Talk:Terri Schiavo case/Archive 41

unprotected

I deleted two of the three gravestone images, reinserted the legal history, and made some content edits on a couple different sub-sections. I'm not sure if we're still holding to the edit-limit agreement from before or not, since last I heard Gordon declared his withdrawal. Anyway, I did 5 edits for today, stopping until I hear or see otherwise. FuelWagon 01:42, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Does the fact that this article is unprotected mean that non-parties to the treaties of September like me get to add stuff that I think is verifiable, accurate, and relevant?

• Add back a few words that keep being replaced with ... in Michael Schiavo's malpractice trial testimony.
• The inconsistency in the GAL's dating of one urinary tract infection and the Schindler's assertion that twice (at two different facilities) Michael sought to kill Terri by refusing to allow her infections to be treated. (and was prevented from doing so.)

and on the trimming side of editing: There are still at this point unqualified assertions that she may have had an eating disorder when there was no characteristic scarring of the esophagus or stomach -- as if this article was being written in April 2005 without knowledge of the autopsy. patsw 02:30, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

I think it would be fine to go ahead and edit. If someone disagrees with an edit you make they can comment, modify or (in the final instance) revert. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 03:06, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

I would agree with the additions suggested by patsw. If there are problems, they can be discussed here. I think a problem a few months ago was that those who had strong support for Michael Schiavo just began to delete without discussion. Ann Heneghan ^(talk) 07:02, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Bulimia

If patswa wishes to qualify that which is unqualified regarding eating disorders, OK, but if the implication is removing the statements completely I object. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. The autoposy report makes clear they are unconvinced about eating disorders—not that they decisively rule them out. "Her post-resuscitation potassium level and history of remote weight loss appear to be the only evidence that indicate she may have had some type of eating disorder." Marskell 13:07, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

That's not a finding of the autopsy but a reference to "the only evidence" which was has several possible causes such as the emergency treatment she was given by paramedics or the hospital. The reference only serves to give a context to why Thogmartin bothers to mention anything about a eating disorder. "...Not that they decisively rule them out" is your POV and not my interpretation.

Characteristically scarring of the esophagus and stomach is present in bulimics. The claim of course is not only that Terri was bulimic -- but also to the greatest extent, to the point where the otherwise healthy 26 year old would almost die from her bulimia-caused potassium imbalance. Also ruling out "eating disorder" is the finding that Terri's heart was anatomically normal without any area of recent or remote myocardial infarction. My interpretation is "eating disorder" was decisively ruled out as Thogmartin diligently looked for its internal evidence.

I would insert parenthetically to each existing reference to "eating disorder" that the autopsy failed to find any characteristic internal evidence of an eating disorder (where such a qualification is not already present). patsw 16:12, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Does the autopsy rule out bulimea or an eating disorder? if not, then citing the autopsy in parentheticals at every mention of "eating disorder" is giving undue weight to the autopsy. I don't think Thogmartin ruled out an eating disorder or ruled out that Terri drinking 20 glasses of tea a day may have screwed up her potassium. The autopsy, as far as I can tell, is inconclusive except to say that her esophogaus didn't have scarring. I think he also said something about Terri's heart didn't show signs of cardiac arrest, but I don't think anyone disputes that she went into cardiac arrest, nor would I suggest that the intro, which says Terri went into cardiac arrest, add a parenthetical saying "(the autopsy found no evidence of cardiac arrest)". FuelWagon 17:58, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

The autopsy report went further than just "not ruling it out". The document actually says, if I remember rightly, that Terri had a good meal the night of her collapse, and that she had no opportunity to induce vomiting straight after the meal without anyone noticing. The article currently reads (in the "Early Life" section): "Schiavo's friends began to have suspicions about her eating habits. After meals out, she would immediately excuse herself to go to the bathroom. Michael Schiavo was aware of her unusual eating patterns, but did not realize their potential danger." The reference given is a Miami Herald article, which requires registration. I purposely registered so that I could read the article, and then, when I clicked on the link, it said that the requested article could not be found. I vaguely remember (but won't swear to this) that I read the longish article a few months ago, and it didn't mention that her friends noticed her strange eating habits. So it looks as if we were linking to the wrong article, and the (wrong) article that we were linking to has now been removed. In the recent very slight edit war (it wasn't really an edit war, but I'm using that term for want of a better one) between Marskell and Grace Note, I found that I agreed with Grace Note, but was busy with college work, and didn't get involved.

My suggestion is that we should scrap that bit about her friends noticing her strange eating habits, with its spurious reference. We should report that one theory was that she had bulimia, but that this theory was disputed by some. If we go any further than that, we should definitely quote the autopsy report as fully as possible.

Incidentally, I can't help wondering — if the Early Life section said that her friends began to suspect that her marriage was having difficulties, that they noticed she sometimes had bruises, and that one of her friends (it was either Jackie Rhodes or Diane Meyer, but I can't remember) testified that Terri was planning to divorce Michael and move in with her, plus all the stuff about Terri crying because of the row that she had had with Michael about the price of a haircut the day before she collapsed, and if we gave as a reference a link to news story which required registration, and which, after registration "could not be found", just how long would that section have remained in the article? And yet all those things were reported in various papers. Are we demanding a higher level of proof for pieces of information that would support the Schindlers' side before they're allowed into the article? The article's support for the bulimia theory really needs to be reduced, if not eliminated. Ann Heneghan ^(talk) 18:29, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

USA today has an article about the friend's testimony (about Terri excusing herself to go to the bathroom after every meal)here. FuelWagon 18:42, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

If you want to place in the Schindlers suggestion that Michael was abusive, I don't have a problem if it to is qualified. Re bulimia again, remember it's a primary cause of menstrual interruption [1]. I mean, something was amiss in her dietary habits even if, perhaps, she was not actually purging—she was not "otherwise healthy." And I agree with FW: the fact that her heart was in ship-shape doesn't disprove the fact that she'd had a heart attack. Similarly, I repeat that I believe the autoposy report is unconvinced about, rather than ruling out, an eating disorder. Finally, while we all have POVs here there seems to be an implication that to mention Bulimia is to somehow blame TS for her collapse. Bulimia is a mental illness, and if she had it it's a tragedy within a tragedy, not a fault of hers. Marskell 19:32, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

FuelWagon, you are being arbitrary around what's due weight and what's undue weight in the autopsy. You are pulling in stuff from all over the timeline. Her most intense period of weight loss ocurred before her marriage: 60 pounds, and she lost another 15 or 20 pounds after marriage. If she had been losing weight through vomiting during this entire period, it would have been evident in scarring. If she had the long-term habit of taking excessive amounts of fluids (and 10-15 glasses of iced tea arguably isn't), then she would have had other symptoms of potassium imbalance long before her collapse. Specifically in the 24 hours prior to her collapse, she had taken regualar meals. Neither the Schinders nor Michael reported diuertic abuse. Michael under oath emphatically reported that he didn't observe an eating disorder.

Marksell, at 5 feet 4 and 123 pounds she had a healthy weight and had maintained a stable weight for some time. She was menstruating but concerned that they were light and irregular. She was healthy. These are facts all established in the malpractice trial. The eating disorder was never proven, only that Dr. G. Stephen Igel was negligent in not testing for it. No one was ever convinced there was an eating disorder, they were only speculating it as a possible cause of the potassium imbalance. The emphasis on "death by iced tea" is the POV of people who want blame Terri for her condition rather than objective commentary. [2][3][4] A great article of Joan Didion in the New York Review of Books covers this "blame Terri" theme.

I don't need to argue that Thogmartin ruled it out. He can speak for himself:

Thogmartin threw more doubt on that question [what caused her heart to stop beating] Wednesday. Although many believed an eating disorder caused Schiavo's crisis, there is little evidence to prove it, Thogmartin said at a news conference to release his autopsy report.

Schiavo's low potassium level soon after she arrived at the hospital has long been viewed as evidence of bulimia. But it could have been caused by her heart's irregular rhythm and the medical treatments that saved her life, Thogmartin said.

But Thogmartin can't point to anything else that caused her heart to stop, despite the autopsy, consultations with outside experts, exhaustive reviews of Schiavo's medical records, and interviews with friends and family members.

"I was looking for everything I could," Thogmartin said. "And it just wasn't there. I was grasping at straws." [5]

What part of "the autopsy failed to find evidence of an eating disorder" is a difficulty for you? patsw 21:26, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

A "lack of evidence to prove eating disorder" is not the same as "evidence to disprove eating disorder". I think the autopsy's findings should be mentioned in the autopsy section, but I fail to see sufficient evidence in the autopsy to justify a parenthetical at every mention of "eating disorder" to say (the autopsy found no evidence of an eating disorder). FuelWagon 03:24, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

In response to pat:

"If she had the long-term habit of taking excessive amounts of fluids (and 10-15 glasses of iced tea arguably isn't)" Are you joking?

"What part of 'The autopsy failed to find evidence of an eating disorder' is a difficulty for you." Nothing—I agree with you. Again: absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Marskell 22:13, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the link, FuelWagon. I've just read the article. I'd have to disagree with you that it refers to testimony "about Terri excusing herself to go to the bathroom after every meal" (your words, but I've added emphasis). It says "During the malpractice case, at least one of Schiavo's friends testified they knew she was bulimic because after meals out, she always immediately excused herself to go to the bathroom." (My emphasis again.) After meals out is not the same as after every meal. Who is or are the friend(s)? Why are no names provided? How often did they eat out with her? Twice? Ten times? Forty-two times? Might she not have been simply emptying her bladder? When an article talks vaguely about "at least one friend", it suggests that there hasn't been very careful research. How reliable is the article? It was written at a time when the bulimia theory was rather widely believed. After all, some of the edits made by you ([6] [7] [8] [9] [10]) and other supporters of Michael Schiavo ([11] [12] [13]) before the autopsy report suggested that the bulimia theory wasn't even up for discussion. So I think there was a tendency at that time for people who supported Michael Schiavo to take the bulimia theory at face value, without conducting the careful research that they themselves would have demanded if it had been a question of what "some of Terri's friends said" about her "unhappy" marriage, about Michael checking the mileage on her car, etc.

What I'm trying to say is that I don't find that the article (written at a time when the bulimia theory seemed to be almost unchallenged) with its vague mention of the unidentified friend or friends noticing that she went to the bathroom after an unidentified number of meals over an unidentified period of time to do something that is purely a matter of speculation is convincing enough to throw into doubt the autopsy report, which seems to positively discourage the bulimia theory.

Another point is that the USATODAY article says, "Her husband also knew she had peculiar eating patterns but did not realize they were dangerous, Fox said." (Again, that's my emphasis.) But the Wikipedia article states this as fact, without clarifying that this is what Michael Schiavo's lawyer said. I'm not saying it's not true, but it's further evidence of something that I've been trying to correct for months – the tendency of many editors here to turn hearsay into undisputed evidence when it concerns something that Michael Schiavo claimed. That's simply not NPOV. Ann Heneghan ^(talk) 22:08, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Unless someone is disputing what "Fox said", there is no need to attribute it to him specifically. If I remmember correctly, he was talking about someone's testimony at a trial, and I'm pretty sure that said testimony occurred. Whether the testimony is true or not is a separate matter, but I don't see a need for "Fox said". FuelWagon 03:24, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm not saying it has to be attributed to Fox, specifically. Presumably Fox was told this by Michael. It could be "Michael testified" (assuming that he did), or "According to Michael's lawyer". There's something that linguists refer to as (epistemic) modality – "John went home" is in higher modality than "John may have gone home" or "John says he went home". There has been a tendency for months for this article to place statements in high modality when the source is Michael Schiavo's word, and in low modality when the source comes from the Schindlers. E.g. compare the modality of "The noise woke Michael Schiavo and he immediately called 911" or "he began to study nursing to better care for his wife" with the modality of

Schiavo's parents claim that their daughter did not meet the definition of a persistent vegetative state, and was in a "minimally conscious state" instead. Her parents argue that at times her actions were indicative of responses to external stimuli, not reflex or instinctive behavior. For example, the Schindlers claim that their daughter smiled, laughed, cried, moved, made childlike attempts at speech, and attempted to say "Mom" or "Dad"; or "yeah" when they asked her a question. They claim that when they kissed her she looked at them and sometimes puckered her lips.

It took me months of persistent arguing on the talk page before I was able to get the modality of Michael Schiavo testimony lowered on the issues of waking up from the noise of Terri's collapse, and his reason for studying nursing. His claim that he was aware of Terri's unusual eating patterns is not automatically true. He was taking part in a trial, trying to get a very large amount of money. There might have been at the very least a motive for claiming that he had noticed strange eating habits. (Didn't he get his live-in girlfriend, Cindy Shook, to move out at the time of that trial, while he was testifying about how he believed in his wedding vows?) His statement that he noticed that Terri had unusual eating habits may or may not be true, like his other statements; it should definitely not be put in high modality in this article, if we are to conform to NPOV. Ann Heneghan ^(talk) 08:04, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

The autopsy report states:

No one observed Mrs Schiavo taking diet pills, binging and purging or consuming laxatives and she apparently never confessed to her family or friends about having an eating disorder. Recent interviews with family members, physicians and coworkers revealed no additional information supporting the diagnosis of Bulimia Nervosa and, indeed, many other signs and symptoms of Bulimia Nervosa were not reported to be present. . . . Witnesses presented at trial testified that Mrs Schiavo did not confess to having an eating disorder nor was any testimony given of witnessed purging.(pages 28-29)

It also says that her parents report – see how fair I am! – that:

on the evening prior to her collapse they all consumed a large meal, and the circumstances of the evening activities would have made it difficult for Mrs Schiavo to covertly purge the meal. (p.30)

Some more quotations:

Her post-resuscitation potassium level and history of remote weight loss appear to be the only evidence that indicate that she may have had some type of eating disorder (p. 29) . . . . Thus, it is reasonable to suppose that Mrs Schiavo's potassium level . . . was an unreliable measure of her pre-arrest potassium level. Thus, the main piece of evidence supporting a diagnosis of Bulimia Nervosa is suspect or, at least, can be explained by her clinical condition at the time of the blood draw. (p.30)

Ann Heneghan ^(talk) 22:38, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Fine. I don't dispute reporting the autopsy findings. I dispute the need to add a parenthetical about the autopsy at every mention of "eating disorder" in teh article. The autopsy found no scarring but that doesn't prove there was no eating disorder, unless you also dispute the mass quantities of tea. FuelWagon 03:24, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Okay, there's no proof that she didn't have an eating disorder. Similarly, there's no proof that her husband didn't try to strangle her. I'm not arguing for lots of references to her "eating disorder", coupled with lots of parenthetical references to the autopsy. I'm arguing for fewer references to her eating disorder. And I'm arguing that her eating disorder should be placed in "low modality", as I explained above.[14] Strangulation and bulimia are both theories. They're both discouraged by the autopsy report. Neither is ruled out. Wikipedia should not have different standards for reporting what Michael says and what the Schindlers say. And, as you probably know, I don't support the strangulation theory. I'm just looking for fairness in reporting. Ann Heneghan ^(talk) 09:47, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

well, there is a difference between "eating disorder" theories and "strangulation" theories. The eating disorder actually has some undisputed objective facts that at least support the notion: Terri dropped from 200 pounds to at least 145 pounds when she was 18. She went on the nutrisystem diet. She drank 10 to 15 glasses of iced tea a day. then add that at least one witness testified at trial that Terri had strange eating habits. All the strangulation theories have, as far as I know, is testimony without any objective evidence. FuelWagon 04:14, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

And strangulation by its nature is very difficult to hide. Marskell 09:50, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree, and I've never been a fan of the strangulation theory. However, I'd still like to know why the article doesn't mention any of the testimony from Terri's friends about how her marriage was in trouble, how she planned to divorce Michael and move in with Jackie Rhodes, how friends sometimes noticed that she had bruises, how Michael was very controlling and used to check the mileage on her car, how she was crying the day before her collapse because he had been furious with her about the price of a haircut, etc. It would be perfectly appropriate to report in the article that these allegations were made. There is no more proof for the eating disorder than for the row with Michael the day before her collapse. Are we not operating under double standards here? Ann Heneghan ^(talk) 10:12, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

but that is heresay. So is the testimony that Terri went to the bathroom immediately after eating every time they went out to eat. the difference is whether the heresay is supported by any undisputed objective information. The weight loss when she was 18 is objective evidence and it is not disputed by anyone. No one disputes the tea thing either that I know of. I think the "Terri planned to divorce Michael" is disputed, I'm pretty sure the "Terri had bruises" is also disputed. It's not a "double standard", it's separating claims that have objective evidence to support it and claims that do not. Iyer's claims have nothing to support them, for example, were disputed in court by Michael, and the court found them baseless. The claim of abuse showed up after the bone scan came to light, and it turned out to have no objective support. It also came to light after a couple of guardianship challenges and other court disputes failed to give the Schindlers what they wanted. FuelWagon 13:43, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

To be clear, "She may have developed an eating disorder at this time..." is the closest we come to supporting the theory. "She and Michael may have been experiencing marital difficulties at the time of her collapse..." seems to me acceptable. Marskell 10:49, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

The Early life section has two unqualified references to an eating disorder:

She may have developed an eating disorder around this time

and a few sentences later

...which might have indicated an eating disorder.

The "source" for the first reference is a pathetic joke. It's a student newspaper which includes the following supporting evidence

Faced with obstacles in her attempts to lose weight, Schiavo began to force herself to vomit after eating and to try to survive on a liquid-only diet.

There's no evidence of this in the record, and no indication that Sandya Nair (Student Voices, Google) had any access to anything other than other press accounts. The student newspaper reference should be deleted as unverifible.

The 'Early life' section should have only one reference to "eating disorder" and not two. It should be qualified that the autopsy failed to find evidence of an eating disorder. patsw 01:14, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree, and as I pointed out above, the second reference links to an article which "could not be found". I may try taking it out, but in any case, I'm going on a week-long wiki-break. Ann Heneghan ^(talk) 17:48, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

In need of assistance

I put in the missing {{note|"Notes}} to correspond with the {{ref|"New" References}} that FuelWagon inserted, but since I had fixed the references section last time, it's current state of disarray is not my fault: Please note that the number of "ref" and "note" tags are different and the order appears messed up bigtime, major league. Therefore you all will have to learn how to use this function. Here are two short answers: #1: See Alabama Boy's help: He knows how to do it; #2: Have only the same notes as you do references -and in the same order. Here's the "long" answer: You are now a Jedi -yet you have one last yet remaining before you can complete your training: Learn the fabled art of Reference/Note links! Also, I replaced a very dull and non-controversial paragraph that Calton had continually deleted -even though it contained no "vanity" links: He didn't like hidden comments, but hidden comments aren't vanity links, and -as we recall it was his edit here! that caused the World War III that I promised would happen if he kept pushing it -and kept removing something that had absolutely no vanity links -but merely hidden comments that could not be construed as vanity links or such. You may modify that section as you lease, but do not revert or delete: It is history as all else.--GordonWatts 04:59, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

giving Schindlers undue weight

Gordon, you keep reinserting an entire paragraph about the Schindlers motion around Terri's Law. This information is already covered in teh first paragraph of the "Government involvemnet" section [15]

the Florida Legislature passed "Terri's Law,"[40] giving Governor Jeb Bush the authority to intervene in the case. Bush immediately ordered the feeding tube reinserted. Michael Schiavo opposed the Governor's intervention [41], and was represented, in part, by the ACLU. At the same time, Robert and Mary Schindler, Terri's parents attempted to intervene and participate in the "Terri's Law" case but were denied by Judge W. Douglas Baird, a Circuit Judge in the Florida 6th Circuit, the same circuit as for Judge George W. Greer. They appealed, and, on February 13, the Florida Second District Court of Appeal (2nd DCA) reversed Baird's ruling,[42] allowing them to participate. On March 17, Baird denied the Schindlers the right to intervene a 2nd time,[43] and the Schindlers, represented by the conservative American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ), appealed the right to participate in the "Terri's Law" case, with the court scheduling an oral argument date for June 14.[44]

Note that Florida passed the law to allow the govorner to intervene, Michael opposed intervention, and the Schindler's attempted to get involved. Note that this paragraph already covers their motion to get involved with the "Terris Law" intervention. Note that it reports it without giving undue weight to the Schindlers, i.e. it gives both the schindlers and michael about equal weight. Note that your paragraph is redundant, talking about the same motion, the dates are the same, both involve the ACLJ, both are about the same piece of history. The only problem is that while the first paragraph reports all the different points of view around the Terri's Law intervention, your new paragraph gives the Schindlers an entire paragraph to report their point of view, again. There is no reason for this since the information is already covered in the first paragraph. You give the Schindler's motion far more weight than it deserves. Your extra paragraph is redundant. FuelWagon 15:33, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Michael denied under oath in a desposition in 1992 what Fuel Wagon just entered he testified to

Q: Do you have any indication during all the time you were dating and then married to Terri that she in any way was binging and purging?

A: I had no - no, none whatsoever.

The fact is that through the years Michael's observations on Terri's eating patterns have been inconsistent and contradictory.

By 2003, Michael was claiming that he had known with certainty that Terri was throwing up her meals on Larry King Live. It's from these later public statements and the assumption that he had been consistent through the years that the Associated Press incorrectly stated he testified to her throwing up back in 1992. I really can't blame USA Today which published the AP story either for failing to review the 1992 testimony. Gary Fox, Michael's attorney in 1992 (and the AP's source in the article) may have just gotten confused with Michael's changing statements over the years.

There is no reason to repeat the AP's error (via Gary Fox) in this article.

For the record, the Schindlers were consistent in denying that Terri was throwing up her meals and, of course, the autopsy failed to find scarring in the esophagus or stomach from bulimia. Not a mild case of bulimia mind you, but bulimia so extreme that it would trigger a near fatal potassium imbalance.

Any reference to Michael asserting an eating disorder must (1) indicate the year where Michael makes the assertion and (2) be balanced with his own denial under oath in the 1992 depositions and trial testimony when he denied that Terri was binging and purging.

My preference is to remove any assertion made by Michael that she had an eating disorder.

And what was the reason, Fuel Wagon, after all these months to add yet another assertion of an eating disorder? patsw 01:06, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Exactly how did the line I recently added to the article

"Her husband also knew she had peculiar eating patterns but did not realize they were dangerous"

get translated into "binging and purging" above? I just skimmed through the deposition. Michael said Terri ate a massive omelette on the weekends and drank a gallon of iced tea a day. We can argue whether or not that qualifies as "peculiar" eating habits, but it's quite a leap to turn that into "binging and purging", and say he's contradicting himself, at least in this instance. "peculiar" !== "binging and purging". I see no conspiracy theory here. FuelWagon 03:31, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

But you disregarded what I said above about "modality" (in the bulimia section). How can a supporter of Michael Schiavo claim to be writing in an NPOV way when he inserts into the article that Michael knew or thought something, without telling us that this is what Michael says he knew or thought? Ann Heneghan ^(talk) 09:04, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

This is becoming borderline paranoia. I copied the line from the USA Today article and just changed "she" to "Schiavo". The sentence "Her husband also knew she had peculiar eating patterns but did not realize they were dangerous." is straight from the article. You can argue about "modality" all you want, but I quoted USA Today. Whether Michael "said" it or "knew" it, it is still his POV. And deleting the sentence for one word is starting to go overboard. First someone takes "pecurliar" and starts hopping up and down because they claim it conflicts with the no "binging and purging" statement. Now someone wants to argue whether Michael "said" or whether he "knew" she had PECULIAR eating habits. I think a gallon of iced tea a day and lumberjack omeletts on the weekends qualify as PECULIAR, and as far as I know, no one disputes those facts. The only thing in dispute is how to weaken reporting Michael's point of view. You guys are unbelievable. FuelWagon 17:20, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

(quoting Ann) "How can a supporter of Michael Schiavo claim to be writing in an NPOV way when he inserts into the article that Michael knew or thought something...?" He or she cannot: No one amongst us is a mind-reader. (quoting Wagon) "but I quoted USA Today. Whether Michael "said" it or "knew" it, it is still his POV." Even if USA Today said something, that does not mean we print it: You might say that "USA Today REPORTS that Michael thought something -but we are not mind readers. I think Ann fixed this, and if she didn't, I may: Wait a second: I was about to put in a sentence that said Michael "testified" that Terri had an eating problem (to give Wagon the balance he seeks), but Pat says in his edit summary here that this is not factual: (quoting Pat) Rehabilitation efforts and the malpractice suit - AP is quoting Gary Fox, whose recall in 2005 of Michael's 1992 testimony is incorrect. Michael did not testify to "peculiar eating patterns" I don't know if Michael testified this or not, but if he did, I support it. (Smile FW: I tentatively support your goal here.) One other thing: This is an unpaid job, and we are giving "undue weight" to this article, instead of "real-life" issues. Translation: Don't make such a big deal or mountain out of a molehill: It is bad for one's health.--GordonWatts 05:52, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

You guys are rich. a gallon of iced tea a day and a lumberjack omelet every weekend is what Michael calls "peculiar". HE DOESN"T HAVE TO TESTIFIY USING THE WORD PECULIAR FOR US TO REPORT THAT HE THOUGHT IT "PECULIAR". His lawyer, who REPRESENTS michael says in the USA Today article that Michael said those eating habits were PECULIAR. We don't need to be mind readers because michael's lawyer tells us michael's POV, therefore we can report it. You guys are making up arbitrary requirements to report teh word "peculiar". (1) He does not have to testify using the word "peculiar" to report that his POV is that he thought it peculiar. We can take his lawyer's word for it. And if you want to argue that one, then anytime the Schindler's lawyer argues something on the Schindler's behalf, I'll refuse to allow YOU to report that as the Schindler's POV and demand that you find a source showing the Schindler's themselves saying whatever it is you're reporting. (2) all patsw's quote shows is that Michael testified under oath that he didn't see "binging and purging". If you read the whole testimony, Michael says that Terri drank a gallon of iced tea a day and ate lumberjack omelettes on the weekends. If he wants to call that "peculiar", that's his point of view, and we can report it.

• It's not USA Today's reporting but a news item from the Associated Press.

so what? The AP is not a source?FuelWagon 14:49, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

• Gary Fox was not Michael's attorney in 2005. Can we verify Gary Fox's February 2005 recall of the period in 1992 to be accurate? He spoke not of what Michael testified to but what Michael "knew". So what's verifiable is that the recall of Gary Fox, Michael's ex-attorney, of Michael's state of mind 15 years later was X. This is insignificant. patsw 15:51, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

He was Michael's attorney, wasn't he? You can verify his recall by checking to see if there was any retraction of his statement. I know of none. Your emphasis on the word "knew" is irrelevant. Gary Fox is NOT claiming to have read Michael's mind. He is reporting Michael's POINT OF VIEW based on stuff that Michael said. Your definition of "verifibility" is interesting. If we see someone's point of view reported in a reliable source, we can't use it because we need to verify that the report is accurate? Are you suggesting that we must make some phone calls anytime we find a source that reports someone's point of view was "blah"? Verifiability means having a URL to back up whatever is reported in the wikipedia article. The URL to the article satisfies any verifiability requirement.FuelWagon 14:49, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

• "Peculiar" is the characterization of Gary Fox and not Michael Schiavo. It is a vague word expressing a conclusion in this context without any support for its use' -- What is peculiar? What makes it peculiar? patsw 15:51, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Peculiar is his point of view. If that's his point of view, we report it. We don't start playing dictionary/definition games. FuelWagon 14:49, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

• Comments regarding what people "knew" are always inferior to sources of what people actually said or testified to. patsw 15:51, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Again, more word games. Unless you are claiming that Gary Fox is claiming to a mind reader, this is irrelevant.FuelWagon 14:49, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

• Michael denied "binging and purging" in a 1992 deposition.

Yes, and he still saw some eating habits that he thought were peculiar.FuelWagon 14:49, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

• But Michael answered "Right" to Larry King's question on "throwing up" on live television in October 2003. Michael didn't make claims that she was fasting (i.e. taking liquids only and not food) or abusing laxitives. (fasting would be anorexia and not bulimia btw) patsw 15:51, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes, and he still saw some eating habits that he thought were peculiar.FuelWagon 14:49, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

• Gary Fox might have based his 2/25/2005 comment on the 2003/2004 statements of Michael Schiavo on cable news networks and not under oath. We know some of these statements contradicted his depositions and trial testimony from 1992. patsw 15:51, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Michael saw some eating habits that he thought were peculiar.FuelWagon 14:49, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

• Michael was directly asked under oath in 1992: patsw 15:51, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Q. And there was nothing about her appearance or anything about her which in any way, shape, or form gave you any inclination that she had an eating disorder?

A. Nothing, no. None whatsoever.

Yes, and he still saw some eating habits that he thought were peculiar.FuelWagon 14:49, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

• The only evidence of an eating disorder as correctly pointed out in the autopsy is:

No one observed Mrs. Schiavo taking diet pills, binging and purging or consuming laxatives, and she apparently never confessed to her family or friends about having an eating disorder. Recent interviews with family members, physicians and co-workers revealed no additional information supporting the diagnosis of bulimia nervosa and, indeed, many other signs and symptoms of bulimia nervosa were not reported to be present.

Her low potassium level appears to be the main piece, if not the only piece, of evidence purported to show that she had an eating disorder.

• It's circular: the potassium imbalance was caused by an eating disorder. The evidence of the eating disorder is the potassium imbalance. patsw 15:51, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Who is talking about potassium imbalance?FuelWagon 14:49, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

• The autopsy's mention of "large omelet on weekends drinking large amounts of iced tea" is a contrast with the above statement. People (including myself) who have a large omelet on weekends drinking large amounts of iced tea are not causing massive potassium imbalances and they are not dying from a heat attack caused by a potassium imbalance. Such a causal chain would leave behind evidence of damage to the heart which was not detected in Terri's autopsy. patsw 15:51, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

The only question here is whether or not Michael's point of view was that Terri's eating habits were peculiar to him or not. He did, so we can report that. FuelWagon 14:49, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

• The evidence of an eating disorder as the cause of her collapse was always weak. Looking at Google, people who argue that her collapse was self-inflicted and that Terri herself bears responsibility for it cite the AP story of 2/25/2005 and this Wikipedia article for their support of that theory. patsw 15:51, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

This is irrelevant to reporting Michael's point of view about Terri's eating habits. He thought they were peculiar, we report that he thought they were peculiar. FuelWagon 14:49, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

The threads are getting complicated, so I'll just put my comments here. FuelWagon, you seem to be misunderstanding something. The problem is not that you are reporting what Michael's lawyer says Michael said; the problem is that you've been trying to report it as if it's true. And to reduce ambiguity, I'll clarify that further – I don't mean "as if the lawyer is telling the truth when he says that Michael knew she had peculiar eating habits etc"; I mean that you were reporting it as if it was true that Michael knew she had peculiar eating habits but didn't realize that they were dangerous. Michael may or may not have been telling the truth to his lawyer. You have a tendency to want to report anything that the Michael Schiavo side claims as if it's not open to question. (The noise woke Michael, he immediately called 911, he studied nursing because he wanted to learn how to take care of Terri, he came to terms with his wife's illness, etc.) Another problem is that you have now put it staight after the evidence from "at least one friend", so that it looks as if he said it as part of the testimony in 1992, when patsw has pointed out that he did not. It is misleading to have it there. A new reader could easily think that he had said it in 1992. Finally, it is now worded in such a way that it looks as if Michael says that he noticed that Terri had strange eating habits but that she didn't realize they were dangerous. My reading of the USAtoday article is that Michael's lawyer said (in 2005 – please do not try to give the impression that this was part of the malpractice trial) that Michael noticed that Terri had strange eating habits but that he didn't realize the danger. I'm removing it again. I won't be around in the next few days, but please try to come to some agreement with the others before trying to replace it. It's worded ambiguously (we don't know who is claimed not to have known the danger) and it's placed in a position that makes it look as if Michael Schiavo said it at the time of the malpractice suit. Ann Heneghan ^(talk) 16:40, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

malpractice testimony

In the testimony from the malpractice case, page 6, line 24, Michael says, AND I QUOTE, "I noticed some peculiar eating habits, especially ..." [16]. I hereby consider this issue to be officially put to bed. FuelWagon 16:45, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Now, now, Wagon: You think it's OK to cite a GeoCities website if it supports your version of events, but not a GeoCities website that verifies my point of view and is needed to cite a source. Can you detect a certain level of "double standard" or hypocrisy and people hiding behind the "vanity links" policy (which his not a prohibition, merely a suggestion) to violate the "cite your sources" policy, which is policy? Did you merely allege that some facts need be given less "weight" as an excuse to exclude them? Would you have really done this had the facts been cited by Purple Kangaroo's GeoCities website? Really?--GordonWatts 21:32, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Gordon, the URL with the transcript points to just the transcript. If you go to purple kangaroo's homepage, you'll find nothing at all. Contrast this to when you go to your home page, and you find the "online newspaper" called "the register" with Gordon Watts as self-appointed "editor in chief" and a whole bunch of articles about impeaching the judges who tried to murder terri and a whole bunch of advocacy stuff. The purple kangaroo has nothing but transcripts, and the home page doesn't have any content at all. As far as I know, the purple kangaroo person isn't here pushing their website into the article. And I don't think they'd get upset if we took their URL out if we found another source. Unlike you, who accuses me of hypocricy and is always trying to find a way to get your name or homepage in the article. In short, it's a completely different thing. FuelWagon 21:54, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

"Gordon, the URL with the transcript points to just the transcript. If you go to purple kangaroo's homepage, you'll find nothing at all." So? That is moot. The link I posted was to news coverage of the Terri's Law hearing, not the front page news. That was long ago. Don't live in the past, Wagon. "As far as I know, the purple kangaroo person isn't here pushing their website..." So? That neither improves nor devalues their website as a source of information. "Unlike you, who accuses me of hypocricy..." Have you even considered it might be true? The editorials about judges can definitely be replaced, but the news coverage of some events can not be, and yet, since they are in the court transcripts, we know they are notable events that need to be reported. "In short, it's a completely different thing." You are arguing a different case: You are arguing about the "front page news" section and my presence as an editor; These have nothing to do with the quality of the paper's news reporting: Unless you are prepared to call my news reports outright fabrications, they are sources to cite. Period. Now, don't confuse the editorial with the news reports. Heads up: They are two different things. This action is known as a straw man argument (arguing one thing like editorials instead of the news report in question) -and it is invalid as a method of argument.--GordonWatts 00:39, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

I've modified the article to quote the testminoy directly. [17]. FuelWagon 17:04, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

What does it mean? Michael is given a context for explaining peculiar -- it turns out that using his criterion for peculiar, every human being must have some preferences for meals that others might regard as peculiar.

Q. What I'm asking, did you notice anything unusual about her eating?

A. I noticed some peculiar eating habits, especially on Sunday which was my day off, and she'd make breakfast and she would make a huge omlette, I'm not talking Bob Evans omlette, I'm talking huge omlette, and sit there and eat all of it or we'd order a pizza and she'd eat practically all of it.

Q. How about her normal eating habits, if she wasn't eating one of these big Sunday breakfasts or one of these pizzas, did she have any other eating habits that you thought were unusual or peculiar?

A. No, she ate normally otherwise.

Yet, we've seen other writers cite this mention of peculiar and exaggerated so much so that it becomes the start of a causal chain: peculiar -> evidence of binge eating -> bulimia -> potassium imbalance -> collapse -> PVS -> dehydradtion -> death.

This mention of peculiar is ambiguous. However, we know it does not refer to an eating disorder. What is significant about a eating a "large omlette" or "practically all of a [pizza]"? If it doesn't help explain the reason for her collapse or why the jury gave a verdict in favor of the plantiffs, so why bother mentioning it at all?

But if it needs to be mentioned, it should be disambiguated: On weekends Michael testified that she ate a large omlette or practically all of a pizza. so that readers know with certainty what Michael meant by peculiar. patsw 18:48, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Michael said Terri had peculiar eating habits, but he said he had no indication that she had an eating disorder. I QUOTED the court testimony because you were complaining about quoting his lawyer. I insert a reference to the court testimony instead of the USA today link because you complained it was a paraphrase from memory. Now, you want to get a specific list of what michael did and did not say. Here's the short version: He saw what he would call "peculiar" eating habits, but he had no indication that she had a psychological problem or eating disorder. if there is any ambiguity about what "peculiar" means, it should be sorted out by the fact that he had no indication of an eating disorder. But the laundry list of what he did or did not see is missing the context of his statement. "no indication of eating disorder" is not the same as "indication of no eating disorder", and you're trying to make "no indication" mean "no eating disorder", and that doesn't work. He did NOT diagnose Terri as NOT having an eating disorder, so we cannot say that his testimony rules out an eating disorder. He had no indication of one, but he didn't go looking for one. It's a big difference. FuelWagon 19:13, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

What is significant about it in IMHO is how odd it appears in the context of someone extremely concerned about weight and weight loss. We don't know if it affected "why the jury gave a verdict in favor of the plantiffs." If I were sitting on the jury my first thought would be: binge. Marskell 21:48, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

My guess is that Michael, like most men, was a bit clueless as to what their wives/girlfriends go through to look good, stay thin, etc. I don't know if Terri was binging/purging, but if she was drinking a gallon of tea a day, and if she had lost 65 pounds a couple years earlier, I wouldn't be surprised if she was popping diet pills or something else that may have caused her collapse. But we can't speculate like that in the article, so all we can do is report was was said by the main actors. Michael said he saw peculiar habits but that he had no indication of a psychological problem or eating disorder. the jury awarded them the lawsuit. FuelWagon 22:01, 16 October 2005 (UTC)