Talk:Terri Schiavo case/Archive 52

Ludacris

Didn't Ludacris write a song about Terri? Should that be mentioned in the pop culture section? 75.60.169.46 (talk) 15:04, 28 February 2008 (UTC) My mistake - it was not done by Ludacris. 75.60.169.46 (talk) 17:23, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Status of federal law

I'm leaving this note because I changed the summary to remove the statement that the federal law was struck down; since another user put that statement back in, I thought I'd explain my change.

Though the federal district court and the Eleventh Circuit declined to issue a TRO, both courts reached this result without determining whether Pub. L. No. 109-3 was constitutional or not. The district court stated that while "there may be substantial issues concerning the constitutionality of the Act, for purposes of considering temporary injunctive relief, the Act is presumed to be constitutional." 357 F. Supp. 2d 1378, page 1383. The Eleventh Circuit also did not decide whether the law was constitutional: "Defendants contend that the legislation is so extraordinary that it is unconstitutional in several respects. We need not decide that question." 403 F.3d 1223, pages 1226-1227.

Note that one Eleventh Circuit judge did later express the view that the law was unconstitutional (404 F.3d 1270 (11th Cir. 2005)), but he was not speaking for the court. I'm not aware of any later case holding that the law was unconstitutional.--68.162.33.170 21:57, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

It's hard to address the constitutionality of a law under the circumstances - it was only ever applied once, and the decisions of the state court were upheld without addressing the constitutionality of the law, so that point was effectively moot. Cheers! bd2412 T 08:24, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Could anyone address the instance where Terri Schiavo was supposedly laughing? Alan Keyes put it up on his website. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.251.89.74 (talk) 20:45, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

There were various videos of Terri and some of them showed her smiling, laughing and verbalizing sounds, although she was unable to articulate words. She would do this in response to her parents, especially her father. These videos were once available on Terri's web site, but I don't know where they can be found today. Perhaps someone knows and can post fresh links.67.142.130.19 (talk) 20:16, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Citation needed

It might be trivial but I think that the sentence

"The manner of death was certified as "undetermined"."

needs citation. --Kushal^t 16:32, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. bd2412 T 08:38, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I have the pdf file for the autopsy open on my desktop right here. "Cause of death: Complications of Anoxic Encephalopathy" "Manner of Death: Undetermined"Canislupus01 (talk) 03:05, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Propaganda regarding the 'vegetative state' and also the photograph of Teri's brain as irrelevant. This woman was literally starved and dehydrated to death in this country under a judicial order, while still communicative and breathing without any artificial life support, other than basic sustenance - food and water.

Everything else is irrelevant. It was judicial and spousal murder, pure and simple.

That's opinion, not fact, and writing the article from that perspective violates NPOV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.182.51.67 (talk) 04:29, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

You're damn right it was. Since when is it constitutional to kill someone who has not given permission through DNR?!?! If she did not say this in writing, then how is it legal to simply assume she wanted the plug pulled? I have had family members who did give permission for DNR, and therefore, there wishes were granted as such. Judicial and spousal murder is exactly the correct terminology. Communist liberal judges and activists allowed Terri Schiavo to exist without the treatment she was Constitutionally promised and her husband just wanted the money he raped from the lawsuit against the doctor who he claimed failed to diagnose her with bulemia (the doctor correctly did not diagnose her with bulemia, since she did not have bulemia.) I hope Michael Schiavo and those communist judges rot in hell. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.29.211.18 (talk) 05:58, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Proganda. Both the commentary, and moral and legal conclusions. This disabled woman was literally starved and dehydrated to death, and posting photographs of her brain does not excuse what actually ocurred. She was communicative, and not being kept artifically alive except with the provision of basic sustenance - food and water, not 'artifically' in any respect, since even premature infants are hydrated and given good intravenously.

Whatever excuses are being made, she was judicially murdered, pure and simple.

As I mentioned above, there were numerous videos of Terri that showed she was not in a state of PVS, although I don't recall the national news showing those videos for the masses to see. Left with the stories fed by the poor quality media coverage, many Americans were mistakenly led to believe that Terry was "brain dead," in a coma, or in a "persistive vegetative state." If the media had covered Terri's plight the way they did the aftermath of Katrina, perhaps she would have had a bit of a fighting chance. People would have been able to see the real Terri, not the one fabricated by the mass media and government powers that be.67.142.130.19 (talk) 20:21, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

She had massive brain damage and was unable to speak, walk, recognise people, or enjoy a reasonable standard of living. The real Terri? She was long since gone. What was left was a shell. A fighting chance? There was none. Darkmind1970 (talk) 15:03, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

RE:Public opinion and activism

It is a good section, but I was thinking... couldn't it use a mention of peoples reaction to the ruling in the Schiavo case? If I remember correctly, people were protseting outside of the hospital where Terri Schiavo was when the tube was removed. 67.189.228.127 (talk) 12:03, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I believe this article is biased, especially in posting the photographs of her brain. Food and water, especially, are basic sustenance not "extraordinary" life sustaining needs - even an infant needs water to survive. She lasted 14 days, when if you check with medical experts, most people could not last seven days without water. The withholding of water caused, since your body is 89% water, deprived her organs of the needed sustenance to survive, causing progressive organ shutdown. Of course her brain was half it size, anyone's would be after 14 days of water deprivation.

This article is lopsided, and doesn't acknowledge the fact that this woman was, for all intents and purposes, murdered by judical fiat in the most painful way possible. The liberals that care so much for the whales, supported this as a "privacy" and "right to choose" case. It was not. Also, she was a devout Catholic, and in a nation where religious freedom is a Bill of Rights protection, her religious beliefs were not even considered. To a Catholic, such an act would engender suicide, a mortal sin. As a devout Catholic, this woman would never have consented to such a henious act. Her ex-husband was a bigamist at the time also, under the common law, and stand to inherit the rest of the proceeds from the medical malpractice awarded which also was not given credence by the court. This article is biased, and clearly off the mark in what should have occurred in a contested issue as this case was. She last 14 days, without any food or water at all, so what does that say about Teri's will to live. As far as hopeless, medical procedures and gains occur every day. She was 39. Disgusting....and actually what the Nazi's did to the concentration camp victims. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.98.23.227 (talk) 23:18, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

Move it to "Terri Schiavo affair" or an article about the court case. Cover the event, not the person. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.178.249.64 (talk) 05:04, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

"Affair" is not a good term. Corvus cornix_talk 00:18, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

How about "Terri Schiavo case"? The unifying element is an American civil case. About the rename: clearly this is not about the non-notable portion of Schiavo's life nor is it about the medicine (PVS has its own article and TS did not advance the science); it is about the medical ethics, the law and the authority/legal struggle between the court (Schiavo's custodian since the husband surrendered surrogacy) and the parents and their many allies. The last time this was settled on "Terri Schiavo" was when it was still a BLP, but that is no longer the case. Let us put this into its proper context: legal history.--Ethics2med (talk) 00:05, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I am getting no objections so, unless anyone objects, I will ask for the move within the next week or so.--Ethics2med (talk) 10:53, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

{{editprotected}} Please rename/move this page to Terri Sciavo case.--Ethics2med (talk) 19:15, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I see that you are using the Wikipedia:Requested moves system for this. They will move the page as part of that process. In the meantime, no admin will rename it with an editprotected request. I realize it's a slow process, but it does give everyone adequate time to comment. — Carl (CBM · talk) 19:41, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Moving per request. Five days with no objections and appears to be in line with naming conventions.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:42, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I have converted Terri Schiavo from a redirect to a biography and switched over much of the distracting bio data to there. Please help me with the sorting-out process. In the final analysis, it is a separation of emotional and logical... of orderly society vs. citizens ruled only by passion. It is related to the meaning-of-life, etc. Ach! I have had to deal with such issues for so long... Please help!--Ethics2med (talk) 17:25, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Why does en.wikipedia.org/Terri_shiavo redirect to this page, while en.wikipedia.org/Terri_Schiavo seems like a more suitable article? Perhaps there should at least be a disambiguation.Alhead (talk) 21:04, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

It is not Terri shiavo but Terri Shiavo (caps matter), which now points the bio. Minor issue overlooked by renaming admin.--BetterBLP (talk) 22:55, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

The bots are now very good at fixing all double redirects, which occurred. I do usually fix all redirects myself immediately, but I unexpectedly had to run out right at the time of the move.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:51, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Excellent! I am plowing through the refs. My criteria are simple: If the personality did not know Schiavo before her cardiac arrest, then they can only refer to the case, not to her biography (with a few exceptions for the funeral, etc.). All these other notables now have to face the reality of the "controversy" that they decided to step into.--Ethics2med (talk) 10:42, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I've redirected it back here. Note E2M's block log please.  — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 04:08, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Terri Schiavo Biography

I was wondering as to what the consensus would be to add biographical details to this article? I realize that the subject of this article is not entirely Terri Schiavo herself but rather the scandal concerning her, yet still I think it would be valuable to have some background information on her life perhaps to be included in the 'Background' section. Views, anyone? Deyyaz ^{[ Talk | Contribs ]} 23:17, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Semiprotected for 3 days

Due to an ongoing high level of anon editor vandalism I have semiprotected the page for 3 days.

Looking at this history I hope it won't be necessary to make this permanent, hopefully the current surge of attention fades. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:45, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Insane postulate that death by dehydration is "not associated with suffering"

What is this bullshit? There is no painkiller that can alleviate the feeling of thirst. It sounds like the typical biased opinion by doctors that their patients "feel no pain". Did they ask them? Wow this is far out... T.R. 87.59.77.244 (talk) 05:14, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Given that she was in a persisent vegativative state all evidence would conclude that Terri would have slipped to death without being able to feel pain. While it is somewhat impossible to know if this is true or not, her being removed from life support was not meant as a form of torture as the assoicated phrase would imply. As such, I would say any such mention to suffering as a result of dehydration would be non NPOV, which is likely the reasoning for any exclusion of text. -Kirkoconnell (talk) 12:51, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Dehydration would certainly be an unpleasant experience for a healthy person. On the other hand, there is abundant and convincing medical literature indicating that dehydration in a terminally ill patient is a different experience. PMID 9518401 from the Annals of Internal Medicine is typical; the authors state: Evidence indicates that death by terminal dehydration is not painful and that attendant physical discomfort can be adequately alleviated. In the case of a person in a persistent vegetative state, discomfort from a conscious sensation like thirst would be even less likely than in a conscious, terminally ill patient. MastCell ^Talk 07:02, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Assuming doctors and micael were correct --71.131.30.178 (talk) 06:34, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

You say that attendant physical discomfort can be adequately alleviated, but "can" is not "was". Her parents were forbidden to put water on her drying lips. You are actually arguing that no measures were needed, which is not supported by the citation. ( Martin | talk • contribs 21:47, 9 September 2009 (UTC))

There is no documented way to determine whether a person suffers or not without communicating with the person. So the above evidence is absolutely worthless. M99 87.59.102.169 (talk)

Her friends and family who saw her said that she was suffering. Her attorney, Barbara Weller, testified under oath that she communicated with Terri, and others "on Terri's side" said the same. It is easy to dismiss these facts as delusion. However, is that attitude objective or is it self-serving? What could the motivation be for forbidding videos in the hospital room, and limiting visitation? The de facto ex-husband, Mike, might assert that this was Terri's wish, meaning what? That Terri, already gone he claims, would not want her apparent agony to reflect poorly on her husband? Or, would not want her peaceful and serene death to remove the controversy from her passing? Or above all else she did not want her faithful shell of a body to be involved in a media circus? Or what did Mike think that Terri's wish was? Had she no thought for him, or as little as he for her? ( Martin | talk • contribs 05:55, 29 August 2009 (UTC))

picture

A more flattering picture should be used or at least should be at the top. While her "life" after 1990 became the phenomenon that requires this whole wiki-page thus legitimizing the vegetative pictures, the page should also also give some focus to Terri Schiavo as she was before her departure. Delltuazon (talk) 09:11, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

While your post is reasonably old, I would like to point out that this page is an article on the various cases that occured after Schiavo's passing into posited PVS. A picture from her life before this point would be a secondary picture, the main feature is the cases and Schiavo's believed condition, not the lady herself. Fol de rol troll (talk) 22:26, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Selected court cases in the Terri Schiavo case

Selected court cases in the Terri Schiavo case is an orphaned article. Please decide where to add one or more links to it.
-- Wavelength (talk) 23:53, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

some think ... others think

I get the feeling that the author of this sentence is in the "some think" group. Isn't there another way to put this?
"Some deplore it as a case that went against decades of progress that ha(ve) enabled individuals the freedom to control and limit medical interventions performed on them. "( Martin | talk • contribs 21:37, 9 September 2009 (UTC))

Looking at it, it was simply a direct quote from the paper linked as a source -- but not the "some" part, only the part after that (in other words, the 'some' is simply the authors of that paper.) Technically this made it a copyvio (because it wasn't indicated as a quote), but more importantly, this meant that it was both giving WP:UNDUE weight to the opinions of the two authors of that pieces, and was misrepresenting the source (quoting two people as the views of 'some' people in a manner that implied that the view was widespread.) Obviously there are people who were unhappy with the outcome, but choosing two random people and quoting them (let alone reusing their words as a copyvio) is not a valid source to say that. --Aquillion (talk) 09:57, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Family

Terri Schiavo's father, Robert Schindler, died at the age of 71, on August 29, 2009, of a heart ailment in a hospital at St. Petersburg, Florida. A brief obit was published in the Washington Post, Sept. 11, 2009, page B-6. 23:01, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Article start

"After a successful seven-year long legal effort. . ." doesn't sound that good a way to start an article, it doesn't seem encyclopedic; it feels like it belongs in the middle. I think intro paragraph should be reworded/rearranged. What does everyone else think? - MK (^t/_c) 02:49, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

It used to be different, but someone clipped it over WP:Bolditis concerns. I switched it back just now, since I agree that their version was more awkward. --Aquillion (talk) 10:03, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

How was it in any way successful? The case was lost and the woman died. That's hardly an encyclopedic or NPOV sentence - the LEDE needs rework. Toddst1 (talk) 17:37, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I've re-written the first sentence to make it more neutral and encyclopedic. Toddst1 (talk) 17:42, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Phrasing of Beginning of Article

"Terri Schiavo collapsed on February 25, 1990, resulting in 15 years of institutionalization. Her legal case, from 1998 to 2005, concerned whether Terri, diagnosed as being in a persistent vegetative state (PVS), should live or die." - The article needs to explain who Terri Schiavo is, and what the context of her collapse was. Very sudden, disorienting entrance at beginning of article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Benji9072 (talk • contribs) 01:56, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

This page is not accurate according to the following site...

http://www.terrisfight.org/

According to this website (the official page of Terri Schiavo) she was not dying or ill. She did not PVS. She had no equipment keeping her alive, except food and water which was given to her in a feeding tube because the doctor thought it was safest to do so that way.

This article is biased in my oppinion because it does not respond to these claims. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.182.22.11 (talk) 23:13, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

The domain terrisfight.org is owned by Suzanne Schindler Carr Vitadamo, Terri Schiavo's sister. Obviously she is aligned with the elder Schindlers. Therefore anything and everything on that web site has to be assumed to be biased. Paleolith (talk) 01:12, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

You have no evidence for the claim of bias. However, the website is certainly not a reliable source, and merits no mention on this page, for that reason. - Drlight11 (talk) 01:10, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

The Schindler's were in denial up to the very end, and apparently still are. Not a usable source. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:17, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Might be usable if we say "According to the Schindlers..." or "The Schindlers asserted..." NYyankees51 (talk) 05:07, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Why are they so much more knowledgeable about medicine than the doctors were? We don't need to be promoting their website - especially not 6 years after the incident is over. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:09, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

The whole controversy was because the parents disputed what the doctors said. There are two sides to the story. We can still pass the doctors' opinions as true while still giving the parents' side. It would be good for balance. NYyankees51 (talk) 16:26, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

The whole controversy was because the Schindlers disputed what the doctors said. NYyankees51 (talk) 15:57, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

As I said, they were in denial. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:42, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Medical opinion > parent opinion. Not usable. -Kirkoconnell (talk) 15:14, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

michael as RN deleted

text deleted

Schiavo's husband trained and became a respiratory therapist and emergency room nurse. In 2004, he was hired as a nursing supervisor at the Pinellas County Jail in Florida.

It does not fit in the paragraph: rehabilitation efforts, and not clear how it is relevant. ( Martin | talk • contribs 07:15, 27 April 2010 (UTC))

re: PAIN - replaced into article ( Martin | talk • contribs 09:15, 27 April 2010 (UTC))

Rehabilitation efforts - 1990-1993

it starts: she came home (to the schindlers house?) .. from where? apparently from College Park, but when did she first go to college park? was it from Humana to college Park? how long at each? ( Martin | talk • contribs 09:20, 27 April 2010 (UTC))

Proposed merge/redirect from Michael Schiavo

Michael Schiavo should redirect here, following a merge of any appropriate information from that article into this one. Michael is only notable for his participation in this case, and the article is almost entirely about this case. 63.104.174.146 (talk) 18:28, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

The only information at Michael Schiavo with cited references is in the sections "Relationship with Terri's parents" and "Malpractice suit," which describe events between 1990 and 1993. My inclination would be to consider these to be the only parts of Michael Schiavo eligible to be merged here. 63.104.174.146 (talk) 20:16, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I'm gonna go ahead and do it. 63.104.174.146 (talk) 21:33, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Terri Schiavo case/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Juanm (talk • contribs • count) 10:20, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   There are some sentence too short. Some instances of "Bush" are without the proper title, leading to potential confusion between governor and president. /(fixed at 2011-9-27)

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

   One of the unsourced statements mentioned below is in the lead section

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   there are two notes without the proper cite web template.

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   Quotes need citation, unsorced statement in article lead needs it too (both are tagged with citation needed template). I've tagged two links as linkrot, this other one [1] is for registered users only and so it needs substitution / link removal

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

   I don't see a significative bias in the article at the moment

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

   Last edit war at the beginning of August 2011 about pronounciation, apparently solved.

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

   Missing caption in infobox image.

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   On hold. Please note that unsourced statements might lead the article to fail even the first B-class parameter --Juanm (talk) 22:16, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

   Term expired. I see some improvements but the major issues (unsourced statements) are still there. Upgraded as fail, confirmed the current rating --Juanm (talk) 06:16, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

"the so-called Schiavo memo"

why is it "so-called"? Who called it this? The implication of "so-called" is that some call it this, but others call it something else. If the article wants to modify the memo this way, it should be explained. --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 16:25, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Humaneness, "significant symptoms," and "peaceful death"

Regarding: "Although there was concern that Schiavo would experience significant symptoms from dehydration with the removal of the feeding tube, studies have shown that patients who have their feeding tubes removed, such as the case of Schiavo, usually have a peaceful death.[58][59]"

This sentence and its citations have three problems which may indicate lack of objectivity.

I. What does "significant symptoms from dehydration" mean? Physical effects/corrolaries, or the experience of pain? The commonly understood meaning of "symptoms" is physical effects/corrolaries. Dr. Mirarchi cited in [58] says, "Over time, the patient becomes more and more dehydrated, stops discharging urine and eventually develops kidney failure. When this happens, death is generally a few days away. Patients at this point are uremic -- filled with bodily toxins -- and are unaware of their surroundings. They develop electrolyte imbalances that eventually cause an abnormal beating of the heart. The heart will then stop and the patient will die." These are significant physical effects/corrolaries. So presumably the author does not mean "physical effects/corrolaries" but "distress" or "pain". I believe sources could be found that there was concern that Schiavo would experience distress or pain. Why isn't this what the sentence states?

II. What does "peaceful death" mean? Painless or low-pain? Unconscious? Motionless? Emotionally or spiritially content? If Schaivo was in a persistent vegitative state, how does this concept even apply? "Peaceful death" is a subjective, not scientific or verifiable conscept. Instead it is an ethical phrase used to connote humane actions.

III. To make a valid point with this sentence, the author should provide evidence to support the view (I don't say "conclusion" because "humaneness" is a subjective concept) that dehydration is a humane means of death, eg., along utilitarian bases (providing evidence of lack of/minimimal amount of pain experienced). The sources currently cited do not do so. A.Citation 58 includes opinions of two doctors. Three points are made, none of which provides evidence of lack of pain or low pain either for a majority of the time before death, or for a majority of patients.

1. Dr. Mirachi: "The process of starving to death seems very barbaric but in actuality is very peaceful. [And later:] During ketosis, the body begins to use fat and muscle as a fuel source.  In advanced cases of ketosis, the nervous system response is dulled, and patients rarely feel pain, hunger or thirst. There is also some evidence that ketosis can produce a state of well-being or mild euphoria."  This begs the question, what happens in the first stages of ketosis before the nervous system is dulled, and for those (apparently an unquantified majority) who do not experience euphoria?
2. Dr. Lynne indicates the time until death lasts from a few days to twenty days.  No percentages or average are given.
3. According to Dr. Lynne: If Schaivo was unable to swallow and if nothing was offered by mouth, the patient may suffer less.  She offers an opinion, stating lack of scientific basis with the phrase, "as far as anyone can tell":  "If she's unable to swallow anything, the course toward dying, so far as anyone can tell, is fairly comfortable."  As a basis for this conclusion she only explains that "Giving a patient water, for example, may prolong the process. Going without water makes it more gentle. Allowing chemicals [in the blood] to cause arrhythmia is more merciful." Thus her argument is not based on, for example, studies of brainwaves which indicate pain or lack thereof, but instead a subjective and arguable value judgment that fewer days with more intense toxicity resulting in a quicker death is more merciful than more days at a lower level of toxicity.  How does this support the conclusion that this is a "peaceful death"?  The same source [58] includes comments from observers some of whom reported evidence of pain or distress and others of whom did not.

B. Citation 59 gives the abstract of an article only; the full text of the article is not currently available at the webpage cited. It is impossible to review the article to determine how it supports the sentence which cites it.

Suggested edits: 1.Correct the citation for [59] to link directly to the article text and confirm that it supports the view that death by dehydration is humane. If not, remove [59]. 2. Change to: "Schiavo's parents and protestors were concerned that Schiavo would physically suffer as the result of the symptoms of dehydration with the removal of the feeding tube[Citation needed]. Some doctors believe that patients who have their feeding tubes removed, such as the case of Schiavo, usually have a 'peaceful' death[58][59]. A few observers of patients dying from dehydration have reported symptoms apparently indicating pain or distress, while a few others have not[58]." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.174.28.33 (talk) 02:11, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree that the claim of "peaceful death", and the need to make the claim, counter the other claim of PVS. With PVS, any death is peaceful, just as dissection of any corpse with a scalpel is peaceful. The only issue as to manner of death was the legality of the manner. An additional thought: the atmosphere was very contentions, if you recall. People were not allowed to wipe her lips with glycerine. There were, unfortunately, hard line and political certainties at work, in which circumstance a claim of peaceful anything must be beyond the realm of factual establishment. It was ultimately a property rights issue. She may be a vegetable, but she is my vegetable, and I say, or I petition the court to say, no more watering. I apologize if these comments seem crude, but the two viewpoints really were that far apart, as I understood them. ( Martin | talk • contribs 04:27, 26 April 2012 (UTC))

bulimia, how likely

The lead paragraph mentions bulima, and the final paragraph mentions bulimia again, saying it was ruled out. My understanding is that the teeth are damaged by long term vomiting from the stomach acid. Is "bulimia" mentioned only because anorexia is often mentioned with bulimia, or is there some basis for mentioning bulimia that is not explained by anorexia? perhaps someone more closely associated with the behaviors might comment from personal experience (only as a guide, references could then be sought to support or not support the comment) how long those activities can be hid, and any clues. ( Martin | talk • contribs 04:12, 26 April 2012 (UTC))

external reference to Karen Ann Quinlan

shouldn't this article also reference Karen Ann Quinlan at least as an external reference?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karen_Ann_Quinlan --Patbahn (talk) 23:16, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Terri Schiavo case/GA3. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Pyrotec (talk · contribs) 19:49, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

I will review. Pyrotec (talk) 19:49, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Initial comments

I've done an initial read of the first part the article, but I've not checked any references, and I've fixed a few "minor problems" on the way (I'll say more on this below and later).

Overall, the article appears to be at or about GA level, but I suspect that some work will be needed in places to bring it up to the standard of WP:WIAGA. For example: on the basis of my quick read, there appears to be information in the WP:Lead that does not seem to be in the article and the opposite case (information in the article that is not summarised in the lead). There also seems to be some "strange system" of wikilinking - terms such as apartment and firefighter that don't seem all that important to the context of this article were wikilinked (I've taken these two links out); some medical term were not wikilinked and some technical terms seemed to be be wikilinked at every occurrence (even in the same section - WP:OVERLINKING).

I'm now going to work my way through the article: starting at the Background section, working my way down the the end and then going back to do the WP:Lead. This may take a day or so (well at least the rest of today and tomorrow). Pyrotec (talk) 21:02, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

• Background -

• Reference 5 and 8 are the same - well ref 8 has an accessed date but 5 does not.

Fixed Ace-o-aces (talk) 19:12, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Y Pyrotec (talk) 18:51, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

• • Initial medical assessments -

• The final paragraph is unreferenced.

Ref added Ace-o-aces (talk) 19:12, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Y Pyrotec (talk) 18:51, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

• • Rehabilitation efforts – 1990-1993 -

• Much of the information claimed in the first paragraph is not verifiable using the two references cited, i.e. (potentially) non-compliant with WP:WIAGA clause 2.

• Ref 13 is SABAL PALMS HEALTH CARE CENTER so it can't be used to confirm the University of California, San Francisco treatment and ref 14 gives ROUGH TIMELINE AND DECISIONS, i.e. "November 1990… Terri is taken to California for experimental therapies", so that does not verify the claims. The information given in this first paragraph does appear in ref 17, but ref 17 is not being cited in this paragraph as verification.

fixed, ref now to what was ref 17 (now 14) Ace-o-aces (talk) 19:12, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Y Pyrotec (talk) 19:33, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

• The same paragraph contains a direct quotation: "her to parks and public places in hopes of sparking some recovery." which is unreferenced.

Quotation removed Ace-o-aces (talk) 19:12, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Y Pyrotec (talk) 19:33, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

• Ref 15 is a "dead link", but I suspect that it is the same as ref 7 (which is not dead). Note: ref 15 "calls" the paper without specifying page numbers whereas ref 7 calls three pages from the report.

fixed Ace-o-aces (talk) 19:12, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

...stopping for now. To be continued. Pyrotec (talk) 21:44, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

• I'm beginning to think that another subsection is needed in the Background section. The last subsection is entitled Rehabilitation efforts – 1990-1993 and most of it is about that topic, but the last but one paragraph has (almost an afterthought) a note about a 2003 demand from the Schindlers; and the last paragraph is about legal guardianship and the relationship between the Schindlers and Michael Schiavo. The next section which follows straight afterwards is called Legal cases 1998-2002. I think that these three subtopics aught to be be moved out into a new final subsection. It could be called Guardianship, but I don't have any firm views on what it should be called.

• Y (but see comments two points below). Pyrotec (talk) 23:07, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
• I make some comments below about "possible" divorce. It is this possible event that causes a potential conflict of interest to both the spouse and the parents, and has to be taken into consideration during the various legal processes. In the source material its all together, but in the article its fragmented and some of it (divorce) is not stated specifically, but it can be inferred (provided that you have read the sources). Pyrotec (talk) 18:37, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

• Did anything happen between 1993 and 1998, this period is just ignored?

Nothing of much significance in that time. Ace-o-aces (talk) 22:57, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Y Thanks. Pyrotec (talk) 18:28, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

• • Relationship between Terri's husband and parents -

• This is a new sub-subsection added to the article, I assume in response to my comments above (Guardianship), but I'm not sure that I understand the new reference 13. Barbara Parenti, Chief Justice, is presumably considered by someone to be important as half of reference 13 and also half of ref 45, used later, leads to a web page which gives her history of her legal career to date. However, neither or name nor career seems to have anything to do with this topic, neither is she mentioned name in the article, other than twice in these two references. (talk) 23:07, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

• • • The relevant link is at the end of the citation, and leads to a .pdf of the Fla Supreme court decision, which contains the relevant information. The link to Justice Parenti's bio is just there in case someone wanted more info on who wrote the opinion. Ace-o-aces (talk) 21:06, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

• Y Pyrotec (talk) 19:58, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

• Sorry, but I consider that the rest of this paragraph needs a citation. I have seen at least one citation used elsewhere in the article that does confirm these points, but at this point of the review I can't remember which one (I thought it was one of detailed court summarise, but I've not yet found it). Pyrotec (talk) 19:56, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
•  Not done Pyrotec (talk) 21:13, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

• I've removed the unreferenced claim as it is contentious. Pyrotec (talk) 19:47, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

• Legal cases 1998-2002 -
  • Petition to remove feeding tube -

• Ref 21 leads to a Florida State web archive which states: "The statute you have selected cannot be found. ".

Corrected URL and eliminated duplicate citation in same sentence. Ace-o-aces (talk) 20:36, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Y Pyrotec (talk) 19:40, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

• The second paragraph does not fully explain the concerns of Pearse in ref 20. There is no mention here of a "possible" divorce and what that would mean: what Pearse explains is that in the event of the death of Terri Schiavo the monies would either go to Schiavo or the parents depending on whether Pearse remains married, or not, to Terri. Note this is a link back in the source to my final comments in Rehabilitation efforts – 1990-1993 that the article does not explain here, but it is discussed later in the Oral feeding and the Second Guardianship Challenge subsection.

Fixed, I think (I was a bit unclear on your problem with this paragraph). Ace-o-aces (talk) 21:01, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, its fine now. Thanks. Y Pyrotec (talk) 19:40, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

• • Schiavo I: end-of-life wishes -

• Looks OK.

• • Oral feeding and the Second Guardianship Challenge -

• Ref 26 is a 39-page report, so the relevant page number (or numbers) should be given in the citation.

Fixed (page 34) Ace-o-aces (talk) 21:15, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Y Pyrotec (talk) 19:46, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

• Otherwise OK.

• • Schiavo II -

...stopping for now. To be continued. Pyrotec (talk) 20:07, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

• Ref 28 is a dead link - it gives a 404 error.

Corrected URL. (You know, all the broken links came from the Florida state goverment. Make of that what you will). Ace-o-aces (talk) 22:34, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Y Pyrotec (talk) 19:46, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

• Otherwise, OK.

• • Schiavo III & IV: PVS diagnosis challenge -

• This subsection looks OK.

• Terri's Law and other government delays -

...stopping for now. To be continued. Pyrotec (talk) 20:09, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

• Looks OK.

• Final feeding tube removal and federal involvement -

• Looks OK. Pyrotec (talk) 20:52, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

• • Early 2005 motions -

• This subsection looks OK. Pyrotec (talk) 20:52, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

• • Palm Sunday Compromise -

• The first paragraph is unreferenced.
• The third, single-sentence paragraph: "As in the state courts, all of the Schindlers' federal petitions.... ", is also unreferenced. It aught to have a referenced and I would suggest that the final paragraph is appended to it, the two seems to naturally "flow together".
• Otherwise, OK. Pyrotec (talk) 21:13, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

• Final local motions, death and autopsy & Public opinion and activism -

• These two sections look OK.

• WP:lead -

• At the start of the review it appeared that the lead was not fully compliant with Introductory text. Having worked my way through the article is some depth and then gone back to the Lead, I now consider that it looks to be OK.

At this stage there are a few minor "problems" that need to be addressed before I can award GA, so I'm putting this review On Hold to give time for these to be addressed. Pyrotec (talk) 18:19, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

I think I've covered all the "problems". Ace-o-aces (talk) 22:34, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Possible edit war

Looking at the edit history here there appears to be some indication of an edit war going on with you and Psalm84, but I might be mistaken. If there is found to be an edit war, I'm entitled to fail the nomination under WP:WIAGA clause 5. Having got this far I'd rather not use clause 5 and fail it, however there is clearly new material in the article: the Medicolegal issues section is new and the Public opinion and activism section has been expanded. Consequently, these two sections and the WP:Lead are going to have to be reviewed. Pyrotec (talk) 18:12, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Not a war. The ongoing discussion has been civil. Psalm84's concern is about adding context and my main concern is keeping the article focused. I feel we've come to a mutual understanding. Ace-o-aces (talk) 19:46, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm glad to hear it, but I will still need to review the new material and also consider whether the lead adequately covers it. P.S. I've just come back after five days off, so I'm trying to close Talk:Military of the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth/GA1 so I can spend more time of my time on this review, but I've also got some other threads going, so closing this review (as a Pass) is taking longer than I would like it to take. Pyrotec (talk) 20:11, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

• Medicolegal issues -
  • Right-to-die -

• The first sentence starts off: The Schiavo case is cited as one of three highly influential right-to-die cases, along with those of Karen Ann Quinlan and Nancy Cruzan.[62] and is then followed by summary of all three cases and an explanation of why/how Schiavo was different. I can follow those discussion, but there is an unasked question, 'cited by who/whom that does not appear to be answered.

I'm going to look closely at some more refs that also discuss all three cases. Probably a better sentence will come from that. Psalm84 (talk) 08:18, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Y Pyrotec (talk) 21:18, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

• Ref 20 appears to be used as verification of the whole of the third paragraph. It certainly provides verification of what is stated about Estelle Browning, but I'm not so sure that it provides verification of the claim: The outcome of the Schiavo case was also determined by a 1990 Florida case, Guardianship of Estelle Browning.. There are probably better references for such a claim, assuming that it is correct, which are being used elsewhere in the article.

It is verification for the whole paragraph, for the time being. I'm sure I'd be able to find some better references for it, though, with some time. There is a PubMed abstract that mentions the Browning case as a legal basis for the Schiavo case. Looking for more sources is something I want to do, but the additions I've made lately involved a lot of work, so things aren't as polished yet as I'd like them be. Psalm84 (talk) 08:18, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

The abstract looks interesting. The "problem" is that I'm not likely to be awarding this article GA-status until these things are fixed, and ideally they are fixed in the nest week. Pyrotec (talk) 20:40, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

• • Disability rights -

...stopping for now. To be continued. Pyrotec (talk) 21:00, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

• This subsection seems to be quite vague in some of its statements and it also seems to be rehashing material already covered in the article but so as to give "credit (or bias?)" to a different set/group of people. For instance, it writes about: ... disability rights groups advocated for the law passed by Congress that forced a federal court to review the case ... as if its unsure what law it is discussing; and it also uses the phrase: When Schiavo's feeding tube was removed for the final time in March, 2005, disability rights groups ... I don't have a HighBeam subscription so I can't check whether this vagueness is present in the original reference or just here. There is more detail about the process and a firm date of 18th March in the earlier Palm Sunday Compromise subsection. I would suggest that the Palm Sunday Compromise be considered jointly Disability rights to see if there are biases and duplications that can be addressed.

• Y Pyrotec (talk) 21:15, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

• Public opinion and activism -

• Looks OK.

• Developments since Schiavo's death -

• I was having trouble working out what ref 79 was/is. It appears to be have been mis-referenced. Its currently cite web|last=Lytle|first=Tamara|title=Schiavo turns rage into TerriPAC|url=Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services|publisher=Orlando Sentinel|date=December 8, 2005. The publisher Orlando Sentinel suggests that it might be a newspaper or journal article, but then there is an "internet address" address of Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services which could be a publisher, but what and who's department, Orlando, Florida?

I have fixed that reference. I have no idea how I apparently didn't copy the URL right. The other comments you've made about the additions and changes to the article I'm looking at and will respond about them when I can. Psalm84 (talk) 01:55, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Ref 79. Y Pyrotec (talk) 19:22, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

• Ref 80 strictly only provides verification of the sentence that it is attached to: i.e. that Michael Schiavo shut down PAC. The previous sentence In 2007, TerriPAC paid a $1350 fine to Federal Election Commission for failing to file complete and timely records. is unreferenced.

I've also fixed that reference. A link to the source I found through Google brought up a dead link, but the same source was already in the article, and I forgot to go back to it for the working link. Sorry about that. Psalm84 (talk) 07:45, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

...stopping for now. To be continued. Pyrotec (talk) 21:00, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks for that. Y Pyrotec (talk) 19:35, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

• WP:Lead -

• The lead mostly covers the expanded article in the it discusses the legal struggle from 1998 to 2005, what happened physically and legally, and the "problems" between the spouse and the parents (to simplify it somewhat). However a very minor expansion is needed. I'm not looking for too much in the way of additional summary, as WP:MOSINTRO imposes considerations of Relative emphasis:

• The new additions takes the "story" beyond 2005: since both sides went "fund raising"; set up organisation which were used to help other people in "similar situations"; and have put "their side of the story" into print in books.
• I'm waiting for some clarification (see Medicolegal issues), but there are, it seems, Right to die considerations that need to be summarised and added to the Lead.

I've already put this review On Hold on 18th November for one week, so I'm going to "reset the clock" and consider that the "hold" has started from today.

At this point, I'm basically awaiting some clarifications; some reconsideration of the material in Palm Sunday Compromise together with the material in Disability rights sections, and is the balance OK?; and, some citations. These "actions" appear to be relatively minor (I can't comment about the work need to find citations, as I have no expertise in US sources), so I would hope to be able to grant this article GA-status in early December (that's Saturday, at the earliest). Pyrotec (talk) 20:33, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm very sorry, but something came up so that I had to interrupt working on the article and its problems. Anyway, I did look to everything to some degree, except for the Disability Rights section. Looking back on what you wrote about it, I wasn't entirely sure about all of your comments. I will quickly tighten up a couple of the phrases. That seems quickly fixable. On the matter of bias, I'm not quite sure if I get what you're talking about, but if your concern was the mentioning of Democratic cooperation needed for the Palm Sunday compromise, that is well-established by many sources at the time. There are many comments by Harkin, a well-known backer of disability rights, supporting the Schiavo measure and some federal review for cases where there's dispute over a person's wishes. His office said even after Schiavo's death that he was working on such legislation and considered it important. And at the time the controversy was happening, and right after, there were other Democrats who also expressed the same concern. The Palm Sunday compromise should clearly reflect that while it was pushed by the GOP, it also had the support of many Democrats, mostly from a disability rights perspective, while there were also other Democrats who criticized it (it seems primarily some House members, like Debbie Wasserman Schultz). That should be reflected in this article, as well as the separate articles having to do with that bill. Here's just one source on this:

On Sunday, lawmakers of both parties agreed that Congress has a role to play in such cases and should contemplate legislation that would give added legal recourse to patients like Ms. Schiavo. While it is difficult to predict whether such a measure could pass, the Schiavo case has clearly pushed thorny questions about end-of-life care to the fore on Capitol Hill, as well as in state legislatures around the nation.

Now some Democrats, prodded by advocates for the disabled, say Congress should consider whether such a law is needed.

"I think we should look into this and very possibly legislate it," said Representative Barney Frank, Democrat of Massachusetts, who opposed Congressional action in the Schiavo case. Mr. Frank was speaking on Sunday on the ABC News program "This Week With George Stephanopoulos." Mr. Frank added: "I think Congress needs to do more. Because I've spoken with a lot of disability groups who are concerned that, even where a choice is made to terminate life, it might be coerced by circumstances."

The question of Ms. Schiavo, who has lingered in what doctors describe as a "persistent vegetative state" for 15 years, has been characterized by the news media and politicians as a "right to life issue," fueled by Christian conservatives and opponents of abortion. But advocates for the disabled are also playing a strong role, enlisting Democratic lawmakers like Mr. Harkin.

"Congress Ready to Again Debate End-of-Life Issues," The NY Times, 3/28/05

Let me put the point another way. In the Final feeding tube removal and federal involvement section there is a subsection Palm Sunday Compromise and in the Medicolegal issues section there is a subsection Disability rights half of which, the second paragraph, is almost a repeat of what is in Palm Sunday Compromise. Both state that the Republicans initiated it, and "names names"; one has it a means of attacking an named Democrat Senator the other has the use of a named Democrat to ease its passage. I don't see why some, but not all, of the new material added during the review is needed when it duplicates existing material. Pyrotec (talk) 19:57, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

I went back through and moved some of Palm Sunday Compromise information that was in Disability Rights to the PSC section. There's still more that I see needs to be done in different places in the article, including the PSC section, but just what I've done so far to address different shortcomings has been time-consuming, and it just takes time to polish things, too. One other issue I also see with the PSC section is that except for the info I added it's unsourced. Probably most of the information can be sourced from the PSC article, but that will likely take some time to do, too. And looking at some of it, I'm not quite sure it's that accurate. It could use a close look, too. Psalm84 (talk) 10:54, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks. I've had another look at it and I've asked for the two unreferenced paragraphs to be referenced; and the third and four paragraphs to be merged. Pyrotec (talk) 21:21, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Overall summary

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Has appropriate reference section:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   There are two images that have copyright claims, the second one, the brain scans, does not have full justification for its use.

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

In part due to the length of time it has taken to get this far, I'm awarding this article GA-status. The use of the brain scans image needs to be urgently addressed, and if the problems can't be addressed it will need to be removed from the article. Pyrotec (talk) 20:02, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Good work everybody! Now let's get this thing to featured status! (Maybe after a little break) Ace-o-aces (talk) 05:27, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

"Disability rights" groups

This was part of the case, but this section is longer than the ENTIRE section on activism in the main article. A decision was made that most information on activism and public opinion be placed in a separate article. Most of this section belongs there, not in the main article. Ace-o-aces (talk) 17:46, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

I've re-added some of the material, plus some on the right-to-die angle, under a new section on the social issues in the case. Both the right-to-die and the disability rights angles are primarily about issues, and not activism. The issues were in the case long before there was any activism, the issues angle comes up in other RTD cases where there wasn't a public controversy.

On the length of different passages, I don't believe that should be the primary concern. The DR angle is important to the case, as is the RTD angle. And the public opinion/activism section in the article right now actually seems to short, if anything, given its importance. It is only one line longer than the paragraph on the Schiavo memo (on my computer), even though in their separate articles POAA is over 22KB while the Schiavo memo is less than 4KB.

I've been looking at dozens of articles since the other day and also looking over the article, too, and I do see some areas that need improvement. So I'll discuss them here as needed.Psalm84 (talk) 08:17, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Article as a whole

I've added mention that Michael Schiavo was represented by Felos, which was surprisingly missing from the article. He wasn't mentioned a single time. I also mentioned the landmark Florida case Browning since he was notable for it and it had lot of direct bearing on the Schiavo case. Psalm84 (talk) 20:41, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Regarding two recent edits, one involving legislators following Schiavo's death, the other on the Browning case:

On the first, I'm looking for more about what happened with the proposed legislation and info along those lines, if it can be found. Until then I won't oppose that passage being removed.

On the second, no, the Browning case is definitely not outside the scope of this article since the article's goal is to bring people understanding of this case. It's not extensively discussed but only a short summary is given. "Right to die" cases have changed how people are treated and Browning is a landmark case and was essential to the Schiavo ruling. Including it to help people better understand the case is exactly what WP is for. Right now, though, that's a type of problem I see in the article. The article doesn't clarify many things, leaves out a lot of pertinent information and just isn't very readable. The example of Felos completely missing from the article is just one example. Felos made many media appearances in the case so his role would be familiar to most people, and he did play a major one, yet that's been missing. People expecting to read a well-rounded account of the case would expect some information about him and explaining his role. That's not the only omission, and leaving out information like that makes the article, as it is right now, not worth reading. It doesn't connect the dots in the case.Psalm84 (talk) 22:56, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, I was going to suggest we place that info in Felos' article and link to it (this is WIKIpedia after all), but it appears, amazingly, there is no article on George Felos. So until that oversight is corrected, I'll leave the info on Browning here. Ace-o-aces (talk) 23:27, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

I've noticed that too about Felos not having an article and had that on my to-do list. There's at least one interview with him done by a Florida paper. Nevertheless, the info on him and the Browning case is a short summary and belongs in this article. The Schiavo page itself should provide meaty information throughout. Draining information from it makes it vague and not very useful in many places, as I said, and it goes against the guidelines for writing summaries for the spin-off pages. Summaries should still provide the highlights of the spin-off pages. This article suffers a lot from things like that. Browning is instrumental in the Schiavo case, and helping people see how things fit together is the goal of WP article. That should be the benchmark for what's included in the article. A more detailed treatment of the Browning case would be good for Felos' article, though. Psalm84 (talk) 00:05, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

info box

I wonder if an info box for a person Is appropriate giving that the Article is about a legal case. Perhaps it would be more fitting to have an info box about a court cases and have Schiavo picture some where else. If no one objects in a week ill go ahead with the change. Thank you. --Jeffrd10 (talk) 20:08, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

References [2] and [3]

Neither of these references appear to support any material in the paragraph in which it is used [4]. I propose they be removed and am posting for discussion before removal. Ward20 (talk) 04:22, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

If it is unsourced, then remove it. – Epicgenius (talk) 20:33, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

References

Jeb Bush 2016 Ads

Ought we update the area related to "Developments after the case" to add the controversy over Jeb Bush's use of her case in his campaign advertisements?

http://www.tampabay.com/blogs/the-buzz-florida-politics/terri-schiavo-appears-in-jeb-bush-ad-and-her-husbands-calls-jeb-disgusting/2262826

Essentially, her case is being used as a political ploy and it seems noteworthy but I don't know just how to word it in a way that is unbiased. RedDarling (talk) 17:40, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Links to anti-abortion not pro-life?

This article links to the anti-abortion movement not the pro-life movement? It's weird and irrelevant. L32007 (talk) 15:40, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

L32007, I guess you are talking about the last paragraph of the lead? Pro-life movement is a redirect to anti-abortion movements, so I agree that is not an appropriate link to use. If we look at Pro-life (disambiguation), there are not really any obvious pages to link to. There is Opposition to assisted suicide, but that too is not really relevant in this case because Schiavo was not in a position where she could request assistance. Perhaps right to life is a better option? AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 00:27, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Short of an actual page on the pro-life movement, that's the best option for now. I've made the edit. L32007 (talk) 10:49, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Selectivity is not NPOV

No mention of Michael Schiavo's lover and children on the side, and thus his additional conflict of interest regarding the health and survival of his wife. That's balanced. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 19:13, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

This doesn't happen to relate to the upcoming presidential election does it? -unsigned — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.212.175.30 (talk) 20:39, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

just looked it up - what a psycho you have to be to call it "on the side" about someone forced to live "married" for 15 years by a psycho governor with a "president" on the side!!!! -Jonathan M. Stone

I sure am glad Wikipedia is attracting people who can manage to discuss things relevant to the idea of making complete and unbiased articles. What a difference eight years makes. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 09:02, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

This is stupid to say "forced to live "married", Divorce does exist, and he wasn't forced to lie. I think you should avoir to insult people, the psycho is probably the person who feel forced to insult other users. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:E35:8A8D:FE80:2D71:65C3:16F2:EB34 (talk) 07:49, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

It can be mentioned in a neutral manner. I would think the section on the relationship between Michael and his in-laws would be the proper section for this Ace-o-aces2 (talk) 00:13, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Iyer

I've included some detail about Nurse Iyer's allegations. I understand the section on her claims was removed since they are dramatically at odds with known facts in the case, but since the Judge's statements specifically addressing her allegations are included, we should have something about what those statements were. Otherwise, we should just remove all specific mentions of Iyer. Ace-o-aces2 (talk) 17:45, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Confusing tag

The introductory section has been tagged with Confusing because it introduces several individuals with the surname 'Schiavo' and then refers to them by surname. It is unclear who is being referred to, and without personal understanding of the case, I cannot make clarification. A user who has a better understanding of what happened could help resolve this tag by changing the text to use full names. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.103.11.38 (talk) 00:01, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

From what I can see, every reference to "Schiavo" is to Terri. Her husband is the only other person named Schiavo, and he is always referred to as "Schiavo's husband", "Michael Schiavo", or "her husband". Her parents are the Schindlers. To me it is clear enough, but I will wait for further opinions. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 04:16, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

It would be easier if you could tell us what sentences are confusing to you. Ace-o-aces2 (talk) 15:34, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Infobox

Shouldn't the infobox be {{Infobox court case}} or {{Infobox SCOTUS case}}? If there is more than one case then just pick the last one.--172.56.33.159 (talk) 03:52, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

-SCOTUS never took the case. Ace-o-aces2 (talk) 15:48, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Well, that simplifies matters s bit. Thanks doc.--208.54.64.177 (talk) 19:41, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

How about US 11th Cir. SCHIAVO SCHINDLER v. SCHIAVO No. 05-11628. , Decided: March 25, 2005 ? That looks like the last case. "Plaintiffs (First Amended) Motion for Temporary Restraining Order (Dkt. 34) is DENIED." The article has never mentioned this case. There is this from March 23, http://www.openjurist.org/403/f3d/1223/schiavo-schindler-v-schiavo-w . --172.56.0.100 (talk)` —Preceding undated comment added 00:41, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

-It's not mentioned directly, but the article says that all federal appeals where denied. I have not problem with putting specific information about the case in the body of the article, but I don't see why we need an info box. Ace-o-aces2 (talk) 16:09, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

I think we should have a section early on that cites each court case. Maybe not the TROs or appeals (which were all denied), but all of the cases where discovery occurred, with links to all of the decisions. You know: like an order of battle. Those decisions will review all of the relevant evidence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.56.33.116 (talk) 14:38, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

EARLY LIFE It states she grew up in the Philadelphia area, though it says she went to Brebeuf Jesuit Preparatory School which is in Indianapolis Indiana. Is this an error?

• This appears to be an error. The section on her early life needs some revision. If I get a free moment today, I'll get to fixing Ace-o-aces2 (talk) 17:39, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 5 July 2021

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Vaticidalprophet 03:53, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

---

Terri Schiavo case → Case of Terri Schiavo – Use the "Case of" prefix is more in line with the naming style of WP:DEATHS. We should also renamed Category:Terri Schiavo case likewise. Pages777 (talk) 04:35, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose. The main title header "Terri Schiavo case" should be instead restored to "Terri Schiavo" per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS via such headers as Paul Brophy, Kent Cochrane, Betty and George Coumbias, Dax Cowart, Gary Dockery, Phineas Gage, Jesse Gelsinger, Rom Houben, Ahad Israfil, Henrietta Lacks, Henry Molaison, Haleigh Poutre, Karen Ann Quinlan, Sue Rodriguez, Audrey Santo, Gloria Taylor (patient), David Vetter, Helga Wanglie, Terry Wallis and Lev Zasetsky, all of whom were notable solely for their medical conditions. Terri Schiavo's name is arguably the best known among those and should likewise stand on its own, rather than exist under headers such as "...... case" or "Case of......" —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 10:03, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

But the whole point of WP:DEATHS is to not just have the person's name because the person is primarily a victim of some sort and has no notable accomplishments or deeds so the article is not a typical biography. They would definitely be non-notable if they were still alive. You might also include in the list Trayvon Martin, Henrietta Lacks, George Floyd. You look up George Floyd in Google and it says he is a hip-hop artist. That is not why he is notable! Dred Scott should not be renamed because he actually did something. It is not to rob them of their humanity; it is just good labeling, especially for the user browsing in the categories or searching by prefix. We all want to feel sorry for these victims but this is about ease-of-use. With your way of thinking we would just have Breonna Taylor; EMT, first responder, community hero, self-made success but we don't have a biography or her. You might argue that most articles in Category:Victims should be renamed to the "Case of" prefix if they are not otherwise covered by WP:DEATHS..--Pages777 (talk) 12:31, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

The names which I presented as examples in my "oppose" vote appear under Category:Medical controversies in the United States, Category:Euthanasia in the United States and Category:People with traumatic brain injuries, thus Henrietta Lacks is listed, but Trayvon Martin, George Floyd, Dred Scott and Breonna Taylor are not. There are indeed inconsistencies in the naming of articles focusing upon such cases, with some main title headers depicting the central person's name and other headers depicting the case name.

However, consensus should be obtained for moves of such article titles and, while nominating this article's header for a move is a step in the right direction, you should also submit nominations for other similar article titles, rather than moving them unilaterally, as you did within the past 24 to 48 hours at pages listed under some of those categories: Baby K → Case of Baby K, Mordechai Dov Brody → Case of Mordechai Dov Brody, Tirhas Habtegiris → Case of Tirhas Habtegiris, Jahi McMath case → Case of Jahi McMath, Jesse Koochin → Case of Jesse Koochin, Death of Marlise Muñoz → Case of Marlise Muñoz or Sun Hudson case → Case of Sun Hudson. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 19:34, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

There are legal cases that are similar but simpler, such as Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Department of Health. In Schiavo, there are multiple court cases and it is inappropriate to settle on just one. Also, in the Kent Cochrane article, it has a "Biography" section that is two sentences long. The rest is about the medical "case". With the "case" name on the the article title, then Google gets it right: they describe it as a "legal case" not a person. Not a sexy young healthy female but a drooling expensive not-so-sexy vegatable. It is about adulthood, marriage, law and order, conflict resolution and education, not about gladitorial-like entertainment. It is about what a lie religion is. It is about every single marital issue not turning into another Hatfield's and McCoys family feud. It is more about Michael than it is about Terri. Why? Because if you study Michael, you learn something of value and wisdom and stuff like that but if you study Terri you learn about how to work for an insurance company. It is those right-to-lifers and bad lawmakers that got Terri's name so much press coverage. Otherwise, this article could have been called the "Michael Schiavo case". I am serious: I added text to the end of the article to make it a little more clear that perhaps Michael is the more relevant victim and Terri deserves no more sympathy than she got in the press in 1990, which is almost zero. Oh, you learn one thing of value from Terri: do not drink too much ice tea. We fail to make it clear that she is responsible for causing this whole mess in the first place. Why did she do it? Vanity. She just was worried about her own selfish social status a a slender woman. In my book, that makes her a stupid, destructive and evil person, no better than any vandal with a can of spray paint. She earned the privilege of being stripped of her personhood, which is exactly what the right-to-lifers feared most: of losing her Roman Catholic imaginary soul which might not go to her imaginary Heavan. For that matter, why not just do away with WP:BLP1E and just use the person name? Is this about the law as it applies to us in the here and now or is it just another story about just another person? Here, we can turn this into a five sentence biography and just leave out all that nasty legal fluff. This has to do with what these vile politicians do with their awesome power. Maybe George Bush knew the Palm Sunday Compromise was unconstitutional as he was signing it but he signed it anyway because it might get Republicans a few more votes at the next election. Even democracy is still a popularity contest but in court law and logic are supposed to prevail. If you try to emulate Terri, then you just become a burden on society. Anyone with a lick of common sense can see that they should have pulled the plug by 1993 or so. You can even generalize this as to whether monarchy or rule of law is a superior form of government. The sum total of human knowledge might mention that religion and monarchy are obsolete. The king got his authority from God. That is basically how cavemen worked where every decision involving people was just a popularity contest. All the right-to-lifers want you to know is that Michael is evil and and that Saint Terri is good and thus Michael deserves zero authority in the matter. Wikipedia is supposedly about education. Do we ever get to learn anything that advances civilization or is it just 100% entertainment? Do we devolve back to the cavemen and pure emotion or do we let logic play any role whatsoever? If the former, then fine: take off the "case" suffix. Whew! I just added some text to the article with Michael's perspective in mind. The right-to-lifers probably eradicated any of his input long ago. Maybe the article is now a bit more WP:NPOV.--Pages777 (talk) 20:13, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

• Comment Euthanasia is not one of the topics addressed at WP:DEATHS. "Case of" is not one of the labels used in the flowchart. 162 etc. (talk) 16:01, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

I am trying to expand the crimes and situations that WP:DEATHS cover at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (violence and deaths)/Archive 1#Other crimes where victim lives. Again, "Case of" might cover both medical cases and some complicated legal cases. Maybe "Case of" can be added to the flowchart also. Again, this is about whether we use the prefix or not.--Pages777 (talk) 17:57, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Right, but starting an RM citing WP:DEATHS when your proposed definitions haven't reached a consensus there is putting the cart before the horse. 162 etc. (talk) 18:04, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose – unnatural phrasing with no difference in meaning. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 17:10, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

So should we change WP:DEATHS to use a suffix instead since the current style is considereded "unnatural". e.g. "George Floyd murder" rather than Murder of George Floyd? I agree that the suffix is a little more natural. I am just accepting the precedent and recognizing that you can use the Special:PrefixIndex tool. You might also consider renaming Sarah Murnaghan lung transplant controversy to "Controversy of Sarah Murnaghan lung transplant". It might be a little unnatural, but the prefix is a little easier to search for. Then again, there is Category:Controversies.--Pages777 (talk) 18:04, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

• Move to Terri Schiavo per Roman Spinner. She's not just notable for her death, but for the events that led up to her death. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:48, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

I just had an episode of WP:BOLD and did a rewrite of the lead from scratch. I assert that it has much more to do with what WP:LEAD so implores and focuses on what is IMPORTANT. Now this article might someday have a shot at Featured article ranking. I know that it is an impossible dream, but I still think about renaming this to the "Michael Shiavo case". Those right to lifers let Michal's name occur only once in the lead in the previous version. Now it occurs eight times, like it always should have.--Pages777 (talk) 22:07, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose. The better title has the most recognisable terms at the front, not the end. "Terri Schiavo" is the recognisable term, not "Case".

The topic is notable, not because of the death, not because of the whole-life biography, but because of the euthanasia legal dispute. I suggest the best title is Terri Schiavo euthanasia case. This title appropriately telegraphs the limited scope from a full biography. Not "legal", as there is so much medical. In any case, "Terri Schiavo" should be the first two words of the title. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:25, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

I would argue adding euthanasia is too precise - we know about her from the legal case. – The Grid (talk) 00:06, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

I was thinking that "case" alone is virtually meaningless. Actually, "euthanasia" is probably a bad term to use in the title, because the applicability of the word is disputed. I now lean weakly to Terri Schiavo legal case but am open to the simple Terri Schiavo as a good title. SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:24, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.