[secretagent]

Doctors aren't suppose to make specific predictions on functions. Any doctor, or in this case, Alleged Expert, that makes specific predictions are negligent.

Please expand your comment a bit. The court held an evidentiary hearing to assess Terri's chances for recovering "increased cognitive function".

"On the issue that caused this court to reverse in our last decision, whether new treatment exists which offers such promise of increased cognitive function in Mrs.Schiavo's cerebral cortex that she herself would elect to undergo this treatment andwould reverse the prior decision to withdraw life-prolonging procedures, the parents presented little testimony."

I don't see the point of the doctor's opinions, at the evidentiary hearing, unless they hazard predictions of the liklihood of "increased cognitive function".

[Calpernia]

Dr. Webber submitted an affidavit disputing the diagnosis of persistent vegetative state and therapies that offer good opportunity of improvement.

Dr. William Hammesfahr claimed that vasodilation therapy and hyberbaric therapy "could help her improve."

Dr. Webber was denied the opportunity to examine Terri. Therefore he cannot speak on specifics of Terri.

Dr. Hammesfahr was asked to testify on "specifics" that would be improved.

So the parents didn't present little testimony. The courts didn't allow room for Dr. Webber's evidence and Dr. Hammesfahr was asked to predict how Terri's theray would leave her in the end.

If this isn't the response you were looking for, please be more clear on your question.