It is a fact. It is the definition of PVS. The "P" stands for "Persistent".
"... but sometimes, yes, sometimes, they do."
They never, no, never, do. If the patient regains consciousness, then they weren't PVS.
From post 70:
RP: Neither will recover. Both are on artificial life support. Neither has consciousness or ever will again.
OFF: This is your opinion. It is not fact.
If it were fact, then patients in a PVS would never regain consciousness, but sometimes, yes, sometimes, they do. You've made a blanket statement and try to apply it to all cases.
Now here is the response (115):
OFF: "If it were fact"
RP: It is a fact. It is the definition of PVS. The "P" stands for "Persistent".
OFF: "... but sometimes, yes, sometimes, they do."
RP: They never, no, never, do. If the patient regains consciousness, then they weren't PVS.
It sounds like you believe that ALL patients who are diagnosed as PVS must be in an irreversible condition based on the definition. Yet, you concede that "if the patient regains consciousness, then they weren't PVS." In other words, you rightly conclude that sometimes doctors DO misdiagnose this condition.
What is being discussed (IMHO) are the pros and cons to administering a drug to a patient that might help determine whether this patient is truly in an IRREVERSIBLE condition. Up until this discovery, there was little hope that these patients could be reversed. Legally, there appears to be a boundary on whether or not it is ethical to allow someone to die by withholding treatment if the condition can be reversed (which would also mean that the patient had been misdiagnosed).
Furthermore, in post 129 you argue that PVS is permanent, yet in your earlier post 115 you say that the "P" stands for persistent. Which is it? Permanent and persistent are two words that could be synonyms, but in truth, there is a matter of degree in definition. "Permanent" does mean irreversible, yet "persistent" has a bit of the unknown about its reversibility. There is a quality about the word "persistent" that indicates a description of the condition up to a certain point, but does not with complete certainty indicate what the future of the conditions holds.
It is my understanding that this condition (PVS) first was called "persistent" and then over time, "permanent" became introduced into the diagnosis. I believe this was a purposeful move by pro-euthanasia movement, with the support of doctors like Dr. Ronald Cranford and other "bio-ethicists". IMHO, because the diagnosis can (now) result in the loss of life, whether or not the patient would want that, it is a diagnosis that needs to be looked at (and revised) quite urgently. Otherwise, there should not be such a rush to discontinue "erring on the side of life", which is the way society has handled questions like this for quite some time.