Talk:Terri Schiavo case/Archive 18

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 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

→

Did Mr. Schiavo Have a Living Will?

Did Terri's husband have a living will? If so, when did he get it? Just wondering if anyone knew. --L33tminion | (talk) 19:53, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)

I don't think you understand. He isn't the one who would have needed a living will. He's still perfectly capable of stating his own opinion. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 22:45, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think the point of the question is to determine whether Michael is now, or has ever been, a proponent of living wills. I imagine that this is intended to shed some light on his sincerity in representing Terri's verbally expressed wishes. I don't think that it would be very illuminating, but hypothetically it might be interesting if Michael were to go on to found the Organization for Encouraging People to Write Living Wills. Bovlb 23:59, 2005 Apr 7 (UTC)

An answer to such a question either way would not hurt Michael's case. Kingturtle 00:07, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

GAL question

Pearse's 1998 GAL report says that, ...a previously appointed guardian ad litem for [Terri Schiavo] referred to Mr. Schiavo as "a nursing home nightmare". I would like to include this statement in the article. Which GAL is Pearse referring to, here? --Viriditas | Talk 10:06, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The short answer is John Pecarek. The long answer comes from USA Today His observation supports two contentions: one, that Michael's care for Terri was sincere, and that after the settlement was obtained his attitude regarding Terri's care changed.

John Pecarek, a court-appointed guardian for Terri, described her husband as "a nursing home administrator's nightmare," adding, "I believe that the ward (Terri) gets care and attention from the staff of Sabal Palms (nursing home) as a result of Mr. Schiavo's advocacy and defending on her behalf."

GAL Pecarek apparently was charged with rendering an opinion about the Schindlers' allegations that Michael had abused and neglected Terri. He apparently concluded that there was not enough to those allegations to justify either criminal prosecution of Michael or replacing him as Terri's guardian. But I can't find the report. I sure would like to find a copy of Pecarek's report. Has anyone here found it? NCdave 06:25, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Mary Schindler testified that, while her daughter was at one nursing home, her relationship with her son-in-law was "very good. We did everything together. Wherever he went, I went."

Michael's relationship with Terri's siblings, however, was far stormier. Michael had assaulted Bobby, years before Terri's injury, and Suzanne never got along with Michael, either. Suzanne testified that at some point during the first two years after Terri's injury, Michael so threatened her (Suzanne) and so frightened her that she began sleeping with a hammer in her bed. (Michael Schiavo is a very imposing hulk of a man, 6'6" tall with no neck.) NCdave 06:25, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Oddly, however, the Schindlers still respected Michael despite the fact that he had "assaulted" their children before Terri's collapse. They never made the connection that he might have assaulted Terri too, until they suddenly remembered it years after the fact (their memory does seem bad in their old age though, they also forgot that Iyer called them to tell them Michael was trying to murder their daughter). This, oddly, never came up until the falling out, and was never backed up with any evidence, but I'm sure that's all just a nasty coincidence. Also, I'm sure Michael was in the habit of breaking into Terri's siblings' houses to assault them, so no wonder Suzanne slept with a hammer. And of course, size is the ultimate legal litmus test for guilt. "Well, we have no evidence to support these allegations." "But your honour, look at him, he's six-foot-six." "Ah yes, I see, well he's certainly guilty then." And in case anybody's curious about whether or not Michael has a neck (and whether or not that statement is a hilariously moronic slur), be assured, here's some pictures [1] [2] [3] [4] that show it's absolute no-neck authenticity, much like all of NCdave's factually correct statements about Iyer, the Schindlers, Michael Schiavo, Dr. Hammesfahr, PVS, life support, financial gains he stood to receive, his history of abuse, and everything else. I think NCdave's mouth is equivalent to the Gospel, personally. But in all serious, has dave pushed it so far by now that we can just pretty much consider all his edits vandalism? Professor Ninja 12:33, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

Schiavo and the Schindlers even sold pretzels and hot dogs on St. Pete Beach to raise money for Terri's care. But everything seemed to change on Valentine's Day 1993 in a nursing home near here.

In 1992, Schiavo had filed a medical malpractice lawsuit against two doctors who had been treating his wife before she was stricken. Late that year came a settlement: Schiavo received $300,000 for loss of consortium — his wife's companionship. Another $700,000 was ordered for Terri's care.

Non-causal. The award came before valentines day. "his attituded changed" towards the schindlers on valentines day because they had a blowout-sized argument that day. Michael's first petition to discontinue life support wasn't until a couple years later, unless I've got the timeline article wrong. FuelWagon 00:13, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, bad info. It was FIVE years from when Michael wins the malpractice suit (Jan 1993) till Michael petitions the court to remove life support (1998). FuelWagon 00:34, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It isn't disputed that after February 14, 1993, Michael Schivo ordered that no information be passed to the Schindlers from care providers. Here is the testimony from November 1993:

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?

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

The attitude change in February 1993 is not limited to not informing the Schindlers of their daughters medical needs but to the treatment of a life-threatening urinary tract infection which Terri had.

Q. If a similar...would you do the same? [i.e. order that life-threatening condition not be treated]

MS. I'm thinking.

Q. Take your time.

MS. I probably wouldn't instruct the doctor to do it.

Q. So you've changed your opinion?

MS. Sort of, yeah.

Q. Why have you changed your opinion?

MS. Because evidently there is a law out there that says I can't do it.

Q. Is that the only reason?

MS. Basically, maybe.

Is there a consensus that Michael Schiavo changed his attitude towards doing all that he could to keep Terri alive in 1993 or would you like me to quote more Michael Schiavo testimony? patsw 01:59, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'd definitely like you to quote more, since medical records and subsequent testimony indicate Michael only changed his attitude towards providing care when Terri's physician informed him that Terri would not improve and should be removed from life support. I'm curious as to what, if anything, could magically supercede that as an encyclopaedic entry. Professor Ninja 03:01, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)

Pearse's GAL report sheds some light on your curiosity. See my entry for December 29, 1998 in the Terri Schiavo timeline article. --Viriditas | Talk 03:27, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Professor Ninja, I am happy to give you information you were not aware of on this case: According to Michael's own November 1993 testimony he changed his opinion prior to the date of that testimony. He indicates his decision to order that Terri not be treated for a life-threatening urinary infection was a "change of opinion". Whatever he said after 1993 is irrelevant, unless you are claiming that Michael lied in the testimony I quoted, and then told the truth at a later date. Is Michael's November 1993 testimony on the "change of opinion" false?

Where this encyclopaedic entry indicates the Michael Schiavo went from seeking to keep Terri alive as he indicated in the malpractice trial to a "change of opinion" to not keep Terri alive by allowing a treatable life-threatening condition to progress to cause her death, 1998 is the wrong date. 1993 is the correct date according to Michael's testimony. 1998 is the date of petition to discontinue life support. patsw 04:19, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm curious, what's this law he's referring to and in what context? Is he saying that there's a law that says he can't treat a urinary infection, or what? Is he saying he changed his opinion because there's a law saying he can't change it? Or he changed his opinion because the law out there says he must? Way to go ambiguous, Michael. Professor Ninja 04:35, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)

To answer that question, one would have to read Michael's mind. Since there was no objection to the question or clarification of the question with a "what law is that", it must have been stipulated that there was a law (or Michael believed there was a law) to require that Terri be treated for a life-threatening urinary infection in 1993.

What I'm disputing is this: "after the settlement was obtained his attitude regarding Terri's care changed." It is a statement that implies "settlement money"->caused->"change in attitude". Unless it is undisputed by both sides, no one can crawl inside Michael's head and MIND READ his attitude and KNOW that it was CAUSED by the settlement money. The FACT is that his attituded changed at a certain point in time (1993 he enters DNR then rescinds it, 1998 he petitions removal of life support), but NO ONE can read his mind and know how he came to his attitude. It is a logical fallacy to imply causation where none has been proven to exist. "We prayed and she got better, therefore praying caused her recovery". I do not dispute that his opinion changed, I dispute that you can state as fact that it was because of the money. And I dispute the neutrality of a statement as loaded as this: "after the settlement was obtained his attitude regarding Terri's care changed." If one of you were put in the situation where your spouse was PVS, and your spouse had a living will saying pull the plug, would you do it the first day you get the diagnosis? Or would your attitude come around slowly as your hopes for a recovery fade? Throw on top of that situation that you're in-laws are demonizing you because you're enforcing your spouse's living will. Then turn it into a media circus, have people demonize you on TV, end up having people try to murder you because of what you're doing, and see how sane you come out of that pressure cooker. FuelWagon 09:31, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well, we know that ~~1.5 years~~ 2.75 years after Terri was first hospitalized, Michael told the civil court, under oath, that he was going care for her the rest of his life, with no suggestion that he expected her to recover from her condition. We also know that he told his girlfriends in that timeframe that he had no idea what Terri would have wanted done. Then, as soon as the money arrived, he started seeking her death. There is no record that Terri got any therapy of any kind after 1992. Then, after he hired Felos, he conveniently "remembered" that she had expressed a desire to not be kept alive in that condition. And you you're buying that, perhaps I can interest you in a very nice used bridge in Brooklyn. -NCdave

Oops, my bad. From February 1990 to November 1992 is 2.75 years, not 1.5 years. I've corrected it above. NCdave 06:11, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

FuelWagon wrote, "If... your spouse was PVS, and your spouse had a living will saying pull the plug... in-laws are demonizing you because you're enforcing your spouse's living will." But Terri's situation wasn't like that at all. Terri didn't have a living will, and wasn't in PVS, and they didn't just "pull the plug," they also refused to allow her to be fed by natural means. NCdave

Michael's change in attitude could just as easily be explained by coming to terms with the fact that his wife was never going to recover. That he said "for the rest of his life" in court in 1991 and that he petitioned to pull the plug in 1998 doesn't seem to indicate homicidal intent, but the natural waning of any hope of recovery, over the course of many years. Taking Terri to get the Thalamic stimulator implant seems to indicate he had hope that she'd get better. That they tried taking her home seems to indicate that they grossly underestimated how bad she was. That it took him several years to come to terms with her situation seems human. Once he came to grips with the fact that she would never recover, it seems like that would be the time to say as her guardian "She wouldn't want to be kept alive like this." Only then, and no sooner. My wife and I recently talked about it and she was adamant that she would not want to be kept alive in Terri's condition, and I said we need to get living wills so some religious nut job doesn't try to string me up because I try to fulfill her wish as her husband. FuelWagon 23:54, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

First, I wish to apologize. He said that in November, 1992, not in 1991, but the fact that you thought it was in 1991 was my fault, not yours, because I erroneously said it was 1.5 years after Terri's first hospitalization. I am sorry.

So there was no "natural waning of any hope of recovery, over the course of many years." Michael's testimony was in November, 1992.[5] Terri got very little therapy in 1992, and Michael permitted her no therapy of any sort after 1992. The bulk of the malpractice money was paid out in January, 1993, and by February 14, 1993 Michael clearly wanted Terri to just hurry up and die. From November 1992 to February 1993 is just 3 months, not "many years."

Michael's sworn testimony indicated that he supposedly had still not given up on the value of therapy for Terri after 2-3/4 years. Yet just 3 months later he gave up all hope and refused to allow her any therapy.

Do you really believe that the creation of Terri's 3/4 $million medical trust account during that 3 months period had nothing at all to do with Michael's change of heart?

Cummon, admit it, it sure looks suspicious. I don't think that any reasonable person could help but be suspicious of Michael's motives, given that chronology. NCdave 06:11, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

That your logical argument "proves" its point by concluding "It sure looks suspicious, and therefore it must be true" language, would, in my mind, forever disqualify you from claiming any neutral point of view or factual dispute. You use "Guilty by Suspicion" and see no problem with it because it gets the result you want. Michael's behaviour fits the behaviour of any husband going through the situation where their wife is PVS and never going to recover. He starts out doing radical surgery to fix her (if he abused her and wanted her to die to shut her up, getting a thalamic implant is a stupid move). He then goes into acceptance mode where he stops therapy, however he maintains life support. Finally he gets to the point of actually letting her go. Any husband going through the situation of having their wife in a PVS state would have to go through the same stages. Since this explanation is a plausible explanation of Michael's behaviour, he must now be treated as innocent until proven guilty. "It sure looks suspicious" is not enough. If there were only one explanation, then fine, he's guilty. But there is a reasonable explanation for his actions, that of a husband coming to terms with his wife being PVS and knowing that his wife wouldn't want to be kept alive in that state. So, now you must prove that he murdered his wife, you simply cant raise it as suspicion and string him up. Every way you slice it, it comes down to you holding him guilty until proven innocent, John Hathorn.

The word after is used here to make indicate sequence as opposed to causality. Since you insist on facts, I am pointing one out to you: Michael's opinion on the care of Terri changed in 1993 according to Michael's own testimony. Can you suggest a word other than after that better indicates sequence?

The testimony I quoted is part of the record. A conclusion that (1) the money caused his opinion to change or that (2) his conclusion that since there was no hope of recovery therefore implementing Terri's wishes to be denied nutrition and hydration in order to die caused of his opinion to change is one for the reader to make. The fact is 1993 is the date of this testimony. Insisting that (2) is the fact is an example of the POV problem in the editing of this article. I am not reading Michael's mind. patsw 16:42, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I get that the sentence is factual on the basis of when events happened. The word "after" is factually correct. I'm saying that the sentence structure IMPLIES a link between malpractice award and change in attitude. There is no word that can substitute for "after" that fixed this implied link because it isn't a problem with the word, it is a problem with the sentence structure. Pretty much, the two pieces of that sentence need to be separated out into independent sentences. FuelWagon 23:54, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

GAL Pearse sure thought there was a causal link. At the very least, the malpractice award created a severe conflict of interest, which should have disqualfied Michael from making medical decisions in Terri's behalf. Thanks to the malpractice award, Michael stood to inherit a quarter of a million dollars if Terri would just die. No wonder he wanted her dead! NCdave 06:11, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Look, I know "causal" is a big word for you, but Pearse never actually used it. I'm starting to doubt your ability to read, and I'm now wondering if all you really know is how to cut-and-paste. Pearse said Michael's request to terminate life support creates the appearnce of, if not actual, conflict of interest. That is not causation. He then goes on to state that the Parents hope that Michael will divorce their daughter and they'll become her guardian, therefore THEY get the trust fund money when she dies. I believe another report said the finger pointing goes both ways. And if you like Pearse so much, then you should quote all of him. For example: Pearse also disputes the Schindler's claims that Terri responds to them.

"the same reactions have been observed by nursing home staff members who indicate that they are random and not predicably in response to any specific stimuli"

So, it's convenient to misquote Pearse and put the word "cause" in his mouth, when he never said it. It's also convenient of you to ignore the pieces of his report that DIRECTLY CONFLICT with your conspiracy theory statements that Terri is not PVS and responds to external stimuli. FuelWagon 07:07, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This also assumes that we neglect the fact that Michael would have ended up with a lot more money had he 1) Divorced Terri and split the assets 2) waited until she died and then filed suit, gaining all the money, even more money because it would become wrongful death/negligence or 3) taken the $1M that was offered to him. NCdave repeatedly ignores this. It's been brought up time and again. I can only advance the idea that we assume that NCdave is very, very purposefully acting in bad faith in his ignoring of relevant facts, his editing of the wikiquette page, etc. It's fairly sad but he's proven time and again that there is no option of good faith whatsoever on his part. Professor Ninja 15:27, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

What's the resolution of the original issues in this section? Does Viriditas get to enter the Pecarek comments? Do I get to enter the November 1993 Michael Schiavo testimony on his seeking not to have Terri's life-threatening urinary tract infection treated? patsw 16:33, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

POV Tag

I've removed the POV tag since it should be used only on articles where there is a serious dispute about POV neutrality. On this article, there is only one user (User:NCdave) who is currently disputing the article's neutrality, and he has made about as many comments on this case as all other users combined. I added a custom header indicating that the article is disputed by NCdave, since he is the only non-anonymous user on the Talk page who consistently challenges the article. Firebug 11:02, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

That's not really appropriate. The POV tag makes no provision for the amount of people disputing the article. While it's kinda cute and funny (as hell), it's borderline. Anybody who wants to see the neutrality of this article disputed can come to the talk page (God help them) and see NCdave for themselves. I don't particularly feel that a single user debating the neutrality of the article necessarily warrants the use of the POV tag, but I'll put it in for now, if anybody wants to take it out, go for it. Professor Ninja 11:42, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)

I dispute the neutral point of view of the article. How could this talk page be as long as it is without there being a serious dispute? Where is it written that's there's a minimum number of people who need to dispute the neutral point of view of an article in order for the POV tag to be added? Removing the tag as long as dispute is asserted is vandalism and pointless as well. patsw 11:47, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Patsw: Accusations of vandalism is over-reaching. I've removed the POV tag twice myself and will most likely remove it many more times. Only one person seems to have any major problem with the "neutrality" of the article and that person obviously has an agenda.

If there is a consensus on the content of the article (beyond minor points of dispute) I personally feel that pretty much excludes points of view from one user only. If, on the other hand, one contributor can hijack an article in defiance of another twenty or so then there's really no point in making contributions to wikipedia to begin with. In fact I'll go so far as to suggest that someone with such overwhelming bias should go elsewhere and create a site where all the slander and fabrications can be made without interference from those who truly want to see a neutral point of view.

Finally, my personal opinion is that anyone who will use a person who passed on to her maker in 1990 as a political football has some serious ethical issues. 24.126.70.48 12:50, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Oops. I did log in. Did wikipedia log me back out?!?! 24.126.70.48 is me. Happy NCDave? Doubt it! Wjbean 12:54, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Before you showed up, Patsw, the talk page got as long as it did based on two factors: 1) People discussing advances in the case and 2) NCdave advancing constantly refuted arguments. The length of a talk page isn't relevant to whether or not an article is NPOV or not. Professor Ninja 12:02, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)

I don't think the current content of the article is disputed. What is there now is fairly balanced. (although its still a bit long winded) The "dispute" is that some poeple want to say Michael murdered Terri for her malpractice award money. But since that has not been proven, it hasn't been allowed in the article. And since it hasn't been allowed in the article, the lynch mob "dispute" the article. That's like Abagail Williams "disputing" the idea that people are only witches once you prove they're witches, rather than when you accuse them of being a witch. The flag at the top of the article doesn't bother me nearly as much as the fact that its there because the lynch mob demands guilty-till-proven-innocent justice and "dispute" anything that gets in the way. FuelWagon 10:03, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I dispute the neutral point of view of the article, too. The current version is horribly inaccurate, and severely biased. NCdave 10:22, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The only bias I've seen so far comes directly from you NCDave. Wjbean 12:58, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"I dispute the neutral point of view of the article!", NCdave said with a noose in his hand. "Listen to me!" he shouted, "I am the neutral point of view here." He twirled the rope to emphasize his objecitivity. "Someone on a website said that Michael murdered Terri for her money, so it must be true! Greer is Michael's pet judge! The nursing home boss is in conspiracy with Michael. So is the police officer that Iyer contacted about Michael's attempts to murder Terri!" He throw the rope over a thick branch of the tree. "They're ALL IN ON IT! Dont you see?" He then started piling firewood under the tree. "Once we hang him, then we'll burn him." He throw another log on the pile. "Once we're done with Michael, then we go after the doctors too! There are at least 5 or 6 of them who wanted to help Michael murder Terri! They all diagnosed her as PVS when it is clear she is NOT! We'll press them until they confess or until they suffocate!" He picked up a stone and put it by the press. "It's the only way to be neutral about this." He then walked over to the dunking chair. "We'll dunk Greer and all the judges who could have stopped this judicial homocide!" He lowered the chair into the water to test it. "Greer, the courts of appeals, the florida supreme court, the US supreme court. They all have to be dunked for their part in this conspiracy!" He pulled the chair up out of the water. "Only then will this article have a chance of claiming it is neutral." FuelWagon 10:49, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Personal attacks are neither germane nor helpful. Jonathunder 07:47, 2005 Apr 10 (UTC)

"Personal attacks are neither germane nor helpful." Perhaps, perhaps not. But it was darned funny. My personal opinion (note I say MY OPINION) is that when all else fails go on the offensive. Wjbean 12:58, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

If the editing of this article were only the clarification of who, what, when, where, I would say that there's a neutral point of view. But unusual for a wiki, there are gatekeepers here deciding what's relevant, scientific, meaningful, etc. according to their own personal criteria which they have declined to disclose. What emerges from this process are sincere conflicts about relevance, scientfic merit, and meaning that are per se a point of view imposed by the persons doing the intensive editing. I have only been editing here since the sad death of Terri Schiavo, but already I can predict what statements are fact are going to be deleted by others when I see them added. The predictability of these deletions of factual statements describe how POV enters a wiki article. patsw 16:42, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I see the POV tag has been removed again and I won't be baited into a violation of the Wikipedia:Three-revert rule so I invite anyone to add the tag back today. In the meantime, since removing this tag seems important to many of you, can we discuss according to the how a neutral point of view dispute is not taking place here according to how it is defined in the wikipedia guidelines and what is accomplished by removing the tag? Perhaps I'm wrong and there is no such neutral point of view dispute taking place, but I'm not persuaded to that position by the repeated hit and runs removing the tag. To do so without discussing the reason seems only to support my case that the editing of article shows bias. patsw 20:51, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

patsw, perhaps you could point to specific problems you see with this article. If you think that there are valid facts that should be added to this article than please state them specifically, rather than referring to them in vague terms. Also to discuss your previous points:

The length of a talk page is not a great indicator of whether an article is curently NPOV or not. It may indicate a past problem or a flurry of recent developments or (as in the case of this article) both. See Talk:September 11, 2001 attacks and Talk:Yasser Arafat for examples of articles that have large talk histories and past problems, but no current NPOV disputes.
There is no minimum number of editors required for an article to be considered POV. Even so, Wikipedia is not a democracy, and if an editor has demonstrated an inability to work within the policies set forth, then the other editors are not under any obligation to take his or her edits seriously. NCDave has damaged his own reputation on this page to a point where even though he feels there is a POV problem, he is generally disregarded.

So again, if you really feel there is some sort of problem, please state it here and it will be hashed out. --CVaneg 21:24, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

patsw's main problem seems to be what he mentioned above. He believes there's an arbitrary system of relevance in place. I disagree, the only person who's been entirely non-relevant to this whole process is NCdave. Other editors regularly document, confirm, cross-check their changes; NCdave mostly just cite's the Schindler's website. patsw's problem with POV is relevant, he's not shot himself in the foot yet, but to what extent and why he feels that way is perhaps questionable. Professor Ninja 14:57, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

In the first place, it is POV bias to suggest that the information on the Schindlers' web site should be disregarded. But it is also just plain false to say that I mostly just cite the Schindler's website, after the partisans for M.Schiavo's POV have deleted dozens of references that I added to copies of court documents such as affidavits and sworn depositions, investigative journalism, and many, many other reputable sources, including even the Cheshire report. NCdave 02:58, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I really don't care that the tag is there or not. Really. Anyone with an interest can scan the discussion pages and their archives and immediately see where the source of most of the dispute comes from. If a reader would rather believe teh conspiracy theories of some right-wing-nut-job website, then fine. POV flag or not isn't going to make any difference with them. what I would like to see, though is if ANYONE ELSE have a POV problem and if they could point out the specifics so it could be addressed. I don't mind putting in facts if they are not disputed, or if they are biased but put in context as to their source and any bias of the source. I originally put in that Cranford was a proponent of euthenasia, and someone else removed it at some point (dont know if its in there now, haven't looked). FuelWagon 00:01, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The current article is grossly inaccurate and blatantly biased. For example, it is a fact that most of the reputable neurologists, radiologists, and speech professionals who have reviewed the case think that Terri's PVS diagnosis was dubious, at best. Yet the article states, as if it were undisputed fact, that Terri was in a PVS. To remove the {{accuracy}} and {{POV}} flags is to claim that the accuracy and neutral point of view of the article are undisputed. That is preposterous. NCdave 02:58, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

the vast majority of the doctors who dispute the diagnosis never actually examined Terri. Two doctors who did examine her had bias in being the family doctor and too weird to believe. One doctor who examined Terri is a proponent of right-to-die causes. That leaves 4 or 5 doctors who actually examined Terri who diagnosed her to be PVS. The remaining doctors who dispute the PVS diagnosis viewed 5 minutes of video clips that the parents selected from 5 hours of raw footage. If you can't see how biased and un-medical that is, then you're really are a Hathorne wanna-be. Why the hell haven't the parent's released the 5 hours of raw footage, NCdave? Wouldn't 5 hours of damning evidence be a much stronger case than 5 minutes? If she truly responded to voices for 5 hours straight, why not publish the tapes on a website? let the truth be told? Could it POSSIBLY BE that the raw footage would show Terri to be completely unresponsive and the 5 minutes where it looks like she's responsive is actually a random voice command lining up with her random movements? Is that possible? Or do you turn a blind eye to any inconvenient information like that? Is it "inaccurate" to say the 5 minute clips are to be taken as a fair representation of Terri's usual behaviour and responsiveness? Or is it five hours of random reactions that boil down to 5 minutes where the action looks like it is responding to someone's voice? Is this why the "inacurrate" flag is up there? Because we don't swallow the conspiracy theories? FuelWagon 03:18, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This from patsw via email:

http://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/WolfsonReport.pdf

Note that both Michael and the Schindlers dispute statements attributed to them in this report.

I (as well as many others) dispute Wolfson's use of the term "life support" to apply to nutrition and hyrdration by means of a feeding tube.

I'm not sure if the point is the the POV tag should be present if anyone disputes anything that anyone else says. I would hope that if all disputes (between Michael, parents, and other immediate players) were reported, then the article itself would be considered Neutral. But maybe some people will just never be satisfied, and demand that some nutcase with a website and a conspiracy theory should be included in the article to represent the neutral point of view.

Also, if the POV tag remains because the law calls a feeding tube to be life support, and someone wants to use the phrase "food and water" because it shows the persecution of Terri, then this article will never be neutral. FuelWagon 11:35, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

If the depositions, motions, and court orders refer to a "feeding tube" and to "nutrition and hydration" as they do, and this is the Terri Schiavo article, then it is accurate and relevant.

Otherwise "life support" is left ambiguously to refer to artificial provision of the function of an organ of a body, i.e. the heart, lung, or kidney as well as food and water. This is not an article on Florida law which was amended and remains subject to future amendment, but to Terri's case where the depositions, motions, and court orders are fixed in history. In fact, the Terri's case can only be understood in that this was widely publicized precisely because it was precedent-setting in its application of the term "life support" to apply to nutrition and hydration by means of a feeding tube when there was a dispute among family members about so many aspects of her condition, circumstances different from the Cruzan case. patsw 15:08, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

refactoring reordering

I refactored and reordered some of the main article. The biggest change was under "Schiavos" condition, I put "medical opinions" first, issues of dispute second. FuelWagon 01:08, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I've refactored and reordered again. The approach has been as follows: Specific issues get specific sections. Anything related to the bone scan is put in the bone scan section, the original scan, the parents POV, Michael's POV, etc. The 2003 affadavits has it's own section for Iyer and her compatriots. The "controversy" section has been renamed "responsiveness dispute" because the entire section discusses the dispute between the parents saying Terri reponds to voices, etc, and the medical community saying she does not.

I moved the Michael/Shindlers stuff towards the bottom. The idea is that anythign that fits in a specific section can go there. (i.e. bone scan). Anything that doesn't fit in its own section can be lumped together under either Michael or Parents section, depending on who it's talking about. These two sections probably need some clean up, moving anything to their specific sections so that all relevant information about the topic is contained in one place, rather than spread out across the section. Bone scan info only goes in bone scan section. This allows both sides to be presented along with the known facts, the final standing fo things, and whether something has been resolved, dropped, or whatever.

Did the best I could with what I've got FuelWagon 18:49, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Tropix wants a timeline in a timeline at the beginning. I think it's too long overall and dwells a bit too shortly on certain hot topics that need more context. If there must be a timeline, it ought to be as neutral as possible, and it ought to focus as much as possible on what happened to Terri. The stuff about Greer seems to be a stretch to be useful information in an intro. It also means there's redundant information hanging around the article. I'd rather see a one paragraph intro that captures the gist of Terri's situation and drop the timeline from the main article. Otherwise, anything in the intro gets emphasized over anything else. Am I the only one who wants a short, one-para intro that focuses on Terri? FuelWagon 21:27, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Dictionary defintions

Hospitalized:

To place in a hospital for treatment, care, or observation.

Hospice:

A shelter or lodging for travelers, pilgrims, foundlings, or the destitute, especially one maintained by a monastic order.
A program or facility that provides palliative care and attends to the emotional, spiritual, social, and financial needs of terminally ill patients at a facility or at a patient's home.

Hospital:

An institution that provides medical, surgical, or psychiatric care and treatment for the sick or the injured.

Hotel:

An establishment that provides lodging and usually meals and other services for travelers and other paying guests.

--Boothy443 | comhrÚ 04:46, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Nice try, but no. You can go ahead and do a google search for hospitals, you'll find that medical lodgings are called hospices, hotels, hostels, and hospitals all through history right up into the present day. Or you could read further into the dictionary.reference.com definitions and find that they provide a common link for all those words, which is why medical facilities, while most commonly called hospitals, also have a historic record of being called (to this day) hospices, hotels, and hostels. You could look into the history of hospitaller organizations and find various medical facilities that still exist to this day that provide both in-patient and out-patient care, surgery, and lodgings for the sick that are not called hospitals. Perhaps a friendly letter from you to them would correct their egregious false advertising. Wouldn't want those people at the Hotel of God thinking they were actually hospitalized, now would you? This is all ignoring the fact that Terri Schiavo was receiving rehab efforts in the hospice, which also makes it fall under the definition of hospitalized. People, please. Take some time to look into etymology and, most important, current usage of words. I know that four words came from one root, and that's confusing, but personal and linguistic crotchets have made them all correct in various senses. Perhaps if Boothy had bothered to give all the information you'd see this: Hospital n. A charitable institution, such as an orphanage or a home for the elderly. If you stay at a Holiday Inn, you're in a hotel. Are you hospitalized? No. If you stay at Hotel of God (or Hotel-Dieu, there's alot of these places) are you hospitalized? Yes. If you stay at an orphanage or rest home, are you hospitalized? No. If you're in a hospice receiving rehabilitative and medical care (even if it is palliative) are you hospitalized? Yes. Even if we were to accept that palliative care exludes one from being hospitalized, then we would have to say a hospital wherein palliative care is provided to patients doesn't hospitalize those patients. Or that strictly palliative institutions called Hospitals (there are many) also don't hospitalize their patients. Pedantry is cute when you get away with it, other times it can make you shoot yourself straight in the foot. Professor Ninja 05:07, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)

Please take note of Wikipedia:Three-revert rule. This a pretty minor dispute over one or two words. It is not worth a revert war. Jonathunder 05:13, 2005 Apr 9 (UTC)

If someone admitted to a hospital is hospitalized, I suppose that someone admitted to a hospice would be hospicized? Here in America, if one is hospitalized, it means that one is in a hospital. One cannot be "hospitalized" in a hotel or hospice or orphanage. NCdave 12:16, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The meaning of "hospice" has changed over the years Hang'um and burn'um Dave! There are many nursing homes for the aged and the invalid. They can be referred to as hospices. Those homes are staffed by medical care professionals and visited regularly by real doctors. Hospices were created to help those less financially able to continue to care for family members. NCDave. I remind you that your opinion does not a fact make. Wjbean 17:32, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hang'um and burn'um? Moi? I'm not the one who wanted someone dead! I'm just a bleeding heart conservative, who thinks that people with disabilities should be protected. NCdave 02:35, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't buy that for a second. The Schindlers have plied their Roman Catholic faith on fellow believers and have cast their plight as a fight between God and the devil himself. NO ONE here is arguing that people with disabilities should not be protected. When the Schindlers invoked their "persecution complex" on the nation, it certainly helped to pretend that she was merely disabled, but she wasn't. Even if you remove Cranford because he's a proponent of right-to-die causes, you still have 5 doctors who have no bias and no reason to be biased diagnosing Terri as PVS. It requires a conspiracy theory to explain this as a "disabled" person being protected. But we know you love conspiracy theories. 5 doctors, a number of judges, the police, the nursing home bosses, are all in on this conspiracy to murder a disabled woman who can talk and interact with people. yeah, right. FuelWagon 02:50, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Quite right. The point that's missing here, that I've stated before, is that hospice and hospital came from the same latin root. This same root gave us hospitalize. Hospicalize is incorrect; there is no such word, nor need their be. In NCdave's wonderful fashion of not understanding anything, at all, ever, he completely glosses over the point I was raising with the orphanages. Hospitalized refers to placing somebody in a medical facility for care; Hospitals provide this, so do the similarly named hospices. My point that I was illustrating with the orphanage/old folks home comparison (also called Hospitals) is that these people are not hospitalized. Not all placement in an entity called "hospital" is "hospitalization," similarly, in NCdave's knack for missing the point, entities which call themselves Hospitals, Hospices, Hotels, and Hostels all provide hospital-type medical care; one latin root gave us those four words; one latin root gave us the single word that describes putting somebody in any such entity for care/treatment/observation, be it surgical, medical, palliative, out-patient, in-patient, or otherwise: hospitalize. Hence when hospitalized was changed to "placed at", it was a form of sneaky vandalism. Hospitalized was the encyclopaedic and wholly correct term to use for Terri Schiavo, as she continued to receive care and treatment. Placed at means she was literally placed there, and nothing more was done. Professor Ninja 14:52, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

The etymology of the words is irrelevant. That hospital, hospice, hospitable, hospitality, hotel, hospitalize, etc. are all derived from the same Latin family of words (hospitium, hospitalis, etc.) does not mean that they all have they same meaning. They don't.

There are two distinct definitions for the word hospice. The old (chiefly British?) definition is a sort of hostel run by a religious order. That's not the kind of hospice we're talking about. The kind of hospice we're talking about is an organization that provides palliative care for the dying.

Here in America, at least, nursing homes for the aged are not hospices. Neither are hostels. Neither are hotels.

Nor was hospice created to help the poor. Hospice was created to assist only terminally ill patients, mainly by enabling them to have the palliative care that they need within their own homes. Before the hospice movement, many terminally ill patients who very much wished to be at home died in hospitals simply because they needed a level of care (esp. narcotic painkillers like morphine) which they couldn't legally or practically get at home. Hospice enables them to get that care in their own homes.[6][7][8]

To be hospitalized means that one is in a hospital, not a hotel or hostel or hospice. Of course. NCdave 02:35, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"...one latin root gave us those four words; one latin root gave us the single word that describes putting somebody in any such entity for care/treatment/observation, be it surgical, medical, palliative, out-patient, in-patient, or otherwise...." Professor Ninja 12:38, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

I actually agree with NCdave on this instance. The idea of palliative care and the idea of hospitalization are two different things, and I stated as much on WP:3RR violations when you were blocked. The whole idea of hospice (which started only in the 1970s) is supposed to be markedly different from a hospital, thus the two are not one and the same. Mike H 16:16, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

Yeah okay, well try a google search for "hospice 1800s". Or a variant thereof. Unless the "whole idea of a hospice" includes time travel as part of that idea, you've sort of tripped yourself up. If your argument is that palliative care doesn't constitute part of the definition of hospitalization, then perhaps you can tell me whether or not people who are currently dying in a hospital, receiving only palliative care, are hospitalized or not. Are they not hospitalized, but just staying there? What if somebody's in a nursing home being cared for in various ways, treated, and observed, as Terri Schiavo was? That's not exclusively palliative either. Perhaps you can explain this massive difference to me, as I just don't see it. I see a common root for all words, I see a common link in the definition, I see hospices existing long before the 1970s, I see care being provided by them, I see strictly palliative care being provided by hospitals, I see alot of things in common. Perhaps somebody can clarify why all of that is totally wrong. I'd consider it a most gracious favour. Professor Ninja 16:58, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

Grist for the wiki mill; Thanks to everyone working on this!

The Wikipedia gristmill in action

Thanks to all who are working on this article, difficult as it may be at times. Some people point to our great detail on articles such as this one, and contrast that with our coverage of historical figures (say, Ma Ferguson). But this is the kind of topic which has no comprehensive coverage anywhere else in the world. And, with halting steps, we are working towards exactly that. History books are full of controversial incidents whose full stories will never be known, because one side eventually found time to write the more compelling tale... this is a fantastic alternative. Megabytes of discussion archives, methodically debating every detail and nuance! I love it. sj 20:25, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well put! Couldn't agree more! Thanks to everyone who has contributed to this article, tough as it may be. Gkhan 14:48, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

Cause of death

I'm curious about dehydration being listed as the cause of death. Do we actually know that yet? Has the ME released a cause of death? The reason I ask, is because I believe dehydration may be a causal factor, but usually causal factors lead to death but the actual cause of death would be more like cardiac arrest (brought on by...), for example. And the reason I even bring it up is that the whole issue of removal of life support is such a hot button topic, made more so by the emotional spectres of starvation and dehydration that citing dehydration as the cause of death if it's not the official medical and legal cause seems POV to me. LRod 216.76.216.57 23:48, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think common sense applies here. Without an official cause of death, the probable cause of death is dehydration since no one asserts a different cause. LRod, do you have evidence of another cause? Adding a qualifier like probable or likely doesn't seem to to me to introduce a POV. On the other hand, we are not ignorant of the circumstances starting March 18 so changing the the description of the cause of death to unknown or pending official determination contradicts the facts we know: namely that persuant to a court order nutrition and hydration were withdrawn. For any human being, such starvation and dehydration will eventually and with certainty cause death. No reporting I've read on this case has stated her cause of death as being unknown. patsw 00:57, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

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

LRod, you wrote "an underlying cause would probably be the state of the patient, i.e. long term brain damaged." If the extent of her brain damage failed to cause her death in 15 years and 1 month after her injury, what facts support this as a cause of death 15 years and 2 months after her injury? patsw 14:23, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Clearly you didn't go to the link I provided. If you had, you would understand the definition and significance of the term underlying cause. Please go take the tutorial and then report back with your question. LRod 216.76.216.118 16:31, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

On the morning of February 25, 1990, at about 5:30 a.m. EST, Schiavo collapsed...The cause of the collapse was determined to be cardiac arrest...she experienced a loss of oxygen to the brain...Attempts were made to resuscitate Schiavo...in order to keep her alive, she was intubated, ventilated, and given a tracheotomy; she also received a percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG), a feeding tube inserted through the abdominal wall. She was on artificial life support for 15 years. --Viriditas | Talk 14:32, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)