Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 02:58, 29 June 2005

Mediation

For those who have agreed to Mediation, there is an enclave set aside for your use at talk:Terri Schiavo/Mediation.

Terri Schiavo case received a peer review by Misplaced Pages editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

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

Archives of the talk from this page can be found here (currently 26 archives): Talk:Terri Schiavo/archives

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)

Proposal to merge and split public opinion and activism section

Both sections can be split and merged into one article, leaving at least two paragaphs in the main article, one for each section. --Viriditas | Talk 05:07, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Again, sounds good ... activism is just public opinion of an extreme sort anyway. Something like 'Activism and Public Opinion in the Terri Schiavo case'? I'm for it. Proto 08:56, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

2nd. See my comments on reducing the article size.--ghost 15:17, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

third-ed. Can we declare the "Terri Shiavo" article to be the "main" article, and have it reference all the "sub articles" in one location? FuelWagon 16:06, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

BTW, Creationism has a nice table called {{creationism2}} that's used in most subs. Anyone able to do this for Terri Schiavo off-the-cuff? If not, I'll learn the code this wkd.--ghost 16:14, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I thought I'd have a look, and see if I could do it. Then I did , and now I want someone else to do it. Templates are hard, yo. Proto t c 14:02, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Also, the best looking templates I've seen to rip off is on The Matrix, at the bottom. Not sure if Terri Schiavo will ever need a complex one, as at the most you'd have at the top the main article, then at level 2 the split-off articles, 'Government involvement ...' and (hopefully) 'Disputes ...' and 'Public Opinion ...', then at level 3, the timeline, the Schiavo memo and the Palm Sunday Compromise. Proto t c 14:08, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Burial details

Michael Schiavo had the words, "Departed this Earth February 25, 1990" and "At peace March 31, 2005" inscribed on the bronze grave marker. Below this, an engraving of a dove with an olive branch appears with the words, "I kept my promise."

Very nicely put. That dénouement is far more elegant than the one I would have suggested. Duckecho 13:14, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Stanselmdoc, this section on burial doesn't need to repeat the date of her collapse and the date of her death. The date of her death in all aspects was March 31, 2005, not merely medically. This section doesn't need to contain advocacy for or against new definitions of death. Newspaper accounts need to mention the 1990 and 2005 dates to give the reader a context for the inscription which is not necessary to add to this article in this place. patsw 20:59, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Point taken, but please don't think I was advocating definitions of death. I was only trying to clarify for people who scroll through the article only looking for information from one section (i.e. the memorial section).Stanselmdoc 21:09, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I wonder if the Schindlers invited Michael to the two services they held? Duckecho 21:33, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I can't speak to communications that the Schindlers had with Michael, but the two services the Schindlers had were announced to the public and open to the media. The wire services picked up the burial story around 10pm on Jun 20 and I don't know when Felos sent out the faxes or who in the media got it first. patsw 21:45, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The fact that the Schindlers were not notified before the service is part of the story that the news media is reporting. It's accurate and relevant. It's not POV. 4.250.139.231, your dispute is with Mitch Stacy of the Associated Press and not with me. patsw 23:02, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It is in incredibly poor taste for Michael Schiavo to use Terri's gravestone as a forum for defending what he did to her. Unbelievable, really. What a sorry... well, never mind, because if I were to say what I really think about his behavior I would just make his defenders here upset.

In 1992 he swore under oath that he wanted to care for her for the rest of his life. He certainly didn't consider her "departed from this earth" then. "Departed this Earth 1990" -- what rubbish. NCdave 08:42, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

NCDave. It's in incredibly poor taste to continue to slander someone who has been proved innocent of wrongdoing. It never ceases to amaze me how you completely ignore the Schindlers slanderous and near criminal remarks regarding Michael Shaivo and then turn right around and deride Mr. Shaivo for marking Terri's gravestone as he saw fit. The autopsy has clearly exonerated Mr. Shaivo and made fools of the Schindlers and people like you.

I wonder Dave, if you were innocent of any wrongdoing and your wife’s family made you out to be a sociopathic criminal in the press just what you'd have to say in your defense? What would you think if all your best efforts to defend yourself were met with the near evil reticence you show here? Wjbean

Everything you need to know about NCdave's cognition

In one place or another, NCdave has flogged us with a phrase from the neuropathologist's report which found that the frontal areas of Terri's brain, the areas responsible for cognition, were "relatively preserved."

He follows that one sentence later with a leap of extrapolation asserting the relatively good condition of her frontal lobes. Not only are those phrases not synonymous in the abstract, they are distinctly antonymous given the context of the neuropathologist’s remarks.

NCdave has already demonstrated his inability to digest complex rhetoric with his misinterpretation (probably purposeful, but I'll be generous...) of not one, not two, but three definitions of atrophy from sources he cited.

Moreover, despite at least three different postings in the last week by me highlighting the common lay misunderstanding of the difference between cardiac arrest and myocardial infarct (heart attack), NCdave perpetuated the fallacy just this morning (21 June) in trying to make his case that it just couldn't have been cardiac arrest.

For those who have not read the autopsy report (NCdave is clearly among them) the medical examiner stated the following:

Mrs. Schiavo's brain showed marked global anoxic-ischemic encephalopathy resulting in massive cerebral atrophy. Her brain weight was approximately half of the expected weight. Of particular importance was the hypoxic damage and neuronal loss in her occipital lobes, which indicates cortical blindness. Her remaining brain regions also show severe hypoxic injury and neuronal atrophy/loss.

To save the reader time, particularly as most of are not versed in medical terminology, here are brief definitions of arcane terms in medicine:

Marked means significant. Global means widespread. Anoxic means lack of oxygen. Ischemic means deficiency of blood. Encephalopathy means degenerative disease of the brain (in medicine, disease means any anomaly of a structure of the body—lay people think of disease solely as ailments such as measles, polio, malaria, etc.). Hypoxic is similar to anoxic and means reduced oxygen. Neuronal means relating to neurons, which are the conducting cells of the nervous system. Occipital lobes are the front part of the brain. Cortical blindness means an inability of the brain to process signals from the retina/optic nerve mechanism. Atrophy means wasting away and reduction in size.

Duckecho, you left out one definition - admittedly it wasn't a medical one. Indicate does not mean prove. It means point out, point towards, and even, in some contexts, suggest. My personal feeling is that here it's something between "suggest" and "prove", probably a little closer to "prove". And by the way, the twenty-volume Oxford English Dictionary backs me up on that. Ann Heneghan 17:16, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Since this was a medical document, written by medical professionals, to report on a medical procedure, performed for a medical purpose, I went to a medical dictionary to see what it says. While indicate itself doesn't appear, two derivatives, clearly based on the same root word are defined thusly:

indication (in·di·ca·tion) a sign or circumstance which points to or shows the cause, pathology, treatment, or issue of an attack of disease; that which points out; that which serves as a guide or warning. ]

indicant (in·di·cant) 1. indicating. 2. a symptom which indicates the true diagnosis or treatment. ]

(highlights are mine) My personal feeling is they chose indicate because it is the correct word to make the cause and effect point that destroyed occipital lobes => cortical blindness. I also believe it's unambiguous in that sense. To try and imply any hedge in the report by the author's use of indicate is merely arguing for the sake of arguing. Duckecho 15:58, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This gives us a literal translation which means that Mrs. Schiavo's brain had significant, widespread, damage caused by blood deficiency due to oxygen starvation, and resulting in massive wasting away of the brain and a net reduction in size. Significantly, she was functionally blind. The rest of the brain was also damaged due to reduced oxygen and suffered a wasting away and loss of neuron cells.

This is not a half a brain as NCdave (ironically) purports. It is not a normal brain, cut in half, with one half completely degenerated while the other half remains healthy and undamaged. It is a profoundly damaged organ whose (remaining damaged) mass is less than half that of a normal expected brain. And further, from elsewhere in the report, she had hydrocephalus ex vacuo which means the atrophied brain was replaced by cerebro-spinal fluid. He loves talking about that.

Finally, on a slightly separate (but related to inability to reason) NCdave asked earlier "what do you think caused her heart to restart, after being stopped for so long?" completely ignoring the evidence already available here as well as at some of his favorite sites, that she had undergone cardio-pulmonary resuscitation (CPR) and had been defibrillated several times prior to her arrival at the hospital.

You can safely ignore NCdave's posts, as he brings nothing new to the discussion, and much of the old is wild misinterpretation due to an inability to grasp the meaning of complex descriptions and issues. Duckecho 15:02, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

What a shame! What a terrible, terrible shame that people on Michael Schiavo's side cannot restrain themselves from making personal attacks on people, as opposed to attacks on their arguments. And by the way, NCdave did bring something new to the discussion today. You had stated that Michael Schiavo was not Terri's estranged husband, and NCdave pointed out that your relationship with your wife would be over if she became engaged to another man, and if she lived with him for several years and had children by him. Of course, nobody wants to get personal about the marriages of fellow Wikipedians, but (nothing to do with you personally) do you think a relationship is or is not over when one of the parties becomes engaged to someone else, lives with that person for years, and has children by that person? I'm curious. Ann Heneghan 17:16, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I've come to expect the personal attacks, unfortunately.  :-( But thank you for the kind words. NCdave 08:50, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Your public dressing down of me over it being the permitted exception, apparently. I must have missed that somewhere. The fact of the matter is I did address his arguments, or more correctly, the points he either failed to make or utterly mis-made. Should you interpret that as a personal attack, it's beyond my control. NCdave's obsession with Michael's new family is not new. It predates your appearance here by some time. Moreover, if you can produce evidence of a divorce decree that everyone else has missed, it would be illuminating. Absent that, she was still his wife. Who spent years staying with her and caring for her? Who was still with her at the end? Go read the inscription he had put on her stone and try and find some compassion in your heart for his and her loss. That's the terrible, terrible shame. If you Michael haters, instead of vilifying him, would heap praise on his girl friend for not only understanding the nature of his relationship with Terri, but presumably supporting it, your energies would be far better expended. After all, it's hard to imagine she'd stay with him while he was seeing another woman unless there was a facet to the relationship beyond your ken...and concern. Now, back to defending the faith. Duckecho 17:38, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

After all, it's hard to imagine she'd stay with him while he was seeing another woman unless there was a facet to the relationship beyond your ken...and concern. Your use of pronouns is confusing, Duck:

Do you mean that it's hard to imagine Terri would stay with Michael? (If that is the case, then please note: She had no choice!)

If, on the other hand, you mean that it's hard to imagine that Jodi Centonze would state with Michael, that is NOT hard to imagine either: She could have been in it for the money, assured that Terri would be assassinated and bumped off.

Either way, your contention that it’s "hard to imagine" is NOT hard for even my little brain.--GordonWattsDotCom 14:26, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Please do not archive active discussion threads! It is much better to have a large Talk page than it is to interrupt an ongoing discussion. If there have been contributions to a topic in the last few days, then do not archive it. NCdave 15:00, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

As I said, Dave, please feel free to bring back anything you feel is still relevant, cogent and has a reason to be on the main talk page. I have made no judgments of what is or is not viable/relevant. It is unfeasible and unreasonable to have 350k + of threads active. Proto 15:43, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yes, and NCdave will make sure to add something to each thread to keep the seeds of doubt alive for all eternity. FuelWagon 15:17, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Amid the minefields of acrimony, I want to take especial note of the efforts of Proto in taking on the enormous task of archiving in all of its forms. Thank you, sir. Duckecho 16:03, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

If some people didn't post Declaration of Independence-esque rants, maybe the talk page wouldn't be 300k. Just my two cents. Mike H 16:14, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

Heh, heh. Although I prefer to think of my posts as more Gettysburg Address–ish (in length, not content), your point is well taken. Duckecho 17:26, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

autopsy comment

where did this come from? FuelWagon 17:33, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The loss in weight was determined to have been caused not by the brain shrinking in volume (through dehydration or some other cause), but through an actual loss of brain matter.

Chris O in . At my suggestion he reworded it from ; not that I think it's all that much better. Duckecho 18:06, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

There seems to be a lot of confusion about what atrophy means. It means reduction in mass (weight).

Terri had severe brain damage, as evidenced by the fact that her brain was atrophied (reduced in mass) to the extent that she had a brain mass at death of only about half that of a typical adult female, which is less than 70% of the low end of the "normal" range. Terri's brain damage was most severe toward the rear of her brain, and especially the occipital lobes (areas responsible for vision). The damage was least severe in the frontal and temporal lobes, the areas responsible for cognition and consciousness.

Dehydration does reduce brain mass, but dehydration could have accounted for only a small portion of the atrophy of Terri's brain.

The autopsy report stated that it was impossible to determine from her autopsy whether or not she had been conscious. NCdave 13:44, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sigh. If I must...

I said in my response to NCdave above that I wasn't going to rebut him, but Ghost put a section NPOV tag on the intro, which I think is unwarranted, so I'll go ahead and rebut and steel myself for 1000 words of off topic regurgitation afterwards. Then I'll revert the NPOV tag later.

• It invents two non-existent doctors "selected by the courts" who (supposedly) diagnosed her to be in a PVS. (I first pointed out this problem weeks ago, and nobody expressed disagreement with me, and nobody was able to identify the two mystery doctors... but the false statement remains in the article.)

• It's an introduction. It is not necessary or desirable to lay out the entire history of the case in the intro when it is done completely and to infinite degree later in the article. I will concede that "selected by the courts" may not be correct. Considered by the courts is closer to accurate and I support changing it to read that. If that is your quibble, then it does not remotely rise to the level of inaccurate and it certainly isn't biased.

I dug through the article and found the names of most of teh doctors and inserted them in teh intro in embedded notes. I'm missing one name. FuelWagon 21:41, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

in 1998, Pearse reported "Dr. Karp's opinion of the ward's condition and prognosis is substantially shared among those physicians who have recently been involved in her treatment." The word "physicians" is plural. I'm wondering if there's some more doctors behind that word that we don't have names for. FuelWagon 04:24, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• It ignores the disagreement between Judge Greer and his chosen doctor, Peter Bambakidis. Even Bambakidis did not rule out the possibility that Terri was conscious. He said only that a "preponderance of evidence" (the weakest evidentiary standard) supported PVS.

• Bambakidis was under no requirement to give a medical opinion to any particular level of evidentiary standard so far as I know. It is typical when expert witnesses give opinions in court that they are couched in terms such as in your expert opinoin and to the generally recognized medical standards.

• It omits the Cheshire diagnosis, that Terri was probably in a MCS.

• Cheshire did not testify in court. His affadivit is irrelevant. However, it is covered later in the article. It doesn't need to be in the intro.

• It hides the fact that the so-called "family physician" was actually part of the M.Schiavo/Felos-selected team working for Terri's demise.

• This is a statement you want to support your assertion? What are we to make of the opinion of a physician in the employ of the Guardian? That he is on the team? Absurd.

• It omits mention of the numerous affidavits from other doctors who disagreed with the PVS diagnosis. The Schindlers were only allowed to have two doctors examine Terri, ever. Even that was allowed only because a higher court ordered it -- Greer didn't want them to have even that opportunity. Yet, the evidence of Terri's consciousness was so compelling that, nevertheless, dozens of doctors came forward and swore that in their professional opinions, based on the evidence available, the PVS diagnosis was flawed.

• All the numerous affidavits are irrelevant. Initially there were doctors who diagnosed PVS. When the Schindlers appealed and got 2nd DCA to order a trial on the facts, they had their opportunity to select the best neurologists money could buy available. Despite the court's instruction they selected a radiologist. And they selected Hammesfahr. They didn't even get the doctor whose opinion led 2nd DCA to order the trial in the first place to testify. Even 2nd DCA (when they got the case again) was mystified. Life is full of choices; those were theirs. Claiming Greer didn't want anything is pure supposition, POV, and far from accurate.

• It omits the fact that the autopsy refuted the Cranford/Felos/M.Schiavo contention that she could not have been conscious because her cerebral cortex had been replaced by spinal fluid.

• Irrelevant. Straw man fallacy.

• It omits the fact that the autopsy report gave equal credence to the PVS and MCS hypotheses.

• Belongs later in the article, not in the intro. That isn't reason enough to flag the section NPOV.

• It puts scare quotes around the MCS diagnosis.

• Easily fixed. I'll do it myself. Not reason enough to flag the section NPOV.

• It includes non-expert GAL (lawyer) opinions in favor of the PVS diagnosis, which is circular, because those opinions were supposedly based on the doctors' opinions (though GAL Wolfson had proven a bias against Terri before his appointment as GAL, by expressing his opinion (on television!) that she should be allowed to die). Yet it...

• Some of your propositions are just beyond need for refutation.

• ...omits mention of the sworn testimony of numerous eyewitnesses, corroborated by video recordings of her behavior, that Terri was intermittently responsive to a variety of different stimuli, which is incompatible with a diagnosis of PVS.

• If they have any relevance at all, they don't belong in the intro. If you are talking about Cheshire, various assorted doctors, and Iyer, et al, they did not provide sworn testimony. They submitted sworn affidavits, however they did not testify and were not subject to cross examination. There's a difference.

That does it. I've convinced myself. I'll wait for a while to see how long it is before the NPOV tag comes out. I predict it won't be long. You haven't remotely made a case. Duckecho 20:29, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

For the record: I agree that the both the NPOV and NPOV-section tages are unwarranted. And (forgive my language) they piss me off. I've have discussed why on numerous occasions, and I continue to believe that they are a blatant slap in the face to every editor on this article, including NCDave. But since I don't have time to examine this further now, the section flag is a challenge for NCDave to fix that section. Put up, or shut up, Dave.--ghost 20:38, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

How does a version just disappear?

I think this is probably just another weird Misplaced Pages glitch. But maybe someone can explain what happened?

First, I added the {{npov}} tag to the article, in this version:

(cur) (last) 19:11, 23 Jun 2005 NCdave (The neutrality is disputed, as documented on Talk page here: )

Then ghost reverted me, saying in his Edit Summary something like (this is paraphrased from memory) "if you have a problem with something in the article then you should just flag the specific section, not the whole article."

I responded by un-reverting it, in this version:

(cur) (last) 19:33, 23 Jun 2005 NCdave (rv The whole article is POV-biased mess, but if you read the Talk page section I cited in my Edit Summary you would see that the problems I identified are in the opening paragraph, not in a subsection)

But now ghost's version is gone entirely from the history.

How did that happen?

I mean, since no actual content was lost, I suppose that it doesn't really matter much in this case (except that it makes it look like I'm talking to myself, and there are already plenty of people here who suspect I'm crazy without that confirmation). But I'd really like to understand what happened. NCdave 19:49, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I don't know, and frankly, don't care. How many NPOV flags does this make for you now, Dave? What's it gonna take to make you bow up and fix it in a manner we can agree on?--ghost 20:41, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Why This Page Will Always Appear POV

The facts lean toward Michael Schiavo tremendously. Yes, this whole article is a huge POV mess. But that's what the facts are. The facts are, Michael Schiavo wanted to let his wife die, and he won. What certain doctors said and didn't say - who cares if it's in the article? The sick truth is that Terri died an unfortunate death, and it's over. For supporters of the Schindler family, the question was NEVER about politics, about money, or about whether or not Terri was brain-dead. It was ALWAYS "Do you kill the handicapped?" And that question can't be answered on an encyclopedia, which is why the article leans so much toward Michael Schiavo. And who cares anyway? Terri is gone, everyone should let it go and stop arguing. Show some respect to the Schindler family AND to Michael; I'm sure both sides are grieving. Stop arguing over dumb little details and realize that after fifteen years of the Schindlers and Schiavos fighting, they are done. And you all should be too. 198.185.18.207 21:28, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well said. I applaude your compassion. A group of us is trying to reach concensus to do what you've asked. Please check up on us, and don't give up yet.--ghost 03:04, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"For supporters of the Schindler family, the question was NEVER about politics, about money, or about whether or not Terri was brain-dead. It was ALWAYS "Do you kill the handicapped?""

I am not sure that was always the question for the Pro-Schindler folks, but to the extent that such an idea prevailed among some of them, it shows how horrendously badly Schiavo's diagnosis was misunderstood. There is not a single soul, on either side of the debate, who made a serious argument for killing the handicapped. Most certainly no one who supported the Courts' decisions. Schiavo was not "handicapped." She was as close to being completely dead as you can get without actually being completely dead. The question for those who took the Courts' view was always "should an individual have the freedom to decide whether they wanted medical intervention, or not?" and its corollary "may an individual be forced to endure medical interventions that they do not want by someone else?"

Describing Schiavo as "handicapped" is a disingenuous tactic designed to obscure the issues. It is akin to describing a soldier who has had his entire body below the abdomen blown away as someone who's lost some toenails. ~ Neuroscientist 09:31, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

The misunderstanding is yours, neuroscientist.

The claim by M.Schiavo/Felos/Cranford/etc. that Terri's cerebral cortex was completely destroyed, which would be "as close to being completely dead as you can get without actually being completely dead," was proven by the autopsy to be a plain lie. The areas of her brain responsible for thought were "relatively preserved" (in the words of the autopsy report), and the level of damage to her brain was not sufficient to indicate that she could not have been conscious, which vindicated the Schindlers and their doctors and her former caregivers who reported that she was conscious and responsive, that she was able to recognize family members, and that on occasion she responded appropriately and sometimes even tried to reply verbally to spoken English. -NCdave

Please point out in the autopsy report where it says that the areas of her brain areas of her brain responsible for thought were 'relatively preserved'". Because when I read it, I didn't get that impression. .... -JonGwynne

It says that twice, Jon. Here's the first quote:

"The changes ... were most severe in the occipital lobes, with relative preservation of the frontal and temporal lobes."

Here's the second quote:

"The frontal and temporal poles and insular cortex demonstrated relative preservation."

I hope that is what you wanted.

So, what kind of "preservation" does the report indicate? Structual preservation or functional preservation? --JonGwynne 08:30, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Now I have a question for you, Jon. (Well, two questions, actually.) If you believe that Terri was in a PVS, then, by definition of the term, you must necessarily believe that she never responded to any stimuli, via any of the senses: sound, sight, taste, smell, or touch. Right?

If that is not right, then please explain why not.

If that is right, then please tell me how you think her family deduced that her vision was severely impaired, but not her hearing? NCdave 05:43, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Two words: "wishful thinking"

...All that discussion of "multi-focal/global anoxic-ischemic encephalopathy", "laminar necrosis" and "transneuronal degeneration" (Page 5 of the appended neuropathology report) must have gotten in the way. The claims that she was "conscious or "able to recognize family members" were never verified but were simply the wishful thinking of individuals who saw what they wanted to see. --JonGwynne 23:02, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Those claims were verified and attested to by quite a few people, actually, and not just family members. NCdave 05:43, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No, actually, they weren't verified. There was no way to verify them since Terri was incapable of communication. Just because someone's eyes are pointing in a given direction doesn't mean that the person is actually seeing. You'd have to ask them in order to confirm this and since Terri couldn't speak, there was no way to ask her. --JonGwynne 08:30, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Nor is it true that nobody involved in the case was in favor of killing the handicapped. In this article, Dr. Ronald Cranford (Felos's star witness, who falsely claimed that Terri's cerebral cortex was destroyed), advocates killing both PVS patients and Alzheimer's patients by starvation/dehydration. He also testified in court in favor of killing Robert Wendland, by the same means. Wendland was neither terminal nor comatose. He was paralyzed on his right side, but he could toss and catch a ball with his left hand. He could not walk, but he could drive an electric wheelchair up and down hospital corridors. He could not speak or write, but he could respond appropriately to simple spoken English commands. But Dr. Cranford argued that he should be killed.

Nor did Terri ever indicate whether or not she wanted "medical intervention" (which I guess is your euphemism for food and water). The supposed recollection by Michael Schiavo of such an utterance by Terri was about 8 years too late and $700,000 too convenient to be credible, even if it had not been refuted by the sworn testimony of four different witnesses, and by its inconsistency with Michael's own sworn testimony in the 1992 medical malpractice trial. NCdave 14:32, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Got a question for you Dave, since you're so convinced that Michael's motives were venal in nature, why do you think he didn't accept any of the numerous offers of cash in exchange for turning over guardianship of Terri to her parents? These offers ran as high as $10 million. Surely if he were for sale, that would have been enough to buy him. --JonGwynne 08:33, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No offense to the two of you and your lovely debate, but I believe the original intention of this section "Why This Page Will Always Appear POV", was that everyone should show some respect and quit arguing. Why don't you just give a link to the autopsy report, and let anyone who looks it up decide what they want? It's not for any of you to choose what everyone should think, nor does anyone care if NCdave interprets it one way, and JonGwynne another way. I think that you should show some respect to both Terri and the writer of the article to not argue under it. You are turning a nice effort into another brawl, which I doubt was the point. 205.188.116.10 17:47, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

How can Michael's own testimony be POV?

Duckecho's edit summary: if this alleged statement is accurate it belongs elsewhere, not in this paragraph. It does not follow. The cited source is an unadjuticated, by definitition POV, filing for deleting this:

He also testified "I believe in the vows that I took with my wife, through sickness, in health, for richer or poorer. I married my wife because I love her and I want to spend the rest of my life with her. I’m going to do that."

Which follows

"I want to learn more how to take care of Terri."

I am very familiar with both quotes. I found a reference for this quote on the University of Miami Ethics Program Web Site. Is Duckecho asserting that this is program is not reliable as a Misplaced Pages source? What is the basis for that claim?

In any event, of course the quote is accurate, it appears in the same testimony as the "take care of Terri" quote which Duckecho didn't delete -- and in fact it is the answer to the very questions asked of Michael in the Igel malpractice trial by Glenn Woodworth, Michael's attorney, to establish what Michael meant. Of course, it follows. Recently in light of the inscription Michael chose for her ashes, the news media recalled that Michael made reference to "the rest of my life" without qualification at this malpractice trial. patsw 01:03, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Then you should have cited that source and I wouldn't have complained about the POV. As to the non-sequitir, the paragraph to which you appended your quote is about Michael studying nursing. The quote about taking care of Terri is there to directly corroborate that he made that statement (which, until that source was found, I believe you were among those who were adamant that we couldn't make the case that that's why he studied nursing). Your quote is unrelated to why he studied nursing and your sole reason for placing it there is to attempt to impeach Michael.

Is there no place in your heart that can appreciate that the circumstances in which he found himself in 1991 were substantially different than those circumstances in say 1995? (and if you say one word about malpractice settlement I'll forever regard you as just another hateful crackpot with no soul but a vicious ax to grind). In my heart I believe that he meant every word he said in that malpractice trial. I would have said the same thing. He was still taking Terri to therapy, he still had hopes that something could be done to make her better; to restore some semblance of their lives. Can you not feel the same?

In my heart I believe that just as Wolfson said in his report, Michael came to understand what we now know for a fact; she wasn't going to get any better. Can you understand the enormity of having to accept and come to that realization? Put yourself in his place if you can. When he finally accepts the awful reality, his physician gives him the best medical advice he can. She is not going to recover. Let her go. If I were asked my intentions at that point, my testimony would differ just as markedly from the 1991 testimony as his did. His circumstances had changed. Do you keep precisely the same counsel today as you did fifteen years ago? Or more aptly, since I don't know how old you are, did you believe exactly the same way when you were 35 as you did when you were 20? I don't know anyone who can say that they do. We grow; our lives change; things happen, some we can't accommodate; some we have to change to meet. Is it not in your heart to accept even one small part of that probability?

Go put your testimony in the article, but put it in a place where it fits. I'm sure you and Dave can find something between when he killed the cats and when he started conspiring with Felos. But don't cite the Schindler pleading when you do, for I'll revert it. The text is in the other cite, suspicious though it is. That document you used, as I said, is unadjudicated (that means it could say anything) and it's been significantly highlighted to cast the worst possible light on Michael Schiavo. Is that the accuracy and NPOV you've been telling me you seek in this article? Duckecho 01:37, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

An aside: Pat, an important part of NPOV is tone. How it sounds. Which is my biggest issue with the article as a whole. The first quote (technical issues aside) sounds more strident. And that inflection is your stated intent. That is when we need to look in the mirror. That is we start to cross over to the Dark Side of POV. And don't get me wrong. I'm far from being without sin in this (or any) matter. But we can love our neighboring editors, and the article, better than we are now.--ghost 03:38, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

How can Michael's own testimony be POV? I just read your edits, patsw. could you get any slimier? you want to accuse michael of betraying his wedding vows with selective picking and chosing of his testimony? This is disgusting. Since you show a sudden fascination with court testimony, I decided to add a little bit more. I pulled in the pieces that led up to Michael's statement that he wanted to take terri home to take care of her and spend the rest of his life with her. I also called out the accusation that is behind including the quote in the first place, that Michael went "back on his word", that he said one thing in court, and then years later, changed his mind. That rat bastard. And then to counter this accusation, I brought in a quote from Wolfson's report saying it took michael a couple years to come to accept that Terri would never recover. So, in answer to your question, "How can Michael's own testimony be POV?", I'd say it couldn't have gotten anymore POV than with your version of text. The "take care of her for the rest of my life" testimony is IRRELEVANT unless you mean to hold him to his word 15 years later when everything has completely changed. And since you do, I figured we might as well spell out what he's being accused of, so AT LEAST there's a chance to give HIS point of view. Otherwise, you've got a nice implied accusation that has no rebuttal. very slick. FuelWagon 04:16, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I have restored the full quote which was referenced in the guardianship cases and discussed in the media accounts of the case to this day. Its relevance is a judgment that both the participants in the dispute and published media accounts have made, not me. The ellipsis mutilated the quote and removed the context of the answer which was to a question of wedding vows and not his intent to study nursing. The URL linking to the online copy of the testimony had been deleted as well and it is restored as well. patsw 14:43, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The wedding vows came up right after Michael said he was going to nursing school. the train of questions were then "why are you going to nursing school?" to take care of my wife. "what are your plans?" to graduate and bring her home. "You've got your whole future ahead of you, why do you want to do this?" because I love my wife and I want to take care of her as long as I'm alive. So, you're extracting the wedding vows completely out of context in an attempt to put special emphasis on them. completely NPOV. FuelWagon 14:53, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"I just read your edits, patsw. could you get any slimier?" -FuelWagon

FuelWagon, please cease your continual personal attacks on other editors! NCdave 15:29, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The article is a pro-death propaganda piece --NCdave.

So, NCdave, could you tell us how the article could become a pro-death propaganda piece if not for the efforts of a bunch of pro-michael, pro-death propaganda editors???? An article doesn't just become a pro-death propaganda piece by accident. FuelWagon 03:44, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I see FuelWagon has reverted to his last edit. The quote is accurate, relevant, and discussed in the media accounts of the case. It is Michael's own words. How can this be POV? If Fuel Wagon wants to add some more context from the testimony, I wouldn't have a problem with that but I think introducing it as an answer that allowed Mr. Schiavo to let the jury know what he thought of his wedding vows in 1992 is sufficient context. If there's any emphasis on them it was the choice of Mr. Schiavo and his attorney at that time. In his place, I too would want to emphasize that wedding vows are for life and not broken by adverse circumstances.

If this is POV, then what sort of editing is going to make it NPOV? Clearly the mutilation of the quote that FuelWagon did yesterday is not presenting the quote accurately and in context. Has the criterion for excluding material here become "Does it make Michael look bad in public opinion"? regardless of its neutrality, accuracy, and relevance? patsw 15:18, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Contrary to what FuelWagon says, Patsw's use of that quote is perfectly in context, and not the least bit misleading. What was misleading was what Michael Schiavo swore under oath: both what he told the jury in the malpractice case in 1992, and what he told the court in his 1998 suit to have her feeding tube removed.

FuelWagon, you say that "everything ha completely changed" in the 15 (actually aproximately 5) years from when Michael swore that he wanted to take care of Terri for the rest of his life and when he hired Felos to sue to have her feeding tube removed. But you are mistaken. Nothing of significance had changed w/r/t Terri's condition (which is not surprising, because he hadn't permitted her any therapy).

Terri had been disabled for over two years when Michael swore that he wanted to take care of her for the rest of his life(even though, by then, he had already moved in for a while with one of his girlfriends). But that promise was for the purpose of convincing the jury to give him a larger amount of money. When the money came through, he not only broke his promise to bring her home and take care of her, he also refused to allow Terri to receive therapy of any sort, and even tried to prevent her from receiving antibiotics for an infection.

Before the malpractice award, the remainder of which Michael Schiavo stood to inherit upon Terri's death, neither he nor anyone else ever suggested that she had ever expressed a desire to not live in her brain-damaged condition. Moreover, during the first couple of years after her injury, Michael Schiavo often said that that he had no idea what Terri would want (according to sworn testimony by multiple witnesses).

In his sworn testimony during the 1992 malpractice trial, Michael promised to care for Terri for the rest of his life, with no hint that she might not want to be cared for. After the malpractice award, which meant that he would receive hundreds of thousands of dollars upon her death, he ordered that she receive no more therapy, not even routine medical and dental care or basic "range of motion" therapy. More than four years went by, but despite the paucity of care Terri didn't die. Michael made it clear that he wished his wife would hurry up and die. Yet in all those years, still Michael never suggested to anyone that Terri had ever said she would want to die in such circumstances.

But then, after he hired euthanasia activist Felos as his attorney in 1997, Michael suddenly "remembered" conversations in which Terri had supposedly said that she would not want to be kept alive. How convenient!

Think of that: for aproximately eight years Michael Schiavo had no idea what Terri would want. Then, shortly after he hired an attorney famous for his expertise in winning right-to-die cases, Michael Schiavo, a man who swore under oath that he didn't even notice his wife's bulimia, suddenly "remembered" long-forgotten remarks that Terri had supposedly made a decade earlier, that she wouldn't want to live. That sudden "memory" was the linchpin of his legal argument for ending Terri's life, and thereby enabling him to inherit (what was then) more than half a million-dollars from her medical trust account.

Terri's former guardian ad litem, Richard Pearse, concluded that Michael Schiavo's claim that Terri had expressed such a preference was not credible. Here's what he (Pearse) reported:

After February, 1993, Mr. SCHIAVO'S attitude concerning treatment for the ward apparently changed. Early in 1994, for example, he refused to consent to treat an infection from which the ward was then suffering and ordered that she not be resuscitated in the event of cardiac arrest. The nursing home where she resided at that time sought to intervene, which ultimately led the ward's husband to reverse his decision and authorize antibiotic treatment. It also resulted in a transfer of the ward to the nursing home where she now resides. ...

Mr. SCHIAVO indicated strongly to the undersigned that his petition to withdraw life support has nothing to do with the money held in the guardianship estate, which he would inherit upon the ward's death as her sole heir-at-law.

Mr. SCHIAVO has admitted at least two romantic involvements since the ward's accident...

The only direct evidence probative of the issue of the ward's intent is the hearsay testimony of her husband, Mr. SCHIAVO, who seeks withdrawal of the ward's feeding tube which would inevitably result in her death. However, his credibility is necessarily adversely affected by the obvious financial benefit to him of being the ward's sole heir at law in the event of her death while still married to him. Her death also permits him to get on with his own life.

In the opinion of the undersigned guardian ad litem, Mr. SCHIAVO'S credibility is also adversely affected by the chronology of this case. ... At or around the time the litigation was finally concluded, he has a change of heart concerning further treatment ... From that point forward, the ward's husband has isolated the ward from her parents, has on at lest one occasion refused to consent for the ward to be treated for an infection, and, ultimately, four years later, has filed the instant petition for the withdrawal of life support on the basis of evidence apparently known only to him which could have been asserted at any time during the ward's illness.

...the undersigned guardian ad litem is of the opinion that the evidence of the ward's intentions developed by the guardian ad litem's investigation does not meet the clear and convincing standard. ...

...it is the recommendation of the guardian ad litem that the petition for removal be denied.

Additionally, two close friends of Terri's, Diane Meyer and Jackie Rhodes, both recall that Terri once expressed the strong opinion that Karen Ann Quinlan should not have been removed from a respirator. Terri's remark was in apparently in response to a joke. "What is the state vegetable of New Jersey?" Meyer asked Terri. The punch line was "Karen Ann Quinlan."

"She said the joke wasn't funny and did not approve of what was going on in the Quinlan case," Meyer testified, referring to the legal battle to remove Quinlan from a respirator. "I remember one of the things she said is, 'How did they know she would want this?'"

The great preponderance of evidence is that Terri never expressed a wish to die rather than live with a feeding tube. In other words, enticed by the lure of $700,000, Michael Schiavo lied under oath. NCdave 15:29, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

NCdave, I say this with the most heartfelt convictions: just go away. Vomiting every bropaganda piece from the blogsforterri sites doesn't help make the[REDACTED] article any better. Ever see that shirt that says "lead, follow, or get out of the way"? You obstruct. You need to be permanently blocked from the article and more importantly from the talk page. FuelWagon 16:14, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

FuelWagon, I know you think that everyone who disagrees with you is pure evil. But we're not. If you want me to change my opinion, you need to persuade me with real evidence. Your personal attacks on me, Pat, Gordon, or whoever, aren't doing it.

The above information is not from a blogsforterri site. Almost half of it is quoted directly from GAL Pearse's report, and I wrote the rest (except for what is in quote marks). I included five reference links to document whatever I thought might seem surprising to the reader. It is all factual. If you have questions about it, then ask. But cool your vitriol.

My momma used to tell me, "If you don't have anything nice to say, then don't say anything at all." FuelWagon, if you can't be civil, if you can't refrain from personal attacks on other editors, then please don't post. NCdave 17:22, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

FuelWagon, I know you think that everyone who disagrees with you is pure evil. --NCdave.

I stated earlier that I can't recall a single worthwhile contribution of NCdave's nor evidence that he's moved even a scintilla off of even the most absurd point he's promoted. The very most that can be said of him is he's consistent. So's a rock, and with just as much to contribute. Obstructionist is exactly the right word. Duckecho (Talk) 17:25, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Shindlers criticize Michael for dating

This: Michael Schiavo was criticized by the Schindlers ... for entering into a relationship with another woman needs a URL and should reference when the Schindlers came out and criticized Michael for dating other women so that it can be put in some sort of chronological order with the rest. FuelWagon 03:32, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

no citation given. reference removed.

So you think that the article should not tell readers that the Schindlers criticized Michael Schiavo's adulterous relationships unless the article also notes when they first came out with that criticism?

Okay, I can accept that, if you will agree to apply the same standard to Michael Schiavo's claim to remember that Terri wanted to die. Michael's claimed recollection of Terri's supposed wish to die should be deleted from the article, unless it references when he first came out with that claim, so that it can be put in some sort of chronological order with the rest. NCdave 02:53, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Or you could restore the reference. But it ought to accurately reflect what they actually criticized him for: being in adulterous relationships with other women while married to Terri. They weren't upset by platonic friendships or business relationships. It was misdemeanor adultery that they criticized. NCdave 02:57, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Glacial Improvement

I wanted to take a second to compliment everyone on the improvements over the last several days, glacial as they may seem. Go back to the pre-autopsy versions, and you'll see that the structure been cleaned up, and the article's been made more user-friendly. I know that there's plenty of hot buttons and "landmines" scattered thruout. But you, the editors, have made significant improvements when viewed over time. Good job.--ghost 04:40, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Agreed - try comparing the article as it stands now with the article a month ago (or two months) - the improvement really is remarkable. Proto 08:49, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It would help more if it were truthful. Style and structure are far less important than accuracy. Right now it is a pro-death propaganda piece. NCdave 15:35, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"it is a pro-death propaganda piece" Thank you for that objective assessment, oh neutral and unbiased one. Your wisdom overshadows us mere mortals. FuelWagon 16:18, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

My dear Ghost, as you can now no doubt see for yourself, you have spoken entirely too soon. ~ Neuroscientist 19:03, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC).

(Nods) I disagree. One Cyberbully cannot detrack from the overarching efforts of the editing team. The article makes steady, (very) slow progress in spite of the best efforts of the few who, sadly, have nothing better to do than attract attention to themselves by belittling the efforts of others. It will continue. This is testimony to the team's commitment to trying to get it right, and the best way to disgrace the bullys.--ghost 19:13, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yeah. I spoke in jest (the weary kind).~ Neuroscientist 20:48, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

Polls on reducing article size

Poll on splitting off article - public opinion/activism

It has been proposed (by User:Viriditas) (somewhere up the top) to split off the Public Opinion and Activism sections, and create a page entitled Public Opinion and Activism in the Terri Schiavo case. A brief summary of each section would remain on the main page, with the reader directed to the new page for further details (similarly to the Government involvement in the Terri Schiavo case article). Please confirm (with support / oppose) whether you are happy for this to take place. I support doing it (and am happy to do the actual split), but I'll recuse from the vote to keep things neutral. Proto 10:04, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Support:

FuelWagon 13:52, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Fox1 19:15, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC) I like this, it should help legibility enormously, and it might help finally generate an article where it is possible to get a general idea of what the events were about without wading through untold paragraphs of weasel words and validity terms. Finally. Maybe.

~ Neuroscientist 20:28, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC) I think it's a very fair idea, and would greatly increase readability. It must of course be made clear in the main article that there were profound differences of opinion about Schiavo; the smaller activism article would have to be very well written, and I shudder to think about the edit wars its going to involve.

ghost 20:54, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC) - See below.

Viriditas | Talk 02:31, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC) - I think we might need a better title for the article split.

• Oppose:

NCdave 15:49, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC) (This is a terrible idea! The problem is that the M.Schaivo partisans think that all the evidence for Terri's consciousness, all the special laws passed to help her, etc., were just political activism and manipulation of public opinion, but every Greer decision or Felos press release about her missing cerebral cortex are just npov facts. The reality is nearly the opposite: Greer's decisions constituted eggregious (judicial) pro-death activism, and the legislative activity, led by the physicians in Congress, was for the purpose of undoing that injustice. For example, is hard to imagine more careful, measured, and balanced statements that those of Sen./Dr. Frist. The contrast with Judge Greer's dishonest decisions is striking.)

Poll on splitting off article - Family & Legal Disputes

The other section to which splitting was discussed (see Archive26, I think) were the disputes sections (Legal Disputes and Family Disuptes) - again, the proposal is to move these to a page entitled Disputes in the Terri Schiavo case. Please support or oppose this. Proto 10:04, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Support:

--ghost 20:53, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

FuelWagon 21:23, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Viriditas | Talk 02:29, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Oppose:

NCdave 15:51, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

~Neuroscientist 20:42, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

discussion

I'm not so sure about this one. The legal disputes section is the only place where the diagnosis stuff is explained. moving it to another article means a lot of the diagnosis stuff would have to be taken out of context. I'd have to see what the new version of the article would look like, see that it still keeps the diagnosis in context, before I could support it. FuelWagon 13:55, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

There's practically nothing in this case that is not disputed. We used to be agreed that it was not in dispute that Terri was partially blind, but now even that is disputed (since Thogmartin & Nelson thought the damage to that section of her brain was so severe that she must have been completely blind). NCdave 15:51, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Nooo, we all agreed that she was partially blind because there was no evidence otherwise. Once Thogmartin found that she was completely blind, you disputed that. It's hard to magine the chutzpah of a plain old wiki editor disputing the findings from actual forensic anyalysis by one of the most respected pathologists in the country. I thank you for making it possible. Duckecho (Talk) 17:34, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Diagnosis of mental capability from examination of the brain is a dicy endeavor (see Lorber). It is much easier to make a reliable diagnosis of blindness of a living patient than of a dead one.

We know that Terri was partially blind because of her behavior: she sometimes responded to movement of large objects or people, or bright flashing lights, but she never responded to movement of small objects. It is surprising to me that some folks seem to think that the neurologists who examined her at length while she was alive, and observed and even videotaped her responsiveness to visual, audio, and other stimuli, were just imagining what they reported.

Note that the only reason we knew that Terri was partially blind was from observation of her behavior. We knew her hearing was fine, but that her vision was severely impaired, because of her responsiveness. Thogmartin & Nelson's autopsy has now confirmed that the areas of her brain responsible for vision were very severely damaged, but the areas responsible for hearing and cognition were "relatively preserved."

If she was in a PVS, then she could not have responded to any visual stimuli, ever. So if you think that she was in a PVS, then how do you explain the fact that her family and their doctors knew that her vision was severely impaired?

Thogmartin & Nelson, in fact, thought that the damage to her occipital lobes (areas responsible for vision) was so severe that she could not see. They were provably wrong about that, but nearly right: her vision was very poor. However, Thogmartin & Nelson also reported that the damage to her frontal and temporal lobes (areas responsible for cognition) was noticably less severe, and, although there were convinced that she was bind, they could not tell whether or not she had been conscious. NCdave 02:02, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I don't generally respond to Dave anymore, but I have to step in here for a moment, because instead of understanding his viewpoint but disagreeing with his statements, this time I have absolutely no idea what he's talking about. The only thing I can glean from what he's saying is:

• The opinion of observers with possible vested interest and those influenced by heavily editted and controversial videotape is that Terri can see, but badly. Others attribute this to simple coincidence.

The videotapes were not "heavily edited" and they were only controversial to those who didn't like what they depicted. The snippets you saw on TV or the Web were among the most dramatic examples, just like ever other video video snippet you see on the evening news. But they were not adulterated, and they were not the only examples of Terri responding to stimuli. Dr. Cheshire viewed all the videotapes, and observed many instances of Terri responding to stimuli, including responding with obvious understanding to spoken English. NCdave 03:19, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Autopsy indicated that Terri was, in the opinion of those who conducted it, completely blind.
• The autopsy is wrong.
• The fact that the observers from point 1 thought she could see badly, coupled with the autopsy claim that she was blind (which was wrong) prove that... she... could see?
• Since she was proven by the impenetrable logic above to be able to see, she was not in PVS.

I really think I was getting into a mindset where I could totally see the validity of this reasoning. Then blood started spurting from my ears and I had to lay down. Fox1 02:23, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sorry if I wasn't clear, Fox1. I hope your headache clears up quickly.

Think about this fact: the Schindlers and their doctors knew (and said) that Terri was severely visually impaired. (That's why the video shows her visually tracking the movement of a great big balloon.) Then ask yourself, "how did they know that?"

Note that the Schindlers did not suggest that Terri's hearing was bad. Rather, they reported that she responded to her mother's voice, to music played at normal volume levels, etc..

So, answer this question: "What led the Schindlers to believe that Terri's vision was impaired?" NCdave 03:19, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The family dispute and the legal battles are central to the Schiavo case in a way that the loony activist circus was not. The disagreements between Schiavo's husband and her relatives were what propelled the case to international consciousness, and were the basis for the ethical and legal controversies that marked this event. The article would suffer for its exclusion.--Neuroscientist 20:42, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

I support this based on the phenomenon of article creep. Like Government involvement in the Terri Schiavo case, we can have a place to go into greater detail. This article is currently >x2 the recommended article size. To make this work, we'd need a summary of the section (2-4 paragraphs) and links with in the Main article to the Subs. Templates work wonders for this.--ghost 20:53, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

As an aside: IMHO, several editors fear losing control of the article(s) if split. I'd encourage those with that fear to look at other examines of the use of subarticles, and ask themselves if their fear is based in the need to express POV. If so, they need to check it at the door.--ghost 21:00, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm mostly afraid the newly created article will expand to fill the 35k space allowed it. But, what the heck. let's cry havoc and let slip the dogs of war. FuelWagon 21:23, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Mention of PVS in article

I've reread the article, and it seems to me that it is a substantial weakness that discussion of her vegetative state only takes place quite a way down. The article proceeds from "Initial medical crisis", thence to "rehabilitation efforts", thereafter to "Family relationship and malpractice suit," "Family dispute," and "Legal disputes," which contains three subsections, with PVS among them.

Now, imagine the article is being read by someone who has absolutely no idea of the whole Schiavo case, and is also unfamiliar with medical terms and conditions (ie. a description which will probably fit a majority of Wiki readers within a few years). They will have to go through more than half the article to learn of the crux of her medical state. This is very odd; her medical history is summarized earlier in the article in two sections (Initial crisis + Rehab) without so much as a mention of precisely what her diagnosis was. (Read intial medical crisis and rehab efforts — the disconnect is very obvious. It goes from being in hospital following cardiac arrest, to being moved around for rehab — all with no mention of why she needed rehab).

This need not be a POV issue. A description can be made of her condition on recovery from cardiac arrest, and a line can be added that the diagnosis would prove to be a bone of contention later on. ~ Neuroscientist 22:00, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

The intro mentions "PVS" three times. It also gives a brief overview that she was diagnosed PVS, but that it was the source of a major dispute, and that it took a court case to settle it, with the doctors voting 6 to 2. FuelWagon 22:13, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

There is a line in the "Initial crisis" section that relates she emerged from coma but never again exhibited higher cortical function. I either missed it before or its been recently added. This is adequate. ~ Neuroscientist 04:04, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

Except that "the doctors" didn't "vote" 6-to-2. Most of the doctors who weighed in on this case did so in opposition to the PVS diagnosis, and most of them, like Dr. Bill Frist, and Dr. Peter Morin, did so without any payment or incentive or conflict of interest, simply because they recognized the tragic consequences of bad medicine.

The doctors that Michael Schiavo & Felos chose said she was definitely in a PVS, but that is to be expected because Felos was able to let any doctors examine Terri and/or her medical records whenever they wanted, including before choosing two of them for the evidentiary hearing, so they could pick the doctors whose testimony they liked the best. Both of the doctors that the Schindlers chose said that she was conscious, which is more significant than the testimony of the Felos/M.Schiavo-selected doctors, because the doctors that the Schindlers chose had to be picked before they had an opportunity to examine her, and also because the doctors that the Schindlers chose spent far more time with Terri than did the doctors that Michael Schiavo & Felos chose.

The article claims that three court-selected doctors (and six doctors in total) concluded that she was (definitely) in a PVS, but that is untrue. There was actually only one court-selected doctor, and his impartiality was questionable because he was selected by a judge who had already ruled & sought confirmation that Terri should die. Yet even he did not rule out the possibility that Terri could be conscious. He said only that it was more probable than not that she was in a PVS -- which was short of the "clear and convincing" standard of evidence that Greer claimed.

In that evidentiary hearing before Judge Greer (the "court case" you referred to), there were only 5 doctors (not 8) and they split 3-to-2, or 2-2-1, depending on how you count them. Two said she was in a PVS. Two said she was not. One said it was more likely than not that she was in a PVS. Based on that testimony, Greer should never have ruled as he did, because only two of the five doctors agreed that there was clear and convincing proof that she was in a PVS.

Later, the Florida DCF sent Dr. Cheshire to examine Terri. He was the only independent doctor (not selected by either side) who spent more than half an hour with Terri, and he concluded that she was probably conscious. NCdave 02:31, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Cheshire also said Terri watched him for half a minute but the autopsy said she was blind. But Thogmartin is in on the conspiracy, so there you have it.... FuelWagon 04:15, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, is it physically impossible for you to write something that is less than a thousand word block of text? I sometimes wonder. SENATOR Frist never examined Terri. His statements were grandstanding for the religious right, which he intends to court heavily if he decides to run for president in 2008. The fact that he went on "justice Sunday", a simulcast program to hundreds of churches nationwide, sponsored by a religious group, all to lobby for support for his "nuclear option", shows just how much grandstanding he is willing to do. He never examined Terri, I'm not even sure if he even SAW her in person. His "diagnosis" is worthless. And the "dozens" of doctors that you love to talk about contesting the PVS diagnosis watched 4.5 minutes of video that was created by teh Schindlers from 4.5 hours of raw footage. ANd most of them didn't actually say Terri was MCS, most of them say more tests should be done. Their "video diagnosis" is already in the article with sufficient explanation as to where it came from. FuelWagon 03:23, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I am very new to Misplaced Pages, and am just learning the ropes. At the top of this page, there currently lies the following statement:

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.

Although the distinction may not be immediately apparent, I think it does make sense that the Talk page be used strictly for discussions pertaining to the crafting of the article and maintaining (or establishing) its integrity and NPOV. Now, this may easily lead to extended discussions of the correctness or wrongness of the particular views expressed by the protagonists in the article; unless those discussions bear direct relevance to the question of whether the views should be represented in the article, however, they are irrelevant to the actual article and do not belong on the talk page.

I started this subsection to ask a specific question on the article. You, NCDave, have posted a 2,058-character reply which nevertheless does not address a single word to the question I posed. Even considering per se what you've written, most of it is demonstrably false, and the rest astonishingly prejudiced. Be that as it may, this is not the place to engage in that discussion.

If you do not have anything to say specifically to the question posed above, please do not post here. If you simply must subject us to your views, submit a link to a post on your personal talk page. ~ Neuroscientist 03:47, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

Here's a new idea...

How about we just delete this whole article and that way there will be a little less fighting in the world. Of course I am kidding, but PLEASE move on. Now about deleting Harry Potter... --Lord Voldemort 01:40, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

okey dokey FuelWagon 14:58, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Header Section

The header section currently states:

The court issued a ruling that Schiavo was in a PVS.

This sentence should have a little more detail, I think. Which court, and what was the name of the case? --L33tminion (talk) 17:54, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

Split

Okay, so I have created Public Opinion and Activism in the Terri Schiavo case. Yes, the title is a little clunky, but it does follow all the naming conventions, and I couldn't think of anything better. As yet, I haven't edited a single word out of the main article, just a copy and paste (as opposed to a cut and paste).

As the views on whether or not the disputes section should also be split off were a little more mixed, and there were some good arguments against it (particularly that everything was disputed), I think perhaps if we just split off the Public Opinion and Activism sections for now, and worry about the Disputes thing later.

So: Here is my proposed edit for the reduced Public Opinion and Activism sections on the main article:

=Public Opinion and Activism=

A number of polls of public opinion were carried out, particularly on the question of federal involvement in the Schiavo, with conflicting results.

The case drew in notable figures on both sides of the debate, as well as many pressure groups and public protesters. Some of the more extreme acts of protest included death threats to Michael Schiavo, although the vast majority of protests were non-violent.

That's it, short and sweet, and (I hope) neutral. Thoughts?

Proto t c 28 June 2005 09:18 (UTC)

I have two concerns. Most important is that, while brief, this doesn't give the reader much motivation to go to the sub. It's kinda dry. I'd rather have a couple more sentences that engage the reader, than a reference to what appears to be a boring subject. The media circus and protest may've only shook the U.S. for a couple weeks. But at the same time, they held the attention of the U.S., and had major political ramifications. This is a big deal. My only other concern is minor; you may want to move the template to the top of the section, rather than the bottom for consistency. Keep up the good work.--ghost 28 June 2005 12:47 (UTC)

Yes, that works. Changed as you suggested. I figured the drier and less flowery it was, the less chance there is of shrieks about neutrality. But that does scan better now. Proto t c 28 June 2005 13:02 (UTC)

I had to create a duplicate page because the original page you created didn't appear to follow the lowercase naming conventions. Further, the move feature wouldn't work for some reason. --Viriditas | Talk 28 June 2005 14:13 (UTC)

A legal refinement

Okay, this one's going to be a tough fight, but if everyone will set aside any bias they might have and look at this strictly from a legal definition point of view, perhaps we can refine a part of the article. In the intro there is a sentence (referring to the courts' rulings regarding the Schindlers' petitions to halt the removal of the feeding tube) which says: "The courts all ruled in favor of Schiavo's husband…". Now, to the extent that Michael filed a petition asking that the feeding tube be removed, that statement is accurate. However, once the court determined that, absent the advance directive, a hearing would have to be held to determine her wishes, the focus shifted from Michael to Terri. Strictly (and legally) speaking, the whole issue of removing the feeding tube was a consequence of the finding by the court that Terri would not have wanted to live in that state (no fights here, please; I'm not advocating one way or another, just trying to make a case for accuracy; that's what the court ruled—move on). Once the court ruled that that was her desire, it directed the guardian to cause the tube to be removed (I believe that's how it was phrased). Strictly (and legally) speaking, all of the subsequent court rulings regarding the feeding tube were not "in favor of Schiavo's husband", they were in favor of Terri, whose wish it had been determined was not to have it. Now please power down. Don't argue here about the ruling. It is what it is, and the article has to proceed from that standpoint. Just think of this: regardless of your position on this whole case, which is the more accurate statement? Accuracy is what we're striving for, right? Duckecho (Talk) 29 June 2005 02:58 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages pages with to-do lists
• Misplaced Pages pages with to-do lists, unused
• Old requests for peer review
• Misplaced Pages controversial topics