Talk:Terri Schiavo case/Archive 28

How does a version just disappear?

I think this is probably just another weird Wikipedia glitch. But maybe someone can explain what happened?

First, I added the {{npov}} tag to the article, in this version:

(cur) (last) 19:11, 23 Jun 2005 NCdave (The neutrality is disputed, as documented on Talk page here: [1])

Then ghost reverted me, saying in his Edit Summary something like (this is paraphrased from memory) "if you have a problem with something in the article then you should just flag the specific section, not the whole article."

I responded by un-reverting it, in this version:

(cur) (last) 19:33, 23 Jun 2005 NCdave (rv The whole article is POV-biased mess, but if you read the Talk page section I cited in my Edit Summary you would see that the problems I identified are in the opening paragraph, not in a subsection)

But now ghost's version is gone entirely from the history.

How did that happen?

I mean, since no actual content was lost, I suppose that it doesn't really matter much in this case (except that it makes it look like I'm talking to myself, and there are already plenty of people here who suspect I'm crazy without that confirmation). But I'd really like to understand what happened. NCdave 19:49, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I don't know, and frankly, don't care. How many NPOV flags does this make for you now, Dave? What's it gonna take to make you bow up and fix it in a manner we can agree on?--ghost 20:41, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Why This Page Will Always Appear POV

The facts lean toward Michael Schiavo tremendously. Yes, this whole article is a huge POV mess. But that's what the facts are. The facts are, Michael Schiavo wanted to let his wife die, and he won. What certain doctors said and didn't say - who cares if it's in the article? The sick truth is that Terri died an unfortunate death, and it's over. For supporters of the Schindler family, the question was NEVER about politics, about money, or about whether or not Terri was brain-dead. It was ALWAYS "Do you kill the handicapped?" And that question can't be answered on an encyclopedia, which is why the article leans so much toward Michael Schiavo. And who cares anyway? Terri is gone, everyone should let it go and stop arguing. Show some respect to the Schindler family AND to Michael; I'm sure both sides are grieving. Stop arguing over dumb little details and realize that after fifteen years of the Schindlers and Schiavos fighting, they are done. And you all should be too. 198.185.18.207 21:28, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well said. I applaude your compassion. A group of us is trying to reach concensus to do what you've asked. Please check up on us, and don't give up yet.--ghost 03:04, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"For supporters of the Schindler family, the question was NEVER about politics, about money, or about whether or not Terri was brain-dead. It was ALWAYS "Do you kill the handicapped?""

I am not sure that was always the question for the Pro-Schindler folks, but to the extent that such an idea prevailed among some of them, it shows how horrendously badly Schiavo's diagnosis was misunderstood. There is not a single soul, on either side of the debate, who made a serious argument for killing the handicapped. Most certainly no one who supported the Courts' decisions. Schiavo was not "handicapped." She was as close to being completely dead as you can get without actually being completely dead. The question for those who took the Courts' view was always "should an individual have the freedom to decide whether they wanted medical intervention, or not?" and its corollary "may an individual be forced to endure medical interventions that they do not want by someone else?"

Describing Schiavo as "handicapped" is a disingenuous tactic designed to obscure the issues. It is akin to describing a soldier who has had his entire body below the abdomen blown away as someone who's lost some toenails. ~ Neuroscientist 09:31, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

The misunderstanding is yours, neuroscientist.

The claim by M.Schiavo/Felos/Cranford/etc. that Terri's cerebral cortex was completely destroyed, which would be "as close to being completely dead as you can get without actually being completely dead," was proven by the autopsy to be a plain lie. The areas of her brain responsible for thought were "relatively preserved" (in the words of the autopsy report), and the level of damage to her brain was not sufficient to indicate that she could not have been conscious, which vindicated the Schindlers and their doctors and her former caregivers who reported that she was conscious and responsive, that she was able to recognize family members, and that on occasion she responded appropriately and sometimes even tried to reply verbally to spoken English. -NCdave

Please point out in the autopsy report where it says that the areas of her brain areas of her brain responsible for thought were 'relatively preserved'". Because when I read it, I didn't get that impression. .... -JonGwynne

It says that twice, Jon. Here's the first quote:

"The changes ... were most severe in the occipital lobes, with relative preservation of the frontal and temporal lobes."

Here's the second quote:

"The frontal and temporal poles and insular cortex demonstrated relative preservation."

I hope that is what you wanted.

So, what kind of "preservation" does the report indicate? Structual preservation or functional preservation? --JonGwynne 08:30, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Now I have a question for you, Jon. (Well, two questions, actually.) If you believe that Terri was in a PVS, then, by definition of the term, you must necessarily believe that she never responded to any stimuli, via any of the senses: sound, sight, taste, smell, or touch. Right?

If that is not right, then please explain why not.

If that is right, then please tell me how you think her family deduced that her vision was severely impaired, but not her hearing? NCdave 05:43, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Two words: "wishful thinking"

...All that discussion of "multi-focal/global anoxic-ischemic encephalopathy", "laminar necrosis" and "transneuronal degeneration" (Page 5 of the appended neuropathology report) must have gotten in the way. The claims that she was "conscious or "able to recognize family members" were never verified but were simply the wishful thinking of individuals who saw what they wanted to see. --JonGwynne 23:02, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Those claims were verified and attested to by quite a few people, actually, and not just family members. NCdave 05:43, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No, actually, they weren't verified. There was no way to verify them since Terri was incapable of communication. Just because someone's eyes are pointing in a given direction doesn't mean that the person is actually seeing. You'd have to ask them in order to confirm this and since Terri couldn't speak, there was no way to ask her. --JonGwynne 08:30, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Nor is it true that nobody involved in the case was in favor of killing the handicapped. In this article, Dr. Ronald Cranford (Felos's star witness, who falsely claimed that Terri's cerebral cortex was destroyed), advocates killing both PVS patients and Alzheimer's patients by starvation/dehydration. He also testified in court in favor of killing Robert Wendland, by the same means. Wendland was neither terminal nor comatose. He was paralyzed on his right side, but he could toss and catch a ball with his left hand. He could not walk, but he could drive an electric wheelchair up and down hospital corridors. He could not speak or write, but he could respond appropriately to simple spoken English commands. But Dr. Cranford argued that he should be killed.[2][3]

Nor did Terri ever indicate whether or not she wanted "medical intervention" (which I guess is your euphemism for food and water). The supposed recollection by Michael Schiavo of such an utterance by Terri was about 8 years too late and $700,000 too convenient to be credible, even if it had not been refuted by the sworn testimony of four different witnesses, and by its inconsistency with Michael's own sworn testimony in the 1992 medical malpractice trial. NCdave 14:32, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Got a question for you Dave, since you're so convinced that Michael's motives were venal in nature, why do you think he didn't accept any of the numerous offers of cash in exchange for turning over guardianship of Terri to her parents? These offers ran as high as $10 million. Surely if he were for sale, that would have been enough to buy him. --JonGwynne 08:33, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No offense to the two of you and your lovely debate, but I believe the original intention of this section "Why This Page Will Always Appear POV", was that everyone should show some respect and quit arguing. Why don't you just give a link to the autopsy report, and let anyone who looks it up decide what they want? It's not for any of you to choose what everyone should think, nor does anyone care if NCdave interprets it one way, and JonGwynne another way. I think that you should show some respect to both Terri and the writer of the article to not argue under it. You are turning a nice effort into another brawl, which I doubt was the point. 205.188.116.10 17:47, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

How can Michael's own testimony be POV?

Duckecho's edit summary: if this alleged statement is accurate it belongs elsewhere, not in this paragraph. It does not follow. The cited source is an unadjuticated, by definitition POV, filing for deleting this:

He also testified "I believe in the vows that I took with my wife, through sickness, in health, for richer or poorer. I married my wife because I love her and I want to spend the rest of my life with her. I’m going to do that." [4]

Which follows

"I want to learn more how to take care of Terri." [5]

I am very familiar with both quotes. I found a reference for this quote on the University of Miami Ethics Program Web Site. Is Duckecho asserting that this is program is not reliable as a Wikipedia source? What is the basis for that claim?

In any event, of course the quote is accurate, it appears in the same testimony as the "take care of Terri" quote [6] which Duckecho didn't delete -- and in fact it is the answer to the very questions asked of Michael in the Igel malpractice trial by Glenn Woodworth, Michael's attorney, to establish what Michael meant. Of course, it follows. Recently in light of the inscription Michael chose for her ashes, the news media recalled that Michael made reference to "the rest of my life" without qualification at this malpractice trial. patsw 01:03, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Then you should have cited that source and I wouldn't have complained about the POV. As to the non-sequitir, the paragraph to which you appended your quote is about Michael studying nursing. The quote about taking care of Terri is there to directly corroborate that he made that statement (which, until that source was found, I believe you were among those who were adamant that we couldn't make the case that that's why he studied nursing). Your quote is unrelated to why he studied nursing and your sole reason for placing it there is to attempt to impeach Michael.

Is there no place in your heart that can appreciate that the circumstances in which he found himself in 1991 were substantially different than those circumstances in say 1995? (and if you say one word about malpractice settlement I'll forever regard you as just another hateful crackpot with no soul but a vicious ax to grind). In my heart I believe that he meant every word he said in that malpractice trial. I would have said the same thing. He was still taking Terri to therapy, he still had hopes that something could be done to make her better; to restore some semblance of their lives. Can you not feel the same?

In my heart I believe that just as Wolfson said in his report, Michael came to understand what we now know for a fact; she wasn't going to get any better. Can you understand the enormity of having to accept and come to that realization? Put yourself in his place if you can. When he finally accepts the awful reality, his physician gives him the best medical advice he can. She is not going to recover. Let her go. If I were asked my intentions at that point, my testimony would differ just as markedly from the 1991 testimony as his did. His circumstances had changed. Do you keep precisely the same counsel today as you did fifteen years ago? Or more aptly, since I don't know how old you are, did you believe exactly the same way when you were 35 as you did when you were 20? I don't know anyone who can say that they do. We grow; our lives change; things happen, some we can't accommodate; some we have to change to meet. Is it not in your heart to accept even one small part of that probability?

Go put your testimony in the article, but put it in a place where it fits. I'm sure you and Dave can find something between when he killed the cats and when he started conspiring with Felos. But don't cite the Schindler pleading when you do, for I'll revert it. The text is in the other cite, suspicious though it is. That document you used, as I said, is unadjudicated (that means it could say anything) and it's been significantly highlighted to cast the worst possible light on Michael Schiavo. Is that the accuracy and NPOV you've been telling me you seek in this article? Duckecho 01:37, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

An aside: Pat, an important part of NPOV is tone. How it sounds. Which is my biggest issue with the article as a whole. The first quote (technical issues aside) sounds more strident. And that inflection is your stated intent. That is when we need to look in the mirror. That is we start to cross over to the Dark Side of POV. And don't get me wrong. I'm far from being without sin in this (or any) matter. But we can love our neighboring editors, and the article, better than we are now.--ghost 03:38, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

How can Michael's own testimony be POV? I just read your edits, patsw. could you get any slimier? you want to accuse michael of betraying his wedding vows with selective picking and chosing of his testimony? This is disgusting. Since you show a sudden fascination with court testimony, I decided to add a little bit more. I pulled in the pieces that led up to Michael's statement that he wanted to take terri home to take care of her and spend the rest of his life with her. I also called out the accusation that is behind including the quote in the first place, that Michael went "back on his word", that he said one thing in court, and then years later, changed his mind. That rat bastard. And then to counter this accusation, I brought in a quote from Wolfson's report saying it took michael a couple years to come to accept that Terri would never recover. So, in answer to your question, "How can Michael's own testimony be POV?", I'd say it couldn't have gotten anymore POV than with your version of text. The "take care of her for the rest of my life" testimony is IRRELEVANT unless you mean to hold him to his word 15 years later when everything has completely changed. And since you do, I figured we might as well spell out what he's being accused of, so AT LEAST there's a chance to give HIS point of view. Otherwise, you've got a nice implied accusation that has no rebuttal. very slick. FuelWagon 04:16, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I have restored the full quote which was referenced in the guardianship cases and discussed in the media accounts of the case to this day. Its relevance is a judgment that both the participants in the dispute and published media accounts have made, not me. The ellipsis mutilated the quote and removed the context of the answer which was to a question of wedding vows and not his intent to study nursing. The URL linking to the online copy of the testimony had been deleted as well and it is restored as well. patsw 14:43, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The wedding vows came up right after Michael said he was going to nursing school. the train of questions were then "why are you going to nursing school?" to take care of my wife. "what are your plans?" to graduate and bring her home. "You've got your whole future ahead of you, why do you want to do this?" because I love my wife and I want to take care of her as long as I'm alive. So, you're extracting the wedding vows completely out of context in an attempt to put special emphasis on them. completely NPOV. FuelWagon 14:53, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"I just read your edits, patsw. could you get any slimier?" -FuelWagon

FuelWagon, please cease your continual personal attacks on other editors! NCdave 15:29, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The article is a pro-death propaganda piece --NCdave.

So, NCdave, could you tell us how the article could become a pro-death propaganda piece if not for the efforts of a bunch of pro-michael, pro-death propaganda editors???? An article doesn't just become a pro-death propaganda piece by accident. FuelWagon 03:44, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I see FuelWagon has reverted to his last edit. The quote is accurate, relevant, and discussed in the media accounts of the case. It is Michael's own words. How can this be POV? If Fuel Wagon wants to add some more context from the testimony, I wouldn't have a problem with that but I think introducing it as an answer that allowed Mr. Schiavo to let the jury know what he thought of his wedding vows in 1992 is sufficient context. If there's any emphasis on them it was the choice of Mr. Schiavo and his attorney at that time. In his place, I too would want to emphasize that wedding vows are for life and not broken by adverse circumstances.

If this is POV, then what sort of editing is going to make it NPOV? Clearly the mutilation of the quote that FuelWagon did yesterday is not presenting the quote accurately and in context. Has the criterion for excluding material here become "Does it make Michael look bad in public opinion"? regardless of its neutrality, accuracy, and relevance? patsw 15:18, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Contrary to what FuelWagon says, Patsw's use of that quote is perfectly in context, and not the least bit misleading. What was misleading was what Michael Schiavo swore under oath: both what he told the jury in the malpractice case in 1992, and what he told the court in his 1998 suit to have her feeding tube removed.

FuelWagon, you say that "everything ha[d] completely changed" in the 15 (actually aproximately 5) years from when Michael swore that he wanted to take care of Terri for the rest of his life and when he hired Felos to sue to have her feeding tube removed. But you are mistaken. Nothing of significance had changed w/r/t Terri's condition (which is not surprising, because he hadn't permitted her any therapy).

Terri had been disabled for over two years when Michael swore that he wanted to take care of her for the rest of his life(even though, by then, he had already moved in for a while with one of his girlfriends). But that promise was for the purpose of convincing the jury to give him a larger amount of money. When the money came through, he not only broke his promise to bring her home and take care of her, he also refused to allow Terri to receive therapy of any sort, and even tried to prevent her from receiving antibiotics for an infection.

Before the malpractice award, the remainder of which Michael Schiavo stood to inherit upon Terri's death, neither he nor anyone else ever suggested that she had ever expressed a desire to not live in her brain-damaged condition. Moreover, during the first couple of years after her injury, Michael Schiavo often said that that he had no idea what Terri would want (according to sworn testimony by multiple witnesses).[7][8]

In his sworn testimony during the 1992 malpractice trial, Michael promised to care for Terri for the rest of his life, with no hint that she might not want to be cared for. After the malpractice award, which meant that he would receive hundreds of thousands of dollars upon her death, he ordered that she receive no more therapy, not even routine medical and dental care or basic "range of motion" therapy. More than four years went by, but despite the paucity of care Terri didn't die. Michael made it clear that he wished his wife would hurry up and die. Yet in all those years, still Michael never suggested to anyone that Terri had ever said she would want to die in such circumstances.

But then, after he hired euthanasia activist Felos as his attorney in 1997, Michael suddenly "remembered" conversations in which Terri had supposedly said that she would not want to be kept alive. How convenient!

Think of that: for aproximately eight years Michael Schiavo had no idea what Terri would want. Then, shortly after he hired an attorney famous for his expertise in winning right-to-die cases, Michael Schiavo, a man who swore under oath that he didn't even notice his wife's bulimia, suddenly "remembered" long-forgotten remarks that Terri had supposedly made a decade earlier, that she wouldn't want to live. That sudden "memory" was the linchpin of his legal argument for ending Terri's life, and thereby enabling him to inherit (what was then) more than half a million-dollars from her medical trust account.

Terri's former guardian ad litem, Richard Pearse, concluded that Michael Schiavo's claim that Terri had expressed such a preference was not credible. Here's what he (Pearse) reported:

After February, 1993, Mr. SCHIAVO'S attitude concerning treatment for the ward apparently changed. Early in 1994, for example, he refused to consent to treat an infection from which the ward was then suffering and ordered that she not be resuscitated in the event of cardiac arrest. The nursing home where she resided at that time sought to intervene, which ultimately led the ward's husband to reverse his decision and authorize antibiotic treatment. It also resulted in a transfer of the ward to the nursing home where she now resides. ...

Mr. SCHIAVO indicated strongly to the undersigned that his petition to withdraw life support has nothing to do with the money held in the guardianship estate, which he would inherit upon the ward's death as her sole heir-at-law.

Mr. SCHIAVO has admitted at least two romantic involvements since the ward's accident...

The only direct evidence probative of the issue of the ward's intent is the hearsay testimony of her husband, Mr. SCHIAVO, who seeks withdrawal of the ward's feeding tube which would inevitably result in her death. However, his credibility is necessarily adversely affected by the obvious financial benefit to him of being the ward's sole heir at law in the event of her death while still married to him. Her death also permits him to get on with his own life.

In the opinion of the undersigned guardian ad litem, Mr. SCHIAVO'S credibility is also adversely affected by the chronology of this case. ... At or around the time the litigation was finally concluded, he has a change of heart concerning further treatment ... From that point forward, the ward's husband has isolated the ward from her parents, has on at lest one occasion refused to consent for the ward to be treated for an infection, and, ultimately, four years later, has filed the instant petition for the withdrawal of life support on the basis of evidence apparently known only to him which could have been asserted at any time during the ward's illness.

...the undersigned guardian ad litem is of the opinion that the evidence of the ward's intentions developed by the guardian ad litem's investigation does not meet the clear and convincing standard. ...

...it is the recommendation of the guardian ad litem that the petition for removal [of life support measures] be denied.[9]

Additionally, two close friends of Terri's, Diane Meyer and Jackie Rhodes, both recall that Terri once expressed the strong opinion that Karen Ann Quinlan should not have been removed from a respirator. Terri's remark was in apparently in response to a joke. "What is the state vegetable of New Jersey?" Meyer asked Terri. The punch line was "Karen Ann Quinlan."

"She said the joke wasn't funny and did not approve of what was going on in the Quinlan case," Meyer testified, referring to the legal battle to remove Quinlan from a respirator. "I remember one of the things she said is, 'How did they know she would want this?'" [10][11]

The great preponderance of evidence is that Terri never expressed a wish to die rather than live with a feeding tube. In other words, enticed by the lure of $700,000, Michael Schiavo lied under oath. NCdave 15:29, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

NCdave, I say this with the most heartfelt convictions: just go away. Vomiting every bropaganda piece from the blogsforterri sites doesn't help make the wikipedia article any better. Ever see that shirt that says "lead, follow, or get out of the way"? You obstruct. You need to be permanently blocked from the article and more importantly from the talk page. FuelWagon 16:14, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

FuelWagon, I know you think that everyone who disagrees with you is pure evil. But we're not. If you want me to change my opinion, you need to persuade me with real evidence. Your personal attacks on me, Pat, Gordon, or whoever, aren't doing it.

The above information is not from a blogsforterri site. Almost half of it is quoted directly from GAL Pearse's report, and I wrote the rest (except for what is in quote marks). I included five reference links to document whatever I thought might seem surprising to the reader. It is all factual. If you have questions about it, then ask. But cool your vitriol.

My momma used to tell me, "If you don't have anything nice to say, then don't say anything at all." FuelWagon, if you can't be civil, if you can't refrain from personal attacks on other editors, then please don't post. NCdave 17:22, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

FuelWagon, I know you think that everyone who disagrees with you is pure evil. --NCdave.

I stated earlier that I can't recall a single worthwhile contribution of NCdave's nor evidence that he's moved even a scintilla off of even the most absurd point he's promoted. The very most that can be said of him is he's consistent. So's a rock, and with just as much to contribute. Obstructionist is exactly the right word. Duckecho (Talk) 17:25, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Shindlers criticize Michael for dating

This: Michael Schiavo was criticized by the Schindlers ... for entering into a relationship with another woman needs a URL and should reference when the Schindlers came out and criticized Michael for dating other women so that it can be put in some sort of chronological order with the rest. FuelWagon 03:32, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

no citation given. reference removed.

So you think that the article should not tell readers that the Schindlers criticized Michael Schiavo's adulterous relationships unless the article also notes when they first came out with that criticism?

Okay, I can accept that, if you will agree to apply the same standard to Michael Schiavo's claim to remember that Terri wanted to die. Michael's claimed recollection of Terri's supposed wish to die should be deleted from the article, unless it references when he first came out with that claim, so that it can be put in some sort of chronological order with the rest. NCdave 02:53, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Or you could restore the reference. But it ought to accurately reflect what they actually criticized him for: being in adulterous relationships with other women while married to Terri. They weren't upset by platonic friendships or business relationships. It was misdemeanor adultery that they criticized. NCdave 02:57, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Glacial Improvement

I wanted to take a second to compliment everyone on the improvements over the last several days, glacial as they may seem. Go back to the pre-autopsy versions, and you'll see that the structure been cleaned up, and the article's been made more user-friendly. I know that there's plenty of hot buttons and "landmines" scattered thruout. But you, the editors, have made significant improvements when viewed over time. Good job.--ghost 04:40, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Agreed - try comparing the article as it stands now with the article a month ago (or two months) - the improvement really is remarkable. Proto 08:49, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It would help more if it were truthful. Style and structure are far less important than accuracy. Right now it is a pro-death propaganda piece. NCdave 15:35, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"it is a pro-death propaganda piece" Thank you for that objective assessment, oh neutral and unbiased one. Your wisdom overshadows us mere mortals. FuelWagon 16:18, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

My dear Ghost, as you can now no doubt see for yourself, you have spoken entirely too soon. ~ Neuroscientist 19:03, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC).

(Nods) I disagree. One Cyberbully cannot detrack from the overarching efforts of the editing team. The article makes steady, (very) slow progress in spite of the best efforts of the few who, sadly, have nothing better to do than attract attention to themselves by belittling the efforts of others. It will continue. This is testimony to the team's commitment to trying to get it right, and the best way to disgrace the bullys.--ghost 19:13, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yeah. I spoke in jest (the weary kind).~ Neuroscientist 20:48, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

Polls on reducing article size

Poll on splitting off article - public opinion/activism

It has been proposed (by User:Viriditas) (somewhere up the top) to split off the Public Opinion and Activism sections, and create a page entitled Public Opinion and Activism in the Terri Schiavo case. A brief summary of each section would remain on the main page, with the reader directed to the new page for further details (similarly to the Government involvement in the Terri Schiavo case article). Please confirm (with support / oppose) whether you are happy for this to take place. I support doing it (and am happy to do the actual split), but I'll recuse from the vote to keep things neutral. Proto 10:04, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Support:

FuelWagon 13:52, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Fox1 19:15, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC) I like this, it should help legibility enormously, and it might help finally generate an article where it is possible to get a general idea of what the events were about without wading through untold paragraphs of weasel words and validity terms. Finally. Maybe.

~ Neuroscientist 20:28, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC) I think it's a very fair idea, and would greatly increase readability. It must of course be made clear in the main article that there were profound differences of opinion about Schiavo; the smaller activism article would have to be very well written, and I shudder to think about the edit wars its going to involve.

ghost 20:54, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC) - See below.

Viriditas | Talk 02:31, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC) - I think we might need a better title for the article split.

• Oppose:

NCdave 15:49, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC) (This is a terrible idea! The problem is that the M.Schaivo partisans think that all the evidence for Terri's consciousness, all the special laws passed to help her, etc., were just political activism and manipulation of public opinion, but every Greer decision or Felos press release about her missing cerebral cortex are just npov facts. The reality is nearly the opposite: Greer's decisions constituted eggregious (judicial) pro-death activism, and the legislative activity, led by the physicians in Congress, was for the purpose of undoing that injustice. For example, is hard to imagine more careful, measured, and balanced statements that those of Sen./Dr. Frist[12]. The contrast with Judge Greer's dishonest decisions is striking.)

Poll on splitting off article - Family & Legal Disputes

The other section to which splitting was discussed (see Archive26, I think) were the disputes sections (Legal Disputes and Family Disuptes) - again, the proposal is to move these to a page entitled Disputes in the Terri Schiavo case. Please support or oppose this. Proto 10:04, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Support:

--ghost 20:53, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

FuelWagon 21:23, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Viriditas | Talk 02:29, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Oppose:

NCdave 15:51, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

~Neuroscientist 20:42, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

---

discussion

---

I'm not so sure about this one. The legal disputes section is the only place where the diagnosis stuff is explained. moving it to another article means a lot of the diagnosis stuff would have to be taken out of context. I'd have to see what the new version of the article would look like, see that it still keeps the diagnosis in context, before I could support it. FuelWagon 13:55, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

There's practically nothing in this case that is not disputed. We used to be agreed that it was not in dispute that Terri was partially blind, but now even that is disputed (since Thogmartin & Nelson thought the damage to that section of her brain was so severe that she must have been completely blind). NCdave 15:51, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Nooo, we all agreed that she was partially blind because there was no evidence otherwise. Once Thogmartin found that she was completely blind, you disputed that. It's hard to magine the chutzpah of a plain old wiki editor disputing the findings from actual forensic anyalysis by one of the most respected pathologists in the country. I thank you for making it possible. Duckecho (Talk) 17:34, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Diagnosis of mental capability from examination of the brain is a dicy endeavor (see Lorber). It is much easier to make a reliable diagnosis of blindness of a living patient than of a dead one.

We know that Terri was partially blind because of her behavior: she sometimes responded to movement of large objects or people, or bright flashing lights, but she never responded to movement of small objects. It is surprising to me that some folks seem to think that the neurologists who examined her at length while she was alive, and observed and even videotaped her responsiveness to visual, audio, and other stimuli, were just imagining what they reported.

Note that the only reason we knew that Terri was partially blind was from observation of her behavior. We knew her hearing was fine, but that her vision was severely impaired, because of her responsiveness. Thogmartin & Nelson's autopsy has now confirmed that the areas of her brain responsible for vision were very severely damaged, but the areas responsible for hearing and cognition were "relatively preserved."

If she was in a PVS, then she could not have responded to any visual stimuli, ever. So if you think that she was in a PVS, then how do you explain the fact that her family and their doctors knew that her vision was severely impaired?

Thogmartin & Nelson, in fact, thought that the damage to her occipital lobes (areas responsible for vision) was so severe that she could not see. They were provably wrong about that, but nearly right: her vision was very poor. However, Thogmartin & Nelson also reported that the damage to her frontal and temporal lobes (areas responsible for cognition) was noticably less severe, and, although there were convinced that she was bind, they could not tell whether or not she had been conscious. NCdave 02:02, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I don't generally respond to Dave anymore, but I have to step in here for a moment, because instead of understanding his viewpoint but disagreeing with his statements, this time I have absolutely no idea what he's talking about. The only thing I can glean from what he's saying is:

• The opinion of observers with possible vested interest and those influenced by heavily editted and controversial videotape is that Terri can see, but badly. Others attribute this to simple coincidence.

The videotapes were not "heavily edited" and they were only controversial to those who didn't like what they depicted. The snippets you saw on TV or the Web were among the most dramatic examples, just like ever other video video snippet you see on the evening news. But they were not adulterated, and they were not the only examples of Terri responding to stimuli. Dr. Cheshire viewed all the videotapes, and observed many instances of Terri responding to stimuli, including responding with obvious understanding to spoken English. NCdave 03:19, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Autopsy indicated that Terri was, in the opinion of those who conducted it, completely blind.
• The autopsy is wrong.
• The fact that the observers from point 1 thought she could see badly, coupled with the autopsy claim that she was blind (which was wrong) prove that... she... could see?
• Since she was proven by the impenetrable logic above to be able to see, she was not in PVS.

I really think I was getting into a mindset where I could totally see the validity of this reasoning. Then blood started spurting from my ears and I had to lay down. Fox1 02:23, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sorry if I wasn't clear, Fox1. I hope your headache clears up quickly.

Think about this fact: the Schindlers and their doctors knew (and said) that Terri was severely visually impaired. (That's why the video shows her visually tracking the movement of a great big balloon.) Then ask yourself, "how did they know that?"

Note that the Schindlers did not suggest that Terri's hearing was bad. Rather, they reported that she responded to her mother's voice, to music played at normal volume levels, etc..

So, answer this question: "What led the Schindlers to believe that Terri's vision was impaired?" NCdave 03:19, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The family dispute and the legal battles are central to the Schiavo case in a way that the loony activist circus was not. The disagreements between Schiavo's husband and her relatives were what propelled the case to international consciousness, and were the basis for the ethical and legal controversies that marked this event. The article would suffer for its exclusion.--Neuroscientist 20:42, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

I support this based on the phenomenon of article creep. Like Government involvement in the Terri Schiavo case, we can have a place to go into greater detail. This article is currently >x2 the recommended article size. To make this work, we'd need a summary of the section (2-4 paragraphs) and links with in the Main article to the Subs. Templates work wonders for this.--ghost 20:53, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

As an aside: IMHO, several editors fear losing control of the article(s) if split. I'd encourage those with that fear to look at other examines of the use of subarticles, and ask themselves if their fear is based in the need to express POV. If so, they need to check it at the door.--ghost 21:00, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm mostly afraid the newly created article will expand to fill the 35k space allowed it. But, what the heck. let's cry havoc and let slip the dogs of war. FuelWagon 21:23, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Mention of PVS in article

I've reread the article, and it seems to me that it is a substantial weakness that discussion of her vegetative state only takes place quite a way down. The article proceeds from "Initial medical crisis", thence to "rehabilitation efforts", thereafter to "Family relationship and malpractice suit," "Family dispute," and "Legal disputes," which contains three subsections, with PVS among them.

Now, imagine the article is being read by someone who has absolutely no idea of the whole Schiavo case, and is also unfamiliar with medical terms and conditions (ie. a description which will probably fit a majority of Wiki readers within a few years). They will have to go through more than half the article to learn of the crux of her medical state. This is very odd; her medical history is summarized earlier in the article in two sections (Initial crisis + Rehab) without so much as a mention of precisely what her diagnosis was. (Read intial medical crisis and rehab efforts — the disconnect is very obvious. It goes from being in hospital following cardiac arrest, to being moved around for rehab — all with no mention of why she needed rehab).

This need not be a POV issue. A description can be made of her condition on recovery from cardiac arrest, and a line can be added that the diagnosis would prove to be a bone of contention later on. ~ Neuroscientist 22:00, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

The intro mentions "PVS" three times. It also gives a brief overview that she was diagnosed PVS, but that it was the source of a major dispute, and that it took a court case to settle it, with the doctors voting 6 to 2. FuelWagon 22:13, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

There is a line in the "Initial crisis" section that relates she emerged from coma but never again exhibited higher cortical function. I either missed it before or its been recently added. This is adequate. ~ Neuroscientist 04:04, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

Except that "the doctors" didn't "vote" 6-to-2. Most of the doctors who weighed in on this case did so in opposition to the PVS diagnosis, and most of them, like Dr. Bill Frist, and Dr. Peter Morin, did so without any payment or incentive or conflict of interest, simply because they recognized the tragic consequences of bad medicine.

The doctors that Michael Schiavo & Felos chose said she was definitely in a PVS, but that is to be expected because Felos was able to let any doctors examine Terri and/or her medical records whenever they wanted, including before choosing two of them for the evidentiary hearing, so they could pick the doctors whose testimony they liked the best. Both of the doctors that the Schindlers chose said that she was conscious, which is more significant than the testimony of the Felos/M.Schiavo-selected doctors, because the doctors that the Schindlers chose had to be picked before they had an opportunity to examine her, and also because the doctors that the Schindlers chose spent far more time with Terri than did the doctors that Michael Schiavo & Felos chose.

The article claims that three court-selected doctors (and six doctors in total) concluded that she was (definitely) in a PVS, but that is untrue. There was actually only one court-selected doctor, and his impartiality was questionable because he was selected by a judge who had already ruled & sought confirmation that Terri should die. Yet even he did not rule out the possibility that Terri could be conscious. He said only that it was more probable than not that she was in a PVS -- which was short of the "clear and convincing" standard of evidence that Greer claimed.

In that evidentiary hearing before Judge Greer (the "court case" you referred to), there were only 5 doctors (not 8) and they split 3-to-2, or 2-2-1, depending on how you count them. Two said she was in a PVS. Two said she was not. One said it was more likely than not that she was in a PVS. Based on that testimony, Greer should never have ruled as he did, because only two of the five doctors agreed that there was clear and convincing proof that she was in a PVS.

Later, the Florida DCF sent Dr. Cheshire to examine Terri. He was the only independent doctor (not selected by either side) who spent more than half an hour with Terri, and he concluded that she was probably conscious. NCdave 02:31, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Cheshire also said Terri watched him for half a minute but the autopsy said she was blind. But Thogmartin is in on the conspiracy, so there you have it.... FuelWagon 04:15, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, is it physically impossible for you to write something that is less than a thousand word block of text? I sometimes wonder. SENATOR Frist never examined Terri. His statements were grandstanding for the religious right, which he intends to court heavily if he decides to run for president in 2008. The fact that he went on "justice Sunday", a simulcast program to hundreds of churches nationwide, sponsored by a religious group, all to lobby for support for his "nuclear option", shows just how much grandstanding he is willing to do. He never examined Terri, I'm not even sure if he even SAW her in person. His "diagnosis" is worthless. And the "dozens" of doctors that you love to talk about contesting the PVS diagnosis watched 4.5 minutes of video that was created by teh Schindlers from 4.5 hours of raw footage. ANd most of them didn't actually say Terri was MCS, most of them say more tests should be done. Their "video diagnosis" is already in the article with sufficient explanation as to where it came from. FuelWagon 03:23, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I am very new to Wikipedia, and am just learning the ropes. At the top of this page, there currently lies the following statement:

From Wikipedia:Wikiquette

• Wikipedia articles are supposed to represent all views (more at NPOV). The Talk pages are not a place to debate which views are right or wrong or better. If you want to do that, there are venues such as Usenet, public weblogs and other wikis.
• You can always take a discussion to e-mail or to your user page if it's not essential to the article.

Although the distinction may not be immediately apparent, I think it does make sense that the Talk page be used strictly for discussions pertaining to the crafting of the article and maintaining (or establishing) its integrity and NPOV. Now, this may easily lead to extended discussions of the correctness or wrongness of the particular views expressed by the protagonists in the article; unless those discussions bear direct relevance to the question of whether the views should be represented in the article, however, they are irrelevant to the actual article and do not belong on the talk page.

I started this subsection to ask a specific question on the article. You, NCDave, have posted a 2,058-character reply which nevertheless does not address a single word to the question I posed. Even considering per se what you've written, most of it is demonstrably false, and the rest astonishingly prejudiced. Be that as it may, this is not the place to engage in that discussion.

If you do not have anything to say specifically to the question posed above, please do not post here. If you simply must subject us to your views, submit a link to a post on your personal talk page. ~ Neuroscientist 03:47, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

Here's a new idea...

How about we just delete this whole article and that way there will be a little less fighting in the world. Of course I am kidding, but PLEASE move on. Now about deleting Harry Potter... --Lord Voldemort 01:40, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

okey dokey FuelWagon 14:58, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Header Section

The header section currently states:

The court issued a ruling that Schiavo was in a PVS.

This sentence should have a little more detail, I think. Which court, and what was the name of the case? --L33tminion (talk) 17:54, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

Archives 27 & 28

Archives 27 & 28 have been formed. I split them in two because -well, it's obvious why. My policy on deciding which sections got archived was: 1. no active discussion, 2. last comment made on or before June 26 2005.

If the person who does the archiving gets to make a little speech on the "new" talk page, I'd like to call attention to this little bit of Wiki policy I've recently learned of:

• Wikipedia articles are supposed to represent all views (more at NPOV). The Talk pages are not a place to debate which views are right or wrong or better. If you want to do that, there are venues such as Usenet, public weblogs and other wikis.
• You can always take a discussion to e-mail or to your user page if it's not essential to the article.

Onward, then.~ Neuroscientist June 30, 2005 20:15 (UTC)

Split

Okay, so I have created Public Opinion and Activism in the Terri Schiavo case. Yes, the title is a little clunky, but it does follow all the naming conventions, and I couldn't think of anything better. As yet, I haven't edited a single word out of the main article, just a copy and paste (as opposed to a cut and paste).

As the views on whether or not the disputes section should also be split off were a little more mixed, and there were some good arguments against it (particularly that everything was disputed), I think perhaps if we just split off the Public Opinion and Activism sections for now, and worry about the Disputes thing later.

So: Here is my proposed edit for the reduced Public Opinion and Activism sections on the main article:

=Public Opinion and Activism=

A number of polls of public opinion were carried out, particularly on the question of federal involvement in the Schiavo, with conflicting results.

The case drew in notable figures on both sides of the debate, as well as many pressure groups and public protesters. Some of the more extreme acts of protest included death threats to Michael Schiavo, although the vast majority of protests were non-violent.

Main article: Public Opinion and Activism in the Terri Schiavo case

That's it, short and sweet, and (I hope) neutral. Thoughts?

Proto t c 28 June 2005 09:18 (UTC)

I have two concerns. Most important is that, while brief, this doesn't give the reader much motivation to go to the sub. It's kinda dry. I'd rather have a couple more sentences that engage the reader, than a reference to what appears to be a boring subject. The media circus and protest may've only shook the U.S. for a couple weeks. But at the same time, they held the attention of the U.S., and had major political ramifications. This is a big deal. My only other concern is minor; you may want to move the template to the top of the section, rather than the bottom for consistency. Keep up the good work.--ghost 28 June 2005 12:47 (UTC)

Yes, that works. Changed as you suggested. I figured the drier and less flowery it was, the less chance there is of shrieks about neutrality. But that does scan better now. Proto t c 28 June 2005 13:02 (UTC)

I had to create a duplicate page because the original page you created didn't appear to follow the lowercase naming conventions. Further, the move feature wouldn't work for some reason. --Viriditas | Talk 28 June 2005 14:13 (UTC)

I don't think the move feature works if you're just changing the cases of letters in a title. Proto t c 29 June 2005 09:49 (UTC)

The template mentioned eariler is availible for review at Template:Terri Schiavo. I'd love to flesh it out slightly. Please note that the two subsection links bring the reader to the main page, at their respective subsection. This way, we don't have the readers immediately stepping off the main page. Also, I defaulted to a 'right' aligned template, but this isn't the prettiest presentation on the main article or some of the subs. I'm new to templates, anyone care to improve this?--ghost 30 June 2005 13:07 (UTC)

A legal refinement

Okay, this one's going to be a tough fight, but if everyone will set aside any bias they might have and look at this strictly from a legal definition point of view, perhaps we can refine a part of the article. In the intro there is a sentence (referring to the courts' rulings regarding the Schindlers' petitions to halt the removal of the feeding tube) which says: "The courts all ruled in favor of Schiavo's husband…". Now, to the extent that Michael filed a petition asking that the feeding tube be removed, that statement is accurate. However, once the court determined that, absent the advance directive, a hearing would have to be held to determine her wishes, the focus shifted from Michael to Terri. Strictly (and legally) speaking, the whole issue of removing the feeding tube was a consequence of the finding by the court that Terri would not have wanted to live in that state (no fights here, please; I'm not advocating one way or another, just trying to make a case for accuracy; that's what the court ruled—move on). Once the court ruled that that was her desire, it directed the guardian to cause the tube to be removed (I believe that's how it was phrased). Strictly (and legally) speaking, all of the subsequent court rulings regarding the feeding tube were not "in favor of Schiavo's husband", they were in favor of Terri, whose wish it had been determined was not to have it. Now please power down. Don't argue here about the ruling. It is what it is, and the article has to proceed from that standpoint. Just think of this: regardless of your position on this whole case, which is the more accurate statement? Accuracy is what we're striving for, right? Duckecho (Talk) 29 June 2005 02:58 (UTC)

Yeah, it should probably say something more like

The courts ruled that Terri would not have wanted to be kept alive in a vegatative state.

or something like that. FuelWagon 29 June 2005 03:45 (UTC)

(I think there was some point where Greer denied a motion because it would not have significantly changed Terri's condition, which was a requirement in Schiavo 3 or some such thing. Where the heck is mia-cle, anyway? FuelWagon 29 June 2005 03:47 (UTC)

As I have mentioned often, it's a case of substituted judgment established by what Greer determined to be clear and convincing. Michael is petitioning the court as guardian. He's the petitoner as guardian. In any event, even if there were no dispute regarding Terri's expression of a desire to be dehydrated to death in the event she suffer a non-terminal brain injury, Michael, as guardian, would still retain the discretion to petition to have the tube removed or to allow her to continue to live. We know with certainty what Michael claimed. What Terri really wanted is a matter of dispute. patsw 30 June 2005 03:44 (UTC)

It doesn't matter how much you carp about it, after the court took testimony from eighteen witnesses, it ruled on her wishes, it was explicitly affirmed by 2nd DCA, and the 2nd DCA explicitly cited terminal condition and life prolonging procedures, and they explicitly affirmed that Greer's decision was to a standard of clear and convincing, so I guess we won't have to keep hearing about that, will we? I see you're back to the dehydrating to death mantra. I noticed you didn't say it that way when you affirmed the efficacy of Nancy Cruzan's case. Duckecho (Talk) 30 June 2005 05:11 (UTC)

After re-reading the ruling, (Thanks to Absract Appeal? Is that one of the sites Gordon suggested? It's POV, but well done.) I'd suggest we present the sentence like this:

The courts ruled that Terri would not have wanted to be kept alive in a vegatative state, based on the testimony of Michael and other family members.[[link to subsection pointing to the ruling within the article]]

This presents facts, while informing the reader what evidence the court based it's ruling on. That'll meet all parties concerns, correct?--ghost 30 June 2005 04:23 (UTC)

Is that one of the sites Gordon suggested? No. It was here long before he came on the scene. But he's wanted it labelled simply as a POV blog so he can use that as a wedge to justify putting his own sites on the page. His baby-out-with-the-bathwater argument is that since Conigliaro, a licensed attorney, stated that he (in his capacity as a professional legal expert) thought Greer followed the law, somehow makes everything on his page POV and unusable. I don't agree that it is POV. In fact, Conigliaro takes great pains to explain that he doesn't have a stance on the particulars of the case, that he doesn't know any of the parties of the case, and that he doesn't intend to opine on who should be doing what in the case. He does explain the law and how it applies. That's hardly POV. The site is referenced because of its extensive library of court orders relating to the case and the convenient timeline, not for any of his writings. Duckecho (Talk) 30 June 2005 05:11 (UTC)

"His [Gordon's]...argument is that since Conigliaro, a licensed attorney, [Atty. Matt Conigliaro] stated that he (in his capacity as a professional legal expert) thought Greer followed the law, somehow makes everything on his page POV and unusable." This is false: I never suggested that Conigliaro's page was ever unusable. Furthermore, I never suggested that all of his pages be labeled as "POV," only those "advocacy" pages of his; his compilation page, while it does have some biased comments, even more biased than those on his "opinions" front page, are mainly time-lines and court documents compilations, not unlike those documents compilations produced by myself. Yes, some of his pages were here before I arrived, but I may have suggested a page of his that was NOT mentioned, for example, did you notice that Conigliaro's "front page" link is missing from the advocacy section, and for that matter, missing from the ENTIRE sources section. [It is currently "missing," but I recall that I did suggest that it be added back in.] I don't have time to keep up with all the comments made about me in talk pages. I am sure you were well-meaning, but you were totally false when you suggested that I said a page was unusable; I am an inclusionist, and unless a page is irrelevant, I would not strike it; and, unless an edit was false or made the page POV, I would not strike it either. The power of the pen is mightier than that of the sword, so be careful with your accusations; you could accidentally "jab" or "poke" a person, but we all make mistakes. If I really did say some page was unusable or a reject, please quote me and cite the diff, but I am certain I didn't say such.--GordonWattsDotCom 30 June 2005 06:19 (UTC)

I agree with Duck's proposed edit, and am officially impressed by his tactical brilliance. That argument is so well worded that it is difficult to see a reasonable counter-argument.~ Neuroscientist

Stick around. This page is like combat training for war of the words. Duck, I hearby promote you to the rank of General. FuelWagon 30 June 2005 13:27 (UTC)

Actually, I am going to have to agree with patsw here. The official petitioner (the party to the case) would be Michael Schiavo. Therefore, technically the court did rule in his favor. I think by saying that they ruled in Terri's favor is a little misleading. It makes it sound as if she was one of the parties in the case. Also, to be fair, it makes it sound as if the Schindlers were "Anti-Terri." Just my thoughts on the matter, but what do I know? I'm just a Dark Lord. --Lord Voldemort 30 June 2005 19:00 (UTC)

From the ruling:

The court does find that Terri Schiavo did make statements which are creditable and reliable with regard to her intention given the situation at hand...The court specifically finds that these statements are Terri Schiavo's Oral declarations concerning her intention as to what she would want done under the present circumstances and the testimony regarding such oral declarations is reliable, is creditable and rises to the level of clear and convincing evidence to this court.' - Trial Order 02/00, pg. 10

Brought to you by your friendly neighborhood--ghost 30 June 2005 19:36 (UTC).

If it isn't already, that ought to be in the article, the quote and the link to it. FuelWagon 30 June 2005 19:46 (UTC)

I never said that the courts did not rule that those were Terri's wishes. I merely stated the fact that the party of the case was Michael Schiavo, not Terri. The fact of the court ruling is irrelevant. The petitioner is the crucial fact. Sorry if I was not clear on that point. --Lord Voldemort 30 June 2005 19:56 (UTC)

I wish our resident lawyer, MIA-CLE, was around to clarify this for us. I believe, however, that although Michael petitions the court, he does so as the guardian of the ward. And, as Conigliaro makes clear at [Abstract Appeal] once the court ruled on what Terri's wishes were (regardless of who was the original petitioner) the matter was out of Michael's hands. Michael couldn't have stopped the process if he wanted to. All of the court's subsequent findings had to do with Terri's wishes as established. Michael was only the messenger, much as his attorney was his/their advocate. And as to the Schindlers being "anti-Terri," well, yeah, from Terri's legal standpoint, they were. Duckecho (Talk) 30 June 2005 22:01 (UTC)

A legal refinement, part deux

Okay, with that minor skirmish seemingly well resolved, may I present a proposed rewrite of the intro. It's mostly just a dressing up of the narrative, a little minor reorganization, and the newly reconstituted sentiment covered in the section above. It's also around 450 words.

On 25 February 1990, Schiavo collapsed in her home and went into cardiac arrest. Despite heroic resuscitative measures, she suffered severe brain damage from cerebral hypoxia caused by the arrest. She lapsed into a coma for two and a half months, and spent the remaining 15 years of her life in a condition diagnosed as an irreversible persistent vegetative state (PVS).

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. Eight doctors examined Schiavo. Six doctors diagnosed her to be in a persistent vegetative state. Two guardians ad litem concurred with this finding. Two examining doctors (both selected by Schiavo's parents) dissented, arguing that Schiavo was in a minimally conscious state. Ultimately, a Florida circuit court, presided over by Judge George W. Greer, held an evidentiary hearing, and ruled that Schiavo was in a PVS. This finding was upheld on every appeal, both in state courts and later in federal courts.

As Mrs. Schiavo's guardian, her husband sought to implement the desire he contends his wife had expressed not to be kept alive in circumstances such as a persistent vegetative state, which became another focus of dispute. Since Mrs. Schiavo had no living will or other advance directive, the court was called upon to determine what she had expressed her sentiments to be. At trial, with testimony from eighteen witnesses, Judge Greer ruled that Mrs. Schiavo had expressed a wish not to continue life prolonging procedures and directed that the feeding tube be removed. The Schindlers appealed the decision, leading to the reinsertion of the feeding tube on two separate occasions after its removal. The courts all ruled in concert with Mrs. Schiavo's wishes, and the feeding tube was removed a third and final time on 18 March, 2005.

That first sentence is a mouthful. we've already established that Michael is her husband and her guardian, so this could simply start with "Mr. Schiavo" what follows that should be as close as possible to a quote from Michael as we can find. If we're saying he contends something, it ought to be as close to his words as we can find, with only minor modifications for verb conjugation, putting in past tense, etc. FuelWagon 30 June 2005 16:13 (UTC)

I'm sure either the Wolfson Report or the Trial Court order (2-00, I think) has something to that effect in it. Duckecho (Talk) 30 June 2005 18:22 (UTC)

The judicial and legislative battles over the removal of her gastric feeding tube spawned considerable media coverage during the last few weeks of her life and sparked a fierce debate over bioethics, legal guardianship, federalism, and civil rights. Having exhausted their legal options, the Schindlers continued their mass media campaign and brought their dispute to Florida Governor Jeb Bush, the U.S. Congress, and President George W. Bush. Schiavo died on 31 March 2005 at around 9:05 a.m. EST.

recomend putting the "Schiavo died" sentence in the next paragraph. or make it a paragraph by itself. FuelWagon 30 June 2005 16:13 (UTC). A one sentence paragraph announcing her death. I agree.~ Neuroscientist

I wouldn't care for it as a stand alone sentence. Stylistically I hate them. They're like widow and orphan sentences. I think NS may have left it out entirely, which I'm sure was inadvertant. I know it doesn't belong with the third and final time paragraph (where it used to be) because putting it there interrupts the flow to the succeeding paragraph, whatever it might be. We'll have to mull that over. Duckecho (Talk) 30 June 2005 18:22 (UTC)

The official autopsy results, announced 15 June, 2005, reported an inability to confirm the PVS diagnosis, citing that it is a clinical diagnosis and not a pathological one, nevertheless found nothing inconsistent with the PVS diagnosis. "By clinical definition she would not have been able to react," one examiner said. The autopsy also revealed that she was blind. [1]

a bit wordy around the autopsy in hedging its findings. will ponder it a bit. FuelWagon 30 June 2005 16:13 (UTC)

If you thought mine was wordy… Still NS' suggestion below has a lot of merit, not to mention that it's written by someone who can place just the right touch for the lay reader of a complex arcane document. Duckecho (Talk) 30 June 2005 18:22 (UTC)

Duck & FW, The idea that we're trying to convey in this one sentence (two in my version, see below) is quite complex: there are three facts, and one caveat. I wanted to simplify the structure. So I separated the simplest fact (release of report and date) into one sentence, and put the rest into the second. I also tried to make it easy to understand the caveat. The 2nd sentence was written to make simplifying it even further very easy: just remove the bracketed phrase, which is a more complex idea that I believe is discussed in the body of the article. It can be simplified more: perhaps this version may be better?

The official autopsy report was released on 15 June, 2005. While cautioning that a definitive diagnosis of PVS cannot be made from a post-mortem study alone, the report concluded that the pathologic findings of Mrs. Schiavo's brain were compatible with a clinical diagnosis of PVS.~ Neuroscientist June 30, 2005 21:07 (UTC)

Naturally the supporting invisible remarks would be included in the edit. I've tried to be fair and balanced, please try to be gentle. Duckecho (Talk) 30 June 2005 14:42 (UTC)

My concern is the last sentence of paragraph 3. A more PC version might read: Appeals courts upheld that removal of the tube was in concert with Mrs. Schiavo's wishes, and it was removed a third and final time on 18 March, 2005. Thus only one ruling on Terri's wishes, followed by appeals courts upholding that ruling. It also puts the onus of the removal on original ruling, which Schindler supports may more easily agree with.--ghost 30 June 2005 15:58 (UTC)

I agree with ghost's suggestion. ~ Neuroscientist June 30, 2005 16:58 (UTC)

I think NS' roundup below effectively incorporates the essence of your suggestion, Ghost. Duckecho (Talk) 30 June 2005 18:22 (UTC)

Some suggestions

Duck, this is very good. I have a few minor stylistic suggestions which may be helpful, and two factual objections.

Suggestions first, changes in bold:

On 25 February 1990, Schiavo went into cardiac arrest and collapsed in her home. Despite heroic resuscitative measures, she suffered severe brain damage from the ensuing cerebral hypoxia.

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), (<---comma) and led to numerous court cases over the course of several years.

As Mrs. Schiavo's guardian, her husband sought to implement the desire he contends his wife had expressed not to be kept alive in circumstances such as a persistent vegetative state. This view of Mrs. Schiavo's wishes was not shared by her parents, and became another focus of dispute. Since Mrs. Schiavo had no living will or other advance directive, the court was called upon to determine what Mrs. Schiavo would have wished to be done in her circumstances. At trial, with testimony from eighteen witnesses, Judge Greer ruled that Mrs. Schiavo had expressed a wish not to continue life-prolonging interventions, and directed that the feeding tube which had been inserted to provide Mrs. Schiavo with artificial nutrition be removed. The Schindlers appealed the decision, leading to the reinsertion of the tube on two separate occasions after its removal. However, appeals courts upheld that removal of the tube was in concert with Mrs. Schiavo's wishes, and it was removed a third and final time on 18 March, 2005 .

(Re: the feeding tube. At the first mention of the feeding tube in the article, I feel an "explanation" is appropriate. In the original, the "remove the feeding tube" sort of came out of nowhere).

The official autopsy report was released on 15 June, 2005. While cautioning that a diagnosis of PVS cannot be made from examination of a patient's remains alone (PVS is a clinical diagnosis that proceeds from a clinical examination of a person's functional state), the report concluded that the pathologic findings of Mrs. Schiavo's brain were consistent with what one would expect to find in a patient with PVS. The autopsy also revealed that she was blind. [1]

~ Neuroscientist June 30, 2005 16:45 (UTC)

Objections:

1. The first concerns the issue of the number of doctors who examined Schiavo. I know this has been discussed many times here, but I have one point to make. 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..."

2. The second is the cardiac arrest issue; as you can see from the above I have altered the relevant sentence. This is actually first and foremost a medical issue. While it is unclear why Schiavo went into cardiac arrest, the available evidence does suggest that the cardiac arrest was the reason she collapsed, and not something else like a bad husband clipping her over the head with a bat. When we write a sequence of events that pertain to medical events, it is very important that the order is carefully attended to, as you might impute invalid cause-effect relationships with the wrong order. The sentence in its current form is needlessly inaccurate, and calls into question the most likely explanation for why she was lying on the ground (which is that she had a cardiac arrest).

Finally, thanks for your awesome editing efforts, Duck. My suggestions above should not be viewed as directed at you, as many of the things I changed have been lying in the article for a long time and were written by others. ~ Neuroscientist June 30, 2005 16:45 (UTC)

I can't tell you how much I appreciate your comments. My only quibble with your suggested wording has to do with the substitution of interventions for procedures. I selected procedures because that's the word used in the pertinent phrase in the statutes. That leaves no wiggle room for the insurrectionists. Duckecho (Talk) 30 June 2005 18:03 (UTC)

Your point concerning the sequence of events is well taken. I try to write things that way (correct sequence), and I confess to plain carelessness or inattention in that rendition. My focus was elsewhere in the intro and I fell short of the mark in that paragraph. Duckecho (Talk) 30 June 2005 18:03 (UTC)

I can tell you that FuelWagon will make a strong argument for leaving the references to the myriad doctors in. His argument is based on some pitched battles fought here in the past with some parties who didn't want any reference to PVS in the intro (and probably the article) at all. Since the diagnosis of PVS was affirmed as fact there's no question that it's correct. But that wasn't good enough, so we had to lay waste to the objections before they arose by including the list of doctors in the (by then bloated) intro. I agree, that since it's covered thoroughly elsewhere in the article that perhaps we're at a point where we can leave it out of the intro. Duckecho (Talk) 30 June 2005 18:03 (UTC)

I'm also a little concerned about the paragraph regarding the judicial and legal battles you excised. I'm sure that wasn't an oversight on your part but I think it's an important hook for the intro because it helps set the tone that there wasn't just a brain damaged woman and a court case. Duckecho (Talk) 30 June 2005 18:03 (UTC)

Hey there Duck. Glad to be of assistance. Firstly, please note that under my Suggestions I only included paragraphs and sentences that I thought required some editing. The paragraphs and sentences that I didn't reproduce were very good (IMHO), that's why I didn't reproduce them. I didn't mean to give the impression they were left out because I thought they weren't any good - quite the opposite, actually. Sorry, I should have made that clear! Now that I think about it, I should simply have reproduced the lot and then made whatever changes I wanted - easier for whoever's going to introduce the edits to the article proper. My apologies to the editor whose mouse finger this is going to fall on.

Re the # of doctors. I quite understand that this has been somewhat controversial. I don't wish to enter one of these horrendous pitched battles you speak of; perhaps Fuel will explain his point of view on this one to me, some time (I currently don't understand it just from reading your comment). I'll try and explain my view once more later (probably in a new thread, after I give this archiving business a shot - Fuel has a touching faith in my ability to not screw this up). Certainly I don't forsee much potential for disagreement - not with Fuel at any rate, who is eminently reasonable.

Re Procedure vs. intervention. I suspected that's why you wrote it that way. I of course was using medical convention (which I personally think is the more accurate). A procedure is usually used only to signify a process that is done to introduce an intervention. For example, if you get a pacemaker inserted, the intervention is the pacemaker, the procedure is the surgical operation done to insert the pacemaker. In this case, the PEG tube is an intervention, not a procedure. I know you know this of course; I guess if there is too much objection we'll have to go with the legalese.~ Neuroscientist June 30, 2005 18:59 (UTC)

3 doctors selected by courts

I can't track down the specific names of all six doctors. I embedded a note saying that Pearse mentions "several" neurological exams, the most recent by Karp, and that Gambone's diagnosis matches the diagnosis of the "doctor(((s)))" who examined Terri. I take this to mean that at least one other doctor beside Gambone and Karp diagnosed Terri to be PVS. "Several" seems to indicate more than one, but I think we can safely count it as AT LEAST one without being nonfactual. I'm not sure where Karp came from, if he was court appointed or picked by Michael, and since we have one nameless doctor, we have no clue who appointed him. Since we have two doctors whom we don't know the source of, I removed the parenthetical saying who was appointed/selected by whom in the 6 PVS diagnosis. The main article goes into the details anyway. FuelWagon 29 June 2005 22:28 (UTC)

In reviewing the court orders, I've found the missing doctor. It was Melvin Greer (no relation) who was Michael's second doctor at the 2002 trial, not Barnhill. Barnhill did testify in another hearing as to his diagnosis of PVS, so there were in fact at least eight doctors. I've edited the article to reflect this (although I haven't done the invisible notes in the intro—do you want to, FW, or shall I?). Duckecho (Talk) 30 June 2005 02:08 (UTC)

Disregard, FW; I did it. Duckecho (Talk) 30 June 2005 12:56 (UTC)

Cool. Make that two-star General. I'm wondering if we ought to embed URL's or something in the text to point to the documents that give the doctor's names, and what page they're mentioned, just so we don't have to go through this again. FuelWagon 30 June 2005 13:32 (UTC)

Hammesfahr (again)

I just removed the sentence "Hammesfahr had previously made claims about vasodilation therapy that a court found spurious [13] and later falsely claimed to be a Nobel Prize nominee, being nominated by someone who was ineligible to nominate him. [14]" 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. Duckecho (Talk) 29 June 2005 23:08 (UTC)

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.... FuelWagon 30 June 2005 00:37 (UTC)

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 [15] "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. patsw 30 June 2005 04:02 (UTC)

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[16]. 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[17]?

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.

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.

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.~ Neuroscientist June 30, 2005 07:38 (UTC)

See, this is the reason I come here: for the entertainment. Now that is some funny stuff. Thanks Neuroscientist. FuelWagon 30 June 2005 13:29 (UTC)

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 Ideal gas law, 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.--GordonWattsDotCom 2 July 2005 03:24 (UTC)

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. FuelWagon 3 July 2005 01:42 (UTC)

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.~ Neuroscientist July 3, 2005 03:46 (UTC)

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.~ Neuroscientist June 30, 2005 08:01 (UTC)

Archive some topics?

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 Wikipedia from the face of the earth or something.~ Neuroscientist June 30, 2005 17:08 (UTC)

I just did my first archive yesterday on the mediation page. Although they are bloody difficult to find, the instructions 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. FuelWagon 30 June 2005 18:01 (UTC)

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.Stanselmdoc 30 June 2005 20:06 (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.—there's another debate) Schiavo. Duckecho (Talk) 30 June 2005 20:25 (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. FuelWagon 30 June 2005 20:58 (UTC)

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.--ghost 30 June 2005 21:07 (UTC)

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!Stanselmdoc 4 July 2005 04:14 (UTC)

Doctors for Schiavo

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. FuelWagon 30 June 2005 19:30 (UTC)

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.--ghost 30 June 2005 21:26 (UTC)

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.

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? FuelWagon 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~ Neuroscientist)
• 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.~ Neuroscientist 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? FuelWagon 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. Duckecho (Talk) 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 [18] speak of Barnhill's testimony.

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

Ah. Thanks. FuelWagon 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.~ Neuroscientist July 1, 2005 14:09 (UTC)

above, you list "maxwell". Do you mean "maxfield"? FuelWagon 1 July 2005 15:38 (UTC) Shoot. Yes, William S. Maxfield. This guy [19].~ Neuroscientist

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).FuelWagon 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 Neuroscientist is on vacation at the time), then we'll have to delete his name.FuelWagon 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. FuelWagon 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. ~ Neuroscientist 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: Facts, Lies, and Videotape: The Permanent Vegetative State and The Sad Case of Terri Schiavo. If it is indeed the draft you mentioned, I eagerly await its appearance in a mainstream source. Duckecho (Talk) 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.~ Neuroscientist 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. Duckecho (Talk) 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.~ Neuroscientist 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—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.

Duckecho (Talk) 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 [was] 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.~ Neuroscientist 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? Duckecho (Talk) 3 July 2005 02:55 (UTC)

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

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.)

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 Sen. Frist's mea culpa is sufficient to explain why they should not.--ghost 2 July 2005 06:02 (UTC)

"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 [sic; implies] 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.--GordonWattsDotCom 2 July 2005 08:20 (UTC)

"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. FuelWagon 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. FuelWagon 3 July 2005 01:59 (UTC)

My dear Gordon, you're talking horseshit. I've responded 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,~ Neuroscientist July 3, 2005 03:12 (UTC)

Schindler's statement re:Autopsy

Stanselmdoc 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." [20]

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.--ghost 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. FuelWagon 30 June 2005 21:07 (UTC)

I noticed that same thing earlier today. There is a serious lack of continuity in the article—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—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. Duckecho (Talk) 30 June 2005 21:39 (UTC)

I've also wondered if we shouldn't put together an outline—perhaps starting with the ToC currently in place—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. Duckecho (Talk) 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: [[21]] Duckecho (Talk) 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.--ghost 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. FuelWagon 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? patsw 1 July 2005 01:56 (UTC)

I was assuming it would be handled like all the other legal disputes. it should be filled in. FuelWagon 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. FuelWagon 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 ≈500 words, which went the wrong way from what I had hoped (we started at ≈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. Duckecho (Talk) 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. FuelWagon 1 July 2005 01:04 (UTC)

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

Note to NS: I meant to confess this before—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. Duckecho (Talk) 1 July 2005 21:47 (UTC)

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

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. FuelWagon 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.~ Neuroscientist July 1, 2005 17:45 (UTC)

This bug hit me too. I checked with Uncle Ed. He tells me that the watchlist bug has been reported. Of course, you're welcome to report yours as well.--ghost 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.Neuroscientist

Bug got fixed this afternoon, while I was stuck in horrific holiday traffic. Horray for BugZilla!--ghost 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. Duckecho (Talk) 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. FuelWagon 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—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. Duckecho (Talk) 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. Duckecho (Talk) 6 July 2005 21:35 (UTC)

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