And I posted a link saying doctors said her condition was unlikely to improve. Doctors, plural, meaning one link trumps your five.
Let me repeat what you said: ""
And no doctor said it was irreversible, only that it was unlikely."
I provide proof that 2 doctors in the original case and 3 doctors in the later review said that the condition was irreversible. You claim that no doctor said it was irreversible was false.
Then let review the report of the Guardian Ad Litem (court appointed legal guardian who's purpose was to provide a dispassionate report on the case) and the qualify and believabiity of the various doctors:
By May of 2002, the physicians were selected by both sides, but no agreement could be reached about a fifth, so the court selected one. Curiously and surprisingly, Dr. Webber, who had served as the basis for this entire process at the 2nd DCA, did not participate in the exams or the procedure.
Each of the physicians was afforded access to Theresa for the purpose of conducting a thorough examination. Video tape recordings were made of some of the examinations along with segments in which family members interacted with Theresa. The physicians were deposed and proffered testimony regarding their findings.
Written reports of the examinations were prepared by all five physicians, and a very detailed hearing was held in October of 2002.
The clinical evidence presented by the five physicians reflected their examinations and reviews of the medical records. Four of the physicians were board certified in neurology, as suggested by the court, and one physician was board certified in radiology and hyperbaric medicine. All of the physicians had excellent pedigrees of medical training.
The scientific quality, value and relevance of the testimony varied. The two neurologists testifying for Michael Schiavo provided strong, academically based, and scientifically supported evidence that was reasonably deemed clear and convincing by the court. Of the two physicians testifying for the Schindlers, only one was a neurologist, the other was a radiologist/hyperbaric physician. The testimony of the Schindler’s physicians was substantially anecdotal, and was reasonably deemed to be not clear and convincing.
The fifth physician, chosen by the court because the two parties could not agree, presented scientifically grounded, academically based evidence that was reasonably deemed to be clear and convincing by the court.
GuardianAdLitemReportSchiavo.pdf
>>>>