Talk:Terri Schiavo case/Archive 13

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Her current condition

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

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

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

material deleted by Tony Sidaway and FuelWagon

The rest of this section was deleted by Tony and FuelWagon. Not archived, just deleted. I've restored it. NCdave 03:16, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

That's hilarious. The article is riddled with blatantly false Felos propaganda, and just plain made-up nonsense, like this double whopper: "The incident occured only in the presence of family members and has not been independently confirmed; Schiavo has not been able to speak since her heart attack in 1990." NCdave 04:36, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I am the person who wrote that, and there is nothing false about it. --Viriditas | Talk 09:39, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
That statement that you added, like a large percentage of the article, is absolutely false. It is pure made-up nonsense, and trivial to disprove with even a simple google search. The fact that it was not only in the presence of family members is attested to by an officer of the court. NCdave
But it is a fact that this is being claimed, and highly relevant, because it speaks to the issue of her current condition, and it's odd that you wouldn't want the intro to describe that. I can add after it that the husband's lawyer denies this is the case, and link to a story summarizing those comments, then it will be timely, relevant, and referenced. SlimVirgin 00:11, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)
The claim and counterclaim are mentioned later in the article with the updates of the latest condition. Since it is a he-said, he-said, and it is not clear which version (or some variant) is the truth, it doesn't seem to make sense to put it so high up near the intro.. Fuzheado | Talk 00:15, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I disagree. The issue you want to remove shows clearly how intense the dispute is: that such a basic matter of fact would be contradicted. This article is supposed to be NPOV and up to date. The up to date claim, from one side, is that a woman is being, effectively, tortured to death. The other side denies this. To leave that most salient piece of information out of the intro is wrong. (Note: I have no strong POV on this matter, except that it's incredibly sad.) What is the editorial difference between the claim: "Neurologists say this is unlikely to cause pain, given Schiavo's physical state," (which is in the intro) and the claim: "Her parents' lawyer says her tongue is bleeding" (which was deleted from the intro). SlimVirgin 00:19, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)
An attorney is not a medical expert; his expertise is in the sphere of legal affairs. If you can find the name of the doctor he was allegedly quoting, then by all means, include it. --Viriditas | Talk 04:06, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Any attempt at a factual statement as to Ms. Schiavo's condition in the introduction should be handled with the utmost care. A graphic description of Ms Schiavo's condition in the introduction is only justifiable if the source is independantly verified. Otherwise, the description may color the reader's emotions, and impact the NPOV of the article. To present both views later in the article to better show the uncertainty of the situation & rhethoric in the media, would be entirely appropriate.--ghost 01:39, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Fair enough, but that doesn't address my point. What is the editorial difference between the neurologist's claim (allowed in the intro), and the parents' lawyer's claim (not allowed in the intro). The neurologist's claim is not verifiable: no-one can know whether another person is experiencing pain. Either both sets of claims should be allowed, or neither. I don't mind which. SlimVirgin 02:15, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)
If no one has an answer to this, I'll be removing the neurologists' claim from the intro, as there seems to have been a decision on this page not to have claims in the introduction. I'll wait another hour or so. SlimVirgin 03:50, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)
Aloha, Slim. I'm don't think removing the neurologist claim is a good idea as it appears to be an authoritative reference, whereas a claim by an attorney about Terri's medical condition is not. Do you know if the Schindler's attorney was quoting a specific medical practitioner? If so, can that person be named? --Viriditas | Talk 04:01, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
M.Schiavo/Felos/Greer have forbidden photographs, videotapes, etc., to prevent Terri's family and friends from documenting what they see, just as they forbade MRI, fMRI, PET scans, etc., which could have proven or disproven their contentions about her PVS state. The reason is obvious. NCdave 04:08, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I would like to understand exactly why such scans (MRI, fMRI, PET) were never done, as I find that quite troubling. --Viriditas | Talk 04:29, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
The simple, factual answer is that they were not done because M.Schiavo/Felos/Greer would not permit them. Their motives are, IMO, pretty obvious, but can only be inferred. This article used to contain a link to a very informative article about that issue, but the M.Schiavo partisans here deleted it for nonconformity with their POV. Here's an excerpt:
Terri's diagnosis was arrived at without the benefit of testing that most neurologists would consider standard for diagnosing PVS. One such test is MRI (Magnetic Resonance Imaging). MRI is widely used today, even for ailments as simple as knee injuries but Terri has never had one. Michael has repeatedly refused to consent to one. The neurologists I have spoken to have reacted with shock upon learning this fact. One such neurologist is Dr. Peter Morin. He is a researcher specializing in degenerative brain diseases, and has both an M.D. and a Ph.D. in biochemistry from Boston University.
In the course of my conversation with Dr. Morin, he made reference to the standard use of MRI and PET (Positron Emission Tomography) scans to diagnose the extent of brain injuries. He seemed to assume that these had been done for Terri. I stopped him and told him that these tests have never been done for her; that Michael had refused them.
There was a moment of dead silence.
"That's criminal," he said, and then asked, in a tone of utter incredulity: "How can he continue as guardian? People are deliberating over this woman's life and death and there's been no MRI or PET?" He drew a reasonable conclusion: "These people [Michael Schiavo, George Felos, and Judge Greer] don't want the information."
Dr. Morin explained that he would feel obligated to obtain the information in these tests before making a diagnosis with life and death consequences. I told him that CT (Computer-Aided Tomography) scans had been done, and were partly the basis for the finding of PVS. The doctor retorted, "Spare no expense, eh?" I asked him to explain the comment; he said that a CT scan is a much less expensive test than an MRI, but "it only gives you a tenth of the information an MRI does." He added, "A CT scan is useful only in pretty severe cases, such as trauma, and also during the few days after an anoxic (lack of oxygen) brain injury. It's useful in an emergency-room setting. But if the question is ischemic injury [brain damage caused by lack of blood/oxygen to part of the brain] you want an MRI and PET. For subsequent evaluation of brain injury, the CT is pretty useless unless there has been a massive stroke."
Other neurologists have concurred with Dr. Morin's opinion. Dr. Thomas Zabiega, who trained at the University of Chicago, said, "Any neurologist who is objective would say 'Yes'" to the question, "Should Terri be given an MRI?"
In Greer's case the motivation might be simple pride. Five years ago he made some rulings about the facts of the case, rulings which subsequent evidence has shown to be incorrect. He won't admit those mistakes, and won't permit tests that would further confirm his error. Or maybe his motives are more sinister. NCdave 04:48, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I'm comforted to know that your "source" for these "informed" remarks is the National Review, which publishes people who call liberalism a "death cult". No bias there! By the way, how many times do you have to scan a liquefied brain before people will be satisfied? Eventually there comes a time to quit abusing a corpse. -Kasreyn
Actually, the primary source is the neurologists, who were quoted by the author (Johansen), whose articles was published in NR and elsewhere. (And reputable neurologists scoff at that absurd Felos propaganda about a "liquified brain.")
Don't forget, under the law, Terri's PVS status had to be certain to a "clear and convincing" standard of proof, or Greer could not order her death. No reasonable person could contend that that standard was met. NCdave 19:19, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Most neurologists who have examined her have agreed that no further tests are necessary. The electrical activity is almost flat. It is believed that at this point her brain is basically spinal fluid. Therefore, further tests would likely do no more than confirm this. See http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7265989/ (Excerpts from diagnoses in Schiavo case). Also see http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7288728/ (Doctors spar over Schiavo's condition). Legally, the record is closed. Medically, giving an MRI would probably be just as useful as taking the pulse of somebody whose body has already started to decay. (My opinion, of course. The articles I have referenced are a little more balanced ...) --Eph, 21:20 UTC, March 28, 2005
Not so, Eph. Michael Schiavo has refused to permit a PET scan, which would actually show where there is activity in her brain.
The statement that "most neurologists who have examined her" agree with Michael Schiavo is deceptive, because, for the most part, he controls which doctors can examine her. But most neurologists who have reviewed her case scoff at the rediculous Felos/Cranford claim that "her brain is essentially spinal fluid" or "her cerebral cortex has been replaced by fluid." That claim is proven false by her responsive behaviors, which is why about four dozen board-certified neurologists say her PVS diagnosis was flawed. NCdave 19:19, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

We're writing an encyclopedia here, not a bible. There's no need to restrict ourselves to absolute irrefutable truth; we must only be forthright about the sources of our statements, and strive for NPOV. --Doradus 18:02, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)
No unverified claims. That claim was verified and authoritatively attributed, and should not be removed. Medical claims by an attorney cannot be verified unless there are names of physicians associated with those claims. --Viriditas | Talk 22:53, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
A neurologist, or any other doctor, may not be able to claim anything with 100% certainity, but they can make authoritative statments of the nature "All medical evidence that I am aware of and all similar cases that I have handled previously indicate X." Because of that background and knowledge their professional opinion should be valued more than that of a layperson. This is why we have hospitals and doctors in the first place. Can doctors make mistakes? Absolutely, but it would be foolish of us to weigh the opinion of a doctor and a lawyer equally. Similarly, it would be foolish to include a legal opinion from a clinician, as they will typically not have the experience or knowledge of case law to make an informed argument. --CVaneg 20:24, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

After studying the case, I agree. --Viriditas | Talk 00:53, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
The doctor who implanted them recommended that they be removed, many years ago, for the sake of her health. It was leaving them in her, contrary to that recommendation, which was "subjecting her" to bad care. -NCdave
If you believe the M.Schiavo/Felos/Greer POV, she is "vegetative" anyhow, and cannot experience pain, so how would removing the electrodes "subject" her to anything? That makes me wonder whether you really do believe them. Of course even M.Schiavo/Felos don't really believe it: if they did, they wouldn't have been ramping up her analgesics to control her pain. They have her on morphine, now.
Most neurologists say that it is very, very wrong to comdemn her based on a PVS diagnosis decided without any kind of functional test like fMRI or PET scan. Dr. Peter Morin, M.D., Ph.D. (biochemistry), when told that Terri has had neither MRI nor PET scan, replied, "That's criminal! How can he continue as guardian? People are deliberating over this woman's life and death and there's been no MRI or PET?" [1]
Besides which, she could have a PET scan, even without removing the electrodes. NCdave 03:20, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
And yet, I've seen the CAT films (on TV somewhere?) and I'm stickin' with "The CAT scan is decisive". Better than 90% of this woman's brain simply does not exist any more. --Baylink 19:14, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Are you a radiologist or a neurologist, Baylink? NCdave 22:59, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Are you, NCdave? You seem to frequently advance that a CT scan isn't enough (if this is true, than the entire field of CT scans is outdated since it's never enough), she needs an MRI or PET scan. What are your qualifications for this conclusion? Professor Ninja 00:09, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)
Dr. Thomas Boyle's award-winning CodeBlueBlog medical weblog site has a lot of information on this issue, here: http://codeblueblog.blogs.com/codeblueblog/2005/03/csi_medblogs_co.html.
Dr. Boyle is a radiologist who as has interpreted over 10,000 brain CT scans. NCdave 23:42, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
hm, yet another reference to someone who never examined Terri. Oh, and I like one of his conclusions: "So Terri WAS HIT ON THE HEAD OR DROPPED ON HER HEAD DURING LATER FEBRUARY OR EARLY MARCH WHILE IN THAT HOSPITAL." Well, I can see why you like the site. a fellow conspiracy theorist. It reads like the enquirer magazine "New Astounding Evidence: Terri was hit on head" And every doctor since then has been too stupid to notice or in on the coverup apparently. and later he says: "YOU SHOULD NOT HAVE PULLED THAT TUBE. YOU ARE CULPABLE. I'M AFRAID IT'S MURDER." ookkkayyy... Later on, he rants about Democrats wanting Terri dead, and rags on the ACLU. riighht. Later he asks the probing question: "Does Clinton have cancer...or AIDS?" and later pondering Ted Kennedy "It is particularly galling that the gin soaked Senator, who cowardly swam away from a dying young woman..." Hm, do I sense a particular bias? I think I got crap on my shoes. FuelWagon 03:21, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Oh, pleeeease. You think it rude to mention Mary Jo Kopechne, but if it were Tom DeLay who left her to drown my guess is that you'd never stop talking about her.
But if you are so sure that Dr. Boyle is full of it, pray tell what is your explanation for the shunt shown in Terri's famous CT slice, and the sudden appearance of hydrocephalus in her 3/30/90 CT scan, after a normal CT scan on 2/27/90? Or maybe you'd like to try for Dr. Boyle's $100,000 prize? (Or maybe you're not an M.D.?) NCdave 05:40, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Here's a sample of what Thomas Boyle, M.D., says about Terri's famous (and carefully selected) CT scan slice:
I have seen several neurologists -- in the printed media and on television -- put up a Representative CT of the brain of a normal 25 year old female and contrast this with Terri Schiavo's CT. This is a totally spurious comparison. No one is disputing that Terri Schiavo does not have the CT of a 25 year old female.
What I'm saying is that Terri Schiavo's CT could be the brain of an eighty or ninety year old person who is not in a vegetative state. THOSE are the CT scans we should be showing next to Schiavo's, because in THAT case you would see similar atrophy and a brain much closer to Schiavo's.
My points are....
1) It is NOT as bad as the [Felos-supporting] neurologists and bioethicists play it up to be; and,
2) There are many elderly patients with various levels of mental functioning who have severe atrophy that is difficult to distinguish from Terri Schiavo's atrophy
NCdave 05:40, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Any NPOV issues?

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

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

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

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


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

Now, I am not a lawyer or doctor, but it seems to me that whether or not she can be fed in another manner is irrelevant. The determination of the courts (however unfair it may seem) was that Ms. Schiavo would not want to live in her current state. Currently the accepted practice in undisputed cases of PVS, seems to be the removal of life support, which in this case is considered to be the feeding tube. Valid arguments against this would be that Schaivo is not in a PVS, or that dehydration is a painful way to die (I believe both of these points are covered in the article). Whether or not she can be fed otherwise, though, is not terribly relevant. Also, just as my personal opinion I think that choking could potentially be worse than dehydrating, since you could conceivably be fully aware and struggling in fear when choking, which does not sound fun at all.--CVaneg 00:42, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
It might be irrelevant to the decision to kill Terri. However, it is not irrelevant to the fact the lack of a feeding tube is not what killed Terri. Lack of food and water through any means by court order [2] killed Terri. Saying that Terri died because a tube was removed gives the uninformed reader the false impression that this was just another case of passive euthanasia - and what's the big deal with pulling the plug anyway? Terri's death was active euthanasia, in a state that does not allow active euthanasia, on a patient that doesn't even meet the requirements (terminal illness) of the only state (Oregon) that does provide for active euthanasia. StuartGathman 17:36, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

I've noticed that most newspaper articles are calling the people protesting outside the hospice to reinsert Terri's feeding tube as "Terri's supporters". But if the court ruled that Terri did not want to be kept alive under these conditions, are these people Terri's supporters or are they enforcing their beliefs on her. A quick search of the article didn't reveal any misuse of the word "supporter" for these protestors, but I haven't read it top to bottom to see if they're being portrayed in a manner that doesn't match the court ruling. Something that someone should check for at some point [[User::anon|anon]]

The pieces that say "Person claims X. X has been disputed." need to say WHO disputes X. One can assume that both sides have vested interests in their positions, so when one side claims something that supports their position, it seems insufficient to add "this has been disputed". The reader has no idea if it has been disputed by the other party or someone in a more neutral position, by one person involved in the situation, or many. If you can't put some qualification as to who is the source of the dispute (parents, husband, doctors, lawyers, witnesses), then the statement is useless except to discredit the original claim. Perhaps the truth of the matter is that the person editing the article is the one disputing the claim, and rather than say "I dispute that claim", they put "the claim is disputed." Either way, without any context as to who is behind the dispute of the claim, the point that the claim is disputed is worthless. [[User::anon|anon]]


What I am noticing is that most changes to the article that folks claim are fixing an article that does not have a NPOV--these changes are by-and-large ADDING a POV to the piece, while claiming to remove the POV. As an example, I point to a sentence added, then deleted today that spoke of some folks' opinion that Michael Schiavo's relationship with another woman should have been enough to prompt the courts to transfer her care to her parents. That is CLEARLY a POV statement and is not integral to the article. The sentence was added to a paragraph discussing the fact that Michael Schiavo has a girlfriend and two children. The facts are the facts and they should be the focus of the piece, not random people's opinion that her parents should have received custody of her. My point is that we should let the facts present themselves and let the reader make the judgement call. Perhaps the reader thinks that the Schindlers should have custody of their daughter because her husband is an adulterous creep--so be it. I'm not even saying that thew sentence added was horribly POV at all--what I'm saying is that adding a slanted sentence and at the same time claiming you are removing POV in the article is disingenuous.--Minaflorida 21:03, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Feeling pain? (Opening section)

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

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

  • I appreciate the help here, though I don't think the compromise sentence really makes sense...:-( I would propose something like this: The removal of the feeding tube will result in death by dehydration; given the dispute over her current condition, it is unclear whether Schiavo has experienced or will experience pain during this process. Neutrality? BoomHitch 05:04, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)
    • The external link should IMO be inserted in the sentence (->Effect of removing feeding tube)"Most neurologists believe that Schiavo did not experience pain, hunger or thirst due to the removal of the feeding tube." BoomHitch 05:10, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)
      • Do you have a citation or quote that would support the "unclear" position? It would make that case stronger, but for now the USA Today article quotes experts, and later in this page, the talk about morphine might not be consistent with the proposed statement. Fuzheado | Talk 05:12, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
        • Just be sure to note that she is on morphine... which renders the discussion about feeling pain rather moot, because morphine takes away aaaaaall the pain. -- 8^D BD2412gab 05:16, 2005 Mar 29 (UTC)
          • According to Michael's lawyer, she's not on morphine [3]. He said hospice records show that Schiavo has been given morphine only twice since she was taken off her feeding tube: one five-milligram dose on March 19 and another dose of the same strength on March 26.... Cancer patients and other people who are in extreme pain are often given doses of between 50 mg and 200 mg, he added to provide context. --Azkar 05:32, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • I'm not sure how the proposed statement would be inconsistent with the talk about morphine. As I pointed out, a similar statement to the one in the opening section is made at the head of the section entitled "Effect of removing feeding tube". The first (and only) mention of morphine comes later in that same section. BoomHitch 05:58, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)
  • Personally, I feel that this article should be about facts and medicine, and the various claims that non-medical professionals have made. I also believe that we should not raise the latter up to the level of the former. Neutralitytalk 05:16, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)
    • I understand your concern. However, the basis for the neurologists' opinions in the article cited is the court's ruling on Schiavo's condition, namely PVS. It does not seem fair to cite their conclusions without referencing the basis for their conclusion. However, placing such a reference in the opening paragraph is out of place since it is a matter of dispute. Her current condition and the dispute over it is discussed in its own section. The opening paragraph should make general statements about which all can agree (as much as that is possible). The article cited itself notes the dispute over whether she will experience pain (i.e., that there is disagreement) and btw does not say most neurologists--Fuzheado was more correct. Look, I said in my comment on the change that the sentence should probably just be removed, and I am just as favor of that as rewording it. BoomHitch 05:28, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)

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

Wow, welcome to Fantasy Island with your host, NCdave. Hospitals, hospices, palliative care units, nurses, doctors, physicians, gynecologists, ENT specialists, whatever, they all routinely take pain alleviating and comfort measures regardless of whether or not the person can feel it. The only time medical personnel take absolutely no precautionary measures whatsoever is if a person is already dead, or if they would have an adverse reaction to whatever measure is being taken. This is done as a matter of ethics and practice, much the same way a person should signal at an intersection even if there's no car around, as you don't want to accidentally slip up the procedure when it seriously matters. And no, morphine isn't the ultra-potent discomfort panacea you're making it out to be. Morphine is regularly given out for bed sores, for example. It's regularly given out for even moderate pains, so one doesn't need "agonized screams" to get it. Professor Ninja 07:02, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)
Let me get this straight. M.Schiavo/Felos/Greer claimed to be certain that Terri was vegetative. That means that they were certain that she could feel no pain, to a "clear and convincing" standard of proof. Truly PVS patients feel no pain. Not moderate pain, not severe pain, none. But now they are giving Terri morphine and other analgesics (and probably sedatives) -- and you think it is just so they won't forget to do so for the next patient? Uh, yeah, sure they are. Is anybody else here buying that theory? NCdave 09:12, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
It's medical procedure, NCdave. When my uncle died of cancer last year, up until the moment he took his last breath, they continued to wet his lips with a cloth, and make sure he was covered properly with a blanket. He couldn't feel anything, he had been in a non-responsive coma since the early morning, his liver was pumping so many enzymes into his body that he was essentially self-medicated beyond what even morphine could offer. Why did they wet his lips, NCdave? Why did they bundle him in a blanket? Because it's proper procedure, that's why. Professor Ninja 09:19, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)
So you think they gave her morphine on two particular occasions because it was a "proper procedure?" You think that she showed no indication of being in discomfort, but they just decided it would be "proper procedure" to give her a shot of morphine sulphate. Uh huh. NCdave 15:57, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Yes. That is actually exactly why they did it, NCdave. She is in the process of dying, and procedure is to give her morphine. Regardless of how aware she is. Professor Ninja 17:37, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)
So you think administering morphine is some sort of ritual, then, not done as treatment for pain, but as a kind of annointing for the dying? I guess that would explain why they only gave her morphine on Saturdays (March 19 and March 26) -- some sort of Sabbath thing, I suppose. <rolling eyes> NCdave 18:57, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
If we're to accept your premises and conclusion that you draw below as true, then you're making an inconsistent argument in saying that it's "only a Sabbath thing". Professor Ninja 22:53, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)
Sigh. Let's try again. I find it hard to believe that you think that Morphine given sporadically was not given for symptomoms of discomfort. But if you really do believe that, then what do you think about Terri's "Exit Protocol," prepared by the Hospice for their 1991 attempt to dehydrate her to death? It calls for the nurses to, "Monitor symptoms of pain/discomfort. If noted, medicate with Naproxen rectal suppository 375 mg. Q8 prn"
Now, if they've instructed the nurses to monitor Terri for "symptoms of pain/discomfort," and treat with an analgesic, don't you agree that means they believe she can experience pain and discomfort? (Which, of course, means that she can't possibly be in a PVS.) NCdave 07:09, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Irrelevant. Speculation like this is less than useless for our purposes.
Fox1 09:49, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
It is additional definitive proof that she was not in a PVS.
It means that causing her death was illegal. It means that M.Schiavo/Felos/Cranford are liars, and Greer is wrong. It means that they are knowingly killing a conscious person. It means that The Hospice of the Florida Suncoast is run by ghouls. It means that this article is wrong. That is relevant. NCdave 15:57, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
No Dave, giving somebody morphine doesn't mean their death was illegal. To draw that conclusion only means you're woefully ignorant of palliative procedures in hospitals and hospices. Professor Ninja 17:49, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)
Sigh. Let me try to explain it to you.
Palliation is to control the pain or other unpleasant symptoms of dying patients who are experiencing pain.
If the conclusion of a logical implication is falsified, that means that the premise must also be false. (If that makes no sense, see [4].)
We know that if a person is in a PVS then by definition she cannot experience pain. (The premise = "she's in a PVS," the conclusion is "she cannot experience pain.")
So, logically, if she experiences pain (falsification of the conclusion) then she is not in a PVS (falsification of the premise).
The fact that she got analgesics (even morphine) means that must have been in apparent pain, which means that she was not in PVS, which means that ordering her death was illegal.
M.Schiavo/Felos/Crandall/Greer claimed that Terri was in a PVS, which, if it had been true, would have meant that she could not experience pain, and thus that palliation of that pain would be unnecessary. That claim was legally necessary to justify killing her. But the fact that they have to control her pain with analgesics means that she was not in a PVS, which means that the legal justification for killing her was a lie, which means that Judges Greer's order that she be killed was illegal, which means that her death is murder. NCdave 18:57, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
And yet another logical fallacy, the slippery slope! Professor Ninja 22:53, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)
Huh? Did you understand any of that, "Professor?" NCdave 09:00, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
"It is additional definitive proof that she was not in a PVS. It means that causing her death was illegal. It means that M.Schiavo/Felos/Cranford are liars, and Greer is wrong. It means that they are knowingly killing a conscious person. It means that The Hospice of the Florida Suncoast is run by ghouls. It means that this article is wrong. That is relevant."
Even if everything you say is 100% true, you're not citing sources and editting based on them, you're basically doing speculative original research here on the talk page. That is irrelevant, and inappropriate.
Fox1 06:35, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
What are you talking about? There's nothing original here. My name is Dave, not George Boole. NCdave 09:00, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)


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

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

Let us begin with some medical facts. On February 25, 1990, Terri Schiavo had a cardiac arrest, triggered by extreme hypokalemia brought on by an eating disorder. As a result, severe hypoxic–ischemic encephalopathy developed, and during the subsequent months, she exhibited no evidence of higher cortical function. Computed tomographic scans of her brain eventually showed severe atrophy of her cerebral hemispheres, and her electroencephalograms have been flat, indicating no functional activity of the cerebral cortex. Her neurologic examinations have been indicative of a persistent vegetative state, which includes periods of wakefulness alternating with sleep, some reflexive responses to light and noise, and some basic gag and swallowing responses, but no signs of emotion, willful activity, or cognition.[1] There is no evidence that Ms. Schiavo is suffering, since the usual definition of this term requires conscious awareness that is impossible in the absence of cortical activity. There have been only a few reported cases in which minimal cognitive and motor functions were restored three months or more after the diagnosis of a persistent vegetative state due to hypoxic–ischemic encephalopathy; in none of these cases was there the sort of objective evidence of severe cortical damage that is present in this case, nor was the period of disability so long.[2]
  1. Jennett B. The vegetative state: medical facts, ethical and legal dilemmas. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2002.
  2. The Multi-Society Task Force on PVS. Medical aspects of the persistent vegetative state. N Engl J Med 1994;330:1499-508, 1572-9. [Erratum, N Engl J Med 1995;333:130.]
--Viriditas | Talk 22:10, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Viriditas, do you know who Timmothy Quill is? Like Felos and Cranford, he is a very vocal "out there" advocate leading the push for physician-assisted suicide and euthanasia. He is the author of articles like, for example, "Physician-Assisted Suicide Is Consistent with Medical Ethics," by Timothy E. Quill. He is certainly not an impartial observer. If you are going to include that kind of advocacy in the article, then why is there nothing from the other side, for example, Rita Marker, for balance? NCdave 06:58, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
According to the article: "Dr. Quill is a professor of medicine, psychiatry, and medical humanities and the director of the Center for Palliative Care and Clinical Ethics at the University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, N.Y." His statements about Terri's cognitive state are sourced and shared by the medical community. Further research reveals that Quill is a former medical director of a hospice, and the author of the 1993 book, Death and Dignity: Making Choices and Taking Charge, where he speaks in favor of legalizing physician-assisted suicide, which he equates with the already legal right of refusing life-sustaining treatment. He does not support voluntary active euthanasia. His position on the matter is considered conservative and pragmatic, far from the "out there" advocate you claim. Instead of attacking the man, you might try attacking his claims. Then when you are finished with your ad hominems you can go to work on Michael De Georgia, MD, head of the neurology-neurosurgery intensive care unit at the Cleveland Clinic Foundation. In the interests of fairness, I have removed Quill as the primary source, however I am currently reviewing primary sources for a replacement. --Viriditas | Talk 12:38, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Ok, as I originally suspected (now confirmed), Quill's source was from the section, "Pain and Suffering", in the article, The Multi-Society Task Force on PVS (1994). "Medical Aspects of the Persistent Vegetative State-Second of Two Parts". New England Journal of Medicine 330: 1572-1579. I am replacing the link to Quill with this primary source document. --Viriditas | Talk 02:32, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • First, the discussion here is not about the factual nature of the claim that she is not experiencing pain. Second, the statement has not been removed, and I have not advocated its removal. If you had read the entire discussion above, you would see that it has been only essentially moved out of the opening section to "Schiavo's condition: Effect of removing feeding tube", an obviously fitting place--please go read that section. If you would like it to be stated twice, first in the opening section and then again there, please state your reasoning. It is unclear to me how it adds anything to the opening. BoomHitch 22:22, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)
It is of special interest in this case as to whether the removal of life support will cause Schiavo any pain. A statement of medical fact in the introduction addresses these concerns, and dispels a great deal of misinformation that the media is propagating. For example, the Atlanta Journal-Constitution ran an article on March 27, entitled, "Experts disagree on Schiavo's suffering". In point of fact, experts do not disagree, and the "experts" in this case are a small group of people who "combine medicine and Christian missionary work". That article is full of so many errors, it is hardly worth commenting on in the first place. --Viriditas | Talk 22:51, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
If she is not experiencing pain then it is because of the analgesics and/or sedatives that she is receiving. The fact that she can experience pain is proven by the fact that the hospice has her on analgesics. Consequently, the fact that she is can experience pain is proof that she is not in a PVS. There is no longer any legitimate debate about the fact that she is not in a PVS. NCdave 22:54, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Wrong on both counts. These outlandish claims of yours have been refuted already, so there is no reason for me to address them. --Viriditas | Talk 04:07, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I can't figure out how you could say that, Dave. A quick perusal of todays news certainly doesn't indicate that there is "no legitimate debate" over the PVS diagnosis. You can believe one side or the other, you can have as much faith in your evidence as you like, but debate doesn't end until... well, there's no more debate.
Fox1 06:35, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
If she can experience pain, then she can't be in a PVS. She is being treated for pain, with various analgesics including morphine. That's because she can experience pain. Ergo she is not in a PVS. That is not opinion or POV, that is simple fact.
Here's a quote from her 1991 www.infowarscom/articles/life/schiavo_terris_exit_protocol.htm [unreliable fringe source?] Exit Protocol] (instructions for the hospice nurses to follow during her dehydration death):
Monitor symptoms of pain/discomfort. If noted, medicate with Naproxen rectal suppository 375 mg. Q8 prn [“Q8 prn” means eight times/day as needed]
Read that twice. Then tell me that you believe the people who created it are sure that Terri cannot experience pain. NCdave 07:09, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Okay, so monitor for symptoms of pain, and medicate. How does that indicate their are symptoms of pain, NCdave? That doesn't make any sense. One doesn't lead to the other. 1) Monitor for symptoms of pain doesn't mean symptoms of pain are present, 2) hospice staff didn't decide her fate, therefore they are directed by a seperate protocol. The idea that hospice staff monitoring for pain -> hospice staff supercede neurologists -> michael schiavo knows she's in raw agony is nuts. Try again. Professor Ninja 10:35, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)
Regardless of whether she was in raw agony or mild discomfort, the fact is that by proving (from her reactions to it) that she experienced pain, she also proved beyond legitimate debate that she was not in a PVS. Remember: while in the hospice and the nursing homes, she regularly got analgesics to relieve menstrual pain. NCdave 09:00, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
That... that has nothing to do with anything! There's still debate, that's all I said! It's incorrect to say that there is no debate when people are still debating, I'm not trying to argue the facts of the case with you, understand that I have no opinion on whether Terri Schiavo is in PVS, stop doing this!
Fox1 07:06, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I didn't say there was no debate. I said there was no legitimate debate. The fact is that she was not in a PVS. Felos/Cranford were simply lying when they claimed otherwise. It could not have been an honest error on their part, because they knew that she was capable of experiencing pain. It was just a lie. They knew perfectly well that she was not in a PVS, but they swore the opposite in court. NCdave 09:00, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Viriditas--Thank you for discussing this. Simply put, it is disputed. The family asserts, as the article notes, that she is not in a PVS; this bears directly on her painlessness because the doctors that have asserted her painlessness have done so on the basis of the court's finding-->that she in a PVS. Okay, fine, it is disputed-so what? Well, the problem is that it conflicts with the attempt to make the "Issues of dispute" section NPOV. We assert in the introduction that she is painless; this follows directly from the PVS assertion/other medical analysis. Then we go on to present two different sides of her diagnosis as if either could be correct, though we all have our own opinions. That's just bad writing; it doesn't make sense. Sure, maybe her parents are crazy in their assertions, but you can't present their arguments in a balanced way when you've already said they're wrong.
The other way to handle this is to discuss its disputed status in the intro. If this can be done, fine. But IMO the intro is not a place to start mentioning/discussing disputes. Set up the issues and then discuss the disputes. BoomHitch 23:03, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)
The family can dispute whatever they like. They aren't doctors so they have no bearing on the medical evidence at hand. --Viriditas | Talk 04:07, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Dozens of doctors are known to agree with the family. Most of the medical professionals who reviewed the case agreed that her PVS diagnosis was flawed. It was the lawyers (like Judge Greer), not most of the doctors, who said Terri was in a PVS. For example, in his Sept. 17, 2003 ruling which overruled the GAL's recommendation and denied Terri swallowing tests and therapy, Greer dismissed the affidavits of several medical professionals with these words: "...It is clear therefrom that they do not believe that Terri is in a persistent vegetative state. Therefore, any conclusion that they have reached would be fatally flawed."(page 5)
Translated, Judge Greer's words mean, "these medical professionals disagree with MY diagnosis of the patient's condition, therefore they are wrong." NCdave 09:00, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Viriditas--also, in the future, I would appreciate it if you would not make one post to a discussion and assume that the discussion is then over, immediately reverting or changing the article on the basis of your statement. We were discussing this yesterday; you have only just now decided to take part on this issue. BoomHitch 23:14, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)
That's an error on your part. I was involved in this discussion in the section entitled, "Her current condition". --Viriditas | Talk 04:07, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Thank you for pointing that out. My mistake. BoomHitch 04:12, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

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

You aren't missing anything. --Viriditas | Talk 04:07, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Actually, Terri has not been treated by any doctors for anything at all in many years. But if she had been actually treated by doctors, then it would have been only by doctors who were chosen by Michael Schiavo, since he won't permit doctors chosen by her parents to even examine her. He's been seeking to cause her death by various means for over a decade. So entrusting her diagnosis to doctors that he chooses (like Cranford) is obviously rediculous.
I think you might have meant "examined" instead of "treated." However, even though M.Schiavo/Felos/Greer won't permit other doctors to examine her, many other doctors have reviewed her case, and most of the doctors who have reviewed Terri's case agree that the PVS diagnosis was flawed. NCdave 01:00, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Wrong. --Viriditas | Talk 04:07, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Alrighty, let's vote.

Should this be listed in the Roman Catholics category?

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

As I touched on above, this seems very, very sketchy. If it was listed as a topic of interest for RCatholics, maybe, but placing Terri Schiavo herself in a list of Catholics seems like a very sneaky injection of POV. If that seems paranoid, so be it, but in the past this page has seen some very subtle and creative attempts to shift the tone of the article.
Fox1 09:47, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I don't know how well she is or is not known for being Roman Catholic, but there is no doubt that she is Roman Catholic, like her parents. That is relevant because euthanasia, assisted suicide, and (specifically) the withholding or withdrawing of nutrition and hydration are all contrary to official RC teaching.
We know that she insisted upon being married in the RC church, that they got special dispensation to do so (despite Michael not being RC) after taking a marriage preparation class, and there is testimony that during their marriage Michael often disparaged her RC faith.
The POV bias is that the third paragraph of the article pointedly and prominantly says that her parents are RC, in a sentence that makes no mention of the fact that she is RC. That is obviously a hint that their wishes are not hers, that their efforts to prevent her murder were motivated by their faith rather than a knowledge of her faith. NCdave 16:09, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Hmm, it seems like a reach to me. Alot of people were baptised, christened, confirmed, confessed, and uh... man, I gotta go back to Sunday school, are there any other sacraments to the church? Anyway, it doesn't make them Catholic by any means. Most people understand Catholic (or Muslim, Christian, whatever) to be observant or practicing (Jews seem exempt from this as they're considered a nation as well as a religion, but that's a total digression). If Terri practiced her religion, then it's relevant, if not, than not really. I'd hate to have to go through all the articles on wikipedia and add in every person that received some sacrament from the Roman Catholic church at some point in their life. Professor Ninja 22:58, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)
You complain about bias and in the same breath say "their efforts to prevent her murder"? the least you could do is pay a scint of respect to reporting and say "alleged murder". anon
They view it as murder, and that's what they tried to prevent -- which is what I said. NCdave 18:41, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I don't really care for that reasoning, Dave. I don't want to go into personal, anecdotal details, but let me say that there are plenty of people whose parents, friends and others may think are catholic (or any religion) despite the fact that they no longer identify with the religion except for the sake of appearance, convenience, and avoiding conflict. Without a clear, uncontested statement from the individual dealing with the topic at hand (get that, get it notarized, and we wouldn't even have to be here!), it's irresponsible to infer someones deeply personal feelings on a topic from a claimed association with a group. Is it a bit of a stretch to claim that calling her a catholic materially affects the POV of the article? Maybe, but it's insinuates far more than the use of the term "hospitalized" that you object to above.
Fox1 06:26, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
No, being Roman Catholic is not just "a claimed association with a group." You can join the Rotary Club, and still believe just about anything you wish. But to be Roman Catholic (or any variety of Christian) means that you believe certain things. In fact, to become Roman Catholic, you must attest to your belief. So, even though being a Rotarian says very little about your "deeply personal feelings," being a Roman Catholic Christian says a great deal about your deeply personal feelings, especially your feelings about things that the Church has official teachings about. Aomeone who shares your religious Faith is far better qualified to grok your beliefs about other things than is someone who does not, too. NCdave 18:41, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I became a Roman Catholic by being baptised as an infant. I don't remember those days, but I highly doubt I attested to anything at the time. That said, I'm not a practicing Roman Catholic. That says more about my deeply held beliefs, than the fact that I have a baptismal record somewhere stuffed in a drawer. --Azkar 19:47, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
The "attesting" for a Roman Catholic comes with the sacrament of Confirmation, after taking classes about the catachism (typically as a teen). NCdave 09:16, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
That's absurd. I know literally dozens of non-practicising and casual-practicising Roman Catholics. I know confirmed and practicising RCs who are pro-choice, I know confirmed and practising RCs who use and believe in the use of birth control. I'm breaking my 'no anecdotes' rule, but the reason I disagree with your most recent point is that I was a confirmed and, publicly, practicising catholic for many years after I ceased to believe in 90% of church doctrine, and had effectively become agnostic. Why? Well, there's some pressure on that score, being part of an Irish catholic family. Am I saying this was the case with Terri Schiavo? No, but we don't know, and it's certainly not out of the scope of possiblity.
Fox1 06:32, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Indeed it is absurb. I had first communion and confirmation in the Roman Catholic church, though I profess a Deist belief system (I don't reject the RC doctrine out of hand, it may very well be right). To say that that makes me a Catholic is beyond ridiculous. It may very well have shaped my morality growing up in a French/Irish Catholic family, and attending services, but it does not necessarily support my religion. I agree that the Schindlers and their Roman Catholicism is relevant, but only pertinent to their section. Roman Catholicism should only be mentioned in the debates/controversy area, and it should be mentioned with a fairness to the broad spectrum of Catholicism (including the Jesuit bioethicist Preisler cited). Professor Ninja 17:17, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)
Terri's family knows. Terri and her family were very close, and they shared her Faith. Terri was most certainly not an agnostic or Deist or Scientologist or any other -ist. I certainly (and sadly) acknowledge that you three gentlemen are not Christians. But Terri was a sincere Roman Catholic Christian. To understand her beliefs, ask someone who shared them -- like her parents. NCdave 09:16, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
You're just going to keep moving the bar, aren't you? You make a ludicrous claim that one can't be a confirmed catholic without becoming some kind of automaton to church doctrine (as if there's no dissent among clergy, let alone lay people), and when that's pointed out, you try to make some kind of bigoted assumption about my ability to understand the subject because I'm "not a christian?" Did I ever even say that? I made one remark about agnosticism in my late teens (I knew I shouldn't haven't referenced anything personal, you're too quick to jump on a juicy bit of potential propaganda like that), and that was all. You can continue making every editor who disagrees with you your bitter enemy with your failed crusade on this article, I'm done with any attempt to be moderate with you, in fact, I'm done responding to you. I guess it's time for me to become just another editor who ignores your Talk: tantrums and reverts your ridiculous edits. Let me ask you, when was the last time one of your edits made it past concensus? Yeah, that's what I thought, but I'm sure it's just because there's a massive conspiracy against you, not because you have no integrity, no tact and no concept of what Wikipedia is about.
Fox1 10:57, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)


Yes, There is a clear point on the issue. Being a Roman Catholic is as much about hertage as it is about the faith itself. As someone who came from a Catholic family I can tell you that half the family call them selves Catholic even thought they don't go to chuch. Also it is clear that when she was married she was a Roman Catholic as she required her husband to get married in a Roman Catholic Church. It is clear that at least at the time of her marrage she had at least had a view that she was a Catholic even if it is like many Jew's don't follow the faith. Please don't get me wrong I don't know if she had faith or not just saing that she as of her marriage at least called herself a Roman Catholic.

Robert

May I add that Category:Roman Catholics is absurdly small. I would suggest that, at present, it is so small compared to the number of articles we have about people who were Catholic as to make just about anybody's inclusion, unless they were noted as being particularly involved with the church, which Mrs. Schiavo was not, POV. As a completely random example, Emperor Franz Joseph I of Austria, who was not only devoutly Catholic, but actually had the power to veto the election of a pope until 1903 (when he actually did so!), is not in Category:Roman Catholics or any of its subcategories. Were this category to become large enough to be able to include Mrs. Schiavo, I would imagine it would have to include thousands of articles. john k 22:40, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Additionally, Heinrich Brüning, the leader of a Catholic political party, is also not in any kind of category for Roman Catholics. It strikes me that if this category were actually implemented, as opposed to being restricted to Americans, it would be so absurdly large as to be utterly worthless. john k 22:42, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Edit War

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

I protected the page and invite all participants to come settle their differences on the talk page, not on the article space. I also invite people not to work around the rules. Thanks. David.Monniaux 08:21, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
The edits I made which TheCustomOfLife and Viriditas reverted without comment had already been discusssed at length in advance on the Talk page here, discussions that neither TheCustomOfLife nor Viriditas bothered to participate in. NCdave 16:36, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
NCdave, just about everyone else disagreed with your insistence on spatchcocking the Schindler/Randall Terry POV into what is supposed to be a neutral encyclopedia article. That is why your edits were reverted. Yes, they were discussed on the Talk page - and overwhelmingly rejected. NCdave, you seem to do nothing other than focus on this particular page. 38 of your last 50 edits were to the Terri Schiavo pages. And most of the other 12 were either complaining about other people reverting your POV edits, or trying to change Wikiquette to justify them. NCdave, get a life. There are other people in the world besides Terri Schiavo. Firebug 17:06, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Please cease your false accusations. That accusation that I changed Wikiquette for anything other than clarifying the already-intended meaning is an absolute falsehood. Anyone can see that.
As for the Terri_Schiavo article, I have been trying to make this thing NPOV, and truthful. I am outnumbered here by Partisans for Michael Schiavo's POV, who insist on making the article a blatant propaganda piece, which is why they revert my NPOV edits (not to mention harrassing me by email and phone). NCdave 17:16, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Dave, that's it. You're now officially an evil, lying troll. A clever (don't get excited, it's relative) one, that hasn't devolved to outright hyperactive vandalism, but one nonetheless. Anybody who claims that they edit wikiquette shortly (what, a month?) after registering so you can "win" an argument of fact vs. fantasy (I'll let you surmise what group you fall into.) I mean, somebody who's here like a month notices a glaring hole in wikiquette that nobody in years has seen, and just happens to fix it right after he gets told? Right. Professor Ninja 18:30, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)

Irismeister

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

Are you nuts ?

How do you detect "French IP numbers"? Please cite IP blocks. David.Monniaux 17:54, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
the above comment ("Are you nuts ?") was set by 82.124.54.4 [5], which seems indeed to be a French addresse, if that can help... Rama 18:25, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Ok. Wanadoo ADSL Puteaux. That doesn't help much, they have dynamic IPs. David.Monniaux 19:42, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Yeah that's correct. Tony, your allegations are interesting but what evidence do you have? Other then the fact that he's using a French ISP that is...


203.213.77.138

I am growing increasingly frustrated with 203.213.77.138. This user has performed 19 edits on this article today, all of which have been removed by various editors (myself included) due to blatant POV violations. This user's edit comments show no willingness to cooperate; indeed, he/she brands those opposed to his/her biased edits as a "culture of death" and "supporters of dehydration". Reasonable Wikipedians can disagree about which comments constitute POV, but a comment comparing the Schiavo situation to Auchwitz clearly crosses the line, and 203.213.77.138 has made such comments at least four times, and other equally offensive and unencyclopedic statements even more often. And he/she shows no sign of slowing down. Can we get a general group consensus that this user's behavior is unacceptable? I'm considering a vandalism complaint or a request for arbitration. Firebug 06:44, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The IP has been reported on 3RR violation. Arbitration is clearly too early. Mike H 06:41, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)
OK. I am willing to wait for results on the 3RR complaint before proceeding. The main reason I posted this is that I'd like to establish a group consensus that these edits are inappropriate. Firebug 06:44, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
He/she has been blocked for 24 hours for repeated edit warring, refusing to compromise, and making personal attacks. RickK 06:50, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)
Thank you. Firebug 06:53, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Article cited in Reuters (major wire service)!

This article has been cited/linked to in a Reuters article, which will be syndicated on the English-speaking media around the world:

The online community had followed the case closely, and Thursday responded swiftly with sites devoted to the legal battle posting updates from the family. The online encyclopedia Wikipedia, which allows any reader to create and amend entries, also immediately noted her death in its lengthy account of Schiavo's life and last days. ("Web pays respects to Terri Schiavo": [6])

--Neutralitytalk 02:16, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)

Drawing attention to a high traffic, contentious article on April Fool's Day, what could possibly go wrong? --CVaneg 03:00, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Scans of brains

Could it be possible (one can always dream...) to also see the scan of an injured, yet living patient ? As it is, the comparison is certainly interesting, but incomplete. Rama 00:22, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

That would be ... odd, I think. The image of a healthy scan is pretty much agreed upon by everyone and is neutral. "Yes, that is a healthy brain". The image of Terri's scan is also undisputed "Yes that is Terri's scan". Once you bring in a scan somewhere in between, then it becomes a question of whether or not one side will dispute it or its relevance. And once you do that, you need to either keep the middle-damaged scan and put in a paragraph explaining both sides point of view, or you punt it. Given the ever bloating size of this article, I'd say that isn't something that would add much to the article, but would add a lot of space. My opinion anyway. FuelWagon 05:34, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I disagree that adding another scan would add nothing to the article; but after reading your comment, given the battlefield tha this article has been, I agree that the signal/noise ration would be catastrophic :p Good point ! Rama 08:16, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

material deleted by Tony Sidaway and FuelWagon

The final comment of this section was deleted by Tony and FuelWagon. Not archived, just deleted. I've restored it. NCdave 03:25, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You are right, Rama. That so-called "neutral" scan is apparently of a healthy 25 year old. Terri was 41 when they killed her, and I think about 38 (not 25) when the CT scan was done from which Felos & Co. selected that slice. Nobody disputes that Terri's brain did not resemble that of a healthy 25 year old. Proving that proved nothing at all of interest. That comparison was just a Felos propaganda stunt.
Radiologist Thomas Boyle, M.D., who has interpreted over 10,000 brain CT scans, says that Terri's CT scan should, instead, have been compared to an elderly person who has similar atrophy, to get an indication of what Terri's level of brain atrophy actually means in terms of cognitive impairment. He goes on to state that:
"I have seen many walking, talking, fairly coherent people with worse cerebral/cortical atrophy. Therefore, this is in no way prima facie evidence that Terri Schiavo's mental abilities or/or capabilities are completely eradicated. I cannot believe such testimony has been given on the basis of this scan." -Thomas Boyle, M.D.
In other words, Felos/Cranford, et al lied.
NCdave 06:26, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Iyers Affadavit

Because it keeps coming up, I'd like to get Iyer's affadavit straight[[7]] (parentheticals are my comments describing implications of Iyers claim):

1996 Iyer's boss tells Iyer do what Michael wants or your fired. (Boss is in conspiracy with Michael. What did Michael do, promise the boss a cut of the money?)

My initial training there consisted solely of the instruction "Do what Michael Shiavo tells you or you will be terminated."

1996 Iyer claims Michael shouted "When is that bitch gonna die!" (Was she the only nurse who heard his shouts? Iyer claims he said stuff like this all the time, but apparently only to Iyer? Did Michael consider Iyer to be someone he could confide in? Even though she claims she kept putting stuff on Terri's report and Michael or someone else would take it off by the next day.)

1996 Iyer claims that Michael may have injected Terri with insulin 5 different times. She was concerned enough to do blood-sugar tests and found her levels extremely low. (Michael attempts murder. And she has significant objective (blood tests) evidence to prove it.)

The glucometer reading would be so low that it was below the range where it would register an actual number reading.
(I don't know blood glucose readings, but can someone live if they read that low?)

1996 Iyer claims she called police about 5 attemts to murder Terri. (Police investigate, contact boss. Boss convinces police officer to be part of conspiracy, splitting the money up even more. Police stop investigation. Any police records of homicide investigation are destroyed.)

I ultimately called the police relative to this situation, and was terminated the next day.

1996 Boss fires Iyer to silence her (Boss possibly asks Michael for a bigger take, since he's now protected Michael from a murder investigation and disposed of Iyer)

1996 Iyer calls Schinders and tells them everything she knows. To quote:

Standing orders were that the family wasn't to be contacted, in fact, there was a large sign in the front of her chart that said under no circumstances was her family to be called, call Michael immediately, BUT I WOULD CALL THEM, ANYWAY, because I thought they should know about their daughter.
(The wording suggests more than one call: I would call them anyway as opposed to I called them anyway. I suppose she could have called but failed to mention Michaels attempts to murder Terri. Forgot to mention it? Didn't come up in conversation? Never got over to the topic? Didn't feel comfortable bringing it up? If she called anonymously, she did it repeatedly. hello, this is your mystery nurse taking care of your daughter. There are only a few nurses taking care of your daughter, but you'll never figure out who I am. Anyway, I thought you should know Michael is trying to kill your daughter with insulin injections. talk to you next week. Bye. this message will self destruct in 3 seconds. (cue Mission Impossible theme song))

1996 Informed of Michael's activities via multiple calls from Iyer, the Schindlers ... DO NOTHING. They do not demand that the police or nursing home look into any accusations about Michael trying to kill Terri with insulin injections. The do not try to take Michaels guardianship away based on his murder attempts. (Too busy at the time, I guess.)

2000 Schindlers fail to subpeona Iyer, even though Iyer said she called them in 1996.

2003 Iyer finally comes forward with her tale of the "truth" because Schindlers forgot to subpeona her in 2000.

Bare minimum, for her story to be true, (1) Michael attempted to murder Terri on 5 separate occaisions but failed (2) apparently he didn't figure out that he needed to use more insulin even after 5 failed attempts (3) The nursing home boss is in conspiracy with Michael (4) the police officer who took Iyer's call was in on the conspiracy (5) there is no paper trail in the police records to substantiate her call (6) in 1996, the Schindlers knew Michael was trying to kill Terri but did nothing and (7) they knew about Iyer but forgot to subpeona her in 2000.

Does that about sum up Iyer's affadavit? FuelWagon 17:59, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The second last paragraph ("Bare minimum...") is your personal opinion. Can we try to keep that off this page, please? Otherwise we'll just end up hopelessly cluttered again. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 21:32, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Nope, I've already brought this up multiple times (with NCdave, have fun with him Fuel Wagon, you'll learn) and that's definitely not POV. The stipulations FuelWagon puts forth, Tony, are "if the logic is true, then only these conclusions may be true" -- that's totally NPOV. And totally correct. Yeah, it discredits Iyer, but for Pete's sake, it's truth and logic that does it, not rhetoric and point-of-view. And that is wholly acceptable. Saying otherwise is like editting an article on the sky and putting in that the sky might be fuschia with lavender polka-dots, and anybody who edits it is engaging in POV war -- no, because facts are facts. Professor Ninja 06:11, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)
No worries, Professor. I've already figured out John Hathorne and his guilty-till-proven-innocent witchhunt. I tweaked the affadavit section, put the 'initial training' comment first, trying to get the chronology right. I also put in her "bitch gonna die" claim. FuelWagon 13:28, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I dissected these spurious accusations against nurse Carla Iyer in previous discussions on this Talk page, which Tony Sidaway and FuelWagon deleted a couple of days ago. Not archived, just deleted -- as "extensive off-topic digression" (that's what Tony called it in the Edit summary - FuelWagon called it "bloat"). Pray tell how it can have been off-topic for me to rebut those accusations, but it isn't off-topic for FuelWagon to make them again? NCdave 08:02, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I just reinserted my deleted 08:02, 7 Apr 2005 reply, but this is getting frustrating. Whatcha gonna do when the partisans for M.Schiavo's POV just delete your complaints about deleting your comments? NCdave 15:34, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Terri_Schiavo_case/Archive_13&oldid=1123293843"