Talk:Terri Schiavo case/Archive 50

Early Life

Regarding : "she may have developed an eating disorder at this time" Medical Malpractice deposition July 27th, 1992 of Michael Schiavo p.88 of MS Depo Med Mal Pt 4 072792.pdf
1 with Dr. Igel?
2 A No.
3 Q You never spoke with -- did you ever speak
4 with Dr. Igel?
5 A No.
6 Q Did -- talking about the Schindlers, did they
7 ever say anything to you about the fact that she had
8 any kind of eating disorder when she was young, before
9 you met her?
10 A Never mentioned it to me, no.
11 Q I think you mentioned you never spoke to Dr.
12 Igel at all, right, at any time?
13 A I don't recall speaking to Dr. Igel.
Conclusion: Michael "never heard" that she developed an eating disorder in college or in high school. The sentence quoted above is also speculation. Martin | talk • contribs 03:47, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

You must understand eating disorders, especially bulimia, before you can be really qualified to comment on this, and unless you are a doctor or have personal experience with your own family member, then you probably will not get it, as I know you have never been a teenage girl! I want to point out three reasons why your quotation doesn't prove anything.

First and foremost, the vast majority of girls who develop Eating Disorders (ED) like bulimia, do so before high school. (89% of those diagnosed with an ED started before high school, 95% before college; average age of onset for bulimia is 14 for girls [1], average age of onset for all EDs is 17, 81% of 10-year-old and 46% of 9-year-old girls restrict eating (dieting), 52% of girls begin dieting before age 14, etc.)

Second, your quotation only proves that Michael didn't know and hadn't heard that she had an ED, which speaks volumes regarding the nature of an ED like bulimia: the person with the ED takes EVERY measure to hide their behavior from their family and friends, who generally aren't familiar with all of the unusual symptoms, of which amenorrhea is one. In fact, bulimia is a psychiatric disorder that is an obsession about food and the control of it, and most patients have perfected their methodus operandi so well that many times the ONLY way for anyone to find out is by the physiological symptoms that appear, since more often than not, bulimics are generally "normal" looking. All this means is that those with bulimia are very good at covering it up. It takes years sometimes for any physiologically harmful symptoms to have emerged, depending upon the frequency of bulimic behaviors; in fact, bulimia is the EASIEST ED to cover up (starvation and binge-eating disorder are much harder to keep under wraps), which makes it more likely to be missed during examinations. What Michael knew and what were true could have easily have been two completely different things.

Thirdly, even if Terri practiced behaviors of an ED doesn't mean she would or could admit to it, especially if it was undiagnosed, and the last people to know are usually the loved ones. She may not have known it herself (yes, denial is a powerful thing, especiall in ED cases). So the statement that "she may have developed an eating disorder at this time" is in fact not only an appropriate statement to make, it is most likely true, if in fact this is what she had. If for no other reason, it would certainly help tie in the statement about Terri's weight having been 121 lbs (55 kg). Otherwise, that statement as it sits by itself makes NO sense. I certainly don't believe that this is speculation, since the courts ruled in Michael's favor that malpractice in this case had happened, as there was enough evidence to have diagnosed her with bulimia. You, on the other hand, may be making the illogical conclusion leap. --ChÿnaDragön 16:56, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Death by dehydration

This text was added: "One objection the parent had was to Schiavo dying by dehydration. However, numerous studies have shown that terminally ill patients dying with dehydration generally have peaceful, "good" deaths which are not associated with suffering.[11][12][13][14][15][16]" Of course the primary objection the parents of Terri Schiavo had to her death by dehydration was it was wrong to kill her. (To use force to prohibit anyone from helping her.) The question is not whether many people have enjoyed dying by dehydration, but how it was for Terri. Felos said she looked great. Others said not so great. The statement that terminally ill patients who die of dehydration have a generallly peacful death seems too counter-intuitive to add in without discussion. Martin | talk • contribs 03:21, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Citation [13] says: It shows that for dying patients there is neither an abrupt cessation of food and fluid nor any sign of suffering attributable to the decline in oral intake. Instead there is a gradual decrease in intake, and providing good mouth care is undertaken, patients do not suffer the ill effects of terminal dehydration.
Not abrupt. Martin | talk • contribs 03:29, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Citation [14] says: including administration of sedation to the level of unconsciousness as a last resort
meaning that if it does become painful, one can always (legally) administer pain killers. Martin | talk • contribs 15:44, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

The text had stated that dehydration in the terminal phase was very unpleasant, referencing another Wikipedia article. First of all, it was unreferenced (other Wikipedia articles do not meet WP:V or WP:RS). Second, it conflicted with the observation of poeple who actually work with dying patients, or who have studied dehydration at the end of life. The studies cited all suggest that dehydration in a terminally ill patient is not a cause of suffering. Perhaps the references should be trimmed, but for instance, PMID 11977821 states that "There is increasing evidence to support the view that dehydration might aid comfort and reduce stress in the final days of terminal illness." I'd be fine with removing the whole paragraph, since no source is given for the Schindlers' concern over dehydration in particular. However, if that's left in, then I'd suggest there be some indication that the medical literature describes dehydration at the end of life as not being a cause of suffering. Alternately, you could just leave it as "The Schindlers were concerned about dehydration" (with a source) - what I objected to was the litany of horrible effects of dehydration which was a) unreferenced and b) inaccurate with respect to the medical literature. MastCell 18:50, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I thought your summary of the articles cited was too optimistic.

.Terri was not "in the final days of terminal illness", according to the malpractice trial

.Death of animals by dehydration is cruelty. That's a reasonable basis.

Martin | talk • contribs 05:57, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Death of otherwise healthy animals (or humans) by dehydration is cruel and unpleasant. This is a very different situation. But like I said, I'm fine with removing that sentence - I just don't want to see an unsourced statement claiming that dehydration, in a terminally ill patient such as Terri Schiavo, is horrible or unpleasant when the evidence suggests otherwise. I'm not aware of any reliable source stating that Terri appeared to be suffering or uncomfortable at the end of her life - if you know of one, then please add it. MastCell 17:35, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Would you accept the testimony of eyewitnesses? Martin | talk • contribs 20:48, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I (and more importantly, Wikipedia) would accept anything verifiable, reliably sourced, and presented neutrally. MastCell 21:44, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Here you go. [2] Martin | talk • contribs 04:12, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Ah yes, a blog posting from the leader of Priests for Life, who is dedicated to ending "euthanasia" and who apparently jumped on the Schiavo case to advance his political/social agenda. You'll forgive me if I question the objectivity of his description. MastCell 04:26, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

You don't think he can say what he saw? Michael wouldn't let many people or any cameras in. There were few eyewitnesses. Martin | talk • contribs 04:56, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Article: "Stopping foods and fluids at the end-of-life" " A 2003 study published in the New England Journal of Medicine surveyed 307 hospice nurses (3). Overall, the nurses rated quality of death of those patients who refused food and fluids at the end-of-life good, with an average score of 7 on a scale of 0-9 where 0 is ‘a very bad death’ and 9 is ‘a very good death.’ According to the nurses, the most important factor in stopping food and fluids is the patient’s readiness to die." Terri did not want to die. [3] Martin | talk • contribs 05:10, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Obviously, neither you nor I are in a position to know what Terri Schiavo wanted. The court determined that, as she was incapacitated, her spouse was the appropriate person to interpret her wishes, in keeping with medical ethics and legal precedent. We're off topic here. MastCell 05:14, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, at least you are saying that you don't have any information on the "most important factor". Here is something on that.[4]

Does Dr Kevorkian work for you? Dr Kevorkian said, about her manner of death, if used for a prisoner: "It would take about two seconds for the court to strike it down as cruel and unusual." [5] In context, it is clear that he meant that this was not a good way to do it. Martin | talk • contribs 19:07, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

We seem to be discussing our own viewpoints here, rather than what to do with the article, in violation of the talk page guidelines. I'm as guilty as you, but I'm going to stop now. My 2 cents about the article are above. MastCell 04:06, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

My 2 cents' worth: I have sometimes been accused of being talkative -both in real life -and also here: Wikipedia:Community_noticeboard#Community_ban_request_on_User:GordonWatts -so, I can speak with some personal experience -and authority on the subject: Martin not only is an intellectual (and seems to be a pro-life leaning and responsible editor like me), but is also polite. However, it is my opinion (my 2c worth here: Sometimes less is more) that he is discussing details when it is not totally necessary. See the flow chart, here: You don't need to discuss every edit -if you make an edit, and it is accepted as concensus, then all is well. No offense meant: Martin is a good guy, in my honest opinion, and he has been kind enough to speak with me by phone regarding mutual goals to get info related to documenting the Schiavo ordeal. Respectfully submitted--GordonWatts 04:16, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Gordon! I looked for the BanRequest but didn't see it. Thanks. Martin | talk • contribs 07:04, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Community_noticeboard#Community_ban_request_on_User:GordonWatts

--GordonWatts 16:58, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Extraordinary measures vs life-prolonging

The court determined that Terri would not wish to continue extraordinary measures to prolong her life.
The court used the term "life-prolonging" measures in the November 22,2002 order. See the paragraph above titled "Note 9" and the off-page link to that order. Characterizing food as "extraordinary" would leave only air and blankets as "ordinary".
Martin | talk • contribs 07:45, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

euthanasia (good death)

article: However, numerous studies have shown that for terminally ill patients who choose to die, deaths by dehydration are generally peaceful, "good" deaths, not associated with suffering, when supplemented with adequate pain medication.
I removed the phrase "good" death. It suggests that Terri's death was "good" in some sense beyond the senses mentioned in the adjacent phrases. The studies cited were restricted to the context of patients

• with end stage terminal illness
• who choose to die, and
• have palliative pain medication used to the point of unconsciousness.

This context did not apply in Terri's case. -- Martin | talk • contribs 23:53, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I think that's a good edit. Thanks Martin. MastCell 23:57, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I second that. Vague terminology like "good death" triggers too many unproductive arguements.--71.141.224.170 00:45, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

low potassium

current: It was speculated that her low potassium level had in turn been caused by an eating disorder
Bulemia is the eating disorder that is associated with electrolyte imbalance, because of vomiting or use of laxatives.
changed to: Electrolyte imbalance can be cause by [ [ bulemia | loss of fluids ] ]. -- Martin | talk • contribs 06:30, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Vandelism

What is it about this article that has so many Vandals on it? I have this on my watch list and was going to try to add to it but it seems like people keep putting garbage in it. I like calm and nice with articles so I haven't posted until now. --Crohnie 00:52, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Photo order

This probably has been addressed before, but I am of the opinion that it makes more sense to use the "post-accident" photo as the main one on the article. It's the more recognizable image of her, and more appropriate for the debate that is the focus of the article. I would further suggest that the image itself allows no definitive judgment as to her mental capacity.

I can imagine the argument for the current order -- that it puts the focus on her as a person, is the choice more sensitive to her loved ones, etc. -- but I stand by my thoughts on the issue.--12.47.123.121 23:45, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree that it should be left alone. Just because YOU remember her that way doesn't mean that to those to whom she was important remember her the same way. This is an article about her, after all. --ChÿnaDragön 16:09, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Notability?

This article is a narrative of the Terri Schiavo case; it doesn't seem to address why the case was important, except for a very brief Impact section, and that it was a notable case in medical ethics. It's been two years; perhaps we can figure out what the impact and importance of the case was, and re-write the article accordingly.

199.17.27.38 18:08, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Figuring out the impact and importance of the case would involve original research, which we cannot do. On the other hand, we can report on what reliable sources have said about its impact and importance. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 18:31, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I guess the question I am asking is: why is this case notable? There are lots of tragic court cases, any one of which could be written up as this one has. Most such entries would be deleted for not being notable. Why is the Schiavo case notable? (other than that it occurred recently and the memories are still raw).

199.17.27.38 18:52, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

For more information on the notability requirements, click here. As to whether the case should be notable, that's another question... ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 21:20, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Ah, that clears some things up. Once notable, always notable? There are probably lots of cases from 100 years ago that were notable then and are well-documented. But would they be notable now? In any case, since notability simply seems to be having been reported in a variety of sources, this case passes. What I would like to see, however, is something in the first paragraph saying why this case is important. (And I am the same person as 199.17.27.38; I just hadn't logged in.) SmaleDuffin 22:15, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

"Notability" is incredibly poorly named, especially as the concept has evolved. The primary notability criterion basically means that there are enough sources to do a story on a subject. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 22:37, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Notability?

This article is a narrative of the Terri Schiavo case; it doesn't seem to address why the case was important, except for a very brief Impact section, and that it was a notable case in medical ethics. It's been two years; perhaps we can figure out what the impact and importance of the case was, and re-write the article accordingly.

199.17.27.38 18:08, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Figuring out the impact and importance of the case would involve original research, which we cannot do. On the other hand, we can report on what reliable sources have said about its impact and importance. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 18:31, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I guess the question I am asking is: why is this case notable? There are lots of tragic court cases, any one of which could be written up as this one has. Most such entries would be deleted for not being notable. Why is the Schiavo case notable? (other than that it occurred recently and the memories are still raw).

199.17.27.38 18:52, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

For more information on the notability requirements, click here. As to whether the case should be notable, that's another question... ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 21:20, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Ah, that clears some things up. Once notable, always notable? There are probably lots of cases from 100 years ago that were notable then and are well-documented. But would they be notable now? In any case, since notability simply seems to be having been reported in a variety of sources, this case passes. What I would like to see, however, is something in the first paragraph saying why this case is important. (And I am the same person as 199.17.27.38; I just hadn't logged in.) SmaleDuffin 22:15, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

"Notability" is incredibly poorly named, especially as the concept has evolved. The primary notability criterion basically means that there are enough sources to do a story on a subject. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 22:37, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Funeral

How notable is the paragraph on her funeral, and the picture of her tombstone? I personally find it irrelevant how she was laid to rest after her feeding tube was removed - the great debate was on whether or not to remove the tube, not on how to bury her. --Safe-Keeper 22:21, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

For the same reason as in the response to your next question below. --ChÿnaDragön 16:05, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

'Early life'

I believe 'Early life' should be changed to something like 'early medical history', to better reflect that it is relevant to the article and not just a tabloid-style section about the person's interests, etc., but actually about her medical record. --Safe-Keeper 02:34, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

The title of the article is "Terri Schiavo", not "The controversy surrounding Terri Schiavo's death" or "Terri Schiavo's medical condition", hence it would suffice to say that anything regarding the life, and in this case her early life or circumstances regarding her collapse, is relevant to the article. If someone wanted to list her high school accomplishments or hobbies she was passionate about, then the argument could easily be made that it would be relevant to an article entitled "Terri Schiavo". I would agree, however, that for a section entitled "Early Life", there should be more said about her actual early life than just her medical issues. Otherwise, in this case, perhaps the section title should be changed. But you'd be hard-pressed to show that someone's early life would be irrelevant in an article that is about them. --ChÿnaDragön 16:03, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Weight

Why is there so much talk about her weight? I hardly think it's relevant. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.158.89.158 (talk • contribs) 18:15, 16 June 2007.

Hi, please post at the bottom of the page. You can use the + button at the very top between "edit this page" and "history" if you want to start a new topic. Also, please sign your posts by typing four tildes ~~~~ at the end. That way, everyone can keep track of who said what, and when. Regarding her weight, I suppose it's because it was claimed that she had bulimia, and that the bulimia had caused her collapse, and the compensation money was because it hadn't been diagnosed. But I don't claim any particular expertise on the subject. ElinorD (talk) 18:28, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Sections "Five years of family conflict" and "Petition to remove feeding tube"

I've flagged the article, and the section "Petition to remove feeding tube" as requiring cleanup, because it is somewhat redundant with the previous section. The flow of the article is clearly interrupted when you go from the year 2000 in one paragraph that gives the final outcome of the legal proceedings, then jump back to 1998 in the next paragraph to deal with the first petition (especially when these sections are talking about the same things, even if the content is somewhat different). Either these sections need to be merged somehow, or a whole new section entitled "Legal Proceedings" or something should be started with subsections to individual legal battles. If the idea was to try and created a summary paragraph before going into details on the legal issues, it really doesn't work as far as the flow of the article. In any case, it requires clean-up. --ChÿnaDragön 16:25, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Reference 44 - link invalid

The reference link for no.44 - Nurse Iyers affidavit is invalid. It goes to the webpage for Denver POst, but there is no reference to any affidavit on this page. --Mayalekhni 07:17, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

There is nothing "sensational", "false", or POV about indicating that Terri Schiavo's CT did not differ markedly from that of a normally functioning person in a rare case; in contrast, it is POV to only indicate that Terri Schiavo's CT differed markedly from that of most normally functioning people. You are incorrectly omitting info about a rare and relevant case of hydrocephalus as if it were a "minority view" within the meaning of WP:Undue Weight. If you were correct that it's now "unnecessary" to guide readers by giving them a balanced set of information, then you may as well blank this article and write "what's done is done."Ferrylodge 19:16, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

As we seem to have entered the Twilight Zone here, I'm not going to respond or argue with you further, other than to reiterate my conviction that the edits and image you propose are entirely unsourced original synthesis in service of a POV. MastCell ^Talk 19:48, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree that we have entered the Twilight Zone. Saying in this article that massive hydrocephulus "rarely occurs in normally functioning people" is a plainly correct and very relevant statement. There is nothing orginal about it.Ferrylodge 20:22, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

As I stated above in Talk:Terri_Schiavo#Recent_anecdotal_developments_in_patients_with_severely_atrophied_brain_tissue, I really only came to this page to check out the proper spelling of Terri's name, but since I'm here I'll offer a Third Opinion. I think having a CT image of a Dandy-Walker brain would be an irrelevant digression, as would be a footnote citing a man with a tiny brain. I disagree that the two CT images "push the POV that Schiavo could not possibly have had any capacity to think." They objectively document the difference between her CT scan and a normal one. No one disputed she had massive brain damage and nowhere in the article is the CT scan cited as evidence that she was not minimally conscious, which was the alternate diagnosis being pushed by Terri's parents. (It is stated that the CT scans were reviewed by the experts, but not what they derived from it. Obviously Drs. Maxfield and Hammesfahr looked at it and concluded it was not inconsistent with Terri being in a minimally conscious state.) If you want to add more weight to the argument that the PVS diagnosis was wrong, you could start by expanding the section recounting the expert testimony, giving the experts' reasoning and providing links to the research they referenced. Adding Dandy-Walker images is providing a counter-example to an argument that the article doesn't make, namely that one look at the CT scan should have settled this debate immediately. Jgro 08:59, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the third opinion here, and in the previous section. I have not suggested that the PVS diagnosis was wrong, as you indicated. Even if her PVS diagnosis was 100% accurate, it is still important to understand the ramifications of PVS. Does it completely preclude personhood, thought, and/or sentience? These questions straddle the line between morality and medicine. You say that the article doesn't make the argument that one look at the CT scan should have settled this debate immediately. Nevertheless, when a layman compares the scans, what does he conclude? That no one with such a brain scan could possibly have the barest hope of any meaningful existence, much less a normal life. And that conclusion from the images presented is 100% wrong... the proof being here. This link does not prove that Schiavo could have recovered, or that she didn't have PVS, but it does prove that people should not jump to conclusions about the valuelessness of her life based on her brain scan.Ferrylodge 09:14, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Ferrylodge, you are arguing how a layman would interpret the CT scan without evidence. You certainly didn't conclude what you say the layman would. Are you an expert? I'm a layman and I didn't make that conclusion. The scan still shows a lot of brain left. If the PVS diagnosis was accurate, that would by definition mean she had no hope of a life of even minimal sentience. Whether or not such a life is a meaningful one is well beyond the scope of a CT scan. It's clear from the article that Terri's parents thought such a life was meaningful and I'm sure the CT scan didn't change Terri's parents' minds.

In other words, there's already plenty of material in the article to give people a reason to avoid jumping to conclusions. If readers are going to skip what on my computer is 19 pages of text to decide such a complex case based on 2 medical images, there's really not much hope that adding still more information is going to sway them. On the other hand, by rebutting an argument that is at most implied and which MastCell and I don't see in the images, you are asking the editors to make the implied argument (CT scan proves Terri could not possibly have the barest hope of any meaningful existence) explicit so they can both be weighed by the reader. But again, that argument didn't exist in the popular debate or, as far as I know, the medical testimony, so I don't think it belongs in the article. I agree that Terri's case raises questions that straddle the line between morality and medicine. I just think that a lay person who wants to resolve such a deep question by only looking at two medical images is so obviously uninterested as to be beyond the reach of a neutral forum such as Wikipedia. Jgro 10:48, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Jgro, images are very powerful (hence the expression that they're worth a thousand words). When the Schiavo controversy was at its peak, those particular images were plastered everywhere: on the news, in the magazines, everywhere. And what were people saying about those images? Stuff like this: "Most of her brain had been replaced with fluid. Not all people whose quality of life may be deemed 'too low to be worth living' have such clear medical diagnosis."[6] I could find you lots of other quotes just like that one. Heck, when I first saw those images, I felt the same way. I thought, mistakenly, that no one could possibly have a meaningful life with so much of their brain missing. And I was wrong to jump to that conclusion. It still may well be that Schiavo did not have any hope of a meaningful life, but the big black areas in those images don't prove it, contrary to what LOTS of people said at the time, and contrary to what I myself assumed. I really feel uncomfortable having to write all these paragraphs about a matter that seems quite straightforward: adding a sentence and footnote to the caption would add material that is relevant, in the sense that it is both notable and interesting. Do you really think it's not notable or not interesting? Ferrylodge 11:18, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Ferrylodge, I do really think it is not notable or interesting that Terri Schiavo's CT scan, to the casual observer, resembles someone else's who is alive and functioning with an IQ of 75. That is to say, it's really nothing to do with the subject of this article. I was serious when I suggested you add it to the article on hydrocephalus, because it may be interesting and notable in that context. I'd also point out that the quote you cited notes "most of her brain had been replaced with fluid" while the other articles/cases you want to cite as counter-evidence show cases where the brain either didn't grow in the first place or was compressed and/or displaced by fluid, which is very different than being replaced by fluid. Jgro 07:03, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Image caption

I would like to add the following sentence to the caption of the brain scan image: "A massive degree of hydrocephalus rarely exists in normally functioning people, and such rarity has occurred if onset is gradual rather than sudden."

This is a factual statement, supported by this source: "Man with tiny brain shocks doctors", New Scientist (2007-07-20). It therefore is not unsourced. As for original synthesis, there is no joining of A and B together to advance any position C.

I would like to know what other people think. Mastcell already commented above about the caption, and I've adjusted the sentence in response to his comments.

As it stands, the brain scan images are misleading to a lay reader, who should be informed that the images --- in and of themselves --- are just as consistent with normal functioning as with complete and total disability. That is a major reason why I would like to add this sentence: "A massive degree of hydrocephalus rarely exists in normally functioning people, and such rarity has occured if onset is gradual rather than sudden."Ferrylodge 19:31, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

The scans are not misleading. They are not presented "in and of themselves." The text of the article indicates that they were used as one piece of data in a determination about Schiavo's status. Your statement that her scan is "just as consistent with normal functioning as with complete and total disability" is false; you've found one case in which someone with a totally different condition and a scan which only you believe to be similar to Schiavo's functioned normally. That instance was so remarkable that it was written up in medical journals and the popular press. All the necessary context is already in the article, no reliable source has discussed this point in relation to Schiavo, it is original synthesis, it lends undue weight to an unsourced argument about the relevance of her CT, and it is an attempt to insert POV into a very straightforward image caption. I welcome the opinion of other editors, since ours have been expressed at such length above. MastCell ^Talk 20:51, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Of course, we should exclude any "remarkable" factual information that might not be politically correct.Ferrylodge 21:00, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

... or irrelevant. Sigh. Anybody else? MastCell ^Talk 21:08, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

As I stated above in Talk:Terri_Schiavo#Recent_anecdotal_developments_in_patients_with_severely_atrophied_brain_tissue, I think discussion of the consequences of hydrocephalus belongs on the hydrocephalus page which the caption already references. (Why is this one issue being discussed in 3 separate threads?) The purpose of a Wikipedia article is to provide a short and readable summary of the most relevant details of the topic. It has to exclude the vast majority of relevant factual information in order to achieve this goal. For example, virtually all of the actual text of the court rulings and briefs filed and transcripts of testimony are excluded from the article. No one argued that the CT scan was all the proof they needed to diagnose Terri and no one in the article argued that hydrocephalus was inconsistent with Terri being in a minimally conscious state. Every expert who viewed the CT scan and rendered an expert opinion also examined Terri in person. If Terri had reliably looked in the direction of people calling her name, no one claims they would have still made the diagnosis of PVS based on the CT scan. So beyond noting that the CT scan showed hydrocephalus and providing a link for more information on what that means, this article shouldn't go into it. It is an irrelevant digression.

As for the statement that Terri's CT scan is "just as consistent with normal functioning as with complete and total disability," that is simply untrue. While her scan might not be inconsistent with normal functioning (and I doubt an expert would make a determination based on the single image shown), it is far more likely that someone with such a scan is disabled rather than completely normal, as Ferrylodge acknowledges by use of the word "rarely" in the proposed caption. Jgro 09:55, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Jgro, in long talk page discussions, it's common to break it up into separate sections. The usual practice is to go to the last section unless there's something particular in the previous sections that you want to comment about.

As I said above, images are very powerful (hence the expression that they're worth a thousand words). When the Schiavo controversy was at its peak, those particular images were plastered everywhere: on the news, in the magazines, everywhere. And what were people saying about those images? Stuff like this: "Most of her brain had been replaced with fluid. Not all people whose quality of life may be deemed 'too low to be worth living' have such clear medical diagnosis."[7] I could find you lots of other quotes just like that one. Heck, when I first saw those images, I felt the same way. I thought, mistakenly, that no one could possibly have a meaningful life with so much of their brain missing. And I was wrong to jump to that conclusion. It still may well be that Schiavo did not have any hope of a meaningful life, but the big black areas in those images don't prove it, contrary to what LOTS of people said at the time, and contrary to what I myself assumed. Those images were Exhibit A in front of the American public supporting pulling the plug on that woman. And maybe the plug should have been pulled. But those images need to be put in proper context.

As for my remark that Terri's CT scan is "just as consistent with normal functioning as with complete and total disability," you say that is simply untrue. And then in the very next sentence you say that "her scan might not be inconsistent with normal functioning." I don't understand why it's true when you say it but not when I say it.Ferrylodge 11:24, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Ferrylodge, saying A is just as consistent with B as with C is very different from saying that A might not be inconsistent with B. "Just as consistent" means (or at least strongly implies) "just as likely." "Not inconsistent with" just means it's not impossible. A person having 10 fingers is not just as consistent with having 1 hand as with having 2 hands, although it is also not inconsistent with that person having only one hand (some birth defects result in arm stubs that have stubby fingers at the end).

As for the CT scans being "Exhibit A" in the campaign for pulling the plug at the time of the controversy, that wasn't my experience while I was following the case, but even setting that aside for the sake of argument, it's not here in this article put forth with any statement suggesting that it be interpreted for or against pulling the plug. And as I said in the previous topic, the quote you cite indicates that most of Terri Schiavo's brain was replaced with fluid, while the counter-examples you want to reference only show brains that were stunted in their growth or displaced by fluid, so they're not truly counter-examples anyway. Jgro 07:30, 6 August 2007 (UTC)