Talk:Terri Schiavo case

To relieve page bloating:

Talk:Terri Schiavo/archive1, Talk:Terri Schiavo/archive2

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)

Controlling This Page

I've gone through and refactored this bloated talk page, as per Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page and Wikipedia:Refactoring. I've removed a good portion of the off-topic comments, chatting/debate, and personal attacks and statements, and I will continue to do so in an attempt to keep this page as a useful resource for editors working on this article. Having to wade through 96k of NCdave and Gretchen's debates, people's blog-like musings on the issue, and other fluff is not condusive to gaining insight into the current and continuing issues effecting maintenance of this page. Fox1 23:11, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps Fox1 is right, that nobody wants to wade through my debates with Gretchen. Perhaps. But the material Fox1 deleted wasn't all "fluff." In case Fox1 is wrong, and somebody wants to see it, here's the link to the 22:59, 19 Mar 2005 version of this Talk page, which was the last version before Fox1's "refactoring" (massive deletions). NCdave 01:25, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I have no problem with you providing a link to a version containing all the removed comments, in fact, it's probably something I should have done myself, if I'd thought of it.

I don't believe I tried to conceal the fact that the refactoring method I chose to use was, in fact, massive (removal of appx. 50k of text) deletions. Yes, I made massive deletions, within policy, and I will continue to do so if that appears to be the best way to maximize the usefulness of this page.

You have done invaluable work on this article. I appreciate your contributions, most of which were made long before I ever visited this page, and your obvious dedication to exhaustive research on this topic. You do at times show what looks like a tendency to imagine enemies where none exist, and actions such as immediately editing Wikipedia:Wikiquette after I quoted it as justification for refactoring totters on the edge of bad faith. You'll note that I did not revert your edit, as I will, despite some misgivings, assume good faith on your part.

Fox1 11:31, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

POV Discussion

I added the fact that most of her cortex is gone, as the citation states. Saying the whole cortex is gone is misleading.

---MDW

My sincere apologies. I'd heard this claim misstated elsewhere, and I must have simply repeated the faulty claim without carefully examining the blog's statement. However, we now have a more serious problem--NCDave is trying to cast doubt on the claim that much of Schiavo's cerebral cortex is missing, which I don't believe the Schindlers or their doctors have ever actually disputed. He's coming close to escalating this into an edit war, and I am now firmly of the opinion, expressed by others on this page, that his POV style of editing cannot be stopped unless the requests to have it stop are backed by some sort of authority. I'll start a new section on this, however. SS451 03:42, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)

Bertrand Russell said that "the smart man says one thing, and the stupid men translate that into something their minds can understand." That's what happened here: Everyone who is screaming for this dead person to continue to be artificially maintained is absolutely and certainly (and most unfortunately) religious.

I am not sure how you claim everyone who supports keeping Terri alive is religious. I am an atheist and I see the actions on both sides illogical. The core issue is the diagosis, that she is PVS. There has been lot of medical experts who claim otherwise and it is accepted, that PVS s a difficult diagnosis to make with very high probablity of error. How do you claim that she is already dead (no consciousness) when that is part of the core issue being debated ?

--AA

To offer a little clarity: a long, long time ago, before science had developed and the mind was still primitive, the world was difficult to explain. So, people began to worship the planets, the stars, trees, mountains, animals and such. As the human mind evolved, the propensity for anthropomorphism developed as well. Suddenly, there were gods too. It didn't take too long to make a war of it: "my god/gods is/are better than your god/gods," etc...

The next thing that happened is that even though the average individual remained fairly stupid, they began to believe that they knew "the truth": an immaterial subjective, perceptual POV. Most of them are still unwilling to accept reality. They prefer faith, but faith has no fact. Of course, the rest of us know that god is dead. Not it was ever alive.

Since Merriam-Webster is probably the best comprehensive source for the English language, I have included this definition, which I'm sure you excluded purposely since it did not fit your (NCdave) intent:

2vegetable Function: noun 1 : a usually herbaceous plant (as the cabbage, bean, or potato) grown for an edible part; also : such an edible part 2 : a person whose mental and physical functioning is severely impaired and especially who requires supportive measures (as intravenous feeding or mechanical ventilation) to survive

This woman is already dead. She couldn't even think "Ouch!," if you gave her a vivisection. cyboar 05:43, 20 Mar 2005 (PST)

Cybor, It looks like you are basing your arguments on the claim that she has no consciousness. It is one of the disputed points. Hence your description has POV. --AA

Despite this, after reading the article, I think there's a lot of POV in it on both sides.

• The photo - the first bit of POVness that hit me was the selection of a photo. When I saw Terri on television she looked quite different from the way that photo depicts her. It would be nice if we could have some other photos in addition to this one. Adding a moving picture would be great.
• "vegetative state" - I don't see why this has to be mentioned so early in the article. Whether or not the state she is in can be considered "vegetative" is important only in the realm of the legal fights that are going on (apparently, the article doesn't really go into why the word matters at all). Personally I think it'd probably be best to just leave the word out of it. It doesn't matter whether or not her state is "vegetative". Just describe the state and let people make their own decision.

"vegetable" is a disparaging term used to describe the mentally handicapped. "vegetative state" is a medical and legal term of varying definition, which is derived from that slur. NCdave 17:56, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Where's your proof of that?Iceberg3k 13:43, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)

I believe I included a link to a dictionary definition, in the material that Fox1 deleted from the Talk page. But here are a few more:

Oxford English Dictionary says, "vegetable. noun. ... 2, informal, derogatory a person who is incapable of normal mental or physical activity, especially through brain damage."

Encarta says, "vegetable. noun. ... 3. offensive term: an offensive term for somebody in whom normal functions are severely reduced or absent, often as a result of injury to the brain"

American Heritage / Bartleby says, "vegetable. NOUN: ... 2. Offensive Slang One who is severely impaired mentally and physically, as by brain injury or disease."

But where is your proof that the medical/legal term "vegetative state" came from the slur "vegetable," as opposed to a more logical sequence of events, in which the slur is derived from the formal term? If I'm not mistaken, that is/was the case with the term "retarded," for example. SS451 02:06, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)

• "death by starvation" - I think this is currently handled well. In the beginning, the description is "...woman whose husband's efforts to remove her feeding tube and forbid anyone from attempting to feed her by mouth..." In the end, the sentence reads "Removal of Terri's feeding tube would result in her death by starvation." Now, of course, I'm assuming the latter sentence is actually true. Would she die from starvation, or dehydration?

Actually, she might not die at all, if her family were permitted to spoon-feed her, though it would be better to gradually wean her from the feeding tube during rehabilitative therapy. NCdave 17:56, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

What rehabilitation? She's brain-dead, you can't rehabilitate that.Iceberg3k 13:43, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)

One of the very few things that all parties to the case agree on is that she is most definitely not brain dead. A brain dead person cannot even breathe on his own. NCdave 01:53, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Although she might not be braindead, she does not have a functioning cerebral cortex at this point. All sides have agreed on that. As she does not have a functioning cerebral cortex, she also does not have any higher brain function. If she was spoon-fed, she would more than likely choke on the food and/or drink. --24.34.94.87 08:06, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• "estranged husband" - I don't see much purpose to mentioning that term at all. How does that give us a better understanding of the situation? On the other hand, I think the fact that the husband "become involved and fathered children with another woman since Terri became handicapped" needs to be made more prominent and explained in more detail. They said on the news that there is going to be an appeal on the grounds that Terri should have the right to have a divorce. Some more information about this would be interesting.

It looks like most of the rest has been worked out. anthony 警告 05:54, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The major reason is because her family has not been taking care of her and will not - we the taxpayers will.

Thanks for the comments. I added dehydration - it looks like either could cause death, but a doctor may want to clarify this point. I agree with all the points you've brought up. The photo was added by NCdave and is used on several pro-life web sites. I agree that it's not ideal. It's also probably a copyright violation. Vegetative state: Yes, it would be much better to describe her state without trying to say definitively whether it is "vegetative". "Estranged": We've been going back and forth over this and NCdave refuses to concede that his reference from a "learner's dictionary" doesn't mean that "estranged" is a neutral word. Agree that details of Michael Schiavo's extramarital relationship should be expanded. I'm not sure if the divorce thing needs to be mentioned, the Schindler family files a lot of motions (15 today). Although if the divorce motion gets press coverage it should be included. Rhobite 06:18, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)

Rhobite doesn't like the Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary, which says:

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

Here's the Cambridge Dictionary of American English definition:

"estranged. adjective. (of a husband or wife) not living with the person they are married to"[1]

Here's Encarta's definition:

"estranged adjective. separated from a spouse: no longer living with a husband or wife"[2]

The word "estranged," when applied to spouses, simply means that they don't live together anymore. It does not say anything about the cause, which could be alienation or mere indifference. However, the word can also be applied more generally to other relationships, including even business relationships, to indicate removal from a close association, whether due to alienation or indifference. (The Cambridge dictionaries and Encarta don't happen to mention that use of the word, but some of the other dictionaries do.)

To edit the article and change "estranged husband" to just plain "husband" when describing Michael Schiavo is to inject POV bias. One cannot understand the outrageousness of the Greer decisions and Michael Schiavo's actions if one does not know that Terri and Michael are estranged. Numerous press accounts have simply described him as her "husband," with no indication that their marriage has, for all intents and purposes, actually been over for more than a decade, and that (according to sworn testimony from two witnesses) even before her injury Terri had told friends of her intention to divorce him. NCdave 17:47, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Rhobite doesn't like the Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary, which says. I think we should formally ban using dictionary definitions in any talk page discussions. What Cambridge has to say about the meaning of a word, besides itself being POV, does not matter.

Words have meanings, and the meanings matter, and dictionaries are the authorities on the meanings of words. If you are going to formally ban dictionary definitions, why not formally ban all facts, and ensure that wikipedia is completely useless? NCdave 01:53, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

To edit the article and change "estranged husband" to just plain "husband" when describing Michael Schiavo is to inject POV bias. One cannot understand the outrageousness of the Greer decisions and Michael Schiavo's actions if one does not know that Terri and Michael are estranged. But according to you estranged simply means they don't live together. Haven't we already covered that when we said that Terri lives in a hospice? It seemed pretty obvious to me that the husband wasn't living in the hospice with her.

Funny, Anthony.  :-) NCdave 01:53, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Numerous press accounts have simply described him as her "husband," with no indication that their marriage has, for all intents and purposes, actually been over for more than a decade, and that (according to sworn testimony from two witnesses) even before her injury Terri had told friends of her intention to divorce him. Certainly we must include the facts which lead you to this conclusion. We certainly should mention that the husband has been living with another woman since 1995 and that he has two children with that other woman. I just don't see why the insistence on using the term "estranged". anthony 警告 03:27, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Michael Schiavo

Pending consensus, I'm going to chop out all the stuff about Michael Schiavo. My reasoning being that this is the article about Terri Schiavo - a lot of the stuff about her husband is irrelevant character smearing. Obviously some detail is pertinent, but not the extended commentary currently on the page.

MichelleG 12:48, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC).

I find that just bizarre. The man is trying to have his estranged wife KILLED, and you don't think his character is relevant? The fact IS that she was planning to leave him (or so she had said to others), on the day of her injury the couple had been fighting all day (says her close girlfriend), numerous other people have testified to his history of violent temper and erratic behavior, medical records that he kept hidden from her family for 10 years show that she had had numerous previously unknown traumatic injuries, police records show that he lied about where and how he found her body, etc., etc.. And you don't think that is RELEVANT?? Good heavens, do you have any idea what the "N" in NPOV stands for??NCdave 18:50, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Something occurs to me: If Michael Schiavo was abusive as Terri's self-styled defenders claim, then why haven't any allegations of abuse come from his present lover? I'm not an expert, but I seem to recall that abuse is a pattern of personal behavior, and an abuser is likely to continue to abuse in subsequent relationships. Iceberg3k 13:47, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)

Please try and restrict comments and discussion to matters pertaining to updating and improving the article, not conjecture on the issues involved. Fox1 13:50, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I think that is a good question, Iceberg3k. A similar question is why Terri, herself, never filed charges against him while married to him, if he was abusing her. I don't know the answer. However, a previous girlfriend, Cindy Shook, is terrified of Michael Schiavo, and it is very common for women to silently put up with spousal abuse. NCdave 01:09, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I don't think we should remove discussion of Michael Schiavo in this article. It's relevant to the topic. Feel free to point out NPOV problems (value judgments), though. Rhobite 19:23, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)

Unless you're going to move it to a separate page (and prominently link to it), it is a terrible idea to remove information about Michael Schiavo. I for one came to this page to read about the whole controversy. I agree pretty firmly with NCdave on this one. The whole point of NPOV is to present all sides to the story. Saying that one part of the story is irrelevent is terribly POV. anthony 警告 05:57, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

If you want to see all sides, you'll need to look at some of the deleted versions of this article. Most of what I've contributed has been deleted by Michael Schiavo's partisans, including links to the most comprehensive series of third-party articles on this topic that I've yet found, the 14 articles by the Discovery Institute's Wesley Smith. The current version of the article is severely POV-biased; this one is relatively NPOV: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Terri_Schiavo&oldid=10668866 (see the "external links" section for the Wesley Smith articles). NCdave 16:19, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Drop it, since most "information" about Michael Schiavo contain gross character smears, as MichelleG points out. Wesley Smith's articles are op-ed, as well as most all of the terrisfight.org website. I assume the assertion about "medical records that he kept hidden from her family for 10 years " per above refers to the bone scan report. But that is factually inaccurate, as the bone scan report was never hidden, despite claims by the parents [3]

--Bill 00:47, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

There is very persuasive evidence that Terri was the victim of spousal abuse, even before her injury, and one of the most damning piece of evidence is that 1991 bone scan report[4], which Terri's family did not see until 2002. NCdave 12:18, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Link Cleanup

I did a little autumn cleaning on the links, in honour of it not being summer for a few minutes now:

The first three laws are all hard links with good data. I kept them.

The Village Voice articles are rather good, but the way they are formatted was bad. I've condensed it all onto one line.

Fine. -NCdave

The "Physical Abuse Haunts Michael Schiavo", aside from being obvious propoganda, adds nothing that doesn't appear in the other links.

It isn't propaganda, it is highly pertinant information. Please restore it, or I will. -NCdave

WorldNetDaily is a pretty horribly far-right news site, but I left the article in since it's reasonably well written, and to maintain balance.

Well, "horribly far-right" certainly tells us what YOUR pov is. -NCdave

The freep.com editorial isn't all that good, but there needs to be some compensating POV in here somewhere. Perhaps when better sources for this issue and side are found, this can be removed.

Agreed. I don't believe in deleting the "other side's" arguments. -NCdave.

The next two links are propoganda with no new facts. Removed.

The disability-rights activist site is irrelevant to this topic, and I removed it. The same goes for the rambling monologue of Stephen Drake. The Wesley J. Smith articles are less "references" than "blatant propoganda", which add nothing to the discussion except a whole bunch of vitriol. I removed them.

You deleted the links to the most comprehensive information, and all the information from one of the world's most renowned experts on the topic. That is nothing less than massive POV sabatoge. NCdave 19:25, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This gets things down to a VERY manageable set of six links. Given that there seems to be clear consensus for changes to the rather tatty, messy collection that we had before, given that the list keeps getting cut down to size, I'm going to go ahead and do a little pruning. I'll try to watch this section like a hawk to ensure that it doesn't become bloated with irrelevant links once more.

MichelleG 13:03, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC).

Michelle, I added links to the "Terri Schiavo Information Page", a blog by a Florida lawyer who has tried to stick to the legal issues. I also added a link to the December 2003 report of Jay Wolfson, guardian ad litem, who was appointed to prepare a report as a result of "Terri's Law" His chronology alone of the case is excellent, which is not something I can say about the article. That is something that needs substantial attention. --Bill 01:03, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Look at all the disability rights organizations who are on this list of organizations who filed or joined in Amici Curiae briefs in Terri's defense: Center for Human Life and Bioethics at the Family Research Council, Not Dead Yet, Adapt, The ARC of the United States, Center on Human Policy, Syracuse University, Center on Self Determination, Disability Rights Center, Freedom Clearinghouse, Hospice Patients' Alliance, Mouth Magazine, National Council on Independent Living, National Disabled Students Union, National Spinal Cord Injury Association, Self-Advocates Becoming Empowered, Society for Disability Studies, TASH, World Association of Persons With Disabilities and World Institute on Disability, Academy of Florida Elder Law Attorneys, Inc., the National Academy of Elder Law Attorneys, plus 55 Bioethicists. Obviously disability-rights is not an irrelevant issue in the fight over Terri Schiavo's fate. NCdave 20:39, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I have removed the italicized summaries of the externally linked articles. They were insanely not NPOV, and also not part of standard Wiki practice. You've fought your battle to get the links you want on the page. Just let them speak for themselves, please. Tcassedy 09:09, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Well, as I recall, the "italicized summaries" were actually mostly (or maybe entirely?) just the subtitles from the articles themselves, not my editorializing, but I'll accept this. NCdave 04:55, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I just did a little survey of the featured external links. I counted nine links that are essentially neutral--they provide information, and do not appear to feature any of the more outlandish accusations or claims, usually "Michael beat Terri" thing. In this category fell the statements of the two guardians ad litem, despite the fact that they do reach conclusions about Terri's situation, as did links to the text of the decision by the Florida Supreme Court voiding Terri's Law, as well as the text of Terri's Law itself.

I counted thirteen links that oppose the removal of Terri's nutritional tube, some of which also attack Michael Schiavo in harsh terms. It should be noted that for this category, I counted both the four Village Voice articles and the fourteen (!) Wesley J. Smith editorials as one anti-removal source each.

I counted two editorials/articles in favor of Michael Schiavo's position, that is, that Terri's feeding tube ought to be removed. Given that anti-removal sources outnumber both neutral informational resources and pro-removal editorials combined, what we have here is at least the appearance of a problem. I notice that earlier in the discussion, some of these links have been red-flagged, but that NCDave has, by and large, refused to allow any of the anti-removal links to be excised.

As a preliminary matter to fixing what appears to be a bias towards external linking to anti-removal sites in this article, I would suggest that we first organize these links into the three categories that I describe, as the long, disorganized list we currently have is simply confusing and a little daunting. If NCDave wants to dispute any of my classifications, he's welcome to do so, but I think that anyone reading those links with an open mind would come up with a count that is very similar to mine. SS451 03:52, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)

Here is my proposed revision of the External Links section. I'll also note that one of the two links in support of Michael Schiavo's position (or at least described as opposing Terri's Law) was broken, so that leaves thirteen anti-removal links and one pro-removal link. I haven't read that last, a Baltimore Sun editorial, because the site requires registration, but I've given the descriptor included with the link the benefit of the doubt. Proposed organization follows:

Ugh! That's terrible!!

The Disability Rights sites are far less biased for Terri than the Greer decisions are against Terri! Greer is practically indistinguishable from Felos. The St. Pete Times is consistently anti-Terri, too.

GAL Wolfson was also obviously biased against Terri, since before he was appointed GAL he was quoted in the local press as saying that he thought that Terri's feeding tube should be removed (though, in spite of this bias, and to his credit, after visiting Terri he nevertheless recommended further testing before ceasing her feeding -- testing which Michael Schiavo & Felos & Greer refused to permit).

SO if you're going to divide the list into pro & anti Terri sections, you ought to put the Greer and Wolfson material in the anti-Terri section, at least.

Absolutely not. Greer's judicial decisions and Wolfson's guardian ad litem determinations are legal documents that go to the heart of the controversy. As I said, each draws conclusions about the situation, but neither started from a predetermined conclusion and looked for facts to prove that "side" of things, as did most of the authors of the editorials/articles/blogs in the sections that have opinions for or against removing the feeding tube.

Why don't you just add links to some more anti-Terri editorials? You can find several of them (along with criticism of them, of course) on the terrisfight.org web site. (Apparently the anti-Terri partisans here, who can't seem to find op-eds supporting their position, don't read the info on www.terrisfight.org -- they're probably afraid of having their biases challenged.) NCdave 13:55, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I thought this had been discussed before. The path to balance is not keeping all the valueless links or opinions of one side, then adding some equally valueless stuff from the other side. The path is to excise those links that are purely prejudicial, with no real information that will contribute to the reader's understanding of the controversy, and contain accusations that border on the libelous. This links list does not need more bloating.

The list is incredibly bloated, even if it weren't biased towards the Schindler side, it would still be too big. If it's not fixed by the time I get home, I'm going to take the pruning shears to it, again. I must say, I'm disappointed that DaveNC continually re-adds these links, even when we have community consensus to get rid of many of them. I thought we had an agreement with him that we'd work together to make this article concise and non-biased, not that he'd continually reinsert material removed in accordance with community consensus. Lankiveil 01:03, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC).

Even your proposed section titles are biased. The anti-Terri folks do not just want to remove her feeding tube. They want to starve her to death by all means necessary. Michael Schiavo & Felos & Greer are also blocking anyone from feeding her by mouth. It is factually untrue and reflective of POV bias to say that this fight is only about her feeding tube. It isn't. It is about dehydrating her to death by forbidding anyone from giving her food and liquids by any means.

Sorry, but you lost this battle a long time ago. We are not going to say in this article that Michael Schiavo wants to starve Terri to death. Go elsewhere to peddle your anti-feeding-tube-removal garbage. The talk page of what is supposed to be a neutral article is no place for that, as you've been warned many times before.

Here's a proposed "compromise" in the case, which Felos/Greer/Michael Schiavo should accept, if they really believed all that nonsense about her dying w/o the feeding tube:

Remove her feeding tube & give her family and their chosen caregivers opportunity to feed & hydrate her only by mouth for three weeks. If at the end of three weeks she is still alive, then Felos/Greer/Michael Schiavo have obviously been lying about her inability to accept at least liquid nurishment by mouth, so revoke Michael's guardianship, and give guardianship to Terri's family, to care for her as they wish, and to initiate divorce proceedings against Michael.

Of course we all know that Terri's family would jump at this compromise, and that Felos & Michael Schiavo would refuse it, because we all know that the Felos propaganda machine nonsense about her dependence on the feeding tube is just that: nonsense. NCdave 14:12, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

More sermonizing, not worthy of a response. Keep your personal opinions off of this talk page. Better yet, just stop editing this article entirely. You have proven, time and time again, that you are unable to set aside your feelings about this case for long enough to edit this article in an NPOV manner, and so any given contribution of yours is very likely to be worthless.

I would really appriceate some constructive comments from those who are actually concerned with improving this article, and not just with advocating a point of view. I envision this organization as the first part of the process of cleaning up the links section--the second part will involve dropping those links which really add no value (over NCDave's strenuous objections, I'm sure), in order to restore some semblance of balance to this sections of the article. I do partially agree with NCDave's comments, in that there is a need for a few more opinionated sources in favor of Michael Schiavo's position. SS451 16:10, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)

I think we should figure out what links were used by people (including NCDave) as references to write the article, and move those into a separate "References" section. Then we can clean up everything in the "External links" section without anyone complaining that we're removing references. Having a References section should also help with the ongoing POV dispute. So, who's used what as a reference? JYolkowski 16:17, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I like what you've done with the sectioning of the links. It's a start but it is preposterous that we have so many op/ed's in the first place. I'm growing more and more frustrated with this article and the way honest editors, like yourself, seeking an NPOV article gets viciously attacked and derided. I don't really don't think we'll get anywhere before we've been through mediation and arbitration or have sufficient editors agree that we just ignore NCDave. Preisler 17:41, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

External links

Informational Resources

• Terri Schiavo Information Page
• Report of Dr. Pearse, guardian ad litem, December 1998 (temporary guardian ad litem for 6 months in 1998)
• Report of Dr. Wolfson, guardian ad litem appointed as a result of "Terri's Law", December 2003 (temporary guardian ad litem for 30 days in 2003)
• Terri's Law
• Florida Supreme Court Decision overturning Terri's Law as unconstitutional
• St. Petersburg Times article about Terri's law
• Patient Refusal of Nutrition and Hydration: Walking the Ever-Finer Line American Journal Hospice & Palliative Care, pp. 8-13, March/April 1995
• END-OF-LIFE Nutrition
• Death Process From Withdrawal of Feed Tube - Article from AP outlining the process of death by withdrawal of feeding tube

Editorials/Articles Against Removing Terri's Feeding Tube

• Online home of the Terri Schindler-Schiavo Foundation
• Blogs For Terri
• Starving for a Fair Diagnosis - op-ed concerning Terri Schiavo's diagnosis of PVS
• The Village Voice Four-part exposé: Village Voice Part 1, Village Voice Part 2, Village Voice Part 3, Village Voice Part 4; Nat Hentoff frames the case as one over the rights of those with disabilities.
• A right to live ... not to be killed - op-ed supporting the Schindler family version of events
• Timeline of Events from Terri's collapse (1990) to Michael's DNR order (1993)
• Documents concerning the circumstances surrounding Terri's collapse
• Evidence of Physical Abuse Haunts Michael Schiavo
• Killing Terri Schiavo Op-ed with a comprehensive summary of the case
• The Advocacy Center for Persons with Disabilities
• Not Dead Yet - Disability-rights activist site
• Stephen Drake of Not Dead Yet
• Articles by Wesley J. Smith (attorney, author, senior fellow at the Discovery Institute, and consultant for the International Task Force on Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide)

April 30, 2004: The Assault on Terri Schiavo Continues [5]

January 30, 2004: The Rule of Terri's Case Strikes Again

January 19, 2004: Beyond Terri's Law: What We Can Learn From the Schiavo Case

December 4, 2003: The Guardian Speaks

November 13, 2003: A "Painless" Death?

October 31, 2003: Life, Death, and Silence

October 28, 2003: The Interview That Wasn't

October 27, 2003: The Consequences of Casual Conversations

October 22, 2003: The Battle for Terri

October 21, 2003: Saving Terri Schiavo

October 20, 2003: No Mercy in Florida - The horrifying case of Terri Schiavo, and what it portends

October 1, 2003: Waking from the Dead

September 16, 2003: Terri Schiavo's Life and Death: Time Gained [6]

September 5, 2003: Schiavo's Date with Death: A Florida Woman Needs Non-Dehydration Intervention [7]

Editorials/Articles In Favor of Removing Terri's Feeding Tube

• Free Terri Schiavo(Registration required) - op-ed advocating Michael Schiavo's point of view

Baden's assessment

Dr. Michael Baden was the forensic pathologist who suggested that Terri Schiavo may have been the victim of trauma. The article stated that he since retracted this suggestion. But after searching several permutations of "baden", "schiavo", "potassium", "infarction", and "cardiac arrest" I have yet to find an article which states that Dr. Michael Baden retracted his assessment. I have commented out the paragraph which read "However, this pathologist has since reviewed the medical record, and retracted his statements as they were made under the assumption that she was claimed to have had a heart attack rather than a cardiac arrest. Physical trauma would not be necessary to explain her collapse, as her potassium and calcium levels were more than sufficiently low to cause cardiac arrest."

If you can find a citation for this retraction, please replace the paragraph (and cite its source). Rhobite 19:44, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)

I also searched for it, and I also failed to find it.

Also, Baden's primary expertise is forensic pathology. His opinion about whether Terri was the victim of domestic violence is highly relevant (he says she was). However, he is not a neurologist or therapist, so he is not the best person to ask about the prospects for improvement in Terri's condition, from the therapy that she has been denied. So why is his opinion on that subject singled out for inclusion in this article, rather than the more expert (and contrary) opinion of two speech therapists and nine doctors (such as neurologist Hammesfahr), who say that they think she could benefit from therapy? NCdave 16:27, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

---

March 15, 2005 Answer: Indeed, Baden's assessment is highly relevant. The statements he made long ago were based only on the bone scan he was shown by the producer at Fox News. 3 weeks ago, however, he came back on Greta and discussed her entire medical profile, explaining the eating disorder -> -> severely low potassium --> cardiac arrest. The only reference is at [8] -- note at the bottom of the page, you will see that Greta writes: At P.S. In case you missed it, I have posted my interview with attorney Gary Fox and Dr. Michael Baden as they examine how Terri Schiavo (search) came to be in her current state. Click on the link in the video box above to watch it. I am unable to watch it from here, but saw the original broadcast, and read about the disappointment among the friends of Terri's parents that he had changed his views.

In addition, [9] is a link to the unedited disposition of the radiologist (who wrote the report, having never seen Mrs Schiavo, and knowing nothing about her medical history.) The physicians who saw and treated Mrs Schiavo at the time, and followed up on more radiology, found nothing suspicious. --gretchen

Added comments on the subject of Biden and the general questions about her collapse under POV warning section. [10]

--Gretchen March 15, PM

---

Both of those are good & informative links; thanks for posting them.

The Greta/Foxnews link http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,148742,00.html worked fine for me. In the (very brief) interview, Dr. Baden did not discuss or recant his previously stated opinion that Terri was abused, but he did briefly discuss how fad diets and bulimia could cause a potassium imbalance which could cause cardiac arrest, which is certainly a change from his previous statements in which he said, "It's extremely rare for a 20-year-old to have a cardiac arrest from low potassium who has no other diseases," and [such an occurrence would be] "extremely unusual unless she had certain kind of diseases, which she doesn't have." NCdave 09:50, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

He was on Greta again tonight and said outright that Terri's collapse was due to cardiac arrest caused by a chemical imbalance. It will probably be on her site soon.

---Gretchen (Too overwhelmed with other things here to catch up on the updates since my last entry. Will try this weekend.)

Euthanasia vs Right-to-die

I have replaced "euthanasia" with "right-to-die" in the headings. My reasoning is that this is not a case of euthanasia - no life-support is going to be turned off. Nobody will actually be actively causing Terri's death if the feeding tube is removed, rather, her death will be the passive result. As such, I do not believe that it fits the dfinition of "euthanasia".

A dictionary definition to support this, taken from: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=euthanasia

"The act or practice of ending the life of an individual suffering from a terminal illness or an incurable condition, as by lethal injection or the suspension of extraordinary medical treatment."

Again, I don't think that removing the feeding tube qualifies here, since that mere act will not end her life, whereas a lethal injection or the removal of life-support would.

Now, if anybody thinks that "right-to-die" is too loaded a term, it can be changed, I'm not particularly attached to it. I just thought it fit, under the circumstances.

Thanks, by the way, to whoever it was who actually went around and added headings. It was reading like quite a rambling monologue before, after being split up it's much easier on the eyes. Cheers!

Lankiveil 12:20, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC).

Of course it is euthanasia. Disconnecting her feeding tube is not what will kill her, starvation and dehydration is what will kill her. Michael Schiavo doesn't just want to disconnect her feeding tube, he wants to deprive her of nutrition and hydration from ANY source. Physicians and speech therapists who have examined Terri for the courts and for her family have testified that she can swallow liquids normally (and, in fact, she swallows siliva routinely, as we all do). They say she could probably be weaned from the feeding tube entirely with therapy, and that the feeding tube is primarily for the convenience of her caregivers. So Michael Schiavo seeks, not just to have the feeding tube disconnected, but also to forbid anyone from spoon-feeding her. In fact, last year when he managed to get her feeding tube removed for six days, he even forbade a priest from giving her communion by placing a tiny bit of sacramental waffer on her tongue. "Right-to-die" is inaccurate (because she is not seeking to die), and "euthanasia" is, IMO, too clinical-sounding. "Murder" is the right word. NCdave 14:23, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Too clinical sounding? Give me a break.

POV warning

I think the article has become about as neutral as something on such a controversial subject can become. Is there really a need for a NPOV warning when the only objector seems to want a somewhat biased article? Anyone besides NCDave who's unhappy with the article's current state? Preisler 14:13, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I came to this article specifically to see how Wikipedians were doing on managing such a controversial topic, so my only concern is NPOV, I don't personally care at all about the topic at hand. I'll agree with Preisler that the article, in it's current state, is not too bad considering the controversy level. I was actually suprised by the general quality of the article, considering what an awful, flaming wreck this talk page is. I have 3 points I would like to contribute:

• this paragraph is one of the only things left dragging the article down: Clouding the issue considerably is the fact that Michael Schiavo stands to inherit the remainder of the one million dollar malpractice settlement upon her death, especially when one considers that he has since moved onto another intimate relationship since the malpractice settlement. However, the 15-year timeframe since her incapacitation mitigates the appearance of impropriety somewhat. We do not instruct readers on how to think about an issue, and the fact that this paragraph is somewhat schizophrenic and tries to "balance" things by instructing the reader to consider things first from one POV and then the other is not the same as NPOV. I do think most of the information being presented in this bit is worthy of inclusion, but it needs to be separated into its salient points and presented much better
• It's very obvious from reading that someone (I haven't gone through the article history) is trying to push this alternate theory of Terri being battered. If it's out there, it warrants inclusion, but even on a casual reading, the abrupt, urgent language used screams "agenda." Also, I believe part of the problem is that mention of this theory and the experts involved is back-to-back in two different sections, and that these experts are the only ones dubbed "world reknowned" by the article.

Agreed that "world renowned" reflects POV; I've deleted it. The evidence for battery, however, is compelling. I've added much of it, with lots of supporting links. NCdave 12:32, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• NCdave, I think we all appreciate how strongly you feel about this issue, but you either don't understand the right way to go about working on a controversial page on wikipedia, or you don't care. I'm hoping it's the former, but I would really encourage you to take a step back for a little while, and maybe look at some other hot-button issues here, preferably ones you don't feel personally invested in, and try and get some perspective on what we're trying to do here. Understand that doing things like trying to debate the issue with other editors does nothing but make it harder for anyone to regard your contributions as neutral. Supercool Dude I can't make heads or tails of anything you've written here, so while I'd love to give you some helpful pointers, I have no idea where to start.

Fox1 17:27, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I agree, I wrote that sentance and it's bad... multi-POV isn'tthe same as NPOV... I'll ponder how to NPOV it.--Lazarias 21:34, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The only way to make a NPOV article about a controversial topic is to include factual information supporting all the POVs. If information that is cited by adherents to one POV as supportive of their POV is systematically deleted from the article, then the article becomes biased. That is why I have consistently ADDED missing information to the article, rather than deleting information that other people have contributed. Several of those here who support killing Terri take the opposite approach: they just DELETE the information that is inconsistent with their bias. NCdave 12:32, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

We need some kind of consensus

As several other participants on here seem to agree we had a pretty good NPOV article with the version from March 14. Since then there has been a whole string of, in my view, less NPOV edits. It is however pretty hard for me to "fight" such a dedicated editor as NCDave who obviously feels quite strongly about this subject. NCDave, please realize that we're not vandals who believe Schiavo must be killed. We just like our encyclopedia to be as neutral as it can be, and inserting tons of links to very biased groups' articles and using inflammatory language is not the way to achieve this. Your compassion for this woman is admirable, but this is not the place to fight the good fight. Try calling the ACLU and give them a piece of your mind instead ;) Preisler 23:25, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I completely agree, Preisler. It's totally out of control.

NCDave, I'm not a wiki member, so I have avoided doing much, but I think one person's continually inserting speculation and propaganda is very unfortunate. And that is what you are doing. It doesn't help - it is so obviously biased, it loses its impact other than to cast suspicion on the entire case of her parents'.

Preisler, I think you should re-revert, saving the update of today. I don't even know how. I'll keep checking. (I'll look at what I need to do to join, too.)

--gretchen

The article as it stands right now is pretty well balanced. If you delete all the information that makes the supporters of Michael Schiavo's efforts to starve Terri look rediculous or worse, you inject POV bias. By all means, add whatever truthful information you can find that supports Michael Schiavo's POV, but do not engage in wholesale deletions of other material for the purpose of hiding the truth!

If you want to develop consensus, you need to read the material that supports the "other side" in the dispute. If you just delete it without reading and understanding it, how can you possibly hope to reach consensus with people who have read and understood it.

For a start, please read the affidavits of two brave nurses who helped care for Terri at Palm Gardens nursing home in the mid-1990s: http://www.zimp.org/stuff/Affidavit%20C%20Iyer%20082903.pdf and http://www.zimp.org/stuff/Affidavit%20H%20Law%20083003.pdf. NCdave 05:04, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Dave, this article is not in the slightest bit balanced anymore. What has been deleted, and should be deleted again, are highly controversial claims from one side without the counter-claims from the other side. That does not belong here. I certainly don't want to be giving Michael Shiavo's "side", but it's wrong to only include the Schindler's.

I have read everything you have read (probably more), and I agree that they should not remover her feeding tube. But the reasons are not due to the absurd comments of the nursing assistant Heidi Law, or LVN (at the time) Carla Iyer, or most of the other propaganda you are putting into what should be an objective, factual encyclopedia entry.

I've read all the affidavits many times, and all they do is make me shake my head at their incredibility. If I recall, they were not even under oath, and only witnessed by the Schindler's attorney Anderson. Judge Greer was right to scoff at them, though he was more polite about it.

Please, stop this, or I will be compelled to give Michael's POV in response.

--Gretchen

Can Someone Check Neutrality/Facts of George Greer Article?

I must admit, I don't know too much about this controversy, but I decided to do my part by adding the George Greer article with a mini biography of all the objective stuff I've heard about him. Since I am not a Terri Schiavo expert, I would appreciate it if someone went on there and did all they could to bring it up to par a little. I have no real opinion in this matter, I just decided to add the page. Thanks.

--Jan 21:38, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)

Why remove the tube?

This is missing from the article.

I came into the story late and I don't understand why Michael wants to remove the feeding tube. It is just "shes suffering and wants to die"? I'm totally confused. Someone please explain why he wants to remove it.

--Uncle Bungle 21:50, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Michael claims she would not want to live like this. Others dispute this claiming he wants the rest of the money she won in a medical malpractice suit (do note however he was offered a lot more money by others to hand care of her over to her parents) or that he just wants to marry the other woman (why exactly he wouldn't just divorce her is never explained by these people tho). Personally for me the bigger queston is why don't her parents want the tube withdrawn. I'm not so convinced it's really because they consider it against their beliefs. Personally, I'm inclined to believe they want to punish her for marrying her husband and for getting herself into her condition in the first place --

I'm not sure how much more clearly it can be explained (without resorting to opinion). "Michael Schiavo, Terri Schiavo's husband, is her legal guardian. He contends that Terri is in a persistent vegetative state and that he is carrying out her wishes to not be kept alive in that state." That's what he claims, anyway. Anything else is speculation, but in my opinion you have to speculate in order to discover his true motives. After all, why would her wishes matter if she is not conscious? anthony 警告 03:44, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Please refrain from discussing the issue itself here. To do that use Usenet, public weblogs, forums or even your personal talkpages. Discuss the article on the subject here, and nothing else please. Preisler 23:34, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

No, Preisler. This is called the "Talk:" page. Yes, there are better places to engage in ideological battle over a given topic, but if discussion arises on a Talk: page then it runs counter to the spirit of the mission here to stifle it. --AStanhope 23:47, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This is indeed true on some of the more calm pages but do you really believe that this flaming wreck (to borrow Fox1's expression) of a talk page helps "the mission"? This page has so many problems that the discussions currently raging needs to go somewhere else if there is to be any hope of salvaging this page. I find it very sad that at a time when this subject is all over CNN, MSNBC and the like, and one therefore would expect a lot of people reading up on the subject, this is the best we can do. Preisler 00:24, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

No, you're absolutely right - this flaming wreck of a talk page isn't helping matters much. I was, perhaps, a bit hasty. --AStanhope 00:37, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure what 'mission' you're referring to, but the primary, overriding concern of wikipedia is the creation of well written, NPOV articles. Preisler was fully within the boundaries on the Wikipedia policy on Talk Pages. While the enforcement of that policy varies from page to page (like all Wikipedia policies), this particular page currently has a problem with off-topic and debate flooding that borders on epidemic. Fox1 00:21, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It sounds like you and I are talking about the same 'mission.' --AStanhope 00:37, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The more I read here, the more I realize that this Talk: page is indeed a flaming wreck. Is vegetative disparaging??? Good luck sorting this out. --AStanhope 03:00, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Should we include this point

I think a point worthy of inclusion somewhere is the fact that if she were very such a devout Roman Catholic who would never do anything to hurt herself why exactly would she allow herself to suffer from bulimia, which appears to be the likely cause of her condition BTW. I'm pretty sure harming yourself by bulimia is not something a devout Roman Catholic should do...

No, I don't think we should include that in the article. It expresses a clear point of view. Rhobite 23:28, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)

So is suggesting she would not want to die because she is a Roman Catholic which is mentioned in this aritcle. Both are POVs. The question is are they worthy of inclusion? Personally I think both are

Well her family has made that argument, so it's OK to include here. Your personal argument is not OK to include in the article. Rhobite 00:13, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)

You seem to be missing the point. This is not my personal argument. I am simply suggesting we mention that she was bulimic, a condition which she would have been largely responsible for and which was harming her. It is up to other to decide whether this is contradictory with the claim she would not want to do something to hurt herself.

At a malpractice trial (1992), a jury concluded that Terri suffered from bulimia, which caused her chemical imbalance, and cardiac arrest. Seems we've mentioned this already. anthony 警告 03:47, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Where on earth are you getting the idea that a bulimic is "largely responsible for" his or her own condition? Bulimia is a psychological disorder, one that is defined by the paitent's lack of control over the binge/purge urges. If Terri Schiavo suffered from bulimia, she was no more "responsible" for that than she would have been for suicide attempts if suffering from severe clinical depression, or a limp incurred because of an injury to her leg. SS451 16:06, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)

I also think another related issue that needs including is the fact that she would likely have not wanted to discuss the issue of her wishes not do want to be kept alive artificially with her parents and family if they were so vehemently opposed to the idea, especially given the fact it appears they never liked her husband and therefore were probably already disappointed with her as it is. Once again I should point out I'm not suggesting we include this whole thing. Simply something like "she may not have wanted to mention her views to her family if they were strongly opposed to to this idea"

That one's purely speculation. I don't think we have any reason to add speculation as to what may have happened. anthony 警告 03:50, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Link to article on withdrawl of feeding tube

Since there appears to be a lot of confusion on what the death process is like by withdrawl of feeding tube, I have added a link outlining it. Hope this is not disputed

Proposed clarification

Proposing a clarification on the parents' view. They believe she is in a "minimally conscious state" rather than a "persistent vegetative state." Apparently the former is a recent medical description of mental state.

Er this is already there...

However I do have another proposed clarification. I think one thing which should be added is that if I understand correctly, her doctors never used any of the supposed evidence that her husband abused her and may have partially caused her condition in their defence in the medicla malpratice suit. They had all the info available but the fact they did not use it suggest strongly to me that they did not think it is worth anything. I'm not saying we should say this in the article but I think it should at least be mentioned that they did not use any of it

Also another thing I think that needs clarification is about the xray scan and associated report that her parents are trying to use to claim she was abused. It's said in the article that it was not hidden and that they had access to it for a while. I think this point need clarificiation. Had the parents seen it before or is it simply that it was in a file her parents had access to but never viewed?

I agree that this is a salient point, so I added it. I also added the fact that Shiavo's cerebral cortex has been completely destroyed and replaced by spinal fluid, which I've never seen or heard disputed. SS451 00:53, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)

legal and political implications of the Terri Schiavo case

As if this article isn't already complicated enough, I think we ought to either include here a discussion about how the issue is playing out on a national, Congressional, and (ultimately) Constitutional level. If the temperature runs too hot here, we should have a link to a separate entry on the political angle of Schiavo. Again, I'm someone coming to this entry from the NPOV perspective, with a believe in Wikipedia's power to objectively describe history, including history as it evolves. 24.25.219.8 07:15, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I'm of the opinion that this issue may be a little too current to give it this sort of treatment, especially at the moment when developments are appearing as rapidly as they are. I think this will be a fascinating addition to the article, or a separate entry, but I'm not sure now is the time to try and compile something like that. As it is, I think we're trying to hard to include all the bits of news information on an article that rather needs some TLC on its basic elements. Fox1 14:04, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I am curious as to whether or not there is legal precedent for the Federal government to intervene in something so out of their legal jurisdiction like this case. I can't even see how the usual "misinterpret the Tenth Amendment" strategy can even work in this issue. --69.234.183.71 09:51, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I am quite sure that "right to privacy" issues are at the fundamental center of the legal controversy surrounding the Federal government's intervention in this case. Senator Rick Santorum is at the center of a far-right effort to spearhead the end of right to privacy in this country, and has been particularly outspoken against Griswold v. Connecticut, the 1965 Supreme Court decision which legalized the use of birth control by married [heterosexual, obviously] couples. The lack of the Constitution's mention of the word "marriage" is one reason why the far right demanded both the first and second sentences of the proposed Federal Marriage Amendment, which gives to the Federal government untold new powers of super-jurisdiction over the value and validity of state constitutions within the United States. The Terri Schiavo effort is of primary important in this larger, and as yet unremarked upon, agenda of the far right. This needs to be addressed. 24.25.219.8 22:13, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

"Open Adultery " Statute Unenforcible?

SS451, you wrote: "In the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003), the enforceability of this statute is doubtful."

But, to my knowledge, Lawrence said nothing about adultery. On what do you base that statement? NCdave 09:38, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I'd already added a comment in the discussion section on adultery, further up on this page, where I mentioned that this law has very little relevance to the issues surrounding Terri Schiavo's case, and that the comment that adultery is a misdemeanor ought to be removed from the article. Since it is there, though, I decided to mention the fact that the Supreme Court's decision in Lawrence, which recognized a broad liberty interest in being free of state interference with private, consensual sexual conduct, casts serious doubt on whether or not this statute is enforcable. I still think the best way to deal with this issue would be to remove the adultery remark, as it's extremely unlikely that Florida would choose to enforce that statute, even were it constitutionally permitted to do so. SS451 15:57, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)

I have now removed those two sentences about the adultery statute, for three main reasons. First of all, this isn't an argument even Terri's parents are making, so it certainly isn't our place to make it for them, then put it in the article. Second, adultery statutes are, by widespread practice, not currently enforced in the United States. If someone can demonstrate that the Florida law is an exception, by, say, providing evidence that any person has been charged, convicted, and sentenced under this law in the last decade, this point could possibly be put back in. Third, the Supreme Court decision in Lawrence renders the whole thing moot, since the statute is almost certainly impossible to enforce. SS451 19:05, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)

POV

I found the article has a wavering POV, but such a topic is bound to cause 'emotions' and 'emotions' lead to lack of thought and people making statements without fully thinking them out.

This incident will play out as it has to. It's both a legalistic disgrace and a perverse sideshow. Should the parents be able to force their wishes onto the situation? One thing is for sure, that opens a whole new can of worms that I don't think people really want to open.

Should the 'abuse' allegations be made on Wiki? Since that was the first time that I'd heard of them, considering the potential 'bombshell' effect of them outside of a court of law, I'd say that they just add to the emotional baggage that this incident has. IF they were part of a valid case, AND found by that lawsuit to be valid, then they deserve to be here. Accusations are like rumours and opinions...

What needs to be covered is the machinations of the legislative bodies and the immense coverage that the protesters are both demanding and getting.

This incident I feel will go down as an embarrasment of the American justice and legislative system.

The hypocrisy of a government throwing lives away in pointless wars and yet championing the 'cause du jour' of the 'religious' right I feel is an issue. This is adding tremendously to the ability of Tom DeLay and others to shift the focus off of his lack of ethics as a House of Representatives member.

Everybody likes seeing other people's dirty laundry... This case could set a very dangerous precedent of future legislative meddling in private matters.

Although I certainly agree with everything you've said, this isn't the time or the place to debate all the issues surrounding this case, complex as they are. The relevant issue is POV, and I fear that in several places, those editors who are strongly in favor of prolonging Terri Schiavo's life have gotten their way with some borderline stuff. This article would be a lot better if those people who have a POV that they simply cannot check at the door would step back and let those who are able to contribute neutrally fix the article up. Unfortunately, I suspect that NCDave will have to be forced to step back if that is to happen. SS451 00:38, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)

Thank you, both of you, for proving how far-left your POV is. NCdave 14:19, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You're missing the point, NCdave. The goal is NPOV in the article itself. If one cannot accept that aspect of the burden of responsibility of contributing to the article, than he or she ought not participate. --AStanhope 16:07, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with expressing POV on the Talk page, which is where I confine it. I wish the Felos/Greer/Michael Schiavo partisans here would do the same. NCdave 20:30, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

NCdave should just move to wiiinfo IMHO. I do have a suggestion for NCdave. If you really want to help your case, add relevant facts backed up by strong evidence (an op ed is not strong evidence). Reading some of the pro-parents OpEd, I found out there are a number of interesting and relevant facts I think will be allowed if you write htem up carefully and provide adeuqate evidence. For example, how many people examining her have diagnosed her with PVS and how many people haven't? How long did they spend examining her? Is it true the doctor who inserted the metal plates or whatever they are advocated their removal? There are many other t hings which IMHO are quite interesting and will be accepted if written carefully provided they're backed up with good evidence

Honest Op-Eds which present factual information can, indeed, be good evidence. Regarding the PVS issue, note that Frist says that Felos/Michael Schiavo chosen doctors both gave Terri cursory examinations of less than one hour, and diagnosed her as in PVS, bu the family's doctors, who spent much more time with her, say she is not in PVS. Here's another good article on that. NCdave 20:30, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

$10 Million Offer to Michael Schiavo

Has anyone seen a source for this statement? The paragraph it appears in includes a citation link, but the BBC story at the link refers only to a (very real) $1 million offer. I think that the $10 million offer is presented in a way that merits continued inclusion in the article... I am simply curious what citations, if any, there are. --AStanhope 18:00, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

A quick Google came up with these links (amongst others)

http://mediresource.sympatico.ca/health_news_detail.asp?channel_id=0&menu_item_id=&news_id=6165

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/nationworld/bal-te.custody13mar13,1,4276279.story?coll=bal-nationworld-headlines&ctrack=1&cset=true

http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/story?id=584124&page=3

So it appears he and his lawyer have gone on record to make this claim that an attorney from Boca Raton made the offer. I assume it was never made public so we don't currently have any evidence of the actual offer but one of these links or maybe some other link is probably worth including.

NB Can't seem to get the WasingtonTimes article to work in FireFox, maybe it's my cookie settings or some such tho.

Thanks! The thing about the Schindler planning to amputate her is creepy. I wonder if that is true? --AStanhope 18:33, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Here is a citation from the Miami Herald about not specifically a plan to amputate her, but an expressed willingness to do so: http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/columnists/fred_grimm/7426730.htm --AStanhope 18:39, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Painful death

There has been a lot of talk about how painful her death is supposedly going to be. This is not really backed up by doctors from what I can see and the article I linked to supports. So does anyone else think it might good to mention this where it mentioned her death? Something like although this may sound like a painful way to do, the experience of most doctors suggest otherwise. and then link to the article. Or does this sound too POV?

Why first names?

The article is filled with "Terri" and "Michael". Is this the usual practice? I would prefer Ms. Schiavo or Mrs. Sciavo and Mr. Schiavo or just their full names. Calling them only by first name seems a bit too involved. What's your feelings on this? And does Wikipedia have a policy on this? Preisler 21:11, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

That's true, I never noticed that before. I believe the normal journalistic style is the familiar method of using the person's full name once, and thereafter switching to either just last name, or last name with appropriate title. I have seen variations on this theme, though, so you may want to dig through some style manuals. Fox1 23:05, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this up. Since I've never seen this used in any other Wikipedia articles, I went ahead and removed all of the instances of first name only use, replacing it with "Ms. Schiavo," "Mr. Schiavo," "his wife," "her husband," and, when it was clear who the article was talking about, just plain old "Schiavo." SS451 01:13, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)

In the past couple hours, this somehow got un-done. I did a quick find-and-replace to remove most of the new instances of Terri and Micahel to Ms. and Mr. Schiavo. If anybody else takes this on again, don't forget not to change links, titles, and direct quotes. Baricom 03:46, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)

Abuse

Why in the beggining of the article does it state there is no evidence ofr abuse, but later in the article it states very bluntly that they have found strong evidence of abuse through bone scans.

Pretty simple answer: we can't get agreement between editors on this point. This does need to be reconciled, though, one way or the other.

Please remember to sign your comments on the Talk page, you can do so by adding four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your post.

Fox1 23:08, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Links

The number of links needs to be trimmed down. Hopefully during consensus in the coming days, we can weed out the ones that don't need to be there. Mike H 03:16, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)

Couldn't agree more. What if we just link to something like this [11] and this [12]instead of having all the articles linked?~ If somebody could find a better solution than the google search of National Review it would be appreciated. The Discovery thing works pretty well though Preisler 04:01, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I strenuously disagree. I don't mind compactness (as with the grouped Village Voice articles), but those links are the real meat of the article. In a controversial topic, the best thing that can be done for npov balance is to include a very comprehensive set of reference links. If that is done then the article can still be useful even if the text of it is an untrustworthy POV mess (as too many editors here keep trying to make it). Furthermore, if editors would actually read the reference links that other people add, they might learn things that would narrow the gulf of disagreement. (Wishful thinking, it appears.)

However, the Discovery search thing that Preisler did does work pretty well. He missed several good articles that didn't have "Terri" in the title, and it found a couple that duplicated those links to Smith's articles that were also published in other locations. But I can accept this approach, Preisler, if you will you please fix it to remove the duplicates, and restore the links to the missing ones.

You might have noticed that I added the St. Pete Times link search using this approach, to get some more pro-Michael links into the article.

I do not object to reasonable editing. What I object to are POV deletions of useful material, insertions of factually incorrect material, representations of opinion as fact, and blatant POV editorializing -- all of which has been rampant here.

On a hot topic like this, strong opinions are to be expected. But please at least confine the editorializing to the Talk page. NCdave 07:25, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Preisler, you complained that I only put POV alert on the pro-Terri links, but that just isn't so. I put one on the Barbara Weller article, too.

Well, that's just great. As soon as I try to reach some reasonable compromise with Preisler, by accepting his condensation, and by adding the St. Pete Times stuff, Lankiveil comes along and vandalizes the article with another mass deletion. Sheesh. NCdave 07:43, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

NCDave's POV Editing

I realize that this talk page is already very long, so I'm sorry to have to start yet another new section, but I feel that until this issue is resolved, we'll make little progress on fixing this article. NCDave has repeatedly demonstrated that he has very strong views about the Schiavo case, and has edited accordingly. Throughout the discussion on this page, in the two archived pages, and in the material Fox1 deleted last night, NCDave has shown that he is unable or unwilling to set aside his personal beliefs while he is editing, and that he will add only information that helps his side of things. He also frequently delays obvious corrections to the material he posts and occasionally reverts or misrepresents that information that he does not feel supports his position. Tonight, he has engaged in a mini edit war over the medical fact that much of Terri Schiavo's cerebral cortex has been destroyed.

I'm trying to take the temperature of those who have contributed to this article, to see if they feel the same way. If so, I feel it would be best for all involved, including NCDave, if he refrains from editing this article in the immediate future, or, at the very least, refrains from editing without first publically airing his proposed changes on this talk page and securing the approval of at least a couple of people who are not known for flouting Wikipedia's POV policy. Until NCDave stops trying to advance his agenda by use of Wikipedia, I feel that this article will never get anywhere. What say you others? SS451 03:52, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that all of NCDave's edits are unfair, but I wouldn't mind looking at the edits of everybody more closely for a couple days. I will refrain from future edits, so this can hopefully happen. Baricom 04:02, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)

To quote myself from further up this page I'm growing more and more frustrated with this article and the way honest editors, like yourself, seeking an NPOV article gets viciously attacked and derided. I don't really don't think we'll get anywhere before we've been through mediation and arbitration or have sufficient editors agree that we just ignore NCDave. But we can't force the man to anything. The only solution is to go through the whole dispute resolution thing or maybe just to outnumber him and outgun him with high quality editing :) Preisler 04:07, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I think that NCDave's quite hilarious "numerous articles in the local newspaper" link to the St Pete. newspaper article shows off his POV nicely. Lower case, no summary, placed right at the bottom... it gave me quite a bit of a giggle. I guess a slipshod, half-hearted attempt at quasi-NPOV is better than no NPOV at all. Lankiveil 07:32, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC).

I think it's time to start dispute resolution. High quality editing can stop the bleeding, but partisans like NCDave ultimately have greater endurance, in my experience. JJ 04:51, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I agree. This is getting out of control. --AStanhope 05:06, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. Unfortunately, I don't think we can trust NCDave to restrain himself voluntarily from pushing POV on this page. Lankiveil 06:48, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC).

I would support a Request for Comment on this article and the POV editing surrounding it. Mike H 05:19, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)

I second the above. Neutrality^talk 05:24, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)

This page has been on the RFC since february 27th. Preisler 06:13, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I'm extremely frustrated by the continuing efforts of the anti-Terri partisans here to inject their POV bias into the article, and their continuing personal attacks. I have been trying to make this article balanced/NPOV, but they keep replacing solid, factual, footnoted information with outrageous nonsense from the Felos propaganda machine, stated not as "xxx says," but stated as if it were simple undisputed fact. For shame!

For example (one of many examples), one of the blatant lies from Felos et al is that Terri has no cerebral cortex. This is how the anti-Terri partisans put it, when they inserted it into the Wiki article:

Schiavo's cerebral cortex has been completely destroyed, replaced by spinal fluid.[13]

In the "edit summary" contents:

SS451 said, "Added information about Schiavo's loss of cerebral cortex--I've heard no dispute over that"

Neutrality [sic] said, "That Schiavo's cerebral cortex is destroyed and replaced by spinal fluid is a medical fact."

They've got to be kidding. Anyone who has "heard no dispute" over that has obviously been reading material from only one POV. Numerous neurologists have ridiculed that absurd claim. Surely nobody who has seen the videos of Terri provided by her family (and who knows what a cerebral cortex is), or who has read the descriptions of how Terri responds and interacts with the people around her can possibly believe it. For a start, see:

http://johnsipos.com/terrivideos/ and http://www.nationalreview.com/script/printpage.asp?ref=/comment/johansen200503160848.asp and http://cogforlife.org/schiavoweller.htm

Michael Schiavo won't permit a PET scan, which would show the ACTUAL extent of the damage to Terri's cerebral cortex.

Even GAL Wolfson argued for additional testing. He had told the local press BEFORE he was appointed GAL that he thought Terri's feeding tube should be withdrawn, and Terri's family objected to him being chosen as GAL, because of that evidence of bias. But after his 30 day review of the case, even he recommended that further testing be done to determine her condition, before removing her feeding tube. Michael Schiavo, however, backed up by Judge Greer, refused to allow those tests.

The previous GAL, Dr. Pearse, flatly recommended against removing her feeding tube. But Judge Greer rejected that advice.

Now Congress has, by huge bipartisan majorities, approved emergency legislation to save Terri's life. Isn't it obvious that the Michael Schiavo backers who dominate Wiki are way, way out of step with the rest of America? NCdave 07:03, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Dave! Dave! Stop, for your own sake, confusing the issue! If you have sources that contend that that information is incorrect, present, let's discuss them, and let's get the article NPOVed properly. Stop going off on tangents and asking editors to view video evidence and somehow determine ourselves whether her cortex is destroyed. How many neurologists do you think we have editing this? You just accused your "opponents" (not really a healthy attitude to have here) of eschewing facts and attacking you personally, then you mostly avoided the issue at hand, attacked people personally for being hopelessly biased, and tried again to divert this entire process into another debate that few have the expert opinions necessary to conduct. Try and stick to the topic.

Fox1 07:23, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Oh, and as far as the article being out of step with america:

• this is of absolutely no concern to Wikipedia
• Wikipedia is not an "American" project.

Fox1 07:25, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Neutral point of view editing is not simply to edit based on "what everyone thinks". That's why there are articles on Holocaust denial and such. Mike H 07:10, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)

Link Cleanup March 21st 2005

This are the links I removed, March 21, 2005:

• Timeline of Events from Terri Schiavo's collapse (1990) to Michael Schiavo's DNR order (1993)
• Documents concerning the circumstances surrounding Terri Schiavo's collapse
• Evidence of Physical Abuse Haunts Michael Schiavo * Killing Terri Schiavo Op-ed with a comprehensive summary of the case
• The Advocacy Center for Persons with Disabilities
• Not Dead Yet - Disability-rights activist site
• Articles by Wesley J. Smith (attorney, author, senior fellow at the Discovery Institute, and consultant for the International Task Force on Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide)

April 30, 2004: The Assault on Terri Schiavo Continues [14]

January 30, 2004: The Rule of Terri's Case Strikes Again

January 19, 2004: Beyond Terri's Law: What We Can Learn From the Schiavo Case

December 4, 2003: The Guardian Speaks

November 13, 2003: A "Painless" Death?

October 31, 2003: Life, Death, and Silence

October 28, 2003: The Interview That Wasn't

October 27, 2003: The Consequences of Casual Conversations

October 22, 2003: The Battle for Terri

October 21, 2003: Saving Terri Schiavo

October 20, 2003: No Mercy in Florida - The horrifying case of Terri Schiavo, and what it portends

October 1, 2003: Waking from the Dead

September 16, 2003: Terri Schiavo's Life and Death: Time Gained [15]

September 5, 2003: Schiavo's Date with Death: A Florida Woman Needs Non-Dehydration Intervention [16]

• UM ETHICS PROGRAMS HOME > SCHIAVO CASE RESOURCES PROJECT > Selected Schiavo and related Web links

Please give us some - ANY - biographical data about this woman pre-controversy

I do realize that Schaivo is only famous because of her vegetative state and the controversy resulting from it, but this article is sorely lacking in ANY information about her prior to 1990. Where did she live at the time? (In fact, where exactly is she now? What city?) What did she do? Where did she grow up? Does she have any children? None of these questions are answered. Moncrief 06:19, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)

what are the details of the 3/20 legislation?

what is the exact wording of the law that passed? does it only apply to Terri Schiavo? or does it speak in general terms? can this law apply to anyone else in the USA? Kingturtle 06:30, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

working text of the Act, posted to FindLaw, dated 19 March 2005

A link was provided by the New York Times a short while ago. I wonder how the lawyers vetted it. Someone let us know if this is the version as passed. 24.25.219.8 07:02, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

For the relief of the parents of Theresa Marie Schiavo.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. RELIEF OF THE PARENTS OF THERESA MARIE SCHIAVO.

The United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida shall have jurisdiction to hear, determine, and render judgment on a suit or claim by or on behalf of Theresa Marie Schiavo for the alleged violation of any right of Theresa Marie Schiavo under the Constitution or laws of the United States relating to the withholding or withdrawal of food, fluids, or medical treatment necessary to sustain her life.

SEC. 2. PROCEDURE.

Any parent of Theresa Marie Schiavo shall have standing to bring a suit under this Act. The suit may be brought against any other person who was a party to State court proceedings relating to the withholding or withdrawal of food, fluids, or medical treatment necessary to sustain the life of Theresa Marie Schiavo, or who may act pursuant to a State court order authorizing or directing the withholding or withdrawal of food, fluids, or medical treatment necessary to sustain her life. In such a suit, the District Court shall determine de novo any claim of a violation of any right of Theresa Marie Schiavo within the scope of this Act, notwithstanding any prior State court determination and regardless of whether such a claim has previously been raised, considered, or decided in State court proceedings. The District Court shall entertain and determine the suit without any delay or abstention in favor of State court proceedings, and regardless of whether remedies available in the State courts have been exhausted.

SEC. 3. RELIEF.

After a determination of the merits of a suit brought under this Act, the District Court shall issue such declaratory and injunctive relief as may be necessary to protect the rights of Theresa Marie Schiavo under the Constitution and laws of the United States relating to the withholding or withdrawal of food, fluids, or medical treatment necessary to sustain her life.

SEC. 4. TIME FOR FILING.

Notwithstanding any other time limitation, any suit or claim under this Act shall be timely if filed within 30 days after the date of enactment of this Act.

SEC. 5. NO CHANGE OF SUBSTANTIVE RIGHTS.

Nothing in this Act shall be construed to create substantive rights not otherwise secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States or of the several States.

SEC. 6. NO EFFECT ON ASSISTING SUICIDE.

Nothing in this Act shall be construed to confer additional jurisdiction on any court to consider any claim related--

(1) to assisting suicide, or

(2) a State law regarding assisting suicide.

SEC. 7. NO PRECEDENT FOR FUTURE LEGISLATION.

Nothing in this Act shall constitute a precedent with respect to future legislation, including the provision of private relief bills.

SEC. 8. NO AFFECT ON THE PATIENT SELF-DETERMINATION ACT OF 1990.

Nothing in this Act shall affect the rights of any person under the Patient Self- Determination Act of 1990.

SEC. 9. SENSE OF THE CONGRESS.

It is the Sense of Congress that the 109th Congress should consider policies regarding the status and legal rights of incapacitated individuals who are incapable of making decisions concerning the provision, withholding, or withdrawal of foods, fluid, or medical care.

24.25.219.8 07:02, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)