Then either this lawyer conned you, or he is as confused as his client.
Have you seen this article from the Chronicle?
Your version makes a much bigger story for them than their own, but it contradicts everything anyone with experience with Texas Children's Hospital knows.
I'm suprised that more people here do not have a problem with a judge simply accepting things he's heard or read out of court, and not allowing someone to present evidence
The judge had the Texas law on the subject which made the case preposterous on it's face.
The bottom line is that Texas Children's Hospital does, routinely, treat children with the same condition.
The bottom line is that they do not. They treat conditions with similar names.
So9
Yes, I've read that article. It doesn't say a single word about what happened (or didn't) in court before the judge in this particluar case.
If there is a Texas statute that allows a hospital to make a decision to end life-support, even after a parent objects, then I would hope that you would agree that such a decision can and ought to be reviewable. If there was a statute that gave a stranger decision-making authority over your very life according to his own rules, and gave you no mechanism to oppose the decision, you'd have a constitutionally flawed statute on your hands.
Given that one has the right to seek review by the courts, one might expect that the court would let one speak.
It's that's simple. I've read your posts and the article you linked to, and can't find anything that contradicts my reporting on what happened in court. In what way have I been conned?