I always expect Freepers to turn on me when I offer legal interpretation, since I am an evil lawyer....but now a doc as well?
No one is turning on anyone, but when you make statements it's a given that you will be challanged by some or all if you differ. The discourse has been civil, and this is a forum where many views can be expressed. Just don't make a statement and suppose that we will take it as fact.
I bet you also get the warm fuzzies when you see the freeper tag line First kill all the lawyers, then the journalists. I know that I do.
The problem is that the only people offering detailed information are those that support life for Terri. When you get good information on one side, and "trust me" from the other, who do you generally believe?
This is not to condemn anyone - I can fully understand why someone would want to not get involved professionally in this case. But under the circumstances, someone starting from no knowledge is getting almost exclusively information that says Terri has a chance to live. The reports of the doctors chosen by the husband are suspect because of their histories of advocacy of euthanasia; it is reasonable to suspect an ulterior motive.
I just want to know why what appears to be an innocent woman is being put to death at the word of a husband with extreme conflicts of interest and professional death advocates. If there's a reasonable explanation it would put to rest the enormous frustration that comes from seeing what to all appearances is a gross miscarriage of justice.
From a legal point of view- which course would be wiser for Terri's family- asking the 11th to hear this en banc- or going to the SCOTUS?
I find it interesting that a lawyer with no background in diagnostic imaging would offer such a ludicrous comment.