Replies

His "expert" testimony on PVS is garbage and there is now conflcting testimony from a disinterested neurologist who consults for DCF.

Based on the standards for impeachment generally deployed on these threads, it's all too easy to paint Cheshire as "conflicted". If affiliation with various right-to-die and death-with-dignity organizations is enough to impeach the court-appointed doctors who support Michael Schiavo, then Cheshire's affiliations are quite enough to attack his credibility when he opposes him.

FWIW, I think all those sorts of arguments are pure garbage, regardless of whether we're talking about doctors who are pro or con. Cheshire is clearly a qualified expert, as are the other doctors who have rendered their opinions on the case. It should, I expect, present a bit of difficulty for those who argue against the credibility of court-appointed doctors, and yet prefer to maintain some sort of logical consistency.

And second, Greer erred bigtime when he disregarded testimony as to Terri Schiavos state of mind vis a vis Karen Ann Quinlan.

And here they go, walking that argument into the same court - Whittemore's - that's turned them down once already. I don't root for failure here, but I'll not be surprised if it does not go well, again.

Cheshire is clearly a qualified expert, as are the other doctors who have rendered their opinions on the case.

I PVS diagnosis means nothing more nor less than that the person making it was unable to find signs of cognition. One isn't apt to find signs of cognition if one isn't looking very hard. The notion that failure to find cognition in a single exam of less than an hour's duration means anything is absurd.

To clarify: finding cognition in a five minute exam would be more meaningful than failing to find it in an hour. Doctor Cranford, one of Michael's "doctors", has an amazing knack for making PVS diagnoses even for patients who can move about with a wheelchair. Why would Michael hire that sort of "doctor"?

Cheshire is unopposed to removing feeding tubes from patients in PVS.

But lets get real. The two hired experts for MS examined this woman for 45 minutes each. No diagnostic imaging was performed. It would seem to be the courts burden to prove PVS before the court orders removal of hydration.

You can't prove a patient is in PVS by observing them for 45 minutes and without looking at, at least, new CT and PET. And to tell you the truth I don't understand why you'd argue that they can.

n3 "Plaintiffs have submitted affidavits of health care professionals regarding Theresa's medical status, treatment techniques and therapies which are available and their opinions regarding how and whether these treatments might improve Theresa's condition. Plaintiffs have not, however, discussed these affidavits in their papers and how they relate to the claimed constitutional deprivations."

From Whittemores holding. He seems to be telling the Schindlers attorney what they need to do.