I'm not. What I am pointing out is that the same standards that have been employed to discount them - not by you, that I've seen - should be sufficient to discount Cheshire. This is not a legal argument, but it does provide a rather compelling illustration of how deeply flawed some of the rhetoric used by supporters of the Schindlers has been. Affiliations are meaningless. Personal philosophies are irrelevant. What matters is how well the diagnoses accord with mainstream medical science. Hammesfahr is right out - his hyperbaric treatments have never been shown to have any effect on PVS or comatose patients, as he himself admits. Cheshire is a much better and more credible source - unless we hold him to the same standards that the Schindler supporters hold Schiavo's doctors, and the court-appointed doctors to. In which case, he is equally worthless, given his clear stance on end-of-life issues.
My point is not to keep Cheshire out of the game - on the contrary, I'd like to keep him in the game. If his examination of 90 minutes, with no new imaging, is sufficient to arrive at an accurate diagnosis, how can we logically say that the same sort of exam by a doctor who arrives at a different conclusion a priori insufficient? I don't think we can, not without abandoning any hope of consistent standards. It is entirely possible, in my mind, that both sets of doctors can be fully qualified and have all the information they need to arrive at a reasonable diagnosis, and yet still disagree - this is not algebra, where the correct answer is a logical necessity. Therefore, to hold one set of experts to one standard, and another set to another, does not, in my opinion, aid anyone in a search for the truth.
He seems to be telling the Schindlers attorney what they need to do.
Hopefully Torie's new buddy Gibbs has figured out how to take a damn hint by now ;)
LOL, yes we can certainly hope and maybe even pray for that.
BTW, I agree with you on the Docs. My only point is that a cursory examination should not be enough for a court to order the removal of nourishment.
BTW, I hold your opinions in high esteem just like I do Tories.
That we often disagree, as do I and Torie, is neither here nor there.