Still no link to testimony. Still not addressing other questions. No use continuing.But I'll leave you with this from Freeper Catholic and Conservative.
None of the doctors claim she has no living tissue in her cerebral cortex. Dr. Cranford claimed that she had no living neurons in her cortex. On cross-examination, he admitted there might be pockets of viable neurons as "a remote possibility", but even he does not describe them as "isolated". Dr. Greer might agree, but if he does, he didn't say so.
Here is the exchange with Dr. Bambakidis on this issue:
8 Q. Now, is there any brain matter left in
9 Terri Schiavo's cerebral --
10 A. Oh, there is. Yes.
11 Q. -- cerebral hemispheres?
12 A. Yes, there is.
13 Q. And, in your opinion, would any of that
14 tissue be glial cells?
15 A. Yes.
That is all. Michael Schiavo's lawyer creates the impression that Dr. Bambakidis is confirming Dr. Cranford's claim that all of the neurons in Terri's cortex were replaced by glial cells, but that is a false impression. What Dr. Bambakidis actually said is trivial, *everyone* has glial cells in his cortex.
Dr. Bambakidis does say that Terri is in PVS, but the court has made a stronger claim, and claims it to be unanimous medical opinion, on the testimony of one doctor.
From here: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/1351061/posts?page=303#303
And:
Please name one other doctor in this supposed debate who claims that Terri has no living neurons left in her cerebral cortex. In the court transcript, I saw no one but Dr. Cranford making this claim. It is clear that Drs. Hammasfher and Maxfield do not believe Terri has just "a small amount of isolated living tissue ... or no living tissue in her cerebral cortex", so the court was simply wrong when it said these were the only opinions doctors hold. I would guess that Dr. Bambakidis does not believe this either, based on the testimony I quoted in #303.
The word "isolated" matters because if indeed her cerebral cortex consisted of patches of living neurons separated by scar tissue, her prognosis would be worse if there were no synaptic connections between cells in different patches. The court seems to be going beyond the testimony offered by its five experts.
And Here:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/1351061/posts?page=306#306
As far as the judicial system is concerned, it is a fact that Terri is in a persistent vegetative state. It's no longer disputable in the eyes of the law (caveat later).
Here's what the appeals court said about the ruling by Greer that Terri is in a PVS in their 2001 opinion.
The evidence is overwhelming that Theresa is in a permanent or persistent vegetative state. It is important to understand that a persistent vegetative state is not simply a coma. [FN1] She is not asleep. She has cycles of apparent wakefulness and apparent sleep without any cognition or awareness. As she breathes, she often makes moaning sounds. Theresa has severe contractures of her hands, elbows, knees, and feet.FN1. For more extensive discussions of persistent vegetative state, see Dorothy J. McNoble, The Cruzan Decision--A Surgeon's Perspective, 20 Mem. St. U.L.Rev. 569, 610 n. 3 (1990); John B. Oldershaw, M.D., J.D., et al., Persistent Vegetative State: Medical, Religious, Economic and Legal Perspectives, 1 DePaul J. Health Care L. 495-536 (1997).
Over the span of this last decade, Theresa's brain has deteriorated because of the lack of oxygen it suffered at the time of the heart attack. By mid 1996, the CAT scans of her brain showed a severely abnormal structure. At this point, much of her cerebral cortex is simply gone and has been replaced by cerebral spinal fluid. Medicine cannot cure this condition. Unless an act of God, a true miracle, were to recreate her brain, Theresa will always remain in an unconscious, reflexive state, totally dependent upon others to feed her and care for her most private needs. She could remain in this state for many years.
My caveat is as follows: new evidence can be introduced at a later date which wasn't available to the court when it made its initial finding of fact that could cause it to reconsider its earlier finding. The question is whether new tests on Terry, not available earlier might show a different result.
I'd support doing that, although I'm rather pessimistic that they would show a significantly different result. Your brain can atrophy, but it's no good at growing back. Still, it couldn't hurt to check one last time.
Drawing an analogy to a criminal case, though, you can't keep postponing the conclusion of a trial for just one more ballistics test over and over again. That's the obstacle Terri and the Schindlers face.