About that 43% Dana mentioned. Larry, do you read your own links? This supports the belief she's not PVS.
http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/short/313/7048/13 Of the 40 patients referred as being in the vegetative state, 17 (43%) were considered as having been misdiagnosed; seven of these had been presumed to be vegetative for longer than one year, including three for over four years. Most of the misdiagnosed patients were blind or severely visually impaired. All patients remained severely physically disabled, but nearly all were able to communicate their preference in quality of life issues--some to a high level. (sm: didn't you say after six months ther'es no savinging them? If it were up to you Steven Haw) Conclusions: The vegetative state needs considerable skill to diagnose, requiring assessment over a period of time; diagnosis cannot be made, even by the most experienced clinician, from a bedside assessment. Accurate diagnosis is possible but requires the skills of a multidisciplinary team experienced in the management of people with complex disabilities. Recognition of awareness is essential if an optimal quality of life is to be achieved and to avoid inappropriate approaches to the courts for a declaration for withdrawal of tube feeding Key messages 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 Any motor activity, no matter how slight, that can be used for communication by the profoundly disabled patient should be identified at an early stage and repeated at regular intervals Identification of awareness in the presence of profound and complex neurological disabilities requires the skills of a multidisciplinary team experienced in long term management of disability due to brain damage On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 13:04:50 -0500, Larry C. Lyons wrote: > Are these people trained neurologists? What I read is impressionistic > non-medical reports. CNA's are not trained in diagnosis. Moreover > every diagnostic criteria I've read cautions the clinician not to > interpret, but rather report on the actual behaviors. The propaganda > you've reported on is pure interpretation > -- > http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/319/7213/841 > > Observation versus interpretation > When obtaining evidence from other observers or from written material, > it is vital that the examiner distinguishes clearly between observed > behaviour and interpretation of the behaviour. Thus, family or staff > should be asked directly what behaviour was actually observed. The > examiner may then ask for their interpretations, which may show > further observational evidence. However, interpretations made by > observers may well be biased and the assessor should make her or his > own interpretation. > -- > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Find out how CFTicket can increase your company's customer support efficiency by 100% http://www.houseoffusion.com/banners/view.cfm?bannerid=49 Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:5:151101 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/5 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:5 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.5 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
