who?
I don't have their names, but my understanding is that a good number of them were neurologists who did not believe that the Court-appointed doctors who examined her did a sufficient job and that she should be re-examined now.
What's the harm in that?
Also, at least one Noble-prize nominated neurologist who spent 10 hours with her says that she is not in a PVS.
All I'm saying is that there ARE conflicting medical opinions on this question, and a life is in the balance. It seems to me that she should be re-examined in light of this.