Talk:Terri Schiavo case/Archive 16

This is an archive of past discussions about Terri Schiavo case. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 10

←

Archive 14

→

Past tense, present tense, and Terri's death

In the light of Terri having died, we should be careful to review past and present tense as used in the article. The argument between the two parties might not have ended when she passed away. [[User:Rickyrab|Rickyrab | Talk]] 23:09, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Current event

Can we remove the "ongoing event" tag? Or should we wait until the autopsy? Meelar (talk) 03:45, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)

As I mentioned some time ago, the tag is not useful in this case. This has been an ongoing event for 15 years and is likely to continue for years to come. --Viriditas | Talk 03:52, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Ummm...come again? I hate to be in bad taste, but the poor woman stopped being a current event this morning. Meelar (talk) 03:57, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)

It isn't over, and won't be for some time. See [1] and [2]. I am not a proponent of using the "ongoing event" tag on this page, in any case. --Viriditas | Talk 04:10, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Parents and Siblings

I am fairly certain that the parents were not present when Michael Schiavo told the family to leave the hospice. The brother and sister of Terri were the only ones present.

Not exactly. See [3]. --Viriditas | Talk 04:12, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

All the CNN article says is that the parents were not allowed to see her when they were informed of her last moments. They were not in the room and told to leave as this entry seems to suggest. The siblings were told to leave and the parents were told they could not see her.

"Felos said that when hospice workers asked the siblings to leave around 8:45 a.m." ... "When Terri Schiavo died, her brother and sister were across the street in a thrift shop that served as the family's base in recent weeks. Her parents, Bob and Mary Schindler, arrived about half an hour later" [4]

"Around 9 a.m., Terri Schiavo was dead. Her parents, Bob and Mary Schindler, were not on the hospice grounds. After some time, Michael Schiavo left and allowed the Schindler family to visit with her body. He told them they could take any item from the room that they wanted." [5]

"Terri Schiavo's parents were not at the hospice at the time. Her brother and sister were in her room -- which was decorated with lilies and roses -- before she died. But Felos said that hospice personnel asked them to leave so that Terri could be examined." [6]

I could site more sources, but I think you get the picture --220.220.184.249 06:14, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The current article says,

At 9:05 a.m. EST on March 31, 2005, Terri Schiavo died at the age of 41. According to the Schindlers' spokesperson, a few minutes before she died her parents and siblings were told to leave the room by her husband, Michael Schiavo. David Gibbs, the Schindlers' attorney, said the Schindlers were "with Terri up until ten minutes before she passed." They were allowed back into the room after she had died. [59] (http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/03/31/schiavo.deathbed/)

That CNN article that is cited clearly states that the siblings were in the room and the parents were on their way to the hospice after receiving word of Terri's condition. The parents were never told to leave the room because they were not in it with the siblings before Terri's passing. I suggest this this change should be made,

According to a CNN article, a few minutes before she died her siblings were told to leave the room by her husband, Michael Schiavo. Terri's parents were also denied access to Terri's room when they were informed that this may be her last moments.

I seriously believe this change should be made as it is central to the controversy regarding Michaels actions in Terri's last moments. Not allowing the parents to enter, while in itself is still wrong on Michael's part, is not as bad as forcing the parents to leave her bedside as this page reports. It is more factual to state it like this instead of how it currently is stated.--207.65.109.90 16:53, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Comments on Introduction

I re-wrote the introduction and removed the redundant material but a user has reverted it. If anyone one feels this is better you can restore it yourself as I do not have an interest in the subject. I was only trying to improve it. However the current intro is bias. I dislike this material: "Mrs. Schiavo's parents, Bob and Mary Schindler, who are both practicing Catholics" - why does her parents religion need to be in the intro? "after 13 days without a feeding tube." - this is an obvious attempt at POV to emphasize something already stated when the courts granted it earlier in the intro "husband's successful efforts to discontinue life support prompted a fierce debate over bioethics, euthanasia, legal guardianship, federalism, and civil rights, while overcoming active counter-efforts to keep her alive." - this paralell is a bad one, implying that others supported her "life" while her husband "supported" her death when in reality it was they supported the life support and he opposed it as artificial.

Actually, it wasn't the lack of feeding tube that killed her, it was the lack of food and hydration by any means. Greer's two orders did not direct the removal of her feeding tube. Rather, they forbade giving her nutrition or hydrations by any means. He specifically forbade giving her food and water by mouth. The current text about "life support" is grossly inaccurate and blatantly POV-biased. NCdave 09:43, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The parents beliefs are pertinent to the rest of the article, so I should be mentioned ASAP. "13 days" is a fact that is central to her death; removing it because its stated much later isn't logical because it is relevant information. You may have something regarding the context of the paragraph, but the husband wasn't opposed to it, he was following his Terry's wishes. It was she that was opposed to it. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 07:48, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The strong evidence is that she never expressed such a wish. That's what Michael, himself, said, on numerous occasions, until he hired Felos in 1997. It is also what he implied when testifying under oath during the malpractice trial that he intended to care for Terri for the rest of his life. Michael even slipped up and admitted it again, a few weeks ago, on national television.[7] NCdave 09:43, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I disagree. This article isn't about the Schindlers, it's about Terri Schiavo. Her parents religion only figure into it in the sense that they had an argument stemming from natural law opposing the removal of the feeding tube; that belongs in the section about the Schindlers. I'm not sure what the last few sentences mean with the "...his Terry's[sic] wishes. It was she..." Is she Terri or Mary Schindler? Professor Ninja 16:53, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)

True, but it certainly involves the Schindlers; and their possible motivation to keep Terry alive. As such it is pertinent to the fight over her life support. And I'm not sure what my last sentences meant either :'); the danger of writing late at night. The clarification I attempted to make was it isn't the husbands view on artificial life support that was his motivation, but Terri's view of it prior to her heart attack. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 18:37, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The fact that Terri shared her parents' religion makes their religion pertinent. But the fact that she shared that religion should be stated, too. NCdave 09:43, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I understand, but I don't think it belongs right off the bat in the introduction. I also don't believe that Michael Schiavo's allegations belong in the first paragraph either. They're arguments advanced by both sides to further their particular cause, they're sort of peripheral to Terri; as far as the article is concerned, I think it's best if you just have Terri Schiavo's case in the intro. Professor Ninja 20:54, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)

I'll agree for now; how many "votes" do we need for a consensus? - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 21:24, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Pronunciation

I've just removed and then replaced the claim that their name is pronounced /SHY-voe/. It does look unlikely to me — though Europeans are always cautious when it comes to U.S. pronunciation of names, as almost anything can turn out to be correct (as in the surnames 'Loux' and 'Proulx'). Is there any evidence that this is really how the family pronounces their name? I've found conflicting evidence on the Web (and see this discussion). Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:12, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yes, Michael Schiavo says "I'm Michael SHY-VOE". He says it that way on the news each night. His lawyer pronounces it the same way, on the news. Each and every night. It doesn't matter, really, how Europeans or Americans feel they "ought to" pronounce the name; that's the way he pronounces it. Commentators have taken various politicians to task for "not bothering" to find out how to pronounce it "correctly" before voting on the bill to have the matter considered in the Federal judiciary. - Nunh-huh 21:22, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

See Talk:Terri Schiavo/archive7#Schiavo_pronunciation for the last discussion about the pronunciation of their name. The way Michael pronounces his name is the "correct" pronunciation to use when referring to him and his family. There's currently a note in the article that talks about how the name is pronounced in Italian - I think this should be deleted. It isn't relevant how someone else with the same name pronounces it. --Azkar 22:38, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Oh, and is the photograph really 'fair use'? On what grounds? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:16, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Are you referring to my labeling of the CT scan? --Viriditas | Talk 22:56, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Last Rites

Someone asked, and I think it's been archived already, how Terri could receive Last Rites without confessing. Answer here. --Baylink 22:17, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

New York Times

The summary of the March 28 New York Times report does not match what the New York Times states, even though the paper's report appears muddled itself concerning "sale" and then "rent". Nevertheless, I did not read "that the Schindlers have compiled a list of people", so I think that should be rewritten. -Wikibob | Talk 02:42, 2005 Apr 2 (UTC)

Unless you are saything that the NYT is lying outright, I think it can be said that since they are selling/renting this list to a direct marketing firm that it was compiled somehow. Now it may have very well been after the fact, or the list's original purpose may have been to coordinate rescue effots, but I can't see how it's not fair to say "the Schidler's compiled a list of people".--CVaneg 03:00, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Neurologists

Do we have a list of the neurologists and their medical opinions, yet? I believe there were at least eight who examined Schiavo and supported the PVS diagnosis. --Viriditas | Talk 11:05, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Modifcations in progress, below. --Viriditas | Talk 11:31, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

link to some neurologists [8]

These are the names I could pull from the timeline: (holes are indicated)

1990

Dr. Victor Gambone, Terri Schiavo's primary care physician for several years (diagnosis: PVS)

Doctor who inserted thalamic stimulator

1991

Dr. W. Campbell Walker performs a bone scan on Terri

1998

Sept. 11: Dr. Jeffrey Karp neurologically evaluates Terri (see Terri Schiavo timeline)

Forensic pathologist, Dr. Michael Baden, examines bone scan

2002:

five doctors are selected to provide expert opinion

Dr. Maxfield / radiologist (Shindler family doctor) (diagnosis: NOT PVS)

Dr. Hammesfahr (diagnosis: NOT PVS)

Dr. Ron Cranford (diagnosis: PVS)

Dr. James Barnhill, selected by Michael (diagnosis: PVS)

Dr. Peter Bambakidis, neurologist appointed by the court (diagnosis: PVS)

It would be more accurate to say that Bambakidis concluded probably PVS. He carefully used the legal phrase, "preponderance of evidence," which is legalese for "probably," and is short of the "clear and convincing" evidentiary standard that Judge Greer claimed. NCdave 11:15, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"Preponderance of evidence" does not mean "probably." It does mean "clear and convincing" however. Where'd you get your law degree NCDave? Wjbean 17:15, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Not so, Wjbean. "Preponderance of evidence" is the lowest evidentiary standard (standard of proof). It simply means "more likely than not." "Clear and convincing" is a more rigorous evidentiary standard. (An even higher evidentiary standard is "beyond reasonable doubt.")

My copy of Black's Law Dictionary (the Sixth Edition, btw) says (in part), that Preponderance of evidence ... "is that degree of proof which is more probable than not."

My copy of Black's says (in part) that Clear and convincing proof is "proof that results in reasonable certainty of the truth" [and] "which requires more than a preponderance of evidence but less than proof beyond a resonable doubt."

Google will find many references to the differences between these two standards of evidence: [9]

Dr. Bambakidis, a man who supporters of the Schindlers suspected of bias), nevertheless carefully used legal terminology which implied uncertainty about Terri's PVS diagnosis. NCdave 22:57, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Terri's parents cite affadavits of 33 physicians who watch video.

2 examined her in person. Who are the 2 who examined her in person? are are they talking about Maxfield and Hammesfahr again? or someone new?

1??

2??

2005

from [10]

dated Wed, Mar. 23, 2005

Three florida neurologists view 12 CT scans, all three agree "About 70 to 90 percent of Schiavo's upper brain is gone"

Dr. Leion Prockop "most severe brain damage I've seen."

Dr. Walter Bradley "doubts there's any activity going on"

Dr. Michael T. Pulley "The chance that this person is going to recover is about zero,"

There's something fishy about neurologists offering opinions in this case solely on the basis of CT scans. Neurologists aren't the best qualified to interpret CT scans. That's a job for radiologists. Who hired these guys? Where did they come from? This smells of Felos propaganda. NCdave 11:15, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

But Dr. William Chesire Jr., the neurologist who volunteers for the state abuse team, said in his affidavit that he visited with Schiavo for 90 minutes March 1 and did not agree that she was in a vegetative state. (diagnosis "minimally conscious state,") Cheshire sees patients at the Mayo Clinic in Jacksonville and teaches at Trinity International University, a Christian institution. Cheshire, also trained in bioethics, graduated from and is an adjunct professor at Trinity University, and has written opinion articles on stem-cell research and other scientific debates espousing a conservative Christian viewpoint.

Well, Dr. Cheshire is actually an Episcopalian, which is not normally considered a "conservative" denomination. But even if he were a fundamentalist, would it matter? Shall we add to the article the religious affiliations of all the doctors and lawyers involved in this case?

I have the distinct impression that some people here think that being a Christian calls into question a person's judgment or integrity. I'd like to be proven wrong about that. NCdave 09:52, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

What are you, an absolute mindless machine? CONSERVATIVE CHRISTIAN VIEWPOINT doesn't evoke any sort of possible BIAS against purely scientific and medical diagnosis? NONE WHATSOEVER? That comment, by the way, IS A QUOTE FROM THE MAGAZINE ARTICLE, if you had actually taken two seconds to click on the link and follow it, rather than be the blindly obediant robot. The fact that he is christian, went to a christian school and teaches at a christian school, isn't relevant except that it supports the assertion that he writes articles espousing a CONSERVATIVE CHRISTIAN VIEWPOINT . And that he espouses a CONSERVATIVE CHRISTIAN VIEWPOINT on stem cell research and other scientific debates DOES indicate that HE IS BIASED. Take the red freaking pill and for once in your otherwise automaton life, THINK.

BTW, that unsigned outburst was contributed by FuelWagon. NCdave 04:48, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Here's a link for a story that cites several of the doctors involved in the 2002 evidentiary hearing.

las vegas sun article --Minaflorida 21:55, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

There's a lot of good info in that article, Minaflorida. Thanks for posting it! The link no longer works, but this google search will find other copies of the same article.

The article reports the conclusions of six doctors: two hired by the Schindlers, three hired by Michael Schiavo, and one selected by Judge Greer. The article also includes "rebuttal quotes" from one of Michael Schiavo's chosen doctors (Cranford), replying to the Schindlers' two chosen doctors; no criticism or rebuttal of the other four doctors was included. So the article certainly isn't balanced. Nevertheless, it contains a lot of useful information.

One interesting thing from the article: it turns out that Dr. Bambakidis (the doctor selected by Judge Greer) only concluded that "a preponderance of the evidence supports" the PVS diagnosis. That is legal terminology for an evidentiary standard which is short of the "clear and convincing" level of proof that Judge Greer claimed. So, based on the testimony of the doctor who he, himself, picked, Judge Greer should not have ruled that there was clear and convincing proof that Terri was in a PVS.

Another interesting thing is that the article seems to say that Barnhill didn't see Terri, personally.

Another interesting thing that you'll notice, if you read the article carefully: two of Michael Schiavo's chosen doctors contradicted each other:

Dr. Victor Gambone said, "Her brain studies and brain wave tests showed that she has a brain which is predominantly replaced by spinal fluid."

Dr. James Barnhill said, "I believe, based on the entire appearance, history, appearance of the CAT scan, were you to look at it under a microscope, basically it would consist of large areas of scar tissue with occasional nerve cells embedded."

So, which is it, fellas? Scar tissue or spinal fluid?

Obviously, inspector Clouseau, you've stumbled upon the key to the conspiracy. Gambone mistakenly said "spinal fluid" when it was really "scar tissue" and he has paid off all the other doctors so they would say "spinal fluid". (Chesire wasn't a nut job, he was the only one who couldn't be bought) Gambone also paid off Greer, several other judges, the police, the nursing home bosses, and conspired with them all to murder Terri and bury the evidence. This was to protect himself from yet another malpractice lawsuit in Terri Schiavo's favor. That Michael got blamed for her death by right-wing militants who take out murder contracts on him was just an added bonus of misdirection to take the blame off of him. Oh, wait a minute, brainiac, he said if you looked at it under a microscope, you'd see scar tissue. Maybe he figured that only a MORON would put SPINAL FLUID under a microscope, and that the only thing someone would actually slice up and put on a glass slide would be whatever tissue was left, and that remaining tissue would be SCAR TISSUE. Funny, he never says, her brain is replaced by scar tissue. He says if you look at samples of her brain under a microscope, you would see scar tissue. And perhaps he assumes that only an idiot would bother with spinal fluid. Sorry, Inspector, no "Cross of Conspiracy" medal for you today. FuelWagon 04:35, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Dr. Gambone and Dr. Barnhill's evaluations are not mutually exclusive. Dr Barnhill mentions possible microscopic analysis. Dr. Gambone's evaluation is based on the CT scan. I think the release of the autopsy results are going to settle this matter for all but a few die-hard types who will accept no evaluation unless they agree with it. Wjbean 17:19, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Of course, the true answer is "neither." Neurologists aren't the specialists who are best qualified to interpret CT scans, anyhow. That's a job for radiologists. The two radiologists that I know of who have expressed an opinion about what was shown in Terri's CT scans both said that her condition did not look nearly as bad as M.Schiavo/Felos & their handpicked doctors claimed.

Radiologist Thomas Boyle, M.D. (host of the award-winning CodeBlueBlog web site), who has interpreted over 10,000 brain CT scans, says:

"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."NCdave 11:15, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

If this were true, then this evidence could easily be presented to the courts. The Schindler family would be overjoyed to have this kind of evidence. So, one is forced to ask, where are the CT scans that Boyle claims to have seen? One must conclude that they don't exist, and that Boyle was lying. Boyle has also stated, "...if you starve this woman to death it would be, in my professional and experienced medical opinion, the equivalent of starving to death a 75-85 year old person. I would take that to the witness stand." Well, there goes Boyle's alleged neutrality on this issue. And btw, Boyle appears to be a total crank, as he has proposed a massive Terri Schiavo conspiracy on his blog, where he infers that either someone has replaced the "real" CT scan with a fake or that someone has attempted to harm her. [11]--Viriditas | Talk 10:21, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Of course you think Boyle is a "total crank," because his expert medical opinion differs from that of Judge Greer.

But I assume that you at least do not dispute the fact that radiologists are the doctors best qualified to interpret CT scans. Right?

Well as far as I can find, all the radiologists who viewed any or all the CT scans, or even just the single CT slice that Felos selected for his little propaganda stunt (which you can be sure was selected to be the worst-looking slice of all), have said the same thing: that the CT scans did not prove that Terri was vegetative.

Do you think that all the radiologists, plus four dozen neurologists, plus numerous M.D.s and speech pathologists from other specialties, were all engaged in a giant conspiracy, on behalf of the Schindler family?

It's a little late for the Schindler's to use Dr. Boyle's testimony now -- Greer/Felos/M.Schiavo made sure of that, by killing Terri. But it wouldn't matter, anyhow. The Schindler's had lots of medical experts who testified or swore out affidavits attesting to the fact that Terri's PVS diagnosis was flawed, but Greer simply refused to accept their testimony. NCdave 04:48, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Beatrice C. Engstrand, M.D., is an board-certified neurologist, a Fellow of the American Academy of Neurology, and an Assistant Professor of Neurology at the New York Medical College. In her affidavit she wrote, "I think [Terri Schiavo] is minimally conscious at least. She may even be conscious." [12]

Jacob Green, M.D., Ph.D., is a board-certified neurologist, trained in both neurology and neurological surgery, who has published six textbooks and more than 60 papers in peer-reviewed journals. He states, "Ms. Schiavo is not in a persistent vegetative state... Terri Schiavo should be re-evaluated for the correct diagnosis... it is my professional opinion that the correct diagnosis for Terri is, in fact, minimally conscious state and not presistent vegetative state... new technology, which is called functional magnetic resonance imaging or fMRI, can measure brain activity by creating multdimensional images of blood flow to various parts of the activated brain... Terri Schiavo deserves the opportunity to be treated for her minimally conscious state condition and she deserves to have the benefit of new technology that was not available prior to the court's original ruling on her condition." [13]

Carolyn Heron, M.D., is a board-certified Physical, Medical and Rehabilitation (PMR) doctor. She states, "Based on my opinion, Ms. Schiavo is not in a persistent vegetative state (PVS)... she is at least in a minimally conscious state (MCS). I believe that she is better than minimally conscious." [14] NCdave 13:33, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

TOC compression

I think the current table of contents is a little too large, especially the "recent developments" section (which, incidentally, may need a better title). Perhaps it should be condensed a bit? I would do it but thought I'd leave it to people active at this article. violet/riga (t) 14:17, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I've done some compression on "timeline" section to eliminate subsection "years" from main TOC. This shortened the long TOC pretty much. There is separte manual TOC in section "timeline". --Oblivious 22:16, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Explanation of Tony Sidaway's removal of two sections from this talk page

I've removed two sections from this talk page (see history) because of the rule that Wikipedia is not a soapbox, chatroom or discussion forum. I appreciate that the rights and wrongs of this affair are matters of great importance to all of us, and I think that those with opinions on the matter should express them. But not in this talk page, which is solely for discussion of this encyclopedia article. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 19:03, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The POV-bias and inaccuracies of the the Wikipedia article are supposed to be discussed on the Discussion page. What Tony did was delete the contributions that identified and documented those problems, to enforce his POV. That is outrageous. NCdave 06:37, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

grammar, style, & links

I overhauled the artiucle in order to correct some pretty ropy grammar, and to bring links, etc., into Wikipedia style. In the mindless revert wars, my painstaking copy-edits were lost. I replaced them; they've gone again. I've better things to do than try to clean up this article against the wishes of other editors. It looks pretty embarrassingly amateurish in places (e.g., he 'awoke out of bed'), but if you're all happy with that, there's little I can do. I'll Unwatch it and let you all get on with it. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 13:48, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

recent developments need rename

The "Recent Developments" section needs refactoring and renaming. Most of it is political or judicial maneuvaring. Perhaps call it "Government Involvment" or something. Not sure how much of it needs to be kept and how much could be whittled down. The parts "burial" and "autopsy" are the only parts directly about Terri and should be extracted to their own sections. FuelWagon 13:16, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The political history in the article (terri's law, Delay, George and Jeb Bush) take up almost half teh space. Anyone wanna take a stab at whittling it down? FuelWagon 17:49, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I just fixed up some stuff re the FL Legislature's actions because it was a bit inaccurate in how it referred to the different measures put forth by the House and Senate. I also added links to the bills. I just realized I wasn't signed in, though, so it just shows my ISP # or whatever that thing is called. (; Oopsie! I have made that little blurb longer than it was before, however. I'll try to tackle the "recent developments" section as a whole and make it a bit smaller. --Minaflorida 19:23, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

OK. I took a look at the recent developments section and the place that I think could use some whittling is the "Politicians" part. I don't want to go cutting things out that folks think should be in there, though. To me, it seems like most of the "these politicians sided with A, and these politicians sided with B" stuff is less relevant than the quotes that are there (which I think should stay) and the actual legala actions taken by these politicians. Thoughts? --Minaflorida 19:40, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, if the "who's side are they on" stuff was taken out and it was refactored to list only the actions which did have (or would have had) a direct impact on Terri, then maybe we could get it to a managable size. FuelWagon 20:45, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Here's what I'm thinking: I have taken a look at the Politicians section under recent developments and it has a few redundancies. The 1999 Texas bill Then-Gov. Bush signed is already covered in the U.S. Congress section. That seems out of place, so I would propose moving that bit of information to the "Politicians" section. Perhaps we could change the heading to "Political Implications" or "Political Division" or something like that. The "Politicians" sections contains some stuff that is not particularly relevant to Terri Schiavo's case. It seems odd to dwell on the fact that Tom DeLay removed his parents from life support. It does not seem relevant and, while I personally think the guy is a hypocrite, this doesn't seem like the appropriate place to point it out. Here's what I'd do to the "Politicians" section:

Some conservatives, such as former Representative Bob Barr, have expressed concern about the implications for federalism of a bill that involves the federal government in a matter traditionally left to the states. [41] (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=604895) Many Democrats have simply stayed away from the controversy. Especially outspoken Democratic congresspeople who have protested the federal intervention include Henry Waxman, Robert Wexler, Barney Frank, and Debbie Wasserman Schultz.

Republican House Representative Tom DeLay of Texas and Senator Bill Frist of Tennessee, a cardiac surgeon, spoke in favor of keeping Schiavo alive, as did President George W. Bush. Democratic Senators Tom Harkin and Kent Conrad have also supported federal intervention in the Schiavo case, although Republican Representative Dave Reichert was against it.

President Bush came under fire from right-to-die supporters, accused of having double-standards because as Governor of Texas he had personally signed into Texas law a right-to-die law, the Advance Directives Act. [40] (http://www.premack.com/Medical-Legal.htm) This law, one of only three in the nation, allows a hospital under certain circumstances to end life-prolonging measures even against a living will or the will of the patient's family.

On Schiavo's passing, House Majority Leader Tom DeLay said, "This loss happened because our legal system did not protect the people who need protection most, and that will change. The time will come for the men responsible for this to answer for their behavior, but not today. Today we grieve, we pray, and we hope to God this fate never befalls another." President Bush said "I appreciate the example of grace and dignity [the family has] displayed at a difficult time. I urge all those who honor Terri Schiavo to continue to work to build a culture of life where all Americans are welcomed and valued and protected, especially those who live at the mercy of others." [45] (http://www.clarionledger.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050331/NEWS01/50331019/1002)

I have left in some of the "who they supprted" stuff since it seems to fall under the category of "Politics" and is probably important information for the reader to understand that this was anything but a partisan issue.

I would change the link for the Advance Care Directive, 1999 bill, because the old link is not functioning.

I am interested in getting feedback, because I don't want to impose my edit on everyone if it isn't satisfactory. I think it's important to leave in the federalism concerns as that's a huge part of this case's effect on the country as a whole and is the common ground for many conservatives and liberals re this case. Once I get some feedback, I will go ahead and make changes. Cheers!--Minaflorida 13:06, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This is just a note to user Neutrality that I am the person who removed the sections of Politicians that he restored earlier today. I have no problem with the restoration of them, it's just that a shortening of that section was discussed here and I was looking for feedback on the edits I show above, but didn't receive any response. I figured I'd take some action and changed the section. It did not seem relevant to me to include in this article the personal decisions that politicians have made re their own families. I realize (and indeed agree with the notion) that there is hypocrisy involved, but it seemed like the most likely info to hit the chopping block if we are interested in shortening this section. I just wanted to make it known that it was not inexplicable deletion, was not performed by anons, and was not meant to protect or shelter the politicians that the removed portions referred to. I apologize if I haven't gone about making my changes in the proper fashion, Neutrality. Should I have waited longer for feedback in here before pruning that section? Thanks for your input. I'm waaaay new 'round these parts (:--Minaflorida 22:45, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, Minaflorida, I didn't post feedback when requested. I have almost ZERO attachment to any of the political bullshit that happened the last two weeks of Terri's life. DeLay's grandstanding, Jeb's maneuvars, and George's stuff, are all so much chest-thumping that I think it's a waste of space in the article. Anything that you deleted would have been fine with me. I suppose that some might want to know the history of it, so maybe if each action were boiled down to a single sentence, then at least it wouldn't reward the grandstanders by letting them grandstand on wikipedia. But that's just me. FuelWagon 00:03, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Fuel, it looks like you did a pretty good job with the political section. Nice work!--69.68.30.101 01:07, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Talk page archiving?

Am I the only one interested in doing this? The talk page is over 300kb in size. Mike H 09:10, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)

Archive inactive discussions, only. Don't archive active sections, of course. And don't just vandalize the Talk page by deleting all the stuff you don't like, as Tony did. I'm thoroughly disgusted by the repeated smears here of Terri's family, nurse Iyers, and the numerous M.D.s whose opinons differ from Greer/Felos/M.Schiavo, but I certainly would not try to censor expression of those opinions, no matter how repugnant. NCdave 18:53, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I've refactored and deleted a good amount of stuff this morning, the bits that seemed like they could be useful references were moved to archive 13, and the rest deleted. I'm sure all the regulars are familiar by now with what does and does not belong on the Talk page (and have made decisions for themselves as to whether they feel inclined to ignore those guidelines), but I'm such a fan of redundancy that I'm going to hit my favorite points again:

Gathering information from diverse sources and then citing them to make the article inclusive is an encyclopedic function; gathering information from diverse sources and then attempting to structure and analyze them in order to a) bolster the claims of one side in a controversial article or b) convince editors that one of said sides is "correct or c) introduce original conclusions based on that analysis is not an encyclopedic function
No Personal Attacks. It's worth noting that the Talk page is also not an appropriate place to commiserate with like-minded editors re: mutual disdain for any other party. Basically, piling on NCdave is not an appropriate response to his actions, and reatliatory personal attacks are no more or less a violation than the original attack.

Fox1 11:46, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Oh, also, Wikipedia seemed to be having some technical difficulties during this process, and I'm out of time to double-check my work. It's quite possible that in all the reloading, page not found errors, and resubmissions things I meant to keep went, and things that were suppose to go stayed. Hey, the beauty of Wiki is that someone will surely point out where I screwed the pooch, right?

Fox1 11:49, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

POV enforcement on the Discussion page

Tony Sidaway and FuelWagon have systematically DELETED my contributions to this discussion, to enforce their POV. They've not archived anything, they've not limited their deletions to inactive conversations. They just delete what they don't like hearing.

Is everyone here okay with that? Or does SOMEONE besides me think that we ought to be able to discuss what is incorrect in the article, on the discussion page? NCdave 00:14, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I don't know why, but I'm picturing the Monty Python troupe going "Help! Help! I'm being oppressed!" I believe the person saying it was a mudslinger. life just brings those funny moments once in a while. Anyways, get a grip, man. This page is 200K long. I deleted some small sections about the timeline, grammar, quotation marks, all of which were no longer relevant for one reason or another. The timeline has been forked off, the section about "mourning", etc. The only thing that I recall deleting that was a current conversation was in the section titled "Neurologists" in which Viriditas asked for a list of all the neurologists who examined Terri, and the section went immediately off topic. Viriditas never got the name of a single neurologist. Instead, you were playing whack a mole with the top 10 things you ask us to disprove about the case and other nonsense. I deleted my comments as well, since they were not in answer to Viriditas's request either. So stop your belly-aching. I thought you'd be happy because I started a whole new section about Iyer's affadavit so that all the information contained in it could be examined in context. That's the source of your 'bitch gonna die' comment, ya know. You like bringing that one up a lot. And now it has its own complete section all to itself. Anyway, rather than play whack-a-mole logic games with you, I figured I'd take one specific topic, give it its own section and really flesh it out in the discussion section. That way Viriditas can get a list, and you can tell me how I'm smearing Iyer. Everyone gets their own section. Everyone's happy. maybe you could start a separate section about your radiologist friend who thinks all Democrats on the planet were trying to murder Terri. Then we can keep the individual pieces of nonsense to their respective section. Ya know, makes the clean up a lot easier that way. FuelWagon 01:07, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Actually, all of your edits are archived in the history section, NCdave, you can wade through and find the appropriate revision and create the archive if you really want (I'd warn you that in my opinion FuelWagon and Tony Sidaway did you a favour; everything out of your mouth is foolish, illogical, ramblingly poor hyperbole, or an outright lie, now at least some of that nonsense is tucked away). Anyway, keep trying NCdave, you've been hilariously and brutally proven absolutely wrong 100% of the time, but whatever. Professor Ninja 06:15, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

No, professor, he didn't archive it, he just deleted it, to enforce his (and your) own POV. NCdave 14:45, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

you can see my deletes here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ATerri_Schiavo&diff=11931036&oldid=11930551

You should be able to go through the history and find Tony's cleanup and cut and paste it in the same archive. You can title it "Off topic conversations that NCdave thought important enough to archive" or whaever. FuelWagon 15:16, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Uh, maybe you missed the part that starts at the first word of my post where it says Actually, al of your edits are archived in the history section. Confusing, I know, but try to keep up. What you do is you go find those edits and archive them (that's the part of my post that continues off after the history section quote, followed by your name, to state you can wade through and find the appropriate revision and create the archive. Professor Ninja 16:31, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

NCdave's complaint is legitimate in that I haven't yet completed my promised paste to an archive file. I'll get onto it as soon as I can spare the time. IN the meantime, we have some slightly less cluttered talk page sections that actually, for the most part, discuss what they're supposed to be about. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 15:26, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Some things are so soapbox (something that, along with a few other egregious breaches of etiquette, wikipedia is not meant for) that they do not merit archiving. At all. They merit deletion. Wikipedia has finite resources, creating fork after fork of archives that do not merit archiving wastes those resources (I'm aware that the edits are saved, still, it's a chunk of change to make more). Some topics warrant archiving, even if they develop into a POV war (it happens, that doesn't mean the entire discussion is null, and topics shouldn't be surgically excised as a reply to a pointless discussion may have points to it and be rendered moot should that pointlessness be removed) but totally non-contributory nonsense just does not belong. Professor Ninja 16:31, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

The affidavits

Hiedi Law and Trudi Capone's affidavits were never presented as evidence. They were never brought to testify by the Schindlers, because it was obvious that the information they are trying to pass off as the truth is nonsense that would be shredded in a court of law. Just saying there are affidavits doesn't mean they're true. Rick K 04:15, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

Citation, please! On what basis to you accuse these ladies of perjuring themselves, and on what basis do you claim that their affidavits were never presented as evidence?

Law and Capone swore that they made their statements on the basis of their own first-hand knowledge of what they saw and heard. What do you suppose would be their motivation for lying? Can you identify a conflict of interest? Did they stand to "realize a substantial and fairly immediate financial gain" from lying? (No, that was Michael Schiavo's conflict of interest and motivation for lying, as described in the report of Terri's guardian ad litem, Richard Pearse.)

BTW, here are the two affidavits that you mentioned: (Heidi Law, CNA - affidavit) & (Trudi Capone, RN - affidavit)

Also, these are corroborative: (Carolyn Johnson, CNA - affidavit), (Carla Iyer, RN - affidavit), (Cindy Shook, excerpts from affidavit). Also, Capone is corroborated by Michael's sworn testimony in the 1992 malpractice case that he intended to care for Terri for the rest of his life, and by Michael's remark on Larry King Live last month, and by the statements of two close friends of Terri's, Diane Meyer and Jackie Rhodes, who both recall that Terri had once expressed the strong opinion that Karen Ann Quinlan should not have been removed from a respirator.

NCdave 07:23, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Never one to let a good lie go to waste, are you NCdave? The Larry King Live assertion dave and the other pathologically lying mutants has already been characterized in context quite adequately, including a post on this discussion page. Also, the pathological lie that dave again repeats (that Michael Schiavo stood to gain financial) has been thoroughly debunked -- he could have gained far more by divorcing her and dividing the assets, filing a lawsuit AFTER she died (in which case ALL money would go to him, and he would most likely receive punitive damages as well) or ACCEPTING THE $1M THAT WAS PUBLICALLY OFFERED TO HIM. -Professor Ninja

I'm starting to believe that these people who keep pathologically advancing thoroughly obvious lies have some sort of psychosexual disorder wherein they envision the truth is an 11-year-old girl and that by lying they are "raping" the girl, thereby vicariously living out their pedophilic molestation fantasies. No other explanation I can come up with can explain away the dogged persistence of repeating lies that can so easily be caught. Professor Ninja 07:34, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)

I think that GAL Pearse made some errors (esp. w/r/t Terri's dubious PVS diagnosis), but he's not a "pathological liar." Those were his words that I quoted about Michael's financial motive to misrepresent Terri's wishes.

Michael Schiavo first "remembered" that Terri would rather die than live in her disabled state in late 1997 or early 1998, after he hired Felos. That was about 7-1/2 or 8 years after Terri's first hospitalization, but it was also at least 7 years before he was offered $1M to let Terri's parents care for her. GAL Pearse correctly noted in 1998 that Michael would "realize a substantial and fairly immediate financial gain" if Terri died, and that was one of the reasons that he said he found Michael's belated memory not credible. At that time the "substantial" gain that Michael would have realized was approximately 3/4 of a million dollars, from Terri's medical trust account. Since Michael could not have predicted that 7 years later some millionaire would offer him $1M to let Terri live, and Michael could not even know that he would outlive her, you can't logically argue that when he announced his "memory" there was any means other than Terri's death by which "he could have gained far more."

However, you are quite right that Michael Schiavo persisted in claiming that Terri had made such statements even as his financial incentive for seeking her death dwindled (as he spent Terri's medical trust account on his lawyer fees), and then disappeared entirely (when the millionaire offered him $1M to give up guardianship). If money were his sole motivation in 2005, then he surely would have taken the $1M.

So it appears that his motives changed as time went on. By late 1999, at least one of his motives was spite. He hated his in-laws, and wanted revenge for "putting [him] through pretty much hell." At least, that's approximately what he said in a deposition on September 27, 1999, when questioned by an attorney for the Terri's parents about why he would not let them assume guardianship of Terri:

         Page 48-49
         Q. Have you considered turning the guardianship over to Mr. and Mrs. Schindler?
         SCHIAVO: No, I have not.
         Q. And why?
         SCHIAVO: I think that's pretty self explanatory.
         Q. I'd like to hear your answer.
         SCHIAVO: Basically I don't want to do it.
         Q. And why don't you want to do it?
         SCHIAVO: Because they put me through pretty much hell the last few years.
         Q. And can you describe what you mean by hell?
         SCHIAVO: The litigations they put me through.
         Q. Any other specifics besides the litigation?
         SCHIAVO: Just their attitude towards me because of the litigations. There is no other reason. I'm Terri's husband
           and I will remain guardian.

Then his lawyer (Felos) asked for a private word with his client:

         Mr. Felos: There may be a question or two of clarification. Can I have just a minute to talk with my client?

Then we have Felos's cross-examination:

         Page 51
         Felos: You were also asked a question about resigning as guardian or would you consider that. Upon reflection, is there
           anything that you want to add in response to that question?
         SCHIAVO: Yeah. Another reason would be that her parents wouldn't carry out her wishes.

NCdave 08:57, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Addendum: Haha, oh lord. If you go to the site dave offered as "proof" of the Larry King Live transcript cock up (http://www.burtonsys.com/terri_schiavo.html#LKL) you'll find it's none other than Dave's own site. He offers up the exact same "proof", word for word, as on this wikipedia talk page. He's obviously doing it to give weight (not much, he's got it signed "-Dave" at the bottom) to his fallacious claims by making it appear as an outside source, as otherwise for somebody who constantly complains about talk pages not being archived, he'd just link to the archives instead of an outside, pseudo-source. This isn't much different than him offering up "proof" of Dr. Hammesfahr's credentials by just asking Dr. Hammesfahr ("yeah, did you lie before?" "no." "are you lying now?" "no.") when a 30-second check to the Nobel institute debunked that bull mighty fast. Again, do not, for the love of God people, believe any of Dave's lies, and when you find one, debunk it with proof. I know it's a perverted game, but we can't allow anybody to be roped into his nonsense. Professor Ninja 07:55, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)

Cummon, Ninja - I never suggested that my little terri_schiavo.html web page was an "outside source." My name and email address are at the top! There used to be a good collection of references in the Wikipedia article on Terri Schiavo, but partisans for Michael Schiavo's POV deleted almost all of them. So when I need to cite references to prove a point about one of the inaccuracies in the Wikipedia article, I can't refer the Wikipedia article anymore, and it is a lot more efficient & concise to point to the relevant part of my little web page than to duplicate it all here. NCdave 08:57, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I listed Iyer's allegations from her affadavit in the timeline article, along with some of the facts that conflict with her claims. I believe I limited it to the facts. Please correct anything you see that strays from the facts. FuelWagon 13:19, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Citation of what? That they never came to court? How do I cite that they never did something? Please give me a single citation where they were ever in court and testified? Rick K 22:21, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)

RickK, you made two allegations: That these ladies perjured themselves, and that their affidavits were never used in court. By citation, I mean what was your source? Who said those two things, which led you to believe them?

Your request that I do an exhaustive search of all the trial records to find these things is presumptuous. You made the accusations, you need to support them, not me! But... maybe I can help... this is from my imperfect memory, but... wasn't the Heidi Law affidavit one of nine affidavits used in the Schindler's unsuccessful petition to get Judge Greer to permit the swallowing therapy and swallowing tests that GAL Wolfson recommended? NCdave 08:49, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Ha! Still at the logical fallacies, NCdave? You present stuff without references, then when RickK you need to cite something, you say he made the accusation, he needs to support it? Sorry, you say something is inaccurate on the wikipedia site, then you have to back it up with some sort of outside reference that contradicts whats currently there. You can't say "That's wrong, Michael murdered Terri", and then when everyone accuses you of lying and demands an external reference to support it, you say "you made the accusations, you need to support it", sorry, that isn't logic, that's more of your "guilty until proven innocent" stuff going on. You make a claim, you have to support it with evidence. Your claims aren't true until we disprove them. It's truly amazing how much energy has been spent trying to educate you on the simplest thing as "innocent until proven guilty" and yet you still don't get it. FuelWagon 03:00, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

What "stuff without references" are you talking about, FuelWagon? I think you've got a lot of chutzpah to complain that I haven't provided enough references to support what I have written, since you personally deleted many of the references that I did provide, from the article and even from the Talk page.

But, anyhow, I was talking to RickK, not FuelWagon. RickK, you said that those affidavits were never used in court. You must have heard that somewhere. I'd like to know where. Surely you didn't just make that up on your own. Right? NCdave 05:19, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)