Yes - you are correct - the 2 Dr's told the truth, but because the court was biased they were ignored. The entire trial was a complete sham. Makes me sick. There should have been 10 Dr's from reputable hospitals across the country and it should have had to been unanimous. None of them should have been "chosen" by MS or Judge Greer. And so none of them should have been chosen by the Shindlers. The outcome would have been completely different.
I can agree with that : )
And if they couldn't agree, then she dies right? I didn't think so.
Look, if you want to make sure no one gets to exercise their right to die, make it 10,000 doctors and require unanimity and only one in a million (the odds of 10,000 doctors agreeing on anything) billionaires (because of the cost of 10,000 doctors)would get their right to die.
BTW, keep in mind that at most 'reputable hospitals' there is a range of opinion within the medical staff. I'll bet you don't want the registered libertarian from every staff, do you? See the problem. Selection of the 'neutrals' is the problem.
If you really want the neutral approach, and you don't want a judge to ameliorate the kookiness of physicians (I think that would be a big mistake), then use the striking procedure utilized in arbitrations. Let the court (or some other neutral source) select a list of five, let each side strike two and the remaining one is your decision-maker.
That's better than unanimity requirements (which don't work), but I don't think you'll be happy with the result. Our present system is much better. Your side will probably win the next case and you'll think they're very wise then.