Talk:Terri Schiavo case

Since assisted nutrition and hydration were not considered medical treatment when this woman collapsed, I think trying to remove it from her now is a deprivation of her rights. This case is a wake up call to everyone to put in writing the types of treatment they think they would like to continue if they become incapacitated. Don't assume you can trust someone to carry out your wishes if they include being nourished. Write it down and make sure your family and friends know.

I think this page is awfully slanted towards the 'right to life' side of the debate with authoritative and definative statments of her cognitive abilities wich are disputed and have not been proven in court. --Lazarias 01:15, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Changes

I made some changes to the article due to the fact that I doubt that those who support Terri's feeding tube staying where it is and those who support removal could be split right down the liberal/conservative line. I felt that the lines as originally written had NPOV concerns. What was in there previously was,

Liberal "[[right to die]]" activists contend that "living in a vegetative state isn't truly living," and support the ability of the estranged husband to control the destiny of his wife. Conservative "[[pro-life]]" activists protest for Terri's "right to live."

I removed the liberal "right to die" and the conservative "right to live" references.
JesseG 06:10, Feb 24, 2005 (UTC)

---

Wow, this thing had a SEVERE pro-death bias, and a lot of factual inaccuracies. I've tried to fix it:

Corrections:

1) I changed "taken off life support" to "starved to death," to make the opening sentence truthful.

Terri is not on life support -- a feeding tube is not "life support."[1] "designed to ... maintain breathing, heartbeat, and other vital functions in somebody who is seriously ill"

Michael Schiavo seeks to deny her nutrition/hydration by ANY means. The last time he succeeded in having her feeding tube removed, he also refused to allow her family to try to feed her orally. He wants her starved to death.

2) Changed for NPOV (balanced Michael Schiavo's claim with family's counter-claim):

Changed: "Micheal... contends that she is "a vegetable" and would not wish to live in that state. Her family (parents and siblings) contest that claim."

To: "Michael... contends that she is "a vegetable" and would not wish to live in that state. Her family (parents and siblings) contest that claim. They say she is responsive and in no discomfort, that her condition does not meet the medical definition of a "vegetative state," and that she would not wish to be killed."

3) Changed factually inaccurate (and severely POV) phrase "that Terri should be allowed to die" to NPOV "that Terri's life should be ended"

Terri has not been offered the choice of living or dying, so it is factually inaccurate to say that starving or dehydrating her to death is "allowing" her to die.

4) Changed for NPOV (balanced Michael Schiavo's claim with faimily's counter-claim / undid Gwynne's vandalism):

Changed: "The cause of her collapse is a controversial subject. At the time of her collapse, the couple was having marital problems. Michael Schiavo's contention is that she suffered a heart attack because of chemical imbalance brought on by an eating disorder."

So, thanks to Gwynne's deletion of the family's side, the reader is left wondering, "what is the controversy?" Only one side is presented. So I added the other side, for balance:

The cause of her collapse is a controversial subject. At the time of her collapse, the couple was having marital problems. Michael Schiavo's contention is that she suffered a heart attack because of chemical imbalance brought on by an eating disorder. However, there is no physiological evidence that she suffered a heart attack. Some members of Terri's family think she might have been asphyxiated or otherwise assaulted by her husband. However, there is no forensic evidence of an assault.

5) Changed PVS argument for NPOV (balanced Michael Schiavo's claim with family's counter-claim & dictionary definition):

Changed: Michael contends that she is in a Persistent Vegetative State (PVS), which Terri's family disputes.

To: Michael contends that she is in a Persistent Vegetative State (PVS), but Terri's family says that she does not meet the medical definition of "vegetative." (According to Stedman's Online Medical Dictionary, a vegetative state is "a state of grossly impaired consciousness, as after severe head trauma or brain disease, in which an individual is incapable of voluntary or purposeful acts and only responds reflexively to painful stimuli.")

6) Removed POV caveats from factual statement:

Changed: Terri's family contends that she is not in a coma or on life-support.

To: She is not in a coma or on life-support.

She is certainly not in a coma or on life-support; that is indisputable.

7) Removed this outrageous POV sentence, which was inserted by JnB987:

"These actions, however, have been dismissed by a court-ordered doctor as reflexes and the family has been accused of exaggerating them for their own exploitation."

What "court-ordered doctor," who is accusing, and what does "for [the family's] own exploitation" even mean? Exploit is a transitive verb: who is alleged to have been exploited, and how? Her family loves her, unconditionally, and they are trying to protect her from being murdered. If JnB987 thinks that is "exploitation," then I feel very sorry for him.

Terri's family has doctors who say that her condition could improve substantially with rehabilitative care; when arguing for a big medical malpractice settlement, to cover the cost of that care, Michael agreed. But now that he stands to inherit the money when she dies, he refuses to permit her to receive that rehabilitative care that the money was supposed to pay for. THAT is exploitation!

8) Corrected pro-death POV manipulation family's statement:

Changed: However, her family disputes that, saying that while they were not present during the conversations she had with her husband, Terri is a devout Roman Catholic whom they believe would not wish to violate the Church's teachings on euthanasia and suicide by intentionally starving or dehydrating herself to death.

To: However, her family disputes that, saying that Terri is a devout Roman Catholic who would not wish to violate the Church's teachings on euthanasia and suicide by intentionally starving or dehydrating herself to death.

When telling what the family says, you should not insert a bunch of waffle words that they never use.

9) Restored Gwynne's deletion (vandalism):

Terri's family also points out that Michael apparently did not recall those conversations immediately after Terri's collapse. It was only several years later, after Terri received more than $1 million in legal settlements to cover the cost of her long term care and rehabilitation, that Michael first claimed to remember conversations in which Terri expressed a wish to die rather than live in the condition in which she now finds herself. If she dies, Michael will inherit whatever remains of that money.

The accuracy of that paragraph is undisputed, and important for understanding the case.

10) Restored Gwynne's deletion (vandalism):

Hospice is SUPPOSED to be ONLY for terminal patients. Reputable hospices should not accept patients who are not terminal. Hence it is important to note that Terri's condition is not terminal:

Changed: He had Terri placed in hospice.

Back to: He had Terri placed in hospice, though her condition is not terminal.

11) Restored Gwynne's deletion (vandalism):

"Michael could legally cede guardianship to Terri's parents, but refuses to do so, claiming he is doing what is best for her. Her parents want to bring her home; they maintain that, with therapy, their daughter can be helped."

There's no disputing the accuracy of that sentence, and it is necessary to answer the obvious question of where SHOULD she be, if not in hospice.

NCdave 16:22, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Sorry to say NCDave, but the article is much more POV now than it was before.

As for the PVS/not in a coma claim, can we just settle the impossible argument we're having by saying "The Court has repeatedly found that Terri is in a PVS, a finding her family still disputes." -JnB987

So, JNB987, you would like to mention a series of court rulings that were so transparently dishonest, and so outrageous to basic decency, and so infuriating to the public at large, that a special session of the legislature -- called solely for the purpose of reversing the court's misbehavior -- passed a special law just to protect this poor woman from the abuse of those courts -- and your "neutral" way of summarizing that astonishing indictment of those rulings is to say, "a finding her family still disputes"? You are outrageous!

The only NPOV way to handle the argument over whether she is or is not in a PVS is to contrast the medical definition to her actual symptoms, and let the reader decide who's right. Deleting those simple facts does NOT make the article NPOV, it makes it incomplete.

However, as you say, it is true that the courts have ruled that she is in a PVS (so far, anyhow), so I've added that fact to the (de-vandalized) article, for completeness. NCdave 06:34, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It's hard to stay impartial while stating facts, but sometimes giving too much of one side of the facts is impartial, NCDave. -JnB987

I can see that you don't like facts, JnB987, but they are stubborn things, and they just won't go away because there are too many of them for your taste. Facts don't have "sides." They simply are. POV bias creeps in when you selectively omit some of them to paint an incomplete picture, or when you adorn them with opinion-expressing adjectives.

For example, it is a NPOV fact that "Michael wants Terri to die by starvation & dehydration." But it would inject POV bias to say that "Michael wants Terry to die a horrible death by starvation & dehydration." Note that the later version is POV even though death by starvation & deyhdration IS horrible by all reasonable standards, because we do not know (and have no reason to believe) that he wants her death to be horrible, all we know is that he wants her dead. Do you understand the difference?

And yes, her family is exploiting these "reflexes" for their own benefit. Since it is impossible to know Terri's stance on the issue it is impossible to state that anyone is doing anything for her benefit. Therefore, with Terri removed from the equation, the family is only operating on their own benefit, as is Michael and everyone else involved. And yes, reporting these "reflexes" as puckering up to kiss them and smiling when they talk is outrageously exploitative, trying to pull on the heartstrings of America. JnB987 14:41, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

What utter, rediculous nonsense. Exploitation is the use of another person for SELFISH purposes. Terri's family is doing NOTHING for their own benefit. They have sacrificed extraordinarily, with NEVER a hope for gain for themselves. They are doing it ALL from love for their daughter/sister. They ask only to be allowed to care for her. Have you never loved anyone like that? Do you truly not understand that kind of love at all?

Michael, OTOH, has a big financial stake in her death. That's a conflict of interest which SHOULD rule out his being a decisionmaker life & death decisions for her (and WOULD, in the hospitals where I live, even if she were brain dead, which, of course she isn't).

Of COURSE it is possible to know Terri's stance on an issue on which the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church are crystal clear. There is no dispute over the fact that Terri is a devout Roman Catholic Christian. But you don't know what the word "devout" MEANS, do you? Her stance is obedience, because she is a devout Catholic, and devotion to Christ requires obedience. Read that last sentence twice. Christ said, "If you love me, you will obey what I command." -John 14:15. So there literally can be NO DOUBT what she would say her views are on such a matter, if she could express them. I can see that you would not understand that. Yet you think you know Terri's mind better than the people who share her faith?

Michael Schiavo's credibility is zilch, too. He's a bigamist with a common law second wife, who has made a mockery of his wedding vows. What sane person would trust the word of such a man, particularly when he has a $million incentive to lie?? Moreover, his supposed recollection of Terri's wish to die under circumstances like these came to him suspiciously late (not until after the big disability award gave him reason to want her dead), and NOBODY else EVER heard her say such a thing. Her entire family is sure he just plain made it up. But you think you know Terri's mind better than the people who know her best?

How can you not understand the difference between truth and lies, between appeals to conscience and manipulative pulling on heartstrings? The fact is that those videotapes and photographs of Terri convey the Truth about her condition. Do you also think that photos of the NAZI's victims are likewise "outrageously exploitive" because they tug at your heartstrings? NCdave 06:34, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This article is ridiculously biased toward the right-to-life view. Inflammatory language such as "die of starvation" and a general assignation of agency to her husband (instead of to the court) is not in the spirit of NPOV. If you compare this to an article on an unbiased newswire (q.v. [2]) you will see that the selective use of words like "claim" and "refuse" on this page do not reflect an objective reportage of the events. The anecdote about Michael Schiavo intervening during the performance of Communion upon the woman is not relevant information, is inflammatory, and should be removed. In fact I'm going to remove it now. Tcassedy 03:33, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Your argument is with the facts, not with me, Tcassedy. The FACT is that when Michael Schiavo had Terri's feeding tube removed last time, HE SIMULTANEOUSLY PROHIBITED HER FAMILY FROM FEEDING HER BY MOUTH. His purpose was simply to starve and deyhdrate her to death (a particularly nasty death, BTW). The statement that he seeks her death by starvation is indisputable. For someone to charge that such a simple, clear statement of an indisputable fact, utterly unembellished by adjectives, is "inflammatory," seems proof to me that you have no clue what the difference is between POV-bias and NPOV. NCdave