She failed three swallow tests. It was recommended that she not be tested again due to the severity of her injuries. Brain matter doesn't grow back. There isn't any chance of improvement.
When? Was this recent or years ago? What injuries? With liquids or solids? She certainly can swallow liquids otherwise she'd be constantly drooling. In any event, food and water are NOT medicines. They are basic needs of every human being.
Brain matter doesn't grow back. There isn't any chance of improvement.
I'm aware of that. See my post #100.
For a patient to "pass" a swallow test, doctors have to conclude that there is not any significant likelihood of aspiration. Failing a swallow test doesn't mean there's a zero percent chance oral feeding would be successful; it merely means that oral feeding wouln't be worth the risk given the availability of safer alternatives. Even a 10% risk would outweigh a 90% probability of success if safer alternatives were available. In the absense of such alternatives, though, even a 95% probability of aspiration and a 2% probability of success should not disqualify the attempt.
If I may use a crude analogy, would it make sense for a pilot to attempt to land a jetliner without using the rudder, elevators, or ailerons--relying entirely upon varying thrust to control the aircraft? A pilot who attempted such a thing in any normal circumstance would be soundly condemned, and rightly so. Under any normal circumstance, the risks involved with such a landing would be completely unjustifiable. But in a case where a plane (DC-10 I think) suffered critical failure on all three hydraulic systems, a test pilot who happened to be on board was able to control the plane by precisely that method, and was able to land well enough to save many of the passengers.
Would you suggest that the captain of the aircraft should have refused to let the test pilot attempt to fly it, on the basis that such a crazy method of controlling an aircraft was exceptionally dangerous?