Nonsense. Blindness is a clinical finding. It cannot be determined with certainty post-mortem. In the instance Terri was clinically tested by three of the five court-appointed doctors to have some vision (optimum 8" - 12", or up to 18"; she could see the bright shiny balloons from further, as focus didn't matter). Yes, Dr. Cranford was one of them.
The discrepancy between clinical findings and Dr. Nelson's cortical blindness claim was most likely a sampling error.
It's not nonsense. It not only can be determined post mortem, it often is, as in this case. Throgmorton said she was most likely blind, because the cortical mass nesessary for sight was just not there. It's really quite simple, w/o the parts for the machinery required for the function, there is no function.
"In the instance Terri was clinically tested by three of the five court-appointed doctors to have some vision (optimum 8" - 12", or up to 18"; she could see the bright shiny balloons from further, as focus didn't matter). Yes, Dr. Cranford was one of them."
Cranford testified that there was NO RESPONSE from Terri. That's as I said in my above post. You don't get to alter, or misrepresent what his official testimony was. You have to deal with it. No response indicates the possibility that she was unable to percieve the balloons. Throgmorton's conclusion was that she could not, because the visual cortex was mostly gone.
" The discrepancy between clinical findings and Dr. Nelson's cortical blindness claim was most likely a sampling error."
Sampling error? LOL!