Misplaced Pages

Talk:Terri Schiavo case: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 06:12, 10 July 2005 editGordonWatts (talk | contribs)4,767 edits →"Diagnosed": I had not read your note, Ann, but I had posted in agreement after you posted your point here.← Previous edit Latest revision as of 02:33, 23 November 2024 edit undo70.95.34.174 (talk) →Poll saying majority of Americans thought Michael Schiavo had the authority?: new sectionTags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit New topic 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{merged-from|Schiavo memo|17 April 2022}}
<big>'''Mediation'''</big>
{{Skip to talk}}
{{Talk header|search=yes}}
{{Article history
|action1=PR
|action1date=2005-04-25, 09:35:23
|action1link=Misplaced Pages:Peer review/Terri Schiavo/archive1
|action1result=Reviewed
|action1oldid=12791796


|action2=PR
For those who have agreed to Mediation, there is an enclave set aside for your use at ].
|action2date=2005-06-06, 10:36:09
|action2link=Misplaced Pages:Peer review/Terri Schiavo/archive2
|action2result=Reviewed
|action2oldid=14812474


|action3=PR
<big>'''Archives'''</big>
|action3date=2005-08-26, 11:41:50
|action3link=Misplaced Pages:Peer review/Terri Schiavo/archive3
|action3result=Reviewed
|action3oldid=21872497


|action4=FAC
Archives of the talk from this page can be found here (currently 28 archives): ]
|action4date=2005-09-03, 15:05:07
|action4link=Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Terri Schiavo/archive1
|action4result=Failed
|action4oldid=22404082


|action5=FAC
{{todo}}
|action5date=2005-09-11, 12:54:39
{{oldpeerreview}}
|action5link=Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Terri Schiavo/archive2
{{controversial}}
|action5result=Failed
|action5oldid=22986120


|action6=FAC
== Hammesfahr (again) ==
|action6date=2005-10-04, 10:57:45
|action6link=Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Terri Schiavo/archive3
|action6result=Failed
|action6oldid=24704223


|action7=FAC
I just removed the sentence "''Hammesfahr had previously made claims about vasodilation therapy that a court found spurious and later falsely claimed to be a ], being nominated by someone who was ineligible to nominate him. ''" while doing another edit in that area (Persistent Vegetative State). I really didn't like it there. It has the appearance of a bias and serves to incite the natives. It also seriously (and I mean horribly) disrupted the flow of the narrative. But I just don't think it's necessary or desirable for us to impeach the witnesses. Greer did a pretty good job of it in his ruling. There may be other places where his suspect medical practices and his phony world acclaim (geez, that seems close to home) can be discussed (quackery.com or some such is one) but I'm quite certain we don't need it here. Naturally, I bow to clearer thinkers. ] (] 29 June 2005 23:08 (UTC)
|action7date=2005-12-12, 08:55:30
|action7link=Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Terri Schiavo/archive4
|action7result=Failed
|action7oldid=30979770


|action8=GAN
:The part about "vasodilation therapy" should be moved into the sentence further down that says "The trial court order was particularly critical of Hammesfahr's testimony", because now there is no mention of "vasodilation" anywhere, and the link after "spurious" should be included there as well, if not already. Not sure what to do about the nobel prize claim.... ] 30 June 2005 00:37 (UTC)
|action8date=2006-11-18, 02:01:14
|action8result=listed
|action8oldid=88538030


|action9=PR
::It's not clear if Mike Bilirakis or Dr. Hammesfahr knew in January 1999 what the actual procedure for nomination was. The actual Bilirakis letter "Dear Nobel Committee Members:" looks rather amateurish in the intense scrutiny that we've put on it in 2005. I always thought that going after Hammesfahr's credibility this way was a cheap shot in any case and also dumb for Hammesfahr to not have clarified it in his interviews with Hannity et al so that it wouldn't be an issue even now. ] 30 June 2005 04:02 (UTC)
|action9date=02:22, 27 March 2009
|action9link=Misplaced Pages:Peer review/Terri Schiavo case/archive1
|action9result=reviewed
|action9oldid=279927735


|action10=FAC
:::Oh, bollocks. Hammesfahr is a complete and total charlatan, and has been known to be one by the Florida medical community and the wider neurological community for a very long time — well before his use of the Schiavo case brought prominence to his background among the lay public. He has claimed to use ridiculous "methods" for "treating" patients with neurological disorders for years; this hyperbaric crapshit technique of his is apparently a panacea not just for acute stroke, but for TIAs, completed stroke and even old, chronic stroke; he also claims it is efficacious cerebral palsy (!), ADD (!), dyslexia (!) and Gilles de la Tourette syndrome (!). (Tip for the general public: ''always'' be suspicious of people who claim that one procedure/drug/technique is a cure-all for a wide variety of disorders, all of whose pathophysiologies are widely disparate. This has been a favorite method of charlatans for centuries.) Despite claiming great therapuetic success, he has never published any relelvant data in any scientific, peer-reviewed journal. There are no basic science data to back his claims. There are no clinical trials, of any phase. One place he seems to have been published in is the ''National Enquirer'' - and he actually lists that ''on his own webpage''. I kid you not. The other place he is "published" in is some sort of magazine called Lifelines - guess who's on the editorial board?
|action10date=20:07, 2 April 2009
|action10link=Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Terri Schiavo case/archive1
|action10result=not promoted
|action10oldid=281350083


|action11=GAR
:::The Nobel issue is ''very'' revealing. I do not know if Bilirakis was uninformed enough to believe that a world-renowned scientific organization like the Karolinska Institutet would accept "nominations" as to the quality of scientific work from a complete non-scientist. Perhaps he was ignorant, and misled. But there is simply no excuse whatsoever for Hammesfahr. You cannot go to medical school in North America without being aware of what scientific research entails, what the scientific process is, how research is conducted, and the rigour of peer-review at every level, from your colleagues in your own lab to your fellow scientists on the national and international stage. If he really believed his "work" qualified for even a presentation at a regional conference (much less recognition with the world's greatest scientific honor), that is evidence of either extreme ignorance or a delusional disorder.
|action11date=19:41, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
|action11link=Talk:Terri Schiavo case/GA1
|action11result=delisted
|action11oldid=349303964


|action12=GAN
:::But even if we generously give him the benefit of the doubt and assume that up to that point he had no intention to deceive, his subsequent actions clearly show that he truly is a fraud. If he was a good man who had made an honest (if very stupid) mistake, the moment he'd found that out, he would have retracted his Nobel claims and sincerely apologized. No such thing has ever happened. He ''continues to claim'' that he is a "nominee," even after the international prominence given to this deception. On his own webpage, right now, as we speak (in a manner of speaking), the bogus claim is ''still'' displayed prominently. If you google "hammesfahr Nobel," you'll find numerous news articles continuing to repeat the lie as recently as a few days ago - and he does nothing to stop it. I have rarely seen such shameful behavior. "Cheap shot" my derrière.
|action12date=06:16, 30 September 2011
|action12link=Talk:Terri Schiavo case/GA2
|action12result=not listed
|action12oldid=452886452


|action13=GAN
:::In this regard, I feel genuine sympathy for the Schindlers. They allowed themselves, in their grief, to be used by a host of charlatans and opportunists. The clowns external to the legal process itself probably had little meaningful effect, but it's truly regrettable that they went along with these goons for their expert testimony. The radiologist fellow is of a similar type to Hammesfahr (where his "therapies" are concerned), although he hasn't behaved as outrageously. I suspect that their appointments were somehow related. Regardless, they hurt the Schindler case very badly. I really wish the Schindler's had gone with Cheshire from the start; although I disagree with their opinions as to what was best for Mrs. Schiavo, they deserved a fair shake, and Cheshire is nothing but a fine and consumate physician - even if, this time, he was wrong.~ ] June 30, 2005 07:38 (UTC)
|action13date=20:07, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
|action13link=Talk:Terri Schiavo case/GA3
|action13result=listed
|action13oldid=527902817


|topic=Socsci
::::See, this is the reason I come here: for the entertainment. Now ''that'' is some funny stuff. Thanks Neuroscientist. ] 30 June 2005 13:29 (UTC)
|currentstatus=GA


|action14=FAC
:::::<font color=000099>Hmm... I see that no less than THREE patients say they were helped in the ''National Enquirer,'' so he can't be ''that'' bad. Actually, vasodilation is a way of reducing blood pressure. Remember from chemistry the ], also known as "The Perfect Gas Law?" When you increase volume, the pressure drops in compensation, so "blood pressure" drops, and opening the blood vessles allows blod flow. I'm not saynig that this necessarily works in all cases, but it ''does'' have scientific basis.--] 2 July 2005 03:24 (UTC)</font>
|action14date=2017-04-22
|action14link=Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Terri Schiavo case/archive2
|action14result=failed
|action14oldid=775863954
|otd1date=2012-03-18|otd1oldid=482582896
|otd2date=2015-03-18|otd2oldid=651758296
}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=GA|living=no|listas=Schiavo, Terri|1=
{{WikiProject Biography}}
{{WikiProject Medicine|importance=low|society=yes|society-imp=Mid}}
{{WikiProject Law|importance=Low}}
{{WikiProject Philosophy|importance=Low|ethics=yes|social=yes|contemporary=yes}}
{{WikiProject Politics|importance=low|American=yes|American-importance=low}}
{{WikiProject Conservatism|importance=Low}}
{{WikiProject Women}}
{{WikiProject Tampa Bay }}
{{WikiProject Death|importance=low}}
{{WikiProject Florida|importance=low}}
}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|maxarchivesize = 100K
|counter = 52
|algo = old(30d)
|archive = Talk:Terri Schiavo case/Archive %(counter)d
}}
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn|target=Talk:Terri Schiavo case/Archive index|mask=Talk:Terri Schiavo case/Archive <#>|leading_zeros=0|indexhere=no}}


== Untitled ==
::::::Oh my gawd. what in the hell does the "Ideal Gas Law" have to do with blood pressure? And when did you get your medical degree? sheesh. ] 3 July 2005 01:42 (UTC)


A custom index of the '''archives''' for the Terri Schiavo page has been created at ] with a general description of each archive's contents.
:::::::Graham, you're wrong. You cannot determine the efficacy of a treatment without having controls. If you take a hundred patients with a disease (say cellulitis) and gave them bottled water for 20 days, and some of them improved - not because of the water but because of some other factor, like their bodies' immune systems successfully mounting a defense - you'd have no way of knowing whether it was the water that did it or not, if you had no controls. You (and Hammer) would conclude it was your magical water that led to a cure, and you'd persuade people that antibiotics aren't worth the time of day. It is to avoid this sort of mistake that scientists and doctors use what is known as the randomized controlled trial to study treatments. As to your speculations on blood pressure, your grasp of it is almost infantile, Graham. No offense, just sayin. Read up more if you're interested.~ ] July 3, 2005 03:46 (UTC)


== other neurologists (removed from "initial medical" paragraph) ==
With respect to Duckecho's edit here, I profer no opinion save that Cranford, Greer (the MD), Bambakidis, Cheshire and the other neurologists are a very different kettle of fish from Hammesfahr. There is a difference between the legitimate professional differences of opinion among honest, well-meaning physicians, and the claims made by a fraud. Whether the article should mention the probable personal "biases" of each professional in this case is a matter for the editors who've worked on it to decide; I offer no recommendation save that if Cranford's are mentioned, so should Cheshire's. But I do wish to make very clear that bias is one thing; outright fraud is quite another. ''I.e''. the fraudelent Nobel claim must be noted, somewhere - a fair article cannot let that slip by.~ ] June 30, 2005 08:01 (UTC)


Other neurologists—Drs. Jeffery M. Karp, James H. Barnhill, and Thomas H. Harrison—also examined Terri over the years and made the same diagnosis; they also shared an opinion about her very poor chances for recovery. Dr. Ronald Cranford, a neurologist and expert on coma and unconsciousness, testified in 2005 that nothing in the medical records suggested disagreement among Terri’s physicians about the underlying diagnosis.<ref>{{cite journal
== Archive some topics? ==
| title= Facts, Lies, & Videotapes: The Permanent Vegetative State and the Sad Case of Terri Schiavo.
| author = Cranford, Ronald | publisher = J Law Med Ethics.
| url = http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16083094?dopt=Abstract
| date = 2005-07-01 | accessdate = 2006-01-17}};33(2):363-71</ref>
{{reflist}}


== Lead section rewrite ==
Might it be time to archive some of the topics that are inactive? I'd do it myself but I'm not sure how and don't want to delete Misplaced Pages from the face of the earth or something.~ ] June 30, 2005 17:08 (UTC)


I am working on a rewrite of the lead section of this article from scratch. I am working on it at ]. Please collaborate with me at that page for about a week (until July 30, 2021) and then we will engage in consensus building and hopefully replace the current lead. I think that the main advantage of my version is that the three paragraphs have a coherent train of thought.--] (]) 20:26, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
:I just did my first archive yesterday on the mediation page. Although they are bloody difficult to find, the are sufficiently detailed for beginners to figure it out. about the only tricky bit for this talk page is that there is a '''sub-page''' just for holding all the archives, so you want to make sure you put the new archives section under there. Give it a whirl. ] 30 June 2005 18:01 (UTC)
:Do you believe someone who thinks an eating disorder makes you a "stupid, destructive and evil person" who deserves to experience severe health consequences of that illness is a prime candidate for rewriting this article? ]] 23:04, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
:You would benefit from taking the existing advice from 7-8 July in the article history where multiple users already highlighted the ] and ] language in your preferred lead, like "as is typical", "endured wave after wave", "memorialized his fidelity", etc. I fail to see how your proposed revisions improve the current lead, notwithstanding the unconvincing assertion of a "right to lifer" bias. --] (]) 23:31, 23 July 2021 (UTC)


== Grammar ==
==Archives aren't really helpful==
Well, I was going to dig through the 27 archives for this huge debate over what to call Theresa Schiavo, but in the interest of my life, I chose to just ask on the current discussion page what decision had been made. Please note that the only reason I ever changed the term from "Schiavo" to "Theresa" was because I was concerned about how well the article read. I'm pretty solid in my knowledge of the whole thing, but even I was getting confused every now and then, thinking, "who Michael or Terri?" and then having to look back at what I just read in order to figure out which one was being talked about.] 30 June 2005 20:06 (UTC)


@], why did you revert the edit? This is how I know it in English grammar. "Low" in the original sentence acts as a noun. Therefore, it cannot have an adverb modifying it. Adverbs only modify verbs, adjectives and other adverbs as far as I know. It also would make "an" obsolete as what follows it isn't a noun or noun phrase. My revision changes "low" to an adjective and therefore, having "abnormally" before it makes it grammatically correct and does not at all affect the original message. Why then would you revert it? &mdash; ] (]) 22:51, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
:In a nutshell, I believe the consensus was not to use the first names, even though I don't think we've had a consistent cleanup in that regard. There are others more versed in style than I, so they could better answer to that. However, in any event, Theresa was never right, because, as the name in the heading of the article indicates, she always went by Terri. The analogue would be to refer to Babe Ruth as George in an article about him. Generally we use the untitled ''Schiavo'' once it's been established to whom we're referring. Most writers have opted to use pronouns whenever it's unambiguous just to avoid having to appear too informal with Terri or overly pedantic and cumbersome with Mrs. (or Ms.&mdash;there's another debate) Schiavo. ] (] 30 June 2005 20:25 (UTC)


:"low" was not a noun, it was an adjective, and your change messes up the flow. ] (]) 22:56, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
:Yeah, I probably could have used a little more finesse in my comment. All I could think about though was the huge debate we had about Terri/Mrs. Schiavo/Shiavo and even Shiavo-Schindler (Some pro-Schindler blogs use this under the premise that Terri was about to divorce Michael and take back her maiden name or something), and that your change would stir it all up again. The entire article is undergoing mediation, so things have been a bit hot and heavy at times. Didn't mean to bite your head off. ] 30 June 2005 20:58 (UTC)
::{{Reply to|Elizium23|p=,}} now I feel stupid; you're actually right. My brain just didn't notice the figures. &mdash; ] (]) 23:17, 16 December 2022 (UTC)


== what is a relief bill? ==
::Hehe. I was part of FW's braindamage over Terri's name in the article. I had recommended that we use Formal or Informal Style, rather than the Journalistic Style that is the Wiki default. I was overuled. But to clarify, the standard we're using is to use "Terri" and "Michael" whenever we need to designate which Schiavo we're refering too. Thanks for asking.--] 30 June 2005 21:07 (UTC)


:On March 20, 2005, the Senate, by unanimous consent, passed their version of a relief bill
Sounds good to me. Thanks for the explanation. Looking back, if I was trying to make things sound clearer, I probably should've gone with Ms. or Mrs., but it had slipped my mind at the time. Thinking about it again, also, using the first name completely takes away from the "encyclopedia" aspect of the article. And I don't think you were biting my head off, FuelWagon, though it's nice of you to apologize. Thanks again!] 4 July 2005 04:14 (UTC)


what is a relief bill? ] (]) 22:13, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
== Doctors for Schiavo ==


== Poll saying majority of Americans thought Michael Schiavo had the authority? ==
Neuroscientist wrote:
::''The doctors that most editors are referring to are the docs who examined Schiavo '''as part of the court-ordered legal process'''. In truth, a very large number of doctors had actually examined Schiavo in her remaining years. The article states, '''"Eight doctors examined Schiavo. Six doctors diagnosed her to be in a persistent vegetative state. Two guardians ad litem concurred with this finding..."''' This is incorrect. As Cranford has pointed out, there were eight '''neurologists''' alone who examined Schiavo. The sentence should, I think, be changed to reflect that. Perhaps "'''The courts heard from eight doctors who were asked to examine Schiavo. Six doctors..."'''
So, my understanding is that not all 8 were neurologists, one was a radiologist. I'm not certain, but I think all 8 doctors were the only doctors who examined terri neurologically to determine whether she was PVS or MCS or whatever. Other doctors may have examined her for other things (such as to insert her feeding tube, or other stuff), but this paragraph in the article is specifically about her PVS diagnosis. If more doctors examined her to decide if she was PVS or MCS, then we'd need to reference an outside source. For all the digging we've done, this is all we came up with.
The "battle" around this is mainly around which doctors get mentioned in the intro. We decided to list in the intro only the doctors known to have given Terri a neurological examination. "dozens" of doctors submitted affidavits for the Schindlers saying that Terri appears to be responding and more tests ought to be done, but they watched a few minutes of video clips prepared by the Schindlers, they didn't actually see Terri or interact with her. Other doctors, such as Dr. Boyle, never saw Terri, but has a partisan blog saying stuff like "Democrats are out to murder Terri". If we mention all these in the intro, we quickly blow the intro size and have to move it all out into a separate section. The dozens of doctors who submitted affidavits are still mentioned in the article, but not in the intro.
Part of this comes from the insistence that the article not say "Terri was pvs". The fallback position is to say "Terri was diagnosed PVS". But some editors want to include that this diagnosis was disputed. So to present it in some context, we basically list how many doctors neurologically examined Terri, and give a tally of their diagnosises. This puts the "Her PVS diagnosis was disputed" into some sort of context. What we could find were 8 doctors total in the various documents we have access to, and the tally was 6 for PVS, 2 for MCS.
That is, in a nutshell, the background for all the battles around the doctor count in the intro. ] 30 June 2005 19:30 (UTC)


In the article it says
:Thanks for the background, FW. NS, we '''could''' invis out some more detailed internal specific references, but experience tells us that it's better to put it out there in the article. The Truth is a Jewel. Cutting it to an item of beauty is an art.--] 30 June 2005 21:26 (UTC)




> a large majority of Americans believed that Michael Schiavo should have had the authority to make decisions on behalf of his wife and that the U.S. Congress overstepped its bounds with its intervention in the case.
'''Fuel''', I understand you now. OK, lets clear up a few things.
*I totally agree with exluding the 17 or so neurologists who were acquired by one party and signed affidavits after watching the heavily edited video, lasting 4.5 minutes. Detailed explications of their "observations" are not relevant to the article, as these are fatally, irredemiably flawed.
*I am very familiar with the nonsense regularly spewed on CBB (while it was being updated - the guy seems to have stopped writing). His opinions are even less relevant.


But the linked article only supports the second point. I can’t find evidence that a majority supported giving Michael Schiavo authority, only that they thought political meddling inappropriate ] (]) 02:33, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
These things hardly deserve mention in the article, much less the intro. My concern however was not about these folks.

Now, '''six''' physicians ''examined'' Schiavo and ''testified'' to her neurologival condition ''in court'' (evidentiary hearing):
*Cranford (neuro)
*Greer (neuro)(no relation)
*Bambakidis (neuro)
*Hammesfahr (neuro)
*Maxfield (rays) (''what does "rays" mean?'' ] 30 June 2005 22:44 (UTC))
*Gambone (internist, primary attending caring for Schiavo in hospital)

GAL Pecarek is a lawyer. Pearse is a lawyer. Jay Wolfson (GAL#3) is both a lawyer and a doctor (PhD) of Public Health. None of them examined Schiavo - they are not MDs. They made their decisions as to whether she was in PVS based on medical findings in her records.

4 different Florida neurologists were consulted over Schiavo's case over the years following her cardiac arrest. These were doctors who cared for Schiavo ''in hospital''. They examined Schiavo, and repeatedly made the diagnosis of PVS. While their diagnoses and findings are part of the medical record used by the court, ''none of them directly testified'' in court.
They are:
*James H. Barnhill(edit: pls see correction below~ ])
*Garcia J. Desousa
*Thomas H. Harrison
*Jeffrey M. Karp

So, of the 8 neurologists who either '''examined and testified in court over Schiavo''' (4 - Cranford, Greer, Bambakidis, Hammer) or '''examined Schiavo while caring for her in hospital as her physicians''' (4 - Barnhill, Desousa, Karp, Harrison), only ONE decided she was not in PVS. This fellow is also the only one who isn't a member of the American Academy of Neurology, and the only one who favors the ''National Enquirer'' as a peer-reviewed scientific journal of choice to express his theories and findings.

Editors are welcome to use this info as they see fit.~ ] June 30, 2005 22:38 (UTC)

:wow, this is great stuff. Who are Desousa and Harrison? I don't think I've ever heard their names. do you have some URL or something that mentions them, when they examined Terri, and what their diagnosis was? ] 30 June 2005 22:44 (UTC)

:NS, although I agree that I don't think Barnhill testified in the 2002 evidentiary hearing (the ''5 doctors trial''), he is mentioned in the order regarding the 2000 trial that established Terri's wishes. His testimony is cited as speaking directly to the PVS diagnosis. Of course I may be misreading that order, and clearly you have knowledge in your area of expertise which the rest of us don't and which is reflected in your post, but the impression I have is that at some point Barnhill did testify. Call this hair splitting and disregard it, as your overall point is extremely well taken and very much appreciated. ] (] 30 June 2005 23:18 (UTC)

::'''Duck''', no you're absolutely correct. I was writing about the evidentiary hearing and should have written "none of them directly testified at the evidentiary hearing." I double-checked to be sure, and you're absolutely right: pages 6 and 7 of Judge Greer's 2000 decision speak of Barnhill's testimony.

::'''Fuel''', sorry: rays is docspeak for radiology ("xray"). Maxwell is a radiologist.

:::Ah. Thanks. ] 1 July 2005 15:24 (UTC)

::My knowledge of the court proceedings are a layman's; I am not a legal expert. The source for the above info (ie. which doctors were involved) is both my knowledge of what happened during the cases, and a draft paper of Ron Cranford's that is going to be published shortly (look out for it). It's a beautiful piece: his opinions are of course POV, but the meticulousness with which he has laid out the facts and the timelines and what happened in court is quite impressive. It's coming out in one of the biomedical ethics journals - when it comes out I'll try to post interesting excerpts (within fair use). No url at the moment - although I believe a draft copy has been circulating around blogs.

::My point here is very simple. There has been a lot of spin around what doctor said what, how "good" they are, how much credibility and importance we should give their testimony/diagnoses, etc. NCdave for example can spin the medical expert testimony so completely that he has actually made a case on these pages that the only doctor whose opinion may be relied upon is Cheshire (despite the fact that this fine doctor never had a chance to examine Schiavo).

::The most reliable experts in this particular case are neurologists, because the diagnosis in question is a quintessentially neurological one, and it is difficult to make. Just as you'd value the opinion of a genitourinary pathologist more in deciding whether someone has a bladder cancer rather than, say, an anesthesiologist who probably last saw a path slide in his second year of medical school, you'd probably value the opinion of a neurologist more in making a diagnosis of PVS than, of all persons, radiologists (who aren't even clinicians). Of course, personal biases can lead to some pretty screwed up testimony no matter how expert the person is in a given field, something that always has to be taken into account. (The way to do it is watch the evidence - does the expert's testimony match the medical literature?)

::So, we've established we need to consider the opinions of neurologists. What else? The opportunity of examining the patient and gathering their own data is crucial.

::So putting these two together, the most valuable opinions over the Schiavo case were those of neurologists who personally observed, examined, and studied Schiavo. There are at least 8 such individuals. 5 of them did the above and also offered testimony in court that was cross examined. 4 of them did the above and also cared for Schiavo as consultants over long periods of time when she was warded in health care facilities over her last 15 years of life. All of them, except one, came to the conclusion that Terri was in PVS. And of course the neuropathology of her brain precisely and exactly matches that of a non-traumatic, anoxic-hypoxic PVS case.

::Beyond all the spin - those are the core facts at the very heart of the Schiavo diagnosis.~ ] July 1, 2005 14:09 (UTC)

:::above, you list "maxwell". Do you mean "maxfield"? ] 1 July 2005 15:38 (UTC) Shoot. Yes, William S. Maxfield. This guy .~ ]

:::I have a hard time believing that that pro-schindler editors would agree to limit the doctors mentioned in the intro to just neurologists, since it would mean maxwell/maxfield/ray-man would be disqualified. I did not know that a radiologist is not considered "clinical", and we do have a disqualifier on the autopsy saying that PVS is a clinical diagnosis, not something you can measure from an autopsy. It may be worth mentioning this somewhere in the article that a radiologist isn't "clinical" (using whatever correct medical language fits).] 1 July 2005 15:38 (UTC)
:::I think we ought to tweak the intro to say that 9 doctors examined Terri regarding her PVS diagnosis (include max or prepare for a fight, I'm sure), and list them all in the embedded notes. It would be really handy if we could embed URL's with comments like "see page 2 of 34 of (URL)" so that we have hard evidence in case someone wants to dispute the doctors involvements. Otherwise, I'm afraid if someone comes along and argues that "Desousa" never examined Terri, and if we don't have a URL to back it up (and ] is on vacation at the time), then we'll have to delete his name.] 1 July 2005 15:38 (UTC)
:::I also think we ought to insert the names and the URL's directly into the article in the sections below under legal disputes whereever they may have come into play. If Desousa was involved in the "initial PVS diangosis" subsection, he ought to be mentioned there along with a URL ought to point to his involvement as proof. ] 1 July 2005 15:38 (UTC)

::::Ok, here's my view. I oppose putting stuff up on Wiki, especially stuff that is viewed as controversial by some editors, without credible references. I would therefore oppose editing the article ''at the present time'' to reflect any of the above information about Drs. Harrison and Desousa, because I do not believe their diagnostic opinions are mentioned in the publicly available court documents that all of us generally view as credible. The reason they are not mentioned (to my knowledge) is simply that healthcare information is private, and is protected by HIPAA law: because Harrison's and Desousa's opinions were not actively sought by the court (as far as I know), their names and opinions remain only in Schiavo's ''medical record'', which, as opposed to her ''legal record'', is a private document. Of course, everyone involved with the case would know the details (doctors, lawyer teams, judges, nurses, family etc), and in so far as the Schiavo case is now a matter of public interest, a lot of what would normally be considered "private" isn't. As I mentioned earlier, Ron Cranford will be publishing his paper on the Schiavo case soon, where he mentions all the neurologists who examined Terri. Once it has been published, it can serve as a legitimate reference for this Wiki article, and editors can argue for and against in the usual fashion.

::::My intention in introducing this topic at all was not to urge the writing of the article in such a way as to imply that there was no medical controversy - far from it. The main reason I started this was because the article is currently factually inaccurate when it says, "''Eight doctors examined Schiavo. Six doctors diagnosed her to be in a persistent vegetative state. Two guardians ad litem concurred with this finding...''" This is wrong, because more than eight doctors examined Schiavo. It is also incorrect because more than six doctors diagnosed her with PVS after examining her: Cranford, Greer, Bambakidis, Gambone, Barnhill, Karp, Desousa & Harrison. As part of the ''court-ordered legal process'', yes, a limited number of doctors examined her and testified before the court ''with respect to the PVS diagnosis'': Cranford, Greer, Bambakidis, Hammer, Maxfield, Gambone, and Barnhill (as far as I can determine). Now, at the moment, the ''public record'' shows that 8 docs specifically examined her neurologically and formed an opinion re PVS (these 7 + Karp). But it's also a matter of public record that she has been examined by more than the above (if only for other problems). That's why I suggested tweaking the sentence to reflect that. When we have a solid reference re: the other two neurologists, we can edit it further, at that time. Finally, thanks Fuel & Duck for engaging what is a very long aside over a rather small (if non-trivial) issue, and ghost for making probably the wisest remark on it. ~ ] July 1, 2005 19:31 (UTC)

:::::Is the Cranford paper the '''Facts, Lies, and Videotape''' piece? I found that on a blog (oddly enough) and it is compelling reading. Unfortunately I can't seem to find it anywhere else, so I'm hesitant about quoting it or citing it in the article. Here, of course, it's a different matter, so ''bon appetit'': . If it is indeed the ''draft'' you mentioned, I eagerly await its appearance in a mainstream source. ] (] 2 July 2005 01:21 (UTC)

::::::Duck, it certainly looks like a version of what I have. As I mentioned a few days ago (see below FW note on xrays), it's supposed to be due out soon, and I did think a draft has been circulating on the blogs.~ ] July 3, 2005 03:33 (UTC)

:::::It mentions Desousa and Harrison, so their names are in the public domain, and even if we don't name them it certainly legitimizes our doctoral count. There's also some interesting medical history of Terri that would help us tweak our article a bit. Granted it's written from his perspective and so has to be considered from a step back to separate any possible bias in his writing from the facts he imparts but the one thing I was taken with is that you and he are of a mind about Hammesfahr who didn't fool Greer either, as is seen in his order. He (Cranford) was utterly dismissive of Maxfield. There's apparently more to that 2002 hearing than the extremists are going to be comfortable with. ] (] 2 July 2005 01:21 (UTC)

::::::Scientists and doctors have a visceral disgust for any hint of fraud or deception, Duck. The scientific establishment is what it is only because of the integrity of the people who work in science, so there is extremely low tolerance for any kind of deceit. A lot of people are disturbed by what they see as this guy's wanton deception, re the Nobel prize and some of the things he claims.~ ] July 3, 2005 03:33 (UTC)

=== Doctors subsection (for the sake of editing expediency) ===

Neuroscientist and others: would this be a fair and more accurate rendition of the relevant sentence in the intro?:

:''This diagnosis was the center of a major dispute between her parents (Robert and Mary Schindler) and her husband (Michael Schiavo, her legal guardian by court appointment), and led to numerous court cases over the course of several years. During the time of her care, more than nine physicians are known to have examined her, including eight neurologists. All of the neurologists save one concurred in a diagnosis of PVS and six of them so testified in court&mdash;the one dissenting diagnosed a minimally conscious state. Ultimately, a Florida circuit court, presided over by Judge George W. Greer, held an evidentiary hearing, at which he heard testimony from five of the neurologists, as well as other evidence, upon which he ruled that Schiavo was in a PVS. This finding was upheld on every appeal, both in state courts and in federal courts.''
] (] 1 July 2005 21:13 (UTC)


'''Duck''', I am persuaded that the introduction needs to be shortened, and therefore am in favor of simple accounts of only the most essential points (I think you have similar sentiments, no?). I think the above is good, but perhaps the following improves on it, somewhat?

:''This diagnosis was the center of a major dispute between her parents (Robert and Mary Schindler) and her husband (Michael Schiavo, her legal guardian by court appointment), and led to numerous court cases over the course of several years. In her last years, Schiavo was examined by at least 8 neurologists, all but one of whom concluded that she was in a PVS. An evidentiary hearing held by a Florida court to determine the most credible assessment of her state of consciousness found that the "evidence overwhelmingly supports the view that Terry Schiavo in a persistent vegetative state." This finding was subsequently upheld on every appeal, both in state and federal courts.''

This is about 30 words shorter, and I think it avoids confusion by leaving out the "doctor mathematics," which can be detailed in the relevant section of the body of the article. Once again, I would note that at the moment there is little in the way of a reliable public record testifying to the status of Harrison and Desousa in the Schiavo case; your edit may be successfully impeached by the mob before Cranford's paper is formally published.~ ] July 3, 2005 02:18 (UTC)

:I like it. Let's run it up the flagpole and see if anyone salutes it. FW, do you have any objection to it other than it reverts your short tweak (although incorporates the essence)? Ghost? Class? Anyone? Ferris? ] (] 3 July 2005 02:55 (UTC)

::I have edited one sentence in my proposed paragraph, for grammar.~ ] July 3, 2005 15:25 (UTC)


::<font color=000099>The way it's worded is POV by omission bias: I'm glad that the factual accuracy is being revisited, and I'm not saying that I think this is inaccurate (not sure here), but when loads of doctors have weighed in, and the only one mentioned are primarily FOR the "PVS" diagnosis, then this is POV. I realize that many doctors didn't personally visit her, but the fact that the courts only let the "Pro-PVS" neurologists visit her (with one apparent exception above), and then we punish the article by excluding mention of the others in this section here is basically not unlike when a bully pushes a person down, and then complains when the person yells. In this analogy, I assert that Greer "pushed" the process down on the ground, by excluding many doctors who could have given input, and then when editors are criticized for trying to mention these other doctors, we must respond that it is not our fault, but the court's fault. We are doing the best with the hand dealt us. Therefore, if you include a lot of ProPVS doctors in the intro, you must include a similar (even if not equal) number of AntiPVS doctors. If you have a problem with this, then I give my "blessings" for you to include mention of which ones actually visited personally with Terri, so this is not leading the witness, or comparing "apples with oranges," ok? '''''(PS: If you include this intro you propose, Duck, you are sure to "make the natives restless," if you know what I mean.)'''''</font>

:::Gordon, this is an excellent example of the two different standards of fact being discussed in Mediation. In fact, I'll point Ed to it. Now, your logic implys that the neurologists were hand-picked by the court (Greer), and that they went to examine Terri with prejudice. This is deeply disturbing, because it implys that these doctors are unfit to practice medicine. Further, this seems to be directly contradicted by Duck's timeline. His paragraph implys that the neurologists were not picked by the courts, and that we can assume that they examined Terri without any previous assumption of PVS. Please briefly explain to us which of these is true.

:::Your other assertion is that the opinions of other doctors that didn't directly observe Terri should be valued. I think is sufficient to explain why they should not.--] 2 July 2005 06:02 (UTC)

::::<font color=000099>'''"Now, your logic implys that the neurologists were hand-picked by the court (Greer), and that they went to examine Terri with prejudice."''' Now, I certainly do not say that the court picked all of the neurologists; I wasn't speaking on that subject, but if I were, I would have said that the court did not let very many doctors examine Terri because had they done so, there would have been a different outcome: Terri would probably have NOT been declared PVS by a majority, so they had to limit access to Terri to a "select few chosen" doctors. My original point was this in my post above: I was trying to say that including a whole bunch of ProPVS doctors in the intro section of the Schiavo article, and only 1 or 2 AntiPVS doctors was POV. The fact that loads of doctors who are trained professionals were so certain of their diagnosis that they gave the Terri's parents affidavits is not only worth mentioning, it is worth mentioning in the same intro section along with the few "special" doctors who were permitted in. '''"This is deeply disturbing, because it implys that these doctors are unfit to practice medicine. Further, this seems to be directly contradicted by Duck's timeline."''' I don't know how the timeline is relevant, unless you want to say that some doctors saw Terri first, before others submitted affidavits, and somehow use this as reason to exclude some doctors from being mentioned in the intro section. However, you seem to think I implied that some doctors are unfit to practice. Well, I won't go that far, but I think some doctors are quacks -or at least unqualified. If that is not so, then how come the 5-doctor-panel mandated by the court all disagreed with one another? Do you think it is merely coincidence that the family's doctors said Terri was NonPVS and that Mike Schiavo's doctors said that Terri WAS PVS? No way! That was not coincidence. The doctors all had biases. Why not include a load of other doctors' analyses and diagnoses, doctors who were not subject to such bias as being paid by one siad or the other to be a "hired gun?" Besides those solicited by Terri's parents (they probably didn't get paid like the first 5), and others who have opined in the news media? I'm sure we could find 20 or 30 doctors who have opined on either side, but I have heard (and I don't know if it is true or not) that MOST doctors who had knowledge of Terri said she was NOT PVS; if they are trained medical professionals, I'm sure they know when they don't have enough information, yet roughly 2-thirds of the doctors who opined one way or another said Terri WASN'T pvs, according to my meager memory. The fact that it was not a landslide one way or another mandates mention of both sides of the dispute to avoid being POV in the presentation of the events.--] 2 July 2005 08:20 (UTC)</font>

::::::''"I have heard (and I don't know if it is true or not) that MOST doctors who had knowledge of Terri said she was NOT PVS"'' That would be what the Schindler blogs would be reporting, yes. ''"yet roughly 2-thirds of the doctors who opined one way or another said Terri WASN'T pvs"'' lemme see, you wouldn't happen to be including the 3 dozen or so doctors who saw the 4.5 minutes of video from the Schindlers and signed affidavits, would it? See, most of those doctors don't actually say "Terri is not PVS". What they actually say is "Terri ''appears'' to be ''responding'' and more tests should be done." that isn't the same as saying "Terri is not PVS". Greer also mentions that some of the affidavits suggest that various specific tests ought to be tried, but those tests ''had'' already been tried, therefore revealing that the doctors who signed some of those affidavits didn't even know Terri's medical history. A bunch of doctors suggested the fMRI, but they also said that fMRI is an experimental procedure that ought to be conducted in a ''university'' setting as part of their research, not as part of a medical diagnosis. So, while I'm sure you would eagerly include every single doctor that the Schindlers managed to con with their 4.5 minutes of CGI video, the affidavits actually reflect how little the doctors actually knew of Terri's history. ] 3 July 2005 01:53 (UTC)

:Oh, I tweaked the intro to read: "More than eight doctors examined Schiavo neurologically." the "more than" will allow us to insert the other two doctors when they become public record. and the "neurologically" allows for many other doctors who worked on Terri for other reasons. ] 3 July 2005 01:59 (UTC)



My dear Gordon, you're talking horseshit. I've ] to some of your comments on my own Talk page, as I think this discussion does not properly belong here. You may respond there, if you wish. I will do my best to reply to sensible remarks in a timely manner. Best,~ ] July 3, 2005 03:12 (UTC)

==Schindler's statement re:Autopsy==
] added:
:''The Schindler family issued a statement on June 16, 2005 concerning the medical examiner's report of Theresa's autopsy. In it, the Schindlers repeated their case, saying, "our family would encourage the media to remember that this case was allegedly about “Terri’s choice.” There is absolutely no evidence that Terri wanted to die of dehydration, or that she believed that that the level of one’s disability gives anyone the moral and legal right to end another’s life." ''
Contrary to his edit summary, this is POV, but that's ok. And he was kind enough to provide a link. Additionally, this statement is directly contradicted by the ruling on Terri's wishes. (see above) In the interests of balence, we need to rework this, but it does accurately represent the Schindler's POV.--] 30 June 2005 21:00ish (forgot to sign)

::Oh crap! The legal disputes section is completely missing any mention of the court stuff to determine whether Terri would have wanted to be kept on life support. There ought to be a section placed somewhere in chronological order saying it was brougt to court, what various witnesses said, and what the courts ruled. ] 30 June 2005 21:07 (UTC)

:::I noticed that same thing earlier today. There is a serious lack of continuity in the article&mdash;probably due to so many cooks. We should have some sort of time line type narrative just for the legal disputes. I think we should have notes and links (where available) to the major pleadings&mdash;appointment as guardian, guardians ''ad litem'', motion to remove feeding tube, evidentiary hearing on PVS (and the remand from 2nd DCA that led to it), appeals, etc. As it is now, as you found out, it's difficult to pinpoint even landmark rulings. ] (] 30 June 2005 21:39 (UTC)

:::I've also wondered if we shouldn't put together an outline&mdash;perhaps starting with the ToC currently in place&mdash;and then work out a little better flow for the article. I was never good at outlines, but if someone were to start it, I'd certainly be up for assisting and I certainly don't mind moving text around to make it work. ] (] 30 June 2005 21:39 (UTC)

:::For the record, the matter you addressed is covered in the paragraph that begins ''Schiavo did not have a living will''. There is a link at the end that goes to the court order for the 2000 trial that litigated the matter (the one with the eighteen witnesses), and this is it: ] ] (] 30 June 2005 21:39 (UTC)

::::Moved. It seems to fit better, and is more in context. Contrasting it with the ruling on Terri's wishes also allows us to demostrate controversy, without needing to comment on either POV.--] 30 June 2005 22:15 (UTC)

==New subsections==
OK, I cut up the article into some new subsections. There are a couple of court cases that appear to have been thrown together under the PVS diagnosis section. I cut it into the inital PVS diagnosis and Michael's initial petition to discontinue life support, the paragraph about what Terri's wishes would have been and the trial surrounding that, then cranford makes a diagnosis in 2001 as part of a court ordered exam, not sure which case that was related to, then 2002 is the 5-doctor diagnosis where the courts finally rule that Terri is PVS. I think I got everything in sequence. The section about "life prolonging procedures" later in the article is specifically about two back-to-back motions filed by the schindlers to attempt to feed Terri by "natural means" in 2005, which were denied. I pulled the bit about Terri's wishes/no living will/ out of there and put it up in the article in its own subsection. THere may be some rough edges still, but it looks like an improvement overall. ] 30 June 2005 22:03 (UTC)
:The section on '''Guardianship''' is a template. It this the placeholder for the claims made by the Schindlers to remove Michael as guardian or does it belong somewhere else? ] 1 July 2005 01:56 (UTC)

::I was assuming it would be handled like all the other legal disputes. it should be filled in. ] 1 July 2005 02:02 (UTC)

::The "end of life wishes" section, for example, gives a quick rundown of details in a single narative paragraph. ] 1 July 2005 02:04 (UTC)

== Intro edit ==

Okay, boys and girls, I got the whole intro re-edited based on the discussions here. I think it reads smoother and I believe it covers all the points. It came in at &asymp;500 words, which went the wrong way from what I had hoped (we started at &asymp;450). It is my hope that eventually we could trim some of that, particularly if we can cut back on the trials. I did a couple of on-the-fly edits that we didn't discuss here. See if they pass muster with you. Let's see if the intro passes muster with the irregulars who aren't here everyday. I appreciate everyone's input on this. ] (] 1 July 2005 00:44 (UTC)

:I tried to tighten the paragraph talking about Terri's wishes lacking a living will. Michael requested the feeding tube be removed ''because'' he claimed terri would not want to be kept on life support in PVS. The Schindler's disputed this. And that dispute resulted in teh court case. ] 1 July 2005 01:04 (UTC)

:and I just tweaked the autopsy paragraph to be a little shorter. ] 1 July 2005 01:13 (UTC)

Note to NS: I meant to confess this before&mdash;I intentionally used ''procedures'' (as in life prolonging) instead of ''interventions'' for the reason I discussed earlier. I did, however, leave hidden notes regarding the efficacy for each depending on the context of the argument. Given that any dispute over the phrase will more likely be from a legal standpoint, I hope you'll agree that my choice is arguably better if not medically precise. It might be worth noting both words and their application in the indepth part of the article. Thanks for your input. I didn't want you to think I had ignored you. ] (] 1 July 2005 21:47 (UTC)

:Not at all, Duck. I understand why the word was preferred.]

==Watchlist==

is it just me, or is the Terri Schiavo articles not showing up on everyone else's "watchlist". I have the page on my list (I double checked it to make sure I wasn't losing my mind), but when I click on "my watchlist", the Terri Schiavo articles don't show up, even though they've had modifications. ] 1 July 2005 17:14 (UTC)

:No, it's not just you. Ever since they upgraded Wiki it's been acting a bit weird. There are no new message notices for one. And stuff seems to disappear and reappear, for another.~ ] July 1, 2005 17:45 (UTC)

::This bug hit me too. I checked with ]. He tells me that the watchlist bug has been reported. Of course, you're welcome to report yours as well.--] 1 July 2005 17:52 (UTC)

:::I've just realized that I changed my skin at around the time of the upgrade. I'm using Classic now (I think that's what it's called). Maybe that's the reason for the new message thingy.]

::::Bug got fixed this afternoon, while I was stuck in horrific holiday traffic. Horray for BugZilla!--] 2 July 2005 05:38 (UTC)

==I need help==
Yeah, yeah, yeah. On Saturday I added a couple of sections and rewrote a couple of sections adding the titles of '''Schiavo I-IV''' in the appropriate places which, to my knowledge, had heretofore never been identified in the article. As I went through the chronology of the legal disputes section to properly place them I came across a subsection entitled ''Second PVS diagnosis'' and citing Cranford's diagnosis and attributing it to a court hearing in 2001. I believe that to be incorrect. I suspect that entire subsection relates to the 2002 trial (Schiavo IV) immediately below. Naturally, I'd be happy to incorporate it properly, but first I want to make sure I'm not missing a Cranford appearance. I can't find any reference to it in AbstractAppeal's timeline, the UM Ethics timeline, nor Cranford's own report on the case. Ours does, but that's probably the tail wagging the dog. Anyone have any factual data they can bring forward to shed light on this anomaly? Thanks. ] (] 3 July 2005 01:17 (UTC)

:I think it is correct, though I have no URL to support it. I believe that Cranford gave a diagnosis for the court. and then a year or so later, Michael picked him for the 5-doctor-vote case. It could be that it always said this, so I just have it embedded in my mind as fact now, though. ] 3 July 2005 01:55 (UTC)

'''Update''' I did some searching, read a half dozen Cranford related items (and have emails in to both Cranford and Jenks&mdash;author of the '''Florida Today''' article), and I have concluded that our data are wrong. I'm going to roll at least some of the 2001 Cranford information into the 2002 evidentiary hearing section. If/when I get responses from either of the parties, I'll share them with the group. ] (] 6 July 2005 19:38 (UTC)

:'''Further Update''' I just received an email from Dr. Cranford. To paraphrase Lt. Col. Henry Blake from M*A*S*H, "I love a man who answers his own email." That was very accommodating of him. In it he confirms that he examined Terri sometime in the summer of 2002 in preparation for the evidentiary hearing in October. He did nothing, however, in 2001 on the case, although he was initially contacted by Dr. Barnhill in 2001. He attached a copy of the article '''Facts, Lies, and Video Tape''' I cited and sourced here a week or so ago. He also said he was glad we're trying to get the facts straight. I thought you might like to know. ] (] 6 July 2005 21:35 (UTC)

::Awesome! You rock, Duck! ] 7 July 2005 13:57 (UTC)

==Reading for the Enemy==
] encourages us to ''write for the enemy.'' One of the things I've wanted to do for a while now is ''read for the enemy''. This is difficult, as I must walk in someone else's shoe, and I'd ask editors that normally disagree with my to try to help me view the article thru their eyes. If you like, I'll try to help you see it thru mine.--] 3 July 2005 05:01 (UTC)

:The first thing that leapt out at me is the description of Terri's collapse. First, the family's claim that the initial collapse happened at 4:30am, rather than 5:40am. Should this be dealt with in the 'Schindler Family' section? Also, I'm seeing conflicting stuff on Bobby Schindler's presence at Terri's collapse. The IME's autopsy report indicates he was there. The police report does not. That's plain odd. Is this a mistake on the IME's part, or was he the first family member to respond to Michael's call? If so, why didn't the cop interview him? Finally, we may want to rework the 1st sentences of 'Initial medical crisis' to read:
::''On the morning of ], ], Mrs. Schiavo collapsed. At approximately 5:30 a.m. EST, she went into ] <!--(NB: cardiac arrest and ] are not synonymous)--> in the hallway of the St. Petersburg ] she shared with her husband. Michael Schiavo said a thud woke him, and he found his wife unconscious on the floor. He immediately called ] emergency services and his wife's parents.''
:This subtle change may appease ''Terrisfight'' fans.] 3 July 2005 05:01 (UTC)

::The two times that are known about that morning are 1. The time the 911 call went through (5.40ish), 2. The time the medics got there and started work on Schiavo (5.50 something). The Schindler claim that Mike did something to her at 4.30 that caused her to arrest, then called 911 only at ~5.40 cannot withstand scrutiny: it is medically impossible to remain in an arrest for 1 hour 20 minutes and not be dead (ie, the brainstem will have died long before, not just her neocortex, thalamus, basal ganglia, cerebellum). The most likely explanation is the common-sense one: when Mike was recalling on Larry King, >10 years later, what happened that night, he mistakenly said 4.30 instead of 5.30.

::Re Bob Schindler, I have no opinion on this. Presumably if he wasn't there he would have taken the opportunity to call Mike a liar by now. If he was there, I don't know how it changes things.

::Re arrest v collapse. Sequence is important. See ].

::Re Mike '''''said''''' he heard a thud, woke up, called, etc etc. This is a point Ms. Heneghan has been persistently making. I agree with her. The only problem in my mind is deciding how far youre going to take it. "He ''said'' he called emergency services ''immediately''..."

::Good thoughts on NPOV, ghost.~ ] July 3, 2005 06:21 (UTC)


:::I spoke to this on the mediation talk page. In response to a complaint similar to the one you cite I wrote: "''Does it matter to the story of Terri Schiavo whether the utterly unprovable or disprovable above statement in the current article is entirely factual? We are truly trying to separate fly <s>shit</s> crap from pepper when we have gotten down to arguing about things like that.''" I stand by that. And to take it further, can you imagine the State Attorney, for example, in the investigation called for by the governor, doing as you did, noting the time of the 911 call, and noting the logged time of arrival of the EMTs, and who is then left with '''only one''' other source of data: Michael.
::::Q: Mr. Schiavo how much time elapsed between when you heard the collapse and made the call?
::::A: Uh, I don't remember, maybe a few minutes.
:::That will be the beginning and end of the investigation. There is nothing else findable. While there may be some sport in speculating whether the answer is true or not, no one will ever be able to prove it. Terri's story truly starts from the '''fact''' of the cardiac arrest. <s>So maybe we should write the first paragraph in the intro to say,
::::<s>"''on 25 February 1990 paramedics responding to a 911 call found Terri Schiavo face down in her apartment in cardiac arrest.''"
:::<s>Do you think for one second that will stop the critics from saying, "''wait a minute, who made the call? Why did she go into cardiac arrest?''" which is the same place we are now.</s> ] (] 3 July 2005 13:33 (UTC)

::::I just reread the intro and these comments and realized you guys weren't talking about the intro. I think that first paragraph reads just fine. My other remarks still obtain, and I don't know that we gain much reworking the other area, save paying particular attention to NS' warnings about sequence. ] (] 3 July 2005 15:12 (UTC)

:::Of course those questions (now struck out) don't go to the story of Terri, either. They are unknowable, unprovable, not disprovable&mdash;the very essence of conspiracy theories. And there is nothing we can do to the article to insulate it from those. ] (] 3 July 2005 13:33 (UTC)

Just a minor suggestion. Change: ''Michael Schiavo said a thud woke him,'' to ''Michael Schiavo said he was wakened by a thud''. ] 4 July 2005 12:57 (UTC)

:Yeah, and folks, for what it's worth, I know the feeling. Reading for the enemy...hurts. I mean it's almost physically painfull. Lemme give you a personal note here: My Great-uncle was on Apollo 17. When I hear the conspiracy theorists who want you to believe we never went to the Moon, I get infuriated. I can't see straight, because they're calling a member of my family a liar. But that doesn't give me the right to come to Misplaced Pages and trash the moon-conspiracy theorists.

:This is the touchstone I use to understand the folks who come here believeing that the article is a pack of lies. This article must present the facts without infuriating those who view things differently. I know I'm asking us to walk a razor's edge. So be it. If we cannot create the space to respect their POV, we can never expect them to respect us, even if the facts hold up.--] 4 July 2005 17:09 (UTC)

== "Eventually" choosing to withdraw life support. ==

Re the sentence,

:''Years later, Michael would be accused of going back on his word that he wanted to "spend the rest of his life with Terri," because he chose eventually to withdraw life-support.''

Ann Heneghan reverted my addition of the word ''eventually'' to the sentence, stating this to be "POV." It is not immediately apparent to me why this is so. It is clear that Mr. Schiavo did not at one time wish to withdraw life support for his wife. It is equally clear that later he did. We know from the report of Guardian ''ad litem'' Wolfson that it took Mr. Schiavo "more than three years to accommodate this reality and to accept the idea of allowing Theresa to die naturally..."

Hence ''eventually'' seems to me a perfectly acceptable adverb. Why is it "POV?"~ ] July 4, 2005 01:47 (UTC)

:It is not. Taking three years to reach a decision is ''eventually'' reaching a decision. Utterly fair use of the word. ]<small>&nbsp;]&nbsp;]</small> 4 July 2005 12:03 (UTC)

::I also agree that it's not POV, from our POV. However, it is from Ann's. So I reread the section, ''reading for the enemy''. When you read the Wolfson quote that follows this sentence, "eventually" becomes unnecessary because Wolfson so thoroughly dismisses the accusation. It's ironic that Ann's suggestion seems to strengthen Michael's position, but it is less redundant, so let's respect her and go with it.--] 5 July 2005 15:21 (UTC)

:::If we're being pedantic (and I am), it should be "... as he chose to eventually withdraw life-support". I still don't think it's POV, in any way, shape, or form. ]<small>&nbsp;]&nbsp;]</small> 5 July 2005 15:41 (UTC)

::::Redundant, perhaps. Unnecessary, perhaps. I could understand those arguments. But try as I might, I can't see the bias argument. How is it any more POV in that sentence than its appearance just two paragraphs earlier? I think sometimes people work very, very hard to find a way to be offended. ] (] 5 July 2005 16:02 (UTC)

:::::And don't get me wrong. I agree with you, it's not POV. We're splitting hairs. But if this minor gesture allows us to accommodate the views another editor, I'm all for it.--] 5 July 2005 16:07 (UTC)


Hi guys. I'm going to make this brief, as I owe Duck a good discussion and Gordon something rather less cordial. The sentence, before I decided to meddle with it, looked like this:
:''Years later, Michael <u>was</u> accused of going back on his word that he wanted to "spend the rest of his life with Terri," because he <u>chose to</u> withdraw life-support.''
My main intention in editing it was to change ''was'' to ''would be'' (for grammar); after changing that, I noticed the "chose to," and felt the sentence would be improved by "''chose eventually to''."

One of the things I learnt when writing papers for publication was to always re-read the work imagining you were 1. a complete non-expert in the subject, and 2. reading the paper for the very first time. When you do this, there are usually a number of things that stand out as candidates for improved writing. (Try it for the Schiavo article - there are quite a few sentences that can be made simpler and/or clearer.) Now, reading this way from the start until this sentence we're talking about, it seemed to me that the addition of "eventually" would make the timing clearer (to someone coming to the story for the first time): the reason Michael was being accused of going back on his word was that even though at the start he seemed keen on taking care of his wife "forever," at some point afterward (ie. ''eventually'') he changed his mind, and decided to remove life-support.

I'm not pissed or anything that Heneghan reverted it. It's only that it's not immediately apparent to me what she's trying to say - I'm trying to understand her POV. (Using Ghosts "reading for the enemy," various plausible reasons and scenarios suggest themselves, eg. not proscribing the view that Michael actually always intended to "murder" his wife, so he never actually eventually changed his mind etc) but none of them are logically compatible with accepting "''chose to''" while rejecting "''chose eventually to''."

So I'm only seeking to understand the objection. I agree with Ghost that it's not worth going into a fit over. Also, Proto is absolutely right re ''as'' for ''because''.~ ]&nbsp;|&nbsp;]&nbsp;|&nbsp;] July 5, 2005 18:34 (UTC) Note, I've altered the placement of this note in view of Fuel's suggested alternative, which I read after I wrote the above~ ]&nbsp;|&nbsp;]&nbsp;|&nbsp;] July 5, 2005 18:34 (UTC)

:This is crap. "eventually" is not POV. The problem is that without "eventually" or some adverb to show ''change'', then it can be read that michael ''always'' wanted to disconnect life support. I rewrote the sentence to (1) credit the schindlers for the accusation and (2) to show a change in Michael from thinking she'll get better to accepting that she will never improve. ] 5 July 2005 17:40 (UTC)
::''The Schindlers accused Michael of going back on his word that he wanted to "spend the rest of his life with Terri" once he decided to withdraw life-support. However, Guardian ad litem Jay Wolfson wrote ...''
:::''..without "eventually"...then it can be read that michael always wanted to disconnect life support.'' - Yes. And I think this was the intent. But I'm in danger of putting words into the mouths of editors here. I think your edit is better, and difficult to refute by either side. I'm curious what Ann would say.--] 5 July 2005 18:25 (UTC)
::::''This is crap. "eventually" is not POV. The problem is that without "eventually" or some adverb to show ''change'', then it can be read that michael ''always'' wanted to disconnect life support.'' The (great) thing about Fuel is he never leaves anything to the imagination <chuckle>. This sentence looks better. But if the reason Ann reverted "eventually" really is what we think it is, I'm not sure she would be happier with this version.~ ]&nbsp;|&nbsp;]&nbsp;|&nbsp;]

Hello, everyone. I'm extremely busy at the moment. Can you give me a day or two to explain more fully what my objections were? I'll be brief now. I prefer FuelWagon's version. I didn't have ''strong'' objections to eventually; there are other things in the article that bother me more. FuelWagon writes, ''without "eventually". . . then it can be read that michael '''always''' wanted to disconnect life support''. Actually, I wouldn't have objected to "later". Ghost, I appreciate your willingness to accommodate an editor who is on the other side, in a case where it is possible to bend. ] 5 July 2005 23:26 (UTC)

:The first thing that occured to me when I saw your was that you must have felt ''eventually'' was doing too much work. That is to say, ''eventually'' might reasonably be expected to imply that Michael gradually came to his decision over a long period of time, whereas strictly speaking we have no evidence for this: he may have decided to withdraw life support abruptly one night three years later, after quite suddenly coming to the realization that it was all futile. This is fair, although I was using ''eventually'' to mean "in the end," or "finally" (if you use the OED, the sense defined in the entry under #3).
:What threw me was the "POV" claim, which seemed to imply the tantalizing possibility that I had done something to alter the narrative with undue bias in favor of Michael. I couldn't figure out how, thus this Talk page entry.
:I'm glad you're fine with Fuel's very effective sentence.~ ]&nbsp;|&nbsp;]&nbsp;|&nbsp;]

==family disputes / legal disputes==
there are two main sections titled "Family Disputes" and "Legal Disputes" that have many, many subsections. It occurred to me that the section titles are fairly pointless and that the subsections should be raised up a level. i.e. delete the family dispute and legal dispute levels, and move the subsections up one level. The bits and pieces of teh family dispute section can be moved into chronological order in their own sections. ] 5 July 2005 22:17 (UTC)

that probably didnt make any sense at all. lemme try again. instead of this:


5 Family relationship and malpractice suit

6 Family dispute

6.1 Michael Schiavo

6.2 Schindler family

7 Legal disputes

7.1 Life-prolonging procedures

7.2 PVS and the law

7.3 Guardianship

7.4 Do not resuscitate

7.5 Legally in a PVS

7.6 End of life wishes - Schiavo I

7.7 Oral feeding

7.8 Three appeals - Schiavo II

7.9 Evidentiary hearing - Schiavo III

7.10 Second PVS diagnosis

7.11 Diagnosis ruling - Schiavo IV

7.12 Bone scan

7.13 2003 petition

7.14 Oral feeding II

8 Diagnosis dispute


we could have something like this:


5 Family relationship and malpractice suit

6 Life-prolonging procedures

7 PVS and the law

8 Guardianship

9 Do not resuscitate

10 Legally in a PVS

11 End of life wishes - Schiavo I

12 Oral feeding

13 Three appeals - Schiavo II

14 Evidentiary hearing - Schiavo III

15 Second PVS diagnosis

16 Diagnosis ruling - Schiavo IV

17 Bone scan

18 2003 petition

19 Oral feeding II

20 Diagnosis dispute

The "family dispute" section contains a nugget or two that could remain, but any specific events could be taken out and given their own section with all the other numbered sections. I never particularly liked the separation between "family disputes" and "legal disputes", and this would simply report various events in chronological order, wehther family related or legally involved.

any thoughts?

] 5 July 2005 22:22 (UTC)

(''These remarks apply to your original post in this section. I'll look at the above in a moment.'')
:As far as the Legal Disuptes section goes, while I was working on it over the weekend (the subsection structure wasn't my original work), it struck me as adding extraordinary order and functionality by having the subsections, especially once I got things comparmented properly and in chronological order. It's also handy when using the article as a reference as one can easily find one's place in time through the use of the headings. It is my very strong suggestion to leave them as is. Moreover, I think it makes the ToC more useful. ] (] 5 July 2005 22:49 (UTC)

:I wouldn't want to see the family dispute rolled into the legal area, even if chronologically, if that's what you're suggesting. In my opinion, understanding the legal aspects is fundamental to understanding the case (not that the family disputes were merely a sideshow). If I were to come to this page as a stranger, the chronology of the legal dispute would be central to my interest and my edification. ] (] 5 July 2005 22:49 (UTC)

:Was that you changing the subheading titles? They're mostly okay except the one about the DNR. I agonized over that a lot but couldn't think of a way to shorten it. I think it needs to somehow include ''DNR'', ''PVS'', and ''first'' since that was the bellwether event when the diagnosis was first used as justification for an action, and when it became a legal rather than medical issue, which sets the tone for the eventual Schiavo I, et al. ] (] 5 July 2005 22:49 (UTC)

::Nope, not me. ] 6 July 2005 02:15 (UTC)

===Point by point===

most of the stuff in the family dispute section is redundant. I was the original author of this section and had attempted to put things into some sort of context, but now the rest of the article has grown and this section has pretty much been made pointless. Here is the cut/paste from family section. my comments are indented:

Under Florida law and supported by rulings of State and Federal courts, Michael Schiavo, Schiavo's husband, was her legal guardian.

::already covered in another section. ] 6 July 2005 02:26 (UTC)

Mr. Schiavo began to study nursing at St. Petersburg College around 1991 because, as he testified later in the 1992 malpractice suit, "I want to learn more how to take care of Terry ." Eventually, he became a respiratory therapist and emergency room nurse.

::already covered in another section ] 6 July 2005 02:26 (UTC)

In March 1994, guardian ad litem John H. Pecarek was appointed by the court to determine if there had been any abuse by Michael Schiavo. Pecarek's report found no evidence for any inappropriate actions, and indicated that Michael had been very attentive to his wife.

::already covered in another section ] 6 July 2005 02:26 (UTC)

In addition to Pecarek, a number of guardians ad litem and hospital staff members have described Michael Schiavo as a supportive husband who berated nurses for not taking better care of his wife; in 1994, the administration of one nursing home unsuccessfully attempted to get a restraining order against him because he was demanding more attention for his wife at the expense of other patients' care. According to Jay Wolfson, one of Schiavo's court-appointed guardians, due to the attention Schiavo had received in the fifteen years she was bedridden, she had never developed any bedsores.

::parts are already covered in another section. bedsores comment could be moved to chronological position. ] 6 July 2005 02:26 (UTC)

On June 18, 2000, Michael signed an agreement stating he would not withdraw or terminate his wife's medical care or treatment for potential fatal infections, without prior notice to the court.

::Probably should be put in chronological order. ] 6 July 2005 02:26 (UTC)

In an appearance on ABC News's Nightline on March 15, 2005, Michael Schiavo cited the willingness that Schiavo's parents expressed to keep her alive by multiple extreme measures, including quadruple amputation if needed, as an important reason for denying transfer of guardianship to them or other parties with similar desires.

::This should be put in order of when the Schindlers stated this, and then mention that Michael refered to it as a reason in 2005. ] 6 July 2005 02:26 (UTC)

A claim that Michael Schiavo stood to inherit the remainder of Schiavo's malpractice settlement upon her death raised the issue of a possible conflict of interest. However, the December 2003 Wolfson GAL report, submitted to Governor Jeb Bush pursuant to Florida's "Terri's Law," notes that Michael had, prior to his 1998 request to the court to determine Schiavo's wishes, "formally offered to divest himself entirely of his financial interest in the guardianship estate" (p. 12). In 2005, Michael publicly responded to the alleged conflict of interest by claiming that less than $50,000 of the original award from the suit was left, the rest having been spent under a judge's supervision on medical care for Schiavo and the ongoing legal battle. He also had a contract drafted stating that, should the Schindlers refrain from any further legal action, he would donate whatever his inheritance might be to charity. The Schindlers refused the offer.

::almost all of this is redundant.

On March 11, 2005, media tycoon Robert Herring (who believes that stem cell research could have cured Schiavo's condition) offered $1 million to Michael Schiavo if he agreed to waive his guardianship to his wife's parents . The offer was rejected. George Felos, attorney for Michael, described the offer as "offensive." He also stated that Michael had rejected other monetary offers, including one of $10 million.

::this is public opinion stuff, or should be placed in chronological order when the 10 million dollar offer was made. ] 6 July 2005 02:26 (UTC)

Michael Schiavo has been criticized for entering into a relationship with another woman, Jodi Centonze, while still legally married to Terri. Michael and Jodi Centonze have had two children together. Michael denies wrongdoing in this matter, stating that the Schindlers actively encouraged him to "get on with his life" and date since 1991. Michael said he chose not to divorce Terri and relinquish guardianship because he wanted to ensure her final wishes (to not be kept alive in a PVS) were carried out.

::This can be put in chronological order as to when he entered relationship with Centonze. ] 6 July 2005 02:26 (UTC)

During the final stages of the court battle in March 2005, around 30 individuals made a variety of complaints to the Department of Children and Families alleging various abuses. These included Terri supposedly being in pain from recent dental work, Terri not having had any dental work for years, and even the blinds in her room not being open wide enough. DCF investigators found the claims to be groundless, stating that there were "no indicators" of abuse in any of the cases and concluding that "he preponderance of the evidence shows that Michael Schiavo followed doctors' orders Ms. Schiavo's diagnosis of being in a persistent vegetative state and that he provided her with appropriate care."

::this is already covered. ] 6 July 2005 02:26 (UTC)

Schindler family
Schiavo's parents and siblings had battled her husband over her fate since 1998. Even though the courts consistently upheld the ruling that Schiavo would choose to have her life support discontinued, her parents used every legal measure available to prevent the disconnection of her feeding tube. The Schindlers stated that even if Schiavo had told them of her intention to have artificial nutrition withdrawn, they would not accede. The issue of conflict of interest raised by guardian ad litem Pearse, attached to the Schindlers, as well, he reported, since, had they prevailed in the various litigation over guardianship, as presumed heirs-at-law they would have inherited the remainder of Mrs. Schiavo's estate upon her death.

::already covered ] 6 July 2005 02:26 (UTC)

The Schindlers took videos of Schiavo that purportedly show her responding to them. In an attempt to foster improvement in her condition, they contacted Galaxywave, Inc., psychic healers who claim to possess a Remote Healing ADAM (Aphysical Dimension Access Manager) Technology. ] On several occasions, the Schindlers attempted to put these psychics in contact with Schiavo via cell phone during their visits with her.

::Video stuff is already covered. the psychic healer stuff is not, could add it in order. ] 6 July 2005 02:26 (UTC)

Her parents claimed that Schiavo was a devout Roman Catholic who did not wish to violate the Church's teachings on euthanasia by refusing nutrition and hydration, and that she had never expressed such a desire to anyone in her birth family or circle of friends. The Schindlers' legal fight was funded by a variety of sources on the political right.

::Could insert this in wherever legal dispute about Terri's wishes is located. That is where it is relevant. ] 6 July 2005 02:26 (UTC)

Schiavo's father, Bob Schindler, criticized Judge Greer as he never called Terri Schiavo into the courtroom or visited her to observe her condition firsthand. Schindler described the court order to remove the feeding tube as "judicial homicide."

::practically irrelevant. this could be deleted. ] 6 July 2005 02:26 (UTC)

When Michael Schiavo had Terri's ashes interred on June 20, the Schindlers' attorney stated that the family was notified by fax only after the service; by then, the Schindler family had already started getting calls from reporters.

::could put at end of article. ] 6 July 2005 02:26 (UTC)

:::So are you saying that about 90% of that is covered elsewhere? Sounds like it could be deleted. If what's left is all there is, then, with appropriate sectioning, I don't see why it couldn't be interleaved with the legal stuff. With the caveat, however, my personal bias is to leave the legal stuff quite clearly discernible. ] (] 6 July 2005 02:49 (UTC)

::::I think most of it is covered elsewhere. the legal stuff should use clear language to say what legal actions were taken, so legal stuff should be fairly clear anyway. It might not all be like that now, but that would be the goal. ] 6 July 2005 13:56 (UTC)

OK. I took a stab at whittling down the family stuff. most of teh schindler stuff was moved or deleted. If I wasn't sure if something was covered elsewhere, I left it in place. Someone else can take a turn at it. ] 6 July 2005 15:14 (UTC)

:BTW, FW, kudos cutting down the redundancies. Sorry I haven't been able to be more involved. Been "putting out fires" IRL.--] 6 July 2005 16:42 (UTC)

== Lead/Intro/Summary section==
Fuel, I saw your into an untitled, one-line, first para, and a multi-para section entitled "Summary." This is similar to a recent version with the title "Introduction."

An editor who has recently taken an interest in the Schiavo article (likely after being made aware of our complete lawlessness over the ]) has been that an article lead comprises all paragraphs normally thought of as introductory, and should have no header or title of its own. This appears to be the encyclopaedic convention followed by Misplaced Pages. I agree with the idea that we should follow a standard house-style where textual editing is concerned (although I do not think this should imply rigid requirements about such things as the placement of TsOC or images).

I believe the recent moves to provide the introductory para with a header of its own had a practical basis: the introduction was recently the focus of some intensive editing, and a separate header obviated the need to "Edit this (whole) Page" whenever we wanted to tweak the intro. I thought this was fair, but wonder if we may revert back to the standard form now, if only so this editor won't blow a gasket and move to ban the Terri Schiavo article and its editors. Or something. If we're going to stick to the split, for whatever reason, may I record a preference for "Introduction" rather than "Summary" for a title.~ ]&nbsp;|&nbsp;]&nbsp;|&nbsp;] July 6, 2005 14:37 (UTC)

:"if only so this editor won't blow a gasket" If by "this editor" you mean tabushidayu, then I don't feel particularly obliged to appease someone who only seems interested in pendantic enforcement of style guidelines. Mostly I switched it because Duck changed it and then tabushidayu seems to have done a driveby to change it back. I'm personally not attached either way. But if Duck was intending on doing some edits to the intro and the header made it easier, so be it. If Duck's finished, then switch it back. ] 6 July 2005 14:46 (UTC)

::''"if only so this editor won't blow a gasket"If by "this editor" you mean tabushidayu then I don't feel particularly obliged to appease someone...'' Yeah. I was speaking in jest re "appeasement", but to be perfectly serious, on this issue I agree with him. The introductory paragraphs normally thought of as the lead section should be untitled. As far as I can see we're done with the intro edits (for now), so I'll revert, if you don't mind.

::BTW, I've decided I heart Fuel. You're a no-BS, kick ass editor. We should probably just sit back and let you do all this editing stuff.~ ]&nbsp;|&nbsp;]&nbsp;|&nbsp;] July 6, 2005 15:25 (UTC)

::: I heart Fuel as well. He kickeths asseth. ]<small>&nbsp;]&nbsp;]</small> 6 July 2005 15:29 (UTC)

:::I, ahem, echo those sentiments, NS. In another venue regarding another article a colleague once opined about FW, "''what he lacks in people skills, he makes for as an editor.''" I responded, "''I '''like''' his people skills. He tells people where the bear shit in the buckwheat.''" He does that. Although it's difficult for someone with an ego the size of mine to concede superiority on any skill, FW is clearly a superior editor. He is fearless, he is ruthless, and he is fair. ] (] 6 July 2005 15:59 (UTC)

::::LOL. "''what he lacks in people skills..''" That would be your's truly. :-) I think when I invited him over to Intelligent Design. I think I still owe you for that one, FW.--] 6 July 2005 16:32 (UTC)

A big "Thanks" to everyone for the kudos. It is appreciated. ] 6 July 2005 17:20 (UTC)

:By the way, I'm the guilty party on subheading the intro. You have precisely grasped my motive for doing so. It wouldn't bother me to leave it that way for a while, no matter what ''ohdamntoobadjoe'' or whatever his name is, thinks (trolling for Benny Hill fans). However, I'm also not so wedded to it now that it would cause me heartache to remerge it. It is important to remember that not all of us are on broadband, and that coupled with the slow server response that Wiki has, not having to load a full, oversized page for a minor edit at the very top makes for a fuller Wiki experience by leaving time for other edits. ] (] 6 July 2005 16:10 (UTC)


== The London bombings ==
I know this strictly doesn't belong on this page, but I just wanted to say I hope all is well with our British contributors, and express my deepest sympathies over this tragedy. Of the regulars, I know only Proto is from the UK (and works for the NHS!) - hope you're well. I believe Ann is Irish - hope she wasn't travelling anywhere near the blasts. Anyway, take care, all. This was awful.~ ]&nbsp;|&nbsp;]&nbsp;|&nbsp;] July 8, 2005 01:50 (UTC)

Nowhere near it, don't worry. Thanks. Now, get back to work! :) ]<small>&nbsp;]&nbsp;]</small> 8 July 2005 09:15 (UTC)

Thanks, but no, I was safely in Dublin. However, I ''am'' going to London tomorrow morning, and will be there for the next few days, with no computer access. Could I request that anyone who decides to archive this page in the next few days would leave the "eventually choosing" thread here, as I would like to answer it more fully. I just don't have a free minute right now. ] 8 July 2005 22:28 (UTC)

=="Diagnosed"==
(I split Ann's post as I feel it would be indelicate to respond to the subject of the second part of the message given the subject matter of the first. I hope she doesn't mind) ] (] 8 July 2005 23:14 (UTC)

By the way, as might be expected, I am not at all happy with today's change from "diagnosed as" etc. to "in an irreversible" etc. I had the impression that we had reached some kind of consensus on the talk page, and that this had even led to a dying down of the edit wars. Surely "diagnosed as" can be left in. It doesn't take up a lot more space. It doesn't violate the beliefs or principles of those who agree with the diagnosis, and it shows some willingness to compromise with those who dispute it. I don't like edit wars, and I don't intend to try to do anything about it right now, but I hope on my return from London to discover that there is some willingness to compromise on this issue again. I could understand the resistance if I were requesting that the article should say that she was in a MCS. People who disagreed would feel obliged, for the sake of truth and accuracy, to resist. The "diagnosed as" compromise adds at the very most four words. It does not sacrifice truth, accuracy, neutrality, or style. Please think about it. ] 8 July 2005 22:28 (UTC)

:I couldn't disagree more. At one time we only seemed to be aware of three neurologists who had diagnosed PVS. Contrasted to the two Schindler doctors, it appeared on the face of it to perhaps be a close call. That's no longer the case. In light of recently acquired information or at least the winnowing of previously available information, and in simplistic terms, if we were counting votes, it's now more of a 7 to 1 tally, and considerable question as to the efficacy of the one has been raised, not the least of which was by Judge Greer. That is seven clinical examinations by seven neurologists dating back to 1990, all concluding PVS. There is no longer an issue of ''agreeing with the diagnosis''. Misplaced Pages shouldn't care a whit that there is some lay person who disputes the diagnosis of seven experienced experts trained in the field, and thus shouldn't report it. Frankly if some lay person has a belief or principle that incorporates an inability to accept the consensus finding of seven board certified experts in their own field based on actual clinical examination, I believe that's an issue that needs to be settled by introspection, not by compromising the integrity of the article. Having said that, our resident expert in the field has said he prefers the qualifier, not because there's any serious question that PVS was the case, but as a professional concession to ''epistemic humility'', I believe he put it, and on that basis I concur. Context and motive is everything in the wording. I support it fully on the one basis and will argue vehemently against it on the other. ] (] 8 July 2005 23:14 (UTC)

:Am glad you're ok. Do take care in London. In re "diagnosed as" in the intro, that's something I've favored (see below), although I suspect for different reasons than editors on the "other side;" for me it's a question of epistemic accuracy, and does not detract from what, as a clinician with an interest in neurologic disease, I know to be the only sound diagnosis that could have been made in this tragic case. The evidence was simply overwhelming, spanning the clinical, electrophysiological, pathological and neuroradiological domains. I have no objections to either rendition of the sentence, so you will find no opposition from me if you revert.~ ]&nbsp;|&nbsp;]&nbsp;|&nbsp;] July 8, 2005 22:48 (UTC)

::Thank you. As you'll see, I've replaced the "diagnosed as" - my last edit before leaving for the airport! (And I'm sure I'll be fine in London: I don't expect to be using public transport at all.) Will respond to some more issues when I get back. ] 9 July 2005 05:31 (UTC)

::<font color=000099>Ann, I had not seen your note, but I responded under the "The Intro. Part quatre" section protesting this same point; it looks like FW's tryin' to get some free donuts, ha ha. He's not crazy ...he's, merely "diagnosed" as being in a Persistant HUNGRY state he heh. (When we pick on you, FW, you're one of the crowd, even if you're a little, uh...)</font>

Someone owes me a dozen donuts. ] 9 July 2005 15:46 (UTC)

==Autopsy rewrite==
I have completely rewritten the autopsy section, which had contained a substantial number of factual errors, and was rather less well organized than it might have been. The present version describes the participants and the most important findings systematically (which in Schiavo's case was overwhelmingly neurologic), summarizes some of the other important conclusions, contains a live, stable link to a CNN news report, and ends with the examiner's thoughts on her death. I also wanted the language to be more "encyclopaedic," which is ''probably'' a good thing but may not be, depending on your perspective of how Misplaced Pages articles should be written.

Accept, edit, revert or delete as you please.~ ]&nbsp;|&nbsp;]&nbsp;|&nbsp;] July 8, 2005 07:49 (UTC)

:it says "Aside from a ''focal'', healed inflammation, her heart and coronary vessels were healthy." Was that supposed to be "local"? ] 8 July 2005 14:23 (UTC)
::The word that Dr. Stephen Cohle used was "focal," Fuel (p24 of 39 in pdf). It however means the same thing; if we substitute with "local," the form should be "localized."~ ]&nbsp;|&nbsp;]&nbsp;|&nbsp;] July 8, 2005 14:47 (UTC)

:Also, the autopsy report specifically mentioned a couple of sections of brain where absolutely no neurons were found under microscopic examination. I think that ought to be included somehow. The current version is good, and just a little overwhelming with the medical jargon. A more plain-language sentence could be included somewhere for those of us not trained in teh field. Or something. ] 8 July 2005 14:23 (UTC)
::You're right. I think the weakness of the current version is the jargon. I struggled with trimming it down, yet trying to maintain some specificity, but I can't think of a way to mention which parts of the brain were damaged without actually naming the parts. Where possible I did use the anglicized version of the medical term (e.g. midbrain instead of mesencephalon), but of course, that's not much of an improvement for those who normally don't deal with these terms. One solution is simply to not name them: "There was extensive damage to many areas of the brain," for example. The downside is we loose information. This may ultimately be a worthwhile trade off, though. Which is why I've put it up to the best judges: you guys, the regular readers (and editors).~ ]&nbsp;|&nbsp;]&nbsp;|&nbsp;] July 8, 2005 14:47 (UTC)
:::Oh yes, re the completely damaged areas. The notable things that were completely destroyed were the Pyramidal cells of the cortex (throughout the ''entire'' cortex, BTW), the Purkinje cells of the cerebellum, and the basal ganglia. The visual cortex overlying the occipital lobe was also probably all gone, but they don't actually say that in so many words. This was one area in the old version that was a bit poor - for example, it said "the cerebellum was completely destroyed," which is absolutely untrue. If we specifically name those (important) things that were completely necrosed, we'll have to write "pyramidal neurons of the blah blah blah," which I thought would make the average reader tend to want to say WTF.~ ]&nbsp;|&nbsp;]&nbsp;|&nbsp;] July 8, 2005 14:57 (UTC)

::::::Well, if nothing else, maybe there is a plain-language way to clarify that of the remaining brain mass, it wasn't all neurons, and that some sections of the brain had no neurons present. It doesn't have to go into specific section names or cell types, it just needs to clarify that the 615 grams wasn't like 615 grams of normal, healthy brain. Conspiricists see 615 grams of brain mass and argue that people have had half their brain cut out in an injury and survive. The article should be clear that the 615 grams of remaining brain tissue had a lot less neurons than normal tissue. ] 8 July 2005 15:29 (UTC)

::::I've changed ''focal'' to ''localized'' because its better. There are also short articles on some of the brain parts on Wiki; maybe linking them might help with the demystification. There's something in the section that's a bit ironic, though. For most doctors, the single most important part of the autopsy is the description of the pattern of neuropathologic damage - because it is so consistent with the clinical diagnosis, as well as pathologic studies of patients who died with PVS. However, that's the most incomprehensible part of the section. I'll take it out. The only way to include that much detail on Wiki, I suspect, would be to write a separate article and take the time to explain everything with diagrams and stuff.~ ]&nbsp;|&nbsp;]&nbsp;|&nbsp;] July 8, 2005 15:16 (UTC)

::::::I think you wrote a readable version right there: "The pattern of Terri's neuropathologic damage was consistent with other patients who died with PVS". ] 8 July 2005 15:29 (UTC)
:::::::Hmm. Hang on, I have an idea.~ ]&nbsp;|&nbsp;]&nbsp;|&nbsp;] July 8, 2005 15:39 (UTC)

:::::::To quote an esteemed editor for whom I have the greatest respect, "''That '''' is so well worded that it is difficult to see a reasonable counter-argument.''" ] (] 8 July 2005 15:44 (UTC)
::::::::LOL. Ok, hang on. My computer froze for a bit. I'm going to work on para 3 of the autopsy now.~ ]&nbsp;|&nbsp;]&nbsp;|&nbsp;] July 8, 2005 15:53 (UTC)OK, done. Computer kept misbehaving, very unusually. First sentence of para 3 is a simple statement of the gist of it. When I took out the first gawdawful technical para, I replaced it with just one simple line, but then it looked severely weakened. Now there's a bit of explication of some of the path matchups, but I hope it's still readable. Good thing there are stubs for some of the terms.]&nbsp;|&nbsp;]&nbsp;|&nbsp;] July 8, 2005 16:46 (UTC)

:::::::::I like it. It seems to flow really well now from overview in para 1 to gritty details in para 3. I tweaked the word order in two places, but the content seems spot on. ] 8 July 2005 17:48 (UTC)

== Our ahistorical account of the Schiavo story ==
I have made some changes to the Lead section. I thought I’d explain some of the changes (underlined).

::'''Theresa Marie "Terri" Schiavo'''(], ]&ndash;], ]), was an ] woman from ], ]. On ], ], Schiavo (pronounced ''SHY-voh'', ]: {{IPA|/'&#643;a&#618;vo&#650;/}}) experienced ] <!--thoroughly study the path report before adding references to "bulimia" or even "eating disorder" and if persisting, cite conclusive, authoritative arguments for their inclusion-->and collapsed in her home. Despite heroic resuscitative measures, she suffered severe ] from the ensuing ], <U>and lapsed into a ] which lasted for two and a half months. Schiavo </U>spent the remaining 15 years of her life in a condition diagnosed as an irreversible ] (PVS).

::This ] was the center of a major dispute between her parents (Robert and Mary Schindler) and her husband (Michael Schiavo, her court-appointed ]. <U>The Schindlers believed Schiavo was not in a PVS, and filed numerous court cases over the course of several years to dispute this. </U>In her last years, Schiavo was examined by at least eight ]s, <U>of whom all but one</U> concluded that she was in a PVS. An ] held in a Florida ] to determine the most credible assessment of her state of consciousness found that the "evidence overwhelmingly supports the view that Terry Schiavo in a persistent vegetative state ." This finding was subsequently upheld on every ], both in <U>] and ]s.</U>


I take it that gems such as "of whom all but one of whom" don’t need further deliberation (aside from moving to drop Neutrality a line about the importance of careful drive-by shootings, perhaps. That construction had stayed in the article since the Jul 6 edit at 16:38, and cannot have done much for the article’s (and our) credibility).

Regarding the other changes:

'''Para 1''': This is trivial. I placed all "background" neurologic events (i.e., cerebral hypoxia, brain damage, coma) in one sentence. I made the last sentence of the para a simple declarative sentence with one piece of info, that she had <strike>gone into</strike> sorry, been diagnosed with a PVS. The PVS was the central medical issue in Schiavo, and this leads off well, I think, into the next para where the dispute is addressed.

'''Para 2'''. This is slightly less trivial. In the , which was arrived at by consensus of most of us, the para started off with this:
''This ] was the center of a major dispute between her parents (Robert and Mary Schindler) and her husband (Michael Schiavo, her ] by court appointment), and led to numerous court cases over the course of several years.''

After that came the sentence about the neurologists. I have two concerns.

'''Firstly,''' in this version no idea is given about what the dispute was. Remember, imagine you’re an average Wiki reader a few years from now, you’ve never heard of Schiavo, you have a vague idea that the PVS is some kind medical-brain-death-coma-thingy – perhaps not even that. But reading the current version you basically get: Schiavo went into a PVS, her parents and husband had a dispute... eight neurologists saw her and 7 said "PVS", court said PVS... all the while, the reader has no idea what the dispute was (at the most basic level who was Pro-PVS and who was Anti-PVS, to put it crudely). This is answered soon enough, but in working toward that "]" I think a weakness like this can be remedied. I broke the sentence in two, added that it was the Schindlers who didn’t buy PVS, and that this disagreement was at the heart of the trials. It also avoids the problem of claiming that the diagnosis of PVS (rather than the dispute over it) caused the court cases, which is what the original does.

NB: I would actually prefer removing the 8 neurologists sentence, and moving that to the relevant part of the body of the article.~ ]&nbsp;|&nbsp;]&nbsp;|&nbsp;] July 8, 2005 09:37 (UTC)

'''But my second concern''' is a bit more serious (and, I should add, is unresolved by my edit). I think we are giving an ahistorical account of what happened.

The way we have written the article, the narrative is that this was a tragic saga in which a wife and daughter fell dangerously ill and nearly died, but didn’t quite. The husband and the doctors thought she had lost all capacity for cognition, awareness of environment, awareness of self, perception, capacity for voluntary movement, etc. The parents didn’t think so, and they always opposed it. When the husband acted on the natural course of action predicated on his belief that his wife was gone, the parents acted on the natural course of action predicated on the belief that she was "still there."

But this narrative is not true. Terri collapsed in February 1990. By late 1990, it was already clear (to the docs) that she was in PVS (in fact, she would probably have met '''''permanent''''' VS criteria by June or July 1990). I don’t know precisely when the diagnosis was first made, but I do know Desousa had completed the relevant examinations and testing to confirm the diagnosis in 1990. Certainly, the diagnosis had been made ''well before 1993'', when the first signs of Schindler-Schiavo trouble began and the Schindlers tried to remove Michael’s guardianship. Gambone (non-neuro) made his diagnosis in 1992.

Yet, there was no infighting at that time. There was no (reported) wailing and whining that the PVS diagnosis was wrong. Why?

::Yeah, I noticed this way back when, when I was working on the timeline article. At the time, I thought there was only one doctor who diagnosed Terri as PVS, and then the 5-banger court case settled it. But now, knowing that there were FOUR doctors who diagnosed her as PVS before the 5-banger court case, it seems fairly clear that the Schindlers didn't care HOW they kept Terri alive (challenge Michael's guardianship, challenge PVS diagnosis, challenge Terri's end-of-life choices, and even go so far as to wage a media campaign and lobby the govorner and president of the US to intervene) as long as she was kept alive. It seems to ''really'' fit in with the Schindler's statement that they would be willing to perform quadruple amputation on Terri to keep her alive. Kind of disgusting that when the autopsy report came out the Schindlers had a news conference saying "Remember, this is about what Terri would have wanted". It seems pretty clear that this was ''completely'' about what they wanted, come hell or high water. ] 8 July 2005 14:44 (UTC)

In fact, the initial legal actions by the Schindlers were all directed at removing Michael’s '''''guardianship''''' – first through GAL Pecarek in 1994, then GAL Pearse in 1998. '''There was no disputing the PVS diagnosis then, even though it is certain it had long been made'''. The Schindlers ''wanted control over Schiavo'', whatever anyone said her diagnosis was, because they wanted the tube in her and they wanted her to be kept alive. There was also the underlying current of the money dispute – which contrary to popular opinion cut both ways. There was a financial conflict of interest on the part of both the Schindlers as well as Michael. Of course I've no idea how much a role this actually played for either of them.

The earliest crack in the relationship developed after Michael wouldn’t split his money with the Schindlers. The way I read the story, the Schindlers’ prime motive throughout was to be able to keep Schiavo fastened to a tube. When Michael and they were on the same wave length, ''they were fine''. In fact, I’m sure they wouldn’t have given a flying **** if their neurologist had said she had monkey hemorrhoid syndrome of the cerebrum or something. As long as they were allowed to keep Terri, have the tube in her, and push the food in.

But in 1998, ''Michael decided to petition to pull the PEG''. This is when matters came to a head. The Schindlers fight it tooth and nail. GAL Pearse is appointed. Karp does his eval, and confirms PVS. Pearse has at his disposal the diagnoses of Desousa, Karp, Gambone, Barnhill, possibly Harrison (I’m not sure when precisely Harrison entered the picture). Pearse determines that the evidence shows Schiavo is in a PVS. Judge Greer then makes his first decision in 2000 with these data and with testimony from Barnhill. He decides 1. Terri is in a PVS, 2. Terri would not want to be kept alive artificially, 3. The PEG should be pulled.

The sh*t hits the fan.

From here onwards, the diagnosis of PVS really becomes an issue. The Schindlers see it as the thing that enables Michael to carry out the PEG order. So now, ''at this stage'', they call the goons in. Hammer & Maxfield. They get some bozo to go around collecting affidavits from docs using the 4 minute edited video.

So when we imply that the Schindlers ''always opposed'', '''on principle''', the PVS diagnosis, we are simply (if unintentionally) making up a story. The main thing was always keeping the tube in. Everything else was secondary to that (ie. the objection wasn’t an objection ''on principle'' – it was made for other ends).

Our account is ahistorical.

I recognize however that we have few options here. We aren’t biographers and historians. We have no access to primary data that can recreate an honest rendition of what took place here. We can make careful observations of available material, but that’s as far as it goes.~ ]&nbsp;|&nbsp;]&nbsp;|&nbsp;] July 8, 2005 09:37 (UTC)

:I think Fox1 crystallized on the mediation page the problem we have had to deal with. We are (and have been forced to, to an extent) writing for the enemy but writing for the wrong reasons. We ''should'' be able to craft a narratiive that matches the known, reported facts; the chronology; and the results. The product came under attack because those criteria didn't fit the blogoshpere POV. As a result we started writing, not defensively, but almost apologetically. I am not only guilty as charged, but I am also of the opinion that as more and more light gets shed on this case, the bolder we can be in excising the chaff of timidity in the narrative. As I said before, I know FuelWagon is firm (although not, I am sure, entrenched) in his belief that the opening paragraph needs as much ''hedge'' as it has to forestall POV criticism (or more accurately NPOV criticism). I think it's time to write it as the précis it really should be and then let the reader go to the body of the article where the supporting facts are fleshed out. Now that Cranford's document is in the public domain, we know much more than heretofore about the early years of diagnosis and ought to be able to incorporate that knowledge in our efforts, much as NS sets out above. ] (] 8 July 2005 16:15 (UTC)

:With regard to Neutrality's drive-by edits, I don't know what we can do about that other than remain vigilant just as we do with the blogo-vandals and the regular vandals. He thinks he is above everyone else and is unpersuaded otherwise. I am amused to see the blanking vandals reverted within a minute of their perfidy. Apparently there are a lot of people watching the page. In any event, I reverted his ''bulimia'' entry very shortly afterward, too, and I inserted the hidden comments concerning the eating disorder issue. His other edits at the time were relatively benign, although he moved the IPA crap (sorry, I just don't think it adds one whit to the article) from the first line into the body where it fits less well than it did in the first line. I may experiment with putting it at the end of the intro. ] (] 8 July 2005 16:15 (UTC)

== Terri Template, refs house style, italics, etc ==
1. '''The Terri template''' that links related documents has a link to the Government involment article and the public involvement article that actually links not to these articles, but to the sections in this parent article. Was this the intention? Seems a bit redundant considering the TOC does that, no? ~ ]&nbsp;|&nbsp;]&nbsp;|&nbsp;] July 8, 2005 08:35 (UTC)

:I noticed that the other day, and I agree; redundant. ] (] 8 July 2005 14:25 (UTC)
::'''<u>Ghost</u>?''' You're the boss on this one. I like the info box, just wondering if those two links shouldn't point right at the subarticles?~ ]&nbsp;|&nbsp;]&nbsp;|&nbsp;] July 8, 2005 16:58 (UTC)

2. '''We need to standardize ref styles.''' How about this way:
::Words Words Words Words.
(''i.e.'', follows period. No space between period and ref).

In cases where the sentence ends with a quote, ref is just outside, no space.
::Words, "words words words."

In the middle of sentence, next to punctuation, place "inside."
::Words words words words; words words words.
~]&nbsp;|&nbsp;]&nbsp;|&nbsp;] July 8, 2005 08:35 (UTC)

:My personal feeling is to have the ref (cite) surrounded by whitespace. I feel not having a space gives a cluttered appearance. I also learned while reading up on desktop publishing a few years ago that whitespace isn't a bad thing. I recognize that there may be some stylistic convention (Chicago, APA) of which I am unaware, that mandates the close proximity , but to my (admitttedly untrained) eye an extra space (except when punctuation follows it as in your ''middle of sentence'' example) keeps things uncluttered. ] (] 8 July 2005 14:25 (UTC)
::Us medical types use the Vancouver style usually, the Havard style sometimes (depending on journals). The Vancouver style uses numbers. However, they are superscripted. The reason they abut the thing you want them to refer to is so that there is no confusion what the ref is for. For example,
:::Neuron neuron neuron neuron; however, glia, glia glia glia.
::Here, there is no doubt that the ref is for the neuron clause. Same with ends of sentences. The best thing to do is probably follow the Wiki house style. Does anyone have a link to this? I haven't been able to find it in the MOS.~ ]&nbsp;|&nbsp;]&nbsp;|&nbsp;] July 8, 2005 16:58 (UTC)


3. '''Court cases are italicized'''. ''E.g.'', ''Schiavo II''. ~ ]&nbsp;|&nbsp;]&nbsp;|&nbsp;] July 8, 2005 08:35 (UTC)

:Guilty. I'm the one who placed the particular titles cited. I have no problem with the italicization, although I would campaign for bolding as well, to make the cases easy to find&mdash;they are the definitive judicial affirmances in the story. Perhaps italicizing (with bolding) down in the reference section, bolding with no italicizing in the headers. As above, there may be style dicta that would settle the question. Yes? No? ] (] 8 July 2005 14:25 (UTC)
::I have no strong prefs re bold. Fine with having it or not having it. However, I feel quite srongly that they must be italicized, because that's the convention. Someone look up Roe Wade or something and see how they do it. PS. Duck, you're not guilty of anything. We all make edits, and down the line someone will remember something we forgot. I'm sure all my trespasses will soon be found out. Just wait till NCdave gets back from wherever he's gone to. <chuckle>~ ]&nbsp;|&nbsp;]&nbsp;|&nbsp;] July 8, 2005 16:58 (UTC)

:::I just wanted to step up and explain how I could explain why it was done that way. Anyway, I've italicized the names in the references section. Also, almost all of the other cases in that section at one time had ''in re Guardianship of Schiavo; Schindler vs. Schiavo'', or some such in the link. That seemed unnecessarily redundant (hmm, just like that) since all of the related cases are so named, and it severely affected the readability of the section, so I had excised that from them some time ago. ] (] 8 July 2005 18:04 (UTC)

Agree, disagree, comment?~ ]&nbsp;|&nbsp;]&nbsp;|&nbsp;] July 8, 2005 08:35 (UTC)

==Intro again==

Heeding my own counsel (above). I've boldly reworded and extensively trimmed the intro. I'm still a little iffy about paragraph Four (''Authorization to have&hellip;'')&mdash;I suspect even it's too much info for the intro. I invite your discussion. ] (] 8 July 2005 17:49 (UTC)

:Duck, like this '''a lot'''. This is ''exactly'' the way I've always envisaged it should be. There are some minor things that need tweaking, for example the lead sentence,
''
::Theresa Marie "Terri" Schiavo (December 3, 1963–March 31, 2005), was a St. Petersburg, Florida woman whose medical circumstances <u>and the legal battles pertaining to them</u> led to landmark court decisions, historical legislative initiatives, and intensive media attention.''

:Underlined bit needs attention. Also a couple of other sentences need some work, but this is exactly the right idea. Good job - wish you'd done it before I wrote that freakin essay!~ ]&nbsp;|&nbsp;]&nbsp;|&nbsp;] July 8, 2005 18:11 (UTC)

:::How about ''their attendant legal battles''? I also thought about ''unprecedented media attention'' to better complement the other two adjectives and for style. What think you? Your ''freakin' essay'' got me off bottom dead center. Don't disparage its value. ] (] 8 July 2005 18:34 (UTC)

I'll bet a dozen donuts that you'll have someone complain that PVS is presented as fact rather than saying she was "diagnosed" PVS. But nothing ventured, nothing gained. I also notice that the removal of the doctor head count, while streamlining the intro, leaves no central location for all the doctors who examined and diagnosed Terri. There is nothing that presents the hard fact that 8 neurologists examined her and 7 said she was PVS. It's sort of scattered through the chronology of the article now. If someone just read a bunch of blog-propaganda saying Terri was walking and talking and three dozen doctors signed affidavits saying she wasn't PVS, then the FIRST thing I'd want them to read are some hard facts that put their propaganda in check. Otherwise, they'll end up inserting crap we'll have to revert. The chronology is good, but I think we need something near the top that gives the headcount on neurologists over the years. ] 8 July 2005 18:19 (UTC)
:Oh yes, for sure. In an article like this, whenever you substantially alter one section (either adding or removing stuff), you'll have to also adjust the rest of the article. Now that TL&V has been published in the public domain, we'll need to incorporate that info into the article, anyway. I'd name names now (ie. Desousa, Karp, etc). Re the "diagnosed as PVS" bit, I actually have no objection if it's written that way - in fact I'd prefer it. As a doc, you learn a kind of epistemic humility about what you do, and the truth of the matter is Schiavo was indeed ''diagnosed'' with PVS. Of course, it ''is'', by ''far'', the most likely diagnosis (''practically'', it was a certainty); I will strongly oppose any kind of attempt to imply that some other diagnosis was even comparably close.~ ]&nbsp;|&nbsp;]&nbsp;|&nbsp;]There was an edit conflict with Duck.

::I won't take that bet, but I think we can defend it. Your point is taken about the ''eight docs''&mdash;we need to get that coalesced into a visible and easily locatable part of the article. With Cranford's article in hand (and NS' commentary) I had thought to work on that with a view to getting the earliest diagnoses woven into the chronology. SWMBO and I are headed out to lunch. I'll look at it later this P.M. ] (] 8 July 2005 18:34 (UTC)

'''Hey!''' We got our first ''outside'' quality edit on the new intro&mdash;by an anon, no less. Pretty good edit, too, although I don't care for the em dashes around ''additionally''. Progress accrues. By the way, nice touches, NS. ] (] 8 July 2005 20:41 (UTC)

==bush investigation==
Gov. Jeb Bush has declared an end to the state's inquiry into Terri Schiavo's collapse 15 years ago, after Florida's state attorney said there was no evidence that criminal activity was involved.
Bush had asked State Attorney Bernie McCabe to investigate Schiavo's case after her autopsy last month. He said he now considers the state's involvement with the matter finished.

:Did you see Gibb's comment? "'' appeared rushed''&hellip;" and "''"e had thought they '''' would meet with the family&hellip;''" Can you imagine what that interview would have been like? They just cannot let go. ] (] 8 July 2005 18:44 (UTC)

::Yeah, I noticed. If the Schindlers had ''any'' information that would convict Michael of criminal wrongdoing for actions the morning Terri collapsed, they would have brought it up that day. They just want the world to subscribe to their version of reality. The yahoo article said Gov Bush gave a two sentence reply. It would seem that the politicians are trying to distance themselves from this. They set the Michael up to be the dragon, Terri the helpless maiden, and the schindlers were something like the 7 dwarves or something. Now that the truth is showing the Schindler fairy tale can't hold water, they're quietly distancing themselves from their mistakes. No doubt, they'll invoke vague references to the "culture of death", but my guess is that references to Terri won't be showing up in too many political speeches. ] 8 July 2005 19:17 (UTC)



== Initial Medical Crisis ==
Just wanted to drop a note here to let folks know I've rewritten the above section. In case you've long dreamed that it would always have been left pristine and pure - sorry, ain't happening. Accept, edit, revert, delete - your choice. OK, gotta go.~ ]&nbsp;|&nbsp;]&nbsp;|&nbsp;] July 9, 2005 00:59 (UTC)

==Diagnosis dispute==

Maybe it's just me, but I look through the article and see the improvements in organization, the strengthening of the narrative, and the addition of significant factual data and I feel as if the article has really come a long way. And then I look at the ''Diagnosis dispute'' section and it stands out like an ugly wart on the article's face. There are descriptions of at least five different issues, some of it irrelevant, much of it apparently pandering to our elsewhere desribed mythical reader. Does anyone have any thoughts on taking a blue pencil to this thing and ruthlessly paring it down? ] (] 9 July 2005 03:29 (UTC)

:that section is where much of the ''people who didn't examine Terri, but gave their opinion anyway'' went. I wanted to keep the examining doctors separate from all the riff-raff. it could be broken up into chronological sections, I suppose. ] 9 July 2005 15:49 (UTC)

== The Intro. ''Part troix''. ==

:# On ], ], Schiavo (pronounced ''SHY-voh'', ]: {{IPA|&#643;a&#618;vo&#650;}}) experienced ] and collapsed in her home. Despite heroic resuscitative measures, she suffered severe ] from the ensuing ], briefly lapsed into a ], and spent the remaining 15 years of her life in a condition diagnosed as an irreversible ] (PVS).
:# Questions of ], life-prolonging interventions, and ] were the focus of disputes between her parents (Robert and Mary Schindler) and her husband (Michael Schiavo, her court-appointed ]). ] concerning the foregoing and&mdash;additionally&mdash;], level of care, potential treatments, state of consciousness, ], and determination of her wishes was extensive and on some issues reached the ].
:# Authorization to remove her ] (which had been inserted to provide Mrs. Schiavo with artificial ] and ]) was granted; the tube was twice removed and, pending appeal, reinserted. Appeals courts ultimately upheld each removal and the feeding tube was removed a third and final time on ] ].
:# Considerable media coverage was given to the ] and ] iniatives in the case during the last few weeks of her life and sparked a fierce debate over ], legal guardianship, ], and ].
:# Mrs. Schiavo died on ], 2005 at around 9:05 a.m. ]. An ] report was released on ], 2005.

'''Paragraph 1''' is the best that its likely ever going to be. Personally I'm satisfied with it.
'''Paras 2 & 3''' need a lot of work. Please help to make them better. I suggest thinking deeply about precisely what broad, general ideas about this whole case do we want to express in an intro, and edit accordingly. I think it should look very different by the time we are "done." (To the extent a Wiki article is ever "done.")
'''Para 4''' might be consolidated in the new 2/ 2&3.
'''Para 5''' is good.~ ]&nbsp;|&nbsp;]&nbsp;|&nbsp;]

:Gulp. I guess I have to remove the mitre of pride here and try and be objective. One of the things I was happy about in the intro rewrite was the visual aspect. Now insofar as facts are concerned, esthetics have little to do with the product, and none at all in the main article. However, the intro is about salesmanship, and if it has a pleasing appearance it is more likely to attract readership and act as the hook (incentive to read further) that it should. I felt paragraphs 1 through 4 were generally visually balanced which was a significant improvement over the old version. The size of 5 seems to be just right for the dramatic denouement. ] (] 9 July 2005 16:47 (UTC)

:I agonized over #3 (as I think I mentioned somewhere) because it begins to address specifics as opposed to the general concepts as were addressed in the other paragraphs, and it probably shouldn't be there. I wouldn't mind if it were either removed or significantly reduced (although that affects the visual balance). Combining 2 and 3 '''plus''' 4 doesn't strike me as a good idea solely for esthetic reasons and readability. Combining 3 and 4 would be okay for visual balance, but their subjects are totally unrelated. ] (] 9 July 2005 16:47 (UTC)

:Getting the feeling I like it as is? Well, yeah, so I'll shut up. Except the em dashes around ''additionally'' '''must''' go. But I'll let someone else do that (please!). I'm too parochial about this already. ] (] 9 July 2005 16:47 (UTC)

::Duck, sorry, I should have explained. It's not that I don't approve of the new intro, quite the opposite. As I said earlier, this is exactly the type of intro I think is best for the article, with broad, overarching themes. However, there is room for it to be refined. I suggested it when I did because in the last 24 hours there's been a real impetus for change, and three editors have managed to improve the article by quite a bit. Now, if you look at it closely, the intro now is the way it is because it evolved from the skeleton of the old one. Para three is talking about the PEG tube removal and proceedings. Para 2 concerns disputes about Schiavo's diagnosis and the dispute over that. Etc etc.
::Maybe we could change that. One longish para could talk about the clashes over the peg removal, the surrogate decision making issues/ all other disputes. One short para could talk about the national effect this case had - both on ordinary people and even congress (maybe some interesting stats could come in handy here). Close with #5.
Just a thought.~ ]&nbsp;|&nbsp;]&nbsp;|&nbsp;] 23:11, July 9, 2005 (UTC)

==PVS, family relationship,==

FuelWagon, I saw that you had moved my ''no dissent'' sentence to another area of the subject section. I placed it where I did to set the chronological tone that up until at least 1993 PVS was not an issue (in accordance with NS' observations above). By putting it at the head of the section which begins "From 1990 to 1993" it makes it seem that only in perhaps the first year was there no dissent. It should be made clear that there was no argument about PVS from the Schindlers until as late as the 2000 "Terri's wishes" trial ("''...the unrebutted evidence remains that Terri Schiavo remains in a persistent vegetative state. ''" from Greer's order of that trial) when the Schindlers didn't even challenge it there. It wasn't until later that they ''remembered'' after ten years that, ''oh, yeah, we have to dispute this PVS stuff so that we can enjoin the beast from legally executing proxy for the ward''. ] (] 9 July 2005 16:47 (UTC)

:real life showed up. I was going ot post something to talk. catching up now. I agree with what you are saying, but I think there is a larger picture to paint here. I think the first PVS diagnosis should mention that it was not disputed at the time it was given. And then the article should say that the diagnosis was not disputed until (insert year). The section title of the first time the PVS diagnosis was actually disputed by the Schindlers ought to be changed to indicate as much, and the text for that year should call out the fact that this is the first instance of the Schindlers disputing the diagnosis of the previous (insert number of doctors up to this point that diagnosed Terri as PVS). I don't know what year they did this, so I can't do it myself. basically, I think this ought to be called out as an important part of the entire article, not just one subsection. ] 05:01, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

== The Intro. ''Part quatre'' ==

#Theresa Marie "Terri" Schiavo (3 December 1963–31 March 2005), was a St. Petersburg, Florida woman whose medical circumstances and attendant legal battles led to landmark court decisions, historical legislative initiatives, and intense media attention.
#On 25 February 1990, Schiavo (pronounced SHY-voh, IPA: ?a?vo?) suffered severe brain damage from cerebral hypoxia after experiencing cardiac arrest from an undetermined cause. She briefly lapsed into a coma, then evolved into an irreversible persistent vegetative state (PVS) as determined by more than a half dozen neurologists, and so remained the last 15 years of her life.
#Questions of rehabilitation, end-of-life wishes, and custody were the focus of disputes between her parents and her husband. Litigation concerning the foregoing and additionally: guardianship, level of care, potential treatments, state of consciousness, abuse, and substitute of judgment by proxy was extensive and on some issues reached the United States Supreme Court. During the last few weeks of her life heightened public awareness centered on the judicial and legislative initiatives in the case which sparked a fierce debate over bioethics, legal guardianship, federalism, and civil rights.
#The most recognizable issue was her feeding tube, which was twice removed and, pending appeal, reinserted. The courts ultimately upheld each removal and the feeding tube was removed a third and final time on 18 March 2005. Mrs. Schiavo died on 31 March, 2005 at around 9:05 a.m. EST. An autopsy report was released on 15 June, 2005.

237 words (down from 260). This was painful, like carving up your own kid. But I think it's better. It also retains some visual balance for us artistes&hellip; Back to y'all. ] (] 01:34, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

:<font color=000099>I have not spent time here in the Schiavo Universe much, as I've been called away on other duties, but the above, while pretty good (more good than not), has some naughty parts: Namely, first, you will <u>certainly</u> ''(trust me)'', "make the natives restless" with respect to the fact that you do not soon enough say that Terri was "diagnosed" as PVS; the mention of the fact it was "determined" later in the sentence is sub-par, and it probably won't be good enough; I thought we had that agreed upon in mediation -and here in talk. Regardless of what your views or my views were on the '''actual''' happenings with Terri (e.g., was she "euthanized?" -such views of us editors ''not'' being which important), let me remind you that this sparked a fierce debate over euthanasia. According to google (and, as mentioned in my 500-word mediation summary), "euthanasia" was much more prevalent in the debate as proven by web pages worldwide than the other items, namely "bioethics, legal guardianship, federalism, and civil rights." Be good kids and put euthanasia back where it belongs, and wikify it. ArbCom would be justified over this alone. There may be other problems, but I am not on a witch hunt. I'm just pointing out the obvious flaws here.--] 02:05, 10 July 2005 (UTC)</font>

::Gordon, you could probably find a lot of hits if you google "Terri Schiavo" and "murder", but I'll be damned if I'll let anyone put "murder" in the list. ] 05:03, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

:::<Font color=000099>Now, hold on a second: both the (And I quote: "persisted 移除 itslife support programbehavior has caused a series of aboutthe biological ethics,the euthanasia,the guardiansystem,the federal systemas well asthe civil rightsserious argument.") ---and the (wherein I quote: "...debate sobre temas como la eutanasia, la bioética y los derechos civiles en su país.") seem to think that Euthanasia were in debate here. Now, the Chinese are well-known for their intelligence, and the Spanish people are both unbiased (not american) and also quite smart. Should WE be the odd ones out? (Besides the Chinese and Mexican Wikis, also Google and Myself - total four sources - say Euthanasia was debated. Period.) You're using a ] argument, in murder, and i reject that; ALSO, what's up with making the <nowiki>"<sup> and </sup>" </nowiki> tags to make the numbered links so small? You got a magnifying glass I can use?! ** Now, I know you were probably well-meaning on that edit, but unless you can give me some reason (or tantamount of consensus) on why those "grain-of-sand" link font sizes stay, then I shall revert that portion only.--] 05:40, 10 July 2005 (UTC)</font>

:::<font color=000099>I took Chinese and Spanish in college, and while I'm not as good as ], "He never tires of mentioning that he is "fluent in over six million forms of communication," probably several thousand of them human languages. Besides, and I are quite smart together. Nin hau, ma? Nin ne? Wo bu dong, duibuchi! Tengan Usted un beun noche, hombre.--] 05:47, 10 July 2005 (UTC)</font>

:::<font color=000099>I apologize, Fuel Wagon; I see it was Duck who did the pin-head size-down edit, not you. Instead of reverting, I may just do what they did in Operation Desert Kick butt: Precision editing. Be right back.--] 05:51, 10 July 2005 (UTC)</font>

Latest revision as of 02:33, 23 November 2024

The contents of the Schiavo memo page were merged into Terri Schiavo case on 17 April 2022. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page.
Skip to table of contents
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Terri Schiavo case article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52Auto-archiving period: 30 days 
Good articleTerri Schiavo case has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
On this day... Article milestones
DateProcessResult
April 25, 2005Peer reviewReviewed
June 6, 2005Peer reviewReviewed
August 26, 2005Peer reviewReviewed
September 3, 2005Featured article candidateNot promoted
September 11, 2005Featured article candidateNot promoted
October 4, 2005Featured article candidateNot promoted
December 12, 2005Featured article candidateNot promoted
November 18, 2006Good article nomineeListed
March 27, 2009Peer reviewReviewed
April 2, 2009Featured article candidateNot promoted
March 14, 2010Good article reassessmentDelisted
September 30, 2011Good article nomineeNot listed
December 13, 2012Good article nomineeListed
April 22, 2017Featured article candidateNot promoted
On this day... Facts from this article were featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on March 18, 2012, and March 18, 2015.
Current status: Good article
This article is rated GA-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject iconBiography
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
WikiProject iconMedicine: Society Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Society and Medicine task force (assessed as Mid-importance).
WikiProject iconLaw Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconPhilosophy: Ethics / Social and political / Contemporary Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Misplaced Pages.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Associated task forces:
/ 
Taskforce icon
Ethics
Taskforce icon
Social and political philosophy
Taskforce icon
Contemporary philosophy
WikiProject iconPolitics: American Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by American politics task force (assessed as Low-importance).
WikiProject iconConservatism Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconWomen
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Women, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WomenWikipedia:WikiProject WomenTemplate:WikiProject WomenWikiProject Women
WikiProject iconTampa Bay (inactive)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Tampa Bay, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Tampa BayWikipedia:WikiProject Tampa BayTemplate:WikiProject Tampa BayTampa Bay
WikiProject iconDeath Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconFlorida Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Florida. If you would like to join us, please visit the project page; if you have any questions, please consult the FAQ.FloridaWikipedia:WikiProject FloridaTemplate:WikiProject FloridaFlorida
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.


Untitled

A custom index of the archives for the Terri Schiavo page has been created at Talk:Terri Schiavo/archives with a general description of each archive's contents.

other neurologists (removed from "initial medical" paragraph)

Other neurologists—Drs. Jeffery M. Karp, James H. Barnhill, and Thomas H. Harrison—also examined Terri over the years and made the same diagnosis; they also shared an opinion about her very poor chances for recovery. Dr. Ronald Cranford, a neurologist and expert on coma and unconsciousness, testified in 2005 that nothing in the medical records suggested disagreement among Terri’s physicians about the underlying diagnosis.

  1. Cranford, Ronald (2005-07-01). "Facts, Lies, & Videotapes: The Permanent Vegetative State and the Sad Case of Terri Schiavo". J Law Med Ethics. Retrieved 2006-01-17. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help);33(2):363-71

Lead section rewrite

I am working on a rewrite of the lead section of this article from scratch. I am working on it at User:Pages777/Terri Schiavo case lead. Please collaborate with me at that page for about a week (until July 30, 2021) and then we will engage in consensus building and hopefully replace the current lead. I think that the main advantage of my version is that the three paragraphs have a coherent train of thought.--Pages777 (talk) 20:26, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Do you believe someone who thinks an eating disorder makes you a "stupid, destructive and evil person" who deserves to experience severe health consequences of that illness is a prime candidate for rewriting this article? Vaticidalprophet 23:04, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
You would benefit from taking the existing advice from 7-8 July in the article history where multiple users already highlighted the WP:POV and MOS:EDITORIAL language in your preferred lead, like "as is typical", "endured wave after wave", "memorialized his fidelity", etc. I fail to see how your proposed revisions improve the current lead, notwithstanding the unconvincing assertion of a "right to lifer" bias. --Scuoise (talk) 23:31, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Grammar

@Elizium23, why did you revert the edit? This is how I know it in English grammar. "Low" in the original sentence acts as a noun. Therefore, it cannot have an adverb modifying it. Adverbs only modify verbs, adjectives and other adverbs as far as I know. It also would make "an" obsolete as what follows it isn't a noun or noun phrase. My revision changes "low" to an adjective and therefore, having "abnormally" before it makes it grammatically correct and does not at all affect the original message. Why then would you revert it? — Python Drink (talk) 22:51, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

"low" was not a noun, it was an adjective, and your change messes up the flow. Elizium23 (talk) 22:56, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
@Elizium23, now I feel stupid; you're actually right. My brain just didn't notice the figures. — Python Drink (talk) 23:17, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

what is a relief bill?

On March 20, 2005, the Senate, by unanimous consent, passed their version of a relief bill

what is a relief bill? Marnanel (talk) 22:13, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Poll saying majority of Americans thought Michael Schiavo had the authority?

In the article it says


> a large majority of Americans believed that Michael Schiavo should have had the authority to make decisions on behalf of his wife and that the U.S. Congress overstepped its bounds with its intervention in the case.

But the linked article only supports the second point. I can’t find evidence that a majority supported giving Michael Schiavo authority, only that they thought political meddling inappropriate 70.95.34.174 (talk) 02:33, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

Categories: