Talk:Terri Schiavo case

sorry, i have no idea what the proper way to add to this page is, but where can i find the latest ruling by Judge Greer and the rejection of Supreme Court (it's not posted on the FindLaw site). Can someone post a link to them on the main article?

To relieve page bloating:

• Archive One
• Archive Two
• Archive Three
• Archive Four
• Archive Five
• Archive Six
• Archive Seven
• Archive Eight
• Archive Nine
• Archive Ten
• Archive Eleven
• Archive Twelve

Please Use This Talk Page Correctly

From Wikipedia:Wikiquette

• Wikipedia articles are supposed to represent all views (more at NPOV). The Talk pages are not a place to debate which views are right or wrong or better. If you want to do that, there are venues such as Usenet, public weblogs and other wikis.
• You can always take a discussion to e-mail or to your user page if it's not essential to the article.
• Sign and date your posts to talk pages (not articles!).

Please bear these items in mind when posting to this talk page. This article is controversial and somewhat high traffic. Mis/overuse of the talk page makes it difficult for this page to serve its intended purpose.
Fox1 11:43, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• And remember, when making assertions concerning Mrs. Schiavo herself and her condition. You (almost certainly) do (did) not know her personally, and you (almost certainly) have not examined her in person, and you (very likely -- tell us if it's otherwise :-) are not a physician. So you are working on second-hand, third-hand, or worse reportage. Temper your assertions accordingly.
  

--Baylink 19:23, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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)

Disability rights activism

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

Straw poll: Ms. vs. Mrs.

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

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

Ms.

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

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

Mrs.

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

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

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

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

9. She's married and Mrs. is used. Also that's how Mr. Shiavo's husband refers to her. Saopaulo1 08:22, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)
10. People are entitled, absent fraudulent intent, to be called whatever they wish to be called. She is still marries, to the extent that she can be, and as someone else pointed out, that's what her husband calls her. I'm not fond of style guides that impose on people things which they don't want to be called... --Baylink 19:10, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Other

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Her current condition

I haven't edited this article before, so I'm not aware of the consensus regarding all the issues, but I'm curious to know why this was removed (deleted section in bold): "On March 18, her gastric feeding tube was removed under court order, and as of March 25, her tongue and eyes were said to be bleeding and her skin flaking off due to dehydration, according to her parents' lawyer.

This was published in the Sunday Telegraph in the UK today. The only reason I didn't link to the story is that it's subscription only, but I could probably find a non-subscription reference. I don't see what the problem is with it, as the introduction ought to describe her current condition. SlimVirgin 00:03, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)

Read the comments in the revision history. Unverified and unverifiable claims do not really belong in the article, and even if they do, they don't belong above the fold. As the man said: only facts in the intro, please.--Jwbaker 00:07, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Only confirmed facts belong in the intro. Claims go further down. Neutrality^talk 00:07, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)

That's hilarious. The article is riddled with blatantly false Felos propaganda, and just plain made-up nonsense, like this double whopper: "The incident occured only in the presence of family members and has not been independently confirmed; Schiavo has not been able to speak since her heart attack in 1990." NCdave 04:36, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I am the person who wrote that, and there is nothing false about it. --Viriditas | Talk 09:39, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

But it is a fact that this is being claimed, and highly relevant, because it speaks to the issue of her current condition, and it's odd that you wouldn't want the intro to describe that. I can add after it that the husband's lawyer denies this is the case, and link to a story summarizing those comments, then it will be timely, relevant, and referenced. SlimVirgin 00:11, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)

The claim and counterclaim are mentioned later in the article with the updates of the latest condition. Since it is a he-said, he-said, and it is not clear which version (or some variant) is the truth, it doesn't seem to make sense to put it so high up near the intro.. Fuzheado | Talk 00:15, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I disagree. The issue you want to remove shows clearly how intense the dispute is: that such a basic matter of fact would be contradicted. This article is supposed to be NPOV and up to date. The up to date claim, from one side, is that a woman is being, effectively, tortured to death. The other side denies this. To leave that most salient piece of information out of the intro is wrong. (Note: I have no strong POV on this matter, except that it's incredibly sad.) What is the editorial difference between the claim: "Neurologists say this is unlikely to cause pain, given Schiavo's physical state," (which is in the intro) and the claim: "Her parents' lawyer says her tongue is bleeding" (which was deleted from the intro). SlimVirgin 00:19, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)

An attorney is not a medical expert; his expertise is in the sphere of legal affairs. If you can find the name of the doctor he was allegedly quoting, then by all means, include it. --Viriditas | Talk 04:06, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Any attempt at a factual statement as to Ms. Schiavo's condition in the introduction should be handled with the utmost care. A graphic description of Ms Schiavo's condition in the introduction is only justifiable if the source is independantly verified. Otherwise, the description may color the reader's emotions, and impact the NPOV of the article. To present both views later in the article to better show the uncertainty of the situation & rhethoric in the media, would be entirely appropriate.--ghost 01:39, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Fair enough, but that doesn't address my point. What is the editorial difference between the neurologist's claim (allowed in the intro), and the parents' lawyer's claim (not allowed in the intro). The neurologist's claim is not verifiable: no-one can know whether another person is experiencing pain. Either both sets of claims should be allowed, or neither. I don't mind which. SlimVirgin 02:15, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)

If no one has an answer to this, I'll be removing the neurologists' claim from the intro, as there seems to have been a decision on this page not to have claims in the introduction. I'll wait another hour or so. SlimVirgin 03:50, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)

Aloha, Slim. I'm don't think removing the neurologist claim is a good idea as it appears to be an authoritative reference, whereas a claim by an attorney about Terri's medical condition is not. Do you know if the Schindler's attorney was quoting a specific medical practitioner? If so, can that person be named? --Viriditas | Talk 04:01, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

M.Schiavo/Felos/Greer have forbidden photographs, videotapes, etc., to prevent Terri's family and friends from documenting what they see, just as they forbade MRI, fMRI, PET scans, etc., which could have proven or disproven their contentions about her PVS state. The reason is obvious. NCdave 04:08, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I would like to understand exactly why such scans (MRI, fMRI, PET) were never done, as I find that quite troubling. --Viriditas | Talk 04:29, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The simple, factual answer is that they were not done because M.Schiavo/Felos/Greer would not permit them. Their motives are, IMO, pretty obvious, but can only be inferred. This article used to contain a link to a very informative article about that issue, but the M.Schiavo partisans here deleted it for nonconformity with their POV. Here's an excerpt:

Terri's diagnosis was arrived at without the benefit of testing that most neurologists would consider standard for diagnosing PVS. One such test is MRI (Magnetic Resonance Imaging). MRI is widely used today, even for ailments as simple as knee injuries but Terri has never had one. Michael has repeatedly refused to consent to one. The neurologists I have spoken to have reacted with shock upon learning this fact. One such neurologist is Dr. Peter Morin. He is a researcher specializing in degenerative brain diseases, and has both an M.D. and a Ph.D. in biochemistry from Boston University.

In the course of my conversation with Dr. Morin, he made reference to the standard use of MRI and PET (Positron Emission Tomography) scans to diagnose the extent of brain injuries. He seemed to assume that these had been done for Terri. I stopped him and told him that these tests have never been done for her; that Michael had refused them.

There was a moment of dead silence.

"That's criminal," he said, and then asked, in a tone of utter incredulity: "How can he continue as guardian? People are deliberating over this woman's life and death and there's been no MRI or PET?" He drew a reasonable conclusion: "These people [Michael Schiavo, George Felos, and Judge Greer] don't want the information."

Dr. Morin explained that he would feel obligated to obtain the information in these tests before making a diagnosis with life and death consequences. I told him that CT (Computer-Aided Tomography) scans had been done, and were partly the basis for the finding of PVS. The doctor retorted, "Spare no expense, eh?" I asked him to explain the comment; he said that a CT scan is a much less expensive test than an MRI, but "it only gives you a tenth of the information an MRI does." He added, "A CT scan is useful only in pretty severe cases, such as trauma, and also during the few days after an anoxic (lack of oxygen) brain injury. It's useful in an emergency-room setting. But if the question is ischemic injury [brain damage caused by lack of blood/oxygen to part of the brain] you want an MRI and PET. For subsequent evaluation of brain injury, the CT is pretty useless unless there has been a massive stroke."

Other neurologists have concurred with Dr. Morin's opinion. Dr. Thomas Zabiega, who trained at the University of Chicago, said, "Any neurologist who is objective would say 'Yes'" to the question, "Should Terri be given an MRI?"

In Greer's case the motivation might be simple pride. Five years ago he made some rulings about the facts of the case, rulings which subsequent evidence has shown to be incorrect. He won't admit those mistakes, and won't permit tests that would further confirm his error. Or maybe his motives are more sinister. NCdave 04:48, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I'm comforted to know that your "source" for these "informed" remarks is the National Review, which publishes people who call liberalism a "death cult". No bias there! By the way, how many times do you have to scan a liquefied brain before people will be satisfied? Eventually there comes a time to quit abusing a corpse. -Kasreyn

Actually, the primary source is the neurologists, who were quoted by the author (Johansen), whose articles was published in NR and elsewhere. (And reputable neurologists scoff at that absurd Felos propaganda about a "liquified brain.")

Don't forget, under the law, Terri's PVS status had to be certain to a "clear and convincing" standard of proof, or Greer could not order her death. No reasonable person could contend that that standard was met. NCdave 19:19, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Most neurologists who have examined her have agreed that no further tests are necessary. The electrical activity is almost flat. It is believed that at this point her brain is basically spinal fluid. Therefore, further tests would likely do no more than confirm this. See http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7265989/ (Excerpts from diagnoses in Schiavo case). Also see http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7288728/ (Doctors spar over Schiavo's condition). Legally, the record is closed. Medically, giving an MRI would probably be just as useful as taking the pulse of somebody whose body has already started to decay. (My opinion, of course. The articles I have referenced are a little more balanced ...) --Eph, 21:20 UTC, March 28, 2005

Not so, Eph. Michael Schiavo has refused to permit a PET scan, which would actually show where there is activity in her brain.

The statement that "most neurologists who have examined her" agree with Michael Schiavo is deceptive, because, for the most part, he controls which doctors can examine her. But most neurologists who have reviewed her case scoff at the rediculous Felos/Cranford claim that "her brain is essentially spinal fluid" or "her cerebral cortex has been replaced by fluid." That claim is proven false by her responsive behaviors, which is why about four dozen board-certified neurologists say her PVS diagnosis was flawed. NCdave 19:19, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The neurologist's opinion is simply that: just an opinion, whether authoritative or not (and no neurologist or anyone can know whether someone else is in pain when that person is unable to display pain behavior). Therefore this is a claim, not a fact, and I was told no claims were to be permitted in the intro. I'm therefore removing it in the interests of consistency. SlimVirgin 14:55, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)

No unverified claims. That claim was verified and authoritatively attributed, and should not be removed. Medical claims by an attorney cannot be verified unless there are names of physicians associated with those claims. --Viriditas | Talk 22:53, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

A neurologist, or any other doctor, may not be able to claim anything with 100% certainity, but they can make authoritative statments of the nature "All medical evidence that I am aware of and all similar cases that I have handled previously indicate X." Because of that background and knowledge their professional opinion should be valued more than that of a layperson. This is why we have hospitals and doctors in the first place. Can doctors make mistakes? Absolutely, but it would be foolish of us to weigh the opinion of a doctor and a lawyer equally. Similarly, it would be foolish to include a legal opinion from a clinician, as they will typically not have the experience or knowledge of case law to make an informed argument. --CVaneg 20:24, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

She hasn't had an MRI because she has metallic electrodes in her head, which would be ripped out by such a procedure (*Magnetic* Resonance Imaging), and her husband has declined to have them removed. I wouldn't subject her to it, either; the CAT is decisive. --Baylink 00:21, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

After studying the case, I agree. --Viriditas | Talk 00:53, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The doctor who implanted them recommended that they be removed, many years ago, for the sake of her health. It was leaving them in her, contrary to that recommendation, which was "subjecting her" to bad care. -NCdave

If you believe the M.Schiavo/Felos/Greer POV, she is "vegetative" anyhow, and cannot experience pain, so how would removing the electrodes "subject" her to anything? That makes me wonder whether you really do believe them. Of course even M.Schiavo/Felos don't really believe it: if they did, they wouldn't have been ramping up her analgesics to control her pain. They have her on morphine, now.

Most neurologists say that it is very, very wrong to comdemn her based on a PVS diagnosis decided without any kind of functional test like fMRI or PET scan. Dr. Peter Morin, M.D., Ph.D. (biochemistry), when told that Terri has had neither MRI nor PET scan, replied, "That's criminal! How can he continue as guardian? People are deliberating over this woman's life and death and there's been no MRI or PET?" [1]

Besides which, she could have a PET scan, even without removing the electrodes. NCdave 03:20, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

And yet, I've seen the CAT films (on TV somewhere?) and I'm stickin' with "The CAT scan is decisive". Better than 90% of this woman's brain simply does not exist any more. --Baylink 19:14, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Are you a radiologist or a neurologist, Baylink? NCdave 22:59, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Are you, NCdave? You seem to frequently advance that a CT scan isn't enough (if this is true, than the entire field of CT scans is outdated since it's never enough), she needs an MRI or PET scan. What are your qualifications for this conclusion? Professor Ninja 00:09, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

Terri's Relatives?

The article says:

"Although his wife never wrote a living will expressing a wish to refuse nutrition or medical treatment if disabled, Mr. Schiavo says they had conversations which make him sure she would not want to continue living in such a state. Two of his relatives have supported this claim."

I thought the relatives in question were related to Terri (and, thus, related to Mr. Schiavo by his marriage to Terri). If that is the case, shouldn't this be, "two of Terri's relatives"? The fact that they are relatives of Terri seems more relevant than the fact that they are also related to Mr. Schiavo. --L33tminion | (talk) 03:18, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)

Michael is a serial adulterer who has been romantically involved with various girlfriends for over 13 years, and has lived with two of them, including his current girlfriend, with whom he has two children. His sibling is not, in any meaningful sense, Terri's relative, just as he is not, in any meaningful sense, her husband.

Plus, there are four witnesses whose sworn testimony contradicts that of Michael and his two relatives. Of course, the Michael Schiavo partisans here have deleted all reference to that. Plus, GAL Pearse emphatically concluded that Michael's too-convenient and belated recollection was not credible. Of course, the Michael Schiavo partisans here have deleted all reference to that, too. NCdave 03:35, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You've advanced two seperate arguments. First Judge Greer has dismissed what you term as credible testimony as incredible, now one of the guardian ad litems has power of dismissal by credibility. This is a logical fallacy (please, PLEASE look at that list, NCdave) -Professor Ninja

The difference is that Greer dismissed the testimony of numerous neurologists, nurses and other clinicians without any rational basis, simply because those testimonies were inconsistent with what he had heard from the doctors Felos selected. Pearse dismissed Michael Schiavo's claimed recollection as not credible because of his obvious financial conflict of interest, and because his supposed recollection didn't occur to him until years after Terri's hospitalization, when it became convenient for him in his efforts to inherit Terri's medical trust fund (he almost certainly "remembered" it at Felos' prompting). The difference has nothing to do with logical fallacies or "power of dismissal of credibility" (whatever that is). It has to do with the evidence. Iyers and the CNAs and the various doctors whose testimonies Greer has refused to accept had no financial interest, and their stories didn't change. That's why they are credible and Michael is not. NCdave 18:36, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Actually Iyer's testimony has changed at least one. Power of dismissal by credibility is a reference to the fact that you claim Greer dismissing on grounds of credibility is wrong, but a GAL doing so is right. It cannot be both. (That is the logical fallacy, you can't have it both ways). Michael has no financial gain in this. Michael would have made more money by: 1) Allowing Terri to die, then filing malpractice and wrongful death, 2) Divorcing her and dividing the assets, or 3) taking the $1M to walk away from the case. As it stands he offered in legal contract to relinquish any money he stood to inherit from Terri's death to a charity, which means even less than he stands to make now, which is, frankly, next to nothing. Where's his financial conflict in this? That he could have made money, but chose to instead give it up? That's very selective reading of the facts. Professor Ninja 20:03, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

W/r/t Iyer, I know of no change in her testimony. (W/r/t Michael Schiavo, there have been many contradictions.)

W/r/t "power of dismissal by credibility" -- it isn't about "power," dude, it is about truth. Greer summarily dismissed affidavits because he found the things they alleged surprising, with no evidence at all of a conflict of interest or inconsistency of testimony, and he even dismissed affidavits from medical experts simply because they disagreed with his prior ruling, and he even said so: "It is clear therefrom that they do not believe that Terri is in a persistent vegetative state. Therefore, any conclusion that they have reached would be fatally flawed."

However, GAL Pearse found Michael Schiavo's then-newly-minted recollection of Terri's supposed wishes not credible for very good cause: Michael's obvious financial conflict of interest, and the very suspicious timing (it took him 8 years to "remember" her wishes).

In other words, GAL Pearse had good reasons, and Greer had poor reasons. It isn't supposed to be about who has "power," it is supposed to be about the truth -- especially when a woman's life is at stake. NCdave 06:41, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

-- the problem here is that where as, for example, Ms. Iyer's testimony is incredible, in that she asserts that she told the Schindlers about the abuse and that they would have previously known about it and not done anything -Professor Ninja

Again you repeat this nonsense. Just repeating it isn't going to make it any more true. She said nothing of the kind. NCdave 18:36, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

My fault for not citing. Pages 5 onward are particularly interesting[2]. Also do a find for "call them" on this document[3] to find "I recorded Michael’s statements word for word in Terri’s chart, but these entries were also deleted after the end of my shift. Standing orders were that the family wasn’t to be contacted, in fact, there was a large sign in the front of her chart that said under no circumstances was her family to be called, call Michael immediately, but I would call them, anyway, because I thought they should know about their daughter." in reference to a timeperiod (from the start of Iyer's affidavit) "from April of 1995 to July 1996". What now, NCdave? Professor Ninja 20:03, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Yes, it is interesting. Judge Greer is very frank about why he dismisses the affidavits of the various medical experts:

"It is clear therefrom that they do not believe that Terri is in a persistent vegetative

state. Therefore, any conclusion that they have reached would be fatally flawed."

In other words, "these medical experts disagree with my previous conclusion about Terri's medical condition, therefore they are wrong." Doesn't that kind of "logic" trouble you, when a woman's life hangs in the balance? NCdave 00:41, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

-- Terri Schiavo's parents, fighting to keep her alive at all costs -- is patently ridiculous, the notion that Michael Schiavo only came forward with his wife's unwritten wishes after rigorous (and it was rigorous, at times even radical) treatment totally failed to produce results isn't all that mad. -Professor Ninja

You're mistaken about the timeline. He cut off her treatment and started seeking her hastened death sometime near the beginning of 1993. But it wasn't until 1998 that he first claimed to "remember" her unwritten wishes. NCdave 18:36, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Right, that's not a mistake in the timeline. He actually sought to end treatment in 1994, which is when the options were exhausted. The treatments stopped, Terri didn't improve, and her physician advised Michael that withdrawing the feeding tube would be the best option. Professor Ninja 20:03, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It was late 1992 or the very beginning of 1993 when Michael halted all physical therapy for Terri. (He didn't "seek to end treatment," ever -- he just ordered a halt.) Also in 1993, he tried to block treatment of her urinary tract infection, and later in 1993 he put the DNR order on her. NCdave 06:41, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Plus, if that is so then he was lying to all the people who he had previous told that he didn't know what her wishes would be. We have the sworn testimony of multiple, credible witnesses that he repeatedly told them that he didn't know what her wishes would be -- and (remarkably) he even slipped up and admitted the same thing on Larry King Live on March 18, 2005. NCdave 18:36, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

No, you've already been caught on the Larry King Live thing. People who watched it assert that he was ironically quoting the Schindlers. He may have also told people (if they are credible, some of their testimony, as per their instructions, not Greer's, was never formally sworn in) prior to treatment ending that he didn't know, to keep her alive. Again, consider that hypothetical -- he wanted to exhaust all options instead of letting her die from the outset. Professor Ninja 20:03, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

His words were clear, read them yourself:

LARRY KING: Do you understand how [Terri's family] feel[s]?

MICHAEL SCHIAVO: Yes, I do. But this is not about them, it's about Terri. And I've also said that in court. We didn't know what Terri wanted, but this is what we want...

That's straight from the transcript. Note that he didn't say, "They've said that in court," he said, "I've said that in court." You can speculate that he misspoke, but that's what he said. NCdave 06:41, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

For the sake of argument -- just for the sake of argument -- assume that Michael Schiavo is a loving husband. He gives his wife, with the cooperation of her parents, the most strenuous rehabilitation workthrough that is medically possible, he's not willing to give up yet. He knows she said "no tubes for me," but he figures that only counts if nothing can be done, and all the options haven't been exhausted yet. If he expresses her wishes, they may pull the plug, as it were, before everything's been tried. Now there comes a time when the options have been exhausted and there's not only been no significant improvement in Terri Schiavo, there's been no improvement at all. He now voices her wishes. Is that so incredible? I don't think that's very incredible at all. And it jives with the timeline totally. The man became an RN to care for Terri, for crying out loud. -Professor Ninja

Okay, for the sake of argument, assume that is so. Then how do you explain what he did to Shanna and Tolly?

Was that the action of a "loving husband?" Or was it more consistent with someone who loudly complained, "when is that bitch gonna die?" and often complained bitterly that her living on in that disabled condition was robbing him of a normal life?

Also, there's the inconvenient fact that according to your cheritable theory he was a chronic liar.

Plus, Michael supposed recollection is inconsistent with the sworn testimony of four other people: two friends who heard Terri express contrary wishes, and two women who say emphatically that Michael repeatedly (even after the malpractice settlement) told them that he had no idea what Terri would have wanted. Michael didn't "remember" that immediately when he first started trying to hasten her death, he "remembered" it after he retained Felos. NCdave 18:36, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

How do I explain the fact that he euthanised two cats? When my father had just died of an aneurysm in January of 2001, we waited until March 2001, then took "his" dog (it lived with all of us, but my father was the one who took care of it) and had it put down. My dog had a massive reaction to my father dying, and became depressed and self-destructive. When my uncle died of cancer a year ago, his cat became so depressed my aunt considered euthanising it. Her two cats were undoubtedly her cats -- Michael may have been unable to care for them properly and they may have shown a major reaction, as animals do, to Terri being gone. Professor Ninja 20:03, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Nice try. He had the cats put down to facilitate moving in with his girlfriend, Cindy Shook, who had a dog (and who is now terrified of him, BTW). It was about two years after Terri's hospitalization. Do you think it took him two years to notice that the poor kitties were miserable without Terri around? NCdave 00:47, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

And this nonsense about him being an adulterer -- is the man supposed to be a monk because his wife's parents keep interfering with Terri's end-of-life wishes? Or his wishes as guardian, if you will? -Professor Ninja

Ahem. He was sleeping with his girlfriends (and even moved in with one of them) long before anybody ever suggested that Terri had expressed a wish to not be kept alive in a severely disabled condition.

So which of those two facts do you think more likely contributed to causing the other? Do you think that the thing which first happened in 1998 caused the thing which first happened in early 1992? NCdave 18:36, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Yes, he also introduced his girlfriends to the Schindlers, who had encouraged him to start dating.Professor Ninja 20:03, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

What does that have to do (even if true, which is questionable) with the fact that Michael's supposed memory of Terri's "end-of-life wishes" didn't come to him until 6-1/2 years after he started dating other women? You say that "if the end-of-life wishes had been honoured" then Terri would have been dead, so it would not have been adultery for Michael to be sleeping with other women in 1991. But in 1991 there wasn't even a suggestion that she had ever expresseed such wishes, not by anyone. NCdave 06:41, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

If Terri's a practicing Catholic, she wouldn't want a bill of divorce. It's unlawful in the Catholic church to grant a bill of divorce unless the marriage is unlawful. -Professor Ninja

You are mistaken. We know from the sworn testimony of multiple witnesses that Terri was planning to divorce him, and there are grounds for divorce and annullment of a marriage in the Catholic church (I have first-hand knowledge of this). NCdave 18:36, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

No, you can't tell the difference between allegation and fact. There's also contrary testimony. You can't throw out contrary testimony simply because it doesn't conform to your point of view. Professor Ninja 07:09, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

Anullment is not divorce. I have first hand knowledge of this too, believe me, I was raised in a French/Irish family, if there's one thing I know, it's the rules of the Catholic church. A divorce, first of all, is a civil matter, same as marriage. It is handled completely outside the purview of the church. A practicing Catholic would not seek a divorce. They would seek an anullment, in which they would have to show that they had significant grounds for the marriage being unlawful, and therefore, it is considered not to have existed by grace of God in the first place. Professor Ninja 20:03, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Catholics commonly get both divorces from civil courts, and annulments from ecclesiastical courts. The Catholic church recognizes the later and not the former; civil authorities recognize the former and not the later. The former are much easier to obtain than the later, and for that reason usually predate the later, often by several years. NCdave 06:41, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It's latter, by the way, not later. Catholics, if they want to remarry, have to get a divorce from a civil body, because ecclesiastical documents have no bearing on civil matters, and they would be legally considered bigamists if they only had an annullment. Your timeframe is backwards though, most observant Catholics will have the marriage declared null by the church before getting a divorce for the precise reason that divorce is a sin. Issuing a bill of divorce to a bound marriage is a sin, issuing a civil bill to a marriage that is null, and therefore doesn't exist, is not. Professor Ninja 07:09, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

Even if, for the sake of argument, we accept that Michael Schiavo is an adulterer, adultery is not grounds for a bill of divorce under the unlawful marriage doctrine -- see Christ's sparing and forgiveness of the adulteress about to be stoned, who he commands to go back to her husband and sin no more. -Professor Ninja

"Go back to her husband and sin no more? I can see that you are not a professor of theology, Ninja. You need to review scripture. That's not at all what Jesus said to her. Please look it up. (Hint: it is in the Book of John) NCdave 18:36, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Adultery is one of the few grounds for divorce in scripture. See Mat. 18:8-9, and Mat. 1:19. NCdave 18:36, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

If she was to sin no more, she would have to go back to her husband. A bill of divorce is illegal. Professor Ninja 20:03, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The passage says nothing about a husband. There's no indication that she even had a husband. Please go read it, Ninja. -NCdave

She's an adulteress. If she didn't have a husband, she'd be doing the most insane act of adultery ever perpetrated. Professor Ninja 07:09, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

That is assuming it is adultery by any stretch of the imagination, because if the end-of-life wishes had been honoured Michael would be in a perfectly legitimate relationship. -Professor Ninja

He was sleeping with other women at least as early as 1991. It wasn't until 1998 that anyone ever suggested that Terri had expressed a wish to not be kept alive in her current condition. NCdave 18:36, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Again, at the encouragement of the Scindlers, to whom he'd often introduce his girlfriends.

What does that have to do (even if true) with the fact that Michael's supposed memory of Terri's "end-of-life wishes" didn't come to him until 6-1/2 years after he started dating other women? You say that "if the end-of-life wishes had been honoured then Terri would have been dead, so it would not have been adultery for Michael to be sleeping with other women in 1991. But in 1991 there wasn't even a suggestion that she had ever expresseed such wishes, not by anyone. NCdave 03:46, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

If Michael wants the money (there is none, but let's suppose) he's entitled to a division of assets on divorce. He could get money that way, why not? -Professor Ninja

Initially, he could not. He got $300,000 awarded to him, and spent it. The rest of the money was placed in Terri's medical trust account. It was designated for her care and rehabilitative therapy, and he would not have gotten it. (Greer subsequently allowed Felos to raid it to pay his legal fees, but that's another issue.) Eventually, however, Terri's family offered to let him keep everything, if he would just let them care for Terri. He refused, perhaps because of spite, or perhaps because he's letting Felos make his decisions now.

Michael offered to relinquish control of the money, if they would allow Terri to die. They refused, perhaps because of spite. Professor Ninja 20:03, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Or, just pretend, he is a loving husband who's option is a) never move on with his life because even though he's tried to, he's been, contrary to Florida law, stopped from doing so by the Schindlers, who, in fact, encouraged him to date, or b) accept that he still loves his lawful wife and a new woman, which is, given the human disposition for love, very possible. -Professor Ninja

Terri's family has repeatedly asked him to divorce her, and get on with his life. He has refused. On September 27, 1999 he was asked why, during a deposition. His proximate answer was spite for his in-laws. NCdave 18:36, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It's not up to Terri's family. And it's not up to anybody but Michael. If that was grounds for divorce, we'd have a society far worse than the one we have now. "Why are you divorcing your wife?" "My in-laws asked me to." And why should he? He has no reason to. Terri didn't do anything wrong. Should he just leave his wife on her death bed for another woman like Newt Gingrich, or should he see the affair through in respect of the woman (women?) he loves? Professor Ninja 20:03, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Ah, the obligatory Gingrich smear. Gingrich's ex-wife is alive and well, thank you very much.

As for why he should divorce Terri, how about because he is engaged to marry another woman! Are you a polygamist? Is he? How can you say "he has no reason" to get a divorce, when he is engaged to marry Jodi?? NCdave 03:58, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

If Terri Schiavo had died ten years ago, would Michael be an adulterer? No. -Professor Ninja

Yes, he would. We know that he started sleeping with other women at least 13-1/2 years ago.

It was a rhetorical question... I was more asking if anybody would have cared if he had moved on with his life... Anyway. Professor Ninja 20:03, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Rhetorically speaking, if he had divorced her before sleeping with other women, then he wouldn't be an adulterer, and his two children wouldn't be bastards, and Terri wouldn't be dying. Seems like a much better outcome, to me. Don't you agree? NCdave 03:58, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps you should take it up with the Schindlers, who are on record as having encouraged Michael Schiavo to get on with his life and date other women. --Viriditas | Talk 06:04, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Actually, to be accurate, they are not on record as having said such a thing. Rather, there is unattributed hearsay evidence that they did so, I think in one of the GAL reports. NCdave 06:41, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

She's been kept artificially alive contrary to all legal wishes, her own and Michael's, with no hope of improvement. The actions of Terri's parents do not thereby make Michael a sinner -- if Terri is a Catholic as they purport, they violates the volition of the human soul to choose between sin and grace. The Schindlers are therefore, according to the theology they purport their daughter follows, the sinners. Professor Ninja 06:30, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Feeding someone who cannot feed herself is not being "kept artifically alive," and grounds for killing someone. If it were, then all babies would be kept artificially alive and not legally entitled to live.

Morally, according to the Roman Catholic Church, it is a grave sin to withhold her nutrition and hydration; here is an article about the Catholic Church's teachings on euthanasia.

Legally, if there is question about whether or not Terri expressed such a wish, then the court is required to assume that she did not. That's the "clear and convincing" proof standard. Greer just plain lied to rule that Michael Schiavo's convenient 1998 "recollection" met that standard. The overwhelming evidence is that she never said that.

But even if she did say it, it still doesn't mean she wouldn't want to be fed. A feeding tube wasn't considered life support back then, by anyone (and considereing it so is still controversial today), and mouth feeding (which Greer explicitly forbade) is still not considered life support, anywhere. NCdave 18:36, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Au contraire, NCdave, feeding somebody who cannot feed herself is keeping somebody alive artificially. Feeding tubes are defined as life support. More important is that they're defined by life support by Florida law. Babies in incubators often have breathing tubes to feed them oxygen, are you suggesting that because that is artificial (by every definition of the word) that they don't have the right to live? Babies are also fed by breast, which isn't an artificial way at all. They don't need their throats by-passed because they'll choke to death when they breast feed. An umbelical court, which provides nutrition and oxygen, is natural life support. A breast for milk is natural life support. That's the difference you're trying to obscure, NCdave. Babies are only allowed to asphyxiate to death if they're governed by Texas Republicans

Here's an article[4] conveniently supplied by Preisler in an archived talk page that outlines other Catholic teachings pretty damn well. Ball's in your court, NCdave. Professor Ninja 20:03, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

That's a Newsweek article! That's your authority for Catholic doctrine? NCdave 23:21, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, and? A Jesuit bioethicist's opinion isn't valid because he's in Newsweek? You live in a spceial, special world NCdave. Professor Ninja 00:13, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

Also, babies are not permanently unconscious without chance for recovery. Furthermore, babies are likely to be able to feed themselves in the future. --L33tminion | (talk) 00:47, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)

Paul Wolfowitz is an adulterer, too. So what? RickK 06:34, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)

Huh? Whether or not that is true, I cannot say. But as far as I know he is not seeking to have Clare killed. Michael Schiavo's open adultery, besides being a crime in Florida, is important because it is one of the things which makes him unfit to serve as his wife's guardian and make life and death decisions for her. NCdave 18:36, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Adultury is a crime in Florida? Is that a law that's still on the books? I doubt it... --L33tminion | (talk) 00:47, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)

"Living in open adultery" is a crime in Florida. Maximum sentence is 60 days. NCdave 03:24, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Pain and PVS

This is an excerpt from Dr. Cheshire's report:

According to the definition of PVS published by the American Academy of Neurology, "persistent vegetative state patients do not have the capacity to experience pain or suffering. Pain and suffering are attributed of consciousness requiring cerebral cortical functioning, and patients who are permanently and completely unconscious cannot experience these symptoms."

However, the hospice has now put Terri on morphine to control her pain. NCdave 03:24, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Well, obviously they don't know if she is, indeed, in pain. It is most likely improbable that she would, but the morphine is probably a precautionary measure. Neutrality^talk 03:29, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)

Everyone who has examined Terri has seen that she reacts as anyone else would to painful stimuli. But did you bother to read Dr. Cheshire's report?

There is a remarkable moment in the videotape of the September 3, 2002 examination by Dr. Hammesfahr that seemed to go unnoticed at the time. At 2:44 p.m., Dr. Hammesfahr had just turned Terri onto her right side to examine her back with a painful sharp stimulus (a sharp piece of wood), to which Terri had responded with signs of discomfort. Well after he ceased applying the stimulus and had returned Terri to a comfortable position, he says to her parents, "So, we’re going to have to roll her over ...," Immediately Terri cries. She vocalizes a crying sound, "Ugh, ha, ha, ha," presses her eyebrows together, and sadly grimaces. It is important to note that, at that moment, no one is touching Terri or causing actual pain. Rather, she appears to comprehend the meaning of Dr. Hammesfahr’s comment and signals her anticipation of pain. This response suggests some degree of language processing and interpretation at the level of the cerebral cortex. It also suggest that she may be aware of pain beyond what could be explained by simple reflex withdrawal.

In other words, she not only experiences pain, she also remembers it, and is able to understand enough English to recognize what people are saying that they will do to her, and is able to anticipate pain and react to the anticipation of pain. NCdave 03:43, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

No, the body reacts to painful stimulus regardless of cognitive abilities. At most, you're saying Terri Schiavo has the reactions of an amoeba, which does not bode well for your case. The body is hardwired to react without the input of the brain (indeed every individual cell has some capacity for threat reaction, up to and including suicide, to protect the body as a whole). That's nothing special. As for her remembering pain, you have to think, "is this coincidence?" There's numerous times where Terri does absolutely nothing at all to painful stimulus. Why wouldn't she remember any other input up until now? Why doesn't she remember other painful stimulus? Why, if she does remember, does she not react at all times, or even in the majority, or even a slender minority of times? Think, NCdave. People other than you have seen these videos too, and we're more than capable of weighing them against all the available evidence. How about the -- what is it, four and a half hours? -- rest of the video that shows absolutely nothing in terms of stimulus/response? Professor Ninja 06:12, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Did you even read that? Where did you get the idea that Terri does nothing at all in reaction to painful stimuli? That's simply untrue. Where did you get the idea that "she didn't remember any other input up until now?" That's nonsense. Read the Cheshire report! It describes, for example, how she shows recognition of different people, including people she hadn't even met in 1990. That means that she has learned to recognize those people. Here's another excerpt:

Her behavior is frequently context-specific. For example, her facial expression brightens and she smiles in response to the voice of familiar persons such as her parents or her nurse.

Here's another excerpt:

When I first walked into her room, she immediately turned her head toward me and looked directly at my face. There was a look of curiosity or expectation in her express, and she maintained eye contact for about half a minute.

Also, you should read the accounts of Barbara Weller: [5] [6] [7] NCdave 06:36, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, cause an attorney won't lie to satisfy the retained client, especially when they can get away with it. And isn't Cheshire the one who, you know, never examined her? You're not exactly making a strong case. Here[8], for example, you claim that Carla Iyer's testimony was never discredited and that it's just a vicious smear. If Carla Iyer is telling the truth, she told the Schindlers that Terri was being abused when she was treating her. The Schindlers never brought that up, ever, at any time, from the time they were supposedly told until it got mentioned in Carla Iyer's testimony. They never called her as a witness in that capacity, even though in Carla Iyer's totally-never-discredited testimony she told them that Terri was being abused by Michael. Either the Schindlers are now in on a cover-up to keep their daughter getting abused (in which case, it discredits the attorney Barbara Weller and physician Cheshire by default, since they'd be retained to further this conspiracy) or you're so disconnected from reality... you know what? Never mind. I don't even post to convince you. You're a flagrant falsifier of "facts" that's been caught multiple times. I told Fox1 I'd ease off on replying to you, but I just don't want anybody reading this and buying into your nonsense. That's all I care about. You say God is your Lord, NCdave? You know bearing false witness (and lying! a double sin!) isn't excusable, even if you think it's to save a life. Professor Ninja 09:24, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

That's a lot nonsense to cram into one paragraph! I'm kind of impressed, actually.

In the first place, Dr. Cheshire was not permitted by M.Schiavo to give her a medical examination, just as M.Schiavo has never permitted Terri to have a fMRI or PET scan. But Dr. Cheshire did visit her on behalf of DCF, and examined her to the extent that he was permitted to.

BTW, that's more than Greer can say. Greer ordered her death without ever even visiting her, in spite of the fact that he even (illegally) appointed himself as her guardian ad litem. Have you ever heard of another case in which a judge, sitting in judgment of an incompetent person, appointed himself as her GAL? Anywhere? Have you ever heard of another case in which a GAL flatly refused to ever even visit his ward, even once?

If you really think that Michael just wants to do what Terri would want, then how do you explain what he did to Shanna and Tolly? Do you think that he thought Terri wanted that? Seriously?? NCdave 14:43, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The reason why Dr. Cheshire didn't examine her is not relevant to the fact that he did not examine her. Not examining her because you're forbidden to does not make your diagnosis was valid. He also states that he only had a "feeling" that Terri was present and that at no time was she showing the supposed behaviour. -Professor Ninja

I find it truly bizarre that I can quote from Dr. Cheshire's report, where he described the behavior that he personally witnessed as soon as he walked into her room for the first time," behavior which by itself disproves the PVS diagnosis, and then you can falsely say that "at no time was she showing the supposed behavior." That's just bizarre! Here's the quote again, please read it this time:

When I first walked into her room, she immediately turned her head toward me and looked directly at my face. There was a look of curiosity or expectation in her express, and she maintained eye contact for about half a minute.

That behavior, all by itself, is sufficient to disprove the PVS diagnosis... and that's just the beginning.

Plus, you need to remember that when there is any doubt about the correctness of a PVS diagnosis, for purposes of determining whether it is permissible to withdraw nutrition and hydration, the law requires the assumption that she is not in a PVS. The law requires "clear and convincing" proof. But Greer cares nothing for the law, he decided five years ago that she was better off dead, so he just lied, whenever necessary, to get that result. NCdave 21:18, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Greer had no responsibility to visit Terri. He appointed himself guardian ad litem to suspend the bickering between Michael Schiavo and the Schindlers, temporarily. It was a temporary measure that did not last.

If you look at the above response to you, you may note an anecdotal story. Please tell me that my mother and myself hated my father. Go on, it's the natural extension of your logic -- euthanising somebody's pets makes you a vile monster. We euthanised my dad's dog, our dog, after he died. We are thereby foul beasts. Professor Ninja 20:18, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I don't know how attached your dad was to his dog, or why you killed your father's dog. But Terri, by all accounts, loved Shanna and Tolly dearly. To euthanize them so that he could move in with his girlfriend shows his complete disdain for Terri's wishes. NCdave 21:35, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I can't imagine where you get that nonsense that the "Schindlers are now in on a cover-up to keep their daughter getting abused." Get a grip, dude!

Your claim that Iyer says she told the Schindlers that their daughter was being abused, at the time of that abuse, and they ignored her, is just as rediculous. When Iyers was caring for Terri, Michael Schiavo was trying to prevent the Schindlers from getting medical information about their daughter, and the Schindlers knew that Schiavo was denying their daughter therapy (and had been doing so for several years, by then), and they were fighting in court to change that. They were getting some "under the table" information about her condition from sympathetic CNAs and nurses like Iyers, but there's no evidence of any inconsistency in Iyer's statements, or between Iyer's statements and theirs, nor is there any evidence that they ignored information they received from her. Read her affidavit, and the affidavits of CNA Heidi Law and CNA Carolyn Johnson. (Also, read the evidence that she was a victim of domestic abuse before her hospitalization, here, and of Michael's "crazy" behavior and volatile temper and violent behavior toward other people [9] [10] [11] [12] [13].)

This has been addressed above, but since you're likely to ignore that, I'll state it again. Iyer says she called the Schindlers and told them about this abuse that occured. This is in her affidavit. If this is true, then the Schindlers did absolutely nothing with this information. That means they covered up the supposed truth. It can't be both. Carla Iyer cannot be telling the truth or the Schindlers allowed their daughter to be abused, because she told them about it, or else Carla Iyer is telling the truth, and the Schindlers did know she was being abused, and never brought this information into testimony, or called on Iyer to testify about it back in the 90s. Professor Ninja 20:18, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

That just isn't so. Read her affidavit! And read the affidavits of Carolyn Johnson and Heidi Law and Trudy Capone and Suzanne Vitadamo and Bobby Schindler and Cindy Shook and Jackie Rhodes. I have read them. Have you? Do you think they are all lying? WHY? Do you think those four dozen neurologists are lying, too? WHY? NCdave 20:49, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

"My name is Carla Sauer Iyer. I am over the age of eighteen and make this statement of my own personal knowledge... I was employed at Palm Garden of Largo Convalescent Center in Largo, Florida from April of 1995 to July 1996, while Terri Schiavo was a patient there... Standing orders were that the family wasn’t to be contacted, in fact, there was a large sign in the front of her chart that said under no circumstances was her family to be called, call Michael immediately, but I would call them, anyway, because I thought they should know about their daughter."[14] Not documented my ass. Professor Ninja 21:10, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You are repeating yourself. I've replied below. There's no contradiction, no inconsistency, and nothing there at all about abuse. Of course. Just more baseless accusations against decent people who bravely came forward and testified to what they witnessed. NCdave 21:59, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

That's the truth, but you don't want to hear it. Why not, Ninja? Why do you need to call people liars who cite sworn testimony disagrees with Felos's and M.Schaivo's claims? Why are you so hostile? Who are you, that you so passionately want to disbelieve all those dozens of doctors who say she's not PVS, and all those nurses and family members and friends who say that Michael was so vicious? NCdave 14:43, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

No, it's you that wants to disbelieve. You gloss over the facts (like the bizarre Iyer assertions that allege that the Schindlers, in the 1990s, knew their daughter was being abused and didn't ever call Iyer to testify about it) that aren't convenient to your assertions and hope to deluge people with misinformation until they buy into your ridiculous claims. That's dangerous, excessively so. The truth is not on your side. Professor Ninja 20:18, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You keep repeating that false claim, but you can't document it. It is made-up nonsense. Repeating it won't make it true. NCdave 20:37, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

"My name is Carla Sauer Iyer. I am over the age of eighteen and make this statement of my own personal knowledge... I was employed at Palm Garden of Largo Convalescent Center in Largo, Florida from April of 1995 to July 1996, while Terri Schiavo was a patient there... Standing orders were that the family wasn’t to be contacted, in fact, there was a large sign in the front of her chart that said under no circumstances was her family to be called, call Michael immediately, but I would call them, anyway, because I thought they should know about their daughter."[15] Not documented my ass. Professor Ninja 21:10, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Do you see the word "abuse" in there? Do you think that sign meant to "call Michael immediately" if you seem Michael being abusive to his wife? Doesn't make a lot of sense, does it?

Obviously that means that she called them to give them updates on changes in Terri's condition, the information that they would give to Michael. They all knew she was being denied the therapy she needed, which was callous and abusive by any reasonable standard, and is why they sued Michael. But there's nothing there to suggest that Iyer told them something actionable that they took no action upon.

In fact, do you see where she said that she even gave her name when she called? Naw, of course not. It isn't there. Since she was under orders from her bosses to not make such calls, I'd be surprised if she gave her name.

So your accusation is nonsense. NCdave 21:35, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

If the entire affidavit describes abuse, which it does -- "When Michael visited Terri, he always came alone and always had the door closed and locked while he was with Terri. He would typically be there about twenty minutes or so. When he left Terri would would be trembling, crying hysterically, and would be very pale and have cold sweats. It looked to me like Terri was having a hypoglycemic reaction, so I’d check her blood sugar. The glucometer reading would be so low it was below the range where it would register an actual number reading. I would put dextrose in Terri’s mouth to counteract it. This happened about five times on my shift as I recall. Normally Terri’s blood sugar levels were very stable due to the uniformity of her diet through tube feeding. It is my belief that Michael injected Terri with Regular insulin, which is very fast acting." for example -- you don't need to use the word. It is its de facto definition. Yes, obviously it means only what you want it to mean, and not the more obvious, less-stretch-of-an-imagination definition. I mean, when Carla Iyer says "I recorded Michael’s statements word for word in Terri’s chart, but these entries were also deleted after the end of my shift. Standing orders were that the family wasn’t to be contacted, in fact, there was a large sign in the front of her chart that said under no circumstances was her family to be called, call Michael immediately, but I would call them, anyway, because I thought they should know about their daughter." it means she was calling to give them anonymous, positive news on their daughter, and absolutely not to tell them about Michael's statements, which is the subject of the preceding sentence, and what she was talking about. You think I'd just let you lie pathologically, NCdave? Professor Ninja 21:44, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)

What rubbish. You are being intentionally obtuse. You think that "call Michael immediately" meant call him about her well-founded but unprovable suspicions that he was trying to kill her by insulin injection? Gimme a break. And her recollections about Michael's statements would, presumably, be deemed hearsay, and therefore inadmissable in court, anyhow. Her affidavit doesn't say what she called them about, or how often, or whether she gave her name. It only mentions, in passing, that she defied her boss's orders to call them, on some unspecified occassions, with some unspecified news. There's no contradition, no inconsistency, nothing there to make anyone doubt the veracity of her testimony. On the contrary, except for her suspicions about Michael trying to kill Terri by insulin, the gist of what she testified to is generally corroborated by others. And what about all the others, anyhow? Do you think that Heidi and Trudy and Jackie and Carolyn and Cindy and Suzanne etc. are all lying, too? NCdave 22:17, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

No, you're the one being intentionally obtuse here. She says she calls the Schindlers to tell them about their daughter. The logical thing to think is that she'd forewarn them... why not, she says she told police, why not the Schindlers? You even say "[o]bviously that means that she called them to give them updates on changes in Terri's condition" and then go on to say "[h]er affidavit doesn't say what she called them about". It can't be both. If you infer that she obviously called to tell them about her condition, then inferences are fair game. I, and, for that matter, just about everybody else, infer that since it is semantically and syntactically context-specific following a sentence in which the mistreatment of Terri Schiavo is the topic, that is what she called about. Unlike you, the rest of the world doesn't just drop random phrases where they're totally inappropriate to the topic at hand. Either Carla Iyer is lying, or she's mentally defective. Either way that makes her testimony bunk. Professor Ninja 02:21, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)

So you think that the only two possibilities are that she never called them or she told them everything she ever knew? Sorry, that's not logical, and that's not what she said. She said that she called them, on the sly, and against her boss's orders, to tell them something that she thought they should know about their daughter. She didn't say how many times she called, or what specific thing(s) she called about, or even whether she gave her name when she called. She had just mentioned the posted orders to never call Terri's family, and she added, in passing, that she had disobeyed those orders. That's not "random," it is a perfectly reasonable and appropriate clarification, to tell the listener, who has just heard that she was ordered to never call the parents, that she had not always followed that order. Just the opposite of indicating that "she is lying or mentally defective," it indicates that she is reasonable and measured in her remarks. Greer's unwillingness or inability to understand that plain English makes me wonder whether he might have Alzheimer's or something. Hmmmm... you know, he has announced that he will not run again. Maybe that's why? NCdave 02:57, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

No, but it is logical to assume that if she suspected Terri of being injected with insulin and abused, she would tell the Schindlers. She, after all, "disobeyed the orders" to uphold the nurse practitioner's code (that the right terminology?). How reasonable is a person to call and tell them certain things about their daughter, but not that Michael Schiavo is trying to murder her. I think I'll let this one stand, you've effectively shot yourself in the foot. Just so long as nobody accidentally gets fooled by you. Professor Ninja 04:16, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)

Let's cut to the chase. In the current revision of the article, it states the widely-accepted fact that her cerebral cortex has been replaced by fluid. Unless you contend that consciousness resides elsewhere in the brain, against all current thinking in neurobiology, and unless you can somehow discredit the liquefaction of her brain, you really don't have a case. She could be suffering the torment of the damned, but without the neocortical area of her brain, there is no one in there to know it. So how about you content yourself with attempting to refute her decerebrated state? Because all the breathless innuendo you can dredge up from right-wing sites doing axework on Mr. Schiavo will never get her feeding tube restored in a court of law. -Kasreyn

Yes, the article says it, but no, it is not "widely accepted." It is a blatant lie from the Felos/Cranford propaganda machine. I doubt that you can find any neurologist anywhere (other than that ghoul Cranford) who is familiar with her case and who would actually say such nonsense.

The cerebral cortex is 2/3 of the brain. With no cerebral cortex she'd be in a profound coma. Without the occipital lobes of her cerebral cortex, she'd be blind, but we know that she is only partially blind. Without the motor cortex of her cerebral cortex she couldn't move her head to look at things going on in her room, which she often does. With no cerebral cortex she'd be dead or in a profound coma, and everyone agrees that she is not.

There are four dozen neurologists who are ready to testify (or have already testified) that her PVS diagnosis was flawed.

Or think about how she came to be in this state. Regardless of what you think the cause was for her initial collapse, there is one thing that everyone agrees about: she suffered a general anoxia which deprived her entire brain of oxygen. Now how do you suppose general anoxia could specifically wipe out her entire cerebral cortex, and yet leave the rest of her brain sufficiently intact that she can even breathe? A stroke could destroy specific areas of the brain while leaving other areas at least largely intact, but general anoxia cannot.

Dr. Cheshire, the Mayo Clinic neurologist who the Florida DCF brought in to examine Terri a few weeks ago, addressed the question of how much cerebral cortex damage she actually has, in his report. Read it. NCdave 20:32, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

BTW, if/when you read Dr. Cheshire's report, you will realize that Felos/Cranford lied about Terri's cerebral cortex being replace by fluid. So then you should ask yourself what other things they might also have lied about. "Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus." NCdave 20:32, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Dr. William Hammesfahr

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cortonin, what you say is accurate - the nomination was not valid. But your conclusion is surprising. If the nomination is not valid, then why should Wikipedia continue to propogate the myth that he is Nobel Prize nominee? It is relevant because it calls into question credibility, honesty and integrity, all qualities that patients would hope a doctor has. The Nobel Prize claim has been repeated to death on Fox, MSNBC and CNN, and they are all inaccurate. Should Wikipedia support this inaccuracy? The same issue came up on another article when someone claimed he was "nominated for a Pulitzer Prize." Er, well anyone can be nominated. Just download the form, fill it out, put a postage stamp on it, mail it, and voila - "nominated" but not properly nominated. [16] It's meaningless, and Wikipedia should not be afraid to call out this type of mischaracterization. Fuzheado | Talk 04:17, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

HAMMESFAHR: Absolutely.

Note the name of the award. -66.188.220.252

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

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

Actually, his website, on the nomination itself, says "Nobel Peace Prize in Medicine"[17]. The guy's obviously full of crap. After all, falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus, right NCdave? Professor Ninja 04:18, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

Cranford has a special gift for the Big Lie, such as when he said, "there isn't a reputable, credible neurologist in the world who won't find her in a vegetative state." (In fact, most neurologists who have examined the case and offered an opinion scoff at that diagnosis.[18])

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

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

Thanks for your thoughts.

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

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

thanks for the thoughts

Dr. H

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

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

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

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

NCdave 21:43, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Be careful out there

Folks, the Recent developments section has been (hopefully accidentally) deleted twice in the last 24 hours. Be careful out there and double check your diffs. Fuzheado | Talk 04:23, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Talk Page Archiving

I've taken the liberty to archive more of the talk page, as it was getting gargantuan again. The only thing that I saved, save for VERY recent discussion, was the poll on Ms./Mrs. as it is pretty much evenly split at this time. Mike H 05:31, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)

Any NPOV issues?

I just took the pov tag off the page because I can't find any actual discussion about the POV status of the article on the talk page. The only ongoing complaints I see are ncdave's, but as best I can tell his concern is not about npov bur rather that the article isn't written to match his point of view. Obviously, there are always things that can be improved, but are there any currently running debates about the neutrality of this article that I am missing? Gmaxwell 22:27, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

So what you're saying is that because the article matches YOUR point of view, it must not be biased? This article certainly is NOT written from a neutral point of view. Case in point:

These offers may have been made under the misconception that the removal of Mrs. Schiavo's feeding tube remains simply a matter of Mr. Schiavo's choice. It was ruled in February 2000 that Mrs. Schiavo would choose to have the tube removed, and Michael Schiavo does not have legal standing to overrule this legal determination.

Actually, as the main "witness" to Terri's wishes, Michael Schiavo could easily overturn the court ruling--simply inform the court that his original story about Terri "not wanting a tube" was concocted. With no "clear and compelling evidence," the whole crux of the court argument would collapse. Yet this article is written as if Michael Schiavo had nothing to do with Terri's tube removal. That in itself is extremely biased. Consider that in 2001, the judge temporarily restored the feeding tube after an ex-girlfriend testified that Michael Schiavo didn't really know what Terri wanted and he just made up the story. So we see that if Michael Schiavo "confesses" to having made up the story, the ruling could (in theory--it's probably too late now) be overturned.

The most glaring POV problem is the implication that removing the feeding tube is killing Terri. Be she PVS or not, Terri has a swallowing reflex and/or can swallow. She recieved liquids, ice chips, and jello on a regular basis before non tube feeding was banned. She received communion on Mar 18 following removal of the tube. She received a drop of wine on Easter. It is Judge Greers order that no feeding of any sort, tube or not, that is killing her. The purpose of the tube was to reduce risk of aspiration, and to avoid the time required for hand feeding. Choking to death would be much preferable to dehydrating. StuartGathman 00:08, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Now, I am not a lawyer or doctor, but it seems to me that whether or not she can be fed in another manner is irrelevant. The determination of the courts (however unfair it may seem) was that Ms. Schiavo would not want to live in her current state. Currently the accepted practice in undisputed cases of PVS, seems to be the removal of life support, which in this case is considered to be the feeding tube. Valid arguments against this would be that Schaivo is not in a PVS, or that dehydration is a painful way to die (I believe both of these points are covered in the article). Whether or not she can be fed otherwise, though, is not terribly relevant. Also, just as my personal opinion I think that choking could potentially be worse than dehydrating, since you could conceivably be fully aware and struggling in fear when choking, which does not sound fun at all.--CVaneg 00:42, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

There's a bit about the husband that goes like this: "Mr. Schiavo has publicly responded to this charge by claiming that of the original $1,050,000 awarded in the malpractice suit, less than $50,000 is left, the rest having been spent under a judge's supervision on medical care for Mrs. Schiavo and the ongoing legal battle. This, however, is disputed." Disputed by whom? Everyone in the country? A judge? An accountant? A lawyer? Or someone off the street? [[User::anon|anon]]

POV Dispute

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

Point of View Issues

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Paragrah #1:

The first sentence is NPOV and accurate.

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

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

Paragrah #2:

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

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

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

Paragrah #3:

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

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

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

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

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

etc..

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

Theresa Marie Schiavo (born December 3, 1963), commonly known as Terri Schiavo (pronounced SHY-vo), is an American woman from St. Petersburg, Florida, the daughter of Robert and Mary Schindler and wife of Michael Schiavo. On February 25, 1990, she suffered severe brain damage caused by a cardiac arrest, believed to be brought on by bulimia. The efforts of Schiavo's husband to withhold life support have prompted a fierce debate over bioethics, euthanasia, legal guardianship, federalism, and civil rights, as well an active countereffort to keep her alive [19] [20].

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fox1 06:58, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

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

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

Fox1 06:58, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Michael Schiavo as a registered nurse

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

I found this using this search.

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

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

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

When did Michael become an RN?

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

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

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

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

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

Fox1 09:15, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fox1 06:43, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Feeling pain? (Opening section)

For those who have come along after this discussion started: The question here is whether any discussion of pain or lack of pain should be mentioned in the opening section (this is not about whether such a discussion should be in the article, only about its placement in the opening section) and, if so, how it should be worded. As you can see, the discussion has moved on to discuss the issue of Terri's pain more broadly, but this is not how it started.

I've tried to put in compromise phrasing on the issue of whether T. Schiavo will feel pain. There is a citation for a USA Today article. The "other" side would do better to come up with a citation. Fuzheado | Talk 04:58, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• I appreciate the help here, though I don't think the compromise sentence really makes sense...:-( I would propose something like this: The removal of the feeding tube will result in death by dehydration; given the dispute over her current condition, it is unclear whether Schiavo has experienced or will experience pain during this process. Neutrality? BoomHitch 05:04, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)
  • The external link should IMO be inserted in the sentence (->Effect of removing feeding tube)"Most neurologists believe that Schiavo did not experience pain, hunger or thirst due to the removal of the feeding tube." BoomHitch 05:10, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)
    • Do you have a citation or quote that would support the "unclear" position? It would make that case stronger, but for now the USA Today article quotes experts, and later in this page, the talk about morphine might not be consistent with the proposed statement. Fuzheado | Talk 05:12, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • Just be sure to note that she is on morphine... which renders the discussion about feeling pain rather moot, because morphine takes away aaaaaall the pain. -- 8^D BDAbramson^gab 05:16, 2005 Mar 29 (UTC)
        • According to Michael's lawyer, she's not on morphine [21]. He said hospice records show that Schiavo has been given morphine only twice since she was taken off her feeding tube: one five-milligram dose on March 19 and another dose of the same strength on March 26.... Cancer patients and other people who are in extreme pain are often given doses of between 50 mg and 200 mg, he added to provide context. --Azkar 05:32, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • I'm not sure how the proposed statement would be inconsistent with the talk about morphine. As I pointed out, a similar statement to the one in the opening section is made at the head of the section entitled "Effect of removing feeding tube". The first (and only) mention of morphine comes later in that same section. BoomHitch 05:58, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)
• Personally, I feel that this article should be about facts and medicine, and the various claims that non-medical professionals have made. I also believe that we should not raise the latter up to the level of the former. Neutrality^talk 05:16, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)
  • I understand your concern. However, the basis for the neurologists' opinions in the article cited is the court's ruling on Schiavo's condition, namely PVS. It does not seem fair to cite their conclusions without referencing the basis for their conclusion. However, placing such a reference in the opening paragraph is out of place since it is a matter of dispute. Her current condition and the dispute over it is discussed in its own section. The opening paragraph should make general statements about which all can agree (as much as that is possible). The article cited itself notes the dispute over whether she will experience pain (i.e., that there is disagreement) and btw does not say most neurologists--Fuzheado was more correct. Look, I said in my comment on the change that the sentence should probably just be removed, and I am just as favor of that as rewording it. BoomHitch 05:28, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)

So if she's only getting morphine for her pain occasionally, that means what? That she's in IVS (intermittant vegetative state)? People in persistent vegetative states do not experience pain (according to the American Academy of Neurology). No, it means that the hospice is using other analgesics and/or sedatives to keep Terry quiet. When a patient who can't speak gets morphine, it means that her discomfort is very obvious, by her agonized screams, groans or cries, by thrashing around, or similar behaviors. So these hospice ghouls know perfectly well that the person they are killing is not in a vegetative state. The claim that she was in a PVS was just a lie for the court. (But even before this latest proof, some four dozen neurologists, which is the large majority of those who have reviewed her case and expressed opinions, agreed: her PVS diagnosis was erroneous.) NCdave 06:52, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Wow, welcome to Fantasy Island with your host, NCdave. Hospitals, hospices, palliative care units, nurses, doctors, physicians, gynecologists, ENT specialists, whatever, they all routinely take pain alleviating and comfort measures regardless of whether or not the person can feel it. The only time medical personnel take absolutely no precautionary measures whatsoever is if a person is already dead, or if they would have an adverse reaction to whatever measure is being taken. This is done as a matter of ethics and practice, much the same way a person should signal at an intersection even if there's no car around, as you don't want to accidentally slip up the procedure when it seriously matters. And no, morphine isn't the ultra-potent discomfort panacea you're making it out to be. Morphine is regularly given out for bed sores, for example. It's regularly given out for even moderate pains, so one doesn't need "agonized screams" to get it. Professor Ninja 07:02, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)

Let me get this straight. M.Schiavo/Felos/Greer claimed to be certain that Terri was vegetative. That means that they were certain that she could feel no pain, to a "clear and convincing" standard of proof. Truly PVS patients feel no pain. Not moderate pain, not severe pain, none. But now they are giving Terri morphine and other analgesics (and probably sedatives) -- and you think it is just so they won't forget to do so for the next patient? Uh, yeah, sure they are. Is anybody else here buying that theory? NCdave 09:12, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It's medical procedure, NCdave. When my uncle died of cancer last year, up until the moment he took his last breath, they continued to wet his lips with a cloth, and make sure he was covered properly with a blanket. He couldn't feel anything, he had been in a non-responsive coma since the early morning, his liver was pumping so many enzymes into his body that he was essentially self-medicated beyond what even morphine could offer. Why did they wet his lips, NCdave? Why did they bundle him in a blanket? Because it's proper procedure, that's why. Professor Ninja 09:19, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)

So you think they gave her morphine on two particular occasions because it was a "proper procedure?" You think that she showed no indication of being in discomfort, but they just decided it would be "proper procedure" to give her a shot of morphine sulphate. Uh huh. NCdave 15:57, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Yes. That is actually exactly why they did it, NCdave. She is in the process of dying, and procedure is to give her morphine. Regardless of how aware she is. Professor Ninja 17:37, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)

So you think administering morphine is some sort of ritual, then, not done as treatment for pain, but as a kind of annointing for the dying? I guess that would explain why they only gave her morphine on Saturdays (March 19 and March 26) -- some sort of Sabbath thing, I suppose. <rolling eyes> NCdave 18:57, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

If we're to accept your premises and conclusion that you draw below as true, then you're making an inconsistent argument in saying that it's "only a Sabbath thing". Professor Ninja 22:53, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)

Sigh. Let's try again. I find it hard to believe that you think that Morphine given sporadically was not given for symptomoms of discomfort. But if you really do believe that, then what do you think about Terri's "Exit Protocol," prepared by the Hospice for their 1991 attempt to dehydrate her to death? It calls for the nurses to, "Monitor symptoms of pain/discomfort. If noted, medicate with Naproxen rectal suppository 375 mg. Q8 prn"

Now, if they've instructed the nurses to monitor Terri for "symptoms of pain/discomfort," and treat with an analgesic, don't you agree that means they believe she can experience pain and discomfort? (Which, of course, means that she can't possibly be in a PVS.) NCdave 07:09, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Irrelevant. Speculation like this is less than useless for our purposes.

Fox1 09:49, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It is additional definitive proof that she was not in a PVS.

It means that causing her death was illegal. It means that M.Schiavo/Felos/Cranford are liars, and Greer is wrong. It means that they are knowingly killing a conscious person. It means that The Hospice of the Florida Suncoast is run by ghouls. It means that this article is wrong. That is relevant. NCdave 15:57, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

No Dave, giving somebody morphine doesn't mean their death was illegal. To draw that conclusion only means you're woefully ignorant of palliative procedures in hospitals and hospices. Professor Ninja 17:49, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)

Sigh. Let me try to explain it to you.

Palliation is to control the pain or other unpleasant symptoms of dying patients who are experiencing pain.

If the conclusion of a logical implication is falsified, that means that the premise must also be false. (If that makes no sense, see [22].)

We know that if a person is in a PVS then by definition she cannot experience pain. (The premise = "she's in a PVS," the conclusion is "she cannot experience pain.")

So, logically, if she experiences pain (falsification of the conclusion) then she is not in a PVS (falsification of the premise).

The fact that she got analgesics (even morphine) means that must have been in apparent pain, which means that she was not in PVS, which means that ordering her death was illegal.

M.Schiavo/Felos/Crandall/Greer claimed that Terri was in a PVS, which, if it had been true, would have meant that she could not experience pain, and thus that palliation of that pain would be unnecessary. That claim was legally necessary to justify killing her. But the fact that they have to control her pain with analgesics means that she was not in a PVS, which means that the legal justification for killing her was a lie, which means that Judges Greer's order that she be killed was illegal, which means that her death is murder. NCdave 18:57, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

And yet another logical fallacy, the slippery slope! Professor Ninja 22:53, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)

"It is additional definitive proof that she was not in a PVS. It means that causing her death was illegal. It means that M.Schiavo/Felos/Cranford are liars, and Greer is wrong. It means that they are knowingly killing a conscious person. It means that The Hospice of the Florida Suncoast is run by ghouls. It means that this article is wrong. That is relevant."

Even if everything you say is 100% true, you're not citing sources and editting based on them, you're basically doing speculative original research here on the talk page. That is irrelevant, and inappropriate.

Fox1 06:35, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

For some unknown reason, BoomHitch feels it is necessary to remove factual statements from the article. The statement on evidence for Terri's "suffering" is cited here:

Quill, Timothy E. (March 22, 2005). "Terri Schiavo — A Tragedy Compounded". The New England Journal of Medicine Quote follows:

Let us begin with some medical facts. On February 25, 1990, Terri Schiavo had a cardiac arrest, triggered by extreme hypokalemia brought on by an eating disorder. As a result, severe hypoxic–ischemic encephalopathy developed, and during the subsequent months, she exhibited no evidence of higher cortical function. Computed tomographic scans of her brain eventually showed severe atrophy of her cerebral hemispheres, and her electroencephalograms have been flat, indicating no functional activity of the cerebral cortex. Her neurologic examinations have been indicative of a persistent vegetative state, which includes periods of wakefulness alternating with sleep, some reflexive responses to light and noise, and some basic gag and swallowing responses, but no signs of emotion, willful activity, or cognition.[1] There is no evidence that Ms. Schiavo is suffering, since the usual definition of this term requires conscious awareness that is impossible in the absence of cortical activity. There have been only a few reported cases in which minimal cognitive and motor functions were restored three months or more after the diagnosis of a persistent vegetative state due to hypoxic–ischemic encephalopathy; in none of these cases was there the sort of objective evidence of severe cortical damage that is present in this case, nor was the period of disability so long.[2]

1. Jennett B. The vegetative state: medical facts, ethical and legal dilemmas. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2002.
2. The Multi-Society Task Force on PVS. Medical aspects of the persistent vegetative state. N Engl J Med 1994;330:1499-508, 1572-9. [Erratum, N Engl J Med 1995;333:130.]

--Viriditas | Talk 22:10, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Viriditas, do you know who Timmothy Quill is? Like Felos and Cranford, he is a very vocal "out there" advocate leading the push for physician-assisted suicide and euthanasia. He is the author of articles like, for example, "Physician-Assisted Suicide Is Consistent with Medical Ethics," by Timothy E. Quill. He is certainly not an impartial observer. If you are going to include that kind of advocacy in the article, then why is there nothing from the other side, for example, Rita Marker, for balance? NCdave 06:58, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

According to the article: "Dr. Quill is a professor of medicine, psychiatry, and medical humanities and the director of the Center for Palliative Care and Clinical Ethics at the University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, N.Y." His statements about Terri's cognitive state are sourced and shared by the medical community. Further research reveals that Quill is a former medical director of a hospice, and the author of the 1993 book, Death and Dignity: Making Choices and Taking Charge, where he speaks in favor of legalizing physician-assisted suicide, which he equates with the already legal right of refusing life-sustaining treatment. He does not support voluntary active euthanasia. His position on the matter is considered conservative and pragmatic, far from the "out there" advocate you claim. Instead of attacking the man, you might try attacking his claims. Then when you are finished with your ad hominems you can go to work on Michael De Georgia, MD, head of the neurology-neurosurgery intensive care unit at the Cleveland Clinic Foundation. In the interests of fairness, I have removed Quill as the primary source, however I am currently reviewing primary sources for a replacement. --Viriditas | Talk 12:38, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• • First, the discussion here is not about the factual nature of the claim that she is not experiencing pain. Second, the statement has not been removed, and I have not advocated its removal. If you had read the entire discussion above, you would see that it has been only essentially moved out of the opening section to "Schiavo's condition: Effect of removing feeding tube", an obviously fitting place--please go read that section. If you would like it to be stated twice, first in the opening section and then again there, please state your reasoning. It is unclear to me how it adds anything to the opening. BoomHitch 22:22, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)

It is of special interest in this case as to whether the removal of life support will cause Schiavo any pain. A statement of medical fact in the introduction addresses these concerns, and dispels a great deal of misinformation that the media is propagating. For example, the Atlanta Journal-Constitution ran an article on March 27, entitled, "Experts disagree on Schiavo's suffering". In point of fact, experts do not disagree, and the "experts" in this case are a small group of people who "combine medicine and Christian missionary work". That article is full of so many errors, it is hardly worth commenting on in the first place. --Viriditas | Talk 22:51, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

If she is not experiencing pain then it is because of the analgesics and/or sedatives that she is receiving. The fact that she can experience pain is proven by the fact that the hospice has her on analgesics. Consequently, the fact that she is can experience pain is proof that she is not in a PVS. There is no longer any legitimate debate about the fact that she is not in a PVS. NCdave 22:54, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Wrong on both counts. These outlandish claims of yours have been refuted already, so there is no reason for me to address them. --Viriditas | Talk 04:07, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I can't figure out how you could say that, Dave. A quick perusal of todays news certainly doesn't indicate that there is "no legitimate debate" over the PVS diagnosis. You can believe one side or the other, you can have as much faith in your evidence as you like, but debate doesn't end until... well, there's no more debate.

Fox1 06:35, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

If she can experience pain, then she can't be in a PVS. She is being treated for pain, with various analgesics including morphine. That's because she can experience pain. Ergo she is not in a PVS. That is not opinion or POV, that is simple fact.

Here's a quote from her 1991 Exit Protocol (instructions for the hospice nurses to follow during her dehydration death):

Monitor symptoms of pain/discomfort. If noted, medicate with Naproxen rectal suppository 375 mg. Q8 prn [“Q8 prn” means eight times/day as needed]

Read that twice. Then tell me that you believe the people who created it are sure that Terri cannot experience pain. NCdave 07:09, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Okay, so monitor for symptoms of pain, and medicate. How does that indicate their are symptoms of pain, NCdave? That doesn't make any sense. One doesn't lead to the other. 1) Monitor for symptoms of pain doesn't mean symptoms of pain are present, 2) hospice staff didn't decide her fate, therefore they are directed by a seperate protocol. The idea that hospice staff monitoring for pain -> hospice staff supercede neurologists -> michael schiavo knows she's in raw agony is nuts. Try again. Professor Ninja 10:35, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

That... that has nothing to do with anything! There's still debate, that's all I said! It's incorrect to say that there is no debate when people are still debating, I'm not trying to argue the facts of the case with you, understand that I have no opinion on whether Terri Schiavo is in PVS, stop doing this!

Fox1 07:06, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Viriditas--Thank you for discussing this. Simply put, it is disputed. The family asserts, as the article notes, that she is not in a PVS; this bears directly on her painlessness because the doctors that have asserted her painlessness have done so on the basis of the court's finding-->that she in a PVS. Okay, fine, it is disputed-so what? Well, the problem is that it conflicts with the attempt to make the "Issues of dispute" section NPOV. We assert in the introduction that she is painless; this follows directly from the PVS assertion/other medical analysis. Then we go on to present two different sides of her diagnosis as if either could be correct, though we all have our own opinions. That's just bad writing; it doesn't make sense. Sure, maybe her parents are crazy in their assertions, but you can't present their arguments in a balanced way when you've already said they're wrong.
The other way to handle this is to discuss its disputed status in the intro. If this can be done, fine. But IMO the intro is not a place to start mentioning/discussing disputes. Set up the issues and then discuss the disputes. BoomHitch 23:03, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)

The family can dispute whatever they like. They aren't doctors so they have no bearing on the medical evidence at hand. --Viriditas | Talk 04:07, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Viriditas--also, in the future, I would appreciate it if you would not make one post to a discussion and assume that the discussion is then over, immediately reverting or changing the article on the basis of your statement. We were discussing this yesterday; you have only just now decided to take part on this issue. BoomHitch 23:14, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)

That's an error on your part. I was involved in this discussion in the section entitled, "Her current condition". --Viriditas | Talk 04:07, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing that out. My mistake. BoomHitch 04:12, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

I don't understand how there is a dispute when it is between the doctors who have treated her on one hand, and her relatives (who are in no position to make a diagnosis) and people like Frist who makes diagnoses on the tv screen. What am I missing (and yes, I have read this discussion)? Guettarda 23:22, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You aren't missing anything. --Viriditas | Talk 04:07, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Actually, Terri has not been treated by any doctors for anything at all in many years. But if she had been actually treated by doctors, then it would have been only by doctors who were chosen by Michael Schiavo, since he won't permit doctors chosen by her parents to even examine her. He's been seeking to cause her death by various means for over a decade. So entrusting her diagnosis to doctors that he chooses (like Cranford) is obviously rediculous.

I think you might have meant "examined" instead of "treated." However, even though M.Schiavo/Felos/Greer won't permit other doctors to examin her, many other doctors have reviewed her case, and most of the doctors who have reviewed Terri's case agree that the PVS diagnosis was flawed. NCdave 01:00, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Wrong. --Viriditas | Talk 04:07, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

---

Alrighty, let's vote.

Straw Poll

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

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

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

1. BoomHitch 03:01, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)
2. Tonyr1988 06:18, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

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

I'm sorry, but I don't recognize the validity of this poll, as the question is flawed. The statement, There is no evidence that Schiavo is suffering, since conscious awareness is impossible in the absence of cortical activity, is made with qualification: Terri Schiavo is incapable of "suffering" due to her extensive brain damage. Pain...is the recognition of nociception by the nervous system, which sends the impulse to regions of the brain where consciousness exists. In the case of a severely brain injured person - one in a persistent vegetative state - those areas of consciousness have been destroyed, and as result "they don't 'feel' pain.[23]. Play with words all you like, this is not in dispute. --Viriditas | Talk 07:41, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

Patients in a persistent vegetative state do not feel pain, nor do they "suffer," says Michael De Georgia, MD, head of the neurology-neurosurgery intensive care unit at the Cleveland Clinic Foundation...Pain, as well as suffering, requires consciousness, which is lacking in a person in a persistent vegetative state..."Certainly these patients don't suffer," he adds. "Suffering is really that whole emotional aspect of pain: fear, anxiety, panic surrounding pain. You have to have consciousness to experience these emotions. So just as a person in a persistent vegetative state can't experience pain because of a lack of consciousness, they also don't suffer."...Dr. DeGeorgia says that a patient in a persistent vegetative state can experience arousal, meaning that the patient's eyes may be open and the patient may laugh, cry or appear to track someone who is in the room. And that is what can be confusing for people, especially relatives, he says. "For example, a patient in persistent vegetative state will grasp your hand. In fact if you put anything into the patient's hand, the hand will grasp it. But this is a very primitive reaction. A newborn baby will grasp your finger, but there is no consciousness." It is consciousness that determines whether one can "feel" pain in the sense that most people understand when they talk about feeling pain. This doesn't mean that a patient like Terri Schiavo won't respond to pain stimulus - if you pinch her arm, she is like to flinch away. "That is called nociception," De Georgia says. "Tissue is damaged by the pinch, this generates a response in a receptor, which sends an impulse along the peripheral nerves. This impulse travels to the thalamus, which directs the arm to withdraw," he said. It is what is commonly called a reflex. Pain, on the other hand, is the recognition of nociception by the nervous system, which sends the impulse to regions of the brain where consciousness exists. In the case of a severely brain injured person - one in a persistent vegetative state - those areas of consciousness have been destroyed, and as result "they don't 'feel' pain." [24]--Viriditas | Talk 07:57, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

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

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

Should this be listed in the Roman Catholics category?

I don't see why it is. Terri Schiavo isn't known for being a Roman Catholic, and the only evidence we have is conjecture to that effect by her parents that she is an observant Roman Catholic. Is the category relevant to the article? Professor Ninja 09:28, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)

As I touched on above, this seems very, very sketchy. If it was listed as a topic of interest for RCatholics, maybe, but placing Terri Schiavo herself in a list of Catholics seems like a very sneaky injection of POV. If that seems paranoid, so be it, but in the past this page has seen some very subtle and creative attempts to shift the tone of the article.

Fox1 09:47, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I don't know how well she is or is not known for being Roman Catholic, but there is no doubt that she is Roman Catholic, like her parents. That is relevant because euthanasia, assisted suicide, and (specifically) the withholding or withdrawing of nutrition and hydration are all contrary to official RC teaching.

We know that she insisted upon being married in the RC church, that they got special dispensation to do so (despite Michael not being RC) after taking a marriage preparation class, and there is testimony that during their marriage Michael often disparaged her RC faith.

The POV bias is that the third paragraph of the article pointedly and prominantly says that her parents are RC, in a sentence that makes no mention of the fact that she is RC. That is obviously a hint that their wishes are not hers, that their efforts to prevent her murder were motivated by their faith rather than a knowledge of her faith. NCdave 16:09, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hmm, it seems like a reach to me. Alot of people were baptised, christened, confirmed, confessed, and uh... man, I gotta go back to Sunday school, are there any other sacraments to the church? Anyway, it doesn't make them Catholic by any means. Most people understand Catholic (or Muslim, Christian, whatever) to be observant or practicing (Jews seem exempt from this as they're considered a nation as well as a religion, but that's a total digression). If Terri practiced her religion, then it's relevant, if not, than not really. I'd hate to have to go through all the articles on wikipedia and add in every person that received some sacrament from the Roman Catholic church at some point in their life. Professor Ninja 22:58, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)

You complain about bias and in the same breath say "their efforts to prevent her murder"? the least you could do is pay a scint of respect to reporting and say "alleged murder". anon

I don't really care for that reasoning, Dave. I don't want to go into personal, anecdotal details, but let me say that there are plenty of people whose parents, friends and others may think are catholic (or any religion) despite the fact that they no longer identify with the religion except for the sake of appearance, convenience, and avoiding conflict. Without a clear, uncontested statement from the individual dealing with the topic at hand (get that, get it notarized, and we wouldn't even have to be here!), it's irresponsible to infer someones deeply personal feelings on a topic from a claimed association with a group. Is it a bit of a stretch to claim that calling her a catholic materially affects the POV of the article? Maybe, but it's insinuates far more than the use of the term "hospitalized" that you object to above.

Fox1 06:26, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Text removed

In an appearance on ABC News's Nightline on March 15, 2005, Michael Schiavo cited the willingness that Mrs. Schiavo's parents expressed to keep her alive by any means necessary, including quadruple amputation if needed, as a key reason for denying transfer of guardianship to them. [25]

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is yet another of Michael Schiavo's many contradictory statements. In his sworn deposition on September 27, 1999, he made it perfectly clear that his refusal to let the Schindlers care for their daughter was not motivated by concern for Terri, but rather by his animosity toward the Schindlers:

Q. Have you considered turning the guardianship over to Mr. and Mrs. Schindler?

SCHIAVO: No, I have not.

Q. And why?

SCHIAVO: I think that's pretty self explanatory.

Q. I'd like to hear your answer.

SCHIAVO: Basically I don't want to do it.

Q. And why don't you want to do it?

SCHIAVO: Because they put me through pretty much hell the last few years.

Q. And can you describe what you mean by hell?

SCHIAVO: The litigations they put me through.

Q. Any other specifics besides the litigation?

SCHIAVO: Just their attitude towards me because of the litigations. There is no other reason. I'm Terri's husband and I will remain guardian.

That's crystal clear. NCdave 16:29, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, but how do you know this is not just made up?

Well, pretty soon Michael will finally have an answer to his famous question, "When is that bitch gonna die?"

NCdave 16:29, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

We know your personal feelings on this. What is productive about continuing to make inflammatory statements like this? How can you keep crossing the line from discussion to hyperbole and propagandizing and be surprised that your contributions are devalued? Yes, I say propagandize, because what you're saying is neither helpful nor germane to the conversation, regardless of whether it's true.

Fox1 07:39, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

LA Times stories

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cremation

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

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

Early life -- weight inconsistency

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

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

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

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

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

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

Would it be possible to add one more external link

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

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

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

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

Quotation marks

I tried to fix quotation marks and punctuation marks (e.g., ." vs. ".) but I think I just screwed a lot of them up. Someone who knows what they're doing (unlike me) should go through this article looking at this. BoomHitch 06:06, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

Edit War

NCDave's edits to the lead section are not NPOV at all, and most of the editors to this article can agree with that. I have reverted him three times and I am now going to stop reverting the article for 24 hours. Using an IP is NOT a way to get around the 3RR, so if I see the IP again, I will report it on 3RR violations. Mike H 08:18, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

I protected the page and invite all participants to come settle their differences on the talk page, not on the article space. I also invite people not to work around the rules. Thanks. David.Monniaux 08:21, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Irismeister

The editor using the French IP numbers, vandalizing the main article and using block capitals incontinently in edit summaries is Irismeister, who was banned for twelve months on 20 November, 2004 (Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Irismeister_3). Normal practise with banned users is that editors may treat all his edits as if they were vandalism or disruption. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 13:27, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Are you nuts ?