""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"
It is difficult for anyone to interpret anything when notes are thrown out and when staff members are fearful of writing down the behaviors in the first place.
" However, interpretations made by observers may well be biased and the assessor should make her or his own interpretation."
They may be...or they may not be. Again...hard to tell when their notes aren't even available for review.
"Getting desperate? Heidi Law's "medical" experience is one step above a Candy Striper ... if that. Even the nurses threw away her notes."
Not desperate at all...Heidi Law spent alot of time with Terri -as did others who make the same claims. This is not only about one nurse whose notes were thrown out.
Again from the link provided...
http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/319/7213/841
"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..."
This would certainly include the rehabilitation specialist who ordered Terri's bone scan because he believed Terri expressed discomfort during rehab. And sure enough..Terri was right...she had injuries that needed attention.
This would also include other staff who signed affidavits confirming the statements made by Heidi Law.
"Liars in what sense? I believe that they believe they heard Terri say these things. I believe that they believe Terri could voluntarily swallow."
I get it...you believe these folks are idiots - even though you haven't a clue what kind of people they are.
It comes down to whether or not they support your opinion or not.
"Just as I believe that others believe they saw UFOs. Are they liars? "
So even though you were not there looking after Terri - you can easily dismiss them as lunatics. Bully for you.
"But what they saw was no more a UFO than the conclusion that Terri could talk or voluntarily swallow."
You cannot possibly know that to any degree of certainty, although you can THINK you do.
"Are you saying that you believe Terri could talk meaningful and appropriate words? That you believe she could voluntarily swallow?"
Staff members believed Terri could swallow. Terri did not drool - she maintained her own saliva through swallowing.
A court appointed guardian recommended to judge Greer that she be given a swallowing test - Greer then dismissed the guardian from his position.
I don't know about "voluntarily" - many brain damaged patients can only do this after therapy...something which Terri never received.
"meaningful and appropriate words"...you certainly do keep raising the bar now don't you?
I would think that ANY words at all should be enough. Afterall this is supposed to be a person who cannot see, hear, feel, touch or vocalize. Just trying to make intentional unintelligible noises COULD be sign of awareness.
That staff members and family members felt they could understand words is pretty significant.
You have to dismiss quite a few people as lunatic idiots in order to be so confident that Terri was not aware of her surroundings.
Again...why would anyone give naproxen to a person who cannot feel pain? Terri was given this pain reliever "as needed"....how did they know how much she "needed"?
Why did she "need" it at all?
Yes, words as opposed to "noises" that are "interpreted" by the staff (ie., "payyyyyy" = "pain")
"You have to dismiss quite a few people as lunatic idiots "
Lunatic idiots?...you certainly do keep raising the bar now don't you?
The words lunatic and idiots are yours, not mine. Those people, and you, see what you want to see, and believe what you want to believe, to support your claims. You cling to that .001% of a chance that somebody, anybody, might be wrong, saying, "We can never be 100% certain" -- as though certainty is a requirement.
Your statements are loaded with "could ofs" and "might ofs". Worse, they contain irrelevant and ugly gossip and innuendo as though they actually matter (Judge Greer's vision, for example).
You cite link after link, as though the sheer weight would influence me or others. Even when you posted an extract from those links, it was incomplete and totally out of context.
"Again...why would anyone give naproxen to a person who cannot feel pain? Terri was given this pain reliever "as needed"....how did they know how much she "needed"? Why did she "need" it at all?"
Whoa! Terri was given this pain reliever?? I thought the doctor's order was, "Monitor symptoms of pain/discomfort. If noted, medicate with Naproxen rectal suppository 375 mg. Q8 prn."
Was Terri ever given Naproxen (Aleve)? By who and what were these "symptoms"?
Terri had no cerebral cortex. Terri could not feel pain. Terri was not conscious (even when she was "awake").
Stop it with your insinuations. I'll ask again. Are you saying that YOU believe Terri could talk meaningful and appropriate words (not guttural noises)? That YOU believe she could voluntarily swallow?