Talk:Terri Schiavo case/Archive 23

Removing the POV tag

Since it's been placed here, nobody's brought any serious matters of dispute to the table which require looking over. Anything that's been inaccurate has been checked and fixed within minutes or hours at most to get NPOV. I'm tired of slurring and article we've all been working diligently on for the sake of satisfying some elements who feel that as long as it presents facts that don't support their skewed version of reality, it deserves to be denigrated. I've seen no citations of clear POV since the tag went up, as such, I'm taking it down. The fact is that a POV tag may remain on a page indefinitely if there is a dispute, yet I've failed to see that dispute materialize. I don't doubt that as soon as I take the POV tag down the lunatic fringe clicking refresh on the article is going to jump in here and start barking about how it's totally in dispute, while forgetting to cite any instances of POV. Professor Ninja 16:38, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)

Okay, since you compromised by putting it back for a few days, I think I should give a list of difficulties I have (although this is keeping me from an assignment). I do not say that they are all POV; some relate to accuracy, or even to lack of documentation. Apologies if I'm placing them in the wrong part of the page under the wrong headings: this formatting is so complicated.

opening section, asserting PVS

Opening section: I would have preferred not to see an assertion that she was in a PVS. It was disputed, by doctors and by speech therapists, not just by parents (who might have been deceiving themselves). On the Requests for Comment/NCdave page, Jdavidb wrote, "For example, rather than stating that Terri Schiavo was in a PVS, the article should state something along the lines of, 'The majority of medical practicioners agreed Terri Schiavo was in a Persistent Vegetative State, but the Schindlers produced medical experts that disputed that finding.' That is simple, textbook NPOV. Unfortunately, NCdave wants the article to state definitively that Schiavo was NOT in a PVS. That is not NPOV. But neither is stating definitively that Schiavo WAS in a PVS." That is exactly how I feel. I realize that we may be outnumbered.

You probably have a point, but I don't agree with Jdavidb because there's only so much you can put in the lead paragraph. I'd suggest one of the following:

1. Say something along the lines of "generally agreed to be in a PVS", or
2. Describe the symptoms of PVS e.g. "...spent the last fifteen years of her life unable to x,y,z".

JYolkowski // talk 02:08, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yes, although I'd prefer what Jdavidb suggested, I'd go along with "generally agreed to be". Ann Heneghan 01:32, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I am not a lawyer, nor do I play one on TV, however, it is my understanding that, from a legal point of view, when evidence is placed before a court and the court renders a decision on the evidence, that decision becomes fact. That doesn't mean it's unerringly correct, nor does it even mean it was elegantly arrived at, but from the legal point of view it is fact and can be cited as such. I believe either the Professor or the Wagonmaster made that point quite plainly in yet another response to some tarheel. Since the PVS is a legal fact, there is nothing wrong, nor is it POV to so state, even in the opening paragraph. LRod 216.76.216.114 03:28, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

If I am falsely accused of murder and the courts find me guilty and nobody outside of my family and close friends believes me to be innocent, then yes, I think it's reasonable for newpaper articles and encyclopedia entries to say that "Ann Heneghan murdered" X. However, if there is a lot of controversy, I think that article writers generally avoid saying such things. To give extreme examples, the Wikipedia articles on Edmund Campion and Anne Boleyn do not say that the former was guilty of treason or that the latter was a witch and an adulteress, even though the court decisions that found them guilty and condemned them to death were not (as far as I know) overturned by another court. To give another example, this [BBC News article] avoided saying that Angela Cannings had murdered her babies once there was a certain amount of support for her, even though she was still in jail at the time. BBC does refer to other convicted killers as having murdered, even when these people protest their innocence. It seems to depend on the level of support. So the Schindlers' denial that Terri was in a PVS would not, by itself, be sufficient to warrant putting in what Jdavidb suggested; but with lots of affidavits by doctors and speech therapists and nurses, I think there is enough controversy to make a flat assertion that she was in a PVS inappropriate. Ann Heneghan 01:32, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

That's fine by me. Symptoms would take longer than "generally accepted", JYolkowski -- we'll know the extent of the damage when the autopsy report is released and can update it then. Professor Ninja 03:53, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, but I read that an autopsy can't really determine whether or not someone was in a PVS. Again, apologies for not providing the link. If anyone really wants it, I could probably fish it out some time. Ann Heneghan 01:32, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Here's a link to [an article] that says the autopsy can't really determine whether or not someone was in a PVS. And here's a link to [one] that says that the Schindlers asked an independent pathologist to be present at the autopsy, and he agreed, but was then refused permission. Ann Heneghan 10:29, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm just amazed how this one sentence can be such a problem for people. If technical accuracy is the only concern, then I would point out that while it says Terri was PVS, within a sentence or two it goes into the whole court battle between Michael and the Schindlers. So, it isn't like anyone is hiding the fact that her diagnosis was disputed. It is right there in the next paragraph. I question if its "technical accuracy" that is really being pushed here, or if its a matter of inserting doubt anywhere possible. FuelWagon 14:02, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

No, the article does not hide the fact that her diagnosis was disputed. Nevertheless, by stating first that she was in a PVS and then stating that this diagnosis was disputed, it is unquestionably stating that those who dispute it are wrong. Ann Heneghan 01:32, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

If the article said "those who dispute it (PVS diagnosis) are wrong", then it should be removed. But I don't see that anywhere in the article. FuelWagon 14:56, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Of the doctors who actually examined Terri, 5 say she was PVS, 2 say she was MCS.

PVS: Jeffrey Karp, Victor Gambone (Primary Care Physisian), Ron Cranford, James Barnhill, Peter Bambakidis

MCS: William Maxfield, William Hammesfahr

Of the 5 PVS diagnosis, only Cranford is being questioned for bias (Dr. Humane Death)

Of the 2 MCS diagnosis, both are being questioned for their bias.

All the other people who diagnosed Terri to be MCS never examined her, and based their diagnosis on VIDEO HEAVILY EDITED BY THE PARENTS. And the armchair diagnosis of people who read a newpaper article and say she's MCS are a bunch of quacks.

Unless Karp, Gambone, Barnhill, and Bambakidis are in on the conspiracy to murder Terri for a piece of her trust fund money, they're the only doctors who fully examined Terri, who do NOT have any known bias, who ALL say she was PVS. Saying she was NOT PVS is pure fantasy. Two of the four were selected by the court, not Michael, so that would mean that any conspiracy would also have to involve the court system as well, and two guardian ad litems.

So, Terri was PVS. Her parents dispute it. But overwhelming scientific and medical evidence say she was PVS. That her parents and groups with religious agendas dispute the diagnosis does not make the fact suddenly untrue. The world is round. Some people dispute it and say teh world is flat. But the existence of the dispute does not override overwhelming scientific evidence and suddenly require wikipedia to report "Many claim the earth is round, but this is disputed by a small minority." No. Wikipedia can come out and say "The earth is round." and get on with it. FuelWagon 15:18, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Looks like several people are fine with "generally agreed", but it doesn't sound like we have consensus, so I haven't added it in yet. For those of you who didn't like "generally agreed", would you be more comfortable with something along the lines of "diagnosed as being in a PVS"? If not, then I guess my preference (after those two ideas) is to leave the sentence as it is. JYolkowski // talk 00:15, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

early life, suspicious eating habits

Early life: There is a bit about Terri's friends having suspicions about her eating habits, and how she would go to the bathroom after eating, and how Michael was aware of this, but did not realize the danger. There's no documentation. I have no strong opinion as to whether or not her collapse was caused by bulimia, but I know the Schindlers do not accept it. Is there a transcript from court documents with a friend's testimony about her bulimia?

Personally I'm wondering how relevant this bit is myself. Do we really need it, or is the bit later on about the court finding she suffered from bulimia sufficient? JYolkowski // talk 02:08, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I agree that the comments about binge and purge appears to be supposition. However, I believe the Schindlers accepted the idea of bulemia initially. According to Wolfson (as I recall) everyone was on the same page until after '93. LRod 216.76.216.114 03:28, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The Schindlers' only other contention was that she was abused; all allegations of abuse were disproved. The Schindlers, therefore, no longer have room for dispute; meaning the medical diagnosis is more than likely the factual diagnosis. We can't go around altering every article to state that this or that is generally accepted because it may not have happened. Professor Ninja 03:53, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

Since no-one's voiced disagreements about removing the sentence, I've done so. If anyone wants to re-add it, I'm okay with that if a citation is provided. JYolkowski // talk 00:14, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

initial medical crisis, no signs of violence

Initial medical crisis. "There were no signs of violence or a struggle." Is this true, or does the editor who wrote that mean that s/he is unaware of whether or not there were such signs? It may be true, but unless there this was stated by one of the paramedics, I don't think it should be asserted in the article. I assume that no wikipedian was in the house that night.

Yes, that is in fact stated in reports that I've seen. There were no signs of violence or struggle, there was no head trauma, just Terri lying on the ground. I'll try to find a citation. Professor Ninja 03:53, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. If it was in the report, then I have no problem with it. Ann Heneghan 01:35, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm troubled by the statement "[t]here were no signs of violence or a struggle." If it was a relatively simple medical emergency call there wouldn't have been. To make that statement raises the suspicion that there might have been, which plays right into the conspiracy theorists POV and doesn't belong, in my view. I have the same issue with a later comment regarding drug bottles found in the medicine cabinet (I don't remember exactly how it was stated). LRod 216.76.216.114 03:28, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

When somebody collapses from mysterious causes it's pretty normal to investigate what those causes could be. So they check for signs of violence. So, it belongs. The medicine stuff doesn't belong, and I removed it. It should still be removed. Professor Ninja 03:53, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

never exhibited higher cortical function

"[She] never exhibited any evidence of higher cortical function." Well is that true, or is it merely that she never exhibited any evidence which was accepted by Judge Greer? I have no medical background, and am not really sure what "higher cortical function" would mean. I have read affidavits from doctors, nurses, and speech therapists who said that she was obviously trying to talk. These are court documents, and are therefore relevant. Whether or not Dr Hammesfahr overcharged patients and falsely claimed to be a Nobel Prize nominee, he is still a doctor, and not a layman.

Again, from the legal point of view, your first statement is correct, and is essentially the end of the discussion. LRod 216.76.216.114 03:28, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

My comments above about controversial court rulings and how the media normally refer to such cases would apply to this as well. Ann Heneghan 02:07, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yes, that is true. Vocalizations are not higher cortical functions. The vocalizations she was making could be indicative of nothing more than air going through her throat. If you hold a flute up to a fan I guarantee you'll get a musical note but that doesn't make the flute or the fan alive. Her vocalizations do not indicate lack of higher cortical function, but note that that is not what the sentence says: she may very well have had higher cortical function, but never exhibited evidence of it. Professor Ninja 03:53, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

no illegal drugs or alcohal

"The St. Petersburg police report revealed that no illegal drugs or alcohol were found in Terri's system; a physical inspection was unable to find any sign of trauma to her head or face." Again, I'd like evidence. I'm not doubting it, but there's no reference.

Same as the no signs of violence cite, I'll try to find it. Professor Ninja 03:53, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

abnormal potasium levels

Abnormal potassium levels - I can't provide any reference, but I think the Schindlers disputed that by saying that the enzymes that would have been present were not present. Sorry to be so vague.

Hmm... okay? Professor Ninja 03:53, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

without objection from the Schindlers

"[T]he court appointed Michael Schiavo as Terri's legal guardian, without objection from the Schindlers." Could "without objection from the Schindlers" be removed? I believe they claimed later that they were tricked into signing this, but is their lack of objection really relevant?

If they later claimed they were tricked, then the lack of objection is highly relevant. If, in fact, they weren't tricked, then there clearly wasn't any issue with Michael being named guardian (which is how the story was told by everyone prior to '93). If they were tricked, why did that claim not come out until many years later? LRod 216.76.216.114 03:28, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The Schindlers did not object. It doesn't say with consent, it says without objection. In fact they only raised questions about it (various different statements that cannot all be true) post fact. They essentially invalidated their own arguments. They claimed they were fooled into it, then that they never got or saw it. Both can't be true. So what stands is that they've essentially shot their own argument in the foot, and what's left is that when Michael was made guardian, there was no objection from the Schindlers. I suppose we could put in that they contradicted themselves on this point, but that just bloats the article and makes them look like incredibly stupid liars. Professor Ninja 03:53, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

to better care for his wife

He began to study nursing "to better care for his wife". I think his alleged motive should either be omitted or qualified in some way to show that this is what he claimed. Otherwise we have "editor's voice" telling us that this was his motive. We don't know whether or not it's true.

I agree, and I would add that I don't even know if Michael made such a claim for himself. LRod 216.76.216.114 03:28, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This should be changed, in fact I think I changed this before and it probably got lost in a revert. Professor Ninja 03:53, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

Or maybe reword it to say that "He later claimed that he did this in order to better care for his wife" (assuming he did). JYolkowski // talk 02:08, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I would very much like that to be changed. Ann Heneghan 01:39, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I removed it. JYolkowski // talk 00:18, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

trust fund controlled by third party

Malpractice suit. "The court placed Terri Schiavo's award in a trust fund, which was controlled by a third party and covered her medical and legal expenses." First of all, am I wrong in thinking the "third party" was her husband? Secondly since the money ran out as a result of legal expenses, I don't think it "covered her medical and legal expenses". Wasn't her care being paid for by the taxpayer at the end? I suggest something like "a trust fund to cover her medical and legal expenses; it was controlled by . . . " Also was the money intended by the courts to cover her legal expenses? The malpractice jury surely did not expect the money to be used for that purpose?

No, the third party wasn't Michael. Just reinforcing what JYolkowski said. Professor Ninja 03:53, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

It wasn't controlled by her husband, it was a "third party" (not sure who offhand). JYolkowski // talk 02:08, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

SouthTrust Bank, aka third party. From the wolfson report: "The court established a trust fund for Theresa’s financial award, with SouthTrust Bank as the Guardian and an independent trustee. This fund was meticulously managed and accounted for and Michael Schiavo had no control over its use. There is no evidence in the record of the trust administration documents of any mismanagement of Theresa’s estate, and the records on this matter are excellently maintained." Also, if there were restrictions on the trust to simply medical expenses, then it wouldn't have covered the legal expenses, and it clearly did. (The trustee will go to the court to approve expenses or to file its reports; if it were not the intent of the court to cover the expenses, it wouldn't have allowed the expense/payment.) Anyway, the trust was a finite amount and can cover medical/legal/administrative/whatever expenses until the money runs out. (and people want to impose caps on damage awards *sigh*). Also, above there's an assumption that the trust fund is automatic from the jury award, but I would say that it comes from the settlement agreement (thus, jury's intent not relevant). All this impossible to know for certain without trust deed. In the end, the paragraph is accurate to the extent possible without the medmal docs (but then, I wrote it. Addiitonally, I originally had $750k award, but someone else said it was $700k. Frankly, $50k isn't worth disputing. I don't play a lawyer on tv, but I am one in real life.)--Mia-Cle 13:10, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I accept the "third party" bit. Not sure that I'm happy with "covered her medical and legal expenses". Ann Heneghan 01:47, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Do you prefer "paid for"? ([T]he trust fund, which...paid for her medical and legal expenses.)--Mia-Cle 01:07, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Cranford's bias

Medical opinons. I have no problem with the beginning, which says that the two doctors determined her to be in a PVS (rather than saying that she was in it). I was unaware of the doubts about Hammesfahr's nomination before discovering this on Wikipedia, and am glad to have discovered this. However - and Tropix has mentioned this - it seems very biased to point this out along with Dr Cheshire's religious views, and not to mention any of the possible questions about Dr Cranford. As far as I know, he recommends removing feeding tubes from Alzheimer's patients, he calls himself "Dr Humane Death", he once diagnosed as PVS a man who could manage his own electric wheelchair, and he also diagnosed as PVS a man who later recovered. I have no references now, but could look them up. I think also that there were question marks raised about the doctor selected by Judge Greer. His brother and George Felos were in some club together. I'd have to look it up. The article at the moment also says that Cheshire's visit lasted only 90 minutes. I read that Cranford examined her for 45 minutes, and could not remember, under cross-examination, what colour her eyes were. I'm not saying that should go in, but I definitely feel that this paragraph is putting in things that support Michael Schiavo's position and overlooking things that would support the Schindler's position.

Are we retrying the case or telling Terri's story? If I wanted a good doctor (good, as in highly skilled, not easily manipulated), I'd start looking around by asking people I know who they know. I don't see anything wrong with that. LRod 216.76.216.114 03:28, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I seriously question whether or not he diagnosed a wheelchair-bound man as PVS. You would have to be, quite literally, the worst doctor in the world to do that. I'm fairly certain that if you diagnosed somebody with enough cognitive function to operate their wheelchair that they would have their license revoked. As far as the assertion that the man he diagnosed as PVS later recovered, it happens. No, seriously, doctors make incorrect diagnoses all the time. I don't want to bother tracking down every faulty diagnosis every doctor in this case made. What is fair is whether or not he's a proponent of euthanasia. I have been able to find nothing related to this. I'm absolutely coming up against a wall. The group he was with, choices in dying, changed their name, and their new company has a website. That website now belongs to a group with another name which may be a different group or the same group with a new name. Regardless of that, every single one of those is a living will help group or end-of-life-directives help group, or whatever you want to call it. I haven't been able to find anything on him being pro-euthanasia (beyond the fact that euthanasia does still mean simply "good death" and not "putting to sleep", and that he may be pro-euthanasia in that he advocates allowing life support to be removed to die humanely and quickly as opposed to slowly and painfully.) We really have to check this out because Cranford has been bandied about as being pro-death, but it's almost impossible to find any information for or against that assertion. I've tried, I give up. Anybody else want to take a stab at it? This is probably one of the biggest gaps in the article. Professor Ninja 03:53, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

he calls himself "Dr Humane Death", he once diagnosed as PVS a man who could manage his own electric wheelchair, Give a URL that shows his self-chosen moniker to be "Dr Humane Death". And THEN tell me what the hell being humane about people dying has to do with BIAS in diagnosing Terri as PVS. Would it be better if he called himself Dr Inhumane Death"? I would especially like to see a URL that shows a man who could manage his own wheelchair being diagnosed as PVS by Cranford. It may be that he diagnosed someone PVS and the person later recovered, but did he lose a malpractice suit because of it? Or was his diagnosis supported by the medical community? People do sometimes exhibit "miraculous" recoveries, coming out of a coma for no apparent reason after years of being in one. But that doesn't void the fact that people can't write living wills that say "If I'm PVS and there's no hope of a miracle recovery, then pull the plug". FuelWagon 13:55, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

FuelWagon, I can understand that you disagree with some, perhaps even most, of my postings. However, it should be possible to disagree without sounding hostile; others in Wikipedia have managed to do that, and I hope that I have as well. I don't really feel welcome here when I read your postings, although I do understand that on Wikipeda edits can be reverted and suggestions can be rejected. Perhaps, as a gesture of goodwill, you could edit your post and remove the phrase "what the hell"? I'd be very happy to respond to any comments and questions you might have after you've done that. Ann Heneghan 03:00, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I do not see how supporting humane deaths for terminally ill has any relevance. Unless someone wants to imply that Cranford supports humane deaths for people in wheelchairs. I found URL's about Cranford diagnosing someone PVS in 1980 and the person woke up 18 months after entering a PVS (a police officer who had been shot). I have not found any stories about someone running around in a wheelchair being diagnosed PVS. I did find that the American Academy of Neurology states that "recovery of consciousness from post-traumatic PVS after 12 months in adults and children is unlikely" (interesting little tidbit given Terri was PVS for 15 years) in an article with the neutral title of "Schiavo's 'Dr. Humane Death' Got 1980 Diagnosis Wrong". What the article fails to mention is whether Cranford was disciplined for his incorrect diagnosis, found guilty of malpractice, or whether the neurological experts gave his diagnosis the nod. I would assume that in an article intent on stringing Cranford up that had he been faulted by the experts for his diagnosis, they would flaunt it out and about in the headlines "Cranford disciplined for 1980 diagnosis". But that fault was never mentioned. did the AAN call him on the carpet for his diagnosis? If not, how do a bunch of people with axes to grind get off doing just that? At that point it becomes an ad hominem attack. "Look, Cranford screwed this up." With the implication that (1) he screwed up the cop, therefore he MUST have screwed up Terri's diagnosis too or (2) he misdiagnosed the cop and Terri on purpose because he's "Dr Humane Death" and he just wanted to put them out of their misery. Was cranford actually disciplined for his diagnosis? or are people trying to hang him in the court of public opinion? FuelWagon 03:55, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for modifying your post, and also for reformatting mine. I'm not as computer literate as I'd like to be. No, I wouldn't want him to call himself Dr Inhumane death; I'd prefer him to call himself Dr Life. Dr Jerome Lejeune, the doctor who discovered the cause of Down syndrome, said that those who delivered the human race from the scourges of rabies and the plague were not those who smothered the victims of one and burned the victims of the other. I think his point was that if putting the patient to death is seen as a solution, finding a cure becomes less urgent.

My research into Cranford and the man who could operate his wheelchair has not been very productive, I'm afraid. The article that Macdougal provided was the one that I had read some time ago. It says that Cranford diagnosed Robert Wendland as PVS. However, [this article], apparently by a lawyer who cross examined Cranford in the Wendland trial, says that Cranford did not diagnose him as PVS, but rather as MCS. I apologize if I misled anyone. Nevertheless, the article says that Cranford admitted under cross examination that in his years serving as expert witness, he had never once advocated on the side of life. (Is that less relevant to the article than Cheshire's views on stem-cell research?) Also, according to this article, he recommended discontinuing Wendland's feeding (even though Wendland could operate his own wheelchair) so that his family would be able to go through the normal grieving process. To me, this sounds like the kind of doctor I would hire if I wanted a "pull-out-the-tube" verdict than the kind I'd hire if I were a loving spouse desperately hoping to hear that there was hope that the patient would benefit from therapy. I feel that if the article is to be truly neutral, we should either take out the questions over Hammesfahr and Cheshire or put in the questions over Cranford.

Cranford admitted under cross examination ... he had never once advocated on the side of life. That's a completely POV presentation. You conveniently drop the question being asked and paraphrase the answer that he gave. get a transcript that shows the questions and answers leading up to and after this one and maybe it could be put in an NPOV format, but as you've got it now, you've got nothing but one side's slant on what he said. One alternative interpretation is that Cranford "never once" advocated on the side of life on a patient whom he thought was PVS or worse and had no hope of recovery. And I'd agree with that position. If someone is so far gone that they'll never have any awareness and is so far gone that they'll never recover, then I'd say the person is already dead and all you've got is a shell of a body. FuelWagon 14:15, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You say lower down that you're unclear how Cranford's views on removing feeding tubes would bias him to diagnose Terri as PVS if she wasn't. I'm a little puzzled because you don't seem to have any problem - correct me if I'm wrong - in believing that Cheshire's conservative religious views might bias him to diagnose Terrs as not PVS if, in fact, she was. Is it that you think that religious, pro-life people are more prone to self deception in medical mattes (or even to dishonesty) than people in general? That has never been my experience. Ann Heneghan 01:23, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Wow. Have you heard of the Salem Witch trials? Do you think that maybe people's religious beliefs were perhaps the cause of rampant self-deception and dishonesty and a complete refusal to look at facts as facts and heresay as heresay to the point that a lot of innocent people were executed for the crime of witchcraft?

Not recent enough in your history book to register? Here's a quote from wikipedia's entry on stem cell research:

Embryonic stem cells are cultured cells obtained from the inner mass cells of a blastocyst. Embryonic stem cell research is still in the basic research phase. Research with embryonic stem cells derived from humans is controversial because, in order to start a stem cell 'line' or lineage, it requires the destruction of a blastocyst (an embryo that has not yet grown beyond 150 cells), which some people believe to be human beings.

So, people who are walking around with some disease or illness could possibly benefit from stem cell research. But some extreme conservative christians want to call a mass that has less than 150 cells a HUMAN BEING and using those cells for research is MURDER? Yeah, I think that attitude REEKS of self deception in medical matters. Because some extreme religious folks want to call a fertilized egg a human being with human rights so that they can prevent a slipery slope to abortion, people walking around with real medical problems are going to DIE because doctors can't do the research. And Cheshire wrote papers on stem cell research espousing a conservative christian viewpoint. So, yeah, I think he's completely willing to self-deception to save one hundred cells in a pitri dish and let a 40 year old person with parkinson's disease die. If a patient is brain dead, most people view it as acceptable to withdraw lifesupport. But a blastocyst doesn't even HAVE a brain, with less than 150 cells, it doesn't have any sort of awareness or consciousness or sensation of pain or any of that, but to use a blastocyst is murder? Only self-deception can allow someone to hold those two completely opposite views on what is medically the same situation. FuelWagon 14:29, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I believe the wheelchair/PVS thing comes from this NRO article, which appears to be wrong about the diagnosis. All other non-blog websites I found on the case say his diagnosis was MCS. That article links to this editorial by Cranford which is clearly pro-euthanasia. Macdougal 16:17, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

That the National Review advertises books with titles like "The Vast Left Wing Conspiracy" by Byron York pretty much disqualifies it as a neutral source to be taken at face value. I wonder if they printed a correction about the pvs/mcs diagnosis. I quickly skimmed Cranford's editorial, need to read it again. FuelWagon 17:42, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I re-read Cranford's editorial. Unless I'm misreading it, he seems to be advocating not installing a feeding tube in advanced stage Alzheimer's patients, that it should be the families choice, and that he would advocate NOT installing a feeding tube. It also seems, in part, in response to groups who insist that withdrawing a feeding tube is akin to euthanasia, like groups who fought Jamie Butcher's parents who decided to withdraw his feeding tube after 17 years in a PVS state.

This is a question families should feel free to answer for themselves -- without fearing intrusion from outsiders. the idea of placing a feeding tube in a patient with advanced Alzheimer's disease makes no sense at all, medically or morally. It borders on barbaric and cruel.

I'm still unclear how this would bias Cranford to diagnos Terri as PVS if she wasn't PVS. I'm not familiar with "advanced alzheimers", but it sounds to me like he's saying that if a person's mind is gone, that if they have no self awareness at all, and if they have no realistic hope of recovery, then he would advocate the family not install a feeding tube. I would agree with that mentality. I also agree that is should be a personal decision free from outsiders. I do not believe that were I a physician examining Terri that this attitude would encourage me to ignore signs that Terri has awareness. Just that if she shows no signs of awareness, then she ought to be able to have her feeding tube withdrawn if that's what she would have wanted. FuelWagon 18:16, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I could go on, but I'm getting rather tired (and I still have that assignment to work on). I would appreciate comments about any of the issues I have raised. Ann Heneghan 01:43, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You raised issues, but you haven't substantiated the rumors you're saying you have heard. I can't find them on the net, so I need for you to provide a link that will show me that Cranford diagnosed a man as being in a PVS who could operate a wheelchair. I'm most interested in that claim, as it seems highly unlikely that such a grossly inaccurate diagnosis would be made by a man who, by all accounts I have read in newspapers, is considered the nation's leading expert on the persistent vegetative state. I bring that one up because it's what I am most interested in, but I'd appreciate links for the other rumors/things that you have heard, because I'd like to read them and make an assessment.--Minaflorida 17:42, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Can you give me another day? I'll try to find and post some links tomorrow. Remember I'm not claiming that all of these stories are true - I put "as far as I know". I'd like to find some sources also. For example, I originally accepted that Dr Hammesfahr was a Nobel Prize nominee. I learned through this article that he was nominated by someone who was ineligible, and I accept that (although I don't think that proves that Terri was in a PVS and that her husband loved her to the end). You could have a look at [this website]. The problem is that it's often unavailable, as it has exceeded its monthly traffic. If you do manage to access it, you'll find pdf documents of affidavits and court transcripts etc. from several nurses, from friends who said that Terri was planning to divorce Michael shortly before her collapse, that he used to monitor the mileage on her car, that she sometimes had bruises, that she had had a row with him the day before her collapse, etc, and also something from Cindy Shook (Michael's girlfriend from the days of the malpractice trial, when he swore that he believed in his marriage vows and wanted to take care of her for the rest of her life). Obviously ex-girlfriends and fired nurses etc. are not exactly unbiased witnesses, but there's so much of this kind of testimony, and it seems that it was rejected simply because Judge Greer disagreed with it, not because these witnesses contradicted themselves under cross examination. As far as I know they were not examined or cross examined - it was all ruled irrelevant. There might also be a document on that website with evidence from Terri's friend that Terri disagreed with the decision to remove life support from Karen Ann Quinlan. And I promise I'll try to find a source for the rumours about Dr Cranford. If they're not true, then of course they shouldn't go in the article. Ann Heneghan 03:00, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I will keep looking, but I'm extremely busy at the moment, and think I am going to have to disappear from this page for a few days, or answer only very briefly. Macdougal provided a link to this article, which I think was the one in which I originally read about Cranford misdiagnosing as PVS a man who could operate his own wheelchair. I have now found [an article] which says that Cranford, in fact, diagnosed Wendland as MCS, but that he still recommended that the tube be removed, so that the family could go through the normal grieving process. I am now beginning to doubt the misdiagnosis, but am still sufficiently shocked by Cranford's recommendation. I still can't access the [zimp.org] website, but if you're interested in seeing the documents, I recommend that you keep trying. The Schindler's website also has a page with [the court documents]. In particular, look in the right column, near the bottom. I think both websites are short of bandwidth, and can't store all the documents or cope with large numbers of visitors. I'm sure some documents have been removed. In particular, I remember reading an affidavit, over a year ago, by a professional speech therapist who had weaned several patients off feeding tubes and believed she could do the same for Terri. She also believed that Terri was trying to talk. Ann Heneghan 01:50, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Just want to say, especially to Minaflorida, that the [website with the affidavits] is available again as I write. Sorry for disappearing. I had an assignment to work on, and also got interested in a few other (less time-consuming) Wikipedia articles, while I should have been working on the assignment. I will address other points some time soon. However, regardless of whether or not people think that [zimp.org] is neutral (it's run by a friend of the Schindlers), it does have actual court documents which you may not be able to find elsewhere. Ann Heneghan 15:23, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

so much in the above paragraph, i will try to address as much as possible without too much legalese:

A judge is not going to reject evidence simply b/c he disagrees with it—this judge in particular. if you read Judge Greer’s orders/decisions, he carefully considered each and every affidavit for its evidentiary value and details why it was or was not sufficient. (he also carefully considered all the testimony at the 2000 trial)

You’ve already picked up on the inherent bias in affidavits, but also remember that affidavits do not exist independently. that is, an affidavit is attached to a motion put forth by one party. that motion, however, is for a specific point, and the affidavit is there to substantiate that specific point. so, you have to read the motion first, which will indicate the point being made and the affidavit(s) that will support it.

The motion and its attachments are filed, and what frequently follows is a hearing on the motion, at which time both sides argue their case in front of the judge. The judge referenced these hearings in the orders, so I have no doubt that the very intelligent lawyers for the Schindlers argued the merits of their motion and supporting evidence. At such a hearing there may or may not be witness testimony from an affiant, at which time there would be cross-exam. However, this is rare. There isn’t going to be witness testimony by every affiant (person that gave the affidavit) at a motion hearing b/c (1) that is essentially asking for a whole new (sub-)trial, which is not the purpose of a motion hearing and (2)it is possible to look at an affidavit—without assessing its credibility/veracity—to see if the affidavit on its face offers enough evidence.

Additionally, I think some of the affidavits to which you refer are, as far as I can tell without a full docket, attached to post-trial motions to vacate the initial judgment. They’re filed pursuant to Rule 1.540 of the Florida rules of civil procedure. Now, keep in mind that there was a discovery period before the trial and a trial, so both parties had ample opportunity to discover evidence, vet it, and present it at trial, subject to cross-exam. Then the judge reaches a decision. (There are findings of fact and conclusions of law—in this case the judge does both. if it were a jury trial [these cases are not jury trials], then the jury would be the finder of fact and the judge would find the conclusions of law. This is a digression from my bit on motions/affidavits/testimony though.) There’s an appeals process. (I’m not going to go into, I think people get it, mostly. An appeal is not a new trial, it’s appellate review on whatever grounds of the trial that was.) There are also post-trial motions, which the Rules provide the outline for what they are supposed to do. (One thing to keep in mind is that a party is not supposed to keep trying to relitigate a case over and over in motions.)

A 1.540(b) motion thus has to show that there was either (1) a mistake, (2) newly discovered evidence which by due diligence could not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial or a rehearing, (3) fraud/misrepresentation/misconduct, (4) the judgment is void, or (5) that the judgment is no longer equitable. The motion shall be filed in a reasonable time (for the first three reasons not more than one year after the judgment). So you also need to see what kind of rule 1.540(b) motion it was and the argument being made, and apply this analysis to the affidavit as well; for example, is it newly discovered? could due diligence have discovered it before the trial?

(A party is also not supposed to bombard the court with endless filings of post-trial motions. In this particular case, the courts were remarkably lenient in allowing numerous, successive filings. And you will see in the orders that even though the Schindlers were pushing the envelope, the court still considered each and every affidavit.)

The 2d DCA also set forth in one of its decisions the guidelines for what the Schindlers needed to prove. For example, the Schindlers, as the proponents of the motion, had to prove only by a preponderance of the evidence that the initial judgment was no longer equitable. To meet this burden, they had to establish that new treatment offered sufficient promise of increased cognitive function in Mrs. Schiavo’s cerebral cortex—significantly improving the quality of Mrs. Schiavo’s life–so that she herself would elect to undergo this treatment and would reverse the prior decision to withdraw life-prolonging procedures.

Remember, the two key issues in the probate case were: was she in PVS, and what were Mrs. Schiavo’s wishes with regard to life-prolonging procedures. If you read the judge’s original decision (2000) you will see what evidence was presented and how it was weighed by the judge. (For example, testimony presented as to her wishes: a statement she made when she is a child or a young woman is going to carry less “weight” then a statement she made as an adult. In addition, all that testimony at the trial was subject to cross, and therefore one side could try to impeach the witness—attack his/her credibility.)

So, back to the motions and affidavits. When you read the motion/affidavit, you need to apply that kind of analysis to it—what does the motion say, does the motion comport with the rule, does the affidavit support that position set forth in the motion, does the affidavit say anything new (that wasn’t raised and addressed at trial, e.g.) and is it enough to indicate that TS would have chosen to undergo this treatment and reverse the prior decision to w/d the life-prolonging procedures.

You also need to keep in mind what is relevant to the legal case – a lot of irrelevant detail is out there. Testimony at trial has to go the relevant legal issues, or testimony can be used to impeach a witness. In your paragraph above you’re blurring together a lot of different aspects—at least two different trials, motions, testimony and affidavits, which is why I cannot address each concern. If you want to go to my user page and ask specific questions, please feel free to do so and I will try and answer your questions.--Mia-Cle 22:38, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for the offer. I may need to disappear from this page for a few days - it's keeping me from important work - but I will be back. (Actually, though, the moral and medical aspects of this case interest me more than the legal aspects.) Ann Heneghan 01:59, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I agree with your parenthetical--this isn't a particularly interesting or ground-breaking legal case per se (what interests me is how the Schindlers' filings fed the social movement, which manipulated popular opinion); however, it's like deconstruction--well done deconstruction doesn't really work right unless you understand what it is you're deconstructing. Trying to pull together odd bits and pieces to form a whole without understanding the whole, or framework for that whole, leads to confusion and broad generalizations that are often skewed to the louder side/more vocal side of the dispute.--Mia-Cle 14:06, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Early Life

This sentence is at the end of the early life section. "However, the physician who examined Terri Schiavo did not take a complete medical history, which would have indicated an eating disorder." I think we should change "would" to "may." We aren't omniscient. Additionally, the link that directly follows that sentence is for an online newspaper story that requires registration. Is there a wiki policy on this? It seems, to me, that it would be ideal to link to stories that do not require registration.--Minaflorida 13:21, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sometimes these stories only stay live for a few weeks, after which they require registration. I'm fairly certain most of the news items in this article are based on source documents found at the bottom of the page, so feel free to remove dead links as needed as long as you move them to the talk page, or make a note in the edit summary. --Viriditas | Talk 13:38, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

What do you think about "may" or "might" vs. "would"? I don't think we can possibly say that a complete medical history would certainly have indicated an eating disorder. I belive that it probably would have, but it seems like a stretch to state that it would have.--Minaflorida 14:32, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Most people, unfortunately, consider "may" or "might" to be statements of improbability, possibly because of their overuse in sarcastic statements like "He may have done that" as dismissive rhetorical devices. The word could, which may also be used to indicated probability or possibility, would better be used in this instance. Professor Ninja 16:32, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I think could would be much better. Ann Heneghan 02:00, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Earlier in the same "early life" section, it says "Schiavo may have developed an eating disorder". This seems to best represent the facts. An exam by her obstetrician may have revealed her eating disorder as well. The alternative is to put it into the malpractice suit and saying that the jury found that the obstetrician would have found bulemia if he had done a full exam (or whatever language they used), that would take it out of the "early life" section, but perhaps that isn't a bad thing. FuelWagon 17:44, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"Could" is good. That's my two cents. I apologize about deleting the link. I thought that it would be best to link to articles that are not registration-only. I thought wrong, I suppose. meh.--Minaflorida 23:36, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I didn't realise the link was registration only. I have BugMeNot installed so at any point that I had already "logged in" on that site, it would auto-login in the future, thus bypassing the regular registration thing. Anyway, if that happens again, point out that it's a registration-only site instead of a dead link (sort of confusing, I checked the link to see if it was dead, and it loaded up the page for me, so I thought, okay... not a dead link. I had assumed you had gotten a timeout or not found error and thought it was a dead link in mistake.)

My bad. I completely misspoke(typed). I didn't mean to say 'twas dead. Sorry, peeps.--Minaflorida 17:19, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Explaining public interest

Over on RfC/NCdave, patsw suggests that this article is "basically useless for understanding why public interest in this case was so great or how anyone could ever come to doubt the motives of Michael Schiavo." Is this true? To take the points in reverse order, I think that there is some material there to support why one might doubt Michael's motives, but it is neither comprehensive, nor gathered in one place. Is this a flaw? Do we have an encyclopædic duty to explain why he might be doubted? On the other point, other than the memo issue and related political opportunism, and a few bullet-points on rhetorical terms, I don't think that there is much to explain the public interest. Maybe this is just too controversial to cover, but it is a valid issue that we fail to describe a significant dimension. Bovlb 03:35, 2005 Apr 13 (UTC)

Not really. The page is becoming excessively long in point/counterpoint points-of-view. The reason why material needs to get excised is it's either a) blatant agitprop stated as fact or b) totally extraneous to the article. If you look at a revert I did of about four edits, three vandalism and one from Patsw, you can see that if he takes issue with the Michael Schiavo "phony NPOV" it's in a very questionable way. I'm apparently enforcing a POV by excising a few words of totally extraneous information. Patsw often makes use of colinear rhetoric (ie: his bull works both ways) and doesn't acknowledge that it does. I've tried cooperating and offering him some tips for what to put in and what to keep out; he just ignores them out of hand and starts giving orders. Just as NCDave is off, Patsw is in, which is a shame because at first glance he seemed like an able collaborator.

As for the idea of understanding the public debate over this, the general consensus is that the article is primarily about Terri Schiavo and her immediate biography, for want of a better term, and not as a pulpit for right-to-lifers or right-to-deathers, due to size. Which is why I proposed above moving the public stuff to a separate article. Professor Ninja 04:38, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

Play the ball, not the man. Or as Doolittle said, "the concept is valid no matter where it originates." These points seem refreshingly sensible compared to many that have been raised here, and I'd like to explore whether it's possible to address them directly. It's certainly better than indirect attempts to move the balance point around by insertion of innuendo. Can we explain why Terri became a matter of national interest without creating a pulpit? It seems both encyclopædic and relevant. I can see your point about splitting the article, but I think it would be hard to separate, for example, legislative efforts into the personal and public consequences. Bovlb 05:47, 2005 Apr 13 (UTC)

Legislative efforts, I think, would fall under the public portion of it; they naturally have consequences for everybody involved. The only legislative piece that really belongs in this article is the federal legislation Bush passed, given that it was directed solely at one individual, who happens to be the article's focus. As for explaining what caused it, God... uh, the Schindlers made alot of noise, but that doesn't always cause something to become a public spectacle like this did. Can you really ever explain succinctly what caused something to enter public conciousness? I think you can sum up the public feelings on it, but mass behaviourism is a can of worms I don't even want to try opening. The length of it alone, the various theories, the edit wars... yech. Professor Ninja 06:31, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

two legislative efforts, sorry -- the 2003 Terri's Law was state legislative action (which allowed the gov to reinsert the feeding tube and raised Florida constitutional questions completely unrelated to the probate case) and I think it kicked off some national awareness (when did Dateline, et al., start coverage; when did money start rolling in to support the Schindlers--this type of info would be indicators if this state action did, indeed, raise public awareness) then the feds in 2005.64.132.60.202 13:55, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)Mia-Cle

RE:

basically useless for understanding why public interest in this case was so great or how anyone could ever come to doubt the motives of Michael Schiavo

Well, by "public", does that mean "people who think Michael abused Terri and wants to pull the plug to silence her and get her malpractice money and created a grand conspiracy of judges, nurses, doctors, guardian ad litems, and the police to accomplish it" ??? Because if you start from that point of view, you end up with that point of view.

The article, in my mind, should present the facts of the case, what is known, what both sides actually said, and what was actually done or decided. These facts should be limited to Michael, Terri, the Schindlers, the courts, court appointed doctors, doctors who actually examined Terri, and people who were a part of Terri's story.

Anything else is public opinion pieces, someone who read stuff in a newspaper or a blog and wants to chime in on their opinion. Dr. Boyle's blog is public opinion and should be treated the same as any other guy with an opinion. Public opinion is separate from the facts of the case. Some guy took out a murder contract on Michael. That can be reported as a fact, but the guy's OPINION that Michael is a murderer who deserves to die does not deserve one iota of space in Wikipedia. His opinion is indefensible. Anyone who complains that the wikipedia article should show his point of view, should explain how he ever came to doubt Michael's motives and take out a contract to have him killed, needs to wake up. It is completely POV to allow space for every asshole with an opinion to chime in on this. This seems to be the basis for why people consider this article POV, because IT WON"T LET THEM STATE THEIR OPINIONS ABOUT MICHAEL. The facts known about the case are starting to come together and are starting to get presented froma factual point of view, and some people demand the POV flag or ACCURACY flag because we keep taking out third party opinions on the subject. Dr Boyle and his assertion that all Democrats are out to murder Terri invalidates his opinion as being NPOV. Yet, since we resist attempts to put in Boyle's comments on Terri's CT scan, we are accused of POV. I have no problem quoting any court document when it is explained in complete context. But the opinions of people on the sidelines, the third-party folks who have an agenda to murder michael physically or convict him in a COURT OF PUBLIC OPINION do not deserve space on wikipedia. They can get air time on Jerry Springer, but they do not deserve to be presented alongside the actual facts of the matter from court documents, neutral witnesses, neutral doctors who actually examined Terri, and other object and neutrally obtained information.

That wikipedia will not succumb to mob rule and instead sticks to the known facts of the case is a GOOD thing, not a matter of being POV. FuelWagon 15:43, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

There is an interesting side note to this which ties into the political opportunism angle. I was talking to my brother in Houston, Texas the other day about this case (I live in SoCal) and wanted his opinion since he's an LVN working toward his RN. I was shocked when he told me a number of inaccurate things about the case. For one he thought Michael Shaivo had successfully quashed the autopsy. For another he told me that there was solid evidence that Mr. Shaivo abused Terri physically. Both these comments smacked strongly of similar posts I've seen here.

When I questioned him further he told me this is just what he'd heard on the news. Is it possible that some media outlets (owned by politically active business people) are spinning this story and thereby misinforming the public? My brother is no idiot.

As to the article. It is well written and firm proof that collaborative efforts do produce quality work. Now if we can just keep wild speculation out of it... Wjbean 00:32, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Is it possible that some media outlets (owned by politically active business people) are spinning this story and thereby misinforming the public? The way I figure it, the media's motto is "if it bleeds, it leads". That should tell you something about their incentive to focus on controversy rather than simply presenting facts. I don't think there's a grand conspiracy to do this, I think its a number of minor reward systems that together create a large feedback loop that amplifies and transmits outrageous claims and downplays reason. Some religious folks see this as a sign of a "culture of death" that must be fought. Michael Schiavo has become their great dragon to slay. The ends justify the means, therefore wild conspiracy theories that damn Michael's behaviour are swallowed hook, line, and sinker, while a more mundane approach to the facts of the case simply get in the way of battling the great devil. Media is rewarded by advertising, so an article that quotes some wild accusation, and makes token efforts to show the other side of the story, gets more money than simply reporting the facts that are known to be true. At least journalists are required to get both sides of a story in their article. Blogs, on the other hand, are rewarded the more outrageous their claims are and have no requirements to be neutral. Advertising money for blogs are paid on a per-hit basis, not on whoever has the best presentation of facts. put this all together, and you've got a maelstorm that encourages witchhunts. FuelWagon 21:49, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm frankly shocked and astounded by the depth and breadth of some of the fiction on these blogs. There is legal recourse. Sooner or later (sooner I hope) we are going to see lawsuits over slander and defamation of character on blogs. At least the evidence will be easier to acquire. Wjbean 13:13, 2005 Apr 18 (UTC)

Proposal to split sections

Sections like "Schiavo's condition", "Family Dispute", and "Government Involvement" should all be split into separate articles. In order to do this correctly, each paragraph should be condensed, preserving only the most important talking points. At that juncture, a main template should be added to point the reader to each new page. Once this is done, the article will be easier to read. If there are no objections, I would like to work my way backwards, starting with the least controversial section, "Government Involvement", as this doesn't appear to be in any kind of ongoing dispute. --Viriditas | Talk 09:42, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think that may be article bloat of a different kind; I proposed two articles, one for the private aspects, one for the public aspects. I think that might worked better than simply ending up with five or six Terri Schiavo related articles instead of a Terri Schiavo, Timeline in Terri Schiavo case, and Public interest in Terri Schiavo case articles. I think doing that for now would be the best course of action, if it merits further chopping, do it then. Try for one split, if that doesn't work, well... go for broke I guess. Professor Ninja 11:05, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

Take a look at the Cricket page. The format makes for very pleasant reading and is easy on the eye. That is exactly what this page needs. I'm logging off now, but it would be great if someone could take as much material out of the "Government Involvement" section as possible. I've removed far less than half of the original section since I split it, and I envision it getting smaller if extraneous information continues to be removed. Any help with that is appreciated. --Viriditas | Talk 13:36, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Government involvement sounds like a good place to start. The whole idea of splitting things up sounds like a good idea. Unfortunately, the whole idea overwhelms me to the point of freezing in my tracks. I was hoping we could actually get the article to a fairly static condition and then break it apart. I suppose we're probably about as close to "static" as we'll ever get on a wiki. Just thinking about keeping an eye on a dozen different but related articles boggles my mind. FuelWagon 14:50, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm anxious to see the Family Dispute section when it's spun off. Perhaps there SHOULD be another entry along the lines of Intense Public Interest or some such. Wjbean 03:12, 2005 Apr 19 (UTC)

Accuracy Items

OK. I'm here to talk to NCDave about the accuracy dispute. I am completely OK, unlike some others, with the POV dispute tag. Honestly, I don't think that tag will ever go away on this article, simply because there are so many agendas flying around. Fine.

But factual accuracy?! We have been hashing out each and every thing we include in the article to ensure it is factually correct, down to dissecting the motions and orders. IT's become a huge legal lesson for many of us, and I enjoy gaining that knowledge.

NCDave, please, lets start a good discussion; could you list the specific items that you dispute as factually inaccurate? This is the first time (I admit, I have only been editing the article for a couple of weeks) I have seen the factual inaccuracy dispute tag on this article. I'd like to delete it, but I want to hear which items you want to refute before I do that. I am willing to listen to any claim of factual inaccuracy in the article.--Minaflorida 16:34, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Introduction: bulimia

The introduction simply says "due to bulimia". This in incomplete and inaccurate. It implies this condition was known at the time and undisputed now.

It should be mentioned here for the sake of accuracy that neither Michael Schiavo nor the Schindlers had concluded prior to February 25 1990 that she was bulimic nor discussed bulimia with Terri.

The remedy I suggest is to end the sentence with "potassium deficiency" and the let the next sentence read "A court later found that this deficiency was caused by bulimia, a conclusion disputed by the Schindlers and some of her friends" or some wording that includes the doubt which remains regarding her bulimia.patsw 16:46, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Semi-acceptable. It should read something akin to "The potassium deficiency was found to be due to bulimia during the malpractice trial. This fact was later disputed by the Schindlers et al." I don't believe they raised a dispute to it at that time. If you want to say that the bulimia was later diagnosed, then we must also say that the dispute was later introduced. Professor Ninja 17:47, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

I don't understand. the schindlers agree a potasium deficiency caused her heart attack? but they dispute that it was bulimia? How do they think she got a potasium deficiency? If they "dispute" bulimia, but give no alternative to explain how she got a potassium deficiency, what's the point? if they have no alternative explanation, its an unfounded dispute. FuelWagon 17:51, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Actually, no. Potassium deficiencies and electrolyte imbalances can be caused by other complications. I think Patsw is just advancing a compromise; I don't particularly like it because it's not factual either way. And so I propose something along the lines of this:

The cause of Terri's collapse is still in dispute. During Schiavo's malpractice trial, the court found that the cause of the cardiac arrest was a potassium imbalance caused by undiagnosed bulimia. It was later contended that another possible cause was physical trauma. (see below)

That seems okay to me. Wordy and vague, but okay. Professor Ninja 18:34, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

Well, I don't like wordy, so that's my personal problem, I guess. I don't understand their point of disputing bulimia though, unless they simply want to deny she had an eating disorder. whatever. I'm not attached. I've given up on fighting bloat and making it concise a while ago. FuelWagon 18:55, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Why not work on splitting the article like Viriditas suggested? It fights bloat and makes it concise and gets your mind off this damn page for a while. Professor Ninja 19:07, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

For accuracy, it just needs to be mentioned that the Schindler's and some of her friends make and the relevant and significant claim that she did not have bulimia. For comment here but not for the article, let me mention that I believe Schindler's maintain this because of cruel accusations made in the media but not in the court cases that Terri's own negligence makes herself responsible for her injury and its was not accidental, or the Michael Schiavo or the Schindler's were likewise neligent for not recognizing the bulimia. I don't need to argue that point on their behalf here or that it meets your test of what is "founded" or "unfounded" - the fact is they lived with her and saw her often in 1989 and 1990 and that is their story. Professor Ninja's proposed wording is ok but I would change 'fact' to 'finding'.

The potassium deficiency was found to be due to bulimia during the malpractice trial. This finding was later disputed by the Schindler's and some of Terri's friends.patsw 19:11, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I made a similar change above. I meant, by fact, the fact of the finding, but it leads to ambiguity. I'd like for most people to assume the principle of charity, but it's best to be clear. Additionally it's worth noting who testified to what during the malpractice trial. Based on the testimony of... and what level of evidentiary standards were applied. Let's keep it as unwordy as possible until Viriditas gets done his article splitting. Professor Ninja 19:34, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

I think that this sentence:

"On February 25, 1990, Terri Schiavo suffered severe brain damage caused by a cardiac arrest brought on by a potassium deficiency in her blood due to bulimia."

should become this sentence:

"On February 25, 1990, Terri Schiavo suffered severe brain damage caused by a cardiac arrest brought on by a potassium deficiency in her blood."

By removing the words "due to bulimia" we remove this from the body of information that has been irrefutably verified. "due to bulimia" adds nothing to the introduction. Furthermore, it is brought up (in an appropriate way, IMO) several other times in the article. In those references, we make it clear that the paperwork from Humana says it was believed to be bulimia-induced and we say later that the court agreed, and that Baden said it was a possible explanation. I don't think it is a concrete enough fact for us to state it as such in the intro, and I don't see any adverse effect of removing it from the intro, since we discuss it in so much detail later in the article. Thoughts?--Minaflorida 18:27, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

If you remove the words "due to bulimia" you also have to remove the potassium deficiency reference. The only other alternative theory to her collapse is that she was physically assaulted. Call me crazy, but I don't think you can cause a deficiency by literally beating the potassium out of somebody. That doesn't mean I'm against it. As it stands it's consequence -> caused by -> caused by -> caused by. We ought to keep it going... "On February 25, 1990, Terri Schiavo suffered severe brain damage caused by a cardiac arrest brought on by a potassium deficiency in her blood due to bulimia which was caused by a series of binging and purging episodes which stemmed from a negative body image which was caused by her being overweight which was from her eating to much as a child which came about when she was born which emerged from her parents having sexual intercourse."

Severe brain damage from hypoxia brought on by cardiac arrest is fine, and more accurate. It's a single cause (hypoxia from cardiac arrest) to a single effect (brain damage). Professor Ninja 19:44, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)

I'm OK with that. "On February 25, 1990, Terri Schiavo suffered severe brain damage from hypoxia brought on by cardiac arrest." I'm about to leave town for the weekend, so that's where I have disappeared to. I didn't run away. Cheers!--Minaflorida 19:55, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, but I'm not fine with leaving out the potassium deficiency. On February 25, 1990, Terri Schiavo suffered severe brain damage from hypoxia brought on by cardiac arrest. The cardiac arrest was found to be the result of a potassium deficiency.

I'm a bit picky about this because an article should be accurate and informative. Potassium deficiencies, brought on by diet or exertion will often lead to a heart attack. When I say often I don't mean in a percentage sense, but often enough that doctors know it as relatively commonplace occurrence. Once the article is in a relatively stable form it can then be wikified for terms.Wjbean 23:51, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Potassium deficiency was only the effect of her being bulimic, so its not as important, because it is basically the same thing. (neon_monkey16@yahoo.com)

Potassium deficiency has a number of root causes and it's quite serious. Just a serious as too much potassium in the blood-stream. I don't know about you, but I read encyclopedic information for educational purposes. And learning about something that is potentially life threatening (so it can be avoided) is doubly rewarding. Bulimia has other symptoms and effects that are almost as serious as the potential effect of a potassium deficiency. Calcium re-absorption, renal problems, liver function problems, and blood chemistry changes all take their toll on the body over time. So...those reading the article (in my view anyway) should be able to come away with information that may just improve the quality of life. Wjbean 05:20, 2005 Apr 17 (UTC)

Introduction: 19 separate judges

In order for this statement to accurate it needs to added that the review was, as with all appeals, a review of the application of the law and not a review of what the court has ruled as fact into the record. The false implication given here is that trial court record was reviewed for each disputed finding of fact.patsw 16:46, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't buy this one at all. There is no "False implication" here:

A Florida circuit court ruled that Schiavo was in a persistent vegetative state, and this decision was upheld on appeal by 19 separate judges.

upheld on appeal means upheld on appeal. any other implication is your POV. If you wish to educate readers on how the court system works, you can link "appeal" in double square brackets and let them learn about it. This is an attempt to undermine "rule of law" and replace it with "yeah, well the courts all ruled this, but she really WASN'T because they don't know any better." If you have a specific court decision to dispute, then you cite it, cite the legal argument that shows the flaw, and there you go. If you only wish to introduce doubt about the court system, with no evidence to support any reason to believe there was a system failure, then it is complete POV bullshit. FuelWagon 17:46, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Also, certain courts stated that if they had made a finding of fact, their outcomes would have been identical. That is a matter of record. Professor Ninja 17:52, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

As a compromise, either works for me

(1) Let appear "by 19 separate judges" in the detail section and not in the introduction. I think located here it is unduly argumentative supporting the idea that the court's POV is the neutral POV.

(2) Let "by 19 separate judges" be "by 19 separate judges who did not review the trial court's original findings of fact".

In fact, much of the public attention given to this case is rooted in the fact that there was no such review of trial court's original finding of facts. It was for many an education in how appeals work. patsw 19:25, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

(2) is not quite true. While the appeals didn't judge the finding of fact, certain appelate rulings (not all) did say that if they had to judge the finding of fact, they would have supported it. I'll try to find a cite later, I'm taking a smoke break from exam cramming. Professor Ninja 19:36, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

I'm in a foul mood and cannot be trusted upon to make good judgement right now. I'd say leave the legal education for another page. If there is an insistence to add language, then the shortest is to find a reference to what the Professor said and write the intro in positive language "the judgment was upheld on appeal by 19 judges, N of whom said that if they had to judge the finding of the fact, they would have supported it" That's as short as it can get and keep everyone happy. It distinguishes the difference between simple appeal and more indepth finding of the fact, and allows teh reader to investigate further if need be. And it reports facts without introducing uncited sources of doubt, like tacking on some comment like "but still, even all these judges could be wrong".

A good rule of thumb is to report actual action, and to avoid reporting all the actions that did NOT occur. By "actual action" I mean 19 judges supported it on appeal. 5 supported ruling of the fact. Actions that did not occur "Other judges may have ruled differently." "It is not known if the case of coma recovery victim Jane Doe was brought up during the case" These things that did NOT happen can be factual, but there are an infinite number of things that did not happen. And picking only the ones that cast doubt on the decision you oppose is POV. If one of the actors in the story report an action that did not happen, then report their report. But a wikipedia editor should not be reporting some of the things that did not happen.

And of course, keep in mind that I'm feeling pretty foul right now. FuelWagon 22:16, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Characterizing Hammesfahr

The text "Hammesfahr made several claims about therapies supposedly developed by him, which the court found spurious" This is vague on several points and I have not been able to find an online reference to this except for a website that cut and pasted a older version of this article. What claims about therapies? Which court? If the court made a finding, Is this an accurate summary of the finding? (see also below)patsw 16:46, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It was in a judgement quoting Greer. I remember he said the word "spurious". Don't know why, but that word stuck in my memory. A quote would be better. I'm assuming it's in the ruling after the 5 doctors give their opinion and Greer rules Terri is PVS. The actual therapies that he recommended are probably buried in some affidavit. I don't have a link for either. I do remember reading the spurious quote, and I should have pulled the link in then. probably too busy trying to explain to NCdave the difference between quoting a newspaper and trashing an entire religion. sorry. FuelWagon 17:17, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

There's actually several citations for this. Greer dismissed it, review boards have examined it, and other MDs have conducted ad hoc "peer reviews" of his statements. I'll try to find them. Professor Ninja 19:39, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

I do recall there was a more detailed criticism of Hammesfahr a few weeks ago in the article, complete with citation. If I can find it I'll let you know. JYolkowski 20:33, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Actualy it wasn't, but here's a nice reference: http://www.2dca.org/opinion/June%2006%2C%202003/2D02-5394.pdf . Look for "vasodilation therapy". While we're on the topic of Hammesfahr, was he actually disciplined by the Florida Board of Medicine like the article says? I thought that was overturned. JYolkowski 01:28, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yes, but that should be changed. I think he was disciplined on two seperate occasions for multiple different breaches, and exonerated on some. I think other disciplines stood. I'm not sure, it's been a long time since I saw that and I've seen multiple characterizations. Professor Ninja 17:02, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)

I've removed the sentence about being disciplined from the article. If anyone wants to re-add it (with a proper citation of course) it probably should go by the first mention of Hammesfahr, not where it was. JYolkowski 18:22, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Here's a court document that shows the Board of Medicine and the Administrative Law Judge (I have no clue what that is) recommended discipline for an incident where Hammefahr overcharged a patient for services not given. This court document shows that he appeled that ruling and it was indeed reversed. The court found that it was possibly an administrative error and there was no clear and convincing evidence that Hammesfahr was untentionally trying to steal his patient's money. I'm really just looking for any documents that relate to this discipline that has been mentioned. I figured I'd dump the link here so y'all can take a look at it if you'd like.--Minaflorida 19:36, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

An ALJ is an agency judge. Here's more information about fed ALJs then you ever wanted, but it should answer the questions as to "what it is" (who they are...) -- courtesy of the office of administrative law judges website--Mia-Cle 22:23, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Who are ALJs, and how are they appointed?

The position of Administrative Law Judge (ALJ), originally called hearing examiner, was created by the Administrative Procedure Act of 1946, Public Law 79-404. The Act insures fairness and due process in Federal agency rule making and adjudication proceedings. It provides those parties whose affairs are controlled or regulated by agencies of the Federal Government an opportunity for a formal hearing on the record before an impartial hearing officer. It also provides for a merit selection system administered by the U.S. Office of Personnel Management and statutory protection of the judge's decisional independence from undue agency influence. For more information, visit the OPM website.

Since administrative law judges are employees of the agency, Congress was concerned that they may be perceived as being prone to making decisions in favor of that agency. Thus, the Administrative Procedure Act includes provisions that give administrative law judges protections from improper influences and ensure independence when conducting formal proceedings, interpreting the law, and applying agency regulations in the course of administrative hearings. Thus, administrative law judges are not subject to agency efficiency ratings, promotions or demotions; their compensation is established by the Office of Personnel Management independent of agency recommendations; they may only be disciplined after good cause is shown before the Merit Systems Protection Board

Issues of Dispute

For the sake of accuracy, Barbara Weller can be identified as the Schindler attorney who heard Terri speak on March 18 2005.patsw 16:46, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

POV Items

Removed accuracy tag, but left POV tag. This article is clearly cited again and again and again. Accuracy is not the problem. Some people just have a problem dealing with truth.Wjbean 06:47, 2005 Apr 16 (UTC)

I very strongly disagree. I and others have documented multiple major inaccuracies in this article. The fact that the article is cited elsewhere doesn't mean that it is truthful!

But whether you believe it is accurate or not, you know that its accuracy is disputed. The tag doesn't say that the article is inaccurate, the tag says that the accuracy is disputed. That is inarguably the truth. So the tag should stay!

Nevertheless, I am willing to compromise. If we can agree to leave the Neutrality Disputed tag, then I will accept removal of the Accuracy Disputed tag, even though I strongly believe that both tags should stay for as long as this article remains the massivly biased propaganda piece that it currently is. Okay? NCdave 15:53, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Just because someone disputes the accuracy of an article does not make it inaccurate. A dispute over something does not make the disputed item true or untrue. As I pointed out above everything that is currently disputed has been cited.

NCDave I once again fell into a symatic trap over connotation. I'll leave the NPOV tag alone, but the accuracy tag is..um..inaccurate. NCDave if you can come up with some solid cites of your own, that are not blog based or obviously biased, I'd even go along with the accuracy tag. But to date everyone who disputes the accuracy of this article seems to be leaning (and heavily at that) on hearsay, conjecture, and rumor.

Professor would you mind terribly putting back the POV tag. I request this with the greatest repsect. Wjbean 19:21, 2005 Apr 16 (UTC)

Thank you Professori; for the typo too. Wjbean 05:25, 2005 Apr 17 (UTC)

both tags should stay for as long as this article remains the massivly biased propaganda piece that it currently is Listen, you little punk, unless you have something specific to argue against, calling the entire article a propaganda piece is complete and utter bullshit. If you've got specific complaints, make them. If you just want to make blanket judgements, we'll bring in arbitration to sort it out. comprende?

Introduction: PVS

PVS is what the court found. NPOV would be obtained by adding "according to the finding of the court". This is the first place where we encounter "the court's POV is the neutral POV" 16:46, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

That seems a bit of a stretch. The court battles and the dispute about PVS are mentioned in the second paragraph. And their short, short paragraphs. It isn't like someone's hiding it at the bottom of the article in "footnotes". Does that mean every time we mention PVS, we need to say "ruled by the court and many doctors, disputed by the Schindlers and several doctors"? If the courts really are considered NPOV, can't the article say she was PVS and then right after that say the ruling was disputed? I'm not attached because I'm not trying to hide anything, but, crimeny, saying it needs ot say "the court ruled she was PVS" when it says just that two sentences later along with all the disputes seems like its more interested in denial than anything else. FuelWagon 17:32, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

PVS is a medical diagnosis (derived from an old slur for the mentally handicapped). One activist judge with no medical expertise said that she was in a PVS. But most of the doctors who have reviewed the case and expressed an opinion have said either that Terri was not vegetative or else that the PVS diagnosis was questionable. If you exclude the doctors who were being paid by Felos/M.Schiavo, who is there left who supported an unambiguous PVS diagnosis? Even the doctor who Greer choose to evaluate Terri hedged his conclusion, carefully using a term of law ("preponderance of evidence") which meant only that it was more likely than not that Terri was in a PVS, and pointedly avoiding language that could be construed as meaning that her PVS diagnosis met the "clear and convincing" standard of proof.

A vegetative patient cannot experience pain, yet Terri got analgesics every month to control her menstrual pain, as well as during her starvation/dehydration death.

A vegetative patient is unaware of her surroundings, yet Terri would close her eyes during the priest's prayer while receiving the Eucharist.

In fact, Michael's own sworn testimony in the November, 1992, during the malpractice trial, proves that Terri, at least at that time, was not vegetative, since a vegetative person cannot experience taste or otherwise respond to stimuli, but her speech pathologist used manual stimulation and different flavors to coax her into swallowing on camera, and during his testimony Michael provided running commentary on that video, describing how the speech pathologist coaxed her into swallowing, and pointing it out to the court when Terri swallowed in the video.

For Terri to have actually been in a PVS would mean that an enormous conspiracy of dozens of doctors, nurses, speech pathologists, friends, family members, clergy, and even Michael (in 1992) were all lying about her condition.

For the article to say, without qualification, that Terri was in a PVS, means that the article is both inaccurate and biased. NCdave 05:17, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Dave, please stop. Honestly. First of all, I have already explained this to you. You have already posted this and it has already been answered. (1) Michael is not a medical authority by any means. At most he is now qualified as a nurse (nurses cannot make diagnoses) and a respiratory therapist. He did not therefore offer "expert testimony" on his wife's condition, so his colouration of the condition in 1992 is a moot point. (2) Flavour, the sense of taste, actually is a highly reflexive sense. All your five senses are really reflexive in their own right, but your sense of taste is basically what keeps you from eating poisons and other noxious food. That the swallowing therapist was using flavour is not really surprising, he's looking for something that will hopefully allow her to swallow, which is essentially the opposite of gagging (a reflex triggered by your taste sense, no less). I could open up my neurology and psychology text books and offer an explanation, but it would be lengthy. If you want it, I'll do it. It will make you look very, clearly wrong, but okay. (3) You're right in that the judge is no medical authority. As has already been pointed out, neither is Michael (which you seem to conveniently let lapse when you're attempting to crucify him) and, more importantly, neither are you. Unlike you, the judge has real, actual medical experts to offer lengthy explanations and contextualizations of PVS, instead of just encarta definitions. (4) This nonsense about vegetative coming from vegetable is really a stretch by any means. Do you think that even if it is true (and I doubt that it is, considering the history of retarded and how they changed the word because it assumed a pejorative nature) that any sane and rational person will say to themselves, "aha! well, the term for her condition comes from a slur, therefore it could not be true." (5) Your argument, "If we remove the evidence of party x, we're only left with the evidence of party y" is such junk. Okay, by that statement, if we remove the doctors supporting the Schindlers then obviously there's not even a dispute that she's in a PVS! (6) We've been over analgesics ad infinitum. The nursing home is going to assume pain no matter what. Her muscles still continue to cramp, her body still works the way it always worked, just with no brain activity. The intelligent thing to do would be to err on the side of caution. Especially in palliative facilities, who provide palliative care up to and until the time of death. (7) Terri closed her eyes during the priest's prayer, okay. That's what, five minutes out of 15 years? How about the other 7,889,755 minutes? (8) Doctors, especially in the US, are paid to treat patients. In 1992, a scant two years after her collapse, and before Michael was told by Terri's physician that given that she had no response to anything, she wouldn't recover, it is no great surprise that they were still not under that assumption. You're trying to essentially prove that these people had some access to future knowledge, which would require a time machine or psychic powers to do. (9) While we're at it, the judge also imposed a "clear and convincing evidence" standard, the absolute highest evidentiary standard available, to determine if Terri would want to live or die under these circumstances. This was affirmed on appeal. Not only that, but even under clear and convincing, the court must err on the side of life if there is even a shred of doubt to the clear and convincing evidence. In so ruling, and in so being affirmed on appeal, it was found that there was not even a shred of doubt available to cast on this ruling. Considering that people not in PVS, not in comas, and not terminally ill, just with a terminal condition (ie: head trauma) are allowed to die every day, this, not even her PVS, is the important factor. Professor Ninja 16:15, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)

The PVS issue is clearly disputed by the Schindler family and others. As mentioned by patsw, the first use of PVS in the introduction is unqualified and asserts that Schiavo was in a PVS. I'm not sure of the best way to use PVS throughout the article, but it would be reasonable that the first mention of PVS in the introduction indicate that it is a subject of dispute. ElBenevolente 05:31, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia requires, as a matter of course, citation for information in articles. The Persistant Vegitative State (PVS) may be disputed by you and many others, but it is a matter of public record in many of the court documents referenced in this article. Clearly disputed or not PVS has been fully and completely cited in numerous places in the article. So, whether you personally like the tag or not, the editors of this article have fully met the standard of citation in the use of this term. Wjbean 06:26, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Here are some more of the medical professionals who dispute that PVS diagnosois:

Dr. Ralph Ankenman, MD - Psychiatrist

Dr. Beatrice Engstrand, MD - Neurologist

Dr. Alyse Eytan, MD - Developmental Psychiatrist

Dr. Harry Sawyer Goldsmith, MD - General Surgeon and Clinical Professor

Dr. Jacob Green, MD - Neurologist

Dr. Carolyn Heron, MD - Certified PMR

Dr. David Hopper, PhD - Clinical Director of TBI Unit, Chief Medical Psychologist

Dr. Lawrence Huntoon, MD - Neurologist

Dr. Pamela Hyikn, SLP

Dr. Jill Joyce, Phd

Dr. Philip Kennedy, MD, Phd

Dr. Kyle Lakas, MS, CCC, SLP

Dr. Richard Neubauer, MD, PA

Dr. Ricardo Senno, MD, MS, FAAPMR

Dr. Stanley Terman, MD, Phd

Dr. J. Michael Uszler, MD

Dr. Richard Weidman, MD

Dr. Thomas Zabiega, MD

Dr. William Hammesfahr, MD

Dr. William Maxfield, MD, FACNM

Dr. John David Young, MD, BA, MPA

Joseph Brunner, SP

Dr. David Coulter, MD

Dr. Alexander Gimon, Phd

Dr. Paul Harch, MD

Dr. David Hopper, Phd

Dr. James Kelly, MD

Dr. Peter Luca, MD

Dr. Peter Morin, MD, Phd

I could add to that list, but it would require pasting from other sources. The physicians who disputed her PVS diagnosis far outnumbered the physicians who claimed certainty that Terri was in a PVS. I think this list is more than sufficient to demonstrate that her PVS diagnosis is disputed within the medical profession.

For the article to state as unvarnished fact (in the opening sentence, no less!) that Terri was in a PVS is both inaccurate and grossly biased. NCdave 16:05, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

And even one of the doctors listed above sat with Terri for more than a day and reviewed her EEG and consulted the CAT Scan? If that's the case it's news to me.

For the article to state as unvarnished fact (in the opening sentence, no less!) that Terri was in a PVS is both inaccurate and grossly biased. It was also the finding of the court and the court appointed physician. A doctor who, I might add, visited Terri twenty out of court imposed thirty day limit for various durations on each of those days. So the court and the court appointed Guardian ad Litem were and are biased? Please cite that. Wjbean 19:35, 2005 Apr 16 (UTC)

Update.

1. Dr. Ankenman is in London, Ohio and does not state if he has examined Terri Shaivo.

2. Dr. Engstrand is in Huntington, New York and had not examined Terri Shaivo.

3. Dr. Eytan is in Chicago, Illinois and had not examined Terri Shaivo.

4. Dr. Goldsmith is in Nevada and had not examined Terri Shaivo.

5. Dr. Heron is in Chicago, Illinois and had not examined Terri Shaivo.

6. Dr. Hopper is in Las Vegas, Nevada and had not examined Terri Shaivo.

7. Dr. Huntoon is in Derby, New York and had not examined Terri Shaivo.

8. Dr. Hyink is in Bolder, Colorado and had not examined Terri Shaivo.

9. Dr. Kennedy is in Georgia and had not examined Terri Shaivo.

10. Dr. Lakas is in Abilene, Texas and had not examined Terri Shaivo.

11. Dr. Neubauer is in Lauderdale-by-the-sea, Florida and had not examined Terri Shaivo.

12. Dr. Senno is in Evanston, Illinois and had not examined Terri Shaivo.

13. Dr. Uszler is in Santa Monica, California and had not examined Terri Shaivo.

14. Dr. Weidman is in Washington, D.C. and had not examined Terri Shaivo.

15. Dr. Coulter is in Boston, Massachusetts and had not examined Terri Shaivo.

16. Dr. Harch is in New Orleans, Louisiana and had not examined Terri Shaivo.

17. Dr. Kelly is in Denver, Colorado and had not examined Terri Shaivo.

18. Dr. Luea is in Lansing, Michigan and had not examined Terri Shaivo.

19. Dr. Morin is in Needham, Massachusetts and had not examined Terri Shaivo.

20. Dr. Terman is in San Diego, California and had not examined Terri Shaivo.

~

1. Dr. Green is in Jacksonville, Florida, but had not physically examined Terri Shiavo.

2. Dr. Joyce is in Florida, but had not examined Terri Shaivo.

3. Nurse Brunner is in Hillsborough, Florida but had not examined Terri Shiavo.

4. Dr. Gimon is in Largo, Florida, but had not examined Terri Shaivo.

5. Dr. Zabeiga is in Joliet, Florida, but had not examined Terri Shaivo.

~

1. Dr. William M. Hammesfahr is in Clearwater, Florida, and had personally examined Terri Shaivo.

2. Dr. William Maxfield is in Odessa, Florida and had personally examined Terri Shaivo. He states “In my opinion Terri Shaivo is MCS (added for clairty by me...minimally conscious state), because if she was PVS she would not respond to the stimuli around her, including music. In my opinion, she is in a vegetative state.” Line 20 statement 10. This paragraph seems contradictory.

Comment: All persistent vegetative states are vegetative states, but not all vegetative states are PVS. I think what Dr. Maxfield is implying is that Terri is in a vegetative state, but it does not persist at all times and she displays a state of minimal consciousness on occasion when exposed to external stimuli. Professor Ninja 14:54, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)

3. Dr. Young is in Seminole, Florida and did examine Terri Shaivo. He recommended swallow tests.

~

My two cents. Only three of the twenty eight (28) doctors listed practiced in Florida and had observed Terri Shaivo directly. The testimony of Doctors practicing medicine outside the state of Florida would have little if any effect on the outcome of court decisions in Florida. The case was determined to be a state's rights issue numerous times at both the state and federal level.

The testimony of doctors who did not directly examine Terri Shaivo would not have the same weight as those who did even though their practices are in the state of Florida.

Dr. Hammesfahr recommended Hyperbaric Oxygen Therapy which Judge Greer ruled experimental. Dr. Hammesfahr also likened Terri Shaivo's condition to a stroke. Dr. Kelly states that fMRI is still experimental and should be conducted in an academic setting. Dr. Maxfield makes a seemingly contradictory statement in his deposition. (see above). Dr Young recommended swallow studies. Swallow studies had already been conducted numerous times. Wjbean 14:16, 2005 Apr 17 (UTC)

Introduction: cardiac arrest

A court found that this was due to cardiac arrest. This conclusion has been disputed by the Schindlers and some pathologists.patsw 16:46, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I didn't think the actual cardiac arrest was in dispute. Professor Ninja 18:41, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)

Weren't you aware? Everything's in dispute now. (;--Minaflorida 19:21, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I dispute that. Professor Ninja 19:35, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)

"Around and around and around we spin with feet of lead and wings of tin." Naysayers, you are flogging a dead horse. If information is clearly cited (and it is) it meets the wikipedia standard for accuracy and inclusion. A dispute of clearly cited information is nothing more than mere opinion based on yet more opinion. This article contains numerous cites to court documents. These document repeatedly refer to Terri's collapse as due to cardiac arrest. Disputed or not verbal differences of opinion DO NOT carry the same weight as a bona fide legal document entered into the public record.

My personal opinion is that the naysayers are attempting to use this article as yet another polictial platform from which to push an agenda. As has been pointed out before there are other venues for this agenda. Wikipedia is not one of them. Wjbean 06:35, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Introduction: "died from..."

I precipitated a brief discussion a couple of weeks ago on the "died from dehydration" phrase that had been in the intro. There wasn't a lot of discussion, but there was no particular sentiment against my suggestion. Therefore, some days later I removed it (at the same time I added "on" before "appeal"). It stayed that way ever since until one of Tropix' edits last night in which he returned the "from dehydration" comment. I removed it and I reiterate, that absent the official report from the ME, stating a cause of death is highly speculative, somewhat emotional, and more than slightly POV.

By the way, pardon the different IP address. I did the edit and made these notes from my daughter's computer who I am visiting for a few days. I am still...LRod 65.184.17.212 14:58, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Slightly exaggerated analysis I think, but omitting the phrase is fine with me. Tropix 00:22, 2005 Apr 17 (UTC)

When is the M.E. report due out? Last I heard the approximation was one month after the autopsy. Wjbean 03:15, 2005 Apr 19 (UTC)

Characterizing Hammesfahr and Cheshire but not Cranford

No biographical characterization is given for Dr. Ron Cranford, but there are biographical characterizations of Dr. William Hammesfahr and Dr. William Cheshire, Jr. The POV of these characterizations is to give the reader a reason to believe they are not objective. A similar biographical characterization could apply to Dr. Ron Cranford citing his own activism in the euthanasia movement and giving a reason to believe that his personal conclusions on the Schiavo case advance this political agenda.

Neutral POV would be achieved by adding an appropriate characterization of Cranford or deleting the characterizations of Hammesfahr and Cheshire.patsw 16:46, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The section on Dr Cheshire was hopelessly biased. Wikipedia and Dr Cheshire deserve better. His affidavit is thoughtful and professional. He says that his personal opinion is that it can be ethically permissible to discontinue life support for a PVS. The reason he felt it wrong for that to be done to Terri Schiavo is based on what he observed, both personally and in the records. His mission was not to do a full neurological examination, nor could he under the circumstances. As an institution, Mayo Clinic represents the best in medicine. Tropix 02:29, 2005 Apr 18 (UTC)

I agree. I think you went easy on it. Does his maybe Christian conservative viewpoint on stem cell research colour his diagnosis of Terri? Is there a link? I have trouble seeing the connection here at all. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the only problem with embryonic stem cell research conservative Christian scientists raise is that they don't want it taken from aborted foetuses; if the stem cells come from a more acceptable source they don't have a problem with it. So they don't question the actual science, do they? Is it therefore fair to imply that his science is "off"? Professor Ninja 14:43, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)

Also, I believe there's a term for what Tropix is now using as "not a formal exam". A term for a by-sight exam as opposed to medical procedures of the sort. Anybody know what it is? Professor Ninja 14:44, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)

The reference to stem cell research was put in by another editor. I agree that it is irrelevant. I removed it, but he put it back in, and in the interest of discussion I left it alone. The linked Kansas City Star requires registration (a minor issue), and cites three neurologists who, at a newpaper's request, reviewed CT scans from the court case by email. The article points out that they did not examine Schiavo. They produced different conclusions than Dr Cheshire. The article doesn't show any opinion articles though. I would prefer to see an actual example of his opinion writing, or actual criticism, assuming it is relevant. So, what I would propose now is remove the stem cell reference. I don't really like this sentence, but how about "Criticism of Dr. Cheshire claims he has written opinion articles on scientific debates that reveal a conservative Christian viewpoint." Tropix 16:28, 2005 Apr 18 (UTC)

The reference to stem cell research was put in by me from a quote from a newspaper. This is exactly the same friggen line that NCdave used to attack me saying I was attacking all Christians and trashing an entire religion. I quoted a sentence from the magazine and then provided a link to the magazine because I figured any modification would be viewed as POV. Now the sentence from the KCS has been mangled around and is no longer a quote from the magazine, so the point of having the link is becoming mute other than to show wikipedia readers the original source of information. what the hell was the point of changing the sentence quoted from a magazine to some variation? FuelWagon 11:54, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I agree, but unfortunately the reference is cited. I think it's totally tangential to the argument at hand, especially if you know anything about the conservative Christian stance on stem cell research. Additionally I think that at most it simply colours Dr. Cheshire's diagnosis as wanting to err on the side of life (a stance the court took, it subsequently found no room for error, by the way) and I really don't think it's fair to attach Cheshire to the whole "death is always wrong" movement. Yeah, pro-life doctors can obfuscate facts, but I don't think the Mayo clinic is in the habit of hiring hacks. I think any point that this editor is trying to get across with their little axe to grind over Dr. Cheshire can get it across with the factual and relevant 90 minute observation-only visit. The problem with what you suggest (citing the actual work produced) removes the criticism. If we say "criticism of Dr. Cheshire ... viewpoint" [cite his actual work] it makes it sound like Wikipedia, and not the periodical, is raising this critique. A dual cite, with the periodical followed by the work, would probably work better. I wonder if the Mayo clinic would have a copy of his papers? I think we could do fairly well with figuring out relevance and come to a consensus from that. Professor Ninja 17:12, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)

You remind me of one other point. Mayo's site has a notice that Dr Cheshire's work is not Mayo official opinion. I might add that link, unless that is just getting into too much detail. I'll work on this a little later today when I have more time. Tropix 18:14, 2005 Apr 18 (UTC)

I had put in "Cranford is a proponent of euthenasia" on NCdave's complaints. That got taken out. It isn't actually an accurate statement of fact. He is a board member of a "Choices in Dying" organization or something. That is fact. Whether or not he's a proponent of "right to die", I'm not sure. And "euthenasia" is completely different from patients choosing not to accept medical intervention. His membership would seem relevant and is factual NPOV, I think. I don't have a link for his board membership though. I should have pulled it when I saw it. Sorry. FuelWagon 17:21, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Cranford has been on teh Board of Directors of "Choice in Dying" since 1992. [1]

I don't know where to put this in the article. there's some more stuff in the archives. FuelWagon 00:02, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Best place to put it is in the initial introduction of Cranford. By the way, I know "Choice in Dying" sounds like a pro-euthanasia group, but it doesn't seem to be.

Choice In Dying is a national not-for-profit organization dedicated to helping patients and their families participate in decisions about end-of-life medical care. We provide a number of important tools, including legal documents known as advance directives and a counseling line 800-989-WILL (9455), to help ensure that individuals' end-of-life medical care reflects their own wishes. CID also offers educational materials and subscriptions for professionals, such as our Right-to-Die Law Digest,that summarize important developments in the field and describe changes in the law. More information about our programs and publications can be found throughout this site.[2]

I guess the best way to put it in there would be Dr. Cranford, a member of the end-of-life wishes group Choice In Dying... Though somehow I don't think it'll be long before it gets changed from end-of-life wishes to euthanasia. Professor Ninja 17:05, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)

I added some stuff about Cranford. I see you've added onto it, Professor. I also just made a note embedded in the text (not visibible to readers, only visible to editors) about some problems with "Choices In Dying". The organization apparently has been renamed. But I can't find any current URL. The one that NCdave gave is dead. If someone can find out the current name for "Choices in Dying", and a working URL, that should probably be in the article, rather than the name of a non-existent organization, a URL to archived webpages, and a dead link in the notes. All the notes are embedded in the para about cranford for future editors who want to track the information down. FuelWagon 18:16, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Correct. They've apparently changed their name again. They were formerly called Euthanasia Society of America, but that doesn't mean much. Euthanasia is greek for "good death". Apparently alot of Christian fundamentalist sites have picked up on the old name without picking up on the old language and now google's filled to the brim with CRANFORD WANTS TERRI DEAD TO SUPPORT HIS EUTHANASIA POSITION. The history of this group needs to be ascertained. From the cached pages you posted, they don't seem to be euthanasia activists, but end-of-life wishes activists; doing stuff to help people prepare living wills, make their dying wishes known, etc. Professor Ninja 18:26, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)

Apparently they're called Partnership for Caring now. Couldn't find a website. Professor Ninja 18:29, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)

I did a little searching and found that the Partnership for Caring had a website at lastchapters.org -- that is now the Caring Connections website, which provides living wills. They may have had to change their name multiple times because of threats or exposure against Cranford, especially since they don't seem to be a euthanasia group at all and wouldn't want the negative association. One of their founders has taken issue with other end-of-life groups for not taking into account disability right's groups concerns. Here's the site where I found the Partnership in Caring / Last Chapters link [3] and the Last Chapters page. Professor Ninja 18:37, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)

I had added some notes into Cranford's section of the article about his background. It has been taken out. I put it back in. As far as I know, this issue of Cranford's possible bias has not been resolved. And I would appreciate it if people would leave these notes in the article until it is resolved or until the current name of the organization can be found or something can be inserted in the article that gives his background. Here is the note:

Cranford's potential bias keeps getting brought up on talk page. Also, a lot of misinformation about Cranford has been spread around on other sites. Cranford's background should be clarified to readers. But this information is out of date. Either update the info and put it in the article, or leave the notes in place until someone does. Dr. Cranford has been a board member of Choice In Dying, which helps prepare end-of-life wishes and living wills, since 1991.[4] Choice in Dying became Partnership for Caring: America's Voices for the Dying http://www.partnershipforcaring.org/HomePage/ in 2000. This hasn't been substantiated. The partnershipforcaring.org website is a dead URL. This is also turning into bloat, and since it's unsubstantiated, leaving it out of the article, but in the notes for future researchers. The article should reflect whatever "choices in dying" calls itself currently (2005) and point to a current, working URL, not some old archived version of the site

FuelWagon 11:54, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Schiavo's Condition

At any rate, neither a PET nor an MRI could change the fundamental finding of both X-rays and CAT, which is that over 50 percent of Terri's brain is destroyed.

The apparent origin of this statement is Muslim Wakeup and not a court statement or even a comment from a person with direct involvement in the case.

The amount of "destroyed brain" doesn't indicate the loss of cognitive function which is the medically significant fact which thoroughly discussed elsewhere in the article. The statement merely repeats an opinion in a discussion board. It should be deleted rather than refuted with the opposing view affirming the value in obtaining PET/MRI.patsw 16:46, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I had already removed that, it seems somebody added it back in. Feel free to take it out and count it as vandalism in the future. Professor Ninja 17:48, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

By the way, the Muslim Wakeup is from a quote from an old edit of Wikipedia; Wikipedia is the original of the Muslim Wakeup quot, not the other way round. Professor Ninja 18:38, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)

Considering that Positron Emission Tomography (PET) and Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) produce image data similar to CAT and X-Ray it's not that far fetched to say they would image similar results. Wjbean 23:55, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

They're of a higher resolution, but you're right. The CAT is general sufficient for discovering damage, otherwise it wouldn't be used. In the case of Terri Schiavo, the CAT scan is clear; she was as close to brain death as a person can be without being brain dead. Stroke and aneurysm victims don't even have CAT scans like that. However, it's seriously unworthy of an encyclopaedia entry to state that "OBVIOUSLY MAGNETIC RESONANCE WOULD NOT MAGIC HER BRAIN BACK". Professor Ninja 00:50, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)

Agree! Wjbean 19:39, 2005 Apr 16 (UTC)

I didn't read it that way. Some people point to the missing PET scan as proof of a conspiracy. I read that note to say that a PET scan would not reveal anything contradicting the already known information that half of her brain is destroyed. Generally, I think an article should report the actual facts and not focus on the stuff that did NOT happen. But PET is one of those things that did not happen that a lot of other people are twisting around into meaning a grand conspiracy. And a reader coming from a grand conspiracy site may have some questions about PET and I don't see why the article can't put the missing PET scan into context. i.e. report the fact that no PET scan was done and report the fact that PET wouldn't change the overall diagnosis that 50% of her brain was destroyed. FuelWagon 12:00, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Michael Shaivo

In 1991, Michael began studying nursing at St. Petersburg Community College. to better care for his wife. He eventually became a respiratory therapist and an emergency room nurse.

Since we are working so hard toward palatable compromise I have my own two cents to throw in. The short paragraph above becomes speculative with to better care for his wife though to some this may seem obvious it is speculative. I respectfully request that the sentence be shortened to In 1991, Michael began studying nursing at St. Petersburg Community College. and leave out the to better care for his wife. This way the paragraph become factual without a hint of POV. Wjbean 23:47, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

As far as I know, Michael used his training to aid him to care for his wife. The above isn't the best wording, but it contains a kernel of truth. A better wording may be:

In 1991, prompted by his wife's condition, Michael enrolled in St. Petersburg Community College to study nursing. He became a respiratory therapist and in 19xx became an ER nurse at a nearby hospital.

A fact check may be in order, but that seems accurate and non-speculative. Professor Ninja 08:36, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)

I personally cannot imagine any other reason Mr. Shaivo would have become a nurse. But it does call for speculation to state that is the reason. I think your new paragraph is accurate, but without supporting statements from other parties the prompted by his wife's condition may again be viewed speculative. Wjbean 12:22, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Who knows why? Maybe he wanted to be able to get a good job, or maybe he just wanted to be close to Trudy (see [5], near the end). It is all speculation.

What we know, however, is that he didn't actually become a nurse until about seven or eight years after he had ordered a halt[6][7] to all therapy for Terri. So whatever our speculations about his reason for entering junior college when he started, his motivation for continuing to study after 1992 could not possibly have been to help provide therapy for Terri. (One cannot help provide what one will not allow to be provided.)

Does anyone know why it took him eight or nine years to become a nurse, a process which normally takes only 2-4 years? He apparently wasn't in any great hurry to become a nurse. Normally, one might speculate that a person who takes a long time to get through college could have been slowed by a lack of funds, but as of January, 1993, Michael had $300,000 available to pay for his college, which should have been more than plenty.

Also, was he really studying to be a nurse back in 1991-1992? After all, he became a respiratory therapist before he became a nurse. What is significant about that fact, relative to Terri's case, is that Terri didn't require respiratory therapy. So Michael could not have studied respiratory therapy for the purpose of better helping Terri. Did he take a detour from nursing study to become a respiratory therapist, or was that what he was studying for in the beginning? NCdave 15:47, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I have a feeling that nursing school is a kind of "full-time job plus lots of overtime" sort of commitment. He may not have had the time to go full time, perhaps because he was looking after Terri's well being. And with $300K to live on, it wasn't like he needed to graduate to get a job to keep from becoming homeless. FuelWagon 01:06, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I agree, but prompted doesn't really imply anything either way. Maybe he was prompted to find out how better to kill her, for those folk? Maybe he was prompted to take an interest in medicine? Maybe he was prompted to get a good, high-paying job now that he was the only bread winner? Who knows. I'll try to find some documentation. Professor Ninja 17:22, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)

I can find no mention of nursing school in the Wolfson or Pearse report. Where the heck is the Pecarek report from 1994? Don't we have a link to it anywhere? FuelWagon 20:26, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

PN: On reflection I think you have a good point about the use of the phrase prompted by his wife's condition in that paragraph. Sorry, I just fell into a self inflicted syntactic trap in regards to connotation. Wjbean 21:21, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Shaivo's Condition

I would be a lot happier about the image of the CAT scans if they were from the hearing in February 2000. http://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/trialctorder02-00.pdf, paragraph one page one states that CAT scans of Terri Shaivo's brain and, for comparison, Dr. James Barnhill's brain were submitted into evidence. The problem I have with the current images is that they are obviously from different sections of the brain. e.g. the "normal" scan is not from the same area of the head as Terri's scan. That or Ms. Shaivo has one very thick skull.

Does anyone have access to the court records from this order on February 11, 2000? Does the State of Forida provide an on-line resource for these scans? Wjbean 13:06, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Anybody give a hand to Tropix?

Over at my talk page Tropix asked:

Maybe you know where to find the 2nd DCA October 2002 order discussed by Matt Conigliaro that we have been talking about. I looked at his site and the 2nd DCA website at [8] and can't find it. Maybe it is a different date? If you have a clue, I would appreciate it, because I would really like to read it. Also it would appear to deserve a link, wherever it gets referenced.

I haven't been able to find it on 2dca.org, but it is referenced on Matt Conigliaro's Abstract Appeal site. Does anybody know where to find this October 2002 decision? I've been unable to find it, but I've been busy, so unable to look very hard. Professor Ninja 18:19, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)

the UM (go 'canes!) website is fairly complete. go here[9] -- there are 2d DCA rulings for January 2001, April 2001, July 2001, and October 2001. There are also mentions of 2002 activity, but no links (I think, i looked it over quickly). Hope this helps. --Mia-Cle64.132.60.202 20:00, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Do you mean the October 2001 opinion? The only Oct 2002 activity was the trial with the five doctors, then two Nov. 2002 denials of motion: one on treatment and Terri as being in a PVS and the other on the bone scan I can't find court docs for the actual hearing itself, but abstractappeal has links to the Nov. orders. I wrote to Matt, at one point, looking for court docs from the medmal case. He told me they were not available, and that many of these documents would not have been available had the Schindlers not made them so. It's anybody's guess as to why the October 2002 paperwork is not easily accessable.--Minaflorida 13:09, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

POV Tag

I am happy to see that the POV tag has been re-inserted by someone other than NCdave. I cannot see why it was constantly removed, when all that this tag means (as far as I know) is that the neutrality is disputed, not that the page is not neutral. Even some of NCdave's most vociferous opponents seem to be aware that this is a controversial topic and that there are questions about the neutrality. FuelWagon wrote on 14 April, "There's probably still stuff that is pro-michael, and probably stuff that's pro-schindler, and it all needs to be cleaned out." (See Requests for Comment/NCdave.) I have never added the POV tag myself, as I do not care to be involved in a never-ending revert war, which becomes pointless and petty. Also, as I am fairly new to Wikipedia editing (though not to Wikipedia reading), I feel it would be rude to attempt to override the work of people who have been working on this article for months. I would just like to place it on the record that I support the presence of the POV tag. I hope that that statement can be accepted without causing a flood of accusations about my actions in editing, unfair questions about my motives, and irrelevant remarks concerning the date of my registration. Ann Heneghan 22:07, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I recently changed the POV tag slightly to use the long pov boilerplate; the reason being at least this way it invites users to cite disputed passages, which is much better. FuelWagon's comment is off, though. The anti-truth needs to be removed. The truth may be pro-Schindler or pro-Michael. If the autopsy reports reveal that bone trauma matches exactly the size of Michael's individual fingers, then that damn well better go in the article regardless of it being anti-Michael. People need to understand that Wikipedia isn't about finding NPOV about person x by making persons y and z look equally capable of being guilty or innocent. It's about being factual at all times. Professor Ninja 22:16, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)

Actually, the full comment I made was talking about pro-schindler POV stuff still being in the article. I had only hours before removed the Valentine's Day argument which had been presented using nothing but Mary Schindler's words. I understand the text may have been factually accurate (mary said this. Mary said that.) But the end result was a grossly pro-Schindler POV of the argument. I changed it to use Wolfson's version of events, which is more NPOV. I think Ann Heneghan may misinterpret "there's probably stuff that's pro-Michael and pro-Schindler" to mean that I think the POV flag ought to be present. I don't. I think the POV flag should be present when there are gross NPOV violations and/or bad faith edits on the part of contributers. If an article is edited in good faith and has minor POV issues, the issues could simply be fixed, rather than having someone bitch about them. The only "bad faith" edits that I've seen have been from NCdave and some anonymous editors, and those are cleaned up pretty quickly. I don't think the POV tag need be present at the moment, because I think the article has firmed up into a factual representation of the events. If there is POV text, it is there because no one has identified it yet. when they do, they can fix it. But to have the POV tag because someone doesn't like facts and would rather replace them with conspiracy theories is insulting. FuelWagon 01:16, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

(sighs) I would personally like to see the NPOV tags kept off this article as much as possible. Maybe it's me, but the NPOV tag evokes an emotional response, and I think it colors the article. Additionally, it seems disrespectful to the memory of an individual for an article providing as many intimate details of their lives as this one to have an NPOV flag on top. I feel that is also disrespectfull to the countless Wikipedians that have contibuted to the article. The article will not achieve balence until people agree to disagree. Unfortunately, I don't see an end in sight to the petty bickering.... That's my POV, and this page is where POV belongs.--ghost 02:52, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Initial Medical Crisis

Maybe I'm being dense, but I can't see the significance of this sentence: "Two bottles of medicine prescribed to Terri were found in the kitchen." The article is already very long (perhaps too long by Wikipedia standards?) and there is more information which I think should go in. If an empty bottle of medicine had been found beside her when she collapsed, that would have some relevance - at least it would raise questions - but two bottles in the kitchen seem to have no more significance than a pencil and a hair clip. Unless those bottles of medicine are intended to suggest that Michael tried to kill her or that he didn't try to kill her, I can't see why they are referred to at all. Perhaps I'm missing something. Can someone enlighten me? Or should that line be removed? Ann Heneghan 23:02, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, I've removed it. If you see stuff like that, feel free to take it out. I have no information on this so I'm not going to track down if it belongs (ie: if its a powerful anti-nauseant to help Terri stomach food, it very well belongs given her (alleged, ugh) bulemia.) If you're the person who added this, please characterize why its important, if it's just from the police report it really doesn't matter. Ann's right, one expects to find medicine prescribed to residents of a house somewhere in that house; so what? Professor Ninja 23:09, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)

Interesting summary of Government intervention in the Terri Schiavo case

The "Government intervention in the Terri Schiavo case" section is now eight paragraphs long. I'm convinced it can be summarized in about two paragaphs. An Associated Press news story written by David Espo has managed to summarize the topic in one paragraph, and I thought I would share it with you folks for comment or suggestions on how to incorporate something similar in this article:

Congress enacted unusual legislation in the days before Schiavo's death in hopes of lending legal support to Schiavo's parents, who were seeking a federal court order to have their daughter's feeding tube reconnected. They were turned down at every level, including the U.S. Supreme Court, despite the measure that Bush signed quickly after it passed. [10]

I think something like this, perhaps expanded to two paragraphs, would be perfect for the government section. Any thoughts? --Viriditas | Talk 11:45, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. Has the article Government_involvement_in_the_Terri_Schiavo_case been adequately updated to reflect all the current information in this article? If so I'll work on condensing it. Professor Ninja 12:50, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)

The article is pretty much identical to the version before the split, except for an addition of an "Aftermath" section that I added. --Viriditas | Talk 01:38, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Done and done. I hope you find it to your satisfaction. Professor Ninja 18:45, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)

It looks fine so far. Could you also take a look at the recent changes to the main article for that section? A ghost has added "Ms." and I don't think that's correct. --Viriditas | Talk 00:52, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Caught it. Bless Notepad's little heart. Also, he had changed the abbreviation of Florida to "Fl.", which is wrong. Well, according to ISO and USPS, anyway, though I'll leave the spelling out of it up to you. Professor Ninja 01:59, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)

Final Stages

The article currently reads:

"Michael Schiavo had arrived at 8:45 a.m. EST that day. Terri Schiavo's brother, Bobby Schindler, was visiting Terri with his sister, Suzanne Vitadamo, but they were asked to leave ten minutes before Schiavo's death. Hospice officials asked the pair to leave so that Schiavo could be examined. Bobby challenged the decision, but Michael Schiavo decided not to allow him to stay. Terri's parents, who had been denied access to her during her last hours, travelled to the hospice to visit her when they were informed that she may be approaching death, arriving half an hour after her death. The Schindler family was allowed into the room after Michael Schiavo had left it. 64 65 66 67"

I don't know about the accuracy of some of this. According to at least one of the four cited articles, Michael Schiavo had been staying at the hospice, so the "arrived at 8:45 A.M. EST that day" doesn't sound right. I'm less concerned with that, however, than I am about the statement "Terri's parents, who had been denied access to her during her last hours..." which, in addition to having anti-Michael connotations, doesn't jibe with what I remember reading and isn't reflected in any of the four articles cited.

I recall reading (don't have the source--sorry) that the Schindlers had been staying across the street. Moreover, it doesn't make sense that the parents would have been denied access and the siblings hadn't. After all, they were as much a part of the negativity (from Michael's point of view) as their parents.

If it were true and cited I would have no problem with it, but if it was written as an opinion or as an exptrapolation of other circumstances, then it doesn't belong as currently written.

Also, is the fact that there were 50 protesters outside at the time and that some of them cried germane to the article? LRod 65.184.17.212 20:20, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Terri's parents were not denied access, except when Michael was visiting her. I did hear that Mary Schindler did not visit Terri after Easter Sunday, because she couldn't bear to see her. I don't know if Bob Schindler continued to visit her. After Felos made his statement about how beautiful and peaceful Terri looked, Bobby Schindler said that she looked like individuals pictured in photos from concentration camps, and said that he was advising his parents not to go in any more, because it was so distressing to see her in that condition. (Don't have sources right now, but could find them.) So no, I don't think it's correct to say that they were "denied access". Also, I'm wondering about the spelling of "travelled" in the same sentence. I'm happy with two Ls, but doesn't American usage have only one? Ann Heneghan 10:34, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yes, and Ann, you're taking on a daunting task here. I try to catch myself, but sometimes I fall into the lovely and proper British form rather than the terribly butchered testaments to Noah Webster's crotchets (I mean seriously, isn't bringing the language in line with Latin by removing intermediary progenitor languages sort of like trying to be more like your grandparents by killing your father? But I digress). I, like Ann, have heard multiple "versions" of this tale. I'm curious as to what actually happened. I hope we don't have to fall back to the he said/she said way of doing things again.

And no, I don't think 50 weepy-eyed protesters is germane to the article. I think the article already establishes that there were protesters outside the hospice, and given the fact that they were protesting her feeding tube being removed, I doubt one would assume they'd break out in applause. Professor Ninja 17:23, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)

just on travel: (thank you for making me laugh). Traveled and travelled are, apparently, both reasonable over here in these former colonies. Merriam-Webster gives a nod to both -eled and -elled (although I noticed that the examples use "-eled") while my Microsoft Word got all red and squiggly when I typed travelled but accepted traveled. However, that bastion of magazines the New Yorker uses "travelled" throughout at least one article in its Travel edition. Still, probably best to use only one "l"--Mia-Cle 00:26, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Ms./Mrs. Schiavo vs. Schiavo

It was brought to my attention that a "policy" had been established of prefering no title in front of Ms. Schiavo's married name. I find this offensive and de-humanizing. It also seems to contradict the straw poll taken in Archive 14: . Those interested in my thoughts may examine User talk:Professor Ninja. See also Dictionary under "Ms.".--ghost 06:08, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

My talk page is not a dumping ground for your rambling anecdotes about psychiatry, the equal rights movement, and systemic military dehumanization, especially when the issue you're vaguely trying to stab at has nothing to do with me, given that I used Mrs. to change your Ms. Anybody interested in that reply can check out User talk:A ghost.--User:Professor Ninja 06:17, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It's normal in all our articles to refer to all people, living, dead or anywhere inbetween by their surname after first mention. There is no specific policy about Ms Schiavo but there was discussion about whether she should have an appended Ms or Mrs to distinguish her from Mr Schiavo. The policy is here. Nothing is absolutely set in stone but editors will tend to stick to the MoS because they tend to believe that consistency makes for a better encyclopaedia.

I do not agree that not using a title is "dehumanising". It permits us to talk about our subjects without expressing any POV about their marital status, for starters, which is a good thing. Because it is done for all, none is singled out. Singling out Ms Schiavo with a title would be to make a political point that many would find unacceptable. If you do not like the policy in general, you are free to bring it up on the policy page I linked for you. I don't think you're likely to get much agreement but you should not let my opinion on that prevent you from putting your case if you really feel strongly about it. Grace Note 06:21, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I appreciate the link, and will take up the issue. Thank you. This isn't about politics. It's a matter of respect.--ghost 07:21, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC) Style guides:

• Organization of American Historians - 4. The first time any person is mentioned in text, the individual must be fully identified by first and last names. Women are not identified as Mrs. or Miss. The use of titles such as Dr., Rev., Gen., etc., is discouraged.
• USC Style Guide - 2) After referring to an individual by full name, journalistic style indicates that the second reference should be to surname only, e.g., Smith. More formal style calls for repetition of a title with all subsequent references. It is also acceptable to refer to the subject by first name or nickname if the tone of the piece is more informal.
• The Times Online Style Guide - appellations on news pages, though not on features and sport, almost every surname should be granted the courtesy of a title.

Request that we change to Formal Style from Journalistic for this article

After being refered to the Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (biographies), I promptly posted there on 04/19/05. There has been no response whatsoever. Therefore, I would like to request the following:

• Switch the naming convention for this and related articles from Journalistic (which is the current Wikipedia default) to Formal (which is listed as an acceptable alternative in the MoS). This would involve inserting an appellation (Mr., Ms., Mrs., Miss) in front of anyone's surname in the text, rather than using surname only. In the case of Terri Schiavo, since we are unable to determine the wishes of the deceased as to marital status, Formal Style calls for the use of "Ms.". This is the international standard for NPOV on marital status. This would also allow us to clarify some references to Michael as "Schiavo", when most of the uses of "Schiavo" refer to Terri.
• Alternatively, we should at least insert first & last names where appropriate, rather than just surnames, in order to distinguish between Michael, Terri, and other family members.

I personally believe that the use of Formal Style would be more respectful to the deceased, and her family. Please let me know your thoughts.--ghost 03:44, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

There does not appear to be any consensus for such a change, nor does this seem to be accepted policy. --Viriditas | Talk 06:40, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I disagree. In fact, a simple majority of those that voted in the straw poll in Archive 14 voted in favor of either Ms. or Mrs., when refering to Terri Schiavo. Based on this, I believe that there is a consensus in favor of Formal Style among the people who contribute to this article. As to the policy, I am working to change that, and will follow up on that vigorously.--ghost 10:36, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I don't mean to sound like a broken record, but based on the link to the straw poll that you offered, I will again reiterate, there does not appear to be any consensus for such a change, nor does this seem to be accepted policy. Further, you misinterpeted the straw poll, as it explicitly proposed that a title should only be used when it is not clear from the context if "Schiavo" refers to Terri Schiavo or Michael Schiavo. Read it again. --Viriditas | Talk 11:53, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

First, use of Formal Style is not the accepted policy, Journalistic is. I am fully aware of the context of the straw poll. The consensus that it appeared to reach is not being followed. That is why I mentioned the alternative of cleaning up references to members of the family by the use of first & last name. Further, many readers other than myself have clearly stated that use of Journalistic Style is offensive when refering to the recently deceased. Since the MoS states that it is a guide, not dogma, why not switch to a sytle that is less offensive, follows standards used by historians and accords greater respect to the memory of the deceased?--ghost 12:22, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I can't understand why you take offense (or why anyone takes offense) to using a last name. Why not devote your energy to creating a better article, instead? --Viriditas | Talk 12:40, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Ghorst, what bug crawled up your butt? Of all the issues flying around this article, you latch on to Mrs. v Ms???? And demand it be changed because its about respect??? How about showing some respect to the people who've been working their asses off on this article and assume they've been editing it in good faith, not in an attempt to disrespect Terri Schiavo by dropping the Mrs. FuelWagon 14:56, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I believe that the people (vandals aside) that have been working on this article have been doing so in good faith. I am trying to show respect to you and everyone else by not jumping in and making the changes without first discussing it here. The Journalistic Style offends many people because the use of someones last name, sans appellation, is considered de-humanizing, and a sign of disrespect. This is why the Wall Street Journal, New York Times, The Times (London), and most historians use Formal. --ghost 16:18, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia, and they tend to use journalistic style. I would like to see the lists of people who are "offended" by this style. Do you have a petition of some kind? --Viriditas | Talk 22:07, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I spent several hours of going this every part of the discussion on this, and other Talk sections, as well as digging through various Manuals of Style. I realised that my position on this topic is further to the end of the spectrum than I first thought. Most posters (most non-American) have complained that they felt Journalistic style was "rude", rather then actually taking offence. While I agree with them, I took offence because I don't want Ms. Schiavo's article to be "rude" in any way. There have been quite a number of readers that have taken issue with the article because they felt the content was at best insensative, if not POV or outright lies. I understand that Journalistic Style is the Wikipedia standard, and believe that an exception should be given to this article in the interest of the readers, Ms. Schiavo and her family. Not Viriditas, FuelWagon or me.

Per Viriditas' suggestion, I've submitted the idea of Journalistic vs Formal Style to the Village Pump. I don't know a better way to review the issue with the community than what I've already done, here and elsewhere. If anyone has suggestions, PLEASE let me know.

BTW, one last arguement in favor of Formal Style. Was any of you bothered to notice that almost every poster on the Talk page(s) refers to Terri Schiavo as 'Ms.' or 'Mrs.'? I'm not trying to argue one or the other, just that her memory deserves an appelation. If we accord that kind of respect to her here, in the crossfire of debate, why not do the same in the article?--ghost 19:13, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I just picked the Chuck Yeager article for random comparison and although it starts out by giving him full title of "Brigadier General Charles something Yeager", the rest of the article simply refers to him as "Yeager" from that point forward. Not "Mr. Yeager" or "General Yeager" or whatever, simply "Yeager". Perhaps you have an article that demonstrates what you want. If you want to start the article off with "Mrs. Terri something Schiavo", fine. But I think the clearest way to refer to her is as "Terri" from that point on. The only way to take a lack of title as being disrespectful is if someone is looking for disrespect.

There have been quite a number of readers that have taken issue with the article because they felt the content was at best insensative, if not POV or outright lies.

insensitive???? Huh wha? Where did that come from? You've got an unattributed POV. Who are these people? What poll did they answer? where are they saying it's "insensitive"???

And as for the article being POV or outright lies, I'll tell you the same thing I say to everyone else about this. Put up or shut up. Putting the POV flag on the article without saying why or listing the specific issues so they can be addressed or fixed is uncool. Making broad accusations of the same on the talk page is equally uncool. FuelWagon 00:13, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Gen. Yeager was a public figure, a historic figure (no doubt), and he is not recently deceased. Thus, Formal Style dictates "Yeager" as appropriate. For an example of what I propose, try this. This is a version of the Government involvement in the Terri Schiavo case article which I edited to Formal Style (although I missed a couple of name entries). Professor Ninja edited it to match the MoS. On a personal note, I also favor using Terri's first name, but have fallen back on Formal Style since I found it's what Organization of American Historians historians use. Eugene van der Pijll and I have been discussing this on the Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) page.

As for the "insensitive" remark, that's based on the comments of others thru-out this talk page & the notes attached to edit versions. Can you truly tell me than no one has been offended by the tone, or felt the tone of the article was POV at anytime? I have never flagged this article for POV. I applaud the efforts of yourself and those that have worked hard to maintain NPOV. My request for Formal Style is based in compassion, not politics.--ghost 16:01, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I cannot figure out if your "POV or outright lies" comment is referring to the lack of "Mrs" in front of Terri's name or if it is a completely unrelated non sequitor. When you first mentioned it, you brought it up alongside your argument for "Mrs", so they seemed like you were saying they're related. Now, it seems like you're saying it's just comments that other people have said about the article in general, and it really didn't have anythign to do with "Mrs". If the lack of "Mrs" is "POV and outright lies" I cannot see the connection. If it's a non-sequitor, then you confuse the issue of putting "Mrs" in front of Terri's name by bringing in off-topic matter. At this point, I don't care if you change every instance of "Terri" to "Mrs Terri Schiavo". I do have a slight problem with changing "Terri" to "Mrs. Schiavo", because you'd also have to change "Michael" to "Mr. Schiavo". And "Mrs Schiavo" is only one letter different from "Mr Schiavo". And people's minds need names with a larger difference to keep track of who's who. If you're going to use titles, I'd rather see "Mrs. Terri Schiavo" and "Mr. Michael Schiavo". Otherwise, it's way too confusing for the causual reader. FuelWagon 17:29, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Didn't mean to confuse you. My "POV and outright lies" comment is not my comment. It's the comment(s) of others if reference to the article and/or it's tone here and in the edit history. I want to soften the tone of the article. Currently, MoS states that:

After the initial mention of any name, the person may be referred to by surname only. For example:

Fred Smith was a cubist painter in the 15th century. He moved to Genoa, where he met John Doe. Smith later commented: "Doe!"

Despite being a suggestion, the dropping of any appellation following the first is being strictly enforced. A switch to Formal Style in the article would result in:

Terri Schiavo was a person who died in 2004. She married Michael Schiavo. Mr. Schiavo said, "Mrs. Schiavo..." (I use Mrs. here because Michael did, and because it was prefered in Article 14. Ms. would be equally appropriate in Formal Style.)

Again, I'd prefer an informal "Terri" over "Ms./Mrs. Schiavo". But either of these is better than "Schiavo". I'll be glad to do it. I just don't care for a revert war.--ghost 18:06, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

So it was an unrelated comment. Well, a quick look at the current article shows a mix and match of naming conventions being used. I'd vote to start with "Mrs. Terri Shiavo" and then use "Terri" from that point forward. The article should also start with "Mr. Michael Schiavo" and then use "Michael" from that point forward. The first mention of Terri's parents can use "Bob and Mary Schindler" and then refer to them as "the Schindlers" from that point forward. Does that work?

That works wonders!!! Unfortunately, the folks on the Village pump disagree with it, and are as stubborn as you and me.  ;-) Fair warning: it's Informal Style. Others may differ with it's use.--ghost 18:29, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Screw em, they're not dealing with this article. I just did a single revision that converts all the "Schiavo"s to "Terri" or "Michael". The name "Shiavo" was used in the article to sometimes to refer to Terri and sometimes to refer to Michael. I did it all in one major edit so if people complain it's a single reversion to undo it. Hopefully this is much more clear and no one feels Terri is being disrespected. FuelWagon 19:29, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The section on life-prolonging procedures, revisted, with some context provided

Although for the most part I like what's there about life-prolonging procedures, it strikes me as being a bit choppy and is lacking a wee bit of context that could tie the introductory paragraph into the court case. So, I'd like to propose the following slight reorganization/revision for the first four/five paragraphs--it explains the background to why this was in court and what happened in court.

Under Florida law, every person—competent and incompetent—has the right to refuse medical treatment. >2004->Ch0765->Section%20106#0765.106 When a person is in a persistent vegetative state and there is no living will, the decision to withhold or withdraw life-prolonging procedures may be made by another. [11] Life-prolonging procedures are defined to be, "any medical procedure, treatment, or intervention, including artificially provided sustenance and hydration, which sustains, restores, or supplants a spontaneous vital function or functions." [12] Thus, a feeding tube would be considered a life-prolonging procedure (also known as life support), while feeding by hand would not. Clinical records indicate that that Schiavo was not responsive to swallowing tests and required a feeding tube. [13]

Terri Schiavo did not have a living will; therefore, in May 1998, Michael Schiavo petitioned the Pasco-Pinellas Circuit Court for authority to remove her feeding tube. The case, In re Guardianship of Theresa Marie Schiavo, Schiavo v. Schindler, was randomly assigned to probate judge George Greer. The court appointed a guardian ad litem, Pearse, who produced a report concluding that Terri Schiavo was in a permanent vegetative state. Pearse also noted that neither side was exempt from possible conflicts of interest, as Michael Schiavo would be the sole inheritor of her money and the Schindlers hoped that they would be granted guardianship, that Michael would divorce their daughter, and that they would become Terri's "heirs-at-law." A trial was held and testimony was heard from eighteen witnesses, with evidence pertaining to her medical condition and to her end of life wishes. Judge Greer issued his order granting Michael Schiavo’s petition for authorization to discontinue artificial life support for Terri Schiavo in February 2000. In this decision, the court found that Terri Schiavo was in a persistent vegetative state and that she had made reliable oral declarations that she would have wanted the feeding tube removed. [14] (This decision would be upheld by nineteen separate judges.)

The paragraph about the neurologists and the removal of the feeding tube should come later, around the 2005 paragraphs or as a conclusion. (Also, the first sentence should link to Fla. Stat. 765.106, but for some reason it's not working correctly, if someone could fix it...) Please note, this is rough draft, so I haven't cleaned up the names, etc.--Mia-Cle 00:48, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Mia-Cle, sorry, didn't see this earlier. This reads really well and makes a good introduction to the whole section on life support. It's got my vote. FuelWagon 14:59, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

thanks, dude. i'll leave it up a couple more days and see if there's any other opinions on it. --Mia-Cle 16:09, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well, the link works fine, unless you wanted to link the whole sentence itself, in which case this might be what you're after... [15] ([http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=Ch0765/SEC106.HTM] ) Professor Ninja 01:23, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)

Viriditas and others, please explain reverts

Take it to talk? I have talked about those issues and there has been no objection. LRod 216.76.216.114 03:41, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I am not anonymous; I always sign my work. Whenever I have done edits I have explained them as provided for.

I have discussed parts or all of these issues before but will explain the edits again here.

I. Michael Schiavo had arrived at 8:45 a.m. EST that day. Terri Schiavo's brother, Bobby Schindler, was visiting Terri with his sister, Suzanne Vitadamo, but they were asked to leave ten minutes before Schiavo's death. Hospice officials asked the pair to leave so that Schiavo could be examined. Bobby challenged the decision, but Michael Schiavo decided not to allow him to stay. Terri's parents, who had been denied access to her during her last hours, traveled to the hospice to visit her when they were informed that she may be approaching death, arriving half an hour after her death. The Schindler family was allowed into the room after Michael Schiavo had left it. [16] [17] [18] [19]

This paragraph in the Final Stages section adds nothing to the article. All four cites say basically the same thing and the information quoted in them is all from George Felos, therefore, absent any other input, is POV, particularly in that it makes Bobby Schindler look like an asshole, which although I think he is, doesn't belong in the article.

According to Rev Frank Pavone (speaking for the Schindlers), Bobby got upset when asked to leave by the hospice workers. Michael's brother said Bobby caused a commotion with a police officer.

Bobby Schindler got upset when a hospice official asked the siblings to leave the room so that Schiavo's condition could be evaluated. "There was not a confrontation," said the Rev. Frank Pavone, a Catholic priest and friend of the family who was there. "He was simply emotionally upset as anyone would be. ... He was told on no uncertain terms" they had to leave. The Schiavo side gave a different version, saying the brother confronted the police officer who was trying to shepherd them out. "Bobby caused a commotion with the police officer," said Brian Schiavo.

So, what was there doesn't seem to be POV. Perhaps you could change "Bobby challenged the decision" to "Bobby got upset at the decision" to use the Reverend's own words. The Schiavo's side says he confronted a police officer. So, "getting upset" seems to be the minimal that happened, and wouldn't be POV. FuelWagon 19:25, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Okay, so there's apparently an alternate POV balancing it out, and I could accept that, except that there's no cite for it. The four cites that are there all state essentially the same story. However, I still would like to know how Bobby being an asshole as described by representatives of both sides adds to the story. Is yet another confrontation within moments of Terri's death at all germane to her story? I don't think so. But if you really think it should stay, by all means let it. So long as some of everyone's version is there. LRod 216.76.216.48 20:07, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The cite is in the first of four links you provided [20]. That's where I got the text from. I didn't read it to say Bobby was an asshole. I read it that there was a family feud right up until Terri's death. And I can't see how the article can be strictly about Terri Schiavo. It's also about the fight between Michael and teh Schindlers over Terri's fate. And this snippet of history shows that the fight went right up to the very end. What exactly happened, I'm not sure, but something happened that caused more upset. FuelWagon 20:48, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

II. Supporters of the Schindlers had contended that the autopsy was required by Florida law, as the body was to be cremated, but the strict wording of the statute states only that the medical examiner has the authority to conduct an autopsy before a cremation if he or she deems it necessary. +[21]

This paragraph in the Autopsy section not only does not add to the article but is confusing since the sequence of events as I recall them was Michael Schiavo announces cremation, conspiracy theorists cry foul and coverup, Schindlers demand autopsy mis-citing law, Michael announces his request for autopsy, everyone shuts up. Not only is that sequence not reflected in the paragraph, but what is said turns the whole thing from a non-issue into an issue, which in fact, never existed. It doesn't belong in the article.

III. The results of the autopsy have yet to be released; however, it is probable that cause of death will be shown to be due to heart failure resulting from the effects of dehydration, which interferes with body chemistry and causes abnormalities in the heart rate (known as arrhythmia).

As I argued above when I edited out speculation about cause of death in the opening paragraph, there is no cause of death until the ME says there is one. There is an entire body of work extant on how to write a cause of death. I doubt there is an editor participating that is qualified to write one. Until the ME makes his report, speculating about what the cause of death might be is acceptable fodder for this talk page but doesn't belong in the article.

That the ME hasn't released his report is not news and doesn't belong in the article. LRod 216.76.216.48 18:20, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I don't think it is simply "speculation" if no one disputes the probable cause of death. Perhaps it could be put into more factual language saying that people who die from dehydration often die of heart failure etc etc etc. That removes the word "probable" and simply states a fact. FuelWagon 19:29, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yeah it is. I dispute it because we don't know. See my remarks in Introduction: "died from..." higher up on the page and also see the Archive 18 (Cause of Death section) where I discussed it the first time including a link to a tutorial that leads one through the process of determining the cause of death (intended for doctors, not us, although it's very illuminating for this discussion). In any event, based on both your and the Professor's arguments in other areas, that sort of speculation of what it might be or even what it probably is does not rise to the standard of reportable information in this type of article. Defend it or not on that basis.

My minor edits have now been reverted three times and in each case by someone who hasn't participated in the discussions in nearly two weeks. You shouldn't invite edits if you're only going to accept them from a select few. If my presence and input hasn't legitimized any of my contributions over the last few weeks then I'll move on. LRod 216.76.216.48 20:07, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Are we going to put the stuff back in? Change "challenge" to "upset"? Drop the whole thing? I didn't know there was an agreement about the text. On a completely different note, when I bring up the edit history and see IP addresses, my first reaction is "vandals". I'm not sure why you don't create an account and log in, but it makes it just a tad more difficult to separarate the vandals from the good faith edits. Is there a reason for not creating an account? Just curious. FuelWagon 20:48, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I never got around to it. But it shouldn't make any difference. Especially, if you take the time to look at the edit (and the explanation, which I've provided every time), and the name (which I've also provided every time). If you people are reverting as vandalism just because it's an IP address for a source, then you shouldn't invite edits from the great unwashed in the first place. And that's what it says, right on top of every article: edit this page.

Also, I've seen lots of edits without discussion or agreement. Now if I've violated some sort of code or secret handshake protocol, then I'm sorry. But in any event, I'm not going to bother making further contributions where they're not wanted or appreciated. There are far too many other places on the internet and elsewhere to spend my time productively than to play secret squirrel games here. LRod 216.76.216.48 21:21, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Uh, LRod, no one here is saying your contributions haven't been legitimate or appreciated. I'm not anyway. The people who revert your edits without coming to the talk page see an IP address, a big block of text deleted, and probably assume its vandalism without going to the talk page. Using an IP address is fine, but it means you're just more likely to be viewed as a vandal at first glance, especially on a page that is a big target for vandalism. My guess is if you log in, you may see your edits stick around longer. Either that or use an IP, but work on pages that aren't a frequent target of vandals. FuelWagon 22:02, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I wouldn't take it personally, LRod, and I'm not saying that you necessarily are--it's so hard to really communicate in forum like this...a lot is lost. I know there was one instance in which I proposed an alternate paragraph in Talk, asked for comments, and, after a day, decided to go ahead and make the edit. It was reverted. I learned that if I want to make a large change to the text, it is best to hash out the wording here in talk, get a concensus on the acceptable wording, then add it to the article once that concencus has been reached. Making a large change when it hasn't really been reviewed by very many of the editors seems to be frowned upon, which I can understand, since we do have the resource of the talk page for preliminary drafting and discussion. I see, though, that these are things you have attempted to discuss before. I think some folks have a good point about posts being reverted often when we only see an IP address--usually a vandal. I also agree with you that it is wrong to instantly revert edits made without a sign-in, without judging the merits of the edit. For the record, I agree with LRod that the cause of death is not *officially* known. I don't see any harm in leaving the cause of death out of the article for whatever short amount of time elapses from now until the ME releases the official cause of death.--Minaflorida 22:05, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well, first of all, I'll just repeat this from Viriditas' talk page: 1) Sometimes the facts make people look like assholes. Sometimes if you don't want to look like an asshole you shouldn't do asshole things. But that assumes that 2) what Bobby did was assholic. I personally think that there's not much you can do short of a rampage when your loved one is dying that isn't totally excusable. I think having a confrontation with a police officer is pretty understandable -- you're watching your sister die, and somebody tells you to leave? If that doesn't paint a target on the person's forehead, God only knows what does. As for your other edit, re: cause of death, I think that you have a point, that we don't have an official cause of death. But what this comes down to is like, if somebody falls off a cliff, you can safely say they died from the fall. The official cause of death might be head trauma or torso trauma or something like that, but you can safely generalize and say it was caused by the fall. Right now, I think it's fairly safe to assume she died from having her feeding tube removed. If and when specifics come up then we can change it to those specifics, but unless she happened to have a catastrophic coincidental collapse about two weeks after her feeding tube after surviving for 15 years in that state, we can be 99.99999% sure it was caused by removing her feeding tube. Professor Ninja 02:29, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)

My last word on the subject and then I'm outta here. You clearly either didn't read or don't recall my posting (now in Archive 18) regarding immediate cause of death, intermediate cause of death, and underlying cause of death. To save time and trouble I'll quote my pertinent paragraphs here:

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

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

My sentiment remains. Speculation, even learned speculation by editors here is inaccurate. I've read even you argue this very point. If you can't see that than that's just all the more reason my work is done. By the way, if anyone cares, my ISP assigns dynamic IP numbers at each logon, although with the exception of the few posts I made over the weekend from my daughter's computer, mine should all be at least 216.76.216... Of course we're all vandals, so what difference does it make? Bye. LRod 216.76.216.208 04:01, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Bernat Senate Testimony

quoting the AAN website here [22]

The American Academy of Neurology was invited to present testimony before ... the United States Senate in a hearing, which was held April 6th (2005) in Washington, DC. The AAN was represented by James L. Bernat, MD, a member of the AAN Ethics, Law and Humanities Committee (Past Chair) and a recognized expert in brain damage including PVS. ... Dr. Bernat’s testimony was approved by the AAN Executive Committee.

quoting from this Bernat's testimony [23]

The prognosis for recovery of awareness in PVS has been quantified. In general, the prognosis depends on the cause and duration of PVS. It is worse after cardiac arrest and after a long duration of PVS. Patients remaining in PVS for greater than 3 months after cardiac arrest have only a slight chance of recovery of awareness. Recovery of awareness is unprecedented after 2 years. With head injury causing PVS, the times necessary to show these levels of prognostic certainty are 1 year and 5 years respectively.

Maybe someone could read the whole thing and put this in the main article where appropriate. I'd do it but will probably end up inserting "wtf?" or some such obscenity, and that won't work. FuelWagon 04:13, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

LRod, please create an account

216.76.217.43 (talk · contribs), 216.76.216.48 (talk · contribs), 216.76.216.57 (talk · contribs), 216.76.216.65 (talk · contribs), 216.76.216.103 (talk · contribs), 216.76.216.114 (talk · contribs), 216.76.216.118 (talk · contribs), 216.76.216.142 (talk · contribs), 216.76.216.208 (talk · contribs), and 65.184.17.212 (talk · contribs) are all LRod's accounts. LRod, can you please create an account? --Viriditas | Talk 09:25, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

LRod. Your contributions are interesting and informative. Creating an account takes about 30 seconds so why not? Wjbean 12:48, 2005 Apr 22 (UTC)

Changes by JYolkowski

Aloha, could you discuss your changes here, at the bottom of the page? Thanks. --Viriditas | Talk 00:28, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

My interpretation of the discussion above was that there was a general consensus that they could be deleted (note also that they were uncited). Do you feel differently? JYolkowski // talk 00:33, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

They were not uncited. The text you removed is cited by the article, "Eating disorder is 'lost lesson' in Schiavo case" in the Miami Herald and refers to testimony in the malpractice case: During the malpractice case, at least one of Schiavo's friends testified they knew she was bulimic because after meals out, she always immediately excused herself to go to the bathroom. Her husband also knew she had peculiar eating patterns but did not realize they were dangerous... This is attributed to Gary Fox, a lawyer who represented Terri and Michael Schiavo in the malpractice case. --Viriditas | Talk 00:38, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It wasn't cited in the article. Please add the citation to the article (like I said above). You also reverted "to better care for his wife"; do you have a cite for that? Thanks, JYolkowski // talk 00:41, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It was cited in the article, but in the next paragraph. It's also a part of public record, and is most likely referred to in the source documents at the bottom of the page. The same goes with the "better care for his wife" which was cited in an obituary in the Atlanta-Journal Constitution but the link appears to be down. I am working on tracking it down, as I believe it is also based on a primary source, perhaps a GAL report. --Viriditas | Talk 00:46, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

If you want to add a citation for that, go ahead. No-one had either come up with one or otherwise mentioned that they wanted to keep those bits for a week, so being bold and removing them is sometimes the best way of getting things done. JYolkowski // talk 00:48, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. I also think that the use of footnotes will solve some of these problems as these links become subscription-based or disappear completely like the AJC obit, which has totally vanished. But, I'm fairly sure they were all based on primary source documents, so I'll track those down as well. --Viriditas | Talk 00:50, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Vandal Attacks

Just in case someone drew a conclusion (and shame on you if you did) that there was anything more than coincidence between the vandalism by UDoN't!wAn* yesterday and my departure the day before, you may rest assured it was not me. I wouldn't even think of such a thing, much less carry it out. LRod 216.76.216.90 12:35, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I don't think anyone thinks you are connected to UDoN't!wAn*, but is there a reason you are unable to create an account? --Viriditas | Talk 00:30, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Push polls

I have no interest in getting sucked into a revert war on such a high-profile article, but the use of the term "push poll" here is incorrect. It has a very clear and well-established meaning ([24] [25] [26] [27]), and the fact that some political commentators misuse it doesn't mean that Wikipedia should. RadicalSubversiv E 23:39, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps you can explain why the Zogby poll is not a push poll designed to change opinions rather than measure them by presenting distorted facts. It seems to fit that definition to me. Professor Ninja 01:51, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)

Zogby is a legitimate polling firm which used a statistically-valid scientific survey to measure public opinion. Even if the questions they posed were biased ones, that's not a push poll. Push pollsters, who "do not care about collecting data or measuring opinions (even in a "bogus" way)" [28] are not trying to misrepresent public opinion in the press, they're simply trying to spread rumors to the people being "surveyed." RadicalSubversiv E 02:28, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

There is a common misconception that a "push poll" is one which asks leading questions in order to "push" the respondents to the side of the issue the pollster wants to favor. This is not the correct usage of the term (though I wish there were a catchy title for such misleading polls). A "push poll" is when people pretending to be pollsters ask questions they don't really want to know the answers to in order to subliminally "push" their agenda. The example usually given is the one where George W. Bush's operatives are alleged to have conducted a "poll" in which they phoned people up and asked them if they would be less likely to vote for John McCain if it was announced that he had fathered a black child out of wedlock. They didn't care about the answer, they just wanted to plant that little seed in the minds of potential voters to dissuade them from voting for McCain.

That being said, I'm shocked at the questions Zogby asked in their Schiavo poll. Zogby has a pretty good reputation but those questions were bogus. I would seriously challenge the claim that the poll's results were "statistically valid" --JonGwynne 05:02, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I would question ANY poll on this torrid topic. Since when is the average poll respondent capable of deciding whether a person is PVS or not based on a video clip? There's a reason why doctors need years of training to make such decisions: they're hard to make! So I'm more than a bit tired of websites asking "Do you think Michael Jackson is guilty?" and the like. It's idiotic and scientifically and journalistically meaningless, except as a way to show what the prevailing unthinking prejudices are at the lowest common denominator level.

But all the same, thanks for clearing up the true definition of a push poll. I, too, wish there was a name for the other type of polls. How about "slant polls"? Or "frame polls", since they typically tend to reframe the topic. Just as this whole Schiavo thing was reframed. -[User:Kasreyn|Kasreyn]]

OK, there's an idiot working on the Terri Schiavo page, who thinks they can remove reference to the word "push poll" with the explanation that "all polls are push polls". However, they leave in the word "bias", but by their own definition, all polls are biased as well. So, by that argument, we should remove that sentence completely. And, we should probably delete the wikipedia entry for "push polls" because all polls are push polls, and the definition is redundant. ---- I do not want to engage in orwellian redefinition of words and be part of the ministry of information or humpty-dumptism and make words mean whatever I want them to mean. Readers can click on the push poll link and read the definition. If the word is changed to "bias" there isn't anything that readers can click on to read up on how a poll can be biased. Leave it to the readers to decide if all polls are push polls or if vocabulary really has a function. Hiding the link is just trying to sweep it under the carpet, trying to minimize the bias of the poll, and that's nothing but POV bullshit. FuelWagon 14:02, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Nice. The same idiot is modifying the wikipeda entry for "push poll" to remove any reference to "terri schiavo". Nothing like a complete rewrite of history, eh Winston Smith? FuelWagon 14:10, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Edits by 138.130.201.227

138.130.201.227 (talk · contribs) appears to be introducing unsupported, uncited, disreputable source claims into the article, so I have reverted. These include:

• Michael 'remembered', years after his wife fell ill and he began living with another woman, that his wife would not have wanted to live in a persistent vegetative state and that he was fighting for her right to die by using nearly all of Terri's portion of the settlement on legal battles, rather than on trying to make her well.

• Michael said he chose not to divorce Terri and relinquish guardianship because he wanted to carry out her final wishes not to be kept alive in a persistent vegetative state, and he would lose all access to Terri's medical malpractice settlement, the majority of which was spent on Michael's legal costs to terminate Terri's life.

• However, this poll did not mention that "removing life support" meant removing food and water, or that her husband was living with another woman.[29]

--Viriditas | Talk 00:53, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I noticed. Thanks for taking out the trash. FuelWagon 01:18, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Government Involvement

I feel the section concerning the possible mexican standoff needs to be clarified. If I'm not mistaken, President Bush could have dispatched Federal agents to take her into custody on the basis of the congressional subpoeana (ref: Clinton/Reno in the Elian Gonzalez case). The way it's written now makes it look like the Federal Government is bound a state judge's court order - which is clearly false. In the words of Bill O'Reilly . . . What say you?

Unfortunately, I say the Government Involvement section has become very POV. Carefully framed and politically correct, but POV in tone, spirit, and conclusions. By comparison, the Government involvement in the Terri Schiavo case is much more balanced. Perhaps, we should bring it back into the main body. I hesistate because it was broken out for some legitimate reasons, and does not contain some of the info that's been inserted into the main article since. However, the main article now leaves out large swaths of info that will be relevent to U.S. politics in the years to come. We need to get this right.--ghost 17:09, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The government section was trimmed down and moved to its own article to keep the main article from exploding. I just read teh current government section and do not see where there is POV. It may be short, but it does not seem POV to me. FuelWagon 18:08, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

After reviewing the section this evening, I retract my eariler position. I made the mistake of confusing eariler edits. *DOH* --ghost 03:48, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think the "mexican standoff" comment is uncalled for and I'd rather see it written in a more factual tone. Unless one of the main players in the actual event (Greer, Bush1 or Bush2) used the term "Mexican standoff" then I don't think the term deserves to be in the article. FuelWagon 18:08, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Done.--ghost 03:48, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The rest of the section on life-prolonging procedures

This relates to the last eight paragraphs (I think) of the section. As it reads right now, there's no mention here of the 2001 and 2003 removals/reinsertions of the tube, the motions are confusing (and don't tell what it was that the Schindlers needed to do in these motions to get the removal Order vacated), and it's a bit choppy in general...anyway, comments welcome.--Mia-Cle 01:04, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Terri’s feeding tube was removed on April 23, 2001; however, the Schindlers filed a new legal case challenging the guardianship of Michael and requesting the restoration of the feeding tube. The judge assigned that case issued the temporary injunction and the feeding tube was reinserted. (This injunction was later overturned by the Second District Court of Appeals (2d DCA) and the action folded into proceedings before Judge Greer.[30]) Terri’s feeding tube was again removed on October 15, 2003 following an order finding that the new treatment proferred by the Schindlers did not offer sufficient promise of increased cognitive function in her cerebral cortex.[31] Florida Governor Jeb Bush restored Terri’s feeding tube one week later under the authority of “Terri’s Law.”

Terri’s feeding tube was removed on April 23, 2001. The Schindlers’ filed a new legal case challenging Michael's guardianship of Terri, and requesting the restoration of her feeding tube. The judge assigned that case issued a temporary injunction and the feeding tube was reinserted. This injunction was later overturned by the Second District Court of Appeals (2d DCA), and the action folded into proceedings before Judge Greer.[32] Terri’s feeding tube was again removed on October 15, 2003, following an order finding that the new treatment proferred by the Schindlers did not offer sufficient promise of increased cognitive function in her cerebral cortex.[33] Florida Governor Jeb Bush restored Terri’s feeding tube one week later under the authority of “Terri’s Law.” --suggested by ghost 03:28, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

fine, a few grammatical bits will need to be fixed (e.g., no apostrophe for Schindlers in the second sentence)--Mia-Cle 19:18, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Concurrent with Judge Greer’s reauthorization of the removal of the feeding tube in February 2005[34], the Schindlers tried unsucessfully to stay the removal or have the feeding tube reinserted by filing post-trial, emergency motions in state court as well as by pursuing the case in federal court.

In their state post-trial motions, the Schindlers had to establish that new treatment offered sufficient promise of increased cognitive function in Terri’s cerebral cortex—significantly improving the quality of her life—so that she herself would elect to undergo this treatment and would reverse the prior decision to withdraw life-prolonging procedures.[35] The motions filed in state court sought relief from the original judgment and were all denied, with the denials affirmed by the 2d DCA.

Concurrent with Judge Greer’s reauthorization of the removal of the feeding tube in February 2005,[36] the Schindlers tried unsucessfully to stay the removal, or have the feeding tube reinserted. They did this by filing post-trial, emergency motions in state court, as well as by pursuing the case in federal court. In their state post-trial motions, the Schindlers had to establish one of two conditions: Either, that Terri would not have made such a decision to withdraw life-prolonging procedures prior to the original judgement. Or, that new treatment(s) offered promise of increased cognitive function sufficient to improve the quality of Terri's life to the point that she herself could elect to undergo this treatment. Meeting either condition would reverse the prior decision to withdraw life-prolonging procedures.[37] The motions filed in state court sought this relief from the original judgment and were all denied, with the denials affirmed by the 2d DCA. --suggested by ghost 03:28, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

my bad--i cited Schiavo III and linked it to Schiavo II (two different standards). i'll need to check to see which one governed the last round of motions (methinks Schiavo III, not II).--Mia-Cle 19:18, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

For example, the Schindlers filed a motion asking that Terri be allowed to undergo experimental treatment by functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) of her brain to determine if Terri was in a PVS (and subject to the Order authorizing removal) or in a minimally conscious state (and not subject to the Order) and to allow her to receive therapy using the VitalStim swallowing treatments [38]. Similarly, there was a motion for contemporary-medical-psychiatric-rehabilitative examination, which was accompanied by reports, court testimony, journal articles, and thirty-three affidavits from doctors in several specialties urging the undertaking of new tests. The latter motion was denied because most of the doctor affidavits were based on their understanding of Terri’s condition from news reports or video clips, many of the doctors were not aware of tests conducted in 2002, a few of the doctors had already appeared in this case, most doctors were vague as to the course of treatment to be given, and others suggested treatment that was already considered, swallowing tests were already done, and there was no allegation that VitalStim could be performed on PVS patients.[39] Another motion requested permission to attempt to provide Terri with food and water “by natural means.” [40] It was denied as the affidavits that were attached to this motion were the same as those filed with the motion arguing for the experimental treatment, thus making it a redundant motion. [41]

Although the judge’s orders denying these motions as legally insufficient were upheld on appeal, they were abbreviated by Schindler supporters to slogans: for example, one phrase quoted without explanation was that the judge ordered that Terri not be provided with food and water by natural means.

One such motion the Schindlers filed asked that Terri be allowed to undergo experimental treatment by functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) of her brain. This was ment to determine if Terri was in a PVS (and thus subject to the Order authorizing removal) or in a minimally conscious state (and not subject to the Order). The motion allow sought to allow Terri to receive therapy using the VitalStim swallowing treatments. [42] Similarly, there was a motion for a contemporary medical-psychiatric-rehabilitative examination, arguing that recent medical advances would invalidate the previous diagnosis. This motion was accompanied by reports, court testimony, journal articles, and thirty-three affidavits from doctors in several specialties urging the undertaking of new tests. The motion was denied because:

Most of the affidavits were based on doctor's understanding of Terri’s condition from news reports or video clips; many of the doctors were not aware of tests conducted in 2002; a few of the doctors had already appeared in the case; most of the doctors were vague as to the course of treatment to be given; others suggested treatment that was already considered; swallowing tests were already done; there was no allegation that VitalStim could be performed on PVS patients.[43]

Another motion requested permission to attempt to provide Terri with food and water “by natural means.” [44] It was denied as the affidavits that were attached to this motion were the same as those filed with the motion arguing for the experimental treatment, thus making it a redundant motion. [45] Although the judge’s orders denying these motions as legally insufficient were upheld on appeal, they were abbreviated by Schindler supporters into slogans. For example, one phrase quoted without explanation was that the judge ordered that Terri not be provided with food and water by natural means. --suggested by ghost 03:28, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

In federal court, the Schindlers filed a due process claim that was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction on March 18, 2005.[46] After the passage of the Palm Sunday Compromise, they filed a new federal case alleging Terri’s federal rights were violated and asking for the reinsertion of the feeding tube.[47][48] The judge denied the reinsertion twice, finding that there was no substantial likelihood that the Schindlers would succeed with their claims.[49][50] (These decisions were upheld by the U.S. Court of Appeals Eleventh Circuit, and the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear the case.[51][52][53][54])

The feeding tube was removed pursuant to court order on March 18, 2005. Descriptions of Terri after its removal vary. On March 25, 2005, Robert Schindler told the media that his daughter's lips and eyes were "bleeding" from lack of hydration, that her skin was "peeling," and that she was "fighting like hell to stay alive."[55] In a news conference the following day, Michael's attorney, George Felos, described her differently, saying, "she looked beautiful. In all the years I've seen Mrs. Schiavo, I've never seen such a look of peace and beauty upon her." [56] On March 30, 2005, Robert Schindler told reporters, "I was pleasantly surprised by what I saw and encouraged that she's still fighting" [57] and that Terri was "failing" but "doing darn good under the circumstances." [58]

Neurologists have noted that if Terri was indeed in a persistent vegetative state, she did not experience pain, hunger or thirst due to the removal of the feeding tube. [59] Perry G. Fine, the vice president of medical affairs at the National Hospice and Palliative Care Organization, was quoted in the Los Angeles Times as saying: “What my patients have told me over the last 25 years is that when they stop eating and drinking, there's nothing unpleasant about it. In fact, it can be quite blissful and euphoric... the word 'starve' is so emotionally loaded. People equate that with the hunger pains they feel or the thirst they feel after a long, hot day of hiking. To jump from that to a person who has an end-stage illness is a gigantic leap.” [60] [61]

On March 31, 2005, thirteen days after her feeding tube was removed, Terri went into cardiac arrest and died.

In put my suggestions in blue. The Federal Court section look pretty good.--ghost 03:28, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

mia-cle, I like it. your stuff reads a lot better than what I chopped together on the current page. FuelWagon 12:52, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

great, like the edits. i'll check on the standard for the last round of motions filed, be it Schiavo II or Schiavo III.--Mia-Cle 19:18, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Burial: One Month Later

With a month having passed since her cremation, there's been no public disclosure of her ashes being buried or plans to do so, or a memorial service to be held for her at the request of her husband, Michael. Previous information in the article, given by George Felos on April 2 2005 at a press conference that this was planned was deleted from the article as being speculative.

I think it its time for a placeholder in the article to record that if her ashes have been buried, it has not been publicly disclosed. While nothing requires public notification of this, the judge ordered Michael Schiavo to disclose these plans to the Schindler family.

By court order, he must disclose the location of the burial site to Terri's parents, Bob and Mary Schindler, and inform them of any memorial service he plans.

Michael Schiavo plans to bury his wife's ashes in his family plot near Philadelphia. Bobby Schindler, Terri Schiavo's brother, said Michael Schiavo still has not offered the Schindler side any specific details for any planned services in Pennsylvania, or the burial. CBS News

That story hasn't changed since April 4 2005 patsw 15:11, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

The fact that an extremely private family tragedy got perverted into a public specatacle doesn't mean that the final act has to be part of that disgraceful chapter. My guess is that Michael has no intention of feeding into that public drama any longer. I don't think he wanted to be part of it in the first place. He may or may not have done all that he said he was going to and we may or may not ever find out about it. The quote by Bobby Schindler is from an article written a month ago. It may or may not have any relevance today. They might all have agreed to take things behind closed doors. Save the last bit of interest the public has in the not yet released autopsy report, it's probably time to let this story rest in peace, where it should have been in the first place.

Anonymous, I'm not going to be dragged into an argument over what is and what isn't a matter of public interest, but the Schindlers have said they would let the public know if they were told if the ashes of Terri Schiavo were buried, and repeated this at the second memorial for Terri which took place on April 15 (the details of which are still in Google's news cache). That the Schindlers would not have a public statement when informed of the burial of the ashes of their daughter is highly improbable. patsw 17:30, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

I disagree. Perhaps they have decided that nothing further is to be gained by a public airing of what may or may not have occured in that regard. They don't owe the public anything, including an explanation. Absence of news signifies nothing. Anonymous

Accusation vs. Greer

The following was posted by GordonWattsDotCom at 17:36 2 May, 2005[62]:

In denying the motion for feed Terri by conventional means, Greer violated Florida Law, which makes it a felony for any "caregiver's failure or omission to provide an elderly person or disabled adult with the care, supervision, and services necessary to maintain the elderly person's or disabled adult's physical and mental health, including, but not limited to, food..." >2004->Ch0825->Section%20102 The law makes no exceptions for patients who are diagnosed as PVS or terminally ill. In doing so, Greer violated the Seperation of Powers, by "Legislating from the Bench" [63] [64] [65], a term which describes a judge or judges who issue a ruling contrary to known law or constitutional provision.--GordonWatts.com

As is, this is POV. The rulings overturning the laws in question invalidated this arguement. Perhaps there's a better way to communicate the controversy, without the POV.--ghost 02:03, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

These items wer inserted by an IP user at roughly the same time:

PVS

Nonetheless, much dispute exists over the reliability of a PVS diagnosis. One study in Great Britian found that 43% of patients classed as PVS were misdiagnosed and another 33% able to recover while the study was underway. [66]

Life prolonging procedures

The court-appointed guardian ad litem, Dr. Jaw Wolfson, however, did feel that swallowing tests would be appropriate to get to the bottom of the dispute. In his report, he stated:

"Is there feasibility and value in swallowing tests and swallowing therapy given the totality of circumstances? a. Yes. There is feasibility and value in swallowing tests and swallowing therapy being administered if the parties agree in advance as to how the results of these tests will be used with respect to the decision about Theresa’s future." [36] (http://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/WolfsonReport.pdf)

I left these as they may add value. Please review them.--ghost 02:24, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

I've removed the PVS one (too much clutter), expanded it slightly, and moved it to Persistent vegetative state; it belongs there. Proto 13:27, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

somewhere I read that Wolfson's recommendations for swallowing tests in his report were from his attempt to negotiate something between Michael and the Schindlers, not so much that he was pushing for swallowing tests, but he was trying to resolve the issue. He was acting as an intermediary or arbiter or something. I don't have a link handy. FuelWagon 18:55, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

NCDave is back

NCDave has previously posted from IP address 69.134.182.251 That IP address just attempted to put the NPOV tag back in and modify the article to state that Terri was NOT PVS.

diff contributions from IP address 69.134.182.251

FuelWagon 16:57, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

Rewrite of Intro

I rewrote the intro.

Part of it was to put the intro into chronological order. The previous version sort of jumped around, mentioned her death, and then backed up and mentioned the battle between her husband and her parents.

Part of it was to satisfy the flat-earthers who would rather spend the rest of their life vandalizing a webpage than to face medical fact that Terri was PVS. (Flat-earth morons like NCdave have even stooped to doing anonymous vandalism recently.)

I don't say "Terri was PVS", even though I think only a dogmatic conspiracy-freak would think otherwise. I do however attempt to describe the diagnosises (plural spelling?) and the debate and all teh hoopla around the case in AS SHORT AS FRIGGEN POSSIBLE, while still keeping everything in context. And then I refer folks to sections further down for more information.

If folks don't like it, they can revert it. It's all in one block of edits.

FuelWagon 20:22, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

No complaints here. Good job.--ghost 21:08, 6 May 2005 (UTC)