Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 09:25, 12 April 2005

Please use the archive parameter to specify the number of the next free peer review page, or replace {{Peer review}} on this page with {{subst:PR}} to find the next free page automatically.

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

Archives: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

Summaries of archive:

• One: bit-by-bit changes
• Two: Michael estranged?, Greer's affiliations,
• Three: POV, Michael as cause?, external links
• Four: Baden's assessment, Euthanasia vs Right-to-die, POV, George Greer, why remove tube, Catholic-influenced decision?, conditon wording, open adultery statute, $10M offer, feeling pain, potential abuse, first names, external link quality
• Five: NCDave conduct, link cleanup, biography request, S686 text, Sun Hudson, Ms./Mrs.
• Six: court decisions, legal implications, family members' character, wording of condition, pundits, S686 vote, Iraq, Sun Hudson
• Seven: Ms. or Mrs., photo usage, initial collapse, insurance, feeding tube, pronunciation, legal costs
• Eight: cause of collapse, Larry King transcript, Hammesfahr's credentials, Michael's role, nurse's affidavit, the Vaitcan, page protection
• Nine: photo inclusion, alleged GOP memo, mentioning the money, bulimia as cause, pro-life/anti-abotion, role of the church
• Ten: feeling pain, cleanup of additions, proposed addition of Lieberman analysis and vocalizations
• Eleven: poll on terminology ("pro-life" or other), including public opinion, wording on Mr. Schiavo's role, overlinking
• Twelve: sources for external links, date correction, "Culture of Life"/"Culture of Death", ABC poll, CAT Scans

Please Use This Talk Page Correctly

From Misplaced Pages:Wikiquette

• Misplaced Pages articles are supposed to represent all views (more at NPOV). The Talk pages are not a place to debate which views are right or wrong or better. If you want to do that, there are venues such as Usenet, public weblogs and other wikis.
• You can always take a discussion to e-mail or to your user page if it's not essential to the article.
• Sign and date your posts to talk pages (not articles!).

Please bear these items in mind when posting to this talk page. This article is controversial and somewhat high traffic. Mis/overuse of the talk page makes it difficult for this page to serve its intended purpose.
Fox1 11:43, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• And remember, when making assertions concerning Mrs. Schiavo herself and her condition. You (almost certainly) do (did) not know her personally, and you (almost certainly) have not examined her in person, and you (very likely -- tell us if it's otherwise :-) are not a physician. So you are working on second-hand, third-hand, or worse reportage. Temper your assertions accordingly.
  

--Baylink 19:23, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Natural Means

Judge Greer denies a motion to provide food and water to Terri by "natural means" here: http://www.terrisfight.org/documents/030805orderdenyfood.pdf

Unfortunately, it references another motion, which I don't have a URL for.

Someone added it to the intro saying Greer prohibited foor and water by natural means. I tweaked it to say he denied a motion for food and water by natural means. but I would like to add the explanation. Unfortunately, Greer references some other motion which I don't have a URL for and he also says "Both require an experimental procedure". Does anyone have plain language explanation of why the motion was denied? It sounds like it is a duplicate of another motion, and the otehr motion was denied for some reason. FuelWagon 07:29, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

There is a question as to whether Terri was capable of swallowing on her own. Maybe that is why it would be an experimental procedure to feed her water orally? Just a guess. Kingturtle 07:57, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I think Tropix is biased towards the Shindler's point of view. The original text that Tropix put in the intro was that Judge Greer denied food and water by natural means, which could be interpreted by readers to mean, they could feed her orally, but he wouldn't let them. I'm also not sure if the ruling that she wouldn't wanted to have been kept alive in this kind of state overrules whether or not feeding her "naturally" or not really mattered. If Terri was PVS, then is somehow forcing food down her throat while she is totally reflexive and non-aware, is that substituting an esophogus for a plastic tube and its still life support, just without the surgery? As far as I know, Tropix hasn't read anything on this page, but I think Tropix is the one who ought to find a URL to the second motion that Greer references. FuelWagon 11:18, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Fuel Wagon, why can't you leave it to the reader to judge the judge? The POV you advocate is the certainty that Greer's ruling reflected Terri's wishes to suffer 13 days of dehyration and starvation in order to die. While the court order exists, the certainty that is was her wish does not exist. This is the major POV problem with the entire article - unjustified certainty of claims made by Michael Schiavo. This is always butressed by the identifying food and water with life support which remains politically contentious and presented in the article as if it were not so.

Re: Judge the Judge. Facts are facts and judgements are judgements. Facts belong in wikipedia. The wording of Greer denying food and water left out facts to allow the reader broader range of judgements. Fill in all the facts, and fewer judgements are possible. FuelWagon 17:28, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

as to "the certainty that it was her wish does not exist", you cannot state that by itself and be NPOV. The entire body of facts around what she wanted, need be presented together in one location so that claims and assertions and accusations can be held in proper context to the facts. The primary fact is that the courts ruled that Terri would not want to be kept on life support. Then claims that Terri said this and Terri said that have some context to live in. But those claims can only be asserted by the main parties involved, Michael or the parents. Assertions are not the place to allow the writer to say "yeah, but this is really what happened". After the fact of the court ruling, the primary assertions of both sides has next precedence in "weight". The whole point of a courtroom is that you get fairness, cross examination, objective interrogation, and a respect to the rule of law. Far less "weight" then is given to third parties not directly involved. Iyer's affadavit cannot be quoted out of context without mentioning the facts that fail to align with her assertions and the fact that Greer ruled it "incredible to say the least". The point is to let the reader judge Iyer's statements, but in context of all the other information, not in a vacuum. NCdave, for example, said Pearson asserted there was a causal link between malpractice money and Michael's change of attitude. But that wasn't fact. It was HIS representation and interpretation of what Pearson said. Pearson never said anything about there being a link from one to the other. He said there is the appearance of or an actual conflict of interest. The reader must be able to judge the facts, not judge the judgements of the wikipedian author. FuelWagon 17:28, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Huh? Who's "Pearson?" NCdave 06:09, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Whether or not it matters according to your point of view, the order itself to "cause the removal of nutrition and hydration from the Ward, THERESA SCHIAVO at 1:00 p.m. on Friday, March 18, 2005." does not permit any attempt to naturally feed Terri. (i.e. to introduce food and water through the mouth.) The background Tropix cites is that Terri was not given a swallow test or any therapy to rehabilitate her ability to eat and drink through the mouth at the insistance of Michael Schiavo. Once that was established by the order of the court, Greer using the principle that he had ruled on it earlier to now deny any natural food or water to be given to her after March 18 2005. The order denying the motion as you requested. patsw 13:23, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. Will look at it later today. No time right now. FuelWagon 17:28, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Read it. Wasn't what I was looking for. Greer mentions some other thing and says "if that is upheld, this motion isn't needed. If that is rejected, then the courts should use this to do indirectly what it would not allow directly" I cannot find the "it" that he is talking about. FuelWagon 22:54, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Can anyone explain the legalease going on in this motion being rejected? Greer references some other document or some other motion or something, and I don't know how to trace back to the original from his cryptographic text. I want to know what legal basis was to reject the motion, leaving it as "just rejected" leaves too many interpretations open. need more facts. FuelWagon 23:47, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

can you be more specific as to which motions/orders you need "translated" (date)? there were an incredible no. of post-trial motions and related orders...if you give me reference points, then i might could take a stab at "translating" the "legalese" (really, it's not cryptic) i don't think that this particular county has an online docket, which would list all the motions in chronological order (go to the county clerk's website). however, abstractappeal.com has a number of the motions, findlaw has a few, and one of the univ websites (UM?) had a fairly comprehensive list with links. (also, see the life support v. nutrition and hydration discussion above for a small, minor "translation" of one motion)--Mia-Cle64.132.60.202 00:51, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It was the link patsw provided: To quote the mumbo jumbo in question:

"it has become clear that the motion is part and parcel of Respondents Fla R. Civ. P rule 1.540(b)(5) motion on medical evaluations. The same declarations are being used fr both motions and the motion appears to be an alternative pleading to the 1.540(b)(5) motion. Both are asking for an experimental procedure."

I have no clue what he's talking about. FuelWagon 00:56, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Greer was apparently referring to the provision of food and water by natural means as an "experimental procedure" because it had not been resolved whether or not Terri's swallowing capabilities were sufficient to enable her to be sustained by food and water provided by natural means. But the reason that question had not been resolved was that Judge Greer, himself, forbade the swallowing therapy and swallowing tests that would have resolved it. NCdave 06:22, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You can read the motion for feeding by natural means (which the judge denied):.

The motion (which I paraphrase) claimed :

• that Terri could swallow saliva and water from toothbrushing,

• that natural ingestion of food and water would not violate the court order to remove "artificial life support" (this is what the court ruled she did not want, based on the hearsay comments attributed to her),

• that denying natural ingestion would make the court's orders penal instead of executory,

• if granted, then either Terri would eat and survive, or not.

The judge denied this motion. If "natural means" are not life support under Florida law, does this leave Terri's death either euthanasia or assisted suicide? Are either legal in Florida?

Tropix 03:35, 2005 Apr 12 (UTC)

No, neither are legal in Florida. NCdave 06:22, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

So that answers the second question. That just leaves the first question for someone to answer. Tropix 06:31, 2005 Apr 12 (UTC)

Introduction Section, Short or Long?

User Tropix has inserted a lot of stuff into the "intro" that is a lot of detail. Unfortunately, now the intro contains serious out-of-order problems, and brings up some hot-button issues without explaining them in detail or in complete context. Does[REDACTED] or the contributers here have any general sense of whether the intro should be a short summary of Terris life, or whether it should just info-dump as much as possible? FuelWagon 11:18, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It's been pointed out that Tropix is very likely a Sock Puppet for an experienced[REDACTED] user. (I learn something new every day. For one, knuckleheads are usually the ones with way too much time on their hands.) I'm thinking everything inserted by Tropix should be dumped. Cause the more I look at Tropix's edits, the more work I see trying to bring them back to a neutral point of view. There was a blatant POV about Pearson saying Michael had a conflict of interest, but Tropix conveniently never mentioned that Pearson said the exact same thing about the Schindlers. I tried to fix it in the article, but every fix makes the intro that much longer. FuelWagon 11:59, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Someone just cut the intro down to 1 paragraph and put the rest of the intro into a section called "timeline". I don't mind that, but I'm noticing that information is getting stated in multiple places. The structure of the entire article appears to need rework. Perhaps the whole article could use some benefit in being put into some sort of rough chronological order. There is just so much stuff that has no context around it. I'm feeling a bit burned out and overwhelmed. Maybe we could pull out the legislative stuff and put it into its own section? I dunno. FuelWagon 12:09, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Please see my comments on this below, in Tropix the Sockpuppet.

Meanwhile, this is the recent version of the intro (slightly improved) that was there before FuelWagon removed it (after making it longer, but before complaining it was too long). I don't say it is perfect. I do say it is preferable to what is there now. Some discussion would be useful. Tropix 03:10, 2005 Apr 12 (UTC)

On February 25, 1990, Terri Schiavo suffered severe brain damage caused by a cardiac arrest. Apparently it was caused by a potassium deficiency in her blood. In turn, this may have been due to bulimia.

In 1992, she was awarded $1 millon in malpractice settlements and awards, to be used for her treatment, and her husband Michael Schiavo was awarded $300,000 for loss of consortium. Until 1994 she received experimental treatment, neurological testing and therapy.

In May of 1998, Michael Schiavo petitioned the Pasco-Pinellas Circuit Court for authority to remove her feeding tube. The court appointed a guardian ad litem, Pearse, who produced a report concluding that Terri Schiavo was in a Permanent Vegetative State (PVS), but that Michael had a financial conflict of interest since he would be the sole inheritor of her money. Pearse also stated that the Schindlers had stated that their hope was that they would be granted guardianship, Michael would divorce their daughter and they would become Terri's "heirs at law". Pearson noted "neither side is exempt from ... possible conflicts of interest." A trial was held.

On February 11, 2000 Circuit Court Judge George Greer ordered that Micheal Schaivo could discontinue Terri's life support. The Judge based this order on his findings that she was in a persistent vegetative state, and that before her illness she had made statements such as that she would not want to be kept alive "on a machine". This decision was upheld upon appeal by 19 separate judges.

On March 18, 2005 her gastric feeding tube was removed on the order of Judge Greer. The Judge denied a motion to provide food and water by natural means. Terri Schiavo died of dehydration on March 31 at around 9:05 a.m. EST (13:05 UTC), after 13 days without the feeding tube or water. An autopsy has been performed, but the results have not yet been released.

Michael Schiavo, her husband and legal guardian, contended that he carried out his wife's wishes not to keep her alive on life support. Mrs. Schiavo's parents, Bob and Mary Schindler, and her brother and sister, disputed Mr. Schiavo's contention that she would not have wished to be kept alive and claim that Schiavo was not in a persistent vegetative state. Her parents vigorously appealed the judicial decisions, leading to the reinsertion of the feeding tube on two separate occasions. The courts all ruled in favor of Mr. Schiavo, and the feeding tube was removed a third and final time.

Splitting controversy section

I think we should think seriously about splitting the "controversy" section into Terri Schiavo controversy as long as we maintain and preserve the key points of each subsection (Michael Schiavo, Bone scan, Schindler family, and 2003 petition). See also Misplaced Pages:Article_size for some issues related to this task. I think it's important to focus on Terri Schiavo, and if people want more information about these other issues, they should be able to find it easily. --Viriditas | Talk 10:00, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

That would get it under the recommended size limit. Maybe we could get rid of the NPOV tag on the main page and just have it on the "controversy" page. Is there anything about Terri Schiavo that isn't controversial? I mean if NCdave says Michael murdered Terri for the money, and if we really have to pay attention to that sort of witchhunt mentality, then splitting it up will get the size down, but won't get an article that is free of the POV tag. If we have to get agreement from every moron with a conspiracy theory, it will always be disputed. And to me, one possible big advantage of splitting it up would be getting a chunk of stuff that people could agree on. I don't know. I know[REDACTED] has size recommendations, but if you take everything under controversy, you lose the "medical opinion" stuff, and then the whole history of Terri seems out of context. Unless we could agree that the "medical opinion" stuff is Neutral and save the video diagnosis and other voodoo for the controversy page. FuelWagon 11:28, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I am suspicious that after a weekend of editing adding material with a pro-Michael Schiavo POV and deleting material with a pro-Schindler POV, the concern is now on size. Not certain but suspicious. Was there an official wiki determination that the pro-Michael Schiavo POV is the neutral POV? patsw 14:03, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

What Proto said. The truth is never POV. If you dispute the truth, tough. An article on the Holocaust isn't going to be NPOV by including "pro-Holocaust" or holocaust-denier related material. If the truth tends to fall on Michael Schiavo's side, then that's just the way it is. Professor Ninja 15:22, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

I thought there was supposed to be no POV ... as far as I can tell the article is finally fairly neutral, unless stating empirical truth can be construed as being pro-Michael Schiavo. Proto 14:33, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Relevance Test

What are the neutral and objective guidelines that one can apply to understand what's relevant in the Terri Schiavo article and what's not? I don't want to waste time or have anyone for that matter waste time researching and adding material only to have it deleted because it failed to pass another editor's relevance test. In the general case, a wiki article doesn't have a finely calibrated test for relevance merely factual accuracy. If the article has to be long because there are two or more sides to disputed claims, so be it. A one-sided presentation doesn't serve the user community. If this article is to have a netural POV, then its test for relevance ought to be neutrally stated rather that arbitrarily imposed ex post facto. patsw 14:03, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

URL Test

What are the neutral and objective guidelines that one can apply to understand what material will require a URL to support it and what will not? If anyone can declare that material not having a URL to support it can be deleted, the editing of this article will plunge into chaos.

For example, in many cases there are only newspaper and wire service reports of what was in exhibits, statements, motions, depositions, or court orders. Does that constitute support or does such material for which there is no primary online source and yet no dispute regarding its existence (1) fail to meet the URL test and (2) can be immediately deleted? patsw 14:03, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Cite your work as best you can, really. I generally try to follow a rule of thumb that if it's a second hand source, I cite try to cite two such sources to give independent confirmation of one another. I tend to ignore this little rule for more reputable sites like CNN or the BBC or whatnot, as they're generally accurate (a good 99% of the time.) Rags and whatnot, online or not, aren't even worth citing, and material that originates from such places (unless they're op-eds which you're quoting pieces from) aren't worth placing in the article at all. Most important is that people just want to see that you're not making it up whole cloth, or pulling "facts" from blogs, rags, or op-eds. Professor Ninja 16:50, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. I would have written a similar test myself. To take this to something that is bound to be a point of contention, I have never seen a primary source of the February 25 1990 police report or the admitting report for Humana Northside, is there one? I have seen only secondary accounts which in part contradict the absence of trauma now in the article. If these secondary accounts of what is in the reports indicate a stiff or rigid neck, then how can that be reflected in the article without introducing POV? Rather than focusing on this one issue, how are conflicts among the secondary accounts resolved, when there is no online primary source, in a manner that does not introduce POV? patsw 17:58, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

That might be tricky to find; medical reports are confidential, and generally police reports are public. I don't know what florida law is in respect to police responding to a medical emergency, but if those too are public you may be able to get a copy of it. If secondary accounts reflect that the initial report genuinely reflect something, than it's not necessarily POV. If the secondary report is genuinely reputable (ie: they don't have a liberal/conservative/pro-life/pro-euthanasia axe to grind) and can get confirmation from other sources, then putting in something along the lines of "On x day/199x/200x CNN/MSNBC/Fox News/BBC/ABC/Local Newspaper reported that Schiavo was displaying symptoms of rigidity in her neck ". It doesn't speculate as to what caused it, and it gives sources. I think most people would consider this sufficient to be reported on. I wouldn't report it as a definitive fact (make a point that is was reported) and I wouldn't speculate on what that means/could imply. Also, I wouldn't cite a source that doesn't provide examples from the report, or makes general paraphrases or draws conclusions from it. (In other words, count NewsMax out). Remember most importantly that if something is true, it supercedes it being POV. For example, alot of what's got most of this discussion page ragging on NCdave is that he disputes things that are undoubtedly factually accurate as being POV, and attempts to make it "NPOV" by countering facts with speculation. None of the editors have a problem with anything that's factually accurate (well, maybe some do, I've had certain edits reverted for having a "hypercritical mentality") as long as you don't make it up, speculate as to what it means, draw irrelevant conclusions. Rule of thumb: let common sense be your guide. Professor Ninja 22:25, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

Stiff neck and other odd physical characteristics.

Symptoms of Bulemia and/or Anorexia

• Eating uncontrollably (Bulemia only), purging, strict dieting, fasting, vigorous exercise
• Vomiting or abusing laxatives or diuretics in an attempt to lose weight.
• Vomiting blood
• Using the bathroom frequently after meals.
• Preoccupation with body weight
• Depression or mood swings. Feeling out of control.
• Swollen glands in neck and face
• Heartburn, bloating, indigestion, constipation
• Irregular periods
• Dental problems, sore throat
• Weakness, exhaustion bloodshot eyes

From the link http://www.mamashealth.com/bulimia.asp. Please note that dental problems (loss of calcium) could also explain the joint and leg problems.

I have done a little more research on why primary sources do not exist and we must go with the characterizations of them we have in testimony: Michael Schiavo has sealed the medical records of Terri Schiavo. So if we read in testimony by Drs. Bamkbakidis and Hammesfahr information regarding the 1990 admission report and that testimony was not challenged, it is as close as we are going to get to the 1990 admission report, unless Michael Schiavo decides to release the medical records. So is the sworn testimony of two doctors -- for which I have a URL, considered to be POV or NPOV? For the sake of balance, is there an online source other than Bamkbakidis and Hammesfahr for what is contained in the hospital admission report? patsw 02:55, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

User Tropix a possible sock puppet -- No.

Tropix started contributions to[REDACTED] two days ago. he's quite a fast learner because he just posted a change with a field. Very savvy. Either that, or he's a sock puppet to avoid a 3 revert rule. Does[REDACTED] do anything about sock puppets or do you have to put up with that sort of crap? FuelWagon 23:43, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Not sure why Tropix's post didn't show up here, but here it is in <ctrl-v> form: FuelWagon 00:42, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

FuelWagon has made a ridiculous assertion (except for the compliments, which are well-taken, but just barely). I have just one account 'Tropix', and I log in like just like everyone here is supposed to do. If I am a fast learner it is just because I am trying to do this right.

I have been trying to communicate in a useful way with FuelWagon on his talk page with, unfortunately, no productive results. Then I come here and see the above. A nice introduction.

Specifically, Mr FuelWagon removed what I considered a clear introductory summary from the Terri Schiavo article today and replaced it with an older garbled version. I thought it was reasonable to go to his talk page to discuss it with him. That apparently led him to start talking "sockpuppet" and "crap" here in public. I am not here to waste my time on such nonsense.

I want this article to be non-biased and factual, and that is why I am here. Specifically, I think an incoming reader will have a better introduction to this article with the following events to define the structure:

 1 - 1990 Terri Schiavo's heart attack and brain damage
 2 - 1992 The malpractice awards and settlements
 3 - To 1994 Her therapy
 4 - 1998 Micheal's petition to end her life
 5 - 2000 The court order that authorized Micheal to end life support
 6 - 2000-2005 The mass of appeals (summarized together)
 7 - 2005 Her death and the general circumstances

Given that, the reader can move on to the details. It can be done in just a few short paragraphs. Is this reasonable? Tropix 00:22, 2005 Apr 12 (UTC)

Actually, Terri's therapy ended in 1992, not 1994. Her family had run out of money to pay for it. When the malpractice money was awarded, in January 1993, a 3/4 $million medical trust fund was created for Terri's care and rehabilitative therapy. The Schindlers wanted it to be used for that purpose (as Michael Schiavo had promised the court in November, 1992), but Michael Schiavo refused to permit her therapy to resume. The result was a big family argument on February 14, 1993. NCdave 07:01, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I perhaps had bad information. My source was a site at the University of Miami which read "July 19, 1991 - Terri Schiavo is transferred to Sable Palms skilled care facility where she receives continuing neurological testing, and regular and aggressive speech/occupational therapy through 1994." I did think that was oddly late for the end of therapy. Tropix 07:22, 2005 Apr 12 (UTC)

The assertion I made was that you're a possible sock puppet. It seems qualified sufficiently with the word "possible" that it holds up to scrutiny. The "crap" of which I spoke was sock puppets in general since I could find nothing on[REDACTED] that said they actually do anything about sock puppets. As for your list, I note you've already changed your version from what you put on my talk page. So, perhaps there were some productive results after all. And I still think the core of this issue (Terri Schiavo, not you) is the legal battles between Michael and Terri's parents, which is represented well in the intro as it is. If you had to describe this story in one sentence, it would be the fight between michael to fulfill his wife's wishes versus the parents stated intent to keep her alive even if Terri had told them she would want the plug pulled. That's the crux of the story. The rest of it is narrative to put everything into context. FuelWagon 00:52, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It could be worse, Tropix. If FuelWagon suspected you of being a Christian, he'd really dis you. This is what he thinks of Christians. NCdave 07:01, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Paranoia reigns supreme here. My list above was just typed from my mind while I was on this page. The text on your page was typed from my mind while I was there. No cut-and-paste. You can average the two if you wish, there is no special significance. Use either version you like, but I think it would improve the intro (if POV is neutral). That is what was there before you moved it out. I suggest bringing it back, leaving the copies you place in the sections, even though that is slightly redundant.

Why do I think the current intro is sloppy? Here is an example: it goes directly from her collapse in 1990 to a statement about the trial court, without a URL, and without even mentioning that the trial was in 2000, ten years later. That is sloppy by any standards. The trial is extremely significant because it is the predicate for everthing that happened afterwards, even in your view of this story. It can not be shuffled off into a muddle. I improved the intro by adding and dating three significant intervening steps plus the trial date, taking hardly any space. Other aspects were added by other editors and I did not object.

Indeed, I would describe the story differently. You think this is the story of Micheal vs the Schindlers. I think this is the story of Terri, the remarkable tragedy of her brain damage, and her life in the complete control of others. The article, after all, is "Terri Schiavo", not "Micheal vs The Schindlers".

Please stop hassling me, as with the sock puppet that has been placed on my talk page. That is childish witchhunting, and no way to get my respect. Tropix 02:52, 2005 Apr 12 (UTC)

If it makes you feel any better, even if he was a sock puppet, he's clearly not NCdave's sock puppet. Professor Ninja 04:01, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

For once, I agree with Professor Ninja: I am not Tropix. NCdave 07:01, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Perry Fine quote removed, review

I just removed this from the main article. Any objections?

Perry G. Fine, the vice president of medical affairs at the National Hospice and Palliative Care Organization, was quoted in the Los Angeles Times as saying: "What my patients have told me over the last 25 years is that when they stop eating and drinking, there's nothing unpleasant about it. In fact, it can be quite blissful and euphoric... the word 'starve' is so emotionally loaded. People equate that with the hunger pains they feel or the thirst they feel after a long, hot day of hiking. To jump from that to a person who has an end-stage illness is a gigantic leap."

It seems a bit off topic since he's talking about end-stage illness rather than PVS patient. Also "blissful and euphoric" doesn't apply to PVS patients since they do not feel or register those kinds of experiences. Anyone demand it be put back in? It's a lot of text that isn't quite on topic, so I thought I'd trim it. FuelWagon 00:14, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It's somewhat appropriate. It's clearly in the context of Schiavo, so it's relevant. What he's saying isn't that PVS patients feel pain. He's saying that even if, for the sake of argument, Terri Schiavo was capable of feeling pain, she would not be feeling pain due to starvation. You could always give it a little trim and put it in context, such as putting it after an area where people contend starving Terri to death is painful. You put, "However, Perry Fine said that even if Terri Schiavo was capable of feeling, that there is "nothing unpleasant about " and that "it can be quite blissful and euphoric". Professor Ninja 03:59, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

Well, in the first place, Terri was not in a PVS, so the argument about whether death by starvation or hydration is pleasant or unpleasant is relevant. But Professor Ninja is correct that there's a big difference between end-stage terminal illness and non-terminal patients like Terri. End-stage terminal patients often cease to experience hunger, but for a non-terminal patient death by starvation and dehydration is said to be ghastly:

"Dr. William Burke, a neurologist in St. Louis, was quoted by medical ethicist Wesley Smith as describing the agonizing process: “A conscious person would feel it (dehydration) just as you and I would. They will go into seizures. Their skin cracks, their tongue cracks, their lips crack. They may have nosebleeds because of the drying of the mucous membranes, and heaving and vomiting might ensue because of the drying out of the stomach lining. They feel the pangs of hunger and thirst. Imagine going one day without a glass of water. Death by dehydration takes ten to fourteen days. It is an extremely agonizing death.”

However, Terri received analgesics (apparently including occasional morphine), to control her pain. NCdave 07:11, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Peer review requests not specifying archive
• Misplaced Pages controversial topics