Back at the start of this thread, when I read that there was a team of specialists from a hospital, that had retested her, I thought it was maybe those from the hospital where she was staying in NJ. And I thought, wow, maybe they saw something while treating her every day. And I was getting ready to throw my hat on the grill and cook it up for supper.
But since it's these same 'specialists' that have touted their own POV since BEFORE she was injured, I have my doubts. I feel they had a certain agenda. And might not be unbiased enough to do the tests objectively. Also, the woman who specializes in counseling autistic patients---how is she qualified to do such a complicated neurological diagnosis?
I completely agree, katydid23, and a great observation. I was kind of in the same place last week-- skeptical, but open to hear what I thought was going to be a press conference from the St.Peter ICU staff in NJ.
My skepticism only grew as Dolan became more "coy" about who his experts were-- and I was kind of flabbergasted that he did not name them in the memorandum/ petition he filed. Say what?? It was, IMO, kind of rude, and somewhat conceited or arrogant, to the court and the Judge-- which is kind of not a good place to be in when you are the one petitioning for something "special" and out of the ordinary, IMO!
The way I read that memorandum from Dolan was, "you may not think you have jurisdiction, but I have decided you DO, Judge, and by the way, we have experts and proof. But you'll have to play ball with us before we show our proof, and tell you who is on the team, and what they have to say."
(And the typos and mistaken medical terms in the document filed were more than a bit off-putting, IMO. Like, "I don't have time to proof read this.)
Confirmation bias can be a very seductive and insidious mistress, IMO. It's hard for researchers to not want to waltz and snuggle with things that seem to support their hypothesis. Every single name that has come out in the past week associated with this case has, as you eloquently point out, had their personal POV on brain death, recovery from brain death, and what constitutes "life", for many years. Even the eminent Dr. Shewmon has been showing his cards for decades. So it doesn't seem unusual to me that the same names would have the same opinions and "findings" in this case.
I was hoping for a bunch of respected, in the trenches, but unknown intensivists from St Peter Hospital in NJ to come out and say we believe that Jahi is alive because ".....xyz...."
Instead, we have more of the same "brain death doesn't exist", and "organ donation is a flawed process based on a lie" individuals we have been hearing from since last December. IMO.
