Talk:Terri Schiavo case/Archive 25

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 20

←

Archive 23

→

(untitled)

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

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

Baylink & Fox1, an anonymous person deleted your comments, but I saw them in the diff: [1] No, I'm not a doctor, but I am one of many voices, which collectively add up to being noteworthy of mentioned on Wiki. Also, my roles in the Schiavo saga was unique, and more than Joe Average Citizen's role, who wants to know what happened and depends on Wiki. Also, Fox, I'll try not to be too talkitive on the talk page. To the anonymous person having trouble seeing the recent entries, click on the "history" tab above and then click on the "last" tabs to see what was recently added. --GordonWattsDotCom_In_Florida 08:27, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

Let's settle this

I apologize, Ghost, if my coloring was distractive. However, I noticed that I could get more talk in less space if I expanded out to the full margin and didn't indent with the ":::" colons. However, my reply might get missed if I didnt indent, so I tried coloring it a little. In fact, in some boards, everybody has their own color. For example, on one AOL Terri Schiavo message board: One anti-Terri guy used red; a woman who was anti-Terri used Medium Brown, bold faced and a certain font, Ariel, I think. I typically used font "Times New Roman, which was cool because the #1 and the "l" that is, the small letter "L" didn't look the same. I used blue or green, like the "good Jedi knights," to differentiate myself from the guy who used red, like the Dark Sith Lords. Again, I apologize: How can my reply be distinguished as distinct and not be overlooked? --GordonWattsDotCom_In_Florida 21:59, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

I did not & don't have an issue with you use of color, in theory. Color is an excellent way of distinguishing one person's text from another. I've used it myself. My issue was that complete lack of consistancy in color choice, and that some of those choices made these old eyes squint to read your replies. And some of us do want to read them, so please make us want too rather than making us suffer. This is why I left you /fonts in place. Choose your color, Jedi. Then stick too it. ;-) --ghost 11:27, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

I don't mind the colors at all, but it would be helpful if you tried to put your comments at the bottom of sections, so they're easy to locate; this in itself makes them distinguishable (is that a word?) Obviously this may not always be done if replying to a point which is not at the bottom. Proto 11:37, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

I have taken into account not only both you your comments, Proto & Ghost (is that an abbreviation for protoplasm?), but I have also reached out and interpolated/extrapolated (estimated) the feelings of others. #1: Let me try a color that is not too bright. How about "dark blue" Hex value: 000099? Not only that, #2: I shall try to post right below the comment "at the bottom of sections" in question, like you asked PROTO, and either quote from it or (as in this case), address the neighbors by name. #3: I'm ALSO hitting "show preview" just to make sure. BRB, that is, be right back... OK: I would suggest dark or even darker green for NCDave. Ghosts are known to be gray, or grey, is the British spelling. Others on the side favoring the US Courts might, if they like??, choose something like dark red although the "heavyweight batter" on the AOL Terri Schiavo board (the "main poster" who thought the courts were "right") had been using regular red, value ff0000. If anyone needs help in HTML, both NCDave and I know it, as do many others, and could help you use Hexadecimal. Well, I tried to pick something that was not too bright or glaring to your eyes. PS: One advantage to using colors is that I don't have to indent my paragraphs to be seen -and can be more efficient with screen space, that is, fir more in. OK, Flash Gordon in Fla, USA (me) is Dark Blue, RRGGBB value 000099. --GordonWattsDotCom_In_Florida 22:21, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

I took a break for a few days, came back, and found out things were at least has bad as they had been. *sigh* Rather than argue with the various parties involved, I move that we collectively ask a third party to get involved. I just read through Wikipedia: Requests for mediation, and I believe that both the article and the talk page have gotten to that point. All of us have opinions; most of us at one point or another have failed to respect the opinions of others (myself included); the article suffers for it. Enough. I move that a mediator examine the following:

POV issues surrounding Ms. Schiavo's condition (PVS, MVS, etc.)
POV issues surrounding the legal status Ms. Schiavo's family (legal guardianship of Terri; Michael's relationships; etc.)
POV issues regarding terminology discussing the judge's ruling(s)
Behavior on the Talk Page

Is there anything else? I personally would like to see some other issues addressed, but I would rather reach a consensus first on what we should ask a Mediator to help us resolve. I would like to achieve some type of baseline that the vast majority can agree to stand behind, even if we don't agree with the particulars. Failing that, I want to establish grounds for the Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee getting involved. Wikipedia, the article and the Talk page should not places for people to grind their personal axes.--ghost 16:20, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

The problem is that NCdave will never agree to anything that doesn't result in the Terri Schiavo article containing the laundry list of wild conspiracy theories you see below. It will get arbitrated, something won't get put in that NCdave wants in, and he'll start chewing on that bone until there's more arbitration. At some point, there has to be a separation of medical and legal facts from NCdave's fantasies. Unless arbitration results in drawing some hard line that says "this is fact, this is the way the article should report it, end of story", then it's gonna be one arbitration in a long list of arbitrations. FuelWagon 22:19, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Could you please try to restrain yourself from your continual personal attacks, fuelwagon? In fact, all NCdave wants is accuracy and balance in the article. I'm not the one who thinks that literally dozens of physicians, nurses, nurse, family members, and friends, most of whom had no plausible motive for dishonesty, conspired to lie about Terri's condition, falsely claiming that she was responsive, that she tried to talk, that she ate and obviously enjoyed Jell-O, etc., etc..

I'm not the one who thinks that the legal team which consistently fought to prevent medical tests for Terri was confident in the diagnosis they advanced, and that the legal team which consistently fought to obtain more sophisticated and comprehensive medical tests for Terri was trying to conceal her true condition. How much sense does that make? If Terri really couldn't swallow food, why wouldn't Felos/M.Schiavo/Greer permit the tests that would have proven it? If Terri really had no brain activity in her cerebral cortex, why wouldn't Felos/M.Schiavo/Greer permit the PET and fMRI tests that would have proven it? If Terri really was in a persistent vegetative state, why wouldn't Felos/M.Schiavo/Greer permit the comprehensive evaluation by independent neurologists that would have shown her true condition? NCdave 02:57, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

If you are looking for a second to your motion to move to mediation, then I second that motion. However, I'm not so sure that you can limit it to those few areas of POV and the talk page. What this article needs is for a neutral party to look at its overall structure and its conciseness/clarity. Within that framework, you automatically address POV on a variety of issues as it cannot be avoided. I consider writing/editing the article and the behavior on the talk page two separate issues, which could be handed by one mediator/arbitration. I would like to participate, if possible, but I will be on a technology-free one-week vacation starting tomorrow, so I look forward to seeing what happens...--Mia-Cle 00:25, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

A mediator can only suggest what I've suggested. Introduce changes one at a time, with a short argument for them. Discuss them with a view to compromising. Accept that your POV might not be included if you cannot or will not source it appropriately. Dave does not do any of these things. He will not even try. Nor will any of the other "pro Terri" POV pushers. Their idea of "compromise" is to insert their POV in the page and then yell and scream at very great length when it's removed. Grace Note 00:39, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

I think Grace is right in seeking to address one problem at a time, but I don't have faith that he and Wagon are right when they fret that NCdave will continue to complain. Below, I will make a suggested compromise, and we will see if I am right in my guess that things will calm down. --GordonWattsDotCom_In_Florida 03:03, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

All I want is accuracy and balance. All I want is the truth. NCdave 02:57, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

If by "truth" you mean the conspiracy theories you keep pulling off of the "hang Michael" websites, then yeah, I can see that in you. Didn't the guy behind the Salem witch trials say all he wanted was the truth? FuelWagon 17:38, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

In other news, I answer the duck at (and I'll leave the link's URL visible) here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Duckecho#The_infamous_non-win_supreme_court_case --and this is the diff in case it gets messy: [2] "QUACK!" --GordonWattsDotCom_In_Florida 07:59, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Ghost, there are many other POV and accuracy problems with the article, too.

For example, the article says that the battles were over whether "to prevent the disconnect of her gastric feeding tube." But that is inaccurate, since Judge Greer explicitly ordered that she be deprived of food and water by natural means, and that she not be given the swallowing therapy and swallowing tests which her family wanted and which would have determined whether she could have been fed by mouth ("natural means"). -NCdave

Greer's order is covered in agonizing detail in the article here. your argument about "natural means" is empty. Would you prefer the article say "the battle over whether to murder Terri" in the name of accuracy? FuelWagon 01:43, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

OK, here is my suggested compromise: Wagon is correct in his claim that this subject is covered well in the article, but I have no problem with the article saying that the main battle was over the feeding tube. For example, there were other "court battles" over both the level of rehabilitation, examination, and oral feeding, as well as visitation and several other issues. I hope this helps. --GordonWattsDotCom_In_Florida 03:03, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

You cite the Wikipedia article on Terri Schiavo in defense of its own accuracy??? -NCdave

Oh man, you've stooped to new levels of stupidity. No, knucklehead, I cite the section of the wikipedia article to say that your problem with "natural means" is already covered in agonizing detail in the article. The article already has its own section about "natural means". And then I ask how you would want to rephrase the "battle", and you ignore it. We're back to whack a mole. You're all over the map, reinterpreting a simple statement by me, and ignoring any direct questions. What would you have the intro say, "The battle over whether terri should be murdered" ??? You won't answer it because any way that you'd want to rephrase it would turn it into an unsubstantiated witchhunt. Michael wanted to murder Terri to cover up his wife abuse. Felos wanted to murder Terri for the legal fees. Greer wanted to murder Terri for ... I don't even know what excuse you have in your twisted little mind, but it's crap either way. The ad litems and doctors wanted to murder Terri because they're sick bastards that like euthenasia. The police that Iyer contacted wanted to murder Terri because it was too much work to investigate with a phone call. They're all in the "culture of death", whatever that means in your clueless, brainwashed mind. FuelWagon 20:30, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Fuelwagon, my complaint was about the inaccuracy of the statement that the battle was over whether to disconnect her gastric feeding tube. I didn't realize that in your response you had changed the subject. I thought that you were rebutting my complaint, and arguing that the inaccurage statement was accurate, and citing another section of the Wikipedia article to support that argument. Forgive me. NCdave 02:57, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I don't know why you're bothering. The guy should just be reverted. His POV is, as you've noted, plainly extreme. He wants to include "facts" that plainly bias the article. We know that. His side can get who they like to "mediate" the dispute, but because he doesn't give an inch on any issue, they'll find that fruitless. Just put it to the guy that he should give single edits on the talkpage, one at a time, discuss each one fully and accept compromise. That's how contentious pages are edited. If he won't do it, then there's no reason not to revert him on sight. His simply throwing out dozens of accusations won't do. One edit at a time. One question at a time. That's how it is done. Don't get into it with him on any other basis. Grace Note 23:24, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

No, Grace, I just want the article to be truthful. Right now, the article is grossly POV-biased, and contains numerous inaccuracies. But I'm willing to compromise: I'll accept either the {{npov}} or {{accuracy}} warning, and not insist on both of them, though the article surely deserves both of them. Agreed? NCdave 02:57, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Look, Grace and Wagon, it seems NCdave may have misunderstood Wagon's post about how the article actually addresses the oral feeding dispute, but that is no reason to go nucular balistic. No one, not even my worst enemiy on this board (whoever that might be) should be reverted on sight. The edits should be looked at for their merit. That being said, I see no reason Neutrality recently took out the link to Euthanasia in this [3] diff. I don't really care one way or the other, but this WIKI editor or admin, or whatever he is, surprised me. Euthanasia was more of an issue than, for example, Civil Rights, in the Schiavo case, even though all the links were good ones. So, in conclusion, if you want a wishy-washy article, that's fine with me, but don't come crying to me when (not if) the quality suffers. By the way, a LOT of people think NCdave was being railroaded, as shown in this diff: [4] -at last count, it was five people. Here's the link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/NCdave#Response in case the diff is hard to read. --GordonWattsDotCom_In_Florida 03:03, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

My points are that we should be careful to present all the facts, not just those we like -and also that we should not be so quick to jump on someone (Dave or whomever). What comes around, goes around, so don't muddy the waters. --GordonWattsDotCom_In_Florida 03:03, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

The fact is that, in defiance of Florida statutes, Judge Greer explicitly ordered that Terri not be allowed to have food of water "by natural means." The Schindlers had a stack of affidavits from medical professionals who thought that she could be fed by mouth. The guardian ad litem recommended swallowing therapy and tests for her. But Judge Greer refused to permit it.

Then, with astounding chutzpah, Judge Greer alluded to the lack of such tests as justification for not allowing Terri to be fed by mouth. There was no proof that she could be fed by mouth, you see, so attempting to feed her by mouth would be "experimental."

Greer didn't even mention Terri's gastric feeding tube in his orders. He did mention feeding by "natural means." Greer ordered that she not be fed, and he explicitly forbade feeding her by "natural means." NCdave 20:17, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Also, the article tells the reader Michael Schiavo's contention, that Terri would not wish to be kept alive. That is POV bias, because it doesn't tell the other side. The article only mentions that Michael's contention was a "source of dispute," and doesn't mention the Schindlers' (proven!) contentions that it took Michael eight years to "remember" that Terri had ever said such a thing, and that his supposed recollection was contradicted by the sworn testimony of four witnesses. -NCdave

Please, FuelWagon, when you insert an response in the midst of someone else's comments, also insert a "signature" for the other person before your own contribution, so that people can tell who wrote it. NCdave 02:57, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The emperical evidence supports the notion that Michael worked hard to help Terri recover (getting thalmic stimulator implant was an attempt to coverup his abuse of Terri? -FuelWagon

That was before he stood to inherit hundreds of thousands of dollars in the event of her death. Note, too, that the Schindlers were supporting both Terri and Michael during that time period, because Michael was unemployed and broke. It's not as if Michael ever made any financial sacrifices to help Terri. NCdave 02:57, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Getting certified as a nurse was so he could learn how to inject insulin into her blood in an failed attempt (5 times at least) to murder her?). When Michael finally came to accept the diagnosis that she would never recover, only then did he have ANY reason to tell the courts that Terri would not want to be kept alive on a machine. -FuelWagon

Except that he didn't remember it then. He didn't "remember" that supposed conversation for another five years, more or less, after he forbade her from getting therapy.

Michael ordered that she not receive any therapy as soon as her medical trust account was created, and soon after that he opposed treatment for her urinary tract infection, and put a DNR on her. But he still didn't "remember" her supposed wish to not be kept alive on a machine (what machine?? she wasn't on a machine!) until late 1997 or early 1998, after he hired Felos to end her life. Felos formulated their legal strategy, which required such an utterance by Terri, and only then did Michael "remember" it. NCdave 02:57, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Get your fill of "hang Michael" Koolaid and decided to come back here, Dave? You are an idiot. You realize that, don't you? Picture if you will, that your wife (yeah, its a bit of a stretch to imagine you married, but maybe she could be a relative of the Schindlers).. Anyway, picture your wife goes unconscious. As you run into the emergency room, would you announce "My wife would not want to be kept alive on life support"? If you did, you'd be an idiot. (but then you are an idiot, so you just might to that.) So, you're in the emergency room, your wife is unconscious, and not responding. The doctors say XXX is wrong with her and YYY should treat it. You fly out to california and try YYY. Several months later, you return. Your wife is still unconscious and unresponsive. The doctors say she might respond to ZZZ. So you try ZZZ. After a few years, your wife is still unconscious and unresponsive. The doctors tell you that apparently she isn't XXX, she's actually suffering from AAA, and there is no cure. She will never get better. She will be on a machine for the rest of her life. That would be the time that most SANE people would tell the doctors that their wife wouldnt' want to be kept on life support. Of course, what is SANE to most of the world is something you gnaw on as if it were a conspiracy. And that is why you are a complete moron. You are unable to think like any sane person. Michael's behaviour fits in with an average SANE person hoping their spouse would respond to treatment and then finally accepting the diagnosis that she'll never get better. But you'd rush in with your wife's living will and tell the doctors that she wouldn't want life support, even if you were just taking her in for a high fever, I suppose. Go away. You've beaten this to death a million times and your refusal to think like a sane person makes you a waste of time. FuelWagon 17:35, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

People don't just walk around and tell everyone they meet "my spouse would not want to be kept on life support" in case it comes up. You're attempts to paint this as conveniently "remembering" what Terri wanted is based on the circumstantial evidence that Michael didn't request to take Terri off of life support the day after her heart attack, and it doesn't jive with the thalimic stimulator or nursing training or other things michael did. You can't just ignore the stuff that doesnt' fit your fantasy FuelWagon 01:43, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Recall that Michael didn't initially become a nurse. He became a respiratory therapist. The significance of that is that Terri didn't require respiratory therapy. So it is not possible that his true motivation for those studies were to better care for Terri. If he had actually been studying with the goal of being able to better care for Terri, he would have studied something that she needed (of course). NCdave 02:57, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Also, the article says that, "In 1994, after three years of trying traditional and experimental therapies, Mr. Schiavo accepted the diagnosis of an irreversible persistent vegetative state. At this point, he began to accept the idea of allowing his wife to die naturally, rather than remaining in a persistent vegetative state." That reads like a Felos press release. Aside from the dubious PVS diagnosis stated as fact, and the nonsense about "allowing" her "to die naturally," and the unprovable claims about Michael's pure motives and innermost thoughts, it also states a false chronology. The fact is that Terri received no therapy at all in either 1993 or 1994, because Michael refused to allow it. She also received very little therapy in 1992, because the Schindlers (who were paying the bills, and supporting Michael Schiavo, who was unemployed), ran out of money. When funds again became available, in January 1993, as a result of the malpractice settlement, Michael Schiavo refused to allow Terri to resume therapy. The article says that, "In 1994... in consultation with his wife's physician, he halted most therapy for his wife." That's pure nonsense. The therapy had actually been halted years earlier. -NCdave

It reads like a Wolfson report. But then Wolfson is in on the conspiracy, isnt' he? FuelWagon 01:43, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

FuelWagon, when you "split" someone else's message to respond to it point-by-point, please add his attribution (i.e., the other guy's handle) to the material just above where you insert yours, so that the reader will know whose comment you are responding to. By way of example, I've added "-NCdave" above, in red, just above your 01:43, 19 May 2005 contribution. NCdave 20:47, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

In answer to your question, I think you know that Wolfson's appointment as GAL was opposed by the Schindlers because, at the time of his appointment, he had already told the local media (in a TV interview) that he thought that Terri's feeding tube should be removed. So, he was provably biased in favor of the M.Schaivo/Felos POV, which should have precluded him from being appointed as Terri's GAL. (Nevertheless, in his report he recommended swallowing therapy and tests for Terri -- a recommendation which Greer refused.) NCdave 20:47, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Do you have a URL containing the complete text of the interview? or must I take you interpretation of what Wolfson meant as fact? Don't point me to some blog's interpretation of his meaning or some partisan website's interpretation of his meaning. I want a URL to a complete transcript, with no interpretation and nothing taken out of context. Anything else is a witchhunt. FuelWagon 15:06, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

No, I don't have the full text of the interview -- do you? What I do have is documentary evidence that the Schindlers took legal action in opposition to Wolfson's appointment[5], alleging such bias, which they would have had no reason to do had Wolfson's interview not given them reason to believe that he was biased. Or do you think they filed their suggestion of bias for the fun of it? If you think that they had no reason to file it, then why don't you quote the interview and tell us why you think they were mistaken in their belief that he had exhibited bias? NCdave 02:57, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Also, the article says that, "According to Jay Wolfson, one of Schiavo's court-appointed guardians, due to the attention Schiavo has received in the 15 years she has been bedridden, she has never developed any bedsores." But Wolfson was provably wrong about that. Michael acknowledged in sworn testimony during the 1992 malpractice trial that Terri did have bedsores. In fact, as Michael Schiavo testified under oath, she had a toe amputated because of bedsores.

Was Michael's diagnosis correct? Was it a bedsore that caused the toe to be amputated? Or was it some other medical complication? I'm not a bedsore expert, but if Terri spends most of her time on her back, then her toes would be in the air, and it would be hard to get a bedsore. A URL would be handy. FuelWagon 01:43, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

The article refers to GAL Wolfson simply as, "one of Schiavo's court-appointed guardians." But (1) Wolfson wasn't Terri's guardian, merely her GAL. That's factual inaccuracy. Also, (2) the article fails to mention that Wolfson's appointment was opposed by the Schindlers because Wolfson had shown bias in the case, because he had already, before his appointment, publicly expressed the opinion that Terri's feeding tube should be removed. That ommision is POV bias.

A URL to a newspaper article quoting Wolfson would be useful. FuelWagon 01:43, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Here are some articles mentioning the Schindler's legal steps opposing Wolfson's selection: [6] NCdave 02:57, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The article says, "the Schindlers actively encouraged Mr. Schiavo to 'get on with his life.' He was encouraged by the Schindlers to date..." But, like so much of the article, that is the unsupported contention of Michael Schiavo (and hearsay, too). The Schindlers have not admitted such a thing.

"The Schindlers have not admitted such a thing." Hm. Interesting. That proves nothing. It is a lack of information. The thing is that Wolfson said it in his report, and as far as I know, the Schindlers have never disputed it. If they haven't disputed it, it can stand as fact. Your disputing the assertion is irrelevant. I know of nothing on record from the Schindler's side that disputes that they told him to get on with his life, and introduced girlfriends to them, and let him stay in their home while doing so. FuelWagon 01:43, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Regarding Terri's condition, it isn't just the argument over whether she was in PVS or MCS (not "MVS," btw). The article also incorrectly states that Terri's "cerebral cortex had been completely destroyed," which is an example of pure nonsense from the Felos propaganda machine. According to radiologists, Terri's CT scans showed no such thing, and the extent of Terri's brain damage was unknown, because Felos/M.Schiavo would not permit the PET and fMRI scans that would have determined it.

"Felos propaganda machine". Are you quoting one of the players in the case? or are you introducing your POV here? "according to radiologists" Which radiologists? Some guy with a blog? Did you not see the scan of Terri's brain with the huge empty space in her skull? perhaps her cerebral cortex hadn't been "completely destroyed", but you'd have to have an amazing skill at selective vision to miss that big black hole on that scan. fMRI was completely experimental,even some of the doctors whom the Schindlers got affidavits from said that an fMRI should be used in a UNIVERSITY or research setting rather than as a medical diagnosis. The lack of a test proves nothing. It is zero evidence. "why not test her?" is an unanswered question. it proves nothing. It is simply "begging the question" and proving nothing. FuelWagon 01:43, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

"Some guy with a blog" (the acclaimed CodeBlueBlog) is an expert who has interpreted over 10,000 brain CTs. Dr. Maxfield, who was also a radiologist, agreed. In fact, I don't know of any radiologists who supported the Felos/Cranford claim that that single, very "shallow," CT slice showed what Felos said it showed: i.e., that Terri had no remaining cerebral cortex:

Radiologist Thomas Boyle, M.D., 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."

Felos dishonestly juxtapositioned that handpicked single, shallow, CT slice with a much deeper slice from a normal brain, for the press, using an apples-to-oranges comparison to confuse people into believing that Terri's brain was much more strikingly different from a normal brain that was actually the case. It was a shamefully dishonest stunt. NCdave 02:57, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ah, yes, the neutral and all knowing Doctor Boyle. The fact that he never examined Terri is irrelevant. The fact that he's a conservative hack with a blog who gets advertising money based on hits and so is rewarded the more outrageous his claims are is also irrelevant. This is the guy who said "Democrats are trying to murder Terri". Note, he didn't say Michael, or Greer, is trying to murder Terri. He said DEMOCRATS, as in all encompassing, every democrat on the planet is in a GRAND CONSPIRACY TO MURDER TERRI. Yeah. This is the sort of guy we should listen to. Boyle is a partisan nutcase, and doesn't deserve space on wikipedia. FuelWagon 18:52, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The article describes Cranford as, "a neurologist at the University of Minnesota [who] assessed Schiavo's brain function in 2001 as part of a court-ordered examination." That is POV biased, because it gives a false impression of how Cranford came to be involved, and because of the highly selective way in which he is described. In fact, it was Felos who chose Cranford, not the court, and Cranford is most famous as a pro-euthanasia activist, not as a UM professor. It was Cranford's right-to-die/euthanasia activism that led Felos to hire him, not his position at UM.

If cranford was biased enough, the Schindler's could have protested and gotten him off the case. Either they screwed up and missed the chance or the tried but Greer was in the conspiracy and left him on the job. FuelWagon 01:43, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

You can't be serious! Protested to Greer? Greer didn't want to let any doctors not approved by M.Schiavo examine Terri! Get real. NCdave 02:57, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"Greer didn't want" OK, so Greer was in on the conspiracy. That just proves my point that you're a nutcase. If Greer did anything wrong as a judge as part of his conspiracy, why did every single appeal fail to overturn any of his rulings? or were THEY all in on the conspiracy too? Conspiracy is the fallback excuse for every nutjob because it is impossible to disprove. Nutjobs don't care that it they can't PROVE it, they just like it because no one can DISPROVE it. Any evidence that would show a lack of conspiracy (Greer must have done his job right because the appeal courts never overturned his rulings) only turns it into a bigger conspiracy (The appeals courts are in on it.) Any idiot can explain ANYTHING as a conspiracy if they simply include enough people to be in on the conspiracy. In YOUR case, NCdave, your conspiracy includes two dozen judges, dozens of hospital employees, the police that Iyer contacted, half a dozen neurologists, and according to the god you worship by the name of Dr Boyle, ALL DEMOCRATS IN THE US. You can pretty much explain anything you want when the conpircist list is that long, even turn rudimentary windmills into evil dragons. FuelWagon 00:05, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

(Quoting Wagon above) If Greer did anything wrong as a judge as part of his conspiracy, why did every single appeal fail to overturn any of his rulings? Wagon, maybe is was simply a conspiracy, [7] that is, an "agreement by the judges and courts to perform together an illegal, wrongful, or subversive act, a secret plan to achieve an evil or illegal end: A cabal, collusion, connivance, intrigue, machination, plot, scheme." [8] or were THEY all in on the conspiracy too? Apparently, "Yes." Conspiracy is the fallback excuse for every nutjob because it is impossible to disprove. Nutjobs don't care that it they can't PROVE it, they just like it because no one can DISPROVE it. Any evidence that would show a lack of conspiracy (Greer must have done his job right because the appeal courts never overturned his rulings) only turns it into a bigger conspiracy (The appeals courts are in on it.) Falso: It can easily be proved: We accept that all the courts worked together to declare that Black Americans were slaves, right? Answer: [9] So, it can be proved that conspiracy is possible. Now, did the courts "work together" to deny Terri food and water and medical rehabilitation, therapy, examination, etc? "Yes." (Note: I didn't ask "Did they work together to deny a FEEDING TUBE?" I asked if they worked together to deny food and water and standard medical rehab and therapy, which things are patently illegal.) Were these acts illegal? Most of them were, yes (and were felonies in some case). So, the courts' actions, taken together fit the textbook (dictionary) definition of "conspiracy, thank you.--GordonWattsDotCom 06:20, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Also, the article says that, "[Cranford's] exam showed that Schiavo's cerebral cortex had been completely destroyed and replaced by cerebrospinal fluid. The upper brain was about 80 percent destroyed, and there was also damage to the lower brain. The only part of the brain that remained intact was the brain stem..." But that is factually incorrect. Cranford's examination of Terri showed no such thing. He only spent about 45 minutes with her. He claimed that CT scans showed that her cerebral cortex was completely destroyed, but he is not a radiologist and not qualified to interpret CT scans, and radiologists say that her CT scans showed no such thing.

Also, the article shows a Felos-provided CT slice comparison: a single slice from a CT scan of Terri's head side-by-side with a CT slice of a normal brain, as if the two were comparable. But, in fact, the two slices are not comparable, because they are of different parts of the head, as evidenced by the much thicker skull cross-section on Terri's slice, because it is a shallower cross-section. That CT slice comparison was a deliberately deceptive propaganda stunt by Felos, to falsely exaggerate the structural differences between Terri's brain and a normal, undamaged brain. It has no place in an encyclopedia article.

Thank you Dr. NCdave. Did you get a neurology degree while you were away? A big black hole in Terri's skull is a big black hole. It don't matter what you compare it to. FuelWagon 01:43, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

No, it isn't. The reason that Terri's skull appears so thick in that scan is presumably that it was a very "shallow" cross-section, which means that it doesn't show what is further down. The Felos team hand-selected that single slice to distribute to the media. Why do you think they withheld the other slices from that scan? The radiologists say that this CT slice does not show that Terri's cerebral cortex is "gone." NCdave 20:02, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

"Why do you think they withheld the other slices from that scan?" That is "begging the question" and a "leading question". You've substantiated nothing. You've presented no real evidence. Questions are not evidence. Learn that lesson and a lot of the problems on this talk page will go away. FuelWagon 15:06, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

I'd really like to know, FuelWagon. Why do you think the Felos team withheld the other slices from that scan?

Let me spell it out for you. Recall that it was Felos who claimed that the CT slice proved that Terri had no cerebral cortex. But radiologists scoffed at that assertion. That slice only showed what was in that single, shallow cross-section of Terri's brain. It does not show the rest of her brain at all. The Felos/Cranford claim was that all of Terri's cerebral cortex was missing, and that that CT slice proved it. In other words, Felos/Cranford lied.

"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." -radiologist Thomas Boyle

If Felos/Cranford/M.Schiavo wanted to show what was in all of Terri's cerebral cortex, then they would have necessarily shown the rest of the CT slices, the slices that showed the rest of her brain. They didn't, for the obvious reason that they didn't want to show the rest of her brain, which was far from missing. NCdave 03:53, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Also, the article quotes fragments of GAL reports that support the M.Schiavo/Felos POV, but fails to quote fragments that support the Schindler POV.

Also, the article says, "Dr. Jeffrey Karp and Dr. Victor Gambone, Schiavo's primary care physician, determined that she was in an irreversible persistent vegetative state (PVS)." But I can find no documentation of any testimony, report, or conclusion by Dr. Karp, of any sort.

And that proves... what? You have unanswered questions. That isn't POV on the part of the wikipedia article, it is ignorance on your part: you don't know. FuelWagon 01:43, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Were is the evidence that Karp said such a thing? If it is undocumented, what is it doing in the article? NCdave 03:53, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The article says, "Dr. Jeffrey Karp and Dr. Victor Gambone, Schiavo's primary care physician, determined that she was in an irreversible persistent vegetative state (PVS)." But Dr. Gambone was actually hired by Felos as part of the legal strategy to end Terri's life. He was not her physician before that. He is not a neurologist or radiologist. He does not have the expertise to diagnose or treat PVS. He was hired by Felos to get the diagnosis that they wanted, after M.Schiavo & Felos had already begun their efforts to have her killed, and he falsified documentation to get her admitted to hosipice, and he committed Medicaid fraud: On March 11, 2000 he signed the following statement: "Based on the patient’s diagnosis and current condition, I expect this patient has a limited life expectancy of six (6) months or less, if disease continues to take its(sic) usual course, and hereby certify this patient as eligible for Hospice care."[10][11]. Gambone spent only one hour with Terri the first time he saw her, and thereafter saw her for only about 10 minutes at a time, just three times per year. On no occasion did Gambone spend anywhere near enough time to definitively diagnose PVS. But readers are led by the article to believe that he was an credible, informed, and unbiased source of medical opinion (her "primary care physician"). That is deceptive. The article trashes Hammesfahr, but gives Cranford and Gambone a pass. That is POV bias.

Correction: the document submitted over Gambone's name lacks his signature. Perhaps he was uncomfortable signing it, since it was obviously false. But he continued as her physician of record, after her admission to hospice, for something like four or five years, so he was certainly complicit in the fraud. NCdave 03:53, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

He committed medicaid fraud? And you want wikipedia to put this in the article? Is that a lawsuit I smell? FuelWagon 01:43, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Yes, he committed medicaid fraud. The admission paperwork from Dr. Gambone, to put Terri into hospice, certified that her condition was terminal with a life expectancy of 6 months or less. That was a blatant and deliberate falsification. NCdave 03:53, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Oh, and I see you're spreading this same rumor on the timeline article too, now. This report by Pearse, dated 9 December 1998, page 2, says: "the ward's current primary care physician, Dr. Vincent Gambone". So the wikipedia article is quoting legal documents when it calls Gambone her primary care physician. But Pearse is probably in on the conspiracy. FuelWagon 18:19, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Gambone was part of the team chosen by Felos as part of the legal effort to end Terri's life. He never treated her condition. His examinations of her were cursory: he testified that he saw her for only about 10 minutes at a time, only a few times per year, after an initial one-hour examination. NCdave 03:53, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The discussion of the five doctors who participated in the evidentiary hearing casts aspersions on the two physicians chosen by the Schindlers, but doesn't mention, for example, that Cranford saw Terri for less than 45 minutes, and that he once testified in favor of starving to death a man who could navigate an electric wheelchair up and down hospital corridors. The article even gets wrong one of the five physians. It says, "Michael Schiavo selected Dr. Cranford and Dr. James Barnhill." But actually M.Schiavo chose Cranford and the very elderly Dr. Melvin Greer (no relation to the judge), an out-of-State neurologist who saw Terri for only about 45 minutes, and testified that a doctor need not examine a patient to know the appropriate medical treatment, and whose practice did not include the diagnosis or treatment of PVS or MCS patients. In contrast (not mentioned in this article, of course), Dr. Hammesfahr spent over 10 hours with Terri.

I've yet to find anything that says Cranford wanted to euthanize a guy in a wheelchair. I know he diagnosed someone as PVS and a year or so later the guy got better and could move around in a wheelchair, but at the time of the diagnosis the guy was comatose. As far as I know, Cranford never got reprimanded/sued/license-pulled for his diagnosis. FuelWagon 01:43, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

FuelWagon, I have already provided a link to an article by a lawyer who cross-examined Dr Cranford during the trial in the case of Robert Wendland. I posted it to this page on 22 April, but it has since been archived (Archive 23). Here it is again [12]. According to this article, Cranford said in court, "Robert should be allowed to die so the family can grieve". Robert Wendland was the man in the wheelchair. I have seen an article which claims that Cranford diagnosed him as PVS, but most articles, including the one I refer to here, say that his diagnosis was MCS. His recommendation of removing nutrition was made at the time that he acknowledged Wendland to be MCS, not when Wendland was in a coma. Ann Heneghan 00:22, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Right. On at least one occasion, Cranford testified that he believed that Robert Wendland (who could maneuver an electric wheelchair up and down hospital corridors, and catch a ball tossed to him) was "minimally conscious," yet Cranford still testified in favor of ending Wendland's life by dehydration/starvation.

You are citing the blog of a partisan! This woman reminds me of Hammesfahr. He practically had Schiavo up and walking. This woman has the patient in question so well, you really have to ask why he didn't just drive his electric wheelchair down to Maccas and buy himself lunch. This is the problem with your side of this discussion. FuelWagon cites the opinion of the courts, neutral doctors who have no axe to grind and sources that involve factchecking in some way. You are citing a woman expressing her agenda, which happens to coincide with your own. Grace Note 01:59, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

If you don't like Ann's cite, Google will find hundreds of others for you: http://www.google.com/search?q=Robert+Wendland+Cranford NCdave 03:53, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

That its a partisan isn't the problem. That its a BLOG is the problem. Any idiot with a modem can have a blog, and they have no legal responsbilities to be neutral, factual, or follow any sort of journalistic ethics. Find a URL from a newspaper or something more journalistic that says Robert Wendland was out and about at the time Cranford diagnosed him PVS and then you might have something. As it is, this is little more than the word of Abigail Williams. FuelWagon 15:06, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

If you don't like Ann's cite, Google will find hundreds of others for you: http://www.google.com/search?q=Robert+Wendland+Cranford NCdave 03:53, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I could go on and on -- that's all from the top 20% or so of the article, there are massive quantities of incorrect and biased material in this article.

Oh, I know you could go on. and on. and on. You are unmoved by logic, unswayed by evidence, and unbothered by a lack of evidence on your part. I'm surprised you didn't mention the fact that Michael said "when's that bitch gonna die" didn't get sufficient space in the article. You loved beating that one to death for weeks. FuelWagon 01:43, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Your insults notwithstanding, there is sworn evidence by multiple credible witnesses, who (unlike Michael) have no conflicts of interest, that Michael expressed such sentiments. One of those witnesses quoted those exact words. Really, there is no reasonable doubt about that fact that Michael expressed the hope that she would hurry up and die, to multiple people, back in the early 1990s. Yet it is a matter of record that in those days he never suggested that she had ever expressed such a desire. Indeed, in those days he told people that he had no idea what she would want. NCdave 03:53, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The current article is so very bad that IMO there's no chance it will be entirely fixed anytime soon. So, in the meantime, can we at least all agree on the obvious fact that the neutrality and accuracy of the article are disputed? At least we can restore the "{{npov}}" and "{{accuracy}}" warning tags to the article, which say so. Agreed? NCdave 20:18, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

I agree that the neutrality is disputed. I am not going to get caught up in edit wars, but I certainly support having the neutrality tag on the article for the time being, while we try to sort out these issues. I can think of a few other registered users who showed clearly in their edits and their comments on the talk page that they believed the neutrality was disputed. They seem to have disappeared. Well, I can't blame them. Wikipedia editing can take over, and we all have other things in our lives that we need to do. Plus, the atmosphere can be rather hostile for people who lean in the direction of thinking that the Schindlers had some good arguments on their side. Ann Heneghan 17:12, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Thank you, Ann. NCdave 03:53, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ann, the church thought they had some good arguments on their side when they considered burning Galileo at the stake. I don't have a problem with "good arguments". But I am hostile to the dogmatism of NCdave and GordonWatts. NCdave brought up Iyer's affidavit for several weeks when this was hot and heavy and NOTHING would change his mind. He kept harping on Iyer's allegation that Michael tried to inject insulin into Terri on 5 separate occaisions in failed attempts to kill her and that he was continuously asking "when is that bitch gonna die?" or similar questions. -FuelWagon

In fact, what Iyer said was that she suspected he had tried to kill her by insulin injection, and she explained the cause of her suspicion. I'd appreciate it if, when you paraphrase me, you do so accurately. NCdave 03:53, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

That the judge ruled her affidavit "incredible to say the least" unmoved him. -FuelWagon

"The judge," in this case, was Greer, whose misbehavior was so eggregious that he was asked to leave his church. That same judge also dismisssed the affidavits of three speech pathologists as "fatally flawed," because they disagreed with his own medical diagnosis that Terri was in a PVS. NCdave 03:53, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

That Iyer claimed to inform the Schindlers about Michael's actions but that they did nothing didn't phase him. -FuelWagon

That is a misrepresentation of Iyer's testimony -- as I previously pointed out to you. NCdave 03:53, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

That Iyer claimed that her boss and even the police were in on the conspiracy with Michael, seemed perfectly reasonable to him. -FuelWagon

Iyer was fired for being the whistleblower, but, as you know, she never suggested that the police were in on a conspiracy with Michael. Please stop making things up that I supposedly said. NCdave 03:53, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

So, yeah, I'm hostile to moronic idiocy that would defend allegations that are so outlandish that you might as well call Michael a witch and burn him at the stake. FuelWagon 18:11, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

FuelWagon, if you read Iyer's affidavit carefully, you'll see that she did not claim to have informed the Schindlers of Michael's actions. She claims that she would call them, despite instructions to the contrary, because she felt they should know about their daughter. In context, she seems to be claiming that nurses were not permitted to inform the Schindlers of Terri's condition, and that she went against the orders. You may think it's unlikely that she wouldn't have mentioned her suspicions, but that's just your opinion. If you say that she claimed to inform them about Michael's actions, you're simply misquoting her. Also, with regard to the Schindlers having done nothing, they were already in a legal battle against Michael over the guardianship issue. Ann Heneghan 23:29, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You are exactly right, Ann. In fact, Iyer didn't even say that she identified herself to the Schindlers. It is quite possible that she simply left one or more anonymous messages on their answering machine, alerting them to changes in their daughter's condition. Her remark that she had called the Schindlers was paranthetical, by way of explanation, after she mentioned that she had been ordered not to contact them. NCdave 03:53, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I have read Iyer's affidavit carefully, and although the word actions does not appear in it, there can be no other conclusion that one can draw from her statement. She called the Schindlers, she said, because, "I thought they should know about their daughter." Know what? That Terri was doing fine except for the low blood sugar after Michael's visits? What else would she be telling them. She swore that she called the police. About what? She said, "relative to the situation." What situation? There was only one thing to call the police about and that was her suspicions about Michael's actions. That's a final step. It is impossible to deny that she would certainly have taken the prelimary step to tell the Schindlers the same story, since she was already talking to them. Duckecho 00:56, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, but there can be another conclusion that one can draw (maybe not that you draw), and it it not impossible to deny that she would "certainly" have told the Schindlers. I don't deny that it's quite likely that someone in the situation she claimed to be in would have told them about the insulin; I deny that she would certainly have done so. We know from the history of the dispute that the Schindlers were constantly battling to be given medical information, and that on some occasions judges ordered Michael to give them that information, and that he ignored the instruction (as he seems to have ignored the instruction to inform the Schindlers of where Terri's ashes have been laid - correct me if I'm wrong). The affidavit says "Michael was also adamant that the family should not be given information . . . there was a large sign in the front of her chart that said under no circumstances was her family to be called". It seems obvious that that refers to medical information, and it is in that context and immediately after that statement that she says she "would call them anyway". The implication is that she would call them to give them medical information - perhaps that Terri had a slight fever, or that her condition had improved, etc. So yes, it's possible, it may even be likely, that she would have told them of her suspicions - but it is definitely not unquestionable that she would have done so. She could have been thinking, and wondering, and hesitating. People don't always report such things. After she was fired, contact with the Schindlers might not have been first thing in her mind. I don't have a strong opionion one way or the other as to how reliable Iyer is. In her favour, the affidavits by Law and Johnson seem to back up many of her claims. And all three nurses worked at different periods (1993, 1995-6, 1997). They had less motive to lie than the Michael Schiavo relatives who corroborated his story about Terri's wishes. However, my main objection here is to people assuming that Iyer's testimony has been proved to be false, based on their assumptions of what she would have done. Ann Heneghan 17:47, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The article does not "prove" Iyer's affidavit is "wrong". It presents the affidavit, lists the accusations, lists what is known about Iyer's and the Schindlers actions since the alleged events, lists Greer's ruling on it, and lists certain missing evidence that would backup Iyer's story. The schindlers never subpeonaed her during the first big trial after the alleged events. The article doesn't say it "proves" her accusations are false, but it is a pertinent fact. Same goes with the fact that no one ever presented a police report to support her claim that she had contacted the police. I suppose, we could always let Iyer cry "Witch!" and drop all the pertinent facts that cast any doubt on her claims. Yeah, that would make NCdave's week. She says Michael may have tried to murder Terri by insulin injections on 5 separate occaisions, but she did nothing about it that we can see objectively to support her claim and the Schindler's move to NOT petition her earlier is relevant. It doesn't prove anythign, but it is an undisputable fact that Iyer didn't show up until way, way later. FuelWagon 18:48, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

And with regard to the Schindlers having done nothing, it's clear that Fuelwagon means with regard to the information that Iyer purportedly had given them and he's referring to NCdave's being unphased by the incongruity of that information not being acted upon. The guardianship fight would have paled to insignificance if the Schindlers truly had inside eyewitness accounts of alleged misdeeds by Michael. Duckecho 00:56, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I know that FuelWagon means that. That's why I pointed out that it is nowhere stated that Iyer gave them any information about her suspicions concerning criminal activity on Michael's part. You can assume that she would have told them. FuelWagon can assume that she would have told them. But these are just your assumptions. Ann Heneghan 17:47, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Iyer got fired, I think it was the next day, after she contacted the police. Exit one inside eyewitness.

The Schindlers, however, certainly did not "do nothing" about their belief that Michael was mistreating their daughter. GAL John H. Pecarek was appointed explicitly to investigate the abuse allegations against Michael Schiavo. The fact that he found no proof of such abuse does not mean that the Schindlers "did nothing" about the mistreatment of their daughter. NCdave 03:53, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sure, and they failed to subpeona the one woman who kept in contact with them during the months that Michael tried to murder Terri. Wow. A perfect witness for the Schindlers and they decide to skip her. Of course, the INSANE excuse is that Iyer was so damned concerned about Terri that she went to the police and got herself fired the next day, but then decided not to bother with A SINGLE PHONE CALL TO THE SCHINDLERS. Yeah, that's what a normal person would do. I can see it. FuelWagon 18:48, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

All of these accusations, I'm sure, are proven on various neutral websites with supporting evidence to back it up. Oh, if only I had a URL, the truth could come out. FuelWagon 22:27, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

It appears to me that both of you (NCdave and FuelWagon) are at some level correct. NCdave is partially correct that some of the controversies may not be provided in the Wiki format of: Fact, document/link, fact about controversy, document/link. Rather, long and circular arguments are provided about one or both sides. This is suboptimal.

FuelWagon is correct in that NPOV is not served by inserting dissertations on one or the other POV. The reader should be allowed to reach their own conclusions, not be led of on a tangent. And unfortunately, the passion and detail of NCdave's arguments undermine his position on this point. So I submitted for mediation.

I think you are generally correct on one important point, ghost: Namely, I think that at least the two main opposing views be presented on each subject, be it the feeding tube, what Terri's wishes were, how much rehab & theroapy should've been done, or even (for example) whether there should've been more examination of Terri. That is, you provide a good format: "Fact, document/link, fact about controversy, document/link." For example, The court ruled A (link), but the family (or other principals) said B (link). The court finally ruled C (link). Dave's passion (or lack therof) neither supports nor undermines his views. The fact stand or fall on their own merit (or lack therof). I was one of those users who both became frusterated with the rancor and argument --as well as the time spent that resulted in reverts. Resultantly, I am expected to limit my participation, but I mean no offense by this. Ann has a good point. As an example of rancor, let me point out that on the point of whether my court cases were "notable," I still haven't seen an answer as to why the court simply didn't deny my rehearing petition immediately by a 7-0 vote. History records that they reviewed the petition (case SC03-2420) from before Jeb file dhis petition until after his petition (SC04-925) was denied. Also, they denied it 4-3. Governor Jeb Bush was denied 7-0. See e.g., http://jweb.flcourts.org/pls/docket/ds_docket_search%20 I may have lost, but I was more "notable" than the good Governor, and I discuss this point in other places. Suffice it to say that the vanity page guidelines allow a NONfamous person to post his own pages, a fact that is not only rejected by some but also with rancor and poking fun at me. Next time you've done notable work, you might not get mentioned, and when one is cheated, all feel pain, particularily the readers who are cheated. I also refuse to get caught up in WIKI edit wars. In conclusion, let's argue less and follow GHOST's suggestion more: Put on the main points of view -and their respective documentation; don't worry about what order it is, or the details: It would be bad for your health to stress out. Now, is there any reason not to so do? --GordonWattsDotCom_In_Florida 03:29, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

We CAN make this work. As a group, it requires that we choose too. We have a moral obligation to do so that started when we hit the 'edit' button. Let's see what a 3rd party has to say about what Wikipedia's position(s) should be.--ghost 13:26, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

NCDave is simply pushing a POV. Each edit he makes is founded in a particular theory he has. Okay, I don't have a problem with that POV's being represented but it may not be put forward as "neutral" or as "the facts". I've suggested to him and I suggest to you, ghost, that he puts his suggested edits here on the talkpage, with short justifications, and sources where appropriate, one by one. Allow each to be fully discussed. Accept a compromise. We can go through the entire article in that manner. I don't know why you expect a mediator to say anything different. They're not simply going to say "let's just take a middle course". Most editors will, I think, agree that FuelWagon represents something like the neutral view and NCDave an extreme POV. A middle course would be somewhere slanted towards Dave's view. But articles should represent controversies quite separately from facts, not represent each side as though its "facts" had equal validity. Dave's facts are all too often interpretations ex post facto or what you might call "negative facts": Mr Schiavo did not do this, the judge did not do that, and conclusions he draws from those omissions (it would be slightly more acceptable if Dave restricted himself to others' commentary and didn't seek to interpose his own thinking on it. Grace Note 23:34, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Your insults notwithstanding, Grace Note, my POV is that the article should be balanced and accurate. If you think that's "extreme" then you may call me an extremist, but I think that says more about your POV than mine. NCdave 02:57, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I actually do have a problem with NCdave's pov being represented. The POV's that deserve representation in teh article are Michaels and the Schindlers. NCdave's pov is irrelevant. The POV of some blog in tim-buck-two is irrelevant. MY pov is irrelevant. The point is to report the POV's of the main players who were actually involved, not some armchair Don Quixote who can inflate his self ego by declaring himself to be on the side of the "culture of life" and waging war against whatever delusions of evil he might have. FuelWagon 15:06, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Here's my underlying motivation. I agree that mediation is likely not going to resolve the majority of these issues. My purpose in submitting for mediation was to: 1) Gather enough of a concensus on a few items to resist the fringe. Also, to have an independant review of facts & statements about facts that would be defensible by the majority of us. (And I DO want to be involved in that majority, even if I don't agree on the minutia.) 2) Failing that, give us grounds to submit the article and/or issues for arbitration. Basicly, I want a bigger hammer for the Whack-O-Mole games. Big enough to allow all the reverts needed.

I read thru all the text below on cats, line-by-line, etc. I think overall, it argues even more for an independant review. I'm tired, and I think most of the rest of us are too, of being forced play windmill for the Don Quixotes. We need a baseline. If we cut to article to the base framework, what can be agreed on? If one statement is going to force 4 paragraphs of explanation, is it better to remove the statement altogether? I don't think it is, and Wikipedia's NPOV policy seems to back another way...

But it's not enough, to express the Wikipedia non-bias policy, just to say that we should state facts and not opinions. When asserting a fact about an opinion, it is important also to assert facts about competing opinions, and to do so without implying that any one of the opinions is correct. It's also generally important to give the facts about the reasons behind the views, and to make it clear who holds them. (It's often best to cite a prominent representative of the view.)

Some of the users are clearly making zero attempt to examine or present competeing views. However, burying thier opinions by following them with dissertations undermining the opinion is equally inappropriate. It could be done in one paragraph. How far off-base am I on this format?

-Statement of Fact (and in regards to rulings, this should be the ruling, although we may want to list it as such)

-Opinion supporting Fact (What it is; Who supports it)

-Link supporting opinion (this should be a footnote link only)

-Opinion challengeing Fact and/or supporting Opinion (What it is; Who supports it)

-Link supporting challenge (again, this should be a footnote link only)

-Point/link to See Also or Reference section, or other article

I propose that anything that can't stand up to this test be cut. Call it the Joe Friday approach. I've got no interest in reading all of a seventeen page article. If I want more detail, give me a link or tell me where to get it. Otherwise, "Just the facts..."--ghost 20:52, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Let's look at it sentence by sentence

Paragraph One

Theresa Marie Schiavo (3 December 1963–31 March 2005), commonly known as Terri Schiavo (pronounced SHY-voh, IPA: /'ʃaɪvoʊ/), was an American woman from St. Petersburg, Florida.

I would have to say this is pretty neutral—anyone disagree? I've never liked the commonly known as phrase, but I haven't figured out a better replacement. Duckecho 15:41, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Terri Schiavo (3 December 1963 - 31 March 2005, full name Theresa Marie Schiavo) was an American woman from St. Petersburg, Florida ... any better? Proto 09:05, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, that's not bad. Duckecho 11:12, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

"Terri Schiavo (3 December 1963 - 31 March 2005, full name Theresa Marie Schindler-Schiavo) was an American woman from St. Petersburg, Florida who became famous for the dispute over whether her feeding tube should be disconnected. She was (or possibly "she later became") a central figure in other related issues including, but not limited to, whether a brain-damaged person could be denied oral food, therapy, or additional examination, arbitrarily by the courts." Comments on this: this is NOPV, that is, not taking any particular "pro-euthanasia" or "pro-Terri" stance, and it is both brief -as well as more comprehensive than that suggestion you made. However, I will have to credit you with asking me. Had you not asked, I would have not answered, having been turned off by the recent "time-consuming" (or time-wasting?) edit wars, ya know... --GordonWattsDotCom_In_Florida 10:30, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

If you can present credible evidence (not the name of some partisan website) that she ever used Schindler-Schiavo as her name then it might be worth considering. Otherwise, no. This has been discussed before. Duckecho 11:12, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Rather than Shiavo-Schindler, which I have never seen, anywhere, it could be [ ... full name Theresa Marie Shiavo, née Schindler ... ]. Don't think there's any need for a follow on sentence like GW added, as all that is covered lower. Comprehensiveness should not be a requirement of the opening paragraphs. But yes, 'arbitrarily decided' is very POV. Proto 11:39, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, that was brought up before. It's in Archive 24 (but I conveniently brought it here)

In the very first sentence of the article and in the infobox, it has her name listed as "Theresa Marie Schiavo". Would it be more appropriate to include her maiden name or just leave it as it is? I would include her maiden name, but considering this is a very controversial article and that I'm also rather new, I wanted to get people's opinions first. Thanks! Columbia 05:49, May 9, 2005 (UTC)

It seems to me that "Theresa Marie Schiavo, née Schindler" would be technically accurate, if not pedantic, and "Theresa Marie (Schindler) Schiavo" as is seen in high school reunion documents, would also suffice.

The hyphenated version used by some advocates is grossly POV and would probably offend her were she around to opine about it. Such a use is quite unconventional and represents a specific personal statement by a woman and is not one conferred by someone else. I'm unaware of any evidence that she ever used it.

Duckecho 12:55, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

I know you'll never understand how arbitrarily by the courts is fatally POV, so I'll just tell you that it is, and if you try to rewrite that sentence that way, it'll be reverted. Duckecho 11:12, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

I can see what you mean; "arbitrarily" anything probably doesn't belong; We report, you decide, like FOX News -let the reader decide if it is arbitrary, capricious, mercirial, biased, bad... As far as the name? Check out these: Martha Washington "Martha Dandridge Parke-Custis Washington (June 2, 1731-May 22, 1802) served as the first First Lady of the United States..." See also: Mary Todd Lincoln is the name that she is called in this link, but she is also called "Mary Ann Todd." So, Duck, an argument exists for calling Terri either by her full name (like Martha Washington is called) or by her maiden name alone (like Honest Abe's wife is called here). You take your pick. --GordonWattsDotCom_In_Florida 12:07, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Paragraph Two

On 25 February 1990, Schiavo suffered severe brain damage from cerebral hypoxia caused by bulimia-induced cardiac arrest.

I believe these are undisputed facts. There is no question she suffered brain damage, and the date is a matter of public record, as is the diagnoses of cerebral hypoxia and cardiac arrest. The bulimia was found by the court at trial, so these are all facts that shouldn't be in dispute, and as facts are NPOV. Agreed? Duckecho 16:00, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

There's been discussion of bulimia in the talk page since it was first raised as a 'cause' of her collapse. It is disputed for a lot of reasons. She didn't have evidence of abuse of laxitives or esphogeal damage as other signs of bulimia. In fact, they only made the inference of bulimia to explain the low potassium level. The malpractice award for not for the failure to diagnose bulimia, but to perform blood tests that possibly would have identified the low potassium level. The Schindlers, friends, and acquintances of Terri said there was no evidence of bulimia they could see and, of course, Michael himself who lived with Terri and did not urge her to be treated for bulimia before February 25 1990. Therefore I disagree and find it to be disputed that bulimia caused the collapse. patsw 21:43, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Agree with Patsw. Later in the article (Initial Medical Crisis), it states that her cardiac arrest "is believed to have been caused by bulimia-induced hypokalemia" (emphasis mine). I am not advocating a "she-collapsed-under-mysterious-circumstances-while-alone-with-Michael" wording, but feel that the Wikipedia article should avoid stating that her collapse "was" caused by bulimia. I recall reading that the doctor who was sued for malpractice appealed, and won the appeal (not to get the money back from Terri, but to clear his own name). And that when the Schindlers heard about this they asked for a copy of the records, but were not given them. I cannot give a source right now, because when I read that, I did not expect to need it again. Anyway, the article does mention the bulimia later on. That she collapsed and suffered brain damage is undisputed (as far as I know); that the collapse was caused by bulimia is open to question. Ann Heneghan 23:29, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Pat's and Ann's (and others') reservations have bothered me for some time, so I've gone looking. I don't know that the results of the malpractice trial are available anywhere, but there are references to it in at least three locations:

the first, the GAL Wolfson report raises the question of bulimia and although he had extensive access to both Michael and the Schindlers, I don't know what, if any, consensus he had in his remarks. It's unlikely, however, that he just made them up.

the second, Abstract Appeal, admittedly a blog, but with analysis by an actual attorney, states that the malpractice "...jury [found] that Terri had bulimia, that her bulimia caused her cardiac arrest..." and the award for which was settled prior to appeal. I believe that finding of fact would stand since it was not appealed.

and the third, St. Pete Times article written by Gary Fox, the lead attorney in that lawsuit, states outright that Terri had bulimia. I believe that's considered a primary source.

I am sensitive to the Schindler's belief that their daughter had no part in what befell her, however, the low potassium (which triggered the cardiac arrest) was caused by something, and the cites are strong evidence that bulimia was the reason. I don't mind indicating that the Schindlers dispute that, but isn't it also fair to say that the Schindlers dispute almost everything in this case? Is it necessary to put that disclaimer in at every occurrence of a disputed fact? And no, that is not an invitation to include the POV tag to so indicate. Duckecho 19:46, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

Some physicians question whether her low potassium triggered cardiac arrest, and whether she ever experienced full cardiac arrest at all. It is certain that she experienced anoxic brain damage, and that she exhibited cardiac arrythmia en route to the hospital. But whether her cardiac arrythmia caused her brain damage, or vice-versa, is unknown. Her brain damage could have been caused by asphyxiation, and her arrythmia could have been caused by her brain damage. Michael Schiavo's suspicious behavior on the morning of Terri's injury, and his changing stories about what happened, suggest that he was not without guilt. NCdave 19:05, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Some people may question those things, but those aren't facts, they are hypotheses. What is a documented fact is that the discharge summary from Humana Hospital-Northside shows an admitting diagnosis of cardiopulmonary arrest (heart not beating and not breathing) and the primary final diagnosis of cardiac arrest. Most of the rest of your paragraph is simply circular argument as anyone with some background in medicine can see. It goes nowhere. Neither does your hypothesis about Michael. Suspicious behavior and suggests are not the things that wiki articles are made of. Duckecho 21:15, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I see that the much-added much-removed "alleged" modifier to bulimia was added and removed again. I've read the opinions and orders and have not found that there was a judidical finding of fact that Terri had bulimia. If we could go by post-trial discussions of interest parties of what the opinions and orders included and excluded as findings of fact, the article would be more chaotic that it is now. Where is "this court finds that Terri Schiavo had bulimia" in the court record? As Wolfson (cited above) wrote questions were raised regarding bulimia. If Wolfson who read the court record more closely than most of us, used the phrase "questions were raised", why would he had done so if this had been a finding of fact determined in 1993?

The malpractice award for not for the failure to diagnose bulimia, but to perform blood tests that possibly would have identified the low potassium level found at her admission.

What court made a finding of fact after a review of evidence and testimony that Terri Schiavo had bulimia?

If this can't be cited, then it is only a allegation. The alleged tag should remain. If an affirming cite is found, then I will join the cabal and remove "alledged" when I see it. Otherwise, mere repetition doesn't make it a fact. patsw 13:21, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Gary D. Fox:

"I was the lead trial lawyer for Terri and Michael."

"Terri suffered from an eating disorder known as bulimia nervosa, commonly called bulimia."

"The trial of the medical malpractice case established that the health care providers who treated Terri should have figured out that she had an eating disorder..."

" The preparation and trial of the Schiavo case required that I immerse myself in medical literature and work with medical experts on eating disorders."

I kinda think Gary D. Fox knows what he's talking about. Quote #1 establishes his bonafides and credibility. Absent a transcript of the trial or an order from the trial this is as good as it gets. Wolfson was only the third best of my arguments.

There are at least four other cites in the article that discuss her eating disorder. The only reason that anyone disputes it is because Robert Schindler wants to believe Michael had something to do with her collapsse. That's in at least one of the cites, too. That doesn't make what the lead lawyer in the medmal trial says it is alleged. The malpractice jury didn't award a large settlement because of alleged bulimia. The original award wasn't reduced (because Terri was partly at fault) because of alleged bulimia. One has to apply just a little common sense and reasoning in these things. Would it make you happier to say eating disorder rather than bulimia? That can't be alleged or there would have been no malpractice award. Duckecho 17:06, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Gary D. Fox as attorney for Michael Schiavo has an interest in advancing The POV that Terri had bulimia. He argued that Terri had bulimia. This demonstrates nothing new. My common sense tells me that as many of the editors here have gone over many of the transcrips, opinions, and orders, it shouldn't be hard to find what I've asked for: a judicial finding of fact that Terri had bulimia. My common sense and knowledge of medical malpractice also tells me that it wasn't necessary to determine that she had bulimia in order to find that it was negligent not to perform the tests which might have detected it.

It is not my 'happiness' that you need to satisfy, it is the Wikipedia's own standard of verifiability.

I think we're as far as "While it was widely reported the Terri had bulimia, this was asserted without having been determined to be so in court." Therefore, the "alleged" label is correctly applied. patsw 18:16, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Well, as a matter of fact I've looked all over for anything on the malpractice suit. All I've been able to find is some generic dialogue purporting to be testimony of Michael Schiavo. Not surprisingly, it only appears in the blogosphere, begging the questions: A) why does it look so amateurishly plain vanilla text, as opposed to a scan and pdf of a genuine document?, and 2) if they have that, why don't they have the rest of it? It's not hard to figure the answers to those questions. If anything about the medmal suit is truly on the internet, I haven't found it. Same with Pecarek's report (first GAL). How do we even know they won that case without that document you're looking for? Duckecho 22:06, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

There were many, many pdf scans of court documents, affidavits, etc. on terrisfight.org, and zimp.org at the time that each document had just become part of the general news. I read most or all of them at the time, e.g. the affidavit from the speech pathologist Sarah Green Mele, who believed that Terri was trying to talk and would benefit from speech therapy. After a few months, these documents disappeared; the links were broken. However, I can verify that many of them were originally there as pdf scans of genuine-looking legal documents, complete with lawyer's stamp. Some of them later became available only as html or txt documents. Either the format was changed on the page on which they had originally been pdf, or they were removed from that page, but were still available elsewhere. For example the Sarah Green Mele affidavit is available as html [http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=33875 here].

I'm not an expert in web maintenance, but I have noticed that both the terrisfight.org site and the zimp.org site are often unavailable because of some kind of overload. Am I correct in thinking that a pdf document takes up more space on a server than a html or txt document? And wouldn't that mean that it's more expensive? Remember that the Schindlers were ordinary middle class people who had to mortgage their house in the fight to save their daughter's life, while their opponenet had unlimited access to his wife's medical fund to be able to fight them off. Obviously they ran out of money. It's unfortunate that the documents aren't available anymore, but unless you want to make a donation to terrisfight.org, with a request that it be used for making pdf copies available again, you'll just have to take my word for it that many (not all) of these documents were there originally as pdf. That is not to say that something unverifiable should be inserted into the article, but it is just to answer what seems to be a suggestion on the talk page that the reason the documents are html is that they have been forged. Ann Heneghan 00:04, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I answered Duck's long missive --point by point --on Ann's page, at this diff: [13] Duck, I gave you a fair shake.--GordonWattsDotCom 11:46, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Update: I found that affidavit and placed it here: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/d/dc/MeleAffidavit.pdf Sorry, duck, I couldn't find Pecarek's report on my hard drive. OK, I think I'm going to ask Pamela and friends for help. BRB.--GordonWattsDotCom 10:04, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"Am I correct in thinking that a pdf document takes up more space on a server than a html or txt document?" Yes, you are correct; Sometimes PDF files can be 1,000 Kb, that is, a Megabyte; HTMl files are usually no more than 100 kb. "And wouldn't that mean that it's more expensive?" Yes, you are correct again, but I suspuect that the cost would be negligible, and that they may have decided to use HTML documents in favor or PDF files because the PDF's took too long for many dial-up users to download -since they are much larger files. I know all the main players, and I will contact Pamela Hennesey, the webmaster and tell her of the concerns that you and Duck have. They are true web wizards and experts. I will also contact some of my other friends, who may have documents -plus, I will search my own computer hard drive for this one affidavit. Can't we upload docs to WIKI just like I uploaded pictures of myself when updating my WIKI user page? If so, then that should help some. Ah, wait a second: I founf the "Mele" affidavit on my computer's hard drive -in PDF format. It is 819 kilobytes! I shall upload it to the WIKI server and be right back.--GordonWattsDotCom 09:51, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

She went into a coma for two and a half months and spent the last 15 years of her life in a condition diagnosed as an irreversible persistent vegetative state (PVS),

Well, that's awkward…a period is badly needed here. In any event, the two and a half month coma and the period of last 15 years as I understand it are not in dispute by anyone. Diagnosis of PVS I understand to be a subject of discussion, but those who dispute it are compelled to accept one thing: the court held a trial, accepted testimony from witnesses, and as judges are charged to do, made a decision based on the evidence that the diagnosis of PVS was correct. That ruling was upheld in a number of courts. That process is a fundamental part of our legal system. The finding by the court of PVS is a legal fact, however incorrect some people (including doctors) feel it to be. Moreover, that process is explained in the succeeding sentences, and just can't be dismissed without POV. Duckecho 16:00, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Schiavo's medical diagnosis of being in a persistent vegetative state was a source of major dispute between her parents (Bob and Mary Schindler) and her husband (Michael Schiavo, Schiavo's legal guardian.

That sentence can't be any more neutral or factual. Duckecho 16:00, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

This dispute led to numerous court cases over the course of several years.

I don't see this statement as anything but neutral. Duckecho 16:00, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Eight doctors examined Schiavo.

Again, this is a fact that is a matter of public record. I think the only potential failing is the use of the word examined. I accept it in the medical sense of having conducted an examination of some sort including, perhaps, some empirical testing. Some have heartburn with the amount of time spent by these doctors but none of the detractors are able to quantify the appropriate time (because there isn't any such thing). Duckecho 16:00, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Here's the quote from the article. (I'm going to discuss four sentences, not just one.):

"Eight doctors examined Schiavo. Six (her family physician, three doctors selected by the courts, and two selected by Michael) diagnosed her to be in a persistent vegetative state. Two guardians ad litem concurred with this decision. The two remaining doctors (both selected by Schiavo's parents) disagreed that she was in a PVS.

That is obviously incorrect.

Even the arithmetic is wrong. 3+2=5, not 6; and 3+2+2=7, not 8.

Yo, Einstein, her family physician (1) plus (3) selected by courts plus (2) by michael. FuelWagon 18:59, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The so-called "family physician" was one of the doctors selected by Michael. But you're right, if the article is not including him in that grouping then the arithmetic is right. But if so, then not identifying Gambone as selected by Michael is obvious POV bias. NCdave 16:42, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Also, the conclusions of the two GALs are irrelevant and out of place in the midst of a discussion of the MD's conclusions, because they are lawyers, not doctors or medical specialists of any sort. To cite their conclusions in support of a diagnosis that was reached by some of the doctors is circular, because the GALs were (supposedly) relying on the doctors for their conclusions. (Actually, in Wolfson's case, that is questionable, since he was biased: he said on TV prior to his appointment as GAL that Terri should die.)

Also, who are those "three" court-selected doctors supposed to be, anyhow? To my knowledge, only one court-selected doctor examined Terri, and that was Dr. Peter Bambakidis. -NCdave 18:31, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Nobody knows who those mysterious court-selected doctors are, do they? I don't think the other two of them exist. Does everyone agree? NCdave 17:10, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

As might be expected, the doctors hired by Felos and M.Schiavo supported their argument (PVS), and the doctors hired by the Schindlers supported their conclusion (MCS or better). It is, however, significant, as Dr. Frist[14] noted, that:

"the doctors who made the diagnosis of PVS for Terri spent very little time with her. In contrast, the doctors who concluded she is not in PVS spent a lot of time with her."

Bambakidis was an odd and interesting witness. He was chosen by Judge Greer, who was already seeking Terri's death at the time. Bambakidis was brought in all the way from Cleveland, of all places, yet he has no special expertise relating to brain damaged patients, and in his medical practice did not deal with vegetative or minimally conscious patients. So his selection by Greer was at the very least odd, and I would say suspicious (esp. considering the "coincidental" relationship between Bambakidis' brother and Felos [15]).

Bambakidis was hired by Greer, and so could be expected to support Greer's conclusion, but he did so only tepidly. The experts agree that extended behavioral observation is necessary to reliably diagnose PVS, but based on a cursory 30 minute examination, Bambakidis reached his conclusion. Yet his stated conclusion was only that the preponderance of evidence supported a PVS diagnosis, which is legalese meaning that it was more likely than not. In other words, he disagreed with Judge Greer's conclusion that there was clear and convincing proof that Terri was in a PVS.

To my knowledge, only one other independent doctor examined Terri, and that was Dr. Cheshire, who saw her for a total of about 90 minutes, and concluded that she was probably in a MCS, not a PVS.

Yeah, that's it. Throw out all diagnosis as biased and pick the one that fits the result you want. FuelWagon 18:59, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm not the one that is throwing out diagnoses. The current article throws out Cheshire's diagnosis (which agreed with the Schindlers), and manufactures two non-existant court-selected doctors who supposedly agreed with M.Schiavo/Felos, and exaggerates the degree of agreement of the one actual court-selected doctor who (sorta) sided with M.Schiavo/Felos. How can you defend that? NCdave 16:42, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

So:

1) Who are those other two mysterious court-appointed physicians, who are supposed to have examined Terri and concluded that she was in a PVS? -NCdave 18:31, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Since nobody ever responded to this, I think we can safely conclude that nobody knows the identities of the two other court-selected physicians... obviously because they never existed. Right? NCdave 16:42, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

2) Why is there no mention in this paragraph of the other independent physician who examined Terri, Dr. Wm. Cheshire? He spent about as much time with Terri as did Drs. Cranford, Bambakidis, and ~~Maxfield~~Barnhill, combined, and his expert conclusion was that Terri was probably at least minimally conscious, not PVS. Yet this paragraph of the Wikipedia article falsely contends that only those physicians hired by the Schindlers disputed Judge Greer's conclusion of PVS. -NCdave 18:31, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Nobody ever tried to defend this, either - obviously because the omission of Dr. Cheshire from this paragraph is indefensible. NCdave 16:42, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

3) Why is there no mention in this paragraph of the dozens of other independent physicians who also disputed the PVS diagnosis? -NCdave 18:31, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Because their affidavits were tossed out as irrelevant? because they based their diagnosis off of 5 minutes of CGI effects from the Schindlers and news reports, rather than examining her? Because most of them, even being fed the most biased of video would only say Terri should be tested more, not that she was MCS or PVS or whatever. FuelWagon 18:59, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yes, the Judge Greer and the M.Schiavo partisans here "tossed out" Dr. Cheshire's conclusions and those of the numerous other physicians who agreed with him, but not because they were "irrelevant." Those doctors saw enough medical evidence to know that the PVS diagnosis was wrong or at least highly questionable, and none of them saw Terri for less time than did Judge Greer. No, Judge Greer and the other supporters of M.Schaivo "toss out" the other doctors' testimony because those doctors disagreed with Judge Greer's diagnosis of PVS. Greer & M.Schiavo, in fact, would not permit those doctors to examine Terri, because they disagreed with the contention that she was a vegetable and could not be helped.

How's that for a method of choosing doctors? Poll a lot of doctors about whether there is hope for the patient, and then choose only those doctors who say the case is hopeless, and don't let the other doctors treat or examine the patient. Is that how you would choose your wife's doctors, if you truly loved her? NCdave 16:42, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Note: it is of no merit to object, "but they didn't examine her in person," because that is applying a "Felos filter" to the experts. The reason those other doctors didn't examine Terri in person is that Felos and M.Schiavo wouldn't permit it. Felos and M.Schiavo were able to have any and all the doctors that they wanted to see Terri, for as much or as little time as they wished to allow. They could then pick and choose from among those doctors, to get the testimony they wanted, yet they nevertheless managed to find only a handful of doctors who supported their conclusion.

The Schindlers and their most biased video clips and their army of affidavits was found to be irrelevant and so there was no cause for further examinations. FuelWagon 18:59, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The video recordings of Terri's responsiveness were neither biased nor irrelevant. They are unadulterated recordings of her actual behavior, and they prove, to the satisfaction of many experts, that she was not in a PVS, and they corroborate the sworn testimony of numerous witnessess to her responsiveness.

A Minimally Conscious State is characterized by occasional or inconsistent responsiveness. The fact that Terri often did not respond to stimuli was never in dispute. Nobody contended that she was awake and responsive all the time. The argument was over whether she was in MCS (occasionally responsive) or PVS (never responsive). The video recordings of when she did not respond are obviously irrelevant to the argument over whether she was in a PVS or an MCS, because they are consistent with both diagnoses. It is only the video recordings of when she did respond that are relevant to that argument.

There would have been many more such video recordings, of course, were it not for the fact that M.Schaivo forbade making them, to prevent the Schindlers from accumulating even more proof of Terri's responsiveness. NCdave 16:42, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The Schindlers, however, were only allowed to have two doctors examine Terri, ever. Even that was allowed only because a higher court ordered it -- Greer didn't want them to have even that opportunity. Yet, the evidence of Terri's consciousness was so compelling that, nevertheless, dozens of doctors came forward and swore that in their professional opinions, based on the evidence available, the PVS diagnosis was flawed.

dozens of doctors were sought out by the schindlers, shown completely falsified video, and signed affidavits that Terri deserved more testing. If they didn't sign such an affidavit, teh Schindlers looked for someone else. It was a con and Greer thankfully didn't buy it. FuelWagon 18:59, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"Completely falsified video"? Don't you think you're being a little too dogmatic? Obviously if they selected only a few minutes from a video that lasted for several hours, they chose the extracts that would be most supportive to their case. I can't see that anyone could blame them for that, and I can't see that it amounts to "complete falsification". I heard Bob Schindler on the television saying that the video extracts had not been edited. Can you provide an URL for a transcript of testimony from a video expert saying that his analysis showed clearly that the video had been tampered with? Or perhaps from a witness who saw the Schindlers editing it? Or perhaps a confession from Bob Schindler himself that the video had been doctored? If you can't then perhaps it would be fairer and would show more integrity if you referred simply to "video that may have been edited", rather than stating so confidently that it was. Ann Heneghan 22:57, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I have my personal point of view on the tragedy around Terri. But I at least have the common sense to keep it out of the article. Last I checked no where does the article say "completely falsified video". It does say that the Schindlers taped Terri for 4.5 hours and edited it down to a 4 minute clip. We're talking about LESS THAN TWO PERCENT of the raw footage. Here's a little experiment for ya. Get yourself a Ouija board, a video camera, and two volunteers. Put the volunteers in front of the ouija board and blindfold them. have them move the pointer around RANDOMLY and ask them questions for five hours. videotape the letters that come back. purely random motion of the ouija board pointer should still give you at least a few minutes of "answers" that "prove" that a ouija board really works. That's what the schindlers did. They taped Terri for 5 hours. She was not aware of them in any way, but her random motions over the course of 5 HOURS was able to produce a few instances where her random action seemed to line up with their question. I saw the video clips by the way. most of her "interaction" was that she simply LOOKED AT THEM for a moment. Then she looked away. If they showed the full 5 hours, you would see that Terri's eye movements are random. She's randomly looking around the room. And they picked the TWO PERCENT of the moments where her movements APPEARED to interact with her parents. If they wanted solid empirical proof, they would have released the full 5 hours. But they didn't, so one can only assume that the full five hours would show Terri to be unresponsive. If the majority medical opinion is Terri was PVS, then the burden of proof would be on the schindlers to prove it otherwise. 5 hours of video showing Terri to be responsive would have been enough to convince me that the doctors were wrong. But the schindlers never released the 5 hours of video, so they failed to meet the burden of proof. FuelWagon 15:28, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Nonsense. The videos were not falsified.

Consider this: The Schindlers and their doctors knew and said that Terri was partially blind, but her hearing was okay. That's why, when demonstrating her intermittant responsiveness to visual stimuli, they used large balloons and flashing lights. They learned those facts by observing her behavior. The only way they knew that Terri didn't have good vision was that the only visual stimuli that she responded to was the movement of bright or large objects (or people). If Terri had been truly unresponsive, the Schindlers could not have known that she was partially blind, because she would not have responded to any visual stimuli. But she did respond, intermittantly, to certain kinds of visual stimuli.

Now the autopsy has confirmed that the most severe damage to Terri's brain was in the regions responsible for vision. In fact, the damage there was so severe that the autopsy report (incorrectly) concluded that she must have been completely blind. But her auditory centers were in far better shape.

If Terri were in a PVS, then she could not ever have responded to any visual or auditory stimulus. That means that if Terri were truly in a PVS, her family could not possibly have known that her vision was much more severely impaired than her hearing.

Would any of the supporters here of the M.Schiavo/Felos/Greer-supported diagnosis of PVS like to try to explain how the Schindlers discovered that Terri's vision was severely impaired but her hearing was not? NCdave 16:42, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The bottom line is that this article makes it seem that Terri was in a PVS, when the great weight of the evidence is that she was not. NCdave 18:31, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Only if by "evidence" you mean "heresay" and "speculation" and only if by "weight" you mean the more outrageous the claim, the more "weight" it should be given. FuelWagon 18:59, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Please cease your continual insults, FuelWagon.

The one and only doctor not vetted by M.Schiavo/Felos who actually saw Terri and still believed & testified that she was probably in a PVS, Peter Bambakidis, spent very little time with her (only about 30 minutes), had no previous experience or special expertise with diagnosing or treating PVS or MCS, and was chosen for reasons never explained by a Judge who was seeking support for his prior conclusion that she was in a PVS and should be killed. But even Bambakidis did not rule out the possibility that Terri was conscious. He said only that a "preponderance of evidence" (the weakest evidentiary standard) supported PVS.

According to the sworn testimony of numerous eyewitnesses, corroborated by video recordings of her behavior, Terri was intermittantly responsive to a variety of different stimuli. That is inconsistent with PVS, and should rule out a diagnosis of PVS. In fact, according to all but one of the doctors who saw her without being vetted by M.Schiavo/Felos, Terri was most likely at least minimally conscious. NCdave 16:42, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Six of these examining doctors (her family physician, three doctors selected by the courts, and two doctors selected by Michael) diagnosed her to be in a persistent vegetative state.

A matter of public record, however, I find the mention of Michael in this to be POV (similar sentiment expressed below). I understand that partisans on both sides of the issue would want to identify Michael or the Schindlers for a variety of reasons, but in stating the facts of the case, does it matter who selected the doctors? Otherwise factual and therefore NPOV. Agreed? Duckecho 16:00, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

There are several problems with this:

1) I don't believe that the courts selected three doctors. I only know of one, and he was selected by Judge Greer (not plural "courts").

2) The Florida DCF's doctor is omitted.

3) The so-called "family physician" was actually part of the Felos-selected team working for Terri's demise.

4) There were also affidavits from dozens of other doctors who believed that the PVS diagnosis was flawed.

It is highly relevant who chose the doctors. Felos/M.Schiavo could have all the doctors they wanted examine Terri, and could then pick the ones who most strongly supported their position. They were all chosen to work in support of the legal effort to end Terri's life. None were chosen to actually treat her disability. None of them attempted any kind of therapy or other treatment to help her. They were not Terri's doctors in any meaningful sense; rather, they were the expert witnesses chosen by Felos.

The Schindlers were allowed to have only two doctors examine Terri, and that was in spite of Judge Greer's desire that they have none. Then, when Greer didn't like the Schindlers' chosen doctors, he dismissed them and their testimony as not credible, and didn't permit the Schindlers to subsitute different doctors.

(see above discussion of "eight physicians...") NCdave 18:47, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Two guardians ad litem concurred with this decision.

A matter of public record and therefore NPOV. Agreed? Duckecho 16:00, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Out of place (see above discussion of "eight physicians...") NCdave 18:36, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The two remaining examining doctors (both selected by Schiavo's parents) disagreed that Shiavo was in a PVS.

A matter of public record, however, I find the mention of the Schindlers in this to be POV. I understand that partisans on both sides of the issue would want to identify Michael or the Schindlers for a variety of reasons, but in stating the facts of the case, does it matter who selected the doctors? Duckecho 16:00, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

The previous sentence explicitely states who selected the doctors that diagnosed Terri as PVS (two by michael, three appointed by court). This is simply a continuation of indicating the source of the doctors selection. FuelWagon 15:17, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

I just reedited to reflect that. Duckecho 16:00, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

To the person reading the article, it does matter who selected the doctors, because the reader would want to know if there is any conflict of interest in a doctor, how much it is, and which possible bias or conflict said doctor would have. That being said, since it mentions that doctors from both sides were selected, and who selected them it is balanced. Since it is factual and balanced, it is NPOV, and therefore OK. Duck, how could it be POV for you to mention **both** sides and who chose them?? (I'm not being smart; I really don'r understand your concern here.) --GordonWattsDotCom_In_Florida 10:45, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

The court determined that Schiavo was indeed in a PVS, and this ruling was upheld on every appeal, by 19 different judges, both in state courts and later in federal courts.

This sentence is factual and a matter of public record, therefore by definition NPOV, agreed? My only concern is the mention of 19 different judges. I've never added them up, but it has always been a question in my mind, and sounds like a hyperbolic number copied from a long since forgotten news source. It may not be inaccurate, but it certainly shouldn't be necessary. Duckecho 16:00, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

My problem with this statement is that it makes it sound as if a total of 20 judges looked at all of the facts of the case and all came to the same conclusion. It is my understanding, however, that only the original judge looked at all the facts of the case, the 19 judges afterwards were simply stating their opinion on whether or not the original lawsuit was conducted properly. They were not giving their opinion on what the outcome of the case should have been. References: [16], [17] -- Ravenswood 18:51, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

The sentence is simply untrue. It states that court's ruling that she was in PVS was upheld by 19 different judges, but that isn't so. The other courts didn't examine or rule on that finding of fact by Greer. In fact, Greer's finding of fact, that Terri was in PVS to a clear and convincing evidentiary standard, was contrary to the opinions of three of the five doctors allowed to testify in the evidentiary hearing, including the one whom he, himself, chose. NCdave 20:25, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, your paragraph is simply untrue. See below about American jurisprudence. Greer's finding of fact was also after two GALs and at least two other doctors had testified as to PVS in other hearings. If the evidentiary hearing you're talking about is the 2002 trial you couldn't be more out of touch. Three doctors did indeed present evidence and a diagnosis of PVS. Hammesfahr and Maxfield (the Schindlers' doctors) couldn't produce an iota of credible evidence and were essentially laughed out of court. The 2nd DCA, after reviewing the evidence, not only affirmed the ruling (as has been cited at least twice in this very section, but which you apparently choose to ignore) but concluded that they would have ruled the same way. The appeals process provides for a very few outcomes: strike (overturn the ruling of the lower court), uphold (affirm the ruling of the lower court), refuse to consider (has the effect of affirming the ruling of the lower court), remand (send back to the lower court for another look—in fact that is how the 2002 trial came about, although the remand wasn't about the PVS diagnosis). Find a single instance where a judge or court struck down the ruling of PVS. Then we'll talk. Duckecho 21:33, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You are mistaken, Duckecho. The only doctors who agreed with Judge Greer's finding of fact, that Terri's PVS diagnosis had been proven to a clear and convincing standard of evidence, were the doctors chosen & hired by Felos/M.Schiavo. Even Greer's chosen doctor didn't go that far. The higher courts did not retry this issue. NCdave 18:53, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I see you're back to your tactic of starting on one subject and switching to another when you're rebutted. Here's the deal: your complaint above has to do with whether other judges looked at the evidence again. I've already explained four times in this paragraph how that is irrelevant. I also previously expressed a reservation about citing the number 19 in that sentence. So here's what I'll do: I'll rewrite the sentence to read, "[t]he court determined that Schiavo was indeed in a PVS, and this ruling was upheld on every appeal, both in state courts and later in federal courts." That's as factual as it gets, and you cannot argue those facts. It doesn't matter how you think they should have handled it. It doesn't matter whether you think one or more of the courts erred. It doesn't matter whether you believe other doctors knew better than the ones that testified. They weren't there. Neither were you. Okay? Duckecho 21:55, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Welcome to American jurisprudence. That is precisely how the system works. The two sites you, er, cited, very clearly demonstrate the vast misunderstanding of this system even as one tries to explain it. In addition to trying to put a political flavor into the case, both blogs take the tack that some judge running amuck has failed to follow the law (not just conducted the trial properly) and no one has stood up to him. However, had he failed to follow the law, some court would have overturned him. Most bloggers and dissenters haven't actually read either the court rulings or the relavent law. ~~(will someone please sign this?)~~ Duckecho 20:09, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

I wrote that and it was signed originally until considerable extraneous material was added between it and my succeding paragraphs. Duckecho 21:55, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I both read the law, and wrote it-in my briefs, not as a lawmaker; yet, I got further than anyone else on her side, --GordonWattsDotCom_In_Florida 10:53, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

No, you didn't. If you don't quit parroting that fiction you'll never have any credibility. Bush's motion was heard in court and denied. Your motion was never even heard. By definition, he got farther than you. Duckecho 20:09, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

...and I (along with many Americans) concur with the conclusion the the judicial branch has a "System Failure." --GordonWattsDotCom_In_Florida 10:53, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

System Failure? Let me see if I have this straight. I guess I can understand why you think Greer is off the deep end—he was the trier of fact and you didn't like his decision. But are you saying that the judges of the 2nd District, the 11th Circuit, and both Supreme Courts (and any other judges I might have missed) are all part of this failure? Is there not one court in the land that operates within the law of the land? Not the law as imagined by Gordo, but the constitutional and statutory law of the land. Duckecho 20:09, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Well, Greer's order that Terri be denied food and water by natural means was grossly illegal, and in direct contradiction to the plain language of the statutes, yet his order was allowed to stand. That's about as clear a judicial "system failure" as it is possible to imagine. NCdave 20:25, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Answer this question, please: assume that despite the evidence and the ruling that Terri could not swallow (don't bring up the saliva thing—that's brain stem function; swallowing on demand is cortical and she was demonstrably unable to do so), Greer had permitted feeding by natural means. Since Terri could not swallow on demand, she would inevitably have aspirated (it's nasty having stuff like food go down into the lungs), leading to infection and likely death, given her condition. Even if she had been suctioned upon aspiration her prognosis was likely death from the procedure. And in any event, even if she had limited swallowing ability, she could not ingest enough to sustain life. Those facts are in the record cited. Do I understand that it is your contention that Greer should have allowed the Schindlers to force feed Terri that which she could not swallow and wind up killing her themselves? Or worse, cruelly prolong her life even as she was dying by providing inadequate sustenance. Oh, the irony. Now don't reply with some mumbo-jumbo about Greer's rulings not fitting your POV. Ths situation was ruled on in court (and upheld) which makes it fact in our country. Now as you once quoted, "facts are stubborn things." I think you're going to have to find a way to come to terms with them. [18] Duckecho 22:39, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"Let me see if I have this straight...are you saying that the judges of the 2nd District, the 11th Circuit, and both Supreme Courts (and any other judges I might have missed) are all part of this failure?" Yes. You got it. My proof may not be accepted by you, but here it is: --GordonWattsDotCom_In_Florida 20:50, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

#1: We were evil in the ancient past, e.g., "Old Testament" times: "And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually." Gen. 6:5, KJV

#2: We remained evil in more recent times-past, e.g. "New Testament" times: "And when the people were gathered thick together, he [Jesus, the top dog in this, my religion] began to say, This is an evil generation: they seek a sign; and there shall no sign be given it, but the sign of Jonas the prophet." Luke 11:29, KJV Accord: Matthew 12:39, KJV, which adds adultery: "...An evil and adulterous generation..."

#3: "Yes," I am alleging we are currently evil in answer to your question above.

#4: We will remain very evil in the future: "First of all, you must understand that in the last days scoffers will come, scoffing and following their own evil desires." 2nd Peter 3:3. KJV Accord 2nd Timothy 3:1, KJV, which says that "This know also, that in the last days perilous times [that is, evil peoples' actions'] shall come."

Oh, by the way, is that "old Bible" really reliable? Well, check out out ...THIS for starters:

#5: "But thou, O Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book, even to the time of the end: many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall be increased." Daniel 12:4, KJV. Well, since we see that both knowledge (technology) and travel are increased -exponentially, actually!, then #4, above, which is a continuation of #'s 1-5, should hold true. --GordonWattsDotCom_In_Florida 20:50, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Hm, so the sentence is "19 judges upheld this ruling" and you are now quoting scripture [19]??? Could we possibly get any more irrelevant? I'm starting to think the best response to Gordo is "(1)revert on sight. (2)do not engage. (3) do not respond." I encourage others to follow this practice. This is going nowhere. FuelWagon 21:18, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

If you don't believe in the Bible, that is fine; however, Duck asked a question, and I answered it -and told him why I believed the way I did. Last time I checked, I had the freedom of religion (to believe as I see fit) and freedom of speech (to answer Duck , telling him the aforementioned). If you don't like it, that's your perogative, but you need to mind your own business: If I'm not monkeying with you, don't worry about it: It doesn't concern you. Maybe you should simply not engage. [and] ... not respond." By the way: I not only supported my views (with the Bible), but I suppoted the Bible views #1-4 with "scripture" 5, which HAS come true, and thus lends credibility to 1-4. --GordonWattsDotCom_In_Florida 22:08, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Gordo, you have the freedom of religion all you want. Just don't go and cry "freedom of religion" as a defense for barfing up six paragraphs of bible quotes as if they have anything to do with whether those 19 Judges properly followed the law. Could you get anymore non-sequitor? My penguin needs fleecing, so it must be true. FuelWagon 22:25, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Ok, ok... see my answer to Ghost, which echoes your point. --GordonWattsDotCom_In_Florida 22:27, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

No, the appeals courts never actually looked at the evidence, at least in any meaningful way. For the appeals court to say "well, if we had look at the evidence," or words to that effect, only proved that they had not looked at it. --GordonWattsDotCom_In_Florida 10:53, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Gordon, your personal views on Original sin are entirely irrelevant to this, or any article. No matter how well documented. In addition, Canon law can have no more (or less) weight in a U.S. courts than Sharia. Thus you're arguments (no matter how spiritually valid) are a waste of space and breath. Please remove them.--ghost 21:54, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Well, since Terri Schiavo was a Roman Catholic believer, and not a Muslim, it follows that Biblical instruction and Church teachings are rather obviously relevant to the issue of "what would she have wanted?" Since that question was a linchpin of this case, it follows that Christian scripture is certainly more relevant in this case than Sharia. NCdave 20:25, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well, Ghost, would it have been better for me to have simply said "No, I don't think ANY of the courts were correct," in answer to Duck? It might have been less distractive, but a good many people either (1) totally believe the Bible, or (2) at least feel the Bible is a good guideline, if not perfect. For those people (polls indicate that most of Americans have religious morals, and so on), which probably comprise the majority, I would be cheating them a chance to measure their beliefs by their "standards," such as their scriptures -not merely mine. I think it is probably best to limit discussion of this type, but since many people still believe in this old book, just as much as they believe in the laws, the judges, or whatever, it might be good. If I knew anything about the "Sharia (Arabic شريعة also Shari'a, Shariah or Syariah) is traditional Islamic law also known as Allah's Law," and there were Islamic editors, it would be helpful to them for me to quote relevent (and brief) sections of their Scriptures, to help their logic analyses. By the way, I don't intend to post any more scriptures, so you're on your own if you have a religious crisis; Additionally, I apologized about the use of color at the top of the sub-section --and explained why I (and many other board members) have used color in the past. Nonetheless, please leave my "scriptural" comments for at least a few days, for the benefit of the others, before considering deleting. --GordonWattsDotCom_In_Florida 22:23, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

As a practicing non-Christian, your faith's laws have no more (or less) gravity in U.S. Law, and this case, than mine. This is a good thing. And your assumptions about your faith's monopoly on morality simply mean you never grasped the joke of what happens when you assume. It makes an Ass of You & Me. If I came here and started ranting about the Brehon Laws being the basis of English Common Law, and thus U.S. Law, it would be equally irrelevant. Knock it off, the Talk:Terri Schiavo page is not the place for this discussion.--ghost 11:44, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

I get the picture. Of course, know I wasn't trying to offend anyone, and I feel the religious analyses are important, but you're right: Our religious views (and even our views of the law) are not important. We are here simply to report the factual happenings. In that context, reporting that there were religious factions involved would be OK. In my view, the main problem with discussing religious beliefs is that it would clutter the page, which is already cluttered. Offending a person, while possible, is not as likely, but I usually don't bring up religious belief, thus you can rest assured I will try to remember to honor your reasonable request. That being said, I have beliefs on the laws, and while technically off-topic, I might opine briefly in the sandbox later -to clarify the events being reported. --GordonWattsDotCom_In_Florida 22:35, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

"Is there not one court in the land that operates within the law of the land?" Actually, judges Wilson and Tjoflat got it correct: [20], [21], & [22]. These guys are judges; you are not. Trust "Judges Wilson, Tjoflat [when they] dissent from full court rejection [of protecting Schindler-Schiavo's Equal Protextion, Due Process, et seq.]" http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1111572311264 --GordonWattsDotCom_In_Florida 20:59, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

That isn't at all what the 2nd District said. In fact they said, "this court has closely examined all of the evidence in the record." They "carefully observ[ed] the video tapes in their entirety." They concluded that "...if we were called upopn to review the guardianship court's decision de novo we would still affirm it." 2nd DCA 2D02-5394 Duckecho 20:09, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

The 2nd District didn't accept expert witness testimony from the Schindlers, and Greer sharply limited the expert witness testimony that they were allowed to present. He permitted the Schildlers to have only two physicians examine Terri and testify as expert witnesses, and he allowed even those two only when ordered to do so by a higher court, and then he dismissed the testimony of both of them as not credible, and he would not permit the Schindlers to substitute other physicians. -NCdave

False to fact. The 2nd District directed Greer on remand to order the Schindlers to select two witnesses and Michael to select two witnesses. The 2nd District further directed a fifth witness to testify to be chosen by agreement between the parties and failing that to be selected by Greer. Your statement further proves that you have not even read the relevant orders and that you therefore are not prepared to discuss facts. That disqualifies you on the face of it as a legitimate disputer of POV. Duckecho 21:55, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Duckecho, how can you say, "false to fact" (accompanied by the usual personal attacks) and then confirm what I wrote? Did you misread it?

As I wrote, the only time Judge Greer allowed the Schindlers to have doctors examine Terri and present expert testimony was when he was ordered to do so by the appeals court. As I said, the only court to accept such testimony was Judge Greer, solo, with no jury, and he did so only when he had no choice. Then he ruled that the Schindlers' chosen doctors were not credible, and he declined to allow the Schindlers to substitute other physicians. NCdave 18:46, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Nevertheless, the videotapes and other medical evidence in the case was so compelling in support of a MCS or better diagnosis that most of the doctors who expressed opinions in this case questioned or disputed the diagnosis of PVS, and dozens of them signed affidavits to that effect. But only two of of them were permitted to testify.

With astounding chutzpah, Judge Greer even dismissed the expert opinions of doctors and speech pathologists, explicitly because those medical experts disagreed with his (Greer's) own prior conclusion that she was in a PVS.

Moreover, the 2nd District didn't have the benefit of Dr. Cheshire's report, on behalf of the Florida Dept. of Children and Families. Unlike the physicians hired by one side or the other in the case, Dr. Cheshire had "no dog in the fight." He is a highly credentialed neurologist, and he spent twice as much time observing Terri than did Drs. Cranford and Greer combined, and Dr. Cheshire's conclusion was that Terri was probably not vegetative. NCdave 20:25, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I thought you were about positing facts? Your speculation, inaccurate paraphrasing ("or words to that effect"), and specious conclusions don't even remotely resemble the facts. The 2nd DCA's actual words (and link) were quoted just a few lines below for you to review. You still couldn't get it right. That's why people are having a hard time with your rhetoric. Duckecho 20:09, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Nonetheless, the sentence, "The court determined that Schiavo was indeed in a PVS, and this ruling was upheld on every appeal, by 19 different judges, both in state courts and later in federal courts," however sickening, is factually correct, and I support its language. --GordonWattsDotCom_In_Florida 10:53, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Wow! It only took us how many weeks to get you to grasp what was there all the time? Now why don't you go work on your buddy NCdave and get him to grasp it? Duckecho 20:09, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

In fact, you, too, are also wrong in that the 2nd DCA, when reviewing the 2002 trial (which ruled that Terri was in a PVS), stated that, "...if we were called upopn to review the guardianship court's decision de novo we would still affirm it." 2nd DCA 2D02-5394. Clearly they not only looked at the rulings but they reviewed the evidence and testimony.

Having said all of that, and reiterating my reservations about stating an actual number of judges, I'd be just as happy if the sentence read, "that the ruling of the court was upheld on appeal at every level of state and federal courts." Keep in mind, upheld happens when a court specifically upholds the ruling, and also when a court declines to hear the case. Affirmance is affirmance in our system. Duckecho 20:27, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

"Affirmance is affirmance in our system." "System failure" would be a more accurate descriptor. Nonetheless, I think you're right, Duck: It's probably safer [and still quite accurate and complete] to simply state "that the ruling of the court was upheld on appeal at every level of state and federal courts," as you suggest. I think Wagon's buddy is correct: To uphold means simply to review and decide to not overturn. What is a "fundamental feature of American law," as you say, however does not necessarily mean that the denial of a trial was justified. In fact, there was a trial for medical malpractice, which awarded like 300 grand to Mikey Baby and like 700 Grand to Terri, but the money "for Terri" was NOT spent for Terri. You go figure... Justice? Heh! Equality? Heh! None of these happen in this land of inequity, unless you have "the force" ...of "rich and famous" power!--GordonWattsDotCom_In_Florida 21:11, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

I believe mia-cle is the lawyer/editor for this article, and I believe the last word from mia-cle was this wording was accurate. "upheld" means "upheld". It doesn't mean the case was retried at every level up through 19 judges, since I believe its a fundamental feature of American law that you only have one trial unless new evidence is submitted that justifies a new trial. FuelWagon 00:46, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

GordonWattsDotCom wrote, "In fact, there was a trial for medical malpractice, which awarded like 300 grand to Mikey Baby and like 700 Grand to Terri, but the money 'for Terri' was NOT spent for Terri...."

Yes, Judge Greer effectively overturned that jury's decision, when he ordered that most of the money that had been set aside for Terri's medical care and therapy be used, instead, to pay for Michael's lawyers (mostly Felos), who were fighting to prevent Terri from receiving medical care and therapy.

Never mind that the jury decided that Terri should receive $700,000 worth of care and therapy. Greer didn't care what the jury decided. Never mind that her entire family wanted her to live. Greer didn't care. Never mind how many doctors thought she could be helped. Greer didn't care. Never mind the overwhelming evidence that she never expressed a wish to die. Greer didn't care. Never mind GAL Pearse's opinion that she should not be killed. Greer didn't care. Never mind GAL Wolfson's opinion that she should get swallowing tests and therapy. Greer didn't care. Judge Greer wanted her dead, and so she is. NCdave 18:46, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Paragraph Three

The judicial and legislative battles to prevent the disconnect of her gastric feeding tube generated tremendous media coverage during the last few weeks of her life and sparked a fierce debate over bioethics, legal guardianship, federalism, euthanasia and civil rights.

Can anyone argue with that sentence? Seems NPOV to me. Duckecho 16:00, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Duck, you da man! It's right on & a OK. So, why'd Neutrality omit the euthanasia link in this [23] diff? That deletion wasn't POV, but it sure was weird, because the Schiavo case's main debate was euthanasia. The other issues were central, but only later. (I'm not picking on Neutrality: He's left me alone for a while and picked on other people, so I'm all happy.) Actually, Duck, you need a comma here to make it correct: "federalism, euthanasia, and civil rights." See e.g., Oxford comma. I give credit to Ann Henegan's web page for this point. --GordonWattsDotCom_In_Florida 11:04, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

What a load. Euthanasia was removed from the article subsequent to the posting of my sentence-by-sentence proposal, and no longer appears there. I support its absence. It was most certainly not the main issue. While there may be some who think there was an euthanasia issue, by the Florida Statutes the discontinuance of life support in accordance with the wishes of the patient is not euthanasia. Consequently, there is no debate, unless it's with the statutes. You'll have to fight that battle elsewhere. Duckecho 12:37, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Well, for one thing, discontinuance of life with the patients wishes would more properly be classed :"assisted suicide" if it involved more than mere "life prolonging procedures." That is, if food were denied as well as feeding tubes, then "assisted suicide" would be the "issue" if it were the patient's wish (e.g., Kevorkian action), and if it were NOT the patient's wish, then "euthanasia" would be the act. What Terri's wishes WERE is not known and not the subject of this article. The actual facts of record ARE. Namely, a large number of issues came to the forefront when the Schiavo case became publicized, and it is a matter of record that Euthanasia was one of them:

For example, A: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=euthanasia+schiavo has about 164,000 hits of pages with BOTH terms in them.

By contrast, B: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=bioethics+schiavo&btnG=Search has only like 44,300 hits in google.

Additionally, C: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=federalism+schiavo&btnG=Search has even less, at: 33,400

Let's look at example D: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=%22legal+guardianship%22+schiavo ...wow! Only 583 hits. Not much of an issue, now is it?

See my point? By the numbers (the objective analysis), you are a-wrong, b-wrong, and c-wrong again. But I'm not arguing AGAINST you in the total sense. I support the listing of these items: I'm an inclusionist, like I've seen Neutrality claim on his page. So, it mystifies me why he wouldn't practice what he preaches?... Since these are not links to the home page of moi, you can be assured I have no vested interest and am not biased. Also, the numbers support my assertions, undermining your reputation as an intelligent ham radio operator. Oh, by the way, thank you for mentioning it: I forgot to mention on my WIKI home page I'm a licensed Ham "super duper" Extra, but you reminded me. Thx again, Duck. --GordonWattsDotCom_In_Florida 13:00, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Gordo, stick to ham radio. You use the word "inclusionist" as a means to cover the fact that you want anything that is unsubstantiated, unverified, to be "included" in the article. By that token, the article should simply say that Iyer accused Michael of attempting to murder Terri by insulin injection at least 5 separate times. And as inclusionists, we should simply leave that unfounded and unevidenced accusation to stand on its own. Sorry. When someone crys "Witch!" you are either part of the witchhunt or you are part or reason. The term "euthenasia" is part of a witchhunt. Terri wasn't euthenized and anything that says as much deserves to be on a partisan blog, not wikipedia. FuelWagon 15:32, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

You have certainly proven your point, Gordon. 164,000-to-583 is a ratio of 281-to-1. If the real debate over Terris' death wasn't about euthanasia and murder, then the right-wing conspiracy must be very, very vast, indeeed, and almost everybody was part of it.

In fact, it wasn't traditional euthanasia, because traditional euthanasia is quick and humane. Terri was slowly dehydrated to death over a period of nearly two weeks. If you did that to a dog, you'd go to jail. if it weren't for the fact that she was given analgesics to ease her passing, you'd have to say that Terri was tortured to death.

Truly, the main debate was over murder and euthanasia: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=murder+schiavo (300,000 hits). The argument over whether a man should be still be allowed to be his estranged wife's legal guardian even when he has a financial interest in her death, and even after he has lived with a new fiancee for a decade, by whom he has two children, was secondary. That secondary argument was waged in support of the big fight, which was was over whether or not to kill Terri: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=kill+schiavo (507,000 hits)

Duckecho wrote, "What a load. 'Euthanasia' ... was most certainly not the main issue." Duckecho, you can't possibly be serious! It was always the main issue. M.Schiavo was fighting to euthanize (kill) his estranged wife, and her family was fighting to prevent it. That's why M.Schiavo hired notorious euthanasia ("right-to-die") advocates for his attorney and his main expert witness (Felos and Cranford, respectively).

The removal of "euthanasia" from the list was plain POV insertion.NCdave 19:30, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm using WIDE margins to save space. Anyhow... First, Wagon, let me assure you that Iyer's accusation CAN be documented as having happened. (She got it notarized, so it's legit.) Now, whether she was telling the truth is not so easy to document, so this allegation can not be presented as fact. "By that token, the article should simply say that Iyer accused Michael of attempting to murder Terri by insulin injection at least 5 separate times." OK, that sounds right, so take a chill pill. I'm not going to revert neutral facts. As far as the use of "euthanasia," the article was CORRECT before Neutrality edited that out: Indeed, it is true that the Schiavo case sparked debate in this area. Whether Terri was euthanized or not is not our job: We're not the court, last I heard, and the claim there was debate was ...uh, ...TRUE! Now, as far as your comment that says claims of Terri being euthanized belonging only on a blog, yes, but what's the big huff over this? The comment that Schiavo "sparked debate" is NOT equal to having said she WAS euthanized! Man, you're dense... Also, euthanasia appears to be the highest topic "sparked" by the blood of Terri Schiavo being spilt, whether such spilling was justified or not. Numbers back me up. Re-read my diffs. --GordonWattsDotCom_In_Florida 17:41, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

For clarity, euthanasia refers to the active ending of someone's life, and not the withdrawal of life suppot / medicines / etc. If going by what's on the euthanasia page, the Terri Schiavo situation could be considered 'passive' or 'involuntary' euthanasia, although I'm not convinced those are even medical terms, rather definition created by pro-life lobbies. Proto 15:49, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Now that I'm cooled down (color change), Proto, your definition is correct, but so? First, Terri was not merely denied some "procedures" like feeding tube, or 20,000 machines and heroic measure drugs. She was denied FOOD AND WATER, hello? Or, did you not know? Even this WIKI page covers that, so re-read? Furthermore, so what? So what if Terri was not starved, but instead was merely denied some extraordinary treatment? What's your point? If you've followed the Wagon "train" and think that the comments about which topics that the Schiavo debate sparked," please see my comments above; I shant repeat myself here. --GordonWattsDotCom_In_Florida 17:41, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Actually, by Catholic definition, the removal of Terri's feeding tube was euthanasia, even if it wasn't under Florida law. (The reason for the Catholic argument is that the removal of the tube caused her to die from lack of food and hydration, not from her illness. Catholic teaching allows feeding tubes to be removed if the patient is dying anyway, and if the feeding is just adding to the burden - as, for example, if the patient is vomiting a lot in the last few days of life.) Terri, at the time of her collapse, was a practising Catholic. Her family appealed often to Catholic moral theology. Bishops, and even the Vatican, made statements about the issue. Obviously, there's no reason why Wikipedia would go by the Catholic definition and say that it was euthanasia. But they could at least acknowledge that this battle "sparked a fierce debate over . . . . euthanasia", which would be true. This isn't the place to discuss whether the Catholic Church or the Florida State is right about what amounts to euthanasia. But the issue of euthanasia was highly relevant in this story. I think it's fair to say that that was why so many pro-life people became involved. By the way, Neutrality, perhaps you wouldn't mind using edit summaries? I think that Wikipedia recommend that. Some people may feel snubbed if something they write is changed or reverted without comment. Thanks. Ann Heneghan 17:52, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Yes, that is correct, Ann. However, in addressing the more difficult argument (which did not give Terri the benefit of protections of her religious rights and freedom to worship as she saw fit), I made it easier to show she was a denied individual. Since she DID have protections of free exercise of religion (a 1st amendment "right" here in "free" AmeriKa), her victimization was even more obvious, if the reader of my comments was not PVS. "Take care of hard arguments first, and the rest are defeated." With regards to edit summaries, yes, that's a good idea. However, how do you know that someone didn't contact God Himself, the highest Wikipedian, and appeal the perceived behavior of Neutrality? That is not outside the realm of possibility. --GordonWattsDotCom_In_Florida 18:27, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Right, Terri wasn't on life support. It was food and water that were withdrawn, not medicines or a ventilator. Judge Greer ordered that she not be permitted to receive food or water by any means, and he specifically ordered that she not be permitted to receive food and water by "natural" means (i.e., by mouth). If that's not "euthanasia," it's only because euthanasia is supposed to be humane.

Moreover, even the gastric feeding tube wasn't considered "life support" under Florida law at the time of Terri's injury. So the argument about whether or not Terri ever suggested that she would not want "life support" continued is irrelevant to the question of whether or not she would want a feeding tube removed (and obviously irrelevant to the question of whether she would want to be fed by mouth). NCdave 19:15, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Michael Schiavo contends that he carried out his wife's wishes not to be kept alive in a state such as a persistent vegetative state.

I don't see anything to argue about in that sentence. Agreed? Duckecho 16:00, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

This became another source of major dispute between Michael Schiavo and the Schindlers.

Can't possibly be an argument there, can there? Duckecho 16:00, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Mrs. Schiavo had no living will, and both sides brought their case before the courts.

Indisputable, correct? Duckecho 16:00, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Mrs. Schiavo's parents, Bob and Mary Schindler, vigorously appealed the judicial decisions, leading to the reinsertion of the feeding tube on two separate occasions after its removal.

Is vigorously POV? Didn't all parties vigorously pursue their points? Did one party litigate more vigorously than the other? I think that's a biasing word and should be stricken, agreed? However, it's presence does not merit a POV tag. Duckecho 16:00, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

I see you took vigourously out. could you put something in that at least indicates multiple appeals, multiple cases, multiple motions, etc? Otherwise, it says they appealed (assuming once) and that it led to the removal of Terri's feeding tube three times. the math doesn't add up. FuelWagon 02:20, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I don't think it does assume that. For example, in the second paragraph it says, "[t]he dispute led to numerous court cases...", in the third paragraph it says, "...both sides brought their case before the courts...", followed by "...appealed the judicial decisions...", and further, the mention of two reinsertions and a third disconnection. It seems to me that the idea of multiple filings is clearly represented. But I'm not so wedded to this portion of the edit as I am to the others. However, if it really annoys you, how about Mrs. Schiavo's parents...filed numerous (or multiple) appeals of the judicial decisions... Duckecho 03:23, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Leave it. Lemme sit on it a couple days. If it still bothers me, I'll bring it up. I'm getting an ulcer. FuelWagon 03:41, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

The courts all ruled in favor of Schiavo's husband, and the feeding tube was removed a third and final time.

Is there any dispute or lack of neutrality in this sentence? Duckecho 16:00, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

On 18 March, 2005, with the Schindlers having exhausted their legal options, they brought their dispute to Florida Governor Jeb Bush, the U.S. Congress, President George W. Bush, and the mass media as her feeding tube was removed a third and final time. Schiavo died on 31 March 2005 at around 9:05 a.m. EST. [1]

Aside from the awkward construction of that sentence, is there anything inaccurate or POV about it? Duckecho 16:00, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

What is with the very non-standard (both on Wikipedia and certainly in American English) date format here?? It should be March 18, 2005 and March 31, 2005. Moncrief 21:34, May 21, 2005 (UTC)

Non-standard (or perhaps more correctly, non-familiar) to you perhaps, but I am 59 years American, have 42 years in ham radio, and 30 years with the FAA, and I assure you that 31 March, 2005 is very standard throughout the world. Perhaps it's not so obvious when spelled out, but if you write 3/11/05 in a communique with someone in another part of the world, it is virtually guaranteed to be read as November 3rd. It's also standard in our (U.S.) military. As this encyclopedia is an international resource, I recommend its continued use. Duckecho 23:08, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

31 March, 2005 is very standard throughout the world. No, it isn't. "March 31, 2005" and "31 March 2005" maybe, but "31 March, 2005" (note the comma) isn't. --Calton | Talk 00:44, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

I don't know the cite off-hand, but in my experience with the English language, you use a comma in this form: "January 01, 1900," but you don't use one when the month splits the numbers: "01 January 1900." Additionally, I think someone said the computer would pick its own date convention, but (and more importantly) even still, this "date thing" is a minor point. (I prefer it spelled out, to avoid ambiguity: For example, I, Gordon Wayne Watts, was born on Monday, 16 May 1966. Now, with only a comma after the day of week, is there ANY ambiguity in "when" I was born?? Didn't think so!) --GordonWattsDotCom_In_Florida 23:02, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Comma, no comma. That's about 2% of the point I was making. Thank you for your contribution. Duckecho 02:29, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

Noooo, it's 100% of the point you were making, which was, Mr Appeal to Authority, flat wrong. --Calton | Talk 21:47, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Hi, Moncrief. Here's something I only recently discovered. When dates have Wikipedia links, the date preferences that you have set under the "date format" option of your "preferences" (at the top of each page) will be appear on your screen. So if you code March 31, 2005, someone with date preference set to "month day, year" will see "March 31, 2005", while someone with date preference set to "yyyy-mm-dd" will see "2005-03-31". Ann Heneghan 23:39, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Fortunately, the article itself has the form that's generally seen on Wikipedia,and that most Americans use (Wikipedia policy: articles about U.S. subjects written with U.S. conventions). The last thing we need to argue about on this article with so many multi-pronged arguments, is date format (and I'm sorry I brought it up). And rereading Ann's post above mine, I see it's all a matter of code anyway. Brilliant! So it's a moot point. At any rate, it would be incongrous to have conventions associated with the U.K. and other countries in an article about this most American of subjects (but if you have your prefs set that way, more power to you). Moncrief 00:48, May 22, 2005 (UTC)

I have a problem with that sentence as stated; the Schindlers had been waging a media campaign for years, so it was not "brought" to the media. The rest of the sentence is fine. Enviroknot 21:49, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

An autopsy has been performed, but the results have not yet been released.

I don't see how one could argue with these two facts, and the second can be modified with some detail once the facts in the medical examiner's report become available. Duckecho 16:00, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Is there any possible argument or POV with these first three paragraphs (apart from any I've identified)? Please enumerate, one by one, with facts and cites if you don't agree. Please indent and sign your comments for clarity.Duckecho 12:02, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

I'm prepared to do the next section of the article this same way. I'll wait a couple of days so as not to overwhelm casual readers with a ton of new material. Unless there is objection to this methodology, of course. Duckecho 18:59, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

I'd wait to see if this approach solves anything before starting the next section. FuelWagon 19:08, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your efforts, Duckecho. This will take a long time, but could be very helpful. Ann Heneghan 21:29, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

The opening section is much too long

It's nice that you're doing a sentence-by-sentence exposure to get people to realize that this article is pretty NPOV, but could we also work on trimming down the first few paragraphs? The huge block of text in the first section is almost unreadable.... there's just too much information for an introduction, and not enough indication of why we need to know all this information up front. Moncrief 21:36, May 21, 2005 (UTC)

I wrote the intro to contain more summary information because the article as a whole is a behomouth. If someone wants to get the gist of what the heck happened to Terri, they shouldn't have to wade through gobs and gobs of minutia. Most of the minutia is there because folks complain about something being left out is hiding the fact that Michael wanted to murder Terri or some such nonsense. If the article were trimmed down, then I'd say cut the intro down to one paragraph. But as long as the article is going to go into endless, mind-numbing detail, then I'd say to make the intro have enough context about Terri so they have some context to put the rest of the article in. FuelWagon 00:42, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

"To better care for his wife"

This content has been quoted in many places, from the now missing AJC obit to the current linked Newsweek article, which I believe is based on interviews and reports. I recall reading it in a source document or interview transcript but cannot remember which. The quote apparently comes from testimony Michael gave at the malpractice trial. At least I know where to find it now. --Viriditas | Talk 00:52, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

From testimony of Michael Schiavo dated 11-05-92, CASE NO. 92-939-15, [24]:

16 Q. Michael, have you started to go to nursing school?

17 A. Yes, I did.

18 Q. Where did you go to nursing school?

19 A. I'm going -- I'm attending St. Pete Junior

20 College.

21 Q. When did you start?

22 A. Approximately a year ago.

23 Q. When do you hope to finish?

24 A. We're looking at something like 1994.

25 Q. Why did you want to learn to be a nurse?

___

27

1 A. Because I enjoy it and I want to learn more how

2 to take care of Terry.

3 Q. You're a young man. Your life is ahead of you.

4 Your future is beyond you. Up the road, when you look up

5 the road, what do you see for yourself?

6 A. I see myself hopefully finishing school and taking

7 care of my wife.

8 Q. Where do you want to take care of your wife?

9 A. I want to bring my wife home.

10 Q. If you had the resources available to you, if you

11 had the equipment and the people, would you do that?

12 A. Yes, I would, in a heartbeat.

13 Q. How do you feel about being married to Terry now?

14 A. I feel wonderful. She's my life and I wouldn't

15 trade her for the world. I believe in my -- I believe in my

16 wedding vows.

Cats

Look everybody, I'm the definitive "pro-Terri" person on board at the moment, and I don't think the cats' loss of their 9 lives is any major point in my quest to give Terri juscice. OK? man... talk about wasting time I don't have a problem with it being mentioned somewhere as an objection that maybe Terri's family/friends raised or as some minor supporting evidence that Michael didn't really care for Terri, but for crying out loud, it is just a minor point, and should NOT take up like more than 1-2 sentences -if that. Good grief, Charlie Brown, can we actually look at real stuff... --GordonWattsDotCom_In_Florida 11:26, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

No, Gordon. You're the definitive "pro-Gordon" person on board. Stop beating your chest before your pride consumes you. I don't think that most of your efforts have honored Terri. They attempt to honor you. Try this, the next time you want to edit: Pretend your name is now....I don't know, Chuck. Ask yourself, "If I were Chuck, how could I help improve this article?" Perhaps by neutralizing your ego, you can love (and value) your fellow editors as much as you appear to love yourself. And then we can honor Terri by moving forward.--ghost 22:04, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Please, ghost, hold the personal attacks. NCdave 19:49, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

To the best of my knowledge, there is nothing in the current article regarding Michael Schiavo's action of putting Terri's cats to sleep, as mentioned in the Nov. 1993 deposition and guardianship hearing. Since they were Terri's cats, does anyone think this should be added to the article? --Viriditas | Talk 10:28, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

Did he give her old clothes away to Goodwill? Did he destroy her 45s? What happened to her car? Whenever that's been brought up I've wondered how does that add to Terri's story? My consistent, inescapable conclusion is, it doesn't. Duckecho 11:33, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

Putting aside your specious comment (the destruction of beloved pets is not similar to getting rid of old clothes, nor can I see how that comparison could be made in good faith)...

To those who detest cats, that's exactly what it's like. I don't know that Michael was in that category, but I could certainly identify with it if he was. Duckecho 15:11, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

...and sticking to the facts at hand, the timeline is sorely lacking data between 1992 and 1993.

I hope that isn't the justification for adding the disposition of the cats. Duckecho 15:11, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

IMO, it should be in the article, and here's way: In early 1992, when Michael had Terri's two beloved and perfectly healthy cats, Shanna and Tolly, euthanized, to facilitate moving in with one of his girlfriends (who had a dog, and who, btw, is now terrified of him), he proved that he cared nothing about what Terri would want. That shows that his later claim, that he sought Terri's death because it was what she would want (not because of the hundreds of thousands of dollars he would inherit) was nonsense: he cared nothing for her wishes, or he wouldn't have killed Shanna and Tolly, which he certainly knew she would not want. (His periodic refusals to allow Terri to receive Holy Communion also attest to his disdain for what she would want.)

Additionally, the fact that he killed Shanna and Tolly before testifying in the malpractice trial about his lifelong devotion to Terri proves that Michael is not above lying under oath. NCdave 19:49, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

In 1992, Michael states that he is attending nursing school to help his wife and hopes to bring her home. According to the deposition approximately one year later, he is putting Terri's pets to sleep and making preparations for her death (i.e. making the decision not to treat Terri's bladder infection, and according to the deposition, he is making a conscious decision to allow Terri to die from untreated sepsis, also briefly mentioned in the Wolfson GAL report). Clearly, this adds to the story, although the details need to be worked out.

I don't see how, but it's not an issue I'm going to go to the mat about. Duckecho 15:11, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

For example, proponents in the Schindler camp claim that Michael made the decision to get rid of the pest...

And at least one of the proponents in the Schindler camp uses it as evidence that Michael was a heartless bastard and that euthanizing the cats was just one more form of abuse and that discontinuing Terri's life support was merely an extension of that act. Duckecho

...whereas the testimony by Michael puts the blame on Mrs. Schindler.

But, again, I ask, how does this spat between Michael and Mary help tell Terri's story? Duckecho 15:11, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

It fleshes out the timeline and family dispute section. I propose splitting the family dispute section and adding it there, as it doesn't deserve to be in the main article. We should not ignore facts, especially as they are part of the official public record. In this case, the cat content helps illustrate the period between 1992 and 1993 when the family dispute first started. In 1992, Michael is studying to become a nurse to help Terri and bring her home, and a year later he is putting her cats to sleep and contemplating her death. This is part of the public record. Further, it should be stated that according to Michael, Mrs. Schindler advised him to have the cats euthanized. A response from the Schindlers would be appropriate as well. This all fits the family dispute section. --Viriditas | Talk 00:22, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

There's also a question of source documents, as much of this testimony is found on biased sites. I haven't been able to find these documents on neutral sites, which I find frustrating. --Viriditas | Talk 12:10, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

Ah, that is the problem and is my concern. Duckecho 15:11, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

I would have killed the cats, too. --AStanhope 15:43, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

Please don't get off-topic. People have enough text to slog through on this page already. Thanks. Ravenswood 19:03, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

The secton is called "Cats" and it is about whether or not Michael Schiavo was a bastard for killing the cats. My deep understanding for anti-cat bloodlust is hardly off topic. --AStanhope 19:22, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

My first thought was that you're just being silly. But perhaps you are being serious and you can't understand why your previous comment was off-topic, so I'll spell it out. 1) The question of whether or not Michael Shiavo is a bastard is not under debate (as far as I know). The 'cats' incident was not raised to show that he is a bastard, but to show that he was already acting as if his wife were dead. 2) If you are attempting to demonstrate that Michael Shiavo is 'normal' because he hates cats and you are offering yourself as an example, then you have failed to prove anything because you have offered no evidence that you are normal. -- Ravenswood 19:50, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

BTW, this entire discussion between us is off-topic, and I apologize to everyone else for having participated in it. -- Ravenswood 19:51, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

The fact that he killed the cat(s) is most certainly being held up by the anti-Michael Schiavo people as evidence that he was a bad person. In fact, I dare say that there are those among us who are firmly in the anti-Michael Schiavo camp whose primary issue with him was his penchant for felinicide. If we can't recognize and acknowledge that there are people who are coming to the table here with a clear POV re: one or more of the principals of this story then we'll never be able to get to the bottom of this strange and terrible story. --AStanhope 22:11, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Astanhope. There's a difference between a fair reporting of the issues in question, and doing dirt digging. This, I think, oversteps the line. Michael could have killed the cats for any number of reasons, and adding this to the article would be to espouse one particular point of view. If this, then what next? Michael Schiavo hates his mother? Michael Schiavo is a crappy driver? Again, the title of this article is Terri Schiavo, not Character assassination of Michael Schiavo.--Fangz 22:56, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

According to the testimony given by Michael Schiavo, he put Terri's cats to sleep at the urging of Mrs. Schindler, so we don't have to appeal to "any number of reasons". This is a matter of record, but it appears to be contested by the Schindlers, like many of the other issues. I raised this issue not to attack Michael (I am not in the anti-Michael Schiavo camp) but to fill out the timeline and address Michael Schiavo's change of attitude (which he openly admits) from 1992 to 1993, which is discussed in the GAL report as well. I think it's important to address these issues, as they are relevant to the Terri Schiavo case, but perhaps not as important on the main page. As proposed earlier last month, I would like to split the family dispute section, and add it to that page. I'm also wondering why these deposition source documents are not found on neutral sites, and can only be found on anti-Michael Schiavo pages. There should be a central repository for these documents, particularly on the university sites, but this doesn't appear to be the case. I am in agreement with others in that it seems unnecssary to add this issue to the main article. --Viriditas | Talk 00:13, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

The lack of a lot of affidavits, or as you say, deposition source documents on other than the a-MS pages has another common theme as well—at least with the ones I've looked at—they show up as a plain text page; no source, no attributes, no signed by, no other links, nothing but plain text. Any idiot with a text editor and five minutes of an HTML tutorial can produce such text. At least the court orders, for the most part, are clearly photocopies of actual documents. Duckecho 00:27, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

So, where are the affidavits? LexisNexis? --Viriditas | Talk 00:34, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Putting his wife's cats to sleep is so irrelevant that I'm amazed how quickly this section exploded. Fact: Michael put Terri's cats to sleep. So what? What people are bent out of shape about is trying to twist this fact into some reflection of internal thinking on Michael's part. i.e. "therefore Michael hated Terri". Terri's internal wishes about being kept alive on a machine had a court case to decide it, and even after all that, people are still arguing about the results. The meaning behind Michael putting the cats to sleep is not known and will never be known (I assume the courts aren't going to waste hundreds of thousands of dollars to determine whether Michael committed cat-icide or whether it was the best thing under the circumstances). So you have one fact (Michael put the cats to sleep) and a bunch of he-said/she-said crap going on. It's all heresay. And it's all worthless. And any argument to the effect of "let the reader decide" is conveniently ignoring the power of accusation even in the face of no evidence. And I for one will not stand to see wikipedia being used by folks to accuse people they despise of being a witch and "let the reader determine their innocence". FuelWagon 14:19, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

"The meaning behind Michael putting the cats to sleep is not known and will never be known (I assume the courts aren't going to waste hundreds of thousands of dollars to determine whether Michael committed cat-icide..." The subject of "cat-icide," formerly known as "felinocide" is properly explained by the resident expert (moi) at the very top of this subsection: [25] and saved at this [26]. Meow, meow, WHACK!! ... (pause) meow... (he had 9 lives) --GordonWattsDotCom_In_Florida 11:49, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

This article is too long already (over twice as long as the 32K recommendation), so I would tend to think that unless this is something really relevant (which it isn't), let's not put it in this article. JYolkowski // talk 16:51, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Well, I'm glad this issue was addressed. The meaning, as FuelWagon states, cannot be determined, but I think its important to flesh out the timeline and to directly address these types of claims, not ignore them or pooh-pooh them away. Even better, a talk index sorted by topic would greatly improve this process, so we don't have to keep bringing the same topics up again. I know the cat thing was covered some time ago, but I don't recall the outcome. In any case, I have yet to be able to find the source documents for these kind of claims, even though some of them can be found on less than neutral sites. I would like to be able to link to primary sources (affadavits, etc) if necessary, especially in regards to the "to better care for his wife" paraphrase. Once again, does anyone know of good, neutral sites that have these documents? --Viriditas | Talk 14:48, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

The important question is, did Michael Schiavo actually kill the cats, or was there an order given to remove their feeding bowls? Proto 14:28, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

That's clever, Proto, but the important question is a serious one: How is it possible to believe that Michael had Terri's wishes at heart when he had her beloved cats killed, and prohibited her from receiving Holy Communion? It is not even plausible. After all, he surely knew those things would have horrified Terri.

When Michael killed Terri's cats, to facilitate moving in with his girlfriend, Cindi, he proved beyond any reasonable doubt that he didn't care about Terri's wishes. Ditto, when he prohibited her from receiving Communion. Ditto, when he forced her family to take legal action just to visit her. Ditto, when he excluded her family from her funeral arrangements. Etcetera, etcetera, etcetera.

That means that the entire Felos/M.Schiavo case was a sham. It falls like a house of cards, because the entire case was dependent on the premise that they were trying to kill Terri "because that is what she would want." They repeatedly claimed that the reason M.Schiavo went through this enormous legal battle to have his wife killed is that it is what she would want, and it was a required part of the legal justification. Michael's dedication to fulfilling his wife's wishes was so complete, you see, that he was willing to kill her, and to put her mother, father, brother, and sister (with whom Terri was very close), through years and years of hell, just because he says he knows that is what Terri would want (or so he and his legal team would have you believe). Or, as the current POV mess that is this Wikipedia article credulously puts it, "Michael Schiavo contends that he carried out his wife's wishes not to be kept alive..."

It took Michael eight years to "remember" what it was that she would wish (and before that he repeatedly told people that he had no idea what she would wish), and he proved beyond a shadow of doubt by his callous behavior that he didn't care at all about her wishes. Come on, folks? Does any reasonable person familiar with the case truly believe the lie that Terri's wishes motivated Michael Schiavo to end his estranged wife's life? I doubt it. NCdave 11:24, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"It took Michael eight years to 'remember'" And if I keep saying it often enough, then it MUST be true and should be put in the article as undisputable and irrefutable fact. Sanity be damned. FuelWagon 14:48, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Okay, boys and girls; how about this for an opener?

Here is my attempt at editing the opening section. All of the points that everyone seems to want to be made that I excised from this opening section are still covered in depth (or should be in subsequent edits) later in the article.

Theresa Marie Schiavo (IPA: /'ʃaɪvoʊ/)(December 3, 1963–March 31, 2005), or Terri , was an American woman from St. Petersburg, Florida. In 1990, she suffered brain damage from cerebral hypoxia following bulimia-induced cardiac arrest. She went into a coma for two and a half months and spent the last 15 years of her life in an irreversible persistent vegetative state (PVS). Because Ms. Schiavo had no living will, ultimately the court determined that she would not wish to be kept on life support in such a state.

The judicial and legislative battles between Michael Schiavo (Ms. Schiavo's legal guardian) and her parents, Robert and Mary Schindler, over the diagnosis of PVS, removal of life support (gastric feeding tube), and other aspects of Schiavo's circumstances generated tremendous media coverage during the last few weeks of her life and sparked a fierce debate over bioethics, legal guardianship, federalism, and civil rights. Once appeals had been exhausted, the feeding tube was removed on March 18, 2005, even as the Schindlers continued to pursue their dispute to Florida Governor Jeb Bush, the U.S. Congress, President George W. Bush, and the mass media. Terri Schiavo died on March 31, 2005. [27]

Your comments and suggestions welcome. Duckecho 01:56, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Is this the entire intro? See, this is exactly the sort of thing I was afraid would happen. We're chasing our tail once again. This rewrite is far different from the version that everyone commented on above, and yet there are only a few points that people disputed. If you completely rewrite the intro, then there will be a whole other list of disputes that will come up because of the changes. Could we keep the intro as close as possible to the way it is and only change stuff to fix problems that people identify as POV? Otherwise, we'll end up going through this new intro on a sentence by sentence basis and end up with another version after that. No offence meant to you duck, I'm just too cynical at this point to believe we'll ever hit a point where everyone is happy with the article or the intro, which means we have to put up with some partisans being completely irate at the way the article is worded. FuelWagon 14:11, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Yes, that was the entire into. I give up. In the sentence-by-sentence analysis, the sole comments consisted of a complaint about bulimia (rebutted with cites), a complaint about the date format (sheesh; rebutted), and a complaint about our 200+ year old system of justice (rebutted). Finally, there was a separate complaint about the intro being too long. Granted, some of our heaviest hitting gadflies never weighed in, so we don't know just exactly how irritated they are with it as it exists. Aside from the occasional POV complaint from the you-know-whos, the only other bitches I see are about bloat, length, and readibility (essentially based on bloat). So what's your idea? Leave it as is? Does the article as it exists meet your standard of a wikipedia finished product? Duckecho 14:49, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Duck, the thing is that the individuals who keep putting the POV tag on the article never have anything specific to point to. NCdave gave a laundry list above, but I replied to each, and most of his stuff comes down to the fact that he wants to rewrite wikipedia in the POV of blogsforterri or similar. That isn't wikipedia's job. As an example, the three-dozen doctors who watched video from teh Schindlers and signed affidavits saying Terri should get more testing doesn't deserve to be presented out of context. That sort of information needs to be provided in the context of 5 hours of video edited by the Schindlers down to 5 minutes of video and shown to doctors. You can't simply say three-dozen doctors disputed the court's ruling and bury the full story deep down in the article. ya know, important little tidbits like "they didn't actually examine terri". That's what certain individuals want to do. You can't let people putting the POV tag on the article wear you down to the point where you're changing the article based on vague, non-specific complaints, in hopes that they'll be happy. They won't. You've got to demand they present specific POV problems in specific parts of the article and you've got to demand that they present URL's to back it up, preferably a URL to a non-blog source. Otherwise they're simply complaining that the article hasn't been written with the same viewpoint that they see in blogsforterri. And nothing can change that unless wikipedia changes its purpose from facts to advocacy. FuelWagon 16:41, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

I have to agree with Wagon on the point where he says that it should be mentioned that most "pro-Terri" doctors didn't examine Terri for very long -or at all. However, I am of the "inclusionist" camp, a trick I learned from Neutrality's web page. (I'm giving him creidt to make up for me criticizing one of his edits earlier.) Therefore, as an inclusionist, I would also include that the other doctors were prevented from examination by the courts -and let the reader decide if the courts were justified or not in this. Everybody happy with that suggestion? --GordonWattsDotCom_In_Florida 11:33, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Gordo, you're a confirmed ingnoramous now. That isn't what I said at all, so stop trying to turn my words into something else. The schindler's laundry list of "remote-video-diagnosis" is crap. It doesn't deserve to be in the intro. It deserves to be put in the article alongside other complete crap like Iyer's affidavit that the Schindlers submitted. They had a trial to diagnose Terri. They lost. Then they get Industrial Light and Magic to create a 5 minute video clip of Terri from 5 hours of raw footage and show that to a bunch of doctors in an attempt to completely RE-TRY the case. THEY LOST. And those MTV doctors was irrelevant enough that it did not warrant a new trial. Therefore they do not belong in the intro. See, that's your problem. you can't understand what it means to LOSE in court. You lost and keep spouting off about how it was a "near win". The Schindlers lost and kept trying to get a new trial with bogus evidence and bogus affidavits. fortunately the courts did their job and didn't allow Terri's condition to get tried, retried, and tried again. That's what courts are supposed to do. FuelWagon 15:25, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

You said: "As an example, the three-dozen doctors who watched video from (sic) teh Schindlers and signed affidavits saying Terri should get more testing doesn't deserve to be presented out of context. That sort of information needs to be provided in the context of 5 hours of video edited..." Notice that you said this information about the Schindler doctors needs to be "provided" somewhere, somehow... OK, now what did I say? "I have to agree with Wagon on the point where he says that it should be mentioned that most "pro-Terri" doctors didn't examine Terri for very long -or at all." In your direct quote, eliminating everything but subject and verb, you said "information needs to be provided," and my paraphrase was that I thought you said "it should be mentioned" regarding same doctors. "It" in my sentence refers to "information" in your sentence, and if info is "provided," as you say, we understand that it is "mentioned" somehow. So, I don't see where your "other worldly" interpretation has me misquoting or misrepresenting you. Furthermore, I was agreeing that the information should be mentioned, or otherwise provided, as you say. If you get this uptight about someone agreeing with you, then maybe, the next time, I should suggest that your idea is a dumb as a box of rocks -whether or not it is... just to ... never mind. I'm above that. Next, you say "It doesn't deserve to be in the intro. It deserves to be put in the article alongside other complete crap..." OK... So? What's the big deal? I don't recall saying that you asked these types of things be put in the intro. However, if I did (and that is uncertain), then show me when and where I said it; You know how to operate the diffs. Further, even IF I had misquoted you (very unlikely), nonetheless: (A) such misquote would've been accidental, and (B) equally important (for you at least), it would have incurred little or no harm to you. So, all in all, you are barking when there IS no cat around! --GordonWattsDotCom_In_Florida 17:20, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Gordo, take a look at the title of this section: how about this for an opener? Unless you're talking about the intro to the article, you're conveniently changing the subject of this thread. The MTV diagnosis does not deserve to be in the intro. Their diagnosis is already in the article with sufficient context around it to explain the Industrial Light and Magic editing that went on. FuelWagon 20:47, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Ok, I guess I overlooked the title of the article, but it is enough that I think it is OK to let the other doctors' analyses remain in the body. By the way: The law is quite clear on what PVS is, and your opinion -or even some judge's opinion, does not change the law. When you differ, it is merely an opinion, but when a judge differs, it is "legislating from the bench:" [28], [29], & [30]. This is unconstitutional, as a violation of the seperation of powers. --GordonWattsDotCom_In_Florida 21:28, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Now, with regards to the fact that you admit that there WAS five minutes of video of some sort, you imply that it is a hoax (Industrial Light & Magic), but this is irrelevant: You and I aren't the court; We're not here to evaluate the veracity of the vids (which, by the way, do not look doctored). (We are only here to present the cold, hard fact, and NOT opine on the veracity or lack of the video evidence.) Even assuming that the Schindlers found Terri reacting and exhibiting some reactions, that would satisfy the NON-PVS diagnosis, because according to the state law, only a person with the "The absence of voluntary action or cognitive behavior of ANY kind" (see e.g., persistent vegetative state could be PVS. As soon as Terri showed ANY level of cognitive action (even if it were only that of a chicken with its head cut off -or a Venus fly trap folding its leaves to catch a fly), she disqualified herself as being PVS. If you're so uptight about this definition, then lobby to get the Florida State law changed; don't take it out on me. --GordonWattsDotCom_In_Florida 17:20, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

"you imply that it is a hoax, but this is irrelevant: You and I aren't the court;" Well the court dismissed the affidavits, specifically because the basis for their diagnosis was 5 minutes of video and information from news stories. so that seems to be safe to call them a hoax. insert whatever legal term you wish that means the same thing as "useless diagnosis based on doctored video" that you find appropriate. FuelWagon 20:47, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

That term is heresay. Which has no place in the courts. And, as a minority opinion, has little or no place in Wikipedia. We could mention the existence of that the affidavits (possibly with a link), mention the judgement on them, and provide a link to the case. Otherwise, kill the whole reference. Which some will find unexceptable. So either state the facts, provide links and shut up, or don't say anything. Let the readers decide for themselves.--ghost 21:38, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

The correct spelling is "hearsay," and is found in Florida State Law 90.802, which says that is IS allowed, Ghost, in some circumstances: [31], which states: "Except as provided by statute, hearsay evidence is inadmissible." The exceptions are given by s.90.803 hearsay exceptions; availability of declarant immaterial: [32] Yes, hearsay is allowed, as shown by what Michael Schiavo said that he heard another witness say about her alleged wishes. While hearsay is not favored, it is allowed as weak evidence. The court didn't hear from the actual witness, Terri, but, instead, from a 2nd-hand witness, Mike Schiavo, her husband. As much as it is distasteful to me, it is technically legal to allow Mike Schiavo's hearsay testimony under the exceptions of 90.803 of Florida Law. However, since you think it's not admissible, you clearly see its weaknesses, many of which would probably make the hearsay of Mike and his two siblings fall short of the "clear and convincing" standard set forth to make the decisions in the court case for Terri Schiavo: [33], [34], & [35]. Abstract Appeal even speaks on the subject: http://abstractappeal.com/archives/2005_03_01_abstractappeal_archive.html where Matt says: "Comment/Question: "Was the issue ever raised on appeal that the judge had erroneously admitted the hearsay evidence?" Response: It was never raised at trial, nor on appeal, nor in any proceeding ever in the case of which I'm aware. I suspect that's because every lawyer involved knew it was a frivolous argument. (See this prior post for a detailed explanation why that's true.)" Matt is correct. Here is the link he provided to verify that: http://abstractappeal.com/archives/2005_03_01_abstractappeal_archive.html#111167384435979940 --GordonWattsDotCom_In_Florida 21:46, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Remember when you said the burden was on me to prove notability with my case in court -cuz i made the assertion? Well, YOU're making the assertions that I misquoted you AND that "...those MTV doctors was irrelevant enough that it did not warrant a new trial." On the 1st accusation, you may be right, but you haven't proven it with a quote from me on a diff; On the 2nd point, you accuse the "MTV doctors," and use as your only proof the court system, which, we know, is fallible, even to the highest levels. While your proof is not totally baseless, it is irrelevant in this context: So WHAT if the Schindlers got a hyped up garbage from their "special effects Ind. Light & Magic" crew? So what? Even as YOU say, "It deserves to be put in the article alongside other complete crap like Iyer's affidavit that the Schindlers submitted." So, I don't disagree: The details can be put a little lower in the article and still be visible enough to make me happy, so give it a rest already. --GordonWattsDotCom_In_Florida 17:20, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

This section is about what goes into the intro of the article. I said the MTV diagnosis doesn't belong in the intro. You said you agree with me "that it should be mentioned" that the doctors didn't examine Terri for very long or at all. I said it shouldn't be mentioned at all. And since this discusion is about "how about this for an INTRO", you're either changing the subject of the thread or you're saying that I said it should be included in the intro. The MTV diagnosis is already in the article body, so I don't know why you would argue that it "should be mentioned" in the body of the article when it already is there. So, you either changed the subject of the thread from "intro" to "whole article", or you misrepresented my words to say it should be in the intro. FuelWagon 20:47, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

You're preaching to the choir. I've been in on this since around the 1st of April (although not always with this username), and I've experienced in real time the nuttyness that has occured. I'm fully on board with you on all you say above, maybe even more so in some cases. I was responding to what seemed like a reasonable concern about the size of the intro. Frankly, I think the concern is well taken. But given the comment below, perhaps sizewise, it's not so bad. I do think it goes into some more detail than is desirable in an intro. I don't care what NCdave thinks. Duckecho 18:34, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

As for whether the article meets my "standard of a wikipedia finished product", I'd say no. The intro is pretty good as far as I can see. Yes, it's a little long, but the article is much longer. The article as a whole doesn't meet my standard of a finished product. There are some bits here and there that have been put in to satisfy NCdave and other extremists. NCdave's infatuation with Greer's denial of the Schindlers motion to feed terri by "natural means" lead to a whole new subsection in the article to explain that motion as well as the pieces before and after it. The motion was nonsense and Greer threw it out, but NCdave insists that the article is POV unless it mentions it. So it's in there. Same goes for the section devoted to Iyer's affidavit. Her affidavit is a complete fabrication, Greer rules it as such, but NCdave kept harping on it in the talk page, so I gave a bit by bit analysis to put the affidavit in context and explain how Greer came to the ruling he did. This kind of crap is what makes the article so long. But if someone has been brainwashed by blogsforterri and they come over to wikipedia thinking that Michael abused Terri, wanted her dead to keep her from testifying, wanted her lawsuit money for himself, that Greer is in on the conspiracy, and that Felos is a lawyer mercenary, then it's probably good that the article has these pieces of mythology explained in detail and put into proper context. This also means that the brainwashed Don Quixotes who refuse to see a windmill will continue to pound on the article for being POV because it doesn't tell the "truth" of murder, deception, and cat-icide. I've come to teh realization that these morons simply need to be resisted because nothing but a complete rewrite of the article to hang michael will satisfy them. FuelWagon 16:41, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Actually, the court order is quite specific regarding the "natural means" feeding but I don't think the reasoning explained therein is well reflected in the article. Obviously, NCdave has never read it, because if he had he'd never raise the issue. Jeez, that must be a wonderful life to float along in complete ignorance, never having to face a real fact head on. Duckecho 18:34, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

In response to the introduction being too long comment, Wikipedia:Lead section recommends that, for an article >30K, the lead section should be three paragraphs. So, it's not too long right now. I also tend to agree with FuelWagon that this is going to re-open up more cans of worms; I can see some old debates that we've had being re-opened if this were the introduction. JYolkowski // talk 16:58, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Okay, consider the proposal withdrawn. Duckecho 18:34, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

archived

I've archived all conversation threads that haven't been touched in the last 7 days, because it was making my computer cry having to load 322 kb every time. Proto 14:41, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for that. My eight year old computer was wheezing towards its last legs processing all of it, and my dialup connection didn't help, either. Duckecho 15:25, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Palm Sunday Compromise rewrite

A ghost, I liked how you fleshed out this paragraph. With all due respect, I made a couple of style changes, a couple of spelling corrections, added a little detail, and de-POVed the quorum question. Despite almost always leads to POV, and although the point of no quorum was an issue for me as an amateur parliamentarian, I felt it was better to neutralize the phrase. I hope you don't mind. Duckecho 00:06, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm, I'm definitely no apologist for George Bush, but I'm not sure the reference to the Red Lake tragedy is germane to the article on Terri. It wouldn't bother me to see it in Bush's article, however... Duckecho 05:05, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Like I've been saying all along, if it presents an anti-Terri POV, it gets included: so why not include that in Ceci Connolly's opinion President Bush's desire to sign the compromise bill was a cheap political stunt and not a sincere act on his part that Terri Schiavo not be deprived of food and water, and that he was indifferent to the murder of Native Americans? Ceci knows the President's motives, doesn't she? patsw 23:18, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

Who is Ceci Connolly and why are we discusing her? The fact that you indented under my second post (look at the five hour time difference between my two posts) leads me to believe that you think I condoned or agreed with the inclusion of the entire Bush/Red Lake tragedy scenario. I did not. I wanted to give ghost an opportunity to excise it himself. He has not. I am not the senior editor here and I'm not going to go around fixing everything. If you want to edit it out, I'll support it. There is still some anti-Terri POV (the view that wanted to extend her life despite her wishes) here that needs work. Frankly, there's still a little pro-Terri (the view that supported her wishes not to continue living hooked up to a machine) POV that needs work, as well. It's not an easy process. Duckecho 00:16, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

I'm part American Indian, and would have been glad had the President addressed Red Lake, but I don't see it as a major point; also, while I'm personally ticked at the President for NOT helping Terri more (like he helps foreigners by sending in troops), nonetheless, I don't let me anger at him cloud my judgment. The one short sentence no more hurts the article, in my view, than, say, a link to the http://GordonWatts.com website for "advocacy & commentary," but Red Lake is only slightly relevant. Who knows why the president didn't speak up sooner? "pro-Terri (the view that supported her wishes not to continue living" I don't like feeding tubes, but I do like food, and feeding tubes (like a cast for a broken arm -or medicine) is OK for short-term use. Further, only two people know Terri's wishes: Terri and "God." So, your characterization, while not overtly harmful, could be an inaccurate description. Lastly, her "wishes" may not have been in her best interests, whatever that were, so to classify something "pro-Terri" based on her (unknown) wishes is illogical, but you're entitled to your best guess & opinion, Duck. No harm, no foul -or is it: Fowl, Quack, ha ha...--GordonWattsDotCom_In_Florida 04:52, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

Done. It now reads, "This appearent act of mercy was later criticized when contrasted with the administration's response to other major events which occured later that day.[36]" This states a fact about an opinion held by a large group of people. It ambiguous enough to require the reader to dig further before making an opinion. Further, it provides context as to why critics of the administration and the GOP view the Palm Sunday Compromise as tripe. Finally, I choose carefully to structure the entry so that it's clear that the administration's slow response to the Red Lake High School massacre was a team failure, not something George W. Bush did on his own. I think even he might agree with that.

Ghost, I reiterate my reservations about including that sentence. I would appreciate it if you would excise " [t]his appearent act of mercy was later criticized when contrasted with the administration's response to other major events which occured later that day.[73]". As part of the cabal (there is no cabal) I'm loathe to do it myself out of professional courtesy. But I really think it needs to go. As evidence that it's suspect, apparent is very POV and strikes at the heart of the factuality that we've been discussing. If it's factual, it's not apparent; it's a fact. Duckecho 04:45, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

Ceci Connolly, a Washington Post reporter, made the connection between the Red Lake murders and the alleged indifference of President Bush which ghost decided to include in his rewrite. I called attention to it here as an example of POV-pushing that doesn't get deleted by the usual cabal of on-the-spot editors relentless in their expunging the pro-Terri material. A Washington Post reporter's opinion of what President Bush's priorities ought to have been on March 20 in an article appearing on page A06 of WaPo on March 25? Other murders have taken place in the United States since March 20 without notice by the White House press corps and Ceci Connolly. This is transparently media bias. As for a "large group" of people, ghost, are you referring to the "Native Americans across the country -- including tribal leaders, academics and rank-and-file tribe members" mentioned by Connolly? Isn't it natural that they would demand a greater show of attention from the President?

Pat, I am not going to permit you without challenge, to co-opt the extremely POV anti-pro prefixes to promote your own agenda, particularly when you come here complaining about POV and bias. By virtue of legal decision, undisputed to the highest court in the land, Terri was found to have expressed a wish to not be kept alive artificially. You, who wanted to prevent her wishes being fulfilled, are anti-Terri. Live with it. Duckecho 04:45, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

OK, enough of this!! If the pro-Catholic/religious Pat and the Duck who is definitely no apologist for George Bush (quote) both (with their opposing views) agree that the quote is bad, why the argument? I'm not sure that this quote is so harmful, and see it both ways, but I already covered the "substance" arguments in my 6 points here in talk: Terri's wishes were irrelevant, as they would only allow denial of feeding tubes, not food and water. And, enough of this bickering -no one knows Terri's wishes, but Terri and God (whomever He/She/They is/are). OK? Return to civility and analysis.--GordonWattsDotCom_In_Florida 05:12, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

Besides, Pat makes a good point. If we can take a pot shot at George W and/or his administration, with a cite to an article (opinion piece), and justify this by saying we're reporting on news, then why not also place a link to my court documents compilations, which were key briefs filed in this case? The fact that I filed my court documents (and expressed my opinions/advocacy) is no less deserving of links to the opinion piece bashing Bush -or the links to the Pro-Terri advocacy sites supporting some of Bush's lame efforts to save Terri. So, put in links to all my relevant pages. They're not going to be around forever; links are found in the previous archive in the "more links" subsection: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Terri_Schiavo/archive24#Here_are_some_links_that_you_may_find_helpful Put all the links for the readers, not just the ones that push y'alls' POV, thank you.--GordonWattsDotCom_In_Florida 05:12, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

"Even more alarming than Bush's silence, he said, is the president's proposal to cut $100 million from several Indian programs next year."

It's clear that this was an opportunity to attack President Bush politically as much as Connolly's opinion on his March 20 priorities. What fact is in that? patsw 03:15, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

You are mistaken. Clyde Bellecourt, the local head of the American Indian Movement, made the connection that you object too. He, and others including Sen. Nighthorse Campbell, contrasted this with the behavior of the Clinton administration following the Columbine High School Massacre. This, then, provides a backdrop for the signing of the Palm Sunday Compromise and suggests controversy. If your issue is with Ms. Connolly, perhaps you can find a better link. Here's a couple:

Mr. Bush talked to Floyd Jourdain Jr., chairman of the Red Lake Band of Chippewa, for five minutes Friday morning, offering his sympathy for the victims of a teen-ager's shooting rampage and the entire Red Lake community and pledging to provide federal assistance, White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said.CBS News

Mr (Clyde) Bellecourt pointed out that Mr. Bush broke off his holiday to sign emergency legislation on Monday concerning the case of a brain-damaged woman, but did not comment then on the Minnesota deaths.BBC

Of course every community desires the attention of the President in times of need. The Red Lake community lost 10 people, including 6 children. They weren't treated the same as those in Littleton, Colorado. How would you expect them to react? Maybe you could help me by writting for the enemy. I want this to be as NPOV as possible.--ghost 04:35, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

Oral feeding order

Would it be possible to set to rest the issue of the denial of oral feeding order that crops up from time to time? I feel strongly that those that keep raising it have not read the order. In it you'll find that multiple swallowing tests were performed (how many is necessary to satisfy the cabal?) CO of 7 March 2000 Frankly, after reading the order, I can't understand how the issue keeps coming up. In fact, a good assignment for anyone interested in the case (not just wanting to push a particular POV) is to read all of the orders available. I can't help but feel that you may come away with a little better feeling, not only about the efficacy of the judicial process as a whole, but the intellect and integrity of the judges involved—even if you disagree with their judgements. Duckecho 02:05, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

The order justifies reliance on Michael's doctor because Barnhill reviewed the medical records while the Schindler's doctors, Young and Carpenter had not. At this point, Michael had a court order prohibiting the Schindlers from accessing Terri's medical records and was tightly controlling the amount of time anyone had access to Terri's room. Rather than showing the "intellect and integrity" of George Greer, it's another example of Greer's lack of fairness and his bias for killing Terri. Perhaps before this hearing, the Schinder's attorneys could have insisted on access to medical records and adequate time for the doctors to evaluate Terri to meet Greer's criteria of "credibility" but that's not how it happened. Could Terri have been rehabilitated to be fed orally? We'll never really know. patsw 23:50, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

You have cites that prove all of this (or any of it)? Do you know that the Schindler's attorneys didn't insist on access to medical records? Is your assertion not contrary to the process Greer followed in the 2002 trial in which five doctors had access to Terri? Are you saying that the doctors selected by the Schindlers didn't have access to her records? And most importantly, if all that alleged failing in intellect and integrity is so obvious, why wasn't it addressed by 2nd DCA, who not only reviewed the process of the trial but painstakingly reviewed the evidence as well? In fact, since 2nd DCA ordered the 2002 trial, does it not seem reasonable that they would have insisted on full or at least equal access by the parties? Why has not a single judge in the 2nd District, the FL Supreme Court, the Federal FL District, the Federal 11th District, or the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on those egregious acts? That they haven't so ruled affirms that the acts must not have occurred. The Wiki article is supposed to be based on facts. The court orders I cited are facts. You disagreeing with them because they aren't your idea of justice does not make those facts biased, nor does it make your disagreements facts. Provide cites (not opinion pieces from the blogosphere) that support your assertion of unfairness or come to terms with a highly litigated and highly reviewed case that didn't go the way you would have liked. Duckecho 00:52, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

Duckecho, am I supposed to be intimidated by "you" in bold? After Michael decided that Terri must die, he denied access to the medical records to the Schindlers. This is a fact. See, I get to use bold type myself.

Q. And prior to that time, they (Terri's parents) had access to the medical records and they could talk to the physicians and the nursing home people about their daughter, correct?

MS. Correct.

Q. Okay. And after that period of time that changed, didn't it?

Attorney Nillson Objection

Q. Alright. After the altercation on February 14, 1993, the Schindlers were not allowed any information concerning their daughter's immediate condition, is that correct?

MS. The order was given not to give out any information to anybody but myself or the doctor.

Q. Okay. And what was...why was that order given?

MS. Because I figured that the nursing home was having problems, first off, with the certified nurses aids giving wrong information out over the phone, information to the family. And second of all, since my in-laws showed no care about showing up or calling me when Terri was in the hospital, I figured they didn't care.

It shouldn't be a matter of dispute here that Michael sought to keep Terri's medical records secret from the Schindlers. Anyone can speculate what motivated Michael to do so. I believe that Michael did not want to allow information to be obtained by the Schindlers and the doctors they would pick to evaluate Terri. Such information would be useful in making the case that she should be allowed to live, given physical therapy, etc. Of course, we see in the cite that you give that Young and Carpenter were not given credibility by Greer in part because they didn't review the medical records. My own opinion is expressed here to allow readers to know that I do not agree with your opinion of the Greer's intellect and integrity. patsw 02:27, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

Typographic enhancements, i.e. bolds and italics are merely for clarification of a statement. No intimidation is intended nor implied. You can be intimidated or not—your choice. Congratulations on your discovery. Oh, could we have a cite for that alleged testimony? When you provide one (with the usual caveats), I'll strike the alleged. And by the way, I'm not saying it isn't factual; I'm not saying you made it up. I simply would prefer to see material presented to prove a point in verifiable form. This is the internet, after all... Duckecho 04:07, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

The order says, "One of the physicians would not say when she would have stabilized after the February 1990 cardiac arrest and would not concede that her treating physician would be in a better position than he to make that diagnosis. The credibility of this witness is therefore compromised."[37] That's in the middle of page two. Only one doctor was not given credibility by Greer, and that's over an issue regarding he vs the attending physician. I can't help but believe you would discount the doctor's credibility in the circumstance, too. Duckecho 04:07, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

In the middle of page three, the order says, "It is clear that the credible testimony was that given by Dr. Barnhill for various reasons, not the least of which is that he has examined Terri Schiavo and reviewed her medical records." [38] I keep looking all over for a statement by Greer that both Schindler's doctors were not given credibility. I can't find it. Duckecho 04:07, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

What I also can't find is any evidence of Young and Carpenter being denied access to Terri's medical records. Presumably both parties (Schiavo and Schindlers) were properly notified of the hearing regarding the requesting of tests—I'm quite sure it's black letter law that they must. Therefore, it was incumbent on the Schindlers and their attorneys to ensure that their witnesses were prepared. And who's to say they weren't? Was it raised as an issue on appeal? The fact that the Schindlers personally weren't able to access the records doesn't mean that the court wouldn't or didn't order Schiavo to permit access by opposing physicians. I don't know whether Greer did or not, but neither does anyone else. Speculating as to why is beyond the scope of any encyclopedia article. Duckecho 04:07, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

Also, note that there was seven years of testing and "...the finding was that she could not be rehabilitated in this regard... [swallowing]" Since you hang your hat (in part) on useful information regarding therapy, what threshold of evaluation would be sufficient to get you to agree she couldn't swallow? Duckecho 04:07, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

Now, having said all of that, I will repeat what I said before; there is still some POV in the article (not enough to warrant a POV tag). I'm still making, I believe, a sincere and as NPOV as possible, effort at excising that POV. It's difficult because so many people have drawn lines in the sand, mostly because of their personal bias and much of it clearly because the party is either uninformed or misinformed, and refused to consider even the most minimal of corrections. My proposed rewrite of the opening section is a good example. It met with less than the enthusiasm I expected; not because it wasn't reasonably good editing, but because it eliminated too much safety net that editors had been forced to put in to mollify those with lines in the sand. Duckecho 04:07, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

Finally, my opinion regarding integrity and intellect doesn't apply to Greer alone. I believe I've read all of the court orders from the other courts involved, and it is the sum of the work to which I referred. I know you have issues with the Terri Schiavo case. I wish you could set aside those issues and deal with the preparation of an accurate, factual, NPOV document. What you (bolded to emphasise whom I'm addressing, not to intimidate) think might (bolded to emphasise the lack of certainty, not to intimidate) have happened in the process of litigation has absolutely no place in the article (nor does mine—ooooh, I've intimidated myself). Duckecho 04:07, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

Pat, if you're reading Duck's reply, let me apologize if I raised my voice in underlined, bold face earlier, and it was taken in the wrong way. I didn't mean to intimidate or offend, and neither did Duck. (I was simply upset that you two would be agreeing over whether to remove the opinion piece link yet still quibbling over the motives or who knows what.) Naturally, you should know I'm on your side: I sit squarely on the right-wing, "religious," pro-life conservative side, and defend your points well, I hope. With that said, let me point out a problem with Abstract Appeal as a link. Yes, it should be included, but note this: The Blogmaster says "Remarkably, I've been accused of being biased in favor of each side at one point or another. I'm not." [39] (near the top of the page) --HOGWASH!! He later slips in THIS comment (in answer to his first question) "All of these positions are understandable in some sense, though if you've read my posts over the years you know I am particularly sensitive to the judiciary's position of following the law correctly and yet being so horrifically misunderstood by many." (emphasis added) In addition, Matt, the Blog master (and attorney) says this: "I don't take a side, but I do support the legal rulings. I think the judges followed the law," he said. in the April 30, 2005 St. Pete Times story ("Lawyer shares lessons from Schiavo case," by Lucy Morgan), and saved on these links: [40] and [41]. My point? The lawyer LIED!! So, since I admit that I have some bias, or advocacy, then links to my three mirrors should be placed on the Advocacy Section, considering my deep involvement in the case. Also, my compilation of court documents and links pages (separate pages, not opinion pieces) should (if you wanna be fair) be included. I'm as quality as the next link -AND not a liar!! (No offense is meant to Matt, but he did say he was unbiased, and then expressed a POV.) --GordonWattsDotCom_In_Florida 05:49, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

Gordon, I agree and argued some time ago that Matt Conigliaro was biased. He commits the error that many others do here, that the court's POV is, by definition, the NPOV. He shows little sympathy for Terri Schiavo as a human being or the concerns of the Schindler's. He appears to accept without question that Michael was implementing Terri's spoken wish to be dehydrated to death. patsw 14:24, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

Anyhow, Pat, you're right, but I don't have a problem with Matt's bias, only the fact he denies it -and the fact that others accept his analysis as gospel. Duck, you don't have to remove Matt's abstract appeal link, only take into consideration the bias that may remain. I had trouble understanding if you meant that the public's opinion on the many issues should not be reported here, and I responded likewise on your page: [42] for my reply here to the good you raise, Duck, and reprinted here, after it was deleted:

(Quoting Duck from his talk page) "Moreover, that people (even millions of them) have doubts is even more irrelevant than my approval, and is most certainly irrational because they (nor I) were not at trial (and in most cases they haven't even read the orders)" I don't understand your point? Yes, I'll agree that the opinion of the "millions" is irrelevant to the mention of Mike's testimony, but their sentiments, in and of themselves, are not irrelevant, and bear mention. For example, lets see how WIKIpedia treats the Dred Scott v. Sanford court case. See there? The Wiki entry mentions that other people had an opinion, so to speak, in this quote: "It is considered by many to have been a key cause of the American Civil War, and of the later ratification of the Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments..." and then later in the article, under the sub header, "The consequences," we find this quote: "The reaction to the decision from opponents of slavery was fierce. The Albany Evening Journal combined..." eventually quoting from the opinion piece. My point? ALL the facts are relevant to report, and this includes that "opinions" of the masses, be it an opinion on the Scot case -or of the Schiavo case.--GordonWattsDotComFlorida_ⁱⁿ_, USA 22:01, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

--GordonWattsDotCom_ⁱⁿ_Florida, USA 22:22, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

Pat, I'm disappointed in you. You don't seem to be able to separate the legal side of the case from the emotional side. Your characterization that "Terri's spoken wish [was] to be dehydrated to death," wasn't, isn't, and never will be a claim made by anyone who litigated the matter that I'm aware of. Duckecho 15:17, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

So far as I'm concerned, Abstract Appeal is listed solely because it has so many of the pertinent court orders on file. Since that seems problematic to you, I'll voluteer to rewrite the Legal Documents section to provide individual links to each the documents (further expanding the article) and remove the Abstract Appeal link from the Compilations section. The links will still get the file from the Abstract Appeal site, however. Will that mollify you? Duckecho 15:17, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

The liar Iyer affidavit

Here's another one that I'd like to see put to bed. I'm not sure what the staffing levels have been over the years at the various institutions in which Terri Schiavo resided, but at the very least, I believe it takes seven people to provide 24/7 shift coverage (I used to do scheduling occasionally when I was with the FAA). Now, theoretically, there could have been a maximum of seven health care providers that travelled with Terri on her journey from 1990 until 2005, but I think even the most avid detractors would concede that there have more likely been dozens, if not hundreds, of health care professionals that have been involved with her over the years.

I said all of that to say this: if any of the allegations in the Iyer affidavit were true, is it not reasonable to conclude that out of the dozens or hundreds of others that have been involved in her care, there had to be corroborating charges? There were a total of four similar affidavits. NCdave likes to speak of Michael Schiavo mysteriously remembering Terri's wishes, but I have to wonder about Carla Iyer (and three cohorts) mysteriously appearing in 2001 to make allegations of events from six years earlier. I also have to wonder why the Schindlers did not bring them to court for the 2000 and 2002 trials. That shortcoming was cited in at least one of the court orders in those trials.

In the article, Greer's denouncing of Iyer's affidavit is quoted (and is damning). This cite should be added and as I stated above, all should read it who haven't in order to get a more accurate flavor of what was said and done (and ordered) than is reported in the blogosphere. CO of 17 September 2003 Duckecho 02:03, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

The lies were told about nurse Iyer, not by her. She is a highly credible witness, with no conflict of interest, and no reason to lie. According to the sworn testimony of two witnesses, Michael Schiavo repeatedly said that he had no idea what Terri would want, during the early years after her injury. During the 1992 malpractice trial, he stated that it was his intent to take care of her in her disabled state for the rest of his life -- no suggestion that she wouldn't want such care. It was eight years before he ever told anyone that she had ever suggested that she would rather be dead than live like that. GAL Pearse thought he was lying, and so do I. He had more than a half million dollar motive to lie about it. He is not credible. Iyer is. NCdave 22:29, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I would like to make a point here: While I admit I don't know exactly how many affidavits supported Iyer's, I will assume (for the sake of simplicity/argument) you are correct on both of your numbers: E.g., Hundreds who knew something and four who spoke up. Now, the 1st point is this: The nurses who spoke up had no motive to lie: They wanted to keep their jobs. (If you can show the nurse spoke up after getting fired, then this supposition doesn't hold for that particular nurse.) 2nd, let me point out that the numbers comparison is misleading. Look, for example, at the case of "Kitty Genovese, a local bartender, [who] was stalked and fatally attacked on her way home from work, and when she cried for help, at least thirty-eight (38) neighbors stood by and did nothing, and did not even call the police." I wrote about this issue at: [43], and we can verify my allegations at these search links: [44], [45], or[46]. My point? "The attack, which took roughly thirty-five minutes, went unchallenged, except by one man, who yelled "Leave that girl alone" before turning in. The nation was shocked at this: Why wouldn't anyone step in and help her, or even lift a finger to call the police?! Genovese died hours after the stabbing because bystanders refused to summon help. The March 13, 1964 attack of Catherine Genovese, 28, who had been returning from her job as manager of a bar in Hollis, New York, made national headlines and shocked the nation. [New Paragraph in original article] Psychologists, dubbing this the "bystander effect" or "Genovese effect," explained that, in large groups (such as many news media outlets considering covering my efforts), everyone thought that "everyone else" was going to help -and no one did anything." The bottom line is that, in large groups, humans -including nurses in large groups, oft times "look the other way," and the fact that four (4) spoke up is incredible, considering the odds of losing a job and being blacklisted. I believe the allegations. --GordonWattsDotCom_In_Florida 19:34, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

On another note, I want to credit you, Duckecho, for making me think. I believe it was you who suggested that the Florida Supremes considered a rehearing on my dismissal, and not on the merits, like they did with Gov. Jeb Bush. That seems accurate, I am sad to say: The Supremes let me down by not granting me review. However, let me point out that had Jeb Bush won his "rehearing" motion, he would not have necessarily won: re·hear·ing (rē-hîr'ĭng) n. Law."A new hearing of a case by the same court or other administrative tribunal in which it was originally heard." [47] He or I, should we have won a rehearing motion, could have either won or lost the case on the merits. For example, I recently had a traffic ticket, and I was dismissed. I told the court that I had not been allowed to present my brief, and I moved for rehearing. The court granted. (In other words, I "won" my motion for a rehearing: The court said "yes," to me, but I still have not won the case, even after a year!) Upon attempts to file a brief, I cited case law that permitted me to summon the record to include in case I wanted to back up my allegations in my brief. Although I was right, and case law supported me, the court did NOT grant my petition to file a brief with the necessary documentation to make my case. As of this writing, it's been about a year with NO decision from the court. I haven't been dismissed on this, but I have not won. CONCLUSION? While Jeb got his case heard in oral arguments, his dismissal was for a "rehearing" of the case, and not a dismissal of the merits, which is the type of dismissal he encountered the first time. I.e., we both lost an attempt to rehear our initial "failures." I hope this clarifies. (PS: Many still hold me to be a hero who came closer than the good Governor! E.g., [48], who said on his radio show that I came very close to winning; He is a lawyer --and, well-known web author and radio show host, Jeff Rense, who at [49] says "(Note - Mr. Watts lost 4-3 while Gov Jeb Bush lost 7-0 arguing before the same court.)" Also, while many entries in google at [50] are from my own postings, not all are: Many laud me as a hero, right or wrong. How can the masses be wrong? --GordonWattsDotCom_In_Florida 19:34, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Mr. Watts: I responded to the Traffic Court comment on your talk page, I hope you do not mind.--Mia-Cle 00:52, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I saw it; Thx, Miami-Cleveland, -and I replied with specific answers to your question(s) and/or comment(s).--GordonWattsDotCom 12:20, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sandbox - general reccomendations & suggestions

Since I see the sand bowl blowing, I'll make a sandbox to try to have a place to address the wind storm:

EXCESS QUANTITY: First, I may have been a little at fault of the "excess quantity" of clutter for being long-winded, but 1,000,000 questions (by duck and others) deserve 1,000,000 answers that are detailed.

"Quality:" As far quality of a few remarks I made, YES, they were directed at Duck who asked, and theists, in general who might find them helpful. To that end, they were a little clutter, but I limited my Biblical Canonical comments, so don't worry about that.

General Recommendations: If Duck or others think that the board is cluttered, remember!! --cyberspace is rather limitless: We could each have our own sub-header --or our OWN PAGE, for that matters. So, his idea of a sandbox is not a bad idea.

Yes, there were some attacking comments, like that 25% figure, and that vandalism comment, that looked like they were aimed in my direction. However, I think that if we all strive to make (a) Brief (b) Polite and (c) On-topic replies, this will subside. (Proof of that theorem is the fact that such comments of sandbox creation have not been surfaced in recent times; The human DNA is strong enough to permit rational logic and cool heads, trust me: That was my specialty at FSU.)

Now, my only objections to sandbox activity would be that it would tend to confuse editors who want to go looking for something on the talk page. ("Huh? Why's that here?" -sort of thing.) Also, there is the possibility that posts could be accidentally deleted -or duplicated. So, instead of moving someone else's post, sometimes it's best to run to a less populated place. I forgot to mention: While I was certainly annoyed by some comments, I'm not mad at you, Duck, or anyone, for that matter --at least not here on these pages and boards. You can trust that, for all my opinions and views, I am not easily offended, so don't even sweat it for a second.

Notice here that I am "practicing what I preach." I have run to a less-populated place --AND (more importantly), I DON'T tamper with or disturb (read: delete) others' posts -no matter how much I might dislike their illogical point of view. NEWS FLASH: I survived the posts that others posted, and so can you. --GordonWattsDotCom_In_Florida 07:39, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Sandbox created

I created a subpage to make a sandbox. Terri Schiavo/sandbox. I took the liberty of doing my own restructure of the article to better follow the timeline, as others had suggested. There were a few redundancies that could then be removed. The ToC makes a LOT more sense in this version. Thoughts?--ghost 21:28, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

argument ad nauseum

It seems clear that the "whack a moles" are back. ask for specific issues around POV in the article, and some folks vomit reams of off-topic ramblings on the talk page. This behaviour could possibly qualify as an odd form of "trolling", or at the very least "argument ad nauseum" whereby the person raises a million irrelevant points, in the hopes that the opposition exhausts themselves arguing the non-sequitors and finally surrenders out of frustration.

The recent attempt to restrict this in some way was met by stiff resistance from folks who generally support the same POV as the ones doing the rambling. Apparently politeness requires that we allow ramblers to ramble. fucking fine. that's the way we'll play it.

[Comment: Politeness certainly requires that we don't contaminate talk pages with that kind of language. Ann Heneghan 22:51, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)]

You are right, Ann, but I take blame (or credit?) for provoking Fuel Wagon, because I am sure he is referring to my long diatribe in the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Terri_Schiavo#Life_prolonging_procedures link, in which I discuss the merits of the Schiavo case, instead of the merits of whether or not an item is "newsworthy." I may have "technically" violated this policy found at the top of the page: "The Talk pages are not a place to debate which views are right or wrong or better. If you want to do that, there are venues such as Usenet, public weblogs and other wikis," but I felt that this may have been proof that "some people dispute" certain point. While I proved both the fact that "many dispute" things --and the good reasons they do --I was long-winded and verbose, but I was frustrated by the lack of understanding the newsworthiness of certain items, and felt I had to vent. In your absence, it was informally agreed that users could take certain colors, and I took dark blue text, as you can see. (I will try to be less verbose and talkative -and more of a good neighbor.)--GordonWattsDotCom 13:15, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Since this means there is nothing to be done about off-topic-non-sequitor-rambling-whack-a-moles, it would seem to me that the only remaining alternative is for people actually trying to come to some sort of conclusive result around this article to ask for specific problems with POV in the article, such as a specific sentence and what is wrong with it, and to do our best to ignore everything else.

If anyone has a specific sentence you believe is POV, please present it and state your case. I'm sick of bending over backwards trying to satisfy the partisans. I'm not formatting sections of the article sentence by sentence anymore. The assumption is that the article is NPOV unless you point out a sentence and state exactly why you think it is POV and cite some neutral URL's to support your claims of facts. You do the work. vague complaints of POV will be summarily ignored. Attempts to put the POV tag on the article without specific issues presented to support it will be reverted on sight.

I'd ask everyone who'd like to see this article reach some sort of conclusion about its NPOV-ness, to support this approach. Do not feed the trolls. Do not get wrapped up in vague, non-specific complaints about POV, do not get wrapped up in non-sequitors. Anytime someone wants to ramble, a short reply telling them to either get specific or get stuffed will suffice. FuelWagon 14:11, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

I agree, and will be glad to follow this guideline. My only concern is if someone objects to the overall tone of a section or the article, as laid out in the "fairness and sympathetic tone" section of the NPOV policy. In that case, I think that person should spell out what the tone implies to them (no dissertations), and offer a brief and logical solution.--ghost 15:01, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Thank you. I agree that their strategy seems to be flood 'em with BS; they can't catch it all. Look just above. One contributer took seven paragraphs to tell us how he practices brevity. And you may recall a post (now in Archive 21) positing the DNFtT (do not feed the trolls) strategy. I fully support that paradigm. By the same token, I won't let my forebearance be interpreted as acquiensence by the Don Quixotes or W-a-Ms. I get the feeling occasionally that I'm a lone voice in the wilderness trying to persuade by cites and logic that what is written in the article is factually correct. I'm also getting tired of being painted as an apologist for Michael Schiavo or George Felos because I don't blindly buy the blogosphere line. Facts, cites, and relevance. How hard is that? Duckecho 17:01, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

The article is severely POV-biased, and badly inaccurate. Those whose POV it the article matches (Fuelwagon, Neutrality, ghost, duckecho, etc.) don't admit the bias and inaccuracy exist. Fine. But this much is inarguable: the neutrality and accuracy of the article are disputed. That's what the tags say: that the neutrality and accuracy are disputed. Everyone here knows that is so, so the tags belong on the article. Removing the tags is POV-pushing. NCdave 20:08, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm flattered that I made your POV list. For the record: I do not dispute that there localized problems with POV, and that the tone of certain sections conveys bias to some. This is why I asked you to support the request for mediation. The good news is, when one steps back and views the article as a whole, it's better now than it has been. Still too long, but hey... As to the tags, that is and should be a method of last resort. The use of tags disrespects the efforts of all, and (my opinion) also disrespects the memory of Mrs. Schiavo herself.--ghost 20:58, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

res ipsa loquitur (the evidence speaks for itself) regarding the efforts I've made in the last few weeks at not only improving the article but trying to be as NPOV as possible. The NPOV tag is not going to be used by one rogue editor with a POV mission to hold the rest of the editors-in-good-faith hostage while pushing his conspiracy theory. Ghost has it exactly right. Posit facts and back it up with evidence. Cite same in specific areas and see if you get some agreement. Absent that, NCdave's tune hasn't changed in two months. I doubt it will. Duckecho 21:30, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Duckecho, I agree that the article has improved in neutrality recently, and I appreciate that some of that is due to you. I am glad that the beginning now states that she was in a condition diagnosed as PVS, rather than that she was in a PVS. However, I would point out that it is not only one editor who believes that the neutrality is disputed. I don't like edit wars, and I have never put the tag on. But just as examples, do you really think it's neutral to claim that Michael's motive in studying nursing was "to better care for his wife"? It may or may not be true, but it's impossible to verify, and the inclusion of that phrase indicates that Wikipedia believes Michael. The same goes for the statement that he "came to terms with the diagnosis . . . [and] began to accept the idea of allowing his wife to die naturally". These things are not verifiable facts. Ann Heneghan 22:51, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ann, I believe you raised the better care for his wife question before, and even if it wasn't you, it was answered above in the section entitled "To better care for his wife" complete with a link to Michael Schiavo's testimony in the malpractice trial. So, yes, Michael's own words, under oath, while representing his POV are certainly verifiable as having been said, which is what the article is reporting. And if a misunderstanding as to the genesis of the report is the source of angst about POV, then that, also, fails to justify the NPOV tag. Duckecho 23:26, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

2nd Update: I see your edit comments, Duck, where you said: "rm biasing sentence, scare quotes, link to op-ed commentary. That link is good for court orders but the owner has no first hand knowledge of the case. Rewrote para." I think I can live with your edit; It seems like a true statement, because you left in "apparently" as a modifier. You say you removed a biasing sentence. I guess that would be one of the two bold-faced, red colored sentences at: [51]. One of them stated a fact (the diagnosis of the doctors he hired), and the other was similar to the sentence we left in, that is, citing Abstract Appeal as a source to suggest that Mike Schiavo believed that his wife was hopeless. I guess those sentences would slightly push Mike Schiavo's POV, and since I am no fan if his, I don't mind them being out. His POV is well expressed, and I can live with that too: I am fair and balanced. As far as the scare quotes, they would have been OK to leave in, because his doctors really did say that, but I guess that it looks "more professional" without "quotes" all over the place. I have no problems at this point, even though I imagine that I could find minor problems if I searched.--GordonWattsDotCom 16:26, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

UPDATE: Duck, good job on adding Michael's side of the story to explain "why" in this [52] diff, and then later, in this [53] diff, you clarified that it was only Mike's claim (not proven fact) as to why he became a respiratory therapist; I had missed those. Thank you. Also, I addressed, in this diff: [54] the disputes Ann made that it was only Mike Schiavo's claim that these were his motives. I believe that my edit corrected the minor "factual" and POV "neutrality" inaccuracy: Remember -no one really knows Mike's motives, so this edit would be the textbook way of fixing such an error. Let me also clarify that I am sure that I could find disputed points -both of "accuracy" and of "neutrality" of this article, but I am not "personally" in favor of putting a "disputed" tag up because (it is my guess or opinion that) there are more undisputed fact than disputed, at least at this time. In that, my views are between those of Ann and of NCdave.--GordonWattsDotCom 14:49, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Duck, I think you are right on one point: While Ann would be right to contest any statement that says that Michael's motives were to better care for his wife, my reading of the article finds only statement like: "[i]n addition to Pecarek, a number of guardians ad litem [and others] have described Michael Schiavo as a supportive husband who berated nurses for not taking better care of his wife." (Emphasis added with underline.) --This is perfectly OK -it doesn't assume Michael's motives, only reports what others have said. However, Ann is correct on her other point: Where that article says: "In 1994, after three years of trying traditional and experimental therapies, Mr. Schiavo came to terms with the diagnosis..." assumes that we are mind readers -and know Michael's motives; we don't. If you want that statement in there, Duck, I have no problem with it being reported like the other statement; you can find some people who "report" that they thought what Michael's motives were. You might also want to consider, however, that it would only be fair to report some other peoples' opinions on Michael's motives (if it is not already in there), such as a financial motive to assassinate his wife, or that others thought that there might be a criminal motive to silence a witness to alleged spousal abuse. However, I notice that this sentence is in the article: "Raising the issue of a possible conflict of interest is the claim that Michael Schiavo stood to inherit the remainder of Schiavo's malpractice settlement upon her death." That would balance the other sentences --so long as "it is reported that" others opined that Michael "came to terms with this-or-that." I may change it, in a little bit, if there is no opposition; if there is, then revert once, and we can discuss it more. I hope my feedback was helpful.--GordonWattsDotCom 13:15, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

So far as the came to terms and accept the idea if you want to take them out, fine, however I suggest you read Wolfson's report first. I'm afraid we're going to wind up with a very technically verifiable document with little readability if we're going to throw out every turn-of-phrase that doesn't have a legal cite to accompany it. Duckecho 23:26, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

But the article doesn't say that Michael "said it was to better care for his wife". If it did, I'd have no problem. The article says that it was to better care for his wife. That he said it is verifiable; that he was speaking the truth is not verifiable. To make it clear - I do not object to Wikipedia saying that Michael said it was his motive, but I object to Wikipedia saying that it was his motive. So, no, my concern wasn't answered above. The link to his testimony, which I had already read, doesn't show how we can justify stating as fact an unverifiable claim made under oath. (He also said under oath that he believed in his marriage vows - and he was having an affair with another woman at the very time that he made that claim.) And by the way, I think that to say something like, "he studied nursing and said it was to better care for his wife" would be POV on the other side. The "said" in that context would carry an implication that it wasn't true. It would be much more neutral to leave it out, or, if necessary, to have it elsewhere in the article (with "he said"), as part of the malpractice trial testimony. Ann Heneghan 00:02, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I stand corrected (from my statement below). There were two potential places for that phrase—I reworded the one that was there and added it to the other. Duckecho 04:37, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Ann that the only thing that's verifiable is that he said it. I also want to reiterate that I dispute the neutrality of the article. I only stopped adding the tag because of the hostility, ridicule, and lack of civility on the part of editors who insisted that there was no dispute. The entire article remains tainted by the fact that it equates Michael's presentation of facts as the neutral point of view consequential to the fact that he prevailed in George Greer's court. In other words, Michael won. He gets to write the history of Terri Schiavo. If you don't have the skill to make the article readable while indicating what claims made by Michael remain matters of dispute, perhaps you ought to give others a chance to do so. patsw 02:30, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

We're definitely in the ad nauseum arena now. Ann, the "to care for his wife" had been out of the article for some time, so your reference to that as evidence of POV seems moot. For the record, I put it back in, but I believe I worded it in a way that clearly indicates it's a verifiable quote but doesn't advance any POV. Duckecho 04:10, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Pat, I don't know what it will take for you to be satisfied. A thing happened, there was a dispute, the dispute was brought to court, the parties presented their evidence and their witnesses, the court ruled on it, the party that didn't prevail appealed, they didn't prevail on appeal, repeat. That's how it works. When the court rules, that becomes fact despite your personal feeling about it. Michael didn't write the history of Terri Schiavo, the courts did. Sure it was partly on his testimony. And it was partly on the testimony of Schindler witnesses. And it was partly on the testimony of third party witnesses (GALs, for instance). And we have cites for most of the orders of those courts. I think the only conclusion one can draw, if you are unwilling to accept as fact what the trier of fact ruled is that you feel George Greer erred. And to think that you have to include virtually the entire judiciary of the State of Florida and the United States. Is there any other possible interpretation? Had the Schindlers prevailed at any point, would you be saying then that they had written the the story of Terri Schiavo? I think not, but I won't speak for you. I won't speak for Michael, I won't speak for the Schindlers. The facts speak for themselves. Facts are stubborn things. Duckecho 04:10, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

There are only two possible ways to write the article: in accordance with the facts, or to include all sorts of Monday morning, armchair lawyer, conspiracy theory supposition that has no basis in reality. I have tried my very best to adjust my thinking when someone points out an anomaly in the article and have often acted on it. I did with you, I did with Ann, and I did with Gordon, just to name a few. As ghost pointed out elsewhere it does a serious injustice to people who have made good faith contributions to a factual, neutral article to complain of POV issues because the article doesn't include fanciful postulations of what might have been. I don't want to get into character issues, but one editor has all but stated in as many words that George Greer is bought and paid for by Michael Schiavo and George Felos. How do we accomodate that kind of POV in this article? If you think we must than we will be forever at loggerheads because I believe we can't and must'nt. Duckecho 04:10, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Let's pick a pretty important claim: Terri, if she were compentent, would choose to die of thirst in her present condition. This particular claim is not a verifiable fact, "stubborn" or otherwise. It was, is now, and will be a matter of dispute. Terri's death is consequence of Greer making this a "finding of fact" in his court to a standard of "clear and convincing". It pushes Michael's POV to label his claims as "fact" because he prevailed in court. It's my point of view and the POV of two of three branches of government that another review of these findings was necessary in the interests of justice for Terri -- this is not a "conspiracy kook theory". Some editors cannot accept that disputes would remain after Greer's death order was executed and Terri died. For my part, I acted in good faith starting in April to include the disputes of Michaels's presentation of facts made by Schindlers appeared in the article, and I haven't returned the verbal abuse thrown at me. If the other editors don't have the skill to make the article readable while indicating what claims made by Michael remain matters of dispute, perhaps you ought to give others a chance to do so. Michael's POV is not the neutral POV. patsw 20:00, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Let's not skew the premise, Pat. The question the court was asked was, "Terri, if she were competent, would not choose to be kept alive artificially in her present condition." You cannot ignore (as is, I'm sure, part of your claim) that the feeding tube is artificial life support. Under Florida law, it is. You are just going to have to get away from that. The fact that the consequence of removing the feeding tube is death isn't any different because it's from dehydration or lack of nutrition than is the consequence of removing a ventilator death by asphyxiation, or removing the pacemaker death by cardiac arrest. Your comment is exactly the same as saying, "Terri, if she were competent, would choose to die of asphyxiation in her present condition," if the life support was ventiation. That's just plain misleading and POV pushing. Now, having squared the premise away, you are incorrect that her wish is not a verifiable fact. The question of whether it was her wish was put to the court. Witnesses were called, examined, cross examined, and upon conclusion, the court ruled it a fact that Terry's wish, were she competent, would be to choose not to be kept alive on artificial life support in her present condition. You can disagree all you want. You have no standing to, however, and you are compelled to accept it as fact, whether you agree with it or not. That's American jurisprudence. Duckecho 21:01, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Duck wrote above: Let's not skew the premise, Pat. The question the court was asked was, "Terri, if she were competent, would not choose to be kept alive artificially in her present condition." You cannot ignore (as is, I'm sure, part of your claim) that the feeding tube is artificial life support. Under Florida law, it is. Yes, feeding tubes are life-support under Florida Law, but #1: They were not Life Support under Florida Law at the time that Terri collapsed, and thus she could not have meant that she wouldn't want feeding tubes (even assuming she said that she didn't want life-support, and that claim is strained at best, but I will "concede" this point for the sake of simplicity, even if I am not certain). #2 (and more importantly), DUCK fails to address the fact that the courts went beyond removal of the feeding tube: First, the guardian denied food and water, which was not court-ordered; then, later, the court (through Judge Greer, and upheld by higher courts) denied ORAL food and water. Duck wisely doesn't address what Terri's wishes would be in this latter scenario, because he knows he would lose the argument! For example, I (myself) would not like feeding tubes, except on a short-term basis, but I would threaten with bodily harm any person who tried to deny me food or water, and it is not unreasonable to estimate that Terri would want the same. The fact of the matter is that the "finding of fact" by Greer's court was that Terri would not want "life support" or words to that effect. The court did not ever make a "finding of fact" that Terri would want to be deprived of regular old food and water -and with good cause: She probably wouldn't. But why doesn't Duckecho address this? We all know why: He wouldn't have a case. In the "base case scenario," Pat, we might find Duck claiming that Terri couldn't eat, but when was the last time she had a swallowing test? Like a decade ago? So, of course, Duck knows there would be no evidence -even to back up the "best case scenario" argument, and he wisely does not broach the subject.--GordonWattsDotCom 05:54, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I don't know how this will ever be resolved, Pat. The branch of government which is charged with making these decisions (the other two don't get a vote) made a determination. In our system of justice that's called a finding of fact. It stands as a finding of fact unless overturned. Facts are by definition NPOV. That you or anyone doesn't agree with that fact does not disprove it or render it POV. It is a fact, period. Alternate opinions of that fact are POV. The fact has been established. I don't know how else to explain it to you so that you can understand. If the judge (or any judge) had found for the Schindlers, that ruling would have become the fact, and would also be NPOV by definition. Michael's position was a POV away from the NPOV (just as the Schindler's was) until it was rendered fact at trial. Then it was no longer not NPOV. Duckecho 21:01, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Quoting Duck, In our system of justice that's called a finding of fact. It stands as a finding of fact unless overturned. Facts are by definition NPOV. Would you include the finding of fact in Scott v. Sanford?

In Dred Scott v. John Sanford, a MAJORITY of the HIGHEST court in the land, not to long ago held that "[T]he negro might justly and lawfully be reduced to slavery for his benefit." Chief Justice Roger B. Taney, writing for the Court. Dred Scott v. John F. Sanford 15 L.Ed. 691; 19 How. 393; 60 US 393 at 407.(US 1857)). [55], [56], [57]

Surprisingly, that "finding of fact" was never overturned by any courts, and arguably, never overturned at all, since the only thing that obtained freedom for Black Americans was an act of Congress, which, as we know, can't act without permission of the courts -said permission never having been obtained." Selected quote from Duck above: Facts are by definition NPOV. Is that so? I wouldn't tell it to any Black person in America. This "finding of fact is very POV, and this is proof that not all "facts" are NPOV.--GordonWattsDotCom 05:54, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I agree the "consipiracy kook theory" is not about wanting another review. But the matter had been decided, in arguably the most thoroughly litigated right-to-privacy case in American history, not only in the court of first instance, but throughout the entire system. What some people from those two other branches of government wanted was basically a do-over because they didn't like the result that came from the only branch of government with the authority and responsibility to give that result. That is not how the system is supposed to work. That's why we have separation of powers. And that, by the way, is why Terri's Law was overturned, if you haven't read the decision. It was ruled an unconstitutional encroachment of the legislative branch (and by extension, the executive branch) into the regime of the judicial branch. It was not decided on any of the merits of Terri's case. Duckecho 21:01, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I remember when you first started posting. I don't recall being rude to you, but if I was, I apologize. However, whether disputes remain after the decisions were made, does not affect the article, so long as the article reports the facts. I'm afraid, however, that you won't accept the facts as facts because they don't fit your POV. It doesn't do any good to say, "well, the facts are Michael's POV." If Michael's POV (or anyone's for that matter) is congruent with the facts, then by definition Michael's POV is NPOV. Duckecho 21:01, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You're right, Patsw. Michael's POV is exactly that. A POV. That's why many of us have tried to use the court's rulings as the basis of truth. So, let's settle something, here and now. What exactly is a Neutral POV in reference to this case? We MUST have a common measure, and at this time, we obviously do not. My position is, was, and will be that what the courts ruled must be considered to be Fact by Wikipedia. Everything else is hearsay and speculation. The frustration that many other editors have with the stance voiced above is that it presents a constantly moving target. Without an agreement on a common rule of Fact, we are a ship in a storm without a rudder.

Many of us have tried to find a middle ground so many times I lost count. I submitted the articlefor mediation and, to date, the above concerned authors have done nothing to support or rebutt 3rd party intervention. So, why don't you offer us a solution? Do you want Arbitration? Give us a standard that we can work with, and I will be glad to compare and edit any POV accordingly. But until such time as a viable alternative can be offered, I will enforce the court's POV. Not mine, not Michael's, not the Schindler's, not Terri's, not yours, not God's.--ghost 21:21, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Get specific or get stuffed

Opening paragraph (Name structure)

My feelings about the structure of Terri's name in the opening paragraph are probably well known. Proto and I are engaged in a civil revert war (really; civil—see our talk pages) over the final solution. I cited several examples from WikipediA supporting my choice and he cited a couple supporting his (of course he's a Brit, so we can't count on his English being correct—that's a joke, Ann—and it is, after all, an American woman). I suggested to him that I would put it to the group, so here it is. Which do you prefer?:

Theresa Marie "Terri" Schiavo (followed by the IPA stuff and dates)

or

Theresa "Terri" Marie Schiavo (followed by the IPA stuff and dates)

I vote putting "Terri" right after "Theresa". FuelWagon 19:57, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. This is who my wife, also a Terri, prefers her proper name be written as well.--ghost 20:18, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

I can't stomach the original version, so please don't offer it as a suggestion. It's unprofessional, awkward, and sounded as if we were describing a business—doing business as (DBA). Duckecho 17:16, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

I screwed up. Although those two versions are the reverts Proto and I had exchanged, Proto had actually proposed a different version in our colloquy (and earlier on this very talk page):

Terri Schiavo (3 December 1963 - 31 March 2005, full name Theresa Marie Schiavo)

Please include that in your consideration. Duckecho 23:08, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

with all due respect, the nickname goes after the 1st & middle names. Example: John Ellis 'Jeb' Bush" This spelling gets 7,780 hits in google: [58] and 1,270 hits in Yahoo: [59]. Yet, to ask the search engines for "John 'Jeb' Ellis Bush" yields THIS result: ONE hit in google: [60] one like two hits in Yahoo: [61]. The only exceptions might be if the nickname went in front, like "Flash" Gordon Wayne Watts (me). I don't care either way, as it doesn't hart or help me directly, but in fairness to the reader, the numbers support my hypostasis: First Middle "Nick Name" Last. --GordonWattsDotCom_In_Florida 22:51, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

One other idea that Proto brings up in this diff [62] is not a bad idea: He suggests: "Terri Schiavo, full name Theresa Marie Schiavo" --but what about her maiden name? How about: "Terri Schiavo was born "Theresa Marie Schindler?" That is certainly more Americanized than, say, Theresa Marie "Terri" Schiavo nee Schindler, although the latter is technically correct. Look -let's just vote on one and stick with it; it's no bigh deal. --GordonWattsDotCom_In_Florida 01:23, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

Schiavo article, second section, first sentence: "Schiavo was born Theresa Marie Schindler."
Duckecho 02:45, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

Sorry for overlooking it; I carelessly thought it was still under consideration.--GordonWattsDotCom_In_Florida 07:54, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

In this case "Terri" in not a nickname, but an altered legal name. Unless I'm sorely mistaken, Ms. Schiavo, like my wife, changed her legal name from "Theresa Schindler" to "Terri Schiavo" when she legalized her marriage to Michael. This is quite common for people born with the name Theresa. Thus, I argue that the new option of "Terri Marie Schiavo, born Theresa Marie Schindler" is most appropriate. Failing that, "Terri" should follow "Theresa".--ghost 22:04, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

If you have a cite that she, in fact, did change it legally, I wouldn't have a bit of problem with it being written that way. But I wouldn't support its inclusion based on speculation that she might have. Moreover, "Terri Schiavo" is the name of the article. Seems to me that should cover all the bases.Also, I've never seen a nickname precede any given name (Bobby Riggs is an example). And the "born Theresa Maria Schindler" is already (and has been for some time) appropriately placed in the Early Life section, just as other Wiki articles do with married women (Olympia Snowe, for example) or actors who have taken other names {Marilyn Monroe, for example). There's no need to further bloat the opening paragraph with the complete maiden name. Duckecho 23:58, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

If 'Theresa Marie Schindler' is appearing further down, and Ghost could come up with a cite that confirms Terri is her altered legal name, then I'm down with that. Failing that, I'm happy to go with what the group suggests. It's nice to see it becoming a bit more civil recently. Perhaps because no NCdave? Proto 14:53, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Life prolonging procedures

Two of the blogosphere items that continue to clutter up the work are the ruling on Terri's wishes, and Greer's denial of food or water orally (and the lack of new tests). We seem to dance around the issue in the named section of the article, but we don't provide the singular cites that, to my mind, put the matters to rest unequivocally, namely CO Feb 2000 and CO Mar 2000.

The first link is the order from the trial which ruled as to Terri's wishes. I won't quote material from this one as there is a lot and it is spread over ten pages, single spaced. The most important points are the witness testimony, witness affect (body language, pauses, eye movement, etc), credibility of certain witnesses, discrepancies in testimony from deposition to trial, etc. One simply cannot speak knowledgably about the Terri Schiavo case without reading this order.

The second link includes data of the number of swallowing tests Terri had been given (refuting the claim she was denied further testing), includes details of the testimony of one doctor who testified that even if she were able to swallow reflexively to a limited extent she simply was unable to ingest enough hydration or nutrition to sustain her needs. Specifics are reproduced here (the edits are mine, and are solely for space—one can readily confirm that by reading the linked document):

The uncontroverted evidence from Dr. Barhill was that the ward had been administered swallowing tests in 1990, 1991, and 1992...This test [the first] resulted in a finding that she was not a future candidate. The last...resulted in a finding that there was no swallowing reflex initiated and that the liquid went nowhere. Thereafter, and annually from 1993 through 1996 or 1997, the ward had a speech pathologist examine her and the finding was that she could not be rehabilitated in this regard and that there was a high risk of aspiration.

[Dr. Barnhill] testified that he agreed with the prognosis of the treating physician, Dr. Gambone, that there was no point in doing another swallowing study since she had not changed since the last study. Dr. Barnhill testified that Terri Schiavo has uninhibited reflex activity which includes a bite reflex resulting in a clenched jaw. This would create a real problem in oral feeding, assuming this was a possibility. He testified that normal people have one-third upper esophagus voluntary reflex with the lower two-thirds of the esophagus being an involuntary reflex. The voluntary reflex is necessary for swallowing.

Dr. Barnhill testified that in his opinion attempting oral nutrition would result in aspiration with insufficient nutrition passing to the stomach to maintain her, thereby prolonging her death if the feeding tube were withdrawn. He testified that such aspiration would lead to infection, fever, cough and untimely pneumonia. This would require suctioning which likely would be fatal.

The incontrovertible conclusion is that Greer's order was not the heartless and illegal act as has been portrayed, but was, in fact, an humanitarian decision. How sad that the blogosphere has distorted it into a cause celebre with utterly no foundation.

I have made the assertion before and I repeat it now: I am convinced that the vast majority of the Don Quixotes, W-a-Ms, and bloggers simply have not read the court decisions. It is impossible to have read them and then promulgate the nonsense we've been subjected to. I wish we could require confirmation of our contributors that they have, in fact, read those documents and 2nd DCA 2D02-5394 the 2nd DCA's affirmance of Greer's finding of PVS (and other things) and which makes the statement (paraphrased) "we'd have ruled that way, too" before being permitted to make edits here or in the article. Duckecho 22:49, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Duck, that quote ought to go in the article with a URL. FuelWagon 00:29, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

Done. Duckecho 02:54, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

Let me clarify: In my view, there are about 4-5 main "issues of dispute" (which, by the way, will remain in dispute until the end of the worlds!). All on both sides should understand that these disputes will remain as long as there are humans. I agree with Wagon that you can include the links, and even the infamous Appeals Court quote if you like, but you forget the links to the laws themselves, which take precedence. In order of importance:

1: Denial of oral food and water, which some (moi included) think violate FELONY LAW s.825.102(3),>2004->Ch0825->Section%20102#0825.102 of Florida Law -- this law makes NO exceptions for PVS, "patient's wishes," or "terminally ill." The felony law cited makes no exceptions for a denial of food & water, but maybe for a feeding tube. See also: s.765.101(10), >2004->Ch0765->Section%20101#0765.101 , Fla. Law, which defines "Life prolonging procedures," and notably does NOT make an exception for regular food or water.
- FEDERAL AUTHORITIES: OASAM Code of Federal Regulations, Part 35: NONDISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF DISABILITY IN STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT SERVICES §35.130(e)(2), “Nothing in the Act or this part authorizes the representative or guardian of an individual with a disability to decline food, water, medical treatment, or medical services for that individual.”
- CAVEAT: Some have said that we're not lawyers, and thus can't understand the law. HOGWASH. The courts disagrees with whomever says this. The courts clearly requires that "a statute gives a person of ordinary intelligence fair notice of what constitutes forbidden conduct. The language of the statute must provide a definite warning of what conduct is required or prohibited, measured by common understanding and practice." THERESA Sieniarecki v. State, 756 So. 2d 68, 74 (Florida Supreme Court 2000; case number: SC60-94800)[63] (page 8 of this 2nd DCA ruling quotes the Sieniarecki case) You may look up cases Supreme Court cases at: [64] and find this case listed above at this link:[65] You and I CAN understand the law, thus Duck's suggestion to look at court rulings is NOT a bad idea.
2: Denial of therapy/rehab/examination violates s.744.3215, >2004->Ch0744->Section%203215#0744.3215 of Fla. Law. While there is wiggle room to interpret the rehab as "non-necessary," these are retained rights. That is, no one has statutory authority to take them away.
3: Being described as PVS violates s.765.101(12), >2004->Ch0765->Section%20101#0765.101 , Florida Law, which defines PVS to mean you can't have ANY cognitive ability. Since we saw Terri moving around, she is automatically disqualified. (Note to appeals court: If you don't like the definition of PVS, get the law changed; don't legislate from the bench, or impeachment is in your future, trust me on that.)
4: Being put in a hospice violates s.400.6095, >2004->Ch0400->Section%206095#0400.6095 of Florida Law, which explicitly prohibits the placement in hospice if a person is not expected to die within six (6) months. The numerical definition, not provided in state law for "terminal" is found in Federal Law. In order to receive federal payment for hospice care, within Federal Medicare guidelines, the facility must obtain a certification from the attending physician within two calendar days of initial admission that the patient’s “prognosis is for a life expectancy of 6 months or less if the terminal illness runs its normal course.” 42C.F.R.§418.22(b) (FEDERAL LAW) It is clear, after roughly almost five (5) years of residency at Woodside, that Terri was not “terminal” within the 6 month definition above. Thus, at least state law was violated by those who placed her in hospice care. And, if ANY federal monies were received by that hospice, then federal laws were violated. Period.
5: Her wishes were in dispute, but this, as important as it seemed, was a minor point to me. For example, even IF she wanted to die, denial of food and water are prohibited by state law, and would constitute an assisted suicide. We remember what happened to Dr. Jack Kevorkian. He is in jail. The Florida Statutes explicitly prohibit any lethal or fatal act that would constitute assisted suicide: §782.08,Fla.Stats. “Assisting self-murder.--Every person deliberately assisting another in the commission of self-murder shall be guilty of manslaughter, a felony of the second degree, punishable as provided in §775.082, §775.083, or §775.084.” (Accord: §§782.051 “Attempted felony murder”; 782.07, Fla.Stats. “Manslaughter; aggravated manslaughter of an elderly person or disabled adult...”)
- 5A: If, on the other hand, it were NOT her wishes, then the laws would still be violated: “...(1) Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to condone, authorize, or approve mercy killing or euthanasia, or to permit any affirmative or deliberate act or omission to end life other than to permit the natural process of dying. (2) The withholding or withdrawal of life-prolonging procedures from a patient in accordance with any provision of this chapter does not, for any purpose, constitute a suicide.” §765.309 (1) and (2), Fla.Stats.
6:DEPRIVATION AND DENIAL OF TRIAL BY JURY:Many folk think that the Right to Trial by Jury was denied both Terri and Gov. Bush: The governor asked for it in his "Terri's Law" case in state court and possibly again in the federal case. Terri, on the other hand WAS given a trial by jury, which awarded her about $700,000.oo for medical care and about $300,000.oo to Mike Schiavo for consortium. However, in violation of 1st Degree Felony Law 825.103,>2004->Ch0825->Section%20103#0825.103 , the monies for Terri were misappropriated. What makes it 1st degree was the amount of money: "If the funds, assets, or property involved in the exploitation of the elderly person or disabled adult is valued at $100,000 or more, the offender commits a felony of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084." Terri's trial by jury was not honored in this medical malpractice matter, and she was not given a 2nd trial by jury, in the trial to discontinue the feeding tube. This was her right, even if such jury trials in probate are rare.“Whereas ward's right in this “suit at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved.”(see e.g., Seventh Amendment, U.S. Constitution) By what right was this guaranteed right abridged and denied in many of the proceedings, in which the 'value in controversy' consisted of a large monetary award and the ward's life?
- Accord: SPARF v. U.S., 156 U.S. 51 at 106 (1895), in which the U.S. Supreme Court held that “No instruction was given that questioned the right of the jury...On the contrary, the court was careful to say that the jury were the exclusive judges of the facts, and that they were to determine-applying to the facts the principles of law announced by the court...In this separation of the functions of court and jury is found the chief value, as well as safety, of the jury system. Those functions cannot be confounded or disregarded without endangering the stability of public justice, as well as the security of private and personal rights.”
- Accord: Chapter 86, Fla.Stats: §§86.011 “Jurisdiction of trial court.--The circuit and county courts have jurisdiction...”; 86.071 “Jury trials...the issue may be tried as issues of fact are tried in other civil actions...the issues may be submitted to a jury...”; 86.101 “Construction of law.--This chapter is declared to be substantive and remedial. Its purpose is to settle and to afford relief from insecurity and uncertainty with respect to rights, status, and other equitable or legal relations and is to be liberally administered and construed.”; 86.111, Fla.Stats. “Existence of another adequate remedy; effect.--The existence of another adequate remedy does not preclude a judgment for declaratory relief...”
- Accord: RULE 1.430(a),Fla.R.Civ.P. “Right Preserved. The right of trial by jury as declared by the Constitution or by statute shall be preserved to the parties inviolate.”

Duck, I read [66] and see your point: If i were the appeals court, I would have held that the trial court probably came to the wrong conclusion to pull the tube, but I might have upheld their decision anyways. Both sides had good points. That being said, I note that [67] admits that the last swallowing test was way back in 1990, 1991, & 1992. Huh? Am I missing something? This was ages ago, and NOT current. I would have held for additional testing. How could it have hurt? After all (Cite: Schindler v. Schiavo, 800 So.2d 640, at 646 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001)), the court admitted that “...the opinions of the remaining doctors may have been limited by their inability to examine Ms. Schiavo or obtain necessary diagnostic information...” [68] [69] & [70]What weasels the judges are: They think they can simply disobey the laws. I’ve cited my sources here, and the judges’ “sources” don’t justify their actions. I read their speeches, and they merely cite laws or holdings that don’t support or justify their decisions to violate known state or federal laws. And, they get paid loads to violate the laws to boot! If you can show me a specific cite in their decisions that supports any of the above, I will concede that particular part of their decision, but most or all of it is unsupported by the laws.

Since someone apparently said to get specific of get stuffed, I hope this is specific enough to let people understand WHY so much "dispute" and disagreement with the courts' decisions remains. I cited right to the state and federal laws: Don't complain to me about the law, and I won't complain to you about the courts: I didn't write the laws.--GordonWattsDotCom_In_Florida 00:52, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

When I wrote "get specific or get stuffed", I guess I assumed some basic principles of wikipedia. Wikipedia is not an advocate for anything; it reports the facts. Wikipedia does not apply its own judicial interpretation to the law and rule that someone broke the law; it reports events. So, Gordo, this entire bucket of vomit you just threw on this page is your interpretation of the law. Wikipedia does not report your interpretation of the law. It reports what arguments and evidence people brought before the court and what the court ruled. There is nothing in your bucket that deserves mention in wikipedia. Both sides have their arguments and evidence presented in the article. The rulings of the court are in the article. Therefore the article is complete until someone finds some evidence presented by the Schindlers that was left out of the article, or some ruling by a court that said Greer overstepped the law. Until then, you'll have to keep your "armchair legal interpretations" to your own website. FuelWagon 17:12, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

ghost, thank you for fixing all my edits to be dark blue; I got lazy AKA "energy efficient." Anyhow, with regards to your comments above, FuelWagon, you're right: Normally, the points I should be arguing are whether the item is "newsworthy," and, if so, what links would best document it --and also, is there a report on "facts" that support the opposing POV's -considering readers of all types come here. However, I have felt that the judges were getting a "free pass," and intended to provide me commentary for "perspective." Naturally, most of my comments are interpretation, and don't belong on WIKI, but no one should be given a free pass and accepted as fact. Judges can (are often are) wrong. That being said, I think the article is pretty good, but remember, I'm an inclusionist: You might be surprised that I would defend the judges when people oft say they should've visited Terri. (They don't need to -merely making just rulings is enough for me.) You might be surprised that I defend Mikey Schiavo against the allegations he beat he wife. While the circumstantial evidence (hearsay from Terri's family, testimony about insulin overdoses, and comments like "when's that b--*h gonna die," bone scan, etc.) and (lastly) motive & ability were pretty "clear and convincing," they don't convince me beyond a shadow of doubt that he whacked his wife. My point is clear: I try to be fair to all sides, thus, when I perceive my colleagues & fellow editors putting the good judge on a pedestal and blindly giving his rulings preference in reporting (my inference, subjectively, mind you), I don't think it's fair to the readers. Yes, their rulings should be reported --the whole cadre of Kangaroo Court unjust "Dred Scot" judges, but the opposing sentiments of the large segment of disgruntled AMERICANS and other global neighbors, should be reported. Their anger is a verifiable fact, and thus newsworthy are the opposing sentiments on the varied topics, be they the denial of food issue or the placement in a hospice. "We must report all facts & let the reader decide," my conclusion. --GordonWattsDotCom_In_Florida 04:36, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

I believe the article should report what happened. Speculation as to what actions or legal arguments could have changed the eventual outcome in Greer's court would belong in a blog, magazine article, or book. patsw 03:26, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

Exactly. Quit arguing the points and talk facts. You might get away with, "...this decision was contrary to FL law..."[link] But that's it. For all that's holy stop trying to re-re-reargue the issues here. And please learn to copy-edit so I don't have to waste my time, only to see you've said nothing new.--ghost 04:05, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

"editors putting the good judge on a pedestal and blindly giving his rulings preference" No, we're not putting Greer on a pedastal. At least I'm not. But I AM standing for the article report facts, not armchair lawyer's interpretation of the law. That's all your above dump is, your interpretation. It isn't reporting anything on the actual players in the case. (And no, I don't want to hear about how you almost won your case.) Unless it is reporting about something that Terri, Michael, the Schindlers, their lawyers, the examining doctors, or the judge, then it has to do some serious jumping through hoops to prove itself to deserve to be in the article. Nothing you mention above meets that criteria. FuelWagon 04:59, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

the actual players in the case. Is Abstract Appeal's blog a playa? Well, first let me agree with those opponents that Abstract Appeal needs to stay in the advocacy section, since his is one of few "Advocacy and Commentary" sites that offer an opposing view to the "feed Terri" crowd. That being said, many (if not all) of the "Articles" section entries are AGAINST the POV of feeding Terri. this is not NPOV:

Articles

"Before fight over death, Terri Schiavo had a life." CNN. October 25, 2003. [83] (http://edition.cnn.com/2003/LAW/10/24/schiavo.profile.ap/) Breed, Allen G., and Matt Crenson. "Doctors: Schiavo tapes don't tell story." Associated Press. March 26, 2005. [84] (http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/news/consumer_news/11238735.htm?template=contentModules/printstory.jsp) Carey, Benedict, and John Schwartz. "Schiavo's condition holds little chance of recovery." The New York Times. March 26, 2005. "Excerpts from diagnoses of six Schiavo doctors." Associated Press. March 24, 2005. [85] (http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/0324brain-damaged-excerpts24-ON.html) Fackelmann, Kathleen. "Schiavo not likely to experience a painful death, neurologists say." USA Today. March 23, 2005. [86] (http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2005-03-23-schiavo-painless_x.htm) Graham, Judith. "Schiavo's expressions misleading, experts say." Chicago Tribune. March 25, 2005. [87] (http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/news/nation/11228499.htm?template=contentModules/printstory.jsp) Kumar, Anita. "The Terri Schiavo case: Before the circus" St. Petersburg Times. April 3, 2005. [88] (http://www.sptimes.com/2005/04/03/Perspective/Before_the_circus.shtml) Lamendola, Bob. "Neurologists see little sign of activity in Schiavo's brain." South Florida Sun-Sentinel. March 23, 2005. [89] (http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/news/nation/11213061.htm?template=contentModules/printstory.jsp) Rufty, Bill. "Doctors lament misuse of proper terminology in Schiavo debate." The Ledger. March 23, 2005. [90] (http://www.theledger.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?Date=20050323&Category=NEWS&ArtNo=503230394&SectionCat=&Template=printart) Schwartz, Jerry. "Friends remember Schiavo before maelstrom." Associated Press. March 31, 2005. [91] (http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/wire/sns-ap-finding-terri,0,5884974.story?coll=sns-ap-nationworld-headlines)

Since I catch the Abstract Appeal author in a lie (see elsewhere on this page), I think that my truthfulness sets me apart. Further, both my advocacy and also my compilations are very worthy of entry. Few other pages rise to the quality of my compilation and advocacy pages, but remember that I don't lie about having a POV like Matt does. Considering the lack of balance in the articles quoted above, I feel the absence of my pages is unwarranted. (Show me Any "Pro-Feed Terri" articles above; Besides, no less than three (3) links in that section above are bad links!! (You find which links I mean.) Any suggestions and my boatload of complaints here? --GordonWattsDotCom_In_Florida 06:05, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

Joust on, Don Quixote. FuelWagon 15:54, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

Are you sure that isn't your subconsious speaking about your own jousting, Wagon? ("Takes one to know one!")--GordonWattsDotComFlorida_ⁱⁿ_, USA 22:21, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

Wow, a psychological evalutation of my subconscious from a certifiable nut case. Thank you, Doctor Freud. FuelWagon 15:27, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Informational sites

Wjbean, regarding your additions (expansion of my notes in the edit summary): both the University of Miami site and Matt Conigliaro's compilation are already listed in the Compilations section just above yours. The old UM link is actually the parent link (with other useful links embedded) of the one you put in. The Yahoo link seems to me to be basically a search engine result, but in any event, most or all of the links are already in the article, thus it seems duplicative to me.

Although they don't show up in the article, I merely remarked them out (and moved the UM and AbstractAppeal links up to the Compilations section) just in case a consensus decides that they should remain or supercede the originals (especially with that rigorously formal biblio-style—is that APA?), or be 86ed.

The link to Eric Zorn's collection used to be in the article but got discarded somewhere along the line. I couldn't stand his columns when I lived in Chicagoland and read him almost every day, but he did a nice job on this one.

No offense intended. Duckecho 01:09, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

I have found major problems with the "sources" section, and below I will detail:
1) The problems; and,
2) The proposed solutions:

Sources: Compilations / Information sites (I'll get to these 2 in a little bit.)

Sources: Articles

OK, there are two noticeable problems:
1) Many links are bad: (see actual page for links on which you may click)
2) POV problems

Breed, Allen G., and Matt Crenson. "Doctors: Schiavo tapes don't tell story." Associated Press. March 26, 2005. [84] (Bad link!)
Carey, Benedict, and John Schwartz. "Schiavo's condition holds little chance of recovery." The New York Times. March 26, 2005. (No link provided!!)
"Excerpts from diagnoses of six Schiavo doctors." Associated Press. March 24, 2005 (Sorry, we can't find that page)
Graham, Judith. "Schiavo's expressions misleading, experts say." Chicago Tribune. March 25, 2005. (Yet another bad link!!)
Lamendola, Bob. "Neurologists see little sign of activity in Schiavo's brain." South Florida Sun-Sentinel. March 23, 2005. (Bad link!!)
Schwartz, Jerry. "Friends remember Schiavo before maelstrom." Associated Press. March 31, 2005. (Bad link!!)

Some people are so obsessed with keeping out links that balance the POV that they miss bad links... well, it may not be that bad, as at least one link in the section above show what Diane Meyer thought, namely that Terri would not like to deprive people of life-support, herself included. Also, I see a link to the Affidavit (Legal documents) of Dr. Cheshire, which is of the "pro-Feed-Terri" POV, and this partially balances the Schiavo encyclopedia entry here.

Now, I'm sure that someone besides me can count. Could someone do me a favor? I would like someone besides myself to objectively look at the links in the "Articles" section -both the good links and the bad ones, and see if it’s merely my imagination --or if this section is strongly POV. OK? By my count 6 (or 7, if you count the article about "Excerpts from diagnoses of six Schiavo doctors") articles are ant-Feed-Terri --out of a total of ten (10) articles. That is clearly 60 or 70%, and very POV. Let's put a link to say, this article: [71] or this mirror: [72], which gives good analysis of the Terri's Law that Jeb Bush signed into law. Advocacy? Yes. Commentary? Yes! However, this was a specific article, not unlike the others -and remember the WIKI rules on fame: My article is better than most you've read on explaining my POV, so it should be included to balance POV. No? --GordonWattsDotComFlorida_ⁱⁿ_, USA 07:50, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

Now, I said I would discuss the compilations section:

http://hometown.aol.com/Gww1210/myhomepage/CourtCases.html - Compilation of Court Case documents - rather neutral
http://www.geocities.com/gordon_watts32313/CourtCases.html - mirror to said site; in case one link is down or site busy

The "front page news" to my two news papers could fit in the Advocacy & Commentary section alongside Terri's Blogs; My opinion piece on the "Terri's Law" could fit in the "Articles" section alongside Bill RRRRRufty's opinion piece. My compilation of MANY court documents fits in the "Compilations" section in "Sources." This would offer more court documents, not normally available, but relevant, and inclusion of my opinion pieces would balance POV.--GordonWattsDotComFlorida_ⁱⁿ_, USA 07:50, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

Sources section

I went in and remarked out the links that were dead, missing, or required registration. The New York Times link had in the description that it required registration. Does Wiki (or do we) have a policy regarding links that require registration? In the event that it's not found to be problematic, I'll be happy to revert the ones that aren't dead or missing, which is why I remarked them out rather than just deleting them (enough double negatives in that sentence?). Duckecho 04:14, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Also, there are twelve legal documents listed. AbstractAppeal has at least 50. I think there are certainly some more interesting or germane oreders that could be on there and aren't than some of them that are. I see that most of them come from FindLaw and only one of them from AbstractAppeal (the GAL Wolfson report). Is there a copyright issue involved or did someone just not want to develop the AA links? I don't think we need all 50 links from AA, but also I don't want to start developing a list of desirable ones from there without first determining if there are any issues. Duckecho 04:14, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

To all: I fixed spelling errors galore a moment ago. See edit summaries.--GordonWattsDotCom 08:08, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

I saw your comment in the edit summary, and was about to reply. I don't know of a formal policy, but check out THIS Wiki policy: [73]. It does not mention what to do with bad links, and common sense is telling me that a bad link doesn't belong. You did the right thing in keeping in the links but blanking them out from public view. This way, an editor can research the web and find "good" links which cover the same subject of the bad links -so the item or subject remains documented with a link of some sort. Let me add that problems like this are a chief reason editors should always strive to put in a mirror links, in case the main link is not working. (Old Fashioned / Old School theorem: Don't put all your eggs (or links) in one basket.--GordonWattsDotCom (UTC) 04:20, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

The "singling out Hammesfahr" POV debate / and Duck's complaints addressed

I saw the debate in commentary but see no debate on talk page. I think it is noble and honorable that Duck would defend removal of the comment about Hammesfahr, as possibly being POV for singling him out, since he has stated (or at least I inferred) that he trusts the courts' decisions. As a "pro-Life" person, I am please that he is not singled out, but in all fairness, the article could mention that he was accused of making false "nobel Prize Nomination" claims (not unlike the criticism I've received over my own comments about MY perceived achievements). However, in all fairness, it might not be right to single him out --if you want to mention him, Viriditas, you might see if you can mention him in the context --that is, along with other doctors who were denounced by the trial judge. I'm still not sure where the Nobel Nominee accusation belongs, but I'm sure it can be squeezed in somewhere.--GordonWattsDotCom 05:17, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

"Split the paragraph, which needed it anyway. Kept a comment about H's testimony but put it in the appropriate spot. One can't help but see the POV in including it. Respond in Talk." (quoting Duck in edit comments) After all your ranting and raving above and below, your edit, [74], removed the POV comment and seems OK to me. Discussion about the Nobel nomination controversy could safely be placed lower in the article dealing with "disputed issues," if you like.--GordonWattsDotCom 07:03, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Inappropriate comments:

This is the type of thing that has harangued the board so far: Duck, you make complaints, apparently about me (process of elimination), when you say "One of them just spews non sequitirs at any comment, frequently at a 5:1 rate of volume (content, not level). It is impossible to get any meaningful consensus from him that won't change in twenty minutes," [75] on V's talk page. Notice, if you would, that my replies above are both short and to-the-point paragraphs, and don't change my views, that is, my "meaningful consensus," even if I am middle of the road or flexible. I would hardly say that my replies were "5:1" larger than your humongous paragraph, on V's talk page (let's pull out a ruler, or a "word counter" to check?), but you are entitled to make a mountain out of a molehill. I see this is the thanks I get for being polite, when I say above: "I think it is noble...that Duck would defend removal of the comment about Hammes..." Hmm...--GordonWattsDotCom (UTC)06:44, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Congressional subpoenas (subpoenae?)

I added some links to this section as there were some heretofore unsubstantiated quotes, and I also added the link to the Congressional subpoena issued to Mickael and Terri. The article mentioned two hearings (which I temp-edited to one—the original plural form is remarked out). There was only one (set of) subpoena that I found and since I may not be the best web searcher, I've not been able to find any references to other hearings. Anyone know the genesis of the number of hearings question? Also, although I did find a couple of sources for Greer's discussion with Congressional leaders, I haven't found anything documenting their decision not to pursue contempt proceedings. Anyone have anything on Congress letting the contempt issue wither away? Duckecho 18:23, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Added links

If you look at my edit summaries over the last many hours, I've added a number of external links to the article, all leading to documentation of facts, quotes, or events stated in the article. I assume no bad faith by any editor, but some of the sentences in the article were certainly open to question without corroboration. I attempted to secure reputable sources in every case, but in a couple, the only information I could find was at what I consider sources of questionable reliability. However, in all (that I can remember) the cases of questionable sources the document is a pdf of what appears to be what it purports to be. I linked to no unsigned or unidentified plain text documents (that could be created to say anything by anyone with five minutes of HTML experience). If anyone reviews the links and has heartburn with their domain, let me know and I'll upload the document to my own server and access it from there. Duckecho 02:13, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Upon further review

As I finished reading the discharge summary I noticed a stamp on the last page that said:

""CONFIDENTIAL"

""This information has been disclosed to you from records whose confidentiality is protected by Federal Law. Federal Regulations (42CFR, smudged) prohibits you from making any further disclosure of it without the specific written consent of the person to whom it pertains or as otherwise permitted by such regulations. A general authorization for the release of medical or other information is NOT sufficient for this purpose."

This may amount to no more than a mattress tag warning, but given the HIPAA regulations now in place (even though they weren't in 1990), I'm confident it's not. I feel not only is it not proper for it to be linked to from Wikipedia, but it's not even proper for me to have it. It's out. Duckecho 04:07, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

An Archimedes moment (eureka!)

In looking around for links I've had to visit some blogs and I discovered something interesting. Based on the data in the discharge summary, a great many (and who knows where it started) places proclaim that Terri couldn't have had a heart attack because it states, "...EKG's...did not show any evidence of myocardial infarction." Also, "[s]erial CPK and other enzymes did not reval evidence of myocardial infarction." And principal diagnosis was "cardiac arrest." There are a great many lay people (including many lawyers) who see that as oxymoronic since they equate cardiac arrest, myocardial infarction, and heart attack as all synonomous. They are not. Myocardial infarction is popularly known as a heart attack, but they are not the same as cardiac arrest (although cardiac arrest is often a consequence of an MI). I believe that misconception has led to at least one area of unrest in the blogosphere. This note won't help there, but it may help here. Duckecho 02:35, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Before we archive this one: Proof that Abstract Appeal is LESS biased than my prior estimate

Wow! I take a few days off, and look at the length of this talk page. Time to archive it.

Before we archive it, let me point out a couple things. First, I have taken pot-shots at Abstract Appeal, but check out this funny quote, from Attorney Matt Conigliaro, the webmaster of this legal blog:

Another motion resolved last week was the Schindlers' motion to permit Terri to be given food and water orally once the feeding tube is discontinued. You can read that motion here from the Terri's Fight site. The motion included the following lines:

Discontinuing her "artificial life support" in the form of assisted feeding should not also automatically sentence her to death. Instead, Terri should be permitted to attempt to eat and drink by natural means. Ill people often get well, or at least get better. The opportunity to attempt to feed Terri by natural means may demonstrate Terri is able to swallow and to eat and drink naturally.

In denying this motion, Judge Greer stated wrote that the motion appeared to ask for an experimental procedure and that the documents provided in support of this motion were the same ones provided with another motion based on new medical evidence. The court ruled that this motion was thus duplicative and that whether new tests should be conducted will stand or fall with the other pending motion. You can read the order here.

Frankly, that ruling surprised me. I had read the motion as a request that she be given food, as any person in a medical care setting might, even if her feeding tube is removed. The language quoted above, though, does make the motion seem as if the request is actually for a form of therapy, rather than as a basic human right.

Source: ...posted by Matt Conigliaro ⊥ 9:08 AM ⊥ # Wednesday, March 16, 2005 at: [76] See also: [77] or: [78]

The attorney (a hero to many on this board, he heh), says: "Frankly, that ruling surprised me." Well, I think it should have: It surprised me too -because the judge plainly committed a felony & flatly violated chapter 825.102(3), as I have quoted before: [79] He goes on to give his legal analysis: "I had read the motion as a request that she be given food, as any person in a medical care setting might, even if her feeding tube is removed. The language quoted above, though, does make the motion seem as if the request is actually for a form of therapy, rather than as a basic human right." Bingo! I had read the motion in much the same way, Atty. Conigliaro. Last time I checked, eating food is a human right.

Even though the good attorney didn't mention that the judge violated the law, he showed that he was less biased that I had previously thought. Hmm...? It appears the that attorney and I can read the motion and understand it better than the judge, who plainly could not see (and/or did not want to admit) that the motion for food was just that -and nothing more, and certainly not some "hypothetical" or "theoritical" experimental medical treatment. It's food, for God's sake, and when I'm hungry, I want food -not "medical treatment."

My other point is that I would like to revisit the idea of others using soft pastel colors. Since surely not all would consent, the few who did would make the board more readable and not all mixed up. For those of you who need help with colors, simply look at the Wiki code of how I do it, and you can copy me and modify it to your tastes. This is entirely optional. OK, I hope I've contributed. Let's review note, get a consensus, and then archive this monster. I commit to try to talk less in the future in "talk" pages, if that will help.--GordonWattsDotCom 15:52, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)