"You're saying Dr. Cranford was wrong when he stated, "He (Dr. Cheshire) never examined her, he never viewed her CT scans, and he made no mention of her EEG. He viewed her for 90 minutes, and in his report states that she had no visual tracking and she had no conscious awareness -- cardinal signs of the vegetative state"?"
No...I think I plainly said Cranford was wrong when he said Sgt. Mack was pvs. He was wrong.
He was just as convinced of Sgt. Mack's diagnosis as he was about Terri's.
Cheshire's concerns stemmed from concerns that we see in the links provided. Read them or not. They have to do with the high rate of misdiagnosis...and new techniques in neuroimagery (of which Terri never received).
Also that observed behaviors COULD be signs of responsiveness. He did not offer diagnosis.
"Yes, and I would therefore assume that there were four others prior to the trial such that at the time of the trial in 2002 we had a total of seven neurologists."
You would assume?
But you said this was beyond doubt.
Do you have links to their opinions?
The link I provided clearly shows there was room for doubt, afterall...3 out of 5 is hardly beyond doubt.
"The court was convinced. "
Well...Judge Greer was convinced. It's too bad a legally blind judge who never bothered to visit her - admitted he made mistakes in his rulings - ignored the advise of court appointed guardians - appointed HIMSELF guardian (against the law) - was the main decision maker here.
Criminals on death row get more due process than this.
"Testimony? As in court testimony? As in under oath, penalty of perjury testimony?"
Affidavits are considered sworn testimony- I believe the penalty of perjury does apply when they are signed.
"Or "testimony" as in comments made to The National Enquirer? Don't tell me you took their gossip "testimony" seriously."
I have no idea what you are talking about but apparantly you are omnipotent and have the power to tell who is telling the truth and who isn't?
Yes...affidavits from different nurses who worked with her at different times in different places.
Their descriptions of Terri's responses are remarkably similar - as well as their descriptions of Michael Schiavo.
I am reminded of this statement from this link I already provided....
http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/319/7213/841
"Medical assessors must not restrict themselves to direct formal examination of the patient. A patient's behavior may vary throughout the day and over longer periods, and some stimuli will arise only infrequently. Consequently, all available sources of evidence must be used, all written records including nursing notes should be reviewed and staff who have been in close contact with the patient over some time should be interviewed"
"It is particularly important to interview family members. They may have observed behavior that indicates awareness, and their opinion on the patients level of awareness must be sought..."
According to an affidavit signed by Heidi Law...
"You would always tell when Terri had a bowel movement, as she seemed agitated and would sort of 'scoot' to get away from it."
"At least three times during any shift where I took care of Terri, I made sure to give Terri a wet washcloth filled with ice chips, to keep her mouth moistened. I personally saw her swallow the ice water and never saw her gag. Olga and I frequently put orange juice or apple juice in her washcloth to give her something nice to taste, which made her happy. On three or four occasions I personally fed Terri small mouthfulls of Jello, which she was able to swallow and enjoyed immensely. I did not do it more often only because I was so afraid of being caught by Michael."
"During the time I cared for Terri, she formed words. I have heard her say 'mommy' from time to time, and 'momma,' and she also said 'help me' a number of times. She would frequently make noises like she was trying to talk. Other staff members talked about her verbalizations.
"...it was part of my job duties to write my observations down on sheets of paper, which I turned over to the nurse at the nurses station for inclusion in the patients charts. In the case of Terri Schiavo, I felt that my notes were thrown out without even being read. There were trash cans at the nurses stations that we were supposed to empty each shift, and I often saw the notes in them. I made extensive notes and listed all of Terri's behaviors, but there was never any apparant follow up consistent with her responsiveness...."
There were others who signed affidavits.
Do you have proof they are all liars?
Oops. You accidentally left out the last part:
"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.
Which leads us to .....
"According to an affidavit signed by Heidi Law..."
Getting desperate? Heidi Law's "medical" experience is one step above a Candy Striper ... if that. Even the nurses threw away her notes.
"Do you have proof they are all liars?"
Liars in what sense? I believe that they believe they heard Terri say these things. I believe that they believe Terri could voluntarily swallow.
Just as I believe that others believe they saw UFOs. Are they liars?
But what they saw was no more a UFO than the conclusion that Terri could talk or voluntarily swallow.
Are you saying that you believe Terri could talk meaningful and appropriate words? That you believe she could voluntarily swallow?