Talk:Terri Schiavo case

To relieve page bloating:

• Archive One: bit-by-bit changes
• Archive Two: Michael estranged?, Greer's affiliations,
• Archive Three: POV, Michael as cause?, external links
• Archive 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
• Archive Five: NCDave conduct, link cleanup, biography request, S686 text, Sun Hudson, Ms./Mrs.
• Archive Six: court decisions, legal implications, family members' character, wording of condition, pundits, S686 vote, Iraq, Sun Hudson
• Archive Seven: Ms. or Mrs., photo usage, initial collapse, insurance, feeding tube, pronunciation, legal costs
• Archive Eight: cause of collapse, Larry King transcript, Hammesfahr's credentials, Michael's role, nurse's affidavit, the Vaitcan, page protection
• Archive Nine: photo inclusion, alleged GOP memo, mentioning the money, bulimia as cause, pro-life/anti-abotion, role of the church
• Archive Ten: feeling pain, cleanup of additions, proposed addition of Lieberman analysis and vocalizations
• Archive Eleven: poll on terminology ("pro-life" or other), including public opinion, wording on Mr. Schiavo's role, overlinking
• Archive Twelve: sources for external links, date correction, "Culture of Life"/"Culture of Death", ABC poll, CAT Scans
• Archive Thirteen: all but created

Please Use This Talk Page Correctly

From Wikipedia:Wikiquette

• Wikipedia 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)

Disability rights activism

Why was my mention of disability rights activism around this case removed? Rosemary Amey 12:34, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

For the same reason that my mention of judicial activism was removed, Rosemary. For the same reason that my link to Dr. Cheshire's report was removed. For the same reason that mention of Judge Greer's order denying Terri food and water by natural means was removed. For the same reason that even your question here about it was removed from the Discussion page (I've just now restored it).

Because it was inconsistent with the M.Schiavo/G.Felos/G.Greer POV. NCdave 15:10, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Straw poll: Ms. vs. Mrs.

Can we once and for all come to a consensus about whether or not we're going to call Terri Schiavo "Ms. Schiavo" or "Mrs. Schiavo" in any reference where "Schiavo" alone is ambigious? We've gone back and forth between Ms. and Mrs. over the course of several days and now the article appears to be in some nether land where some of the references are to "Ms." and some to "Mrs." Unprofessional to say the least. I'm starting here a straw poll on the subject. Moncrief 02:44, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)

Question: Which title should be used in front of "Schiavo" in reference to Terri Schiavo when it is not clear from context if "Schiavo" refers to Terri Schiavo or Michael Schiavo? Ms. or Mrs.?

Ms.

1. Personally, I strongly advocate for "Ms." It's the standard term used in this nation's media outlets and has been for a few decades now. But if the vote is for "Mrs." I'll accept it. Let's just pick one! Moncrief 02:26, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)
2. I would support Ms. as well; it's pretty much standard, for dealing with either married or unmarried women, and would be useful and neutral in this case. Meelar (talk) 02:27, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)
3. I agree that Ms. is standard - I won't complain if it's Mrs. I agree with everyone else - pick one and stick with it! Tonyr1988 03:08, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)
4. Not only is Ms. standard, it's also a bit more NPOV. It can imply whatever you want it to imply. I know certain people don't view Terri Schiavo as being "traditionally" married to Michael (because he's an "adulterer"), this might serve to antagonize them a little less to boot, and it doesn't imply she's not married. Good times all around. Professor Ninja 06:50, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
5. Encyclopedic standard. Flyers13 04:33, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC) Withdrawn. Every style guide I could find says first and last name on first reference, then last name only on further reference; first and last name as necessary for disambiguation. Flyers13 06:11, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
6. Ms. is pretty much the standard. Doesn't the Manual of Style address this? --Calton | Talk 04:44, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Only that the last name only should be used in subsequent references. Doing so in this article would require significantly re-writing several sentences. If anyone sufficiently talented is able to rewrite these sentences successfully, I'd be in support of that. See: Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(biographies)#Subsequent_uses_of_names Moncrief 05:00, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)

Mrs.

1. My vote would be for Mrs. but I have no objection for Ms. What's important is that it is consistent throughout the article. Go for it! --AStanhope 02:34, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
2. Search CNN.com for "Ms. Schiavo" = 3 hits; search it for "Mrs. Schiavo" = 15 hits. I personally think "Mrs." is better because I've been raised to believe this is the title for a married woman, and using "Ms." would imply she's no longer married. Maybe I'm antiquated in my usage of it though. - Brian Kendig 03:12, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
3. I'm personally for Mrs. Mike H 06:12, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)
4. It's her married name so it has to be Mrs. Dbiv 09:48, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
5. Duh. Lethe | Talk 22:27, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)
6. Mrs. because she is married. --Vik Reykja ♬ 00:04, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
7. As far as I know, Terri was married under Christian religious customs, and was called Mrs. in life. If the Manual of Style says to call all women "Ms.", then the Manual of Style does not understand English; Mrs. is the valid and correct form of address for a married woman. Again, as far as I know, Terri was never divorced. -Kasreyn

   It seems to me that there is some misunderstanding about the way in which Ms. has been used since the 1970s. Using "Ms." does not imply that a woman is unmarried; it is merely a neutral title for a woman that gives no indication of her marital status either way (as is the case with "Mr." for men). As you'll see in the Wikipedia article for Ms., it's been adopted as the standard by major newspapers including (the article doesn't mention this) the New York Times. 63.196.5.21 20:08, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

8. The family says Terri's a traditional Roman Catholic. From this I would conclude "Mrs." is correct (...but I do not speak for them.)User:REWinn 20:10, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)

   I'm not sure what being Catholic has to do with this matter. If they were traditional Protestants, would they be okay with "Ms," according to you? 63.196.5.21 23:43, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

9. She's married and Mrs. is used. Also that's how Mr. Shiavo's husband refers to her. Saopaulo1 08:22, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)
10. People are entitled, absent fraudulent intent, to be called whatever they wish to be called. She is still marries, to the extent that she can be, and as someone else pointed out, that's what her husband calls her. I'm not fond of style guides that impose on people things which they don't want to be called... --Baylink 19:10, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
11. Since they were neither divorced nor separated, "Mrs." is appropriate. bernlin2000 ∞ 16:07, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)
12. "Mrs." is most appropriate, as she was married right up until her death. Also, her being married was central to the dispute. Were she not married, there would not have been such a conflict and few people would know who she was. --Blackcats 07:51, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Other

1. Avoid titles altogether - the context makes it clear which Schiavo is being referred to. Neutrality^talk 03:17, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)

I think there is definite consensus that she should be referred to as "Schiavo" in all cases where the context is clear that it's about her, but there are many places in the article where the context is not clear. For example, from the first paragraph:

"Mrs. Schiavo's parents, Bob and Mary Schindler, and her siblings, dispute Mr. Schiavo's position, holding that Terri is "responsive" and in no discomfort..." would be fairly ambigious without titles, and that's not even the best example of such ambiguity in the article. I guess one "Other" option, though, would be to write out either party's full name ("Terri Schiavo") wherever there is ambiguity? Moncrief 03:25, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)

3. Call her Terri. That's her name. You could say "Mrs. Schiavo," but that suggests that she is married, which is only technically true, since her estranged husband is a serial adulterer who has been living with various girlfriends on and off for 13 years, and has two children with the woman that his is currently living with in open adultery. NCdave 19:02, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Calling her "Terri" is unencyclopedic. Moncrief 03:31, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)

"unencyclopedic" is undictionaric. NCdave 05:07, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

4. Call her Schaivo or Terri Schiavo. --L33tminion | (talk) 03:05, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)

The problem with calling her just "Schiavo" is that it is ambiguous: there are multiple actors in this drama with that surname. Calling her "Terri Schiavo" is fine, but often longer than necessary. NCdave 05:07, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

1. First and last name on first reference, then last name only; first and last if necessary for disambiguation. Flyers13 06:13, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Call her Terri Schiavo, because Schiavo can be confused with her husband and Mrs. or Ms. Schiavo does not seem proper.
• Agree with User:Flyers13. JYolkowski 03:17, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• "Ms. " is a replacement for BOTH "Miss" and "Mrs." and has been in common use since the '70s. Most news organizations use "Ms." as a matter of course but will use "Mrs." is specifically requested to do so by the person in question. IOW "Ms. Schiavo" is perfectly correct regardless of her marital status (hence the appeal)

Dr. William Hammesfahr

This is a minor issue as far as the Terri Schiavo case is concerned, but I would appreciate if we didn't incorrectly defame Dr. William Hammesfahr. The last paragraph of the Initial Medical Crisis page has been saying that Dr. Hammesfahr was disciplined for "substandard care" and for a "dubious treatment". The truth is, he was not disciplined for either. Please read the associated PDF carefully (I know, it's 90+ pages, but you have to at least read the findings of fact to be able to correctly edit that section). In the PDF, the findings of fact report that there was no finding of fault for substandard care, and no finding of fault for dubious treatment. There was simply a finding of fault for overbilling, and his discipline was that another physician should review half of his medical records every month to ensure compliance with proper billing standards. So he was ACCUSED of substandard care, but found not guilty. This page should not reflect this as a finding of fault, because it was not. This page shouldn't even report it as an accusation, because that accusation was found to be incorrect by the reviewing officials, and an incorrect accusation is not relevant to this page's topic. — Cortonin | Talk 03:36, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC) (Update) The specific pages of the PDF are 38, 40, and 41. The pages in the 60's which are referenced elsewhere in this talk are simply the filing of a lawyer on one side, and are not the findings of fact, which are concluded on page 41. — Cortonin | Talk 03:46, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Is this the Dr. Hammesfahr who claimed to have been nominated for a Nobel?

From the documents, he claimed he was nominated because Rep. Bilirakis DID file a nomination, it's just that the person who nominated was not authorized to do so under the Nobel Prize rules, and so it of course was not accepted as a nomination. So it would appear he's guilty of not knowing how the Nobel Prize system works. These are the sorts of things that only come up about a person when large portions of the public are looking for ways to discredit the person. It's somewhat sad, really. We at Wikipedia should try to avoid being a part of the defamation circus by sticking more to the issues. — Cortonin | Talk 03:52, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Agreed, and Bilirakis is qualified to nominate for the Peace Prize -- but not the Prize for Medicine. So it was probably an honest mistake on both their parts. OTOH, that was six years ago, so Hammesfahr should have have figured it out and corrected his web site by now. NCdave 04:32, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Oops, my bad. It appears that Hammesfahr's Nobel nomination was vaild. See below. NCdave 20:36, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

However, it is reflective of blatant POV bias to include the criticism of Hammesfahr and delete the even more damning criticism of Cranford. NCdave 04:32, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Cortonin, what you say is accurate - the nomination was not valid. But your conclusion is surprising. If the nomination is not valid, then why should Wikipedia continue to propogate the myth that he is Nobel Prize nominee? It is relevant because it calls into question credibility, honesty and integrity, all qualities that patients would hope a doctor has. The Nobel Prize claim has been repeated to death on Fox, MSNBC and CNN, and they are all inaccurate. Should Wikipedia support this inaccuracy? The same issue came up on another article when someone claimed he was "nominated for a Pulitzer Prize." Er, well anyone can be nominated. Just download the form, fill it out, put a postage stamp on it, mail it, and voila - "nominated" but not properly nominated. [1] It's meaningless, and Wikipedia should not be afraid to call out this type of mischaracterization. Fuzheado | Talk 04:17, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I wouldn't suggest that Wikipedia should promote the inaccuracy, but you have to be careful when something off-topic is brought up about a person simply to dismiss it. I like to avoid having ad hominems strewn throughout wiki. I reworded the nobel prize claim section slightly to try to improve precision and make it sound less like a definitive accusation of intentional deception, and more like the claim is being made but it's simply incorrect. — Cortonin | Talk 15:42, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This was my mistake. I admit that I tried to read the article backwards to get to the conclusion first. I will try to be more careful in the future. Macdougal 04:48, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, you'd think after all this time, he'd quit trying to claim that he was nominated for the Nobel. It's bogus. It's true that he was nominated in an invalid process, but to keep repeating that without clearing up that the nomination is bogus is pretty cheesy. RickK 06:17, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)

Here's a brief excerpt from the transcript of the March 21, 2005 edition of Fox News' Hannity & Colmes:

HANNITY: Doctor, wait a minute. I've got to get this straight here. You were nominated to get a Nobel Peace Prize in this very work. Are you saying that this woman could be rehabilitated?

HAMMESFAHR: Absolutely.

Note the name of the award. -66.188.220.252

Well, his web site says "Medicine," not "Peace." He probably didn't pay close enough attention to what Hannity said. Anyhow, I've emailed him and politely pointed out that the fellow who nominated him wasn't qualified to do so, and I included the link to prove it (http://www.hnionline.com/nobel_prize_nomination.htm), and asked him to correct the erroneous information on his web site. I'll consider it a test of his integrity to see whether or not he does so.

BTW, please sign your comments, 66.188.220.252. (I added it for you this time.) NCdave 23:31, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Actually, his website, on the nomination itself, says "Nobel Peace Prize in Medicine"[2]. The guy's obviously full of crap. After all, falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus, right NCdave? Professor Ninja 04:18, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)

No, that's what the congressman's letter says, a copy of which is reproduced on the website. Hammasfahr didn't write that. The congressman was obviously confused. But let's see whether Hammesfahr corrects it.

But the real charlatan involved in this case is Dr. Ronald E. Cranford. He was Felos's star witness, the guy who convinced Judge Greer that Terri was in a PVS, when she plainly is not. He is a euthanasia zealot, from the extreme fringe of the Right-To-Die movement, which advocates involuntary euthanasia even for conscious patients.

Cranford has a special gift for the Big Lie, such as when he said, "there isn't a reputable, credible neurologist in the world who won't find her in a vegetative state." (In fact, most neurologists who have examined the case and offered an opinion scoff at that diagnosis.[3])

Cranford even testified that a brain damaged California man named Robert Wendland should be dehydrated to death, even though Wendland could toss and catch a ball, could understand simple sentences and respond appropriately, and could even drive an electric wheelchair up and down hospital corridors. NCdave 07:17, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Update: I've just received an email reply from Dr. Hammesfahr; here it is:

Thanks for your thoughts.

However, in 1998 and 1999 the criteria were different,
and a parliamentarian or congressional nomination was
acceptable.

It was not by itself sufficient, as an individual had
to be published, but at that time, my publication was
listed on the Nobel site's web page.  I still have a
copy of their listing of my publication on my site.

thanks for the thoughts

Dr. H

So, it appears that Dr. Hammesfahr's Nobel nomination was legitimate, after all. NCdave 20:36, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Umm...is the word of someone who is accused of lying adequate evidence that they were not? (I.e., can you link to the criteria?) Guettarda 20:46, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Well, it is at least certainly plausible. I've asked him for the documentation. Let's see what he comes up with.

I've also emailed the Nobel Foundation, and asked them what the nomination process was and who the qualified nominators were back in January, 1999.

NCdave 21:43, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. Guettarda 21:45, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Not surprisingly, this is an absolute lie. From the Nominations section in the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine section of the Nobel Institute

The timetable for the prize has remained more or less the same since 1901. Thus, in September the year before the prize is to be awarded, confidential, personal invitations to nominate candidates for the prize are sent to 2500-3000 scientists who are members of medical faculties or academies outside Scandinavia. Scientists are invited according to a rotating system. Previous Nobel Laureates in Physiology or Medicine and professors at medical faculties in the Nordic countries have the right to nominate every year. Nominations are made on special forms sent only to those who are formally invited to nominate. The Nobel Committee receives many informal letters with invalid nominations. These are not included among the documents examined by the Nobel Committee.

Notice that this is the process followed since 1901 and that only select scientists outside Scnadinavia, former Naubel Laureates in Physiology or Medicine, and any medical faculty member in Scandinavia can nominate. Hope that helps clarify anybody bamboozled by NCdave's campaign of misinformation and lies. Professor Ninja 00:40, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

It was highly disingenuous of him to make that claim in the e-mail to Dave, since George Felos pointed out this very thing at trial. Hammesfahr said he would look into it then, as if he didn't know already, since the congressman himself had asked him to stop using the letter. He even had the audacity on the John and Ken show last week to pretended to be surprised to hear the suggestion congressman wasn't qualified to nominate anyone for such an honor.

That's assuming NCdave didn't just lie about it in the first place though. Why would he email a Dr. he desperately wants everybody to believe when he could just check the Nobel site (it took me like 30 seconds)? Why, do get an email reply of course! That way it'll put the whole shenanigans to rest and Dr. Hammesfahr will become an expert. Pfft. Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus, as "they" say, Dave. Professor Ninja 07:17, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

POV Dispute

The article has many factual problems. Including: the case has now been tried twice by both a Federal District Court and a Federal Appeals Court.

Point of View Issues

1. The article practically points a finger at Justice Kennedy for doing nothing; however, it is rare for a Justice to take action like this into his or her own hands. Even if he did, it would only be a temporary injunction pending a review for Cert by the Court. If Cert was denied, the injunction would be void. If Cert was granted, then the case would be heard, and the injunction would be valid until an opinion.
2. The decision of the Court to not hear the case is not approval of the lower Court's decision. The Supreme Court is simply denying to grant Cert to hear the case, thus there is no reason for Justice Kennedy to give a temporary injunction. This ruling does not in any way grant approval to the 11th Circuit.
3. All orders like this are one-sentence. Check all orders from the Supreme Court granting or denying stays of execution. They are just one sentence orders granting or denying the stay pending a review for Writ of Cert.

Agreed, 165.123.154.60, this article is riddled with factual errors and severe POV bias. Also, thanks for the good info on SCOTUS procedures.

But please sign your messages. You can sign by adding four tilde ("~") characters to the end; they will be translated into your ID or IP and the date/time. NCdave 00:10, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Can you guys cite some specific lines that need to be changed? I don't see why we can't reach an agreement if these are the only complaints. I think it would be acceptable to make the page a little more wishywashy on some subjects if it will bring agreementGmaxwell 04:13, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I note that the Supreme Court employs a 'rule of four' - they will hear any case that four Justices think is important enough to be heard. Clearly that has not happened with this case. -- 8^D BDAbramson^gab 05:10, 2005 Mar 29 (UTC)

• This article is hopelessly POV.
  I could not agree more with NCdave. Unfortunately, some of us can't sit around all day and revert everything that disagrees with our opinion like some here. So whatever. Wikipedia says whatever the people with the most time to waste want it to say. 24.245.12.39 03:10, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Make some specific points... lets discuss them. I'm interested in seeing the article be as neutral as possible, and if we reach some agreement, I'll help make sure that neutrality is preserved. As it stands I think it looks pretty neutral, but I likely have a differing perspective from you.Gmaxwell 04:13, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You are surely joking, right?? Well, okay, I'm going to start at the top, and list problems sentence by sentence, until I get tired:

Photos: the M.Schiavo partisans keep deleting the photo of Terri in the hospital bed, smiling at her her mom.

Paragrah #1:

The first sentence is NPOV and accurate.

The second sentence is POV questionable (the cause is a subject of speculation, the hospital reached no conclusion).

The third sentence is factually incorrect and POV-biased (she wasn't deprived of life support, she was deprived of nutrition and hydration, and specifically forbidden to receive food and water by mouth).

Paragrah #2:

The first sentence is factually incorrect and POV-biased (you can't be "hospitalized" in anything other than a hospital).

The second sentence is POV biased and deceptive via a half-truth (the feeding tube was removed, but she was also forbidden from receiving food and water by mouth).

The third sentence is factually incorrect and POV-biased (it isn't the removal of the feeding tube that is killing her, since it is known that she could eat Jell-O and take Holy Communion by mouth, could certainly also eat other sluries and possibly liquids by mouth).

Paragrah #3:

The first sentence is POV biased and deceptive via a half-truth (he's her estranged husband, whom she was preparing to divorce at the time of her injury 15 years ago, and who has been living in open adultery with other women for 13 years, and has two children by the woman he calls his "fiancee," and he has claimed to know that she would wish to die for less than half of that 15 year period).

The second sentence is accurate, but reflects POV bias by stating that Terri's parents are Catholics but not mentioning that Terri is too.

The third sentence is almost NPOV (only one person, Judge Greer, has actually ruled on the issues of fact in the case).

The fourth sentence is severely POV-biased (the Congress and the Florida legislature, acting as institutions, not merely "many Republicans and several Democrats," sided with Terri, as did a great many religous and disabilities activist organizations -- which were in this sentence until M.Schiavo partisans deleted them).

The fifth sentence is factually inaccurate and POV-biased (makes it sound like there is some organization other than the ACLU and Hemlock who are sideing with M.Schaivo, and deceptively makes it sound like the legislative support for his side of the case was equal to the support for Terri; in fact, in the US House the vote was about 3-to-1, and in the Senate it passed with no dissent).

etc..

I could go on, but this is tedious. So I'll just quote these first three paragraphs from the article here and then quit for now (so that this list of problems will make sense when the paragraphs have changed). Here are the (awful) first three paragraphs:

Theresa Marie Schiavo (born December 3, 1963), commonly known as Terri Schiavo (pronounced SHY-vo), is an American woman from St. Petersburg, Florida, the daughter of Robert and Mary Schindler and wife of Michael Schiavo. On February 25, 1990, she suffered severe brain damage caused by a cardiac arrest, believed to be brought on by bulimia. The efforts of Schiavo's husband to withhold life support have prompted a fierce debate over bioethics, euthanasia, legal guardianship, federalism, and civil rights, as well an active countereffort to keep her alive [4] [5].

Schiavo is hospitalized at the Hospice of the Florida Suncoast in Pinellas Park, in the Tampa Bay area. On March 18, 2005, her gastric feeding tube was removed under court order. The removal of the feeding tube will result in Schiavo's death by dehydration.

Michael Schiavo, her husband and legal guardian, contends that he is carrying out his wife's wishes not to be kept alive in her present state. Mrs. Schiavo's parents, Bob and Mary Schindler, who are both practicing Catholics, and her siblings, dispute Mr. Schiavo's position. The courts have all ruled in favor of Mr. Schiavo thus far, but her parents have vigorously appealed the decisions. Vatican officials, U.S. President George W. Bush, Florida Governor Jeb Bush, many Republicans, and several Democrats in the Florida Legislature and U.S. Congress have sided with Mrs. Schiavo's parents. Other groups and individuals, including the American Civil Liberties Union, many Democratic and several Republican legislators, have expressed support for the position of Michael Schiavo.

It's my bedtime. I'd be here all night if I tried to enumerate the inaccuracies and POV problems in this article. I've tried to fix 'em in the past, but the M.Schiavo partisans here outnumber those few of us who want an accurate, NPOV article, and they just keep deleting the information I add. NCdave 08:21, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I'll clarify this in a wee bit after I get some sleep, I haven't the strength to argue this blowhard and correct his gross inaccuracies constantly. Suffice it to say, NCdave, you ruin the good points you do make by making repeatedly discredited claims. I'd love for you to edit the article in a sane and sensible way, but injecting lies into it is abnormal. If you can stop screaming "partisans" for a moment and list some facts to be checked over (without resorting to biased sites, for the love of God) I'm sure people would be willing to put the truth in the article. Not what you want the truth to be, the truth. Professor Ninja 09:14, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)

First, let's all remember not to make personal attacks. Period.

Second, thank you, NCdave for providing a fairly concise (was it necessary to reproduce 3 paragraphs of the article in the talk page?) listing of some of your issues. That goes a lot farther towards reaching middle ground than 150 lines of debate over motivations. My reactions.

• One of your repeated gripes, at least in the section you excerpted, is that the method of ending her life is described as removal of life support, and makes no mention of the blocking of sustenance from sources other than the tube, correct? The problem I see there is that the feeding tube arguably qualifies as life support. Even if it doesn't qualify, heavily commenting every mention of the tube will become unwieldy, and give a very obvious tone to each sentence.

So don't mention the tube. Greer didn't. His order was that she be deprived of food and hydration. Period. His follow-up order was specifically that she be deprived of food and hydration by natural means. NCdave 22:41, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Greer did deny Terri the chance to be fed by mouth. The .pdf of his actual order denying this is on terrisfight.org. I've read it. Terri was denied food and water by any means whatsoever by Greer. And, in anticipation of the "they can't do that!" reaction everyone gives, yes, they can. They did it to Marjorie Nighbert (google her) also.

• I honestly don't know what to do about the pictures, I've considered that a topic I hoped I could avoid since I first saw the page. Could we possibly add the smiling, responsive-appearing image further down, with discussion on interpretations, maybe with similar discussion on the video samples and opinions on their editting?

Well, I think that "before" and "current" photos are both relevant, but the current one is more so. But the worst thing about the current photos is that the caption on the second picture is a flat-out lie. NCdave 22:41, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Why not add the one Michael approved back in 1991 that showed him & Terri in the hospital for equal time?

• The hospitalization bit seems like splitting hairs, especially since it is arguable that the hospice, as a facility providing medical care or therapy, falls within the definition "hospital." Why is this important? The only thing I can think of is that perhaps you think the term "hospitalized" gives unwarranted credit to the care being given to the patient? -Fox1

Exactly. Most hospice care is done in private homes. It is not hospital-level care. Terri has not been in a hospital in many years. You wouldn't say that someone was "hospitalized" in a nursing home, nor should you say that she is "hospitalized" in a hospice.

Plus, since legitimate hospices won't accept patients unless they are terminal with an expected lifespan of 6 months or less, saying that someone is in hospice hs implications that are untrue in Terri's case. Terri's condition was not terminal, yet Michael & Felos have had her cooped up in there for five years. So along with the mention that she is in hospice, there should also be a mention that her condition is not terminal, for clarification. NCdave 22:41, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I'm somewhat amenable to the idea of using a term other than hospitalized, but I think you get a little carried away after that. We're dealing with an intro here, detailed discussion belongs in the body of the article. You're building up layers of implication here that I think are unneccesary; you're assuming that the word hospice will encourage the reader to think "terminal," which is debatable,

Whee, nothing like an NCdave fantasy to wake me up faster than coffee. Hospital and hospice share the same latin roots, hospes hospit-. Hospitalized is the proper term for lodging somebody in a hospice (even if that hospice is, say, a lodging facility and not a palliative care centre, hence the British predisposition towards using "hospital" as a term for charity). Contrary to NCdave's claims, most (in fact, no) hospice care is not done in private homes. Palliative care may be done in private homes, but hospice care must be provided by a hospice, or else, not surprisingly, it is not hospice care. It may be private palliative nursing, but it is not hospice care. I think you should pay me to be your professional fact checker, NCdave. Well, again, just so long as nobody's bamboozled into believing it. Professor Ninja 12:43, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

Hospices are supposed to accept ONLY terminally-ill patients, likely to die within 6 months. Their mission is to "neither hasten nor prolong" life--kind of ironic, then, that this is a scene of pulling Terri's feeding tube? Note that PVS is NOT a terminal illness--though most PVS patients die in their first year (76%), most of these are due to the actual injury that caused the PVS. After the first year, the life expectany is 9.9 years, with a maximum (as of 1990) record of 37 years. Most PVS patients die from pneumonia or bedsores (i.e. lack of good care), not PVS. PVS is simply a condition or disability, and except for the deterioration of the cerebral cortext, there is no "wasting" or "progressive decline" as with "terminal" illnesses (i.e., cancer). This is not even a "condition" like diabetes, that is terminal if unregulated, but regulated can be managed. No, PVS patients don't need "regulation," they just need a feeding tube, and someone to move them to prevent bedsores. Whether the quality of life is worth living is another issue. Note that Terri is really a victim of George Felos's pro-death campaign. Not NPOV to you? Well think of this: George Felos represents himself that way. Just check out his book at amazon.com, "Litigation as Spiritual Practice." He believes it is his duty to reunite bodies on Earth with souls in Heaven. It is a shame that society is allowing one man to impose his will on this case.

Felos' account of talking with PVS patients' souls and such is bothersome as hell. He seems as bent as the Right to Lifers, just in the other direction. Evangelical Euthanasia?

and you want that immediately disclaimed, but it's not untrue that the condition is terminal, it's contested.... and suddenly, we have a 96kb intro, and nothing for the body of the article. We need to stick to verified facts in the intro, and some people may have to live with the hint of an implication of something they don't like.

Fox1 06:58, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Using the term 'estranged' seems like obvious POV to me. They have not been shown to be legally separated, estranged or otherwise anything less than a legal married couple. Until such time as one of those events occurs, the absolute most that would be NPOV would be inclusion of some of the claims made about the past or present state of their marriage further down, certainly outside the intro. As far as your oft-stated points about girlfriends, adultery, etc, I fail to see how it's relevant until such time as it affects the legal status of their union. Perhaps it has the potential to, I won't say that's untrue, but until it does, it's not anything to base such strong initial labeling on. -Fox1

No, it is POV-bias and deceptive to call him her plain "husband," when he's engaged to marry another woman, with whom he has lived for almost a deacade, and with whom he already has two children. Saying "estranged" is the most concise way to avoid greatly deceiving the reader. The relevance is w/r/t his fitness to be her guardian. NCdave 22:41, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This is where I start to lose my empathy for your point of view here... it doesn't seem like you have factual counters to the Schiavos' current and continuous legal status as a legitimately married couple, you just don't like that your agenda is not represented in all mentions of that status. They are married, that is an undisputable legal fact, immediately including reasons why you believe it should not be legitimate, in the intro, without taking the time to discuss the back-and-forth of it is POV, pure and simple. This is one of the few points on which I can't imagine making any compromises, I think you're just plain incorrect.

Fox1 06:58, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I'm with Fox1 on this one. "Estranged" is an emotionally laden word that indicates that the relationship between the two had broken down in a recognisable way (eg evidence that the two were separated before the accident). The simple fact is that, in a legal sense, the Husband is still the legal guardian. Therefore there is no estrangement. If they were estranged he wouldn't be the legal guardian. One Salient Oversight 08:56, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Indeed. Estranged has no legal meaning, husband does. Furthermore, you may note that being engaged to another person does not invalidate your marriage, NCdave. An engagement has no legal binding (beyond maybe fraud, but since Michael's bunk-mate's fully aware of the situation with Terri, that's moot.) Professor Ninja 12:51, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

• The bit about Terri Schiavo needing to be referenced as a devout catholic in the intro seems sketchy to me, since she is currently unable for comment as to what her present beliefs are. Labeling her directly as such in the intro seems like a leading statement, insinuating that she would choose only actions commensurate with that status, I don't believe we have any way of verifying that. Fox1 09:40, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It doesn't have to say "devout," and IMO that term reflects someone's judgement, anyhow (how devout does someone have to be to be called "devout?") But it is important to note that Terri and her parentss are all RC. NCdave 22:41, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

No, not really. Terri's parents are wholly irrelevant to Terri's religion, and Terri having sacraments at some point doesn't make her a devout (practicing, if you prefer) Roman Catholic. I'll be willing to compromise with you on this if you're willing to go through all the biographical articles on wikipedia and add in the birth religion and any conversions and rejections the person may have had. Unless you're, say, Martin Luther, Pope John Paul II, Henry VIII, or, I dunno, unless your religion matters to the affairs concerning you, instead of somebody claiming it does, it doesn't really belong in the article. Professor Ninja 12:51, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

Terri's religion matters because it informed Terri's views, and Terri's views about tube feeding and related issues were a central argument in this case. For a Christian, Faith requires obedience, and Terri's church explicitly teaches against cutting off food and hydration from a disabled patient. So obviously Terri's religion matters.

Terri's parents' religion is pertinent because of the fact that Terri shared their faith, was largely taught her faith by them, and often attended church with them. That means that they are especially well-qualified to judge what her opinion would be on matters about which the church has clear teachings, and are far better qualified to judge what her opinion would be about such matters than are people who do not share her faith. NCdave 23:14, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Michael Schiavo as a registered nurse

I've heard that Mr. Schiavo (who is a registered nurse) studied nursing after Terri's collapse to help in rehabilitation efforts, which would be fairly pertinent to the section on him in the article. Unfortunately because of the recent Carla Iyer affidavit a google search with certain keywords just turns up almost nothing at all. Anybody have details on this to add to the article? Professor Ninja 04:47, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)

I found this using this search.

With his wife in a nursing home, Michael began taking classes in health care at St. Petersburg Junior College. He eventually became a certified respiratory therapist and a registered nurse. Michael today works in an emergency room at a hospital in Florida.

--Vik Reykja ♬ 05:12, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Awesome stuff, bless your boolean skills Vik. Professor Ninja 05:31, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)

When did Michael become an RN?

Professor Ninja says that Michael became an RN so that he could help Terri. ("The man became an RN to care for Terri, for crying out loud," wrote Ninja.) But Michael ordered a halt to all of Terri's therapy, and even to her basic medical and dental care, and put a DNR order on her, around the end of 1992. Somehow it doesn't seem likely that the studies he persued after 1992 were motivated by a dsire to help Terri. NCdave 09:01, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Your dates are wrong. He continued rehab for Terri beyond 1992. Professor Ninja 09:16, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)

No, there's no documentation that she received any therapy after late 1992 or possibly very early 1993. (One of the GALs indicated that he ended it in 1994, but he had his dates mixed up.) The >$1 million malpractice award (which Michael swore in court was needed to pay for Terri's care and therapy) came in January 1993, and not a penny of it was ever spent on her therapy.

But I am curious, please tell me: Where did you hear that Michael studied nursing so that he could better help with Terri's rehab? Who said that? NCdave 17:06, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Many times you at least have a point relative to a) the article or b) the talk discussion when you comment. This, sadly, is an example of the many times you don't. How is your speculation on motives helpful in a talk section that was, until you participated, a simple request for information? Please, continue to make this situation as combative as possible. It's great for the article, and really generates a cooperative, productive aura.

Fox1 09:15, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hold your sarcasm, Fox. I wasn't the guy who brought up Michael's motives for becoming an RN. That was Ninja, who stated it as a fact (elsewhere on the Talk page) that Michael had become an RN so that he could help Terri. Then he started out this section by saying it again, in the very first sentence: that Michael studied nursing "to help in rehabilitation efforts," though this time he wisely prefaced it with "I have heard."

So tell me again why you are criticising me for introducing "speculation on motives" to this talk section??

Ninja's speculation on motives was why I asked the question: because it is a matter of record that Michael ordered a halt to all of Terri's therapy around the time of the malpractice award, and put a DNR order on her soon after, which makes it implausible that, from then on, he was studying nursing so that he could help with Terri's rehab.

I wonder whether Michael even started nursing school before he ordered that Terri not receive therapy and medical care? Was he in nursing school by the Fall semester of 2002 1992? If not, then obviously a supposed desire to better take care of Terri had nothing to do with him being in nursing school. Logically, that must be case if, as I suspect, it was the $300,000 that he got from the malpractice award (for loss of companionship) which enabled him to pay for nursing school. NCdave 17:06, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Uh, a DNR order doesn't imply any form of misconduct on the part of Michael Schiavo, nor does it conflict with his nursing ability. You speak of logic constantly and try to construct premise-based arguments, but you're too chummy with non sequitur to do it successfully. Given the extent of Terri's brain damage any more cardiac arrests would likely kill her anyway, and if she was resuscitated it would probably turn a minutes-long death into an hours long one. It seems that a DNR was the wisest course of action to expedite the natural process of death in case Terri went into cardiac arrest, though in your fantasy world it's proof positive that he didn't become an RN to care for Terri. Wheee! Professor Ninja 00:45, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

Ninja, you said that "The man became an RN to care for Terri, for crying out loud." Hence my first question: Please tell us where you heard that claim. What's your source, Ninja?

We know that Michael became an RN after he had ordered a halt to Terri's therapy, and after he tried to kill her by ordering that an infection go untreated, and after he put a DNR order on her. Moreover, since becoming an RN, he still has not permitted any rehabilitative therapy for her. He hasn't even permitted routine dental care -- with the result that she has lost five teeth due to dental neglect. So it is obvious that, by the time he earned his RN, he certainly wasn't motivated by a desire to help with Terri's rehab: he couldn't help with something that he wouldn't permit.

But I wonder whether it is even possible that helping Terri was ever his motive. If he entered nursing school in 1992 or earlier, it is possible that was his motive, in the beginning. But if he entered nursing school after 1992 then it is impossible that a desire to better help with Terri's rehab therapy was his ever motivation for going to nursing school, and that story that you heard is just another lie.

Hence my second question: when did Michael Schiavo enter nursing school? NCdave 03:24, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

According to the State of Florida, Department of Health website, his current license was issued on 18 Jan 2000. Most nursing programs are at least two years, although I'll concede there may be some shorter, but in any event, given the time needed to take (and score) the boards, it's almost assuredly safe to calculate that he started his training no later than the Fall of '97. By the way, that site, FL-DOH sitedoesn't have any record of Carla Sauer Iyers or Heidi Law, the alleged caretakers who swore under oath that they were RNs. LRod

Thanks for the link. FL-DOH does list Carla Ann Sauer[6] and numerous Heidi's. Many women change their names upon marriage without correcting every record. Bovlb 19:57, 2005 Mar 30 (UTC)

Yes, thanks for the link. So Michael Shiavo became an RN in January, 2000. It normally takes 2-4 years to become an RN, so Michael Schiavo probably started his training in 1996-1998. If he was a slow student, it could have been as early as 1995. But that still means that Michael Schiavo didn't start his training to become a nurse until years after he had already ordered a halt to all therapy for Terri. It is impossible that he became a nurse to help with therapy that he had already ordered not be done. NCdave 08:02, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It is impossible to draw any conclusion about when nursing training started from the date of issue of the license. So your statements are patently false. One can speculate on numerous scenarios, but unless you can cite authoritative sources (that means not zimp.org and the like, partisan, amateur, advocacy sites) as to his initial enrollment in a nursing program, your conclusion fails. Just to give you a hint, he could have gotten his RT first, then pursued the RN, both for the same reason. He could have done it part time (remember, he was working, spending at least some time with Terri, as well as dating, as you so gleefully recount) and probably couldn't have done it in two or even four years. My wife spent 35 years getting her BSN, for example, and no, she's not slow. LRod 216.76.217.43 01:05, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

So, again I ask Ninja: Where did you hear (the lie) that Michael became an RN to enable him to better assist with Terri's rehabilitative therapy? Inquiring minds want to know. NCdave 08:02, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

If you only knew the herculean efforts I've taken to control my sarcasm and occasionally caustic sense of humor on this page, I'd hope you wouldn't grudge me a slip or two, but I'll apologize nonetheless. The problem is this: yes, there are people here who play your partner in these long, debatably off-topic and largely speculative debates, and I wish they would control themselves better, as well. However, the constant in those strings has always been you and you've never made any observable attempt to de-escalate one of them. You've stated yourself that you're unable to make any of the changes you want due to what you see as partisan opposition, so... why not try new tactics? By your own admission you have little to nothing to lose.

Fox1 06:43, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Like Joe Friday, I'm a "just the facts, Ma'am" kinda guy. I'm not the one who keeps making personal attacks on other Wikipedians here. Unlike Ninja, for instance, I've not called anyone an "evil troll." I've not posted anyone's work phone number to encourage their harrassment; that was done to me, by a Michael Schiavo partisan.

The Felos propaganda machine generates a blizzard of lies. A lot of folks here don't want to believe that. They want to trust him. I know that trust is misplaced.

My suspicion is that the Felos propaganda machine was the source for the false claim that this section discusses. But I want to know where it came from. Don't you? The originator of that lie is obviously untrustworthy. Luke 16:10-11 tells us, Whoever is dishonest with very little will also be dishonest with much. So it is important to know where the lie about Michael's motivation for becoming a nurse came from, so that we can know who is untrustworthy. Was it Felos & Co., or was it some other source? But Ninja won't answer the question of where he heard it.

The claim, which Ninja repeated, that Michael Schiavo became a nurse to better help with Terri's rehab, is easily demonstrated to be rediculous, by looking at the chronology. It is impossible for anyone who knows the chronology of events to believe that Michael Schiavo became an RN so that he could better assist with Terri's therapy, since by the time he entered nursing school he had already ordered that she receive no therapy. Michael could not help do something that he would not permit to be done at all. NCdave 08:02, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The article states (based on [7]) that Michael was studying to be a nurse on 1993-02-14, about a year before he accepts the diagnosis of PVS and "halts most therapy". The same source document states, "He wanted to become a nurse so he could care for his wife himself." It is entirely reasonable to suppose that this "care" persisted beyond the cessation of "most therapy". I don't know whether (or why) anyone is specifically pushing his motivations as related to therapy versus care, but speculation about the detail of Michael's motivations doesn't seem to me to be an encyclopædic distinction. At the point in time that he decided to become a nurse, there was no strong distinction between care and therapy. On another note, it seems to have taken him at least seven years to become registered, which is unusually long. Of course, registration (as opposed to training) may not have been his primary goal, and nursing is obviously not his originally chosen profession (so he may have had prerequisites to meet). Do we know whether he continued his day job as a restaurant manager during this period? Bovlb 14:38, 2005 Apr 3 (UTC)

That is a useful link, and I thank you for it. I agree, seven years is, indeed, a very long time to become an RN; 2-4 is normal. But even as long ago as Feb. 14, 1993 Michael Schiavo had already halted Terri's therapy. This is what GAL Pearse said about Michael:

At or around the time the [malpractice] litigation was finally concluded, he has a change of heart concerning further treatment which lead, according to the ward's parents, to his falling out with them. - GAL Pearse

The malpractice settlement money was paid out in January 1993.

The "change of heart" that GAL Pearse mentions was Michael's order that Terri receive no further therapy.

That's not all that is interesting in that article. It also reports that Michael admitted lying:

Schiavo said he told his in-laws that all the money had gone to his wife — a lie he said he told Bob Schindler "to shut him up because he was screaming."

NCdave 00:00, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

A dead body in the house. An open window. footprints lead up to the window and then away. therefore, whoever made the footprints must be the murderer? No, the window could have been open and a neighbor walking by thought they heard screaming, went to investigate, and heard nothing because the victim was already dead. Do you at all understand the difference between circumstantial evidence and proof? this "change of heart" story is circumstantial evidence. It's a dead horse. You can keep beating it all you want, but the evidence currently availble doesn't prove anything. Not that it isn't true, but you can't PROVE it. Do you understand the difference? Saying it over and over again doesn't prove it. Unless you have new evidence to add beyond circumstantial evidence, DROP IT. You cannot call a man a murderer because he COULD have done it. It is not enough. I'm sorry but that's just the way it is. If you want to hang him on circumstantial evidence, do it somewhere else. There are other interpretaions of the evidence that do not require Michael to have murdered her for the money. It is not possible to KNOW which interpretation is fact. So it is not possible to say it is true. You might very well be right that he did it for the money, but the evidence you give is not enough. And currently this country is founded on the idea that a man is innocent until PROVEN guilty. Every time that rule was broken, very bad things happened. And any theory that requires a conspiracy is automatically suspect. If a theory requires Greer, Michael, every court appointed doctor, every court that reviewed the case, and even the Supreme friggen Court who looked at it and passed, to be in on the conspiracy at some level, just doesnt fly. Sorry. Deal with it. You'll need massive amounts of direct physical evidence to prove something like that. Otherwise, it's an interesting movie plot, but it proves nothing. You cannot say he murdered his wife for the money without seeing a defamation suit soon after. the only defense to defamation is to PROVE the statement is true, and you haven't. Accept it. You might also want to consider that your interpretation about Michael is completely and wholly wrong. I'm sure you'll balk at the suggestion, but since you don't KNOW he did what you think he did, you need to be able to objectively question your interpretation, lest you be blind to other evidence. That's the only difference between dogma and fact. Facts can stand up to being questioned relentlessly. Dogma cannot. The appeal of dogma is that it provides the comfort of "knowing" when you really don't. If you hold facts above dogma, then you have to put up with not knowing all the time, not knowing everything, not knowing all the facts, and sometimes being left with many possible interpretations. And then you gotta decide whether you hold to the facts and put up with not knowing some things, or do you jump over to dogma and hang a man because "you know in your gut" that he's guilty. FuelWagon 03:53, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Straw Poll on Pain issues

Note: This "straw poll" was originally the tail end of a discussion on the question of whether or not Terri could feel pain, and whether it was correct and NPOV to state in the opening paragraph that she could not. That discussion has been archived, but you can read it here (archive13). NCdave 00:00, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

---

• It is NPOV and consistent with the rest of the article to state without qualification in the intro that Terri is painless OR ...that Terri is in pain

PAIN requires NERVES. Terri still has NERVES (which is why she has reflexes). While it's debatable whether any part of her brain can process these nerve responses, it is misleading to suggest that pain is merely panic and anxiety. As George Greer himself said, touch a hot stove and you pull your hand back quickly. So, yes, persons in PVS can experience pain. 172.146.41.106 09:36, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Since when is a judge an expert on neurophysiology?203.213.77.138 06:35, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• It is POV or inconsistent with the rest of the article to state without qualification in the intro that Terri is painless OR ...that Terri is in pain

1. BoomHitch 03:01, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)
2. Tonyr1988 06:18, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)
3. 203.213.77.138 06:35, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
4. It's a disputed statement. NPOV requires that the article sets out all points of view without taking sides. Therefore article should not state without qualification that Terri Schiavo is unable to feel pain. That's all there is to it. Dbiv 13:37, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I don't think that we can know how much pain Terri is experiencing. What we do know is that she is receiving analgesics to control pain, from people who swore in court that they are absolutely certain that in her condition she cannot experience pain. NCdave 03:05, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I don't recognize the validity of this poll, as the question is flawed. The statement, There is no evidence that Schiavo is suffering, since conscious awareness is impossible in the absence of cortical activity, is made with qualification: Terri Schiavo is incapable of "suffering" due to her extensive brain damage. Pain...is the recognition of nociception by the nervous system, which sends the impulse to regions of the brain where consciousness exists. In the case of a severely brain injured person - one in a persistent vegetative state - those areas of consciousness have been destroyed, and as result "they don't 'feel' pain.[8]. Play with words all you like, this is not in dispute. --Viriditas | Talk 07:41, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

<sarcasm>Okay, you are right. Her parents think she is in no pain.</sarcasm>BoomHitch 07:46, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

Patients in a persistent vegetative state do not feel pain, nor do they "suffer," says Michael De Georgia, MD, head of the neurology-neurosurgery intensive care unit at the Cleveland Clinic Foundation...Pain, as well as suffering, requires consciousness, which is lacking in a person in a persistent vegetative state..."Certainly these patients don't suffer," he adds. "Suffering is really that whole emotional aspect of pain: fear, anxiety, panic surrounding pain. You have to have consciousness to experience these emotions. So just as a person in a persistent vegetative state can't experience pain because of a lack of consciousness, they also don't suffer."...Dr. DeGeorgia says that a patient in a persistent vegetative state can experience arousal, meaning that the patient's eyes may be open and the patient may laugh, cry or appear to track someone who is in the room. And that is what can be confusing for people, especially relatives, he says. "For example, a patient in persistent vegetative state will grasp your hand. In fact if you put anything into the patient's hand, the hand will grasp it. But this is a very primitive reaction. A newborn baby will grasp your finger, but there is no consciousness." It is consciousness that determines whether one can "feel" pain in the sense that most people understand when they talk about feeling pain. This doesn't mean that a patient like Terri Schiavo won't respond to pain stimulus - if you pinch her arm, she is like to flinch away. "That is called nociception," De Georgia says. "Tissue is damaged by the pinch, this generates a response in a receptor, which sends an impulse along the peripheral nerves. This impulse travels to the thalamus, which directs the arm to withdraw," he said. It is what is commonly called a reflex. Pain, on the other hand, is the recognition of nociception by the nervous system, which sends the impulse to regions of the brain where consciousness exists. In the case of a severely brain injured person - one in a persistent vegetative state - those areas of consciousness have been destroyed, and as result "they don't 'feel' pain." [9]--Viriditas | Talk 07:57, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I think you're missing my point--it has nothing to do with whether PVS patients can feel pain: if you totally disregard her parents (and their supporters') opinion on the issue of pain (as you are doing by refusing to recognize that they dispute this issue at all), you can hardly treat their directly related opinion on the issue of Terri's condition vis-a-vis the PVS opinion in a balanced manner. But that is only my opinion; it seems to me that the two issues of balance are intertwined, but maybe I'm wrong. BoomHitch 08:04, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

It's factually incorrect to claim either that Ms Schiavo experiences pain or experiences no pain. We have no knowledge either way. Certainly her body still possesses pain receptors and enough brain function to react to them--and does so. To say that she experiences pain is, however, to imply falsely that we know that she experiences anything. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 09:58, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I would like to add that unless someone here is a neuroscientist, specialised in this particular area, speculations on the topic seem of limited interest. Rama 10:57, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Well, we know that Terri is experiencing no pain now -- since she has died. We also know that she was capable of experiencing pain over the last 15 years, since the nursing staff at her nursing home and hospice had standing orders to treat her painful menstural cramps with analgesics, whenever she exhibited symptoms of discomfort.

We can't know how much pain she actually experienced while being dehydrated to death, because we don't know whether or not the analgesics and sedatives she received were sufficient to block her pain. But that's really not the main issue about pain. The main argument is about whether or not she could experience pain, if not medicated. The importance of that argument is because of the undisputed fact that patients in a PVS cannot experience pain. It is because of the fact that she clearly could experience pain that we know that she was not in a PVS, and it is because of the fact that Michael Schiavo's chosen caregivers for Terri obviously knew she could experience pain that we know that M.Schiavo, Felos, Cranford, et al knew all along that she wasn't in a PVS, even as they argued in court that she was. NCdave 09:00, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

In that case, articles which say that patients that are in a permanent vegitative state are "incapable of feeling pain" are being imprecise to put things in layman's terms. Rather, they are capable of only unconscions reflexive reactions to pain. They are incapable of conscious suffering. --L33tminion | (talk) 05:41, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

Also, this is not some medical conspiracy. --L33tminion | (talk) 05:42, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

For most of 15 years Terri Schiavo had a standing order for analgesics to relieve menstrual pain. Obviously her caregivers believed that could experience pain. She behaved as if she experienced pain, which is all, existentially speaking, we know for certain about anyone else's experience of pain. When someone behaves as if they are experiencing pain, the only rational conclusion is that they are experiencing pain, even though you can't prove it in an absolute sense.

Take at look at the Exit Protocol that her hospice doctor wrote for her death in 2001. Take note of the instructions to use analgesics for symptoms of pain and discomfort: "Monitor symptoms of pain/discomfort. If noted, medicate with Naproxen rectal suppository 375 mg. Q8 prn."

If you tell me that you don't think that means that he thought Terri could experience pain, I'm sorry, but I won't believe you.

Supporters of M.Schiavo's decision to end Terri's life often say that she couldn't possibly experience pain because her brain was too damaged to admit of the possibility of any level of consciousness, so she must have been in a PVS. However, the physicians who evaluated her were split in their conclusions about whether she was in a PVS, and some four dozen board certified neurologists said that her PVS diagnosis was flawed, as did numerous doctors from other relevant specialties.

Most importantly, I am unaware of any radiologist who interpreted Terri's CT scans as indicating that her brain was so damaged that she could not be conscious. Can anyone name even one?

Radiologist William Maxfield, M.D., who examined Terri in person several times in addition to evaluating her CT scans, concluded that she was not in a PVS and that her condition might well improve with appropriate therapy.

Radiologist John Young, M.D. said, "This woman is not in a persistent vegetative state."

Radiologist Thomas Boyle, M.D. (host of the award-winning CodeBlueBlog web site), who has interpreted over 10,000 brain CT scans, wrote, "I have seen many walking, talking, fairly coherent people with worse cerebral/cortical atrophy. Therefore, this is in no way prima facie evidence that Terri Schiavo's mental abilities or/or capabilities are completely eradicated. I cannot believe such testimony has been given on the basis of this scan."

Since radiologists are the physicians who are trained interpret CT scans, it is highly significant that that the radiologists say Terri's CT scans do not show that she was in a vegetative state. NCdave 00:00, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"I have seen many walking, talking, fairly coherent people with worse cerebral/cortical atrophy. Therefore, this is in no way prima facie evidence that Terri Schiavo's mental abilities or/or capabilities are completely eradicated. I cannot believe such testimony has been given on the basis of this scan." This is the sticking point. Terri Shaivo was not walking, or talking, or even remotely coherent. Yes, I've heard of people with severe cortical atrophy as well. There was even one young woman featured on 60 Minutes some years ago who had significant voids in her cortical region, (somewhat like the CT scan in the second photo) yet was a college student. Ms. Shiavo did not fall into this category.

How many radiologists stated that Ms. Shaivo was not in a vegatative state as compared to those that did say that she was? What was the ratio? Where are your sources?

I can thank the Shaivo's for this; I now have a living will. Something I did not think much about in the past.Wjbean 00:25, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Text removed

In an appearance on ABC News's Nightline on March 15, 2005, Michael Schiavo cited the willingness that Mrs. Schiavo's parents expressed to keep her alive by any means necessary, including quadruple amputation if needed, as a key reason for denying transfer of guardianship to them. [10]

No, the transcript does not say that. Schiavo makes it quite clear that it has nothing to do with the Schindlers. SCHIAVO: If I moved on with my life — and I moved on with a portion of it — but I still have a big commitment to Terri. I made her a promise...And another reason why I won't give Terri back is that Mr. Schindler testified in court, at the 2000 trial, that he would — to keep Terri alive he would cut her arms and legs off and put her on a ventilator just to keep her alive...It's not about the money. This is about Terri. It's not about the Schindlers, it's not about the legislators, it's not about me, it's about what Terri Schiavo wanted. I am in the process of tracking down this testimony, as I recall reading parts of it in another article. --Viriditas | Talk 11:22, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Ok, here it is, from the December 2003 report to Governor Bush by Dr. Jay Wolfson from the University of South Florida:

Testimony provided by members of the Schindler family included very personal statements about their desire and intention to ensure that Theresa remain alive. Throughout the course of the litigation, deposition and trial testimony by members of the Schindler family voiced the disturbing belief that they would keep Theresa alive at any and all costs. Nearly gruesome examples were given, eliciting agreement by family members that in the event Theresa should contract diabetes and subsequent gangrene in each of her limbs, they would agree to amputate each limb, and would then, were she to be diagnosed with heart disease, perform open heart surgery. There was additional, difficult testimony that appeared to establish that despite the sad and undesirable condition of Theresa, the parents still derived joy from having her alive, even if Theresa might not be at all aware of her environment given the persistent vegetative state. 'Within the testimony, as part of the hypotheticals presented, Schindler family members stated that even if Theresa had told them of her intention to have artificial nutrition withdrawn, they would not do it. Throughout this painful and difficult trial, the family acknowledged that Theresa was in a diagnosed persistent vegetative state. --Viriditas | Talk 11:32, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Uhm, how does Mr. Schindler saying that he would cut her arms and legs off not represent that statement? I'm not understanding where your quibble is... the testimony? The statement about amputation? "a" key reason vs. "the" key reason? Please explain why you removed the text, as I'm not seeing a clear explanation. Ronabop 11:43, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The editor wrote that the statement in question was a key reason for denying transfer of guardianship to them. The transcript does not say that. If anything, Schiavo makes it clear that this is one reason directly connected to the Schindler's inability (probably for religious reasons) to respect Terri's wishes. The quote in Wolfson's report makes that clear, but Schiavo only alludes to the testimony in the transcript. Also, Michael Schiavo further clarifies in the transcript that this is not about what he wants, but about what Terri Schiavo wanted. The statement that was removed from the article attempted to distort these facts. Further, the statement by the Schindlers has been put to rest on page 34 of Wolfson's report:Of the Schindlers, there has evolved the unfortunate and inaccurate perception that they will "keep Theresa alive at any and all costs" even if that were to result in her limbs being amputated and additional, complex surgical and medical interventions being performed, and even if Theresa had expressly indicated her intention not to be so maintained. During the course of the GAL's [Guardian Ad Litem] investigation, the Schindlers allow that this is not accurate, and that they never intended to imply a gruesome maintenance of Theresa at all costs. --Viriditas | Talk 12:09, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Re-added text, with efforts to manage such issues, feel free to adjust as needed! Ronabop 12:14, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

With respect to the statement that Michael Schiavo said in a transcript that "this" (ending her life) "is not about what he wants, but about what Terri Schiavo wanted," it is important to note that he said exactly the opposite in a sworn deposition in 1999, that his statement is also inconsistent with what he swore in court in 1992, and that it is contradicted by the sworn testimony of no fewer than four other witnesses, two of whom heard Terri express the opposite view, and two of whom heard Michael repeatedly say that he didn't know what Terri's wishes were. (I would also add that he contradicted that statement on Larry King Live last month, but his defenders here insist that he didn't mean what his words said in that interview, and it wasn't sworn testimony, anyhow.) NCdave 00:10, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

LA Times stories

Under the politicians sub-section there are two LA Times stories summarized, presumably to cast doubt on the motives of the Republicans, but should we really have them here? Here's my two cents:

1. I think the March 26 DeLay story is unfair since in his particular situation, there was no contention about the wishes of his father. I'm not aware that DeLay has said that he does not think that anyone should be ever removed from life support, just that in cases where there may be some doubt to "err on the side of life".
2. I'm less sure about the March 22 GWB story even after reading Sun Hudson and Advance Directives Act. It seems to be the case that Sun Hudson would have died in the near future regardless of the respirator, so the decision was made to remove the tube, and hasten the process. In the Schiavo case it seems like she could live well into old age, but with no higher brain function. Is that a correct assessment?

--CVaneg 16:30, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Sun Hudson's form of dwarfism is typically fatal, however, vigorous medical care allows these children to live past infancy (albeit with severe limitations, such as mental retardation). Sun's death was not a 100% thing. Furthermore, it's a contrast -- Wanda Hudson, Sun's legal guardian, was refusing to withdraw support. Professor Ninja 17:27, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)

Thing is, we're not taking sides. If people with axes to grind are making this kind of comment, we should report the fact, without endorsing it. This isn't a piece of journalism, it's an encyclopedia article, with all the distancing that implies. We certainly shouldn't be getting into whether the comparison is a just one unless this has been raised publicly--if DeLay's team has responded to it in those terms, for instance. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 06:48, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I agree it is not our place to take sides. I think most people on this page (though clearly not all) share that point of view. That does not mean that we should not be judging whether a source is a fair one, though. After all, we have made plenty of determinations that while some anti-Michael Schiavo articles are strictly speaking true, that they take liberties and interpretations of the facts that are misleading and unjustified. I don't see how this is all that different. --CVaneg 08:03, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I don't agree with that kind of determination. We should be adopting NPOV, which means we judge a view by whether it's significant, not whether we agree with it. There are tonnes of anti-Michael Schiavo stories advanced by many groups and they have had a lot of influence, so they should be cited, otherwise it'll look like we're hiding something. See WP:NPOV. "assert facts, including facts about opinions — but don't assert opinions themselves"--Tony Sidaway|Talk 23:37, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well, Terri had some higher brain function, CVaneg. The Florida DCF neurologist's report, along with the testimony of numerous witnesses, points out that she recognized various people, and responded differently to different people, and sometimes responded with apparent understanding to English language. NCdave 18:14, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

IMVHO the best way to handle the DeLay story is to note its details as reported by the LA Times and also note the specific circumstances of it, which do differ significantly from Schiavo (e.g. DeLay's father was in a coma and required a ventalator to breath). This is neutral as the reader can then interpret it for himself. I attempted to do this previously, though another user removed the information in between, giving only an ad hominem attack on the source article as his reason for doing so. That is not sufficient to remove pertinent factual data that is presented in a neutral manner, so I restored it and would ask the user who removed it to quit promoting a POV by removing material he/she does not like. Rangerdude 23:13, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I nearly agree. However it's a point of view that the ventilator is relevant. If someone has made a comment to that effect, cite that as an opinion. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 23:44, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Cremation

There are reports of Michael Schiavo's plans to cremate Terri... Does someone want to add this somewhere?

I'm not sure where it would go, nor what significance to impart to this fact. I suppose you could put it in the section regarding the anticipated autopsy. since the autopsy was announced in part to deflect rumors that Michael was trying to hide something by having the body cremated. Personally, I'm inclined to wait. --CVaneg 19:34, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Apparently, the Schindler family wants to have a proper Catholic mass before she is cremated but Michael wants the cremation to happen either before the Catholic mass or he doesn't want the Catholic mass to happen at all. I agree that this information is a little sketchy at best and waiting for more information would not hurt. This is also based on the aftermath of her death and I am not sure if this article wants to go in the direction of Terri's life and struggle, the feud between the Schindlers and Michael Schiavo, or both.--207.65.109.90 17:03, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Apparantly the autopsy photos are rumored to have leaked and be availible. I don't know if this is true or a joke but may be note worthy if someone could give a definitive answer.--Case 04:47, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)

Early life -- weight inconsistency

There's an inconsistency in the "Early Life" reporting of Schiavo's weight: in one paragraph she weighed 200 pounds and lost 65 pounds, in the following paragraph she weighed 250 pounds and dropped to 150 pounds (i.e., she lost 100 pounds). Could someone please clean this up and provide citations for the numbers. Thanks. --64.132.60.202 21:16, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I am the editor who added both statements. The statement about 200 pounds has been cited in a number of places, including the The Johns Hopkins News-Letter. The 250 pounds statement was cited in Wolfson's, 2003 Guardian Ad Litem report. I suspect that the Johns Hopkins source was worded incorrectly, as I have read other sources who claim her weight was "around" 200 pounds. The Wolfson report is considered to be accurate, but I suspect there may be two different periods of weight loss here. I'm looking into it, and I should have an answer later tonight. --Viriditas | Talk 21:54, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Great. (Thanks for doing this.) Another potential primary source that might address this issue is the medical malpractice suit court record. --64.132.60.202 22:03, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I've used the March 26 Newsweek article, "The Legacy of Terri Schiavo" as a source. --Viriditas | Talk 06:49, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

GAL Wolfson only had 30 days to examine Terri and all the medical and legal evidence and prepare his report, which is probably why it contains some rather obvious errors (in the early timeline, for example). GAL Pearse had 6 months, which is probably why his report seems to be more carefully prepared. NCdave 07:21, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Why don't you do us all a favor and list the major errors in Wolfson's report? --Viriditas | Talk 07:47, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This is by no means comprehensive, but I can give you a few other examples of errors in Wolfson's report. But first, note that Wolfson was predisposed to favor M.Schiavo's viewpoint, because shortly before being appointed GAL he told the local press that he thought Terri's feeding tube should be removed. That should have disqualified him from serving as GAL, but Judge Demers appointed him anyhow, on Oct. 31, 2003, despite objections filed in court on Oct. 25 and Oct. 29 by Terri's parents. Wolfson's report was issued a month later. In addition to the error regarding Terri's weight, it erred in favor of the M.Schiavo/Felos viewpoint in several ways:

• Wolfson accepted the PVS diagnosis, despite the disagreement of many physicians, and despite the fact that Terri was getting analgesics to relieve menstural pain every month, and the fact that PVS patients cannot experience pain. (GAL Pearse had also accepted the PVS diagnosis, but back in 1998, when Pearse did his report, the more precise & correct MCS diagnosis was a fairly new neurological classification.)
• Wolfson reported that Terri got physical therapy until 1994, even though there are no medical records of any therapy of any kind after 1992. (Wolfson's conclusion was presumably on the basis of M.Schiavo's representations.)
• Wolfson reported that Terri had never had a bedsore, even though Michael's own 1992 deposition in the medical malpractice case indicated that Terri had had a toe amputated because of bedsores.
• Wolfson accepted M.Schiavo's belated recollection of Terri's supposed wishes, even though GAL Pearse had found M.Schiavo's recollection not credible, even though Michael didn't "remember" it until 7-1/2 or 8 years later, and even though that belated recollection is inconsistent both with the testimony of other witnesses, and with Michael's own testimony in the 1992 malpractice case.

Mostly, those seem like honest errors on GAL Wolfson's part (though accepting Michael's belated recollection is hard to fathom). My guess is that, due to the very short amount of time that Wolfson had, he didn't have time to read all the testimony from the 1992 malpractice case, and didn't have time to review the medical records which would have shown him, for example, that Terri's therapy ended in 1992 rather than 1994. NCdave 08:37, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

There is inaccurate information in this section. Michael himself stated in a deposition that they were not trying to conceive, that Terri's periods were normal, and that he was unaware of any odd eating habits or recent weight gain/loss. The deposition is here: http://www.glennbeck.com/news/03-24-05/mic-depo.pdf

Very good info there, and I thank you for posting that very useful link, whoever you are! That deposition also indicates that Terri's peak weight (which was way before she met Michael) was about 200 lbs. While she was with Michael, her weight was always between 120 and 145 lbs.

That's just about ideal. According to the chart that came with my bathroom scale, 122 lbs is the ideal weight for a medium build 5'4-1/2" woman. According to this Met Life table, the ideal weight is 125-140. According to this table the ideal weight is 110-141. According to this site the ideal weight is 119-133 lbs.

But who are you? Please sign your messages. You can easily sign and date your messages by appending ~~~~ (four tildes) to the end.

NCdave 08:37, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Dr. Wolfson had thirty (30) days to examine Terri Shaivo directly, review medical reports, and write his own findings. In that thirty day period twenty of those days were spent (in whole or in part) with Terri Shaivo observing her and her reactions to changes in her surroundings. The thirty day limitation was placed upon him by the courts. Two thirds of the time he was given he spent in direct observation. And he concluded that Terri Shaivo was in a vegetative state. This may not sound like a lot of time, but I'm relatively certain it's more than any of these other doctors spent on the case.

In all fairness I will say that had something similar happened to my daughter I would most likely have the same attitude as the Schindlers. That does not make it right however. I can guarantee you that I would not be accusing someone of murder without concrete, undeniable empirical proof. There is law in many states about "abuse of process", but I think it's high time the states came up with laws to protect the innocent from the libelous and defamatory; something with prison time built in.

Finally, $700,000 may sound like a lot of money, but with the cost of hospitalization I seriously doubt that the money lasted much more than two years if that. Also, considering that medical costs consistently rise year after year there is little doubt in my mind that the $700,000 allocated to Terri's care quickly dwindled down to nothing. This was not a fight over money. There was none left to fight over.

Would it be possible to add one more external link

I realize that the links section of this article has been discussed and pared; however, would it be possible to add the following external link under 11.3 Advocacy and commentary: abstractappeal.com -- it's a Florida law blog. With regard to the Schiavo case, it is, in the author's words, an attempt to help people understand the law in this case. It would be a balance to the two already listed links and it would also provide a commentary on Florida law. --64.132.60.202 00:55, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

abstractappeal.com is already listed under the heading informational sites. Having not read the whole thing, I can't say whether or not proponents of the Schindler camp would call it advocacy. --CVaneg 01:06, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Ah, I see -- Thank you. (Would it be possible, then, to change the wording of that link to, e.g., Informational Site: "The legal aspects of the Schiavo case"? I, alas, skipped over it initially, thinking it was another general information site about Schiavo, et al.)--64.132.60.202 01:20, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Don't hesitate to Be_bold and get a Wikipedia:Username while you're at it. --CVaneg 01:26, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Michael Schiavo's girlfriend

I think it's important for this article to mention that Michael Schiavo is living with another woman and they have two children. I don't know how this got lost - it was in the article weeks ago. It should be phrased neutrally, of course. The recent anon edits are disappointingly opinionated, but we can find a way to work this fact into the article neutrally. Rhobite 07:04, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)

I have added a paragraph to the Michael Schiavo section describing Mr. Schiavo's present relationship. I feel it is reasonably neutral, but feel free to edit or discuss it if you think that there is room for improvement in that area. Firebug 07:19, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Your inclusion is good but I think it needs to be mentioned when they moved in together or some such. If I'm not mistaken, this was not until several years after Terri collapased yet this is not made clear in the bit you added 60.234.141.76 16:30, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Michael Schiavo moved in with his girlfriend, Cindy Shook (now Cindy Brasher), in the first half of 1992, a little over two years after Terri's collapse. He and Cindy had been dating since sometime in 1991. But that's not who he lives with now. (Cindy is now terrified of him, BTW.) He's now living with Jodi Centonze, whom he calls his "fiancee." My recollection is that he moved in with her in 1995 (should double-check the date). They have two children together. They are living together in open adultery, in violation of Florida law (798.01). The crime is a second degree misdemeanor, carrying a maximum sentence of 60 days incarceration. NCdave 17:07, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Good grief. Enough with calling Michael a criminal. Yes, there is still a law on the books that makes adultery a crime. However, this law hasn't been enforced in who knows how long, and would very likely be ruled unconstitutional if anyone did try to enforce it. --Azkar 18:01, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Whether it would be ruled unconstitutional is a matter of speculation. You might be right about that. The courts are unpredictable. But it hasn't been ruled unconstitutional, and certainly the framers of the U.S. Constitution would be astonished and horrified at such an "interpretation." I don't know how recently or often it has been enforced in Florida, but, for now, at least, it is the law, and the law should be enforced.

"One single object... [will merit] the endless gratitude of society: that of restraining the judges from usurping legislation." -Thomas Jefferson

NCdave 18:28, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Interesting using a Thomas Jefferson quote. Jefferson, the man who had a mistress, one Sally Hemmings [[11]] in Paris.Wjbean 16:50, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Oddly enough, the penalty for Open Adultery in Florida is no worse than the penalty for unmarried lewd cohabitation. In some other States, adultery is punished much more severely. NCdave 17:23, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Oddly enough, the Schindlers knew about this since 1991. Oddly enough, Michael was never even CHARGED with the crime. So, not so oddly enough, he was never convicted. So, not so oddly enough, saying Michael is guilty of open adultery is irrelevant possibly defamation. and yet, oddly enough, you think acting as judge, jury, and executioner means otherwise. Go Hathorne Go. FuelWagon 17:40, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

'They are living together in open adultery, in violation of Florida law' Uhm, I'm no legal expert, but isn't something like this for the courts to decide if it is really in violation or not? I mean, don't we generally need a conviction before we say he has broken the law? Or do we make no distinction between allegations from some hothead and a conviction in a court of law. I think Jefferson said somethign about that as well. anon

No, anon, it is the other way around. Violation of the law comes first, the conviction (sometimes) comes as a result. A person isn't even prosecuted, let along convicted, until it is alleged that he has broken the law.

In this case there really is no question about the fact that Michael Schiavo is guilty of violating of this statute. It is hard to imagine a more blatant case: he's been living with Jodie Centonz since 1995, he's been calling her his finacee since 1997, and he has two children with her -- all while still legally married to Terri.

Nor is Ms. Centonz the first woman Michael has lived with in open adultery since Terri's injury. NCdave 17:23, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Too long of an article/discussion

How can this article take up so much space? Is it really necessary to have a life story and surmising of every legal challenge? Seems to me this whole article should be no more than 4-5 paragraphs maximum...

I think the information is important, as well as balanced. Also try and sign your name after your comments (use four ~'s) Saopaulo1 08:55, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)

Hah, this article is grossly POV-biased, and riddled with false statements. It is just a propaganda piece, a perfect example of why Wikipedia gets so little respect. (But I, too, would appreciate signatures.) NCdave 17:20, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

So you'd prefer a conspiracy theory? --L33tminion | (talk) 05:49, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

Life Support or feeding and hydration

What is the better ways to describe the situation. I say Life Support. Saopaulo1 09:02, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)

It is considered life support. It may be more accurate to use the phrase, artificial life support in the form of nutrition and hydration. See also pp. 21-23 of the 2003 Wolfson report. --Viriditas | Talk 09:18, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Greer didn't say "artificial." He specifically ordered that she be deprived of nutrition and hydration by "natural" means. NCdave 16:46, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Most of the edits are with regards to life support. I propose that the sentence starting with "The efforts of Schiavo's husband to discontinue life support have prompted a fierce debate over" be changed to "The efforts of Schiavo's husband to discontinue life support (as defined by Florida Law) have prompted a fierce debate over", with a link to the law. That way, there is no question that this wiki page is talking about the legal definition of life support, as opposed to someone's opinion.--220.220.184.249 06:33, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I agree. Anyone else agree, or disagree? Mike H 06:37, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. Rama 06:39, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. Neutrality^talk 14:52, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)

Agree. Iceberg3k 15:13, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)

Diagreed (but I'm anon so maybe it doesn't matter). Whatever your personal opinions may be, life support is a medical term. It includes basically anything which is necessary to keep a person alive. This includes feeding tubes, IV drips etc. Basically, if a person will die without this extra equipement then it's life support. This can include pacemakers in some cases altho this is a bid more debatable since for most people, pace makers only protect them from potentially dangerous situations don't keep them alive). I'm not saying it is necessarly okay to remove all forms of life support, this is obviously up to a person but the fact is any medical practiotioner (doctor, nurse etc) worth their degree would agree this is life support since you need food and water to life and she can't feed or drink herself.-anon

The term "life-support" doesn't encompasss everything you need to live. In a medical context, it means artificial measures, such as a respirator. The extension of the term "life support" to include tube feeding is recent and still controversial, no definition of "life-support" includes any form of feeding by mouth. Spoon-feeding is not considered "life support," anywhere. However, Greer specifically ordered that she not be given nutrition or hydration by "natural" means (i.e., he prohibited spoon-feeding).

(Note: 1-1/2 years ago Greer forbade her from receiving 8 weeks of therapy that was intended to determine whether she could be sustained by spoon-feeding.)

Disagreed. The judge's 2 orders didn't mention either life support or a feeding tube. They specifically ordered that she be deprived of nutrition and hydration. To say that it was about life support, when he specifically ordered that she not be given food or water by natural means, is POV biased and grossly deceptive. NCdave 16:43, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Supporting evidence - Judge Greer's order[12] to deny all food and water by any means. The feeding tube is a Red Herring - a very deceptive one. One would almost think it is deliberate. StuartGathman 17:11, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

W/r/t Florida law, I agree with linking to it, but it is important to note that it was violated: it required "clear and convincing" proof that she was in a persistent vegetative state, and "clear and convincing" proof that she had expressed the wishe to not be kept alive, an evidentiary standard which obviously was not met in either case. NCdave 16:43, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

That is up to a judge to decide -- and apparently he rules otherwise. Rama 17:33, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I wasn't clear. I should have said that "it was violated by Judge Greer." NCdave 17:54, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Sorry is right. You aren't terribly clear. Due process was applied to this case. Over and over again I might add. I think it's a real shame that even the law is not good enough for you NCDave. It concerns me greatly that there are so many out there who feel the law has let them down. Will that be justification to make your own 'law?' Wjbean 16:57, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The Greer order Stuart links above is a perect example of the complexity of the court system and the layman's misunderstanding of it. Folks mistakenly think they understand what these orders mean by reading them at face value (I am not immune to these initial reactions, either; I'm not trying to say that.), when clearly, they do not. Upon close reading, the order states that the new motion the Schindlers were making was already covered by a previous pending motion, and therefore, must necessarily be denied. It is important to dissect these orders and motions and attempt to understand the legal basis behind them. The judges that many are accusing of activism have merely been following the letter of the law, which is very complex. I think, however, it is worth the time to try to understand this process.--Minaflorida 19:34, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The accounts I read of Greer's final order "Michael Schiavo shall cause the withdrawal of nutrition and hydration from the ward, Teresa Schiavo" were that this wording was necessary since it would remain possible for an attempt to be made to naturally give food and drink to Terri, i.e. provide nutrition and hydration. The Schindlers had made a motion that while the feeding tube was removed, that an attempt be allowed for Terri to be naturally fed and hydrated. They unsuccessfully argued that the court was limited to authorizing Michael to remove the feeding tube and that by ordering Michael to [withdraw] nutrition and hydration exceeded his legal authority.

Minaflorida, where did you read an account of the meaning of Greer's order as you described it or is this original research on your part which you would like to contribute to the article? patsw 20:32, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I read the text of the order that Stuart linked a few posts above--the order denying the additional motion. If you read the text of that order, it states plainly that the content is contained in the previous 150.40 (FL Rules of Civil Procedure) motion that the Schindler's had filed.--Minaflorida 20:46, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

---

first, linguistics: "life support" v. "nutrition and hydration" v. "life-prolonging procedures"--frankly, it can be any of these three terms, with more credence to "life support" and "life-prolonging procedures" because: (1) the Florida Statutes in 2005 use the term "life-prolonging procedures," see, e.g., S. 765.101(10) Fla. Stat. (2005)("Life-prolonging procedures" defined as "medical procedure, treatment, or intervention, including artificially provided sustenance and hydration, which sustains, restores, or supplants a spontaneous vital function. The term does not include the administration of medication or performance of medical procedure, when such medication or procedure is deemed necessary to provide comfort care or to alleviate pain."); (2) the initial order in this case refers to "life support," see, 2-11-2000 Order ("Ordered and adjudged that the Petition for Authorization To Discontinue Artificial Life Support ... and Petitioner/Guardian is hereby authorized to proceed to proceed with the discontinuance of said artificial life support"); and (3) the phrase "nutrition and hydration" was introduced later in the proceedings, see, e.g., 2-25-2005 Order (the Schindler family filed a motion entitled, "Motion for an Emergency Stay of Execution of February 11, 2000, Order To Remove Theresa Schiavo's Nutrition and Hydration" and this court order uses this term instead of life support throughout the order.) Subsequent to this, the Schindler family filed an emergency motion to provide Theresa Schiavo with "food and water by natural means." see, 2-28-2005 Motion, and so on. My vote would be for "life-prolonging procedures" as that is the name of the act in Florida.

second, link to the Florida law: i recommend a link to the entire chapter, which is Chapter 765 of the Florida Statutes.

considering the speed with which this article changes, and having never edited any Wikipedia article, I am reluctant to make these changes, and hope that someone else who has been editing this article will make such a change, if that is the concensus.

third, to NCDave: please indicate when you received a license to practice law in the State of Florida. Additionally, it is clear from the discussion above and other discussions concerning this article that you are articulating/regurgitating arguments made by the Schindler family and its supporters. This is not a neutral POV, it is advocacy. Further, if you are going to make such statements concerning Florida law and the judicial decisions related thereto, I highly recommend that you read the law and the case law, and cite to cases that support your position, keeping in mind that I believe/suspect a number of your arguments have alreay been made in court and found to be without merit. --Mia-Cle 00:16, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

However, here is the definition of "Life-sustaining procedures" under Florida law:

"Life-prolonging procedure" means any medical procedure, treatment, or intervention, including artificially provided sustenance and hydration, which sustains, restores, or supplants a spontaneous vital function. The term does not include the administration of medication or performance of medical procedure, when such medication or procedure is deemed necessary to provide comfort care or to alleviate pain.

Note that the definition plainly specifies artificially provided nutrition and hydration, implying that it does not encompass naturally provided nutrition and hydration. But Greer chose to ignore that. There is no provision in Florida law permitting the withholding or withdrawing of natural nutrition and hydration, yet Judge Greer explicitly ordered that Terri not be provided "with food and water by natural means." See "Permission to Provide Theresa Schiavo with Food and Water by Natural Means is DENIED."

I don't see how there can be any legitimate dispute about the fact that Greer's order was outside the law. NCdave 00:52, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

To get this discussion back on track, it is my understanding that the point of this section of discussion is to decide between using the phrase "life support" or "nutrition and hydration." I will reiterate: to be technically correct, in Florida, the phrase is "life-prolonging procedure." Which gives one three options, two of which are more acceptable for a neutral point of view (life support or life-prolonging procedure) and one which is less so because, as I noted, "nutrition and hydration" were introduced by the Schindler family motions subsequent to the trial, which is not a neutral point of view. (i.e., the statutory phrase was changed, deliberately, by the Schindlers in their motions. this is not the neutral phrasing of the statute.)

As to the rest of your "argument" --which is irrelevant for the point of this section -- you show a remarkable lack of understanding of law and the judicial process; however, based on your numerous "discussions" wherein you only regurgitate one point of view, I am not going to waste my time attempting to explain the legal issues and the legal process to you. Go to law school. I will simply point out that in 1990, the Florida Supreme Court issued its landmark decision in this area, "In re Browning," which, in addition to affirming that in Florida competent and incompetent persons have the right to determine for themselves the course of their medical treatment, it sets forth the clear and convincing standard (that you clearly, clearly do not understand. also, see Judge Greer's initial order, which also outlines the application of the standard. For a good interpretation for lay persons, abstractappeal.com addresses this as well).--Mia-Cle64.132.60.202 23:39, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Ignoring your insults, "life-prolonging procedure" is the term defined in the law which authorizes withholding or withdrawing nutrition & hydrations from some patients -- but the legal definition of "life-prolonging procedure" does not cover natural feeding and hydration, which Greer explicitly ordered halted.

you cannot "halt" something that has never happened or was physically incapable of happening. i do not recall in any of the medical evidence a time when Mrs. Schiavo was not on a feeding tube, as it was the only way she was able to take nutrition without drowning/choking as she lacked the ability to swallow. see professor ninja's response. this line of argument is nonsense. again, i am tired of attempting to explain to you the nuances of court proceedings, but here it is, one last time: the Schindler motions deliberately changed the language from the initial order, whatever their motivation to do so. --Mia-Cle

You are correct that one cannot halt something that is impossible. But if it was impossible then why did GAL Wolfson recommend swallowing tests and therapy? And how did Terri manage to swallow quarts of saliva every day (as we all do) without difficulty? And why did doctors say that the claim that she could not swallow was nonsense? And why did nurses and family members used to sneak Terri Jell-O and pudding treats which they testified that she obviously enjoyed? And why did the Schindlers petition the court for the swallowing tests and therapy that Wolfson recommended? And, why, at the 11th hour, did the Schindlers petition the court for permission to try feeding her by mouth, even without the recommended swallowing therapy?

If Terri truly couldn't swallow, then why did M.Schiavo and Felos and Greer forbid the swallowing tests and therapy which would have proven it?

The claim that Terri could not swallow at all, and the claim that she definitely could not swallow well enough to be sustained by spoon-feeding, like the claim that her brain had been replaced by fluid, were Felos propaganda, i.e., lies. The truth is that Terri could definitely swallow, and that she might well have been able to swallow well enough to be sustained by spoon-feeding, but Greer (at Felos's request) refused to permit Terri's family to try. NCdave 03:54, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Terri had at least two or three swallowing tests, according to Dr. Barnhill. Or is he part of the Shiavo/Felos/Greer cabal? You assert that "....the claim that she definitely could not swallow well enough to be sustained by spoon-feeding...were...lies." What is your proof of this? You also claim that "[t]he truth is that Terri could definitely swallow..." Where is your proof of that? Were you there? Did you see her swallow? Would you even know she was swallowing if you saw it? It is so sad to see someone so blinded by a viewpoint that they ignore all of the voluminous evidence to the contrary but grasp at every crackpot, illogical, unsupportable suggestion that buttresses their view as gospel truth. LRod 216.76.216.118 20:45, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

216.76.216.118, everyone who visited Terri could see that she swallowed her own saliva without difficulty. Even Felos's chosen doctor, Barnhill, surely must have noticed that, even though he only "examined" her very briefly (for about ten minutes) on two occasions. Terri's saliva production and saliva swallowing were normal, a fact which was confirmed by numerous physicians:

In the spring of 2000, three physicians, including Dr. Jay Carpenter, who is a former Chief of Medicine at Morton Plant Hospital, filed affidavits after observing Ms. Schiavo. All three physicians stated that it is visually apparent that Ms Schiavo is able to swallow and, in fact, does swallow her own saliva.[13]

If that is not enough proof for you, I suggest that you put a pencil and paper beside your desk, and make a mark on the paper every time you swallow your own saliva. See how many times you swallow your own saliva in just one hour. NCdave 01:27, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Intermediate orders referred to "life-prolonging procedure" but significantly the order which killed Terri directed that "Michael Schiavo shall cause the withdrawal of nutrition and hydration from the ward, Teresa Schiavo". [14] This order unqualified by the terms "natural" or "artifical" empowered the police to threaten with arrest anyone who would dare to give Terri a drink of water. How can quoting this order be introducing a POV? The text speaks for itself. This is the article about Terri Schiavo and not about legislative history or euphemism. patsw 14:23, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You are attempting to parse, and therefore misrepresent, the entire judicial process to suit one particular point of view. Therefore, what you are attempting to do is not a neutral reading. The text "speaks" in context--the context of this entire case and the context of over two hundred years of judicial decisions.

As for writing a neutral article, here's an example: for a non-neutral point of view, you would write, as I'm guessing you want to write: "The Judge ordered Terri's murder." Here's neutral: The judge denied the Schindler's Motion (and the name of the motion) on the grounds that (on the grounds that the judge set forth). The way you are parsing is politicizing from one side of the argument and on its face not neutral.

Here's another example of writing from a biased point of view: The Schindlers, having lost at trial and on rehearing, bombarded the court with a series of frivolous post-trial motions, which they consistently lost because they were on weak legal grounds. They also attempted to forum shop (i.e., find a court whose outcome they did like), the attempts at which were summarily rejected as lacking legal grounds as well. For example, the Schindlers attempted to bypass a result they didn't like by turning the court case into a political circus that resulted in hastily written, unconstitutional laws that tried to undermine the separation of powers--the fundamental governing principal of democracy in the United States--for the sole purpose of getting the "order" that they wanted.

My point is this: just as the above paragraph sets forth a series of events and uses biased terms to describe it (bombard, frivolous, lacking, sole purpose, e.g.), it advocates one side of the argument, which is not a neutral writing. Its the same as when you parse your texts so that you get your one point of view across. It's not neutral.--Mia-Cle64.132.60.202 01:35, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

More details on medical side?

Just reading through and noticed no mention of Dr Maxfield, etc? porges 11:30, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)

Of course not. He examined Terri and determined that she wasn't in a vegetative state. Including such information would be contrary to the purpose of the article. NCdave 20:23, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

How long did Dr. Maxfield examine Ms. Shiavo? Was he actually in direct contact with her or did he make this determination based on documentation alone? Wjbean 16:59, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think that I recall reading that Dr. Maxwell visited Terri three times, but I don't recall the total amount of time that he spent with her, and I can't seem to find the reference now.

I do recall that, as Sen. Frist, M.D. noted, the doctors who spent the most time with Terri said that she wasn't in a PVS. Cranford spent just 45 minutes with her, and Bambakidis spent just 30 minutes with her. Terri's so-called "treating physician," Dr. Victor Gambone, spent only about 30 minutes with her per year.[15] NCdave 04:26, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Is this correct

"Hospice staff describe Mr. Schiavo as a very supportive husband who berated nurses for not taking better care of his wife; in 1994 the hospice attempted (unsuccessfully) to get a restraining order against him because he was demanding more attention for his wife at the expense of other patients' care. Due to the attention she has received in the 15 years she has been bedridden, Terri Schiavo has never developed any bedsores." I have read before that she did develop bedsores. Would be interested to know sources for this so we can see which is correct 60.234.141.76 16:32, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The source is that somebody just made it up. This article is riddled with outright lies. She wasn't even in hospice in 1994. NCdave 16:48, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

According to the relevant source documents, Terri was moved to a hospice in April, 2000. The passage goes on to say, according to Jay Wolfson, one of Mrs. Schiavo's court-appointed guardians, in 1994 the administration of one nursing home attempted, unsuccessfully, to get a restraining order against him because he was demanding more attention for his wife at the expense of other patients' care. I cannot find this exact claim in the Wolfson report. What I did find, was the following claim on p.10: ...it was determined that he had been very aggressive and attentive in his care of Theresa. His demanding concern for her well being and meticulous care by the nursing home earned him the characterization by the administrator as “a nursing home administrator’s nightmare”. It is notable that through more than thirteen years after Theresa’s collapse, she has never had a bedsore. I have attributed the bedsore comment to the Wolfson report, and the restraining order to this Newsweek article. Of course, if anyone has a better source, please add it. --Viriditas | Talk 03:57, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Father Johansen says that she did have bedsores. The apparent discrepancy might not mean that either Wolfson or Johansen is in error, however, since Johansen's article is much more recent. Here's the relevant section of Johansen's article:

Many people believe that Terri Schiavo has had "the best of care," and that everything has been tried by way of rehabilitation. This belief is false. In fact, Terri has had no attempts at therapy or rehabilitation since 1992, and very little had been done up to that point. Terri has not even had the physical therapy most doctors would regard as normative for someone in her condition. The result is that Terri suffers from severe muscle contractures, which have caused her body to become contorted. Physical therapy could remedy this, but husband Michael has refused to provide it.

Terri has also suffered from what many professionals would regard as neglect. She had to have several teeth extracted last year because of severe decay. This decay was caused by a lack of basic dental hygiene, such as tooth-brushing. She also developed decubitus (skin) ulcers on her buttocks and thighs. These ulcers can be prevented by a simple regimen of regular turning: a basic nursing task that any certified nurse's aide can perform. The presence of these easily preventable ulcers is a classic sign of neglect. Bob and Mary Schindler have repeatedly complained of Terri's neglect, and have sought to remove Michael as guardian on that basis. Judge Greer was unmoved by those complaints as well.

NCdave 15:05, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

So who is Fr. Johansen and what is the basis for his claims? I didn't see anything in the article that establishes credibility, expertise, or source for any of his statements. Is that what you're relying on to support your position? The statement "[s]he also developed decubitus (skin) ulcers on her buttocks and thighs," appears to be pulled out of thin air. Where does he come by that claim? C'mon, Dave. Help us out here. How does he know this? How can we trust the claim? Is it strong enough to debunk GAL Wolfson's observation who actually had access to Terri? Please tell us how. Just appearing in an article in a POV publication isn't enough. But you've been told that before. LRod 216.76.216.57 04:01, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well, NCdave, I gotta thank you for that one link. I finally read the original words, and it really puts a lot of stuff into perspective. Here are some excerpts followed by my opinions in parens:

The Petition is an attempt by Mr. and Mrs. Schindler to relitigate the entire case (held January 24, 2000). The affidavits of Heidi Law and Carlar Sauer Iyer deal exclusively with events occurring in the 1995-1997 timeframe, testimony certainly available at the time of the original evidentiary hearing. (Why didn't the Schindlers bring them to the original hearing? Why did Law/Iyer come forward just now especially if Michael was "killing" Terri with injections?) The affidavits of speech professionals show they rely on an interpretation of the videos from the 2002 evidentiary hearing, which is 180 degrees different from the affirmed ruling of this court. The affidavits of the 3 speech professionals clearly demonstrate that they disagree with the previous rulings of this court as amplified by the four opinions of the Second Disctrict Court of Appeals. It is clear they (the speech therapists) do not believe Terri is a vegatative state. Therefore any conclusion that they have reached would be fatally flawed.

(A bunch of doctors examine Terri, do scans, and whatever, and diagnose her to be in a vegitative state. 4 speech therapists watch a tape made by the parents and think Terri is responding. Yeah, I think I'd throw out their affidavits. The Schindlers are fishing. A diagnosis based on some selective clips should not overrule the work of doctors who actually examined her. Greer did the right thing to toss this voodoo diagnosis)

Ms. Iyer details what amounts to a 15-month cover-up which include the staff of Palm Garden of Largo Convalescent Center, the Guardian of the Person, the Guardian ad Litem, the medical professionals, the police, and believe it or not, Mr. and Mrs. Schindler.

(Hm, a conspiracy theory. that has a familiar ring to it. Sound familiar, NCdave?)

The affidavit of Ms. Law speaks of Terri responding on a CONSTANT basis. Neither in testimony nor in the medical records is there support for these affidavits... IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO BELIEVE THAT MR. AND MRS. SCHINDLER WOULD NOT HAVE SUBPOENAED MS. IYER FOR THE JANUARY 2000 EVIDENTIARY HEARING HAD IYER CONTACTED THEM AS HER AFFIDAVIT ALLEGES.

(uh, yeah. Iyer says that in 1997 she was in constant contact with the Schindlers because she thought they should know about their daughter. And yet in 2000, the Schindlers didn't subpoena her as a witness? This is so much bullshit I need hip waders to get over it. You accuse Michael of "remembering" that Terri wouldn't want to be kept alive only after he got the malpractice money. But you don't think this is a case of the Schindlers "remembering" that "oh, yeah, remember that nurse who said Michael was killing Terri? maybe we should subpeona her this time around?" Give me a break.)

FuelWagon 17:05, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

That's mostly from Felos's pet judge, George Greer (with some of your own remarks inserted). Greer is the same guy who thumbed his nose at the recommendations of both of Terri's guardians ad litem, to rule according to Felos's wishes. His claim that the testimony of Heidi Law and Carla Iyer were previously available to the Schindlers is just a flat out lie. His claim that there is an inconsistency in Iyer's testimony is based on an obvious contortion of her words. However, when he said that he was dismissing three of the affidavits because they disagreed with his own previous conclusion about Terri's diagnosis, that was true - and shameful.

Note, too, that the doctors in that previous evidentiary hearing split 3-to-2 in their diagnosis (hardly dispositive, were Greer a fair judge).

But Greer didn't like the doctors that the family selected, so he simply discarded their testimony, and refused to permit Terri's family to select any other doctors to evaluate her. That left him with testimony from only one side.

Tell me, what would you think of the fairness of the proceedings in a capital murder trial if the defendent's lawyers were allowed to present the testimony of only two expert witnesses? Have you ever heard of a case in which the defense was forbidden from having more than two expert witnesses? Even a non-capital case??

What would you think of a capital murder case in which there was no jury, and only a single judge to rule on all the disputed facts, and no appeal of those rulings was allowed'?

What if that judge discarded the testimony of the defense's only two expert witnesses, on dubious grounds, and refused to allow the defense to substitute other experts?

What if, on the basis of that abbreviated testimony, the judge sentenced the defendant to death?

Well, that's what Judge Greer did, with just one difference: Terri is not a murderer. NCdave 07:25, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

NCdave! Hey, that link about Iyer's affidavit is so good, I had to quote it in the timeline. (11 September 2003) Thanks! Got any more? FuelWagon 17:21, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Should we mentioned the parents/lawyer comments earlier today

I accidently posted this out of order so reposting it here I believe earlier today (or maybe it was yesterday) the lawyers and/or parents were claiming she is still doing very well etc etc... I think it's worth mentioning their comments before mentioning her death as it has a bearing on their ability to properly comprehend her condition in their interactions with her. Of course, it's possible she might have been looking well and then suddenly died but all this is irrelevant IMHO. Basically maybe a short breakdown of how Michael and the parents and the lawyers described her conditions as the days progresses is worth including IMHO60.234.141.76 16:36, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

In understand that 10 minutes before she died Michael kicked her family out. Does anyone know whether there was anyone else in the room with her when she died, besides Michael? NCdave 16:51, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Bobby Schindler and his sister, Suzanne Vitadamo, had been in the room visiting their sibling for about an hour and 45 minutes when a hospice administrator notified Michael Schiavo that his wife was in her final stages. The hospice official asked the siblings to leave the room so that Schiavo's condition could be evaluated. According to a hospice administrator, Bobby Schindler resisted and got into a dispute with a law enforcement officer there, saying he wanted to stay in the room, too. "Mr. Schiavo's overriding concern was Mrs. Schiavo has a right and had a right to die with dignity and die in peace," Felos said. "She had a right to have her last and final moments on this Earth be experienced by a spirit of love and not of acrimony." Her parents had begged to be with Terri while she died, but police denied their request, said Brother Paul O'Donnell, the Schindlers' spokesman and spiritual adviser. [16] --Viriditas | Talk 02:59, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Wait a minute... Is the state of the Final Stages part of the current article a complete and biased falsehood, then? I don't see any indication in the link given that "According to the Schindlers' spokesperson, a few minutes before she died her parents and siblings were told to leave the room by her husband, Michael Schiavo." According to either side, this decision was taken by hospice officials so that Terri's condition could be evaluated, and a few minutes before her death, the parents were nowhere near Terri's room! There is no suggestion at all of Michael kicking anybody out of the room, which is the impression currently given by the article. Unless I've been misreading the cnn link above... Someone fact-check and fix this quick.--Fangz 15:50, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well, it really isn't clear who controlled access to her.

"Michael Schiavo's attorney, George Felos, stood by his client's decision to have Terri Schiavo's brother and sister leave the room."[17]

This seems to indicate that Michael Schaivo did have some say at least with regard to the brother and sister. As quoted from Viriditas above, the spokesman says that the police denied the Schindler's request. I'm not sure if that's on Michael Schaivo's order, or judicial order, or if it's just the decision of the police present at the time. --CVaneg 16:06, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This just gets more confusing. As far as I can tell, there are two contradicting accounts from the above. Is the Michael Schaivo lawyer statement accurate, or is the unsourced statement about hospice officials (which may or may not be related to the immediately following statement from the hospice administrator) more accurate? In any case, there is still nothing about Michael Schaivo and the Schindler parents, especially a few minutes before her death. Do we have any other independent sources?--Fangz 17:35, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

POV use of word "family"

There are about twelve uses of the word "family" in the current version that in context appear to refer to Terri's parents (and possibly her siblings as well) but specifically exclude her husband. It seems to me that this usage is inherently POV as it delegitimizes Michael's relationship to her. Perhaps we should change these to more neutral expressions like "parents" and "the Schindler family" to avoid this apparent bias. I hesitate to 'be bold' on such a controversial article. What does everyone else think? Bovlb 18:23, 2005 Mar 31 (UTC)

I agree.--Fangz 18:27, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. Terri and Michael were long estranged. Terri's family includes her mother, her father, her brother, her sister, and various in-laws, aunts, uncles, etc., who all wanted to protect her. Her so-called "husband" was not a husband in any meaninful sense. A man can only have one marriage family, and for Michael that is his fiancee, Jodi, and their two children.

Moreover, Terri's and Michael's marriage was on the rocks even before her collapse, and there is strong evidence of spousal abuse in that relationship. NCdave 19:18, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

How can you be estranged from someone who is no longer able to think like a human NCDave? And calling Michael her "so called husband" is most certainly POV. By law (both judical and moral) Michael Shiavo was her husband. In all states in the union that makes him her primary custodian. Finally, can you prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Michael Shiavo was an abusive husband? I doubt it. I doubt you can even prove that their marriage was "on the rocks" before her collapse. Get real NCDave. Wjbean 17:07, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure you understand what is being said. Not including Michael as part of Terri's "family" is putting forward a specific point of view - in this case, one that you strongly support. At the time of Terri's death, Michael was still her legal husband, and therefore family. --Azkar 19:42, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

There has been no evidence that Terri and Michael were estranged, long or otherwise. By law, he was and is her family, and should be indicated as such. There is no evidence of spousal abuse, and even if there were, that doesn't change the fact, that, under law', he is her family. RickK 00:31, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)

NCDave just has a bug up his ass about Michael Schiavo. Maybe he ran over NCdave's cat or something. Iceberg3k 21:19, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)

Michael didn't kill my cat. But he killed both of Terri's cats. NCdave 03:32, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

What is that supposed to mean? NCdave, do us a favor and stop posting stuff like that. The stuff about the cats, I mean. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the topic being discussed. (Anon.)

I have made the necessary clarifications/corrections. Bovlb 05:31, 2005 Apr 2 (UTC)

I think NCDave has completely disqualified himself as an editor to this article. He obviously is incapable of NPOV. Wjbean 17:09, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

First Paragraph of Article is not relevant

The paragraph about 'Early Life' is not relevant nor desired on an encyclopaedia. My edit has nothing to do with point of view, religion, morality or anything else that people want to argue. It simply is NOT acceptable to include personal details not relevant to the subject. Please try to remember - this is an encyclopaedia NOT a biography. Viriditas - You would do well to stop calling legitimate edits vandalism - even if you disagree with the change. Rob cowie

Could someone clarify why Terri Schiavo's early life should not be included. Is it notable, no. Should it be included, yes. The 'subject' is Terri Schiavo, if the subject is her death then the article should be renamed or split. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 20:50, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The user is misinformed. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography, especially the "Structure" section. His "legitimate edits" consist of removing legitimate content. The users edits fall in between the grey area of sneaky vandalism, Newbieness, NPOV violations, and bullying or stubbornness. --Viriditas | Talk 20:53, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Rubbish - That paragraph does not enhance a readers understanding of the legal case surrounding this story, nor the ethical aspects of this story, nor the medical aspects of this story. Perhaps the purpose of this article should be clarified - is it about Terri Schiavo or about the circumstances of the legal case regarding her medical treatment? RoyBoy - I agree, there is a case for splitting this article... or renaming it Rob cowie

The "Early life" section is an important part of a biography (see also Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography) and enhances every aspect of the article (not a story as you call it), including the historical timeline. The section that you twice removed directly "enhances" (as you term it) the medical, legal, and ethical elements, and it's quite clear as to how it accomplishes those goals: it informs the reader as to what kind of person Terri Schiavo was before her medical crisis. The section also gives a brief background on her eating disorder, which is thought to be responsible for her eventual collapse, and the section alludes to Michael Schiavo's malpractice case two years later. While the section certainly needs to be expanded, your removal of this content could be very loosely (and weakly) interpreted as sneaky vandalism, for by removing this content you are essentially engaging in misinformation, and misinforming the reader as to the origin and nature of Terri Schiavo's medical condition. This also plays into the hands of the POV warriors who insist that Terri never had an eating disorder, and that Michael Schiavo allegedly "abused" her, and was responsible for her collapse. So, in an indirect but very real way, you are assisting those who would misinform and perpetuate NPOV violations, not to mention that your repeated removal of standard biographical content, as well as your refusal to discuss the issue, is indicative of bullying and stubbornness on your part. It should also be said that I have also never heard of anyone removing an "Early life" section from a biographical article before, since the purpose of such an article is to inform the reader about the persons life. And, I intend to do just that by expanding the "Early life" section as time permits. --Viriditas | Talk 01:54, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

On a technical note - removing legitimate content does not render an edit illigitimate, an act of vandalism of a NPOV violation. Rob cowie 21:06, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

See my comments above. --Viriditas | Talk 01:54, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You and I have different ideas of what Wikipedia is all about. But...Please Yourself Rob cowie 09:44, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Show me the error of my ways. Point me to a biographical article that has had the "Early life" section removed. Or, are you setting a new precedent? --Viriditas | Talk 10:23, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Below you suggest that 'It is not over, and won't be for some time'. However, you have explained to me that this is a biographical article. If that is the case, 'It' as you put it most certainly is over. Are you now suggesting that this article is NOT about the woman, but about the circumstances and peculiarities of her death and the discussion thereof? If you are, my comments still stand - this is not biographical and the first paragraph is irrelevant. Perhaps you are suggesting that this article is both? Rob cowie 12:30, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)

I don't have a clue what you are on about, but without resorting to calling you a troll, I'm going to ask that we just stick to discussing this article. Your argument for removing the early life section does not seem to be clear. --Viriditas | Talk 10:54, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well then, I suggest you pay more attention to you posts. A quick glance at your contributions to this site (many of which are very good) leads one to believe you are addicted to arguments. Please, for the sake of this site, think about what you are posting in a more logical manner.Rob cowie

Please focus on the article instead of editors. --Viriditas | Talk 06:39, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Fork

I propose we split this article into Terri Schiavo (which is her biography) and Schiavo vs. Schindler (which describes the legal battle). Much the same way we have Amber Hagerman and AMBER Alert --Vik Reykja ♬ 22:03, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Comment I'd like to split because of its size, but my gut tells me to keep it as is. People will be coming to this article expecting to see the controversy. Then again; perhaps a distinction (split) should be made to clarify Terry was the subject of the debate, but not in the debate given her unfortunate circumstances. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 22:34, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I agree with RoyBoy, right now people who come to Wikipedia for this article probably want the full rundown. It should probably be kept in its present state until new information stops surfacing, (hopefully that means a week or two after the autopsy report is released). After that point, it will probably be a good idea to break this article down into two or more component parts. --CVaneg 23:33, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Same here, although I'm sure Terri Schiavo had an interesting life, the majority of wikipedia users will want to read about the controversy. bernlin2000 ∞ 16:12, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)

I disagree. It's best to keep this in one coherent article in order to control unnecessary duplication. Neutrality^talk 02:20, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)

I was going to create a few daughters for this article; unfortunately my exam timetable has interfered slightly. However, I agree with CV and Roy that for the time being, seperation isn't the wisest course of action. Professor Ninja 21:00, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)

It hardly matters at this point. The article is so full of falsehoods that it is of little use to anyone, except as propaganda designed to mislead people. NCdave 03:30, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Interesting that a propagandist would accuse others of propaganda, Eh, NCDave? Prove the falsehoods! Your opinion is not fact. Wjbean 17:11, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Past tense, present tense, and Terri's death

In the light of Terri having died, we should be careful to review past and present tense as used in the article. The argument between the two parties might not have ended when she passed away. [[User:Rickyrab|Rickyrab | Talk]] 23:09, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Current event

Can we remove the "ongoing event" tag? Or should we wait until the autopsy? Meelar (talk) 03:45, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)

As I mentioned some time ago, the tag is not useful in this case. This has been an ongoing event for 15 years and is likely to continue for years to come. --Viriditas | Talk 03:52, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Ummm...come again? I hate to be in bad taste, but the poor woman stopped being a current event this morning. Meelar (talk) 03:57, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)

It isn't over, and won't be for some time. See [18] and [19]. I am not a proponent of using the "ongoing event" tag on this page, in any case. --Viriditas | Talk 04:10, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Parents and Siblings

I am fairly certain that the parents were not present when Michael Schiavo told the family to leave the hospice. The brother and sister of Terri were the only ones present.

Not exactly. See [20]. --Viriditas | Talk 04:12, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

All the CNN article says is that the parents were not allowed to see her when they were informed of her last moments. They were not in the room and told to leave as this entry seems to suggest. The siblings were told to leave and the parents were told they could not see her.

"Felos said that when hospice workers asked the siblings to leave around 8:45 a.m." ... "When Terri Schiavo died, her brother and sister were across the street in a thrift shop that served as the family's base in recent weeks. Her parents, Bob and Mary Schindler, arrived about half an hour later" [21]

"Around 9 a.m., Terri Schiavo was dead. Her parents, Bob and Mary Schindler, were not on the hospice grounds. After some time, Michael Schiavo left and allowed the Schindler family to visit with her body. He told them they could take any item from the room that they wanted." [22]

"Terri Schiavo's parents were not at the hospice at the time. Her brother and sister were in her room -- which was decorated with lilies and roses -- before she died. But Felos said that hospice personnel asked them to leave so that Terri could be examined." [23]

I could site more sources, but I think you get the picture --220.220.184.249 06:14, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The current article says,

At 9:05 a.m. EST on March 31, 2005, Terri Schiavo died at the age of 41. According to the Schindlers' spokesperson, a few minutes before she died her parents and siblings were told to leave the room by her husband, Michael Schiavo. David Gibbs, the Schindlers' attorney, said the Schindlers were "with Terri up until ten minutes before she passed." They were allowed back into the room after she had died. [59] (http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/03/31/schiavo.deathbed/)

That CNN article that is cited clearly states that the siblings were in the room and the parents were on their way to the hospice after receiving word of Terri's condition. The parents were never told to leave the room because they were not in it with the siblings before Terri's passing. I suggest this this change should be made,

According to a CNN article, a few minutes before she died her siblings were told to leave the room by her husband, Michael Schiavo. Terri's parents were also denied access to Terri's room when they were informed that this may be her last moments.

I seriously believe this change should be made as it is central to the controversy regarding Michaels actions in Terri's last moments. Not allowing the parents to enter, while in itself is still wrong on Michael's part, is not as bad as forcing the parents to leave her bedside as this page reports. It is more factual to state it like this instead of how it currently is stated.--207.65.109.90 16:53, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Comments on Introduction

I re-wrote the introduction and removed the redundant material but a user has reverted it. If anyone one feels this is better you can restore it yourself as I do not have an interest in the subject. I was only trying to improve it. However the current intro is bias. I dislike this material: "Mrs. Schiavo's parents, Bob and Mary Schindler, who are both practicing Catholics" - why does her parents religion need to be in the intro? "after 13 days without a feeding tube." - this is an obvious attempt at POV to emphasize something already stated when the courts granted it earlier in the intro "husband's successful efforts to discontinue life support prompted a fierce debate over bioethics, euthanasia, legal guardianship, federalism, and civil rights, while overcoming active counter-efforts to keep her alive." - this paralell is a bad one, implying that others supported her "life" while her husband "supported" her death when in reality it was they supported the life support and he opposed it as artificial.

Actually, it wasn't the lack of feeding tube that killed her, it was the lack of food and hydration by any means. Greer's two orders did not direct the removal of her feeding tube. Rather, they forbade giving her nutrition or hydrations by any means. He specifically forbade giving her food and water by mouth. The current text about "life support" is grossly inaccurate and blatantly POV-biased. NCdave 09:43, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The parents beliefs are pertinent to the rest of the article, so I should be mentioned ASAP. "13 days" is a fact that is central to her death; removing it because its stated much later isn't logical because it is relevant information. You may have something regarding the context of the paragraph, but the husband wasn't opposed to it, he was following his Terry's wishes. It was she that was opposed to it. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 07:48, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The strong evidence is that she never expressed such a wish. That's what Michael, himself, said, on numerous occasions, until he hired Felos in 1997. It is also what he implied when testifying under oath during the malpractice trial that he intended to care for Terri for the rest of his life. Michael even slipped up and admitted it again, a few weeks ago, on national television.[24] NCdave 09:43, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I disagree. This article isn't about the Schindlers, it's about Terri Schiavo. Her parents religion only figure into it in the sense that they had an argument stemming from natural law opposing the removal of the feeding tube; that belongs in the section about the Schindlers. I'm not sure what the last few sentences mean with the "...his Terry's[sic] wishes. It was she..." Is she Terri or Mary Schindler? Professor Ninja 16:53, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)

True, but it certainly involves the Schindlers; and their possible motivation to keep Terry alive. As such it is pertinent to the fight over her life support. And I'm not sure what my last sentences meant either :'); the danger of writing late at night. The clarification I attempted to make was it isn't the husbands view on artificial life support that was his motivation, but Terri's view of it prior to her heart attack. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 18:37, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The fact that Terri shared her parents' religion makes their religion pertinent. But the fact that she shared that religion should be stated, too. NCdave 09:43, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I understand, but I don't think it belongs right off the bat in the introduction. I also don't believe that Michael Schiavo's allegations belong in the first paragraph either. They're arguments advanced by both sides to further their particular cause, they're sort of peripheral to Terri; as far as the article is concerned, I think it's best if you just have Terri Schiavo's case in the intro. Professor Ninja 20:54, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)

I'll agree for now; how many "votes" do we need for a consensus? - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 21:24, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Pronunciation

I've just removed and then replaced the claim that their name is pronounced /SHY-voe/. It does look unlikely to me — though Europeans are always cautious when it comes to U.S. pronunciation of names, as almost anything can turn out to be correct (as in the surnames 'Loux' and 'Proulx'). Is there any evidence that this is really how the family pronounces their name? I've found conflicting evidence on the Web (and see this discussion). Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:12, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yes, Michael Schiavo says "I'm Michael SHY-VOE". He says it that way on the news each night. His lawyer pronounces it the same way, on the news. Each and every night. It doesn't matter, really, how Europeans or Americans feel they "ought to" pronounce the name; that's the way he pronounces it. Commentators have taken various politicians to task for "not bothering" to find out how to pronounce it "correctly" before voting on the bill to have the matter considered in the Federal judiciary. - Nunh-huh 21:22, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

See Talk:Terri Schiavo/archive7#Schiavo_pronunciation for the last discussion about the pronunciation of their name. The way Michael pronounces his name is the "correct" pronunciation to use when referring to him and his family. There's currently a note in the article that talks about how the name is pronounced in Italian - I think this should be deleted. It isn't relevant how someone else with the same name pronounces it. --Azkar 22:38, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Oh, and is the photograph really 'fair use'? On what grounds? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:16, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Are you referring to my labeling of the CT scan? --Viriditas | Talk 22:56, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Last Rites

Someone asked, and I think it's been archived already, how Terri could receive Last Rites without confessing. Answer here. --Baylink 22:17, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

New York Times

The summary of the March 28 New York Times report does not match what the New York Times states, even though the paper's report appears muddled itself concerning "sale" and then "rent". Nevertheless, I did not read "that the Schindlers have compiled a list of people", so I think that should be rewritten. -Wikibob | Talk 02:42, 2005 Apr 2 (UTC)

Unless you are saything that the NYT is lying outright, I think it can be said that since they are selling/renting this list to a direct marketing firm that it was compiled somehow. Now it may have very well been after the fact, or the list's original purpose may have been to coordinate rescue effots, but I can't see how it's not fair to say "the Schidler's compiled a list of people".--CVaneg 03:00, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Neurologists

Do we have a list of the neurologists and their medical opinions, yet? I believe there were at least eight who examined Schiavo and supported the PVS diagnosis. --Viriditas | Talk 11:05, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Modifcations in progress, below. --Viriditas | Talk 11:31, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

link to some neurologists [25]

These are the names I could pull from the timeline: (holes are indicated)

1990

Dr. Victor Gambone, Terri Schiavo's primary care physician for several years (diagnosis: PVS)

Doctor who inserted thalamic stimulator

1991

Dr. W. Campbell Walker performs a bone scan on Terri

1998

Sept. 11: Dr. Jeffrey Karp neurologically evaluates Terri (see Terri Schiavo timeline)

Forensic pathologist, Dr. Michael Baden, examines bone scan

2002:

five doctors are selected to provide expert opinion

Dr. Maxfield / radiologist (Shindler family doctor) (diagnosis: NOT PVS)

Dr. Hammesfahr (diagnosis: NOT PVS)

Dr. Ron Cranford (diagnosis: PVS)

Dr. James Barnhill, selected by Michael (diagnosis: PVS)

Dr. Peter Bambakidis, neurologist appointed by the court (diagnosis: PVS)

It would be more accurate to say that Bambakidis concluded probably PVS. He carefully used the legal phrase, "preponderance of evidence," which is legalese for "probably," and is short of the "clear and convincing" evidentiary standard that Judge Greer claimed. NCdave 11:15, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"Preponderance of evidence" does not mean "probably." It does mean "clear and convincing" however. Where'd you get your law degree NCDave? Wjbean 17:15, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Not so, Wjbean. "Preponderance of evidence" is the lowest evidentiary standard (standard of proof). It simply means "more likely than not." "Clear and convincing" is a more rigorous evidentiary standard. (An even higher evidentiary standard is "beyond reasonable doubt.")

My copy of Black's Law Dictionary (the Sixth Edition, btw) says (in part), that Preponderance of evidence ... "is that degree of proof which is more probable than not."

My copy of Black's says (in part) that Clear and convincing proof is "proof that results in reasonable certainty of the truth" [and] "which requires more than a preponderance of evidence but less than proof beyond a resonable doubt."

Google will find many references to the differences between these two standards of evidence: [26]

Dr. Bambakidis, a man who supporters of the Schindlers suspected of bias), nevertheless carefully used legal terminology which implied uncertainty about Terri's PVS diagnosis. NCdave 22:57, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Terri's parents cite affadavits of 33 physicians who watch video.

2 examined her in person. Who are the 2 who examined her in person? are are they talking about Maxfield and Hammesfahr again? or someone new?

1??

2??

2005

from [27]

dated Wed, Mar. 23, 2005

Three florida neurologists view 12 CT scans, all three agree "About 70 to 90 percent of Schiavo's upper brain is gone"

Dr. Leion Prockop "most severe brain damage I've seen."

Dr. Walter Bradley "doubts there's any activity going on"

Dr. Michael T. Pulley "The chance that this person is going to recover is about zero,"

There's something fishy about neurologists offering opinions in this case solely on the basis of CT scans. Neurologists aren't the best qualified to interpret CT scans. That's a job for radiologists. Who hired these guys? Where did they come from? This smells of Felos propaganda. NCdave 11:15, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

But Dr. William Chesire Jr., the neurologist who volunteers for the state abuse team, said in his affidavit that he visited with Schiavo for 90 minutes March 1 and did not agree that she was in a vegetative state. (diagnosis "minimally conscious state,") Cheshire sees patients at the Mayo Clinic in Jacksonville and teaches at Trinity International University, a Christian institution. Cheshire, also trained in bioethics, graduated from and is an adjunct professor at Trinity University, and has written opinion articles on stem-cell research and other scientific debates espousing a conservative Christian viewpoint.

Well, Dr. Cheshire is actually an Episcopalian, which is not normally considered a "conservative" denomination. But even if he were a fundamentalist, would it matter? Shall we add to the article the religious affiliations of all the doctors and lawyers involved in this case?

I have the distinct impression that some people here think that being a Christian calls into question a person's judgment or integrity. I'd like to be proven wrong about that. NCdave 09:52, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

What are you, an absolute mindless machine? CONSERVATIVE CHRISTIAN VIEWPOINT doesn't evoke any sort of possible BIAS against purely scientific and medical diagnosis? NONE WHATSOEVER? That comment, by the way, IS A QUOTE FROM THE MAGAZINE ARTICLE, if you had actually taken two seconds to click on the link and follow it, rather than be the blindly obediant robot. The fact that he is christian, went to a christian school and teaches at a christian school, isn't relevant except that it supports the assertion that he writes articles espousing a CONSERVATIVE CHRISTIAN VIEWPOINT . And that he espouses a CONSERVATIVE CHRISTIAN VIEWPOINT on stem cell research and other scientific debates DOES indicate that HE IS BIASED. Take the red freaking pill and for once in your otherwise automaton life, THINK.

Here's a link for a story that cites several of the doctors involved in the 2002 evidentiary hearing.

las vegas sun article --Minaflorida 21:55, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

There's a lot of good info in that article, Minaflorida. Thanks for posting it! The link no longer works, but this google search will find other copies of the same article.

The article reports the conclusions of six doctors: two hired by the Schindlers, three hired by Michael Schiavo, and one selected by Judge Greer. The article also includes "rebuttal quotes" from one of Michael Schiavo's chosen doctors (Cranford), replying to the Schindlers' two chosen doctors; no criticism or rebuttal of the other four doctors was included. So the article certainly isn't balanced. Nevertheless, it contains a lot of useful information.

One interesting thing from the article: it turns out that Dr. Bambakidis (the doctor selected by Judge Greer) only concluded that "a preponderance of the evidence supports" the PVS diagnosis. That is legal terminology for an evidentiary standard which is short of the "clear and convincing" level of proof that Judge Greer claimed. So, based on the testimony of the doctor who he, himself, picked, Judge Greer should not have ruled that there was clear and convincing proof that Terri was in a PVS.

Another interesting thing is that the article seems to say that Barnhill didn't see Terri, personally.

Another interesting thing that you'll notice, if you read the article carefully: two of Michael Schiavo's chosen doctors contradicted each other:

Dr. Victor Gambone said, "Her brain studies and brain wave tests showed that she has a brain which is predominantly replaced by spinal fluid."

Dr. James Barnhill said, "I believe, based on the entire appearance, history, appearance of the CAT scan, were you to look at it under a microscope, basically it would consist of large areas of scar tissue with occasional nerve cells embedded."

So, which is it, fellas? Scar tissue or spinal fluid?

Obviously, inspector Clouseau, you've stumbled upon the key to the conspiracy. Gambone mistakenly said "spinal fluid" when it was really "scar tissue" and he has paid off all the other doctors so they would say "spinal fluid". (Chesire wasn't a nut job, he was the only one who couldn't be bought) Gambone also paid off Greer, several other judges, the police, the nursing home bosses, and conspired with them all to murder Terri and bury the evidence. This was to protect himself from yet another malpractice lawsuit in Terri Schiavo's favor. That Michael got blamed for her death by right-wing militants who take out murder contracts on him was just an added bonus of misdirection to take the blame off of him. Oh, wait a minute, brainiac, he said if you looked at it under a microscope, you'd see scar tissue. Maybe he figured that only a MORON would put SPINAL FLUID under a microscope, and that the only thing someone would actually slice up and put on a glass slide would be whatever tissue was left, and that remaining tissue would be SCAR TISSUE. Funny, he never says, her brain is replaced by scar tissue. He says if you look at samples of her brain under a microscope, you would see scar tissue. And perhaps he assumes that only an idiot would bother with spinal fluid. Sorry, Inspector, no "Cross of Conspiracy" medal for you today. FuelWagon 04:35, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Dr. Gambone and Dr. Barnhill's evaluations are not mutually exclusive. Dr Barnhill mentions possible microscopic analysis. Dr. Gambone's evaluation is based on the CT scan. I think the release of the autopsy results are going to settle this matter for all but a few die-hard types who will accept no evaluation unless they agree with it. Wjbean 17:19, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Of course, the true answer is "neither." Neurologists aren't the specialists who are best qualified to interpret CT scans, anyhow. That's a job for radiologists. The two radiologists that I know of who have expressed an opinion about what was shown in Terri's CT scans both said that her condition did not look nearly as bad as M.Schiavo/Felos & their handpicked doctors claimed.

Radiologist Thomas Boyle, M.D. (host of the award-winning CodeBlueBlog web site), who has interpreted over 10,000 brain CT scans, says:

"I have seen many walking, talking, fairly coherent people with worse cerebral/cortical atrophy. Therefore, this is in no way prima facie evidence that Terri Schiavo's mental abilities or/or capabilities are completely eradicated. I cannot believe such testimony has been given on the basis of this scan."NCdave 11:15, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

If this were true, then this evidence could easily be presented to the courts. The Schindler family would be overjoyed to have this kind of evidence. So, one is forced to ask, where are the CT scans that Boyle claims to have seen? One must conclude that they don't exist, and that Boyle was lying. Boyle has also stated, "...if you starve this woman to death it would be, in my professional and experienced medical opinion, the equivalent of starving to death a 75-85 year old person. I would take that to the witness stand." Well, there goes Boyle's alleged neutrality on this issue. And btw, Boyle appears to be a total crank, as he has proposed a massive Terri Schiavo conspiracy on his blog, where he infers that either someone has replaced the "real" CT scan with a fake or that someone has attempted to harm her. [28]--Viriditas | Talk 10:21, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

TOC compression

I think the current table of contents is a little too large, especially the "recent developments" section (which, incidentally, may need a better title). Perhaps it should be condensed a bit? I would do it but thought I'd leave it to people active at this article. violet/riga (t) 14:17, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I've done some compression on "timeline" section to eliminate subsection "years" from main TOC. This shortened the long TOC pretty much. There is separte manual TOC in section "timeline". --Oblivious 22:16, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Explanation of Tony Sidaway's removal of two sections from this talk page

I've removed two sections from this talk page (see history) because of the rule that Wikipedia is not a soapbox, chatroom or discussion forum. I appreciate that the rights and wrongs of this affair are matters of great importance to all of us, and I think that those with opinions on the matter should express them. But not in this talk page, which is solely for discussion of this encyclopedia article. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 19:03, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The POV-bias and inaccuracies of the the Wikipedia article are supposed to be discussed on the Discussion page. What Tony did was delete the contributions that identified and documented those problems, to enforce his POV. That is outrageous. NCdave 06:37, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

grammar, style, & links

I overhauled the artiucle in order to correct some pretty ropy grammar, and to bring links, etc., into Wikipedia style. In the mindless revert wars, my painstaking copy-edits were lost. I replaced them; they've gone again. I've better things to do than try to clean up this article against the wishes of other editors. It looks pretty embarrassingly amateurish in places (e.g., he 'awoke out of bed'), but if you're all happy with that, there's little I can do. I'll Unwatch it and let you all get on with it. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 13:48, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

recent developments need rename

The "Recent Developments" section needs refactoring and renaming. Most of it is political or judicial maneuvaring. Perhaps call it "Government Involvment" or something. Not sure how much of it needs to be kept and how much could be whittled down. The parts "burial" and "autopsy" are the only parts directly about Terri and should be extracted to their own sections. FuelWagon 13:16, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The political history in the article (terri's law, Delay, George and Jeb Bush) take up almost half teh space. Anyone wanna take a stab at whittling it down? FuelWagon 17:49, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I just fixed up some stuff re the FL Legislature's actions because it was a bit inaccurate in how it referred to the different measures put forth by the House and Senate. I also added links to the bills. I just realized I wasn't signed in, though, so it just shows my ISP # or whatever that thing is called. (; Oopsie! I have made that little blurb longer than it was before, however. I'll try to tackle the "recent developments" section as a whole and make it a bit smaller. --Minaflorida 19:23, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

OK. I took a look at the recent developments section and the place that I think could use some whittling is the "Politicians" part. I don't want to go cutting things out that folks think should be in there, though. To me, it seems like most of the "these politicians sided with A, and these politicians sided with B" stuff is less relevant than the quotes that are there (which I think should stay) and the actual legala actions taken by these politicians. Thoughts? --Minaflorida 19:40, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, if the "who's side are they on" stuff was taken out and it was refactored to list only the actions which did have (or would have had) a direct impact on Terri, then maybe we could get it to a managable size. FuelWagon 20:45, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Here's what I'm thinking: I have taken a look at the Politicians section under recent developments and it has a few redundancies. The 1999 Texas bill Then-Gov. Bush signed is already covered in the U.S. Congress section. That seems out of place, so I would propose moving that bit of information to the "Politicians" section. Perhaps we could change the heading to "Political Implications" or "Political Division" or something like that. The "Politicians" sections contains some stuff that is not particularly relevant to Terri Schiavo's case. It seems odd to dwell on the fact that Tom DeLay removed his parents from life support. It does not seem relevant and, while I personally think the guy is a hypocrite, this doesn't seem like the appropriate place to point it out. Here's what I'd do to the "Politicians" section:

Some conservatives, such as former Representative Bob Barr, have expressed concern about the implications for federalism of a bill that involves the federal government in a matter traditionally left to the states. [41] (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=604895) Many Democrats have simply stayed away from the controversy. Especially outspoken Democratic congresspeople who have protested the federal intervention include Henry Waxman, Robert Wexler, Barney Frank, and Debbie Wasserman Schultz.

Republican House Representative Tom DeLay of Texas and Senator Bill Frist of Tennessee, a cardiac surgeon, spoke in favor of keeping Schiavo alive, as did President George W. Bush. Democratic Senators Tom Harkin and Kent Conrad have also supported federal intervention in the Schiavo case, although Republican Representative Dave Reichert was against it.

President Bush came under fire from right-to-die supporters, accused of having double-standards because as Governor of Texas he had personally signed into Texas law a right-to-die law, the Advance Directives Act. [40] (http://www.premack.com/Medical-Legal.htm) This law, one of only three in the nation, allows a hospital under certain circumstances to end life-prolonging measures even against a living will or the will of the patient's family.

On Schiavo's passing, House Majority Leader Tom DeLay said, "This loss happened because our legal system did not protect the people who need protection most, and that will change. The time will come for the men responsible for this to answer for their behavior, but not today. Today we grieve, we pray, and we hope to God this fate never befalls another." President Bush said "I appreciate the example of grace and dignity [the family has] displayed at a difficult time. I urge all those who honor Terri Schiavo to continue to work to build a culture of life where all Americans are welcomed and valued and protected, especially those who live at the mercy of others." [45] (http://www.clarionledger.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050331/NEWS01/50331019/1002)

I have left in some of the "who they supprted" stuff since it seems to fall under the category of "Politics" and is probably important information for the reader to understand that this was anything but a partisan issue.

I would change the link for the Advance Care Directive, 1999 bill, because the old link is not functioning.

I am interested in getting feedback, because I don't want to impose my edit on everyone if it isn't satisfactory. I think it's important to leave in the federalism concerns as that's a huge part of this case's effect on the country as a whole and is the common ground for many conservatives and liberals re this case. Once I get some feedback, I will go ahead and make changes. Cheers!--Minaflorida 13:06, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This is just a note to user Neutrality that I am the person who removed the sections of Politicians that he restored earlier today. I have no problem with the restoration of them, it's just that a shortening of that section was discussed here and I was looking for feedback on the edits I show above, but didn't receive any response. I figured I'd take some action and changed the section. It did not seem relevant to me to include in this article the personal decisions that politicians have made re their own families. I realize (and indeed agree with the notion) that there is hypocrisy involved, but it seemed like the most likely info to hit the chopping block if we are interested in shortening this section. I just wanted to make it known that it was not inexplicable deletion, was not performed by anons, and was not meant to protect or shelter the politicians that the removed portions referred to. I apologize if I haven't gone about making my changes in the proper fashion, Neutrality. Should I have waited longer for feedback in here before pruning that section? Thanks for your input. I'm waaaay new 'round these parts (:--Minaflorida 22:45, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, Minaflorida, I didn't post feedback when requested. I have almost ZERO attachment to any of the political bullshit that happened the last two weeks of Terri's life. DeLay's grandstanding, Jeb's maneuvars, and George's stuff, are all so much chest-thumping that I think it's a waste of space in the article. Anything that you deleted would have been fine with me. I suppose that some might want to know the history of it, so maybe if each action were boiled down to a single sentence, then at least it wouldn't reward the grandstanders by letting them grandstand on wikipedia. But that's just me. FuelWagon 00:03, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Fuel, it looks like you did a pretty good job with the political section. Nice work!--69.68.30.101 01:07, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Talk page archiving?

Am I the only one interested in doing this? The talk page is over 300kb in size. Mike H 09:10, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)

Archive inactive discussions, only. Don't archive active sections, of course. And don't just vandalize the Talk page by deleting all the stuff you don't like, as Tony did. I'm thoroughly disgusted by the repeated smears here of Terri's family, nurse Iyers, and the numerous M.D.s whose opinons differ from Greer/Felos/M.Schiavo, but I certainly would not try to censor expression of those opinions, no matter how repugnant. NCdave 18:53, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I've refactored and deleted a good amount of stuff this morning, the bits that seemed like they could be useful references were moved to archive 13, and the rest deleted. I'm sure all the regulars are familiar by now with what does and does not belong on the Talk page (and have made decisions for themselves as to whether they feel inclined to ignore those guidelines), but I'm such a fan of redundancy that I'm going to hit my favorite points again:

• Gathering information from diverse sources and then citing them to make the article inclusive is an encyclopedic function; gathering information from diverse sources and then attempting to structure and analyze them in order to a) bolster the claims of one side in a controversial article or b) convince editors that one of said sides is "correct or c) introduce original conclusions based on that analysis is not an encyclopedic function
• No Personal Attacks. It's worth noting that the Talk page is also not an appropriate place to commiserate with like-minded editors re: mutual disdain for any other party. Basically, piling on NCdave is not an appropriate response to his actions, and reatliatory personal attacks are no more or less a violation than the original attack.

Fox1 11:46, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Oh, also, Wikipedia seemed to be having some technical difficulties during this process, and I'm out of time to double-check my work. It's quite possible that in all the reloading, page not found errors, and resubmissions things I meant to keep went, and things that were suppose to go stayed. Hey, the beauty of Wiki is that someone will surely point out where I screwed the pooch, right?

Fox1 11:49, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

POV enforcement on the Discussion page

Tony Sidaway and FuelWagon have systematically DELETED my contributions to this discussion, to enforce their POV. They've not archived anything, they've not limited their deletions to inactive conversations. They just delete what they don't like hearing.

Is everyone here okay with that? Or does SOMEONE besides me think that we ought to be able to discuss what is incorrect in the article, on the discussion page? NCdave 00:14, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I don't know why, but I'm picturing the Monty Python troupe going "Help! Help! I'm being oppressed!" I believe the person saying it was a mudslinger. life just brings those funny moments once in a while. Anyways, get a grip, man. This page is 200K long. I deleted some small sections about the timeline, grammar, quotation marks, all of which were no longer relevant for one reason or another. The timeline has been forked off, the section about "mourning", etc. The only thing that I recall deleting that was a current conversation was in the section titled "Neurologists" in which Viriditas asked for a list of all the neurologists who examined Terri, and the section went immediately off topic. Viriditas never got the name of a single neurologist. Instead, you were playing whack a mole with the top 10 things you ask us to disprove about the case and other nonsense. I deleted my comments as well, since they were not in answer to Viriditas's request either. So stop your belly-aching. I thought you'd be happy because I started a whole new section about Iyer's affadavit so that all the information contained in it could be examined in context. That's the source of your 'bitch gonna die' comment, ya know. You like bringing that one up a lot. And now it has its own complete section all to itself. Anyway, rather than play whack-a-mole logic games with you, I figured I'd take one specific topic, give it its own section and really flesh it out in the discussion section. That way Viriditas can get a list, and you can tell me how I'm smearing Iyer. Everyone gets their own section. Everyone's happy. maybe you could start a separate section about your radiologist friend who thinks all Democrats on the planet were trying to murder Terri. Then we can keep the individual pieces of nonsense to their respective section. Ya know, makes the clean up a lot easier that way. FuelWagon 01:07, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Actually, all of your edits are archived in the history section, NCdave, you can wade through and find the appropriate revision and create the archive if you really want (I'd warn you that in my opinion FuelWagon and Tony Sidaway did you a favour; everything out of your mouth is foolish, illogical, ramblingly poor hyperbole, or an outright lie, now at least some of that nonsense is tucked away). Anyway, keep trying NCdave, you've been hilariously and brutally proven absolutely wrong 100% of the time, but whatever. Professor Ninja 06:15, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

No, professor, he didn't archive it, he just deleted it, to enforce his (and your) own POV. NCdave 14:45, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

you can see my deletes here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ATerri_Schiavo&diff=11931036&oldid=11930551

You should be able to go through the history and find Tony's cleanup and cut and paste it in the same archive. You can title it "Off topic conversations that NCdave thought important enough to archive" or whaever. FuelWagon 15:16, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Uh, maybe you missed the part that starts at the first word of my post where it says Actually, al of your edits are archived in the history section. Confusing, I know, but try to keep up. What you do is you go find those edits and archive them (that's the part of my post that continues off after the history section quote, followed by your name, to state you can wade through and find the appropriate revision and create the archive. Professor Ninja 16:31, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

NCdave's complaint is legitimate in that I haven't yet completed my promised paste to an archive file. I'll get onto it as soon as I can spare the time. IN the meantime, we have some slightly less cluttered talk page sections that actually, for the most part, discuss what they're supposed to be about. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 15:26, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Some things are so soapbox (something that, along with a few other egregious breaches of etiquette, wikipedia is not meant for) that they do not merit archiving. At all. They merit deletion. Wikipedia has finite resources, creating fork after fork of archives that do not merit archiving wastes those resources (I'm aware that the edits are saved, still, it's a chunk of change to make more). Some topics warrant archiving, even if they develop into a POV war (it happens, that doesn't mean the entire discussion is null, and topics shouldn't be surgically excised as a reply to a pointless discussion may have points to it and be rendered moot should that pointlessness be removed) but totally non-contributory nonsense just does not belong. Professor Ninja 16:31, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

The affidavits

Hiedi Law and Trudi Capone's affidavits were never presented as evidence. They were never brought to testify by the Schindlers, because it was obvious that the information they are trying to pass off as the truth is nonsense that would be shredded in a court of law. Just saying there are affidavits doesn't mean they're true. RickK 04:15, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

Citation, please! On what basis to you accuse these ladies of perjuring themselves, and on what basis do you claim that their affidavits were never presented as evidence?

Law and Capone swore that they made their statements on the basis of their own first-hand knowledge of what they saw and heard. What do you suppose would be their motivation for lying? Can you identify a conflict of interest? Did they stand to "realize a substantial and fairly immediate financial gain" from lying? (No, that was Michael Schiavo's conflict of interest and motivation for lying, as described in the report of Terri's guardian ad litem, Richard Pearse.)

BTW, here are the two affidavits that you mentioned: (Heidi Law, CNA - affidavit) & (Trudi Capone, RN - affidavit)

Also, these are corroborative: (Carolyn Johnson, CNA - affidavit), (Carla Iyer, RN - affidavit), (Cindy Shook, excerpts from affidavit). Also, Capone is corroborated by Michael's sworn testimony in the 1992 malpractice case that he intended to care for Terri for the rest of his life, and by Michael's remark on Larry King Live last month, and by the statements of two close friends of Terri's, Diane Meyer and Jackie Rhodes, who both recall that Terri had once expressed the strong opinion that Karen Ann Quinlan should not have been removed from a respirator.

NCdave 07:23, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Never one to let a good lie go to waste, are you NCdave? The Larry King Live assertion dave and the other pathologically lying mutants has already been characterized in context quite adequately, including a post on this discussion page. Also, the pathological lie that dave again repeats (that Michael Schiavo stood to gain financial) has been thoroughly debunked -- he could have gained far more by divorcing her and dividing the assets, filing a lawsuit AFTER she died (in which case ALL money would go to him, and he would most likely receive punitive damages as well) or ACCEPTING THE $1M THAT WAS PUBLICALLY OFFERED TO HIM. -Professor Ninja

I'm starting to believe that these people who keep pathologically advancing thoroughly obvious lies have some sort of psychosexual disorder wherein they envision the truth is an 11-year-old girl and that by lying they are "raping" the girl, thereby vicariously living out their pedophilic molestation fantasies. No other explanation I can come up with can explain away the dogged persistence of repeating lies that can so easily be caught. Professor Ninja 07:34, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)

I think that GAL Pearse made some errors (esp. w/r/t Terri's dubious PVS diagnosis), but he's not a "pathological liar." Those were his words that I quoted about Michael's financial motive to misrepresent Terri's wishes.

Michael Schiavo first "remembered" that Terri would rather die than live in her disabled state in late 1997 or early 1998, after he hired Felos. That was about 7-1/2 or 8 years after Terri's first hospitalization, but it was also at least 7 years before he was offered $1M to let Terri's parents care for her. GAL Pearse correctly noted in 1998 that Michael would "realize a substantial and fairly immediate financial gain" if Terri died, and that was one of the reasons that he said he found Michael's belated memory not credible. At that time the "substantial" gain that Michael would have realized was approximately 3/4 of a million dollars, from Terri's medical trust account. Since Michael could not have predicted that 7 years later some millionaire would offer him $1M to let Terri live, and Michael could not even know that he would outlive her, you can't logically argue that when he announced his "memory" there was any means other than Terri's death by which "he could have gained far more."

However, you are quite right that Michael Schiavo persisted in claiming that Terri had made such statements even as his financial incentive for seeking her death dwindled (as he spent Terri's medical trust account on his lawyer fees), and then disappeared entirely (when the millionaire offered him $1M to give up guardianship). If money were his sole motivation in 2005, then he surely would have taken the $1M.

So it appears that his motives changed as time went on. By late 1999, at least one of his motives was spite. He hated his in-laws, and wanted revenge for "putting [him] through pretty much hell." At least, that's approximately what he said in a deposition on September 27, 1999, when questioned by an attorney for the Terri's parents about why he would not let them assume guardianship of Terri:

         Page 48-49
         Q. Have you considered turning the guardianship over to Mr. and Mrs. Schindler?
         SCHIAVO: No, I have not.
         Q. And why?
         SCHIAVO: I think that's pretty self explanatory.
         Q. I'd like to hear your answer.
         SCHIAVO: Basically I don't want to do it.
         Q. And why don't you want to do it?
         SCHIAVO: Because they put me through pretty much hell the last few years.
         Q. And can you describe what you mean by hell?
         SCHIAVO: The litigations they put me through.
         Q. Any other specifics besides the litigation?
         SCHIAVO: Just their attitude towards me because of the litigations. There is no other reason. I'm Terri's husband
           and I will remain guardian. 

Then his lawyer (Felos) asked for a private word with his client:

         Mr. Felos: There may be a question or two of clarification. Can I have just a minute to talk with my client? 

Then we have Felos's cross-examination:

         Page 51
         Felos: You were also asked a question about resigning as guardian or would you consider that. Upon reflection, is there
           anything that you want to add in response to that question?
         SCHIAVO: Yeah. Another reason would be that her parents wouldn't carry out her wishes. 

NCdave 08:57, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Addendum: Haha, oh lord. If you go to the site dave offered as "proof" of the Larry King Live transcript cock up (http://www.burtonsys.com/terri_schiavo.html#LKL) you'll find it's none other than Dave's own site. He offers up the exact same "proof", word for word, as on this wikipedia talk page. He's obviously doing it to give weight (not much, he's got it signed "-Dave" at the bottom) to his fallacious claims by making it appear as an outside source, as otherwise for somebody who constantly complains about talk pages not being archived, he'd just link to the archives instead of an outside, pseudo-source. This isn't much different than him offering up "proof" of Dr. Hammesfahr's credentials by just asking Dr. Hammesfahr ("yeah, did you lie before?" "no." "are you lying now?" "no.") when a 30-second check to the Nobel institute debunked that bull mighty fast. Again, do not, for the love of God people, believe any of Dave's lies, and when you find one, debunk it with proof. I know it's a perverted game, but we can't allow anybody to be roped into his nonsense. Professor Ninja 07:55, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)

Cummon, Ninja - I never suggested that my little terri_schiavo.html web page was an "outside source." My name and email address are at the top! There used to be a good collection of references in the Wikipedia article on Terri Schiavo, but partisans for Michael Schiavo's POV deleted almost all of them. So when I need to cite references to prove a point about one of the inaccuracies in the Wikipedia article, I can't refer the Wikipedia article anymore, and it is a lot more efficient & concise to point to the relevant part of my little web page than to duplicate it all here. NCdave 08:57, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I listed Iyer's allegations from her affadavit in the timeline article, along with some of the facts that conflict with her claims. I believe I limited it to the facts. Please correct anything you see that strays from the facts. FuelWagon 13:19, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Citation of what? That they never came to court? How do I cite that they never did something? Please give me a single citation where they were ever in court and testified? RickK 22:21, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)

RickK, you made two allegations: That these ladies perjured themselves, and that their affidavits were never used in court. By citation, I mean what was your source? Who said those two things, which led you to believe them?

Your request that I do an exhaustive search of all the trial records to find these things is presumptuous. You made the accusations, you need to support them, not me! But... maybe I can help... this is from my imperfect memory, but... wasn't the Heidi Law affidavit one of nine affidavits used in the Schindler's unsuccessful petition to get Judge Greer to permit the swallowing therapy and swallowing tests that GAL Wolfson recommended? NCdave 08:49, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Ha! Still at the logical fallacies, NCdave? You present stuff without references, then when RickK you need to cite something, you say he made the accusation, he needs to support it? Sorry, you say something is inaccurate on the wikipedia site, then you have to back it up with some sort of outside reference that contradicts whats currently there. You can't say "That's wrong, Michael murdered Terri", and then when everyone accuses you of lying and demands an external reference to support it, you say "you made the accusations, you need to support it", sorry, that isn't logic, that's more of your "guilty until proven innocent" stuff going on. You make a claim, you have to support it with evidence. Your claims aren't true until we disprove them. It's truly amazing how much energy has been spent trying to educate you on the simplest thing as "innocent until proven guilty" and yet you still don't get it. FuelWagon 03:00, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Usage of fact,alleged,disputed,claimed

A finding of the court is not a fact. This case is unusual in the amount of testimony and evidence which was not presented to the court, or presented but failed to meet the standard of clear and convincing. A lot of findings of the district court were disputed and so much so that a federal law was passed enabling federal jurisdiction for the purpose of reversing the court-ordered withdrawal of nutrition and hydration to allow Terri to live pending a de novo review. I hope that where it's been reported that a finding of the court or guardian ad litem was disputed by the Schindlers in their pleadings and public statements it may recorded in the article as disputed.

The court record of any case is not the only information useful to the Wikipedia reader and gratutitous removal of these real disputes with the findings of the district court made by the Schindlers renders the article inaccurate. A good article would present in summary form the significant disputes which influenced much of the public to support the legislation advocated by the Schindlers and cast doubt on the fairness of the findings of Judge George Greer.

Alleged is another term. It refers to an accusation that is pending some legal determination. There are a few places in the article and in the talk page where doubt is expressed by the author: claimed rather than alleged is a better word.

Rather than go through perpetual cycles of add/remove, it would be better to come to a consensus how the specific claims of the Schindlers can appear in the article and be labeled as being in opposition to the findings of the trial court, or ultimately not addressed in any court because of procedural rules preventing their review. patsw 12:44, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You're entirely right, Patsw, and I thank you for your contribution. But in the future please sign and date your contributions.

The easy way to do that is to add four tildes ("~~~~") to the end of your message. The ~~~~ will be automatically translated into an ID and date/time, like this:

NCdave 07:29, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Nothing like a good pathological lie, eh Dave? By being "entirely right", he must surely be right in saying that "Alleged" is another term... refer[ing] to an accusation that is pending some legal determination. It means nothing of the sort, it means a statement offered without proof. This is just another tedious example in your bizarre quest against the truth. You know there's plenty of Bible verses against that, right? Professor Ninja 08:30, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)

NCdave, my rundown of Iyer's affadavit has been archived here [29]. -FuelWagon

Minus my comment at the end of it, of course. NCdave 16:20, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

If you can explain the holes in her logic, feel free to do it there. I was actually in the process of whittling it down so I could put it in the timeline before it got archived, but no worries. FuelWagon 12:52, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I already did, but y'all deleted that. NCdave 16:20, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Don't bother, FuelWagon. Honestly, I think the entire editorial spectrum that's come into contact with NCdave deserves a wifflebat barnstar by now. He'll dance around it and... yech. It's not even worth trying, I've become so agitated I've (very wrongly, I admit) turned to the simple sport of just baiting him and then corrected his wholly invented allegations.

Something can be both alleged and claimed. Either word fits before the dismissal of charges or verdict of not guilty: "The police claimed Smith was the burglar" or "The police alleged Smith was the burglar." After a guilty plea or verdict of guilty it is not correct to say "The police alleged Smith was the burglar" because the allegation was proven and being a criminal case, proven beyond reasonable doubt, "Smith was the burglar" is the correct usage by every style manual I've ever seen. Smith, of course, can claim in an appeal to the court or to the public that he's not the burglar, but he's wrong to insist upon the label of alleged. To consider the dismissal or verdict of not guilty -- A witness can no longer allege that Smith is the burglar but can still claim it to be so, disputing the finding of the court. In an article like the one we are discussing, the distinction is important -- between what's in the public record which was part of the legal process (i.e. the allegations) and what was never subjected to legal review.

My main point which I don't want to be obscured is that we arrive at a consenus on how to represent in the wiki the claims, doubts, and contradictions made in court filings and the public record by the Schindler's, witnesses, friends of the court, etc. so that they are not gratuitously deleted merely because they are not the findings of the district court. patsw 13:48, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Nobody was being charged in a criminal proceeding; only civil cases were involved; beyond which the civil case is often extraneous to the allegations (ie: they have nothing to do with legality, they are just allegations) -- therefore the word alleged is fine to use. The reason why much of this stuff gets deleted is not because it's an allegation, or it's not the findings of the court, it's because it's patent nonsense put in in a vandalism format. Professor Ninja 13:55, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)

What stuff which is a allegation of error, doubt, or contradiction of the district court findings, guardian ad litem reports, etc. made by the Schindler's, witnesses, and friends of the court which is part of the public record can be entered in the wiki without you deleting it as vandalism? I'd like to have a consensus on that from people who are actively deleting stuff. I'm opposed to vandalism as well. patsw 14:35, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Why not check the history of the page and see what gets reverted as vandalism -- it's put in inappropriate places; it's offered up as proof positive; it doesn't document its refutations or counterclaims; it is used to rephrase or rebut other criticisms by couching itself entirely inside them. That's what the vandals have engaged in, that's what's been reverted. Professor Ninja 14:42, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)

The purpose of having a consensus is so that we know what the editors believe to be vandalism and what is a contribution to the page based on the public record. Jredmond's revert of 14:26 7 April 2005 deleted a sentence and a link to the sworn statement of Dr. Cheshire. Whether you agree or disagree with it, it forms a relevant part of the public record of the case because that statement was publicized and discussed during the public debate in March. So I would argue it's vandalism to delete it.

So rather than adding/deleting in a loop, let's work on a consensus how allegations of error, doubt, or contradiction of the district court findings, guardian ad litem reports, etc. made by the Schindler's, witnesses, and friends of the court which is part of the public record which were discussed on talk radio, television and blogs in March and earlier enter into wiki without being deleted. patsw 15:02, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

How was entering the results of the Zogby poll vandalism, but the results of the CBS News poll not vandalism? patsw 15:02, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I fully reverted the vandal's edits, as did Jredmond. If the information in it is good it should not be added as vandalism or by a vandal. If they include useful information after repeatedly vandalising the page with garbage, it gets reverted. If somebody else wants to add it legitimately, that's fine. Professor Ninja 15:06, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)

I didn't revert the Zogby poll, though, because while the language could have been NPOV-ified further (IMHO), the poll itself was still relevant and substantiated. The only thing I reverted was the "she wasn't really in a PVS" bit because it was combative and there was no substantiation (and because the anon user deliberately removed my HTML comment insisting on a link). - jredmond 15:11, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Addendum: After examining the IP vandal's edits, I also found that the Zogby poll is heavily, well, unscientific. It 1) Leads readers with deliberately misleading statements 2) polls based on information extraneous to the case, 2) You may notice from their homepage that they share a common (ad) market with sites like NewsMax and (the most damning of all) 3) reweighs the numbers (their exact terminology is "[s]light weights were added to region, party, age, race, religion, and gender to more accurately reflect the voting population.") without disclosing what the weight formulation is. So we have a clearly biased polling site conducting a poll on behalf of an interest group purposely asking misleading questions that don't support the conclusion of the argument (ie: [30] does not support the conclusions here: [31]). None but two of the questions are pertinent or direct; they're specifically used to soften up the target audience and create an association between Terri Schiavo and minorities/disabled rights/etc and Michael Schiavo and a bastard. The two pertinent questions are: "Elected officials should intervene to protect a disabled person’s right to live if there is conflicting testimony concerning removing a feeding tube?" -- which demonstrates according to their own numbers that 54% of people disagree with this. The other is "Hearsay be allowed as evidence in the case of determining if a feeding tube should be removed?" to which 57% disagree. It's been documented that the affidavits of many of the Schindlers' supporters are hearsay (ie: "when's the bitch gonna die?", for one), but they paint the results that they want in a way they want (that is, to imply that because unfounded contrary allegations of a non-PVS state have been presented, the sound medical evidence is thereby "hearsay"). On the other hand, CBS news wasn't solicited by any interest group to conduct their results, and they did not "reweigh" the results to give them a particular skew (this completely bastardizes the highly accurate population curve of random sampling.) Hope that helps. Professor Ninja 15:24, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)

If someone feels that the Zogby poll is unscientific, then I say the criticisms of the poll should be included in the article.

I do not read where a consensus was reached to remove the poll. (Correct me if I'm wrong.) I recognize that earlier mentions of the poll probably contained POV language. (At [32] I personally changed someone's statement that the Zogby poll had "fairer" questions.) I'm going to put it back in; pending discussion here can challenge the wording and/or the inclusion.

At Wikipedia, we don't decide what is truth. We report that people said something was truth. Jdavidb 17:37, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I don't understand what the relevance is if Professor Ninja finds the Zogby poll unscientific. The poll is a significant part of the public record on Terri Schiavo and her impact upon public policy as it stands. There could be a equally lengthy analysis of the methodology of the CBS News poll and the wording of its questions. If I found that poll to be unscientific would I be justified in deleting it from the article using the same rationale as Professor Ninja? There are plenty of discussion boards and blogs to argue for or against their accuracy. Both polls are a significant part of the public record and ought to be in the article. Which takes me back to asking for a consensus regarding what gets deleted. The history of deletions in the article has many deletions which seem arbitrary to me in addition to the ones which are obvious vandalism. patsw 16:10, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Part of the poll I read had a question that basically took Terri's situation, removed the fact that she's PVS, and said "would you stop life support". Not surprisingly, most people said "no". But it's completely friggen irrelevant to Terri. Look up Strawman Attack. One side presents a weakened view of the opposing side, so that it is easier to knock down. That kind of crap does not deserve to be in an encyclopedia article about Terri, maybe an article about life support and right to die, but NOT Terri, since THAT WASN"T HER SITUATION. FuelWagon 17:35, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I don't find it unscientific, it is unscientific. Random sampling is scientific (barely), reweighing random sampling is unscientific, and reweighing the samples without disclosing the weight formula is grossly so. Professor Ninja 16:18, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)

And playing the "twist the logic" game, how about this? If I state in the public record (say, I go sign an affidavit and have the justice of the peace notarize it) that martians hired an unknown wikipedia user that goes by the soubriquet patsw to murder Terri Schiavo and fake her cremation but really eat her body to gain her power, that would be a matter of public record involving terri schiavo. Would it belong in the article? If you say no, state why. It is a matter of public record, after all. Sure it's grossly unscientific, misleading, purposefully deceptive, but it's a matter of public record. If you say sure it belongs, it's a matter of public record, I'll drive down to the courthouse today and do just that. Professor Ninja 16:30, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)

Ninja, w/r/t Zogby being a "a clearly biased polling site," you must not know that John Zogby is a Democrat, who, on the eve of the 1994 election, predicted a Kerry landslide in the electoral college.

Also, Ninja, you seem to have missed the significance of the question about whether hearsay should be allowed as evidence when determining whether a feeding tube should be removed. The only evidence that Terri had ever expressed a preference to die rather than live in a disabled state was hearsay. Specifically, Michael's sudden "memory" of Terri's remark, 7-1/2 or 8 years after she supposedly made it, was hearsay.

When he remembered it, he had a $3/4 million incentive to want Terri's death, so his testimony about her remark was not just hearsay, it was hearsay colored by a conflict of interest. I wonder what answers Zogby would have gotten if he'd asked about that?

Plus, Michael's hearsay testimony was inconsistent with his own previous testimony in the 1992 malpractice trial (not hearsay).

Plus, Michael's hearsay testimony (colored by conflict of interest) was in conflict with the hearsay testimony of four other people, none of whom had any conflict of interest. NCdave 16:20, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

That horse is so dead, maggots are flying every time you hit it. FuelWagon 17:35, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Wait, I just saw that. By "four other poeple", do you mean "Iyer"????? WOOT! Her affadavit is already spelled out in the timeline. Greer was right its garbage. Your funny, man. FuelWagon 17:44, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The four other people are Trudi Capone, Cindy Shook (Brasher), Diane Meyer and Jackie Rhodes. (Plus, of course, Michael, himself, in his 1992 civil trial testimony and on Larry King Live.) [33] [34] [35] [36]

BTW, does anyone know whether Jackie Rhodes and Jackie Adams are the same person? In 1992, Michael Schiavo testified that Terri's best friend was a co-worker named "Jackie Adams." I think that Jackie Rhodes was (in 1990) married and was named "Jackie Adams," but I can't seem to find confirmation of that. Can anyone say for certain whether Jackie Rhodes is Terri's best friend, the former Jackie Adams? NCdave 21:08, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

So he's a democrat, so what? It's a clearly biased polling site. I know in your fantasy world of pathological lies, you believe that political affiliation determines honesty; thankfully the rest of teh world doesn't behave that way. You can see it's NewsMax-esque "rag" bias by the fact that they share advertisers, advertisers appeal to core demographics -- therefore they share a core demographic.

And? The significance is about hearsay; they're attempting to characterize the conclusion of it towards a specific bias, that is, that Michael Schiavo is wrong. Furthermore, you also attempt to characterize Michael Schiavo here -- he only proceeded to attempt to remove life support after it was recommended by Terri's physician. He may very well have only needed to state that she wouldn't want to live in a hopeless state when her own physician assured him that the state was indeed hopeless. This is, again, absolute fact. Your need to lie is just bizarre. Professor Ninja 16:30, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)

Remember, Michael Schiavo & George Felos chose Terri's doctors. Dr. Cranford, for example, was chosen because he always recommends that patients be starved/dehydrated to death.

Terri's family had several physicians who believed they could help her, but Michael Schiavo and George Felos wouldn't let them try. Terri had no therapy at all, of any kind, for over 12 years, by Michael Schiavo's orders. Even GAL Wolfson recommended swallowing therapy and swallowing tests for her, but M.Schiavo/Felos/Greer would not permit it.

Wolfson was predisposed to favor M.Schiavo's viewpoint, because shortly before being appointed GAL he told the local press that he thought Terri's feeding tube should be removed. Judge Demers appointed Wolfson Oct. 31, 2003 despite objections filed in court on Oct. 25 and Oct. 29 by Terri's parents.

Wolfson's report, issued a month later, erred in favor of the M.Schiavo/Felos viewpoint in several ways:

• Wolfson accepted the PVS diagnosis, despite the disagreement of many physicians, and despite the fact that Terri was getting analgesics to relieve menstural pain every month, and the fact that PVS patients cannot experience pain.
• Wolfson reported that Terri got physical therapy until 1994, even though there are no medical records of any therapy of any kind after 1992. (Wolfson's conclusion was presumably on the basis of M.Schiavo's representations.)
• Wolfson reported that Terri had never had a bedsore, even though Michael's own 1992 testimony in the medical malpractice case indicated that Terri had had a toe amputated because of bedsores.
• Wolfson accepted M.Schiavo's belated recollection of Terri's supposed wishes, even though GAL Pearse had found M.Schiavo's recollection not credible.

Yet, in spite of his predisposition to favor M.Schiavo/Felos viewpoint, Wolfson nevertheless recommended swallowing therapy for Terri. However, Felos/M.Schiavo would not permit it, and Greer dismissed the family's petition asking that it be done. NCdave 21:08, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sen. Martinez confirms his office produced the talking points memo

Yeah, pretty self-explanatory (cite). So, if anybody's wondering about the update, that's that. I'll be updating the article as necessary, I don't feel like getting into this imbroglio again over it. Sorry, that comment was mine. Professor Ninja 11:53, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)

Redacted; apparently some problems with Firefox are keeping my article from updating properly. Somebody already beat me to it. I was wondering why it wasn't in there. Professor Ninja 11:56, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)

The article states that the memo was circulated among Republican senators. According to the Washington Times this has been denied in a interview with each Republican senators. Martinez says that he gave it to Harkin whom he believed to be an ally in the debate, and that Martinez did not distribute it to Republican senators. Is this explanation being disputed? patsw 21:48, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The Washington Times article reported that [a]ll 55 Republican senators say they have never seen the Terri Schiavo political talking-points memo . Either Martinez lied, or the WT didn't ask all 55 senators. So the veracity of that statement is disputable. Guettarda 22:31, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

As written now the article states there's a dispute regarding Darling's authorship. Darling admitted writing it. Who is claiming that Darling is not the author at this point? patsw 00:39, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Where does the article state a dispute regarding authorship? In your immortal(ly annoying) words, define "dispute". In a couple of sources [37] [38] I don't see anything about Darling admitting to writing it. I see Martinez stating that somebody wrote it and was subsequently dismissed, which is exactly what the article reflects. Professor Ninja 00:47, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)

The first sentence of the article already linked in the wiki [39] starts "The legal counsel to Sen. Mel Martinez (R-Fla.) admitted yesterday that he was the author of a memo". There is no dispute that Darling is the author and I will edit accordingly.

My bad, I hadn't seen that MSNBC link. I was under the impression it was one of those shifty scapegoating affairs that may be true, may not (hell, it still may be true, it may be true that NCdave's right and Michael Schiavo was out to murder Terri, but Darling's admission stands as it is.) Regardless, the fact that Mel Martinez says he did not see the memo is still questionable, and should not be stated as fact. However it should be noted Harkin believed him to be acting in good faith. Professor Ninja 04:23, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)

replacing non-normal text

65.248.224.93 just replaced a large number of plain text with formatted text - " with & #8220; (not sure what the equivalent code for "nowiki" would be), for example. I am inclined to revert these changes because the hurt the readability/editability of the article. As I understand, the point of wiki syntax (rather than HTML, for example) is that it produces more naturally readable code. Am I correct in my interpretation? Guettarda 16:13, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• The &8220/8221 is HTML for curly quotes, which, according to the Wikipedia:Manual of Style, should not be used: "Use straight quotation marks and apostrophes. For uniformity and to avoid complications use straight quotation marks and apostrophes ( ' " ) not curved (smart) ones, grave accents or backticks ( ‘ ’ “ ” ` )." Therefore, I agree that they should all be reverted. Flyers13 01:08, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Dr. Ronald Cranford

I don't know how to add or augment any Wikipedia articles, but I did want to contribute the following articles written by Dr. Ronald Cranford. It is only fair that if we impugn Dr. Hammesfahr for his shenanigans, then the other medical experts in the case are open to scrutiny as well.

Commentary: When a feeding tube borders on the barbaric [40]

Cranford advocates expanding feeding tube withdrawal criteria to Alzheimer's patients.

The More You Suffer, The Longer You Live [41]

Cranford argues that even if a patient is minimally conscious, he/she should be denied nutrition and hydration if the family so wishes it (the Wendland case is mentioned in passing), and that economic factors should play a more significant role in whether or not to continue medical treatment.

Also, Dr. Cranford's biography page [42] at the University of Minnesota's website lists him being on the Board of Directors for the Choice in Dying organization [43] since 1992. Choice in Dying became Partnership for Caring: America's Voices for the Dying [44] in 2000.

Finally, if anyone can find a case where Dr. Cranford has, in the last 20 years, advocated that a particular patient should be kept alive, I would like the evidence for my compilation on the Terri Schiavo case. Thank you, and I apologize for any imposition on my part.

Not really imposition at all; very helpful. I think it's perfectly acceptable to characterize the opinions of the doctors in this case (doctors are open to a fair appeal to authority, so characterizing it in the context of "well, what else did you expect them to say, this is their consistent position" (though less POV) is totally acceptable and welcome). However, we must be careful what we select as criticism for either side. The main question is, "is it relevant?" If Mr. Cranford advocates in particular cases, those may not be relevant to the current case (if they're thoroughly dissimilar). However, the Alzheimer's case, for example, or at least your summary of it, seems a good example.

Basically, just toss it up to a basic logic test. If it's logical and pertinent, go for it, if it's non sequitur or irrelevant, refrain. And make sure you put it where it belongs, if you do put it in. Otherwise, be bold. Professor Ninja 18:04, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)

The timeline says Cranford is a proponent of Euthenasia. I put it in there. I don't have a problem saying the same in the main article. However, saying "you pick on Hammesfahr, you should pick on everyone" doesn't quite fly because, the court never ruled Cranford's "therapies" to be non-standard/questionable/whatever, the courts DID rule that with Hammesfahr. I've been trying to clean up the medical opinions section. I'll put it in there in one of the next passes. (may not have time right now) FuelWagon 18:08, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

True, but I think that it does note that some of the Schindler's doctors are distinctly right-to-lifers. Hammesfahr's out there, but the reasoning of Cranford's inclusion (if a bit off the mark) is sound. Professor Ninja 22:28, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)

If it is to be mentioned that Dr. Cheshire spent only 90 minutes with Terri, to reach his conclusion of MCS (not PVS), then it should also be mentioned that Dr. Cranford spent only 45 minutes to reach his conclusion of PVS. NCdave 09:14, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Zogby poll

The Zogby poll has been in and out, with and without POV commentary. But a consensus has not been reached in this discussion page as to whether it should be here.

Some have asserted that the poll is unscientific, but it is still being widely reported in the media. This article should report the fact that the anti-euthanasia side is using this poll to advance their cause, as well as the objections that have been offered about the poll.

The poll did happen, and it's in the news. The reasons that people are giving on this talk page for removing the poll are instead things that should be added into the article about the poll. It is not for Wikipedia to decide whether or not the poll was scientific or unscientific. Report the facts. Jdavidb 18:32, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

No, James, this is an encyclopedia and not everything belongs here. You might have more fun on wikinews if you're trying to be a reporter. (note: I have not yet looked at the Zogby poll, my comment is directed at your last paragraph only) →Vik Reykja 18:58, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Who is James?

I'll agree not everything belongs here. The question is whether the fact that the poll occurred is encyclopedic. I'd say that question is already answered by the inclusion of the previous polls. Jdavidb 19:06, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Your recent additions are not exactly neutral - "estranged" husband? That has been debated and resolved several times on the talk page - the consenus is that that is POV. In addition, you shouldn't just say "asked different questions" without at least explaining how the questions were different. Guettarda 19:19, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Anyone who thinks that it is POV rather than simple fact that M.Schiavo was estranged from Terri needs to consult a dictionary (click on the word "estranged"). We've been over this ground before, and it has been well and truly proven that Michael was about as completely estranged from his wife as it is possible for a man to be. He has been living in open adultery with other women, on and off, for over 13 years! He has been living with his current girlfriend for nearly 10 years. He has two children with her. He has been referring to her as his "fiancee" since 1997. That's inarguably estranged. NCdave 21:38, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The definition at your link says; "separated from a spouse: no longer living with a husband or wife." So by the construction of that definition that by virtue of Terri having been living in either a nursing home or hospice for the previous thirteen or so years the weren't living together you might be correct...in that limited construction. However, in another dictionary one of the two definitions has quite a pejorative sense; 2 : to arouse especially mutual enmity or indifference in where there had formerly been love, affection, or friendliness with synonyms of alienated and disaffected.

Now, if I'd never read another post of yours I might be inclined to think that you had inadvertantly meant the separated from version and just misused the word althogether. However, you have earned no such consideration and it is abundantly clear that you are trying to connote alienated and disaffected in your use of estranged where there isn't a shred of evidence to suggest either. I don't know whether he was there every day, and I challenge you to prove he wasn't, but the time that I'm aware he did spend there sure indicates they weren't estranged in the commonly held meaning of the word. It's just another example of your continued efforts to smear Michael Schiavo because you don't like what happened. LRod 216.76.216.103 23:25, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The adjective "estranged" can be applied to various words, but when applied to the word "husband" or "wife," it does not mean that the husband and wife are in active opposition to one another. It is a simple descriptive term implying separation, which can be due to either alienation or indifference. Anyone who has moved away from his wife, and moved in with another woman, with whom he is having children, is, by definition, and beyond argument, "estranged" from his wife.

dictionary.cambridge.org says:

estranged. adjective. 1 describes a husband or wife who is not now living with the person they are married to: his estranged wife

"Estranged" is the correct word to use for a man who has lived with another woman for a decade (not his first post-Terri girlfriend, btw), and has two children by her. We could add adulterous, but that, while accurate, seems unnecessarily judgmental. The purpose is descriptive: it is important to qualify "husband" so that readers don't wrongly picture the normal sort of husband (who lives with his wife), which Michael Schiavo certainly is not.

By the definitions you choose to employ, my parents were estranged when my father was off flying 35 combat missions over Germany and my mother was serving in a photo processing company during WWII. Ha, ha, ha. Almost any English speaking person hearing the adjective estranged will connote a couple who are not getting along and may be on the road to divorce. It is prejudicial and is not the correct word. The only reason that it might remotely fit is that since Terri was in a 100% health care facility, Michael couldn't live with her. But that's not the impression you're trying to create. You're after the pejorative slant. Ninja is right; we should describe the Schindlers as 'estranged' from her as well, by your definition. LRod 216.76.216.57 15:21, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Agreed 100%. Similarly, I'm going to do a copy-edit on the article to make sure that readers aren't confused that Terri wasn't estranged from her parents, as she didn't live with them, nor they with her, either. Which is better NCdave, "Terri Schiavo, the Schindler's estranged daughter" or "The Schindlers, Terri Schiavo's estranged parents"? You being the expert on language and all. Professor Ninja 10:15, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)

Not to mention the fact that "estranged" has no legal definition while "husband" does. Professor Ninja 23:31, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)

If anybody wants a real dictionary definition, try here ([t]hese verbs refer to disruption of a bond of love, friendship, or loyalty. Estrange and alienate are often used with reference to two persons whose harmonious relationship has been replaced by hostility or indifference...) Wonder why NCdave took the more circuitous definition, huh? By wonder, I mean understand it to be the same reason he attempted to forge Hammesfahr's credentials for him, why he bemoans "hearsay" yet freely repeats that Michael did in fact say "when's that bitch gonna die" -- etc., etc. Because he's a pathological liar that thinks rapind and murdering the truth in the name of his perverted version of Jesus is acceptable. Professor Ninja 23:36, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)

Also, there is considerable evidence that Michael was physically abusing Terri prior to her collapse: a bone scan showing that she had suffered numerous traumatic injuries, which she concealed from her friends and family (a classic pattern in domestic abuse cases), the testimony of her friend and co-worker, Jackie Rhodes (was she named Jackie Adams at the time?) that Terri often had bruises on her upper arms and thighs), and the testimony of both of Terri's siblings to Michael's history of violent explosions of temper directed at them. [45] [46] [47] [48]. Plus, there is overwhelming evidence that Michael abused Terri even in the first few years after her injury.[49] [50]. Moreover, in the weeks prior to Terri's injury, according to three different witnesses (her mother, brother, and co-worker Jackie), Terri had said that she was considering or intending to divorce Michael. [51] [52].

Not signing your work now, Dave? No matter, it's easily identifiable by all the zimp.org cites. Considerable evidence? You mean the bone scan? The one that shows some bone damage that so far raises questions but is open to a number of interpretations, most of which are results of the fall or the subsequent attempts at rescuscitation? The ones that no law enforcement agency has used as evidence of any action upon which they could arrest or prosecute?

Overwhelming evidence? So overwhelming that not a single record exists of a complaint with any law enforcement agency or with an abuse support agency? Just affidavits of convenience from questionable or discredited johnny-come-latelies who somehow couldn't bring themeselves to come to her aid when it would have been appropriate, but miraculously appeared at the last minute.

James Carville was right. You drag a hundred dollar bill through a trailer park and there's no telling what you can come up with. Yes, I'm saying that's the sum of the worth of those affidavits. LRod 216.76.216.57 15:40, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Indeed. Of course, you know. Michael Schiavo's motives for taking Terri off the feeding tube (money that doesn't exist) are a conflict of interest and obviously something he'd lie about, but admitting they'd lie to save their daughter, admitting if they knew Terri's wish was to die they'd lie about it anyway, admitting they'd do anything to keep her alive? Nope, no conflict of interest there. Professor Ninja 10:15, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)

I'm using previous wording. I did not realize that that term had been deemed POV. Still, the fact that some incarnations of this fact have had POV text is not a reason to eliminate it entirely.

I'm about to go look at the article again and see if the poll has been removed yet again, without a consensus here on the talk page. Jdavidb 21:18, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

If the reason for deleting the Zogby poll is a personal opinion or published reports of its inaccurarcy, the same criteria could be applied to the CBS News poll. So what's the consensus regarding the inclusion of a poll? I offer that both polls were widely reported and are being used to influence popular opinion and public policy and therefore are significant and relevant to the Terri Schiavo story. patsw 19:44, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I see that the paragraph has been cleaned up to eliminate "estranged" and other POV wording. (Thanks, Macdougal.) It's been left alone for the past few edits, but no way to tell whether that is through agreement or oversight. :) Does everyone (or anyone) agree with the present wording? It specifically points out that the poll did not specify the disability. I think those who have opposed the inclusion of the paragraph probably still have more to add. I think those objections to the poll should be included with the paragraph. Jdavidb 21:23, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

John Zogby is a Democrat, who, on the eve of the 1994 election, predicted a Kerry landslide in the electoral college. The only reason to suppose that Zogby's polls are biased in favor of the Schindlers is that they don't show the results that some people want. NCdave 21:38, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This has already been done to death. I'll explain my reasons again. First of all, NCdave's idiotic assertion that Zogby's a Democrat, therefore, he supports Michael Schiavo's POV is as easily refuted as his expounding on the Hammesfahr credentials, the Iyer affidavit, etc.: Jesse Jackson, Democrat, supported Terri Schiavo[53][54]. Similarly, there's been Republican opposition to the Schiavo bills. The reasonable conclusion is that therefore, in any place that isn't the confused and angry jumble of NCdave's mind, these biases are independent of primary political party affiliation.

Furthermore, the poll is an absolute lie. For example, at the poll proper, read over certain sections. Stuff like this: "By a two-to-one (44% to 24%) margin, with one-in-three (32%) undecided, the survey finds that an incapacitated person should be presumed to want to live in the absence of written instructions such as a “living will.”". Not so, at all. I don't know why he'd even put this in there, out of the eight questions asked, not one was that question or a question related to it. It is also a strawman argument couched in a poll. It is proper for the federal government to intervene when basic civil rights are being denied? conjures memories of Martin Luther King Jr. or troopers intervening on behalf of black students. Nobody thinks of Terri Schiavo because, alas, the removal of life support is a common practice that does not violate a person's basic civil rights; it's bioethically justified in courts and legislatures repeatedly, and practiced daily. The representative branch of governments should intervene when the judicial branch appears to deny basic rights to minorities? again, same as above. Being in a PVS doesn't make you a minority. Michael Schiavo should turn guardianship of Terri over to her parents, considering he has had a girlfriend for 10 years and has two children with her? False dichotomy -- either Michael Schiavo can have no girlfriend and remain guardian, OR he can have a girlfriend but not be guardian. The law should provide exceptions to the right of a spouse to act as the guardian for his or her incapacitated spouse? Conclusion isn't supported by the premise, again. This is misleading. The law does, in fact, provide exceptions to the right of a spouse to act as the guardian. Schiavo met none of those criteria. Therefore he remained so. It is proper for the federal government to intervene when disabled people are denied food and water by a state court judge’s order? again, sweeping strawman generalization here. "It is proper for the federal governmnt to intervene when disabled people are denied oxygen by a state court judge's order?", for example, adequately describes the "disabled" (ie: comatose or worse) people who have respirators removed from them, but most people recognize it as the joke question that it is. "The representative branch of governments should intervene when the judicial branch appears to deny basic rights to the disabled?" Again, same thing. Last two questions of the poll are at least semi-pertinent.

In another portion of the site[55] we have this: ""If a disabled person is not terminally ill, not in a coma, and not being kept alive on life support, and they have no written directive, should or should they not be denied food and water," the poll asked." A whopping 79 percent said the patient should not have food and water taken away while just 9 percent said yes." & "The Zogby poll found that, if a person becomes incapacitated and has not expressed their preference for medical treatment, as in Terri's case, 43 percent say "the law presume that the person wants to live, even if the person is receiving food and water through a tube" while just 30 percent disagree." Actually, those numbers or questions don't appear in the poll. At all, anywhere[56]. Why outright fabrications are reprinted on Zogby's own site are... well, I don't know, he likes attention?

MOST DAMNING OF ALL, HOWEVER, IS THIS: Zogby International conducted interviews of 1019 likely voters nationwide on behalf of the Christian Defense Coalition. All calls were made from Zogby International headquarters in Utica, N.Y., March 30 through April 2, 2005. The margin of error is +/-3.2 percentage points. Slight weights were added to region, party, age, race, religion, and gender to more accurately reflect the voting population. Margins of error are higher in sub-groups. Yeah, so, there we have it. Rather than the random sampling of 1019, they have readjusted the numbers (what is slight? what is the formula for reweight? what is the higher margin of error that doesn't get stated?) This makes the sampling totally nonscientific. Polls from news sites are more scientific polls (they're convenience sampling, it doesn't give the total demographic breakdown random sampling provides, but in this case convenience sampling is more accurate than this.) Random sampling provides a (very) good, but imperfect breakdown of standard population distribution (the margin of error reflects this). This has been proven time and again. So now based on things like age, race, religion, gender, region and political party, the numbers have been adjusted. "18? Black? Atheist? Democrat? Male? Okay, we'll just 'adjust' your opinion, sir, to more adequately reflect..." Right. I don't think so.

So no, the reason people dislike the Zogby poll is because they dislike pathological lies, deliberate commissioned deception, discrimination of opinion based on race, party, gender, age and unscientific polls. Hope that helps clarify. Professor Ninja 23:05, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)

The Zogby poll's questions are ridiculously biased but I'm not sure about your other criticisms.

Weights are very common: if the random people they call do not match up to the national average in age, race, etc. then the underpolled groups are given a greater weight. Zogby uses more than most other pollsters but I don't see how this invalidates their polls. Pollsters do not disclose all information about their polls.

It seems that the polls mentioned in the paragraph at the top of the article are not repeated in the table. I believe this is to avoid redundancy. As for the 79% & 9% not being mentioned, it's obvious that the 79% is the "eight-in-ten (80%)" mentioned in the top paragraph. I don't know why they used a number one off, but the MOE is +/-3.2 so it doesn't matter statistically. Macdougal 02:32, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm aware of the method of weighting, however in a case like this it's fairly pointless. Weights are typically added when you're not doing random sampling or the sample size is too small. 1019 polled is not a small sample size and will give you a nice population deviation in terms of voters. To reweigh based on race, party affiliation, etc., are extremely questionable. Furthermore, I'm not sure why you assert that they don't disclose their weight formula; it's a standard practice to show both deviated numbers, the formula, and readjusted margin of error, none of which the Zogby poll does. The assertion that mentioning the numbers in the opening paragraphs alleviates them of the responsibility of couching it in the poll questions is false; the preamble alludes to questions which are subsequently posed in the poll given on the page, why repeat one question and not the other? Why not disclose the entire poll? Professor Ninja 04:31, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)

Additionally, I take issue with what criteria are used to decide what the "likely voter" is, or why only their opinions matter. It seems like a weasel term to get around adjusting results. How does Zogby know what a likely voter is? How does he know this issue (or others) won't galvanize people to vote? Oh, and this, to boot: "If a disabled person is not terminally ill, not in a coma, and not being kept alive on life support, and they have no written directive, should or should they not be denied food and water," the poll asked." -- okay, Terri wasn't in a coma (she was in a persistent vegetative state, a more severe condition) and she was on life support. So, the poll isn't pertinent and it's deliberately misdirective. Despite the mounds of evidence as to why the poll is seriously scientifically sketchy, even if we accept the premises as true, the conclusions don't follow. To say that the poll is a-okay and perfectly scientific still doesn't allow it to be included in this article. To assert that 80% of "likely voters" believe Terri should have remained on her legally, morally, intellectually-defined life support because 80% of "likely voters" said that somebody not on life support shouldn't be denied food and water is false. Even if the question weren't sketchy, it remains that it didn't define Terri's situation. Professor Ninja 04:39, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)

(Last one in this reply flurry, I swear) Additionally, adjusting the statistics within the margin of error is indeed stastically significant. A poll that shows two people tied at something 50%/50% with a margin of error of +/-5% being "insignificantly" adjusted to 55%/45% is statistically incorrect. Or a similar poll of 50%/40% spread with +/-5% being changed to 45%/45%. Doesn't fly. Additionally, this poll doesn't seem to use qualifying data in its questions. It's curious that if you're going to do weights, you don't bother with the best weighting system around. Test questions asking to define aspects of the Terri Schiavo case/definition of PVS/definition of life support could have helped quantify the results significantly. If we see, for example, that 29% of people v. 61% of people believe Terri isn't on life support, and subsequently see that 29% v. 61% believe she should not be "denied food and water" we can make accurate correlations (esp. if the polls are individually crosstabulated) on knowledge and opinion in the case, which this poll also lacks. Whee. Every time I look at this thing I notice about five or six things wrong with it. I don't know if this was John "America's Hottest Pollster" Zogby's fault or the Christian Defense Coalition's fault, but somewhere along the somebody cocked up hard. Professor Ninja 04:56, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)

Macdougal, I don't think that Zogby's questions were biased, but you are right about the rest. As you correctly point out, most (probably all!) professional public opinion pollsters weight the answers they get, to adjust for atypical sample demographics. That's just how polling is done. For example, CBS says:

Do Our Respondents Look Like The American Public?

At the end of our surveys, we find sometimes that we have questioned too many people from one group or another. Older people, for example, tend to be at home to answer the phone more than younger people, so there is often a greater percentage of older people in our surveys than exists in the American public.

When that happens, we take great pains to adjust our data so that I accurately reflects the whole population. That process is called “weighting.” We make sure that our final figures match U.S. Census Bureau breakdowns on age, sex, race, education, and region of the country. We also “weight” to adjust for the fact that people who share a phone with others have less chance to be contacted than people who live alone and have their own phones, and that households with more than one telephone number have more chances to be called than households with only one phone number.

So when we add up all the answers to our questions, we know that no one’s opinion counts for more than it should. When you see one of our poll results on TV or in the newspaper, you know that it does not show the opinions of only one or two groups of Americans.

NCdave 07:36, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Cute, but no. I find it hilarious that you completely obfuscate the issue. Pollsters, legitimate pollsters, conduct blind random sampling. A pseudorandom number generator should preferably spew out the polling possibilities and eliminate redundancies. The results should then be crosstabulated with quantifying data. That is the proper procedure for producing a randomly sampled poll. You realise that Zogby admits to weighing the data on race, sex, etc., correct? In other words if your black or female or whatever, your numbers are adjusted to conform? This completely destroys the entire point of polling. Zogby basically sells public opinion: Craft the question, divine the desired answer, massage the data, hold it up as a true result of shining public opinion. (And obviously, according to Zogby, non-voters opinions don't matter. They have no opinion! Who cares about them? It's not like they don't vote for a reason or anything. Just ignore them.) As for the assertion that it's not bias, I find that curious, given that Zogby reprints on his site an article that cites an answer to a question about somebody not on life support, and therefore not Terri Schiavo, as proof that most "Americans" (again, American depends on race, age, sex, party affiliation, and likelihood of vote. If you're not the right kind of these things, why, by golly, you ain't American!) do not support the removal of Terri Schiavo's life support. He reprints it knowingly with those errors displayed. He makes no effort to correct the incorrect interpretation of the data or create an errata section for his polling results. He proudly displays his status in the media under its own section, knowing full well that his misleading poll results are being foisted unsuspecting on the body public. If that's not bias, then the word has no meaning. Professor Ninja 08:33, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)

"Crosstabulated with quantifying data?" Professor, what sort of "quantifying data" would you have them "crosstabulate" the results with?  :-)

Here's another example for you. This is how the ABC News / Washington Post pollsters weight their results on the basis of race, sex, etc.:

"Final data are weighted using demographic information from the Census to adjust for sampling and non-sampling deviations from population values. Respondents customarily are classified into one of 48 cells based on age, race, gender and education. Weights are assigned so the proportion in each of these 48 cells matches the actual population proportion according to the Census Bureau’s most recent Current Population Survey."

NCdave 09:29, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I would have them "crosstabulate" their "data" with "quantifying" "information" such as "level" "of" knowledge, and "other" pertinent "fac"tors. :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-)~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I think given my clear position on the borderline non-scientific standards of convenience sampling in news polls, you're not so much illustrating your own point as illustrating mine. Why not try reading sometime? It's helpful, and can be informative. There's a pretty standard way to get statistics, and weights are not one of them. First of all, census data is skewed. It's inaccurate. There's a matter of chronology, lack of response, fudging the responses, etc., etc.

The mystical quantifying data that you seem so drastically confused about as to put in quotes to once again try to make it out that you're the one who secretly knows what you're talking about would be the factors you so insist on weighing. You crosstabulate it with the qualifying data ("their opinions" :-), if that helps) and then output it all. Then instead of getting "well, we refactored the data based on likelihood of voting" (even worse than conforming the ranges to proportionate census data, there is a difference that you, much like everything you've advanced, attempt to gloss over) you get results like: 48% of people 65 and over... 52% of people 25-45... etc., etc. That way each subgroup is randomly sampled accurately, instead of having weights assigned. And, like I pointed out, Zogby didn't weigh them to conform to proportionate standard population distribution, they weighed them to conform to "likely voters". A much different thing. Professor Ninja 10:09, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)

What was put in Terri's article about the Zogby poll revealed it to be a Strawman Attack on Michael. The question apparently was something like, "if someone was in Terri Schiavo's condition, except you remove the PVS part, should their feeding tube be removed?" Most said "no". Well great, that was not Terri's condition. Terri was PVS. Of all the doctors who gave her a full medical exam, 6 say she was PVS, 2 say she was not. IF you remove the doctors with bias, your down to 5 say PVS and ZERO say not. -FuelWagon

That's not correct, FuelWagon. PVS is diagnosed behaviorally, and requires lengthy examinations. Cranford spent only 45 minutes with her. Gambone testified that he examined her about three times per year, but he spent only about 10 minutes per exam. Dr. Greer spent 30 minutes with her. Bambakidis (the doctor appointed by Judge Greer) spent 30 minutes with her. Those are not full exams, they are cursory, and it is a scandal that a woman's death was ordered on the basis of such cursory examinations. This AP article suggests Dr. Barnhill didn't examine Terri her at all, but rather did his diagnosis of PVS based on videotapes and medical records. (That's five, who is the sixth?)

The doctors selected by the Schindler family, who both found her to be non-PVS, spent much more time with her. Even the neurologist sent over by the Florida Dept. of Children and Families, Dr. Cheshire, was much more thorough than any of the doctors who Felos and M.Schiavo chose, and he spent 90 minutes with her.

If you eliminate the doctors selected by the two sides in the legal battle (who could arguably be assumed to be biased), and those who didn't actually see the patient, I think that you are left with only two doctors: Bambakidis (the doctor appointed by Judge Greer) who spent 30 minutes with Terri, and Cheshire (the doctor who saw Terri for the FL DCF) who spent 90 minutes with her. Bambakidis concluded that a "preponderance of evidence" favored the diagnosis of PCS - pointedly using legal language that simply means "more likely than not" and falls short of the "clear and convincing" evidentiary standard. Cheshire concluded, with an equal degree of certainty, that Terri was not in a PVS, but, rather, was in a Minimally Conscious State.

Wow, if you remove the doctors selected by the two sides, your left with the doctors selected by GREER! But Greer is Michael's pet judge, you said! Now you trust Greer? Is that what you're saying? Greer's selection is trustworth? Or do you simply remove the doctors selected by Michael because that conveniently gets rid of 4 diagnosis that Terri is PVS? FuelWagon 06:16, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

If you also consider the doctors who expressed conclusions on the basis of the videotaped exams and available medical records, then a large majority disagreed with the PVS diagnosis, including over four dozen neurologists.

The bottom line is that the only way to support a clear diagnosis of PVS is to give disproportionate weight to the doctors who were hired by Felos/M.Schindler for the express purpose of supporting that diagnosis. NCdave 05:35, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Bottom line to get your diagnosis is to give disproportional weight to physicians who watch 5 minutes of video doctored by the parents from 5 hours of raw footage and scale down the diagnosis by all the doctors who actually spent time with her. FuelWagon 06:16, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

If you do not understand the concept of STRAWMAN attack, go friggen look it up. It is meant to show a weakened version of Michael's position so that it is easier to tear down. The poll can go into an article about euthenasia, and right to die, since it has relevance there as to where the boundary should be. But to put it into an article about Terri is to present the poll as if it fairly represents Terri's condition. It does not. Professor Ninja points out some possible bias in the source as well, which might explain why the poll used such loaded questions. But regardless of the source, the POLL IS A STRAWMAN ATTACK. I don't give a damn if every news channel in the country is talking about it. IT DOES NOT BELONG IN TERRI'S ARTICLE. FuelWagon 11:13, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I brought that up as well. It's one of the many things wrong with this poll. It's probably right up there in the top three, along with the shady sampling and irrelevant questions. It's not even appropriate to call it a strawman attack, really, because Michael Schiavo wasn't arguing to kill somebody not on life support or not PVS, as the poll asserted. It's not a weakened version of his argument; it's just plain not his argument at all. If you're going to classify it as a logical fallacy, it's more an ad hominem attack than anything. If you look at this update [57] you'll see that it's asserting that "A Zogby poll [38] (http://zogby.com/Soundbites/ReadClips.dbm?ID=11131) on April 1st asked different questions and found that 79% thought the patient should not have food and water taken away while only 9 percent said yes." Actually, if you look over the poll questions, stipulations of those questions, definition of life support, PVS, etc., you'll find that it asserts no such thing, it makes a totally extraneous conclusion and attempts to draw relevance. Too many relevant dissimilarities to allow it to go in, even if we do decide, for the sake of argument, to accept it as scientific. I'm, sadly, just reiterating this, as NCdave has a habit of bogging down responses as much as possible. Professor Ninja 11:37, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)

The sampling and weighting are pretty standard professional polling practice. Here's another example of how one of their competitors does it. The Battleground / Tarrance Group poll does weighting as follows:

"quotas are set by state and by gender based on voter registration statistics or voting age population, where applicable. Prior election turnout statistics are also used to set these quotas. For the 2004 Battlegrounds, we have been applying a weight to the demographics of race and party identification. Race is weighted to White=80%, African Americans=10%, Hispanics=6%, and Other races=4%. Party identification is weighted to even with Republican=42.3%, Democrat=42.3%, and Independent=15.4%." (The demographics are consistent with the most recent census.)

The questions are fine, too -- no strawmen or misleading questions there.

Y'all also complained that the Zobgy poll was limited to "likely voters." But what is the problem with that? Surely likely voters are more apt to be engaged and informed on the issues than are people who are too apathetic to vote, wouldn't you agree? Do you have a problem with that? (After all, you just said that you think that pollsters should "crosstabulate" their data with "level of knowledge."  :-) )

(And, contrary to your assertion, Terri was neither on life support nor in a PVS.) NCdave 05:35, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

And the earth is flat.FuelWagon 06:16, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Whee, nothing like not knowing what you're talking about to make your opinion more valid. Anyway, I'll let you figure out what crosstabulate means, as I haven't the time to scan in the various sociology handbooks that outline the proper format for taking data to post up and make you look even more like an idiot like I did with your "OMG HAMMESFAHR'S NOBEL NOMINATION WAS LEGITIMATE" and like another poster did with your "OMG MICHAEL SCHIAVO ADMITS HE'S A SATAN ON LARRY KING ALIVE" nonsense. Terri was on life support, any way you look at it. Her feeding tube supported her life. Not only did it support her life, but it supported her life by bypassing several of her organs and muscles because she couldn't swallow. Other people on life support (including some mechanical respiration, for one) often have less complex support systems than that. Furthermore, Florida law says she was on life support. The law in the jurisdiction in which she lived said that it was life support. Even if you exclude the relevant comparisons to other life support systems, which only you would be dense enough to do, you fall into the legal problem. So what is life support? If it's not something that bypasses the bodily functions which naturally keep you alive because those functions don't work (like Terri's gastric feeding tube did) and it's not something that's legally considered life support (like Terri's gastric feeding tube was) what, exactly, is life support? You constantly assert that it's not life support despite 100% evidence to the contrary, but you fail to define what life support is and why Terri's feeding tube was exclusive of that. You also fail (well, just about in everything) in explaining why she wasn't in a PVS. Do a few doctors that saw a tape that was heavily edited down from many hours (hours the Schindlers oddly refuse to let the public view, despite the fact that it provides overwhelming proof that Terri's not PVS) make it a legitimate diagnosis? Come on dave, you're amusing me here. Keep chugging along. Professor Ninja 12:15, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

Did Mr. Schiavo Have a Living Will?

Did Terri's husband have a living will? If so, when did he get it? Just wondering if anyone knew. --L33tminion | (talk) 19:53, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)

I don't think you understand. He isn't the one who would have needed a living will. He's still perfectly capable of stating his own opinion. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 22:45, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think the point of the question is to determine whether Michael is now, or has ever been, a proponent of living wills. I imagine that this is intended to shed some light on his sincerity in representing Terri's verbally expressed wishes. I don't think that it would be very illuminating, but hypothetically it might be interesting if Michael were to go on to found the Organization for Encouraging People to Write Living Wills. Bovlb 23:59, 2005 Apr 7 (UTC)

An answer to such a question either way would not hurt Michael's case. Kingturtle 00:07, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

GAL question

Pearse's 1998 GAL report says that, ...a previously appointed guardian ad litem for [Terri Schiavo] referred to Mr. Schiavo as "a nursing home nightmare". I would like to include this statement in the article. Which GAL is Pearse referring to, here? --Viriditas | Talk 10:06, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The short answer is John Pecarek. The long answer comes from USA Today His observation supports two contentions: one, that Michael's care for Terri was sincere, and that after the settlement was obtained his attitude regarding Terri's care changed.

John Pecarek, a court-appointed guardian for Terri, described her husband as "a nursing home administrator's nightmare," adding, "I believe that the ward (Terri) gets care and attention from the staff of Sabal Palms (nursing home) as a result of Mr. Schiavo's advocacy and defending on her behalf."

GAL Pecarek apparently was charged with rendering an opinion about the Schindlers' allegations that Michael had abused and neglected Terri. He apparently concluded that there was not enough to those allegations to justify either criminal prosecution of Michael or replacing him as Terri's guardian. But I can't find the report. I sure would like to find a copy of Pecarek's report. Has anyone here found it? NCdave 06:25, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Mary Schindler testified that, while her daughter was at one nursing home, her relationship with her son-in-law was "very good. We did everything together. Wherever he went, I went."

Michael's relationship with Terri's siblings, however, was far stormier. Michael had assaulted Bobby, years before Terri's injury, and Suzanne never got along with Michael, either. Suzanne testified that at some point during the first two years after Terri's injury, Michael so threatened her (Suzanne) and so frightened her that she began sleeping with a hammer in her bed. (Michael Schiavo is a very imposing hulk of a man, 6'6" tall with no neck.) NCdave 06:25, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Oddly, however, the Schindlers still respected Michael despite the fact that he had "assaulted" their children before Terri's collapse. They never made the connection that he might have assaulted Terri too, until they suddenly remembered it years after the fact (their memory does seem bad in their old age though, they also forgot that Iyer called them to tell them Michael was trying to murder their daughter). This, oddly, never came up until the falling out, and was never backed up with any evidence, but I'm sure that's all just a nasty coincidence. Also, I'm sure Michael was in the habit of breaking into Terri's siblings' houses to assault them, so no wonder Suzanne slept with a hammer. And of course, size is the ultimate legal litmus test for guilt. "Well, we have no evidence to support these allegations." "But your honour, look at him, he's six-foot-six." "Ah yes, I see, well he's certainly guilty then." And in case anybody's curious about whether or not Michael has a neck (and whether or not that statement is a hilariously moronic slur), be assured, here's some pictures [58] [59] [60] [61] that show it's absolute no-neck authenticity, much like all of NCdave's factually correct statements about Iyer, the Schindlers, Michael Schiavo, Dr. Hammesfahr, PVS, life support, financial gains he stood to receive, his history of abuse, and everything else. I think NCdave's mouth is equivalent to the Gospel, personally. But in all serious, has dave pushed it so far by now that we can just pretty much consider all his edits vandalism? Professor Ninja 12:33, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

Schiavo and the Schindlers even sold pretzels and hot dogs on St. Pete Beach to raise money for Terri's care. But everything seemed to change on Valentine's Day 1993 in a nursing home near here.

In 1992, Schiavo had filed a medical malpractice lawsuit against two doctors who had been treating his wife before she was stricken. Late that year came a settlement: Schiavo received $300,000 for loss of consortium — his wife's companionship. Another $700,000 was ordered for Terri's care.

Non-causal. The award came before valentines day. "his attituded changed" towards the schindlers on valentines day because they had a blowout-sized argument that day. Michael's first petition to discontinue life support wasn't until a couple years later, unless I've got the timeline article wrong. FuelWagon 00:13, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, bad info. It was FIVE years from when Michael wins the malpractice suit (Jan 1993) till Michael petitions the court to remove life support (1998). FuelWagon 00:34, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It isn't disputed that after February 14, 1993, Michael Schivo ordered that no information be passed to the Schindlers from care providers. Here is the testimony from November 1993:

Q. Alright. After the altercation on February 14, 1993, the Schindlers were not allowed any information concerning their daughter's immediate condition, is that correct?

Michael Schiavo. The order was given not to give out any information to anybody but myself or the doctor.

The attitude change in February 1993 is not limited to not informing the Schindlers of their daughters medical needs but to the treatment of a life-threatening urinary tract infection which Terri had.

Q. If a similar...would you do the same? [i.e. order that life-threatening condition not be treated]

MS. I'm thinking.

Q. Take your time.

MS. I probably wouldn't instruct the doctor to do it.

Q. So you've changed your opinion?

MS. Sort of, yeah.

Q. Why have you changed your opinion?

MS. Because evidently there is a law out there that says I can't do it.

Q. Is that the only reason?

MS. Basically, maybe.

Is there a consensus that Michael Schiavo changed his attitude towards doing all that he could to keep Terri alive in 1993 or would you like me to quote more Michael Schiavo testimony? patsw 01:59, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'd definitely like you to quote more, since medical records and subsequent testimony indicate Michael only changed his attitude towards providing care when Terri's physician informed him that Terri would not improve and should be removed from life support. I'm curious as to what, if anything, could magically supercede that as an encyclopaedic entry. Professor Ninja 03:01, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)

Pearse's GAL report sheds some light on your curiosity. See my entry for December 29, 1998 in the Terri Schiavo timeline article. --Viriditas | Talk 03:27, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Professor Ninja, I am happy to give you information you were not aware of on this case: According to Michael's own November 1993 testimony he changed his opinion prior to the date of that testimony. He indicates his decision to order that Terri not be treated for a life-threatening urinary infection was a "change of opinion". Whatever he said after 1993 is irrelevant, unless you are claiming that Michael lied in the testimony I quoted, and then told the truth at a later date. Is Michael's November 1993 testimony on the "change of opinion" false?

Where this encyclopaedic entry indicates the Michael Schiavo went from seeking to keep Terri alive as he indicated in the malpractice trial to a "change of opinion" to not keep Terri alive by allowing a treatable life-threatening condition to progress to cause her death, 1998 is the wrong date. 1993 is the correct date according to Michael's testimony. 1998 is the date of petition to discontinue life support. patsw 04:19, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm curious, what's this law he's referring to and in what context? Is he saying that there's a law that says he can't treat a urinary infection, or what? Is he saying he changed his opinion because there's a law saying he can't change it? Or he changed his opinion because the law out there says he must? Way to go ambiguous, Michael. Professor Ninja 04:35, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)

To answer that question, one would have to read Michael's mind. Since there was no objection to the question or clarification of the question with a "what law is that", it must have been stipulated that there was a law (or Michael believed there was a law) to require that Terri be treated for a life-threatening urinary infection in 1993.

What I'm disputing is this: "after the settlement was obtained his attitude regarding Terri's care changed." It is a statement that implies "settlement money"->caused->"change in attitude". Unless it is undisputed by both sides, no one can crawl inside Michael's head and MIND READ his attitude and KNOW that it was CAUSED by the settlement money. The FACT is that his attituded changed at a certain point in time (1993 he enters DNR then rescinds it, 1998 he petitions removal of life support), but NO ONE can read his mind and know how he came to his attitude. It is a logical fallacy to imply causation where none has been proven to exist. "We prayed and she got better, therefore praying caused her recovery". I do not dispute that his opinion changed, I dispute that you can state as fact that it was because of the money. And I dispute the neutrality of a statement as loaded as this: "after the settlement was obtained his attitude regarding Terri's care changed." If one of you were put in the situation where your spouse was PVS, and your spouse had a living will saying pull the plug, would you do it the first day you get the diagnosis? Or would your attitude come around slowly as your hopes for a recovery fade? Throw on top of that situation that you're in-laws are demonizing you because you're enforcing your spouse's living will. Then turn it into a media circus, have people demonize you on TV, end up having people try to murder you because of what you're doing, and see how sane you come out of that pressure cooker. FuelWagon 09:31, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well, we know that 1.5 years 2.75 years after Terri was first hospitalized, Michael told the civil court, under oath, that he was going care for her the rest of his life, with no suggestion that he expected her to recover from her condition. We also know that he told his girlfriends in that timeframe that he had no idea what Terri would have wanted done. Then, as soon as the money arrived, he started seeking her death. There is no record that Terri got any therapy of any kind after 1992. Then, after he hired Felos, he conveniently "remembered" that she had expressed a desire to not be kept alive in that condition. And you you're buying that, perhaps I can interest you in a very nice used bridge in Brooklyn. -NCdave

Oops, my bad. From February 1990 to November 1992 is 2.75 years, not 1.5 years. I've corrected it above. NCdave 06:11, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

FuelWagon wrote, "If... your spouse was PVS, and your spouse had a living will saying pull the plug... in-laws are demonizing you because you're enforcing your spouse's living will." But Terri's situation wasn't like that at all. Terri didn't have a living will, and wasn't in PVS, and they didn't just "pull the plug," they also refused to allow her to be fed by natural means. NCdave

Michael's change in attitude could just as easily be explained by coming to terms with the fact that his wife was never going to recover. That he said "for the rest of his life" in court in 1991 and that he petitioned to pull the plug in 1998 doesn't seem to indicate homicidal intent, but the natural waning of any hope of recovery, over the course of many years. Taking Terri to get the Thalamic stimulator implant seems to indicate he had hope that she'd get better. That they tried taking her home seems to indicate that they grossly underestimated how bad she was. That it took him several years to come to terms with her situation seems human. Once he came to grips with the fact that she would never recover, it seems like that would be the time to say as her guardian "She wouldn't want to be kept alive like this." Only then, and no sooner. My wife and I recently talked about it and she was adamant that she would not want to be kept alive in Terri's condition, and I said we need to get living wills so some religious nut job doesn't try to string me up because I try to fulfill her wish as her husband. FuelWagon 23:54, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

First, I wish to apologize. He said that in November, 1992, not in 1991, but the fact that you thought it was in 1991 was my fault, not yours, because I erroneously said it was 1.5 years after Terri's first hospitalization. I am sorry.

So there was no "natural waning of any hope of recovery, over the course of many years." Michael's testimony was in November, 1992.[62] Terri got very little therapy in 1992, and Michael permitted her no therapy of any sort after 1992. The bulk of the malpractice money was paid out in January, 1993, and by February 14, 1993 Michael clearly wanted Terri to just hurry up and die. From November 1992 to February 1993 is just 3 months, not "many years."

Michael's sworn testimony indicated that he supposedly had still not given up on the value of therapy for Terri after 2-3/4 years. Yet just 3 months later he gave up all hope and refused to allow her any therapy.

Do you really believe that the creation of Terri's 3/4 $million medical trust account during that 3 months period had nothing at all to do with Michael's change of heart?

Cummon, admit it, it sure looks suspicious. I don't think that any reasonable person could help but be suspicious of Michael's motives, given that chronology. NCdave 06:11, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

That your logical argument "proves" its point by concluding "It sure looks suspicious, and therefore it must be true" language, would, in my mind, forever disqualify you from claiming any neutral point of view or factual dispute. You use "Guilty by Suspicion" and see no problem with it because it gets the result you want. Michael's behaviour fits the behaviour of any husband going through the situation where their wife is PVS and never going to recover. He starts out doing radical surgery to fix her (if he abused her and wanted her to die to shut her up, getting a thalamic implant is a stupid move). He then goes into acceptance mode where he stops therapy, however he maintains life support. Finally he gets to the point of actually letting her go. Any husband going through the situation of having their wife in a PVS state would have to go through the same stages. Since this explanation is a plausible explanation of Michael's behaviour, he must now be treated as innocent until proven guilty. "It sure looks suspicious" is not enough. If there were only one explanation, then fine, he's guilty. But there is a reasonable explanation for his actions, that of a husband coming to terms with his wife being PVS and knowing that his wife wouldn't want to be kept alive in that state. So, now you must prove that he murdered his wife, you simply cant raise it as suspicion and string him up. Every way you slice it, it comes down to you holding him guilty until proven innocent, John Hathorn.

The word after is used here to make indicate sequence as opposed to causality. Since you insist on facts, I am pointing one out to you: Michael's opinion on the care of Terri changed in 1993 according to Michael's own testimony. Can you suggest a word other than after that better indicates sequence?

The testimony I quoted is part of the record. A conclusion that (1) the money caused his opinion to change or that (2) his conclusion that since there was no hope of recovery therefore implementing Terri's wishes to be denied nutrition and hydration in order to die caused of his opinion to change is one for the reader to make. The fact is 1993 is the date of this testimony. Insisting that (2) is the fact is an example of the POV problem in the editing of this article. I am not reading Michael's mind. patsw 16:42, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I get that the sentence is factual on the basis of when events happened. The word "after" is factually correct. I'm saying that the sentence structure IMPLIES a link between malpractice award and change in attitude. There is no word that can substitute for "after" that fixed this implied link because it isn't a problem with the word, it is a problem with the sentence structure. Pretty much, the two pieces of that sentence need to be separated out into independent sentences. FuelWagon 23:54, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

GAL Pearse sure thought there was a causal link. At the very least, the malpractice award created a severe conflict of interest, which should have disqualfied Michael from making medical decisions in Terri's behalf. Thanks to the malpractice award, Michael stood to inherit a quarter of a million dollars if Terri would just die. No wonder he wanted her dead! NCdave 06:11, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Look, I know "causal" is a big word for you, but Pearse never actually used it. I'm starting to doubt your ability to read, and I'm now wondering if all you really know is how to cut-and-paste. Pearse said Michael's request to terminate life support creates the appearnce of, if not actual, conflict of interest. That is not causation. He then goes on to state that the Parents hope that Michael will divorce their daughter and they'll become her guardian, therefore THEY get the trust fund money when she dies. I believe another report said the finger pointing goes both ways. And if you like Pearse so much, then you should quote all of him. For example: Pearse also disputes the Schindler's claims that Terri responds to them.

"the same reactions have been observed by nursing home staff members who indicate that they are random and not predicably in response to any specific stimuli"

So, it's convenient to misquote Pearse and put the word "cause" in his mouth, when he never said it. It's also convenient of you to ignore the pieces of his report that DIRECTLY CONFLICT with your conspiracy theory statements that Terri is not PVS and responds to external stimuli. FuelWagon 07:07, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This also assumes that we neglect the fact that Michael would have ended up with a lot more money had he 1) Divorced Terri and split the assets 2) waited until she died and then filed suit, gaining all the money, even more money because it would become wrongful death/negligence or 3) taken the $1M that was offered to him. NCdave repeatedly ignores this. It's been brought up time and again. I can only advance the idea that we assume that NCdave is very, very purposefully acting in bad faith in his ignoring of relevant facts, his editing of the wikiquette page, etc. It's fairly sad but he's proven time and again that there is no option of good faith whatsoever on his part. Professor Ninja 15:27, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

What's the resolution of the original issues in this section? Does Viriditas get to enter the Pecarek comments? Do I get to enter the November 1993 Michael Schiavo testimony on his seeking not to have Terri's life-threatening urinary tract infection treated? patsw 16:33, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

POV Tag

I've removed the POV tag since it should be used only on articles where there is a serious dispute about POV neutrality. On this article, there is only one user (User:NCdave) who is currently disputing the article's neutrality, and he has made about as many comments on this case as all other users combined. I added a custom header indicating that the article is disputed by NCdave, since he is the only non-anonymous user on the Talk page who consistently challenges the article. Firebug 11:02, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

That's not really appropriate. The POV tag makes no provision for the amount of people disputing the article. While it's kinda cute and funny (as hell), it's borderline. Anybody who wants to see the neutrality of this article disputed can come to the talk page (God help them) and see NCdave for themselves. I don't particularly feel that a single user debating the neutrality of the article necessarily warrants the use of the POV tag, but I'll put it in for now, if anybody wants to take it out, go for it. Professor Ninja 11:42, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)

I dispute the neutral point of view of the article. How could this talk page be as long as it is without there being a serious dispute? Where is it written that's there's a minimum number of people who need to dispute the neutral point of view of an article in order for the POV tag to be added? Removing the tag as long as dispute is asserted is vandalism and pointless as well. patsw 11:47, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Patsw: Accusations of vandalism is over-reaching. I've removed the POV tag twice myself and will most likely remove it many more times. Only one person seems to have any major problem with the "neutrality" of the article and that person obviously has an agenda.

If there is a consensus on the content of the article (beyond minor points of dispute) I personally feel that pretty much excludes points of view from one user only. If, on the other hand, one contributor can hijack an article in defiance of another twenty or so then there's really no point in making contributions to wikipedia to begin with. In fact I'll go so far as to suggest that someone with such overwhelming bias should go elsewhere and create a site where all the slander and fabrications can be made without interference from those who truly want to see a neutral point of view.

Finally, my personal opinion is that anyone who will use a person who passed on to her maker in 1990 as a political football has some serious ethical issues. 24.126.70.48 12:50, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Oops. I did log in. Did wikipedia log me back out?!?! 24.126.70.48 is me. Happy NCDave? Doubt it! Wjbean 12:54, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Before you showed up, Patsw, the talk page got as long as it did based on two factors: 1) People discussing advances in the case and 2) NCdave advancing constantly refuted arguments. The length of a talk page isn't relevant to whether or not an article is NPOV or not. Professor Ninja 12:02, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)

I don't think the current content of the article is disputed. What is there now is fairly balanced. (although its still a bit long winded) The "dispute" is that some poeple want to say Michael murdered Terri for her malpractice award money. But since that has not been proven, it hasn't been allowed in the article. And since it hasn't been allowed in the article, the lynch mob "dispute" the article. That's like Abagail Williams "disputing" the idea that people are only witches once you prove they're witches, rather than when you accuse them of being a witch. The flag at the top of the article doesn't bother me nearly as much as the fact that its there because the lynch mob demands guilty-till-proven-innocent justice and "dispute" anything that gets in the way. FuelWagon 10:03, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I dispute the neutral point of view of the article, too. The current version is horribly inaccurate, and severely biased. NCdave 10:22, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The only bias I've seen so far comes directly from you NCDave. Wjbean 12:58, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"I dispute the neutral point of view of the article!", NCdave said with a noose in his hand. "Listen to me!" he shouted, "I am the neutral point of view here." He twirled the rope to emphasize his objecitivity. "Someone on a website said that Michael murdered Terri for her money, so it must be true! Greer is Michael's pet judge! The nursing home boss is in conspiracy with Michael. So is the police officer that Iyer contacted about Michael's attempts to murder Terri!" He throw the rope over a thick branch of the tree. "They're ALL IN ON IT! Dont you see?" He then started piling firewood under the tree. "Once we hang him, then we'll burn him." He throw another log on the pile. "Once we're done with Michael, then we go after the doctors too! There are at least 5 or 6 of them who wanted to help Michael murder Terri! They all diagnosed her as PVS when it is clear she is NOT! We'll press them until they confess or until they suffocate!" He picked up a stone and put it by the press. "It's the only way to be neutral about this." He then walked over to the dunking chair. "We'll dunk Greer and all the judges who could have stopped this judicial homocide!" He lowered the chair into the water to test it. "Greer, the courts of appeals, the florida supreme court, the US supreme court. They all have to be dunked for their part in this conspiracy!" He pulled the chair up out of the water. "Only then will this article have a chance of claiming it is neutral." FuelWagon 10:49, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Personal attacks are neither germane nor helpful. Jonathunder 07:47, 2005 Apr 10 (UTC)

"Personal attacks are neither germane nor helpful." Perhaps, perhaps not. But it was darned funny. My personal opinion (note I say MY OPINION) is that when all else fails go on the offensive. Wjbean 12:58, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

If the editing of this article were only the clarification of who, what, when, where, I would say that there's a neutral point of view. But unusual for a wiki, there are gatekeepers here deciding what's relevant, scientific, meaningful, etc. according to their own personal criteria which they have declined to disclose. What emerges from this process are sincere conflicts about relevance, scientfic merit, and meaning that are per se a point of view imposed by the persons doing the intensive editing. I have only been editing here since the sad death of Terri Schiavo, but already I can predict what statements are fact are going to be deleted by others when I see them added. The predictability of these deletions of factual statements describe how POV enters a wiki article. patsw 16:42, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I see the POV tag has been removed again and I won't be baited into a violation of the Wikipedia:Three-revert rule so I invite anyone to add the tag back today. In the meantime, since removing this tag seems important to many of you, can we discuss according to the how a neutral point of view dispute is not taking place here according to how it is defined in the wikipedia guidelines and what is accomplished by removing the tag? Perhaps I'm wrong and there is no such neutral point of view dispute taking place, but I'm not persuaded to that position by the repeated hit and runs removing the tag. To do so without discussing the reason seems only to support my case that the editing of article shows bias. patsw 20:51, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

patsw, perhaps you could point to specific problems you see with this article. If you think that there are valid facts that should be added to this article than please state them specifically, rather than referring to them in vague terms. Also to discuss your previous points:

• The length of a talk page is not a great indicator of whether an article is curently NPOV or not. It may indicate a past problem or a flurry of recent developments or (as in the case of this article) both. See Talk:September 11, 2001 attacks and Talk:Yasser Arafat for examples of articles that have large talk histories and past problems, but no current NPOV disputes.
• There is no minimum number of editors required for an article to be considered POV. Even so, Wikipedia is not a democracy, and if an editor has demonstrated an inability to work within the policies set forth, then the other editors are not under any obligation to take his or her edits seriously. NCDave has damaged his own reputation on this page to a point where even though he feels there is a POV problem, he is generally disregarded.

So again, if you really feel there is some sort of problem, please state it here and it will be hashed out. --CVaneg 21:24, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

patsw's main problem seems to be what he mentioned above. He believes there's an arbitrary system of relevance in place. I disagree, the only person who's been entirely non-relevant to this whole process is NCdave. Other editors regularly document, confirm, cross-check their changes; NCdave mostly just cite's the Schindler's website. patsw's problem with POV is relevant, he's not shot himself in the foot yet, but to what extent and why he feels that way is perhaps questionable. Professor Ninja 14:57, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

In the first place, it is POV bias to suggest that the information on the Schindlers' web site should be disregarded. But it is also just plain false to say that I mostly just cite the Schindler's website, after the partisans for M.Schiavo's POV have deleted dozens of references that I added to copies of court documents such as affidavits and sworn depositions, investigative journalism, and many, many other reputable sources, including even the Cheshire report. NCdave 02:58, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I really don't care that the tag is there or not. Really. Anyone with an interest can scan the discussion pages and their archives and immediately see where the source of most of the dispute comes from. If a reader would rather believe teh conspiracy theories of some right-wing-nut-job website, then fine. POV flag or not isn't going to make any difference with them. what I would like to see, though is if ANYONE ELSE have a POV problem and if they could point out the specifics so it could be addressed. I don't mind putting in facts if they are not disputed, or if they are biased but put in context as to their source and any bias of the source. I originally put in that Cranford was a proponent of euthenasia, and someone else removed it at some point (dont know if its in there now, haven't looked). FuelWagon 00:01, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The current article is grossly inaccurate and blatantly biased. For example, it is a fact that most of the reputable neurologists, radiologists, and speech professionals who have reviewed the case think that Terri's PVS diagnosis was dubious, at best. Yet the article states, as if it were undisputed fact, that Terri was in a PVS. To remove the {{accuracy}} and {{POV}} flags is to claim that the accuracy and neutral point of view of the article are undisputed. That is preposterous. NCdave 02:58, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

the vast majority of the doctors who dispute the diagnosis never actually examined Terri. Two doctors who did examine her had bias in being the family doctor and too weird to believe. One doctor who examined Terri is a proponent of right-to-die causes. That leaves 4 or 5 doctors who actually examined Terri who diagnosed her to be PVS. The remaining doctors who dispute the PVS diagnosis viewed 5 minutes of video clips that the parents selected from 5 hours of raw footage. If you can't see how biased and un-medical that is, then you're really are a Hathorne wanna-be. Why the hell haven't the parent's released the 5 hours of raw footage, NCdave? Wouldn't 5 hours of damning evidence be a much stronger case than 5 minutes? If she truly responded to voices for 5 hours straight, why not publish the tapes on a website? let the truth be told? Could it POSSIBLY BE that the raw footage would show Terri to be completely unresponsive and the 5 minutes where it looks like she's responsive is actually a random voice command lining up with her random movements? Is that possible? Or do you turn a blind eye to any inconvenient information like that? Is it "inaccurate" to say the 5 minute clips are to be taken as a fair representation of Terri's usual behaviour and responsiveness? Or is it five hours of random reactions that boil down to 5 minutes where the action looks like it is responding to someone's voice? Is this why the "inacurrate" flag is up there? Because we don't swallow the conspiracy theories? FuelWagon 03:18, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This from patsw via email:

http://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/WolfsonReport.pdf

Note that both Michael and the Schindlers dispute statements attributed to them in this report.

I (as well as many others) dispute Wolfson's use of the term "life support" to apply to nutrition and hyrdration by means of a feeding tube.

I'm not sure if the point is the the POV tag should be present if anyone disputes anything that anyone else says. I would hope that if all disputes (between Michael, parents, and other immediate players) were reported, then the article itself would be considered Neutral. But maybe some people will just never be satisfied, and demand that some nutcase with a website and a conspiracy theory should be included in the article to represent the neutral point of view.

Also, if the POV tag remains because the law calls a feeding tube to be life support, and someone wants to use the phrase "food and water" because it shows the persecution of Terri, then this article will never be neutral. FuelWagon 11:35, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

If the depositions, motions, and court orders refer to a "feeding tube" and to "nutrition and hydration" as they do, and this is the Terri Schiavo article, then it is accurate and relevant.

Otherwise "life support" is left ambiguously to refer to artificial provision of the function of an organ of a body, i.e. the heart, lung, or kidney as well as food and water. This is not an article on Florida law which was amended and remains subject to future amendment, but to Terri's case where the depositions, motions, and court orders are fixed in history. In fact, the Terri's case can only be understood in that this was widely publicized precisely because it was precedent-setting in its application of the term "life support" to apply to nutrition and hydration by means of a feeding tube when there was a dispute among family members about so many aspects of her condition, circumstances different from the Cruzan case. patsw 15:08, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

refactoring reordering

I refactored and reordered some of the main article. The biggest change was under "Schiavos" condition, I put "medical opinions" first, issues of dispute second. FuelWagon 01:08, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I've refactored and reordered again. The approach has been as follows: Specific issues get specific sections. Anything related to the bone scan is put in the bone scan section, the original scan, the parents POV, Michael's POV, etc. The 2003 affadavits has it's own section for Iyer and her compatriots. The "controversy" section has been renamed "responsiveness dispute" because the entire section discusses the dispute between the parents saying Terri reponds to voices, etc, and the medical community saying she does not.

I moved the Michael/Shindlers stuff towards the bottom. The idea is that anythign that fits in a specific section can go there. (i.e. bone scan). Anything that doesn't fit in its own section can be lumped together under either Michael or Parents section, depending on who it's talking about. These two sections probably need some clean up, moving anything to their specific sections so that all relevant information about the topic is contained in one place, rather than spread out across the section. Bone scan info only goes in bone scan section. This allows both sides to be presented along with the known facts, the final standing fo things, and whether something has been resolved, dropped, or whatever.

Did the best I could with what I've got FuelWagon 18:49, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Tropix wants a timeline in a timeline at the beginning. I think it's too long overall and dwells a bit too shortly on certain hot topics that need more context. If there must be a timeline, it ought to be as neutral as possible, and it ought to focus as much as possible on what happened to Terri. The stuff about Greer seems to be a stretch to be useful information in an intro. It also means there's redundant information hanging around the article. I'd rather see a one paragraph intro that captures the gist of Terri's situation and drop the timeline from the main article. Otherwise, anything in the intro gets emphasized over anything else. Am I the only one who wants a short, one-para intro that focuses on Terri? FuelWagon 21:27, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Dictionary defintions

• Hospitalized:

To place in a hospital for treatment, care, or observation.

• Hospice:

1. A shelter or lodging for travelers, pilgrims, foundlings, or the destitute, especially one maintained by a monastic order.
2. A program or facility that provides palliative care and attends to the emotional, spiritual, social, and financial needs of terminally ill patients at a facility or at a patient's home.

• Hospital:

1. An institution that provides medical, surgical, or psychiatric care and treatment for the sick or the injured.

• Hotel:

An establishment that provides lodging and usually meals and other services for travelers and other paying guests.

--Boothy443 | comhrÚ 04:46, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Nice try, but no. You can go ahead and do a google search for hospitals, you'll find that medical lodgings are called hospices, hotels, hostels, and hospitals all through history right up into the present day. Or you could read further into the dictionary.reference.com definitions and find that they provide a common link for all those words, which is why medical facilities, while most commonly called hospitals, also have a historic record of being called (to this day) hospices, hotels, and hostels. You could look into the history of hospitaller organizations and find various medical facilities that still exist to this day that provide both in-patient and out-patient care, surgery, and lodgings for the sick that are not called hospitals. Perhaps a friendly letter from you to them would correct their egregious false advertising. Wouldn't want those people at the Hotel of God thinking they were actually hospitalized, now would you? This is all ignoring the fact that Terri Schiavo was receiving rehab efforts in the hospice, which also makes it fall under the definition of hospitalized. People, please. Take some time to look into etymology and, most important, current usage of words. I know that four words came from one root, and that's confusing, but personal and linguistic crotchets have made them all correct in various senses. Perhaps if Boothy had bothered to give all the information you'd see this: Hospital n. A charitable institution, such as an orphanage or a home for the elderly. If you stay at a Holiday Inn, you're in a hotel. Are you hospitalized? No. If you stay at Hotel of God (or Hotel-Dieu, there's alot of these places) are you hospitalized? Yes. If you stay at an orphanage or rest home, are you hospitalized? No. If you're in a hospice receiving rehabilitative and medical care (even if it is palliative) are you hospitalized? Yes. Even if we were to accept that palliative care exludes one from being hospitalized, then we would have to say a hospital wherein palliative care is provided to patients doesn't hospitalize those patients. Or that strictly palliative institutions called Hospitals (there are many) also don't hospitalize their patients. Pedantry is cute when you get away with it, other times it can make you shoot yourself straight in the foot. Professor Ninja 05:07, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)

Please take note of Wikipedia:Three-revert rule. This a pretty minor dispute over one or two words. It is not worth a revert war. Jonathunder 05:13, 2005 Apr 9 (UTC)

If someone admitted to a hospital is hospitalized, I suppose that someone admitted to a hospice would be hospicized? Here in America, if one is hospitalized, it means that one is in a hospital. One cannot be "hospitalized" in a hotel or hospice or orphanage. NCdave 12:16, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The meaning of "hospice" has changed over the years Hang'um and burn'um Dave! There are many nursing homes for the aged and the invalid. They can be referred to as hospices. Those homes are staffed by medical care professionals and visited regularly by real doctors. Hospices were created to help those less financially able to continue to care for family members. NCDave. I remind you that your opinion does not a fact make. Wjbean 17:32, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hang'um and burn'um? Moi? I'm not the one who wanted someone dead! I'm just a bleeding heart conservative, who thinks that people with disabilities should be protected. NCdave 02:35, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't buy that for a second. The Schindlers have plied their Roman Catholic faith on fellow believers and have cast their plight as a fight between God and the devil himself. NO ONE here is arguing that people with disabilities should not be protected. When the Schindlers invoked their "persecution complex" on the nation, it certainly helped to pretend that she was merely disabled, but she wasn't. Even if you remove Cranford because he's a proponent of right-to-die causes, you still have 5 doctors who have no bias and no reason to be biased diagnosing Terri as PVS. It requires a conspiracy theory to explain this as a "disabled" person being protected. But we know you love conspiracy theories. 5 doctors, a number of judges, the police, the nursing home bosses, are all in on this conspiracy to murder a disabled woman who can talk and interact with people. yeah, right. FuelWagon 02:50, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Quite right. The point that's missing here, that I've stated before, is that hospice and hospital came from the same latin root. This same root gave us hospitalize. Hospicalize is incorrect; there is no such word, nor need their be. In NCdave's wonderful fashion of not understanding anything, at all, ever, he completely glosses over the point I was raising with the orphanages. Hospitalized refers to placing somebody in a medical facility for care; Hospitals provide this, so do the similarly named hospices. My point that I was illustrating with the orphanage/old folks home comparison (also called Hospitals) is that these people are not hospitalized. Not all placement in an entity called "hospital" is "hospitalization," similarly, in NCdave's knack for missing the point, entities which call themselves Hospitals, Hospices, Hotels, and Hostels all provide hospital-type medical care; one latin root gave us those four words; one latin root gave us the single word that describes putting somebody in any such entity for care/treatment/observation, be it surgical, medical, palliative, out-patient, in-patient, or otherwise: hospitalize. Hence when hospitalized was changed to "placed at", it was a form of sneaky vandalism. Hospitalized was the encyclopaedic and wholly correct term to use for Terri Schiavo, as she continued to receive care and treatment. Placed at means she was literally placed there, and nothing more was done. Professor Ninja 14:52, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

The etymology of the words is irrelevant. That hospital, hospice, hospitable, hospitality, hotel, hospitalize, etc. are all derived from the same Latin family of words (hospitium, hospitalis, etc.) does not mean that they all have they same meaning. They don't.

There are two distinct definitions for the word hospice. The old (chiefly British?) definition is a sort of hostel run by a religious order. That's not the kind of hospice we're talking about. The kind of hospice we're talking about is an organization that provides palliative care for the dying.

Here in America, at least, nursing homes for the aged are not hospices. Neither are hostels. Neither are hotels.

Nor was hospice created to help the poor. Hospice was created to assist only terminally ill patients, mainly by enabling them to have the palliative care that they need within their own homes. Before the hospice movement, many terminally ill patients who very much wished to be at home died in hospitals simply because they needed a level of care (esp. narcotic painkillers like morphine) which they couldn't legally or practically get at home. Hospice enables them to get that care in their own homes.[63][64][65]

To be hospitalized means that one is in a hospital, not a hotel or hostel or hospice. Of course. NCdave 02:35, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"...one latin root gave us those four words; one latin root gave us the single word that describes putting somebody in any such entity for care/treatment/observation, be it surgical, medical, palliative, out-patient, in-patient, or otherwise...." Professor Ninja 12:38, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

I actually agree with NCdave on this instance. The idea of palliative care and the idea of hospitalization are two different things, and I stated as much on WP:3RR violations when you were blocked. The whole idea of hospice (which started only in the 1970s) is supposed to be markedly different from a hospital, thus the two are not one and the same. Mike H 16:16, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

Yeah okay, well try a google search for "hospice 1800s". Or a variant thereof. Unless the "whole idea of a hospice" includes time travel as part of that idea, you've sort of tripped yourself up. If your argument is that palliative care doesn't constitute part of the definition of hospitalization, then perhaps you can tell me whether or not people who are currently dying in a hospital, receiving only palliative care, are hospitalized or not. Are they not hospitalized, but just staying there? What if somebody's in a nursing home being cared for in various ways, treated, and observed, as Terri Schiavo was? That's not exclusively palliative either. Perhaps you can explain this massive difference to me, as I just don't see it. I see a common root for all words, I see a common link in the definition, I see hospices existing long before the 1970s, I see care being provided by them, I see strictly palliative care being provided by hospitals, I see alot of things in common. Perhaps somebody can clarify why all of that is totally wrong. I'd consider it a most gracious favour. Professor Ninja 16:58, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

The Wikipedia gristmill in action

Thanks to all who are working on this article, difficult as it may be at times. Some people point to our great detail on articles such as this one, and contrast that with our coverage of historical figures (say, Ma Ferguson). But this is the kind of topic which has no comprehensive coverage anywhere else in the world. And, with halting steps, we are working towards exactly that. History books are full of controversial incidents whose full stories will never be known, because one side eventually found time to write the more compelling tale... this is a fantastic alternative. Megabytes of discussion archives, methodically debating every detail and nuance! I love it. +sj + 20:25, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well put! Couldn't agree more! Thanks to everyone who has contributed to this article, tough as it may be. Gkhan 14:48, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

Cause of death

I'm curious about dehydration being listed as the cause of death. Do we actually know that yet? Has the ME released a cause of death? The reason I ask, is because I believe dehydration may be a causal factor, but usually causal factors lead to death but the actual cause of death would be more like cardiac arrest (brought on by...), for example. And the reason I even bring it up is that the whole issue of removal of life support is such a hot button topic, made more so by the emotional spectres of starvation and dehydration that citing dehydration as the cause of death if it's not the official medical and legal cause seems POV to me. LRod 216.76.216.57 23:48, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think common sense applies here. Without an official cause of death, the probable cause of death is dehydration since no one asserts a different cause. LRod, do you have evidence of another cause? Adding a qualifier like probable or likely doesn't seem to to me to introduce a POV. On the other hand, we are not ignorant of the circumstances starting March 18 so changing the the description of the cause of death to unknown or pending official determination contradicts the facts we know: namely that persuant to a court order nutrition and hydration were withdrawn. For any human being, such starvation and dehydration will eventually and with certainty cause death. No reporting I've read on this case has stated her cause of death as being unknown. patsw 00:57, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well, it's not quite as simple as that, and I didn't intimate the cause was unknown. However, it's my understanding that legally and/or medically the Certificate of Death should list an immediate cause of death, and then there should be one or more intermediate causes, plus possibly an underlying cause. Here's a handy tutorial that will take about five or ten minutes of your time and will explain what I mean. In any event, I don't believe dehydration would be the immediate cause of death, but would certainly be an intermediate cause, and an underlying cause would probably be the state of the patient, i.e. long term brain damaged.

I don't really want to make a huge POV case about it, but I believe you'll find the CoD to be more complex than simply dehydration, and listing dehydration here as the CoD is most likely inaccurate. Absent the CoD, I think it's unwise to say anything about the cause. LRod 216.76.216.57 02:07, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

LRod, you wrote "an underlying cause would probably be the state of the patient, i.e. long term brain damaged." If the extent of her brain damage failed to cause her death in 15 years and 1 month after her injury, what facts support this as a cause of death 15 years and 2 months after her injury? patsw 14:23, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Clearly you didn't go to the link I provided. If you had, you would understand the definition and significance of the term underlying cause. Please go take the tutorial and then report back with your question. LRod 216.76.216.118 16:31, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

On the morning of February 25, 1990, at about 5:30 a.m. EST, Schiavo collapsed...The cause of the collapse was determined to be cardiac arrest...she experienced a loss of oxygen to the brain...Attempts were made to resuscitate Schiavo...in order to keep her alive, she was intubated, ventilated, and given a tracheotomy; she also received a percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG), a feeding tube inserted through the abdominal wall. She was on artificial life support for 15 years. --Viriditas | Talk 14:32, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Other articles

I happened across a Terri Schiavo article (obit) at this site. It struck me as quite NPOV, more so than this one; certainly more succinct. I'd be interested in other people's opinion. LRod 216.76.216.57 00:32, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• why bother advertising a celeb death site? At least make it a wiki where everyone can get their POV flame pants on and edit across multiple sites.

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)

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: [66] 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)

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 wikipedia 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 wikipedia 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)

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 Wikipedia: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 wikipedia 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 [cites]". 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.
• [b]Swollen glands in neck and face[/b]
• 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.

User Tropix a possible sock puppet -- No.

Tropix started contributions to wikipedia 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 wikipedia 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)

---

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 wikipedia 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)

---

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)

---

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." [67] [68]

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)