You couldn't prove that she couldn't be cured. Only thing these doctors can do in court, is make suggestions that point either way. They just happened to be out numbered by a wildcard doctor that the court appointed. Majority favored.
And there's absolutely nothing wrong with court rulings on this one. Absolutely nothing. Like the fact that Terri
supposedly remarked that she would not want to be kept alive through "
artifical means," yet the Judge has ruled that no food or water is to be given to Terri naturally either. How about new evidence and statements from the police that there may have been signs of strangulation in '90 when she collapsed? Or the medical records that were recently released that showed Terri had several fractures in her skull? Maybe the weird case where she somehow broke several bones between the time of collapse and 12 months in the hospital. The push for an investigation into the collapse of Schiavo has categorically been denied and motions to remove Michael as guardian based on newly found medical evidience and testimony that would suggest a clear conflict of interest are refused to be heard.
Actually, the Barnhill remark had nothing to do with the Wolfson report. And as for that second comment that you seem to think was based off of ignorance; your Wolfson report does not explain how the doctor's came to that conclusion. It was not based on whether she was responsive or not. In fact, most found that she was responsive to the environment. It's that she didn't repeat the responses over and over and over again. In speech therapy years and years ago, she was taught to say, "
no." But because she doesn't repeat it again and again, people disregard that meant anything. I cling to Florida's defention, as it varies somewhat from Ronald Cranford's defintion, which is what Ronald Cranford's diagnosis was based on in court.
As for the fiance comments, I said not many average American's are aware of that. Showing me a snippet from the Wolfson report where he talks about the Schindlers encouraging Mike to move on isn't even addressing what I was talking about.
And yes, I mocked your "
snippets" because I spent an entire post arguing with Wolfson rather than a member of this board.
Part A is all you found of the definition, hmm? How about part B? "
An inability to communicate or interact purposefully with the environment." Saying the word, "
No" after speech therapy is not a reflex. Because it wasn't said twice though, by some of these doctors' diagnosis, it is just that to them.
Everything you've read must have been the Wolfson report and the 2000 decision (
Wolfson's report was based off of that in part, mind you).
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4358877.stm
http://www.terrisfight.net/timeline.html
http://www.ascensionhealth.org/ethic...ses/case28.asp
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/ar...TICLE_ID=43026
http://news.**********/news?tmpl=stor...man_timeline_1
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...a030457S65.DTL
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/ar...t_to_die_case/
http://www.newsday.com/news/nationwo...news-headlines
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/n...l=chi-news-hed
http://www.sptimes.com/2005/02/27/Ta...he_Schia.shtml
http://www.beliefnet.com/story/134/story_13447_1.html
http://www.abcnews.go.com/Health/story?id=531632&page=1