Wikipedia

Talk:Terri Schiavo case/Archive 14

< Talk:Terri Schiavo case
Archive 10←Archive 12Archive 13Archive 14Archive 15Archive 16→Archive 20

Disability rights activism

Why was my mention of disability rights activism around this case removed? Rosemary Amey 12:34, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

For the same reason that my mention of judicial activism was removed, Rosemary. For the same reason that my link to Dr. Cheshire's report was removed. For the same reason that mention of Judge Greer's order denying Terri food and water by natural means was removed. For the same reason that even your question here about it was removed from the Discussion page (I've just now restored it).
Because it was inconsistent with the M.Schiavo/G.Felos/G.Greer POV. NCdave 15:10, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Straw poll: Ms. vs. Mrs.

Can we once and for all come to a consensus about whether or not we're going to call Terri Schiavo "Ms. Schiavo" or "Mrs. Schiavo" in any reference where "Schiavo" alone is ambigious? We've gone back and forth between Ms. and Mrs. over the course of several days and now the article appears to be in some nether land where some of the references are to "Ms." and some to "Mrs." Unprofessional to say the least. I'm starting here a straw poll on the subject. Moncrief 02:44, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)

Question: Which title should be used in front of "Schiavo" in reference to Terri Schiavo when it is not clear from context if "Schiavo" refers to Terri Schiavo or Michael Schiavo? Ms. or Mrs.?

Ms.

  1. Personally, I strongly advocate for "Ms." It's the standard term used in this nation's media outlets and has been for a few decades now. But if the vote is for "Mrs." I'll accept it. Let's just pick one! Moncrief 02:26, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)
  2. I would support Ms. as well; it's pretty much standard, for dealing with either married or unmarried women, and would be useful and neutral in this case. Meelar (talk) 02:27, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)
  3. I agree that Ms. is standard - I won't complain if it's Mrs. I agree with everyone else - pick one and stick with it! Tonyr1988 03:08, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)
  4. Not only is Ms. standard, it's also a bit more NPOV. It can imply whatever you want it to imply. I know certain people don't view Terri Schiavo as being "traditionally" married to Michael (because he's an "adulterer"), this might serve to antagonize them a little less to boot, and it doesn't imply she's not married. Good times all around. Professor Ninja 06:50, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  5. Encyclopedic standard. Flyers13 04:33, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC) Withdrawn. Every style guide I could find says first and last name on first reference, then last name only on further reference; first and last name as necessary for disambiguation. Flyers13 06:11, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  6. Ms. is pretty much the standard. Doesn't the Manual of Style address this? --Calton | Talk 04:44, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Only that the last name only should be used in subsequent references. Doing so in this article would require significantly re-writing several sentences. If anyone sufficiently talented is able to rewrite these sentences successfully, I'd be in support of that. See: Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(biographies)#Subsequent_uses_of_names Moncrief 05:00, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)

Mrs.

  1. My vote would be for Mrs. but I have no objection for Ms. What's important is that it is consistent throughout the article. Go for it! --AStanhope 02:34, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  2. Search CNN.com for "Ms. Schiavo" = 3 hits; search it for "Mrs. Schiavo" = 15 hits. I personally think "Mrs." is better because I've been raised to believe this is the title for a married woman, and using "Ms." would imply she's no longer married. Maybe I'm antiquated in my usage of it though. - Brian Kendig 03:12, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  3. I'm personally for Mrs. Mike H 06:12, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)
  4. It's her married name so it has to be Mrs. Dbiv 09:48, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  5. Duh. Lethe | Talk 22:27, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)
  6. Mrs. because she is married. --Vik Reykja ♬ 00:04, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  7. As far as I know, Terri was married under Christian religious customs, and was called Mrs. in life. If the Manual of Style says to call all women "Ms.", then the Manual of Style does not understand English; Mrs. is the valid and correct form of address for a married woman. Again, as far as I know, Terri was never divorced. -Kasreyn
    It seems to me that there is some misunderstanding about the way in which Ms. has been used since the 1970s. Using "Ms." does not imply that a woman is unmarried; it is merely a neutral title for a woman that gives no indication of her marital status either way (as is the case with "Mr." for men). As you'll see in the Wikipedia article for Ms., it's been adopted as the standard by major newspapers including (the article doesn't mention this) the New York Times. 63.196.5.21 20:08, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  8. The family says Terri's a traditional Roman Catholic. From this I would conclude "Mrs." is correct (...but I do not speak for them.)User:REWinn 20:10, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)
    I'm not sure what being Catholic has to do with this matter. If they were traditional Protestants, would they be okay with "Ms," according to you? 63.196.5.21 23:43, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  9. She's married and Mrs. is used. Also that's how Mr. Shiavo's husband refers to her. Saopaulo1 08:22, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)
  10. People are entitled, absent fraudulent intent, to be called whatever they wish to be called. She is still marries, to the extent that she can be, and as someone else pointed out, that's what her husband calls her. I'm not fond of style guides that impose on people things which they don't want to be called... --Baylink 19:10, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  11. Since they were neither divorced nor separated, "Mrs." is appropriate. bernlin2000 ∞ 16:07, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)
  12. "Mrs." is most appropriate, as she was married right up until her death. Also, her being married was central to the dispute. Were she not married, there would not have been such a conflict and few people would know who she was. --Blackcats 07:51, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Other

  1. Avoid titles altogether - the context makes it clear which Schiavo is being referred to. Neutralitytalk 03:17, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)
I think there is definite consensus that she should be referred to as "Schiavo" in all cases where the context is clear that it's about her, but there are many places in the article where the context is not clear. For example, from the first paragraph:
"Mrs. Schiavo's parents, Bob and Mary Schindler, and her siblings, dispute Mr. Schiavo's position, holding that Terri is "responsive" and in no discomfort..." would be fairly ambigious without titles, and that's not even the best example of such ambiguity in the article. I guess one "Other" option, though, would be to write out either party's full name ("Terri Schiavo") wherever there is ambiguity? Moncrief 03:25, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)
3. Call her Terri. That's her name. You could say "Mrs. Schiavo," but that suggests that she is married, which is only technically true, since her estranged husband is a serial adulterer who has been living with various girlfriends on and off for 13 years, and has two children with the woman that his is currently living with in open adultery. NCdave 19:02, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Calling her "Terri" is unencyclopedic. Moncrief 03:31, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)
"unencyclopedic" is undictionaric. NCdave 05:07, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
4. Call her Schaivo or Terri Schiavo. --L33tminion | (talk) 03:05, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)
The problem with calling her just "Schiavo" is that it is ambiguous: there are multiple actors in this drama with that surname. Calling her "Terri Schiavo" is fine, but often longer than necessary. NCdave 05:07, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  1. First and last name on first reference, then last name only; first and last if necessary for disambiguation. Flyers13 06:13, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Call her Terri Schiavo, because Schiavo can be confused with her husband and Mrs. or Ms. Schiavo does not seem proper.
  • Agree with User:Flyers13. JYolkowski 03:17, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • "Ms. " is a replacement for BOTH "Miss" and "Mrs." and has been in common use since the '70s. Most news organizations use "Ms." as a matter of course but will use "Mrs." is specifically requested to do so by the person in question. IOW "Ms. Schiavo" is perfectly correct regardless of her marital status (hence the appeal)

Dr. William Hammesfahr

This is a minor issue as far as the Terri Schiavo case is concerned, but I would appreciate if we didn't incorrectly defame Dr. William Hammesfahr. The last paragraph of the Initial Medical Crisis page has been saying that Dr. Hammesfahr was disciplined for "substandard care" and for a "dubious treatment". The truth is, he was not disciplined for either. Please read the associated PDF carefully (I know, it's 90+ pages, but you have to at least read the findings of fact to be able to correctly edit that section). In the PDF, the findings of fact report that there was no finding of fault for substandard care, and no finding of fault for dubious treatment. There was simply a finding of fault for overbilling, and his discipline was that another physician should review half of his medical records every month to ensure compliance with proper billing standards. So he was ACCUSED of substandard care, but found not guilty. This page should not reflect this as a finding of fault, because it was not. This page shouldn't even report it as an accusation, because that accusation was found to be incorrect by the reviewing officials, and an incorrect accusation is not relevant to this page's topic. — Cortonin | Talk 03:36, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC) (Update) The specific pages of the PDF are 38, 40, and 41. The pages in the 60's which are referenced elsewhere in this talk are simply the filing of a lawyer on one side, and are not the findings of fact, which are concluded on page 41. — Cortonin | Talk 03:46, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Is this the Dr. Hammesfahr who claimed to have been nominated for a Nobel?
From the documents, he claimed he was nominated because Rep. Bilirakis DID file a nomination, it's just that the person who nominated was not authorized to do so under the Nobel Prize rules, and so it of course was not accepted as a nomination. So it would appear he's guilty of not knowing how the Nobel Prize system works. These are the sorts of things that only come up about a person when large portions of the public are looking for ways to discredit the person. It's somewhat sad, really. We at Wikipedia should try to avoid being a part of the defamation circus by sticking more to the issues. — Cortonin | Talk 03:52, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Agreed, and Bilirakis is qualified to nominate for the Peace Prize -- but not the Prize for Medicine. So it was probably an honest mistake on both their parts. OTOH, that was six years ago, so Hammesfahr should have have figured it out and corrected his web site by now. NCdave 04:32, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Oops, my bad. It appears that Hammesfahr's Nobel nomination was vaild. See below. NCdave 20:36, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
However, it is reflective of blatant POV bias to include the criticism of Hammesfahr and delete the even more damning criticism of Cranford. NCdave 04:32, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Cortonin, what you say is accurate - the nomination was not valid. But your conclusion is surprising. If the nomination is not valid, then why should Wikipedia continue to propogate the myth that he is Nobel Prize nominee? It is relevant because it calls into question credibility, honesty and integrity, all qualities that patients would hope a doctor has. The Nobel Prize claim has been repeated to death on Fox, MSNBC and CNN, and they are all inaccurate. Should Wikipedia support this inaccuracy? The same issue came up on another article when someone claimed he was "nominated for a Pulitzer Prize." Er, well anyone can be nominated. Just download the form, fill it out, put a postage stamp on it, mail it, and voila - "nominated" but not properly nominated. [1] It's meaningless, and Wikipedia should not be afraid to call out this type of mischaracterization. Fuzheado | Talk 04:17, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I wouldn't suggest that Wikipedia should promote the inaccuracy, but you have to be careful when something off-topic is brought up about a person simply to dismiss it. I like to avoid having ad hominems strewn throughout wiki. I reworded the nobel prize claim section slightly to try to improve precision and make it sound less like a definitive accusation of intentional deception, and more like the claim is being made but it's simply incorrect. — Cortonin | Talk 15:42, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This was my mistake. I admit that I tried to read the article backwards to get to the conclusion first. I will try to be more careful in the future. Macdougal 04:48, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, you'd think after all this time, he'd quit trying to claim that he was nominated for the Nobel. It's bogus. It's true that he was nominated in an invalid process, but to keep repeating that without clearing up that the nomination is bogus is pretty cheesy. RickK 06:17, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)

Here's a brief excerpt from the transcript of the March 21, 2005 edition of Fox News' Hannity & Colmes:

HANNITY: Doctor, wait a minute. I've got to get this straight here. You were nominated to get a Nobel Peace Prize in this very work. Are you saying that this woman could be rehabilitated?
HAMMESFAHR: Absolutely.

Note the name of the award. -66.188.220.252

Well, his web site says "Medicine," not "Peace." He probably didn't pay close enough attention to what Hannity said. Anyhow, I've emailed him and politely pointed out that the fellow who nominated him wasn't qualified to do so, and I included the link to prove it (http://www.hnionline.com/nobel_prize_nomination.htm), and asked him to correct the erroneous information on his web site. I'll consider it a test of his integrity to see whether or not he does so.
BTW, please sign your comments, 66.188.220.252. (I added it for you this time.) NCdave 23:31, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Actually, his website, on the nomination itself, says "Nobel Peace Prize in Medicine"[2]. The guy's obviously full of crap. After all, falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus, right NCdave? Professor Ninja 04:18, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)
No, that's what the congressman's letter says, a copy of which is reproduced on the website. Hammasfahr didn't write that. The congressman was obviously confused. But let's see whether Hammesfahr corrects it.
But the real charlatan involved in this case is Dr. Ronald E. Cranford. He was Felos's star witness, the guy who convinced Judge Greer that Terri was in a PVS, when she plainly is not. He is a euthanasia zealot, from the extreme fringe of the Right-To-Die movement, which advocates involuntary euthanasia even for conscious patients.
Cranford has a special gift for the Big Lie, such as when he said, "there isn't a reputable, credible neurologist in the world who won't find her in a vegetative state." (In fact, most neurologists who have examined the case and offered an opinion scoff at that diagnosis.[3])
Cranford even testified that a brain damaged California man named Robert Wendland should be dehydrated to death, even though Wendland could toss and catch a ball, could understand simple sentences and respond appropriately, and could even drive an electric wheelchair up and down hospital corridors. NCdave 07:17, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)


Update: I've just received an email reply from Dr. Hammesfahr; here it is: 

Thanks for your thoughts.

However, in 1998 and 1999 the criteria were different,
and a parliamentarian or congressional nomination was
acceptable.

It was not by itself sufficient, as an individual had
to be published, but at that time, my publication was
listed on the Nobel site's web page.  I still have a
copy of their listing of my publication on my site.

thanks for the thoughts

Dr. H

So, it appears that Dr. Hammesfahr's Nobel nomination was legitimate, after all. NCdave 20:36, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Umm...is the word of someone who is accused of lying adequate evidence that they were not? (I.e., can you link to the criteria?) Guettarda 20:46, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Well, it is at least certainly plausible. I've asked him for the documentation. Let's see what he comes up with.
I've also emailed the Nobel Foundation, and asked them what the nomination process was and who the qualified nominators were back in January, 1999.
NCdave 21:43, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Ok, thanks. Guettarda 21:45, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Not surprisingly, this is an absolute lie. From the Nominations section in the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine section of the Nobel Institute
The timetable for the prize has remained more or less the same since 1901. Thus, in September the year before the prize is to be awarded, confidential, personal invitations to nominate candidates for the prize are sent to 2500-3000 scientists who are members of medical faculties or academies outside Scandinavia. Scientists are invited according to a rotating system. Previous Nobel Laureates in Physiology or Medicine and professors at medical faculties in the Nordic countries have the right to nominate every year. Nominations are made on special forms sent only to those who are formally invited to nominate. The Nobel Committee receives many informal letters with invalid nominations. These are not included among the documents examined by the Nobel Committee.
Notice that this is the process followed since 1901 and that only select scientists outside Scnadinavia, former Naubel Laureates in Physiology or Medicine, and any medical faculty member in Scandinavia can nominate. Hope that helps clarify anybody bamboozled by NCdave's campaign of misinformation and lies. Professor Ninja 00:40, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)


It was highly disingenuous of him to make that claim in the e-mail to Dave, since George Felos pointed out this very thing at trial. Hammesfahr said he would look into it then, as if he didn't know already, since the congressman himself had asked him to stop using the letter. He even had the audacity on the John and Ken show last week to pretended to be surprised to hear the suggestion congressman wasn't qualified to nominate anyone for such an honor.
That's assuming NCdave didn't just lie about it in the first place though. Why would he email a Dr. he desperately wants everybody to believe when he could just check the Nobel site (it took me like 30 seconds)? Why, do get an email reply of course! That way it'll put the whole shenanigans to rest and Dr. Hammesfahr will become an expert. Pfft. Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus, as "they" say, Dave. Professor Ninja 07:17, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

POV Dispute

The article has many factual problems. Including: the case has now been tried twice by both a Federal District Court and a Federal Appeals Court.

Point of View Issues

  1. The article practically points a finger at Justice Kennedy for doing nothing; however, it is rare for a Justice to take action like this into his or her own hands. Even if he did, it would only be a temporary injunction pending a review for Cert by the Court. If Cert was denied, the injunction would be void. If Cert was granted, then the case would be heard, and the injunction would be valid until an opinion.
  2. The decision of the Court to not hear the case is not approval of the lower Court's decision. The Supreme Court is simply denying to grant Cert to hear the case, thus there is no reason for Justice Kennedy to give a temporary injunction. This ruling does not in any way grant approval to the 11th Circuit.
  3. All orders like this are one-sentence. Check all orders from the Supreme Court granting or denying stays of execution. They are just one sentence orders granting or denying the stay pending a review for Writ of Cert.
Agreed, 165.123.154.60, this article is riddled with factual errors and severe POV bias. Also, thanks for the good info on SCOTUS procedures.
But please sign your messages. You can sign by adding four tilde ("~") characters to the end; they will be translated into your ID or IP and the date/time. NCdave 00:10, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Can you guys cite some specific lines that need to be changed? I don't see why we can't reach an agreement if these are the only complaints. I think it would be acceptable to make the page a little more wishywashy on some subjects if it will bring agreementGmaxwell 04:13, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I note that the Supreme Court employs a 'rule of four' - they will hear any case that four Justices think is important enough to be heard. Clearly that has not happened with this case. -- 8^D BD2412gab 05:10, 2005 Mar 29 (UTC)
  • This article is hopelessly POV.
    I could not agree more with NCdave. Unfortunately, some of us can't sit around all day and revert everything that disagrees with our opinion like some here. So whatever. Wikipedia says whatever the people with the most time to waste want it to say. 24.245.12.39 03:10, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Make some specific points... lets discuss them. I'm interested in seeing the article be as neutral as possible, and if we reach some agreement, I'll help make sure that neutrality is preserved. As it stands I think it looks pretty neutral, but I likely have a differing perspective from you.Gmaxwell 04:13, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
You are surely joking, right?? Well, okay, I'm going to start at the top, and list problems sentence by sentence, until I get tired:
Photos: the M.Schiavo partisans keep deleting the photo of Terri in the hospital bed, smiling at her her mom.
Paragrah #1:
The first sentence is NPOV and accurate.
The second sentence is POV questionable (the cause is a subject of speculation, the hospital reached no conclusion).
The third sentence is factually incorrect and POV-biased (she wasn't deprived of life support, she was deprived of nutrition and hydration, and specifically forbidden to receive food and water by mouth).
Paragrah #2:
The first sentence is factually incorrect and POV-biased (you can't be "hospitalized" in anything other than a hospital).
The second sentence is POV biased and deceptive via a half-truth (the feeding tube was removed, but she was also forbidden from receiving food and water by mouth).
The third sentence is factually incorrect and POV-biased (it isn't the removal of the feeding tube that is killing her, since it is known that she could eat Jell-O and take Holy Communion by mouth, could certainly also eat other sluries and possibly liquids by mouth).
Paragrah #3:
The first sentence is POV biased and deceptive via a half-truth (he's her estranged husband, whom she was preparing to divorce at the time of her injury 15 years ago, and who has been living in open adultery with other women for 13 years, and has two children by the woman he calls his "fiancee," and he has claimed to know that she would wish to die for less than half of that 15 year period).
The second sentence is accurate, but reflects POV bias by stating that Terri's parents are Catholics but not mentioning that Terri is too.
The third sentence is almost NPOV (only one person, Judge Greer, has actually ruled on the issues of fact in the case).
The fourth sentence is severely POV-biased (the Congress and the Florida legislature, acting as institutions, not merely "many Republicans and several Democrats," sided with Terri, as did a great many religous and disabilities activist organizations -- which were in this sentence until M.Schiavo partisans deleted them).
The fifth sentence is factually inaccurate and POV-biased (makes it sound like there is some organization other than the ACLU and Hemlock who are sideing with M.Schaivo, and deceptively makes it sound like the legislative support for his side of the case was equal to the support for Terri; in fact, in the US House the vote was about 3-to-1, and in the Senate it passed with no dissent).
etc..
I could go on, but this is tedious. So I'll just quote these first three paragraphs from the article here and then quit for now (so that this list of problems will make sense when the paragraphs have changed). Here are the (awful) first three paragraphs:
Theresa Marie Schiavo (born December 3, 1963), commonly known as Terri Schiavo (pronounced SHY-vo), is an American woman from St. Petersburg, Florida, the daughter of Robert and Mary Schindler and wife of Michael Schiavo. On February 25, 1990, she suffered severe brain damage caused by a cardiac arrest, believed to be brought on by bulimia. The efforts of Schiavo's husband to withhold life support have prompted a fierce debate over bioethics, euthanasia, legal guardianship, federalism, and civil rights, as well an active countereffort to keep her alive [4] [5].
Schiavo is hospitalized at the Hospice of the Florida Suncoast in Pinellas Park, in the Tampa Bay area. On March 18, 2005, her gastric feeding tube was removed under court order. The removal of the feeding tube will result in Schiavo's death by dehydration.
Michael Schiavo, her husband and legal guardian, contends that he is carrying out his wife's wishes not to be kept alive in her present state. Mrs. Schiavo's parents, Bob and Mary Schindler, who are both practicing Catholics, and her siblings, dispute Mr. Schiavo's position. The courts have all ruled in favor of Mr. Schiavo thus far, but her parents have vigorously appealed the decisions. Vatican officials, U.S. President George W. Bush, Florida Governor Jeb Bush, many Republicans, and several Democrats in the Florida Legislature and U.S. Congress have sided with Mrs. Schiavo's parents. Other groups and individuals, including the American Civil Liberties Union, many Democratic and several Republican legislators, have expressed support for the position of Michael Schiavo.
It's my bedtime. I'd be here all night if I tried to enumerate the inaccuracies and POV problems in this article. I've tried to fix 'em in the past, but the M.Schiavo partisans here outnumber those few of us who want an accurate, NPOV article, and they just keep deleting the information I add. NCdave 08:21, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I'll clarify this in a wee bit after I get some sleep, I haven't the strength to argue this blowhard and correct his gross inaccuracies constantly. Suffice it to say, NCdave, you ruin the good points you do make by making repeatedly discredited claims. I'd love for you to edit the article in a sane and sensible way, but injecting lies into it is abnormal. If you can stop screaming "partisans" for a moment and list some facts to be checked over (without resorting to biased sites, for the love of God) I'm sure people would be willing to put the truth in the article. Not what you want the truth to be, the truth. Professor Ninja 09:14, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)
First, let's all remember not to make personal attacks. Period.
Second, thank you, NCdave for providing a fairly concise (was it necessary to reproduce 3 paragraphs of the article in the talk page?) listing of some of your issues. That goes a lot farther towards reaching middle ground than 150 lines of debate over motivations. My reactions.
  • One of your repeated gripes, at least in the section you excerpted, is that the method of ending her life is described as removal of life support, and makes no mention of the blocking of sustenance from sources other than the tube, correct? The problem I see there is that the feeding tube arguably qualifies as life support. Even if it doesn't qualify, heavily commenting every mention of the tube will become unwieldy, and give a very obvious tone to each sentence.
So don't mention the tube. Greer didn't. His order was that she be deprived of food and hydration. Period. His follow-up order was specifically that she be deprived of food and hydration by natural means. NCdave 22:41, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Greer did deny Terri the chance to be fed by mouth. The .pdf of his actual order denying this is on terrisfight.org. I've read it. Terri was denied food and water by any means whatsoever by Greer. And, in anticipation of the "they can't do that!" reaction everyone gives, yes, they can. They did it to Marjorie Nighbert (google her) also.
  • I honestly don't know what to do about the pictures, I've considered that a topic I hoped I could avoid since I first saw the page. Could we possibly add the smiling, responsive-appearing image further down, with discussion on interpretations, maybe with similar discussion on the video samples and opinions on their editting?
Well, I think that "before" and "current" photos are both relevant, but the current one is more so. But the worst thing about the current photos is that the caption on the second picture is a flat-out lie. NCdave 22:41, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Why not add the one Michael approved back in 1991 that showed him & Terri in the hospital for equal time?
  • The hospitalization bit seems like splitting hairs, especially since it is arguable that the hospice, as a facility providing medical care or therapy, falls within the definition "hospital." Why is this important? The only thing I can think of is that perhaps you think the term "hospitalized" gives unwarranted credit to the care being given to the patient? -Fox1
Exactly. Most hospice care is done in private homes. It is not hospital-level care. Terri has not been in a hospital in many years. You wouldn't say that someone was "hospitalized" in a nursing home, nor should you say that she is "hospitalized" in a hospice.
Plus, since legitimate hospices won't accept patients unless they are terminal with an expected lifespan of 6 months or less, saying that someone is in hospice hs implications that are untrue in Terri's case. Terri's condition was not terminal, yet Michael & Felos have had her cooped up in there for five years. So along with the mention that she is in hospice, there should also be a mention that her condition is not terminal, for clarification. NCdave 22:41, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I'm somewhat amenable to the idea of using a term other than hospitalized, but I think you get a little carried away after that. We're dealing with an intro here, detailed discussion belongs in the body of the article. You're building up layers of implication here that I think are unneccesary; you're assuming that the word hospice will encourage the reader to think "terminal," which is debatable,
Whee, nothing like an NCdave fantasy to wake me up faster than coffee. Hospital and hospice share the same latin roots, hospes hospit-. Hospitalized is the proper term for lodging somebody in a hospice (even if that hospice is, say, a lodging facility and not a palliative care centre, hence the British predisposition towards using "hospital" as a term for charity). Contrary to NCdave's claims, most (in fact, no) hospice care is not done in private homes. Palliative care may be done in private homes, but hospice care must be provided by a hospice, or else, not surprisingly, it is not hospice care. It may be private palliative nursing, but it is not hospice care. I think you should pay me to be your professional fact checker, NCdave. Well, again, just so long as nobody's bamboozled into believing it. Professor Ninja 12:43, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

Hospices are supposed to accept ONLY terminally-ill patients, likely to die within 6 months. Their mission is to "neither hasten nor prolong" life--kind of ironic, then, that this is a scene of pulling Terri's feeding tube? Note that PVS is NOT a terminal illness--though most PVS patients die in their first year (76%), most of these are due to the actual injury that caused the PVS. After the first year, the life expectany is 9.9 years, with a maximum (as of 1990) record of 37 years. Most PVS patients die from pneumonia or bedsores (i.e. lack of good care), not PVS. PVS is simply a condition or disability, and except for the deterioration of the cerebral cortext, there is no "wasting" or "progressive decline" as with "terminal" illnesses (i.e., cancer). This is not even a "condition" like diabetes, that is terminal if unregulated, but regulated can be managed. No, PVS patients don't need "regulation," they just need a feeding tube, and someone to move them to prevent bedsores. Whether the quality of life is worth living is another issue. Note that Terri is really a victim of George Felos's pro-death campaign. Not NPOV to you? Well think of this: George Felos represents himself that way. Just check out his book at amazon.com, "Litigation as Spiritual Practice." He believes it is his duty to reunite bodies on Earth with souls in Heaven. It is a shame that society is allowing one man to impose his will on this case.

Felos' account of talking with PVS patients' souls and such is bothersome as hell. He seems as bent as the Right to Lifers, just in the other direction. Evangelical Euthanasia?


and you want that immediately disclaimed, but it's not untrue that the condition is terminal, it's contested.... and suddenly, we have a 96kb intro, and nothing for the body of the article. We need to stick to verified facts in the intro, and some people may have to live with the hint of an implication of something they don't like.

Fox1 06:58, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Using the term 'estranged' seems like obvious POV to me. They have not been shown to be legally separated, estranged or otherwise anything less than a legal married couple. Until such time as one of those events occurs, the absolute most that would be NPOV would be inclusion of some of the claims made about the past or present state of their marriage further down, certainly outside the intro. As far as your oft-stated points about girlfriends, adultery, etc, I fail to see how it's relevant until such time as it affects the legal status of their union. Perhaps it has the potential to, I won't say that's untrue, but until it does, it's not anything to base such strong initial labeling on. -Fox1
No, it is POV-bias and deceptive to call him her plain "husband," when he's engaged to marry another woman, with whom he has lived for almost a deacade, and with whom he already has two children. Saying "estranged" is the most concise way to avoid greatly deceiving the reader. The relevance is w/r/t his fitness to be her guardian. NCdave 22:41, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This is where I start to lose my empathy for your point of view here... it doesn't seem like you have factual counters to the Schiavos' current and continuous legal status as a legitimately married couple, you just don't like that your agenda is not represented in all mentions of that status. They are married, that is an undisputable legal fact, immediately including reasons why you believe it should not be legitimate, in the intro, without taking the time to discuss the back-and-forth of it is POV, pure and simple. This is one of the few points on which I can't imagine making any compromises, I think you're just plain incorrect.
Fox1 06:58, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I'm with Fox1 on this one. "Estranged" is an emotionally laden word that indicates that the relationship between the two had broken down in a recognisable way (eg evidence that the two were separated before the accident). The simple fact is that, in a legal sense, the Husband is still the legal guardian. Therefore there is no estrangement. If they were estranged he wouldn't be the legal guardian. One Salient Oversight 08:56, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Indeed. Estranged has no legal meaning, husband does. Furthermore, you may note that being engaged to another person does not invalidate your marriage, NCdave. An engagement has no legal binding (beyond maybe fraud, but since Michael's bunk-mate's fully aware of the situation with Terri, that's moot.) Professor Ninja 12:51, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)
  • The bit about Terri Schiavo needing to be referenced as a devout catholic in the intro seems sketchy to me, since she is currently unable for comment as to what her present beliefs are. Labeling her directly as such in the intro seems like a leading statement, insinuating that she would choose only actions commensurate with that status, I don't believe we have any way of verifying that. Fox1 09:40, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
It doesn't have to say "devout," and IMO that term reflects someone's judgement, anyhow (how devout does someone have to be to be called "devout?") But it is important to note that Terri and her parentss are all RC. NCdave 22:41, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
No, not really. Terri's parents are wholly irrelevant to Terri's religion, and Terri having sacraments at some point doesn't make her a devout (practicing, if you prefer) Roman Catholic. I'll be willing to compromise with you on this if you're willing to go through all the biographical articles on wikipedia and add in the birth religion and any conversions and rejections the person may have had. Unless you're, say, Martin Luther, Pope John Paul II, Henry VIII, or, I dunno, unless your religion matters to the affairs concerning you, instead of somebody claiming it does, it doesn't really belong in the article. Professor Ninja 12:51, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)
Terri's religion matters because it informed Terri's views, and Terri's views about tube feeding and related issues were a central argument in this case. For a Christian, Faith requires obedience, and Terri's church explicitly teaches against cutting off food and hydration from a disabled patient. So obviously Terri's religion matters.
Terri's parents' religion is pertinent because of the fact that Terri shared their faith, was largely taught her faith by them, and often attended church with them. That means that they are especially well-qualified to judge what her opinion would be on matters about which the church has clear teachings, and are far better qualified to judge what her opinion would be about such matters than are people who do not share her faith. NCdave 23:14, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Michael Schiavo as a registered nurse

I've heard that Mr. Schiavo (who is a registered nurse) studied nursing after Terri's collapse to help in rehabilitation efforts, which would be fairly pertinent to the section on him in the article. Unfortunately because of the recent Carla Iyer affidavit a google search with certain keywords just turns up almost nothing at all. Anybody have details on this to add to the article? Professor Ninja 04:47, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)

I found this using this search.
With his wife in a nursing home, Michael began taking classes in health care at St. Petersburg Junior College. He eventually became a certified respiratory therapist and a registered nurse. Michael today works in an emergency room at a hospital in Florida.
--Vik Reykja ♬ 05:12, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Awesome stuff, bless your boolean skills Vik. Professor Ninja 05:31, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)
When did Michael become an RN?
Professor Ninja says that Michael became an RN so that he could help Terri. ("The man became an RN to care for Terri, for crying out loud," wrote Ninja.) But Michael ordered a halt to all of Terri's therapy, and even to her basic medical and dental care, and put a DNR order on her, around the end of 1992. Somehow it doesn't seem likely that the studies he persued after 1992 were motivated by a dsire to help Terri. NCdave 09:01, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Your dates are wrong. He continued rehab for Terri beyond 1992. Professor Ninja 09:16, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)
No, there's no documentation that she received any therapy after late 1992 or possibly very early 1993. (One of the GALs indicated that he ended it in 1994, but he had his dates mixed up.) The >$1 million malpractice award (which Michael swore in court was needed to pay for Terri's care and therapy) came in January 1993, and not a penny of it was ever spent on her therapy.
But I am curious, please tell me: Where did you hear that Michael studied nursing so that he could better help with Terri's rehab? Who said that? NCdave 17:06, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Many times you at least have a point relative to a) the article or b) the talk discussion when you comment. This, sadly, is an example of the many times you don't. How is your speculation on motives helpful in a talk section that was, until you participated, a simple request for information? Please, continue to make this situation as combative as possible. It's great for the article, and really generates a cooperative, productive aura.
Fox1 09:15, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Hold your sarcasm, Fox. I wasn't the guy who brought up Michael's motives for becoming an RN. That was Ninja, who stated it as a fact (elsewhere on the Talk page) that Michael had become an RN so that he could help Terri. Then he started out this section by saying it again, in the very first sentence: that Michael studied nursing "to help in rehabilitation efforts," though this time he wisely prefaced it with "I have heard."
So tell me again why you are criticising me for introducing "speculation on motives" to this talk section??
Ninja's speculation on motives was why I asked the question: because it is a matter of record that Michael ordered a halt to all of Terri's therapy around the time of the malpractice award, and put a DNR order on her soon after, which makes it implausible that, from then on, he was studying nursing so that he could help with Terri's rehab.
I wonder whether Michael even started nursing school before he ordered that Terri not receive therapy and medical care? Was he in nursing school by the Fall semester of 2002 1992? If not, then obviously a supposed desire to better take care of Terri had nothing to do with him being in nursing school. Logically, that must be case if, as I suspect, it was the $300,000 that he got from the malpractice award (for loss of companionship) which enabled him to pay for nursing school. NCdave 17:06, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Uh, a DNR order doesn't imply any form of misconduct on the part of Michael Schiavo, nor does it conflict with his nursing ability. You speak of logic constantly and try to construct premise-based arguments, but you're too chummy with non sequitur to do it successfully. Given the extent of Terri's brain damage any more cardiac arrests would likely kill her anyway, and if she was resuscitated it would probably turn a minutes-long death into an hours long one. It seems that a DNR was the wisest course of action to expedite the natural process of death in case Terri went into cardiac arrest, though in your fantasy world it's proof positive that he didn't become an RN to care for Terri. Wheee! Professor Ninja 00:45, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)
Ninja, you said that "The man became an RN to care for Terri, for crying out loud." Hence my first question: Please tell us where you heard that claim. What's your source, Ninja?
We know that Michael became an RN after he had ordered a halt to Terri's therapy, and after he tried to kill her by ordering that an infection go untreated, and after he put a DNR order on her. Moreover, since becoming an RN, he still has not permitted any rehabilitative therapy for her. He hasn't even permitted routine dental care -- with the result that she has lost five teeth due to dental neglect. So it is obvious that, by the time he earned his RN, he certainly wasn't motivated by a desire to help with Terri's rehab: he couldn't help with something that he wouldn't permit.
But I wonder whether it is even possible that helping Terri was ever his motive. If he entered nursing school in 1992 or earlier, it is possible that was his motive, in the beginning. But if he entered nursing school after 1992 then it is impossible that a desire to better help with Terri's rehab therapy was his ever motivation for going to nursing school, and that story that you heard is just another lie.
Hence my second question: when did Michael Schiavo enter nursing school? NCdave 03:24, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
According to the State of Florida, Department of Health website, his current license was issued on 18 Jan 2000. Most nursing programs are at least two years, although I'll concede there may be some shorter, but in any event, given the time needed to take (and score) the boards, it's almost assuredly safe to calculate that he started his training no later than the Fall of '97. By the way, that site, FL-DOH sitedoesn't have any record of Carla Sauer Iyers or Heidi Law, the alleged caretakers who swore under oath that they were RNs. LRod
Thanks for the link. FL-DOH does list Carla Ann Sauer[6] and numerous Heidi's. Many women change their names upon marriage without correcting every record. Bovlb 19:57, 2005 Mar 30 (UTC)
Yes, thanks for the link. So Michael Shiavo became an RN in January, 2000. It normally takes 2-4 years to become an RN, so Michael Schiavo probably started his training in 1996-1998. If he was a slow student, it could have been as early as 1995. But that still means that Michael Schiavo didn't start his training to become a nurse until years after he had already ordered a halt to all therapy for Terri. It is impossible that he became a nurse to help with therapy that he had already ordered not be done. NCdave 08:02, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
It is impossible to draw any conclusion about when nursing training started from the date of issue of the license. So your statements are patently false. One can speculate on numerous scenarios, but unless you can cite authoritative sources (that means not zimp.org and the like, partisan, amateur, advocacy sites) as to his initial enrollment in a nursing program, your conclusion fails. Just to give you a hint, he could have gotten his RT first, then pursued the RN, both for the same reason. He could have done it part time (remember, he was working, spending at least some time with Terri, as well as dating, as you so gleefully recount) and probably couldn't have done it in two or even four years. My wife spent 35 years getting her BSN, for example, and no, she's not slow. LRod 216.76.217.43 01:05, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
So, again I ask Ninja: Where did you hear (the lie) that Michael became an RN to enable him to better assist with Terri's rehabilitative therapy? Inquiring minds want to know. NCdave 08:02, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
If you only knew the herculean efforts I've taken to control my sarcasm and occasionally caustic sense of humor on this page, I'd hope you wouldn't grudge me a slip or two, but I'll apologize nonetheless. The problem is this: yes, there are people here who play your partner in these long, debatably off-topic and largely speculative debates, and I wish they would control themselves better, as well. However, the constant in those strings has always been you and you've never made any observable attempt to de-escalate one of them. You've stated yourself that you're unable to make any of the changes you want due to what you see as partisan opposition, so... why not try new tactics? By your own admission you have little to nothing to lose.
Fox1 06:43, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Like Joe Friday, I'm a "just the facts, Ma'am" kinda guy. I'm not the one who keeps making personal attacks on other Wikipedians here. Unlike Ninja, for instance, I've not called anyone an "evil troll." I've not posted anyone's work phone number to encourage their harrassment; that was done to me, by a Michael Schiavo partisan.
The Felos propaganda machine generates a blizzard of lies. A lot of folks here don't want to believe that. They want to trust him. I know that trust is misplaced.
My suspicion is that the Felos propaganda machine was the source for the false claim that this section discusses. But I want to know where it came from. Don't you? The originator of that lie is obviously untrustworthy. Luke 16:10-11 tells us, Whoever is dishonest with very little will also be dishonest with much. So it is important to know where the lie about Michael's motivation for becoming a nurse came from, so that we can know who is untrustworthy. Was it Felos & Co., or was it some other source? But Ninja won't answer the question of where he heard it.
The claim, which Ninja repeated, that Michael Schiavo became a nurse to better help with Terri's rehab, is easily demonstrated to be rediculous, by looking at the chronology. It is impossible for anyone who knows the chronology of events to believe that Michael Schiavo became an RN so that he could better assist with Terri's therapy, since by the time he entered nursing school he had already ordered that she receive no therapy. Michael could not help do something that he would not permit to be done at all. NCdave 08:02, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
The article states (based on [7]) that Michael was studying to be a nurse on 1993-02-14, about a year before he accepts the diagnosis of PVS and "halts most therapy". The same source document states, "He wanted to become a nurse so he could care for his wife himself." It is entirely reasonable to suppose that this "care" persisted beyond the cessation of "most therapy". I don't know whether (or why) anyone is specifically pushing his motivations as related to therapy versus care, but speculation about the detail of Michael's motivations doesn't seem to me to be an encyclopædic distinction. At the point in time that he decided to become a nurse, there was no strong distinction between care and therapy. On another note, it seems to have taken him at least seven years to become registered, which is unusually long. Of course, registration (as opposed to training) may not have been his primary goal, and nursing is obviously not his originally chosen profession (so he may have had prerequisites to meet). Do we know whether he continued his day job as a restaurant manager during this period? Bovlb 14:38, 2005 Apr 3 (UTC)
That is a useful link, and I thank you for it. I agree, seven years is, indeed, a very long time to become an RN; 2-4 is normal. But even as long ago as Feb. 14, 1993 Michael Schiavo had already halted Terri's therapy. This is what GAL Pearse said about Michael:
At or around the time the [malpractice] litigation was finally concluded, he has a change of heart concerning further treatment which lead, according to the ward's parents, to his falling out with them. - GAL Pearse
The malpractice settlement money was paid out in January 1993.
The "change of heart" that GAL Pearse mentions was Michael's order that Terri receive no further therapy.
That's not all that is interesting in that article. It also reports that Michael admitted lying:
Schiavo said he told his in-laws that all the money had gone to his wife — a lie he said he told Bob Schindler "to shut him up because he was screaming."
NCdave 00:00, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
A dead body in the house. An open window. footprints lead up to the window and then away. therefore, whoever made the footprints must be the murderer? No, the window could have been open and a neighbor walking by thought they heard screaming, went to investigate, and heard nothing because the victim was already dead. Do you at all understand the difference between circumstantial evidence and proof? this "change of heart" story is circumstantial evidence. It's a dead horse. You can keep beating it all you want, but the evidence currently availble doesn't prove anything. Not that it isn't true, but you can't PROVE it. Do you understand the difference? Saying it over and over again doesn't prove it. Unless you have new evidence to add beyond circumstantial evidence, DROP IT. You cannot call a man a murderer because he COULD have done it. It is not enough. I'm sorry but that's just the way it is. If you want to hang him on circumstantial evidence, do it somewhere else. There are other interpretaions of the evidence that do not require Michael to have murdered her for the money. It is not possible to KNOW which interpretation is fact. So it is not possible to say it is true. You might very well be right that he did it for the money, but the evidence you give is not enough. And currently this country is founded on the idea that a man is innocent until PROVEN guilty. Every time that rule was broken, very bad things happened. And any theory that requires a conspiracy is automatically suspect. If a theory requires Greer, Michael, every court appointed doctor, every court that reviewed the case, and even the Supreme friggen Court who looked at it and passed, to be in on the conspiracy at some level, just doesnt fly. Sorry. Deal with it. You'll need massive amounts of direct physical evidence to prove something like that. Otherwise, it's an interesting movie plot, but it proves nothing. You cannot say he murdered his wife for the money without seeing a defamation suit soon after. the only defense to defamation is to PROVE the statement is true, and you haven't. Accept it. You might also want to consider that your interpretation about Michael is completely and wholly wrong. I'm sure you'll balk at the suggestion, but since you don't KNOW he did what you think he did, you need to be able to objectively question your interpretation, lest you be blind to other evidence. That's the only difference between dogma and fact. Facts can stand up to being questioned relentlessly. Dogma cannot. The appeal of dogma is that it provides the comfort of "knowing" when you really don't. If you hold facts above dogma, then you have to put up with not knowing all the time, not knowing everything, not knowing all the facts, and sometimes being left with many possible interpretations. And then you gotta decide whether you hold to the facts and put up with not knowing some things, or do you jump over to dogma and hang a man because "you know in your gut" that he's guilty. FuelWagon 03:53, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Straw Poll on Pain issues

Note: This "straw poll" was originally the tail end of a discussion on the question of whether or not Terri could feel pain, and whether it was correct and NPOV to state in the opening paragraph that she could not. That discussion has been archived, but you can read it here (archive13). NCdave 00:00, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)


  • It is NPOV and consistent with the rest of the article to state without qualification in the intro that Terri is painless OR ...that Terri is in pain

PAIN requires NERVES. Terri still has NERVES (which is why she has reflexes). While it's debatable whether any part of her brain can process these nerve responses, it is misleading to suggest that pain is merely panic and anxiety. As George Greer himself said, touch a hot stove and you pull your hand back quickly. So, yes, persons in PVS can experience pain. 172.146.41.106 09:36, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Since when is a judge an expert on neurophysiology?203.213.77.138 06:35, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • It is POV or inconsistent with the rest of the article to state without qualification in the intro that Terri is painless OR ...that Terri is in pain
  1. BoomHitch 03:01, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)
  2. Tonyr1988 06:18, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)
  3. 203.213.77.138 06:35, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  4. It's a disputed statement. NPOV requires that the article sets out all points of view without taking sides. Therefore article should not state without qualification that Terri Schiavo is unable to feel pain. That's all there is to it. Dbiv 13:37, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I don't think that we can know how much pain Terri is experiencing. What we do know is that she is receiving analgesics to control pain, from people who swore in court that they are absolutely certain that in her condition she cannot experience pain. NCdave 03:05, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I don't recognize the validity of this poll, as the question is flawed. The statement, There is no evidence that Schiavo is suffering, since conscious awareness is impossible in the absence of cortical activity, is made with qualification: Terri Schiavo is incapable of "suffering" due to her extensive brain damage. Pain...is the recognition of nociception by the nervous system, which sends the impulse to regions of the brain where consciousness exists. In the case of a severely brain injured person - one in a persistent vegetative state - those areas of consciousness have been destroyed, and as result "they don't 'feel' pain.[8]. Play with words all you like, this is not in dispute. --Viriditas | Talk 07:41, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

<sarcasm>Okay, you are right. Her parents think she is in no pain.</sarcasm>BoomHitch 07:46, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)
Patients in a persistent vegetative state do not feel pain, nor do they "suffer," says Michael De Georgia, MD, head of the neurology-neurosurgery intensive care unit at the Cleveland Clinic Foundation...Pain, as well as suffering, requires consciousness, which is lacking in a person in a persistent vegetative state..."Certainly these patients don't suffer," he adds. "Suffering is really that whole emotional aspect of pain: fear, anxiety, panic surrounding pain. You have to have consciousness to experience these emotions. So just as a person in a persistent vegetative state can't experience pain because of a lack of consciousness, they also don't suffer."...Dr. DeGeorgia says that a patient in a persistent vegetative state can experience arousal, meaning that the patient's eyes may be open and the patient may laugh, cry or appear to track someone who is in the room. And that is what can be confusing for people, especially relatives, he says. "For example, a patient in persistent vegetative state will grasp your hand. In fact if you put anything into the patient's hand, the hand will grasp it. But this is a very primitive reaction. A newborn baby will grasp your finger, but there is no consciousness." It is consciousness that determines whether one can "feel" pain in the sense that most people understand when they talk about feeling pain. This doesn't mean that a patient like Terri Schiavo won't respond to pain stimulus - if you pinch her arm, she is like to flinch away. "That is called nociception," De Georgia says. "Tissue is damaged by the pinch, this generates a response in a receptor, which sends an impulse along the peripheral nerves. This impulse travels to the thalamus, which directs the arm to withdraw," he said. It is what is commonly called a reflex. Pain, on the other hand, is the recognition of nociception by the nervous system, which sends the impulse to regions of the brain where consciousness exists. In the case of a severely brain injured person - one in a persistent vegetative state - those areas of consciousness have been destroyed, and as result "they don't 'feel' pain." [9]--Viriditas | Talk 07:57, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I think you're missing my point--it has nothing to do with whether PVS patients can feel pain: if you totally disregard her parents (and their supporters') opinion on the issue of pain (as you are doing by refusing to recognize that they dispute this issue at all), you can hardly treat their directly related opinion on the issue of Terri's condition vis-a-vis the PVS opinion in a balanced manner. But that is only my opinion; it seems to me that the two issues of balance are intertwined, but maybe I'm wrong. BoomHitch 08:04, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)


It's factually incorrect to claim either that Ms Schiavo experiences pain or experiences no pain. We have no knowledge either way. Certainly her body still possesses pain receptors and enough brain function to react to them--and does so. To say that she experiences pain is, however, to imply falsely that we know that she experiences anything. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 09:58, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I would like to add that unless someone here is a neuroscientist, specialised in this particular area, speculations on the topic seem of limited interest. Rama 10:57, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Well, we know that Terri is experiencing no pain now -- since she has died. We also know that she was capable of experiencing pain over the last 15 years, since the nursing staff at her nursing home and hospice had standing orders to treat her painful menstural cramps with analgesics, whenever she exhibited symptoms of discomfort.
We can't know how much pain she actually experienced while being dehydrated to death, because we don't know whether or not the analgesics and sedatives she received were sufficient to block her pain. But that's really not the main issue about pain. The main argument is about whether or not she could experience pain, if not medicated. The importance of that argument is because of the undisputed fact that patients in a PVS cannot experience pain. It is because of the fact that she clearly could experience pain that we know that she was not in a PVS, and it is because of the fact that Michael Schiavo's chosen caregivers for Terri obviously knew she could experience pain that we know that M.Schiavo, Felos, Cranford, et al knew all along that she wasn't in a PVS, even as they argued in court that she was. NCdave 09:00, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
In that case, articles which say that patients that are in a permanent vegitative state are "incapable of feeling pain" are being imprecise to put things in layman's terms. Rather, they are capable of only unconscions reflexive reactions to pain. They are incapable of conscious suffering. --L33tminion | (talk) 05:41, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)
Also, this is not some medical conspiracy. --L33tminion | (talk) 05:42, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)
For most of 15 years Terri Schiavo had a standing order for analgesics to relieve menstrual pain. Obviously her caregivers believed that could experience pain. She behaved as if she experienced pain, which is all, existentially speaking, we know for certain about anyone else's experience of pain. When someone behaves as if they are experiencing pain, the only rational conclusion is that they are experiencing pain, even though you can't prove it in an absolute sense.
Take at look at the www.infowarscom/articles/life/schiavo_terris_exit_protocol.htm [unreliable fringe source?] Exit Protocol] that her hospice doctor wrote for her death in 2001. Take note of the instructions to use analgesics for symptoms of pain and discomfort: "Monitor symptoms of pain/discomfort. If noted, medicate with Naproxen rectal suppository 375 mg. Q8 prn."
If you tell me that you don't think that means that he thought Terri could experience pain, I'm sorry, but I won't believe you.
Supporters of M.Schiavo's decision to end Terri's life often say that she couldn't possibly experience pain because her brain was too damaged to admit of the possibility of any level of consciousness, so she must have been in a PVS. However, the physicians who evaluated her were split in their conclusions about whether she was in a PVS, and some four dozen board certified neurologists said that her PVS diagnosis was flawed, as did numerous doctors from other relevant specialties.
Most importantly, I am unaware of any radiologist who interpreted Terri's CT scans as indicating that her brain was so damaged that she could not be conscious. Can anyone name even one?
Radiologist William Maxfield, M.D., who examined Terri in person several times in addition to evaluating her CT scans, concluded that she was not in a PVS and that her condition might well improve with appropriate therapy.
Radiologist John Young, M.D. said, "This woman is not in a persistent vegetative state."
Radiologist Thomas Boyle, M.D. (host of the award-winning CodeBlueBlog web site), who has interpreted over 10,000 brain CT scans, wrote, "I have seen many walking, talking, fairly coherent people with worse cerebral/cortical atrophy. Therefore, this is in no way prima facie evidence that Terri Schiavo's mental abilities or/or capabilities are completely eradicated. I cannot believe such testimony has been given on the basis of this scan."
Since radiologists are the physicians who are trained interpret CT scans, it is highly significant that that the radiologists say Terri's CT scans do not show that she was in a vegetative state. NCdave 00:00, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
"I have seen many walking, talking, fairly coherent people with worse cerebral/cortical atrophy. Therefore, this is in no way prima facie evidence that Terri Schiavo's mental abilities or/or capabilities are completely eradicated. I cannot believe such testimony has been given on the basis of this scan." This is the sticking point. Terri Shaivo was not walking, or talking, or even remotely coherent. Yes, I've heard of people with severe cortical atrophy as well. There was even one young woman featured on 60 Minutes some years ago who had significant voids in her cortical region, (somewhat like the CT scan in the second photo) yet was a college student. Ms. Shiavo did not fall into this category.
How many radiologists stated that Ms. Shaivo was not in a vegatative state as compared to those that did say that she was? What was the ratio? Where are your sources?
I can thank the Shaivo's for this; I now have a living will. Something I did not think much about in the past.Wjbean 00:25, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Terri_Schiavo_case/Archive_14&oldid=1137224158"