A PhD in neuropsychology is superbly qualified. That's not even debatable.
And, yes, actually he did physically examine Terri. Much medical examination, including internal, is done on camera. Have you ever had a colonoscopy and seen the results on TV? It ain't the doc in there examining.
>> Hopefully, at least one of them is A) a medical doctor and B) has actually examined her.
Many doctors examined her. They examined medical records as well as videographic material made available at an evidentiary hearing. This is a legitimate and medically ethical investigative method. Were it not, none could have submitted an affidavit without professional censure.
Remember who else looked at videos and made medical judgments from them? George Greer. Now there was a guy practicing medicine without a license, yet you held that up as the gospel truth. You can hardly complain about physicians and other medical specialists doing so with far more material and far better training.
He's a glorified psychologist, for crying out loud. There's no behavior for him to assess. Terri is PVS.
He may indeed be qualified, but not to evaluate Terri. And certainly not via a review of video tapes.
"And, yes, actually he did physically examine Terri."
He never got within 10 miles of her.
"This is a legitimate and medically ethical investigative method. Were it not, none could have submitted an affidavit without professional censure."
What type of doctor would submit an affidavit on a patient he's never even seen? Their affidavits and 10 cents will get you a cup of coffee.