The pro-husband doctor says that Terry's cerebral cortex has "mostly" suffered damage - in fact she apparently has most of her cerebral cortex missing and replaced with spinal fluid.
Perhaps not, though. Perhaps the doctor has made an inference based on a selective reading from the pro-husband doctors, and not read the pro-parent doctors.
The article's author doesn't mention that doctors disagree with doctors over Terry's condition.
One might conclude from the article that the parents, blinded by emotion, don't want to accept the medical consensus. The article doesn't mention opposing medical opinion at all.
The missing cerebral cortex allegation interests me, but the author seems afraid to solicit contrary medical opinion, and I wonder why.
It seems as if this would be easily verifiable with the use of MRI and CT scans. I would think a rather elaborate conclusion could be drawn based on PET scan results, but I do not know to what extent the husband even allowed such testing to take place or if results of any of these tests have been offered into evidence.
Not that I think it would make any difference as to the flawed judgement in the case. Judges are playing God and they are out of bounds. Consider this: if we are known to use only 10% of our brains, don't you think that it is possible when there is damage to one part of the brain that there might be some natural, built-in way for another part to compensate to some extent?