Talk:Terri Schiavo case

To relieve page bloating:

• Archive One
• Archive Two
• Archive Three
• Archive Four
• Archive Five
• Archive Six
• Archive Seven
• Archive Eight

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 conducive to gaining insight into the current and continuing issues affecting 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)

Inappropriate removal of photo

Gmaxwell, the following edit summary was inappropriate:

"These single frame grabs of Terri appearing responsive are moments out of hours of nonresponsiveness, they aren't characteristic and they tell a dishonest story. See talk."

It is not Wikipedia's place to determine whether the photo tells an honest story or not.

The photo belongs in the story, possibly lower down, with an explanation of the conclusions that one side draws from the photos and an explanation of why the other side feels otherwise.

NPOV is not hard, but it must be done by contextualizing various points of view, not by removing the points of view that you decide are "incorrect."

These photos are very significant to the story. They are being distributed all over the place by people who have an opinion or agenda. That opinion or agenda should be reported. Even people who totally disagree need and want to know about the agenda of the other side.

Jdavidb 04:03, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Normally I'd agree, but in this case the photos seem to be inappropriate, because they may be mildly misleading. They appear to show a direct eye contact. I don't necessarily agree with the photos before the cardiac arrest, either, as they don't show the Terri Schiavo that made the wiki entry necessary. There are photos out there that show Terri Schiavo lying in bed, nobody around her, eyes open, that are very neutral. Either "side" of this could see whatever they wanted in them. It's those photos I'd like to see in the opening section.Professor Ninja 05:22, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Please see the other section above, entitled simply, "Photos." I think I managed to convince Gmaxwell with the caption I put in with the photo. I'm hoping we can all agree.

Gmaxwell was very keen to try to get another photo for balance. If you have access to one, I think we would all like to see it included. Jdavidb 05:30, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

For reference purposes, here is a link to the earlier discussion in the archives Talk:Terri_Schiavo/archive7#Photos. Jdavidb 14:16, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I think this is visually incoherent - it is unlike any other image on Wikipedia. Someone should edit this image to remove the border. - 200.195.79.170

Here is an old pic of Michael and Terri, before he got his settlement and gave up on her (scroll down): http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1014240/posts

Pundits and the ABC News alleged GOP Memo

If there are stated suspicions about the alleged GOP Memo that ABC News obtained, there should be a cite. ABC News is cited as the source of the memo. If there is a challenge to the memo's authenticity that should be cited too. I do not care if Powerline is mentioned directly. I would do it, but if you think it is too much information fair enough. But the Powerline link should be left there so a viewer can go look at it.24.18.59.229 18:16, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I broke it out as a seperate issue with the arguments on both sides. That is NPOV. To just delete this because you disagree would be wrong. I recognize that people have stong feelings about this issue. It is an issue that should be decided openly. 24.18.59.229 18:27, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

User:Neutrality went ahead and deleted again. I think it is NPOV as is, but I am willing to listen to others on this. Merely deleting it because you politically disagree with it is wrong. That is most definitely not NPOV.24.18.59.229 18:54, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I restored the cites again, after User:Neutrality deleted it. This is a disputed issue and should be reported NPOV.24.18.59.229 22:15, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I took out the line about Republicans not denouncing the memo. They have. Read the cite after Bill Frist's comments. They all deny ever seeing it on the floor. That's a denouncement. 24.18.59.229 00:14, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Why did someone remove the money mention

As discussed earlier (See insurance), I thought it worthy to mention that there was no other money Michael stands to gain directly by her death as I often hear people claiming the existance of some ellusive life insurance. However, this has been removed, during someone's attempt to remove NCdave bias, I don't see why. Could this persona at least discuss why they don't think it's worthy of inclusion?--anon

I don't recall the text (you can include a link...), but I'd guess it was an accident. It's worth mentioning, and as is mention of Michael's offer to remove his monetary interest back when there was a potential for such an interest. (see the wolfson paper linked at the bottom for a cite on the last bit)Gmaxwell 04:44, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I have reincluded it. Hope it is not removed without at least some discussion first. I decided not to include any mention of insurance as I didn't see it necessary. Just a mention there is no other money he's going to inherit. BTW, it was removed here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Terri_Schiavo&diff=11480347&oldid=11480321 So you might be right that it was removed accidently. I'd agree that neutralities edit needed to be done, but looking at it, I feel there are a number of parts removed that should not have been removed, some of which have still not been reincluded... --anon

There is more than just the money to mention; more has been covered up: http://www.theempirejournal.com/0313055_schiavogate_the_big_cove.htm

Cause--Lead para.

I feel this entry ignores the fact that Terri was not known to be bulimic by anyone, and the diagnosis of bulimia was made solely based on her potassium/albumen levels at the time of her collapse. Michael himself in a 1992 deposition said that, to his knowledge, Terri was not suffering from an eating disorder (http://www.glennbeck.com/news/03-24-05/mic-depo.pdf). I agree that the cause of her collapse has nothing to do with her right to live or die, but to be historically accurate, it needs to be mentioned that no one--family, friends, physicians--no one had found Terri to suffer from an eating disorder prior to her collapse, and as the deposition I included shows, Terri was involved with doctors at the time (the ones who would later be sued by Michael for not diagnosing her eating-disorder-related potassium imbalance, when he didn't know about it either (because it didn't exist, and the diagnosis was just another example of mishandling by the attending on the night of her collapse?)). Terri had previously lost weight as a teenager through NutriSystem, not a physician, as stated in this article.

152.163.100.9, please don't attempt to introduce this as if it's the lead post in this section. Try to follow some semblance of chronology instead of unsigned IP anonymity attempting to make it look like everybody's avoiding to debate a bunch of points "you brought up". It's very deceptive. Professor Ninja 01:20, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Should her eating disorder be mentioned in the lead paragraph? Can't we just say the damage was brought on by a collapse and cardiac arrest? I think by introducing the bulimia in the first paragraph we are unintentionally/indirectly highlighting something that does not need to be highlighted as central to the situation as a whole--i.e. as a historical/moral/legal issue. The cause of the collapse is not relevant to her right to live/die. ~ Dpr 25 MAR 05, 0600 UTC

Keep it. I think it's relevant. Saopaulo1 06:05, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)

This article isn't called Terri Schiavo's Right to Live or Die, it's called Terri Schiavo. Terri Schiavo had a cardiac arrest because she was bulemic, and the events that occured from that are the reason why this article exists. Professor Ninja 06:06, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Professor Ninja has a point--the sole topic of the article is not her right to live/die, but indeed Ms Schiavo herself. It is nonetheless true that for any topic, certain facts are centrally relevant and others are not. Those which are not, should not be included in the lead paragraph of their encyclopedia entry. Peoples' thinking patterns typically display biases of over-focusing on certain facts which may *seem* to add moral, historical, cultural, or other weight to other facts in their lives, but are in the final analysis, not relevant to other facts in their lives. For example, if an individual who happened to be homosexual were wrongly imprisoned for a crime of burglarly of which he, though innocent was charged and convicted, and we were to write an article on him which described him "A homosexual individual wrongly imprisoned for burglarly," this would be to invite this cognitive bias. It is false to say that he is NOT homosexual and that this fact should--if true--not be hidden, yet to present the fact as one which should color EVERY aspect of him is also wrong. Likewise with Terri. The article is about her life. If she was a bulimia sufferer, this is a fact that can and should be mentioned, but not in such a way as to color every aspect of our understanding/perception of her, as might result if we unduly focus attention on it in direct connection with her brain injury. At least separate the fact, lest we run the risk of us all falling into one bias or another and wrongly attributing causation/association with independent facts. ~Dpr

This is somewhat correct, however, if this hypothetical homosexual burglar was arrested because his homosexuality made him suspect, then it would be highly relevant. In this case the article is about Terri Schiavo. Terri Schiavo is relevant to an article because of the news surrounding her. The news surrounds her because she is massively brain damaged. She is brain damaged because her body was starved of oxygen circulation for about 5-10 minutes. Her body was starved of oxygen because she went into cardiac arrest. She went into cardiac arrest because she had a potassium imbalance. She had a potassium imbalance because she was bulimic. What you propose with the hypothetical gay burglar is a non sequitur, Terri's bulimia follows a logical chain of progression that is highly relevant to her circumstances. Professor Ninja 07:34, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The cause of her collapse is speculative. Humana Northside hospital made no conclusion. The low-K/bulimia theory is the one that the jury accepted in the malpractice trial, but there are some problems with it. For one thing, there's no evidence that I know of that Terri was using diuretics or laxatives (which would be the usual cause for low-K in a bulimic), and that "iced tea" theory seems awfully weak (especially since the collapse occurred at about 5:30 in the morning -- she surely wasn't drinking a gallon of iced tea in the middle of the night). Also, apparently nobody on the scene noted any sign that she had been vomiting (if she collapsed while vomiting you'd expect to find vomit).

Her husband's suspicious behavior that morning and his changing stories, the fact that she was preparing to divorce him, the medical evidence that she had been abused (numerous traumatic injuries that she kept secret from her family), and his well-documented violent temper, leads to natural suspicion of foul play (perhaps asphyxiation). NCdave 13:59, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

And, of course, NCdave, you have authoritative citations to back up all of those allegations, right?  :-) I say it should stay in: the topic on point is *whether she should be (effectively) force-fed; causal history of eating disorder, even if not proven 100%, seems pertinent. --Baylink 18:55, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

No, asphyxia is what killed the not-protested-at-all Sun Hudson. Michael Schiavo's violent history is "well documented" in that the people who have imagined it have documented their fantasies very well. If Iyer is to be believed, she told the Schindlers about the abuse and they never called her to testify. So the Schindlers must be in on it too. On top of which, you don't have to use diuretics or laxatives to have a low potassium count. If you go into a purge cycle right after eating potassium-rich foods, your body won't absorb it. It's an impossibility, it can't absorb what isn't there. Dehydration from chronic bulimia is also common, with or without the use of anything other than binge/purge cycles, and that causes potassium levels to drop. And unlike you, I can provide documentation on this. I have access to stacks and stacks of case studies on physiology, as I have the luxury of having a sister who won multiple accolades from the American Psychology Association for her work in eating disorders. (read: Nobel Peace Prize for Head Thingies). Professor Ninja 21:03, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

"Pro-life" and "anti-abortion"

"Anti-abortion" is the most specific and neutral term to use in this case. "Pro-life" is a highly charged political term that has a whole bunch of connotations; "anti-abortion" is much more neutral. Note also, a search on Google News: "pro-life" yield 2,620 hits, while "anti-abortion" nets 3,780. Neutrality^talk 07:11, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)

On the other hand, a regular google search shows exactly the opposite "pro-life" (1,010,000 hits) "anti-abortion (399,000 hits). Personally, I don't think it matters that much either way and "anti-abortion" is certainly better than "anti-choice", but pro-life is a more widely accepted term. --CVaneg 07:23, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, pro-life implies that those who disagree with them are anti-life. RickK 07:42, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, that is correct. You are. Schweizer 19:52, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Pro-life. The topic is highly charged. Are we going to use Anti-life instead of pro-choice? Saopaulo1 07:22, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)

Any problem with my proposal to say "the Operation Rescue group, which generally opposes abortion and is active in related issues"? It is a bit wordier than I like, but it manages to use neither term.

The problem with "anti-abortion" is that it implies opposition to all abortion in all cases, which does not adequately describe Operation Rescue, nor most people of that mindset.

In favor of using "pro-life," note that the anti-abortion article in Wikipedia redirects to pro-life, so obviously someone has worked on this before and decided pro-life was the best way to say it. (There might even be a discussion we could reference.) On the other hand, in favor of using "anti-abortion," note that the article uses the word as a synonym without comment. However, given that the paragraph also uses the word "terrorist," it would seem that somebody is likely to point out down the road that "anti-abortion" has a pejorative connotation. Jdavidb 07:25, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Anti-abortion. The phrase is more NPOV than pro-life, and the assertion that anti-abortion does not adequately describe their stance is disingenious. An environmental group might be safely described as "anti-logging" even though they might support careful, small-scale logging; similarly, by your logic you would also be unable to term these groups "pro-life" since they do not universally condemn the taking of life in all cases, such as in self-defense. That said, if there's already a conversation available which came to a concensus conclusion, let us know.

Fox1 09:40, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This is flaky. An environmental group would be described as an anti-logging group by their opponents attempting to paint them with invective. They'd be more likely to describe themselves in positives, and since a group is by definition what it stands for, you have to take the positive assertions they make, and not the negative assertions their opponents make, as the description. If an environmental group were to describe itself as anti-logging, then it would be fair. Most would use "pro-conservation" or "pro-environment" or "anti-deforestation" or "anti-striplogging". It's pejorative because it attempts to create something that aren't, such as the phrase "these anti-logging nuts are crazy; how are we to build houses or keep warm at night blah blah blah." Doesn't hold water. Professor Ninja 00:17, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Ok, you've successfully punched a million holes in my off-the-cuff example, without really addressing the issue at hand.

And you're completely incorrect as far as self-description goes. If the self-description does not adequately describe the goal of the organization, a responsible journalistic approach would be to use a NPOV descriptive term, with, if necessary, a mention of whatever term the group uses to refer to themselves. This accounts for the above-referenced skew in Google hits when checking google news vice google web search. This also negates the argument based on the redirection of the anti-abortion page, as the Pro-life page itself refers to the phrase "pro-life" as a self description used to refer to the philosophy of anti-abortion groups. There is also no mention of opposition to the death-penalty, going so far as to state that "pro-life" refers specifically to groups in opposition to abortion.

Fox1 02:34, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Oh, my mistake. I always figured when somebody introduced an analogy as proof of soundness of the issue athand, the opposition could use the analogy's relevant differences to address the issue at hand in a similar fashion. Sarcasm aside, if you want to give it a journalistic relevance (despite this being an encyclopaedia, not a periodical) then self-described pro-life group may be your best option. Professor Ninja 03:23, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Attn: MacDougal: you do need to weigh in on this if you want to have a say. Jdavidb 07:25, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

One more thing (after discovering edit conflict): looks like "pro-life" has two votes, not counting MacDougal. Jdavidb 07:25, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Your proposed wording is a bit wordy. The article is already unwieldy and over 30K, and stating succinctly "anti-abortion" is probably the best course of action. I'm also not sure how "anti-abortion" implies absolute opposition to abortion under any circumstances any more than "pro-life" does. Neutrality^talk 07:44, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)

I don't feel anti-abortion is appropriate. To give a personal example, I'm staunchly anti-abortion in beliefs but I support Michael Schiavo's decision in this case: The two do not adequately describe each other in this context, and Operation Rescue is denouncing Jeb Bush not because he's "allowing" an abortion on Terri Schiavo but because he is "allowing" her life to be terminated. Pro-life is more descriptive, and carries less pejorative weight ("anti" anything sounds bad as it is). Professor Ninja 07:29, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with "pro-life". This ghettoizes the opposition as anti-life. This term is not appropriate. RickK 07:42, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)

I don't think "anti-" implies anything except "aganist," and Operation Rescue is indeed aganist abortion. But the "anti-abortion" moniker has nothing to do with Terri Schiavo's condition at all; the purpose of the phrase is to briefly, simply, neutrally describe why Randall Terry is being quoted in the article (answer: he leads a prominent anti-abortion group). I think it is fine as it is. Neutrality^talk 07:44, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)

I don't think pro-life characterizes the opposition as "anti-life" or "pro-death" -- it's "pro-choice". Also, the reason Randall Terry is being quoted in the article is because he has an auxiliary agenda besides being contrary to abortion. He has involved himself and his group in this for reasons other than abortion. In this case pro-life is more descriptive of its reason for being involved in this. Consider this: Some anti-globalization groups are also anti-immigration; if you wrote an article on globalization and stated their opposition, would it be more proper to classify their opposition in the context of anti-globalization, or anti-immigration? Professor Ninja 07:51, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I don't think those of you who are in favor of using the term "anti-abortion" are aware of (or showing awareness of) its pejorative connotation. Jdavidb 07:59, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I don't think those of you who are in favor of using the term "pro-life" are aware of (or showing awareness of) its pejorative connotation. RickK 08:20, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)

What it comes down to is that these people are not involved in this because they are against abortion. Similarly, people who are pro-choice aren't involved because they're "pro-death" or "anti-life" -- they each believe in respecting a certain aspect, be it that everybody must live its natural life (hence, pro-life) or that everybody has a right to choose when to end that life (hence, pro-choice). Neither one implies that the other is anti-choice or anti-life, unless that's already your personally held belief, in which case it'll make no difference either way. Professor Ninja 08:24, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

And, lastly, after checking both the articles of Randall Terry and Operation Rescue, they too use the term pro-life. On top of what Jdavidb pointed out about the redirect. Seems pro-life is the appropriate term. Professor Ninja 10:41, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Pro-Life and anti-abortion are not synonyms. Pro-life is a broader term; Terri Schiavo is not being aborted. So this argument is off topic.

But in a different context (i.e., a conversation about abortion) the terms "pro-life" and "anti-abortion" are generally interchangable. In such a context, you could write a NPOV article either by using the terms that the two movements prefer for themselves, or by using the purely descriptive terms that they use for each other when they are trying to behave civily.

That is to say, you could use "pro-life" and "pro-choice" throughout, or you could use "anti-abortion" and "pro-abortion" throughout. Either way would be fine. (I would not, however, suggest using deliberately pejorative terms that they use for each other: "anti-choice," "anti-life," "pro-death," "baby killer," etc., even if you used both sides' pejoratives.)

Where you get into POV trouble is when you use one side's language throughout. So an article that used the terms "pro-life" and "anti-life" throughout would have a POV problem, as would an article that used the terms "pro-choice" and "anti-choice" throughout.

But all that is moot. The abortion issue has nothing to do with Terri's case. NCdave 13:43, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

"pro-abortion" is never an appropriate wording. People are pro-choice, not pro-abortion. RickK 20:47, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)

Sorry for not replying to this earlier, I fell asleep. I thought pro-life was considered more neutral by almost everyone but apparently I was wrong. My choice would be to scrap the entire paragraph since it is not major news. (Macdougal 15:44, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC))

I believe that Pro-Life and Pro-Choice would be the correct terms for this article. Anti-abortion would not be correct since this article is not about abortion. тəzєті 18:22, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)

The organization is an anti-abortion organization. And the paragraph is entirely appropriate. RickK 20:47, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)

Both "pro-life" and "pro-choice" are highly charged political terms, and to remain neutral, the Wikipedia should avoid their use. "Pro-abortion" and "anti-abortion" are NPOV terms. Phobophile 02:35, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I think you're missing the point that Operation Rescue has broadened their scope with these shenanigans, meaning they're not protesting the court ruling because somebody is going to abort Terri Schiavo (at least in what is understood as the medical definition of abortion). It's not a good description of their involvement, and it implies ulterior motives, which, although they may be there, are up to the reader, not the editors, to insert. Professor Ninja 03:26, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Why not pro- and anti-theocracy? 65.11.101.198 01:12, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Role of the Church

In the section section of the article, someone has written that various groups, among them the Catholic Church, have "sided" with Ms Schiavo's parents. We ought to reflect however, on the connotations of time and choice. In other words, if a school of thought or organization ALREADY held a position which an event, subsequent to the development of that ideology, were to occur which correlated one way or another with that ideology, is it correct to imply that choice took place, and that a decision of "siding" occured? Catholic teaching already stood in opposition to the act, which it believes as disrespectful to life, and morally wrong, of removing an incapacitated person's means of nutrition, it is somewhat inaccurate to say that the Church "sided" with a certain position. The Church's position was pre-existing; no choice was made. While obviously a living organization like the Catholic Church can, does, and must make choices, it is incorrect to imply that a theological/moral point of view "took sides." The side it "took" was inevitable and could not have changed, as this was intrinsically inherent in the teaching; the teaching could change, but as long as it stood as it was, there could be no "choice". However, the real issue, I suppose, is the difference between the Church and its teachings...the latter is a system of theological positions, the former is an entity which can make choices. 70.57.139.181 09:31, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

No, the side it took is predictable, not inevitable. The Catholic Church has changed substantially over the years, including recent ones. To give a dramatic example, the writings of St. Thomas Aquinas contain references to foetuses not having souls until some time after conception -- contrary to the conception = human life position the church now takes. While I'd lay odds on them doing this again in the future, it's definitely not set in stone, and the liberalization of the church in recent years is shaking up a bit of accepted theological points. You never know, they may have very well said that Terri's body isn't going to improve, and we are keeping her alive unnaturally, and we should let her soul be with God. And that's not far fetched at all. Professor Ninja 10:10, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Se this archived link for some info on the church and for one catholic with the views Professor Ninja suggests.. Preisler 11:28, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

In what sense has the Catholic Church taken sides? Certainly individual priests and bishops have indicated that they side with the Schindlers. But I can't see anything which would suggest that the Church as a whole has taken sides. Bishop Lynch of St. Petersburg certainly doesn't seem to be particularly siding with the parents. See here and here for his statements. On the question of whether taking out the tube is against church teachings, he seems to take a nuanced view, tending towards the position that it would be wrong to remove it. But he's pretty clear that he thinks it should be the husband's decision, and that removing it would not be murder. The Florida and US conferences of bishops are more straightforwardly on the side of the parents, I think. They certainly repeat a lot of the parents' nonsense about Schiavo's medical condition. Even here they seem to be behaving relatively cautiously. Presumably, there's some division among the bishops about the question. Bishop Lynch, at the least, would appear to be going about as far as he dares not to be on the side of the family. As far as I am aware, the pope has not made any statement about this. So who constitutes the "Catholic Church" in this case? On what authority do we say that "the Catholic Church" supports one position or another? john k 19:04, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Just to add to this, I would support saying that the U.S. Catholic Bishops' Conference or the Florida Catholic Bishops' Conference supports the parents. I think it's highly problematic to say that the Church as a whole does. john k 19:09, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Actually, the vatican HAS spoken about the Schiavo case, see http://edition.cnn.com/2005/LAW/03/22/schiavo.vatican/ and http://www.zenit.org/english/visualizza.phtml?sid=67707 seamuswifey

Painful/less-ness

Ought the first paragraph really bear the sentence refering to the alleged painlessness of her death? 70.57.139.181 09:36, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Pain and Removal

Unless you are Terri Schiavo, and you want to share how it feels to starve to death, I think this reference to this sort of death being a bliss-filled walk in the park does not belong in an impartial article. I see enough pleas for money to "starving third-world countries" that I'm left feeling that starvation is probably not as great as many are being told in the Schiavo case. When I brought this up to my father and brother (both M.D.s), their answer essentially was that (1)evidence generally points to the PROBABILITY (not fact) that this is a RELATIVELY (not completely!) more comfortable death than others, and (2) hearing this usually makes the families feel better in making a difficult decision; there's no need to "add to their burden" by making it clear that no one can tell you for sure what starving to death feels like. The inferences of levels of pain and discomfort, when it comes down to it, are only educated guesses based upon physiology, and not known fact; in short, if you decide to starve yourself to death, YMMV. As much as it may distress families making a difficult decision, could we PLEASE make references to Terri starving to death more impartial and truthful?

Is there no one who feels that the information referring to the painfulness/painlessness of Ms Schiavo's death is incomplete? We need to contrast the terminal-patient data of Fine to Ms Schiavo, who suffers a completely different condition. Also, we need to incorporate the view of a person who ACTUALLY suffered brain damage and lay in a state similar to Schiavo's and describes the removal of nutrition as highly painful. Does no one support broadening the information? 70.57.139.181 09:57, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The situations are entirely different. Terri Schiavo is not going to recover, so whoever the person is that you are claiming describes it as painful did not have a completely liquified cerebral cortex. RickK 10:00, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)

You're right, 70.57.139.181, I've added a sentence with a link to an article with the opposite POV, for balance:

However, other experts contend that is only true for patients who are already dying from other causes. For Terri, they say, death by dehydration would be torturous. [1]

Rick, that "completely liquified cerebral cortex" line from Felos has been completely discredited. He never even believed it, himself. That's why the hospice is using pain killers on her: [2]

Take a look at the affidavit of the Florida DCF's neurologist, Dr. Cheshire, for an evaluation from a neutral party, not picked by either the Schindlers or M.Schiavo/Felos/Greer. NCdave 13:25, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Dr. Cheshire is not a neutral party. He was selected by Jeb Bush, who is strongly advocative of not pulling the plug. He admits that she shows no behaviors inexplicable by the conventional diagnosis of persistent vegetative state. Why do you persist in these easily-refuted ravings? Iceberg3k 13:28, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)

Cheshire is not neutral because he was selected by Jeb, but Michael Schiavo, Felos, and the neurologist THEY selected ARE? Huh?!?!? There's impartiality on both sides. Add to that the fact that neither Cheshire or ANY other doctor is allowed to examine Terri (nor have any been for years) per Michael's decision, which he's empowered to decide, as guardian. The Schindlers have attempted to get second opinions and have been denied them each and every time. The pdfs of Greer's refusals are all housed at www.terrisfight.org

"easily-refuted" is arguable, fine; but "ravings" is going too far, ColdGuy; let's try and keep things civil around here. Bill 16:26, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Iceberg apparently didn't even bother to read the report. (Why do I bother to include links, anyhow?) Iceberg just made up that supposed admission. Dr. Cheshire wrote, "In summary, Terri Schiavo demonstrates behaviors in a variety of cognitive domains that call into question the previous neurologic diagnosis of persistent vegetative state. Specifically, she has demonstrated behaviors that are context-specific, sustained, and indicative of cerebral cortical processing that, upon careful neurologic consideration, would not be expected in a persistent vegetative state. Based on this evidence, I believe that, within a reasonable degree of medical certainty, there is a greater likelihood that Terri is in a minimally conscious state than a persistent vegetative state... [and] in my judgment it would be wrong to bring about her death by withdrawing food and water." NCdave 22:26, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps you missed this: "Although Terri did not demonstrate during our 90-minute visit compelling evidence of verbalization, conscious awareness or volitional behavior, yet the visitor has the distinct sense of the presence of a living human being who seems at some level to be aware of some things around her". For ninety minutes she failed to display any behavior that could modify the diagnosis of PVS, yet he modifies it anyway, only based on his personal preferences and a subjective "feeling." Iceberg3k 01:06, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)

Cheshire never so much as examined her, he's only stood by her bed and looked at her. RickK 20:52, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)

Because he is not allowed to examine Terri by Michael, a decision upheld by Greer. This was not laxity on Cheshire's part (or any of the other doctors the Schindlers have consulted who were also forbidden my Michael to examine Terri), but adherence to court order. Greer's upholdings of Michael's right as guardian to deny access to second opinions by doctors selected by the Schindler's are all available at www.terrisfight.org

That's not relevant. For whatever reason he didn't examine Terri, he still didn't examine her. If he didn't examine her because the moon and planets weren't in the right alignment, doesn't mean his conjecture would be relevant. He didn't examine her, therefore, his fantasies are irrelevant, no matter the reason. Professor Ninja 00:01, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

And Schiavo's handpicked doctors' fantasies are more relevant because of exactly why? Sounds like you're engaging in a little confirmation bias there. Schiavo's doctors have an agenda, the Schindler's doctors have an agenda. We have to consider both equally, unless their authority is explicitly disproven (e.g., their medical license is found to come from the University of Papaya). There should have been an impartial doctor in the mix at some point in time, but for whatever reason, Greer didn't feel that necessary.

Au contraire, NCDave. During the hearing in 2002, there were two doctors present selected by Mr. Schiavo, two present selected by the Schindlers (a pair of quacks, I might add, with one known to make fraudulent claims and the other speaking well outside of his specialty) and a fifth who was selected by the state for the purpose of impartiality and to break a tie in the decision making process. The state's doctor concurred with the diagnosis of Mr. Schiavo's doctors and the evidence presented by his side and as a result, Judge Greer then determined the diagnosis of PVS to be a finding of fact which could not be challenged. Iceberg3k 15:53, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)

So an impartial person will consider both parties' doctors' opinions as equally as possible, while recognising that Schiavo's people will probably support her death, and the Schindler's people will probably support her life. It is not so very unusual for a doctor to make inferences based upon an observation or interview, especially extended or multiple ones if the consult is behavioural/(and some)neurological. Cheshire is being skewered unfairly because he is a Christian (I'm not a Christian, and even I see it), because Jeb selected him, and because he is voicing an opinion favouring the Schindlers.

No, he's being skewered because he is lying. He admits in his affadavit that Mrs. Schiavo displays no behaviors which suggest cognitive ability, yet he believes that she is not in a persistent vegetative state because he is apparently a Jedi Knight and can feel her presence. Iceberg3k 15:53, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)

If the public opinion were running in the other direction, you'd be posting here, criticising Schiavo's doctors' "fantasies" after only visiting Terri for a handful of minutes a month, claiming their "conjectures" weren't "relevant". There's fault to be found on both sides, you are not being objective in your language, and seem biased toward Schiavo's camp.

No, I think you're missing the point. The Schindler's doctor did not examine Terri Schiavo. The reason why does not matter. It does not matter that he was stopped from examining her. That does not make any fantastic observations he by not examining her true. It does not add weight to his opinion. That is what matters. And, as an aside, Terri was examined by impartial doctors multiple times, by Schindler selected doctors multiple times, and by Schiavo selected doctors multiple times. Only after the (repeated) rulings did the judge put his foot down and stop the damn spectacle because the Schindlers, in my lay opinion, were attempting to just keep her alive by constantly demanding new examinations. Professor Ninja 08:11, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Removed Talk Dupe

I just removed duplicate postings from this page. I don't think I erased anyone's comment, but appologies if I did, it wasn't intentional. --CVaneg 16:08, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I just did it again --CVaneg 17:00, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

recent developments section a mess

They jump all around and are bloated - trying to read more like a news story than encyclopedia

It seems like it is trying to be a time line but then topics are by governmental branch.

It jumps from State to Federal to Individual to State.

In my mind it makes more sense to either have it be in a timeline format or group it by governmental branch:

Florida Courts
Florida Legislature
Florida Executive

US Courts
US Legislature
US Executive

Politicians
Pundits

Public Reaction
polls
monetary offers
living wills
etc

• That's true; it does read like a news story, and yes, absolutely, it would be very good to consolidate it into either of the two schemes you suggest. It's probably hopeless to try to do that now, though. We also do not have the distance from the subject that will be needed to assess the impact of Terri's case on American (a) law, (b) politics, and again, as much as such an assessment is warranted, it's probably pointless to try and provide one now. — Bill 17:36, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• • I concur with Bill. Once things cool down a bit, chances are this article will get pared down quite a bit, and (hopefully) the entire nature of the article will change a become a bit more encyclopedic. I'm pretty sure once we remove the commentary, punditry, and various accusations, the article will become much more managable. --CVaneg 17:58, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• • • Thanks for the comments. I have been using Wikipedia alot for information, but I am pretty new to adding my 2 cents to the different articles.

--Pescatoro 25 Mar 2005

It was in timeline order, but that wasn't clear. It would probably be best to make a timeline that lists all of the events chronologically, clearly. RickK 20:52, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)

I was considering creating a Timeline of Terri Schiavo's case article, but wasn't sure. I'm fairly certain it's a good idea, but this page is getting bloated, so I would make it, obviously, seperate. Care to collaborate, RickK? Professor Ninja 00:25, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You want to take a first cut at it and I'll fill in? RickK 20:57, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. I'll wikify when ready. Professor Ninja 06:52, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Proposed additions

Dr. Lieberman's analysis should be included: http://www.theempirejournal.com/03200508_terri_schiavo.htm

I'm sorry, but I completely disagree. Reading the article she seems to say that she did not engage in any direct analysis of Michael Schiavo, instead relying on media reports and an interview with Robert Schindler. I hardly think this qualifies as a valid psychiatric opinion. --CVaneg 00:53, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

My my... that's not even considering the fact that there's a whole good chunk of men (and women!) who fit the profile of an abuser to the letter... and are not. What a joke this whole affair has become. Professor Ninja 12:49, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

And upon actually reading the article, all I can say is, Jesus. Is there nothing these people won't read into? He could just as easily have had Terri's jewelry fitted into a ring for himself to have something of hers always with him, for example. I know somebody (an aunt, after my uncle died) who did exactly that. What a chunk of biased nonsense. Professor Ninja 12:55, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

"I Want To Live"; the latest (and probably last) Schindler filing: http://www.theempirejournal.com/Weller_I_Want_To_Live.pdf

Assuming the vocalization "Ah wa" had any meaning whatsoever and was not merely a random response to a stimulus, it could just as easily have been "I want to die" as "I want to live." Iceberg3k 00:59, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)

That's assuming it even happened in the first place. If it did happen, and wasn't random, it could have just as easily been I want to die. First thing that struck me too. Professor Ninja 01:04, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

True enough. Given the demonstrated low level of truthfulness indulged in by the witnesses for the Schindlers, I wouldn't put it past them to make up something like this to try to get a "stay of execution" as it were. Iceberg3k 01:16, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)

I think you know that the Schindlers (and the four dozen or so neurologists who agree with them about Terri's condition) are not the ones who have been untruthful. According to the sworn testimony of multiple witnesses who have no stake in this fight, for more than two years after Terri's hospitalization Michael consistently maintained that he didn't know what care Terri would want. Then, when the medical malpractice settlement was awarded, and he stood to inherit hundreds of thousands of dollars upon her death, he suddenly "remembered" that she would rather be dead. Cummon, you have got to know that isn't credible. NCdave 19:45, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The Schindlers even concede, at maximum, Terri Shiavo has the mental capacity of a six month old. The whole allegation defies science. Phobophile 02:43, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Do you think it is okay to kill six month olds? NCdave 19:45, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Terri frequently demonstrated understanding of simple English sentences, by responding appropriately. She also demonstrates recognition of different people by consistently responding to different people in different ways (e.g., all observers agree that her mother is the person whose company she most enjoys). Most of the neurologists who have expressed an opinion have said either that they believe she is not in a PVS, or that more advanced testing (MRI, fMRI, PET scan) would be necessary to make that determination. However, M.Schiavo/Felos/Greer refused to permit those tests to ever be done [3]. NCdave 19:37, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Straw poll

What adjective should be used in this sentence to describe the significance of Randall Terry and the primary purpose of his organization in the most specific, meaningful, brief, informative, and neutral way?:

...activists such as Randall Terry, head of the __________ group Operation Rescue, denounced Jeb Bush for failure to take action.

Pro-life

1. Macdougal 19:03, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
2. john k 19:14, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
3. Professor Ninja 20:32, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
4. Dbiv 23:09, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
5. FlyingCowOfDoom 23:46, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
6. --Hoovernj 18:02, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
7. Schweizer 19:53, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Anti-abortion

1. Neutrality^talk 18:52, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)
2. They oppose abortion. They don't oppose death. --SPUI (talk) 18:57, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
3.  BRIAN0918  18:58, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
4. silsor 19:02, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)
5. nsh 19:06, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)
6. Zerbey 19:06, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
7. Guettarda 19:45, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
8. Vik Reykja (talk) 20:52, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
9. RickK 20:54, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)
10. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 20:58, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
11. Peter Isotalo 23:09, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)
12. Iceberg3k 23:54, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)
13. Phobophile 02:38, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
14. Fox1 02:53, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
15. Viriditas | Talk 03:18, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
16. /sɪzlæk˺/ 08:29, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
17. Acceptable perhaps. I'd rather it said "controversial Christian anti-abortion organization"--Its founder's words: "I want you to just let a wave of intolerance wash over you. I want you to let a wave of hatred wash over you. Yes, hate is good...Our goal is a Christian nation. We have a Biblical duty, we are called by God, to conquer this country. We don't want equal time. We don't want pluralism." -Randal Terry, quoted in the New Republic, 1994. He comes across as basically a Thug for Jesus. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 14:25, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
18. Sandover 17:57, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
19. Rickyrab 21:42, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
20. Mrfixter 22:08, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
21. Zoso Jade 22:11, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
22. This is the term favored by the AP Style Guide as being the most neutral and useful. Moncrief 01:19, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)
23. David.Monniaux 08:30, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC) but, from what I see above, I'd even say "reactionary Christian anti-abortion group" (note: reactionary is not pejorative, but describes well the attitude expressed in Tony's quote)
24. Thue | talk 18:08, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Theocratic Dominionist

1. 65.11.101.198 01:17, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Just Leave as Group

1. Pescatoro 25 Mar 2005
2. Bill 20:17, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
3. CVaneg 20:45, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
4. JYolkowski 20:49, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
5. Wahoofive 23:14, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
6. 24.245.12.39 07:13, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
7. Preisler 15:17, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Comment Pro-life is rather a weasely term (as is pro-choice - to be fair), and as such should be avoided. There is nothing wrong, of course, with denoting that these people / groups prefer another term. nsh 19:06, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)

• If we don't use pro-life, what do we use for so-called "pro-choice" groups? "Pro-abortion rights"? This seems dubious to me, since it is not a term actually in use. But it would be deeply POV not to use "pro-life" but to use "pro-choice." I don't like the term pro-life very much myself, but I think we have to use the terms that groups use for themselves. Otherwise we're opening a can of worms towards us making up names for positions. john k 19:14, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Let me add that I think that the terms "pro-life" and "pro-choice" have become so familiar that they are largely divested of their literal meanings. Does discussing the "Republican" party imply that the Democrats are not republican? Does discussing the "Democratic Party" imply that the Republicans are not in favor of democracy? john k 19:17, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Why bother with trying to characterize the group in this article. I would just leave it as "activists such as Randall Terry, head of the group Operation Rescue." If the reader wants they can click over to see comments on Operation Rescue - plus it is more NPOV. --Pescatoro25 Mar 2005
      • I'm with Pescatoro. Even "group" is not necessary. If, however, a characterization is felt to be necessary, abortion is not germane to Terri Schiavo, but the issue of life, of course, is. —Bill 20:17, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
        • Quite right. These people aren't weighing in because Terri Schiavo is going to be aborted. Most of these groups also are accepting of abortion in certain cases, like if the health of the mother is threatened... so they aren't anti-abortion, they are pro-life. Their opponents are pro-choice. Neither has to be anti-anything, and the issue of abortion is entirely non-relevant to Terri Schiavo. Professor Ninja 20:32, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
          • They're horning in in order to make these precedents of the courts and the executive interfering so that they can then point to them later on in abortion cases. RickK 20:54, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)
            • Their ulterior motives, which I'm sure everybody in this has, don't really matter. Are we going to further bloat the article based on what everybody might want after this? God, I hope not. Professor Ninja 21:50, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
            • Might I add that in the interest of countering vote splitting that if pro-life was turned down, I would choose to leave it as just the group name. I'm least in favour of "anti-abortion." Professor Ninja 21:53, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
            • Similarly, if "just group" was turned down, I would choose "pro-life", for the reasons others have stated. I'm least in favour of "anti-abortion." Bill 22:04, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Yes, the reader with no knowledge of who Randall Terry and Operation Rescue are can follow the link, but it would be better if at least some reference was made to their general stance. That being said, it is better that people be described as being in favour of things. Those who are pro-life are not anti-choice, but merely believe the choice involved violates a more important consideration. I do not think that implies that their opponents in this argument are pro-death. Dbiv 23:09, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Why, when this discussion has just started, is there a poll on this? Sometimes voting may be neccessary (a neccessary evil, some would say), but why jump into it so quickly? Jonathunder 23:25, 2005 Mar 25 (UTC)

Actually this was debated under "pro-life" vs. "anti-abortion" in a section above this one. --CVaneg 23:40, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Could I just ask everyone who voted for "anti-abortion" to explain whether a) they think that Pro-Life should be moved to Anti-Abortion, and what they think should be done with pro-choice. As long as the article is at pro-Life (yeah, I know, the capitalization is funky), there is no reason to have any discussion of this question here, it seems to me. john k 00:38, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I think that the term "Pro-Life" should not apply to a group that is not anti-death penalty as well. So, as an adjective (or verb), it shouldn't be there. However, "Pro-Life Movement" (a noun) is entirely appropriate since that is what they call it. I had this discussion at Talk:Pro-Life a long time ago. (Didn't convince anyone, granted). Guettarda 01:39, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Not being anti-death penalty can't be interpreted as not being pro-life. A pro-life group may interpret the death penalty as being a mitigation to certain aspects of the right to life. Or they may officially have no opinion of criminal suspension of the right to life either way. I think a good compromise may be to refer to them as a Religious group or Christian group. Professor Ninja 01:45, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Jeez. Isn't this page contentious enough without having to expand onto an entirely new and equally controversial topic? :-) --CVaneg 01:55, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I would like to note that I don't believe that the "other side" should be able to describe themselves by aligning themselves with a general value anymore than the anti-abortion groups should be able to. I think the appropriate term is "abortion rights group" (no, not pro-abortion rights, not everything needs a positive or negative modifier). This succinctly and accurately reflects the goals of the organization in question in a NPOV manner.

Fox1 03:06, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Guettarda - yes, I saw your arguments there. In terms of my own political preferences, I certainly am not a fan of those who are anti-abortion and pro-death penalty. However, to say that anyone with these positions should not be described as "pro-life" is to create your own definition of what pro-life means, and is thus original research. john k 02:13, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

In addition to my points in the above discussion, I also believe that the use of "pro-life" is quite possibly U.S. or Western-centric, as the literal meaning of the term gives little to no insight into the objectives of the groups involved. Fox1 02:53, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This seems irrelevant - it is a U.S. organization, there is no reason not to use a U.S. term, provided it is properly linked (which it is). The term pro-life has a clear, unambiguous meaning, even if it is not what you would expect it to be from its etymology. john k 04:02, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The New York Times Manual of Style considers both "pro-life" and "pro-choice" polemical terms, suggesting "abortion rights" and "anti-abortion" as alternatives (5). Although Wikipedia's NPOV policy isn't quite the same as what would be appropriate for a newspaper like the NYT, I think it helps to see their perspective on this issue. As far as whether the anti-abortion movement "prefers" the term "pro-life," I think trying to comply with what any particular movement "prefers" to call itself would lead us into a serious POV minefield. Let's say, just for the sake of argument, that opponents of universal health insurance adopted the term "healthcare choice movement" for their cause. Would this mean every reference in Wikipedia to those who oppose universal insurance should use that term? Both "pro-life" and "pro-choice" are terms coined by political movements intended by their supporters to cast their respective movements in the light they want it to be cast. /sɪzlæk˺/ 08:29, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Absolutely. This is more or less what I've been trying to say, I think you did a bit better job though.

Fox1 09:14, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I think the point you're both missing is that nobody is trying to perform an abortion (don't get pedantic, in the medical jargon sense of the word) on Terri Schiavo. It is therefore nonsensical to refer to their interest in this case as anti-abortion. Professor Ninja 09:55, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

But Operation Rescue is not 'pro-life' in an unbiased sense of the word; I'm sure they have no stance on say the death penalty, and many of their members support it. So saying "the pro-life group Operation Rescue" is biased, no matter what the context is. --SPUI (talk) 11:26, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Yes, yes. It's pointless either way. If this was in the context of abortion, I'd agree with you. I suppose the best thing to do would be to give a basic descriptor of the group's purpose and let the link speak for itself. I'm not for just the group name, it's a little glib, but maybe "the conservative religious group Operation Rescue" would be appropriate. It's a fair, NPOV description that doesn't fall into "sides" as it were. Professor Ninja 12:06, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I absolutely agree that no one is attempting to abort Terri, Prof. Ninja, but the fact remains that these are the actions of a group that, up until this isolated case, was defined by their opposition to abortion. I just don't think it's necessary to give them a new descriptive term simply because they decided to grap a chunk of spotlight on an issue of high national interest dealing with an cause they had not previously been active on. That said, I'm growing closer to agreeing with your closing suggestion, this is taking too long, and it's not terribly central to the core of the article.

Fox1 13:00, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The more I think about it the more sure I am that [conservative] religious group is the appropriate description here. I think anybody can take away what they need from that, and ascertain their main function as well as their "new" agenda in this without needing to click the link. Professor Ninja 13:15, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Can I just say that so long as we have articles at "Pro-Life" and "Pro-Choice," I don't see why we should be having this discussion here. "Pro-life" means "anti-abortion." Yes, the term is polemical, but it is in general use, and, to be honest, I doubt there is a single American who really hears "pro-life" and doesn't realize that this term simply means "anti-abortion." It is not confusing. It is politically useful to pretend that it is confusing, perhaps. But if wikipedia is to do something that is politically useful to somebody (which, in some situations, we have to do), we should take the side of the conventionally used term, and not the side of the original researchers who are shocked, shocked that pro-life groups don't care about the death penalty, or who are horrified at the suggestion that using this term means we think that the pro-choice movement is "pro-death." At any rate, my point is this: this is not a discussion that belongs on this page. Bad cases make bad law, and there is no reason to make a usage decision that pertains to numerous articles throughout wikipedia here on this page. Until SPUI changed it yesterday, the [Operation Rescue] article described the group as pro-life. Look, I dislike Operation Rescue as much as the next agnostic pro-choice liberal Democrat, but it seems to me that this is a decision which has to be made in a general way, not on the basis of this single article. Why don't we move the discussion of this to Pro-Life? john k 16:25, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Since they call themselves that, Pro-Life as a noun is fine. Pro-Life as an adjective is POV, because it requires that we buy into the doublespeak. Guettarda 17:44, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

"I doubt there is a single American who really hears "pro-life" and doesn't realize that this term simply means "anti-abortion." — Wikipedia has an international audience, all of which have a right to understand articles discussing US-specific topics without knowing US-specific terminology in detail, when clear and precise alternatives exist. David.Monniaux 12:42, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

We should describe organizations as they describe themselves. A US organization should be described using US terms, just as European organizations should be described by European terms. For instance, using the term "liberal" to describe, say, the German FDP is probably confusing to most Americans. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't describe it as a liberal party. john k`

Public reactions removed

I was very confused to find that the important section about the public's reaction has been removed. The article now looks like the Americans have endorsed the recent Congressional and Presidential actions, but that is not true, as the ABC and CBS polls have shown. What isn't impartial about such polls? I admit that such polls were devastating for the Congress and the President, and that therefore the supporters of maintaing Terri's senseless "living" state have an interest in removing such poll results from the article. Keimzelle 08:24, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Okay, sorry about that. I was half-asleep. Yes, I think the polls section is very important and should be reinstated. This is the final copy before it was removed by User:Astanhope, who cut out lots of sections due to "bloat" (if need be, and written well, I'd be in favor of even branching out into daughter articles). [4] Mike H 10:16, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind at least two daughter articles: One for the timeline, and one for the controversial nature of the case, while allowing the Terri Schiavo article to remain facts-only (take out the Schiavo/Schindler accusation badminton and legal wrangling, public reactions, lump them all into a seperate Controversy surrounding Terri Schiavo case article, restore and expand the see also section a little, etc.) This page, as it is, is becoming confusing to wade through. Professor Ninja 12:10, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

See User_talk:Keimzelle and User_talk:Viriditas about this topic. Keimzelle 16:22, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• The "bloat" is a serious concern. Citing specific poll data in an encyclopedia starts to drag it down. Since the poll data changes and since there are miltiple organizations polling and since everybody wants their pet poll data in there, the poll data paragraph had already become something like:

"on March XX the ABC poll said this while the NBC poll said this while the WSJ poll said this yet on March YY a CNN poll said this and a FoxNews poll said this and a WaPo poll said this while on March ZZ The LATimes said this and the Boston Globe said this and the Houston Chronicle said this..."

In other words, it becomes worthless.

We can all agree that based on a tremendous amount of polling data that we know that American public opinion is strongly on Michael Schiavo's "side" of the argument, on the side of Terri Schiavo's "right to die" and very strongly against the Congressional and Presidential intervention. The message can be said as simply as that with a link to a newspaper article that cites one or more of the many polls out there. --AStanhope 17:15, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

...so I will attempt to do just that. --AStanhope 17:19, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It's not just American public opinion -- the rule of law is on the side of Michael Schiavo, and the paragraph that was added by 138.130.201.204 is highly misleading. In this case, the courts consider a feeding tube for nutrition and hydration as a form of artificial life support. [5] Michelle Malkin's opinion is not only in error, it's irrelevant and will be removed from the article.--Viriditas | Talk 10:56, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

OK - I added a new "Public Opinion" section just before "Recent Developments" where I put a general NPOV sentence in saying that numerous polls indicate American public opinion feels XYZ and I included a link to an article that cites multiple polls. This is a great deal more efficient than dissecting each and every poll that comes down the pike. Here is the text I added:

• Numerous polls show that a majority of Americans believe that Michael Schiavo should have the authority to make decisions on behalf of his wife and that the United States Congress' intervention in the case was an overstepping of bounds. [6]

I think this is a good solution. --AStanhope 17:32, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

P.S. If somebody can find a better article that is a roundup of multiple poll results, that would be great. There is a nice one on Salon, but Salon is a pain unless one has a subscription. --AStanhope 17:37, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Politicians

I may be picky, but when it says:

"Editorials in publications such as National Review, The Weekly Standard, and The Wall Street Journal have vocally supported the Schindlers' position to keep the feeding tube in place (with some of their commentators dissenting); The New York Times and others have supported the rights of Michael Schiavo."

I think it should either be:

1) National Review, The Weekly Standard, and The Wall Street Journal have vocally supported the Schindlers' position to keep the feeding tube in place (with some of their commentators dissenting); The New York Times and others have supported Michael Schiavo's position to keep the feeding tube removed.

or

2) National Review, The Weekly Standard, and The Wall Street Journal have vocally supported Terri's right to life (with some of their commentators dissenting); The New York Times and others have supported Michael Schiavo's rights.

I think the current wording puts biased emphasis upon Michael's side by putting the Schindlers' position in neutral terms and Michael's position as trying to preserve his rights. I personally believe the first alternative would be the best, because the second one could be seen as putting undue emphasis upon the "rights" of Terri. Tonyr1988 15:20, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)

The current wording is correct. In a case where the wishes of a patient are unclear, the right to determine their course of treatment always goes to their next of kin (who if they are married, is their spouse). Iceberg3k 15:42, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)

Well, you may have a point, but #2 is definitely not good as it implies that her right to life has been abrogated, a major point of contention to say the least. I don't really have a problem with #1, but chances are others will, as Iceberg3k discusses above. --CVaneg 00:39, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Keep it Simple - De-Link De-Link De-Link

I'd like to encourage something completely apolitical... Can we un-Wikify a lot of what is linked? There really isn't any informational value to having 1990 or Florida linked even once in the article, let alone every time they appear. Links for important peoples' names and organizations demonstrate the power of interactive media for presentation of encyclopedia information. Linking every date and every other word is a throwback to 1994 when everybody's first webpage hyperlinked every single word. A basket of snakes.

On a practical level, including scores of unnecessary links in an article has an additional "cost" in terms of storage, bandwidth consumption and most importantly, page load speed.

Keep it Simple - De-Link De-Link De-Link --AStanhope 20:02, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I agree, but note that dates (not years) "should be wikified so that each reader sees the dates formatted according to their own preference". (from WP:MOS). JYolkowski 20:19, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I think a link to Florida is highly worthwhile, since it's playing out in Florida courts. RickK 20:54, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)

On the other hand, linking years such as 1990 could allow people to see what occurred around the same time period as the event... Rickyrab 21:46, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I REALLY disagree and I can't believe you dewikied references to St. Petersburg, Florida and the Philadelphia suburb where she grew up. Why?? People, particularly from countries outside the U.S., might want more information about these places. Why would you de-wiki them? Isn't the ability to click between articles a major reason for Wikipedia's uniqueness as an encyclopedia? Fine, de-wiki 1990 (certainly if it's wikid more than once, though personally I'd keep the first ref to 1990 wikid for the reason Rickyrab gave above) and don't wiki "American," but why de-wiki St. Petersburg, Florida? Bucks County Community College? That makes NO sense to me. And certainly, fortunately, yours is a minority position at Wikipedia. I have every confidence many of these will be rewikid and kept so. User:Moncrief (not logged in at the moment)

• Good feedback. Have you folks clicked through to 1990 or to Florida or to the Philadelphia suburb where she grew up and seen what is there? Please do so (seriously), then come back and report here whether or not you think the information on those pages is directly applicable to the topic at hand. I am sincerely interested in hearing what you think, particularly about 1990, for example. --AStanhope 22:29, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Isn't this the whole point of Wikipedia? Link-link-link? It isn't a matter of whether the links are relevant - it's a matter of coming across something, saying "I don't know what that is" and finding out. You can't flip through the pages of Wikipedia to find something, like you can in an paper encyclopaedia. You link so people can navigate, you link so people can find things out. Ease of editing should never trump information content. Guettarda 22:49, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

What Guettarda said. I'm not sure how I can add to Guettarda's statements other than to say that your experience of Wikipedia must be so radically different from mine, AStanhope, if you need every link you click on to be directly "relevant" to the one from which you've clicked.

Later edit: And yes, to answer your question directly, I did click on the link to the Philadelphia suburb in which she grew up. I am interested in East Coast geography and I wanted to get a sense of the location of this suburb, and what county it was in. I wanted to get a sense of the racial and economic demographics of that suburb. The Census information in the article and the link to the homepage of the township was useful in getting a sense of what the place was like. So, yes, that was directly relevant. The link to the Florida article might be relevant to someone (perhaps someone not in the US who lacks the knowledge of Florida that you might have) reading this encyclopedia who wants not only a better sense of Florida in relation to this case but who also just wants to check out the Florida article for whatever other reason. There are articles on this site that do have too many red links, to be sure, and I've even criticized a few for that, but as long as articles exist on these topics it's not as if it's 1994 (to use your analogy) and we're linking "every word." Moncrief 01:13, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)

• Clearly we have differences of opinions on this one. I am very pleased with where the article stands in this respect now, save for the Wikified years. I cannot for the life of me understand how there is any value in clicking on 1963 in Terri Schiavo's birthday and getting the 1963 page. I perceived the Day/Month date links as being similarly useless, but I now understand thanks to JYolkowski that keeping those links live allow them to reformat for users' date prefs. There may still be some problems with multiple links to the same thing, however I no longer see any glaring ones. (Earlier edits had every occurrence of Florida linked, for example). Finally, an unseen benefit not easily perceived is a great reduction in article size which will make for faster loading and reduced resource consumption. A very apparent benefit is in readability. Thanks, everybody! --AStanhope 01:27, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I accidentally delinked Democrat while leaving Republican - this was an honest mistake. Had I noticed, I would have delinked both of them. I disagree that any readers need to click through to find out what Democrats or Republicans are, however since Moncrief feels strongly about these links, I shall leave them alone. Thanks. --AStanhope 03:08, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

" I disagree that any readers need to click through to find out what Democrats or Republicans are." That's quite a US-centric viewpoint then. This is an internationally-read encyclopedia and, while most educated English-speaking readers around the world are likely to know that those are the names of the primary political parties in the US, it's also true that - in the true Wikipedia spirit - such readers might have large gaps in their knowledge of the parties or they may just find that their curiousity has been piqued and they want to know a bit more about one or both of the two parties. They should have the chance to easily click through to said article. That's what this website is about, in large part. I don't believe you have any consensus to continue to dewikify linked articles here. Moncrief 03:14, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)

• I'm sorry, Moncrief, you must have missed where I said: however since Moncrief feels strongly about these links, I shall leave them alone... --AStanhope 05:08, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Links to misleading or questionable external documents

There are several links to documents of questionable veracity in this article. Chiefly the third link at the end, to terrisfight.org. I don't feel that a neutral and factual article can include a reference to a site which contains a factual error in almost every single sentence. You may as well be referencing WorldNetDaily. For one thing, linking to "The Terri Schindler-Schiavo Foundation" would give the reader the incorrect impression that Schiavo ever referred to herself by that name. She called herself "Terri Schiavo," and it would seem that if terrisfight.org can't even tell the truth about the woman's name, they can hardly be believed on any matter of nuance. There are a number of other factual errors including referring to the husband as the "estranged husband" and other such misleading disinformation. I would recommend removing it.

Well, punditry is such a heavy component of this issue (as these talk pages demonstrate) and that particular link is clearly marked as an advocacy site, so I don't think that it necessarily needs to be removed. Now if advocacy sites are linked as a source or reference, (and they probably are) then I would examine the link very carefully to make sure that it was worth keeping. --CVaneg 00:53, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The Terri Schindler-Schiavo Foundation is run by the Schindler family about Terri Schiavo nee Schindler. You could say that, but it seems excessively wordy. "Estranged" is what he is. He moved in with a girlfriend in 1992, for crying out loud, and is living in open adultery with a different one now, with whom he has two children. That's about as "estranged" as it is possible to be. (Plus, at the time of Terri's hospitalization in 1990, she was preparing to divorce him, or so she said, according to the sworn testimony of multiple witnesses.) NCdave 19:29, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

There are a number of weird references and cites in the body of the article. For example cite 8 links to the Washington Times on a matter totally unrelated to the diagnosis of Persistent Vegetative State to which the reference seems to be attached. It would almost seem that some people are just randomly dropping their favorite links in randomly. (Update: having gone through the references it would appear that more than half are links to unrelated opinion pieces at advocacy sites, including the National Review and Discovery Institute (a notorious anti-science group)). --Jwbaker

Discovery Institute is anti-science? You must have them mixed up with some other outfit. George Greer seems to be anti-science, but the Discovery Institute certainly isn't. Look at their "fellows" (click on the links for vitas for most of them): [7] NCdave 19:29, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• I think the Zimp.org links are bogus and don't belong, either. --AStanhope 01:30, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I'm inclined to leave major newspaper and magazine references in as long as they're relevant, but yes removing Discovery Institute and Zimp.org references would probably be ok. I'd keep the NRO references, though, despite partisanship, I think they are well established enough to warrant inclusion --CVaneg 01:41, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Zimp has useful links to many court documents, and and Wesley Smith of Discovery is a leading expert in the field. Both sources are extremely useful (nearly indispensible) to understanding this case. NCdave

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)

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)

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)

Wrong date under Legal involvement and "Terri's Law"

Under Legal involvement and "Terri's Law", second paragraph, there appears to be a wrong date:

On October 10, 2003, [...]. Five days later, on October 10 [...].

(And kudos to all of you who are working hard to keep this article up to date and NPOV.) --Fbriere 09:48, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)