either those who are worthy of tribute in the form of property taken from unwilling sellers, because they can more effectively turn a buck with it; or average Joes who simply want to enjoy the fruits of their labor and are, therefore, deemed unworthy of the right to keep their modest homes and businesses. Indeed, Rick-at-Stones-Cry-Out in an excellent review of Kelo, has written about the caculus governments use in analyzing land use and it is purely material and without regard to other human concerns:

In my article, A Marriage of Convenience: Fiscal Incentives and Residential Development Patterns, I define fiscalization of land use as a “phenomenon whereby local land use decisions are mostly influenced by fiscal concerns, contrary to the expressed desires of the affected community.” In light of today’s decision, this definition falls a bit short as it is limited to land use and zoning powers, not powers of eminent domain. Nevertheless, the concept is the same. In California, where the State has a penchant for raiding local revenues to balance its budget, the incentive to bulldoze otherwise viable neighborhoods to capture sales tax revenue is even greater. Local governments now are freer to condemn land to pad local coffers and where jurisdictions have limited revenue alternatives, land use fiscalization can be expected to increase.

I fear that this is, indeed, a situation where, as Piedra says:

…the very dignity of the human person is jeopardized and man may fall prey to the abuses of brute force or the selfish interests of the powerful and mighty.

Such is the result of law and economics divorced from morality.

*Submitted to Wizbang’s Carnival of the Trackbacks VIII. Thanks for the opportunity Wizbang!

Michelle Malkin reports that the United States Supreme Court has ruled against the homeowners which allows the governmental entity to take the land of individuals via eminent domain to give to developers. The case (unedited version) is now on Lexis and the Court specifically held in this case that:

The city’s proposed disposition of petitioners’ property qualifies as a “public use” within the meaning of the Takings Clause.

I’ll have to read it more closely and report back.

Human Events Online publishes a great commentary on the autopsy by Dr. Sherri Eros who is a blogger. She is appalled by the media’s irresponsible reporting and by the representations made by the Medical Examiners about PVS in light of the disclaimer in the report that PVS cannot be diagnosed by autopsy. To wit:

As Thogmartin and Nelson clearly state in the written Autopsy Report, it is impossible to confirm a diagnosis of PVS postmortem–on the basis of an their own autopsy. As explained above, to say that the autopsy is “consistent with” persistent vegetative state is utterly devoid of meaning because it is just as true that the autopsy is “consistent with” Terri’s having been in a conscious state of one level or another.

Therefore it was extremely misleading, and even medically reprehensible, for either ME to have stated to the press that the autopsy results are either “consistent with” or “not inconsistent with” a PVS diagnosis, without in every instance where the topic of PVS arose, emphasizing and repeatedly cautioning the press in the strongest possible terms that such a statement must not be misinterpreted as lending support to the PVS diagnosis. This caution appears not to have been given at the news conference.

She also corrects me being quoted in WND when I suggested regarding the relative preservation of the frontal and temporal: “What this tells us is that her cortex retained function.” According to Dr. Eros : As noted above, such determinations are entirely outside the scope of postmortem data and can be made only through examination of the living patient.

This is fair and what I should have said is that it the autopsy does not rule out that the cortex retained function. Lesson learned.

This is an article well worth reading.

As I wrote about here, Dr. William Hammesfahr said the following:

Dr. Maxfield and myself both emphasized that she was a woman trapped in her body, similar to a child with cerebral palsy, and that was born out by the autopsy, showing greater injury in the motor and visual centers of the brain. Obviously, the pathologists comments that she could not see were not borne out by reality, and thus his assessment must represent sampling error. The videotapes clearly showed her seeing, and even Dr. Cranfoed, for the husband, commented to her that, when she could see the balloon, she could follow it with her eyes as per his request. (emphasis added)

Here is an article that explains sampling errors. If you google sampling errors autopsy brain–or similar searches you will find articles talking about it in the field of pathology. You will see references about size of tissue samples, number of samples and other issues.

As I wrote here, although the autopsy report refers to objective findings–the report is subjective in the sense that the neuropathologist gives opinions about the findings–and in fact–is describing what he found on microscopic slides with a certain degree of subjectivity because the description is based on his perception.

The report, therefore, cannot put all issues to rest because of its subjective elements and because that is not how such reports are treated in science or in court. Every day the opinion of a medical expert or medical examiner is being tested in a courtroom somewhere in this country.

For years, I deposed physicians in personal injury cases. I deposed a few medical examiners in wrongful death cases about cause of death as well. In some cases, I hired experts to evaluate the opinions of those I was about to depose.

I would do several things to prepare for those depositions. I would read the medical reports of the deponent. I would research authoritative sources both to understand what the reports said and to see if there was information that supported or conflicted with the opinions of the deponent.

I would subpoena all of the working notes, laboratory reports, documents on the protocols used and all information on samples that were tested. I would study all the steps the physician was supposed to take in order to make a proper diagnoses. I would get input from my expert as to weaknesses demonstrated in the report and the supporting documentation or as reflected in the procedures used.

I learned long ago that just because somebody with a medical degree said it was so–didn’t make it so.

In the case of Terri’s autopsy, we have not seen any of the back up notes or data upon which it is based. Granted, much of the procedure used is detailed. We know that a total of 65 glass microscopic slides were examined. We don’t know what the individual findings were for each and every slide because we don’t have the notes.

We don’t know how many slides were taken from the cerebral cortex and thalamus to be examined. We don’t know the size of the sample contained by each slide.

We see language like this: “There was laminar necrosis involving the middle cortical lamina, in most cortical sections examined microscopically, but this finding was patchy.” What was the sample size (the overall number of slides)? What percentage was “most”? 51% ? Something larger? We don’t know.

When Nelson addressed the part of the brain affecting vision–the lateral geniculate nucleas–what number of samples did he examine? How much material was on each slide? What is the margin for error and what is more definitive on the issue–the particular tissue examined or clinical diagnosis?

There is much to be explored and evaluated about this report, the procedures used and the conclusions. It appears that the MSM is satisfied and has moved on to other subjects. Don’t believe that the MSM has covered this autopsy in a full and satisfactory manner. It hasn’t.

I will be a guest on Mychal Massie’s radio show, Straight Talk tomorrow (Tuesday, June 21) at about 1:20 pm ET to talk about the Terri Schiavo autopsy report and the questions I have.

You can listen to it at this site.

One of the neurologists, Dr. William Hammesfahr who examined Terri weighs in on the autopsy report addressing some of the same things about which I have raised questions: (HT Empire Journal)

The noted neurologist said he had had a chance to look at neuropathologist Dr. Stephen Nelson’s analysis of the brain tissue. Nelson of Winter Haven is the District 10 medical examiner “The autopsy results confirmed my opinion and Dr. William Maxfield’s opinions, that the frontal areas of the brains, the areas that deal with awareness and cognition were relatively intact. To use Dr. Nelson’s words, “relatively preserved.” In fact, the relay areas from the frontal and front temporal regions of the brain, to the spinal cord and the brain stem, by way of the basal ganglia, were preserved, thus the evident responses which she was able to express to her family and to the clinicians seeing her or viewing her videotape. The Spect scan confirmed these areas were functional and not scar tissue, and that was apparently also confirmed on Dr. Nelson’s review of the slides. Dr. Maxfield’s estimates of retained brain weight were apparently accurate, although there may have been some loss of brain weight due to the last two weeks of dehydration”.

In my last post, I mentioned blogger Dr. Rangel who has different thoughts and one of my commenters Brain Doc. Both make contrary aguments worth reading. I have two thoughts about this.

One, why is the press not asking hard questions about this? I simply don’t understand the lack of professional curiosity on its part.

Two, it is apparent that physicians can’t even agree on the autopsy results or the clinical diagnosis. Terri was not a machine after all. When a machine has missing parts that can’t be replaced–it’s ultimately and finally broken and unusable. With a machine–one can be sure about just how broken it is–not so with a human.

Judge Greer was using the same kind of legal judgment that a judge would use when faced with repeated requests for looking at other testimony or diagnostic testing a machine that is the subject of a products liability suit and is alleged to be defective. Of course, at some point a judge would say no in the case of a machine–enough is enough. And, at some point a Judge would stop everything and make a final decision about the allegedly defective machine.

This reasoning was inappropriate in the case of Terri. We are not machines.

Update: Pro-life blogs has this story as well and quotes the Doctor as saying:

Dr. Maxfield and myself both emphasized that she was a woman trapped in her body, similar to a child with cerebral palsy, and that was born out by the autopsy, showing greater injury in the motor and visual centers of the brain. Obviously, the pathologists comments that she could not see were not borne out by reality, and thus his assessment must represent sampling error. The videotapes clearly showed her seeing, and even Dr. Cranfoed, for the husband, commented to her that, when she could see the balloon, she could follow it with her eyes as per his request.

The sampling issue is interesting and I intend to address it later.

Okay, more questions. A commentor at one of my posts is a brain doctor. He has raised the issue of the fact that the autopsy report points out that the “larger pyramidal neurons were globally absent” in the cerebral cortex. A doctor blogger points out in his comments that the “relative preservation” of the frontal and temporal lobe means preservation compared to the massive damage elsewhere–but that those locations were still severely damaged.

The report says that the granular neurons of the cerebral cortex were relatively preserved–though damaged since the report speaks to global damage. I know that we have to accept that Terri had severe brain damage. I think that we still have to ask whether or not these findings unequivocably rule out any level of consciousness.

Granted, I do not believe that PVS justifies withdrawal of nutrients and hydration–so I wouldn’t concede that what was done to Terri was right under any circumstances. Given that, I do not want to just concede that because some doctors say so– that the autopsy unequivocably and with certainty shows that she had absolutely no level of consciousness whatsoever–without asking every question possible.

It is certain that she had a badly damaged brain. Yet the part of the brain where IQ and personality reside–though badly damaged–is not as damaged as the rest.

• Does this, without doubt prove that she was 100% unconscious? What were the neurons that she had left doing?
• I found an article about THE SINGLE-NEURON THEORY OF CONSCIOUSNESS. Do some doctors and researchers think that if there is a neuron there is a chance of consciousness?
• If the pyramidal neurons are gone, do the granular neurons (stellate cells) fill in and support consciousness in any way?
• Fr. Johansen spoke to other neurologists who stated that loss of tissue found upon autopsy cannot diagnose PVS or clincial status–does that mean that as long as she had tissue that was intact to a degree and some neurons–she may have had some degree of consciousness?

Brain Doc believes that: The anterior and medial thalamus had less than the massive damage reported in the cortex and basal ganglia. This is buried in the report of the microscopic H+E slides. In simple terms, it(the antero-medial thalamus) coordinates emotion/ drives by communicating to the cortex, but only if activated by the rest of the thalamus,which I doubt it could be. It is interesting for me, but it changes little.

I found this article about the thalamus which suggests that there are competing theories about its role in consciousness. So, another question–is there disagreement in the medical community about its role and how it works?

Dr. Rangel at RangelMD answered some questions in his comments. The report talks about the LARGER pyramidal neurons being globally absent. I asked does that mean there were other pyramidal neurons present? He believes that the term LARGER was used to distinguish between the granular–or stellate–neurons (cells) and the pyramidal. So I thought there was no such thing as larger and smaller pyramidal neurons. Then I find this source that talks about larger and and smaller pyramidal neurons.

So, another question: If there were smaller pyramidal cells present–what does that mean in terms of the possibility of consciousness? And, if there were smaller pyramidal’s present were they interconnecting with the granular or stellate neurons? And could this yield some degree of consciousness?

When people say that the autopsy proves that she was PVS or unconscious, I have to question that. To me, that would be an opinion based on some degree of subjectivity.

No doubt there are objective findings recounted in the report. But the meaning of those findings is based on the expert’s subjective opinion. Even his observations of the brain at the microscopic level involve some degree of subjectivity because he is perceiving the results and then reporting based on his opinion of what the slides show. So, there is an element of the subjective contained in every medical report.

I believe that only God knows with certainty whether or not Terri was conscious. In the meantime, I think that it is appropriate for us to question and argue about what the findings recounted in the autopsy really mean.

Update:

Dr. Rangel said this in his post:

The optic nerves were atrophied and the visual centers of the brain, which interpret signals from the eyes and optic nerves and allow for conscious awareness of visual stimuli were completely destroyed.

He believes that there was complete destruction because the report said that the most damage was done to the occipital region.

Obviously, she was completely blind or visually impaired to a severe degree. But–does that rule out all consciousness? Here is a medical article that says:

Many patients who are misdiagnosed as being in the vegetative state are blind or have severe visual handicap; thus lack of eye blink to threat or absence of visual tracking are not reliable signs for diagnosing the vegetative state.

The article states that PVS is a clinical diagnosis requiring many steps. Did Cranford take all of the steps?

I am dismayed so far by the Republican response to Durbin’s statements comparing our treatment of the Gitmo detainees to that given by the Nazi’s, Soviets and Pol Pot. I heard Mitch McConnell and some other Senator on the Michael Savage Show debating and questioning Durbin in an entirely too civil manner. It is my opinion that Durbin’s statements–and Hillary’s and every Democrat who is suggesting that we are mistreating or torturing Gitmo detainees should, in turn, be responded to with nothing less than derision.

It seems to me that by failing to do so, the Republicans are treating Durbin’s statement as meritorious enough to deserve debate! It is not.

It is simply silly to assert exposing interrogees to cold that is akin to that endured by our Soldiers in Afghanistan and heat akin that endured by our Soldiers in Iraq is torture. (from The Mudville Gazette) Silly arguments do not deserve respectful debate–they deserve open contempt–and the Republican’s should show it and they should say it. Too often, Republicans seem to allow themselves to become bogged down in foolish debates about things that most Americans think are ridiculous–but that the MSM blows out of proportion causing Republicans to fear stating the obvious. In case you haven’t noticed, Senators, the MSM has become as silly as the Democratic leadership–most Americans won’t care if the MSM has a hissy fit.

In fact, I think most American’s will respect a Senator who has the good sense to say something like–”Senator Durbin, your contention that temperatures that are uncomfortable but not life-threatening, that having to lie on the floor in a fetal position, and having to listen to bad rock music is torture is not only untrue–it is silly and laughable.”
This sir, is what torture does:”


This is what the Germans did to one soldier, an American, imprisoned at Limburg. From here.

“Senator Durbin, your comparison of the treatment of detainees to what is depicted in this photo is beneath contempt and you owe an apology to every soldier who has been or is stationed at Gitmo and his or her family. Sir, your loyalty is in question–it is up to you to satisfactorily answer that question.”

Does any Republican have the temerity to say this? I think that a Republican willing to say this will gain the respect of the country.

I want to sum up some of the questions that I believe should be asked based on the topics I have discussed here, here, here and here.

1. With regard to the extent of the brain damage:

a. Two parts of the brain appear to be important here, the cortex and the thalamus.

b. The cortex appears to be relatively well-preserved in the frontal and temporal lobes. What does that mean?

c. The frontal lobe is where IQ and personality reside.

d. The neuropathologist indicates that the thalamus appears relatively preserved, but on
microscopic examination has some damage that is not quantified by the pathologist.

e. The role of the thalamus is now considered more important to consciousness than
thought previously because of the findings made upon examination of Karen Anne Quinlan’s
brain.

f. The neuropathologist compares the weights of Terri’s and Karen’s brains–but notably
does not mention how the brain damage compares though Terri has some intact cortex (as
did Quinlan) and some damage to the thalamus.

g. The greatest damage to Terri’s brain was in the back–essentially the part that controls
motor skills and physical ability.

h. Terri was dehydrated to death, Karen was not.

Thus:

1. Given the significance of the thalamus to consciousness and the fact that Quinlan’s main problem was damage to that part of the brain–why did the neuropathologist not see fit to make a comparison of the two thalumuses? Could it be because Terri’s thalamus was not as damaged and had viable tissue?
2. If Terri had viable cortex and viable thalamus–is it not medically possible that she was conscious of everything that was being done to her?
3. Is the brain weight comparison between Terri and Karen really apt in light of the fact that Terri was dehydrated for weeks? Emcee has good information on that point.
4. What is more important, brain weight or brain architecture? If Karen Quinlan had no viable thalamus tissue and Terri did–isn’t that more significant?
5. If Terri’s and Karen’s thalamus damage was similar in degree, wouldn’t the neuropathologist have mentioned that as well as brain weight?

With regard to the argument by the neuropathologist supporting the judge’s decision not to allow an MRI or PET scan.

1. Did he check with the manufacturer to determine whether Terri’s implants contraindicated an MRI?
2. Why did he not disclose in the report that his authoritative source on this point says that it is only “some” implants that contraindicate MRI’s?
3. Who asked him to address that issue. If it no one did, why did he address it?

Finally, on the brain:

1. If Terri’s implants were not of the type that contraindicated an MRI or PET scan (or adequate precautions could be taken to prevent complications), and given that Terri had viable cortex and viable thalamus and given that PVS cannot be diagnosed by autopsy– shouldn’t those tests have been administered? Wouldn’t they have more accurately revealed her true cognitive state than an autopsy performed after she was dead?

Update: I want to add something based on Captain Ed’s post at Captain’s Quarter’s wherein he paraphrases the Medical Examiner saying: With her vision center destroyed, she had cortical blindness. In the opinion of the coroner after examining the brain, Terri’s condition would never have improved.

The brain autopsy says this about the vision centers on page 4 of Nelson’s report: The lateral geniculate nucleus (visual) demonstrated transneuronal degeneration with gliosis, while the medial geniculate nucleas (auditory) was relatively preserved.

First, this does not say that she is totally blind–it says she has degeneration with gliosis–it does not quantify exactly how much–or at least the amount is not clear from the narrative in the report. (Update: Dr. Rangel at RangelMD belives that the report indicates that it was destroyed–see his comments in the comments section) Second, gliosis is: an excess of astroglia in damaged areas of the central nervous system; see also astrocytosis. Third, dehydration can cause an increase of astrocytosis according to a study done on mice. Read the article. Even after rehydration the increase continued. Recall that Terri underwent dehydration twice.

Further, even though you cannot replace neurons–you can retrain the ones left. Is it not possible that when the neuropathologist says she couldn’t have improved–he is talking only about brain architecture? Rehabilitation does not change brain architecture–it merely retrains what one has left. This report does not prove that Terri could not have regained some functions–especially given the relatively good state of her frontal lobes.(Update: It has been made clear to me by reading Dr. Rangel , that the frontal lobes were severely damaged–though not has much as other areas–Thus, to rephrase: Does this report truly and completely rule out any possibility of improvement in function?) And, I would ask whether or not removing the thalamus implants might have improved the communication between the frontal lobes and the back of the brain where motor skills and physical ability are found–thus enabling more physical function. Someone should ask that question.

More questions for inquiring minds later.

How valid is the comparison made between the brain of Karen Anne Quinlan and Terri Schiavo? The neuropathologist makes the comparison in terms of weight. I’ve already discussed the effects of dehydration here.

But are they comparable in terms of brain damage? I think that an arguement can be made that they are not. It all boils down to the Thalamus. The greatest damage to Quinlan’s brain was to the thalamus (she had some intact cortex). The conclusion was made that:
The findings in Karen Quinlan’s brain suggested that the thalamus played a more crucial role in consciousness and awareness than was previously thought.

What about Terri’s thalamus? On page 4 of the neuropathologist’s report it says:

In the thalamus, the most medial portions were relatively preserved (from the frontal cortex).

When the thalamus was examined microscopically, damage was definitely detected–though not as much damage as was done to the basal ganglia. The bottom line is that Terri’s thalamus suffered damage to a degree–but there is no indication from the neuropathologist that it was damage as severe as Quinlan’s. The pathologist had the opportunity to say that Terri’s thalamus was as damaged as Quinlan’s when he compared the weight of the brain–but didn’t. He just compared the weight.

Does weight really matter as much as the nature of the damage?

The thalamus is like mission control for your body.