Jump to content

Talk:Terri Schiavo case/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6→Archive 10

Baden's assessment

Dr. Michael Baden was the forensic pathologist who suggested that Terri Schiavo may have been the victim of trauma. The article stated that he since retracted this suggestion. But after searching several permutations of "baden", "schiavo", "potassium", "infarction", and "cardiac arrest" I have yet to find an article which states that Dr. Michael Baden retracted his assessment. I have commented out the paragraph which read "However, this pathologist has since reviewed the medical record, and retracted his statements as they were made under the assumption that she was claimed to have had a heart attack rather than a cardiac arrest. Physical trauma would not be necessary to explain her collapse, as her potassium and calcium levels were more than sufficiently low to cause cardiac arrest."

If you can find a citation for this retraction, please replace the paragraph (and cite its source). Rhobite 19:44, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)

I also searched for it, and I also failed to find it.

Also, Baden's primary expertise is forensic pathology. His opinion about whether Terri was the victim of domestic violence is highly relevant (he says she was). However, he is not a neurologist or therapist, so he is not the best person to ask about the prospects for improvement in Terri's condition, from the therapy that she has been denied. So why is his opinion on that subject singled out for inclusion in this article, rather than the more expert (and contrary) opinion of two speech therapists and nine doctors (such as neurologist Hammesfahr), who say that they think she could benefit from therapy? NCdave 16:27, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

March 15, 2005 Answer: Indeed, Baden's assessment is highly relevant. The statements he made long ago were based only on the bone scan he was shown by the producer at Fox News. 3 weeks ago, however, he came back on Greta and discussed her entire medical profile, explaining the eating disorder -> -> severely low potassium --> cardiac arrest. The only reference is at [1] -- note at the bottom of the page, you will see that Greta writes: At P.S. In case you missed it, I have posted my interview with attorney Gary Fox and Dr. Michael Baden as they examine how Terri Schiavo (search) came to be in her current state. Click on the link in the video box above to watch it. I am unable to watch it from here, but saw the original broadcast, and read about the disappointment among the friends of Terri's parents that he had changed his views.

In addition, [2] is a link to the unedited disposition of the radiologist (who wrote the report, having never seen Mrs Schiavo, and knowing nothing about her medical history.) The physicians who saw and treated Mrs Schiavo at the time, and followed up on more radiology, found nothing suspicious. --gretchen

Added comments on the subject of Biden and the general questions about her collapse under POV warning section. [3]
--Gretchen March 15, PM

Both of those are good & informative links; thanks for posting them.

The Greta/Foxnews link http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,148742,00.html worked fine for me. In the (very brief) interview, Dr. Baden did not discuss or recant his previously stated opinion that Terri was abused, but he did briefly discuss how fad diets and bulimia could cause a potassium imbalance which could cause cardiac arrest, which is certainly a change from his previous statements in which he said, "It's extremely rare for a 20-year-old to have a cardiac arrest from low potassium who has no other diseases," and [such an occurrence would be] "extremely unusual unless she had certain kind of diseases, which she doesn't have." NCdave 09:50, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)


He was on Greta again tonight and said outright that Terri's collapse was due to cardiac arrest caused by a chemical imbalance. It will probably be on her site soon.
---Gretchen (Too overwhelmed with other things here to catch up on the updates since my last entry. Will try this weekend.)

Euthanasia vs Right-to-die

I have replaced "euthanasia" with "right-to-die" in the headings. My reasoning is that this is not a case of euthanasia - no life-support is going to be turned off. Nobody will actually be actively causing Terri's death if the feeding tube is removed, rather, her death will be the passive result. As such, I do not believe that it fits the dfinition of "euthanasia".

A dictionary definition to support this, taken from: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=euthanasia

"The act or practice of ending the life of an individual suffering from a terminal illness or an incurable condition, as by lethal injection or the suspension of extraordinary medical treatment."

Again, I don't think that removing the feeding tube qualifies here, since that mere act will not end her life, whereas a lethal injection or the removal of life-support would.

Now, if anybody thinks that "right-to-die" is too loaded a term, it can be changed, I'm not particularly attached to it. I just thought it fit, under the circumstances.

Thanks, by the way, to whoever it was who actually went around and added headings. It was reading like quite a rambling monologue before, after being split up it's much easier on the eyes. Cheers!

Lankiveil 12:20, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC).

Of course it is euthanasia. Disconnecting her feeding tube is not what will kill her, starvation and dehydration is what will kill her. Michael Schiavo doesn't just want to disconnect her feeding tube, he wants to deprive her of nutrition and hydration from ANY source. Physicians and speech therapists who have examined Terri for the courts and for her family have testified that she can swallow liquids normally (and, in fact, she swallows siliva routinely, as we all do). They say she could probably be weaned from the feeding tube entirely with therapy, and that the feeding tube is primarily for the convenience of her caregivers. So Michael Schiavo seeks, not just to have the feeding tube disconnected, but also to forbid anyone from spoon-feeding her. In fact, last year when he managed to get her feeding tube removed for six days, he even forbade a priest from giving her communion by placing a tiny bit of sacramental waffer on her tongue. "Right-to-die" is inaccurate (because she is not seeking to die), and "euthanasia" is, IMO, too clinical-sounding. "Murder" is the right word. NCdave 14:23, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Too clinical sounding? Give me a break.

POV warning

I think the article has become about as neutral as something on such a controversial subject can become. Is there really a need for a NPOV warning when the only objector seems to want a somewhat biased article? Anyone besides NCDave who's unhappy with the article's current state? Preisler 14:13, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I came to this article specifically to see how Wikipedians were doing on managing such a controversial topic, so my only concern is NPOV, I don't personally care at all about the topic at hand. I'll agree with Preisler that the article, in it's current state, is not too bad considering the controversy level. I was actually suprised by the general quality of the article, considering what an awful, flaming wreck this talk page is. I have 3 points I would like to contribute:
  • this paragraph is one of the only things left dragging the article down: Clouding the issue considerably is the fact that Michael Schiavo stands to inherit the remainder of the one million dollar malpractice settlement upon her death, especially when one considers that he has since moved onto another intimate relationship since the malpractice settlement. However, the 15-year timeframe since her incapacitation mitigates the appearance of impropriety somewhat. We do not instruct readers on how to think about an issue, and the fact that this paragraph is somewhat schizophrenic and tries to "balance" things by instructing the reader to consider things first from one POV and then the other is not the same as NPOV. I do think most of the information being presented in this bit is worthy of inclusion, but it needs to be separated into its salient points and presented much better
  • It's very obvious from reading that someone (I haven't gone through the article history) is trying to push this alternate theory of Terri being battered. If it's out there, it warrants inclusion, but even on a casual reading, the abrupt, urgent language used screams "agenda." Also, I believe part of the problem is that mention of this theory and the experts involved is back-to-back in two different sections, and that these experts are the only ones dubbed "world reknowned" by the article.
Agreed that "world renowned" reflects POV; I've deleted it. The evidence for battery, however, is compelling. I've added much of it, with lots of supporting links. NCdave 12:32, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • NCdave, I think we all appreciate how strongly you feel about this issue, but you either don't understand the right way to go about working on a controversial page on wikipedia, or you don't care. I'm hoping it's the former, but I would really encourage you to take a step back for a little while, and maybe look at some other hot-button issues here, preferably ones you don't feel personally invested in, and try and get some perspective on what we're trying to do here. Understand that doing things like trying to debate the issue with other editors does nothing but make it harder for anyone to regard your contributions as neutral. Supercool Dude I can't make heads or tails of anything you've written here, so while I'd love to give you some helpful pointers, I have no idea where to start.
Fox1 17:27, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I agree, I wrote that sentance and it's bad... multi-POV isn'tthe same as NPOV... I'll ponder how to NPOV it.--Lazarias 21:34, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
The only way to make a NPOV article about a controversial topic is to include factual information supporting all the POVs. If information that is cited by adherents to one POV as supportive of their POV is systematically deleted from the article, then the article becomes biased. That is why I have consistently ADDED missing information to the article, rather than deleting information that other people have contributed. Several of those here who support killing Terri take the opposite approach: they just DELETE the information that is inconsistent with their bias. NCdave 12:32, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

We need some kind of consensus

As several other participants on here seem to agree we had a pretty good NPOV article with the version from March 14. Since then there has been a whole string of, in my view, less NPOV edits. It is however pretty hard for me to "fight" such a dedicated editor as NCDave who obviously feels quite strongly about this subject. NCDave, please realize that we're not vandals who believe Schiavo must be killed. We just like our encyclopedia to be as neutral as it can be, and inserting tons of links to very biased groups' articles and using inflammatory language is not the way to achieve this. Your compassion for this woman is admirable, but this is not the place to fight the good fight. Try calling the ACLU and give them a piece of your mind instead ;) Preisler 23:25, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)


I completely agree, Preisler. It's totally out of control.
NCDave, I'm not a wiki member, so I have avoided doing much, but I think one person's continually inserting speculation and propaganda is very unfortunate. And that is what you are doing. It doesn't help - it is so obviously biased, it loses its impact other than to cast suspicion on the entire case of her parents'.
Preisler, I think you should re-revert, saving the update of today. I don't even know how. I'll keep checking. (I'll look at what I need to do to join, too.)
--gretchen


The article as it stands right now is pretty well balanced. If you delete all the information that makes the supporters of Michael Schiavo's efforts to starve Terri look rediculous or worse, you inject POV bias. By all means, add whatever truthful information you can find that supports Michael Schiavo's POV, but do not engage in wholesale deletions of other material for the purpose of hiding the truth!
If you want to develop consensus, you need to read the material that supports the "other side" in the dispute. If you just delete it without reading and understanding it, how can you possibly hope to reach consensus with people who have read and understood it.
For a start, please read the affidavits of two brave nurses who helped care for Terri at Palm Gardens nursing home in the mid-1990s: http://www.zimp.org/stuff/Affidavit%20C%20Iyer%20082903.pdf and http://www.zimp.org/stuff/Affidavit%20H%20Law%20083003.pdf. NCdave 05:04, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Dave, this article is not in the slightest bit balanced anymore. What has been deleted, and should be deleted again, are highly controversial claims from one side without the counter-claims from the other side. That does not belong here. I certainly don't want to be giving Michael Shiavo's "side", but it's wrong to only include the Schindler's.
I have read everything you have read (probably more), and I agree that they should not remover her feeding tube. But the reasons are not due to the absurd comments of the nursing assistant Heidi Law, or LVN (at the time) Carla Iyer, or most of the other propaganda you are putting into what should be an objective, factual encyclopedia entry.
I've read all the affidavits many times, and all they do is make me shake my head at their incredibility. If I recall, they were not even under oath, and only witnessed by the Schindler's attorney Anderson. Judge Greer was right to scoff at them, though he was more polite about it.
Please, stop this, or I will be compelled to give Michael's POV in response.
--Gretchen

Can Someone Check Neutrality/Facts of George Greer Article?

I must admit, I don't know too much about this controversy, but I decided to do my part by adding the George Greer article with a mini biography of all the objective stuff I've heard about him. Since I am not a Terri Schiavo expert, I would appreciate it if someone went on there and did all they could to bring it up to par a little. I have no real opinion in this matter, I just decided to add the page. Thanks.

--Jan 21:38, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)

Why remove the tube?

This is missing from the article.

I came into the story late and I don't understand why Michael wants to remove the feeding tube. It is just "shes suffering and wants to die"? I'm totally confused. Someone please explain why he wants to remove it.

--Uncle Bungle 21:50, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Michael claims she would not want to live like this. Others dispute this claiming he wants the rest of the money she won in a medical malpractice suit (do note however he was offered a lot more money by others to hand care of her over to her parents) or that he just wants to marry the other woman (why exactly he wouldn't just divorce her is never explained by these people tho). Personally for me the bigger queston is why don't her parents want the tube withdrawn. I'm not so convinced it's really because they consider it against their beliefs. Personally, I'm inclined to believe they want to punish her for marrying her husband and for getting herself into her condition in the first place --

I'm not sure how much more clearly it can be explained (without resorting to opinion). "Michael Schiavo, Terri Schiavo's husband, is her legal guardian. He contends that Terri is in a persistent vegetative state and that he is carrying out her wishes to not be kept alive in that state." That's what he claims, anyway. Anything else is speculation, but in my opinion you have to speculate in order to discover his true motives. After all, why would her wishes matter if she is not conscious? anthony 警告 03:44, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Please refrain from discussing the issue itself here. To do that use Usenet, public weblogs, forums or even your personal talkpages. Discuss the article on the subject here, and nothing else please. Preisler 23:34, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
No, Preisler. This is called the "Talk:" page. Yes, there are better places to engage in ideological battle over a given topic, but if discussion arises on a Talk: page then it runs counter to the spirit of the mission here to stifle it. --AStanhope 23:47, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This is indeed true on some of the more calm pages but do you really believe that this flaming wreck (to borrow Fox1's expression) of a talk page helps "the mission"? This page has so many problems that the discussions currently raging needs to go somewhere else if there is to be any hope of salvaging this page. I find it very sad that at a time when this subject is all over CNN, MSNBC and the like, and one therefore would expect a lot of people reading up on the subject, this is the best we can do. Preisler 00:24, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
No, you're absolutely right - this flaming wreck of a talk page isn't helping matters much. I was, perhaps, a bit hasty. --AStanhope 00:37, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I'm not sure what 'mission' you're referring to, but the primary, overriding concern of wikipedia is the creation of well written, NPOV articles. Preisler was fully within the boundaries on the Wikipedia policy on Talk Pages. While the enforcement of that policy varies from page to page (like all Wikipedia policies), this particular page currently has a problem with off-topic and debate flooding that borders on epidemic. Fox1 00:21, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
It sounds like you and I are talking about the same 'mission.' --AStanhope 00:37, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The more I read here, the more I realize that this Talk: page is indeed a flaming wreck. Is vegetative disparaging??? Good luck sorting this out. --AStanhope 03:00, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Should we include this point

I think a point worthy of inclusion somewhere is the fact that if she were very such a devout Roman Catholic who would never do anything to hurt herself why exactly would she allow herself to suffer from bulimia, which appears to be the likely cause of her condition BTW. I'm pretty sure harming yourself by bulimia is not something a devout Roman Catholic should do...

No, I don't think we should include that in the article. It expresses a clear point of view. Rhobite 23:28, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)
So is suggesting she would not want to die because she is a Roman Catholic which is mentioned in this aritcle. Both are POVs. The question is are they worthy of inclusion? Personally I think both are
Well her family has made that argument, so it's OK to include here. Your personal argument is not OK to include in the article. Rhobite 00:13, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)
You seem to be missing the point. This is not my personal argument. I am simply suggesting we mention that she was bulimic, a condition which she would have been largely responsible for and which was harming her. It is up to other to decide whether this is contradictory with the claim she would not want to do something to hurt herself.
At a malpractice trial (1992), a jury concluded that Terri suffered from bulimia, which caused her chemical imbalance, and cardiac arrest. Seems we've mentioned this already. anthony 警告 03:47, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Where on earth are you getting the idea that a bulimic is "largely responsible for" his or her own condition? Bulimia is a psychological disorder, one that is defined by the paitent's lack of control over the binge/purge urges. If Terri Schiavo suffered from bulimia, she was no more "responsible" for that than she would have been for suicide attempts if suffering from severe clinical depression, or a limp incurred because of an injury to her leg. SS451 16:06, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)

I also think another related issue that needs including is the fact that she would likely have not wanted to discuss the issue of her wishes not do want to be kept alive artificially with her parents and family if they were so vehemently opposed to the idea, especially given the fact it appears they never liked her husband and therefore were probably already disappointed with her as it is. Once again I should point out I'm not suggesting we include this whole thing. Simply something like "she may not have wanted to mention her views to her family if they were strongly opposed to to this idea"

That one's purely speculation. I don't think we have any reason to add speculation as to what may have happened. anthony 警告 03:50, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Link to article on withdrawl of feeding tube

Since there appears to be a lot of confusion on what the death process is like by withdrawl of feeding tube, I have added a link outlining it. Hope this is not disputed

Proposed clarification

Proposing a clarification on the parents' view. They believe she is in a "minimally conscious state" rather than a "persistent vegetative state." Apparently the former is a recent medical description of mental state.

Er this is already there...

However I do have another proposed clarification. I think one thing which should be added is that if I understand correctly, her doctors never used any of the supposed evidence that her husband abused her and may have partially caused her condition in their defence in the medicla malpratice suit. They had all the info available but the fact they did not use it suggest strongly to me that they did not think it is worth anything. I'm not saying we should say this in the article but I think it should at least be mentioned that they did not use any of it

Also another thing I think that needs clarification is about the xray scan and associated report that her parents are trying to use to claim she was abused. It's said in the article that it was not hidden and that they had access to it for a while. I think this point need clarificiation. Had the parents seen it before or is it simply that it was in a file her parents had access to but never viewed?

I agree that this is a salient point, so I added it. I also added the fact that Shiavo's cerebral cortex has been completely destroyed and replaced by spinal fluid, which I've never seen or heard disputed. SS451 00:53, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)

As if this article isn't already complicated enough, I think we ought to either include here a discussion about how the issue is playing out on a national, Congressional, and (ultimately) Constitutional level. If the temperature runs too hot here, we should have a link to a separate entry on the political angle of Schiavo. Again, I'm someone coming to this entry from the NPOV perspective, with a believe in Wikipedia's power to objectively describe history, including history as it evolves. 24.25.219.8 07:15, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I'm of the opinion that this issue may be a little too current to give it this sort of treatment, especially at the moment when developments are appearing as rapidly as they are. I think this will be a fascinating addition to the article, or a separate entry, but I'm not sure now is the time to try and compile something like that. As it is, I think we're trying to hard to include all the bits of news information on an article that rather needs some TLC on its basic elements. Fox1 14:04, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I am curious as to whether or not there is legal precedent for the Federal government to intervene in something so out of their legal jurisdiction like this case. I can't even see how the usual "misinterpret the Tenth Amendment" strategy can even work in this issue. --69.234.183.71 09:51, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I am quite sure that "right to privacy" issues are at the fundamental center of the legal controversy surrounding the Federal government's intervention in this case. Senator Rick Santorum is at the center of a far-right effort to spearhead the end of right to privacy in this country, and has been particularly outspoken against Griswold v. Connecticut, the 1965 Supreme Court decision which legalized the use of birth control by married [heterosexual, obviously] couples. The lack of the Constitution's mention of the word "marriage" is one reason why the far right demanded both the first and second sentences of the proposed Federal Marriage Amendment, which gives to the Federal government untold new powers of super-jurisdiction over the value and validity of state constitutions within the United States. The Terri Schiavo effort is of primary important in this larger, and as yet unremarked upon, agenda of the far right. This needs to be addressed. 24.25.219.8 22:13, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

"Open Adultery " Statute Unenforcible?

SS451, you wrote: "In the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003), the enforceability of this statute is doubtful."

But, to my knowledge, Lawrence said nothing about adultery. On what do you base that statement? NCdave 09:38, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I'd already added a comment in the discussion section on adultery, further up on this page, where I mentioned that this law has very little relevance to the issues surrounding Terri Schiavo's case, and that the comment that adultery is a misdemeanor ought to be removed from the article. Since it is there, though, I decided to mention the fact that the Supreme Court's decision in Lawrence, which recognized a broad liberty interest in being free of state interference with private, consensual sexual conduct, casts serious doubt on whether or not this statute is enforcable. I still think the best way to deal with this issue would be to remove the adultery remark, as it's extremely unlikely that Florida would choose to enforce that statute, even were it constitutionally permitted to do so. SS451 15:57, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)

I have now removed those two sentences about the adultery statute, for three main reasons. First of all, this isn't an argument even Terri's parents are making, so it certainly isn't our place to make it for them, then put it in the article. Second, adultery statutes are, by widespread practice, not currently enforced in the United States. If someone can demonstrate that the Florida law is an exception, by, say, providing evidence that any person has been charged, convicted, and sentenced under this law in the last decade, this point could possibly be put back in. Third, the Supreme Court decision in Lawrence renders the whole thing moot, since the statute is almost certainly impossible to enforce. SS451 19:05, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)

POV

I found the article has a wavering POV, but such a topic is bound to cause 'emotions' and 'emotions' lead to lack of thought and people making statements without fully thinking them out.

This incident will play out as it has to. It's both a legalistic disgrace and a perverse sideshow. Should the parents be able to force their wishes onto the situation? One thing is for sure, that opens a whole new can of worms that I don't think people really want to open.

Should the 'abuse' allegations be made on Wiki? Since that was the first time that I'd heard of them, considering the potential 'bombshell' effect of them outside of a court of law, I'd say that they just add to the emotional baggage that this incident has. IF they were part of a valid case, AND found by that lawsuit to be valid, then they deserve to be here. Accusations are like rumours and opinions...

What needs to be covered is the machinations of the legislative bodies and the immense coverage that the protesters are both demanding and getting.

This incident I feel will go down as an embarrasment of the American justice and legislative system.

The hypocrisy of a government throwing lives away in pointless wars and yet championing the 'cause du jour' of the 'religious' right I feel is an issue. This is adding tremendously to the ability of Tom DeLay and others to shift the focus off of his lack of ethics as a House of Representatives member.

Everybody likes seeing other people's dirty laundry... This case could set a very dangerous precedent of future legislative meddling in private matters.

Although I certainly agree with everything you've said, this isn't the time or the place to debate all the issues surrounding this case, complex as they are. The relevant issue is POV, and I fear that in several places, those editors who are strongly in favor of prolonging Terri Schiavo's life have gotten their way with some borderline stuff. This article would be a lot better if those people who have a POV that they simply cannot check at the door would step back and let those who are able to contribute neutrally fix the article up. Unfortunately, I suspect that NCDave will have to be forced to step back if that is to happen. SS451 00:38, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)
Thank you, both of you, for proving how far-left your POV is. NCdave 14:19, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
You're missing the point, NCdave. The goal is NPOV in the article itself. If one cannot accept that aspect of the burden of responsibility of contributing to the article, than he or she ought not participate. --AStanhope 16:07, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
There's nothing wrong with expressing POV on the Talk page, which is where I confine it. I wish the Felos/Greer/Michael Schiavo partisans here would do the same. NCdave 20:30, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
NCdave should just move to wiiinfo IMHO. I do have a suggestion for NCdave. If you really want to help your case, add relevant facts backed up by strong evidence (an op ed is not strong evidence). Reading some of the pro-parents OpEd, I found out there are a number of interesting and relevant facts I think will be allowed if you write htem up carefully and provide adeuqate evidence. For example, how many people examining her have diagnosed her with PVS and how many people haven't? How long did they spend examining her? Is it true the doctor who inserted the metal plates or whatever they are advocated their removal? There are many other t hings which IMHO are quite interesting and will be accepted if written carefully provided they're backed up with good evidence
Honest Op-Eds which present factual information can, indeed, be good evidence. Regarding the PVS issue, note that Frist says that Felos/Michael Schiavo chosen doctors both gave Terri cursory examinations of less than one hour, and diagnosed her as in PVS, bu the family's doctors, who spent much more time with her, say she is not in PVS. Here's another good article on that. NCdave 20:30, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

$10 Million Offer to Michael Schiavo

Has anyone seen a source for this statement? The paragraph it appears in includes a citation link, but the BBC story at the link refers only to a (very real) $1 million offer. I think that the $10 million offer is presented in a way that merits continued inclusion in the article... I am simply curious what citations, if any, there are. --AStanhope 18:00, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

A quick Google came up with these links (amongst others)
http://mediresource.sympatico.ca/health_news_detail.asp?channel_id=0&menu_item_id=&news_id=6165
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/nationworld/bal-te.custody13mar13,1,4276279.story?coll=bal-nationworld-headlines&ctrack=1&cset=true
http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/story?id=584124&page=3
So it appears he and his lawyer have gone on record to make this claim that an attorney from Boca Raton made the offer. I assume it was never made public so we don't currently have any evidence of the actual offer but one of these links or maybe some other link is probably worth including.
NB Can't seem to get the WasingtonTimes article to work in FireFox, maybe it's my cookie settings or some such tho.
Thanks! The thing about the Schindler planning to amputate her is creepy. I wonder if that is true? --AStanhope 18:33, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Here is a citation from the Miami Herald about not specifically a plan to amputate her, but an expressed willingness to do so: http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/columnists/fred_grimm/7426730.htm --AStanhope 18:39, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Painful death

There has been a lot of talk about how painful her death is supposedly going to be. This is not really backed up by doctors from what I can see and the article I linked to supports. So does anyone else think it might good to mention this where it mentioned her death? Something like although this may sound like a painful way to do, the experience of most doctors suggest otherwise. and then link to the article. Or does this sound too POV?

Her death will not be painful. My girlfriends works in a old people's home where the feeding tube of terminally ill people is removed, like in Schiavo's case. They get medication to relieve the pain, and so the anguish isn't really an issue. Keimzelle/212.152.24.234 18:41, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
"When I was paralyzed, I, too, had a feeding tube disconnected for eight days and I knew what that felt like. Her husband had been saying that being starved was a relatively painless way to go. I nearly shouted at the radio dial, 'That is not true. That is a lie. You ought to try it!' -- Kate Adamson, brainstem stroke survivor whose husband successfully fought to keep her alive when she was paralyzed [4] <>< tbc 06:44, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Why first names?

The article is filled with "Terri" and "Michael". Is this the usual practice? I would prefer Ms. Schiavo or Mrs. Sciavo and Mr. Schiavo or just their full names. Calling them only by first name seems a bit too involved. What's your feelings on this? And does Wikipedia have a policy on this? Preisler 21:11, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

That's true, I never noticed that before. I believe the normal journalistic style is the familiar method of using the person's full name once, and thereafter switching to either just last name, or last name with appropriate title. I have seen variations on this theme, though, so you may want to dig through some style manuals. Fox1 23:05, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for bringing this up. Since I've never seen this used in any other Wikipedia articles, I went ahead and removed all of the instances of first name only use, replacing it with "Ms. Schiavo," "Mr. Schiavo," "his wife," "her husband," and, when it was clear who the article was talking about, just plain old "Schiavo." SS451 01:13, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)
In the past couple hours, this somehow got un-done. I did a quick find-and-replace to remove most of the new instances of Terri and Micahel to Ms. and Mr. Schiavo. If anybody else takes this on again, don't forget not to change links, titles, and direct quotes. Baricom 03:46, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)
I think, for the sake of clarity, the article would read better as "Schindlers" instead of "Ms. Schaivo's parents." It refers to them as Schindlers a few times and I find this very clear and concise. Reading "Ms. Schaivo's parents" over and over is awkward. But you guys know better, so I won't change it. JB

Abuse

Why in the beggining of the article does it state there is no evidence ofr abuse, but later in the article it states very bluntly that they have found strong evidence of abuse through bone scans.

Pretty simple answer: we can't get agreement between editors on this point. This does need to be reconciled, though, one way or the other.
Please remember to sign your comments on the Talk page, you can do so by adding four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your post.
Fox1 23:08, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The number of links needs to be trimmed down. Hopefully during consensus in the coming days, we can weed out the ones that don't need to be there. Mike H 03:16, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)

Couldn't agree more. What if we just link to something like this [5] and this [6]instead of having all the articles linked?~ If somebody could find a better solution than the google search of National Review it would be appreciated. The Discovery thing works pretty well though Preisler 04:01, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I strenuously disagree. I don't mind compactness (as with the grouped Village Voice articles), but those links are the real meat of the article. In a controversial topic, the best thing that can be done for npov balance is to include a very comprehensive set of reference links. If that is done then the article can still be useful even if the text of it is an untrustworthy POV mess (as too many editors here keep trying to make it). Furthermore, if editors would actually read the reference links that other people add, they might learn things that would narrow the gulf of disagreement. (Wishful thinking, it appears.)
However, the Discovery search thing that Preisler did does work pretty well. He missed several good articles that didn't have "Terri" in the title, and it found a couple that duplicated those links to Smith's articles that were also published in other locations. But I can accept this approach, Preisler, if you will you please fix it to remove the duplicates, and restore the links to the missing ones.
You might have noticed that I added the St. Pete Times link search using this approach, to get some more pro-Michael links into the article.
I do not object to reasonable editing. What I object to are POV deletions of useful material, insertions of factually incorrect material, representations of opinion as fact, and blatant POV editorializing -- all of which has been rampant here.
On a hot topic like this, strong opinions are to be expected. But please at least confine the editorializing to the Talk page. NCdave 07:25, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Preisler, you complained that I only put POV alert on the pro-Terri links, but that just isn't so. I put one on the Barbara Weller article, too.
Well, that's just great. As soon as I try to reach some reasonable compromise with Preisler, by accepting his condensation, and by adding the St. Pete Times stuff, Lankiveil comes along and vandalizes the article with another mass deletion. Sheesh. NCdave 07:43, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Terri_Schiavo_case/Archive_4&oldid=249535211"