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.
Like the 15 other doctors, have any of these doctors examined her?
I agree.
And he's been discredited here with facts about his credentials rather thoroughly. I'm quite in favor of more tests in Terri's case. I think hucksters on either side hurt more than help in reaching a determination that we all can live with.
Oh you mean the neurologist who had his lawyer friend nominate him. He was not nominated by any medical or scientific people. He was nominated by a friend for publicity purposes. Note, he didnt win a Noble prize. A friend merely nominated him. Would you like to be nominated? I could probably make it happen.
He has been asked not to use that misleading descriptor anymore. He was "nominated" by his Republican congressman, Peter Bilirakis, back in 1999, not by representatives of the medical scientific community.
It is unknown if his nomination was even accepted by the Nobel Committee.
By the way, your neurologist submitted an affidavit on May 7, 2001, saying that Terri was not in a persistent vegetative state. Now this is odd, in that he did not spend those 10 hours personally examining her until September 3rd and 4th in 2002.
Any comment on that?