Talk:Terri Schiavo case/Archive 45

Archive 40

←

Archive 43

Archive 44

Archive 45

Archive 46

Archive 47

→

Archive 50

Vandals!

A lovely photograph of someone's schlong now adorns Terri Schiavo's wikipedia entry! Now, explicitness aside... we should make sure there's no copyright infringement here. : P

Quite the case. I can't find a way to remove the... penis. -Chan Yin Keen | Talk 09:27, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I stand corrected, it has disappeared already. -Chan Yin Keen | Talk 09:27, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

archives

The archives for the Terri Schiavo page may be found here:

• Talk:Terri Schiavo/archives (currently 44 archives)

Text doesn't agree with cite

In the "Palm Sunday Compromise," Florida Governor Jeb Bush is said to have "decided to obey the courts" when the linked story is that the decision was made only AFTER the FDLE met the resistance of local police. The attempt was made, it simply failed. Geminidomino 11:41, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Hrm. Wrong story. Let me dig up the right link (if it hasn't been buried already). Disregard until then. Geminidomino 11:43, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Archived

I've been bold and archived everything on the talk page, as it had just become a big 132k pile of poop, and not particularly constructive poop at that. If there were any burning issues that really should be here still, feel free to go into the latest archive and rescue them. Proto||type 11:57, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I've also got rid of the peer review box above, as the two reviews are already linked, and the failed FAC box, replacing it with a text link below the peer reviews. Too many boxes. Proto||type 12:06, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure it was a very difficult process creating this article, for everyone involved. I just wanted to say that, from reading it now, it was well worth the effort. For such a difficult and controversial topic this is an outstanding article. Freddie deBoer 06:11, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

the never ending edit...

Of the hundreds on my watchlist this article is like the never ending edit. Of this I'm sure, this article has become a cause and darn if I'll let a "so" where there should be a "but". If this article with its minutia is your cause well then have at it with all of your attention. It at least keeps you away from the rest of this project. hydnjo talk 03:56, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Heh. Terri Schiavo as a flypaper for the priority-challenged. I like that notion. ^_^ -Kasreyn 05:48, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

My dearest sir, you are so correct! We are going to ramp this up slowly. Terri Schiavo is not a movie star. She is an issue about American jurisprudence and how wrong Congressional intervention is. THAT is her notability. If you think about it, she is just along for the ride. -- 70.231.192.59 22:04, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

The perspecitve of this article should now <not?> change to the judges. It is the politicians were who were the flies. They got swatted away, but she sticks to them, does she not? Andrew William Morrow -- 70.231.192.59 22:06, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Strawpoll (evil!)

Should we move medical info back in? (One sentence comments please)

Support

1. This wouldn't be a wholescale revert to a month old version. Incremental changes, reductions, could still be in place. Marskell 10:50, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
2. In the public debate over the issue, medical matters were foremost on many people's minds, and it's not hard to imagine that most curious Wikipedia readers will come here expecting to find a treatment of the medical aspect of the story. -Kasreyn 03:34, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
3. While I would support the idea of making the article shorter, removing the medical information was definitely not the right way to achieve that. AnnH ♫ 23:27, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
4. Yes, do it; the medical information is more pertinent then much of what remains in the article. Proto||type 12:25, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
5. Yes, of course, it's an encyclopedia, and medical examinations are commonly considered relevant and accurate. Эйрон Кинни (t) 23:19, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

Mergeback

I have merged back per above vote.

Ah, this unfortunate article... So it's 75K but adding back just 24 of the notes added 10k alone. The body of this is apx 45k, which isn't terrible. Given that I've done the mergeback I guess I'll be the one to pick through for inconsistencies that have cropped up and the notes and refs obviously need to be re-verified. Marskell 16:04, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Let's not hide her death

I added a more objective way of describing Terri Schiavo. Certainly her being killed should be stated directly. I didn't write 'murder' because murder means the unlawful taking of life. Also the "feeding tube" portion in the second paragraph should more directly say that Terri was deprived of food.

IamOne 09:30, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Sadly, your "more objective" way of describing was also rather poorly written. As far as I know, "nutrition" is a noun, not a verb. Perhaps you were thinking of "nourishing"? -Kasreyn 02:19, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Editorial comment moved from article

In response to this paragraph, User: 69.251.18.126 posted into the middle of the article the editorial comment that follows:

Beginning in 1998, Terri's husband and guardian Michael Schiavo petitioned the courts to remove the gastric feeding tube keeping Schiavo alive; Schiavo's parents Robert and Mary Schindler fought a series of legal battles opposing Michael. The courts consistently found that Schiavo was in a PVS and had made credible statements that she would not wish to be kept alive on a machine. By 2003, the matter, while still local to Florida, had received some national attention.

I doubt that the above statement is completely true. Because there is no such written evidence found till date that Terri Schivo had expressed that she would not wish to be kept alive on a machine. It was all that was said by Michael Schiavo. So I think that the true intentions of Terry Schiavo are still unknown. And that is why I oppose the way the world, we behave with Terry Schiavo. —This unsigned comment was added by 69.251.18.126 (talk • contribs) .

Sarah Ewart (Talk) 05:46, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikilinking dates

Does the wikilinking of almost every instance of a date seems excessive to anyone or is it just me? hydnjo talk 04:15, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

It is pretty useless, but according to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Date formatting, doing so allows user preferences to work. (Granted, it also has a section called Avoid overlinking dates). Generally, for dates with a day and a month, you should link for the benefit of people's date preferences. Dylan 21:39, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

GWB Cat

I'm removing the Category:George W. Bush administration controversies someone just added. The case really never centered around the administration, despite their involvement; this is mostly clutter. Superm401 - Talk 01:03, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

quote at end of autopsy section

Does anyone have a less POV source for Bobby Schindler's quote? Also, can someone who is more familiar with the issue than me clarify that not everyone sees the autopsy result as ruling out bulimia or a heart attack? Finally, I'm not yet familiar with the new citation style being used in most of this article, but someone who is should check the autospy section -- old-style citations, mixed in with the new, seem to be throwing off the numbering scheme. --Allen 20:04, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

A different source would be fine, but I don't think the quote is in dispute or inconsistent with his other statements. As for the footnote system, it seems to be too difficult to insert new footnotes without throwing the system off. I recommend that all footnotes be converted to the traditional method. The more sources, the better, and we shouldn't delete citations simply because it throws off the numbering of old footnotes.--Mr j galt 20:23, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

The Schindler's book said that Terri had a strong heart since she lived so long without water. It should be easy to see dead heart muscle at autopsy, I would think. The strongest evidence for bulemia is, again I think, her lack of menstration. MartinGugino 06:16, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Michael taking Terri home

Mr j galt, your new sentence, "Contrary to his assertion to the court, Michael Schiavo did not bring his wife home nor did he provide her with direct nursing care." seems like original research to me, and also a bit ambiguous. According to WP:NOR, we cannot draw novel conclusions from even referenced facts. In this case, the sentence would need to attribute to someone the idea that Michael Schiavo contradicted his own assertion.

Secondly, it seems to me that the word "assertion" doesn't make clear what Michael Schiavo said. As far as I can tell, Schiavo was not asserting that he had brought Terri home, or even promising that he would, but rather was stating that he would like to bring her home.

--Allen 20:12, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I will cite it to the Schiavo's new book. He said "Because I enjoy it and I want to learn more how to take care of Terri.... I see myself hopefully finishing school and taking care of my wife. ... I want to bring my wife home. ... I married my wife because I love her and I want to spend the rest of my life with her. I'm going to do that." "I am going to do that" is an assertion, not a desire. If you can cite a source that Michael Schiavo did bring her home and care for her, let's put that in as well.--Mr j galt 20:29, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

But the ellipses indicate that material has been removed from the quote between "I want to bring my wife home" and "I am going to do that". It sounds to me like "I am going to do that" refers to spending the rest of his life with her, not to bringing her home. Also, does this book simply contain the quote itself, or does it contain the idea that the quote represents an unfulfilled promise that Michael would bring Terri home? --Allen 20:34, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

We can call it a statement rather than an assertion if you like. But Micheal Schiavo testified to the court that his motivation to become a nurse was "taking care of my wife" and "I want to bring my wife home." He never brought her home, even though it was within his authority. We will put the quote with what really happened and let the reader decide.--Mr j galt 20:44, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Terri's wishes

The notion that Terri wanted a divorce is, I think, a relevant factor in the discussion.
Cited in the Shindler's book: A life That Matters [1]; last page of ch 4, (page 38) MartinGugino 03:32, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

not quite NPOV (exaggerated translation, for clarity)

MartinGugino 04:18, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

• "incurring massive brain damage. She remained in a coma for ten weeks"

means - she was gone from the start.

suggest- leave that out, and let "she remained in a coma for ten weeks" characterize the injury changed

• "persistent vegetative state (PVS) with little chance"

means - not PVS

suggest- clarify which it was. PVS or little chance of recovery changed (to PVS)

• keeping Terri alive

means - otherwise she would have died. (we would all die without food/ ie: not remarkable)

you could say the same about the air in the room

suggest- delete deleted

• "Schiavo's parents fought a series of legal battles opposing Michael"

means - parents are defined vis-a-vis Michael, and as opponents

suggest- parents hoped for her rehabilitation (19 April: and urged continued feeding.

• kept alive on a machine

means - she was on a "machine" (a gastric tube is not what one thinks of as a machine)

suggest- kept alive, delete "on a machine" changed

• "while still local to Florida"

means - not sure what it means.. Does it mean only Florida executive, legislative and judicial involvment? No Federal executive, legislative, or judicial involvement?

suggest- not sure what to suggest. Should these two ideas be in the same sentence?: 1) when it became a national news story (10/2003 FocusOnTheFamily), and 2) when it became a Federal case.

• "Despite these interventions"

means - ? intervention into what? Ans: the judiciary. It was not that clear (to me).

the conflict between the judiciary and the other two branches is worth pointing out explicitly.

suggest - hmmm not sure. Possibly: Despite reservations of the state and federal legislature and the state and federal executive, the state and federal judiciary ....

or - Despite intervention by the other branches, the judiciary ... close to this

• "PVS with no hope of recovery"

means: redundant

means: put that way I feel because one of the issues is the Schindler's continuing hope for her recovery. There is false hope, and there is also false no-hope. (Dean Ornish's line?)

suggest - PVS deleted "with no..."

• the courts continued to find

means - judges looked at the same issues over and over and they all said "shes a vegetable"

suggest- the courts refused to revisit (probably not exactly right either) close to this

• Despite these interventions, the courts continued to find that Schiavo was in a PVS with no hope for recovery

suggest - Despite the intervention of the other branches, the courts did not revisit the finding that Schiavo was PVS.

• "witness protection"

means - protection to mafia members who testify

suggest- checking... withdrawn. But deleted the quotations marks.

I make no promises on my time (ie., I don't know whether I'll be able to go through all your suggestions) but may I say that in evaluating your evalutation of POV ;) there is a POV at work. "Parents hoped for her rehabilitation"... And Michael didn't?

I like some of this immediatly, but am unsure... Did they not "revisit" the diagnosis? What did the GAL do? And (OK, curveball) what did the autoposy do? It showed she had a brain half the mass of normal, which (Michael couldn't have known this, nor the parents) basically confirmed Michael's position.

The CAT scans must have been done prior to autopsy. -martin-apr23-

Shit, I'm going to stop. Edit specific things and bring them here as you do is my advice. Marskell 21:49, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

"And Michael didn't?" - no, he hoped she'd die horribly. No, it might mean he didn't have any hope. Also, what is witness protection doing in the lead section but not in the body? (It is mentioned in the timeline though) Andjam 01:58, 18 April 2006 (UTC) (Whoops, the subpoena leading to witness protection is mentioned) Andjam 02:17, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

(MartinGugino 01:06, 21 April 2006 (UTC)) continuing

• No dissent regarding Schiavo's condition or the PVS diagnosis was raised by any parties at this point

means - everyone agreed that Terri was in PVS (and gone at this point)

suggest- delete this misleading statement, or add "in court" "in court"

• anoxic-ischemic encephalopathy

means - they know something very medical, but

anoxic = lack of oxygen

ischemic = no blood flow

encephalo = brain

pathy = damage

means - all it means is that, at autopsy, her brain showed damage from respiratory and cardiac arrest

• the court appointed Michael as Terri's legal guardian; this appointment was not disputed by the Schindlers at the time.

means - they agreed

suggest- make clear that the Schindlers didnt know about it at the time

• August 94 Michael came to terms with diagnosis of PVS

means - before that, he hoped for her recovery

but - May 1992, he euthanizes her cats, and had her wedding ring made into a ring for himself

but - Feb 14, 1993, he posts a DNR order on her chart, soon after the malpractice case won

but - Aug, 1993, orders staff not to treat Terri for infection

• and was diagnosed to be in a persistent vegetative state. (initial crisis paragraph)

PVS cant be "diagnosed". It is something seen in retrospect. Only after at least a year. deleted. PVS is repeated later in the paragraph.

• There (Bradenton) she received 24-hour/day care.

means - What?. True of any residential facility. Does it mean that she had three shifts of private duty nurses? No it doesnt, much less constant therapy

suggest - delete, and instead point out she was there six months, since she is moved in the next sentence. changed

• On July 19, 1991, Schiavo was transferred to the Sable Palms Skilled Care Facility, where she received neurological testing and regular speech and occupational therapy until 1994.

contested - The Schiavo's say in their new book "Terri a life that matters" that after Bradenton she received no care.

• The physician who examined her did not take a complete medical history, which might have indicated an eating disorder if he had taken it.

means - suggests bulemia but as speculation. Might or might not.

suggest-More importantly Dr had a duty to identified the cause of the pathology. That he failed to do so gave rise to the malpractice claim and award. changed

Barb Weller

For me, the autopsy can describe the state of the brain, but how that relates to the state of the person is problematic. The Schindlers' attorney, Barbara Weller, thought that Terry understood her. I refer to the "I want to live" incident that Weller reported to the court, under oath. To my mind, Terry exhibited at least "artificial" intelligence, as defined by the Turing test, since Barbara was taken in by Terrys behavior. If Terry demonstrated artificial intelligence, then I think that it is more reasonable to say that she possessed real intelligence, and was aware. (MartinGugino 08:06, 21 April 2006 (UTC))

I'm curious how "the state of the person" is problematic to you with a brain half the normal weight. You think she might have been able to cook breakfast but would have been confused over dinner? Marskell 21:30, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

The problem is there is not a simple linear relationship between brain weight and consciousness. We normally characterize consciousness based on interactions, not brain weight, so it's hard to be sure what brain weight means, especially since there are testimonies from people who felt they had exchanged information with her: Heidi Law, and Barbara Weller for two. MartinGugino 03:17, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Even a "flat EEG", using standard equipment on a non-standard brain, is open to doubt, when there is personal testimony that contradicts it.

I am reading Michael Schiavo's book on Terri, and on page 325, he mentions the Barb Weller incident, but omits the context, much as I omitted it above. What made the event so convincing to Barb Weller is reported here [[2]] at paragraph 7, starting "The most dramatic event..." (MartinGugino 05:26, 8 January 2007 (UTC))

Or, here is video of Barbara Weller taken the day in question. [[3]]. (MartinGugino 05:37, 8 January 2007 (UTC))

Whats missing in this article

I think that what is hidden in this coverage is an explanation of what made this story so big. What made each side so passionate. Something like

• from the Schindlers point of view

Terri was still in there

evil for Michael to be deciding

He was controlling violent and secretive, albeit charming

He exhibited bizarre behavior vis-a-vis being dumped: running ex gf off the road

Terri, not a bold girl, was considering divorce

and so on (like he may have other reasons for wanting her dead...)

been wanting her dead since 1993

stoping anything considered "therapy" (keeping hands from curling), or stimulation (looking out the window)

take a skeptical look at Michael's statement from 10/2003 in the Tampa Bay Online[4]

(The Tampa Bay Online citation gone. Here's another copy: [[5]] MG 01/2007)

1)At each of those failures, I became enraged and lashed out."

consistent with a violent temperament. Actions described as typical

2)After more than seven years of desperately searching for a cure for Terri

1990-1993 is only 3 years. After 1993, the year of the award, what did he do? He made her wedding ring into a ring for himself, opened an account at a funeral parlor, wrote DNR on her chart, refused her antibiotics

3) Terri told me on several occasions that she would not want to live (like this)

How reliable is this statement? Others have testified that he said "we never talked about stuff like this". Did the two have a serious discussion on the topic of what to do if one suffered brain damage?

She is reported to have said re Karen Quinlan: where there is life there is hope.

4) The reports you heard that Terri was responsive years ago are not true

How many such reports is he aware of? Who made them? Did he investigate them or dismiss them as false?

What about Heidi Law's report? [6] Is that false?

5) Terri's parents may visit her as much as they choose in the days to come

They were forced out of the room as she died. They were never sure he would let them in to see her. He restricted access to her and her medical information, both before and after this statement.

6) I took Terri to Mediplex in Bradenton Fla, a residential rehab facility that specializes in brain injuries.

specializes in brain injuries? They don't claim that on their web site.[7]

Their site is now missing.(Aug/11/06). Here is a reference I see to the Bradenton facility: [8] MartinGugino 02:42, 12 August 2006 (UTC) but it does not help clarify their speciality. Googling "bradenton brain injury" currently returns law firms. [9]

It looked to me, when the website was there, like a physical therapy place, with satellite store-front branches doubling as fitness spots. The op.cit contains a line: "(Terri) was said to be expressing unexplained pain during physical therapy" which confirms "physical thereapy" but raises other questions.(MartinGugino 06:11, 8 January 2007 (UTC))

Is it equal to Shands Hospital in Gainsville for Neurology? [10], who claim to be 31st in nation.

• from Michale's point of view (guessing - I didnt read his book yet)

She wouldnt want to "live" in PVS

The real Terri was dead already

He couldnt bear to think of her growing in a lab like a hydroponic vegetable

.. help me here ..

No. Do your own research before contributing, please. It's clear you only have knowledge of one side's views on the matter. You won't be able to abide by the NPOV policy until you educate yourself a bit better. Kasreyn 16:13, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I dont know how you can say that. Facts are facts. Just because I admit to not knowing all of them? MartinGugino 06:01, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

re research: The current (May 14 2006) text says: "Mediplex Rehabilitation Center (specializing in brain injuries)". Where is the footnote or support for that "fact"? :-) Hard to find one I bet. MartinGugino 06:11, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Plus the political debate(??) (Im out of my league here)

• "right"

lack of respect for human life

• "left"

they are trying to steal our rights again

what about respecting life that could profit from help? why all the time on the near-dead and the fetus?

MartinGugino 05:43, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out you're editing from a POV. I suggest we turn this into a stub with a lead sentence "Terri Schiavo was murdered by her husband Michael." Marskell 21:26, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

You are welcome to be more specific. MartinGugino 22:33, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I listed some things that I think are bad behavior and self-serving misrepresentations on Michael's part. I don't think it adds up to attempted murder in 1990 at this point. But Michael is not the guy you want on the right-to-die posters, hovering over the sickbed. MartinGugino 06:27, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I have read a few of the internet articles about Schiavo, and it sounds fairly convincing that the doctors who said that she had no capacity to think or perceive, knew what they were talking about. It also seems that the occurrence of the public taking so great an interest in the issue was not so much about an issue as to whether or not a person in a vegetative state should be kept alive, but rather due to people being let to believe that Schiavo was aware and attempting to communicate. I personally believe that neither the Schindlers nor Michael were in any way bad people: they just had different beliefs as to what is morally right, and different perceptions as to what Terri would have wanted, and both sides were prepared to fight for what they believed in, at high personal costs in many ways to themselves. However much Michael might have showed himself in an unfavorable light at various times, I believe that his decision was for the purpose of allowing Terri to die with dignity, for her own sake. The argument that people have given in favor of Michael's decision, that the video made by Terri's parents was in fact of carefully selected highlights which were able to give the impression that Terri was aware and communicative, is one that I find very plausible. There are also statements that attempts by other people to reproduce such incidences of responses on Terri's part were not successful, and indicated that her movements were random and not consistent with any external stimuli. Katrina

Katrina, when one has a speech impediment or partial or complete paralisis, it is next to impossible to determine what is "random" and what is "purposeful & intended."--GordonWatts 22:36, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Not menstruating.

This is a pathological condition. She was seeing a doctor about fertility. What did he say about this condition? There is no way he could have not dealt with it. MartinGugino 08:54, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I see. This was the basis of the malpractice award.

No it's not that clear. The malpractice was based on a non-diagnosis of bulemia. Not clear how much the menstruation issue was involved. So I still ask, did the fertility doctor comment on why she was not menstruating? Seems basic. MartinGugino 22:24, 23 April 2006 (UTC) Was the 'fertitlity' doctor her gynecologist, Dr Igel? or someone else? Igel was the defendant in the case. The GP settled out of court. The lawyers wouldnt let anyone escape unsued would they? I don't think so.

Amenorrhea is a symptom of anorexia, but I doubt it would be related to bulimia, as bulimics tend to maintain a pretty normal weight overall. It could also indicate other problems not related to eating disorders, however. Emily

Was there any information stating that she was underweight at any point in time prior to her cardiac arrest? 55 kg is a long way above the underweight range for her height. <<<{61.68.109.253 posted this unsigned question on 03:43, 10 January 2007; Station Identification is courtesy of GordonWatts 04:12, 10 January 2007 (UTC)}

I don't recall anything said about her being underweight, but there was some talk about her supposedly going on an Iced Tea diet or something similar; I honestly am not a specialist in this area of the Schiavo sage, but since I signed for you, I figured I'd show respect & take a stab at answering.GordonWatts 04:12, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Working on Sunday

Where is the information about the Sunday night where congress came back in session to argue about terri schiavo, congress barely does anything on the weekdays and they convened on a sunday just for this case, the height of evangelical ridiculousness under the republican congress.

Reference font size

Any objections to reducing the size of the reference section font? - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 01:30, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I object. The status of font sizes for references is in a Wiki-mess now with changes being made to articles, the <ref> tag definition, and the Media-Wiki CSS style sheet in a chaotic manner. Wait for the dust to settle please. patsw 05:02, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Allegations of Murder

In the text as it stands, there is no indication of the "Michael tried to strangle Terri" narrative, which became a major backdrop to the controversy, until you get to the autopsy. Then it comes as a surprise, if you aren't familiar with the case, that anyone was looking for strangulation evidence at all. Ethan Mitchell 02:35, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I haven't looked closely at the article lately, but the strangulation theory should certainly be reported (in as NPOV a way as possible, without implying that it's true, or that it's ridiculous) before we get to the autopsy section, if indeed, it isn't. AnnH ♫ 08:24, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Without specific evidence, or at least documentation that this theory was seriously considered by the professionals, it is not appropriate to include such a theory. Also, if such a theory was considered and then specifically ruled out, it is a requirement of balance to also report why it was ruled out. It is important that this article not accumulate subtle bias via a series of half-truths. -- 67.121.112.202 16:29, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the question is whether or not X was seriously considered by professionals. The question is whether or not X became an important element of the story we are describing. I think it is fairly clear in this case that it did: a large chunk of the pro-life rhetoric which brought this case to our attention in the first place referenced the "possibility" that Terri had met with foul play. I agree, there is no evidence for that claim. But we aren't trying to take sides here, we are trying to describe a historical event. Ethan Mitchell 20:36, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

"Any assertion in a biography of a living person that might be defamatory if untrue must be sourced." Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. The husband still lives, and there is no source of support for the claim that the husband committed the felony alleged. note that it is the truth of the claim that must be sourced, not the fact that someone made the claim; thus it is not appropriate to list the felony claim unless there is a source to back up the truth of the felony claim.

For the sake of history, one might to state the husband's opponents made unsubstantiated claims and then link to a reliable source describing the claim; this article is plenty long enough not to pad it with a case of Slander Helper (tm) rewinn 22:15, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Was Mr. Schiavo ever investigated by law enforcement for possibly causing his wife's condition? If not then it is odd that they would look for evidence of strangulation at the autopsy.

I don't think it's odd at all. The purpose of the autopsy is to answer as many questions as possible. Although there was no foundation for the allegations, still they had been raised and it was still a good idea to put them to rest by checking the evidence. rewinn 19:03, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Name Change?

Shouldnt the article be titled Teresa Schaivo due to that being her real name? 69.19.14.34 07:27, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

She was christened Theresa, not Teresa, and Theresa Schiavo already exists as a redirect to Terri Schiavo. AnnH ♫ 08:26, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

The general rule is to use the version of the name most commonly used by the public, and redirect the others. E.g. Madonna, Mother Teresa, Bob Dylan. Ethan Mitchell 13:27, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Medical info is still excessive

I decided to offset the Schiavo I to IV sections with the emphasis that this was a period of struggle between Terri's parents and Michael, but that the struggle was at the family level and had not yet recieved any significant publicity.

Also: I think that Michael's malpractice suit belong's on Michael's page. It did not "happen" to Terri at all.

I am going to inline the refernces today. It should have been done months ago. -- 64.175.42.18 19:41, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Added automated peer review

I ran AndyZ's automatic peer review tool and add the results to the past (the third) peer review report. -- 64.175.40.143 09:15, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

150.199.193.11 15:16, 11 September 2006 (UTC)ygjfiytiluhjhfgjfjh

Issues

Shouldn't the of the husband, if he didn't want to take care of her, then give her into the hands of her parents? I have my opinions about those who are brain-dead, but she should've been the responsiblilty of the parents. --Yancyfry jr 06:55, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I think the idea is that he was respecting her wishes, not wanting her to die. Kagechikara 06:22, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

87.9.189.45 16:20, 31 October 2006 (UTC) Michael Schiavo bottom line has always been "I am carrying out my wife's wishes. Her parents wouldn't". His belief was Terry wouldn't want to be kept alive like that, which was what the Schindler were trying to do. Thus, he did want to "take care" of her, from his point of view.

I think that Terri's own wishes to live were ignored: You have to decide that Barbara Weller's testimony was false, or was something, and that didn't happen. (MartinGugino 07:22, 8 January 2007 (UTC))

About the 2 tagged sections on contradiction

One of these sections says that the doctors were getting a diagnosis that she was not in a vegatative state, while the other section says that she is in a vegatative state. Please correct this.

87.9.189.45 16:14, 31 October 2006 (UTC) The contradiction occurs because the paragraphs don't fit the timeline. Terry was visited by her internist, Dr. Patrick Mulroy, on July 1993. He spoke with Michael Schiavo and told him that "this is the Way Terri is going to be the rest of her life". From now on, Michael slowly starts considering the idea of letting her wife go. On July 29, 1993 Robert and Mary Schindler sue Schiavo (1993 Guardianship Challenge). Terri then contracts an urinary infection, and Michael issues the DNR. The Sabal Palms staff refuses to enforce it, replying that it violates Florida law (which is wrong, but i need a confirm about this). During the Guardianship Hearing, nobody ever talks about PVS diagnosis. Then, on November 20, 1993 Michael goes to see a neurologist, Dr. Thomas Harrison, which takes a EEG on Terri. His answer is "Nothing, no cortical, top functioning" and "Her top functioning, her knowing, her feeling, her awareness of who she is and who's aroung her - all of that is gone". The PVS diagnoses came a lot later, with the petition for the removal of the feeding tube, in 1998. Judge George Greer appointed Richard Pearse as GAL, and while waiting for him to deliver his report, Michael Schiavo asked Dr. Jeffrey Karp (neurologist) to examine the woman. His impressions were "Her examination does indicate that she is in a chronic vegetative state- She does not meet the criteria of being brain dead, but according to the Florida Statue definitions provided to me by Mr. Felos, under Section 765-101, subset 15-B Florida Statues, the patient is in a persistent vegetative state. She has permanent and irreversible condition. Despite her eyes being open, she does not appear to be aware or responsive to her environment. There is an absence of voluntary activity or cognitive behavior, and inability to communicate or interact purposefully with her environment." In his report, Dr.Karp agreed with Dr.De Sousa's notes about Terri's EEG.

This is the first time an "official" PVS diagnosis is made. Later in the "Schiavo Case" this diagnosis will be contested (obviously with the purpose of not allowing the removal of the feeding tube: had the Schindler shown her daughter was not in PVS, her legal Guardian - Schiavo - would have not been allowed to withdraw life support for lacking of law requirements as stated in Florida Statutes 765-305, subset 2-B Florida Statutes: "Before exercising the incompetent patient's right to forego treatment, the surrogate must be satisfied that: [...] (b) The patient is both mentally and physically incapacitated with no reasonable medical probability of recovery, the patient has an end-stage condition, the patient is in a persistent vegetative state, or the patient's physical condition is terminal.").

There is no contradiction: prior to the first petition there has been no PVS diagnosis. Then, doctors called by Michael Schiavo diagnosed PVS, while those on the Schindlers' side contested this diagnosis.

Husband

I didn't really care about the case. I mean if she is truly brain-dead, I don't care. But the husband could've let her parents take care of her.

Article promoted

Hi all,

I have promoted the article to the status of good article. I could not find any contradictions in the two tagged paragraphs. My only concern was with the sentence:

"However, there has never been any hard evidence that Schiavo had an eating disorder, and the low potassium could have been a spurious result caused by the intravascular administration of fluids during the attempt to resuscitate her."

No authoritative source for this statement was provided so I removed the "there has never been any hard evidence that Schiavo had an eating disorder" part (especially because this seemed to contradict early statements in the article). Upon reading the article in full I realised that this was the conclusion of Dr. Thogmartin who completed Schiavo's autoposy. My advice would be to note this point in that sentence otherwise readers will think it is editor speculation (until they get to the autopsy section which not all readers will necessarily read).

Cedars 02:01, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Vandalized?

I was using this site as a reference in a paper. Now when I click on the Terry Schiavo site. It looks like it's been vandalized. How can the original information be put back? I need it for my citation paper page. Can this page be protected?

Please fix this. I am unable to.

Val

It has been fixed. To see a good version, select history-the tab is on top-, and click on the date of the last good version.

Saros136 01:21, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, to fix it yourself, select the last good version, and then click edit this page on top. Click save. First put a comment in saying something like "revert", "rv", or "revert vandalism"

Saros136 01:24, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

You can cite or bookmark a permanent version of this article by clicking on the "Permanent link" link in "Toolbox" box in the sidebar when the article is active. Cedars 01:08, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Maybe you should consider using a more credible source for your research paper.