Christie Blatchford at the Lana Dale Lewis Inquest
CFRB - Randy Taylor Show - April 25, 2002
The interview with columnist and commentator Christie Blatchford was a head to head duel between an award winner and a real loser. Christie tried to present today's testimony in an accurate manner, and Randy chimed in with his usual one-sided comments. It's really unfortunate that Randy Taylor just doesn't get it. He parroted the allegations made by chiropractic spokespeople that Lana Dale Lewis must have stroked out because of her habits. His comments were uncalled for, and entirely mean and ugly. Oh, did I mention that he's in love with himself and with alternative practices.
RT: The coroner's inquest in Toronto has begun and we've been told by retired neuropathologist that a woman who died after receving a chiropractic neck manipulation, very likely died from complications resulting from that procedure. She died 17 days after the adjustment. On the line CFRB commentator and National Post columnist, Christie Blatchford.
CB: Hello Randy
RT: Hello Christie. Just getting under way is this?
CB: It started on Monday, so this is its first week. It's a very complicated case, filled with medical language, and terms that most ordinary laymen probably would not have heard until this week.
RT: Who was testifying today?
CB: In the witness stand was one of the two key pathologists who (are) basically in a dual here. Um, this fellow is Dr. John Deck. He's a retired pathologist. He's done, he estimates some 10,000 autopsies in his live. And he's the pathologist who believes that Lana Dale Lewis, the woman who died in 1996 probably suffered, that the stroke that killed her was probably caused by the chiropractic manipulation she'd had. Um, she last saw her chiropractor on August 26 that year, I think, and she reported first to hospital, with what they believed was the first stroke on September the first. In the whole other school of thought, in part a least, would be given here when the younger pathologist, who was basically the student of Dr. Deck takes the witness stand later in the inquest. This is Dr. Michael Pollanen. And, he will testify that though he originally, apparently agreed with Dr. Deck, he now believes, he's come to believe that by looking at the slides and by re-examining the issue again, that Ms. Lewis' death was probably was that of a stroke, which was probably caused naturally or spontaneously by the normal kind of plaque buildup most of us have in our arteries after a certain age.
RT: Do you get the sense that this case, a) and I'll be very honest think that this is a complete witch hunt. I think someone dying 17 days after something like that....
CB:No, no, no. She had symptoms apparently the first night.
RT: Right, yeah?
CB: But, it's important to know that.
RT:But, again when you have dueling pathologists, and you have a patient who admittedly was seriously overweight, a heavy smoker, heavy drinker, had high blood pressure. I don't think I've ever seen a malpractice case so covered in the media as this one.
CB: Well, it's not a malpractice case here. It's a coroner's case and the object of the exercise is to find out as best the jury can, in the public interest, what killed this woman. So there's a real purpose to an inquest. And if it's a witch hunt, it's been a long time coming, because it started and stopped many times before. And, in my view, I mean I don't have a particular position, you know on chiropractors. But, in my view the chiropractic profession, my guess, is very well equipped to defend itself against any improper slurs. And it's well represented. They had the college and the sort of malpractice board, I think, and several of the chiropractic, sort of arms, have standing at this inquest. And there are many expensive lawyers working for them. So, you know don't misunderstand, this is not one huge arm of government against...
RT: Oh, oh, oh, I'm not for a second saying that the inquest is. I just, I mean that over the years that leading up to this, you know, "whew" relative to all the people who die, you know relative in normal conventional medicine, this case has just, and not relative to the inquest. But, the media attention the attention has been phenomenal.
CB: Because so many of us go to chiropractors, so often. I mean, so that if, I mean if that's the public interest element to this inquest, which is that let's find out if we can if there is something that puts some of us at risk when we go to see a chiropractor, so that people know about it. And, if there isn't anything, then let's reassure people that it's perfectly safe. I mean that's a noble goal.
RT: Certainly, alright we'll pick it up again tomorrow. Thanks.
|
